Redford's misleading attack ad. Where did the PC's get their numbers from?

Have you heard the PC attack ad against Danielle Smith and the Wildrose yet?

BTW: It is the very first time in PCAA history that they have EVER named an opposition party or its leader in an ad. Take a listen:



Quite a piece of work isn't it. Pure fear mongering that not only is a total misrepresentation and fabrication of the Wildrose position on impaired driving (more on this later) but they also used a number that cannot be found in any research, study, academic work or from any government agency; 300.

"Since 1998 300 Albertans have been killed by drivers who blew 0.08 or less."

Putting aside for a moment the ludicrous wording that 300 deaths were caused by ANY driver who blew less than 0.08, including the vast majority who had absolutely NO measurable amount of alcohol in their system,which would make the number much higher, the 300 number it turns out is the work of one solitary journalist.

The ruling PC's who have the resources of an entire government at their disposal, as well as Transport Canada information and others, decided not to use any government statistics/research and instead decided to use those of a journalist who said of the 300 number "the estimate is my own". Yes, an estimate!  Since I don't want to turn this into a dueling numbers thing I will just leave it by saying what should be obvious; the PCs didn't like what they found looking at their own governments data and went number shopping instead to find what they were looking for to fit their political motives, in this case the attack ad. If you want to look more at some numbers that actually came from a reliable source, Alberta Transport, take a look at this recent blog post from Rob Harvie at Searching for Liberty.

But the story doesn't get better for the PC's. Their campaign chair, Susan Elliot of deleting Facebook posts fame, did an interview the other day in which as Dave Rutherford described it; "Susan Elliot in fact was not telling the truth in the interview.Torquing the story, cranking it up. And she is now the spokesperson for the PC party."  Dave was being kind. Speaking as the voice of the PCAA, Elliot flat out lied in order to mislead Albertans for political purposes and in defense of a bad law that was written to pander for votes after a tragedy on Alberta roads. And now these lies will taint every other claim that the PC's will make in the upcoming election because if they will lie about this, they will lie about anything and probably everything. WTG Campaign Chair!

You can listen to the interview here:



I don't know about yourself but I hate being lied to and we can see the PCs have already shown that they are more than happy to do just that so they can remain in power and have more time at the taxpayer funded trough.

This is going to backfire on the PC's big-time. A desperate attempt to mislead the very people that they claim to represent into again casting a ballot for their party made worse by the fact that they are treating us like idiots who can't see through the easily proven lies and spin.

It is like Redford and the PC's don't think we are worthy of the truth.

Enough is enough. Redford and the PCs have to go; Albertans deserve better than this.



h/t to Rob Breakenridge, Colby Cosh, Matt Solberg.


Related: This is not the first time that the PC's have lied about Bill 26.

The PC's big lie about the Alberta 2012 budget.

There is no other way to put it other than saying that Premier Redford and the PC's have flat out lied about the 2012 Alberta budget when they said that it would contain no tax increases. It does and the worst part is not the lies but rather that they will probably get away with it.

From the budget speech delivered by Finance Minister Ron Liepert: "I will point out, Mr. Speaker, that these higher tax revenues are a result of Albertans and Alberta corporations doing better and thus having higher
taxable incomes, and not because of any tax rate increases by the province." (highlighting mine)

From the document itself: "Budget 2012 introduces no new taxes, or tax rate increases." (underlined by PC's)

Premier Alison Redford: "Budget 2012 is about investing in Albertans with no new taxes or tax increases"

Clear enough or did you want to see about 1 million more examples? (more on this Google search later)

But none of that is the truth as taxes are going up, at least the education portion of your property taxes.

From the Calgary Herald: Although the Redford government boasts about no tax increases or new levies in the budget, it hikes the province's 2012 education property tax take by more than at any time in the last two decades.
Alberta taxpayers will shell out $1.8 billion in education property taxes to the province, an increase of more than $107 million over the 2011 total.

From The Edmonton Journal: 'A jump in the amount Alberta takes from education property taxes means the levy on a typical Edmonton home could go up at the highest rate in three years.'
 'The province intends to collect an extra $120 million from education taxes this year, including an additional $38 million — or 10.8 per cent — from Edmonton ratepayers,'
'it means the total average Edmonton property tax hike could hit 7.2 per cent in 2012'

There is no way around it, this is a tax increase, but it gets worse.  Not only did they lie about it but this arrogant bunch has the audacity to take it one step farther by trying to pass off the blame and heat onto our municipalities who are the ones that have to collect it. You will see this tax hike show up on your property tax bill, which will get mailed out in Edmonton on May 18 probably AFTER the election) and by then your vote will have already been counted.


As I eluded to earlier the lying and the arrogance are not the worst part of this. They will, or perhaps it would be better stated as, they have already gotten away with it. How could they have gotten away with it since I am obviously reading about it here and in those article linked above you ask?  That is easy because the word has already gotten out that the Alberta 2012 budget contain  no tax increases and that has already been in every newspaper, on every radio talk-show, and on every television news broadcast both here in Alberta and from beyond when they reported on the 2012 budget. (see Google search linked above)  This is what Albertans first heard and even though it is not true it is what most will remember hearing about the budget, that it did not raise taxes. All the PC's have to do now is just continue to repeat the lie and the deception will live on.

