Benazir Bhutto blames Musharraf in pre-death email but did she follow security precautions?

After reading the article, Bhutto blames Musharraf in pre-death email, on the ctv news website, I am a bit confused. Apparently former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, said in an email to Washington lobbyist, Mark Siegel that if she was assassinated, that Musharraf should be held complicit in her death due to his refusal to meet safety requests she had made.

Below are some excerpts from that article:

Siegel said she had been stopped from taking private cars with tinted windows and had not received radio jammers or four police escorts -- as she had requested.

On Newsnet, Siegel read the email, saying, "There is no way what is happening -- in terms of stopping me from taking private cars or using tinted window, or giving jammers or four police mobiles to cover all sides -- could happen without (Musharraf)."

Siegel said her request for four police escorts -- one on each side of her vehicle -- could have saved her life

Having more than four police escorts did not save assassinated US President John F. Kennedy's life on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas or prevent former US President, Ronald Reagan, from being shot and wounded on March 30th, 1981. And you can bet they had the best security detail possible.

In terms of protecting someone, there is only so much that can be done in the best of circumstances against a determined assassin, and Bhutto has dozens of very experienced bodyguards, so I am not sure if Siegel's statement about the police escorts is a fair one.

But, after looking back on a previous article, 2 blasts strike crowd celebrating Bhutto's return, on the MSNBC website, it seems to indicate that Benazir Bhutto deliberately refused to take precautions and advise by security officers dating back to the first assassination attempt in October.

Below are some excerpts from that article:

An estimated 20,000 security officers had been deployed to protect Bhutto and her cavalcade of motorized rickshaws, colorful buses, cars and motorcycles in the streets of Pakistan's largest city.

Authorities had urged Bhutto to use a helicopter to reduce the risk of attack amid threats from extremists sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qaida, but she brushed off the concerns.

"I am not scared. I am thinking of my mission," she had told reporters on the plane from Dubai. "This is a movement for democracy because we are under threat from extremists and militants."

Last month, Bhutto told CNN she realized she was a target. Islamic militants, she said, "don't believe in women governing nations, so they will try to plot against me, but these are risks that must be taken. I'm prepared to take them."

Bhutto refuses to use protective cubicle
Leaving the airport, Bhutto refused to use a bulletproof glass cubicle that had been built atop the truck taking her to the tomb of Pakistan's founding father, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, to give a speech. She squeezed between other party officials along a railing at the front.

What surprised me the most was that moments before she was assassinated, she stood with her head exposed in the sun-roof of her vehicle as it moved slowly through the crowds estimated in the thousands. Why did her security detail allow her to do this, knowing the threats and the previous assassination attempt on her life?

I am not assigning any blame for Bhutto's death, as whichever group is responsible committed a morally reprehensible act clearly designed to destabilize Pakistan and throw it into chaos barely 2 weeks before parliamentary elections. But I also think that one should not jump to conclusions and blame Pakistani President Musharraf before taking into account all the facts surrounding Bhutto’s assassination.

It is clear for one thing that the Taliban and al-Qaeda wanted her dead because she was a secular woman who had close ties to the United States administration that was involved in overthrowing the Taliban regime. They also viewed Pakistan’s involvement in the “war against terror” as an assault against Islam and Bhutto had vowed to continue this co-operation if elected as Prime Minister.

Did the Tories do us a favour by reducing the GST, or was it just opportunistic politics?

I came across an interesting article in the Edmonton Sun, written by Lorrie Goldstein and Rob Granatstein that discussed the reduction of the GST to 5%, effective Jan 1st 2008. In the article, Lorrie makes arguments in support of the GST cut, while Rob opposes it, using the same arguments put forward by the Liberals and the NDP.

It makes me wonder why those on the left of the political spectrum are so vehemously opposed to tax cuts. Everyone benefits from tax cuts, both rich and poor. Whenever a tax reduction is made, we get to keep more of our money and that extra money in our hands helps to drive our economy creating more jobs and opportunities for everyone.

This exchange between Lorrie and Rob intrigued me the most:

Granatstein: What ordinary Canadians know is they have to spend money to get any benefit out of the GST cut. And it helps the rich more than the poor. The more you spend, the more pennies you save. A GST cut doesn't help me pay my mortgage, doesn't help me put anything into my dismal RRSP, it doesn't let me decide where I want to spend it. And resale homes are GST exempt. So I guess that's out, too.

Goldstein: You also have to earn money to get any benefit from an income tax cut. What's your point? Whenever provincial and federal governments cut income tax rates, people who are opposed make exactly your argument -- that the cuts amount to only a few dollars a week. Fact is, most of them don't believe in making one tax cut over another cut, they just don't believe in any tax cuts. I do. I believe people know how to spend their own money better than government.

Did the Tories do us a favour by reducing the GST, or was it just opportunistic politics? (Edmonton Sun)

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto assassinated

Former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today after attending a rally in the city of Rawalpindi. This could not have happened at a worst time, as it is bound to have a destabilizing effect on that country. Especially since it has played a key role in the Afghan war against the Taliban. What will be interesting to see is the effect that this development will have on the Afghan mission.

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto assassinated

Merry Christmas!

To everyone, I just want to take the opportunity to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope you all have a wonderful time with your families and friends and best wishes for 2008!

I would also like to wish all of our troops serving abroad a Merry Christmas as well and thank all of them for serving our country with great dignity and for the personal sacrifices that many have made. Many of us appreciate your efforts abroad to make life better for the people in those countries that you are serving in.

To everyone, have a safe, peaceful and joyous holiday.

Regards,

Tony

Is Schreiber Lying To Us?

It looks like Karlheinz Schreiber once again has changed his story. This time, it happened within a span of just 2 days. I am at a loss to see why are we wasting taxpayers’ money on his appearance before the ethics committee if he cannot keep his story streight for 2 days.

On Tuesday, Schreiber testified that former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney did not receive any money in connection with the Airbus affair. He was actually laughing off suggestions of Mr. Mulroney’s involvement in the Airbus affair.

CTV link: Mulroney didn't receive Airbus kickbacks: Schreiber

Karlheinz Schreiber told a parliamentary ethics committee on Tuesday that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney did not receive any money in connection with the Airbus affair.

He said that allegations of Mulroney's involvement in securing an Air Canada contract for the purchase of planes from the European company were laughable.

Today, just 2 days after saying that former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney did not receive any airbus money, Schreiber has changed his story. Today Schreiber testified that Mulroney’s former adviser, Fred Doucet, told him to transfer some proceeds from the sale of Airbus jets to Air Canada into a bank account for former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney. Mr. Doucet has denied this.

CTV link: Schreiber testimony ties Mulroney to Airbus deal

Karlheinz Schreiber testified today that he was told to transfer some proceeds from the sale of Airbus jets to Air Canada into a bank account for former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
...
"(I said) 'Why the hell would one send money to a lawyer in Geneva for Mr. Mulroney? What for?'" said Schreiber. "Now came this unbelievable answer, he said: 'For Airbus.'"

My question for Mr. Schreiber would be if what you are telling us today is true, then why did you say that Mr. Mulroney was not involved in the Airbus affair on Tuesday? It just does not add up. What I also found disturbing is that only a few MSM outlets are questioning Schreiber's latest statement. Many were content with taking Schreiber's word and reporting his latest revelation a major political bombshell.

