Maybe human backdrops aren’t such a great idea.
Should we comment how in the first, earlier set, he notices and appears concerned and in the second he … just keeps talking?
(also: OMG IS THE KID OK?)
(Source: canadianlolitics)
INFOGRAPHIC - From the Globe and Mail - showing you the Canadian Budget breakdown. P.S. for us young people - that 40.4 BILLION reserved for the Elderly is only going up, with the Boomers - so buckle in Gen Y.
I have no other countries to compare this to, but is it me, or does the disparity between corporate income tax and personal income tax seem rather large? Shouldn’t the revenue from corporate taxes be a LITTLE higher than a FOURTH of what comes in from personal income tax?
I feel like I should be reporting more on the robocalls scandal, but I have to admit, so much of it is RHETORIC now, that I can’t bring myself to add to it.
In truth, I don’t think it was a Grand Conservative Conspiracy to Destroy Canada’s democracy, I do find it incredibly concerning.
Not because I think Mr. Harper was involved, or even that it went anywhere that high up, but because really, this is a symptom of a larger problem - that this was even allowed, that someone even thought for a moment it was okay (and I do not for a moment think that any of the contracted companies decided to do this on their own) is a sign of the Conservative Party culture. And that is something Mr. Harper and the other Conservative Party leaders have direct responsibility for. They created a campaign where someone, somehow, thought it was okay to to do this.
And of course, that’s not a thought for rhetoric. Words like ‘destroying our democracy’ is a thought for rhetoric. Slinging mud is for rhetoric, pointing fingers and big passionate words. And when the rhetoric dies down and the investigation comes to a close, Stephen Harper will still be our prime minister, and the Conservative Party will still be what he made it.
A Conservative staffer has resigned following reports that Elections Canada is investigating fake election day phone calls used to keep voters away from polls.
Michael Sona, who until Friday was a staffer in Conservative MP Eve Adams’s office, also worked for Conservative candidate Marty Burke in Guelph, Ont.
Voters in that riding complained they were the target of automated robocalls claiming to be on behalf of Elections Canada that directed them to the wrong polling station. Telling voters to go to the wrong or non-existent polling stations is a voter suppression tactic and illegal under the Elections Act.
Opposition MPs let loose on the Conservative Party on Thursday after an Ottawa Citizen report linked a call centre used by some of their campaigns to the robocalls.
Sona offered his resignation and it was accepted, a source told CBC News.
This, btw, is the bloke who allegedly grabbed a ballot box from the University of Guelph.
Stephen Harper says he was unaware of the robocalls. I believe him, and I’m willing to acknowledge that maybe it shouldn’t be a blackmark against the Conservatives as a whole. After all, they’re a massive party and if a bad egg showed up among the NDP, I’d probably say exactly that.
That said, the Conservatives have given me little reason to be kind and give them the benefit of the doubt. So in this case, my reaction is: this is Stephen Harper’s party (after all, it is the Harper Government) so, he is responsible for what they do.
(Please note that the Globe and Mail changed the title to “Despite Legal About-Face, Harper has ‘No Intention’ of Reopening Gay Marriage)
The Harper government has served notice that thousands of same-sex couples who flocked to Canada from abroad since 2004 to get married are not legally wed.
But speaking in Halifax Thursday, the Prime Minister said the issue was not on the agenda for his majority Conservatives. “We have no intention of further re-opening or opening this issue,” Stephen Harper told reporters when asked about The Globe and Mail’s report.
The reversal of federal policy is revealed in a document filed in a Toronto test case launched recently by a lesbian couple seeking a divorce. Wed in Toronto in 2005, the couple have been told they cannot divorce because they were never really married – a Department of Justice lawyer says their marriage is not legal in Canada since they could not have lawfully wed in Florida or England, where the two partners reside.
“In terms of the specifics of the story this morning, I will admit to you that I am not aware of the details,” Mr. Harper said. “This I gather is a case before the courts where Canadian lawyers have taken a particular position based on the law and I will be asking officials to provide me more details”
The government’s hard line has cast sudden doubt on the rights and legal status of couples who wed in Canada after a series of court decisions opened the floodgates to same-sex marriage. The mechanics of determining issues such as tax status, employment benefits and immigration have been thrown into legal limbo.
Now, I have say I do not like the change on the headline, as evidenced by the fact I kept the old one. I think the fact that Mr. Harper has said he had no intention of reopening same sex marriage question in Canada is news, but it is a story worthy of a separate article. Putting them together makes this less about the issue at hand and more of a “what about me[Canadians]” mindset.