It really is brilliant, in a totally underhanded way mind you, but you have to give the PC's credit because after being in power for 40 years they do know all of the tricks on how to hose us without most of us even realizing it until it is too late.

Get the word out. Don't let this deception stand. I fear for what may be in store for us if the PC's do get elected to a majority again since we already know that they don't tell the truth and refuse to give straight answers to direct questions on the subject of taxes.


Real life leadership my ass.




Previous blog on budget 2012


Bonus: I asked Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk a simple question on Saturday night.

AA: " Speaking of facts, how is this NOT a tax increase? http://bit.ly/y5Dwae" (link to Journal story)

His answers, or rather his lack of a straight answer and his sad attempt to spin me (maybe he should have taken one of those social media seminars at PC campaign college this weekend because trying to spin a political blogger is not a bright thing to do) shows that he knows the truth that there are tax increases in the budget, but will do anything he can not to admit it.

TL: "It is all in the Budget. Open and transparent. Read it. How is that a hidden agenda?"

AA: "Those weren't my words. So about my question: How is this http://bit.ly/y5Dwae not a tax increase?"

TL: "That is investing in world class education for our children. Would you cut #abed budget?"

AA:  "Didn't ask what it was for, mention cuts, or why I won't 'think of the children'. Your refusal to answer says it all. #ableg"

(No reply)
  

You can read the twitter thread yourself here

While you were working this week...

Your tax dollars were going towards this:

Chretien urges PM Harper not to follow through on election promise.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper should reconsider his vow to end the direct per-vote subsidy for political parties, says former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

Sort of arrogant, no? Having a former PM ask the current PM not to follow through on his election promises?

Thank you Jean, but cutting party subsidies was an election platform promise, in fact I would call it a major plank of that platform, and the Conservatives were elected on that platform. The Conservative Party of Canada is not the Liberal Party where promises to abolish the GST or the numerous times they promised a national child care system are never followed through on.  This PM will follow through on his platform promise.

If a party's own members do not care enough to support that party with their own money, why should the taxpayer have to prop them up?

The video Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada do not want you to see.

Because after all of these years they have yet to be able to spin it positively in any way, shape, or form. 






It really is all about character.

BTW for those interested here are the numbers for the amount of times that Ignatieff used the words "We", "Us", "Our" and "Ourselves" in the 2minute and 8 second video above.

Updated with more of the same from Ignatieff:


.

Ignatieff's vote pandering on a Quebec City arena. Who is happy, and who is not.

Recently Michael Ignatieff said the following on the subject of tax dollars going towards the building a new arena in Quebec City:

“If you want Ottawa to participate, you have to vote Liberal”
 (Link in French as the English MSM have all but ignored it to this point)

I know what my opinion is of his statement and was going to do a big write up on my thoughts, but considering that I am not exactly a big Liberal supporter and I suspect that most of my audience already have a good idea of what that post would look like, I decided against it. But that got me thinking; how would others view Ignatieff's statement? So here is a short list of some who I think will be happy with it, and some who won't.


Liberal MP Joyce Murray must be absolutely livid considering that she tweeted this"another Liberal MP: "Harper's vote-buying stadium scheme in Quebec to benefit a right-wing media buddy: Quebec voters too smart to fall for it..."  a short while back, and as far as I know "Harper" never said anything even remotely close to "if you want Ottawa to participate you have to vote conservative."

Poor Ian Davey is must be banging his head against the wall over this recent comment from his old boss?  Because the last time a top Liberal, in this case Bob Rae, had made similar comments,  Davey went on national television trying to spin hard for the Libs and ended up insulting a large swath of the Canadian population  and hurting the Libs the process.

Liberal MP Keith Martin also can't be too impressed: "175 million for a hockey arena in Quebec City from the Cons! The PM is wasting our money..."

At least one Liberal blogger will not be too happy with Ignatieff's offer of tax dollars going into a glorified NHL arena,  and there is a certain Liberal candidate for Edmonton-St Albert, Kevin Taron, who is already having a hard time dealing with questions on what Ignatieff said because of his very vocal opposition against funding the Quebec arena, including comments that all Alberta will be  getting is the bill. 

I am sure there is plenty more where they came from but being the fair and balanced blogger that I am, lets now look at a few who may happy with what Michael Ignatieff had to say.

Surely the millionaires will rejoice: “No public subsidies for the National Hockey League, no public subsidies for millionaires,”


Ralph Goodale must also be ecstatic as he said recently: "The federal Conservative government should be contributing "well in excess of $100 million" to a new domed stadium in Regina,"  and  "Goodale argued it's certainly reasonable to expect Ottawa to fund in excess of $100 million (more than 25 per cent of the costs) of a new football stadium and entertainment facility. Goodale added he would be willing to take that request to a new federal Liberal cabinet."  (From the Leader Post: link to story now dead)


And of course Denis Coderre must also be happy: 'Finally, le Journal reports that Liberal MP Denis Coderre is accusing the Conservatives of playing politics with the issue by dragging out the question of whether it will contribute to the financing of the arena: “This is a well-organized project that merits respect and dignity which means that the announcement should not be timed to win votes. They should announce it now.”