If the testimony about Schreiber being told to transfer money from the Airbus sale to Mulroney’s account were true, then it would indicate that Schreiber lied to the ethics committee on Tuesday when he said that allegations of Mulroney’s involvement in securing an Air Canada contract for the purchase of planes were laughable.

Even today, Schreiber said that he was so desperate to stay in Canada that he would sign anything or say anything. This happened when he was questioned about inconsistencies in what he wrote in a letter in May or June of 2006 and what he said in his testimony.

What I found funny was that Schreiber admitted to being a judge in Germany, but he was afraid to go back there to face tax evasion charges, as, according to him, they regularly violated human rights. This is coming from a person who did not find anything wrong with the same judicial system when he was a judge. The constant theme I kept on hearing was about how bad Schreiber wanted to stay in Canada. I did not hear anything about him wanting Canadians to know the truth. Even in the letter that he sent, it sounded like an attempt by him to blackmail others in his quest to stay in Canada.

Well, Schreiber takes the stand again next Tuesday, as well as, representatives from GCI (the Ottawa lobying firm) and Mulroney may be called to testify next Thursday from 9am to 1pm. It will be interesting to hear what Mulroney has to say. What was interesting was that some Liberals actually were against having Mr. Mulroney testify. I wonder what might they be afraid of? Only time will tell.

Stephane Dion – Liberals Ready For A Spring Election

Less than a month ago, Liberal Opposition leader Stephane Dion said that his party did not want an election and neither did most Canadians and was accusing the governing Conservatives of trying to engineer one. Today Mr. Dion has completely changed his tune and is now saying that the Liberal party are ready to face the Conservatives in a spring election.

Dion says Liberals ready for a spring election

"2008 will be another ball game," he said. "You cannot keep alive forever a government who wants to die."

He said Liberal MPs have been forced to abstain from key confidence votes, allowing the Conservatives to push through key legislation, because Canadians were opposed to the idea of a third election in three years.

Now, he said, Canadians have had enough of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and are ready for a change.

Really! If Canadians were really ready for a change, you would see it in the poll results, right?

The reality is that the popular opinion polls have not moved in favour of the Liberals. In fact, the Conservatives have maintained the same level of support that they had when the defeated the governing Liberal party, and at the same time, support for the Liberals have not increased.

I am not sure on what basis Dion's party will be ready for a spring election. Lets look at the reality their party has to deal with:

• Political donations to the Liberal party are lagging and are far below the Conservatives. In addition, the Liberal finances are in bad shape, as they still millions of dollars in debt.
• The Liberals are still where they were in terms of popular support when they lost the 2006 Federal elections to the Tories. They have not been able to increase their numbers.
• Stephane Dion still has an image problem among Canadians and lags far behind Prime Minister, Stephen Harper and even NDP leader Jack Layton in terms of personal popularity.
• Approximately 20% of the Liberal caucus has either resigned or indicated that they will not be running in the next federal election. This is hardly a good sign of a party ready to fight an election.
• The Liberals under Dion’s leadership have failed to give their party the renewal that it needed to distance itself from its past problems. Dion has been mostly vague in the direction that he wants to take the party and this has resulted in many Canadians not being able to say what either he or his party stands for.

It will be interesting to see how the Liberals will run an effective election campaign against the Conservatives with Dion at the helm. If Dion conducts his election campaign in the same way in which he has performed as Liberal opposition leader, the Conservatives will be cruising to victory once again.

Rex Murphy Commentary on Prime Minister Harper’s Position on a Post-Kyoto Agreement

On last night's edition of CBC's, The National, Rex Murphy's commentry articulated Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s position on a post Kyoto agreement. It was one of his best commentaries and it added a lot of creditability to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s argument that the Canadian government will not enter into "binding agreements" that deal with climate change, unless those agreements are binding on all the world's CO2 emitters, major and minor.

In the blog, Dispatch From The Socialist Gulag in a post titled, “Rex Murphy on Canada's global warming position” there is a link to last night’s commentary on CBC that should be required viewing for those on either side of the Kyoto debate.

Below is an excerpt from the Rex Murphy's commentry on CBC's, The National last night:

If global warming is the imminent and catastrophic peril to the earth that everyone from the IPCC to David Suzuki to Al Gore and every socially-conscious celebrity on the planet have been telling us it is, then there can be no serious argument for Canada to make mandatory commitments, while exempting the giant emitters of the world such as China and India. This is like plugging a leak while ignoring a flood.
...

Everyone has a vague, soft wish to "do the right thing" for the planet - and at the level of gesture - green light bulbs, more intense recycling, hybrid SUVs, everyone more or less feels good about going along.

But what the participants at Bali will be looking for from Canada, Europe, the US, the industrialized world, are precisely those hard targets and commitments that Mr. Harper, very logically, unless equivalent cuts are made for all, has said make no sense. Cuts that would impose real restrictions on the Canadian economy, slow growth - this will not be painless regardless of what enthusiasts say - perhaps start a real conflict in this country over the oil sands - while giving a pass to much larger countries producing much greater emissions.

Are we really going to do that - while two of the largest economies of the 21st century make the leap into unregulated, unprecedented growth?

That's a two-tier solution to global warming, and unless I misread our recent history, Canadians are not fond of two-tier solutions.

Schreiber refuses to testify before the HOC Ethics Committee

Karlheinz Schreiber appeared before the HOC ethics committee this morning and refused to testify.

From the G&M: I won't testify now: Schreiber

In an opening statement before the Commons ethics committee, Mr. Schreiber said he is “unwilling at this time to testify” until he knows how long the stay on his extradition will be.

“Until the court hearing in Toronto tomorrow [regarding] the length of the stay, I am unwilling at this time to testify,” he said, referring to a motion that will be heard Friday by Ontario's Court of Appeal.

I had a chance to listen to exerpts from his testimony and I could not believe the arrogance of Mr. Schreiber. He would not even answer whether or not he had paid any money to anyone. It is the basis of his allegation that he filed less than a month ago. Surely he could have even admit this by saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’

Ccommittee chair Paul Szabo, also indicated that he will provide Mr. Schreiber with an advance list of questions that the committee intends to ask him. What is he thinking? He clearly is being played here and it does not even look like he realize it.

The opposition members of the HOC are once again allowing themselves to be played. Mr. Schreiber’s interest is not in shedding any light on his business dealings with former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney. The only interest he has is to remain in Canada and avoid extradition to face fraud and tax-evasion charges. The Conservative government should do us all a favour and extradite Mr. Schreiber back to Germany ASAP.

If Schreiber Refuses to Speak before the Ethics Committee tomorrow -Deport him

So it seems that Karlheinz Schreiber is once again up to his old tricks. His lawyer, Edward Greenspan has said that Schreiber is unlikely to cooperate before the HOC ethics committee, where he is scheduled to appear tomorrow.

It is amazing how far the opposition is willing to bend to accommodate his demands. Schreiber has once again managed to manipulate the HOC, Supreme Court and the ethics committee and is doing an effective job of making them look like fools. In any other country with an ounce of self-respect, Schreiber would have been deported long ago.

I think that its time that someone with a backbone gives him an ultimatum to either "put up or shut up". If Schreiber refuses to talk tomorrow, he should be considered as having given up his right to testify and should immediately be put on a plane to Germany to face fraud, bribery and tax evasion charges.

Karlheinz Schreiber the master manipulator

Karlheinz Schreiber seems to be trying his best to manipulate our government, the justice system, the Supreme Court and the House of Commons at the same time, and sadly it looks like he is succeeding.

