Should Omar Khadr Ever Be Released?

He was a child "soldier" in some eyes, in others he was a young terrorist from a terrorist family. The Khadr family have used the Canadian system to it's full extent all the while breeding hatred and turning their children into home grown terrorists.

There is no doubt that Omar Khadr knew exactly what he was doing when he killed a military EVAC, he was fighting, not as a soldier which means he would be wearing a uniform but as a terrorist and as such should be treated as such. 

Should Mr. Khadr be free or should he spend the rest of his days in the pen? Many point to the fact that he was a child at the time,while others point to the fact that he still holds the same values as he did as a child terrorist. So what do we do with him, let him go into the general public in Canada, send him and his family back to their homeland, or keep him imprisoned?

If we let him go into the Canadian public CSIS will have to keep close tabs on him as he stand a good chance of re-offending and killing innocent civilians like his father, Taliban and Al Qaeda trained him to do.

I personally like the other two options better, although keeping him in prison for life is not an option in this liberal penal system that we have in Canada. 

No, it is time for the Khadr family to go back to their homeland. Send them packing and get them the hell out of our country, they have used our resources against us at every chance and this ultra-liberal/socialistic safety net needs to let them go. Our system was meant for Canadians who pledge allegiance to our nation, not individuals who just come to use the system all the while hating everything we as Canadians stand for. This individual and his family do just that and I think the majority of Canadians feel that the most common sense thing to do is get them out of our country and stop wasting tax payer money on people like this...

Former Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr woke up in an Alberta prison Wednesday after months stuck in isolation at a penitentiary in Ontario where an inmate had threatened his life, The Canadian Press has learned.

Khadr was flown to the Edmonton Institution Tuesday, potentially ending a situation in which he had been deprived of prison programming that complicated efforts to seek parole, his lawyer Dennis Edney confirmed.

WATCH VIDEO

Court sees video of young Khadr

VIDEO

Khadr's brother released

VIDEO

The Khadr interrogation

“Hopefully, this is a positive step in his long journey to freedom,” the Edmonton-based Edney said.

“I hope that this is a new start for Omar, an opportunity for people to see him as he really is – as someone who poses no threat to Canada, someone who has no radical viewpoints.”

The transfer allows Khadr to be closer to his lawyer and should obviate concerns about any negative influence from his family in Toronto, some of whom expressed sympathy for extremist groups several years ago.

The maximum-security Edmonton Institution is home to about 225 inmates.

The Toronto-born Khadr, 26, was transferred to Canada last September to serve out the remainder of an eight-year sentence handed down by an American military commission for war crimes he pleaded guilty to committing as a 15-year-old in Afghanistan.

He spent the next several months in segregation in Millhaven penitentiary west of Kingston, Ont., classified as a maximum-security inmate even though he was considered minimum security before leaving Guantanamo.

Khadr was finally allowed onto the range in February. In March, prison authorities asked him to work on the food line, handing out pieces of butter to other prisoners. When an inmate asked for more than was allowed, Khadr refused.

“This guy threatened to stab Omar,” Edney said in an interview.

As a result, authorities moved him back to strict solitary confinement, where he remained isolated in his cell for at least 23 hours a day ostensibly for his own protection.

“This is someone who has just spent 10 years of his life in that hell-hole that is Guantanamo Bay,” Edney said.

“Is there any difference between Guantanamo and what has taken place here?”

Efforts to reach Khadr were stymied by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, who overturned the Millhaven warden’s decision allowing him to talk to a reporter, according to documents obtained by The Canadian Press.

Khadr was eligible for day parole in March but has yet to have a hearing.

Edney said stringent rules around the “hole” made it difficult for the prisoner to take part in programming, something a parole board would want to see in considering whether to grant him any early release.

“Nothing works for this kid,” Edney said Tuesday ahead of the transfer, adding Khadr was “just desperate” to get on with his life.

“He tells me it’s horrible in prison.”

Correctional authorities have repeatedly refused to discuss any aspect of Khadr’s case, citing privacy concerns.

Edney, who said his client poses no risk to public security, said he wondered whether the “illogical” maximum-security classification was another example of political interference by a government determined to portray him as a hardened terrorist.

