I am not sure if you are aware, but the municipal government of Toronto has been talking about possibly tearing down the Gardiner Expressway and making it run underground.
My friend, who works with CBC, was telling me about this and I was appalled! The reason why all of this talk is going on in the first place is because many Canadian citizens believe that the highway takes away from the beauty of the city. I mean, without the highway, there will be peace, quiet, cleanliness and complete openness to the waterfront. The Gardiner acts as an eyesore to many people and they believe that this is ruining the appearance of Toronto and will deter tourists from visiting overtime.
So, what should the government do? Is tearing down the Gardiner Expressway and making it run underground, the smartest thing to do?
I personally believe that if the tear down takes place, five years later, there will be a wall of condos up blocking the true beauty of the waterfront, resulting in the same problem that we have now. The result of tearing down the highway would be a vast amount of land worth a lot of money. Contractors and developers will jump on this opportunity and put as much money as they need to on the table to buy that land and make condos. If the city council can maintain a strong determination to limit high rise development, then maybe, maybe, it should be considered but I honestly believe that this so called “problem” will only be solved for a little while until big buildings are put up in place of the highway. I mean, developers and contractors will be offering big bucks to the government and since when does the government refuse money?
In addition to this, I highly doubt that Toronto will be able to deal with the traffic congestion problem that will result from the temporary destruction of the highway. What are the alternatives going to be? Are all commuters going to have to resort to using Lakeshore Boulevard for a few months? Think about all the traffic that would arise because of this! Downtown workers may as well sleep in hotels rather then having to continuously drive through congested traffic.
I’m all for the beauty of Toronto, but beauty and reality are two different things. Let’s be practical here…tearing down the Gardiner will not benefit anyone but the government.
SS
Monday, June 30, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
DUI Drivers Will Not Be Let Off Easily!
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/451004
Hey guys!
I just found an article talking about how our justice minister says those that are suspected of driving under the influence can no longer deny roadside sobriety tests. He is also making the punishments harsher by increasing fines and prolonging jail time. The new laws will start on July 2nd, 2008. A minimum of $1000 fine will take place for first time offenders and possibly with a month of jail time if they reoffend. One of the loopholes in our constitution will finally be closed.
In my opinion, this is totally awesome! I mean, law are in place to protect society right? The previous laws were not stiff enough and hopefully these ones will serve the purpose. This will hopefully make drivers more cautious when making the choice to drive or not when they are under the influence. In the past, too many impaired drivers have been able to get off the hook of driving under the influence due to technicalities and the system being too lenient. Hopefully, less DUI drivers will be on the road and therefore fewer accidents caused by them will occur. However, we really need a strong enforcement system of these laws to get the point across.
What I like to know from you guys are your opinions on this. Do you think the new laws are strict enough? Do you think this will deter drivers from driving when they’re intoxicated? Do you think these laws will be enforced to the fullest?
-V.L
Hey guys!
I just found an article talking about how our justice minister says those that are suspected of driving under the influence can no longer deny roadside sobriety tests. He is also making the punishments harsher by increasing fines and prolonging jail time. The new laws will start on July 2nd, 2008. A minimum of $1000 fine will take place for first time offenders and possibly with a month of jail time if they reoffend. One of the loopholes in our constitution will finally be closed.
In my opinion, this is totally awesome! I mean, law are in place to protect society right? The previous laws were not stiff enough and hopefully these ones will serve the purpose. This will hopefully make drivers more cautious when making the choice to drive or not when they are under the influence. In the past, too many impaired drivers have been able to get off the hook of driving under the influence due to technicalities and the system being too lenient. Hopefully, less DUI drivers will be on the road and therefore fewer accidents caused by them will occur. However, we really need a strong enforcement system of these laws to get the point across.
What I like to know from you guys are your opinions on this. Do you think the new laws are strict enough? Do you think this will deter drivers from driving when they’re intoxicated? Do you think these laws will be enforced to the fullest?
-V.L
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Toronto is still hung up on piracy!
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/447347
The issue at hand is that piracy has spiralled out of control. The amount of profit gained from selling pirated copies of DVDs and CDs surpass the profits of extortion, drugs and even prostitution. It app
ears that our society is full of consumers who are willing to fund such organized crimes. This is followed with an enforcement system that has been extremely lenient on offenders. For example, “A June 2007 report from a House of Commons committee looking into piracy found that in typical cases, the counterfeiters end up paying less than $10,000 in fines and serve no jail time.”
Doesn’t it seem like our society leaves little room for those that are mass producing and selling pirated products to back down and stop? I mean some of them are gaining $200,000 profit; surely a $10,000 fine is not going to scare them.
Earlier this month, a new copyright legislation was announced to deter those who illegally make counterfeit productions to sell for profit. This new legislation is same as the old Copyright Act, a $1 million fine and five years’ imprisonment.
In my personal opinion, I believe now with such a heavy punishment in our legislation, what we need to do is to enforce it fully and hand them out to let offenders know we do not tolerate this. Not only is this illegal, it is wrong morally and ethically. Also, it seems like the police are not focusing enough on the underground trade. They perhaps need more people involve in catching these criminals. It is estimated that $34 million of tax is loss due to the sale of illegal pirated DVDs and an $118million annual loss for Canadian movie distributors.
This is not a matter of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich (Hollywood) and giving to the poor (buyers). This is a matter of what is legal and what is illegal. Our nation does not stand for piracy.
The question remains as how to we enforce a law that so many of us neglect? Even if we do enforce it, how are we going to stop consumers from supporting such a crime? What else do you think the government should do pertaining this issue?
-VL
The issue at hand is that piracy has spiralled out of control. The amount of profit gained from selling pirated copies of DVDs and CDs surpass the profits of extortion, drugs and even prostitution. It app
ears that our society is full of consumers who are willing to fund such organized crimes. This is followed with an enforcement system that has been extremely lenient on offenders. For example, “A June 2007 report from a House of Commons committee looking into piracy found that in typical cases, the counterfeiters end up paying less than $10,000 in fines and serve no jail time.”
Doesn’t it seem like our society leaves little room for those that are mass producing and selling pirated products to back down and stop? I mean some of them are gaining $200,000 profit; surely a $10,000 fine is not going to scare them.
Earlier this month, a new copyright legislation was announced to deter those who illegally make counterfeit productions to sell for profit. This new legislation is same as the old Copyright Act, a $1 million fine and five years’ imprisonment.
In my personal opinion, I believe now with such a heavy punishment in our legislation, what we need to do is to enforce it fully and hand them out to let offenders know we do not tolerate this. Not only is this illegal, it is wrong morally and ethically. Also, it seems like the police are not focusing enough on the underground trade. They perhaps need more people involve in catching these criminals. It is estimated that $34 million of tax is loss due to the sale of illegal pirated DVDs and an $118million annual loss for Canadian movie distributors.
This is not a matter of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich (Hollywood) and giving to the poor (buyers). This is a matter of what is legal and what is illegal. Our nation does not stand for piracy.
The question remains as how to we enforce a law that so many of us neglect? Even if we do enforce it, how are we going to stop consumers from supporting such a crime? What else do you think the government should do pertaining this issue?
-VL
Saturday, June 21, 2008
A "Spanking Law" Change...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/19/f-spanking.html
The Canadian Senate is proposing an anti-spanking bill, Bill S-209, to the House of Commons, which would get rid of Section 43 of Canada's Criminal Code. (This section allows parents and teachers to use reasonable force to discipline a child and correct their behaviour).
So, what do you think about parents beating their kids? Yes, no, maybe? If you were a parent, would you discipline your kids with a spanking?
Before I even get into what I think is right or wrong, I want to know what defines “reasonable force.” Your idea of reasonable force may be different then mine and this term is very ambiguous and can lead to many problems. Who defines this term? Who has the authority to tell me how a “reasonable force” should be defined?
I personally think that spanking is not needed…especially not from teachers. If I had a child and a teacher spanked them, I would file a complaint. What’s the problem with simply teaching your child right from wrong with words and explaining the consequences of continuing the undesired behaviour?
I think one of the main problems in today’s society is that parents love to spoil their children with everything that they want. Parents are so ecstatic to have children and want to give them anything they want until the age of about 6 or 7. After this age, they expect their children to grow up, stop asking for everything they see and stop the whining. Obviously, this is unrealistic since the child has grown up getting everything they want – this is what they’re used to, so naturally, they’d expect to get everything they want! Parents don’t seem to understand this so punish their child, when in fact they should be punished! If they simply bring their child up without spoiling them, and teaching them right from wrong from the very beginning of their childhood, there would be no use for spanking.