Originally, in fact, when I read this article at work, I intended on posting a second article from a second source about the fact that Stephen Harper had no intention of reopening the debate here at home. However, that’s what you get for not having Tumblr at work. (grin) The news moves on before I have a chance to post on it. However, the point remains that I consider these two connected but separate issues. Connected with a semi-colon, not a comma! Perhaps even a period!
Anyway.
(back on topic, Mei)
This is rather ridiculous. If it is legal for foreigners to marry in Canada and it is legal for people of the same sex to get married in Canada then … uh. Foreigners can come here and get married, regardless of their laws said back home. The laws of one’s country does not follow one into the borders of another.
If this were a man and a woman who were unable to marry in their country due to religious reasons, this wouldn’t even be a question.
Quebec could get new seats when the Conservative government increases representation for the country’s fastest growing provinces, Prime Minister Stephen Harper hinted Friday.
Harper says Quebec’s proportion of seats in the House will remain the same, as his government prepares to give B.C., Alberta and Ontario more MPs to match their rising populations.
The Conservatives have promised to reintroduce legislation to increase the number of seats for the three provinces, but a report in the Globe and Mail said that plan has been delayed because of fears of a backlash in Quebec if it loses ground in Parliament.
On Friday, Harper repeated the party’s position, which was included in its election platform. He said the government made three promises about representation in the House.
“First of all, that we would increase the number of seats now and in the future to better reflect the growth of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, the growth of those provinces and their population,” he said in Peterborough, Ont.
“That secondly, we would make sure that the number of seats for the small provinces did not fall, that they were protected, and that the proportional representation of Quebec would also be protected, proportional according to population. Those are our three commitments, and we intend to bring forward legislation that respects those commitments.”
The party’s platform guarantees the province won’t drop below 75 seats.
Quebec has 75 of 308 seats right now, or 24.4 per cent. July Statistics Canada numbers show Quebec had a population of 7,979,663, or 23.1 per cent of the country’s population.
The new legislation is expected to give an extra 18 seats to Ontario, seven to B.C. and five to Alberta. Those extra 30 seats would leave Quebec with 22.2 per cent of the seats, meaning the government may also have to add new seats for the province.
I am confused.
Currently our House of Commons distribution is more or less based on population, however multiple provinces receive additional seats based on special clauses - the senatorial clause (you can never have less seats than you have senators) and a grandfather clause - a province can never have less seats than it did in 1985, which means that drops in provincial populations after this time are not accounted for.
These rules result in our electoral quotient varies between ~34k ppl per seat in one province to ~118k per seat in another. The “official” quotient (based on the total number of people in Canada divided by 279, the number of seats before the special clauses) is ~113k. Some of the variance is due to the fact we round the number of seats up or down when we do the math, since obviously, none of this fits in perfectly. Most of the variance is due to the special clauses.
Based on the above, Harper’s promises are as follows:
- increase number of seats in Alberta, BC and Ontario to better reflect their growth and population. It’s worth noting that these are the only provinces that are not impacted by the special clauses.
- Protect the number of seats in the smaller provinces. I.E. - don’t do away with the special clauses.
- Protect Quebec’s representation, proportional to population - in a way that is likely difficult due to the other provinces special clauses. It’s worth noting that this is the only province who is receiving this response.
It feels like, in attempting to avoid pissing off the provinces who have benefited from special clauses, and in particular, to avoid pissing off Quebec (which, I suspect Mr. Harper feels increased pressure not to do, with the next election already in mind) that these are half-measures, and will not resolve the basic imbalance of representation, just offer slightly tattered and wilted olive branches to everyone.
TL:DR - Half measures that will hopefully mollify most, but likely will not solve the basic, sticky problem - Our Mr. Harper’s signature move.
It’s just one short paragraph on page 204 of the 642-page Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act. And it does what Stephen Harper has wanted to do for years – eliminate the $2 per-vote taxpayer subsidy for political parties.
On Tuesday, Mr. Harper’s government tabled the bill, fulfilling a promise from the May election to get rid of the taxpayer funding, which is estimated to cost $30-million annually.
It’s a move the Prime Minister has been itching to make but couldn’t because of his minority government. During the spring campaign, he blamed the frequency of elections on the taxpayer subsidy, which he said allowed political parties to get “enormous cheques” whether “they raise money or not.”
He had also tried in 2008 to scrap the subsidies – but it almost brought down his newly-elected government and he had to back off.
Not anymore.
The opposition, not surprisingly, says this is undemocratic.
“Well, we don’t agree with it,” Opposition finance critic Peggy Nash told The Globe on Tuesday. “We think that the more you have public support for electoral funding … the less chance there is for corruption and the influence of big money.”
She added, however, that the NDP do a good job fundraising and are not worried about the move. But it is a challenge for the Liberals, who have struggled over the past few years with raising money.
