According to Canadian law: "An advertisement will contravene the law if it contains a representation that is either false or misleading."
What if the copy is literally true? "Even though each statement in an ad may be literally true, an offence can still arise if the "general impression" conveyed by the ad is misleading."
So how are the Conservatives getting away with deliberately lying in their ads?
Case in Point - suggesting that Michael Ignatieff voted in favour of a $75.00 iPodtax. James Moore even set up an entire website dedicated to the notion. This despite the fact that it is absolutely untrue. A LIE.
Has anyone ever challenged these ads based on false advertising? They have many like that, where they just make stuff up and hope it sticks.
A closer examination of the issue reveals that not only have the Liberals rejected a new levy on iPods, but the Conservatives’ copyright bill would have likely led to a doubling of the current levy on blank CDs.
So who can launch a truth in advertising investigation into Conservative ads that are not only misleading but absolutely untrue? Can citizens or do we need a lawyer?
I've never heard such nonsense in my life as the way that Peter Mackay is trying to spin this story. These are very serious allegations and have been going on for three years now. They keep sweeping it under the rug, but enough is enough.
The Scene. Fewer Conservatives than usual chose to mockingly applaud Bob Rae when he rose to open Question Period this afternoon. Odd that.
“Mr. Speaker, the testimony yesterday of Richard Colvin before the Afghanistan committee showed two clear things,” Mr. Rae began, to groans from the Conservative side at mention of Mr. Colvin’s name.
“First, Mr. Colvin testified that he had information with respect to the mistreatment of prisoners in Afghan prisons and that he gave that information to his superiors. Second, Mr. Colvin testified that he was also told by his superiors to shut up, essentially,” Mr. Rae continued. “Given the importance of these two revelations, the revelations of mistreatment, harsh treatment and even torture and the revelation with respect to a cover-up, would the minister not agree with me and with others that there should indeed be a full public inquiry into what has taken place with respect to the transfer of these detainees?”
Across the aisle, Peter MacKay furrowed his brow, thrust his left hand in his pocket and commenced with the first of his 18 attempts to explain.
“Mr. Speaker, it has been stated here a number of times that there has not been a single, solitary proven allegation of abuse involving a transferred Taliban prisoner by Canadian Forces. Second, with respect to the evidence yesterday, what we know is that when the evidence is put to the test, it simply does not stand up,” he offered. “Mr. Colvin had an opportunity to speak directly to me and other ministers of the government who were in Afghanistan. He did not raise the issue. As well, what is being relied upon here is nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban.”
That Mr. Colvin’s credibility would be an issue for Mr. MacKay is perhaps confusing, seeing as how Mr. Colvin remains sufficiently fit, at least in this government’s judgment, to serve as the deputy head of intelligence at this country’s embassy in Washington, DC. Mr. Rae took note of this.
“Instead of tackling the problem,” he said, “the government is attacking Mr. Colvin.”
Mr. MacKay sought to explain. “Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear,” he said. “Nobody is attacking the individual.”
In the next breath, this. “What we are attacking here is the importance of the credibility of information that the Canadian public and a parliamentary inquiry is being asked to accept,” the Defence Minister advised. “I think that even the honourable member, who purports to be a lawyer, does know a little bit of something about due process. This is evidence that is being asked to be accepted without question. It is based on second- and third-hand information and Taliban information.”
It is apparently not, then, that Mr. MacKay thinks Mr. Colvin to be inherently flawed, only that Mr. Colvin is perhaps monetarily struck with profound gullibility and delusion. But not so grievously struck with such afflictions, mind you, that Mr. MacKay’s government so far sees fit to remove him from a seemingly sensitive position in perhaps the most vital foreign embassy this country possesses.
With that clarified, the proceedings moved on with questions from Ujjal Dosanjh and Gilles Duceppe. From across the room, Heritage Minister James Moore appeared to heckle Mr. Dosanjh with the name of “Allan Cutler.” Mr. Cutler is known as a whistleblower who exposed the Liberal government’s so-called Sponsorship Scandal. It is unclear if Mr. Moore meant to imply an analogy.
“When it comes to the prisoners and the treatment of Taliban prisoners, when it comes to their justice system, we have invested over $132 million to improve that system,” Mr. MacKay testified in response to a question from the Bloc leader. “I am very proud of the fact that we have dedicated soldiers, civil servants, individuals who are working closely with the government of Afghanistan, as challenging as that is, to see that we improve its capacity. We will continue to do so. That is the real work that is being done. This is a witch hunt.”
Fair enough. This government, for instance, has committed $7-million to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. And in a report released earlier this year, the AIHRC declared that “torture is a commonplace practice in Afghanistan’s law enforcement institutions.” It is unclear whether that charge represents real work or a witch hunt.
“Again, Mr. Speaker, here is the truth,” Mr. MacKay said in response to another question from Mr. Duceppe. “We inherited an inadequate transfer arrangement. We inherited a situation that was very difficult with respect to the handling of Taliban prisoners.”
Fair enough. Except that Mr. MacKay’s predecessor as Defence Minister, current government whip Gordon O’Connor, told the House in April 2006 that the government was “quite satisfied” with that agreement. A year later, amid allegations of torture in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister told the House that its agreements were ”operating as they should.” Only a few days after that was a new agreement deemed necessary.
His desk covered with bits of paper, Mr. MacKay endeavoured to explain himself further in response to a question from Ralph Goodale. “Let us be clear, the reality is two and a half years ago we acted on credible evidence,” he said. “We acted on concerns that were being expressed from a number of sources. We invested in the system and, let us be clear, it was because of the concerns that were being expressed by Colvin and others that we did so.”
Fair enough. Except, a month ago both Mr. MacKay and Mr. O’Connor both denied hearing of Mr. Colvin’s concerns.
Marlene Jennings pursued a new point, Mr. MacKay provided a new answer. “Mr. Speaker, I do not want to turn this into a procedural argument,” Mr. MacKay demurred. “Clearly the reality is there was no evidence, none, zero. No credible evidence to suggest that a Taliban prisoner transferred from Canadian Forces was ever abused.”
So there was evidence. At least at some point. Credible evidence even, maybe. Of something. Just not abuse.
After 16 consecutive questions, the House pursued other matters. Then back to the matter of Mr. Colvin.
The NDP’s Paul Dewar again asked the Defence Minister to pursue a public inquiry. Mr. MacKay pretended not to notice. The NDP’s Jack Harris gave it a go. “A public inquiry would give an objective evaluation of the facts, the evidence and the systems now in place, not a charade, like yesterday’s shameless attack by Conservative MPs and now the minister,” he ventured.
