An appalling story surfaced last week about pedestrians and motorists who ignored an elderly man who had been hit by a car in Hartford, Connecticut. To see or hear the story provoked instant disbelief because it assaulted directly the part inside all of us that screams “that’s not right. People should have helped!”
The very same qualities of character, integrity and moral decency that we expect of the people we pass on the street are precisely the qualities we look for in people in public life. We expect politicians to make the right decisions on the basis of what they've told us they believe in; not how it can help them politically.
Sadly, very little of that character, integrity and moral decency was on display in the vote on Stephen Harper’s budget last night. Liberal MPs who had been elected to fight Harper’s agenda once more abstained so it would pass. Liberal MPs who said they agreed with the NDP that the immigration changes were wrong and would politicize the immigration process abstained so they would pass.
The reason: Liberals are afraid of what might happen to them in an election. Politics ahead of principle. Standing on the sidelines instead of entering the fray.
Whenever that election comes Canadians will have a choice between Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and Jack Layton’s NDP – now the only other federal party that can be counted on to stand up for the things it believes in.
Again, as a public service, Canada’s number one equine-themed politics blog provides the names of the 79 Liberal MPs who failed didn’t stand up against the Harper agenda they promised to protect their constituents from:
Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale)
Larry Bagnell (Yukon)
Sue Barnes (London West)
Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West)
Don Bell (North Vancouver)
Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's)
Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt)
Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River)
Scott Brison (Kings—Hants)
Bonnie Brown (Oakville)
Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte)
John Cannis (Scarborough Centre)
Raymond Chan (Richmond)
Denis Coderre (Bourassa)
Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal)
Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso)
Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche)
Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South)
Ken Dryden (York Centre)
Wayne Easter (Malpeque)
Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria)
Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre)
John Godfrey (Don Valley West)
Ralph Goodale (Wascana)
Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale)
Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering)
Charles Hubbard (Miramichi)
Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore)
Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Susan Kadis (Thornhill)
Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut)
Tina Keeper (Churchill)
Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan)
Diane Marleau (Sudbury)
Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Paul Martin (LaSalle—Émard)
Bill Matthews (Random—Burin—St. George's)
John McCallum (Markham—Unionville)
David McGuinty (Ottawa South)
Joe McGuire (Egmont)
John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown)
Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra)
Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre)
Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel)
Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard)
Glen Pearson (London North Centre)
Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer)
Bob Rae (Toronto Centre)
Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East)
Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre)
Geoff Regan (Halifax West)
Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier)
Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming)
Todd Russell (Labrador)
Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour)
Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis)
Andy Scott (Fredericton)
Judy Sgro (York West)
Mario Silva (Davenport)
Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface)
Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Lloyd St. Amand (Brant)
Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing)
Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce)
Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora)
Paul Szabo (Mississauga South)
Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham)
Robert Thibault (West Nova)
Alan Tonks (York South—Weston)
Garth Turner (Halton)
Roger Valley (Kenora)
Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest)
Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill)
Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre)
Paul Zed (Saint John)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
Will tomorrow be the start of the 40th General Election? ...
... No. No it won’t.
Though there are tens of thousands of reasons it should be ... the tens of thousands of prospective immigrants who have played by the rules, but won’t be allowed to call Canada their home because of high-handed immigration changes that will allow Harper to move them to the bottom of the list.
And 50 billion more … the $50 billion surplus in the EI fund that the Conservatives are effectively stealing by starting the EI system over with a meagre $2 billion.
Both of these things will happen when C-50 - the budget bill - passes tonight.
Oh, and you can bet a full tank of gas (or the $100 equivalent) that it will, because Liberals would rather Canadians be punished with Harper’s agenda, than keep their promise to fight Harper.
Ready for the jaw-dropper? The most amazing bit is that Liberal MPs actually think they are doing you a FAVOUR by sitting on their hands. Behold Ralph Goodale telling the Hill Times today that "his party's strategy of 'strategic patience' is so that Canadians have time to see the failings of the current government."
