I found via Captain's Quarters and Newsbeat 1 today further evidence of corruption practiced by the Liberal Party of Canada, our government, which has apparently not really done a bloody damned thing to put an end to its cavalier, reckless, greedy, hedonistic treatment of our hard-earned-and-squeezed-out tax dollars.
Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters refers to Newsbeat1 which refers to Hansard, the "minutes" of what is said inside the House of Commons, also referred to by the Captain himself. Sort out if you wish, but I'll give y'all some of the juicy stuff here.
Over 100 boxes of documents have been seized from the Department of Public Works by the RCMP. Minister Scott Brison refuses to address Conservative MP Jason Kenney's demand as to whether they pertain to the Gomery Inquiry.
Wow- over a hundred boxes of documentation seized by the RCMP, itself suspected by some as being too close to the political arm of the state. The imagination naturally runs wild. Perhaps it's not merely Adscam but could be much more, as opined by Captain Ed.
Pee-yewwww! Who made that stink, Spendwell Dingwall or Pierre Le Pettipew? Or perhaps old Paulie himself? Wouldn't you like to find out what happens to all the money that somehow magically disappears off of your paycheck or pension check or whatever?
Newsbeat1 refers to Hansard, based on Sept. 29, 2005. There was questioning and "answering" about now-disgraced-and-resigned Canadian Mint big kahuna David Dingwall's extragavant spending of our money. About three-quarters of a million worth. The gov't side claimed no rules or laws had been broken. Hmmmmm... know what? If blowing incredible amounts of money the average person could only dream of having on mundane expenses is not against the rules or laws under Paul Martin's Liberal administration, then isn't that proof of corruption? I mean, how could anyone have overlooked such possibilities for the abuse of taxpayer money? It's mind-boggling. As far as I'm concerned, the political people must have seen to it that it'd be as easy as possible, and not against any "rules", to blow budgeted funds as patronage appointees see fit in order to live as comfortably and, dare I say, luxuriously, as they please, in accordance with standard hedonistic "Liberal" tradition.
Take the Libranos. Away. Far, far away. Please, please, please!
Friday, September 30, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
More Evidence that the MSM is Anti-Conservative
Based on Lorrie Goldstein's latest article on mainstream media (MSM) anti-Conservative/pro-Liberal bias, this post continues what could well become a Canadian Sentinel series aimed at proving that the MSM is biased against the Conservatives and therefore cannot be trusted by the Canadian electorate to provide reliable, impartial, balanced and fair reporting on the upcoming federal general election.
I'm doing this continuing expose of MSM anti-Conservative hostility due to a longstanding and progressively, increasingly proven-to-be-true suspicion that the MSM in general has demonstrated a desire and perhaps a business/political interest in actively seeking to maintain the Liberal Party of Canada in power forever, regardless of the very real dangers of perpetual Liberal rule, including the danger that Canada might not even have a future if the Liberals are reelected again this coming election.
Global TV's Peter Kent, running as a Conservative in the upcoming election, alerted Mr. Goldstein to a "recent study by two Ryerson University journalism professors".
Among the findings of the study:
A really-gotta-read.
Note the unsurprising finding that the CBC is particularly leftwards-biased. Who would've ever noticed without a study to tell us?
I'm doing this continuing expose of MSM anti-Conservative hostility due to a longstanding and progressively, increasingly proven-to-be-true suspicion that the MSM in general has demonstrated a desire and perhaps a business/political interest in actively seeking to maintain the Liberal Party of Canada in power forever, regardless of the very real dangers of perpetual Liberal rule, including the danger that Canada might not even have a future if the Liberals are reelected again this coming election.
Global TV's Peter Kent, running as a Conservative in the upcoming election, alerted Mr. Goldstein to a "recent study by two Ryerson University journalism professors".
These findings are contained in "The Canadian News Directors Study", an informative survey of the political leanings and demographics of TV news directors, conducted by Marsha Barber and Ann Rauhala. The results were published in the May 2005 issue of the "Canadian Journal of Communication".
