Jump to content

robert_viera

Member
  • Posts

    234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by robert_viera

  1. as it turns out... the Harper Conservatives engaged in their own brand of hoax (read lies) in moving to shut down the parody web-sites.

    There's a simple solution to the problem of fake web sites: Make the WHOIS information for .CA domain names public.

    The WHOIS information service allows you to see the name of the owner of a domain name.

    Unfortunately, CIRA, the organization that regulates .CA domain names, changed their WHOIS policy so that WHOIS information is, by default, not publicly available.

    There are companies who offer 'private registration', a service in which the company registers a domain in their name on behalf of a customer.

    Both the CIRA policy and the availability of private registration services allow web site owners to hide their identity.

  2. Getting back to the original topic of this thread, here are some more contributions to riding associations for your consideration:

    Some more contributors with unusual names:

    Contribution A. 2006-01-12 105.00 0.00 105.00 Brampton--Springdale Conservative Association ON Conservative 2006

    Contribution B. 010316 2006-04-20 155.00 0.00 155.00 Brampton--Springdale Conservative Association ON Conservative 2006

    Contribution C. 009966 2006-05-17 600.20 0.00 600.20 Brampton--Springdale Conservative Association ON Conservative 2006

    Contribution D. 009485 2006-05-17 1060.00 0.00 1060.00 Brampton--Springdale Conservative Association ON Conservative 2006

  3. What we should look for is not errors made from $20 donations but rather with $1000 donations! Ordinary people might make a mistake filling out a form to give $20. Nobody who can afford to give $1000 would not fill out the form clearly! No party has the time resources to try to jam a useful amount of money through a zillion $20 mistakes!

    So along with perspective comes some common sense, the partisanship of some anti-Harper fanatics not withstanding when they equate a $20 error with the Watergate Affair.

    The 'Unidentified' donations are for $250 each, not $20. The donations from 'Conservative Fund Canada', which I agree are probably transfers from the party entered on the wrong part of the return, total more than $1600. The donations from companies to the Ottawa South riding association total $5000.

    Incidentally, when donations over $20 are received and the donor cannot be identified, I believe the Canada Elections Act requires that the donations be forfeited to the Chief Electoral Officer, who forwards them to the Receiver General.

  4. Aha, so you're saying that those are transfers from the federal party ? I guess so, but then Robert would have noticed this source elsewhere I would think. And - Robert - where did you get this list ? No link ?

    The information is from Elections Canada's web site. I can't provide a direct link, but you can get to the information from here:

    http://www.elections.ca/scripts/webpep/fin2/select_associations.aspx?entity=5〈=e

    The 'Unidentified' contributions are in Part 2a of the 2007 financial return of the Calgary--Nose Hill Conservative Association. If you click on the names of either 'Unidentified' donors, you get the following address:

    City: Calgary

    Province: AB

    Postal Code: T2L2L2

    I checked on Canada Post's web site and found the postal code listed above is for Post Office boxes numbered 67001-67180.

    The contributions from 'Conservative Fund Canada' are in Part 2a of the 2007 and 2008 financial returns of the Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association. Transfers to the riding association from the party are listed in Part 2d of the financial returns.

  5. Ahem... how about the OP folks ?

    Does anybody know why 'unidentified' or 'Conservative Fund Canada' are listed as legitimate contributors ?

    I can't fathom why they wouldn't be able to identify a donor, as cash donations of more than $20 are not allowed. (Canada Elections Act s. 403.31 405.31) <--- CORRECTION

  6. I overlooked some party connections in the last batch of appointments:

    2009-2058 2009-12-11

    TC

    Canada Marine Act

    Appointment of MARTIAL BOUCHARD of Chicoutimi, Quebec, to be a director of the Saguenay Port Authority, to hold office for a term of three years.

    Martial Bouchard donated $826 to the Conservative riding association in Jonquière--Alma (represented by Jean-Pierre Blackburn) in 2008.

    2009-2052 2009-12-11

    IA&ND

    First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

    Reappointment of ADITYA JHA of Mississauga, Ontario, as a director of the board of directors of the First Nations Financial Management Board, to hold office during good behaviour for a term of three years.

    Aditya Jha donated $1,100 to the Conservative riding association in Parry Sound--Muskoka (represented by Tony Clement) in 2008. Note: Name is misspelled 'Jhe' in the riding association return.

    2009-2044 2009-12-11

    CITIZENSHIP

    Canadian Race Relations Foundation Act

    Reappointment of LYN Q. CHOW of Calgary, Alberta, as a director of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation to hold office during pleasure for a term of three years, effective January 25, 2010.

