Sad To See You Go

Well, the picture kind of says it all, does it not? If it doesn't, this next one should fill in most of the blanks.

17 In Six Months?

Trudeau had nine in one year, just before Mulroney came to power. Mulroney appointed 11 in 1990 to make sure that Free Trade and the GST made it through to become law.

Last year, Paul Martin made 17 appointments to the Senate in a six-month period.

No wonder the Senate is never heard from. They're still trying to figure out where all the newbies are going to sit.

Fun With Liberals

Here's a couple things Stephen Harper should introduce in the House of Commons this year, just to see what the reaction will be.

Instead of cut the GST to 6% this year and 5% next year, scrap it altogether. Will the Liberals oppose it because they didn't promise to do anything about the GST this election, or will the support it because they promised to get rid of it in 1993?

Develop a program to increase home ownership on First Nation reservations. Will the Liberals oppose it because this was part of the Conservative campaign platform or will they support it because it was part of the Liberal campaign platform?

Increase the lifetime capital gains tax exemption for small business from $500,000 to $750,000. Will the Liberals attack this as evidence of a help-the-rich hidden agenda on the part of the Conservatives? Or will they support it because it was a Liberal campaign promise?

Side note for those who think the Conservatives are driven by money from big corporations: most corporate donations go to the Liberals, and that race isn't even close.

And, in response to those who argue that Conservative tax cuts will help the rich more than they help the poor: Absolutely true. Liberal tax cuts do the same. Do the math. Any tax cut will help rich people more than poor people because they pay more tax, and the upper level of their incomes is taxed at greater percentages than the lower levels of income. The only way to tax the rich without taxing the poor is a sur-tax. And, correct me if I'm wrong (cause I might be), but I think Chretien or Martin got rid of that...

Who The Heck Is Jack Austin?

Give up?

He's the guy Paul Martin is probably calling on the phone today to tell him that the vacation is over.

Seeing as the Liberal Party is no longer in control of the House of Commons, the call will go to the Senate to tell the Liberal majority in the upper house that they can once again be involved in politics in Canada.

A Senate? We have one? It can do stuff?

Why haven't we headr from it in 12 years? Why would he not hear anything form a Liberal Senate for over a decade? Is it just because a Liberal government sat in the Commons?

Just A Case Of Dislike

So, there is now prrof that Canadians don't hate Paul Martin (PM the PM). And the words of solace come from an unlikely source.

Jack Layton? Not unless Martin pulls a minority out of his ass tomorrow.

Gilles Duceppe? Not until there's some good contracts for Bloc-Heads already signed and a few more in the offing, with perhaps an envelope in a bistro here and there.

Jean Chretien? Nah, it's been too mild a winter for hell to have frozen over.

Stephen Harper? Oh, I make me laugh. Wait, it's true!

The quote:

"Canadians don't hate things. That is not the nature of Canadians. Canadians can disagree but it takes a lot to get Canadians to intensely hate something or hate somebody and usually it involves hockey."

Like the ref who didn't notice that Calgary scored a goal in overtime in Game Six against Tampa Bay. Gee, that goal would have won the game. Then there wouldn't have been a Game Seven. Then the world would have been right. There'd have been no tsunami. Osama would go into retirement in Myrtle Beach, global warming would stop at a nice comfortable level, the NBA would call it quits and take up Bocce, and whales wouldn't swim up the Thames to try to catch a show.

Coming next week, PM no longer the PM to swim up the Thames to try to catch a show. Wildlife rescue organizations and qualified vets standing by...

Suck It Up, Gilles!

Yeah, you heard me. Suck it up, Mr. Duceppe. Everyone else has had to.

Gilles Duceppe's new ploy is to tell Quebecers not to vote for the Conservatives because doesn't think Canada should be governed by Alberta, and, specifically, Calgary.

Well, Alberta is the only province that hasn't needed provincial sales tax. they're also talking of getting rid of provincial income tax. They might have an idea or two that the rest fo the country could benefit from. (Other than go find some oil somewhere...)

But, really, Gilles, you should also be saying don't vote for Martin. it's been more than twenty years since we've had a Prime minister who wasn't from Quebec. I don't count Kim Campbell because she wasn't PM long enough to do anything except call an election which she lost miserably.

Of course, this makes me wonder - would the federal government have been more direct with the separatists and the people of Quebec if the Prime Minister hadn't had to worry about his personal fortunes come election-time? Just a thought...

