Geneva Gin

Why I like the Conservatives approach to Climate change

2006-10-26T11:25:00.000-03:00

Climate change and air pollution are serious and difficult subjects. Non Conservative politicians in Canada would like you to react emotionally to the word "KYOTO". The idea is that you - without further thought or critical examination - start salivating at the mere mentioning of the word "KYOTO" and unconditionally accept that "KYOTO" is good. Sort of like Pavlov's dogs. Ring the bell - mention you support KYOTO - and everyone will think they have to vote for you!

I don't like being manipulated like that for purely political purposes.

The truth about Kyoto is quite far from what they would like you to believe.

There are some really realy big flaws in the way this treaty goes about things. The major flaw is that polluting countries, like Canada, can buy their way out trouble and into so called "compliance" by spending huge amounts of money to buy "credits" from underdeveloped, non-polluting, countries.
I think, and I am willing to bet that most people think so too, that any commitment that you can buy your way out of is not really a commitment at all. Our industries would still be sending harmfull gasses into the air and our tax dollars would disappear without making the atmosphere one little iota better!
My second biggest complaint about Kyoto is that the worlds biggest polluters Russia and India are not part of it.

But the real reason why I like the Conservative plan is that it addresses something that Kyoto - and those who kneel at the Kyoto altar - do not address at all is that the Conservative Plan actually does do something about the pollution that make the air in our big cities not fit to breath.

This pollution problem is much more immediate. The technologies that are required to make pollution less of a health threat are available and even strong and enforced regulations can have an immediate impact.

And as for the 2050 date that the Conservative Plan speaks of - and that is so heavily attacked - look in the plans of Stephane Dion. You will find that the same year, 2050, is mentioned for the actual accomplishment of their goals.

The next time you hear someone sing the praises of KYOTO think of what this actually does.
The Conservative Plan is a responsible and much more effective approach to a real problem.

Forget about dogs.....Look at the bigger picture!

2006-10-21T10:56:00.000-03:00

Last night I was watching Mike Duffy Live - hope Mike returns soon! - and I was struck by the vicious attacks on Peter MacKay. Especially Scott Reid outdid himself.
And then I started asking myself why do they - The Liberals and the NDP - make such an issue of an exchange of words and gestures that in the context of Question Period can truly be called mild. At least mild by comparison of things that have been said by Liberals in the past. Starting all the way back with PET's fuddle duddle!
You can listen all you want but Peter Mackay did not utter the word "dog". That distinction goes to the Liberal McGuinty. The worst that MacKay can be accused of is falling in a trap.

But why do they create such a tempest in the MSM teacup? Do they believe that the Canadian electorate is so stupid that it influences them so see things that are not?

I truly believe that that is the case. Just another example of Liberal misdirection. As long as they doggedly attack MacKay the MSM will not be talking about Rae's insufferable glibness or Ignatieff's despicable politicking with the Israel issue.

In all of this they forget that Stronach's record on the feminism issue is not very convincing and Stronach is certainly not the postergirl for wholesome "Canadian Values". As Bev Oda retorted in QP there are no females on the Stronach board! Her support for the female Candidate in the leadership contest is appalling by its absence.

And how are these female Leadership Candidates doing in the liberal, supposedly supportive of female aspirations, Liberal Party? Two of them could not sustain their campaigns and dropped out. Martha Hall Findlay who by her actions before this Leadership quagmire started and certainly during this Leadership campaign has amply shown to deserve the respect of the Liberal Party - and the equally braying MSM - is lingering in an all but hopeless last place.

And what does the Liberal Party do? Put Stronach in a place of prominence and attempts to create a mountain from a molehill.

As long as Question Period remains the embarrasing joke that it is there are big dangers in pointing fingers. This may be hokey but three fingers point back at yourself.
But maybe it is time to carefully research how respective of women's aspirations the Liberal Party really is.
I am willing to bet that it is just more example of Liberal posturing and empty rethoric.

Voter Participation and the Main Stream Media

2006-09-09T16:48:00.000-03:00

I have not posted for quite awhile. Could find no topic that really excited me enough to put my thinking and writing caps on. Today I was playing with the statistical results of the last election. Trying to do the analysis. In my case trying to determine what went wrong. The most disappointing number was the low voter turnout. Even though our riding - sorry Electoral District - had a better than average number.

And then a thought struck me.

Why couldn't the established parties - those that will be on the ballot - get together and run a joint campaign to get the voters to the polls. If there is one issue that all parties agree on it could well be the need to get the electorate more involved. Perhaps more understanding of what is at stake would be a first step.

