Denying Women Canadian Citizenship Does Nothing to Fight Opression

Are Stephen Harper and the Conservatives actually trying to argue that denying a woman citizenship for wearing the niqab is somehow promoting equal rights?  It would seem to me that by denying a woman citizenship, the government is actually contributing to oppression rather than fighting it. 

Ironically, many of the same people that are so offended by the niqab are the same people that are also offended by topless women sunbathing on the beach.  One thing it would seem that all cultures and societies have in common is that to varying degrees they all feel justified in imposing a standard of modesty on women.  If a woman breaks the established standard she may subjected to harassment and potentially physical assault.  One only has to look at how often what a woman was wearing is discussed in sexual assault trials to find evidence of this.

If Mr. Harper wants to challenge the oppression of women, he should re-establish funding to Status of Women Canada rather than stand in judgment on women wearing a niqab.




Mulcair, Harper spar over niqab controversy at leaders' debate

Tories cut off funding to women's lobby groups

The Buy Now Pay Later Approach to Public Policy

As Canadians we are used to personal debt.  Debt has become the new normal.  So when Justin Trudeau says that his government plans to spend more than what it will bring in, the statement just breezes by us with little reaction.  And when Stephen Harper says he has a billion dollar surplus because the money wasn't spent on the Veteran's to which it was allocated we collectively shrug our shoulders and go about our day.

Contrary to what the Liberal leader has been saying government debt is he enemy of social progress.  When programs are created and funded through borrowed money they are the first things on the chopping block when the inevitable austerity measures kick-in.

 When the government budgeted the money to be spent on veteran's it became their responsibility to do so as soon as the budget passed.  A budget surplus (spending shortfall) as big as the one for veteran's services can only mean the the government failed to meet its obligations and breached public trust.  So, regardless of what  the Conservatives  would like us to believe, a budgetary surplus created by refusing to spend allocated program money is not a good thing is it is fraud and creates a different type of deficit, a social one, that must be paid eventually.

Setting budgets and balancing them (spending the money allocated to the programs) are essential for truly sustainable social programs.

Charged with Influence Peddling - Ex-Harper Senior Advisor

Mr. Bruce Carson has a history of fraud convictions and was convicted on five counts dating back to the 1980s and 1990s before he was hired as an advisor to PM Harper.

 The Prime Minister still has not explained why he would hire a convicted fraudster to be his chief policy analyst and on more than one occasion, has claimed ignorance to Mr. Carson's criminal background.Given the intense security screening that is necessary to work in the PMO, including a criminal background check, this claim does not seem credible.

"The prime minister still hasn’t explained, or taken any responsibility, for how his inner circle included someone with previous criminal convictions for fraud — who then went on to allegedly use his political connections to take advantage of impoverished First Nations communities for a quick buck," said Charlie Angus in a written statement.

Since this story broke back in March of 2011 we have also seen Ministers in Mr Harper's Cabinet linked to instances of ethically questionable actions.

• Parliamentary Secretary Dean Del Mastro's cousin is linked to alleged election fundraising fraud.
• Paul Calandra's Conservative Electoral District Association invites man vying for broadcast licence to make a donation.

What are Stepen Harper's Standards? Felons insided the PMO

CBC News - Ex-Harper aide Bruce Carson charged with influence peddling:

The Bruce Carson controversy

'via Blog this'

Stephen Harper finds Science - Well Not Really

Could it be that Prime Minister Harper has discovered the existence of science?  The headlines across the country are declaring the PM says that "Science, not politics, will determine outcome".  It is enough to give fans of evidence based policy goose bumps.

Well don't get too excited. Lets look at what Mr Harper actually said:

"I've been very clear that decisions on these kinds of projects are made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project."

 This statement sound more like status quo than radical change of position.  He's worried about the economics not the environment.  It seems like the press was so shocked to hear the word scientists come out of the Prime Minister's mouth that they didn't listen very closely to the words that followed it.  And to be fair a tagline saying Stephen Harper will listen to science was just too juicy to not use.

