What do we expect from a Prime Minister?

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 03:54 AM

by Jack deWit

You would think that a man campaigning to remain the leader of Canada would require some basic knowledge of how he is to guide his parliament and how to lead the people he is to represent. Not so for Prime Minister Paul Martin. His leadership is misguided by pressures from the high ethnic urban population and is directed at destroying a rural lifestyle for the rest of Canadians. Those of us that live and work in the resource industries, transportation, and tourist industries will all be held accountable for those few unfortunate gang members who need handguns to remove their opposition.

Paul Martin’s announcement of his intentions to ban handguns once again displays his total lack of knowledge of the handguns and crime. Is he so thick headed that it is he cannot reason the difference between legally owned guns and those that are smuggled in from other countries? Or, is it the pressures from urban MPs and hopeful candidates to make it appear that he is attempting to reduce those crimes committed with handguns?

Either way, there is simply not a trace of evidence that banning handguns will reduce the carnage being carried out on the streets of Canada’s largest urban centers. Mr. Martin and his cronies have ignored the growth of gangs in the cities for many years. Furthermore, by the Liberals leaning towards the legalization of marijuana, they are only supporting the smuggling of more guns from the United States. Can’t Paul Martin get it through his thick skull that guns are traded for marijuana?

Statistics from Australia show that since the ban on guns went into effect in 1997 the rate of homicides had not changed until 2001 when it actually started to increase. Yet in the US where guns are readily available and in many states ownership is encouraged, violent crime is on the decrease. Armed robberies have actually increased by 44% nation-wide in Australia. Death caused by guns (not people) has also increased a whopping 300% in the state of Victoria.

Now let’s look at the cost to the taxpayers for executing such a ban. In Australia, 640,381 firearms were relinquished and destroyed at a cost of over $500 million. In Canada we have had a very successful handgun registry for many years. The latest firearm legislation is already twice the cost of that incurred by Australia and there are still hundreds of thousands of firearms that were legally purchased that have never been, and never will be, registered. The only real statistic from Ottawa is that there are now thousands more criminals (who were law abiding citizens) who own unregistered firearms.

So why doesn’t Mr. Martin take that money and invest it in the healthcare system, housing for the underprivileged, education, a border patrol, or the many other worthwhile projects? The answer is simple. Please the highly immigrant based population in the large urban areas. Put the fear of guns into the voters so they will support the Liberals! Don’t increase policing or instruct judges to hand out fitting sentences for committing gun offences. Martin’s plan is to bring in legislation to hurt those who have appropriately owned handguns for years. It will sound great when the Liberals can brag that they removed all the handguns from Canadians, especially those from criminals.

However, there is one area where the Liberals will honestly succeed in saving money. All athletes who are involved with any sport using a firearm will now be extinct in Canada. Oh Canada, how proud we will be cheering on the other competing countries at the 2010 Olympics at Whistler.

References

Data was obtained from the Fraser Institute

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 03:54 AM in Views by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: diplomat on December 14 2005 10:33 AM

What do we expect from a Prime Minister?

Well, I don't know what WE expect from a Prime Minister of Canada, but I certainly expect him to be unimpressed by American attempts at coercion to get us to toe the American line! Martin has been called on the carpet by the US Ambassador to Canada, and threatened with "dire" consequences.

Mr. Harper wants to send Canadian troops to Iraq, or so he said not too long ago. He also wants Canada to join the USA and withdraw from the Kyoto agreement.

The Bush administration is actively seeking a regime change in Canada and says so openly.

The American ambassador sure has sounded a wake up call to all Canadians!

Posted by: Palopu on December 14 2005 11:06 AM

The handgun legislation proposed by the Liberal Paul Martin is a thinly disguised ploy to gain the votes in the Metropolitian areas. He cars little about people in the more remote parts of the Provinces and Territories and thats why we will continue to not support him.

As far as the war in Iraq goes this is another ploy to try to make Harper look like a War Monger. Canadians are not smart enough to realize that Paul Martin and his Liberals have already taken them to War in Afghanistan without any debate in Parliment or any declaration of War. Not only are we fighting in Afganistan but we are going to increase our troop levels by 1000 soldiers early in the new year. These troops will be positioned in Kandahar Afghanistan and the intent is to have them relieve American troops so that they can be deployed elsewhere. 6 Canadian soldiers have been wounded in the last 2 weeks and many more will die in the not to distant future. At present these troops are fighting under the command of the Americans.

