Today's PC smear: Conscience rights. But what is the role of government?

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

"
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.                                    "

Our Charter provides us as individuals with certain rights, and is intended to protect us from any government passing laws infringing on those rights.

So would anyone who is currently aghast about the PC smear du jour of conscience rights and spinning that rights are going to be violated, why should anyone have to surrender their charter guaranteed right of freedom of conscience just because they happen to 'work' for the government?  And that invitation also includes Premier Redford, a lawyer and 'human rights' expert, who called the conscience policy "frightening". Our charter is frightening?  I don't think so but would be happy to hear you try to defend that and your playing politics with charter rights.

So now that we got that charter right business out of the way lets look at what the governments role in all of this is, or at least should be.

Someone is entitled to receive a 'government service'. They get that government service.

Done. That's it.

That is the role of government.

It isn't to force a specific individual to surrender his freedom of conscience by forcing them to perform that service, it is just to make sure that the service does get performed.

And that is why this isn't near the issue that it has been blown up to solely for political reasons. The truth is that no one has been denied a government 'service' because of conscience rights and everyone who has been entitled to be married has been given that opportunity and everyone who was entitled to any other government service has also received that service.

It just isn't happening and it hasn't happened for a long long time in Alberta and even then it they ended up getting the services they were due through the courts. Because that is what courts are for when it appears that rights collide.

Which incidentally is exactly what Danielle Smith said this morning.

Confusion reigns in the LPC.

Confusion continues to reign supreme in the Liberal Party of Canada.

First we have Ignatieff's claim last week that he would not appoint a new Quebec lieutenant. But his week that sound bite seems to have been tossed out the window as Ignatieff says that he will now name a new Quebec lieutenant. Chucker has the run down and it looks like the flip flop change of heart is due to Ignatieff's obvious confusion regarding the Quebec LP's constitution. For an author and alleged rabid reader he sure has a record for not reading political documents, including the LPC Constitution which he and the "Rosedale gang" trampled on in their hurry to get Ingatieff into Dion's OLO office.

Need more confusion?

Consider this little example: When Ignatieff said the following it seemed at the time to be quite clear "The Liberal party cannot support this government any further. We will hold Stephen Harper to account. We will oppose his government in Parliament." he reiterated this again just the other day when in the House Iffy read his non-confidence motion, but yesterday caucus president Marc Garneau indicated that this was not the case and that the Liberals will evaluate each vote in the House of Commons, and MP Alexandra Mendes agreed that there could be exceptions to categorical opposition to every Conservative bill.

Wow. What is going on over there?


Poor Iggy, when stories like this start showing up regularly in the MSM you know the jig is up.



An older example of Liberal confusion in action from the archives.

.

Getting it done. Early August Edition.

The conservative government continues to get the job done for Canadians while Iggy, the man with no policies, tries and fails miserably with his plan for E.I.

One new free trade deal with Peru becomes reality, with another deal with Panama just on the horizon.

Lets face it, the US economy is a mess and with their new President spending money at a historical pace, it may take more time for the US to recover from the recession than is currently believed. We can not put all of our eggs in one basket and even though the US is and always will be our largest trading partner, we have to try to look beyond our neighbors to the south and expand our markets. These 2 deals along with the recent free trade deal with Jordan are more positive examples of how the Harper Government continues to work for all of us while the Liberals do nothing but complain and get made up stories from the Liberal friendly press.

Ignatieff Speaks in Edmonton.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is in Edmonton for a few days and last night he held a little town hall style gathering where he took questions from the audience. I would put the crowd at about 450, which is larger than Stephane Dion's numbers last July, and has to be considered a good turnout for an Alberta event.

Ignatieff had plenty to say. Here is how it went down.

(long post warning)




The usual local Liberals were in the room, including Senators Tommy Banks, Grant Mitchell, and Claudette Tardif, former Liberal MP Anne McLellan and a host of other committee chairs and organizers. Alberta Liberal party leader David Swann was in the room with a couple of tag along Lib MLAs, and a city councilor.

After a brief mix up as to who was going to introduce Ignatieff, Tommy Banks took the stage and gave a little talk about how lucky we are in Canada to not have the political upheaval that some other countries endure and the reasons that "we have chosen Michael Ignatieff" as the leader of the LPC. I guess Senator Banks had forgotten the details of how Michael Ignatieff became leader and that the members did not 'choose" him or about how popular the coalition was with Canadians, but the partisan crowd ate it up.

Michael takes the stage. I can feel my pulse race ( Sorry about that. I think I may have been channeling Kady O'Malley there for a second.)

