Hapercrite Lies Again...and, Again

Remember this statement last election?

John Reynolds, co-chair of the Conservative campaign in B.C., believes the Tory team is a good representation of the province's diversity. He argued his party does not appoint candidates or parachute them into ridings, as the Liberals have done, and therefore the people who are running under the Tory banner have been chosen by residents of their ridings -- not by national party strategists.

Reynolds also said that in the 2004 federal election, the Conservatives elected more visible minority MPs from across Canada than any other party.

Let's see. Turner kicked out for speaking the truth and blogging. Bill Casey was kicked out for doing what he was elected to do...represent his constituents.

Now these two gentlemen get kicked out by the Conswervatives. One for mentioning AIDS and one for not canvassing. One was a minority. One wasn't.

Thanks to CBC for the story.

Two former federal Conservative candidates said Wednesday they've been unfairly pushed aside by the party despite being acclaimed for the next election.

In fact last year's Conservative platform said the party would ensure nomination races are fair and transparent, but the recent decisions by the Tories' national office has left the two former contenders questioning the process.

Mark Warner, the once-acclaimed Tory candidate for Toronto Centre, was slated to run against former Ontario premier and federal Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae. The seat was left vacant by the retirement of former interim Liberal leader and cabinet member Bill Graham in July.

But the 43-year-old Warner said the Conservatives party's national office informed him he was no longer their pick because of continued differences of opinion and strategy, as well his penchant for speaking out about subjects that didn't receive party authorization, such as education, affordable housing and HIV/AIDS issues.

"Frankly, I felt there was a lot of micromanagement … and I don't think it was legitimate," Warner, an international trade lawyer, told the CBC on Wednesday. "I was going off-message."

Warner said references to his attendance at an international AIDS conference in Toronto in 2006 were removed from his bio when he sent it to Ottawa for approval.

Continue Article

"It does seem to be something that bothers people and I don't exactly know why," he said.

Conference organizers criticized Prime Minister Stephen Harper for failing to attend the event, which featured high-profile speakers, including former UN envoy Stephen Lewis, former U.S. president Bill Clinton and Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates.

But Conservative party officials said Warner was a difficult candidate because he didn't follow advice or take direction.

Warner said he was ousted in part for giving an interview to a national magazine about working with a former Liberal cabinet minister.

"I was told that when a reporter comes up like that, you say no comment," said Warner. "I am offended by it, I think it's important to use the modern means of communication to reach people."

Rae issued a release on Wednesday praising Warner as a "as a thoughtful and hardworking person" and said his treatment by Tory leaders was a "national disgrace."

Guelph businessman ousted
In the riding of Guelph, businessman Brent Barr had won the party's nomination in March, but was told on Oct. 19 that party headquarters had rejected him without any warning.

"They told me what happened, and I'm still surprised by what happened," he told CBCNews.ca on Wednesday.

"I would have imagined someone would have taken me aside and said, 'Brent, we have some questions.' They didn't do that."

Barr came in second in the riding in the 2006 election to the Liberal incumbent Brenda Chamberlain. He said the party brass told him he was being dropped because he wasn't campaigning hard enough to build up the party locally, despite his holding four community events a week and inviting potential voters into his home for coffee chats.

"That's a completely false statement," he said of the charge of lax campaigning. "If I had actually done anything the embarrass or denigrate the party, I would sit down right and accept it. But I didn't."

Barr said he suspected the party has pushed him aside in favour of a star candidate, something Prime Minister Stephen Harper has blasted Liberals for doing while campaigning for the 2004 federal election.

At the time, Harper said: "We want to clean up internal party politics, beginning with grassroots democratic control of the nomination process."

Conservative Party president Don Plett would not reveal the precise reasons for dropping the two candidates, citing privacy issues. He would only say there were certain concerns and because of those concerns the party needed to take action.

Barr said his loyalty to the party made him unsure about running as an independent whenever another federal election is called.

"By removing me, it's a slap in the face of democracy and i suspect that will come back and hurt them in the next election," he said.

"I'm a Conservative; I've always been a Conservative. But as far as what happens in the next election, I really can't say at this point."

Here a Budget, There a Budget, Everywhere a Budget

There's no end to the recklessness of this government. None whatsoever. Mon Dieu. What it won't do to try to get an election.

How many budgets can a person have in 12 months? My guess? 3.

Creative tax cutting 101. On your first annual budget, increase the Liberal personal income tax rate from 15% to 15.5%. Then, in your fiscal update, make it sound like another budget in the same year as the first budget. Then, announce a personal income tax cut in your fiscal update to 15% from 15.5%...the same as it was in 2005 under the previous government and call it genius.

