RCMP Security Checks on Bernier raised no alarms

Once again the Opposition has drawn a blank in its smear campaign against the Conservative government. Former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier had cleared both RCMP and CSIS security checks just weeks before his resignation.

Former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier cleared a full background check by the RCMP and CSIS just weeks before the explosive allegations of missing documents led to his resignation from cabinet, the Prime Minister's national security adviser, Margaret Bloodworth, told a House of Commons committee yesterday.

But the Opposition are such sore losers. It looks like they will not be letting go of this issue anytime soon. They are now suggesting that the government should have ignored the security clearance given by the RCMP and CSIS and investigate based on allegations of Mr Bernier's connection with 'organized crime' Note, there has not been a shred of evidence produced to support these allegations. All we have had so far coming from the opposition benches is unsubstantiated gossip and useless chatter.

But opposition MPs said they were left incredulous at Ms. Bloodworth's suggestion there was no need to look into the matter further when the allegations surfaced in May, because of the positive background check in April.

"I would expect that if there was a significant concern about ministers' connection with organized crime, that would come out of a criminal or security [background] check," she explained.

The Opposition were calling for an RCMP investigation of Bernier when the issue first arose. Now they are saying that the RCMP and CSIS security clearance of Bernier was not enough. It seems that they always seem to find some way of moving the goalpost and changing the issues when things do not go their way.

Most likely nothing more than what we already know will be coming out of this HOC committee. It will just demonstrate the lack or priorities shown by Opposition MPs, who should be getting on with more prevalent issues, such as gas prices and other matters affecting our countries. But then again, why should we be surprised at this development? During the Liberal leadership debate, Opposition leader, Stephane Dion made the following statement:

Do you think it is easy to make priorities?

Stay tuned,

Tony

Victoria Day Barbecue Recipes

This Victoria Day weekend's weather was pretty brutal, especially yesterday when it rained buckets, canceling my plans for a volleyball game with some friends at the Beaches. It looks like today will be different and we will be getting a reprieve. The sun has come out, making it the perfect day for a barbecue. I do have company coming over and I want to do things a bit different and try some new recipes.

Here is where I need some help. Can any of you barbecuing enthusiasts post your favorite barbecuing recipes? I am planning on doing chicken, pork, steak, salmon, potatoes and corn on the cob.

Your suggestions and barbecuing tips will be most welcome.

Regards,

Tony

Deputy leader Michael Ignatieff rubs some Liberals the wrong way

I came across an interesting article by John Ivison in the National Post concerning Liberal deputy leader, Michael Ignatieff. Ever since he lost the leadership contest to Stephane Dion in the 2006 Liberal leadership convention, his stock as a leader in waiting has steadily declined, even among those who supported his leadership bid 2 years ago.

Ignatieff rubs some Liberals wrong way (National Post)

In the event that party leader Stephane Dion loses an election, there seems to be growing skepticism that Mr. Ignatieff should be the man to replace him -- even among MPs who supported him at the leadership convention in Montreal two years ago.

The apparent disenchantment with Mr. Ignatieff on the part of a number of MPs I spoke with, coincides with the arrival in the Liberal caucus of Bob Rae -- and it is perhaps no coincidence that the stock of the deputy leader is falling as that of the former Ontario premier is rising.

"It comes down to basic political judgment and understanding," said one MP. "With Rae you're dealing with someone who does know politics. There is a depth to him that allows him to interact more naturally with caucus [than Mr. Ignatieff]," he said.

The Branda Martin Saga Continues

Unfortunately it looks like this Brenda Martin saga will continue. I had thought that the news story would have come to a merciful conclusion once she was released on parole, but I was wrong. It seems as if there is a vested interest by certain members of the MSM to keep her story alive and milk every ounce out of it, even though it lost its legs ages ago.

In one of the interviews, CTV Newsnet journalist, Paula Todd asked Brenda a very loaded question, almost as if she was egging her on to sue the federal government.

Paula Todd: "So have you ruled out any sort of legal action against the Federal Government?"

Brenda Martin: "...I never would say that I’ve ruled out anything in the future. Everything changes day to day.."

h/t Blue Like You - Brenda isn’t done with us yet (link)

It is laughable that she will even think of suing the Federal government, especially since they were responsible for paying her fine, expediting her transfer from Mexico to Canada and flying her home aboard a government jet at considerable expense to Canadian taxpayers. She has been in Canada for more than a week and she has yet to even say a simple thank you to the Canadian government.

Just to recap, the predicament that Brenda Martin found herself in, while in Mexico was of her own doing. Nobody forced her to leave the safety of Canada to live illegally in Mexico. Nobody forced her to become involved with a con man and a fraud artist. Nobody forced her to accept large deposits of money that was not hers in her bank account and to transfer it into other bank accounts on behalf of her ex-employer.

If any other person had accepted ill-gotten gains into their own bank account and transferred it to other accounts on behalf of a con man involved in a scheme, it would have been called money laundering. But since, according to her supporters and the MSM, Ms Martin is purer than snow and she did not know what she was doing, there is no way in the world that she could ever be guilty of such a thing.

She was not a baby or a teenager when she went to Mexico, she was a grown woman and she knew what she was doing.

It is amazing how the MSM absolves her of any responsibility in the decisions that she made and somehow try to pin this on Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The partisan manner in which they have covered this story in order to embarrass the Tories makes me want to barf.

Liberal Double Standards on National Security

The one thing that never ceases to amaze me about people from the other side of the political spectrum is the consistent hypocrisy and double-standards that always seem to emanate from their politicians and their allies in the MSM. This past week, after failing to find an effective issue to use against the Tories in the House of commons, they have sunk to a new low by smearing Foreign Affairs Minister, Maxime Bernier over his relationship with ex-girlfriend, Julie Couillard.

It seems that the famous quote by the late Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" no longer applies. The Liberals and the Bloc in their zeal to attack the Tories are hiding under the guise of "National Security." This is despite the fact that Julie Couillard has no criminal record, has never been charged with a crime and is not a person of interest to the police. Prime Minister Harper was perfectly justified calling Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe "gossipy old busybodies" for their attack on Bernier’s personal life.

If national security is such a big concern among members of the opposition parties, then why did Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe and Liberal MP Denis Coderre participate in a rally and march in Montreal, where the flag of Hezbollah, a known terrorist group and a group on Canada's terrorist watch list was openly being waved to the cheers of supporters?

If national security is such a big concern among members of the opposition parties, then why did they vote against extending the anti-terrorism provision? What was remarkable about this vote was that it was initially approved by former Liberal Leader, Bill Graham, but rejected less than 3 months later by new Liberal Leader, Stephane Dion, who whipped reluctant members of his caucus into voting against it despite an emotional plea by Canadian families of victims killed in the 9/11 terror attacks.

If national security is such a big concern among members of the opposition parties, then why are they advocating for the Canadian government to intervene on behalf of Omar Khadr, a person who was captured in Afghanistan while fighting alongside the Taliban and al-Qaeda and currently on trial for the murder of an American medic, to be returned to Canada?

It is really despicable that they are advocating for a person who was fighting alongside a terrorist group responsible for the deaths of 82 Canadian troops and 1 diplomat in Afghanistan.

To the opposition, national security is only an issue when it suits their purposes.

Commenter, jad on the Blue Like You blog post "Brenda granted parole" summed up the hypocrisy of the Liberals position perfectly:

Quite the double standard here. Brenda, in spite of being arrested, charged and convicted by (OK) the Mexican government, and admitting herself that she worked for a con man, and received money from him, is apparently as innocent as the day she was born.

Julie Couillard, who was involved with biker gangs and Hell’s Angels ten years ago and has no record, has never been charged, and is not a “person of interest” to the Montreal police, is nevertheless somehow and unfit person to associate with.

Just a thought..

Will there be another evacuation request from Canadians living in Lebanon?

It has been almost 2 years since the war between Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerillas in Southern Lebanon. At the height of the conflict, many people were criticizing the Federal Conservative government for its slow response in evacuating Canadian citizens, many of whom had lived in that country for more than 10 years.

Despite the criticism, constant danger and the logistical difficulties, the Canadian government came through and evacuated, 15000 citizens from Lebanon, at its own expense. This did not stop a large percentage of these evacuees returning to Lebanon within 6 months, after the conflict ended. Many of them did not even bother to express gratitude to the Canadian government, and instead gave them the brunt of their criticism. To them, Canada seemed to be merely a country of convenience. They held Canadian passports, but their hearts were elsewhere. The only time they seemed to remember Canada was when war engulfed their country. In the good times, Canada was most likely just a passing thought.

Now just 2 years later, there is another conflict brewing on the streets of Beirut. There are open gun battles raging in some neighbourhoods. This time, it is between Hezbollah guerillas and Lebanese troops.

In his televised speech, Nasrallah offered harsh words for the government, blaming it for declaring war by banning Hezbollah's telecommunications system.

"We believe the war has started, and we believe that we have the right to defend ourselves," the Hezbollah leader said. "We will cut the hand that will reach out to the weapons of the resistance, no matter if it comes from the inside or the outside."

I am wondering how long it will be before we once again hear the predictable cries of those people who will once again demand that the Canadian government evacuate these people.

Stay tuned,

Tony

Brenda Martin back in Canada

The plane carrying Brenda Martin landed at the Region of Waterloo International Airport in Breslau, Ontario around 6 p.m. yesterday. She is now in the custody of officials from the Correctional Service of Canada, as she was immediately taken to the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener.

Martin's Mexican lawyer Guillermo Cruz Rico said Martin could be eligible for full parole since she spent two years in prison before being found guilty last week of knowingly accepting illicit funds and being sentenced to five years. But, he added, that decision rests with Canada's National Parole Board.

"The Correctional Service of Canada is going to produce a recommendation to the parole board and it is the parole board who is in charge of deciding if Brenda has to serve time here in Canada or not," Cruz Rico said yesterday.

I am glad that her ordeal is over and I am hoping that she and her supporters will display some gratitude to the Canadian government and the Canadian consulate in Mexico for the assistance they gave her in expediting her return to Canada.

What I could not understand is this quote from defense lawyer, Eddie Greenspan, as the decision to give parole to prisoners is the function of Corrections Canada and not the federal government.

"If the government intends to somehow allow this case to get caught up in bureaucratic red tape, then I will become involved,"

According to Mélisa Leclerc, Director of Communications Office of the Minister of Public Safety

"Accelerated parole review permits offenders to apply for release after serving one-sixth of their sentence. Non-violent offenders who have not previously served a federal sentence (two years or more) are eligible"

So since she has already served 2 years in a Mexican prison, I don't see anything that would cause a lengthly delay in parole being granted to Ms Martin.

Stay tuned,

Tony

Liberal hypocrisy displayed in the House of Commons

Yesterday in the House of Commons, the Liberals once again tried to smear the Conservatives over its dispute with an Elections Canada ruling on its 2006 Federal Election campaign-advertising returns. The Conservatives have maintained all along that the transfer of funds from the national to local campaigns is perfectly legal and has been done by all federal parties, but only the Conservatives have been singled out. Its funny how the Liberals insist on accusing the Conservatives of cheating in the 2006 Federal Election, when they did the exact same thing.

What was interesting was that it was revealed that the Liberal party transferred $1.5 million from its national to its local campaign and the local campaigns transferred back $1.3 million dollars back to the Liberal Party. The Liberals did not deny that this happened, but they insisted on smearing the Conservatives on doing the exact same thing. Meanwhile Elections Canada selectively overlooked the conduct of the Liberal Party, but only focuses on the Conservative Party for the same thing? I wonder why?

Conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre pointed out these inconsistencies in the Liberal position and even puts Liberal pit bull, Dominic LeBlanc, on the spot. Everyday Mr. LeBlanc gets beaten at his own game of trying to smear the Tories, but he keeps on coming back for more.

Below is the yesterday's exchange between Jennings and Poilievre and LeBlanc and Poilievre.

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when did the Prime Minister find out about the existence of the Conservative election advertising scheme? Did he approve it?

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Beauséjour across the way, along with the New Brunswick Liberals, joined in an advertising transfer scheme in the 2006 election, organized by the national party.

A copy of the cheque provided to Elections Canada from the local official agent is made out not to the newspapers in which the ad ran, but rather to the Liberal Party of Canada. The ads in content were national except for a small tag line.

This is the method of in and out that we see on the Liberal side. When did that member know this went on?

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer the question, so I will ask it again.

When did the Prime Minister find out about the existence of the Conservative election advertising scheme, and did he approve it?

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the advertisement said that the member for Beauséjour and his campaign had locally paid for it. In fact, none of his returns showed that payment had been made. Either it was false advertising and he did not actually pay for the ad that he claimed he had, or he failed to report some of his election expenses to Elections Canada.

When did the Liberal Party know about these very strange in and out transactions in the New Brunswick Liberal Party?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let us try it again. When did the Prime Minister know about the Conservative election advertising scheme and did he approve it?

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and this entire party have known for many years that it is perfectly legal for parties to transfer money from the national to the local. In fact, we know the Liberal Party did just that, to the tune of $1.5 million. Interestingly, those local campaigns then transferred back about $1.3 million to the national Liberal Party.

The member is not willing to explain any of his personal behaviour. Could he tell us more about those million dollar transfers between local and national Liberals?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, eight times we have given the Prime Minister the opportunity to answer a simple question. Let me jog his memory.

The former Conservative candidate in Berthier-Maskinongé, Ann Julie Fortier, said she confronted him personally before the last election, saying that Conservative organizers tried to force her to pass off $28,000 of national expenses as their own. Is this why the Prime Minister will not answer the simple question?

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC):
How disappointing, Mr. Speaker. The member has been asked four times to explain his very unusual financial transactions from the last election, during which a group of New Brunswick Liberals got together, organized by the national party, paid for out of the account of the national party, with no interaction between those local candidates and the newspaper in which the advertisement ran. After all that, he did not even report on his election return that he had picked up those expenses.

When will he explain to Canadians his failure to come clean?

Fellow blogger, Climbing out of the dark, has a youtube link to another house of commons discussion between LeBlanc and Poilievre in his post:

"LeBlanc Knocked out by Pierre" (link)

Ontario legislature expected to pass bill ordering TTC strikers back to work this evening

The Ontario legislature are meeting today in a rare Sunday session in order to pass legislation mandating striking TTC employees back to work immediately.

The opposition NDP and Progressive Conservatives parties have indicated that they will support the legislation, thus ensuring its quick passage and royal accent by the end of today.

Conservative Leader John Tory called the strike "outrageous."

