Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Will Liberals Serve Time Too?

Crown recommends 2-3 years jail time for Brault
Updated Tue. Mar. 28 2006 11:29 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Crown is recommending that advertising executive Jean Brault serve between two and three years in prison for his role in the sponsorship scandal.

Crown prosecutor Jacques Dagenais says Brault needs to go to jail because he abused public funds.

Brault, the founder of Groupaction Marketing, pleaded guilty to five of six fraud-related charges earlier this month.

Each fraud count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

At his sentencing hearing, which began Monday in Quebec Superior Court, Brault said he was not proud of his role in the sponsorship scandal.

"I'm not looking to excuse what I did,'' Brault told Justice Fraser Martin after laying pictures of his deceased parents on the witness stand in front of him.

"I'm not proud,'' he said again later.

Brault told the court that he was naive when he was asked to contribute money to the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party in exchange for government contracts.

He admitted to defrauding the government of $1.6 million and when asked why he did it Brault blamed his own greed.

"It wasn't an accounting error,'' Brault testified.

"I committed it (the fraud) to accede to the requests of the Liberal party and to compensate for legal work I had done that I had not been paid for.''

Brault said members of the Liberals' Quebec wing told him that by putting key people on his payroll he would get government contracts in return.

"I was intelligent enough to build a business from zero to a value of $140 million. I must have been intelligent enough to know what I was doing.''

Brault is one of three communications executives to face criminal charges in the sponsorship probe, including advertising executive Paul Coffin and retired bureaucrat Chuck Guite.

In September, Coffin was sentenced to two years less a day, to be served in the community, and was ordered to give speeches at universities about ethics in business.

Coffin had pleaded guilty to a long list of more than 15 charges for defrauding the government of $1.5 million through the sponsorship program.

A Quebec Superior Court judge let Coffin avoid jail time because of his clean record, his repayment of more than $1 million to the federal government, and his remorse.

The Crown is appealing the community sentence.

Guite is also facing fraud and conspiracy charges for his alleged role in the scandal, and he plans to represent himself when his trial begins May 1.

Together, Guite and Brault are accused of defrauding the government of more than $2 million.

During his trial, Brault pleaded not guilty to a remaining charge of conspiracy, and is expected to go to trial on that charge at a later date.

My Comment - If Jean Brault has to serve jail time, then Chretein and Martin should as well, they were the two idiots "leading" Canada at the time.

Yet another case of liberals getting caught stealing and not being punished for it, I can't wait to see the AG's report on the useless gun registry.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Go Ahead, Liberals. Make Canada's Day

David Asper, National Post
Published: Thursday, March 23, 2006

Brace yourself Canada. The Liberals are huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the Conservative house down when Parliament resumes in early April. The crime? Prime Minister Stephen Harper may not implement the former government's expensive, intrusive day-care plan -- a plan designed to gild the cradle part of Canada's cradle-to-grave left-wing ideal.

But Canadians never rallied to this issue in the first place. Nor did we re-elect its main proponent. In fact, we elected a government with a very different view about how to assist families with children. Rather than creating a bloated equivalent to the health-care system, Stephen Harper thinks the government should give some money back to us and let us decide how best to spend it.

What a radical idea, eh? A political leader giving us credit for being at least a half-wit.

This idea, you will recall, inspired Liberal attack dogs to ridicule voters on the basis that if Harper gave us some of our money back we wouldn't provide for our kids but rather blow it all on "beer and popcorn." Liberals apparently believe that we have no wit, and it is only they who can spend our money properly.

These are the same politicians who blew so many billions on ill-conceived and woefully mismanaged programs that it's hard even to keep track. And now they're making noises about bringing down the government we just elected and forcing another election.

Even if it's just huffing and puffing, one has to wonder whether the Liberals have learned anything from being dispatched to the opposition benches. It takes a certain arrogance to get thrown out of power in late January and then, not 60 days later, start talking about trying to seize it back.

With no leader, $4-million in party debt, no guiding political direction and lingering internal divisions left over from the Martin/Chretien wars, the Liberals would have to be utterly stupid to force an election.

On the other hand, maybe it would be a good thing for Canada if the Liberals gave us another shot at them. While the vast majority of us wanted change, when it came right down to it we waffled and got ourselves change-lite in the form of a minority government.