So, the question is, why are we fighting to Afghanistan, why are we supporting the Americans in Afghanistan, and why is Paul Martin not taking the responsibility of taking us to an undeclared war.

Paul Martin is pretty slippery.

Posted by: diplomat on December 14 2005 1:12 PM

>So, the question is, why are we fighting to Afghanistan, why are we supporting the Americans in Afghanistan, and why is Paul Martin not taking the responsibility of taking us to an undeclared war.<

One answer is that the peacekeeping effort in Afghanistan is a United Nations sanctioned mission. German and Dutch soldiers are assisting as well, as are some other nations.

The shock and awe war on the Iraq is illegal, criminal and unprovoked, in my opinion.

We are NOT supporting the Americans as such in Afghanistan; Canada is participating in a UN sanctioned mission.

Posted by: diplomat on December 14 2005 3:14 PM

>...and why is Paul Martin not taking the responsibility of taking us to an undeclared war.<

The Canadian Forces began their peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan in late August of 2003.

The Hon. Paul Martin became Prime Minister on December 12th of 2003.

Surely you don't expect him to "take credit" for something that he did not do?

You don't want Harper to be labelled a war monger but demonizing Martin is just as unfair.

Posted by: Tudenom on December 14 2005 4:30 PM

I think P.M. P.M. knows that the handgun ban will do nothing to help and he knows that this will waste hundreds of millions of dollars that would have been much better spent elsewhere. The proof is undisputable.

He knows that he will loose votes in rural Canada, but he also knows that he will win more than he looses due to the ignorance of people in the major urban centers!

That's what scares me the most, he's willing to sell out all of Canada (by confiscating legally owned property and wasting millions of dollars) to win a few measly votes! Is this the man we want running the country?

And now this nonsense about provinces choosing whether they will enforce the ban. What if somebody has to pass through an anti handgun province to attend an IPSC match somewhere?

Posted by: Tudenom on December 14 2005 4:30 PM

Posted by: Palopu on December 14 2005 4:43 PM

The armed forces going into southern Afghanistan are under the direction of NATO not the UN. The Canadian Contingent will be releiving American Forces. News release dated Dec 8th says in part.

**The Candian military has shifted operations to Kandahar where it will have about 2000 troops by February. Most will be part of the U.S. led Operation Enduring Freedom.

Jack Layton stated last week that there has been no formal public debate, or declaration of war in Afghanistan, Canadians need to have a debate on whether they want Canadian service personnel to become deeply involved in an initiative thats pressed forward by (U.S. president) George Bush. The deployment of Canadian troops to that war-torn region earlier this year was mostly a humanitarian mission under the umbrella of the United Nations, but Layton said the nature of the mission has changed. Troops are expected to take part in combat patrols and Defence Minister Bill Graham has been warning the public for months to expect casualties.

My point is that while the Liberals are trying to make Harper look like a War Monger, they are working with the Americans in a War against the Taliban Govenment which was overthrown by the Americans in 2001. On the service it may not appear that the Liberals are supporting the War in Iraq, but you can bet that a lot of those American Soldiers that leave Afghanistan will go to Irag, so our putting troops into Afghanistan certainly helps the US War effort in Iraq. To think otherwise would be foolish.

Paul Martin is a lot closer to the Americans than he would have you beleive. Its good politics to show him as being anti-american, however you can rest assured that he's cooked a deal with President Bush.

Posted by: diplomat on December 14 2005 7:46 PM

>"...it may not appear that the Liberals are supporting the War in Iraq, but you can bet that a lot of those American Soldiers that leave Afghanistan will go to Irag, so our putting troops into Afghanistan certainly helps the US War effort in Iraq. To think otherwise would be foolish."<

You are correct.

Anything that anybody helps out with in that area of the world (halfways around the globe) is abetting the American agenda. To propose that Harper would be able to untangle Canada from this would also be very foolish. In fact he doesn't want to, he wants to buy (American made) heavy lifter long range aircraft to rush Canadian troops to other potentially more controversial hot spots, i.e. wars.

