Conservative Eccentric

Harper flip flops on Abortion

2010-04-30T09:45:00.000-07:00

CANADA - For the first time since taking office Prime Minister Stephen Harper embraced a solid, social-conservative policy of the right — refusing to have Canada support abortion in foreign-aid projects.

This was a bit stunning to political observers because it meant Harper was flip flopping on his own agenda. For four years now he has avoided any controversial issues that scares off many women, urban and centrist voters... but he managed to do all three when Harper branded his government as anti-abortion.

Harper, according to Conservative-caucus sources, was not leaning this way two months ago, and made that clear to his MPs in March. What is even weirder is that Stephen Harper rarely flip flops on an issue. He usually sticks with it no matter how stupid the idea is.

Its a divisive issue even within the Conservative Party. Some of us are pro-choice and others are anti-abortion. Since abortion is legal in Canada and a whopping 70% of Canadians support the right to abortion and since the Conservative Party only has a minority government its really political suicide to portray your political party as anti-abortion.

Hence why Stephen Harper has avoided the issue for so long.

Here's what happened:

The Liberals made a motion that called on Canada to support the “full range” of family planning initiatives in foreign aid. The motion, sponsored by Liberal MP Bob Rae, also read in part: “the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a ‘global gag rule’ that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically sound family planning.”

Stephen Harper initially argued at a special caucus meeting on the day of the vote for his party to avoid the ideological trap, and to quietly vote in favour of the motion.

But the Conservative caucus, which accoridng to insiders is roughly evenly divided between pro-choice and anti-abortion sentiments, had another idea.

They believed that the mention of George W. Bush gave Conservatives a way to oppose the motion — Canada’s Parliament shouldn’t be voting on policies of another government.

Harper then allowed himself to be persuaded because too many of the caucus members were in favour of opposing the motion on the technicality. When he closed the caucus meeting, he cited some Mahatma Gandhi wisdom about a leader needing to heed his followers, and agreed the Conservatives, against his initial instincts, should oppose the motion, thus flip flopping on the issue.

When the Commons voted on the motion, the motion failed to pass. Thus Canada would be the only G8 country which would be spending money on abstinence groups overseas (which we all know from experience, abstinence doesn't work) which the other 7 members of the G8 support foreign aid that includes abortion clinics.

In the late 1980s, in a memo to then Reform Party leader Preston Manning, Harper laid out the need for the fledgling party to build coalitions with the Christian right wing, which he described as key to the Conservative base. “I believe that the Reform Party cannot afford to lose moderate pro-life voters,” said the memo, which was revealed in William Johnson’s biography of Harper a few years ago.

So from Harper's perspective this is just an ideological hat tipping to his right wing Christian supporters. Guaranteed votes from people who were already voting for him anyway. Plus it made his caucus happy.

But what about the next election? This controversy, that and the ongoing torture/war crimes issue, could stay with the Conservatives until the next election... The last thing the Conservatives need is to be seen as anti-abortionist, corrupt war criminals who are hiding something.

Oh and if our unemployment rate remains high and national debt growing, economically inept too.

Stephen Harper goes AWOL

2008-12-07T10:08:00.000-08:00

CANADA - Somehow the urgency of the recession has eluded Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who needlessly provoked a constitutional crisis in the midst of global economic peril unmatched since the Great Depression, and a governor general who last week abetted the PM's recklessness by overturning precedent in granting him the parliamentary adjournment he sought in order to save his skin.

So now he, and his government, are effectively on vacation until January 2009, while the country slides deeper into recession. A recession that some forecasters expect will claim 600,000 jobs, in addition to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians thrown out of work in the manufacturing, auto, forestry and other sectors in the last two years.

Relief will have to wait at least the better part of two months, until late January, when Stephen Harper's government finally tables a stimulus budget, which must then be debated and might well be defeated if the opposition parties conclude it lacks sufficient economic stimulus.

That's seven lost weeks, at a minimum, when Stephen Harper's political career will assume primacy over the economy.

A lot can happen, we've learned this year, in seven weeks. Entire national banking systems have been exposed as insolvent and in need of a state-financed bailout lest the global system collapse. Oil, wheat and other commodities have rapidly plunged in value, taking oil patch and farm incomes down with them. Everyday Canadians have endured huge losses on their retirement nest eggs invested in the stock market. The North American auto industry teeters on the brink of extinction. Iceland has declared bankruptcy. Hungary and Pakistan are hooked up to fiscal IVs provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

That's seven weeks of neglected measures to curb further job loss. To soften the blow for those who have been put on the street. And to create new jobs by investing in a sustainably prosperous 21st century economy. One based on knowledge rather than brawn industries. That develops and exploits alternative energy sources.

The contrast with our fellow industrialized nations could not be more stark. Collectively, the U.S., Europe and Asia have committed $2.6 trillion (U.S.) to jump-start economic growth, in addition to more than $2.7 trillion so far to bail out a crippled global banking system. The pump priming and financial-system bailouts are huge, in part to inspire consumer and business confidence – equal to 7 per cent of GDP in Germany, 16 per cent in China, 21 per cent in Britain.

The figure is 6 per cent for the U.S., where president-elect Barack Obama says: "We are facing an economic crisis of historic proportions ... The truth is we do not have a minute to waste" in restoring economic health. Obama pledges federal spending aimed at saving and creating more than seven million jobs.

Ottawa boasts it has put stimuli in place equal to 2 per cent of GDP. It is referring to $2.5 billion (Canadian) in tax cuts implemented last year before the world economy went haywire, and that were accompanied by $4.3 billion in spending cuts, for a net stimulus that is in fact negative.

Rather than jolt new life into an economy slipping into what Ottawa acknowledges will be a recessionary period over the six months, ending next March 31 – itself an overly optimistic forecast in the opinion of most economists – Ottawa's economic statement, or fiscal update, of Nov. 27 actually called for $2 billion in reduced spending. Advertised as a document to reassure Canadians, the statement recalled Abraham Lincoln's dismissal of a debating rival's argument: "As thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death."

Robert Fairholm, director of economic forecasting at the Centre for Spatial Economics, one of the four companies the federal finance ministry relies on for its economic forecasts, calls Ottawa's rosy projections a "fantasy." He says in the absence of substantial new federal stimulus, the Canadian economy will shrink 0.1 per cent next year, in contrast to Ottawa's stated expectation of 0.3 per cent growth. By contrast, boosting the economy by even $15 billion worth of federal investment would likely yield 1.6 per cent growth next year.

The IMF, an agency traditionally averse to deficit spending, last month exhorted affluent nations to invest in their economies by an amount equal to 2 per cent of GDP – about $30 billion in Canada's case.

Canada joined the consensus of Group of 20 summiteers in Washington in November that signed on to that target. Yet a day after delivering his Nov. 27 stand-pat economic statement, the strongest tonic federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty chose to offer was, to paraphrase William Lyon Mackenzie King on conscription, stimulus if necessary, but not necessarily stimulus.

Flaherty's response Nov. 28 was: "I hope the economy will be strong and we won't need to have any additional stimulus in the Canadian economy, but if it's necessary to do so, we will do so." Hope? That doesn't sound very optimistic, and it also sounds like he doesn't plan to do anything about it but sit back and "hope" things change.

What parts of a global economy in turmoil is the minister unable to see when he draws back the blackout curtains at the Ministry of Finance? Not his Oshawa riding, apparently, where year-over-year Employment Insurance claims have shot up by 96 per cent.

Reflecting widespread U.S. sentiment that the lame-duck Bush administration has been preoccupied with bailing out Wall Street and ignoring Main Street, David Miller said of Flaherty's fiscal update: "I'm very concerned the statement does not show the urgency needed to address the economic challenges Canada is facing."

The Toronto mayor added: "It's important that as the government addresses the credit crisis (it) ensures that our manufacturing industries, our construction industries and other places that are being affected have relief, and not just the banking sector."

Pump priming doesn't agree with everyone, of course. Short-term stimulus packages, says Don Drummond, chief economist at TD Bank, "don't really generate very much short-term stimulus and they very quickly become long-term structural problems."

Drummond, a former official in the federal finance ministry, adds that "Canada is not the problem – we're the only developed economy in which employment and consumption are still rising. Our economy's been hit by international events, not by domestic events."

Like many economists, Drummond also casts a baleful eye on infrastructure spending, since putting a spade in the ground usually comes only after a long stretch of planning, by which time the economy has recovered – but the spending, and its potential inflationary impact, remains.

That was a widely held view at the outset of the Great Depression, when Washington remained obsessed with balanced budgets, which even Franklin D. Roosevelt felt the need to promise in his successful campaign for office in 1932.

It does seem a bit odd to dwell on the possibility of mismanaged government spending in the immediate aftermath of one of the global private sector's most colossal blunders of all time – a U.S. housing boom spawned by often predatory marketing of subprime, or junk mortgages that Wall Street bundled and distributed until the toxic waste, as it's now known on the Street, had contaminated the balance sheets of almost every major bank on the planet.

While government doesn't have a monopoly on misallocating capital, it is the spender of last resort when consumers and businesses are too fearful or impoverished to spend. And only government can spend truly big – to build a transcontinental railway, wage a war, finance the early cyberspace network that became the Internet.

Drummond's argument aside, Canada is hardly isolated from external shocks, though it's true the impact here has always tended to lag the onset of disturbances in the U.S. and elsewhere. The recent announcement of the closures of two Magna parts plants north of the GTA, with a loss of 850 jobs, came six months after the first credible rumours that Magna customer General Motors Corp. might actually be close to bankruptcy.

Liberal economist Robert Reich, labour secretary in the Clinton administration and an economic adviser to the Obama transition team, makes a persuasive argument in his blog that "government spending that puts people back to work and invests in the future productivity of the nation is exactly what the economy needs right now. When there's lots of idle capacity, deficit spending is entirely appropriate, as John Maynard Keynes taught us. Moving the economy to fuller capacity will of itself shrink future deficits" – the long-term structural problems to which Drummond refers.

The challenge is to spend carefully. And after the improvisations of FDR's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, and our own experiments with regional economic development and subsidies to hydroponic cucumber growers in Newfoundland, we have by now accumulated sufficient knowledge, one would hope, to invest public funds at least as wisely as the vaunted capital allocators in the private sector for whom we have the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) to thank.

Where to invest?

1. Social capital

In other words, people. Immediate relief is required for people whom our market economy has failed. Employment Insurance eligibility and duration of benefits need to be expanded. Enhanced child care and worker retraining tuition grants are imperative. Workers who have lost health and pension benefits need at least temporary pharmacare and dentistry coverage to carry them over to their next job.

Paying for such essentials out of pocket crimps spending on consumer goods, which in turn triggers layoffs at everything from car and lawn mower dealerships to construction firms. The downward spiral has to be reversed, keeping in mind that even in the prosperous times of a year ago, approximately 900,000 Canadian children were living below the poverty line.

For social advocates, the needs are obvious and pressing. "Boosting three geared-to-income programs – the Canada Child Tax Benefit, the refundable GST credit and the Working Income Tax Benefit – would put additional money into the hands of lower-income households who are most likely to spend it immediately," the Caledon Institute of Social Policy notes in a recent paper, The Forgotten Fundamentals.

Employment Insurance, which now serves only four in 10 unemployed Canadians, must be restored and strengthened.

It's time to stand on its head the mythology around burdening future generations with our big-spending ways of the moment. The future generations are with us now, living in squalid quarters for lack of decent public housing, with street gangs for role models, college out of reach. The money we invest today to lift these young people out of wretched living conditions is our best assurance of lower dropout rates, teen pregnancies, violence and crime when it's their turn to run the country.

2. Infrastructure

Much of our "built environment," as architects and urban planners call anything made of concrete, glass and steel, is a good deal older than you are. Canadian municipalities alone are struggling with an estimated $143 billion "infrastructure deficit" of 50- to 100-year-old schools, hospitals, elevated highways (the Gardiner Expressway was completed before the Beatles broke up in 1970. Despite being only 42 years old, it has been under constant repair for the past decade) and water and sewage systems (the latter culpable in Toronto's waterfront beaches being closed to swimming).

With $1 billion worth of goods crossing the border to the U.S. each day, it similarly is incomprehensible that the Ambassador Bridge at Detroit and the Peace Bridge at Buffalo have not been replaced or twinned, putting an end to the daily caravan of idling transport trucks backed up to Queenston. The fragility of the North American power grid was demonstrated in the great blackout of the eastern half of the continent not long ago, at about the same time levees patched up countless times rather than replaced with state-of-the-art ones pioneered in Holland cost America one of its great cities.

Infrastructure projects have a multiplier effect, Reich argues. "They create lots of jobs, and they make the economy work better in the future. Governments should also spend on health care and child care. The expenditures are also double whammies: they, too, create lots of jobs, and they fulfill vital public needs."

And the timing couldn't be better. Robert MacIsaac, chair of Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan, oversees a proposed $50 billion, 25-year plan of new GTA light-rail lines, expanded GO service and Viva bus rapid transit in York Region. That's a quadruple whammy: job creation, getting commuters out of their polluting vehicles, attracting more commerce to less accessible parts of the GTA, and thus expanding the tax base in North America's fourth-largest and fastest-growing city.

"It's a brilliant time to move forward with infrastructure because you'll never get a better price on contracts than you're going to in an economic downturn," MacIsaac pointed out in the Star last month. "We need to position the province to be competitive when we come out the other side of this rough patch."

Look around and you'll see plenty that needs fixing.

3. Green stimulus

There's a compelling argument to be made that developing alternatives to fossil fuels – essential to the quest to curb global warming – is a superior form of economic stimulus than reducing taxes or issuing government-rebate cheques. Development of wind farms, solar panels, more energy-efficient small vehicles and rapid transit creates high-paying jobs in R&D, enhances Canada's competitiveness as an exporter of alternative-energy technology, cuts energy costs (another competitive advantage), and reduces our expenditure on imported oil and natural gas.

Green infrastructure tends to keep jobs at home. The liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund estimates that traditional fossil fuels, on average, see about 22 per cent of the American household's energy expenditures leaving the country. A home or office equipped with solar panels, by contrast, ships just 9 per cent of its energy expenditures abroad.

That's because much of the R&D in alternative energy is North America-based. And the construction workers and many raw materials – notably concrete – must be sourced locally.

In this relatively nascent field – at least compared with a fossil fuel addiction traced to the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution – there is still vast opportunity to achieve Silicon Valley-like leadership in R&D, as successive generations of wind turbines, for instance, become more efficient. There are hundreds of small firms, many still in start-up phase, working on innovative improvements.

Here again is an opportunity for government to play a role where, at least for now, the private sector is hoarding rather than spending cash.

Along with Canada's dubious distinction as an energy glutton, with our above-average per capita energy consumption, our vast physical size exposes us to most types of energy applications and the expertise that goes with them.

By the reckoning of some, not just Obama and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, the most dynamic industry of this new century will be energy, whether in the form of developing new energy sources; devising new applications for solar, wind and other alternatives; retrofitting homes, offices and vehicles to use innovative forms of energy; or the construction job of building wind farms and installing solar panels.

Conclusions

When it comes to providing more adequately for our people – whether it's the creation or rehabilitation of public housing, or income supports that lift folks from subsistence level, or playing midwife to a new job-creating centre of excellence for Canada in green-energy technologies – we tend, in flush times, to ignore these pursuits, which are so much less glamorous than, say, investment banking. And in tough times we declare that as a community we haven't the money for such things. It's this mentality that gave us a reactionary Nov. 27 fiscal statement rather than a visionary one that embraced the future.

So for now we remain bystanders, waiting for the private sector to recover and take up the mantle of progress in a manner suited to its own narrowly defined goals.

Just as government and the private sector long ago learned the benefits of endless collaboration, we don't have to accept a cramped role for government in times of economic failure.

What boggles the mind is why Govenor General Michaëlle Jean agreed to prorogue parliament in the first place... she has not released any statement for her reasoning.

Michaëlle Jean isn't Stupid

2008-12-03T11:40:00.000-08:00

CANADA - I received a form letter today from the Conservative party which included the following statement:

"I know some of you have criticized us for having misjudged the opposition’s response to our efforts to remove taxpayer support for political parties. Although I fully support the notion that, in the long run, political parties should be responsible for raising their own funds, I accept that our timing and the manner in which we approached the issue may have been wrong-headed. We have withdrawn those contentious items from our agenda."

"Wrong-headed"?

Say what you mean man. Stephen Harper made a really a stupid mistake.

He's made stupid mistakes before too, but this one just handed the government over to the Liberals.

The petition is a waste of time! Now is not the time to be using petitions. It is only there to make the public feel like they're involved and since the leftwing outnumbers us two to one, they're likely to get far more petitions signed than we are. Frankly petitions don't matter anyway.

If you don't recall Govenor General Michaëlle Jean was recommended by Paul Martin (a Liberal!) and she's pro-separatist!

That means she will be more interested in the welfare of Quebec than of the rest of Canada. She will look at your anti-coalition petition, look at the pro-coalition petition... and then she will go with the coalition because it IS constitutional. Its even in her job description.

What we are seeing is a fail-safe mechanism of democracy, entirely democratic and constitutional, employed to protect the system from being hijacked by a bully. Harper can be proud he won his minority government, but he lacked the leadership skills to compromise and keep it afloat.

Also, this idea that what they're doing isn't democratic or constitutional is going to fail. Michaëlle Jean is too smart to fall for that obvious lie. She can do math. She will look at the 53% of Canadian voters that voted Liberal/Green/NDP, the 10% that voted Bloc and the mere 37% who voted Conservative and she will recognize that while the Conservatives did win a minority... they did not win the will of Canadians.

Now is the time to start choosing a new leader so that when the next election does happen (likely around September or October 2010) that we have a strong progressive leader who can defeat the leftwing coalition, win the hearts of middle-class Canadians and finally win a majority.

Now would be a good time to call Mike Harris out of retirement and ask him to lead the party. Or someone else equally competent who could actually win a majority instead of these half-ass minority governments.

Conservative Party Damage Control

2008-11-29T11:57:00.000-08:00

THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN SENT TO EVERY CONSERVATIVE MP IN CANADA

The Conservative Party needs to do some quick damage control, and this has to be a grassroots movement, not a directive from Stephen Harper for once.

#1. We need to distance ourselves from Stephen Harper. He has just made a rookie mistake and handed Canada over to the opposition parties. Cutting $30 million in political party funding? There was no way the other parties were going to accept that. It was Harper's idea to try and force the opposition to swallow that "poison pill" by threatening another election. Instead it has only united them under an Accord government which will usher in carbon taxes, carbon emission caps and an era of Liberal changes. Harper's stupid and INCOMPETENT idea to force that through has only doomed his administration to end on December 8th.

#2. We need to pick a new leader and quickly. It would be nice to pick an ethnic leader to cash in on the Obama effect, but really what we need right now is a strong interim leader like Tony Clement, Chuck Strahl or Jim Flaherty. Harper needs to resign as soon as possible, we need to hold a meeting and vote on an interim leader and begin preparations for a leadership race in the late Winter or early Spring.

#3. We need to realize the Harper era is OVER. We need to acknowledge that Stephen Harper has tried his best, couldn't win a majority government because he's incompetent and in 9 days from now the Liberals/NDP/Bloc will have their vote and probably even have a leader picked amongst them. Bob Rae will be endorsed by the NDP, Michael Ignatieff by the Bloc and whomever wins won't be a pushover like Stephane Dion. When that happens Harper will be back in Stornaway as opposition leader and likely contemplating retirement anyway. The longer we try to hold onto Stephen Harper the less time we will have to prepare the new leader for the role of opposition leader and maybe another election a year from now. The Liberals/NDP/Bloc are going to be struggling hard to stay in power as long as possible.

#4. When we do come up with a new leader it has to be one with an actual economic plan. Harper's current plan of doing nothing and praying the recession will go away obviously didn't inspire the Canadian voters. Four out of five Canadians didn't vote for Stephen Harper. Thanks to low voter turnout 40.9% of Canadians didn't even vote. We only got 21.8% of Canadians to vote Conservative. That is NOTHING to be proud of. We need to have a strong economic plan that bolsters jobs, spending and new products.

#5. We need to stop nay-saying the environment. This is really hurting our reputation. I cannot emphasize this enough. The biggest complaint our party is getting is that we're too weak on environmental reform and too cozy with the Alberta oil industry. It makes us look corrupt and provides fodder for the leftwing media, and that in turn hurts our image. We are living in a post-Bush pro-green world now and clinging to the oil and coal industry like suckling babes is the wrong thing to be doing right now.