Stephen Harper tempers message on Northern Gateway pipeline - thestar.com:

Harper defends independence of pipeline approval process



Technorati Tag: Canadian politics Stephen Harper

The Conservative Party of Canada – A Study in Contradictions

I can’t help but notice that Conservatives have been all over the board with their policies and positions arguing on one side of an issue in one circumstance and the polar opposite in a different circumstance
Here are just a few examples:

• The Conservative party that last year said the long form census invaded the privacy of Canadians, is now sponsoring a bill that will allow warrantless searches into the personal computer use of Canadians.  Going so far as to accuse people that oppose the bill as “siding with the pedophiles”.
• The Conservative party considers itself the defenders of Canadian democracy but then used the UNELECTED senate to kill legislation.
• The CPC  conveniently  ignored ​the fact that opposition members of parliament were democratically elected and declares time allocation (limits debate) on legislation because the government believes and has stated that opposition members speaking during debate is waste of time.  Then the next day introduces a bill to eliminate the hate speech provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act because it limits “Free Speech”

The CPC not being able to argue against the facts being thrown at them by the official opposition began calling  the NDP the "No development party" .  Name calling has been part of the Conservative Party playbook ever since their dear leader Stephen Harper took power.  But so far the NDP has taken the high road and not engaged the government on that level.
I applaud the opposition for remaining focused on the issues .  Not being a member of parliament myself, I will indulge in a bit name calling and say that maybe the conservatives should be referred to as the "Contradictory Policy Conservatives"

Technorati Tags: Canada,Canadian Politics

Getting it Wrong and Limiting Debate on Pensions

The first day of Parliament 2012 and the Conservatives are already strangling debate.

As we have seen in previous years the Conservative MPs unable to speak for themselves got up and repeated the same old talking points... this time on Pooled Pensions.

Watching the debate I could picture political science students across Canada making a drinking game of the phrase "too important to get wrong".

The problem is Conservatives are getting it wrong with pooled pension plans and they know it.

For over a decade in Australia the exact same thing was tried and was such a colossal failure that Australian government is in the process of dismantling the program.  The Canadian version of the legislation bill C-25, is so similar to the Australian legislation that the Canadian authors could be accused of plagiarism.

Joy Smith , M.P. Kildonan - St Paul

NDP asked why, knowing the dismal results of the exact same plan in Australia why would the Conservatives want to implement the same thing here?

Conservative MP Joy Smith answered: "This is the first time something like this has been tried in Canada."  

Flawed logic aside here is what you need to know:

C-25 places no limits on the fees institutions can charge for administering pensions. In Australia this resulted in fees so high that any returns were being negated! In other words, stuffing your mattress would be an equally effective retirement strategy since after paying administrative fees you would basically break even.

C-25 places 100% of the risk and burden on the employees participating. The employer is not required to make any contributions and there is no guarantee of benefits at the time of retirement. (That mattress is looking more and more attractive.)

Businesses are on board because they bear no responsibility. (The Conservative talking point "low-cost plan" is referring to the employers.)

Conservative MP after MP got up yesterday and talked about how financial institutions and insurance companies called this scheme "an excellent opportunity" Given the Bill C-25 is giving them carte blanche on the fees they can charge for management and administration -- What else would they say? No one would argue, C-25 is an excellent opportunity for banks and insurance companies to make money at the expense of the plan members.

 If the Conservatives believe retirement security then following failed schemes and limiting debate are not the way to achieve this goal.  Because pension and retirement security are indeed too important to get wrong.

Government to hurry debate on pooled pension plan - Politics - CBC News:

Harper Conservatives - Cutting off Old-Age Security

The Harper Conservatives are making a move to cut off Old-Age Security.  Their internal communications are framing Old-Age Security as a burden on ordinary Canadians.  I don't see many Canadians complaining that a small portion of their tax money goes into ensuring that low-income seniors have enough money to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies.  There was no mention of this in their campaign during the most recent elections maybe because picking on seniors is not the best vote getting strategy.

The justification for this cut is that in the next 20 years the number of people over the age of 65 will dramatically increase.  With this knowledge it would make more sense (at least from the perspective social responsibility to our nations elderly) to make efforts to boost the funds in the budget by allocating more of our tax dollars too it.  Instead we are have a Prime Minister and cabinet that are coldly advocating the cutting off support of some of our societies more vulnerable members.