As mentioned above, this accounts for 30 million dollars of our taxes. Just a few posts ago (okay, almost 20), I was pointing out that a 19.8 million contract (with the theory to save 4 billion dollars by 2014) was small potatoes for a great big rusty machine like our government.
Given that taxes received by the Canadian government is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, I think we could have spared the 30 million. This is more about spin than anything thoroughly productive. (Mr. Harper, I would like to receive an annotated statement as regards to what precisely is being done with that 30 million, ok? thx, Mei)
Further more, while this does account for only a small portion of political party funding, I have to say, I feel incredibly uncomfortable that the one thing that every single person can do for their party (VOTE) regardless of economical situation has been taken away.
Stephen Harper has come to the defence of beleaguered Nova Scotia lieutenant Peter MacKay.
The Defence Minister found himself under attack in the House of Commons on Thursday for racking up nearly $3-million in flights on Challenger jets since he took over the portfolio.
Flight records reviewed by The Globe and Mail show Mr. MacKay outranks all cabinet colleagues aside from Mr. Harper when it comes to ordering federal government executive jets.
It’s the latest piece of bad news for the party’s Atlantic Canadian star, who has been criticized in recent days for enlisting a search-and-rescue helicopter to ferry him from a Newfoundland fishing camp vacation in 2010. The camp is partly owned by a family friend whom the Conservatives appointed as chair of a federal Crown corporation.
Mr. Harper told the Commons that all Mr. MacKay’s Challenger flights were legitimate. “When he has used them, they’ve been for important government business,” the Prime Minister said.
He said half of Mr. MacKay’s flights were to attend repatriation ceremonies at which the remains of fallen soldiers were returned to Canada.
“Half of those flights are for repatriation ceremonies so that he can meet the families of those who have lost their loved ones in the service of this country. He goes there to show that we understand their sacrifice, we share their pain and we care about them,” the Prime Minister said.
“That is why the Minister of Defence is so highly regarded.”
Records show, however, that Mr. MacKay’s office requested the Challenger jets for 35 flights. These are trips on which Mr. MacKay is listed as the main passenger – “VIP” or “user requesting.” Only nine were to attend repatriation ceremonies.
Mr. Harper’s defence compares apples and oranges. It measures a much bigger pool of flights – 110 – that includes those on which the Nova Scotia minister was a passenger on jets ordered by others, such as the military.
If these ride-along trips counted as flights ordered up by Mr. MacKay, his total mileage and costs for the last four years would be far higher than 247 hours and $2.9-million.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said U.S. approval of TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline is a “no-brainer” because it will create jobs and add to America’s secure energy reserves.
“The need for energy in the U.S. is enormous, the alternatives for the U.S. are not good, on every level,” Harper said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. Harper said he’s “confident” the pipeline will be built.
The U.S. may make a final decision on the project this year after the State Department said Aug. 26 it would pose “no significant impacts to most resources” along its route. Environmental groups, along with Hollywood celebrities such as Daryl Hannah, have opposed the pipeline, calling the oil sands a source of “dirty oil.”
Keystone would link Canada’s oil sands to U.S. refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coast. The 2,673-kilometer (1,661-mile) pipeline would begin in Hardisty, Alberta, and cross Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska.
In case there was any concern that Canada’s economy wasn’t yet totally dependent on digging up nonrenewable resources and shipping them in their most unprocessed form to the (economically stagnating) United States - well, don’t worry too much. Apparently, despite the billions of dollars our government spends churning out post-secondary graduates and stabilizing the financial infrastructure, our sole international economic priority right now is pressuring the US government to help us concentrate our economy low-skill labour-intensive (environment-wrecking) primary resource extraction. Awesome.
Dear Mr. Harper:
Oil is not good on every level. The only reason it is “good” to everyone else is that we haven’t found an alternative energy source. The reason we have not found the energy source is there is no large and overriding impetus to do so.* Maybe instead of enabling this “environment-wrecking” energy source, you could lead the charge toward something better.
I suppose that’s asking too much.
Ever so slightly bitter,
Mei
* not that no one is looking or coming up with alternatives, just the world wide shift we need requires impetus. BIG TIME.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he will attend a meeting of leaders in Paris next week to discuss the future of a Libya post-Gadhafi.
Fighters opposing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi made dramatic gains in the capital of Tripoli earlier this week before overruning Gadhafi’s compound. Gadhafi has not be located, but his support appears to have collapsed.
The meeting next Thursday, hosted by Britain and France and being called the Friends of Libya, will include leaders from nations that helped enforced the UN no-fly zone over Libya, along with Russia and China. The leadership of Libyan National Transitional Council are also expected to attend.
