Canadian Message to China: Suck my Wang!

I am going to deliver the message China deserves, but our government could not dare say aloud. China, suck my icy Canadian wang.

So, why am I being so rudimentary? Well, apparently China feels that they can somehow direct Canadians on what is and is not allowed to occur on Canadian soil.

The Chinese Embassy in Ottawa issued a strongly worded statement last night denouncing a travelling cultural performance that features the simulated killing of a Falun Gong supporter by Chinese police.

The statement warned that China was opposed to officials from any country participating in the event -- an apparent reference to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who wrote a greeting letter published in the program for the show that was billed as a celebration of the Chinese New Year.

The show was hosted by New Tang Dynasty Television, a U.S.-based network sympathetic to the Falun Gong movement and Epoch Times, a newspaper that mixes news stories with passionate anti-Communist commentary.

In a written statement, the Chinese Embassy called New Tang Dynasty TV a "propaganda machine" for Falun Gong and said the performance was intended to "spread rumours, sabotage China's relations with relevant countries and to engage in anti-China activities."

"That's why China is against the participation in the 'New Year Spectacular' by the officials of any country in any form," the statement said.

...In his greeting letter, Mr. Harper commends NTDTV for bringing the show to Canada and extends best wishes for the event on behalf of the government. The program also features similar greetings sent by Environment Minister John Baird, Governor General Michaelle Jean, and Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien.

...The Citizen and the CTV television network were among corporate sponsors of the show. Citizen publisher James Orban said he had heard no complaints about the performance, but said he would be concerned if anyone was confronted by something that made them feel uncomfortable.

So here is my message to our government: despite it's so-called diplomatic "urging", China has no right or business dictating what can or cannot occur on Canadian soil. Our country believes in the freedom of speech, and with the exception of the Liberal ranks that have vested private business interests with China - no one here cares what China thinks.

If the Chinese embassy had any sense or understanding of how the free media operates, they would understand that by objecting publicly to this they have brought attention to it. People would not pay attention to the depiction of Falun Gong oppression, or further care about the so-called 'cult' if China didn't make such a big deal out of it in the first place.

So congratulations you ass backwards communist pigs, now we are watching. But don't think for a second we are going to bend over backwards because you demand it.

In my opinion there is no reason to apologize or otherwise back peddle on this issue. China has crossed a line here, and I for one am not happy about it.

Defend Canada

Fear Campaign Begins on Tory Move to end Federal Meddling

As with any initiative brought forward by Conservatives for enacting positive democratic reform - the left-wing is bent on making this particular change scary for the average Canadian.

With work on redefining the Federal/Provincial relationship in only preliminary stages, the Globe and Mail's Brian Laghi is already trying to throw a monkey wrench in the gears of change.

As typical with the various socialist elements of the national MSM, Mr. Laghi is trying to make news rather than report it. That said, I am going to provide a rebuttal to this nonsense fear campaign.

Mr. Laghi writes:

Stephen Harper's election promise to woo Quebec by reducing Ottawa's role in shaping provincial programs is running into stiff resistance from other governments that say they don't want Mr. Harper to tie the hands of his successors.

The Harper plan, which sources say the government has been hoping to introduce this spring, aims to fulfill a pledge to give the provinces more control over federal funds by reducing conditions on Ottawa's transfers. The government has begun preliminary discussions with provinces about the notion.

Mr. Laghi tries to make it seem as if this is a Quebec appeasement strategy, rather than a strategy for continued prosperity of the country. While it is true that Quebec soveriegntists rely on "Federal oppression" to maintain their platform of discontent, Western provinces have long maintained similar disdain for Federal meddling.

So Mr. Laghi tries to make it appear as if there is significant fear in the west of reduction of the Federal bureaucracy.

However, a number of those provinces are expressing concern about the idea, particularly if it is introduced into law -- one of the possibilities the government is considering. Saskatchewan does not think that we should be balkanizing the country," said Dylan Jones, executive director of Canadian intergovernmental relations for the Saskatchewan government. We see the federal government as more than just a financial routing organization."

My first question is - Dylan who?

The promise to curtail federal spending power was a key element of a crucial speech Mr. Harper made during the last election in Quebec, which is credited with helping the Conservatives win 10 seats in the province. A curtailment of the federal role would be a feather in the cap of Premier Jean Charest, who is likely heading for an election.

Again, Quebec is not the only province where seats were won on the idea of reduced Federal bureaucracy and meddling in Provincial Jurisdiction. B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are all provinces that provided the base required for the rise of the Reform party in Canada.

The new Conservative party, while a merger of the new 'right' and the old 'right', is still dominated by the ideals of democratic reform and adaptation of the Canadian structure of government to suit our Country's changing needs. Our current structure of government is one that no longer successfully meets the regional needs of this vast country we call Canada.

The combined population of B.C. and Alberta has now met the population of Quebec, and before long will exceed it in numbers. This country can no longer be governed autonomously from Ottawa if it is expected to remain a unified country. While Mr. Laghi would like you to believe this is all about Quebec, it is not. This is about Canada.

Quebec and Alberta are seen as the two provinces with the strongest demands for reduced federal involvement in provincial programs. Both provinces, for example, were concerned about the previous Liberal government when it introduced a new daycare funding scheme, which has since been dismantled by the Tories. Social services such as daycare are areas of provincial control and the provinces were concerned that Ottawa was dictating the rules of how the money should be spent.

And of course there should not be gray area when it comes to Federal/Provincial jurisdiction. So why is this scary? Well, because the extent of what is in and what is out of Federal jurisdiction in a the new scenario has not yet been defined.

But talks have barely started and provincial officials say Ottawa has not set the groundwork yet for negotiation. The same source said that the federal government would probably continue to insist on Ottawa continuing to play roles in medicare, infrastructure development and post secondary training.

