It's great to see that residents of Toronto have finally hit the tipping point as to how much over-taxation, waste, and socialist policies have destroyed the city and left them broke. Rob Ford is riding the wave of voter anger in his bid to be mayor of Toronto and restore financial responsibility to it's taxpayers. The media pundits point to David Miller, Howard Moscoe, and Adam Vaughan as some of the reason Ford is enjoying such popularity. But there is one person who needs to be dragged into this, as it was the Ontario Liberal government led by one Dalton McGuinty that really allowed this long festering wound to put the City of Toronto on it's deathbed:
"Miller salivates at new taxing powers
By Arthur Weinreb
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Toronto mayor David Miller has announced that he is considering using the new taxing powers that were so graciously given to him by Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals with the passage of the City of Toronto Act. Miller is thinking about imposing a parking surcharge in the downtown core as well as at North York City Centre; areas of the city that are well serviced by public transit. This is not just a money grab for the overextended city you understand; the idea is to cut down pollution by “encouraging” more people to use the TTC, the alleged better way.
Now none of this is for sure. Miller is simply floating a trial balloon, but much like the drunk who ponders what he’ll do when he gets inside the bar he’s walking into, we all know what will ultimately happen. Taxes will go up.
What is absolutely shocking about Miller’s pronouncement is not what he said but the timing of his statement. He wasted no time in telling Torontonians that he will use the powers that he skillfully downplayed during the election campaign. It’s still November; only two weeks since he was easily re-elected. The smart money said that he would wait until at least December before making a tax grab using the City of Toronto Act (I had December 7 in the pool). You can say this for our David; despite the fact that he has been criticized for not doing anything, the guy’s no slacker.
Newly elected councillor Adam Vaughan had an even better idea. He suggested that people who park should be taxed according to what type of car they drive. Those with gas guzzlers should pay more to park than those with environmentally friendly hybrids. The mind boggles at how many overpaid union bureaucrats will be employed in analyzing and categorizing all the various vehicles that park in the city. Vaughan hasn’t even taken his seat yet and he’s attempting to out-Miller Miller (look for Adam to run for the top job in 2010). There is however one good point about Vaughan’s suggestion. Lower income people are more likely to drive gas guzzling old clunkers than the beautiful people who buy electric cars in order to save not only the city but the planet. And it’s about time that the poor in this city pay more; why should the rich be the only ones forced to pay for new street furniture?
Of course a major plank of Ford's platform is the cancelling of the land transfer tax and vehicle plate renewal taxes, both of which could not have been implemented by Miller without McGuinty's granting of additional powers to the city.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
An Open Letter To Michael Ignatieff
With the vote to scrap the gun registry getting closer, we are being inundated by the MSM with groups against scrapping the registry. National Newswatch has something up almost every day, including hospital personnel. So in fairness and a non-partisan way, I think National Newswatch or other media outlets should provide links to persons or groups in favor of scrapping the registry. Allow me to help out with a link from one group: http://www.ofah.org/news/index.cfm?ID=131
Open Letter to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on Bill C-391
OFAH FILE: 401-8
June 2, 2010
Honourable Michael Ignatieff, M.P.
Leader of the Official Opposition
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Dear Mr. Ignatieff:
On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (O.F.A.H.), the largest nonprofit conservation-based organization in Ontario, our 100,000 members, subscribers and supporters, and our 670 member clubs across the province, we are writing to express our profound disappointment over the motion submitted by Liberal M.P. Mark Holland yesterday at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
Despite your recent public pronouncements about a Liberal "compromise," Mr. Holland's actions on behalf of the Liberal party clearly demonstrate that your understanding of the word differs greatly from that which is commonly understood.
Mr. Holland's attempt to completely derail the bill at Committee clearly demonstrates a lack of conviction in your own words and on the part of the Liberal party, and sends a clear message to the millions of anglers, hunters, recreational sport shooters, farmers and First Nations across Canada who support Bill C-391.
The fact that the Liberal party had to whip the vote when Bill C-68 was passed to ensure that party members stayed in line, and will again whip the vote on C-391, a private member's bill no less, is a clear indication that despite all of the rhetoric, that unanimity does not exist within the Liberal caucus. Instead of recognizing the rights of individual members to vote their conscience, and more importantly, their right to vote in the best interests of their constituents, they are forced to toe the party line and continue to support a badly flawed, horrifically expensive and highly divisive long gun registry that has not saved lives, and has not enhanced the public safety. This win at all costs/scorched earth policy ignores all of the obvious signs that the program has been a dismal failure, and demonstrates conclusively that common sense and fiscal responsibility have been sacrificed at the altar of philosophical adherence.
There is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that the long gun registry has fulfilled its mandate, while a plethora of factual evidence exists to support the contention that it has failed. The continued support of the Liberal party for this albatross is not only disappointing, but flies in the face of public opinion and fact.
If Mr. Holland's actions are indicative of what you call "compromise," the eight Liberal members who supported Bill C-391 on Second Reading have themselves been "compromised" by being forced to support a rigid and highly unpopular stance in many areas of the country, with the exception of downtown Toronto and a few other major urban centres.
Other jurisdictions, notably Baltimore, New York, Virginia, and New Jersey, have found that the creation of a "prohibited offenders" registry, much like the sex offender registry, which targets those who are prohibited from possessing firearms by virtue of past offences, or those most likely to offend, has made a significant difference. If you truly believe in "compromise," stop the blatant attempts to derail Bill C-391, and allow your members a free vote on Third Reading.
The gun registry did not save the victims at Dawson College where all of the firearms used were registered. It did not save the lives of four RCMP officers at Mayerthorpe where a prohibited offender used three unregistered firearms and one borrowed registered firearm to kill. Nor will it save other officers who place their faith in the system.
It is time to look for other answers -- acknowledging the failings of the long gun registry and working to achieve a system, which targets the offenders and not the legal, law-abiding firearm owners in this country is. If you have the courage of your conviction, and meant what you said when you used the word "compromise," withdraw the motion at Committee, allow a free vote, and work with the government in support of the creation of a registry that targets the 400,000 high-risk individuals entered in CPIC, including the 254,949 who are prohibited from possessing firearms and the 36,000 with restraining orders against them, something that has been proven elsewhere to have a significant impact on public safety.
Bill C-391 is a simple and straightforward piece of legislation that does one thing, and one thing only. It does not touch licencing, which we strongly support. It does not impact on mandatory background checks, which are not currently done for every application, but should be. It does not affect mandatory registration of restricted and prohibited firearms. It does not change the requirement for mandatory firearms safety courses, and does not change the need for safe storage or transportation. All it does is scrap a program that has clearly and factually been proven to be an abject failure.
Yours in Conservation,
Greg Farrant
Manager, Government Relations& Communications
Open Letter to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on Bill C-391
OFAH FILE: 401-8
June 2, 2010
Honourable Michael Ignatieff, M.P.
Leader of the Official Opposition
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Dear Mr. Ignatieff:
On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (O.F.A.H.), the largest nonprofit conservation-based organization in Ontario, our 100,000 members, subscribers and supporters, and our 670 member clubs across the province, we are writing to express our profound disappointment over the motion submitted by Liberal M.P. Mark Holland yesterday at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
Despite your recent public pronouncements about a Liberal "compromise," Mr. Holland's actions on behalf of the Liberal party clearly demonstrate that your understanding of the word differs greatly from that which is commonly understood.
Mr. Holland's attempt to completely derail the bill at Committee clearly demonstrates a lack of conviction in your own words and on the part of the Liberal party, and sends a clear message to the millions of anglers, hunters, recreational sport shooters, farmers and First Nations across Canada who support Bill C-391.
