Friday 30 December 2011
Question More: Liberals need less Trudeau, more Mackenzie King? Kelly McParland, that is not the real question.
This is my response to Kelly McParland's Full Comment in the National Post on December 30, 2011, Liberals need less Trudeau, more Mackenzie King?
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/30/kelly-mcparland-liberals-need-less-trudeau-more-mackenzie-king/
First you need to keep in mind the source of this article, The National Post which is owned by the right-winged Post Media Network. This article is clearly bashing PE Trudeau for a reason, and it is not because the Liberals need someone more like Mackenzie King. The real reason why this article exists is that they, (the right -wing conservative supporters) see Justin Trudeau as a possible contender for the Liberal Leadership. Recently there was a poll by Robbins Research (http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_861.html) that stated that if Justin Trudeau was leader of Liberal Party he would have equal support to Stephen Harper. The goal of this article is to make PE Trudeau sound like a really bad guy and convince the public that having his offspring as PM would be terrible for Canada. Also, with the emphasis of the increase of the national debt during PE Trudeau' reign, which supports the Conservatives claim on focusing on the economy and creating jobs, (though they never have balanced a budget at the federal level), is really pushing the Conservatives cause. The article really doesn't take into consideration the great things PE Trudeau did for the country and the economic and demographics of that time period. Look, both Mackenzie King and PE Trudeau were wonderful Liberal Leaders. I am not saying we can't learn from Mackenzie King. The best way to learn is to learn from both PMs. They were both different in personality and they both ruled during different times. All I am saying is consider the source of the information and why the article is being written.
Sunday 18 December 2011
Question More: If the Conservative Government was a food, what food would they be? Why?
This is your opportunity to describe how appreciative or frustrated you are with the Conservative Government in a more creative and, hopefully, humourous way.
If you do not wish to comment on the question then you can participate in the non-scientific poll to the right of the page. Please note that you can only choose one answer.
Now I know some of you may have questions about the answers I choose for the poll. So I am going to reverse the philosophy of this blog for a moment and answer some questions you may have:
Butter Tarts? Poutine? According to Wikipedia, Canada's national foods are butter tarts and poutine.
Maple Syrup? Canada is the worlds largest producer of Maple Syrup in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_cuisine
Baloney? Nuts? Fruitcake? The names of these foods if you use them as slang have a clear meaning. I do encourage, however, for people to comment and bring forth other foods not listed in the poll. (Fruitcake: Tis the season.)
Why the Conservative Government? Why not the Liberals, NDP or the Green Party? Because the Conservatives are in power. Therefore I chose to pose this question about the Conservative Government.
Why the Conservative Government? Why not the Liberals, NDP or the Green Party? Because the Conservatives are in power. Therefore I chose to pose this question about the Conservative Government.
Seasons Greetings.
Thursday 15 December 2011
Question More: Decreasing Health-Care Transfers
During the 2011 Canadian Federal Election, the number 1 issue for Canadians was Health Care. According to Macleans Magazine, “The official Conservative election platform actually included no mention of the 6% escalator, but in a news release sent out 17 days later, the Conservative campaign referenced the promise three times.”
Our low-tax plan to eliminate the deficit while protecting Canada’s universal health-care system by maintaining 6 per cent annual increases in federal transfers to the provinces and territories … A re-elected Conservative Government will build on our strong record of protecting Canada’s universal health-care system by increasing funding for health care by 6 per cent per year and making sure that Canadians see better treatment from the new money … Eliminating the deficit while protecting Canada’s universal health-care system by increasing federal funding by 6 per cent per year.
Source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/14/what-did-the-conservatives-promise-on-health-transfers/
Now, Jim Flaherty will insist that future health-funding increases will be linked to growth in the economy when he meets with the Provincial Premiers on Monday. Linking health-care funding to GDP was not mentioned in the election promise above. People voted according to what the Conservatives said during the election campaign, that they will “eliminate the deficit while protecting Canada’s universal health-care system by maintaining 6 per cent annual increases in federal transfers to the provinces and territories.”