First, with just weeks away from being extradited to Germany, he changed his sworn testimony that he gave during the famous Airbus inquiry. Previously he denied giving money to former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney while he was in office, but then changes his story to say that the Former Prime Minister received money just days before demitting office.

Last week, he said that he would not testify if he were extradited to Germany. This is after he had previously said that the motive of his latest allegations were not to extend his stay in Canada, but to ensure that Canadians knew the truth about his business dealings with former Prime Minister Mulroney.

On Thursday, he asked for a get out of jail free card, so that he could go to his home in Ottawa for a few nights for the purposes of searching for some papers.

Yesterday, he sent a rambling press release saying that he is willing to appear before the HOC ethics committee, but first he wants some answers from Federal Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson.

I’ve got to give it to this fellow. He is a master manipulator and is trying to extract all kinds of demands in exchange of his testimony. My hope is that the Canadian people will not be fooled by the about face in his testimony and see him for what he is. “A manipulator to the highest degree”.

Karlheinz Schreiber to testify before the HOC ethics committee

A motion before the HOC ethics committee to study the so-called Mulroney-Schreiber affair and to request Mr. Schreiber to testify "without delay" passed easily today with the support of the three opposition parties.

Schreiber to testify before committee

So it looks like Karlheinz Schreiber could be called before the HOC parliamentary committee as early as next week.

It will be interesting to hear what Schreiber will have to say. How will he explain the inconsistencies in his previously sworn statements? How will he handle himself under cross-examination? Stay tuned for next week.

Ontario Premier McGuinty’s latest tantrum

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty recently has been making a lot of noise regarding the number of new ridings allocated to Ontario if the new Federal government bill to increase the number of ridings in the HOC is passed. This criticism drew a strong rebuke from government house leader, Peter Van Loan.

As it stands now, there are 308 Federal ridings and the new bill would add 22 more to increase the number of seats to 330.

According to this bill the new seats will be distributed as follows

• 10 in Ontario
• 7 in British Columbia
• 5 in Alberta

What Mr. McGuinty conveniently failed to mention was that he did not have a problem with the number of new Federal ridings allocated to Ontario in 2004, when former Liberal Prime Minister, Paul Martin, was in power. This new bill received royal assent on March 11th, 2004.

Lets look at the number of new seats that were allocated in that bill that increased the number of Federal ridings in Canada from 301 to 308.

• 3 in Ontario
• 2 in British Columbia
• 2 in Alberta

Was Mr. McGuinty Premier of Ontario back then? Yes. Did he protest the number of seats allocated to Ontario to Paul Martin’s Liberal government back then? I don’t think so. And it was a worst deal for Ontario compared to the number of seats they are getting right now. So if he did not have a problem with a worst deal for Ontario when his Federal Liberal cousins were in power, but now has a problem when Ontario gets a better deal with the Tories in power, you just have to wonder what his motives are.

Former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien says inquiries are not the best solution

Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien suggested to reporters that a public inquiry may not be the best way to get to the bottom of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.

Hmmm, an interesting perspective coming from a former Liberal Prime Minister

"It's not the best way to solve problems," Chretien told reporters, in his first media appearance since undergoing heart bypass surgery last month. "We have police for these things. But there will be an inquiry, so we will live with an inquiry."

Meanwhile, the Liberals are not content with the fact that the Prime Minister, have called the public inquiry that they have been demanding for. The Liberals are interfering in the inquiry, at a time when it should be totally free of political interference.

Stephane Dion sends letter to David Johnston

My contention is that it is totally ridiculous for Mr. Dion to be demanding that Mr. Johnston includes the PMO as part of the inquiry. The Mulronry/Schreiber issue happened almost 15 years ago the PMO did not have anything to do with the alleged Mulroney/Schreiber payment.

If the Liberals insist on widening the net of this inquiry, maybe it will expand enough to also include the dealings that members of the caucuses of last two Liberal Prime Ministers, Chretien and Martin had with Schreiber.

Maybe there may be some good for the Conservatives in having this inquiry go forward, as expressed by comments by Real Conservative and Joanne in the Joanne's Journey blog.

1. Way to put distance between the new CPC and the old PC party.
2. Way for Harper to show that he has no 'hidden agenda.'
3. Way for conservatives to link this to LPC, easy to do.
4. Way for CPC to show that LPC is not interested in current events.
5. Way for Harper to show that his natural leadership instinct is alive and well.
6. Way for the government to continue to get legislation through Parliament that was promised to Canadians long ago eg. getting tough on crime bills, etc." (Since the Liberals most likely will not pull the plug on this minority government while the inquiry goes on)

Why Karlheinz Schreiber should be extradited back to Germany

For once I am in agreement with CTV newsperson, Craig Oliver. Karlheinz Schreiber is a liar, manipulator and a blackmailer and should be sent back to Germany.

I was leaning towards allowing him to stay and testify until he threatened the federal government that he would not talk if extradited. Craig Oliver summed it up beautifully on yesterdays MDL and made a very convincing argument why he should be extradited back to Germany.

Schreiber latest threat tells me that he is not interested in Canadian justice and is only interested in saving his own skin. What we are dealing with a highly manipulative person who has had years to come forward with this information when he was not under any extradition threat and waits until he is literally 2 weeks away from being extradited to Germany before he gives this information in a sworn affidavit in court.

The other issue is that Mr. Schreiber has changed his story at least 3 times. His first story was that he did not pay former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney. His second story was that he arranged to pay Brian Mulroney, but this happened after the former Prime Minister had left office and was a private citizen. Mr. Schreiber’s latest story is that he made a deal with Mr. Mulroney while he was still Prime Minister.

Mr. Schreiber clearly has some creditability problems. His dealings has not only tainted Canada, and left a nasty stench in our political system, but also have impacted German politics as well. He is largely responsible for the downfall of former German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl and former German opposition leader Wolfgang Schaeuble.

What is interesting is that Liberal human rights critic Irwin Cotler, who is now arguing for Schreiber to be allowed to stay in Canada, ordered Schreiber deported just 3 years ago in 2004 when Colter was the Liberal Minister of Justice. The Liberals and NDP, who have always accused the Conservatives of trying to manipulate the judiciary, are now demanding that the Conservative government do just that. By giving in to Liberal and NDP demands, we risk erroding the independence of our judiciary.

From the looks of this, an inquiry would just be a he/said he/said affair. It would boil down to choosing between a liar and an arrogant former Prime Minister. The Liberals consistently say, “They want the truth” The only problem is that the person who they are relying on for it is a liar, who has changed his story at least 3 times. How can they be sure that they are getting the truth from a person that only 3 years ago they saw as a cancer and sought to deport themselves?

My guess is that the Liberals are using this issue as a means of getting some political mileage, to the detriment of the Conservatives. My warning to them is to “Be careful what you wish for” as several Liberals have also been close confidants of Mr. Schreiber and they may end up getting egg on their faces.

In my view, nothing good can come out of this. If Schreiber were allowed to stay, the government would essentially be doing two critical things that I oppose as a Canadian citizen. Interfering in our judicial system, which is supposed to be free from government interference, and giving in to blackmail. This would send a nasty precedence in our political system. No government should allow itself to be blackmailed this way.

I say send Schreiber back to Germany. If Schreiber really wants to testify he will. If not, then it would just confirm that he was really not interested in Canadian justice, but only in saving his skin.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Criticizes Canada’s Tax System

The Canadian Centre for policy alternatives, an Ottawa think tank, has put out a report that accuses the Canadian tax system of failing the basic test of fairness. They are using the fact that the top 1% of income earners is paying a lower percentage of their income compared to those at the bottom of the income scale to justify their argument.

Those very rich Canadians paid 30.5 per cent of their income in federal, provincial and municipal taxes in 2005, as opposed to the 30.7 per cent for those with incomes under $13,523, the lowest 10 per cent of family earnings.

That's a big difference from 1990, when the top 1 per cent of earners paid 34.2 per cent of their incomes in taxes, as opposed to 25.5 per cent for families in the bottom 10 per cent.

"The tax system has gotten less progressive," said the group's senior economist Marc Lee.

What Mr. Lee fails to point out is the following:

• The top 1% of income earners pays far more into the tax system and receives much fewer benefits when compared to lower income earners.
• The top 1% of income earners often risks their capital for investments that create jobs for many of us, so a lower tax rate for them means more investments and jobs for our economy.
• The business and companies that are formed by the top 1% of income earners provide the government with much needed funds for many programs that benefit lower income earners. Higher taxes mean less investment and less money in the long run going into the government coffers to fund these programs.
• Lower tax rates are one of the key factors that attract capital and investment by those with the means to invest.

The fact that the Canadian Centre for policy alternatives is also blind to is that increasing the tax on the rich hardly works. In most cases, it gets passed down as increased cost to lower income earners, thus defeating the purpose. It also discourages further investment, which translates to lost economic opportunities, fewer jobs, etc.

The lowering the tax rate for top income earners from 34.2 percent to 25.5 percent ended up benefiting most of us. Not just the rich, as alluded to by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It enabled the federal and provincial governments to collect more money than it would have if the tax rate had remained the same. This was due to increased investment, in terms of more businesses and companies expanding and more people being employed.

Mario Dumont tables surprise no-confidence motion

Quebec opposition leader, Mario Dumont presented a surprise non-confidence motion that if approved, would send Quebecers to the polls on Dec 17th. It is unlikely to pass though, as the the Parti Québécois stated yesterday that it has no plans to support it.

Mr. Dumont sent his opponents scrambling and briefly set off a political drama after presenting a motion to defeat the government over its defence of the province's school boards, which the ADQ says should be abolished. Mr. Dumont has also criticized the Liberals on the economy, health care and government inaction.

Dumont tables surprise no-confidence motion

The nervous Liberals were relieved to hear the PQ House Leader reject the need for an election.

"You can't drag the people into an election just because you are unhappy with the government's response to your demands," Mr. Gendron said.

The no-confidence motion, the first to be tabled against Mr. Charest's government since the March 26 election, will be debated and voted on next Tuesday.

Loonie climbs above $1.10

In just over a month the Canadian dollar has moved from 98 US cents to $1.10 US on Wednesday, sparking record trading in the overseas market.

Among the factors contributing to the steep rise in the loonie are record oil prices, approaching $97 a barrel, competitive interest rates, a stable economy that encourages investment and a steep decline in the value of the US dollar.

While this news is good for cross border consumers, it is causing a lot of concern for manufacturers and exporters. Many of them have been advocating for an interest rate cut to stem the rise in the Canadian dollar, but their hopes were dashed on Tuesday afternoon after Bank of Canada Senior Deputy Governor Paul Jenkins indicated that there will not be a cut in interest rates.

Some analysts are suggesting that the Canadian dollar is overvalued by as much as 10% and are predicting a sharp decline over the next year.

“It's overvalued,” said Rebecca Patterson, global currency strategist at JP Morgan in New York. She's advising her clients that the loonie will slide over the next year.
...
A Bank of Canada-based model that uses interest rate differentials and commodity prices to determine fair value shows the currency is 10 per cent overvalued, said David Powell, currency strategist at Idea Global in New York.

“The Canadian dollar is well overvalued by most conventional measures,” he said. About two-fifths of the U.S. dollar's decline against the Canadian currency is due to general U.S.-dollar weakness, he estimated.

Despite this, it looks like it will be a good season for consumers. Many retailers, such as Sears have already lowered prices, and some car dealerships are also following through in an effort to stem the tide of cross border shoppers. Many have also started giving consumers the benefit of the 1% GST cut, even though it will not take place until January 1st.

For travellers going abroad, the benefit of the strong Canadian dollar will be enormous. Itravel2000, Canada's largers independent online travel retailer, is reporting a significant rise in Canadian bookings to southern destinations such as Mexico and the Dominican Republic. Many US retailers in border towns and cities are also reporting a significant increase in Canadian customers and are already offering special promotions to lure their business.

Premier McGuinty Shuffles Cabinet To Thwart Potential Successors

The recent cabinet shuffle by Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty was to thwart potential successors jockeying to succeed him as Premier, according to the article, Premier makes an offer his ministers can't refuse by Robert Benzie in the Toronto Star.

He sums it up quite perfectly with this quote

There can be only one boss in this family, only one premier.

In this latest shuffle, four ministers were dropped from his cabinet, ten backbenchers were promoted, and four out of the seven people with aspirations for his job were given less significant assignments after McGuinty conferred with his advisors.

Like the calculating Michael Corleone in The Godfather trilogy, McGuinty emphasized his manoeuvring was not personal, but strictly business.

"You just gotta make a judgment call. ... In order to do that, I had to take some people out," he said.

It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out in Ontario. Especially since Mr. McGuinty has indicated that he intends to make another run as Premier in the Ontario Provincial Election in 2011.

Federal Finance Minister Announces GST and Personal Income Tax Cuts

Federal Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty announced several tax cuts today.

They include:

• A reduction in the GST from 6% to 5%, effective January 1st, 2008.
• An increase in the basic personal amount exemption to $9,600 from $8,929, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007;
  Two years later, on Jan. 1, 2009, the basic personal amount exemption will be increased to $10,100;
• Reducing small business income tax to 11 per cent by 2008 and $10 billion in federal debt relief
• The lowest personal income tax rate moves to 15 per cent from 15.5 per cent, effective Jan. 1 2007, undoing a change made in the first Conservative budget.

As usual, the NDP and the Bloc have announced that they will vote against this mini-budget, when it comes to a vote in parliament tomorrow. It is sure to pass though, as the Liberals have indicated that they will not vote against it.

Overall, I have to say kudos to the Conservative government for this mini-budget. It is coming at the right time and will benefit most Canadians.

Omar Khadr's mother wants Canada to defend her son's rights

Mrs. Maha Khadr, wife of the late Al-Qaeda financer, Ahmed Khadr is now asking for the Canadian government to defend her son, Omar Khadr.

This is the same person who along with her daughter Zaynab openly spat on and rejected Canada and the west, accusing them of being full of teen drug addicts and homosexuals. Not only did she say this, but she also said that she would be happy to see her children die as martyrs, just as her husband did.

In Mrs. Khadr’s mind Canada was not good enough for her and her family to live in, so they voluntarily left the safety and prosperity of our country and society to live among, collaborate with and openly support Al-Qaeda in Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Now that she and her family has suffered the consequences of their actions, they come running back to Canada and expect our government to advocate for her son release? Especially after he is accused of murdering a US medic?

It is not the first time Mrs. Khadr has advocated for someone in her family. In January 1996, she advocated to former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien for the release of her husband Ahmed from a Pakistani prison, where he was being held on terrorism charges. Mr. Chretien obliged and her husband was released within weeks, but that decision came back to haunt Mr. Chretien’s government when Mr Khadr was later killed in a gun battle with Pakistani troops.

It is probably best that Omar Khadr remains where he is in Guantamo Bay, where he is currently being held instead of being brought back to Canada. He is a trained Al-Qaeda operative, and given Canada’s lax justice system, chances are that he would be quickly released and would once again be free to pursue his collaboration and association with that terrorist organization.

Premier Stelmach Expected to Raise Royalties on Oil and Gas Development in Alberta

For a long time Alberta with its attractive tax rate has been an oasis for billions of dollars in investment in its oil and gas sector. This however could change with an expected announcement tomorrow, in which Premier Stelmach may raise royalities on oil and gas development by as much as 20%.

Hopefully this will not be the case, as the initial short term gain for Alberta from this draconian measure will most certainly end up as long term losses. Nothing good can come from such a radical change in policy, as it will only serve to discourage future investment.

The one piece of advise I have for Premier Stelmach is "Don't Kill the Goose the Lays the Golden Egg" Excessive greed by the Province will turn into long term need, especially if the oil and gas companies cut back on their investment and number of people they employ in Alberta.

Update:

From the Toronto Star - John Cotter

Stelmach vague on new energy royalty system

In a televised speech Stelmach said his government will create a new system for charging royalties but will give companies time to adapt to it.

The premier did not say if the changes will yield the 20 per cent increase in royalties called for last month by a review panel commissioned by his government, how the new system will work or when the changes will kick in.

"Now we are ready to take decisive action," Stelmach said. ``One that delivers the fair share Albertans rightly expect from the development of their resources.

Alberta Liberals are distancing themselves from the Federal Liberal Party

The sponsorship scandal, internal infighting, weak leadership and the lack of direction in the Federal Liberal party have severely tarnished the once proud “Liberal” brand name. This turmoil is causing some of its provincial counterparts to begin distancing themselves from the Federal Liberal Party.

“EDMONTON -- Like a young person embarrassed by his parents, Alberta Liberals are taking great pains to distance themselves from their namesakes in Ottawa.
..
The party executive is sending out letters urging news organizations to refer to the party and its members as "Alberta Liberals" rather than "Liberals."

With possible provincial and federal elections looming, Alberta Liberals are gritting their teeth at the prospect of being lumped together with their federal counterparts.

"We need you to call us by our real name," reads the letter, adding that it is "critical" for Albertans to distinguish between the federal and provincial parties. "After all, the Alberta Liberal Party is a completely distinct Alberta-born and bred political party ... with a clear vision for sustaining Alberta's prosperity."

The letter goes on to note that Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft is not even a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

This cannot be good news for a federal party that considers itself the natural governing party of Canada. From what I see, it is just another sign of people jumping ship before the big shipwreck as the Liberal party’s fortunes have clearly declined.

Right now they are experiencing a decline in the polls, poor leadership, massive debts, a decline in donations and lack of a clear message and direction. These days many are questioning what does the Federal Liberal Party stands for? It does not seem to have a clear position on issues such as the economy, crime, the environment, the justice system and the Afghanistan mission. If they are not able to turn things around quickly, the NDP may one day replace them as the opposition.

Nine Convenient Untruths In Al Gore's Documentary

Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has been found to be an alarmist, one-sided film containing nine major errors that are presented as fact. Despite this revelation, many schools in Ontario and other Canadian provinces continue to use this movie for educational purposes. In nearly all cases where this movie is being shown, it is being presented as fact without any opposing arguments.

So now what we now have are students in schools all across Canada being indoctrinated by a film with major flaws, instead of being presented with all sides of this debate. They are not given the opportunity to see films that demonstrate an opposing view, such as the Global Warming Swindle, and allowed to decide the facts for themselves. They have become political pawns who are being manipulated by various school boards in this debate.

In regard to the court ruling, Victoria Serda, Ontario's deputy Green party leader has dismissed it as "minor".

"How can a judge in England make a determination on whether something is scientific fact when he has no background in it?" Ms. Serda said. "This is a judge that doesn't even know what he's talking about, he doesn't work in the field, he's not a climate scientist, he's not a peer-reviewed scientific journalist. He has no basis in order to even go forward with this decision he's making. It's just kind of silly."

My response to Ms Serda is:

“How can a documentary produced by a career politician, such as Al Gore, without any background or training in climateology be endorsed and presented as fact in our schools despite having at least nine major flaws? It’s just kind of silly."

Here are the nine untruths

Untruth 1

Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future".

The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."

Untruth 2

Gore says: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. "That's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand."

Judge says: "There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened."

Untruth 3

Gore says: The shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor" would lead to another ice age.

Judge says: "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (an ocean current known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down."

Untruth 4

Gore says: Two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, show an exact fit.

Judge says: "Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts."

Untruth 5

Gore says: The disappearance of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming.

Judge says: "The scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change."

Untruth 6

Gore says: The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming.

Judge says: "It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution."

Untruth 7

Gore says: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is due to global warming.

Judge says: "It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that."

Untruth 8

Gore says: Polar bears have drowned swimming long distances to find ice.

Judge says: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

Untruth 9

Gore says: Coral reefs are bleaching because of global warming.

Judge says: "The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adapt or acclimatize."

Tory throne speech to embarrass Liberals over Kyoto: report

Government sources told the Canadian Press that Prime Minister Stephen Harper believes the Liberals are so desperate to avoid an election that they will roll over and accept a throne speech that describes Kyoto climate-change targets as unattainable.

If this is true, it will certainly put Opposition leader, Stephane Dion and the Liberals between a rock and a hard place with two unpalatable choices. Have an election that they are not prepared for and do not want or effectively abandoning their support on implementing the Kyoto Accord within the required timeframe by allowing the throne speech to pass?

I think the Conservatives need to be careful if they plan to use this approach. Dion's tenure as Liberal leader would certainly be severely damaged if he goes along, so he might just opt for an election.

An election over the Kyoto protocol might be the single rallying cry that may unite a Liberal party in disarray and cement Dion’s position as its leader. The environment is not one of the Conservative Party’s strong points, and a significant amount of voters view it as an extremely important issue and may become swayed by the propaganda that will certainly come from the opposition parties, so having an election on it is not a very prudent or pragmatic approach.

If the Conservatives do end up using this approach, they need to provide and communicate a very strong and clear message to Canadian voters. They need to spell out in financial and economic terms the implications of implementing Kyoto and how it will affect their daily lives. Otherwise the opposition will have a field day with this issue.

Are the Liberals doing a flip flop on their throne speech demands?

Just two weeks ago, when the Bloc and NDP were threatening to defeat the Conservative government by opposing the throne speech, opposition leader, Stephane Dion weighed in with his demands. Unless the Conservative government satisfy four key priorities, they would risk not having Liberal support said Stephane Dion,

He knew that two of these demands, including the reintroduction of bill C-30 and telling NATO allies that Canada would end the combat mission in Feb 2009 would likely not be satisfied in the throne speech, but he still included them, so he was in was in fact laying the groundwork to defeat the government.

When Mr. Dion made these demands, he thought he was being clever. The gap between the Liberals and the Conservatives were as little as two points in some polls back then and in his mind he had finally put Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a box, where he would be forced to implement the opposition’s parties agendas, as the Prime Minister would not want to risk an election. Instead he was outfoxed when the Prime Minister called his bluff with the “fish or cut bait” news conference.