Among the findings of the study:
* Almost half of all Canadian television news directors, the individuals who have the most influence in determining what political news is covered on your favourite nightly newscast and how it is reported, vote Liberal.
* A TV news director working at the tax-funded CBC is almost three times more likely to vote for the NDP in federal elections, compared to his or her counterpart in the private sector.
* When this research was compiled in 2002, just over one in 10 (11.4%) of all private sector news directors said they would vote for the Canadian Alliance. However, not one news director at the CBC described himself (or herself) as an Alliance voter.
A really-gotta-read.
Note the unsurprising finding that the CBC is particularly leftwards-biased. Who would've ever noticed without a study to tell us?
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Do Leftists Want Adults to Have Sex with Children?
A controversial title, even for a weblog post, for sure, but this is an important issue for Canada to deal with.
Lately it looks like there may soon be a push in Parliament to raise the age of consent for sexual activity from its current 14 to 16.
Here's an excerpt from the actual law as it stands today:
The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code.
That'd be a good idea, though it should be even higher, like perhaps the legal drinking age, 19.
Why, one cannot even legally drive until 16. One cannot purchase, view, pose for or act in pornographic media until at least 18. One cannot legally drink alcohol until 19 or even more. Why in the world would any rational person who cares about the well-being of children ever believe it couldn't be somehow harmful to a fourteen-year-old to have sex with adults of all ages? Who among us believes the average 14-yr-old possesses the intellectual and emotional capacity to engage in such activity without being somehow harmed, exploited, etc.? We're talking fourteen, for heaven's sake! Just think about all the other age restrictions on the other things above and ask why fourteen for this?
Indeed, this is a question I'd like to see Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler answer without the standard political BS.
The Canadian Sentinel hereby challenges Minister Cotler, Prime Minister Paul Martin, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois to prove the age of consent should be left so low and to prove that anyone would be harmed by raising the AOC to 16.
Anyone else want the leftists to justify their preference for such a lack of state protection for the vulnerable children of Canada?
Feel free to give your point of view. Don't be shy about criticizing the government- it's your right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Don't be shy. Let them know what you think about their cavalier, extreme lack of caring for Canadian children.
The comments section here is, as always, open.
Update: Sept. 29, 2005:
The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc have voted down the CPC bill to raise the AOC from 14 to 16.
Which returns us to the question asked in the title of this post. Once again the left has shown its true colors of brown, green and grey, rather than their claimed "rainbow" colors.
Each day now brings with it more damning evidence of dangerous "liberal" leftist extremism, meaning it's increasingly critical to wipe the political slate clean of "Liberal" tyranny in the upcoming election.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
More Elitist MSM Arrogance
Provided by Bourque, this Halifax Herald editorial has caught my interest, reminding me of the long history of the mainstream media (MSM)'s arrogantly biased attitude towards political leaders and parties of conservative orientation. I simply cannot remain silent about this anymore.
Seems whoever wrote that editorial (I believe it could be theoretically anyone, not necessarily the actual editor of a paper, unless required by law) is surprised that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has indicated recently that the MSM must shoulder much of the burden of blame for the non-issue, unnecessarily overblown CPC malcontent Carol Jamieson's screechery against Mr. Harper. Note that it is her historical wont to do to all conservative leaders.
The editorial reads, in part:
Suck it up, Mr. Harper. You're not the first politician to have to deal with uneven, and even unfair, media coverage. A campaign spent treating journalists assigned to cover you as the enemy is a recipe for disaster. Like it or not, many Canadians make up their minds on how'll they vote not from campaign events in their community, or slickly (or not) produced ads, but on what they can sift from news coverage, day after day, until election day.
Oh, the arrogance! Of course, all politicians have had some unfavorable MSM treatment. However, the author of the editorial fails to accept that it's plainly apparent to anyone who has had open eyes, a functioning brain and an ability to identify clear patterns over time that conservative leaders and parties are at an unfair disadvantage relative to leftist "liberal" leaders and parties. See the related post immediately below this one for more on that.
