Torries want ability to Jail Canadians without Cause

The Senate Bill S-7 being debated at third reading today will give authorities the ability to detain people for up to 12 months even if they are not suspected of any crimes or potential crimes.  Mr. Sullivan MP for York-South Weston describes this best.

He said:

" [The] individual is not a person suspected of being a terrorist, by the way. That is a person who is maybe a relative, maybe a friend. That person, then, would be subject, under the bill, to serious, preventative detention measures.

    As it turns out, this kind of preventative detention was there in the previous act and was never used. Police have managed without this kind of measure to stop terrorism. So, what would its effect be?

    I would like to refer to good, old Uncle Albert, in Moose Jaw, whose nephew, for whatever reason, is suspected of some kind of terrorist act. And so, because they cannot find the nephew, the police come to Uncle Albert's door, put him in jail for a day, then take him before a judge and argue that Uncle Albert might know where the nephew is, so we cannot let Uncle Albert have any more guns. We cannot let Uncle Albert leave the country because we have to be able to interrogate Uncle Albert, Uncle Albert in Moose Jaw, who has done nothing. The police do not suspect him of any terrorism. He just happens to be the uncle of the nephew they do suspect.

    What happens? Uncle Albert says, because he is from Moose Jaw and because he is a farmer and has to keep the varmints off his property, "I can't give up my firearms. I'm not giving up my firearms. I refuse." There would be no choice, then, but to put him in jail for up to 12 months.

    That is the kind of thing that could happen to Uncle Albert in Moose Jaw, who has absolutely no terrorist inclination whatsoever. However, because he is related to somebody the police are only investigating because they suspect there might be some kind of terrorist activity, Uncle Albert would be put in jail for up to 12 months.

    That is not the Canada that I want to be part of. That is not the Canada that Canadians have come to expect, to have as part of their rights and freedoms the right and freedom not to be imprisoned without conviction, without a trial, without a judge.

    That is exactly what the Conservatives are suggesting should happen. That is one of the things to which the NDP said, "Whoa, that goes too far", and the Conservatives said, "Too bad. This is the way we like it. We want this preventative detention to apply to anybody, not just people we suspect of being terrorists, but people who are peripherally related." That would take the bill way too far."

The NDP proposed an amendment to the bill that would make it clear that anybody not suspected of being involved in terrorist activity could not be subject to 'preventative detention' and here was the government response:

"   The recognizance with conditions in its present form would provide the potential for a recognizance with conditions to be imposed...[on a] person who would be subject to the recognizance with conditions [who] is not necessarily the person carrying out a terrorist activity. The proposed amendment [from the NDP] would seek to restrict the application of this measure....

Because that is inconsistent with the policy intent underpinning the provision, we are opposed to it."

The Liberal Party of Canada has also indicated that they will support this bill.  The debate continues in the house today.

Fiscal Responsibility Starts with Factual Information

When Prime Minister Harper ran for office in 2006, he promised to clean up Ottawa. He created the Parliamentary Budget Office so Canadians would know what our government is doing with our money.

The Budget Office has been an unqualified success at cutting through political rhetoric and looking at the straight numerical facts.

From F-35's to prisons, Kevin Page, our first federal budget watchdog, showed that he could hold government accountable for fiscal mismanagement. But Harper let Kevin Page's term expire just before the Tories released the 2013 budget.  

Since taking office the Federal Conservatives have had more closed committee meetings, where the  information is not  divulged to the public, than any other Canadian Government.  If our government believes they can hide their plans from public scrutiny they will be more likely to do things that Canadians don't want.  

Stephen Harper has been extremely secretive on how and with whom he plans to replace Kevin Page our current PBO.   The identities of the people who sit on the PBO search committee are being hidden, even from elected Members of Parliament. The search committee hasn't met yet -- and, Kevin Page has even been banned from meeting with the committee!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's fiscal policies have not held up to fiscal oversight and now he is backing away from his commitment to the Parliamentary Budget Office.

Motion 312 - The Handmaid's Tale

 A pregnant women has always been considered legally one person.  Bill C-484, introduced in Parliament on December 13th, 2007,  attempted to change that by seeking TWO murder charges against a person that killed a pregnant woman.  Women are not stupid.  It was clear that this was a sneaky attempt to give fetuses personhood and the bill was defeated in parliament.

