Sunday, May 31, 2009
And today, 13 years later Bob Rae spills the beans. Those rules are unfair, and are a matter of national unity. However, they are only a temporary matter of national unity, as Michael Ignatieff has called for qualifying rules to be changed temporarily. What is even more confusing is those changes were put in place with an unemployment rate of 10%, versus 8% today. Those changes were put in place to create a surplus of money for the general revenues of the government. Today the Liberal's think money should be taken from general revenues for the fund. When those rules were put in place, the Liberal's lowered the maximum weekly benefit from $448 to $413. Who do you think would have been most affected by that change. I'm guessing it would have been middle and upper income earners, mostly in Ontario and Quebec.
Everything I have mentioned serves the purpose of showing what hypocrites both Bob Rae and the Liberal Party are. And this latest comment from Rae just goes to show Liberal's have no limits on hypocrisy. Liberal's call the PM divisive for his strong comments about the Bloc being seperatists. But that's what they are, devisive. They want to divide Canada up. Ignatieff himself finally stated that in May, when he dismissed the coalition as wrong because of the Bloc being a partner in the deal. Of course at the time the coalition was formed he called them duly elected and deserved to have their voice heard.
And today, we have Bob Rae screaming National Unity crisis, because of rules his own party put in place. Mr. Rae points to some provincial premiers coming out in favor of changes. Gee Bob, do you think that might be because they could lower their provincial welfare costs if more people got E.I. Then again, Bob Rae isn't smart enough to figure that out. As Ontario premier, during a financial recession, with more people going on welfare daily, he decided to hike the monthly rate paid.
How'd that work out for ya Bob?
Friday, May 29, 2009
"The department's monthly fiscal monitor shows government revenues hit a wall in March as corporations began taking large refunds on prepaid tax, and more laid-off Canadians stopped paying taxes.
The net effect was that Ottawa lost $3.6 billion in March, closing the books on the 2008-2009 fiscal year $2.2 billion in the hole."
Now I'm guessing that it will be no time at all before Ignatieff, Goodale, and Chevy McCallum are puffing their chest screaming that this is further proof of the finance ministers incompetence. But I think this might be one of those times where they might want to keep their mouth's shut. March is traditionally a bad month for the government in terms of deficit.
And as proof I present Exibit "A"
-There was a budgetary deficit of $1.2 billion in March 2008
-There was a budgetary deficit of $0.4 billion in March 2007
-There was a budgetary deficit of $1.1 billion in March 2006
-There was a budgetary deficit of $9.5 billion in March 2005
-There was a budgetary deficit of $1.2 billion in March 2004
-There was a budgetary deficit of $4.4 billion in March 2003
-There was a budgetary deficit of $4.9 billion in March 2002
-There was a budgetary deficit of $0.5 billion in March 2001
-There was a budgetary deficit of $31 million in March 2000
-There was a budgetary deficit of $1.7 billion in March 1999
-There was a budgetrary deficit of $1.8 billion March 1997
-There was a bugetary deficit of $1.1 billion in March 1996.
All figures taken from the Fiscal Monitor. No results from previous years available. Conservative deficits in blue, Liberal deficits in red.
"Some consider Trudeau's economic policies to have been a weak point. Inflation and unemployment marred much of his time as PM. When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18 billion (24% of GDP) which was largely left over from World War II; when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200 billion (46% of GDP), an increase of 83% in real terms.
Now also keep in mind what $200 billion in debt would factor out to today using inflation over all those years. Imagine all the wonderful Liberal socialist programs we could have if we weren't paying interest on Trudeau's debt for the last 25 years. Why they might have been able to put in a National Daycare program.
And debt is not the only Liberal record that is impeachable. Double-digit unemployment, sky-high interest rates, wage and price controls (the ones Trudeau said he would never do), corruption. The list goes on. I don't know how Michael Ignatieff could be so ignorant as to not be aware of the actual Liberal record.
Then again, Ignatieff left Canada in 1969, one year after Trudeau first took power, and only returned in 2005. I guess Bob Rae and Joe Volpe were right, you really do miss out on things by not being here.
Update: H/T Wilson:
" From Hebert today:'...Over the course of 11 years of mostly Liberal rule, Canada raked in 10 surprise surpluses for an official total of $85 billion worth of unexpected federal revenues. In a 2008 analysis, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada found that if the governments of the day had not gone on year-end spending 'sprees, that windfall would have totalled $135 billion.""
Hmmm, $135 billion minus $85 billion. That works out to $50 billion.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
"According to the fund's annual report just released by the CPP Investment Board, David Denison, the president and CEO of the CPP, along with his top four executives, will take home a total $8.5 million in pay and bonuses for the 2009 fiscal year.
Additionally, the executives are due another $7 million in long-term awards that will be paid out over the next three fiscal years.
Denison earned a total of $2.9 million in the last fiscal year -- down 30 per cent from $4.2 million the prior year -- including a base salary of $490,000, an annual bonus of $735,000 and "long-term incentive plan" awards of $1.6 million.
He also earned $59,023 in pension contributions and $9,571 in other benefits, which the CPPIB said include life insurance, disability benefits, and health and dental plan costs. "
Now I know the argument for the bonuses is going to be that they have contracts that were previously signed and must be honored. The problem is the workers at GM, Chrysler, Air Canada, and a bevy of other companies have been forced to give up concessions, even though some of the previous contracts were signed just months ago.
The other problem I have is rewarding failure. The CPP fund lost billions of dollars from the market meltdown. How that equates to a performance bonus is beyond me. I do know that the salaries of these exec's comes from the plan itself and not government revenues. But that just makes it worse as the average Canadian looking at that deduction on their pay stub every week will be livid knowing these bonuses are being paid.
