Invasion of the Pink Book - Part One

When Belinda was working for daddy, she spent daddy's billions to do what she wanted. Now she wants to spend our money as if it is hers on so called "women's issues" as if she has free use of our money.

Belinda, spending Canadian tax dollars is not the same as spending your daddy's money. It is my money, it is my parent's money, it is every Canadian's hard earned money that you seem to think you have free access to.

It is interesting that the Liberals make more loop holes for the rich to escape paying their fare share of taxes, while members of the liberal party like Belinda appear to think that we Canadians have bottomless pockets and are the only ones available to support the government of Canada. Wrong sweet-heart. You do not have the right to just spend our money freely.

All of Belinda's pink promises seem to add up to more social spending and bloating bureaucratic over weight than what it is worth. If Belinda wants to fight for working families, why doesn't she support the Conservatives idea of income splitting that would save the family earning a collective $80,000.00 a year, $17,000.00 in taxes. Not tax credits but real saving of tax dollars.

I keep hearing of the so called wage gap between women and men. I keep wondering where this is? There is already legislation that has been made a long time ago that ensured women earned the same as men for the same kind of work. Every place where I have worked, women have received the same pay as their male counterparts.

Factory workers, whether male or female earn the same wages in Canada. Female managers of stores earn the same as their male counterparts. Teachers and other unionized employees all earn the same wages regardless of their gender. Members of the board of directors, female bank managers, nurses (male and female), doctors, all earn the same money for work of equal value. So I wonder where all these unequal paying jobs are.

Women have come a long way in Canada and are equal and often more equal then men. Many colleges hire women over men. Quotas have been set that a certain percentage of women must be hired and the list goes on. Equal work of equal value whether by salary, hourly wage, rated on years of service, commission wages, or grid system, women receive the same pay as men. Again, I wonder where these unequal jobs are.

Belinda is focusing on issues that are over twenty years old instead of focusing on issues that affect Canadians today, such as the outsourcing of jobs to India, Mexico, China, etc. The middle class appears to be paying the bulk of the taxes that Parliamentarians are so eager to spend, instead of being rescued from the greed that seems to overtake the members of both federal and provincial governments.

The Pink Book suggests that 43% of cuts made by the Conservatives be re-instated with a further 25% added. Where the hell is that money coming from? The average Canadian pocket is pretty bare already. How much more do you plan on raping the Canadian, when a collective 48% of the average Canadians income goes to taxes. It is time that the pay received by members of Parliament be taxed as income. Maybe then you high priced bellhops would be more frugal with our money. Remember it is not your money, it is ours. Members of Parliament should be working for Canadians, instead of Canadians being enslaved to work for Members of Parliament and their bureaucratic desk jockeys.

Right now there are those who are thinking that I am an angry white male, a chauvinist, and neo-Conservative that believes women should be bare and pregnant in the kitchen. Let me clarify that I don't care who stays home with the kids, I don't who cooks and cleans, I don't care who reads the bedtime stories, and I don't care which gender earns the money or if both earn the money. That is not the real issue here. It all boils do to the fact that Canadians are continually being prostituted for tax dollars so that some political party looks good on paper.

Remember, the Liberal governments have had years in power to perfect women's issues. They have had years to do something about the poor, the downtrodden, and ordinary plight of the average Canadian. In reality the Liberals have done nothing but increase spending, which has increased taxes, and have added to the scam of non-refundable tax credits. If you want to give me a tax break, cut my taxes. Don't give me a tax credit that means nothing.

By the way, I am single and I don't give a crap about being partnered or married. I earn my own way without government funding or welfare living on $1400.00 a month of which half goes to rent, and half of that goes to hydro, phone, food, and paying other bills. I don't have a rich daddy like Belinda.

Have a great day.

Coal in my stocking, coal in my stoking, coal

This is going to get coal in my stocking for sure. In fact I imagine some people will be right pissed off at me. Every year there is appears to be an assertive effort to get more and more donations to charity organizations during this so called "holiday season". Well I've had enough of it.

In the words of Charles Dickens - "It poor excuse to pick a man's pocket every December 25." The reason why I am so annoyed is that just about every tom, dick, and harry organization is out there crying for money, and that's just through the year. At Christmas time they pull out the violins and play the poverty rag day in and day out. Well enough of it already. Don't my tax dollars already pay for the social well being of the poor?

John A. MacDonald, Canada's first Prime Minister told the House of Commons that there will always be the poor among us. Our job is not to look after them, but to make sure that we don't become one of them (my paraphrase). There are some who quote scripture so elegantly that they emphasis the passage where Paul says "If you don't work, you don't eat." Harsh words for a liberal socialist society like Canada.

But let me put your minds at ease. My biggest disgust is with organizations that spend millions on internal salaries, advertising, television commercials, etc. while giving very little to those who need it. It is important for us to study each group that we give our money to, to find out how much goes to internal spending and how much actually goes to the people that our donations are trustingly suppose to go to.

CARE for example has been reported to spend 80% of its donated money on internal spending with only 20% actually going to the needy people it was intended for. Even conservation and environmental groups spend more on internal spending than directing money outside to areas where it is needed. You figure for every television add that you see asking you for money, that add is costing the organization at least $150,000.00 for 30 seconds of your viewing time. The World Wildlife Federation has whole half hour programs that must cost them a fortune to produce. And then there is air time. That isn't cheap. Depending on whether it is prime time or not, no station shows commercials for nothing. The cheapest time slot in some cases in $6,000.00 for each time the add is shown. These are just rough estimates that I have heard about from those who work in the television industry. No commercial is shown for nothing. No television promotion or program is shown for nothing.

So how do we find out how much these organizations spend. You have to do your homework. You have to do the searching yourself as to the groups that you are willing to sponsor.

The Shriners for example are the best promoters of their fundraising efforts. They give 98% to 100% of their fundraising to the areas that they sponsor including their Children and Burn Hospitals. The Mennonite Central Committee is next giving up to and including 90% of their fundraising efforts directly to where the need is most.

Churches that are community driven and support community efforts for the poor, direct up to

80% of their fundraising to support the different organizations that they look after. Often some of the churches also run food banks, outreach programs for the needy, street missions, and more. The most famous of these churches is the Salvation Army, that takes an active role in the community looking after the physical and spiritual needs of individuals from the streets to the prisons to their own congregations. The history of the Sally Ann (Salvation Army) comes right out of the streets of England.

Dwight Moody who established Moody Church in Chicago went into the streets of Chicago and brought in the poor, looking after their physical and spiritual needs in that order. Like many other dedicated religious leaders of his day, they realized that the physical needs of the people had to be met first before their spiritual needs could even be first considered.