    Lyn Chow donated $360 to the Conservative riding association in Calgary Centre-North (represented by Jim Prentice) in 2007.

  7. I was looking at contributions to riding associations today and came across some unusual ones:

    Contributor's last name is "Unidentified"

    Unidentified A 2007-05-21 250.00 0.00 250.00 Calgary--Nose Hill Conservative Association AB Conservative 2007

    Unidentified B 2007-05-21 250.00 0.00 250.00 Calgary--Nose Hill Conservative Association AB Conservative 2007

    Contributor's name is "Conservative Fund Canada"

    Fund Canada Conservative 2008-08-29 170.00 0.00 170.00 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2008

    Fund Canada Conservative 2008-06-05 212.50 0.00 212.50 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2008

    Fund Canada Conservative 2008-03-27 210.00 0.00 210.00 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2008

    Fund Canada Conservative 2007-02-08 276.50 0.00 276.50 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2007

    Fund Canada Conservative 2007-12-18 127.50 0.00 127.50 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2007

    Fund Canada Conservative 2007-02-08 290.00 0.00 290.00 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2007

    Fund Canada Conservative 2007-05-01 185.00 0.00 185.00 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2007

    Fund Canada Conservative 2007-07-05 140.00 0.00 140.00 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2007

    Companies?

    Agent Signs & Designs 2007-02-05 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 Ottawa South Conservative Association ON Conservative 2007

    Depanneur Delta 2007-02-05 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 Ottawa South Conservative Association ON Conservative 2007

    House of Pizza 2007-02-05 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 Ottawa South Conservative Association ON Conservative 2007

    My Cell 2007-02-05 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 Ottawa South Conservative Association ON Conservative 2007

    9154-2589 Quebec Inc. 2007-02-05 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 Ottawa South Conservative Association ON Conservative 2007

    $0?

    Cudmore Verna 2007-12-13 0.00 0.00 0.00 Malpeque Conservative Association PE Conservative 2007

    Over the limit?

    ARSENAULT NORMAND 2008-09-05 1150.00 0.00 1150.00 Association du Parti conservateur Gaspésie--Iles-de-la-Madeleine QC Conservative 2008

  8. 2009-2059 2009-12-15

    CITIZENSHIP

    Citizenship Act

    Appointment of GEORGE EDWARD KHOURI of Ajax, Ontario, to be a citizenship judge for a term of three years on a part-time basis.

    Mr Khouri was the unsuccessful Conservative candidate in the riding of Pickering-Scarborough East in the last federal election.

    Remuneration

    JUDGE

    Fixed by GiC: Position;

    per diem ($435 - $515)

    Source: http://www.appointments-nominations.gc.ca/prflOrg.asp?OrgID=CZNC&type-typ=3〈=eng

  9. It's Conservative MP Patrick Brown.

    Conservative MPs Denied Visa to Sri Lanka

    An un-redacted image of the transcript is here:

    http://static.zooomr.com/images/8706305_82c4f55f80_b.jpg

    The un-redacted text:

    I'm eager to explain my outrage at what's happened. I can't believe that a fellow Commonwealth country is saying that they will not allow Parliamentarians in to verify that there is not human rights abuses in these international displaced persons camps. I think it's incredibly suspicious and it leads me to believe that what everyone has been saying, that there is breeches of international obligations, there is breeches of human rights, and there is deplorable conditions. I think it's true. I think Sri Lanka is hiding something, because why else, would they in any world, refuse Parliamentarians access into their country.

    Well, Canada is concerned about the Tamils in the IDP camps in Sri Lanka and that's why we intentionally gave 22 million dollars of funding, not to the Sri Lankan Government, which personally I have no confidence or faith in. We gave 22 million dollars directly to international aid organizations like the Red Cross that are working specifically to help those Tamils that are in grave danger right now, and, what I find very depressing about this whole ordeal is I looked a constituent of mine in the face, Ranjiv Sureshkumar, and she told me that she had her uncle and had relatives in a camp, and I was hoping that I could go there, take immigration forms there, help sponsor them to come to Canada, see this family reunification process take place, and the Sri Lankan Government is not allowing me to even share immigration paperwork. It is ridiculous. In my opinion it is beyond reason why their government is being so secretive. They're obviously hiding some very dirty laundry. There's thing happening, in my opinion, in Sri Lanka right now, that they do not want the world to see.

    Well, they have said very clearly "no". I'm happy to try again, but in my opinion we should view this (as) what it is. It's a slap in the face for Canada. The Sri Lankan Government is not allowing Parliamentarians to observe those camps, and I think Canada should look at next steps. You know, quite frankly, we should be looking at statements we can make to the world about the situation in Sri Lanka, because I believe that it is graver than we have been reading in the papers.

