Conservatives give away Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and pay the new owners $60 million

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. sold to SNC-Lavalin Group for $15 million - Winnipeg Free Press
Yesterday, the federal government sold crown corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., to the Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin Group. The price tag was $15 million. But, the government also agreed to pay them $75 million for the development of AECL's enhanced CANDU 6 reactors.

Canada retains the rights to royalties on future sales which could reach about $285 million over 15 years (but if these are calculations from the Conservatives, considering their history with math, it is probably much less than this).

About 800 jobs will be cut from the research division.

This sale may leave current projects in New Brunswick and Ontario high and dry, without the promised federal funding.

Does this seem like a good deal for Canadians? I think not. As one commenter said: "Another corporate deal for Conservative friends."

The Conservatives are Looters In Suits - robbing Canadians and giving the money and resources to their wealthy friends.

Nothing here for most Canadians - move along.

Sun News reporter's conduct results in thousands of complaints

Complaints over Sun News interview overwhelm watchdog - The Globe and Mail
No surprise here.

Excerpt from article:

Viewers have sent in more than 4,350 complaints since the interview aired on the Sun News program Canada Live on June 1. The CBSC receives on average 2,000 complaints in total in any given year.

Ms.
Erickson challenged Ms. Gillis to explain why artists like her deserve
public funding. The host shouted over many of her answers, and later
criticized Ms. Gillis for commenting in a different interview that
society has become less compassionate.

“I personally take
exception, and I know some of my colleagues do as well, to your
assertion that we are lacking in compassion when we have lost more than
150 soldiers who have served in Afghanistan, who have put their lives on
the line,” Ms. Erickson told her. “Which is frankly, quite a serious
business, okay, compared with people who are dancing on a stage. I just
don’t get where you get off suggesting that we are lacking in
compassion.”

The council has a code of ethics governing Canadian
broadcasters, which includes a clause requiring “full, fair and proper
presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial.” That clause is
likely to be at issue in this process, said Ron Cohen, the CBSC’s
national chair.

Facebook page: How to help stop Sun News TV hate propaganda

CUPW will challenge the back-to-work legislation

Canada Post union to challenge back-to-work legislation in court - thestar.com
As I was pointing out, the legislation is illegal, and the union is going to challenge it in court.
Now the decision will depend on if Harper has stacked the Supreme Court with enough of his judges already or not.

Stockwell Day sets up a firm to help lobbyists, gets the okay, and denies this is what he is doing

Ethics commission OKs Stockwell Day to start government consulting firm
Stockwell Day has set up Stockwell Day Connex, a company that will help looters in suits to lobby the government of looters in suits - all the while, denying that is what he is doing, and somehow he as got the okay to do this from the Ethics Commissioner.

Read the link.


UPDATE
And, the Ethics Commissioner is not commenting.
This really stinks. I hope there is a meaningful investigation.

Rob Ford: blundering on, tearing down Toronto bit by bit while his fans cheer him on.

Hume: Under Ford, city’s reputation for tolerance is strained - thestar.com
While Ford’s hordes cheer him on in the most unseemly manner, cutting
off their collective nose to spite their collective face, they have
little to offer aside from insults and jeers. Not believing themselves a
part of Toronto, they are content to watch as it is dismantled by the
mayor.

Rob Ford - Ignorant, mean, or both?

Free nurses? No thanks, says Mayor Rob Ford - Healthzone.ca
Well, from our knowledge of Ford so far, we know that he is both mean and ignorant.
This time, he is turning down the offer from the province, of 2 free nurses who would work with new immigrants on disease prevention and would work with the poor to promote health services.

Excerpts from news story:

Mayor Rob Ford has rejected the province’s offer to hire two public
health nurses for Toronto at no cost to the city, drawing rebukes from
both the provincial health minister and a loyal council ally.

Ford’s Monday decision
marked the second time he has opposed a provincial health initiative
that would not have required any city funding. In February, he was the
lone dissenter in a 44-1 vote to accept provincial money for an effort
to encourage residents to be screened for HIV and syphilis.

...

A majority of the hand-picked committee voted with him. But in a rare
display of executive disharmony, budget committee chair Mike Del
Grande, public works chair Denzil Minnan-Wong, planning chair Peter
Milczyn, and and parks and environment chair Norm Kelly opposed.

Said Minnan-Wong on Tuesday: “The province is paying for two nurses
full-time. Why would you say no to additional public health nurses to
help out? Why would you say no?”

Speaking to reporters after the vote, Ford said he was concerned the
city would eventually have to pay. “Who is going to be on the hook for
it once the provincial funding goes? We are,” he said. “We have enough
people in public health right now.”

Filion called Ford’s fear “nonsense.” The nurses would simply cease their work if the provincial funding ever expired, he said.

“It’s a bizarre situation, it’s completely unprecedented, and I can
only assume it’s based on one of two things: complete ignorance of the
facts of the situation, or a deliberate case of using ideology to
trample on the most vulnerable in society,” Filion said.

The nurses can still be hired if a majority of council votes to
overturn the decision. Two thirds of council must first agree to take up
the issue.

Conservative back to work legislastion breaks the law and could result in lasting consequences

To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak the Truth: On back to work legislation. Whoa, deja vu.
Excerpts:
It's worth noting that even lawyers aren't evading it as much as they used to. In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the BC Health Services
case, overturned much prior labour law in favour of reading a right to
collective bargaining into the Charter right to freedom of association.
(As yet, no right to strike. Baby steps.) This implies that, if
governments intervene in labour disputes, that intervention must not
"substantially interfere" in the ability to collectively bargain over
workplace issues.

I should also point out that back to work
legislation is hardly a panacea. In most labour disputes, a back to work
law is passed as a "cooling-off" period -- both sides having gotten a
little entrenched, the government sends everyone back to business as
usual for a time, and then allows them to resume bargaining. The reason
for doing this is that a back to work bill which remands everything to
binding arbitration doesn't settle the underlying conflict between
employer and union. It just boils up again as soon as the collective
agreement expires.
...
[The Conservative back to work legislation regarding the postal strike:]
The part that surprised me, though, is Section 15:

15. The new collective agreement is deemed to provide for the following increases to salaries:
(a) effective February 1, 2011, salaries in effect as of January 31, 2011 are increased by 1.75%;
(b) effective February 1, 2012, salaries in effect as of January 31, 2012 are increased by 1.5%;
(c) effective February 1, 2013, salaries in effect as of January 31, 2013 are increased by 2%; and
(d) effective February 1, 2014, salaries in effect as of January 31, 2014 are increased by 2%.

Either
the government is gambling that CUPW won't take them to court -- or,
possibly, gambling that they can stack the court in time and well enough
to reverse or limit Health Services -- or they have really
shitty lawyers drafting their bills. (Or, I suppose, they didn't bother
to check the constitutionality of this. Harper's arrogant enough; I
would have thought the Ministry of Labour had some competent bureaucrats
vetting these things, though.) As far as I can tell, this does
amount to "substantial interference" in the collective bargaining
process. A key issue in workplace bargaining is wages. The government's
bill not only legislates wages, but does so at levels that are well
under either the union's last offer or Canada Post's. Section 13
(3) seems to eliminate even the arbitrator's power to change the
salaries. Once this bill becomes law, then no one, save the Supreme
Court, could change that contract term.

The only possible
justification I can see the government offering here is a section 1
justification under the Charter -- that the infringement of the right to
bargain collectively is a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. But this takes
us back to the liberty arguments, and the aspects of international law
which are universally in favour of a right to collectively bargain, to
unionize, and to strike.

If CUPW chooses to fight this
legislation in court, the government could be on its way to an
long-lasting and colossal error that will have significant impact on
labour relations in this country. Health Services was decided
because the Gordon Campbell government in BC massively overreached -- it
launched an all-out war on labour in the province (a general strike was
being discussed as a possibility at one point), went too far, and got
the Supreme Court to limit the power of governments to intervene in
labour disputes. Harper may be the next right-winger to go too far, and
force the Court to limit the power of governments even further.

Harper's plans for the Senate will create a showdown against the provinces.