One final time to Mr. MacKay. “What is a charade, Mr. Speaker,” the Minister said, “is someone who purports to be a lawyer saying that we should just accept evidence without any test, any process whatsoever that questions what is happening.”
It might seem that Mr. Harris and Mr. MacKay are in agreement. Except, of course, that they are not.
Kind of an interesting story from the Winnipeg Free Press regarding an interview with Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper's former campaign manager. He was candid about Harper's coalition attempt in 2004 and stated that Michael Ignatieff was a scholar and 'role model'.
I'm glad he did that, because these horrendous attack ads are painting Mr. Ignatieff as being some kind of demon. He has already earned an international reputation as the go to guy when the world is in a mess and needs a little perspective. After 9/11 he was often sought out, but his statements, which were relevant in the wake of that , are now being turned against him.
Some people may wonder why I post so much about Stephen Harper and the Northern Foundation, or some of the other groups he's been involved with; but I always give them the smell test. For instance if Harper learned that Michael Ignatieff once belonged to a group that has been referred to as 'white brotherhood', would he use it against him? We know he would.
After visiting the Ignatieff.me site, I saw just how dirty the Reformers can be, and realized that there are no longer any rules. You can't meet Stephen Harper on the high ground, because he doesn't go there. Instead you have to get down in the gutter. Flanagan in a round about way is telling the Liberal leader to visit that gutter, if he wants to survive.
Tom Flanagan, the University of Calgary political studies professor, doesn't necessarily think the same way about Michael Ignatieff and the legitimacy of coalition governments as Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper's closest confidant and former campaign manager.
"I actually have a lot of admiration for Ignatieff," Flanagan said in an interview Friday. He was in Winnipeg to lecture on political ethics and campaign strategy at the University of Manitoba.
"Michael Ignatieff to me is a world-famous scholar. I'd like to be a world-famous scholar. I'm not, so Ignatieff to me is a role model... I think he is a quality guy and I think Canada's lucky to have him as Liberal leader. I have the same views about Stephen Harper and I think we're lucky to have all of our leaders."
Yet Flanagan defends his party's perpetual ad campaign characterizing the Liberal leader as "just in it for himself" and "just visiting" Canada. Asked if he personally agrees with his party's characterization of Ignatieff, he replied: "I don't necessarily think that." But he insisted it was up to Ignatieff to repudiate the "just visiting" claim. And he doesn't know why the Liberals "don't make their own plausible case" against the prime minister. "It wouldn't be hard to write the ads."
Recently, Flanagan received a lot of media criticism for saying that political attack ads don't have to be true, they just have to be plausible.
During last winter's constitutional crisis, Flanagan wrote in The Globe and Mail that "Gross violations of democratic principles would be involved in handing government to the coalition without getting approval from voters." A week earlier, Harper, too, claimed the opposition could not take power without an election.
Flanagan now appears to have shifted his position and backed away from Harper's. "I wouldn't rule out parties coming together to form a coalition and whatever Mr. Harper may have said in the heat of the moment I don't think should be interpreted as constitutional theory because he was in a fight for his life." However, he insists any coalition relying on the Bloc Quebecois must have prior electoral approval.
The author of Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, managed the Conservative 2004 and 2006 election campaigns. But he insisted he "wasn't a part" of a coalition proposal made by then Official Opposition leader Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe in September 2004 that would have included the Bloc as a full partner.
Harper and the other two party leaders drafted a letter to the Governor General pointing out they had a majority and stating "this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options" before dissolving parliament.
"I don't know exactly what happened," Flanagan said.
Flanagan admits he doesn't know whether Canadians want to watch negative political attack ads 365 days of the year. "I don't know whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. It's just the way things are flowing." He predicted Canada is now into what he calls the "permanent campaign." And if Canadians don't like it, they should put pressure on their parliamentarians to cancel all government support to political parties.
"As long as parties have access to all this extra money and as long as you have spending caps that prevent them from spending during the campaign, I think they will start spending it between writs."
He points out that the Conservatives can spend $20 million in an election campaign while only having to raise $10 million.
He also hinted that should the Conservatives win a majority government, they would repeal the ban on third party political advertising.
"There is no chance of it happening in a minority parliament... Parties in Canada so far have not made extensive use of outside parties... It will happen if well-meaning reformers manage to cap expenses outside the writ period."
Flanagan refused to agree with research showing that negative political ads are helping to push down voter turnout. Voter turnout has plunged from 72 per cent in the 1993 election to just 58 per cent in the 2008 contest. Research done by Angus Reid Strategies showed Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls.
"I'm not aware of any demonstrated link between pre-writ advertising and declining voter turnout... I think you'd have to say that the Conservatives' pre-writ advertising campaigns have been highly successful," Flanagan said. "So I think as long as they continue to work, they will do it and the other parties will imitate the tactics to the extent they have the money to do it."
Posted by: Lloyd MacIlquham (Blogger) November 12, 2009 at 10:09 AM
This is a great article and a real eye opener. For whatever reason Tom Flanigan has been "telling all" for a while now. I always suspected it was some sinister plan to somehow 're-habilitate' Harper and the Con's in the public eye - this is how they used to be but now they have changed, and bring him back to he conservative fold. But now I think there is a real desire to be accepted as a legitimate academic as opposed to a Harper henchman, which has the effect of requiring him to talk about things in a truthful light as opposed to standard Con approach - everything is political, truth is irrelevant.
Flanagan saying that he doesn't necessarily think the attacks against Ignatieff are true but it is up to Ignatieff to repudiate them is something that should raise the eyebrows of every Canadian. As you pointed out is in line with his previous statement that these attacks don't need to be true just plausible.
All Canadians should become aware of this. For Harper and the Con's it is power, grabbing it, clutching onto it, mongering it and Canada be damned."Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls."I agree with this 200%. The only thing we can get out of the 4 by-elections this week is verification of this.
I guess there's a reason why you don't name a personal injuries lawyer as your finance minister. For all the bluster we learn recently that Canada's economy is not as strong as Harper and Flaherty have led us to believe and in fact news that the recession was over in September was incorrect. The Financial Post has stated that we need to cool down our bragging, because other countries are moving closer to recovery than we are, despite a strong banking system.
As journalist Murray Dobbin points out: "What do the mid-recession housing boom and the Harper Conservatives' rise in the polls have in common? Answer: the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's massive sub-prime mortgage scheme that is keeping up the appearance of an economic recovery." And because of this high risk game that the Reform Conservatives have been playing "The largest sub-prime lender in the world is now the Canadian government."
