Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Working With Three Socialist Parties - No Easy Task

Nothing sounds better to me than Prime Minister Stephen Harper, but he will in tough in a minority government situation if he wins the election. Old Steve will have to deal with the likes of the following:

The liberals - Corrupt, morally bankrupt party, will do anything to regain power if they lose. This includes organized crime, extortion, money laundering, and anything else that gets them into power. The liberals make the Hell's Angels look like saints.

The NDP - These extreme left-wingers can be bought off (especially by liberals) just so they get media attention and spend billions on things that Canadians don't view as a priority (hence only sending 19 of them to Parliament last time)

The Bloc Quebecois - Will agree to anything as long as Quebec gets more than everyone else, and that there are no strings attached to the money. Also a very left-winged party.

So Steve has his work cut out for himself, having to work with three left-winged parties who believe that bigger government is better government. (All sensible people realize this is not the case, but not left-wingers)

If he can do it, the man can walk on water, I for one think those other parties will do everything to sabotage the next parliament if Stephen Harper wins.

Another problem is the liberal-filled senate, piles of hacks that will stone-wall every piece of legislation the Conservatives would try to put through the house.

This is why the Conservatives need to spend huge on ads that blanket Ontario, because that is where this election will be won or lost. (Ontario has failed Canada in many elections)

My perfect election outcome? - A majority Conservative government with an NDP opposition with every liberal voted out.

Like the Liberals, Main Stream Media Damages Canada

You remember J. Jonah Jamison from Spiderman? The one thing that motivated him was more selling papers and magazines.

This is the same as the main stream media in Canada, they love the corrupt and inept liberals because they are good for their business. Maybe the liberals have bought off the media as well, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

That can be the only reason for the media to support and always cheer for Mr. Dithers and his cadre of criminals.

Why else would the media support a scandal ridden party that has failed Canada in every aspect over the last 12 years?

The Red Star (aka Toronto Star), CBC, and the CTV all love the liberals to a point of outright saying they endorse Paul Martin, even though the guy is a pathetic PM (and you thought Chretein was a joke)

Do you think that the beer and popcorn statement by that liberal lapdog Scott Reid and the racist blog by Mike Klander would be forgotten by the media if a Conservative had said those things?

The liberal-loving media would've vilified the Conservatives until January 23rd, and basically decided the election for Canadians.

The liberals have done serious damage to Canada, but the media is just as guilty for always cheering them on, shame on them.

Idiot of the Week - Mike Klander

Mike Klander, executive vice-president of the federal Liberal party's Ontario wing, resigned after photographs of Olivia Chow, the NDP candidate for the Toronto riding of Trinity-Spadina, and a chow chow dog were posted on his blog dated Dec. 9 under the heading "Separated at Birth."

The blog also contained an offensive reference to NDP leader Jack Layton.

This clearly shows that liberals are arrogant and obnoxious people. To call the liberals tolerant is laughable.

Sunday, December 25, 2005

Merry Xmas and Happy Holidays

My wish for the new year?

A country where Canadians can be proud again, where scandal, corruption, and theft is punished and not rewarded.

Only a new Conservative government can get back Canada's credibilty, pride and honor.

The liberals have failed and disgraced Canadians in so many ways in the last 13 years that we are disillusioned and apathy has increased to a point where citizens would rather not vote anymore.

The people who died in WWI and WWII for this country have been dishonored and failed by this liberal "government" which has systematically destroyed all of Canada's proud traditions and institutions - such as Healthcare and Defence.

Stephen Harper for Prime Minister !

The liberals have done enough damage to this once proud country, time for a change Canada.

Liberal Neglect Has Taken its Toll on the Military


Shipping tycoon Paul Martin slashed our country's defence budget 25% and chopped the number of our men and women in military uniform by the same percentage.

Now, the man who also razed CFB Calgary to the ground wonders why an American submarine could apparently sweep through Canadian territorial waters in the Arctic without asking his permission.

There's a big shout that Washington and the nuclear-powered attack submarine the USS Charlotte have breached Canadian sovereignty.

Well, the legitimacy of our sovereignty in the high Arctic has been under question for some time, and, as the adage goes, if a country doesn't defend its sovereignty, it loses it.

Way back when Brian Mulroney was our prime minister, his defence minister Perrin Beatty urged we build a fleet of nuclear attack submarines to defend both our coastal areas and assert our sovereignty in the North.

Back then, the Soviet Union was still an aggressive world power, and Beatty, a good friend of mine going back years, felt we simply had to put up a show of force against both the Soviets, who had a huge submarine fleet, and not let our claim to northern sovereignty be nibbled away.

Mulroney felt the same, which is why, while seriously pondering Beatty's request for nuclear subs, he also ordered a batch of topnotch EH-101 search and rescue helicopters.

The EH-101s were the envy of the world, but after Jean Chretien became prime minister in 1993, out of pure spite he scrapped the helicopter contract and forced Canadian taxpayers to cough up $500 million in cancellation fees.

That $500 million was money that was stripped out of an already perilous inadequate defence budget.

Martin's gutting of the overall defence budget, and of CFB Calgary, came at a time when the spectre of Islamic world terrorism was already on the horizon.

American embassies and other facilities had been attacked overseas -- with a frightening loss of life -- and in 1993 came the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City.

Yet the Chretien/Martin duo's response was to cut back our defence budget to a point that within the NATO ranks only the tiny Duchy of Luxembourg spends less of its GNP on defence than does Canada.

On the day Chretien and Martin sabotaged CFB Calgary, I toured the regimental bases and spoke with our men and women in uniform, their husbands, wives and children, and still recall the shock they were in.

For CFB Calgary wasn't shut for budgetary -- and least of all military -- reasons, but to be relocated in Edmonton to prop up Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan's sagging popularity.

Yes, the men, women and children were herded to Edmonton at a cost estimated at $1 billion so McLellan could boast about bringing new activity to her city -- and damn Calgary.

That's $1 billion that could have been spent on new armaments -- but as AdScam showed, when it comes to boosting Liberal party fortunes anything goes.

That Calgary's Marda Loop area was economically devastated by the loss of CFB Calgary meant nothing to the Grit power brokers. Or that we lost some of the most famous regiments in our Armed Forces.

As I recall, not a single Liberal in our city stood up in defence of CFB Calgary and the men and women in it, and our mayor at the time, Al Duerr, simply regarded it as political postering.

Duerr, who was then being touted as a potential high-profile Liberal candidate with a guaranteed cabinet seat, kept his mouth shut.

The rusting out of our military clout -- what little we have of it -- has continued unabated under Martin's term as PM, just as under Chretien's term

Even the recent promise of $12.8 billion for the military is spread over five years and just $1.1 billion is earmarked for the first two years.

The "rehabilitation" process won't even get started until 2008-'09.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate committee on national security and defence, warns our defence spending as a percentage of GNP since 1990-'91 has fallen by a disastrous 63%. and the defence budget of $14 billion in 2005-06 should be at least double that.

Not going to happen with the self-serving Paul Martin at the helm.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Liberals in Financial Troubles

According to Elections Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada is $34,818,257.32 in debt, by way of 13 bank loans. The Bloc Quebecois has more than $10 million in outstanding loans. The NDP has several modest loans outstanding, totalling a little more than $3 million.

The Conservatives are debt-free.

So, the question that now requires answering is how exactly the liberals are financing this election?

There is still roughly $40 million missing from Gomery Inquiry even though a team of forensic auditors went through everything in the sponsorship program.

Where is this money? who currently has it?

Are the liberals using this missing stolen money to finance this election, Paul Martin promised Canadians would have all the answers, but there is still no one in jail and millions are still missing.....

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Liberal Tax Cuts Smoke and Mirrors

Wed, December 21, 2005


A lot gets said during an election campaign. Promises are made and so are claims. During the leaders' debates last week, Prime Minister Paul Martin said something like, "I said taxes would be lowered and they were."

Hmmm. Funny, said a reader who watched the debates, but if taxes have gone down, why is it more of a struggle to pay my bills than it was 12 years ago?

So I checked into Martin's claim. Are Canadians paying less taxes or more since the Liberals came to power in 1993?

To help me with this task, I called the experts in the field, the tax gurus of the country, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) and read a few reports from other number-crunching organizations.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Canadians' personal income tax burden is the highest of all the G-7 countries and has been for almost one decade.

The Fraser Institute -- which calculates Tax Freedom Day -- says taxation by Canadian governments at all levels accounts for 48% of total household income.

In 1993, Tax Freedom Day -- that being the day you stop working for government and start working for yourself and your family, was June 6.

In 2005, Tax Freedom Day fell on June 26. In other words, we're all working an extra three weeks to feed the ravenous (and in the case of the feds, corrupt and thieving) government machines that are recording record surpluses every year. While Tax Freedom Day calculates all the taxes Canadians pay, fully four months of the six months we toil for taxes is spent fuelling the federal government.

John Williamson, federal director of the CTF, says while it's true the Liberal government cut taxes in 2000, what they gave back to Canadians with one hand, they removed with the other via CPP premium increases and other tax hikes.

What's more, that tax cut in 2000 was overbilled in a big way. The Liberal government claimed their five-year tax cut added up to $100.5 billion.

The CTF checked that claim out and discovered it was exaggerated by more than half. In reality, the five-year tax cut plan devised in 2000 delivered a $46-billion cut.

Since the Liberals have taken office, the amount of government revenue collected from the GST has nearly doubled.

The Liberals, of course, campaigned in 1993 that it would "scrap" and "abolish" the GST -- the hated 7% consumption tax. Of course, it's still here and only the Conservative Party vows to reduce it first to 6% and then to 5% within five years.

The total amount of income taxes collected have doubled, including personal income taxes, which are up by 82%.

Indeed, since 1993, total taxes and other revenues collected by the federal government have risen by $2,233 per person.

So, while the cash income of the average family has increased 37% since 1993, that same family is paying 50% more in income tax to government.

That's why you never feel like you have more cash in your jeans. You don't. You have less. Taxes increase at a faster rate than your salary.

Of course, just last month, the federal Liberals made more promises of more tax cuts, as have the Conservatives.

Williamson said while any tax cuts are great news for the economy and tax-weary Canadians, the federal Liberals' latest tax cut promises are really too little much too late.

"Taxes are headed in the right direction but the pace is very slow," said Williamson.

"And as we saw with the last NDP budget amendment, these things can change. The feds have proven they will sacrifice tax relief for more spending if it keeps them in power."

Ultimately, voters need to ask the following question: Can you believe a federal Liberal government's promise to lower your taxes by 2010?

Can the federal Liberals, who have made and broken so many promises and exaggerated so many claims, be trusted to follow through on what is already a glacial pace on tax cuts?

Their record speaks for itself. Their record screams: NO!

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Paul Martin's Hidden Taxation Agenda


I used to think that the funniest thing that Paul Martin ever did was sending Christmas cards to a dead dog in Victoria who had somehow managed to get on the corporate mailing list.

But then he went one better: He said that Stephen Harper wasn’t fit to run for the office of prime minister.

The occasion for that remark, a difference of opinion on same-sex marriage, is not the interesting part of the assertion. Paul Martin has been slicing political bologna for so long I’m sure he thinks it’s foie gras.

But his comment about the Conservative leader implies that he, Mr. Martin, is fit to run for the highest office in the land. It got me to wondering what he could mean.

Could it have been the way he handled the built-in conflict of interest of being the owner of CSL at the same time as he was finance minister? I guess it depends on how you view the facts.

Here they are: When Barbados created a new class of offshore companies back in 1991, Canadian companies who routed their business through Barbados qualified for a corporate tax rate of between 1% to 2.5%. The comparable rate in Canada, including provincial corporate taxes, was approximately 40%.

As you might imagine, Barbados proved pretty popular with the monied classes. Between 1990 and 2001, Canadian investment in Barbados went up 1,453%. It was a deal that cost Canada $1.5 billion in lost revenue but saved companies like Mr. Martin’s $2.5 million in taxes for every $10 million of taxable income.

Not such good news

This was not such good news for Canadian merchant mariners. As a matter of fact, the crew members of one Canada Steamship Lines vessel were replaced by Ukrainians. Ukrainians, it turns out, are cheaper than Canadians. There were other changes. The flag of Barbados was raised where the Maple Leaf used to fly.