Now with increasing turmoil within his own party and the loss of Liberal support in the polls, Mr. Dion and the Liberal party seems to have done a 180 degree turn. They are now saying that they don’t want an election, and if there is one, it will be Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s fault, even though the Conservatives hold a minority of seats in parliament.

Toronto-area MP, Bryon Wilfert, associate foreign affairs critic in the Liberal caucus, is now advocating partial abstentions by the 96-member Liberal caucus in the Commons, in order to keep the government in power. Mr. Dion has not refuted this, so he appears to be endorsing this change in policy. No longer is he making the minimum demands for Liberal support that he was making just two weeks ago.

Mr. Dion is now caught between a rock and a hard place, as he faces two unpalatable choices. He can either “stick to his principles” and have his party defeat the government on the throne speech, but face an election that they are not ready for, or he can grudgingly support the policies outlined in the throne speech and be forever perceived as a weak politician without any principles. It will be interesting to see whether Mr. Dion and the Liberals do a flip flop on this issue and allow the throne speech to pass without satisfying their four key priorities. If he does, he would lose a lot of creditability and it will be the beginning of the end for Mr Dion's tenure as Liberal party leader.

The Folly of Negotiating Peace with the Taliban

Politicians like Federal NDP leader, Jack Layton and others like him who are promoting the idea of Canada negotiating with the Taliban should take a look at what is going on in Pakistan right now.

Fighting resumes between Pakistan and pro-Taliban militants

In September last year, the Pakistani government signed a peace accord with pro-Taliban militants that was supposed to end five years of fighting between them in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan. Under that deal, Pakistan withdrew its military forces from that area in exchange for promises that militant tribal groups there would not engage in terrorist activities.

When the deal was announced, many criticized the Pakistani government decision, as they rightly felt that it would not be respected by the militants. As early as July, militants were already flouting the agreement by launching suicide attacks and bombings.

Militants in Pakistan Flout Peace Agreement

Pakistani authorities on Monday were investigating a weekend of suicide attacks that killed at least 73 people, tracking suspected links between the bombings and the army's recent assault on a mosque held by Islamic extremists.

Now the breakdown in the ceasefire and the resumption of fighting between Pakistani troops and pro-Taliban militants have demonstrated the foolhardiness of ever making such an agreement in the first place. The only beneficiary of this agreement was the militants, who used it to rearm and rebuild their network and resume attacks on civilians in the area and against NATO troops across the Afghanistan border.

It just goes to show that you can’t negotiate with the Taliban or their allies. Hopefully Jack Layton and others like him who want to talk peace with the Taliban will see the foolhardiness of making such a decision.

Afghan minister praises Canada as 'greatest ally'

Afghanistan’s education minister, Mohammed Atmar, praised Canada and referred to our country as its greatest ally during a visit to Toronto yesterday.

"You protect our people and advance the basic rights of our people," he said. "Our government is so proud to convey to you that you are our greatest ally -- an ally that we depend upon, an ally to be appreciated, an ally that we will long be grateful to."

Mr. Atmar also spoke on the improvement to education that has been made in Afghanistan since the Taliban were overthrown.

"What is happening in terms of education is a strategic transformation of society," he said, noting more than six times as many children are going to school now than when the Taliban ruled the country from 1996 to 2001.

Statements like these makes me proud as a Canadian that our troops, as well as other citizens, are doing a lot of good in that country. It really makes me ashamed that the Federal NDP’s position is that they want all Canadian troops to be immediately pulled out of that country. It really makes me ashamed that the Liberals, who begun this mission are now politicizing and undermining it. Not only are these parties undermining the mission, they are also doing it at a time when Afghanistan desperately needs our help.

Both Afghan President, Hamid Karzai and Education Minister, Mohammed Atmar have emphasized the good that Canadian troops are doing in that country, despite the challenges that they face. They have asked the opposition parties to reconsider their stand on the mission. Hopefully the opposition will take a genuine look at Afghanistan from a humanitarian point of view and at least reconsider their stance.

Common Myths Spread By The Left About Conservatives

I came across this post, “Confidence schmonfidence... it's just brinksmanship” by the Take off, eh? blog on the liblogs.ca website. It was in response to a challenge Prime Minister Stephen Harper made to the opposition parties if they voted in favour of the throne speech, but opposed implementation of the policies outlined in it , that it could trigger an election. This is because the vote on each policy would be considered a confidence vote.

What was interesting was that it contained the common myths spread by the left about Conservatives, which could not be further from the truth. For the longest time it was a successful tactic, but now thankfully more Canadians are seeing it for what it is. Just propaganda!

Here they are:

• The Conservatives don't support women
• They don't support native Canadians.
• They don't support Eastern Canada.
• They don't care much for Ontario, or rather the GTA
• They don't really care for anyone who invested in income trusts
• They don't really give a rats ass about climate change (even now as they feign belief in it)

Chretien recovering after quadruple heart bypass surgery

Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien had quadruple heart bypass surgery today at the Montreal Heart Institute. The news came as a shock to me.

I am wishing him a speedy recovery.

Regards,

Tony

Darfur Rebels Overun an African Union peacekeeping base

Last year, NDP leader, Jack Layton, was appealing to the Canadian government to send peacekeeping troops to Darfur, even though there was still fighting between government and rebel troops. A peace deal had been signed by both groups, but neither side respected or observed it.

NDP wants Canada to lead on Darfur mission

The federal New Democrats want Canada to take a lead role in any UN mission to stop the bloodshed in Sudan's Darfur province, even if that means scaling back its commitment in Afghanistan.

Apparently the peacekeeping mission is not going very well for the African Union peacekeeping troops stationed there.

Darfur Rebels Kill 10 in Raid On Peace Force

Hundreds of Darfurian rebels overran an African Union peacekeeping base in the central Darfur region of Sudan in a surprise raid over the weekend, killing at least 10 soldiers, possibly kidnapping dozens more and seizing supplies that included heavy weapons, African Union officials said Sunday.

If Canada had gone ahead and sent troops to Darfur and had suffered casualties, would Mr. Layton now be demanding a withdrawal of Canadian troops from that country? Chances are, his party would blame the Conservative government for handling the mission badly and demand an immediate withdrawal, as in the case of Afghanistan.

U.S. refugee worker was arrested while trying to enter Canada with illegal aliens

Janet Hinshaw-Thomas, a U.S. refugee worker was arrested at the border crossing of Lacolle, Que. last week, as she tried to enter Canada from New York state with 12 illegal aliens from Haiti, including seven children and five adults.

She has been charged under Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but has since been released on $5000 bail.

As usual, the left-wingers, including Maxine Jennings of the Liberal Party and Olivia Chow of the NDP, are already attacking the use of Section 117 of the Immigration Act to charge her.

"Instead of arresting Good Samaritans and harassing faith-based humanitarian non-profit organizations, the Harper government should focus its attention on many known illegal immigration consultants who prey on the most vulnerable refugees, who coach them to lie and strip them of huge sums of money," Chow said in an e-mail.

"This section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was designed to catch human traffickers, so why is the Harper government exploiting it to go after a well-intentioned refugee advocate?" Jennings said in a statement.

"That means that Rob Nicholson, the Attorney General of Canada, authorized it, and that's a clear misuse and misinterpretation of the law," she said.

"He has explanations to give."

