Strong and Free

Here we go again

2005-11-30T15:55:00.000-08:00

Here we are at Day Two of one of the longest writ periods in Canada's history. So far, so good.

There has been a lot of quack about having a Christmas election. This not a Christmas election. It is a winter election with a break in the middle. Anyone who is playing the Christmas "card" is looking for an excuse to be angry. Folks, this is Canada; we have winter; we are Canadians; we can handle it.

Election day is almost a full month after Christmas. That should give everyone lots of time to finish the last turkey casserole and turn a thought or two to the future of Canada.

The people inconvenienced by the timing of the election are candidates, volunteers and Elections Canada personnel. Others are free to ignore it, except on January 23rd. On that day, it would be really dandy if citizens could exercise what that word means and take the thirty minutes required to participate in their own futures.

When sixty percent of Iraqis turn out in January 2005, under threat of death: and sixty percent of Canadians turn out in June 2004, under threat of sunburn, you have to ask yourself what is wrong with this picture.

Canadians profess to love democracy, but two out of every five eligible to participate in the most fundamental way, simply can't be bothered. Disenchantment with the political process and many of its practitioners is understandable. I'm sorry, but apathy is not.

There are hundreds of candidates for all parties who have made an enormous personal commitment. Regardless of party and politics, all of them deserve credit.

There are many thousands of volunteers dedicating many hundreds of thousands of hours to participate and to promote their favourite. Regardless of party and politics, all of them deserve credit.

I've met a lot of apathy at the tens of thousands of doors I have visited over the past two-and-a-half years; and I occasionally get very direct in my advice to them. The odd one gets a little angry at me for that; but if it makes them angry enough to get off the couch and vote for anyone, that's okay.

I could give you my Conservative answer about who caused the election, but it's frankly irrelevant, at this point. The fact is that we are in an election and it is every Canadian's duty to vote. While I obviously crack myself up, I'd sure like us to not let a Canadian winter and apathy be bigger deterrents to voting than death.

Airplanes and elections

2005-11-23T21:36:00.000-08:00

Tuesday, Defence Minister Bill Graham, flanked by Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier and Public Works Minister Scott Brison, announced an accelerated program to replace the oldest of our C-130 Hercules fleet. It’s about bloody time!

Mr. Graham seemed to express frustration at being forced into this scenario by the threat of an election. Is that what it takes – the threat of losing his job to make him and his colleagues do the right thing? If so, then good on the Opposition parties for making something happen.

The truth is that there was nothing stopping the Government from going ahead, other than political gamesmanship and chronic defence underfunding. They're not sure whether they are afraid of being criticized for foolishly committing money with an election in the air; or whether they want to try to look like belated heroes to a Canadian Forces that they have shamefully neglected for decades.

As an airman who is deeply concerned about the critical degradation of the CF's capabilities over the decades, I am glad that something has been done. Most of the C-130 fleet is on its butt and that is severely restricting the Air Force from fulfilling its operational commitments.

The Air Force needs new aircraft right now. They have expressed their preferred solution for the tactical airlift part of the equation through General Hillier. That is an important step, but we still have to address our continuing shortfall of strategic airlift. Canada has never had strategic airlift capability; that is, the ability to carry a significant amount of personnel and equipment over a significant distance. The Canadair Yukon, Boeing 707 and now the Airbus CC150 did a pretty good job of moving personnel over a long distance, but couldn't carry much in the way of equipment.

Some are questioning the projected high cost of the new aircraft, but that is somewhat misunderstood. I'm basing my comments on being intimately familiar with the New Fighter Aircraft Program (CF-18). Program cost includes life cycle costs; which comprises many things. These may include operations and maintenance, spares, support equipment, test equipment, documentation (in both official languages), training (flying, simulators, technicians, logistics), and infrastructure.

It also includes things like GST and revenue dependency for PWGSC to administer the program. With the CF-18, we had to pay GST on every aircraft that was delivered to Canada and was not re-deployed to Germany. In those days, PWGSC was Supply and Services Canada and, as I recall, we paid them 1.5% of the program cost to administer it. So, if numbers are similar today, take about 8.5% right off the top of program money. Your security and defence is just another source of over-taxation in Government eyes.

The CF-18 program was about CAD 5 billion for 138 aircraft. The contract cost of each individual aircraft was just over USD 16 million in January 1978 dollars. Simply dividing the total program cost by the number of aircraft is misleading. I'm not sure whether we are or are not paying a fair price for the proposed new aircraft, but people should understand all aspects before they criticize.

The other issue is the urgency of signing a contract. The Liberal Government has brought this urgency upon themselves (and, regrettably, upon members of the Air Force and those they serve), by many years of deliberate penny pinching on defence.

The current plan will amount to an essentially sole-source contract. If the answer is obvious and the need is urgent, that is acceptable. Such decisions should be more about defence and security requirements and less about politics. Within the constraints of budgets and due process, the lead should be given to military staffs. The personnel flying and supporting our current C-130s under increasingly difficult circumstances deserve that, and the other military units that they support desperately need that.

We still need a strategic fixed wing airlift capability and a heavy lift rotary wing capability. There are capable aircraft available for both those roles and their manufacturer has been very pro-active in proposing cost effective acquisition programs. MND John McCallum quietly cancelled the strategic airlift program some years back, apparently at the urging of a misguided Chief of Staff.

The realities of Canada's commitments to peace making and peace enforcement (read war fighting), as well as to natural disasters, such as tsunamis and earthquakes, require on-demand strategic airlift. That means that we need to own it. We will never be able to react in less than about two weeks, if we have to line up at the local Budget Rent-an-Antonov every time something happens. A DART without feathers doesn't fly very straight, very far, or very fast.

I've also seen the airplanes and elections movie before with the New Fighter Aircraft Program. In late 1979, when Joe Clark lost count of his fingers and toes and, consequently, his government, we had the CF-18 contract completely ready for final blessing the next day. We had endured many years of false starts, extensive evaluation, delays, difficult negotiations, funding envelope changes, and many other challenges. Program Manager, Brigadier-General Paul Manson (later CDS) and his senior staff stayed up all night trying to convince the falling government to approve the program. They wouldn't and we had to do it all over again for Trudeau's Liberals. It was a black day, but we did eventually buy the CF-18 and it has performed magnificently. In reality, the delay didn't have much impact on the long-term program.

The difference between then and now is that, in 1979, we didn't have units in an active combat environment without the support they should have. Today, we do, and we need to pull out all stops to redress that situation. If we take a quick, hard look at costs, that's okay; but let's not forget what's going on out there in the real world of Afghanistan and other garden spots, where Canadian men and women are risking everything. We owe them the best and we owe it to them yesterday.

Puppy dog faces

2005-11-17T08:24:00.000-08:00

Cut it out, Prime Minister, you're killing me. You and your minions are popping up in front of every microphone and camera, putting on your best puppy dog faces and telling us how all you really want to do is make it work. You say to look at all the good things for Canadians that will be lost if the obvious and justified lack of confidence in your Government is played out in the near future.

You are the one that has dithered on such critical items as the gas rebate, refusing to allow it to proceed no fewer than three times, even though all parties were behind it.

You are the one who, as Finance Minister, strangled the Canadian Forces.

You are the one who, as Finance Minister, choked the life out of Canada's healthcare system.

Yours is the Government that has allowed our First Nations population to continue to wallow in poverty without something as simple as safe water to drink.

Yours is the Government that has wasted billion after billion on misguided or downright corrupt ventures such as the useless and irrelevant gun registry, HRDC, unaccountable Technology Partnerhsip money, and brokering election support with tax-payers money.

You are the one who solemnly promised to fix the democratic deficit and have, instead, made it more acute.

You are the one who solemnly promised to end patronage and have, instead, refined the art form.

You are the one who claimed to be able to repair the severely damaged relations that your Government caused with our biggest trade and security partner. Instead, you use every opportunity to inject "American-style" into your comments designed to stir fear in Canadians. Regardless of what are our issues with the United States, that is hardly helpful.

Yours is the Government that has done nothing to support family values and now expresses such dismay at the fact that we will have a campaign that runs through Christmas.

You are the one who has made so-called commitments that are back-end loaded by many years and will probably never happen.

Now, you pretend that they are around the corner and that the very fabric of Canada will be lost if your wretched and corrupt government falls, as it deserves to do.

Now, you want to take the money that you have sucked out of Canadians' wallets through over-taxation and feed it back to us in post-dated bribery.

No matter when an election is called, there will always be things that will be delayed. If that were allowed to delay an election, then we would never hold one and we would be stuck with a de facto Liberal dictatorship forever. True democracy doesn't work that way.

The quicker that we can put your Government out of our misery and replace it with an accountable Conservative alternative, the quicker the country can get on the real task of restoring our position with our own citizens and with our friends and allies around the world.

It is the soldier.

2005-11-10T19:07:00.000-08:00

Another eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month is here. Fewer veterans will be on parade than last year and more than next year. Backs will be a little more bent; salutes will be a little more shaky; and more will be under wheel power. What won't have changed is the pride that the veteran feels for his country and his comrades, present and absent. His heart is ramrod straight and he has a clear vision of what it takes to make a country strong and free.

Besides respecting and honouring what the veteran has given us, what can we do to make his sacrifice worthwhile? We can honour and respect the future. We can do that by recognizing that safety and security aren't free.

More Canadians are thinking more clearly about what our current military is facing on our behalf. Part of that understanding is because of the no- nonsense approach and forthrightness of General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff. The Canadian Forces cannot be social workers in uniform and they have to be given the right tools and enough of them to do what is a deadly job. General Hillier has been very clear about the hazards that our soldiers are facing in Afghanistan. The point is not to alarm us, but to prepare us for what is probably inevitable.

When you look at a veteran today, take a look at the young men and women in uniform on parade, as well. Imagine them in forty or fifty years at a Remembrance Day Parade. Far fewer of them will probably have lost comrades in service to Canada than the older veterans you see today. It's our job to make sure that this is as few as possible. That doesn't mean shirking our duty as a country. It means making sure that our men and women are equipped to do the job. It means supporting a significant increase in defence spending.

It means remembering that:

It's the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It's the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It's the soldier, not the politician that ensures our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag. They shall grow not old as we who are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. And at the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them.

Crime and .... well, just crime, actually ....

2005-10-07T14:33:00.000-07:00

Normally, we’d be talking about crime and punishment, but in Canada today, it seems that we’ve lost the concept of punishment. The Liberal governments of Trudeau, Chretien and Martin have eroded the concept of consequence for behaviour. Instead, we reward corruption and crime; show more concern about criminals’ rights than victims’ suffering; and indeed, treat criminals as the victims. Along the way, we waste mountains of taxpayer dollars on social experiments that have done nothing to make our streets safer or our citizens more secure.

Twenty years after the biggest mass murder in Canadian history (Air India Flight 182), the perpetrators are set free because our justice system is dysfunctional. The victims’ families and Canadians, in general, are outraged and demand a public inquiry. The Minister responsible responds with suitable soothing words, but no decisions. Instead, she hires former Ontario Premier Bob Rae to conduct an inquiry into whether or not we should hold a public inquiry. According to Air India Victims’ Families Association, Rae’s November report will recommend that we do hold a public inquiry. I don’t know how much this decision process cost taxpayers, but whatever the amount, it is too much. The answer was obvious from the start, and I was under the impression that we were paying Cabinet Ministers like Anne McLellan to make decisions. Does Mr. Dithers have a counterpart?

We have Paul Coffin who defrauds taxpayers out of one-and-a-half million dollars. Apparently, that’s chump change to the Liberal justice system, as Mr. Coffin gets a two-year curfew and a job teaching ethics. The irony of the latter should not be lost.

We have James Roszko who, after 44 charges and 14 convictions, many of them for violent crimes, was still not qualified to be a dangerous offender. Well, he is qualified now, but it cost us four RCMP officers for Roszko to earn that distinction posthumously.

We have prisoners who have violated society’s lawful expectations, many of them in the most violent and deadly ways, yet they still get to vote. And guess for whom they vote? I’m guessing that it’s the folks who have perpetuated a justice system that “punishes” them by giving them access to amenities and education that thousands of law-abiding Canadians can’t afford.

We have a Liberal government whose answer to criminal activity that they can’t control is to simply declare it no longer illegal. The Liberal Party is in favour of legalizing marijuana and prostitution. The Liberal Government is desperately trying to pussyfoot around the issues and not declare their real intentions before the next election. Sounds like a hidden agenda to me.

It’s time that the justice system stood up for law-abiding Canadians rather than criminals. It’s time for a Government that will stand up for Canadians and Stand Up For Canada!

Way to go, Ralph!

2005-09-26T14:30:00.000-07:00

Hat's off to Finance Minister Ralph Goodale. In one foul swoop of his tongue, he has proven, once again, that he and his Liberal government are more interested in their own short-term gratification than in the long-term well-being of Canadians.

Over the past several years, income and royalty trusts have allowed a great many Canadians at most income levels to enjoy some growth in their income and retirement portfolios. It would clearly not be acceptable to have Canadians look after themselves in retirement, without being beholden to the government. How could the government ever control them at election time with threats of losing government largesse? Of course, that largesse and the habitually hidden surpluses, read over-taxation, have come out of Canadians' pockets in the first place.

Goodale's recent musings about restricting new income and royalty trusts and sucking more tax money out of existing trusts and, therefore, Canadians' pockets, has caused an emotional sell-off in that sector. It has also cast into doubt the longer-term viability of that sector and delayed its inclusion on the TSX Index. His loose lips and potential future attacks against individual Canadians' economic well-being are incomprehensible, reprehensible, short-sighted, and just plain dumb.

Perhaps the good Finance Minister could consider letting the market decide. But, that wouldn't be the Liberal way. Perhaps the good Finance Minister could understand that, by letting Canadians build bigger RRSPs without his "help", the government will start to collect much more tax down the road. But, that wouldn't be the Liberal way. Perhaps the good Finance Minister could understand that, by allowing Canadians to build and plan for their own retirements, the pressure on the government purse would decrease in the future. But, that wouldn't be the Liberal way.

The Liberal way is to interfere with anything that does not involve maintaining their control over every aspect of Canadians' lives, instead of allowing us some self-determination. It's just one more example of the Liberal version of democracy. Welcome to the remakes of "Father Knows Best", with Paul Martin in the role formerly played by Robert Young, and "Leave it to Beaver", with Ralph Goodale starring as "The Beav".

Father does not know best and I'm not prepared to leave it to Beaver. When will Canadians, in enough numbers and in the right locations, wake up to the facts of what the Liberals are doing to them? It is way past time that these charlatans were shown the door to political wilderness and get them out of Canadians' way to a prosperous future. Enough is enough!

Flash! This just in. The good Finance Minister has also decided to hog-tie the people who create jobs, wages, wealth, productivity, foreign investment and, therefore, wait for it - taxes. Those people run Canadian corporations and they have just had their promised tax cuts pulled from the table. Liberals are interested only in political survival and not good public policy. Kowtowing to the NDP in this area may keep the Liberals alive for now, but it will continue to erode Canadians' economic welfare. It's time to Stand up for Canada!

The roses are dying.

2005-08-18T09:58:00.000-07:00

Alternate Service Delivery, or ASD, has been a part of the systematic reduction of uniformed capacity in the Canadian Forces for about twenty years. Like many other hatchet jobs that have been perpetrated on our military because of budgetary starvation, it is couched in terms of efficiency. RUBBISH!

The theory was that, anything we didn’t actually take to war could be provided by civilian contractors more cheaply and efficiently. Someone forgot to tell the hatchet men that we actually take logistics to war. And someone forgot to tell the governments who called in the hatchet men that Canada’s seemingly traditional peacekeeping missions could (and did) easily transition into theatres of combat.

The chickens are coming home to roost in this hair-brained bean counter driven scheme. Don’t get me wrong; some of my best friends are bean counters, and they were doing this at the point of the proverbial government budget gun. The problem is that they have been allowed to make de facto operational decisions that should be the mandate of operational leaders. The operational commanders should be given the authority and support to make operational decisions, and see them carried out and supported by an unbreakable logistics chain.

It was recently suggested that civilian contractors and their employees may balk at the prospect of providing in situ logistic support to elements of the Canadian Forces engaged in high threat operational theatres, such as Afghanistan. I’m sure that many would say, “Ready, Aye, Ready”, but who could really blame those who did not?

Prior to ASD, people in uniform supplied logistic support such as supply, cooks, mail, administration, transportation, airfield engineering support, and more. They were all soldiers, sailors or airmen first and could be counted on to tote a rifle, stand guard duty or engage in defensive operations, if necessary. Now, much of that support is supplied by civilian contractors, who are undoubtedly good at their jobs, but don’t fall under the same code of conduct or expectations as someone in uniform.

A less currently urgent example, but one no less harmful to our operational readiness is the lack of combat training support to our CF-18 force and to some elements of combat training for the Army and the Navy. Those assets provided air combat adversaries, electronic warfare training and gunnery tow targets. About four Chiefs of the Air Staff ago, the Air Force embarked on a plan to eliminate the combat support assets and squadrons from the inventory and replace them with a civilian contract. The current situation is that the people who use these training assets are still waiting for something more than band-aid solutions. If the final solution ever arrives, it will cost more than what we had already, provide a fraction of the training support, and offer none of the flexibility.

Alternate Service Delivery can work, but the theory has been applied to many areas where it does not belong. Like many things that have been allowed to erode our military capacity, this will take decades to reverse, even if leadership was ready to go down that road. I may be wrong, but I see no evidence of that determination.

This is not a criticism of all the dedicated "loggies" out there who provide yeoman service. It is a criticism of the government which has put operations (and people) in jeopardy for the sake of budget cuts.

It is said that operations is the rose and that logistics is the stem upon which it grows, or something like that. Someone has whipper snippered the rose bushes and Alternate Service Delivery may well be Alternate Service Disaster.

For Valour

2005-08-15T14:44:00.000-07:00

Last week, Canada said goodbye to Ernest “Smoky” Smith, our last surviving Victoria Cross winner. It was a week of fitting tribute to a true Canadian hero and so appropriate in the Year of the Veteran. What made his heroism typical of those like him is that he eschewed that label himself and preferred to bestow it on those who never left the battlefield. His job, as he saw it was to make the enemy into heroes by dying for their country, instead of him dying for his own.

He was a hero, though, in every sense of the word and he represents the pinnacle of readiness to sacrifice his own life for others. That he didn’t have to make that ultimate sacrifice is probably due to a little luck and the fact that his visible courage was enough to strike fear into the hearts of any enemy.

Will we ever see the likes of Smoky Smith again? My answer is “yes, if we have to”, while hoping that we never do. Over the past few decades, Canada has gone from being a peace keeper to being a peace restorer. We have systematically frittered away our capacity to be a peace restorer, but that is indeed what we are being called upon to do, even in a limited way.

More of our history has been spent in the role of peace restorer than what the average Canadian mistakenly views as the primary role of our men and women uniform. It would be nice to able to get back to the peacekeeping task, but there is just not enough peace to keep, and a lot of peace that has to be made. No matter which role we see ourselves engaged in, if we are not continuously ready and equipped to restore peace, we will never be able to keep it.

General Hillier has engaged in some conditioning of the Canadian public and our political leaders to the fact that, as peace restorers, we will be facing an enemy that will not accept our mandate to do that without a fight. In a fight, people get hurt and, in the kind of fights that we will be undertaking, some people will die. That’s where the new generation of Smoky Smiths may be forced to come from.

Preservation of the lives of one’s own troops is the primary aim of any commander, while accomplishing the role of defeating the enemy. With a ruthless and determined enemy such as we and our allies now face, this won’t be easy and it may not be possible. From my own albeit limited direct exposure to the teeth of the Canadian Army, and the much deeper appreciation of many of my colleagues, there is no doubt in my mind that the heart and courage of Smoky Smith is alive and well. I would not want to be the al Queda or other scumbag, to quote General Hillier, who stands between the Patricias, the RCR, or the Vandoos and their objective, or who threatens the life of one of their brothers or sisters.

Canada’s necessity to expand our role as a peace restorer is becoming more evident and compelling. We simply can’t leave that task to our allies and look them in the eye or ourselves in the mirror. Our men and women in uniform, and especially those in the Army, know this better than anyone. We owe it to them and ourselves to not fail, and that means not letting our politicians fail, in manning, training and equipping our forces to the best possible level to do the jobs that we have given them.

Smoky Smith is gone but, thanks to some determined work by others in recent years, the Victoria Cross remains as Canada’s highest honour for valour in the face of the enemy. If another Victoria Cross is won by a Canadian on the field of battle, may he or she also live to be 91 years old and enjoy the finer things in life, like well-aged single malt whiskey and fine cigars, as Smoky did. Slainte.

London Bridge is standing up.

2005-07-13T12:30:00.000-07:00

For once, I agree with Anne McLellan. Canadians are not psychologically prepared for the type of terrorist attacks that have been perpetrated upon our allies for the past several years, and since long before 9/11.

Last week's cowardly attacks on innocents in London is only the latest in a long list of wake-up calls that Canadians should heed. We shouldn't panic, but we certainly shouldn't avert our eyes and pretend that it can't happen here. It can and it will. The only questions are when and where.

Those who conduct terror don't care that we think we are nice guys. Apologists for terrorists and people who blame those who die for their own deaths are sleepwalking to their own demise. As Winston Churchill said, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last." Terrorism is a crocodile that will eat every last one of us, if we don't stop it, no matter the cost.

Can we ever eliminate terrorism? Not as long as there are people who do not value even their own lives and who will use terrorism to control their enemies, as well as their "friends". In other words - no! Can we afford to capitulate in the war against terrorists? Absolutely not! What are the costs of losing this war, and a war it surely is? Flush everything you value - summed up by the general term, quality of life - down the drain.

People in the West need to take the blinders off and realize that, no matter what we do, we will always and forever be the targets for lunatics like Osama bin Laden and Al-Queda. They have only one ultimate goal and they continue to state it loud and clear. That goal is our complete annihilation. There is only one answer to such a threat. It is not cheap and, at times, it might not be "nice". But, it must be effective.

