Voice of the Association

(This is one person’s viewpoint on the importance of the Afghanistan mission. We do not necessarily endorse or disavow these views, but rather post it as a basis for discussion. Please click the comments link below and give us your feedback.)

In terms of classic warfare, Canada rocks. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces have decimated the Taliban insurgents in nearly every engagement and contact we have had with them. The problem is, we’re not engaging “freedom fighters,” we fighting terrorists and coward killers.

The face of warfare has changed much over the centuries. In old Europe, countries politely lined up across from each other on the field of battle where ranks of infantry, cavalry and artillery exchanged unpleasantries until one side or the other was forced to concede.

In the latter part of World War II (particularly in the Asian theatre), the dynamics of war began to change dramatically. Because of the suffocating jungle canopy, tactics changed from traditional military drill to ‘close quarters combat.’ This evolved even further in Vietnam with the miles of tunnels used by the Vietcong, and the advent of the helicopter being used for pinpoint insertion and extraction. This is a shameful over-simplification for someone who is a student of military history, but it conveys the essential dynamics for those unfamiliar with the evolution of warfare.

The greater Vietnam conflict also popularized what became known as ‘guerilla warfare.’ This involved the use of non-traditional tactics to hit and fall back when fighting a larger, more powerful force. Even then however, the guerillas mostly limited their attacks to military targets.

The face of war in Iraq, and now by extension Afghanistan, is something totally new.Even in Bosnia and Rwanda, the genocide was ethnically motivated, not so much religious zealotism. Their conflict was also internal; Afghanistan exported their killing lust on 9/11. Although the operation in Afghanistan is totally different politically, the insurgents there have learned from the same terrorist masters that are fomenting the violence in Iraq. These new groups of radicals have no restraint in their rampant violence and killing.

The do not conduct warfare ‘honorably,’ in accordance with the Geneva and other conventions of war. They are in fact cowardly killers with no ideals but some warped fixation on world domination through religious tyranny.

In Iraq, the much vaunted Republican Guard literally faded into the woodwork and put on civilian clothing. When the Coalition forces arrived in Baghdad virtually unopposed, they were already surrounded by an invisible enemy with huge caches of weapons and explosives all around the country.

Once the Coalition military had fixed their positions, the insurgents had identifiable targets in military garb. The same was not true for the liberating forces; their enemy looked just like the civilians they came to free from Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship. There was virtually no way to distinguish the enemy from the needy Iraqi.

In Afghanistan the Taliban made a show of traditional warfare for a while, but as they were consistently overrun, they began to adopt the terrorist tactics of their Al-Quaeda cousins in Iraq. At first their IED’s were homemade devices that were easily defeated by light armour. As time went by however, the devices became more sophisticated, more powerful and more remote, using cell phone detonators. Now it is widely known that they are being supplied by countries like Iran with powerful, modern, military-grade explosives that challenge even our most heavily armoured vehicles.

Over the centuries, militaries have had to adapt to changing theatres of war, advances in equipment and changes of enemy tactics. A military that fails to adapt is destined for defeat.

We are at a crucial point in the Afghanistan conflict because we are facing an enemy more desperate and brutal than even before. Think Genghis Khan with modern weapons. They hide among the civilian population (like Hezbollah did in Lebanon) and use women and children as human shields. They know that westerners won’t accept high civilian casualties, but innocent life means nothing to them.

We must remember that the only way to limit our own casualties is to strike remotely – from the air, or with artillery. The only alternative to air strikes is sending in ground troops. As long as our enemy hides among women and children there is no way to avoid casualties; it is merely a choice between their lives, or those of Canadian soldiers.

The Taliban also represent a deviation from the guerilla warfare of the last century. Where guerillas of that era attacked only military convoys and installations, the Islamic extremists recently blew up two girls leaving school on their bicycles. They routinely kidnap children and use hostages to strike fear into villages that might otherwise cooperate with the NATO forces who are rebuilding Afghanistan. They strike remotely using IED’s, suicide bombers and rockets with no regard for collateral casualties at all. They kill wantonly and indiscriminately. They do not want a voice, or even to share power – they want total domination and oppression.

This is the caliber of persons that the Liberals and NDP are asking the Canadian government to negotiate with. On what basis will we negotiate? What could they possibly do to show good faith? What possible concessions could we offer them? They are extremist killers who know nothing but unconditional submission to radical views of Islam which allow them to brutalize women and children.

Faced with this kind of enemy, western militaries have some hard decisions to make. There is no traditional way to fight an enemy with no sense of honor, morality or humanity. If we withdraw before they are decimated, they will come back like the fungus they are and corrupt a civilization that is only now tasting freedom and democracy for the first time in centuries.

Is the government of Afghanistan without corruption and failings? Assuredly not, but it is light years ahead of anything that the beaten people of that region have experienced in generations. We must either find the resolve to continue in what will always be a dirty and horrific job, or we must retreat and allow the cancer to reassert itself just when we had it in remission.

The question is not can our military prevail, rather it is do the populations of western countries have the character and resolve to help our global neighbours experience what so many of us take for granted? While some in western countries demonstrate against the troops, the victims of their protests are fighting to give the people of Afghanistan the liberty to demonstrate and participate in democracy. It’s a strange and sad paradox.

(From the Times & Transcript, 27 July 2007 - a proprietary announcement from Minister Monte Solberg (HRSD) about funding for post-secondary education.)
Ottawa addresses post-secondary education

By Monte Solberg
Published Friday July 27th, 2007
Appeared on page D7

Regarding the “broken student loan program,” we recognize that the old Liberal student loan program didn’t do what was best for students and needs improvement.

That’s why, in Budget 2007, Canada’s New Government launched a review of the Canada Student Loans Program in consultation with provinces, territories and stakeholders.

These consultations are under way and will continue over the summer.

The best way to gather information is to have discussions with the people directly involved and that is what we are doing. The process will result in changes that will be announced in Budget 2008.

Canada’s New Government is proud of its record on making certain that Canadians have access to the post-secondary education they want and deserve. It just makes sense. We want Canada to have the most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world.

Back when the Liberal government cut the annual Canada Health Social Transfer (CHST) cash entitlements to provinces by $25 billion, the Canadian post-secondary education system was deprived of much needed resources. Under the Liberals, tuition fees in many provinces more than doubled. Now, Canada’s New Government is taking important steps to revitalize post-secondary education.

In Budget 2007 we announced a 40 per cent increase in transfers for post-secondary education. That means that starting next year we’ll invest $800 million more per year for provinces and territories to strengthen the quality and competitiveness of Canada’s post-secondary education system.

And there is more.

We’re providing the greatest number of scholarships ever granted to our graduate students through the Canada Graduate Scholarships program.

These prestigious awards are worth $17,500 per year for Masters students, and $35,000 annually for doctoral students, for up to three years.

And, we’re helping Canadians save for their education by making Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs) more attractive.

We’ve eliminated the $4,000 limit on annual contributions and increased the lifetime contribution limit to $50,000.

These new initiatives build upon previous investments that this Conservative government has already made in post-secondary education.

With the new textbook tax credit that we implemented, and now that scholarship and bursary income is fully tax-exempt, students will have greater opportunities to succeed.

We believe in building a stronger, safer and better Canada and our improvements to post-secondary education are helping us get there.
Monte Solberg is the Canadian Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Canada.

(From the Times & Transcript, July 27, 2007)

Letters
Published Friday July 27th, 2007
Appeared on page D8

MacKay, ACOA strong advocates

To The Editor:

Just in case your readers missed them, let me correct the record and restate the facts contained in my July 16 letter that Liberal MP Brian Murphy is careful to avoid.

Contrary to the tired, partisan and cynical Liberal mantra that Mr. Murphy chants, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) has the full support of our government. It plays a crucial role in our government’s economic development strategy throughout Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Murphy falsely implies that ACOA’s budget is being cut and gives inaccurate information about investments made in this region by Canada’s New Government.

Let me state categorically: No cut has been made to ACOA’s budget. ACOA’s role has not changed. ACOA is here to stay.

It was on Mr. Murphy’s watch — at a time when he states ACOA had “reached the apex of its effectiveness” — that ACOA was directed to cut $9 million annually, starting in 2004, followed by an additional $21 million annually as part of on-going reductions under various expenditure reviews.