Ignatieff warmed up the crowd a bit talking about Canada Day, the size of the "Edmonton" crowd and about an earlier town hall that he had just finished with some members of the Alberta Francophone community. Ignatieff commented that "the west has always been french, never forget that" and that this part of the world has always been french and "always will be french". I am not sure that his explanation of how since we have french names for some of our mountains and lakes it is enough to declare that the west is french,or if he could get away with saying that the east has always been english, but he is the intellectual, not I. He opined briefly on provincial politics by saying that the reason that the room was full was partly due to the "monopoly party government" in the Province of Alberta, but quickly returned to federal politics by taking a shot at the Harper government on income trusts even though that horse left the barn a long time ago. He went on to preach for more big government by committing more to education as well as for a state run childcare program. No mention of how he is planing to pay for this, but tonight was not to be about pesky details. He also brought up what to me sounded like a plan to regulate, or more than likely just a plan tax the crap out of, certain foods/additives in the name of health. If you use salt, sugar or oil you had better watch out because Ignatieff is coming for you and your wallet if he ever gets elected. I found it kind of ironic for Ignatieff to be talking about this while half of the audience was still chowing down on their double cheeseburgers with sides of salty oily salads from the Liberal fundraiser BBQ attached to the event, but irony and the Liberal Party seem to go well together. He talked very briefly on energy and the need to conserve; screwing up when he said "not getting enough miles per litre" which he quickly corrected into "litres per gallon". I have to cut him some slack on this one since as he was visibly tired from what no doubt was a busy day and I screw up more than my fair share on a regular basis to complain about this. To his credit Ignatieff did keep his opening comments relatively short in an effort to make more time for questions from the audience.

Question#1 was about prorogation and the gentleman asked if Ignatieff would do away with the ability to prorogue Parliament. Ignatieff with his answer blatantly borrowed from Barrack Obama as to why he could not do away with this power saying that "is way above my pay grade" to understand the constitutional issues/history of prorogation. Ignatieff added that he too shares the anger of the questioner about prorogation bringing up some of the history of the coalition and how it formed because of the fiscal update with no mention of the provision to cut off political parties from the public purse, which was the real reason that the 3 parties tossed all of their principles aside to form the coalition. Interestingly enough he went on to say how he saved the PM by deciding against going with the coalition idea, which he had just agreed to support, in order to prevent the turmoil that it would have caused, even though he apparently thinks that he could have won an election at that time with polls reading in the 50%+ range for the CPC.

Question #2 related to seniors financial issues. Ignatieff answered by talking about the current economic situation and was very critical (Remember this for later on) of the "51 billion dollar deficit" budget that would stretch into a "170 billion dollars" over 5 years, saying that this is where the PM has taken Canada over the last 3 years. He also talked about a discussion on national pension reform and brought up healthcare costs and how the Liberals would defend the principles of the Canada Health Act by fighting the provinces if they ever "go down those roads" of having any type of user pay private system. I guess he was out of the country for too long or maybe it is above his pay grade to be familiar with this supreme court ruling or that there are plenty of examples where this is happening already in Canada.


Question #3 was on a carbon tax from someone familiar with Ignatieff's history on the idea. Ignatieff hinted that while he still liked the idea of a carbon tax, the political reality of such a tax makes it impossible to implement in a poor economy. He never ruled it out completely say if the economy improves, but votes ("practical politics") seem to be more important than the environment right now for the LPC.


Question #5 was a polite question which basically asked when Ignatieff was going to stop supporting the Harper government and force an election. Now of course he was not going to give a specific date or let too much out of the Liberal bag but he did give some specifics when he said that he would pull the plug if there were not significant changes to EI saying that he will "not settle for anything other than substantial reform". He also again brought up the coalition, praising Dion for forming it, and how it forced what was basically a "bad Liberal budget" to be passed for the benefit of Canadians, but adding that he thought that the coalition would lead to "permanent division" in our society. ( Remember how he hated the deficit budget in question #2, but now says it was good for the country.)


Question #6 was on medical isotopes, which is not above his pay grade to answer it would seem. This one was spin from the start when Iggy said that in 13 years of Liberal government that there was never a loss of isotope production in Canada while in the 3 years of conservative government it has happened twice. Look this is a serious issue but the PM does not take the limo down to Chalk River at the start of each day to crank out some isotopes before heading to the Hill for oral questions, give me a break.


Question #9 was about the recent proposed legislation giving more powers to police/security agencies for monitoring. Lots of fluff in the answer talking about rights but it looked like Ignatieff agrees with the legislation.


Question #11 Asbestos. While in the past Ignatieff has flip flopped on asbestos, tonight there was to be no beating around the bush on this one as Ignatieff answered by saying that "Canada has to be out of the asbestos business. We should not export it and we should not produce it".

The last question of the night dealt with farming and the difficulty with the selling/promoting locally grown products. There was nothing particularly special about Ignatieff's answer so I will not go into it other than to just highlight one comment that he made which sort of sums up why he is not yet ready for the job and shows the kind of trouble that he might find himself in if this was a real election campaign and not just a summer BBQ/speaking engagement. While talking about a book that he was reading just that very afternoon on the plane coming from Toronto to Edmonton, Ignatieff forgot the name of the book. Not a big issue really and not one that should cause much trouble for the Liberal leader, but it was not that he forgot the name, it was the little "joke" that he made about why he forgot that was the problem. Consider what a certain Liberal blogger who claims to be their war room guy, or even what the media would do if the PM had said the following about forgetting the title of the book: "I am having a senior moment I can't even remember its title". Do any of you think that this would not be spun to no end and that there would be a post dedicated to this small snippet possibly called "Making fun of seniors" at the top of his blog or appearing as the headline of a newspaper? It is a good thing for Ignatieff that I am not that petty.



Well that's it, take from it what you will and if you have read this far I thank you for taking the time.


Alberta Ardvark, going into the belly of the beast so you don't have to.

Update: Ignatieff had some thoughts for the press after the event last night.

"Governments have a role in saying there's energy demand out east; are there ways of moving some of that Alberta oil east to Sarnia for refining?
"But it's not for governments to say where the oil should flow," he was quick to add.

But he said it anyway. h/t SDA.


Update and Clarification: There have been some who believe that I have taken Mr.Ignatieff out of context with my use of the "the west has always been french, never forget that" quote. So I am going to do my best to transcribe what he said both before and after the quote and leave it up to you to decide if I did just that.(bolding mine)

"I would like to say one thing. Which is that before this evening began I had a session in french across the road. I had a session in french with members of the Franco-Albertan community of whom they have such a distinguished representative in Claudette Tardif. I saw something wonderful in that hall, which is I saw a great Canadian tradition, uh the west has always been french, never forget that. Yellowhead; where does that come from? It comes from Tête Jaune. Some anonymous (I can't make out the french term used) that named the mountains, that named the rivers. This part of the world has always been french, always will be french. That tradition was in the room, and there is another tradition which has renewed and strengthened our country. People who have came from francophone Africa, from the Congo, from Rawanda ..." He continues on about how great it is to have all of these people together and how it is good for the country.

Out of context? You tell me.

While some people take the summer off......

While some people take the summer off, others are continuing to work.

Take for example this little bit from the news.

While Michael Ignatieff enjoys his summer off and walks in parades that were in a large part paid for by a grant from the Federal Government; that very same Harper led government continues to work for Canadians and signs a free trade deal with Jordan.



Agree or disagree on some of their specific policies, any objective observer would have to admit that the Conservatives have run an effective government. Perfect they are not, but they are getting it done with regards to running that behemoth known as government.

Did you know that since November of last year this government has had 26 pieces* of legislation reach royal assent? Not bad considering the world wide recession, the coup attempt, a forced deficit budget, and a new arrogant Liberal leader who changes his positions almost daily.

*This does not include the crime legislation that is currently being held up by the Liberal dominated senate while coincidentally at the very same time we see Liberal MPs running around the country claiming to be tough on crime.

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

The records of the parties speak for themselves and that is why the next election is going to be much tougher to fight than what most Liberals believe.

Bring it on Iggy, we are ready. Are you?


Update: Another Harper policy that is paying off as Tim Horton's files to make their US division declared a Canadian company for tax purposes. Go Obama!

Update and Repost: More results that even lefties could love.

Nose Stretchers from Stephane Dion at the English Debate.

One big whopper from Stephane Dion tonight during the English debate and a couple of other shady claims that openly contradict his previously stated policies.

Dion's big lie was his claim about the Green Shift that 'The Premiers support our plan as a good one, so you are inventing something' (note: quotes on the fly so accuracy not 100%)

Wow! There is no way that this claim is even close to being true and there is no way that Dion does not already know this unless Rae or Iggy jumped the gun and whacked him on the head with something really heavy. Please, oh please Liberal spin meisters, try to defend this totally fictitious claim by your leader to Canadians.


Some more tall tales from Dion.

Claiming that the Kelowna Accord and the '2006' Liberal childcare plan would be brought back by the Liberals. In fact Dion made the audacious claim that it would happen October 14th if they won the election.

Where to start. On October 14th, even if you could con enough of Canadians into voting FOR the LPC rather than against the CPC, Dion would not be the PM or be in any position to do anything until he was actually sworn in. Duh! If he doesn't get this he has no business being our PM; kind of like Elizabeth May on the Canada Health Act.

Much more shady is Dion's claim that he is bringing these programs back while his own platform does NOT provide the funds for either of these plans. Yes there is partial funding for these in Dion's platform but not anywhere near the levels that were promised by Paul Martin and rejected in 2006 by Canadians.

On infrastructure: Dion first claimed that the Liberals would spend more on infrastructure when in reality their platform only copies the existing Conservative spending and will NOT be an increase at all. Later he made the claim the the Liberals would 'speed up' this already existing spending. Just where in that Liberal platform does this unfunded sped up money come from because Dion made it painfully clear that the 70 Billion of already existing spending commitments, and the timing of those commitments as written by the Harper Government could not be included in costing the Liberal platform.

It just doesn't add up, but that is what you get when you make up policy on the fly.



On healthcare: Dion said that "We saved healthcare." Too damn funny. Was that when Chretien cut billions of dollars in transfer payments from the provinces messing up healthcare to this day, or when the instigator of those cuts, Paul Martin, later fixed healthcare for a generation?


There are more but I think you all get the idea. From carbon taxes, to not going negative in the campaign, or not changing a single comma in a platform that has already been altered on the fly a few times already; Dion cannot be trusted on anything he says and certainly can not be trusted to be our PM.

And what was Paul Martin's view about going to Iraq?

Paul Martin, the "great" Finance Minister who set back health care in this country for years by his cuts of millions of dollars in transfer payments to the provinces for 6 years in a row also had an opinion about Canada joining the US in Iraq.


Any guesses as to what that position was?


Here is what Sheila Copps"There is no doubt in my mind that if Paul Martin had been the leader, we would have gone to Iraq with the United States."

Feel free to look up what PMPM's Defence Minister David Pratt had to say about Iraq as well.

Not for the faint of heart.

As much as I am trying not to sound like side show barker, I would not be good citizen if I did not offer the following warning to all of my readers.

I must warn everyone now that what you are about to hear is not for the faint of heart. If you are hypertensive, have a heart condition, have a weak stomach, are a Liberal, or have any other serious medical issues, we cannot be held responsible for what happens if you choose to listen to the following radio interview. You have been warned!

John Gormley interviews Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff, of The ‘shift’ will transfer wealth from rich to poor, from the oil patch to the rest of the country, and from the coffers of big business to the pockets of low-income Canadians." and Dion's carbon tax is "a green anti poverty plan" fame.


Listen to the interview HERE.



Calling that performance by Ken Boshcoff a train wreck would be putting it mildly; it was a total disaster.

Right from the beginning of the interview Boshcoff is pushing the 'Green Shift is an environmental policy' spin, I guess someone from Liberal HQ has had a little chat with him on this point since his last fiasco, and sounds as if he is reading from a list of talking points mumbling and stumbling around with his spin about how this is a national plan, increased benefits for the country, and about refineries that were NOT built. Listen carefully from around the 7 minute mark as Boshcoff gets knocked of script and falls flat when Gormley asks him the simplest of questions. Ugly; I do not think we will be hearing Mr. Boshcoff do many more interviews in the future.

BTW, to answer Mr. Gormley's question, since Ken Boshcoff had no clue.

Of the 15.4 billion dollars that is expected to be collected with the Dion's carbon tax, the amount that is supposed to go back directly into the environment is zero dollars. Yes that is right, zero. None of the money collected will go directly to environmental measures or technology to reduce CO2. Dion and the rest of the green shift pushers all like to talk about all the money that will flow in to the provinces, universities and business for environmental tech research etc, but Dion's plan provides NO money for this, and the Liberals never say just where that money will come from. They can't say; because the money does not exist other than in the minds of the Liberals trying to spin this pie in the sky nonsense to Canadians and looking like fools in the process.


The facts are the facts and no amount of Liberal spin will change this; the green shift is not an environment plan.

Why we do not hear from more people supporting Dion's carbon tax.

I think I may have figured out the reasons for the almost complete absence of people/groups coming forward to support Dion's carbon tax.

I touched on this before when I asked where most of the Premiers and mayors from the major cities have been hiding on this issue; and here we are almost 2 weeks later, and with a big push(spin) by the Liberals to get the plan out there, we still have not heard from most of this same group. Aside from Edmonton Mayor Mandel, who was not a big fan of the carbon tax, the rest still seem to be absent from the debate. You know things are not going well for the Liberal plan when this normally very vocal group are silent on the subject.

I believe that the same reasons we have not heard much from the other levels of government on Dion's tax, are the same reason we are not hearing from any of the usual Liberal policy supporters; Dion's carbon tax is on all levels bad policy, such bad policy that even the usual suspects cannot support or praise it.

Let's take a look at some areas and see why everyone is so quiet.

The premiers and mayors cannot support it because they know that this tax is going to cost their own governments millions of extra dollars, and that those costs are going to have to be passed on to the taxpayer in the form of added increased taxes or user fees. It is hard to offer support for a plan, not even their own plan at that, where they are going to have tell their own voters that they are going to have to pay a lot more for.

The environmentalists cannot support it because they know that it is not really a plan for the environment. With no real targets, no tax on gas, no guarantees of any real reductions, and the knowledge that the green shift just a wealth redistribution make support difficult.

Poverty groups as well will have a hard time offering support for Dion's carbon tax, even though this tax has been revealed to be another anti poverty Liberal social program but green wrapping. The reasons are very simple; Dion's tax will impact the hardest on the poor than any other group in this country. The promised tax breaks are not going to come close to covering all of the increased costs, that is if some in this category will even get a tax break, with the increased costs for heat, power, food, shelter, property taxes, clothing and just about everything else you can think of going up, those with the least ability to pay those increases will suffer the most. It would be extremely difficult, and obviously two faced, for any advocate for the poor to call for the poor to have to pay even more because of the Green Shift.

Business can be considered a very large and varied group and tough to lump together on opinion, but they hardly could be expected to offer support for something that is going to cost them more right now just to operate, and much more in the future as their employees demand higher wages to deal with their own green shift induced price increases. While as Garth Turner has graciously admitted, "that the ultimate cost will come from consumers", meaning that business will just pass their increases on to us; it will take awhile for that to take place and in the mean time it will cost business' money, and it will kill others completely.


Buzz and the rest of the union leaders are also among those very noticeably absent on this file, and again the reasons should be obvious. The tax will not only hurt business, and business are the ones who employ those that they supposedly represent, but it will also hurt their fellow union brothers and sister with the associated increased costs. Can you honestly imagine Buzz Hargrove standing up and telling auto workers to support a policy that will, if not cost them jobs and seriously harm their industry, it will also take a big chunk out of their salaries to pay for? I don't think most of union members, with their current annual wages and lifestyle, will qualify for the alleged benefits of this poverty plan in disguise, as they will be the ones that will be paying for it.

Child Care Lobby: see poverty groups above.

Economists are another funny group to try pin down for a consensus of opinion on the carbon tax, but there is one thing that 100% of economists will agree on. Dion's carbon tax will cause a noticeable increase to the rate of inflation in Canada, and that can not be considered a good thing by any standards for the economy or individuals. (Liberal spin alert) Finding an economist who praises the green shift without qualifying that praise, is going to be very difficult to find.

Student groups: (late addition) Similar to the reasons that we have not heard from poverty groups; student advocacy groups too are very well aware of the increased costs that students will have to face with the Green Shift. Increases for rent, food, books, transportation, and even tuition hikes can honestly be expected as centres of higher education pass on their own increased costs on to the backs of students.

Your average taxpayer. Well they also have not been heard from much on this issue as of yet, but they will get their chance, and I do not think that Dion will like at all what they have to say.

Did I leave anyone out? Let me know, because with so many silent on Dion's carbon tax, it is hard to be sure I did not miss anyone.

Some thoughts for the first day of Summer

I saw one of these earlier tonight while out for my evening stroll. Is this the future of transportation in Canada post Green Shift?


Kind of cool looking and as a bonus it's Canadian made! Even those not so motorcycle inclined might just give this a look. Nice work Bombardier, but perhaps you might want to consider applying the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle to your website. I couldn't get the site to load properly and annoying potential customers is never a great idea if you are trying to sell me something. No link for you!

-----------

Lots of spin from the Libs on the Green shift but the facts are what they are and it is a dud. I will post more on why I think this at a later date but the carbon tax and Dion are toast.

Fearless prediction: By the end of July, Dion will be fighting off his own party over the blow back his MP's are going to receive from the public over the Green Shift. With the open revolt Dion will be unelectable and effectively done as the leader.

I still think that they will give him his one election, but the party brass are going to be calling the shots and Dion will be just a lame figurehead.

By the way, great job Bob! Writing a policy that was sure to fail with the voters but yet was so appealing to the ego of the leader that he would run with it was pure genius. You will be getting another shot at the title when the dust settles.


.

Dion now wants to kill that very same milk cow.

My MP, Mike Lake, reminds Stephane Dion about some of the things Dion has said in the past about carbon taxes and cows.




And here are a few more things Dion said previously about a carbon tax.

FITNA should receive tax credits from the Canadian government

Or at least it should have if FITNA were made in Canada; according to NDP shill Oscar-nominee Sarah Polley and everyone else on the left crying censorship over bill C-10.

The left and various Harper haters are in an uproar because the government wants to pass Bill C-10 which contains a provision, originally created by the Liberals by the way, which would allow the government to refuse tax credits to film or television productions deemed offensive. Imagine that, a government in its role as the steward of our tax dollars, trying to make sure those dollars are not spent on hard core porn or other such projects that the majority of Canadians would not want that money spent on.

The crux of the argument against c-10 is that someone (meaning a government bureaucrat) would be deciding which projects qualify for the tax credits and which do not. Even though the minister responsible has stated that she will work with the entertainment industry to draw up a precise definition of what projects would be deemed too offensive to receive government tax credits, the lefties are against the idea and are crying censorship. Funny how in the case of films or television productions that many on the the left think that tax money must flow to all projects regardless of their nature, but with other issues such as child care or tax cuts, they are more than happy to decide for everyone just who should qualify, and more importantly, who should not.

Because this deals with the so called arts, does not mean that it should be exempt from any rules. If we are going to be putting tax dollars towards this industry, there must be some kind of rules as to how and where those dollars get spent. It is more than just common sense, it is what I and most Canadians would expect the government to do whenever anyone comes with their hands out looking for our tax dollars.


All this faux outrage makes me wonder just how many of those against C-10 would have an issue with homegrown remake of Triumph of the Will . Or is even Nazi propaganda entitled to our tax dollars without any rules or government oversight? What say you?


Update: Another view from Chuckercanuck on C-10.

Toughening up Consumer Product Laws

The good news stories about the Conservative government continue with yesterdays announcement of an overhaul of Canada's outdated product safety laws . Some of these old laws and regulations have not been updated in decades nor have they kept up with the changes of todays world wide economy. At least not until yesterday.

In what has already been a good week for getting things done for Canadians, this can only be called another feather in the cap of the Prime Minister.

Congratulations Mr. Harper on continuing to do what most Canadians expect their government to do; while the desperate Liberals go back in time, almost as long as some of these outdated product laws, looking for dirt to try to smear your government with.

It is all the Liberals have.

Conservatives set record for settling native land claims.

The Harper Government is quietly getting more things done in Ottawa, while the opposition Liberals led by Stephane Dion are too concerned with their own fortunes and internal strife to even bother with their jobs by voting on issues before the house.

From the Globe and Mail:

OTTAWA — The Conservative government resolved a record number of native land-claim disputes this year in a bid to improve relations with Canada's aboriginals and spur economic development on reserves.

Former Indian Affairs minister Jim Prentice caused a stir in his department last year when he quietly ordered public servants to conclude at least 50 specific land-claim disputes for the fiscal year ending Monday.

Meeting that target was left to his successor, Chuck Strahl, who confirmed yesterday that 54 claims have been resolved, of which 37 involved financial settlements.

"It was a big, all-out effort to do that," said Mr. Strahl, who took over the department last August.

The 34-year historical record of the specific claims process shows the ambitiousness of the target. On average, only 14 claims are concluded each year. The average annual amount paid out in settlements is $63.7-million.

The most productive year previously on record was 1993-1994, when the government paid out 30 specific claims settlements at a total cost of $263-million. The final tab for this year's record number of settlements will be about $70-million, Mr. Strahl said, which is only slightly higher than an average year. Mr. Strahl acknowledges that the department likely went after some of the simplest disputes to meet the demands of their political bosses.

"You want to do the low-hanging fruit first, that's for sure," he said. "I certainly gave no instruction that way, but it wouldn't surprise me."

Sources told The Globe and Mail that some native leaders expressed concern to Mr. Prentice that the bureaucracy would stop negotiating while the federal government established a new specific claims tribunal. To assuage those concerns, Mr. Prentice made the 50-claim promise.

The bill establishing the tribunal, C-30, was introduced last November and is still in the House of Commons. The new tribunal would have the power to make $250-million in settlement payments a year for 10 years with the aim of reducing the backlog of nearly 800 claims. Mr. Strahl expressed frustration that the bill has yet to become law, given that it has broad support.

"I am starting to get concerned about it. It's always possible an election could interrupt the process," he said.

There are two main types of land claims. Specific claims involve native communities arguing that their land or money has been stolen or misused. Common examples include reserve land used for highways or rail lines without compensation. From 1927 to 1951, it was illegal for lawyers to take on native clients for claims against the Crown.

The second type, called comprehensive claims, are usually larger and more expensive. These claims resolve land disputes with natives who never signed treaties with the government or establish self-government arrangements outside of the Indian Act.

Alberta lawyer Ron Maurice represents natives in land-claim disputes and worked with Mr. Prentice at the Indian Claims Commission and in private practice.

According to his contacts, Mr. Maurice said, not all public servants welcomed Mr. Prentice's 50-claim target.

"It's fair to say though that there are probably other people within the [specific claims] branch that saw it as being unrealistic or too onerous," he said.

Mr. Maurice said the focus on resolving land claims highlights a "sea change" in aboriginal policy.

In contrast to the 2005 Liberal plan signed in Kelowna, B.C., that would have spent $5-billion on programs for aboriginals, Mr. Maurice said Conservatives are spending money to resolve land claims in the hope that communities can raise their own revenue to meet social needs.

"I would think it's probably just a matter of course before the government expects first nations to look at their own source of revenues and the settlement of these land claims as one means of funding other aspects of band governance," he said.

Herman Crain, a band councillor with Saskatchewan's Muskoday First Nation, says a recent $10-million settlement will buy urban reserve land in Prince Albert.

He said the community could set up an on-reserve urban convenience store to sell tax-free cigarettes to status Indians living in the city.

"I think doors have started to open now," he said.

With a report from Brian Laghi.

Getting things done while the Dion led opposition run.

Here is a nice little update to the story. Inuit to name Island after PM Harper.

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper could end up with a remote Quebec island named after him following a land-claim deal with the Inuit of the province's northern Nunavik region.

After almost three decades of on-and-off negotiation, the people of Nunavik will get a new national park, new resource rights, administrative controls, and $54 million over nine years...."

Bill 257 is Dead

The vote is in and Bill 257 has been defeated.

The liberals were split on the issue with many voting in favour of the Bill, but those that voted against were enough to stop this sad piece of legislation in its tracks.

A fitting end to a bad bill proposed by the BQ which would have had much negative impact across the entire country.

Like a compass in a magnet factory...

Stephane Dion is pointing in all directions but not really going anywhere.

This is the type of thing that drives me nuts about the Liberals. Right from day 1 of his so called leadership; Dion has been quoting from the Liberal script the usual BS about the Conservatives being neo-con evil right wing ideologues who will destroy Canada.

Now in another breath Dion is criticizing the Conservatives by claiming that they are stealing all the good Liberal ideas.

I know many Liberals have a hard time seeing stuff that is right in front of their faces sometimes but when you call someone, who is supposedly implementing your ideas, evil right wing zealots what does that say about not only your criticism, but also of the ideas themselves? Both criticisms of the CPC cannot be true, and to claim so makes flipper Dion look not so much like the intellectual he is claimed to be by some, but more of a typical Liberal politician who like his predecessors will say anything to get elected.

Garth contradicts his new boss.

Who is telling the truth?

While I was checking out Garth Turners blog this morning I noticed a reply that he made in response to a readers comment about Bob Rae writing Liberal campaign policy. (Source, see the first comment)

Readers comment snipped for brevity ..."The Liberals at this time do not have a platform. It is being written by Maurice Strong’s nephew, and PowerCorp VP John Rae’s brother - former NDP Bob Rae as I understand it....Because the Conservatives had already brainstormed their election platform which you endorsed by running under it you did not like the fact that you were not part of it at that time.
Is this fair comment?"

Garth's reply:
"No, it is wrong. First, the Liberal platform is being written now by elected people. I know, for obvious reasons. Second, the Con platform is already written, and your MP has diddly to say about it. This I also know. — Garth''


Liberal Party press release: December 19, 2006 TORONTO – Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion announced today that fellow former leadership candidate Bob Rae will be Co-chair of the Election Policy Platform Committee for the Liberal Party of Canada ...

Another Liberal Press release: ...Leadership race runner-up Michael Ignatieff will serve as the Liberals’ Deputy Leader, bringing his wealth of knowledge and strong policy background, while fellow leadership candidates Bob Rae and Scott Brison will be in charge of developing the Liberal Party platform for the next election campaign.


Last time I checked, Bob Rae was not currently elected, but Garth does seem to be very sure of himself as he added this part to his comment " I know, for obvious reasons" , so what are the possible reasons for such a statement:

Maybe Bob Rae is on his way out because he opposes Dion's position on the anti terror legislation? Maybe Dion lied to Canadians about Rae's position in the party? Or just maybe Garth is just an idiot and has no clue what he is speaking about? Either way it looks like Garth is up to his old tricks again.

Al

From the Anthill : February 18th, 2007

Time for a catch up post on recent events.

Why all the fuss about Liberal appointed CDS General Hillier bringing up the "decade of darkness" again?

This is not the first time he has used that line in a speech, it is the truth (Liberals all failed history), and just a few months ago PM Harper was being accused of muzzling Gen. Hillier and now when the General speaks out, it becomes another Liberal created imaginary crisis which they would solve if only they were back in power. For heavens sake, please think of Susan Delacourt and her laying awake at nights thinking about those soldiers with guns in our streets, and have some compassion.

Thanks Denis Coderre; you have brought forward a quote by the general that would have otherwise gone unnoticed and not only exposed your partys, as well as your own weaknesses on this issue, but have given the Conservatives a big boost in one of their bread and butter issues. Some free advice for the Liberals:All the spin in the world won't ever make the Liberals look like they are friends of the Canadian Military, that horse left the barn long ago.

