Cialis - Buy Cialis Online

With an investment of $861,000 the Conservative government provided a much needed boost to the budding biofuel industry in New Brunswick. This investment had the two-pronged effect of both helping farmers and contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gases with the production on more environmentally friendly biofuels.

At the announcement last Friday, Secretary of State for Agriculture, Hon. Christian Paradis said:

“The demand for greener products is uncovering new value in agriculture and opening new market opportunities, both in crops and even in what was once considered worthless waste,” said Mr. Paradis. “With these projects, we are continuing to help New Brunswickers advance economic opportunities that also help the environment.”

You can read the full announcement and find further information on the initiative at the Government of Canada’s Newscenter.

“Agriculture is an important sector in Northwestern New Brunswick and we are pleased to support innovative initiatives like these projects,” said Robert Thériault, a director on the New Brunswick Agricultural Council which delivers ACAAF and BOPI. “These Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada programs are designed to be flexible and responsive and are administered by industry leaders who understand regional needs in New Brunswick.”

Once again, the Conservative Government is getting things done for the people of New Brunswick and the Environment. Liberal MP’s like Brian Murphy and Dominic LeBlanc are constantly telling voters in this region that ‘Stephen Harper doesn’t care about Atlantic Canada’ because Conservative reviews of Liberal programs have turned up waste everywhere.

Once the waste and ineffectiveness has been trimmed, the Conservative government has reinvested in New Brunswick in a BIG WAY! You can find a fairly complete chronicle of this government’s investments in our province on a page titled Harper Cares. Watch for a post soon on what the Tories have been doing specifically for the riding of Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe.

Sometimes the officials we elect to represent us are not as responsive or effective as we would like them to be. Voters no doubt get frustrated by their seeming inability to directly impact their government and “have their say.”

All that has changed with the Conservative Government.

You are invited to participate in the federal government’s pre-budget consultation ONLINE. You can also find out how the tax dollars for the federal budget are raised, and how they are distributed. This information is available in a printable version, as well as an online Flash multimedia presentation. You can also view a “Snapshot of the Canadian Economy” in both printable and online Flash multimedia presentation.

This consultation seeks your answers to these questions:

• What steps should the Government take in Budget 2008 (and beyond) to ensure that Canada is prepared to deal with the implications of an aging population?
• Should the Government be implementing broad-based policies that will help all sectors of the economy to succeed or should it focus on developing policies to assist specific industries facing special challenges?
• In what areas should the Government focus its resources in Budget 2008 (and beyond)? If resources need to be redirected from other areas, what areas should these be?
• What steps should the Government take in Budget 2008 (and beyond) to ensure that the Canadian economy remains internationally competitive, continues to attract investment and creates high value-added jobs?
• What tax and other measures should the Government take to ensure that Canada keeps its best and brightest, attracts highly skilled immigrants, encourages as many people as possible to enter the workforce, and rewards Canadians for their hard work, while respecting the Government’s fiscal goals?
• What other issues would you like to address?
  

If you would like to skip all the preliminaries and begin providing your feedback immediately, you may do so here.

Special Notice: This information is nowhere to be found on our elected MP’s website at the time of this post. Why is Brian Murphy not giving the people of Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe the opportunity to have direct input with their government? Where is the critic for Democratic Reform when the Conservative Government is expanding true democracy?

This weekend the respected Edmonton Sun echoed comments posted on this blog relating to the flawed Liberal policy on Afghanistan. In an article by Michael den Tandt, the author concludes by saying:

“Canadian soldiers are doing an extraordinary job in Afghanistan under extremely dangerous conditions. The political class in this country owes them a degree of unanimity. If Dion wants to be considered a leader in waiting, he should speak like a leader. That means, very simply, telling the truth.”

In amplifying on many of the views stated in our post The Folly of Stéphane Dion’s Afghanistan Policy, Mr. van Tandt went on to say:

“Prevent our troops from “proactively” seeking out and destroying insurgents? That’s another way of saying, stop defending the troops, aid workers and diplomats engaged in training and reconstruction.

Stop using your intelligence network to find out where the insurgents are, and stop trying to put them out of business. Instead, roll down the road in your convoy and let them blow you up.

Sound insane? It is. But it follows logically from the current Liberal position on Afghanistan.”

This article is well worth reading and is a thoughtful, honest evaluation of the sacrifice that are troops are making over there right now. We’re glad to see that we are not alone in our reaction to M. Dion’s misquided policy.