The joint - all Party - campaign could be in the form of joint advertising. Or by adding a slogan to the campaign signs that will dot the landscape. Or in the form of jointly prepared and financed voter information booklets. Or in whatever form the participants can agree on.

I can hear all the naysayers already!

But what if a major national newspaper would put together some sort of reward for the Electoral District that best examplifies this spirit of cooperation and had the highest voter turnout in the next election?

This award does not have to be in monetary form. It could simply be a honourary reward with a nice name presented by the new Prime Minister - whoever he or she would be. The media outlet could put some focus on the winning riding. People would go to the polls for the glory of winning!

If we raise the voter turn out by 5 percent - not at all impossible - we would have improved our democracy. Because if we do not do it no one will.

I gladly contribute this idea to which ever newspaper wants to run with it. National Post are you listening?

The Conservative Party of Canada biggest enemy

2006-06-23T15:44:00.000-03:00

could well be ..........................the Conservative Party of Canada!

Now why would a card carrying member of the party say this?

I will try to explain my views.

First let me say that I believe that elections are won - and lost - in the time between the announcement of the results of the last election and the dropping of the writ for the next election. Very few people would want to argue that sentiment. Everyone understands that the actions of the elected people between elections have a big influence on the results of the next election. And the Conservative Party seems to be doing doing just fine, thank you, in that department.

But now look at what is happening in the various ridings, or as the Constitution of the Conservative Party calls them, Electoral Districts. Sadly, the answer for very many of these districts the answer is "nothing". Or, to be a little more charitable, substantively nothing, or if you will, nothing substantive.

And therein hides the danger!

If you are a card carrying member of the Party when do you hear from the Party? The answer for far too many members is: Only when there is a "fundraiser" or when a nomination battle is in progress.

Now ask yourself: "When would I like to hear from the Party?" The answer for many people might be quite differen from the answer to the first question.

And the greater the gap between the answers to question 1 and the answers to question 2 the greater the danger to the Party.

The Conservative Party of Canada states in its Constitution at article 2.1.4. "The CPC will operate in a manner that is accountable and responsive to its members".

There are 308 Electoral District Associations in Canada. That means that there are probably great differences in the ways that contact is maintained with the membership. But allow me to end with this observation. The more attention is paid to the issue of ongoing membership contact the higher the probability of a successful upcoming election campaign.

This offends my sense of Justice!

2006-06-11T17:00:00.000-03:00

The Canadian justice system arrested 17 people in Toronto and charged them with terrorism related offenses. Until proven guilty in a court of law these people are innocent but absorbing the coverage it was hard to escape the impression that de facto these people have been convicted by public opinion. The de jure resolution will have to wait.

We will learn from these events as a Nation. The community that is so closely tied in with these events will also learn.

And then there is Caledonia!

Masked thugs pulling people out of their cars. Camera equipment "confiscated" in full view of the OPP. Millions of dollars in direct and indirect damage. Thirteen police officers injured!

But the Premier of Ontario continues to shirk his clear responsibility to bring these culprits to justice. And the media is unusually reticent in providing reportage and opinion.

Perhaps we should find the courage to label the events in Caledonia for what it so clearly is: Terrorism.

And why we treat a group of young and misguided would-be terrorists in the way we did, and continue to do, while treating a group of proven thugs who terrorise a town with kid gloves is beyond my understanding.

I do know that it greatly offends my sense of justice. But what the heck do I know ......perhaps it just one of those elusive "Liberal Values" they keep talking about.

One or two big elephants in the room?

2006-06-06T13:25:00.000-03:00

In a column the other day Christie Blatchford of the Globe identified the growing muslim community in Canada as "an elephant in the room". I thought this column was thought provoking and definitely not politically correct. The Globe and Mail followed up with some webpolls on the muslim question. The responses collected on these polls add food for thought to all of us but especially should give the muslim community cause to reflect. We definitely have an elephant in the room. And the longer we pussyfoot around the issue the bigger the elephant will become.

But if we call the (as of now still) relatively small muslim population "an elephant in the room" how should we refer to our relations with First Nations? How do we describe the events in Caledonia? When the Republic of South Africa created "homelands" for some of their "first nations" and gave these homelands near nation status there was frequent, loud and insistent condemnation of the practice. Can someone point out the differences between the South African practice and Canada's policies towards the perpetuation of First Nation Reserves? Just because a certain practice was enlightened in 1867 it does not follow that the same practice is still enlightened in 2006. I can see lots of chiefs benefitting from the continuation of this practice but my question is: "do the indians?" A substantial "Consultant business" has grown up around the First Nation world. Mostly white men who charge to tell First Nations how to be First Nations. And do not forget the large number of civil servants who make their living supporting First Nations. We truly have a "First Nations Industry" in Canada. And the really sad thing is that life for the average first nation person does not seem to improve one bit. And God knows it needs improving!

Could we call that Canada's second elephant in the room?

Do we need to rethink how we plan to spend the tons of money that go mostly towards maintaining the miserable status quo?

I think we need to liberate ourselves from the prevailing political correctnes straightjacket and start asking some hard questions and come up with some new answers to very old questions.

Canada's Constitution ....... A roadblock or a cornerstone?

2006-06-01T16:55:00.000-03:00

Once more the topic of Senate reform gets stuck on the need to change the Canadian Constitution.

And whatever your beliefs on this matter are, very little, if anything, can be done without Constitutional reform.

We hear a lot about "equalization payments" and "fiscal balance". And exactly what percentage of Canadian voters do understand this issue?
Yet it appears as if some provincial Premiers are quite willing to use these issues to set up their provincial population against the concept of Canada as one nation.

We are a federation of provinces. Not one country!
Regardless of how much some of us wish that we were one country.
But if that ever were to happen we need to redefine the provinces and their powers. And that means Constitutional reform.

Bloggers are creating another dimension in education, information sharing and newsgathering. Do bloggers have enough knowledge and insights - or the willingness to get this - to start creating the new Canadian Constitution?

I truly do not know. But it seems as if some of us are trying. Maybe it is too important to leave to the politicians. Let's give it a try!

Simpson and Senate Reform

2006-05-31T11:42:00.000-03:00

Jeffrey Simpson had an interesting column this morning. It is behind the Globe's firewall so I will not link. In it he supported the presently proposed action. I think! He compared the platform with the action and identified obstacles to senate reform. He did not offer any suggestions. I send a comment to the Globe that might or might not be posted. I have included it below.

Where does that leave us? If we agree that the present senate is an archaic left over of times gone by, ineffective and not truly representative of the 21st century realities, then what must be done. We know that constitution reform is a rubik' s cube. But then there are people who did solve the rubik's cube. I am one of the people who believe that Stephen Harper understands the importance of solving this puzzle for the future well being of Canada. Will he find enough support and cooperation to accomplish the task? Only time will tell.

We need to start thinking and talking about Constitutional Reform in Canada. What better avenue than the blogosphere to kick of this effort into gear?

Has the time come for a referendum in all of Canada?

2006-05-25T13:42:00.000-03:00

This summer again we will spend lots of time and energy talking and writing about the "imbalance" issues in Canada. The Premiers of the Provinces will try to outdo each other in their attempts to play poor in order to get more money from Ottawa. Today Premier Klein is talking about leaving the equalization scheme. I don't know about anyone else but I am getting sick and tired of the shenanigans of provincial Premiers and about discussions on federal and/or provincial responsibilities.

Eventually this all has to stop.

The Liberals tried to create a more centrist Canada. What they wound up doing was often seen as meddling with provincial responsibilities. They created a muddle as far as the Constitution goes and in the end befuddled everyone who tried to understand what was happening.

The Conservative Government seems to want to adhere strictly to the constitution. That will prove to bring with it a number of challenges. So many in fact that we might build a Canada wide concensus that an 1867 Constitution, designed with 1867 realities in mind for 1867 people is less than suitable for 2007. Let alone 2067.

Once that concensus builds we have a choice of two directions.

Either we decide that we are (fill in the name of your province) first or we decide that we are Canadians first.
One choice will lead to the balkanization of Canada into the Republics of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan etc, and the other to a country - not a federation - called Canada.
In that new country the name of the provinces should only be used as a region designation only. The powers and responsibilities of these regions should be next to nothing or - a nicer way to say that - largely ceremonial.

So, back to the title of this post, are we ready yet for a Canada wide referendum?

Frankly I do not think so.

Should we start asking ourselves the question; Am I a Canadian or an Albertan? Absolutely. Should the press raise this issue? I think so.

As for me and my house...... I would vote for Canada!

There is a lot of learning to do about blogging.

2006-05-24T16:10:00.000-03:00

And hopefully I am doing it. My previous post concerning the "Bowlerhat solution" to the skirmishes between the PMO and the Press Gallery did not create the buzz I hoped for. I thought it was the most intelligent idea about the issue that I have yet seen.

Just cleaned my computer again today. I think that a particular blog is dropping something that prevents me from going back to my ISP after I have signed of from his blog. Don't know what to do yet and SPYBOT fixes the problem. It is annoying though.

The Kyoto thing has annoyed me since it was first (ill) conceived. The braying that is going on about the Conservatives stand on it is also very annoying. And yet I found myself agreeing with Simpson of the Globe and Mail. His column this morning was hard to disagree with I thought.

Another annoyance is the seemingly cynical attitudes towards Afghanistan and Darfur. The United Nations is contemplating - that means they might or might not - instituting a Class 7 action in Darfur. Class 7 sets up very different "Rules of Engagement" than a Class 6 Action would. The difference is basically the difference between Peace keeping and Peace making. Peace making is what we are doing in Afghanistan. It involves shooting at the bad guys who will shoot back. That has a tendency to kill people. Jack Layton keeps talking Darfur yes! Afghanistan No! Is he really that obtuse or just out and out cynical and out to score cheap political points??

I liked Margaret Wente's column about education choice in this morning's Globe. I told her so. Had to fork over almost $18.00 again to become "an insider" and be able to read the good stuff.

Received a response from Tony Burman of the CBC in answer to a complaint I lodged with the CBC ombudsman regarding the Michael Coren do. They claim he is not blacklisted but was "de-booked" because a more interesting panelist from the right (Deb Gray) was available. Seems reasonable enough. I told him in response that I liked Don Newman more than Mike Duffy. Which I do. Duffy's spiel is getting old.

Speaking of Duffy - I hope to confirm in some way that Greg Oliver did indeed resign - or not - as was rumoured on some blogs after Sunday's Question Period.

Had to laugh at Steve MacKinnon's reaction to the latest poll. The polling firm had asked "leading questions" to skew to the answers they wanted. Yeah right! And the Liberal Party is not in debt and there are no splits either.

Anyway good to get this of my chest. Is that not what blogs are for?

A simple if not simplistic idea to solve the Press Gallery Battles

2006-05-22T19:50:00.000-03:00

A good old fashioned bowler hat. That is what. It should be used to collect the business cards of every journalist who wants to ask a question. The President of the PPG shakes it before the PM appears and places it conveniently close to the PM. When "The Statement" has been made and the floor is open for questions the PM picks one of the business cards out of the hat and invites that journalist to ask a question. No control by the PPG, No control by the PMO and no more long and rowdy line ups at a microphone. If Lady Luck is fair this should be a fair solution. And everyone saves face.

Will the electorate understand?

2006-05-19T09:42:00.000-03:00

Politically speaking this was quite a week. The Prime Minister was snubbed by a commons committee when they voted against his nominee. Mr. Morgan was proved right in his views on Thursday morning when the Toronto police rounded up a violent gang. Will the electorate understand what happened?

While the Prime Minister had all the authority he needed to extend the Afghanistan commitment he choose - with the consent of all the parties - to stick to his promise to put extensions to a vote. He won the motion but was villified by the opposition and the MSM. The opposition presented arguments that were outright laughable to thinking people. But will the electorate understand?

While the Prime Minister stuck to his guns (sorry couldn't help myself) and delivered on his promise on the long gun registry - albeit in a preliminary and administrative way - he was again and will be continuously villified by the opposition and most of the MSM. Will the electorate understand ?

Be careful what you ask for!

2006-05-18T12:58:00.000-03:00

This thought might have occurred to Jack Layton a few times last night! He did ask for a debate and he did ask for a vote. He got both and did not know what to do with it. Ditto for Gilles Duceppe. And then there were the Liberals. They at least recognized their moral obligation to make certain that the Harper motion passed. I actually felt for Bill Graham when he stood to record his "yes" vote. But he did regain some of my respect that he previously lost. Of the Leadership candidates Ignatieff and Brison stood out. Ignatieff did not surprise me. Brison did.

What was most obvious to me that the opposition parties once more underestimated the political skills and the political courage of Prime Minister Harper. What is less obvious is what price there will be to pay in the future for this checkmate. What is they say?..........Hell has no fury like a Canadian opposition fooled?

The Kyoto Fiasco or making pigs fly!

