These records can be found at the Elections Canada online database by searching under the quarterly reports for December 2006.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Visual Proof of North Pole Donations
With my post yesterday regarding fraudulent and incorrect data submitted to Elections Canada by the Liberal Party, a few commenters asked for a link to the data in question, which showed 8 individuals from 3 provinces donating to the Liberals with Santa Claus's postal code. Here are the screenshots captured from Elections Canada's web page regarding the donations in question:
These records can be found at the Elections Canada online database by searching under the quarterly reports for December 2006.
These records can be found at the Elections Canada online database by searching under the quarterly reports for December 2006.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Liberal Elections Canada Filings Make Mockery of Elections Canada with Santa Claus Filings
Do Santa and his elves support the Liberal Party of Canada? Apparently they do, according to data submitted by the Liberal Party to Elections Canada. In the December 2006 quarterly report, eight individuals from three different provinces gave money to the Liberals; the problem is that all of them were submitted with a postal code of H0H 0H0, the postal code Canada Post has assigned for letters to Santa Claus.
This chart shows the information which the Liberals passed on to Elections Canada:
The difference in treatment offered by Elections Canada to the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party continues to be obvious. It seems that, in the eyes of Elections Canada and Chief Electoral Officer the Liberals can do no wrong. This has reached the point were the Liberals have submitted laughable and erroneous information to the agency, with no apparent castigation or punishment.
This chart shows the information which the Liberals passed on to Elections Canada:
The difference in treatment offered by Elections Canada to the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party continues to be obvious. It seems that, in the eyes of Elections Canada and Chief Electoral Officer the Liberals can do no wrong. This has reached the point were the Liberals have submitted laughable and erroneous information to the agency, with no apparent castigation or punishment.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
More on Missing Liberal Donations - Anti-Ignatieff Bias??
Last week, I wrote about $105,793.80 in donations which the Liberal Party had received in donations targeted on behalf of former leadership contestants which, for whatever reason, were not transferred to the individual in question. Today, I decided to look into who exactly was missing the most money, and it was, perhaps unsurprisingly, Michael Ignatieff.
According to the relevant Elections Canada database, Ignatieff's campaign received 508 transferred donations in the amount of $190,011.50; however the Liberal Party also collected another 124 donations totaling $96,223 which were not directed on to him. That works out to over 33% of the money collected on his behalf not be transferred to him. His missing funds account for over 90% of the untransferred funds.
In contrast, Dion was only missing less than 3% of the money owed to him. Gerrard Kennedy and Hedy Fry were each missing less than 2% and Ken Dryden was missing less than 1%.
Is this any indication of a bias within the Liberal Party against Michael Ignatieff and his former leadership campaign? Why has such a disproportionate number of his donations not been passed on while other former candidates received their full amount of close to it?
Perhaps for another possible instance of anti-Ignatieff bias in these numbers concerns the donations made by Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff (recently in the news for admitting that Dion's Carbon tax was designed to "transfer wealth from the oil patch to the rest of the country"). On June 16 and June 20, he donated money to Dion, Scott Brison, Martha Hall Findlay, Dryden, Ignatieff, and Kennedy. Of the 6 donations, 5 were transferred in full to the campaigns, but not a penny was transferred on to Ignatieff's campaign.
Why is the Liberal Party not sending over a third of the money they collected on his behalf? Does anyone have any theories??
According to the relevant Elections Canada database, Ignatieff's campaign received 508 transferred donations in the amount of $190,011.50; however the Liberal Party also collected another 124 donations totaling $96,223 which were not directed on to him. That works out to over 33% of the money collected on his behalf not be transferred to him. His missing funds account for over 90% of the untransferred funds.
In contrast, Dion was only missing less than 3% of the money owed to him. Gerrard Kennedy and Hedy Fry were each missing less than 2% and Ken Dryden was missing less than 1%.
Is this any indication of a bias within the Liberal Party against Michael Ignatieff and his former leadership campaign? Why has such a disproportionate number of his donations not been passed on while other former candidates received their full amount of close to it?
Perhaps for another possible instance of anti-Ignatieff bias in these numbers concerns the donations made by Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff (recently in the news for admitting that Dion's Carbon tax was designed to "transfer wealth from the oil patch to the rest of the country"). On June 16 and June 20, he donated money to Dion, Scott Brison, Martha Hall Findlay, Dryden, Ignatieff, and Kennedy. Of the 6 donations, 5 were transferred in full to the campaigns, but not a penny was transferred on to Ignatieff's campaign.
Why is the Liberal Party not sending over a third of the money they collected on his behalf? Does anyone have any theories??
Friday, August 1, 2008
Missing Liberal Donations??
With the recent posting of the quarterly financial reports from Elections Canada, there is a lot of interesting information just waiting to be uncovered. One such item relates to $105,793.80 in missing Liberal funding. Apparently, the Liberal Party raised $792,739.70 on behalf of their leadership candidates, yet only $686,945.90 was actually transferred on to the former contenders.
I have a screen capture from the Elections Canada database showing this (I cut out the individual entries between the header and the totals in order to show them together properly).
So what happened to the other $105,793.80?
UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: It was suggested by a commenter that the missing funds could be accounted for by the Liberal Party skimming a certain percentage of these donations into their own fund. However, this is not the case. The vast majority of donations are passed on to the candidate in full, while in other cases, zero dollars are passed on. The amounts of donations in question range from miniscule amounts under $50 up to the maximum allowable of $1100. All other donations in these exact same amounts were passed on in full.
I have a screen capture from the Elections Canada database showing this (I cut out the individual entries between the header and the totals in order to show them together properly).
So what happened to the other $105,793.80?UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: It was suggested by a commenter that the missing funds could be accounted for by the Liberal Party skimming a certain percentage of these donations into their own fund. However, this is not the case. The vast majority of donations are passed on to the candidate in full, while in other cases, zero dollars are passed on. The amounts of donations in question range from miniscule amounts under $50 up to the maximum allowable of $1100. All other donations in these exact same amounts were passed on in full.
95% of the Bloc Quebecois's Funding Comes From the Canadian Government
For a political party that espouses separation from Canada, the Bloc Quebecois seems to have no qualms against accepting money from the Canadian government. In the first quarter of 2008, they managed to raise only $36,850.78 in donations; at the same time, they accepted $758,350.39 in funds based on the number of votes they received in the last federal election.
95% of their money comes from Canadian taxpayers; only 5% is raised on their own initiative from individuals seeking to support Bloc policies.
Parties which receive at least 2% of the vote in elections receive quarterly payments of $0.4375 per valid vote. Apparently the Bloc is content to receive this cheque four times a year, since it seems they don't feel the need to augment it with any serious fundraising campaigns of their own. They only took in 607 individual donations, with only 33 people making a significant donation (more than $200). In contrast, the Conservative Party took in donations of $3,525,352.31 from 33,833 contributors.
If the Bloc Quebecois is truly serious about separating from Canada, should they not also turn down these Canadian election allowances?
95% of their money comes from Canadian taxpayers; only 5% is raised on their own initiative from individuals seeking to support Bloc policies.
Parties which receive at least 2% of the vote in elections receive quarterly payments of $0.4375 per valid vote. Apparently the Bloc is content to receive this cheque four times a year, since it seems they don't feel the need to augment it with any serious fundraising campaigns of their own. They only took in 607 individual donations, with only 33 people making a significant donation (more than $200). In contrast, the Conservative Party took in donations of $3,525,352.31 from 33,833 contributors.
If the Bloc Quebecois is truly serious about separating from Canada, should they not also turn down these Canadian election allowances?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Does the Liberal Party not Know Carolyn Bennet Paid Down Her Debt???
In light of this week's decision by Elections Canada to give the former leadership contenders more time to pay off their debt, I decided to look at what the Liberal Party was doing to help them. I noticed that the Liberals' contribution website also encourages people to donate to help them with their debts. One problem with this, is their collecting money on behalf of Carolyn Bennett, a candidate who has already paid off her debt:
Is the Liberal Party just so incompetent and clueless that they don't know who still owes money and who doesn't? Or maybe, they just assume Bennett would still be in debt on the basis that all but one of the other candidates are in debt? After all, the Liberal Party that doesn't seem to mind borrowing money and going into debt?
Is the Liberal Party just so incompetent and clueless that they don't know who still owes money and who doesn't? Or maybe, they just assume Bennett would still be in debt on the basis that all but one of the other candidates are in debt? After all, the Liberal Party that doesn't seem to mind borrowing money and going into debt?
NDP Proud of Ties to the CBC, while Pretending it is Impartial
Rather than even pretending that the CBC is a neutral and non-partisan Canadian news outlet, the NDP is promoting their by-election Candidates for their ties to the left-wing broadcaster. An NDP friend of mine forwarded an email to me he recently received soliciting donations to fund the three by elections which have been called. They email (pictured below) included the following text:
"Two popular CBC personalities are leading the charge: world-renowned aboriginal writer Tom King in Guelph and award winning host of CBC Radio Noon Anne Lagacé Dowson in Westmount--Ville-Marie."
They don't even have the shame to pretend that these journalists randomly came to be NDP supporters - they proudly announce their affiliation with the CBC as though this were an NDP credential.
However, if any conservative ever protests against the obvious biases in the CBC's reporting (e.g, Krista Erickson feeding questions to Pablo Rodriguez, quoting the Prime Minister and other Conservatives out of context, etc.), they feign outrage that we would dare to question the CBC's "impartiality."
It's time for the NDP and the other parties of the left to stop trying to simultaneously insist on the neutrality of the CBC while recruiting candidates there.
"Two popular CBC personalities are leading the charge: world-renowned aboriginal writer Tom King in Guelph and award winning host of CBC Radio Noon Anne Lagacé Dowson in Westmount--Ville-Marie."
They don't even have the shame to pretend that these journalists randomly came to be NDP supporters - they proudly announce their affiliation with the CBC as though this were an NDP credential.
However, if any conservative ever protests against the obvious biases in the CBC's reporting (e.g, Krista Erickson feeding questions to Pablo Rodriguez, quoting the Prime Minister and other Conservatives out of context, etc.), they feign outrage that we would dare to question the CBC's "impartiality."
It's time for the NDP and the other parties of the left to stop trying to simultaneously insist on the neutrality of the CBC while recruiting candidates there.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Only True Heads of State Should Engage in International Diplomacy
This week, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has been engaged in a European and Middle Eastern tour, where, among other activities, he has been meeting with foreign heads of state. This is completely inappropriate, seeing as he is not currently a head of state. He has already met with at least Angela Merkel (Germany) and Hamid Karzai (Afghanistan). He is a senator, not the President (no matter how much he might think that he already is).
