Prosecutors must Win

The Charest government has forced striking prosecutors to go back to work. These lawyers are some of the lowest paid in Canada and the salary cap is almost one-half of that in Ontario. Also, there is a need to hire more prosecutors to ease the workload. Our Crown prosecutors are being overworked and they simply do not have the resources to compete with rich members of organised crime who can hire a ton of defense lawyers. It's impossible to win when you are outnumbered. Now is the time for the Quebec government to start paying prosecutors what they deserve.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest claims that he has faith in the justice system to get to the bottom of allegations of mob-linked corruption and collusion in the province’s construction industry. 

But his Liberal government’s handling of its striking Crown prosecutors – culminating in back-to-work legislation passed Tuesday after an all-night sitting – will not leave any gangsters trembling.

Read more at the National Post.

Related articles

• Quebec lawyers hand in mass resignations in labour dispute (thestar.com)
• Que. prosecutors back-to-work bill debated (cbc.ca)

Bloc Against Multicuturelism!

On Wednesday the Parti Quebecois put a vote in the national assembly to ban the Kirpan in the national assembly. The Liberals and the ADQ voted in favor of this. This is crazy Canada is a multicultural country that believes in tolerance and Quebec is no exception. The kirpan must be allowed it is not a weapon it is a religious symbol I was very glad that Micheal Ignatieff went for the freedom of religion. It is a religious symbol that should be allowed in all public area like the national assembly. The Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois and even I regret to hear the Liberals of Quebec are against multiculturalism. These sort of policies tell immigrants that they aren't welcome in our free democratic country. This decision must be reversed and I think all the leaders of the Political parties should apologize to the people who live and pay taxes like any other Quebecer, and should have the same freedom as any other person.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2011/02/09/pq-kirpan-measure.html

Australia names a Forest after Jean Charest

Well, at least people like Jean Charest on the other side of the world.. In Australia, a forest outside of Adelaide is to be named the Jean Charest urban forest. He has won an annual prize given by the state of Southern Australia. Apparently, the decision to name the forest after Quebec's premier was unanimous. Charest received the prize based on Quebec's reduction of GHGs and Charest's "leadership." It's true that the Quebec's emissions did go down about one percent. But, some policies of the Quebec Liberals go against their pledge to reduce emissions. The MTQ plan to redesign the Turcot is one example of this brainless policy. The Quebec Liberals need to act on their pledge.

CANCUN, Mexico — While Canada is being raked over the coals at the UN Climate Summit, Quebec is picking up accolades: a forest in Australia is being named for the province's premier.

The Jean Charest urban forest, on the outskirts of Adelaide, is to highlight the premier's commitment to fighting climate change.

Read more at CTV. 

Related articles

• Charest slams Canada's climate policy in Cancun (cbc.ca)
• Charest should walk the climate walk (theglobeandmail.com)
• 200,000 sign petition calling for Jean Charest's resignation (theglobeandmail.com)

Oil sands are not clean!

Jean Charest a supporter of reducing edmissions has said he would be fine with future development in the oil sands. He said he was misqouted in Copenhagon when he said he was against future development. Priemeir Jean Charest who has attaked the Conservative Goverment on it's lack of enviromental actions. I think that the oil sands are a not clean source of oil. I say that if we can't use diffrent places for oil then there should be first enviromental protection imputed on all extraction sites. This means in any place in the oil sands they will have strict enviromental laws , and rules. More importantly there will be a Carbon Tax on the oil site. These taxes should go to reducing income tax, but also new money should go to renewable resources, so that the minumum comes out of the oil sands. I think we can't see the oil sands never being used, becuse of the mass need, but we should look at other cleaner not so polluting oil to be used, and use diffrent sources of energy the most we can to preserve oil. I would like to state I don't support the oil sands. The oil comapnies that exploit the oil should pay for the best secure enviromental protection, and all enviromental cost.

Why do we need oil?

Quebec is trying to get a okay from the federal government to be able to explore for oil and natural gas. I do not think we should take this oil, because do we really need it. I think that we get enough energy from hydro electricity. I believe that we should show as a example that this oil is not touched and yet we can still use other sources of energy that are renewable.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/100320/n032023A.html

Petro Province?

According to Questerre Energy Corp., an underground lake of natural gas is buried near the St. Lawrence river. Also, another company wants to drill a well on an oil field on the border between Newfoundland and Quebec. This means that we are facing the possibility of becoming a province that contributes to equalization, not receives. We also have to consider the environmental impact of the drillings. Exploitations do pollute the air and water. I say let the companies do it. But there are going to be Taxes with a capital t.

1. Taxes on destroying the fauna
2. Taxes on emitting pollution into the air
3. Royalty payments
4. All of the other taxes that apply to businesses

So, if the companies want to exploit the resources by destroying the environment, let them. But everything they do has consequences. Taxes is one of them.

Go High Speed Rail, Go

Three new pieces about high speed rail today. A poll was conducted in the U.S. by HNTB which shows that 88% of Americans are open to high speed rail. It doesn't mean that they want to pay for it, but this is at least something. The only thing stopping HSR is a lack of information on the subject and a lack of political will. The next article shows how HSR will help the economy.

But the real benefit of HSR may turn on its ability to expand economic growth, according to a new analysis by my colleagues at the Martin Prosperity Institute.

There are three main mechanisms through which high-speed rail can help expand the economy, according to the MPI study. First, HSR expands the labor pool available to firms, bringing talented workers from nearby centers within commuting distance and thus expanding the quantity and quality of available employees. Second, HSR makes more jobs available to workers without making them have to relocate and move to a new home. Third, HSR extends the benefits of other expensive, productivity-enhancing infrastructure such as airports across broad regions.

The economy is the most important thing as we are still in a downturn. HSR creates construction jobs during the building and enhances the economy once it's built.

Next, Premier Charest has announced another study on HSR to connect with the U.S. He says that if a connection is built, he would pay for the construction through the northern states where it wouldn't be of much interest. The only problem I have with this is the fact that they are studying this once again. I wish the politicians would stop studying and start building. It's like a student who studies extremely hard for a test, but, we doesn't show up for it. Therefore, the test is never done. I wish we could just get on with high speed rail.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Fast+train+York+enticing+proposal/2599646/story.html

http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2010/02/HNTB-survey-HSR-support-still-strong.aspx

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/richard_florida/2010/02/how_high-speed_rail_can_help_expand_the_economy.php