Senate showdown looms - thestar.com
On one side, there will be the Conservative government. On the other side will be the opposition parties (or, at least the NDP) and the provinces - many of which would like to abolish the Senate altogether (as the NDP would like to do).

Excerpts:
Ontario is poised to join Quebec in a constitutional showdown with
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his plans for Senate reform.

Quebec has already served notice
that it is preparing to challenge Harper’s go-it-alone approach to
changing the Senate — arguing that he can’t change a basic institution
of Parliament without the support of the provinces.

...

Such a battle would pit Harper’s majority government against Canada’s
two largest provinces and threaten to open up the kind of
constitutional quagmire that swallowed up the last Conservative majority
government in Canada in the 1980s and early 1990s.

It also could be a sign of a new frontier opening up in opposition to Harper’s Conservatives.

Harper’s main headaches were caused
by his federal political rivals when he had minority control in Ottawa
from 2006 to the recent election. But with a majority in Parliament,
easily able to pass his legislation, Harper may be forced to look
increasingly to the provinces for potential obstacles to his plans.

Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae, a
former Ontario premier, agrees that Harper is out on a constitutional
limb in trying to change the Senate without provincial consent.

“Look, the Senate is a child of the
Constitution of Canada. It doesn’t belong to Stephen Harper,” Rae said.
“It’s all nonsensical. The Senate, if there’s going to be reform, it has
to start with the provinces and the federal government sitting down and
trying to get to an answer. And that’s the beginning and the end of
it.”

Constitutional expert Ned Franks also calls the new legislation “dead in the water.”

“That one is sure to get shot down by
the Supreme Court because that’s a substantial reform and that can’t be
done without the consent of the provinces,” Franks told the Star’s Richard J. Brennan this week.

Ontario is now officially in favour
of abolishing the Senate — a position also championed by the NDP
opposition in Parliament, as well as several provinces such as Manitoba
and Nova Scotia.

“If the government is going to insist
on reforming the Senate, we think it should be abolished,” Smith said,
echoing Premier Dalton McGuinty’s recent declarations on that same
score.

...

NDP leader Jack Layton said Tuesday that the proposed reforms just
reinforce his party’s view that the Senate should be abolished. Just
before the last election, the NDP introduced a bill to hold a nationwide
referendum on scrapping the Senate.

“They are going to create a monster
here, because you will have at the end of the day … an elected body that
may or may not be elected, that the Prime Minister may or may not
accept the recommendations that come out of an election,” Layton said.
“It’s going to be one ugly scene and throughout that generation, we will
spend $100 million a year feeding this beast which will by and large
stand in the way of democracy in this country … It’s a disaster for
Canadian democracy, all wrapped up in the guise of Senate reform.”

New Davenport NDP MP Andrew Cash fighting for justice for Toronto business owners affected by the G20

Ottawa agrees to review G20 claims from Toronto business owners - thestar.com
Excerpt:

NDP MP Andrew Cash (Davenport) accused the government of trying to
bury businesses in paperwork hoping they will “just quietly go away.”

“Toronto businesses inside and around the G20 zone suffered millions
in damages and they are not going away,” Cash said during Question
Period. “It has now been a year without compensation and these folks are
still suffering.”

Baird responded that Cash had “raised a legitimate concern about the adequacy of the funding and are the rules too strict.”

“I am certainly prepared to review that,” he said.

Harper wants 100% control of the media, not just 90%

LAWRENCE MARTIN: Shades of Nixon: The PM’s media suspicions | iPolitics
Harper is aiming to wage a war against the so-called Liberal media - the media of which 90% supported the Conservatives in the recent election. Harper wants control of that last 10%. Read the article.

Excerpts:

Here’s a prime minister coming off a triumphant election, one in
which he received editorial endorsement from 90 per cent of the
country’s newspapers. He has the country’s major media chains in his
corner. For an official opposition, he has a party, the New Democrats,
with barely a single major media backer in the land.

Yet one of
Stephen Harper’s first post-election moves is to mount a vituperative
campaign against journalists. His party president, John Walsh, sends out
a letter soliciting funds to fight what he calls the hailstorm of
negative attacks from the media elite. Stockwell Day joins the fray with
broadsides at the Conservative convention. Senate leader Marjory
LeBreton climbs aboard with fourth estate denunciations.

Does this
have the look of something straight out of Nixonland. We recall Spiro
Agnew, Tricky Dick’s Vice President, and his attacks on the “nattering
nabobs of negativism.” Whether he went so far as to try and publicly
bankroll an attack fund, I’m not sure.

...

The Conservatives’ post-election media strategy is a continuance of
the Harper campaign to limit access to real information. It piggybacks
on the vetting system Harper brought to Ottawa, the roadblocks put up in
front of the Access to Information process, the limits on questions at
press conferences and the like. It’s part of the wider strategy to make
all the Ottawa power blocks — Parliament, the civil service, agencies,
watchdog groups and his own party — more and more subservient.

Even
though the media here is predominantly conservative, even though the
preponderance has been augmented with the arrival of Sun TV, it still
isn’t enough. The PM wants to go further. He wants the fourth estate,
like much of the rest of the nation’s capital, down on bended knee.

Toronto G20: One thug down, many to go.

Toronto police officer charged in G20 assault - thestar.com
Many more officers guilty of assault causing bodily harm will remain at large and uncharged due to a system that fails ordinary citizens when trusted police officers break the law.

Con Reasoning: We're corrupt, so we'll put the most corrupt in charge of the money

Fraud-charged Senator leads Tory fundraising review
Irving Gerstein, Harper-appointed Senator, Conservative Fund Board Chair, who, along with 3 other Conservative officials, was charged in the In and Out affair (election fraud from the previous election), is now in charge of reviewing the party campaign fundraising strategy.

Ontario NDP would cap gas prices

New Democrats will stop price gouging at the pump: Horwath « Ontario NDP
An NDP government in Ontario would set weekly price caps on the cost of gasoline.

Five provinces and many U.S. states have some sort of price cap on gasoline. The benefits have resulted in reduced price volatility, competition and efficiency, and eliminated opportunistic price gouging.

Ontario NDP would role back tax cuts for corporations

New Democrats will scrap McGuinty’s corporate tax rate giveaway: Horwath « Ontario NDP
It's been proven time and again that giving tax cuts to corporations doesn't create jobs for Canadians and doesn't boost the economy. Corporate tax cuts only boost the profit for the corporations.
And, the corporate business parties of the Conservatives and Liberals are all in favour of continuing to give our money to corporations.

So, the Ontario NDP plan to roll back these tax cuts and use the money for Ontario instead of corporate pockets is a very good thing and just makes sense.

Looters in Suits (The Harper Conservative government) outed - again. G8 Spending.

Ministers didn't follow policies for G8 spending: AG - Politics - CBC News
The report shows that the Conservatives spent money in their ridings ignoring their own guidelines and transparency, and without reason, basically looting from government funds to buy votes in their ridings.

See also:
Toronto Star: Conservatives misled Parliament over G8 costs: Auditor General

Brigette DePape speaks out

Why I did it: Senate page explains her throne speech protest - thestar.com:

Brigette DePape

I am moved by the excitement and energy with which people

from all walks of life across this country greeted my action in the
Senate.

One person alone cannot accomplish much, but they must at least do

what they can. So I held out my “Stop Harper” sign during the throne
speech because I felt I had a responsibility to use my position to
oppose a government whose values go against the majority of Canadians.

The thousands of positive comments shared online, the printing of
“Stop Harper” buttons and stickers and lawn signs, and the many calls
for further action convinced me that this is not merely a country of
people dissatisfied with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s vision for
Canada.

It is a country of people burning with desire for change.

If I was able to do what I did, I know that there are thousands of others capable of equal, or far more courageous, acts.

I think those who reacted with excitement realize that politics
should not be left to the politicians, and that democracy is not just
about marking a ballot every few years. It is about ensuring, with daily
engagement and resistance, that the vision we have for our society is
reflected in the decision-making of our government.

