This May not be legal at all!
Ford team uses fake Twitter account in campaign
Rob Ford's campaign team created a fake Twitter account and wrote more than 150 messages under the guise of being a George Smitherman supporter during the Toronto mayoral campaign.
The news came to light this week in and extensive profile by The Globe and Mail that a deputy communications director set up the fake account to flush out a potentially damaging audio tape.
Fraser Macdonald, 24, created a fake profile for a fictional woman named Karen Philby.
Through the account, the user appealed to a man who had an audio tape of Rob Ford seemingly promising to buy him OxyContin off the street, in order to do damage control.
But Philby's profile remained active, smearing mayoral candidates throughout the campaign, including Smitherman and Ford, all while posing as a Smitherman supporter.
According to her Twitter profile, which included a Smitherman banner, Philby was a "Downtown gal who likes politics, my cat Mittens, and a good book."
The @QueensQuayKaren account has since been removed from Twitter but the Torontoist blog has posted a history of messages it sent out.
"I can see Ford's appeal. I don't agree with him on everything, but the man speaks the truth," reads one message posted six days before the election. "George needs to improve on that."
Other posts call former candidate Sarah Thomson a "village idiot," suggests someone, presumably Rocco Rossi, "looks like Mr. Potato head with only eyes and a mouth," and refers to Smitherman as the "takes it up the middle candidate … in that he is centrist."
In a message from his personal Twitter account on Saturday, Macdonald refers to the account as "one of the many ways the Ford campaign outsmarted the competition."
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
McAfee Now shipping Network Access Control (NAC),
McAfee strengthens Network Access Control solution
28 October, 2010
McAfee has announced that the McAfee Network Access Control solution is now shipping with unique integrations to the McAfee Network Security Platform which, for the first time, unifies McAfee Network Access Control (NAC), McAfee Network IPS and McAfee Network Threat Behavior Analysis capabilities. This integration provides complete internal network visibility and access control managed from one console.
Additionally, McAfee Network Access Control has received several recent industry accolades that validate the company's unique approach to solving the toughest challenges in network security. The integration of NAC, Network IPS and behavioural analysis tools provides enhanced visibility across the network, to enable unprecedented security through the pre-admission assessment of devices and user identity as well as post-admission monitoring of activity.
A November 2009 report by Forrester Research, Inc. entitled, "Market Overview: Network Access Control (NAC)," studied 18 different NAC vendors and at the time McAfee offered the widest variety of features and functions that was looked for. In addition, Forrester named McAfee one of the NAC "Vendors to Watch," saying that the combination of NAC, IPS and behavioural analysis technology will be "a strong complement to its client security suite."
"Customers have come to rely on McAfee for the best network protection available, and our commitment to them is to continue to innovate and break the moulds of traditional network access control capabilities," said Rees Johnson, senior vice president and general manager, Network Security at McAfee. "We believe the accolades we've received over the past year validate our product strategy and traction in the market. We will continue to deliver on customer demand by providing powerful new tools that extend visibility into the vast unprotected areas of the network."
28 October, 2010
McAfee has announced that the McAfee Network Access Control solution is now shipping with unique integrations to the McAfee Network Security Platform which, for the first time, unifies McAfee Network Access Control (NAC), McAfee Network IPS and McAfee Network Threat Behavior Analysis capabilities. This integration provides complete internal network visibility and access control managed from one console.
Additionally, McAfee Network Access Control has received several recent industry accolades that validate the company's unique approach to solving the toughest challenges in network security. The integration of NAC, Network IPS and behavioural analysis tools provides enhanced visibility across the network, to enable unprecedented security through the pre-admission assessment of devices and user identity as well as post-admission monitoring of activity.
A November 2009 report by Forrester Research, Inc. entitled, "Market Overview: Network Access Control (NAC)," studied 18 different NAC vendors and at the time McAfee offered the widest variety of features and functions that was looked for. In addition, Forrester named McAfee one of the NAC "Vendors to Watch," saying that the combination of NAC, IPS and behavioural analysis technology will be "a strong complement to its client security suite."
"Customers have come to rely on McAfee for the best network protection available, and our commitment to them is to continue to innovate and break the moulds of traditional network access control capabilities," said Rees Johnson, senior vice president and general manager, Network Security at McAfee. "We believe the accolades we've received over the past year validate our product strategy and traction in the market. We will continue to deliver on customer demand by providing powerful new tools that extend visibility into the vast unprotected areas of the network."