But excuse me, how is this a misinterpretation of the law? The law clearly says the following

"Organizing and aiding entry into Canada is an offence under Section 117 of the (act)."

The Liberal Party, with the support of the NDP, Bloc and defunct Alliance Party made this amendment to the Immigration Act in 2002. If the Liberal Party had meant for this law only to be used in specific cases, shouldn’t they have structured it that way?

As usual, there are those who want these illegal aliens to come unimpeded into our country. They do not care about the additional burden in terms of financial, social and health care cost that our cities and urban centres have to absorb, even though many of them are operating under inadequate funding.

For them, Canada is a rich country and we can afford to absorb all of these illegal aliens that arrive here without a problem. It's easy for them to say this, because they are not the ones footing the bill.

Janet Hinshaw-Thomas is not just simply a refugee advocate, as some would like you to believe. She is actively involved in transporting illegal immigrants to the Canadian border for the purposes of obtaining asylum.

She frequently drives asylum seekers to border crossings, according to her lawyer, but alerts officials ahead of time.

Ms Hinshaw-Thomas only has herself to blame for the predicament that she finds herself in. Canada should never be allowed to become a dumping ground for illegal aliens, who are nothing but economic refuges trying in enter our country by claiming asylum. So anytime a refugee advocate or anyone else breaks our immigration law, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

What is Afghan President, Hamid Karzai thinking?

What was Afghan President, Hamid Karzai thinking when he makes decisions such as this?

Karzai offers government office to Taliban

Especially after this

Taliban unveils hardline Afghan constitution

The 23-page document envisages a country where women would remain veiled and uneducated, "un-Islamic thought" would be banned and human rights would be ignored if "contrary with the teachings of Islam".

But here is the kicker

On freedom of speech the Taliban charter, which is written in Pashto and Dari, is clear: "Every Afghan has the right to express his feelings through his views, writings or through other means in accordance with the law."

However "un-Islamic thought" is strictly forbidden and "violators will be punished according to sharia" - under the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islamic teachings.

Talking to the Taliban with the hope of involving them in government is a serious mistake. They are not interested in peace and reconciliation unless they get everything their way. The Taliban will not accept anything less than for Afghanistan being run under their rules, so talking to them is a waste of time, unless the aim is to return Afghanistan to the 'dark ages'

Public Safety Minister Day promises 'consequences' for illegal refugees

It is good to see that Public Safety Minister, Stockwell Day, is actually going to crack down on illegal immigrants to Canada. Especially after the increase in illegal aliens from Mexico and Latin America, who have living in the US, but allowed to enter Canada through Windsor to apply for refugee status.

Day said Canada will take a zero-tolerance approach to anyone trying to enter the country illegally, but wanted to investigate specific claims in Windsor more closely.

In an earlier post, I referenced an article that appeared in the National Post that described a potential illegal-immigrant nightmare situation that could engulf our urban centers. It described the journey of Manuel Ortega, a Mexican who was living illegally in Florida for 15 years, but decided to flee to Canada to avoid an immigrant crackdown.

Mexicans pour into Canada from US

Ortega's dream, as he recounted it Tuesday standing outside a room at a Windsor motel, is now but a memory. He is one of an estimated 180 Mexicans from Florida who've rushed across the border and into Windsor to claim refugee status, fleeing a crackdown on illegal aliens in Florida.

The thing that incensed me the most was that he was not fleeing persecution or in fear for his life. This was basically an economic refugee whose time was running out in the US, who decided to come to Canada and jump the queue ahead of legal immigrants, many who had waited years and followed the system to legally enter our country.

Local agencies that work with refugees have been told to brace for 4,000 to 8,000 refugee claimants."
...
"After driving his 1996 Grand Caravan for 24 hours without stopping -- except for gas and food -- the Ortegas arrived at the Windsor tunnel Sept. 11. When they told the border guard they were seeking refugee status, the Ortegas were given a list of social services organizations to contact for support"

After reading this, the first question that came to my mind was, why did our border guards not refuse entry to this person and hundreds of others who did the same thing? It was my impression that the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement was supposed to limit cases like these from occurring. Below is my understanding of the agreement

Those applying from a "safe third country," such as the U.S., are ineligible to make refugee claims at a Canadian border crossing by land.

If Mexicans come to Canada through the U.S., for example, they must make refugee claims there, and are not eligible here.

If this is the case, why are our border guards letting these people in? During the time that they are here awaiting their claim, which most likely will be denied, they are given housing, welfare cheques and other forms of social assistance at great cost to our urban centers. Would it not be prudent and cost effective to simply turn these people back?

According to this article that appeared in the ctv website

Dozens of settlers have begun receiving welfare benefits from the government while they wait for their refugee claim cases to be processes. Most of the claims have little chance of success.

It has been reported that the immigrants may not be covered under Canadian refugee status, meant to be given to people with a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.

Take for example the city of Windsor. They are facing a severe financial crunch due to this issue.

Last week, he said it had so far cost the city $230,000, about 20 per cent of the annual budget for shelters.

Windsor's unemployment rate is currently pushing 10 per cent, making the influx of jobless refugees the last thing its economy needed.

In addition to the financial crunch, Windsor is also dealing with refugee advocacy groups, who are aiding and abetting the arrival of these illegal immigrants. One of the most prominent members is Jacques Sinjuste, founder of Jerusalem Haitian Community Centre in Florida.

On Friday, Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis met with a Florida man accused of being responsible for sending the wave of immigrants to Windsor. He told Francis there are more busloads of potential immigrants on the way.

"There are individuals or organizations that are now planning for these types of arrivals at the Detroit-Windsor gateway," Francis told A-Channel after his meeting with Jacques Sinjuste, founder of Jerusalem Haitian Community Centre in Naples, Florida.

Mr Sinjuste has been blamed for starting the exodus of illegal immigrants from Florida to Windsor and his group is under investigation by the Florida police after complaints from Canadian and Mexican authorities. His group is accused of making false promises of asylum in Canada to their clients.

Kristi Lester, media communications officer for the county sherriff's office has confirmed that investigators are looking into reports the agency has received concerning JHCC activities. However, she termed the probe an "open investigation," meaning there are currently no charges pending.

Canadian and Mexican authorities have complained that the organization misled Mexican nationals living illegally in the U.S. and fearful of a government crackdown, promising them that Canada was offering asylum and legal status. It's been alleged that JHCC accepted donations of between $300 and $400 to help the Mexicans obtain Canadian refugee applications.

Sinjuste acknowledged that misleading information was passed along to between "20 and 40" illegal Mexican aliens who came to his office after a Spanish-speaking staff member was interviewed for Spanish television.

Hopefully Canada will step up to the plate soon and start enforcing our immigration laws against these illegal refugees. They also need to take firm action against those refugee advocacy groups, who are actively involved in facilitating illegal immigrants to enter our country. Earlier this week, Janet Hinshaw-Thomas, a US refugee worker was arrested at the Quebec border crossing of Lacolle, for tying to help 12 Haitian asylum seekers into Canada.

Her arrest was made under Section 117 of the act, which makes it illegal to "organize, induce, aid or abet" the entry of persons without visas or passports.

More actions like these need to be taken to crack down of illegal immigrants and groups that are assisting them. If nothing is done, Canada could be very soon facing the same, out of control, illegal immigration problems that exist in US border states, such as California, Arizona and Texas.

Charles Adler's Response to his interview with NDP MP Alexa McDonough

This is an update to my previous post concerning an interview that talk show host, Charles Adler, had with NDP MP, Alexa McDonough.