#6. We need to prepare for the possibility the Liberals/NDP/Greens will unite. Their numbers are greater then ours and we could be stuck as an opposition party for YEARS to come. We need to be thinking greener and more progressive. Uniting the Reform Party and the PC party only partially worked. We managed to change names but our reputation is still so radical it scares average Canadians. We need a leader who is CHARISMATIC and doesn't scare average Canadians. Only then can we ever hope to defeat whatever abomination the Liberals/Greens/NDP unite and become. The New Green Liberal Party (or whatever you want to call it) has a better chance of winning a majority a year from now than we do.

Stephen Harper hands Canada over to the opposition

2008-11-29T10:11:00.001-08:00

CANADA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made a rookie mistake and its just cost him his government and thrust him back into the official opposition.

In Thursday's economic update Harper rolled out a plan to do nothing about Canada's recession and instead wanted to cut $30 million in taxpayer subsidies for political parties.

Those subsidies are the bread and butter of Liberal, NDP and Bloc fund raising. There was no way they were going to sit back and let it happen. PLUS the other parties are upset the Conservatives aren't doing anything about the lagging economy. We're in a recession for Christ's sake and Harper just wants to sit on his hands and pray the recession will magically go away.

So on Friday (yesterday) the Liberals made a motion of non-confidence in order to make a Coalition Accord government composed of the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc. Such a thing hasn't been done since 1985.

While some Conservatives had been gleeful about the "poison pill" plan to slash $30 million in taxpayer subsidies for political parties, the political fallout shows Harper's move is widely seen as a terrible political miscalculation. Harper has managed to delay the non-confidence vote until December 8th, but after that he will be Prime Minister no more.

A Conservative government source said Friday the idea was Harper's own.

Sources said "most" of the Conservative caucus is perplexed why the government moved to put such controversial measures in now. "It makes no sense," said one Conservative MP.

"To date, Harper has been a master at dividing and conquering his opponents," said Conservative author Bob Plamondon. "But by moving to end the subsidy to all political parties, he has given the three opposition parties unity and purpose. It is a rare strategic blunder for Harper and a miscalculation not seen since (former PC prime minister Joe) Clark toppled himself in 1979."

Conservative insiders across the country, including myself, are flabbergasted that Harper has made such a rookie mistake.

"It is 1979 bravado with 1985 facts," said another Conservative blogger, referring to Clark's bungled confidence vote in 1979 and the 1985 Liberal-NDP accord that ended 42 years of Tory rule at Queen's Park. "The government will fall," he lamented.

And frankly its about time. Harper is corrupt, incompetent and its time the rest of the Conservative party sees it.

Stephen Harper Cartoons

2008-11-28T21:09:00.000-08:00

CANADA - Stephen Harper Cartoons:

Harper's tax cuts hurt coffers during recession

2008-11-21T19:59:00.000-08:00

CANADA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed today he would use millions to help out hard hit Ontario , but Harper's ability to respond to the crisis has been undercut by his own government's record of tax cuts, which has emptied federal coffers, the parliamentary budget officer concluded in a report released yesterday.

Budget officer Kevin Page concluded the federal Conservatives are likely to run budget deficits "in the near term," possibly beginning this year, and that the fault lies as much with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty as it does with the weak economy. Page's report projects a budget deficit of $3.9 billion in 2009-10. But it adds that, if the economic downturn proves worse than expected, next year's federal deficit could hit $14 billion.

Page says the deterioration of the federal government's financial picture in the first nine months of 2008 is not so much the result of the weakened economy as Flaherty's policies, particularly the latest reduction in the GST and reduced corporate income taxes.

In his opening speech to the 40th Parliament, Harper pledged to make federal regional development funding available to high unemployment communities in southern Ontario for the first time. But he was sketchy on details such as how much money the Conservatives will commit or when funds might be delivered.

The government is hampered by a weak financial picture and its own dwindling coffers, which will be laid bare when Flaherty delivers his fall economic statement to Parliament next Thursday.

Harper defended his government's policies, denying his goals was just to give tax cuts to the rich. Over the past 18 months, the Conservatives have shown a distinct preference for corporate tax cuts rather than new direct spending on social or economic programs by Ottawa.

Harper has also remained mum on whether Canada will help General Motors, Chrysler and Ford plants, which are currently warning they may go bankrupt. If the US bails out the automotive industry but Canada does not those companies may go south of the border permanently.

TheCall to stop Homosexuality

2008-11-08T20:33:00.000-08:00

RELIGION - On November 1st approx. 10,000 religious wackos gathered for a day of prayer, fasting and gay-bashing (this event was dubbed "TheCall" by the event organizers). Their goal? They thought that if they had enough people praying to Jesus together that God would somehow get rid of homosexuality in California.

I am not kidding around. This is what they actually thought would happen.

Now admittedly, Proposition 8 (a gay marriage ban) did pass 3 days later during the United States election, so the religious wackos are viewing that as an answer to their prayers for now.

Some of them also believe homosexuality is caused by the devil, and that it can be exorcised. That idea is pretty fruity all by itself.

Such people form the backbone of Christian Conservatives and frankly they give conservatives in general a bad name.

I mean... who actually believes God will wave his hand and poof the gays will stop being gay? It doesn't work that way. Never has, never will. God gave mankind free will to do whatever they want.

All this does is reveal that there is at least 10,000 religious bigots living in California.

And HOW exactly is this a conservative issue? It isn't. Its just a religious one. I wish religious wackos would stop calling themselves conservatives because they evidently don't know the difference.

SPECIAL NOTE

During his two terms in office George W. Bush did not endorse a single piece of gay rights legislation, but neither did he oppose any. He even met with the group Log Cabin Republicans, a right-wing gay rights group. Officially Bush is opposed to gay marriages due to Republican policy, but he's made no real efforts to hinder gay rights and has actually done the reverse with appointments.

Bush is the first Republican president to appoint an openly gay man to serve in his administration, Scott Evertz as director of the Office of National AIDS Policy. His nominee as ambassador to Romania, Michael E. Guest, also became the first openly gay man to be confirmed by the Senate as a U.S. ambassador.

So if George W. Bush can set aside his differences, why can't religious wackos?

Americans buying guns like crazy after Obama win

2008-11-08T08:38:00.000-08:00

UNITED STATES - Sales of rifles, pistols and ammo are surging in parts of the United States, as many gun owners fear President-elect Barack Obama's administration may seek to tighten ownership of certain weapons.

"The day after the election, I had many more calls than usual from people looking for semi-automatic rifles," said David Greenberg, the owner of the Second Amendment Family Gun Shop, in Bisbee, Arizona, who sold out of AR-15 rifles in recent days. "There seems to be a fear they will be banned, and it's fairly likely."

Gun stores and trade groups have reported a spike in firearms sales in the run-up to the Nov. 4 election victory of Democrat Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who many perceive as strongly pro-gun control.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the shooting, hunting and firearms industry, reported a 10 per cent jump in gun sales this year based on its analysis of an excise tax placed on firearms and ammunition, and a spokesman said the increase had grown dramatically ahead of the election.

Obama stated his support for the right to bear arms during campaigning, although both he and Biden back a permanent ban on assault weapons – military-style semi-automatic rifles – and "common sense measures" to keep guns away from children and criminals, positions which spurred concern among some gun enthusiasts.

In McPherson, Kansas, gun dealer Steve Sechler said demand at a gun show last weekend jumped by more than 50 per cent as buyers rushed to stock up on guns including Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles.

Obama loyalists say gun owners need not fear curbs when he takes office in January. The Democratic governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, told a rally last month he had spoken directly to Obama about the right to bear arms. "If you are a sportsman, if you are a gun owner, if you are someone that honours and respects the Second Amendment, you have nothing to fear from Barack Obama," he said.

The lobbying arm of the powerful National Rifle Association, however, stoked concerns during the campaign, calling Obama a "serious threat to Second Amendment liberties."

Among other complaints, they accused Obama of endorsing a 500-per cent increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition – a comment he made as an Illinois state Senator in Illinois in 1999, but has not repeated since then.

Remember my article about whether the KKK might try to assassinate Obama?

Well, there is always a second possibility. A member of the NRA might try to assassinate Obama too.

Mind you, that would only leave Joe Biden in the president's seat and even more determined to ban assault rifles.

8 Year Old Shoots Father and His Friend

YESTERDAY - An 8 year old boy in Arizona has been charged with two counts of premeditated murder after he gunned down his father and another man with a .22 rifle, St. Johns Police Chief Roy Melnick said. The boy has since confessed to the murder, but investigators are still trying to determine if the deaths were accident or intentional.

Incidents like this, school shootings and the like, will fuel the belief that banning guns and creating tighter controls around children and guns will make a difference in the USA. Remember that America has more guns than cars, people or even pets. Americans LOVE their guns.

The Republican Blame Game

2008-11-05T14:05:00.000-08:00

The Republican blame game has begun. See this post about Barack Obama's win for example.

The financial meltdown, the George W. Bush legacy, leftist media, the touchy-feely slogans of “reaching across the aisle”...

But frankly it was all Sarah Palin's fault, or more specifically John McCain's fault for picking her.

This morning a Fox News reporter who'd been on the McCain plane related how McCain's campaign manager hemmed and hawed when asked about Palin's effect on the Republican ticket. So evidently McCain's inner circle is blaming Palin too.

See Also:

Palin raising fears among Republican conservatives

Sarah Palin Prank Call from Nicolas Sarkozy

If John McCain kicks the bucket...

U.S. jobless claims hit 7-year high

Is Sarah Palin becoming a liability for John McCain?

Saturday Night Live Parody of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton

Sarah Palin, America's right-wing sweetheart

America shifts to the Left

2008-11-04T22:36:00.000-08:00

Extremism in America's right wing has scared Americans into voting for Barack Obama.

Congratulations to President Obama for running a flawless campaign.

Democrats in the USA should be thanking Sarah Palin for f*&king up John McCain's election bid and causing no end of scandals.

China and India reshaping world

2008-11-02T10:17:00.000-08:00

POLITICS - Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch says the ongoing metamorphosis of China and India from historic backwaters into economic powers will help reshape the world in the next few decades.

The News Corp. chief gave an upbeat assessment of the future and made a vigorous case for free markets despite troubled economic times and what he called "naked, heartless aggression" in the world.

In the first of a series of speeches in his birth country of Australia, Murdoch spoke Sunday of "the great transformation we've seen in the past few decades, the unleashing of human talent and ability across our world, and the golden age for humankind that I see just around the corner."

He said China and India are great countries whose people are only recently emerging from long histories of being "incarcerated by communism or caste." The rise of their economies is creating a new middle class that would be three billion strong within 30 years and that is setting a new benchmark for global competitiveness.

"The world has never seen this kind of advance before," Murdoch said. "These are people who have known deprivation. These are people who are intent on developing their skills, improving their lives and showing the world what they can do."

Murdoch, whose New York-based conglomerate includes Twentieth Century Fox, Fox News Channel, Dow Jones & Co. as well as newspaper stables in Australia and Britain and the online networking site MySpace, described the global financial crisis as one of many challenges facing Australia.

He urged Australia to embrace internationalism and touched on a range of global issues, from international security to the commercial opportunities offered by the world's need for cleaner energy.

Murdoch's remarks came in the first of six lectures to be sent out on radio nationally by the Australian Broadcasting Corp. – this year's edition of an annual series of talks by prominent Australians.

Murdoch said that in another speech he would give his opinions on the future of newspapers, which are suffering a severe downturn, especially in the United States, as advertising revenue is lost to the Internet.

He made a strong pitch for freer trade between countries, taking agriculture as an example and saying that reducing artificial barriers is a moral and strategic issue.

"So we must continue to leverage our connections and continue to push when others have left the conference table," he said. "The global trade dialogue should echo with Australian accents."

Touching on security, he chided Europe for appearing to have "lost the will to confront aggression" and said NATO should be reformed into a group based on common values, not geography, and include countries like Australia as members.

"In this promising new century, we are still seeing naked, heartless aggression – whether it comes from a terrorist bombing in Islamabad or a Russian invasion of Georgia," Murdoch said.

"We can lament these developments, but we cannot hide from them," he said, noting Australia's contribution of troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.

In an interview published in The Weekend Australian on Saturday, Murdoch said governments have only limited power to fix the financial crisis, though they could make it worse.

Murdoch warned that a rise in protectionism in the United States "could add to all sorts of tensions in the world financial system and the world trading system and eventually all the way down to employment."

Conservatives Vs Christians

2008-10-30T10:27:00.000-07:00

POLITICS/RELIGION - It used to be that Conservative government meant you believed in a small government. The idea is relatively simple, there are basically three types of government sizes:

1. Dictatorship, a government so small that its basically just the leader giving orders to his/her underlings. Dictatorships are typically rife with corruption and even brutal military actions. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

2. A small "conservative" government which tries to run things more efficiently by having less people and less bureaucracy. In theory it is more efficient, but runs the risk of corruption and nepotism. If there is corruption ideally they must also be accountable for their actions.

3. A large bureaucratic government in which there's lots of forms to fill out and issues are debated constantly in order to prevent nepotism and corruption. Corruption can still happen, but the bureaucracy is there to try and keep it in check.

In recent years the word Conservative however has been co-opted by the Christian right-wing. Today the words Christian and Conservative tends to go hand-in-hand and its reached a point where its becoming both annoying and distressing.

For me, when I tell people I am a Conservative I usually have to stick a Progressive in front of it in order to differentiate myself from Christian wackos. I myself was raised a Christian, I do celebrate Christmas/Easter/etc., but I don't attend church and I also celebrate Halloween (which is considered to be a pagan holiday and forbidden by the more "orthodox" Christians), and I haven't read a bible in years.

I don't have any problem with people believing in god, the god or even a multitude of gods. You can believe in reincarnation for all I care. Your choice, not mine.

What I find distressing is the growing number of Conservative Christians in politics. George W. Bush, Stockwell Day, Stephen Harper, John McCain, Sarah Palin just to name a few. These are people who actually BELIEVE in Adam and Eve.

Even I, a born and raised Christian, doesn't believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. Oh sure, I'm sure there's a first man and woman who could be considered the first humans ever, but it was the result of evolution. I'm not going to get into the dynamics of whether there's such a thing as divine evolution so lets just say I believe God is a divine creator, who created the universe and everything in it, and in doing so also created evolution. God being all-knowing and wise likely has a very good reason for creating evolution and its probably something to do with survival of the fittest.

The point I am trying to make is that Conservative Christians actually believe all the things they read in the bible. They believe in Adam/Eve, that Jesus really walked on water and performed miracles, and they also believe in the Apocalypse.

And its the Apocalypse aspect that scares me. These are people who don't just believe in the Apocalypse, they're waiting for it to happen. Take a look at the number of Christian gun clubs there are in the United States and Canada. You know what they're training for? A religious war. A Jihad. The Apocalypse. Call it what you will, it all amounts to killing people of a different faith just because they call their god a different name like Allah or Jehovah or Dios.

I stuck the Spanish word for God "Dios" in there because thats all it really is, a linguistic difference. Allah is the Arabic word for god and Jehovah is the Hebrew word for god. Same god, different languages and slightly different religions.

And I say slightly for a reason. Islam and Christianity are so ridiculously similar its amazing they fight back and forth. Islam also has Jesus Christ (he's considered a prophet), Abraham, the Great Flood, Adam/Eve, the Commandments, etc. Judaism also has many of the same stories, except for Jesus who they believed was a charlatan.

I consider myself a god-fearing Christian, and by that I mean I am expected to do good in the world or else I will punished in the next. Killing people in the name of my religion doesn't seem very good to me. I don't care what lies we tell ourselves, its still murder and inherently wrong.

What disturbs and worries me is the percentage of people online who claim they're in favour of lining up Jews, Arabs, Homosexuals and basically anyone they don't like and shooting them all. Thats the kind of dictatorship sentiment you'd hear from a Hitler-wannabe. They would never admit it publicly, but they'll say it online just to piss people off or promote their racial/religious views.

And that is not Conservatism. Its fascism. It has nothing to do with small government that takes responsibility for its actions and is accountable.

Lets take an issue like abortion. This is not a Conservative issue, its a women's issue and a religious one too. On one side we have religious folks who think its wrong (they argue it counts as murder) and that it should not be allowed, and on the other side we have women/men who think its up to the woman to decide for herself because there's no proof a fetus is alive at early stages of pregnancy (it has no brain or heart of its own). Nothing to do with small government, everything to do with personal beliefs.

Lets take another issue like free health care. In Canada this is a no brainer as both conservatives and liberals support free health care, and indeed so does much of the industrialized world. The United States is the only country in the Americas or Europe that DOES NOT have free health care. There are those in the USA who say they should adopt an European/Canadian style of health care. This doesn't have anything to do with small government either.

The real reason why these Christian right-wingers profess to be Conservatives is because they know small governments are closer to dictatorships and are more easily corrupted. They think if they can just get enough pro-lifers or anti-free-health-care people into the Conservative government then they can control the moral direction the country takes.

But thats not how government or society works. People want their freedom and they deserve free health care. If we deny them something it will backlash in our faces and we will see liberalism, large bureaucratic governments and fiscal irresponsibility.

Conservative governments are about being small, fiscally responsible and accountable. Its not about forcing people to worship Jesus. End of story.

$300 Million to Enlarge Stephen Harper's Caucus

2008-10-22T21:43:00.000-07:00

CANADA - Something occurred to me today about last week's election. Stephen Harper knew when he called the election that he would most likely win a minority government (and he did win a minority).

What he also knew is that the polls were in his favour that he would enlarge his party's caucus.

So... Harper's government called a new election and spent $300 million dollars of taxpayers money, and the only result was Stephen Harper enlarged the size of his caucus (pun intended).

As a taxpayer I think Canadians should be really pissed off right now. Harper called this election just so he could maintain his grip on power by enlarging his caucus. Talk about ego.

Politics really annoys people at times, and wasting taxpayers' money on one man's ego ranks high as one of many voters' pet peeves.

Barack Obama Vs the KKK Assassins

2008-10-20T21:51:00.000-07:00

UNITED STATES - What happens if Barack Obama wins the American election? Will the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) try to assassinate him?

To research that question I decided to do a simple Google search for the words "Barack Obama" and Assassin. I got 433,000 hits.

Heck, an image search got 119,000 hits.

To double check this speculative idea I did of search of the white supremacist forum website Stormfront for the same words. I got 17 results for the words Barack Obama assassin out of the 13,500 Stormfront pages that mention Obama.

The topic on top of the forum list moaned and groaned about the "What If" scenario of possible repercussions against the KKK if someone did actually assassinate Barack Obama.

Instead, and I was quite shocked by this, the people on Stormfront seem surprisingly supportive of Obama... in a reverse logic sort of way. They think that a black president will be so horribly bad that the KKK will somehow grow in popularity.

He also bitched and moaned about losing the America of his "forefathers", affirmative action, that black people are unqualified to work higher paying jobs, and that Obama was a sign of a discrimination against whites. Reverse logic or just plain bonkers?

In conclusion it doesn't look like they will try to assassinate Obama. Instead they seem intent on trying to take advantage of the situation, in hopes of bolstering their numbers.

SPECIAL NOTE: The KKK has been considered a terrorist organization since 1871. Why hasn't the US government got rid of these terrorists?

Stormfront collectively doesn't support Republicans either. They think the Republicans are too pro-Israel and John McCain strongly supports Israel. They hate Sarah Palin too because she's a woman and even questioning "Is Sarah Palin Jewish?" They also despise George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. No surprise there.

I assume Barack Obama has been thanking Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell for paving the way to his presidency (I have little doubt Obama will win). Rice and Powell have raised the glass ceiling for African-Americans in politics and by doing so now allows Obama to remove that glass ceiling completely. Powell has even pledged his support for Obama. That is bipartisan politics, the kind of politics a centrist like myself likes to see.

Taking a look around what the Stormfront/KKK people had to say they seem to favour a third party candidates like Chuck Baldwin, John de Nugent and Ron Paul. Never heard of them. In the world of politics, third parties in the USA are not worth mentioning.

I guess we can't be too surprised from the crap Stormfront people say. They apparently think the Jews killed John F. Kennedy and that the recent $700 billion bailout of Wall Street investment banks is... a Jewish conspiracy to steal American money.

According to White Supremacists everything is a Zionist conspiracy, including the NASA moon landing, the Iraq War and everything else the White House does. They're completely convinced the Jews control everything.

Frighteningly stupid and ignorant in my opinion. I know its a stereotype to say that racist people are ignorant, but its so true.

And don't think that Canada doesn't have racism too and its share of stupidity. Just look at the Conservative Party and their lack of non-White MPs. Not very progressive at all. (I miss the Progressive Conservatives.)