The people of Quebec: (But I am not sure on this one as it may be a toss up.)

While there is certainly a group who would be happy to hear what Ignatieff had to say, there are also a large number of Quebecois, who being very familiar with how the Liberal Party of Canada used to operate in their province with the 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' attitude and with memories of brown paper bags filled with money being passed around in return for favours still in peoples minds, would find Ignaiteff's comment suggesting that if Quebec voters scratch the Liberals back by voting for them that public dollars for the arena will flow to be very disturbing.

Polls seems to back up my view on the way the people of Quebec would lean, but perhaps that may be why Ignatieff promised that he would spend money on a high speed train before he spent any on an arena for Quebec City.

Wait a minute. If Ignatieff said that he would spend money on high speed rail BEFORE spending any on an arena, does that mean that spending on a high speed rail line is already fait accompli?   I wonder where Ignatieff plans to get the money for that, and when he plans to tell us about it?

Mr. Ignatieff. Please answer your own question.

On Wednesday Michael Ignatieff again went out on the road in an effort to (re) introduce himself to the Canadian public as if somehow the forth time will be the charm. At a Liberal Party function, which was held in the back of a restaurant located in a small suburban Ottawa mall, Ignatieff lead off his stump speech with what the LPC hope will become the 'ballot question' in the next federal election.

"Are you and your family better off now than five years ago?" .

Aside from the fact that the line was blatantly stolen from Ronald Reagan, which I mentioned yesterday, something else has been bothering me about Ignatieff's campaign query. What would Michael Ignatieff's answer be if he was asked his own question?


Seriously, assuming that he would be honest and give a straight answer, what would Michael Ignatieff's answer be?
(Perhaps someone in our fine Canadian media establishment would be so kind to ask him so we all could find out. Hint Hint)

 

I say the answer has to be a resounding yes. Micheal Ignatieff  is indeed much better off now than he was 5 years ago. (Speaking only on the financial aspect, which considering that we have just been through a nasty recession, I assume was what Ignatieff was referring to with his question) Here is why:

On January 14, 2006, after recently returning to Canada after 27 years away, Michael Ignatieff was busy running in his first election to be the LPC MP for Etobicoke Lakeshore. He won his riding but the Paul Martin lead Liberal Party lost power and Ignatieff made his way onto the Liberal back benches where he would be compensated with a wage of  $147,700. Assuming that he sat on a couple of committees etc, I think we can safely round it up to $160K. (plus travel, office etc)


5 years later in January 2011 Micheal Ignatieff is now the leader of the official opposition with a salary $233,247, a residence (Stornoway), an office budget of $3.2 million, a car allowance of $2,122, and perhaps even some kind of top up or other perks from the Liberal Party itself. Not to mention that the job of leader of the opposition carries with it much more prestige as well as other intangibles that no ordinary MP enjoys.


Sounds to me like Micheal Ignatieff better hope that nobody in the media can take a hint and asks him to honestly answer his own question, because financially speaking he certainly is better off today than he was 5 years ago.

 -----------

Sort of related and good news for all Canadians including Ignatieff, not that he would ever acknowledge it though, as Canada's economy outperforms the G7.

WIll Justin Trudeau defend the charter from Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette

Quick, someone call Justin Trudeau!

Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette continues on her quest to make herself the laughingstock of Canadian politics by perusing passage of Senate Bill S-206. The bill would require Parliament to ensure that all publicly traded companies, banks, insurance companies and trust companies to have 50% of their board of directors made up of women. Nanny state nonsense, which goes against not only the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Liberals everywhere like to pretend that they are so concerned over but also against common sense and such basic ideals such as merit based advancement, all in the name of political correctness.

Here is what she said on S-206 in June 2009: She argues that last fall's market meltdown, which has sparked a deep worldwide recession, is the result of having a relatively small coterie of men holding multiple directorships in a host of corporations.

She suggests that bad investments might have been avoided had more women been sitting on boards, bringing fresh eyes and a more independent, prudent approach to decision-making than the `old boys' club.'
I may be old fashioned but blaming the market meltdown on men sounds sort of sexist if you ask me, but being part of the old boys club by virtue of my parts, I guess my judgment may be clouded by those very same parts, so I had best leave that sexist definition up to the rest of you to decide. (that is as long as your parts are deemed acceptable)

--------------

Some related background on the esteemed Liberal Senator:

From a letter written to an American family concerned with the seal hunt: They should be more concerned with "the daily massacre of innocent people in Iraq, the execution of prisoners -- mainly blacks -- in American prisons, the massive sale of handguns to Americans, the destabilization of the entire world by the American government's aggressive foreign policy, etc." than the seal hunt.

Criticizing Alberta's Culture:  discussing statistics and how support for her bill was "off course" lower in Alberta than in Quebec because "we don't have the same culture" and went on to say in way of an explanation after being called out by host Tom Clarke "I am just telling you that maybe we (Quebec) have the appropriate way of dealing with children and education is different then hitting a child."  Not that her arrogant and clueless statement was enough she went on to laughingly say "We have some support in Alberta? That is news for me."

