Harper to cities: stimulus must end

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told representatives from Canada's cities and towns on Friday that the federal government infrastructure stimulus program will end next spring. In his statement he said the thousands of infrastructure projects were an important part of Canada'a economic recovery, but warned mayors and other municipal representatives that they can't expects to live on stimulus funds forever. "People can't live on adrenalin, and economies can't live on stimulus" Harper said. The $43 billion infrastructure program must end March 32,2011, to let the government being reducing the deficit and lead the recovery from last year's global financial crisis the prime minister said. He insisted Canada "will lead the way" in the coming G8 and G20 summits to push for countries to get their fiscal houses in order. "Canada was the last major developed country dragged into the recession and we will be the least affected by it and will emerge from it fastest and in the strongest position of them all" Harper said. Mayors from Canada's largest cities argued at this week's meeting that it shouldn't take a global financial crisis for municipalities to get the fiscal help they so desperately need. Also, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff criticized the prime minister and how the current government views its relationship with municipalities. "The prime minister came here this morning and he said we're turning off the taps. The stimulus is ending, and my vision of this is we're in this for a long haul because we've got a country to build together". Ignatieff said.



I agree with Harper, Canada can't keep on living on the governments money. If the government were to keep pouring money into the economy, the economic state of our country would never really improve. It's been over a yet now since the recession hit, the government has put some effort into creating stimulus packages. The economy has improved to a point were I believe that it does not need anymore stimulus packages. If they were to keep on giving out these packages people would become dependant on them. Also the method would just give a "quick boost" to the economy. I do believe that the government has been spending money on things that are unnecessary, for example the G20 meeting. The government has spent millions on security for the meeting. I don't think it was a good idea for our country to volunteer to host this meeting. The money that was spent on it could have gone towards other things such as improving the economy. In conclusion, I believe in what Harper is doing, our country is almost to a point were it is financially strong and there is no more need for stimulus packages.


http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/28/harper-municipalities.html

Toronto G20 restricted areas unveiled

Officials in Toronto have outlined the areas in the"heart" of the city that will be restricted to the public as a result of the G20 Summit. These security areas are now starting to take place due to the the meeting of the world leaders, which is taking place at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre between June 26-27. The construction of a security fence will begin on June 7 and will continue 24 hours a day until it is completed, Tom Russel, the head of G20 planning for Toronto police told reporters. "We know this will be inconvenient to Torontonians and we ask for your patience and understanding during this time" Russel said. "It is out hope that members of the public will be able to move freely throughout the fence perimeter until the evening of Friday, June 25". The northern portion of the fence will run along Wellington Street West, wile the Southern portion will run along Lakeshore Boulevard West. The Western portion zigzags southwards along Windsor Street and Blue Jays Way. The Eastern portion runs along Bay Street, east along Front Street West and then south on York Street. However, Russel had stated " the boundaries of the fence are subject to change".


I believe that Toronto is making a huge mistake by hosting the G20 meeting. I really do not think that Toronto as a city is gaining anything from hosting this event as we are losing huge sums of money and causing inconveniences for the public. For example, this fence that they are building, will only cause inconveniences for the population who lives in the downtown Toronto area. Also, people have no say in the matter, they can't make these security decisions, they just have to sit back and let them happen, and meanwhile it causes a major pain in the neck for them. I don't understand why Toronto volunteered to host this event. If Canada wanted to host it, it would have made sense to have had it in Ottawa. Ottawa is the the capital of Canada. In conclusion, I don not agree with having the G20 meeting in Toronto as I do not see it as a positive for Canada, and it is causing an inconvenience for the people of Toronto.


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/05/28/g20-security-zone684.html

N. Korea scraps S. Korea naval accord

North Korea said Thursday that it will scrap an accord aimed at preventing accidental naval clashes with South Korea. This was after South Korea blamed North Korea for a torpedo attack that sank a warship. The tension between these two countries, which are separated between a peninsula, has risen dramatically since last week's attack. Still to this point North Korea has denied its involvement in the sinking and warned any retaliation would result in war. North Korea's military said it will "completely nullify" an inter-Korean accord aimed at preventing accidental armed skirmishes along the disputed western sea border. "Immediate physical strikes will be launched" against any South Korean ships that intrude into North Korean waters, the countries military said. North Korea also said it will look at banning South Korean personnel and vehicles from entering a joint industrial park in the North Korean border. The North Korean military said the first-phase reactions will be to ban the South Korean people in the border town, however they suggest that more changes are to follow. A South Korean defence ministry official said South Korea will "resolutely" deal with the new North's changes and measures. The South Koreans warships staged a large scale anti-submarine drill of the west coast despite North Korea's warnings that such exercises will drive them to war.

