(Aired on September 29, 2010)
A ruling by the Ontario Superior Court this week is sending shockwaves through the Canadian legal system. The decision strikes down certain provisions in the laws governing Canada's sex trade. Most people who work with prostitutes, like the ASK Wellness Centre here in Kamloops, are applauding the ruling, saying it will make that particular line of work much safer.
Having this discussion in the public realm is long-needed. Strict government regulations have forced the sex trade to a place that is too far underground for its participants to remain safe.
Troubling, though, is the Canadian government's response. Immediately after the ruling was announced, the government said it would probably appeal. Today, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson confirmed that intention. But the first person to voice the government's displeasure with the court decision was Rona Ambrose. Ms. Ambrose is the Minister of State for the Status of Women. For her to be the person that openly opposes a plan to make women safer ostensibly goes against her own job description. Even if she needs to toe the government line on opposition, she should articulate a message that the government is doing everything possible to keep women safe. Of course, the government could do that even better by actually changing prostitution laws accordingly.
Showing posts with label Federal government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal government. Show all posts
Monday, October 4, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
10 Years After His Death, Trudeau's Legacy Lives On
(Aired on September 28, 2010)
There can be little argument that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was one of the greatest, most influential Prime Ministers who ever lived. Trudeau died ten years ago, and he's still as much talked about as any PM before or since. We have had great Prime Ministers since our founding, John A. MacDonald, Laurier, Mackenzie King, Pearson, but few have stirred the nation as Pierre Trudeau did. He was arrogant, flamboyant, and some thought of him as simply a jerk for the way he acted with his "fuddle duddle" comments and the way he seemed to look down at Canadians as if they were much lower in station than him. But assessing his career, at a time of political turmoil, separation at the boiling point, and the need to bring our country together, Pierre Trudeau was a master. And few can fault the way he did that.
I will personally never forget one of his most poignant moments, when the FLQ crisis was happening in 1970, and Trudeau introduced the War Measures Act to try and contain this group of terrorists. As a young 22-year old journalist, I watched with interest as CBC reporter Tim Ralfe asked the PM how far he would go to curb civil liberties to bring peace. Trudeau's reply "Well, just watch me." It was a defining moment in our history, and probably solidified Trudeau's support in Western Canada as a French Canadian Prime Minister who was prepared to do anything necessary to bring an end to the crisis.
I never was a big fan of many of the sections of Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but his concept of a "just society" was hard to oppose. He didn't handle the economy particularly well, and he was criticized roundly for his efforts to centralize power in the federal government over the interests of the provinces, particularly with respect to the oil wealth of the prairies. You may like him or not, but you can't deny that Pierre Trudeau was a leader like no other. His charisma may never be seen again in our country, and his legacy will be here for decades to come.
There can be little argument that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was one of the greatest, most influential Prime Ministers who ever lived. Trudeau died ten years ago, and he's still as much talked about as any PM before or since. We have had great Prime Ministers since our founding, John A. MacDonald, Laurier, Mackenzie King, Pearson, but few have stirred the nation as Pierre Trudeau did. He was arrogant, flamboyant, and some thought of him as simply a jerk for the way he acted with his "fuddle duddle" comments and the way he seemed to look down at Canadians as if they were much lower in station than him. But assessing his career, at a time of political turmoil, separation at the boiling point, and the need to bring our country together, Pierre Trudeau was a master. And few can fault the way he did that.
I will personally never forget one of his most poignant moments, when the FLQ crisis was happening in 1970, and Trudeau introduced the War Measures Act to try and contain this group of terrorists. As a young 22-year old journalist, I watched with interest as CBC reporter Tim Ralfe asked the PM how far he would go to curb civil liberties to bring peace. Trudeau's reply "Well, just watch me." It was a defining moment in our history, and probably solidified Trudeau's support in Western Canada as a French Canadian Prime Minister who was prepared to do anything necessary to bring an end to the crisis.
I never was a big fan of many of the sections of Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but his concept of a "just society" was hard to oppose. He didn't handle the economy particularly well, and he was criticized roundly for his efforts to centralize power in the federal government over the interests of the provinces, particularly with respect to the oil wealth of the prairies. You may like him or not, but you can't deny that Pierre Trudeau was a leader like no other. His charisma may never be seen again in our country, and his legacy will be here for decades to come.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Harper Gov't Needs to Rethink Gun Registry Stance
(Aired on September 23, 2010)
If you ask any RCMP officer what's his or her most dangerous assignment, many will tell you it's domestic disputes. Emotions run particularly high, and you never know what will happen in those circumstances. They will also tell you that the more information they have going in, the better they feel about being able to resolve a situation. Prior offenses, restraining orders, history of violence, all are important.
You know what else is important? Whether or not the people have any firearms registered in their names. That's why I can't understand the Conservative government's desire to end the long-gun registry. The government MPs continue to suggest that the registry is stupid because criminals don't register their guns, that the registry only hampers legitimate hunters and gun owners.
In part, that's true. But the reality is that a high percentage of gun offenses, excluding organized crime hits, involve registered guns. Guns that are used in anger in a confrontation often spurred by domestic tension. The more information police have, the better they can serve. You can't foretell everything even if you have all the details, but it would certainly help in the way you deal with issues.
I don't think the long gun registry is perfect. It costs a lot more money than I think it should. And that's one of the arguments against it. But surely there must be ways of dealing with that problem and keeping the registry alive. I understand the concerns over the registry from rural Canada, but I don't believe their frustration should be considered above safety. If the registry has value for the police, that in itself should top any backwoods hunter from feeling frustrated that he has to register his gun. It just makes good common sense.
The Stephen Harper government needs to reevaluate its policies on this issue, and instead of concentrating on defeating the registry, concentrate on things like the economy, and justice and education, issues that have far higher priority than the gun registry.
If you ask any RCMP officer what's his or her most dangerous assignment, many will tell you it's domestic disputes. Emotions run particularly high, and you never know what will happen in those circumstances. They will also tell you that the more information they have going in, the better they feel about being able to resolve a situation. Prior offenses, restraining orders, history of violence, all are important.
You know what else is important? Whether or not the people have any firearms registered in their names. That's why I can't understand the Conservative government's desire to end the long-gun registry. The government MPs continue to suggest that the registry is stupid because criminals don't register their guns, that the registry only hampers legitimate hunters and gun owners.
In part, that's true. But the reality is that a high percentage of gun offenses, excluding organized crime hits, involve registered guns. Guns that are used in anger in a confrontation often spurred by domestic tension. The more information police have, the better they can serve. You can't foretell everything even if you have all the details, but it would certainly help in the way you deal with issues.