Universal Health Care affects all Canadians. Not only has the Conservative Government misled their own voters, they are turning their backs on all Canadians. So now, like the prisons, the provinces will be forced to cover more of the health care cost if the Conservatives get their way. The reason for the Conservatives to back track their promise is that they are blaming the slowing economy. But if that were the case, then why would they put forth costly bills like the Crime Bill and the Fair Representation Act and waste money on luxury hotels and rescue plane rides.
What are your thoughts?
Sunday 11 December 2011
Question More: Bill C-18 and the Federal Court Ruling
On December 10, 2011, The Vancouver Sun reported “The Federal Court has decided the government's legislation making changes to the Canadian Wheat Board is an "affront to the rule of law."
http://www.vancouversun.com/Parliament+change/5841581/story.html#ixzz1gBtdrQrD
http://www.vancouversun.com/Parliament+change/5841581/story.html#ixzz1gBtdrQrD
The Winnipeg Press reported on December 10, 2011 “This week's Federal Court ruling the Harper government broke the law when it introduced legislation to change the Canadian Wheat Board without consulting farmers adds a surreal twist to an already bizarre saga.”
The Canadian Press reported on December 9, 2011 that “On Wednesday, Justice Douglas Campbell ruled that the bill violates the act, which requires any changes to be subject to a plebiscite among producers.”
The information from these newspapers is incorrect. The ruling is based on the Minister of Agricultural Gerry Ritz' conduct only, in regards to section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, RSC 1985, c C-24 “which requires the Minister to engage in a consultative process with the Canadian Wheat Board”.
Federal Court Judge Douglas Campbell stated the purpose of the proceedings:
The present Applications are simple in nature; they are directed at an examination of the
Minister’s conduct with respect the requirements of s. 47.1. The Applicants confirm that the
validity of Bill C-18, and the validity and effects of any legislation which might become law as a
result of Bill C-18 are not in issue in the present Applications.
...The Applicants make it clear that their Applications are no threat to the Sovereignty of
Parliament to pass legislation.
What Federal Court Judge did find was that:
Had a meaningful consultative process been engaged to find a solution
which meets the concerns of the majority, the present legal action might
not have been necessary...
...that the Minister will be held accountable for his disregard for the rule of law.
...find it is fair and just to issue the Breach Declaration on each Application.
Therefore, Minister Gerry Ritz is guilty of breaching section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. He broke the law.
But what is the consequence or his actions?
For a Government that says they are for law and order, shouldn't they have Mr. Ritz removed from Caucus until this legal matter is dealt with? They don't think so. They have decided to appeal the decision and spend taxpayers money in the courts rather than follow the rule of law and consult the farmers, a more cost-effective and common sense solution.
But, why didn't the Wheat Board not raise the issue of validity of the legislation. Perhaps one can not fight legislation as it is being debated. Perhaps they wanted to make sure that Minister Ritz is found guilty of breaching section 47.1 first so that they can use that to support and question the validity of the bill, or at that point, the law?
What are your thoughts?
Tuesday 6 December 2011
Do you support 30 more seats?
On Tuesday December 6, 2011 Justin Trudeau posted this question on his facebook page:
I am preparing to stand up in the House of Commons to speak to the issue of redistribution of seats in HOC. Do we really need 30 more members of parliament?
This was my reply:
Justin, the main issue with the C-20 is not the number of seats but how the seats will be calculated. I do not like how they are calculating the seats using the so call Stats Can estimate program based on the 2006 population stats, especially since the 2011 census data will be released on Feb.8, 2012, only two months from now. Now I agree that there needs to be a change in Electorial system but this is not it. The idea of using ESTIMATES allows for tweaking and interpretation instead of hard fact like the actual census population number. Of what I read in the minutes at the committee meetings about this bill is that using the so call estimates program will increase seats in BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. I also understand that when they came up with these calculations they did not take into consideration the Territories. It is very fishy because many of these seats will be created in areas that there is a large Conservative support base. We also have to take into account that the Conservative Government made the Census Long Form voluntary instead of mandatory which at the time of that announcement, I thought to be very fishy. Then reading this bill it became clear why they did that. Sure, there are a few people that will always refuse to complete the census form but the overall majority of Canadians do. And the one thing we have been seeing over and over again is that the Conservative government is not interested in fact but in their own interests and that they definitely are not thinking of what would best benefit the people of Canada as a whole. As for 30 more seats...they are obviously promoting BIGGER GOVERNMENT! They say they are not. They have accused the opposition of doing so but they are. It is just another expense at the time when the global economy is weak and we will be affected by that. I support sticking to the unadjusted 2011 Census population number for now until a better and more reliable form of Electorial reform is available.
