Canadian government to fall

[embalmer42]

Originally posted by Wezil


Harper is scary.

Look closely and you can see his horns.

[notyoueither]

Not such a warm welcome for the handgun ban. Certainly not the buzz that Martin wanted to make up ground on Harper's GST, and other announcements.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/08/martin-gunreact051208.html

Martin's gun policy gets mixed reviews
Last Updated Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:27:51 EST
CBC News
Liberal Leader Paul Martin's call to ban all handguns is getting mixed reviews, with opposition leaders and other interests questioning its usefulness in combating crime.


Paul Martin speaks to students at a middle school in Toronto about gun violence. (CP photo)

INDEPTH: Gun Control

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said his party was prepared to consider anything that will get guns out of the hands of criminals.

But he said there just aren't that many handguns in Canada. The real problem, he said, is that the Liberals have failed to crack down on crime.

"They must take responsibility for the growth in gun crime that has occurred under their watch. Gun crime has spun out of control because they have failed to do anything to reduce gun crime."

NDP Leader Jack Layton would not dismiss the plan but challenged the Liberals' credibility on gun control.

"Guns have been flooding into this country from the United States and the Liberals have not taken any action."

While Saskatchewan Justice Minister Frank Quennell said the plan was irrelevant to his province, B.C Liberal Premier Gordon Campbelll offered cautious support.

"We have to be careful that we're focusing on the right things," Campbell said Thursday after speaking to a business group.

"Certainly, for me at least, it sounds like a sensible step to creating safer communities. I would want to hear from police officers across the country on how that would work."

But Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant said Martin's plan will choke the supply.

"There is not legitimate use of handguns in civil society, " he said.

Tammy Landau, a criminologist at Ryerson University in Toronto, said the law will have little effect because most types of guns are already illegal.

"The concern is with illegal guns and this isn't going to go very far in dealing with that."

Anthony Doob, a University of Toronto criminologist, said he's skeptical that taking the additional step of a total ban would help much.

"We've got lots of laws (already)," Doob told the Canadian Press. "We've got laws about carrying, we've got laws about ownership, we've got laws about transfers of ownership."

Rev. Harry Lehotsky, an activist in Winnipeg, echoed Landau's views, saying a ban will make no difference.

"They're illegal anyway," Lehotsky said. "The cops have a million ways, reasons, to take those guns away from these guys already, so it's totally irrelevant."

Nationally, 65 per cent of firearm-related homicides in Canada last year involved a handgun, many which originated in the United States.

In 2002, Vancouver police claim 94 per cent of the firearms they seized came from the United States and 90 per cent of those were handguns.

Vancouver gunshop owner Kin Chung said those statistics prove that it's not his customers who should be penalized.

"I personally view this as a cheap shot when the proper concerns of the citizens are not being addressed and we're going to something that Mr. Martin knows is not going to solve the crime problem."

But Tony Cannavino, president of the Canadian Professional Police Association, said the law will send a positive message.

"What it says is, `Listen, this is not a cowboy country.' I think that's good," he said, but noted that professional criminals get their weapons illegally.

Susan Jessop, whose son Lee Matasi was gunned down on a Vancouver street Sunday, was among those who agree with a ban.

"Its a good start and I applaud it."

[notyoueither]

Another drop of water torture for Martin. How long can Harper keep doing a policy a day? How much of this could a minority government enact?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/08/harper-trades051208.html

Harper offers tax breaks to tradespeople, students
Last Updated Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:55:15 EST
CBC News
A Conservative government would offer grants and tax cuts to tradespeople, apprentices and post-secondary students, party Leader Stephen Harper says.

The plan includes giving workers a tax deduction of up to $500 for tools, Harper said Thursday while campaigning in North Bay, Ont.

As well, there would be a $1,000 grant for apprentices in their first two years, and a tax credit of 10 per cent of an apprentice's wages for two years, to a maximum of $2,000.

Post-secondary students would get a tax credit of up to $500 to help cover the cost of textbooks. The deduction could be claimed by students or their parents.

Harper also said the first $10,000 of a student scholarship or bursary income would be exempt from taxation.

A Conservative government would also work with the provinces to make it easier for children of middle-class parents to get student loans, the Tory leader said.

Voters go to the polls Jan. 23.

[notyoueither]

I'm smelling a strategy.

Has Layton not indicated that he would go along with the policies campaigned on by a minority government?

I'm smelling the Tories laying out their first budget during a campaign and being willing to cooperate with the NDP to make Parliament work for a while.

Egads, it could be the end times!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by November Adam
I'm trying to understand what it is that the people in the GTA find so scary about the Conservatives, and how they can find that a corrupt old boys club styled party such as the Liberals more appealing.

Hmm, let's see, Conservatives have a habit of describing eastern Canadians as stupid, mindless freeloading fools. I wonder if that has anything to do it.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Hmm, let's see, Conservatives have a habit of describing eastern Canadians as stupid, mindless freeloading fools. I wonder if that has anything to do it.

