robert_viera

After seeing slightly different figures for the average amount spent on printing by Conservative and opposition MPs in a Le Devoir article, I double-checked my calculations. I first checked the amount for each MP against the 2008-2009 expense report and found no errors. I then checked that I had the correct party for each MP and found one error: I had Joe Comuzzi as a Liberal when he was in fact a Conservative. With that correction, the averages are: $38,735.64 (All Conservative MPs) $18,098.97 (All Liberal, Bloc, and NDP MPs) $49,415.56 (108 Conservative MPs who served for the full fiscal year) $22,752.35 (130 Liberal, Bloc, and NDP MPs who served for the full fiscal year) These averages do not include the expenses of the 4 independent MPs. The averages in the Le Devoir article seem to have included 2 of the independent MPs (Bill Casey and Louise Thibault) in the Conservative average and the other 2 independent MPs (Andre Arthur and Blair Wilson) in the opposition average.

Householders and ten-percenters come under the heading 'Goods and Services Provided by the House'. MPs don't report these expenses, the House administration keeps track of them.

You don't have to believe them. They're fact. The source: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/GeneraLInformation/MembersExpenses-2008-2009-e.pdf http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/GeneraLInformation/MembersExpenses-2007-2008-e.pdf

I too saw the item about ten-percenters on Power Play. One MP who was being interviewed, Paul Dewar, was one of the top ten spenders on householders and ten-percenters in 2007-2008. When I first started receiving ten-percenters I did what I think most people do, which is to take a quick look at them and then put them in the recycling bin. I later decided to start collecting them. I have about 25 from my local Conservative MP and 2 from Liberal MPs in other ridings. 18 of the Conservative ten-percenters include a mock ballot with the names of the party leaders and a handwritten instruction to 'Check One' with an arrow pointing to Stephen Harper's name. I noticed a small change in the most recent one I received: the mock ballot was still there, the handwritten 'Check one' was still there, but the little arrow pointing to Stephen Harper's name was gone. Could this change be a subtle acknowledgement by the Conservatives that they broke the rules in past ten-percenters?

Last year's top 10: 2007-2008 Vic Toews $99580 Conservative Provencher Olivia Chow $86030 NDP Trinity - Spadina Patrick Brown $79538 Conservative Barrie Laurie Hawn $76399 Conservative Edmonton Centre Guy Lauzon $72410 Conservative Stormont - Dundas - South Glengarry Lee Richardson $70940 Conservative Calgary Centre Paul Dewar $70860 NDP Ottawa Centre Joy Smith $68644 Conservative Kildonan - St. Paul Bruce Stanton $66770 Conservative Simcoe North Cheryl Gallant $66553 Conservative Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke

This years top 10 MPs who spent the most on householders and ten-percenters: 2008-2009 Rick Norlock $87749 Conservative Northumberland - Quinte West Helena Guergis $86808 Conservative Simcoe - Grey Laurie Hawn $85989 Conservative Edmonton Centre Vic Toews $85940 Conservative Provencher Peter Goldring $85234 Conservative Edmonton East Peter Van Loan $83531 Conservative York - Simcoe Russ Hiebert $81888 Conservative South Surrey - White Rock - Cloverdale Barry Devolin $80470 Conservative Haliburton - Kawartha Lakes - Brock Patrick Brown $79195 Conservative Barrie Olivia Chow $78605 NDP Trinity - Spadina

Frequent flyers costly Printing spree price tag is $10M By ELIZABETH THOMPSON, NATIONAL BUREAU http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2009/11/07/11666131-sun.html

I don't think 'smart' is the word the average taxpayer would use to describe this kind of spending. We're always hearing what great fund-raisers the Conservatives are, yet their MPs are using the taxpayers' funds to get their message out more than any other party. Since most MPs are not cabinet ministers managing departmental budgets, these expense reports allow us to get an idea of how well our MP manages the taxpayers' money.

It may seem like small potatoes when the taxpayer is footing the bill, but if the Conservative Party had to pay for what their MPs spent on these partisan mailings it would have used up 30% of the funds the Conservative Party raised in the same period.