An Ontario official said yesterday that although the province might not oppose the federal government curbing its role voluntarily, it probably wouldn't approve of a law codifying the idea because it would tie the hands of future governments.

My guess is this mysterious 'Ontario official' is a Liberal, and adamantly apposed to any scenario that would restrict powers of 'future' Liberal governments. Yet so many times have I heard on Toronto talk radio statements such as "Ottawa hates Toronto". Wouldn't a clearly defined perimeter on federal accountability for funding and legislation help remove the myth or perception that the federal government favours one part of the country over the other?

The very goal of restricting federal oversight takes away the petty arguments used by the Left to drum up support; the left depends on fear and division to remain in power. But as time has shown, that strategy is no longer effective. Change is required to maintain a unified country, a country with a bright future in the 21st century.

"For most provinces, there isn't anything in this for them," the official said. Typically, smaller provinces have rarely supported restrictions on federal spending power because it has traditionally been used to increase spending in areas for which provincial governments are responsible. Reducing Ottawa's role in these areas might leave richer provinces, such as Ontario and Alberta, with the resources to start new programs, while the poorer ones would be curtailed in their ability to do so.

Isn't it clever of Mr. Laghi to try and blend the issue of reduced federal meddling with transfer payments? (Not) This is a weak attempt to create fear and loathing, by telling the people that this would somehow disaffect smaller provinces. I am quite sure that this plan does not remove transfers - for if it did, it would be political suicide.

And now, the crowning argument of the left wing against reforming the Federal/Provincial relationship:

Finally, federal Liberals believe that Mr. Harper would hand them a ready-made election issue if he followed through with his plan. They argue, for example, that a reduced federal role would allow the Liberals to argue that programs such as medicare would never have seen the light of day under a Conservative administration. Moreover, future programs, such as a national pharmacare scheme, will never get off the ground under the Tories.

The Conservatives want to put issues in the hands of the provincial governments. Provincial governments are in the regional trenches fighting regional battles, and are equally accountable to their respective populations. If the provinces were given more room on Health Care for example, what is stopping Ontario from implementing it's health care plan in the way the Ontario voter feels best - yet entirely independent from how, let's say, Alberta chooses to implement health care.

This is the ultimate argument in the socialist agenda, because they want the voter to believe that if one province can do something differently, that public Health Care will somehow be lost for everyone. The very idea is preposterous, as each province would have the very same rights to self definition. Why can regions not decide for themselves? Why must the Federal bureaucracy have control over all matters?

If you ask me, this type of change will enable the Federal government to focus on items that are Federal matters - such as protecting our sovereignty in the Arctic, paying down our Federal debt and building a better CPP. But the left wants you to fear change, because this change reduces power of future left-wing governments to turn Canada into a socialist nation.

An Ontario official said yesterday that although the province might not oppose the federal government curbing its role voluntarily, it probably wouldn't approve of a law codifying the idea because it would tie the hands of future governments.

Defend Canada

...and the Separatist Plot Thickens

I want to know if the Quebecois actually believe the claims made by the Party Quebecois and the Bloq Quebecois.

Globe and Mail: BLOC, PQ Plot Strategy

-- Quebec independence was once touted as a way to safeguard its people's culture and upgrade their economy. Now, in a 21st century twist, Parti Québécois Leader André Boisclair says sovereignty will help Quebec attain its Kyoto targets

Quebec is in a better position then other parts of Canada since it produces per capita half of the Canadian average in greenhouse emissions, thanks to its vast hydro-electrical resources.

Environment Minister Claude Béchard told environmental groups that Quebec is expected to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 10 megatonnes by 2012, four megatonnes short of its target.

I am sorry. First of all, are those Quebec's hydro-electric resources, Canada's hydro-electric resources or the First Nation's hydro-electric resources?

"In a sovereign Quebec, we wouldn't have this debate over fiscal imbalance, the Kyoto protocol would be today implemented and I feel that Quebec today would be much better off if we had achieved sovereignty," Mr. Boisclair said yesterday.

Do the Quebecois actually buy into this idea that if Quebec were sovereign it would leave with Federal dollars, and Canadian infrastructure free and clear of debt?

The sovereigntists make continual statements that are completely naive of the consequences of sovereignty. Canadians will not write the Bloc and PQ a blank cheque and happily allow these malcontents to walk out of the country without paying for those things that Canadians from coast-to-coast have paid into.

Quebec as a independent nation state might be positioned well for meeting Kyoto today, but have they considered what Quebec's national debt will be when the "divorce" is over and the dust settles? You can be sure that Quebec as an independent nation would be responsible for paying the remaining nation of Canada for all of those pieces of infrastructure that Federal tax dollars contributed to.

Let's not forget, that some of those resources located on native contested lands could be potentially be disputed by the First Nations in the event of the break-up of the country, and to what result? Do Quebeckers evaluate these peripheral factors when claims are made by these separatist fools?

In my estimation separation will be disastrous to Quebec. Much like the fall of Soviet Union, there will be much pain before there is ever improvement for a sovereign Quebec. There will be no more Canadian transfer payments. Huge amounts of debt will be incurred by the Quebec taxpayer in transferring ownership of key national resources, and at least initially, foreign investment will decrease and potentially be lost.

And let's not forget that Canadians can be petty creatures. What of the fate of companies like Air Canada, Bank of Montreal and Bombardier? Is it possible that these companies become doomed to failure through Canadian boycott and protective Canadian national legislation?

Considering these factors, how will Quebec sustain it's long-term Kyoto commitments when every extra tax dollar is used to augment the disaffected Quebecois economy and service the massive Quebecois debt?

Defend a united Canada

Elections Will be Won in the New Media

Credit to the Phantom Observer for picking up on this story.

Consider it the Renaissance period for news media. Consider it the power that was foretold of the Internet decades ago, but now realized.