    I think maybe we should be looking at a very strong statement and whether that is making a pitch to the Commonwealth that Sri Lanka should be excluded, suspended from the Commonwealth, or whether we should echo that opinion in other international bodies. Coming up in Trinidad & Tobago is a meeting of the Commonwealth. That may be an opportunity in November to express our outrage. Another opportunity is, Sri Lanka is very much looking forward to hosting the 2010 Commonwealth Games, at which cricket will be the centrepiece of those games. In Sri Lanka there is obviously a lot of affection for cricket, and if they lose their ability to host that games because of the flagrant human rights abuses that are likely taking place in Sri Lanka, I think it would send a strong message to Sri Lanka that the international community will not stand for this, and there is consequences for their behaviour.

    I think the problem right now is that Sri Lanka is going about this in a manner where they believe there is no consequences for their behaviour, and their behaviour is un-democratic and I personally believe there is probably numerous human rights abuses occuring in these camps and we need to do whatever we can to stop them. We need to use whatever persuasive tool we can to protect our relatives that are in Sri Lanka, and there is hundreds of thousands of Tamils in Canada, who have loved ones in these camps, and this is what this is about. It's about the brothers, the uncles, the mothers, the sisters, who are in those camps where flooding could be an issue, where lack of nurture could be an issue, where kidnappings could be an issue. There is massive concern and it needs to be addressed.

    The point of this little exercise was to illustrate how difficult it is to get to the truth if one does not have all the information.

  10. Is it Jack Layton?

    Maybe Dewar?

    3rd guess would be ujjal dosanj

    Good guesses, but it's actually a government MP!

    It is somebody quite rightly expressing their disgust at the way this Government has handles the detainee abuse issue.

    That was definitely the story I was trying to suggest, but the interview was not about the Afghan detainee issue.

  11. OK. To make this a little easier, here is the redacted interview in plain text form:

    I'm eager to explain my outrage at what's happened. I can't believe that _____________________________ is saying that they will not allow Parliamentarians in to verify that there is not human rights abuses in _______________________________________. I think it's incredibly suspicious and it leads me to believe that what everyone has been saying, that there is breeches of international obligations, there is breeches of human rights, and there is deplorable conditions. I think it's true. I think ________ is hiding something, because why else, would they in any world, refuse Parliamentarians access ________________.

    Well, Canada is concerned about the ________________________________ and that's why we intentionally _____________________________, not to the __________ Government, which personally I have no confidence or faith in. We ____________________ directly to international aid organizations like the Red Cross that are working specifically to help ___________ that are in grave danger right now, and, what I find very depressing about this whole ordeal is I looked a constituent of mine in the face, __________________, and she told me that she had _______________________________, and I was hoping that I could go there, take ___________ forms there, help _______ them to ______ Canada, see this _________________ process take place, and the __________ Government is not allowing me to even share ___________ paperwork. It is ridiculous. In my opinion it is beyond reason why their government is being so secretive. They're obviously hiding some very dirty laundry. There's thing happening, in my opinion, in ________ right now, that they do not want the world to see.

    Well, they have said very clearly "no". I'm happy to try again, but in my opinion we should view this (as) what it is. It's a slap in the face for _______. The __________ Government is not allowing Parliamentarians to observe __________, and I think _______ should look at next steps. You know, quite frankly, we should be looking at statements we can make to the world about the situation in _________, because I believe that it is graver than we have been reading in the papers.

    I think maybe we should be looking at a very strong statement and whether that is making a pitch to ________________ that _________ should be excluded, suspended from _________________, or whether we should echo that opinion in _____ international bodies. Coming up in ___________________ is a meeting of the ______________. That may be an opportunity in _________ to express our outrage. Another opportunity is, _________ is very much looking forward to hosting the 2010 _____________ Games, at which _______ will be the centrepiece of those games. In _________ there is obviously a lot of affection for _______, and if ____ lose their ability to host that games because of the flagrant human rights abuses that are likely taking place in ________, I think it would send a strong message to ____________ that the international community will not stand for this, and there is consequences for their behaviour.

    I think the problem right now is that __________ is going about this in a manner where they believe there is no consequences for their behaviour, and their behaviour is un-democratic and I personally believe there is probably numerous human rights abuses occurring in ___________ and we need to do whatever we can to stop them. We need to use whatever persuasive tool we can to protect our _______ that are in _________, and there is __________ thousands of ______ in Canada, who have loved ones in __________, and this is what this is about. It's about the brothers, the uncles, the ______, the sisters, who are _____________ where ________ could be an issue, where lack of _______ could be an issue, where ___________ could be an issue. There is massive concern and it needs to be addressed.