In comments to the Bloomberg news organization today, NDP leader Jack Layton criticized the billions of dollars of tax relief brought in by the Conservative government last year. These tax cut measures represent over $1000/year for an average NB family that is often struggling to make ends meet.

“Harper’s tax cuts should have been more targeted to help industries in need, and money going to debt repayment should have gone to infrastructure and other spending, Layton said.”

Let’s get this straight: We should put out country on a more stable financial footing to prepare for a slower economy by spending more money, on bigger programs and going deeper into debt. If Mr. Layton runs his family finances as he is suggesting the government run Canada’s finances, he will soon be filing for bankruptcy!

Mr. Layton’s comments come as lawmakers to the south (in the US) are considering “the immediate implementation of US$145 billion worth of tax rebates for individuals and businesses in order to kick start the country’s ailing economy.” That is because lower taxes relieve the burden on struggling families and allow them to keep making their mortgage payments in difficult times. Tax cuts also help the small businesses that power our economy to keep paying their employees rather than using layoffs and shut-downs to stay solvent.

“‘Clearly, Mr. Layton doesn’t understand the benefits of tax cuts and tax relief,’ said Dan Miles, a spokesman for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. ‘We believe that’s the way to stimulate the economy, to grow the economy, and to make the economy more competitive.’”

What Mr. Layton does not understand is Economics 101! While we appreciate the NDP’s avowed principles of helping the poor and disadvantaged, they need to get their leader’s head out of the clouds and learn how the real world works.

Tonight on Mike Duffy Live, Liberal strategist Scott Reid tried to spin Stéphane Dion’s blunder by stating that NATO is a “diplomatic organization.” That is simply not true from the understanding of any government which is a party to NATO or otherwise.

Wikipedia, a respected online encyclopedia, starts their article on NATO this way:

NATO “is a military alliance established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. With headquarters in Brussels, Belgium,^[2] the organization established a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.”

Mr. Reid went on to say that M. Dion was only suggesting a diplomatic intervention. Here is the quote of exactly what M. Dion said as reported in the Montreal Gazette:

“He was speaking French at a Quebec City press conference when he suggested an intervention by “NATO forces” in Pakistan to hunt down Afghan insurgents who take refuge there across the unguarded border between the two countries.

‘If they (referring to the Pakistanis) are not able to deal with it on their own, we could consider that option with NATO forces in order to help Pakistan help us pacify Afghanistan,’ he said.

To a one, reporters covering the event, of both French and English media, took this to mean that Dion was calling for a military intervention, sending in troops, some presumably Canadian.”

So let’s get this straight: NATO understands itself to be a military alliance based on mutual defence. Every reporter present at M. Dion’s press conference understood his comments (in his primary language) to be calling for military intervention. Even the government of Pakistan was troubled enough by his comments to respond officially, even though M. Dion does not represent the government.

Perhaps M. Dion was thinking of the UN (which is primarily a diplomatic rather than military organization). The fact is we’ll never know what he was thinking because he made a huge gaffe and he is refusing to own up to it. No one is denying there are problems on Afghanistan and Pakistan’s shared border. The issue is not whether there is a problem, the issue is M. Dion’s proposed solution. NATO sends Generals and the UN sends Envoys. If M. Dion can’t get that straight, he is not ready to be Prime Minister.

Addendum: In a CBC interview with Peter Mansbridge Thursday night, “Mansbridge said diplomatic efforts have done little to curb the flow of militants from Pakistan, and asked the Liberal leader what he suggested as a better solution.

“Well, I have no other solution than to say that we need to be very assertive in our diplomatic effort and pressure on Pakistan.” 

When asked what being assertive meant, Dion replied: “I have no magic solution to offer on that and nobody has.” 

Liberal strategists and MP’s like Dominic LeBlanc have been saying recently that “Canadians are getting to know M. Dion” - as if that’s a good thing for them. Just days after being soundly denounced by Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, M. Dion has now implied that NATO should consider putting troops into Pakistan.

There are a couple of major problems with that statement: 1) Pakistan is in a state of turmoil now with the assasination of Benazir Bhutto and the on-again, off-again, hold on power by General Pervez Musharraf. 2) Pakistan (a nuclear power by the way) has emphatically disinvited any foreign troops on its sovereign soil! Unless M. Dion is suggesting that we open a new front in the war on terror and invade Pakistan, he is just speaking carelessly, thoughtlessly and irresponsibly.