As CSL explained, it was a dog-eat-dog world; any ship registered in Canada was required by law to have a fully Canadian crew. So the company had no choice but to move its international subsidiary Barbados, where it would continue to pay 2% tax on its corporate profits.

In 2002, the auditor general called on the government to amend Canada’s treaty with Barbados, which was originally aimed at protecting companies that did business in both states against double taxation, but which was now attacking the integrity of our tax base.

It was an awkward moment for Paul. On the one hand, he was finance minister of Canada and on the other CSL International was saving millions by paying taxes in Barbados. Increasing Martin’s dilemma, Canadians who paid their taxes in Canada at a rate somewhat higher than 2% had coughed up federal contracts, grants and other contributions to CSL totaling $161 million over the period of a decade.

Then-finance minister Martin took decisive action in his very first budget back in February 1994. Thanks to him, Canadian companies would no longer be able to bring dividends from foreign affiliates back into Canada tax-free.

Rich guys, including Paul Martin, had to face the Canadian taxman. There was only one exception to the new regulations: Barbados. And that’s where Martin moved seven of his Liberian-registered CSL International ships and continued to enjoy a 2% tax rate.

Blind trust

Did Canada’s finance minister for a decade ever make decisions that benefited his own company? The way politicians normally deal with that issue is by either selling their assets or putting them in a blind trust run by a trustee who manages them without input from their owner until such time as he becomes a private citizen again.

But Canada’s finance minister did not place CSL in a blind trust. Instead, he set up a “blind” management agreement with 20/20 vision. Under the agreement, he was allowed to meet with corporate officers of CSL on a dozen occasions with the full approval of that paragon of public virtue, ethics poodle Howard Wilson.

Fortunately, we have it on Mr. Martin’s word that he never used those meetings to instruct CSL’s officers how to conduct the business. At least now, we no longer have to worry about Mr. Martin’s conflict of interests as he has divested CSL to new owners — his sons.

Still, if I were Paul I wouldn’t start a vigorous debate over who is fit to run for prime minister, unless of course, he is talking about Barbados.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Why Trust Paul Martin?

I find it hilarious that people actually still believe this liberal party and all their election platform promises.

From removing GST to eliminating child poverty by the year 2000, the liberal party have never delivered on any of their promises, so Paul Martin has no credibility at all. Not to mention they are destroying Confederation with massive amounts of corruption, entitlements, and patronage.

For the sake of the country I hope Ontario does not fail Canada again and reward the libranos with another mandate. If they do, I say the rest of Canada cut Ontario out of country for sheer and utter stupidity

Liberals Fail to Defend Canadian Territory

Canadian Press

CAMBRIDGE, Ont. (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin says the federal government will take the "necessary measures" to stop American submarines from passing through Canada's Arctic waters.

He offered no specifics but cast a wary glance at reports that at least one U.S. military submarine had recently patrolled the Arctic and likely passed through Canadian waters.

The prime minister has repeatedly drawn attention to his differences with the United States as part of a re-election strategy designed to benefit his Liberal party. But he chose his words carefully when asked whether Canada would accept U.S. subs under its coastal waters.

"No," Martin replied.

"Arctic waters are Canadian waters, and Canadian waters are sovereign waters. Canada will defend its sovereignty."

He used stronger language - but offered no additional details - when asked in French how Canada would stop such incursions: "We will take the necessary measures," he replied.

The comments came after news an American nuclear submarine, the USS Charlotte, visited the North Pole last month, and likely passed through Canadian waters in the process.

The Conservative defence critic, retired general Gordon O'Connor, said the apparent breach of Canadian sovereignty by a U.S. submarine betrays the phoniness of Martin's war of words with the United States.

"The Liberals have failed to enforce our sovereignty and increase security in the North," said O'Connor.

"The Liberal government has been undermining Canada's sovereignty over our northern territory and its vast natural resources by failing to properly defend the far North for many years."

He demanded to know what, exactly, the Liberal government is doing about the issue and asked how many other unauthorized voyages by foreign naval vessels have occurred in Canadian territorial waters without Ottawa's permission or knowledge.

"It has been common knowledge for more than a decade that nuclear submarines from the United States, Russia, China, France, and Great Britain pass through our territory without necessarily seeking permission from the government of Canada," he said. "In international law, sovereignty must be enforced to be recognized. A Conservative government will enforce our sovereignty in the North.

"Paul Martin's record of failure in standing up for Canada's Arctic sovereignty is proof that his war of words with the United States is just more phoney election rhetoric."

Arctic sovereignty is becoming more coveted as global warming melts the ice and opens new areas for oil and mineral exploration.

Canada has also been engaged in a sovereignty dispute with Denmark over remote Hans Island, a 1.3-kilometre windswept rock in the Kennedy Channel between Greenland and Ellesmere Island.

The rock was discovered by the British, ceded to Canada at Confederation, and was briefly home to a Canadian scientific station in the 1940s. It is listed as part of Nunavut in the National Geographic Atlas.

Since there are more working submarines in West Edmonton Mall than in the Canadian Navy due to liberal incompetence and massive waste, how the hell does Paul Martin propose Canada takes the "necessary measures"?

All other countries will explore this area of Canada as their own because they know liberal Canada does not have the capability to defend its sovereign territory.

Yet another example of liberal failure......the decline of Canada continues under this pathetic and corrupt party.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Idiot of the Week Award - Scott Reid

The Idiot of the Week Award goes to none other than Scott Reid, lapdog communications director for the Libranos.

This intellectually challenged moron thinks that parents can't be trusted with their own money and the government must take of Canada's children, not their parents.

He figures parents would blow their money on beer and popcorn rather than take care of their kids. This is the ultimate insult to parents, who under crushing liberal taxes have to work 80 hours a week just to afford the basics in life.

The longer the Libranos maintain power, the more and more state-run communist Canada becomes.

This is the not the first time this individual should receive this award, like Scott Brison, Scott Reid has more mouth than brains.

What Paul Martin Really Said About Iraq

"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible,"
(North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003)

"Once the war in Iraq began, Canada was far from neutral. The only
satisfactory outcome was a defeat of Saddam Hussein and his removal
from power." (Speech in Toronto, April 30, 2003)

"Canada's strongest desire was for a swift and just victory by
coalition forces. Thankfully, that occurred." (Paul Martin Times, May
1, 2003)

"I don't think there is any doubt, if there ever was . . . that he does
have weapons of mass destruction. Biological weapons that they
discovered were very clear evidence of not only the fact that he had
them, but that he had lied and that he is continuing to lie." (Calgary
Herald, March 7 2003)

"Canada's position was Saddam Hussein should be disarmed. Now, to be
quite honest, I had a lot of difficulty understanding how he was going
to be disarmed without being replaced." (Ottawa Citizen, April 28,

"The fact that now we know well that there is proliferation of nuclear
weapons and that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for
example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists
have access to all that." (Globe and Mail, May 11, 2004)

"Canada should be there." (Halifax Daily News, January 15, 2003)

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

David Kilgour Ashamed He Was Ever a Martin Liberal


OTTAWA (CP) - Maverick MP and one-time cabinet minister David Kilgour says he's ashamed to have ever been part of Paul Martin's Liberal team.

"I'm appalled by the way the Liberal campaign (is going) and the way Martin and (top aide Scott) Reid and so many of them are conducting themselves," Kilgour said in an interview Tuesday. "Actually, I'm ashamed to have a been a part of them."

Kilgour quit the Liberals to sit as an independent last April, saying he was disgusted by the sponsorship scandal and the government's failure to provide what he deemed sufficient aid to war-torn Sudan. He is not seeking re-election.

The Edmonton MP started his political career in 1979 as a Progressive Conservative but was kicked out of Brian Mulroney's caucus in 1990 after he voted against the GST. He joined the Liberals in 1991 under Jean Chretien, who later made Kilgour a secretary of state responsible for Latin America and Africa and, eventually, for Asia Pacific.

When Martin took over from Chretien, he did not keep Kilgour in cabinet, even though he held one of only two Alberta Liberal seats.

Kilgour has not endorsed any other party in the Jan. 23 election but he said he is endorsing two Conservative candidates on their individual merits - Winnipeg MP Steven Fletcher and Montreal candidate Temzin Dargyal.

