Canadian Problems Become Greek Problems

The Greek Austerity plan has been in the works for a few months. It was supposed to pass in December but the Prime Minister decided to put it to a vote. His country is broke to the point Greece could take down the EU, but he felt, for whatever reason, his citizens should have a choice. This caused a vote of no confidence that he barely won. Either way, it's finally passed. Now with the austerity plan, there are rules the Greek government must follow and the Greek citizens don't like so they decided to riot, hurt their own people and burn their own cities.

Greece is a part of the European Union, the Euro is their currency and this has been the case since 1999 so intellectually, I'm having a hard time with what's going on. I figured they joined so they'd be a part of the larger economic force, not try to bring it down.

Greece's unemployment is at 20%, many small businesses are bankrupt, and the economy has been shrinking year after year. The government hid a great deal of debt and their spending was out of control. From what I can see, an effort to control it and bring them to a position of an effective country again is not what the Greek people want.

I find the timing of this interesting. Calgary City Council has a serious overspending problem and the Alberta Budget was just released with the idea of increasing spending with money it hopes to get from the energy sector. Canada is at its very core a social democracy but looking at what's happening in other countries, ideals need to change.

The City of Calgary has no money through 2018 with projects approved in 2011. I don't think a city council should be permitted to go into debt beyond their term without some sort of approval process. With the latest approvals, the City of Calgary will be in debt for a decade or two. Some people argue that the council has the right to make multi-million dollar decisions on our behalf because they were elected in. What I would have liked was a plebiscite on some of the larger projects. There doesn't need to be a plebiscite on every issue but if the project is large enough to break the bank, I'd like a say. I believe a number of Calgarians feel the same way. Instead what's been happening is the Mayor and Aldermen have decided they know what's best for us and then raise taxes to meet their expectations.

Not only that, the Mayor talks about how the provincial government has no money left to hand over to the city for debt reduction. If I were in charge of the province, I wouldn't be inclined to give money to a city that shows itself to be fiscally irresponsible. Anyone who takes a significant refund meant for the people then goes about trying to cut essential services such as the police budget doesn't show itself to be trustworthy with more money. Yet the city continues to spend on non-essential services like rec centres when it's already broke for years to come. Looking at Greece, how long did it take for them to reach a tipping point? What did it take to reach the point of no return? Where on the scale is Calgary sitting in comparison?

With our provincial government, similar issues are happening. The Alberta Budget was recently released. It has many amazing promises in it like increased spending for family and health services, no tax increases and hopes that the energy sector will grow to hold the system up. Relying on the economy to prop up the budget when Europe is currently so unstable doesn't seem the wisest course of action.

The Tories promise to lower debt and deficit in a few short years with no apparent cuts in government spending at any level. I may have (hopefully) missed them along the way. I also haven't found a backup plan if the economy doesn't grow as expected.

The Alberta Government also makes decisions on our behalf saying that any rational Albertan would make these choices. In a democracy, a leader would ask. In a dictatorship however, they, well, dictate. I'm tired of being dictated to. I believe this is becoming a problem at all levels of government, and not just in Canada. The solution to this one is easy, the politicians could actually listen to Canadians instead of speaking at us saying it's for the greater good. We may have more respect and trust for them then, not a lot more, but it could grow with time.

Each level of government must become fiscally responsible and fast. They have to stop going to the next level, with their hand out, asking for money for their ineptitude. I think what's been forgotten is that there is only one level of tax payer. There is an appropriate time for the municipal government to receive money from the provincial government. When they are at a point of begging for it, that is not appropriate. I don't want the city to be so broke that there must be intervention. With intervention there are rules. That is what Greece is facing and they are not facing it well.

Our leaders have become arrogant and I feel my opinion only matters on election day. Learn from Greece's mistakes; our politicians shouldn't be remembered for their grievous overspending and constant tax increases. I wish to be listened to by my governments and I hope many others feel the same way. I don't want any part of my country to turn to destructive rioting. I want people to care about what's going on. We don't need it to get to the point of borrowing or bailouts. What is required is restraint and proper fiscal policy and responsibility.

As a Calgarian, Albertan and Canadian, I am one person and I wish to be heard.

Protect Yourself; A South Carolina Sheriff Has it Right!

With guns, there are always going to be varying views. With sport shooters, there are people who'll shoot anything put in their hands (like me), there’s the long gun crowd, the shot gun crowd, the hand gun crowd and let me tell you, they are avid about their style. It's great fun! Then there are other categories of people. There are people who require firearms in their job, people who collect firearms because they are built beautifully, people who misuse firearms, and people who don't understand and hate firearms for ambiguous reasons.

I just learned of Sheriff Chuck Wright in South Carolina who is encouraging women carry a gun for protection. This is a man standing up for women in my opinion. Read the complete story here.

First, he says, abide by the law. To get the permit, the person must go through a course. That means education. Second, that means through this education, the firearm becomes familiar. Sheriff Wright even recommends the firearms women should carry to protect themselves and provides a situational example.

Sheriff Wright was prepared for anti-gun activists to verbally attack him but he did get a number of thank-you's from people for thinking of their well being. Some did disagree with him of course.

Melonea Marek, executive director of People Against Rape says in asking women to arm themselves against assault, he's blaming the victim. I beg your pardon? How on Earth is asking women to take a preemptive action to protect themselves “blaming the victim?” I've been stalked twice in the past. The first time, the person was harmless, the second time, not so much. He didn't do anything physical to me but did to a friend of mine. Being the kind of person I am, I immediately got help from a number of different sources. I was never armed as it's against the law in Canada, but deciding I wasn't going to be a victim, I took preemptive action to protect myself as best I can. Melonea Marek says a gun is no guarantee, but neither was anything I did. You know what?  I felt safer with the education I received and would have felt far better had I been armed. I would have never needed a gun but it's one of those situations of I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Considering nothing is guaranteed in life, what should I have done if my stalker did attack me?  Lie down and take it? I don't think so. 

Caroline Brewer, spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says that people who carry guns are far more likely to be shot. I generally don't believe statistics as they can be manipulated to say anything you want them too. I've done stats classes, my husband is a financial accountant by trade, we've both manipulated statistics as have many other people. It's like saying you're 10 times more likely to be in an accident within a 5 km radius of your home than anywhere else. You know why?!? Because most everything you do is within 5 km of your home! Statistics reports never mention that part.

In Canada, it's tragic if a law abiding citizen uses a firearm to protect themselves against a criminal. The criminal may get charged for what they did, the law abiding citizen will get charged multiple times over for protecting themselves, their family, their property, their neighbours, it's shocking and sad. Ian Thomson is going through this now, his home was firebombed by masked men. Lawrence Manzer is going through this for helping his neighbour against vandals. His gun wasn't even loaded. In Canada, police say if you can disengage, do so and phone them. Fine, great, but that means police, in general, have to react faster than they do. Ian Thomson had to wait 10 minutes before the police arrived and his house was on fire. There are many more cases similar to this. It seems the police and the government would rather punish law abiding citizens than criminals. We're not frightening, we're not bad people, and in general we'll never pull a gun on someone unless they mean to do us harm.

What frightens me about wanting to disarm the population is, for thousands of years, people have been armed and have had the ability and right to protect themselves. For some reason, liberal thinkers want to take that ability and right away. Realists want people the ability to protect themselves by any method possible. Violence will never go away no matter how much law and legislation is put into place. Firearms aren't always the answer by no means, they aren't to be feared, but they are a tool to be used appropriately, like anything else.

We don't live in the world that a lot of these activists see with rose coloured glasses. I don`t wish to be a victim, and I don't wish to be treated like a criminal.  I'm not either of these things. I'm a law abiding, gun owning citizen. I'm no different from anyone else. I wish to live safely, feel protected and not be punished for having the ability and capacity for doing so. I have a lot of respect for Sheriff Wright and so should anyone else who as the ability and capacity to fight for their right to live.

Don't Punish The Law Abiding

I, with many other licensed firearms owners, have been waiting for the end of the billion dollar long gun registry. It has been a waste of time and resources from the very outset. Those with concerns of firearms ownership but don't know how it works should educate themselves about legal firearms acquisition and ownership. We, the law abiding, are not the people to be worried about, but we are the ones getting punished. The Firearms Act is easy to find, I have referenced it frequently and with this, there is a Fact Sheet concerning the Firearms Act. Both are very informative.

Not only that, one of the concerns people seem to have that don't know how this firearms thing works, is acquisition. With the scrapping of the long gun registry, a Possession and Acquisition License is still required to own or purchase hunting rifles and shot guns. The step that will be deleted is registering them. For restricted firearms such has handguns, registration will still be required. That's been going on since 1934. Also with restricted firearms, to move them, an Authority to Transport is needed.  The gun owner is only permitted to take restricted firearms to a range or gunsmith.