In that interview, she accused Afghan President, Hamid Karzai of having the speech he gave to parliament, during his visit to Canada, written by the Canadian military. It did not seem to matter to her that this accusation by NDP defence critic, Dawn Black, had been flatly denied by Afghan ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad.

Previous post: NDP Alleges that the Canadian Military wrote Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament

Sound clip of the original interview
(Note: You need Windows Media Player to hear it)

link to original interview

In his blog, Adler on the Edge, Charles Adler responds to Ms. McDonough's allegations against the Afghan President.

She wore a long black veil to cover her mind by Charles Adler Sept 27/07

"That's over the top Charles. We never said Karzai was a puppet of the Canadian military," said the NDP's Alexa McDonough. Over the top?

Alexa McDonough in a radio interview on Adler On Line, was delivering the "scoop" that much of the messaging in a speech delivered by Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the Canadian House of Commons last year, was prepped for him by Canadian military officials.

She insisted that the messages we got weren't necessarily those that the people of Afghanistan would want us to have. By any objective standard, the NDP is calling Karzai a puppet. What's over the top is not my characterization of the NDP position. What's completely out of bounds and over the line is patently false charge that Afghanistan's first democratically elected leader is a puppet of Canada's Department of National Defense.

When I asked McDonough to name one single fact in the Karzai speech that was untrue, she said this issue wasn't about the truth. The former boss of the New Democratic Party spoke volumes with that little chestnut. Ideologues care little about the truth.

It's all about ideology. Karzai, in the Canadian Parliament, simply delivered his boiler plate speech to the West. He talked about an Afghanistan where instead of schools being burned to the ground, they were being rebuilt, and instead of girls being denied the right to go to school, there were now two million of them attending. He talked about an Afghanistan where twenty percent of the members of their parliament were women, and where per capita incomes were going up instead of down. Yes, he was grateful to our military for helping to create a better life for many Afghans.

The NDP could learn a lot from the graciousness of the Afghan leader. He has far more respect for our military than the NDP does. And it isn't because military communications people laid down a few words on a piece of paper to help him get his message across. It's because they laid down their lives to give his people an opportunity to have a life.

I gave Alexa McDonough three chances to come up with a single fact stated by the President of Afghanistan that wasn't accurate. Three times she swung her propaganda bat and missed. The NDP's issue in their own words, isn't about the truth. It is a remarkable confession from a Canadian political party which continues to offer feint praise for the bravery of our troops but consistently fails to admit that they have made a difference for the people who inhabit one of the poorest countries in the world. When McDonough was asked if she could admit that our troops were doing some good down there, she would not do so. I offered her the litmus test of honesty by asking her to tell me how many of the 2 million girls now going to schools in Afghanistan how many of them would be attending if our troops and other Nato forces had not been sacrificing their lives.
"Charles you know that is a question that is impossible to answer." "How about zero, Ms McDonough? That would be a truthful answer." She then called my arithmetic ridiculous.

What requires public ridicule is the idea that the NDP has even a shred of moral authority on issues involving our military. What's clear as a bell is that the party has no respect for the military because of their inability to distance themselves for their core pacifist ideology. The NDP refuses to acknowledge that sometimes when bad things to people, the only way to stop it is to kill the bad guys, or as General Hillier once called them, the scumbags.

The NDP refuses to acknowledge that there are times when the only way to help people is through armed force. It is not NDP rhetoric that opened up the schools of Afghanistan and converted the soccer stadium in Kabul from a place to execute "disobedient" women to a place where teams now play soccer. It is not NDP rhetoric that has created better health care for many Afghans and freedom from the TALIBAN barbarians that the NDP seem to prefer.

At least those headchopping, women hating Taliban types aren't reading speeches that have been vetted by the Canadian military. Isn't that something Canadians should respect? When given a choice between condemning the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan or the thugs that who would condemn that country to the dark ages, the NDP position is now crystal clear. And while Alexa McDonough did not have to wear a head covering to do an interview in Canada, a country kept free by the military she tries to diminish, the objective truth was concealed by her prepared talking points. For my part, I am eternally grateful to the Canadian military for keeping me free enough to have the opportunity to unmask the dishonesty of the party that some stooges of the left continue to call the conscience of parliament.

Update:

Alexa McDonough has been shuffled out as NDP critic on foreign affairs by Jack Layton. Her new portfolio is international development, international co-operation, peace advocacy, Atlantic Canada region.

NDP Alleges that the Canadian Military wrote Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament

It is amazing how ridiculous some of the allegations made by left-wing supporters against anyone who stands for the mission to Afghanistan are. The NDP is now alleging that the speech made by Afghan President, Hamid Karzai to parliament during his visit to Canada last year was written by the Canadian military.

Dawn Black, the NDP defence critic, said the documents indicate military advisers were asked to prepare an initial draft of Karzai's speech, delivered on Sept. 22, 2006.

"What Canadians heard was not the voice of the Afghan people, but the talking points of the Department of National Defence,'' Black said.

The Afghan ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, has strongly denied the allegation, but that did not matter to the NDP.

"I can say something simple and say it's laughable and I could say something a bit more serious and say it verges on being insulting.''

Afghan ambassador denies NDP claims on speech

"I was one of those who spent hours, along with other Afghan officials, with the president himself working on the speech, and the president himself was the last person who edited and finalized it, as is his style," Samad said.

On his radio show yesterday afternoon, host Charles Adler interviewed NDP MP and former Federal NDP leader, Alexa McDonough.

Charles Adler's interview with NDP MP Alexa McDonough
(Note: You need Windows Media Player to hear it)

link to original interview

Some of things that Ms. McDonough said and implied were indeed shocking. In that interview:

• She refused to acknowledge that the 2 million Afghan girls that are in school, were there because of the sacrifices made by Canadian and NATO troops.
• She said that (Canadian) military communications people delivered the words that (Hamid Karzai) delivered in parliament when he visited Canada last year
• She feels that there has been an incredible exploitation of the Canadian military in a propaganda war.

Here is the kicker: (Note I am paraphrasing here, as I did not get all the words)

Charles: "...give me a single line from that speech based on life in Afghanistan that he portrayed that is not true"

Alexa: "No that’s not…It is not a question of what is true. It is a question of are we hearing ah from the President of Afghanistan the message that the people of his country want delivered to Canada through parliament. I mean that’s ah a pretty major venue in which to give that opportunity"

Charles: "That’s a pretty serious charge. It’s a pretty serious charge that he does not represent his own people. That he represents something else. That’s a very serious charge."

Alexa: "What was recorded by our own military was that he took his messages, his themes, the key statistics, as well as the overall structure of his speech provided to him and delivered it to parliament and I find it deeply disappointing and I find it very frightening."

Charles Adler's interview with NDP MP Alexa McDonough
(Note: You need Windows Media Player to hear it)


What is really shocking here is the level of contempt that the NDP has shown for a democratically elected head of state from a war-torn country, who simply came to Canada to say thank you and inform Canadians of the good that their troops are doing.

But then again, why should I be surprised? The left-wing, and their friends in the MSM, have had a concerted campaign to do anything in their power to portray the Afghan mission in a bad light and minimize the good that is being done there.

Update:

Alexa McDonough has been shuffled out as NDP critic on foreign affairs by Jack Layton. Her new portfolio is international development, international co-operation, peace advocacy, Atlantic Canada region.