Canadian Musings

Flipping through recent Government of Canada Press Releases, I note that they have recently posted (as per the rules for disclosing such things) the travel and hospitality expenses for various governmental officials, such as at CIDA (the Canadian International Development Agency).

This fall, various officials took what appears to be a semi-annual executive retreat at the Hotel du Lac Carling, one of the toniest little resorts in the whole region.

Is this really the best way to spend precious development dollars? For a two-day working executive retreat, several folks charged over $100 each in transportation costs (for a two-hour drive from Ottawa) plus about $300 in accomodation costs.

Surely there are fine meeting rooms available in Ottawa?

It seems that Tennessee's experiment in socialized medicine has fallen flat. Some Canadians might suggest that their program was a bit too ambitious, that it included too many people and too many procedures, but Governor Phil Bredeson (a Democrat) is quoted as saying, "It makes no sense for one facet of our responsibilities--health care--to be able to come to the table first and eat and drink all it wants, and then if there is anything left over, we then can consider our other responsibilities."

If only the Canadian government could make such a clear statement.

Today, various Members of Parliament have floated the argument that fallout from an intercepted missile might land within Canada as a reason to oppose BMD.

This is idiotic. There are several alternatives. One, that the missile reach its intended target. Two, that the missile is intercepted or otherwise fall short of its target and land in the U.S. Three, that the missile is intercepted or otherwise fall short of its target and land in Canada.

Canadian MPs, according to their own argument, would rather see Americans killed than to broach the remote possibility of a populated center in Canada seeing people injured. This is irresponsible in a global society: it is unacceptable to say that I'd rather see you die than to risk injury to myself. Shame on them.

But the argument is also misplaced: participation in the program is not equivalent to risk. If a missile threat is detected, the interceptor missile will rise to meet it regardless of where the border lies. The intercept may well take place over Canada, even without Canada's participation in the program.

In fact, it is better for Canada to be a full and active member of such an interception program, to help ensure the best opportunities for interception can be met in the most remote and unpopulated areas.

How stupid are our elected members?

During his visit to Canada this week, President Bush raised the hope that Canada would participate in the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) program getting underway in the U.S.

But there is opposition in Canada, particularly to the so-called weaponization of space. As if somehow communications satellites aren't military in origin. Or perhaps Canadians don't like accurate time and location information provided by the Global Positioning System (GPS).

Then there are moonbats, such as those in the New Democratic Party (NDP), who think that BMD creates an arms race. In fact, any world powers making any such claims are simply trying to manipulate Canadian, U.S., and world opinion against BMD. Nobody will create more missiles simply because there is a defensive shield. And those who would create alternate means of delivery would create those means regardless of defense.

They would pretend to argue that police should not be issued protective vests because criminals arm themselves if police are protected. Sheer lunacy!

The BMD is in Canada's best interests, and Canada should participate without equivocation.