Filing a complaint against CTV and Bob Fife for doing their jobs, with just a bit of libel thrown in for good measure. ( "...and CTV is paid to broadcast these schemes.")


Where is Justin Trudeau and the "party of the charter" when you really need them?



Related: BC Blue on Payette.

Interesting Youtube video on affirmative action.

Congratulations Michael Ignatieff, You are now Number 1!

I believe in giving credit where credit due, and Michael Ignatieff deserves full credit and a hearty congratulations for finally reaching #1.

Number one at what you ask; read on...

Michael Ignatieff has now reached the top spot on the list of  Members of Parliament absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons and is clearly #1 at skipping out on his job of representing the people who elected him to be their voice in Ottawa in order to do other (and I assume more important to him) things. In essence proving that he is in it for himself.
 
Ignatieff's voting record:

In the 40th Parliament, 3rd session (March 2010 - Present) out of the 125 recorded divisions, Michael Ignatieff was recorded as absent a total 96 times which works out to him missing votes 76% of the time.

                                            76%

While you may be personally shocked by the 76% figure, missing votes in Parliament is really nothing new for Ignatieff.

In the second session of the 40th Parliament (Jan 2009-Dec 2009) Ignatieff was recorded as absent on 76 separate recorded divisions. When taken together with his 3rd session record (above) it brings the total to a whopping 172 times that Ignatieff has been absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons since his election undemocratic appointment as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in Dec 2008.

That is a lot of absences by anyone's standard but what makes it even harder to understand is that it is Ignatieff and the Liberal party who scream the loudest  in front the media about getting back to work, working hard for Canadians, padlocking parliament, and spinning to the people that the Liberals are working hard at being a realistic alternative in the next election. They like to talk a good game but the record of Ignatieff and the Liberals proves otherwise. ( Note the total number of Liberals in the top 50 of that list. 72% are Liberals while just 6% are Conservatives. Bonus: for added fun scroll down the list to the bottom and note which party clearly has the best voting record.)
 

So stand proud Michael. The top spot is now yours and you continue to be a shining example of how hard the Liberal Party of Canada works for themselves on behalf of the people of Canada. Today is your day Michael; enjoy it.





Preemptive counter spin: You may hear that one of the reasons that Ignatieff missed so many votes was because he does not vote on private members bills, but don't believe it because that is nothing but a flat out lie.

Ignatieff tries to bridge the enormous gap between men and women.

Michael Ignatieff was busy campaigning again yesterday holding another open mike event and taking questions from the public. The previous one didn't go as well as he had hoped and from initial reports it looks like this one may have ended up the same way.

Some have said that last night Ignatieff discovered his feminine side, but if you take a look at what he actually had to say I would suggest that it was more like Ignatieff found his inner caveman rather than any so called 'feminine side'.

 Here is what he had to say while speaking about the recent Russell Williams murder trial:

 "I don't quite know what it's like to look at that news through a woman's eyes, but I can sort of imagine how difficult that week has been," 

"The thing that's so awful about this week is the breaking of that basic trust that we have to have between men and women in order to raise families, live with each other, work together as citizens. And a very bad man did that a lot of harm this week."


Yup, that was Michael Ignatieff claiming in one breath that he can't imagine what women must have thought about the Williams trial, but yet arrogantly claiming in another breath that relations between men and women ( every single one of us) has been somehow set back because of what some individual wacko did. I am sure every woman in the country is now eternally grateful for having Michael Ignatieff around to tell them about their future relations and trust with men and how they should be feeling rather than allowing them to think and feel for themselves. A true feminist ever their ever was one!

Think I am taking that a little bit too far?  Just take a look at what else Ignatieff had to say, this time after a female University of Ottawa student asked him if he's in touch with his "feminine side" and able to represent the concerns of women?"

"I think it is true, in fact, that men and women both have a feminine side and a masculine side.

And thank God we do. It's one of the things that allows us to get over that enormous gap that separates men and women."

I will leave the stereotypical comment about the so called  'feminine and masculine' sides alone because Ignatieff was more than likely just searching for a quick way to respond to the question and didn't realize how utterly cookie cutter and un-progressive it was, but I do need some serious clarification on his next comment about that "enormous gap" that separates men and women.

What exactly in Michael Ignatieff's mind makes up this enormous gap? I doubt that he was referring to biological differences or even something like wage parity because those would make no sense in terms of context, so just what was Ignatieff talking about. 

Are all women more emotional or have different emotions than men, do they think or act differently, are they less rational, capable, or intelligent than men, or maybe women really are from Venus while men do come from Mars. 

I don't know the answer to what he meant with his enormous gap comment but believe me when I say that I am looking forward to watching professor Ignatieff trying to spin answer that question today. That is if some in the media care enough to call him out for these obviously stereotypical remarks.

Time to be open with all of us Mike. If you would be so kind as to please define for us what you believe that enormous gap that separates men and women is, those of us who believe that men and women are equal would appreciate the clarification and no doubt we all would be better off for it.


Update: so far no one in the media has asked Ignatieff to clarify his comments but Scott Feschuk called them  'beyond f'ing stupid' and Andrew Coyne called the comment 'beyond asinine'.