I know this is Canada and we tend to bitch to ourselves rather than those who deserve it, but I would imagine that if there was a major public backlash like what happened in the States with A.I.G exec's bonuses, either the exec's or those above them would do the right thing and roll back the bonuses.
Now I admit I don't even know if this is even possible under Parliament rules. The major reason for the unexpected increase in the federal budget is a result of the additional money required for the GM and Chrysler bailout. Mr. Ignatieff has had a free ride over the auto-sector bailouts. In fact, I can't remember the last time any journalist even asked him about it. Same for Jack Layton. They have a free ride to critcize the government for increased funding with absolutely no blowback to themselves or their parties. So here is the plan.
The Conservative's can state that the January budget only included set amounts for the auto sector bailout, and that because of the large increase in funding and opposition outrage over the inflated yearly deficit, they put forth a new stimulus bill (something John "Chevy" McCallum) has called for in the past) in the house including additional auto sector funding. The bill would be a money bill and would therefore be a confidence vote.
Jack Layton would be hard pressed to vote against it. Michael Ignatieff might vote against it, but in doing so would lose all that free union support and advertising, and voting against it would cost him votes in southern Ontario cities and towns that rely heavily on the auto sector for jobs. Duceppe would vote against it because the auto sector is mostly in Ontario, and outside of Quebec's borders he views any federal spending as a waste.
If it passes, which I think it would, the opposition will have effectively endorsed the increased deficit.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
On the other hand, Ignatieff thinks enough of Drummond's skills that he has consulted him on the Liberal platform involving Canada's economy. So I wonder if Mr. Ignatieff will now dismiss Don Drummond as incompetent for getting his figures off by $10 billion in two months?
Monday, March 16, 2009
The recession is going to force the federal government much deeper into deficit than it forecast in its last budget, according to the Toronto-Dominion bank."The result is [an] all-time high deficit of $39.2 billion in fiscal 2009-10 and $42.3 billion in fiscal 2010-11," said Toronto-Dominion chief economist Don Drummond in a statement.
"[It's] well above the red ink of $33.7 billion and $29.8 billion shown in the budget. Still, as a share of GDP, the budget shortfalls will be considerably lower than the 5-8% levels recorded during the 1980s and early 1990s."
p.s. This post is not meant to disparage Don Drummond, who I think is one of the best economists in our country. What it is meant to do is show the top experts in finance are still struggling to figure out what's going to happen, Flaherty included.
"Gerard Kennedy for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Has a ring to it, right about now. I haven’t been enthusiastic about Gerard for the past few months, mainly because of some of the MPs who supported him. As Calgary Grit told me, you can’t always choose your supporters. True enough. As of right now, Gerard Kennedy is the guy who most deserves to be the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He deserves to win. If I was a delegate, I’d sure as Hell be voting for him. What he has done, here took guts, and character, and leadership – something the Liberal Party of Canada desperately needs. Canada, too. Gerard will be under tremendous pressure from the elites to reverse his position, or qualify it. I don’t think he will. On Sunday, I communicated with many of the senior people around him. They say he will not reverse his position, as others have done this week. Folks, this is a big, big development. One week from now, I think this guy just might be the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada! "
Bet Iggy appreciates the endorsement.
November 09, 2006
Never Retreat, Never Explain, Never Apologize
On Tuesday, The Canadian Press reported "Michael Ignatieff's front-running Liberal leadership campaign was dinged $1,000 yesterday for making unsubstantiated accusations of fraud against chief rival Bob Rae." But the party's permanent appeal committee also chastised the campaign for the "inflammatory tone of the notice of appeal filed in this matter. The notice of appeal contains numerous allegations of fraud, many of which even if proven would have been entirely irrelevant. However, no attempt was made in the course of the hearing to prove even one of those allegations. Regrettably, and contrary to the Rules of the Permanent Appeals Committee, the notice of appeal found its way into the public domain well before our hearing, and the unproven allegations have been the subject of considerable media comment, to the detriment of a number of individuals, campaigns, and the Party." Which makes one wonder, will Mr. Ignatieff's organizers be issuing an apology to the Rae campaign - specifically former British Columbia chair Mason Loh?
In an interview with Public Eye, press secretary Alicia Johnson answered that question this way: "The party has asked us, as per the appeal process, not to speak to the media about it." But, so far, no apology has been forthcoming. And none is expected. Although our understanding is that there may be some regrets about the language that was used in the appeal.
I could provide a link to Warren's blog, but really, is that a nice way to treat people?
What Warren has done though is give me inspiration for my next blog post. Be sure and read.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
So it seems that a Liberal Senator has put forth a bill in senate that would effectively gag any party from running political ads three months prior to an election being called.
I'm sure this can't be in anyway related to the new Conservative ads aimed at Michael Ignatieff. After all, why would you ban something that you keep repeating is not working? And I would imagine that as Liberal Party leader, Ignatieff is on side with this proposed legislation.
So here are a few questions I would have for Mr. Ignatieff and the senator putting forth the bill.
1. Say you had a provincial Premier, let's call him, uh, Danny Williams. If he ran political ads three months before an election which party would have those expenses applied to their campaign limit?
2. Say you had a group of people, let's call them the Ontario Teachers Union, who ran political ads three months before an election. Which party would have those expenses applied to their campaign limit.
3. Say you had a disgruntled group of income trust people, let's call them Caiti, who run ads in farmers fields in the Finance Ministers office three months before an election. Which party would have those expenses charged to their campaign limit?