I don't think the long gun registry is perfect. It costs a lot more money than I think it should. And that's one of the arguments against it. But surely there must be ways of dealing with that problem and keeping the registry alive. I understand the concerns over the registry from rural Canada, but I don't believe their frustration should be considered above safety. If the registry has value for the police, that in itself should top any backwoods hunter from feeling frustrated that he has to register his gun. It just makes good common sense.
The Stephen Harper government needs to reevaluate its policies on this issue, and instead of concentrating on defeating the registry, concentrate on things like the economy, and justice and education, issues that have far higher priority than the gun registry.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Privacy Breach Nothing Less Than Frightening
(Aired on September 22, 2010)
Imagine you are fighting for something. You have a cause that is completely righteous in your eyes, and in fighting for it, you make your fair share of enemies - including people in the government. Now imagine those enemies have information about you that no one else should have. That includes your banking information and your medical information. It even includes a psychiatric report, spelled out in painstaking detail.
That's exactly what has happened to Sean Bruyea. He has been an outspoken critic of Veterans Affairs for a long time, and certainly made himself a lot of enemies. In 2006, Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson found that personal information relating Bruyea in his briefing notes. That means that someone, likely in the bureaucracy, managed to dredge those documents up.
How that happened is the scary part. It is quite frightening that, given enough impetus, people who don't like you can find your most sensitive information and potentially use it against you. That's a paranoia-inducing reality of Orwellian proportions.
It's imperative that there be a full investigation into how this happened. That investigation, interestingly for us, could unearth former MP Betty Hinton, who has made herself scarce since deciding not to run in the last federal election. Hinton was once Greg Thompson's parliamentary secretary, a position she once famously mistook for a cabinet seat.
The investigation is crucial, not just for Mr. Bruyea himself, but for the principle of the thing. It's an egregious incident, and we need to know that it is an isolated one.
Imagine you are fighting for something. You have a cause that is completely righteous in your eyes, and in fighting for it, you make your fair share of enemies - including people in the government. Now imagine those enemies have information about you that no one else should have. That includes your banking information and your medical information. It even includes a psychiatric report, spelled out in painstaking detail.
That's exactly what has happened to Sean Bruyea. He has been an outspoken critic of Veterans Affairs for a long time, and certainly made himself a lot of enemies. In 2006, Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson found that personal information relating Bruyea in his briefing notes. That means that someone, likely in the bureaucracy, managed to dredge those documents up.
How that happened is the scary part. It is quite frightening that, given enough impetus, people who don't like you can find your most sensitive information and potentially use it against you. That's a paranoia-inducing reality of Orwellian proportions.
It's imperative that there be a full investigation into how this happened. That investigation, interestingly for us, could unearth former MP Betty Hinton, who has made herself scarce since deciding not to run in the last federal election. Hinton was once Greg Thompson's parliamentary secretary, a position she once famously mistook for a cabinet seat.
The investigation is crucial, not just for Mr. Bruyea himself, but for the principle of the thing. It's an egregious incident, and we need to know that it is an isolated one.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Increased Support for Gun Registry Vexing
(Aired on September 8, 2010)
It's a head-scratcher that support for keeping the long gun registry has jumped over the past few months. Back in April, 42% of respondents to a Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll thought it would be a bad idea to get rid of the registry. Now, the number is up to 48%.
That's a significant jump considering nothing has really happened to precipitate it. As far as I know, there haven't been any dramatic jumps in gun violence during that time. The Conservatives still want to scrap the registry, and the opposition parties are still largely looking for ways to keep it in place. Police organizations have reiterated their support for keeping the registry, but that support has always been there. They say it's incredibly helpful to know which homes have firearms registered to them before they knock on the front door. That may be true, but the stated purpose of the long gun registry was to make guns involved in crime more traceable, thus leading police to the criminals more quickly and easily. I have yet to see evidence that actually happens.
It's only common sense that people who would use firearms in the commission of a crime will avoid registering their guns. And while the residual effects may be positive, the billion-dollar boondoggle doesn't seem to be effective at fighting crime.
On a philosophical, world view level, I'm not a fan of firearms. In a perfect world, they would not exist. But it's not a perfect world, guns are a part of society and we would be better served managing their possession and use than trying to rid the world of them. Politicians need to come up with a better option than the ones we have today.
It's a head-scratcher that support for keeping the long gun registry has jumped over the past few months. Back in April, 42% of respondents to a Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll thought it would be a bad idea to get rid of the registry. Now, the number is up to 48%.
That's a significant jump considering nothing has really happened to precipitate it. As far as I know, there haven't been any dramatic jumps in gun violence during that time. The Conservatives still want to scrap the registry, and the opposition parties are still largely looking for ways to keep it in place. Police organizations have reiterated their support for keeping the registry, but that support has always been there. They say it's incredibly helpful to know which homes have firearms registered to them before they knock on the front door. That may be true, but the stated purpose of the long gun registry was to make guns involved in crime more traceable, thus leading police to the criminals more quickly and easily. I have yet to see evidence that actually happens.
It's only common sense that people who would use firearms in the commission of a crime will avoid registering their guns. And while the residual effects may be positive, the billion-dollar boondoggle doesn't seem to be effective at fighting crime.
On a philosophical, world view level, I'm not a fan of firearms. In a perfect world, they would not exist. But it's not a perfect world, guns are a part of society and we would be better served managing their possession and use than trying to rid the world of them. Politicians need to come up with a better option than the ones we have today.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
F35 Purchase Process Flawed
(Aired on July 21, 2010)
Doug Collins told us earlier this week that it's about time Canada spends billions of dollars on new fighter jets to replace our aging fleet of CF18s. Unlike Doug, I'm not going to jump in with both feet.
First, I'm not the happiest about a multi-billion dollar contract going to Lockheed Martin without a bid process. Even at the local level, it's important that significant contracts be put out to tender. I'm aware that their aren't too many companies in the world that make fighter planes, but some sort of competitive process would have been helpful. Lockheed Martin has been criticized, and in fact penalized by the US government, because this F35 program has been racked with cost overruns and delays. Unhappily, it appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper's tendency to simply follow Washington's lead is coming through here. The United States has ordered 2400 F35s for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
But more than that, I'll agree with the columnist in the National Post who said the Harper government needs to give Canadians a full and complete vision of what the role of our armed forces will be going forward before making these purchases. If the war in Afghanistan is the new model for what we can expect in world conflict in the future, we have to realize that our country didn't use the CF18s in Afghanistan.