As we have in the past, we can learn a lot from the Brits. Their reaction to mass murder was one of defiance and pluck, as they have defied past mass murderers. They are the epitome of the stiff upper lip and a bit of that stiffness should be transplanted to the backs of some other western politicians. The Brit intelligence, security and police forces are also damn good, and it came as no surprise yesterday that they had tracked down the murderers, some dead and some alive. There is really no way to prevent all terrorist attacks by a determined and clever enemy, but the Brits were able to react very swiftly. They would be one of the last countries that I would want to make really angry at me.

We can also learn an opposite lesson from Spain. They appeased the terrorist crocodile after it bit them just prior to their last national election, in which Spanish voters threw out a strongly anti-terrorist government.

What can Canada do? The first thing we can do is to stop kidding ourselves that we are different. We are all infidels in the terrorists' eyes. While I agree with Anne McLellan about our lack of psychological preparedness, I would point out to her that we are physically unprepared, as well. The reason for that is in the Offices of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Liberal Caucus. To be sure, there are many MPs from all parties who understand the seriousness of the situation, but the Government, itself, has been largely somnambulant.

Despite the unquestioned quality, commitment and bravery of our men and women in uniform, both military and para-military, we have not maintained the investment in freedom and security that only they can provide. We have not maintained our intelligence network, at home and abroad, that will help prevent terrorist acts or, at least, help to swiftly track down the perpetrators after the inevitable fact. One only has to say Air India to understand that failure. We have allowed over 40,000 illegal immigrants to roam Canada at will, the vast majority in search of only a better way of life, but some undoubtedly intent on destroying ours.

Canada is a multi-cultural mosaic and I, for one, enjoy that. That doesn't mean that we should be blind to the fact that there are some members of many cultural groups, white Anglo-Saxon included, who are intent on destroying the peace, order, and good government that we aspire to in Canada. Regardless of our ethnic roots, we all have an obligation to make sure that such criminals do not succeed, because we are all in this together. The Government has an obligation to show leadership and strength in preparing us psychologically and physically, to the extent possible. As citizens, voters and tax payers, we have an obligation to hold Government's feet to the fire; and if they don't do the job, we have an obligation to fire them.

"My country is the world and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine

Yet another sacrifice

2005-07-05T07:44:00.000-07:00

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been having a rough 2005 in Alberta, and it got rougher yesterday. We were on our way to Calgary and were diverted from Highway 2 at Leduc to south of Millet for an accident. Watching the late news in Edmonton after our return, we were saddened to learn that the accident had claimed the life of Constable Jose Agostinho.

We had known Jose when he was at the Cold Lake Detachment, and since he had been transferred to Wetaskiwin. He was a very strong member of his community, not just as a law enforcer, but as a community leader. Many young Canadians were touched by Jose in his work with cadet organizations.

Many will not know that Jose served in the Canadian Forces for 15 years and flew Buffalo aircraft in the Search and Rescue role. Curiously, at Cold Lake at the same time, there was an ex-Air Force pilot serving in the RCMP (Jose) and an ex-RCMP officer flying CF-18s for the Air Force. These two people certainly knew fully the meaning of "to serve and protect".

In the Year of the Veteran and a year of RCMP remembrance in Alberta (and everywhere), please take a moment today to remember Constable Jose Agostinho, veteran Air Force pilot, RCMP officer, husband, father, son, and friend.

"Maintiens le droit"

Into Africa

2005-07-04T08:44:00.000-07:00

We've just witnessed the biggest worldwide rock concert in history, with the aim of raising awareness to the plight of Africa. The situation in Africa is dire and it is getting worse. The focus of Sir Bob's awareness efforts is the leaders of the G-8. I suggest that they are probably the most aware of all of the world's leaders and the most sympathetic and responsive of all the world's leaders. Could the G-8 leaders and the people that they represent do more? Sure they could. Are they and we the root cause of what ails Africa? Absolutely not!

There are reams of data about the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been poured into Africa by the G-8 and others. Not much of it has actually gone to making life better for Africans, other than a collection of ruthless and murderous dictators. These tyrants are eventually overthrown and replaced by more ruthless and murderous dictators. Will more hundreds of billions of dollars make a difference by themselves? Absolutely not!

Much has been written over more than a century about the colonization of Africa by non-African countries. There were certainly abuses of the continent and its peoples. Despite that, living conditions were arguably better under colonial rule in many countries. Since independence, most of them have slipped into crippling poverty and disease under the leadership of the aforementioned dictators. Just because many of these people were educated in the West does not make the West responsible for their abuses.

The British, French, Dutch, Portugese and others established the rule of law, infrastructure, industry, a civil service, education, churches and many other institutions associated with freedom and democracy. There were abuses, to be sure, but I don't think that what we see now is an improvement. The nations of Africa rightly demanded and achieved their independence, sometimes peacefully and sometimes violently. The nations of Africa are free of colonial rule by foreigners, but they're not free of colonial rule by their own leaders.

The people that need some awareness training are the very people who are grinding their own populations into the dirt. Bush, Blair, Martin, etal may be household names, but how about Abacha, Ahidjo, Kabila, Kbaki and, my personal favourite, Robert Mugabe? While we're at it, how about people like the Sultan of Brunei? I've just seen pictures of the interior of his private jet, complete with sinks of solid gold and Lalique crystal. It makes Air Force One look like a C-47 left over from the Burma Hump.

The well-meaning folks who are gathering in Edinburgh by the hundreds of thousands are right to take the situation in Africa very seriously. Would that it was as simple as pouring more hundreds of billions at the problem and it would magically disappear. That is just not reality.

Until there is some accountability for all that money pouring into dictators' personal bank accounts, nothing will change. Until there is the establishment of the rule of law, infrastructure, sound economies, healthcare, birth control, and more, nothing will change.

Who is going to change it? If the West tries to change those things from the outside, we will be accused of trying to re-colonize Africa. They will have to be changed from the inside. Why didn't some of the people in Edinburgh make the trip to Libya, instead? At the same time as the G-8 is meeting in Scotland, the fifty-three members of the African Union are meeting closer to their problem. Albeit with our help, but they are the ones who hold the key to the solution.

Like any problem of such enormity, the solution will take decades to take effect, if it ever does. The West can help finance and provide guidance to the solution, but we can't run it. It would also be the height of foolishness to simply open our wallets to continually support a status quo that will never change without change from within.

In Canada's case, we are being pilloried by some for falling short of the 0.7% of GDP that Lester Pearson proposed many years ago as the foreign aid goal for developed countries. In simple donated dollar terms, they are right. What they fail to factor in is the money that we spend and have spent on the wide variety of foreign missions that we have undertaken in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America.

Another regrettable, but inevitable, aspect of the Edinburgh spectacle will be the hijacking of the process by professional protestors. This small, but well-organized, group of thugs, punks and anarchists has no real interest in solving Africa's problems. That is because solving such problems will take the support of democratic governments in Africa by democratic governments in the West.

The key word here is government. Herewith, Oxford's definitions of three important words:

anarchism - n. the doctrine that all government should be abolished.
anarchist - n. an advocate of anarchism or political disorder.
anarchy - n. 1 disorder, esp. political or social. 2 lack of government in a society.

What Africa needs is good order and strong democratic governments, not more of the anarchy that has been, literally, killing them. Violent anarchists have nothing to contribute and have no place among the decent folks in Edinburgh and elsewhere. They do have a place, though, and that is behind bars.

The United Nations should be playing a key role in the process, in cooperation with the African Union, the G-8 countries, and others. Regrettably, the majority of the 192 members of the UN are ruled by the same type of folks who have been, at the same time, siphoning wealth from the West to their personal benefit and trashing the West for not giving them more. Kofi Annan does not help when he parrots the dictators' demands and demands little from the dictators in return.

The West does care and the G-8 leaders do care about the plight of Africa, but throwing endless money down a dark hole won't solve the problem. If it would, perhaps Sir Bob and his pals could contribute some of the proceeds of the Live 8 version of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which went on sale within an hour of the concert. We all need to do more, but let's do it with our eyes open, as well as our wallets.

If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives us is a lantern on the stern which shines only on the waves behind us.
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Canada Day

2005-07-01T19:22:00.000-07:00

We've just come back from a day in Edmonton celebrating Canada Day 2005, and it reminded me of all that we have to celebrate.

Canada has been through a lot in our 138 years of official nationhood. In the family of nations, we're still just a kid with a lot to learn. For a kid, we haven't done too badly and we've given the family a lot of things.

In the world of aviation and space exploration, we gave them the anti-g suit (1940), the Canadarm (1981), the crash position indicator (1959), the helicopter bear trap for landing on a ship's deck, the jet airliner, the radio compass, STOL aircraft, and the variable pitch propeller (1918). We've also given them people like J.A.D. McCurdy, Billy Bishop, Wop May, Buzz Beurling, Andrew Mynarsky, Max Ward, Marc Garneau, Chris Hadfield, Roberta Bondar, Julie Payette and many, many more.

In the world of sports we've contributed games such as basketball (1892), lacrosse (circa 1600), hockey and five pin bowling (1909). The names Naismith, Howe, Richard, Orr, Gretzky, Villeneuve and hundreds more have brought us international glory.

The world is a healthier place because of Canadian inventions like insulin (1921), polio vaccine, the pacemaker, heart valve operations and the CPR dummy.

Some things could only have been invented in Canada. Who else would have come up with the snowblower (1927), the snowmobile (1937) and, of course, Muskol.

Canada has led the way with communications firsts like the telephone (1874), the foghorn (1854), newsprint (1838), the walkie-talkie (1942), wirephoto and standard time.

For the household, Canada has supplied the electric cooking range (1882), gingerale (1904), pablum (1930), frozen fish (1926), kerosene (1840), the first patented lightbulb (1874), the jolly jumper and the washing machine.

In the miscellaneous category, we gave the world the rollerskate, the ear piercer, the hydrofoil, the IMAX theatre, Superman (1938), Trivial Pursuit (1982), the zipper, AND, drum roll please, the brainstorm of a brilliant young inventor named Steve Pasjac. In 1957, Steve invented the retractable beer carton handle and beer lovers have been thanking him ever since.

The entertainment world has been enriched by more Canadian entertainers in every category than is possible to list. And, most of them are assumed to be American, because that's where they've made their money.

Finally, we've given the family well over one hundred thousand of our sons and daughters in the name of freedom. In this Year of the Veteran and every year, we should never forget what they sacrificed or take for granted what they have given us.

What we saw today in Edmonton is some of what we have. It was the spectacle of people of all shapes, sizes, ages, and ethnicities enjoying themselves. Where there's water, there are kids; and we didn't see anything bigger than a puddle at City Hall or at the Legislature grounds that didn't have kids playing in it. Everywhere was a sea of red and white, music and laughter in the air, and people celebrating being Canadian or just being in Canada. Only in Alberta would you see a lovely young lady doing a balletic pas de deux in logger’s boots with a Bobcat as her partner.

It all gave me pause to think about some of what I've been hearing from some of the many people that I'm talking to these days. That is the talk that maybe Albertans are getting tired of getting what they see as the short straw from Ottawa, and that maybe it's time to look at going it on our own.

I can understand and empathize with the anger that some people are feeling and giving vent to. I cannot agree with their solution. We have come too far and accomplished and sacrificed too much together with the rest of Canada, to give serious thought to leaving. We may not succeed in getting everything that we think we deserve, but separation wouldn't make it any better.

Like many people, my family has had the opportunity to live, work or play in every part of the country. We love every part of the country.

There is success in achievement, but there is also success in effort. There are many things that need to be fixed in Canada, but we can't do it unless we're prepared to work together. We also can't do it unless we're prepared to accept less than we think we deserve. Naturally, we want people in other parts of the country to feel the same way. The best way to accomplish that is to talk to them and listen to them.

We think too small. Like the frog at the bottom of the well. He thinks the sky is only as big as the top of the well. If he surfaced, he would have an entirely different view. - Mao Tse-Tung

The Book Virus.........

2005-06-30T10:32:00.000-07:00

I've been tagged with the Book Virus by my Conservative pal, Vitor, at "What It Takes To Win", so here goes.

1. Number of books I own. We have owned thousands, but we recycle them through our children and to libraries, etc. My mother was a high school history teacher and we inherited a lot of history books. W've also got a lot of books on aviation, business, autosports, and cooking. At the moment, I'm guessing that we have about 300 on the shelf and many more in boxes.

2. Books that mean a lot to me. My pilot's log book, which holds about thirty-five years of my life. My mother's University of Manitioba Yearbook from 1929. Any of Churchill's books.

3. Books I have read recently. The "Tipping Point" and "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. "Boyd, the fighter pilot who changed the art of war" by Robert Coram. "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu - again. Lest you get the idea that I'm pre-occupied with physical warfare, there are a lot of lessons applicable to political warfare in those books. More fun books are cook books by anyone.

4. The To-Read List. "Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada" by William Johnson, and the anxiously awaited, but as yet unwritten, "My life after federal politics" by Anne McLellan.

And the next tags go to "Waking up on Planet X" and "BendGovernment".

Jumping to conclusions - a clarification

2005-06-30T10:00:00.000-07:00

For the benefit of those who get their exercise jumping to conclusions and making leaps of logic, please allow me to clarify something from my blog "A Conflict of Hypocrisies".
UPDATE: Some of the comments made some good points and I have further clarified my post:

I refered to Jack Layton as the Duty National Socialist Leader. For those who like to "exercise", that suggested that I was calling Jack Layton a Nazi, and that I was disrespecting all those who died at Hitler's hands. Please settle down and park your misplaced indignation.
I had no intention whatsoever of suggesting that ANY Canadian elected official was a Nazi. I believe the term is completely outside the pale of acceptable political discourse.
I apologize to anyone who may have mistakenly believed that that was my intent -- I should have been clearer in my writing.
When I wrote the blog I meant "National" to refer to Canada and "Socialist" to refer to Mr. Layton's professed political philosophy. Period. Dot. Stop. In no way did I intend those words to mean anything else. I'm sorry that the capital letters confused some people. I had not intended them to signify a proper noun. I have changed the phrasing to "Canada's federal" to correct the mis-impression.
For those who lectured me on history and defending democracy, back off. I spent more than thirty years and buried more than forty friends defending your right to yell at me and to jump to conclusions when I mis-speak or mis-capitalize. I hope that you enjoyed it, even though you are way off base. Now get back to work or go to the gym for some real exercise.

A Conflict of Hypocrisies

2005-06-24T08:00:00.000-07:00

NOTE: See subsequent post for correction

Recent "revelations" that military members get accelerated access to things like MRIs and other diagnostic tests seems to have shocked some people. Considering the systemic mistreatment of the military by the Liberal Government and the jobs that the over-tasked and under-appreciated members of the Canadian Forces are asked to do on short notice, shouldn't even the socialists of the medicare debate cut them some slack?

What do they think happens with firefighters, law enforcement personnel, anyone covered by Workers Compensation and, ahem, Members of Parliament?

Like so many things that the military used to be able to count on in the performance of their duties, access to their own health care system has been severely cut back. Like every other shortfall that the military endures, this has been primarily due to a lack of adequate funding.

By contracting out military health care, the Liberals can be seen to do something about their long-term hypocrisy about how they treat the military. Alas, it now exposes their hypocrisy about the realities of healthcare delivery in Canada.

In my thirty years as a pilot, I served on many squadrons. On every one, we had a flight surgeon assigned, and he or she was part of our squadron team. They went everywhere with us, and we trusted them with our careers. As any military aviator knows, the annual medical is an occasion that calls up all manner of fear and trepidation that something might be found to clip one's wings.

If the Government of Canada and the Canadian people expect the military to be ready when needed; then priority access to health care should be a given. If local communities want police and firefighters to be available to respond to their emergencies; then priority access to health care should be a given. If companies need skilled individuals to keep the engine of the economy running and they pay into Worker's Compensation; then priority access to health care should be a given.

Healthy military and para-military organizations equal physical security. A healthy workforce equals economic security.

Doctors in uniform also provided a valuable asset to their local civilian communities. In many cases, the only qualified specialist capabilities, such as anaesthesiology, resided in the military doctors in remote locations, such as Cold Lake. Cutbacks in military medical service also caused hardship to nearby civilian populations and increased the overall cost of health care for those areas.

Maybe, if the military budget hadn't been so decimated by Paul Martin, places like Cold Lake might even have MRIs and qualified people to help serve the surrounding area. Maybe machines could be used more than the restricted hours now available because of the power that organized labour holds over health care delivery in Canada.

There are many things wrong with Canada's health care system. Those ills won't be solved simply by promising to replace, over ten years, less than was ripped out (adjusted for inflation) , in the first few years of Paul Martin's rule as Finance Minister. And, they certainly won't be solved by picking on organizations like the Canadian Forces who are simply doing what they have to do to meet the commitments that we have given them.

The pious condemnation of anything that smacks of anyone getting preferential treatment, regardless of logic, common sense and need, reminds me of an old Winston Churchill quote - "The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Communism is the equal sharing of misery."

Okay everyone, hands up all who think that Canada's federal socialist leader, Jack Layton, would put himself at the back of the queue if he (or his wife) needed an MRI. I didn't think so.

CSI, Law & Order and CPAC

2005-06-15T07:40:00.000-07:00

Crime Scene Investigation (CSI), Law & Order, and confidence votes in the House of Commons were all on at the same time last night, and they seemed somehow complementary.

On CSI, a head chef is murdered and dismembered. On Law & Order, a member of the world's oldest profession is murdered by her madam. The crime is covered up by the madam's father, and she gets off scot-free. On CPAC, we watch the slow death and dismemberment of Canadian democracy every day, by practitioners of the world's second oldest profession. The crimes are covered up and the perpetrators get off scot-free. It all seems sadly to fit, if you'll forgive the obvious irony in the titles.

None of these TV shows are happy stories. Two can be fixed by script writers. One can only be fixed by Canadian voters. Our new door-knocking campaign has again put me in touch with those Canadians, and they are a fine bunch of people. Confused, angry, disillusioned, skeptical and much more, but still fine people.

At Spruce Meadows last weekend, we watched some of the finest Law & Order Canadians, the RCMP Musical Ride, carry out a spectacular performance, despite a torrential downpour. They embodied the determination and skill needed to succeed under difficult conditions, and all that is good about Canada and Canadians. Made us all proud.

After door-knocking last night, we were having a coffee in Tim Horton's. Three senior ladies stopped me on the way out and we chatted for about fifteen minutes about what it might take to straighten things out. It seems that our honourable opponent, who shall remain nameless but sits to the right of Paul Martin, does not have their confidence or trust. Another couple broke into our conversation on their way out to express the same sentiment. On my way out, I was stopped by yet another man, who wished us well in Round 2, even though he lives in Peace River. I've gotta hang around Tim Horton's more often.

It's time that these and all other Canadians had their faith restored in politics, politicians and the political process. Hey, how tough can that be? They won't get it by watching CPAC.

I have to say that Law & Order gave me some hope. The father may have covered up a murder, but he was nailed for "enterprise fraud" in the end and sent to the penalty box. Hmmm ..... sponsorship ..... gun registry ..... HRDC ..... vote buying ..... bribery ..... enterprise fraud ..... the Paul Martin Liberals ..... yeah, we can do better, if enough Canadians demand better and decide to stand up for Canada - now, more than ever.

Take a trip to www.conservative.ca; go to "The Party", then to "Key Documents" and click on Conservative Party of Canada Policy Declaration (pdf). Have a good read about what our future could and should look like.

Stay tuned. Script writers at work.

In the Company of Eagles

2005-06-05T20:56:00.000-07:00

"In the Company of Eagles" is the title of a book written by Ernest K. Gann, and which I read at least thirty years ago. It still sits on my shelf and I may read it again after the last Saturday night that I spent "in the company of eagles".

Gann wrote of two mortal enemies in World War I, a French fighter pilot named Paul Chamay and a German fighter pilot named Sebastian Kupper. Chamay and Kupper were fictional gladiators in the early days of aviation. The "eagles" that I spent time with Saturday were (and are) gladiators in peace and war. All of them have made significant contributions to Canada as aviators or aviation pioneers.

The occasion was the annual ceremony inducting deserving members into the Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame.The Hall is physically located in Wetaskiwin, Alberta along with the Reynolds Alberta Museum. The Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame and the Reynolds Alberta Museum are two jewels that, if you haven't visited, you should. They are modern, relevant and spectacular.

One couldn't begin to add up the years of experience in the room of about 250 men and women who have forged Canada's history through the use of the aircraft and aviation.

4 Wing Cold Lake's Aerospace Engineering and Test Establishment (AETE) was recognized with the Belt of Orion Award for outstanding contributions to Canada's aviation development by providing world class flight test and experimental services. The folks at AETE have led the way in the flight test business. That granted, as an old friend said later in the evening: "It's nice to see that AETE has finally finished the Harvard (Mk I) flight notes".

It was a thrill to be in the room with the spirit of people like the late Alexander Beaufort Fraser Fraser-Harris. Way too many names, but a man who was called the "Father of Canadian Naval Aviation". His wife, Jean, gave an eloquent thank you for the honour bestowed on one of the few men who had the personal integrity to just say "no" to Paul Hellyer and the folly of departmental integration of the Canadian Forces in 1964.

Kenneth Cecil Maclure's spirit (1914 - 1988) was also celebrated and recognized as a pioneer in the field of polar navigation and safer worldwide air transport operations. Despite his best efforts, he couldn't stop Martin Hartwell from getting hopelessly lost in the North and in need of rescue by the CF Search and Rescue folks three times, but that's another story.

Live and in person was Eric McConachie who spent fifty-two years as an innovator with Canadian Pacific Airlines, Canadair, Bombardier and in private consulting. He was largely responsible for the international success of Bombardier's Regional Jet program.

Also live and in person was one of the most accomplished, yet modest, Canadian aviators with whom I have had the pleasure to work. Colonel (ret) Chris Hadfield is one of the few Canadians to truly "slip the surly bonds of earth" as an astronaut aboard Shuttle Missions STS-74 and STS-100. Chris tells a great story of loitering at low level in a two-ship formation of CF-18s going about as slow as they could and Chris's aviator father, Roger, doing a split-S to join on their wing with his tail-dragger aerobat. Flight safety weenies should note that the statute of limitations has expired.

Many, many pioneers of Canadian military and civilian aviation enjoyed the evening with the Guest of Honour, Lieutenant Governor Normie Kwong, who offered a slightly cheeky, but situationally appropriate toast to "my new buddy, the Queen".