Yes give, by all means give. But don't give to make yourself feel better. Don't give to earn yourself points as it were with the Big Guy. No. Give because you believe that you should. In doing so check out the organizations that really spend the largest majority of their fundraising on those where the money is suppose to go.

Are They Taking Things Too Far?

This evening, the House of Commons will be voting on the idea of declaring Quebecois a "nation" within a unified Nation - Canada. This motion is expected to pass as it is supported by all parties in the House. There will be those who will oppose the motion, but if the party whips snap these voices of opposition may become silent in the end.

There are problems though. First of all Prime Minister Steven Harper presented the motion under the definition of Canada being founded by two nations - France and England. This was the idea first established by Lester Pearson. First Nations peoples have been ignored through out this process.

Premier Campbell of British Columbia is calling for Ottawa to recognise "First Nations" as a third founding Nation. This could be a problem as there are approximately fifty five aboriginal nations in Canada. In reality then there are fifty seven founding nations, all fighting for a piece of a Nation that is now having difficulty in keeping nationhood ideology straight so that the common people of Canada (non-french, non-natives) can understand and comprehend. Until such understanding is obtain, the idea of a nation within a nation is having a problem.

At present, in the motion that has been presented by Prime Minister Steven Harper does not include a definition as to what "nationhood" means with in the frame work that is being proposed. The term "nation" usually means one of two things: a) a political country. and b) a people of ethnicity.

A political country is what Canada is at present. Canada is a country that has been established by an act of the British Parliament (British North America Act - 1867). No matter what some Native people have been saying, Canada is a political nation that has been established, constituted and recognized as being a nation. As a political reality, Canada as a nation has jurisdiction and authority over the lands that have been established by laws and international laws that stem from the Government of Great Britain.

A nation based on ethnic origins is the second concept of what makes up a nation. In this situation, every aboriginal and everyone of ethnic origin can call themselves a nation. This is understood in areas such as France, Italy, England, Germany, Mohawk, Ojibwa, and Cree where nationhood can be determined by the ethnic origin of a group of peoples which have established and organized themselves into a country. The problem then is how does the Parliament of Canada determine what is and what isn't a nation, if these two terms of nationhood are generally accepted.

We find all kinds of examples in the world that determine nationhood based on both ethical and political ideologies. China is a nation is based on political ideology as there are a variety of ethnic peoples that make up the fabric of the country of China. The same can be said for other countries such as Russia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, India, United States, Canada, and more.

Countries that have been established on ethnic foundations include countries such as England, France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Portugal, and others. The concept is language, culture, religion and social structure that makes up the ethnicity of the country. If we base all countries on the ethnicity of the people that occupy the land, we run into further trouble, for in the age of conquest it was or were these very countries of ethnic origins that established political countries as they expanded their "empires" around the world.

Aboriginal Nations are not excluded from this concept. It is well documented in the histories of Aboriginal peoples of north america that wars were a common occurrence. In these wars prisoners were taken, territories obtains, people enslaved, and people killed or murdered through acts of torture. Alliances were also made to bring peace to an area or to a group of people. This has been acknowledged as one of the reasons for the establishment of the Six Nations Confederacy. The confederacy brought peace and prosperity to Nations that had a history of fighting amongst each other for a variety of reasons. It also brought together Nations in a common goal to fight the Americans as they began to establish their "political nation" which was moving into and onto native territories.

The colony of New France (modern day Quebec province) was conquered by the British. In reality, Quebec or french speaking people in Canada are a conquered nation. They have never recognized themselves as being conquered, but the truth of the matter is they are (period). To give them nation status without definition of clarity is not only a problem, but contains the very ingredients for future trouble. Can the government of Canada make Quebec a nation with in a nation? Would this terminology be extended to the fifty five aboriginal nations that also make up the fabric of Canada?

If the House of Commons, or the Government of Canada continues to declare Quebec as a nation without any term of structure or terminology, what does this do for the future? Will Quebec be able to determine their own national destiny? Would the Supreme Court of Canada force the Government of Canada to recognize aboriginal nations the same as Quebec? Pandora's box is being ripped wide open and no one seems to be giving it much thought. Yes this is a political move, but the implications for future understanding and determination does not appear to have been contemplated.

Prime Minister Steven Harper has more a foot, than what is being seen at this time. He is playing his cards very close to his chest and isn't letting anyone else see the cards that he is holding. The fact is, he wants to open the constitution and needs reasons to open the constitution without bringing attention to such bills as the Religious Protection Act, Accountability Act, and all the other acts that are being held up by the liberal dominated Senate. Any opening of the constitution for any reason will enable Prime Minister Harper to slip in other pieces of legislation he desires. Omnibus bills have been used with ease in both the federal and provincial parliaments. There is more to this game.

For example, Mr. Harper has been in a number of meetings with certain Premiers of Provinces. Agreements are being hammered out. There is a whisper in the wind that Mr. Harper plans to give the provinces more power, not just more money. There is a hint that duplication of services from the federal level will be stopped or at least phased out at the federal level. In other words, the re-establishing of the concepts first dictated in the British North America Act of 1867 and the division of political powers and authority as found in the B.N.A. act.

If this is the case, or even close to the ideology, yes the net deficit will be paid off by 2021 and Canada as a political nation will not only be an energy super power but also an economic super power. Canada will not only have a major role to play in the affairs of the world, but will be the dominate power in North and South America. What Mr. Harper is asking and attempting to answer is the question that the Americans have been asking themselves since the First World War: "What is the role of Canada in the political and economical affairs of North America?".

If you tie in everything that I have been writing about in this blog over the last two or more years, this question is being answered. Canada will be playing the dominate role in the affairs of North America as long as the liberals do not get back into power before Mr. Harper has completed his goal. A question that my friend from Seattle and I have to add to this is: "How much of an influence has lian Brian Mulroney played?"

Wow - An about face or a political manouver

Quebec is a nation with in a unified national nation of Canada. The statement is just as important as the motion to recognize Quebec and its speciality as a distinct people.



The Bloc made the statement that Quebec has always been and will always be a nation period. The speech by the Prime Minister Steven Harper brings to the fore front what other federalist politicians could not do twenty to thirty years ago.



So what has the Prime Minister done? What has he achieved in making this motion? On the surface it is very clear. On the surface he has gained the support of the whole House of Commons, and even though the Bloc Quebecois may not eagerly support the Prime Minister's motion, the majority of the House of Commons does. This means that Quebec is recognized as a nation under the umbrella of the Nation of Canada.



Quebec Premier Charest supports the motion whole heatedly. This motion also has gained the support of the Quebec people. All this in turns give the Conservative Party of Canada an edge in Quebec demonstrating to the Quebec people that the Conservative Party of Canada is willing to recognize Quebec as "equals" to English Canada.



