Progressive Tory

I don't know who the Vancouver Pastor was, but he may be referrring to Bill Whatcott, a Catholic activist who received a lifetime ban on public criticism of homosexuality. He was from Ontario but was charged in Saskatchewan. Is there another one? Mr. Whatcott was not banned because he simply spoke out against homosexuality. He incited hatred with graphic pamphlets and fear mongering rallies. He's an absolute nutcase. This was not about 'freedom of speech'. The provincial Human Rights Commission noted Whatcott was "ordered to discontinue distributing any materials that promote hatred against people because of their sexual orientation." "The material is offensive and it's an affront on the basic tenets of our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co-existence," Const. Steve Camp, of the Edmonton police hate crimes unit, said. Was there another case?

Americans couldn't care less. The only ones interested in what he has to tell the American public are Canadians.

Exactly.

It's only because Harper will not speak to the Canadian media. If Ignatieff is more open, why blame them? It's Harper himself who is driving them to the opposition for news about this country. How Harper controls the spin

I remember his interviews for Fox news when he criticized Chretien for not going to Iraq. Will he now Obama bash since he can't bash the Canadian gov't?

Biofuels will not help our economy because they are not sustainable. They will only fatten the wallets of those who already have trouble keeping their pants up; raise the price of food and accelerate global warming.

And I'll bet we're subsidizing them too. It's a scam, plain and simple.

And that's exactly what we're doing. It's a cash cow for the ethanol corporations, but a complete and utter cash drain for taxpayers.

There are better ways to help the Ontario corn grower than the global warming accelerant ethanol.

You can call it BS because the thought of running cars on corn makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, but it is not a solution. Most environmentalists state that we are at least 10-15 years away from making the industry viable. Biofuels will not Solve Global Warming Why biofuels won’t help climate change However, the soaring cost of the crops needed to produce biofuels is already threatening to make them uneconomic and ensure that they could not survive without subsidies. Prices of maize, wheat, palm oil, rapeseed (known as canola in the US) and soy oil futures are all soaring, making the price of biofuels much more expensive than the fuels they are intended to displace in our fuel tanks. Converting pristine lands to biofuel farms worsens global warming The work shows that biofuels produced this way can cause more emissions than gasoline. Biofuels not necessarily all that green. David Suzuki But things start to get complicated when you look more closely. Much has already been debated about the energy requirements to produce some biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol. Ethanol made from corn only contains marginally more energy than what is needed to produce it. In fact, we use about a litre's worth of fossil fuels to grow, harvest, process, and transport a litre of corn-based ethanol. Many people argue that making corn-based ethanol is more of an agricultural subsidy for farmers than it is a sound environmental policy. Things get even dodgier for biofuels when you look at the land area that would be needed to grow fuel crops. We use a lot of fossil fuels. Switching to biofuels would not reduce the demand for fuel, just change the way we get it. And that would require a lot of land. In fact, substituting just 10 per cent of fossil fuels to biofuels for all our vehicles would require about 40 per cent of the entire cropland in Europe and North America. That is simply not sustainable. Only very large corporate farms will benefit and taxpayers will 'subsidize' the industry. For consumers, we will simply pay more for food and suffer with the effects of accelerated global warming. It's a lose, lose. But then if it makes a pile of money for Conservative financial supporters, like the lobbying group Canadian Renewable Energy, what the heck, right? If you really want to help farmers, let them grow pot.

And what exactly is bullshit? The fact that they shut down the database or the fact that many journalists are speaking out about how difficult it is to make this gov't accountable because they prefer to operate in secrecy? SECRET CAPITAL: Information lockdown How Harper controls the spin Zeal to manage message sees journalists shunned, bureaucrats, cabinet ministers routinely muzzled OTTAWA–In the 6th-floor office of a nondescript building sit the gatekeepers, the bureaucrats who decide what Canadians learn about the workings of their government.... Throughout the government, it's known simply as "downtown," the place where decisions are made on who speaks on issues and what they say. In the Conservative government's clampdown on communications, this is Ground Zero. And in a marked change from previous governments, now even basic demands for information from reporters, once easily fielded by department spokespersons, are sent to this office for review – and often heavy editing – before they are okayed for public release, government insiders say. This is not a transparent gov't.

I am absolutely behind tougher sentences for violet crime. However, the quickest way to reduce the numebr of criminals in Canada is by eliminating some of the ridiculous things that constitute crime. MARIJUANA is a good place to start. Prostitution is another. Legalize, control and tax. It's a no-brainer.

You mean besides everything? For starters, their focus is on profit, not rehabilitation. Who will they answer to? Shareholders? We tried one in Ontario and it was a complete and utter failure. Ontario to take back control of private super-jail Canada's only privately run jail, in Penetanguishene, Ont., will return to public control on Saturday after a performance evaluation found a public jail of equivalent size had better security, prisoner health care, and reduced repeat offender rates.

That's my own personal opinion. I wasn't looking for validation. This gov't gives me that. Stephen Harper travels with a veritable swat team PM's security tab hits nearly $30M They keep ever expanding lists of undesirables at the border. Good thing they weren't around when the Underground Railroad was in operation or Harriet Tubman would have been an 'undesirable'. They suggest that criticizing Israeli aggression is a 'hate' crime. Sheer nonsense. I think whenever a Conservative MP leaves the country we should put their name on a list and they have to prove that they are not a threat to our security to get back in. It's starting to look like a fascist state.

Excellent post. It's a numbers game. If they can fill them up it gives the misconception that they are dealing with crime. It's a dangerous game.

If it were only that simple. We can't point to any single thing, but the court system overall. I still haven't been able to find any judge who says that lawyers are deliberately keeping their clients in what has been described as 'hell holes'. End prohibition, especially on marijuana, and we'd see an immediate impact on that backlog. But can you imagine this gov't seeing that as a good start toward crime reduction; by simply eliminating 'crimes' that shouldn't be crimes in the first place? Far too forward thinking. I support tough on crime for legitmate crimes. This gov't are making gang members their pimps.

According to the rules Ignatieff must incur all expenses until he is officially declared the leader in May. I know it's difficult for a Conservative to comprehend adhering to Elections Canada rules, but we must.

Exactly. His leadership will still need to officially confirmed at the convention. There were extenuating circumstances requiring immediate action, when Harper threatened another election hoping to be able to once again run against Dion. Ignatieff still needs to campaign to validate his leadership, which Conservatives themselves have declared to be undemocratic. Statement from Michael Ignatieff leadership campaign regarding fundraising Although there is only one candidate for the Leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Ignatieff's campaign continues to incur expenses that remain his sole responsibility until the campaign concludes at the Biennial Convention in May. All campaign donations and expenses will be made public through Elections Canada. The campaign does not expect to run a surplus. This is perfectly legal and the Conservatives know it. They are grasping at straws.

The difference with this "In and Out" is that the Conservatives tried to defraud taxpayers with forged receipts. It wasn't just about election overspending, but an attempt to claim credits they weren't entitled to. This one is not. But if you want to play the party fundraising game, I'm in. Taxpayers pick up Tory tab Elections Canada warns parties on campaign costs No Election Will Absolve Harper’s Conservatives from Potentially Fraudulent Acquisition of Power Global Compliance Research Project - During the week of August 11-14, the media reported on the investigation, by the Parliamentary Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, into the Conservative financial schemes of the 2006 election. The media reported on the scheme of transferring expenses to the local riding, in violation of the Elections Act, and on the failure of most of the Conservative candidates, who were subpoenaed, to appear before the Committee. The media, a week later, however, reported that Harper believes that Parliament is dysfunctional, and that Harper is prepared to call an election. The media, however is not making a connection between the serious violation of the Elections Act by the Conservatives in the last election, and whether an election should even be possible when there are allegations of violations of the Elections Act, and also whether the Conservative Party, if found guilty of fraud, should even be permitted to function as the government of Canada. Or has Canada arrived at an untenable position that leaders, executives and candidates of political parties have immunity to fraud? “Help! Help! We’re Being Oppressed!”