Friday, October 29, 2010
Harper trips nearly $7 million in 2009-10.
OTTAWA — He travelled to foreign destinations ranging from New Delhi to Copenhagen — 15 trips in one year. So just how much did it cost Canadian taxpayers to send Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his aides abroad?
Nearly $7 million in 2009-10, according to documents tabled in Parliament Thursday.
To be exact — $6,904,790.
It was a busy year for Harper. With the global recession raging, there were international conferences with other politicians in the G20 to plot an economic strategy. Then there were the routine gatherings of world leaders in the G8, NATO, APEC and the Commonwealth.
Not to mention foreign trips to China and India, the two emerging economic powerhouses Canada wants to do more trade with.
Harper's press secretary, Andrew MacDougall, said Thursday that the prime minister aims to get results when he travels abroad.
"It's important that Canada's voice is heard," said MacDougall.
"Yes, these things do cost money but we do remember that we are at the service of the taxpayer and that we bring back results that we can point to and say, 'This is what we accomplished on behalf of all Canadians.'"
MacDougall said it was critical for Harper to meet other leaders as they met "to keep the global economy on track," and that his trip to China led to a new Chinese policy that will see more tourists from that country visiting Canada.
On his foreign trips, Harper is accompanied by a crew of aides that varies in size. There is always a core group from the Prime Minister's Office and Privy Council Office, as well as more bureaucrats from key departments, particularly Foreign Affairs. Sometimes, Harper brings MPs on the journey.
Here are the trips from 2009-10:
- Strasbourg, France, to attend the NATO summit. ($129,769)
- Port of Spain and Jamaica to attend the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago and then visit to Jamaica. ($446,419)
- London, England, to attend the G20 Summit. ($247,770)
- Aquila, Italy, to attend the G8 summit and visit Rome. ($769,325)
- Singapore, Mumbai, New Delhi and Amritsar to attend the APEC summit in Singapore and make visits to India. ($1,365,920)
- Prague to attend the Canada-European Union Summit. ($249,752)
- Guadalajara, Mexico and Panama City to attend the North American Leaders Summit and visit Panama. ($320,738)
- Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. ($531,278)
- New York City and Pittsburgh to attend the G20 summit. ($298,136)
- Normandy, France, to attend the D-Day anniversary. ($275,224)
- Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum. ($606,959)
- New York City to attend a session of the United Nations General Assembly. ($181,291)
- Washington and New York City for meetings and media interviews. ($225,054)
- Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Seoul for meetings with foreign leaders. ($856,737)
- Copenhagen to attend a climate change conference in Denmark. ($400,418)
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Harper+trips+cost+taxpayers+nearly+million/3742951/story.html#ixzz13iUExXW5
Nearly $7 million in 2009-10, according to documents tabled in Parliament Thursday.
To be exact — $6,904,790.
It was a busy year for Harper. With the global recession raging, there were international conferences with other politicians in the G20 to plot an economic strategy. Then there were the routine gatherings of world leaders in the G8, NATO, APEC and the Commonwealth.
Not to mention foreign trips to China and India, the two emerging economic powerhouses Canada wants to do more trade with.
Harper's press secretary, Andrew MacDougall, said Thursday that the prime minister aims to get results when he travels abroad.
"It's important that Canada's voice is heard," said MacDougall.
"Yes, these things do cost money but we do remember that we are at the service of the taxpayer and that we bring back results that we can point to and say, 'This is what we accomplished on behalf of all Canadians.'"
MacDougall said it was critical for Harper to meet other leaders as they met "to keep the global economy on track," and that his trip to China led to a new Chinese policy that will see more tourists from that country visiting Canada.
On his foreign trips, Harper is accompanied by a crew of aides that varies in size. There is always a core group from the Prime Minister's Office and Privy Council Office, as well as more bureaucrats from key departments, particularly Foreign Affairs. Sometimes, Harper brings MPs on the journey.
Here are the trips from 2009-10:
- Strasbourg, France, to attend the NATO summit. ($129,769)
- Port of Spain and Jamaica to attend the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago and then visit to Jamaica. ($446,419)
- London, England, to attend the G20 Summit. ($247,770)
- Aquila, Italy, to attend the G8 summit and visit Rome. ($769,325)
- Singapore, Mumbai, New Delhi and Amritsar to attend the APEC summit in Singapore and make visits to India. ($1,365,920)
- Prague to attend the Canada-European Union Summit. ($249,752)
- Guadalajara, Mexico and Panama City to attend the North American Leaders Summit and visit Panama. ($320,738)
- Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. ($531,278)
- New York City and Pittsburgh to attend the G20 summit. ($298,136)
- Normandy, France, to attend the D-Day anniversary. ($275,224)
- Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum. ($606,959)
- New York City to attend a session of the United Nations General Assembly. ($181,291)
- Washington and New York City for meetings and media interviews. ($225,054)
- Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Seoul for meetings with foreign leaders. ($856,737)
- Copenhagen to attend a climate change conference in Denmark. ($400,418)
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Harper+trips+cost+taxpayers+nearly+million/3742951/story.html#ixzz13iUExXW5
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Supreme Court of Canada sides with N.B on tobacco
The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed with costs the leave-to-appeal applications of several tobacco manufacturers seeking to overturn key rulings of New Brunswick courts.
Imperial Tobacco Canada, Rothmans, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Philip Morris International and other companies sought to overturn previous decisions of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal and the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench in the provincial government's lawsuit against tobacco manufacturers.
Last week, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the contingency-fee agreement entered into by the provincial government with outside counsel.
"We are happy with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision as it confirms our ability - and indeed, the ability of other provinces - to make use of contingency fee arrangements in cases of this magnitude," said Attorney General Marie-Claude Blais.
"It also confirms our ability to limit the commitment of public resources to pursue such claims under provincial legislation."
The courts have rejected the tobacco companies' challenges and confirmed the right of the provincial government to retain external lawyers on a contingency-fee basis to advance New Brunswick's claim under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.
New Brunswick is one of several provinces pursuing litigation against the tobacco industry in relation to alleged tobacco-related wrongs in order to recover damages for health-care costs.
"We are anxious to move this case forward and to have the provincial government's claim determined by the Court of Queen's Bench as soon as possible," Blais said.
Imperial Tobacco Canada, Rothmans, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Philip Morris International and other companies sought to overturn previous decisions of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal and the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench in the provincial government's lawsuit against tobacco manufacturers.
Last week, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the contingency-fee agreement entered into by the provincial government with outside counsel.
"We are happy with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision as it confirms our ability - and indeed, the ability of other provinces - to make use of contingency fee arrangements in cases of this magnitude," said Attorney General Marie-Claude Blais.
"It also confirms our ability to limit the commitment of public resources to pursue such claims under provincial legislation."
The courts have rejected the tobacco companies' challenges and confirmed the right of the provincial government to retain external lawyers on a contingency-fee basis to advance New Brunswick's claim under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.
New Brunswick is one of several provinces pursuing litigation against the tobacco industry in relation to alleged tobacco-related wrongs in order to recover damages for health-care costs.
"We are anxious to move this case forward and to have the provincial government's claim determined by the Court of Queen's Bench as soon as possible," Blais said.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Bill to end abuses in overseas mines up final vote.
OTTAWA — A Liberal private member's bill that makes it illegal for Canadian mining companies to commit human-rights abuses abroad faces a "very tight" final vote in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
Toronto MP John McKay's bill calls for "corporate accountability" of mining, oil and gas corporations in developing countries.
It follows what he says is growing evidence of abusive behaviour — despite some companies' claims to the contrary.
"Regrettably, the facts show otherwise," said McKay. "They show companies involved in human-rights abuses, they show companies involved in using rape and murder as measures of security in order to secure their sites, they show companies operating without licenses in countries, they show significant environmental degradation."
The bill would punish companies found to be engaging in immoral behaviour by putting sanctions on their Export Development Canada funding, as well as removing embassy promotion. EDC is an export credit agency that provides financing and "political risk" insurance to companies that invest abroad, sometimes in volatile regions.
McKay's bill narrowly passed in an April 2009 vote of 137 to 133. It then languished at the committee stage for over a year due to extensions and prorogation.
If passed, the legislation would set up a "quasi-administrative" process within the Department of Foreign Affairs to investigate complaints.
McKay said Canadians possess a "wilful blindness" toward the issue, perhaps not understanding that Canada represents over 60 per cent of mining companies around the world.
"Canada is a world leader in this, in the extractive industry . . . what happens here has got worldwide influence," he said.
McKay also acknowledged the pull of the industry itself.
"I don't think you can ever underestimate the power and the influence of mining companies in the corridors in Ottawa and everywhere else," he said. "They're immensely influential, and they've got very deep pockets, and they are able to get the attention, shall we say, of people who are decision-makers."
The MP said that Wednesday's vote is expected to be "very tight."
"We're always trying to turn people to see the light . . . We'll see how (Tuesday) and (Wednesday) goes to get people around," he said.
Minister of International Trade Peter Van Loan said he "fully intends to vote against it," citing concerns that if the bill was passed, it could drive mining companies out of Canada because it would create unnecessary red tape for them.
"Mining companies are headquartered in Canada not because they're actually doing mining here, but because Canada has a historically well-developed expertise (in the field)," he said.
"Those companies could just as well move their headquarters elsewhere," said Van Loan. "If we create a very unlevel playing field between Canada and other countries that could be perfectly good locations for headquarters, perfectly good sources for capital and markets, we will find that we will lose those businesses and the jobs associated with them.
"Paradoxically, because Canadians are such good corporate citizens, we're actually encouraging them to abandon their good practices here and go elsewhere abroad where they will be less constrained by the discipline of the Canadian marketplace and Canadian society."
A mining industry representative called the bill's goals "laudable," but said the means to get there have him concerned.
"Canadian mining companies are global leaders in the area of CSR (corporate social responsibility) and the objective of a bill like C-300 is laudable, and to be commended," said Paul Hebert, a spokesman for the Mining Association of Canada.
"But the way this bill is constructed, we don't feel it would accomplish what it intends to accomplish," said Hebert. "We're concerned that what it would do is punish Canadian mining companies not based on their behaviour but based only on complaints. Effectively, what it would be doing is opening a complaints desk at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), and all complaints would have to be reported regardless of substance."
Hebert said that the bill would put more power in the hands of the minister of foreign affairs in responding to complaints, instead of giving it to an independent ombudsman.
"We feel there are more constructive ways forward to promote, support and improve corporate social responsibility," he said, pointing to DFAIT's appointment of Marketa Evans as Canada's first counsellor of corporate social responsibility for mining.
Evans' role will see her help in "resolving social and environmental issues relating to Canadian companies operating abroad," a DFAIT statement from last week read.
The counsellor, while not imbued with the power to render verdicts in disputes, would file an annual report with the minister of natural resources and the minister of international trade on how Canada's mining companies handled themselves abroad.
But some unlikely support for McKay's bill came Tuesday — from south of the border.
Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat who introduced a bipartisan bill that would require American energy companies to disclose what they pay for oil, gas and minerals from U.S. and foreign governments, said he supports McKay's bill and planned on sending a note to all MPs, urging them to pass it.
"I've never had a U.S. senator lobby for my legislation," said McKay.
According to McKay's office, EDC investments in 2008 helped facilitate more than $27 billion in business in the mining sector.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Bill+abuses+overseas+mines+tight+final+vote/3730470/story.html#ixzz13X0zpwMg
Toronto MP John McKay's bill calls for "corporate accountability" of mining, oil and gas corporations in developing countries.
It follows what he says is growing evidence of abusive behaviour — despite some companies' claims to the contrary.
"Regrettably, the facts show otherwise," said McKay. "They show companies involved in human-rights abuses, they show companies involved in using rape and murder as measures of security in order to secure their sites, they show companies operating without licenses in countries, they show significant environmental degradation."
The bill would punish companies found to be engaging in immoral behaviour by putting sanctions on their Export Development Canada funding, as well as removing embassy promotion. EDC is an export credit agency that provides financing and "political risk" insurance to companies that invest abroad, sometimes in volatile regions.
McKay's bill narrowly passed in an April 2009 vote of 137 to 133. It then languished at the committee stage for over a year due to extensions and prorogation.
If passed, the legislation would set up a "quasi-administrative" process within the Department of Foreign Affairs to investigate complaints.
McKay said Canadians possess a "wilful blindness" toward the issue, perhaps not understanding that Canada represents over 60 per cent of mining companies around the world.
"Canada is a world leader in this, in the extractive industry . . . what happens here has got worldwide influence," he said.
McKay also acknowledged the pull of the industry itself.
"I don't think you can ever underestimate the power and the influence of mining companies in the corridors in Ottawa and everywhere else," he said. "They're immensely influential, and they've got very deep pockets, and they are able to get the attention, shall we say, of people who are decision-makers."