I've read many times that when the long gun registry is scrapped, police won't have it to reference, they won't be safe... what? Are police so incompetent that they require a computer to tell them how to approach a situation. “This house has a registered gun, approach with caution, no this house does not have a registered gun, approach with gay abandon?” I give police a little more credit than that. The ones I've interacted with have a head on their shoulders; I'm hoping that extends throughout Canada.

C-68, the bill that started all this long gun registry stuff punishes law abiding citizens. The way it was written, it seems to go out of its way to criminalize us. It's all guilty until proven innocent. The slightest infraction, or even the look of an infraction and a gun owner is up to their eyeballs in trouble. An otherwise normal lawful person who has never done anything wrong in their life can very easily be left with a criminal record and have their property seized because someone, say a neighbour, calls the police because a they saw a firearm case and don't understand that this person has just come home from the range. It's happened before and it will happen again.

Criminals, actual real criminals, don't apply for licenses.  They don't register their firearms and they won't store their guns per the firearms act. The Firearms Act can be tweaked and tightened up but the criminal doesn't care and never will. No amount of gun control will ever stop them from using a firearm if they really want to.

Of late, every time I read an article about scrapping the long gun registry, someone brings up the Polytechnique Massacre. I knew some details about it but not a lot. I was 12 when it happened so I had to do some reading. What people in news articles have been saying is the scrapping of the Long Gun Registry is an insult to the women who died at Polytechnique and I completely disagree. I'm tired of people misusing that incident to advocate gun control.

Mark Lepine was a man in his mid-twenties who was already mentally unstable. He grew up in an abusive household and his father thought little of women. His father left the family when Mark was 7. Mark had applied for military service and was rejected so he joined a college science program. He was described as withdrawn, having difficulties with relationships . He lost his job as a nurse due to poor attitude and shortly after, quit college. He applied at Ecole Polytechnic twice and was denied both times. He blamed a lot of society's problems on feminism and targeted feminists specifically. This violence was directed against women and was described by experts as a hate crime. The gun Mark Lepine used was legal and his. He killed 14 women and injured 4 men and 10 women. He was determined to harm these people. If he didn't have access to a firearm, he would have found some other way as he was planning the attack for months. The gun was not at fault, this was a problem with the man who pulled the trigger.

Last December, about 100 kms south of Calgary, a young man using his vehicle, ran down another vehicle. Once stopped, he shot four people, killing three, injuring one. One of the girls murdered was his ex-girlfriend. He then committed suicide. The firearms legally belonged to the offender. All of them registered. I don't wish to diminish what the families are going through but the offender obviously went out with violent intent and no amount of law would have prevented this. If he didn't have access to firearms, he would have found some other way to cause these people harm, probably using the two tonnes of steel he was in.

In Kelowna last August, a man was shot and killed in front of the Grand Okanagan Resort. This was a confirmed targeted hit. According to reports, a dark SUV pulled up behind parked luxury SUV, masked men jumped out of it, shot the parked vehicle and drove way. The two men in the parked vehicle were from two different gangs. Five people were injured in the shooting. I would place odds that the shooters did not have firearms licenses, did not register their guns and did not acquire their guns legally. Criminals generally don't. I feel comfortable calling the shooters criminals, law abiding citizens don't pull up in front of hotels and shoot other people, no matter the circumstance.

On New Year's Day in 2009, in Calgary, men walked into Bolsa Restaurant and executed three people. This one is very close to home, literally. It's about 10 minutes away AND I used to go to this restaurant for lunch when I did laundry at the laundromat across the parking lot. According to newspaper articles, this incident happened because of some gang revenge plot. Gangs members don't get Possession and Acquisition Licenses, they don't register guns and they don't purchase their guns legally. The Firearms Act would not have prevented this.

None of these incidents are the fault of the firearms but the fault of the people using the firearms as tools of murder. No amount of gun control could have prevented these deaths and injuries. Scrapping the long gun registry is not blood on anyone's hands as I've read, it's not an insult to anyone who's died at the hands of criminals.