Thanks For The Clarification

Well, I thought he was just being a coward and that the fear-mongering tactics of his campaign were because he has no ideas of his own. But, it turns out, Paul Martin is actually afraid of Conservative plans. When asked by a reporter to name one far-right element in the Tory platform, Mr. martin was able to come up with three.

The first was the Tories plan to cancel the national day-care program (note that the word is proGRAM not PROgrom). And, yes, there is a difference in policy here. Martin wants a government-run program because beaurocrats always know best. Harper wants to give money to families to put toward whatever costs they feel are most importnat to their family, just in case people don't agree with what the government thinks is most important to them. But far-right? I'm not so sure. What would Genghis do? Not sure, but probably not good for a healthy, happy childhood. But, let's give Martin the benefit of the doubt and say harper's idea is far-right. By that standard, Martin's would have to be merely Stalinist.

Up next, Harper's proposal to reject the Kyoto protocol. Martin desperately wants Kyoto implementation. But why? Seeing how emission rates have gone up 24% while the Liberals have been in power, the reduction to below-1990 levels by 2012 seems a little doubtful. Of course, Canada doesn't need to reduce emissions at all. We can just purchase emission credits from Third-World countries. Thus, Ontario Power Generation can keep those coal plants fired up, the government can appear committed to the enivronment without doing anything, except giving money to other countries to keep them from developing their own industries, which can only be good for Stelco, Inco and GM Canada. But, I can hear you asking, what's the point of Kyoto if our emissions can just stay the same? Is it just a way to transfer money to under-developed countries to keep them under-developed and dependant on Western economies? You tell me. This is Liberal policy? Sounds a little Bush-league-Republican to me. But let's go further. Canada spends tons of money to get Canadian companies to limit carbon dioxide emissions or sends billions of dollars overseas. End result - reductions in world-wide carbon dioxide emissions may reduce the effects of global warming which may or may not be a result of industrial activity.
Harpers idea appears to be to reduce smog and visibly improve the environment of Canada for Canadians. I'd rather see less smog. I should confess that I have no desire to reduce my own carbon dioxide emissions. I like to breathe and intend to keep on doing it for may years to come.

Martin's third example was in regards to the recent First Ministers/First nations agreement. From what I could see on the Indian and Northern Affairs website, the agreement was to develop this and that, support (idealogically much more than financially), develop supporting frameworks for further developing and supporting, recognizing various things, exploring various other things, and create a multi-lateral forum for further devloping, recognizing and supporting, and, maybe most importantly (bu maybe not importantly at all) to accept responsibility for assisting with all these various recognizings, developings and supportings. Apparently, the most important thing for First Nations in Canada is to talk endlessly about what the best thing for First Nations is. And if you can talk about it in terms of ten-year plans, so much the better. The best part of a ten-year plan is that you don't have to do anything before the next election, and by the election after that, nobody remembers that you had this ten-year plan in the first place.
Harper's policy for First Nations is much more radical. He supports individual property ownership on reserves, thus letting aboriginals invest in their own communities, let aboriginal parents choose teh schooling they think is best for their children and replace the Indian Act with new legislation which "provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does Martin mean far-right as in opposition to far-wrong?

So to sum up, Paul Martin is a sourpuss. If he was on South Park, he'd be Eric Cartman. But, let's cut the guy some slack. he's probably feeling like an idiot. He wanted the campaign to be long because he was convinced (and said so) that the lopnger the campaign went, the worse things would go for the Conservatives.Now being behind the Tories in Quebec (yes, behind the Tories in Quebec), he's probably wishing he had made it the shortest campaign ever instead. Or, wishing he had talked to Ernie Eves about how running without much of a platform (and just insulting the other guy) went for Ernie.

It's Not An Issue Of Minority Rights, It's An Abortion!

a.k.a. Things that don't quite make sense, Part Three...

So, in order to try and scare people away from voting for the Conservative Party, Paul Martin has been harpering on the issue of abortion. He's valiantly trying to defend freedom of choice that was never, as far as I can see, in any real danger. I guess this makes sense because should a private member's bill somehow make it to a vote and it gets defeated by a majority of MPs, this would be the result of Martin's electioneering on the issue, not because most politicians feel that no change in legislation is necessary.

Now, like same-sex marriage, any anti-abortion rally in Ottawa will always draw a good showing of Liberal MPs, just as it does Conservative MPs. Mr. Martin would like you to believe that the Conservative MPs who show up are representing their party's most dearly held convictions, while the Liberal MPs are there representing their own personal views.

