Having it both ways!

I was astounded this morning when I read an article about our prison system.  Seems that all the hulla-baloo surrounding the new and expanded jail facilities and tough-on-crime justice system might have been a bit of overblown BS.  Just when the feds are building new warehouses for hard-core criminals, the crime rate has dropped... yet again.

Seems to me that was what the critics were telling the government a couple of years ago.  The crime rate is dropping in Canada so new prisons are a waste of money.  The government told the critics that statistics were misleading and that Canada had entered a new crime-ridden period akin the the Wild West.  Seems that the government might have been wrong?

So let's hear from the Vic Toews.  According to Postmedia, "Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said he never believed predictions that the prison population would grow significantly when the government passed legislation that increased mandatory minimum sentences and repealed the two-for-one time-served provisions."

So why, then Vic, did you build more prison space?

However, Corrections Canada Commissioner Don Head, had this to say:  "If you look back over the last 24 months, the federal inmate population has grown by about 1,500.  That is the equivalent of about three large, medium-security institutions."

Let's make sure we understand this statistic.  In January 2010 there were about 13,300 federal cons.  24 months later there were 14,800.  That is a 10% increase.  Is that insignificant, Vic?

Correctional Investigator of Canada, Howard Sapers, said "It is difficult to determine why the inmate population has not grown as much as expected, but suggested the provincial inmate populations may be growing, or there could simply be fewer crimes occurring. In any case, he said, the growth is less than most experts had feared."

Fewer crimes might be occurring?  Isn't that what Vic poo-pooed not so long ago?

Sapers comment also gives more credence to the Provinces who claim that the tough-on-crime policy of the feds would come at their expense.


So what is the bottom line?  Once again, Canadian taxes are being used to fund the far-out orthodoxy of the Conservative government.  And the silent masses just go on being silent!

Next up is the Old Age Security, wherein the government will probably raise the age for OAS from 65 to 67.  And this at a time when jobs are scarce and age discrimination in the workplace is rampant.  I wonder if that will wake up Canadians?

 

In the defense of Canada

I was very surprised that the Liberal policy convention this weekend was so light on defense issues.  It is obvious, at least to me, that the lack of any conversation in that area was a sign of Liberals-on-the-run.  Liberals are so scared of being called traitors by the Cons that they run away from issues that matter to Canadians.

I was not at the convention for reasons known to, but ignored by, the Liberal brass.  But this is not sour grapes... it is common sense.

Over the next week or so, I want to put forward some ideas that will protect Canada, both militarily and fiscally.  After all, you can have both at the same time, if you give it some thought and produce a plan to speaks for Canada and Canadians - instead of the egos of some of our leaders.

Quebec into the fold? Not too likely!

Jean Charest visited with the Alberta premier and came away with policy religion?

Quebec has recently been warming up to the idea of a national energy program... with a few caveats.

Caveat number one is that the feds are not involved in the discussions of the program.   Hard to believe that you can have a national program without the involvement of the national government, but then again, this is Quebec we are talking about.

Caveat number two is that the feds, who are not to be involved in the discussions, must not give a loan guarantee to Newfoundland and Labrador, to create an electricity gateway, from the Lower Churchill Falls to Newfoundland, the other Atlantic provinces and the Northern United States, that bypasses Quebec.

Caveat number three will be that the program has to be named the Quebec and Not-Quebec Energy Program.  OK, I made that up but it is just as absurd as the other caveats.

When, oh when, will Quebec recognize that the current Churchill Falls agreement negotiated in the 1950's is extremely unfair to Newfoundland and agree to renegotiate it.  Then, and only then, should Non-Quebec discuss any agreements with Quebec.

It is as good as any other method.

Whither the CBC

I wonder about the rabid right these days.  It seems that they hate the CBC, as it is left-tilted and subsidized, but they routinely reference CBC reports exposing things like GM foods, medical malpractice and other wrongs on society.  They seldom reference the other media. 

Is it because the CBC is doing a better job than the "free-enterprise" outlets?