Now, I can start touching on crimes that don't involve firearms such as domestic violence, stabbings, drunk driving, robbery, assault, substance abuse, computer hacking, tax evasion, locking a child in a car on a hot day and so on. In many of these cases what I will say is, the tool isn't blamed. If someone is killed by a drunk driver, it isn't the car that's blamed, it's the driver. If someone is stabbed to death, it isn't the knife that's blamed, it's the person that wielded the knife. So why is it if someone dies by bullet, it's the gun's fault, not the fault of the person who pulled the trigger? What fault is it when someone is scammed? These are all people problems. Controlling the tool will not stop the people problems.

More gun control is not the answer, education is the answer. Honestly, more people should have firearms. I would be happier if every Canadian family had a firearm or two. First, that would mean every Canadian family would be familiar with at least one kind of gun.  Second, that would mean, Canadians wouldn't fear them because they would be familiar with them. It's natural to fear that which you do not understand, so understand this tool.

Why continue to create laws that punish the law abiding? It doesn't do anything to deter the criminal. It's not like today they're law breakers and tomorrow they follow the firearm's act because of some epiphany. We who follow the rules are the only ones getting punished. Instead, what should happen is the criminal code is changed to punish actual criminals for firearms infractions, be it illegal acquisition, possession, or use. The problem is, the Firearms Act is written to punish the law abiding licensed owner for storing their legally owned firearm incorrectly, as an example. That could mean the room wasn't locked but the firearm was otherwise safe.

There are roughly 2.5 million gun owners in Canada. There are a large number of hits on the gun registry ranging from 2,500 to 14,000 hits per day. I find it interesting that when I see the number of gun registry uses, I never see why it's been used. To just look at the statistics, all of us gun owners are constantly called on, it's amazing! However, the information that’s missed is, all identity searches done by law enforcement tap the gun registry whether they asked for a gun registry information or not. That means someone phones 911, the dispatcher asks for the caller's name and phone number, the dispatcher enters it into their computer, it taps the gun database. Most of the “hits” on the gun database are auto-hits, not intentional ones. How is that useful?

The Long Gun Registry needs to be scrapped. It was a mistake from the very outset. It was never set up properly. It was never run well (and they did try) and it's costing Canadians way too much. This is money that could have better served if spent on law enforcement. Two billion dollars could have done a lot for the RCMP. Stop the financial bleeding, start the educating and stop criminalizing law abiding citizens. We're not the enemy.

Oil and Gas Pipelines from My View

My name is Carmen Jane McCullough. I’m Inuvialuit and a couple generations back, Scottish on my mom’s side.  I’ve got German heritage from my dad.  I was born in Inuvik, Northwest Territories.  Most of my family is still scattered through the Northwest Territories.  I’m married to James, a white guy born in Edmonton but who realized Calgary is way cooler.

These are my Aunts, on the Right is my mom and in front is my Granny

I take native photos and read history books.  I’ve also been paying a lot of attention to political issues that affect me as the various levels of governments have been making what appear to be arbitrary decisions in my so called best interest.

Native Photo

History Book

Until a few years ago, I didn’t really think about my heritage or what it really meant to me.  Being that I live so far away from the Inuvialuit, it’s hard to stay in touch.  Of late, I’ve been talking with my sister on political issues that affect us.  She still lives in Inuvik.  She and I are very different people but I value her opinion very much since she said to me she decided she’s smart.  It is quite the statement from anyone.

I was very much in favour of the Mackenzie Pipeline and have been disappointed at the progress thus far.  I hope in the future it gets built and without the rhetoric from environmentalists but that’s wishful thinking.  I am very much in favour of the Keystone XL Pipeline.  Why President Obama said no, and with a blame throwing caveat, confuses me.  Currently, I am in favour of the Northern Gateway Pipeline and why the Gitxsan Nation rescinded their support baffles me.

I did some research on the Gitxsan Nation.  I went to their website, I read about their heritage and what they want to accomplish in the future.  The partnership with Enbridge in my opinion could only help them advance.  The pipeline project would provide the Gitxsan Nation with job opportunities and training for their people and a constant influx of money to the band for a period for 30 years.  And that’s just the information I found on a quick search.  I find it strange and unfathomable that they would say no to an amazing opportunity to work with a corporation willing to give so much in return for a buried pipeline route that in a couple of years you wouldn’t even know was there.