2006-05-16T13:32:00.000-03:00

According to an article in the Globe and Mail the Liberals and the NDP will support a Bloc motion that is designed "to embarass the Government". Interesting, albeit totally useless, gesture. I am not certain who will be embarassing whom in the final analysis. It seems to me that the Government of Prime Minister Harper have already committed to create a "made in Canada" environmental plan. This plan was to be ready "in the fall". It seems that October 15 will qualify as "in the fall". As the Conservative track record for actually doing what they say they will do is an order of magnitude better than that of the Liberals we might reasonably expect that report to appear.
The report, or plan, that the motion calls for: "take the necessary measures to ensure that Canada meets its objective for greenhouse gas reduction established under the Kyoto Protocol" is akin to demanding a plan to make pigs fly. Not hard to create a plan. Impossible to make it happen. Just like the Kyoto accord itself. Great idea. Lousy implementation.

Prima Donna Premiers v. Prime Ministers

2006-05-08T20:38:00.000-03:00

It appears that Dalton McGuinty and his Liberals have found their main election strategy and their slogan. Stand Up for Ontario! And it furthermore appears as if Stephen Harper has handed it to them on a golden platter. Now the keyword in the last sentence is of course "appears". Mr. Harper has so far been three moves ahead of all the other players in the chess game that is the Canadian Federation. But this one may be priceless. First Mr. McGuinty breaks ranks with his fellow Premiers on the issue of the fiscal balance. He is very upset and sort of disturbs the process of addressing this issue in a positive fashion. Standing Up for Ontario is his declared motive. There is an accusutory undertone as if it all might be the fault of the new Conservative Government. Mr. McGuinty and his advisers conveniently forget that any fiscal imbalance that exists in February of 2006 is surely caused by 13 years of Liberal meddeling, muddeling and befuddeling. I really do not know if Mr. McGuinty ever suggested to Mr. Harper that he would like to travel to Ottawa for a personal meeting. I guess he did not otherwise we would have heard about it in the "I was snubbed" saga. I think that Premiers who wish to build a positive relationship with Prime Ministers might want to consider going to Ottawa but heh, if you are the Premier of "the-largest-Province-with-40%-of-the-population" such niceties can be foregone. And then Mr. Harper meets with Mr. McGuinty in a private meeting in Toronto . No press, no photos. Next Mr. Harper introduces his friend John Tory with the standard political "the next whatever" phrase. And BINGO! Ontario is insulted and now we have a ready made campaign strategy. McGuinty v. Harper! Hedy Fry will have to wait for her chance to slay the dragon! McGuinty is first up! It may - or might - play well in some media outlets. But I suspect that in the rest of Canada it will only confirm their views of Toronto and Ontario. And those views are not half as admiring as Mr. McGuinty thinks. As for the fiscal balance - or imbalance - the issue will be addressed. Whether it will be solved or not is in the hands of 10 Premiers. My bet is that some will get greedy again and so no solution can be reached. Unlike Mr. Martin who, in the debates, did not even want to admit that there was a fiscal imbalance, at least Mr. Harper is addressing the issue. And, as we are likely to hear a lot "The Liberals caused the fiscal imbalance and did nothing to fix it for 13 years". Maybe it is too much to ask for but perhaps we will see some really meaningfull financial information. It would be nice if discussions about the fiscal balance were more informed than the "he said, she said" format these discussions now seem to follow.

There will never be a Proportional Electoral system in Canada.

2006-05-07T20:08:00.000-03:00

The NDP talks fervently about the need to replace our First Past the Post system of electing our members of Parliament. The cries for this change are becoming louder with each election. The Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and especially the Bloc are mostly silent on the issue. And small wonder. The only parties to really suffer under our present system are the NDP and the Green Party. The NDP regularly garner enough votes to give them double the number of seats they win now. The Green Party should have 4% of the 308 seats, at least 12 and perhaps as many as 14, under a proportional system. On the other hand the Bloc would have about half the seats they now have under proportional representation. This is mostly caused by the fact that the Bloc does not run candidates in any riding outside of Quebec. If we elected our Parliament based on Proportional Representation, anyone, anywhere in Canada, could vote for the Bloc. The Bloc would be very tempted to claim that any vote for them from outside Quebec was a vote from Canadians who wanted Quebec to separate. Does anyone think that either the Conservatives or the Liberals would want to jeopardize Canada by switching to a Proportional Representation system and finding out exactly how many Canadians would want Quebec to separate? I truly hope this is as unlikely as I think it is. We can only hope that the Bloc does not get clever and decides to run Candidates outside Quebec now.