Keepitsimple

I'm relieved to see there are not many supporters of your position. I think you might want to consider moving to Switzerland. More and more, people are reluctantly finding out that you have to take a principled stand on terrorism. The reason is that with groups like Al Quaeda and the Taliban, there is no room for negotiation, no room for human rights or fair play - death is a reward to them. You cannot appease them. Others, like Hezbollah and Hamas are not that far behind with their raison d'etre being the complete annihilation of Israel. I do believe however, that there is a miniscule bit of hope for these latter groups. Golda Meir once said "We will have peace with the Arabs when they will love their children more than they hate us".

There were 24 Canadians killed on September 11. Canada was not smug at the time. We tried to get deadlines for compliance and a U.N. resolution that would have authorized the use of further force. The U.S. was moving with unseemly haste and there were a number of people who asked what the outcome would be for Iraq as a nation following invasion. There *were* questions about the intelligence leading up the the invasion. They were shouted down. Canada did stand by its ally. We did all we could do gather support for their position but in the end the U.S. decided to invade without the same level of support that George Bush Sr had expertly gathered together for the first Gulf war. Chretien acted in Canada's best interest and was attacked for the position by Harper. Now, Harper tries to brush aside what he would have done as prime minister. Why is Wells bringing it up now? Because Harper is convinced that Khan has the correct policy. What that policy is is anyone's guess because Harper won't make it public. It's utterly rediculous for anyone to think that Canada's foreighn policy is going to be shaped by Wajid Khan. The man took a junket and spoke to a variety of people on a shoestring budget of $13,000 and no entourage. His report provided just another one of many insights into the Middle East situation. Khan's mistake was saying up front that he would make his report public when in fact, he should not have. Many people and organizations provide "advice" to the government - some is considered, some is discarded. Can you imagine if the media actually got hold of Khan's report? They would spin it as "policy" emphasizing anything that seemed out of place - even though it was "advice" and may have been discarded. Let's not fool ourselves, most media are looking for ammunition to tar Harper. After all, this is a Liberal country. The Conservatives should not be in power, damn it. It's just not fair.

Just for the record, Dion now supports Bush on the environment: From a recent edition of the Toronto Star - buried of course, near the end of an article with an unrelated headline: Even U.S. President George W. Bush – whose administration consistently questioned the science behind climate change – put forward "the kind of plan we need everywhere," Dion said. Link: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/174709 He's a clever one, that Dion.

Ouch! I woulda replied sooner but I jes got back from church and had ta bring the cows in. Ah almost swallerred mah tobackky when ah read yore replah. I hav not had much skoolin' but I take afence to yore callin us hicks and zellots. God made room for all of us in this here grate country. Ah'd appreeshiate if you could let us have our point of vue. Your comments are hurtful.

We'll see how it plays but I understand where they are coming from - the media is giving this guy a "free ride" - he has done nothing and has no credentials or experience. And by the way - they are not "negative attack" ads is you are simply exposing clips of actaul speeches in a manner that doesn't grossly misrepresent things. In other words - truthful. Negative attack ads are the Liberals "Soldiers in the city - we're not making this up". Here's an excerpt from the article: Sources say the party is concerned that Dion is getting a free ride from the mainstream media and the Tories want to go over the heads of the national media in Ottawa to reach ordinary Canadians. The ads -- which party officials showed to the Conservative caucus on Friday -- cast doubt on Dion's environmental credentials and leadership abilities, according to sources that have seen them. One Conservative insider told CTV News the party "wants to define Dion before the Liberals get the chance to define him with a free ride from the media." One of the ads is a clip from the Liberal leadership campaign. "You don't know how hard it is to set priorities," Dion states in one ad as a perplexed Ignatieff looks on, according to a Tory source. Another ad mocks Dion's failure as environment minister to meet the Kyoto climate change targets. "We didn't get it done." Deputy Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says to Dion in an exchange taken from the Liberal leadership race. Tory MPs roared when the ads were played for them at the caucus retreat. "They are all Liberals in the ads and they are quite funny," one Tory MP said.

