Vic Toews Gives RCMP Okay to Violate UN Anti-Torture Convention

Vic Toews, Public Safety Minister issues a directive to RCMP, CSIS and Canada Border Services to use information obtained through torture.

In 1985, Canada led by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture .

Article 2.2 of the UN Convention Against Torture:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 15 of the UN Convention Against Torture:

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Canada And Torture: Feds Give RCMP And Border Guards Green Light To Use Tainted Info:

Technorati Tag: 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'

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.

Northern Reflections: Would Ike Be A Republican Today?

I am inclined to agree with Northern Reflections. There is absolutely no way Eisenhower would identify himself as a Republican today. He would never have likely made it through the Primaries with his moderate views.

Northern Reflections: Would Ike Be A Republican Today?

The One-For-One Rule an Over-Simplified Approach to Regulations

President of the Treasury Board Minister Tony Clement

Minister Tony Clement's released their new One-For-One rule on Jan 18th.  Put simply the press release is announcing that the federal government plans to treat regulations like trading cards.

This means that regulators will be required to remove at least one regulation each time they introduce a new one that imposes administrative burden on business. 

I understand that Minister Clement is trying to "reduce red tape" but this over simplified approach is not the way to go.  Minister Clement is assuring that with this rule Canadian standards will never increase and may even potentially decrease.  Regulations are imposed on finance, environment and health to ensure the safety of the public whether it be safeguarding their retirement savings or inspecting the quality of their food.

Minister Clement from his letter, views regulations as simply burdens on business and nothing else.  In fact he makes no mention of the importance of regulations at all.  Regulations are put in place after much thought and consideration by regulators and forcing regulators to remove one of these important regulations in order to add a new one that has now become necessary due to more information available or a change in a situation is well to put it bluntly - stupid.

Treasury Board  Press Release Jan 18, 2012
Playing with Fire - When Political Ideology Costs Lives

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

Courage in the face of Despair - I'm Voting for the Social Economy

While the Liberals and Conservatives spout on about how well each has handled Canada's financial economy they are both equally guilty of ignoring Canada's social economy.

What is the social economy?  Well it is wide range of community, voluntary and not-for-profit activities. The social economy has a distinct and valuable role to play in helping create a strong, sustainable, prosperous and inclusive society.

Successful social economy organisations can play an important role in helping deliver many key governmental policy objectives by:

• helping to drive up productivity and competitiveness;
• contributing to socially inclusive wealth creation;
• enabling individuals and communities to work towards regenerating their local neighbourhoods;
• showing new ways to deliver public services; and
• helping to develop an inclusive society and active citizenship.

The governments of the last couple of decades have bee systematically choking this economy by cutting funding.  And the Conservative government under Stephen Harper has increased the rate and depth of these cuts at an alarming rate.

The Conservative party sees no value in the social economy as demonstrated by their actions.  The Liberal party talks about social programs while campaigning but treat them as luxuries rather then essential to maintaining the Canadian standard of living.  And then there are the NDP, they have often been described as the conscience of the House of Commons.  Fighting continually to preserve the and enhance the government services and programs that benefit the 98.5% of Canadian society that is not independently wealthy.  Unfortunately due to their lack of numbers the House of Commons' conscience is often ignored.

For too long the NDP have been treated like children by the Conservatives and Liberals.  The reds and the blues pat the NDP on the head and tell them and the Canadian people "That just the way things are."  "That's the way things have to be"  The people that believe this myth feel powerless and some of  them stop voting.  Result: More of the same.

Liberals and Conservatives say the NDP will never win an election.  Repeating that phrase over and over until even the people who vote NDP believe it to be true.  Some more progressive people either change their vote or stop voting.
Result: More of the same.

Let's hope that this time something different happens.  That people will have the courage to try for change even if they think it will never happen.  Apathy it the status quo's best friend.