Archive for August, 2005

I read an interesting poll in the newspaper some time ago. It said that over 1/3rd of Western Canadians thought that the West should start investigating more seriously the thought of a sovereign Western Canada. While I take this poll (as with every poll) with a grain of salt, the poll caused me to think about why we in Western Canada tend to get the “short end of the stick” in our dealings with the rest of Canada.

Take for example the idea of a Saskatchewan energy accord (worth $800 million/year to Saskatchewan). All three provincial parties support the idea. The deal Saskatchewan wants is only the same deal as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland got not some special arrangement. Yet Saskatchewan (and BC - the other province being short-changed) doesn’t receive any attention from the national press. We’re not considered important, to either the “National Media” or the federal government.

Or consider the Senate. If the current Senate was elected Quebec would receive 24 senators. The four Western provinces, which not only are four distinct provinces, but also have two million more people than Quebec, would only receive 24 senate slots as well. What is fair about that?

In the last year that I’ve been in Ottawa I’ve seen more and more instances, where eastern Canada just doesn’t get. The east seems to think that Western Canada exists only to pay the bills. And while it is usually the federal government that tends to have this attitude, I have run into it in my own party as well. We in Saskatchewan and the rest of the West don’t deserve to be treated like second class citizens.

I’m beginning to believe that standing up for Saskatchewan is not only my most important job in Ottawa; it may also be the hardest.

I’m Brad Trost, your Member of Parliament, and I welcome your feedback. Write or call my offices.

Generally, I don’t decide early in the week what my topic for this column will be. I think about what I’ll write and choose a topic somewhere in the middle of the week. This week however, was different. This week I decided at 2:30 am Monday morning what the column would be. Why then? Well, that was the time of day that I discovered that my car was stolen.

Now, there were a variety of thoughts that went through my mind, after I realized what had happened to my car. First, I was just shocked, and then I was a bit angry, then just resigned to my fate. One thing, though, crossed my mind, after I had reported the theft to the police. Why should I pay the cost? Why shouldn’t the criminals have to pay restitution for the crime if they get caught?

Now our criminal justice system emphasizes punishment, (and well it should, retribution has a place in justice) but often the victims of crime are just forgotten. The person wronged never gets back what was taken. The insurance company gets stuck with a bill, (which is passed on to consumers) if violence is involved the medical costs could be included too. So why shouldn’t restitution to everyone involved be a part of the punishment?

Perhaps as a part of every sentence restitution should be automatically included. Future wages could be garnished, or any money earned in prison could be put towards the costs involved. It wouldn’t salve all the pain of a crime, but it would be a better way to treat victims. It’s an idea for a law that I’m going to look into, and it’s an idea that I would appreciate your input on.

I’m Brad Trost, your Member of Parliament, and I welcome your feedback. Write or call my offices.