federal election,
On October 14, 2008, after a 5 week long campaign, the Conservative Party won a federal election and increased its number of seats in parliament to 143, up from 127 at the dissolution of the previous parliament; however, the actual popular vote among Canadians dropped slightly by 167,494 votes. As a result of the lowest voter turnout in Canadian electoral history, this represented only 22% of eligible Canadian voters, the lowest level of support of any winning party in Canadian history.[94] Meanwhile, the number of opposition Liberal MPs fell from 95 to 77 seats. It takes 155 MPs to form a majority government in Canada's 308 seat Parliament.
2008 Parliamentary dispute and prorogationMain article: 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute
On December 4, 2008, Harper asked Governor General Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid a vote of confidence scheduled for the following Monday, becoming the first Canadian PM ever to do so.[95][96] The request was granted by Jean, and the prorogation lasted until January 26, 2009. The opposition coalition dissolved shortly after, with the Conservatives winning a Liberal supported confidence vote on January 29, 2009.
2010 prorogationSee also: 2010 Canada anti-prorogation protests and Prorogation in Canada
On December 30, 2009, Harper announced that he would request the governor general prorogue parliament again, effective immediately on December 30, 2009, during the 2010 Winter Olympics and lasting until March 3, 2010. Harper stated that this was necessary for Canada's economic plan. Jean would grant the request. In an interview with CBC News, Prince Edward Island Liberal member of parliament Wayne Easter accused the Prime Minister of "shutting democracy down".[97][98] Tom Flanagan, Harper's University of Calgary mentor and former Chief of Staff, also questioned Harper's reasoning for prorogation, stating that "I think the government's talking points haven't been entirely credible" and that the government's explanation of proroguing was "skirting the real issue -- which is the harm the opposition parties are trying to do to the Canadian Forces" regarding the Canadian Afghan detainee issue.[99] The second prorogation in a year also received some international criticism as being undemocratic.[100] Demonstrations took place on January 23 in 64 Canadian cities and towns, and five cities in other countries.[101] A Facebook protest group attracted over 20,000 members.[102]
A poll released by Angus Reid on January 7, found that 53% of Canadians were opposed to the prorogation, while 19% supported it. 38 per cent of Canadians believed that Harper used the prorogation to curtail the Afghan detainee inquiry, while 23% agreed with Harper's explanation that the prorogation was necessary economically.[103]
2010 Senate appointmentsHarper filled five vacancies in the Senate of Canada with appointments of new Conservative senators, on January 29, 2010. The Senators filled vacancies in Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and New Brunswick, as well as two vacancies in Ontario. The new senators were Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, of Quebec, Bob Runciman, of Ontario, Vim Kochhar, of Ontario, Elizabeth Marshall of Newfoundland and Labrador and Rose-May Poirier, of New Brunswick.
This changed the party standings in the Senate, which had been dominated by Liberals, to 51 Conservatives, 49 Liberals, and five others.[104][105]
2011 Vote of non-confidenceHarper's Conservative government was defeated in a no-confidence vote on March 25, 2011, after being found in contempt of parliament, thus triggering a general election.[106] This was the first occurrence in Commonwealth history of a government in the Westminster parliamentary tradition losing the confidence of the House of Commons on the grounds of contempt of Parliament. The no-confidence motion was carried with a vote of 156 in favor of the motion, and 145 against.[107]
Friday, April 8, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Report due on whether army cops ignored suspected abuse of prisoners : Conservative Party of Canada push to limit findings .
The Conservative government is ramping up efforts to circumscribe into allegations of torture involving detainees in Afghanistan. The Military Police Complaints Commission investigation has been looking into whether military police ignored suspected abuse while transferring prisoners to Afghan authorities, and the Tories argued in Federal Court last week that its final report should leave out evidence from witnesses like Richard Colvin, a former diplomat based in Afghanistan who testified in 2009 that his superiors ignored repeated warnings that detainees faced serious risk of torture after Canadian soldiers placed them in Afghan custody. The federal government already argued in 2009 that the military watchdog’s findings should be limited to what military police knew or could be reasonably expected to know, with success. Now they are pushing to narrow the definition of what the military police should have known to include only information military police would have physically possessed, instead of what they could have found out by asking questions. They want to exclude testimony of diplomats like Colvin, and civilians who didn’t work at the defence department, and any files they have documenting or warning of torture and abuse.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Hey Stephen Harper, stop creeping me on Facebook
How Stephen Harper's Conservatives can do a Facebook background check on everyone at their rallies, while ignoring the criminal past of a senior PMO advisor like Bruce Carson is a mystery to Canadians. But that's Stephen Harper's Canada: Undemocratic. Disrespectful. And certainly going against our best Canadian traditions
Strong leaders don’t hide like Stephen Harper.