You read that right ... "so that Canadians have time to see the failings of the current government."
Liberals aren’t apologizing for Liberal cowardice and incompetence. You won’t find them wearing out the knees of their Armani slacks pleading for people to understand that they aren’t ready for the election they said they wanted back in December 2006. No, no. The Dion Liberals are forcing the 9.4 million of us who didn't vote Conservative to many more months of this irreversible damage as a public service!
This is the new gold standard of irresponsibility.
Tell ya what Liberals, don't do us any more favours, 'kay?
Though there are tens of thousands of reasons it should be ... the tens of thousands of prospective immigrants who have played by the rules, but won’t be allowed to call Canada their home because of high-handed immigration changes that will allow Harper to move them to the bottom of the list.
And 50 billion more … the $50 billion surplus in the EI fund that the Conservatives are effectively stealing by starting the EI system over with a meagre $2 billion.
Both of these things will happen when C-50 - the budget bill - passes tonight.
Oh, and you can bet a full tank of gas (or the $100 equivalent) that it will, because Liberals would rather Canadians be punished with Harper’s agenda, than keep their promise to fight Harper.
Ready for the jaw-dropper? The most amazing bit is that Liberal MPs actually think they are doing you a FAVOUR by sitting on their hands. Behold Ralph Goodale telling the Hill Times today that "his party's strategy of 'strategic patience' is so that Canadians have time to see the failings of the current government."
You read that right ... "so that Canadians have time to see the failings of the current government."
Liberals aren’t apologizing for Liberal cowardice and incompetence. You won’t find them wearing out the knees of their Armani slacks pleading for people to understand that they aren’t ready for the election they said they wanted back in December 2006. No, no. The Dion Liberals are forcing the 9.4 million of us who didn't vote Conservative to many more months of this irreversible damage as a public service!
This is the new gold standard of irresponsibility.
Tell ya what Liberals, don't do us any more favours, 'kay?
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Sunday funnies: Peter MacKay’s expanding figures
With the Bernier affair having now taken its 185 pounds of flesh in the shape of the now ignominious “Member for Beauce,” Canada’s face to the world has changed only slightly.That’s because the frat boy era in Canadian foreign policy won’t truly be over as long as Peter MacKay is still not wiping down the exer-cycles over at DND headquarters.
MacKay it will be recalled was moved into defence to take the place of former arms lobbyist Gordon O’Connor who had gaffed and stumbled his way through a not-short-enough stint at the head of Canada's Forces.
There’s growing evidence that MacKay hasn’t used his time impatiently waiting for his squash partner to reflect on the lessons available from O’Connor’s failure to launch.
As evidence, Macleans’ Hill pundit Aaron Wherry tables this exchange from Friday between MacKay and reporters asking why NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar is having to challenge the government to disclose costs of the Afghanistan mission:
Question: Why can’t you provide a cost for the war in Afghanistan? The NDP say that they’ve been asking questions and they can’t get a figure, not even on the equipment, the military equipment, how much is being spent.
Hon. Peter MacKay: Well, I don’t know why they’re having such a hard time figuring it out. We’ve made numerous attempts to explain the spending over Afghanistan. Clearly we’ve made commitments consistent with the motion that was passed in the House to have more equipment, to protect our soldiers, to help them to do the job, to protect the Afghan people. We’ve had 27 technical briefings. We’ve asked—we’ve answered dozens of questions in the House. We’ve had 19 or 20 committee appearances. The NDP had an opportunity last evening, if they were objecting to the budget implementation, to file some sort of an objection. They did nothing.
Reporter: So can you give us a figure? How much is it costing us, say per month?
MacKay: Well, I’m not going to get into the specifics because we have added, as you know, additional equipment and there are additional procurements happening now in response to the recommendations of the Manley Committee that were endorsed by the House of Commons.
Moderator: One more question, folks.
Reporter: They’re saying you don’t have a cost, you don’t have a figure.
MacKay: Well, we do. Of course we do.
Reporter: Well what is it?