Freedom of speech, freedom of information - the power to broadcast a message instantly to the world, raw, uncensored.

This power, this period is referred to in media circles as "New Media", and it holds the power to bypass conventional news outlets. I had a discussion with a broadcaster from the CBC, when I was on holiday in Cuba, on this very topic.

According to MacLean's magazine, Elections will be fought and won in the new media; Paul Wells writes:

Politics is coming to terms with the new rules, too. With the rise of blogging and video-sharing services like YouTube, it's harder to shut citizens out of a conversation. In the new world, no fact is necessarily obscure, because if a blogger stumbles across it, he can put it before a larger audience. No reporter's decision that "this isn't a story" is necessarily final. If no newspaper wants to cover an opposition MP's claims of government wrongdoing, he can simply talk into a webcam, post it to YouTube, and email the link to 500 people.

Perhaps most important, the marginal cost of political discourse is zero: you no longer need a TV studio, an editing suite and an ad budget to have your say. The debate over whether Quebec should be recognized as a "nation" began, in earnest, five weeks before December's Liberal leadership convention. A Vancouver university student, Braeden Caley, produced a short video reminding everyone of Pierre Trudeau's opposition to Quebec nationalism and posted it on YouTube. By the time they got to the convention, hundreds of delegates had seen Caley's video. Producing it didn't cost him a dime.

And this is true. It cost me only 20 minutes of time and my Internet connection to read this story, and pass the highlights on to you. This power is truly infinite - and is being used by politicians where conventional news media has a proven alternate agenda.

Politicians are still figuring out how to operate in a world where traditional news organizations have lost their monopoly. Stephen Harper thinks about this all the time. That's why his office leaks information to selected bloggers, and why I'm told the clipping service in the Prime Minister's Office provides Harper's staff with daily transcripts of seven talk-radio shows from coast to coast -- but nothing from the Globe and Mail.

During the 2004 election, Harper asked his staff why he needed to haul a planeload of reporters around with him. By now he will have figured out an answer: an airplane is a handy place to pen up malcontents. The real campaign will be elsewhere. Harper will feed the press pack an event in the morning and another after lunch, then vanish for hours at a time to shoot Web ads; give interviews to local, ethnic and online publications; approve direct-mail appeals to carefully identified elements of the Conservative voter base; and otherwise talk right past us to you, or some of you. The changing media landscape opens up both danger and opportunity for politicians. But the biggest danger would lie in ignoring what's going on.

I for one am quite aware of the Conservative Government's attention to the blogging world. The Prime Minister's Privy Council Office frequently scours the posts of the Blogging Tories, and has visited my blog many times. Are they looking to find out what the grass roots is thinking? Are they shopping for channels to feed their message unsullied?

That I do not know. But what I do know, is that my message is heard not only by Conservatives, but by all parties. If I send an e-mail to my MP it will be answered by an assistant; however, when I post a message on my blog it is usually read several times by individuals on the House of Commons network. Are MPs reading my articles? Perhaps.

I can be sure that some MP's are reading, thinking about, and discussing those messages. Through blogging, I actually have a chance to be heard - instead of just being replied to by "MP Assistant 6".

Parliamentarians are paying close attention, and they are using blogger's messages to form their own opinions and make decisions on direction. This is incredibly empowering, and is certainly what motivates me to keep writing.

Defend Canada

Layton Talks the Talk, but can he Walk the Walk?

I am going to preface my comments by stating that of all the opposition leaders Jack Layton bothers me the least. This, however, is not going to be a five-star review of Jack's latest stance on the environment file.

Mr. Layton has been coined Taliban Jack for his stance on Afghanistan, he is an avid supported of SSM - and let's face it, he's the closest thing to being a communist without actually being one.

That being said - I would concede that he is principled. In my opinion I believe he sticks to what he believes, despite the fact that it puts his party in a position that they will never run so much as a minority government in this country.

On the environment file, the Globe and Mail reports that Layton draws a line in the sand on climate, the basis of the story is that Jack is somehow going to use his party's position in the new balance of power, to ensure something is done on the environment.

Jack Layton says he has told Environment Minister John Baird that the Conservatives must have a rapid conversion in their thoughts on climate change and take concrete action before the next federal budget.

We believe that very tough action needs to happen [on climate change] and needs to happen very fast. Before any budget, it should come back to the House for a vote,"

Of course this is intended to cast Jack as some sort of an Environment crusader, but the reality is that as of Oct 30, 2006 the Conservative government agreed to submit the Clean Air Act to committee so that it could be revamped into workable legislation.

Since that time Jack has been trying to paint himself as this crusader against "all odds". For example, the very next day after the announcement of a Clean Air Act Parliamentary Committee he was on the soapbox trying to make it seem as if the Conservatives weren't really interested in cooperation.

In November, Jack presented his recommended revisions to the Clean Air Act. Instead of reality, Jack gave us rhetoric:

"We think it needed to be completely rewritten and if I can borrow a football analogy today, the Conservatives really fumbled the ball here on the whole issue of air pollution and climate change" ... Layton said the NDP-proposed amendments include the following:

• To rename the act the Healthy Air and Climate Act, indicating that Kyoto Protocol targets, which were absent from the original bill, would become a key priority of the revised act;
• To set targets that Canada must meet, such as the Kyoto Protocol 2008 to 2012 targets, an 80 per cent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels, by 2050;
• To set interim targets at five year intervals between 2015 and 2050;
• To give new authority to the environment minister that would allow him or her to designate significant areas under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act;
• And a "just-transition fund" to help the automobile move from voluntary to mandatory targets.

I cast these suggestions down as rhetoric for a few reasons:

Here is some post-revision analysis done by fellow Blogging Tory, Kitchener Conservative. KC writes;

In doing some research I found that Canada Carbon Inventory in 1990 was 393,758 kilotons of gross output. Reducing that by 80% would mean that Canada's gross output would be 78,752 kilotons. This represents a significant reduction in GHG output for Canada.

