Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Stephen Harper is now the Prime Minister. So Congrats to the Conservative Party for winning the election in a very proffessional manner and congrats to Harper. Now the real work begins and hopefully Harper and company can rise to the challenge. O' Canada.

Stand Up For Canada, Vote Conservative Today!

Well today is election day in Canada. I have made a couple of posts over the course of the campaign and if any one was so inclined to read them, it was clear where my political affiliations reside.

Voting for the Conservative Party of Canada is the best choice today. Period.

I am not going to ennumerate all of the reasons to vote for the Conservatives, but if you look at the all of the platforms, it's clear who is right on the issues.

Get out and vote today!

Get out and vote Conservative today!

Kyoto talk; nothing but hot air

I am getting really tired of Martin's newest line about going back on our international word on Kyoto. Here's a quoute from one of his ministers to the same effect.

“To withdraw from the Kyoto Accord, Canada would have to renounce our signature on an international agreement. That would be an enormous blow to our reputation on the international scene,” said Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Liberal candidate in the riding of Papineau. - Liberal Press Release

This is true, Conservatives will go back on Canada's word, but ok. It's worth it. Kyoto was one more bad Liberal idea. It's a Euro-Japan solution that would have us pay $4600000000 (4.6 billion) to Russia for Kyoto credits in the next five years. How is this helping the environment? Stand up and come to the front of the class if you knew the answer is that it doesn't.

Further one of the biggest environmental problems in eastern Canada is acid rain. Kyoto does nothing to curb the pollutants that cause acid rain.

To add insult to injury, while the Liberals talk about their environmental concious and how important Kyoto is to the "global concience," since signing Kyoto Canadian emissions have risen 24% above 1990 levels. Now under Kyoto these emissions were supposed to be reduced by 6% bellow 1990 levels. The United States by contrast has seen it's emissions rise by 13.3% during the same period. Yet Martin still had the gall to call out the United States for not signing it. So there you have it. The Liberals think that it is important to sign Kyoto but not do anything about it. Shame on you Martin for trying to score cheap political points at the cost of our allies.

Will Conservatives pull out of Kyoto yes. But the Liberals signed Kyoto and figured they were done, for Liberals it was the signing of Kyoto that was important, not Kyoto itself. If you are worried about our international reputation Mr. Martin then you should make good on your word instead of just giving it out willy-nilly.

Fundamentally Paul Martin needs a thesaurus

I just watched a CTV interview with Paul Martin. He didn't really say anything, he never does. More of the same rhetoric, Martin is an eternal optimist about his political fortunes, he likes the platform he put forward, and would really like to brush off all of that icky scandal stuff. He also made a point of attacking Harpers budget plan whilst quoting random figures. Maybe he could explain why he has been so far off in estimating the surplus in the last five years before he chastises the Conservative Party and the Conferance Board of Canada.

However, he did use the word fundamentally at least a dozen times in a five minute interview. It looks like he could use an english refresher and a thesaurus.....

Instead of fundamentally Paul Martin could have used primary, basic, principal, or essential.

Are the Liberals in such a weak financial position that they cannot get their leader a thesaurus?

Main Entry: 1fun·da·men·tal Pronunciation: "f&n-d&-'men-t&lFunction: adjective1 a : serving as an original or generating source : PRIMARY b : serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : BASIC2 a : of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts : RADICAL ; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application b : adhering to fundamentalism3 : of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration4 : of central importance : PRINCIPAL 5 : belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics : DEEP-ROOTED synonym see ESSENTIAL

I respond to an ill-informed Gateway article

In the January 10th issue of the Gateway (University of Alberta student newspaper) the below article was published in the Opinion section. I felt the "columnist" was ill-informed and decided to respond. My response follows the original article.

Handgun rhetoric may decide the election
Mike Larocque
If You managed to pry yourself away from the cycle of sleeping and eating that more than likely enveloped your Christmas break, you would likely notice the Canadian news media focused on two issues: elections and guns. In the past year, incidents of gun-related violence—and deaths—have skyrocketed. Thirteen of Edmonton’s 37 murders in 2005 were caused by guns, and in Toronto—the location of a highly publicized Boxing Day shooting of a 15-year-old girl—shooting deaths have jumped from 27 in 2004 to a record 52 lives lost last year. Considering that that number was under 15 only ten years ago, the statistics are startling. With the rash of gun violence coming to a climax in the middle of a federal election campaign, it comes as little surprise that the issue has become the focus of talking points and a subject of campaign promises across the political board. None of the parties can ignore it, but no one seems quite sure what to do about it, either. The only thing they do seem to know is that if they’re not talking about it, they’re falling behind. The Liberals, reaffirming an earlier campaign promise, vowed to make handguns illegal in Canada. The Tories, on the other hand, claimed that they would crack down on illegal handguns being brought across the border from the United States. The NDP championed improved social programs as the solution to the problem. None of them are right, but then, none of them are wrong, either. This situation is unfortunately a glowing example of the state of Canadian politics. Even with two solid years of focus on the Liberals and AdScam, the Tories have only managed to bring themselves neck and neck with the Grits, an unimpressive feat given that the Liberals has been pretty much on the defensive since 2004. The reason for this is that this election has been about who you shouldn’t vote for, rather than who would actually serve Canada best. And, once you’ve pandered to the segment of the public who are basing their vote on the corruption of the Liberals, it comes down to the issues, even if no one is really addressing them. None of the proposed solutions to Canadian gun violence is really a solution. Guns will still come over the border even if they’re made illegal in Canada, and tighter borders won’t help if firearm laws in this country aren’t tightened. When it comes down to it, people don’t care about money and scandal and corruption. Those things get them mad, but to most, it’s just business as usual. A teen girl getting killed on a street while shopping, however, is what will make people want to vote for a party, whether or not their “solution” is really any sort of solution at all. What this election needs is substance over smear. A few ideas that focus on fixing the problem, rather than appealing to a party’s base, is what will both win the election and save lives.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Response
In his January 10th article “Handgun rhetoric may decide the election” Mike Larocque states, “…no one (political parties) seems quite sure what to do about it (the rash of gun violence in our cities particularly Toronto…)” Fact is, the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) does know what to do about gun violence. The CPC has laid out a four-part plan to deal with the problem. First, preventing gun violence in the first place by reinvesting $50 million (over five years) in crime prevention and community programs that assist at risk youth. Second, stopping the flow of guns coming into Canada from the US by providing our customs agents with the support and equipment they need to stem the flow of these weapons. Third, hiring a minimum of 3500 police and RCMP officers across the country. And finally, if individuals make the choice to exclude themselves from society by carrying a weapon on Canadian streets the CPC will remove them from society by introducing mandatory sentencing for major firearms offences. This means that if you are caught on Whyte Avenue with a loaded, prohibited weapon, such as a handgun, you will go to prison for a minimum of five years. If you murder someone with that prohibited weapon, the sentence doubles to a minimum of ten years in prison. By contrast the Liberals have proposed a phony ban on handguns by outlawing guns that are already effectively banned. Some handguns used in crimes are stolen from people who do own those handguns legally for the purpose of target shooting or collection. So the rationale for the handgun ban is to confiscate these legally owned firearms so they cannot be stolen. This is akin to holding the owner of a stolen vehicle partially responsible for any crime committed where the vehicle was used. The ban will cause no weapons shortage in Canada, as the Liberals have refused to crack down on weapons smuggled in from the US. On gun violence Larocque says that neither party is right, nor is it wrong, but while the Liberals prefer a phony handgun ban to solve the problem, the CPC has a concrete plan to deal with urban gun violence.

Scott A. Penny
Engineering III

Canadian Election: Harper looks like PM in second debate

Last night was the second and final national english language debate among the leaders of the four main parties. While all of the party sites claim their candidate won the debate, there didn't really emerge a clear winner.

The Conservative party has experienced a surge in recent polls and had the momentum going into the night. Stephen Harper needed to not lose the debate and he did just that. While he didn't hit back hard enough against Liberal charges that he is a Republican puppet, it was Harper not Martin that looked like the Prime Minister of Canada last night. Harper clearly laid out his five priorities for his vision of Canada, he was statesmanly, confident, and for the first time on national tv he responded warmly to the camera and audience instead of his usual bristly demeanor. It seemed to me that there has been a transformation of sorts, from Harper the Leader of the Official Opposition, to Harper the Prime Minister.

Martin leveled three charges at Harper. The first, that he looks to the American right for inspiration, which is only damaging inasmuch as their is rampant anti-American sentiment in this country. It is not a substance charge. Harper, trying to remain statesmanly, responded only by saying that for six-generations the Harper family has conducted it's business proudly under the Canadian flag. This is a back handed slap aimed at Martin who flies foreign flags on the ships of his company Canada Steamship Lines (CSL) to avoid paying taxes. This is something that really strikes me, the PM of Canada won't fly the Canadian flag, becuase he would incur higher taxes, yet has the gall to call into question another leaders patriotism. The second charge is that the Conservative plan spends more money than Canada has, this is untrue, and Martin knows that, but he is banking on the fact that the average Canadian will take his word on the matter. Fact is that the Conservative plan has been meticulously costed out and "...has been independently verified by the prestigious Conference Board of Canada." The third charge is that Harper isn't Martin, the great defender of the charter of rights. Martin used the debate as his own press conferance to anounce that if elected he would move to strike down the not-withstanding clause. This was done to try and get people to talk about the Liberal party without using the words RCMP, investigation, or scandal. It is yet another bad idea. The not-withstanding clause allows the Parliament of Canada to disagree with the Supreme Court of Canada. So if the Supreme Court were to say legalize the euthanization of babies in the first week after they were born, then the Parliament could use the not-withstanding clause to over rule that decision. This is of course an extreme example, and that is what the not-withstanding clause is used for, to balance the power of the Supreme Court only in extreme cases. For most of the night Martin looked more like the toothless drunks you can find on Whyte avenue here in Edmonton than he did the Prime Minister of Canada. With his wild gesticulations, and non-sensical blubbering, I felt more like giving Martin my spare change than I did my vote.

I mentioned earlier that there wasn't a clear winner and the reason is Jack Layton. The leader of the NDP gave his best ever "debate" performance last night. Layton cannot debate. He's not good at it. When he does get into more heated exchanges like in the 2004 debates and the first debate of this election before Christmas he starts to resemble your friends annoying shitsu that sits on the couch beside you and barks it's head off. Layton cannot debate. So last night he utilized the joint press-conferance style of the debate to his advantage and every time he spoke reframed the question around his party being the "third-choice." He tried to lump Conservatives and Liberals into the same camp, but Harper easily deflected that by laying out a clear, concised, and intelligent platform.

Gilles Duceppe who is a master debater was there, but seing as his focus is Quebec-centric he was mostly a non-issue. I think that Conservative support will continue to rise in Quebec, but mostly at the cost of the Liberal party. Duceppe hammered Martin on a number of issues including national unity which casts doubt on Martin's claim to be the only one able to keep Canada together. More and more it looks like the Liberal party is moving Canada further down the path to Canada and Quebec.

The Conservative party will keep the momentum, but they will probably start to level off in the polls and barring any twelfth hour comments by Uncle Klein they will probably form a minority government on January 23rd. The biggest thing that Harper did last night was to look, act, and talk like the PM and I think that people are starting to say "Prime Minister Harper", gee that does have a nice ring to it.