Prison guards over the years have described him as friendly and compliant.

“Consultation with the unit staff indicates that he has not presented with any behavioural problems,” according to a recent internal Millhaven assessment.

Khadr has been following a special curriculum developed for him by faculty at King’s College in Edmonton. He was recently assessed as having the equivalent of a Grade 10 education, scoring marks that ranged from 91 to 97 per cent in the five subjects tested.

However, the restrictions made getting on with his studies difficult.

The last book sent to him, a short story called The Hockey Sweater, was returned as unauthorized.

Khadr is also looking to appeal his military commission conviction based on similar successful appeals by two other former Guantanamo prisoners.

Essentially, they argued they were found guilty of crimes that did not exist at the time of they committed the offences.

Let's Hope That This Is The End Of Robo-Calls

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission has issued unprecedented fines against several political parties and politicians for robo-calls that broke regulations by not properly identifying the caller.

The fines total $369,900 and were levied against the federal Conservatives, the federal NDP, the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, Alberta’s Wildrose Party, Liberal MP Marc Garneau, Conservative MP Blake Richards and a robo-calling firm, RackNine Inc.

VIDEO

Video: Justin Trudeau, Tom Mulcair grill Harper over Senate scandal

VIDEO

Video: What Harper has to worry about if Senate expense hearing is public

VIDEO

Video: PM admits he could have accepted Wright's resignation sooner

The fines come after a “wide-ranging investigation” by the CRTC, the agency said. The calls in question didn’t properly identify themselves under CRTC telemarketing rules.

The Conservatives and Mr. Richards did not co-operate with investigators, the CRTC said. The others did, and have voluntarily agreed to settlements totalling $277,500. The Conservatives and Mr. Richards were fined $78,000 and $14,400, respectively, and now have 30 days to respond or pay the penalty.

Until last week, the largest fine levied by the CRTC against a political party was $4,900.

Political parties and candidates “didn’t understand [the rules] and didn’t appropriately do their homework to make sure they understood the rules,” Andrea Rosen, the CRTC’s Chief Compliance and Enforcement Officer, said in an interview. “…Canadians have a right to know who is calling them, and people should adhere to the rules to make it as easy as possible for a Canadian to voice their concern.

“What this is is an effort to ensure that everyone respects the rules,” she added.

The robo-calls are not tied to an investigation into misleading calls made during the 2011 election that a judge ruled were fraudulent. Instead, they are calls that didn’t identify the caller sufficiently.

At least part of the investigation was sparked by a complaint by Liberal MP Ralph Goodale, a source told The Globe and Mail. The Saskatchewan MP filed a complaint to the CRTC on Feb. 5 about robo-calls in his province. The calls were sent Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, 2013.

“The robo-calls were entirely anonymous,” Mr. Goodale said. “They identified a research company, Chase Research, which I gather is based in Alberta although we couldn’t find it listed in any corporate registry anywhere.”

The federal Conservatives later said they were behind the calls, which were placed by Edmonton-based RackNine Inc. Chase Research is an affiliate of RackNine. The CRTC collected information from RackNine on Feb. 11 and Feb. 12. But, according to a source close to the investigation, the CRTC then asked for more details – everything on any phone number RackNine had registered.

That included 3.4-million calls made for Wildrose in 2011 and 2012, none of which entirely complied with the strict laws. In particular, six Wildrose call blitzes – including one poll during last year’s election – raised concern. It paid a $90,000 fine, the largest of the seven issued.

One source called the RackNine search a “fishing trip” by the CRTC. RackNine co-operated, but many Canadian robo-calls are done by companies based partially or entirely outside the country. “What’s left to be seen is if all they do is go after low-hanging fruit,” the source said.

Ms. Rosen, however, said many investigations are still ongoing, acknowledging some of those are “possibly” targeted at other political parties or candidates. She considers the five cases where the subject was co-operative – Wildrose, the Ontario PCs, the federal NDP, Mr. Garneau and RackNine – to be closed books.