I wonder what time in history the the proposed level represents. 1950, 1900, 1850? Our population is significantly larger than it has been in those time periods, currently around 32.7 million and it's increasing. What's is going to be by 2050? 45-50 million maybe more.

It looks like the only way to reach Layton's 80% reduction is for Canadians to move to a Mennonite lifestyle. No Cars, No electricity. We'll still need wood stoves to keep warm after all, we do live in a cold climate.

And then there is this tidbit that ran as part of a story on ex-environment minister Rona Ambrose:

Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute said the Kyoto goal can be achieved through the purchase of international emissions credits, which he acknowledged could cost $10 billion by 2012. Take the Defend Canada Poll! Is this worth it?

And then in today's story (re: Jack drawing a line in the sand), Jack tells us:

"I wanted to urge Mr. Baird to be ready to take some dramatic action. His government has got to have a sea change in the way they approach this issue of climate change," he told reporters. "We want to see very tough and strong action on the biggest polluters. . . . I spoke to him about how we've got to stop subsidizing big oil and gas companies with tax dollars and start putting money into solutions."

So what is comes down to is reality. I am willing to give Jack a chance - a chance to get REAL, and to pen something that is actually workable, not something that is pie-in-the-sky. I want to know if Jack can "walk the walk".

What we are faced with here is the reality that Kyoto is only something we can meet if we send $10B abroad, in lieu of actually reducing our own emissions. If we send that money overseas just to meet Kyoto, where will the money come from to actually illicit change? (Pulling out of Afghanistan is not an option).

On the Oil patch, tax breaks do not equal subsidization. We are faced with the continuing reality that the Oil and Gas companies are major contributors to our GDP, and that we must strike a balance between emission reduction and harming the continued growth and development of our natural resources, namely the oil sands. That being said, perhaps the Conservatives need to consider, dare I say, Dion's plan to reward companies who reduce water consumption and CO2 output.

An interesting point to consider, The Pembina Institute estimates the industry reaps $1.4-billion or more in federal tax goodies every year. You might think oil prices above $60 (U.S.) a barrel would be enough incentive to dig the goo out of the ground, but the oil industry thinks otherwise.

Let's not forget that Western provinces now have a combined population equivalent to Quebec, and the lowest unemployment rates in the country. (There is a lot of Oil and Gas employment tax dollars feeding this country's prosperity).

[Jack] wants the improved version [of the Clean Air Act] to come back to the House of Commons incorporating strategies that are more satisfactory to the NDP "before the end of February so it can be voted on without the cloud of election speculation and budgets and so on hanging over the Parliament."

So all that being said, I think that real solutions are somewhere in the middle - somewhere between Kyoto and the Oil patch. I want to know if Mr. Layton can Walk the Walk?

If he wants change, he is going to have to negotiate for it - not draw a line in the sand, and then cross his arms and pout if he doesn't get everything his way. Wars are won one battle at a time. Does Jack Layton actually have a long term vision that will allow him to partner with the Conservatives on the environment file for an incremental victory?

[Jack] took some pains to distance himself from Mr. Harper and the Conservatives -- a relationship that could cost him votes among his own long-time supporters if the two leaders appear to be growing too cozy. "We are the only party that has voted against the Conservatives on every confidence motion that's come forward so far," Mr. Layton said.

"What we will do is try to craft a piece of legislation on climate change that's strong and reflects the urgency of the situation, that addresses auto emissions, big-polluter emissions, subsidies to oil and gas, and starts to get us moving on solutions."

Well, let's just say the indicators aren't good, but I am not writing him off completely, not just yet.

Defend Canada

Is sending $10 Billion Overseas for Kyoto Worth it?

Kyoto has become a religion for many left wingers, despite the reality that it will be very difficult to meet given the inaction of the previous Liberal governments.

Yes, the Liberals will tell you about their "best intentions", but none of that came to fruition, did it?

Meanwhile, we are being told that we can still meet Kyoto:

Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute said the Kyoto goal can be achieved through the purchase of international emissions credits, which he acknowledged could cost $10 billion by 2012.

"Canadians constantly sends billions of dollars abroad in exchange for goods and services,'' he said. "Why not for environmental benefits?''

"It needs to be clearly understood that reducing greenhouse gas emissions in India, Kenya or Chile has precisely the same benefits in preventing climate change in Canada as reducing emissions here.''

In my opinion the difference is that by sending money abroad we are only avoiding the problem, not taking measures to address the environment here, in Canada.

What do you think? Have your say in Defend Canada's new poll on Kyoto (found in the right sidebar).

Keep Canadian Dollars in Canada.

Defend Canada

Military Procurement Under Fire?

Daniel LeBlanc of the Globe and Mail reports to us today that Military Procurement practices are bypassing the traditional 'civilian' purchasing process.

The problem is that Daniel is not giving us the whole story. Daniel's source, an ex-procurement bureaucrat with DND, sites broken traditions; consequences of this recent change are massive: Canadians stand to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in extra costs in coming military purchases, with no guarantee of obtaining the best product.

What LeBlanc fails to mention in his attempt to hold the Military to account, is that tradition has meant that an inflated civilian purchasing bureaucracy effected "so called" cost saving measures, which ACTUALLY resulted in wasted tax payer dollars and a set back the effectiveness of our military.

But how can that be? Before I site specific examples of this "tradition" of purchasing incompetence, allow me to share a few tidbits of wisdom from LeBlanc's source.

Alan Williams, the retired assistant deputy minister for procurement... is sounding the alarm as the government is buying $13-billion in aircraft through processes that a number of critics said are uncompetitive, with only one company in the running for each purchase.

"These de facto sole-sourced contracts show there is something wrong in the overall procurement system," Mr. Williams said.

Mr. Williams offered an anecdote to explain what is wrong with the situation, in which the military is trying to direct purchases in favour of hand-picked products:

When General Rick Hillier became Chief of the Defence Staff in February, 2005, he and Mr. Williams had a meeting during which Gen. Hillier laid out his desire for a specific helicopter built by Boeing. "He told me, 'Alan, we need Chinooks,' " Mr. Williams said. "I said, 'Rick, your job is to define the requirements, and my job is to work the system and find the optimum solution to meet your needs."

Translation of Mr. Williams comments: I was here first (employee for life) .What business is it of the new Chief Commander of our military forces to determine what type of complicated military hardware is necessary for our forces to succeed? I am a bureaucrat, and my purpose is to make work.

And now, here are some examples of how this "purchasing tradition" under previous Liberal governments has failed Canadians.

Do you remember the Sea King Helicopter? Here are some details you may not be aware of:

The Royal Canadian Navy was authorized to purchase 41 Sea King models in 1963, designating them CH-124. The helicopters at that time were state of the art and served well, being well liked by crews.

As the Sea Kings' air frames, engines and avionics systems aged over their years of service in the RCN, and later AIRCOM, they became increasingly unreliable and harder to maintain. Twelve have crashed, killing ten personnel. Each Sea King now requires over 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying time, a figure described by the Canadian Naval Officers Association as 'grossly disproportionate.

Efforts by AIRCOM to find a replacement for the helicopters have been hampered by political considerations. In 1987, the Progressive Conservative government announced the purchase of 48 EH-101 helicopters to replace both the CH-124 Sea King and CH-113 Labrador fleets at a cost of $4.4 billion (CAD). Two variants of the EH-101 were being considered, with 33 CH-148 Petrel ship-borne anti-submarine models and 15 CH-149 Chimo variants for maritime and Arctic search and rescue. In 1992, ... the government announced that the actual order was being reduced to 28 Petrels and 15 Chimos.

However, following a change of government in October 1993, the incoming Liberal Party ordered AIRCOM to immediately cancel the entire order, forcing the payment of cancellation fees of $500 million (CAD). When it subsequently became clear that new helicopters were still desperately needed to replace AIRCOM's CH-124 Sea King fleet, the Liberal government began a tortured procurement process that critics have accused of being deliberately tailored to prevent the EH-101 from being chosen as a candidate. The Liberal leader, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien had disparagingly referred to the EH-101 as a 'Cadillac' during a time of government restraint and deficit fighting.

It was only after Chrétien's retirement in December 2003 that the competition was finally re-opened. In July 2004, it was announced that the Sea Kings will be replaced by the new Sikorsky H-92, carrying a General Dynamics mission package, with the first of 28 models designated the CH-148 Cyclone scheduled for delivery in 2008.

And there is the result. Helicopters deemed needed in 1987 were cancelled at a cost of $500 million, were then re-prescribed by a civilian bureaucracy - and now won't be delivered until 2008 - all to fulfill that traditional Canadian compulsion to save a buck?

And what about that debacle over used submarines?

In April, 1998 [under the Chretien Liberals], Canada decided to buy four used Upholder class submarines from Britain. The diesel-powered subs ... cost $750 million. The Upholders were built by Britain in the 1980s. When the Cold War ended, Britain decided to keep only its nuclear submarines.

But, hey! Britain's garbage is our Navy right? Perhaps - that is - if they worked.

In 2002, Canada accepted the four Upholders as replacements for their old Oberon-class submarines. Although the Canadian [Liberal] government touted the procurement as a bargain, there have been arguments over the quality of the submarines with some suggestions that the purchase price of £244m will be at least spent again putting things right.

Canadian opposition parties are demanding that the British government fund any further costs, since it is widely believed that the submarines deteriorated ... However it cost the Royal Navy £900m to build the submarines and even if there are some minor problems Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, argues that "there is not something inherently wrong with the class of submarines."

Nothing inherently wrong, except for : On October 5 2004 HMCS Chicoutimi ... declared an emergency north-west of Ireland following a fire onboard. The fire was caused by seawater ingress through open hatches in rough seas. It soaked electrical insulation which had not been sufficiently waterproofed ... The submarine lost power and was rescued by [British] Royal Navy frigates HMS Montrose and HMS Marlborough ... On October 6. Lt(N) Chris Saunders died subsequently from the effects of smoke inhalation.

If you ask me, I think the "traditional" (read Liberal) method of procurement is better off left behind. I think our Top Brass is more than qualified to select the best equipment for the job. By all means, purchasing agents should still be used for stock; paper, pens, computers and other daily supply needs - BUT COME ON!

This is complicated military equipment that must pass the tests of the personnel whose lives will be depending on this equipment. I will not support cheaping out on our military just to say we saved $100 Million up front. The fact is that there are ancillary costs to buying poor equipment in the name of saving a buck, and those costs are rarely front and center in the media.

Defend Canada

Globe and Mail Straps on Helmet for War on Conservatives

Globe and Mail Pro-Liberal Spin part 18,923,123.

It is so friggin exhausting writing articles that demonstrate how blatant the G&M is when it comes to playing bum darts with the Liberal Party. Will it ever stop?

The G&M has been so deeply penetrated into the hind-side of the Liberal party, I don't think they could be successfully retrieved without a very large pair of forceps.

And here is the evidence for this continually unnatural relationship:

Today's G&M articles (for your convenience, translated in italics):

Critics blast Harper over waiting times
Critics say a new set of priorities established by the federal Conservatives suggest the government has abandoned a pledge to force provinces to pay for medical treatment outside their jurisdictions if it is not available locally within a reasonable amount of time.

G&M Message: The conservatives are breaking a promise!! (Despite the fact they kept many, many others, we think this will break down the Conservative credibility - similar to what happened to our Liberal Lover in the last election)

Khan's Mideast report to remain under wraps despite initial promise
The Conservative government will not release the report on the Middle East penned by Liberal defector Wajid Khan, who had promised that his work would be made available to all political parties.