I really do not understand the reason for the South Koreans anti-submarnie drill. The north Koreans warned them that if they were to do this, war could break out. Personally I would not underestimate North Korea, they are a country that is ruled by a leader who is not afraid of doing the unthinkable. I think that South Korea should try to put the torpedo attack under the table as much as they can, and they should try and forget about it. There is no need to start a war, the war would turn into a world war. When I say world war, I mean that that every country around the world will be affected by this war. This is because of the potential rivalry if China decides to join forces with North Korea. It could potentially be a dispute that could run throughout the world, due to the population of Chinese and South Koreans in North America. In conclusion, I would advise the South Koreans to try and avoid engaging in any activities that could potentially upset the North Koreans.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/27/north-korea-china.html

Mandatory school volunteering plan opposed

The progressive Conservatives' plan to introduce mandatory volunteering in New Brunswick high schools is producing much criticism from two Fredericton volunteer organizations. Last week, the Tory leader David Alward released the campaign promises, and among them the party's least costly suggestions is getting the most attention. Alward wants to bring in a new requirement that students would have to accrue a specific number of hours volunteering in their community before they can graduate. The current governing Liberal party have criticized the plan's mandatory aspect. Groups that rely on volunteers are not eager to accept high school students who would be required to be there. Judy Coates, the co-chair of a steering committee set up for a new volunteer centre in Fredericton, said new volunteers are always needed, but she has concerns about whatAlward's new program could entail. "I would be opposed to it just being that students all have to do 100 hours of volunteer work and have a community person write them a letter and they get checked-off" Coates said. She also said she would welcome new volunteers, but it should only be part of a wider range program of community involvement for students. John Carty, the executive director of Meals on Wheels, said volunteers are depended on for delivering the meals and helping with security checks. However,Carty said he's not convinced mandating students to help in their community is appropriate. "I would not want volunteers there because they have to be there" said Carty. The conservatives say no student will be forced to volunteer for a specific group. Instead, they'll be given a list of approved organizations and they will get to choose whichever one they like, but the required log hours will still be needed.



Personally, I support David Alward's new policy. I am a high school student in Ontario, and I have to by law, record 40 hours of community service to graduate. I feel as though by contributing either in a park clean up, or helping out a community event, teaches me how just by helping people in need gives you a source of satisfaction. However, I do agree with some of the criticisms that the new policy is getting. Some of the people are saying that there is no point of introducing the rule because it won't actually teach the students to give back. This is true for some of the high school students as some will just go and volunteer at any random event just to get the required hours, and not actually "want to be there". Fortunately not all of the students who volunteer, will regret doing so. Some of the kids will learn from the experience and will be motivated to help out the community in as many ways as they can. In conclusion, even though the law will not be beneficial for all students, some of the students will take something away from their experience. Whether it be, realizing that how helping out gives them a source of satisfaction or learning how many people are living underprivledged and in poor conditions. This is why I believe the policy should be mandatory in New Brunswick.



http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/05/24/nb-mandatory-volunteer-alward-852.html

Wearing life-jackets should be mandatory: OPP

Ontario Provincial Police are calling on Ottawa for a new law to require everyone in small boats to wear life-jackets. This new law in intended to stop boating-related fatalities. Canada's average boating-related fatalities each year is 180. The OPP commissioner, Julian Fantino, pressed the case with federal transport minister John Baird recently. He wanted to mandate the wearing of life jackets on moving vessels under six meters in length."You increase your odds of surviving exponentially by wearing your PFD" OPP staff Chris Whaley told CBC news this week in Toronto. Currently, boaters are required to have PFD's within reach for everyone on board a boat. However, the law does not force anyone to actually wear a life-jacket. "85 per cent of victims, had they been wearing their life-jackets, would have survived" Whaley said. Unfortunately, Ottawa has no plans to change the existing law. The only thing the OPP can do is to continue to work with law enforcement to try to convince them into changing their minds.



I really do not understand why the government is not considering changing the law. The statistics speak for themselves, on average 180 deaths each year due to boating accidents. Just by wearing a life-jacket aproximately 85 per cent of the victims who died would still be living. I think that law of having a life-jacket on at all times while in a moving boat should have been put into place a long time ago. I cannot think of one reason why the government is not even thinking about changing the law. Untill the law is changed by the government, many lives will be lost. The worst part about it though is that most of these individuals lives could have been saved if they were wearing a life-jacket.



http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/21/life-jackets-boaters-law.html

British Airways strike begins

The union representing British Airways cabin crew has begun a five-day strike. However, the airline says it will be able to carry 70 per cent of passengers who have booked flights. Thousands of in-flight workers walked of the job this Monday to protest a cost cutting plan. This plan is going to be responsible for the elimination of roughly 1,700 jobs. The airline has a contingency plan in place that will allow it to move 7o per cent of its normal traffic using leased planes and other workers while putting customers on other airlines. However, even though the airline company has a contingency plan in place, more than half of the airline's flights out of London, Heathrow were cancelled Monday. This leaves many of the customers unsatisfied with British Airways, "I think the strikers are greedy, the way the econmy is. They should be happy to have a job", London traveller Maureen Lonergan said. The strike was supposed to begin on May 17 but was ruled invalid by Britain's High Court because the union did not follow the procedures when announcing the results of the vote to members. One of the union's key issues is the demand that the airline restore employee travel benefits that the airline suspended. The unions leader, Tony Woodley, said the dispute has turned personal because he believes the airline dislikes the cabin crew union. British Airways said it has accepted an invitation for more negotiations, and said it believes the union will also accept.


I believe that the cabin crew employees are taking their job for granted. During the economic times that we are in at the moment, they have to understand that British Airways has to start making cut backs. The first thing they would look into reducing is the cabin crew employees, because the airline itself does not need as many of them to operate efficiently. Also, by walking out like the cabin crew did, it hurt the reputation of British Airways. I believe it will make people think twice before flying with this airline company. I predict that this strike will come to a conclusion soon, because British Airways cannot go on with cancelling and postponing flights. If they let the strike go on for more than 2 weeks the will loose a great amount of money, and their reputation of being a major and reliable airline company will take a huge hit.


http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/05/24/british-airways-strike.html

Canada imposes sanctions on N. Korea

Canada and the United States both have agreed to offer their full support to South Korea. South Korea's president has cut all trade to North Korea as of Monday. This is all in retaliation for a torpedo attack that killed 46 sailors. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a statement that Canada's sanctions will include enhanced restrictions on trade, investment and other bilateral relations with North Korea. Also, the Canadian government has agreed to suspend high-level visits to Canada by North Korean officials. "Canada has condemned the reckless North Korean regime for this egregious violation of international law and its blatant disregard of its international obligations," Harper had said in his statement. Harper also said in his statement that Canada has pledged full support towards South Korean President Lee Myung-baks decision to respond decisively to the "act of aggression." The South Korean President said his country has "always tolerated North Korea's brutality, time and again". Lee said that they did this because they "had a genuine longing for peace on the Korean Peninsula". "But now things are different, North Korea will pay a price corresponding to its provocative acts," he said. Three experts from the Canadian Navy joined the multinational team that investigated the incident, and concluded the warship was sunk by a torpedo on March 25 near the western maritime border. In conclusion, Harper's statement adds that Canada is committed to a co-ordinated international response, including through the United Nations Security Council.


I feel as though that Canada is being a responsible ally to South Korea. Canada really has no choice other than to say "yes", we will support the South Korean government. If Canada were to say "no", they are no going to help South Korea, many of the population would feel betrayed or feel that Canada is not being a responsible ally. However, this is a very serious issue, as I believe that this torpedo incident could be the cause for a war between South and North Korea. The reason I think this could occur is because of the long lasting feud between the two countries. South and North Korea are two very different countries, they are governed in complete different ways, and their way of life differs dramatically. Also, there is no evidence yet that the torpedo attack on the warship is to be blamed on North Korea. Personally I do believe that North Korea is responsible, but they have not come forth and taken responsibility for it yet. In conclusion, Canada is doing the ethical and responsible action in this situation, and is contributing to its reputation of being a friendly ally.


http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/24/south-korea024.html