Saturday, March 31, 2007, 01:23 PM - Health Care
I was pained to read that Joe Comartin (NDP MP Windsor-Tecumseh) has proposed an amendment to Bill C-22, (seeking to raise the age of consent for sex to 16 for girls). Mr Comartin seeks to have the age of consent for anal sex lowered to 16.
He has been advised that this amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, but he is appealing the decision.
I have contacted Mr. Comartin to ask him to withdraw his amendment.
The role of government is to protect the country’s citizens. Children are also citizens of this country. Your citizenship does not start on your 18th birthday.
Surely, we have seen enough exploitation of our children in the interests of adult sexual pleasure.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases are already very high in our teenaged community and yet this MP would increase the risk.
It is a medical fact that anal sex produces greater risk of disease. I have attached a graph confirming this from the U.S. Centre for Disease Control at the end of this post.
Please, respectfully, contact Mr Comartin and ask him to withdraw his amendment to Bill C-22.
To respectfully contact Joe Comartin
Parliament Hill:
713 Justice Building, House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A OA6
Fax: (613) 947-3448
Tel: (613) 947-3445
Email: comarj@parl.gc.ca
| permalink
Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 11:20 AM - Electoral Reform
Spending Spree Hypocrisy
Fri Mar 16 09:54:07 2007
NCC Articles
By: Gerry Nicholls / The Globe and Mail
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent billion dollar spending spree highlights the hypocrisy of politicians when it comes to money.
Politicians, after all, claim to despise what they call the corrupting influence of money on the political process.
That’s why they pass laws to regulate and control money when it comes to our elections.
We now have a law on the books, for instance, making it a crime for individuals to contribute more than $1,000 to a political party.
We also have “gag laws” that essentially make it a crime for private citizens or independent groups to spend their own money to express their own views during elections.
Are these measures infringements on free speech?
Of course.
But politicians tell us these are “necessary infringements” because if citizens were free to spend their own money as they saw fit, it would lead to a society where “the rich” would “buy elections” and “unfairly” influence voters.
So where is the hypocrisy?
Well politicians seem to believe “buying elections” and “ using money to influence voters” is actually a good thing, as long as a) they are the ones spending the money and b) they are spending somebody else’s money.
Take Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent binge of spending announcements, which lead many to believe an election is in the offing.
Even the most ardent Harper apologist would have to concede these announcements, which total about $12 billion and counting, are more about helping the Conservatives win the next election than about a wise use of tax dollars.
Certainly it’s no coincidence that a disproportionate amount of the federal spending just happens to be aimed at areas which have tactical political importance.
The key electoral battleground of Quebec, for example, is now awash in federal funds, with the Conservatives promising to finance everything from local theatres to water treatment systems.
And vote-rich Ontario is also getting a lot of special attention.
Just recently the Prime Minister was in Toronto to announce with great fanfare that his government was going to spend a whopping $700 million to upgrade and expand the area’s mass transit system.
Good news for Toronto certainly.
But is it fair that taxpayers in Kelowna, BC or Gander, Newfoundland are helping to subsidize a new subway line in Toronto?
Does it even make economic sense to spend that kind of money on mass transit?
Who cares?
The important thing is the Tories need to win seats in the GTA if they are to capture a majority in the next election and if dishing out a half a billion dollars helps to achieve that goal, from a political perspective it’s money well spent.
And who knows how many other spending goodies aimed at key special interest groups will be announced in the impending federal budget.
Now to be fair, Harper is not doing anything all that unusual.
Politicians have been bribing people with their own money since the days of the Caesars in Ancient Rome.
But maybe it’s time for politicians to be a little more consistent when it comes to money and politics.
In other words, money can’t be both good and bad depending on who is doing the spending.
If it’s bad for private citizens to spend money on politicking, than it stands to reason it’s also bad for politicians.
So how about this for a new law: Make it illegal for the government to announce any new spending initiatives say six months prior to an election. (The move towards fixed election dates makes will make this easier to implement).