Whenever I see an article in the news about those taxpayer-funded mailings from MPs that fill our mailboxes with partisan propaganda, I see the same types of responses from Conservative supporters: 1) All parties do it. 2) Anecdotal stories about receiving mailings from opposition MPs. 3) Claiming that the mailings aren't partisan and are just sent out to keep constituents informed. Response #1 is of course true, but it does not address the degree to which the various parties use or abuse this privilege. Response #2 may also be true, but tells us little about the overall picture. Response #3 usually comes from those sending-out the mailings or their supporters. On Wednesday, MP expense figures for the fiscal year 2008-2009 were made available on the web site of the Parliament of Canada: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/GeneraLInformation/MembersExpenses-2008-2009-e.pdf The 2008-2009 expense figures show that a total of $10,062,553 was spent by MPs on these mailings, which come under the heading "Printing". Of this, Conservative MPs were responsible for $6,255,368 or 62% of total spending on these mailings. Liberal MPs spent $1,591,684 (15.8%). Bloc MPs spent $1,092,690 (10.9%). NDP MPs spent $1,100,016 (10.9%). Independent MPs spent $22,801 (0.2%). Conservative MPs held only 41.2% of the seats in the House of Commons in the first part of the fiscal year and 46.4% of seats after the election. If those figures don't convince you that Conservative MPs are disproportionately (ab)using these mailings, consider these figures: Of the MPs with the highest "Printing" expenses, 61 out of the top 65 are Conservatives. The average spending on these mailings by Conservative MPs was $38,853.22. The average for the rest of the MPs was $17,874.14. If you consider the average spending on "Printing" of only the MPs who served for the full fiscal year the disparity is even greater: $49,415.56 for Conservative MPs vs. $22,438.18 for all other MPs.

The riding association president's facebook page, including a photo of him with Jason Kenney and Patrick Brown: http://www.facebook.com/sarfraz.warraich

More subsidies for the biofuel industry in the 4th quarter of 2008-2009 courtesy of our federal government: Source: http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...2009&qrt=04The 'robots.txt' file seems to have been removed from the www2.nrcan.gc.ca web site, but I still can't find much information using Google.

My MP here in Barrie, Patrick Brown, was apparently involved in a failed scheme to get jobs for immigrants from Korea just prior to his becoming MP. The immigrants paid between $7,000 and $13,400 to an immigration firm called ULSC Immigration Consulting and Mr. Brown was apparently the person in Canada that was supposed to help them get high-paying truck driving jobs. According to an article in the Toronto Star, the jobs 'evaporated' when the Koreans got to Canada. Apparently an immigration consultant named Yolanda Simao picked-up the challenge of getting jobs for the Koreans when Mr. Brown "ceased being part of the picture", and wound up being reprimanded by her professional association. It was in Ms. Simao's disciplinarly file that I read about Mr. Brown's involvement. I guess Mr. Brown was too busy running for office to fufil his obligation to these immigrants? I wonder how much he got paid? The Star article is here: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/226062 The disciplinary file is here: http://www.csic-scci.ca/images/Image/2007-...l_%20080317.pdf More comments and excerpts from the above documents are here: http://forums.simcoemediagroup.com/yabb/Ya...?num=1221060075

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

You can call it bullying if you want, but the incident described in those articles clearly does not meet the key elements of the definition of bullying. I suspect the protest organizers and the Globe and Mail author have their own agendas and are misusing the term to stir up support for those agendas by trying to elicit sympathy from people who actually have been bullied. It's not acceptable to get punched in the face, but being the instigator of a fight does not necessarily make you a bully. You diminish the suffering of children who have been the victim of bullies when you broaden the definition of bullying to include any schoolyard brawl. The only difference apparent in the articles between this fight and any other schoolyard brawl seems to be the racial comment made by the non-Asian boy. Racist, sure. Bullying, no.

I think we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes bullying. You seem to believe that if the other boy threw the first punch, that makes him a bully. I don't think that is enough to constitute bullying. Here is a definition of 'bully' from dictionary.com: The are two key elements to this definition: The recurring (habitual) nature of the bully's actions and the disparity in size or strength between the bully and the bully's victim. Nowhere in any of the articles does it say that the other boy had punched, taunted, or racially insulted the Asian boy or anyone else prior to this incident. In addition, none of the articles state that the other boy had an advantage in size or strength over the Asian boy. If anything, the Asian boy seems to believe that his black belt inspires fear, or at least respect, in his fellow students: Source: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009...pf-9272411.html

What do a boy's grades in science, French, and math have to do with his social behaviour or his ability to deal with conflict non-violently? Are you saying that students who don't get high grades are more likely to be troublemakers? To be clear, the article does not say that the boy has never been in a fight before. The article states that the boy said he has never been in a fight before. Remember, we're only hearing one side of the story here. The article states that the Asian boy said "...he deserved it because he called me the racial comment". It doesn't say "...he deserved it because he struck me first". The statement shows that the Asian boy believes that a racial comment is sufficient justification for a broken nose. Why are you calling the other boy a bully when the Asian boy himself has refuted the claim that he was bullied? None of the articles claim that the other boy bullied the Asian boy, or anyone else.