By accident or not, Canada made the right move in staying out of Iraq...but let's not be so smug. It's easy to bash bush through a revisionist view of Iraq. I would have liked the US to give the UN another 2 or 3 months to make Hussein comply with detailed inspections but in fact Iraq had many, many chances. While there were some inspectors who were still sceptical that Iraq had WMD, all the major countries were positive that he did have them - and they stated that fact time and time again. Coupled with the intelligence was the reasoning that if he didn't have them, why not let the UN have an unrestricted look at everything? It made no sense and enforced the intelligence community's view that he had them - now proven to be wrong. So let's not get caught up in saying "Lies, lies, all lies". It was intel shortcomings and Hussein being a cutthroat buffoon. All very unfortunate. I don't think there would be as many naysayers if Bush had made better decisions and Iraqis were in full control of their own free country. But it didn't work out that way. The UK, Australia, US and Canada have been allies through World Wars and other conflicts. September 11th - lest we forget - took over 30 Canadian lives - murdered. Our first instinct should always be to stand by our allies - that's where Stephen Harper was coming from. It's pretty easy to look back and say he's changed positions - but things have chnaged - information that was not available then is common knowledge now. Isn't it interesting that Paul Wells drags this story out now?

I'm going to weigh in on this from a different point of view. I'm in Toronto so I might not be up-to-speed on all the Vancouver issues....but what seems to be missing is that people on this Blog report that hundreds of people are dying from drug overdoses. Yet I never read anything about it in the papers. Perhaps if it was publicized more - making every death count for something - advertizing every wasted life - all the wasted potential - then maybe some kids would get the message and get off the road to nowhere. As for the Safe Injection Sites - as far as I'm concerned, that amounts to society throwing up their hans and saying- we can't beat it so let's make it safer. To kids, that amounts to society accepting that drug use is "just one of those things". Sorry - I'm an old fashioned type - show the ugliness of it all - in schoools - show the track marks, the vacant eyes, the homelessness, the crime to feed the need, the single-mindedness of living every day to find the next fix. Don't accept it - fight it all the way - it's very little different that stopping someone from jumping off a bridge. Tough but compassionate laws with mandatory rehab - regardless of the Charter of Rights. Get real.

Good joke.

Heck, I'm from Montreal and cheered for Les Canadiens when Dryden was a goalie - so how could I not like him? His intentions were good and the Agreement that you referred to was a noble and grand attempt...but the fact of the matter is that the Liberals simply gave the money to Alberta - they can spend in on public or private Child Care, in any form that they like. Here's an excerpt from the Agreement (my highlights) that you provided that makes it clear that indeed - they were just handing over the money - everything else is just window-dressing: AREAS FOR INVESTMENT To advance the vision set out in this agreement, Alberta agrees to invest federal funds transferred to Alberta under this initiative in provincially regulated and approved early learning and child care programs and services, including public and private providers, for children under six. In the context of this agreement, regulated programs are defined as programs and services that meet quality standards that are established and monitored by Alberta. Early learning and child care programs and services funded under this agreement will primarily provide direct care for children in settings such as child care centers, family child care homes, preschools and nursery schools. Types of investments could include: capital and operating funding, fee subsidies, wage enhancements, training, professional development and support, quality assurance, and parent information and referral. Programs and services that are part of the formal school system will not be included in this initiative.

That's a reasonable position to take......but for the record, Conservatives do not think of the Left as being ***scary***. We might not like the heavy government approach to issues, but we don't find it ***scary***.

From today's Toronto Star - buried of course, near the end of an article with an unrelated headline: Dion voiced considerable skepticism that Harper would put together a credible plan but asked the government to come forward with new proposals. Even U.S. President George W. Bush – whose administration consistently questioned the science behind climate change – put forward "the kind of plan we need everywhere," Dion said. Link:http://www.thestar.com/News/article/174709 Me thinks there might be another "clarification" forthcoming similar to yesterday's fiasco that saw him supporting the re-admission of Adscam crook Mark-Yvan Cote to the Liberal Party.

The Kelowna Accord, which Steve canceled was addressing the unique needs of our First Nations. What substitute does Steve have? Nothing. And yet Liberals have made a difference. They wrestled Canada back from the brink of bankruptcy, where Mulroney had taken us. They balanced the budget, started to pay down the debt, implemented $100.5 billion in tax cuts in 2000, $22 billion in 2005 and $29 billion in 2006. These tax cuts were aimed at lower income Canadians. WTF did Steve do???? He robbed the poor to pay the rich. I personally lost over $400 per year in taxes. He immediately gave his rich buddies a $5 billion GST reduction, he raised the lowest tax bracket and lowered the personal exemption and wiped out the Liberal tax cuts to the poor, the elderly and those who can't afford big ticket items to take advantage of the GST cut. Steve is not embracing Climate Change. He needs votes so he borrowed the Liberal Project Green plan that they had set up, but lost the election so some parts of the plan had not been fully implemented. This of course was after he had canceled all the environment plans as soon as he was elected. Some problems can't be fixed without putting money into it. Every single Steve announcement on Climate change was a Liberal Project Green project. Steve just took out the parts where the poor and seniors received monies to retrofit their homes, changed the names and all of a sudden the "new" government has a plan on emissions and kyoto targets but it's not kyoto. Amazing. Steve is not listening. He is politicking. He wants his majority so he can change Canada into his own image. All those speeches he gave, all the letters he wrote, all those words he said, they are still his intent. He is just biding his time and needs a majority to wreck our political system. Seeing the votes is not governing. Steve is doing what it takes, lie, cheat, cover up..... whatever it take to get his end result. And that is not listening to Canadians and adapting. It is listening to Canadians to see how he can fool them into voting for his majority. Steve cannot be trusted and his fresh air is rotten underneath. The man is a scam artist. A thug. His Party sucks big time. It has no heart. No soul. I guess that means you fall into category #1 of RickiBobbi's quote - but that's OK. It takes all kinds of people to make a democracy work. Just for the record though - the Kelowna Accord, as put together by the Liberals, was not all bad. The problem is that it had very little focus and accountability....so once again, the money would have disappeared down a black hole. I don't want to slag the Liberals for Kelowna - at least it was a real attempt. Where I fault the LIberals is that they did not start to really address the problems during the previos 10 years when they had majoroities - it wasn't a question of money. Lord knows, we've had plenty of money to distribute to First Nations but over the years, it hasn't made the difference that it should have. The Conservatives have said that they will honour the goals of Kelowna and in fact have worked very well with the BC government and First Nations out there to resolve a lot of issues and start to improve the quality of life. Jim Prentice is very well respected by First Nations - always has been - and he's making a difference. Jim is more than a politician - he's worked with First Nations for many years and understands the problems. You won't see much credit being given to him by the media because...well, because he's a Conservative. Like I said.....let's start to take a different approach at solving these things.

Is daycare a provincial responsibility? Is it education? What makes you say so? How do you think private business will step forward? Most don't now. And let's not forget that Harper did say he was going to create daycare spaces not that the provinces were going to do it. Well, there's a couple of ways to look at it. If you look at what the Liberals called their "Program" - it was Early Childhood Learning - that would be Education which is a provincial juristiction. The reality as I said earlier is that the Liberals actually had no plan - they just promised money to the provinces - to be spent as they each thought best as long as it was in some way related to Childcare. It was simply a money transfer - Harper is trying to address this through the Fiscal Imbalance. Most provinces already have forms of childcare with Quebec of course, being at the forefront.....but I know that Ontario and BC have taken steps to provide government funded spaces. I don't know what other provinces are doing but there's also a lot of private daycare and I think some of those are subsidized to some degree. As for a better incentive for businesses - I'm not sure. I know it's a good idea but it's not working right now - something more is needed. Look at all the big companies out there - the Banks, Bell, Telus. It would be wonderful if families could combine working and having their children close at hand. The plan currently calls for the government to provide $10,000 (a grant I believe) for the creation of each daycare spot. I think that's geared to fund the "infrastructure".....but then the company has to fund the operating costs - I think that's the fly in the ointment. In addition to businesses, I believe these grants can also be used by non-profit community groups. I think the total pool of funds is $250 million per year. I think it could work but most of the funding should come from the provinces after the fiscal imbalance is sorted out. The provinces are in a better position to focus help where help is needed - and again, education is their responsibility.