    Any ideas? Opposition MP or government? Party?

    Thanks for looking!

  12. I've posted an image of a transcript I made of an interview with an MP that I watched on-line, minus the interviewer's questions, here:

    http://static.zooomr.com/images/8702227_04876ee3fa_b.jpg

    I've blacked-out, or 'redacted', many of the details so that it is not too easy to identfy the MP, though the subject of the interview should not be too difficult to guess.

    If no one is able to guess both the story and the MP, I will post a link to a video of the interview and a link to an un-redacted image of the transcript later today.

    Good luck!

  13. I'm her constituent and this issue doesn't make any difference to me either way. Let's hope the giggle factor stays low on this one.

    Could you imagine the comic potential if this issue went before the health committee and the meetings were televised? I can just imagine the squirming of the puritanical MPs as they examine the, ummm ... 'evidence'. I do not mean to make light of the health issue, of course.

  14. My cite is from a translated quote in the House of Commons by the MP André Arthur. Like it or him or not, it came from Hansard. Now, the Hansard quote was possibly copied elsewhere. And Robert, the real question is the content of the quote.

    If it's from Hansard than you should have no trouble finding it and posting a link to it here.

  15. Well then.....you've got a lot more work to do. The natural order of government is to make hundreds of appointments each year. The Conservatives made 410 appointments in 2006 and somewhere close to 1000 in 2007. So let me get this straight - you've found a handful?

    I never said I looked at all the appointments since the Conservatives took office. This handful is just from the latest batch of appointments.

    Quite honestly, you'll find that there are a lot more.....and that's because of the huge number of appointments. I'm not partisan enough to ignore that some favours are being handed out.....loyalty being repaid. I don't have too much of a problem with that as long as the appointees are well qualified.

    You may not have a problem with it, but the Conservatives certainly seemed to have a problem with it when they were campaigning against it.

    Perhaps the Conservatives are not THAT much better than the Liberals but it was pretty common for the Libs to appoint people with no qualifications at all.....and that was really what got people upset.

    The Conservatives ran on the promise of doing much better than the Liberals.

    And if you'll remember, all Parliament had to do was accept Gwyn Morgan as the appointments commissioner - a role he was willing to take on for $1 a year....and we would have had complete transparency in appointing qualified candidates....but as usual, the opposition opposed his appointment as cheap politics and in the process, humiliated Mr. Morgan to the point that why would another candidate want to go through the process?

    I don't understand why accountability depends on this one particular man getting appointment to head the commission. I also don't understand why Mr. Harper is spending $1-million/year on a non-functioning commission.

  16. I posted this quote from Hansard elsewhere:Link

    I realize that the quote concerns judicial appointments but the party contributions are flagrant.

    IMV, Harper has a long, long way to go before he matches Chretien or Trudeau. With that said, I think that we should reign Harper in. He should do better than Mulroney.

    ----

    On a related point, no one has noted how honest this Harper government has been. For the first time in a long time, so far, we do not have ministers involved in scandals of theft.

    I give credit to Harper for this point alone.

    You're quote isn't from Hansard. It's from a blog post apparently made in April 2005:

    angrygwn.blogspot.com/2005/04/number-crunching-judges.html

    I have no doubt that the Liberals made plenty of patronage appointments. The Conservatives are in power now, so I think it's only appropriate that we look at their appointments, particularly considering the promises they made about reforming the appointments process.

    As for scandals... I wonder why Mr. Harper and the Conservatives have not sued Tom Zytaruk over the allegations in his biography of Chuck Cadman that Conservatives offered a $1-million life insurance policy to the terminally-ill independent MP in enchange for voting to bring down the Martin government?

  17. Everything in balance. If you care about environmental issues you need to make sure there is a healthy economy first. You cannot advocate policies that will kill key wealth producing industries without anything more than wishful thinking.

    Sustainable development isn't wishful thinking.

    Communism is an economist philosophy that says that each human is entitled to exactly the same wealth no matter how large or small their contribution to society. By saying that each human is entitled to exactly the CO2 emissions you are arguing that each human is entitled to exactly the wealth. IOW - you are espousing communism. There is simply no other word to describe your philosophy.

    I didn't say that everyone ought to have the same wealth, and I didn't say that everyone should have the same greenhouse gas emissions. I just think greater wealth shouldn't be an excuse for polluting more. You've been arguing that non-polluting energy sources are more expensive than fossil fuels. If that's the case, then the wealthy ought to be able to afford to pollute less.