G&M Message: Khan destroyed the "all-inclusive" image of the Liberals, so we want to destroy his reputation (and through collateral damage, the conservatives) by telling you that another promise was broken. Hahahahahahahahhahaha. We'll get you Mr. Harper, and your little dog too! Hahahahahahahhaaha.

Former minister takes leave of absence from caucus
A Nova Scotia cabinet minister who quit his post after being accused by witnesses of leaving the scene of an accident is now taking a leave of absence from the Conservative caucus.

G&M Message: Hmmm... We smell conspiracy. HELLO. The conservatives are dirty hypocrites because one of their MPs made an life changing mistake. It must reflect on the conservatives badly, somehow, so we're going to print it! (But we won't put any effort into actually putting any substance into it.)

Prince Albert MP to retire after current term
The Conservative MP for the riding of Prince Albert says he will retire from politics after his current term. Brian Fitzpatrick, 61, says with a spring federal election possible, he wants to give the community time to find a new candidate. The Nipawin lawyer was first elected in 2000.

G&M Message: Hmmm... Well, it's not a s good as Khan, but HERE is a conservative MP leaving his post before death, so he must be unhappy with the Conservatives. (and again we are such weak journalists, we're going to sum this one up in a paragraph).

Kinsella settles one lawsuit
Former Liberal staffer Warren Kinsella settled one of the lawsuits yesterday stemming from his 2005 attacks against supporters of former prime minister Paul Martin, expressing regret for any harm caused to former Liberal official Terrie O'Leary.

G&M Message: The Liberals haven't done anything useful since Dion was put in place, but...well, Warren Kinsella has less lawsuits against him now. (He bought his way out of it, and he has launched a new one of his own against his own party, but he still has LESS against him.)

Welcoming Khan makes a mockery of democracy
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made the ''democratic deficit'' one of his signature issues. His government got Parliament to accept something called the Accountability Act. So democracy and accountability are self-described Conservative touchstones. In welcoming former Liberal MP Wajid Khan into Conservative ranks, Mr. Harper's party mocked both democracy and accountability.

G&M Message: Harper is Hypocrite, despite the free will of the MP who made the decision to cross of his own will. We want to divert your attention from the value lost with Khan's departure from the Liberal party, and further, want to make you forget that Mr. Harper extended an olive branch to the Liberals by assigning Khan to the Conservative cabinet while Khan was still a Liberal MP. (Oh yes, and we want you to forget that whole "mutt" thing, when Belinda Stronach" crossed to the Liberals and was deemed a hero).

Baird is tough, but meeting his deadlines is next to impossible
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May will tell you she feels sorry for Rona Ambrose, that the environment minister melted in her own hot air not because she was incompetent, ill-equipped for the job or young and naive, but because the green-less Stephen Harper could have cared less whether she got the job done. ''Ambrose got a bad break, frankly. She was doing what the boss instructed,'' Ms. May said on CTV the other day.

G&M Message: Elizabeth May feels bad for Rona Ambrose because she is Stephen Harper in a skirt (despite the fact Elizabeth may LOOKS more like Stephen Harper in a skirt [ewww...EWWWW!]), and oh ya, Baird may be tougher on fixing the Environment than is really possible. Hmmm. Maybe this one defies explanation.

'It's a wakeup call,' Baird says
With much of storm-ravaged Stanley Park lying in ruins behind him and his snow boots sitting unused at home in balmy Ottawa, Canada's newly appointed Environment Minister John Baird said the extreme weather across the country has gotten his government's attention.

G&M Message: Baird is new to the environment portfolio, so new in fact, he has just become aware of climate change. (the Conservatives suck... na na na boo boo)

Defend Canada

Globe and Mail in 2007: Year of the Nitwit

The G&M has posted a mysterious article (without credit to any author) that tries to make Mr. Flaherty look like a hypocrite on the purchase of C-27J Spartan Search and Rescue planes.

If you are not from around the Toronto area, you will need a little backgrounder in order to feel comfortable with the context of this story.

Toronto's Mayor, Mr. David Miller, is a dipper. The voting base in Toronto is extremely left-wing, and is very distrustful of any non-socialist candidate. As the biggest Marxist of them all, Mr. Miller was recently re-elected as Mayor of Toronto. (Oh Joy!)

Just before his re-election, Mr. Miller and Mr. Howard Moscoe, councillor and Chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission, had decided to hand deliver a $674 million contract for subway cars to Bombardier without tendering the contract.

Miller and Moscoe argued "that the contract should not be open to competition in order to protect jobs at the Canadian firm's Thunder Bay plant". This might actually be considered a noble cause on if these two lame-brains actually had a federal or provincial mandate to also protect the economy.

The problem, however, is that they only have a municipal mandate. In other words, "Buy subway cars cheap. Spend Toronto property taxes wisely". This particualr move potentially robbed the Toronto taxpayer of $200 Million dollars - the speculative difference between Bombardier's price and the next potential bidder; American firm Siemens.

At the time of this debacle, Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty chimed in.

"I was concerned about that, single-sourcing," Mr. Flaherty said in an interview just after the municipal election. ". . . We, just as a matter of principle, just don't believe in single-sourcing, where there are multiple providers."

So knowing this, the Globe and Mail and their "ghost writer" have now tried to accuse Flaherty of doing the same thing:

Meanwhile, back in Ottawa, the Canadian Forces are buying billions and billions worth of planes and helicopters without considering multiple bids, insisting in each case that the chosen company was the only one capable of meeting the military's requirements.

This week, for example, The Globe and Mail reported that the Department of National Defence plans to spend $3-billion, which includes a 20-year maintenance contract, on the Italian built Spartan C-27J search-and-rescue plane, after deeming the plane's makers the only viable bidder.