In fact, MP Scott Brison, co-chair of the Liberal Party of Canada Election Platform Committee, is on record proposing to scrap ACOA.

Our government is committed to reinvesting in Atlantic Canada. In the past 18 months, nearly $390 million has gone through ACOA to more than 500 economic and community development projects throughout Atlantic Canada.

These investments are helping Atlantic Canadians to start businesses, improve their business skills, to expand exports and become more innovative. They are helping communities strengthen their economic base and infrastructure to attract investment, create jobs, and improve their quality of life.

Budget 2007 restores fiscal balance in New Brunswick by providing almost $2.3 billion this fiscal year to the province. This includes $1.5 billion under the strengthened Equalization system; $510 million under the Canada Health Transfer; and, $222 million under the Canada Social Transfer in additional funding for post-secondary education and childcare.

New Brunswick will also receive $64 million for infrastructure development. This contribution is part of our $33 billion commitment over seven years to build and rebuild our national infrastructure. It is the largest federal investment of its kind in half a century.

Mr. Murphy’s claim that we have centralized regional development is absurd. The fact is that ACOA, created by a national Conservative government in 1987, remains headquartered in Moncton to provide an effective “on-the-ground” response to the real and practical needs of all Atlantic Canadians.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, our government has maintained regional development programs and we have maintained ACOA’s budget. We have demonstrated in tangible and measurable ways our commitment to the people of Atlantic Canada.

I, and the Agency I am proud to lead as minister, will continue to be strong advocates for Atlantic Canada.

Peter G. MacKay,
Minister of the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Ottawa, Ont.

Columnist Licia Corbella wrote today in the Calgary Sun defending the Saskatchewan Crown prosecutors for their decision not to seek dangerous offender status for convicted serial pedophile, Peter Whitmore. Her explanation of court dynamics was lucid, but her conclusion was as straightforward as it gets. Her ire no doubt relfects the sentiments of many in the Canadian public who are fed up with a justice system that fails to protect the most vulnerable in our society. One of our most fundamental human rights is the right to live in safety; that is also a fundamental responsibility of government. The new Conservative Government has proposed a plethora of anti-crime bills, almost all of which have been stalled and thwarted by the Opposition using every possible excuse. When you read the debates and committee proceedings, it is clear that the Opposition is not working to help accomplish the stated intent of the Bills, rather they are using every means to obstruct the Conservatives. They would rather play politics than help construct meaningful legislation because helping to advance the Government’s anti-crime agenda would almost guarantee the Conservatives reelection. We will be detailing this with examples in future postings. Here is part of what Ms. Corbella said:
“So, do we blame the judges for giving him such short sentences for past child abductions and sexual assaults on children as young as five? Some of the blame undoubtedly can go there, but certainly not all of it. Those judges, appointed by mostly Liberal politicians, simply apply the laws written by the same mostly Liberal politicians.

Currently, the federal Conservative government has numerous bills before Parliament that would toughen laws to better protect our children and all law-abiding people. One such bill proposes to raise the age of consent in Canada from 14 to 16. That reasonable change to the law — that would prevent grown adult pedophiles from preying on young children — is being held up by the Liberal-dominated Senate. One Conservative MP tells me he has been accused of being a “sexually repressed Neanderthal” for advocating such a reasonable and common-sense change to this law, one that most Canadians undoubtedly agree with.

What’s more, had the age of consent been 16, rather than 14, it’s believed that the Crown may have proceeded to trial and sought a dangerous offender designation for Whitmore. Why? Because the father of the 10-year-old boy Whitmore abducted, bound, threatened with death and raped last July refused to allow his traumatized son to be grilled on the witness stand. That left testimony to the traumatized 14-year-old. See where I’m going? The defence would have berated the 14-year-old into admitting that he “consented” to sex with this 36-year-old pervert, even though he was threatened with death if he didn’t.