Layton will say anything to get himself elected, as do all the others who are running. Layton is in a unique dilemma, because he cannot condemn neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives too loudly as eventually he may have to choose one of them to become his latest bed partner.

The Greens may benefit from all this by finally getting a couple of MPs elected.

Posted by: gypsy on December 15 2005 8:07 AM

You guys can debate these issues forever, and the average Canadian knows nothing about any proposed ban on hand guns, or troops sent to Iraq or Timbucktoo.
Furthermore they do not care, and are not interested.Many go to the polls simply because they are convinced that as a citizen it is their duty to cast a ballot. They would not care if they marked an X by Smokey the Bear.
You might as well talk to a brick wall as try to discuss politics with the average citizen.
Putting any political house in order would only prove to be a "lesson in futility."
I just changed my mind last night-I think I will vote GREEN!!!
Now tell me how pointless this will be.
Bring out the gloves-the fight is on!!!

Posted by: diplomat on December 15 2005 9:27 AM

I enjoyed watching the Peter Mansbridge session with the Green Party leader (what's his name again?) as the man made quite a few sensible points! Needless to say the BIG three (four including La Belle Province) excluded him from participating in the upcoming TV "debates."

Go figure! Are they afraid of something???

I think I will join you in voting for the Greens; the others have absolutely nothing to offer me except the same old platitudes and blatant spin.

Posted by: gypsy on December 15 2005 11:18 AM

Cripes-his name is Harris!!!!
Do not be hasty, and judge him by his name, and do not put your X by Harris on your ballot!!!
Hope I did not start something???

Posted by: Palopu on December 15 2005 12:24 PM

I agree with you Gypsy. Most people do not know where Afghanistan is, let alone what Canadian Soldiers are doing there. I would not be suprised if Smokey the Bear could get more votes than the Green Party. As usual this will be a battle between the Liberals and Conservatives with the NDP (CCF) dancing in the middle, and the Bloc laughing all the way to the bank. Having said that we do have a responsibility not to re-elect a Government represented by a Liberal Party who have basically robbed us and seem somewhat proud of their endeavour. If we re-elect the Liberals then we are basically renewing their licence to steal.

Posted by: diplomat on December 15 2005 1:29 PM

>If we re-elect the Liberals then we are basically renewing their licence to steal.<

If we elect the conservatives we are renewing the NAFTA, GST and Airbus legacy, not to mention the shadow of a certain Mr. Mulroney who is a mentor of the present aspiring candidate.

Ah well, a good man is hard to find!

Don't worry, Gypsy, I do not reside in the "Dick" Harris riding and Harris from the Greens is not on my ballot.

Posted by: Chester on December 16 2005 12:02 AM

There are two different issues that need to be addressed.

First, what would warrant or justify removing someone from their position?

And secondly who would be a worthy replacement?

One must remove the posers or the imposters? Those leaders who we know, what they say doesn't jive with what they do.

Those who have lied to us. Those who desire to break up the country.

Those who purposely distract us from the real issues by diversions such as taking away our handguns.

Those who want to pull us apart rather than bring us together in unity.

Those who would give us false hope by deceiving us.

So, what do we expect from a Prime Minister? How about Honesty? Integrity? High Moral Standards? Ethics? The ability to do what is right, not what is popular?

To raise the standards, not lower them to the lowest common denominator.

To mean what they say and say what they mean.

To be a leader of influence who is respected because of his wisdom. Who has a vision and an agenda that is for Canada, not a personal one.

One who will be accountable for his decisions.

Don't be distracted by policical parties. Let your common sense guide you. If everyone just thought through things for themselves and let their personal feelings guide them, elections would turn out quite different I think.

As the games have already begun, let's change the outcome this time. Don't let the fear mongers affect your vote. Don't let the media affect your true feelings. Don't let special interest groups affect your concern for those issues that are important to you.

Forget about politically correctness. Forget about the opinions of others. What you think is all that counts. Think for yourself and ignore the rest.

Then we will really have a reflection of the pulse of the citizens of this great Nation of Canada.