Hmmm. Could it be that the Italian firm builds a very unique Search and Rescue Plane with VERY SPECIFIC features only available from this firm? Is it just me or is the Globe and Mail trying to compare Apples to Search and Rescue Planes?

Oh I am sorry - I missed that hidden agenda. You know, the one to prop up the Italian economy because Flaherty is an Italian citizen. Oh shit! Silly me. That is Dion and France. My mistake.

The G&M Ghost Writer finishes up with:

"Perhaps realizing the walls were made of glass, Ottawa quietly announced just before Christmas that it would in fact cover its share of Toronto's subway-car purchase."

Give me a break! On the note of obtaining federal dollars for a municipal cause - I just had to raise a point on Miller and Moscoe in relation to this.

You may or may not remember that Toronto was trying to submit an bid for Expo 2010. The bid died over a potential budget deficit for the event of $400 Million. Moscoe went on AM 640 Toronto radio and exclaimed "Ottawa hates Toronto" and "Canada hates Toronto" because both the Provincial and Federal governments refused to cover the $400 Million spread.

Well wouldn't that $200 million in savings from the Subway cars have helped fix that problem? You don't see that mentioned anywhere do you? I trust Flaherty and the Conservatives over Toronto's union builders any day. I've got two words for these idiots.... TTC Strike. What was the cost of that nonsense, and why didn't Moscoe's head roll for it?

Defend Canada

The Concourse of Hypocrisy

What could be any more hypocritical than an ill-maintained gas guzzling beater covered in "Save the Earth" paraphernalia?

Nothing. And that's why I had to break from my usual rantings, to provide a forwarding link to this site showcasing some of Berkley California's most hypocritical tree-huggers. Are they aware of what all of those bumper stickers are made of?

Well, I guess if you ever wanted to fund a right wing political campaign with left wing dollars, all you would need to do is capitalize on the bumper sticker market. You could mass produce bumper stickers reading things such as; "Free Needles for Smackheads", "I'm down with Gay Marriage, Biatch!", "Child Molesters go FREE, Because Smokers are Truly Evil" - and don't forget the always popular "Global Warming is Killing Us All"; and then open up shop in Toronto.

Surely there is more than a few man-bag wearing, quote/unquote metrosexuals that would just die to obtain such stickers and accessorize their Vespas. And yet, little would they know that all that money raised would be going to plot their demise!

BWAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha -COUGH- -cough-

Defend Canada

The Globe and Mail Hits a New Low. Gutter Slop

I am certainly known for harping on the Globe and Mail from time to time - especially when they have the audacity to publish anything resembling an anti-conservative diatribe. Regardless of whether I am complaining about their lack of centrality on a given issue, or their shameless Liberal spin - it never fails that I still continue to go there.

Perhaps I am a masochist? Perhaps I just like looking for opportunities to boil over and toss around expletives at the idiots running these media giants. I don't know.

What I can tell you is, this time I believe Alex Dobrota has successfully stooped to what could be considered an all-time low for the standards of journalism displayed by the Globe and Mail. This Gutter Slop somehow made it by the vast collection of dull-witted numb skulls that make up the G&M weekend editing staff.

Talking about the new Junior Cabinet, Alex Dobrota decided to surf the websites, to find any and all superficial nit-picks to bring forward to the reader - but he does so in such a way as to not openly criticize or suggest the message. No, because THAT would have made him seem small. (ahem)

Yes, you'd have to be "dumber than a sack of hammers" to miss his point.

How do the new Tory players picture themselves? One of them likes to peer out of an SUV sunroof during parades. Another has made no effort to hide his penchant for army tanks and heavy machinery. A third would rather be seen chatting with senior women. And cowboy hats seem to be a fixture for most.

And what is the incredibly superficial message Alex "Dumb-Ass" Dobrota is conveying to the reader in this supermarket tabloid piece, masquerading as a National news story?

Ummm, could it be Mr. Dobrota is trying to make fun of the Junior cabinet members because a few of them dawn cowboy hats on their websites? Could it be that Mr. Dobrota is making fun because a certain Junior Cabinet minister is fascinated by big machinery?

Could it be that Mr. Dabrota's Birkenstocks are too tight? Could it be he has a bottle of Yellow Tail and a "Smart Car" wedged so far up his downtown Torontonian ass that he thinks he is somehow better than the new Tory Cabinet ministers? Does he think he is better because they come from rural areas, and are a little bit different than those in his snooty circles?

I think the message Mr. Dobrota is trying to portray is that people cannot be themselves and make it in federal politics. And why is that? Maybe because there is a long line of judgemental highbrows standing behind him, all daisy chained together in some sort of a YMCA themed, tomato throwing, Liberal conga line.

What Mr. Dobrota fails to realize is that conga line is walking itself right out the door. Poor form Mr. Dobrota. I mean, really!

Kudos G&M, you ol' gutter slop Liberal rag. Fucking pathetic...

Defend Canada

2007 demonstrates Dion is on his way out.

Finally! Something blog worthy.

"If they chose him in order to attack Dion and try to destroy what I represent as a hope for Canadians, it will not work.”, Mr Dion said, referring to himself in the third person.

Yes, it is semi-reminiscent of that Seinfeld episode, and more than a little creepy.

This statement is of course, in response to Mr. Harper's cabinet shuffle completed yesterday which showcased John Baird as the new Environment Minister.

The Globe and Mail reports it as PM Charts a Greener Course.

What is Mr. Dion's response to the Tory decree that Climate Change is important to the Conservative government?

He acknowledged that the greenhouse-gas emissions increased significantly under the previous Liberal government, but he said ... "I hope that this government will do more [on the environment] than what it has done in the past. It won't be hard,"

So in other words, what the Conservatives proposed with the Clean Air Act was more than what Dion brought forward in 2004 - BUT to do even better than that - well, that won't be hard at all. Well, clearly it won't be hard for the Conservatives - but I question Mr. Dion's ability to do anything right, never mind leading a party.