From conservative.ca we read:

Yesterday, Stéphane Dion once again demonstrated what kind of risk he would be as Prime Minister when he called for a NATO military intervention in Pakistan.

Although Liberal spin doctors have been working overtime ever since trying to do damage control by suggesting Mr. Dion was talking about a diplomatic intervention, the intent behind Stéphane Dion’s words are clear.

“We are going to have to discuss that very actively if they (the Pakistanis) are not able to deal with it on their own. We could consider that option with the NATO forces in order to help Pakistan help us pacify Afghanistan,” Mr. Dion said…

So irresponsible were M. Dion’s statements that they earned a swift rebuke from the government of Pakistan.

“The government of Pakistan has blasted Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion for his ‘irrational’ suggestion that NATO intervention might be necessary in the troubled South Asian country that borders Afghanistan.

‘We are dismayed by the statement of the leader of Opposition,’ the government said in a statement released late Thursday by the Pakistan High Commission in Ottawa.

‘It shows a lack of understanding of the ground realities.’

‘We have, at the highest level, made it clear that Pakistan will not allow any foreign forces to operate within its territory under any circumstances.’

‘The sovereignty of the state will not be compromised at any level as the government and people of Pakistan are fully capable of handling their security matters themselves.’

Dion also raised the ire of Pakistan with his assertion that everything Canadian and other NATO troops do to root out insurgents and bring peace to Afghanistan ‘is cancelled in part by the inaction in Pakistan.’

In its statement, the Pakistan government took issue with the suggestion that it has done little to stem the flow of Islamic militants back and forth across its border.

Liberal apologists quickly tried to cover M. Dion’s tracks by pulling his foot out of his mouth. Defence critic Denis Coderre explained that M. Dion was talking about a diplomatic solution, rather than an imminent invasion.

Conservative MP, “Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism, pointed out that Dion called for NATO intervention in Pakistan.

‘NATO is a military alliance. When you talk about a NATO intervention, you are clearly and explicitly talking about a military intervention,’ Kenney said.

Kenney said the only other possible explanation for Dion’s comments is that he doesn’t understand what NATO does…

NDP defence critic Dawn Black also noted that NATO is a military organization and called on Dion to retract his ‘misguided’ comments.

‘By proposing to send military forces into a nuclear-armed country of 165 million people, Mr. Dion has made a very risky and damaging statement,’ she said.”

(Source: Toronto Star, Joan Bryden CP, January 17, 2008)

This is the man whom the Liberal party has chosen to lead them. This is the man who would be Canada’s next Prime Minister. This is yet another reinforcement of the fact that Stéphane Dion is not ready for prime time! We must remember that this is a very sensitive and volatile region diplomatically. “Iran recently expelled Canada’s ambassador for protesting about the torture death of a Canadian-Iranian citizen, a female photojournalist who was murdered while in custody.” M. Dion’s statement as Opposition leader was reckless, to make that statement from the Prime Minister’s chair could be disastrous. Canadians must consider these important facts very carefully when chosing the leader of our country.

Preamble: We must be extremely careful to make clear from the outset that we do not mean to connote any disrespect for the sacrifice of the members of the Canadian Forces and their families, whether implied or incidental. The purpose of this article is to conduct a frank and honest review of current Liberal party policy vis a vis Afghanistan and CF deployment of troops there.

Introduction: The Liberal position is that “The CF simply cannot continue to engage in an extremely dangerous combat campaign of this scale… A Canadian military presence to train the Afghan National Army and police, or a commitment to assign troops to protecting Afghan civilians and reconstruction projects in other parts of the country are both possible.” (from their submission to the Manley Panel, p.5)

Question: Will the Liberal proposal to retreat from “combat operations” and focus on reconstruction security result in a reduction of casualties?

Methodology: Analyze the causes, location and circumstances of casualties suffered by Canadian Forces thus far to determine the primary factors leading to deaths.

Data: Total number of Canadians killed in Afghanistan 2002-2008: 78

* Of the 19 “Combat offensive operations” deaths, 5 were victims of “friendly fire” while conducting live fire exercises in a training area.

Four more of the 19 came under attack by insurgents while working on road construction crews. While these brave men are certainly entitled to be listed as combat fatalities, this kind of attack could happen anywhere in Afghanistan as long as our soldiers are there. It could be argued that their deaths would not have been prevented under the proposed Liberal policy.