It is predicted that unemployment will rise and in St. Thomas Ontario, a plant that employs 1,600 people: "Ford is insisting that the St Thomas plant will close in September of 2011" This is not about wanting to be the bearer of doom and gloom. This is about saying WAKE UP CANADA! This neo-conservative government is the wrong fit for us and they are failing us badly.
Someone needs to put a motion on the floor demanding that this government opens it's books. We still have no idea where our money is. This is Mike Harris all over again. We can't get rid of them for awhile but we can at least demand some answers. I'm tired of being lied to.
Today’s announcement that Canada experienced negative GDP growth in August while other G7 countries are coming out of recession is proof that Stephen Harper’s partisan approach to the economy is slowing Canada’s recovery, Liberal Finance Critic John McCallum said today.“
Viewing the GDP numbers in the context of how other G7 countries are faring, it’s clear that Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty need to put away their talking points, have a look at what’s happening in the real world and acknowledge that what they’ve done so far hasn’t worked,” said Mr. McCallum.
The latest Statistics Canada figures show that Canada’s GDP contracted by 0.1% in August following zero growth in July. By contrast, the United States, for example, announced yesterday that its economy grew 0.9% over the summer quarter.
Mr. McCallum pointed out that as recently as Tuesday, Minister Flaherty was at the Parliamentary Finance Committee still refusing to acknowledge that countries like Japan, Germany and France exited their recessions last spring.
“His inability to understand how Canada is fairing internationally is incomprehensible,” said Mr. McCallum. “And when you add in the fact that the Conservatives have been playing politics with stimulus money, it’s pretty easy to see why Canada is falling behind. No wonder the Conservatives have been so reluctant to release any job creation or construction progress details related to Canada’s stimulus package.”
Canada's economy continued its backward slide in August, throwing more cold water on claims by the Bank of Canada the recession ended during the summer.
The gross domestic product, a measure of all goods and services produced by the economy, posted a decline of 0.1 per cent for August. The decline comes after a flat result for July.
Most economists had forecast a gain of 0.1 per cent or no change.
Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney has said a recession ended in the July-September period after three quarters of contraction. His latest rosy prediction for the quarter – an annualized rate of growth of 2 per cent – came just last week.
"This morning's report was a full-on disappointment," Meny Grauman, senior economist for CIBC World Markets wrote in a report.
Bad economic data from Canada and the U.S. set the stage for an ugly day on North American stock markets Friday.
As trading stopped for the day, the Toronto Stock Exchange's S&P/TSX composite index was down 198 points, or 1.8 per cent, to 10,878, with the three big sectors of energy, financials and materials providing most of the drag.
For the week, the TSX benchmark was down about 4.5 per cent, with Thursday providing the only positive session. The index posted its first monthly decline since February, losing about the same proportion over the month of October.
On Friday, Statistics Canada said the economy contracted 0.1 per cent in August. It doesn't bode well for the Bank of Canada's expectations of annualized third-quarter growth of two per cent — ending the recession — when two of the three months so far in this period have seen flat or negative GDP.
I've seen the above video several times, but hadn't noticed Rhona Ambrose's (woman on his right) reaction to Harper stating that he had no intention of calling an election but challenged the Opposition to bring him down. She KNEW he was lying because the moment he started his lie, she turned and put her head down, giving only a feeble nod at the end. And of course in the first segment, to his left; is this guy.
However, while reading this piece, I was startled over a comment made by Nelson Wiseman, a political scientist at the University of Toronto: "The Canadian public seems happy to be hoodwinked". Horribly sad but horribly true.
We are not an irrelevant, hard-right country after all. We are just happy to be hoodwinked. Well, I feel so much better now.
Ironically, I'll bet Stephen Harper wishes we were going to the polls now, when he is on a temporary high, and before Canadians finally get justice over his party's (alleged) attempt to defraud taxpayers in the 'In and Out'.
OTTAWA–Today is election day. Or at least that was the plan back in May 2006 when Prime Minister Stephen Harper put Canada on a regular schedule of fixed election dates.
Fresh off his January 2006 election win, Harper proposed at the time that Canadians go to the polls every four years, starting on Oct. 19, 2009, or sooner if a minority government lost a confidence vote.
Fixing election dates would mean transparency, predictability and fairness and put an end to the days when a government could call a snap election for its own partisan advantage, he said at the time ...
Now we all know that Stephen Harper will do or say anything to get elected and stay in power, but it's rather interesting listening to him lie about future deficits that could get out of control. Mind you this is going to work in his favour if he ever gets a majority. He'll be able to fulfil his goal of dismantling our country and justify doing it.
Toronto Star columnist, James Travers, suggests that the Liberals need to continue to hold Harper's feet to the fire over this flip flop.
Conservatives want the coming election to be about Michael Ignatieff; Liberals want it to be a referendum on Stephen Harper. What both want is a forced day's march from what Canadians need. It's been as dramatic to watch the Liberal boss learn what he doesn't know about politics as it was entertaining to watch the Prime Minister play the piano. But neither tells enough about how either would cope with the testing future now racing here at high speed.
Ignatieff's internal troubles and Harper's latest congeniality riff only hide the Ottawa rebirth of the Big Lie.Last fall Conservatives got away with saying there would be no recession or deficit because other parties feared voters couldn't take the truth. This fall, Harper is successfully selling the fantasy of a painless recovery because his main rival is still bruised from musing that raising taxes is a viable way to again balance the federal budget ....
I love this clip of the absolute blow hard Jason Kenney. He tries to impersonate Conrad Black by throwing in big words and pretending to understand them.
For instance, why would he appoint an anti-gay activist to determine whether refugees fleeing persecution and possible death for their sexual orientation, be given safe haven?
Jason Kenney's comments are bringing personal harm to refugee claimants and may have overstepped the legal line between politics and independent refugee decisions, say several immigration experts. By Michelle Collins Embassy Magazine Published July 22, 2009
Jason Kenney has compromised his position as immigration minister by repeatedly slamming the validity of various refugee claims and blatantly undermining the independence of Canada's refugee tribunal, legal and immigration experts, including former IRB chairman Peter Showler, are charging.
Over the past several months, Mr. Kenney has publicly declared asylum claims by U.S. war deserters to be "bogus," accused would-be Mexican refugees of systematically abusing the system, and questioned the legitimacy of refugee claims by Roma from the Czech Republic.