So if that little tidbit of ironic wisdom from France's favorite Canadian politician isn't enough, he goes on:

Mr. Dion insisted throughout a news conference that current problems of the Conservative government with the environment are not linked to the identity of individual ministers, but rather to the leadership of Mr. Harper.

What an Idiot.

Defend Canada

Globe and Mail shows it's true colors.

Apparently the editors at the Globe and Mail have already botched their 2007 resolution to maintain journalistic integrity. You know, those ideals of telling the truth, reporting the news, and maintaining a non-partisan atmosphere so that the reader can form their own opinions.

See the following article, entitled: New Poll Suggests Conservatives, Liberals in dead heat.

A new poll suggests that at year's end, the Conservatives and Liberals were in a virtual dead heat in political support.

The Decima Research survey, made available to The Canadian Press, suggests the Conservatives had 34 per cent support, compared with 31 per cent for the Liberals, a spread within the poll's 3.1-percentage-point margin of error.

Really? I am confused. Is this poll really claiming they are in a Virtual dead heat? Aside from the obvious mathematical manipulation - doesn't this just prove the G&M's pathetic partisan jockeying?

Here is how it is reported by the Angus Reid Global Poll Monitor: Conservatives Gain, Lead Liberals in Canada

And my title for the same poll: The Dion Honeymoon is Over. To support my take on this result, consider the following polling results from the last 30 days since the Liberal Leadership convention (reverse chronological):

January 5, 2007 - Decima
C:34% L:31% N:15% B:10% G:8%

December 19, 2006 - Ipsos-Reid
L:36% C:34% N:13% B:10% G:5%

December 17, 2006 - Decima
L:35% C:32% N:12% B:11% G:7%

December 11, 2006 - Ipsos-Reid
L:38% C:32% N:13% B:11% G:5%

December 10, 2006 - Ekos
L:40% C:34% N:10% B:8% G:8%

December 8, 2006 - Decima
L:35% C:31% N:11% B:10% G:10%

December 5, 2006 - Strategic Counsel
L:37% C:31% N:14% B:11% G:7%

Defend Canada

Archaic Rules and Interpretation - Tools of Prevention Against Democratic Reform

I found an article on the Globe and Mail which was written by Andrew Heard. Andrew Heard is an associate professor of political science at Simon Fraser University, and writes an opinion on the viability of Bill C-43.

Bill C-43 is “An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate”. If you are not familiar with this announcement:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced that Canada’s New Government will introduce a bill in the House of Commons ... to establish a national process for consulting Canadians on their preferences for Senate appointments. The bill will see voters choose their preferred Senate candidates to represent their provinces or territories.

Upon which the Prime Minister is expected to forward the public will as a recommendation to the Governor General for appointment to the Senate (yet another obsolete hoop to jump through from times of British rule).

Andrew Heard tells us that the written rules in the 1867 Constitution Act and the 1982 Constitution Amendment Act restrict the governments ability to unilaterally modify the existing structure and system of our senate; neither of which are directly contradicted by Bill C-43. He does tell us, however, that it comes down to interpretation of how this may or may not contradict the words found in the Constitution.

Bill C-43 is devised not to set up elections, but rather a process whereby the citizens can express their preferences about whom they would like to see appointed to the Senate. The public's most preferred nominees are listed in a report delivered by the Chief Electoral Officer to the prime minister. In theory at least, the prime minister can then mull over the list and decide to recommend any of these nominees, or an entirely different set of individuals, to the governor-general. The governor-general's power of appointment and the prime minister's right of advising the governor-general are not directly touched by the provisions of Bill C-43.

Bill C-43 would undoubtedly be constitutional if that was all there is to it ...

... The constitutional authority for our legislatures to enact laws, however, cannot simply be decided by whether they directly contradict or alter the wording of existing constitutional documents. Parliament's authority is limited by much more than just the words of constitutional documents.

Just as important boundaries are to be found in the myriad decisions of our courts ...

Mr. Heard points out that the court system can have a significant impact, based on interpretation, on even the smallest victory towards senate reform. And we are faced with a ridiculous but absolute truth.

The hands of the people can still be bound. The will of the people can yet again be scorned by another appointed few - although this time not the senate, but by judges - if political influence and will against an elected senate is pressed.

Mr. Heard tells us that "Parliament cannot make a unilateral constitutional amendment relating to the method of selecting senators; such an amendment requires the approval of at least seven of the provinces."

And I would think that they shouldn't have such power, without the will of the people. The problem with our constitution, however, would seem to be the numbers of hoops one must jump through to affect anything that is a major thorn in the side of this nation we call Canada.

I am no constitutional scholar, but it would seem to me that on such an issue of importance - the will of the people should supersede the writings of those long dead, and the interpretations of those who have some reason to oppose the forward momentum of Democratic Reform. Is this not something that can be put to referendum? Can't we by-pass the political monkey business that exists at all levels of approval required, in order to preserve the unity of this country?

Using the failure of Meech lake as an example, which was also in part to reform the Senate to an elected body, three years was not enough time for all of the politicos to come to agreement. Here we are 16 years after it's failure and our inter provincial bickering still threatens the very existence of Canada as we know it.

Alberta continues to offer Senate nominee election. The third such election occurred in 2004. Hopefully this will help to preserve the success of Bill C-43 once passed. As a side note, I think that any MP to challenge this Bill should be severely punished by their respective electorate - as any move to stifle the voice of the voter should not be tolerated.

Defend Canada

Saddam May Hang Within the Hour..

CTV: Iraqi Official: Saddam to be Hanged Tonight

CNN: Hussein Hanging Imminent

Yahoo! News: Baath Party Threatens to Retaliate