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

Speaking of Denis Coderre; he is but one Liberal who sits on the HUMA Committee, which is dealing with the Bloc Quebecois sponsored Bill C-257. This nightmare of a bill has a chance of passing if enough Liberals support it. I would normally not be worried about such a flawed piece of legislation passing because the Liberals have twice voted down similar legislation in the past, but watching Dion flip flop from old Liberal positions and ideas to those of the far left, I am beginning to become a bit more concerned.

My original post on 257.

The NCC has some good stuff up as well.

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

Dion looks to be flip flopping on the Liberals own anti terror legislation, which is causing some degree of problems among the few Liberals left who are not totally Left. I don't agree with Anne McLellan often, but in this case I agree that she is correct when she said this:
"After 9/11, we did not actually believe we were going to have to deal with homegrown terrorists." "The situation today is, if anything, more dangerous and more complex and the powers have never been abused, so why would you take these tools away from law enforcement?"

Do not forget that Dion himself voted for this legislation in 2001. Leadership at work, Dion style.

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

Opposition parties pushed through legislation on Wednesday that requires the Conservative government to respect Canada's commitments under the Kyoto accord. There is just so much wrong with this legislation that I am astounded that Dion could think that Canadians stupid enough to buy into this cheap political trick.

I may be wrong, but I have not seen 1 single MSM organization that supported this move by Dion, as the reality of the situation makes the legislation all but impossible to accomplish (something which Dion HAS admitted himself in the past). This is but one example from the Toronto Star, which judging from the negative stories they have been writing about Mr.Dion lately, that I am beginning to get them confused with the Toronto Sun.
"There is a widespread consensus – stretching way beyond Conservative ranks – that Canada cannot even come close to meeting its Kyoto greenhouse emission reduction objectives in time for the 2012 deadline without launching a major offensive against the energy industries of provinces such as Alberta, and/or inflicting a crippling hit to the already flagging auto industry in Ontario, and/or diverting a debilitating amount of federal resources to a single cause."

Dion puts another nail in his political coffin and Iggy, Rae, Manley and perhaps a few others are probably out buying new black suits in anticipation of the funeral.

A couple of things

The Prime Minister does what is right again and stands up for Canadian values. No doubt the Liberals will twist themselves in knots trying to spin away what the PM is doing, but for the average Canadian watching from the sidelines, this just continues to showcase the leadership abilities of the PM. Putting values before politics; is that not what we want a PM to do?

And from the left another article on Stephane Dions leadership, and how Stephen Harper's past successes can give some hope for Liberals that Dion will grow into the job. Not wanting to be picky here, but in the 'battle of Steve's' there really is no comparison as to which one has the skills. Dion only has his job thanks to some fine political maneuvering between the 3rd and 4th place candidates at the convention, and the fact the real contenders to the title didn't even enter the race. Same article online here ( The Star links go dead after some time)
Enjoy your weekend.

Al

Bill 257, bad for everyone

Bill 257 is a private members bill from the Bloc Quebecois that if passed would ban the use of replacement workers during strikes at federally regulated businesses. This disaster of a bill should not be allowed to pass, and I advise you to check how your MP is planning to vote, because if it does it would give too much power to the unions and could in fact paralyze the country.

Far from being just a bill to limit the use of replacement workers, Bill 257 not only puts limits on what an employer can do during a lockout or strike, but it also puts limits on the union members themselves by not allowing them the choice to go work at their own jobs inside the company. It would force people in unions to strike even if they did not want to, which while bad for free choice and the workers, would help increase the strength of the union. Is it any wonder that all the unions are in favour of this legislation.

As for the employers, this bill would effectively shut them down for the duration of a strike or lockout. During a strike an Employer would not be able to hire any replacement workers, allow any member of the striking union to cross a picket line to work either at his regular job or even at another job in a different location, import his own employees from other locations to fill in , or allow any employee or management to do the job of a member of the striking union.

Did you catch that last line? No one, including management would be allowed to do any job that was performed by a union member. The only thing an employer would be allowed to do during a strike essentially would be to make sure the furnace was on so the pipes do not freeze and lock the doors. A union strikes and the employer shuts down; a unions dream but a nightmare for the rest of us.

Think about that for a moment. The union would not only have the power to shut down telecommunications companies like Bell and Telus (what about 911 service?), but could also shut down air travel in this country completely on a whim. Unions usually choose to strike at the moment where they can do the most damage to their employers and subsequently the public; think postal unions who seem to always go on strike just before the Christmas season, or better yet when was the last time a teachers union went on strike in July when school was out?

This bill give all the power to the unions, does not level the playing field, and has the ability to cripple our country and must be defeated. The Liberals and their new leader Stephane Dion have not yet decided on which way they will go on this, but so far Liberal MP Denis Coderre and few others are looking to be favour of this legislation.

How is your MP planning to vote?

News stories: Here, and here

Blog stories: here, and here

Your comments are as always welcome, and I would like to ask my Liberal friends their opinion on the proposed legislation as well.