So, want to know who to blame besides Whitmore for what has happened to his most recent victims and some of the eight ones before? If you have consistently voted Liberal, look in the friggin’ mirror. ”

The Times & Transcript published an elaboration on a Canadian Press story detailing another federal surplus this spring. As detailed by writer Rob Snider in a letter to the editor (see below), this means good news for Canadian taxpayers. Not only will we be paying down our national debt, the resulting savings in interest will be passed on to Canadians in the form of tax cuts.

The newspaper story reported, “With the economy booming and unemployment at a 33-year low, the fiscal year got off to a quick start in April for the federal government with revenues increasing 10.6 per cent, or $2 billion. The big haul came from corporate income tax revenues, which increased 44.6 per cent from April, from last year, and accounted half the month revenue increase.”

We are glad to see that the Times & Transcript recognizes that the new Conservative Government has not destroyed the economy (as predicted by the Liberals in the last election). It is also noteworthy that “the big haul came from corporate income tax revenues…” That means two things:

1. Corporate earnings are up; meaning a strong economy and more work for Canadians.

2. All the opposition bluster about the Conservatives ‘raising personal income taxes’ is a lot of hooey. It is the ‘big corporations’ that the NDP hates so much that are financing much of the wealth of this country. As they prosper, so do we all.

Further refuting the ‘mean spirited cuts’ mantra uttered by Brian Murphy, Stéphane Dion, et al; the story reports: “Program expenses also increased by $2.3 billion, or 8.2 per cent, in the first two months, reflecting higher transfers and other expenses.” In other words, the Conservative government has been MORE generous in program spending, and has transferred MORE money to the provinces!

This stands in stark contrast to the claims that the government is “sitting on huge federal surpluses” and “cutting funding to the most vulnerable…” and causing provinces to lose money. Brian Murphy’s claims just won’t hold water!

In addition to all that good news, the introduction of the Tax Back Guarantee Act means that these increasing surpluses mean more money in the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. This is the sound of ‘settled science.’ The new Conservative Government has been good for the economy, good for Canadian taxpayers and good for our country. Here’s hoping that a future majority will increase the progress made by Conservatives for Canada.

(Below is a reprint from the Times & Transcript, as credited. It shows that former candidate, Charles Doucet, still maintains his Conservative principles by refusing to allow the truth to be sullied. Veritas Excelsior)

Letter of the day | Liberals distort facts for political advantage
Published Thursday July 26th, 2007
Appeared on page D8

To The Editor:

I was glad to see Peter MacKay respond to Brian Murphy’s allegations about cuts to ACOA. That however was only one of a shocking number of false assertions in Mr. Murphy’s recent attack on a local columnist.

Perhaps the most blatant distortion of fact is our MP’s contention that PM Harper is ignorant, condescending, degrading and dismissive of Atlantic Canada because he won’t bow to political pressure from two misguided premiers.

Indeed the PM has proved how much he cares about our region by not conceding the good of the whole for the selfishness of a few.

Mr. Murphy tried to make hay with the worn out “broken promises” routine. In fact, what the 2006 Conservative platform (p.43) promised was to “Work with the provinces in order to achieve a long-term agreement which would address the issue of fiscal imbalance in a permanent fashion.” It was this desire to work with the provinces and respect their concerns that created the new equalization formula.

In March of 2006, an Advisory Panel on Fiscal Imbalance presented a report, commissioned by Canada’s provincial premiers for The Council of the Federation. The report detailed the existence of a fiscal imbalance between provinces, and between the provincial and federal levels of government. “The (Martin) government then in power took the position that vertical fiscal imbalance did not exist in Canada” the report said.

The report reached a number of conclusions. The equalization of the Martin era was “a marked departure from the basic principles that have shaped the Equalization program in Canada” they said. They further concluded that this departure “has made the return to a rules based system of redistribution all the more compelling.” As a solution, they concluded that “the 10-province standard with inclusion of 100 per cent of natural resource revenues . . . best measures overall fiscal capacity . . . and makes the fairest allocation of the funds available.”

Not only did those independent experts recommend this solution to the premiers, but their conclusions were essentially mirrored by the Expert Panel on Equalization (O’Brien report). The O’Brien report, commissioned by Paul Martin for the feds, was presented to the new Conservative government in summer 2006, and formed the basis for the equalization fix of Budget 2007.

