Why we Might not Need F-35s

For starters, we already have CF-18s that are 30 years ahead technology wise over our most likely threat, the Russian TU-95s.

Secondly, as Philippe Lagassé, a defence analyst at the University of Ottawa has remarked, "it would be thoroughly against all [Russia's] national interests to ever contemplate sending a fleet of aircraft into our airspace.” Not to mention the rest of the world would be ill-advised to enter our airspace, as the US would probably view it as an action ultimately aimed against her.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Has Candice Hoeppner Even Read the RCMP on the Long-gun Registry

Tory MP Candice Hoeppner, in response to the report issued by the RCMP today on the long gun registry, said that it showed the long gun registry to be "“wasteful and ineffective.” She further claimed that "[t]he report also clearly shows that claims made by advocates of the unreliable long-gun registry about its so-called value to front-line officers are highly misleading.”

How can she possibly square these allegations with what the report actually says? The report says of the registry that it is a "useful tool," that it ensures "police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status.” It also said that there is an "“ongoing need” for the regulation of firearms.

Opponents of the long gun registry can believe what they want, but it would be nice if, in such an important debate, they did not twist the facts so blatantly. If their position is tenable, then surely they do not resort to such tactics. Unless, of course, if their position is untenable.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Jack Layton Should Whip his MPs on Long-Gun Registry

When the bill to abolish the long gun registry was last put to a vote in the House of Commons, 8 Liberal MPs supported it. To avoid such an outcome on the upcoming decisive vote, Michael Ignatieff has whipped his MPs into opposing the bill. Ignatieff has understood that the registry is an important tool for police in their fight against crime. He also knows that the registry makes society safer.

Jack Layton probably knows these things, too. However, as of yet he is unwilling to whip his MPs on this issue, citing his principle of letting MPs vote their conscience on private member's bills. This is an admirable democratic principle. Yet, with the safety of citizens' at stake, Jack Layton should take a firmer stand. He should stand up for what is right. He should whip his MPs to oppose this dangerous bill.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Liberal Census Bill Shows Fundamental Difference Between Them and Conservatives

John McCallum announced today that the Liberals would introduce a private members bill reinstating the mandatory long form census, while removing the jail time penalty. The Conservatives are seeking to further hobble the power of government to take positive action in our society, whereas the Liberals are standing up for the admirable and desirable idea of a government that is able to help society. That shows the fundamental difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives believe in a government that maintains sovereignty, keeps markets free and supplies the military. Liberals believe government can do more.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Conservatives Making Shameful Use of Shock Politics

When Dmitri Soudas brought the media's notice to the incident that occurred in the arctic yesterday between two Russian bombers and two CF-18s, the intention was obvious. The Russian military often performs exercises in the Arctic near our airspace, about 12-17 times a year. Today's news was nothing of consequence.

Except for the fact that it was motivated by a desire to shock Canadians into plumping for the purchase of 65 F-35s to replace the CF-18s. This is flagrantly obvious, as such events are not normally brought to the public's attention. But with the government announcement of the purchase of the F-35s, they need some sort of justification for this $9billion and up purchase.

Does the government really believe that it can make most Canadians believe we are in danger from the Russians because they are performing routine exercises? They should be ashamed of trying to deceive the public this way.

PS: on a side note, the TU-95 Russian bombers (nicknamed bear) entered service in the Soviet airforce in 1956 and are intended for use until 2040. In comparison, the CF-18s were first put into service in 1983.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

What Tories are Missing in the Patronage Revelations

Liberal MPs Wayne Easter and Alexandra Mendes reported that since Harper's government has been in power, 20% of federal appointments had been given to Conservative supporters, constituting in their opinion a blatant case of patronage. Tory supporters thought they had the perfect mathematical defense.

Looking at the comments on news stories, you see a lot of Tories saying: "If he only appointed Tories to 20% of the jobs, then that means 80% went to Liberals, NDPers, Blocs and Greens. Why are the Liberals complaining?"

But that is not the case. When they said supporters, the Liberal MPs meant Conservative party insiders, people who had worked for the party or had given large donations to it. People that actually were Conservative party members. They did not mean anyone who voted Conservative in the last election.

