Prime Minister Paul Martin said yesterday that Canada has to be involved in any U.S. decision to shoot down an enemy missile in Canadian airspace...

....Mr. Martin had told reporters he expected the United States to consult with Canada.

"“Canada is a sovereign nation and we would expect and insist on being consulted on any intrusion into our space",” Mr. Martin said.

He did not explain what kind of consultation he expects out of the Americans in the event of a missile attack, and federal officials refused to expand on the scenario.

Let's just say the Yanks decide not to ask permission, what exactly will be the ramifications? What is our "or else"? The implication from the PM is that Canada would have the authority to say no to the trigger being pulled, and while that would certainly be an act of war, what if the Yanks fired away? What are we going to do?

One would think that if we were a friend and an ally of the United States, we would say fire at will, shoot down that nuclear missile being fired at you. But no, we are not a friend or an ally. We want the option to say no.

So a missile is heading towards New York and the Yanks give the PM a call, it takes a fair bit of time to conduct a poll to get a reading on the political implications in Quebec. Seriously, the very notion is ridiculous. If a missile is fired towards North America the US are going to pull the trigger and we can rely on that.

Bill Graham adds nothing of use:

Defence Minister Bill Graham, who had been a strong advocate of missile defence, attempted to play down the remark, saying that regardless of Canada's decision, the system would have always been largely under U.S. control.

He added that the United States would not likely shoot down a missile over Canada, given the objective is to intercept an enemy missile before it reaches North America.

“If it's to be successful, [the missile] has to be shot down within the first couple of minutes over the Pacific Ocean. It won't be shot down over Canada,” he said in a television interview.

“Whether we had gone in or not, the United States would have been making those sorts of decisions.”

“We will deploy,” Mr. Cellucci said. “We will defend North America. “We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty, its seat at the table, to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada.”

SES Research - MADD Canada Poll of Ontarians

An SES Research survey commissioned by MADD Canada indicates that
Ontarians believe that the planned sale of beer and wine at corner
stores will likely lead to increases in the incidents of drinking and
driving, sales to underage people and the sale of alcohol to
intoxicated persons.

Overview
Polling January 22nd and January 26th, 2005 (Random Telephone Survey
of 500 Ontario residents, MoE ±4.5%, 19 times out of 20).
Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Question - "Will the following likely increase, likely decrease or
not change if the Provincial Government allows the sale of beer and
wine at local corner stores?"

- the number of drinking and driving incidents (Likely increase 53%)
- beer & wine being sold to underage persons (Likely increase 70%)
- beer & wine being sold to intoxicated persons (Likely increase 64%)

Federal Liberals are so broke they can't afford cash incentives to persuade party faithful to attend their upcoming national convention in Ottawa. Liberals say the 2004 federal election emptied their coffers and they've failed to replenish them due to new fundraising rules that severely limit corporate donations.

So delegates, who in the past depended on subsidies from their riding association, are either backing out of attending the Liberal Party's March 3-6 Ottawa policy convention or are lobbying fellow Grits in their riding to help pay their way.

Only a handful of Canada's 308 ridings have been able to fill a full slate of 16 delegates.

Liberal Party spokesman Steven MacKinnon said all 308 ridings have held elections, and he expects at least 2,000 delegates will show up -- less than half the 4,928 allowed.

"It's highly unusual for all ridings to send full slates to a policy convention anyway," MacKinnon said

Prime Minister Paul Martin has taken a tougher stand on the issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Mr. Martin told NATO leaders Tuesday that, while diplomacy and dialogue remain a top priority, the world community “must be prepared to stand behind its words with stronger measures.”

Rather than doing everything in his power to root out oil-for-food abuses, Kofi Annan was slow - and at times even obstructionist - in responding to US requests to provide information. He also stubbornly insisted his son had no connection to Oil - For-Food until incontrovertible evidence emerged showing otherwise in November.