At the same time, this puts the liberal party into a bit of a difficult passage. The Quebec wing of the liberal party is happy, while the western and some English liberals are not so enthusiastic. This could still cause a rift in the liberal party, but for now it prevents the rift from getting bigger. This move by Prime Minister Steven Harper also solves the problem of how to approach Quebec "nationhood" within the ranks of the liberal party, something that the leadership hopefuls are no doubt pleased with. With support of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal party, this motion will move a head.



The Bloc Quebecois under the leadership of Msr. Duceppe, has tabled his motion calling Quebec a Nation, independent of Canada this morning (Thursday, November 23, 2006). His motion will quickly die on the floor and would have died anyways. The Bloc was looking for ammunition to sovereignty of Quebec with their motion. If the Prime Minister had not tabled his motion yesterday, Parliament would have been forced into a position whereby Msr. Duceppe could return to the Quebec people with enough ammunition to win enough seats in the House of Commons in the next election to become the "Loyal" Opposition Party like it once did when lien Brian Mulroney was the prime minister. Now this motion is meaningless as far as many of the Quebec people are concerned. Both the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois have lost much of the winds in their sails for Nationhood of Quebec.

There is division though in the ranks of all parties. Some support the idea of Quebec as a nation within a Nation, while others do not. There is also great divisions in the people of Canada on this very issue. If, however, the people of Canada understood the framework of this motion they might re-evaluate their thinking.

First of all, by saying Quebec is a nation within a unified Nation of Canada, it gives Quebec what they always wanted which is recognition. This allows the province leadership to come to Ottawa and join the signatures to the Constitution Act of 1983. The result is an inclusive Constitution of Canada.

Secondly, this also forces the hands of the Native population to decide once and for all. Are they Canadian or are they what ever Nation they happen to be? If the Natives decide that they can be a nation within a unified Nation of Canada, this "elevates" them to the similar status of Quebec. A nation under the umbrella of the Nation of Canada, something that Ms. MacDougal has been trying to establish at the negotiation table in Caledonia. This then changes the whole structure of future land claims (which by the way appears to be claiming more land than Canada actually has). It does not recognise "sovereignty" but recognized equality allowing for all First Nations to come to Ottawa to sign the Constitution Act of 1983. By this motion in itself, the Native people have a choice to make. They can maintain their "nationhood" and be inclusive in Canada, or they can reject the idea which will put them into a position whereby Canada as a nation, will be able to totally turn their backs on the Native communities that refuse which in turn will enable the total cutting off all political, social, economical, and program ties to the Native people. Blackmail is a harsh term, but that is really what it is.

Third, this move allows the Prime Minister to freely open the constitution debate which in turn will allow him to enter into the constitution the freedom of Religious Institution Act, making it impossible to bring to court religious leaders and individuals for their beliefs on homosexuality, on refusing to do business with the gay community if they so wish to, and enables the ministers of religion to speak out against the gay community without fear of prosecution.

Fourth and final, this motion also allows the Prime Minister to create an omnibus bill where by he can collect all the bills that have been refused passage by the liberal dominated Senate. By collecting them into one bill which declares Quebec Nationalism any refusal of the entire bill will declare to Quebec the opposite of what any party is willing to express. This can be and is a win, win situation for the Prime Minister if he chooses to go this route.

Collectively then, Prime Minister Steven Harper has made a move that will enable the Conservative Party to do even more these short nine months, than what the liberal government has been able to do in their thirteen plus years of government dictatorship and rule.

Who Do You Trust?

For years, I have been leery of people wearing masks of any kind. Even Halloween masks have a purpose which is to hide the face.

When ever I see a Warrior with his face covered, for me that tells me that he or she can not be trusted. They have something to hide, regardless if it is their true identity or not. They hide behind a mask which illustrates that they can not be trusted, they are only there to do harm, they are hiding behind a mask to intimidate others with fear.

I have little respect for those who hide their faces. I have no trust of them what so ever. Even though I know that trust is not part of their program, I would nor could ever deal with someone who's only act of barbarism is hiding behind a mask.

The Islamic militants hide their faces the same as the Warriors. This is a sign to inflict fear into the hearts of other about them and their victims of their barbarism. It also is a sign of cowardice, a sign of weakness, a sign of a thief, a dishonest person, a person with no morals, no self esteem, no pride in themselves or their culture. They are without respect.
Lately the western world has had to come to grips with another form of hiding ones face, or I should say one's body. The Islamic code, the Koran and other teachings by Islamic religious leaders, insist that women wear modest clothing and conduct themselves in modesty. I find that this attire draws attention to the person and is not modest in any way.

It is a sign of oppression, the enforcing of a male dominate society against a supposed sub-servant race or species of humanity called women. The Bible even called for women to wear a head covering, and even though the women of Biblical days wore long vials and dresses, their faces were open to public viewing. The vial or head covering was also a sign of submission to the male members of society as well as if there was a need to hide ones face, they could by drawing the vial across their faces.

Veils were even a custom in Europe during the centuries called the "dark ages" or medieval age. There women were to show humility by wearing clothing that hid the body. Has society, or the world progressed? Or has male domination continue to hide itself in the causes of religion?

In many Islamic countries as well as western societies, the Islamic women is still expected to cover themselves in male submission. This is a sign of submission while in western eyes it is a sign of oppression. This is where the rub is. This is where Eastern religion, thought, and culture comes into conflict with Western religion, thought, and culture.

While both religions are looking for converts to impose their values on society, the secular societies of the Western world is in total conflict with all religions. France has outlawed the wearing of all religious symbols in public. The Netherlands is well on the way to outlawing the wearing of anything that hides the face on either male or female for any reason. Britain, which has one of the highest Islamic populations outside the Arab world is also looking at laws that will prohibit the wearing of anything that hides the face.

We will now see how Islam will meet western secularism and how this will play out. The Islamic militants will use this to their advantage as they continue to oppress women into submission, and hide their faces as cowards when they do their barbarous deeds upon the innocent.

So what does a mask mean to you? How do you react to hidden faces? Children who are not used to beards often show fear and lack of trust to those persons wearing a beard. They see the same thing. Someone who wants to hide their face for what ever reason.

Yes! The new impaired driving law is being tabled

After about three years in the making, the new impaired driving law is finally being tabled by the present Conservative Government. The new law would see the Police being able to to demand urine, blood, and saliva samples from an impaired driver who has been driving while under the influence of either alcohol or a drug. I applaud the step forward in the battle against impaired driving.

As you can tell I have no sympathy for any impaired driver. Impaired drivers are the scourge to society and humanity. These waists of flesh are nothing more then fowl undigested pieces of flesh that need to be regurgitated from society. They need to be treated with a heavy hand, and in this case I would be in favour of using a sledge hammer to kill the impaired fly. If you haven't noticed already, I have no patience for impaired drivers of any kind for any reason regardless of who they are.

Impaired driving is not an excuse. It is a sign of imbecilic stupidity that needs to be eradicated from the highways of Canada. People scream and cry out in rage and anger about gun and other violent crimes. Yet thousands of more people are killed, maimed, and injured because of impaired drivers while these same voices stay silent as they shrug their shoulders with contempt.

You hypocritical bastards I shout. You scream about gun crimes and yet stay silent about impaired driving, telling the government they need to mind their own business. I have no patience for you, nor the time of day. BITE ME!

Ten years for causing injury and a maximum of life in prison for causing death is fine by me. Or how about an eye for an eye. The driver that took my leg, I should be able to see his leg get taken (the bastard). The drunk driver that destroyed my cousin's life got his justice. The impaired driver was killed in the accident. I had nor have no sympathy for that drunken waist of flesh.

So I stand up and cheer for the government of Prime Minister Steven Harper in tabling this law, a law that all the parties were in favour of when the same law was brought before Parliament under the liberal government. The same law that I went to Ottawa to express my desires to see this law toughened up. I am glad that those who were in the committee meeting heard my witness over and above the goody two shoes who wanted the the law scrapped.

By the way, the news media has not done their homework. In the State of Arizona, they have already developed a breathalyzer that can determine the amount of drug residue in a person's system with in 24 hours of the time the person was using drugs. Also the tests done by specially trained officers has developed over the years so that the evidence given in the courts has been accepted as creditable evidence. Too many lawyers are too interested in making money and being impaired themselves, than they are realizing that impaired driving is equal to any violent crime and/or act against another person.

There are no excuses for impaired driving of any kind.

Is It Religion or Political?

I have been reading, and reading, and reading, and reading, and reading. I have been trying to put thing together, attempting to bridge gaps, figure out what everything is all about.

I have come to the understanding that this is not only political, it is also a matter of religion. What you say? Yes. It is also a matter of religion.

We hear the Islamic people claiming that their law, the law of the Koran is part and parcel of their lives. That their laws, the laws of Allah are above the laws of any country. Their religion and their understanding of the law as written in the Koran and given by the Mulahs (not sure of spelling) and other religious leaders, are an important part of their very lives. The physical life and the spiritual life are intertwined with each other. The two can not be separated, therefore there is no such thing as a secular life. It just does not exist.

The Natives have been claiming a similar ideology. They claim they are not subject to Canadian law, or the law of the land. They claim that they are only answerable to the laws of the Creator, the laws of the Longhouse. They claim that their culture and their spiritual life are one and the same, they are intertwined together making their law superior to Canadian law. Therefore they are claiming that there is no secular part to their life. Their religion and their physical life are one and the same.

So as I read and listen to the Natives such as Hazel Hill, The Rotiskenrakere, Kahentinetha Horn, Jamie Jameison, and many others, I have come to the realization that this is about religion more than just land claims. When you listen to them or read their words, they always refer to their religion, the teachings of the Longhouse, Turtle Island which refers to their story of creation, the Creator and so on. Mean while non-Natives don't get it because we are secular.

Even the "christian church" has separated the physical from the spiritual. The nation has separated church and state with the understanding that the two (religions and politics) are not to be intertwined together. Hence the conflict which carries into the understanding of what is being said.

I am sure that at the negotiation table when Natives speak of the Creator, carry out their spiritual smugging ceremonies, or talk about the teachings and laws of the Longhouse, those that are non-Natives must roll their eyes back and think "Shit here we go again. More f#%ken religion." Being involved in the smugging ceremony is only a gesture by non-Natives because they don't believe the principals of the ceremony. They are involved so as to not make waves. The reality is they don't care.

The conflict begins right at the beginning and carries through out the entire negotiations. Formalities are not taken seriously and are often seen as a necessary bother and nothing more. So when Islamic, Christians, Natives, and others bring their religion into the secular nations such as Canada there is conflict.

As a "theological student", I have come to the realization and understanding that even though I may have my own views of religion, and God (by the way, for me the two are separate), I can' t expect those around me to become involved in my principals of life. I can not expect a non-Christian to be willing to say "grace" before a meal. To me this is forcing my ideology on some one who doesn't give a damn about God or my view of God. I can not expect to place my ideology of Christian teachings and ethics on a person who is secular. I makes me superior and makes the other secular person a liar and therefore inferior. I believe the same is true with all other religions.

So my next question is: "Do Native people honestly and truly believe their religion, or is it convent to them to look "spiritual native" in the eyes of non-Natives who are secular?" Like I get off on Native drumming. I love it. It gives me energy and power. I also like the bagpipes, especially a mass pipe band for the same reason. One hundred and more pipes all playing together sends shivers down my spine and fills me with energy. When I hear Native drumming I get the energy, no shivers, just energy and power. But that is me.

My understanding is that drumming can be and often is a spiritual event. To the many secular non-Natives it is just noise and nothing more than a irritant. They find all religions of all kinds to be the same thing. Just noise and an irritant.

So once more I come to the topic at hand: Is this more to do with Native Religion than it is to do with Politics? Do Natives really believe what they are saying when the speak of the Longhouse teachings (which is religion)? Are teachings of the Longhouse intertwined with the physical and the spiritual life of the Native People? Do Natives feel justified to impose their religion on a secular society? Oh and just an added comment - I have read the teachings of the Longhouse by Chief Jacob Thomas. I have found a calm and understanding in his teachings. When I read many of the Native web sights and articles, I have felt more hate than anything else when reading these articles.

Is There An End In Sight, Or Just More Of The Same?

I have been reading articles posted on Native web sights. Often times these postings show more hate and anger than many people realize. One has to filter all the information gleaned from these sources and then do the same when reading non-Native postings and news reports in order to obtain some sort of understanding to the issues at hand. Something that is very time consuming.

The more I read the more I learn and the more I come to the realization that nothing, I mean nothing is going to be resolved until everyone on both sides of the picture begins to understand each other and understand that not everyone is going to get what they are demanding. There is only a wish list available, not a demand and get list. Despite how much rhetoric has been expressed. Despite who says what and their meanings, we will never solve these issues no matter what party is in government and no matter who sits at the negotiation table. It makes no difference whether they are Native or non-Native, nothing is going to be accomplished.

From the web pages of the Mohawk Warrior Society I have learned that there is no compromise. Their view point is equal to those of Mao Tse Tung. I swear that some of the postings that I have read have come right out of Mao Tse Tung's "Little Red Book". Words like: "We have not been conquered, nor have we become extinct..." These are the words of both those on the DCE and in the Little Red Book.

Actions have spoken louder than words for the Mohawk Society, the same as the Red Army under the direction of Mao. Mao wrote: "All good Communists want peace and to live in harmony with each other..." and then the famous line "All Communists must grasp the truth. Political Power comes from the barrel of a gun." While the rest of Canada is attempting to disarm everyone, the Warrior Societies are arming themselves to the teeth. This is not a secret, this is common knowledge. The Ontario Provincial Police and Ontario Government know this, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Government of Canada know this, and it is common knowledge among Natives and non-Natives alike.

The United Nations is voting on a document concerning Indigenous Peoples. Some of the wording of the document will mean trouble for Canada, the United States, and Australia if this document is passed as is. The result could mean something more than just negotiations at a table where no one trusts each other let alone listens to each other.

It has been assured that this document if passed is not binding on any country, but things have a habit of becoming used as such, with the end result being that such documents in fact become binding. This is a danger for many countries regardless of what others like Amnesty International, and other civil rights groups propagate through their propaganda outlets.

When I read the document, at first reading it looks impressive. In fact it looks really good and if I hadn't of read the document I would have agreed with the proclamations being spewed by activist groups. I would have supported the document. It wasn't until I began to read more closely and bring into the document what I have read from Native articles, postings, and what Natives have said at the DCE that I realized this is a recipe for trouble.

While the many Indigenous Peoples support this declaration as is, there are parts of it that they will not be able to support, including the Natives in Canada who abide by the Longhouse Religion and Teachings. I have been told to do my homework, and I am doing it not for spite, but for understanding and knowledge.

The U.N. declaration as documented in the October 31, 2006 General Assembly of the Sixty First session and the Third Committee states: "Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such." Wow, this sounds and looks great. Who could disagree with this? I can't. What I do say is that this is inclusive of everyone, Native and non-Native without exceptions. It declares that everyone is to live in harmony and peace with each other and respect each other as inclusive participants of humanity around the world

Again from the same document: "Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources." This sounds great as well, but then later on in the document comes the catch. Article 26 of this document will mean nothing but trouble.

Article 26:1 -> Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired.

Article 26:2 -> Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.

Article 26:3 -> States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

Now you tell me how these three sub-sections of Article 26 will not cause trouble in Canada? There appears to be many individuals in the Native Community who believe that all of Canada belongs to them. Article 26 if agreed to by Canada, makes the country of Canada the sole property of the Fist Nations. This is not over yet.

Article 28 calls for the state to give restitution and compensation of lands occupied by non-Natives. Yes - it is going to cost the Canadian tax payer billions. This article also allows for the redress of past treaties to obtain more compensation if they so desire. In other words, this document holds countries hostage, not just Caledonia, but the whole country.

Article 28:2 -> Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of land, territories, and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.

Put everything together and look at the outcome. With what the occupiers of the DCE want and have demanded, along with this document of the United Nations, all non-Natives in Canada will be paying billions and living in fear that one day their homes will be take from them by the mere desire of such individuals who have only one concern and one objective - to destroy Canada as a nation and as a people.

Unless the wording is changed in this document, Canada has no choice but not to sign it. There are no other alternatives if this document is passed as it stands now. By signing this document, Canada as a nation is committing suicide.

It is therefore imperative that the Canadian government and the Native Nations come together in all seriousness to resolve land claim issues in the reality of the present day with out question. They must also understand what each other is saying and what they are meaning. There are can no exceptions to this.

Garth Turner - Independent Extra Ordinaries

Garth Turner, the "bad boy" of politics is helping the Green Party in London to elect the first member of parliament for the Green Party.

He says he is not interested in joining the Green Party and insists he is going to remain an Independent member of Parliament. I like that idea for some reason.

Party politics is just that. You do as your party says and you have no other voice than that of the party. Jean Chretien was the biggest dictator than any other Prime Minister that I can remember. He not only tied his party members down, he also gagged them, branded them, made caucus meetings national secretes, and told members of the liberal party that they were their because of him. The liberal members of parliament have always been nothing but lemmings. As soon as they entered the doors of Parliament, they checked their brains and free thoughts at the door. Unity just was not expected, it was demanded without question.

The news media outlets have their shorts all tied up in knots because Prime Minister Steven Harper has control of the caucus. He has control of what is being said, and in party politics that is part of the deal. The new media are quick to forget about Jean Chretien and his controlled Ministers who spoke from a memorized script. Nothing, repeat, nothing was released by the liberal party under Jean Chretien's rule that wasn't first approved by Chretien himself.

As far as Garth Turner is concerned. I agree with his idea that party politics has gotten in the way of Parliament for far too long. I agree that there should be more Independents in Parliament. I agree that there should be more free votes in Parliament as well, but as we have seen, free votes are only along party lines and nothing else.

If there were more Independents in Parliament, that is enough to cause a disturbance, there could be more things happening in Parliament than what is going on now. How about Independent Senators? Could a number of Independents be elected to form a government and how would that be done? Would it be possible? It is an interesting idea to say the least. The structure of Parliament would be very different.

So What Will It Be?

Since Iggy (what's his name who wants to lead the Liberal Party - you know, the American who claims he's Canadian but has lived and taught in the United States for the past 33 or years) has declared that he will discuss Quebec Nationalism to give Quebec the "nationhood" that they have been demanding over and over again. There has been a rash of comments for and against.

I know now is not the time to write this posting especially after Remembrance Day, but it has to be said just the same.

Quebec was and is a conquered nation or people. That occurred on the Plains of Abraham in 1763 by General Wolf. That is historical fact. The British, in their stupidity or wisdom (not sure which) decided to guarantee Quebec people their language, religion, law, and culture. The idea of "make the world British" was excluded when the treaty was signed with France.

In 1867 in the British North America Act and again in 1983 (even though Quebec pouted and did a hissy fit and refused to sign) Quebec "rights" were guaranteed. This included their laws, religion, society and culture. Over the years they appear to want more and more and more. The question is: What do they have now, that they don't have control over already?"

They have control over language, culture, education, immigration, the choice to opt out of Canadian programs for their own, their own pension plan, taxes, and the list goes on and on. Now that pandora's box has been opened by Iggy and the boys, the question of nationhood has emerged its head above the abyss once again.

Iggy talks of Nationhood while referring to Canada as the "umbrella" and Quebec as a separate entity under that umbrella. That's the same ideology that Barbara McDougall has about Aboriginal Nations as well. Well come on people! Give your heads a shake! That is not, repeat, not what these people are saying. These people, Quebec and Aboriginal are talking nationhood as separate, independent, nations, with their own governments, leaders etc. With, and totally with, the idea of "international recognition". The two ideologies are very far apart and very different.

If Iggy becomes leader of the liberals and acts on his nationhood plans, he will find out very quickly that as he negotiates nationhood with Quebec, it will be as an independent sovereign nation, becoming nation state to nation state negotiations. Once that is complete all 55 plus Aboriginal Nations will be demanding the same thing just like many of them are demanding now.
Iggy hasn't thought of that one, nor has anyone else that supports Quebec Nationhood.