I have a few observations after reading the articles at the start of this thread. A number of people have referred to "bullying" or have referred to the non-Asian boy in this incident as the "bully". According to the articles, the claim of "bullying" was made by protest organizers and not the Asian boy, who actually refuted that claim: Source: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009...pf-9272411.htmlThe additional claim of "racism all year" is also refuted by the comments of the Asian boy and his family: Source: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009...pf-9272411.html Source: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009...pf-9272411.htmlAccording to the articles, the Asian boy is 15 years old. Isn't that a bit old for grade 9? I find it a bit troubling that the articles go out of their way to mention the Asian boy's high marks. I don't see how his grades are relevant to this incident. Are we supposed to believe that kids who get good grades can't do wrong or be violent? In the Globe and Mail article the Asian boy's parents state that their son "struggled a little socially". In the same article the Asian boy is quoted saying "I felt sorry because I broke his nose, but I can say he deserved it because he called me the racial comment". I think we need to take a good look our anti-racism education if it has led this boy to believe that a racial comment is ample justification for the results of his actions: a broken nose (and a possible concussion according to one of the articles). Most importantly, none of these articles have the other boy's side of this story. Until we hear that, I don't think we can judge.

So you can support what the troops do (in general), without supporting what they're actually doing (i.e. a specific mandate from the government)?

I was checking the Natural Resources web site today and found that one of the entries that had disappeared from the public disclosure section dealing with grants for the 3rd quarter of 2008-2009 has re-appeared: Recipient Name ROTHSAY BIODIESEL MEMBER OF MAPLE LEAF FOODS,INC Location GUELPH, ONTARIO, CANADA Date 2008-12-02 Value $39,200,000.00 Type: Contribution (Non-Repayable) Purpose: Operating Incentive to support a renewable alternative to diesel project. Comments: - Grant or contribution awarded and spanning more than one fiscal year. http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...356&strt=41 Here are the URLs for the rest (still missing): http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...422&strt=31 http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...375&strt=31 http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...373&strt=41 http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...339&strt=71 http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...352&strt=71 http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...353&strt=71 http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...354&strt=81 http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...324&strt=81 http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...356&strt=41 http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/dgc-dposc/index.cf...330&strt=81 Stll no information for the 4th quarter of 2008-2009 yet.

If you know that soldiers carry out the government's foreign policy (without question), can you "support the troops" without also supporting the government's foreign policy?

I thought computers were the new IDIOT BOXes? Isn't Youtube the new boob tube? On a more serious note, I was wondering if these proposed "carriage fees" would be optional. If you didn't wish to receive a particular local over-the-air channel on your cable/satellite receiver, would you be able to opt out of paying the carriage fee?

Perhaps they need to come up with a new high-tech name for TV. Perhaps more people would watch if they called it "Non-IP Wired/Wireless Multi-Channel Video Streaming"?

It looks like Patrick Brown got his chance to question the chair of the CRTC at a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Here is a link to the Hansard record of Mr. Brown's question(s): http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...s=2#Int-2675158 For a different account of Mr. Brown's questions at the heritage committee, see Mr. Brown's web site: http://www.servingbarrie.com/EN/media_cent...sion_in_canada/ I watched the video of that committee meeting on the ParlVU web site, and found that Hansard's record was accurate, but the quotes posted on Mr. Brown's web site were not an accurate record of what he said: http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/ContentEnt...ntEntityId=4218 The quotes on Mr. Brown's web site include statements that aren't in Hansard or in the video, and they refer to the CRTC chair as Mr. von Finkelstein, instead of Mr. von Finckenstein. For more details, see: http://forums.simcoemediagroup.com/yabb/Ya...?num=1239292399

I decided to see if I could find any of the information that seems to have gone missing from the public disclosure section of Natural Resources Canada's web site, but could find nothing using Google Cache or Archive.org. The error message I got from Archive.org provides some insight: For those of you not familiar with 'robots.txt' files, they allow web site administrators to instruct search engines not to index web sites, or particular portions of web sites, so that they don't show up in search results. Here are the contents of robots.txt file on the Natural Resources Canada web site that contains the public disclosure information: Source: http://www2.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/robots.txt Those directives instruct search engines not to index any of that web site, including the public disclosure information. I decided to do a survey of other government web sites that contain public disclosure information to see if they instructed search engines not to index that information. I checked for a robots.txt file in the top-level folder of each of the web sites listed at the following web site: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pd-dp/gr-rg/index-eng.asp What I found was that most of the web sites containing public disclosure information either did not have a robots.txt file (at least not in the top-level folder), or did not instruct search engines not to index the part of the web site containing public disclosure information. Here are the exceptions: I've included only the lines relevant to the public disclosure information from the robots.txt files. Here are some more web sites which either exclude only part of the public disclosure section of the web site from being indexed by search engines, or which exclude folders whose names suggest public disclosure information: