Voice of the Association

Contempt or partisan lynching?

2011-03-24T07:52:00.000-07:00

Dissenting Report from Conservative Members
of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee

The Conservative members of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee
(PROC) must issue a dissenting report in response to the March 21st PROC
report. This dissenting report is made necessary by the fact that the conclusion of
the committee’s report does not take into consideration the actions of the
Government to comply with the Speaker’s March 9th ruling or the evidence heard
at committee.

For instance, the committee’s conclusion does not take into account the fact that
the Government tabled the following sets of documents:

 On March 16th, in response to the Speaker’s ruling and the Government’s
commitment to comply with the Speaker’s ruling, the Ministers of Justice and
Public Safety tabled a comprehensive response to the Finance Committee
(FINA) motion of the Hon. Scott Brison, that supplemented the government’s
February 17th response.

 This information was formatted to answer each request contained in
Mr. Brison’s motion and incorporated in the Speaker’s March 9th ruling, and
clearly explained the reason why some cost information was unavailable to the
federal government or inapplicable for legislation that is projected to have no
meaningful cost. It should be noted that the information directly addressed the
material requested by Mr. Brison. For example, the motion requested financial
information of the Government of Canada, which is what was provided. The
motion did not ask for financial information from provinces or territories.

 On March 17th, the Minister of National Defence sent to the chairs of
PROC and FINA a wide ranging set of documents regarding the future purchase
of the F-35 and maintenance costs of the CF-18 that had been requested by
FINA and then later ordered by the House on February 28th.
It is clear, that the Opposition members who voted to pass the conclusions of the
committee report gave only a cursory review of the information provided. Had
they treated it seriously, they would have found detailed information that
answered fully and directly the request of the motion.

Throughout the entire process, the Opposition showed little interest in the
Government’s compliance with the Speaker’s ruling or with the findings of the
committee’s hearings. It was clear that Opposition MPs had pre-judged the
outcome of the hearings before they had even begun. In fact, they appeared to
regret the fact that the Government provided the supplemental information. The
following are just three examples of the Opposition’s disregard for the
proceedings:

 As pointed out several times in committee, Liberal MP and member of
PROC, Marcel Proulx, was quoted in the media days before hearings began on
March 14th that the Opposition’s ultimate goal of the committee hearings was to
find the Government in contempt of Parliament;

 When pointed out by the Chair that he was not allowing witnesses to
answer the questions he was asking, NDP MP Yvon Godin stated, “I make the
decision if I want an answer or not”; and

 Liberal MP David McGuinty attempted to pass, in secret, a motion that
would have banned the independent Library of Parliament analysts from
including evidence in the report, leaving the report without the important input of
witnesses and containing nothing but the Opposition’s partisan conclusions.

That in and of itself raises serious questions about whether the Opposition has
any respect for Parliament and its processes.

In conclusion, it is clear that the Opposition members of the committee never
intended to do the work laid before them by the Speaker. They have ignored the
substance of the evidence provided by the Government and by the witnesses
who appeared. The report tabled by the committee is simply a piece of partisan
gamesmanship that diminishes the important work of Parliament.

Unbelievable hypocrisy of the Liberals!

2011-03-23T08:07:00.000-07:00

Michael Ignatieff and his Liberal cohorts have been crowing over unproven allegations against Tory Senators in an accounting dispute with Elections Canada.

At the same time the Liberals have allowed Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne to collect $700,000 in pay since being charged with fraud and breach of trust. Not only that, but Lavigne will continue to collect a pension worth an estimated $80,000 per year after resigning earlier this week.

What reason did they give for their duplicity? "You do have the presumption of innocence until you have been proven guilty and to exhaust any appeals," Liberal Senate Leader, James Cowan said.

That is true of course, unless you are remotely connected with Stephen Harper. If that is the case, the Liberals would prefer to try you in the court of public opinion and convict you with spurious accusations and no chance for appeal.

Is that Canadians' idea of justice, or Michael Ignatieff's?

Brian Murphy will say anything!

2011-03-22T19:31:00.000-07:00

Once again Brian Murphy is raising the spectre of "cuts to ACOA." It doesn't matter that the "cuts" he is talking about reflect a planned phase-out of stimulus spending; our MP will take any opportunity to misrepresent budget changes with partisan spin.

He goes on to say that "he doesn't think Harper is a believer in economic agencies," despite the fact that those agencies have been expanded under the Harper government.

Perhaps his most bold duplicity however is the following quote: "It's essential for Atlantic Canada," says Murphy, of a properly funded [ACOA] agency."

How then does MP Brian Murphy explain the fact that he voted against the bills that provided funding for ACOA in the previous budget?

How exactly do you say that something is essential, and then vote against funding it? There is no way to reconcile that except to say that Brian Murphy will say anything to try and paint Conservatives in a bad light.

Toronto Star: If it's wrong, all should be charged

2011-03-10T17:42:00.000-08:00

Hardly know what to think of this coming from the Toronto Star on Twitter:

Liberal Smear: Here we go again...

2011-03-10T17:35:00.000-08:00

How soon we forget.

It was just a couple of years ago when the Liberals thought they had a smoking gun with the Conservatives' transfer of campaign funds. After weeks of bellicose wrangling in the House and posturing in Committee, the issue seemed to disappear. The Liberals then latched on to the next lump of slime they found at the bottom of their barrel. Their theory: Throw enough junk against the wall and something is bound to stick.

We have only to reach back into the archives to find why this issue disappeared from the front pages in the first place. Here we will quote from a column by John Robson in the Ottawa Citizen, July 18, 2008.

Mr. Robson watched the Parliamentary inquiry into the issue almost three years ago, and this was his evaluation: "The more I watch this stuff, including the ugly procedural fiddling on Wednesday, the more convinced I am that if there's a scandal here, it doesn't involve the Tories. But nobody seems to care. The opposition want a scandal, the press want a scandal, and since everybody who's anybody knows Conservatives stink, let's not bore ourselves with details on a beautiful summer day."

Mr. Robson's article focused on a particular exchange between Marc Mayrand, CEO of Elections Canada, and Pierre Poilievre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Here is a video of the exchange with the journalist's comments below:

The journalist noted that Pierre Poilievre confronts Mr. Mayrand with "the Elections Canada candidates' handbook for the 2006 election (on p. 25) directly quotes clause 407(1) of the Canada Elections Act that it must be 'used directly to promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election.'

Since the crux of this matter is spending by local candidates to promote the national party, the altered wording to leave out "party" is not a trivial omission. (Especially as the latest, 2007 Elections Canada candidates handbook also removes the reference to parties (see p. 27) while citing the same, unaltered, clause 407(1) of the Elections Act.)"

In the second part of the exchange (see video below), Pierre Poilievre read an email from a federal party bookkeeper stating that they would be transferring money into a local riding to pay for radio ads with the Candidate's "tag" on the end. They would then report the ad buy as "a local expense to be reported under the Candidate's expense ceiling, regardless of who pays. For rebate purposes, we were asked to bill each campaign..." "We hope that you are able to squeeze this in under the ceiling" the email concluded.

"It sounds like sharp practice," Mr. Robson wrote. "But did it require investigation? Mr. Mayrand refused to comment without more information. So Mr. Poilievre revealed that it was an NDP e-mail obtained by the Tories from Elections Canada.

Yet Mr. Mayrand testified that no other party had engaged in the sort of "in-and-out" financing that prompted him to refuse dozens of Tory reimbursement claims and ask the Commissioner of Elections Canada to investigate."

No wonder Mr. Robson concluded that "The more I watch this stuff, ...the more convinced I am that if there's a scandal here, it doesn't involve the Tories. But nobody seems to care."

The economy is doing far too good for the Liberals' liking, and they've been told that they would be foolish to oppose the Budget. So now Mr. Ignatieff is leading the charge to find their "Wonderland" where Iggy sits on an ivory throne and watches his vassals throw mud at the nasty conservative trolls.

It would almost be comedy, if it weren't such a tragedy. You'll never satisfy the Liberals' appetite for drama when they want to distract from substance at the expense of truth.

The double, double standard for Liberals in Canada

2011-03-09T06:35:00.000-08:00

When someone claims others are biased against them, they often appear like whiners and get little sympathy. Some instances of a double standard however are so blatant that they are difficult to ignore.

Consider recent comments by Liberal heavyweights, Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. Referring to youthful staffers in the Prime Minister's office, the Liberal leadership contender said, "If the 25 year old jihadi's in the Prime Minister's office can't control it, it doesn't happen."

In the modern context of course, most people associate a jihadist with suicide bombs, IED's and wanton killing of innocent human beings. It has long been understood that it is off limits to make comparisons of political opponents and Nazis or Hitler for a number of reasons; Mr. Rae has taken the 21st century equivalent of last century's great evil, and painted that face onto motivated twenty-something staffers in the PMO.

Not to be outdone, Michael Ignatieff is quoted this week as saying that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is "like the Charlie Sheen of Canadian democracy." Once again a member of the Liberal elite has not been called to account for his over-the-top statements.

Anyone who has not been living in a cave is aware of the antics Mr. Sheen has allegedly perpetrated. These include: drunken rants, profanity laced tirades, violence against women, threats to slit throats, cocaine orgies with porn stars, etc. The Charlie Sheen caricature has become a symbol of revulsion and anti-social behaviour to reasonable people around the world. Yet when the Liberal leader equates the Prime Minister of Canada with the poster child for depravity, there does not seem to be an eyebrow raised by the media or the political pundits.

Honest-thinking people need not meditate long to conclude that the reaction would be vastly different if a conservative were to use such irresponsible language. We need only remember the public spanking that Brad Wall and Tom Lukiwski went through for ill guarded comments they made years ago. It is difficult to fathom what justifies this double standard, and why leaders in the Liberal party are allowed so much latitude. It would seem to be an unfair bias, but no one seems to want to give that any credibility so there must be another explanation.

Stephen Harper is "approachable"

2011-03-04T18:33:00.000-08:00

Julian Fantino "says he gets along well with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, adding “there’s a misunderstanding (that) he’s autocratic, doesn’t listen, is a dictator and doesn’t allow free thinking.

“That’s just not right. That’s not who I’m working with. He’s very conscientious, caring and approachable.” - Toronto Star

Liberals: The party of "late-breaking scruple"

2011-03-04T10:24:00.000-08:00

From Paul Wells at MacLeans: "Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals have no new ads. In 2004, when Harper became leader of the Conservative party, the Liberals ran pre-writ ads seeking to define him as an awful fellow. Now that he is the one running ads against them, they have decided it’s not cricket to run ads outside of an election campaign. The Liberals are the party of late-breaking scruple.

They would be more flexible on such questions if they could afford to be. What would their ads look like? Probably roughly the same"

Liberal theatrics backfire again!

2011-03-03T09:08:00.000-08:00

From the Brant News: "The photo showed the Liberal politicians feeling “depressed” as a sign was removed from the shut down Crane plant on Henry Street.

“Allow me to correct the record,” McColeman said. “What (Hall-Findlay) actually witnessed was another example of how our government is making Canada the most attractive place for job creators to invest.

“The sign removal was in preparation for the new logo of Brant Screen Craft, an expanding local company that purchased the plant last year.”

The vice president of Brant Screen Craft circulated a sternly worded e-mail on Friday morning after seeing his company’s new logo in the photograph.

“(The Liberal’s) attempt at disparaging the Conservatives...was a disaster,” John Paul deBoer wrote. “Ironically, we had looked into locating our finishing and distribution facility in Michigan. The corporate tax cuts and programs provided by the Conservative government were the deciding factor to expand in Canada.”

The new facility will employ about 50 people."

Rising to the Challenge

2011-03-02T08:02:00.000-08:00

Faire face au défi

2011-03-02T08:00:00.001-08:00

Notre Canada!

2011-03-02T07:57:00.000-08:00

Oh Canada!

2011-03-02T07:44:00.000-08:00

Thou dost protest too much

2011-03-02T07:24:00.000-08:00

"“The party feels like it is on the waiting list for a head transplant,” one senior Liberal MP remarked after seeing the results of the latest Ipsos Reid survey. “Folks are saying if Ignatieff can’t get any traction ... the public must have tuned him out.” (http://bit.ly/g9nPdD)

Here's a thought: Maybe the public HAS tuned the Liberals out. There has been a plethora of "scandal" allegations by the Liberals over the last few years. They have variously cried "the sky is falling" or "this is the end of the world and democracy as we know it...." At the end of the day when the smoke cleared, there was little if any substance or even cause for concern.

The Liberals have repeatedly targeted Conservative Ministers, all the while hoping to tar Prime Minister Harper with the same scandalous brush. Perhaps they have just cried wolf too many times! The public is more savvy than many Liberals would like to give them credit for. They can tell when the truth and logic has been stretched beyond the bounds of what is reasonable, and the Liberals have created a bubble of scepticism and cynicism around their determined efforts at partisan assassination.

If the Liberals want to engineer their own demise with wild, unproven allegations and exaggeration, far be it from us to stand in their way.

Election speculation for spring 2011

2011-02-25T07:27:00.000-08:00

Will there be an election in the spring of 2011 following the introduction of the federal budget? The fact is, no one really knows but the speculation sure sells newspapers.

Some have asked, "Why would the Liberals want to go now when the polls look so bad for them?" Perhaps the best answer is that things only stand to get worse.

Michael Ignatieff's personal approval numbers have plummeted to Dion territory where he is now running behind Jack Layton when people are asked who should lead this country.

If the Liberals don't go now, there are five provincial elections slated for the fall of 2011 (which means that everyone's campaign workers will be already engaged or, at best, conflicted).

The Canadian economy is already outpacing most other economies in the world and this year's deficit is projected to be reduced by $12 billion (or $16 billion if you believe Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page). If the Liberals wait until next spring, they may well be looking at an even more robust Canadian economy which most Canadians are willing to give Stephen Harper credit for.

If they wait until the fall of 2012, an election is already mandated for then anyway. That takes away any initiative the Liberals may have by calling an election on their own terms.

So, the Liberals may well see now as the best time to go. The Bloc is perenially strong in the only province they care to run in, so that leaves it up to Jack Layton to push the button. Mr. Layton seems to be siding with Ignatieff that corporate tax cuts must be revoked in order for him to support the budget. If he really means it, there is little chance of avoiding an election sooner than later.

Since it requires all three opposition parties to defeat the government, the narrative is already written for a choice between a Conservative majority or a coalition of the losers. In the last election, the Conservatives won almost twice the number of seats as their next closest rivals. A "coalition government" that excludes the party who won the most seats could hardly be considered legitimate in a western democracy.

Quote of the Day

2011-01-25T21:08:00.000-08:00

"...for everyone who’s attacking Mr. Harper for being too conservative, someone else is attacking him for not being conservative enough. In politics, this is known as 'finding the sweet spot.'" - Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail.

Can it be that the once-dismissed Stephen Harper now defines the great Canadian centre?

F-35 Fighter Myths Debunked

2011-01-24T07:01:00.000-08:00

General Paul Manson and Lt. General Angus Watt wrote an article for the Ottawa Citizen refuting many of the false accusations that are being foisted on the public by the Liberals and other opposition parties regarding Canada's purchase of new F-35 fighter jets.

After reading this article, reasonable people will quickly see through the smoke and spin put out by those who will go to any lengths to attack Conservatives and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. When Mr. Ignatieff exploits the safety and capability of our military for partisan rhetoric, he needs to be exposed as an opportunist.