Well I haven't seen this as an official or un-official policy of the Conservative party.

Meanwhile the Liberals are doing their best to try to make you look like stupid, mindless freeloading fools (your words, not mine). They are doing this by exclaiming that they are going to do what ever the hell they want with your money, from padding their pockets to padding their friends pockets.

If someone says your acting stupid for banging your head against a wall, are you going to turn around and say "I'll show you!" and bang your head against the wall?

[notyoueither]

As the prime minister of Canada, I am going to speak for Canadians and Canadian values

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1134125733421&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

---

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1134125733475&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

Martin remarks miff White House
America's image being sullied amid Canadian electioneering, says U.S. ambassador
Dec. 9, 2005. 08:46 PM
CANADIAN PRESS

WASHINGTON — The U.S. administration has told Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna it strongly disagrees with Prime Minister Paul Martin’s recent negative remarks regarding American policy on climate change, U.S. officials said Friday.
The disapproval was voiced at a meeting Thursday between McKenna and Jim Connaughton, the White House’s environmental guru, the officials said.

But both Connaughton’s office and the Canadian Embassy denied reports that McKenna was summoned to the White House for a tongue-lashing over the Martin comments.

Absolutely not, said Michele St. Martin, spokeswoman for the Council on Environmental Quality headed by Connaughton, calling it a routine get-together between two men who have a strong relationship.

“That ambassador asked to see Jim to discuss a number of issues including the climate change meeting in Montreal and other matters they’re working on in typical fashion,� said St. Martin.

“The door was open. There was no anger. There was no screaming. There was no drama of any kind,� she said. St. Martin declined to go into the specifics of what they talked about.

McKenna was travelling in the United States and declined comment, but the Canadian Embassy backed up St. Martin’s account.

“We asked for the meeting to talk about the (greenhouse gas) proposals and how the U.S. was responding,� said embassy spokesman Bernard Etzinger.

“They had a cordial conversation. They talk a lot.�

U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity, however, said Connaughton was conveying the White House’s displeasure at what they considered cheap electioneering by Martin in the campaign for the Jan. 23 vote in Canada.

“My understanding is that (he) made very clear his unhappiness over Mr. Martin’s comments, particularly singling out the United States,� said a State Department official.

On Wednesday, Martin accused the Americans of being deaf to global opinion on the need to sign the Kyoto Protocol limiting harmful emissions that contribute to global warming.

“We strongly disagree with some parts of the speech,� a White House spokesman said. “I wouldn’t call it anger.�

One American official at the Montreal conference said Martin’s words killed any hope of bringing Washington into discussions about deeper reductions after 2012 when the Kyoto accord runs out.

Also Friday, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins said overheated election rhetoric is prompting some Canadian officials to burnish Canada’s image by sullying the reputation of the United States.

Wilkins expressed regret that the United States was being drawn into a campaign that it was trying to stay out of.

“It appears that oftentimes, some officials, in order to build Canada up, attempt to tear the United States down,� Wilkins told CP Friday.

“I’m sure the election plays a role in that or is to some extent a cause of that.�

Wilkins was in the audience at the UN Conference on Climate Change when Martin made his remarks on the Kyoto agreement.

Martin was unrepentant Friday.

“The foreign policy of this country — the overall policy of this country — is set by the prime minister,� he said in Montreal. “And I’ll continue to do that.�

The U.S. ambassador said he was taken aback by Martin’s position and the vehemence with which it was argued.

“In view of the fact that the United States’ performance on climate control over the last few years has been better than Canada’s, I was surprised by those comments,� Wilkins said.

The United States has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, which called on countries to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Since the agreement was signed in 1990, U.S. emissions have increased by 13 per cent. Canada, which did sign Kyoto, has seen its emissions jump by 24 per cent.

“This administration has spent more money on technology and research on climate control than any other country in the world,� Wilkins said.

The United States has spent $20 billion on climate science over the past five years and will spend another $5.5 billion next year, he said.

“Actions speak louder than words, and we’ve taken strong actions.�

Sorry, Mr. Martin, those are not Canadian values, they are Liberal values... say one thing and then do another, while shrilly accusing others of lacking public spirit.

This campaign is rapidly spinning out of control for Mr. Martin. One has to wonder how many land mines he can set off under himself with no help from anybody else.

[notyoueither]

I have to say, the media does not appear to be the same as last go around. They are listening to Harper and reporting what he says more than how funny he looks, or how that fits with the Conservatives 'hidden agenda'.

Meanwhile, even the Star is exposing the emperor in all his nakedness.

[notyoueither]

Incredible.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1133995813921&call_page=TS_Canada&call_pageid=968332188774&call_pagepath=News/Canada

Eloquent PM can't hide Canada's dirty secret
Dec. 8, 2005. 01:00 AM
JAMES TRAVERS


Nothing is more sure-fire in federal politics than taking a shot at George W. Bush. But Paul Martin is the wrong prime minister and Canada the wrong country to target U.S. recalcitrance on environmental reform.