However, if the primary mission for the new F35s will be to defend the homeland, is that really the best use of taxpayers' money? I think the smarter money would go into beefed up security at ground crossings and airports. Even smarter money would go into promoting diplomacy as a means of diffusing conflict. If we really want to eliminate our enemies, the best way to do it isn't killing them, but by turning them into friends. Call it naivete, but too many of us are outgrowing our idealism.
Doug Collins told us earlier this week that it's about time Canada spends billions of dollars on new fighter jets to replace our aging fleet of CF18s. Unlike Doug, I'm not going to jump in with both feet.
First, I'm not the happiest about a multi-billion dollar contract going to Lockheed Martin without a bid process. Even at the local level, it's important that significant contracts be put out to tender. I'm aware that their aren't too many companies in the world that make fighter planes, but some sort of competitive process would have been helpful. Lockheed Martin has been criticized, and in fact penalized by the US government, because this F35 program has been racked with cost overruns and delays. Unhappily, it appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper's tendency to simply follow Washington's lead is coming through here. The United States has ordered 2400 F35s for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
But more than that, I'll agree with the columnist in the National Post who said the Harper government needs to give Canadians a full and complete vision of what the role of our armed forces will be going forward before making these purchases. If the war in Afghanistan is the new model for what we can expect in world conflict in the future, we have to realize that our country didn't use the CF18s in Afghanistan.
However, if the primary mission for the new F35s will be to defend the homeland, is that really the best use of taxpayers' money? I think the smarter money would go into beefed up security at ground crossings and airports. Even smarter money would go into promoting diplomacy as a means of diffusing conflict. If we really want to eliminate our enemies, the best way to do it isn't killing them, but by turning them into friends. Call it naivete, but too many of us are outgrowing our idealism.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Billions for War Planes Well Spent
(Aired on July 19, 2010)
I know there are lots of people wondering why we're going to spend $16-billion buying 65 new fighter jets. I'll tell you why. Because we have to.
This country spends precious little on defence. Even countries that are considered "neutral" countries spend more on their defence budgets and have better armies and air forces than we do. Our aging CF-18's are about done. We recently spent over $2-billion on a refit, which was probably money poorly spent. But we have to improve.
And it won't be the last time a huge sum is spent on our Armed Forces. We desperately need to improve our naval strength. At this point, a group of Somalian pirates could probably overrun our navy, and take hostages. As our Arctic sovereignty becomes more and more an issue, as our government more and more needs to take a stand against countries which are trying to claim mineral rights and water passage rights over the Arctic circle, we need to be prepared to deal with these kinds of issues. How do we do it? We have to spend money. We have to have destroyers, we have to have aircraft, we have to have an army.
We have relied so much on our neighbours to be there for us in time of trouble, but they're kind of getting tired of it. Will the U.S. and Britain be there in time of war? Of course they will. They're protecting themselves as much as us. That's why the U.S. invested so heavily in the Pine Tree and Dew Lines during the cold war. They knew we couldn't do it, they had to do it to protect their interests. But at the end of the day, we need to put some of our money where our mouth is, and having an Armed Forces that at least gives us a minimal strength is critical to our future. I'm not a war monger in any way, shape or form, but we have to protect ourselves, and despite the cost, I believe this is money well spent.
I know there are lots of people wondering why we're going to spend $16-billion buying 65 new fighter jets. I'll tell you why. Because we have to.
This country spends precious little on defence. Even countries that are considered "neutral" countries spend more on their defence budgets and have better armies and air forces than we do. Our aging CF-18's are about done. We recently spent over $2-billion on a refit, which was probably money poorly spent. But we have to improve.
And it won't be the last time a huge sum is spent on our Armed Forces. We desperately need to improve our naval strength. At this point, a group of Somalian pirates could probably overrun our navy, and take hostages. As our Arctic sovereignty becomes more and more an issue, as our government more and more needs to take a stand against countries which are trying to claim mineral rights and water passage rights over the Arctic circle, we need to be prepared to deal with these kinds of issues. How do we do it? We have to spend money. We have to have destroyers, we have to have aircraft, we have to have an army.
We have relied so much on our neighbours to be there for us in time of trouble, but they're kind of getting tired of it. Will the U.S. and Britain be there in time of war? Of course they will. They're protecting themselves as much as us. That's why the U.S. invested so heavily in the Pine Tree and Dew Lines during the cold war. They knew we couldn't do it, they had to do it to protect their interests. But at the end of the day, we need to put some of our money where our mouth is, and having an Armed Forces that at least gives us a minimal strength is critical to our future. I'm not a war monger in any way, shape or form, but we have to protect ourselves, and despite the cost, I believe this is money well spent.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Why Hold a Summit in Downtown Toronto?
(Aired on June 30, 2010)
The so-called anarchists that attacked Toronto this past weekend during the G-20 summit cannot rightly be called protesters. They were just idiots who caused a lot of damage and spread a lot of fear. The anarchists did not prove any point, nor will they deter world leaders from working together in the future.
What this past weekend did prove is that there was no good reason to hold this summit in a major metropolitan centre. Instead of downtown Toronto, it should have been held at a more remote retreat, for a couple of reasons. First, a venue more out of the way would surely have been easier for police to secure. Think of Sun Peaks, for example, where there's only one road in. Police would have had a far easier time of things.
Second, there would have been far fewer slack-jawed yokels getting in the way. If you watched any of the live coverage last weekend, you saw that most of the people described as protesters weren't protesters at all. They were curious locals holding cameras, looking around, not holding signs, not chanting. Really, they were people who just wanted to be a part of the spectacle. I'm sure security forces would have just as soon these people stay at home than be a part of the problem. A summit at a more remote location would not get the same amount of people clogging up the streets.
In retrospect, Toronto Mayor David Miller is justified in being as livid as he is with what happened. While police and security did a very effective job of protecting the world leaders and the actual summit venue, little was done - especially Saturday - to protect Toronto. It's understandable that Miller wants Ottawa to pick up the bill for repairs. But that, of course, is thousands of tax dollars more to be paid out by you and me. Maybe they should have just held the whole thing on Skype after all.
The so-called anarchists that attacked Toronto this past weekend during the G-20 summit cannot rightly be called protesters. They were just idiots who caused a lot of damage and spread a lot of fear. The anarchists did not prove any point, nor will they deter world leaders from working together in the future.
What this past weekend did prove is that there was no good reason to hold this summit in a major metropolitan centre. Instead of downtown Toronto, it should have been held at a more remote retreat, for a couple of reasons. First, a venue more out of the way would surely have been easier for police to secure. Think of Sun Peaks, for example, where there's only one road in. Police would have had a far easier time of things.