Michael Ignatieff vs. Jobs & the Economy

2011-01-18T15:31:00.000-08:00

"Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff told the Canadian Council of Chief Executives the country can't afford lower corporate tax rates..." (http://bit.ly/fVx6tu)

"The Conservatives cut the federal corporate income tax rate by 1.5 percentage points to 16.5 percent on Jan. 1, and in a previous fiscal plan said they would lower it to 15 percent in 2012... The measures, which were first announced by the government in 2007, will generate a net 49,900 new jobs and add C$25.8 billion to the economy over two years, according to a study released Jan. 12 by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. The manufacturing lobby estimates they will cost the federal government C$6.2 billion in foregone revenue next year." (http://bit.ly/hYJtYT)

49,000 net new jobs and $12.9 billion per year added to the economy. Even if the corporate tax cuts do cost $6.2 billion in foregone revenue, that is still a net $6.7 billion boost to Canada's economy in each of the next two years! Michael Ignatieff's budget figures just don't add up!

Still, Ignatieff has more to say against job-creating, revenue-creating tax cuts:
"It's not going to make our economy more productive. The thing that's going to make our economy more productive is investment in learning," he said. The Liberal leader said his party would increase investment in education, though a detailed plan has not been released. He spoke of the need for increased skills training and "getting Canadians ready for the 21st-century economy."

Mr. Ignatieff wants to spend money to "get Canadians ready" for an economy that doesn't exist yet. Instead of cutting taxes to create jobs now, and generate money to actually pay for learning and skills training initiatives, "Ignatieff says the rate should return to the 2010 level of 18 per cent"! (http://bit.ly/fVx6tu) That's another Ignatieff tax increase.

Canadians hard hit by the recession need jobs now, not years from now in Ignatieff's "Wonderland economy." The truth is, we can't afford Michael Ignatieff.

Delegate Selection Meeting

2011-01-18T09:28:00.000-08:00

Right now the Board of Directors for the Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe Conservative Association is planning a Delegate Selection Meeting for February 24, 2011 in Moncton.

This is a meeting where Conservative members will select delegates to represent us at the Conservative National Convention, scheduled to take place in Ottawa, June 9-11, 2011.

Delegates will vote on issues of policy and administration that are brought to the floor of the convention. This is a grassroots effort to allow our members to help shape the destiny and direction of our party. If your federal membership has lapsed, you will need to renew your membership by February 2, 2011 so that you can participate and vote in this meeting.

Note: You can purchase a Conservative Party of Canada membership online at one of the links below:

En francais In English

Peter Mansbridge interviews Prime Minister Stephen Harper

2011-01-18T09:04:00.000-08:00

Part 1 of the Mansbridge interview with Prime Minister, Stephen Harper

Ignatieff's Ballot Question Is A Bust!

2011-01-18T08:55:00.000-08:00

Consider this introduction to a column by the National Post's, John Ivison:

"The five-year milestone has presented the Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, with his latest electoral gambit -- to ask middle-class Canadian families whether they are better off after half a decade of the Harper government?

In fact, by almost every pocketbook metric, Canadian families are better off than they were five years ago --even if they don't feel it."

(Read the rest of the article by following the link above)

Working hard for all of Canada

2011-01-18T08:27:00.000-08:00

Three Cheers for the Blue Team

2011-01-18T08:03:00.000-08:00

Especially in a minority government, it is never hard to find critics in the media. They have their voices without us adding to the pile, so we will post here the positive comments that sometimes get buried in conventional media outlets. Let it never be said that the Conservative government isn't doing some things right; that is why Stephen Harper has been re-elected in successive elections.

Consider this editorial from the Ottawa Sun, January 18, 2011

"...when Liberal PM Paul Martin phoned to concede defeat -- shortly after midnight, in fact -- and not only did the sun still come up, the world as we knew it did not end. It only got better.

Fast forward a half decade and it continues to be a puzzler why the Liberal Party of Canada and its Visiting Professor™ Michael Ignatieff, want to be fools rushing into an early election when they'll get their wish by decree in October of next year. By then, maybe they'll have something to offer...

Under the Conservatives, Canadians have seen the recession retreat and the loonie rise above parity with the U.S. greenback which, while troubling for exporters, is a sure sign of a strong economy. And the buck stayed strong even as gold and oil fell.

With the deficit under Harper so manageable that experts predict it could be wiped out by 2015, why would Canadians want to punt the Conservatives now when the Visiting Professor™ has yet to state even vaguely how the Liberals can make these good times better? The reason he hasn't, of course, is because he can't."