What’s more, on Oct. 11, 2006 N.B. Premier Shawn Graham wrote a letter to the prime minister which said in part, “From New Brunswick’s perspective, this measure of fiscal capacity should be based on the following components: a 10-province standard with full revenue coverage, and no arbitrary measures that limit the formula . . . Resource revenues are among the most significant sources of fiscal disparities in the country, and this reality must be reflected in the program formula.”

Budget 2007 delivered exactly what New Brunswick asked for!

It reflected the concerns of all Canadian premiers, except the ones we hear whining. Rather than exploit bitter rhetoric in the court of public opinion, PM Harper suggested that the aggrieved provinces consult the courts “to get a ruling on our respect for the contracts, because we will respect them.” That firm but fair approach is no doubt why Premier Shawn Graham stood by the prime minister’s side and applauded his $414 million investment in New Brunswick’s roadways.

The truth is clear; Mr. Murphy will himself ignore the facts if there is some partisan advantage.

Charles Doucet,
Moncton

(Here is another letter published recently in the Times & Transcript pointing out MP Brian Murphy’s embarrassing lack of knowledge of recent federal legislation)

Letters
Published Monday July 23rd, 2007
Appeared on page D8
MP parrots party view

To The Editor:

In a July 11, For the Record, local MP Brian Murphy accused the Conservative government of buying votes with indoor soccer arenas, “while it sits on a record $11.3 billion, taxpayer-supplied, federal surplus.”

This is the same MP whose scandalous party warned us way back that Stephen Harper would put soldiers with guns on our streets, placate us with beer and popcorn and run the country into huge deficits! Wow, so much for a crystal ball. None of that has happened!

What Mr. Murphy should know. is that the Tax Back Guarantee Act became law as part of Bill C-52 on June 22, 2007. As we already know, Budget 2007 contained a Tax Back Guarantee which states: “To ensure that Canadians benefit directly from reductions in the federal debt, the Government will dedicate the effective interest savings from debt reduction each year to personal income tax reductions. To the extent that the Government realizes unanticipated surpluses, it will accelerate debt and personal income tax reductions.”

In other words, surpluses are used in the most responsible way possible; reducing our national mortgage and passing the interest savings on to taxpayers. These interest savings will amount to $2.6 billion in the next two years. By paying down the debt, the government puts our country in better financial position and has greater power to deliver new personal income tax reductions.

Lower personal income taxes will offer Canadians greater incentives to work as well as the opportunity to keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars; this will increase our standard of living and quality of life.

That is not what I call sitting on a taxpayer-supplied surplus.

When it comes to mishandling surpluses, who can forget the pre-election spending sprees of Paul Martin? Who can forget the Globe and Mail’s headline on April 27, 2005: “Liberal budget in ruins as Martin adopts the NDP agenda in order to survive?” Who can forget that when the Conservative government included a Tax Back Guarantee in the budget legislation, Brian Murphy voted against it all the way. When asked by local News 91.9 radio about the budget vote they reported, “he’ll definitely follow his party leader and vote against it.”

The same report (one day after the budget) quoted Mr. Murphy as saying, “Of course I’m on all fours with Mr. Dion on this.”

It’s embarrassing that our Liberal MP apparently didn’t know how the legislation he voted against affected our tax burden. It’s even more embarrassing, that he is so focused on being a lap dog to his party leader.

Robert Snider,
Moncton

(Below is a letter published by a local writer dealing factually with issues surrounding Women’s Program funding. It is good to see balance and truth emerging in the Times & Transcript)

Click on the graphic below to visit our Women’s Page

Letter of the day | Funding for women is up; equality remains a goal

Published Monday July 23rd, 2007
Appeared on page D8

To The Editor:

I was pleased to see that Sue Calhoun of Business and Professional Women is reading Marie-Claude Blais’ biweekly column.

However, the allegations in her July 17 letter were truly shocking and they were not founded in fact.

The substance of her complaints is reminiscent of Liberal press releases that Stéphane Dion and company have been promoting. The true details of the Status of Women (SWC) budget and mandate are easily verified by a little research on the department website (www.swc-cfc.gc.ca).

Regarding the proposed “gutting” of the SWC budget and the “$5 million dollar cut,” Minister Bev Oda was crystal clear in an article published in the Times & Transcript (Dec. 5, 2006, D5) “Canada’s new government has streamlined Status of Women Canada (SWC) by saving $5 million in administrative costs. But it’s important for Canadians to realize that every penny of that $5 million will be spent on funding initiatives that will directly benefit women in their communities. We did not streamline SWC to return $5 million to government coffers. We streamlined SWC to deliver $5 million more in programming for women in Canada.”

In a subsequent press release (Mar. 7, 2007), Minister Oda stated: “‘Canada’s New Government is proud to enhance the Women’s Program in order to make a real difference in the lives of Canadian women facing challenges.’ The budget of the Women’s Program has been increased by 42 per cent, bringing it to its highest level ever of $15.3 million.” The $5 million savings from administrative waste was reintroduced as program funding, and the Conservative government invested $5 million additional new dollars to totally eclipse any funding ever offered by the Liberals.

The other carbon copy of Liberal press releases is the assertion that the Conservative government removed “equality” from the mandate of SWC. Nothing could be farther from the truth!

On their “About Us” webpage, their information sheet states the current mandate very clearly: “Our Goal: Status of Women Canada (SWC) is the federal government agency which promotes gender equality, and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country.”

In fact, the word “equality” is found 17 times on that one page!

On the page listing the “Funding Guidelines for 2007-2008,” the introductory paragraph reassures Canadian women that Status of Women Canada remains “a federal mechanism of support for the direct participation of Canadian women in the efforts to advance women’s equality.”

Incidentally, this new webpage provides easy access to all the contacts, funding guidelines and applications that groups promoting women’s equality need to get help on the ground quickly. These resources are also available through any of 320 Service Canada Centres and certainly your local MP can help as well.

Regarding the closure of redundant government offices, Ms. Calhoun should be pleased to know that the Moncton office of Status of Women is now serving Atlantic Canada. Of course the provincial Status of Women offices in Halifax, Charlottetown and St. Johns continue to work closely with their federal counterparts.

Worthy groups like Business and Professional Women should not fear; funding for women’s programs has nearly tripled since the Conservatives realigned the department budget and infused new funds. Equality for women continues to be a top priority to the government and reliable information is never further away than the nearest internet access point.

Jessica Seely,
Moncton

In deference to John Denver’s song of the 60’s, we noted from Brian Murphy’s column in the July 11 Times & Transcript, that he is still fumbling on the Moncton airport issue. The record of his work is “both lengthy and public” our MP says. Well, in the spirit of the new Accountability Act, we decided to take a look at “the record.”

First off, we were concerned when Mr. Murphy detailed his “efforts” and included enlisting the aid of a government senator and the Chamber of Commerce “to lobby the government.” Wait a minute; we thought that is what we elected Brian Murphy to do!

He then indignantly boasts that he raised “two questions about the matter in the House.” Again the public record is revealing.” His “questions” were little more than partisan shots to please his Liberal master, Stéphane Dion. They contained neither substance nor solutions.

February 5 question: “The only culture of defeat, to use the Prime Minister’s own words about our region, is the one that is coming from the Conservative cabinet table. Why does the Minister of Public Safety refuse to recognize the importance of maritime and Atlantic Canadian airports to the economy and when will he fix this problem?”

May 16 question: “Mr. Speaker, this government does not care about …the Moncton Airport, important economic generators to their communities, are cancelling new flights. Why? Because the Minister of Public Safety neglects to rein in the rogue president of the Canada Border Services Agency and refuses to hire the needed customs officers. We know the government does not care about the charter, literacy, women’s issues, child care and summer jobs. Must we now add mid-sized airports and their communities to the not wanted list, to this culture of defeat?”

This sounds like schoolyard banter! How does this help to prompt Government action on Moncton’s airport needs? Is this “pushing hard for a resolution?” The Mayor of Moncton has been to Ottawa twice and met with officials from Minister Day’s office on this issue. The second time he took a respected delegation of business and economic development leaders, and was accompanied by the manager of our airport, Rob Robichaud. These people are dismissed in Mr. Murphy’s article as “Conservative organizers,” although some of them likely supported him in 2006!

The fact remains that Mr. Murphy should have arranged his own roundtable on an issue of such “abiding concern” to profit from the presence of all the stakeholders. Instead of showing initiative, he chose to pop in for drinks between votes in the House. He had dinners with some of the delegates, but there is no record of any meetings.

The one question that puzzled me was, “What vote was so important that our MP couldn’t represent our federal riding at the reception?” Encouraged by Mr. Murphy’s article, we checked the public record. There were seven votes that evening. None of the votes was a confidence motion. None was even close enough to be considered contested. Yet our MP dismissed an invitation by our regional Minister, Greg Thompson, to pop in “twice between parliamentary votes!” The final vote of the evening was Paul Martin’s Act to Implement the Kelowna Accord. Now that would earn him serious brownie points with the Liberal party elite!

No doubt I hear a protest, “But the Kelowna Accord is an important piece of legislation!” Not according to the Ottawa Citizen (14 July 2007). They called it “an expensive press release.” “The Kelowna Accord was no accord at all,” they wrote. “It was literally a list of agenda items typed onto a press release. The supposed commitments made on this piece of paper were not given the force of law. In fact no legislation was ready to go when Paul Martin trumpeted another of his fixes ‘for a generation’ in 2005.”

The Citizen editorial went on to say with reference to past abuse in residential schools and land claims, “Meanwhile, the Conservative government has actually moved forward to solve two real problems that affect thousands of native peoples….” Barbara Yaffe of the Vancouver Sun added (July 14) “‘Justice, Fairness and Hope for Canada’s Aboriginal People’ only serves to remind that under past Liberal governments money gushed into aboriginal coffers with little to show for it.”

Brian Murphy is back at his old-fashioned shell game. We’ve seen all this razzle dazzle before – we just didn’t expect it from an elected representative! Public service requires accountability. That means when you make public statements about the public record, the public should have confidence that the facts are accurate. In this case they were not.

Canadian Press reporter, Joan Bryden, published a revealing article today in media across the country. “The first event in Halifax two weeks ago — a cocktail reception featuring Leader Stephane Dion and six of his erstwhile rivals — attracted about 60 people who paid $250 each,” she wrote. “After expenses, however, party insiders say the event netted only about $5,400.”

“The spoils were divvied up equally among the seven former leadership contenders who participated, leaving each with about $750. Insiders with several camps complain that the event didn’t make enough to cover even air fare to Halifax for some candidates…”

This is in marked contrast to a fundraiser for the Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe Conservative Association on July 9^th(photo above), where we sold over 100 tickets and netted over $7000 from a meet and greet with Minister Michael Fortier.

Ms. Bryden went on to report that the Halifax event, and a similar one in Ottawa a few days later, “were enough of a bust that two similar fundraisers planned for Toronto the following week were cancelled.” Liberal Party President, Senator Marie Poulin, said “the party recognizes that holding events in July, when many Canadians take vacation, is too difficult.”

The excuses continued when “insiders in various camps lay the blame squarely on Dion’s office for the flops thus far. They say the leader’s office didn’t consult with local Liberals about the best timing or location for fundraisers and gave them only a couple weeks notice to try to rustle up potential donors…” Gerard Kennedy added, “To make it worthwhile, you do need a longer lead time,'’

Excuses, excuses! The first notice we received was on June 21^st and we hosted the event 18 days later on July 9^th. That email notice simply said that Minister Fortier was going to be staying overnight in Moncton and would be available for an event. That gave us just about two weeks to plan, organize, sell and execute a summer fundraising event. Evidently Stéphane Dion and company still can’t get it done!

It’s considered impolite to rub salt into a wound, but what does it say when 7 Liberal leadership candidates (including the Leader of the Opposition) cannot match the fundraising efforts of a local Conservative EDA in an orphan riding? We are even a smaller metro area than Halifax. We’re told that our riding is ‘a Liberal seat.’ Our Liberal MP had less than 30 people at a public Town Hall, we had 100 at a paid event (in July; with two weeks notice). That has to sting just a little doesn’t it?