你会成为二等公民吗?

谎言:C-24法案造成“二等”公民

真相:根根加拿大的法律,每一位公民都是平等的。根据联合国法律,加拿大不能使人变成无国藉者。这意味着C-24法案只能取消持双重国藉者的加国国藉,且该人已被法庭宣判犯下恐怖主义罪或叛国罪。

1

谎言:C-24法案允许取消恐怖分子和叛国者的国藉,会造成权力的滥用。

真相:只有几十名加拿大人被判犯有严重的恐怖主义罪行。在过去十年当中,被判此罪的加拿大人不超过20人。

2

谎言C-24法案将允许政府以任何理由撤销国藉,包括说一些有争议的话或犯了轻罪。

真相:C-24法案只允许撤销对加拿大犯下最为严重罪行的罪犯的国藉,包括:恐怖主义罪,叛国罪,发动针对加拿大的战争。

3

谎言:C-24法案使入了加国国藉的移民很容易失去国藉

真相: C-24法案不会对入了加国国藉的移民与本国出生的加国公民之间造成任何区别。有些本国出生的加国公民愿意拥有双重国藉;而有些例如来自中国,印度的入了加国国藉的移民不能拥有双重国藉,因此C-24法案对他们不会有影响。

4

谎言:C-24法案允许撤销由腐败的国外法庭判定的犯有恐怖主义罪的人的国藉。
真相:C-24法案只会根据加拿大法庭的定罪来启动撤销加国国藉之程序。唯一的例外是由国外法庭宣判的恐怖主义罪行,加拿大会作平等的评估,并根据刑法第二部分判定假如发生在加拿大,该行为是否构成恐怖主义罪。

这个过程与由来已久的根据移民及难民保护法判定是否接收在国外被判严重罪行的人的做法一样。

5

最后,不得不提一下小杜鲁多对此法案的看法: 小杜鲁多非常清晰地告诉选民,他如果上台,要保留持双重国藉的恐怖分子的加国国藉。他发誓要与反对他的人斗争到底。而事实上,加拿大一直都根据不同的理由取消加国国藉。早在1977年他的父亲皮尔杜鲁多执政时,被取消加国国藉的人数是现在的五十倍。在九十年代自由党执政时,就取消了两名纳粹分子的加国国藉并将他们递解回原居住国。当记者问到取消纳粹分子的国藉与取消恐怖分子的国藉有何区别时,小杜鲁多说因为他们在申请公民时说了谎。在小杜鲁多看来申请公民时说谎比实施恐怖主义犯罪更严重。请看Rebel Media的报道:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kU-9_3MsrY

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

康尼部长印象记 作者:锡安

9月4号,国防部长+多元文化部长康尼在丽晶广场与本拿比南区候选人Grace一起拜票。我印象最深刻的是他没有保镖,象朋友一样跟人交谈,并用刚学来的中文称自己是“康尼部长”,还在一家小店买了一杯奶昔。在加拿大当官,真的是“为人民服务”,要把人民捧在手上,满足他们的想法,需要。

随后康尼跟华人义工开圆座会议,他鼓励华人出来投保守党(Conservative Party of Canada 简称CPC)的票。他说投票是投给自己的价值观。因为CPC注重传统家庭理念,关注家庭的需要,跟华人的价值观最近。在经济上,CPC精简政府,低税收,发展自由经济,让企业有更多主自权,因而使企业有能力创造更多就业机会。对待犯罪方面,CPC主张严打,判以重刑,反对自由党的大麻合法化,也绝不容忍恐怖主义的行为。

加拿大在世界上是公认的最适合居住的国家之一,但是奇怪的是,一些人抱怨多多,是不识庐山真面目?还是身在福中不知福?我们需要一个思路清晰,知道什么事该做,什么事不该做,有能力,有经验的CPC继续带领加拿大。

如果您不希望孩子受大麻的毒害,社区安全受危害;如果您不希望被征重税滋养庞大政府与工会,您现在就可以行动起来,向您的家人,朋友转发,讲述保守党的执政理念。10月19号请您用行动投票支持保守党(Conservative Party of Canada)。不要小看您的贡献,因为每一票都举足轻重。

 IMG_0722 IMG_0724IMG_0732IMG_0739

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

为什么低税收小政府经济路线更有利于加国经济?作者:Lawrence

一,九十年代,相对低廉的成本,加国以制造业为主

加元从九十年代初的80美分左右的水平,跌到本世纪初的60美分左右的水平,由于汇率降低所带来的相对低劳动力成本,吸引了大量的美国制造业特别是汽车工业的投资和订单。

二,石油上涨,成为经济动力,弥补加国劳动率低之缺陷

但是,随着油价上升,加元汇率高企,相对制造业成本上升,加上墨西哥和中国等的竞争 (加拿大原来一直是美国进口的第一大国,直到2007年才被中国取代),大量美国投资的制造业转移到了更低成本的地方,加国的制造业近年来大幅下滑。