The point of this positive blog (two in a row; I think I'm becoming a wimp) is that Canada has a rich heritage in aviation that must be preserved and promoted. I'm told that the Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame has some financial challenges. This is probably not a surprise, but it is something that needs to be addressed.

In large part, Canada was built by air within our borders and our national mettle was forged on the world stage by our aviation heroes in peace and war over the past century. It is a legacy that we have a sacred duty to protect.

When I spend time like last Saturday with people like Hall of Famer Joe Schultz (night fighter ace flying Bristol Beaufighters and DeHavilland Mosquitos with 410 Cougar Squadron), it makes me appreciate what some Canadians has been through to give us what we so take for granted today.

Some years back, I made representation to Heritage Minister Sheila Copps about how the Canadian Forces Snowbirds should be funded as a national program and not just as part of the CF budget. I was thanked, patted on the head, and told to leave such weighty decisions to the grownups.

I don't know what the annual budget for the Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame is, but it's money well spent with respect to preserving Canada's heritage. I'm sure that Heritage Minister, the Honourable Liza Frulla would love to hear from you at Frulla.L@parl.gc.ca about how much you value and want to preserve Canada's aviation heritage and the Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame. The Conservative Party of Canada Heritage Critic would also like to hear from you at Oda.B@parl.gc.ca. She didn't tell me that, but I'm sure she won't mind.

It was somehow appropriate that, while about twenty aviation folks were enjoying the fruits of vintners' and distillers' labours in the front bar of the Westin later in the evening, former Minister of National Defence Perrin Beatty should come through the front door to say hi. He thought he was just there to check in.

And now for something completely different.

2005-05-31T20:21:00.000-07:00

With so much negativity and angry blogs around, how about a happy one, for a change? We still have a lot to be happy and proud about, being Canadian and, particularly, being Albertan.

Yesterday, I spent the day escorting six significant Edmonton citizens around Exercise Maple Flag at 4 Wing Cold Lake for the day. We attended briefings on the fighter pilot training programs; crawled around CF-18s and Hawks; flew the Hawk simulator; watched the CF-18 flight demonstration pilot perform; attended the Maple Flag mass briefing; watched the exercise live on the big screen; had a great burger with a bunch of multi-national air and groundcrew; and watched the launch of Canadian CF18s, Israeli / Dutch / Belgian / American F-16s, French Mirage 4000s and Mirage 1s, British Tornados, Israeli tankers, AWACS, and C-130 and C-160 trash haulers, from about a hundred feet away right beside the runway. The ears split; the ground shook; the air reeked of burnt jet fuel; the grins spread; and the testosterone spiked.

What made it really great was the pride and professionalism that we saw everywhere. Participants from seven countries and observers from several more worked together to get the mission accomplished. It's this kind of training and cooperation that leads to success in combat. And it's the Canadian role in bringing it all together that made us most proud of what we saw. Young and not-so-young men and women are still giving it everything they've got, despite all of the shortfalls that they are forced to deal with.

It's too bad that more Canadians can't see first hand the quality and dedication of our men and women in uniform. Maybe they'd understand what a great resource we have and how important it is to nurture it back to full health.

Tonight, I attended the annual dinner of Merit Contractors Association, an organization committed to supporting the right of employers and employees to promote free enterprise. They have many programs in branches across Canada, all intended to promote best practices in the trades, effective training and apprenticeship programs, and labour harmony in the contracting business. They are very successful and, in the past year alone, excused $1.28 million in apprenticeship fees and put 1,850 people through apprenticeship programs. That's just in Alberta. The awards and speeches by apprentices and their companies showed that business and industry can thrive in the open shop environment. It is the Alberta Advantage at work for Albertans.

One of the participants in the evening was from Alberta's Promise, an organization whose mission is to inspire and encourage businesses, agencies, communities and individuals to adopt the Alberta's Promise commitment to children. They celebrate successes and recognize accomplishments to motivate all Albertans to participate in making Alberta a better place for children to live, learn and grow. Their promise is to be partners with their neighbors, heroes to their children and champions of their childrens' futures.

They have many partners, like Merit Contractors, and the more time that I spend at many different such events, the more I realize that everyone is partnering with everyone else. Life is one big partnership and, if we could spread that attitude to more areas, like, um, say, politics, the better off we'd all be.

The last two days have reminded me why I'm still proud to be a Canadian and an Albertan. Sometimes, ya just gotta do that.

Honour amongst Liberals

2005-05-18T08:00:00.000-07:00

I'm guessing that yesterday set a record for the use of the words "Belinda Stronach" in blogs, editorials, letters to the editor, coffee shops, water coolers, etc., etc. Many derogatory things were said about Ms. Stronach and a lot of colourful language was used. Most of it was naturally emotional and much of it was a bit over the top. Belinda will wear many of the characterizations for years and everyone can decide for themselves whether she deserves them or not.

In the Liberal caucus today, the Deputy Prime Minister mustered all of her best self-righteous indignation and denounced Conservatives as sexist and misogynist. Later, she will, predictably, surround herself with like-minded indignants to denounce every Conservative as various things that Liberals would like us to be......and we are not.

The issue is not one of gender. It is not one of personal professional capabilities. It is not one of personal intelligence. It is one of personal honour. And that, my friends, is utterly lacking in the Liberal Party and their newest member.

Some will argue that there is little honour left in public service, and there is plenty of evidence to back that up. Like a lot of things that they do, the Liberals have turned dishonour into an art form. In the process, they have further discredited the notion of politics as an honourable profession.

Ms. Stronach certainly doesn't honour loyalty or commitment to people or organizations. She doesn't honour her debts ($379,000 owed to her former party), although I don't think that she'd be hard pressed to pony up.

There surely are honourable people in every political party and all of them must cringe at least a bit at the lack of honour and integrity displayed by Ms. Stronach. Her "lack of complexity" will probably do her in, in the end, and Conservatives shouldn't lose too much sleep over her new red Armani.

On May 10th, she said, "We gave Paul Martin and his government the chance to finally do the right thing, but once again, they have failed."

She voted five times to put the Liberal Government out of our misery.

On May 17th, she praised the same Prime Minister and Party that she had trashed the day before. Not to worry, later the same day she said to CTV, "I'm not here to defend the actions of the Liberals."

Um, Belinda, what the hell are you here for?

Some people have expressed concern about the Conservative election secrets that Ms. Stronach would leak to the Liberals. Please be clear that I'm quoting a Liberal MP who wished to remain nameless, "That's okay, she won't remember them, anyway."

Not surprisingly, there will be folks in her new caucus who might not be too pleased to see their loyalty and hard work passed over by their Leader. He has only one principle, and that is hanging on to power at any cost. Not much of a principle and certainly no honour. Ms. Stronach will fit right in.

I guess that even multi-millionaires have their price, and it apparently takes another one to know what that is.

Airborne - reborn or stillborn?

2005-05-04T07:18:00.000-07:00

On the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Europe, it is fitting to have a quick look at the recently announced revitalization of Canada's airborne infantry capability. In WW II, Canadian paratroop forces played a major role and the Canadian Airborne Regiment continued to enjoy a proud history in peacetime, until Somalia.

The point here is not to replay the Somalia affair. Suffice to say that the Airborne fell prey to political correctness, as the many suffered for the sins of the few. It's time to redress that error of political expediency and cowardice in the face of orchestrated public opinion.

The recently announced "911 Force" to be drawn from three existing regiments is a good start, but it's only a start. Their role in support of JTF2 is also a good start, but it's only a start.

The mandate to be lightly equipped and adequately trained sounds fine, so long as it's not an excuse to define "light" and "adequate" as something less than what is really required. Call me cynical, but Canadian governments of all stripes have often set low standards in military affairs and failed to achieve them.

With promised funding not kicking in for several years, it might be easy for government to let this excellent initiative slide, if they get the chance. The defence community, in and out of uniform, can't allow that to happen.

The other thing that the defence community should do, in my humble view, is to make the size and capability of the new force as robust as possible. They can be light, but they also have to be damned strong, in terms of arms, equipment and training. They may not need to have the individual training standards of JTF2 in some areas, but they can't be just a cleanup crew, either. If they are not capable of taking on a combat task in their own right, they will not fulfill the mandate that they should.

General Hillier and his planners are on the right track in many areas, although I think they're perpetuating a serious flaw with the lack of attention to organic strategic airlift. We have to keep the pressure on the government, whatever it looks like after the 2005 election, to not play games with defence funding (such as clawing back over 40% of the $1.1 billion promised over the next two years). The rebirth of the airborne capability will take many years and it will be easy to let it slide.

Here's a radical idea. How about we make the longer term plan to simply re-establish the Canadian Airborne Regiment, once the capability has been built up within the three existing regiments? Then, keep building those regiments until they are up to an appropriate level of manning, equipment, training and capability. The whole process will probably take twenty years, but we can't rebuild in a day what government has torn down over decades.

Our condo neighbour is a wizened older fella whose normal attire includes a burgundy T-shirt with the blue Airborne logo on the front. He is still a proud member of his regiment and I think that we have an obligation, to him and to Canada, to make sure that it is reborn and not stillborn.

The Tipping Point

2005-04-24T17:00:00.000-07:00

This weekend, I read a book by Malcolm Gladwell, called The Tipping Point. It is a best seller and discusses the phenomenon of social epidemics, such as fashion trends, disease, or behavioural patterns such as crime. The gist is that sudden and sweeping change (an epidemic) may be brought about by the confluence of seemingly small factors, the right people, and the right context.

The mention of crime naturally conjured up the words Gomery, Adscam and Liberal. Social epidemics, as expressed in political terms, have happened at regular intervals in Canada's history. In Alberta, it was the sweeping in of the Socreds in the thirties and the sweeping out of the Socreds in the early seventies. More recently on the national front, it was the sweeping out of the Liberals in 1984 and the sweeping out of the Progressive Conservatives in 1993.

The three rules of the Tipping Point are the Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context. If we apply those rules to current Canadian politics, it's easy to conclude that Paul Martin and the Liberals are at their Tipping Point.

The Law of the Few suggests that social epidemics are heavily dependent on people with a particular and rare set of social gifts. In Canada at the moment, we can imagine that "gift" might also mean "curse". Paul Martin's curse is that of being one who has been hanging around in much too close proximity to corruption and possibly criminal activity for much too long to plead ignorance and innocence with any plausibility.

The Stickiness Factor refers to messaging, whether intentional or incidental. When something is repeated often enough, or is catchy enough, it sticks. Even non-smokers would be able to complete the sentence "Winston tastes good, .........................". Okay, maybe non-smokers as old as I am. The incidental message that Canadians have been receiving for over a year, and particularly loud and clear in the past few weeks, is that Liberals and their government are corrupt and possibly criminal. It matters not whether it's this group of Liberals or that group of Liberals, or whether it's all Liberals or just some Liberals
-- it's Liberals.

The Power of Context says that human beings are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they may seem. Canadian voters tend to have a high threshold of pain and short memories. The key to getting people to change their behaviour is the feeling of distress that can develop in the proper context. That context today is that we simply can't accept the demonstrated conduct and attitude of far too many Liberals and their successive governments.

Mr. Martin, you are at The Tipping Point. Begging is unseemly for the leader of a country like Canada, and I was embarrassed for you last week. It's time that Canadian voters gave you the final push off the cliff of political oblivion and put you all out of our misery.

Closure and justice denied.

2005-04-08T00:00:00.000-07:00

It has been twenty years since the worst mass murder and terrorist act in Canada's history took place, with the loss of Air India Flight 182. We are no closer to seeing justice done than we were on June 23rd, 1985. On that day, 329 mostly Canadian lives were consumed by an explosion at 31,000 feet and their bodies were buried in the Irish Sea. Two more lives were lost at Narita Airport in Japan shortly before Air India 182 went down.

Their histories will live on as a shameful example of Canada's inability to deal with reality. Their futures and those of their descendants are forever lost to us. In good conscience, we cannot go into that future without the illumination of a public judicial inquiry on behalf of the familes and on behalf of the future safety of all Canadians.

After the recent verdict of innocence, I was extremely impressed by the reactions of the families. Although they were deeply hurt by the apparent lack of justice, they all spoke passionately and calmly and with a deep respect for being Canadian. Their grace and dignity in a very difficult and painful situation set a fine example. We owe them the closure and justice that are being denied.

It has been twenty years of justice delayed, and there is no question that this is now justice denied. The Canadian justice system has been tied in knots of impotence by those who are clever enough and rich enough to do so. The members of the RCMP, CSIS and other organizations have undoubtedly done their best. The net result, however, is that someone has gotten away with 331 counts of first-degree murder.

Justice Josephson said in his judgment that the acquittals of Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik were the result of unacceptable negligence in the handling of evidence. It took twenty years to get to this point. We're no smarter or more reassured that we have fixed the situation, let alone brought the guilty parties to justice. On a scale of lives lost, this is 165 times more egregious than the miscarriage of justice in the O.J. Simpson case.

We have no decent option other than holding a full public judicial inquiry into this case. It will not be about guilt or innocence for the crime. It will be about the ability of our public safety and security apparatus to ensure our safety. It will be about finding out how terrorist individuals and organizations could have so effectively manipulated our security and justice systems.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Solicitor General, and Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Anne McLellan, spoke in Parliament yesterday about the futility of a public judicial inquiry. Instead, she will seek advice from an eminent but un-named Canadian, before she proceeds.

She opines that it might be premature to hold an inqury. Premature?! Twenty years!? After she has consulted the mystery Canadian, she will have a chat with the families and listen to what are their concerns. Madam, they have given you their concerns loud and clear. They want a public judicial inquiry. Please quit hiding behind your authority and ability to prevaricate and obfuscate and respond.

She wondered aloud about whether B.C. might appeal the Josephson decision and said that any public judicial inquiry couldn't take place while that appeal was in progress. Nonsense. The appeal would address the evidence and the public judicial inquiry would address the process.

She spoke of the investigations that our partners-in-justice in India and Ireland had conducted. Indeed they have, and members of their organizations have concluded that our process was flawed and incompetent.

Has anything changed? She would have us think so and, in fairness, some positive changes have been made. However, evidence is still routinely being destroyed, and who knows who will get away with murder in the future because of it? How many witnesses will live under death sentences by organized crime and terrorism and have to live out their days in witness protection programs?

Yesterday in the House, Ms. McLellan and her Parliamentary Secretary did the Ali shuffle that they are so good at. We've already spent $130 million on this case, they offer as a reason to quit. Well folks, you've also spent one billion after another on an idiotic gun registry to absolutely no positive effect. How about giving a bit of the same sticktoitiveness to our national security? I think that Canadians would understand.

The irony is that Canada, itself, was not even the direct target of this heinous crime. Canada is a rich multi-cultural mosaic, and I enjoy that very much. An unfortunate by-product of that benefit is that we have also inherited many Old World hatreds, terrorism and criminality, that are now being played out against Canadian citizens and our country.

Our justice, security and immigration systems have had their hands tied, despite their best intentions and the dedication of the individual members of their organizations. Yesterday, Anne McLellan repeated the old (and true) expression that a government has no greater responsibility to its citizens than to ensure the security of the state. Well, madam, you and your government have let us down in the areas of justice, immigration, national security, national defence, and more. I don't think that you have what it takes to fix it. Move over.

If the glove fits...........

2005-04-06T16:59:00.000-07:00

The Liberals must have been watching reruns of the O.J. Simpson trial this week, when they reacted with such indignation to the revelations coming out of the Gomery Inquiry, courtesy of an American blogger. They are now throwing themselves on the gullibility of the population with their hand-wringing plea that is they, the poor misunderstood Liberals, who are actually the victims of fraud in the case. Heh?!?

It would be funny, if it were not so pathetic. One expects that, at any moment, Johnny Cochran will rise from the dead and march into Parliament brandishing a bloody glove for one of the innocenti to try on.

We will leave no stone unturned in our search for the guilty parties, intones the Prime Minister's pet parrot, Scott Brison. He is looking remarkably naked for someone who was just voted the Best Dressed Male MP. Maybe, like O.J, they should start golfing around the country in search of the guilty party, and maybe they should start in Shawinigan.

We will send our lawyers to Gomery to defend the honour of the poor, downtrodden Liberal Party ............ at taxpayers' expense. How about defending taxpayers' expense at the cost of Liberal (dis)honour?

It must be those dastardly "parallel" Liberals, declares the Prime Minister's French Lieutenant and Transport Minister, Jean Lapierre. What the heck is a parallel Liberal? That's right up there with "my dog ate my homework" and "collateral damage". Don't buy an airline from this guy.

The Prime Minister is in desparate auto-flail trying to tie the Conservatives to the separatist Bloc, because both parties are outraged at Liberal corruption. It's not that the NDP aren't outraged. They are, but they are not the threat to Liberal hegemony that the Conservatives represent. All Canadians should be outraged.

If you have been watching Question Period, you've seen the Deputy Prime Minister poking and tugging at the Boss's sleeve, as if prompting him to another evasive and defensive retort (as opposed to answer) to a straightforward question by Stephen Harper, etal. That's not surprising, since her performance as the defender of public safety and emergency preparedness has just been panned by the Auditor General.

The Liberals' inability to accept responsibility for their actions and their playing the victim should come as no surprise. This fits right in with their habit of upholding criminals' rights over victims' rights in our out-of-touch justice system. Wasn't she also Justice Minister?

If you have surfed "Captain's Quarters", you'll have a taste of what everyone who has sat in on the Gomery Show knows, but Canadians-at-large can't be trusted with. It's pretty bad, but hardly a surprise. It will also get a lot worse, if you're a Liberal.

The Bloc smells blood in the water and would force an election tomorrow, if they could. The Conservative approach is much more sensible and measured. Let's let Gomery do his job. Let's take the testimony out from behind a silly and ineffectual publication ban. Let's allow Canadians to judge the full depth and breadth of Liberal corruption and, then, let voters pass their judgment at the polls.

The Eighth Commandment is pretty simple - "Thou shalt not steal." The O.J. defence won't work. The glove fits. Wear it like a man (or woman) and take your lumps.

The chair had it coming.

2005-03-22T21:03:00.000-08:00

Anyone who attended last weekend's convention in Montreal and didn't come away a proud and re-invigorated Conservative, is a Liberal. In fact, Liberals were conspicuous by their presence. The likes of Stephen LeDrew (without a bow tie), Ruby Dhalla, Scott Reid (the other one), Young Liberal Communications Chair, Corey Pike, and many others prowled the convention floor, bars and hospitality suites, looking for free booze and hidden agendas. They came away with free booze and their hands full of clear and unambiguous Conservative policies and a preview of their future demise.

The media were there en masse, poised and ready to pounce on any massive crack that was sure to open up over some critical issue. They were getting cranky and desperate on Friday, until Peter MacKay let his Irish get the best of him (his words). Ahah, they knew it was all a sham and that the new party would disintegrate before their poised Blackberrys and microphones. Many of them made light of what was one of the finest political speeches that any of them had heard. While Stephen Harper waxed very eloquent, the media frothed excitedly about how the conflict between Peter MacKay and Scott Reid (the other, other one) would end it all.

Imagine their disappointment on Saturday when Mr. MacKay calmed down and delegates collectively made the mature decision to take away any potential disagreement over Constituency representation. It was a pattern that would repeat itself many times, as the Conservative Party of Canada showed that it has gelled very quickly into a credible government-in-waiting.

Oh well, they always had Elsie Wayne who was either ranting enthusiastically against baby-killers or baking cookies for our troops. Every party needs one. Elsie, that is.

There was lots of debate and discussion, on the floor and in the corridors, over many items of policy and constitution. At times, it was passionate and it was always interesting. And it always ended in a conclusion that almost everyone could accept. Like any union, no one got everything that they wanted, but everyone got a package that they could support. Civil disagreement and rational debate is the prerequisite for progress. Some media pointed to debate as a sign of division; while others pointed to agreement as a sign of weakness and capitulation. I guess that means that we can't ever win some things, and that we probably got it about right.

Delegates were progressive enough to take away many of the issues that the Liberals had successfully lied about in the 2004 election, such as abortion, euthanasia and bilingualism. I'm sure they'll still find something to lie about, but that's just who they are. There are many social issues on which Canadians will never reach consensus in a thousand years. Politically, we simply need to disagree respectfully and move on to things that will have more impact on Canada's future.

Delegates from the West and Ontario reached out to Quebec and the Maritimes on several issues and stood fast on others. For the most part, both sides seemed happy with what they'd been able to win or conserve.

The tightest vote of the convention was the one that rejected a separate youth wing for the Party. It had been the most spirited sideshow of the weekend, befitting the energy and passion of youth, and a lot of elbows were bent and arms twisted before the decision was made. In my view, it was a good decision and will mean that young members are given all the same rights, privileges and status as older members. True to form, young Liberals were circling like vultures and pounced with pre-prepared propaganda inviting young Conservatives to defect. Hopefully, our younger members will appreciate that when you win a vote, democracy works and, when you lose a vote, democracy still works.

I came away with a deepened appreciation of the quality, dedication, tolerance and inclusiveness of the new Conservative Party of Canada. At the end of it all, most media had to admit that the Conservative movement in Canada had come a long way. We have the courage to debate difficult issues in public and the maturity to accept compromise. We have a leader at full throttle; backed up by a young, smart and diverse Caucus; and working with a solid policy platform and constitution that will appeal to Canadians, if not Liberals.

We also elected a strong National Council to administer the Party under the leadership of a strong President. Some media even tried to portray the latter internal Council vote as a division between East and West, which is rubbish.

The long and short is that we're ready. The parties were good and the Party is strong. But wait, dammit, I forgot about the most important and devastating moment of the whole affair. Just when we thought we were out of the woods, the shocking truth was revealed that Stephen Harper kicked a chair. I'm not sure that I have the strength to carry on. Or maybe, like the Liberals, the chair just had it coming.

Will tragedy teach us anything?

2005-03-13T07:40:00.000-08:00

The national mourning period for Constables Gordon, Johnston, Myrol and Schiemann is over; but the real mourning by family and friends will go on forever. It is now time that Canadians took a closer look at how we got to the point where an obviously dangerous person was allowed the freedom to continually defy lawful authority, threaten any and all with violence, and possess the lethal weapons necessary to murder four RCMP officers doing their duty.