4. What if you had a party leader so enamored with himself sitting beside the POTUS, he decided to spend money to get his mug featured on Times Square three months before an election. Which party gets those expenses charged to their campaign limit.
5. Duhhhh, YouTube. 'Nuff said.
So as you can see, this new gag law has a hole as big as the years Iggy spent out of Canada from being enforceable.
"Former NHL player Peter Zezel passed away at a Toronto hospital on Tuesday at the age of 44, after a long battle with a blood disorder.
Zezel spent the last 10 years being treated for haemolytic anaemia, a rare disorder in which red blood cells are destroyed faster than the body can replace them.
His family released the following statement:
"Peter will forever be remembered as a great teammate and a wonderful individual, who touched the lives of many both on and off the ice. In his typical character of generosity, Peter has donated his organs through the Trillium Gift of Life Network. We would like to thank all of Peter's friends and family for their support and we ask for privacy during this difficult time."
The Toronto native played 15 seasons in the National Hockey League with the Philadelphia Flyers, St. Louis Blues, Washington Capitals, Toronto Maple Leafs, Dallas Stars, New Jersey Devils and Vancouver Canucks."
David Miller. Dink of the Day
Monday, May 25, 2009
After all the controversy over allegations Ruby Dhalla mistreated caregivers, I can't help but think iRuby is getting a little joy from this story.
"When I left, there was the Liberal Party van parked sideways across six handicap parking spaces, with cones and ribbons around it lest any handicapped driver get any ideas."
"Hit with massive layoffs in the auto sector, Ontarians still need 420 hours of work to qualify for EI, which Duncan said is too many.
"The rules that are in place now were set a time when the economy was very different," he added."
Yes Mr. Duncan, the rules were set at a time when the economy was very different. It was set at a time when unemployment was 2% higher than it is today. And the three years following those changes saw an unemployment rate higher than today. As a matter of fact Mr. Duncan, under that system, Ontarian's now need less hours to qualify, as the Ontario unemployment rate under both you and Dalton McGuinty has sharply risen, lowering the number of hours needed in your province to qualify for benefits.
Then again, as finance minister you should have known that, but apparently didn't.
And that makes you, Dwight Duncan, the Dink Of The Day.
E.I. Surplus Under Liberal Changes- $57 Billion, Iggy Threatening An Election Over Said Changes- Priceless
Make no mistake Mr. Prime Minister, if you do not make the changes to correct the mistakes of my party, the Liberal Party of Canada, I will mess with you until I'm done:
"The surplus began to swell in 1997, a year after the federal government imposed new criteria that made it harder for jobless workers to collect benefits.
At the same time, the government created a new system of setting premiums so that the fund would accumulate healthy surpluses to cushion contributors and the unemployed in economic hard times.
Under the EI scheme, employers pay 60 per cent and employees contribute 40 per cent.
After the federal government implemented new rules in 1996, the balance in the EI account reached $12 billion in 1997, falling within the $10-billion to $15-billion cushion recommended by the fund’s chief actuary.
In subsequent years, contributions to the fund continued to exceed benefits paid out, with the surplus reaching $57 billion by 2008.
Actually Mr. Ignatieff, the PM has made changes to E.I, to make the system fairer to those paying premiums aas well as employers:
"The last federal budget, delivered in February 2008, announced the establishment of a new Crown corporation to administer the employment insurance system. It will restrict the use of premiums for employment insurance only and limit them to the amount needed to cover the cost of benefits, plus a $2-billion cushion. However, there was no move to repay the $54 billion.
The Canadian Institute of Actuaries called on the Harper government Thursday to make good on the budget announcement. But president Michael Hale said that the government needs to keep a contingency reserve of $10-$15 billion.
“In the midst of a recession, the institute believes that the federal government should improve the rules adopted in its 2008 budget, by establishing a system such that EI premium rates will not have to be increased to deal with rising unemployment costs,” he said in a statement.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Is that some type of Harvard talk? What exactly does it mean?
"Until I'm done"
Until what, you need a nap? A cup of latte? Getting on a flight to Bermuda? Decided I can't win and am going back home to the States?
People who aren't tough shouldn't try and act tough, otherwise you just end up looking like a poser dufus.
"Speaking in Gander, N.L. Saturday, Ignatieff said the prime minister must learn, "If you mess with me, I will mess with you until I'm done."
"Don't trifle with me. Don't try this rough stuff with me," he added Sunday.
The Conservatives have launched an Internet and television ad campaign attacking Ignatieff for his lengthy time out of the country, and attempt to portray Ignatieff as an out-of-touch elitist.
The ads point out his 34 years spent teaching and writing in the U.S. and Britain and say he will go back to Harvard University if he doesn't become prime minister.
Ignatieff has responded with an Internet ad saying that Harper is smearing all new Canadians with the attack ads. "
It seems wherever Iggy goes, he talks tough about those non-effective ads. I wouldn't be surprised if he complained to the cabana boy while in Bermuda that the PM better not mess with him. And Iggy isn't scaring anyone with his Rambo imitation. In fact, judging by comments I've seen, he is embarrassing himself.
Maybe Iggy should just get it over with. Jump in the Bimmer with Biff and head back to Harvard now.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is an 8% unemployment rate not more desirable than a 9.7% rate? My reason for asking is this. When the current qualifying rules were put in place under a Liberal government headed by Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, the unemployment rate was 9.7%. As a matter of fact, when the Liberals first started to study the system in order to make changes in 1996, the unemployment rate was above 10%. And save for four months in late 1998, the unemployment rate was consistently higher than today's rate, starting in 1995, when the Liberals said the plan needed changes, to 1999. As a matter of fact, Canada had higher unemployment rates in the early 2000's than we face today. why was Iggy, or any Liberal for that matter, not arguing in favor of changes then?