Many of us would like to finish the job and establish stability in our government by electing a Conservative majority. In the relatively short time since the federal election, Harper has done more to improve Canada's image on the world stage than Paul Martin did during his entire reign. The PM's support for our armed forces and show of solidarity by joining our boys and girls in Afghanistan has done more for national unity than anything in recent Liberal memory. In a workman-like manner, Harper is restoring the Canada we knew and loved to Canadians.

The David Emerson non-scandal aside, Canadians like what they've seen from the Conservatives. A majority government would allow the Prime Minister to implement his vision, which Canadians could clearly judge come the next election. Moreover, it would finalize the message to the Liberals that they must go away, refresh their leadership and ideas, and only then come back to seek our vote.

So go ahead, Bill Graham. Bring down the government. It would be the dawn of a new political reality in Canada.

Just not the one you want.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Confirms Saddam Possessed WMD

By Francis Harris in Washington

(Filed: 22/03/2006)

Saddam Hussein's foreign minister was recruited by the CIA to spy on the regime, a US television network said.

Naji Sabri told the intelligence agency that Iraq possessed secret stocks of chemical weapons.

If confirmed, the claims made yesterday by NBC's Nightly News help to explain why President George W Bush and Tony Blair were so confident that Saddam was lying about weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Sabri reportedly said Saddam had around "500 metric tonnes of chemical warfare agents", that production of the agents had been renewed and that Iraq had additional stockpiles left over from the Iran-Iraq war.

As a senior member of Saddam's inner circle and a friend of his son, Qusay, Mr Sabri would have seemed an extraordinarily good source. He also claimed that although Saddam desperately wanted a nuclear device, he was years from building one.

According to NBC, Mr Sabri was recruited in 2002 when he visited the United Nations headquarters six months before the outbreak of war. The relationship ended when the Americans pressed him to defect.

My Comment - I wonder if all the socialists still think Saddam should still be running Iraq?, this man was brutal dictator who killed 200,000 of his fellow citizens.

Jim Prentice Achieves What Dithering Liberals Couldn't Do In 13 Years

Updated Tue. Mar. 21 2006 2:49 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice outlined the clean water plan for native reserves today, saying residents of First Nations communities should feel as safe about their drinking water as all Canadians.

"It is unacceptable that many First Nations communities across Canada continue to face ongoing risk to the safety of their drinking water," Prentice told a news conference in Ottawa.

The government has a five-point plan for improving water standards on native reserves, and said work would begin right away in 21 communities identified as most at risk for waterborne health hazards.

Under the plan, natives will be in charge of making sure reserves live up to federal standards for design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of drinking water.

That is the long-term plan. In the short term, the federal government will temporarily contract out water services to private companies.

According to Prentice, the problem with drinking water on reserves is not money. It has to do with accountability and standards, he said.

Bad drinking water on First Nations made headlines last October when 1,000 residents of a remote northern Ontario community were evacuated while their water treatment plant was cleaned up.

Many residents of Kashechewan needed treatment for skin rashes and illness blamed on dirty water and poor sanitation.

A report released in November 2005 found that more than half the operators running water treatment plants on Ontario reserves lack the training needed, and many aren't certified.

The federally funded Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corp. said operators at only 60 of the province's 134 reserves have been provided personal training by the advisory group.

In 2001, Indian Affairs found a significant risk to the quality or safety of drinking water for three-quarters of reserve systems.

Monday, March 20, 2006

NDP's Witch Hunt Ends

Ethics czar clears PM, Emerson over floor crossing

Updated Mon. Mar. 20 2006 2:47 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The federal ethics watchdog has cleared Prime Minister Stephen Harper of any wrongdoing for wooing former Liberal David Emerson to his cabinet shortly after the federal election.

Ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro also ruled that Emerson was within his constitutional rights when he crossed the floor to join the Conservatives, even though he was elected on Jan. 23 as a Liberal in the B.C. riding of Vancouver-Kingsway.

Shapiro said he accepts the international trade minister's explanation that he believed he could best serve his constituents from within the presiding cabinet, rather than the Opposition.

"In addition, there is no reason, and certainly no evidence, to contradict Mr. Emerson's own claim that accepting Mr. Harper's offer seemed, at least to him, a way to better serve his city, province and country," Shapiro said in his report.

Shapiro ruled that it is the prerogative of the prime minister to choose who is in his cabinet.

And despite the outcry from Opposition benches claiming Harper lured Emerson -- dangling the proverbial carrot of chauffeur-driven cars and a higher salary -- Shapiro ruled that it was not an improper inducement under the conflict of interest code.

"I am satisfied that no special inducement was offered by Mr. Harper to convince Mr. Emerson to join his cabinet and his party," he said.

The commissioner pointed out; however, that the practice of floor-crossing leaves some Canadians with the impression that their vote was somehow devalued.

"I believe that the discontent expressed by Canadians on this matter cannot be attributed merely to the machinations of partisan politics," said Shapiro.

"Fairly or unfairly, this particular instance has given many citizens a sense that their vote -- the cornerstone of our democratic system -- was somehow devalued, if not betrayed."

Shapiro said he can only follow existing rules, but added there should be a debate in Parliament and the public should have the right to address the practice of politicians crossing the floor.

Indeed, many of Emerson's constituents in Vancouver-Kingsway -- as well as those who worked on Emerson's campaign -- have demanded he face a by-election or step down.

At the request of three Opposition MPs, Shapiro launched an inquiry on March 2 into whether Harper's recruitment of Emerson contravened the rules of conduct, as set out in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

It was a decision which resulted in a full-blown face-off between the commissioner and the prime minister.

Harper said Shapiro -- a target of Tory criticism in the past -- had no authority to dictate his cabinet choices.

Tories have questioned Shapiro's refusal to investigate whether former prime minister Paul Martin broke the rules when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and was offered a plum cabinet position.

PMO spokesperson Sandra Buckler stated that the prime minister is "loath to co-operate with an individual whose decision-making ability has been questioned and who has been found in contempt of the House."

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Calls for Mission Debate Hypocritical

Wed Mar 15, 2006

By: Paul Stanway / The Edmonton Sun

The hypocrisy of opposition politicians and media armchair generals who suddenly want to debate the involvement of Canadian troops in Afghanistan is cynical beyond words, but unsurprising.

It was a non-story a year and a half ago when I first wrote about Liberal plans to expand Canadian operations in Afghanistan to include a "provincial reconstruction team" tasked to pacify the Taliban heartland around Kandahar. Most of the troops were coming from Alberta.

It was a non-story last November when the House of Commons debated this expanded role, by then fully public. Just a handful of MPs showed up. NDP Leader Jack Layton wasn't there, but now apparently he believes a new debate is fundamental to Canadian democracy.

"We're a democracy, after all, and we're trying to establish a functioning democracy in Afghanistan as the stated purpose of the mission," Layton blathered this week. "It seems ironic that we wouldn't want to have a discussion here about such a mission."

We had it, Jack. Where were you? In Paul Martin's back pocket is where. Back then it didn't suit Layton's agenda to highlight Liberal plans to deepen Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. Not when he was propping up the Martin government.

Same for the Bloc Quebecois, which has shown absolutely no interest in the deployment of Canadian Forces. Now? "The debate isn't finished," insists Bloc MP Francine Lalonde. "The conditions that (the PM) wants to create - so the soldiers are supported - comes as a result of a debate and information."

Funny how all this insistence on debate and information comes after the Liberals are replaced in Ottawa by a Conservative government that did surprisingly well in Quebec in the recent election. Just a coincidence, though, right, Francine?

The Grits, who created the Kandahar operation, are understandably taking a softer approach to demands for a debate - but they still want one. "We should build stronger support through a debate," says Liberal foreign affairs critic Stephane Dion.

Perhaps he's forgotten last November's informational debate, during which he explained Canada's role and fended off calls for more parliamentary approval of overseas military missions.

The Harper Tories would be wise to avoid any second-guessing of the Kandahar operation, and to be suspicious of opposition promises not to undermine support for Canadian troops in the field. Playing with the lives of soldiers has a long and dishonourable tradition in Canada.

In the First World War we sent inadequately-trained troops into combat armed with redesigned hunting rifles (supplied by a pal of the defence minister) that routinely malfunctioned in battle. In the Second World War, our armoured troops were originally sent to Europe equipped with tanks reclaimed from a U.S. dump.

When it comes to risking lives for political expediency, Ottawa could give lessons. Ask the survivors of Dieppe, or the veterans who were shipped to Hong Kong in a futile attempt to defend the colony from the Japanese.

With rare exceptions in the 1950s and '80s, giving Canadian soldiers the tools to do the job has never been high on Ottawa's list of priorities. And for the most part that's been fine with the Canadian public.

The fact Canadian troops usually perform well and are invariably a credit to their country owes nothing to either government or public support, and everything to the integrity and self-sacrifice of men and women in uniform. Given our history, this is nothing short of a miracle.

Giving parliamentary approval for overseas military operations has never been the Canadian way, but ironically the Harper government might be more likely to support such a change, philosophically, than any administration in our history.

But they buried Grande Prairie's Tim Wilson on Tuesday after a funeral at Manitoba's Camp Shilo. And now the opposition wants to tell Master Cpl. Wilson's wife and two kids that we need a do-over to re-examine the need for her husband's sacrifice? Just so the opposition can have the opportunity to harass a vulnerable Tory minority government? For shame.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

A PM We Can Be Proud Of

National Post

Published: Tuesday, March 14, 2006

The previous federal government deserves credit for ramping up Canada's commitment to Afghanistan. But the Liberals deployed our troops without a vote, full parliamentary debate or even frequent statements of support. As a result, Canadians have little understanding of why we've taken on this risky mission.

Since assuming office, the Conservatives have been more vocal. Unlike the Liberals, they are not burdened by pacifists within their own ranks -- which means they can be gratifyingly unapologetic about the good work being done.

This explains our prime minister's trip to Afghanistan this week. Even a brief visit to our men and women in Kandahar would have been a stronger endorsement of our military than anything Paul Martin did in his two years in the Prime Minister's Office. But Stephen Harper's surprise appearance this week -- with Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor alongside -- was no quick photo-op, along the lines of the drop-in by then-PM Jean Chretien in 2003. Instead, having arrived Sunday, the PM spent a full day on the base yesterday meeting with troops and touring their facilities.

None of this should be unusual. But after years of wilful neglect of the military from the highest level of government on down, Mr. Harper's decision to devote his first international trip as prime minister to showing solidarity with our troops was an enormously powerful statement.

So, too, were the words Mr. Harper delivered while visiting the base. Recent opposition at home called for strong reassurances to our soldiers that the country is behind them, and Mr. Harper delivered that, pointedly noting that "you can't be a leader from the bleachers" and proclaiming that "cutting and running is not my way and it's not the Canadian way."

Mr. Harper has had a tumultuous first five weeks in office. But the image that will linger of his early prime ministership will be his arrival in Afghanistan. It has been a while since we've had a PM we could truly be proud of -- one who makes us believe in ourselves and our country. The wait may be over.

Harper Gets it Right

Pictured - Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Afghan President Hamid Karzai


KABUL, Afghanistan (CP) - With military helicopters swirling overhead, Afghanistan's president told Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday that he is willing to visit Canada to convince Canadians their help is essential to building his country's burgeoning democracy.

"I've said to the president I hope to see him in Canada," Harper said at a joint news conference with President Hamid Karzai, the first head of state the prime minister has met face-to-face since coming to power in January.

"I'll be there," Karzai interrupted.

He said he was willing to come to explain to Canadians why their presence is so important, a message he asked Harper to take home to a Canadian public that has grown somewhat skeptical of a mission that has taken the lives of 12 Canadians since 2002.

"Please convey to your people, to the people of Canada, the immense gratitude of the Afghan people for what your country, your people have done for us," he told Harper after an hour-long meeting.

"For giving the lives of your sons, for contributing in money, for contributing in soldiers and for being one of the biggest helpers in Afghanistan."

Harper's meeting with the Afghan leader marked the end of the prime minister's surprise two-day visit to the troubled country.

In a stark reminder of the instability that still threatens the country, the news conference at Karzai's president compound was interrupted for 30 seconds while U.S. helicopters swirled overhead to check security at the palace.

The setting was perhaps an unusual inaugural foreign meeting for the prime minister, but Harper has made it clear throughout the two-day visit that Afghanistan is a high priority for the Canadian government.

He came to boost morale among the 2,200 Canadian troops serving in the country, but also used the trip to send the message back home the mission is indispensable - and that the government is not backing down.

Karzai said Canadian financial aid in rebuilding has already gone a long way to helping the country economically.

He gave the example of trade with neighbouring Pakistan. Bilateral trade with the country was $25 million per year under the Taliban, he said, noting that rebuilding efforts have increased the amount to $1.2 billion annually

While other foreign leaders have visited Afghanistan - U.S. President George W. Bush came for four hours earlier this month - Harper's trip was touted as unprecedented in its length and scope.

He arrived under tight security Sunday and spent two nights at the base of the Canadian-led mission in Kandahar. He ate a military lunch with soldiers and gave around 1,000 Canadian troops a pep talk, emphasizing the importance of their mission.

Harper told the troops that Canada will not run away from its commitments in Afghanistan, and that the mission will enable Canada to become a leader on the world scene, rather than a follower.

Harper also visited a nearby base where Canadian troops are training Afghan police.

Insurgents sympathetic to the deposed Taliban government abound in the area, and Canadian troops have been targeted by suicide bombs and roadside attacks.

My Comment - I wonder why the cowardly NDP doesn't support the Afghans and our troops trying to rebuild their fragile democracy and tattered country. The Afghan people had no rights and freedoms under the Taliban, maybe the NDP are not socialists afterall, but cowards that hide when anything becomes challenging. Thank god the NDP were not running Canada in WW1 or WW2.

For the first time in 13 years, Canada has a Prime Minister who we can be proud of and give us back our diginity and pride.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

The Liberal Hits Keep On Coming


OTTAWA (CP) - Taxpayers are picking up the tab for more than $1.3 million in legal fees to help Jean Chretien and two top aides, Jean Pelletier and Jean Carle, defend their actions in the sponsorship affair, government documents show.

Just over $700,000 is earmarked to pay legal counsel for Alfonso Gagliano, the former public works minister, according to the documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

And more than $170,000 is going to cover legal bills for Chuck Guite, the disgraced former bureaucrat who ran the sponsorship program and now faces criminal charges.

But the numbers for those targeted by Justice John Gomery pale next to the fees run up by lawyers who worked for his public inquiry into the scandal.

The three top commission counsel had signed contracts calling for a combined $3.89 million in fees by the time hearings ended last year. That included:

-Chief counsel Bernard Roy, who listed his fees at $1.56 million.

-Co-counsel Neil Finkelstein, who filed for $1.16 million.

-Associate counsel Guy Cournoyer, who billed for $1.17 million.

The documents show a further $4.1 million in fees payable to 27 other lawyers - about 10 of whom worked full-time for the inquiry, while the rest had short-term contracts.

Altogether, the Public Works Department and Privy Council Office listed their sponsorship-related legal fees - including activities other than the Gomery inquiry itself - at more than $14 million.

And that doesn't count the seven per cent GST that applies to legal services. The tax works out to an additional $996,000.

It appears it's taking some time for the complex billing process to be completed.

For example, Hali Gernon, a Privy Council spokeswoman, said the latest figures show about $2.79 million actually paid so far to Roy, Finkelstein and Cournoyer, although their contract figures were higher.

"There may be more working its way through the system," said Gernon.

Cournoyer, who put in 20 months with Gomery - the fourth commissions of inquiry he has worked on - said he knows the public will see the figures as enormous.

But his pay rate of $250 an hour was far less than he would have charged a private client for similar work, he said in an interview.

Beyond that, the wear and tear of the job was enough to make him think long and hard about ever serving with another commission of inquiry, said Cournoyer.

"It was the professional experience of a lifetime, but it took a toll on my family. You wake up at quarter to five, you get to work at six and you rarely come back home before eight or nine at night."

Peter Doody, one of Chretien's lawyers, agreed the rates were well below market values.

"This is difficult to sell to the public, but there was a substantial discount," said Doody. "It would top out at about 60 per cent of normal."

The hourly pay for various participants was set by the government according to a scale based largely on each lawyer's years of experience.

Pierre Fournier, the lawyer for Gagliano, said the base rates - in his experience at least - were not negotiable. The final bills were largely a reflection of the hours put in.

"It's a function of how much work you're prepared to do for your client," said Fournier. "It was my view that my client was in jeopardy and needed someone to be there all the time."

Documents released by Privy Council show lawyers for Chretien had billed for $550,971 as of last November.

Counsel for Pelletier, the former prime minister's chief of staff, billed for $590,623. Lawyers for Carle, the former operations director for Chretien, received $210,208.

Other figures from Public Works show lawyers for Gagliano got $685,405 for work at the inquiry, and another $16,457 for advising their client at the House of Commons public accounts committee.

Guite's lawyers got $159,616 for the inquiry and $10,547 for public accounts.

The payments were in keeping with a longstanding government policy of reimbursing ministers and civil servants for legal fees arising from their public duties.

That doesn't apply, however, to Guite's forthcoming trial on fraud and conspiracy charges. He's on his own there, and recently declared he can't afford a lawyer and intends to represent himself.

Chretien is also footing his own legal bills for a Federal Court challenge of Gomery's findings. The judge found no evidence of personal wrongdoing by the former prime minister but held him politically responsible for not ensuring the program was better run.

Legal bills make up only part of the money spent over the last two years to cure Ottawa's sponsorship hangover.

The full operating budget of the Gomery inquiry - including administrative expenses, equipment, rental of office and hearing space, and a host of other items - has been estimated at between $32 million and $35 million.

Various federal departments report another $39 million in associated spending, pushing the total for cleaning up the liberal scandal to over $70 million.

Idiot of the Week - Scott Brison

This two time winner of this prestigious award is about as smart as my left boot.

First he lies about his involvement with the Income Trust Scandal, and then says he did have some email correspondence with one of his bath-house buddies from the CIBC.

I have to ask the people of his riding, how stupid are you to elect this moron again?, he has a big mouth and no brains and should be charged with conduct unbecoming a cabinet minister. He was privy to privileged information, and could not keep his mouth shut.

The idiotic liberals policies on Income Trusts cost Canadians billions and once again being a liberal or one of their hacks proves to be profitable.

The damage of the liberal party continues......

The NDP Double Standard

So now the NDP are fans of Bernard Shapiro, the entrenched ethics commissioner that is about as effective as the national gun registry.

Ironic that the NDP six months ago called for Shapiro's resignation for the Judy Sgro scandal in immigration, and somehow they are currently his biggest fan.

The ethics commish and the NDP did not want an investigation when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to save a scandal-ridden government, but now when Emerson crosses over they want one? What a joke the NDP and this ethics commissioner are..

No wonder Harper does not want to cooperate, Shapiro is another partisan liberal hack and lacks all credibility.

Why investigate Emerson's crossing and not Stronach? There is no defensible answer to that question Mr Shapiro.

Emerson did not maintain a government in power, his crossing has far less of an impact than Belinda Stronach, this is why the ethics commissioner should be replaced for the sake of all Canadians.

Harper is Everthing Paul Martin Wasn't

Here is is Prime Minister Harper flying a Hercules in his way to Khandahar, Afghanistan to support our great men and women of the CAF.

This PM is decisive and is sending a clear message that he supports our troops and their valiant effort to rebuild democratically fragile Afghanistan.

Unlike Mr. Dithers who really did depise the CAF, Harper is making decisions and does not dither and lament about every decision he has to make.

Harper has been PM for less than eight weeks and he has already visited a place where Paul Martin would never go. That is the true sign of a leader, and all the forces appreciate the support Harper is giving them.

Harper is going to help rebuild the CAF, Afghanistan and all the foreign alliances Canada has, by leading in this mission.

The NDP (and the liberals to a lesser extent)would do everything to tear apart our relationship with our allies, pretty stupid and nieve considering the new global threats of terrorism where there are no borders.

Finally after thirteen long years, Canada has a Prime Minister that Canadians can be proud of.

Instead of spending all his time deflecting the latest scandal as was the case with Paul Martin, Stephen Harper can focus his attention on being a leader of a country - he's off to a great start in my opinion.