The author also seems unwilling to admit to him/herself that there's no doubt that "Liberal" leaders in Canada have always treated the MSM exactly as described in said editorial. Trudeau- runs away, cavalierly belittles reporters, etc. Chretien- why, he's been shown on television actually physically threatening a reporter in Parliament and himself always ran up the stairs so as to avoid questions and nearly never scrummed, not to mention his sexist treatment of CBC's Christina Lawand, effectively telling her she's getting old, to go have babies and apply to a social program about which she simply asked a legitimate question. Now, just watch Paul Martin control media access to himself via RCMP physical intimidation (during his photo op visit to tsunami-ravaged Sri Lanka -the nation with the Tamil Tiger terrorists, but that's another story-). All this despite having a relatively easy relationship with the left-leaning MSM! They let them get away with far more than any conservative ever could!
Most arrogant of all is the author's monopolistic claim that the electorate will only be properly, fully informed by "sifting from news coverage". Whose coverage, the MSM's biased crap? And how many people actually have the time to go over all of it, every day, and take many hours of the day just figuring it all out for oneself, filtering out all the blatantly biased leftist spin, wondering what important facts were omitted from reporting? No wonder the blognet is expanding in relevance and readership at an amazing rate- this very blog (nee 9/11/2005) has had, since counting started Sept. 15, 2005, 600 visits with over 1,700 separate post views. By today, the 26th of September. Not bad for a perfect nobody with no money, no employees, only a pc, an internet connection and the internet and his brain to work with. And I'm not alone, either. Understand that, leftist MSM elites.
A warning to the MSM: clean up your act; grow up; do your job as real professionals or have your organizations purchased by citizen investor groups one by one and see the CRTC be abolished and replaced with a proper watchdog enforcing rules that serve the people, not the governing party. Don't dismiss this warning. We're already sliding down that slippery slope.
Seems whoever wrote that editorial (I believe it could be theoretically anyone, not necessarily the actual editor of a paper, unless required by law) is surprised that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has indicated recently that the MSM must shoulder much of the burden of blame for the non-issue, unnecessarily overblown CPC malcontent Carol Jamieson's screechery against Mr. Harper. Note that it is her historical wont to do to all conservative leaders.
The editorial reads, in part:
Suck it up, Mr. Harper. You're not the first politician to have to deal with uneven, and even unfair, media coverage. A campaign spent treating journalists assigned to cover you as the enemy is a recipe for disaster. Like it or not, many Canadians make up their minds on how'll they vote not from campaign events in their community, or slickly (or not) produced ads, but on what they can sift from news coverage, day after day, until election day.
Oh, the arrogance! Of course, all politicians have had some unfavorable MSM treatment. However, the author of the editorial fails to accept that it's plainly apparent to anyone who has had open eyes, a functioning brain and an ability to identify clear patterns over time that conservative leaders and parties are at an unfair disadvantage relative to leftist "liberal" leaders and parties. See the related post immediately below this one for more on that.
The author also seems unwilling to admit to him/herself that there's no doubt that "Liberal" leaders in Canada have always treated the MSM exactly as described in said editorial. Trudeau- runs away, cavalierly belittles reporters, etc. Chretien- why, he's been shown on television actually physically threatening a reporter in Parliament and himself always ran up the stairs so as to avoid questions and nearly never scrummed, not to mention his sexist treatment of CBC's Christina Lawand, effectively telling her she's getting old, to go have babies and apply to a social program about which she simply asked a legitimate question. Now, just watch Paul Martin control media access to himself via RCMP physical intimidation (during his photo op visit to tsunami-ravaged Sri Lanka -the nation with the Tamil Tiger terrorists, but that's another story-). All this despite having a relatively easy relationship with the left-leaning MSM! They let them get away with far more than any conservative ever could!