One of the things the Conservatives are campaigning on is strong leadership, a firm hold on the wheel of the ship of state. Under Stephen Harper, the narrative goes, Canada has retaken a place of prominence on the world stage and has successfully withstood global economic chaos. And the reason is Stephen Harper’s leadership. The choice in this election, say the Tories, is between trusting Harper with a majority government (stable, strong leadership) or making Michael Ignatieff prime minister of a weird hybrid government/coalition/arrangement (just all kinds of bad).
OK. So that’s the narrative. But it won’t win if the Tories don’t restrain their campaign thugs and stop hurling teenaged girls out of events for failing a Partisan Purity Test. The incident in question, which took place in London, Ont. and was reported by the local media, is extremely disturbing. Not only because it shows just how controlling the Conservative party tries to be, but because it reflects poorly on the man who leads (and will likely lead again) our country.
.During a stop last Sunday in London, a 19-year-old political science student at the nearby University of Western Ontario, Awish Aslam, joined a Conservative rally where the Prime Minister was to speak. She registered online (as did a friend who accompanied her) and upon arrival, signed in and went inside. After 30 minutes or so inside the event, both women were approached by a man who asked them to follow him. He took their name tags, tore them up and escorted them out of the event. His explanation, according to Aslam: “[He told us,] ‘We know you guys have ties to the Liberal party through Facebook.’ He said . . . ‘You are no longer welcome here.’”
The ties to the Liberal party? Michael Ignatieff had already made a stop in London, and Aslam had attended that rally, too. At the event, she had her photo taken with the Liberal leader, and posted it on Facebook. According to Aslam, she intended to visit every party’s rally. This is the first election in which she is eligible to vote, and clearly, she has an interest in politics. Exposing herself to a wide variety of views and opinions is entirely logical, and something we need to encourage more young voters to do — make informed political choices, get involved in the process, and value the right to vote in its proper context as the civic duty of a knowledgeable citizen. Aslam was entirely within her right as a citizen to meet with Mr. Ignatieff, and then Mr. Harper. It is unconscionable that anyone on the Harper campaign team felt otherwise.
.Are people with “ties” to the Liberal party to be treated like the enemy and expelled from events? Obviously, the Prime Minister needs security. But it’s supposed to be security against threats to his life, not security against ever having to be near someone who took a photo with a politician from a different party. Unless, of course, it’s Conservative policy that anyone who has been in direct proximity to Ignatieff is a national security risk.
That two young women would be taken aside by a man who felt comfortable removing name tags, is also troubling. The identity of this individual should be determined. Some reports suggest it was an RCMP officer assigned to the Prime Minister’s security detail. If so, why is the RCMP devoting resources to protecting the Prime Minister from young, undecided female voters? If not an RCMP officer, why someone would feel empowered to physically remove the name tags and throw the young women out of the event also needs explanation, and immediate correction.
PMO spokesman Dimitri Soudas has already apologized for the incident, but an apology isn’t good enough. There must be an explanation of why visitors to Conservative events are being screened for any ties to the Liberals and expelled from events, without any other cause, if such ties are found. When questioned about the incident, the Prime Minister brushed off the issue, saying that his staff run the events and that more people are coming to his events than the others combined. That’s irrelevant. It’s not about comparing headcounts, it’s about treating those citizens who show up at your events with respect. If that isn’t happening, Prime Minister, you need to check with your staff. You can’t claim to be a strong, stable leader while blaming your campaign staff for dumb mistakes at the same time. Where does the buck stop?
This incident, combined with the press corps’ frustration with the Prime Minister’s refusal to answer more than five questions per stop, threatens to undermine the strong leadership narrative the Conservatives are banking on to deliver on polling day. It’s absurd to suggest that the same man who needs protection from reporters and politically curious young women is fit to handle further economic crises, wars in Libya and Afghanistan and the ever-present risk of natural disaster, major accident or terrorist attack on Canadian soil. If you want to sell the Prime Minister’s strong leadership, avoiding unforced errors like these is a good place to start.
