Transparency in Ottawa despite the heavy fog!

Good morning, Canada!

It looks like it's a very cloudy morning in Ottawa (photo below).

10 points to whoever can see the Parliament.
(Photo taken at the corner of Metcalfe and O'Connnor Streets)

I guess the Opposition will decide that this is due to the Tories, what with the PMO hiring a new Chief of Staff and trying to justify it. I'm sure they must think that a hidden agenda is behind all of this. It can't be as simple as Guy Giorno leaving. Hmmm...

Anyways, that being said, John Ivison wrote a great piece on this appointment in the National Post. But, keeping with the theme of transparency, Canada has another victory in which to revel.

Every year, Transparency International (TI), an NGO whose headquarters are in Berlin, publishes a report on its Corruption Perceptions Index. Important to note is its definition of corruption because one person's idea of liberty may include more negative freedom (freedom from something) or positive freedom (freedom to... something), for example.  TI defines corruption as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain." According to TI, "[corruption] hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority."

So, what am I getting at? Well, the 2010 report has just been published and Canada has done well, yet again. When I say well, I really mean phenomenal, actually. Canada continues to climb the ladder with every passing year. In fact, ever since the sponsorship scandal and Canada's election of the Conservative government, Canada has continued to climb higher on the list. (For those wondering, placing first on the list means there is less perceived corruption).

From 2008 to this year, Canada has placed 9th, 8th and 6th, respectively. And again, Canada places sky high on the list among other constitution monarchies (my favourite system of government) such as Denmark, New Zealand and Sweden.

So where is Prime Minister Stephen Harper's hidden agenda? We're still waiting to see it even though the Liberals and media like the CBC continue to fear-monger Canadians. It's clear that there is a constant smear campaign going on in the Liberals' favour in this country.

To finish, however, one important thing to note about all this is that the fact that the Tories keep steering us in a good direction under Prime Minister Harper. That's one thing that Canadians still believe in.

Ignatieff: "There is now a record of fiscal incompetence and waste of money in the Harper government, which I think shreds their reputation for fiscal credibility."

According to this article by Jane Taber, Michael Ignatieff blasts the Tories for not being fiscally responsible. Although it is true the Tories brought a $54 billion deficit, Iggy's evaluative skills are proven to be less than stellar here because Canada has been praised the world over for its actions in the recession.

Here is a tally of the so-called wasteful spending to which the Leader of the Official Opposition is referring:

• spending money to ensure world leaders are protected at the G8 and G20;
• properly equipping our military; and,
• protecting law-abiding Canadians by building new jails.

It seems as though it may be true that Michael Ignatieff would simply rather have a chaotic state. Or maybe, if voted in as PM, when it turns to chaos, he'll use his conception of the PM's powers (as described in this entry) to make a police state. I really don't know. He must have a hidden agenda, after all.

While I would like to say that the overall cost for the G8 and G20 world leaders to come over for a visit seemed a little excessive at first (it cost roughly $1 billion), now, I think it was necessary given the abundance of "peaceful protesters" that showed up to give them a humble welcome (note the sarcasm).

Furthermore, the Liberals have never been good at equipping our military. Examples? Well, ever since Trudeau, the military spending has been cut drastically. Moreover, Paul Martin sent our poorly-equipped troops into battle in Afghanistan (I remember seeing our soldiers leaving in battledress designed for "temperate woodland" areas to go fighting in Afghanistan's arid mountains and the Sistan Basin, one of the driest regions in the world) and then threatened Canadians with this ad in the 2006 election that the then-Leader of the Official Opposition, Stephen Harper, "actually announced he [wanted] to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada." It seems that the only equipment the Liberals want to give our Canadian Forces is a bad name. All this despite the fact that our chief of the air staff, Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, defended the purchase of the 65 new F-35 Lightning II jet fighters saying:

"If they can’t detect us and don’t know where we are [because the fighters are equipped with stealth technology], it dramatically changes their potential tactics. So it is a deterrent. (...) Nobody expects somebody to come in and roll ashore here in the next little while, (...) [but] it’s a question of being able to exercise your sovereignty."

I guess Lieutenant-General Deschamps doesn't know what he's talking about, at least that's what Ignatieff would have us believe.

Lastly, I would like to know what Michael Ignatieff would do with convicted criminals in this country if there is no room in the prisons. The way he describes the government's plan, it almost sounds like he's accusing the Prime Minister of enticing people to commit crime. I can assure you that that is not the case. People are committing crimes and the punishment is jail time. If there is no room in the jails, well, build more jails.