Most arrogant of all is the author's monopolistic claim that the electorate will only be properly, fully informed by "sifting from news coverage". Whose coverage, the MSM's biased crap? And how many people actually have the time to go over all of it, every day, and take many hours of the day just figuring it all out for oneself, filtering out all the blatantly biased leftist spin, wondering what important facts were omitted from reporting? No wonder the blognet is expanding in relevance and readership at an amazing rate- this very blog (nee 9/11/2005) has had, since counting started Sept. 15, 2005, 600 visits with over 1,700 separate post views. By today, the 26th of September. Not bad for a perfect nobody with no money, no employees, only a pc, an internet connection and the internet and his brain to work with. And I'm not alone, either. Understand that, leftist MSM elites.
A warning to the MSM: clean up your act; grow up; do your job as real professionals or have your organizations purchased by citizen investor groups one by one and see the CRTC be abolished and replaced with a proper watchdog enforcing rules that serve the people, not the governing party. Don't dismiss this warning. We're already sliding down that slippery slope.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Monitor Media for Anti-Conservative Bias: Peter Kent
Via Neale News, this Canoe Network report by Dan Dugas tells us about this upcoming election's Conservative candidate Peter Kent, a former high-profile TV reporter, having made helpful recommendations for monitoring MSM coverage of the election.
From the report:
Peter Kent has written to 29 academics at journalism schools, asking them to closely monitor coverage of the next election.
Four journalism professors have indicated interest.
From Mr. Kent's letter, cited in the report:
"Given my first-hand experience in newsrooms across Canada over the years, I believe that most Canadian journalists are small-"l" liberals,
"It is also clear that Canadian journalism schools tend to be staffed by predominantly liberal professors who, year by year, turn out even greater numbers of liberally conditioned graduates and post-grads."
"Is there an inherent liberal bias in some of our leading news organizations or, asking the same question another way, is there an inherent anti-conservative bias in some of our leading news organizations?"
There's more in the report, including description as to the blatant, astonishing but little-realized-by-most-people difference in media coverage of the Conservatives versus that of the Liberals.
It's pointed out that whenever small minority of Conservative members creates some fuss, the media tend to extrapolate from the few to the whole. With the Liberal Party, this is not the case, and this pattern of mainstream media (MSM) behavior is, in my opinion, clear, undeniable proof of leftist, anti-Conservative bias in the MSM.
The Canadian Sentinel will do what it can to monitor and expose this indubitable MSM hostility towards the Conservative Party of Canada. Without this scrutiny of the MSM, which is "federally regulated", by the way, Canadians may be unable to make a fully, properly informed democratic decision on election day, which is what the Liberals, naturally, want and have long counted upon.
From the report:
Peter Kent has written to 29 academics at journalism schools, asking them to closely monitor coverage of the next election.
Four journalism professors have indicated interest.
From Mr. Kent's letter, cited in the report:
"Given my first-hand experience in newsrooms across Canada over the years, I believe that most Canadian journalists are small-"l" liberals,
"It is also clear that Canadian journalism schools tend to be staffed by predominantly liberal professors who, year by year, turn out even greater numbers of liberally conditioned graduates and post-grads."
"Is there an inherent liberal bias in some of our leading news organizations or, asking the same question another way, is there an inherent anti-conservative bias in some of our leading news organizations?"
There's more in the report, including description as to the blatant, astonishing but little-realized-by-most-people difference in media coverage of the Conservatives versus that of the Liberals.
It's pointed out that whenever small minority of Conservative members creates some fuss, the media tend to extrapolate from the few to the whole. With the Liberal Party, this is not the case, and this pattern of mainstream media (MSM) behavior is, in my opinion, clear, undeniable proof of leftist, anti-Conservative bias in the MSM.
The Canadian Sentinel will do what it can to monitor and expose this indubitable MSM hostility towards the Conservative Party of Canada. Without this scrutiny of the MSM, which is "federally regulated", by the way, Canadians may be unable to make a fully, properly informed democratic decision on election day, which is what the Liberals, naturally, want and have long counted upon.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Response to Traitor Carol Jamieson
Via Bourque, there is a letter written by John Reynolds and Michael Fortier, Conservative Party of Canada National Campaign Co-Chairs, in direct rebuttal to Carol Jamieson's traitorous letter attacking leader Stephen Harper and garnering oodles of media attention.