OK. So that’s the narrative. But it won’t win if the Tories don’t restrain their campaign thugs and stop hurling teenaged girls out of events for failing a Partisan Purity Test. The incident in question, which took place in London, Ont. and was reported by the local media, is extremely disturbing. Not only because it shows just how controlling the Conservative party tries to be, but because it reflects poorly on the man who leads (and will likely lead again) our country.
.During a stop last Sunday in London, a 19-year-old political science student at the nearby University of Western Ontario, Awish Aslam, joined a Conservative rally where the Prime Minister was to speak. She registered online (as did a friend who accompanied her) and upon arrival, signed in and went inside. After 30 minutes or so inside the event, both women were approached by a man who asked them to follow him. He took their name tags, tore them up and escorted them out of the event. His explanation, according to Aslam: “[He told us,] ‘We know you guys have ties to the Liberal party through Facebook.’ He said . . . ‘You are no longer welcome here.’”
The ties to the Liberal party? Michael Ignatieff had already made a stop in London, and Aslam had attended that rally, too. At the event, she had her photo taken with the Liberal leader, and posted it on Facebook. According to Aslam, she intended to visit every party’s rally. This is the first election in which she is eligible to vote, and clearly, she has an interest in politics. Exposing herself to a wide variety of views and opinions is entirely logical, and something we need to encourage more young voters to do — make informed political choices, get involved in the process, and value the right to vote in its proper context as the civic duty of a knowledgeable citizen. Aslam was entirely within her right as a citizen to meet with Mr. Ignatieff, and then Mr. Harper. It is unconscionable that anyone on the Harper campaign team felt otherwise.
.Are people with “ties” to the Liberal party to be treated like the enemy and expelled from events? Obviously, the Prime Minister needs security. But it’s supposed to be security against threats to his life, not security against ever having to be near someone who took a photo with a politician from a different party. Unless, of course, it’s Conservative policy that anyone who has been in direct proximity to Ignatieff is a national security risk.
That two young women would be taken aside by a man who felt comfortable removing name tags, is also troubling. The identity of this individual should be determined. Some reports suggest it was an RCMP officer assigned to the Prime Minister’s security detail. If so, why is the RCMP devoting resources to protecting the Prime Minister from young, undecided female voters? If not an RCMP officer, why someone would feel empowered to physically remove the name tags and throw the young women out of the event also needs explanation, and immediate correction.
PMO spokesman Dimitri Soudas has already apologized for the incident, but an apology isn’t good enough. There must be an explanation of why visitors to Conservative events are being screened for any ties to the Liberals and expelled from events, without any other cause, if such ties are found. When questioned about the incident, the Prime Minister brushed off the issue, saying that his staff run the events and that more people are coming to his events than the others combined. That’s irrelevant. It’s not about comparing headcounts, it’s about treating those citizens who show up at your events with respect. If that isn’t happening, Prime Minister, you need to check with your staff. You can’t claim to be a strong, stable leader while blaming your campaign staff for dumb mistakes at the same time. Where does the buck stop?
This incident, combined with the press corps’ frustration with the Prime Minister’s refusal to answer more than five questions per stop, threatens to undermine the strong leadership narrative the Conservatives are banking on to deliver on polling day. It’s absurd to suggest that the same man who needs protection from reporters and politically curious young women is fit to handle further economic crises, wars in Libya and Afghanistan and the ever-present risk of natural disaster, major accident or terrorist attack on Canadian soil. If you want to sell the Prime Minister’s strong leadership, avoiding unforced errors like these is a good place to start.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Former aide had disclosed his background prior to joining PMO : Bruce Carson
Stephen Harper’s disgraced former aide, Bruce Carson, had disclosed his entire criminal record, which included five counts of fraud resulting in psychiatric treatment, prior to being hired by the PMO. Carson became the subject of an RCMP investigation after a report by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network alleged he lobbied Indian Affairs on behalf of a water company which employed his fiancee, a 22-year-old former escort.
Court documents show Carson was charged with defrauding Budget Car and Truck Rental, the Bank of Montreal and Toronto-Dominion Bank in June 1990, when he was working as a researcher for the Library of Parliament. He pleaded guilty to three counts and was sentenced to 24 months probation on condition he receive psychiatric counseling. Carson’s lawyer, Patrick McCann, said his crimes were the result of a mental breakdown from an ugly divorce, and that the light sentence demonstrated that the charges weren’t serious. The revelations raise new questions about Prime Minister Harper’s judgment in hiring Carson, particularly since he was quoted as saying “had I known these things, I would not have…hired him.” As Harper’s chief policy analyst and troubleshooter, Carson would have had access to top-secret government files and had close access to the Prime Minister.
Court documents show Carson was charged with defrauding Budget Car and Truck Rental, the Bank of Montreal and Toronto-Dominion Bank in June 1990, when he was working as a researcher for the Library of Parliament. He pleaded guilty to three counts and was sentenced to 24 months probation on condition he receive psychiatric counseling. Carson’s lawyer, Patrick McCann, said his crimes were the result of a mental breakdown from an ugly divorce, and that the light sentence demonstrated that the charges weren’t serious. The revelations raise new questions about Prime Minister Harper’s judgment in hiring Carson, particularly since he was quoted as saying “had I known these things, I would not have…hired him.” As Harper’s chief policy analyst and troubleshooter, Carson would have had access to top-secret government files and had close access to the Prime Minister.
The Liberals made modest gains on the Tories at the end of the federal election campaign's first week,
OTTAWA - The Liberals made modest gains on the Tories at the end of the federal election campaign's first week, but could face an uphill battle in the key battleground around Toronto, a new poll suggests.
The latest Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll put the Conservatives at 35 per cent support, ahead of the Liberals at 28 per cent. The NDP was at 17 per cent, while the Bloc Quebecois stood at 10 per cent and the Greens at eight.
The results are almost identical to the federal election standings that delivered a Conservative minority government in 2008.
The telephone survey of 1,000 people was conducted between Thursday and Sunday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Harris-Decima's two-week sampling of voter intention, which wrapped up Sunday, gave the Conservatives the support of 37 per cent of respondents, 11 points better than the Liberals.
That survey of 2,000 respondents carried a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Those results offer partial support for the notion that the Liberals had a fairly good start to the campaign, said Harris-Decima chairman Allan Gregg.
Voters may also be warming up — albeit modestly — to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, he added.
"Perhaps even more encouraging for the Liberals is the fact that their leader, Michael Ignatieff — while still having the highest 'unfavourable' ratings of all of the five federal leaders — has improved his favourable ratings," said Gregg.
The number of people who view Ignatieff favourably has increased to 37 per cent, up from 25 per cent in February, his highest 'favourable' number since September 2009.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 'unfavourable' rating increased by nine points to 52 per cent, up from 43 per cent in February. That's Harper's highest unfavourable ranking since the start of the last federal election in September 2008.
"When you look below the surface, however, it is clear that it would be wildly premature for the Liberals to start popping the champagne corks at this point in the campaign," Gregg said.
That's because the Liberal hold on Toronto is slipping, with the Conservatives opening up a wide lead in the so-called 905 suburban ridings that ring the city. If the Tories are able to pick up seats in 905, so named for its telephone area code, that could give them their much-coveted majority.
In the 905 ridings, Harris-Decima's two-week sampling of vote intention put the Conservatives at 42 per cent and the Liberals at 32 per cent. The NDP and Greens trailed at 14 per cent and 11 per cent, respectively.
"The Liberal fortress of Toronto is now perilously close to being breached by the Conservatives, who have been solidly polling in the 30-plus per cent range for all of 2011," Gregg said.
In the 416 ridings of Toronto itself, the Liberals had a slim 42-37 lead over the Conservatives with the NDP at 16 per cent, and the Greens at five.
Across Ontario, the Tories led the Liberals 43-34 in the most recent Sunday-to-Thursday polling, with the NDP at 14 per cent, and the Greens at eight.
That's only a modest shift from the two-week sampling that gave the Tories a 41-33 lead, with the NDP and Greens at 17-per cent and eight-per-cent respectively.
"The Liberals still have a long way to go to before even neutralizing the huge advantage the Conservatives had going into this election," Gregg said.
The historic Liberal advantage among women has all but disappeared and they now trail the Conservatives among men by 18 points, he added.
For more information about the survey, visit http://www.harrisdecima.ca./
Respondents were asked: "If a federal election were being held tomorrow, who do you think you would be voting for in your area?"
The latest Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll put the Conservatives at 35 per cent support, ahead of the Liberals at 28 per cent. The NDP was at 17 per cent, while the Bloc Quebecois stood at 10 per cent and the Greens at eight.
The results are almost identical to the federal election standings that delivered a Conservative minority government in 2008.
The telephone survey of 1,000 people was conducted between Thursday and Sunday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Harris-Decima's two-week sampling of voter intention, which wrapped up Sunday, gave the Conservatives the support of 37 per cent of respondents, 11 points better than the Liberals.