The fines signal a crackdown by the CRTC on robo-calling, which is increasingly used by political parties, charities and unions as a cheap way to communicate broadly. However, the rules state that every call must include, at the beginning, a local or toll-free number and a mailing address of the entity behind the call. This rule appears to have been widely broken. Recordings of similar calls places in Alberta from other parties, candidates and charities, provided to The Globe and Mail, indicate that these rules are not followed in a range of other cases.

The Ontario PCs paid an $85,000 fine for two robo-call campaigns that occurred between Sept. 1 and Sept. 7, 2011. It didn’t name the party or provide sufficient contact information, the CRTC ruled. The Ontario PCs co-operated, and spokesman Alan Sakach called it “an administrative error.”

The federal NDP was fined for robo-calls made Jan. 11 and Jan. 20, 2012, in the riding of Lise St-Denis, who crossed the floor and joined the Liberals. They calls didn’t say they were on behalf of the NDP, and didn’t include sufficient contact information. The party paid a $40,000 fine and co-operated. “We apologize for the error and are committed to ensuring it does not happen again,” the party’s national director, Nathan Rotman, said in a statement.

Mr. Garneau was fined for calls made in March of this year as part of his campaign for the Liberal leadership. They identified “the originator of the call” and had some contact information, but did not explicitly state they were on Mr. Garneau’s behalf and had no mailing address. He paid a $2,500 fine and co-operated.

RackNine paid a $60,000 fine and co-operated after 15 robo-call campaigns it carried out between March, 2011, and February, 2013, when Mr. Goodale complained. “RackNine was not aware that its practices were in violation,” the CRTC said.

The Conservatives were fined for robo-calls in Saskatchewan related to electoral boundary changes. They did not co-operate. Mr. Richards, an Alberta MP, was fined for two robo-call campaigns in 2012 that did not say they were on his behalf, or include a mailing address. He did not co-operate.

If either the Conservative Party of Mr. Richards chooses to argue a case, they’ll appear before a three-commissioner panel that has the power to reduce their fine, Ms. Rosen said. “You know, all I can say in terms of those two cases is that they were given an opportunity like everyone else,” Ms. Rosen said.

That revelation comes after Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer said the Conservative Party was not co-operating with his agency’s investigation into fraud committed during the 2011 election. A court ruling last week on another robo-call scandal – where voters, mostly in Guelph, Ont., were misled about polling station locations – found six Conservative MPs engaged in “trench warfare” to block or delay proceedings.

RackNine works often for both Wildrose and the federal Conservatives, but says it’s nonpartisan and doesn’t refuse any client. In an interview earlier this week, RackNine founder Matt Meier said he co-operated with the CRTC but declined to comment on specifics of the case, suggesting the CRTC case is still ongoing. “I can’t comment on any of this until I know [the outcome],” he said.

Last week, when its fine was first revealed, Wildrose warned that the ruling could affect other parties, including Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s Progressive Conservatives. The parties have traded jabs, each writing Alberta’s provincial chief electoral officer to ask for an investigation.

Wildrose has said it didn’t know so much contact information had to be included, and pointed to a previous TV interview by former Alberta PC campaign strategist Stephen Carter, saying such calls don’t require identification. He declined comment.

The Alberta PCs did not use RackNine during the last provincial election and officials wouldn’t comment on the unidentified survey type robo-calls that Wildrose is complaining about.

“We have not had any contact with the CRTC so we don’t know whether there’s anything going on with regards to investigating us,” said PC Party president Jim McCormick. “We have a high level of confidence that we obeyed the rules as laid out.”

Conservative spokesperson Fred DeLorey declined comment.

Drew Westwater, a spokesman with Elections Alberta, said his office received more than 800 complaints about robo-calls during the 2012 provincial election. Of the complaints, 15 to 20 per cent were about anonymous surveys, he said.

Elections Alberta passed them onto the CRTC along with all the other complaints. “This is the first time we’ve really run into this on a large scale like this and we really didn’t have a lot of authority in our act or legislation to deal with the calls related to surveys, which was a big bone of contention,” he said. It’s not clear what the CRTC did with those complaints.

Time For Obama To Come Clean On Benghazi?