Mr Annan's ability to lead has been further called into question by other misdeeds perpetrated under his watch, including UN peacekeepers committing sexual abuse in Congo and the theft of UN funds by staff at the World Meteorological Office - neither of which has yet been satisfactorily addressed. Given all that, it is little surprise that staff at UN headquarters voted no confidence in the body's leadership shortly before Christmas.

Mr. Annan may not be directly responsible for the problems that have befallen the UN. But his treatment of the sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Lubbers has shown, he is far more interested in protecting the UN from Scrutiny and criticism than reforming its operations. It is time for Mr. Annan to follow Mr. Lubbers' lead by tendering his resignation.

As televised tournaments make Hold'em ever more popular and mainstream, Minnesota is one of at least half a dozen states grappling with a new phenomenon: poker games with little more than bragging rights at stake. Law enforcement agencies and liquor commissions in states with lotteries, racetracks and even casinos have arrested bar owners and players in recent months, threatening fines or jail time under statutes that proponents of poker see as anachronistic.

On Wednesday, even as Mr. Kleis's bill adding Texas Hold'em to the state's list of legal card games - cribbage, skat, sheephead, bridge, euchre, pinochle, gin, 500, smear and whist - is considered by a Senate committee in St. Paul, two bars in Louisiana face administrative hearings where they could lose their liquor licenses for betting that poker would bring them a full house.

In Illinois, the liquor commission has issued $500 citations to at least four bars, two of which advertised tournaments but never held them. In California, the Department of Justice has declared that even tournaments in which no money is bet require a gaming license - and there is a moratorium on new licenses.

In Texas, a lawyer for the state prosecutors' association contends that playing for any prize - even points to be redeemed later for T-shirts or trips - is illegal, and the attorney general is expected to issue an opinion on the matter in May.

The larger question in each case is what, exactly, constitutes gambling, and whether poker will remain ensconced in backrooms or become as ubiquitous as bingo.

"We target people who want to have fun in life, not the people who want to risk millions of dollars," said Shawn Riley, president of the Amateur Poker League, which runs 500 free tournaments a week across eight states. "To gamble you have to be risking something of value. If they outlaw this, they should be outlawing dominoes and Monopoly."

But while Mr. Riley's organization bans entry fees or even drink minimums, and will prohibit prizes altogether if local officials object, its 44,000 members do amass points that lead them to regional and national tournaments where they can win a seat at the World Series of Poker, which otherwise costs $10,000 to enter. That makes it illegal, said Brian DeJean, a lawyer for the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control. He says any game operated as a business - people being paid to deal, for example, or bars increasing revenues from players buying drinks - is verboten.

"We're not seeing friendly games where five people show up and sit around the table, what we're seeing is games where somebody is making some money," Mr. DeJean said. "We would not be having the same conversation if every Tuesday was prostitution night in these bars."

“Taken as a whole, the people of this riding are divided,” said Gairdner. “When we asked them about changing the definition of marriage, 50.1 per cent of all voters supported the change and 49.8 per cent opposed the change. However, 82 per cent of all voters want to be consulted. Clearly, at a minimum, Jim Prentice needs to talk to his voters. Frankly, he needs to really listen to his own Conservative voters who oppose the change.”

“So, if Jim Prentice is listening to anyone, it’s people who didn’t vote for him like Liberals and New Democrats because three quarters of Conservatives oppose him on this. He’s certainly not listening to people in his own party or people who actually voted for him in June 2004.”

The professional study was commissioned by EMC and performed by the Logit Group of Toronto from 7-8 February 2005. In it a random sampling of 400 eligible voters (with a margin of error of +/-4.9 per cent) in Calgary North Centre were asked for their views.

This is the fourth in a series of public opinion polls EMC has commissioned. The first was a national survey and two others before this one that surveyed the Avalon riding in Newfoundland held by Liberal MP John Efford and Sault Ste. Marie in Ontario held by NDP MP Tony Martin.

“Consistently, Canadian voters -– in different corners of the country, represented by MPs from different parties -– are telling their elected officials they support the traditional definition of marriage,” said Gairdner. “Jim Prentice is wrong. He’s on the wrong track and I would not be surprised if he paid a political price for his approach to this vital issue.”

1. He told Putin to get over his dictatorial ways or kiss the WTO goodbye.
   
2. Then he told Syria to get the hell out of Lebanon. He did not say "or else", but we all know that he means "or else". France, Syria's ally during the Iraq war, has switched sides on this one. They are squarely with the Yanks in getting a UN Resolution. Where they will be when Syria ignores the resolution is the big question. (Canada, Syria's ally during the Iraq war, will either have to mass its troops on the US border or climb back in with the Yanks on this one. We will have to see how the polls are looking in Quebec.)
3. Bush concluded his day by telling Iran that it is no go on their nuclear program, even if the Russians are willing to help out.
   

Offshore ad contract awarded without tender
Last Updated: Feb 18 2005 07:08 AM NST

ST. JOHN'S - The provincial government is spending more than $150,000 to promote the offshore oil deal it signed with Ottawa, in a contract that has the Opposition fuming.

The contract for the advertising – which will involve television and newspaper spots celebrating the new Atlantic Accord – was not tendered. It was awarded to M5, an advertising company with strong ties to the Progressive Conservatives. M5's vice-president, Craig Tucker, was co-chair of the Tory election campaign in 2003.
Tucker was also recently appointed to the board of directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Opposition leader Roger Grimes says the government is funnelling money to their political friends. "It's clear that there was no process," Grimes says. "It was directed from the premier's office and a well-connected company was given an opportunity to fill their coffers."

This week's signing ceremony, the M5 contract and the newspaper and televisions ads will cost taxpayers about $200,000 in all. The federal government will cover some of those costs.

Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan says government did not have to go to tender to award the advertising contract it had to M5. He adds the cost is small compared to the $2-billion advance the provincial government will be receiving as part of the offshore pact.

"I don't think there's anything wrong with going out to the public and making the people feel good about an issue," Sullivan says. Sullivan says this advertising campaign is modest in scope, especially when it is compared to marketing blitzes conducted by previous Liberal administrations.

In his heart, Mike Greenwell knows that he will never be able to capture the MVP trophy that he lost out on to admitted steroid user Jose Canseco back in 1988. However, Greenwell thinks that some good can come out of Canseco's brutal honesty.

"Jose is actually a good guy. I was teammates with him [in 1995 and '96]," said Greenwell. "I think sometimes he's gotten a bad rap, but I consider him a friend. I never said a word. Why would I say anything now? The only reason I'm saying something now is because he brought it to the table, so I want him to know, and I want the people to know, [Canseco won the MVP] cheating."

Greenwell sympathizes with many other players who might have lost awards or records to players who were using illegal supplements.

"And it is clear that, if the Syrians are in Lebanon, it is because peace should be kept, and there was certainly a failure."

"If in speaking ironically about the fact that the Syrians believe that they are there to maintain the peace and explosions of that kind occur, that is not maintaining the peace," Mr. Martin said. "If honourable members have difficulty understanding that, then let me again repeat the Canadian government's position, the position that we have had from the very beginning. We support the United Nations resolution. Syria should withdraw from Lebanon."

Senator: The Bill allows for the listing of terrorist entities ... why are the Tamil Tigers not on that list when they are banned in the United States, Britain and elsewhere?

McLellan: The list is constantly being reviewed and updated. It is not static. I continue to monitor that situation very closely.

Senator: What more information do you need when you know that the United States, Britain, Australia, Malaysia's and others have banned them?

McLellan: It was related to me ... because there was hope for peace talks in Sir Lanka it was hoped that the process would lead to some sort of peace negotiation and it was perceived that it would not be helpful if this country listed the Tigers. But I want to reassure everyone here that I review the organization on a regular basis and I will continue to review that situation.

Senator: But money is being raised in Canada and shipped over to Sir Lanka to be used for terrorist activities. That is a known fact. That is a known fact, yet the government refuses to put the name where it belongs - on the list of terrorist entities so the government can move in, seize bank accounts and arrest people who continue to support rebels and terrorists.

McLellan: Senator, I take your point.

Subject: Re: Attendance at FACT Fundraising Dinner 2001
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 10:43:27 -0500
To: dcaplan@itzone.net, gerry_phillips-mpp@ontla.ola.org, Monte_Kwinter-MPP-CO@ontla.ola.org,
councillor_balkissoon@city.toronto.on.ca, councillor_mcconnell@city.toronto.on.ca,
councillor_cho@city.toronto.on.ca, councillor_kelly@city.toronto.on.ca, steve_gilchrist@ontla.ola.org,
rosario_marchese@ontla.ola.org, carl_defaria@ontla.ola.org, dan_newman@ontla.ola.org,
Wappel.T@parl.gc.ca, Volpe.J@parl.gc.ca, Minna.M@parl.gc.ca, Karygiannis.J@parl.gc.ca,

There has been a lot of media coverage given to the Federation
Association of Canadian Tamil's Fundraising Dinner 2001. Newspapers
ranging from the Toronto Star to the National Post have written about
Paul Martin and Maria Minna's attendance at this "terrorist fundraiser".

However little has been mentioned about the other members of government
from the federal, provincial, and municipal level.

The following is a list of attendees obtained from The World Mirror.

Paul Martin, Cabinet Minister, MP, Liberal
Maria Minna, Cabinet Minister, MP, Liberal
John Nanziata, former M.P., Independent
Roy Cullen, M.P.
Tony Ianno, M.P.
John McKay, M.P.
Judy Sgro, M.P.
Tom Wappel,M.P Byron Wilfert, M.P. Jim Karigiyanis,M.P.
Joseph Volpe,M.P.
Carl Defaria MPP,
Gerry Phillips, MPP,
Dan Newman MPP,
Steve Gilchrist MPP
David Caplan MPP
Monte Kwinter MPP
Rosario Marchese,MPP.
Bas Balkisson, Toronto City Councillor
Pam McCornel, Toronto City Councillor
Raymond Cho, Toronto City Councillor
Norman Kelly, Toronto City Councillor
Mike Strobel, Editor of the Toronto Sun

The $60 a plate fundraiser has been portrayed as an event held by a
front organization of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

In light of this fact, do you plan on attending any future event
organized by FACT?

A response would be appreciated.

An atrocious comparison
National Post editorial
September 28, 2004

It is bad enough that on Saturday the Ontario legislature became the scene of a so-called Tamil “peace” rally—at which flags of the Tamil Tigers, a terrorist group based in Sri Lanka, were proudly waved.

But far more disturbing was the presence of federal NDP [New Democratic Party] leader Jack Layton at the event. Mr. Layton’s decision to participate lends an endorsement to the Tamil Tigers, a radical and violent terrorist group that has perpetrated dozens of suicide bombings during its long campaign of terror against Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese majority, including the assassination of Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Mr. Layton took the stage in front of a huge picture of Tamil Tiger leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, then proceeded to compare the Tamil terrorist head to former South African president and civil rights leader Nelson Mandela.

Comparing Prabhakaran, who is wanted by Interpol for murder and terrorism, to a statesman such as Mr. Mandela is atrociously ignorant. Mr. Prabhakaran presides over a cult-like group that has murdered thousands, recruited children at gunpoint to fill its ranks and extorted millions of dollars from peaceable Tamils.

It would be interesting to hear Mr. Layton explain how exactly this figure can be compared to Mr. Mandela, a champion of the campaign against South African apartheid. Those operations was often violent. But Mr. Mandela and his comrades were generally careful to avoid civilian casualties. Certainly, they never precipitated the sort of wanton slaughter that has been attributed to Mr. Prabhakaran.

Can Mr. Layton really not see the difference between the two? Or—as we suspect—is he aware, but willing to cynically overlook them in an attempt to find favour with an influential ethnic community? What a sad display from a man who purports to be the principled leader of Parliament’s most humane party.

Opposition Leader Stephen Harper's office defended a policy Monday of asking to see Conservative MPs' speeches on same-sex marriage before they're delivered in the House of Commons.

It is necessary to ensure that arguments made on either side of the issue by Conservatives are clearly focused on the definition of marriage and nothing else, said Harper communications director Geoff Norquay.

MP Brian Pallister indicated the vetting would avoid a polarized view of the issue.

"We've got to get beyond this . . . one side accusing the other of homophobia and the other side saying the other side is going to burn in hell," he said.

"We have to talk about this sensitively and that's what we're doing in caucus."

1. The vetting of the speeches is only going to give rise to more talk of a hidden agenda.
   
2. The vetting of the speeches only takes away from the fact that a large number of Liberals are going to vote against the legislation.

"Recognizing that many Americans worry about their influence following President Bush's re-election,evangelicals are saying that they have been misunderstood : -- and in some ways -- remain underdogs in a nation they consider hostile to public talk about faith."

Pay attention to me! Not Iran! Me! ........ I have nukes!!!!!!! Big Nukes!!!! They can reach Japan...no Hawaii!!!!! ...................Hello?????? I just bought an iguana..... .

The Ottawa Citizen’s Jack Aubry reports:

“Written by Peter Daniel, the Finance Department's assistant deputy minister of communications, the memo concludes they had reached "an intractable difference of opinion between Finance (the client) and APORS (Advertising and Public Opinion Research Sector)," which is operated by Public Works to contract out the work.

The memo said while Ekos had shown "a high level of sensitivity and understanding" of "the political context" of the program during interviews for the contract, the winning bidder, DJC, lacked "the knowledge and sensitivity" required for the job.

"Given the profile the program will have, it will be crucial to get good press for what the government is attempting to accomplish at the outset. Failing that, all the advertising and other promotion we could do is not likely to bring the expected results," wrote Mr. Daniel.

The memo is part of the paper trail showing Finance Department officials intervening to split up the contract and give half, or $300,000, to Ekos/ Earnscliffe.

Charles Guité, the bureaucrat who operated the scandal-plagued sponsorship program for the Liberals, has alleged that Mr. Martin's staff intervened in public opinion contracts and another memo regarding the matter has already been tabled at the Gomery commission.”

In Sri Lanka, corruption is hampering aid operations. Officials have been accused of plundering relief supplies, demanding bribes from tsunami victims and being drunk on duty.

Several people were suspended last week, with others under investigation.

The UN World Food Program will soon dispatch more food aid monitors to try and "abolish any corruption within the government system," co-ordinator Dawit Getachew said.

The SES Research Poll completed last week indicates that Canada is a nation divided on the issue of same sex marriage. A majority of Canadians 54% think that MPs should reflect the views in his/her riding. Fifty-three percent of Canadians would not vote against their MP if their views differed while 42% would vote against their MP (5% were unsure). Random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians conducted by SES Research between Jan. 28 and Feb. 2, 2005 (MoE ±3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Question - Some people think that same-sex couples should be allowed to be legally married and be recognized like couples made up of a man and a woman. Other people think that only marriages between a man and woman should be legally recognized. Which of these two opinions, if either, best reflects your views? 46% Marriage only a man and a woman 45% Allow same-sex couples to marry 5% Neither 4% Unsure Question - If your local Member of Parliament had views different from your own on the issue of same-sex marriages, would you vote against your federal MP for that reason? 53% Would not vote against MP 42% Would vote against MP 5% Undecided Question - Thinking of the upcoming vote on same-sex marriage should your Member of Parliament vote based on..[ROTATE] 54% The views in his/her riding 22% His/her personal views 16% His/her official party position 8% Undecided For any media use of the polling data, please refer to the research as the "SES Research Poll". Visit www.sesresearch.com to get the latest polling results or to sign up for instant e-mail polling notifications. Feel free to forward this e-mail.

Cheers
Nik

"Canada can be a suitable honest broker because of its long-standing good relations with Israel and its good rapport with Arab countries," Pettigrew said.

"We want our credibility on both sides to be used, just as Canada's excellent ties with the European Union and the United States can be effectively utilized to facilitate the Middle East peace process."

In response, Shalom said: "This is a great time of optimism for all of us in the region and around the world, and we're determined to seize this opportunity."

Over 5m Germans were without a job last month, more than at any time since the Great Depression. The government cannot solve the unemployment problem without first making it worse

Wednesday February 2nd by Germany’s Federal Labour Agency. More than 5m Germans were unemployed last month, the agency revealed, the most since 1932, when the economic devastation of the Great Depression brought the Weimar Republic to an unhappy end.

....

Labour markets rarely function perfectly. But Germany’s labour market is not really a market at all. It abjures free competition, which it likens to the law of the jungle. Firing is a last resort. Wages are negotiated collectively. These clubby, consensual arrangements served Germany well for several decades after the war, winning the country an enviable industrial peace. But they have now become, in effect, a conspiracy of insiders against outsiders. The 5m outsiders, who lack a job, might be prepared to work for less than those who have a job. But employee protections and union rules insulate the insiders from any competitive threat the outsiders might offer. As a result, the insiders maintain wages above the level that would make it profitable for employers to hire those out of work.

The longer they remain out of work, the less the unemployed make their presence felt in the labour market. Writing about the Great Depression, Brad DeLong, an economic historian at the University of California, noted that the long-term unemployed become “discouraged and distraught”. After a year without work, “a job must arrive at his or her door, grab him or her by the scruff of the neck, and throw him or her back into the nine-to-five routine if he or she is to be employed again.”

In Germany, jobs are hardly knocking at the door. But thanks to the Hartz reforms, the long-term unemployed are having their collars felt a little. Employment agencies, which used to passively process their benefit cheques, are now supposed to take an active role in placing them in new jobs. They will employ as many as 600,000 of them in jobs that pay €1 per hour plus unemployment benefits. Those who turn down a job offer will have some or all of their benefits withheld.

Opponents of these reforms argue that there is simply not enough work to go round. Such arguments often lapse into what economists call “the lump-of-labour fallacy”, which retains its commonsensical appeal however often economists prove it false. In any economy, the fallacy says, there is only a fixed amount of work (a lump of labour) to do. There is, then, no point throwing the unemployed back into work. Instead, if everyone works a little less, the lump of labour can be sliced more evenly among the population. The French enshrined this fallacy in law in 1998, ruling that no one could work more than 35 hours a week. But such a restriction has proved hard to live with. The law has been weakened several times, and on Tuesday the French National Assembly began debating ways to remove the last of its teeth.

The demand for labour is not a fixed lump. Employers will keep hiring until it ceases to be profitable to do so. The ultimate limits on an economy are on the supply-side: eventually, the labour market will tighten and inflationary pressures will emerge. France’s 35-hour week, which restricts the supply of labour, lowers this limit. Germany’s overhaul of the benefit system, by contrast, raises the supply of labour, relaxing the limits on the country’s economic performance.

Unfortunately, the German economy is still far from testing those limits. Inflation is low, leaving plenty of room for the economy to expand. But the animal spirits of households and firms are falling short. Indeed, some economists worry that efforts to resolve Germany’s supply-side problems may be worsening the economy’s demand-side difficulties. A reform that adds 222,000 people or more to the jobless totals may do little to bolster household confidence and spending. Retail sales fell in December, for the third month in four.