I don’t think that parents understand the consequences of spanking their child. The psychological effects could be intolerable (regardless of whether or not the spanking was severe), that child could potentially grow up and beat their child, and so on. I just don’t think it is worth it. There are other ways of punishing – putting your child in the corner, taking away the T.V. , videogames, phone calls, etc. Spanking is not the only option.
My big question: If the House of Common passes this Bill S-209, what repercussions would be followed if a parent does beat their child? Jail? Fees? Community service?
What are your thoughts on this?
SS
The Canadian Senate is proposing an anti-spanking bill, Bill S-209, to the House of Commons, which would get rid of Section 43 of Canada's Criminal Code. (This section allows parents and teachers to use reasonable force to discipline a child and correct their behaviour).
So, what do you think about parents beating their kids? Yes, no, maybe? If you were a parent, would you discipline your kids with a spanking?
Before I even get into what I think is right or wrong, I want to know what defines “reasonable force.” Your idea of reasonable force may be different then mine and this term is very ambiguous and can lead to many problems. Who defines this term? Who has the authority to tell me how a “reasonable force” should be defined?
I personally think that spanking is not needed…especially not from teachers. If I had a child and a teacher spanked them, I would file a complaint. What’s the problem with simply teaching your child right from wrong with words and explaining the consequences of continuing the undesired behaviour?
I think one of the main problems in today’s society is that parents love to spoil their children with everything that they want. Parents are so ecstatic to have children and want to give them anything they want until the age of about 6 or 7. After this age, they expect their children to grow up, stop asking for everything they see and stop the whining. Obviously, this is unrealistic since the child has grown up getting everything they want – this is what they’re used to, so naturally, they’d expect to get everything they want! Parents don’t seem to understand this so punish their child, when in fact they should be punished! If they simply bring their child up without spoiling them, and teaching them right from wrong from the very beginning of their childhood, there would be no use for spanking.
I don’t think that parents understand the consequences of spanking their child. The psychological effects could be intolerable (regardless of whether or not the spanking was severe), that child could potentially grow up and beat their child, and so on. I just don’t think it is worth it. There are other ways of punishing – putting your child in the corner, taking away the T.V. , videogames, phone calls, etc. Spanking is not the only option.
My big question: If the House of Common passes this Bill S-209, what repercussions would be followed if a parent does beat their child? Jail? Fees? Community service?
What are your thoughts on this?
SS
Friday, June 20, 2008
Ontario Premier says he'll seek a third term
National post
Saturday June 14, 2008
I was reading the newspaper during breakfast on the weekend and the topic of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty returning for a third term came up. Now this has gotten me thinking... Should McGuinty be re-elected?
McGuinty has been Ontario Liberal Leader since 1996 and the party has sailed to an easy victory in the most recent election after the Progressive Conservatives were left deeply divded over their leader John Tory's contoroversial campaign promsied to extend public funding to religions schools. The Liberals won 71 of the provincial legislature' 107 seats.
However, as Ontario's economy weakens, McGuinty's premiership is tested before votes return to the polls in 2011.
Recently more than 200, 000 manufacturing jobs have vanished in recent year in Ontario. the auto secotr, long the engine that fuelled prosperity in Canada's manufacturing heartland, has been particularly hard hit.
McGuinty has acknowledged to reporters that the province is facing challenging economic times and he is not concerned with the votes in three years.
"That's not what really the thing that keeps me awake at night."
Rather, he is more concerned about the familes whose breadwinners have lost their jobs and whether his governement is doing enough to provide opportunities for them to find new employement.
"They(the voters) want to know what I can do and what I should do immediately in order to help manage some of the dislocation that's taking place.
McGuinty has led us through hard times and so far I think he's done a decent job so far and he should lead us for the the third time... what do you think?
-SW
Saturday June 14, 2008
I was reading the newspaper during breakfast on the weekend and the topic of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty returning for a third term came up. Now this has gotten me thinking... Should McGuinty be re-elected?