As for the GST cut? Well, I'm quite certain the thousands of economists around the country are already in disagreement. $5.4 billion a year could have went a long way for municipalities, health care, child care, the environment, etc. Oh well. I'm sure the CONS have some kind of smoke screen for those issues.

The corporate big brothers and the upper class continue to open the gap on poverty in the country.

I for one will be reaping the benefits of my extra $18 per month to support my Starbucks addiction.

Harper Meets Dalai Lama Because Poll Said He Should

Jason Kenney and Mike Duffy were beyond embarrassing today on Duffy Live.

Here's the video which is just over 6 minutes long.

The clip starts off with an interview by CTV's Roger Smith with the Dalai Lama. The reporter asks his holiness about Afghanistan. Kenney can be heard trying to interfere with the question. His holiness responds "Non-violence is the best way to solve problem. Using violence to counter violence sometimes it create more complicated."

Duffy then says. "Jason, he seems to be saying that sometimes violence is necessary when you are speaking for freedom if I understand him correctly."

WHAT?!?!? WTF!!! Was Duffy watching a different video clip?

Jason later says Harpercrite did the right thing meeting the Dalai Lama because "there was a poll indicating over 80% of Canadians think the Prime Minister should meet with him"

"HIM" being the holiest of Holy. Yes, "HIM" Jason.

Embarrassing. Just embarrassing.

MSM Finally Catching on to Conservative Scandals?

From Page 25 of the Toronto Star. Page 25!!!


Furor over campaign funds heats up; Elections Canada probing Tory advertising scheme that claimed rebates for 'in and out' transactions The Toronto Star Saturday, October 27, 2007
Page: A25
Section: News
Byline: Richard Brennan
Source: Toronto Star

The Conservatives have been under fire for two weeks now over an advertising scheme in the last election that could cost taxpayers close to a million dollars.

Flush with cash in the 2006 election and facing an $18.3 million spending cap, the Conservatives' central campaign was looking for other places to spend money.

So, it transferred a total of $1.3 million to local campaigns.

Elections Canada has said the candidates immediately sent the money back to the party's head office to pay for television and radio advertisements.

The ads were identical to national television and radio spots, except for print in the final frame that either listed ridings or the names of candidates.

At least 66 Conservative campaigns participated in this "in and out" transaction and then sent these expenses off to Elections Canada for a 60 per cent taxpayer-paid-for rebate totalling some $780,000.

All federal political parties depend on this rebate to help finance the next election.

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand put the brakes on the campaign filings, saying the candidates could not prove that local television and radio advertising expenses were for their local campaigns.

Despite suggestions otherwise by some critics, there is no suggestion of criminal wrongdoing, only violations of the Elections Act.

Insisting they did nothing wrong, the Conservatives have taken the case to Federal Court, looking to get the decision overturned and payment made of the money the party believes it has coming to it.

The opposition Liberals can smell blood.

Ever since Parliament resumed Oct. 17, they have been hammering the Conservatives over what they compared in the House of Commons to "a money laundering scam."

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has consistently asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper how much he knew about the scheme, and when did he know it.

The only time Harper responded, he challenged the Liberals to make their accusations outside the chamber where they were not protected from parliamentary privilege.

"We happen to believe that our election financing activities are entirely legal. We know they are because they are what the law permits and they are in fact consistent with the practices of other political parties in Canada," government House Leader Peter Van Loan told the House of Commons this week.

Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff disputed this during question period, calling it a plot to recycle party money: "It's a scam."

Asked by the Toronto Star if the Conservative party had transferred money like this in previous elections, Van Loan stated: "Everything that we do conforms with the Elections Finances Act ... the law allows transfers."

Ann O'Grady, the Conservative Party's chief financial officer, could not be reached for comment.

Liberal MP Garth Turner recalls that when he was still with the Conservatives, the riding association in Hull-Aylmer in March 2006 talked openly about a money transfer.

"I was asked to be the guest speaker ... but before I gave my speech the treasurer gave their report for the annual meeting and they had more than $40, 000, which was transferred into their bank account and then the same day they wrote a cheque back to the central party. And by transferring $40,000 into their bank account during the campaign they got a 60 per cent rebate," said Turner, who was kicked out of the Tory caucus earlier this year.

Actually the amount transferred to the western Quebec riding across from Ottawa was $48,558.55 and it was transferred back four days later. But Elections Canada is withholding the rebate along with several others until the outcome of the Federal Court decision

"Of course they didn't spend it on the campaign, they just gave it back, labelled it as advertising and then booked it as an expense ... that's at least $24,000 that the taxpayers gave the Hull-Aylmer Conservative Riding for doing (nothing) - for writing a cheque."

The most vocal critic of the Conservative scheme is MP Dominic LeBlanc (Beausejour), the Liberals' intergovernmental affairs critics.

LeBlanc ratcheted things up this week by issuing a list of former Conservative candidates and officials implicated in the "scandal" who were given federal appointments or hired for so-called high-profile jobs. "One has to wonder if there is a connection between their willingness to participate and employment by this Conservative government," he said in a press release.

That prompted a warning letter from the Conservatives' lawyer McFarlane Lepsoe: "This letter is ... intended to serve as a notice that it is defamatory to suggest or imply that the positions that these individuals have or have had on ministers' staffs are 'rewards' for having engaged in illegal conduct."

© 2007 Torstar Corporation

Harper Accountable? Hardly!

And so we have broken promise number 2,368 from the Hapercrite government. Back to the old "tell them what they wanted to hear, but don't keep a single promise" strategy for campaigning.

AS I've said a million or so times already, the Canadian public will be in full outrage shortly over this dictator Harper's sham of a government. Stay tuned.

And the Conswervatives Break Another Promise

And the truth shall set you free!

Another of the 2006 Conswervative programs has gone up in flames. AS I've said repeatedly, the Canadian public is going to find out quite quickly how fraudulent this stale government really is.

Harpercrite cancelled a national daycare program to implement his bogus child credit strategy, thereby undoing everything Ken Dryden and 10 Premiers worked on for ages. So now what do we have? Total failurefor the Harpie. And, try as they may, the CONS just couldn't keep that a secret.

Thank you Ms. Galloway!

Harper: Don't Believe us? We'll Sue You!

This is only the beginning. Over the next few months, Canadians will be finding out just how DIRTY Canada's "Clean" Government is. This, my friends, is only the tip of the iceberg.

Stephane Dion...The Next Prime Minister

From La Presse
My Vision of Quebec Within Canada
October 24, 2007

I want to become Prime Minister of Canada to help our country become richer, fairer and greener.

My intent is to strengthen our economy by eradicating our productivity and innovation deficit, investing in research and development and infrastructures, and making our tax system more competitive.

I will launch an unprecedented offensive to combat poverty by helping one million children escape its bonds, taking steps to ensure that our aging society provides better care for our most disadvantaged seniors, eliminating the barriers that prevent too many women, Aboriginal people and newcomers from unleashing their full potential.

I will do all I can to help a greener Canada tackle the most important task of our era, which is to adjust our lifestyle to what our natural environment is able to support. We must meet the challenges of sustainable development and become champions of the fight against climate change.

These are ambitious objectives, which we can meet thanks to a united Liberal Party of Canada, and with significant support from every part of the country, including - and I dare say especially - Quebec. Almost all the great and influential achievements in the history of Canada happened because many Quebecers invested their energy, talents and culture within the Liberal Party of Canada.

For our country to become truly richer, fairer and greener, there has to be a meeting of minds and hearts between Quebecers and the leadership I represent. I will not miss my "rendez-vous" with Quebecers.

As a child of the quiet revolution, with the deep roots I have in Quebec, I have always been deeply attached to our culture and self-made institutions. I defended Canadian unity but refused to diminish provincial autonomy. It is perfectly possible and coherent to believe that Canada must remain decentralized to function well. That is why, like so many other Quebecers, I supported the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. I was a passionate advocate for provincial powers In Cabinet, as many of my Cabinet colleagues have attested.

One of my major accomplishments as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was the Clarity Act. This is meant to prevent a separatist government from attempting to secede by making believe that this is what Quebecers want even though there is no such will. The Act is in the best interests of all Quebecers, including sincere and convinced separatists. An action as serious as secession must not be undertaken in a state of confusion. When Ms. Marois says that she will only hold a referendum after Quebecers are convinced they are ready for independence, she respects the spirit of the Clarity Act. Of course, she will never admit that.

At a time when there is heated debate in Quebec about the place of religion in public institutions, it is worth remembering that in 1997, I guided the constitutional reforms that made it possible to secularize Quebec school boards. Lise Bissonnette, who was editor in chief of Le Devoir at the time, wrote that the only thing that made these reforms possible was my determination. Here again I cared deeply about Quebec's interests, and my view of the situation was the same as that of the vast majority of Quebecers.