That, in itself is somewhat silly. Much more silly is this: Martin attacks Harper for his stand on the issue, namely that a Conservative government would not put forward any anti-abortion legislation, but that should a bill come to a vote, it would be a free vote of all MPs. The Toronto Star asked Martin his position. Apparently, a Liberal government would not put forward any anti-abortion legislation, but that should a bill come to a vote, it would be a free vote of all MPs, with the exception of cabinet ministers. And this is the great difference between the two parties that we've heard so much about? If you're going to drag abortion into an election (Martin has now done it twice), shouldn't your policies be different enough that you might persuade undecided voters your way instead of the other?

Now, here's the scary part, and I'm not making this up: which way would Martin force his cabinet ministers to vote? He just won't say. Choose your Canada.

Hooray for the Left Coast

If it weren't for B.C., nothing interesting would happen at all...

Not to be outdoen by the Conservative candidate who had broken the law earlier and didn't tell anyone about it, the Liberals now have dumped a candidate for breaking the law during the actual election.

Don't these bozos know anything? The time to break the law is AFTER you've been elected. The time to get caught (if it is has to happen and usually does) is after you've been re-eleceted and sevred six years in the House, thus able to cash in on the MP pension plan.

And, for any of you kids out there thinking of running for office and trying to bribe someone out of the race, make sure the person you're bribing is the candidate who's poised to beat you. There's just no sense in bribing a third- or fourth-placed candidate - they're obviously tanking on their won without any help from your pocketbook. So...now that you've targeted the appropriate candidate, you need to offer him something to tank his own campaign and his own hopes and dreams so that you can realize yours. This is where the pot of money comes in. A government job just isn't enough. If it is, you're adversary lacks ambition and would probably wilt during the election with some well-timed mud-slinging, making the whole bribe scheme unnecessary. So, you've got the pot of money, the size of which depends entirely on the profile, current wealth, and social background of your enemy. If your target is an advertising executive or a Liberal Party Hob-knobber from Quebec, you're work is probably done. Otherwise, there is the problem of morals and conscience. The best move is to make your target give up hope of winning and thus be in a much better frame of mind for your pot of money. How do you do this? Blackmail, of course. And this is where the hooker and the photographs come in. Yes, yes, I know, everything old is new again.

Now, you can either hire a prostitute from one of our nation's many escort services or streetcorners; or, if you are a more cost-conscious dirty-trick artist, you can whore out your own wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter/wayward foster-child/what-have-you. They do most of the work, you take the pictures and then, suddenly, you're now very sad rival is much more agreeable to your offer. Bit of a dirty business, you say? Well, there are many a divorce or personal injury lawyer that can't quite lower themself to run for public office. That's why, once elected, every MP walking into Centre Block is given three items: a bottle of whiskey, a gun with a single bullet and a copy of Joseph Conrad's "Heart Of Darkness".

Things That Don't Quite Make Sense

Paul Martin: "In my view, if you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then you have no business trying to become prime minister of Canada." I think I can agree with that. I think it is actually the most intelligent position on the constitution that Paul Martin has made during this campaign or perhaps any other. So, why is he still running?

The notwithsatnding clause is part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As Mr. MArtin has been so clear that a PM can't cherry-pick which rights he wants to protect, obviously Mr. Martin has to protect the notwithstanding clause. The clause is a right granted to Parliament. The intention of that clause is that Parliament can delay a court judgement for up to five years in order that the people, either directly or through their democratically-elected representatives, can decide what the law should be.

As far as I know (and perhaps some constitutional experts can clarify this), but the notwithstanding clause cannot be used to nullify or remove other sections of the Charter. Thus, Section 33 can't be used to allow discrimination against racial minorities or to cancel First-Nation treaties enshrined in the constitution. It can be used to prevent a court from writing in their own sections of the Charter or interpreting the Charter from political viewpoints as opposed to legal standpoints. Judges are experts in legal matters. Policy and political matters are best reserved for legislators answerable to the people.

Interstingly, to make good on his promise to automatically deny bail for those accused (but not yet tried or convicted) of gun crimes, Paul Martin would need to use the notwithstanding clause to override constitutional prohibitions against automatic detentions. And also argue why the notwithstanding clause should be able to override provisions explicitly written in the Charter. Good luck with that one.



