"The mainstream media’s worn out narrative of defeat no longer resonates with a growing share of the public. One is left to wonder how much stronger public opinion would be if the mainstream media covered the good news in Iraq with the same alacrity with which they report the bad news".
The Liberals underfunded and understaffed the RCMP for years and this is the result.They were underfunded at a time when there was a Billion dollars available for the gun registry and millions for Adscam- so it's not like they couldn't find the money for improvements. Why did they underfund the RCMP- for years? Meanwhile there are 95o gangs doing about $50 billion. How did that get out of control??
It's long past time that they got back to the basics.There are many retired Officers ,that have a lot of respect among the rank and file ,that should be providing ideas to the Brown Commission to get the organization back on the rails.Too much time has already been wasted.There is a track record and the crooks have had a free rein for years-all the big fish are still operating unimpeded.A battleship can't be turned around on a dime but the improvements should have been started 10 years ago.Leadership and proper resources count and they were both in short supply.Rather than only concentrating on the negative- the only way things will turn around is when they start rolling up the major bandits, instead of concentrating on tickets and pomp and circumstance. Maintiens le Droit.
"For now, says Linda Duxbury, a Carleton University professor who has conducted three separate studies of working conditions inside the RCMP, the entire institution is being propped up by the near-pathological dedication of officers who've invested their lives in it. "The workloads in the RCMP were among the worst I've seen in any organization," said Duxbury of her 2004 study (her most recent probe, conducted this year, has not yet been released). "But the culture of the organization was literally sick. It was focused on the hours you put in, sucking it up, never saying no. Anyone who pushed back was labelled a whiner, a loser, someone who just didn't have the right stuff. By any objective standard, it was abnormal."
left wingers to express concern over the Taliban or AQ murdering innocent people.
Armed militants entered a school in Sayed Karam district of Paktika province and dragged the schoolboy out of his class and shot him dead, Esmatuallh Alizai, provincial police chief said.
"The boy, who was teaching English to other students after school hours, had been warned by the militants to stop teaching," Alizai said.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to limit the political fallout from the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, so he prevents Dr. Johnston from investigating the behaviour of the Conservative government over the last 22 months. The terms of reference for Dr. Johnston include only specific financial dealings between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber. They do not include any negligence, wilful blindness, interference, invasion or concealment by the Prime Minister, his office, his ministers or Conservative insiders.
Why did the Prime Minister exempt himself from this investigation?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we did no such thing. Mr. Johnston is free to propose any terms of reference that are in any way connected with the events in question.
Canadians understand that the events in question occurred between 10 and 20 years ago. These are rather pathetic attempts by the opposition to link them to this government.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not Dr. Johnston's credibility that is at stake here; it is the Prime Minister's.
Dr. Johnston has been hired to look only at Mulroney-Schreiber financial dealings, nothing more. He cannot examine Privy Council officials or political staff about the paper trail into the Prime Minister 's Office. That would be beyond his mandate. He cannot find out who ordered the justice department to stop a fresh investigation, which the department began last year, because that would be beyond his mandate.
What is the government so afraid that he will find?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I have said, Professor Johnston can recommend any terms of reference that are in any way related to the affairs at hand.
I would not say the only person's credibility, but one of the people's credibility who is very much in question this week is
the member for Wascana, who actually suggested that the government would break the law and release private tax records.
When we hear that kind of recommendation, we understand why the previous government had to pay out $2.1 million in taxpayer money.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question was whether Mr. Mulroney complied with the law.
The Mulroney-Schreiber issue reignited in the media only days after the government came into power. There are damning letters in the Prime Minister's Office, but the paper trail is hidden.
Ministers deliberately refused to be briefed. A justice department review was started and then suddenly stopped. Some ministers consult Mr. Mulroney daily. He has numerous personal encounters with the Prime Minister. Was Mr. Schreiber ever discussed? Will the Prime Minister change the mandate to include specifically whether the government was involved in a cover-up?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, all the allegations made by the member for Wascana are completely baseless. They are complete fabrications.
All they are is designed to try to prove that other people are just as corrupt as the Liberal Party of Canada. I am afraid the Liberal Party of Canada has the trademark on corruption