The MP said that Wednesday's vote is expected to be "very tight."
"We're always trying to turn people to see the light . . . We'll see how (Tuesday) and (Wednesday) goes to get people around," he said.
Minister of International Trade Peter Van Loan said he "fully intends to vote against it," citing concerns that if the bill was passed, it could drive mining companies out of Canada because it would create unnecessary red tape for them.
"Mining companies are headquartered in Canada not because they're actually doing mining here, but because Canada has a historically well-developed expertise (in the field)," he said.
"Those companies could just as well move their headquarters elsewhere," said Van Loan. "If we create a very unlevel playing field between Canada and other countries that could be perfectly good locations for headquarters, perfectly good sources for capital and markets, we will find that we will lose those businesses and the jobs associated with them.
"Paradoxically, because Canadians are such good corporate citizens, we're actually encouraging them to abandon their good practices here and go elsewhere abroad where they will be less constrained by the discipline of the Canadian marketplace and Canadian society."
A mining industry representative called the bill's goals "laudable," but said the means to get there have him concerned.
"Canadian mining companies are global leaders in the area of CSR (corporate social responsibility) and the objective of a bill like C-300 is laudable, and to be commended," said Paul Hebert, a spokesman for the Mining Association of Canada.
"But the way this bill is constructed, we don't feel it would accomplish what it intends to accomplish," said Hebert. "We're concerned that what it would do is punish Canadian mining companies not based on their behaviour but based only on complaints. Effectively, what it would be doing is opening a complaints desk at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), and all complaints would have to be reported regardless of substance."
Hebert said that the bill would put more power in the hands of the minister of foreign affairs in responding to complaints, instead of giving it to an independent ombudsman.
"We feel there are more constructive ways forward to promote, support and improve corporate social responsibility," he said, pointing to DFAIT's appointment of Marketa Evans as Canada's first counsellor of corporate social responsibility for mining.
Evans' role will see her help in "resolving social and environmental issues relating to Canadian companies operating abroad," a DFAIT statement from last week read.
The counsellor, while not imbued with the power to render verdicts in disputes, would file an annual report with the minister of natural resources and the minister of international trade on how Canada's mining companies handled themselves abroad.
But some unlikely support for McKay's bill came Tuesday — from south of the border.
Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat who introduced a bipartisan bill that would require American energy companies to disclose what they pay for oil, gas and minerals from U.S. and foreign governments, said he supports McKay's bill and planned on sending a note to all MPs, urging them to pass it.
"I've never had a U.S. senator lobby for my legislation," said McKay.
According to McKay's office, EDC investments in 2008 helped facilitate more than $27 billion in business in the mining sector.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Bill+abuses+overseas+mines+tight+final+vote/3730470/story.html#ixzz13X0zpwMg
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Veteran Bruyea gets apology : Personal info of outspoken critic ended up in ministerial briefings.
The federal government has apologized to Sean Bruyea, a Canadian Gulf War veteran and Veterans Affairs critic whose sensitive personal and medical information was illegally shared by officials in the department.
It comes after the federal privacy commissioner found Veterans Affairs officials broke the law by including Bruyea's medical and psychological diagnosis and treatment in ministerial briefing notes and also sharing it with a veterans' hospital.
In an interview with CBC News on Monday from Ottawa, Bruyea said he and his wife broke down in tears when they first heard about the apology.
"It's been quite a trying five years, so for us, it means a lot," Bruyea said.
In a statement, Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn also said the government is immediately launching an "expedited mediation procedure" to resolve Bruyea's legal case against the government and several departmental officials.
"I was very troubled to learn that personal information concerning you was shared among public servants who had no need for this information in order to do their work," Blackburn said in his statement.
"I recognize that this information sharing has caused you needless suffering and anxiety, and for that the government and I are truly sorry."
The minister also acknowledged for the first time that other veterans might have been subjected to similar privacy breaches.
"I also extend my sincere regrets to anyone who may have gone through the same situation," Blackburn said.
Bruyea started a $400,000 court action after learning through access-to-information requests he filed that his privacy rights were breached.
But he insisted the lawsuit was not about the money, but his way of trying to fix the system "so it doesn't happen to any other veteran or any Canadian, for that matter."
"I'm very grateful for the apology and I don't want anything to distract from that, but we cannot trust that the bureaucrats who did this wrongdoing will fix it themselves," Bruyea said.
