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

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'

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'

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

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

.

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

Backlogged by Design?

It is an old tried and tested political trick.  If you want to look like a hero, break something while no one is looking... fix it and then take all the credit.  If that statement has you scratching your head consider the case of Service Canada.

The offices are already dismally understaffed and unable to keep up with the demand of Employment Insurance (EI) claims.  There is a perpetual back-log and many unemployed people are forced to wait over a month to claim the insurance benefits they paid the Federal Government to provide.  Add to that many Canadians are only one or two pay cheques from poverty and there are definite problems that need to be addressed.

Many would say that the system is already broken, but unfortunately for the unemployed in particular it's not broken enough.  In order to pack a political punch things must be at crisis levels.  Enter the Federal Governments decision to reduce the number of offices processing EI claims from 120 to 20 nationally.  Yup 20 and I did say nationally.

The Government is claiming that new found efficiencies will compensate for slashing the Employment Insurance unit by over 80%.  That is quite a claim!

A closer look at how the cuts are being implemented brings a few more questions to mind.  Of the claim processing centres that will be spared more than half of them will be in Conservative Ridings. (always dance with the one that brought you)

In Quebec at least three processing centres in NDP ridings (Sept-Îles, Rimouski and New Richmond) are seeing their jobs transferred to the riding of Megantic L'Erable — which belongs to Industry Minister Christian Paradis. CBC

 Now all that is left to do is sit back and wait for the crisis to hit so in three years time you can fix it and everybody will love you... just in time for the polls to open.

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

Low Income Cut-offs - A Lesson for the #CPC

Yesterday my post talked about how sad I thought it was that Conservatives did not acknowledge poverty in Canada.  And this morning to my surprise there was a comment arguing that .... the poverty line isn't real. I am sorry that I didn't define clearly enough what I meant by poor.  Here is the definition of poor I was using although I hesitate to even post it because that means I am just being sucked into this ridiculous debate on semantics.

The Low Income Cut-Offs are based on the percentage of a family's income spent on three items:

• food,

• clothing, and

• shelter.

The percentage of total income (before income tax, and including government income supports) spent on food, clothing and shelter by an average Canadian household in 1992 was 34.7%. Using LICOs, a family is considered to be in low income if the household spends 20 percentage points higher than the average household or more than 54.7% of its total income on these three categories of expenditure. 

Regardless of whether or not you would like to acknowledge this definition of poverty to be valid, my comments about the Conservative election platform still hold true.  This platform does nothing for low income Canadians.

If you are spending more than half of your BEFORE tax income on the essentials:

• it is unlikely you will have 10K to put in a savings account each year
• you probably not paying to put your kids in organized sports
• it is doubtful you have enough money to join a fitness club

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