But in 2007, the conservatives had a minority, now with a conservative majority in the house we are faced with M-312 study to determine when life begins.  Again the conservatives are coming at abortion sideways by attempting to redefine a person under the law.

Canadians know this motion is a precursor to controlling women by forcing them into a childbearing role through criminalizing abortion. "Fetuses do not have legal rights and cannot be given any, since two beings occupying the same body would result in a serious clash of rights. In fact, if fetuses had legal personhood, pregnant women would lose theirs." [1]

1. Arthur, Joyce. 2012. Counter Arguments Against Motion M-312: "The Handmaid's Tale" http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/M-312.html

Canadian politics

What does Stephen Harper have against attending Premier's Conferences?

Stephen Harper has never attended a Premier's Conference.  He has been Prime Minister since 2006 and has turned down every invitation extended him to attend.

Yesterday during Opposition Day in the House of Commons the NDP put forward a motion that the Prime Minister accept the most recent invitation by the Premiers to attend the Conference in Halifax.

Prime Minister Harper was not present in the House during the debate but as expected the Conservative MPs rose, one by one, to speak against the Prime Minister attending.

The following sums up the debate quite nicely:

Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC):  

    Mr. Speaker, as a fellow British Columbian, I certainly listened to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley with great interest. However, frankly, even the motion today was surprising to me. It seemed a very odd motion.

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

 The Conservatives have somehow made the mistake that a ribbon-cutting event with a premier constitutes consultation and planning and working together and that a five-minute phone call, which we have seen on the PM's agenda, somehow counts as working together with the provinces and territories.
    We are simply asking the Prime Minister to accept the invitation. This was not our invitation. It would be rude for us to offer it. It is from the premier of our own province and the premiers of all the provinces and territories that are represented here in the House of Commons.
    She finds this confusing. I think we have a lot of work to do here. If the invitation so generously offered by our provincial and territorial leaders confuses Conservative members as to why that would be worthwhile, we have perhaps more work than I thought with this particular government.

Debate Official Transcript 



More Canadian politics

Covert Attempt to Criminalize Abortion - MPs Debate in less then 48 hours

 From LeadNow.ca

'In just 48 hours, our MPs will debate a Conservative motion that the Canadian Medical Association, representing 70,000 doctors, is calling a ‘backdoor’ attempt to criminalize abortion.

 Prime Minister Harper has chosen to allow this motion to go forward to a free vote in Parliament, so every MP must decide whether or not they will stand up for the rights that women and our allies have been fighting to protect for decades.

We need a huge public outcry to show our MPs that Canadians will not tolerate this covert attack on women’s rights.

If enough of us speak out and contact our MPs right now, we can make sure this motion is decisively defeated and send a clear message that Canadians will defend our reproductive rights.'

Tell Stephen Harper & your MP: Stop the covert attempt to criminalize abortion.

Parliamentary privilege should not be overused

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee recently began legal proceedings against the Auditor-General because he was refusing to deny an access to information request.  Access to information is a right of journalists and citizens as a way to know what their government is doing.

Parliamentary privilege is meant to give parliamentarians the ability to do their work without interference from outside of government.  It also protects free speech within the House of Commons.

The Auditor General does not report to parliament and therefore is required to comply with Access to Information Requests.  The Public Accounts committee's attempt to block the Auditor General from releasing his own correspondence with the committee only leads people to believe that the Committee has something to hide.

It is clear that the committee overstepped its authority because even Prime Minister Harper believes that privilege should not have been invoked.

Parliamentary privilege should not be overused - The Globe and Mail:

'via Blog this'

Pierre Poilievre - Silencing Dissent through Intimidation

In 1946, Justice Rand determined that even though employees working in a unionized work environment were not required to join the union they were required to pay union dues because all workers in the workplace benefited from the contract negotiated by the union on the workers behalf regardless of their membership status.

Recently career politician Pierre Poilievre Conservative MP for the riding of Nepean-Carleton proposed that we all jump in our time machines and travel back to 1946 to reverse the Rand decision.  His reason, some of his constituents have complained to him about a public sector union's political activity.  Poilievre can often be counted on for knee jerk reactions that over simplify complicated issues and this case is no different.

