letter from Mike:
The Conservative from Vegreville Wainwright, in Alberta, has a MOTION competing with Kirsty Duncan's BILL. His Motion will be debated tonight at 5:30. (it says 3.30 on his website, but that's Alberta time) a Motion merely states the will on fhe house. It is not binding on a government to actually do anything. A bill actually forces them to do something, as it becomes the law of the land. Besides, his motion merely states that you should have free access to information. Kinda ironic given their position on copyright and more recently on personal privacy.
http://www.leonbenoit.ca/media_/news/be ... -of-debate
This seems on first glance to be an ok thing. It is probably, however, really intended to divert attention from Dr. Duncan's Bill. It seems to be positive and innocuous, but my take is, where is the conspiracy to withhold information from MS patients and their families? The great demon, Facebook? Is it reaching out and filling their heads with false facts? This Motion seems intended to promote the CIHR and the MS Society and establish their rightful place as the only sources of correct information that the government should listen to. The same government that sent the flunkies to the debate on Kirsty Duncan's Bill and only attended in strength when there was a danger of the Ayes winning the vote.
Worse than that it gives those with an unsettled mind an excuse to vote against Bill C280, because if they vote for that other 'Conservative' Motion, they won't have to bother with their consciences. This Motion should be defeated. It is a Motion only, to state the will of the house, and no Conservative is obliged to support it. Its defeat will not bring down the government but it will send a clear message to them that they should not 'play politics' on this issue. I think that people who care should treat it the same way as they treated C280, and lobby the individual Conservative MPs to vote against it.
Off topic: The real demon in Facebook is its misuse. A friend of mine said her son was passed over for employment because the prospective employer had seen his Facebook and Twitter accounts, written when he was in high school and probably innocuous but taken as a reflection of his character. Be careful what you say on the Internet! It will follow you all your life. Kids looking to be employed should set their privacy settings as restrictively as possible. On the other hand, who would want to work for someone who would do that?
edited, changing Bill to Motion