I do not understand why so many people are so concerned about the possible environmental impact of this pipeline.  They keep bringing up oil spills.  Yes, that could, possibly just maybe happen, but the pipeline is being built with current technology, not 50 year old tech and it’ll be built up to current environmental regulations.  These regulations aren’t exactly lenient in this country.  Not only that, if there were this possible just maybe future spill, Enbridge does have to clean it up, and fast.  If there’s even the possibility of a breach, someone MUST go check it out, actually go to the site and look at it, do tests, make sure all is well and if all is not well, fix the problem.  That’s why oil and gas companies have land management teams.

Environmentalists want people to believe their lies instead of science.  They’ve campaigned so well that people refuse to believe facts nowadays.  Somehow they’ve convinced people that drilling, moving or refining oil is evil yet people still drive their cars, warm their homes and fly in good conscience.  Why it is that someone will take the word of a professional protester over the word of a petroleum engineer, I will never understand.

I’ve also found references from people talking about evil “corporate profit.”  Enbridge has every right to make money.  However, in their effort to make money, they are paying wages, salaries, various licensing fees, all kinds of insurance, federal taxes, and all sorts of taxes in both provinces.  They’ll be purchasing materials to build the pipeline and hiring other companies to move earth and the list goes on.  It’s not just Enbridge that makes money, it’ll be so many other companies plus the provincial and federal governments.  Don’t forget the local business as workers go through to grab a bite to eat and what not.  The economy at every level will increase for a time everywhere this pipeline touches.

In some of the arguments that I’ve been in over the Northern Gateway Pipeline, people have said that because I live in Southern Alberta it doesn’t directly affect me.  My husband and I have a small acreage near Bon Accord.  The pipeline is going right past it.  It does affects me directly and you know what, I’m not worried.

Read on the pipelines.  Research it and make your own informed opinion.  Don’t listen to professional environmentalists and protesters with their pseudo facts and realize that businesses have a right to run and make money.  Money in their pocket is not money out of yours.  Also realize that oil and gas companies are not out to destroy the planet.  In my experience, they don’t want that anymore than you do.

Our Experience with the RCMP vs What the RCMP show Federally

Last January, James, my husband, and I thought it was going to be a normal year. Then an officer from the Calgary Police Services showed up on my door step. He explained to us that James' father passed away. It was a rough evening. Finally, the next morning James spoke, for the first time, to Cpl. Jason Zazulak, an RCMP officer from the Morinville RCMP detachment. I remember this very clearly. It was the morning of January 11, 2011.

They had a conversation about James' father, and then had a brief conversation about our impending drive from Calgary to Morinville. It was quite stormy, highway conditions were bad and Cpl. Zazulak told us to drive carefully and he would be quite upset at us if he had to send out officers on a search. There's already been one upset in the family and he didn't want to phone our parents too. A sense of humour, I knew I'd like him.

When we finally got to Morinville (almost 5 hours later), we met Cpl. Zazulak. First he explained to us the circumstances of Noel's death. Then we spoke about the property. We knew that Noel owned firearms and we knew we would have to deal with them in the estate transfer. I had already done a lot of research (in the few hours I had) on this topic. Cpl. Zazulak said they searched the house and seized the firearms which was fine. He also told us they weren't done cataloging them. My husband and I are both licensed gun owners and we expected a few guns. 50 even 60 guns wasn't out of line. He then said to us... they were up to 160 guns. James went silent. It's not often James goes silent.

I was able to tell Cpl. Zazulak that we could bring a firearms expert (my mother in-law's current husband) in the next few months. This made everyone very comfortable. He told us they would hold onto all of the firearms for as long as we needed. We asked for a full catalog of the firearms when it was ready and he was fine with providing us this.

On this same day, Const. Jamie Short brought us out to the property. We weren't entirely sure how to get there from Morinville. He led us out and helped us search the house. We were there for a number of hours. When we decided we were done for awhile and needed dinner, Const. Short left a few minutes before we did and said “if you see any body prints in the snow, kick it, make sure I'm not in it!” Again! Sense of humour, I love it!

It's a lot scarier in the winter with 18 ft of snow!

Over the next few months, we got the list of the firearms and had been driving back and forth from Calgary to Bon Accord to clean up the property and now spring comes. We can officially claim the firearms, almost 200 of them.

John arrives to help, James heads to Morinville three days before me and they head over to the RCMP station to pick the firearms up along with the binder full of paperwork.