There is a tendency in politics, aptly demonstrated within this Blog, to express views in partisan fashion – and to polarize many worthwhile discussion threads. The Conservatives have been in power for a year now – a rare incursion into Canada’s Liberal dominated governance. While this may yet prove to be a mere interlude, the past year has shown that Canada can capably survive and indeed thrive with another government at the helm. This past year has also given us a glimpse of something that Canada has been unfamiliar with for some time – firm and principled leadership. Stephan Harper has shown himself to be a wily and shrewd politician. I have personally admired his mix of humility and brazenness and his respect for the traditions and history of this great country. Having said all this, I recognize – as do many others – that a large number of Canadians are still uncomfortable with the change from a Liberal government to what they might view as an untested one. Yet it is a very natural occurrence in any democracy to have changes in governance – indeed, it is change that nurtures a healthy democracy. This "unease" has of course been exacerbated by the demonizing of Stephan Harper and the Conservatives in the last election (soldiers in the cities; far, far right wing; strip away your rights, George Bush clone, etc.). The demonizing has been continued by Liberals and a media which has become very complacent with the Natural Governing Party. With Canada having undergone a change in Government, it is now up to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives to govern on behalf of all Canadians and also, on behalf of all Provinces. This is what governments do. Conservatism brings with it a fundamental vision of efficient government, fiscal responsibility, a stronger focus on family, and an allegiance to the roles and responsibilities of the Provinces and Federal Government as set out in our Constitution. Our friends on the “Left” would have Canadians believe that Conservatives don't care about poverty; that Conservatives are against Childcare and against helping our First Nations - they're just mean-sprited. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is about how we go about accomplishing these noble goals. Compassion is not a Liberal virtue - it is a Canadian virtue. Liberals have had many years to address the problems of poverty in general and the unique needs of our First Nations Communities. They have maintained majorities in our parliament and have had the power to make a difference – yet these situations are now worse than ever. Similarly with the environment – Liberals signed Kyoto and have accomplished very little – with the exception of the announcement of a “Green Plan” when the Martin government was in its death throes….and keep in mind – this Plan was never really implemented. So let us try new ways to address these issues. Let us try to avoid simply throwing money at problems. That has clearly not worked. People are asking – how can Stephan Harper suddenly embrace Climate Change. It’s simple – he’s listening. It’s a priority for Canadians. Sceptics will say he “sees the votes”. That may be true – but again – that’s what governing is about – listening to Canadians and adapting. The important thing is getting things done - action, not rhetoric. I’ve called this post the “Blending of Conservatism” because with the mantle of power, Stephen Harper is beginning to demonstrate the ability to form policies that appeal to a much broader audience than his traditional Conservative base. That's what leadership is all about. Give the man a chance. Give the Party a chance. Continue to give our country a breath of fresh air.

A recent "pre-release" of the IPCC report shows that it may be even more confusing than the 2001 report. The report said: In 2001, the panel said the world's average temperature would increase somewhere between about 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius and the sea level would rise between 10 and 89 centimetres by the year 2100. The 2007 report will likely have a smaller range of numbers for both predictions, Pachauri and other scientists said. The future is bleak, scientists said. One of the most "fearful" aspects of IPCC reports has been this projected increase in Sea Levels. Keep in mind that sea levels have been rising for the last several hundred years at a constant rate of about 20cc per century or between 1 and 3mm per year. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#_note-0 The 2001 IPCC report indicates that Sea Levels may be affected in a manner that could reduce the "rise" by 50% or increase them 4 fold (10-89cc). This obviously means that there is a wide divergence of opinion in this area alone - and confirms that the "science is evolving". Of course, what gets reported? Why, Al Gore's one meter rise of the oceans of course. Has there really been any mention that some data shows that Sea Level rise may actually slow over the next 100 years? All we so called "skeptics" want is a balanced presentation of the facts. There is something going on - let's face it and adapt to it.

The important part of the article is at the very end: "We've got caught up somehow in thinking that governments should create day care. And that's wrong." Graham said new centres wind up poaching from the 600 private and non-profit members that her group represents. "We can't even retain the staff we've got because we're in direct competition with the government-created day cares. We're constantly losing." Provinces that blame the federal Conservatives for child-care cuts, as the B.C. government recently did, should be held to account, Graham added. "Too many provinces are not putting any of their own additional money into stabilizing child care. It's children who are becoming the pawns in this political game." We get back to the same old story - there is only one tax payer - there are only so many dollars to spend. Education is a provincial responsibility. Quebec for example, has chosen to spend tax dollars on childcare. Harper has it right - settle the fiscal imbalance, put money in the right hands and let provinces, cities and communities establish their own priorities based on their own unique needs. The Liberals Childcare plan was nothing more than giving money to the provinces - of course they would take it! But in reality, the one billion per year from Ottawa would only account for 10-15% of childcare needs across the country according to the activists. Let's not even start to think about CUPE getting involved. So we'd end up with another Healthcare situation with constant arguing over funding and juristiction - and Liberal governments "riding to the rescue" at election time. The Conservative approach does not really intrude on Provincial juristiction - it uses the Federal tax system to try to encourage employers and communities to build centers. It's not working right now but maybe it can be modified to get businesses moving. That, in conjunction with the Fiscal imbalance might start us on the road.

There truly is a Leftist view of the world - I'm not really talking about mainstream Liberals - although there is a "Left" within the Liberal Party that can relate and even embrace the following issue....and that is a Socialistic view of the world - a massive redistribution of wealth...a view that certain countries have too much and other countries have too little. Kyoto is a shining example of the Left in action. I don't really think that there is a "conspiracy" per se...it's just that people of this ilk are true-believers and will shape the "facts" to suit their ends. I think for the most part, they don't even realize it because they believe their intentions are so rightcheous, so correct, just so damn sensible. The problem with their approach is that no good can ever come from lies or put more gently, the distortion of facts. Unfortunately, these socialistic viewpoints, which manifest themselves in many ways, tend to be supported by a significant number of University professors (90% vote Liberal) and the media, among others. So consider this: notwithstanding the gravy train that propels Kyoto, no matter what we do, we'll be burning fossil fuels for a very long time - we're not going to get rid of our furnaces or cars anytime soon.....however the price will go up as pressure is put on the Oil Companies to get "cleaner" - so what do they really care? They'll just pass on any extra costs to the consumer. Now...about those windmills, fuel cells, solar power, tide power, and whatever....once they are proven effective in making a profit, who's going to invest and build them? Why the Oil, Gas and Electric companies - that's who. So the fact that "The oil companies are funding the skeptics" to deny Global Warming is baloney. They may be funding some of them - but as you can see, they win either way. One could make a solid argument that the oil industry is actually in favour of Kyoto because it puts upward pressure on oil prices and creates other opportunities. My own thought has always been that Climate Science is important and we need to understand it better so we can adapt to Climate Change - perhaps even embrace some of the positive elements. Substantial and meaningful ninvestments in Climate Science should be made, we should let the science continue to evolve, and we should deal with all the facts, even if they don't nicely fit the theory-of-the-day. Science and "consensus" make for strange bedfellows. It only takes one correct scientist to disprove a consensus - especially one driven by a politically motivated organization like the UN/IPCC.

I agree with the previous two posters but to better understand why Canada did not talk with this guy and takes a strong position on Hamas in general, here's the crux of it - taken from the interview: Later in the interview, he suggested that there should be a single Islamic state stretching across the Middle East, adding that there was plenty of space in Canada to establish a Jewish homeland. Isn't it interesting how the Globe and Mail inserted the following "quote" as a lead-in to the article: During an hour-long interview that he said was a replacement for the meeting Mr. MacKay denied him, Mr. Zahar alternated between saying he was anxious to open a dialogue with Canada and saying he looked forward to the moment that Canadians voted the “extremist” Conservative government out of office. As has been said many times on this Blog, our left-wing media has been desperately trying to portray the Conservatives in a negative light at every opportunity. Childish. Hopefully, people are starting to notice the blatency of their efforts.

Hmm. I wonder? People may find the following a bit of an eye-opener: Intimate Partner Abuse Against Men Above from:http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/mlintima_e.html (Emphasis is mine). The above data parallels that in the UK and US. From: http://www.batteredmen.com/batrcan.htm My apologies; tried to copy and paste more substantial information from the above but it just wouldn't work. Interesting but really off the mark. As usual, it depends on what questions were actually asked. If "abuse" was tabulated by including "my wife yelled at me", then that's misleading. Really, my original post was meant to address the common sense situation where man=big and woman=small and man=coward and physically assaults the woman. In general, women usually can't win a physical battle with a man. That can equal fear. As far as men being abused by their partner - they should get a backbone. I cringe when I see the word "scholar" doing surveys like this. Why can't they ask these two basic questions: "Has your partner ever assaulted you in a manner that made you fearful?" and "Are you fearful that you will be assaulted again?".

A good example of the political bias of the Public Service, mainly through partisan appointments by the Liberals can be found in a recent article by The Star.....and this is an example of only one ministerial area: The Toronto Star published a front-page article entitled "Jailers fear PM's Justice overhaul. The article states that the "recently released" document is dated January 24, 2006 – the day after the Conservatives won the election. Obviously, it was in the making several months before. Since the Civil Service is theoretically non-partisan, the document had to have been requested by the political masters of the day, the Liberal Party. Not surprisingly, its “recommendations” refute each and every Conservative policy and thus was clearly prepared as Liberal electoral fodder. During the election, the Liberals were caught flat-footed by the public demonstration of support for Conservative crime and sentencing initiatives. As a result, the document appears to have been kept under wraps due to the fear that the Liberals would be viewed as soft on crime. This article highlights a fundamental problem that hopefully has been somewhat addressed by the Accountability Act – and that involves the politicization of the Civil Service for partisan purposes. Finally, owing to the dubious origins and authorship of this year-old document, one has to question why The Star would give the article front-page, top-of-fold coverage.....but I'll take a wild guess - they might be just a teeny-weeny bit biased and maybe just a little anti-Conservative. Jailers fear PM's justice overhaul TheStar.com - News - Jailers fear PM's justice overhaul Tonda MacCharles Toronto Star OTTAWA–Federal government proposals to get tougher on criminals would hit aboriginal people the hardest, violate Charter rights of inmates, and likely not make for safer streets, says the agency that oversees federal prisons. Underlying some of the agency's criticism is concern about dramatic increases in the prison population that would result from the Conservatives' approach. Among the targets in an analysis prepared by Correctional Services Canada's strategic policy division are proposals for mandatory minimum sentences and for the so-called three-strikes law, key elements of the Tories' law-and-order agenda. The analysis says minimum sentences don't have a deterrent effect and drain away funds available for social programs that prevent crime. The proposal for a three-strikes law – designating as a dangerous offender anyone convicted of a third violent or sexual offence – would have a "disproportionately higher impact" on native people, the analysis says. The analysis took aim at almost every law-and-order promise that would affect prisoners made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives during the election campaign a year ago. The final version of the document, obtained by the Star under Access to Information legislation, is dated Jan. 24, 2006 – the day after the Conservatives won the election. It outlined "considerations" for the new government on each of its proposed policies, as well as advice on the "direction/way forward." The final document and its early drafts contain several blacked-out sections. But the public servants' critique appears to offer more ammunition to the government's critics. Only two crime bills have passed – tougher penalties for street racing and a watered-down version of the promised restrictions on conditional sentencing or "house arrest." The rest of the Tories' promised measures are either stalled in the minority Parliament, or still to be introduced. But Harper appears undeterred by either opposition or concerns of the public service, naming law and order as still among the government's priorities. The complete article can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/169976