Second, there would have been far fewer slack-jawed yokels getting in the way. If you watched any of the live coverage last weekend, you saw that most of the people described as protesters weren't protesters at all. They were curious locals holding cameras, looking around, not holding signs, not chanting. Really, they were people who just wanted to be a part of the spectacle. I'm sure security forces would have just as soon these people stay at home than be a part of the problem. A summit at a more remote location would not get the same amount of people clogging up the streets.
In retrospect, Toronto Mayor David Miller is justified in being as livid as he is with what happened. While police and security did a very effective job of protecting the world leaders and the actual summit venue, little was done - especially Saturday - to protect Toronto. It's understandable that Miller wants Ottawa to pick up the bill for repairs. But that, of course, is thousands of tax dollars more to be paid out by you and me. Maybe they should have just held the whole thing on Skype after all.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Feel Free to Make Good Use of My Taxes
(Aired on June 10, 2010)
They call it "Tax Freedom Day." Every year, the Fraser Institute determines which day of the year the average Canadian has earned enough money to pay for all the taxes they will be charged that year. This year, tax freedom day was last Saturday. So everything you earn from Saturday on out is pure profit, baby. That's almost seven whole months that the money you work hard for is actually yours.
Taxes really aren't a bad thing - unless of course you would enjoy paying a user fee for every road you drive on, every park you walk through, or every doctor's visit you make. Or maybe the people who ensure our air is clean to breathe and our water is clean to drink should work for free. If that's not what you think, then taxes are okay.
But as much as the Fraser Institute gets my goat from time to time, this particular initiative makes a good point. We spend almost half of our lives working for the government. Hopefully, by extension, the government is working to improve the lives of everyone. Our MP Cathy McLeod boasts that Tax Freedom Day has moved earlier in the year since the Conservatives took power. What she doesn't mention is what her government is doing with the money that is being collected those first five months of the year. I still haven't heard a plausible explanation of why it will take over $1-Billion to host a handful of world leaders at the upcoming G8 and G20 summits. I literally cannot fathom what could cost that much money, short of replacing the bathrooms with gold-plated diapers for all.
If the Conservatives want to crow about how little they're charging us in taxes, they have to be putting the taxes they do collect to good use. Tax Freedom Day could be January 2, and if they were wasting the money they made, they'd still have no reason to brag.
They call it "Tax Freedom Day." Every year, the Fraser Institute determines which day of the year the average Canadian has earned enough money to pay for all the taxes they will be charged that year. This year, tax freedom day was last Saturday. So everything you earn from Saturday on out is pure profit, baby. That's almost seven whole months that the money you work hard for is actually yours.
Taxes really aren't a bad thing - unless of course you would enjoy paying a user fee for every road you drive on, every park you walk through, or every doctor's visit you make. Or maybe the people who ensure our air is clean to breathe and our water is clean to drink should work for free. If that's not what you think, then taxes are okay.
But as much as the Fraser Institute gets my goat from time to time, this particular initiative makes a good point. We spend almost half of our lives working for the government. Hopefully, by extension, the government is working to improve the lives of everyone. Our MP Cathy McLeod boasts that Tax Freedom Day has moved earlier in the year since the Conservatives took power. What she doesn't mention is what her government is doing with the money that is being collected those first five months of the year. I still haven't heard a plausible explanation of why it will take over $1-Billion to host a handful of world leaders at the upcoming G8 and G20 summits. I literally cannot fathom what could cost that much money, short of replacing the bathrooms with gold-plated diapers for all.
If the Conservatives want to crow about how little they're charging us in taxes, they have to be putting the taxes they do collect to good use. Tax Freedom Day could be January 2, and if they were wasting the money they made, they'd still have no reason to brag.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Coalition? Please no.
(Aired on June 9, 2010)
Every time I hear about a the possibility of a coalition government, I cringe a little bit. Thankfully, Michael Ignatieff today shot down suggestions of a coalition between his Liberals and the federal NDP to take down the Harper Conservatives. I'm not thrilled with the job the Conservative government is doing in Ottawa right now - not thrilled, but not absolutely irate to the core of my being either. It's only once I get that upset that I would even consider a coalition a decent option to throw the Conservatives to the other side of the Commons floor.
When Canadians went to the polls, those who voted for the Liberals did not vote for the NDP, and vice versa. They didn't even vote for an option that says "not the Conservatives," even though I suspect that option would be quite popular. Instead, they voted their individual preference, and we are left with the Conservatives leading parliament in a minority government situation.
If there was widespread outrage at the Conservatives, there may be a more realistic mandate to form a coalition. But opinion polls continue to show Harper's party with a healthy lead over any other party in public support. Once again, "not the Conservatives" is not an option.
Finally, the NDP and the Liberals are often on far extremes of the political spectrum - usually even farther apart than the Liberals and the governing Tories. They say politics make strange bedfellows, but a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals would be like sleeping with the enemy.
Every time I hear about a the possibility of a coalition government, I cringe a little bit. Thankfully, Michael Ignatieff today shot down suggestions of a coalition between his Liberals and the federal NDP to take down the Harper Conservatives. I'm not thrilled with the job the Conservative government is doing in Ottawa right now - not thrilled, but not absolutely irate to the core of my being either. It's only once I get that upset that I would even consider a coalition a decent option to throw the Conservatives to the other side of the Commons floor.
When Canadians went to the polls, those who voted for the Liberals did not vote for the NDP, and vice versa. They didn't even vote for an option that says "not the Conservatives," even though I suspect that option would be quite popular. Instead, they voted their individual preference, and we are left with the Conservatives leading parliament in a minority government situation.
If there was widespread outrage at the Conservatives, there may be a more realistic mandate to form a coalition. But opinion polls continue to show Harper's party with a healthy lead over any other party in public support. Once again, "not the Conservatives" is not an option.
Finally, the NDP and the Liberals are often on far extremes of the political spectrum - usually even farther apart than the Liberals and the governing Tories. They say politics make strange bedfellows, but a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals would be like sleeping with the enemy.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Louisiana Oil Spill a Grim Reminder of What Can Happen
(Aired on May 3, 2010)
The tragedy off the Louisiana coast as a disastrous oil spills threatens wildlife and one of the most beautiful coastlines and wildlife sanctuaries in the world points out that man is more often than not his own worst enemy. As crews try to contain a spill that threatens to make the Exxon Valdez pale by comparison, wildlife is already starting to be hit, and it could be decades before it all plays out.
An oil platform blew up, 11 men died, and this was a rig that had a lot of new technology, supposedly technology to prevent these kind of spills from happening. Didn't work. Now the frantic work of containing the spill takes high priority. The cost will be in the billions. The cost to the coastline and the wildlife in some very fragile eco-systems is priceless. Much of that coastline is sensitive shrimp ground. It could be totally destroyed.