Ms. Jamieson, known for her long history of attacking all Conservative leaders in the past, recently made a left-wing media darling of herself by continuing her bizarre, uncalled-for attacks upon the CPC's current leader Harper.
Reynolds and Fortier rebut in their letter:
First off, Stephen Harper’s leadership is not in question. Those who are publicly attacking him represent a miniscule proportion of our total party membership. One critic in particular, Carol Jamieson, has garnered a disproportionate amount of publicity that belies her lack of credibility. Ms. Jamieson is a perennial malcontent who has militated against party leaders from Joe Clark to Stockwell Day and now Stephen Harper. She represents no one but herself, and none but the credulous take her seriously. Moreover it has come to light that some of the people she claims support her dissidence have denied it, further undermining the integrity of her claims.
(...)
The bottom line is clear. Stephen Harper is the best political leader in Canada. He is bright, articulate and passionate about his party and his country. His grasp of policy is unparalleled. He is someone who has thought long and hard about the issues. He has great faith in Canada’s unlimited potential, and knows clearly where he wants to lead us as a nation. No phoney photo-ops, no outlandish rhetoric, no promises that will never be kept. Leadership, vision, commitment. That is what Stephen Harper brings to the table. And that is why all of us, no matter our particular views on different issues, need to support our leader and our party.
In summary, it is simply bad politics to publicly attack your leader. It serves no one’s interests. Our party and caucus are strong and united. We have sufficient funding, a wealth of qualified candidates, a strong national membership base, and a caucus that is the envy of the political world. And we are led by the most intelligent politician in Canada today. Leave the carpers in their well-deserved obscurity. Let us focus on the future and work together for our fellow Canadians, and for Canada. (emphasis mine)
In short, Ms. Jamieson is merely helping the Liberals, deliberately, in my opinion. She knows that by carrying on with this irrational, assinine, unjustified nonsense she is giving the corrupt, cavalierly worthless, authoritarian Martin Liberal Party a big present. Why doesn't she just go and join Belinda Stronach on the benches of the soulless, principleless greedy opportunists who really couldn't care less about Canada and Canadians?
And, by the way, I would suggest that Mr. Bourque focus his attention upon something far more important: the TPC TechScam scandal which is expanding all around him.
Update Sept. 26, 2005: A Matter of Timing at Small Dead Animals: Kate reports on another Liberal scandal, the Firearms Registry, upon which Auditor General Sheila Fraser is training her skilled eye and is scheduled to report on it this coming February. Also includes coverage of the Carol Jamieson bugalaboo.
Ms. Jamieson, known for her long history of attacking all Conservative leaders in the past, recently made a left-wing media darling of herself by continuing her bizarre, uncalled-for attacks upon the CPC's current leader Harper.
Reynolds and Fortier rebut in their letter:
First off, Stephen Harper’s leadership is not in question. Those who are publicly attacking him represent a miniscule proportion of our total party membership. One critic in particular, Carol Jamieson, has garnered a disproportionate amount of publicity that belies her lack of credibility. Ms. Jamieson is a perennial malcontent who has militated against party leaders from Joe Clark to Stockwell Day and now Stephen Harper. She represents no one but herself, and none but the credulous take her seriously. Moreover it has come to light that some of the people she claims support her dissidence have denied it, further undermining the integrity of her claims.
(...)
The bottom line is clear. Stephen Harper is the best political leader in Canada. He is bright, articulate and passionate about his party and his country. His grasp of policy is unparalleled. He is someone who has thought long and hard about the issues. He has great faith in Canada’s unlimited potential, and knows clearly where he wants to lead us as a nation. No phoney photo-ops, no outlandish rhetoric, no promises that will never be kept. Leadership, vision, commitment. That is what Stephen Harper brings to the table. And that is why all of us, no matter our particular views on different issues, need to support our leader and our party.