Such a law would certainly stop surplus-rich governments from trying to buy elections. They would also level the playing field and give all parties more of an even chance.
But if that’s too unrealistic, maybe our politicians should try something easier: scrap all election gag laws and admit that citizens should have the right to spend their own money to express their own political views.
This won’t stop politicians from cynically spending tax dollars in the run up to an election, but at least it will make them a little less hypocritical and restore an important freedom to all Canadians.
Article originally appeared: Thursday, March 15, 2007
| permalink
Monday, March 26, 2007, 12:37 AM - Child Care
International Day of the Unborn Child Video
| permalink
Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 06:22 PM - Environment
What areas of the industrial sector will be affected in the next 1-5 years if we meet our Kyoto targets?
If we check out this government graph on sources of green house gas emissions in 2004, then we have a good idea who will be affected and how.
Manufacturing of oil, gas and coal:
This represents 20% of our greenhouse gas production. In Canada heating is not an option. If it costs more to produce, we will pay more for the finished product.
Solution 1) Are we prepared to pay more for home heating? Or we could drop our heating and air conditioning use to balance this? I don’t have airconditioning and my heat is set at 20C (68F) in the winter. Should I lower my thermostat by 1/3? I would need to decrease my usage from 6,123 Litres per year to 4,041 Litres per year. What about you? By how much would you need to decrease your fuel use?
Solution 2) How much more will we be paying when companies have to install a system which will decrease their emissions by 1/3? This will be offset somewhat by employment increases to manufacture and install the new system. However, this would be temporary, because the jobs created will be gone at completion of the installation, approximately 2 years from now. When Canadian Taxpayers have paid the increased costs to the companies manufacturing the oil, gas and coal, will the price of the product decrease? I’m not betting that it will!!!
Road Transportation:
For areas such as York-Simcoe, this is something very important to consider. Many of us commute to work each day. We drive our children to hockey, figure skating, soccer, baseball etc. We drive to the grocery store to purchase our food. We drive to attend movies or other entertainment.
Our cars produce 19% of our carbon dioxide emissions.
Option 1) Are you able to decrease your car usage by 1/3? We would be paying higher prices at the pump to cover increased production costs, but Canada would need to purchase Carbon Credits if we don’t decrease our CO2 emissions by 1/3.
Option 2) Or do we perhaps want some other sector to pick up the slack and decrease their ghg emissions by more than 1/3. Perhaps we can ask oil and gas manufacturers to decrease their emissions by 2/3 to cover our inability to decrease. But then again.... that’ll put the price up further in fines, cost of Carbon Credits, and changes to the manufacturing sector.
Electricity Generation:
Electricity generation makes up 17% of our green house gas emissions.
Option 1) Turning off lights will help decrease the electricity needed but certainly not by 1/3. Perhaps we will have to give up airconditioning in the summer. But I don’t have airconditioning, what must I give up to decrease my usage by 1/3?
Option 2) Or we could ask the Hydro Producers to find a cheaper form of electricity production. Nuclear power is cheaper. The consumer will have to pay the costs but could we build enough nuclear reactors in 2 years? I sincerely doubt that! It will increase our hydro bills to build the nuclear plants, as a short or long term solution. When the reactors are paid for, sometime in the distant future, will the price of electricity decrease again? Many people object to nuclear power, would they be willing to accept it because it’s cheaper energy?
As you can see by these simple scenarios, there are no easy answers. The opposition has committed us to having the reductions in place by 2008.
We have 2 years to devise and implement a plan for reducing our green house gas emissions. Have you come up with a method of decreasing your production of green house gases by 1/3? Today, the oil/gas/electricity producers are providing the amount that we’re using. If they cover the cost of manufacturing changes, we pay. If we decrease our usage we all benefit. But... is it possible?
| permalink
Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 06:06 PM - Environment
In 1998, when Kyoto was signed by the Liberal government, the reduction of green house gas emissions was set for 6 % below 1990 levels by the target period 2008-2012. This meant reducing from 599 metric tonnes to 563 metric tonnes. Instead, under the Liberal government, by 2004, green house gas emissions were up 26.6%, that is up to 758 metric tonnes.
The Liberal government lost ground over 7 years putting Canadians 32.6% behind our Kyoto goals.
We have to wonder what they’ve accomplished in forcing the Conservative government to meet Kyoto targets, which now involves decreasing emissions by 1/3.
The Liberals have engineered the defeat of the Conservative government with regards to a matter so important to us all... our environment. The track record of the Liberals is dismal and yet it is left to the Conservatives to make up for 7 years of increased emissions.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is calling for each sector of Canadian Industry to meet Kyoto targets, with financial penalties for those companies which do not.
Who does Mr. Dion think will be paying for this? If the cost of manufacturing a car goes up because of the need to meet Kyoto targets, Canadians will face inflationary prices on autos. The building and installation of systems to decrease green house gas emissions in manufacturing plants across Canada will be passed on to the Canadian consumer thus causing inflation.
If the price of autos increases, then those businesses which rely on vehicles to run their business will need to increase prices to compensate. Thus Canadians will pay an increased price for their own vehicles. We will also pay an increased price for all other products. We are talking inflation in all areas of Canadian business because there are few businesses which do not use vehicles. Any increase in business is passed on to the Canadian consumer. That’s you and me!
Not only will the price of manufacturing increase but, should Canadian Industry fail to meet their required target, businesses will be forced to pay fines. Where is the money coming from to pay the fines? We all know that businesses will increase the price of their product to compensate for higher expenses. Therefore, the increase is passed on to the Canadian consumer. That’s you and me!
According to Mr. Dion’s plan, this fine could be reclaimed. Is anyone expecting that the company will contact them and refund the portion of the fine which the consumer paid? I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the cheque to arrive.
In the end. Mr. Dion’s plan, and the forcing through of legislation by all the opposition parties last month, will cost the Canadian tax payer. That’s you and me!
Politically speaking, who wins? Certainly not the Canadian taxpayer. That’s you and me! The only ones who have won anything will be the opposition parties who can tout the failure of the Conservatives on the environment. A failure which they engineered at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. That’s you and me!
The CHP does not support Kyoto! We support environmental initiatives which deal with all areas of air, land and water pollution.
Yes! Let’s decrease green house gas emissions ... plus all other pollutants which we are pouring into the air we breathe. Those of us who know and love asthmatics know very well that we must deal with more than just one or two gases to solve the problem with our air. We must have a balanced approach which will involve government, industry, environmentalists, economists, and the Canadian taxpayer, because ultimately we’re the one’s who foot the bill.
| permalink
Friday, March 9, 2007, 11:21 AM - Electoral Reform
From Fair Vote Ontario
CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY DEVELOPING PR MODELS
The Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform just finished its first weekend devoted to developing an alternative voting system. The Assembly intends to design two alternative voting systems for Ontario, then make a final decision on whether to recommend one to voters, which would trigger an October 10 referendum.
And so far, so good! The Assembly chose to first design a mixed member proportional (MMP) voting system. MMP allows voters to elect a riding MPP, but also cast a party vote which determines how other seats – usually called list seats – are filled. The party vote determines what portion of seats in the legislature that each party will have. Candidates from party lists fill whatever number of additional list seats a party deserves in order to ensure all parties have a fair portion of seats.
By the end of the weekend, the Assembly had four variations of an MMP system. All would require a modest expansion of seats in the legislature. The models had anywhere from 100 to 107 ridings, and from 33 to 45 list seats. The Assembly will continue working on their MMP model.
On March 17-18, the Assembly will then begin to design a single transferable vote (STV) system. STV, the system chosen by the BC Citizens’ Assembly, is based on multi-member ridings (i.e., a number of MPPs would be elected in each electoral district). Candidates win their seats by surpassing a quota of the votes cast.
The Assembly has much more work to do before choosing their preferred alternative, but given the focus is solely on proportional representation alternatives, the signs are good!
| permalink
Back Next