And while you're thinking of this, think of the fact that it will happen in our northern Arctic Ocean once drilling starts up there. And it will start up there at some point in time. The big oil interests already seem to think that it's a foregone conclusion. And more problems will occur. And it will happen off the B.C. coast if the province is successful in lobbying Ottawa to lift the offshore drilling ban.
Much of the concern that has been raised in B.C. and the Arctic deals with tanker spills like the Exxon Valdez, but now we're seeing a whole different side of things with the drilling platform explosion. If these kinds of spills can be triggered by an oil rig explosion whose safety devices didn't work to shut off the flow of crude, that puts a large additional risk when it comes to danger signs. We are ill prepared in this country for a spill of any magnitude, wherever it might occur.
The events in Louisiana should perhaps give us a little bit of incentive to get our act together before we start putting the holes in the ground.
The tragedy off the Louisiana coast as a disastrous oil spills threatens wildlife and one of the most beautiful coastlines and wildlife sanctuaries in the world points out that man is more often than not his own worst enemy. As crews try to contain a spill that threatens to make the Exxon Valdez pale by comparison, wildlife is already starting to be hit, and it could be decades before it all plays out.
An oil platform blew up, 11 men died, and this was a rig that had a lot of new technology, supposedly technology to prevent these kind of spills from happening. Didn't work. Now the frantic work of containing the spill takes high priority. The cost will be in the billions. The cost to the coastline and the wildlife in some very fragile eco-systems is priceless. Much of that coastline is sensitive shrimp ground. It could be totally destroyed.
And while you're thinking of this, think of the fact that it will happen in our northern Arctic Ocean once drilling starts up there. And it will start up there at some point in time. The big oil interests already seem to think that it's a foregone conclusion. And more problems will occur. And it will happen off the B.C. coast if the province is successful in lobbying Ottawa to lift the offshore drilling ban.
Much of the concern that has been raised in B.C. and the Arctic deals with tanker spills like the Exxon Valdez, but now we're seeing a whole different side of things with the drilling platform explosion. If these kinds of spills can be triggered by an oil rig explosion whose safety devices didn't work to shut off the flow of crude, that puts a large additional risk when it comes to danger signs. We are ill prepared in this country for a spill of any magnitude, wherever it might occur.
The events in Louisiana should perhaps give us a little bit of incentive to get our act together before we start putting the holes in the ground.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Taxed to the Max
(Aired on April 19, 2010)
I'm surprised at a recent report from the Fraser Institute which says we're paying 41.7% of our total income to taxes. Not surprised that almost half yours and my income goes to taxes. We've known that for a long time. Every time we turn around, the government hits us with a tax on something. Now what surprises me is that the figure isn't very much changed in the past 20 years. In 1981, taxes accounted for 40.8% of income. So while we've gone up a full percentage point in that time, I actually thought it would be more than that.
Every time we reach into our pockets, the government seems to be there first. It never occurred to me that the moths flying out of my pockets were some cruel government joke. And of course, soon the HST will take even more money from us. Governments are quick to defend taxes, suggesting that the money is needed to fund health care, education, you name it. But I don't think many of us are convinced that our tax dollars are being used to best advantage.
In the fiscal year ending March 2005, the government collected $198.4-billion in taxes and other revenues. That doesn't count money taken in by the provinces or municipalities. The largest single spending item was repayment on our national debt. Now that we've spent a lot of money trying to stimulate our economy in light of the downturn, I wonder how long it will be before the tax bite hits even further. The downturn will play a bigger role than it has already when it comes time to repay the money the feds used to try and keep the economy afloat.
If you think it's bad that almost half your income goes towards taxes, you probably are going to be even more disappointed in the years ahead as we try to repay an even bigger debt load. And here is our federal government telling us we're not putting enough away for our retirement years. How do they expect that to happen? If they'd give us back even a small percentage of the tax dollars they drain from us each year, think of how much we could salt away for our so-called golden years. The thought is mind-boggling.
I'm surprised at a recent report from the Fraser Institute which says we're paying 41.7% of our total income to taxes. Not surprised that almost half yours and my income goes to taxes. We've known that for a long time. Every time we turn around, the government hits us with a tax on something. Now what surprises me is that the figure isn't very much changed in the past 20 years. In 1981, taxes accounted for 40.8% of income. So while we've gone up a full percentage point in that time, I actually thought it would be more than that.
Every time we reach into our pockets, the government seems to be there first. It never occurred to me that the moths flying out of my pockets were some cruel government joke. And of course, soon the HST will take even more money from us. Governments are quick to defend taxes, suggesting that the money is needed to fund health care, education, you name it. But I don't think many of us are convinced that our tax dollars are being used to best advantage.
In the fiscal year ending March 2005, the government collected $198.4-billion in taxes and other revenues. That doesn't count money taken in by the provinces or municipalities. The largest single spending item was repayment on our national debt. Now that we've spent a lot of money trying to stimulate our economy in light of the downturn, I wonder how long it will be before the tax bite hits even further. The downturn will play a bigger role than it has already when it comes time to repay the money the feds used to try and keep the economy afloat.
If you think it's bad that almost half your income goes towards taxes, you probably are going to be even more disappointed in the years ahead as we try to repay an even bigger debt load. And here is our federal government telling us we're not putting enough away for our retirement years. How do they expect that to happen? If they'd give us back even a small percentage of the tax dollars they drain from us each year, think of how much we could salt away for our so-called golden years. The thought is mind-boggling.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
McLeod's Shot at Cabinet
(Aired on April 14, 2010)
The Jaffer-Guergis scandal will certainly get worse before it gets better for Stephen Harper, and it's a case of reaping what you sew in the people you choose to be on your team. Here's all you need to know about Rahim Jaffer - he was a Conservative in Alberta and he lost. In 2008, Jaffer lost his Edmonton riding to a New Democrat, and the world has yet to return to equilibrium. It was my impression that to be a Conservative in Alberta and lose, you have to be either medically dead or on the sex offender registry.
That mark on Jaffer's record - losing that is - added to the drunk driving and cocaine possession issue never did bode well for his wife, Helena Guergis. And while the allegations against Guergis are still very much being kept under wraps, right now I'm more interested in her abandoned cabinet post.
Here's a wild idea - how about Cathy McLeod as the new Minister of State for the Status of Women? I've travelled quite a distance to arrive at this destination, but I think the Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo M.P. would be a terrific candidate for the cabinet spot. McLeod has some strikes against her as a rookie M.P. and being from the west when Stephen Harper needs to replace a cabinet minister from Ontario.