This isn't Field of Dreams. For prisons, the more appropriate quote would be "If you build it, they will not come" or at the very least, "If you build it, they will not want to come."

I sleep well at night knowing that convicted criminals aren't enjoying the same privileges that law-abiding citizens have because the latter actually deserve them.

At the end of Taber's article, Ignatieff is quoted mentioning an anecdote from his childhood:

“My mother used to tell a story about a report card she got back when I was in primary school, which said: ‘This boy plays well with other children.’ And she said that was the best thing she ever heard about me. She had heard a lot of bad things but that she thought was okay. He plays well with other children.”

That's cute... which is why it makes saying this so difficult, however, I hate to break it to you "Open Mike" Ignatieff, but your teacher probably wrote that on every student's report card.

Making "The Pill" Over The Counter = Bad Idea

After reading this article, in regard to a group of doctors calling for making oral contraceptives available over the counter, I would argue that said group is greatly misinformed regarding oral contraceptives and here’s why.

These are real facts that are based on science and not on a guilt trip about how “[doctors] hold the birth-control prescription hostage for a Pap [smear]” or “paternalistic” behaviour on the Canadian state’s part.

Oral contraceptives are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which forms part of the World Health Organization and the UN, as a Group 1 carcinogen. Group 1 means that “the agent is carcinogenic to humans”. Oral contraceptives are in the same list as nicotine (tobacco), asbestos, arsenic and mustard gas. Hardly enforces their claim that hormonal oral contraceptives are safe. This, they justify, is because they have been around for 50 years. I guess we should encourage smoking given the fact that people have been smoking tobacco for centuries, right?

Not only do the media and “family planning” groups neglect to mention this, they tend to discount it as being meaningless in the debate. Apparently, though, the benefits far outweigh the risks, right? Currently, one out of eight women who live to be 85 years of age will develop breast cancer, compared to one out of 14 in 1960, before “the pill” was available. Is it any wonder why the incidence rate of breast cancer is significantly higher in Western countries compared with countries where it is unavailable for various reasons (legislation, cost, etc.) or in countries where it has only recently become available?

Going on, if “the pill” goes over the counter, young girls will most likely begin using it at an earlier age. The idea to have the pill over the counter was also brought about in the United Kingdom in order to bring down the incidence of teenage pregnancy.  However, the pill requires daily compliance and according to Dr. Sarah Jarvis, in a study on women's habits for daily compliance with oral contraceptives, 

"47% missed one or more pills per cycle, and 22% missed two or more. These women have almost a threefold increase in unintended pregnancy compared with women who take the pill consistently, and teenagers are the group with the highest non-compliance."

Coupled this with the fact that “hormonal factors that increase the risk of breast cancer include conditions that may allow high levels of hormones to persist for long periods of time, such as beginning menstruation at an early age (before age 12), (…) having a first child after age 30 and not having any children at all,” according to the United States’ National Cancer Institute. All of these factors are more and more prevalent nowadays further increasing the risk of not only breast cancer, but also of cervical cancer.

It’s time the doctors involved with this movement, the media and feminists start fighting for true women's health issues and inform the public about the real risks of oral contraceptives. While they have been shown to decrease ovarian and endometrial cancer incidence, I believe the facts speak for themselves: the risks far outweigh the benefits.

Jim Watson : « [Il] y a un nombre trop grand de conseillers qui sont assis à la table »

Étant donné que c'est mon premier billet francophone sur mon blogue, j'espère que vous allez me pardonner pour des fautes d'orthographe, grammaire ou quoi que ce soit.

Après avoir lu cet article du Droit au sujet de l'élection municipale à venir cet automne, c'est évident que Jim Watson souhaite réduire les coûts pour l'administration de la Ville d'Ottawa.  Par contre, je crois qu'il a des intentions cachées.

Il a annoncé qu'il désire réduire le nombre de conseillers municipaux de 24 membres à 15 ou 18. Malgré que d'habitude, je suis toujours en accord à la réduction des dépenses (ou parfois le gaspillage) des finances municipales, je crois qu'enlever des conseillers, enlève également la représentation des Ottaviens.

Cette représentation est essentielle à ce que le gouvernement soit plus imputable car ceci renforce l'idée de la balance de pouvoir. Il me semble que M. Watson essaye de faire valoir plus son vote afin qu'il puisse avoir plus d'influence au conseil.

