Kingston's Brian Abrams Reveals That His Government Had no Plan

I was just perusing some of 'Brian's Thoughts' from the last election campaign. The Brian of course is Kingston's 'also ran', Brian Abrams, who is so keen to get elected next time around that he is stealing our tax money to do it.

OK. I know he can't get his own hands on the public purse just yet, but he has other Conservative MPs do his dirty work for him. People like Mike Wallace from Burlington, Blake Richards from Wild Rose Alberta and Rob Anders (the man who called Nelson Mandela a terrorist) from Calgary West.

But make no mistake about it. The junk mail that is filling up our recycle bins was paid for by US! And Abrams wants to be our Member of Parliament? I don't think so. If he's this careless during an economic crisis, how can we ever trust that he will work to get us back in the black.

So I present 'Brian's thoughts from October 2008, which obviously require a little less Brian and a lot more thought. This one he called: 'Real plan versus no plan.'

"Late last year, the Prime Minister saw that a storm was coming (ha ha ha ha ha ha), and in response our Government developed and implemented a plan based on keeping the budget balanced, lowering taxes, protecting Canadian jobs and keeping inflation low. Our plan has worked and it is the reason why Canada is in good shape today.

That plan is the reason the World Economic Forum recently rated Canada as having the world's soundest banking system.

That plan is the reason Statistics Canada announced this morning that 107,000 jobs were created in September."

Some plan your Party's got going there Brian. At this rate we should be totally bankrupt soon. Grade on these predictions and fabrications: F-

Back to: The Brian Abrams Story: I Want to be a Potted Plant

Harper Says 'So What if the Cows Have Gone Mad. I've Got Canadians to Milk'

Before the you know what hit the fan concerning the Listeriosis outbreak, that killed 22 Canadians and made thousands more severely ill, Harper's slash and burn agenda was in full swing.

In a move that still has many shaking their heads, he told food manufacturers in Canada that they could do their own inspections, and our civil servants would just shuffle the paper reports they submitted.

One concerned biologist released documents relating to the 'secret' moves, that he didn't realize were even secret because they had been posted right there on the web. He was fired immediately, despite the fact that the error was made higher up the chain.

What has also raised concerns is the fact the report reveals his intention to end the testing of cattle for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or Mad Cow Disease). No wonder they didn't want the documents revealed, because he would have had more than just mad cows to deal with.

Food inspection 'disaster' looms
Expert calls planned deregulation 'unfathomable'
Sarah Schmidt,

Calgary Herald

Canwest News

July 11, 2008

OTTAWA - A government plan to transfer key parts of food inspection to industry so companies can police themselves will put the health of Canadians at risk, according to leading food safety experts who have reviewed the confidential blueprint.

The plan, drafted by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and approved by the Treasury Board details sweeping changes coming to food inspection in Canada.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is also ending funding to producers to test cattle for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or Mad Cow Disease) as part of a surveillance program, the document indicates, a move that is expected to save the agency about $24 million over the next three years.

The new system, part of a push to trim the agency's budget by five per cent, was approved last November, but a public announcement "has been deferred owing to significant communications risks," according to the confidential Treasury Board document obtained by Canwest News Service.

The document, addressed to the president of the agency, details how the inspection of meat and meat products will downgrade agency inspectors to an "oversight role, allowing industry to implement food safety control programs and to manage key risks."

The inspection of animal feed mills will undergo the same changes "to reduce the need for ongoing CFIA inspection and would shift CFIA's role to oversight and verification of industry outcomes."

For the certification of commercial seed, "this means shifting the program delivery of seed certification, including inspection, to an industry-led third party."

Leading food safety experts, who reviewed the document, say the plan is a recipe for disaster.

"They're moving towards the U.S. model, where the inspectors don't actually do the inspection, they just oversee and the companies actually do the inspection. That's a really dangerous thing," said Michael Hansen, a North American authority on BSE and senior scientist with the New York-based Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports.

Hansen, who in the past has been invited by parliamentary committees to testify as an expert on food safety issues, says the end of the BSE reimbursement program is of "highest concern."

A leading Canadian academic specializing in food risk management called these cuts "unfathomable" because Canada continues to find BSE-positive animals and is one of the few countries in the world where BSE is on the increase.

The expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there is near unanimous agreement among public health experts that "the greatest risks" of new emerging infectious disease are related to animal products and food.

Avian Influenza, SARS, BSE and Ebola "are just the tip of an iceberg," he said.

"Reducing food safety controls at this time could be disastrous if there is an outbreak of a new food-borne disease. No wonder they suspect they may have some 'communication risks' around these initiatives. They have a huge communications risk."

The proposals are illogical, said University of Guelph professor Ann Clark, a specialist in risk assessment in genetically modified crops, who has testified many times before Parliament's agriculture committee about risk management and the food supply.

"Companies are in business to make profit, pure and simple, and we, as a society, have fully accepted and bought into that, but with the understanding that somebody will be riding herd on them - minding the shop - to safeguard societal interests.

Otherwise, history has shown that we are at risk," said Clark, citing industries such as tobacco and asbestos.

"The initiatives outlined in this document suggest government is trying to get out of the business of government, by downloading responsibility for safeguarding human and environmental health to the same industry interests which stand to make money from what is being regulated. This is inherently illogical."

The plan was approved by Treasury Board one month before Prime Minister Stephen Harper, along with Ritz and Health Minister Tony Clement, announced last December a new food and consumer action plan to make Canadians safer through "tougher" regulations of food and other consumer products.

The plan, in the hands of senior CFIA staff since May to map out a communications plan to roll out the changes, has already led to the dismissal of an agency scientist.

Luc Pomerleau, who stumbled upon the blueprint on a server where it was posted in error and could be accessed by any agency employee, was dismissed last week because he forwarded it to union officials at the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Union president Michele Demers said he was seeking advice on how to deal with the matter because it appeared the plan undermined the health and safety of Canadians.

Gerry Ritz Plans New Comedy Tour as His 'Thousand Cuts' Still Threaten Our Lives

More than a year after the Conservative government decided to allow meat processing plants to handle their own safety inspections, government employees are warning that further Listeriosis outbreaks are more than just possible, but probable; as their hands are still being tied, making it increasingly difficult to do their jobs.

Gerry Ritz found the whole thing quite funny, so I guess we can expect a return engagement from Mr. 'funny man', at the expense of Canadian lives.

Maybe he just thinks Listeriosis is sexy.

Boy I'll bet Lisa Raitt would love to get their hands on this file. But then, she'd probably just lose it.

Meat safety 'impossible' job
Maple Leaf plant wasn't audited properly before listeria outbreak, angry inspectors say

Toronto Star
Apr 20, 2009

Robert Cribb STAFF REPORTER

The Maple Leaf plant at the centre of last summer's deadly listeria tragedy wasn't subject to a detailed safety audit by federal inspectors for at least a year prior to the outbreak, says a briefing note from the union representing inspectors.