But she has some definite assets as well. McLeod has shown hard work and competency as a member of parliament. She has, in my opinion, represented the interests of her riding well in Ottawa, including scoring us a significant amount of Building Canada grant moneys. While she lacks some public speaking acumen, she makes up for it by being courteous, professional, and quick to respond to requests. And above all, she seems to be as far removed as possible from a lifestyle of scandal. Minister of State for the Status of Women is not exactly a high profile position, and ideal for a political neophyte like McLeod.
Stephen Harper has a lot of things working against him these days, and he can use all the good people he can get. Cathy McLeod is one of them.
(Blogger's note: Rona Ambrose was appointed Minister of State for the Status of Women after Guergis' ouster. Whether this is a permanent arrangement remains to be seen.)
The Jaffer-Guergis scandal will certainly get worse before it gets better for Stephen Harper, and it's a case of reaping what you sew in the people you choose to be on your team. Here's all you need to know about Rahim Jaffer - he was a Conservative in Alberta and he lost. In 2008, Jaffer lost his Edmonton riding to a New Democrat, and the world has yet to return to equilibrium. It was my impression that to be a Conservative in Alberta and lose, you have to be either medically dead or on the sex offender registry.
That mark on Jaffer's record - losing that is - added to the drunk driving and cocaine possession issue never did bode well for his wife, Helena Guergis. And while the allegations against Guergis are still very much being kept under wraps, right now I'm more interested in her abandoned cabinet post.
Here's a wild idea - how about Cathy McLeod as the new Minister of State for the Status of Women? I've travelled quite a distance to arrive at this destination, but I think the Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo M.P. would be a terrific candidate for the cabinet spot. McLeod has some strikes against her as a rookie M.P. and being from the west when Stephen Harper needs to replace a cabinet minister from Ontario.
But she has some definite assets as well. McLeod has shown hard work and competency as a member of parliament. She has, in my opinion, represented the interests of her riding well in Ottawa, including scoring us a significant amount of Building Canada grant moneys. While she lacks some public speaking acumen, she makes up for it by being courteous, professional, and quick to respond to requests. And above all, she seems to be as far removed as possible from a lifestyle of scandal. Minister of State for the Status of Women is not exactly a high profile position, and ideal for a political neophyte like McLeod.
Stephen Harper has a lot of things working against him these days, and he can use all the good people he can get. Cathy McLeod is one of them.
(Blogger's note: Rona Ambrose was appointed Minister of State for the Status of Women after Guergis' ouster. Whether this is a permanent arrangement remains to be seen.)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
VanderZalm has Uphill Fight
(Aired on March 29, 2010)
If Bill VanderZalm is going to derail the Harmonized Sales Tax, I think he's going to have to do better than he did in Kamloops Saturday. If people were so upset about the tax, I would have thought people would have come from all over the Interior to participate in the rally. Nothing gets government thinking like large rallies to bring matters to the forefront.
No matter what the turnout, the big push will come starting this weekend, when the battle to find enough people to sign a petition gets underway. 10% of the registered voters in each riding must sign a petition to move it to the next level, which could be either a bill by a standing committee to eliminate the HST or a move for a vote which would be held in September, 2011. It's an uphill battle, but it will that battle which will determine just how much opposition there is to the tax.
To get 10% of voters in every single one of the 85 ridings in the province is a huge task. Organizers will have to make sure they have committed people on board. It's not just a matter of going around the neighbourhood to get names. You have to make sure every one of those signatories is eligible to be there. But if the opposition is truly there, we might find an interesting situation where the government has to face the people on the matter.
The tax is controversial because it will vastly increase the number of things we are taxed on. It's a cash grab of the highest magnitude, forced on us by the federal government who dangled the funding carrot over the B.C. government's head and pretty much pushed us into going along with it. It gives the federal government way too much power over the province, and sooner or later, Ottawa will begin to tell us how much to tax and when, and we will lose a vital part of our control provincially over how we tax our residents. That may be more important than the actual money we will have to fork out if the tax comes into effect.
If Bill VanderZalm is going to derail the Harmonized Sales Tax, I think he's going to have to do better than he did in Kamloops Saturday. If people were so upset about the tax, I would have thought people would have come from all over the Interior to participate in the rally. Nothing gets government thinking like large rallies to bring matters to the forefront.
No matter what the turnout, the big push will come starting this weekend, when the battle to find enough people to sign a petition gets underway. 10% of the registered voters in each riding must sign a petition to move it to the next level, which could be either a bill by a standing committee to eliminate the HST or a move for a vote which would be held in September, 2011. It's an uphill battle, but it will that battle which will determine just how much opposition there is to the tax.
To get 10% of voters in every single one of the 85 ridings in the province is a huge task. Organizers will have to make sure they have committed people on board. It's not just a matter of going around the neighbourhood to get names. You have to make sure every one of those signatories is eligible to be there. But if the opposition is truly there, we might find an interesting situation where the government has to face the people on the matter.
The tax is controversial because it will vastly increase the number of things we are taxed on. It's a cash grab of the highest magnitude, forced on us by the federal government who dangled the funding carrot over the B.C. government's head and pretty much pushed us into going along with it. It gives the federal government way too much power over the province, and sooner or later, Ottawa will begin to tell us how much to tax and when, and we will lose a vital part of our control provincially over how we tax our residents. That may be more important than the actual money we will have to fork out if the tax comes into effect.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Does Olson Deserve Old Age Benefits?
(Aired on March 26, 2010)
Senior citizens trying to make do on a fixed income, eking out their pennies so they can buy groceries, or paying most of their pensions to live in an assisted-living facility must be wondering whether or not they should go out and kill someone so they can be like convicted child-killer Clifford Olson. Olson is 70 now, and has been in jail for many years after being convicted of killing 11 people in the early 80's. For the last few years, he's been quietly getting Old Age Security and the Assisted Living Supplement.
And the public is furious. Even Prime Minister Harper says it's wrong. If, however, the government wants to change Olson's status, they'll have to change the law. I can't find anywhere where it says prisoners can't collect the pension, and because he doesn't make any money languishing in prison, he also qualifies for the supplement. So if it takes a legal change to make it so, make it so, Mr. Prime Minister.
It's a joke that Olson can sit in prison at our expense, getting good meals, watching TV that we're paying for, and getting free medical and dental service. I don't think you can argue they're living the life of Reilly in prison, but I'm betting it's a better life than many of our seniors are facing, living in some dank apartment because it's all they can afford, or having to pay everything they make to an assisted living facility so they can live in some sort of comfort. And then there are the families of many seniors who make places in their own homes so their parents can enjoy their retirement years. While that's noble, and I would have done it in a heartbeat for either of my sets of parents, it's still a challenge, with very little service in the way of respite and in-home care.
