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