McGuinty has been Ontario Liberal Leader since 1996 and the party has sailed to an easy victory in the most recent election after the Progressive Conservatives were left deeply divded over their leader John Tory's contoroversial campaign promsied to extend public funding to religions schools. The Liberals won 71 of the provincial legislature' 107 seats.
However, as Ontario's economy weakens, McGuinty's premiership is tested before votes return to the polls in 2011.
Recently more than 200, 000 manufacturing jobs have vanished in recent year in Ontario. the auto secotr, long the engine that fuelled prosperity in Canada's manufacturing heartland, has been particularly hard hit.
McGuinty has acknowledged to reporters that the province is facing challenging economic times and he is not concerned with the votes in three years.
"That's not what really the thing that keeps me awake at night."
Rather, he is more concerned about the familes whose breadwinners have lost their jobs and whether his governement is doing enough to provide opportunities for them to find new employement.
"They(the voters) want to know what I can do and what I should do immediately in order to help manage some of the dislocation that's taking place.
McGuinty has led us through hard times and so far I think he's done a decent job so far and he should lead us for the the third time... what do you think?
-SW
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Privatize the LCBO?
So, I was watching the news, and the topic of the privatization of the LCBO came up and it got me thinking...should it become privatized, or should it remain a Crown Corporation? I know that often, the idea of privatization is a point of contention but sometimes it may be necessary to privatize a business in order to increase profits, increase selection and offer more effective and efficient services.
With the case of the LCBO, however, I think it is necessary that it remain a Crown Corporation, that is, it is solely owned and operated by the government, only because I think that it is doing such a good job.
The LCBO is very socially responsible – It is to my knowledge that they sponsor MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), they provide their employees with SMAART training (Strategies for Managing Age- and Alcohol-Related Troubles) and they are also environmentally friendly (you can return your bottles and receive $0.10 back!) If the LCBO becomes privatized, who knows if this will continue. The fact that the government owns the LCBO shows me that the government isn’t so bad after all. I never really had a good outlook on the big people up there, but they seem to be taking care of things, socially AND they are profitable as well. I’ll point to the case of the CBC who takes all the taxpayers money to help deal with their debt…I don’t think the LCBO is doing such a thing.
If the LCBO becomes privatized, don’t you think that alcohol will be more easily accessible to under aged people? I believe in Quebec, it is so easy to get alcohol because it is sold in convenience stores and they are not strict at all in checking I.D. I know that some people would probably LOVE to have easy access to alcohol but realistically speaking, there’s an age limit for a reason. It’s just not safe to have little youngsters roaming around drunk and acting silly. So I guess my point is that, because the LCBO is owned by the government, it is helping to protect under aged people from any harm that may come their way if they put their hands on alcohol. (Of course, we cannot avoid the cases in which older people would purchase alcohol for their younger brothers and sisters, but at least the government is trying to do its best).
The LCBO should remain a Crown Corporation!
-SS
With the case of the LCBO, however, I think it is necessary that it remain a Crown Corporation, that is, it is solely owned and operated by the government, only because I think that it is doing such a good job.
The LCBO is very socially responsible – It is to my knowledge that they sponsor MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), they provide their employees with SMAART training (Strategies for Managing Age- and Alcohol-Related Troubles) and they are also environmentally friendly (you can return your bottles and receive $0.10 back!) If the LCBO becomes privatized, who knows if this will continue. The fact that the government owns the LCBO shows me that the government isn’t so bad after all. I never really had a good outlook on the big people up there, but they seem to be taking care of things, socially AND they are profitable as well. I’ll point to the case of the CBC who takes all the taxpayers money to help deal with their debt…I don’t think the LCBO is doing such a thing.
If the LCBO becomes privatized, don’t you think that alcohol will be more easily accessible to under aged people? I believe in Quebec, it is so easy to get alcohol because it is sold in convenience stores and they are not strict at all in checking I.D. I know that some people would probably LOVE to have easy access to alcohol but realistically speaking, there’s an age limit for a reason. It’s just not safe to have little youngsters roaming around drunk and acting silly. So I guess my point is that, because the LCBO is owned by the government, it is helping to protect under aged people from any harm that may come their way if they put their hands on alcohol. (Of course, we cannot avoid the cases in which older people would purchase alcohol for their younger brothers and sisters, but at least the government is trying to do its best).
The LCBO should remain a Crown Corporation!
-SS
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