Charles Adler deals with Iffy's comments in his monologue. Brings up a good point about Ignatieff dividing men and women.

Michael Ignatieff lies to highshool students.

Michael Ignatieff took yet another day off of work on Monday and went to Guelph Ontario where spoke to students at Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic High School, and proceeded to flat out lie to them. Yes, lie!


Question: "Why did you walk out on the vote regarding American war resisters being granted permanent refugee status in Canada?"


Ignatieff's Answer: "I don't vote on private members bills. It's a technical detail, it's not a matter of me walking out, I just don't take positions."

The truth: Ignatieff lied; he has voted on private members bills ( During the 40th Parliament’s 3rd session Michael Ignatieff voted 6 times on Private Member’s Bills and 3 times in the 2nd session) and in fact on Candice Hoeppner's private members bill on the gun registry, not only did he vote on it himself but he also forced all Liberal MP's to take HIS position on the issue by whipping the vote (Perhaps the only time in history where a LPC leader did so on a private members bill)

Here is a list of the private members bills that Ignatieff has voted on while leader of the LPC: 40th Parliament, 3rd Session: C-391, C-471, C-309, C-310, C-311 40th Parliament, 2nd Session: C-291, C-308, C-391


HT Brian Lilley




Mike MacPherson, principal of Lourdes high school, said Ignatieff’s visit was an exceptional opportunity for the students to learn more about political leadership in this country.“Education is the world,” he said, “and when we allow our students to be a part of the world, we enrich their experiences.”

Indeed it does, and having the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada lie to his students is one of those real world experiences that I hope is never forgotten.

Related: Another education related lie. Ignatieff talks about his "publicly funded education".

Mark Holland faces reality and apologizes, something he said he would never do.

Liberal MP Mark Holland, of secret box fame, has issued an apology after asserting back in March 2008 that he would not: Mr. Holland, the MP for Ajax-Pickering, yesterday said his comments did not warrant an apology and said that no bullying or legal threats would stop him from searching for the truth...

OTTAWA, Oct 8 /CNW/ - Today Mark Holland made the following statement with regards to the legal action between him and Mr. Chris Froggatt:
In an interview broadcast on CTV Newsnet on March 5, 2008, I made certain statements regarding Chris Froggatt, then Chief of Staff to Canada's Minister of Environment, and communications between Mr. Froggatt and the Ontario Provincial Police. I have since determined that my concerns regarding Mr. Froggatt were unwarranted. I apologize to Mr. Froggatt and retract the statements that may have caused grief to him and to his family.
This action has now been settled to the mutual satisfaction of both parties.

Here is what Mark Holland said in the House (March 11 2008) on this subject and how he claimed it was his privileges being violated. In other words he had no clue and thought he could say whatever he wanted wherever he wanted.

I have repeatedly questioned the Minister of the Environment about his involvement in both the actions of Mayor O’Brien and his dealings with the OPP in this matter. It was those questions that led to the CTV Newsnet interview, of which Mr. Froggatt now complains.
It is clear that the primary goal of Mr. Froggatt is to prevent me from continuing to raise the very serious questions that I have about his actions and the actions of the Minister of the Environment with respect to the OPP investigation.
Mr. Froggatt is well aware that he is unable to directly control what I say in this House. As a result, he has chosen to attempt to intimidate me outside the House by threatening a lawsuit should I refuse to withdraw my earlier comments and refrain from accusing him of inappropriate activity.
I believe that the involvement of the Minister of the Environment in a bribery scandal and improper interference by the chief of staff to a minister are two issues that are clearly of public importance. Indeed, I have laid these issues before the House on a number of occasions. Mr. Froggatt’s attempt to stifle debate is clearly a violation of my privileges.

Smack down #1 from Peter Van Loan:

The fact that one is a member of Parliament does not give one licence to make reckless accusations that harm the reputation of any individual in this country, regardless of one's position or status.

     Any comments that are made outside of this chamber, outside of one's direct role in the House, are comments for which a member must assume responsibility, comments which they should recognize have risks and that they should have a basis on which they can defend the truthfulness and accuracy of those remarks...

  We protect members within the House to allow for freedom of speech but we also respect the rights of every citizen and recognize that there is a difference between what Parliament means and what the House means. It is by virtue of membership and participation in the House that those privileges exist. It is for the protection of what happens in this chamber that those privileges exist. It is not to give individuals licence to engage in reckless behaviour and destroy people's reputations without any basis, which is exactly the conduct that the member continues to engage in outside the House.

    On that basis, he must, as any other citizen outside the House, be prepared to defend those comments, not to cry like a baby that he is not allowed to say what he wants. He must assume the adult responsibilities for the truth of the comments he makes. If they are not true, then he should own up to the lack of evidence and own up to the lack of truth and be prepared to defend those words in court. That is all he is being asked to do.

Holland still did not get it:
 Mr. Speaker, my comments are very clear. I stand by what I say both in this House and outside of this House.

    The issue is when members of Parliament in trying to execute their duties as members of Parliament ask legitimate questions of the government about matters of deep concern to the country, matters that are well reported, are sued by individuals who try to do indirectly what they cannot do directly, to try to intimidate individuals into not asking legitimate, fair questions on matters of fact, in my opinion, that is a serious attack upon the privileges of members of Parliament.