From what I heard, everyone had a lot of fun loading the firearms into John's trailer as John explained each of the more esoteric ones. Even Staff Sergeant Mac Richards was helping out. The officers at the Morinville detachment learned more about firearms then they ever thought possible through this estate. Not only that, after they were loaded into the trailer and ready to be moved back to the property, we were told if we had any problems to contact them. They would help us out. How awesome is that?

James picked out a few guns he would like to keep, I picked out a couple and the rest were transferred to John as he legally sells guns and gun parts. I'm personally pleased I don't have to deal with almost 200 guns. They are out of my hair. I tell ya, we have this down to a science. Before we got this all figured out, the Alberta CFRO and the Canada Firearms Centre helped out nicely.

With all this, we went to the Alberta Arms Show here in Calgary and James headed to the Kamloops Gun Show with his mother and John and met a lot of interesting people. Here at the Alberta Arms Show, James met Danielle Smith, the Wild Rose Party leader. They had a good talk. James told her about our experience with the Morinville detachment and she was quite interested in what he had to say. We have never met anyone from the other parties nor do they seem to care what we have to say on any topic.

After my amazing experience with the Morinville RCMP, it's sad to see what the federal RCMP are doing with the prohibition of certain firearms based on looks just because the long gun registry is about the be destroyed. It's disappointing and disheartening. Why would I trust a police force that legislates and enforces the law based on convenience? Why are they creating legislation and prohibiting firearms against law abiding citizens? It's already been proven that those of us with a firearms license are actually safer and more lawful than those without. Instead of going after us, go after actual real criminals instead of making criminals out of us.

To those who want guns removed from the hands of law abiding gun owners, please, learn the law, learn what it takes to acquire a firearms license then learn what it takes to acquire a firearm. It's not as easy as most think. My authority to transport is proof of that. Don't judge a firearms owner by the fact they own firearms. You never know who it is unless the person says “I have guns.” Odds are pretty good your neighbours are gun owners, you just don't know it. I'm more than happy to help educate those who don't know. Just ask me or the nearest guy with a license. We'll tell ya, teach ya and probably take you to the range! Most of us (in my experience) like shooting in groups. The more the merrier.

Me!

James!

Government Insanity

Both the municipal and provincial government seem to be suffering some kind of political insanity. Both levels of government feel they can think for the entire population whether they've been voted in or not. Not only that, they are making self serving decisions and then saying they are in the best interest of the people.

Let's start with Calgary Council. The airport tunnel is approved, fluoride is taken out of the water (even though it was put in through plebiscite), Calgary Transit is included on property taxes, illegal squatters couldn't be removed using legal methods, cycling is becoming a priority over snow removal, and this is for starters. The newest mayor makes popular decisions that suit him, forces through others as he sees fit, and bullies until he gets his way for the rest. All this is done in the best interest of Calgarians without actually consulting us.

Now, let's not forget about provincial insanity. Laws are forced through AFTER the very same laws are deemed unconstitutional in another province, a “sin tax” is being considered to increase money for the government (let’s just play with the idea of religion and politics as bedfellows), they want to force anti-smoking laws through AFTER taxing the cigarettes and it looks like the unelected premier isn't done yet. How this insanity even started in a country that calls itself a democracy is beyond me. The first set of self-important laws were put through using “power of closure”. Why? Because our new mother - I mean unelected Premier - knows what's best for Albertans and is obviously clairvoyant; she doesn't even need to ask first.

Is this how we want to run?

I believe one or two of these projects should have gone to plebiscite as they affect all of us but because the affected politicians didn't think we'd vote in their favour, plebiscite didn't happen. Instead, they said a plebiscite was too expensive and forced their pet projects through themselves. As for the other projects, they needed more analysis but again, the affected politicians felt this wouldn't be in their personal best interest so again, the pet project was forced through, avoiding the due process around which our democracy is designed. Why is this happening more often? How do we stop it?

I can think of one reason this has started. The politicians seem to think that our bank accounts are an infinite resource. If they start to run out of money, just raise taxes and begin the next multi-billion dollar project, no problem. Not only that, they increase vehicle registration, business registration, animal licensing, and so on.  That's more money for them that we have no choice but to pay. The problem is, even for those of us that can afford it, it's becoming cumbersome.

