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.
Monday, May 26, 2008
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)