     I believe the courts are being abused and used to try to stifle the abilities of members of Parliament to ask questions.

Smack down #2 From the Speaker: The complaint was all about statements he had made on a television program, and those are not ones that are subject to parliamentary privilege.
As has been pointed out by the hon. government House leader, a privilege exists in respect of statements that members make in this House, but also in committees. Something he neglected to mention is that comments in committee are also protected. Statements made outside the House are not protected. If the hon. member received a letter that alleges he said something that was defamatory of someone else–and that is what I sense from the segment he read–somewhere other than in the House, then the question of privilege is not available to him to have this matter somehow protected under that guise.


Now if only if he would apologize to Alberta for his remarks about nationalizing the oil sands.  Transcript of conversation here, Hollands letter denying his own words(and slamming Premier Stelmach) here.

Anyone see a pattern here?

ht The Phantom Observer 

Related:
Stephen Taylor gets letters (where is the media coverage?)


Update: October 15th (1 week later)   The Canadian MSM FINALLY picks up on the story.   What took them so long, and more importantly, if this was a Conservative does anyone really believe that the CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, etc would have not have been all over this story from day 1 as opposed to the ZERO coverage it has received by them? 

Ignatieff working on his quest to be Number 1!

Michael Ignatieff wants to be #1 and he is 'working' hard to gain the title.

No, I am not talking about the PM's job, although I am sure he wants that as well, but rather Mr. Ignatieff seems to be trying hard to be #1 on the list of MP's who are absent from work and miss votes in Parliament.

Ignatieff is currently sitting in second place behind Bloc MP Jean-Yves Roy ( who is expected to retire in October 2010). With Roy's retirement upcoming and judging by his record since Parliament returned just last week, Mr.Ignatieff has already missed 4 out of the 6 recorded votes, Micheal Ignatieff is a sure bet to reach the number one spot very soon.

Good luck on reaching your goal Mr. Ignatieff, we will be watching your progress closely as you set out to become the #1 dead beat in the House of Commons all while at the same time telling us how hard you and your party are working for Canadians.



Here are some details on a couple of the votes that Ignatieff has been absent for since the House resumed sitting:

C 308 to amend the Employment Insurance Act.  (Yes, it is true. Ignatieff was absent for a vote on changing EI, the very thing that only 1 year ago he had threatened to force an election over!)

C 440 Gerard Kennedy's latest attempt to allow war resisters, who knowingly volunteered to enter the US military, to stay in Canada.   (Way to support your own MP's Iggy, but to be fair I don't think Iffy likes Kennedy very much. Hey, it is not like Ignatieff is not being consistent on the subject. Wait a minute...)


Update: Ignatieff wonders why the Liberals are not doing better in the polls (This guy shows us time and time again that he has no clue but yet expects Canadians to support him and his CONSTANTLY changing positions. What arrogance.

Rosemary Barton responds with fallacious reasoning

The CBC Rosemary Barton finally responds to comments she made on live TV during the long gun registry vote. See blog post on the quote here and listen to the actual quote for yourself.

The original quote: " ..it may be fair to point out that the Conservatives are whipped on their position here, so even of there was a Conservative MP from Quebec that didn't feel comfortable taking this position they would be forced to vote ah with their party in the same way the Liberals were."

Here is what she had to say today on Twitter. (my thoughts in parenthesis)

From BC Blue: @RosieBarton Rosie, is it true you called the Con caucus "whipped" on the Registry vote?

RB Reply:  @bcbluecon I said they were voting along party lines. Is that wrong?  (that is not what she said)

My reply:  @RosieBarton Actually you said CPC "are whipped on their position here... forced to vote with their party in the same way the Liberals were.

RB: @Albertaardvark do you have proof that's wrong?  (No proof for her statements, asks me to disprove her words instead)

My reply: @RosieBarton I know it is wrong but I didn't make the statement. BTW do u have any proof for your allegation?

RB: @Albertaardvark well, I guess we'll just disagree on what we know then. Cuz I'm not sharing either.

My reply: @RosieBarton So U will not offer proof of YOUR statement but it is up 2 me 2 disprove what u stated.Is that how accountability is done @CBC? 

Wow. The logic she is using  is mind blowing. No proof or defense of her own statement but rather she calls on me to disprove her words! I believe that this would be called fallacious reasoning and I can't seem to find it anywhere in the CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices.



Try that same logic with this one Rosie:
I say that the CBC has many Satan worshipers in its employ.*    Prove me wrong! 

The burden of proof lies with the person making the affirmative statement, and should not be placed on someone else to disprove that statement, which in the case of Satan worshipers at the CBC or the existence of unicorns would be impossible to do.






I thought I did a good job of showing why there was no need to whip the CPC to vote for what is a CORE policy of the party on this vote in my original post but let me add another quick point. Michael Ignatieff is out on record, multiple times, saying that he is whipping the Liberal vote, there is no record of PM Stephen Harper doing likewise. Does that sound like CPC MP's were "forced to vote ah with their party in the same way the Liberals were."


* exaggeration  for effect. Or was it. Prove me wrong.







UPDATE: Rosie, who it appears can't take criticism or defend her own statements, has blocked me from following her on Twitter.  Stay classy Rosie.


Latest Update 25 Sept: Rosie has now Protected ALL of her Tweets from being viewed. You now have to be one of the elite few selected by her to have the pleasure of seeing what she does while at work at the CBC on your dime.




  

That didn't take long.

Just hours moments after the 153-151 vote on the fate of Bill C391 earlier tonight was completed, the Liberals were already playing politics with the result and sent out a fund-raising email. That didn't take long but who could be surprised after the Liberals, along with some friendly media, played this little bit of politics earlier this afternoon.

Here is some of the email:

This is your win.

When we asked, you spoke up for Canada’s public safety in your community and online. You donated so our Women’s Caucus could spread our message across Canada in the critical final days before the vote. And when Jack Layton refused to take responsibility for his NDP caucus, you phoned his office and told him to get the votes no matter what.

But this is just the start of this parliamentary session, and there will be much more to do in the weeks and months to come. So I’m asking for your help again today, to ensure that we can meet the next challenge as effectively as this one.

Today’s vote is a perfect example of how a strong, well-funded opposition can fight for your values in Ottawa and hold this divisive, confrontational Conservative government to account when it refuses to listen to you.

But today’s victory also comes with a dark cloud.

That dark cloud is the possibility that Stephen Harper approaches every issue the House faces this Fall with the same bitter and acrimonious tone we saw during the gun registry debate.

Canadians like you are calling loudly on politicians to work together more cooperatively. We’re listening to you, just as we did throughout the summer as the Liberal Express traveled over 56,000 kilometres to every province and territory...

The Liberal Party of Canada represents the only progressive, compassionate and responsible alternative to Stephen Harper and his politics of division. Your support today will make all the difference tomorrow.

Thank you,

David

---
David McGuinty
Liberal House Leader
Liberal Party of Canada

Literally moments after; how did David find the time?

More like this email was already to go before the vote even took place, but to be honest I would have liked to have read the other email they had ready to go; the one that was written in the event they had lost the vote. I doubt it would have been much different than this one, perhaps going more after the NDP and PM Harper may have been painted as even more evil, but I doubt they would have started it off by saying 'this is your loss'.

For the party that wants political games stopped, the Liberals did everything they could today to prove that claim false.

You need more: Here is Bob Rae and Ralph Goodale NOT being overly partisan or playing games. (PTBC)

The MSM catches up and Ignatieff spining history away.

The MSM finally catches with a story I broke almost 1 year ago about how PM Harper is in cahoots with the Montreal Canadians for what can be described only as nefarious purposes.

From the MSM Yesterday: “I believe that federal powers have taken over the Canadiens,” (PQ language critic Pierre Curzi) and “It helps federalism more than it does our interests,” (PQ Leader Pauline Marois) CBC, the Sun and the NP.

My posting from October of last year.*

Sources close to the Liberal Party have revealed to me that they are planning a press conference later today condemning the fabled NHL team, the Montreal Canadians, for this logo.
According to my source (Thanks Hedy) not only does the "C" look remarkably like the "C' on the current line up of Olympic apparel , the "H" in the middle obviously stands for "Harper".


*related to this.

Also related:

Michael Ignatieff showed us yesterday just how skilled he is at keeping a straight face while simultaneously speaking out of both sides of his mouth to the media.

"John’s not off to a great start, but we still have to take the high road. I have a responsibility to be tough but civil." and “Canadians don’t like that kind of politics. That’s one of the reasons this guy’s in trouble,” Mr. Ignatieff says. “He thinks it’s all so clever to play these games. Canadians don’t think that’s clever, they think it’s stupid.”

Seriously, the leader of the Party that played political games with: (a small sampling from just this last year.)

the Olympic logo (see above)

abortion

the Jaffer story

the budget vote

prorogation

photo contests

10% ers, H1N1 and FAKE body bags stories

stimulus spending (this one is still on-going)

the home renovation tax credit

threatening elections on principle and then denying it

wants us to believe that his is the party that is trying to make Parliament less toxic.



Sorry Mike but I am calling BS. A party, that to this day refuses to apologize for trumping up a made up story about a communion wafer at a funeral with which they used to try and make political hay out of, can't run around claiming to be the party of the high road and get away with it.

Why the media lets him get away with it I will never know.



More examples of the Liberal high road.

If Don Newman doesn't like Fox News, why did he steal Bill O'Reilly's slogan?

Most of you are already aware of the proposed "right leaning" news network that is being put together by Kory Teneycke for Sun Media and the recent bizarre article written by Don Newman against such a network.

I use the word bizarre for a couple of reasons. First because nobody who works at a government funded network that does not have to raise it's own money to operate has any business ever criticizing a privately funded network, which is forced to compete against it's own government (CBC), and second, because Newman spends more time writing about the merger of the Liberals and the NDP ( BTW Don believes this to be some kind of conservative plot which shows just how messed up his thinking really is) than he does about the proposed new network.