Premier Redford and Mayor Nenshi are both falling for it. They both want to increase taxes for their pet projects that are in our best interests AND they want to keep the economy moving forward. I'm not quite sure how that works though. How do we pay for all the tax and licensing increases and still get all the little extras we all enjoy... like booze for example, and then pay for a cab home? I ask again, how do we stop them from increasing all these taxes, make the insane government more accountable, and force the government out of this insanity and into efficiency?

It's obvious that the various levels of governments are on a spending spree. They need to change their methods and ideas and they need to realize that there is only one taxpayer in the end and we're getting tired. At this point, I'm asking for, begging for efficiency in government. Put a halt to new projects, fix the old ones that are falling down, maintain what's there. Stop the insanity!

Premier Redford's Nanny State Ideals are not what Albertans Voted For

I was unsure about Alison Redford when she “elected” leader of the provincial Tories. Now I feel she is a terrible Premier. Premier Redford makes decisions on behalf of Albertans stating it's either what we want or what any sensible or reasonable Albertan would want. Apparently since she's become our provincial leader, we've lost the ability to make decisions for ourselves.

When she became the (not) elected leader of Alberta, immediately Premier Redford moved forward with her pet project of an unconstitutional drinking and driving law. She would not permit discussion or proper study.  Why not?  Is it because glaring flaws would be found with the new law?  Is this why she had to force it through using power of closure?  Anytime a government circumvents due process, it make me nervous.

With this new drinking and driving law, the police are given the ability to judge a driver guilty on the roadside without blowing over the criminal limit of 0.08.  Based on number of times caught, the driver gets their license suspended and car impounded for increasing amounts of time but there are no charges laid and no demerits given until they blow over 0.08.  Now if the driver blows OVER 0.08, the person's license is immediately suspended and car seized until the criminal charges are resolved.  The police are in essence giving a guilty verdict on the roadside.  The driver must go to court to determine whether or not the police’s roadside verdict sticks or if they are now innocent.  The best part is, there is no recourse for the driver.  Even a violent criminal is innocent until proven guilty.

Why is this law unconstitutional? There is no innocent until proven guilty, it's guilty and less guilty. This law also leads to unreasonable search and seizure.  The vehicle is seized with no criminal charges laid, based on a roadside breath test.  If there was some kind of recourse for the driver, I would have an easier time with this law.  How long will this law last based on Charter violations?  Not being a lawyer, I have no idea how an unconstitutional law makes it into the law books in the first place. I would think the government would know better and wouldn't want to waste their time with a court challenge. How does this benefit anyone?

Something else I don't understand is how a law passes (well, gets forced through) in Alberta that gets deemed unconstitutional in British Columbia? I thought we were one country with one Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely DO NOT believe anyone should drink and drive, ever. There is no excuse for it, but I do believe in a person's Charter rights. I also don't believe that a police officer should play judge. That's not their job.

Instead of creating a new law, why not enforce the old ones more efficiently? I don't see how targeting law abiding citizens is going to solve anything. As long as the government is targeting people that drink small amounts occasionally, it solves very little - if anything.  If they want to target repeat offenders, then target repeat offenders.  What this new 0.05 law will do is burden an already burdened court system.

With this going on, Premier Redford wants to enact a new anti-smoking law. She wants to make it illegal for drivers to smoke when travelling with children and she wants to ban flavoured tobacco products in the name of health. Neither of these will cure anything. Parents will still smoke at home and as for banning flavoured tobacco, not being a smoker, I'm not sure about this one. I'll have to ask smokers who like them.

She states these in the same breath as “let's raise taxes on tobacco and booze to increase our coffers!” I beg your pardon?  So, with the Liberal ideals she’s moving us into, she’s creating “sin taxes” as well.  Does Premier Redford not realize that people won't buy as much if the price increases too much, if at all? That means the coffers she speaks of won't be as full as she wants them too be?

So, I wonder what will be taxed for those of us who don't drink and smoke. When will the tax collector bang on my door asking for his gold to fill the provincial coffers because the totalitarian Liberal - wait, Conservative - government didn't get their two extra cents from me. I also wonder what other stupidity law will be put in place because Premier Redford is doing it in the best interest of Albertans without actually asking us first. Can't do that, she might actually get an answer she doesn't like. Damn that democracy.

It's a good thing an election is close at hand.  What the new leader doesn’t seem to take into consideration is that these are not the ideals we elected into power.  It was the party ideals at the time.  I don’t think Albertans can take more of Premier Redford changing Alberta in our “best interests”.