The NDP and the other opposition parties have vowed to fight these changes but will a majority government the Conservatives have the votes to ram through the changes.

Maybe the Conservative should change their slogan to Conservative Party of Canada- We think old people are too inconvenient.

blogs.windsorstar.com

The Harper government, Ethical Oil and Sun Media connection - rabble.ca

What do EthicalOil.org, OurDecision.ca, JasonKenney.ca, JoeOliver.ca, GoNewclear.com, the original SunTVNews.ca website, Amerians4OPEC.com, Wildrosecaucus.ca, RichardDur.ca, CalgaryWard14.ca, Cummins4BC.ca, CorrieAdolph.com, HeatherForsyth.com, PaulHinman.ca, PierreMP.ca, and DriveOutTheTax.com have in common?

Developers have their bag of reusable tricks to make coding efficient. In this case, all of these sites use precisely the same CSS reset -- same elements, same formatting, down to the character. Many sites will use something similar to this one, but this is exact. It's even used on Newclear's own custom home page. It is highly likely the same developer did all these sites.

EI financing agency spends millions doing nothing - Politics - CBC News

So much for being fiscally responsible! Maybe the reason the number of Service Canada's E.I. offices is being slashed by over 80% is to pay for this boondoggle.

EI financing agency spends millions doing nothing - Politics - CBC News:

Backlogged by Design

Conservative ridings benefit from Service Canada closures

The Myth of the Greedy Union Thug

I can't help but notice how Stephen Harper and his Members of Parliament have been running rough shot over unionized  workers lately.  There have been several instances of the Federal Government abusing its powers to interfere with collective bargaining.  In the case of Canada Post, Harper and friends went so far as to legislate workers back to work with LESS money than the employer's final offer would have given them.  Was this a punishment for asserting their right to strike?  That can't be said for sure but the optics are bad.

On more than one occasion, during the parliamentary debate on the back to work legislation, the Members of Parliament from the Conservative Party of Canada referred to the striking members of Canada Post as "Union Thugs".  That's right, it is part of the public record that the governing party of Canada believes that anyone belonging to or supporting a union is a "Thug".

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary a thug is defined as "a brutal ruffian or assassin".  Who would have thought that your local mailman was so dangerous?  That got me thinking, who else would the Conservatives consider Thugs due to their association with unions. And the answer would be surprize you. School teachers, flight attendants, pilots, public transit drivers, nurses and some daycare workers are just a few that make the list of union "Thugs".  If you were to listen to the Federal Conservative Party we should fear sending our children to school or seeking medical attention at our local hospital.  Of course this is just ludicrous, ruffians and assassins would not be hired to these positions and if they did manage to make it past the interview they would not last long in the job.

The Conservatives ares liabling large groups of everyday people for nothing more then having an organization negotiate their employment contract and withdrawing their services in the event that an agreement is not reached.

Maybe they are hoping that by stating the myth in the House of Commons as if it were fact will keep non-unionized workers afraid of unions.  The reality is that unionized workers are not over-paid.  Non-unionized workers are actually under-paid because a group has a better negotiating position than an individual. Case closed.  If the fear of unions was eliminated there would be nothing preventing workers from making the very practical decision to form more unions and negotiate better working conditions and wages for themselves.

Don't Confuse me with the Facts I'm Trying to Run a Country

What does the Conservative Party of Canada have against facts?  What is so wrong with empirical data? Are questions I would love to ask our Prime Minister.

It started last year by downgrading our national census, the government's most reliable way to know the make up of Canada's demographics and major planning tool.  Nope lets scrap that for a survey that is less reliable because it is optional and will only be answered by people who like to take surveys.  All of the experts on data gathering spoke out publicly saying that this was ludicrous but the Conservatives said too bad we're the government and we can do what we want.

Then there was the crime bill.  It is harder to find an expert that agrees with this bill than disagrees.  Every major organization that deals with crime from law enforcement on down told this government that this bill was on the wrong track... but the Conservatives said we're in power too bad.