The fact that the Liberal party had to whip the vote when Bill C-68 was passed to ensure that party members stayed in line, and will again whip the vote on C-391, a private member's bill no less, is a clear indication that despite all of the rhetoric, that unanimity does not exist within the Liberal caucus. Instead of recognizing the rights of individual members to vote their conscience, and more importantly, their right to vote in the best interests of their constituents, they are forced to toe the party line and continue to support a badly flawed, horrifically expensive and highly divisive long gun registry that has not saved lives, and has not enhanced the public safety. This win at all costs/scorched earth policy ignores all of the obvious signs that the program has been a dismal failure, and demonstrates conclusively that common sense and fiscal responsibility have been sacrificed at the altar of philosophical adherence.
There is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that the long gun registry has fulfilled its mandate, while a plethora of factual evidence exists to support the contention that it has failed. The continued support of the Liberal party for this albatross is not only disappointing, but flies in the face of public opinion and fact.
If Mr. Holland's actions are indicative of what you call "compromise," the eight Liberal members who supported Bill C-391 on Second Reading have themselves been "compromised" by being forced to support a rigid and highly unpopular stance in many areas of the country, with the exception of downtown Toronto and a few other major urban centres.
Other jurisdictions, notably Baltimore, New York, Virginia, and New Jersey, have found that the creation of a "prohibited offenders" registry, much like the sex offender registry, which targets those who are prohibited from possessing firearms by virtue of past offences, or those most likely to offend, has made a significant difference. If you truly believe in "compromise," stop the blatant attempts to derail Bill C-391, and allow your members a free vote on Third Reading.
The gun registry did not save the victims at Dawson College where all of the firearms used were registered. It did not save the lives of four RCMP officers at Mayerthorpe where a prohibited offender used three unregistered firearms and one borrowed registered firearm to kill. Nor will it save other officers who place their faith in the system.
It is time to look for other answers -- acknowledging the failings of the long gun registry and working to achieve a system, which targets the offenders and not the legal, law-abiding firearm owners in this country is. If you have the courage of your conviction, and meant what you said when you used the word "compromise," withdraw the motion at Committee, allow a free vote, and work with the government in support of the creation of a registry that targets the 400,000 high-risk individuals entered in CPIC, including the 254,949 who are prohibited from possessing firearms and the 36,000 with restraining orders against them, something that has been proven elsewhere to have a significant impact on public safety.
Bill C-391 is a simple and straightforward piece of legislation that does one thing, and one thing only. It does not touch licencing, which we strongly support. It does not impact on mandatory background checks, which are not currently done for every application, but should be. It does not affect mandatory registration of restricted and prohibited firearms. It does not change the requirement for mandatory firearms safety courses, and does not change the need for safe storage or transportation. All it does is scrap a program that has clearly and factually been proven to be an abject failure.
Yours in Conservation,
Greg Farrant
Manager, Government Relations& Communications
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Record Sockeye Salmon Run Confirms End Of Global Warming, Right Mr. Ignatieff...
The biggest problem for those pushing the global warming mantra, is that they try and use weather and events to prove their cause, rather than accept events as a normal ebb and flow in the planets life. Case in point, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff on last years poor salmon run on the Fraser River:
"We’ve just seen an entire Fraser River sockeye run evaporate. Millions of salmon just didn’t show up. ( sounds like a confidence vote in the House and Liberal MP's)
Ask upstream communities about the consequences. Ask Aboriginal communities. Ask fishers. Experts are already talking about a connection with climate change.We need an urgent, independent public inquiry, using the best ocean and climate scientists to figure out what happened, and how we can to keep it from happening again.
We’ve also seen B.C.’s forest landscape scarred by the Mountain Pine Beetle. We aren’t getting the cold snaps up in the Interior that we’ve had for thousands of years, and it’s killing our forests, leaving us more vulnerable to fires in the summer.
So for British Columbians, climate change is not a distant abstraction. It’s here, and it’s hurting, right now.