NDP Leader Howard Hampton said the legislation being proposed is similar to a bill used to end the 2002 garbage strike in Toronto.

"This is legislation we voted for before,' Hampton said Saturday. "It's fair, it's balanced and we can support it again."

The back to work order will:

• Call for the strike to end immediately after Royal Assent is given

• Impose fines of $2,000 per day on individuals and $25,000 per day for the union or employer if they ignore the back to work order and remain on strike.

• Refer outstanding issues to a mediator or arbitrator

So it looks like the TTC service will be back in operation for tomorrow morning's rush hour commute.

Although I disagree with Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty on many issues, he deserves commendation for his quick response and effective leadership on this issue.

Update:

TTC strike officially over as Ont. passes legislation

TTC Strike In Toronto - Unbelievable!!

After being offered a contract that guarantees that their drivers will be the highest paid in the GTA, they reject it? Not only have their members rejected the generous contract negotiated by their union bosses, they have also broken a major commitment they made with the public.

The union by last night announcing a strike beginning at 12:01 am this morning, broke an agreement that they made with the public to give at least 48 hours notice in the event of a strike. Unbelievable! Especially when they have people manning ticket booths making $25 an hour.

I think this time they have gone beyond what is reasonable and it will not get them much sympathy from the public. Especially since their action will inconvenience approximately 1.4 million transit users a day.

One of the things that irk me as a Torontonian is the contempt that exists for car drivers by the municipality. They are always asking people to get out of their cars and take public transit, but instead of improving it by making it more reliable and convenient for the public to use it, they make it more difficult for the car drivers by increasing parking fees, restricting parking, imposing new taxes, etc. If the TTC had the infrastructure that would allow people to reliably get to where they needed to go within a reasonable time frame, a lot more people would use it.

Unless there is a major improvement in the reliability and the service offered by the Toronto Transit Comission, the acronym, TTC, to me will mean "take the car"

More Liberal arrogance and hypocrisy

As I pointed out in a previous post there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy among members of the Liberal and NDP parties who are condemning the Conservative Party for doing exactly what they did in previous elections with campaign advertising. Some were even asking out loud whether the election advertising money in dispute, the $1.2 million bought the 2006 federal elections for the Conservative party.

I have not seen such arrogance displayed. It's as if the Sponsorship Scandal, former Liberal Prime Minister, Paul Martin's woeful campaign performance, the "Beer and Popcorn gaffe" and the "Soldiers in our streets, with guns" advertisement never happened and had no effect on the outcome. Canadians were tired of 13 years of Liberal rule and wanted change, but of course you will never hear those words coming out of a progressive's mouth.

I came across an interesting comment in the Climbing out of the dark blog by commenter, Ardvark. He asked a question, which I think should be examined, as its implications are much bigger and more far reaching than the dispute over the interpretation of the Elections Canada rules on campaign advertising, which is presently engulfing the Conservative Party and Elections Canada.

The Liberal Party of Canada was never investigated by Elections Canada for all that money that went into numerous* Quebec ridings?

Is this true?

We know that $40 million of Canadian taxpayers money is still missing more than 3 years after the Sponsorship Scandal broke out. We know that some of that money made it into Quebec ridings, while some of money was placed into envelopes and distributed among members of the Liberal party hierarchy.

Up to now, we have not been able to find out which ridings the money went into and how much money went into each riding. We still have not be able to find out whether some of that money helped elect some Liberal MPs and helped change the outcome of previous Federal elections that the Liberals won. More than 3 years later the missing $40 million still has not been returned to the Canadian taxpayers.

You would think given the serious implications there would have been at least some kind of investigation by Elections Canada. But I am not holding my breath, as Progressive parties have more than often received the benefit of a doubt and a lot less scrutiny than the Conservatives.

Elections Canada still have not been able to explain the inconsistency in its campaign advertising rulings, in which candidates from *all* political parties did the same exact thing, but only the Conservatives were found to have broken the Election rules, while the NDP and Liberals were given a free pass. They still have not been able to explain why they traveled 4 hours from Ottawa to Toronto to get the search warrant signed by a Liberal appointed judge when there were many available just a few blocks away in Ottawa. They have not been able to explain who leaked news of the raid on the Conservative party's headquarters so that the CBC and Liberal party cameras were conveniently on site and recording the whole event as it unfolded, even though the search warrant was still sealed.

I really do hope that this case goes to court so that we will be able to learn on what basis the rulings by Elections Canada have been made and whether they have been applied in a fair and consistent manner across the board to members of all political parties. Hopefully this case makes it way into the court system sooner rather than later. I have a feeling though that even if the Conservative party is vindicated, the opposition and its friends in the MSM will still find a way to put a negative spin on it. Stay tuned.

Tony

Natives begin blockade in Desoronto,Ontario - déjà vu Caledonia?

Aboriginal protestors began occupying a construction site owned by Nibourg Developments and blocaded the main street through Desoronto, Ontario while the police stood idly by.

Emile Nibourg, an employee with the company, said that a work crew arrived at the site to finish clearing brush from the property when a group of Mohawks arrived to claim the land as their own. The work crew were then ejected and left the property escorted by police.

When will the OPP start enforcing the law? Have we become so politically correct as a country that we now have different standards of law enforcement for natives when compared to other ethnic groups? The only reason why these thugs continue to unlawfully occupy property and intimidate its inhabitants is because they know that the Provincial government is ineffective and the police force does not have the balls to challenge them.

Hopefully they will prove us all wrong by enforcing the law and preventing another Caledonia from occurring, but I am not holding my breath on that occurring.

Tony

Liberal hypocrisy over the Elections Canada Campaign Advertising Issue

Sometimes it is very difficult to believe the hypocrisy coming from the Liberal party and members of the MSM over the 2006 Federal Election campaign advertising expenses dispute between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party.

In previous federal elections, all 3 federal parties have had candidates who accepted money from them, gave it back and then claimed a rebate on it from Elections Canada. While Elections Canada has accepted the election campaign submissions from the Liberals and the NDP, it has rejected the submissions from Conservative Party candidates. Because of this issue, the Conservative party has taken Elections Canada to court because of inconsistencies in its rulings.

The Liberals party has for the better part of this week, been accusing the Conservatives of everything from having a personal vendetta against Elections Canada to not respecting it and trying to undermine an independent institution, because they have refused to accept its ruling.

What the Liberals have failed to mention is that they have had disputes with Elections Canada in the past and even challenged them in court over it.

Just 2 months ago, former Liberal leadership candidate, Bob Rae successfully challenged an Elections Canada decision in court because they had ruled that it would be illegal for the Liberal party to reimburse the $50,000 deposit that he paid to the party as a requirement to enter the leadership race.

Even though the Liberal party had taken Elections Canada to court, there was no RCMP raid on the Liberal party’s headquarters.

Only 2 month later, just one day before the court proceedings between the Conservative party and Elections Canada is set to begin, there is a televised RCMP raid on the party’s Ottawa headquarters in front of conveniently placed TV cameras from the MSM and also from the Liberal Party headquarters. A raid was conducted, even though the Conservative party had promptly complied with and provided all documents that were requested by Elections Canada. Something just does not add up. Why were both federal political parties treated differently by Elections Canada?

Below is an exchange between Conservative house leader, Peter Van Loan and Liberal MP, Ralph Goodale in the HOC over this issue.

(You tube link - HOC -Peter Van Loan/Ralph Goodale) - Climbing Out Of the Dark blog:

Peter Van Loan:

Mr. Speaker, we share the same curiosity, because as we said, we provided every document that Elections Canada has sought with regard to our dispute, on ahh… how the elections spending should be interpreted. And you know what? Elections Canada does make unduly rigid interpretations. I know that because the guy that this member from Wascana supported for the leadership, the member for Toronto Centre now, actually took Elections Canada to court too on an interpretation. Guess what? He won and he is $50,000 richer as a result and so is his party leader and so is his deputy leader from Lakeshore.

Ralph Goodale:

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister has a personal vendetta against Elections Canada. Back in 2001, he called Elections Canada “jackasses.” His words, not mine. Time and again,

Peter Van Loan:

Apparently, that member should look to his left, look to his right because every single one of those front benchers who ran for the leadership of his party other than him, who never ran for the leadership of his party in the end. Every single one of them benefited from the fact that they said that Elections Canada doesn’t know how to interpret the law. That they took Elections Canada to court. I guess that they don’t respect that institution either. And you know what? They won because guess what? Elections Canada makes mistakes sometimes.

(You tube link - HOC - Peter Van Loan/Marlene Jennings) - Climbing Out Of the Dark blog:

Latest Liberal arrest puts a damper on its plans to bring down the Federal Government

The arrest of, Benoit Corbeil, former director-general of the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party, in connection with the Sponsorship scandal on Friday, has put a serious dent in the Liberal Party’s plans of forcing a spring election. Especially after the RCMP hinted that more arrests may be imminent.

Corbeil's charmed life as the go-to guy in Quebec began to unravel in 2005 when his fellow Liberals began ratting him out before the Gomery commission investigating federal Liberal campaign financing.

Corbeil was fingered as the man through whom the Liberals funnelled thousands of dollars in secret cash contributions from 1995 to 2001. The funds were kicked back to the party from federal contractors working a sponsorship project designed to polish the federal government's image in Quebec.

For the Liberal party, this arrest could not have occurred at a worst time, especially at the end of what had been a difficult week for the Tories. Many Liberals had believed that their party’s fortunes were on the rise and were eagerly anticipating the prospect of defeating the Conservative government and forcing a federal election in June. On Tuesday, members of the RCMP seized several items from the Conservative party's head office in Ottawa after Elections Canada had obtained a search warrant in connection with a dispute over advertising spending limits during the 2006 general election

Liberals, particularly those in Quebec, do not want an election campaign that might feature fresh headlines from that scandal.

Privately, some Liberal MPs seemed crestfallen at the news.

"Now what?" said one Ontario Liberal MP.

Both the NDP and Bloc Quebecois now believe that a federal election is unlikely until at least the fall.

"I think if this was forest fire season, the hazard just went way down for an election this spring. The Liberals' balloon just got burst once again," said NDP MP, Pat Martin.

My feeling is that the Liberals will back down from forcing a spring election, especially with the Sponsorship scandal coming back in the news, just when the Liberals thought that it was behind them. The Liberals know that in an election campaign, this issue would seriously hurt their chances of gaining additional seats, especially in Quebec, where under Dion, they have failed to make inroads in terms of popular support. Not having a spring election could also work positively for the Conservative government, as it will give them an opportunity to get more of its legislation through the HOC and senate. Stay tuned.

Tony

When we become the elected government, we will...I think I have heard that before

Liberal opposition leader, Stephane Dion has signaled that the immigration reform bill and other measures introduced by the Tories, that the Liberals do not agree with, will most likely be overturned by an elected Liberal government.

Dion explained that when the Liberals boycott confidence votes to avoid an election, they're signaling which Tory policies they would like to overturn when they become the government.

It reminds me of when former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, when he was the opposition leader, saying that an elected Liberal government would roll back the GST. Of course it never happened during the 13 years that the Liberals were in power.

Memo to Dion: If you disagree with government policies, it is your duty as the opposition to vote against it. Isn't that the purpose of the opposition?

John Ivison from the National Post in the article titled, The mind says no, the body says yes, eloquently expresses this point:

It prompts the question if not now, then when? And over what? The Grits may be waiting for the economy to sour, in order to present Mr. Dion as the saviour. Yesterday, the Liberal leader said, "Time is our ally, so why not wait...?" But that's optimism bordering on delusion. Does anyone really think the nation is going to turn to the bookish, untested Liberal leader in its hour of economic crisis? Even his colleagues have their doubts about his husbandry skills.

Mr Dion at some point needs to stand up for something he believes in. Under his leadership, the Liberal party has degenerated into a party that no longer has any principles worth defending.

The Merritt, BC murders are yet another failure in Canada's justice system

Allan Dwayne Schoenborn, the 40 year-old prime suspect in the murder of his three children in Merritt BC, was arrested three times in the days leading up to their murders, but each time, our justice system released him. Previously both he and Darcie Clarke, the mother of his three children lived in Vancouver, but last fall Ms Clarke moved to Merritt to start a new life and get a fresh start away from the turmoil and abuse that had previously engulfed her family.

This did not stop Mr Schoenborn from following her. He arrived in Merritt, BC just one week before the murders, despite a court order baring him from contact with Ms Clarke. In that week, he was arrested 3 times.

Schoenborn's initial contact with the Merritt RCMP came when he was arrested for driving while under disqualification because of an earlier impaired- driving conviction.

In another incident, police officers encountered Schoenborn when he was intoxicated in a public place.

Then, on Thursday, police were called by the principal of Schoenborn's daughter's school, Diamond Vale elementary.

Schoenborn had allegedly threatened a student and the principal.

The police sought to keep Schoenborn in custody after the school incident, arguing that he was a flight risk who had a history of failing to appear in court. A provincial court judge ordered him released - against the recommendation of the police.

Just 2 days after Mr. Schoenborn's release from police custody, Ms Clarke arrived home and made the gruesome discovery of the bodies of her 3 children. After I read the story, the first question that came to my mind was why did the BC Provincial judge not take the recommendation of the police seriously? Why did the BC provincial judge feel it was ok to release this man against the recommendation of the police, despite his violent past and previous convictions?

This incident is yet another cloud hanging over our justice system. What I find most appalling is that we Canadians continue to tolerate a lax justice system that is controlled by judges who seem to care more about the rights of criminals than ordinary law-abiding citizens. Any attempt to toughen or reform our laws or criminal penalties is met by howls and cries of protest from the usual bleeding heart groups.

The pain of losing a child is tremendous, but what makes it even worst is knowing that they would still be alive had the justice system done its job. My heart really goes out to Ms Clarke, as she is going to need a lot of support to get through what must be her worst nightmare. For me, I really do hope that the day will come when Canadian judges are held accountable for their actions, because there does not seem to be any accountability among a lot of them.

Why Can’t the MSM and Opposition Parties Accept MP Tom Lukiwski's Apology?

I have been following the Tom Lukiwski story over the past couple of days and I applaud him for publicly apologizing for those derogatory comments he made against gays 16 years ago. While I believe that his comments were hurtful, I think it is time for the MSM and the HOC to accept his apology and move on.

The thing that I find distasteful is the attempt by the MSM and those on the left of the political spectrum to bash the Conservative Party as being homophobic bigots, while giving a free pass to the Liberals and NDP.