We are a Mosaic of a multi-cultural nation that can be an example of how to live together, get along, and have respect for each other and live in harmony. Let's join together with the things we have in common and celebrate the things that each of us bring that is different.

We really are the melting pot of the United Nations. We need to be an example of how we can live together in harmony and peace.

We can't and shouldn't expect to change Canada to suit the culture from which we came. But, we can bring a flavour and blend of talent, gifts and culture for everyone else to enjoy for each of us being here and sharing our backgrounds with those who are interested. If immigrants don't like it in Canada, we allow them to move back to where they came from anytime they want. We are a peaceful and free country. Chester

Posted by: diplomat on December 16 2005 7:38 AM

Chester, in my opinion your contribution is very thoughtful and of a very high standard.

But you said: >"So, what do we expect from a Prime Minister? How about Honesty? Integrity? High Moral Standards? Ethics? The ability to do what is right, not what is popular?"<

According to my assessment of the candidates aspiring to the office of Prime Minister there is not one who meets the above standards.

They all cater to some special interest group.

If it is not the unions, it is the bankers. If it is not the bankers, it is the separatists. If it is not the separatists it is the corporate or global domination agenda.

Sometimes it is a combination of one or more of the above.

Idealism meets stark reality in the real world. The outcome of that clash is what we see in the usual bump and grind of politics in a democracy such as ours.

But, of course, high morals and ethics are always preferrable in any walk of life. Unfortunately they are in the political arena often a handicap rather than an asset, sadly enough.

Cheers! We usually get what the majority deems acceptable.

Posted by: Palopu on December 16 2005 9:04 AM

Diplomat. I agree that the Conservatives screwed up with the NAFTA, GST, Airbus, however you are overlooking the fact they paid a price for it. They held 169 seats before the election in 1993 and held 2 seats after the election. This was probably the biggest defeat to a political party in the history of Canada, and they are just now, recovering from it. I think Canadian voters did their job by getting rid of the Conservatives is 1993 and I think they now should do their job by getting rid of the scandalized Liberals.

It appears that Conservative voters had the intestinal fortitude to help throw out the Conservatives when they went bad. Now the question is do the Liberal Voters have the will to throw out the Liberals, or will they carry on with this poor excuse for a political party.

The Liberals need a vacation.

Posted by: diplomat on December 16 2005 9:50 AM

>The Liberals need a vacation.<

Good points, Pal! If the Conservatives end up in the position to have to look for a coalition partner WHO will they find acceptable?

Layton, a typical tax/borrow/spend NDPer who will work with the lenders/bankers to put Canada deeper into debt again (as the NDP leaders did in Ontario and B.C.)?

The Separatists???

This whole election is an exercise in futility.

Parliament should have taken a deep breath, let the Gomery inquiry finish its mandate and allow the manipulators to go to trial, including Martin if he had anything to do with it.

(Is mentioning Jean Chretien in this context a no-no?)

You are asking the voters to judge before the justice system had an opportunity to do its proper job.

Seems to me that the egoes of Layton and Harper got in the way of common sense and what is good for Canada! Of course, the whole thing has become new fuel for the separatists who now get an opportunity to air their traditional grievances with great indignation and demands for further concessions!

BTW, I am NOT a Liberal, in fact have never voted Liberal.

It will be interesting to see if anybody will have the guts to suggest and a Grand Coalition!

What's good for the politicians and what is good for the country doesn't appear to be on the same wavelength, in my humble opinion!

Posted by: Palopu on December 16 2005 10:48 AM

I could live with a Grand Coalition, however I doubt if the Political Parties could. If you set up a Coalition with the Bloc in this Country you would be branded as a traitor. If you work with the NDP your a socialist, and if you work with the Liberals you could be involved in the Scandal. The simple solution is this.

A Conservative Majority Government (Not to big) hopefully with sufficient support from Ontario, and a little support from Quecbec that would make it a somewhat representative Government, and then we could all have a rest.

No Provincial Election for 4 years, No Federal Election for 4 years, and No Municipal Election for 3 years. Wouldnt that be great.

Posted by: diplomat on December 16 2005 12:44 PM

>"No Provincial Election for 4 years, No Federal Election for 4 years, and No Municipal Election for 3 years. Wouldnt that be great. "<

I agree. But it isn't going to work out that way, imho. If Harper doesn't stop beating the "Scandal" drum soon he will be perceived by many to be far too negative and overly exploitative of the situation that was basically created before Martin's time.