There is no doubt that in the fall last year, with an election looming, that those in the senior administration of the US government knew more about Benghazi than they to this day are letting on. Through the months that have passed Obama has steadfastly denied knowing more about the attack even though transcripts and emails have revealed top level communications that day and into the next about how they will spin the attack.

They held onto the damning parts until the election was won and now several months later we are hearing just how far up the administration these communications went. Not a whole lot linking Obama directly but one has to think that if a terrorist attack is ongoing the president would be up to date on all happenings, no matter what campaign mode he is in. There may be no online communications linking him but I have a hard time believing that there was not any face to face communications taking place at which time the wrong calls were made.

The fact that four Americans died in this attack that Obama and his administration deemed unworthy to try to take any action isn't enough, the administration has yet to come clean and hold anyone accountable for this inexcusable lack of judgement.

                                Get proactive protection against identity theft from LifeLock.
                                                            www.LifeLock.com


 As a president you are to do your very best to lead by example, surround yourself with top level administration and be 100% up to date on any, and I mean any security threat. This attack showed the lack of ability of this man to lead the nation in times when a leader is needed. He did not make any call to action, he didn't so much as pick up the phone to see if action was even possible(which has since been proven that there could have been). What did Obama do? Well he heard of the attack, jumped into bed and got up the next morning and headed off to Las Vegas for some big campaign fundraising event.

Is this the action of a leader? I think many, even those on the left would agree that this is far from leadership. Even if he was being sheltered from the reality of the situation he fails as a president for not having the trustworthy staff around him. If he was not brought up to speed it means his staff, Clinton and everyone else were more worried about winning the election than saving American lives.

The fact that the Marines were told to stand down by the administration is inexcusable in every aspect. These are trained fighters who had been needed and felt the urgency of the situation and refused to listen to orders to stand down and went in to fight, fight for every American human life that was in danger. This sense of pride in nation is what sent them into a very dangerous and hostile situation, full knowing that they could easily die. But fight they did and are about the only ones in this whole situation that should be held in high regard and as heroes, Obama proved he is not, Clinton surely isn't and the rest of the senior military command certainly aren't.

What transpired in Benghazi is first and foremost a tragedy, but the ongoing cover ups, the lack of leadership and the complete incompetence of senior administration in the military and the White House call into question Obama's ability to lead America. All those associated need to be held accountable forthwith including those within the White House.

Was Obama more worried about re-election, keeping Americans safe, not trying to anger the Muslim world or a good nights sleep? Who knows for sure, but he did not act as a president that is fit to lead his nation and time is up for him to come clean once and for all!

ProGOPGear.com: Patriotic T-Shirts, Stickers, and more!

Time To Abolish The Senate?

For many years discussions have taken place across the country. From what does the senate actually contribute to Canada to can we actually live without it?

Being a common sense conservative I will be the first person to state that I believe the time has come to disband the senate and it's un-elected officials. Sure we could have elected officials in the senate but then stand the chance that we would have a house and senate controlled by polar opposites much like in the States and end up with nothing being accomplished in a political gridlock that can last a generation. I do like to have checks and balances but is there really a way to accomplish this without a properly elected senate? Maybe a senate that is elected with no party affiliation, but you would still know where people sit before every voting for them and hence the same problem that the U.S. faces year in and year out.

Our provinces seem to make out just fine without senates and I would argue that maybe without the extra step that is the senate, government seems to become more efficient at running itself. We the people elected our MP's and MLA's to speak for us and we hold them accountable every 4 years, if they are not doing what we like, well you know what happens... The senate on the other hand, un-elected and unaccounted for which makes it a disease in of itself in the Canadian Constitution, a disease that we have an easy cure for. But the cure has it's side affects...

In order to abolish the senate you need to open up the constitution to reforms and there in lies the problem. We have too many groups within our nation that will want more perks tossed in that will cost the rest of Canada. Don't think for a second that Quebec will not want more out of equalization than they currently get, or that maybe Saskatchewan can fight and finally get non-renewable resources pulled out of the equalization math(and rightfully so as is the case in other jurisdictions), or natives wanting more land, Ontario wanting more representation... Well soon you see where this is going, it is a can of worms that I think will be hard to close.

There are constitutional lawyers throughout the country working on this as we speak, some for governments some for self interest groups and all ready to pounce at any given moment. Can the senate be abolished without opening the constitution, that will play out in the courts of the land as we move forward, most are under the assumption that you cannot reform without opening the constitution so abolishment seems to be the only path that "may" be able to be taken. Kind of strange that reform would be harder to accomplish than abolishment but who am I to argue with the political scholars, lawyers and judges?

It costs the Canadian public well over $100 million to run the senate every year, does not sound like to much in the grand scheme of things but over time it adds up and because they are not held to account it is my belief that it is time for it to go.

ProGOPGear.com: Patriotic T-Shirts, Stickers, and more!

Labour(Union) Issues In Saskatchewan

With the review that currently is ongoing in Saskatchewan and the whole labour movement uproar, I thought I would re-post my common sense approach to the union problems in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, unions of course will hate this but it better represents the workers, saving families upwards of $4,000/year in union dues.


At any length this is my proposal in a nutshell;

I have suggested that the government bring in Right To Work Legislation. This would not be quite what they have in some States, it goes further to protect the worker than their legislations do. As part of this Right To Work Legislation each worker hired within a union environment will have the right to join union or not. The worker, if so wishing not to join the union, would then become part of a fund or pool that holds a labour relations firm on retainer for when their collective bargaining agreement is about to expire.

In the legislation, when the collective agreement is one year from expiring it would mandate that both sides get to the table. Your lawyers would sit down with the employer for up to 6 months to try to bring about an agreement fair to both sides. If no agreement is in place at the end of six months then a mediator would come in and try for 3 months to get a deal in place. After three months and still no agreement then a move to binding arbitration with an arbitrator brought in from outside the province and who is acceptable to both sides. A deal would be in place by the end of the contract and the he said/she said political games would be taken out of the equation. There would be no strike actions taken as contracts would be done before any labour agreement ends, which further brings down the whole ability to play political game by both labour and employer.

Now you may say how is that fair to workers? Well they get the same protection that they currently have under unions but without the huge expense and games unions play. Many union members are charged well over $1000/year(some over 2,000) in union dues with no choice on how the unions leadership spend the money. Under this particular Right To Work legislation you could cut those union dues from over $1000 to maybe less than $100/year. Imagine what this change would do for the families? Having an extra $1000 in your pocket each year is nothing to sniff at, you can use it for what ever you see fit.

With this approach, you would not have the hard feelings between employer and employees as you know the process will be the same each and every time your contract comes due. The lawyers and employer will work together to make sure any agreement is fair and will ensure the growth of the company or if government make government more streamlined and sustainable.

Unions of course would fight this tooth and nail saying that labour cannot be represented nearly as well by a firm and to this I would answer that lawyers are trained to negotiate, this is what they do when it comes to labour relations. They are more likely to come to an agreement without all the background noise that union leadership puts out before and during negotiations. If the union leadership is really looking out for their members then they should have no problem with them choosing this path and keeping $1000 in their pocket on a yearly basis? The worker can then choose how they spend their money, not like how it is today under the unions where there is no vote for advertising, political contributions or the like.

We have to look at the role unions play in today's society, are they really needed any longer? We have labour relations boards, workers compensation boards and more. These boards do what the unions claim they do for the average person in the workplace, so why have the redundancy? The unions have served their purpose in the past, but in order to build an economic powerhouse where labour and employer have the same goals, we must leave the unions in the past. It is a whole new world out there and we must be able to compete on a global scale and I feel this is a step in the right direction.

There is no doubt that unions hold back our ability to compete, they protect the weak workers, those with no work ethic and hold back the ones who are hard working and would ultimately rise to the top in any other system. With this Right To Work Legislation our economic output would see a tremendous increase because the best people will rise to the top thereby creating an environment where people know that they need to work in order to succeed and therefor production would increase dramatically.

Far too long union has held us back, it is 2012 and it's time for change, let's change our labour legislation to better protect the worker and create a society more in tune with the ever changing global economic landscape. But first things first, we must be willing to talk to friends and family about this, without that grassroots movement things don't change. If you agree with my thoughts do not be afraid to write your MLA, your MP, the Premier and even the Prime Minister, this is how change starts.

This plan of course would need a lot of legal polish but it is a framework that could take us through to the next century in my opinion. Why is it that labour and business must butt heads are we not more civilized than that?

An example of this approach is say CUPE....29,000 members, each of them paying at least $1000/year union dues. That is $29,000,000/year revenue for the big business....I mean union, taken over 4 years equals $116,000,000!!! This total is probably very conservative as I know many CUPE members pay much more than $1,000/year.


Now to have a law firm under retainer may cost ten grand or so, and then in the 3rd year of bargaining maybe costs of $300,000 more or less. Total four year commitment is $330,000.

SAVINGS is $115,670,000 All of this money back into the pockets of the working men and women. Money better spent by them, how they want and not by some union figure head playing political games! Common sense says that the workers would be farther ahead with the money in their pockets

Common Sense Solution To Our Union Problems

I have taken time to think about how I would approach this topic. I know being a non believer in unions does not sit too well with the mainstream media but I believe our society is ready for a new approach to labour relations and thus now is the time to roll out my idea.

I have sent a letter to Premier Brad Wall, who then sent it on to Minister of Labour Don Morgan, I received a reply from Mr. Wall before Christmas and now I just received Don Morgan's response. In his response to me, Mr Morgan stated that he is sending it off to the Ministry Of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety for further analysis. Where this will end up is anyone's guess, it may get tied up in the house of bureaucracy, or who knows, something may come of it.

At any length this is my proposal in a nutshell;

I have suggested that the government bring in Right To Work Legislation. This would not be quite what they have in some States, it goes further to protect the worker than their legislations do. As part of this Right To Work Legislation each worker hired within a union environment will have the right to join union or not. The worker, if so wishing not to join the union, would then become part of a fund or pool that holds a labour relations firm on retainer for when their collective bargaining agreement is about to expire.

In the legislation, when the collective agreement is one year from expiring it would mandate that both sides get to the table. Your lawyers would sit down with the employer for up to 6 months to try to bring about an agreement fair to both sides. If no agreement is in place at the end of six months then a mediator would come in and try for 3 months to get a deal in place. After three months and still no agreement then a move to binding arbitration with an arbitrator brought in from outside the province and who is acceptable to both sides. A deal would be in place by the end of the contract and the he said/she said political games would be taken out of the equation. There would be no strike actions taken as contracts would be done before any labour agreement ends, which further brings down the whole ability to play political game by both labour and employer.

Now you may say how is that fair to workers? Well they get the same protection that they currently have under unions but without the huge expense and games unions play. Many union members are charged well over $1000/year in union dues with no choice on how the unions leadership spend the money. Under this particular Right To Work legislation you could cut those union dues from over $1000 to maybe less than $100/year. Imagine what this change would do for the families? Having an extra $1000 in your pocket each year is nothing to sniff at, you can use it for what ever you see fit.

With this approach, you would not have the hard feelings between employer and employees as you know the process will be the same each and every time your contract comes due. The lawyers and employer will work together to make sure any agreement is fair and will ensure the growth of the company or if government make government more streamlined and sustainable.

Unions of course would fight this tooth and nail saying that labour cannot be represented nearly as well by a firm and to this I would answer that lawyers are trained to negotiate, this is what they do when it comes to labour relations. They are more likely to come to an agreement without all the background noise that union leadership puts out before and during negotiations. If the union leadership is really looking out for their members then they should have no problem with them choosing this path and keeping $1000 in their pocket on a yearly basis? The worker can then choose how they spend their money, not like how it is today under the unions where there is no vote for advertising, political contributions or the like.

We have to look at the role unions play in today's society, are they really needed any longer? We have labour relations boards, workers compensation boards and more. These boards do what the unions claim they do for the average person in the workplace, so why have the redundancy? The unions have served their purpose in the past, but in order to build an economic powerhouse where labour and employer have the same goals, we must leave the unions in the past. It is a whole new world out there and we must be able to compete on a global scale and I feel this is a step in the right direction.