Don writes in his article that "Fox News has been hugely polarizing. It specializes in drive-by attacks and misrepresentations, and is positively Orwellian at times, claiming to be "fair and balanced" while implying that its competitors aren't. The reality is that it mainly spews out propaganda that is dangerously misleading and often factually wrong."

This is all kind of funny considering that Don Newman, while he was the host of "Politics" on the CBC, "borrowed" the well known tag line (The spin stops here) from the very popular Fox News show The O'Reilly Factor (the highest rated news program in the USA).

I guess when you use the "propaganda" for yourself Don that makes it all OK. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour and stay retired.




Bonus video courtesy of Proud to Be Canadian who has been on top of the shenanigans at the CBC for years.

Bill O'Reilly on Don Newman and the CBC: "The theft starts there."

More rental problems for the Liberals.

The Liberals seem to be having issues with rentals. We had the $1,500 Taj Mahal of toilets rented for a media event where the Liberals were trying to spin excessive spending by the conservatives, we had Judy Sgro who 'gave' her condo to her children and then proceeded to pay them $1,800 a month rent for that same condo for the past four years, and today comes the revelation that another Liberal MP might also be paying rent to a member of his family.

The Chronicle Herald ( alternate link) has been trying desperately to get in contact with Scarborough Centre Liberal MP John Cannis for information on his residence in Ottawa, a condominium owned by his wife Mary, and whether he is paying her rent and claiming it as an expense, which is strictly against the rules. Without a comment from Cannis we cannot know for sure if he is paying rent or not, but what is interesting is that a former Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi shared Cannis’s apartment until he was defeated in the 2008 election. Telegdi said Thursday that he made out his rent cheques for $800 a month to Mary Cannis. It should be pointed out that Telegadi was not breaking any rules by paying rent to Mary Cannis as she is not related to him in any way.

Stay tuned. I am sure Mr. Cannis will come forward soon with an explanation now that he has a little more incentive to do so.


Have a good weekend everyone; blogging will be slow as the sun is finally shining and there are too many things to get done around the ant hill.

Liberals shield Derek Lee from answering questions

The Liberals shielded one of their own from testifying about alleged lobbying at the same Commons committee where they have raked Rahim Jaffer over the coals about the same issue.

But when Lee arrived to face MPs, he argued the government operations committee was not the proper venue for answering those types of questions.

His caucus colleagues used up much of the allotted time with long procedural arguments and Lee left without having to respond to questions.

How utterly hypocritical. I think I now know why Liberals are in favour of the gun registry; they have a tendency to shoot themselves at every opportunity.


Kady live blogged the meeting here:

Some highlights: Martin grumbles that, as far as he can see, the chair has failed in exercising her duties as an independent, nonpartisan chair, what with allowing those heavyweight Liberals to hijack the meeting, and the witness to take part in the meeting, as though he were a member. He makes the absolutely legitimate point that this is just the sort of highhanded behaviour that he sees on the other side of the House, with ministers refusing to allow staffers to testify. Again, score one for Martin, who is absolutely right.

Warkentin tries to make it sound like there are more questions than answers, which, I've got to be honest, isn't really the case -- at worst, it's the same number as when it started. Well, other than the timeless question of why the Liberals are being such complete idiots, but it's not really fair to make it Lee's job to answer that one.

Ratansi grumbles that she actually gave her ruling way back at the beginning, but it went unnoticed. Probably because you managed to so in such a confusing, convoluted and contradictory way that they were honestly unaware of it. With that, she -- adjourns the meeting. Because that's what she does. Sigh.

Marlene Jennings cares about members of political parties.

Conservative Party members.

Marlene Jennings Liberal MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine and deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Canada must be concerned as she wrote a letter to the PM asking why Helena Guergis was removed from caucus.

The opposition Liberals have sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, demanding to know why Simcoe-Grey Member of Parliament Helena Guergis was booted from the Conservative Party.

Too bad that this is an internal party issue that Jennings, or any other Liberal for that matter, have absolutely no business concerning themselves with; but in Jennings defense she does seem to have a soft spot for people being allowed party memberships. She is on the record as saying that Liberal organizer and disgraced adscam figure, Marc Yvan Coté, should be allowed to return to the Liberal Party after having been BANNED FOR LIFE, even though Cote did not ask to be reinstated.

"I think that Mr. Dion is right,'' while speaking with reporters adding "There are people we would like to see back in the party." Jennings said the "public notoriety'' surrounding his testimony and expulsion from the party was punishment enough for Cote. "He's definitely paid for it."



Marlene Jennings, always thinking of the little guy. Her compassion for others is legendary!


Updated: Thanks to Martin in the comments.

Here is what Marlene was saying just a short time ago. (March 11th, 2010 / 2:35 p.m.)

Marlene Jennings Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, the calls for public accountability from the Minister of State for the Status of Women and Rahim Jaffer are growing louder every day. They are being called the Bonnie and Clyde of the Conservative Party. They are young, Conservative and above the law.

Members of the Prime Minister's inner circle, like Kory Teneycke, are saying that the minister owes an explanation and an apology and that Rahim owes the same.

Is what the Prime Minister meant a few months ago when he sang “I get by with a little help from my friends”, I get high with a little help from my friends?