Various groups will jump on their respective band wagons about the gun registry, or legalizing marijuana, or cracking down on grow ops, or funding for law enforcement, or the justice system, or whatever. Some good points will be raised and some hysteria will be evident. I'll try to do the former but, for me, the bottom line is James Roszko. It's not specifically about the guns, or the marijuana grow op, or the chop shop. It is, specifically, about James Roszko and the inability of the justice system to protect society against people like him.

Governments have hidden behind feel-good laws and programs, and deluded themselves and Canadians into thinking that they are protecting us. They are not, and until Canadians collectively wake up to that reality, we will keep sliding down the slope that Government has created in this area, as they have in many other areas, such as national defence and international security.

The Wendy Cukiers of the world will wag their fingers and say, "See, we told you we need stronger gun control laws". They will ignore the obvious and that is that this incident is a prime example of why the firearms registry is so fatally flawed and utterly useless. If Roszko's guns were registered (which I doubt), why was someone so obviously dangerous allowed to possess them? But, then again, Hell's Angels leader Mom Boucher was allowed to register his arsenal, no problem. If Roszko's guns were not registered (which I suspect), then what's the point? Dangerous people like Roszko will always have access to dangerous weapons and we need to concentrate on ways to get people like him off the street. It's not the gun, stupid, it's the person with his finger on the trigger.

Those who think that we should simply legalize marijuana will point to this and say that, "If marijuana was legal, the RCMP wouldn't have had to be there in the first place." Rubbish. Even if marijuana were legal, Roszko's "enterprise" would not be. Even if marijuana was legal and Roszko couldn't make money off it illegally, he would be doing something else, like crystal meth. It's not the marijuana, stupid; it's the guy dealing it.

Government has failed in their basic duty to provide safety and security for its citizens in some very fundamental ways. They reacted to a horrific crime by a deranged individual by blaming the weapon, rather than the killer. They brought in a firearms registry that does nothing about stopping the Marc Lepines, instead criminalizing law-abiding Canadians. They stick to their guns (pun intended), despite an almost incomprehensible escalation in costs, to very little positive effect.

This Government and the Ministers responsible simply cannot admit a mistake, apologize, and get on with doing their jobs properly. They say that they have limited future spending on the firearms registry. That is simply a lie. They have just diverted funding through other departments or called it something else.

One thing that doing their jobs properly would entail, in this case, is diverting the millions (and billions) wasted on the firearms registry to providing more funding for the RCMP. Like the Canadian Forces, the RCMP has been starved for funding for many years. Like the members of the Canadian Forces, the members of the RCMP continue to loyally and courageously do the best they can, in spite of the lack of Government support. They do it because they love their country and their community; and they have a sense of duty that most Canadians haven't even dreamed about.

The RCMP is undermanned and this played a role in the tragedy at Mayerthorpe. Off duty members were called in to assist; were they properly prepared? Although all members are well trained; like the Canadian Forces, the RCMP is suffering from reduced experience levels. What role did that play? The RCMP also suffers from a lack of adequate equipment, such as body armour that will withstand something more powerful than a handgun. I'm sure that all the decisions made that day were deemed to be appropriate by those who made them.

I suspect that a thorough investigation will expose many areas, such as equipment, training, experience, operational intelligence, and legal limitations to action, that conspired to make this a tragedy. Many of them will be rooted in inadequate funding. The Government will huff and puff about how much they value and support the RCMP. They will portray legitimate questions by anyone in Opposition as being somehow disloyal to the Force. They will refuse to talk about an on-going investigation for fear of jeopardizing their work - read, for fear of having blame laid where it belongs. In the end, the Minister of Public Safety will present the findings in a less than forthright manner, designed not to fix the problem, but to exonerate the Government. And, nothing will change.

Besides being starved for funding, the RCMP and all other law enforcement agencies are trapped in a justice system that has thwarted their efforts at providing public safety and has placed the rights of the criminal ahead of the public good. This has been largely the result of manipulation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the legal profession and over-the-top civil libertarians. Before I get hung for such sacrilege, let me say that this is not a blanket condemnation of the Charter, lawyers, or civil libertarians. It is a blanket condemnation of those who abuse the Charter for profit or ride personal hobbyhorses at the expense of the public good. I also understand that "public good" can have many personal definitions.

When we have people like James Roszko, who had a long list of convictions for violent offences and very little jail time, as a result, there is clearly a breakdown in the principles of crime and punishment. It's easy to look back and declare Roszko a dangerous offender, but the evidence was clear before his final crimes.

During the last election, a corrections officer with nearly thirty years experience approached me. He had dozens of documented examples of the rights of violent criminals overriding the safety of both the officers involved and the public. Officers were not allowed to be armed when escorting convicted murderers on hospital visits outside the walls. Officers were not allowed to wear knife-proof vests; for fear that the inmates might think that they weren't trusted. The topper was the guy who had been let out on statutory release eight times after being sentenced to a collective thirty-seven years in prison for violent crimes, including the murder of another inmate. On his way to see me, the officer learned that this obviously extremely dangerous criminal had just been released for the ninth time. I haven't tracked the guy, but I suspect that he's back in jail after another violent crime and another conviction, just waiting to be released for the tenth time on an unsuspecting public.

I think that we all, including the Government, know who are the good guys who are the bad guys. What Government has done, with our tacit approval, is to allow the forces of irrational niceness to dictate public safety based on warm and fuzzy (and dangerous) liberal notions. The RCMP and other police forces are suffering the results of decades of such policies in their continuing commitment to selflessly do their duty on our collective behalf. By allowing Government to get away with it, we are all guilty of letting down the RCMP and police forces, in general.

We have three choices. Force this Government to fund law enforcement adequately and rescue the justice system from the grip of niceness. Or, exchange this Government for one that will. Or, accept that the inmates have taken over the asylum we lovingly call Canada and hunker down to life under an illusion of public safety. Because Option One will never happen, and Option Three is unacceptable, I vote for Option Number Two. How about you?

Whither our sovereignty?

2005-02-27T19:29:00.000-08:00

Last week, the Prime Minister took one more giant step towards relinquishing Canada's sovereignty. In a diplomatic blunder motivated by party politics, he refused to provide the only thing that we were being asked to commit to Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), and that was moral support.

If or when BMD can be made to work is not our problem, and the United States never asked for it to be. For some people’s “brilliant” scientists to solemnly declare that an effective BMD is impossible, is to deny all of the "impossible" scientific advancements that have been made over the past century, and which are now taken for granted.

Canadian attitudes towards BMD stem from several factors, including an irrational hatred of President Bush and anything associated with him. Canadians’ sense of moral superiority is badly misplaced. Our abrogation of international responsibilities over the past forty years doesn’t make us morally superior to anyone.

Government has allowed our opinion to be highjacked by an agenda of misinformation and hysteria. Despite his many faults, Pierre Trudeau was pragmatic enough to withstand the lunatic fringe and approve cruise missile testing in Canada. The legions of professional protestors outside CFB Cold Lake did not prevent our fighter force from getting excellent training. We were also good allies in a project that was part of the ultimate dismantling of Communism.

Polls suggest strong opposition to BMD in Canada. Let’s ask the question another way. "Would you support a system that you will never see; that you will never pay for; and that someday may save your life?" I'm betting that the results would be different.

Simply standing up and saying no is an exercise in self-delusion, not sovereignty. Geography, history, economics and security tie us irrevocably to the United States. They will always be able to do more to protect us than we can do to protect them. Their willingness to do that should engender some respect on our part, and a willingness to do our share. When we do not, the United States has no choice but to do what they feel is right for their citizens and, no matter how silly we act, we will always derive collateral benefit.

If the Prime Minister thinks that he will be consulted before the U.S. takes action against a hostile object in Canadian aerospace, he is completely delusional. Given the warning times involved, the only notice that Ottawa would ever get is one that tells us what has already happened. Consultation takes place in the planning and training stages where protocols are developed and refined by staffs from both countries. That chair has just been pulled away.

Speaking of delusional, Pierre Pettigrew thinks that it would be a good idea if Canadian companies were given contracts related to BMD. I think that the Honourable Foreign Affairs Minister has been spending too much time underground in Flin Flon.

We should also be aware of what is happening to our fighter force. For fifty years, we have had Canadian fighters patrolling our airspace, or sitting on alert to react to Soviet incursions or other air traffic situations. The focus changed on 9/11 from looking outward to also looking inward. Our ability to look anywhere has steadily eroded.

We will soon be down to 80 operational CF-18s, the number that we can afford to upgrade. We are also critically short of fighter pilots, many having left in disillusionment. Flying time has been cut back to the point where we no longer train at low level and intensity of training has been reduced to preserve safety. Preserving safety under these circumstances also makes us ineffective. No matter how fast we can spin the earth, the new simulators we’re buying will never fly and nothing in the new budget addresses the erosion of our aerospace sovereignty.

Most people probably don't know that 433 Squadron in Bagotville will shut down this summer to make one larger 425 Squadron. It won't be long before some bean counter or other non-warrior sees a source of further personnel cuts. Heck, if you've got 400 people, surely you can make it work with 375, or 350, or............ The same thing will happen in Cold Lake next summer, with the shutdown of 416 Squadron. That will leave Canada with two, count 'em, two operational fighter squadrons. Billy Bishop weeps!

These shutdowns will free up a handful of positions to help start a new air warfare college. What's the point of having a college about air warfare if you have no Air FORCE to apply it? I'm sure that the office equipment, pens and paper in Winnipeg will strike fear in the hearts of our enemies and respect in the hearts of our allies.

When the last vestige of our sovereignty disappears, the same people who rejoice at how truly lovable we have become will react in horror when someone else fills our sovereignty deficit. Let's just hope that it continues to be the United States.

Just wondering.........

2005-02-22T14:54:00.000-08:00

The same-sex marriage debate rages across the land and, up to this point, I have refrained from entering the fray. That’s not because I don’t have strong views on the issue, because I do, and I will cover them shortly. I haven’t entered the debate, because much of it has been hysterical, and it has seemed difficult to have a rational discussion without being labeled an extremist at one end of the spectrum or the other.

Watching the debate in Parliament has prompted me to throw in my nickel. I’m writing this during the afternoon of February 21st. Most of that debate has been civil and rational, notwithstanding fundamental differences in beliefs. Generally speaking, I have been proud of the conduct of MPs from all parties, and their arguments have been put forth respectfully and sincerely. There have been some flagrant cases of political and intellectual dishonesty, mainly on the parts of the Prime Minister and his deputy, Anne McLellan. Those two people (and several other lesser notables) have done a politically motivated about face from the unequivocal stands they took in Parliament in 1999, when they firmly upheld the traditional definition of marriage. Her latest one-eighty is not the first time that Anne McLellan has attacked the institution of the family with effect, but that is the topic for another blog.

As will surprise no one, my position on the issue is essentially the same as that of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. As with Mr. Harper, etal, that does not mean that I don’t respect the rights of others to take a different view. What I am tired of is the rush to demonize those who feel as I do, and to declare us to be intolerant, bigoted, homophobic, or any other epithet that those who seem incapable of rational debate can look up in their Funk and Wagnall’s.

I have just listened to Bill Graham, and his speech was eloquent and remained respectful of differences of opinion. That is commendable. I have also just listened to Libby Davies (NDP) who subtly suggested that the only legitimate view of humanity is hers and that only MPs who share her view are worthy of respect. That is regrettable.

I spent a lot of time during the last federal election, every single day, answering the question on where I stood on the issue of same-sex marriage. My position hasn’t changed. I believe that “marriage” is defined as a union between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. I was brought up that way, and my parents were brought up that way, and their parents were brought up that way, and their parents were brought up that way, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Ninety-seven percent of Canadians are in relationships that reflect that cultural and religious history. For some it is rooted in religion. For some it is rooted in culture. For me, it is some of both, and that shouldn’t make my ancestors or me demons in anyone’s eyes.

While I support the traditional definition of the word “marriage”, I also support the right of others to disagree. More importantly, I also support the rights and privileges of homosexual couples to join together and celebrate their love, and to share all the non-emotional (e.g. financial) rights and privileges of heterosexual couples. That includes acts and obligations associated with coming together, living together, and breaking apart.

All of the quack about the Charter and the Notwithstanding Clause is frankly getting very tiresome. Either side can line up “experts” to back their case. Justice Minister Cotler has raised an imaginary spectre of a Conservative Government using the Notwithstanding Clause to attack and take away fundamental rights of Canadians. Prime Minister Martin has puffed himself up as the Defender Exemplar of the Charter and Canadians’ rights. This comic opera perpetuates the Liberal practice of fear mongering and lying about their opponents’ policies and intentions.

Same-sex marriage is an issue of policy, overlaid with profoundly held personal beliefs embedded in the hearts and minds of every MP. Libby Davies just called the Conservative Party’s allowing all members a free-vote a cop-out. Since when is practicing real democracy a cop-out? Stephen Harper is the only leader with enough intellectual and political honesty to allow MPs (and, by extension, Canadians) to make a truly democratic choice. Some will be guided by their personal beliefs and some will be guided by their constituents. Voters’ appreciation of either approach will be made clear in the next election. It’s a shame that other leaders lack Stephen Harper’s courage and commitment to democracy.

Andrew Telegdi (Liberal) has just quoted a Baptist Minister from Kansas making horrible comments about gays and lesbians, as if it has something to do with the current debate in Canada. Nothing about the opposition to Bill C-38 has anything to do with promoting hatred against gays and lesbians, and to imply otherwise is ridiculous and contemptible. Mr. Telegdi has now just used a letter from a constituent to label opponents of same-sex marriage as hateful. Good grief! He’s just implied that, if we don’t pass Bill C-38, we might be considered in a class with countries where gays and lesbians are executed for being that way. What a dishonest jackass! I guess I shouldn’t have CPAC on when I’m blogging.

To pretend that the passage of Bill C-38 will not lead to other challenges of accepted cultural and religious practices and freedoms is to ignore the natural tendencies of human nature. Pushing the envelope of libertarianism will always be the cause celebre for those so inclined. I respect and support their right to do that in a free and democratic society. I’m sorry that a great many of them don’t seem to respect the right of others to disagree. The passage or failure of Bill C-38 should not be based on fear of future actions, but to pretend that such actions will not follow its passage is delusional.

The Supreme Court was correct in refusing to answer Question 4 of the government submission that dealt with the constitutionality of the definition of marriage. They refused to participate in the acts of political cowardice that the Government committed in not challenging the lower court decisions, such as the Halperin Case in Ontario. Dithering has again cost us valuable time that could be much better spent on dealing with issues more important to the future of Canada.

Parliament is debating this issue of social policy, and that is where it belongs. Our elected MPs make the laws of the land and we put them there to do that. They should do that in response to the will of their constituents, while ensuring that fundamental rights are not compromised. In my view, same-sex marriage is a matter of policy and not a matter of rights. It would be an excellent demonstration of democracy and the reduction of the democratic deficit if all Members were allowed a free vote. That is, if the Prime Minister really meant what he said about reducing the democratic deficit……….. um, I guess not.

Whatever Parliament decides, so be it. That will be easier to do if the debate remains fair, polite and truthful. Let’s put it behind us, either way, and get on with the more important issues of the economy, security, health care, tax reform, democratic reform, equalization, trade, foreign affairs, etc., etc.

I am in complete support of same-sex unions and all the protection and benefits under the law that any Canadian should be able to expect. I am not in support of same-sex “marriage”. Same-sex couples will always call themselves married, no matter what happens to Bill C-38, and I wouldn’t expect them to do otherwise. As a matter of tolerance and respect, I am curious as to why it should be assumed and expected of the ninety-seven percent towards the three percent. Is it wrong to ask the three percent to show similar respect to the ninety-seven percent? Just wondering..........

Promises, Promises

2005-02-17T21:12:00.000-08:00

Promise them anything and hope they forget, especially if there's a vote attached. That has been the Liberal credo in federal politics since at least 1993. The problem with that strategy is that, sooner or later, people start remembering the promises that were made and expect that they might be kept.

In the past, the promises that have been kept are the ones that should have been broken. The prime example of that was Jean Chretien's petulant 600 million dollar cancellation of the EH-101 and the subsequent decade of political meddling to preserve a legacy that was tattered anyway.

The Shawinigan strangler is gone now, but he has been replaced by someone just as puzzling and enigmatic. Paul Martin has carried on the practice of buying votes with money or promises, but the promises are coming home to roost.

The Premiers of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have much better memories than the Prime Minister had counted on. A fair settlement with those two provinces was justified, but the whole affair was so clumsily handled by the master ditherer that some of those other pesky provinces took notice. Now, Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick are banging on the door with their hands out. How much will that cost us?

The most feel good and ill-advised political promise of all is the Kyoto agreement. The clock has ticked and the time is up and where is our plan? This is another promise that should never have been made in the first place. It is projected to cost us an initial 3.9 Billion dollars, to absolutely no real effect. To mask his failure to plan, the Prime Minister has now grandly announced that he'll host a conference in Montreal to make more promises that shouldn't be made and can't be kept. How much will that cost us?

Paul Martin promised to fix the democratic deficit and has only deepened it. Paul Martin (and Anne McLellan) promised to protect the traditional definition of the word "marriage". Damn that guy Hansard for helping us remember. Paul Martin promised to get to the bottom of the corruption under investigation by Justice Gomery. Then, he continues to plead ignorance under oath, even though he was the Finance Minister, Vice Chair of Treasury Board (he attended only 17 out of 222 meetings) and Chief Cabinet Minister for Quebec. That, after applauding the arrogant spectacle of Jean Chretien toying with his golf balls in public. Now, the Auditor General identifies the billions of dollars that have been stashed away in foundations, doubtless to pay for future promises, above or below the table. How much will that cost us?

To satisfy the socialists who think that the State is a much better parent than parents, Paul Martin promised universal daycare and will deny parents real choice. One of the few good things the Liberals had done with promises, to this point, was to break the similar daycare promise that was made in 1993. The dollar promise is large and the plan is short-term and, quite probably, unsustainable. How much will that cost us?

The Liberals promised to take guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. All they have done is to criminalize thousands of honest Canadians with zero impact on real criminal firearms activity, and at the cost of billions of dollars and counting. How much will that cost us?

Paul Martin promised to fix healthcare for a generation. A generation is currently considered to be 32 years, and he has promised about 15 billion dollars over five years, which will only delay the hard decisions and honest planning required to truly preserve healthcare in Canada. How much will that cost us?

My real concern is the promises that Paul Martin has made to the military and our allies and which have never been kept, despite smoke and mirrors statements to the contrary. During the last federal election, an embattled Prime Minister knee-jerked a promise to increase regular force strength by 5,000 and reserve forces by 3,000. What was missing, as usual, was any plan and any funding and any appreciation that this would be a multi-year project, even if properly planned and funded.

The budget is around the corner and there are pressures from many quarters for the Prime Minister to keep his promises. One promise that must be kept is the beginning of the rescue of the Canadian Forces. The rumours are that DND will get an additional $750 million. If that is a one-time sop to the demands of national and international responsibility, it will do little more than put a small Band-Aid over a sucking chest wound. If it's a permanent addition to the base budget of the CF, it's a start, but only a start. The recovery of the CF will realistically take at least twenty years of disciplined execution of a well thought out plan that is properly funded; meaning year-over-year permanent increases in the defence budget.

Which promises will be kept and which will be broken? If there's a vote attached, the chances are much better that the promise will be kept. Since feel good fuzziness tends to buy more votes than supporting real world responsibilities, I don't expect that the Liberal Promises for Votes Program will change much. All that's missing is United Nations oversight of the program, since that seemed to work so well in Saddam Hussein's Oil for Food Program.

History in the mocking.

2005-02-11T11:34:00.000-08:00

The Gomery Inquiry plods on and the exercise of getting to the "proof is a proof, because it's a proof", to quote a legacy-challenged former Prime Minister, is no closer to the real truth than when it started. The Canadian public, or at least that portion of it that has stayed awake, does know the truth. I won't belabour it, because most of us know it and Liberals will continue to deny the obvious.

What was interesting this week, of course, was the historic appearance of a sitting Prime Minister before a public inquiry for the first time in 132 years. With any luck, it will be another 132 years before Canadians have to watch another one. To that historic appearance, add the histrionic appearance of the former Prime Minister, and you have a pas de deux worthy of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Or more likely, Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey in "Dirty Dancing".

The end result of their appearances was not illumination of the Liberal corruption so evident in the sponsorship scandal. That comes as a surprise to no one. The federal Liberals have turned prevarication and truth-defying denial into an art form. By now, we should be used to the arrogance, self-entitlement and disdain that is the real legacy of Jean Chretien. Never one to rest on his laurels, the petit gar from Shenanigan, sank to a new low last Tuesday. You have to admit that he's got a lot of balls, but his slice is really out of control.

One may disagree with anyone, but to mock Justice Gomery in a public inquiry in such a disdainful way, says a lot more about the character of Jean Chretien than it does about Justice Gomery. That Liberals would find it so amusing and admirable also says a lot about how that party views itself, and how it views Canadians. That the current Prime Minister would heap such praise on his former bitter adversary also says a lot about him.

Both Prime Ministers performed as expected and neither addressed the core issue of corruption and embezzlement of the public purse. Saving the nation remains Chretien's tired mantra, and so what if a few millions were stolen here and there. His angry, combative stance was vintage Chretien and reminded us of why we're glad he's gone.

The optional explanations for Paul Martin remain that he was either less than truthful or less than competent, in his apparent blindness to events. Aided by puff-ball inquiry lawyers, he managed to divert our attention from those equally unacceptable shortcomings with a riveting account of how he saved Mexico and slew the deficit dragon. There may be some truth to that, but what does it have to do with the question at hand? Well, nothing. But then, that was the point, wasn't it?

Both Prime Ministers have mocked the inquiry, the truth and Canadians; one in a pathetically theatrical way and one in an earnest, aw shucks way. Quite a pair of bookends to the mockery of modern Canadian political history.

A spade is a spade, "Sir".

2005-02-06T23:15:00.000-08:00

Canada has a new Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) in General Rick Hillier. He comes to the job with excellent credentials and a reputation as a soldier's soldier. His online bio has a refreshing dose of self-deprecation - "Gen Hillier enjoys most recreational pursuits but, in particular, runs slowly, plays hockey poorly and golfs not well at all." Listening to his first speech as CDS, it's easy to note an endearing Newfy lilt to both his English and his French.