Soldiers. In our cities. Wow. Scary. I never thought about it much before. Clearly, I've avoided going to Victoria because of its proximity to CFB Esquimalt. Clearly, I avoided leaving the Halifax airport because of the naval base. Clearly, Calgary became a safer city once DND closed the base and sent the soldiers to CFB Edmonton. Clearly, I was terrified whenever I drove down James St. in Hamilton. I never knew reserve soldiers trained in the Armoury. I thought all those uniforms were just people on their way to costume parties.

If the Liberal ad was meant to be a policy discussion on where our armed forces are best stationed to respond to national and international crises and situations, why not show the ad on television? Why just release it on the Liberal website to test the waters? Why would Liberal candidates and cabinet ministers apologize for it if no apology is necessary? Why change your mind about whether or not it was approved or not? We know from the sponsorship scandal that the Liberals work closely with advertising agencies. This isn't a mistake. Why have 12 ads made if you only ever intended to release 11, especially if there's nothing wrong with #12? I'm sure it's an equality thing. To make up for the infamous, and probably terribly unlucky Baker's Dozen, Martin will even things up with the Liberal Dozen - always one short. I would like to believe Mr. Martin when he says that he only approved of the transcript and that when he saw the finished product he became aware that the intended message might get misconstrued. But, as it is the text of the ad that is offensive, stupid and just plain silly - shouldn't that have appeared in the transcript of the ad? Or perhaps the transcript was just a description of the background music, or the transcript was not a transcript of the actual ad, but talking points for damage control should the trial balloon go down like the Hindenburg. (for visual aids, see http://www.andrewcoyne.com)




Paul Martin, when responding to a question posed during a televised Town-Hall Meeting, tried to argue that a Harper government would take away a woman's right to choose. I'm guessing he meant abortion, but I don't think he clarified. Perhaps he meant a woman's right to choose between flats and pumps. Let me be clear here and now. No-one, regardless of religious affiliation, political office, wealth or level of education has a right to tell a woman what she may or may not put on her tootsies. A woman's feet are her own to use and dress as she sees fit.

Now, part of me suspects that if the question had been posed by a snappily-dressed gentleman, Mr. Martin may have put forth a gay rights argument. This would be highly insulting as straight men have on occasion dressed well. It is a man's right to dress well if he chooses and knows how. I further think that the education system should be overhauled so that tomorrows young men can graduate secure with the knowledge of how to dress well. I have seen too many well-meaning, but misinformed young men trying their best, but still dressing badly. Equality now.

What didn't quite make sense, even if you think the Conservatives are against abortion (and that you could never, ever find a Liberal MP who is against abortion...), how is this a minority rights issue, which was the issue Mr. Martin was trying to address. As far as I know, women still make up more than 50% of the population of this country. I think that would tend to make them the majority.

In a similar vein, Paul Martin also told a national television audience that he believes that minority rights matter more then the wishes of the majority. Is this not a clear statement that he does not believe in democracy? Why would he want to lead a democratic nation if he doesn't believe in the will of the majority? Tyrrany of the majority does not mean that the majority should never get its way. But rather that the majority should not automatically get its way constantly at the expense of the minority. The constitution for the most part ensures that tyranny of the majority cannot exist. An unhappy minority group is not proof of tyranny of the majority, only proof of discontent of a minority over a certain issue (ie, the National Association of People for Mukluks for All Women - NAPMAW)

Now, to be fair Mr. Martin essentially admit that many Prime Ministers are elected with less than a majority of the popular vote. Which, I suppose is consistent with his view that the majority should not get its way. Therefore, it would appear that he feels legitimate government is achieved by having a minority in power. However, South Africa tried this, and most of the world agreed that Apartheid was not the way to go. So, what say we elect the Conservatives, NDP, or the Green party with both a majority of seats in the House of Commons and a majority of the popular vote.

Or, even better, and I know this is a really radical idea, but maybe what we should all do is elect the people, regardless of party affiliations, who can best represent the wishes of constituents in individual ridings and let those MPs vote on an every issue according to what is best for the people that elected them.

Wow, I better stop before I rashly publish more radical ideas. We're probably not really ready for our representatives to speak for the people they are paid to represent.

Note to Tobey Maguire

Okay. Here's what you do. Find Tobey Maguire's e-mail, and send off a short missive. Gist fo that missive should be as follows:

"Think Johnny. That's right, Johnny Depp. Think about it"

Say what?!!!! (Part two)

More from the file of I can't have heard what I think I just heard...