No he asks taxpayers to pay for the right of his MPs to ask for bigger donations. It's all about hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do. Taxpayers pick up Tory tab Thousands billed as ministers split time between official duties, filling party war chests When Defence Minister Peter MacKay flew to British Columbia in January, he split his time between government business and two Tory fundraising gigs. Taxpayers footed the bill. When then-Indian affairs minister Jim Prentice flew to Nova Scotia to meet with provincial chiefs, he headlined a Conservative fundraising dinner in Prince Edward Island. Taxpayers paid for the trip. And when Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn jetted off from a Quebec fisheries forum to attend a government meeting in Manitoba, he also guest-starred at a local Tory fundraising banquet. The federal Conservatives – elected on promises to be squeaky clean – are using government resources to help fill their election war chest. The Star easily found 25 examples of Tory ministers mixing fundraising and department business, each trip typically costing taxpayers several thousand dollars, though complete costs are not disclosed. The Star found its examples by comparing government expense records with Conservative party notices of fundraising events. Here's one journey: MacKay, a senior political aide and a military adviser travelled from Toronto to Victoria on Jan. 10. Arriving at 4 p.m., they went to their hotel and were briefed by Canada's top Pacific admiral for 90 minutes. Then it was off to the McMorran Beach House in Victoria to guest star at a posh evening affair at which 200 Conservative faithful hobnobbed with MacKay. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, who is from the area, worked the Thursday fundraiser into his schedule as well, bringing along a political aide. A Conservative party report said the event "more than met its financial goals." The next morning, MacKay and his aides toured the local dockyard, received an Olympic security briefing, and took a military helicopter to visit a search-and-rescue facility. By late afternoon, MacKay and an aide flew to Kelowna, where there was no government business, but where he guest starred at another fundraiser, telling party supporters: "We are getting ready for a campaign that could come quite soon." All told, two ministers and at least three staff went on the western trip. The total cost of these trips for all parties is tough to nail down because ministers and staff charge different costs to different accounts and only some are publicly accessible. It certainly cost the Department of National Defence at least $10,000. (MacKay's aide paid for the Kelowna leg of the trip out of his own pocket, while MacKay, whose riding is in Nova Scotia, covered the Kelowna leg from his House of Commons travel allowance, a fund typically used for travel related to the minister's constituency). For the Conservative party, the trip cost nothing, though about $40,000 was raised in Victoria and Kelowna. In looking into expense reports since 2006, the Star tried to find out which came first, the decision to hold a fundraiser or the need for a government trip to be taken by a minister and a political aide. In one case, the Star found three ministers converging on the Harrison Hot Springs resort hotel in British Columbia for a major regional Conservative conference last fall that was about a year in the planning. Stockwell Day (public safety); Chuck Strahl (Indian affairs) and Gary Lunn (natural resources) gave keynote speeches at the conference, and the theme was getting ready for the next election. Strahl billed taxpayers about $5,000 for a five-day period that included the Tory conference. His expense report says he had "First Nations meetings" in Vancouver. When the Star raised this, spokesperson Ted Yeomans said a "clerical error" was made and he said the department of Indian and northern affairs should not have paid for the portion of travel for the fundraiser. Strahl's Commons travel budget has now paid the money back. Expense reports show Day was in the area to make a "national crime prevention centre announcement" in Vancouver. When the Star told Day's staff that his crime prevention announcement was actually the following month, they checked and agreed. They blamed an "error on the website" and said Day was actually making a Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements announcement in Squamish, north of Vancouver, then travelled to the Conservative conference. "No public money was used to transport Minister Day to political events," spokesperson John Brent said. Day's expense report shows only a $295 travel expense for the day prior to the Tory conference. However, three political assistants who state they accompanied him charged taxpayers about $3,000 in expenses for the conference period. Two state on their expense reports they went to Harrison Hot Springs, a 90-minute drive east of Vancouver, where the conference was held. Questions about this issue were not answered. The Star had a hard time getting answers from ministers, even though Stephen Harper vowed to make accountability "one of the major pursuits of our new government" before he was sworn in as prime minister in February 2006. Some staffers were evasive, some dragged their feet, some refused to answer questions and one hinted that nothing could be released without approval from the Prime Minister's Office. Conacher said published government expense reports (they are on the federal government's website under a heading "Proactive Disclosure") raise more questions than they answer. Since there is just a dollar figure given for meals, travel and hotel, and a vague description of the government business, the public can't tell how public money is being spent. In the case of Lunn's expense reports for the Conservative conference, the problem is clear. Lunn's expense reports show a $10,000 expense for several trips in a short period, leading up to the conference, and ending in British Columbia. His assistant, who typically travels with him, shows on her expense report a $5,000 bill to taxpayers for a five-day period that includes the three-day conference in Harrison Hot Springs. Lunn's office, which was contacted almost two weeks ago, has not responded to detailed questions.

It's just you.

Yummy. I'm serving it with my Canada Goose. Again, my only point with the Conservatives was their suggestion that they never used this tool. All Parties do. It was the meat of the Harper campaign. I never said the Liberals, NDP or even Green Party didn't hold these functions. I only debated Conservative supporters who tried to say that they were the party of grassroots so never served rubber chicken at high priced lunches and dinners. They're still picking it out of ther teeth.

I'm here. However, I never whined about the practice; only the hypocrisy of suggesting they never used this fundraising tool.

For the same reason the Tories have made it increasingly difficult to keep tabs on their spending habits. Tories kill access to information database The federal Conservatives have quietly killed an access to information registry used by journalists, experts and the public that users say helped hold the government accountable. "It was really a tool designed to make government more open," said CBC investigative journalist David McKie. But users can then make a written request for a copy of the already released documents by citing the file number. Have you ever submitted a written request? I've been waiting four months. Unfortunately for the Tories, I'm very patient and have kept an accurate record of how often I've contacted them about the delay. There are a great many things they don't want us to know, which has just made me more dedicated to unearth them. What happened to transparency and accountability? Only with the opposition apparently, because this gov't has their own set of rules, based on the premise: 'Ask us no questions and we'll tell you no lies'.

Goose oil was also used in a lot of home remedies. My husband's grandmother swore by goose grease and camphor to fight a cold. I don't really like meat so eating goose is no less gross than eating chicken. But then chicken isn't a symbol of our national identity. There's where they may be in trouble. What's next, the loon?