On the world stage, only official heads of state ought to engage in diplomacy with one another. Aspirants need to wait until they are elected in order to do so. To do so lacks accountability and can breed confusion as some could think that his statements reflect accurate and current American policy positions.
This problem was seen in Canada during last year's climate conference in Bali. Stephane Dion, even though he was not a head of state arrogantly attended the conference feeling that he had the right to speak on Canada's behalf. Having two different delegations to represent Canada, one official and legitimate and the other intruding and out of place, did not make Canada look strong and respectable on the world stage.
Domestic politics are for within the country. Politicians should not attempt to engage in foreign policy without a mandate to do.
On the world stage, only official heads of state ought to engage in diplomacy with one another. Aspirants need to wait until they are elected in order to do so. To do so lacks accountability and can breed confusion as some could think that his statements reflect accurate and current American policy positions.
This problem was seen in Canada during last year's climate conference in Bali. Stephane Dion, even though he was not a head of state arrogantly attended the conference feeling that he had the right to speak on Canada's behalf. Having two different delegations to represent Canada, one official and legitimate and the other intruding and out of place, did not make Canada look strong and respectable on the world stage.
Domestic politics are for within the country. Politicians should not attempt to engage in foreign policy without a mandate to do.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Shawn Brant's Hypocrisy and Arrogance Laughable
Shawn Brant, the leader of last year's illegal native seizure of the 401 and other highways, has made statements attacking police Chief Julian Fantino for doing his job properly. Apparently, because the OPP and the province of Ontario didn't capitulate and give into native demands makes them "arrogant, aggressive, and provocative." How does Brant not see the hypocrisy of his words? I certainly can think of few people as arrogant, aggressive, and provocative as him!
He acts like a bully, inconveniencing people greatly and committing crimes with nary a care in the world. Through his actions and words, he has lost any sympathy I ever had for his plight. When someone breaks the law, it is the role of the police to step in and restore order, not to mollycoddle and cater to their demands.
He acts like a bully, inconveniencing people greatly and committing crimes with nary a care in the world. Through his actions and words, he has lost any sympathy I ever had for his plight. When someone breaks the law, it is the role of the police to step in and restore order, not to mollycoddle and cater to their demands.
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Ultimate Example of Power-Hungry Unions Run Amok
Apparently, one of the city of Montreal's workers' unions is complaining that private property owners and shopkeepers are responsible for keeping their properties clean and neat. This union's sense of entitlement is so high that they are offended over a city bylaw obliging individuals to sweep outside their properties. Apparently the union considers the city to be enlisting "volunteers" to do their job instead of them. Seriously, this is not a joke.
As reported by the National Post on Saturday, the matter was referred to labour arbitration, and the union won. The arbitrator agreed with the union that sweeping and tidying streets and sidewalks was their domain and ordered the city to make sure that the cleaning of Montreal was handled by its union employees only.
No union so be so powerful and hold such a sense of entitlement that they can act in such an arrogant, intrusive, and greedy manner. Shame on them!
As reported by the National Post on Saturday, the matter was referred to labour arbitration, and the union won. The arbitrator agreed with the union that sweeping and tidying streets and sidewalks was their domain and ordered the city to make sure that the cleaning of Montreal was handled by its union employees only.
No union so be so powerful and hold such a sense of entitlement that they can act in such an arrogant, intrusive, and greedy manner. Shame on them!
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
More Revelations from the Elections Canada Liberal Donations Database
In continuing with this week’s theme of unmasking the Liberal Party’s poor donation record, here is the info as requested by some of my readers.
Requested Names
John McCallum – Gave nothing to the Liberal Party but did donate to leadership contestants ($228.64 to Ignatieff and $28.64 to Hall Findlay, Kennedy, Bennet, Fry, Dion, and Brison)
Ken Dryden – $962.56
Maria Minna - $225
Scott Brison - $1100 (maximum)
Pablo Rodriguez - nothing
Bob Rae – $1084.60
Paul Martin – $962.56
Jean Chretien - nothing
Justin Trudeau - nothing
MPs who Gave Full Amount
Carolyn Bennett
Scott Brison
Irwin Cotler
Ujjal Dosanjh
Mark Eyking
Karen Redman
That’s a grand total of 6 MPs giving the maximum amount ($1100) out of a total Liberal caucus of 95. As a percentage it works out to 6.3%. What great team players they are!
Mainstream Media FINALLY Picks Up Story on Liberal Loan
On June 2, I wrote a blog entry about the Liberal Party's $2 million loan from the Banque Nationale du Canada. On July 3, I wrote about the lack of attention on this story by the mainstream media. But today, a full week after I wrote about it, John Ivison has finally mentioned it is a National Post article. Yay! I particularly like his description of the loan:
"The financial statements also show a $2-million loan with a punishing 9% interest rate, collateralized against the assets not only of the party but of a number of riding associations. This is highly unusual and indicated a degree of financial stress long suspected but never admitted by the party."
After my post yesterday, I received several requests for the donations, or lack there of, made by other members of the Liberal Party. I promise that I will look into them today and post the results later this afternoon.
However, I will first address the repeated and erroneous allegations by an anonymous poster or poster that Stephen Harper did not donate to the CPC in the same way that Dion did not donate to the Liberals. Have a look at the following screenshot if you continue to doubt the Prime Minister's donations. He donated a total of $1100 which is the maximum amount allowed under Canada's election laws.
"The financial statements also show a $2-million loan with a punishing 9% interest rate, collateralized against the assets not only of the party but of a number of riding associations. This is highly unusual and indicated a degree of financial stress long suspected but never admitted by the party."
After my post yesterday, I received several requests for the donations, or lack there of, made by other members of the Liberal Party. I promise that I will look into them today and post the results later this afternoon.
However, I will first address the repeated and erroneous allegations by an anonymous poster or poster that Stephen Harper did not donate to the CPC in the same way that Dion did not donate to the Liberals. Have a look at the following screenshot if you continue to doubt the Prime Minister's donations. He donated a total of $1100 which is the maximum amount allowed under Canada's election laws.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Perhaps Belinda Stronach was too Poor to Donate??
Yesterday, I publicized the fact that Stephane Dion failed to donate to the Liberal Party in 2007, all while encouraging rank-and-file members of the Party to give generously. But, he's not the only one; several prominent prominent members gave either nothing at all or very minor donations. So today, I'm going to unmask them as well. All data was obtained through Elections Canada's searchable online records.
Prominent Liberals who gave ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the Liberal Party in 2007:
1. Belinda Stronach
2. Denis Coderre
3. Garth Turner
4. Ralph Goodale
5. Martha Hall Findlay
6. Wayne Easter
7. Dominic Leblanc
8. Mauril Belanger
9. David McGuinty
10. Keith Martin
Prominent Liberals who gave LESS THAN HALF THE MAXIMUM ($1100)
1. Michael Ignatieff ($462.60)
2. Ruby Dhalla ($462.56)
3. Hedy Fry ($382.24)
4. Paul Szabo ($255.27)
In addition to the above mentioned names, 31 other Liberals gave zero dollars to their party and 16 gave less than half the maximum donation. Keep in mind that each of these individuals earns at least $147 thousand.
How can the Liberals expect Canadians to support them financially when even they won't write a cheque to their so-called Victory Fund?
Prominent Liberals who gave ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the Liberal Party in 2007:
1. Belinda Stronach
2. Denis Coderre
3. Garth Turner
4. Ralph Goodale
5. Martha Hall Findlay
6. Wayne Easter
7. Dominic Leblanc
8. Mauril Belanger
9. David McGuinty
10. Keith Martin
Prominent Liberals who gave LESS THAN HALF THE MAXIMUM ($1100)
1. Michael Ignatieff ($462.60)
2. Ruby Dhalla ($462.56)
3. Hedy Fry ($382.24)
4. Paul Szabo ($255.27)
In addition to the above mentioned names, 31 other Liberals gave zero dollars to their party and 16 gave less than half the maximum donation. Keep in mind that each of these individuals earns at least $147 thousand.
How can the Liberals expect Canadians to support them financially when even they won't write a cheque to their so-called Victory Fund?
Monday, July 7, 2008
To Improve Liberal Fundraising, Why Doesn't Dion Himself Donate?
Today's Toronto Star has an article describing the new Liberal fundraising tactic of developing small grassroots donations. But Stephane Dion himself doesn't seem to favour donating to the Liberal Party, since he didn't donate to it during 2007. Going through the Elections Canada lists of donors over $200, Dion's name is suspiciously absent from the list.
Dion encourages rank-and-file members to donate, proclaiming the "giving to your party is the best way to give to your country," yet he, with his 218,000+ salary, he can't spare a few hundred dollars for the Liberals.
Maybe Dion, like most Canadians, realizes that the Liberals are hopelessly out of touch with Canadians and have no hope of winning the next election, and has decided to avoid betting his money on a losing horse.
When searching the database of Liberal Donors for "Dion", only the following entries appear:
No Stephane Dion. How can this man encourage Canadians to donate to the Liberals, when he doesn't support his own party financially?
Dion encourages rank-and-file members to donate, proclaiming the "giving to your party is the best way to give to your country," yet he, with his 218,000+ salary, he can't spare a few hundred dollars for the Liberals.
Maybe Dion, like most Canadians, realizes that the Liberals are hopelessly out of touch with Canadians and have no hope of winning the next election, and has decided to avoid betting his money on a losing horse.
When searching the database of Liberal Donors for "Dion", only the following entries appear:
No Stephane Dion. How can this man encourage Canadians to donate to the Liberals, when he doesn't support his own party financially?
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Liberal Debt Goes Unreported in Mainstream Media
Yesterday, I wrote about the Liberal Party's $2,000,000 bank loan. However, as expected, the mainstream media has failed to even mention this fact in their reports. The Canadian Press story on Elections Canada's recently released fundraising numbers does mention that the Liberals were vastly outpaced by the Conservatives and that they made little more than the NDP; however, there is nary a mention of their sizeable loan!
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Liberal Party Debt!
According to Elections Canada's online records database, the Liberal Party received a $2,000,000 bank loan from the Banque Nationale du Canada in 2007!
How delusional are the Liberals to think that they actually have a chnace to win an election and form a government if they need to rely on a loan?!? Neither the Conservatives nor the NDP were forced to take out a loan to cover operating expenses.
How delusional are the Liberals to think that they actually have a chnace to win an election and form a government if they need to rely on a loan?!? Neither the Conservatives nor the NDP were forced to take out a loan to cover operating expenses.
All Canadians Suffer when the Order of Canada Inducts Undeserving People like Henry Morgentaler
The decision announced yesterday to induct Henry Morgentaler into the Order of Canada has completely debased and devalued the entire system because his so-called "contributions" do not warrant official state recognition. The Order of Canada ought to be restricted to individuals who make Canadians proud and who are worthy of our praise. Making it easier (in a system that had already been far too easy to acquire an abortion) is not a contribution of which we should be proud.
Although I myself am firmly pro-life, I do understand (although I do not agree with) why some people are in favour of abortions being available. I understand their motivation and agenda, but I cannot in any way understand why this man is being celebrated. It is one thing to reluctantly allow abortions, but it is another to glorify the procedure. Abortion should never be celebrated or honoured - it is not a "good" procedure; it is regrettable and unfortunate.
Morgentaler’s appointment to the Order of Canada debases the entire system because his so-called “contributions” do not warrant official state recognition. The legacy of enabling the termination of 1/3 of all births in this country does not constitute a contribution to society or “desiring a better country.” It’s appallingly ironic that as survivor of a Nazi concentration camp himself, Morgentaler holds so little regard to human life.
Morgentaler’s crusade does not constitute “desiring a better country”, as the Order’s mantra states. The Order of Canada needs to be focused on individuals who promote a better Canada, not one devoid of morality and principle.
The inclusion of individuals like Morgentaler and Buzz Hargrove (who has done far more to hurt Canadian workers with his stubbornness and arrogance than to help them) in the Order of Canada is reprehensible. As of yesterday, it has little worth in my mind anyway; it has become little more than a false, superficial honour bestowed on the most undeserving of individuals.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Police Inaction in Native Seizure of Lawrence Cannon's Office Unacceptable
According to the Ottawa Sun, a group of Native and pro-Native protesters has seized and are currently occupying Lawrence Cannon's constituency office in Buckingham. This blatantly illegal and criminal action; however, has not prompted the police to swiftly remove them. Instead the protesters are "occupying the offices [...] under the watchful eye of police."
When a group, no matter what their heritage, ethnicity, or motivation, illegally enters and occupies any space to which they are not lawfully entitled, it is the obligation of the police to remove them. If a group of drug dealers had broken into and occupied a private residence, there is little doubt in my mind that the police would arrest them and charge them. Why the double standard when it comes to native protesters?
When a group, no matter what their heritage, ethnicity, or motivation, illegally enters and occupies any space to which they are not lawfully entitled, it is the obligation of the police to remove them. If a group of drug dealers had broken into and occupied a private residence, there is little doubt in my mind that the police would arrest them and charge them. Why the double standard when it comes to native protesters?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
More Smug Elitism for Liberal Senators - What a Shock!!!
Earlier, I had written about Liberal Senator Larry Campbell who wanted to dictate that Canadians spend their post-tax money only on things he considers good for the community, not as the individual sees fit. Now another senator, Celine Hervieux-Payette, the Liberal leader in the Senate is trying to overrule parental authority. In discussing the recent anti-spanking bill passed in the senate, she said it was important "to make sure that parents who are not properly educated" learn it is unacceptable to physically discipline their children.
Who is she to decide how a parent chooses to rear their children?!? And the elitism she has shown in claiming that parents who advocate their right to raise their children as they see fit are "not properly educated" is absolutely despicable and disgusting.
There is a great deal of difference between physical assault and spanking. Hervieux-Payette needs to wake up and realize that just because she is a senator, she doesn't know better than ordinary Canadians.
Who is she to decide how a parent chooses to rear their children?!? And the elitism she has shown in claiming that parents who advocate their right to raise their children as they see fit are "not properly educated" is absolutely despicable and disgusting.
There is a great deal of difference between physical assault and spanking. Hervieux-Payette needs to wake up and realize that just because she is a senator, she doesn't know better than ordinary Canadians.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Flying Banana Failure Shows that Individuals are a lot Smarter with Money than Culture Bureaucrats
Ordinary, hard-working men and women have once again shown that they are much smarter than bureaucrats in understanding the value of money and the value of public "art". While the Canada Council of the Arts gave $95,000 to an artist planning to fly a giant helium banana over Texas, normal people contributed only $12,018.
Apparently, when it's your own money to spend, stupid ideas aren't given much priority. When you're a bureaucrat freely spending taxpayers' money, then you spend it on idiotic projects like a flying banana.
Apparently, when it's your own money to spend, stupid ideas aren't given much priority. When you're a bureaucrat freely spending taxpayers' money, then you spend it on idiotic projects like a flying banana.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Banning Bottled Water is Going Way Too Far
This report from the National Post that the Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton school boards are considering banning the sale of bottled water in their elementary and secondary schools is a sign that governments are going way too far in encroaching on individual prerogative. The nanny state is apparently expanding to the point where it will make it difficult to choose one's own water source.
Let people choose whether or not they want to purchase bottled water, rather than taking away the option. Some people, myself included, prefer the taste of bottled water over tap water (I like the taste of Dasani water the best), and we should not be forced to drink tap water for the school boards to make an irritating environmental statement.
If students find the bottled water too expensive, of poor taste, or environmentally problematic, then those students can drink tap water. I'll stick with the bottle though.
Let people choose whether or not they want to purchase bottled water, rather than taking away the option. Some people, myself included, prefer the taste of bottled water over tap water (I like the taste of Dasani water the best), and we should not be forced to drink tap water for the school boards to make an irritating environmental statement.
If students find the bottled water too expensive, of poor taste, or environmentally problematic, then those students can drink tap water. I'll stick with the bottle though.
Friday, June 20, 2008
What Will Happen to Dion's Spending Promises if Carbon Emissions Go Down??
If Dion's Green Shift ever comes to be enacted (and I certainly hope it does not), I'm wondering how he would continue to pay for his spending promises if carbon emissions decline.
When announcing his plan yesterday, Dion made several spending initiatives (which do not count as tax cuts), such as their child tax benefit, their larger working income tax benefit, etc. The money to pay for these spending initiatives is supposed to come out of the revenue raised by the carbon tax. These are expensive initiatives that need large sums of cash in order to be paid for.
Even though the carbon tax would escalate over four years, what would happen if Canadians become so good at reducing their carbon output that not enough revenue is gathered??
When announcing his plan yesterday, Dion made several spending initiatives (which do not count as tax cuts), such as their child tax benefit, their larger working income tax benefit, etc. The money to pay for these spending initiatives is supposed to come out of the revenue raised by the carbon tax. These are expensive initiatives that need large sums of cash in order to be paid for.
Even though the carbon tax would escalate over four years, what would happen if Canadians become so good at reducing their carbon output that not enough revenue is gathered??
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Liberal Commercial so Stupid it's Hilarious
Has anyone else seen the Liberal commercial designed to promote their carbon tax plan? It is by far, the most ludicrous, stupidest, and silliest thing they have done for a long time! The Liberal caucus stands around clapping like fools as images of trees and animals are shown.
They complained that we weren't engaging in a debate on the substance of their carbon tax, and they respond by not promoting the specifics of their plan. What Idiots!
My favourite part of the add is the look on Bob Rae's face; he clearly doesn't want to be there. He's the smartest one of the group obviously.
They complained that we weren't engaging in a debate on the substance of their carbon tax, and they respond by not promoting the specifics of their plan. What Idiots!
My favourite part of the add is the look on Bob Rae's face; he clearly doesn't want to be there. He's the smartest one of the group obviously.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Liberals Want to Dictate How We Spend our Own Money
Liberal Senator Larry Campbell recently said that he believes that Canadians shouldn't be free to spend their money as they see fit. In a National Post article, he said the following, "There's always this idea that, if it's your own money you're spending, you can do whatever you want. Sorry. That doesn't happen in my world. You should be looking out the good of the country and the good of your community."
Do Stephane Dion and the rest of the Liberal Party agree with statement or do they believe, like most sensible Canadians, that we should have the freedom to spend our post-tax money as we see fit??
Do Stephane Dion and the rest of the Liberal Party agree with statement or do they believe, like most sensible Canadians, that we should have the freedom to spend our post-tax money as we see fit??
Can Someone Please Explain why the Government Pays for This???
According to an Ottawa Citizen article, Canada's government employs a parliamentary poet laureate, which costs taxpayers up to $83 ,000 annually (plus costs to select a new one every second year). Seriously, I want to know how and why Parliament thinks this is an acceptable use of taxpayers' hard-earned funds...
Party of the money is for a stipend, part for translation, and part for travel costs. Some of the previous holders of the office have written poems to commemorate important occasions, while others have apparently refused to write on request.
Heritage Canada is already notorious for wasting our money, and this is just further proof that the department's budget should be cut. Positions like Poet Laureates should not be filled while we have long wait times in hospitals, not enough police officers on the streets, and our military still requires increased funds to operate at a satisfactory level.
Party of the money is for a stipend, part for translation, and part for travel costs. Some of the previous holders of the office have written poems to commemorate important occasions, while others have apparently refused to write on request.
Heritage Canada is already notorious for wasting our money, and this is just further proof that the department's budget should be cut. Positions like Poet Laureates should not be filled while we have long wait times in hospitals, not enough police officers on the streets, and our military still requires increased funds to operate at a satisfactory level.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Actually, the Bar is Much Higher for Elected Officials
Some media reports today are quoting a former Mountie and CSIS agent as telling a parliamentary committee that the government has a "double standard" with regards to the security screenings for Ministers. Some Opposition MPs have also complained that bureaucrats have to go through much more rigorous security screenings.
I disagree with the argument that Ministers are given an easier screening, since they face the electorate first, which bureaucrats and civil servants do not. Instead, they are appointed and hired (often staying in their jobs for years and decades) with no public scrutiny into their suitability or merit for the position. Instead the public is forced to just trust other bureaucrats that these people are fit for their positions.
Maxime Bernier was elected by the people of Beauce. He passed the most stringent examination possible already.
I disagree with the argument that Ministers are given an easier screening, since they face the electorate first, which bureaucrats and civil servants do not. Instead, they are appointed and hired (often staying in their jobs for years and decades) with no public scrutiny into their suitability or merit for the position. Instead the public is forced to just trust other bureaucrats that these people are fit for their positions.
Maxime Bernier was elected by the people of Beauce. He passed the most stringent examination possible already.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Liberals Accuse Conservatives of Misleading in Order to Cover their Efforts to Mislead
The Liberal Party's website has a press release from yesterday which attempts to mislead Canadians about the Canada Elections Act and its legal obligations. Either the Liberal Party doesn't understand the Elections Act, hasn't even read it, or just hopes that Canadians are too stupid to understand it themselves.
Rather than admitting that they have contravened the Canada Elections Act by not repaying leadership campaign loans on time, they pretend that they are under no obligation to do so within the 18 month prescribed period.