There is no doubt that unions hold back our ability to compete, they protect the weak workers, those with no work ethic and hold back the ones who are hard working and would ultimately rise to the top in any other system. With this Right To Work Legislation our economic output would see a tremendous increase because the best people will rise to the top thereby creating an environment where people know that they need to work in order to succeed and therefor production would increase dramatically.

Far too long union has held us back, it is 2012 and it's time for change, let's change our labour legislation to better protect the worker and create a society more in tune with the ever changing global economic landscape. But first things first, we must be willing to talk to friends and family about this, without that grassroots movement things don't change. If you agree with my thoughts do not be afraid to write your MLA, your MP, the Premier and even the Prime Minister, this is how change starts.

This plan of course would need a lot of legal polish but it is a framework that could take us through to the next century in my opinion. Why is it that labour and business must butt heads are we not more civilized than that?

The New Saskatchewan

Happy New Year everyone! As promised I am back blogging, although with work and family commitments I will not be able to spend as much time as I would like right now. Hoping that this will change going forward.

So here we are 2012, a lot has changed over the past few years, socialism has reared it's ugly head to the point of taking down large amounts of the world's economies, dictators have fallen, countries are waking up to a new conservatism while others are diving in deeper into the socialist/communist regimes.

In Canada and particularly here in Saskatchewan we have taken a look at what has continued to transpire around the globe and decided we do not want to fall prey to the same left wing tactics that have taken Europe by storm over the past few generations. We see countries losing their Triple A status, we see the unrest in the streets and we see the fall of many leaders who have done little or nothing to help their own people.

In Saskatchewan we spoke loud and clear this past fall, we do not want to fall back into our socialist ways, we have seen what comes of it over time and that has served as a wake up call.

Socialism has worked in Saskatchewan for many years because of the hand outs we always knowingly accepted from the Federal Governments. We were always there with our hands out asking Ontario, Alberta and the like to pay for our out of control spending, our socialist practices and out offensive union contracts. Without that help we would have suffered the same fate as Greece, Italy, Spain!

But we have turned the corner in Saskatchewan and we like what we have found, prosperity that could last many generations based on our resources alone. But does that mean we can sit back? Not at all, we must use some of this wealth to develop others areas of our economy that will move us forward after the resources. We cannot look at a 5-10 year plan, we must think 50+ years into the future. Where will future wealth be created? I will not try to make myself sound like a person who is capable to seeing the future but I am capable of realizing that most resources are finite and some day they will run out. By then our population could be around 2 million people and this is where some outside of the box thinking can go a long way.

We have seen a growing trend right next door in Alberta, they have taken their economy from a mostly resource driven economy to a more balanced economy. With large investments in financials, medicine, engineering, services and much more you have borne witness to an economy that has been able to weather the storm better than in the past. You may think that Alberta went through the recession with a lot of bumps and bruises and that is true, but a large part of this slowdown was caused by their own government getting greedy and upping the royalty rates on oil & gas. I submit that they would have done much better if the rates had gone unchanged. There still would have been a slowdown but not nearly as deep as it ultimately came to be. Sure oil & gas still plays a huge roll in Alberta's treasury but not nearly as much as in the 70's and 80's. Alberta has done a great job of diversifying their economy so that if one segment goes down it will not affect them nearly as much. This is what Saskatchewan needs to now do, we have oil, gas, potash and uranium, plus our yearly crops, but we need more. We witness the crash of potash prices a couple years back and how is impacted out government finances. Diversification would allow for us to better absorb a slowdown in certain parts of our economy.

Diversification will lead to a more sustainable economy, one that will be able to buck the trend, one that will weather the ever increasing storms and one with a bright future. No longer can we be considered socialists, but at the same extent we must not lose sight of what is important and what will help Saskatchewan continue to be the envy of our country and even the world. We cannot sit back, we need to keep moving our economy forward through innovation and of course value added businesses for our resources. We made the right choice in November and going forward we need make sure that socialism stays where it should.......in the past!