From Gulf War vet to Veterans Charter critic
The decorated former intelligence officer fought for years for modest monthly disability pension from Veterans Affairs after being medically released from the military in 1996 with symptoms of Gulf War syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder.
He became an outspoken critic of the 2006 Veterans Charter's replacement of life-time guaranteed pensions for veterans with a one-time lump-sum payment.
Privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart found that Bruyea's personal information ended up in March 2006 briefing notes of the former minister in charge, Greg Thompson, while his medical information, including diagnosis, symptoms and prognosis, were also found in a second ministerial briefing note dating back to 2005 under the former Liberal government and then minister.
In her report released earlier this month, Stoddart said she found it "alarming" that Bruyea's information was shared "seemingly with no controls" among departmental officials "who had no legitimate need to see it."
Bruyea said the actions of department officials left him and his wife in a "humiliating state of powerlessness and vulnerability" and in "constant terror" of what the department, which controlled 100 per cent of his income at the time, would do next.
Blackburn, who got the Veterans Affairs portfolio eight months ago after Thompson left politics, has pledged to act on Stoddart's recommendations and vowed to increase penalties for bureaucrats who break the rules.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/10/25/veterans-affairs-bruyea.html#ixzz13RAHtsbb
It comes after the federal privacy commissioner found Veterans Affairs officials broke the law by including Bruyea's medical and psychological diagnosis and treatment in ministerial briefing notes and also sharing it with a veterans' hospital.
In an interview with CBC News on Monday from Ottawa, Bruyea said he and his wife broke down in tears when they first heard about the apology.
"It's been quite a trying five years, so for us, it means a lot," Bruyea said.
In a statement, Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn also said the government is immediately launching an "expedited mediation procedure" to resolve Bruyea's legal case against the government and several departmental officials.
"I was very troubled to learn that personal information concerning you was shared among public servants who had no need for this information in order to do their work," Blackburn said in his statement.
"I recognize that this information sharing has caused you needless suffering and anxiety, and for that the government and I are truly sorry."
The minister also acknowledged for the first time that other veterans might have been subjected to similar privacy breaches.
"I also extend my sincere regrets to anyone who may have gone through the same situation," Blackburn said.
Bruyea started a $400,000 court action after learning through access-to-information requests he filed that his privacy rights were breached.
But he insisted the lawsuit was not about the money, but his way of trying to fix the system "so it doesn't happen to any other veteran or any Canadian, for that matter."
"I'm very grateful for the apology and I don't want anything to distract from that, but we cannot trust that the bureaucrats who did this wrongdoing will fix it themselves," Bruyea said.
From Gulf War vet to Veterans Charter critic
The decorated former intelligence officer fought for years for modest monthly disability pension from Veterans Affairs after being medically released from the military in 1996 with symptoms of Gulf War syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder.
He became an outspoken critic of the 2006 Veterans Charter's replacement of life-time guaranteed pensions for veterans with a one-time lump-sum payment.
Privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart found that Bruyea's personal information ended up in March 2006 briefing notes of the former minister in charge, Greg Thompson, while his medical information, including diagnosis, symptoms and prognosis, were also found in a second ministerial briefing note dating back to 2005 under the former Liberal government and then minister.
In her report released earlier this month, Stoddart said she found it "alarming" that Bruyea's information was shared "seemingly with no controls" among departmental officials "who had no legitimate need to see it."
Bruyea said the actions of department officials left him and his wife in a "humiliating state of powerlessness and vulnerability" and in "constant terror" of what the department, which controlled 100 per cent of his income at the time, would do next.
Blackburn, who got the Veterans Affairs portfolio eight months ago after Thompson left politics, has pledged to act on Stoddart's recommendations and vowed to increase penalties for bureaucrats who break the rules.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/10/25/veterans-affairs-bruyea.html#ixzz13RAHtsbb
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tories await stimulus program audit Auditor General Sheila Fraser will release the report
OTTAWA — Canadians will learn the answer Tuesday to a question that could turn federal politics upside down. Has Auditor General Sheila Fraser found shortcomings with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s much-touted economic-stimulus program?
Ms. Fraser will release a report that includes an audit of the stimulus package from the 2009 budget, when the Conservatives rushed billions of dollars out the door to rescue the economy.
For months, speculation has been mounting about whether the report will be politically explosive or contain only minor revelations that would barely wound the Tories.
Two questions are at the heart of the matter: Did the Harper government bend the rules and allocate funds to economic-stimulus projects that didn’t qualify for the money? And did a disproportionate share of the cash get funnelled into ridings held by Conservative MPs?
Ms. Fraser is expected to provide an answer to the first question, and likely stray away from the second. Still, if she finds the government unduly acted in haste as it hurried to limit the political damage of the recession, it could leave the Tories scrambling to protect their claim of being good fiscal managers.
Moreover, the irony of Ms. Fraser’s report isn’t being lost on federal politicians.
It was Ms. Fraser who released reports in 2002 and 2004 that exposed shoddy spending controls in the Quebec sponsorship program established by the Liberal government then in power. This led to an RCMP investigation, an inquiry and the conclusion by many Canadians that the Liberals were using public funds to feather their own political nests.
The problems initially unearthed by Ms. Fraser also ignited voter anger, gave Harper a convenient campaign issue, and eventually led to the election of the Conservatives in 2006.
Is history about to repeat itself?
NDP MP Thomas Mulcair says he thinks it might.
“When the Liberals were faced with a real national unity crisis in the wake of the near-death experience we all went through in the 1995 referendum they convinced themselves that the normal rules don’t apply, the emergency is too great, and we got the sponsorship scandal,” he said.
“The Conservatives, looking at a real worldwide economic crisis, said the danger is too great, the normal rules don’t apply and they went ahead with their so-called infrastructure spending. What we’re going to learn probably from Sheila Fraser is that the normal rules were being bent.”
Mr. Mulcair said such a finding would be “devastating” for the Conservatives because the criticism will come not from political foes who can be attacked, but from an auditor general with “moral authority” and great credibility.
For her part, Ms. Fraser has been cautious to avoid publicly tipping her hand. Her office said the audit examined 11 programs under the government’s Economic Action Plan and “what steps it took to ensure that only eligible projects were funded.”
The audit also probed how the government complied with “financial management and environmental requirements” for the program.
Perhaps the best hint of what to expect came in a letter she wrote to the senior bureaucracy in 2009 as she launched the audit of the stimulus plan.
“I appreciate that managers will face challenges in implementing the plan, given the very tight time constraints. They will need to balance the government’s wish to move quickly with the requirement to exercise due regard; this will require a sound analysis of risk, and appropriate delivery mechanisms commensurate with those risks. The program design — notably the degree of flexibility and the specificity of eligibility criteria — will be a critical aspect of managing the plan.”
Ms. Fraser’s report on Tuesday also contains the audit findings of other issues that could prove embarrassing for the Tories: A military acquisition program of two helicopters (the Cyclone and Chinook); government preparedness for animal disease emergencies; the regulation of large banks; and tax shelters for people who give to charities.
“I have a feeling they’re going to get their butts kicked on Tuesday,” said Mr. Mulcair.
Liberal MP John McCallum said he isn’t so sure the audit on stimulus spending will be very informative. Apart from learning whether the Tories “followed their own rules,” he’s not counting on learning much from this report.
He said the real damage could come from a second audit being conducted by Fraser’s office of the stimulus program. It will examine the results of how the funds were spent, but the report won’t be released until the fall of 2011.
Mr. McCallum said Canadians deserve answers to a wide range of questions.
“Were all the environmental rules followed? Was the allocation of the funding politically neutral or not? Was the tendering process appropriate? There’s all sorts of questions that would be nice to get answers to, but my guess is those won’t come until 2011.”
The Tories have always delivered twin messages on the program: They discount research by opposition parties that suggests Conservative ridings have tended to benefit from the stimulus package. And while promising to provide oversight of the program, Mr. Harper’s ministers said they couldn’t guarantee perfection.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, in a speech just weeks after the January 2009 budget, spoke of how he was trying to quickly kick-start the economy.
“There will be some mistakes made,” he admitted, saying even Ms. Fraser knew this would occur.
“So is it worth taking a risk that there will be some mistakes? My answer is yes. The much greater risk is that — and I’ve had this discussion with the auditor general — we don’t act in time and that we see tens of thousands of Canadians suffer more than they have to.”
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Tories+await+stimulus+program+audit/3719341/story.html#ixzz13LCFUWwc
Ms. Fraser will release a report that includes an audit of the stimulus package from the 2009 budget, when the Conservatives rushed billions of dollars out the door to rescue the economy.
For months, speculation has been mounting about whether the report will be politically explosive or contain only minor revelations that would barely wound the Tories.
Two questions are at the heart of the matter: Did the Harper government bend the rules and allocate funds to economic-stimulus projects that didn’t qualify for the money? And did a disproportionate share of the cash get funnelled into ridings held by Conservative MPs?
Ms. Fraser is expected to provide an answer to the first question, and likely stray away from the second. Still, if she finds the government unduly acted in haste as it hurried to limit the political damage of the recession, it could leave the Tories scrambling to protect their claim of being good fiscal managers.
Moreover, the irony of Ms. Fraser’s report isn’t being lost on federal politicians.
It was Ms. Fraser who released reports in 2002 and 2004 that exposed shoddy spending controls in the Quebec sponsorship program established by the Liberal government then in power. This led to an RCMP investigation, an inquiry and the conclusion by many Canadians that the Liberals were using public funds to feather their own political nests.
The problems initially unearthed by Ms. Fraser also ignited voter anger, gave Harper a convenient campaign issue, and eventually led to the election of the Conservatives in 2006.
Is history about to repeat itself?
NDP MP Thomas Mulcair says he thinks it might.
“When the Liberals were faced with a real national unity crisis in the wake of the near-death experience we all went through in the 1995 referendum they convinced themselves that the normal rules don’t apply, the emergency is too great, and we got the sponsorship scandal,” he said.
“The Conservatives, looking at a real worldwide economic crisis, said the danger is too great, the normal rules don’t apply and they went ahead with their so-called infrastructure spending. What we’re going to learn probably from Sheila Fraser is that the normal rules were being bent.”
Mr. Mulcair said such a finding would be “devastating” for the Conservatives because the criticism will come not from political foes who can be attacked, but from an auditor general with “moral authority” and great credibility.
For her part, Ms. Fraser has been cautious to avoid publicly tipping her hand. Her office said the audit examined 11 programs under the government’s Economic Action Plan and “what steps it took to ensure that only eligible projects were funded.”
The audit also probed how the government complied with “financial management and environmental requirements” for the program.
Perhaps the best hint of what to expect came in a letter she wrote to the senior bureaucracy in 2009 as she launched the audit of the stimulus plan.
“I appreciate that managers will face challenges in implementing the plan, given the very tight time constraints. They will need to balance the government’s wish to move quickly with the requirement to exercise due regard; this will require a sound analysis of risk, and appropriate delivery mechanisms commensurate with those risks. The program design — notably the degree of flexibility and the specificity of eligibility criteria — will be a critical aspect of managing the plan.”
Ms. Fraser’s report on Tuesday also contains the audit findings of other issues that could prove embarrassing for the Tories: A military acquisition program of two helicopters (the Cyclone and Chinook); government preparedness for animal disease emergencies; the regulation of large banks; and tax shelters for people who give to charities.
“I have a feeling they’re going to get their butts kicked on Tuesday,” said Mr. Mulcair.
Liberal MP John McCallum said he isn’t so sure the audit on stimulus spending will be very informative. Apart from learning whether the Tories “followed their own rules,” he’s not counting on learning much from this report.
He said the real damage could come from a second audit being conducted by Fraser’s office of the stimulus program. It will examine the results of how the funds were spent, but the report won’t be released until the fall of 2011.
Mr. McCallum said Canadians deserve answers to a wide range of questions.
“Were all the environmental rules followed? Was the allocation of the funding politically neutral or not? Was the tendering process appropriate? There’s all sorts of questions that would be nice to get answers to, but my guess is those won’t come until 2011.”
The Tories have always delivered twin messages on the program: They discount research by opposition parties that suggests Conservative ridings have tended to benefit from the stimulus package. And while promising to provide oversight of the program, Mr. Harper’s ministers said they couldn’t guarantee perfection.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, in a speech just weeks after the January 2009 budget, spoke of how he was trying to quickly kick-start the economy.
“There will be some mistakes made,” he admitted, saying even Ms. Fraser knew this would occur.
“So is it worth taking a risk that there will be some mistakes? My answer is yes. The much greater risk is that — and I’ve had this discussion with the auditor general — we don’t act in time and that we see tens of thousands of Canadians suffer more than they have to.”
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Tories+await+stimulus+program+audit/3719341/story.html#ixzz13LCFUWwc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)