When asked if removing the notwithstanding clause would put more power into the hands of appointed judges and take power away from Parliament and out of the hands of the electorate, Paul Martin's reply was "Yes. Absolutely, that's the point..."

So, a sitting Prime Minister of Canada says on national television that he thinks lawyers appointed by the government should have more power than the elected representatives of the people in a democratic country. That doesn't seem odd?

I haven't written many posts lately, but also I haven't listened to Paul Martin much lately. This guy's a goldmine!

Say what?

From the file of I can't have heard what I think I just heard:

Now, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I heard Paul Martin say the following on the CBC tonight:

"Canadians need a choice. The only way to achieve that is to have a national day care program where there is no choice."

Thank you, Paul Martin. Your insight astounds me.

In Our Cities

Thanks to the election campaign, I have been forced to take a closer looka t the cities we live in and see what's really there. Our cities. In Canada. I'm not making this up.

People with guns. Lots of them. Dressed in their gang colours. In our cities. they have their badges of honour pinned to their shirts. They hang their guns on their side, inplain view of children and pregnant mothers. In Our cities. In Canada. They roam the streets in their customized cars, or on foot, completely unopposed. They harrass kids on their way home from school just because they're smoking a cigarette. They ask people if they have drugs. They force cars to the side of the road just because they don't like the way they drive. Most of these gangs wear blue, but some wear black. One wears red and rides around on horseback with their music blaring like they're the law of the land. In our cities. In Canada.

Wisdom Of A Rhinoceros

Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to vote for the Rhino Party. It would have been dangerous, I know, but in the wild fancy of my youth I would have done it anyway. yes, I'm well aware that they had a hidden platform, but I was okay with the promise that they would tell the country about it just as soon as they found it.

Even though they don't run in federal elections anymore, I think some of their policies could still benefit the country. It should be noted that the Monster Raving Looney Party's policy of pubs staying open 24 hours has recently been enacted by Tony Blair's government, so don't tell me that fringe parties can't have an effect on the system.

With that in mind, here are some old Rhino platform planks to consider for a better Canada today.

1. Repeal the law of gravity. First off, it was never enacted by a democratically elected government. Tres un-Canadian. Second, it's a rights issue. Short people are constantly discriminated against by the NBA and the NAATP (National Association for the Advancement of Tall People). this has got to stop.

2. Provide higher education by building taller schools. face it people, simply increasing budgets to pay existing staff more will never help the education system. We need new ideas here, clearly.

3. Reduce energy costs for transportation by moving Toronto 50km east, and Montreal 50 km west. Nowe there's a policy that will bring Frnech and English Canada closer together.

4. Abolish the environment because it's too hard to keep clean and takes up too much space. Yes, this will put the Green Party out of business, but nobody said sacrifices wouldn't have to be made.

5. Count the Thousand Islands to make sure none of them are missing. Face it, people, sovereignty issues exist beyond Hans Island. Don't think that Russia didn't think that nobody would notice an isalnd or two.

6. Moving the Vatican to St.-Bruno-de-Montarville, Quebec, to promote tourism.

7. Tearing down the Rocky Mountains so that Albertans could see a Pacific sunset.

8. (if 7. is deemed ill-advised), Move the Rockies one metre west as a make-work project. No fish? No problem.

9. Make Canadians stronger by putting steroids in the water. Timmmyyyy? Jimmmyyy?

10. Paint Canada's coastal limits so that Canadian fish know where they are at all times. This could be crucial if the Turbot War heats up again.

For those of you who think the Rhinos never made a difference in the world, consider our war with Belgium. Belgium, you say? War, you say? Well, here's how it started. A Belgian cartoon character once killed a rhinoceros. So, the Rhino Party called for war on Belgium in retaliation. However, in a statesman-like move worthy of Churchill, they offered to call off hostilities if Belgium delivered a case of mussels and a case of Belgian beer to Rhino Party "hindquarters" in Montreal. it should be noted that the Belgian Embassy in Ottawa did, in fact, do just that.

A closer look at today's parties must surely move all Canadians to join the cry:

"Bring back the Rhinos. Please, before it's too late!"

Death to the Holidays!

Well, perfomrances have been performed, food has been eaten, drinks have been drunk and drunk again!

The holidays are done and buried in a shallow grave for another year. One person appears to have gone insane, other than that no casualties to speak of.

I even have money left over. How the heck does that happen?