In summary, it is simply bad politics to publicly attack your leader. It serves no one’s interests. Our party and caucus are strong and united. We have sufficient funding, a wealth of qualified candidates, a strong national membership base, and a caucus that is the envy of the political world. And we are led by the most intelligent politician in Canada today. Leave the carpers in their well-deserved obscurity. Let us focus on the future and work together for our fellow Canadians, and for Canada. (emphasis mine)
In short, Ms. Jamieson is merely helping the Liberals, deliberately, in my opinion. She knows that by carrying on with this irrational, assinine, unjustified nonsense she is giving the corrupt, cavalierly worthless, authoritarian Martin Liberal Party a big present. Why doesn't she just go and join Belinda Stronach on the benches of the soulless, principleless greedy opportunists who really couldn't care less about Canada and Canadians?
And, by the way, I would suggest that Mr. Bourque focus his attention upon something far more important: the TPC TechScam scandal which is expanding all around him.
Update Sept. 26, 2005: A Matter of Timing at Small Dead Animals: Kate reports on another Liberal scandal, the Firearms Registry, upon which Auditor General Sheila Fraser is training her skilled eye and is scheduled to report on it this coming February. Also includes coverage of the Carol Jamieson bugalaboo.
Saudi Arabia: All Muslims Must Support Jihad: Jihad Watch
Jihad Watch has this ominous report on the Saudi Arabian government's declaration, through a government official on Iqra TV.
Read it and see for yourselves.
It's doubtful the mainstream media will pay any attention to this matter.
Read it and see for yourselves.
It's doubtful the mainstream media will pay any attention to this matter.
Hamas Launches 26 Missiles into Israel, IDF Ready to Return
Recent events in the Middle East with Hamas in the Gaza Strip raise the possibility of a return by the Israel Defense Forces to the area to retaliate for Hamas' launching of twenty-six Qassam missiles into Israel (MidEastTruth.com):
The Israel Air Force launched three air strikes on buildings in the Gaza Strip early Saturday in the first air attacks since Israel completed its pullout from Gaza last week, the Israel Defense Forces said.
Palestinian hospital officials said three people were lightly injured in the IAF operation.
The air strikes came after Palestinians launched 26 Qassam rockets at targets in Israel, 21 of which landed in the western Negev town of Sderot, wounding five Israelis, one moderately and the others lightly, the army said. Six others were treated for shock.
Israeli Cabinet has approved the retaliation (haaretzdaily.com).
Update: According to CNews, the number of missiles fired into Israel is thirty-five:
The Israel Air Force launched three air strikes on buildings in the Gaza Strip early Saturday in the first air attacks since Israel completed its pullout from Gaza last week, the Israel Defense Forces said.
Palestinian hospital officials said three people were lightly injured in the IAF operation.
The air strikes came after Palestinians launched 26 Qassam rockets at targets in Israel, 21 of which landed in the western Negev town of Sderot, wounding five Israelis, one moderately and the others lightly, the army said. Six others were treated for shock.
Israeli Cabinet has approved the retaliation (haaretzdaily.com).
Update: According to CNews, the number of missiles fired into Israel is thirty-five:
Israel launched a "crushing" retaliation Saturday against the Palestinian Hamas organization in the Gaza Strip with deadly air strikes, troops massed at the border and a planned ground incursion after militants fired 35 rockets at Israeli towns - their first major attack since the Israeli Gaza pullout.
(...)
Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz told security chiefs in a meeting "the ground of Gaza should shake" and he wanted to exact a high price from Palestinians everywhere, not just Hamas. He promised a "crushing" response, including air strikes, targeted killings and arrests, participants said afterward.
For the Palestinians' part:
Palestinian Interior Ministry spokesman Tawfiq Abu Khoussa called the plan a "serious escalation that will lead to a new era of violence."
Will it never end? Israel has bent over backwards, given up its rightfully-won-in-the-1967-war-territory, forcefully evicting its own Israeli citizens from their homes in a goodwill peace gesture towards Palestine. Yet Hamas doesn't care and obviously only wants war and to destroy Israel. When will the international community come to see what's really happening in the Middle East? How can so many not see that Hamas has always and still does want to destroy Israel simply because it's not an Islamic state as Hamas wants?