在产业结构上,由于历史和人口的原因,加拿大中小企业占整体的比例比美国大的多。而他们比大企业的劳动生产率要低,所以造成了加国整体的劳动生产率低。

在这种情况下,近年油价上升成为了加国经济的主要动力,弥补了劳动生产率低带来的社会财富跟美国的差距。甚至在前不久首次出现了加国人均比美国更富的现象。当然,油价下跌的时候,劳动生产率差距的问题就明显了。所以,经济不好,不能够把问题推到哈珀政府。

三,保守党的小政府经营理念,适合加国国情

小政府一般是低税收,降低政府对经济的行政干预程度,让市场去调节;显然,保守党的小政府理念,可以促进加国各级企业提高竞争力。相反,新民主党的高税收高福利理念会进一步增加营商成本,降低竞争力,不利加国经济的发展。

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

拒绝忽悠 , 数据显示保守党比自由党更会理财 by 冰箭

在群里经常看到有人说自由党最会搞经济,哈帕政府是二战以来经济最差的的政府等。果真如此吗?本人做了一点功课,数据来自维基,Statistics Canada等,欢迎有兴趣的朋友指正。因为新民主党从未成为联邦执政党(谢天谢地),故在保守党与自由党之间比较。

一,保守党(Conservative)比自由党(Liberal)更善于控制债务的增长

上图是加国债务1990年以来大致走向。当你看到债务基本呈增长趋势时,你可能就会象NDP那样尖叫起来:“保守党是二战以来经济最差的”。NDP这么说,很不厚道地忽悠了选民一次。纵观全世界,有哪个欠债国的债务不呈增长趋势?原因简单:债务是累积的,且利滚利。

债务同样都会增长的情况下,怎么知道谁更善于管理债务呢?我们可以看一下债务增长的大小(根据维基 Canadian Public Debt 及Statistics Canada Federal Government net debt 的数据 )

自由党执政期间,债务一度由1993年的约4100亿升到1997的5630亿,4年间债务增加约1530亿。1984-2005自由党执政12年,债务总增长约1200亿。

哈帕政府执政由2005自由党的5230亿,截止到2015年4月6148亿,9年债务总共增长约918亿。

这还不完全是Apple to apple的比较,因为随着债务累积增长,利息也会比往年加速增长;而GST减少2%让政府少收不少税,加之全球金融危机,油价危机等,总体来说保守党比自由党债务增长要慢。谁更能搞经济,一目了然。

好了,有的朋友会说GDP(国内收入总值)增加了,债务应该减少。事情没这么简单,因为利息,其它需求也在增加。我们可以来看一下债务率,这个更能说明问题。

二,保守党(Conservative)执政的债务率比自由党(Liberal)低, 经济发展更稳定

什么是债务率?债务率是一个国家的债务与该国GDP的比率。债务率越低,说明经济越稳定,债务率越高,说明还债能力差,债主会增加利息,因而深陷债务深渊。假设还不了债,就象希腊那样,导致国内经济崩溃,影响世界经济。

从维基的资料,1997年Jean Chretien领导的自由党债务率高达63.8%。而Haper保守党的债务率一直维持在30-35%之间。所谓自由党比保守党会搞经济只是一个美丽的传说:)

Harper的显著功绩在于,在08年那么大的危机,仍然坚守底线,没有做出更大规模举债来给自己增加刺激经济的弹药。加国经济能危机中稳定发展,Harper政府求稳,求实,低税,返利于民的谨慎理财有目共睹。

三,10月19号联邦大选 求稳,求实,只有保守党

自由党如果Paul Martin搞经济还有点胜算,Trudeau却不行,从他说的“预算会自己平衡”,到问及如何发展经济时说“从心里”(from the heart),都充分表现其天马行空的“自由”本色;新民主党Mulcair代表工会利益,还未上台,就要加薪,加税,NDP已证明的经济才能表现在:BC省本来资源丰富,各项条件不错,在加拿大名列前茅。结果在BC新民主党执政十年期间(1991-2001),却成为经济极差省份,经营环境变得恶劣, 不少商人都离开BC省。你愿意今后4年把加国经济交到他们手里吗?