Under the Conservative government, we’ve had three plans on climate change, and no action. We’ve wasted nearly four years of vital time."
To be fair, Mr. Ignatieff is not the only person to use this line of attack, enviromentalists are also guilty. Takie biologist Barbara Morton:
"Biologist Alexandra Morton has been working for years to save the salmon. She said that she first got involved in the fight to protect BC's salmon when she realized there was a link between the whales and the salmon disappearing. In an open letter to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, published in the Pacific Free Press, Morton said
If you are serious reversing climate change you need our salmon to grow the forests that stabilize climate and suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Someone in Ottawa has got to take the loss of this essential living powerhouse seriously.
Wild salmon are food security, a powercord between the open ocean and the Province of BC; they are an economic generator; they belong to the people."
Even the Globe and Mail is onboard:
"MARK HUME
October 4, 2007
VANCOUVER — Salmon in British Columbia will need human help to adapt to changes being brought on by global warming, but some streams may simply become uninhabitable to the cold-water fish, a government advisory body declared Thursday.
“Big changes are happening, creeping forward inexorably,” Paul LeBlond, chairman of the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, said as he released two new reports.
He called on the provincial and federal governments to do more to help salmon survive climate change.
“Our lakes and rivers are warming up. The freshwater flows are changing in rivers. The rain and snowfall patterns are changing. Salmon have to adapt to this. Every one of their life phases is affected,” Mr. LeBlond said.
(John Lehmann/Globe and Mail)
“The adults face warmer rivers when they are swimming upstream. What's comfortable for us for swimming is lethal to the salmon. The fry and the juvenile salmon live in warmer waters and face the direct impact of climate change. They face changing conditions of warming oceans, more acidic oceans, different predators and food shortages. The whole nine yards of problems.”
He described salmon as “a valuable gift from the sea” that need protective action now, not after stocks have collapsed.
Mark Angelo, vice-chairman of the council and an environmental instructor at the B.C. Institute of Technology, said climate-change impacts are different across the wide sweep of the province, but the overall trend is for warmer winters and drier summers. He said that will result in warmer rivers in the summer, affecting migration timing, and winter floods, which will scour spawning beds.
Now I guess these global warming alarmists thought they were safe in using low fish stocks to champion their cause. The problem is many who really are experts said there is a 4 year low stock cycle that appears every number of years. Combine that with this news and I guess global warming really is in the past:
"Massive sockeye salmon run hits Fraser River
Fishermen at the mouth of B.C.'s Fraser River are preparing for one of the biggest runs of sockeye salmon in nearly 100 years, but it's unclear what will happen to all the unexpected fish.
On Tuesday, the Pacific Salmon Commission announced it expects as many as 25 million fish will return to the Fraser this season.
That's the largest return since 1913 and more than double what was forecast just a few weeks ago.
On Tuesday night, fisherman were down on the docks preparing for what may prove to be an epic fishing trip.
Stewart McDonald said he does not plan to sleep for the entire 32-hour stretch.
"It's probably going to be the best fishing of our lives…. They're just coming in on hordes, it's amazing to see," said McDonald.
Phil Eidsvik with the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition said it's great news for the industry that works the river mouth south of Vancouver.
"We're not surprised that the run size was increased. We've been seeing lots of fish in the river and very large test sets in Johnstone Strait and we're still hearing reports of sockeye being caught in the Queen Charlotte Islands, on the northern tip, so we expected it to be upgraded," said Eidsvik."
"We’ve just seen an entire Fraser River sockeye run evaporate. Millions of salmon just didn’t show up. ( sounds like a confidence vote in the House and Liberal MP's)
Ask upstream communities about the consequences. Ask Aboriginal communities. Ask fishers. Experts are already talking about a connection with climate change.We need an urgent, independent public inquiry, using the best ocean and climate scientists to figure out what happened, and how we can to keep it from happening again.