Newfies are notably direct and honest, and the most notable aspect of this first speech was General Hillier's putting the Prime Minister on notice that he expects the Government to remember the Canadian Forces at budget time. He worded it slightly more genteelly, but I think that's what he meant. It is essential that Chiefs of the Air, Land, and Naval Staffs and the CDS be honest with their political masters, the Canadian public, and their own "troops". Obviously, there will be times when public honesty may conflict with security, and the latter is still the bottom line.

Honesty, upwards or downwards within the chain of command, does not mean disloyalty and I would suggest that it is essential to true long-term good order and discipline. Honesty engenders trust in both directions. The troops are too smart and well-informed to be fooled by superiors who are feeding them bovine scatology. Any commander who feeds subordinates a steady diet of B.S. will soon find that he has lost their hearts and minds. In fact, he probably won't realize that he's lost them, because they won't trust him enough to feel secure in telling him the truth. The truth may only become apparent at the worst possible time in a critical situation.

There can be a natural tendency to tell a superior what he wants to hear, rather than the cold, hard truth. To me, that is disloyalty and betrays the bond of trust that should exist between rank levels. There is a way to be honest, respectfully. In the old days of the Air Force, one of the recreational opportunities was Beer Call, a Friday institution that, along with many other traditions, has largely fallen victim to the scourge of political correctness. Many a Squadron Commander bore the scars of a 3000-psi finger from a young Lieutenant emboldened to give the CO his best advice on the conduct of flying operations. Some weren't bad suggestions and some weren't all that well thought out. Whatever the category, so long as the Lieutenant didn't "cross the line", no CO worth his salt ever held it against the younger warrior on Monday morning. You could learn a lot on a Friday night.

In the case of a very senior commander, like a CDS, CAS, CLS or CNS, respectful honesty should include being able to acknowledge, in public, the shortfalls that he faces in doing his assigned job. So long as his heels are together; he is saluting smartly; and he continues to do the best he can under the circumstances, a superior, such as the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister, shouldn't be offended. And, the taxpayer is owed that kind of honesty.

The fact that a commander is forced into that kind of public display of a sense of duty and honesty is a de facto indictment of the dereliction of duty on the part of the government that he serves. A serving commander would never express it in such terms, but that's what it is. We've had examples of such forthrightness in the past, and I'm glad to see that General Hillier seems to be ready to call a spade a spade, "Sir". I'm sure that he'll extend that same philosophy to those under his command.

The Prime Minister solemnly agreed with General Hillier about the Government's duty to provide the Canadian Forces with the tools that they need. Let's hope that Mr. Martin will remember that pledge between now and budget day. If he doesn't, then we will be doing just another replay of just another promise broken on just another day of the Canadian Forces doing more and more with less and less.

What Price Democracy and Freedom?

2005-01-30T10:14:00.001-08:00

Today, sixty percent of voters in Iraq turned out to vote in the first democratic elections in that country since the military coup of July 14th, 1958. Millions went to the polls despite terrorist threats, intimidation and murder. On June 28, 2004, sixty percent of Canadians voted in our last federal election, while enjoying the comforts and safety of one of the most prosperous nations on earth. Quick now, which is the more impressive display of citizenship?

Sophocles said, “One must wait until the evening to see how splendid the day has been”. Whatever “evening” brings in Iraq, today has been a great day for democracy and freedom. All Iraqis who voted deserve medals in the war on terrorism. Those who chose not to vote in areas under the control of terrorist tactics of mass murder can be excused for staying home.

In the sixteen months leading up to the last Canadian election, I was at over 25,000 doors and met a wide variety of people. It was a very broad poll of attitudes, some of which made me proud to be Canadian; and some of which made me mad and sad, at the same time. I met immigrants who would be able to participate in their own political future for the first time in their lives. They were thrilled and they couldn’t wait. I met way too many Canadians who take life for granted and couldn’t be bothered to take half an hour out of their “busy” schedules to do their duty. They made me sick.

What is the cost of democracy and freedom? Since we became a nation in 1867, well over two million Canadians have served in uniform overseas. Over 115,000 of those Canadians have died in foreign lands. Of the 1,354 Victoria Crosses awarded since 1854, 100 have been pinned to Canadian breasts, many of them posthumously. Those Canadians clearly understood the price of democracy and freedom.

While many enjoy pillorying the United States, they might also remember that some 630,000 Americans have died in the same cause since 1916, including 1,400 more recently in Iraq. During the Vietnam War era, over 30,000 Americans duty dodgers moved to Canada. During the same time, as many as 30,000 Canadians joined the U.S. armed forces; 12,000 served in Vietnam; and 80 were killed. Did you know that 40 Canadians have won the United States Congressional Medal of Honour, their equivalent of the Victoria Cross?

Love or hate America, the demonstration of democracy in Iraq today would not have happened without them. Will the “evening” of historical hindsight judge this to have been a “splendid” day for Iraq? No reasonable person could possibly hope otherwise.

The new U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, refused to be pinned down by Wolf Blitzer on CNN today, on what is an acceptable cost of democracy and freedom in Iraq. Again, history will pass judgment on America’s efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere. Despite all the obvious challenges, there are many hopeful signs in Iraq and in the Palestinian-Israeli situation. If Iraqis can overcome the terrorism within their borders, there is hope. If the Sunnis can be convinced to become part of the process in Iraq, there is hope. If the new Palestinian leadership can permanently revoke the terrorism that characterized Yasser Arafat and his leadership, there is hope. If Ariel Sharon can keep his own hard-liners in check, there is hope. If Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia and others can start acting responsibly and in the interests of their own people, there is hope.

There are a lot of “ifs” out there and a lot of “but(t)s”, waiting to scuttle the process. Millions of Iraqis got off their butts today, setting an example for the Canadians who have been sitting on theirs, while others do the heavy lifting, militarily and politically.

Will Paul Martin be listening when he doles out resources for Canada’s military in the next budget? Will Canadian voters do their duty in the next federal election? I won’t give you my pessimistic predictions. I’ll just say that, if the answers are “no”, then Canada’s “evening” will continue to be overcast and rainy.

To quote Winston Churchill, one can only hope that this is “the end of the beginning” for democracy and freedom in the broader Middle East and the rest of the world.

Say Cheese....y

2005-01-25T15:25:00.000-08:00

I'm really glad that the Prime Minister is back from his hard-working trip to Asia. I'm sure that it's not easy to look your best for all those staged photo-ops. It's a good thing he has generous taxpayers to pay for an entourage to bully the mere mortals in the area into obedience. The following is an excerpt from an article by Garth Pritchard in the Winnipeg Sun on Jan 19:

PM 'handles" the disaster.

It was a circus when Prime Minister Paul Martin visited the disaster area of Kalmunia in Sri Lanka this week for a photo opportunity.

His people from Ottawa, including the RCMP, were pushing people out of the way, grabbing at cameras and trampling over graves on the beach in order to photograph the PM.
An RCMP guy tried to interfere with my camera, but one of our soldiers intervened. A couple of women from the PM's office were running around yelling at people. It got out of hand. It was crazy.

The whole visit was a photo opportunity -- with cameras set up for the PM in designated spots: Martin on the beach looking out to sea, Martin amid the wreckage, Martin with a homeless kid, Martin taking a token drink of water produced by the DART (Disaster Assistance Response Team) water purifier.

He met with the Canadian commander, Lt. Col. Mike Voith, and a small medical team but didn't visit the camp of the 200 Canadian military people here for tsunami victims. Martin's handlers wanted no one but their people taking photos. The padre was even shoved out of the way.

And then he was gone -- helicoptered out. Maybe 90 minutes in the area. Embarrassing. I'm in Sri Lanka with the DART men and women and, as Canadian soldiers always do, they're working miracles -- but the PM didn't have time to visit them. I found it a slap in the face. Why couldn't the PM's handlers have taken him to the soldiers who are doing a fantastic job? There were eyebrows raised at the camp when it was learned he wouldn't be visiting.

Makes you darn proud to have him representing us abroad, doesn't it? The best part about him being back in Canada is certainly not the leadership he practices, because he doesn't. The best thing is that we won't have to suffer through all those spontaneous shots of Mr. Martin gazing thoughtfully out over the sea; or strolling purposefully through the courtyard of the Forbidden City; or contemplating the mystery of the Great Wall.

When I saw him walking on the beach, I had a vivid flashback of Bill Clinton strolling the beach at Normandy deep in reverent contemplation of the sacrifice that American servicemen made on those shores. I was surprised that the PM didn't 'stumble' across some white stones that just happened to be in the shape of a maple leaf. Maybe his staff doesn't have the same imagination as the former President's. The other thing that was missing was the strategically placed warship in the background. But then, we don't have enough of those to go around, even for something as serious as polishing the fantasy of a caring leader.

I hope that the PM enjoyed some nice wine on his return trip from the "front", to go with his vintage cheese.

My Son, the Alien

2005-01-24T21:49:00.000-08:00

Peter Worthington had a piece in the Toronto Sun, yesterday, titled "Forces babies deprived", and it was brought to my attention by an old squadron mate from our Germany Starfighter days. This is unbelievable, even in Canada, but it seems to be true. The essence of the story is that the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development (HRSD) has decided that children born overseas of Canadian Forces parents are not Canadian citizens.

None of this would come to light until one of those "alien" children tries to apply for such mundane things as citizenship cards, passports, new SIN numbers, etc. Then they find out that they have been living a lie all these years. They may have had previous SIN numbers, worked, voted, paid taxes, served in the military, and born other children; all this in flagrant disregard for the Ottawa mandarins who'll not be fooled by such trivialities as reality and common sense.

It all starts to make sense (?) now, when I consider the difficulty that my thirty-one year old son has been having in getting a passport. He has been stonewalled and shuffled from one bureaucratic incompetence to another for years. I guess he has committed the "crime" of being born in a German hospital, while we were committing the unpardonable sin of serving our country overseas.

It appears that the situation can be fixed by obtaining "proper proof" of citizenship, paying a $75 application fee, getting passport photos, having identity certified by a notary public and then being prepared to wait many months while the backlog of citizenship applications is processed.

Now, do the math with the thousands of Canadians who have, unbeknownst to them, been stripped of their citizenship. How long do you think that would take to correct and where do you suppose these pseudo-Canadians might fit on the Liberal priority list? Heck, they can already vote through the vagaries of the flawed Canadian electoral system, just like other non-citizens. Why would they get priority over newer immigrants who can be convinced that they are here because of Liberal generosity, and be added to the voter pool?

It would be almost incomprehensible that a professional public service could practice such mind-blowing insanity, were it not for our experience with their masters in Cabinet. Apparently, DND and Immigration are on the side of reason, but Human Resources and Skills Development has the final say. They can change HRDC's name and Jane Stewart can leave, but nothing much has really changed. We're still paying these people to abuse us.

I have a couple of questions for the bureaucracy. Are the children of these alien Canadians also alien? Is this special insult reserved for members of Canada's military, who are so valued and respected by their government? Have Canadians who have served overseas with other government departments also spawned aliens? Do they know, one way or the other? When is the government going to tell them?

Anyone can touch one toe on Canadian soil and enjoy all the rights and privileges that so many thousands of Canadian military members have sacrificed to preserve. Now, their government is treating thousands of their children as undesirables. Sorta makes it all worthwhile, doesn't it? Maybe I should take up pizza delivery.

CORRECTO-BLOG

2005-01-18T14:00:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I published a piece called The Politics of Pizza. In it, I referred to a blog site for some interesting tidbits from Elections Canada. The blogsite address as printed had two letters transposed and took people to an ultra-religious site called "Abundant Bible". THAT WAS NOT MY INTENTION! The real blogsite is www.whatittakestowin.blogspot.com.

Sorry for the question marks over the canopy that those who know me must have had. Before I get nasty-grams from the other side, I am not anti-religion, but this one is over the top.

I shood haf taaken tipingg in hi skuul.

The Politics of Pizza

2005-01-17T10:29:00.000-08:00

The Minister of Immigration, Judy Sgro, is gone by resignation last week, although one suspects that Prime Minister Democratic Deficit, a.k.a. Paul Martin, may have had something to do with encouraging her conversion to altruism. It would not have been good for the Liberal exercise of Canadian democracy to have such an easy target in the House, when the zoo resumes sitting at the end of January.

Judy Sgro stands accused of trading free pizza for her election campaign in exchange for favouritism from her department for a man many times denied appeals to his sentence of deportation. Guilty as charged? I don't know. Was it all Ms. Sgro's fault? Probably not, but she has earned the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune by her adherence to the credo of corruption that has characterized her party and its governments for past decades. Her (former) Department of Immigration is arguably the most prone to political patronage at its most basic level. "Support me and I will make a new life for you and your family(ies) .......or, not".

Liberal governments, and members and ministers thereof, have been using the human proceeds of immigration as vote pools for decades, and nothing is about to change, unless voters decide to change it. It was suggested that, during the 2004 federal election campaign, the Deputy Prime Minister may have "encouraged" Edmontonians of Asian descent that a vote for her opponent might have a deleterious impact on their efforts at family reunification. No threat there, I'm sure, just friendly advice. I wasn't at that meeting but I know of those who were.

The fact that Canada's immigration and refugee programs are out of control is well established. For all of the well-intentioned motives behind looking after those who reach our shores in search of a better life and an escape from tyranny and persecution, Canada has lost control of the process. The consequences of that failure are well understood by others, most notably Americans, who stand to suffer from our weakness.

At last count, there was something like 37,000 refugee claimants who have never showed up for their hearings. No doubt, the vast majority of that number are just folks trying to find a better way of life. There is also no doubt that there is a percentage of that number who are here specifically to do evil to our way of life, or that of our neighbours. If it's only two percent, that's 740 people whom we may come to know as "terrorists". I put terrorist in quotations, because the media loves to portray them as various other things in other scenarios, such as insurgents, militants, rebels and reactionaries. They are TERRORISTS, plain and simple.

I'm not sure that anyone should feel sorry for Judy Sgro. She showed her real political prowess and maturity with her childish stalking and
harassment of Stephen Harper during the 2004 election campaign. She is
simply symptomatic of large-L liberalism in Canada. That is embodied in the Liberal Party of Canada that has received donations, over the years, from strange sources. The inquisitive blogger at www.whatittakestowin.blogspot.com has uncovered some interesting tidbits from the Elections Canada website.

Canadian taxpayers unknowingly contributed directly to the Liberal Party of Canada when Jean Chrétien was Leader of the Official Opposition in 1993 ($60,000), and when he was Prime Minister in 1997 ($43,000). These contributions came from offices paid for by taxpayers and not at liberty to make such contributions. The taxpayers of the Town of Drayton Valley and the City of Edmonton have also made contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada, and to no other parties. I'm betting that they don't know that. Non-profit and charitable organizations, including children’s charities, children’s hospitals and the Calgary Zoo have contributed substantially to the Liberal Party of Canada. They can't even use the tax break, so what's up with that? Do you know where your charity dollars are going? Is Paul Martin’s reluctance to ban the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organization, as our allies have done, tied to votes and donations? Surely not?

Is this the tip of another iceberg of Liberal corruption? You bet it is. Will Canadians ever care enough to do something about it at the polls? I sure hope so. In the meantime, would you like wings with that pizza, Minister?

Leadership means being there.

2005-01-03T08:57:00.000-08:00

Some have suggested that Paul Martin's absence on a beach in Africa in the aftermath of the tsunami disaster is not an important issue. I disagree. This is Canada's disaster as much as anyone's. A handful of Canadians are confirmed dead, and well over a hundred more are presumed dead. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have relatives and friends in the affected areas. We're not experiencing their physical pain and deprivation, but we can "feel" it. Apologists say that the Prime Minister was in constant contact, and I have no doubt that is true. Effective communication of information and direction is not the issue. Effective leadership is the issue. Canadians are doing a magnificent job of responding to this disaster, but appear to be leading the government, rather than the other way round.

With today's connectivity, you can be just about anywhere on the planet and maintain effective communication. Leadership is not just communicating and giving direction. It is being there and being seen to be there, in person and in charge, if humanly possible. It was, and those being led expect it and miss it, when it doesn't happen. As capable and qualified as deputies may be, no real leader wants to be anywhere but "there", when things go wrong. Paul Martin was not there. For that matter, where was Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan?

I had a couple of personal experiences of not being there, and both broke my heart. The first involved the loss of a pilot on my squadron and the second was Gulf War I. In 1990, about two-thirds of 416 Squadron was returning from a six-week deployment to Germany in our role of rapid reinforcement to NATO. I was relegated to riding home in the back of a "bus". About a hundred of us were a couple of hours out of Toronto on a Lufthansa 707 from Frankfurt, when I was PAed to the cockpit. I was given a message to contact the Wing Commander as soon as we landed in Toronto, and I stewed in foreboding until I got to a phone on the ground. The Wing Commander, Dave Jurkowski, told me that one of our pilots had been killed in a crash earlier that day. As a CO, that is the worst news you can get. I knew what would be happening, as I had been involved in many such circumstances in other roles. And I knew that the presence and leadership of the CO, for the troops and for the family, was very important. The only good thing was that I was there for the troops in Toronto. We were collectively stunned, and frustrated that we were stuck many hours away from home, while our squadron was suffering. None more so than me, and talking to my very capable deputies in Cold Lake didn't help much. It was another seven long hours before we made it to Cold Lake around midnight, and the wake in the Mess had wound down. The family's PMQ was dark, so I didn't go in and see them until the next morning. The next day, we had a muster parade in the Squadron and talked about what had happened. I then took a Hornet up to fly over the crash site. I had the DCO get everyone outside the hangar, as I had a message for them from 'Trots'. I went by the front of the hangar at Warp 8 and four-foot-six (Brit term for somewhat low) and did a disappearing act in a vertical roll. It didn't change anything, but it made us all feel a bit better, and "Dad" was back in charge.

The second time was when 416 Squadron deployed to Qatar without me, as I had given up command two weeks before Saddam invaded Kuwait. Nothing much I could do about that, but it still broke my heart. With no disrespect to the man who replaced me, many of the troops felt it, too. The last hand that each of them shook when they left Cold Lake was mine, and I was in Ottawa to greet them when they came back several months later. To add insult to the squadron, and through a series of wrong-headed decisions, their real CO was not allowed to command them and fly with them during Desert Storm. He performed valuable service in the Gulf in a staff role, but I know that broke his heart, as well. The squadron did a great job without me, as I knew they would, but not being there was the biggest disappointment of my career. One of my little treasures is a photo that was sent to me after the war ended. They were all partying and decorating some of the buildings with spray paint. On one of the buildings they had painted "Hawnski is here!". It brought pride and regret at the same time.

Anyone who has been in a leadership role in military or para-military organizations will have similar experiences. Leadership is more than a title and picking up a phone to give direction. Leadership is being there and doing everything that you can to be there. Anyone who doesn't understand that is not a leader. Paul Martin is not a leader.

Leadership

2004-12-29T13:08:00.000-08:00

Dear Prime Minister,

A disaster of unprecedented proportions has just occurred. Canada is in a position to show leadership and respond very strongly in support of those affected. That leadership should start from your office.

The Canadian Forces has the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) on standby, but the call isn't coming. This team of 200 personnel is specifically configured and mandated to assist in situations like what is occurring around the Indian Ocean. They are sitting idly by, while other nations and other Non-Governmental Organizations are taking the lead. The $4 million that Minister Graham announced is a drop in the bucket, and we should be providing hands-on assistance, as well as a lot more money. To be sure, Canadians are responding individually, but leadership at a higher level seems to be missing.

The excuse that deploying DART would cost money that could be better utilized by on-site national agencies is only partly true. The cost figures quoted, when government is trying to justify inaction, include things like salaries and other fixed costs that will be paid whether DART deploys or not. The real reason that we are in our now-customary role of dithering is much more fundamental. We simply can't get there from here, because that capability has been allowed to wither, and it would be another international embarrassment to show how weak we have really become.

Our strategic airlift capability is virtually non-existent. Our fleet of 32 C-130 Hercules, which are not even strategic airlifters, can muster only 6 - 8 serviceable aircraft on most days. It would take several dozen C-130 chalks to deploy DART, depending on the destination. We have been embarrassed in the past, when even small-scale deployments have been aborted due to lack of serviceable aircraft.

Our strategic sealift capability consists of two supply ships, overdue for replacement, and several smaller warships, not designed for the task of personnel, equipment and supply transport. All are over-committed, in any event, and are not available to respond in a timely manner.

Your government continues to pretend to support the requirements of the Canadian Forces. At times like this, the truth will out, and we are again embarrassed on the world stage. The many Canadians who are working and contributing selflessly in response to this disaster (and others) have nothing to be embarrassed about. I can't say the same for our nation, as a whole, and the buck stops at the PMO. Sir, you can fix this, in playing a larger role in the current crisis and in being able to respond more appropriately in the future.

If it's not possible to get DART to where they're needed today on Canadian Forces aircraft, find a way to get them there on someone else's. I suspect that most readily available aircraft are already being hired, but we should try. The deployment of DART, and a lot more money, would demonstrate some national leadership and will that used to be our hallmark, and which we have lost.

Please stop pretending and actually fund the Canadian Forces requirements in the areas of strategic airlift and strategic sealift. This will take several years but, like so many overdue programs, they simply have to start immediately. You may recall that a previous Minister of National Defence, John McCallum, quietly cancelled the strategic airlift program. I doubt that he did that alone. You may also recall that potential new strategic sealift assets were misrepresented as traditional aircraft carriers during the last federal election. I understand the politics of that, but it is counter-productive to what should be our national objectives.

Also, please have someone look at an out-of-the-box supplementary solution of agreements with airlines and shipping companies to treat their equipment and crews as national assets in times of emergency. They could be under contract to National Defence or Foreign Affairs on a cost-recovery basis and fill in gaps that cannot be covered by National Defence capability.

Prime Minister, at times like this, the world should be able to look to Canada for leadership, and we should be able to look to you. Please don't let us down.

Sincerely,
Laurie Hawn, CD
Lieutenant-Colonel (retired)

We just can't get there from here.

2004-12-28T11:35:00.000-08:00

December 26th will forever have new meaning to several countries bordering the Indian Ocean, after the devastation wrought by the undersea earthquake and resulting tsunami. The tens of thousands of dead and missing and their surviving families need all the support that the rest of the world can muster. The United States, Great Britain, Australia, and others stepped up immediately to offer financial and, more importantly, human assistance. Canada stepped up with $1 million in pocket change, later upped to $4 million.

What the devastated area really needs is our capability to deal with such emergencies with direct medical aid and other life saving requirements, such as potable water. We have that capability standing by in the Canadian Forces Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), but we just can't get there from here. The reason for that is that we have lost our capability to deploy such an asset by sea or air in a timely manner.

Our strategic sealift capability consists of two overtasked supply ships, in need of replacement, and smaller-sized and equally overtasked warships, not designed to haul equipment and supplies. With the Navy's shortage of personnel and existing deployments of ships, timeliness would be a major handicap in addressing the short-term requirements.

The capability of the Air Force to reliably deploy in an emergency situation has gone the way of the serviceability of our C-130 Hercules fleet, that is straight downhill with age and overuse. We will use what Hercs and Airbuses are available to send equipment and supplies, but it will be on a catch-as-catch-can basis. To commit to sending DART would require a carefully planned operation and a large number of serviceable C-130s to conduct it in a timely manner. The emergency operational planning is a no-brainer for the tremendously capable people we have in uniform. The expectation of a large number of C-130 missions without embarrassing breakdowns is another question. We've been there before and that just might be the real reason behind the slow/non-existent response with DART. We don't want to risk looking like the international weaklings that we have become.

When he was Minister of National Defence, John McCallum quietly cancelled the Air Force's Strategic Airlift Replacement Program, which would have resulted in an aircraft like the Boeing C-17 being available. The Honourable Mr. McCallum then misled his successor as MND on the capabilities of the
C-130 to transport heavy equipment, such as the new Stryker combat vehicle. A C-130 can take one disassembled Stryker, and nothing else, a total of 700 nautical miles, i.e. Edmonton to Kenora. In a direct comparison of moving stuff, one C-17 is the equivalent of eighteen C-130s in deploying Strykers from Edmonton to Kabul, and that is assuming that both aircraft remain serviceable for the entire mission. Similar comparisons are obvious for moving DART to the Indian Ocean or other emergency requirements.

This is just another example of our deeds not matching our words, and Canada letting down the side. This does not denigrate, in any way, the selflessness and generosity of Canadians who are doing all that they can to help. It does denigrate our government's apparent lack of ability to acknowledge and react to real-world priorities. There are two solutions to this current situation of not having an ability to react in a meaningful way to urgent world situations.

Firstly, the government needs to quit pretending to support the missions of the Canadian Forces and get on with implementing strategic airlift and strategic sealift programs. Aircraft like the readily available C-17 and ships like the proposed large supply ships capable of carrying personnel, supplies, equipment, medical facilities, helicopters, and command and control capability, would fit the bill. These programs will not help in the current emergency but, if we don't start, then we'll never get there from here.

Secondly, the government needs to get outside the box and look at programs that are in place in other countries, such as the United States and Great Britain. We need agreements whereby civilian airlift and sealift capability can be considered national assets, in the event of an emergency. Available aircraft, ships and crews could be put under contract to the Department of National Defence and/or the Department of Foreign Affairs, and used as a second-wave response to a national or international emergency. The first responders would always be the (properly manned and equipped) Canadian Forces, but situations like the current disaster will not be short-term, and more capability will be needed.

I believe that the Prime Minister may know someone in the shipping business, and I believe that Robert Milton may have the odd IOU outstanding. Are they paying attention and do they care?

Politics Makes Strange Bed(ouin) Fellows

2004-12-24T07:35:00.000-08:00

So, Muammar Gaddafi is no longer a terrorist, and he is no longer pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction. I guess that a trip to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize can't be far behind for the tyrant from Tripoli. Don't get me wrong. Anything that we can do to bring to heel such dictators and murderers is a good thing. I just want to inject a word of caution. Despite probably being a basically good breed, some pit bulls are trained to kill and it never leaves them. I think that human nature is basically good; but there are individual members of the human race who are habituated to violence.

Yasser Arafat lived his life as a terrorist and he died a terrorist. His brief flirtation with legitimacy and the folks in Oslo didn't change the ultimate course of his life. Is the Libyan Colonel of International Crime any different? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Paul Martin gleefully breaking pitas in a tent with his new best friend says more about securing a billion dollar contract for SNC Lavalin than it does about ending Libyan support to terrorism. Muammar needs the West's support for his new focus on becoming the pre-eminent leader of his continent. The West needs his oil and the contracts for SNC Lavalin, etal, which go with it.

I don't have a problem with international business and looking after our energy needs, while we work towards self-sufficiency in that area. Let's just do it with our eyes open. Promises to look into general or specific areas of human rights abuses are easy to give. The Prime Minister and Pierre Pettigrew are not suddenly masters of international human rights negotiations because Muammar and his officials give them a "yeah, sure, whatever" when they raise the issue.

Should they try? Of course, they should. They should also note that the Iraqi embassy in Tripoli is Ba'ath Party Headquarters-in-exile, from which they continue to fund and direct the terrorists operating in Iraq today. Muammar the Peaceful has granted to a career Saddam thug, Anwar Mawlud Dhiban, political asylum and unhindered use of the embassy. Dhiban is ably assisted by Abdul Aziz Al Najm, the Tripoli head of that great charity organization, Hamas.

Should we trust Gaddafi? At the very least, we should draw on some advice from Ronald Reagan, when asked abut trusting the Soviet Union's word - "Trust, but verify."

And, SNC Lavalin? For the ten years between 1994 and 2003, they contributed $454,736 to the Liberal Party of Canada. Before you ask, I'll add that, during the same period, SNC Lavalin contributed $102,018 to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and $10,120 to the Reform Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance Party.

I hope that the Prime Minister enjoys his Christmas (yeah, I said CHRISTMAS) in whatever other tents he visits, at our expense. I really do, just as I hope that everyone can find something to celebrate at this time of year.

Snowbird Sorrow

2004-12-11T13:58:00.000-08:00

Canada has lost another hero and the Snowbird family and the Canadian Forces are in mourning. Captain Miles Selby had served his country faithfully and fearlessly for thirteen years; saw combat over Kosovo; and was part of what is Canada's best ambassador to the world - the Canadian Forces Snowbirds.

It is at times like this that some people like to rush to judgment. There is no question that the Canadian Forces is in very serious trouble due to government neglect and negligence that approach criminal levels. To simply call for the Snowbirds' disbandment because of an accident shows a deep lack of understanding of the value and importance of this Canadian icon.

For thirty-two years, the Snowbirds have thrilled millions of spectators at airshows around North America. They have become just about the most recognized symbol of Canada and, along with the RCMP Musical Ride and the Canadian Forces Skyhawks, they are much better ambassadors for our country than any politician from any party could ever be. I'd be hard pressed to lose money in saying that more Americans have heard of the Snowbirds than have ever heard of Paul Martin or anyone else in Ottawa.

I have known many, many Snowbirds over the years and have had two trips with the team during practices, one on Canada Day over Parliament Hill. Having organized several airshows; having seen the U.S. Navy Blue Angels, USAF Thunderbirds, RAF Red Arrows, Patrouille de France, the Russian Knights, many non-jet teams, and having flown with the Italian Frecce Tricolore; there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Snowbirds are at the top of the ladder. That doesn't mean that they have the most spectacular aircraft or the flashiest "side-show". It means that, in the air and on the ground, they are consummately professional and precise, and engender nothing but pride in the hearts of any Canadian who is around them. Their professionalism is matched by their easy-going and fun-loving attitude, in contrast to some of their more anal contemporaries. Airshows are simply better with the Snowbirds than with any other team.

Accidents happen and they are a part of doing the business of military aviation. Instead of jumping to a convenient conclusion for political reasons, let's look at ways to continue the great contribution that the Snowbirds make to military aviation, recruitment, and Canada's image with the public, at home and abroad.

I have advocated in the past that the Snowbirds are much more than an Air Force Squadron. For reasons I have already alluded to, they are a national program and a national treasure. As such, they should be financially supported by more than the Department of National Defence.

The Snowbirds represent a lot more Canadian Heritage than many of the things that we waste taxpayers' money on today. I think that more Canadians would go to watch an airshow than would trek into the forests of Manitoba to view a work of art paid for by you and me and called "A Salute to Putrefaction", consisting of dead rabbits hanging to rot from tree branches. I think that more Canadians would rather get a ticket to an airshow in the mail than a small Canadian flag from Sheila Copps, the rabbit lady. Two pieces of art hanging in the National Gallery are particularly "marvelous". One is a very large canvas that is all black. It is called, duh, "Shades of Black", and the other is a very large canvas with two large red and one large blue stripes (or the other way around). I'm not sure what that one is called, but "Thanks, Suckers" would be appropriate.

Other departments should be financially involved. Health has used the Snowbirds in some of their children's play-safe programs. Industry and Trade should be using the Snowbirds to promote Canadian industry. Foreign Affairs should be taking advantage of the Team's ambassadorial qualities.

The Tutor is getting long in the tooth, as is so much of the CF's inventory. I think it's safe to say that the age of the Tutor had nothing to do with yesterday's accident. It is a reliable aircraft, that is well maintained, and it is very well suited to its role with the Snowbirds. That is not to say that it shouldn't be replaced. Because the CF does not use it for pilot training any more, fewer and fewer future Snowbird pilots will have flown the aircraft, and fewer and fewer technicians will have worked on it. This presents challenges that can be safely overcome, but they are challenges, nonetheless.

The ideal replacement for the Tutor would be the BAe Hawk, being used as the CF's advanced jet trainer. It is also used by the RAF Red Arrows. It would probably mean reducing the team to six aircraft from nine, due to cost considerations, but the Hawk would better represent the CF's current programs and Canada's current state of industry and technology. Critics will say that the aircraft does not represent Canada, since it's built in the U.K., and that is true. It still represents the level at which the CF is operating and the strength of our commitment to free world military pilot training.

The alternative would be the Harvard II, and that would probably allow the team to continue as a nine-plane. Unfortunately, the show would be far less impressive and would put us in the same league as many third-world air forces. That may be a regrettably true statement of affairs, but I'm not ready to go there, yet.

Whichever option might be chosen, an "outside the box" aircraft leasing, maintenance support, and operational funding arrangement would be required. Rather than throw up their hands, politicians on all sides should be focusing on a positive solution that moves the yardsticks ahead and doesn't simply burn them.

All of the above is moot, at the moment, and we should pause to remember a fallen comrade. Captain Selby is the latest in a long list of men and women who have died in their service to Canada. Here's a nickel on the grass to you, my friend. Per Ardua Ad Astra.

And, they are surprised, why?

2004-12-07T08:14:00.000-08:00

The Senate Committee on National Defence and Security was apparently shocked to learn, from Vice Admiral Ron Buck, that a Liberal election promise to increase the Regular Force by 5,000 and the Reserves by 3,000 will take at least five years. And then, only if there is a significant increase in defence spending.

With the greatest of respect to the House of Sober Second Thought, which planet have they been on for the past forty years? You cannot cut the heart out of the defence budget and increase tasking, and not pay the price. One of the prices is that the CF has no, repeat, no capability to grow in anything resembling the short-term. I, and many others, have repeatedly said that it will take twenty years to restore the CF to what should be expected, and that can only happen if we start doing the right thing today.

The capability to recruit and train has been stripped away, because all the recruiters and trainers have been required to be doers. The more the doers are forced to do, the more decide to move on so that they and their families may have something resembling a life. The more doers that move on, the more recruiters and trainers are turned into doers. The fewer recruiters and trainers we have, the longer it takes for new members to be recruited and trained, and the more give up in disgust and impatience on a military career. And, I haven’t even talked about capital acquisition programs that are long, long overdue and can’t find the people or the money required to progress.

This spiral has been spinning out of control for many years and it doesn’t take one of Don Cherry’s rocket surgeons to figure out where it leads. It leads to where we are today. The CF is flat on its butt and the only thing keeping it going is the incredible quality, dedication and can-do attitude of its members, from the buck-privates to the Admiral Bucks.

We have collectively let them down; and, by doing that, we have let Canada down; and by doing that; we have let our allies down; and by doing that, we have let the World down. Everyone in that chain of let-down deserves better.

Much Ado About Much Ado

2004-12-07T07:30:00.000-08:00

Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) has taken center stage for the “everything associated with George Bush is bad” crowd. Their furious tilting at the BMD windmill seems to render them incapable of grasping some simple facts.

Great concern is being expressed about the future weaponization of space. Rightly or wrongly, space became weaponized on October 4th, 1957 when Sputnik 1 was launched from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. BMD, per se, is not about weaponization; it is about protection. The Russians aren’t particularly fussed about it and the U.S. has offered to share defensive technology with other countries. What weaponization that may or may not follow is completely beyond our control, in any event.

Socialists decry the waste of money; and it is a lot of money, to be sure. The point is that it is their money and the American people seem to have given George Bush the mandate to spend it.

Many express concern about a new arms race. Did NORAD start a new arms race in 1958, just because it was a new capability put in place to counter the perceived threat? Sure, we were simply talking about airplanes that had been around for about fifty years or so, give or take. Now we’re talking about space that has had its domain entered for the past fifty years or so, give or take. In case some of those folks haven’t noticed, there are regimes out there that could care less about western liberal humanitarian values. Some may also have noticed that Vladimir Putin has never really given up on the dreams of the Soviet Empire. My recollection of the Cold War (Which was really World War III and we won; thank you, Ronald Reagan.) is that we were probably safer under the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) concept than we are today. Both super-powers kept their subordinates in check.

“Brilliant” scientists piously proclaim that the bullet-versus-bullet technology will never work. I attended a noontime CBC forum in Edmonton Centre at the base of our office tower last week. The topic was BMD and, as one might imagine, the CBC crowd was pretty hostile towards the concept. Speaking for Canada’s involvement was an extremely articulate young lady, named Mercedes Stevenson (sp?), and speaking against was Mel Hurtig, who needs no introduction. Mercedes stood up to Mel and the mob extremely well and stuck to facts and logic, as opposed to Hurtig’s hysterical hyperbole. Hurtig kept trotting out his “brilliant” scientists as proof-positive that BMD would never work.

I got into the question line and was just about the only one who didn’t lecture Mercedes as if she were George Bush himself and every other devil incarnate that they could conjure up. I pointed out to Mr. Hurtig that the definition of a “brilliant” scientist seemed to be one with whom you agreed ideologically, and asked him why Mercedes’ scientists were any less brilliant, just because they gave him the “wrong” answer. I got my expected response, which was a frothy fluffing of his notebook at me, and the obvious-to-him explanation that it was because he was Mel Hurtig and I was not.

I then asked for a purely scientific answer to an obvious and simple question. Given that so many things that are accepted as commonplace today have been deemed as impossible by “brilliant” scientists over the centuries, how can anyone say that anything will never work? There really is only one answer to this, but more frothing at the mouth and fluffing up his notes made it clear that Mr. Hurtig is anything but a scientist. I suspect that he may be related to those famous flat-earth chappies of centuries past.

One of Hurtig’s “brilliant” scientists, Ted Postol, has made the point that any debris from missiles shot down could land in Canada. This is the same Ted Postol who said that the technology would never work. Which is it, Ted? Apparently, Postol’s “brilliant” scientific mind can’t visualize what happens when two objects collide at 25,000 knots. Makes “hair on fire” and “corn flakes” kind of relative, doesn’t it? And, what did he think was going to happen to the Russian Bears that would have fallen to the mighty arrows from Clunks, Voodoos and Hornets?

George Bush has manoeuvred Paul Martin into a very uncomfortable corner. None of us knows exactly what is being proposed as Canada’s involvement, but it’s probably not much more than other than simple political acquiescence. In any event, our involvement is happening as we speak, under agreements already in place. Paul Martin is so afraid of an ill-informed public whipped into hysteria by the anti-Bush forces that he seems to be paralyzed. His cataplectic mutterings about our control over our own airspace are pathetic and totally misleading. He and his predecessors gave up the capability to control our own airspace, except for specific periods at a low level of participation. Any control that we do have is vested in our participation in NORAD.

BMD is going to happen no matter what we decide. The world is not looking for leadership from Canada on this, or any other issue, because we have made ourselves increasingly irrelevant, with our deeds not matching our words. Several countries have already signed on in support of BMD, such as Great Britain, Denmark (Greenland) and Australia; and they’re not even under the shield.

All we will accomplish by saying no is to be shut out of parts of NORAD; lose yet more input into our own sovereignty; show ourselves to be an unreliable ally and friend; further alienate isolationist and protectionist forces in our biggest trading partner; and succumb to pressures from those who promote weakness as the path to security and prosperity.

I know where my vote lies.

With what and with whom, Prime Minister?

2004-12-03T10:49:00.000-08:00

Dear Prime Minister,

At your fund raiser in Toronto last night, you said that "We don't need the Americans to come up here and protect us; we can provide our own sovereignty". My question to you, sir, is with what and with whom do we provide for our own protection?

Your remarks are understandable in the wake of the pressure that you must feel to make some decisions following the comments made by President Bush in Ottawa and Halifax. You have been put on the defensive by your government's lack of commitment to action the requirements of sovereignty, rather than just talking about it. This goes hand-in-hand with your comments at the UN about the "responsibility to protect". Regrettably, these words rang hollow to the few UN members in attendance, because Canada has done precious little, relative to our capacity, to carry out that responsibility. The admirable work that Canada has done has been on the strong backs of our over-stretched military and their long-suffering families.

Our sovereignty in the north, and elsewhere, is under attack. Right now, it's relatively subtle and being carried out by a number of nations, such as Denmark, Russia and the U.S. The number of Russian "cruise" ships visiting strategic northern ports, such as Inuvik and Iqaluit, with specific timing, should be of interest. If we don't do something, and soon, to show that we are serious about what we claim to be ours, we will lose it. The Air Force, Army and Navy have the desire, courage and dedication, but lack the personnel, equipment and operational budget, to do the job. It will take many years to restore the required capability, and the clock is ticking faster and faster.

With respect to sovereignty, your primary responsibility to protect begins at home. President Bush certainly understands that, and he has a clear vision of North American security requirements. There is no doubt that his commitment is to the U.S.A., as it should be, but we would be foolish and naive if we didn't understand the implications for Canada. The most serious general implication is that, if we don't actually exercise our own sovereignty, the U.S. will do it for us. At least we will still have it in friendly hands, in that case. If the U.S. doesn't do it for us, we may really not like who fills the void. Words won't do it, sir, and you have the power to turn words into action.

That action will take place at budget time. Recycling old commitments of cash, such as the Sea King replacement, and pretending that it is new money, won't cut it. Announcing that the CF is getting money to pay for past overtaskings, that were beyond then-current defence plans, and pretending that it's new money, won't cut it. Proudly and publicly committing money to a new program, while you quietly take that money from somewhere else within the current funding envelope, won't cut it. The only thing that will cut it, Prime Minister, is a substantial and permanent increase in the base defence budget and a programmed increase in that budget year-over-year until Canada can once again truthfully say that we are fulfilling our commitments to Canadians, specifically, and the world community, in general.

Canada has a history of courage and commitment. As a population, we are being led away from that attitude by misguided and ill-informed people and groups, who somehow see moral rectitude in physical weakness. We are facing threats that are immoral and strong, by any standards of morality and strength. They are getting stronger by our inaction and our lack of real commitment.

We may disagree with the U.S. and President Bush on many issues, but there is no mistaking America's resolve to face up to its enemies. We need that same resolve and leadership. Prime Minister, that is yours to provide. Please don't let Canada down.

Sincerely,
Laurie Hawn, CD
Lieutenant-Colonel (retired)
Edmonton

Madame Sgro’s House of Ill Repute

2004-12-02T06:32:00.000-08:00

For a couple of weeks, Immigration Minister Judy Sgro has been trying very hard to defend the indefensible. She and/or her staff made inappropriate use of her office to trade financial and volunteer help for her election campaign for a free pass into Canada.

What has really caught people’s attention is that the free pass was given to a Romanian exotic dancer. The rationale was that this industry is apparently in danger of collapse, because there are not enough Canadian women willing to strip, and etc., for cash. The etc. is very important and, while I am not accusing the lady in question of it, a great many women like her are being sold into prostitution and effectively treated as slaves.

About a year ago, I met Victor Malarek, a multiple award winning investigative journalist with many years work at both CBC and CTV. He had recently researched and written a book called “The Natashas”. It is an expose of the sex trade emanating from Russia and Eastern Europe with destinations all over the world, including Canada. According to the U.S. State Department, at least 800,000–900,000 impoverished young women, many of them orphans, from Eastern and Central Europe, are lured with promises of jobs as waitresses, nannies or maids in Western Europe or North America. Instead, they wind up as exotic dancers, prostitutes and sex slaves.

Malarek’s facts and story telling paint a horrific picture of inhumanity. Russian and other organized crime syndicates control this human trade with “ruthless efficiency”, reaping high profits with little risk of interference thanks to "complacency, complicity, and corruption" on the part of national governments and law enforcement.

I’m not accusing the Government of Canada of complicity and corruption in this unacceptable activity, nor am I accusing Canadian police forces of being less than vigilant and dedicated in enforcing our laws. I am suggesting that the Government of Canada is complacent and has lost sight of the objectives of a good immigration program. One of them should be to promote the immigration of people who can play an important role in making their own lives and the lives of Canadians, in general, better. My money would be on doctors, nurses, scientists, teachers, technicians, etc., long before it would be on strippers.

What Madame Sgro was really caught at is the longstanding Liberal practice of using immigration to prop themselves up at election time. It happens all across Canada and it is unethical and immoral. That doesn’t seem to bother “the natural governing party”, but it should bother Canadians. The Deputy Prime Minister announced yesterday that the "stripping for visas" programme would be stopped. Why does it take a determined Opposition and public outcry to make this government do the right thing? And, it hasn't actually done the right thing, yet; just talked about it. We've seen this movie before.

Senators-in-waiting

2004-11-30T14:02:00.000-08:00

Senators-in-waiting…..and waiting…..and waiting…..

Another Alberta election is history and we have a new crop of senators-in-waiting. Betty Unger, Bert Brown, Cliff Breitkreuz and Link Byfield were duly nominated and received a total of 1,090,246 votes from Albertans. That’s four times more votes than all 28 Alberta Liberal candidates received in the June federal election. All that remains now is for the Prime Minister to make good on his avowed desire for Senate reform by appointing these democratically elected people to the house of sober second thought.

The trouble is that The Right Honourable Democratic Deficit is having second thoughts of his own. He and his right hand person, The Honourable Anne McLellan, solemnly state that they are in favour of Senate reform. The latter went so far as to say that “it’s unsustainable to have an unelected upper house of whatever kind.” (Edmonton Journal, April 6, 2004). As is the habit with this Prime Minister and his Deputy, words speak louder than actions. Their position is that reform must be total and carried out in one fell swoop nationwide. They both know full well that this will never happen, so they carry on blithely and fraudulently claiming to support Senate reform while doing nothing to promote it.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a body having the power to legislate without having the checks on its power resting with the electorate. In this and in so many other practical ways, such as the unfettered power of the Prime Minister’s Office, Canada is not the democracy than we think it to be.

At the risk of being labeled pro-American, I think that we can look south for an example of how Senate reform can be carried out in a progressive manner. For well over one hundred years the United States Senate was made up of state appointees. Around the turn of the Twentieth Century, the people of the State of Oregon decided that this was not democratic and elected two Senators, much as Alberta has been doing. Like ours, they became Senators-in-waiting because Washington refused to recognize their legitimacy. They persevered and eventually were accepted several years later. Other states followed suit and, one-by-one, started sending elected senators to Washington. Today, the United States has a Triple-E Senate – Elected, Equal, and Effective. We still have a Triple-A Senate – Appointed, Asymmetric, and Anachronistic.

Are Albertans (and other Canadians) so uneducated and irresponsible that we can’t be trusted to make our own choices? Obviously not. Is the federal government so weak that they feel threatened by the exercise of democracy? Obviously so. It’s just one more way that the “natural governing party” keeps Canadians and their regions beholden to the Liberal version of Big Brother. Alberta and Canada deserve better.

Landslide Ralphie

2004-11-29T07:13:00.000-08:00

Only in small-c Alberta could a majority government with 75% of the seats and 48% of the popular vote be considered a bad election result. The small-l liberal and large-L Liberal chattering class crows about their great breakthrough and the imminence of a Liberal government after the next election. They crack me up.

Lorne Gunter (Edmonton Journal) and others have done some good analysis of the votes cast and I won't repeat it all here. Suffice to say that, while the Liberals increased their seat counts and percentage of popular vote, their vote totals actually decreased. Hardly the stuff of an electoral revolution or an imminent breakthrough.

What it does point out is what I heard at the door and on the phone in close to one hundred hours of volunteer time on eight different campaigns. People weren't particularly upset with their current MLA or candidate. They were particularly upset with Ralph Klein. It's obvious to anyone that Ralph has not been in top form for a while now; and his performance before and during the election cost some good people their jobs.

People couldn't bring themselves to vote Liberal or NDP; but they could bring themselves to stay home. That's exactly what happened and only 45% of Albertans bothered to go to the polls, an all-time low. We had the usual mathematicians who calculated that only about 22% of all Albertans actually voted for the government. They are probably part of the 55% who couldn't get their butts off the couch for half an hour to participate, and now they want to de-legitimize the result. Perhaps we should send them to the Ukraine for an exercise in struggling democracy.

What we saw in the Alberta election was not a cry for a new governing party, but a cry for new leadership. I appreciate, applaud and respect what Ralph Klein has done for Alberta; and he deserves all the kudos he'll get next year during Alberta's centennial celebrations. It is time, however, that we looked elsewhere for who will lead us post-2005. Anyone who has led a province or a country for more than ten years will have a tendency to get stale. It's sad to see Ralph risk becoming what thinking people hated about Jean Chretien; that is abusive, arrogant and self-entitled.

I don't think that Ralph has any intention of staying much beyond the time when the royal flight gets wheels in the well heading eastbound next year, or the centennial celebrations in September at the latest. I only hope that Rod Love and others can make our last year with Ralph a happy one. His departure needs to be an occasion of thankfulness that he was here and regret that he is leaving. It shouldn't become thankfulness that he is gone and regret that he was here. Over to you, Ralph.

Parrish the Thoughtless

2004-11-18T07:06:00.000-08:00

I went surfing this morning in the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, Chapter 15. Psychiatric Disorders. I was looking for something.....anything that might explain why Caroyln Parrish insists on making such an ass of herself and, by extension in the eyes of others, you and me and Canada. What I found was interesting.

"Personality disorders: Pervasive, inflexible, and stable personality traits that deviate from cultural norms and cause distress or functional impairment." That fits.

"Mental coping mechanisms (defenses) are used unconsciously at times by everyone. But in persons with personality disorders, coping mechanisms tend to be immature and maladaptive." Bingo!

"Repetitious confrontation in prolonged psychotherapy or by peer encounters is usually required to make such persons aware of these mechanisms." Peer encounters don't seem to be working, so perhaps the PM should refer Ms. Parrish to a professional.

"Without environmental frustration, persons with personality disorders may or may not be dissatisfied with themselves." She seems to be pretty darned proud of herself, thank you very much.

Let's bring in their definition of schizophrenia here: "A common and serious mental disorder characterized by a loss of contact with reality (psychosis), hallucinations (false perceptions), delusions (false beliefs), abnormal thinking, flattened affect (restricted range of emotions), diminished motivation, and disturbed work and social functioning." Can anyone argue that Ms. Parrish does not fit this definition in whole or in part?

"Often they do not see a need for therapy, and they are referred by their peers, their families, or a social agency because their maladaptive behavior causes difficulties for others." Um, like Parliament and Canada?

"Because these patients usually view their difficulties as discrete and outside of themselves, mental health professionals have difficulty getting them to see that the problem is really based on who they are." And who she is is not a pretty sight on any professional level.

Civil disagreement between politicians and ideologies is fine, and it can be a great vehicle for progress in the hands of civil and professional people. Ms. Parrish is neither civil nor professional. Paul Martin has shown no real inclination or ability to deal with Ms. Parrish and, apparently, he and his whole government can "all go to hell". I would point out to the PM that he is our leader and not just the leader of the Liberals; assuming for one silly moment that one does not have to be Liberal to be Canadian. He needs to do something and he needs to do it now.

As for the people of Mississauga-Erindale, what are you thinking?!

None of the above is intended to make light of mental illness. There is nothing funny about either mental illness or Carolyn Parrish. Both need to be treated.

The Greatest Canadian?

2004-11-11T13:32:00.000-08:00

The CBC has been on a quest for the Greatest Canadian for many months and has solicited input from across the land. On the final list of ten, we have:

- the world's greatest hockey player
- one of the world's most irreverent sportscasters
- our first Prime Minister
- a socialist Prime Minister
- another Prime Minister
- a socialist Premier of Saskatchewan, who did one good thing
- the inventor of the telephone
- the discoverer of insulin
- a one-legged runner who inspired a nation
- a geneticist, posing as a climatologist on tax-payer dollars

I was at the Remembrance Day ceremony in Edmonton, when it hit me like a ton of bricks, prompted by an old saying that was read aloud.

It is not the reporter who gave us freedom of speech. It is not the priest who gave us freedom of religion. It is not the campus activist who gave us freedom of assembly. It is not the lawyer who gave us freedom from injustice. It is not the politician who gave us the freedom to vote. As good as some of the ten finalists above may have been at what they accomplished, none of them gave us anything without the help of the person who gave us everything - The Veteran.

The Greatest Canadian - hands down - no questions asked - is the man who lays in repose at the foot of the Centaph in Ottawa. The Greatest Canadian is The Unknown Soldier.

Remembering

2004-11-11T09:30:00.000-08:00

As I was driving in to work today, because Canada has not yet seen fit to make Remembrance Day a national holiday, my thoughts drifted to people I remember today. Every once in a while I get out my log book and page through thirty years of memories over a wee dram of fine single malt. Dozens of faces and hundreds of memories leap from the pages to my mind's eye. There are many too many to list, but I'd like to share memories of three.

Brian Dowds was a lineman-sized guy who grew up in Goderich, Ontario and was drafted by the Ottawa Roughriders. He joined the Air Force, instead, and we got our wings together in Gimli in 1967. We stayed at Gimli as flying instructors on the T-33. Brian was an excellent pilot and a great buddy, and our families became very close. We would meet at the flightline early and talk Corporal Boudreau (a Hellyer Corporal, for those who remember) out of a couple of aircraft that really needed airtests for something 'serious', like a navigation light change. We'd launch off and hone our formation skills for an hour or so, including the odd manoeuvre that the boss might have considered aerobatic. Safely back on deck, we'd dutifully sign off the flight test and certify the nav light safe for the rest of the day's flying program. Beer calls were an exercise in mutual support and PMQs were mercifully close to the base. In March, 1969, Brian was killed when his aircraft glanced off the frozen Lake Winnipeg just south of Hecla Island. Two years later and with my first beer in hand on a Friday night in Gimli, I had the most vivid vision of Brian standing in the uniform in which he was buried, just looking at me and smiling.

Paul Rackham, "Rack", "Mr. Rackers" was a young single rat who grew up in Ottawa, flew the CF-100 in the electronic warfare role, and was one of the most free spirits I ever met. Our paths crossed in Cold Lake in the early 70s, when we were both posted to the CF-104. With another reprobate who shall remain nameless, but who will read this, we became the Terrible Trio. I'm pretty sure that it was a term of endearment, but we did strike just the tiniest bit of terror into the hearts of the odd senior officer. We lived by the work hard and play harder rule, and one memory is of Rackham and another course mate sticking their rental horses noses through our rental house window in Cold Lake much, much too early on Saturday morning. The three of us went off to Europe on separate squadrons together, as the grownups thought that to be the wisest move. We still managed to team up and spread the gospel of good flying and good fun to an international audience. We did contribute to the delinquency of the odd senior officer in other air forces, and Colonel Bill Ongena (Belgian Air Force) was told by his superiors that he had entirely too much fun in Florennes, Belgium one night, shooting up his own mess with our beer can cannon. In May, 1973, we lost Paul Rackham to a flap failure on his Starfighter which drove his aircraft into the North Sea near Bodo, Norway. The Terrible Trio became the Dynamic Duo.

Clancy Scheldrup is a name known to anyone in the Canadian Air Force older than the age of about 45. Clancy was a bear of a man with the softest heart. He filled the cockpits of the Sabres, Tutors and Starfighters that he flew. Our paths crossed many times and we served on four different flying schools or squadrons together. Clancy was everyone's big brother, and uncle or grandpa to everyone's kids. He and his wife, Vena, were the go-to couple for anyone who had a problem of any kind and everyone got their full attention. They were always the ones supplying egg-in-the-hole late Friday night and the first ones ones up with the "cure" on Saturday morning. Our PMQs were side-by-side in Cold Lake, and one of our young son Robb's favourite things was sitting on the front step on Saturday morning eating cold chili out of the pot with his Godfather, Clancy. In June, 1985, we lost Clancy in a Tutor in Calgary, when the ejection seat was not quite up to the challenge after an engine failure at the most critical point just after takeoff.

Today, we all remember someone. For many of us, it is people we knew. For most Canadians, it is people they have never met. Known or unknown, their past has paid for our present and the price was ultimate. For those who serve today, their present will pay for our future. Just as we owe a profound debt of gratitude to those who have gone before; so too do we owe support to those who are asked to sacrifice their present today.

Right now, I am going to the Butterdome in Edmonton to pay homage to those who have given us our today. Tomorrow, I will try to do something for those who serve their country today to give us our tomorrow. Please do the same.

They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

What's in a 'Dis'?

2004-11-09T00:11:00.000-08:00

"I am here, I admit it, I admit it, because we have to reverse the disinvestment that you have experienced." - Paul Martin speaking to members of 5 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group and the Royal 22nd Regiment Van Doos in Valcartier the other day.

Disinvestment is a much more genteel 'dis' word than disable, disarm, disarrange, disarticulate, disassemble, discerption, discredit, disdain, disembowel, disengage, disesteem, disequilibrium, dishabille, dishearten, dishonest, dishonour, disillusion, disincentive, disinclination, disinformation, disintegrate, disinterest, disjoin, disloyal, dismantle, dismay, dismember, disparity, dispirit, disregard, dissolution, dissonant, distort, distress, and my favourite, disingenuous. I haven't even touched on the 'dit's such as dither. Look up any of the above 'dis' words and you will see a description of some aspect of the way that the Canadian Forces has been treated by Government.

The Prime Minister also said that "I bear a certain responsibility as finance minister", just before he tried to slough it off to Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney. He certainly does bear the responsibility to fix what he, and others, broke. His feel good words to disenchanted members of the CF are meaningless unless he follows them up, and right now, with a hard commitment to increased defence spending. Commitments to replace the Sea King are hardly news, notwithstanding that over a decade of mismanagement has left that still not a done deal. Commitments to increased personnel strength are meaningless without a long-term plan and lots of extra dollars to make it happen. It simply cannot happen within the current and projected funding envelope.

Will the Prime Minister call off the dogs from John McCallum's Department of Revenue who are looking for yet more disinvestment? If he won't publicly do that, and immediately, then all of his soothing words to members of the CF will simply continue the Liberal disgrace in the areas of national defence and security. It will lead to more and more members of the CF leaving in disgust and will accelerate us towards the disaster that Canada does not deserve.

To Have and to Have Not

2004-11-08T11:28:00.000-08:00

Much has been said and written in the last while about have provinces and have-not provinces and the federal equalization program. I'd like to simplify the situation and put it in the context of government philosophy and ideology.

In the first place, the equalization formula and process is laid out in such a way as to be nearly indecipherable to mere human beings. Enter a Liberal government to put its arm around our shoulders and tell us that, it's okay, we'll look after all the things that citizens couldn't possibly understand.

Let me tell you what I do understand. I understand that Alberta gets to keep the majority of its resource revenues, and that has made us a very wealthy "have" province. We share our wealth with the rest of Canada through the equalization program, and that is right and proper. Newfoundland & Labrador and Nova Scotia have very considerable resource revenue that they are not allowed to keep, and they are "have-not" provinces who get help from Alberta. Call me simple, but, if Newfoundland & Labrador and Nova Scotia were allowed to keep the majority of their resource revenue, wouldn't they likely become "have" provinces? Wouldn't they become the masters of their own economic future as Alberta has become? Wouldn't they have the same justifiable pride in their provinces' capability as do Albertans? Wouldn't they be able to negotiate from a stronger position when it comes to federal-provincial issues? Oops, I may have stumbled onto something.

It is not in a power-focused central government's best interests to let the regions develop any form of independence from the mother ship. How would that central government then be able to hold their "largesse" over the heads of voters at election time? The "if you don't vote for us, economic ruin will surely follow" election advertising would lose its appeal and, clearly, that cannot be allowed to happen. Danny Williams has figured this out and he is right in taking a two-faced central government to task over the issue. I have no doubt that Newfoundlanders & Labradoreans and Nova Scotians are hard-working, industrious people who would like nothing better than to be in control of their own futures.

Canada would be better off if these two provinces, and others, had the shackles of subservience removed from their shoulders. Alberta would not be shackled and neither should they. The Liberals need to stop blackmailing Canada's provinces with their own money. The Liberal philosophy and electoral ideology is one of keeping the masses beholden to them in order to keep their "loyalty" at the polls. Have you heard of universal daycare?

A Winston Churchill quote goes something like "Dictators ride to and fro on tigers, afraid to dismount lest the tigers eat them". Paul Martin had best hang on tight.

Bordering on a Good Idea

2004-11-03T00:05:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago, the federal government quietly approved the move of an estimated 800 immigration officers over to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). The idea is that an immigration and customs issue could be dealt with by the same person, thereby speeding up the overall process. Pardoning the pun, this is bordering on a good idea.

The Customs folks have been underclassified, underpaid, undertrained, underequipped, undermanned and undermotivated for quite a while now and this could help. They have been completely underwhelmed by the support of their Minister and their government. This is not a denigration of the efforts or dedication of the current Customs folks. Their situation is the result of government neglect and negligence over an extended period. Sound familiar?

It's the kind of situation that has resulted in over one hundred long guns per day coming through just the Edmonton International Airport during hunting season and disappearing into the wilds without a trace. They're probably going home with the hunter, but no one can prove it. Multiply that by a lot of major airports in Canada. It's the kind of situation that has seen Customs shifts at airports manned at a fraction of specified levels and unable to respond. It's the kind of situation that has seen high tech equipment sitting idle because of lack of personnel and training. It is the kind of situation that sees minimally trained college students manning the front lines at our borders, while the regular Customs folks squeak in some well-earned holidays.

It's the kind of situation that is endemic to the Liberal government's handling of our security and safety, both at home and internationally. This move of 800 immigration officers over to customs will be a good idea only if they do not become just another 800 mistreated customs agents. I go back to the image of our Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Public Safety beaming happily at Tom Ridge's announcement that the U.S. is turning back terror suspects at their border every day. Why do we let them get to the 49th parallel in the first place?

This is an idea that might work, but only if the implementation of the idea does not follow the Liberal path of good intentions and really bad execution. To my knowledge the under-things mentioned earlier have not been addressed. Until they are addressed, the jury will stay out.

Seventeen Million Here, Seventeen Million There

2004-10-22T14:29:00.000-07:00

So, Madame Dyan Adam thinks that Canada's official bilingualism program at $750 million per year and her comfy fiefdom as the Commissioner of Official Languages at $17 million per year should be exempt from a review of departmental spending. The rarefied air dans la tour d'ivoire where she lives must be getting to her.

I guess that, to her, it is absolutely essential that we divert not one penny away from such noble causes as trying the make universally accepted traffic sign graphics bilingual. I'm not sure what the difference is between a French turn arrow and an English turn arrow, and I don't recall them being any different in France the last time I was there. Of course, we simply must stop the assault on Canadian dignity and our national identity by criminals like Don Cherry. She is the Commissioner of Official Languages, not the Commissioner of Face Masks. She is Donna Quixote with imaginary windmills, and there is probably no end to the evil from which she would like to rescue us.

Official bilingualism is worthy of support where it makes sense, but Mme Adam and her office would have us believe that, without her diligence, the French language and culture will disappear. What self-serving and personally profitable rubbish!

$17,000,000 would go a long way towards supporting some activities that would have a lot more positive impact on the lives of Canadians. How about 17,000 additional CH-146 Griffon flying hours that could be used for search and rescue, fighting floods and ice storms, assisting in border patrol operations to stop smuggling, etc.?

How about a few thousand extra CP-140 Aurora flying hours, so that the CF could start doing patrols over the Arctic regions? These have decreased to next to nothing, and Danish, American, Russian and other challenges to our claims of sovereignty are increasing. For those who say so what; think about the resources that are probably beneath the ice and water in that area. Do we want other countries to reap the economic benefits therefrom? Worse yet for those whose priority is the environment; do we want other countries doing resource exploration and development with lower standards for environmental protection than Canada would practise?

How about one new MRI machine per province and territory with the money to operate them for a year?

Or, maybe we could just buy a couple of golf balls for every Canadian with the Prime Minister's name on them.

The Principles of Liberal Power

2004-10-20T13:25:00.000-07:00

Have you noticed what a hard time Paul Martin is having these days? Gone is the dictatorial privilege of running a government with a massive majority. Liberals are only happy when they are in a position of undisputed power, and they simply can't stand the current reality. They have no idea how to make actual democracy work. It's hard to blame them, really; they haven't had to actually practice democracy for some time.

The only "principle" of Liberal politics and vision is the attainment and maintenance of power. This is abundantly clear in their pandering for votes to various segments of Canadian society. It was abundantly clear in their 2004 election campaign, built entirely on lies, fear and misrepresentation. The Deputy Prime Minister's principles were at their hypocritical best when she recently decried Ralph Klein's use of the politics of fear and misrepresentation. They pay lip service to core issues of nationhood, such as sovereignty, security and defence; while fostering warm and fuzzy social programs to keep Canadians dependent on government largesse and grateful to such a benevolent ruler.

Cabinet Ministers rise in the House and prevaricate with impunity. The Minister of National Defence tells Parliament that, since 1999, his government has allocated an additional ten billion dollars to national defence. What he doesn't say is that most of that money was injected to pay bills that had been run up by his government years before in assigning unplanned tasks to the Canadian Forces and making them take it out their hide. What he doesn't say is that his colleague, the former Minister of National Defence and now Revenue Minister, is about to rape DND of more core funding. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services tells the House that the Sea King replacement contract was won based on best value for money. I'll be kind and just say that he is ill-informed. That contract was run by the lowest-cost-compliant method, whereby the contender that costs one dollar less will win regardless of quality. If you set the bar low enough, you can get the winner that meets your political requirement of not putting the lie to the legacy of the former Prime Minister, even if it falls short of the real military requirement. Some would call that lying to the House and lying to Canadians. Others would call it Liberal principles.

It is educational to watch the Liberals in Question Period, as they have long since turned obfuscation into an art form. Watching the Member for Kings Hants pop from his seat to spring to the defence of the Prime Minister he was mercilessly slagging scant months ago is really quite pathetic. It does show that Scott Brison really is a Liberal when it comes to the principles of power. He just couldn't resist the temptation of the apple of a Parliamentary Secretary position (and future Cabinet post) in the Liberal Garden of Eden. It really is too bad when someone of Mr. Brison's obvious intelligence can so easily exchange principle for power.

It will be enlightening to see how Team Martin will handle allowing the "unclean" from the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP into their garden. So far, the PM hasn't seemed to figure out that he doesn't actually have a majority. When the leaders of the opposition parties perform in their constitutionally correct roles, he reacts by threatening an election. Smacks of his predecessor, doesn't it? There is a great opportunity here for Parliamentary Committees to do some good work. For as long as this government lasts, the Liberals will be out-numbered on committees and will be forced to negotiate and cooperate. Lester Pearson seemed to be able to make minority governments work, but then, PM is no LP as PM.

