Quebec Highway Safety Questioned

Quebec coroner says a stretch of highway east of Montreal, where three cyclists were killed and three others were injured, is dangerous because it does not have a paved shoulder. The six cyclists, all from Montreal's South Shore suburbs, were training for a triathlon along Highway 112 when they were struck from behind by a pickup truck. Coroner André Dandavino, who is investigating the accident, said the four-lane road needs to have a paved shoulder so that cyclists can be safe. In fact, under Quebec highway rules, and road travelled by more than 5000 vehicles daily must have paved shoulders. Why then, were there no paved shoulders on Highway 112? Dandavino says it's because many of Quebec's roads have been neglected in the past 20 years.

I believe this story easily shows the ignorance of some people. How could someone driving a pick-up truck not see 6 bikers in a single file line? At first, I believed it to be from alcohol, however, police have proved that alcohol was not present in the driver at the time of the incident. It was human error. Also, if that highway was known to have no paved shoulders, why would the 6 bikers take the risk? The club they came from, the Saint-Lambert Triathlon Club, was aware of the dangers of that highway. It was the decision of the riders to take the risk. I don't know who to blame in this incident, though I believe it is still mainly the drivers fault. The government should take more care of those highways so that incidents like this become rare and unheard of.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/15/mon-cycling-accident.html

Harper Shows Anti-Gay Side

Toronto’s annual gay pride festival is a major event, attracting an estimated 300,000 tourists to the city and ploughing $136 million into the local economy. Last year, it was deemed worthy of a $397,500 grant from Ottawa under its “marquee events” stimulus program. This year, it will get nothing. Pride’s organizers blame “some kind of homophobia” in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Ottawa. Toronto Councillor Kyle Rae calls it a “discriminatory, Neanderthal government.” The federal Liberals say it is a “reckless, ideological cut." The government vehemently denies all this. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” said Industry Minister Tony Clement in the Commons on Monday. “This is a two-year stimulus program. In year one of this program, almost 75 per cent of the funding went to events in Canada's largest cities. In year two, we wanted to ensure that the money was spread out to some of the smaller cities so they were able to benefit as well.”

It is difficult to determine which statement is false and which is true; however, the Conservative parties views do reflect this choice well. Conservatives are not the greatest supporters of homosexual couples, so it would not be surprising if Stephen Harper did have "some kind of homophobia" That being said, it is not fair to immediately blame "homophobia in office" as the reason the Gay Pride Festival did not receive any payment. Perhaps what Clement says is correct, that they wish to spread money out to smaller cities around Canada. This would not be the first time Canadians have over suspected a political topic. Either way, I believe completely removing the funding from the Gay Pride Festival is unfair. It attracts tourists and money, both attributing to the economy. It's funding is quite minuscule compared to the amount it grosses as an event.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/807480--harper-shows-anti-gay-side

Fix Aboriginal Schools

The aboriginal schools in Canada are appalling. If an aboriginal girl attends school off-reserve, Ottawa reimburses the Ontario government for the $12,000 that it costs to educate her in a provincial classroom. But if that same student goes to school on her own reserve, the federal government budgets barely half that amount for her education. The standards at aboriginal schools are much lower than Ontario schools. 60 per cent of First Nations students in reserve schools drop out; for non-aboriginals, the rate is 9.5 per cent. Paul Martin, former Prime Minister, argued that it's not just gaps in funding that paralyze aboriginal schools. The teachers at aboriginal schools do not have the best practices to teach their students. Martin's family is bridging those gaps by sharing the schools best practices. Canada’s aboriginal youth cannot wait much longer for a coherent federal focus on education, backed by serious funding.

I believe it is unfair how the aboriginals in Canada have been treated ever since we took over their homeland. They were rejected ordinary human rights when Canadians invaded their land and now, not enough has improved. This is clearly shown by how the Canadian government supplies the First Nation schools. The lack of funding and school techniques clearly shows that Canada does not care enough for it's aboriginal population. I believe we need to repay the First Nations for all the suffering we put them through. If we cannot even offer them a proper education, we cannot come to terms with the ghosts of our past.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/802642--fix-aboriginal-schools

Locking Down "Loose" Nukes

The threat of nuclear terrorism since 9/11 has prompted U.S. President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other leaders to meet in Washington this week to step up efforts to safeguard the 1,600 tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and 500 tons of plutonium stored at 2,000 sites in 40 countries. Canada's Stephen Harper intends to to ship our storage's of HEU to the U.S, where it cannot be used for weapons. This is a good move considering it takes just 50 kg. of HEU to build a crude nuclear bomb. And only a few grams of material are needed to build a conventional "dirty" bomb designed to spread radioactivity. Though restricting the world's "loose" materials is a difficult task, Obama is right to try. Nuclear terrorism is a real threat. After 9/11, the United Nations ordered the world to do better, but they are not doing enough. It is good that these few countries are taking initiative towards restricting nuclear warfare.