Surely it had nothing to do with the fact the Liberal party balanced the budget on the backs of the unemployed with those changes made in 1996. Apparently what was prudent fiscal management and a qualifying system that was fair for Canada only applied with a Liberal government in office. Now that the Conservative's are in office, those Liberal qualifying rules are mean-spirited, and need to be changed immediately with an unemployment rate 2% lower than when the Liberals changed the system.
Anyone wanting a look at the unemployment rate over the years can do so here:
Perhaps some journalist, any journalist, might be frank enough to point this information out to Mr. Ignatieff, except for Jane Taber of course, who appears just days away from being served a restraining order for stalking Mr. Ignatieff. Iggy, that noise in the bushes isn't the wind. Be afraid, be very afraid. Think Fatal Attraction.
Courtesy of ChuckerCanuck and Joanne at Blue Like You, it appears Iggy has now gone into Rambo mode, with this scary quote: "if you mess with me, I will mess with you until I'm done.''
Sorry Iggy, but I don't think the PM will be losing any sleep over that one. Perhaps you should be worrying about more important things, like putting aloe on that nasty burn you probably got in Bermuda. Or figuring out a way to explain to Canadian's why the Liberal's put the current E.I. qualifying rules in with an unemployment rate of 10%, and why you think the rules are unfair at 8%.
Because I have a feeling your going to get called on that soon.
p.s. Algonquin Park is beautiful this time of year, and I'm sure Canadian's would have been more impressed to see you spend you stimulus dollars here, rather than the country Paul Martin set up and uses as a tax haven for CSL.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
After this bit here :"Coming in a distant second is Prime Minister Stephen Harper, at 11 per cent. Jean Chrétien is third at 9 per cent and Brian Mulroney is next at 8 per cent," the rest of the story attacks Harper. Oddly, little attention was paid to the fact the PM beat Chretien, Martin, Mulroney, Clark?, Turner, and Campbell, as the 2nd choice for Canadian's as best PM. And I'm sure if you took Trudeau's Quebec home advantage out of the equation, PM Harper would be #1.
It's this type of pathetic petty journalism that the Star and other MSM outlets finding their importance and credibility rapidly dwindling.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Warren's latest diatribe to show Conservative's as hypocrites for noting Ignatieff's time out of Canada, is to try and compare certain Conservative MP's in the same light as Iggy. First problem is none of these MP's will be running for the job of PM. The second, and bigger problem, is the fact Warren has just reinforced the Conservative argument Ignatieff is out of touch with Canada. From Warren:
"Thursday, May 21, 2009, 03:39 AM
• ABLONCZY, The Hon. Diane, P.C., B.Ed., LL.B. Date of Birth: 1949.05.06. Place of Birth: Peoria, Illinois, United States.
• MARK, Inky, B.A., B.Ed. Date of Birth: 1947.11.17. Place of Birth: Toysun, China.
• OBHRAI, Deepak. Date of Birth: 1950.07.05. Place of Birth: Oldeani, Tanzania.
• SHORY, Devinder. Date of Birth: 1958.08.03. Place of Birth: Punjab, India.
• TOEWS, The Hon. Vic, P.C., B.A., LL.B. Date of Birth: 1952.09.10. Place of Birth: Fildelfia, Paraguay.
• WONG, Alice, Ph.D. Date of Birth: 1948.06.30. Place of Birth: Hong Kong."
Now here is where Warren's argument blows up.
- Diane Ablonczy has made Canada home since 1950.
- Inky Mark has made Canada home since 1953.
- Deepak Obhrai has made Canada home since 1977
- Devinder Shory has made Canada home since the mid 80's
- Vic Toews has made Canada home since 1956.
- Alice Wong has made Canada home since 1980
Michael Ignatieff has made Canada home since November 2005!
1. Wrap self in the Canadian flag
2. Arrange for book signings
3. Calculate days to pension entitlement (2012)
4. Hire some creepy guys to dream up attack ads for Harper
5. Promote book
6. Hire new eyebrow stylist
7. Plant trees in the oil sands
8. Research Trudeau's vision for Canada; select talking points
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Please be careful with this information, as these ideas could obviously wreak havoc on the markets in the wrong hands.
Update: My apologies to C.C. who did a similar post on Joanne and Jack's blogs previously. That's probably where I came up with this in my head. So tip of the hat to C.C.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
"I'm not going to attack Mr. Harper personally. I don't expect he should attack me."
Monday, May 18, 2009
- In 1996 Canada had an unemployment rate near 10%
- It was at this time your Liberal party made changes to employment insurance
- Lowered the maximum weekly rate from $448 to $413
- Cut the maximum number of benefit weeks payable, from 50 to 45
- Increased premium rates for employers and workers
- Cut $2 billion out of the E.I. system
- Set 58 different standards for E.I. eligibility
- Set the lowest qualifying rate at 420 hours
- The maximum E.I yearly payroll deduction was raised dramatically
- Made new entrants or re-entrants to the labour market be required to work 910 hours in order to be eligible
So you see Mr. Ignatieff, at a time when Canadian's faced an unemployment rate 2% higher than today's, your party, the Liberal Party of Canada, made it harder to collect E.I., paid less, for shorter periods, and instead of putting those surplus premiums into job training, redirected those funds to general revenues, where we were blessed with such things as a canoe museum in Shawinigan, and three new Bombardier jets for the PM.