Now is the time to put an end to Hamas and all terrorist organizations. The truth cannot be denied.
Update Sept. 26, 2005:
See the latest on this story at Small Dead Animals.
AdScam: The Sordid Scandal Continues
Yes, more on AdScam. Just as TechScam gains traction and commences rocketing down the road to widening public awareness, the continuing saga of the Libranos' playing fast and loose with our hard-earned dollars in a dubiously claimed scheme to "Keep Quebec in Canada" slithers back out of its crevice and rears its ugly reptilian head, widely-spread and swaying side-to-side, spitting venom and poised to strike again.
AnchorPin.Redpin gives us some more straight dope on the not-so-straight dopes whom more Canadians than ever before have come to revile. They link us to John Gleeson's Winnipeg Sun column wherein he enlightens us as to more...
Also reporting intensively on the scandal (the TechScam one, actually) is Kate at Small Dead Animals.
AnchorPin.Redpin gives us some more straight dope on the not-so-straight dopes whom more Canadians than ever before have come to revile. They link us to John Gleeson's Winnipeg Sun column wherein he enlightens us as to more...
Also reporting intensively on the scandal (the TechScam one, actually) is Kate at Small Dead Animals.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Tech Scam Real: Industry Canada
Continuing coverage of the Industry Canada Techonlogy Partnership Program is CNews, here.
From the article:
A scandal at the federal government's giant technology fund has widened with Industry Canada acknowledging that as many as 15 companies improperly paid commissions to middlemen or lobbyists. (Emphasis mine)
Until Thursday, Industry Canada had acknowledged problems with only four firms...
Now they admit fifteen... interesting...
The fund, created in 1996, has already committed $2.75 billion for 275 projects.
Wow. That's a lot of taxpayer money. A lot of projects. Bet it'll lead to an explosion of world-altering revolutionary technological inventions! But if the program's been up and running nearly a decade, where are the results? Anything like the invention of the telephone? Like the lightbulb? The internal combustion engine? (Anyone know if those inventions came about as a result of taxpayer money being handed out?)... is this value for the money? I say no. Let's end the program.
Now:
This week, (Industry Minister David) Emerson said he was replacing Technology Partnerships Canada with a new program beginning on April 1 next year. The Transformative Technologies Program, to be overseen by an expert panel of business people, is being billed as more transparent and accountable.
Rather a simplistic solution, isn't it? Give it a new name, put in some new, probably Liberal-loyalist "expert" "business people" and claim it's "more transparent and accountable"? What reason is there to believe the Liberals really mean to put an end to this TechScam thing? They've barely done anything much with all the other scams and boondoggles...
From the article:
A scandal at the federal government's giant technology fund has widened with Industry Canada acknowledging that as many as 15 companies improperly paid commissions to middlemen or lobbyists. (Emphasis mine)
Until Thursday, Industry Canada had acknowledged problems with only four firms...
Now they admit fifteen... interesting...
The fund, created in 1996, has already committed $2.75 billion for 275 projects.
Wow. That's a lot of taxpayer money. A lot of projects. Bet it'll lead to an explosion of world-altering revolutionary technological inventions! But if the program's been up and running nearly a decade, where are the results? Anything like the invention of the telephone? Like the lightbulb? The internal combustion engine? (Anyone know if those inventions came about as a result of taxpayer money being handed out?)... is this value for the money? I say no. Let's end the program.
Now:
This week, (Industry Minister David) Emerson said he was replacing Technology Partnerships Canada with a new program beginning on April 1 next year. The Transformative Technologies Program, to be overseen by an expert panel of business people, is being billed as more transparent and accountable.
Rather a simplistic solution, isn't it? Give it a new name, put in some new, probably Liberal-loyalist "expert" "business people" and claim it's "more transparent and accountable"? What reason is there to believe the Liberals really mean to put an end to this TechScam thing? They've barely done anything much with all the other scams and boondoggles...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)