There is nothing the NDP, the CBC, or the Toronto Star (aka Red Star) can do to stop that.

The NDP - Party of Cowards

Jack Layton thinks Canada needs to have a parlimentary debate over our military forces fighting in Afghanistan.

The NDP think we should be a peacekeeping country and should not be there, what a typical left-winged cowardly viewpoint.

First of all, peacekeeping defined as acting as a mitigator between two warring factions, the current situation in Afghanistan is not that at all.

Afghanistan now has a democratically elected government, but its fragile as the territorial warlords who control the world's opium supply refuse to relinquish their stranglehold over the country and its people.

This drug money was used to train and house Taliban and Al-Queda extremists who wish to continue the trend of chaos, anarchy, and spread of drug money.

Canada fought in two world wars so hippies like Jack Layton can cower and run away from noble causes like rebuilding a nation like Afghanistan, Jack Layton dishonors all Canadians by not supporting our troops.

Jack Layton like other socialists would rather run cowardly away from NATO and other international committments, Harper (and the liberals for that matter) were right to send our troops there to kill insurgents and radicals while stabilizing the country.

The war on terrorism requires force, and unlike Jack in his little ivory tower in downtown Toronto, he would rather our troops stay home and refuse to help other country's in the world. If not for Canada fighting for what's right, we would all be speaking German right now.

To leave Afghanistan now would show weakness and make innocent people there feel abandoned, which plays right into the warlords hands.

People in Afghanistan have two choices, grow opium for the warlords to feed their families, or work with Canadians and other allies to actually build a country worth some respect and diginity.

Canada has never refused its duty to help other countries in time of need and unlike the NDP I support this mission and the troops unconditionally.

The only reason any Canadian can walk through Europe with a mapleleaf on their pack and be received as a hero, is because Canada did not cower and run when things get bad - its called courage Jack, and unfortunately the NDP doesn't have any.

The old saying is definately true in this context, "when the going gets tough, the tough get going" but the NDP are cowards and think the global war on terroism will blow over with a few love-ins singing "Cumbyah" and "give peace a chance."

Sorry Jack, but Islamic extremists understand one thing - power through violence and terrorism.

Prime Minister Harper does not need debate on this issue, he is showing leadership in a difficult time, and that is what Canada is all about.

Liberal Party is a Wreck

The liberal Party of Canada is $30 million in debt, is still hounded by the sponsorship scandal, Options Canada investigation, income trust scandal, the gun registry, Toronto water front cover up, and dozens of other boondoogles yet to be named.

There is a reason why Frank McKenna, John Manley, Allan Rock, and Brian Tobin declined to run as the party leader, they can see the writing on the wall.

These men know the liberal party is going down in flames and there is nothing they can do about it, unlike the intellectual midgets Stronach and Brison.

I hope Stronach or Brison becomes the next liberal leader, this could lead to 13 years of Conservative government.

Liberal Gun Registry a National Disgrace


Toronto Sun

While guns have their usefulness, we believe the pen is mightier. And it's certainly mightier than the gun registry. As evidence, we note two fine columns published yesterday -- one in the Sun, and one by one of our competitors -- that once again shot the rightly discredited registry full of holes.

Our own Mark Bonokoski, who has diligently covered a disturbing number of recent stories involving legitimate gun owners having their legally stored weapons stolen, offered a devastating argument that the nearly $2-billion registry itself could actually be contributing to these crimes.

Citing numerous examples of breaches of the federal government's other (supposedly) secure databases -- the RCMP-administered CPIC system; even top secret defence department security computers -- Bono argued that the bungle-plagued gun registry is just as vulnerable.

Proving the point, he quoted former firearms registry webmaster John Hicks, who says he reported flaws in the system to his superiors: "It took some $15 million to develop it, and I broke into it in about 30 minutes," said Hicks. "A 16-year-old kid could have broken into that system in a heartbeat."

Sophisticated computer hacking aside, Bono has also reported how would-be thieves can track gun owners through ammunition sales records kept by retail stores, or other means. But most registry proponents prefer to ignore these troubles and blame the victim -- gun owners who've been burgled -- while demanding laws to ban all innocent people from owning guns.