So the next time you are sitting in the House of Commons and start talking about being mean-spirited, you might be better off looking at the person next to you, or the ones sitting behind you, rather than the ones across the floor.
Update: Here is a great clip from a young? Peter Mansbridge on CBC in 1996:
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Liberals are calling for a national rate of 360 hours, rather an odd figure when you consider the lowest number of hours required to qualify for benefits now is 420, a rate set by Liberals. The cost of such a change would be in the range of $1.5 billion per year. Now I am in favor in some changes, as is the current government. and I won't even go into the fact that had the Liberal governments of Chretien/Martin not taken $55 billion from the E.I. fund and put it into general revenues, the money would be there for these changes.
What I would like Ignatieff or Goodale to tell me is exactly what number of unemployed did you need to demand E.I. changes, because when thousands of Canadian's were losing their jobs under your government, I don't recall you speaking of a national rate. As an example, here are some numbers from StatsCan. 258,000 jobs lost, the majority in Ontario and Quebec.
Total % Job Loss
Job loss in manufacturing across Canada between August 2002 to May 2006 totals 258,000. This totals more than one in ten jobs that have been lost to closures, layoffs or retirements.
Interesting Fact: At the time the Liberals made the changes to E.I. in 1996 , the national unemployment rate was higher (9.6%) than it is today (8%). It was also higher in 1997 ( 9.0%) and 1998 (8.5%). Rates as of July each year. Unemployment hit a peak of 10.6% in January 1997, and remained higher than today's average until May 1999. With the exception of four months, September-December 1998,, Canada had higher unemployment rates from January 1993 until May 1999 than it has today. At no time during these years did the Liberal's think the E.I. qualifying rules were unfair.
With some of the media trying to disregard the Conservative strategy of showing Michael Ignatieff's time away from Canada, I thought it might be a good idea to put in perspective some of the things relative to 1978, the year when Iggy left Canada.
- Trudeau was PM
- John Travolta was starring in Grease
- The Bee Gees dominated the record charts
- Music still came on albums
- Disco was in.
- The CBC had just launched the first news satellite
- Wayne Gretzky had not yet played in the NHL
- There were 10 million fewer Canadian's than today
- Jimmy Carter was President of the United States
- I still had hair
During Ignatieff's time away from Canada, we had Trudeau, Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien, and Martin as PM. Ignatieff never returned to Canada in all those years. He was "convinced" to return in 2005, when Paul Martin drove the Liberal party into the electoral ditch, only with a promise of being Liberal leader and PM.
So ask yourself, if Paul Martin and the Liberals had won the 2006 election, do you really think Iggy would have stayed in Canada? True Patriot Love indeed.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
" Now, of course, she is the target of something much more serious - allegations that she underpaid, overworked and mistreated women she had hired to care for her 62-year-old mother, Tavinder. This week, the women, immigrants from the Philippines, gave an emotional account of that treatment before a Commons committee, as did Ms. Dhalla".
I think I read that right. "She had hired".
Oh my. and this comes just days after Iggy had made a similar statement.
"Taking reporters' questions for the first time on the Dhalla controversy, Ignatieff said yesterday: "I think Ruby made a vigorous defence of her integrity, her honour and her treatment of these - the people in her employ."
Lucy, someones got some 'splainin to do.
p.s- Ive done a copy and paste of Taber's complete column, as well as saved a copy of the page in case this somehow gets reworded.
- Gretzky played in 1,487 regular season games
- 208 playoff games
- scored 894 regular season goals
- 1,963 regular season assists
- 122 playoff goals
- 260 playoff assists
- 2,857 regular season points
- 382 playoff points
- won four Stanley Cups
- 1987 Canada Cup
- Canada Olympic Team member
- executive director 2002 Olympic Gold medal team
- played on 4 NHL teams
- had 5 children
- retired 11 years after Ignatieff left Canada
So for all you Liberals using the Gretzky comparison, keep in mind Iggy was nowhere around for any of those stats mentioned above. And if you really want to keep making the comparison, might I remind you that Wayne Gretzky is not running for Prime Minister of Canada.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Conservative Dhalla Conspiracy Widens. Woman Impregnated to Damage Dhalla's Reputation. Don Martin's Next Column
And with the long weekend now upon us, I thought I would give Don Martin some well-deserved time off and write his next column for him. It goes like this:
At a time when Canadians are worried about their jobs, under-funded pension plans, and the utter disrespect this governing party has shown for the Tamil Tigers, leave it to the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper to put Canadian politics even further into the gutter. I allude to the unsubstantiated, untrue, and unproven allegations against Ruby Dhalla. The fact the Conservatives see fit to put so much effort into disparaging a young, vivacious, ethnic, female, supporter of immigrant rights, who has led the fight for proper treatment of live-in caregivers makes this latest episode all the more disgusting. It is through cuts to funding that the governing party has brought our our national broadcaster to it's knees, forcing it to run stories like this before ever getting the chance for the increased funding it deserves.
"New allegations against the family of Brampton Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla have come to light, CBC News learned on Friday. A woman has complained to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal that she was fired from a clerical job by Dhalla's brother, Neil Dhalla, because she was pregnant.
The claim came as the Dhallas continue to deal with allegations they mistreated nannies employed by the family."