Most recently, the government has started laying off scientists at the National Research Council of Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.  I can only guess that this is because science disagrees with the Conservative position on climate change and the environment.  Mr. Harper has already pulled us out of the Kyoto Accord.  The government has publicly stated that science that has commercial implications is more important to them and are the projects that will get funded.  Science that protects our environment does not align well with the development of the tar sands.


Tweet

How Poor is Poor Enough?

Harper and Alexander

Recently Conservative Chris Alexander made the assertion that Canada has eradicated poverty.  Statements like this are disheartening.  Many Canadians have to make the difficult choice between paying the rent or buying food.  And because people in Canada live on more than $2.00 per day the Conservatives would argue that they are not poor.

If Conservatives are as fiscally intelligent as they claim to be, it would be obvious that purchasing power and not just net income must also be considered.  I would challenge this Candidate to live on the social assistance or minimum wage of his province and see how much of a challenge it can be to acquire the essentials. Yes Mr. Alexander for the most part we do not have people starving in the streets, though we do have many that go hungry.  In a country as rich as Canada, it's a national disgrace.

If the money that Stephen Harper wants to spend on giving tax cuts to profitable corporations was instead spent on addressing the root causes of poverty.  Then, maybe we really could eliminate poverty in Canada.

No policy your party has presented so far will help people living below the poverty line.  News flash low income families rarely have the money to put their kids in organized sports or join fitness clubs.  And I can guarantee you they do not have enough money to max out their TFSA (assuming they have one) at the current limit let alone this mystical increase that will supposedly happen 5 years from now.

It has always been amazing to me how Fat Cats can convince the mice to vote for them but it happens time and time again

What are Stephen Harper’s standards? Felons inside the Prime Minister's Office

It is hard to say what Stephen Harper knew about Bruce Carson.  In one breath he says that "I knew Mr. Carson had had difficulties with the law..." But in another breath says "The fact is, I did not know... had I known these things, obviously I would not have hired him.

So which is it Mr. Harper?  You knew Mr Carson had a criminal background or you did not know?

When it comes to the senior advisor to the most pivotal role in our government’s structure, Stephen Harper has some questions to answer:

• What is Harper’s policy on hiring staffers with criminal pasts?
• Why did Harper go ahead with Carson after finding out about his fraud convictions?
• What is his standard? Are there any convictions that would rule staff out of bounds?
• Why does Stephen Harper seem to have a different standard for Conservative insiders than he does for everyone else?

Reference What are Stephen Harper's standards?

CBC News - Politics - WikiLeaks founder calls for Flanagan charge

Tom Flanagan says he regrets saying WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be assassinated for his organization's publication of secret U.S. diplomatic cables. (CBC)

Mr. Flanagan committed a crime by going on television and encouraging the assassination of Mr. Assange. Canada is a just society that is governed by laws and if he is not charged with a crime it will be saying to the world that Canadian officials agree with his remarks. Especially considering his close relationship with the Prime Minister.

CBC News - Politics - WikiLeaks founder calls for Flanagan charge

In Service to King Stephen - Senate kills Climate Bill

For the first time in 70 years a bill passed by the House of Commons without so much as a hearing was killed by Conservative senators.  Why you might ask?  Well in service to the King... ummm I mean Prime Minister Harper. 

The climate bill brought forward by the New Democratic Party (NDP), passed by DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Members of Parliament from all three opposition parties but was not supported by the Harpocrats.  Therefore, the plot was hatched.  Call a snap vote when there were not enough Liberal Senators in the House to stop it and then kill the bill.  The idea was brilliant however devious. No one could have predicted that C-311 would be defeated without any debate, without a single witness called to explain the legislation's merits. 

Our Prime Minister has stated on the record that he believes that the elected House of Commons should prevail over the unelected Senate. - Apparently this principle only applies to the bills Harper himself supported. 

So when democracy gets in the way circumvent it, no one questions the King after all.  And the fact that most Canadians haven't noticed that their democracy has just been giving the middle finger only proves it.

http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/892053

Best Canadian halloween costume



Political Cartoon Ottawa Citizen Oct 29, 2010



Angry White Men Storm Parliament Hill

On the front page of the Ottawa Citizen today the headline reads "Hey hey ho ho Stephen Harper has to... stay!" Put aside for one moment the paper's obvious slant towards supporting Stephen Harper (a similar demonstration in support of the coalition only made page 6 of paper on Dec 5, 2008) and dissect the coverage of the facts.

If the page one photo of the demonstration in support of our create-a-crisis Prime Minister accurately protrays the crowd, it contained 99.9% men, carrying English signs, draping themselves in the Canadian flag and all angry (really all that were missing were the pitch forks). The question becomes why did the crowd look like that. Could it be because the Harper Conservatives have been attacking women and minority rights since day one?

The page 6 photo contains a mix of men and women all carrying simple signs in both English and French a single Quebec flag. (I can't help but wonder if that was the only Quebec flag there and the photographer chose to do a little editorializing of his/her own.)

The Ottawa Citizen, on the day that it covered the demonstration in support of the coalition chose to put a super size picture of Harper on the front page proudly stating that 43% of Canadians polled said that the would vote for Harper in an election.

First a lesson in civics: Unless you live in the riding of Calgary South, you can't vote for Harper. In Canada, citizens do not vote for Prime Minister they vote for their Member of Parliament (MP for short). Stephen Harper is Prime Minister because his political party, the Conservative Party of Canada (the Conservatives), chose him to be their leader and the Conservatives won more seats that the other parties (although not a majority of the seats).

In the House of Commons all MPs are created equal, and all MPs are elected in their perspective ridings, including Stephen Harper. Therefore if the coalition forms and takes over as the governing "party" all that will have changed is who wears the hat of Prime Minister. The MP that was elected in your riding will continue to be your MP and represent you in the House of Commons. -- I.E. No one's vote will have been stolen and the angry mob was attempting to say on Saturday.

Now on to my second point, if my math serves me correctly if 43% of Canadians would vote for the Conservatives that means that 57% would not! In the absence of Parliamentary reform, a coalition that represents how the majority of Canadians would actually vote, sounds VERY DEMOCRATIC.

Reference: Thousands rally across the country to protest coalition's power play

Playing with Fire - When Political Ideology Costs lives

"Let the industry police itself" is a key Conservative ideology that is killing Canadians. With the government getting out of the business of public safety, incidents like the Listeria outbreak at the Maple Leaf processing plant are bound to rise. So far at least 20 deaths have been directly linked to the tainted meat at the Maple Leaf plant alone. Without federal inspectors there is no way of knowing how many more incidents of compromised food safety will or are going unreported by companies most concerned about cutting costs and maintaining a public image. One would think that the tragedy that occurred as a result of the Maple Leaf outbreak would have swayed the government to re-think its decision to transfer inspection duties for ready-to-eat meats to the meat industry, but no. The Conservative government is more concerned with saving money than with saving lives. But how much money are we talking about? By eliminating spot checks of meat plants, the government will save approximately $3 million dollars. Three million dollars works out to approx 11 cents per capita. That's right folks, the Prime Minister and his cabinet believe that human life is worth less than a quarter.

Canada to Deport Its First U.S. War Resister

Canada is about to deport its first U.S. war resister, Corey Glass. All three opposition parties supported a NDP motion that would allow U.S. war resisters to stay in Canada but the Conservative government said no and will be ordering Mr Glass deported.

Lets look at the facts:

• The war in Iraq is an illegal war.
• American soldiers are being forced by the Bush administration to participate in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
• The Canadian people have overwhelmingly voiced their opposition to the war and the U.S. led occupation of Iraq.
• The government of Canada is supposed to represent the interests of the Canadian people.

Questions that come to mind:

• Who comes first the wishes of the Canadian people or the interests outgoing Bush administration?
• Is the Conservative government listening to Canadians?
• What’s next? Canadian troops in Iraq?

Reference: MPs vote to give asylum to U.S. deserters, Tories say no

The Torie Hokey Pokey

You put the funds in,
You take the funds out,
You put the funds in and you move them all about
You shred some documents and you stall and stall and stall
And that’s what it’s all about.

You put the info in
You take the access out
You put the info in and lock the media out
You call yourself transparent and you spin and spin and spin
And that’s what it’s all about

You put the budget in
You take the services out
You put the budget in and the poor are down and out
You call you call yourself righteous and you gloat an gloat an gloat
And that’s what it’s all about