MacKay: Well, we have all kinds of figures.
Ugh. Not unlike O’Connor, MacKay’s first instinct is to arrogantly charge into the breach long before realizing he's without his helmet or webbing.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Lunn to Canadians: if you want environmental progress, elect an NDP government
It takes some arrogance to say you can pick-and-choose the laws you’ll obey (if it were so easy, the streets of this country would be choked with jay-walkers and dog droppings). But it takes considerably more than arrogance to say that on a day a new law passes … and even more when you are a Minister of the crown pledged to uphold the laws of the land.But humble to the last, Canada’s New Government could care less.
By a vote of 148 to 116, the House made history yesterday adopting Jack Layton’s bill to make Canada the first country in the world to adopt the science-based GHG reduction targets for 2012-2050 that were decided at Bali months ago.
This victory for the environment is a textbook example of how this minority government should have been doing things since the election. Environmental NGOs on the outside and opposition MPs in the chamber got behind Jack’s bill and used their numbers to get it passed despite the government’s objections.
But even with the result, the government is still objecting:
This victory for the environment is a textbook example of how this minority government should have been doing things since the election. Environmental NGOs on the outside and opposition MPs in the chamber got behind Jack’s bill and used their numbers to get it passed despite the government’s objections.
But even with the result, the government is still objecting:
“The NDP can throw out numbers but there has to be reality to them. The reality is they're not in government and never will be, so they can just throw out [any] numbers they want,” Mr. Lunn said yesterday before the vote.
The most effective antidote for arrogance is strong opposition.
Conservatives are right about one thing: the NDP isn’t government. But they are wrong on the rest: the numbers aren’t just “any”, they come from an international consensus of Nobel prize winning scientists, and if the way to get progress is to put the NDP in government, then you can count on Canadians to do that, Gary. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Liberals betray new Canadians; help Harper fast track immigration changes
Liberal tough-talk over Harper’s changes in C-50 to politicize our immigration process is meaningless political theatre, an Ottawa paper has revealed.
The article says:
“Instead of doing everything they can to derail it, the Liberals appear to be helping to send bill C-50 in its entirety through the House of Commons before summer break, which is scheduled for June 20.
“Instead of doing everything they can to derail it, the Liberals appear to be helping to send bill C-50 in its entirety through the House of Commons before summer break, which is scheduled for June 20.
Reforms to the immigration act that will prioritize applicants deemed a priority by the minister have faced harsh criticism from opposition MPs, immigration lawyers and groups. But while NDP members have taken to the floor in full force over the last few days to oppose the immigration and EI reforms, only a handful of Liberals have stood to register their concerns on the record. [ … ]
Further adding to the impression the bill is being fast-tracked is the fact that the Liberal-dominated Senate has started to review the subject matter of the bill, even before it was approved. The Senate finance committee began a pre-hearing last Wednesday, and has heard from witnesses who have warned that the amendments to the immigration act will be harmful.
Further adding to the impression the bill is being fast-tracked is the fact that the Liberal-dominated Senate has started to review the subject matter of the bill, even before it was approved. The Senate finance committee began a pre-hearing last Wednesday, and has heard from witnesses who have warned that the amendments to the immigration act will be harmful.
The last time the Senate held a pre-study was in 2001-2002 to review the Anti-terrorism Act, Bill C-36. At that time, the Upper Chamber said the pre-study was done to ensure Canada passed the bill in time to comply with a United Nations-mandated deadline.”
For new Canadians who have readily supported Liberal candidates for years, this is the ultimate betrayal.
For new Canadians who have readily supported Liberal candidates for years, this is the ultimate betrayal.
Earlier this week, Liberal MPs refused to vote with the NDP against the report stage vote on C-50. Now, they are putting their weight behind getting Harper's agenda through the Liberal-dominated Senate as quickly as possible.
And it's transparent why: Liberal MPs are getting battered by constituents for not opposing the bill. To ease this pain, the people around Dion have absurdly decided to help pass the immigration changes as quickly as possible, thereby getting immigration off the political radar so Liberal MPs can enjoy the BBQ circuit this summer.
The Liberal Party of Canada: Harper's silent partner in changing Canada forever.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Dion won’t stand with Layton: lets Harper get away with immigration changes
It’s no longer possible to defend their irresponsible hypocrisy, but that doesn’t stop Stephane Dion from trying.
After weeks of criticizing it (as well as facing criticism from immigrant groups), Liberal MPs once more backed down from the prospect of defeating the Conservatives over C-50 - the bill to let the Conservatives hand pick immigrants – and let the bill pass.
In his defence, the embattled Liberal leader made the incredibly irresponsible suggestion that the Conservatives’ recent screw ups are justification for keeping the Harper in 24 Sussex far longer than anyone ever expected he would be.
"But Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion noted that the political gift of Bernier's resignation would never have happened if, several weeks ago, he'd brought down the government as some in his party urged him to do."
Dion's line is akin to saying “I keep a loaded revolver in the kids’ play room because I want them to learn that guns are dangerous.”
The fact Dion blithely skims over is that if he had allowed his MPs to vote with the NDP and end the Conservatives government long ago, Harper wouldn’t be able to pass legislation like the bill to politicize immigration -- the bill Liberals say they are opposed to but let pass anyway.
So while the Liberals are in the mood to be honest, is it too much to ask that they go the extra step of admitting the other reason they want Harper to remain prime minister is this, and this, and maybe, just maybe, to punish Canadians for having dared to defeat the Paul Martin government in the first place? Just askin'.
Purely as a public service, the following Liberal MPs who promised to stand up to Harper didn't last night against C-50 at report stage:
Alghabra, Omar
Bagnell, Larry
Bains, Navdeep Singh
Barnes, Sue
Beaumier, Colleen
Bélanger, Mauril
Bell, Don
Bennett, Carolyn
Bevilacqua, Maurizio
Bonin, Raymond
Boshcoff, Ken
Brison, Scott
Brown, Bonnie
Byrne, Gerry
Cannis, John
Chan, Raymond
Coderre, Denis
Cotler, Irwin
Cullen, Roy
Cuzner, Rodger
D'Amours, Jean-Claude
Dhaliwal, Sukh
Dhalla, Ruby
Dosanjh, Ujjal
Dryden, Ken
Easter, Arnold Wayne
Eyking, Mark
Folco, Raymonde
Fry, Hedy
Godfrey, John Ferguson
Guarnieri, Albina
Holland, Mark
Hubbard, Charles
Kadis, Susan
Karetak-Lindell, Nancy
Keeper, Tina
LeBlanc, Dominic
Lee, Derek Vincent
MacAulay, Lawrence A.
Malhi, Gurbax Singh
Maloney, John
Marleau, Diane
Martin, Keith P.
Martin, Paul Edgar Philippe
Matthews, Bill
McGuinty, David J.
McGuire, Joe
McKay, John Norman
McTeague, Dan
Milliken, Peter Andrew Stewart
Minna, Maria
Murphy, Brian
Murphy, Shawn
Murray, Joyce
Neville, Anita
Pacetti, Massimo
Patry, Bernard
Pearson, Glen
Ratansi, Yasmin
Regan, Geoff
Rodriguez, Pablo
Rota, Anthony
Russell, Todd Norman
Savage, Michael John
Scarpaleggia, Francis
Scott, Andy
Sgro, Judy
Silva, Mario
Simard, Raymond
Simms, Scott
St. Amand, Lloyd
St. Denis, Brent
Steckle, Paul Daniel
Stronach, Belinda
Szabo, Paul John Mark
Temelkovski, Lui
Thibault, Robert
Tonks, Alan
Valley, Roger
Volpe, Joe
Wappel, Tom
Wilfert, Bryon
Wrzesnewskyj, Borys
Zed, Paul
After weeks of criticizing it (as well as facing criticism from immigrant groups), Liberal MPs once more backed down from the prospect of defeating the Conservatives over C-50 - the bill to let the Conservatives hand pick immigrants – and let the bill pass.
In his defence, the embattled Liberal leader made the incredibly irresponsible suggestion that the Conservatives’ recent screw ups are justification for keeping the Harper in 24 Sussex far longer than anyone ever expected he would be.
"But Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion noted that the political gift of Bernier's resignation would never have happened if, several weeks ago, he'd brought down the government as some in his party urged him to do."
Dion's line is akin to saying “I keep a loaded revolver in the kids’ play room because I want them to learn that guns are dangerous.”
The fact Dion blithely skims over is that if he had allowed his MPs to vote with the NDP and end the Conservatives government long ago, Harper wouldn’t be able to pass legislation like the bill to politicize immigration -- the bill Liberals say they are opposed to but let pass anyway.
So while the Liberals are in the mood to be honest, is it too much to ask that they go the extra step of admitting the other reason they want Harper to remain prime minister is this, and this, and maybe, just maybe, to punish Canadians for having dared to defeat the Paul Martin government in the first place? Just askin'.
Purely as a public service, the following Liberal MPs who promised to stand up to Harper didn't last night against C-50 at report stage:
Alghabra, Omar
Bagnell, Larry
Bains, Navdeep Singh
Barnes, Sue
Beaumier, Colleen
Bélanger, Mauril
Bell, Don
Bennett, Carolyn
Bevilacqua, Maurizio
Bonin, Raymond
Boshcoff, Ken
Brison, Scott
Brown, Bonnie
Byrne, Gerry
Cannis, John
Chan, Raymond
Coderre, Denis
Cotler, Irwin
Cullen, Roy
Cuzner, Rodger
D'Amours, Jean-Claude
Dhaliwal, Sukh
Dhalla, Ruby
Dosanjh, Ujjal
Dryden, Ken
Easter, Arnold Wayne
Eyking, Mark
Folco, Raymonde
Fry, Hedy
Godfrey, John Ferguson
Guarnieri, Albina
Holland, Mark
Hubbard, Charles
Kadis, Susan
Karetak-Lindell, Nancy
Keeper, Tina
LeBlanc, Dominic
Lee, Derek Vincent
MacAulay, Lawrence A.
Malhi, Gurbax Singh
Maloney, John
Marleau, Diane
Martin, Keith P.
Martin, Paul Edgar Philippe
Matthews, Bill
McGuinty, David J.
McGuire, Joe
McKay, John Norman
McTeague, Dan
Milliken, Peter Andrew Stewart
Minna, Maria
Murphy, Brian
Murphy, Shawn
Murray, Joyce
Neville, Anita
Pacetti, Massimo
Patry, Bernard
Pearson, Glen
Ratansi, Yasmin
Regan, Geoff
Rodriguez, Pablo
Rota, Anthony
Russell, Todd Norman
Savage, Michael John
Scarpaleggia, Francis
Scott, Andy
Sgro, Judy
Silva, Mario
Simard, Raymond
Simms, Scott
St. Amand, Lloyd
St. Denis, Brent
Steckle, Paul Daniel
Stronach, Belinda
Szabo, Paul John Mark
Temelkovski, Lui
Thibault, Robert
Tonks, Alan
Valley, Roger
Volpe, Joe
Wappel, Tom
Wilfert, Bryon
Wrzesnewskyj, Borys
Zed, Paul
Monday, June 2, 2008
Provincial premiers urge movement on Layton’s cap-and-trade plan
The consensus towards a Canada-wide cap-and-trade plan that Jack Layton advocated last week is building.
Federal politics starts to look pretty broken when the leaders of the parties in government and the official opposition are the ones off-side on real solutions being built by Layton and the premiers becasue they are bickering with each other about a carbon tax.
Federal politics starts to look pretty broken when the leaders of the parties in government and the official opposition are the ones off-side on real solutions being built by Layton and the premiers becasue they are bickering with each other about a carbon tax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