The fact the Conservative party, and Jason Kenney have tried to destroy young, vivacious, ethnic, female, supporter of immigrant rights, who has led the fight for proper treatment of live-in caregivers Ruby Dhalla shows just how desperate Stephen Harper is to keep his job. I'm told from someone with knowledge that Jason Kenney and Parm Gill had a women impregnated two months after she began working for Neil Dhalla. When she was seven months along she was instructed to begin making clerical mistakes, forcing Neil to fire her. The idea was that two weeks after the first Dhalla smears hit the media, this would further damage both Neil And Ruby's careers, causing irreparable harm.
What kind of disdain must Canadians be feeling for a Prime Minister so bereft of ethics he would exploit the womb of a young women for political gain? Never has Michael Ignatieff been accused of using these tactics, either in Canada or abroad.
Again we have another example of Martin writing a column that appears to be using talking points from the Liberal party, and more notably, Libloggers. Martin makes the statement that the domain the Conservative's are using for the Ignatieff.me website is commonly linked to porn. It took Stephen Taylor a matter of a few minutes to dispelthat little tidbit. what is even more curious is this line in Martin's editorial:
"The . me Internet domain name is registered to the tiny European country of Montenegro, incidentally governed by a coalition, and its web administrator is based in Arizona. It is, I'm told by experienced web surfers, often used to showcase pornography.
So much for the governing buy-Canadian party's patriotism, particularly given that one commercial slams Michael Ignatieff for "running attack ads."
Interesting information Don. Not exactly sure where did you research and gathered all this information? Perhaps here http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/2009/05/13/isnt-it-ironic-dont-you-think/ And even at that to prove how lazy he was he got the Arizona connection wrong. It was Paul Martin's website that was hosted by a company in Arizona. But you really have to wonder, when you look at the information posted on a Liblog, and then repeated by Martin in a column, why anyone would take this guy seriously anymore as a journalist. Perhaps Martin might want to take some of the partisan views on Blogging Tories about Ignatieff and work it into one of his columns as fact. But I doubt that is likely to happen. And I guess he is unaware that you can pay a Canadian company to register a domain name. regardless of what country that domain is based in, such as this one: http://www.netfirms.com/domain-names/me/me-faq/. A quick google search gives numerous pages of Canadian companies that provide that service. Perhaps Martin was in a rush to get back to the watering hole instead of properly researching his column.
Martin has had an ongoing Garth Turneresque hissy fit going on for some time now, all because the PM saw him for the rumor hack that he is, and won't play ball with him. and they wonder why the National Post is in trouble.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Sure he's made out of wood and his best friend is a cricket. But even Pinocchio doesn't deserve to have his name drawn through the mud, all because of IRuby's nanny problems.
In explosive new testimony today, another character, Pinocchio was brought out of the, err, woodwork. Agatha Mason, who represents the non-profit company Intercede, confirmed that she did in fact talk with IRuby about the return of a passport, and had the phone records as proof. When it was brought to Ms. Mason's attention that Dhalla denied that phone calll took place, the committee room erupted into chaos when she stated "“I don’t care. It’s her word and she has a conscience. These are one of the occasions when I wish the children’s story of Pinocchio is true.”
Reached at the home of his longtime freind Geppetto, Pinocchio was shocked that his name had come up in NannyGate. Pinocchio stated he did not appreciate being in any way linked with IRuby. He went on to state that while yes, he was a puppet, it was still undetermined who was pulling the strings at the Dhalla household. A statement released a few hours later by his attorney warned that any further comparisons to IRuby will result in legal action for slander and defamation. The lawyer also pointed out that when Pinocchio tells a lie, his nose gets bigger, then returns to normal when he tells the truth, whereas whenever IRuby tells a lie, her ego gets bigger, and has not returned to it's same size since 2004, when she was first elected.
Another close friend of Pinnocchio's was was asked his thought's on who it was who might have started a conspiracy to implicate Pinocchio. He just shrugged his shoulders and said he thought it was Goofy.
UPDATE: Rumor has it that IRuby's lawyer, Howard Levvitt, will be calling a press conference at his law office tommorrow at 5:00 PM. A source has told us that an anonymous person has come forward with knowledge of a previous sordid relationship between Pinocchio and one of the nannies. Uncomfirmed at this time but word has it Levvitt will try and implicate a nanny, Pinocchio, and Jason Kenney in a love triangle.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
"Is there anyone out there who can clarify for me what the rules are surrounding the extent to which ministers can get involved in individual cases? Let alone committee meetings? Because I honestly am a bit perplexed".
Apparently she can't remember Liberal's demanding a minister intervene on an individual case for a guy named Karlheinz Schreiber. And by coincidence, the reason they wanted his deportation stopped was so he could appear before a committee. Then there's that whole Judy Sgro/Romainian Stripper thingy.
And just a few months ago, we were told that the coalition would also act on individual cases:
Liberal MP Mario Silva and NDP MP Olivia Chow have said their parties are committed to preventing the deportation of American war resisters, five of whom are facing jail time if sent back to the U.S. in the next two weeks.". Of course if things start getting a little worrisome for the Conservative's, and they worry the nannies might have to face some tough questions which might make the government look bad, I would imagine they could just follow tradition and name them Ambassadors to Denmark.
If by some chance Delacourt reads this, I would be happy to provide more examples of Liberal's demanding the minister intervene in individual cases. Or if she desires I can provide examples of Liberal ministers getting involved in individual cases. Then again it appears she is in the final stages of SLML, and she would probably just forget anyways.
Update: Wilson has made an excellant point in the comments:
Monday, May 11, 2009
"She's not the employer, she's not the sponsor (of the caregivers), she's not the person to whom care was given," Levitt said today. "She's just the victim."
So when I saw that Iggy was in Quebec yesterday, for a book signing, I thought, great. Now perhaps, the man who will "most certainly be Prime Minister", will actually address the situation, and answer questions. And what did Mr. Ignatieff talk about? The coalition. Apparently it was a bad thing. Poor optics. Not the right thing to do after such a poor showing in the October election. Would divide the country. All valid points. Problem is the coalition was 5-6 months ago Iggy. And all the polls at the time showed Canadian's already knew the facts you so gloriously laid out in May, 2009.
So when will you be taking questions on NannyGate. Will we have to wait 6 months for you to get your thoughts together? Will you be returning to your bunker, still refusing to act like a leader and address an issue that although uncomfortable for you, needs to be discussed in the open.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
But the biggest problem the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff now face is an issue of leadership, or more to the point how a leader handles a problematic situation. And therein is the problem now faced. With serious allegations surfacing about Ruby Dhalla in regards to nannies who worked in her home hitting the public forums, Mr. Ignatieff had his first chance to show Canadian's how he, as PM, would handle a crisis situation, or at the very least, a situation where the leader needed to show that he could control the situation, and make sure things were handled properly.
And in his first real test, Ignatieff failed miserably. Suddenly the man who will be PM, aside from a bulletin being issued, chose to run and hide. The man who would be PM, championing the cause of those losing their jobs, demanding the government make E.I. changes immediately, using Question Period as his podium to paint the government as uncaring to those Canadian's who have lost their jobs and did not qualify for E.I. , chose instead to sit at Stornaway rather than appear in the HoC to continue to be the champion for those hardest hit by the recession.
It's now been 5 days since NannyGate hit the fan, and Mr. Ignatieff has still refused to take one question in regards to the matter. According to Jane Taber he has been sitting at home , reading magazines us common folk might enjoy. At the end of the day, a leader must rise above, be willing to answer tough questions, put himself in the eye of the storm, and ensure that whatever may come of the situation, he is in control. This is how a leader is graded.
And because of Mr. Ignatieff's (non)Action, I respectfully have to give him an F.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
""I think there's probably some great buying opportunities emerging in the stock market as a consequence of all this panic." Mr. Harper told news reporters as the S&P/TSX dropped for the fifth straight day."
Of course all memebers of all opposition parties were outraged, slamming the PM as uncaring, insensitive, out of touch, blah, blah, blah. And those same opposition members never said boo when Obama made a similar statement awhile back, but that's another story. Of course newly coronated Liberal leader was as out of touch as everyone else. This comment from February, 2009.
"“Last fall, Stephen Harper said that it was a good time to buy stocks, he said that there was no need to run a deficit and he said if we were going to have a recession it would have happened by now,” said Mr. Ignatieff. “We now know that as he was saying that, the market fell further, the Conservatives were in the red, and over 234,000 jobs were lost.”
First of all, the government was not in the red, but still in surplus. Matter of fact the government expects to post a surplus of $800 million for the fiscal year 2008 ending in March 2009. Guess Ignatieff was out of Canada for so long he never heard of the fiscal monitor. Yes, jobs were lost, and we are in a recession. Of course the PM warned Canadian's of this in his year end interview with Peter Mansbridge in 2007. At the time Liberal finance critic John "Chevy" McCallum said the PM was overstating the problems we were going to face, but not to many Canadian's would hold stock in a critic who doesn't know what kind of car he owns or drives.
Now getting back to the PM's statement on buying stocks. Someone took it upon themselves to track the TSX, which by the way has risen for nine weeks now, and what your return would be if you took the PM's advice. Based on Friday's close, you would be looking at a 7.5% return on your investment, IN EIGHT MONTHS.
Wonder what mark Iggy would give for that?
And I go back to the same blog this morning and both have disappeared. Neither had foul language, derogatory remarks to other posters, etc. What my comments did show was how idiotic it was to try and link Dhalla's nanny problems with the Conservative party, particularly Jason Kenney. The fact is, as I pointed out, Dhalla's problems began a year ago, and only came to light after a meeting between the nannies and two Ontario LIBERAL cabinet ministers. And I think I also mentioned the fact it was the TORONTO STAR that revealed the story after a lengthy investigation, including an interview with Dhalla herself. A poster on a previous thread here says they have also experienced the same thing, with comments disappearing.
Now I should give credit where credit is due. Kady O'Malley did a wonderful job on her reporting of the bizzaro Dhalla/Lawyer presser, which had train wreck written all over it. What I don't understand is why my comments first showed up for a few hours, then said they were waiting for moderation, and then disappeared completely.It's even more surprising when I see a comment like this still there, which the administartor has no problem with:
"Luckily for these nannies they didn’t accuse a Conservative MP of this. If they had they’d already be accused of being anti-semitic terrorist supporters."
Perhaps the administrator of the blog comments might want to give his/her reasoning for this. Because all I can see is partisan censorship. Pretty sad. And this isn't the first time it's happened. I've left replies to comments before, with actual facts and links showing the comments wrong, and poof, they disappear, while the original comment with misinformation remains.
Friday, May 8, 2009
But wait, that's not all. They have also gotten into the heads of two Ontario Liberal cabinet ministers, who apparently the PM got to hold a meeting in their government offices, all to hatch this plan to smear Dhalla. Wait, there's more. As part of this complex plan, they teamed up with that right-wing newspaper, the Toronto Star. So well thought out was this plan that they had the paper begin doing an investigation into abuses faced by nannies in the workplace months ago.
Forget Watergate, Adscam, or any of the other scandals of the past. This plan, obviously hatched to move the Conservative seat count from 143 to 144, is without precedence the worst case of political dirty deeds the world has ever seen. And this plan was put into effect over a year ago, with the three nannies being planted into the Dhalla home in succession. Conservative's waited for just the right time, right after the Liberal convention, to play this scheme to perfection. Now that you've read all that, your thinking that sounds pretty stupid, right?
Yes it does, but no stupider than Don Martin's idiotic editorial in the National Post laying blame everywhere except the accused, Ruby Dhalla.
UPDATE: After giving it some thought I've realized that this was in fact a two-part scheme designed to dampen the media bounce of the Liberal parties convention. The first part of this diabolical plan was first thought out 50 years and nine months ago. It was at this time the PM's mother and father looked at each other with a gleam in their eyes, hatching a plan that would rival anything you might see in an Austin Powers movie.
They would conceive a child on this date. That child would go on to become the Prime Minister of Canada. Now here is the real genius part of the plan. The unborn childs 50th birthday would fall on the same day as the Liberal Party convention of Michael Ignatieff in 2009. Pink flamingoes would be placed on the lawn, allowing for a photo-op of the PM to steal the spotlight away from the Liberal coronation.
Courtesy Joanne at Blue Like You: "Ruff believes the recent Liberal resurgence is due partly to disenchantment with Prime Minister Stephen Harper — who did his best Thursday to seize the spotlight away from the Liberals by releasing a photo of himself and daughter Rachel, celebrating his 50th birthday with plastic flamingos at 24 Sussex Drive..."
Sunday, May 3, 2009
"I'm going to become the prime minister of this country, as sure as I'm sitting here, and I'm going to inherit the largest deficit in Canadian history." ( note to Mr. Ignatieff: I know you are proud that you bacame Liberal leader without a vote, but I can assure you here in Canada to become PM there actually has to be a voting process).
So you see, it's all set to happen. Iggy will be PM, and there's not a thing you or I can do about it. Those involved in politics always say anything can happen during an election campaign. What they meant to say was anything can happen in an election campaign, except Iggy losing. It's funny. I remember when John Tory became the new leader of the Ontario Conservative Party, he was introduced at the convention as the next Premier of Ontario, causing one Jason Cherniak to almost stroke out at the arrogance and disrespect shown the current Premier. Cherniak chided the Conservative's for having the audacity of disrespecting voters with such arrogance. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I saw Cherniak's mug at the Liberal convention that just wrapped up. I'm sure Cherniak lectured Iggy about his arrogance. Ha, ya right!
Iggy is picking up where Chretien, Martin, and Dion left off. That pathetic Liberal arrogance where they seem to think they are the only party with the right to govern, regardless of what the voters think. The recent coalition fiasco was the most recent example, where, after having their worst election results since Confederation, they devised a plan to get back into power. I for one hope Ignatieff repeats that arrogant statement over and over, in all parts of the country. I think he'll be in for a big shock when he realizes that most Canadian's like a confident person to lead our country, like Stephen Harper.
Not some pompous arrogant a#@, who has apparently been out of the country for so long he forgets what average Canadian's think.
Friday, May 1, 2009
It's really quite amazing when you think of it. A Harvard academic, who lived outside of Canada for roughly 27 years, has become the (un)chosen one for the federal Liberal Party. That's right, the person who finished second to Stephane Dion, a true Canadian reho, will now become the Liberal Party leader without one Liberal party member marking a ballot. And to top it all off, it appears the media have all but acclaimed Iggy as the newest Prime Minister of Canada, despite having no idea when the next federal election is. Policy? Don't need it. Ideas. Nope. Being Liberal is all he needs. Why, I bet Susan Bonner won't even ask Iggy if he loves the United states, oops, sorry, Canada.
And then we have the Liberal bloggers, lead by one Warren Kinsella. Kinsella is going to be front and center in the next election running the war room. Of course Kinsella has extensive experience in this. 10 years ago that might worry me. But Kinsella has gone past his best before date. My guess is Warren is just one ethnic group insult away from being put in that secluded soundproof room where Scott Reid of "beer and popcorn" fame languished after his faux pas in front of the cameras. I might remind Liberal's bad news comes in 3's. Martin, Dion, and uh oh!
And finally for the msn morons, headed by "We Liberal's" Robert Fife. They too have all but handed Iggy the keys to 24 Sussex. Of course they seem to have completely forgotten that an election campaign is in the area of 36 days, and despite their attempts to conceal Iggy from any stupid remarks he might make, i.e. Raise Taxes, the Conservative war room, with their own media center, will allow the Canadian voters to see what Iggy is really about, or rather, not about.
I see Kinsella stated again today with Rutherford that Iggy and the party will keep their parties policies hidden in the closet, afraid that the Tories might steal them. Sorry guys, but last time I checked you are receiving six-figure salaries, accruing time for the world's best pension plan, and you don't want to share your plans with the 33 million Canadian's who's best interests you are supposed to be advancing? Pretty childish don't you think? Then again, I see former PM Jean Chretien at the convention, the one who took childishness to a whole new level in federal politics. Just ask the former head of the BDC, who Chetien tried to ruin mentally and financially for having the gall to point out Chretien's lies involving Shawinigate loans. Or ask Paul Martin. Chretien was more worried about his own personal vendetta's than he was about his supposed party or, more importantly, Canadian's from coast to coast to coast.
And whenever the next election does take place, expect Kinsella to use the same tactic he used with McGuinty in the most recent Ontario election. The boy in the bubble. The only problem is some prick like me is going to burst it this time.
Update: Joanne has come up with a fantastic name for Iggy, King Of Kanada