They claim that: "In fact the rules are clearly spelled out the Canada Election Act in Section 435.29. A number of people are under the impression that June 3 is a debt repayment deadline. In fact, the Elections Act allows candidates to honour binding agreements to pay beyond the 18-month period. The June 3 deadline is not a 'repayment' deadline at all."
How can the Liberals claim that June 3 is not a repayment deadline when the Elections Act [s. 435.24 (1)] clearly states a leadership debt "must be paid within 18 months after the end of the leadership contest." To pretend that the phrase 'must be paid with in' does not constitute a repayment deadline is sheer lunacy.
Furthermore, the Act [s. 435.26 (1)] states that an extension may be granted if the Chief Electoral Officer is "satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so." This is not an automatically granted extension as the Liberal press release seems to indicate. I find it laughable also that the Liberal Party seems to think that 'reasonable grounds' for an extension include inability to pay due to lack of support, lack of fundraising, and general poverty of the Liberal Party and its former leadership candidates.
I suggest that the Liberal Party actually read the Canada Elections Act in full prior to making erroneous claims about the Act and its provisions for the repayment of debts by leadership candidates.
Rather than admitting that they have contravened the Canada Elections Act by not repaying leadership campaign loans on time, they pretend that they are under no obligation to do so within the 18 month prescribed period.
They claim that: "In fact the rules are clearly spelled out the Canada Election Act in Section 435.29. A number of people are under the impression that June 3 is a debt repayment deadline. In fact, the Elections Act allows candidates to honour binding agreements to pay beyond the 18-month period. The June 3 deadline is not a 'repayment' deadline at all."
How can the Liberals claim that June 3 is not a repayment deadline when the Elections Act [s. 435.24 (1)] clearly states a leadership debt "must be paid within 18 months after the end of the leadership contest." To pretend that the phrase 'must be paid with in' does not constitute a repayment deadline is sheer lunacy.
Furthermore, the Act [s. 435.26 (1)] states that an extension may be granted if the Chief Electoral Officer is "satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so." This is not an automatically granted extension as the Liberal press release seems to indicate. I find it laughable also that the Liberal Party seems to think that 'reasonable grounds' for an extension include inability to pay due to lack of support, lack of fundraising, and general poverty of the Liberal Party and its former leadership candidates.
I suggest that the Liberal Party actually read the Canada Elections Act in full prior to making erroneous claims about the Act and its provisions for the repayment of debts by leadership candidates.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Cadman Tape Doctored!
The Conservatives have presented evidence to the media that the tape made by author Tom Zytaruk on the subject of allegations that the conservatives made offers to MP chuck Cadman in exchange for his support in a 2005 confidence vote against the Liberals has been proven to be a fake tape!
Recently broken in The Globe and Mail, the story confirms that the tape which the Liberals have been using to smear and slander the Conservatives is incomplete and doctored through the deliberate insertion of a sound clip into the tape.
the Liberals will now have to answer a serious of serious questions:
1. Did they know the tape was doctored?
2. How long have they been using the tape knowing it was doctored?
3. Who is responsible for this?
4. When will the Liberals apologize for their slanderous attacks and misrepresentation of the Prime Minster, Conservative officials, and the Conservative Party as a whole?
Recently broken in The Globe and Mail, the story confirms that the tape which the Liberals have been using to smear and slander the Conservatives is incomplete and doctored through the deliberate insertion of a sound clip into the tape.
the Liberals will now have to answer a serious of serious questions:
1. Did they know the tape was doctored?
2. How long have they been using the tape knowing it was doctored?
3. Who is responsible for this?
4. When will the Liberals apologize for their slanderous attacks and misrepresentation of the Prime Minster, Conservative officials, and the Conservative Party as a whole?
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Left-wing Outrage over Illegal Downloading Laughable
One of today's articles in the National Post seems to argue that imposing fines on Internet users who illegally download copyright material are objectionable and harmful. I think the far more objectionable attitude is that taken by these critics who seem to feel that blatant theft is not only harmless, but ought not to be criminalized.
The article argues: "Critics have said the [similar] U.S. copyright bill is ineffective in enforcing infringement and sends the wrong message to consumers." Actually, I think it sends the 100% right message: that theft is wrong, incredibly serious, and has real and harsh consequences.
Some of these left-wing activists seem to believe that there should be no consequences for depriving artists and producers of income that they should expect to earn (and maybe if they were getting all of the income they deserved, they would feel less entitled to Canadian taxpayers' money in the form of subsidies and tax credits...). The act remains that copyright material is a good produced by an individual and/or company which they expect to sell for a profit. They do not do so for nothing so that consumers can steal and distribute their work free of charge.
We need to strike back at this outrageous culture of entitlement where theft is not wrong. Theft is a crime, a very serious crime, and it's time that Canada stood up to send this message to thieves and their advocacy groups.
The article argues: "Critics have said the [similar] U.S. copyright bill is ineffective in enforcing infringement and sends the wrong message to consumers." Actually, I think it sends the 100% right message: that theft is wrong, incredibly serious, and has real and harsh consequences.
Some of these left-wing activists seem to believe that there should be no consequences for depriving artists and producers of income that they should expect to earn (and maybe if they were getting all of the income they deserved, they would feel less entitled to Canadian taxpayers' money in the form of subsidies and tax credits...). The act remains that copyright material is a good produced by an individual and/or company which they expect to sell for a profit. They do not do so for nothing so that consumers can steal and distribute their work free of charge.
We need to strike back at this outrageous culture of entitlement where theft is not wrong. Theft is a crime, a very serious crime, and it's time that Canada stood up to send this message to thieves and their advocacy groups.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Liberal Delusions Obvious on their Website
Has anyone else noticed that the photo the Liberal Party uses on their website is actually a photo from the thirty-eighth Parliament with Paul Martin as the Prime Minister? It seems to me that the Liberals are so deluded and desperate to get back into power that they are pretending as though they still are the government.
If you look closely at the picture, you can see that the man standing on the government side is Paul Martin and the individuals seated next to him is Anne McLellan. You can also identify Judy Sgro and Lucienne Robillard to the right of Martin. On the opposition side, it is easy to identify Dean Allison, James Lunney, Art Hanger, Lynne Yelich, and Gerald Keddy.
The Liberals still seem to think they are the government, both in their actions in Parliament as well as on their website. When will they realize that they are the opposition and they are there rightfully so.
UPDATE: Apparently, the Liberals have now since removed this image from their website. It had been one of the rotating photos on their homepage.
If you look closely at the picture, you can see that the man standing on the government side is Paul Martin and the individuals seated next to him is Anne McLellan. You can also identify Judy Sgro and Lucienne Robillard to the right of Martin. On the opposition side, it is easy to identify Dean Allison, James Lunney, Art Hanger, Lynne Yelich, and Gerald Keddy.
The Liberals still seem to think they are the government, both in their actions in Parliament as well as on their website. When will they realize that they are the opposition and they are there rightfully so.
UPDATE: Apparently, the Liberals have now since removed this image from their website. It had been one of the rotating photos on their homepage.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Finally, Something For Which to Applaud the Supreme Court
In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has overturned an appeal court's decision to reduce a convicted child abuser's sentence from 15 years to nine. Following several of their missteps lately, we finally get to see the Supreme Court doing the right thing.
Thanks to the SCoC, the man who, according to a ctv.ca story, "sexually assaulted his four-year-old daughter and took pornographic pictures of her and a young friend," will no be adequately punished for his heinous and terrible crimes.
Apparently, the dissenting judge argued that the 'original sentence was overly sever in comparison to sentences in similar cases.' I would argue that he is wrong and instead, these other similar cases were underwhelmingly lenient and irresponsible. When an individual does something so wrong as to abuse, physically and mentally harm, and exploit young children, a very harsh sentence is required in order to see justice served.
Unlike their recent decision to enshrine the youth court into the constitution of Canada, which is factually incorrect (seeing as it was a policy decision to create it in 1908, it should continue to exist solely at the privilege of parliament with the right to change or even remove it remaining firmly in the hands of policy makers), this is an example of the SCoC doing the right thing.
Now if only we could see more similar decisions!
Thanks to the SCoC, the man who, according to a ctv.ca story, "sexually assaulted his four-year-old daughter and took pornographic pictures of her and a young friend," will no be adequately punished for his heinous and terrible crimes.
Apparently, the dissenting judge argued that the 'original sentence was overly sever in comparison to sentences in similar cases.' I would argue that he is wrong and instead, these other similar cases were underwhelmingly lenient and irresponsible. When an individual does something so wrong as to abuse, physically and mentally harm, and exploit young children, a very harsh sentence is required in order to see justice served.
Unlike their recent decision to enshrine the youth court into the constitution of Canada, which is factually incorrect (seeing as it was a policy decision to create it in 1908, it should continue to exist solely at the privilege of parliament with the right to change or even remove it remaining firmly in the hands of policy makers), this is an example of the SCoC doing the right thing.
Now if only we could see more similar decisions!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
David Miller Goes Crazy Once Again - This Time it's about Guns
Toronto Mayor David Miller's plans to introduce a ban on handguns and gun clubs in Toronto is, quite simply, one of the stupidest plans he has had in a long time (and for David Miller, that is saying quite a lot).
Miller advocates rescinding licenses held by two gun clubs, and making it illegal (through zoning restrictions) to "manufacture, assemble, or store" firearms in Toronto. He tries to justify this by saying, "I want a safe city. The truth is, guns are too easily available and if you talk to some kids in some neighbourhoods they tell you they want a gun to protect themselves."
While Miller seems to think that these kids are cowering in fear at the thought of target shooters and gun club members, I suspect they're probably a lot more afraid of street gangs and illegal guns smuggled in from the United States. Maybe instead of attacking responsible and legal gun owners, he could try to do something to reduce violence in those neighbourhoods he mentioned perhaps.
David Miller it's time to wake up and realize that if you want to reduce gun violence, you need to focus on those people who use guns in a violent manner and not everyone else.
Miller advocates rescinding licenses held by two gun clubs, and making it illegal (through zoning restrictions) to "manufacture, assemble, or store" firearms in Toronto. He tries to justify this by saying, "I want a safe city. The truth is, guns are too easily available and if you talk to some kids in some neighbourhoods they tell you they want a gun to protect themselves."
While Miller seems to think that these kids are cowering in fear at the thought of target shooters and gun club members, I suspect they're probably a lot more afraid of street gangs and illegal guns smuggled in from the United States. Maybe instead of attacking responsible and legal gun owners, he could try to do something to reduce violence in those neighbourhoods he mentioned perhaps.
David Miller it's time to wake up and realize that if you want to reduce gun violence, you need to focus on those people who use guns in a violent manner and not everyone else.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Quebec Politicians Need to Back Off and Let the American Film Industry Make Its Own Business Decisions
According to ctv.ca, many Quebec politicians, including the ADQ, are demanding that the American film industry dub their films into French in Quebec. They would be willing to see a law passed forcing this to occur, unless the industry is willing to cave into their demands.
This is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous! The government of Quebec has no right or business whatsoever placing demands on an independent and foreign industry. What's next? Dictating the content of Hollywood films to their specifications??
The film industry needs to be free to make their own business decisions. If they see economic justification for dubbing a film into French in Quebec, then they will do it. If they don't, then they shouldn't be forced to do so.
This is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous! The government of Quebec has no right or business whatsoever placing demands on an independent and foreign industry. What's next? Dictating the content of Hollywood films to their specifications??
The film industry needs to be free to make their own business decisions. If they see economic justification for dubbing a film into French in Quebec, then they will do it. If they don't, then they shouldn't be forced to do so.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Vic Toews Judiciary Rumors
Apparently, former Justice Minister and current President of the Treasury Board Vic Toews is being considered for an appointment as a Federal judge in Manitoba. If true, and he accepts the appointment, it will be a great loss for the Conservative government as well as a great gain for the people of Manitoba.
Although he has not received as much visibility or publicity as President of the Treasury Board, his actions as Minister of justice included some of the most commendable and innovative reforms in generations.
Although he has not received as much visibility or publicity as President of the Treasury Board, his actions as Minister of justice included some of the most commendable and innovative reforms in generations.
- He worked tirelessly to raise the age of sexual consent to protect children from sexual predators and exploitative adults.
- He helped ensure that criminals convicted of serious crimes are not eligible to be sentences to house arrest.
- He was responsible for initiating reforms calling for mandatory minimum sentences for people who commit gun crimes.
- He accurately recognized that a lenient and mild youth criminal justice system does nothing to help rehabilitate criminals or to protect society.
- He fought to protect society and innocent victims by introducing revamped 'dangerous offender' legislation.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
UN Security Council Seat a Popularity Contest Not Necessarily Worth Winning
If the only way to get a seat on the UN Security Council is to pander to tyrannical regimes and totalitarian states, then perhaps Canada should not be so desirous of one.
Canada is currently not represented on the Security Council, although we are currently seeking election to a seat for 20011-2012. There has been some media speculation that Canada's chance of getting one of two available seats has decreased. Yesterday the Liberal Party put out a press release criticizing the government saying that "in two years, this Prime Minister has diminished our place at the United Nations."
I am proud of the stands that Canada's government has taken on issues under the Conservatives. No longer do we stand on the sidelines, afraid to give an accurate assessment of a situation out of fear of offending some nation or another.
We should not concern ourselves with what the dictatorships and authoritarians of the world think of us. If they approve of what Canada is doing, then we are obviously not doing enough to stand up for security and human rights and freedoms in the world. If the price for representation on the Security Council is to lose our ability to comment accurately and frankly on the state of world affairs, then I, for one, would rather we sacrifice the seat than our principles.
Canada is currently not represented on the Security Council, although we are currently seeking election to a seat for 20011-2012. There has been some media speculation that Canada's chance of getting one of two available seats has decreased. Yesterday the Liberal Party put out a press release criticizing the government saying that "in two years, this Prime Minister has diminished our place at the United Nations."
I am proud of the stands that Canada's government has taken on issues under the Conservatives. No longer do we stand on the sidelines, afraid to give an accurate assessment of a situation out of fear of offending some nation or another.
We should not concern ourselves with what the dictatorships and authoritarians of the world think of us. If they approve of what Canada is doing, then we are obviously not doing enough to stand up for security and human rights and freedoms in the world. If the price for representation on the Security Council is to lose our ability to comment accurately and frankly on the state of world affairs, then I, for one, would rather we sacrifice the seat than our principles.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Dion Pitches Carbon Tax Plan to the Wealthy who can Most Afford it
The Toronto Star has a short article this morning which describes a speech Stephan Dion gave last night to a 800 supporters in Montreal in favour of his carbon tax plan. Each of these supporters paid $500 a plate to hear him speak.
$500 a plate?!?!? Anyone who can afford to spend/waste $500 to listen to Stephane Dion clearly has enough money to pay for a carbon tax.
These supporters will be able to afford paying higher gas prices every time they go to the gas station. These supporters will be able to afford paying higher heating bills every winter and higher air conditioning bills every summer. These supporters will be able to pay higher prices for food and goods they already depend upon and use.
I wonder why Dion choose that particular crowd to pitch his carbon tax plan to? Why didn't he announce his plan to a group of senior citizens living on fixed incomes? Why didn't he announce his plan to a group of middle class parents who worry about paying for their children's extra-curricular activities, school trips, and university education? Why didn't he announce it to a group of small business owners who rely on fuel and energy to power their business and get products made? Why didn't he announce it to a group of automotive sector employees whose jobs are already tenuous enough without increased fuel and energy taxes?
The answer is quite obvious: these groups cannot afford to pay his carbon tax, while the wealthy elite can.
Even though the Liberals claim that they would respond with decreases to income taxes (a claim which I do not trust - the Liberals never saw a tax they didn't like or wouldn't accept), they seem to have forgotten that not every Canadian pays income taxes. What about students, low income Canadians, and retirees who aren't making enough money to be taxes? they won't see any benefit, but they will see their heating and gas bills rise.
Stephane Dion choose to unveil his intention to introduce a carbon tax plan to a group of wealthy elites, because they're the only Canadians who can actually afford to pay for it.
$500 a plate?!?!? Anyone who can afford to spend/waste $500 to listen to Stephane Dion clearly has enough money to pay for a carbon tax.
These supporters will be able to afford paying higher gas prices every time they go to the gas station. These supporters will be able to afford paying higher heating bills every winter and higher air conditioning bills every summer. These supporters will be able to pay higher prices for food and goods they already depend upon and use.
I wonder why Dion choose that particular crowd to pitch his carbon tax plan to? Why didn't he announce his plan to a group of senior citizens living on fixed incomes? Why didn't he announce his plan to a group of middle class parents who worry about paying for their children's extra-curricular activities, school trips, and university education? Why didn't he announce it to a group of small business owners who rely on fuel and energy to power their business and get products made? Why didn't he announce it to a group of automotive sector employees whose jobs are already tenuous enough without increased fuel and energy taxes?
The answer is quite obvious: these groups cannot afford to pay his carbon tax, while the wealthy elite can.
Even though the Liberals claim that they would respond with decreases to income taxes (a claim which I do not trust - the Liberals never saw a tax they didn't like or wouldn't accept), they seem to have forgotten that not every Canadian pays income taxes. What about students, low income Canadians, and retirees who aren't making enough money to be taxes? they won't see any benefit, but they will see their heating and gas bills rise.
Stephane Dion choose to unveil his intention to introduce a carbon tax plan to a group of wealthy elites, because they're the only Canadians who can actually afford to pay for it.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Liberal Party Wrong to Assume that All Institutions are Non-Partisan and Unbiased
Recently, the Liberal Party and its leader Stephane Dion have criticized the Conservatives for what he characterized as a "war on federal institutions," for daring to criticize and/or intervene in some government institutions, like the Wheat Board and Elections Canada.
Liberals merely assume that these institutions are non-partisan and unbiased; however, this does not seem to be the case. The Liberals treasure these institutions because they represent and mirror the values and policies of the Liberal Party.
For instance, Elections Canada has focused on a witch hunt of the Conservative Party over election financing when all parties, not just the Conservative Party, engage in financial transfers between local and national campaigns. Yet, Elections Canada has focused its energy solely on investigating the Conservatives. This can hardly be considered a hallmark of non-partisanship!
Similarly, members of the Canadian Wheat Board who support the Liberals' policy of pro-monopoly powers over wheat and grains grown in Western Canada have been removed from their government-appointed positions for not supporting the official government policy. It is not up to unelected civil servants to dictate what policy will be, even if they wish they could (especially if they are trying to preserve or implement policies of former Liberal governments!).
When a Liberal sees something as non-partisan, they mean that the organization or institution is not opposed to them, rather than being truly neutral and unbiased.
Liberals merely assume that these institutions are non-partisan and unbiased; however, this does not seem to be the case. The Liberals treasure these institutions because they represent and mirror the values and policies of the Liberal Party.
For instance, Elections Canada has focused on a witch hunt of the Conservative Party over election financing when all parties, not just the Conservative Party, engage in financial transfers between local and national campaigns. Yet, Elections Canada has focused its energy solely on investigating the Conservatives. This can hardly be considered a hallmark of non-partisanship!
Similarly, members of the Canadian Wheat Board who support the Liberals' policy of pro-monopoly powers over wheat and grains grown in Western Canada have been removed from their government-appointed positions for not supporting the official government policy. It is not up to unelected civil servants to dictate what policy will be, even if they wish they could (especially if they are trying to preserve or implement policies of former Liberal governments!).
When a Liberal sees something as non-partisan, they mean that the organization or institution is not opposed to them, rather than being truly neutral and unbiased.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Fighting Native Gang Violence Needs to be a Priority
This Globe and Mail story shocked me when I read it this morning. It concerns the proliferation and extreme violence committed by members of native gangs, specifically groups callings themselves the Indian Posse, the Manitoba Warriors, and the Native Syndicate.
The level of violence they are prepared to commit is heinous, deplorable, and nothing short of terrorism in trying to suppress dissent and co-operation with the police. One women they interviewed has been shot at, beaten twice, and has had her windows smashed and destroyed. Other members of the community have had their homes burned down in a deliberate act of aggression and intimidation. In order to finance their operations, they are involved in drug trafficking and organized prostitution.
Although the story does make it clear that many of the gangs' members are currently in prison (which is a very good thing), it seems they are still involved in directing the operations of the gang from their jail cells.
We as a society can no longer ignore the danger that gangs cause in Canada, especially these native gangs. They are preying on some of the most vulnerable Canadians who have no option to escape and must instead remain on the reserves alongside these criminals, thugs, and terrorists. The courts and corrections systems need to start taking this issue more seriously and put a stop to it. If gang leaders are able to direct the activities of the gang on the streets, then they have obviously been granted far too much latitude and freedom in their facilities. They need to be removed from any communication with the outside world in order to protect innocent victims.
Furthermore, the police need to be much more active in arresting and charging gang members. Once convicted, they need to receive longer and more stringent sentences. Keeping these people out of society and off of the reserves where they carry out their criminal activities and intimidation tactics is crucial to protecting innocent men, women, and children.
The level of violence they are prepared to commit is heinous, deplorable, and nothing short of terrorism in trying to suppress dissent and co-operation with the police. One women they interviewed has been shot at, beaten twice, and has had her windows smashed and destroyed. Other members of the community have had their homes burned down in a deliberate act of aggression and intimidation. In order to finance their operations, they are involved in drug trafficking and organized prostitution.
Although the story does make it clear that many of the gangs' members are currently in prison (which is a very good thing), it seems they are still involved in directing the operations of the gang from their jail cells.
We as a society can no longer ignore the danger that gangs cause in Canada, especially these native gangs. They are preying on some of the most vulnerable Canadians who have no option to escape and must instead remain on the reserves alongside these criminals, thugs, and terrorists. The courts and corrections systems need to start taking this issue more seriously and put a stop to it. If gang leaders are able to direct the activities of the gang on the streets, then they have obviously been granted far too much latitude and freedom in their facilities. They need to be removed from any communication with the outside world in order to protect innocent victims.
Furthermore, the police need to be much more active in arresting and charging gang members. Once convicted, they need to receive longer and more stringent sentences. Keeping these people out of society and off of the reserves where they carry out their criminal activities and intimidation tactics is crucial to protecting innocent men, women, and children.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Dion's Support for Terrorist the Wrong Policy for Canada
Yesterday, the Liberal Party of Canada posted a news release on their website calling for the Canadian government not to "pick and choose when to intervene on behalf of its citizens abroad."
Dion then proceeds to advocate on behalf of Omar Khadr, the terrorist and alleged murderer currently being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, as if supporting him were the same thing as the recent support offered by the government of Canada towards Brenda Martin, who had been incarcerated in Mexico.
This is a completely ludicrous, naive, and dangerous political position to adopt. Omar Khadr and his entire family are dangerous and should be considered enemies of the Canadian state and way of life. The reason why he is in Guantanamo Bay in the first place is because he was captured fighting for the terrorist organizations of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Not only was he fighting on behalf of an oppressive and evil regime, he also is believed to have murdered an American soldier with a grenade.
Brenda Martin, on the other hand, worked as a chef for a man responsible for a fraud scheme. Although evidence was tenuous, she was convicted in the matter for accepting a severance payment from her employer which originated through the fraud scheme.
Brenda Martin is the type of Canadian we should be supporting abroad; Omar Khadr is most definitely not. There is a large distinction between being a side player in a fraud scheme and participating in a terrorist organization and murdering an American soldier.
It is imperative that Canada retain the ability to pick and choose who is deserving of our support abroad. Terrorists and murderers do not deserve the protection and privileges of the Canadian state.
Dion then proceeds to advocate on behalf of Omar Khadr, the terrorist and alleged murderer currently being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, as if supporting him were the same thing as the recent support offered by the government of Canada towards Brenda Martin, who had been incarcerated in Mexico.
This is a completely ludicrous, naive, and dangerous political position to adopt. Omar Khadr and his entire family are dangerous and should be considered enemies of the Canadian state and way of life. The reason why he is in Guantanamo Bay in the first place is because he was captured fighting for the terrorist organizations of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Not only was he fighting on behalf of an oppressive and evil regime, he also is believed to have murdered an American soldier with a grenade.
Brenda Martin, on the other hand, worked as a chef for a man responsible for a fraud scheme. Although evidence was tenuous, she was convicted in the matter for accepting a severance payment from her employer which originated through the fraud scheme.
Brenda Martin is the type of Canadian we should be supporting abroad; Omar Khadr is most definitely not. There is a large distinction between being a side player in a fraud scheme and participating in a terrorist organization and murdering an American soldier.
It is imperative that Canada retain the ability to pick and choose who is deserving of our support abroad. Terrorists and murderers do not deserve the protection and privileges of the Canadian state.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Pat Martin Is a fool
In a ctv.ca story NDP MP Pat Martin has once again made a fool of himself in his rush to condemn the Conservative Party for legal expenses before properly uncovering the facts.
In this story, he complains that ridings are "misrepresenting the value of the polling" they had conducted. he basis this assessment on a quote he obtained by personally calling a polling firm for 400 people. Well, Pat, did it ever occur to you that maybe these polling calls were supposed to reach more than 400 people???
In elections, races are won and lost on the basis of their lists of supporters and the Get Out The Vote (GOTV) effort, which you get my conducting calls to people and asking them if they will support you. And, trust me, you need more than 400 people listed as supporters .
Maybe he was confused because the NDP is used to only being able to find 400 supporters in their ridings and assumed we would all have such low support...
In this story, he complains that ridings are "misrepresenting the value of the polling" they had conducted. he basis this assessment on a quote he obtained by personally calling a polling firm for 400 people. Well, Pat, did it ever occur to you that maybe these polling calls were supposed to reach more than 400 people???
In elections, races are won and lost on the basis of their lists of supporters and the Get Out The Vote (GOTV) effort, which you get my conducting calls to people and asking them if they will support you. And, trust me, you need more than 400 people listed as supporters .
Maybe he was confused because the NDP is used to only being able to find 400 supporters in their ridings and assumed we would all have such low support...
Monday, April 21, 2008
Inmate Threats Should Not be Tolerated
Earlier this year, Correctional Service of Canada, the government agency which manage and run the nation's federal prison system, announced that as of May, outdoor smoking would no longer be allowed. Indoor smoking has been prohibited as of 2006.
I support this initiative and believe in the importance of removing drugs and other harmful and addictive substances from our prisons. Illegal drugs obviously should remain illegal, but it is no less important to ensure the health and safety of our prison officials and staff.
Nonetheless, I do concede that this will no be easy nor will compliance come about quickly. On the Ottawa Citizen's website, there is a story raising some of this difficulties and issues. The part of this story which I take issue with concerns the response of inmates to the smoking ban. Apparently, when consulted, inmates were "overwhelmingly against a total ban, warning it would possibly lead to cases of 'serious confrontation and possible damage.'"
Where in the world do these inmates get they idea that they have the right to threaten Corrections Canada and prison staff?!? This is simply not acceptable. These individuals have been imprisoned because they could not comply with society's laws, and no they think they have the right to threaten harm to people and property over the right to smoke.
If you are really concerned about the right to smoke, perhaps you shouldn't have commit a crime. Non-imprisoned Canadians have the right to smoke in their private residences, which is a privilege. When you are incarcerated, you, rightfully lose that privilege only with many others.
I support this initiative and believe in the importance of removing drugs and other harmful and addictive substances from our prisons. Illegal drugs obviously should remain illegal, but it is no less important to ensure the health and safety of our prison officials and staff.
Nonetheless, I do concede that this will no be easy nor will compliance come about quickly. On the Ottawa Citizen's website, there is a story raising some of this difficulties and issues. The part of this story which I take issue with concerns the response of inmates to the smoking ban. Apparently, when consulted, inmates were "overwhelmingly against a total ban, warning it would possibly lead to cases of 'serious confrontation and possible damage.'"
Where in the world do these inmates get they idea that they have the right to threaten Corrections Canada and prison staff?!? This is simply not acceptable. These individuals have been imprisoned because they could not comply with society's laws, and no they think they have the right to threaten harm to people and property over the right to smoke.
If you are really concerned about the right to smoke, perhaps you shouldn't have commit a crime. Non-imprisoned Canadians have the right to smoke in their private residences, which is a privilege. When you are incarcerated, you, rightfully lose that privilege only with many others.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Paul Martin Golf Course Just Another Distraction from Actually being an MP
I read on the National post's website this morning that former Prime Minister Paul Martin has obtained municipal approval for a six-hole golf course on his property in Brome Lake in Quebec.
For a man who barely shows up for work in the House of Commons, this can only serve as a further distraction. Once his course is completed, what chance is there that Martin will actually show up and vote in the House of Commons for a change?
For a man who barely shows up for work in the House of Commons, this can only serve as a further distraction. Once his course is completed, what chance is there that Martin will actually show up and vote in the House of Commons for a change?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Stop Spending Taxpayers' Money on Films they don't Support
Much fuss has been made lately over the Conservative Government's Bill C-10 which dictates that offensive films ought not to receive tax credits from the government. Many left-wing activists and celebrities have denounced this Bill as promoting censorship.
Well, I, too, am offended by this issue; however, not at the government but at these activists and filmmakers. No film, offensive or not, should be made at the taxpayers' expensive. If these films are not good enough to recoup their expenses and make a profit at the theatre, then perhaps they should not be made in the first place. These activists are making films which lose money and they expect the Canadian government and people to pay for it.
If I want to patronize any element of the artistic community, I choose to spend my money at the theatres, museums, galleries, etc. If what an individual artist creates does not appeal to me or offends me, I instead choose not to spend my money on them. Unfortunately, some of my money does go to support these works which I do not support in the form of tax credits. This is unacceptable.
Let these films sink or swim on their own merit, not on the backs of the taxpayers.
Well, I, too, am offended by this issue; however, not at the government but at these activists and filmmakers. No film, offensive or not, should be made at the taxpayers' expensive. If these films are not good enough to recoup their expenses and make a profit at the theatre, then perhaps they should not be made in the first place. These activists are making films which lose money and they expect the Canadian government and people to pay for it.
If I want to patronize any element of the artistic community, I choose to spend my money at the theatres, museums, galleries, etc. If what an individual artist creates does not appeal to me or offends me, I instead choose not to spend my money on them. Unfortunately, some of my money does go to support these works which I do not support in the form of tax credits. This is unacceptable.
Let these films sink or swim on their own merit, not on the backs of the taxpayers.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Youth Crime Laws Need to Change
This morning, there is a Canadian Press news story about Winnipeg police arresting a 10-year-old boy who has set nearly three dozen fires in the city. Furthermore, the police have no option to pursue criminal charges against this young criminal because his is less than 12 years old.
This is completely unacceptable and outrageous. The youth exemption was put in place in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to prevent children from being charged when they cannot differentiate between right and wrong in their actions. Any child who sets more than 30 fires using Molotov cocktails is no doe-eyed innocent deserving of protection. This is deliberate, premeditated, and habitual criminal activity and it should be treated as such.
While I do concede that some youth crime is the result of youthful exuberance or getting accidentally and temporarily caught up with the wrong group of friends, a great deal of results from repeat and violent young offenders. Despite their age, these criminals are no different than an adult committing the same crime.
I firmly believe that it is time for the government to introduce substantive amendments to the YCJA in order to properly address youth crime in Canada. We need our laws to recognize and reflect the current realities of young offenders in Canada.
What do you think on this issue? Agree? Disagree? Suggestions?
This is completely unacceptable and outrageous. The youth exemption was put in place in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to prevent children from being charged when they cannot differentiate between right and wrong in their actions. Any child who sets more than 30 fires using Molotov cocktails is no doe-eyed innocent deserving of protection. This is deliberate, premeditated, and habitual criminal activity and it should be treated as such.
While I do concede that some youth crime is the result of youthful exuberance or getting accidentally and temporarily caught up with the wrong group of friends, a great deal of results from repeat and violent young offenders. Despite their age, these criminals are no different than an adult committing the same crime.
I firmly believe that it is time for the government to introduce substantive amendments to the YCJA in order to properly address youth crime in Canada. We need our laws to recognize and reflect the current realities of young offenders in Canada.
What do you think on this issue? Agree? Disagree? Suggestions?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Proud of Conservative Government for Standing up for Sealers
Today, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Loyola Hearn, announced that members of the conservation group, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, will be charged for unlawfully interfering with the seal hunt in Atlantic Canada. I am very proud of Hearn for taking decisive action against this group who have broken the law and endangered the lives of Canadian sealers.
For far too long, groups like the Sea Shepherd Society have broken the law to advance their agenda. A crime is a crime, no matter where it takes place. These individuals need to be held to account. No one is above the law, and if the law states that observers must stay more than 500m from the sealers, following it is not optional. The Sea Shepherd society disagrees with this and feels that they are above the law. When informed that they required permits to observe the seal hunt, their response (as posted proudly on their own website) was “permits. We don’t need no stinkin’ permits.”
The seal hunt is sustainable, economically important, and legal. The hunt does not destabilize the seal population; out of 5.5 million seals, no more than 275,000 may be hunted this year. Furthermore, many Atlantic communities depend on the infusion of income obtained during the spring seal hunt. This hunt is a hunt like any other legal hunt: regulated, licensed, and carefully monitored.
The Conservative Government is right to stand up for this legal hunt and to prosecute those who break the law by trying to harm it.
For far too long, groups like the Sea Shepherd Society have broken the law to advance their agenda. A crime is a crime, no matter where it takes place. These individuals need to be held to account. No one is above the law, and if the law states that observers must stay more than 500m from the sealers, following it is not optional. The Sea Shepherd society disagrees with this and feels that they are above the law. When informed that they required permits to observe the seal hunt, their response (as posted proudly on their own website) was “permits. We don’t need no stinkin’ permits.”
The seal hunt is sustainable, economically important, and legal. The hunt does not destabilize the seal population; out of 5.5 million seals, no more than 275,000 may be hunted this year. Furthermore, many Atlantic communities depend on the infusion of income obtained during the spring seal hunt. This hunt is a hunt like any other legal hunt: regulated, licensed, and carefully monitored.
The Conservative Government is right to stand up for this legal hunt and to prosecute those who break the law by trying to harm it.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Not Just Paul Martin, All Liberal MPs should Resign for not working!
In today's Montreal Gazette, there is an article wherein Jack Layton is calling on former Prime Minister Paul Martin to resign from his seat in the House of Commons. Layton argues that he should resign because he has yet to show up to cast a single vote in this session of Parliament.
Unfortunately, Layton isn't going far enough with this request; the vast majority of the Liberal caucus hasn't voted on any significant pieces of legislation in many months now in their desperation to avoid an election. They were elected to come to Ottawa to help make decisons and suggestions on legislation of of behalf of their constituents, but apparently they are content to sit on their hands and avoid taking a definite stand on the policies of the Conservative Government.
Liberal MPs ought to be held accountable for not doing their job as expected, not just Paul Martin!
Unfortunately, Layton isn't going far enough with this request; the vast majority of the Liberal caucus hasn't voted on any significant pieces of legislation in many months now in their desperation to avoid an election. They were elected to come to Ottawa to help make decisons and suggestions on legislation of of behalf of their constituents, but apparently they are content to sit on their hands and avoid taking a definite stand on the policies of the Conservative Government.
Liberal MPs ought to be held accountable for not doing their job as expected, not just Paul Martin!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Stephane Dion's Leadership Woes are Just Getting Ridiculous Now...
Wow. Apparently the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party now thinks that Stephane Dion is such a bad leader that they no longer even want him to have membership in the Liberal Party. That's quite an insult, even for Dion.
As reported today by the Ottawa Sun, a group of Liberals, led by former candidate Pierre-Luc Bellerose, has threatened to revoke Dion's party membership if he insists on remaining their leader. Instead, they hope to have a new leader selected and in place by the summer to prepare for the possibility of a fall election.
To engage in such an act of hostility and to do so in such an overt and public manner really shows the degree to which Dion is out of touch with the wishes of his members. If he ignores them when they will go to this length to send him a message, he will only weaken himself further. If he heeds the membership now, he might be able to get out with at least some dignity intact, although perhaps not.
Personally, I encourage Dion to remain Liberal leader for as long as possible just because I find this whole saga highly entertaining and I can't wait to see how much worse it will/can get for Dion!
As reported today by the Ottawa Sun, a group of Liberals, led by former candidate Pierre-Luc Bellerose, has threatened to revoke Dion's party membership if he insists on remaining their leader. Instead, they hope to have a new leader selected and in place by the summer to prepare for the possibility of a fall election.
To engage in such an act of hostility and to do so in such an overt and public manner really shows the degree to which Dion is out of touch with the wishes of his members. If he ignores them when they will go to this length to send him a message, he will only weaken himself further. If he heeds the membership now, he might be able to get out with at least some dignity intact, although perhaps not.
Personally, I encourage Dion to remain Liberal leader for as long as possible just because I find this whole saga highly entertaining and I can't wait to see how much worse it will/can get for Dion!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Happy Four Years with Stephen Harper as Our Leader
Today is the fourth anniversary of Stephen Harper winning the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, and I would like to take this opportunity to offer my congratulations on this milestone event!
Based on how far the Conservative Party has come over the past few years, it seems like a lot longer ago than four years that we have had this excellent politician as our leader. He is truly a leader, offering decisive and sound decisions on both domestic and foreign issues. The Canadian government no longer bases its policies on day-to-day polls, pretending that every cause is our number one priority depending on who the audience happened to be. Without Stephen Harper, I don't know that we would be in power today. Many thanks to a great leader.
On a day like today, I am very proud to be a Conservative!
Based on how far the Conservative Party has come over the past few years, it seems like a lot longer ago than four years that we have had this excellent politician as our leader. He is truly a leader, offering decisive and sound decisions on both domestic and foreign issues. The Canadian government no longer bases its policies on day-to-day polls, pretending that every cause is our number one priority depending on who the audience happened to be. Without Stephen Harper, I don't know that we would be in power today. Many thanks to a great leader.
On a day like today, I am very proud to be a Conservative!
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Ludicrous Claims by the NDP on Afghanistan
Today, I noticed that the NDP's website featured a photo of Jack Layton in front of a map of Afghanistan. The headline proclaims "NDP stands up for peace" - I can't believe the audacity and arrogance of the NDP to put up this type of story.
The article it links to features a letter by Jack Layton addressed to "Dear Friend" and criticizes the Conservative and Liberal Parties for their decision to support extending the mission until 2011. He writes that "our position is clear: Canada needs to safely withdraw from the combat mission and lead a process for bringing about security, stability and improving the lives of the Afghan people by building a path toward peace."
Will Jack never understand the military mission is there in order to facilitate peace in Afghanistan? Does he actually think our soldiers are over there just for fun? Does he think that our government is spending over a billion dollars in Afghanistan for nothing? The entire point of the Afghanistan mission is to bring peace and development to Afghanistan, which will never be possible without this mission to back it up.
I wonder if Jack has ever tried to build a well while being shot at? Or perhaps, has he ever tried to educate young boys and girls while being abducted by the Taliban and beheaded?
If we do not physically prevent the Taliban from harming Afghan civilians by getting in their way and opposing them militarily, they will not stop until they have terrorized and subjugated the entire population.
How on earth do the NDP expect peace to come about with the Taliban still present and active in Afghanistan???
The article it links to features a letter by Jack Layton addressed to "Dear Friend" and criticizes the Conservative and Liberal Parties for their decision to support extending the mission until 2011. He writes that "our position is clear: Canada needs to safely withdraw from the combat mission and lead a process for bringing about security, stability and improving the lives of the Afghan people by building a path toward peace."
Will Jack never understand the military mission is there in order to facilitate peace in Afghanistan? Does he actually think our soldiers are over there just for fun? Does he think that our government is spending over a billion dollars in Afghanistan for nothing? The entire point of the Afghanistan mission is to bring peace and development to Afghanistan, which will never be possible without this mission to back it up.
I wonder if Jack has ever tried to build a well while being shot at? Or perhaps, has he ever tried to educate young boys and girls while being abducted by the Taliban and beheaded?
If we do not physically prevent the Taliban from harming Afghan civilians by getting in their way and opposing them militarily, they will not stop until they have terrorized and subjugated the entire population.
How on earth do the NDP expect peace to come about with the Taliban still present and active in Afghanistan???
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Gomery Wrong in Criticisms of the Government
Today, former-Sponsorship Scandal Inquiry Head John Gomery criticized the government for what he characterized as overly centralized in the PMO. According to a CTV article, he said, "[Canadians] elect a House of Parliament which is there to deal with government policy. I don't think government policy should arrive only out of the prime minister's office."
Mr Gomery is completely wrong on this issue. The House of Commons is elected to serve as the legislative branch of government - it is NOT the executive branch of government, nor should it be. It is the role of the Cabinet to design policy directives, and the legislature has the right to approve or reject government policy, but not to make it.
Furthermore, it should especially not be the government bureaucracy and civil service setting government policy. The role of the civil service is to implement policy as directed by the Prime Minister and Ministers, not to dictate what it should be.
The different branches of government serve different functions here in Canada, and each should stick to their roles as laid out in the constitution. Development of government policy is the purview of the Executive branch and it should remain that way.
Mr Gomery is completely wrong on this issue. The House of Commons is elected to serve as the legislative branch of government - it is NOT the executive branch of government, nor should it be. It is the role of the Cabinet to design policy directives, and the legislature has the right to approve or reject government policy, but not to make it.
Furthermore, it should especially not be the government bureaucracy and civil service setting government policy. The role of the civil service is to implement policy as directed by the Prime Minister and Ministers, not to dictate what it should be.
The different branches of government serve different functions here in Canada, and each should stick to their roles as laid out in the constitution. Development of government policy is the purview of the Executive branch and it should remain that way.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Brenda Martin Case Regrettable but not Controlable
I, like many other Canadians, was dismayed this past week to hear about the case of Brenda Martin, a Canadian citizen, who has been accused by the Mexican government of money laundering. She was interrogated without having either a lawyer or an interpreter present, which is contrary to accepted international standards.