A more reasoned response would be to recognize that unions are democratic organizations where the leadership is elected by the members.  And like all democracies

• not all members actively participate i.e. vote
• not all members agree with the outcome of the vote

But reason is not Poilievre's strong suit his reaction is to use legislation to bully the unions into silence by threatening their financial stability is  a dangerous one and not just for unions.  For any democracy to thrive dissenting opinions MUST be allowed to be voiced without fear of retribution.




More Canadian politics

Tory Affidavit Attempts to Cast Doubt on Robocalls Survey

The Council of Canadians presented polling data to back up claims that misleading calls in seven ridings affected the outcome of  the 2011 federal election.  Conservatives recently released an affidavit challenging the validity of the Ekos survey that found the non-Conservative vote was suppressed by about 1.5% in these ridings.

The survey also found that “highly statistically significant” number of the call recipients were non-Conservatives.

Since the story first broke the Conservative Party has denied any involvement in the robocalls that misdirected voters to the wrong polling stations.  Yet at every turn it has been the Conservative Party that has fought against the suit brought forward by the voters in the seven affected ridings and denied even the possibility that voter suppression occurred.

Why does the Conservative Party of Canada fight so hard to deny the residents of the seven ridings another vote, if the party is so sure that voter suppression did not occur and that the results of the election were unaffected by the robocalls?

http://www.leaderpost.com/business/Tories+cast+doubt+robocall+survey+data/7109742/story.html

Technorati Tag: Canadian politics

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

Did a Conservative Riding Association take Kick Back Money?

The Facts:

• The Prime Ministers fundraising rules for ministers and parliamentary secretaries (called Accountable Government) state:
  

  “There should be no singling out, or appearance of singling out, of individuals or organizations as targets of political fundraising because they have official dealings with Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries, or their staff or departments.”

• The parliamentary secretary to the Canadian Heritage Minister is Paul Calandra.  
• The CRTC is funded by Canadian Heritage Ministry.  
• The CRTC decides who gets broadcast licences.
• Stan Antony applies to the CRTC for a new radio station. 
• Mr. Antony is then invited to make a donation to Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage, Paul Calandra's Conservative Electoral District Association.
• Mr. Antony donates $500.00
• While the competition was taking place, Parliamentary Secretary Calandra's riding association raised in excess of $5000 from individuals connected to companies vying for the radio station.
• The donations become public through news reports.
• Parliamentary Secretary Calandra tells the newspaper, The Globe and Mail that the money will be returned to the donors.
• The office of the Federal Ethics Commissioner has not decided whether or not to launch an investigation to determine if the Conflict of Interest Act for public officeholders or the Conflict of Interest Code for MPs were contravened by the Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage.

Analysis:

• The Accountable Government rule looks to be  intentionally written to have the appearance of rather than actual accountability.  If the Prime Minister was truly serious about ethics and accountability he would have said "There will be no singling out,..." instead of  "There should be no singling out...".  The word should only indicates that the action is a bad idea and not that it is prohibited.  Being a lawyer Mr. Harper would have been aware of the legal difference between the words "should" and "will"or "shall".  
• Wishy washy wording aside it is clear that a significant amount of money was donated by individuals, with official dealings with the Parliamentary Secretary's department Canadian Heritage, that were singled out as targets for fundraising. 
• Failure of the Ethics Commissioner to investigate this incident would imply complacency on the part of the Federal Government.

Man vying for broadcast licence urged to donate to Tory fundraiser - The Globe and Mail:

'via Blog this'

Bread and Butter Canadians

The Manning Centre for Building Democracy (bit grandiose there Preston) is having their annual conference in Ottawa.  This Conservative think tank apparently has a conference every year and for only $349 dollars you too can go and listen to how Conservatives view themselves  and others.  Of course I watched for free on CPAC (wink wink)... think of it as an anthropological study.

So here are my notes and thoughts from the presentation:

• Bread and Butter Canadians (definition) are people not interested in a particular political party.  These individuals work for a living or are recently unemployed.  Most 'bread and butters' believe that the government is out of touch with their reality and challenges being faced with.

At the beginning of the bread and butter discussion I felt a faint glimmer of hope that Conservatives were in fact becoming aware of the 99% only to have them dashed by the conclusion reached which was:

• They will vote for Conservatives if topics are framed in right way and candidates are mindful of wording.

Next it was on to a discussion of  "Near Customers".

• Near Customers are people that Conservatives believe should be voting for them but are not.  
• These "customers" (their word) are in "particularly affluent urban areas" where the profile of a Green Party voter and a Conservative voter are almost the same.
• Blue Collar and Trade Unionists that believe in law and order.

If  I didn't already know they were discussing citizens voting in an election I would have thought I'd wandered in to an quarterly sales report.  The discussion was more about how can we sell people on voting for us then what could be done to advance Canadian society.  In fact at no time did anyone stop to ask what the party could do to meet the needs of these citizens.  Nope it was all about the approach (i.e. the sales pitch) and strengthening "the brand".

Just when I thought this couldn't get any more surreal.... out comes the results from their focus group testing on the catch phrase "government as facilitator".  I am guessing that is the sales pitch for government getting out of the business of governing because the preface for the discussion was "that people understand government cannot offer solutions to problems".  By the way 78% of respondents reacted favourably to the phrase so watch for it coming out of some Conservative pundits and politicians soon.

I turned off the T.V. when  the Institute of Marriage and Family presenter started to talk about God getting people off of welfare.

Sleeping on the Job – Conservative MP Rob Anders

The Conservative party claims to be the party looking out for Canadian Military Personnel and veterans but unfortunately the guy they appointed to the Veterans Affairs Committee has his eyes closed – literally.  MP for Calgary West Rob Anders was caught sleeping during a presentation on Homeless Veterans.
Rob Anders of course denies falling asleep but his own words tell a different story.  He called Jim Lowther a “NDP hack”.
Jim Lowther is a retired veteran of the Canadian Forces where he proudly served his country for fifteen years before, retiring prematurely due to injury.  During Mr. Lowther’s career  he served two NATO tours in Bosnia in support of Canada’s peacekeeping efforts.  Mr Lowther was presenting to the Veteran Affairs Committee as the president of Veterans Emergency Transition Services (V.E.T.S.) non-profit organization active in helping homeless veterans.
V.E.T.S. is a non-partisan organization.  For Rob Anders’ benefit non-partisan means free from party affiliation, bias, or designation.
Since M.P. for Calgary West, Rob Anders had no idea Mr. Lowther  was the President of V.E.T.S, chances are Rob Anders should wake up because his pants are on fire.

Technorati Tags: politics,Canadian-Politics

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

How MPs voted on Opposition Motion to Protect OAS

The motion to maintain the age requirements for OAS at 65 was defeated.

The motion read:

That the House reject calls by the Prime Minister to balance the Conservative deficit on the backs of Canada's seniors by means such as raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and call on the government to make the reduction and eventual elimination of seniors' poverty a cornerstone of the next budget.

Click here to see how your MP voted.

Harper Conservatives on Liberal's Plan for OAS - 2004

Back in 2004, the Harper Conservatives accused the Paul Martin Liberals of having a "hidden agenda" to raise the age to qualify for the Old Age Security to 67.  The Conservative Party of Canada had acquired the information on the Liberals through access to information.

As far as I can tell only the NDP have been consistent on the issue of OAS.

Click on Image to enlarge

The campaign news release is still posted on http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/election/News1/CRelease17.htm

NDP Move to Protect Old Age Security - Vote on Feb 6th

The NDP used the Opposition day in Parliament today to put forward a motion that the federal government not pay for its agenda on the backs of Canadian Seniors by raising the age at which they will qualify for Old Age Security (OAS).

 Several times NDP members put the question to Human Resources Minister - Is your government planing to raise the age at which a person would qualify for OAS. 

Each time Human Resources Minister answered. "Seniors currently receiving OAS will not be affected." As with many things in politics the answer to the question lies with has NOT been said. Since the Minister specified seniors "currently receiving" it is clear that the government plans to make changes for people that are not currently receiving. When they plan to have this increase take effect is not known.

 The opposition motion to protect OAS will be voted on by the House of Commons in the afternoon session of Feb 6th

.

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.