That survey of 2,000 respondents carried a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Those results offer partial support for the notion that the Liberals had a fairly good start to the campaign, said Harris-Decima chairman Allan Gregg.
Voters may also be warming up — albeit modestly — to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, he added.
"Perhaps even more encouraging for the Liberals is the fact that their leader, Michael Ignatieff — while still having the highest 'unfavourable' ratings of all of the five federal leaders — has improved his favourable ratings," said Gregg.
The number of people who view Ignatieff favourably has increased to 37 per cent, up from 25 per cent in February, his highest 'favourable' number since September 2009.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 'unfavourable' rating increased by nine points to 52 per cent, up from 43 per cent in February. That's Harper's highest unfavourable ranking since the start of the last federal election in September 2008.
"When you look below the surface, however, it is clear that it would be wildly premature for the Liberals to start popping the champagne corks at this point in the campaign," Gregg said.
That's because the Liberal hold on Toronto is slipping, with the Conservatives opening up a wide lead in the so-called 905 suburban ridings that ring the city. If the Tories are able to pick up seats in 905, so named for its telephone area code, that could give them their much-coveted majority.
In the 905 ridings, Harris-Decima's two-week sampling of vote intention put the Conservatives at 42 per cent and the Liberals at 32 per cent. The NDP and Greens trailed at 14 per cent and 11 per cent, respectively.
"The Liberal fortress of Toronto is now perilously close to being breached by the Conservatives, who have been solidly polling in the 30-plus per cent range for all of 2011," Gregg said.
In the 416 ridings of Toronto itself, the Liberals had a slim 42-37 lead over the Conservatives with the NDP at 16 per cent, and the Greens at five.
Across Ontario, the Tories led the Liberals 43-34 in the most recent Sunday-to-Thursday polling, with the NDP at 14 per cent, and the Greens at eight.
That's only a modest shift from the two-week sampling that gave the Tories a 41-33 lead, with the NDP and Greens at 17-per cent and eight-per-cent respectively.
"The Liberals still have a long way to go to before even neutralizing the huge advantage the Conservatives had going into this election," Gregg said.
The historic Liberal advantage among women has all but disappeared and they now trail the Conservatives among men by 18 points, he added.
For more information about the survey, visit http://www.harrisdecima.ca./
Respondents were asked: "If a federal election were being held tomorrow, who do you think you would be voting for in your area?"
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Quebec Court of Appeal has ruled the federal government's proposal to create a national securities regulator is unconstitutional.
QUEBEC — The Quebec Court of Appeal has ruled the federal government's proposal to create a national securities regulator is unconstitutional.
In a split decision released late Thursday, the court said the federal government would intrude on the province's constitutional jurisdiction with the project.
"This decision confirms Quebec's opposition to the federal government's project of a single securities commission is well-founded," Quebec Finance Minister Raymond Bachand said in a statement.
The Alberta Court of Appeal handed down to a similar decision in March.
"Considering those two rulings and the lack of support in many provinces, I urge the federal government to give up its project," Bachand added.
Quebec and Alberta are the two most vocal provinces opposed to federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's plan to create a single national securities regulator to replace the numerous provincial bodies overseeing regional capital markets.
Flaherty has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in over the constitutionality of the proposed Canada Securities Act.
The high court is scheduled to hear the case in April.
The Conservative government, now in the midst of a federal election campaign, has been pushing for the creation of a single national regulator to handle increasingly complex and global markets.
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Federal+securities+regulator+unconstitutional+Quebec+court/4541434/story.html#ixzz1IWzAT0w0
In a split decision released late Thursday, the court said the federal government would intrude on the province's constitutional jurisdiction with the project.
"This decision confirms Quebec's opposition to the federal government's project of a single securities commission is well-founded," Quebec Finance Minister Raymond Bachand said in a statement.
The Alberta Court of Appeal handed down to a similar decision in March.
"Considering those two rulings and the lack of support in many provinces, I urge the federal government to give up its project," Bachand added.
Quebec and Alberta are the two most vocal provinces opposed to federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's plan to create a single national securities regulator to replace the numerous provincial bodies overseeing regional capital markets.
Flaherty has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in over the constitutionality of the proposed Canada Securities Act.
The high court is scheduled to hear the case in April.
The Conservative government, now in the midst of a federal election campaign, has been pushing for the creation of a single national regulator to handle increasingly complex and global markets.
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Federal+securities+regulator+unconstitutional+Quebec+court/4541434/story.html#ixzz1IWzAT0w0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)