I doubt this story will show up in The Star or The Globe: Link:http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070120/national/khan_adviser&printer=1 Liberals throw stones in Khan affair while living in glass house Sat Jan 20, 5:16 PM By Joan Bryden OTTAWA (CP) - Liberals may be basing their skepticism about the value of MP Wajid Khan's report to Stephen Harper on their own experience with special prime ministerial advisers. Onetime Liberal MP Sarkis Assadourian says he never did a day's work after being appointed a special adviser to former prime minister Paul Martin. Shortly before the 2004 election, Assadourian agreed to step aside in his Brampton riding so that a star recruit, Ruby Dhalla, could run for the Liberals in his stead. In return, Martin gave him a job as a special foreign policy adviser. "They put out a press release and he said to the media and the nation with a straight face I was working with him as (his) adviser on the south Caucasus and Middle East," Assadourian said in an interview. "The whole thing was a lie . . . I never a single day worked in his office. I was never paid a single penny." At the same time, Martin named MP Sophia Leung as a special adviser on international trade and emerging markets. She stepped aside in her Vancouver riding for star recruit David Emerson, who later defected to the Tories. At the time, a Martin spokeswoman said that Assadourian and Leung would not be paid for their advisory roles as long as they remained MPs. Whether they'd be paid after the election was to be "decided at that time." Assadourian said that after the election, Martin's office wouldn't even return his phone calls, although he ostensibly remained a special adviser. "For 15 months I was lied to," he said. Asked if he regrets accepting Martin's job offer and giving up his seat, Assadourian said: "I regret knowing him as a person." Martin eventually appointed Assadourian a citizenship judge. Leung said she was never paid either but did provide verbal advice on "a free, informal basis." She accompanied Martin on a trade mission to China but paid her own travel and other expenses. "Mine was sort of an honourary appointment. It was not a paid job," she said in an interview. Assadourian said he didn't initially complain that his job turned out to be a sham because he hoped Martin would eventually honour his end of the bargain. He said he chose to speak out now in order to defend "my name and my integrity." In recent days, Assadourian and Leung have found their names bandied about as part of the controversy surrounding Khan, the erstwhile Liberal MP whom Harper appointed last summer as his special adviser on the Middle East and South Asia. Khan, who spent $13,000 touring the Middle East in the fall, originally promised to publicly release his findings and recommendations. But, after defecting to the Tories earlier this month, Harper's office insisted Khan's report must be kept confidential. Liberals and other opposition MPs have insisted taxpayers have a right to know whether they got any value for the money spent on Khan's trip. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has gone so far as to question whether a report actually exists. The Tories have fought back by contending that Khan at least is doing some work, unlike Martin's special advisers who appear to have done nothing. They've pointed to access to information requests for records of any work done by Assadourian and Leung, which came back marked "no record found." Liberals counter that Assadourian and Leung were never sent on taxpayer-funded fact-finding tours and neither ever promised to produce a public report. As to Assadourian's complaint that his appointment was a sham designed get him to resign his seat, Martin spokesman Jim Pimblett said the advisory roles were never intended to be paid positions. "These were not paid government jobs and no pay was ever to be provided," he said. After the Liberals emerged with a minority from the 2004 election, Pimblett said the idea was to provide opportunities for experienced former MPs to contribute advice to the government. If Assadourian had nothing to do, Pimblett suggested it's his own fault. "They were free - indeed it was suggested - that if they had views or thoughts on the scope or scale of the position, it would be welcomed. In other words, we provided an opportunity to play a role and it was up to them to take advantage of that." Copyright © 2007 Canadian Press Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Canada Co. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service Need help? Want to send feedback?

Every time you turn on the TV, there seem to be programs that graphicly depict violence against women. CSI and Law & Order are good examples. Newspaper reports of rapes and abusive relationships are so frequent, it's dulled us to the catastophic effects of these crimes. Most women have taught themselves to recognize their surroundings and are constantly on the alert. It's second nature to most. I don't think men give enough thought to how women might be affected by all the publicized violence against women. Personally, I think male violence against women is just about the most despicable crime that can be committed - it's certainly the most cowardly....yet sexual assaults and abuse are often dealt with by our justice system with a slap on the wrist. Without sounding chauvinistic, we are supposed to protect women - not abuse them. I'm not sure how many women actively post to this Blog but I'd be very interested in reading their feedback in terms of how violence against women, shown through the media, has affected their daily lives - can it be fearful at times? In addition, how do women feel about the justice system - is sentencing adequate, are these crimes treated seriously enough....and would you propose any changes to the way society deals with violence against women?

These "loans" are not loans. They are investments. Win or lose, there will be "favours" exchanged down the line and the "investors" will be nicely rewarded. That's why we have expressions like "Pork Barrel Politics" and "The Public Trough". It's another form of "brown envelopes" being exchanged across the table. It's insidious and must be done away with.

Absolutely true - the Conservatives were not even sworn in as the Government - here's an article from today's National Post: Friday » January 19 » 2007 Don't know, wasn't there, Dion says Mike De Souza CanWest News Service Friday, January 19, 2007 OTTAWA - Liberal leader Stephane Dion says he knew nothing about a plan to massively expand production in the Alberta oilsands to meet the demand in the U.S. even though discussions on speeding up the regulatory review process were launched by former prime minister Paul Martin when Mr. Dion was the environment minister. The plan -- made public by a joint committee of government experts from Natural Resources Canada and the U.S. Department of Energy who met in Houston, on Jan. 23-24, 2006, before Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Tory government was sworn in -- encouraged decision-makers "to streamline the regulatory approval process," with a "one-stop-shop" for project proposals and facilitate a "fivefold" expansion of oil production in Alberta from one million to five million barrels a day. The committee was set up under the Security and Prosperity Partnership between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, which scheduled the talks months earlier. "This meeting, if it took place, I wasn't aware [of it]. Certainly not," Mr. Dion said at a news conference. "It's for sure that there are always discussions with the Americans on a number of topics, but I didn't receive a specific plan to multiply the use of the oilsands by five, or by two or three. Never as minister of environment did [this type of recommendation] arrive on my desk. "It wasn't something that we were looking at. Instead, we were looking at how we could accelerate the sustainable use of this resource -- how we could use a pipeline that would help us capture CO2 and we had a plan for that. We had a partnership fund, a climate fund and a plan to regulate industry." Environment Minister John Baird isn't buying Mr. Dion's explanation, noting the Liberals' new finance critic, John McCallum, was acting as minister of natural resources at the time of the Houston meeting. "Either he was so out of touch, or he knew about it," said Mr. Baird. "If he played such a small role in the Liberal government that they could come to a deal with the Bush administration on something so significant that the Liberals would leave out the environment minister, it just makes you scratch your head ... If he didn't know about it, why didn't he know about it?" © National Post 2007 Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved. Link: http://www.canada.com/components/print.asp...e0-43cc34291a7a

Dion still says he can meet Kyoto. Total insanity. In 1997, Canada, under the previous Liberal government, negotiated our Kyoto target - 6% below GHG levels for 1990 to be reached by 2012. At the time, this was thought to be very agressive and it has proven so for most of the Kyoto signatories. So here we are in 2007, 25% worse than when we started and 30% over our target. If the original goal was aggressive, what insanity would make anyone think that we could even come close to meeting our target? Saying we can even come close by 2012 makes a mockery of the original goal. In theory, there is a way for Canada to meet it's Kyoto committments - and that is to purchase carbon credits from foreign countries to make up for our shortfall. If we were to accept sending billions of dollars every year to foreign countries - even that plan wouldn't work. Carbon markets are not functioning well, if at all, and there are immense accountability issues with regards to how these foreign countries would spend their "Kyoto Cash".....but in any event - it makes absolutely no sense to even think of sending billions abroad and continuing to pollute at home.