Take the following examples of comments made by MPs from other political parties
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Homosexuality is statistically abnormal, it's physically abnormal and it's morally immoral." Liberal MP Tom Wappel - 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's sort of corny, but a constituent phoned up and said, 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.’ "If it's two adults, where do we stop? What about a grandma that wants to marry her grandson or an uncle that wants to marry his niece? Where do you stop?" - Liberal MP Roy Cullen - 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NDP's Tommy Douglas's Opinion on Homosexuality (link to video)

"And if we ever needed in this country to adopt a new attitude towards homosexuality, this is the time. Instead of treating it as a crime and driving it underground, we ought to recognize it for what it is. It is a mental illness. It is a psychiatric condition, which ought to be treated sympathetically. Which ought to be treated by psychiatric s and social workers"

- NDP’s Tommy Douglas - recognized of one of the greatest Canadians
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As a student, Telegdi often raised quite a stir with his emotionally charged attempts to raise student interest in issues such as housing and enumeration. His statements published in the then-student newspaper the chevron were often controversial and have contributed to Telegdi's Feds legacy.

"Students are niggers because they want to be niggers," he told the chevron in the December 6, 1974 issue, after a low student voter turnout in that year's municipal election. (University of Waterloo's Imprint Newspaper)

- Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi, while he was a student at the University of Waterloo- December 6th, 1974
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My point here is not to slag political parties over comments that some of their members made years ago, but to point out that members of “ALL” political parties are guilty of politically insensitive or hurtful comments. I don’t understand why the Liberals and NDP are always given a free pass whenever this happens, but somehow the MSM and special interests groups only choose to paint the Conservative Party as bigots.

Some Liberals, NDP and their supporters in the MSM are arguing that Mr Tom Lukiwski was 40, when the video was made 16 years ago and by that time, his beliefs are set, so he cannot change. It is one of the most ridiculous arguments that I have heard. People's attitudes and beliefs change all the time and age is no restriction.

If people's beliefs are set at 40 and cannot change, no matter the circumstances, then why did the Liberals accept former NDP Premier Bob Rae, as a leadership candidate? Did they believe that his views on economic policies that deverstated Ontario in the 1990's when he was Premier had not changed, even though he was 47 when he was finally voted out as Premier? I don't think so.

What about NDP's former MP Svend Robinson who was 53 when he stepped down after admitting to stealing a ring for his lover? Did the NDP think that his views regarding stealing had not changed when they allowed him to run again as one of their candidates in the 2006 federal election?

If we don’t accept Tom Lukiwski’s apology for a comment he made 16 years ago, then how far are we prepared to go back when it comes to past comments made by our MP's? Are we going to go into every MP’s closet and drag up every politically incorrect comment or off-color joke that he or she ever made and use it against their party? I really hope not. What I, and most Canadians are interested in is good governance, fiscal responsibility, sound policies and good judgement by the government, and adequate representation by our members of parliament. Not what a MP said 16 years at a private party after he had one too many.

Kyoto Koolaid

I have never been able to understand the “obsession with the Kyoto protocol” from those on the left of the political spectrum. They paint it as the most logical and effective way for the world to reduce its greenhouse gasses, thus combating global warming, but as soon as you start challenging their arguments, you are treated as an uneducated and mis-informed individual and almost immediately get accused of being "in the pocket of the oil companies" "not caring for the environment" and referred to as a "global warming denier"

I came across a post in the Conservative Hipsters blog titled, Rethinking Kyoto, in which he noted the pollution on a visit to China and when he questioned the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol without involving China, a commenter gave the following response:

...You also misunderstand Kyoto. It was never intended to fix global warming, merely to get the developed industrialized world committed to taking the first concrete steps to curbing emissions. This has to begin somewhere, surely you can grasp that....

Well, if it is not intended to fix global warming, then we should all forget about implementing the protocol then, since it will be very costly to our economy, right? Shouldn't the first concrete steps to curbing emissions involve "all" of the major polluters?

Recently I bumped into a friend who is an ardent supporter of the Kyoto protocol and a member of one of the other opposition parties. I asked him point blank, “Why do you support the Kyoto protocol?” He gave me the usual speal about the world reducing greenhouse gasses, rising sea levels, flooding and how much of the world was not going to be habitable in 50 years.

It was pretty much the same hysteria expressed in Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. But unfortunately for Mr. Gore, while he is urging Americans and others to conserve and to save the world, he and others like him are not practising what they preach. His household is consuming more than 20 times the electricity consumed by an average American household.

When other prominent Kyoto activists are pressed on why they are not personally trying to reduce their own carbon footprints, many of them give the excuse of purchasing carbon offset, which in effect allows them to continue their way of life without making any sacrifices for what they supposedly believe in. Many of these activists "talk green", but their lifestyles and behaviour are anything but green, as observed in the article by Steven Milloy below.

The Greenest Hypocrites Of 2007

This is what I am getting to. Not everyone is required to make the necessary sacrifices, only the select few, who can buy their way out of implementing any meaningful changes, which is why the Kyoto protocol will never work.

I then asked my friend, if the global warming was such a big problem and would affect the world in the way he described, why then would the Kyoto protocol place binding targets on only 35 of the 129 countries that signed the agreement and exclude major CO2 emitters such as India, China, Russia, etc.

I advised him that the CO2 emissions produced by those excluded countries would easily surpass the CO2 emissions reductions of countries like Canada and the EU if they were to achieve their targets, so in effect would negate billions of dollars in expenses and taxes that the tax payers of the industrialized countries would have to pay to achieve these targets. I asked him that of global warming was such a big problem as described, then why not have binding targets on “all of the major CO2 emitters, including China and India”

He about lost it at that point and started saying that the industrialized countries were the ones who created the problem and that they should fix it. He said that countries like China and India should be given the same opportunity to develop their economy as those countries in the west.

So now he has abandoned the most logical principle of solving a "worldwide problem". If this problem affects the whole world, then "all the countries of the world" need to take steps to resolve it. When we had world war 2 in the 1930's and 1940's, countries who agreed to participate with the allies were not given exemptions from supplying troops.

I then asked him how prepared was he and his family to make the sacrifices necessary for Canada to go 6% below the 1990 emission level? When I advised him that if Canada got rid of its entire manufacturing sector, got rid of air traffic, took all the cars off the road, it still would not be able to achieve its target he really got agitated and started talking about how Canada could achieve its target by buying carbon credits and developing new technologies.

I then pointed out to him that under the present Kyoto protocol, worldwide CO2 emissions would increase, rather than decrease and the carbon credit system would only facilitate money being paid to third world countries, which would have no incentive to reduce their emissions. I advised him that any reduction in manufacturing and economic activity in Canada and the industrialized world would be replaced by manufacturing and economic activity in China and other developing countries, thus negating any positive effect. So in effect, Kyoto was just a scheme designed to transfer wealth from richer countries to poorer countries.

You definitely see where this argument was going. In the beginning it was about how the world was in danger and how the world needed to reduce its CO2 emissions, but as soon as you question the mechanisms of the Kyoto protocol in achieving this, you start getting ridiculous arguments.

It was obvious to me that the protocol in its present form would not work and would cause unnecessary hardships on the citizens of our country if implemented. For that observation, I was accused of supporting the “oil companies” by not going along with his line of thinking. And that seems to be the problem with a lot of supporters of the Kyoto protocol. They have just not thought it through.