And yet here is Clifford Olson taking thousands of dollars every year on top of what we're paying to keep him in prison.
If the government doesn't want to change the law to stop Olson from getting the pension, then at least make him pay a hefty portion to live in prison, just the same as we do for people who pay to live in a seniors home. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Senior citizens trying to make do on a fixed income, eking out their pennies so they can buy groceries, or paying most of their pensions to live in an assisted-living facility must be wondering whether or not they should go out and kill someone so they can be like convicted child-killer Clifford Olson. Olson is 70 now, and has been in jail for many years after being convicted of killing 11 people in the early 80's. For the last few years, he's been quietly getting Old Age Security and the Assisted Living Supplement.
And the public is furious. Even Prime Minister Harper says it's wrong. If, however, the government wants to change Olson's status, they'll have to change the law. I can't find anywhere where it says prisoners can't collect the pension, and because he doesn't make any money languishing in prison, he also qualifies for the supplement. So if it takes a legal change to make it so, make it so, Mr. Prime Minister.
It's a joke that Olson can sit in prison at our expense, getting good meals, watching TV that we're paying for, and getting free medical and dental service. I don't think you can argue they're living the life of Reilly in prison, but I'm betting it's a better life than many of our seniors are facing, living in some dank apartment because it's all they can afford, or having to pay everything they make to an assisted living facility so they can live in some sort of comfort. And then there are the families of many seniors who make places in their own homes so their parents can enjoy their retirement years. While that's noble, and I would have done it in a heartbeat for either of my sets of parents, it's still a challenge, with very little service in the way of respite and in-home care.
And yet here is Clifford Olson taking thousands of dollars every year on top of what we're paying to keep him in prison.
If the government doesn't want to change the law to stop Olson from getting the pension, then at least make him pay a hefty portion to live in prison, just the same as we do for people who pay to live in a seniors home. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Monday, March 8, 2010
Rewriting 'O Canada'
(Aired on March 5, 2010)
There was a suggestion this week that it's time to change Canada's national anthem. Some apparently think we should change "in all our sons command" to make it more gender inclusive. It is high time we change the anthem - but not for this particular reason.
It needs to be updated for accuracy. Stand on guard for thee? Considering our vast unguarded north - is that really true? We need to revamp the whole thing - to better reflect what Canadians are really proud of.
Speaking of the north, let's start with geography and point out that we have coastlines on three oceans. That'll work. Then we can rhyme "oceans" with "Nova Scotians" - and maybe lotions, because when it gets cold, you need that stuff to keep your skin from cracking.
Hockey will have to play a prominent part in the new anthem. But the only thing that remotely rhymes with "Gretzky" is "sexy", and I'm not comfortable with that if Rita McNeil ever sings this anthem.
Inventions like insulin, hair tonic, and the game Pictionary all happened in Canada, so we should probably mention those. Canadians are known to drink a lot of beer, but we are also known to be very gracious, so at one point in the anthem we should probably apologize for drinking so much beer. As a nod to our multiculturalism, we should probably include a verse of "Frere Jacques" as well.
Another verse should be dedicated entirely to beavers.
For the title, Prime Minister Harper has requested we include the word "spangled."
You know what? This is getting entirely too long and convoluted. Why don't we just commission Leonard Cohen or Gordon Lightfoot to write us an anthem?
Or better yet - Celine Dion. Because what's more Canadian than celebrating someone only once they become accepted in the United States.
There was a suggestion this week that it's time to change Canada's national anthem. Some apparently think we should change "in all our sons command" to make it more gender inclusive. It is high time we change the anthem - but not for this particular reason.
It needs to be updated for accuracy. Stand on guard for thee? Considering our vast unguarded north - is that really true? We need to revamp the whole thing - to better reflect what Canadians are really proud of.
Speaking of the north, let's start with geography and point out that we have coastlines on three oceans. That'll work. Then we can rhyme "oceans" with "Nova Scotians" - and maybe lotions, because when it gets cold, you need that stuff to keep your skin from cracking.
Hockey will have to play a prominent part in the new anthem. But the only thing that remotely rhymes with "Gretzky" is "sexy", and I'm not comfortable with that if Rita McNeil ever sings this anthem.
Inventions like insulin, hair tonic, and the game Pictionary all happened in Canada, so we should probably mention those. Canadians are known to drink a lot of beer, but we are also known to be very gracious, so at one point in the anthem we should probably apologize for drinking so much beer. As a nod to our multiculturalism, we should probably include a verse of "Frere Jacques" as well.
Another verse should be dedicated entirely to beavers.
For the title, Prime Minister Harper has requested we include the word "spangled."
You know what? This is getting entirely too long and convoluted. Why don't we just commission Leonard Cohen or Gordon Lightfoot to write us an anthem?
Or better yet - Celine Dion. Because what's more Canadian than celebrating someone only once they become accepted in the United States.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Budgets Could Have Included More Vision
(Aired on March 4, 2010)
While specific items in the B.C. and federal budgets this week are of concern, of more concern to me is the long term impact that these budgets have. In the B.C. budget Tuesday, it's obvious the government has no faith in the immediate future of the resource industries in our province. Laying off a vast number of government employees in the resource sectors indicates to me that the government doesn't expect these industries to rebound very quickly, and there isn't much of a plan to try and stimulate things.
Of more concern than the lack of immediate funding for health and education is the lack of any indication of some sort of structure to revamp how we deal with both those major issues. We know that both systems are broken, but there's no indication of any strategic planning to figure out a better way.
Similarly with the federal budget today. While we are going to spend a limited amount of money in the last budget to deal with stimulus funding, of much greater concern is the move to loosen investment rules in key sectors like telecommunications, satellite and uranium industries. This could cause serious job loss if big American companies take over phone and mobile companies, or take over broadcast operations. Ultimately that could lead to control of much of our future growth in these areas in American hands. And we all know how problematic that control can be when we look at the power of American automakers.
I'm all for free trade, but when Americans can implement Buy American plans that hurt us, and yet we can be forced to ship our water to the U.S. with no concern over our own needs, that scares the hell out of me.
As I say, it's not the line by line items that worry me about budgets and throne speeches, it's where those long-range plans are leading us. And in some cases, they may be leading us down the proverbial garden path.
While specific items in the B.C. and federal budgets this week are of concern, of more concern to me is the long term impact that these budgets have. In the B.C. budget Tuesday, it's obvious the government has no faith in the immediate future of the resource industries in our province. Laying off a vast number of government employees in the resource sectors indicates to me that the government doesn't expect these industries to rebound very quickly, and there isn't much of a plan to try and stimulate things.