How would you replay to his question?
I am preparing to stand up in the House of Commons to speak to the issue of redistribution of seats in HOC. Do we really need 30 more members of parliament?
Justin, the main issue with the C-20 is not the number of seats but how the seats will be calculated. I do not like how they are calculating the seats using the so call Stats Can estimate program based on the 2006 population stats, especially since the 2011 census data will be released on Feb.8, 2012, only two months from now. Now I agree that there needs to be a change in Electorial system but this is not it. The idea of using ESTIMATES allows for tweaking and interpretation instead of hard fact like the actual census population number. Of what I read in the minutes at the committee meetings about this bill is that using the so call estimates program will increase seats in BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. I also understand that when they came up with these calculations they did not take into consideration the Territories. It is very fishy because many of these seats will be created in areas that there is a large Conservative support base. We also have to take into account that the Conservative Government made the Census Long Form voluntary instead of mandatory which at the time of that announcement, I thought to be very fishy. Then reading this bill it became clear why they did that. Sure, there are a few people that will always refuse to complete the census form but the overall majority of Canadians do. And the one thing we have been seeing over and over again is that the Conservative government is not interested in fact but in their own interests and that they definitely are not thinking of what would best benefit the people of Canada as a whole. As for 30 more seats...they are obviously promoting BIGGER GOVERNMENT! They say they are not. They have accused the opposition of doing so but they are. It is just another expense at the time when the global economy is weak and we will be affected by that. I support sticking to the unadjusted 2011 Census population number for now until a better and more reliable form of Electorial reform is available.
How would you replay to his question?
Saturday 3 December 2011
This linguistically and logically doesn't make sense.
The Criminal Code, Firearms Act, and Bill -19 state that if some is to posses a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, that they are required to have a registration certificate for it.
Question More:
Why can someone register to possessed a prohibited firearm? Aren't the firearms prohibited?
Wednesday 30 November 2011
Super-size the House of Commons
In the November 26, 2011 issue of the The Economist there is very good article about Bill C-20.
http://www.economist.com/node/21540314
http://www.economist.com/node/21540314
Monday 28 November 2011
QUESTION MORE: Fair Representation Act - Bill C-20
Representation in the House of Commons is readjusted after each decennial (10-year) census in accordance with the Constitution Act 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
Even though Statistics Canada will publish counts from the 2011 census of population on February 8, 2012, the Conservative government has introduced legislation that creates a new formula based on existing population estimates that could expand the House of Commons from 308 to 338 seats. This legislation is the Fair Representation Act, Bill C-20.
The Bill C-20 amendments would change the allocation of seats between provinces and territories from the unadjusted population counts from the decennial census of population to using the Statistic Canada's population estimates program that produces annual and quarterly estimates of the population. This program uses the currently available estimates of provincial and territorial populations at July 1, 2011, which reflect results of the 2006 census adjusted for net undercoverage, augmented by births and immigration since the census date and reduced by deaths and emigration."
Using the new method, we could see Ontario get 15 seats, Alberta 6, B.C. 6, and Quebec 3.
After the 2001 Census, the number of seats only increased by 7 using the unadjusted population counts. Under the new changes, the number of seats could increase by 30.
Question More:
Why put forth legislation that uses estimates of the population based on 2006 numbers when in two months time the 2011 census counts will be available?
Why not amend legislation to use the unadjusted population counts from the census to every 5 years instead of 10?
Wouldn't using estimates allow for numbers to be interpreted in many different ways whereas the unadjusted census number is absolute?
With the global economy slowing, a possible recession in Europe, debt issues with the US, can Canada afford 30 more seats?
Is it the majority Conservative Government taking advantage of their power to use the estimates of population formula in order to create more seats in areas that would favor them being reelected in 2015?
Is the changes to legislation mean that the Conservatives are promoting "bigger government"?
What are your thoughts?
Bibliography
Elections Canada. "Elections Canada On-line - Élection Canada En-ligne."Elections Canada On-line - Élection Canada En-ligne. Elections Canada, Aug. 2004. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/list&document=index&lang=e>.,
Canada. Government of Canada. House of Commons. Parliament of Canada Website. By Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Publishing and Depository Services Public Works and Government Services Canada, 17 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5256072&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1.>
Canada. Government of Canada. Parliament of Canada. Parliament of Canada Web Site - Site Web Du Parlement Du Canada. By House of Commons. Publishing and Depository Services Public Works and Government Services Canada, 27 Oct. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5202547&file=4>.
DeSouza, Mike. "Tory Bill Adds 30 New MPs to House of Commons." National Post | Canadian News, Financial News and Opinion. Postmedia, 27 Oct. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/27/tory-bill-would-add-30-new-mps-to-house-of-commons/>.
Taber, Jane. "Tories Take over as Party of Big Government." The Globe and Mail. Phillip Crawley, 23 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-take-over-as-party-of-big-government/article2245953/>.
Even though Statistics Canada will publish counts from the 2011 census of population on February 8, 2012, the Conservative government has introduced legislation that creates a new formula based on existing population estimates that could expand the House of Commons from 308 to 338 seats. This legislation is the Fair Representation Act, Bill C-20.
The Bill C-20 amendments would change the allocation of seats between provinces and territories from the unadjusted population counts from the decennial census of population to using the Statistic Canada's population estimates program that produces annual and quarterly estimates of the population. This program uses the currently available estimates of provincial and territorial populations at July 1, 2011, which reflect results of the 2006 census adjusted for net undercoverage, augmented by births and immigration since the census date and reduced by deaths and emigration."
Using the new method, we could see Ontario get 15 seats, Alberta 6, B.C. 6, and Quebec 3.
After the 2001 Census, the number of seats only increased by 7 using the unadjusted population counts. Under the new changes, the number of seats could increase by 30.
Question More:
Why put forth legislation that uses estimates of the population based on 2006 numbers when in two months time the 2011 census counts will be available?
Why not amend legislation to use the unadjusted population counts from the census to every 5 years instead of 10?
Wouldn't using estimates allow for numbers to be interpreted in many different ways whereas the unadjusted census number is absolute?
With the global economy slowing, a possible recession in Europe, debt issues with the US, can Canada afford 30 more seats?
Is it the majority Conservative Government taking advantage of their power to use the estimates of population formula in order to create more seats in areas that would favor them being reelected in 2015?
Is the changes to legislation mean that the Conservatives are promoting "bigger government"?
What are your thoughts?
Bibliography
Elections Canada. "Elections Canada On-line - Élection Canada En-ligne."Elections Canada On-line - Élection Canada En-ligne. Elections Canada, Aug. 2004. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/list&document=index&lang=e>.,
Canada. Government of Canada. House of Commons. Parliament of Canada Website. By Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Publishing and Depository Services Public Works and Government Services Canada, 17 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5256072&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1.>
Canada. Government of Canada. Parliament of Canada. Parliament of Canada Web Site - Site Web Du Parlement Du Canada. By House of Commons. Publishing and Depository Services Public Works and Government Services Canada, 27 Oct. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5202547&file=4>.
DeSouza, Mike. "Tory Bill Adds 30 New MPs to House of Commons." National Post | Canadian News, Financial News and Opinion. Postmedia, 27 Oct. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/27/tory-bill-would-add-30-new-mps-to-house-of-commons/>.
Taber, Jane. "Tories Take over as Party of Big Government." The Globe and Mail. Phillip Crawley, 23 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-take-over-as-party-of-big-government/article2245953/>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)