drewski

as I said, they are still free to express themselves however they want, in whatever language they want so i don't believe there is a freedom of expression violation. The government is only ensuring that they CAN (not must) do it it in French. as for racist, I don't see where race plays a part in this yes they would if they want to increase their seat count there.

it seems so are your beliefs are subjective and emotionally and (not reason) based. you are equating all motorcycle riders with reckless one's when the majority of us aren't. I'm not against improving he safety of children, I just think there are better ways to do it that do not remove the choices of parents to do things with their kids as long as they are done in a reasonable safe manner. As a motorcyclist, I've seen far more reckless driver's then I've seen reckless motorcyclists but you don't see me calling for a ban on children in cars do you? There are also other laws on the books that could be amended to punish those who ride/drive recklessly with children. For example, amend it so that if you have a child in the car and are nailed for dangerous/reckless driving, you can also be charged with child endangerment. if wanting the right to be able to rear a child as I want is selfish, then so bit it. but I don't feel that the government should have a say in something like this as the action itself does not directly harm the child, unlike smoking in cars for child abuse. As I've said, I'm not against the principle of this legislation, I'm against the way its put into practice. If the logic that was used in this law is extended, in a few short years we could see other "dangerous" activities banned. I can almost guarantee there are other activities children take part in that cause FAR MORE injuries then being a passenger on the back of a motorcycle

lets be clear, I'm not talking about some little kid who's physically unable to be a passenger. as I stated in my original post, I wouldn't have a problem with some other, less arbitrary standard, ie some kind of physical standards

yup. which is why i'm posting now. because I hope to drum up enough support (see sig for more info) to have this bill killed before it goes too far.

with Van Loan now in Public Safety, I'd imagine he'd be out as Government Leader in the House which should help

thats sounds a lot like the logic I read about that was used by Communists when they were taking over. I worry because each little infringement eventually adds up to A LOT of infringement, and I hold my privacy rights to be very dear.

those are laws for the most part (and lack of a better term by me) laws of addition, you can do it but you have to add a seatbelt or a safety seat. Not laws of subtraction like you can't be in a car. as I said in my original post, i'm not anti-safety. I think there are other ways to do this that would minimize the relatively few injuries for children that exist today, like minimum safety gear, phsyiccal standards or a special license.

I question the new Health Minister. I wonder if she was put there so she could fill an Inuit AND female quote Harper had in mind. She's a newbie MP and while she was minister of health in Nunavut, there is a huge difference in scale between health there and the ministry across the country

that would only been the case if the law stated they could ONLY speak french. which is not the case. section 2 (freedom of expression) is a fundamental right that can and has been overridden via the notwithstanding clause in the charter. also, it doesn't look to go against any of the inalienable language rights in the charter so that avenue of argument is out I really don't see a problem with requiring immigrants to learn one of the official languages, preferably the dominant of the two. I'm not keen with specifically requiring one fo the two, but thats quebec and there's only so much you can do

I and many other riders still have our organs. I'm sure many organ donors donated their organ's because of car accidents. Should we not allow children in those "carriers" as well?

while he does have ties to the Old Guard, LeBlanc fits the bill quite nicely I think. Between him Iggy and Bob, I think he has the least amount of baggage that Harper could use against him.

This slid through quietly yesterday with no debate whatsoever The Safety Fanatics are hard at work.. All you you in Markham will have to thank your MPP Helena Jackek. While I can understand this to be a non-issue to most non-motorcyclists, I feel that if this bill were to pass, it would be a stepping stone for the government to interfere with a parents right to raise their child as they see fit, which would effect almost all of us in some way or another. Today, its minors on motorcycles, tomorrow its activities that cause far more injuries per capita, like kids playing hockey skiing. Sure it seems a stretch now, but if the government keeps passing laws that inch by inch take away the choices of parents as to how they raise their children, then one day, what I mentioned won't be a stretch anymore, it'll be the next logical step. While I can understand the intentions, which I believe to be good, the way this legislation has been brought about is wrong. It comes down to being an intrusion on our rights to raise our children as we wish (without exposing them to guaranteed harm, ie smoking in cars). If safety is truly the basis for this legislation, which I'm not against necessarily, then I feel there are more reasonable and more importantly, less arbitrary factors, ie increased minimum mandatory safety equipment laws (ie. jacket, boots that cover ankles, gloves, etc), physical standards to which you must meet before you can be on a motorcycle, ie your feet must touch the pegs, or perhaps a special license endorsement from the Ministry that says you have been specifically trained and passed tests that allow you to carry minors on motorcycles.

so excellent he hid a $5.6 billion deficit

i'm sure he had. as we saw in Ontario back when he was finance minister, what he says about the economy/budget and what he does with the economy/budget are totally different

fine, your oil, whatever. but how about the massive profits they when they don't drop the price of gasoline at the same rate as it went up relative to the price of oil?

thats true in theory. but as we've seen, there's another option, political blackmail. instead of passing other parties legislation to get support for your own, you can just make every contentious bill a confidence motion which could trigger an election the people dont' want if it wasn't passed.

the plan as I read it had income tax cuts for all, albeit less for the middle class

you forgot the "but just barely" part. if the world economy gets worse then projections, then a recession is quite probable

different types of taxes, income vs consumption which I would think conservatives would like. you have the government taking less of your money via income taxes and you have more control over how you are taxed via a consumption tax

because Harper is very controlling when it comes to information, and many people believe that he is so because he is trying to keep an agenda, which he believes many Canadians wont' like, from getting out before he can have a majority and do things as he wishes

maybe there would have been more money for those new nurses if the union hadn't demanded a lump sum payment (~3.7% of salary) on top of the average 3.18%/year pay raises in the last contract

some of those people who didn't vote had voted in the past and may vote again. If they do, they will matter and we need to take their possible actions into account. To take the mathematical projections as gospel would be wrong, but they should be considered. To simply ignore them and to base decisions on those who have voted in the past would be folly.

and these are the changes from previous year, including total voter turnout 2008 election Conservative votes change -168,737 Popular Vote Change 1.37% Liberal Votes change -849,425 Popular Vote Change -4.00% NDP & Green Votes change 204,157 Popular Vote Change 3.12% Change in Voter Turnout -987,641 2006 election Conservative votes change 1,379,389 Popular Vote Change 6.67% Liberal Votes change -471,692 Popular Vote Change -6.50% NDP & Green Votes change 554,882 Popular Vote Change 1.95% Change in Voter Turnout 1,342,906 2004 election Conservative votes change -849,245 Popular Vote Change -8.08% Liberal Votes change -300,924 Popular Vote Change -3.20% NDP & Green Votes change 1,500,513 Popular Vote Change 10.71% Change in Voter Turnout 645,491 2000 election Conservative votes change -115,858 Popular Vote Change -0.52% Liberal Votes change 257,754 Popular Vote Change 2.39% NDP & Green Votes change -291,822 Popular Vote Change -2.16% Change in Voter Turnout -158,020 1997 election Conservative votes change 214,118 Popular Vote Change 3.46% Liberal Votes change -653,675 Popular Vote Change -2.78% NDP & Green Votes change 550,517 Popular Vote Change 4.36% Change in Voter Turnout -349,243

2008 election Conservative votes =5,205,334 % of votes=37.6% Liberal Votes 3,629,990 % of votes=26.23% NDP & Green Votes 3,457,822 % of votes=25.0% 2006 election Conservative votes =5,374,071 % of votes=36.3% Liberal Votes 4,479,415 % of votes=30.23% NDP & Green Votes 3,253,665 % of votes=22.0% 2004 election Conservative votes =3,994,682 % of votes=29.6% Liberal Votes 4,951,107 % of votes=36.70% NDP & Green Votes 2,698,783 % of votes=20.0% 2000 election Alliance and PCs combined =4,843,927 % of votes=37.7% Liberal Votes 5,252,031 % of votes=40.85% NDP & Green Votes 1,198,270 % of votes=9.3% 1997 election Reform and PCs combined =4,959,785 % of votes=38.2% Liberal Votes 4,994,277 % of votes=38.46% NDP & Green Votes 1,490,092 % of votes=11.5%

as I said in the other thread, I don't believe you're are taking into account the people who more and more aren't voting. People I believe to be centrist voters who don't' like what the Liberals have done and for any number of reasons don't want to vote for Harper. Looking at this years vote, the Liberals lost 650k more votes then the Greens & NDP (combined) gained (the Cons lost ~170k). That shows me that the support isn't necessarily shifting to the NDP & Greens as much as the centrist supporters (for the Libs & Cons) just aren't showing up to vote. Also, in the 2006 vote, where the Liberals lost their position as government, the Conservatives gained 2.5x as many votes as the combined Greens & NDP did. Some of which was lost again this year to non-voters I think this shows that while political beliefs aren't shifting, the apathy of certain groups, ie centrists is just growing. Moving closer to that centre will hopefully gain back a number of those votes, which I believe is far greater then the votes which could be gained by moving left.