Our views are not represented by our political system. How else could
we have a government that 60 per cent of the people voted against? A
broken system is what has left us with a Conservative government ready
to spend billions on fighter jets we don’t need, to pollute the
environment we want protected, to degrade a health-care system we want
improved, and to cut social programs and public sector jobs we value. As
a page, I witnessed one irresponsible bill after another pass through
the Senate, and wanted to scream “Stop.”

Such a system leads us to feel isolated, powerless and hopeless —
thousands of Canadians made that clear in their responses to my action.
We need a reminder that there are alternatives. We need a reminder that
we have both the capacity to create change, and an obligation to. If my
action has been that reminder, it was a success.

Media and politicians have argued that I tarnished the throne speech,
a solemn Canadian tradition. I now believe more in another tradition —
the tradition of ordinary people in this country fighting to create a
more just and sustainable world, using peaceful direct action and civil
disobedience.

On occasion, that tradition has found an inspiring home within
Parliament: In 1970, for instance, a group of young women chained
themselves to the parliamentary gallery seats to protest the Canadian
law that criminalized abortion. Their action won national attention, and
helped propel a movement that eventually achieved abortion’s
legalization.

Was such an action “appropriate”? Not in the conventional sense. But
those women were driven by insights known to every social movement in
history: that the ending of injustices or the winning of human rights
are never gifts from rulers or from parliaments, but the fruit of
struggle and of people power in the streets.

Actions like these provide the answer to the Harper government. When
Harper tries to push through policies and legislation that hurt our
communities and country, we all need to find our inner activist, and
flow into the streets. And what is a stop sign after all, but a nod to
the symbol of the street where a people amassed can put the brakes on
the Harper government?

I’ve been inspired by Canadians taking action, and inspired too by my
peers rising up in North Africa and the Middle East. I am honoured to
have since received a message
from young activists there, saying that we need not just an Arab spring
but a “world spring,” using people power to combat whatever ills exists
in each country.

I have been inspired most of all by Asmaa Mahfouz, the 26-year-old woman who issued a video
calling for Egyptians to join her in Tahrir Square. People did, and
they together made the Egyptian revolution. Her words will always stay
with me: “As long as you say there is no hope, then there will be no
hope, but if you go and take a stand, then there will be hope.”

Brigette DePape is a recent graduate of the
University of Ottawa. She has started a fund to support peaceful direct
action and civil disobedience against the Harper agenda: www.stopharperfund.ca

Let Freedom Rain delves into the corporate media's misunderstanding of DePape's protest.
Jarvis doesn't get it. What needs to be done in this country is to
destroy Canada's conservative journalism. The overwhelming
misinformation and prejudice of our journalists' overreaching embrace of
conservative values and money is what is rotting away in Canada's
psyche. We are tired of a news monopoly owned by the Conservative party.


Brigette DePape broke through that monopoly and made its beneficiaries,
like Jarvis, squirm in their privileged seats. While DePape thrives in
blogs, news stories and on T-Shirts, Jarvis collects cheques for doing
virtually nothing but represent the Globe's beloved Conservative party.

Canada Post cuts home deliver to 3 days a week.

Canada Post cuts home delivery to 3 days a week - thestar.com
I swear that I only get delivery 3 days a week now and in the past few months.
Long before this strike, there have been days when the building has got no mail delivery.
So, for me, this official plan to temporarily cut deliver to 3 days a week will probably not change anything.
I wonder what our mail-person is doing on the days he/she is supposed to be delivering our mail. Maybe if Canada Post cut this person's pay by 40% (for 40% less work being done), then he/she would wake up.

Now, back to the story at hand.
There has been a drop of about 50% in the use of Canada Post to send things. So, they had to reduce the delivery service or lose even more money.

Brigette DePape: Silently speaking truth to power

Brigette DePape: Silently speaking truth to power | rabble.ca
Excerpt:

Brigette was fortunate to have found herself in an unusual position -
privileged yet powerless. On the one hand, she was honoured to have
been selected as a Senate page, a position difficult to attain and one
coveted by students dreaming of political careers. But for someone with
Brigette's integrity and passion for justice, the excitement of being a
page soon wore thin. At some point she realized that it presented a
creative way for her to turn a completely powerless position into an
opportunity to express her political views with the hope of raising
awareness and mobilizing toward change.

In an age when newspapers have the power to influence voters by
endorsing politicians who put business interests before public interest;
in a society where a political party is given a majority government in
spite of demonstrating its disregard and disrespect for the
parliamentary process; and in a society where the acquisition of a
hockey team gets more media attention in one day than many issues of
significant public relevance get in a decade, Brigette selflessly and
brilliantly played the card that she had available to her, in spite of
the unknown consequences to her as an individual.

In this single act of peaceful defiance, Brigette has become a symbol
of hope for many who are concerned with the direction the Harper
government may try to take us in. She has sent a signal to her
generation, and to all of us, that we have an important role to play in
changing that course. And she has re-energized the progressive but often
cynical members of her parents' generation to continue to press for
change. Brigette stepped up when we needed a shot of hope and optimism.

Even Ford's budget chief says Rob's math is hurting Toronto

Don’t kill land transfer tax, budget chair advises - thestar.com
Isn't it curious? All those people bad-mouthing David Miller and his governance of Toronto. Yet, Miller managed the finances well and ended up with a surplus.
Now, those who bath-mouthed Miller have their stooge Rob Ford in office. And Rob has totally screwed up the city finances. First he cuts large revenues for the city, and now he is facing a large deficit of his own doing. Do we hear them bad-mouthing Ford. No. Hypocrites. I'd love to say you get what you deserve, but I, and other reasonable-minded people live in Toronto too. Maybe now some of Ford's fawning drooling lackies on council will begin to realize that voting for everything the mayor tells them to vote for might not be such a good idea.

Ford and his lackies are stifling the city

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things - Torontoist
Excerpt:

Rob Ford and many on city council do not yet seem to have a grasp on
this concept of the living city. It was Ford, after all, who proposed during his mayoral campaign
that we discourage immigration of new people into Toronto until we
figured out how to deal with the population we have. Despite what Mayor
Ford may believe, however, we cannot just hit the pause button while we
figure things out. Any attempt at planning or governing a city through
the pause button is like building a box around a growing plant: the
plant will still grow, but it will become distorted—and eventually it
will burst through, whether you want it to or not.

In cancelling, modifying, or delaying projects—some already funded
and ready to go—Ford has begun to pick at this city, pulling the ends of
what he deems to be small, useless threads. The thing about the city,
though, is that what may seem like small, expendable threads turn out to
be woven and connected to so many other things, that when you tug on
them hard enough something you didn’t expect begins to unravel too.

The greatest mistake of this administration, and the one that will
leave the most lasting legacy of harm, is the simplistic view of the
city as something to be managed and not something to be built, or fed,
or nurtured. The view that aspirational projects are elitist and thus
not worthy of consideration. The view that public spaces suck money and
offer nothing back. The view that if we just squeeze our public services
tight enough a few pennies will pop out.

Senate protester DePape offered job by Michael Moore

Doc maker Michael Moore backs rogue page over stunt - thestar.com
"For a young person to do that and to do it peacefully, and quietly
and with grace, I thought it was a very powerful moment,” Moore told The
Canadian Press on Sunday from New York.

“Every now and then there is an
iconic moment where an individual takes action, and it inspires others
to think about, you know, what else would we be doing.”

...
“It's nice to have the support of people who think critically,” DePape said by phone on Sunday.
...

Moore said a functioning democracy should “encourage you to be disrespectful, to question what is going on.”

“I think that Canada and Canadians
probably need to put aside the full respect thing and bring out their
inner hockey stick and get to work on preventing their government from
turning into a version of ours,” he said.

DePape said she has no regrets about
the incident and remains convinced the best way to stop the Harper
government is through acts of civil disobedience.

“I really think it's only through
inappropriate action that you can challenge the status quo and have real
change,” she said, adding that she's been overwhelmed by positive
feedback from Canadians.

“It's been really inspiring.”

More than a dozen Facebook pages in
support of DePape have already popped up, with names such as “Canadian
hero” and a “True Canadian Patriot.”

“You are such an encouragement for
this old WWII veteran and I so admire your courage and commitment to
this just cause for which you stand so bravely,” said a comment
attributed to Bruce Jones that was posted on one Facebook page.

A “Stop Harper” protest inspired by DePape has already been planned for Ottawa on June 10.

From Moore's web site:

Best Contempt of Parliament Ever!
Speaker of Canadian Senate holds DePape in "Contempt of Parliament" – the same thing Stephen Harper's government was charged with for lying to and concealing information from parliament.

Brigette Marcelle - Stop Harper Facebook page.

Why Do The Poor Continue To Defend Tax Breaks for the Rich?

Why do the Poor Continue to Defend tax Breaks for the Rich
Great post by Cory McCray. This applies to Canadians too.

Excerpt:
Sometimes I just don’t understand why there is always a financially
struggling college kid, a low wage worker, or a middle class citizen
that feel as though they have to go out of their way to defend tax
breaks for the rich. At least once a month I find one person that wants
to argue against their own interest and it continues to baffle me.

Their argument is always that government can’t tax or has to cut
taxes for large corporations or millionaires so that they can invest in
the economy and create jobs. My first question for them is “Have you ever heard of General Electric?”
Here is a corporation that paid zero dollars ($0.00) in corporate
taxes, and received a tax benefit of 3.2 billion dollars. In addition,
they are still shipping American jobs overseas. General Electric has
over 300 tax lawyers that help them evade paying taxes and find every
corporate loophole known to man. They do not need another lobbyist that
is paycheck “free”. The people that need to be heard or need lobbyist
are the middleclass
that had to almost give up their right arm for a tax break, the federal
workers who are receiving a two year freeze in pay, and the state
workers that have been taking furlough days for the last four years.
Those are the people that need to be represented and have their voices
heard.

Read the top link for the full story.

Brigette DePape reminds us of our duty

Some people are upset with the protest in the Senate by Senate page Brigette DePape.
The issue is not when and where and how she protested (in the Senate in the middle of the Throne Speech). The issue is that the Canada that we value and have worked hard to put together and improve is at stake. The electoral system has failed us. 40% of those who voted, a minority, voted for the Conservatives. And, of all the eligible voters, this only represents 24%. With support of only 24% of Canadian voters, we now have a Conservative majority
government that is hell-bent on dismantling our country. Make no mistake - their clear goal is nothing but to loot our country and dismantle all that we value and have worked for.

This calls for drastic measures by the Canadian public to bring more attention to what is at stake, and to put pressure on the Conservative government to not follow through with their plan of destruction, but to properly govern and represent the majority in their policies and actions.

Brigette reminded us today of our duty.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.


Update:
iPolitics.ca - Behind DePape's protest, a question: "What will change things, then?"

A Senate page is fired for saying what most Canadians are saying

Senate page fired for anti-Harper protest - Politics - CBC News

Brigette DePape, a Senate page,  stood on the Senate floor during the Governor General's reading of the speech from the throne holding a Stop Harper sign. She was nearing the end of her term as a page. She was removed and fired.

From Brigette's news release:
"Harper's agenda is disastrous for this country and for my generation,"
DePape said in the release. "We have to stop him from wasting billions
on fighter jets, military bases, and corporate tax cuts while cutting
social programs and destroying the climate. Most people in this country
know what we need are green jobs, better medicare, and a healthy
environment for future generations."

"This country needs a Canadian version of an Arab Spring, a flowering of
popular movements that demonstrate that real power to change things
lies not with Harper but in the hands of the people, when we act
together in our streets, neighbourhoods and workplaces."

Hear hear!

Ford wastes city money painting over art the city had paid for

Artist says city erased mural it paid him to paint - thestar.com
Methinks Ford wanted to paint over the art that was commissioned by an old political foe - Adam Giambrone.

Rob Ford's Gravy Train amount: $2,000 (plus the cost to paint over the commissioned art).

Oh, suddenly Rob Ford DOES have something to hide.

Ford asks court to halt audit of his campaign finances - thestar.com
Last week Ford told the Toronto Sun "There is nothing to hide so let them audit all they want".
This week, he asked his lawyer to ask the court to halt the audit of his campaign finances.

Ford’s lawyer Tom Barlow filed notice alleging the compliance audit
committee “erred in its interpretation and application of the
provisions” of the Municipal Elections Act and “in determining that the
application satisfied the threshold for granting a compliance audit.”
...
The committee’s three citizen appointees, all with expertise in election rules, voted unanimously to launch the audit based on a detailed request by Toronto residents Max Reed and Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler.


Reed and Chaleff-Freudenthaler
focused on questions about Ford’s family company, Doug Ford Holdings
Inc., paying more than $77,000 in early campaign expenses. The campaign
cut the company a cheque for the full amount one year after the current
mayor declared his candidacy.


If that was a loan, Ford may have
broken a provincial law stating candidates can borrow from banks and
other recognized lending institutions, they said. If the no-interest
terms constitute a donation, Ford broke a city ban on corporate
donations.


Barlow argued at the meeting the
holding company was merely one of the campaign’s many “suppliers” of
goods and services, including the salary of the campaign’s policy
director.


But committee member John Hollins, a
former chief executive of Elections Ontario, said that, without interest
or a markup, payment coming that long after the initial outlay “looks
like it’s just a throughput of cash.”


He also agreed there were questions
about whether some events listed by Ford’s campaign as fundraisers, and
therefore exempt from a legislated $1.3 million spending cap, had
fundraising as their primary purpose.


In his four-page appeal notice to the
Ontario Court of Justice, Barlow repeats an argument the committee
rejected — that Ford’s extension from the city until June 30 to file
campaign documents makes an audit order now premature.


Chaleff-Freudenthaler, a Toronto
Public Library board member who has challenged Ford’s spending cuts,
said an appeal on the last day possible shows the mayor “fears greatly
what’s going to come out in an audit.


“He’s pulling out all the stops, after saying the contrary.”


If the court allows the audit to
proceed, and the findings lead to a successful prosecution, possible
penalties for breaching the Municipal Elections Act range from a fine to
removal from office.


The committee declared at the May 13 hearing that a similar request from another resident, Ted Ho, was moot because it raised the same issues.


Since then, another Toronto resident, David DePoe, has filed another request, which the compliance audit is scheduled to hear June 6.

And, you'll never guess what Ford's response was when asked about this:

Ford could not be reached for comment.

See also:
"This Stinks to High Heaven" - Ford's disrespect for taxpayers.

Torontoist: Citizens call for an audit of Ford's campaign finances

NDP support continues to grow after the election

Lack of buyer’s remorse over Tories and NDP bodes ill for Liberals and Bloc - The Globe and Mail
Results from the latest Harris-Decima poll:

Conservatives: 38% (down 1.6%)
NDP: 33% (up 2.4%)
Liberals: 15% (down 3.9%)
Bloc (In Quebec): 22% (down 1.4%)

Also:
Quebec: NDP at a new high of 49%
Ontario: NDP 32% (Conservatives 39%, Liberals 19% (Libs down 6% here))

Rob Ford's lies and bad math catching up to him

Road toll ‘reality check’ stirs up Toronto council - thestar.com
Rob Ford reduced the city income, cancelled a cross-city fully-funded transit plan and then expected to pay for his subway dream with what? In his campaign promises his math was obviously lacking. So was the math of the denizens of the suburbs. Now, when Rob promised no new taxes, tolls or congestion charges, we are to see new taxes, tolls and congestion charges. People with any math skills knew that his plan would cost the citizens of Toronto a lot more money. Unfortunately, we are saddled with this dolt who is royally screwing the finances of the city. Welcome to Ford Nation.

Can I have my old Toronto back please. Oh, sorry, we have to wait until next election before we can get rid of this idiot and his drooling followers who vote to support his destruction. Maybe you people who voted for Rob and are now seeing what a mess he is making could start putting pressure on your councillors, and call Rob (you know, he is supposed to be good at returning his calls - but not to the Toronto Star or any citizens with a beef with his policies), and let him know that his plans stink and to please stop destroying Toronto.

Read the link. Shake head. Make the call.

US Congress to Palestinians - You do not exist

Congress to Palestinians: Drop dead - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
by MJ Rosenberg, Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network.

If anyone had any doubt about whether the Palestinians would declare a state in September, they can't have them now.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu delivered a speech to
Congress that essentially was a series of insults to Palestinians and
every insult was met by applause and standing ovations.

In fact, Netanyahu's appearance itself was an insult.

In the entire history of the United States, only four foreign leaders have addressed joint sessions of Congress more than once.

Prime
Minister Winston Churchill, America's great ally, addressed Congress
three times during World War II. President Nelson Mandela was honored
for destroying apartheid and freeing South Africa. Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin was recognised for opening negotiations with the
Palestinian people.

And now Netanyahu. For what?

In his
entire term in office he has done nothing but reject every request by
the United States that he take some action (like freezing settlements)
to promote Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In the history of Israel,
there has been no prime minister as hardline on Palestinian rights and
as indifferent to the wishes of the United States as Netanyahu.

So why was he invited to address a rare joint session?

He
was invited because the new Republican leadership of the House of
Representatives wanted to demonstrate, loudly and clearly, that Congress
will not support President Barak Obama in the event that he tries to
achieve an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

And that is exactly
what the Netanyahu appearance today did demonstrate. The prime minister
unambiguously stated that he had no intention of making peace with the
Palestinians.

He began by saying that, in point of fact, there is
no occupation, stating, that "in Judea and Samaria [the term Israeli
right-wingers use for the West Bank], Israelis are not foreign
occupiers" but the native inhabitants. (He cited Abraham and Isaiah from
the Bible!)

He said he might consider giving up some of that
land but not an inch of Jerusalem. Additionally, he said that Israel
would retain most settlements and insist on a military presence in the
Jordan Valley (thereby ensuring the any State of Palestine would be
locked in on both sides by Israel).

He said that Israel would
never negotiate with a Palestinian government that included Hamas,
whether democratically elected or not. He declared that not a single
Palestinian would be allowed to return to Israel; not even a symbolic
return would be acceptable to him.

There is little reason to
elaborate. Netanyahu today essentially returned to the policies that
Israel pursued before Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat agreed on mutual
recognition and the joint pursuit of peace.

And the worst part
is not the appalling things Netanyahu said, but how Congress received
them. Even Netanyahu's declaration that there is no Israeli occupation
was met with thunderous applause with the Democrats joining the
Republicans in ecstatic support. Every Netanyahu statement, no matter
how extreme, was met with cheers.

Netanyahu was also applauded
wildly when he invoked Palestinian terrorism over and over again, even
seeming to lump his former "partner," President Mahmoud Abbas with
people who "educate their children to hate, [who] continue to name
public squares after terrorists. And worst of all continue to perpetuate
the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of
Palestinian refugees."

His bottom line, which Congress fully
bought, was that all Palestinians are terrorists who haven't earned a
state. And probably never will.

Congress cheered and cheered and when Netanyahu was finished, they climbed over each other to touch the hem of his garment.

It
was as if Congress thought that no Palestinians or other Arabs (or
Muslims) would be watching. It was as if it believes that it can shout
its lungs out for Netanyahu (and thereby secure those campaign
contributions from AIPAC), without any consequences to US policy and
national interests in the Arab world.

But Congress is wrong. The
message it sent to the Middle East today, to the whole world, in fact,
was that Palestinians cannot count on the United States to ever play the
role of "honest broker" between Israel and the Palestinians. Even if
President Obama was inclined to, Congress would stop him. And AIPAC,
using the leverage its campaign contributions gives it, would hold
Obama's feet to the fire too. As far as Congress is concerned,
Palestinians do not exist. They have no rights, to a state least of
all. 

And that is why Palestinians have no choice but to
unilaterally declare a state in the fall. They cannot count on America.
As David Ben Gurion understood when he went to the General Assembly to
achieve recognition of Israel, a small, powerless people must take its
destiny into its own hands.

The good news is that, although
Congress is in Netanyahu's pocket, the Obama administration isn't.
Netanyahu insulted the President at the White House last Thursday and
then again in the halls of Congress by eliciting support for policies
Obama rejects. And the administration is furious.

That means that
although Palestinians can and should ignore Congress, the White House
and State Department are still in play. Yes, they will both go along
with Netanyahu, but, probably, without much enthusiasm.

And they
can send a signal to our allies that although the United States cannot
openly oppose Bibi's policies because of Congress - and AIPAC's control
of it - the allies can. The Palestinians should not give up on Obama or
on Secretary of State Clinton either who cannot abide Netanyahu and made
sure she was out of the country to escape being present for his speech.


And so we can look forward to a unilateral declaration of
statehood in September. The Israelis who refuse to negotiate with
stateless Palestinians will have no choice but to negotiate
with the state whose land it is occupying. And those negotiations,
state to state, may produce peace and the "two states for two peoples"
that most Palestinians and Israelis aspire to. In any case, it's the
only hope.

Palestinians should thank Prime Minister Netanyahu
and, even more, the United states Congress for making their choice so
much easier. Together they helped create the Palestinian state today.
And that is a very good thing.

As for Americans, we should be deeply ashamed of our Congress. It has been sold to the highest bidder.

Ontario NDP on the rise as an election looms in Ontario

Ontario provincial NDP has momentum - The Globe and Mail
Nanos polling shows that since Feb. 2011, the NDP has risen 6 points from 13% to 19%.
During this same time period, the Conservatives have dropped 2 points to 41% and the Liberals have dropped 5 points to 34%.

In the last week before the federal election, the NDP support rose significantly in Ontario, passing the Liberals.

This rise in Ontario for the NDP could be attributed to the federal orange wave effect. The Ontario election is some months away. It will remain to be seen how things will play out. This is a good start for the NDP.

Netanyahu and the one-state solution

Netanyahu and the one-state solution - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
Excerpt:

At this new intersection, there are two signs. The first points
towards the west and reads "viable and just two-state solution", while
the second one points eastward and reads "power sharing".

The first sign is informed by years of political negotiations (from
the Madrid conference in 1991, through Oslo, Camp David, Taba, and
Annapolis) alongside the publication of different initiatives (from the Geneva Initiative and the Saudi Plan
to the Nussaiba and Ayalon Plan), all of which have clarified what it
would take to reach a peace settlement based on the two-state solution.
It entails three central components:

1. Israel's full withdrawal to the 1967
border, with possible one-for-one land swaps so that ultimately the
total amount of land that was occupied will be returned.

2. Jerusalem's division according to the
1967 borders, with certain land swaps to guarantee that each side has
control over its own religious sites and large neighbourhoods. Both
these clauses entail the dismantlement of Israeli settlements and the
return of the Jewish settlers to Israel.

3. The acknowledgement of the right of
return of all Palestinians, but with the following stipulation: while
all Palestinians will be able to return to the fledgling Palestinian
state, only a limited number agreed upon by the two sides will be
allowed to return to Israel; those who cannot exercise this right or,
alternatively, choose not to, will receive full compensation.

Israel's continued unwillingness to fully support these three
components is rapidly leading to the annulment of the two-state option
and, as a result, is leaving open only one possible future direction:
power sharing.

The notion of power sharing would entail the preservation of the
existing borders, from the Jordan valley to the Mediterranean Sea, and
an agreed upon form of a power sharing government led by Israeli Jews
and Palestinians, and based on the liberal democracy model of the
separation of powers. It also entails a parity of esteem - namely, the
idea that each side respects the other side's identity and ethos,
including language, culture and religion. This, to put it simply, is the
bi-national one-state solution.

Many Palestinians have come to realise that even though they are
currently under occupation, Israel's rejectionist stance will
unwittingly lead to the bi-national solution. And while Netanyahu is
still miles behind the current juncture, it is high time for a Jewish
Israeli and Jewish American Awakening, one that will force their
respective leaders to support a viable democratic future for the Jews
and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean
Sea. One that will bring an end to the violent conflict.

When Pro-Life is not Pro Life

The right's mirror-image view of life - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
This article applies to the Conservatives in Canada too:

Excerpt:

Yesterday, I pulled up to a drive-through ATM, and sitting in front
of me in the line was a car with a license plate that simply stated,
"Choose Life". 

Who can argue with that? I support life, don't you?

The problem, of course, is the relationship between that phrase and
the US right wing. You know, the ones who are petrified of everything
from black presidents to black helicopters to Black Sabbath. 

Yes, they piously claim to be "pro-life", but it is a simple
platitude, for - to paraphrase Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride - I
do not think that word means what they think it means. 

To those not steeped in US politics, being pro-life might seem like
it means what one would expect - to oppose policies and endeavours that
duly result in a loss of human life. But, in the US political arena, it
means something quite different. Generally, it is a way of telling
everyone that it's your business to give a woman her marching orders -
that she must eventually carry a three-day-old embryo to term, even if
it's the result of rape or incest. 

Or its corollary, that you're some kind of Nietzschean Superman for
ensuring that 91-year-old patients in terrible pain due to pancreatic
cancer must stick a tube in any empty orifice to force themselves to
stay alive and suffer, even against their own wishes.

The sad reality is that, to be pro-life in the US today, which is to
be conservative in almost all cases, is to love thy enemy by supporting
illegal wars - or just plain stupid ones - that kill hundreds of
thousands of innocents, cutting health-care benefits and nutrition
programs for children and the poor, and turning the other cheek … of the
person you're torturing.

Click the top link to read the whole article.

Why the Canadian Wheat Board should matter to all of us

Prairie strong no longer? Harper's renewed attack on the Canadian Wheat Board | rabble.ca
Excerpt:

The Canadian Wheat Board represents some 75,000 grain growers, and
handles all Western wheat and barley destined for export and human use.
The CWB is 100% self-supporting, and, with $5 billion in annual sales,
is a real power in the international marketplace. Backed by the Canadian
Grain Commission's excellent quality assurance, the Board uses its
exclusive "single-desk selling" power -- its much-maligned "monopoly" --
to get the best possible prices, transportation rates, and quality
premiums for its producers. The CWB is worth $700-$800 million annually
to farmers, averaging almost $10,000 per farm.

And it's not just farmers who benefit. A 2005 Price Waterhouse
Coopers study credited the Board with a "huge" economic impact totaling
$1.6 billion annually, including some 14,000 non-farm jobs. The CWB
moves 20 to 30 million tonnes of grain a year over Canadian rail lines
and through Canadian ports in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and
Quebec, making it one of Canada's biggest rail shippers and one of our
strongest East-West links. The Board has also been a crucial player in
protecting grain customers -- including Canadian consumers -- from the
risks of GM (genetically modified) wheat.

Read the link for the whole story.

Actually Stephen, the taxpayers dollars go to the parties they support.

Budget will mean curtains for party funds: minister | iPolitics
Stephen Harper is lying to the public, again. He is trying to make you think that you are funding parties you don't support. Well, you don't.
Currently, political parties receive $2 annually per vote they received in the last election. So, this money is divided DIRECTLY PROPORTIONATELY to the voter/taxpayer support the party received. Your money goes to the party you voted for. Simple and direct.

If you didn't vote, sucks to be you for helping to elect the thug party which now rules. You could have helped to change things, but now you don't matter (until next election - that is, if you actually vote next election).

The Conservative Party wants to remove (and they will now) this direct proportional representation of the voter/taxpayer and replace it with a system that will make it easier for large wealthy groups to BUY the election - in other words, to regress to a less fair and definitely not a representative system - to make it so only the party able to accumulate the most wealth will win - like in the USA. We will get a less fair, less representative and more corrupt system.

Shouldn't elections be about what YOU, the voter/the taxpayer, want and not what large corporations want?

Lax labour laws in the US turning it into a sweatshop for European manufacturers

Olive: America, the world’s sweatshop - thestar.com
And similar anti-worker/anti-union movements (promoted by corporations and conservative governments) are happening here too in Canada.

Excerpt:

Sweden’s Ikea was revealed in April to be operating a manufacturing
plant in Danville, Va., that is a toxic brew of charges of racial
discrimination, routine worker maltreatment, and brutally successful
efforts to bust union-organizing drives.

Sodexo, which operates the cafeteria
at this newspaper and my Mom’s nursing home, has threatened and fired
workers who tried to unionize, as HRW found from studying official
decisions by U.S. labour-law authorities, along with worker interviews
and employee court testimony.

At its newish California chain of
grocery outlets, U.K. supermarket giant Tesco has muzzled workers trying
to discuss organizing a union. The Netherlands-based Gamma Holding has
hired permanent replacement workers to put strikers out of a job — in
contravention of international labour standards, but not of U.S. law.

And Deutsche Bank turns out to be one
of LosAngeles’s biggest slumlords. After foreclosing on some 2,000 L.A.
homes, Deutsche Bank continued collecting rent while allowing the
premises to rot and become gang-infested to such an extent that dead
bodies are not infrequently found there. “Nothing, in other words, that
would be allowed to happen . . . in Frankfurt, the neat-as-a-pin German
city that is home to Deutsche Bank,” Meyerson writes.

The hypocrisy here stinks to the
heavens. In Europe, minimum wages average $19 an hour. Governments
mandate five-week paid vacations. Norway just introduced paid paternity leave.
And most European multinationals not only are unionized, but union reps
fall just short of a majority on many European corporate boards.

Many top European firms have joined “the race to the bottom” in employee costs.

But China is no longer the
“off-shoring” jurisdiction of choice. With annual wage gains now
averaging 15 per cent to 20 per cent, combined with stagnant wages in
North America, China will lose its labour-cost advantage over North
America in just four years time, according to a report this month by the
Boston Consulting Group.

From Hamburg to Lyon to Stockholm,
the question is why aren’t we serving the North American market from
lower-cost facilities there? Which means that “guilt-free shopping” will
soon mean avoiding “Made in USA” labels on products made by workers
denied a decent living wage.

The Euro-exploiters are especially
drawn to the U.S. South, which for three decades have lured employers
with so-called “right to work” laws. That’s an Orwellian term for
government-sanctioned hostility to workers’ rights, including the right
to organize.

In small-town Virginia, Ikea gets
away with paying workers to make the components of its trademark
bookcases just $8 an hour, and granting only 12 paid vacation days.

In North American culture, jobs are
dispensable. In Peoria, Ill., Caterpillar laid off 25,000 workers on one
day in 2009. Try that in France or Italy and you’re inviting a national
general strike.

U.S. officialdom has for years
hectored other nations to upgrade their labour-rights standards. But as
the HRW report shows, the issue is retrograde U.S. labour standards.

The irony here is that employee
denigration does not work. German manufacturing pay averages 50 per cent
higher than that of the U.S. Yet Germany enjoys a massive trade
surplus. And America suffers a ruinous trade deficit, for all its
disdain of European-style full-employment practices.

My local Staples manager complains he
can’t keep employees “because we don’t pay much. I can’t blame them for
leaving.” High turnover hikes training costs and annoys customers
dealing with staff who lack product knowledge.

This a social-justice issue, no
mistake. But really it’s the hard-headed business strategy of a Henry
Ford, who paid above-average wages to spur consumption.

It’s the reason today that Costco,
with its outsized employee benefits, outperforms Wal-Mart. (Costco
shares have increased 133 per cent over the past decade, to Wal-Mart’s
measly gain of just 6 per cent.)

And it’s among the reasons that
Eaton’s is dead. In the midst of the 1985 strike at that Canadian
retailer, I asked then-CEO Fredrik Eaton why his family chose to break a
nascent union, rather than deal respectfully with employees on the
picket lines who had me almost in tears describing their loyalty to the
then 116-year-old firm.

“People here have no need of unions,”
said the fourth-generation Eaton owner-CEO, who declined to elaborate.
Fourteen years later Eaton’s filed for bankruptcy.

I’m not saying maltreated employees
were the chief factor in the demise of Eaton’s. But the casual regard
for employee relations at Eaton’s was indicative of management’s
ineptitude generally.

When you’re next at Ikea, ask the
workers serving you — a surly lot, I’ve always found — what the pay is
like before imagining that you are engaged in “guilt-free shopping.”