There will be pockets of nations all over the Canada and everyone will be arguing. The Warrior Society will be happy to take up arms and spill blood believing they are to conquer where ever and what ever they want. Quebec will have to fight the Cree Nation and goodness knows what else. There will be mass exodus by those who can afford it, and the disintegration of Canada as we know it will the result. Every one will be happy and the rest of those in Canada can kiss their asses good bye. God bless us all.

It seems that every group with nationhood on their minds wants to piss on the flag and to hell with everyone else. Yes I am angry if you haven't noticed. Instead of wanting to work together, they would rather pillage and burn everything for their own interests and their own cause and not look at the bigger picture.

There is an opportunity here for progress, co-operation, unity, and a single purpose. But no! Every interest group wants to destroy what there is for their own greed, their own ideology, and their own interests. There is no leadership being shown by anyone. Yes that is right! There is no leadership shown by anyone! It is time that the federal government, the provincial governments, Aboriginal leadership to come together and get things done now and not later.

It is time for honest leadership. It is time for good leadership. It is time for co-operation. The studies have been made. The reports are in. Now blow the dust off the reports, read them and get to work.

Enough said.

My Contribution to Remembrance Day - Please Follow All the Pictures - I need not really say anything else. Thank you

In Flanders Fields By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918) Canadian Army

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow Between the crosses row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.

November 11 - Remembrance Day

The art work by Walter Allward entitled "Ghosts" depicts soldiers that were killed on the battle field at Vimy Ridge April 9 to 12, 1917. It was the first battle in the World War I where all four divisions of Canadians fought side by side in one of the most bloodiest conflicts of the war.

Canada became a nation that day, standing on its own, winning the battle, at a great cost.


The memorial and the grave of Canada's Unknown Soldier. I remembered when the remains of this Canadian was brought from Europe to Canada. The parade route was lined with thousands of people who "remembered".

Poppies are laid on the top of the grave every remembrance day, something that was started by a lone Canadian out of respect, and it grew. No one told that Canadian to lay down a poppy on the tomb cover. It just happened and was followed by many Canadians since.



The painting of the battle. I want you to look at this picture carefully. You may not notice it because it may be too small. I spoke to an Army veteran about this particular painting. If you notice the men in the trench, they are wearing heavy coats, but the men at the gun are dressed as if it is summer. This battle was at Vimy Ridge, April 9 to 12, 1917, a cold spring day. The guns were so constantly used that they were giving off tremendous heat.


The Canadian Monument at Vimy Ridge, a symbol of Canada, a symbol of horrific cost. A symbol that war is not glorious. A symbol of nationhood.

There are three World War One veterans left in Canada. They deserve a state funeral, support the move for this action.

Lest We Forget



I watched a news special this evening. There were no words, just pictures of the recent Canadian Soldiers that have been killed in Afghanistan. As I watched I noticed that like the average Canadian soldier of World War One and World War Two, these men were between the ages of 19 and 36 the most. All young, all snuffed out, all tragic ends to a life that should have gone on.

I sat not in awe of the photos. I sat not in surprise of the ages. I sat in somber remembrance. I sat in sympathetic sorrow for the families who have lost. I sat with a tear. I have a friend from when I lived in Barrie Ontario who is in the Princess Pats' Regiment. Every time I hear that a member of the Princess Pats' has been killed or wounded, I listen for Dean's name and hope it is never him.

Visit your local War Memorial - Think on the sacrifice that these individuals have made and are making. This is no time for peace activism. This is a time of reflection and remembrance. The average age of the soldiers in World War One and Two was between the ages of 19 and 21.

World War One saw a whole generation of youth slaughtered on the battlefields. The word and concept of "adolescence" was created at the end of W.W.I to try and ensure that young people stayed in school, stayed in the home longer, survived war so that there would be a generation to follow. Before W.W.I most teens by the time they were 18 were already married and raising a family.

Read "In Flander's Field" and reflect while you read this poem.

Remember the fallen - Support our troops

Only In Canada - Church Adds to Attract Canadians back to Church.

The United Church of Canada is attempting an add campaign to get people thinking about church and to get them into the church. These adds are to provoke questions, discussion, and it is hoped that they will spark an interest in people to come to church.

They apparently have done their home work and discovered that only approximately 19% of people under the age of 49 attend church. I am not sure if this survey was done in their own church only or through out their churches in Canada.

What has become interesting are the types of adds being used in their attempt to attract people to enter their doors. So far, the adds have sparked little concern let alone varied interest in church at all. The person on the street either shrugged off the adds, or was repelled by the adds. I leave you do decide as I have placed all six adds on this page.

Will they spark conversation? Will they draw people to their congregations? Are they profile enough to even get people to think about church or God even with the up coming "Christmas Season"?

The first picture at the top, indicates the questioning of scripture as to its validity for the modern age in which we live. The idea is what is acceptable and what is not. Can the Bible be used as authoritative, or is it really a book of literature, a guide for better living, or just a collection of stories that have some sort of historical and literary value and nothing more?

The second add deals with parenting. In this day and age, I would agree that parenting is something that everyone should be interested in. The Bible has many suggestions for parenting, and not (I repeat NOT) the use of the rod as many evangelical and fundamentalists would have you believe.

The third one is a can of whip cream, indicating how much sex can someone have or enjoy before it becomes sin. With all the hang ups in many Christian circles about sex, this is a good one. Many sex therapists make their money counseling Catholics and Baptists in how to enjoy sex and not feel guilty or sinful as married couples.

For many Christian youth, marriage is nothing more than a license to bang your partner. I know its a general statement, but when you have been to Bible Colleges and Christian Universities like I have, and have heard the conversations that I have heard, one can only wonder where love is.

The fourth one pisses me off the most. I find it repulsive and at this point I would agree with the Islamic people who have screamed about the cartoons made of Mohammed. This I find disgusting in that for me it implies a total disrespect. For me the bobble-head is a nothing more than an insult to and of the character being portrayed. I find this just as offensive and insulting and I concur with many Islamic people and their understanding and concept.

The fifth add is about same sex marriage and I don't have to say anything more about that. Most people don't care one way or the other. Only the fundamentalists and evangelical are the ones with their shorts tied in a knot. I'm sure that these people are so tense and tight in their ideologies that if you stuffed a piece of coal up their butts in two weeks you would have a diamond.

The sixth and last add is seeing Jesus amongst all the material concepts of Christmas. Merchandising has done its job and done it well over the many years. The idea is good, but for who? For the average non-christian on the street, it means very little. For the average christian there is some meaning but nothing that they can't live with. For many other Christians, this is an important issue. How far do we take all the merchandising and materialism that has been associated with this time of reflection on the "gift of God to mankind"?

These are all issues for the church to engage itself in. These are issues that the Christian should be engaging themselves in. For the non-christian, the non-church goer, the secular Canadian, these mean either very little or nothing to them at all. When the news media took these adds onto the street, the response from the public were all negative.

Some churches have resorted to "Christian Rock" music, or "Christian Rap" or some other form of entertainment. Many denominations have become desperate and will do just about any thing to get people in. Maybe the new approach would be to become as active in social issues as Jesus and the Apostles did. This means drawing the attention not only on social issues, but drawing attention to God as well.

Here again, it is how you view your denomination ideologies, your understanding of scripture, hermeneutics, eschatology, and doctrine. Above all, your understanding of the church's role in the local community and abroad. All too often Christians get caught up in the non-religious issues while ignoring God. They're to busy putting God in a box, all wrapped in wrapping paper with a pretty bow and placing Him on the shelf confined the rules that they have established that God will be.

May be it is time for the Christian or christian, to unwrap the box and let God be whom He shall be.

Dust Off The Report - Make The Needed Changes

This is a more relaxing picture of Native culture than what we have been used too in the last ten months. The masked men of the warrior societies produces mistrust, a hidden purpose, alternative ideologies, someone who has something to hide.

In the past, everyone has read postings from myself and others that have gone from one side to the other. The blog has allowed people to express their concerns, ideas, understandings and misunderstandings. For others it has allowed them to vent out their anger and frustration. For yet others, it allows them to answer blogs in similar outrage, similar understanding, and similar misunderstanding. So with that in mind, I would like to explore an area that needs to be looked at. An area that all persons need to examine.

I know the traditionalists will likely be upset. At this point in the game I really don't care. They have no desire to seek changes. Their concept of "going back to tradition and the old ways" is similar to the concept that the grass is always greener on the other side. Those at the blockade in Caledonia won't like this report either for they will be the first to say "It's a white man's report and therefore it doesn't apply to us." From what I have read about the Warrior Society, they might reply "whitey wrote it. Why the f#ck should I read it?"

About ten years ago, a Royal Commission was published in five volumes. I happen to have one of many copies that were made. Like all other Royal Commission Reports, it has sat on the shelf and has collected dust, even on my shelf. So I took volume five off the shelf today, the same as the new elected Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples - Patrick Brazeau might have done.

Chief Brazeau made references from the study. He announced that the study needs to be implemented, despite the fact that there will be opposition to any move to remove the old reserve system for something new. So I took out volume five of my copy of the report and began to read the recommendations that were made.

My summary of the first section of the first chapter in volume five:

Chapter One - "A New Beginning". -- One -> "Aboriginal Nations have to be reconstituted."
Basically what this section says is that the Indian Act has created a situation where Aboriginals have become dis-associated from their ancestral nations through terms of the act. The Indian Act defines who is a native and who isn't according to a status system that was created. As soon as a native left the reserve, they lost their status according to the Indian Act.

The idea is to abolish the Indian Act, and entrench Native Nations into the Constitution Act of Canada. The report suggests: "a process through which Aboriginal communities join together in new institutions to seek recognition of their status as modern nations."

Two -> "A process must be established for the assumption of powers by Aboriginal nations" In other words - a process has to be established where Native self government is given to the Natives and that this self government be constitutionalized as a level of government as seen in the Constitution Act of Canada. This recognition is not for the individual reserve, but for specific Aboriginal Nations of which these smaller reserves would be seen as part of a larger territory.

Three -> "There must be a fundamental reallocation of lands and resources." What this section emphises is the recognition and fulfillment of all land treaties. quote ->" Aboriginal people do not expect to obtain full restitution: they do not want to push non-Aboriginals into the sea or depreve them of their backyards, as the recent history of land claims settlements makes clear. But they do expect to be dealt with fairly, in a manner that recognizes their relationship to the land and their right to share in its resources, and in a way that respects the solemn agreements established in the treaties." end of quote. What I read here is that Native leaders know they won't get everything that they want, nor do they expect it. What they expect though is a territory that has adequate resources from which they, as a nation, can develop a thriving community living in harmony and co-operation with non-Natives.

Four -> "Aboriginal people need education and crucial skills for governance and economic self-reliance". This section is interesting. We in the southern part of Ontario, live close to reserves and many of these reserves are in better shape than the reserves in the north of Ontario. Now I know this is a generalized comment, but there is some element of truth to it. I have seen and been through many reserves in southern Ontario and in northern Ontario. There is a difference and this section affirms a need that is present especially in the northern regions of Ontario. In general terms, Natives in southern Ontario are more educated, have greater opportunities, and enjoy some degree of self-fulfillment than many of their northern counterparts.

What this section is saying that there needs to be equal opportunity for all Natives through out Canada, if these Nations are to practice self government. They need to feel that there is a need for them to be part of their community.

Yesterday I read an article about an Ojibwa community at Pikangikum, Ontario. After doing a little reading on their web pages, I discovered that 75% of the population of 2300 are under the age of 25. That many of the housing units contain as many as 18 persons living in one home, that is often two or three rooms. Only 20 of the homes are connected to water and sewage, while the rest of the population still uses outhouses. Their school goes from K to 12 with many classes takeing place in makeshift trailers. These are standards that the rest of us would not tolerate.

The biggest complaint from the Ontario government is that no one is qualified to run the water and sewage systems in these northern communities. The recommendations here suggest that there be an assertive movement so that the youth of these communities are involved and learn and become the leaders and workers of their communities.

Self governance and education go hand in hand, which means that there must be a bridge built to connect educational needs with community needs.

Five -> "Economic development must be addressed if the poverty and despondency of lives defined by unemployment and welfare are to change." At the publishing of this report, 1% of Canada's gross national product went to Native communities to continue their marginalization as a result of the Indian Act. This section is saying that in order for any community to become self sufficient there has to be serious changes made and a willingness to make them.

In the reading I did of the Pikangikum reserve, it was mentioned that even though 75% of the population is under the age of 25, this reserve has one of the highest suicide rates of any of the reserves in Ontario. I read one account of where a 12 year girl hung herself one morning in early 2006. The poverty and the disparity of the population accounts for the main reason of suicides. The people (not just the youth) feel that they are trapped where they are, and that everything is a dead end street for them. Addiction and abuse are rampant which comes with poverty and despondency - again - conditions that non-Natives would not tolerate.

In short - if the government of Prime Minister Harper and the Assembly of First Nations under the direction of Chief Brazeau can start working together and implement many of the recommendations of this report, the changes that could come out of this would be of a great benefit to all persons both Native and non-Native. As I mentioned earlier, I doubt very much if the traditionalists will go for it, nor will those who want to maintain power for power sake on the many individual reserves. Some would perfer the status quo because it plays into their hands, even if it doesn't for their fellow citizens.

Right from the beginning I have said there needs to be changes and that these changes must involve everyone. These changes must become nationally accepted and implemented if there is to be peace for the future generations to come. It seems that the present and past generations on both side continually screw things up under the present situation. If there is no change, nothing will be accomplished. If there is no change, as a nation and Natives and non-Natives have committed the future to much of the same.

Environment - Kyoto Protocol - Haufbrau Bands

Prime Minister Harper has cancelled his trip to Finland at a meeting that will be discussing climate change. He has been told that Canada will be criticized for not meeting their obligations in the reduction of green house gases and backing away from the Kyoto Protocol international
agreement.

Well I wouldn't go either if that was the atmosphere I was going to meet. Nor would I go if that is all that I would hear over and over again. No - I believe Prime Minister Harper is right in not going and I don't blame him.

The Haufbrau bands of the opposition parties and the environmental groups are practicing and playing the same old, same old songs over and over again. I can't wait to hear the next Oumpa-pa-pa coming from the Green Party leader. She's already sounding like a broken record.

The Green Party and the Suzuki Foundation were up set with the New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton for coming up with some sort of compromise with Prime Minister Harper's plan for a "made in Canada" Clean Air Act. Their objection was not so much about the compromise, but the fact that they wanted to see the down fall of the government. In other words, they were not concerned about the environmental issues but more concerned and demanding that there be an election, now. This tells me that these environmental groups are more concerned about getting their own political agenda than they really are about the environment.

There are four objections that I have with the Kyoto Protocol. The first one is the buying of credits. If a country doesn't achieve their set goals for green house reduction, they can buy credits from a third world non-industrial country. For a few million dollars, these credits allows the country to look like they have achieved their goals, while in reality they have not.

This practice has been criticized by industries through out Canada for years to the point where it was finally stopped as it made a mockery of the intention of lessens pollution. I remember when I was in high school how this practice was condemned by environmental groups through out the county. For some reason though, these same groups don't feel the same way about the Kyoto Protocol.

The other objection that I have is with Canadian National Railway. When the Kyoto Protocol was being negotiated, Canadian National tore out as many rail lines as they could, leaving only a very, very, very few secondary lines and only one main line. Jean Chretien was in such a hurry to push the Kyoto Protocol through Parliament that he had no idea what Canadian National Railway had done. He made the announcement that "Kyoto will take more than 60% of the transport truck traffic off of Canadian highways." After he was advised about the reality of his statement, he never said it again.

Kyoto Protocol was designed along European ideals, which are twenty plus years ahead of North America understanding of moving goods and people from point A to point B. Europeans are burning their garbage and have also turned this into energy production, something Canadians and Americans have a difficult time wrapping their heads around. Europe has a very high use of rail services to transport goods and people, again something that Canada has been sabotaged in by the very rail company that would have profited if they had left the rail lines alone.

The Kyoto Protocol is deeply flawed as it allows Russia, China, and India to be exempt from meeting any real reduction in the production of pollution and green house gases. All three of the these countries are major contributors to the world pollution production, in the neighbourhoods of nearly 80%. So how successful can this agreement be if the major producers of pollution are exempt from meeting their share of obligations?

Australia and the United States are only two known countries that have not signed on to the Kyoto agreement. Yet these two countries have reduced their production of green house gases and pollution more than most of the countries that have signed onto the agreement. There seems to be more of a domestic desire for reduction, which appears to be lacking in most other countries. Canada must have a domestic desired will to move ahead, something that Prime Minister Harper was hoping to achieve with the government's Clean Air Act. Interesting that the compromise established by the New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton hardly varies from the original Clean Air Act that was about to be tabled.

It appears that many environmentalists believe that reduction of pollution and green house gases can happen over night. They seem to fail to realize that as it took years to create these problems and it is going to take twice as long to solve the problem.

Income Trusts - an excuse to shift tax burden

Go get 'eh Minister Flaherty! Income Trusts have been a problem for the federal government for a long time. The liberals were always afraid of committing to any action because it was easier to increase taxes on the ordinary individual than it was to medal in the arenas of large and powerful corporations.

Now we have a government that is willing to take action, to close a loophole that the liberals created but were afraid to close. The question to this is why. Why did the liberals not want to close this loophole? Why? The answer can be just about as easy to give as it is to ask. The answer is Paul Martin. What? Yes, Paul Martin.

You have to remember that Paul Martin was and still is a multi-billion dollar business person. He may not have so called "controlling interests" in his business, but sure has control and influence over his sons to run the business dealings of the family. As a finance minister and later prime minister why would he want to pay corporate income taxes? Remember this is the man who fired his Canadian employees and replaced them with off shore workers on his ships. This is the man that moved his banking interests to the Royal Caiman Islands to avoid paying income taxes. This is the man who registers his ships under the flags of foreign countries to avoid paying taxes in Canada. This is the man who led and still has some influence in the liberal party in Canada. So there is good reason why the liberals never wanted to deal with this problem.

What is the problem? The problem is that companies who have moved to income trusts do not pay taxes. The taxes are instead paid by the share holders and investors who have to count these incomes as part of their personal income. The corporation walks away from their responsibilities as corporate citizens and shift the actual burden of the taxes on the ordinary person.

It is time that the corporate world realized that they can not exploit the country like they often do their employees. I worked for many companies that felt they were doing you a favour by allowing you to work for them. This included a lot of so called good "religious organizations" as well.

Everyone is expected to pay taxes, and I know, like everyone else in Canada that the ordinary person pays more than their fare share in taxes. I have no sympathy for corporations. They should also be expected to pay their fare share of taxes as well. The average person can't be like Paul Martin, and it is time that corporations and the likes of Paul Martin were treated the same as the ordinary, common, everyday individual in Canada.

I would love to see the Conservative government bring in a flat tax system into Canada. It would solve a lot of headaches and problems. If a person earned $20,000.00 a year or less there would be no taxes paid (or what ever the poverty line is) Everything over the $20,000.00 would have a 10% tax applied to it. Corporations would pay at least a 15% to 20% tax on their profits. Reason I suggest this amount is that corporation will find ways to off load the burden to the consumer somewhere along the way. They do that already.

All other taxes would be eliminated, and loop holes closed by contending a black and white income system. Black and white meaning - you earned $50,000.00, you're taxed 10% which is $5,000.00. The person still has $45,000.00 in his/her pocket. What's the problem?

The idea is simple and logical. Corporations would be expected to be treated the same. Simple tax. A fare tax. Eliminate other taxes that are often hidden in prices. Eliminate the G.S.T. that everyone hates. One tax and no other taxes. It could and can work.