In his own riding of Edmonton-Beaumont, Kilgour predicted Conservative candidate Mike Lake will win handily "because people overwhelmingly want a change in government." He has not endorsed Lake but said he tells anyone who asks that they should not vote Liberal.

Kilgour said Reid's weekend gaffe, in which he said parents will "blow" a proposed Conservative child care allowance on "popcorn and beer," is symptomatic of Liberal arrogance. And he denounced Martin as "a prime minister who has no scruples at all. He's prepared to say anything, anything."

In particular, Kilgour derided Martin for spending billions on "any bridge he thinks will bring him a few votes," while refusing to honour Canada's longstanding commitment to devote 0.7 per cent of GDP to foreign aid.

Given the separatist Bloc Quebecois' massive lead in Quebec, Kilgour also said it's "particularly imprudent" for Martin to be casting the campaign in that province as a "referendum" on secession

Moreover, Kilgour said Martin has little credibility in promising to ban all handguns, weapons which "to all intents and purposes are already banned."

"In terms of taking a tough stand on crime, that's an area where the Liberals are particularly vulnerable," Kilgour said.

Liberal Scott Reid Thinks Gov't Should Raise Kids, Not Parents

Tue Dec 13 08:43:03 2005

By: News Staff / The National Post

Some commentators have described Scott Reid's controversial comments on a weekend television panel as nothing more than a "gaffe." Far from it. The suggestion by Paul Martin's most senior spokesman that parents would use the child-care benefits being proposed by the Conservatives to buy "beer and popcorn" was more than a mere slip-up. In fact, it was a rare look through the Liberals' glasses -- a chance to see how they view Canadians, and why they favour such a paternalistic mode of government.

The two major parties' differing philosophies on child care have laid bare a larger philosophical divide. By providing parents with $1,200 per child per year to spend as they see fit, the Conservatives have shown they trust Canadian parents to make their own decisions about how to care for children and manage a family budget. But not the Liberals. Rather than leaving it up to parents to decide among daycare, nannies, stay-at-home parenting or care by relatives, Paul Martin insists only one option should be favoured: a top-down network of state-approved daycare centres. According to this view, bureaucrats know better than parents what is best for children. Just think, Mr. Reid, told viewers: If child-care money were under the control of parents themselves, they would simply "blow [it] on beer and popcorn."

The comment was a gross insult to Canadian parents, and the many sacrifices they make so that their children can have better lives. One of the largest obstacles families face in making ends meet is Canada's heavy tax burden, which feeds the government's ballooning slush-fund surpluses. Yet rather than return some of that money to taxpaying parents so they can spend it on priorities, Liberal social engineers want to reward only the 13% of families for whom institutional daycare is the favoured form of primary care. The other 87% are apparently making the "wrong" choice by the Liberals' lights -- no doubt thanks to the inebriating effect of the booze they are quaffing with their children's lunch money.

Sadly, this condescending theory of government extends well beyond child care. On health care, the Liberals refuse to permit personal choice -- insisting that Canadians either sign on to their Soviet-style health monopoly or flee the country to get more timely care in the United States. Rather than trusting most Canadians to be self-sufficient, they continue to create a culture of dependency through regional subsidies. In a purported effort to protect us from ourselves, the Liberals established a $2-billion gun registry that served little purpose other than to harass and humiliate law-abiding firearms owners. And in general, they continue to tax us at a far higher level than is needed to provide the basic services expected of government -- because in their view, a dollar in the hands of government will be better spent than a dollar in the hands of the average Canadian.

Within hours of Mr. Reid's "beer and popcorn" comments, he admitted they were "dumb," and Mr. Martin did his best to distance himself from them. But tellingly, Mr. Reid's take on parents was endorsed the same day by John Duffy, one of Mr. Martin's senior aides. As a result, any notion that this was an isolated view on Mr. Reid's part was erased.

But then, based on the Liberals' longstanding policies, it would be hard to fall for that defence anyway.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Liberals View Canadians as Beer-Guzzling Neanderthals

Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:31:08 EST

Canadian Press

A top aide to Liberal Leader Paul Martin apologized on Sunday shortly after suggesting on national television that Canadians might spend child-care money on beer and popcorn.

Scott Reid, Martin's director of communications, was attacking a Conservative plan to give families of young children $1,200 a year for child care.

"Don't give people 25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn," Reid said during a panel discussion on CBC News: Sunday.

The Conservative on the panel called the comment "an insult," and said it proves that the Liberals don't trust families to make their own choices about what's best for their children.

Reid quickly issued an apology.

"It was dumb," he said. "No way around it. I regret it."

Meanwhile, when asked about Reid's comment at a campaign stop in Beamsville, Ont., Martin said: "There's no doubt in my mind that parents are going to use (the money) for the benefit of their families."

The Conservatives will give money to parents and set aside $250 million a year for tax credits to create more spaces – 125,000 over five years, Harper has said.

I am a parent, and I think that the Conservative plan of giving parent's a choice and money to afford childcare, is far more sensible than another bloated liberal social program.

You thought the useless gun registry was an example of insane liberal waste?, this so-called liberal childcare program will create a whole new class of waste and mismanagement.

I'm tired of liberals trying to dictate and run everything, Canada is sure turning into a socialist nanny state. (Thanks to Ontario)

More Liberal Income Trust Corruption

Martin linked Medisys Income Trust stock volume increased 3400% the day before Goodale trust announcement

by M.K. Braaten

According to STOCKTRENDS.ca, the day before the Goodale income trust announcement, the trading volume of Medisys Income Trust was 226,500, with a value of $2,604,750, average trade was $37,750, and a total of 68 transactions. According to StockTrends.ca, this stock was listed as trading at “Unusual Volumes“.

The volume of shares traded for Paul Martin linked Medisys Income Trust shares the day before the Income Trust announcement seems way to high to be a ‘co-incidence’. The volume increased 3400% from the prior day, and the following day, dropped back down about the same amount.

Its said that Paul Martins personal doctor started a medical company called Medisys Income Trust, a chain of private health care clinics located across Canada.

The day before the Goodale income trust announcement, the volume of Medisys shares traded for the day went from 5,714 on November 21, to 203,953 on Novemeber 22. On November 23, the shares traded dropped back down to 6,220.

This is a huge red flag; someone has some explaining to do. Why would the trading volume increase that much? It’s not like they discovered the cure for cancer that day.

However, beyond speculation, one has to open the possibility that this stock market activity is pure co-incidence. There is no way to make a connection between this share activity and the income trust announcement and the Liberal Party unless there is hard evidence of a leak.

These questions should be answered by the proper authorities. Huge spikes in trading, similar to this, are flagged by agencies of the markets which specialise in looking for this. Nonetheless, I think the Ontario Securities Exchange commission’s reputation could be irreparably harmed if they do not commence an investigation into this issue. The red flags are everywhere; the evidence is far too suspicious.

From Angry in the Great White North

In fact, in 2005, from a peak $15.21 in the summer, Medisys was on a downward trend, dropping 30% of its value until late November, earning another negative report on November 21, just two days before the income trust announcement.

I can only assume no one from Ralph Goodale’s office called Jennings Capital Inc.

Whoever decided to ignore that negative report and picked up an astonishing 200,000 shares really picked exactly the right time.

I bet Dr. Elman will have a big smile on his face when Paul Martin comes for his next visit.

By the way, who owns Medisys? Well, when they converted into an income trust in November 2004, 45% of the issued and outstanding shares were owned by directors and senior management at Medisys.

Who are these people? One is former Liberal Senator Leo Kolber. Leo Kolber has donated nearly $60,000 to the Liberals since 1993, including $17,500 in 2002 through his company 87215 Canada Ltd.

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Paul Martin's Hidden Agenda and Anger

Sun Media
December 4, 2005

Media bias isn't only revealed by the kinds of questions party leaders are asked during an election campaign.

It's also revealed by the kinds of questions they are never asked, or that the media never even think to ask them.

In Wednesday's column, I talked about how the media covering Prime Minister Paul Martin tossed him a series of lob ball questions during his election kickoff, such as ''are you going to use negative campaign ads"?

In contrast, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper was hit with such stink bombs as "do you love this country?"

Today let's examine why Martin hasn't been asked, at least as far as I can determine, why so many Canadians now believe the Liberals have a "hidden agenda."

First off, yes, you read that right. Despite Liberal spin doctors constantly insisting -- and the national media routinely and dutifully repeating -- that most Canadians fear Harper's "hidden agenda," it turns out they're ... well ... wrong.

As reported by The Strategic Counsel in a national poll released last Tuesday (the first morning of the campaign), more Canadians believe the Liberals have a "hidden agenda" (33%) than the Conservatives (25%).

In Ontario, there's been a 10-point drop in fears the Conservatives have a "hidden agenda" since May.

The Strategic Counsel, headed by pollster Allan Gregg, says this "may be the most dramatic change since the 2004 election -- the Conservatives don't look as scary to Ontario voters going into this election."

Even with the pollster's qualifiers that these results are driven "largely by partisan support" and that the Conservatives "have yet to demonstrate they are a government-in-waiting," you would think this finding would have gone off like a bombshell on day one of the campaign.

After all, it fits the definition of real "news." It is new information on a major issue (Stephen Harper's so-called "hidden agenda"), coming at a timely moment (the election kickoff) that flies in the face of conventional wisdom.

Or, to be more precise, conventional media wisdom supplied by Liberal spin doctors. Alas, that's probably why you haven't heard much about it, with the exception of the Globe, which, having commissioned the poll, featured this finding prominently on its Tuesday front page.

That said, one would have thought that such a startling finding by a credible pollster, featured prominently in a national newspaper on the first day of the campaign, might have prompted at least one question to Martin during his opening media scrum, in between all the lobs.

Alas, no one asked Martin about it then, or, as far as I can tell, since then. Even if it has been asked, it's clearly not a big deal for our national media.

And I'd argue that's because they know that if they raise this issue, they would then have to explain why they've been telling us for so long (along with the Liberals) that most Canadians fear the Conservatives have a "hidden agenda," when it now turns out even more of them think the Liberals have one.

Some pundits have suggested Canadians are getting used to Harper. But that's not the point. The point is that to be fair and consistent, they should explain why so many Canadians now find Martin to be "scary" and "angry" -- the same loaded terms they tagged Harper with in explaining why Canadians feared the Conservatives' "hidden agenda."

I haven't seen a lot of coverage like that. Have you?

Friday, December 02, 2005

Liberals Can't Claim Credit for Economy

Fri Dec 2,2005
Canadian Press

Think-tank: Group says Martin has held back growth with excessive taxes.

Despite Paul Martin's claims, the Canadian economy's good performance is not a result of the Liberal government's actions, says a new report by a private-sector think-tank that has helped the government prepare its budget forecasts.

While Mr. Martin's Liberals have claimed credit for the economy's performance, which most analysts agree is at or near its full non-inflationary capacity, with unemployment at a 30-year low, the government has been acting as a drag on growth, says the report by Global Insight.

That's because, largely through taxation which can slow economic expansion, it has been taking billions of dollars a year more out of the economy than it needs, the report says.

"Given the strong linkages between the Canadian and U.S. economies, one of the best tests of the impact of our economic policies on our economic performance is how we are doing relative to the U.S. economy," the Toronto-based research firm says.

"In fact, since 2003 Canada's growth has been weak relative to growth in the U.S.

"Since we are running fiscal surpluses, on net, the federal government is acting as a drag on our economic growth," the report says.

The report, however, notes that the health of the Canadian economy is largely determined by forces beyond the federal government. Presently the economy is doing well based on Alberta's robust resource development sector.

It calculates that the $39 billion in new spending and tax cuts announced in last month's pre-election mini-budget, plus the $15 billion or so in spending that has been announced since, will wipe out most of the remaining surpluses over the coming half decade.

Meanwhile, it forecasts that economic growth next year will be 2.9 per cent, unchanged from this year, and below that in the U.S.

Still, that will be strong enough to prompt the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates by another full percentage point over the rest of this year and into next year, it says.

The risk of the economy overheating is minor, it adds.

But because economic growth here will not keep pace with that in the U.S., living standards here will slip further to 84 per cent of that in the U.S.