The Other Side To The Brenda Martin Story

When I first heard about the Brenda Martin story in the MSM, I was initially sympathetic towards her case, but the more I dug into the case and the more I researched, I found that there was a second side to this story. Brenda Martin no longer seemed to be a hapless victim, who was unknowingly ignorant of her employer, Alyn Richard Waage’s activities, as she led all of us to believe.

Below is an interesting link from a 2003 article by Charles Rusnel in the Edmonton Journal.

http://www.thewantednovel.com/edjournal.html

In my post to the Blue like You blog, I noted the following quote from a person going by the pseudo name of “Sandy Smith.” Note, she was a cook and worked for Mr. Waage at the same time Brenda Martin worked for him, she even left at the same time that Brenda Martin left, so it is highly probable that the source was infact Brenda Martin.

"It looked like a friggin parking lot outside that house most days," said Sandy Smith, who asked that her real name not be used. She still lives in Vallarta and fears the Mexican federal police. The Toronto native worked as Waage's chef and lived in Castillo Cristina for 10 months beginning in July 2000.

• If the person being interviewed was Brenda Martin, and she was truly fearful of the Mexican federal police in 2003, why did she choose to remain in Mexico until her arrest in 2006?

• Why was she living illegally in Mexico for 10 years without a visa or work permit?

• Why did she disregard the advise of the Canadian consulate, once she was arrested and choose a lawyer who was not on their list of recommended lawyers? According to the Mexican government, her legal antics, including a constitutional challenge and her changing of her legal representation several times contributed to a delay in the beginning her trial.

"Brenda Kim Martin has chosen to change legal teams for her defence on several occasions," reads the statement on the embassy's Web site. "Consequently, she has been successively represented by different legal teams -- a decision taken by Ms. Martin that has significantly contributed to the delay in her trial."

Mexico blames delays on Brenda Martin

• Why did she continue to associate herself with and correspond with her former boss, Alyn Waage after he was arrested and jailed in California?

• Why did Brenda Martin deposit money that was not her's (Alyn Waage's) in her own bank account and deposit money on behalf of Alyn Waage into other bank accounts? This does not sound like duties she would perform if she was just his "chef"

• If Brenda Martin is suicidal and just want to get home to Canada as fast as possible, why is she bashing the Conservative government, by calling the visit by Conservative MPs Jason Kenney and Rick Norlock a "photo-op" when they and its diplomatic staff have been working behind the scenes with the Mexican government trying to assist her?

• If Brenda Martin is desperate to return to Canada why is she saying that if she is convicted and has the option of serving her jail sentence in Canada that she will not leave Mexico?

"I told him that if I get sentenced to 15 years and I have to serve half my time in prison in Canada I will stay here and kill myself -- that's it. I am not going back to Canada to go to prison," Ms. Martin said.

In the SDA blog, commenter ET asks an interesting series of questions that have so far been overlooked by the MSM

How is it that it's blogs that are coming up with the facts and information, while the MSM is devoting itself only to emotional hysteria totally bereft of facts or instead, creating a fictional scenario? That includes the self-defined and self-esteemed 'informative sites' of Duffy and Newman..and the news of CTV and CBC.

There are many questions:

Why would Brenda Martin be afraid of the Mexican police if she had nothing to do with the scam? If she was concerned, then why didn't she leave Mexico?

Or, was it that she could make more, without a work visa (no taxes) and cheap living costs and easy lifestyle in Mexico (and the weather)?

So, he handed 26,000 to her as settlement for firing her. There are several stories to what happened next.
One, that she re-invested 10,000 of it into his scam company unknown to him. Why?
Two, that he told her to 'take her commission' and forward the rest to a different account.
Laundering.

Why, when she was arrested, didn't she just claim that she was a hired worker in his staff and didn't participate in his scam - Instead, she focused on the arrest process itself; that she didn't have a translator. Small point, but, she's been living there ten years; does she have no knowledge of Spanish?

It is indeed possible that she wasn't part of the scam. It still seems strange that she invested 10,000 of that 26,000 in his company.

Why is the left demanding that the Canadian government apologize to Obama?

Over the last couple of days, my colleagues on the left have gotten into a fit over US Democratic Presidential candidate, Barak Obama being exposed for his inconsistent position on NAFTA. Instead of insisting on Obama to clarify his position, since it will affect trade and jobs with our biggest trading partner, they have gone after the Harper government

"Will he now apologize to this House, the American people, and Senator Obama, and will he fire his chief of staff?" NDP Leader Jack Layton asked during the daily question period.

The one thing that I don't get is that Obama was the one who got caught speaking from both sides of his mouth on the NAFTA issue and was justifiably exposed for doing so. He was caught telling the American people that he would seek to re-negotiate NAFTA, while at the same time an Obama aide told Canadian officials that he wasn't serious.

So I am trying to understand the reasoning of those on the left who want the Prime Minister to apologize to Obama and the American people. Are they saying that a serious inconsistency in the position of the frontrunner of the Democratic Presidential candidates on the NAFTA agreement, which will affect all of us, should not be exposed? On what basis does Canada owe Obama an apology? Maybe Obama and his campaign team should be the ones who need to apologize to the American people for being less than forthright with them, since whatever decision his government makes on NAFTA, if he becomes President, will have as much of an impact on American jobs and companies, as it will on Canada.

Karlheinz Schreiber loses latest bid to remain in Canada

Karlheinz Schreiber has lost his latest bid to remain in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to review earlier judicial verdicts that cleared the way for his extradition to Germany to face bribery and tax evasion charges.

Despite this ruling from Canada’s highest court and countless lower court rulings, Schreiber gets to remain in Canada until he testifies in the Mulroney-Schreiber public inquiry. Since this latest ruling, Schreiber's lawyer, Mr. Greenspan has attempted to get the Federal Justice Minister to delay the extradition indefinitely, but to his credit, he has refused to do so.

Earlier this week, Nicholson sent a letter to Greenspan rejecting any claim that he had the authority to delay extradition indefinitely.

But the minister agreed that Schreiber could remain in Canada until he testifies at the public inquiry promised by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In a statement issued Thursday, Nicholson said the course he's adopted will ensure "the public interest is served as Canadians will have the benefit of hearing Mr. Schreiber's testimony on Canadian soil."

In his previous testimonies before the Airbus Inquiry and the HOC Ethics Committee, Schreiber contradicted himself on numerous occasions. So much so that he has lost creditability even among many Liberals.

In my view, nothing more will be gained from having Schreiber remain in Canada for more testimony. Since the testimony that he has given up to now has been full of contradictions and his words cannot be trusted, I don’t see the benefit of any further testimony from Schreiber during a future public inquiry. It will just be another "he said", "he said" affair between himself and former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney.

Schreiber has been allowed to manipulate the Canadian courts for 8 years, even though he lost every ruling against his extradition. To make matters worst, he has also managed to manipulate the HOC into freeing him from jail. It’s time to say enough is enough and immediately put him on a plane back to Germany

Legislation to end CWB Barley Monopoly to be Introduced In Parliament on Monday

Tomorrow, Federal Conservative Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz will introduce legislation to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to allow Prairie barley producers to choose whether they sell their barley on their own or through the wheat board.

I hope that this bill passes because for too long many farmers have been being systematically shortchanged by the CWB not paying them a fair price for their product. The CWB have never been able to give a satisfactory explanation to farmers in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan as to why there is such a difference between barley prices that they are forced to accept from the CWB and barley prices on the open market. Some are complaining that they can get between $4.00 and $4.50 a bushel on the open market, while the CWB is only paying $3.00.

These farmers are assuming all the risks in the growing and harvesting of their own crops, so it is hard to see why should they not have the same right as barley farmers in the other Canadian provinces to sell their own products to whoever they want. Is it wrong for the Prairie barley producers to be allowed to seek maximum returns for the risks that they absorb and the hard labour that they must do in order to produce a successful harvest?

Is will be interesting to see whether the government makes this bill a confidence motion. The Federal Liberals and the NDP have for a long time opposed amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act to allow the Prairie barley farmers to have the choice of selling their products on the open market. Is it because they are so determined to maintain a bureaucracy that is bent on practicing 19th century economics in the 21st century to the detriment of the farmers that they are supposed to serve? If this bill becomes a confidence motion are the Liberals willing to fight an election over this issue? Stay tuned.

Tony

National Post ordered to surrender 'Shawinigate' documents

Thanks to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the RCMP will finally be able to conduct a full investigation of the Shawinigate affair.

On Friday, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned an earlier decision by Ontario Superior Court Justice, Mary Lou Benotto, that quashed a RCMP search warrant against the National Post and reporter, Andrew McIntosh. In 2001, Mr. McIntosh was sent a 1997 loan document from the Business Development Bank of Canada.

In 2004, the Shawinigate investigation by the RCMP was stalled because Ontario Superior Court Justice Mary Lou Benotto quashed the search warrant and assistance order on the grounds it would break McIntosh's pledge to protect his source. The reson she gave was that it would violate the media's "constitutionally entrenched right'' to gather and disseminate information.

"In this case, the eroding of the ability of the press to perform its role in society cannot be outweighed by the Crown's investigation,'' Benotto ruled.

The three-judge Appeals Court panel disagreed.

Enforcing the law must at times outweigh the need to protect an anonymous source, Ontario's highest court said Friday as it ordered the National Post to surrender documents at the heart of conflict-of-interest allegations against former prime minister Jean Chretien.

Paper ordered to surrender 'Shawinigate' documents (CTV link)

Fidel Castro steps down as President of Cuba

Fidel Castro has resigned as President of Cuba after ruling the country for 49 years. He has not been seen in public since temporarily handing over power to his brother Raul Castro in July 2006 after undergoing intestinal surgery.

It will be interesting to see how this development will affect both the political situation in that country, including democratic reforms, and future relations with its biggest arch rival, the United States.

Stephane Dion apologizes to prime minister's aide...well sort of

Liberal opposition leader, Stephane Dion was forced to backtrack on a previous statement that he had made against Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas. Earlier, he had suggested that the prime minister's spokesman was a party to extortion in August 2006.

This was in response to reports that the official intervened behind closed doors on behalf of a Montreal developer in a dispute with the Public Works Department.

"That means that there was an attempt to extort taxpayers funds to benefit a party supporter and therefore change the decision process and (they say) it's not important because it didn't succeed. I think the prime minister has a lot to explain."

A lawyer for Dimitri Soudas says he was defamed by Dion and insisted on a public apology no later than next Wednesday in a letter sent to the opposition leader.

"Your allegation that Mr. Soudas was party to extortion . . . is patently false,'' said the letter to Dion from the Lang Michener firm.

"At no time did our client act illegally or use an official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

"Your defamatory statement was calculated to maliciously disparage our client as a person and as a public official, and is actionable as such.''

After question period on Thursday, Dion said: "Yesterday I used an inappropriate word: `extortion' attempt. I apologize for that, and that was not the appropriate word.

Ooops, I don't think that this is the first time that Dion has put his foot in his mouth.

Dion will never be a friend of the Canadian military

I came across an interesting article, Dion will never be a pal of soldiers, by Peter Worthington in the Toronto Sun. The main premise is that the CAF would be reduced to its previous depleted strength with their role and capabilities severely limited, as it was during the Trudeau years, if Dion was to become Prime Minister.

In his press conference on leaving Afghanistan, Dion seemed to think our role should consist of turning soldiers into social workers -- no more seek and destroy stuff our troops have been doing so effectively.

Instead he wants our troops building schools, enhancing women's rights, digging wells for fresh water, training and assisting local communities. Silly ass. What escapes Dion's limited comprehension is that our troops have been doing all this social work stuff from day one, as well as kicking butt of the Taliban.

By his actions since becoming leader of the opposition, Dion has not helped to overcome this perception. In his news conferences and statements in parliament, he is almost always very critical of the military.

Dion and members of his caucus had a field day last Spring defending the words of murderous Taliban thugs, who would not have a second thought about killing women and children, when they were making allegations of torture and mistreatment, as instructed in their training manuals. Other members of the Liberal caucus did their best to smear our military, by trying to make them appear as incompetent violators of human rights in Afghanistan, when all they were doing was fulfilling an agreement involving prisoner transfer that was made while the previous Liberal party was in power.

In a May 27, 2005 letter from Graham to Martin, the former prime minister was told that Canada planned to negotiate an agreement with the Afghan government that would spell out "explicit undertakings" on how the detainees would be treated.

The same day as the letter, Graham "authorized the Canadian Forces to seek arrangements with relevant authorities on the transfer of detainees," according to a Defence Department briefing note.

The other thing that Dion and his Liberal caucus does not seem to be able to understand is that our military needs good equipment and military hardware to be able to carry out its duties effectively, wherever they are deployed. For many years under previous governments, they were forced to operate using sub-standard equipment, which was badly in need of being replaced. A good example of this are the sea king helicopters, which are over 40 years old and require several hours of maintenance for every hour they are in the air.

When Prime Minister Harper announced increased spending for the military to upgrade its equipment, including replacing the ageing sea king helicopters, Dion and members of his caucus were all over him, condemning him and his party for doing what was desperately needed for many years.

... the Opposition is accusing Harper of an American-style defence buildup that seems "more attuned to offensive warfare" than peacekeeping.

"We have a prime minister who has George W. Bush as American Idol," Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said.

Then there is the lack of appreciation for the CAF. You almost never hear Dion utter words of support for our military. It’s mind boggling, especially since many of them are risking their lives everyday in hostile environments and are serving our country honourably.

The problem with Dion is that he never seems to be able to think things through before opening his mouth to make ridiculous statements. He does not seem to have a firm grasp on world affairs, as was evidently displayed by his gaffe on Pakistan.

He needs to realize that he is the leader of the Opposition and not a university professor anymore. In university, one can make all kind of wild theories and hold utopian world views, as they will never be required to implement it. In the real world things are different. It is a very rough place people full of people who would not give a second thought about destroying our way of life.

Dion also needs to realize that in order to have development in Afghanistan's Kandahar region, including construction of new schools, digging wells and other infrastructure, security is required. Security is needed because this work is being done in Taliban territory and our soldiers and other aid workers would be sitting ducks without a strong military on the ground to thwart any Taliban attack and to proactively remove any pending Taliban threat to the community. That is why we need to ensure that our military is strong, has the necessary equipment and our full support when we deploy them in hostile territories.

Jack Layton - Prime Minister Harper's Economic Policies are Hurting the Middle class

NDP leader, Jack Layton never seems to quit amazing me with his ill-informed statements. At the NDP leaders summit meeting, he accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of mismanaging the economy by cutting taxes and allowing market forces to prevail without government intervention. He also said that the Prime Minister’s economic policies are hurting the middle class.

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper is mismanaging the economy and hurting middle-class Canadians, New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton charged Sunday as his party began its first ever summit meeting of NDP leaders from across the country.

Speaking to reporters, Layton gave a glimpse of what could very well be a key plank in the NDP's platform heading into the next election, painting his party as better stewards of the economy than the Conservatives who tend to favour letting market forces prevail with little government intervention.

One thing that seems to becoming very clear is that the NDP does not believe that leaving more money in people’s pockets instead of the government coffers is a good thing. They want Canada to follow the policy of overtaxing its population to pay for new government programs that would supposedly help the marginalized in our society. In most cases, the new tax money never reaches these people, but just ends up in the government coffers to fund a new bureaucracy.

"We believe that Mr. Harper has been reckless in the way that he has approached financial matters."

For example, the Conservatives bring in tax cuts that help industries already doing well such as banks and oil companies, allowing them to make even greater profits, Layton argued. Meanwhile, high oil prices are fuelling the high dollar which is hitting other industries such as manufacturing, forestry and agriculture.

Nor is it about to get better, Layton predicted.

The NDP seems to believe it is a bad thing when there are industries in the Canadian economy that are doing well. To them an industry that is making too much profit is a bad thing. What is also quite surprising is that the NDP is talking about how Harper’s policies are hurting manufacturing, forestry and agriculture. But if we examine some of the central planks in the NDP’s policy; they will have an even more devastating effect on these industries.

The NDP wants the government to implement the Kyoto accord and carbon taxes immediately to reduce CO2 emissions. The effect of this would immediately have an effect on gas prices and industry through increased costs at a much higher rate than presently exists.

The NDP complains about the middle class being squeezed by the Harper government, but the NDP’s policy of higher taxation and immediately implementing the Kyoto accord will result in industry being forced to charge higher prices for its products, which will only serve to further squeeze the poor and middle class that are trying to make ends meet. It will also mean less manufacturing jobs and more layoffs, especially if the cost of goods and raw materials increase as a result of higher taxes and being forced to immediately comply with the Kyoto accord.

The other thing that the NDP fails to admit is that higher taxation, which they favour, and government interference in the market in a majority of cases hurts more than it helps. It causes capital flight and investor uncertainty, which in the end results in less money being invested in our country and less jobs for our citizens. It is these socialist policies that have sunk the economies of several countries in the third world.

"Now we're seeing the members of Parliament being blackmailed by Mr. Harper saying that the only way there will be any assistance to the laid off workers is if we vote confidence in the Harper government and their approach to all things."

It quite amazing that Mr. Layton, who forced former Liberal Prime Minister, Paul Martin’s hand in supporting billions of dollars increased spending on government programs and canceling corporate taxes as his price for supporting the 2005 federal budget is now accusing the Conservatives of blackmail, when they link $1-billion in economic assistance to the passage of their next budget.

Mr. Layton can afford to make these statements because his party right now does not have a reasonable chance of forming the government in the near future, so he will never have to be accountable for them.

Dion Finally Makes an Appearance in Afghanistan with Igniatieff

Opposition leader Stephane Dion has finally made the trip to Afghanistan, along with Liberal MP, Michael Igniatieff, after promising to do so for many months. According to them, they are on a fact finding mission to set long term goals for Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. This is after they have already decided that the Liberal party’s position is to end Canada’s mission to Afghanistan in 2009.

Dion meets with Karzai in Afghanistan (Natioanl Post)

The thing I find the most disingenuous is the acknowledgement from Mr. Dion that Afghan President Karzai appreciates all the work and support that Canadian troops have given his country, while speaking to reporters in Kabul.

"The president has been very thankful for everything Canadians are doing," Mr. Dion said, during his first trip to Afghanistan as Liberal leader. "Obviously, all our interlocutors would like Canada to be more involved in everything."

In parliament or in his many press conferences, Mr Dion never once seem to be able to express this acknowledgement. Instead it has been focused on the alleged mistreatment of Taliban detainees and being critical of the agreement covering the monitoring of prisoners handed over to the Afghan government by Canadian troops.

What I find interesting is the following:

Although Mr. Ignatieff previously had been a vocal proponent of Canada's military role in Kandahar -- to the point of voting in 2006 to extend the mission by two years - - he echoed the Liberal party line: Canadian soldiers would be able to use force to protect themselves and construction projects undertaken by Canada in Afghanistan, but they would no longer be able to go on the offensive against insurgents.

"If you are under attack you can defend yourself," Mr. Dion said.

Mr. Ignatieff added: "We understand you can't do development without the security."

Mr Dion and Mr. Igniatieff do not seem to see to understand the situation in Kandahar province very well. It is the region in Afghanistan where the Taliban are most active and without these periodic offenses against them, the Taliban would be able to mass their insurgents without any fear of being attacked and threaten even more towns and villages and Canadian troops in coordinated attacks.

In other words, the Canadian soldiers would become sitting ducks, waiting for the next Taliban attack instead of taking the proactive approach of removing the Taliban threat before it is able to attack them. This would mean that even less construction projects will be able to be implemented without being disrupted by Taliban insurgents.

Because of the effectiveness of the Canadian troops and other NATO allies in such offenses, the Taliban have been largely reduced to “hit and run” attacks. If you look at most of the causalities among Canadian troops, it is not from military offences, but from roadside bombings. If we do allow the Taliban insurgents to freely roam around Kandahar without the fear of being challenged, the casualities among NATO allies will not go down, but will most certainly increase.

Hopefully good sense will prevail during the next parliamentary vote on the Afghan mission, but with the NDP and Bloc already opposed, the chances of this happening looks pretty bleak.

Obama opens double-digit lead over Clinton just 2 days ahead of the New Hampshire primary

During the last couple of days, I have been watching the US Presidential race for the Republican and Democrat nominees. The Democrat race has been a very interesting one and I have often found myself being glued to the TV, while closely following the latest events in what has become a very captivating race for the presidential nomination.

In the beginning New York Senator Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner and one to beat, and was significantly ahead of Illinois Senator, Barack Obama and former North Carolina Senator, John Edwards. But now the tables have turned. Senator Obama has not only won the Iowa caucus, but has now surged ahead of Senator Clinton in popularity in New Hampshire, with only 2 days to go before the New Hampshire primary.

Current poll numbers:

Democrats - Barack Obama 39%, Hillary Clinton 29%, John Edwards 16%.
This is interesting because just a few days ago both Obama and Clinton were tied at 33%

Republicans – John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 26%, Mike Huckabee 14%

The other thing that is also interesting is the electability issue among Democrat Presidential candidates. In December 45% thought that Clinton had the best chance of beating the GOP nominee. Now barely a few weeks later, the polls has changed with 42% thinking that Obama has the best chance of beating the GOP nominee, compared to 31% for Clinton.

Clearly the Clinton camp needs to rethink their campaign strategy. She does not seem to be able to connect with the average American voter and that is hurting her. Many think that she often talks above her constituents and gives an aura of her superiority to everyone else. They cannot seem to relate to her.

Obama on the other hand is able to connect with the average constituents with his message of hope that is resonating with younger voters and other demographics as well. He also emphasizes the hard work and obstacles that he overcame that has allowed him to rise from very humble beginnings to being elected as a Senator for Illinois. Many of his constituents can relate to that and see him as one of their own. This has allowed him to surge to the top. It will be interesting to see how these candidates end up once the race is finished.