Not every Canadian is a member of a political party, or is a donor to one. Far from it. To think therefore that the appointments can be divided into the ones that went to Tory supporters and the ones that went to Opposition party supporters is simply not accurate. There are plenty of public servants who, although they may have voted for a certain party, have never worked for a party or been a donor.

Those non partisan public servants have to be counted among the 80%. Which makes that 20% going to Tory insiders/members/donors look a whole lot bigger.

(However, it is true that if Easter and Mendes have the breakdown on the affiliations of the federal appointees since 2006, then surely they can release that information. They should let us see how many Liberal party members, NDP party members, Bloc party members, Green party members and non partisans were appointed. That would provide the transparency they maintain they seek.)

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Harper's Conservatives = Soft on Crime

Stephen Harper's Conservatives have prided themselves on being a party that is tough on crime, pushing for certain minimum sentences and announcing plans to build new prisons in order to convey that image. However, they are now coming into conflict with their partners in the war against crime, the police. If this isn't a signal of being soft on crime, then what is?

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) approved a resolution at its meeting earlier today that asserted the importance of the long form to police work. It reads that “ police agencies throughout Canada depend on reliable, comprehensive demographic statistical information provided by Statistics Canada to establish policing priorities and to determine policing services for their communities" and that “the long form census used by Statistics Canada is the basic tool for gathering the necessary statistical information while protecting the confidentiality of such information.”

In other words, the Harper government, by rendering the long form census impotent, are crippling the efforts of the police to reduce and stop crime. The police will no longer possess this crucial information, a tool they used to stop the crime Harper claims to want to stop also.

Perhaps more indicative is the further stance the CACP adopted on the long gun registry. They unanimously adopted a resolution calling on police leaders and officers to explain to the public and politicians the value and importance of the long gun registry.

Police across the country consult the database 11000 times per day. It is according to Chief Blair, the head of the CACP, "a tool that we need, that we use every day. And if you take it away from us, you are diminishing our capacity to keep our communities safe.”

Harper maintained today that "Canadians have been very clear they want us to spend our time and our money focusing on the criminal misuse of firearms and not going after law abiding duck hunters and farmers." The CACP, who should know about this area after all, are telling him loud and clear that if he wants to focus on public safety, he should not abolish the long gun registry. The two aren't irreconcilable. After all, the police are not putting duck hunters and farmers in prison.

Maybe Harper should listen to his partners in the war on crime. Maybe he should listen to those who actually are tough on crime, rather than to those that are blinded by ideology.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Conservative Party Workers Fraudulently Posing as PMO Staffers, "Elections Centre"?

In a letter to the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings asks him to look into allegations of the Conservative party soliciting donations from Conservative party members from the PMO. This would be in contravention of Section 92.1 of the Elections Canada Act that "requires that a donation in-kind to be declared to Elections Canada whenever an organization allows a political party to use its facilities to raise funds" if no such donation in kind was made. If the calls were in fact coming from party headquarters, that would constitute fraud.

Jennings goes on to bring Mayrand's attention to allegations she has received claiming that Conservative party workers have been making phone calls posing as a fictitious "Elections Centre" with the aim to gather information on voters. It would appear that if this is the case the Conservative Party is using the similarity between "Elections Centre" and "Elections Canada" to fraudulently obtain information from Canadians.

If proven true, these are very serious allegations. Marc Mayrand should give them the utmost attention.

Here is the link to the letter from Jennings to Mayrand.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Cheliak bilingual a year ago, but not any longer?

If it were not apparent that the Harper government does not believe in the independence and expertise of public servants, there is almost no doubt about it following the removal of Marty Cheliak from his post as acting Director General of the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP). The reason offered for his removal from the post, that he does not meet the bilingual requirement for the job, immediately arouses suspicion.

Cheliak was appointed Director General of the CFP in August 2009. It is safe to assume that he was no more bilingual then than he is now. After all, most people who are bilingual don't lose the ability to speak both languages in a year. Clearly, if Cheliak is not bilingual now, he was not bilingual then. It follows with undeniable logic that he therefore did not fulfill the bilingual requirements for the job.