De plus, les candidats Cullen et Watson ont attaqué le maire Larry O'Brien en déclarant que les francophones de la capitale sont « insultés » au sujet du fait que le maire n'ait pas encore appris, voire maîtriser le français après son mandat. Ceci est, tout simplement, ridicule. Je suis francophone, je ne suis pas insulté. Au contraire, en fait. Je suis fier que le maire prend toujours ses cours.

Actuellement, je suis des cours d'espagnol à l’université et, malgré le fait que la langue est semblable selon plusieurs aspects linguistiques, je me retrouve parfois à avoir des difficultés. Dans mes cours d’espagnol, les anglophones éprouvent d’une difficulté particulière car plusieurs règles grammaticales sont difficiles à comprendre, voire à appliquer. Lorsque je suis en présence d’hispanophones, je me sens très gêné. Je suis certain que c’est le cas pour M. O’Brien quant à la langue française et quand il doit s’adresser au francophones. Je me compte très chanceux que ma langue maternelle soit le français.

Pour un autre ajout à ce billet, l’ancien candidat mauvais perdant, Terry Kilrea, a décidé de lancer une autre campagne dans la course pour le siège que cède le conseiller Cullen. Voici la définition d’un insulte aux francophones, si MM. Cullen et Watson écoutent : le candidat Kilrea a annoncé son « dégout » pour le projet de transformer l’ancienne école Grant en centre de services pour les francophones de l’ouest d’Ottawa. Cette attaque est véritablement dégoûtante.

En revanche, on devrait être prudent avec les dépenses d’un tel centre communautaire pour les francophones de l’ouest d’Ottawa à cause s’ils demandent des fonds de la Ville afin d’établir le centre, je crois qu’on devrait faire une étude afin de voir si les francophones vont véritablement l’utiliser. Je ne veux pas gaspiller des finances municipales, déjà rares, qui pourrait aller à l’infrastructure, par exemple, pour un centre où le pourcentage de personnes qui l’utilisent est négligeable face à la population francophone totale.

Je crois que la prochaine élection municipale ne devrait pas être principalement au sujet du train léger, le tunnel, Lansdowne, etc.  Plutôt, on devrait se concentrer sur trouver des manières de couper les dépenses excessives de la ville car Ottawa est toujours la ville où les citoyens payent le plus haut niveau de taxes municipales au Canada (selon le Ottawa Taxpayer Advocacy Group). 

Pakistan - Canadian Aid Update

The flooding in Pakistan only seems to be getting worse but sometimes every dark cloud does have a silver lining.

I don't think most Canadians would be able to identify Pakistan on a map if they were given three tries, however, it's great to see that the Conservative government is matching all private donations, dollar for dollar, for aid to Pakistan. I have just read that Canadian aid is finally making its way into heavily affected areas of the floods, even some areas with former Taliban influence. This is good because this type of help can show that Canadians always have been and continue to be extremely generous when it comes to helping people in crisis.

Having said that, getting aid to areas with a lot of Taliban shows that generosity even more. I only hope that they don't hide the origin of the aid. Like I said in a post earlier this week, this aid holds the potential to avoid Canadian casualties in Afghanistan given the fact that who the Taliban calls their "enemy" is providing them with help in overcoming such a catastrophe. This may encourage one person to not proceed in constructing an IED or, at least, make a dud instead if they are forced to make one. It's even more important to have aid going into areas with former Taliban influence to show that we will be there for those affected because these places becoming very vulnerable and may welcome them back.

I encourage Canadians in donating to organizations Department of Foreign and Affairs and International Trade calls "experienced humanitarian organizations".  Clicking the link will provide you with that list, just make sure to check that the organization to which you decide on donating is organizing relief operations in Pakistan. The Red Cross, World Vision and Oxfam all have the opportunity for you to donate on their websites. It's quick and painless!

MV Sun Sea - Are Canadians racist?

Well, what a perfect way to start a weekend! It seems that there is a lot of press generating about whether or not Cnaadians are actually racist because of points being raised about why the government allowed the MV Sun Sea to dock with a bunch of Tamil migrants from Sri Lanka. To answer that question simply, I would suggest that it's no.

The recent arrival of the MV Sun Sea filled with 500 or so Tamil migrants has created quite a stir in the peaceful Canadian summer. What seems to be a concern to some is that a seemingly majority of Canadians' were displeased with the government's response to the arrival of this ship and how these Tamil refugees were able to go out into Canadian society.

I don't believe Canadians are racist for demanding a call for the ship to be sent back. The problem is, when it arrives, they have to be unloaded because of Canadian laws. The main concerns, I believe, on most Canadians' minds is the fact that these refugees get to jump the line to come to Canada and the fact that there may be terrorists aboard.

Regarding the fact that these Tamil migrants get the opportunity to jump the line, they are leaving a country which just finished combating a civil war. In addtion, when one considers the fact that most of these migrants paid a sum as high as $50,000 to get to Canada, they must have felt, deep down, that they were leaving the closest thing to hell. That can be debated (on whether or not the Sri Lankan government are "butchers") but if one considers that price tag, it becomes clear that they left thinking that arriving in Canada was going to be nothing short of a miracle.

Although this blog entry may have a different ring than what was heard in an earlier entry which was written this week, however, I would have to say that I slightly reconsidered my stance by examining more thoroughly the circumstances and the situation in which these migrants find themselves.

Regarding the terrorist threat, I believe every Canadian has every right to be wary. As I did mention in this week's blog entry regarding the subject, members of the Liberation Tigers of the Tamil-Eelam, a group identified as a terrorist group, are a significant risk if we allow some to establish themselves in Canada and potentially continue to fund the group. We saw what a peaceful Tamil protest (despite Tamil Tiger flags waving everywhere) can cause in Canada (disruption of major highways and roads, damage to public and private property, etc.), I wouldn't want to see what a violent protest or terrorist act could cause.

To conclude, I would like to say that we, as Canadians, can look back at our history and realize that we have turned back boats in the past which, a majority can agree, was a bad idea (e.g. MS St. Louis). I just think we still have to keep our guard up. So, in general, are Canadians racist? Absolutely not. Despite the boat arriving and grievances being raised by many Canadians across the board, the MV Sun Sea docked and unloaded these Tamils and they are now on their way to, hopefully, become very productive Canadians.

Chief Supt. Marty Cheliak - Fired by PM Harper? Come on!

It seems that the Liberal Party of Canada's propaganda wing and the likes of Don Martin would have you believe that apparently Stephen Harper said: "You're fired!" à la Donald Trump to the RCMP's Chief Supt. Marty Cheliak. Our Prime Minister involved directly in the federal police force? I think not.

Picture this, if the federal government were a city and this city was planned with the idea that the federal departments that deal more directly with government were placed close to the Parliament and those that deal with the government less were placed further away, well, in this city, the RCMP would probably be placed in the boonies. Given this fact, clearly, Stephen Harper didn't make this decision.

According to the Liberal Party, they accuse Stephen Harper of having direct authority over the RCMP. Lack of research? Or just plain stupidity? Regardless, it's pretty pitiful that our Official Opposition can't think of making a few checks before actually sending a press release.

As Stephen Taylor deduces on his August 18 blog entry, the Liberals, if given the mandate to govern, would begin meddling with our federal police judging by their belief. They claim that he was removed of his duties because he is in favour of the long-gun registry. Still to this day, they're so sold on the idea that this gun registry will stop crime that they were able to blow $2 billion on it.

If you are wondering what the initial estimates were for implementing the program were, well, they were $119 million to implement with a planned $117 million in revenues from registration fees. Subtract those numbers and you get a net cost of $2 million to implement. Cost overruns? 100,000% more than planned. You only get percentages like that in Zimbabwe!

What's great about the long-gun registry is the fact that according to Auditor General Sheila Fraser's report regarding the registry, she said:

"The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms."

What's funny is that I won't be surprised if some Liberals decide to vote in favour of, or abstain from voting altogether on Bill C-391 because many constituents in Liberal ridings hate the long-gun registry.

It's all a question of who commits gun crime and whether they use long-guns to commit them. Last I checked, most gun crime involves handguns or smaller weapons such as knives, not a hunting rifle. It's a question of practicality. If someone is a thief, he most likely wouldn't walk into a bank with a rifle to rob it, he's most likely going to use a handgun. And, if he has half of a brain, he will buy it illegally removing the need to register it, thereby, bypassing the gun registry's supposed aim to catch gun-toting criminals.

Concluding, the long-gun registry idea was conceived with good intentions but it just isn't practical and is definitely not a frugal undertaking as we have witnessed. It's clearly time that it should go.