I believe it is correct to restrict the HEU supplies from the countries that would otherwise use it for war. The stats stated above indeed show the danger of releasing even minuscule amounts HEU. Though I do believe we should restrict the HEU supplies, I don't believe it is correct for Canada to trust the United States with its supply of HEU. Mainly because it is much more difficult for an enemy country to find supplies of HEU if they were scattered. If they were all situated in USA, the task of retrieving the HEU would be simpler. Also, let us not forget that the United States is the only country to have used the atomic bomb in warfare; not only once in fact, but twice. Can our supply of nuclear weapons be trusted with the United States? I would hope so; however, only time will tell.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/794237--locking-down-loose-nukes

Restricting Illegal Drugs

Based on a 2009 drug use survey by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, it is estimated that more than 60,000 Ontario students, in Grades 7 through 12, smoke contraband tobacco. The main reason is price. Purchased from convenience stores willing to break the law or even street dealers selling from car trunks, 200 illicit cigarettes generally cost about $15. The price for the same number of legal cigarettes is $50 to $55. Studies have shown that high prices pose an effective barrier between kids and tobacco use. Easily available black market cigarettes have lowered that barrier in Ontario. The consequences to young people and society at large – could hardly be more serious. Most smokers start before they turn 20. Those unable to kick the habit face highly elevated rates of lung cancer and heart disease. To fix this problem, the Government is paying more funding towards the police department to better restrict illicit cigarettes.

Though I do believe this is a good idea, I don't think it will be a successful campaign. Stores that sell cigarettes check for ID, whereas illegal dealers are only in for the profit. If the government could truly remove all illegal dealers, the problem would be solved. This, however, is only a false hope. Similar campaigns to eliminate illegal cigarettes have ended unsuccessfully. There will always be illegal activity in community; it cannot be stopped completely. You cannot expect the police to find every single dealer in the province, and even if this were possible, they would soon be replaced other illegal dealers. I don't believe banning cigarettes all together would work either, because people will always find a way to go around the law. Illegal cigarettes presents itself as a major problem in Canada's youth, with seemingly no possible solutions.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/726168--illegal-cigarettes-can-t-be-ignored

Pardons More Transparent

An 18 year old convicted for a shoplifting offence should not have to wear that record like a scarlet letter for the rest of his or her life, whether seeking employment or travelling abroad. Even in the case of more serious crimes, such as a sexual assault conviction, the perpetrators should have access to pardons, providing they demonstrate that they are back on the right path. But, they should not be given the pardon granted automatically, as they apparently are now. After a period of time, the police should check that there have been no subsequent offenses. The request is then made in writing, and the National Parole Board rubber-stamps it. Only a tiny percentage of requests are turned down. The law does not differentiate between minor or major offenses, besides the wait time of 3 or 5 years after the sentence. The application process is the same for both, largely a paper transaction read by officials behind closed doors.

I understand that people who have been convicted of minor offenses wish to be freed from the record so they can live ordinary lives. I believe they deserve this opportunity to redeem themselves for the mistakes they have made. If they can show they have learned their lesson and that they will willingly abide by the law, they should be freed of that burden. When it comes to major offenses such as murder, robbery, or assault, I do not believe the convicted should have such an easy way to remove such a serious crime off their record. If they have ruined or ended somebodies life, why should their procedure for pardon be as easy as someones who had just made a simple mistake? The difference of murdering someone and spraying graffiti on a wall is monumental. The murderer should have to bear that burden until he has proved that he has changed. He should not just submit a document pleading his innocence with the chance of the officials approval.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/791260--make-pardons-more-transparent

To Burn or To Dump?

Durham region's planned garbage incinerator has three things going for it: the region's medical officer has given it the green light, it meets provincial environmental regulations; and modern incinerators of this type, which turn waste into energy, are safely used across Europe. However, critics of incineration argue that the better option is to produce less waste and reuse/recycle more. Unfortunately, we need a place to put items that cannot be recycled. We could either incinerate the remaining garbage, or put them in landfills. Nobody wishes to have any more landfills, so at the moment, incinerators are our only option. Also, a well run, modern incinerator meets all of our health, environmental, and safety standards. Whether they decide to build a landfill or build an incinerator, there will always be critics. But pledging to boost recycling and dispose of what remains is taking the right route.

I believe the incinerator is a fine idea. If it meets Canadian environmental, health, and safety standard then why not build an incinerator? It gets rid of waste much more efficiently than a landfill. Also, the incinerator burns waste to create energy. This is much more efficient than burying waste that will become a problem in the future. Waste cannot decompose fast enough in land fills. The best option however, is to still recycle one's goods. This is the most environmentally friendly way to use waste. We cannot recycle everything however. Objects and possessions will eventually be thrown out. This, hopefully, is when the incinerators will be used. The burning of waste will still create carbon dioxide and ash however, which will pollute the earth. However, in comparison with landfills, burning waste to create energy is much more efficient than burying our waste under our feet.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/790598--to-burn-or-to-dump