A Canadian tradition is that one lets a victim get up off the floor and allow himself to dust himself off. There is a very fine line here that Harper must not step over, else Canadians will develop empathy for Martin and come to defend him, just because.

Harper must not dwell on this thing much longer, but he ought to soon move on with a forgiving attitude and start to accentuate only the positive side of his platform and his own vision of Canada under HIS leadership.

It would benefit him greatly if we would resist the temptation to carry on and on about the infamous scandal for the rest of this very long campaign.

Canadians will forgive Svend Robinson, as they forgave Heddy Fry for her nonsense, and the list goes on.

Many might just forgive Martin and the Liberals before the campaign has run its course, if they haven't done so already.

Layton is beating the single tier public health care issue to death, knowing full well that Canada hasn't had a single tier health care system for many, many years.

There aren't many Canadians left that still believe his assertions, except his own dedicated party followers.

NDP ministers and MPs in Ottawa do avail themselves all too often of medical care from clinics in the USA and elsewhere and pay for private care for their loved ones out of their own pocket, as revealed in the past.

Honesty in a leader is something that we would respect, but it is a very rare commodity, indeed!

Pal, it is a great experience to trade opinions with you.

Good luck!

Posted by: diplomat on December 16 2005 12:44 PM

Posted by: Chester on December 17 2005 5:17 PM

We have 4 individuals who are running for the highest position in the land, Prime Minister of Canada. Of course, they should possess a few good leadership qualities such as strong character, honesty, integrity and high moral values.

The unfortunate part is that none of their names will be on my ballot. So, I really have no direct say in who becomes Prime Minister.

I really only have a few options in my own riding. This is the only place where I have any say and any control regarding my vote.

So, personally, I need to put my own local candidates under scrutiny and determine if they measure up according to my standards.

I will choose the person who most closely reflects the qualities, values and thinking that I value. That is really the only thing I can do.

Until we change the way we vote, what else can we do?

One person at a time, one vote at a time. What we get is what we get. One would hope that each person who gets elected would bring a fair representation of his riding to Ottawa. It would also be his responsibility to represent the feelings and opinions of the people who elected him.

This is where we find more problems. Some parties don't want their members to think for themselves or represent their riding. Wrong!

Don't you think it's time to change the process? I do!

So, who is in favour of changing the process? I am. How about you?

The voting process becomes very simple for me based on the few things that I consider to me.

Oh, I forgot one other thing. If you value keeping Canada together as one Dominion from sea to sea, you have just shortened your pick list a little more.

True authority only comes with unity. Unity doesn't mean we all need to be the same. But, we need to be in agreement in regards to running the country.

If we would ignore the political party and vote for the person who you think will represent you and your concerns in Ottawa in a responsible manner, then you have done all you can do. Communicate with them, encourage them and support them.

It doesn't really matter who gets voted in, they still need to hear from each of us. It also doesn't matter which political party they represent either, you still have the same responsibility to let them know your thoughts.

Your vote is important and it does count. Please don't think it doesn't. Chester

Posted by: diplomat on December 17 2005 7:24 PM

>The unfortunate part is that none of their names will be on my ballot. So, I really have no direct say in who becomes Prime Minister.<

If you do like the man who leads the party and vote for the local candidate who represents the party there can be another problem: Who is to say that the party will not replace its leader at a leadership convention with a new leader before the next election? The provincial NDP replaced its leader 4 times in ten years, and the last replacement turned out to be a Liberal!

Sometimes we vote for a local candidate and then he/she crosses the floor to join another party!

The Reform Party members democratically (by individual telephone ballot) elected Stockwell Day directly by majority as the leader of the Party.
Preston Manning ran second. The choice of the members was not accepted by everyone and a revolt followed. Jay Hill, et al worked actively to achieve Mr. Day's ouster by forcing an early leadership convention so
they could remove him.

In effect, the democratic vote of the paid up members was deemed unacceptable by some elected Reform Party MPs.

How can we have a better voting system and better representation that is more respectful of our wishes?