We’ve also seen B.C.’s forest landscape scarred by the Mountain Pine Beetle. We aren’t getting the cold snaps up in the Interior that we’ve had for thousands of years, and it’s killing our forests, leaving us more vulnerable to fires in the summer.
So for British Columbians, climate change is not a distant abstraction. It’s here, and it’s hurting, right now.
Under the Conservative government, we’ve had three plans on climate change, and no action. We’ve wasted nearly four years of vital time."
To be fair, Mr. Ignatieff is not the only person to use this line of attack, enviromentalists are also guilty. Takie biologist Barbara Morton:
"Biologist Alexandra Morton has been working for years to save the salmon. She said that she first got involved in the fight to protect BC's salmon when she realized there was a link between the whales and the salmon disappearing. In an open letter to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, published in the Pacific Free Press, Morton said
If you are serious reversing climate change you need our salmon to grow the forests that stabilize climate and suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Someone in Ottawa has got to take the loss of this essential living powerhouse seriously.
Wild salmon are food security, a powercord between the open ocean and the Province of BC; they are an economic generator; they belong to the people."
Even the Globe and Mail is onboard:
"MARK HUME
October 4, 2007
VANCOUVER — Salmon in British Columbia will need human help to adapt to changes being brought on by global warming, but some streams may simply become uninhabitable to the cold-water fish, a government advisory body declared Thursday.
“Big changes are happening, creeping forward inexorably,” Paul LeBlond, chairman of the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, said as he released two new reports.
He called on the provincial and federal governments to do more to help salmon survive climate change.
“Our lakes and rivers are warming up. The freshwater flows are changing in rivers. The rain and snowfall patterns are changing. Salmon have to adapt to this. Every one of their life phases is affected,” Mr. LeBlond said.
(John Lehmann/Globe and Mail)
“The adults face warmer rivers when they are swimming upstream. What's comfortable for us for swimming is lethal to the salmon. The fry and the juvenile salmon live in warmer waters and face the direct impact of climate change. They face changing conditions of warming oceans, more acidic oceans, different predators and food shortages. The whole nine yards of problems.”
He described salmon as “a valuable gift from the sea” that need protective action now, not after stocks have collapsed.
Mark Angelo, vice-chairman of the council and an environmental instructor at the B.C. Institute of Technology, said climate-change impacts are different across the wide sweep of the province, but the overall trend is for warmer winters and drier summers. He said that will result in warmer rivers in the summer, affecting migration timing, and winter floods, which will scour spawning beds.
Now I guess these global warming alarmists thought they were safe in using low fish stocks to champion their cause. The problem is many who really are experts said there is a 4 year low stock cycle that appears every number of years. Combine that with this news and I guess global warming really is in the past:
"Massive sockeye salmon run hits Fraser River
Fishermen at the mouth of B.C.'s Fraser River are preparing for one of the biggest runs of sockeye salmon in nearly 100 years, but it's unclear what will happen to all the unexpected fish.
On Tuesday, the Pacific Salmon Commission announced it expects as many as 25 million fish will return to the Fraser this season.
That's the largest return since 1913 and more than double what was forecast just a few weeks ago.
On Tuesday night, fisherman were down on the docks preparing for what may prove to be an epic fishing trip.
Stewart McDonald said he does not plan to sleep for the entire 32-hour stretch.
"It's probably going to be the best fishing of our lives…. They're just coming in on hordes, it's amazing to see," said McDonald.
Phil Eidsvik with the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition said it's great news for the industry that works the river mouth south of Vancouver.
"We're not surprised that the run size was increased. We've been seeing lots of fish in the river and very large test sets in Johnstone Strait and we're still hearing reports of sockeye being caught in the Queen Charlotte Islands, on the northern tip, so we expected it to be upgraded," said Eidsvik."