Meanwhile, over at the National Post, columnist Lorne Gunter ripped apart a recent Star editorial (you can see why we like the guy) that insisted dismantling the unconscionably expensive gun registry -- which Stephen Harper's Conservatives were elected to do -- would be a "national tragedy."

Gunter skewered claims that the registry is oh-so-useful because police computers check it thousands of times a week -- explaining that such checks are built into the system. The fact remains, all the registry can do is tell police if someone is, or isn't, a legally registered gun owner. It can't tell them if a suspect has an illegal gun, and it has done absolutely nothing to stop them flooding our streets.

Even the most adamant gun-haters among us should recognize that that is the national tragedy. The sooner the registry is scrapped, the better.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Politically Correct Canada Relents Again

Updated Thu. Mar. 2 2006 12:33 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Canada's top court ruled Thursday that a Montreal school went too far when it barred a Sikh boy from wearing his ceremonial dagger to school.

In a unanimous 8-0 judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a Quebec Court of Appeals decision that had banned teenager Gurbaj Singh Multani from wearing the dagger, known as a kirpan, to class.

"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," Justice Louise Charron wrote in the decision, adding that a total ban infringed Multani's guarantee of religious freedom under the Charter of Rights.

Orthodox Sikhs, who make up about 10 per cent of the estimated 250,000 Sikhs in Canada, are required by their religion to wear the kirpan at all times.

Charron said the boy had no history of violence, and rejected the idea that kirpans are inherently dangerous.

She also noted that schools had other objects which could also be used for violence, such as scissors and baseball bats.

However, the court did leave room for some restrictions to be imposed on the carrying of kirpans in the name of public safety.

Gurbaj Singh, now 17 and in his last year of high school, told reporters that the five-year battle had been worth it.

"I feel very good that we won our rights. Everybody should stand for their rights," he said, surrounded by numerous Sikh supporters outside the court.

Palbinder Shergill, counsel for the Canadian branch of the World Sikh Organization, told reporters that she hoped the decision "will put that matter to rest once and for all."

The final ruling in the long-running case -- which pitted religious freedom against school safety -- is likely to resonate across the country and could give some direction to provincial governments on how far they must go to accommodate religious beliefs.


Gurbaj Singh's case goes back to 2001, when, at the age of 12, he accidentally dropped his kirpan in the schoolyard of Ste-Catherine-Laboure school in LaSalle, Que.

The school's principal ordered him to remove the kirpan, but the young boy decided to leave the school rather than remove the 10-centimetre dagger.

Gurbaj Singh's family then took the case to court, and in May 2002, the Quebec Superior Court ruled the boy could wear his kirpan to school, but only if it was wrapped in a cloth and hidden inside a wooden case underneath clothing.

However in 2004, the Quebec Court of Appeal struck down the decision completely, instead ruling that community safety was more important.

In the court's view, the kirpan violated a student conduct code that prohibited the carrying of "weapons and dangerous objects."

At a Supreme Court hearing in April 2005, Julius Grey, lawyer for the family, noted that schools in other Canadian provinces have permitted the wearing of kirpans and there had never been a case where one has been used to stab a student.

That adds up to "overwhelming empirical evidence that the kirpan is not a dangerous weapon," said Grey.

However, Francois Aquin, lawyer for the Montreal school board, retorted that there had never been any school assaults with kitchen knives either. "That doesn't mean we will allow students to carry kitchen knives in school," she told the hearing.


Other provinces, including schools in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, have solved the issue with a compromise.

They permit the wearing of kirpans with certain restrictions -- such as a limit on size or a requirement that they be worn hidden under clothing.

Sikh MPs are allowed to wear kirpans in the House of Commons, but trial judges in some provinces have banned them from courtrooms.

Most airlines once routinely allowed passengers to wear kirpans with blades no longer than 10 centimetres.

However, after the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S., Transport Canada imposed a total ban on all "knives or knife-like objects," which included religious ones.

Thursday's Supreme Court of Canada ruling focused specifically on wearing kirpans in schools.

My comment - Welcome to Canada, where you can literally get away with possessing child porn, drunk driving, or possessing weapons because its a charter right.

That idiot Trudeau and the liberals in general have damaged this country for generations to come.