Mr. Kenney has said that the Roma face no state persecution in the Czech Republic—where attacks on their communities by radical groups are said to be on the rise—in spite of the fact that the Immigration and Refugee Board has approved nearly all such claims. In 2008, 94 per cent of Czech Roma claims were accepted, while in the first six months of 2009, 72 of the 90 cases heard were accepted.
"There are a lot of concerns here," said Toronto immigration lawyer Max Berger. "The minister has to strike a delicate balance, on the one hand preserving the integrity of our refugee program, and on the other hand not making public pronouncements that could be seen as political interference in the operation of his own refugee board."
In June, Mr. Kenney referred to a report on the Czech Republic, conducted by IRB researchers, as proof the Czech government was committed to improving the legal and economic opportunities for Roma, and suggested this was evidence that Czech Roma face no real risk.
"If someone comes in and says the police have been beating the crap out of them, the IRB panelists can then go to their report and say, 'Well, actually, there's been no evidence of police brutality,'" Mr. Kenney told the Toronto Star on June 24.
The appearance of political interference by the minister has led Roma Canadians to launch a lawsuit against Mr. Kenney and the Immigration and Refugee Board, alleging "institutional biases" against Czech Roma refugees. Lawyer Rocco Galati told the Toronto Star that the suit will focus on the IRB's report about Czech Roma, which the community says is discriminatory.
Peter Showler, a former chairman of the IRB and director of the Refugee Forum at the Human Rights Research and Education Centre at the University of Ottawa, said Mr. Kenney has absolutely introduced institutional bias into the refugee board's decision-making. He said Mr. Kenney's comments have caused a "significant amount of damage" to individual refugee claimants from Mexico and the Czech Republic, as well as to the judicial process.
"I am not aware of a single previous minister of immigration who has made such remarks, who has intruded on the judicial process in this way; not one," Mr. Showler said. "This is extraordinary and I think he has overstepped the line, and I think the courts are going to tell him that he's overstepped the line."
The Refugee Lawyers' Association of Ontario has also spoken out against Mr. Kenney's comments, which they say undermines the IRB's independence and tarnishes its integrity.
"The Canadian public should be shocked that a minister would interfere so blatantly in the work of an independent body," Geraldine MacDonald, president of the association, said in a July 13 press release.
Members of the Immigration and Refugee Board are responsible for hearing refugee claims, analyzing the evidence of each case, and ultimately approving or rejecting the claim. The IRB is an independent agency, however its members are appointed by Governor in Council (Cabinet) decisions, based largely on recommendations from the immigration minister.
Experts say Mr. Kenney's disrespect of the principle of independence is of grave concern because it introduces external political factors into the members' decision-making process.
"The people who are members of the IRB ultimately depend on the minister of citizenship and immigration, and more generally the government, to keep them in their jobs," said Audrey Macklin, an associate professor at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law. "When the minister pronounces on the validity, or lack thereof, of refugee claimants from any country without having heard the particular case and knowing the individual circumstances, there is the risk that individual decision makers whose jobs ultimately depend on the minister's decision to appoint and reappoint them, will be unduly influenced.
They might be fearful when their time comes up for reappointment that he will examine their acceptance rates from the countries where he has deemed refugee claimants to be bogus, and penalize them."
The perception of such inappropriate control by Mr. Kenney has become so prevalent that numerous immigration lawyers are turning to the courts for recourse. Mr. Berger said he and a number of other lawyers in Toronto now have applications in federal court alleging "an apprehension of bias" regarding Czech refugee claims.
"You have board members who are called upon to decide these refugee claims, and at the same time these board members are looking to this minister for reappointment at the board," Mr. Berger said.
Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, said it is inappropriate for the immigration minister to publicly prejudge cases and that in doing so he has disrespected the proper divisions of responsibilities.
"It's extraordinary how often you hear public figures say 'I can't comment on this because it's before a tribunal,' somehow Jason Kenney doesn't seem to be applying that rule to the cases of refugees," Ms. Dench said.
By publicly stating his personal opinions on what he thinks the outcome of determinations should be puts the IRB into "a very vulnerable position" and slights refugees, she said.
"It just treats refugees of being so undeserving of even the most basic consideration... like the refugee system is just about trying to deal as quickly as possible with an inconvenience rather than taking seriously the rights of refugees," Ms. Dench said.
Errol Mendes, a professor of international law at the University of Ottawa, said Mr. Kenney's "blanket statements" about claimants from other countries, such as Mexico and the Czech Republic, are dangerous. As the most senior person in the immigration department, the onus is on Mr. Kenney to respect the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Mr. Mendes said, adding there is nothing in the '51 convention which suggests claimants from democratic countries, such as the Czech Republic and Mexico, are not entitled to a fair hearing.
"Given all that, at least in terms of the spirit of the rule of law, I think he has abdicated his responsibility to be a responsible minister of immigration and citizenship," Mr. Mendes said. "And we could add to that multiculturalism too, because this certainly goes against the spirit of multiculturalism, to basically stereotype entire peoples as potential fraudsters."
Liberal Immigration critic Maurizio Bevilacqua advised Mr. Kenney to take heed of such concerns.
"I think the minister has to be very careful and balanced in his comments," Mr. Bevilacqua said. "He must of course state his opinion about Canada's immigration system because that is his job, but he has to do it in a manner that doesn't unduly influence people's decisions on the cases that they're dealing with."
Breaking the System, Blaming the Refugees
Particularly frustrating for many close observers has been the lack of government attention to addressing the refugee problem systematically, rather than politically.
Mr. Showler, in two recent op-eds for the Ottawa Citizen, has outlined the challenges facing the Immigration and Refugee Board. He lambasted the government for neglecting to avert the present crisis, which led to Mr. Kenney imposing visa requirements on all citizens of Mexico and the Czech Republic, and subsequently calling for an overhaul of Canada's refugee system.
"In addition to creating significant delays and spiralling new costs in our refugee programme, the sheer volume of these claims is undermining our ability to help people fleeing real persecution," Mr. Kenney said in announcing visas for Mexico and the Czech Republic on July 13. "All too often, people who really need Canada's protection find themselves in a long line, waiting for months and sometimes years to have their claims heard. This is unacceptable."
Just four years ago however, Mr. Showler points out that the IRB had an inventory of approximately 21,000 claims, with a capacity to decide 25,000 claims annually. But because the government has failed to reappoint experienced members and fill vacancies left by departed members, the IRB is now saddled with a backlog that exceeds 65,000 claims.
Indeed, the IRB was functioning, Ms. Macklin agreed, until the government starved it of its main resource—decision makers.
"[The government] manufactured the backlog," Ms. Macklin said. "You have a situation where the government took a system that was functioning, broke it, blamed asylum seekers for breaking it, and is now using that as an excuse to dismantle the entire system. There's something pernicious about that, and disingenuous at best."
Without enough members, the processing time has slowed—something the Mexican government points to as the root cause of the multiplying number of cases from Mexico in recent years. In 2008, more than 9,400 Mexicans filed refugee claims in Canada, making it the number one source country for refugee claims.
"Organizations have taken advantage of Canadian response times to assess refugee claims, where excessive delays have become appealing in the filing of illegitimate cases," the Mexican government said in a statement on July 13.
Acknowledging that there are indeed fraudulent claims made, Mr. Berger also pointed to systematic problems as the cause. Effectively addressing such problems, he said, is a viable alternative to Mr. Kenney's drastic measure of imposing visas.
"The reason bogus claims come to Canada is because they know that after their refugee claim is refused...they know that they will be able to stay in Canada for seven, eight, 10 years, until the immigration department gets around to removing them," Mr. Berger said. "Now if the minister took the removal process seriously and removed claimants properly after their appeals have concluded, then these people wouldn't be coming here in the first place and we wouldn't have come to this position."
I agree with this column except that I think the media is counting Michael Ignatieff out too soon. He is not a weak leader, he's just been bombarded with personal attack ads from both Reform-Conservatives and their new partners in crime. Barack Obama was a long shot, but he was able to offer a clear, intelligent alternative. We deserve clear intelligence too.
Winning shouldn't be that easy when the prize is almost unfettered power. With no competition to worry about, Liberal majorities lost their early momentum and faded away in policy lethargy, entitlement scandals and internal feuding. With no competent opposition, Conservative minorities are ruling much as if they had won majorities and are getting high marks they often don't deserve.
That dynamic is most evident in one of the issues that matter most. Opinion polls routinely find Canadians most comfortable letting Harper manage the economy.
Apart from having studied economics, there's little in the Prime Minister's history to justify that confidence. Wild Conservative spending and ineffectual, if politically popular, GST cuts made short work of an inherited $13 billion surplus. Harper and his finance minister first misread the recession and then misled the country on the inevitability of deficits.
Perhaps more remarkably, the Prime Minister and ruling party get passing grades on the environment. In fact, a bad Canadian record under Liberals has become shamefully worse under Conservatives. Almost as troubling, by so obviously dragging its feet on climate change the Harper government is damaging this country's reputation for progressive global stewardship.
However much able economic and environmental management should matter, they don't seem to matter enough to overcome the hunger for leadership. It's as if voters, weary of serial elections and frustrated by partisan games, have wilfully suspended their disbelief and parked their support in what feels like the safest place.
What's happening here now is what's happened here before. In the absence of something better, Harper, using all the powers of incumbency and supported by operatives willing to do almost anything to win, has established himself as the default choice.
By any standard, that's a remarkable achievement. It wasn't that long ago that Reformers were Ottawa's outsidersand a divided right left the fast lane open to near perpetual Liberal power.
Both have gotten away from him before. Twice he snatched minorities from pending majorities by appealing too hard to the Conservative base and letting his deep animosities show. And last fall he came close to throwing away his government by taking a homicidal lunge at rivals in what should have been a fall fiscal update focused solely on the financial crisis.
Those character flaws exact a terrible political price. As Liberals are still learning, they bring once strong parties to their knees and bring to power prime ministers who have little to fear from enemies who are not seen as alternatives.
Such is the ebb and flow of federal politics and such is the delight of being a political leader flattered by weak opponents.
What will we do? How high will the deficit go and will Canada ever have balanced books? Jim Flaherty is pushing his tax on everything HST and is now going to impose an extra tax on those Canadians lucky enough to still have jobs, by raising their EI premiums, but there are still so many questions.
OTTAWA – The Conservatives admitted today that the federal government deficit would be worse — a total of $101 billion this year and next — than expected and that the government cannot say when it will balance the books again.
In a hastily-released fiscal update, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the severe economic recession means that, between now and 2014-15, Ottawa's budget shortfall will total more than $160 billion, the government said.
A senior federal government official briefing reporters said there is too much uncertainty about the pace of the economic recovery to predict when the federal accounts can be balanced.
It may take between five and 10 years to put an end to the federal deficit, the official said. But a spokesperson for Flaherty said the government hopes to do so sooner. (And he's got so much credibility)
Flaherty said that, once the recovery takes place, the government will attempt to balance its books by cutting the growth in government spending. The Conservatives would not raise taxes or trim transfer payments to the provinces, he said in a speech in Victoria.
"But restraining the growth in government spending will still mean tough choices for the government," Flaherty said. "It will require decisions of government that won't always be popular or pain-free."
Payments to seniors, students and transfers to the provinces for health services will not be cut, federal government officials said.
Explaining the further deterioration in federal finances, the government said in the update papers that "the sharp drop-off in global activity and incomes has reduced revenues (lowering the GST didn't help either) and pushed up government deficits world-wide" and Canada has suffered a similar impact.
Flaherty said the economy is improving but the recovery is fragile. He predicted economic growth of minus 2.3 per cent this year, much worse than the minus 0.8 per cent forecast in the January budget.
But the economy will bounce back and expand by 2.3 per cent next year., he said Unemployment will continue to rise and hit 9 per cent next year, up from the 7.7 per cent predicted in the January budget, the government said.
In the budget, Flaherty had predicted that the government would begin running budget surpluses again in 2013-14 but he now says there will be an $11.2 billion deficit that year, followed by another deficit of $5.2 billion the following year.
He said the deficit this year will hit $55.9 billion, up from the $33.7 billion shortfall predicted in January. And next year's deficit will hit $45.3 billion, up from the January prediction of $30 billion.
During last year's election campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada would not suffer an economic recession and the federal government would not run a budget deficit. With another election looming, Flaherty has expressed a determination to talk about how the Conservatives would extricate themselves from the deficits they are now facing.
Flaherty said in his speech that the uncertain economic times mean the Liberal Opposition's sabre rattling over an election is bad timing for the country.
"Now is not the time to put economic recovery at risk with political opportunism. This is not the time to create instability out of narrow, partisan self-interest," he said.
"This is not the time to play political games."(The Conservatives have NEVER STOPPED PLAYING POLITICAL GAMES)
Canada’s $1-trillion debt baby September 11, 2009 The Tory commitment to ‘eliminate’ Canada’s total net debt by 2021 now looks absurd By Terence Corcoran
Debt is good, even for governments. But it depends on the kind of debt, what it’s used for and what the financial plan is for getting out of debt. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s latest revelations on the future of Ottawa’s annual deficits do not fill one with confidence that the federal government has a firm grip on the floodgates that control the level of debt in Canada, not all of which is going to be doing much good for the economy.
Further proof that Harper says one thing and means another can be found with his recent speech (actually a rehash of a speech he gave right after meeting Obama)
But if he's going to try to use the old coalition threat, his hypocrisy will not be lost. I intend to post his own backroom deals everywhere I can.
I was actually impressed when the leaders of the opposition parties got together and signed a deal by which they could be asked by the Governor-General to take power without an election. Good thinking -- minorities are all about co-operation and coalitions.
No, I'm not talking about late last year. I'm talking about 2004, when a guy named Stephen Harper mustered up the collective weight of the opposition against Paul Martin and wrote this letter to the Governor-General.
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
If Harper is going to go on the election warpath with speeches like the one we saw last night on CBC TV (all that's missing is his tinfoil hat), and if it works, then he is absolutely correct to conclude that the Canadian public is stupid. Or that we don't have access to the Internet, and interviews such as this one.
Let's recap: Stephen Harper, circa 2004, thought there was nothing wrong with getting the Bloc's signature to make a bid for power -- without an election. Stephen Harper, circa 2009, tells us that this is the most frightening thing in the world. Because it threatens his power.
Political debate would be far more interesting/productive in this country if people's memories stretched longer than the life span of a fruit fly.
Mine definitely stretches longer than the life span of a fruit fly.
While Harper is in the process of being sued for his illegal election, called in part to take advantage of his weakening of Stephane Dion; but more to halt the investigation into the Conservative's alleged criminal activity in the "In and Out" scandal; he's now out and about in secretive meetings, once again bringing up the threat of a coalition with "separatists" and "socialists", to gain support.
Is this man incapable of honesty, or does he just think Canadians are absolute idiots?
We know his entire campaign of insanity during the parliamentary crisis was based on lies. LIES, LIES and MORE LIES!!!
You can listen to his speech here, but for a brief refresher on the hypocrisy of a man clearly incapable of telling the truth, and those in his party who try to outdo him.
These are just a few reasons. I have hundreds. But now for a story that should concern us all. He's going for the gusto and playing on the fake coalition threat to get his majority. Canada would be toast if that ever happened.
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper is calling for a majority Conservative government to "teach" his political opponents and "their little coalition" a lesson, according to a video leaked to the Opposition Liberals.
In a speech to supporters last week in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., Harper urged them to work for a majority Conservative government, saying the alternative is a "Liberal government propped up by the socialists and the separatists."
Harper and other Conservatives have, by and large, been reluctant for the last four years to speak publicly about the possibility of a majority Conservative government for fear it might alienate "soft" supporters who would drift back to another party.
Indeed, when Canwest News Service asked Harper in mid-August how he intended to win a majority government, he would not answer the question, saying only that he did not want an election.
But in last week's 10-minute speech to a partisan Northern Ontario crowd, Harper spent several minutes arguing that the country needs a Conservative majority government and urged supporters to work toward that end.
"I hear rumours these days, we may be going to an election," a relaxed and confident Harper said.
"The next election . . . will be a choice between having a Conservative government and not having a Conservative government (That's my choice). And let me be clear about this: We need to win a majority in the next election campaign.
"I'm not just saying this because we need a few more seats. We saw what happened last year. Do not be fooled for a moment. If we do not get a majority, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois will combine and they will form a government."
Harper's comments were made on Sept. 2 at an event that CBC News reported was closed to the media. An unknown individual made a video recording of the speech which was subsequently passed on to the Liberal Party of Canada, CBC reported. The Liberals passed the video to CBC who posted the speech on their website.
The video contains many of the themes Harper and the Conservative are sure to use if there is an election this fall, most notably trying to make Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals "wear" the coalition government proposal of last Christmas, a proposal which polls at the time showed was deeply unpopular with Canadians.
"I guarantee you if we do not win a majority, this country will have a Liberal government propped up by the socialists and the separatists. That government may not last very long, but every day it's in office it will do long-term real damage to this country," Harper said.
"This country cannot afford a government like that. If they force us to the polls, we have to teach them a lesson and get back there with a majority and make sure their little coalition never happens."
When he anoints his very own Hallelujah Chorus to represent Canadians in the Senate in the coming days, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have delivered his most compelling argument for electing senators.
Sources say up to nine vacant Senate seats will soon be filled, bolstering the Conservative standing to 46 seats in the 105-seat chamber.
Among the rumoured appointees are fawning Conservative party president Don Plett, bare-knuckled campaign manager Doug Finley and obedient former staffer Carolyn Stewart-Olsen.
An ideological politician who was disgusted at watching Parliament's upper house turned into a vote-stacking exercise, where only the faintest of serious or sober second thoughts actually take place, Harper has turned ruthlessly partisan in making his Senate appointments, elevating party loyalty into the sole consideration for the cushiest job on the Hill.
The argument for such warped behaviour was first advanced after Harper rushed 18 bums into Senate seats when the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition was threatening to take down his government. Better to load up the red chamber with loyalists before the Liberals handed out those juicy plums, he argued. (Don got this wrong. The Bloc were not part of this coalition. They only agreed to support it on confidence motions for 18 months)
But is it absolutely necessary for Harper to fill these $132,000 positions, with retirement deferred to age 75, with fanatical loyalists?
These insiders may not be known outside the parliamentary precinct, but that only makes their appointments more outrageous.
Their strongest, indeed ONLY, character traits for the job are blinkered vision and blinded loyalty. They will serve as little more than a vote administered by remote control from the PMO for as long as Harper owns the job.
There is a certain shenanigan symmetry to this, of course.
The Liberals appointed a former prime minister communications director named Jim Munson to the job. Stewart-Olsen comes from the communications wing of Harper's PMO.
The Liberals put their election wizard, David Smith, into the Senate. Finley has been the campaign guru for the Conservatives through all Harper-led elections.
But there's something sad about justifying the sliming up of the Senate with patronage trough-feeders on the grounds that Tories are no worse than the Liberals.
There's also the incongruity of giving faithful Conservatives a job representing provinces which rejected them in the polls.Fabian Manning grabbed a Senate gig representing The Rock just two months after he was defeated as an MP there in the last federal election. Rumours have former premier Rodney MacDonald, ousted from power in Nova Scotia only two months ago, landing a seat.
The Senate is becoming the land of the misfit politicians, but at least most of those types have solid people skills.
Not so much for gruff Doug Finley, who excels at campaign donor shakedowns and serving as guard dog in deciding who was worthy of receiving Conservative nominations(including his wife Diane Finley). Ditto for Stewart-Olsen, severed from the PMO a few months ago, whose enforcement of low-level directives and constant singing of Harper's praises are somehow seen as ideal senator material.
Of course, the ultimate objective can only warm the hearts of true blue Conservatives. This batch of appointments edges the Senate closer toward the glorious day when it will fall under Conservative control.
But Harper could've and should've done better--even though the inside view is that he did not get enough credit for delivering decent appointments under his watch.
True, the appointment of Bert Brown, who had been voted in twice in Alberta elections, was commendable.
Former broadcaster Pamela Wallin deserves credit for projecting a dignity of independence as a bona fide celebrity senator, even while standing with the government when the votes are called. And while I've been hard on former CTV icon Mike Duffy, at least he bonds with average Canadians even while shamelessly promoting the Conservative agenda.
But the names so far fall short of having any skills to represent their assigned provinces in a more effective Senate. They will only represent Stephen Harper. That's why we must find a better way of making quality Senate appointments --or elect to abolish it entirely.
With all the accusations thrown at Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, suggesting that he supports torture; it's interesting that while those are fabrications, our own government was complicit in the torture of Afghan prisoners.
They may not have held the whip, but they closed their ears to the cries of pain.
Then to top it off, when it was discovered that they were helping to provide the bodies for the torture chamber, Stockwell Day just turned to the standard Tory action when discovered in a scandal. Lie, lie, lie.
Canada's opposition parties were demanding changes to the Afghanistan detainee transfer agreement and calling for the Defence Minister's resignation following accounts of gruesome torture of prisoners in Kandahar.
Monday's Question Period exploded with a barrage of complaints and repeated calls for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's ouster from the portfolio.
The calls were sparked by a Globe and Mail investigation that uncovered gruesome stories and allegations of abuse by Afghan authorities who take prisoners who have been captured by Canadian troops, despite Canada's assurances that the rights of detainees are protected.
NDP Leader Jack Layton said the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities should stop immediately, a public inquiry be launched and Mr. O'Connor be sacked. He was backed up by all opposition parties.
The matter dominated early debate in Question Period. Deputy Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Mr. O'Conner was “incompetent” and should be replaced by a minister “who can ensure the Geneva convention will be respected” by both Canada and its allies.
Liberal Defence Critic Denis Coderre later told the Globe the party would “do what we have to do” to have their demands answered. “At every level ... [the Harper Government] totally failed in Canada's role regarding human rights,” Mr. Coderre said. “There's too many questions.”
Earlier Monday, human rights experts and university professors Michael Byers and Amir Attaran said the Canadian Forces should stop transferring detainees into Afghan hands and build their own detention facility in the Asian country.
In the current circumstances, they said, Canadian Forces members are complicit in the alleged torture that is inflicted on prisoners of war in Afghan prisons. “Under international law, you are prohibited from transferring to torture. You are prohibited from facilitating torture in any way,” said Mr. Byers, who teaches international law and politics at the University of British Columbia.
“We're not simply speaking about the criminal responsibility of individual Canadian soldiers. We're speaking also of command responsibility, of criminal responsibility that continues up the chain of command, to any superior officer who knew of the risk of torture and who ordered or allowed our soldiers to transfer detainees nevertheless,” he said.
In 30 interviews with men recently captured in Kandahar province, a Globe and Mail investigation has uncovered a litany of gruesome stories and a clear pattern of abuse by the Afghan authorities who work closely with Canadian troops, despite Canada's assurances that the rights of detainees are protected.
Mr. Attaran said the Canadian government has to make an announcement by the end of the day, given that allegations of torture in Afghan prisons are now public.
“The acid test for (Mr. O'Connor and Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier) is today. Can they, by the end of the day, call it quits on what is an illegal practice?” said the law professor at the University of Ottawa.
Canadian Forces members regularly hold detainees for a few days of questioning at Kandahar Air Field, then give them to the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's intelligence police. Over and over, detainees interviewed by The Globe described how Canadians tied their hands with plastic straps, marking the start of nightmarish journeys through shadowy jails and blood-spattered interrogation rooms. “If this report is accurate, Canadians have engaged in war crimes, not only individually but also as a matter of policy,” Mr. Byers said.
Then of course, Stephen Harper, rather than answer to the allegations, pulled his usual blame it on the Opposition, who he claimed must apologize to the troops. For What?
In Question Period, in the face of continued questions about the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan, Harper continues to instead choose partisanship over substance to respond to the issue. He continues to fail to recognize the significance of Canada fully adhering to the Geneva Conventions and to be seen to be doing so to the world.
Instead, Harper's instincts are to mock Dion and Layton and use the troops as a shield for his accountability. The opposition should apologize to the troops? Are you kidding me? This is not about the troops. This is about Harper and O'Connor. The only parties that owe an apology to the troops are Harper and O'Connor. They've let this situation develop in Afghanistan where the Canadian Forces are put in the middle of a chaotic no-win situation.
They've ramped up the combat mission yet left our Forces in the position of having no safeguards to ensure the Geneva Conventions will be followed. That's inexcusable and it's a lack of civilian experience and proper oversight of the military operation that is the problem.
But Stockwell Day trumped them all when he told an out and out lie in the House of Commons. He claimed that detainees were being monitored and that Correctional staff from Canada were doing the monitoring. That man has such a wild imagination. I guess he needs something to make up for his complete lack of education and moral compass.
OTTAWA - Urging an end to the "political circus" over Afghan detainees, Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada says no Canadians, including corrections officers, have monitored treatment of prisoners turned over by Canadian military forces.
However, Ambassador Omar Samad said in a Global National interview that Canadian officials will soon have "unrestricted access" to prisons under an agreement currently being worked out with Canada in the wake of political uproar over alleged torture of detainees.
Samad contradicted assertions by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day that Corrections Canada officers have been monitoring prisoner treatment - an assertion Day repeated in the Commons Friday, saying they are there "to see if there are cases of torture."
Samad said Corrections Canada officers have for many months, under their mandate to help build Afghan police capacity, had access to some prisons in Afghanistan and may have come across prisoners.
"It doesn't mean those were detention centres of people who were arrested by Canadian forces," Samad said. "So if this has created confusion, I think that we all need to take a step back and define what we're talking about and to bring some clarity to this instead of turning it into a political circus."
"From the Afghan point of view, it's clear there was no followup or monitoring of detainees caught by Canadian forces turned over to Afghans, especially to the NDS (National Directorate of Security) that took place prior to this current time."
Day came under fire in the Commons earlier, with opposition MPs saying the corrections officers, sent in February to help prison reconstruction efforts, have no mandate to monitor prisoners or enforce a Canada-Afghanistan prisoner transfer agreement.
The minister had trumpeted their role Thursday after three days of confusion and contradiction about alleged abuse of prisoners turned over by Canadian troops, access to Afghan prisons and enforcement of a Canada-Afghan prisoner transfer agreement under which the Afghan human rights commission was to monitor prisoner treatment.
Day had said Thursday that corrections staff had made 15 visits to Afghan jails. But his spokeswoman, Melissa Leclerc, had said later they have no mandate to monitor prisoner treatment.
On Friday, Day told the Commons "they are there to support the Afghan officers by training them in the work that they do in the prisons and also to ensure, to see if there are cases of torture."
After question period, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor should be "put out of his misery" after five days of contradictions and confusion on the Afghan detainee affair.
And former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler told reporters that Canadians must be trained specifically to recognize torture and abuse if they are going to be part of a systematic monitoring system.
"You can't have a drive-by inquiry by some corrections officials who may in fact not even know that it's part of their mandate to monitor the detainees and to understand if there have been situations of torture and inhumane treatment," Cotler said.
While they tried to portray the proposed Liberal/NDP alliance, with the support of the Bloc for 18 months, as a 'coup' or an attempt to put separatists in government, this story reveals that they had attempted the same thing on several occasions. The only difference was that their coalitions included the BLOC, while the 2008 attempt did not.
Stephen Harper may have bought himself a bit of time by promising much needed EI reform, but it would appear given their latest news releases, that it will be just the same old same old. Diane Finley, with Ryan Sparrow pulling her strings, has gone to their three stage plan to deal with any crisis.
1. Pretend you are committed.
2. Blame it on the Liberals.
3. LIE, LIE, LIE!!!
Of course you know that when they placed Poilievre on the 'working group', they never intended to take it seriously. This little SS officer incarnate, snapped to attention, barked 'Heil Harper' then announced that their government will "never" accept Ignatieff's proposal.
Now as a follow up performance, Ms Finley, with carefully prepared speech in hand, and wearing her fire retardant panties, went into one of the worst stand-up routines I've ever witnessed.
OTTAWA — Federal Liberals have dismissed as shameful a Conservative bid to put a $4-billion price tag on the Liberals' key proposal for allowing more jobless Canadians to qualify for employment insurance benefits.
Liberal MP Marlene Jennings said Thursday the Conservatives came up with the number by "throwing everything, including the kitchen sink," into the calculation.
Jennings was speaking following a meeting of a special Conservative-Liberal working group that has been charged with coming up with ways to improve EI by Sept. 28.
A government analysis said the Liberal proposal to slash the minimum work requirement to qualify for employment insurance benefits to 360 hours across the country could exceed $4 billion a year.
A senior Conservative official circulated a synopsis of the cost analysis to reporters.
It said the proposed change could cost four times more than the $1 billion cited by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who has promoted the 360-hour standard as a means of easing the plight of the unemployed during the economic recession.
Under the current system, a person has to have worked 420 to 700 hours in the previous 12 months, depending on the regional unemployment rate, to collect benefits.
Jennings said in an interview the $4-billion figure does not reflect what the Liberals are proposing because, among other things, it included those claiming EI benefits for everything from illness to maternity, parental and compassionate leave.
The government tally estimated reducing the requirement to 360 hours would add 332,580 people to the EI rolls.
The Liberals say their plan would apply only to those qualifying for regular EI benefits — or an estimated 117,000.
Given the government's estimate that the average benefit cost for each claimant is $6,900, the price tag on the Liberal plan would be slightly more than $1 billion, Jennings maintained.
The working group, which plans to meet again next week, has asked government officials to return with cost estimates if the work requirement were set at such hourly levels as 390, 420 and 560, and only if those qualifying for regular jobless benefits were covered.
Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, a member of the committee, has said the 360-hour requirement is "straight out of academic fantasyland" and a non-starter.
Jennings has said the Liberals are willing to negotiate the 360-hour benchmark, and the means to expand EI benefits to the self-employed.
She said the subject of the self-employed was broached for the first time Thursday and that officials have been asked to cost a range of options for another meeting of the working group next Thursday.
Ignatieff has threatened to try to force an election if the government doesn't get serious about EI reform.
Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, a member of the group, brushed off questions about the credibility of the $4-billion figure. He said the only thing Canadians need to know is that the Liberal proposal is "extremely expensive" and "totally unacceptable." (The only thing Canadians need to know? Is he kidding me? We're not pawns in some chess game from hell, and certainly should not be on a 'need to know' basis with our government.)
The government's $4-billion estimate — a fourfold increase on the $1-billion price tag a recent TD Bank report put on the idea — landed amid stepped-up calls for EI reform from provincial premiers, who are meeting in Regina this week.
The premiers appeared split, however, on how to change the qualification period for collecting EI benefits.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has supported Ignatieff's call for a single standard, but says 360 hours is too low a bar. Others have balked at setting a single standard, but have supported streamlining the current 58 qualifying standards.
Western premiers agreed earlier this summer to promote three regional categories: urban, rural and remote.
The leaders of the Atlantic provinces stressed that any changes cannot dilute the existing system.
"The first principle on this is do no harm," said Darrell Dexter, Nova Scotia's rookie NDP premier.
The Conservative analysis crunched numbers on four possible scenarios involving a single standard of 360 hours of work and 19 weeks of benefits.
The Liberals have insisted they would finance any EI changes out of general revenues, rather than upping premiums for workers or employees.
If they can bail out the auto industry, why can't they help our unemployed?
There were three comments at the end of this piece. One was the usual Harper induced rant about our welfare state, but the other two were important, considering that this was Alberta.
"That's almost $26B less than what Harper gave up when he lowered GST by 2%. Good job Steve"
and:
"Canada has a $2 Trillion economy, and the Americans routinely throw around $1 Trillion bailout packages, so am I to be unnerved by a paltry $4 Billion for EI. The last time a number like that was significant was in 1914 when that was the amount of the British Gold Reserves. Get some perspective here. You do not scare me Ms. Finley."
Reuters and other media outlets 