Although I truly do sympathize with her plight and wish a speedy and favorable resolution to her case, the Canadian government does not have the power to just bring her home as many people have been advocating. Canadian law covers activities occurring in Canada, while Mexican law covers activities which occur in Mexico. We cannot just overrule Mexican law because we feel we have the moral high ground.
The Canadian legal system is one of the strongest in the world, which benefits us when we have to deal with it here. Unfortunately, not all legal systems around the world are as strong and respectful of human rights as ours is. When Canadians go abroad to travel or live around the world, we need to keep this in mind and be cautious.
It is a great privilege to be able to travel, but we must remain cognizant of and respectful of the laws and legal of wherever we are. Just because we are entitled to legal protections as Canadian citizens at home does not mean we will be entitled to similar treatment abroad.
While the Canadian government may want to bring Brenda Martin home, we do not have jurisdiction in this case - only the Mexican government does.
Although I truly do sympathize with her plight and wish a speedy and favorable resolution to her case, the Canadian government does not have the power to just bring her home as many people have been advocating. Canadian law covers activities occurring in Canada, while Mexican law covers activities which occur in Mexico. We cannot just overrule Mexican law because we feel we have the moral high ground.
The Canadian legal system is one of the strongest in the world, which benefits us when we have to deal with it here. Unfortunately, not all legal systems around the world are as strong and respectful of human rights as ours is. When Canadians go abroad to travel or live around the world, we need to keep this in mind and be cautious.
It is a great privilege to be able to travel, but we must remain cognizant of and respectful of the laws and legal of wherever we are. Just because we are entitled to legal protections as Canadian citizens at home does not mean we will be entitled to similar treatment abroad.
While the Canadian government may want to bring Brenda Martin home, we do not have jurisdiction in this case - only the Mexican government does.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Controversy over Bill C-10 is Meaningless
In the last few days, the opposition parties have been in uproar over Bill C-10. This bill would ensure that taxpayers' dollars do not go to support offensive and objectionable film productions.
Some left-wing commentators and politicians have decried this as censorship; well to do so is just plain wrong. There is a vast degree of difference between refusing taxpayer support for a project and stopping the project from being made. Film producers should not be able to receive public funds if their projects are offensive, derogatory, or overly violent. If they really want these types of films to be made, they are free to fundraise or seek other funding options.
If I am offended by a movie, I don't want to pay for it. I can already choose not to go see it, but offensive films should not be able to get any of my money from the government. If I want to support a film and its content, I will pay money to go see it in a theatre.
Some left-wing commentators and politicians have decried this as censorship; well to do so is just plain wrong. There is a vast degree of difference between refusing taxpayer support for a project and stopping the project from being made. Film producers should not be able to receive public funds if their projects are offensive, derogatory, or overly violent. If they really want these types of films to be made, they are free to fundraise or seek other funding options.
If I am offended by a movie, I don't want to pay for it. I can already choose not to go see it, but offensive films should not be able to get any of my money from the government. If I want to support a film and its content, I will pay money to go see it in a theatre.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
NDP Interference in US Elections?
Recently Jack Layton has been complaining that the Prime Minister or Senior Members of his staff have been interfering in the American Presidential Election, and yet he has clearly taken sides in the elections himself. What hypocrisy!
According to a Toronto Star Article (http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309460), Jack made the following insinuations:
"NDP leader Jack Layton said [Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff Ian] Brodie should be dumped for his 'interference' and wondered whether the senior aide wasn't acting on Harper's own orders.
"'Is it possible that the Prime Minister himself knew about this information and authorized the leaks in order to discredit the campaign of Mr. Obama for president of the United States?' Layton said in the Commons."
On the NDP website, Jack and the Party proclaim to Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama "You have an ally with the NDP on NAFTA" (http://www.ndp.ca/page/6236).
Opening declaring yourself and your parties as allies to two of the contenders is a blatant case of interference in the presidential election. Taking sides and encouraging both candidates and a renegotiation of NAFTA shows Jack's arrogance and disregard for the sovereignty and independence of the United States.
Jack, you can't have it both ways: you can't complain about unlikely and unproven allegations of interference and then go off on your own and interfere in the election!
According to a Toronto Star Article (http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309460), Jack made the following insinuations:
"NDP leader Jack Layton said [Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff Ian] Brodie should be dumped for his 'interference' and wondered whether the senior aide wasn't acting on Harper's own orders.
"'Is it possible that the Prime Minister himself knew about this information and authorized the leaks in order to discredit the campaign of Mr. Obama for president of the United States?' Layton said in the Commons."
On the NDP website, Jack and the Party proclaim to Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama "You have an ally with the NDP on NAFTA" (http://www.ndp.ca/page/6236).
Opening declaring yourself and your parties as allies to two of the contenders is a blatant case of interference in the presidential election. Taking sides and encouraging both candidates and a renegotiation of NAFTA shows Jack's arrogance and disregard for the sovereignty and independence of the United States.
Jack, you can't have it both ways: you can't complain about unlikely and unproven allegations of interference and then go off on your own and interfere in the election!
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Liberals Scolded by Elections Canada and Learn that 'The Sky is No Longer the Limit'!
Apparently, before the Liberals were able to hold their swanky (yet clearly illegal fundraiser) last night at the Ottawa Congress Centre, Elections Canada informed them that it was, in fact, in direct contravention of the Canada Elections Act.
The Liberals hastily changed the rules of the auction to no longer allow corporations to bid as well as to limit bids to the maximum allowed by the Act ($1100). Since the entry price was $150, the maximum bid possible was $950 (and that is assuming the individual in question had not donated any money so far in 2008).
I have a few friends who are Liberals, and one of them went to the revised event last night. Apparently there were about 100 guests (not including MPs) who would have paid for tickets. Here are what the auction items went for:
Golf with Paul Martin - $1000
Lunch with Iggy and a set of signed books - $650
Lunch with Justin Trudeau - $550
Tennis with Bob and John Rae - $400
Breakfast with Romeo Dallaire- $350
Tickets to the Hockey Game with Ken Dryden - $300 (there were 15 of them for a total of $4500)
Dinner with Carolyn Bennett and her husband - $250
Now we know exactly what the Liberals are worth, and it isn't much!
My favourite part of this scandal is that the meager proceeds now have to be split among 8 different ridings! Assuming they sold 100 tickets, the night would have made approximately $22700. Divided by 8 ridings is less than $2900 each! Renting out the Congress Centre can't be cheap, so I wonder how much of a profit that actually got to make last night.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Liberal Fundraiser to Break Elections Canada Laws??
This evening, the Liberal party of
The event also includes an auction which clearly contravenes laws on political donations. Items include a golf game with Paul Martin, watching hockey with Ken Dryden, tennis with Bob Rae, lunch with Michael Ignatieff, lunch with Justin Trudeau, and lunch with Scott Brison.
The invitation also says the following:
"The sky is your limit during this auction!
A successful bid is not a political contribution and is not eligible for a receipt for income tax purposes. Your successful bid will not affect your annual political contribution limit of $1100. As such, individuals, partnerships, corporations, and associations are free to bid as high as they want. We greatly appreciate your support for this fundraising activity!"
How can the Liberal party justify thinking that the auction does not count as a political donation?
Furthermore, for all of the politicians and former cabinet ministers participating in the auction items, does that not count as a donation which would put them over their political contribution limit for this year?
For more information, see the following story from the Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
LAC.20080213.DONATIONS13/TPStory/National
Can Parliament Please Stop Paying Liberal MPs?
Liberal MPs should start forfeiting portions of their salary after their latest incidence of failing to do their jobs as they are supposed to.
MPs are paid by the government of Canada to actually do their jobs and represent their constituents, including being present for votes and taking a stand on issues. Indignantly walking out of the House of Commons because things aren't going your way is neither mature nor appropriate.
This is only the latest in a series of incidents in which the Liberals opted to sit out of votes rather than take a definitive stance. Remember how Stephane Dion complained about the latest budget? Well he clearly didn't oppose it enough to vote against it - he and his entire caucus abstained from voting.
The Liberals need to start behaving like grownups and actually do the jobs which they are being paid for.
MPs are paid by the government of Canada to actually do their jobs and represent their constituents, including being present for votes and taking a stand on issues. Indignantly walking out of the House of Commons because things aren't going your way is neither mature nor appropriate.
This is only the latest in a series of incidents in which the Liberals opted to sit out of votes rather than take a definitive stance. Remember how Stephane Dion complained about the latest budget? Well he clearly didn't oppose it enough to vote against it - he and his entire caucus abstained from voting.
The Liberals need to start behaving like grownups and actually do the jobs which they are being paid for.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Happy Two Years in Government!!
Today marks the second anniversary of the Conservative Government! Yay!
Although the Conservative Party of Canada won the election on January 23, 2006, it was not until February 6, 2006 that Stephen Harper was sworn in as Canada's current Prime Minister and the cabinet was sworn in to become Canada's government. Some of the faces in Canada's cabinet have changed over the last two years, but we remain a strong, principled, and committed government.
I am proud of the government and I look forward to seeing the Conservatives continue to govern until October 2009!
Although the Conservative Party of Canada won the election on January 23, 2006, it was not until February 6, 2006 that Stephen Harper was sworn in as Canada's current Prime Minister and the cabinet was sworn in to become Canada's government. Some of the faces in Canada's cabinet have changed over the last two years, but we remain a strong, principled, and committed government.
I am proud of the government and I look forward to seeing the Conservatives continue to govern until October 2009!
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Do You Think it is Easy to Make Priorities???
Stephane Dion is most definitely not a leader for Canada and Canadians should not trust him with our country. The man is one of the most wishy-washy and foolish leaders of the opposition Canada has had in a very, very, very long time...
So, Dion, who insists that Canadians withdraw from our mission in Afghanistan by 2009 at the latest, is now encouraging NATO to invade Pakistan in order to pursue militants there! His position just makes no sense whatsoever! Apparently it's okay to go after Taliban terrorists if they're located in Pakistan, but if they're inside Afghanistan, they we need to stop fighting them.
Stephane Dion is not a leader.
So, Dion, who insists that Canadians withdraw from our mission in Afghanistan by 2009 at the latest, is now encouraging NATO to invade Pakistan in order to pursue militants there! His position just makes no sense whatsoever! Apparently it's okay to go after Taliban terrorists if they're located in Pakistan, but if they're inside Afghanistan, they we need to stop fighting them.
Stephane Dion is not a leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)