I believe, as many do, that federal spending power plays a useful role in social progress but that it needs to be framed so as to respect the provinces and promote partnership with them. In 1999, I was instrumental in establishing the rule according to which the federal government can transfer funds to provincial governments in their areas of sole jurisdiction: this can only be done based on jointly decided objectives to which a majority of the provinces have agreed, and on the understanding that a province that has already met these objectives can spend the federal transfer in a related field. This right to withdraw with full compensation is applicable to all federal transfers to provincial governments in their areas of jurisdiction. It goes much farther than the feeble commitment made by the Conservatives in their recent Speech from the Throne, which would apply only to cost-shared programs, which are becoming obsolete.

Indeed, no federal politician has ever placed tighter restrictions on the federal spending power than I have. And I managed to do so without reducing its usefulness as a force for social progress. For example, the governments of our federation had agreed in 2005 to create a federal child care transfer. Because Quebec already had a more highly developed network of child care centres than elsewhere in Canada, the Quebec government decided to use the funds in areas related to early childhood. Unfortunately, Mr. Harper cancelled the agreement, depriving Quebec and the other provinces of hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise have gone to our children and our families.

I have always advocated strong Equalization, a solidarity principle enshrined in the Constitution that gives the less wealthy provinces, including Quebec, the opportunity to provide their people with services comparable to those in the wealthier provinces. All Mr. Harper has done is to implement a reform that was initiated by the Martin government; but in implementing it, he broke a promise he had made to a number of provinces. I have always kept my word. I will always say the same thing to every province. I respect them too much to do otherwise.

I have always been a passionate advocate for the cause of French - in Quebec, elsewhere in Canada, and around the world. A long time ago, I wrote that Bill 101 was a great Canadian statute, a statement for which I am still being criticized in certain circles, but in which I still believe. I drafted a plan to promote official languages, which is still called the Dion Plan in Francophone communities outside Quebec. As Prime Minister, I promise to come up with another Dion plan.

For many years, I have maintained that we Quebecers are a nation, by which I mean a community that is proud of its own identity. Mr. Harper's office consulted me before a resolution was put forward in the House of Commons last November to recognize Quebec as a nation. I voted in favour of the resolution, but my vote was accompanied by a proviso warning people about some aspects of Mr. Harper's political manoeuvring.

The English version of his resolution said "the Québécois form a nation". This suggests an ethnic definition of a nation, that does not include all inhabitants of Quebec, whereas the French wording does not mean the same. It was clearly a attempt to allow Conservative and Bloc politicians to interpret the resolution and comment on it in their own different ways, which of course they did. This kind of political manoeuvring is not in the interest of Canadians and it deserves our disapproval. My Quebec nation includes all inhabitants of Quebec.

We Quebecers, together with other Canadians, have succeeded in building a federation that is the envy of many countries experiencing ethnic, religious, linguistic or other forms of conflict. In 1999, I established the Forum of Federations to enable federations around the world to understand and help one another. I am proud of the contribution of Quebecers like Gil Rémillard, who contributed significantly to making the Forum of Federations a success.

Those who know me well know that I have held these positions for a long time. I am firmly attached to Quebec's identity and to Canada's unity. I believe that there is a Quebec nation, but also think that politicians need to stop playing with words to mislead citizens about what this means. And I believe that all governments in our federation need to work together, while showing full respect for each other's respective areas of jurisdiction.

These are unequivocal positions that closely match the clear interests of the vast majority of Canadians, including our interests as Quebecers. For Canada to truly become richer, fairer and greener, I as a proud Quebecer know just how important it is for Quebecers to be included. We will succeed in this, for ourselves, our children and future generations. I will do everything in my power to achieve it.

Ten More Years in Afghanistan

Like I said. We're nowhere near completing a mission . Time to end our combat mission and not lose another one of our young men. We can still train their people there without engaging in an active combat role...not that that will matter much after the Taliban begin to be reinstated back into the Karzai government.

And Harper Sat on his Ass

What more can you expect from the most embarrassing PM in the history of Canada? Would you expect him to speak out against this ridiculous bill? The same man that cancelled Kyoto, Kids and Kelowna, voted against aboriginal rights at the UN, refuses to acknowledge climate change, bribes candidates with payouts, moves money back and forth to receive election rebates.

The long and the short of it is that the Harper government has zero respect for minorities in this country, and, speaking out against this heinous bill might affect his voter "base" in Quebec.