In fact the number of casualties suffered by Canadian Forces in direct counter-insurgency operations that the Liberals are insisting must be discontinued is 10.

Conclusions: Canadian soldiers have been the target of Taliban insurgents simply because they wear the uniform of a western military. Taliban fighters however often fade into the civilian population where they take shelter. When NATO commanders try to reduce potential allied casualties by rooting the Taliban out with air strikes, the Taliban use their civilian counterparts (including women and children) as human shields.

According to the current Liberal position, “Dion and Ignatieff travelled to Afghanistan days after releasing the party’s submission to the panel headed by John Manley on Canada’s future military involvement there. It reiterated that Canada should serve notice to its allies that it will withdraw its 2,500 troops from Kandahar by February 2009 and cease all combat operations then.” (Source)

That would certainly play well to an uninformed Canadian public back home, but it does not stand up to the light of honest analysis. Pulling our troops out of ‘combat operations’ would not save them from IED’s, landmines and roadside bombs. Neither would it save our forces from suicide bombers (who often operate in presumed “safe” areas). As long as we have military in uniform (or identifiable as westerners) in the country, they will remain a target.

The other deaths listed in the chart above such as vehicle accidents, helicopter crashes and a mortar attack on a police sub-station are just as tragic and regrettable as any combat loss. As long as our troops are moving about the country however, they will be vulnerable to these types of logistical failures.
In summary, the Liberal position is short-sighted and politically expedient. Losing Canadian soldiers conjures up the visceral fears of every mother and father; facing the death of their child. One death in a foreign country is too many, but it must be remembered that we are there to protect our families who remain at home.

The NATO invasion of Afghanistan was meant to displace the Taliban and destroy a safe haven for terrorists to train and recruit. Today there is a legitimately elected government in Kabul, and much of the country is stable, peaceful and engaging democracy. The fact that there remains a stubborn insurgent element is testimony only to the fact that our job is not done.

Perhaps one of the most important questions the Manley Panel has to consider is, “What happens if we pull out before the Afghan government can stand on its own two feet?” What would it mean to see the return of Taliban control in Afghanistan? If that happens, there will once again be a fertile recruiting ground for Muslim extremists. Taliban brutality and suppression of women and children would resume. They would soon begin to export terrorism on the scale of 9/11 once again. In short, the deaths of so many of our brave Canadian men and women would be absolutely in vain. That is unacceptable.

Perhaps nothing is more shocking than a life cut short by tragedy. Such was the case when eight young students and a teacher lost their lives in a weekend accident in Bathurst.

Parents who were fighting back sleep to greet their children coming home from a basketball game in Moncton had their hearts torn out by the terrible news of a wreck. There were last words on a cell phone as the van carrying the team neared the city limits, and then life stood still.

There is no immediate understanding as to why these things happen. In an imperfect world, sadness often comes when we least expect it. Dreams are cut short, bright futures are curtailed and a coach loses his wife, the mother of his child.

There is no room for blame, only sorrow. Thousands before have traveled in difficult conditions, and arrived safely at home. This is a tragic reminder of the frailty of our human experience and a sobering challenge to make every moment count.

To those mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who have lost a loved one, we can only say that our hearts hurt too for your loss. To the two drivers who will no doubt battle sleepless nights in torment over what they could have done different, we pray for your heart and mind to be at peace knowing you did what you could. To the city of Bathurst and the students of Bathurst High: our spirit of competition has been replaced by the spirit of compassion for your deep grief.

May God give you peace as the waves of this loss move the sands of time in your lives.

You have my heart felt sympathy and condolence,

Phil Seely,
President of the Board

In another folder of the “Promises Made/Promises Kept” file, the Times & Transcript reported this week that substantial progress has been made on the International Track and Field Stadium funded by the Conservative government, the province and the city of Moncton. Back in March 2006 (as one of his first acts as Prime Minister,) Stephen Harper visited Moncton to confirm that the federal government would be posting $6 million towards the construction of the stadium.

Located behind the CEPS on the Université de Moncton campus, the new facility is designed to hold 10,000 fans. This is an exciting achievement for the city and this facility will be able to host a number of events that will help to fill all the new motel rooms and restaurants that are springing up in our riding.

 Soon we will be posting a link to video of the announcement so that you can see the excitement in the room as the different levels of government embarked on this project. Check back to this post soon for updates.