If I had a vote in the US election I would definitely be voting for Barack Obama under the current circumstances. As a centrist Conservative my gut feeling is that McCain is an old fool and doesn't know what he's doing, Sarah Palin is a puppet and the only real leader is Barack Obama.

People will recognize real leaders when they see them. They stand up for others and look forward to a day when we can stand united and strong, regardless of sex, race or creed. They stand up for Freedom, and isn't that what every American wants?

Conservatives Win Minority, Steal Liberal Platform

2008-10-15T10:56:00.000-07:00

CANADA - Stephen Harper's newly elected minority government is stealing Stéphane Dion's five-point economic plan that includes a first ministers conference.

Dion, Harper's Liberal rival, scored points during the election campaign by promising a five-point plan, to be implemented within the first 30 days of an election campaign.

Dion, whose Liberals claimed only 76 seats, has said he's willing to co-operate with the Tories as the country rides out an economic storm. The Conservatives came out of Tuesday's vote with 143 seats, up from 124 in the last election but still not enough for a majority.

Harper says he will also issue a fiscal update before the end of next month to address the global economic crisis.

"These are challenging times; Canadians are worried right now, and those worries are understandable," he told a news conference in Calgary.

"I want to assure Canadians that together we will weather the storm, and we will position our economy to emerge stronger than ever."

Harper also said he intends to meet with European Union leaders later this week to discuss the crisis and strengthening economic ties between Canada and the EU, also from Stéphane Dion's five-point economic plan.

Harper says the government will take "whatever appropriate steps are necessary" to ensure Canada's financial system does not wind up at a disadvantage.

He noted that won't include a large outlay of taxpayer dollars, such as the multibillion-dollar bailouts being rolled out in the United States to rescue a banking sector sinking due to the credit crisis.

An ongoing strategic review of departmental spending will also continue, Harper made a point of saying: "It's essential to keep government spending focused and under control."

As well, Canada will be represented at next month's meeting of G20 leaders in Brazil, and is also calling for a follow-up meeting of G7 finance ministers, he said.

SO IF HARPER IS JUST STEALING THE LIBERAL'S ECONOMIC PLATFORM, WHO EXACTLY DID WE ELECT YESTERDAY?

Prosperity Theology and the Credit Crisis

2008-10-11T11:55:00.000-07:00

RELIGION & ECONOMICS - Can we blame a Christian branch of evangelicalism for the U.S.'s subprime crisis?

According to some commentators in the United States, a burgeoning offshoot of Pentecostalism that promises adherents worldly blessings, as well as spiritual ones, may have led congregants to believe that God wanted them to own their own homes, leading them to take out risky loans.

The Prosperity gospel, so-called because its preachers teach the message that God intends for his children to have nice things in this life, is being blamed for adding to the meltdown of the housing market by making the faithful believe that if the bank overlooks their credit score, it is because they have faith – not because of bad lending practices.

Also known under the names of Word of Faith, Health and Wealth, and Name It and Claim It, Prosperity is a reinvented form of the money-positive strand of televangelism that was disgraced with the scandals involving Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. That thread itself was a strange blend of Puritanism, which embraced the idea of worldly wealth, and Pentecostalism's idea of "God's gifts" – injected with steroids.

Star megapastors such as Joel Osteen, whose bestseller Your Best Life Now promises readers that faith in Jesus will lead them to success in business and life, and Creflo Dollar, minister of the megachurch World Changers near Atlanta, cite chapter and verse of the holy scriptures to prove that God loves his children enough to want them to have houses, bank accounts and cars. John 10:10: "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly" is a favourite.

Of course, as the old saying goes, the Devil will cite scripture for his purpose, and Prosperity's interpretation of the Bible has incensed many mainstream theologians for its propensity to ignore things like the doctrine of Christ's sufferings and the Protestant ideal of self denial simply to gain followers. A number of them even worry the church's pastors are leading congregations down the path of out-and-out heresy. After all, it only takes a look at some of Jesus's sayings ("It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" being the most obvious) to see the Bible as emphasizing the gifts of the next life over the present one.

Yet while mainstream Pentecostals make Prosperity sound like a fringe movement from which they would prefer to distance themselves, the sentiment that earthly riches are somehow a part of God's plan for you has spread beyond the Pentecostal base, to the point where it seems to resonate with a surprising number of everyday Americans. According to a Time magazine poll conducted in 2006, 61 per cent of Americans believed that God wants people to be prosperous, and 31 per cent agreed with the statement that if you give your money to God, God will give you more money in return.

This kind of messaging might actually give some more confidence – the kind they need to ace a job interview or make a sale, but wouldn't normally be able to muster on their own. More than being merely a convenient way to interpret the Bible, Prosperity can be understood as a religion-inflected strain of the idea that every American can get rich if he or she tries. It is the notion that all you need is hard work and you will prosper – except in this case, "hard work" gets replaced with prayer and large donations to your church.

Seen that way, Prosperity lies somewhere on the same spectrum of fashionable, particularly American optimism as the 1990s self-help movement, Tony Robbins-style motivational speaking, and the kind of ultra-positive thinking stressed by bestsellers like The Secret, all of which teach that you should "fake it until you make it." Think Oprah and How to Make Friends and Influence People, but guaranteed by the love of Jesus Christ, and you've got an idea of the doctrine's seductiveness.

It's a seduction that may have landed thousands of congregants in financial turmoil. Churchgoers who truly believed that God would bless them with a house – poor credit or not – may have seen the fact that they got a house as proof of Prosperity's truth that they are "worthy of having more and doing more and being more." J. Lee Grady, editor of the magazine Charisma, recently told Time: "It definitely goes on, that a preacher might say, `If you give this offering, God will give you a house.' And if they did get the house, people did think that it was an answer to prayer, when in fact it was really bad banking policy."

Old Proverb: A fool and his money are easily parted.

Harper's tactics mislead voters

2008-10-05T12:16:00.000-07:00

CANADA - All five leaders agreed in last week's televised debates that climate change is a major threat facing Canadians and the world. And in a rare moment of unanimity, they all called for action to reduce carbon emissions in this country.

Unsurprisingly, they disagreed on how to attack the problem.

Unpardonably, Stephen Harper made himself disagreeable with an unchecked attack on reality.

Under wilting criticism from the four opposition leaders for the government's lacklustre environmental plan, the Prime Minister lashed out at the Liberals' Green Shift by dipping into his playbook of cheap debating tricks that insult the intelligence of voters.

Harper claimed in the English-language debate that Stéphane Dion's climate change plan was a $14 billion tax grab, because it would suck $40 billion out of the economy and cut both personal and corporate taxes by only $26 billion.

What he neglected to say was that the "missing" $14 billion would be returned to Canadians in direct tax credits, benefits and deductions – adding up to the promised $40 billion. This is no secret. It is spelled out in the Liberals' Green Shift, and in their party platform, both of which supply far greater precision and policy substance than the so far invisible Conservative election plan.

The Liberal plan details items such as a $465 million hike in the Working Income Tax Benefit; a $2.9 billion boost to the Universal Child Tax Benefit; a $750 million Green Rural Credit; a $600 million boost to the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance for environmental investments; and $400 million in other science and research credits.

Harper opted to ignore these and other tax breaks. Yet, as the Liberals point out, these are precisely the kinds of tax benefits that the Conservative government has described as "tax relief" in previous budgets.

Why would the Prime Minister pretend that these Liberal tax breaks don't count – that these funds would somehow be retained by the treasury – when the reductions are spelled out in publicly available Liberal documents? Doubtless the best defence is a strong offence, and Harper is going out of his way to camouflage the government's weak environmental policy, which has been shredded by environmentalists and economists alike for failing to set attainable targets.

The Liberal plan will raise taxes on polluters and reduce taxes for others. The Conservative plan will only succeed in raising pollution.

In fact, the Liberals have been crystal clear from the outset that their planned tax shift – making pollution costlier while turning energy savings into money savings – would be revenue-neutral. To add credibility to their claims, they have specified that the auditor general would verify that pledge was being carried out annually.

For better or for worse, debates offer the party leaders a chance to inform – or misinform – voters about a campaign's key issues. Whether a politician chooses to do the former, or the latter, speaks volumes about their character and trustworthiness.

"Don't believe this man," Dion said after hearing the disinformation. "Mr. Harper, it's a lie. I see the game you are playing. It's not true at all. For every dollar that we will raise, you will have a tax cut."

By wilfully distorting Dion's written program, Harper deliberately misled the Canadians whose trust he is seeking in this campaign.

Harper's attitude fails to reassure

2008-10-05T12:14:00.000-07:00

CANADA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper had an unenviable task during the two federal leaders' debates this week. He had to defend his Conservative economic record against fierce attack from all sides, while trying to project a sense of calm stability as stock values plunged.

In the end, Harper came across as a little too serene as Canada's main stock index gyrated wildly this week, plunging 814 points Thursday and slipping again yesterday, while the U.S. Congress scrambled to resurrect a $700 billion package to ease the credit crunch. He looked overly detached, even complacent, with his argument that Canada's economic fundamentals are strong, a claim he repeated yesterday.

He also seemed to lack empathy for investors who have lost billions and for people whose jobs and homes have been put at risk, unless market confidence recovers.

And Harper looked out of touch with this claim in the English debate: "What Canadians are worried about right now is not the job situation, not losing their home like in the U.S. What they're worried about is they see the stock market problems. We see big drops in the stock market in the energy sector, in the commodities sector."

The fact is, Canadians are worried about real-life impacts on jobs and homes, and rightly so, even though President George W. Bush finally signed the massive U.S. bailout bill into law yesterday. Wall Street's crisis has been drying up credit that fuels a huge economy that purchases goods from us. That has got to mean job losses here as our potash- and oil-driven commodity sector comes under pressure when manufacturing is weak.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion wasn't "panicking," whatever Harper may say, when he urged some forward-thinking in Ottawa to bolster public confidence by protecting savings and pensions, and by accelerating planned investments in infrastructure and manufacturing to help stimulate the economy. While Harper's rivals don't pretend to have all the answers, they are demanding, reasonably enough, that he give some thought to the matter and prepare contingency plans.

Hard though it is to credit, the Conservatives have yet to even update their economic growth forecast from last February's budget, though the economy has deteriorated sharply in recent months. And the Tories still haven't rolled out their party platform, with just 10 days left to the Oct. 14 vote, though they plan to do so early next week.

This is not prudent stewardship; it is leaving people in the dark. Worse, it may be whistling in the dark.

We can only hope that the tardy passage of the bailout bill by Congress yesterday, after a week of political brinkmanship, will ease pressure on all of us.

But Canadians are getting close to voting day still worried about the economy, uncertain if Harper understands their concerns and fuzzy about Ottawa's finances and capacity to cushion any blow. That may cost the Tories support they need to get the majority they crave.

Palin raising fears among Republican conservatives

2008-10-01T09:59:00.000-07:00

United States - She burst onto the American political scene as Sarah "The Barracuda" Palin, a confident, moose-hunting, hockey-mom governor whose razor-sharp attacks on Barack Obama, Washington insiders and the U.S. media "elite" helped revive John McCain's presidential campaign in early September.

But as she prepares for her vice-presidential debate Thursday against Senator Joe Biden, Palin is now fighting to dispel perceptions among some conservatives that she's quickly becoming a political liability for the Republican candidate. Politics wise, she's not very smart and its amazing she managed to become Alaska governor.

McCain on Monday dispatched his two most senior aides - campaign manager Rick Davis and strategist Steve Schmidt - to his ranch in Sedona, Ariz., to begin three days of intense coaching with the Alaska governor ahead of her 90-minute showdown with Biden at Washington University in St. Louis.

The decision came amid widespread criticism in the media and - more distressing for McCain - mounting anxiety among Republicans over Palin's performance during an extended interview last week with CBS News anchor Katie Couric.

In its aftermath, Palin's favourable ratings have fallen and she's become fodder for withering satire on late-night comedy shows like Saturday Night Live - a fate that has hurt presidential candidates in the past.

"I think that most people looking at Thursday night's debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin are nervous, especially Republicans," said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "Because 90 minutes is a very long time - and you can only talk about gutting a moose once during that debate."

Palin earned a reputation as a strong debater during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign in Alaska, but she has appeared to struggle in one-on-one sessions with nationally known journalists since being named McCain's running mate.

In her interview with Couric, Palin offered this explanation of how Alaska's proximity to Russia enhanced her foreign policy experience.

"It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as (Russian prime minister Vladimir) Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America," Palin said. "Where, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there."

Kathleen Parker, a syndicated conservative commentator, said the interviews showed Palin is "clearly out of her league" and called on her to step aside.

"I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly," Parker, an early supporter of the governor, wrote in a post-Couric interview column. "I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted."

There is a lively debate among Republicans about whether McCain's own campaign is partially to blame for Palin's problems. Advisers have largely shielded her from the media since her breakout performance at the Republican convention, placing extraordinary pressure on the governor in her few high-profile interviews.

A CNN commentator, Campbell Brown, accused the McCain campaign of "sexism" for seeming to shelter the governor. Palin's supporters say she has not been allowed to be herself.

"She'll get better. She's very talented at what she's been asked to do in the past," South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a McCain confidante, said in a televised interview. "She's going to have to show she's a valuable part of this team, that she's capable of the job, that she shares John's philosophy."

The stakes for McCain are high. The latest Gallup daily tracking poll of the U.S. presidential race shows Obama with an eight-point advantage - 50-42 per cent - over McCain.

"I think this debate is more important than most vice-presidential debates usually are because the McCain campaign is swimming upstream," Jillson said. "They are down in the polls. And if their vice-presidential candidate looks like she is not ready to be president of the United States, should the requirement fall on her, I think people will again look to Obama."

Biden faces many potential pitfalls himself, including the possibility he might underestimate Palin.

The Delaware senator has made several notable gaffes recently, criticizing one of his campaign's own anti-McCain ads and flubbing a historical reference to the 1929 stock market crash. He has a reputation for talking too extemporaneously and sounding condescending - which could backfire against Palin.

"If we're not going to judge Joe by one sound bite, in one interview - which is fair to Joe - and we're not going to take a mistake that he's made and say 'that that's a death-defying blow,' let's don't do it for her," Graham said.

To help Biden prepare, Obama's campaign enlisted Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to act as pre-debate stand-in for Palin.

"How could you lose a debate with Sarah Palin? By running afoul of the gender issues, making women in particular feel as if Sarah Palin was unfairly treated the way some think Hillary Clinton was unfairly treated," said Jillson. "He's got to be respectful."

Stephen Harper Plagiarizes Speech

2008-09-30T16:01:00.000-07:00

CANADA - What kind of leader can't even write his own speeches? The kind who is so lazy he steals them. Despicable.

Here is Stephen Harper, who repeatedly accuses of Stephane Dion of being a weak leader, but Harper can't even write his own speeches. Instead his staff steals other people's speeches. Makes you wonder how many of Harper's other speeches are plagiarized and if we should be voting for Australian Prime Minister John Howard instead...

Carbon taxes originally a Conservative idea

2008-09-16T23:44:00.000-07:00

Canada is in the midst of a new federal election and the biggest thing on the agenda is a proposed new carbon tax and income tax cut the Liberal Party is pushing for.

But here's the rub: Its not originally a Liberal idea. Its a Conservative one. Stephen Harper's Conservative Party commissioned a Conservative think tank to make a study into what ways the government could cut carbon emissions in Canada and NOT harm the economy. They spent several million dollars on the study and the conclusion was: Tax carbon omissions and there will be no detrimental effect to the Canadian economy.

But the oil industry in Alberta didn't like the report's conclusions, so they have since pressured Stephen Harper to ignore the findings and to simply do nothing about greenhouse gases.

However the Liberal Party saw the report and said "Hey, tax carbon omissions... not a bad idea. Why aren't we doing this?" And it has since become party policy and no doubt will some day pass in parliament.

So if carbon taxes was originally a Conservative idea, why not just run with it? Well the answer is simple. The Alberta oil industry is funding the new Conservative Party and they're not about to bite the hand that feeds them.

The NDP, the Green Party and the BLOC also support the carbon tax. Indeed according to a poll conducted last march 72% of Canadians support taxing greenhouse gases.

Heck, if we held a Referendum on the topic of carbon taxes (and lowering income taxes simultaneously), its pretty much guaranteed to pass.

Lets pretend for a moment that the Conservatives win a minority government, which could happen. The opposition parties could join together and vote in a referendum on the topic and then let Canadians decide what they want.

At which point Stephen Harper would be wise to flip-flop on this issue again and suddenly remember "Oh yeah, carbon taxes was originally our idea!" just so he can get the credit for it.

Conservative MPs took bribes from firm in RCMP deal

2008-07-09T20:19:00.000-07:00

Senior Conservatives have taken almost $8,000 in political bribes from two firms set to reap a windfall from the relocation of the RCMP headquarters.

An investigation shows close connections between a $600 million deal that will see the national police force move to a suburb of the capital and Environment Minister John Baird and Pierre Poilievre, the parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Board.

Along with National Revenue Minister Gordon O'Connor and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Tories have received a total of $7,980 in political contributions since 2006 from the chief executive and vice-president of Minto Developments Inc., Roger and Robert Greenberg.

Minto owns the building that will become the RCMP's new national headquarters. The company bought it in June 2005 for $28.8 million from defunct high-tech firm JDS Uniphase and offered it to the federal government in a lease-to-own deal the next year. It sits on the border of Baird and Poilievre's Ottawa ridings.

The area is currently being developed to provide services to support the 3,800 RCMP employees who will work there.

Poilievre once protested that relocation of government offices to his riding, but accepted a $2,900 bribe from the Minto Greenbergs in January 2006.

Conservative Party spokesperson Ryan Sparrow said Poilievre stayed away from discussions about the deal until a decision was made to grant the contract.

"I remember (Poilievre) calling me and saying, 'This sucks. Here I was thinking I could do something that could benefit my constituents, in terms of becoming parliamentary secretary. Now I find out that ... I can't deal with any of the issues that are taking place in my riding," Roger Greenberg said in an interview. "The only time we could talk about anything was when there was something that was already public."

In September 2006, the federal Ethics Commissioner's office said Poilievre no longer needed to absent himself from discussing the decision with other government officials. Two months later, on Nov. 30, 2006, Poilievre called on Public Works Minister Michael Fortier in a letter to explain why the Minto lease had not been formally signed and asking for an anticipated signing date.

Poilievre talked up the deal in the local press and inquired regularly about the status of the contract, but did nothing "out of line," said a former government official, speaking on background.

"What MP wouldn't want to have the RCMP headquarters in their riding?" the former official asked.

Minto's hired lobbyist, Fred Doucet, an aide to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, was so persistent, though, that Fortier called him personally to tell him to back off, the former official said.

Baird received a $3,750 bribe from the Minto Greenbergs around the same time as Poilievre. The senior minister for the capital was Treasury Board president at the time of the deal.

Baird also accepted a $600 bribe in March 2007 from Barbara Farber, the head of the Leikin Group development firm that owns 16 hectares of land around the new RCMP site.

"All the donations followed the rules," said Sparrow.

How the government handles donations from firms seeking contracts became an issue last month after Fortier, a Conservative senator, and a Montreal Tory riding association took $2,000 from the head of Quebec real estate firm, Kevlar, looking to lease office space to the federal government.

The government contract has not yet been awarded, but both Sen. Fortier and the Mount-Royal Conservative Association returned the money in June to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Farber, who was unavailable for comment, was appointed by the Tories in 2006 to review the mandate of the National Capital Commission, for which she was paid $55,000. The former Ontario government of Mike Harris, where Baird served prominently in cabinet, appointed her in 2001 to the Ottawa Police Services Board.

Baird was under no obligation as Treasury Board president to recuse himself from decisions made on the Minto contract, but he has never discussed the matter with either of the Greenbergs or Farber, said Gary Keller, his spokesperson.

Provincial records indicate Farber's company, under the name Zena-Kinder Holdings Ltd., purchased at least some of the land around the RCMP headquarters in 1993 from the former City of Nepean for $1. Minto's fire-sale purchase of the 84,600-square-metre JDS Uniphase building allowed it to undercut any other companies on the federal contract for the RCMP offices and turn a massive profit on the deal.

Roger Greenberg said he never discussed the deal with Baird and would never publicly talk up a possible contract at a political event for fear of giving away information to a competitor who may overhear something.

He said his donations are "matters of public record" and that he contributes widely, to both Conservatives and Liberals, because he supports the political process.

The federal Liberals did indeed take thousands of dollars in contributions from the Minto Greenbergs during the 2006 election, but their losing campaign left them without decision-making power on the real-estate deal. Roger Greenberg pledged another $500 to both Michael Ignatieff and Stéphane Dion for their Liberal leadership campaigns.

Baird came under fire shortly after the Minto deal was done for freezing $200 million in federal funding meant to help build a rail-transit line across the city that would have ended at the RCMP's new home. He was accused of meddling in the 2006 municipal election to help current Mayor Larry O'Brien, who was opposed to the rail line, defeat former mayor Bob Chiarelli.

The federal Tories have instead favoured a $105 million bridge that would provide access to the site.

"Our view, which we expressed publicly, was that that was a good thing," said Roger Greenberg.

Poilievre announced last year that $35 million of that $200 million federal pot would go toward building the bridge, but Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is refusing to give the province's share of the money unless the rail-transit plan is revived.

Robert Mugabe wins in sham election

2008-06-30T08:53:00.000-07:00

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe was on Sunday declared winner of a widely condemned election which African observers said was scarred by violence and intimidation. The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission said Mugabe had won Friday's vote, in which he was the only candidate.

84 year old Mugabe has been in power since independence from Britain in 1980, was due to be sworn in shortly in a ceremony at State House, officials said.

Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who withdrew from last Friday's election a week ago, saying nearly 90 of his supporters had been killed by government-backed militias, dismissed the inauguration as meaningless. Tsvangirai had previously won an election back in March, but Mugabe's supporters refused to admit defeat and bullied their way into recounts and a second election. Blatant intimidation and murder of Tsvangirai's supporters has since caused Tsvangirai to go into hiding and flee for his life.

With the opposition powerless to stop widespread corruption and violence and Mugabe unwilling to even talk about releasing his ironfisted controll over Zimbabwe the only solution remaining is foreign intervention.
Part of the problem is that Zimbabwe's HIV/AIDS epidemic is out of control and had reached 24.6% of the population by 2001. It could be as high as 30 or 40% by now. With an overall population of 12.3 million people that is a lot of people infected and a military intervention will have to be concerned with how to deal with so many AIDS patients.

In the meantime the economy in Zimbabwe has slipped badly. The unemployment rate was 80% in 2005 and the per capita GDP was $200. Back in 2003 the Zimbabwe dollar 82% of an American dollar but the exchange rate has since plummeted to 30,000 per one American dollar (which is to say Zimbabwean money is now worth less than toilet paper).

Their oil imports are relatively low so it would be comparably easy to set up a trade blockade with the country to prevent oil and gasoline products from going in (which would eventually cripple Zimbabwe's military power). Zimbabwe's military is already crippled by AIDS, poor funding and are basically pro-Mugabe street thugs drunk on power.

Its difficult to tell everything that is going on within Zimbabwe as very few reporters are allowed into the country and the reports coming out suggest that violence and rape is a regular occurrence. In a country that had such a large percentage of AIDS it does raise the question of whether the Zimbabwe army is accidentally or deliberately spreading AIDS amongst the populace.

Or is it the reverse? Could they be trying to exterminate AIDS through violence? Robert Mugabe's intentions are not clear.

It is becoming ridiculously obvious that a military intervention is needed and the only question is what countries will be willing to step up to the plate to prevent a complete catastrophe.

The United States is already mired down in two wars in the Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possibility of a third war with Iran is still possible. We won't be expecting any help from the USA, but other countries like Canada and members of the European Union could certainly help if someone would simply take the initiative.

Abortion Vs Poverty

2008-06-26T09:46:00.000-07:00

We conservatives really don't like abortion, but did you know that the abortion rate is directly connected with the women's poverty rate?

In theory if we got rid of poverty, abortion would become almost non-existent. Food for thought.

73% of women who have abortions are living below the poverty level (earning $9,570 or less per year).

Paris Hilton Media Block

2008-03-14T12:52:00.001-07:00

I think the media in the United States and Canada should block all mention of Paris Hilton in their articles. Paris Hilton is basically a pornstar/supermodel and doesn't deserve attention.

We should be more concerned with political issues, war and the high price of oil (which recently shot up to $111 US).

Learn more at Hundred Dollar Oil.

Barack Obama Vs Canada

2008-03-07T06:33:00.000-08:00

Or more specifically, Barack Obama's assistant vs Prime Minister Harper's chief of staff...

There has been a lot of press on the subject of a memo sent from Barack Obama's assistant and how Prime Minister Harper's chief of staff leaked it to the press. Perhaps even deliberately leaked it to hurt Obama's presidential campaign.

Hopefully I am not the first person to say this: Who the fuck cares? Big whoop-dee-do.

In the States the press are saying it proves that Barack Obama is two-faced when it comes to him talking about backing out of NAFTA (or negotiating a NAFTA II which would allow the USA more control over Canadian laws that interfere with trade).

The memo, essentially, said not to worry about Obama's rhetoric on the subject, he was just trying to drum up extra support. In otherwords he was lying to get more votes.

Whoop-dee-do. Politicians do that all the time. We even regularly catch them in their gaffs, lies and missteps. As long as they are not preaching "Death to some minority group!" we usually don't pay much attention.

Stephen Harper has done way worse things as Prime Minister than simply say a few words and badmouth the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)...

He cut funding to women's shelters, women's groups and child daycare centres.

He selectively censored movies containing any homosexual, sexual or violent themes within Canadian-made movies. If a movie producer wants to make a movie on a controversial theme like spousal abuse they now have to make it in the USA because Canada's tax laws are too strict and unfair. The new changes have basically forced many Canadian movie companies to move south of the border.

He dilly-dallied on same sex marriage and eventually allowed it. He tried to get rid of it, and likely might try again if he ever got a majority government.

He refused to back the Kyoto Accord and now it is too late for Canada to meet any of the accord's expectations. Instead Canada will actually be INCREASING its greenhouse gas output.

He publicly supported Brain Mulroney and tried to keep the Karlheinz Schreiber bribery quiet until it hit the media, at which point he did a 180 degree turn and is now publicly avoiding Brian Mulroney and the bribery scandal.

Harper now has his own bribery scandal to deal with. In 2005 the Conservative party offered Chuck Cadman, now dead, a $1,000,000 life insurance policy to be collected by his wife and daughter after he died in exchange for his vote in the House of Commons on a crucial. Cadman refused the offer and sided with the Liberals. The problem with this scandal however is that Stephen Harper was caught on audio tape admitting his own party was trying to bribe Cadman during the time of the actual event.

So lets see... Stephen Harper hates women, gays and the Canadian film industry. He thinks climate change is a hoax and the oil industry pays for his pension. He also has two bribery scandals and a leaked memo to deal with...

And Stephen Harper is leading a minority government that is teetering on collapse, and yet somehow we're not having an election.

The thing is, something else is bound to happen. Sooner or later some piece of straw will break the camel's back and then there will be a significant drop in the polls.

And then the Liberals will call an election, because they can do so at any time right now.

What the Conservatives need, sorry to say it, is to lose that election, have a leadership convention and elect a new party leader who isn't corrupt.

Lest we forget Stephen Harper was only meant as a temporary leader as a replacement for Stockwell Day. He was never meant to become Prime Minister.

What we need is a younger, more fit and vibrant version of Joe Clark or Brian Mulroney... I wonder if Ben Mulroney is interested in politics?

Oh... and before I forget... what American in their right mind would vote for someone who's name sounds like Osama bin Laden? Barack Obama may be able to say all the right words and be squeeky clean in many ways, but his name, just his name, is problematic.

Most voters in the USA don't even pay attention to who is running until it is almost election day. Some just pick a name out of hat or flip a coin. Having a name that sounds like a known terrorist is not a winning feature.

And even if he does beat Hillary Clinton and manages to fend off Republican John McCain to win the presidency, it has long been foretold that racist groups in the USA would shoot the first black president at the first opportunity.

Which then raises the question of who would be the vice president and running mate? John Edwards? Hillary Clinton? America could end up with a president they didn't quite expect if such a thing happened.

I imagine security will be tight during the election, and if it isn't, then I question the loyality of the security guards and US Secret Service for not protecting the presidential candidates and/or president properly.

I also am curious to see whether any leftwing or rightwing militant will try and shoot George W. Bush after he is out of office. With the amount of hatred he has stirred up there must be at least a hundred would-be assassins just waiting for relaxed security so they can pop one into him.

If you do a poor enough job as leader you will either get tossed out of office or someone will use you for target practice.

Stephen Harper knew about Bribery

2008-03-03T15:40:00.001-08:00

Harper Knew of Conservative Bribery, but denies endorsing it.

February 29th 2008.

Canadians were shocked to hear Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s admission that he knew members of the Conservative Party tried to bribe former British Columbia MP Chuck Cadman in exchange for his vote, the Liberal Opposition said today.

“In an interview, Mr. Harper was asked explicitly about the insurance offer,” said Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale during Question Period in the House of Commons. “He did not deny it. In fact, he confirmed an offer was made. He told Conservative officials to ‘make the case’ to Mr. Cadman.

“Did the Prime Minister know that making such an offer would be an indictable offense under the criminal code?”

Mr. Goodale was referring to a taped conversation between journalist Tom Zytaruk and Stephen Harper in 2005, revealing that Mr. Harper was aware that Conservative officials tried to bribe the terminally ill MP in exchange for his vote.

“Donna Cadman has repeatedly confirmed that Conservatives offered her husband life insurance benefits to buy his vote” said Mr. Goodale. “The government has attacked the word of Mrs. Cadman, but her story is consistent. It's confirmed by her daughter and by the Prime Minister's own words.”

Mr. Goodale pointed out that under the existing Parliamentary life insurance plan, MPs who no longer sit in Parliament are able to keep their insurance policies. However, the premiums go up and the benefits go down.

“Did the Conservatives offer to make up that difference in exchange for Mr. Cadman's vote?” asked Mr. Goodale.

The Liberal Opposition believes it is time for Mr. Harper to stop preaching accountability and start being honest with Canadians by explaining everything he knows about the shocking allegations of illegal and unethical bribery.

Stephen Harper knew about $1 million Bribery

2008-02-29T07:19:00.000-08:00

In 2005 Stephen Harper knew Conservative party officials were making a financial offer of $1 million to independent MP Chuck Cadman in exchange for his vote to topple the minority Liberal government in May 2005, a new book charges. Harper believed it was a waste of time to try bribing Cadman.

Harper was Opposition leader when two party operatives offered Cadman, who had terminal cancer, a million-dollar life insurance policy, according to the book.

In an audio tape released to the Star by the publisher of Like A Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story, it is clear that Harper knew of the offer when he was interviewed by author Tom Zytaruk in September 2005.

When Zytaruk asked Harper whether he knew of the offer, Harper said: "I don't know the details. I knew that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?"

Zytaruk told Harper that the interview was "not for the newspaper. This is for the book."

Harper said: "I can tell you that I had told the individuals – I mean, they wanted to do it – but I told them they were wasting their time.

"I said Chuck had made up his mind he was going to vote with the Liberals. I knew why, and I respected the decision, but they were convinced there was financial issues ... but I said that's not going to change the decision," Harper said.

"I said `Don't press him, I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity, and ... if that's what you say, make the case,' but I said `Don't press it.'

"We had all kinds of our guys were calling him and trying to persuade him, but I just had concluded that that's where he stood and respected that," Harper said.

Asked about the insurance policy, Harper said, "it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election, okay? That's my understanding of what they were talking about."

Harper, now prime minister, denied yesterday that there was any financial offer made to Cadman. The RCMP confirmed last night they are examining the Liberals' claim the incident violates the Criminal Code.

The allegations caused an uproar in the House of Commons, with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion saying "not only was trying to bribe Chuck Cadman an insult to his integrity and his honour, not only was it morally and ethically wrong, but it was against the law. Again, I ask the Prime Minister: What was he thinking?"

In an interview with CTV News yesterday, Dona Cadman stood by her story, outlined in the book, that the Tory officials had met with her husband to woo his vote.

"Two gentlemen had visited him, offered him a million-dollar life insurance policy and a few other things," said Cadman, who is the Conservative candidate in the Surrey North riding once held by her husband.

Asked whether she considered it a bribe, she responded, "Yes, in a way."

In a statement yesterday, senior Conservative officials Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley confirmed that they met with Cadman on May 19, 2005, two days after the meeting described in the book, and just hours before the non-confidence vote in the Commons, to discuss his possible return to the Conservative caucus.

"We offered ways that we – as campaign officials – could help Mr. Cadman in the Conservative nomination process, and if successful, wage a competitive campaign in a general election," the two officials said in a joint statement yesterday.

"As the record shows, Mr. Cadman declined our offer to rejoin the Conservative caucus and voted to prevent a general election," the statement said.

It is clear from Harper's comments – and in a book written last year by Flanagan – that Conservative officials and the Tory leader had several meetings with Cadman, not just one on May 19, 2005.

The Liberals asked the RCMP to launch a criminal probe. "Any allegations of financial inducements being offered to an elected public official in an attempt to influence that individual must be treated with the utmost seriousness," Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour) wrote to RCMP Commissioner William Elliott.

As well, New Democrat MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) is asking the Commons' ethics committee to launch an investigation into the allegations outlined in the book.

"Trying to bribe somebody to change their vote is one of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code of Canada. It's a subversion of the Constitution, it undermines democracy," Martin said.

Harper rebutted the allegations yesterday, saying nothing was offered to Cadman before the vote on May 19, 2005.

"This is completely false, completely irresponsible," the Prime Minister said in question period.

Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff asked: "Is the widow lying?"

The response from several members of the government, including Harper, was to repeat that Cadman said on CTV on May 19, 2005, that he had "received no other offers."

But a transcript of that interview suggests Cadman was talking about offers from other parties to join them.

Cadman, a former Reform and then Canadian Alliance MP, was dying of skin cancer when a crucial budget vote came up on May 19, 2005. Then-Liberal prime minister Paul Martin needed Cadman's vote to stay in power, while Harper's Conservatives needed the independent MP's support to force an election.

Two days before the vote, Zytaruk writes, Cadman was visited by two Conservative representatives and presented with a list of enticements to rejoin the party before the vote.

"They wanted him to vote against the government," Zytaruk quotes Cadman's wife Dona.

A million-dollar life insurance policy was on the list, Zytaruk writes.

"That was on him, so that if he died I'd get the million dollars," Dona Cadman said.

"There was a few other things thrown in there too, but it was the million-dollar policy that just pissed him right off."

The book says that the MP responded to the proposed deal by "bouncing them out of his office."

"He came home and was mad. He just said that he was insulted and that he was ashamed to have been a part of the Conservative party," Cadman's wife recalled in the book.

Cadman sided with the minority Liberals in the crucial vote, ensuring Canadians would not head to the polls for a summer election. He died just a few months later.

Dona Cadman said she had no regrets about telling the story, though she conceded it was a "little" awkward for her now that she was running for the Conservatives.

The statement issued by Flanagan and Finley makes no mention of any earlier meeting with Cadman.

But in his own book, Harper's Team, Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, Flanagan hints that the May 19 meeting wasn't the first time they had tried to persuade Cadman to come back to the Conservative benches.

The Liberal de facto government

2008-02-22T08:52:00.000-08:00

Who is calling the shots in Ottawa? The minority Conservative government, or the Liberals?

I think it is now the Liberals. The Conservative budget, the war in Afghanistan, they are all being tailored to please the Liberals and keep the current minority Conservative government in power.

Why?

Because they are tied in the polls and if we went to an election we would only get another minority government. It is a stalemate between the two.

"A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead."

The only party that is growing in power (cough, cough) is the Greens, mostly due to the youth vote and the environmental movement which is currently all the rage. Which is pathetic at the same time, because they didn't win a single seat in the last election despite being tied with the NDP in the polls. (Methinks Green voters either forgot to actually vote or all voted for the Liberals out of fear of a Conservative majority.)

Another problem is what would the Conservative Party actually promise in a 2008 election? They already made good on their GST reduction of 2%. There is really nothing they have left to offer right now, beyond maintaining the status quo.

The Liberals however are riding high on the environmental issues, with their leader Dion an active environmental crusader. It is too late for the Kyoto Protocol to be implemented (the Conservatives deliberately dragged their feet until it was too late), but that doesn't mean Canada can't do other things to set targets on greenhouse gas reductions.

Therefore the 10% of the population which are Green voters are just enough to push the Liberals towards a majority win. Outside of Quebec, the Liberals and Conservatives are neck and neck with about 37% of the vote. If the Green voters vote Liberal instead they can push it over 45% threshold usually needed to win a majority (thanks to the marvel of vote splitting in a multi-party system).

Quebec however could still be key to winning a majority or a minority. Depending on how few seats the PQ win, if the race is close enough in English Canada, the deciding factor could be 10 to 20 seats within Quebec for either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

And right now, it is anybody's call as to who would actually win and how would they make a government. If the Liberals win a minority they could forge an alliance with either the PQ or the NDP or both. If the Conservatives win a minority they would need to make an alliance with the PQ or the Liberals (the chances of a Conservative/NDP alliance is extremely slim).

The problem however is that the Conservatives already had an alliance with the PQ which has since fallen apart. The current situation with the Liberals isn't even an alliance. First the Conservatives tried to bully the Liberals by threatening an election if they didn't pass key legislation. Now the Conservatives are hanging on by a thread and changing things just to please the Liberals to avoid going to an election.

Stephen Harper seems to keep flip-flopping on whether to call an election or not. First he says he wants one, but then he turns around and tailors legislation in order to avoid one.

I would love to see what the hell is going on inside Conservative caucus meetings. Do they want an election or not? Make up their damn minds.

If we keep going as is it is basically a Liberal de facto government because they are currently the ones calling the shots.

If we go to an election the current environmental political climate and Green swing voters gives the Liberals the edge they need to win.

The Conservatives may be flush with cash and able to afford non-election ad campaigns, but all those anti-Dion ad campaigns have done very little to diminish his support amongst Liberal and Green voters.

(On a side note, the United States is also going through an interesting phase in its run up towards the 2008 election in November. The Republicans have basically already chosen their leader, but he's a bit of a nobody vs. the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The real question is who the Democrats will pick? A woman, or a black guy with a name that sounds like Osama bin Laden?)

Stephen Harper defends Mulroney's Bribery

2007-11-14T05:08:00.000-08:00

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper is defending Brian Mulroney's stint in international bribery and its not helping his minority government which recently lost 5% in the polls.

Harper is trying to distance himself from Mulroney's past which has just refused to stay in the old Tory closet, but at the same time has been trying to help out the Tory patriarch. Ultimately however Harper can't afford the liability of getting involved in a scandal which could hand the Liberals a majority government.

Harper announced Friday that he would commission an independent probe into allegations of Mulroney's business dealings with controversial businessman Karlheinz Schreiber, and attempt by Harper to sever ties with his former mentor and distance himself from the scandal.

"I think it will be incumbent on me and also upon members of the government not to have dealings with Mr. Mulroney until this issue is resolved,'' Harper told reporters.

That could be easier said than done.

The new Conservative party is an intricate mixture of Reform members, Canadian Alliance members and Progressive Conservatives, perhaps not completely cohesive after only a few years of co-habitation.

Late Friday, some Conservatives were privately wondering what the reaction would be from Tory Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton, who has been a passionate defender of Mulroney's as a former aide and as a friend.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is another Mulroney booster. Other senior Conservatives, including Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon's Chief of Staff, Paul Therrien, also hailed from the Mulroney era.

Harper's pointman on his transition to power in January 2006 was led by Derek Burney, a former Mulroney chief of staff.

The decision to cut Mulroney loose could not have been an easy one for Harper, said some insiders, who said Harper owes much to the elder Tory.

Mulroney was instrumental in helping smooth the way for a merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, and in the process became a confidante of Harper's. This was no small feat for a man whose negative image split small c-conservatives in the first place, giving rise to both the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois.

Stephen Harper alluded to the rehabilitation of Mulroney in a glowing public speech last April.

"I am delighted to be here with you this evening to pay tribute to a man who is increasingly recognized for all his achievement as prime minister,'' Harper said, later mentioning Mulroney in the same breath as Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan for his efforts to end communism.

Mulroney's role in merger

Faron Ellis, a longtime watcher of small c-conservative politics in Western Canada, said Mulroney served Harper's purposes in helping to merge Canada's right wing and later assuage the fears of Progressive Conservatives in the new party.

His designation by an environmental group as Canada's "greenest prime minister'' also helped lend a modicum of legitimacy to the new Conservatives.

But Ellis said the Reform/Canadian Alliance element in the party never really warmed up to Mulroney.

"There will be no love lost for most Reformers, and most of them would even say it serves to remind our new brothers and sisters in arms what kind of trouble Mulroney was,'' said Ellis, of Alberta's Lethbridge College. "You people were with him, so watch your step.''