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
PM Patronage Appointment Rate 20% Compared To 50% InLiberal Era
Ya really gotta love Liberal MP Wayne "DOORKNOB" Easter. He thought it was a good idea to hold a news conference today slamming the Conservative government for the fact 20% of all patronage appointments were to Conservative supporters. It's just a godarn shame Easter never really gets his facts straight before embarrassing himself. Why? Well let's take a look.
1. Easter slams the PM for supposedly breaking a promise to lower patronage appointments: "The PEI Liberal stressed that Mr. Harper came to office by campaigning against Liberal largesse. “He said he would do certain things, he hasn’t done them". Well he is correct the PM made that promise. The problem is the PM has kept that promise. Under Liberal MP Jean Chretien, patronage appointments to Liberal supporters were in the area of 50%
"'The king of patronage'
Seven years after vowing to review the appointment process, the Chretien
patronage machine is humming along, beating even Brian Mulroney at
the political 'game of friends.'
Jack Aubry
One sunny July day this past summer, Prime Minister Jean Chretien joined his cabinet to hand out millions of dollars worth of federal jobs, with half going to supporters of the Liberal party.
That job finished, Mr. Chretien hopped into a helicopter for a whitewater raft ride on the Ottawa River.
Ten years ago, the Citizen examined a similar summer day's worth of appointments made by then-Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and his cabinet.
The high rate of Liberal patronage on July 27 surpassed Mr. Mulroney's one-in-three patronage ratio.
Mr. Chretien has said the upcoming election would be partly fought over protecting "Liberal values" -- the values espoused by the late Pierre Trudeau. But the Citizen review may remind Canadians of the darker side of Mr. Trudeau's legacy, including a particularly infamous spate of patronage appointments he made John Turner fulfil in 1984. That list helped hand the 1984 election to Mr. Mulroney.
Mr. Chretien defended the appointments during the 1984 election, arguing that by naming so many sitting MPs to the patronage posts, Mr. Trudeau had saved taxpayers money. Instead of drawing big pensions, Mr. Chretien rationalized, the appointees would only earn their new salaries.
Later as Opposition leader, Mr. Chretien and his Liberals were highly critical of Mr. Mulroney's appointments.
And in the 1993 Red Book of election promises, the Liberals vowed to restore integrity to government and review the appointment process to ensure jobs were filled on the basis of competence. Seven years later, the famed Grit patronage machine is humming along, apparently cranking out Liberals for one out of every two new appointments -- if July 27, 2000, is any indication.
On that day, about 40 of the 80 appointments made by the cabinet were filled by Liberals who either contributed money to the party, ran as party candidates in previous federal and provincial elections, or worked on Liberal election and leadership campaigns. The total annual salaries of the 80 jobs filled is more than $3.8 million.
The appointments included Chretien cronies, former Liberal MPs, some defeated candidates, and in one case, the daughter of a Newfoundland Liberal member of the provincial legislature.
There were a handful of noteworthy Liberal appointments including Robert Fung, the man who brought Mr. Chretien to a Bay Street brokerage house as a well-paid "special adviser" when Mr. Chretien left politics in the mid-1980s.
I dunno Wayne. That kinda damages your rant of the day. But maybe you need further proof. How about this? This actually kicks it up a notch to 60% with this round of appointments:
"Interviews with well-connected members of the legal community, including Liberals, a search of news data bases, and Elections Canada political contribution records, establish that in the past five years a majority of the 93 lawyers who were appointed to the Federal Court, the Ontario Superior Court, and the Courts of Queen's Bench of Alberta and Saskatchewan had associations with the governing Liberals.
More than 70 per cent of those appointed since 2000 to the Ontario Superior Court by Cotler and his predecessors, Anne McLellan and Martin Cauchon, donated money only to the Liberal Party of Canada. Forty of 56 lawyers gave just to the Liberals...
...The situation was similar in Alberta. Seven of the 13 lawyers (54 per cent) appointed to the federal bench in 2000 or later donated solely to the Liberals. None of the lawyers appointed donated solely to the Conservatives...
...High-profile Liberals appointed to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench included John J. Gill, co-chair of election readiness in Alberta for the Liberals in 2004; Vital Ouellette, who ran unsuccessfully for the provincial Liberals in Lac La Biche-St. Paul in 1997 and 2001; federal Liberal candidate Bryan Mahoney, who lost twice to Conservative Myron Thompson in the riding of Wild Rose; and Liberal fundraiser Marsha Colleen Erb, Calgary co-chair in 1999 of the exclusive Laurier Club, where membership is based on donations of $1,000 or more to the Liberal party. Erb was appointed by her friend, then-justice minister Anne McLellan...
...11 of the 17 judges appointed to the trial level of the Ottawa based Federal Court were found to have ties to the Liberals.
And a little something for your viewing pleasure...
1. Easter slams the PM for supposedly breaking a promise to lower patronage appointments: "The PEI Liberal stressed that Mr. Harper came to office by campaigning against Liberal largesse. “He said he would do certain things, he hasn’t done them". Well he is correct the PM made that promise. The problem is the PM has kept that promise. Under Liberal MP Jean Chretien, patronage appointments to Liberal supporters were in the area of 50%
"'The king of patronage'
Seven years after vowing to review the appointment process, the Chretien
patronage machine is humming along, beating even Brian Mulroney at
the political 'game of friends.'
Jack Aubry
One sunny July day this past summer, Prime Minister Jean Chretien joined his cabinet to hand out millions of dollars worth of federal jobs, with half going to supporters of the Liberal party.
That job finished, Mr. Chretien hopped into a helicopter for a whitewater raft ride on the Ottawa River.
Ten years ago, the Citizen examined a similar summer day's worth of appointments made by then-Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and his cabinet.
The high rate of Liberal patronage on July 27 surpassed Mr. Mulroney's one-in-three patronage ratio.
Mr. Chretien has said the upcoming election would be partly fought over protecting "Liberal values" -- the values espoused by the late Pierre Trudeau. But the Citizen review may remind Canadians of the darker side of Mr. Trudeau's legacy, including a particularly infamous spate of patronage appointments he made John Turner fulfil in 1984. That list helped hand the 1984 election to Mr. Mulroney.
Mr. Chretien defended the appointments during the 1984 election, arguing that by naming so many sitting MPs to the patronage posts, Mr. Trudeau had saved taxpayers money. Instead of drawing big pensions, Mr. Chretien rationalized, the appointees would only earn their new salaries.
Later as Opposition leader, Mr. Chretien and his Liberals were highly critical of Mr. Mulroney's appointments.
And in the 1993 Red Book of election promises, the Liberals vowed to restore integrity to government and review the appointment process to ensure jobs were filled on the basis of competence. Seven years later, the famed Grit patronage machine is humming along, apparently cranking out Liberals for one out of every two new appointments -- if July 27, 2000, is any indication.
On that day, about 40 of the 80 appointments made by the cabinet were filled by Liberals who either contributed money to the party, ran as party candidates in previous federal and provincial elections, or worked on Liberal election and leadership campaigns. The total annual salaries of the 80 jobs filled is more than $3.8 million.
The appointments included Chretien cronies, former Liberal MPs, some defeated candidates, and in one case, the daughter of a Newfoundland Liberal member of the provincial legislature.
There were a handful of noteworthy Liberal appointments including Robert Fung, the man who brought Mr. Chretien to a Bay Street brokerage house as a well-paid "special adviser" when Mr. Chretien left politics in the mid-1980s.
I dunno Wayne. That kinda damages your rant of the day. But maybe you need further proof. How about this? This actually kicks it up a notch to 60% with this round of appointments:
"Interviews with well-connected members of the legal community, including Liberals, a search of news data bases, and Elections Canada political contribution records, establish that in the past five years a majority of the 93 lawyers who were appointed to the Federal Court, the Ontario Superior Court, and the Courts of Queen's Bench of Alberta and Saskatchewan had associations with the governing Liberals.
More than 70 per cent of those appointed since 2000 to the Ontario Superior Court by Cotler and his predecessors, Anne McLellan and Martin Cauchon, donated money only to the Liberal Party of Canada. Forty of 56 lawyers gave just to the Liberals...
...The situation was similar in Alberta. Seven of the 13 lawyers (54 per cent) appointed to the federal bench in 2000 or later donated solely to the Liberals. None of the lawyers appointed donated solely to the Conservatives...
...High-profile Liberals appointed to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench included John J. Gill, co-chair of election readiness in Alberta for the Liberals in 2004; Vital Ouellette, who ran unsuccessfully for the provincial Liberals in Lac La Biche-St. Paul in 1997 and 2001; federal Liberal candidate Bryan Mahoney, who lost twice to Conservative Myron Thompson in the riding of Wild Rose; and Liberal fundraiser Marsha Colleen Erb, Calgary co-chair in 1999 of the exclusive Laurier Club, where membership is based on donations of $1,000 or more to the Liberal party. Erb was appointed by her friend, then-justice minister Anne McLellan...
...11 of the 17 judges appointed to the trial level of the Ottawa based Federal Court were found to have ties to the Liberals.
And a little something for your viewing pleasure...
Friday, August 20, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Meet The Liberal Hit List (Part 5 Stephane Dion)
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Liberals were telling Canadians Stephane Dion should be PM, heading a combined Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition. Mere weeks after, we were told that Michael Ignatieff would now be Liberal leader. The man who was fit to be PM wasn't fit to be the leader of the official opposition. Upon being kicked to the curb by his party, Dion vanished from the public eye, despite being a sitting MP.
Truth be told, there have been more Elvis sitings since that date.
Truth be told, there have been more Elvis sitings since that date.
Meet The Liberal Hit List (Part 4 Conrad Black)
h/t to anonymous commenter on previous thread.
"Newspaper baron Conrad Black has launched a lawsuit against Prime Minister Jean Chretien and the Canadian government.
Black says he suffered considerable embarrassment and inconvenience when he didn't get a British peerage in June. He blames political interference by Chretien for the decision by the British government.
Black was set to become a lifetime member of the British House of Lords but at the last minute, got word that Chretien had advised the Queen against the appointment.
The Canadian government had invoked the Nickel Resolution, a parliamentary resolution passed 80 years ago to put an end to the practice of granting foreign titular honours to Canadians.
Black is suing for $25,000.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister's office told CBC News on Thursday night that Chretien will defend himself "vigorously" against the charges. His officials say he was "definitely not pleased" when told of the lawsuit.
Chretien has always insisted he blocked Black's appointment for valid reasons, not out of spite. But on Thursday his office said it's no secret that coverage by Black's newspaper, The National Post, of Chretien's financial affairs has made the PM very angry.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/1999/08/05/black990805.html#ixzz0x6pobXDv
"Newspaper baron Conrad Black has launched a lawsuit against Prime Minister Jean Chretien and the Canadian government.
Black says he suffered considerable embarrassment and inconvenience when he didn't get a British peerage in June. He blames political interference by Chretien for the decision by the British government.
Black was set to become a lifetime member of the British House of Lords but at the last minute, got word that Chretien had advised the Queen against the appointment.
The Canadian government had invoked the Nickel Resolution, a parliamentary resolution passed 80 years ago to put an end to the practice of granting foreign titular honours to Canadians.
Black is suing for $25,000.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister's office told CBC News on Thursday night that Chretien will defend himself "vigorously" against the charges. His officials say he was "definitely not pleased" when told of the lawsuit.
Chretien has always insisted he blocked Black's appointment for valid reasons, not out of spite. But on Thursday his office said it's no secret that coverage by Black's newspaper, The National Post, of Chretien's financial affairs has made the PM very angry.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/1999/08/05/black990805.html#ixzz0x6pobXDv
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)