The Last but not forgotten

The last living Canadian World War I veteran, John Babcock, has passed away at the age of 109.

From Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

"On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to extend my sincere condolences to Mr. Babcock's family and friends. As a nation, we honour his service and mourn his passing," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a statement. "John Babcock was Canada's last living link to the Great War, which in so many ways marked our coming of age as a nation. In honouring his service and mourning his passing, we honour the proud history of our country and pay tribute to all those who fought and died for Canada."

Here here!
 
There's no doubt that the heroics of our soliders fighting in WWI put Canada on the global map as a strong, fearless nation.  And there's equally no doubt that years later in WWII, that same resilience, courage, and pride continued as our troops stormed Normandy on D-Day and helped liberate millions from the clutches of Nazi rule.
 
As a young 17 year old Ukrainian man, my grandfather (whom I'm named after) was forced to fight in WWI for the Austrio-Hungrian army on the Italian front.  Prior to his return to his villiage in Southwestern Ukraine, his father had been taken prisoner by the Polish Army where he later died in prison from typhous.  My grandfather then enlisted in the Ukrainian Army, marking the beginning of a period which he never really spoke much about, if at all, to anyone.  Perhaps it is what prompted him to leave his family behind, make the trek to port, and cross the Atlantic to seek a better life in a place called Canada.  And so here I am.
 
I am forever grateful to this day of the great sacrifice he made.
 
Although their bodies may not remain on this earth, for a long-lived veteran like John Babcock and my grandfather, their spirit shall live on. 
 
Never forget, my friends.  NEVER forget.

Thank you to the baby boomer. Thanks a lot.

Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page says taxes are eventually going to have to go up, coupled with cuts because them baby boomers are a retirin' and gonna be fewer folks workin' too, so someone needs ta pay fer it.  Well thank ya very much.

I'd like to officially thank the baby boomers for screwing over my generation (X) by leaving us with a massive government that we cannot possibly pay for in the future.  Way to create a pension plan that probably won't exist when I retire because they'll be no money left, despite me paying into it all these years.  Meanwhile, the important things will probably continue to hang by a thread. I'm talking about infrastructure, parks, and the military.

While bank CEOs and economists are calling for tax increases, the little guy and the middle class continually gets ignored.  Tax increases are the absolute LAST thing we need.  With the average household debt being just under $100,000, yeah, let's TAX them some more.  That'll really spur economic growth.  Leave it to a bureaucrat to come up with the brilliant idea that a new tax or tax increase will solve problems.  Friggin' geniuses they are!  Let's give 'em big raises and pensions for their smarts.

Hey, dipstick bureaucrat, instead of asking regular Canadians to tighten their belts, why aren't you and these "experts" calling for gov't to do the same?  (Wait, don't answer. It's too obvious.) 

As far as spending cuts, I don't mean just little cuts here and there, but to go through the entire bureaucracy, beyond what the Auditor General does, sell off crap the feds don't need, oh I dunno, like entire empty buildings and unused equipment, cut useless programs, departments, employees, and grants (oh there's plenty), and GET BACK TO BASICS.

I mean, how far do we take it the other way?  Does gov't just keep growing and expect the taxpayer to continually fund it?  It's really got to stop. It should have stopped a long time ago actually.  Oh but those boomers sure got a hold of government and made it grow, leaving a legacy of waste and mismanagement, didn't they?

I hope Harper, Flaherty, and Day stick to their conservative roots and find those areas I mentioned, get rid of them, while modestly and carefully cutting taxes at the same time.

Allow Canadians to pay off their debts, invest, and spend. That's how an economy grows and jobs are created.  Taxing them will diminish that from happening.

Now, you might be asking, "Hey, where's the Iggy jab, Hatrock?"  Well, if he were in power, we all know what he'd do.  And he's a boomer who didn't even live here for 35 years.

Yeah, thanks. Thanks a lot.

Former Oiler/Hab Laraque running for the Green Party?

When I watched Georges Laraque play for the Edmonton Oilers not too many years ago, his hard hitting, fights, and enthusiasm sometimes cleared the path for the other players on the team to shine.. for a little while anyway. He was there for Edmonton's 2006 Stanley Cup run but wasn't a major factor.  Georges was entrenched, and still is, in the Edmonton community.

Upon being traded to the Montreal Canadiens, he just didn't click with the team and had poor results.  So it came as no surprise when he was released by the team.

Now to hear him stepping into politics, is certainly a twist.   But running for the Greens?  With global warming being refuted by its own scandals, one wonders if the Green Party has much to run on.

And hopefully, he doesn't take advice on where to run from its leader, Elizabeth May, who had the genius to run against popular gov't minister, Peter Mackay, and now another minister and long-time BC MP, Gary Lunn.

Or maybe Georges is just used to losing.

If so, he picked the right team.

Canadians support Senate reform

A new poll was released showing that the majority of Canadians support Senate reform.  What type of reform? It isn't clear, but something better than the massively skewed representation there has been in place, but it also appears Canadians are in line with the Conservative view.

With the Liberals, you'll get the status quo, which only 20% support, or the NDP view where only 10% agree to have it abolished altogether.

What's interesting are those folks who support the Liberals also want to elect senators more than Conservatives (66% to 58%).

So here we have the Prime Minister making appointments recently to stack the Senate eventually to make some reforms to it.  So again, he's obviously drawing attention to the need for reform.  He's been doing that since he came into power.

Currently, I'm having interesting discussion with folks on Blogging Tories on the idea of having provincial legislatures making the choice on the people who should represent them in the Senate.  Apparently, in the past, U.S. senators were appointed by state legislatures.  A couple of conservative Americans I discussed this with online have said they should go back to state appointments because senators are now more privy and influenced by federal politics rather than truly representing their state.  Very interesting concept and something I could support.

What's also interesting is that Prime Minister Harper did leave the door open for provinces to fill their respective senate vacancies, but only Alberta had elected any.  I also believe it also included having premiers or provincial legislatures making the decision and recommending to the prime minister who they wanted. But no province took him up on the offer.

Regardless, with the Conservatives having a plurality in the Senate and the majority of Canadians supporting reform of some sort, I hope we can get something in place to make the Upper House a true and equal representation of each province in our country.

Iggy the Refomer?

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has come out and proposed his ideas for senate reform.

• 12 year term limits
• pass appointments through a public service appointment commission

 Wow! Crazy talk, I know!  He also believes that senate reform isn't a priority of middle-class Canadians.

Well, let's look at an Angus-Reid poll conducted back in September 2009.

In the online survey of a national representative sample, three-in-four Canadians (75%) dislike the current form of the Senate. Three-in-ten (30%) say the country does not need a Senate and that legislators in the House of Commons should be responsible for reviewing and passing all proposed bills. Meanwhile, 45 per cent think Canada needs a Senate, but would like people to participate in the process of electing its members.

Canadians are definitely eager to engage in a conversation on Senate reform, with 72 per cent of respondents saying they support holding a nationwide referendum on the issue.

Roughly two thirds of respondents favour the idea of limiting the terms of appointed senators to eight years (66%), or allowing Canadians to elect senators directly (68%). Only 36 per cent of respondents like the idea of creating a panel of distinguished Canadians to appoint new senators.

Prime Minister Harper's government tried to put through the senate that would limit senators terms to 8 years, which from the above poll, 66% of Canadians support the idea.  As well, it appears that only 36% agree with creating a committee to do the appointments.

With the recent appointment of five senators, the Conservatives will have a plurality in the upper house with 51 seats compared to the Liberals 49. 

So now, if you do not think Harper is serious about senate reform, you cannot deny that he has certainly drawn a lot of attention to it.  Not only that, but with the appointment of so many senators committed to reform, especially with the appointment of Ontario Tory MPP Bob Runciman, who was a supporter of the Canadian Alliance party when it was created, and also a supporter of senate reform, these are very strong indications that some form of reform is on its way.

And isn't it also now clear to everyone that the main reason for Harper proroguing parliament was that he saw this excellent opportunity to move forward in not only gaining some potential control over the senate, but to also move this country, with its 19th century senate system, to a 21st, modern, Australian-style upper house.

New blog colours

One of you faithful readers suggested that reading white text on black was difficult on the eyes.  While I don't want to go with the typical black on white, I'm toying with other schemes that are often easier on the eyes.  Let me know what you think.

Prorogation, the Coalition and the Constitution

Being that prorogation has occurred 101 times before in our nation's history, that Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien used it to shut down parliamenty for 83 days to subvert the Somalia inquiry, and now that another Liberal leader, one Michael Ignatieff, is attending an anti-prorogation rally today, a fellow Alberta blogger has asked this important question:

Last year during the coalition crisis did you claim legitimacy for the coalition because of the constitution? If so, why are you now against that same constitution and the legitimacy of prorogation? Is there anything else you want to change in our constitution while we are opening it up?

Keeping in mind that Iggy recently said that if he were PM, he would use progation if necessary. He just doesn't agree with the way Stephen Harper did it this time.

But what about last time?  If Harper hadn't prorogued parliament last year, would he have ascended to the Liberal leadership so quickly after Stephane Dion was dumped?

Ah that Iggy, such a man of convenience and conviction, isn't he?

h/t Alberta Ardvark

Rethinking Senate Reform

I just found out about Libertas Post, a conglomerate Canadian blog and gave a read of this post from Joseph Ben-Ami.  He makes an important point and while I agree with the whole idea of comprehensive parliamentary reform, realistically, and in knowing modern Canadian history, I think Harper is still on the right track.

And that is, stack the Senate to get through a bill to try and limit Senator term limits to 8-10 years but then only appoint Senators who were elected by their province.  Eventually, provinces will have no choice or face not having Senators. It's a sneaky way, but it will draw even more attention to Senate reform.  And maybe, just maybe, when provinces like Ontario and Quebec are too stubborn to have elections and BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan do, then the number of Senators may naturally equalize or that we'll have no choice but to amend the constitution to appease everybody.

But in reading Ben-Ami's proposal, while it's too bad he doesn't mention Australia's elected senate, it basically sounds like what the Americans have, where cabinet is not derived from members, and believe it or not, it's perfectly acceptable in Canada. Does anyone remember one Stephane Dion who was appointed to cabinet by one Jean Chretien, yet Dion wasn't even an MP yet?

So what’s to be done?

In the first place, let’s stop talking about senate reform and start talking about comprehensive parliamentary reform. By all means, let’s elect our senators and, if a way can be found, let’s amend the Constitution to give provinces, rather than regions, an equal number of seats in that chamber.

More importantly though, let’s restore Parliament’s historic role as the people’s watchdog over the government by severing the office of Prime Minister and its executive functions from it altogether and creating a new, separate, and popularly elected office to fill that role. Under such a system, Cabinet would still be made up of ministers appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister, but they would no longer be selected from among those elected to either the House of Commons or the Senate.

Elections would be held at fixed intervals, providing MPs and Senators with greater latitude in representing what they believe to be the best interests of their constituents and the country, especially those who are members of the governing party.

A truly independent Parliament would establish independent committees comprised of members at least as interested in the subject they are deliberating as they are in promoting or opposing the executive’s – or the party’s – objectives.

So why I do continue to focus on the Senate in this blog?  It's because there's an imbalance in representation. Not just a little one, but a huge one.  It's because our Senate is totally unaccountable and it's my country and I want a say in that.  It's because a lot of Canadians don't pay much attention to the Senate and they should.  It's because I think having an upper chamber in our parliament is also important, so I'm not in favour of abolishing it. Why? Go back to the imbalance.  Ontario and Quebec's interests will always continue to dominate the country due to their larger populations, when the government and parliament should consider not just all regions, but the interests of all provinces equally.

And I believe that this understanding will actually unite the country instead of regions being pitted against regions. And I also believe that our Prime Minister believes that as well.

MLK

Today is Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the U.S.A.  Further below is his well-known excerpt from that August day in 1963 I wish to share, that, no matter what your political stripe, this speech applies to those who believe in freedom first and forement, and yet it is probably one of the most inspirational political speeches anyone has ever given.  Even for this young and humble Baptist minister, it's not even a religious speech, but yet is rife with spiritualism. 

Why? Without even saying it, there is no mention of reprocussions for past wrongs, no doublespeak about rich vs. poor, nothing about socio-economics, government intervention, or even affirmative action.  It purports no creed or dogma, and yet calls on God Almighty.  

So what I believe this historic speech is about is a call to transform the distorted human spirit away from prejudice and injustice toward tolerance, understanding, and unity--where the lines of individualism and community are blurred, not because the government made us do it, but because we know and feel it is for the betterment of ourselves and families, but also our friends and neighbours. And yet, for the individual, to look deep inside and recognize the humbling penitence of his or her existence.

From the American Constitution, to the Bill of Rights, to Lincoln's "Four Score" and Emancipation Proclumation, to this speech, the generations of American society appears to require a reminder of why they believe they are the greatest nation that has ever existed.  Here's why...

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.



I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.


I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.


I have a dream today.


I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.


I have a dream today.


I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.


This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.


This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."


And if America is to be a great nation this must become true.

So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!


Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that;

let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual,

"Free at last! free at last!

thank God Almighty,

we are free at last!"

Solberg on Prorogue and the Senate

Former MP and Conservative cabinet minister has a blog and made some poignant comments about the mainstream media and liberals lambasting Prime Minister Stephen Harper for being a dictator.

Without prorogation, the Liberals would still have a majority of committee seats in the Senate even though they would have fewer seats overall. That would be a terribly anti-democratic situation on at least two levels and should be an outrage to the media if saving democracy was their real concern. That's a big if, however.

Remember that this is the PM who has given up power to Parliament on vetting Supreme Court nominees and going to war. He has tried mightily to elect the Senate. Calling him a dictator is so embarrassingly over the top that it says more about his critics than it does him.

Exactly. Sometimes you wonder if those in the mainstream media will ever look at the bigger picture here and quit sensationalising moot issues.