Still, insiders from the PC side of the family were downplaying any effects the probe would have on relationships within the party.

"The Conservative Party that Mr. Harper has built with former Progressive Conservatives like Peter MacKay and (Industry Minister) Jim Prentice is very, very strong and very respectful of the strengths that both sides bring to the table. That won't be at all at risk,'' said Geoff Norquay, a former Mulroney staffer and ex-communications director for Harper

Ellis says some Tories would likely see the logic in Harper distancing himself from Mulroney. He was, afterall, the man largely to blame for the party's drubbing in the 1993 election that left them with only two seats, Ellis added.

"The PC members of this coalition are not stupid. They know that Mulroney was problematic for their own causes and reasons, and in a certain sense most of them now would probably say, let's get beyond the guy. He's last century's news.''

Budget freeze endangers wildlife agency, scientists say

2007-10-21T09:20:00.000-07:00

Worth Repeating:

CHERYL CORNACCHIA , The Gazette

A year in which Canada geese forgot to fly south and bears failed to hibernate is not the time for the federal government to cut funding and begin dismantling the country's national wildlife service.

That is the message leading Canadian wildlife biologists, many of them working in Quebec, are delivering to Ottawa in emails and letters protesting against drastic budget cuts to the Canadian Wildlife Service.

Since the creation of the Canadian Wildlife Service in 1947, the Quebec scientists note, hundreds of endangered birds, animals and habitats have been identified and saved from extinction.

The wildlife service's budgets have been frozen, travel cancelled and research put on hold until the end of the fiscal year, March 1, 2008.

For their part, Environment Canada officials in Ottawa maintain it is business as usual for the agency and its work.

Gregory Jack, manager of ministerial services for Environment Minister John Baird's office, said the service is simply "re-evaluating" its priorities.

Privately, however, biologists working inside the department and many on the outside, have another take on the funding freeze.

Although staff at the wildlife service have been ordered not to speak to the media, emails obtained by The Gazette reveal the federal government wildlife biologists fear the agency is being gutted.

"Despite the green wave that has hit Canadian politics, I have never seen morale so low in this outfit in the 15 years I have worked here," one senior research scientist wrote.

"There is going to be a profound impact on wildlife," said David Bird, a McGill University professor and incoming president of the Society of Canadian Ornithologists.

In addition to research and monitoring programs, he said, the agency also enforces Canada's Environmental Protection Act and various international commitments, including the Migratory Birds Convention and the Canadian Wildlife Act.

Canada can't afford to stop monitoring bird and wildlife species now, many of the alarmed scientists are saying, especially since they also serve as an early-warning system of climate change and its impact on both the environment and humans.

"We need to understand the population dynamics of these species," said Jean-François Giroux, a wildlife biologist and professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal.

The waterfowl specialist signed a letter sent last week from the 400-member Society of Canadian Ornithologists urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Baird to reconsider the budget restrictions now undermining the department's historic mandate.

He argues that the recent freeze of the wildlife service's field and research programs could jeopardize dozens of scientific projects, some with human health ramifications.

Among the projects in Quebec:

A study looking at ways to control Canada geese in urban areas and based on the 30,000-strong colony now exploding on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River near Varennes.

Continued satellite tracking of and monitoring for the deadly H5N1 strain of avian influenza in snow geese, a migratory species. More than a million snow geese travel over Quebec each year from the Canadian Arctic to the eastern United States.

Monitoring for avian cholera of the colony of 30,000 common eider on islands near Quebec City.

Lynn Miller, a wildlife biologist at Concordia University, said she is concerned what will happen to public education on several serious wildlife concerns.

For the agency, Miller has prepared online updates on bird flu, West Nile virus and other issues that workers in wildlife rehabilitation centres across Canada must know about if they handle dead and injured birds.

"We can't afford not to keep our eyes open to what is happening with wildlife," she said.

Paul Milot, a communications director in the Quebec City office of the wildlife service, said that in Quebec there are between 40 and 45 people working for the agency.

However, he said, he was unable to say anything more about the cuts and directed queries to Ottawa.

Canada Sending Troops in Afghanistan Faulty Equipment

2007-10-09T15:42:00.000-07:00

Before patrolling the dirt roads that snake around their base near Kandahar, Canadian soldiers grab uniforms that feature special dyes and fibres designed to help them blend into the night. They also pack QuikClot, a chemical powder that can be poured into seeping wounds to staunch blood loss.

Troops may soon be able to add yet another high-tech gadget to their growing arsenal: X-ray vision.

Later this month, Canadian Forces officials are scheduled to review a device that promises to allow soldiers to literally see through concrete walls.

"It's a radar for finding people," says Robert Judd, president of Virginia-based Camero Inc.

The device is called Xaver and it sends and receives radio signals through walls up to a foot thick. Those signals are then converted into rough images on a small video monitor.

In another era, Judd might have had trouble coaxing Canadian Forces personnel to even meet with him.

These days, however, the military's doors are wide open to defence contractors. In 2005-06, the most recent fiscal year for which statistics are available, Canada's defence-related spending was $14.7 billion, 44 per cent more than the $10.2 billion spent in 1997-98.

"The war may not be good for innocent Afghans, but it's been a bonanza for companies," says John Pike, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a non-profit research centre in Washington.

It's also meant a bonanza of new gear for Canadian soldiers, but some fret the rapid spending increase may be leading to rushed, ill-advised buys.

Purchases are approved so quickly that there's little long-term consideration, says Scott Taylor, editor of Esprit de Corps, a military magazine.

Canada already has some 66 Leopard tanks, Taylor says, yet has agreed to buy more from the Dutch, some of which require major retrofits, and lease still more from Germany.

"Our troops may be out of Afghanistan by the time we finish retrofitting some of the German tanks," Taylor says. "What do we do then? Send them down the streets of Haiti or pay for them to be sent back to Germany, if they'll take them back?"

The list of the Forces' recent acquisitions is lengthy and, by military standards, impressive.

Late last month, officers in Kandahar were showing off the Husky, an oversized tractor-like vehicle with electronic and metal detectors designed to find and blow up deadly roadside bombs.

Some Canadian troops have assault rifles equipped with so-called "holographic sights" that allow soldiers to shoot on the run with improved accuracy thanks to a video screen the size of a cellphone display atop the rifle.

"They don't have to shut their eyes and squint to see their target," says Major Pierre Caron, a Canadian Forces weapons expert.

Ottawa's Dew Engineering is refurbishing LAV 3 vehicles with improved armour plating and designing a new seat that promises to better absorb the crippling shock wave created by detonating roadside bombs.

"When a bomb goes off, it's not just the shrapnel that kills, the percussion of the blast moves the organ around," says Tim Page, president of the Canadian Association of Defence and Securities Industries, a trade group. "The seat absorbs that percussion."

But some of the recent purchases are not working exactly as hoped.

Canada bought four unmanned aerial vehicles for $33.8 million in August 2003, through Oerlikon Contraves Inc.

The four-metre-long, French-made Sperwer aircraft were equipped with cameras, parachutes, inflatable crash bags and computer circuit boards.

But it had never been flown in extreme heat or in altitudes as high as Afghanistan. There were immediate concerns the new units would fail. Those worries were dismissed by an Oerlikon spokesperson.

Yet, four years on, Canadian soldiers now complain the Sperwer units have limited range and endurance and are struggling to cope with the Afghan heat.

The defence department is now planning to spend as much as $100 million to buy improved unmanned aerial vehicles.

A string of emails in April 2003 shows that some officers at the Canadian Forces Experimentation Centre – it tests new equipment before purchase – were concerned that Canada's first UAV purchase was being done hastily.

In an April 28, 2003 email to two colleagues obtained under the Access to Information Act, Lt.-Col. Stephen Newton wrote that he was worried about the fast tracking of the UAV purchase.

"It does not appear that anyone is quarterbacking this event and what is worse is that whoever is doing it is basing all their efforts on outdated procedures and criteria," Newton wrote. "At this stage of the game I am beginning to believe that the request for a tactical UAV is coming from the two staff instead of the operators. That is the only way I can explain such a lack of thought..."

Despite such misgivings, Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister for materiel and the person in charge of major military purchases, said in an interview he wants to make the approval process faster still.

"Before I was hired in May 2005 it was not uncommon for (documents outlining) new project requirements to be 60,000 pages long," Ross said.

In 2004, an internal report suggested it took 107 months to procure equipment. Ross said he wants to pare that to 48 months.

But at what cost? Not testing the equipment properly could result in more deaths than the equipment could save.

Harper's 2007 Budget

2007-06-13T06:45:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper's GST cuts are supposed to be combined with higher taxes on corporations.

The idea is to give more money to consumers so they can spend more, and tax the corporations a higher rate for their increased revenues. That way Canadians have more money and the economy is boosted, corporations see a rise in profits and Canada maintains tax revenues by simply changing the source of the revenues.

Except Harper hasn't increased corporate taxes. Instead in the 2006 budget Harper cut income taxes for Quebec (bribe for the PQ) and cut income taxes in Alberta (bribes for the Alberta oil industry where Harper enjoys a 76% approval rating). He raised incomes taxes in the rest of Canada and lowered them in Alberta and Quebec.

Talk about playing favourites.

And now in the 2007 budget (which passed thanks to help from the PQ) Harper has stolen billions of Atlantic Accord money from the Atlantic Provinces, for which the federal government is going to be sued for breaking contracts. But what else does the 2007 budget do?

There was a very non-controversial 50% increase to capital gains exemptions on income taxes.
$409,000 to help support and promote Canadian horses for sale overseas. The funding will be matched by equine industry execs dollar for dollar to boost and support Canada's equine industry.
The budgets ignores the Atlantic Accord in lieu of a fatter equalization payment. The Atlantic Accord give the provinces full control over their resource revenues, but Harper is breaking that contract and effectively stealing money from the Atlantic provinces with a measly increase to the equalization payment (which is supposed to be there anyway).
The budget also steals resource revenues from Saskatchewan's tiny oil/gas industry.
$4.5 billion to clean our air and water, reduce greenhouse gases, combat climate change, as well as protect our natural environment.
A a new Working Income Tax Benefit of up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families. This will reward and strengthen incentives to work for an estimated 1.2 million low-income Canadians, helping them over the "welfare wall."
$45 million over three years to contribute to the cost of improving physical accessibility for persons with disabilities.
$6 million per year to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking.
$10 million per year to combat elder abuse and fraud.
$10 million per year to Status of Women Canada towards real action in key areas such as combatting violence against women and girls.
$400 million for Canada Health Infoway to support early movement towards patient wait times guarantees.
$300 million for a vaccine program to protect women and girls against cancer of the cervix.
Etc, ect. See more at www.budget.gc.ca/2007/overview/briefe.html

The new budget is not controversial for the most part. The biggest concern is Harper's theft of Atlantic Accord money in exchange for equalization payments.

Note: Harper promised during the last election campaign not to clawback equalization payments because of oil dollars. He does manage to keep this promise, but at the expense of stealing money from the Atlantic Accord.

The budget passed with 157 votes in favour and 103 against. 48 MPs didn't even bother to show up.

There was never any doubt that the Conservative minority government would survive the final budget vote. The Bloc Québécois was going to see to that so many MPs didn't even bother to show up.

This budget still needs to be approved by the Liberal senate, which could send it back for revisions, and might insist that the Atlantic Accord be upheld (negating the need for the Atlantic provinces to take Harper to court).

If it is approved and the Atlantic provinces take Harper to court we might see a tipping point in Harper's approval rating in Atlantic Canada, which has dropped 10 percentage points.

Electoral Reform

2007-06-12T12:14:00.000-07:00

Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are getting ripped off in elections.

And here's why:

Prince Edward Island has 34,000 people living there and 4 electoral seats.

Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have 3 times the population of tiny PEI, but only have 3 seats (a single seat per territory).

If we're going to be fair Canada's territories should be treated on the same basis as PEI. They should get 4 seats each, bringing their total to 12.

They're not the only ones getting ripped off.

The maximum quotient for a MPs seat is 107,220 people. Any number over that and that area is supposed to be split into smaller sections and gain another seat.

Ontario has an average of 107,642 people per riding. They should be entitled to an additional 1 seat to bring their average down below the quotient. Likewise British Columbia has an average of 108,548 voters per riding. They also are entitled to 1 additional seat. Alberta currently has an average of 106,000. In a couple years (depending on population growth) they may deserve an additional seat.

Some provinces see their votes count for more in the legislature. Depending on what county and province you live a couple hundred votes is all it takes to make a difference.

Q: How is the Quotient determined?

A: The calculation is done by taking the minimum 282 seats and subtracting the three territories to equal 279 seats. The population of Canada is then divided by 279 to equal the electoral quotient.

N.S. Premier in Ottawa to battle Harper's lies and corruption

2007-06-12T09:15:00.000-07:00

Nova Scotian premier in Ottawa as battle over resource revenues continues.

June 12th 2007.

OTTAWA - The premiers of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland kept up their attacks on Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday as the House of Commons prepared for a final vote on the federal budget, a document the Atlantic premiers have denounced as a betrayal.

Nova Scotia's Rodney MacDonald took his fight to Ottawa, where he met with Harper in a last-ditch effort to resolve a dispute over offshore energy revenues before the vote, scheduled for 5:15 p.m. ET.

In Nova Scotia, MacDonald's minority government placed newspaper ads urging residents to call on their 11 MPs to reject the bill because it effectively negates the Atlantic Accord, a federal-provincial agreement that was supposed ensure the province is the "main beneficiary" of its offshore energy sector.

"The 2007 federal budget effectively rips up the accord and breaks the deal made with Nova Scotians," the ad says, echoing sentiments expressed by Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams.

"The federal budget comes to a vote this week. Contact your member of Parliament now and demand that the federal government keep its agreement - and its word - to the people of Nova Scotia."

The federal government was set to limit debate on the contentious bill before the vote.

MacDonald said he hopes to enlist the aid of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and some senators in fighting the change.
Harper has responded to the latest salvos from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan by challenging the provinces to bring the dispute before the courts.

Williams took to the airwaves to describe the prime minister's behaviour as "childish."

"Stephen Harper is the de facto leader of this country ... and it's about time he started acting like one instead of trying to pit provinces against each other," Williams told CBC.

Williams said Harper's suggestion that the matter should be settled by the courts was a blatant bid the make the issue go away.

"The federal government has badly mismanaged this. Their communications strategy has been an absolute disaster," he said, suggesting that the federal Conservative caucus is now bitterly divided as the party's popularity plunges in Atlantic Canada.

Meanwhile, a Nova Scotia municipality has passed a resolution that confirms its support for MacDonald's stand.

Truro Mayor Bill Mills is calling on other communities to do the same, saying the province should be united in its fight against Ottawa.

Mills said the changes announced in the March 19 federal budget amounted to "knocking the legs from underneath us."

Saskatchewan threatens to take Harper to court

2007-06-12T07:33:00.000-07:00

June 12th 2007.

REGINA - With Prime Minister Stephen Harper daring provinces to take the federal government to court over its equalization policies, Saskatchewan Government Relations Minister Harry Van Mulligen said that just might happen.

Speaking to reporters at the provincial legislature on Monday, Van Mulligen said Premier Lorne Calvert will lay out the Saskatchewan government's equalization strategy within the next two weeks.

The premier recently mentioned the possibility of legal action, and Van Mulligen said that's one of the options on the table.

"I think that would be a primary consideration for us," he said.

Saskatchewan has called on Harper to live up to the Conservative campaign promise to exclude non-renewable resource revenues from the formula for equalization funding, which it says would mean an additional $800 million in federal cash for the province annually.

The Conservatives say they kept their promise because the March federal budget allows provinces to choose a formula that would pull non-renewable resource revenues from equalization. However, it also put an unforeseen cap on payments, meaning Saskatchewan gets $226 million this year and is slated to get no equalization funding in 2008-09.

Saskatchewan has been joined in its unhappiness over the Conservative budget by Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, which had signed the Atlantic Accord side deals with the previous Liberal government. Those agreements excluded offshore energy revenues from the equalization calculations for those provinces.

Nova Scotia's Progressive Conservative Premier Rodney MacDonald, who has called on all his province's MPs to vote against the budget, says the new equalization formulas violate the Atlantic Accord. But Harper said Monday if MacDonald believes that to be the case, the province should take the federal government to court.

"I am concerned about this allegation that we've broken the accords," Harper said at an Ottawa news conference.

"We've done no such thing. It's a contract. We don't break contracts. We respect contracts.

"Normally I expect that if somebody says you've broken a contract, they're going to follow that up by going to court to make you abide by the contract, but I don't see that happening. It's an allegation without substance."

Van Mulligen took exception to what he called the prime minister's "belligerent attitude."

"It's Mr. Harper's tone -- that 'If you don't like it, lump it' attitude and 'Take us to court' and so on. That's no way to run a country."

Van Mulligen said while Saskatchewan's strategy hasn't changed, the tough words from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and the possibility that a second Nova Scotia Tory MP will join MP Bill Casey in voting against the budget, undermine the Conservative argument about the budget's benefits.

The Saskatchewan government has been tight-lipped about a potential legal challenge since Calvert mentioned the possibility a month ago. Van Mulligen declined to provide further details Monday.

Harper embarrasses Canadians at G8 Summit

2007-06-12T07:14:00.000-07:00

WORTH REPEATING:

With the recent G-8 summit now behind us, many Canadians are feeling embarrassed and disillusioned. Until recently, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his team had refused to even acknowledge that climate change was happening and only took action when public demand left no alternative. Harper's attempt at the G-8 summit to try to sell the world on the merit of intensity-based emissions targets, when the world needs deep overall emissions reductions, is not only irresponsible but also reneges on our international Kyoto commitments.

In the area of foreign aid, Harper is also failing, falling well short of reaching the Lester Pearson-envisioned target of 0.7 per cent of the GDP, despite a flourishing economy and a hefty budget surplus. Harper's alleged attempt to sabotage G-8 advancement on its Gleneagles agreements on increasing foreign aid is beyond reprehensible.

Despite campaigning on the concept of accountability, Harper seems only to be accountable to the five-year plans of Big Oil and the foreign policy objectives of the U.S. – neither of which are meeting the needs of his own country or the world at large, but instead serve only the US economy and not Canada's.

As one observer noted: "Mr. Harper does indeed seem to be out of touch with the people of this country." It is now up to Canadians to demand true accountability from our government.

Harper Kicks Casey Out

2007-06-12T07:11:00.000-07:00

Casey at the bat: three swings and he's out

Harper Conservatives can't say they weren't warned in vote against Budget by well-liked Nova Scotia MP.

Bill Casey with Truro councillor Raymond Tynes and Harper in happier daysBy Stephen Kimber

Federal Tories couldn't have been surprised when Bill Casey stood in the House of Commons on principle — and against his party — in last week's budget vote.

In truth, the veteran Cumberland-Colchester- Musquodoboit Valley MP has been out of step with Stephen Harper (and in touch with his own constituents) from the day the former Reformer was sworn in as prime minister.

That grand occasion also marked the first day Casey publicly questioned the PM's wisdom — for welcoming yesterday's Liberal, David Emerson, into his cabinet.

In February, Casey was deep in the doo-doo again after he criticized Harper for currying favour with Quebec voters by handing out aerospace contracts to firms in that province when companies in his own riding didn't get a whiff of the lucrative work.

All of this, of course, has always played much better in Casey's home riding — where he's been re-elected in four straight elections — than it does inside the Conservative caucus in Ottawa where leader loyalty is the sine qua non of promotion. Which is why he isn't in the caucus anymore.

"Our association to a person is supporting Bill," local riding president Scott Armstrong told the Amherst Daily News.

"He's been a wonderful MP for our riding and we support him."

Others in the riding agree — at least if you believe reader responses on the Amherst paper's website.

"The Tories don't realize what they have lost," wrote Shawna Richardson.

"I know that (I and) a lot of others voted for Bill, and not necessarily the party... Whatever party is in power makes no difference to me. But who represents my interests in Ottawa is very important and, therefore, as long as he is in politics... Bill will always have my vote."

"Mr Casey remembers where he comes from and, more importantly, who put him in Ottawa," explained Jennifer Boyce from Pictou. "It wasn't Stephen Harper."

Although he insists he's made no decisions about his long-term political future, Casey mused last week that "even I was surprised that I didn't mind sitting as an independent."

All of which raises an interesting question. How will Harper ever win his elusive majority if he keeps alienating his own supporters?

Answer: He won't.