10月19号,联邦大选日,谁能带领加国继续稳步发展,应该不是多难的选择。

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ontario Parents Rally for Rights!! by Kari Simpson

Ontario Parents Rally for Rights!!

June 5, 2015  1:00 pm – 3:00 pm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

June 3, 2015

Ontario families, outraged with Ontario Liberal government’s introduction of the 2015 Health & Physical Education Curriculum and fed-up with the growing intrusion and undermining of the family unit, are taking their battle to Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Friday, June 5, 2015.  With the Federal election coming in October, Ontario families will be uniting with families across Canada to demand political change. The assault on parental rights and children will end.  Those seeking office will have to work to prove their commitment to change, says Sandra Hamill, the rally organizer who has been leading the charge.

Hamill organized the first rally in Toronto on a cold February day, when a thousand parents came. Five thousand attended the second rally she organized on April 14th.  As concerns of parents and educators continue to escalate, more and more parents have become aware of the growing assault upon their rights and their roles as a child’s primary educator and protector. Hamill has been inundated with calls from across Canada.

“I, along with thousands of other parents, have only recently become aware of how diminished the rights of parents are in Canada,” states Hamill.  “It seems we have all the responsibilities in raising children, but no real clout or say when it comes to matters involving education, medical treatment or protecting our rights to instill cultural or religious beliefs.”

“The focus of the Ottawa rally on Friday will be to send a very clear and loud message to those seeking to be reelected and/or elected and their representative parties that the protection of children and parental rights within government institutions, laws and the courts must be a priority,” says Hamill who has invited a number of speakers including Kari Simpson, President of Culture Guard and who is no stranger to mobilizing political movements.

“Democratic leadership in a free nation is required to act when the tens of thousands of voices of a united citizenry become one, a united voice brought together for the good of the nation,” says Simpson.  “When these voices demand change a leader should listen, especially when the message involves the family, protection of children, and especially if there is an election looming. To turn a deaf ear will result in political suicide.”  Simpson has seen it before.  In 2001 the anti-family policy driven BC NDP lost their majority and was almost politically obliterated after the election that left them with only 2 seats.

The Ontario Liberals have been allowed to abuse their role as legislators, in part because the federal government has been negligent in providing safeguards that would protect the family unit and ensure protection for children and defend the protected values of the common good of the nation.  The Office of the Prime Minister has been silent on matters that adversely affect the family.  The Prime Minister has stood by and done nothing while the courts have dictated laws that negatively impact the family and our communities.  Prime Minister Harper has ignored the voice of the people. The Prime Minister has the capability and power as a majority government to bring about change that would protect families from abusive political agendas, whether it is judicial abuse of our democracy, or as with the Ontario Liberals, ill-conceived agendas that seek to undermine the very foundation of our nation. Building and respecting strong healthy families should be a high priority with the office of the Prime Minister.

Hamill says that the demands that fed-up parents will be making to the federal government will include making Canada’s 47 Billion dollars worth of Health and Social Transfer payments to be contingent on a province’s commitment to legislating provisions within their statutes for greater enforcement and recognition of parental rights, thus promoting the “health” and “well-being” of children. Failure to do so should result in a penalty. As an example, Provincial School Acts must:

  • Recognize that parents delegate their authority to teachers, and as such have the right to withhold such authority.
  • Ensure that parents have the right to be informed about their child and the right to know when topics of a sensitive/controversial nature are or going to be discussed.
  • Provide parents the right to home school and participate in appropriate portion of the funding distribution.

The provisions protecting and recognizing the importance of the family unit within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of a Child—of which Canada is a signatory—must be evident and meaningful within provincial laws that include any statute involving minor/infant children. The preamble states:

Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,

Further:

Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

Article 3(2) of the Convention states:

States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

If a province fails to implement these provisions, there is an assigned penalty to their designated transfer payment.  Regrettably, it seems that when it comes to protecting children and strengthening the family unit, political and moral leadership is lacking.  Perhaps financial incentives will help.

Further, protection for children within the Criminal Code has been systematically diluted.  It is time to offer greater protection for children. Consequences for the moral corruption of a child have been diminished in the Criminal Code.  The gender activist politicians in Ontario (and elsewhere), along with the growing problems associated with the Internet, require that the Criminal Code be amended to include provisions for dealing with adults in positions of trust.  The Code must be amended to once again reflect the crime of corrupting children, including those that counsel, invite or coerce anyone under the age of 18 to engage in sexual acts.

For all Media Inquiries, please contact:

Sandra Hamill
613-353-7388

Kari Simpson
604-514-1614

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2014 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 21,000 times in 2014. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 8 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2014 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 21,000 times in 2014. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 8 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment