Comments

UN head steers clear of abortion debate- Allan Woods

Posted by Srijoni
This issue of abortion is very difficult and contentious at times. I completely understand both sides of the argument. However, I myself do support abortion rights and disagree with the position of the Canadian government. I believe that women should be in complete control of their reproductive organs.
Accessibility, to safe and affordable abortions is necessary to maternal health in the developing world.
Often these mothers are young and poor and cannot afford to take care of their infants. Should these be born they would live in poverty and most would not survive infancy.
Therefore, I believe that abortions should be funded by G20 countries to improve the health of the world.

Summit costs hit $1.1B

By Nancy

Canada's government went wrong somewhere with the cost of the summit. Since we've already hosted summits like this I don't think its ever been this expensive. I don't have much to say to this only that it seems ridiculous. Canada will have to pay off our debts for years to come. Maybe someone from our class will have to figure out how to pay for it. This has been said to be necessary, it isn't some of it is very wasteful.

NDP open to working with Ignatieff- Politics - Canoe.ca

By Tharsan

I agree with both the NDP and liberals. I think that a coalition between the two parties would be healthy for our country and our democracy. I believe that the NDP and Liberals could work well on a lot of issues as long as decisions are made in a spirit of compromise. I think that their are many misconceptions about a coalition and the leaders would do well to answer them now rather than later.

Parents urged to keep kids active this summer

By Paris
I think that this article brings up good points. Our health care coasts are already sky rocketing, and with this generation they could bankrupt the nation. It is very important that we improve the health of our youth so we don't have to deal with the coasts later.

"PM confronts marijuana issue in YouTube interview"

By Naresh
I surprisingly, agree with the Prime Minister. I think that people can live without recreational marijuana. The PM brings up a great point with the connection he made to cartels. Most illegal drugs drugs are smuggled into the nation through the border. Most come from South America where ruthless cartel leaders and fighters have ravaged the Continent with murder and extortion. Buying illegal narcotics just puts money into the pockets of these criminals so they can kill more people and cause more pain.

Tories hope to crack down on ‘crooked’ immigration consultants

TORONTO — Canada’s immigration minister says tougher fines and reinforced regulations are in store when he tables legislation cracking down on “crooked” immigration consultants this week.

Jason Kenney told CTV’s Question Period on Sunday the package will increase fines and penalties against consultants who “often provide people with counterfeit documents, fraudulent advice, or don’t provide any services in all.

“Tens of thousands of people here and abroad have been victimized by these unscrupulous ‘ghost consultants,’ ” he said. “It’s time that we crack down on them.”

Kenney said the bill will also make it a criminal offence to operate as an unlicensed immigration consultant.

The government hit a snag over its reform of the refugee system last week, leaving it up in the air days after Kenney announced he had reached a deal with the Liberal party’s immigration critic to get the bill through committee.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tories+hope+crack+down+crooked+immigration+consultants/3120011/story.html#ixzz0q7qdUClO

The Liberals’ half-pregnant leadership

Tim Powers

After being derided for not taking a position on the current Liberal-members-sponsored debate about co-operation with the NDP, Michael Ignatieff has finally taken a position. While he gets credit for his stand, it is possibly the worst perspective he can embrace. Ignatieff, and in turn whatever element of the Liberal Party he represents, has become half-pregnant.

According to Joan Bryden's Canadian Press story, Iggy has ruled out any form of pre-election arrangement with the NDP but is prepared to contemplate a coalition if that is what the numbers look like and that is what the public wants. He also describes himself as a uniter and not a divider. Yet by taking this position, I imagine, he has united more than a few Liberals against him and continues to divide the organization he runs.

Ignatieff is not taking this position because of a wave of co-operative momentum that has crossed the Atlantic. He is here because his party is in difficult straits and as a stand-alone entity the Liberals are weak. Many in his own party have sensed this and spoken out about the need to address this through some form of co-operation on the left.

In a Neville Chamberlain-like act of appeasement, Ignatieff now says no coalition now but we'll have one if we need one – a position he had before in 2008. That is not bound to inspire confidence in Liberal ranks. Rather than offering a road map for Liberal victory, he offers a temporary detour from the real problem: the inability of the mighty Liberal Party under his leadership to connect with the public.

Being half-pregnant is not possible, nor is this adopted response to a crisis in the Liberal cradle.

Jeff Jedras: Ignatieff clarifies his position on coalition

I was very pleased to wake-up this morning and find Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has brought some much needed clarity to the Liberal position on coalitions. Indeed, the position he outlines in this CP article today seems exactly what I’ve been asking for.

I think Ignatieff has it exactly right, and it’s as I’ve been arguing for some time now. Don’t get bogged down in pre-election coalition speculation. Run hard to win in all 308 ridings. But don’t rule out a post-election coalition or other arrangement. If we don’t make the point now that it’s a legitimate possibility then it won’t be on the table down the road, and we’re limiting our options. And he was absolutely correct to rule-out any sort of merger or pre-election arrangement, and also signal working with the BQ wasn’t in the cards.

Now that Ignatieff has finally brought clarity to the official Liberal position, the question is where do we go from here? Where does this issue go from here? That will be interesting to see. My advice to Ignatieff would be, now that he’s made his position clear, whenever asked just reference back to it and move on. “My position on this issue is clear. Play the hand Canadians deal us, and in the mean time work hard to earn their trust.” Then talk about policy, and why he deserves a strong hand.

Of course, the Conservatives won’t want to let it end at that. They see a coalition as the best shot right now at costing them power after the next election. That’s why they’re hell-bent on de-legitimizing it as an option, despite meeting recently with coalition leaders from England and Israel, the latter of which leads a “coalition of losers” by Stephen Harper’s definition. There’s no need for us to let the Conservatives shift the narrative though, no matter how much they’d rather scare-monger on coalitions instead of answering for their billion-dollar G20 boondoggle. Deprive it of oxygen by shifting the conversation to issues negative to the Conservatives, or to issues of policy positive for us.

While we can predict the Conservative go-forward, what will be more interesting is to see what comes from within the Liberal camp. For a great many Liberals, myself included, Ignatieff’s interview was exactly what we were looking for and we’re happy to move on. For some others, I suspect it won’t be. Some legitimately believe other options — be they merger or pre-election cooperation — are necessary. I think they’re a minority, but I respect their views. I think that’s a debate that can happen amongst the grassroots, nothing wrong with that. Clearly though, it’s not on the table officially.

For another group, I suspect it has been less about mergers or coalitions and more about taking advantage of the issue and current party and leader weakness for leadership positioning. For that group, I have no time. They’re continuing the cycle of stupidity, they’re hurting the party, and deluding themselves into thinking the ends justify the means when really it’s just about personal interests. We have a leader, everyone gets at least one election, and they should get on board or get the hell out of the way. You’re part of the problem, or you’re part of the solution. Your choice.

National Post