  18. Producing plastics from plants requires 4x the energy. We will be an energy starved society if we don't use fossil fuels.

    Who are you to judge him?

    So you're saying if we satisfy our material needs we need not have any conscience about the side effects of our choices or the lot of our fellow man?

    Communism is not progress and that is why it is in the dustbin of history.

    I thought branding everyone who disagrees with you a "communist" went out of fashion with Senator Joe McCarthy.

  19. "Probably"?? You do know that plastic is a petroleum byproduct, right? That phone you answered today, yep, plastic. The water bottle you just drank from....plastic. The "environmentally friendly" micro car you bought (yes, even the hybrid)....you'll never guess!!!....made in large part from plastic. Ever fly on a jet? Anywhere? Know what they burn??? Kerosene. Wanna guess where that comes from?

    No. Plastics are not all made from petroleum. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic I'm not saying we're going to phase out fossil fuels overnight, but we ought to be moving in the right direction.

    Ever heard of a little place called Copenhagen? Kyoto maybe? As for consequences, ya, I'll live with them. In front of one of my big screens or while driving one of my two V8 trucks. Hope it doesn't keep me up at night........

    If owning big screens TVs and V8 trucks is all you aspire to, then I guess you'll be happy with that.

  20. It does not make a difference what we do with fossil fuels - renewables are not economic because they require too many inputs for the power they produce.

    Fossil fuels aren't economic. The dirty energy industry dodges paying the true cost and sticks the taxpayer with the bill for undoing the damage they do.

    It is not. Money pays for the social programs and the only way to get that money is to have industries which are net producers of wealth. Subsdized industries are not net producers of wealth.

    How did we manage before the oilsands?

    Any temperature increases will likely be a net benefit to Canada. I do believe that real pollution like tailing ponds need to be dealt with but as long as people obsess about CO2 those kinds of pollution will be ignored. That why I think we should forget about CO2.

    I wonder if Alberta's neighbours in the BC timber industry would agree with you. I understand that rising temperatures has allowed the mountain pine beetle to devastate that industry.

    I am not changing the subject. If it is fair for wealthy people to have better houses and better cars then it is fair for them to pollute more. In fact, it mathematically impossible for wealthy people to pollute no more than average if they consume more than average. That is why I say calling for equal per capita CO2 emissions is the same as calling for equal per capita income.

    The world per capita income is 9K/year. Do you think Canadians should accept that?

    You're making an erroneous assumption that consumption has to lead to pollution. It doesn't have to be that way.

  21. None of them economically viable.

    Not if we stop subsidizing dirty energy and make them responsible for cleaning up their mess.

    It takes dollars to pay for healthcare and other social programs. What are you willing to give up?

    False dichotomy.

    It is the cost of the infrastructure per unit of power delivered that matters. Oil delivers a lot of power with that large infrastructure. The equivalent infrastructure for renewables would have to be much much larger. That is why renewables like wind and solar will never be more than bit players.

    Does your cost include the cost of cleaning up pollution and dealing with problems caused by temperature increases?

    Is it fair for wealthy people to have nicer cars or houses?

    Quit trying to change the subject. Is it fair for wealthy people to pollute more than poor people?

  22. We are already exporting as much electricity as we can. We don't have hydro developments that we did not bother to exploit because we were too busy digging up the oil sands.

    There are many more sources of clean energy than just hydro.

    The bottom line is the oil sands brings in the wealth we use to purchase products from other countries. There is no industry waiting on the sidelines that can replace it. Getting rid of it means we would be poorer.

    So anything that brings us wealth is OK, no matter what the negative effects are down the road? Phasing out dirty energy sources wouldn't make us poorer, and not all wealth is measured in dollars and cents. Clear air, pure water, and un-contaminated land are much less expensive to keep clean than to clean-up after they get contaminated.

    "clean" energy is expensive because it is diffuse and unreliable. This means it requires a large infrastructure to exploit and this infrastructure makes it hugely expensive. These basic laws of physics are not going to change becuase of government subsidies.

    Are you saying that oil doesn't require a large infrastructure? Refineries. Pipelines. Tanker trucks. Gas stations everywhere. We already have electrical infrastructure that goes to most homes. As we saw with the 2002 black-out, our electrical distribution system is in need of an upgrade, so why not use the opportunity to take advantage of the coming increases in demand for electricity from the US?

    Is it fair that some people make more than others?

    That's not the question. The question is: Is if fair for people to pollute more because they are wealthy?

×
×
  • Create New...