How long will it last? At least a year, one hopes, because voters are experiencing election fatigue, especially in Alberta, which will have had elections at all three levels this year (four, if you count the Senate election). There are some ticking time bombs out there and Paul Martin knows it. His personal conduct and knowledge of affairs will likely take a leading role in the Gomery report, and his government's gross negligence with respect to the Canadian Forces will, hopefully, remain an issue.

Government officials, past and present, could withhold information freely in front of a parliamentary committee, but they will have a much harder time doing that before a judicial inquiry. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Gomery Inquiry has ten times the information available to it as did the Public Accounts Committee. I don't doubt that the Prime Minister knows exactly what is in Justice Gomery's hands. I don't think for a minute that he will hesitate to engineer his government to fall at the hands of the dastardly opposition, so that he can go to the people before the whole truth comes out. He did it this year and he will do it again. The Gomery commission is due to report in December, 2005. We'll be dusting off the lawn signs before then.

Things That Go Crack

2004-10-20T13:14:00.000-07:00

What appears to be the latest foul deed by the clearly grossly negligent and incompetent Liberals in relation to National Defence is the tail rotor cracking on the new Cormorant helicopters. Before anyone gets too excited, they should understand that this is not new or unusual, much as I'd like to blame the Liberals for everything.

In 1982, we received our first CF-18s and we were like kids with a new bike. It was the latest and the best, and we had a ball training the instructors, ground crew, and first operational squadron pilots. Eighteen months later, we began to discover cracks in the vertical stabilators and everyone was horrified. Some engineering analysis determined that the air flow over the leading edge extension (LEX) in high angle of attack flight (e.g. dogfighting) was hitting the tail in such a way to cause significant flexing. Anyone who flew the Hornet back then will remember being very "impressed" with view in the mirror of the two vertical stabs trying to kiss each other (some exaggeration, but you get the idea).

Significant restrictions were placed on the aircraft until the solution was found and applied. It turned out to be what we called the LEX fence, and was simply a small vertical plate on the LEX, which diverted the airflow in a more harmless direction. For the past twenty years, the CF has flown the Hornet with great effect in peacetime and wartime operations and the aircraft has performed superbly.

I don't know what is causing the tail rotor cracks on the Cormorant, but the Air Force has been there before. Teething problems for even good aircraft and other equipment are nothing to panic about. They just need to be addressed and, if budget constraints and lack of qualified personnel slow that process down, then there will be yet more reason to castigate the Liberals. In any case, they deserve every bit of it.

In Defence of LRPA

2004-10-19T13:46:00.000-07:00

The following response was sent to an acquaintance who was lamenting the decline of the CF's long range patrol capability with the aging CP-140 Aurora.

Now why would I disagree with such an obviously good point? The CP-140, like the CF-18, like the CC-130, like the Sea King, like the Buffalo, like the Labrador, like the whatever else you'd care to name in any of the three elements of the CF's inventory, has been used and abused to the point of collapse. The CP-140 is a vital tool in the exercise of our whatever is left of our sovereignty. We are spending considerable money on a long-overdue weapons system, avionics and radar upgrade for 80 of our remaining approximately 120 CF-18s. It is very welcome and I have flown one with the upgraded radar earlier this year - big improvement. We will still have the same old engines, though, and we've lost one pilot this year in a survivable ejection made fatal by neglect of a required seat harness modification. In the case of the CP-140, 16 aircraft cannot do the job required. We have long since stopped doing NorPats with any frequency to see what's going on up there. With the Northwest Passage becoming more passable every year, a regular presence will be vital to any Canadian claim to the land and ice masses in the Arctic. With respect to ASW, if I were a terrorist or a druggie, I would have enough money to buy old Soviet subs and probably hire the crews. The likely numbers wouldn't justify an expensive ASW capability on its own, but maintaining a capability that's already there is a helluva lot cheaper than trying to re-generate it. The CF-18 force stopped training at low level a couple of years ago as a way to save about 12 hours per pilot per year. Aside from being very embarrassing in exercises with our allies, it is another capability that will cost aircraft and lives to re-generate at some time in the future. I grew up in the fighter era when we were re-inventing low level operations and I lost a lot of friends in the process.

Let me give you one short anecdote that will show that the stupidity with which we approach required equipment capability is not new. I was in ther New Fighter Aircraft Project Office when we were buying the CF-18 in the late 70s. At one point, the radar altimeter was an extra cost option on the aircraft. The then-DCDS was a former Commander of 1 CAG, whose comments (at from one- to three-star levels) were on many CF-104 and other fighter controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) fatal accidents, demanding that the CF-104 be modified with a radalt. Despite that, the position was taken that, if it cost a penny more than the baseline aircraft, we weren't going to include it on the CF-18. I personally did a study of all the CFIT accidents in the fighter force, showing how ridiculous this position was, to no avail. It was only when the U.S. Navy spec made the radalt baseline to the aircraft did we get such a basic capability. Lives would have been lost without it.

I have yet to drop a bomb or fire a missile from a simulator, and have it leave the building. We have become so wrapped up in reducing costs at all costs, that we now have a simulated combat capability. That may match nicely with our simulated sovereignty that we have devolved to under our simulated government, but actual Canadians and our future deserve better.

Maritime aviation forever! I can't believe I said that...................

It's Crunch Tme

2004-10-15T13:21:00.000-07:00

Dear Members of the Defence Committee:

It is crunch time and the country will be looking to you for leadership in the wake of the undeniable evidence that the Canadian Forces (CF) has been starved of resources for decades. It truly is time to put aside political rhetoric and hyperbole for the sake of Canada's future security, sovereignty, and status in the world. Your newly appointed committee is starting to sit in deliberation of the most serious state of unpreparedness in which Canada has found itself since the late thirties. While it will still be debated, there is no useful purpose in rehashing how we got to this state and who is guilty of what. The time has come for all-party action.

The plain and simple fact is that the CF is at the lowest state of combat capability in its history, and at a time when the world has become more dangerous than at any time since World War II. To be sure, we do have some good equipment; but we don't have nearly enough, and it is poorly supported, due to lack of funding for operations and maintenance. We have a bow-wave of equipment replacement requirements that is sweeping over the deck and will quickly swamp any bailing effort. This is, in no way, an indictment of the courage, loyalty, dedication and perseverance of Canadians in uniform. They have given and continue to give much more than could reasonably be asked of anyone. They have taken on tasks made virtually impossible through lack of equipment, personnel and training and, somehow, keep pulling it off. They perform these miracles at enormous cost to themselves and their families. This can-do attitude is the CF's greatest strength, but it also lets government (Liberal and Conservative) off the hook. If we're doing so well, why do we need more money?

In the past several years, members of every element of the CF have died due to lack of equipment and/or training. We lost soldiers in Afghanistan, partly due to lack of adequate communications equipment and vehicles. We lost a fighter pilot in Cold Lake in a survivable ejection made fatal by the lack of repeatedly postponed modification to the seat harness. Although the jury will be out for some time, we now also have HMCS Chicoutimi. There are many other examples that could be quoted and argued, but, simply put, enough is enough. Every time something catastrophic happens; media, government and Canadians wring their hands in dismay and fret over what has become of us. After a couple of weeks, the fretting dies down and we get back to our normal state of somnambulism in a world where our enemies are wide awake. To think that Canada does not have enemies would be dangerously naive. They are the same enemies that face our traditional allies.

This brings in the relationship that your committee's work must have with the committee on foreign affairs. At the moment, our foreign affairs strategy is cloudy, at best. We cling to the hope that the United Nations will magically re-invent itself into what it should be. That's not going to happen. We exhort other nations to step up to the plate, while we hide in the dugout. We alienate our traditional allies and trading partners. We knee jerk from crisis to crisis in a vacuum, devoid of any national strategy. A clear vision of where we fit in the real world and where we would like to fit is essential. A coherent and logical foreign affairs strategy will lead the way to a coherent and logical defence and security strategy.

There is an enormous capability within Canada for strategic studies that would assist you in your deliberations. This capability has been largely ignored in the past because, in some circles, it was deemed to be coming from out-of-touch retired senior officers. As one of those officers, at a more junior level, I can tell you that what is offered is centuries of collective experience and wisdom from soldiers, sailors and airmen who have been "there" and who have seen first hand the effects of neglect in foreign policy, defence and security matters. Many of these officers also have decades of experience, out of uniform, in areas of current concern. The only axe that we have to grind is the one that compelled us to serve in the first place. That is the strong desire to make Canada the best and safest nation on earth, and one that is truly looked up to and respected by the rest of the world.

Canada's level of respect has slipped drastically for anyone who has taken the time to look through clear glasses. Canadians in uniform are very highly regarded for their personal qualities, knowledge and professionalism. The same cannot be said for how we are perceived by our allies, when it comes to our contribution as a nation. To be sure, we do superb work in isolated cases, such as Afghanistan. Efforts like that bring the rest of the Army to its knees; just as a combat deployment of a mere six CF-18s would bring the fighter force to its knees. Our people in exchange and co-manning positions are often embarrassed, in the presence of their host forces, at our apparent lack of national resolve and commitment. We must change that perception and the only way to do that is to change the reality.

There are many areas where an immediate infusion of money could be put to effective use. An example would be some of the equipment programs that have been lagging badly, such as strategic airlift and strategic sealift. What will be required is a sustained year-over-year increase in defence spending to make our capabilities eventually match the expectations and realities that will derive from a well-developed national strategy. In my view, this will likely take twenty years. The CF's capacity to recruit and train has been so severely debilitated that it will take a slow-starting, accelerating and determined effort to catch up. At the moment all the trainers are committed doers; and there is no one left to train the trainees. They sit around waiting; get into mischief; and eventually leave in boredom. Breaking the logjam in training and stemming the tide of early attrition should be high priorities. The expertise and experience that has walked out the door has a direct impact on combat effectiveness and safety. With cutbacks in equipment, flying hours, field training days and sailing days, the warrior spirit that is at the heart of our capability is eroded. A decreasing "quality of work" becomes a decreasing "quality of life", and the effects can be insidious and serious.

The work of recovery of the Canadian Forces will take much longer than any of you will likely sit in Parliament, but you can be a part of starting it. The more balanced makeup of your committee over previous Parliaments gives you an unique opportunity to make strong and non-partisan progress in a very difficult and critical task. I urge you most strongly to take advantage of every resource at your disposal to bring some vision, hope and solid planning to Canada's national defence and security programs. Our survival as a sovereign nation depends on it and Canadians are depending on you. Good Luck!

Sincerely,
Laurie Hawn, CD
Lieutenant-Colonel (retired)
Edmonton

Smart Border / Dumb Border

2004-10-15T07:08:00.000-07:00

U.S. Home Security Chief Tom Ridge and our very own Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, were together yesterday, extolling the virtues of the Canada-USA Smart Border Plan. Mr. Ridge waxed eloquent about how it is working so well, because terrorism suspects are turned back at the border and prevented from entering the U.S. almost every day. Ms. McLellan beamed beside him, apparently oblivious to the implication that we are, therefore, keeping them all in Canada. I know which side of this border is smart and which side is dumb.

Risk Management, Stiff Upper Lip, and the CF

2004-10-12T18:30:00.000-07:00

In the recent controversy over the HMCS Chicoutimi, various politicians have made some pretty ill-informed comments. While this will surprise no one, they should be excused, because all but a couple have had their nearest brushes with death in service to their country on Nintendo. This is not to minimize personal tragedies that any one of them may have suffered.

Today in Question Period, the Deputy Prime Minister (Anne McLellan) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Keith Martin) practiced the parliamentary art-form of never answering a question. It started with a question from Stephen Harper about whether Canada knew that the Brits were offering us the Upholder-class boats on a "buyer beware" basis. Anne McLellan, as is her habit, completely ignored the question and gave a stock Liberal answer. Stephen Harper followed with a question about a documented $54 million reduction in the submarine programme funding, that affected personnel training. Once again, Ms. McLellan made reference to the boats being ready, but ignored the question about crew training. Several other questions for Keith Martin about training being short-changed were met with similar non-answers.

Keith Martin did say that the Liberal government is committed to giving the CF the tools to do the job. What complete bovine scatology! He also said that no one in the CF is sent out into harm's way nor do they have their lives put at risk. Excuse me, Dr. Martin, but that is exactly what they do for a living.

They do it well and they do it proudly and, for the most part, they do it safely. What McLellan, Martin, etal don't understand is that the operations of the CF entail continuous risk assessment and risk management. Every time an individual soldier, sailor or airman performs a task, he or she is assessing the risk attached and is making a decision to proceed or not. Every time a commander assigns a mission, risk assessment and risk management are a critical part of the decision process. In peacetime, acceptable risk is much lower than in wartime, but there is always risk. All three elements of the CF have exceptional safety records, albeit with the occasional and inevitable lapse.

Besides having good equipment that is well supported, the most essential element in reducing risk is training. It is also the element that is easily allowed to slip. Training and training requirements have slipped in all three elements to an alarming level. Stocks of weapons and ammunition for qualification and training have slipped to well below critical levels. Qualification requirements don't necessarily entail hitting anything (except, eventually, the world); merely be able to drop it, fire it or throw it a (very) few times. Flying hours, sailing days and field training (especially large units) have been slashed to the point that low "quality of work" is adversely affecting our cherished "quality of life" mantra. There is simply no buffer left where experience gained through training can help to ensure survival as missions get more and more complex and dangerous. Risk management is now done on a razor's edge.

A commander can respond to reduced training availability by taking the full steam ahead approach, or by reducing the intensity of activity and, with it, the risk. Any peacetime commander would take the latter approach. Has it affected our operational readiness and combat capability? You bet it has, and the folks at the pointy end will tell you that freely. They still take great and well-deserved pride in what they do and how they do it. They are dying to do more and, regrettably, there may be the occasional pun in that statement. You won't hear them complain in public, because they are loyal to the Service, and that is the way it should be. That loyalty does have limits, though, and the real indicator is how many are expressing their views with their feet. Commanders at all levels must also exercise discretion in expressing what they truly feel, and I know enough of them to know that there is a lot of restrained disgust out there.

It is this stiff upper lip approach that is, at once, the CF's greatest strength and one of its greatest handicaps. Failure is not in their dictionary and people will go to extraordinary lengths to get the job done. When they perform one of their regular miracles, it allows politicians to bask in the glow and pretend that government was part of the mission's success. It also allows government to pretend that all is well and that the CF is being properly looked after. What a load of crap! Every success of the CF for the past forty years has been in spite of the disgraceful negligence and dereliction of successive governments. Will it ever change? Not unless the government is changed.

Let me put the punctuation on government attitude with an observation from an MP during Question Period the other day. When Conservative Defence Critic, Gordon O'Connor, rose to ask a question shortly after the death of Lt. Saunders was announced, the President of the Treasury Board, Reg Alcock, started laughing. I would suggest to the Honourable Member that he may want to hike off to Halifax tomorrow for Lt Saunders' funeral. I'm sure that he will find the part where Mrs. Saunders accepts the flag from her husband's coffin particularly amusing.

Who Pays the Price?

2004-10-08T07:22:00.000-07:00

Who pays the price when government fails? That depends on the failure and how it is perceived. If government fails the people, and the people understand it, government MPs pay the price with the loss of their jobs and the government pays with the loss of power. If the people don't understand the failure or that it affects them, then the government gets away with it and someone else pays.

For decades, Liberal governments have been failing the people, with catastrophic long-term implications. Like many things in the warm and cozy Canadian imagination, this failure hasn't hit home, yet, except to a relatively small group of people directly affected. It probably won't hit home nationally, until it is too late, and our warm and cozy imagination is shaken into reality. That reality is that Canada is no longer looked upon as a reliable ally. We are no longer looked upon as a country that will back up words with actions. We are systematically eliminating our ability to turn words into action. In the meantime, the government deludes itself and Canadians that we are what we used to be. In an effort to maintain that delusion, government commits loyal and brave Canadians to missions and roles without the tools to carry them out safely and completely.

Who pays the price for our national delusion? Most recently, Naval Lieutenant Chris Saunders and his family pay for our delusion. There will be much written and said over the coming weeks on this tragedy at sea. There will be a thorough investigation by a safety board and it will conclude that this was an accident. They will make an assessment of how the situation was handled, and my guess is that the crew will be praised for their response. Without knowing the details, I feel pretty safe in that prediction. This is based on an appreciation of the quality and competence of the people in the various uniforms of the Canadian Forces. My guess is that the report will say that the technical failure was not foreseeable and, therefore, not preventable. I will have a little more trouble with that one, in the broader context of government defence policy implementation.

The progressively more disastrous under-funding of the Canadian Forces is a legacy of decades of (primarily) Liberal governments, starting with Trudeau. This under-funding has reached new lows in the past eleven years, despite Liberal smoke and mirrors and minor injections of cash; and then only when the government has absolutely no other option. The great debate will centre around whether the used British subs were a good deal and whether we need submarines, at all.

First, the issue of submarines, at all. I don't profess to be an expert on naval operations and warfare, but I have an opinion. Canada is a maritime nation with an extremely long coastline and claims over vast areas like the arctic archipelago as far as the north pole. If Canada intends to claim sovereignty over such a vast coastline and mass of land and ice (and the resources thereunder), we must be able to exercise that sovereignty and project our presence in the area. That can be done by air, land and sea forces with varying degrees of effectiveness and difficulty. With climate change, access to the northern passages will become easier and challenges to our claims of sovereignty will increase. We have already seen that with Denmark. Both surface and sub-surface surveillance in this area should be one of the key roles of the Canadian Navy. One is overt and one is covert; and covert surveillance could be key in addressing issues in an international court. Covert surveillance is also an important capability under the threat of terrorism and the war on drugs. Canada should feel a commitment to assist the United States in the sub-surface monitoring of the approaches to North America, and the destruction of imminent threats. And, does anyone think that the serious druggies couldn't afford a couple of old Soviet submarines on the black market and hire crews desperate for a paycheque?

Second, on the issue of the British Upholder Class submarines - you get what you pay for. Even the British press is outraged at what their Ministry of Defence has done to us, but I think that their outrage is misplaced. Caveat emptor would be more apropos, and when the emptor is desperate, mistakes are made. The Royal Navy never put these boats into active service and the Australians took one look on the used sub-lot and passed. There was probably a message there. The desperate state of naval procurement, no doubt, impelled the military to grasp at a straw. With their justified faith in the quality and competence of their personnel, I'm sure that the Navy and "purple" staffs felt that they could make it work. They may have been wrong.

In the National Post today, Sheila Copps bleats that this was not the government's fault, but that any blame rests with the Navy. I would ask Ms. Copps that, if she were drowning, would she accept being thrown a cracked life preserver or no life preserver, at all. She wouldn't answer such a rhetorical question because she, like the current Liberal government, is a hypocrite. I caught the CTV item on her stage-acting debut last night. It was pretty tough to watch, but the conclusion was that she is as bad an actress on stage as she was in Parliament.

Let me finish by asking the question again. Who pays the price when government fails? We all do, but we all owe a debt of gratitude, that can never be adequately repaid, to the men and women and families of the Canadian Forces who pay the direct price on our behalf.

I know that he was talking about a different time and a different service, but in summary, Winston Churchill's words ring true today - "Never......was so much owed by so many to so few."

Down to the Sea in Ships

2004-10-07T09:25:00.000-07:00

It's a sad day aboard HMCS Chicoutimi, in Halifax, and in all of Canada. There is nothing worse in the life of an army unit, air force squadron, or ship than losing a mate. I've been there many times as a mate and, thankfully, only once as a commander. It sucks beyond belief, and my worst moment was giving the widow of a fighter pilot the flag from his coffin.....on her birthday.

Today, Canada mourns the loss of Lieutenant (N) Chris Saunders and prays for the safe return of his ship and the rest of its crew. There will be much written and said about the Upholder Class submarines; and much of it will be emotional. There will be much criticism of the Liberal government and its negligence and irresponsibility; and it will be justified. And nothing will change. Rather than get into that now, I'd just like to offer the following passage in memory of a loyal serviceman who made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.

"They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; These see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep. For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof. They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths: their soul is melted because of trouble. They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits' end. Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses. He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still. Then are they glad because they be quiet; so he bringeth them unto their desired haven."
Psalms, 107:23-30, KJV

IntroBlog

2004-10-06T15:00:00.000-07:00

Hello out there in BlogLand. I had thought that blogs were British footwear, but have now been freed from the bonds of Luddism. As many of you know, I have maintained an expanding Rant List, that I have used to express opinions and to share my occasional poking of grownups in the eyes with sharp sticks. Encouragement for poking grownups in the eye eventually lead to taking on the Deputy Prime Minister in the latest federal election. It was close, but no cigar; but an incredibly positive experience, regardless of the outcome. As Anne McLellan said to me later that night, "I have a feeling that I'll be seeing you again." I told her that I had a feeling that she was right.

Most of my issues are federal, but there is no lack of suitable blogees everywhere. Having listened yesterday to the Speech from the Throne, I would re-name it the Thrown Speech. The Prime Minister, moving the GG's lips, threw out the same old platitudes and Liberal-speak for maintaining the status quo. That status quo equates to several main themes -- maintaining power at all costs -- succumbing to politically correct and feel-good fuzzy whims of the left -- maintaining Canada's position as a hanger-on in foreign affairs, defence, and security matters -- maintaining a justice system that is focused on the rights of the criminal -- maintaining dependency on government for large segments of our population -- pouring endless amounts of money into healthcare instead of reforming it -- ad nauseum. Paul Martin threw away a chance to show courage and leadership, to the surprise of absolutely no one.

While many issues matter to me, my most prominent passion is defence issues and the utterly disgusting Liberal record in decimating that once proud institution. Canadians in uniform are still justifiably proud of what they do and who they are. Just this moment, I heard Paul Martin say that, "There are so many instruments of war in the world; let Canada continue to be an instrument of peace." It doesn't get much more hypocritical than that. He and his predecessors have systematically destroyed the instrument that would allow Canada to play that role. I do not believe that the Prime Minister is not intelligent enough to realize that what he is saying is blatantly false. I do believe that his priorities and those of his government are grossly misplaced and that the only way that we will change government priorities is to change government.

And as I listen right now, the Liberal seals are all on their feet clapping their flippers wildly at their leader's stirring flood of Parliamentary pap ........ pathetic! Why the heck would anyone want to work there? I do!