Cialis - Buy Cialis Online

Yesterday during Question Period, there was this priceless exchange between Liberal MP Ken Dryden and Parliamentary Secretary James Moore:

Hon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wanted to bring down the Liberal government in May 2005. The problem for him–

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The problem for him was that the vote would be so close that Mr. Cadman’s vote might make the difference.

Mr. Cadman was terminally ill and had a big incentive not to defeat the Liberals, the parliamentary life insurance policy. Even if an offer to him would only neutralize an incentive which should not exist, the problem was that such an offer would be illegal. It would be about buying a vote to bring down a government. That is as bad as it gets.

To the Prime Minister: Is that what happened?

Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, yes, we did want to bring down the Liberal government in May 2005. However, we are pleased that the Liberals are not interested in bringing this government down today.

Over the last two years the Liberals have allowed the Conservative government to pass three budgets and two extensions to the Afghan mission. They passed our crime package and our environment plans. This week or next, they are going to pass our immigration proposals and our immigration reforms.

With political enemies like that, who needs friends?

In his National Post column today, columnist Don Martin took an inimitable swipe at the Stéphane Dion and his Liberals for talking against Conservative policy while failing to vote their “conscience.” The classic quotes are too numerous to reproduce separately here.

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion continues to invite ridicule by his reckless actions. Today he joined with NDP leader Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc, to sign the “Kyoto Plus Pledge.” This pledge (apparently sponsored by the Climate Action Network) “calls for a minimum 25-per-cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020.”

Let’s not forget that these same climate gurus have scorned carbon sequestration, they have denounced the increased production of bio-based fuels as irresponsible and they want to shut down the oil sands, one of the largest economic engines in Canada today. At the same time M. Dion insists that he can build his “richer, fairer, greener Canada” with negligible cost to the economy.

When you reject alternative energy sources, the only way to reduce carbon emissions is to drastically reduce consumption. The question is, how much of Canada’s current consumption would have to be eliminated in order to realize the “Kyoto Plus Pledge”?

The math is actually quite simple. During the Liberal years, and under the Evironmental tutelage of Stéphane Dion, greenhouse gas emissions skyrocketed 36% above 1990 levels. The “Kyoto Plus Pledge” promises to reduce GHG emissions at least 25% below 1990 levels. That means that Canada would have to cut current emissions by at least (36+25=) 61%! That is almost 2/3 of our current emissions in 12 years.

Here is how the current emissions break down by category: Electricity Generation is Canada’s largest emitter (20%). Next in line is Vehicle Emissions at only (18%). These top two sectors are followed by Oil/Gas Emissions (15%), Building Heating (11%), Industry (7%) and Deforestation (10%). Together these six sectors represent over 80% of all emissions in Canada.

In order to reduce GHG’s in line with the “Kyoto Plus Pledge,” Canada would have to declare an immediate moratorium on any new sources of carbon emissions. That means for example, no new cars or trucks on the road except to replace a retiring older model. Next we would have to find a way to eliminate 61% of our current emissions. If we immediately shut down all oil/gas extraction and shut off the electricity to the entire country, we would only have saved about 1/2 of the required cuts. Now lets take every car, truck and bus off the road and quit heating any of our buildings. Coat and sweater sales would skyrocket, but that would have brought our carbon emissions in line with the “Kyoto Plus Pledge” signed by the Dion-Layton-Duceppe alliance.
The country would be at a full dead stop, but we would have complied with the surreal expectations of Dion and company. And why should we make this devastating sacrifice? Because Canada owns 2% of global emissions! That’s right, if we eliminated every carbon emitting source in the country (including the hot air coming from Liberal politicians) we could only possibly affect 2% of the world’s inventory of greenhouse gases.

Maybe the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition should trade in their “Kyoto Plus Pledge” for some Lemon Fresh Pledge and dust off the calculator they were given in high school. The fact is that M. Dion has finally joined the club of irrelevance by admitting that he will never form government! How so? Because only someone who knows they will never have to implement something as ridiculous as the “Kyoto Plus Pledge” would ever sign on to it! With the opposition it’s all about symbolism, with no substance. No wonder even Liberal MP’s are desperate to get rid of their green Napoleon.

The Liberals applauded their leader today as he indignantly demanded, “Will the Minister admit that the government’s attempt to sneak sweeping changes to our immigration system through the backdoor may look like an attempt to deliver promises made by the Reform Party 20 years ago?”

This evening on Mike Duffy Live, the former Director of Canadian Immigration Service, James Bisset, said: “It sounded very much to me as if he was comparing Harper’s Reform message on immigration to a Liberal Prime Minister some time ago, MacKenzie King, who said essentially the same thing – that immigration should not be allowed to alter the fundamental characteristics of the Canadian population. “

Mr. Dion said: “And why do they want to introduce these radical changes through the backdoor…?”

Mr. Bisset (who has actually run the Immigration department) disagreed. He went on to say, ” …in fact this change that the Government has brought in (it’s a change that’s desperately needed and long overdue). When the Liberals brought in the new Immigration Act back in 2001, they forgot to include a very important element: that was a mechanism to regulate and control the flow of immigrants. So we now find ourselves in the position where many many more immigrants can comply with our requirements, and we simply can’t take them all so they have to go into a backlog… All it is trying to do I think is trying to recognize that the system now is out of control, and that it has to be fixed.“

Regarding the motivation for the proposed changes, Mr. Bisset was equally clear: “…part of the design here is to give the Minister the power to prioritize and get into Canada the kinds of skilled labour that we desperately need. On the other hand she’s been very careful (or the regulations have been careful) to insure that those who are in the backlog now are not affected by this change.”

The former Director of Immigration also validated why this legislation is included in a government “money bill” instead of stand-alone legislation: “…the Minister has promised that she will use other means of trying to clean up the backlog as best as she can and I think she’s got another $22 million in this Act to help her do that. The thing that is clearly evident here is that we’ve got (as I say) probably four or five hundred thousand or more skilled workers in the backlog, and it may take up to six years to get them here. In the meantime, employers are desperate…I think the government has recognized that the system was almost at the point of collapse, and something had to be done about it. It’s not going to change the ethnic makeup of the country, it’s not an ideological change.”

As to why the Liberals are opposing this motion, Mr. Bisset was mystified when searching for any rational basis. “I’m surprised really that the Liberals, who are pro-immigration, don’t see that this is a sensible step forward,” he said. “It may be the first step of some major reform, but remember immigration is a question of supply and demand, and the supply far outstrips the demand. We simply can’t take everybody who might meet our qualifications.” Clearly the only motivation of the Opposition is to make the Conservatives look like cold hearted, political villains.

Mr. Bisset concluded: “This is an attempt to get back to where it was before, where the government in charge could regulate the flow… That mechanism doesn’t exist today and that’s what the government is bringing in with this new legislation. It isn’t a nefarious deal.“

Well there you have it. Take the word of an experienced diplomat and former Director of Canada Immigration Service, or listen to Liberal blow-hards who will twist any good policy change into an evil conservative plot to rule the world. The fact is that more immigrants have been admitted under this government than previously. The Conservative government is also the first to slash landing fees to make it easier for immigrants to make it to our shores. The proposed legislation is a good move to help restore order to the immigration system; but as we’ve seen, the Liberals thrive on chaos!

Update: Winnipeg Free Press, April 2, 2008

In yesterday’s exchange during Question Period, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion said: “Mr. Speaker, let me read from the 1988 Reform Party platform authored by the current Prime Minister. It says that immigration should not “radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada”. Will the minister admit that the government’s attempt to sneak in sweeping changes to our immigration system through the back door may look like an attempt to deliver promises made by the Reform Party 20 years ago?” But is that in fact what the quote actually said?

According to the Winnipeg Free Press article referenced above, the full quote actually reads: “Immigration should not be based on race or creed, as it has in the past; nor should it be explicitly designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada, as it increasingly seems to be.” This is dramatically different than what the Liberal leader was implying!  According to the full quote, the platform statement was designed to specifically preclude race or creed from being a determining factor in immigration.

In other words, even in the Reform Party iteration, the idea was to keep government from engaging in social engineering on the basis of race or ethnicity. Immigration should be based on the pragmatic needs of the host country and its ability to host those immigrants in a productive and self-sustaining way. This was essentially the same position as Liberal MacKenzie King had, and is the only sustainable way to regulate the number and class of immigrants into our country. Stéphane Dion deliberately misled the House by taking the portion of the statement from which he quoted totally out of context. He should be ashamed, but that seems to be a virtue that is foreign to Liberal MP’s any more.