Speaking to a United Nations conference here but hoping to be heard by voters, Martin positioned Canada as North America's only global conscience. Well, maybe.

Despite its refusal to sign the Kyoto accord or to join much of the rest of the world in planning a cleaner, cooler future, the U.S. has, in some important ways, done better than Canada.

Far from the pristine wilderness of Paul Martin's imaginations, this country is gray and gritty, a vast consumer of water and fossil fuels and, most damning of all, a climate-change backslider.

Far from crazed ranting from the fringes, it's Canada's reality. Pick any report other than the government's flattering own and find disturbing evidence that a country once proud to be clean is now awfully dirty.

It's a worry and should be an election issue. But it's not and, despite Martin's sometimes passionate words here, Liberals are more freely making promises about a cleaner future than they are spending scarce political capital.

The Prime Minister's biggest problem is not the environment or even more specific concerns about global warming. His problem is sorting through his problems.

How difficult is that? Well, it's harder than seems fair and harder than Martin anticipated.

A big northern country with a small population and economy must pick its way carefully between threats and opportunity as it maximizes its strengths and minimizes its weaknesses. Faced with complex choices, even confident leaders can lose their way in the fog of competing priorities.

The reason is relatively simple. Good politics is about pleasing as many people as possible; governing well is about doing a few things that make a difference. What Martin has never done easily is decide what not to do. The result is a shotgun administration that blasts away at everything, sometimes hitting, sometimes missing.

Naturally, Martin stresses the hits at campaign rallies chanting, "promise made, promise kept" while slurring past the misses, including the environment. Rife with unattractive trade-offs and demanding uncompromising decisions, the environment is far more challenging than, say, continental missile defence, a conundrum that for months twisted Martin in knots.

It's not that Martin isn't informed, caring or hasn't tried. He put the professorial Stéphane Dion in charge, is spending billions on green programs and insists, as he did again yesterday, that Canada will meet 2012 Kyoto emissions limits.

But it isn't making much of a difference. Dion is merely humoured, the environment remains exiled to the public policy margins and, instead of falling, greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster here than in the U.S.

Martin isn't alone. Governments most everywhere are reluctant to risk economic growth, jobs and re-election to cope with an abstract crisis decades away.

Given the added complexity of an unstable minority, it's no surprise the environment is consigned to the same basket that holds the democratic deficit. What they have in common is that Liberals aren't willing to sacrifice their political interests to force innovative public policy.

That's a stretch for any party. It's almost unthinkable for pragmatic Grits who aren't confused about their primary purpose and are most comfortable making decisions behind closed doors, surrounded by lobbyists, pollsters and the new elite of professional strategists.

Still, Martin promised to do politics differently and nothing needs a different approach more than the environment. It requires almost everything this administration finds difficult: urgent decisions, policed programs and the courage to lead public opinion rather than follow the polls.

It's a lot to ask of Martin but Martin asked a lot of the country when he created such great expectations of seminal change. Canada's disgraceful environmental performance is a reminder that the Prime Minister is fast running out of time to fulfill those promises and his potential.

Eloquent speeches won't rewrite that record any more than they will restore Canada's image as the Great White North. Martin should remember that when next tempted to win votes by taking a shot at a fellow environment sinner.

If you listen closely you can hear the air draining from Martin's tires as, even for a Liberal, he has gone too far and insulted the intelligence of too many.

The 'handgun ban' that changes very little was not a good start, and now the sinner casting the stones... It seems Martin is too cynical for even old organs of the Liberal party.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't understand Martin's campaign. He's making mistakes a 5 year-old could point out.

[Seeker]

Maybe it's because the Liberals could run a candidate in a clown suit honking a horn and still win the fed election?

Maybe that has something to do with it?

[molly bloom]

Is it too late for a rousing rendition of 'Blame Canada!' ?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by November Adam


Well I haven't seen this as an official or un-official policy of the Conservative party.

Meanwhile the Liberals are doing their best to try to make you look like stupid, mindless freeloading fools (your words, not mine). They are doing this by exclaiming that they are going to do what ever the hell they want with your money, from padding their pockets to padding their friends pockets.

If someone says your acting stupid for banging your head against a wall, are you going to turn around and say "I'll show you!" and bang your head against the wall?

Keep it up dude cause as long as you continue insulting people, it just means fewer people will vote conservative.

[DinoDoc]

This is what I don't get. You say that the Conservatives insult people and that is the reason people in the East don't vote for them, yet the last few posts have shown the Liberal party insulting Canada's collective intelligence. How do you explain the continued Eastern support for the Liberals?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Seeker
Maybe it's because the Liberals could run a candidate in a clown suit honking a horn and still win the fed election?

Maybe that has something to do with it?

I know. But you'd think he'd want to at least run a respectable campaign.

The Shawinigan Strangler would never have stood for lame-ass crap like this.