Inadequate resources, staff shortages and overtime bans on federal inspectors have prevented the mandatory annual safety audits from being completed, says the union, which has sent its briefing note to members of a federal subcommittee investigating the listeria outbreak.

The inspectors, who prepared the note based on observations as part of their jobs, are presenting it this week at federal hearings.

"When it comes to delivering the legally required oversight of Canada's meat and food safety systems, it's mission impossible for CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency)," says the briefing note.

"The agency simply does not have the resources to do the job Canadians expect and the CFIA's own policies demand."

Tim O'Connor, a spokesperson for the agency, said that while a full system audit was not done at the plant leading up to the outbreak, a different auditing system had been put in place that incorporates the same level of oversight.

That new federal inspection routine has come under fiery criticism from inspectors, politicians and the public for handing too much oversight to plant staff while overworked inspectors are left to check company paperwork.

Bob Kingston, president of the union representing federal meat inspectors, said full system audits remain a crucial element of the agency's oversight duties.

"Day-to-day checks don't replace a detailed system audit. You cannot have an audit system without a comprehensive audit. It's still definitely part of the program and that's the one that was not done."

Any fundamental flaws at the Maple Leaf plant, and others like it, could have been caught by a comprehensive system audit in which four or five inspectors analyze an operation "from top to bottom" over a week, Kingston said.

"Those are the kinds of inspections that, in the past, have picked up serious kinds of problems. They were not done in this case."

The Maple Leaf listeria outbreak caused 21 deaths and sickened hundreds, perhaps thousands, more.

There are other safety shortcomings detailed in the briefing note.

Inspectors responsible for overseeing more than two plants that produce cold cuts do not have time to verify the facilities are complying with food safety requirements, it says. And most inspectors assigned to such safety sensitive plants are responsible for three or more facilities, the union alleges in the note.

"The inspector at the contaminated Maple Leaf plant in Toronto was responsible for seven facilities at the time of the listeriosis outbreak," it says.

The CFIA's O'Connor confirmed that statement.

Cost-cutting measures at the food inspection agency included banning overtime for inspectors before last summer's tragedy, the note says. "As a result, CFIA inspectors were unable to verify that pre-operation and sanitation inspections at ready-to-eat meat processing plants in Ontario and Quebec were properly conducted by plant employees, including at the Maple Leaf plant."

Increasing industry self-regulation has contributed to less scrutiny around food safety issues that impact the public, it says.

The shortage of inspectors and resources in meat plants across the country is likely to get worse, the document warns.

The CFIA is planning an emergency fund to deal with outbreaks of food or animal-borne illnesses that could reduce the agency's operational budget by 10 to 15 per cent. CFIA supervisors across the country have been getting calls from senior managers in recent weeks advising them to expect "big cuts," said the union's Kingston.

The Union had issued warnings before the Listeriosis outbreak, so were not surprised by the news:

The fallout from Ritz's comments came on the same day a public-sector union alleged that a re-elected federal Conservative government would pull out of meat inspection programs in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
According to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, a secret report from the Treasury Board of Canada released this past May proposed that they could save $3 million by cutting federal meat inspection programs.

Patty Ducharme is the union's national executive vice-president. She told The Canadian Press that if a re-elected Tory government makes the proposed cuts, consumers would be the ones who pay.

"Meat produced in provincially registered facilities would not be inspected," Ducharme said. "Under this type of a scenario, consumers would have to count on the fact that producers would produce their products in a fashion that ensures their safety."

Back to - The Gerry Ritz Story: Can't Fall Back on Comedy

"I like to Pay Taxes. With Them I Buy Civilization"

That quote was from Oliver Wendell Holmes and kind of sums up how I feel about taxes. They are inevitable and the price we pay for living in a progressive country.

But every election campaign, candidates will focus on lowering taxes, like they are driving out the devil himself.

Most ignore the promises once elected, or worse fulfill them, like Jim Flaherty did with the GST, and look at the mess it made.

And speaking of messes, how about the promises of his counterpart, George W. Bush. "The Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I'll say no, and they'll push and I'll say no, and they'll push again. And all I can say to them is read my lips: No New Taxes."

Enough said.

CBC News online ran a great opinion piece recently, written by someone with a lot of common sense.

Why I should be paying more taxes
June 19, 2009
By Robert Smol

Last month, the hard reality of my growing professional success struck me, yet again, in the wallet as I proceeded to pay the government that which I still owed on my already high tax bill.

Am I frustrated? Absolutely. But not for the same reasons that many of my fellow grumpy, overworked middle-aged cohorts are frustrated with what they have to hand over to the public purse.

I am frustrated about not having the chance to pay more taxes.

Now, I am no government lapdog, as my earlier columns on this site would indicate. 'Let me tell you how it will be, cause I'm the taxman.' (Canadian Press)

More often than not, I can be found in full complaint over any number of issues, from health care in our hospitals to teaching standards and the size of our military. But it has dawned on me as I have documented these shortcomings that nothing will change if I as a citizen am not prepared to put my money where my mouth is.

We are us

At school, I repeatedly tell my business students that the best quality goods or services come at a cost. As an entrepreneur, if I want the best quality employee, or shipping or internet service, then I must be prepared to pay. Why then am I made to seem like I have grown a horn when I suggest that the same business-like mantra apply to our government services?

Of course, just like in the so-called real world, taxpayers should insist that what governments provide be efficient and cost effective.

But if we want top quality nurses, doctors, teachers, police and soldiers — and in the numbers we feel we need — we are simply going to have to come up with the cash.

We are not a desperate have-not nation. Nobody is going to turn to the philanthropic CEO or rock star when a real pandemic, earthquake or military/terrorist attack comes our way.

Instead, we will have to turn to whatever we, as a society, have collectively managed to store up to help us in a time of need. It is a reality I saw first hand when my military unit was deployed to Eastern Ontario in 1998 to assist during the famous ice storm.

While we scrambled through our relatively meagre military supplies to muster every available tool — chainsaws and generators — to help the local population, we discovered some local merchants were inflating the price considerably to rent or buy these items.

Because we hadn't set aside enough public resources in the first place, we ended up paying quite a bit more when the call went out for help. It is a parallel I can't help seeing being replayed in our current economic situation, with the federal deficit now shooting up so dramatically as Ottawa tries to plug holes everywhere it can.

Being selfish

So, with this in mind, here are the reasons why I feel I personally deserve to pay more into the public purse. I will try to leave the rest of you out of this. It is not my intention to pick and choose who should be ponying up. Rather it is simply for selfish reasons that I want to pay more.

I want to pay more taxes because I want to be assured of the services that will ransom me and those who might one day take care of me from the harsh realities that life will inevitably leave on my doorstep, whether it be sickness, old age, natural disaster or economic meltdown.

Come desperate times, I do not want to put my trust in those whose sole purpose is to turn a profit from my fears or my pain and suffering.

These are collective anxieties we all share and I'd like to be assured there are enough public resources set aside to deal with them, as there was during my parents' and grandparents' eras.

We boomers are going to be making extra demands on our social safety net as we age, everyone tells us. It behooves us to start contributing more now to pay for those needs.

Not a bottomless pit

Obviously, the public purse is not a bottomless pit and future governments will have to make some unpopular decisions on the allocation of scarce resources. But surely there is more at stake here than just decisions about the allocation of future government services.

Doesn't the equilibrium between the right of individuals and corporations, like the car companies and others, to draw from the public purse come with a corresponding obligation to keep it full?

I for one feel I should pay more. I don't want to point fingers everywhere but it is hard to see how those corporate entities with their hands out now shouldn't be prepared to pay more later, particularly if we don't want to mortgage the cost of maintaining government programs on future generations.

I frequently hear successful managers and CEOs say that their employees are their greatest resource. A productive, healthy and well-educated work force is, I believe, what makes a company, and ultimately the economy, successful.

I also believe that a modern, accessible and efficient infrastructure is needed to make the economy attract and grow businesses.

The last places then where we should be making any cuts are health care, education and security as well as the infrastructure that makes for a highly mobile and efficiently telecommunicating society.

Call me selfish but I feel I deserve to live the twilight phase in my life in a progressive and caring society where I am taken care of through a generous and financially solvent public health-care system and social safety network supported by the taxes of a highly skilled and educated workforce.

It is a model that has worked for me so far. And I'm happy to pay more to keep it going.

Now that I'm a grandparent, I'm more concerned with the kind of Canada my grandchildren grow up in. I don't want them paying in the future for services I'm receiving today.

I want a politician to tell me how they will make better use of the taxes I pay, not just threaten to reduce government revenue, when I know that vital government services will no doubt suffer.
Be courageous, be smart and be fair. That's all I ask.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are none of the above.

The Conservatives Do Poor Job of Supporting Troops

Did you ever get cut off by a truck on the highway, only to see the words emblazoned on it's rear 'How's my Driving?'

Well that's exactly how the family of Stuart Langridge felt when they received a form letter, requesting they fill out a survey about how they were treated after the young soldier's death.

This after they made repeated complaints about how they had, and were still being treated by the military.

This is unacceptable. Our soldiers deserve better. Surely there is one person who could write a personal letter to each the families of our fallen soldiers. And a survey? Sounds like one of the Conservatives franking push polls to me.

Make a call or pay a visit if you really care.

This is not the first time this government has made disastrous errors in handling the victims of their new direction for the 'mission'. The repatriation of Karine Blais who travelled on the milk stop express. The attempts to silence the media and block them from covering the flag draped coffins. And even muzzling the military from speaking without approval from the PMO.

But their handling of Stuart Langridge reflects not only the control of information from the military, but the marginalization of a specific group of soldiers, that they are only now trying to politically recognize. Those suffering from Post Traumatic Stress.

Yes Peter MacKay is flitting about now encouraging soldiers to speak up, but the facts in the case of Corporal Langridge contradict this.

Parents of dead soldier felt deceived, marginalized by military
By David Pugliese,
Ottawa Citizen
June 21, 2009

A week after they buried their son, Sheila and Shaun Fynes received a letter from National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. They opened it and were stunned by the first sentence: "I hope this letter finds you in good health and spirits."

The letter was an invitation from the director of casualty support to complete a survey about how the military treated the family. Included were questions about the family's experience in CFB Trenton, Ont., the base where the bodies of soldiers, killed in Afghanistan, arrive by aircraft. The Fynes had never been to Trenton.

In the months following Cpl. Stuart Langridge's suicide by hanging in an Edmonton army base in March 2008, and his burial in Victoria, the Fynes got little peace. Instead they became trapped in a legal and bureaucratic nightmare they say the Army helped create.

The parents were still angry the Army recognized their 29-year-old son's girlfriend of 14 months - his spouse from the military's viewpoint - as the soldier's primary next of kin, even though the two had split up a couple of months before Stuart's death.

In fact, Shaun and Sheila were legally listed as Stuart's primary and secondary next of kin - and the Army knew it.

Unknown to the Fynes, several days after Stuart's death, a unit clerk in Edmonton had found key papers regarding the soldier, stuffed behind a filing cabinet. Included among the papers was a will and documents naming Shaun as executor for his son's estate. Other records existed naming him as primary next of kin.

The paperwork should have given the couple the right to plan their son's funeral. But military officials did not tell the Fynes about the discovery. Two soldiers went with Stuart's common law spouse to the funeral home to fill out a registration of death certificate - incorrectly, as it turned out.

Without a valid proof of death, Stuart's estate became, and remains, a legal minefield. Shaun Fynes found he could not settle his son's estate or pay the soldier's taxes as required under law.

Armed with a letter from the Alberta Funeral Services Regulatory Board acknowledging mistakes had been made on the registration of death certificate, the Fynes have spent about $10,000 so far in legal fees trying to correct the problems.

The military has declined to become involved in the legal issue. Canadian Forces spokesman Maj. Dave Muralt said the two soldiers who went to the funeral home did not provide any of the information now in question.

But the Fynes blame the Army for the legal mess.

"Is it normal to store personnel documents in between a filing cabinet and the wall?" asked Shaun.

Muralt said the unit is investigating how Stuart's documents were handled. "There were things that clearly happened the way we would not want them to happen," he acknowledged.

Even as their legal hassles continued, the Fynes were keen to see an inquiry into their son's death.

The military usually holds a board of inquiry or BOI into the deaths of its members on duty; in Stuart Langridge's case, that wasn't immediately done. Muralt said the Army tried to find trained officers to conduct the BOI but that was difficult in the beginning.

By January 2009 the Fynes were becoming frustrated at what they perceived as foot-dragging by the Army.

On Jan. 21, Maj. Stewart Parkinson, the officer assigned to help the family, wrote to headquarters that the Fynes were increasingly unhappy with the delay and the couple wanted to have input into the board, as was their right.

"You'll understand if after 10 months of being deceived, misled, and intentionally marginalized (at) various points that they have no faith left in the system," wrote Parkinson. "A bottom line for them at this point is some sign of real respect for Cpl. Langridge and a meaningful participation in the BOI."

In early March, the Fynes walked into a hearing in Edmonton, feeling that at last some good would come from their son's death. The purpose of a BOI is not to lay blame but to identify what the military could do to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

"We thought they would come up with recommendations so soldiers who are sick wouldn't fall through the cracks," said Sheila.

That hope disappeared. A parade of witnesses came forth to talk about Stuart's drug and alcohol abuse problems. A military doctor made a point of noting that the soldier did not suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

A psychiatrist voiced the opinion that Stuart shouldn't have been allowed to attend the funeral of a fallen comrade the day he committed suicide, adding that ceremony likely prompted him to take his own life.

The Fynes couldn't believe what they hearing. Their son had never attended the funeral in question - he was already dead at that point. The Fynes also thought it was highly unusual that the civilian doctor who diagnosed Stuart with PTSD and the base psychiatrist who evaluated him previously were not asked to testify.

"The whole thing seemed designed to put the blame entirely on Stu," explained Sheila. "It's like they took away our son and now they are trying to take away any pride we could have in him."

Maj. Muralt said he can't comment on the family's concerns about the BOI as the inquiry's report is still being reviewed.

Last month, the Fynes received another surprise.

A military officer phoned to inform them that their son had left a suicide note and it had been in the possession of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the unit tasked with examining sensitive and serious incidents. It was the first time the family had an inkling that a note existed.

At first, the military sent the Fynes a photocopy of a photocopy of the note. Shaun was furious; he demanded and later received the original note.

In it, Stuart apologized to his mother, Shaun, his brothers, aunt and grandmother.

"Sorry but I can't take it anymore," he wrote. "Please know that I needed to stop the pain. Love Stu.

"P.S. I don't deserve any kinda fancy funeral just family."

The Fynes consider the NIS decision to keep the note from the family for 15 months unprofessional and callous.

Shaun said with the note, military investigators knew immediately that the death was suicide. There was no need to keep the family in the dark about Stuart's last wishes for more than a year.

The NIS has never contacted the family to explain, or apologize.

But in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, NIS spokesperson Maj. Paule Poulin said the service acknowledges that it made a mistake. She said a copy of the note should have been given to family right away, with the original released at end of the investigation.

"The CFNIS regrets the situation and has revised its procedures to make sure it doesn't happen again. In the case of deceased CF members the family of the deceased is the victim, really, so it's very important to treat them properly."

That is little comfort to the Fynes. Sheila said the military knew all along that her son didn't want a large funeral yet allowed such an event to proceed. She considers the NIS decision not to tell the family about the note another sign of disrespect.

"They took away my right to bury him and they interfered with his last communication with his family," she said.

The Fynes acknowledge that their son had some responsibility for his situation. He abused alcohol and drugs. At times he asked for treatment; other times he refused it.

But they believe their son had PTSD and died mainly because of a failure of the system. Sheila believes the sudden death of Stuart's estranged birth father, combined with his time in Afghanistan, sent him down a path of self-destruction.

"The board of inquiry appears designed to make sure no one gets the blame except Stu," said Sheila. "They had a soldier who they knew was sick and he killed himself on their watch. They have a problem."

"Our son is a damn good soldier but he's being remembered for something other than that," added Shaun. "They have no respect for him."

Loonie Slips as ...No wait. Harper Just Stepped on a Banana Peel

As much as this government continues to try to convince us that they are on the right track, I can't help but feel I'm being derailed by subterfuge.

Top economists and market indicators, contradict Harper's statements, and until he can be honest with Canadians, how can we possibly allow him to hold onto his job?

While it would appear that changes to EI are front and centre of the debate, I'm more concerned with the direction that this government is taking is.

With no plans on how to get us out of deficit, once the recession is over, I worry that my children and grandchildren will be paying for Flaherty's lack of vision and accountability, for years to come.

Loonie slips as commodities sag
Reuters Canada
Jennifer Kwan
June 17, 2009

TORONTO (Reuters) - The Canadian dollar slipped against the U.S. dollar on Wednesday morning as the price of oil and metals weakened and global equities slid on doubt about economic recovery.

At 7:41 a.m., the currency was at C$1.1367 to the U.S. dollar, or 87.97 U.S. cents, down from Monday's finish at C$1.1346 to the U.S. dollar, or 88.14 U.S. cents.

Early on Wednesday, European and Asian shares weakened as some investors unwound trades betting on quick economic recovery. U.S. stock index futures pointed to a higher open.

The Canadian dollar was expected to draw direction from its key drivers -- U.S. and Canadian stock markets, as well as commodity prices in general, and the price of oil in particular.

"I think there's still fear about what is going to happen today with the equity market," said J.P. Blais, vice president foreign exchange products.

Typically, equity markets are an indicator of investors' risk appetite.

That along with a drop in oil prices to around $70 a barrel, as well as weaker gold and base metals prices, is not positive for the Canadian dollar. As well, investors are also eyeing Canadian political developments for the possibility of a summer federal election.

"That's not necessarily bringing confidence into the loonie," Blais said of those combined factors.

The Canadian government has pretty much been in crisis since the last election, reaching it's peak when Harper prorogued Parliament to save his job, but of concern to me is the statement: 'global equities slid on doubt about economic recovery'.

Our economy is still very much dependant on others, especially the U.S., and if there are doubts about recovery, it certainly contradicts the Conservative's 'worst is over' claim.

Don Drummond agrees:

TD warns that Ottawa's forecasts are way off
Paul Vieira,
Financial Post
June 02, 2009

OTTAWA -- Canada risks a return to permanent deficits unless the federal government is prepared to "clamp down" on spending once a meaningful economic recovery is underway, economists at Toronto-Dominion Bank said Tuesday.

The bank warned that Ottawa's current budget balance projections are off by a significant degree. TD economists Don Drummond and Derek Burleton say in a report the federal government will run a cumulative deficit of roughly $167-billion over five years, or nearly double what Ottawa projected in its most recent budget.

When it unveiled its two-year, $40-billion stimulus plan, the federal Conservative government tried to allay fears about the immediate bulge in the deficit, saying there was a plan to return to surplus in 2013-14, with a $700-million windfall. But the TD report said in that fiscal year, it projects a shortfall of $19.4-billion.

TD's prediction is based on its own economic forecast, which it acknowledges is "substantially" weaker than what is envisaged by the Department of Finance and other Bay Street economists. The forecast comes after Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, dropped a bombshell last week when he warned of a $50-billion deficit for this fiscal year; and the Department of Finance said Canada officially fell into deficit, posting a preliminary shortfall of $2.25-billion in the last fiscal year.

That would mark the first deficit in a dozen years.

Mr. Drummond, TD's chief economist, said in an interview that his "nagging worry" is that Ottawa has no plan to return to surplus and avoid so-called structural deficits. Prior to 1997, Ottawa recorded 34 deficits in 36 fiscal years. But after undertaking spending cuts, especially to transfer payments issued to provinces, the federal government was able to record 11 straight budget surpluses up until the last fiscal year.

"There is a point where [surpluses] never return," Mr. Drummond, a former Finance official, said. "So once you have a whiff of meaningful economic recovery, Ottawa is going to have to clamp down on spending growth -- which is going to be tough, because spending growth has been like an addiction we've been used to."

Since the late 1990s, after the federal government successfully steered the country out of deficit, annual program spending has increased at a rate of between 6% and 8%.

Mr. Flaherty told reporters that Bay Street forecasters are entitled to their view.

"I am sure different economists will have different views," he said. "But I am not going to respond to this economist and that economist, day after day."

The federal government plans to issue its own report this month on measures announced in the last budget, which might include updated fiscal forecasts.

The TD analysis indicates the only way the budget gets close to balance in 2013-14, as anticipated, is if Ottawa freezes program spending growth after fiscal 2012-13, which is when TD expects the economy to fully rebound from the current downturn. If that were to happen, it would record a small deficit of $1.7-billion in 2013-14, followed by a $12-billion surplus in the next fiscal year.

Otherwise, spending growth could be held at 2% following 2012-13, which would lead to a $5.7-billion surplus in 2015-16.

In the budget, the government said its plan to return to surplus would entail an effort to "carefully" manage spending. For instance, it limited the growth in equalization payments to the provinces prior to the budget. Ottawa also said it would review department spending to ensure necessary savings are found, and look at Crown assets, such as agencies and land, to see if some could be sold off to the private sector. Ottawa has already announced plans to find a buyer for some assets belonging to beleaguered Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

John McCallum, the Liberal finance critic, said the report undermines an already struggling Finance Minister who, he added, was projecting annual budget surpluses back in November.

"We can't have confidence in anything he says about returning to surplus," said the former Royal Bank of Canada chief economist.

Stockwell Day's Sense of Humour Lacks Sense and Humour

As Canadians already know the Conservatives ideology limits their scope when it comes to just about everything of importance.

From ill advised tax cuts to limitless spending sprees, they are obviously just doing what wets their appetites, while leaving the rest of us hungering for a government with some grasp of on reality.

Perhaps one of the best examples of this is in relation to climate change, which is mistakenly referred to as global warming, giving us a false image of tropical weather and margaritas, and not the very real threat of the melting ice caps.

I'm not a scientist and neither is Stockwell Day, but I listen to scientists when they tell me that we are in the eleventh hour and need to act sooner rather than later.

Harper gambled that the issue would not be of great concern to us, but unfortunately for him, Canadians are much smarter than he'd like us to be.

His choices for environmental ministers just go from bad to worse, but when key cabinet ministers in his government scoff at the proven scientific knowledge of an environment in peril, what hope to we have?

They keep telling us they've got a handle on it, but in a silly little letter to his constituents, Stockwell Day contradicts his leader, by exposing how little they care, that they treat it as a joke.

Day mocks Gore, climate change in article
December 11, 2006
Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- A November cold snap prompted Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to dismiss Al Gore's climate change crusade in a website article brimming with mockery.

Day's letter to his constituents in the British Columbia riding of Okanagan-Coquihalla constituents last week opened with a shot at the former U.S. vice-president.

"Hey who knows, maybe Al Gore is right,'' Day wrote in the post dated Dec. 6.

"Maybe all my constituents living high up on the West Bench, or Lakeview Heights, or the hills of Logan Lake will soon be sitting on lakeside property as one of the many benefits of global warming.''

Gore has long campaigned against what he believes is government inaction on climate change. His documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, did record business.

Polls suggest the Conservatives' environmental package has been a dud with voters. Those same surveys suggest the environment could be a ballot-box issue.

When asked about the blog after question period, Day walked away from reporters and refused to comment.

Day wrote that a recent cold snap had him "begging for Big Al's Glacial Melt when the mercury hit -24.''

About 22 towns and cities in British Columbia "had broken all-time records for paralyzing frigid temperatures,'' Day wrote.

But the Minister for Public Safety said that "rather than feeling badly for yourself,'' constituents should consider the upside:

"For every hour it's that cold, millions of those nasty ravenous pine beetles who are destroying our forests are having their pesky little heads and jaws frozen, literally to death.''

John Bennett, senior policy adviser at the Sierra Club of Canada, said Day's comments are symptomatic of the government's position on the environment.

"What the blog demonstrates is what the government of Canada really thinks about climate change, that it is something to joke about, not something to take seriously and the policies of the government reflect that,'' he said.

Bennett added that the Harper government cut almost all climate change programs when it came into power.

The government began disassembling Canada's Climate Change Program last March when programs announced in Action Plan 2000 were not renewed.

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose introduced the government's Clean Air Act in October. The proposed legislation seeks to attack smog as well as some of the pollutants that cause global warming.

Liberal environment critic John Godfrey said Day's punch line was lost on him.

"The problem is that when a senior cabinet minister, even in jest, laughs away and dismisses the greatest challenge facing the planet today . . . and reduces it to, 'Well, it's snowing, therefore, where's the climate change, and even if there was climate change, maybe everyone would be happy because they'd have beach front property,' this is to trivialize, in an inappropriate way, a huge problem for the planet,'' Godfrey said.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May said she wasn't surprised by Day's comments.

"Mr. Stockwell Day sums up what David Suzuki said about parliamentarians, that they're all ignoramuses,'' May said in a telephone interview.

Day's comments reflect his ignorance about his own portfolio as minister of public safety, May said. "The most significant threat to Canadian security is climate change, not terrorism.''

Baird was no better and even tried to make us believe that Al Gore was on board with his 'plan', but ended up with egg on his face.

Stockwell Day Says Shoot 'em if You've Got 'em

No I'm not so naive as to believe that merely making guns illegal will prevent gun crime. However, by having to register guns and take gun safety courses, it helps to make us realize that gun ownership is a privilege not a right.

I do believe, however, that no civilian should ever be allowed to own a handgun. You don't hunt with them or use them to to scare off pesky varmints. If you need to feel cold steel in your hands to make you feel powerful, embrace a lamp post.

The Reform/Alliance/Conservative party have always been almost militantly pro-gun, and yet almost militantly Christian zealots.

Obviously it's a different form of Christianity than the one I grew up with. For them it's like the Promise Keeper mentality: Pro-gun, pro-war, pro-intolerance and pro-hate. They strive to see a gun in every hand, a gay in every prison and a woman in every kitchen, and Stockwell Day has become one of their strongest allies.

No handgun ban, Stockwell Day says
Toronto Star
Tonda MacCharles
January 30, 2008

OTTAWA–Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day is flatly rejecting calls for a ban on handguns, saying the Conservatives government's support for more police on the streets, and tougher laws as yet unpassed, are already putting a dent in gun crime.

Day said yesterday his government's approach – including "increased (police) boots on the street" and a plan to kill the long-gun registry – has already significantly cut the number of victims of gun crimes "notwithstanding some very tragic incidents in Toronto."


Actually gun crimes had showed a significant decrease by 2005, before 'his government' came to power, but seems to be on the rise once again. In Vancouver, since January (2009) alone, there have been 45 shootings in the region, 17 of them fatal.

Conservatives reject ban on handguns
But Ontario attorney general calls on Ottawa to relent following shooting death of boy, 11
The Conservatives have long been in the holster of the gun lobby Michael Bryant , Ontario attorney general
Toronto Star
Jul 24, 2007
Richard Brennan
OTTAWA BUREAU

Despite renewed calls for a national ban in the wake of the shooting death of 11-year-old Ephraim Brown in Toronto on the weekend, the Tory government is not swayed.

"Effectively, there is already a ban on handguns in Canada. They are already extremely tightly controlled and are only available to those requiring them for employment purposes (such as police and armoured car guards), legitimate target shooters, and approved collectors," said a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

In addition to rejecting a handgun ban, the Conservative government wants to scrap the long-gun registry, saying it does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. This policy is popular in many parts of the country where gun ownership is seen as a right.

"The Conservatives have long been in the holster of the gun lobby," Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant told the Toronto Star after he and Toronto Mayor David Miller called for a ban on handguns.

Bryant called on Ottawa to heed the outcry that something be done to curb illegal guns, including cracking down on smuggling at the border and restricting even more who can own handguns.

"We've got 215,000 (registered) handguns in Ontario alone and each one of them is a target for theft," Bryant said. "I say `no gun, no funeral,'" he added, referring to the deaths that have plagued Toronto in recent years.

The federal government maintains that handguns, which have had to be registered in Canada since 1934, are effectively banned now because of the severe restrictions.

But NDP justice critic Peggy Nash (Parkdale-High Park) said her party supports an outright ban because "nobody needs a handgun in the city in Toronto." However, she said, "I don't think we can trust this Prime Minister to deal effectively with getting guns off our streets."

Dave Tomlinson, president of Canada's National Firearms Association, said a handgun ban would not reduce gun crime since many of the illegally owned guns are being smuggled in from other countries, including the United States.

"Taking the guns away from the people who (legally own them) is going to have absolutely no effect on the people who are carrying illegal guns," Tomlinson said.

Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said a prohibition on handguns isn't needed. "Handguns are already effectively banned in Ontario," he said, adding Ottawa needs to beef up border crossings with more explosive-sniffing dogs to clamp down on smugglers bringing in firearms.

However, Tory distanced himself from Harper, saying he supported a gun registry and urged against scrapping it, calling the database "a sensible proposition."

The federal Conservatives have lamented that the Liberal-dominated Senate has held up two justice bills that would impose mandatory minimum penalties for individuals using restricted or prohibited firearms, including handguns, to commit serious crimes, or for any serious firearms crime that is gang- or organized crime-related.

"We stick with approaches that are tried and true and result in a reduction of gun crime," Day said in June when rejecting the idea of an outright ban.

Federal Liberal justice critic Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine) said the Conservatives should first live up to their election promise to increase funding to municipalities so they can hire more police.

"It's much too early to be talking about a handgun ban. First we should be ensuring the (long gun) firearm registry is maintained and enforced, not abolished ... and, secondly, proper resources should be given to our law enforcement so that they can actually enforce existing legislation," Jennings said.

The Tory bill to abolish the long-gun registry was introduced in June 2006, but is a long way from being passed. The gun registry was set up in 1995 by the Liberal government, making it mandatory for all owners of firearms to obtain and file certificates with the federal government.

The registry was supposed to cost $2 million, but costs ballooned to about $1 billion. Even so, the majority of Canadians say they support the initiative and the system is used approximately 5,000 times a day by police across the country, according to the Canadian Police Association and figures compiled by the government's firearms centre.

Before Ditzy Raitt and Biker Bernier, There was Careless Stocky

As Canadians shook their heads in disbelief that secret and sensitive documents could be treated so carelessly by Conservative cabinet ministers Lisa Raitt and Maxime Bernier, they need to remember that these are not isolated incidents.

Blueprints for a new anti-terror unit were once found in the trash, under Stockwell Day's watch. I don't believe I'm alone in thinking that this is about as bad as it gets.

I was recently reading an old quote from Stockwell Day's website, recorded after his meeting George Bush for the first time, and wondered out loud how in the hell Day was ever given the position he has:

"'Good morning Mr. President'. I realized I was speaking in a near reverential tone without even trying. As those words came out of my mouth I felt a bit self-conscious, but after all, I was standing in front of the United States Commander in Chief, world leader and defender of democracy and freedom." Yikes!

Ottawa to probe report that anti-terror unit blueprints found in trash
CBC News
March 20, 2008

The government will look into a report that blueprints for a new building for the military's counterterrorism unit were found in a pile of trash in downtown Ottawa, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said on Thursday.

A passerby discovered the plans in garbage bags on Bank Street in the Glebe.

Anthony Salloum said he and his spouse were heading to dinner last week when they spotted seven or eight rolls of paper stamped with Department of Defence markings.

The blueprints, dated March 5, 2007, appear to be for a new building for the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit, created post-Sept. 11 to respond to large-scale attacks. The building is under construction at Canadian Forces Base Trenton.

The plans detail the location of security fences, the electrical grid system and layout of offices and other rooms, said Anthony Salloum, who found the documents.

Salloum said he and his spouse were heading to dinner last week when they spotted seven or eight rolls of paper stamped with Department of Defence markings.

"By sheer accident, my spouse said, 'Anthony, look at this bag of garbage. It's filled with rolls of paper that say National Defence, Trenton 8 Wing,' " Salloum told reporters on Thursday.

Asked early Thursday about the Ottawa Citizen article that reported the discovery, Day said he is awaiting for a detailed report on the incident to determine what happened and what type of documents were involved.

"If a security breach of some kind has taken place, then clearly that's a huge concern for me," Day said. "We'll wait for all the details and see exactly what that was."

Not sure what happened to other rolls

At first, Salloum didn't pick up the papers since he was on the way to dinner at a restaurant.

But more than an hour later, when he passed by the garbage heap and discovered they were still there, he decided to grab one roll.

The day after discovering the documents on March 13, Salloum unrolled the blueprints in the boardroom of his workplace, the Rideau Institute, an Ottawa-based advocacy group.

But having little understanding of the blueprints, he decided to wait until the institute's director returned from a family vacation on Wednesday.

"It quickly became apparent how important these were. And I did not want to leave my office yesterday before handing them back to National Defence," said Salloum.

Salloum has returned the blueprints to the Defence Department, who thanked him but refused to comment on the discovery.

It's uncertain what happened to the rest of the rolls, though they're likely at a garbage dump or recycling facility, he said.

Salloum speculated that the documents may have been discarded by an architectural firm following a failed bid for the project. Even so, he says the discovery is a security concern since the blueprints outline other existing structures at the Trenton military base.

One security expert also hypothesized that the document could have been tossed by a civilian contractor.

Regardless of who threw them in the trash, why are there not better security measures taken? This once again makes us look like boobs.

Forestry Union Sick of Harper's Lies

Despite repeated promises, the Harper government refuses to do anything to help out of work forestry workers, or even to protect the jobs of those still fortunate to have them.

Jay Hill refused to even speak to workers in his riding.

Now, that union is telling Michael Ignatieff to bring the government down unless the Conservatives are willing to stand up.

Topple government if forestry industry not helped: union
Canada's largest forestry union calling on the Liberal Party of Canada to defeat the Conservative government if there is no clear support for the forestry industry.
CNW Telbec
June 14, 2009

Canada's 300,000 forestry workers and their families are facing the most severe crisis since the Great Depression.

"The Conservative Party has given us nothing but rumours of help, and phantom promises." says Dave Coles, President of the Communication Energy and Paperworkers Union (CEP), which represents 60,000 forestry workers.

"If it takes an election to save our jobs and our families and our communities, then let there be an election.

"CEP Secretary Treasurer Gaetan Menard is scheduled to meet with Denis Coderre, Michael Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant, on Tuesday, June 16, to address the deepening crisis in the industry. At that meeting Menard will urge Coderre and the Liberal caucus to bring down the government if there is no clear support for the forestry industry.

Last week CEP President Dave Coles, and a CEP delegation, met with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn, as a direct result of sit ins by CEP members of seven Conservative MPs offices.

Flaherty promised to study their position and get back to them. There has been no news from Flaherty.

Four thousand forestry workers from across Canada marched on the Prime Minister's Office on June 2, in an attempt to awaken the Conservative party to the industry's peril.

The scale of the danger is demonstrated by the 55,000 forestry jobs lost in the last two years.

There are 300 forestry dependent towns in Canada, of which 270 are at risk.

"Forestry is a sun rise industry, a renewable resource, an industry that forms the backbone of the Canadian landscape. If Stephen Harper and his government think they can side step their responsibility to us and our families, then they need another wake up call." says Gaetan Menard, CEP Secretary Treasurer.

Ignatieff Agrees With Layton But Will He Force an Election?

But Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton have already stated that they will not support the latest fabricated economic update, leaving the decision to Michael Ignatieff whether or not to bring down the government.

It's a tough call. Harper is holding municipalities hostage with stimulus spending, indicating that they could lose their promised money if he loses his job.

It's always interesting how it takes that kind of risk to make him actually do that job, but can we go through an entire summer with this gang of crooks, as they bungle their way through another few months, or is enough is enough?

Ignatieff blasts PM's handling of economy
Tories are neglecting key foreign markets, Liberal leader charges
Jun 12, 2009
Andrew Chung
QUEBEC BUREAU CHIEF

MONTREAL–With the fate of the government resting in his hands, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is ratcheting up his criticism of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's record on the economy.

It's inconceivable that, at a time of economic crisis and growing protectionism south of the border, Canada is not more aggressively tackling foreign markets that are growing faster than ours, Ignatieff told a business audience here yesterday.

He also slammed the government's handling of federal stimulus spending.

"You have to have a PhD in economics to actually figure out whether the (money) has got out the door," Ignatieff said after a town hall meeting with the Federation of Quebec Chambers of Commerce.

People don't seem to be seeing the money on the ground, he added, citing what he heard at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities meeting in Whistler, B.C., last weekend.
"All I can tell you is, 1,600 mayors and municipal councillors were saying with one voice, `Where's the money?'"

The Liberal leader has threatened to try to bring down the government, and force a summer election, if an economic report issued by the government yesterday didn't show progress in getting stimulus funding to work. He said yesterday he was examining the report.

During the town hall, Ignatieff slammed the government on various issues, including Harper's comments Wednesday that Canada will get out of the medical isotope business, something he said showed a lack of "leadership."

But his sharpest comments were reserved for Harper's economic record. Ignatieff warned against Canada's dependence on the market provided by the United States.

"This government of Mr. Harper has neglected in a scandalous way China and India, and the markets of the Middle East," Ignatieff said.

"My vision of the future of Canada is that we must urgently find other markets than that of America."

In addition to the worldwide economic crisis, which began with the colossal collapse of the U.S. housing market, Ignatieff cited the renewed spirit of protectionism in the U.S.

"Even after this crisis, we are going to have the problem with `Buy American' (policies) at the level of the states and municipalities," Ignatieff said, adding that's why it's necessary to go after foreign commerce.

What could justify a summer vote?
Jun 12, 2009
Toronto Star
Chantal Hébert

OTTAWA—If the Liberals really want to rush Canada to the polls this summer, there is no need for them to toy with a motion whose wording would be designed to convince/trap the other opposition parties into helping them bring down the government.

All Michael Ignatieff has to do is withdraw his support for the Conservative economic action plan. The House of Commons will only adjourn for the summer next Friday after it has voted on the main budget estimates, and those votes are automatic confidence matters.

The NDP and the Bloc Québécois have opposed the budget from the start and they have already ruled out supporting the estimates. Without Liberal support, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's second government would likely be history by the end of next week.

But before crossing the bridge to another parliamentary high-stakes episode, Ignatieff would have to convince Canadians that he is not just playing games for the sake of repositioning his party in Parliament.

The only possible reason to take the risk of a snap election in the dead of summer would be gross government mismanagement of the recession.

The fact that they are still combing yesterday's Conservative progress report for a reason to move against the minority government is a sign that nothing in it really jumps out at the Liberals.

Harper's claim that 80 per cent of the first half of his two-year stimulus package is already making its way into the system is hard to verify. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the figure is inflated.

But there is also no independent yardstick by which to measure whether it would have been feasible or even desirable to expect billions of public dollars to have been spent more quickly.
If anything, there are signs that the government might be running a number of yellow, if not outright red, lights as it strives to rush its money out the door.

The specific changes to employment insurance Ignatieff has recently called for are not on the government radar. But there have been other changes to the system, designed to make it more accessible to many of the immediate victims of the recession and the government is not ruling out additional moves in the fall.

In the five months since the budget, the biggest change in the government's fiscal outlook has been the ballooning deficit. But a large chunk of the increase was spent on the GM bailout, a move that the Liberals have yet to signal that they oppose.

Since the budget, Ignatieff has been as parsimonious with the elements of an alternative Liberal economic plan as he has been generous with criticism of the blueprint of the government.

As a result, the notion that the thrust of a Liberal government would be dramatically different from that of the Conservatives is hard to sustain with facts. Moreover, given that the ship of state cannot be turned around overnight, the time it would take a new government to change tack might actually outrun the recession.

Polls show that the Liberals could eke out a victory in a summer vote, although it would hardly be a sure thing. But at the end of the day, the real question Ignatieff has to wrestle with is what, if anything, he has to offer that could possibly justify a second election in less than a year.

From all available indications, he is more likely to take the summer to come up with a convincing answer than to plunge Canada in an uncertain campaign.

Like the threat of the Coalition, I support the threat of an election, because it seems to be the only thing that makes Harper do anything, other than launch partisan attacks. Whether we have an election this summer is not, makes no difference to me.

As much as I really want my country back, I can be patient, especially if an election now hampers needed stimulus money from reaching the areas where it is drastically needed.

The opposition can continue to hold his feet to the fire, because it seems to be the only thing that makes him jump.

Diane Finley Flip Flops on EI

If you require further proof that the Conservatives are flying by the seat of their pants, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley recently made one statement regarding reform to EI, while Stephen Harper completely contradicted it.

Diane's husband, Doug Finley, is in Harper's inner circle, so you'd think communications would be better than this.

Mind you Diane was the one who sent out an email during the Parliamentary crisis, calling Gilles Duceppe a 'citizen of France', that had three spelling errors; so if she can't even use Spellchecker I doubt she'd understand any memo sent by the PMO, even if her husband did draft it.


EI changes 'far from a done deal'
By ALTHIA RAJ,
National Bureau,
Sun Media
June 12, 2009

OTTAWA — A senior government minister appeared to flip-flop yesterday on whether the Conservatives plan to reform employment insurance.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley said EI changes were far from a done deal and would depend on the state of the economy.

“We will examine the economy, and if there is a need to do more, we will look at the options,” she said. “If we need to act, we will.”

But those comments seemed to contradict those of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who said Thursday EI reforms would be on the agenda after Parliament’s summer break.

“The EI system is not perfect. We are looking at more improvements for the fall,” Harper said.

Yesterday, Finley said the government’s EI plan is currently addressing the needs of the recession.

A few hours later, however, the minister contradicted herself, telling the House of Commons the prime minister was right and there would be reforms in the fall.

“The prime minister said (Thursday) there would changes to ameliorate the system and respond to the needs of the unemployed,” she told MPs. (after saying that EI was already addressing those needs)

Dimitri Soudas, the prime minister’s press secretary, said the minister wasn’t being inconsistent. The government is studying the possibility of reforms, he said.

“We do expect more job losses over the next little while, and therefore, ministers and cabinet are considering options for further improvements to the EI system sometime in the fall,” he said.

Opposition parties attacked the Conservatives for waiting for job losses to mount before fixing EI.

Bloc Quebecois MP Christiane Gagnon said unemployed workers don’t have time to wait. She called for a complete revamp of the EI system. “The government acknowledges there are problems with employment insurance, why don’t they fix them now?” she asked.

Liberal finance critic John McCallum said reforms in the fall are better than nothing, but EI changes should be made before the summer break, when more Canadians are likely to be laid off.

“There is so much unemployment already ... so why wait?” McCallum said. “Perhaps, the government isn’t serious, perhaps it doesn’t want to make any changes?”

The NDP noted not one Conservative MP voted in favour of a New Democrat reform bill earlier this week. The Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois supported the legislation, which would have extended EI benefits and expanded access.

THE CONSERVATIVES. MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG!

Don't Criticize Lisa Raitt or She'll Sue

When Lisa Raitt was in charge of the Toronto Port Authority, a non-profit group, Community Air, dared to speak out against her. Big mistake. Ms. Raitt sued, and the volunteers, without funds to fight, were forced to apologize.

Since when does the Federal Government get to sue it's citizens for speaking out?

In light of recent incompetence, this group was probably right to question her abilities and that of the federal port authority.

That's all I'm going to say on that though because Lisa might be looking over my shoulder.

Port Authority's cynical SLAPP aimed at silencing its critics

The Globe

John Barber

June 21, 2006

Take that! SLAPP -- Shut up! SLAPP -- Pay out!

No political Punch and Judy show worthy of its name -- certainly nothing that involves that skulking and drivelling institutional miscreant known as the Toronto Port Authority -- should proceed without a good Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation these days.

Accordingly the TPA, ever the innovator in dirty politics, has now introduced this brazen U.S. tactic north of the border by launching a $6.8-million lawsuit against the civic gadflies who have dared to criticize its efforts to reindustrialize the Toronto waterfront.

Claiming that the group Community AIR and seven of its directors are "zealous and unbalanced" in their waterfront advocacy, the suit demands that each pay $500,000 in damages for defamation, $250,000 in aggravated damages and another $100,000 in punitive damages to the port authority, its president Lisa Raitt and two others.

The lawsuit also demands an injunction preventing the volunteer activists from making any more allegedly defamatory statements about the federal agency -- a category of speech, according to the wide-open statement of claim the authority filed in court last week, that would seem to include every public statement any of the activists has ever made in this hotly contested, thoroughly aired, public debate.

After failing in its attempt to placate the federal authoritarians by retracting a few of the more fiery comments published on the Community AIR website -- nothing that hasn't been said at a dozen public meetings, or published in more carefully vetted form in this newspaper and others -- the activists are preparing to defend what could be an extremely expensive suit.

"We see this primarily as an effort to shut us up -- and that's not going to happen," said Brian Iler, a lawyer named as one of the defendants. "We will persist."

Writing to TPA lawyer Trisha Jackson of Torys LLP last month, Community AIR lawyer Louis Sokolov denounced the lawsuit as "a transparently tactical use of legal process aimed at chilling legitimate public discourse," adding that its timing, coincidental with a federal review of the authority's dubious activities, is "particularly suspect."

"If ever there were a time for the port authority to attempt to silence its critics," Mr. Sokolov wrote, "this would be it."

Undaunted, Ms. Jackson replied that the authority was determined to sue the group for its "unfounded and defamatory rhetoric" and "invective."But it would be awfully difficult for any ordinary person to find $7-million in damages in the allegedly defamatory statements the lawsuit targeted. They are all contained in a Community AIR memo that sums up the issue with the predictable spin usually applied by port authority critics, presenting it in terms the entire city has heard again and again. Edited as Community AIR offered to do, it is positively anodyne.

In other words, there is no question that this suit is nothing more than a hollow and cynical SLAPP, "in which a corporation or developer sues an organization in an attempt to scare it into dropping protests against a corporate initiative," according to one definition.

Many U.S. states have adopted anti-SLAPP measures that permit wide-ranging debate about issues of legitimate public concern and can be used to derail such suits before they get rolling. Two Ontario courts recently made baby steps in the same direction when they ruled that governments cannot sue for defamation -- potentially important precedents when a federal agency singles out its enemies for the same alleged wrongdoing.

But nothing can stop it from using your money to try -- just as it uses your money to sue other governments, lobby shamelessly and issue soft-soap propaganda about its alleged good works.

If ever there was a time to support Community AIR, this would be it.

Toronto Port Authority sues group for defamation

June 21, 2006
CBC News

The Toronto Port Authority has filed a $3-million lawsuit against a community organization and some of its members for defamation.

In its statement of claim, the federal agency alleges it has been defamed by members of Community Air, a non-profit group that has been highly critical of the dealings of the federal agency over the years.

Toronto Island AirportCommunity Air has fought the port authority on issues such as the expansion of the Toronto Island Airport, which the authority owns, and the building of a fixed link to the Toronto Islands.

The lawsuit concerns a briefing memo sent to the federal transport minister in March, then later posted on the community organization's website.

"At the end of the day, fair comment about the port authority and its activities is welcome, but we're not going to allow untruths and personal attacks to go unchallenged," said Lisa Raitt, the agency's president and one of the plaintiffs.

A lawyer representing Community Air and its members said they plan to fight the allegations.

"We really view this as being a 'SLAPP suit' and that's a type of lawsuit that is carried out against community groups and individuals to prevent them from speaking their minds about issues of public importance," said lawyer Louis Sokolov.

SLAPP is an acronym that stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and refers to a lawsuit with the intention of intimidating or discouraging public participation.

Sokolov also questioned the timing of the lawsuit. Federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon announced a review of the Toronto Port Authority last month.

Senior bureaucrat Roger Tassé, who has been hired to conduct the review, is expected to release a report by Sept. 1.