From some digging in the Internet, it appears that there are about four standard arguments - as set out below - for both the pro and the con of legislating against hand-held cell phones while driving. Where I was unsuccessful in my digging, was finding some generally accepted statistics on accidents that could be attributed to use of cell phones while driving. If anyone turns up some, please let us know.
We need to reflect on the implications of Canada’s legendary easy-access citizenship policies and the suggestion that our passport is becoming the world’s “passport of convenience”, comparable to the Liberian shipping flag-of-convenience – i.e., the flag flown by expatriate and tramp tankers and freighters with dubious credentials to exercise their operations in international waters.
The issue of Senate reform has once again raised its hydra head.The government in the Throne Speech of October 16, 2007 said that Canada was not well served by the Senate in its present form, and that it would pursue certain aspects of reform.In the Senate itself, Senator Hugh Segal has put forward a motion calling for a referendum to abolish the Senate.
The Ottawa Citizen ran an article on February 17 on the report of the Senate Committee for Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which has been looking at foreign aid and CIDA for the last year or two. The article highlighted one of the options recommended for consideration, which was that CIDA be dismantled, and touched on several others. It also chastised the Agency for being inefficient and ineffective, and criticized it for its excessively high administrative costs.
We are led to believe that Canada’s immigration policy serves the national interest and is essential for economic growth, to fill our labour shortages, and to offset an aging and diminishing population. We are also told that most of our immigrants are selected because they possess the education, trades, skills and training essential to meet our labour force demands. These assertions need to be challenged because they do not bear up under examination. They have become myths, used by governments and pro – immigration advocates to justify unreasonably high immigration levels.