Of more concern than the lack of immediate funding for health and education is the lack of any indication of some sort of structure to revamp how we deal with both those major issues. We know that both systems are broken, but there's no indication of any strategic planning to figure out a better way.
Similarly with the federal budget today. While we are going to spend a limited amount of money in the last budget to deal with stimulus funding, of much greater concern is the move to loosen investment rules in key sectors like telecommunications, satellite and uranium industries. This could cause serious job loss if big American companies take over phone and mobile companies, or take over broadcast operations. Ultimately that could lead to control of much of our future growth in these areas in American hands. And we all know how problematic that control can be when we look at the power of American automakers.
I'm all for free trade, but when Americans can implement Buy American plans that hurt us, and yet we can be forced to ship our water to the U.S. with no concern over our own needs, that scares the hell out of me.
As I say, it's not the line by line items that worry me about budgets and throne speeches, it's where those long-range plans are leading us. And in some cases, they may be leading us down the proverbial garden path.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Penner Should Take Lead on ACC
(Aired January 21, 2010)
I think B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner should get off his duff and take the lead to solve the controversy that's brewing over the proposed gasification plant down on Mission Flats. The Environment Ministry has approved a permit for the plant, with, it would appear, very little assessment of the plant, its technology, and its potential. Kudos to MP Cathy McLeod, who has taken some initiative and done some research and found that the plant received funding from some "arms length" agency called Sustainable Development Technology Canada. She's checked into what legwork was done, and she's got some major concerns. She says an environmental assessment wasn't done because STDC is considered an "arms length" agency, and not a federal agency. I'm not sure why that should have made a difference before approval, but apparently it did. McLeod is taking up the matter with the federal minister, the ministry, and the agency.
Good for her. I'm calling on provincial Environment Minister Barry Penner to get on board too. He needs to call for some public hearings, an environmental assessment, and some full blown investigation into the technology before the plant can proceed any further. The fact that the City expressed opposition should have triggered that right off the bat, but the government, in my view, dropped the ball. They should pick it up. What harm can it do? Let's be transparent about this issue, and do it right. If the proposal stands up, let it go ahead. If not, well, the time to stop it is before it causes any problems. McLeod is concerned about the stacking of the ties, the proximity to the river, as well as the technology itself. I agree there are concerns. Can those ties leach into the river? Has that been looked at? If Domtar doesn't buy some of the energy, who else could be a customer? There are still many questions to answer. We need some answers now.
I think B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner should get off his duff and take the lead to solve the controversy that's brewing over the proposed gasification plant down on Mission Flats. The Environment Ministry has approved a permit for the plant, with, it would appear, very little assessment of the plant, its technology, and its potential. Kudos to MP Cathy McLeod, who has taken some initiative and done some research and found that the plant received funding from some "arms length" agency called Sustainable Development Technology Canada. She's checked into what legwork was done, and she's got some major concerns. She says an environmental assessment wasn't done because STDC is considered an "arms length" agency, and not a federal agency. I'm not sure why that should have made a difference before approval, but apparently it did. McLeod is taking up the matter with the federal minister, the ministry, and the agency.
Good for her. I'm calling on provincial Environment Minister Barry Penner to get on board too. He needs to call for some public hearings, an environmental assessment, and some full blown investigation into the technology before the plant can proceed any further. The fact that the City expressed opposition should have triggered that right off the bat, but the government, in my view, dropped the ball. They should pick it up. What harm can it do? Let's be transparent about this issue, and do it right. If the proposal stands up, let it go ahead. If not, well, the time to stop it is before it causes any problems. McLeod is concerned about the stacking of the ties, the proximity to the river, as well as the technology itself. I agree there are concerns. Can those ties leach into the river? Has that been looked at? If Domtar doesn't buy some of the energy, who else could be a customer? There are still many questions to answer. We need some answers now.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Government Strikes Again
(Aired January 7, 2010)
I guess one should never be surprised at the stupidity of the government. At a time when our military needs to be at its strongest, when it's obvious by Christmas Day activities in the skies that terrorism threats are far from over, it's absolutely outrageous that the Harper government is going to cut military spending by almost 200 million dollars this year. The navy, such as it is, will cut training for its reserve forces this month and reduce infrastructure maintenance and repairs, the air force will scale back non-operational training, cut some flying time, and limit non-essential repairs. The army will trim training and reduce the number of reserve soldiers full time. I appreciate that the government is trying to reduce our deficit, but military spending is not in a position to be cut. Let's just take one small example. Well, a not-so-small example. We have declining ice flows in the Arctic. In fact, the polar ice is almost non-existent. It's turned more to big chunks of what they call "rotten" ice, soft crumbly ice that will allow ships to pass through the ice cap almost at will in years to come. Canada is having a huge problem laying claim to that territory. It will require more and more military strength in that area to protect our sovereignty. We are totally unprepared to do it. We don't have the forces. And now we're talking about cutting 200 million dollars from military spending. Has Stephen Harper lost his mind completely? What kind of government are we running here? We're one of the largest countries in the world and one of the smallest militaries. There are third-world countries that have bigger militaries than we do. If we wish to give up any defence of our country, or abrogate our responsibilities to the world at large, we are certainly going about it the right way.
I guess one should never be surprised at the stupidity of the government. At a time when our military needs to be at its strongest, when it's obvious by Christmas Day activities in the skies that terrorism threats are far from over, it's absolutely outrageous that the Harper government is going to cut military spending by almost 200 million dollars this year. The navy, such as it is, will cut training for its reserve forces this month and reduce infrastructure maintenance and repairs, the air force will scale back non-operational training, cut some flying time, and limit non-essential repairs. The army will trim training and reduce the number of reserve soldiers full time. I appreciate that the government is trying to reduce our deficit, but military spending is not in a position to be cut. Let's just take one small example. Well, a not-so-small example. We have declining ice flows in the Arctic. In fact, the polar ice is almost non-existent. It's turned more to big chunks of what they call "rotten" ice, soft crumbly ice that will allow ships to pass through the ice cap almost at will in years to come. Canada is having a huge problem laying claim to that territory. It will require more and more military strength in that area to protect our sovereignty. We are totally unprepared to do it. We don't have the forces. And now we're talking about cutting 200 million dollars from military spending. Has Stephen Harper lost his mind completely? What kind of government are we running here? We're one of the largest countries in the world and one of the smallest militaries. There are third-world countries that have bigger militaries than we do. If we wish to give up any defence of our country, or abrogate our responsibilities to the world at large, we are certainly going about it the right way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
