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??
Friday, June 20, 2008
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