There are some signs, however, that Germany’s spirits, though low, may be improving modestly. The ZEW indicator of economic expectations rebounded in January. Voters also now seem to accept the need for reform. An opinion survey for Stern magazine, conducted in the third week of January, put Mr Schröder’s coalition ahead of the opposition (albeit by less than the margin of error) for the first time since his re-election in September 2002. The Weimar Republic could not survive 5m unemployed. Mr Schröder may yet do so.

France may lengthen 35-hour week

By Caroline Wyatt BBC News, Paris

The French government is proposing plans to ease the rules on the country's 35-hour working week.

However, a recent poll shows that the majority of French workers do not want to work longer hours.

The French parliament was due to begin on Tuesday afternoon a three-day debate on a bill that would relax the rules.

The reform would allow workers to put in more than 35 hours a week in return for more pay if they reach a collective accord with their company and union.

The government says this reform is aimed at stimulating the economy and creating jobs.

French workers have been demonstrating over the past weeks in protest against the government's plans.

A recent poll showed that three-quarters of the French workforce want to stick to the current 35-hour working week, brought in by the last Socialist government.

Only 18% say they want to work longer hours. But French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin says action is vital to keep the French economy competitive and to create more jobs.

Leaders must back Kyoto

Way back in 1997, world leaders responded to scientists' warnings that global warming had the potential to disrupt ecosystems, cause great damage to the global economy and harm our quality of life. Thus the Kyoto Protocol was born.

In less than two weeks, the protocol will finally enter into force and become international law. This means Canada will be legally obligated to reduce the heat-trapping emissions that are causing climate change.

Now, we've known about this obligation for eight years. And in that time we've done - nothing. Well, next to nothing. The federal government has vaguely pondered the issue and discussed the protocol with industry. But that's about it. In eight years, we haven't reduced the heat-trapping emissions that are causing the problem one bit.

In fact, our emissions have continued to climb - to more than 20 per cent higher than they were in 1990. That shouldn't be surprising. Business tends to continue as usual if there are no plans to change it. And the federal government has never had a plan.

Reducing emissions is both technically feasible and affordable. Other countries around the world have shown that you can reduce emissions and maintain a strong economy. In fact, reducing emissions makes an economy more competitive in the long term by making it more efficient. So as the years tick by and the science of climate change builds, Canada falls further behind. Most recently, results of the biggest-ever climate simulation were published in the journal Nature. According to the report's worst-case scenario, if carbon dioxide levels double this century as expected, temperatures could rise by an average of 11 degrees Celsius - to levels higher than they were when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

That increase is far outside the range of two to five degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The reason for the difference is that this particular simulation looked at more possibilities than other models. This doesn't mean it's likely to happen, but it is one possible future if we don't get serious about climate change.

Every so often I come across the paranoid fantasies of liberals concerning what "conservatives" would do to Canada if ever they got the chance. Stop worrying. Canada's "conservatives" couldn't organize an orgy in a whorehouse or a piss-up in a brewery or your joke here.

The PM took a bit of heat during Question Period yesterday about his behavior in China. Conservative Party MP Jason Kenny stood in the House of Commons and mentioned that he had gone to give his condolences to the family of the late Zhao Zhing (a former Chinese leader who had at least allowed discussions of democratic reforms) while the PM was hanging out with the “Butchers of Beijing”, who had imprisoned Zhao and crushed democracy at Tiananmen Square.

The PM answered that the family of Zhao had asked for privacy and it was Kenny who was out of line. The PM accused Kenny of “turning tail and running” rather than meeting with the opposition parliamentarians in China. Kenny then spoke the great unspoken by Western leaders: he rightfully pointed out to the PM that there is no opposition in a totalitarian police state. Those who would be opposition are in forced labour camps or dead.

The PM response was lame; he had brought up the issue of Human Rights with the Chinese leader, and while the opposition was not the same as in Canada, Mr Kenny should look at the new “appointments” and realize that it is at least the beginnings of an opposition.

The beginnings of totalitarian government's appointed opposition? If this “opposition” actually begins to oppose the government, the opposition would get a quick trip to jail and the removal of their names from every possible record. The members of the “opposition” would never have existed. They bring forward issues that the state approves. Nothing more.

The PM'’s claim that he brought up Human Rights with the Chinese is fluff. The Chinese have gotten used to accepting the comments on human rights and then doing whatever it pleases. Martin knows this. From the Globe & Mail:

Wenran Jiang, a China expert at the University of Alberta, said Beijing has become somewhat inured to public and private pleas for human rights when receiving Western leaders.

Prof. Jiang said the Chinese government has come to realize that visitors have to make comments to satisfy public opinion back home.

"There is almost an arrangement set up now between Chinese leaders and those of foreign advanced industrialized countries: They expect Canada and others to raise these issues," Prof. Jiang said. "It's formulaic."

The problem for the PM and everyone else who talks about rights in China is that they ignore the obvious - individual Chinese have no rights. There are only privileges which may be revoked by the State arbitrarily and without notice. There is no court system to which an individual may complain. The court is simply a front for the dictatorship. The rule of law is the whim of the dictator. Any talk of greater good or interest in the people is part of the continuing lie that is heard in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan and Cuba. The government rules in the interest of the government, unfettered by any law.

The Prime Minister, then, has praised the non-existent rights granted by a totalitarian police state. The whims of the dictatorship. He did not attempt to meet with the Zhao family and perhaps he should not have, but to pay lip service to the truth is a damning thing.

China is making considerable strides in reducing abuses of human rights, Paul Martin said yesterday, even as its government was clamping down on public displays of mourning after the death of reform-minded leader Zhao Zions.

The death of Zhao Zhing, the former leader who had attempted to bring democratic reforms to China and for his efforts he spent the last 15 years of his life under house arrest, was just bad timing for the PM. He had to talk up human rights while the Chinese government was controlling the press and assembly surrounding the death. A Canadian TV crew was briefly detained for attempting to shoot footage of Zhao’s home.

Mr. Martin claimed that the family had requested privacy. I’m sure they did after the police told the family that it was going to be a private affair. That is why Chinese security officials were guarding the entrance to the home. In a police state, the people say what the police want. To say otherwise, firstly will not get reported, and secondly will certainly land your ass in jail, if you are lucky.

Martin raises rights issues with China to avoid criticism at home. The Chinese know that it is simply domestic politics at play. Martin knows that he is just playing politics. The Chinese smile and say, "we’re on it", and the PM smiles and knows that nothing will become of it. Martin, however owes the people of Canada and the people of China a little better than that. A true freedom fighter Mr. Zhao hardly was, but Canadian society is based on the concept of individual rights and the rule of law. Prime Minister Martin should remember who and what he is representing.

So, thanks for showing up Mr. Martin. I expect that the people of China can now have that second child that they always wanted.

a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <>philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>

the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group

Finance Minister Greg Sorbara insists the federal government should give Ontario an extra $4.8 billion this year, because Ottawa is in the black while this province is deep in red ink.
With Ontario generating 40 per cent of the economic activity in Canada, Sorbara says it is only right that Ottawa give the province 40 per cent of its expected surplus this year, which amounts to $4.8 billion.
Sorbara backs up his claim to the money by noting Ontario taxpayers send $23 billion more to Ottawa than they get back.
While these arguments are not particularly persuasive, no one can blame Sorbara for laying claim to a share of the federal surplus after Prime Minister Paul Martin caved in last Friday to the demands of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

He said it was a result of his inexperience with the media.

“I realize now, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was an error for me to agree to be interviewed by the media,” Gomery said in a televised address to the inquiry.

But he said the key issue is whether he was biased or had closed his mind.

“After giving the matter careful consideration, I am firmly of the opinion that a reasonable, well-informed and fair-minded person understands the difference between committing an error and being biased.”