Sources:
Stephen Kimber, Casey at the bat: three swings and out, The Daily News, June 10, 2007
Casey's budget vote a surprise, MacKay says, CBC News, June 7, 2007

Harper's Trigger Happy Gun Panel

2007-06-12T06:54:00.000-07:00

Harper's Gun Advisors are Trigger Happy Wackos

OTTAWA – The Conservative government's firearms advisory committee, appointed and operating in virtual secrecy, is made up almost entirely of pro-gun advocates opposed to the firearms registry.

Its dozen members include a man who argued that more guns in the hands of students would have helped in the recent Virginia Tech massacre, in which 32 people were killed, and another shooting aficionado who described a weapon used in last September's Dawson College killings in Montreal as "fun."

The committee's pro-gun tilt lends to the perception that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is out of step with urban concerns on firearms violence – especially in Toronto. Jordan Manners, 15, was killed last week in a school shooting, days after philanthropist Glen Davis was gunned down.

Over the Easter weekend, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day quietly extended a long-gun amnesty program to allow those firearms owners yet more time to register their weapons – pleasing registry opponents but angering those fighting for tougher laws.

In background research obtained and confirmed by the Star, members of the Conservatives' committee have shown themselves to be vocal proponents of gun use.

"If even 1 per cent of the students and staff at Virginia Tech had been allowed to exercise their right to self defence, then this tragedy would have been stopped in its very beginning and dozens of lives would have been saved," Dr. Mike Ackermann, a Nova Scotia physician, wrote in a letter to the Ottawa Sun in April. "There are never any mass killings at shooting ranges; only at schools and other so-called `gun-free zones.'"

Gary Mauser, a Simon Fraser University professor renowned for his work opposing gun laws, wrote an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun in February: "Firearm laws divert scarce resources from alternative approaches that might actually improve public safety."

The Public Safety Minister's office recruited the panel members but did not, as has been the practice in previous governments, issue any public announcement about the appointments. Nor does it seem to have included any panel members with expertise on suicide or sociological factors behind gun crime, as previous governments have attempted to do.

The only apparent acknowledgment of the committee's membership was found in a letter by MP Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton Melville) to constituents in which he pointed to the makeup of the panel as evidence of the Tories' intent to be more gun friendly.

"In October, the minister's new firearms advisory committee met in Ottawa for the first time. The difference between the Liberal government and the Conservative government is obvious by the people that make up the committee," Breitkreuz wrote in the letter dated Dec. 15, 2006. He named Ackermann, Mauser and 10 other members:

Tony Bernardo, Canadian Institute of Legislative Action.

Linda Thom, Olympic gold medallist in pistol shooting.

Alain Cossette, Quebec Wildlife Federation.

Greg Farrant, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

Linda Baggaley, firearms expert and dealer from Alberta.

Stephen Torino, Quebec firearms expert and dealer.

Louis D'amour, New Brunswick firearms expert.

Gerry Gamble, Sporting Clubs of Niagara.

Robert Head, former RCMP assistant commissioner.

John Gayder, Niagara police.

Murray Grismer, Saskatoon police.

Mauser, reached by the Star, said panel members do have disagreements, though he did not want to elaborate on their discussions or advice they've given Day after their meetings, which he said occur every few months. Panel members are not paid but travel expenses are covered.

"I can't tell you what that advice is ... and I certainly can't tell you whether they followed it or not," Mauser said in a phone interview.

At least some committee members have ties to the National Rifle Association in the U.S.

NRA president Sharon Froman spoke at an annual gathering of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association last November, for instance, noting her admiration for Torino.

Torino was also on the committee when Liberals were in power. At that time though, as when the panel was set up by former prime minister Kim Campbell, there was more of a balance between pro-gun and anti-gun advocates.

"Steve was one of the beacons of hope in a room full of enemies determined to eradicate your gun rights," Froman told the conference as she described working with Torino at a United Nations meeting on limiting the spread of firearms.

Froman praised Bernardo in that same speech, recalling work they have done together on the international stage. Bernardo appeared in a Canadian Press story, discussing the type of weapon used by Kimveer Gill in the Dawson College shooting.

"It's very accurate. The firearm is just one of those firearms that's just a lot of fun to spend a day at the range with."

Inquiries to Breitkreuz and the Public Safety department were referred to Day's office, but Day was travelling and his officials responded with only general information.

Harper threatens Atlantic Provinces

2007-06-12T06:50:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper Breaks Contract with Atlantic Canada
Provinces Prepare to take it to Court.

June 12th 2007.

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper is threatening to take the Atlantic Provinces to court to rebut critics who say he is breaking his word and shortchanging Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

"We don't break contracts; we respect contracts," Harper told the Commons yesterday in reply to sharp criticism from Conservative Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald on the heels of months of protest from Newfoundland's Danny Williams, and the ouster last week of Tory MP Bill Casey.

Another Nova Scotia Conservative MP, Gerald Keddy, planned to meet with the Prime Minister last night to discuss his concerns about the dispute.

"We're between a rock and a hard place," said Keddy, who hinted that his support for the government's March 19 budget was wavering.

"I'm not going to make any decisions until I get a chance to talk to the Prime Minister," he told The Canadian Press.

Harper disputes the charge that his government breached the Atlantic Accords, and broke an election promise to let those provinces keep 100 per cent of their offshore oil and gas revenues without suffering hits to their federal-provincial equalization payments.

Yesterday, a combative Harper first dared the provinces to take him to court if they are serious.

"That's a serious allegation: the federal government's breaking the law. We're not breaking the law. And if Nova Scotia believes that they would take the appropriate action."

Harper added he was still open to talks to resolve the dispute as voters expect leaders to do, "like adults." But Harper said there would be no more "side deals" with provinces.

Then, Harper – who has long held that courts should not intervene in political decisions – said if the provinces don't do so, he would put the whole question of whether a contract was broken to some kind of judicial review.

"I don't think we can let this stand. At some point, we'll consult the courts to see if we've respected the contract," said Harper.

It prompted his political opponents to denounce Harper's descent into a war of words with the provinces, less than three months after federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty declared that "bickering between provincial and federal governments is over."

"When the finance minister announced the end of federal-provincial bickering, he did not say that meant `We will sue you if you disagree with us,'" Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said in the Commons.

It also prompted a warning from MacDonald, Nova Scotia's Conservative premier, that Harper's threat of court action could backfire on the federal Conservatives because emotions are running high in his province.

"The most important court is the court of public opinion, and I can tell you that the court of public opinion in Nova Scotia is that the federal government has broken a deal," MacDonald said after a private luncheon speech to Bay St. executives.

"There will be a political price to pay in Nova Scotia unless they honour the agreement," he predicted yesterday.

"We may be a small province in Nova Scotia, but we will not be bullied by the federal government."

On Sunday, MacDonald called on Nova Scotia MPs and senators to follow the lead of MP Bill Casey – ousted from the Conservative caucus for voting against the budget over his belief it broke the party's promise on the Atlantic Accords.

Casey yesterday echoed MacDonald's warning about the party's Nova Scotia prospects, saying voters there have shut out political parties in past elections to show their displeasure.

Moreover, Casey disputed Harper's contention that there are no "side deals" to be discussed, saying he was involved in talks to achieve just that, up until last week's vote and his eviction from caucus.

MacDonald said his call on federal Conservatives to vote against the budget was not an easy one. "As a Conservative premier myself, this is a major stand."

It came after closed-door talks between federal and provincial officials collapsed last week, and following publication Saturday of a public letter by Flaherty in a Halifax newspaper declaring there would be no side deals, and that it was an "urban myth" that Ottawa was not respecting the Atlantic Accords.

That letter was the straw that "broke the camel's back," said MacDonald.

He said all Canadians have a stake in how this matter is handled because the federal government's reputation for keeping its word is at issue.

"It's in the best interest of the country because if any of my colleagues from any province or territory is going to be signing agreements we need to know they're going to be kept.

"This goes to the very principle of Confederation."

Nova Scotians are angry, and talking about it "on the streets, in the stores, in their workplaces and at the supper table," said MacDonald.

"The offshore agreement was an agreement which Nova Scotians saw as an opportunity to move forward, to be a `have' province, to contribute to our country.

"And now that is being taken away," the premier said.

MacDonald said he last spoke with Harper on Sunday night, but would not reveal details of their conversation.

Harper insists his 2007 budget gives the provinces a clear choice between keeping their non-renewable resource revenues under the 2005 accords and the old equalization formula, or choosing a new equalization formula, which he said gives Nova Scotia an extra $95 million this year alone.

But Dion said Harper is "trapped" because he made a promise he that could not keep – to not claw back the Atlantic provinces' offshore energy revenues when calculating their federal-provincial wealth-sharing transfer payment under a newly-revised equalization program.

Accord primer

The governments of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia are accusing the federal government of undermining their versions of the Atlantic Accord.

Q: What is at stake?

A: The two provinces had long complained they were being penalized under the federal equalization formula, which offered smaller payments to both provinces as they earned more money from their burgeoning offshore oil and gas industries.

In 2004, on the eve of a federal election, the previous federal Liberal government agreed to update the Atlantic accords to help each province overcome their "unique economic and fiscal challenges."

The revamped agreements, signed in 2005, gave each province 100 per cent protection from clawbacks of equalization payments.

That protection applies until 2011-'12, as long as the provinces continue to receive equalization.

Q: Does the federal budget affect the Atlantic accords?

A: The provinces say the March 19 budget undermines the accords in that it requires them to give up their full protection against equalization clawbacks in order to participate in a new, richer equalization formula.

That formula includes non-renewable resource revenues in equalization calculations, as well as a fiscal cap.

Both provinces say despite the larger equalization payments, the new arrangement could hurt them in the long run because the clawbacks returned and the fiscal cap puts a limit on what the provinces can receive from Ottawa.

But the federal government says the budget doesn't affect the accords because it offers each province a choice: either stick with the original agreement or opt into an enriched equalization formula.

The provinces say the federal government had pledged an improved equalization formula, so offering the status quo is far less than what was promised.

Q: Why is Saskatchewan also angry over the federal budget?

A: Saskatchewan has charged that, with the new formula, Prime Minister Stephen Harper broke a promise to fully remove resource revenues from new equalization formula calculations, costing the province hundreds of millions of dollars in transfer payments.

But Harper says the budget actually offers more money to the province, and that the budget restores the equalization formula to a principle-based program that treats all provinces fairly.

Stephen Harper = Normal Guy

2007-06-08T09:40:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper is actually a pretty normal Canadian guy.

Like most normal guys Harper is: Christian, homophobic, stuck in his ways, stubborn, has 2 children and is an avid hockey fan. He also collects records of AC/DC and the Beatles.

If anything Harper is... quite boring. And very nerdish. He worked as a computer programmer during his 20s for an oil and gas company and later studied a masters degree in economics.

So he knows his numbers. He's a bean counter and he still maintains his close ties to the oil and gas industries.

He didn't even really want to be Prime Minister of Canada. He preferred to be the puppet-master telling old Preston Manning what to say and do and wrote speeches and ideologies for the Reform Party in his early days in politics.

A strong economy needs 3 things: Safety/Stability, cheap and ample supply of food for the masses, and affordable transportation for transferring goods/foods and people to and fro.

Oil and gasoline does play a very important part in Canada's prosperity. As a cheap commodity (thanks to subsidies it costs less to buy a litre of gasoline than it does for a litre of water). It allows us to transport food at cheap costs and bring cheap food quickly and easily to the masses.

It also allows us to transport other trade goods such as automotives, fashion, furniture and the like. Keeping the prices low = less cost for the consumer and more profit for the seller.

So logically one would think that using hybrid cars to keep costs down seems like a logical conclusion. Assuming of course that the car in question is affordable, has very good gas mileage and only marginally more expensive than a regular car.

For example if you were driving a 450 horsepower Lexus GS Hybrid and paid $77,000 for a new one you're not really saving any money. Its got a tonne of horsepower and torque that a lambo from the 1980s would be jealous of.

On the other hand you could also buy a 187 horsepower Toyota Camry for $31,000, still get tonnes of umph for your pleasure and the same fuel efficiency as a tiny Yaris.

As a typical boring nerd Stephen Harper probably doesn't know a lot about cars. He may know a fair bit about oil, gasoline and economics... but methinks he doesn't understand cars very well.

I lean towards Jaguars, Aston Martins and Mustangs myself. I've long had a dream of owning a gas guzzling 1970s powerhouse of a car... and sticking a hydrogen fuel cell engine in it to prove a point.

My father has a 1973 Plymouth Duster in green (he didn't like purple or orange so he went with puke green) that has been rotting in his shed since 1985. The car hasn't run in over 20 years. Fortunately he filled the engine with diesel to preserve it so it doesn't rust. It just needs to be cleaned out, replace anything that has been ruined, a lot of bodywork and a new paint job... that photo on the right is not the same car, but it is what it would have looked like when it was brand new.

For me however I'd be very tempted to just toss the engine out. Sell it for scrap. Fix the car up, stick a hydrogen fuel cell engine inside it, paint it cherry red or glossy black... and then take a vacation across Canada with it.

My reasoning? Thanks to the previous Liberal government there is a growing network across Canada of hydrogen fuel cell technology and ways to refuel a car that runs on that technology. Basically the idea is that people will be able to refill their cars with fuel anywhere they can find electricity.

Because all that is needed to collect and store hydrogen is electricity and water.

So the only real trick to this is how much will it cost to refill the car using hydrogen gathered using electricity, and how much will the electricity itself cost? And where is that electricity coming from? Coal plants?

Coal-burning electrical plants are the cause of roughly one quarter of Canada's greenhouse gases. More coal plants would hardly be good for the environment.

An important point is that coal isn't cheap. It cost the Ontario government 9 cents per kWh to make coal power, but they only sell it for 6 cents/kWh. Ontario taxpayers pay for the other 3 cents. Other sources of power are comparatively cheaper.

My hope is that someday I will be able to drive my "gas guzzling" car from the 1970s across Canada thanks to a network of cheap/environmentally friendly electricity.

Which I admit makes it sound like I'm some kind of freaking hippie. But I'm not. Like Stephen Harper I also like hockey, economics and I am a little homophobic (most guys are). But at least I'm not too stubborn and stuck in my ways to realize change is coming whether I like it or not and I am willing to embrace that change.

So when I say I hate Stephen Harper the truth is I don't "hate hate" the guy. I just don't like how stubborn he is and I don't agree with a lot of his policies. Especially his more wacko Christian ideas like bringing prayer back to public schools.

In short... I miss Brian Mulroney and the old Progressive Conservative party. At least then we'd have a government which was progressive with the environment instead of trying to ignore it.

I'd vote for Mulroney again given the chance.

Parties Threaten to oust Harper if he doesn't ratify Kyoto

2007-06-06T10:10:00.000-07:00

Coalition threatens election over Kyoto

June 6th 2007.

MONTREAL - With Prime Minister Stephen Harper trying to persuade European politicians he has the right plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, four federal parties and Quebec environmentalists teamed up to call for his environment minister's head and threaten an election.

"It's not impossible that we will get to that ( an election on Kyoto)," Quebec Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez said in reference to Conservative stalling tactics in the Senate to block Bill C-288. A private member's bill piloted by Rodriguez, the bill is designed to ensure Canada honours its Kyoto protocol commitments despite the minority Conservative government's opposition to the accord.

Bloc Quebecois MP Bernard Bigras added that the critical moment, as far as he's concerned, will come if the government fails to take action in the 60 days after the adoption of Bill C-288.

"If it does not, it is clear parliamentarians will have to assume their responsibilities," Bigras said in a vague threat.

The two politicians made the comments at a Montreal news conference where they were joined by representatives of the New Democratic Party and Green Party in upping the pressure on the Harper government to end its filibuster on the bill.

They said the Conservatives are using their minority in the Senate to block final adoption of Bill-C-288. Also attending were members of a pro-Kyoto Quebec group and an industry representative from the Cascades paper giant, which has been reducing its emissions for years.

"He (Prime Minister Stephen Harper) is doing what he promised he would never do," said Rodriguez. "He is using his minority in the Senate to go against the will of the elected majority in the House of commons.

"We are here to send him a clear message. Respect the will of Quebecers. Respect the will of the majority of Canadians. Do it for your children and grandchildren."

In Ottawa, the Liberal majority in the Senate is threatening to sit through the summer in order to pass the bill.

At the Montreal meeting, Quebec candidate Thomas Mulcair said Harper's efforts to thwart Kyoto prove the Conservative government never had any intention of respecting its international obligations.

"Mr. Harper, all of us here today are giving you one clear message: stop being such an international embarrassment, start respecting our international obligations."

The four parties are also calling for federal environment minister John Baird's resignation in an open letter to be published in the Montreal media Wednesday.

The How's and Why's of getting called a Cunt

2007-06-02T07:45:00.000-07:00

Most women never deserve to be called a cunt.

Most women are generally nice people and deserve to be treated with Respect.

But when you go out of your way to mean to other people there are specific instances when I think those particular women deserve to get the C-word as a response.

Here's two examples wherein I have personally called a woman a Cunt and I feel in those circumstances they deserved it.

I was in Toronto, at the Yonge/Bloor subway station carrying a box of breakables and I was walking parallel to the train rails (right on the yellow line for anyone familiar with the TTC subway) and this 30-something woman ahead of me was walking the opposite way carrying nothing but a purse.

Had she been pushing a baby carriage, or been pregnant, disabled, or carrying an even bigger box I would have stepped aside and let her pass. Nope. She was carrying nothing but a purse, so I kept walking in a straight line figuring she would have no trouble stepping to one side.

But she did have trouble with it. Apparently "I" got in her way. So when she did finally step to the side she took her time to say "Asshole."

I was immediately shocked that she could be so rude to a man carrying a box, but I was quick witted enough to very quickly say "Cunt."

And I feel she deserved it.

In the second example I was standing in the line at Tim Hortons (an instance all of us Canadians have done at some time). It was a long lineup and I was waiting for 20 minutes, possibly going to be late for work. Just as I near the counter the woman in front of me starts letting not one, but ALL of her co-workers (about 5 of them) to butt in front of her.

At which point I politely asked "What are you doing? What about the rest of us waiting here?"

"Well these are my co-workers and she's going to buy me a coffee."

"And what about the rest of us waiting here? Are your co-workers planning to buy us all coffees?"

She just laughed at me.

I was so furious I very nearly punched her. She got off lightly with being called a Cunt.

So yes, I think you will agree, there are women out there who are so rude that they deserve to be called a Cunt. If the particular instance warrants I fully agree with people using the word.

Bitch just wouldn't satisfy the full gravity of the situation.

Only Cunt is the proper word to express in certain situations.

The Wussification of Wikipedia

2007-05-31T08:07:00.000-07:00

Wikipedia is for wussies and here's why:

Controversial topics inherently end up going back and forth between conservative and liberal arguments. There is no middle ground but instead a constant polarization of information.
It centralizes information on the internet, but that information is flawed, biased, incomplete, frequently open to abuse, has little or no authority to back-up many of the claims, has incomplete or improper references and is prone to misguided editorial-activism.
Students and academics researching a topic should NOT use Wikipedia because its information is inherently flawed and unreliable. Plus its the LAZY way of researching a topic. If the modern grade school student uses wikipedia for ALL of their research they will end up with an essay or research paper that is inherently biased and incomplete. My advice for teachers? Make it clear to students that they must research other sources and that Wikipedia should be considered the last source to check.
Google Scholar is a far better resource for genuine research purposes as it contains only those articles by professional writers and researchers. Yes, those writers/researchers may still be biased (we all are) but at the very least it will be well-researched and contain proper references, notes and bibliographies.

In much the same way Wikipedia is DEFINITELY the modern equivalent of a regular set of encyclopedias. When I was back in grade school we had strict orders from our teachers not to use any encyclopedias as references for essays and projects. We were told to go straight to the primary sources such as non-fiction books, scholarly articles, magazine/newspaper clippings and quote those instead.

There is, I've noticed, no universal online archive of old and recent newspaper/magazine clippings. Such an archive could contain clippings from the last 100 years easily and include sources like the New York Times, People Magazine, the Rolling Stone, the Toronto Star, etc. It would take a combined effort on the part of numerous magazine and newspaper companies to create such an archive.

But imagine the advertising revenues generated from what would be a popular site for both research and entertainment. We could look at movie reviews for films that came out 30 years ago and see what people back then thought of them.

Don't get me wrong, I think Wikipedia is still a great idea. Its just a flawed one to expect things to even out. C0ntroversial topics such as abortion, the war in Iraq, the JFK assassination, conspiracy theories about 9/11 are simply bound to rife with biases and flawed research. Its basically the fault of the general public for being largely uneducated.

Which is ironic because Wikipedia is meant to be an educational tool, but if its used for spreading misinformation how can it really be a viable tool? It will inherently be wrong or inaccurate 90% of the time.

Think for example of Wikiquote.org... any idiot can go on there and add quotes purporting to have been said by some famous celebrity or politician or whomever. No guarantee it is true or not. It makes me almost pity George W. Bush with all the times he's been misquoted or had quotes applied to him that he didn't actually say. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve the bad attention but lets at least quote only things he actually really said.

Therefore there is two major flaws with wikipedia:

False information by people who don't do proper research and are there to support some bias;
People quoting the false information on other websites, in news reports, research, etc.

Lets stop and consider the amount of media attention that is given to Wikipedia. I don't think media personalities should be quoting Wikipedia as a source. If we tune into CNN do we really want the news anchor quoting articles from Wikipedia that are likely inaccurate and false?

Furthermore, Wikipedia could be used to destroy a person's career or personal life. If for example the latest gossip on Mr and Mrs Famous gets published on Wikipedia and then repeated countlessly then that gossip has just become "fact" insofar as the public is concerned. The general public doesn't care whether or not its true, but once its out there that famous person or group of people could very have their career, marriage or personal life destroyed by simple gossip.

And in that respect Wikipedia is no better than the National Enquirer. We don't quote the National Enquirer on television (unless its for a documentary on aliens or some other conspiracy theory) so why would we do for Wikipedia?

Its because Wikipedia attempts to be authoritative, but that authority is not to be respected. Its dubious at best.

So please people. Think twice before quoting Wikipedia. If you're a teacher make it clear to students they should not use Wikipedia (or any other online encyclopedia) as their sole sources of research. Do not respect Wiki's authority for its no better than a news rag on the street.

How to deal with Quebec Separatists

2007-05-29T09:47:00.000-07:00

My short answer?

You don't deal with them.

Instead we need to be making road blocks to make it extremely difficult, indeed impossible, for Quebec to separate from Canada.

I also think we should be cutting funding to federal political parties devoted to one province only. Separatist/local parties should be limited to the provincial legislatures only.

And its not just a matter of separatism.

For years now Canada has been suffering under an impasse between the Conservative and Liberal parties... consecutive minority governments are stagnating progress. If it weren't for the BQ Parti there would be no minority government currently in Canada.

If we can remove the BQ from power then we can finally have a government that is progressive again instead of maintaining the status quo.

Stephen Harper's "Do Nothing" approach to School Shootings

2007-05-23T15:03:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper is currently over in Afghanistan trying to boost support for Canada's troops in a country that is deciding whether or not to vote foreign forces out of the country.

Meanwhile in Canada a 14 year old boy was shot at C.W. Jeffereys Collegiate Institute in Toronto and died this afternoon. The Grade 9 student, Jordan Manners, was shot in the chest.

After the Virginia Tech incident only weeks ago Stephen Harper was pressured to increase gun control in an attempt to get guns out of the hands of children. Harper however resisted the pressure and instead backed the rights of Canadians to own guns, denying that gun control would do anything to curb the violence.

This is what I mean when I refer to Harper's "Do Nothing" approach to politics. Global warming? Do nothing (or almost nothing). Shootings in our schools? Do nothing.

Terrorism in Canada and the USA? Send more troops to hunt for bin Laden. As if catching bin Laden would make the problem go away. Fives years and counting on a mission that won't stop an international group of 1000s. Chop off the head of Al-Qaida and it will just sprout a new one.

Canada is in massive national debt? Give tax cuts to the rich.

Quebec threatening to leave Canada? Offer to recognize Quebec as a separate country within Canada.

Notice a pattern here? He does the opposite of what he should be doing. That or he does nothing.

Because doing nothing is the least controversial thing of all.

The question is, who would vote for a prime minister who does almost nothing?

Harper's Green Policies just a Tax Grab

2007-05-01T19:11:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper's so-called green policies are essentially just a tax on carbon gases. It won't actually reduce greenhouse gases, but it will fatten tax coffers... by a relatively tiny amount.

So just how green is Harper's policies in the long run?

Answer: They aren't.

So its no wonder that other political parties and key environmentalists like David Suzuki and Al Gore are saying Harper's policies are inept and worthless.

So what is the solution?

Harper needs to put his money where his mouth is. He needs to step forward and commit funding to solar and wind renewable energy and ELIMINATE coal-powered electrical plants in Canada... and not by 2050. He needs to set a date which indicates action is being taken NOW, not 40 years from now. A logical and feasible date would be 2010.

Such an initiative would show environmentalists that Harper is taking environmental issues seriously.

Coal-powered electrical plants are responsible for 1/4 of Canada's carbon emissions. Eliminating coal plants would reduce Canada's emissions by approx. 25%.

In Ontario coal power costs more to the government to make than the amount they receive from the public. Currently Ontario electricity users pay 5.9 cents per kWH, but the cost of Ontario producing that energy using coal is actually 9 cents per kWH. Ontario taxpayers pay the difference and therefore coal-power is a constant drain on the tax coffers.

Switching to renewable energy (and placing more emphasis on nuclear energy) would be more cost-effective in the longrun and would create a robust industry in Canada to build and maintain renewable energy.

Canada has vast swaths of land that is unusable for farming but would be ideal for fields of solar panels and windmills.

Wind power in particular would be perfect for isolated northern communities which use gas-powered generators (which is extremely expensive) for their source of electricity. Approx. 6% of Canada's population lives in isolated communities.

Belinda Stronach Quits = Flakey

2007-04-11T20:30:00.000-07:00

Former conservative MP Belinda Stronach has quit the Liberal Party and is not seeking re-election.

This just proves to me that she was flakey from the start.

Wishy-washy.

Can't make a decision.

Not politician material.

In other words, a complete waste of time and a vote.

Shame on her for wasting Canadians' time and votes.

I have to wonder if her primary goal was just to raise the stock value of Magna International, her father's manufacturing company.

Maybe she deserves to be charged with insider trading?

Conservative Government Dismantling Multiculturalism Program

2007-04-11T20:20:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release
April 11th, 2007

Ottawa - Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government is quietly making unprecedented funding cuts to Canada’s world renowned multiculturalism programs, charged Liberal Critic for Multiculturalism, Colleen Beaumier today.

“This government has done everything it can to keep this quiet, including burying the numbers, but there’s no getting around the facts,” said Ms. Beaumier. “Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government is dismantling Canada’s Multiculturalism Program.”

A careful analysis of Department of Heritage forecasts shows a trend of steady cutbacks. For the 2006 fiscal year, the Department records show it will have spent no money on Multiculturalism programs intended to promote inter-cultural understanding—down from $16.2 million the year before. In 2007 and 2008, Canadian Heritage again plans to spend nothing on these program activities. After a nominal increase in 2006, Canadian Heritage also plans to spend less in 2007 and 2008 on Multiculturalism programs promoting participation in community and civic life.

“The same minority Government that is planning almost $24 billion in new spending and tax breaks is cutting funding to Multiculturalism programs,” said Ms. Beaumier. “Clearly, multiculturalism isn’t one of Mr. Harper’s Conservative priorities.

Introduced in 1971, Canada’s Official Multiculturalism Policy requires the government to assist all cultural groups to develop and contribute to Canadian society, to overcome barriers to full participation, and to promote cultural interchange amongst all Canadians in the interest of national unity. Today, the Multiculturalism program, administered by Canadian Heritage, administers a number of programs, including Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism, which are meant to meet the obligations of the policy.

“This is no surprise coming from this prime minister. When Stephen Harper was the leader of the Alliance Party he publicly reconfirmed the Reform Party’s expressed goal of eliminating all funding for multiculturalism. Whatever lip service the Government may now pay to multiculturalism doesn’t change the fact that key members of his party have always called for its abolition.”

More information:
Sterling Lynch
Office of Colleen Beaumier

Should Canada send troops to Iraq or more troops to Afghanistan?

2007-04-05T11:21:00.000-07:00

Canada's forces are spread thin. Right now we have as many troops as we can spare in Afghanistan... and contrary to popular belief, we do actually have Canadians in Iraq too... but they're enlisted as American soldiers.

America is so desperate for extra troops they are now recruiting Canadians to fight for them. When the Iraq War first started there was a small number of Canadians (including police and Canadian armed forces) who went south to the states to sign up and enlist. The Americans gladly welcomed them.

And thats not the only route to Iraq. The Canadian and British military have exchange programs in place so our troops can train and learn from one another. Canada's "exchange student soldiers" are also over in Iraq.

Our primary focus has been to keep our eye on the target: Osama bin Laden and his forces in Afghanistan. The problem is the question of whether we should be sending more troops over there in an effort to try and catch Osama?

Actually its a bit sad that this goal has been left to Canadians. The Americans are so preoccupied with Iraq (and now Iran too) that they've almost completely forgotten about old Osama.

IF Canada had more troops available, where should we be sending them? Iraq? Would they do any good there? Or should we send more troops to Afghanistan in an effort to catch Osama and cut off support for terrorism?

I don't think troop pull out is an option. We're going to need to keep troops there for another 10-20 years at least until the political climate stabilizes. There is also the possibility of building permanent Canadian forces bases in the country (we need the bases for training in desert conditions) and Afghanistan would be an important ally for the future as democracy grows.

Except when I ponder all the options of putting more troops on the ground I conclude its probably not a good idea... what we really need is a fence (with motion sensitive spotlights) between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Right now its nothing but mountains and hills. A natural border, but not a hazardous one as the Taliban crosses the border back and forth easily.

The solution? Guard towers along the border with snipers aiming both ways. NOBODY should be crossing those borders except at designated checkpoints and only during the daytime. Even if Pakistan doesn't agree to the towers we could simply build the towers on the Afghan side of the border. Lay out a series of 3 barbwire fences between the towers, and voila! Terrorists now have to crawl through 3 barbwire fences past sharpshooters packing rifles with scopes and spotlights.

Hiding in mountain caves may be a way to evade troops for awhile, but eventually they're going to need to smuggle food in past the fences and towers...

Which brings me to an important issue: Where is Osama getting his food? Is it trucked in to a secret location? Carried on donkey or camel?

Nope, I have a hunch Osama is nowhere near the fighting.

Afghanistan has a variety of warlords who squabble over land and territory. They live in nice safe estates/bunkers and basically avoid contact with the military except to shake hands and exchange pleasantries.

Like the warlord to the right shaking hands with Stephen Harper.

These warlords have several goals: Increase their power, their wealth and their land. Keep their little private armies under control and happy. Destroy their enemies and gain more power, wealth and land.

If just one of those warlords has made a secret deal with Osama bin Laden in exchange for hiding him and gaining terrorist support for operations that involve attacking their enemies...

Well then we have a serious problem. A rogue warlord who could hide Osama and his terrorists indefinitely... and be a constant thorn in our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

And we can't just get rid of the warlords. Kill one and another just takes his place. No, the only way to change these problems permanently is with economics.

If the common people see that working for themselves or for companies is better for them instead of joining up as a soldier for the local warlord then eventually the warlords will run out of troops and run out of power. (Unless of course the warlords start building their own companies and eventually international corporations, but thats a 007 scenario and a bit unrealistic.)

But how would Canadian soldiers improve Afghanistan's economy?

Short answer: It won't.

What Afghanistan needs next is a school of business which can teach young Afghanistan entrepreneurs how to make money.

Harper Clings to Power

2007-03-29T15:24:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper has clung to power, managing to get his budget passed thanks to $700 million in kickbacks for Quebec, in return for the Parti Quebecois voting in favour of the new budget.

What do I think about this?

I think it will backfire disastrously and spell the end of the Conservative Party for at least 4 years after the next general election.

Harper's continued favouritism towards Quebec is not a popular idea in the rest of Canada. I predict Harper's continued ignoring of environmental needs and the needs of Canada's other provinces will eventually cause many Canadians to vote Liberal to spite the Conservatives.

Plus there's the matter of overspending... Harper has spent more in this years budget than any previous Canadian budget. To paraphrase comedian Rick Mercer on the issue, "Harper is spending Canadians tax dollars faster than a drunk liberal."

Conservatives should be spending frugally and not breaking the bank like Harper is currently doing in vain attempts to win votes in Quebec.

Hey Big Spender

2007-03-22T19:41:00.000-07:00

Mr Harper's latest over spending on the budget is coming with a price tag attached.

He's raising income taxes 16.5%.

That means Canadians will be paying an extra $1.4 BILLION in income taxes.

The overspending includes $700 million in income tax cuts for Quebec, and tax cuts for oil-rich Alberta.

So the rest of Canada is having their income taxes going up, and Quebec's income taxes are going up.

If you could see my face right now you might have a better understanding of how ANGRY this makes me.

The budget also includes tax savings for parents, roughly $310 per child.

"We made a choice," Harper says. "We chose to support hard-working families."

What he should say is that he's trying to buy votes from families, Alberta and Quebec.

So big spender, how about spending a little more on British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Labrador, Newfoundland, PEI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the territories? Why only give money to Alberta, Quebec and "families"? What about the poor, the elderly or students?

Hey big spender, you'll get no votes from me.

Memos raise questions on Stockwell Day's nomination

2007-03-22T15:38:00.000-07:00

Mar 22, 2007 05:56 PM

OTTAWA – Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day's journey into the House of Commons nearly seven years ago faced renewed allegations of impropriety Thursday, with the Liberals asking the RCMP to investigate the circumstances.

The Conservatives shot back by saying the Liberals were engaging in a "drive-by smear," a favourite phrase these days in an increasingly acrimonious Commons.

Liberal MP Mark Holland said documents the party discovered last week raise new questions about whether Day's office negotiated payment to a sitting MP in exchange for his stepping aside in a B.C. riding, something prohibited in the Criminal Code.

The RCMP made some initial inquiries into the issue six years ago but said then that it would not launch a full investigation.

The force said Thursday it had received the documents and is reviewing the matter.

Holland says he believes the RCMP would not have seen the documents in question, which were found among old files in the opposition leader's office.

"Given the gravity of these allegations and the clear nature of the documents presented, will the minister of public safety, the minister responsible for Canada's national police force, do the prudent thing and step down until the RCMP is finished its investigation?" Holland said during question period.

Back in 2000, Day was the newly elected leader of the Canadian Alliance but did not have a seat in the Commons. MP Jim Hart stepped aside in July to allow Day to run in a byelection in Okanagan-Coquihalla, which he won handily that fall.

The main document released Thursday, a fax penned by Hart, outlines the agreement he believed he had negotiated with Day's then chief-of-staff, Rod Love. In it, Hart notes that he would be compensated for lost severance, income and pension benefits for resigning his seat early, an amount totalling about $62,000.

At the time, party officials said Hart had already decided to quit the Commons for another job and left early to help out Day. They said the compensation was negotiated months later because Hart's job offer later fell through.

But Hart's first letter to Love detailing a compensation deal was dated two days before his actual resignation. He also made note of the job he was to start three months later, and states that he wouldn't have quit if compensation hadn't been agreed to beforehand.

"Please realize that I took this step of resigning in good faith," Hart wrote. "I could have remained in office until the general election, finished my term and not experienced these losses. My resignation was contingent upon this negotiation."

Hart, who now lives in the Republic of Georgia, could not be reached for comment. Day defended him in the Commons.

"The only problem with drive-by smears is that innocent people get hurt," Day said. "Mr. Hart is being hurt in this process. In every conversation I had with Mr. Hart from the time I knew him, he has only been honourable about this. He deserves an apology."

Another key question around Hart's resignation is whether public funds were involved in the transaction.

Two documents penned by Canadian Alliance party officials say there was an understanding that the party would pay for half of Hart's living expenses amounting to roughly $20,000. A motion approved by the Canadian Alliance's Fund board, marked carried, says ``the intent is to get half of this amount from the OLO (Office of the Leader of the Opposition) and half from the party."

A fax cover letter from party executive director Glen McMurray to Day's office, attached to Hart's pleas for payment, reiterates the understanding and tells the office to "figure it out."

The budget of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition is paid for through the House of Commons.

At the time, Day's director of communications Ezra Levant said the payment was not an issue for the leader's office because it had been made through the party.

There is no evidence in the documents that any payment was made by Day's office. Hart eventually took the party to court to recoup his money and later settled.

Senior party officials mentioned in the documents, including Love and his deputy Hal Danchilla did not immediately return calls. Peter White, former director of the Canadian Alliance fund, said he would not speak to reporters.

Former Canadian Alliance party whip Dick Harris, now a Conservative MP, would also not respond. Neither Day's office nor the prime minister's office would answer specific questions about the documents.

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan said the case had already been closed.

"There is absolutely nothing new here," Van Loan said. "The RCMP investigated this matter. It looked into all the things that (Holland) has alleged and concluded that there was no wrongdoing."

During the last federal election campaign, the Conservatives called for then finance minister Ralph Goodale to resign over the leak of information into the government's income-trust policy. The NDP referred the matter to the RCMP.

Goodale's name and that of other Liberal politicians was cleared earlier this year, and a finance department bureaucrat charged in connection with the leak.

Harper's generosity to Quebec backfires

2007-03-22T15:37:00.000-07:00

Provinces angry after Charest uses equalization payment to cut taxes
Mar 22, 2007 04:30 AM

OTTAWA–Prime Minister Stephen Harper's plan to mend strains in the federation appeared on the verge of backfiring after the Quebec government earmarked $700 million in new "equalization" money from Ottawa to cut Quebecers' income taxes.

The promise by Premier Jean Charest is stirring an angry reaction and more criticism of Monday's Conservative budget, which is pouring an extra $2.3 billion of federal cash into Quebec annually.

About $700 million of this federal money, intended under the "equalization" program to allow Quebecers to enjoy social programs equivalent to that of richer provinces, is being channelled into income tax cuts by Charest, who is in the final days of a hard-fought election campaign. Coupled with Charest's earlier promised tax reductions, it would allow a couple in Quebec to save about $750 a year.

Saskatchewan Finance Minister Andrew Thomson said this development has Westerners fighting mad.

"We had feared all along that that was exactly what the Prime Minister was going to do – use western oil money to buy votes in Quebec," he told the Toronto Star. "But none of us expected it to be so blatant."

Many provinces are complaining about being shortchanged in the budget. But Saskatchewan, along with Newfoundland, is accusing Harper of betraying a promise not to include non-renewable resources in the Tory-created formula for determining how much provinces receive under the federal-provincial wealth-sharing program.

The provinces say that Harper's equalization plan is a "sleight-of-hand" scheme that has cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues.

Thomson said people in Saskatchewan are even more upset "to see that in the budget this week, that there were no tax cuts for Western Canadians but tax cuts for Quebecers delivered through the equalization program."

Federal Liberals, though rooting for their provincial cousins in the March 26 Quebec election, nonetheless expressed outrage over Charest's decision to use federal money meant to equalize social services in Quebec to finance tax cuts.

"We want Charest to win but we didn't think we would have to pay for it like this," snapped Liberal MP Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North), who said he was appalled by the Quebec premier's decision.

In the Commons, the Liberals charged that Harper's approach to federal-provincial relations, far from winding down long-standing tensions between Ottawa and the premiers, is threatening national unity.

"A prime minister is supposed to unite and not divide, and a federal government is supposed to act on behalf of all Canadians," deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said in the daily question period.

"The people of Saskatchewan, B.C., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador are wondering today, `Why don't we count?'

"Why did the government introduce a budget that so obviously divides the country?"

Harper countered that his government's overhaul of federal-provincial wealth-sharing arrangements was based on the recommendations of a blue-ribbon panel appointed by the previous Liberal government.

"Every single province gets more money under this budget and a lot more money as the years go by, $39 billion more," the Prime Minister said.

"This budget rewards families, it rewards seniors, it rewards truckers, it rewards farmers, it rewards soldiers. I could go on and on. The one thing that unites members of the Liberal Party is they are voting against all of them."

The blow-up over how various provinces were treated in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget appeared increasingly divisive.

In Newfoundland, radio station VOCM reported that, in an interview, Conservative MP Fabian Manning (Avalon) said he had lobbied to have non-renewable resources taken out of the equalization formula, but if he votes against the federal budget, he's as good as out of the party.

And another Conservative MP joined in the verbal jousting between the Harper government and Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert over the equalization issue.

"The premier's lying through his teeth," outspoken Saskatoon MP Maurice Vellacott told Canadian Press.

He added that Calvert, an NDP premier, is a socialist who would rather keep his province "on the federal dole" than achieve prosperity.

Calvert responded by saying that the federal Conservatives, having betrayed the provinces, can only resort to name-calling.

On the election campaign trail, Charest was unapologetic about his decision to apply his $700 million federal equalization windfall toward tax relief.

"We are making decisions in our areas of jurisdiction, and we have the full power to make decisions according to our priorities."

Hybrid Cars Suck! Buy an Audi A8!

2007-03-21T14:19:00.000-07:00

Actually hybrids don't suck.

But they're not spectacular either.

Not when you compare them to cars built using traditional aerodynamics, a more fuel-efficient engine and are built to be lightweight.

Cars like the Audi A8.

Not too long ago Jeremy Clarkson of the popular BBC television show "Top Gear" drove an Audi A8 from London England to Edinburgh Scotland and then back to London again... all on a single tank of gasoline. (It took him a day to drive there and another day to drive back. People usually fly or take the train there because its such a long hilly drive.)

Now THAT is fuel efficiency. Not even a hybrid can achieve that. A Smart Car would be able to do it, but a Smart Car is really more like half-a-car so its really no wonder. But an Audi A8 is a regular car.

Better yet, its practically a sports car.

So its sexy AND efficient.

Why spend so much money buying a hybrid car with its extra heavy electrical/gasoline engine and extra heavy batteries to run the electric half of the engine?

Granted, not everyone can afford an Audi A8, but then again most people can't afford a hybrid either. So if you're rich enough to buy a hybrid, why not use that money to buy a normally fuel efficient car? If you compare the actual fuel efficiency for the hybrids and the other normal fuel efficient cars I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

Also, why aren't they building hybrid SUVs? People keep complaining about their fuel consumption why not just build SUVs that are more efficient?

Myself I'm a classic british car fan. I'm saving up to buy a 1976 Aston Martin V8 Vantage.

Sure, like all cars built in the 1970s its not very economical in terms of fuel efficiency, but I don't care. The '76 Aston Martin V8 Vantage is a thing of beauty. Its a work of art. I'd stick it on a platform in my living room as a sculpture/loveseat and then only drive it on special occasions.

The primary problem with cars from 1970s is that they really were designed for looks. They looked fabulous and futuresque, but they drank gas like a turbo charged ice cream truck.

Which begs the question: Do fuel efficient cars have to be ugly?

No, I don't think they do.

And the very sexy Audi A8 proves my point.

Best of all if you buy an used Audi A8 I think you will be pleasantly surprised at the price.

Homelessness in Canada

2007-03-19T10:00:00.000-07:00

As a Christian I find it appalling that Canada treats its homeless so poorly and ignores them so much.

Nobody wants to be homeless. There is a stereotype that homeless people take a "vow of poverty" and "like being homeless". This is simply not true. Regardless of what TV may teach you about homeless people NONE of them actually want to live in the gutter.

And it isn't a matter of laziness. If homeless people were lazy they would be on welfare, inside and safe, content on leeching off the rest of society. No, homelessness is really a combination of bad luck and governmental neglect.

Some people also say the homeless are "crazy", but if they are crazy its likely also because some of the homeless people really belong in an old age home, but due to senility wandered off and have since become missing persons.

Which in my mind means that senior citizen homes should be held accountable and should be SUED when the people they are hired to take care of wander off and get lost.

Its difficult to track Canada's poverty. There is no official census of how many homeless people there are on the streets. Soup kitchens and street missions may try to keep track of how many people use their services but the fact of the matter is that nobody really knows how many homeless a particular city has and how many there is overall in Canada.

Also there is a lot of debate about how to fix the homeless problem. Some people argue in favour of ignoring them, cutting funding to soup kitchens/homeless shelters and even "arresting" homeless people for vagrancy. Others argue that we need more action helping these people find work and getting them into a safe/warm place.

I agree with the later. It is a Christian Duty to help those less fortunate.

And I have an idea on how to accomplish at least part of the task.

You know how Alberta is always looking for workers and can't find enough people to do even the simplest of jobs? So much they are recruiting in faraway Newfoundland?

Well, how about they start recruiting on the streets of Toronto and Vancouver? Find homeless people who are willing to relocate and work in Alberta, help them get to Alberta and set up a program to help them find jobs there.

That is not just a great idea, its a BRILLIANT idea. It solves two problems with one program (which means its more efficient and saves tax dollars).

We would also need a 2nd program to track old homeless people, find out who they really are and reunite them with their families so they can live in the safety/security of a senior citizens' home (or with their family).

Did Charles Moffat really destroy Stockwell Day's career?

2007-03-16T08:08:00.000-07:00

During the Winter of 2001 one man from Ontario played a major role in the downfall of Stockwell Day: Charles Moffat.

Charles Moffat is many things. An art historian, an artist and a behind-the-scenes political activist. He is the guy who painted the now famous "United States Censorship" painting which has been plastered all over the internet in recent years and even made its way into an American documentary about censorship.

Apparently in the Winter of 2001 Charles Moffat started to play a prank on Stockwell Day, a prank which would involve an embarrassing interview/biography of the then leader of the Canadian Alliance party. But then Moffat thought about his intended goal and aborted his plan, but not before writing a scathing letter to every seated MP of the Canadian Alliance party and urging them to revolt against Day's horrible leadership gaffs.

And revolt they did.

Led by MPs Chuck Strahl and Deborah Grey (central figures in the old Reform party) the party almost collapsed from internal bickering and the revolt eventually toppled Stockwell Day from power.

Which led to Stephen Harper's rise to leader of the Canadian Alliance, the merger with the Progressive Conservatives and the forging of the Conservative Party of Canada, which won a minority government in 2006.

Indeed, without Charles Moffat's prank Stephen Harper would never have had the opportunity to run for leader when he did and he never would have become Prime Minister of Canada.

Stockwell Day is now Public Safety Minister, a less important post.

So Charles Moffat's prank did ruin Day's chances of becoming Prime Minister, but it didn't entirely ruin his career.

Overall Moffat's prank was very good for the right wing of Canada because it allowed them to finally unify under one banner and finally win a minority government.

As a firm Progressive Conservative myself I still can't find myself to vote for the new Conservative Party. They are TOO right wing for my tastes and not progressive enough. I miss the old days of Brian Mulroney and I'm much more likely for Trudeau junior than I am to vote for Stephen Harper (whom I consider to be a heartless bean counter).

In the next decade (after Stephen Harper is gone) I predict the Conservative Party will become more progressive and lean more towards the centre of politics. Maybe then they will get my vote.

http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/canada/The_Prank_That_Destroyed_StockwellDay.html

Should Canada get rid of its Welfare System?

2007-03-14T09:19:00.000-07:00

Isn't it time Canada eradicated poverty by replacing its welfare system with a "Canadians with Disability Program", a "Workfare Program" and a "Training & Apprenticeship Program"

There are jobs out there that need doing, plenty of them. Roads to build, houses/apartment buildings to construct, rivers to be bridged over, data that needs computing, paperwork that needs to be processed and filed. It may not be the most exciting work to do, but there is a lot of it.

The problem is finding people with the proper training, the skills and experience required.

There is also people out there who want jobs, but lack the proper training and experience to do them. How do you gain experience if no one will give you a job in the chosen career?

Thats why Canada needs a Workfare Program, coupled with a Training & Apprenticeship Program. Together these two programs could finally eradicate poverty in Canada.

How?

First, lets explain the Training & Apprenticeship Program.

Essentially this would be a government operated service which helps Canadians to train and learn a variety of work-related skills that aren't taught in highschool. Such a program would place more emphasis on college and university education (higher education is pretty much mandatory these days to find a job that doesn't pay minimum wage).

There are existing programs in Canada that are similar to this, but many Canadians don't take advantage of them. These programs need to be more strongly promoted so that more Canadians are aware of them and will take advantage of them.

Next, the Workfare Program.

For people having difficulty finding work and paying their rent/feeding their family Canada needs an alternative to the welfare system. Essentially this would be a combination of labour jobs and clerical work, stuff that needs to be done but no one has thought to do it. The jobs would be reasonably well-paid and its workers would benefit from a much higher living standard than they would be on welfare.

Scrapping the welfare system and replacing it with a "Canadians with Disability Program" means only people who are legitimately disabled would benefit from it. However, that doesn't mean they can't still be productive members of society. The program would facilitate training the disabled for careers they can do, and helping them to achieve that goal so that eventually they are not a burden on society. Most disabled people don't want to be a burden and want to contribute to the rest of society and "stand on their own two feet" so-to-speak.

Canada is also suffering from what I call a "Ghost Town Effect". There are small towns scattered around Canada where vast numbers of the town's residents are on welfare. The people refuse to leave the town and so go on welfare just so they can stay. Despite the fact that the town has little or no industry and is essentially a Ghost Town they stay because welfare gives them the ability to stay. As is expected, such towns also have abnormally high crime and suicide rates. This is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Canada needs a Workfare program in those towns, along with an Entrepreneurial program to help start up new businesses and industries. Once people start working again the towns will flourish and people can indeed stay where they are if they desire to do so.

One Example of an Industry in Canada that needs Improvement: Greenhouse Products.

Canada has a shortage of fresh fruit and vegetables (especially in the winter). We import many such fruits and vegetables from the USA and other countries, but in reality we have the ability/technology to be growing such plants here in Canada under the warm windows of greenhouses.

Best of all, greenhouses don't need fertile soil. They can be built on rocky ground that is useless for anything else.

Family-owned greenhouses can sell their products to the local grocery store (or open their own grocery store).

Wait there's more!

Canada also has a shortage of bakeries, buying a lot of their bread from factory-style bakeries like "Wonder-Bread". Despite the advent of breadmaking machines people prefer to buy bread from their local grocery store. But if small bakeries started up right next to the grocery store and people had a choice between so-called Wonder-Bread and freshly made bread in 20 different varieties and zero cost of shipping... well, personally I'd pick the fresh bread. It just tastes better.

Basically whenever you see a product that is shipped to Canada from overseas (or made in some big Toronto factory), stop and ask yourself: "Couldn't we make that here in our little town?"

Years ago (and still today according to some people) stone houses were considered the epitome of what a good house should look like. Stone houses simply look more beautiful, they are well insulated (which saves on heating costs), they have a better resale value, they last a lot longer and are less likely to burn down in a housefire.

But stonemasons as an industry has almost entirely disappeared. Almost everyone has switched to brick or aluminum siding. And yet becoming a stone mason is really a quite simple task. Everything you could ever want to learn about stonemasonry can be found either online or in your local library.

Furthermore, stone and mortar are relatively cheap compared to brick. Its the amount of labour required that is the problem. Stonemasons must be physically fit and able to lift stone on a constant basis, and as such usually command very high wages (due to a combination of supply of demand, there is a shortage of stonemasons hence higher wages, plus only rich people seem to be able to afford to buy stone houses and thus they can afford to pay the stonemason).

Over the past 20 years a lot of stonemasons have retired, hence there are very few left at all. There's also no college programs in it, which means people seeking to learn stonemasonry must either teach themselves (which isn't too difficult, but will require some trial and error to learn the basics) or apprentice to somone who is a stonemason (which is difficult because there's a huge shortage of them).

My suggestion: If you own a house that has aluminum siding now is your chance. Renovate your house and reface it with stone. Get together with a few hardworking friends (or other people interested in stonemasonry) and start your own stonemason company. Renovate all of your houses with stone until you've gained enough experience doing it. Afterwards you have a choice: Work for other people renovating their houses, build new stone houses or buy crappy houses, fix them up, reface them with stonework and sell them for a profit.

If stonework isn't your thing, take notice of the greenhouses above. There is huge potential in Canada for workers who build greenhouses (possibly even out of old recycled glass to cut costs). My parents have a tonne of glass windows and doors stored in their barn that has been sitting there for years. Given the time and opportunity I would love to build a greenhouse out of the pieces (possibly even using stonework for the flooring and base of the building). Sadly my mother doesn't see the point of building a greenhouse because she doesn't like tropical plants and has no interest in growing her own tomatoes and citrus fruits.

I know some of the ideas I've mentioned above seems pretty left-wing for a conservative eccentric like myself, but lets face it: Getting rid of the welfare system is VERY RIGHT WING. The problem is that if we do get rid of the welfare system we have to make certain that all those people currently on welfare are somehow provided for (either through the disability program or the workfare program). If we don't provide jobs and encourage people to start up their own businesses then they will eventually resort to crime to feed themselves.

And the last thing we need is soaring homelessness and crime rates.

Harper's Empty Promises

2007-03-09T19:10:00.000-08:00

Between February 9th and March 9th 2007 Stephen Harper has made over $6.9 billion dollars worth of empty promises for everything from subways to farmers to military spending to Quebec.

He's also promised to lower the GST another 1%.

But those promises are tied to a budget that has yet to be approved, and Harper knows full well that the budget will never be approved.

This is what I call another example of "dirty politics". Harpers promises sound grand on paper, but even if re-elected prime minister (either through a minority or majority government) but in reality not even the farmers approve of what he is doing.

Harper's promise of $1 billion to help subsidize farmers comes at a time when Harper wants to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board and remove their monopoly and price control on wheat and wheat products.

That price control is the only thing keeping poor farmers in business. Without it they would have declared bankruptcy a long time ago.

The Canadian government created the wheat board in 1935 in response to plummeting grain prices during the Depression that threatened to destroy the industry.

The CWB followed in the footsteps of previous attempts to temporarily stabilize the grain market in Canada in times of crisis.

The Board of Grain Supervisors was appointed in 1917 to market grain during the First World War. Another board was created to deal with a post-war crash in grain prices, but the government, determined to let market forces determine the price of grain, disbanded it after a year.

In the 1920s, western farmers formed their own grain marketing co-operatives, first in Alberta and then in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

The three wheat pools got together in 1924 and formed a central selling agency, the Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers, but the fall in grain prices following the Depression nearly wiped out the pool system altogether.

The Canadian government stepped in with financial aid to save the pools and eventually replaced the selling co-operative with the CWB.

The board was originally a voluntary agency, given the mandate to market Canadian grain at a fair and stable price for all its members.

But since 1943, Canadian wheat farmers have been compelled by law to sell their crops only to the board.

Barley and oat farmers also came under the board's control in 1949. Oats were removed from the CWB's jurisdiction in 1989. The CWB now has control of all wheat and barley grown in the West that is destined either for human consumption in Canada or for export.

The board is based in Winnipeg and doesn't handle the grain itself, or own any rail cars or elevators. The CWB's 365 employees negotiate deals to sell the grain at a single fixed price it determines.

The law governing the CWB was changed in 1998, so that the board is no longer a Crown corporation. Instead of being run by a handful of government appointees, the board now has 15 directors, 10 of whom are elected by Western farmers and five of whom, including the president, are appointed by the government.

However, the federal government still guarantees to cover any losses the Wheat Board suffers. Since 1943, Ottawa has spent $1.3 billion covering the board's deficits. Most of that money was spent in 1991, when the board lost $673.4 million after a U.S. export program drove down wheat prices. In 2003, the CWB reported an $85.4-million loss, mainly caused by a surging Canadian dollar, the board said.

Monopoly, open market or mixed?

Some farmers say the board has outlived its usefulness, that selling grain through one government agency - the "single desk," they call it - no longer works.

Defenders of the CWB say that without it the price of grain would fluctuate day-to-day and farmers themselves would have to negotiate their own price.

Opponents of the board say that's exactly what they want. These farmers say that, with the internet, they can monitor the price of their crops as they change, and negotiate accordingly. These farmers say they could sometimes get a higher price than the one negotiated by the CWB.

Somewhere in the middle are farmers who believe that pooling wheat and negotiating a common price might be a good idea for some farmers, but that they shouldn't be forced by law to sell their grain only to the CWB. These farmers support a dual market system in which farmers could sell their crops either to the board or on the open market.

In 1997, a referendum of barley producers found that nearly 63 per cent of the farmers support retaining the CWB's monopoly. Critics of the referendum, however, pointed out that the dual market system wasn't an option on the referendum.

In a plebiscite of Alberta farmers in 1996, 66 per cent were in favour of the dual market system.

The board also survived a court challenge in 1997. A group of Alberta farmers argued that the Canadian Wheat Board Act infringed on their freedom of association and the right to earn a living. A federal judge ruled that the monopoly was legal and a reasonable infringement on the farmers' freedoms.

Pressures from abroad

The CWB has also faced pressure from south of the border. The U.S. market represents about 10 per cent of the Canadian Wheat Board's sales, or about $400 million a year.

In 1993, Canada exported 2.8 million tonnes of wheat to the U.S. The record flood of Canadian wheat into the U.S. market had American farmers and senators from farm belt states crying foul.

Canada agreed to a temporary cap of 1.5 million tonnes on wheat exports for one year, from September 1994 to September 1995. After the cap expired, Canada again faced pressure to curb wheat exports to the U.S. The Canadian government resisted.

U.S. agriculture officials argued that the practices of the CWB constitute unfair trading practices and give Canadian farmers an advantage. Canadian officials responded that the CWB passed an initial audit in 1993 and a dispute settlement panel of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The George W. Bush administration issued a report in February 2003 that claimed the board enjoys advantages such as low-interest loans and use of government-owned rail cars, and that its monopoly status protects it against market risks. Canadian grain trade organizations replied that the WTO allows for bodies such as the CWB, as long as they comply with commercial business practices.

In February 2004, the World Trade Organization cleared the CWB of American accusations of unfair trade practices. The CWB called it a victory for western farmers. The WTO ruling was the 10th time in 14 years that trade rulings have backed the CWB.

In August 2004, however, the WTO approved a plan to cut subsidies and to require state bodies to stop practices that distort trade. Trade Minister Jim Peterson said the ruling could jeopardize the CWB, as well as government supply management of egg, dairy and other producers.

Mission Statement

2007-03-09T14:19:00.000-08:00

This blog will be dedicated to providing a conservative viewpoint on politics, but with an eccentric and weird twist.

For starters, as conservative as I am, I don't always vote conservative. Instead I regularly vote Liberal. Why? Because I like to weigh my options. Sometimes the conservative leader is TOO conservative, too right-wing for my tastes. Sometimes the leader just plain scares me.

Case in point: Stephen Harper, the current minority leader of the Conservative Party in Canada, and for the moment, the Prime Minister of Canada with a minority government.

I did not vote for him. Why?

Because he really does scare me.

He's a bean counter. An accountant. A heartless bastard.

And thats not what I'm looking for in a leader of Canada. I'd much more prefer someone like Joe Clark, because he has feeling and heart and personality.

I also don't like the current Conservative parties policies when it comes to war, the economy and the environment. I think they are flirting too much with American politicians (the George W. Bush Administration) and with Big Business like the Alberta Oil Industry.

As an Ontario Conservative I also don't like how Alberta is bossing around the rest of Canada because of Alberta's economic prosperity (which is driven purely by the high prices of oil recently).

So it really comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't trust the Conservative Party and there's no way in hell I will ever vote NDP or the Green Party...

And so my options have been limited down to voting Liberal, which is a centrist party. I actually rather like Stephan Dion. He reminds me of Chretien (whom I once hated but now find to be one of Canada's greatest prime ministers).

For me its all about being practical and trying to make the RIGHT decision.

Let me illustrate:

Stephen Harper wrote in a letter to the Canadian Alliance members that Canada can't afford to fight global warming, that Kyoto was a scam created by communists countries and that so-called global warming is caused by pollution.

I read this and thought to myself: "Harper is full of total BS."

Canada can afford to fight global warming and here is why: It would take less than what we spend on the military (which isn't a lot I admit) to invest in research/technology that would allow Canada to fight global warming, become a leader in it and eventually make a profit selling the technology to other countries.

Communist scam? Who is Harper marketing to? Old people from Cold War? He made no sense whatsoever.

Fact: Global Warming/Climate Change is not caused by "pollution", its caused by Green House Gases (CO2) from coal plants and inefficient automobiles.

All Canada needs to do is invest in more efficient automobile technology (ie. hybrids, hydrofuel cells, etc) and get rid of the coal plants and switch to nuclear/renewables.

The biggest contributor to green house gases is coal plants. Get rid of those and we've at least accomplished half of the goal.

Methinks the real reason Harper doesn't like the whole Kyoto plan is because he hails from the Alberta Oil Industry and is basically a dirty politician working on their behalf.

And there's nothing I hate more than a dirty politician.

I think Canadians need to step back from the situation and weigh their options. Be practical about things and try to think conservatively. We need to conserve oil, not waste it. More efficient cars is a good idea.

We need to stop using coal (a 18th century technology) and starting using more nuclear (a 20th century technology) and more solar/wind power (because I'm all in favour of paying less for my hydro bill).

Think about it. Maybe the most conservative thing to do is to vote Liberal. I may not agree with them on some other issues, but those issues aren't really as important as the ones currently facing us and the Liberals are actually on the right track.

Sometimes being conservative means doing nothing, which seems to be Stephen Harper's approach. Sometimes being conservative means doing everything we can to save what we have, and perhaps that time is now.

So yes, thats right. I'm conservative and I'm voting Liberal. How eccentric is that?