Conservatives, I mean "Looters in Suits", continue with their plan - theft on a national scale

Montreal Simon: Tony Clement and the Chainsaw Massacre
And that's the Con plan. Right out of the Republican manual. First you waste billions on gazebos, prisons and fancy jet planes. Then you cut the GST and corporate taxes and starve the government of money.

Then when the deficit balloons, you say we can't afford government, and chainsaw it to the bloody bone. Which is what the Cons wanted to do in the first place. So they can turn this country into a jungle, and turn us all into slaves of Big Business.

See also
Harper's Plan
This was written in Jan 2010, but it shows how the looters in suits were working their plan all along. The fact that they had a minority government slowed them down a bit, but now that they have a majority, they plan to decimate the social programs (including healthcare) that make Canada, well, Canada.

Remember, the Cons are not here to govern. They have proven they are incompetent at that and they don't care about that. They are here to loot the country, to take our/your money and give it to themselves and their rich and powerful friends - theft on a national scale. Anyone who thinks they are here to govern is gravely mistaken.

See:
Peace, order and good government, eh? - The real danger of Conservative government

But beyond all that, the bottom line for me
is that these Conservatives are basically bad at governing. They have
no interest in or respect for governance as a concept.

It's partly that they don't

think government should be doing most things it does in the first place.
And it's partly that even to the extent they acknowledge government
might have a role, that's not what they're there for--the basic purpose
of modern Conservatives is to defeat enemies and amass power and wealth
for themselves and the class they identify with. Presented with a lever
of power, that's what their instincts say it's there for. So they just
basically have no patience for careful policy-making or administration
with an eye to the public good.

And, Pogge's comment below that says it all so succinctly:

they react according to their instincts and ideas about what it is to be in government

"To wit, they're not public servants; they're looters in suits and ties."

O Canada. Performed by Williams Shatner

William Shatner Sings O Canada by Jacob Medjuck - NFB
Shatner updates the lyrics a bit.
Watch the video.

The lyrics as interpreted from his song and suggestions:

O Canada
Our home on native land
True patriot love - of same-sex partnership
In all our sons command - and our daughters
With glowing hearts - like ET
We see thee rise
The True North Strong and Free - Free healthcare
From Far and Wide
O Canada
We stand on guard for thee
God keep our land - all gods, or, no god
Fabulous and free - free of smog
O Canada
We stand on guard for thee
O Canada
We stand on guard - guard yourself from frostbite - for thee

"This Stinks To High Heaven" - Ford's disrespect for taxpayers

The Grid TO | Thirteen questions about Rob Ford’s questionable accounting
By Edward Keenan
...
The problem is that candidates are forbidden from taking loans from
anyone except banks and other recognized lending institutions. Even
candidates themselves aren’t allowed to loan their campaigns money.
[Ford's family business loaned Rob Ford's campaign about $77,000]
...
Now, the Municipal Elections Act specifically says that “events or
activities that are organized for such purposes as promoting public
awareness of a candidate and at which the soliciting of contributions is
incidental” do not qualify as fundraisers.
[Rob Ford had a launch party, primarily aimed at raising awareness (not fund raising), and claimed it as a fundraiser.]
...
The rules prohibit “incurring expenses” before you’re registered.
[Rob Ford had campaign signs and materials printed before he registered as a candidate.]
...

It’s possible, of course, that Ford’s campaign wasn’t intentionally
trying to get around the rules. Even though accountant Douglas
Colbourne, who chairs the Compliance Audit Committee, says he’s “never
seen a vehicle such as this used” when looking at the relationship
between the Ford family business and the Ford campaign, it’s possible
this isn’t a calculated attempt to circumvent the intention of the
law—it could be incompetence or misunderstanding. But which is the more
disturbing proposition for those who voted for Ford based on his
no-bullshit reputation and his promise to clean up the city’s finances:
Did he craftily try to get around the rules that ensure fair elections,
or did his financial advisers not understand those rules? And how does
either of those conclusions square with the concept of “respect for
taxpayers?”

Of course, none of the allegations have been proven. The auditor’s
investigation will shed light on what happened, and it’s entirely
possible there’s an innocent explanation. But we should all start asking
a few more questions.

Did the Israeli army have the right to shoot?

Did the Israeli army have the right to shoot? - Features - Al Jazeera English
On Sunday, Israel's disputed northern frontier saw the first deadly clashes between civilians and the Israeli army since 1974.
 
Hundreds
of protesters from Syria and Lebanon marched south toward the two
countries' disputed borders with Israel to mark the "Nakba" - or
"catastrophe" - on the date Palestinians mourn their uprooting as a
result of Israel's founding in 1948.
 
What began as a mass march
by unarmed Palestinian refugees and activists soon turned bloody, with,
reportedly, 14 killed and hundreds wounded.
 
There has been much
controversy over the justifiability of the Israeli military's use of
force in the event of border transgressions.
 
But experts say
there is a fundamental difference between Israel's use of force in
disputed border regions on the one hand, and military action in the
occupied Palestinian territories on the other.
 
The distinction
lies in whether a boundary constitutes an agreed or internationally
recognised border between two countries - or whether it is a de facto
border through disputed territory occupied by one of the two states
separated by that border.
 
In light of the first violence in 36
years on territories under dispute by three countries, which involved
two state armies and large mobs of civilians, legal experts ask if the
IDF had the right to shoot civilian protesters from Lebanon and Syria.
 
Click the link to read the rest of the article.

Coward Thug Harper Appoints More Failures To The Senate

PM rewards three defeated Conservatives with Senate seats - The Globe and Mail
How to become a senator under Harper? Show that the people don't want you to represent them. Another way Harper shows his contempt for the Canadian people.

Stephen Harper wasted no time in bringing back three defeated
candidates, appointing former Quebec cabinet minister Josée Verner to
the Senate and reappointing Larry Smith and Fabian Manning.

Minutes
after he finished answering questions from reporters about his cabinet
shuffle, the Prime Minister’s Office sent out a release announcing the
three appointments. So Mr. Harper did not have to address the issue in
public.

Buckdog: NO Possibility Of Democratic Reform Under Harper Regime

Canada's new senators

"Mr. Harper talks about Senate reform but he's doing things in the
same old way, in fact even worse. He's taking people who have been
defeated, who have been rejected by voters. You should earn your place
in the Senate and if you can't get elected, you shouldn't be appointed
to the Senate two weeks later."

Jack Layton

Leader of the Official Opposition

Ford and fawning lackies vote to push Toronto into more debt

Toronto votes to contract out garbage pickup - thestar.com

Gloat gloat, oink oink.

Studies show that although privatizing garbage pick-up may initially save money, it will cost much more in the long run.
Councillors were not shown any solid numbers to convince them to support privatizing, but the majority voted to do so. Are the councillors just imbeciles, or are they being bribed (or threatened)?

But, all may not be lost:

Councillor Ana Bailão’s successful motion requiring the city manager
to conduct an “independent review” of private bids — to verify they
would be cheaper than city collection —means the vote is “not a defeat
at all,” Ferguson insisted.

“I believe that once real and true
and verifiable numbers are brought back to this council, that the facts
will win the day and fury will take a back seat.”
...

Council also defied Ford 23-21 in favour of Councillor Josh Matlow’s
motion to ban Progressive Waste Solutions from bidding on the contract.
The company recently hired Geoff Rathbone, the city waste manager who
recommended privatization.

And, facing a revolt by council
centrists, the mayor announced Tuesday morning he was dropping a staff
recommendation that, after council approved the tender process, a staff
committee — rather than council — be allowed to award the actual
contract.

Councillor Sarah Doucette, who voted
against the measure, expressed dismay that private companies sometimes
provide no pensions and few sick days. Doucette said she needed more
information from the city before she could be convinced that outsourcing
was a prudent fiscal decision.

“I don’t know if it’s going to save us anything, because I haven’t seen the correct numbers,” Doucette said.

Those who voted for fiscal prudence and quality work and against increasing long-term costs for Toronto:
Anthony Perruzza, Maria Augimeri, Sarah Doucette, Gord Perks, Mike Layton, Adam Vaughan, Joe Mihevc, Kristyn Wong-Tam,
Pam McConnell, Mary Fragedakis, Paula Fletcher, Janet Davis, Glenn De Baeremaeker

Those who voted to waste more money on the whim of their exalted leader: everyone else on the council.

See Also:

The Grid: Rob Ford Gets Trashed - by Edward Keenan

Excerpt:

By day’s end, the mayor’s main item passed, yes, by a large majority. But the effect of the amendments, in my opinion, is that it will make it very difficult for staff to craft a bid request conforming to council’s demands that will also stand up to a lawsuit. (And note: if the city is tied up in litigation with potential or wannabe bidders, they will likely be unable to award a contract—though, of course I’m not a lawyer…)

They also place some unattractive restrictions on the contract for potential contractors, and ensure that the whole thing has to come back to council for another fight later (if and when a winning bid is identified), and the bid has to bring with it actual numbers that show that the contract will save as much money and be as environmentally sound as Ford and staff have claimed it will be. The result of that possible vote is very much an open question.

The mayor and his team were very quick to declare victory, trying to spin a horrible day for them as a win. And to some of the municipal garbage collectors who filled the gallery in fear of their jobs, it probably looked like Ford beat them—after all, their jobs are not safe, and the city is seeking bidders to take them.

But given that less than 12 hours earlier, the Ford Juggernaut was poised to settle the issue for good by signing the matter over to staff, and now this fight lives on, in more complicated ways, for weeks and months—possibly many months—to come. Well, that’s as close to a loss as Ford has yet suffered. And it ain’t over yet.

1,616 Days: Dividing Canadians

1,616 Days: Dividing Canadians « Framed In Canada
by Trish Hennessy
(part two of a series)

Excerpt:

Stephen Harper played the fear card and won, while the NDP made history by becoming the official opposition.

Some pundits suggest this means Canada has become an ideologically
polarized nation, but I say that’s premature. While we may be on the way
to becoming ideologically divided – pushed in that direction by a hyper
partisan, heavily ideological majority federal government — the 2011
electoral results suggest something more primal is at play.

As I stated in yesterday’s blog, the politics of fear can be
exploitative, distracting, and divisive. Here’s how it affected the
anti-Conservative choice in the 2011 federal election.

Let’s start with Harper’s preferred method of dirty pool: negative
advertising. Politicos take it on faith that negative advertising works
in election campaigns – that they’ve become a necessary evil.

It’s true that Canadians were exposed to some of the worst
American-style negative ad campaigns in our federal history. Towards the
end of the campaign, there were more than a dozen ads on the
Conservative Party website attacking either the coalition or Michael
Ignatieff. Those ads were repeated so many times, it would be hard to
find a Canadian who couldn’t recite the words “he didn’t come back for
you”.

Pundits are right to point to the
effectiveness of these ads in framing Ignatieff. In the post-election
hand wringing, some blame the Liberals for waiting too long to let
Ignatieff define himself to voters. Those who insist that negative
advertising works will point to the Ignatieff smear ads as an example
that they work. They will overlook the ineffectiveness of the Liberals’
attack ads on Stephen Harper, criticizing him for ‘contempt of
Canadians’ and more. They will overlook the role attack ads play in
sustaining the politics of fear. They will not necessarily tell you how
they work.

Negative advertising ‘works’ under certain conditions. Even if it’s
inflammatory, negative advertising has to have a ring of truth. It helps
if the attack ad speaks directly to a targeted, niche market of voters
that you know you can mobilize. The ads have to be seen repeatedly for
them to stick in the voter’s mind. And the party initiating the attack
has to have an answer for those who flee the person subject to attack.

Harper’s answer to the Ignatieff attack: trust me to manage the
economy. Polling indicates Harper was playing from his strengths and
speaking to Canadians’ undercurrent of worry about our economic future.

For those who didn’t trust Harper – those who fear what he might do with a majority government — they had four possible options.

As a counterpoint to the politics of fear, the Liberal Party appears
to have coasted on the fumes of “the Natural Governing Party” one
election too many. The Bloc campaign had a sluggish feel to it. Harper’s
politics of fear took advantage of these two parties in their hour of
disarray, reducing the choices for Canadians who truly feared a Harper
majority.

As for the discouraged voter — those who have given up
waiting for a leader to appeal to them and decided not to vote — they
might represent a quiet casualty of the politics of fear. Some Canadians
who decided not to vote in this election may have simply gotten turned
off of the toxic nature of the campaign. Some may have struggled to make
a decision that felt right.

Fear can be paralyzing, but fear is usually looking for someplace to
go, and sometimes the antidote to fear is hope. It certainly helped some
Canadians view Jack Layton differently in this election. Jack, with his
warm smile. Jack, with his Canadien hockey shirt, hoisting a beer.
Jack, risen from his sick bed to do what we all hope in the face of
health adversity: fight the beast down with grace, with pride, with the
fortitude it took to become an electoral David to Harper’s Goliath. In
Quebec, le bon Jack.

Jack Layton had captured, if for a brief moment in time, the
aspiration that resides alongside the slow simmering worry in Canada:
the hope that we can overcome adversity and thrive. That cane he hoisted
above his head at rallies became a symbol of strength; of defiance
against long odds.

And, for a few days, Canadians sat on the edge of their seat
wondering whether a phenomenon no pundit or pollster had predicted, this
NDP tide of support dubbed ‘the orange wave’, would crescendo into an
‘orange crush’.

Two things happened in the final days of the election that possibly
stemmed the NDP tide, and both were products of the politics of fear.

Click the link above to read the whole article.

Toronto Star attempts a smear-job on Jack and Olivia

MPs lap up free trips courtesy of groups, foreign governments - thestar.com
Towards the end of the election campaign, the Toronto Star very grudgingly endorsed the NDP. Before that they usually directly or subtly attacked the NDP. Now, we see they are back to their old tricks. Being one of the big corporate mainstream media, it is in their best interest that only the corporate-backing parties (Conservatives and Liberals) should get their support. Any other party they see as a threat. So, day by day they do what they can to make those parties look like what they are not. Today the Star took an issue which is not an issue, something that is totally legal and above-board, and tried to make it look bad. And, even though their favourite parties are the ones who took the most sponsored trips, they put the spotlight on the the federal party that took, by far, the least sponsored trips (over a 5 year period, the Conservatives took 132 trips, the Liberals took 142 trips, while the NDP only took 36 trips).

And "free trips" is misleading too. The Star is trying to make it look like these politicians were bribed. But, if that was the case, this would have been an issue a long time ago. The key here is that the Star wants you to think of these as bribes, although these trips were/are not . These trips are legitimate and totally above board. Many of these MPs were sponsored to
travel to have meetings, give talks, or to investigate/learn.

Yes, the article talks about the other parties at fair length. But, many people don't read the whole article, but just look at the picture and read the first few lines. With the placement of the picture and the choice of wording, the picture and the first few lines intend to make people who glance at this article think "Jack, Olivia and unions are bad".

This is the kind of slimy biased reporting that the NDP has always been up against. And now that they are the official opposition with a record 103 seats, there will be much more slimy biased reporting from the mainstream media.


Update:
The National Post also got in on the smear-where-there-is-no-issue game.

The Politics of Fear: An election post-mortem

The politics of fear: An election post-mortem | rabble.ca
By Trish Hennessy

Excerpt:

(Part one of a series)

This blog post attempts to explain the power behind the dominant frame at play in this election: our economy in peril.

The frame was set by Stephen Harper, who spent 37 days dismissing the
democratic need for an election and focused with laser precision on
this message: Trust him -- and only him -- to manage the economy.

A minority of voters, 39.6 per cent, rewarded Harper with a majority
government. Nine million voters opted for the NDP, Liberals, Bloc or
Greens. Six million Canadians chose to sit at home while one of the most
dramatic election nights in our history passed them by.

Those are the facts. My disappointment with the plethora of federal
election post-mortems stems from this: many pundits are simply reciting
the facts and borrowing them as conclusions.

click the link to read the full post