The RCMP would have definitely known this a year ago. Unless the bilingual requirements for the job have been modified, which they have not because otherwise the RCMP would have said so in their press release. It appears that the RCMP was willing to overlook the bilingual requirement a year ago, if indeed it exists. The question thus becomes, who has brought the RCMP's attention to Cheliak's shortcomings? And if so why now?

The candidate that comes to mind is Stephen Harper. After all, there is the tell-tale sign of a classic Harper vs public servant duel, disagreement over a hot-button issue. Linda Keen disagreed with the Harper government over the handling of the Chalk River reactor. She was fired. Pat Strogan criticized Ottawa's handling of veterans' and he is now being shown the door. Cheliak was an advocate of the long gun registry, a system he said protected Canadians. He had also formed a coalition of various groups, including front line officers, in favour of the long-gun registry.

Now he is fired. Interestingly the final vote on the bill to abolish the long gun registry will be held when Parliament resumes in September and the outcome is by no means certain. With Cheliak organizing significant and telling opposition (who would know better than officers whether or not the long-gun registry is effective), the Conservatives had a formidable adversary.

This is the only possible reason for the timing of the decision. True, this firing looks subtler than that of others who have defied Harper. However, the point remains: Cheliak could not have been bilingual a year ago, but not be any longer.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Let's Make the Census Crisis as Big as Prorogation

With Jack Layton calling for an emergency debate when the House reconvenes, we can provide support by joining the facebook group advocating the retention of the mandatory long form census. Let's show Stepehn Harper there's just as much anger over this issue as over prorogation.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Clement's version of robust and reliable data

On the CBC Radio program The House, Tony Clement stated today that there would be no further census concessions. The reason it seems is that Clement believes that he "[is] meeting the objections of those who are concerned about robust and reliable data." I guess he thinks that a 50% response rate is robust and reliable.

The sad fact though is that it isn't. It is fair to say that experts at Statscan, who have made it their life's work to deal with statistics, would know more about what constitutes robust and reliable data than he does, and that therefore we should follow their advice of maintaining the status quo. That is if you're not talking to the experts Clement alleges exist at Statscan that believe that a voluntary long form is a perfectly acceptable substitute for the mandatory long form

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Tony Clement shows very worrying incompetence

In his interview earlier today with Evan Solomon on Power and Politics, Tony Clement showed two worrying signs of incompetence when attempting to establish the credibility of his new voluntary National Household Survey.

Contrasting the government's decision to scrap the mandatory long form census with the recommendation of StatsCan experts to keep the status quo, Clement offered what he seemed to think was an explanation showing that the new voluntary survey would be a statistical equivalent to the former mandatory long form census.

"We knew, Clement said, that the response rate would be lower, that's why we doubled the sample size. So the evidence is there that we're making it clear that of course you're going to have a lower response rate from a voluntary form versus a mandatory form. That's why you double the sample size and that's why even if you go down to 50% you have a fairly large sample to draw from."

The first issue in this comment is that Clement does not know his own plan. The former mandatory long form census was sent to 20% of households. The new voluntary form is proposed to be sent to 30% of households. Last time I checked 20 times two did not equal 30. For a minister that whose portfolio encompasses responsibility for Statistics Canada, this is worrying.

Secondly, Tony Clement seems to be implying that the by increasing the sample size, you're doing away with the main problem of a voluntary survey. While it is true that this might mean a similar final sample size, due to lower rates of participation on a voluntary survey, it does not mean that the two options would be comparable. The quality of the two different samples is not the same just because they are the same size.

With a voluntary survey, the sample is no longer as random. In fact, it becomes somewhat self-selecting. Certain groups will be less willing, due to factors such as busyness, to participate in a voluntary survey. So the sample that Clement's new survey will yield will not be as random or varied. Therefore the results will be much less of an indicator of the life of an average Canadian. Increasing the sample size of a voluntary survey does nothing to prevent this.

Tony Clement and the rest of the government have shown contempt for government based on evidence and information. The decision to scrap the mandatory long form census further showed that. Now they are either proving their incompetence, or believing that Canadians cannot see through such specious arguments.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere