Voice of the Association

h/t to Brian Lilley who brought this story to our attention on his blog.

It seems that former CTV reporter, David Akin, thought to throw a little gas on the fire by pointing out that the Conservative government gave a magazine that bills itself as “Western Canada’s Conservative Voice” $27,124 “on behalf of all [Canadian] taxpayers.”

Mr. Akin’s next line to drive the point home: “This, of course, was the day after CBC announced about 800 layoffs…because of a budget shortfall it hoped Canada’s government, on behalf of all taxpayers, might cover.”

The message is clear: The Harper Conservatives are cutting needed funds from the CBC in favour of funding for partisan, western voices. The only problem is, Mr. Akin’s shallow evaluation has no basis, and in fact it is the ‘conservative voices’ that are getting the short end of the stick.

Here we must applaud Mr. Lilley (who is a friend and colleague of David Akin) for bringing balance to the report.

“Never assume a conspiracy when plain old incompetence will do.

In fairness to David, he may not know that this funding flows freely from government’s of all stripes. I’ve worked in Canada’s arts industry, of which most magazine believe they belong and I’ve seen the programs first hand. While those in the industry will always tell you there isn’t enough government money, the feds spend plenty on Canadian magazines and it isn’t limited to $27,124 in funding to a group of Alberta’s conservatives.

Consider this line from the website of the fantastically left wing This Magazine, a magazine that just might consider Jack Layton a right winger

 ”This Magazine receives financial support from the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Publication Assistance Program and the Canada Magazine Fund. “

Count ‘em, four different types of funding from government, three of them from the feds.

The Walrus Magazine, another publication hardly friendly to the Conservatives or conservatism, was able to grab $110,522 from the Canadian Magazine Fund. If I was Report Magazine, I might be a little miffed that I didn’t get more money, I mean even Urban Male Magazine got more money than they did.”

So now that the full facts are known, it’s really hard to justify David Akin’s innuendo about Conservative funding isn’t it.

The question arises: Why are the media complicit in propounding the myth that Conservatives are ultra-partisan and direct public funds only in their partisan interests? That sounds exactly like the cheap stunts that the Liberals try to pull in their “press releases.” Someone of David Akin’s calibre and experience should know better (and he should research his stories better).

What is most troubling however is that the Liberals have tried to type-cast Prime Minister Harper since 2004 by innuendo, attack ads and baseless accusations. What they have done to Mr. Harper makes the profiling of Stephane Dion look like child’s play. The sad part is that so many in the media are complicit in parroting these accusations and giving them credibility in the eyes of the public - regardless of the lack of facts to back them up.

Click the image below for Rick Mercer’s evaluation of Michael Ignatieff’s bid to become Prime Minister of Canada.

On August 27th, MP Brian Murphy decided to respond to allegations about the Green Shift made by local columnist, Dave Barnett. You can read his “rebuttal” at the link above, but what is most amazing is the reply published this weekend by Mr. Barnett, just days after Mr. Murphy’s attempted defense.

In Mr. Barnett’s most recent column, he refers to Brian Murphy as “our part-time MP.” That comment no doubt stirred a little curiosity in the public, as it did with us. Here is what we found out:

Before becoming an MP, Brian Murphy founded the Groupe Murphy Group lawfirm in Moncton. Oddly enough, he continues to practice law and reportedly even still makes appearances in court while sitting as an MP. This has led to some criticism in the public that he is a “part-time MP.”

On his firm’s website he even shares his campaign photo and lists being an “elected Member of Parliament” among his “Civic and Volunteer Activities.” While there is nothing illegal about splitting your time as the peoples’ representative and a legal representative, it does present a bit of mixed messaging given that voters are paying him about $150,000 per year.

It is disappointing that Mr. Murphy has been unable to achieve anything significant for his riding while his attentions have been divided. Some would attribute this to his being in opposition, but he stands in sharp contrast to his Liberal colleague Paul Zed who has managed to work with the government for the benefit of his constituents. (Winter 2006 Update, bottom of page 2)

With the permission of the author, we present here the full and unedited comments of Mr. Barnett as published in the Times & Transcript, August 30, 2008 p.D7. Mr. Murphy’s weak arguments are soundly refuted:

For those of you who enjoyed my column two weeks ago on the Liberal “Green Shift,” you are not alone. Our part-time MP Brian Murphy was unable to resist responding with a letter to this paper.

He repeatedly accused me of “ignoring facts,” and failing to mention every caveat of the carbon tax debate in a single article.

Since he has taken the opportunity to make his best case for his new tax on everything, I will gladly address his concerns.

On the front page of Wednesday’s newspaper we saw an article explaining that the price of milk must go up “wholly based on the effects of the rise of fuel costs throughout the supply chain.” Mr. Murphy’s carbon tax on everything affects even such rudimentary staples as milk for our children. Furthermore, it taxes repeatedly along the supply chain so that Canadians are getting hit at each stage of distribution.

Mr. Murphy points out that the Liberals’ Green Shift calls for no immediate increase in the gas tax. Peter Hadekel wrote recently for the Montreal Gazette that Mr. Dion’s plan “looks a lot more like a piece of tax reform than an environmental policy guaranteed to cut carbon emissions and combat greenhouse gases . . . But the most curious part of it, from an environmental perspective, is that it would exempt gasoline.”

Hadekel’s reasoning is that gasoline accounts for a large part of greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, Canada’s most recent inventories show that gasoline emissions equal almost twice the combined volume of diesel and aviation fuel (which the Liberals are taxing).

How can this Liberal plan be good for the planet when it ignores two thirds of Canada’s transportation emissions?

Our part-time MP also argues that it’s OK for his Liberals to raise taxes because any plan to put a price on carbon means bearing real costs. He then claims that his party’s new tax scheme “returns every single dollar to Canadians” — but if that is true, then there is no real environmental benefit.

As far back as page A1 of the May 24 Times & Transcript, David Coon, policy director of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, said that “a ‘revenue neutral’ carbon tax will not help the environment or reduce carbon emissions.”

There are also significant facts that Mr. Murphy leaves out.

For example, two analysts looked at how Dion’s Green Shift proposes to use carbon tax revenues. Gary Lamphier and Adam Radwanski both calculated the same results: $9 billion in tax cuts, $4.5 billion in new social spending and only $1 billion on environmental initiatives, for a total of roughly $15 billion in new tax revenue.

Clearly this plan does not return every dollar but only 58 cents in tax cuts.

What is perhaps most appalling however is the mere $1 billion for the environment from a tax plan that comes in a bright green wrapper!

This plan is neither good for the environment, nor the economy. It’s no wonder Mr. Murphy stated at the conclusion of the Atlantic Liberal caucus meeting that, “I’m not going to pretend that there is 100 per cent agreement among our electorate that The Green Shift is the best idea to ever come down the pike.” (Aug. 7, page A5, Times & Transcript).

I wonder if Brian was still smilin’ when he listed “home retrofits, vehicle fuel efficiency standards . . . green infrastructure and public transit” as Liberal priorities.

In fact, these are key initiatives of the Conservatives’ Turning the Corner plan which he so heavily criticizes. The regulatory plan was even preceded by $60 billion in tax reductions just last fall and all Canadians saw the results in this year’s tax returns.

What is missing, however, in Mr. Murphy’s critique (and in Mr. Dion’s new tax plan) are targets for mandatory reductions in emissions, a provision for emissions trading, a requirement that forces the oil sands to capture their carbon, a ban on new dirty coal plants and the phasing out of oil sands subsidies.

All of these initiatives are included in the Conservatives green plan that was released this year. No mention of that from Mr. Murphy.

In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the TransAlta wind farm southwest of Moncton (Times & Transcript, Aug. 27, A1) represents the kind of green energy investment that the Conservative government is making across Canada. Just in the last week the Harper government announced funding for wind farms in Norway and Elmira, P.E.I. They also funded solar hot water projects in British Columbia and Alberta, while investing in new renewable hydro power plants in Cypress Creek, South Cranberry Creek and Kwalsa, British Columbia.

While others are talking, the Conservatives have been working to bring in the first mandatory regulations on the big polluters responsible for most of Canada’s emissions.

Rather than go after seniors and working families with a carbon tax on milk, the Harper government has chosen to mandate absolute reductions in industry and put the revenues into environmental investments where they belong.

Dave Barnett is a Moncton area Real Estate Investor, Business Finance Consultant and Sunbelt Business Broker. He shares the On The Issues column with Marie-Claude Blais in this space on alternating Saturdays.

Wow! A trial lawyer soundly refuted by a local businessman with a passion for the truth. Perhaps the Murphy name will not be enough to carry smilin’ Brian to re-election this time.

purchase generic cialisbuy sildenafil viagra

From an Angus Reid poll released August 30, 2008: After a summer of explaining the Green Shift, it looks like Dion’s new tax plan does not appeal to Atlantic Canadians. It’s no wonder that Liberal MP’s like Wayne Easter and Robert Thibault are running away from the plan. h/t to Steve Janke who brought our attention to this item on his blog.

National Results

Regional Results

There isn’t much more to say, except that this poll shows the Conservatives are ahead of the national average in Atlantic Canada. No wonder Brian Murphy said, “I’m not going to pretend that there is 100 per cent agreement among our electorate that The Green Shift is the best idea to ever come down the pike.“ (Aug. 7, page A5, Times & Transcript).

Here are some excerpts from the more honest media agencies who have taken the time to look into Liberal allegations that the Tories are trashing arts and culture by making selective cuts to certain non-productive programs. These allegations call to mind Liberal contentions (repeated to this day) that the Conservatives “cut women’s funding” from the Status of Women. In reality they took money from an inflated bureaucracy of “advocates” and put it into more programs which actually help women to achieve equality and avoid discrimination. The net result was about a 42% increase in the Status of Women budget so that there was more money available to meet their aims than ever before.

Liberals short on facts - but don’t care:

Ottawa, ON — Attacks on the Conservative government over cuts to arts and cultural program appear to be more political rhetoric than fact. Canwest Global News is reporting that the federal Conservatives, under attack from the Liberals for cutting spending on federal arts programs actually are spending more on the arts than the Liberals did.

However, it appears that the Liberals have not done enough actual research on the issue, before reaching into their sack of rhetoric to attack the Harper Conservatives. “For the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, 2009, Parliament has voted to spend more than $4 billion on cultural programs, including the CBC, the Canada Arts Council, the National Gallery of Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. That amount is $660 million or 19.7 per cent more than was spent in fiscal 2006, the last year when the Liberals controlled the purse strings.

“Overall program spending during that same period is up 18.6 per cent. In other words, Conservatives have boosted spending on arts programs faster than they have boosted overall government spending,” according to the report published by CanWest news.

The Conservative cuts to programs have the Liberals in a political frenzy. The Liberals have claimed that the cuts were another case of the Conservatives trying to appeal to their base. “With new cuts to culture and arts funding, the Conservative government is showing once again its complete disrespect toward our country’s cultural institutions and a flagrant lack of vision that is hurting our arts community and culture”, stated Liberal Heritage Critic Denis Coderre and Senator Francis Fox said Friday.

“The Conservatives are now showing clearly what they have in mind for Canada’s arts and culture.” charged Coderre. “The lack of explanation for the cuts and the silence of the Heritage minister is unacceptable. This government’s consistent refusal to consider culture as an important part of Canada’s development is mind boggling.”

If the Liberals are right, and the Conservatives are showing what they have in mind, it appears that the fact is more funding for the arts and culture rather than less. What is worrisome for the Liberals is that when they launch into attack mode but not armed with the facts, it makes it harder to believe other statements that are being made by the party.

The PM had this to say about the cuts:

“Mr. Harper also said that his government was committed to weeding out wasteful spending, even when that initiative results in cuts to some programs that support the work of artists.

‘The fact of the matter is, this government has increased cultural and arts funding,’ Mr. Harper said in his first comments on arts funding since Canwest News Service first reported news of the cuts earlier this month. ‘The opposition has a view that you can never cut any single program ever. We have a responsibility to make sure the spending that we’re doing is effective and that involves analysing every program and making sure we spend where we’re getting the best results.’

Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro defended the government’s actions, saying it is committed to arts and culture, but “must be able to make adjustments” and that the savings would be reallocated to other unspecified programs. (Ottawa Citizen)

Kory Teneycke, the top spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, defended the cuts to those programs but said they should not be taken as an indicator that Ottawa does not support the arts.

“The public reaction out there - you’d think we’d shut down the arts. That’s not the case,” said Teneycke. “This was not about less money for the arts. It about having government programs that are meeting their objectives. We’re committed to cancelling programs that are boondoggles.”

Fast facts on arts/culture funding by Conservatives:

Overall program spending during that same period is up 18.6 per cent. In other words, Conservatives have boosted spending on arts programs faster than they have boosted overall government spending.

The Department of Canadian Heritage will spend $1.4 billion this year, up $273 million or 24.4 per cent compared to 2006.

The Canada Council for the Arts will spend $181 million this year, up $30.3 million or 20.2 per cent.

The National Arts Centre Corporation will spend nearly $50 million this year, up $18.3 million or nearly 60 per cent compared to the Liberals.

The National Gallery of Canada will spend $53.3 million, up $8.8 million or nearly 20 per cent.

The Conservative record on cultural spending when measured as a portion of all government spending shows that Conservatives, three years later, support the arts at about the same level that the Liberals did in their last year.

During the final budgetary year of former prime minister Paul Martin’s government, $18.06 of every $1,000 spent by the government was spent on cultural programs. That jumped in Harper’s first year in government to $19.54.

The Tories have seen the portion of all spending they need to make on public debt drop by more than 22 per cent. But they have used the spending room created by smaller debt charges to boost spending, as a portion of all government spending, on security and public safety (up 15 per cent); environment and resource-based programs (up 14.4 percent) (Regina Leader-Post)

order cialis onlinebuy viagra onlinegeneric viagrabuy generic cialisbuy cialis super activecialis soft tabsgeneric cialisviagra soft tabsviagra professionalbrand viagraclomidfemale viagracialis super activeviagra super activebrand cialisbrand viagralevitrageneric cialisgeneric viagracialis professionalviagra professionalcialis soft tabsbuy cialis super activeorder viagra overnightviagra price indiaviagra side effectsviagra dose instructionsbuy viagra super activepurchase viagra onlineorder generic viagracialis professionalbuy cialis no prescriptionbuy cialis online usacialis online reviewsbuy cialispurchase cialisbuy cialis discount pricecialis online cheaporder generic cialis onlinebuy viagra consumers discountviagra overnight deliveryviagra low pricehow buy viagra onlinebuy viagra master visabuy viagra no prescriptionpurchase viagraorder viagra canadabuy viagra discount pricecompare viagra pricesviagra professional onlinegeneric cialis onlinebuy cialis onlineorder viagra onlinegeneric viagraorder cialis onlineorder viagra onlinebuy finasteride onlineorder effexor onlineviagra onlinecompare viagra pricesbuy cialis no prescriptionorder cialis sublingualbuy generic levitracialis buy on lineviagra order on lineviagra dosagecompare cialis pricescialis discount pricebuy viagra onlineorder cialis onlinecialis visa purchaseviagra visa purchasebuy viagraorder cialis professionalcialis price comparisonviagra professional

“Under this government, Canada has gone from leader to laggard on climate change,” said Mr. McGuinty. “Mr. Harper will be remembered as the Prime Minister who fiddled while the environment and the economy burned before his eyes.”

Fact check: During the Liberal reign greenhouse gas emissions shot up 35% above the Kyoto targets they signed on for (they were supposed to go to 6% below 1990 levels, instead they went to 29% above). That hardly qualifies us to be called a “leader” under the Liberal watch. In the last few years Canada’s emissions have actually been following a downward trend (but you haven’t heard that in the media have you?).

Perhaps Mr. McGuinty’s most irresponsible comments however were that the Prime minister is fiddling while the environment burns before his eyes. It is hard to counter that assertion when there is almost no press coverage of the substantial steps this government is taking towards an absolute reduction in emissions and environmental sustainability. Here are a few examples from just the last week:

1. Vancouver Island, BC - Investment in Renewable Energy (Cypress Creek hydro electric)
2. Salmon Arm, BC - Investment in Renewable Energy (solar powered hot water)
3. Calgary, AL - Investment in Renewable Energy (solar powered hot water)
4. Elmira, PE - Investment in Renewable Energy (wind energy)
5. Revelstoke, BC - Investment in Renewable Energy (South Cranberry Creek hydro electric)
6. Norway, PE - Investment in Renewable Energy (wind energy)
7. Vancouver, BC - Investment in Renewable Energy (Kwalsa hydro electric)
8. Harrison Lake, BC - Investment in Renewable Energy (low impact hydro)

That does not exactly look like “fiddling” while the environment burns. Unfortunately most Canadians have never heard of these initiatives except those affected by local media.

While the Liberals have been talking, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have been working. Maybe if the Liberals would tone down the rhetoric and quit spewing all their hot air, Canada’s GHG inventories would be even lower.

In a Toronto Star article by Allan Woods, the reporter perpetuates the myth that the “fixed election date law” prohibits the Prime Minister from calling an election earlier than October 2009.

“Under a Tory bill setting fixed election dates, the next vote is not supposed to occur until October 2009 unless the government is defeated in a confidence vote.”

This is the common presumption that has been perpetuated since the legislation was passed. The problem is, it has no element of truth. To make sure, we re-checked the version of C-16 that received Royal Assent and even conducted a word search for “confidence” and “vote.” The word confidence appears nowhere in the text of the bill or the summary, and the one place where the word vote appears has nothing to do with defeating the government.

There are only two reasons why this myth continues to prevail:

1. The opposition and the news media are complicit in a scheme to slander the Conservative government by falsely alleging that they care so little about the law that they are willing to violate their own legislation. (Note: We do not believe this to be true, however some would make this allegation).
2. The opposition has no clue of the substance of the bill that they debated and passed. Furthermore, the media would have to be simply parroting what the opposition is telling them, rather than simply checking the facts of a two page bill!

Given the two options above, one would be hard pressed to choose which one is worse! In any event, it remains to be seen whether or not some of the more esteemed reporters will eventually pick up on it.

Meanwhile, the erstwhile professor added his two cents to the pile:

“Dion, who has been reluctant to commit to toppling the Conservative minority in a non-confidence vote, said an election call by Harper would violate his own law setting fixed election dates.

“Now he wants to change this rule without changing the law, so he will break the law,” Dion as he wrapped up a three-day campaign-style swing through the GTA and southern Ontario.”

We invite readers to use the link above to read the full text of Bill C-16. The bill is very clear that the Governor General may dissolve Parliament at her discretion. In our previous post on this subject, we demonstrated clearly that the Governor General dissolves Parliament “on the advice of the Prime Minister” or when “the Prime Minister requests a writ.” The third circumstance which would prompt the GG to call an election is the understanding that “the government must retain the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons or tender its resignation.”

The maximum term between election dates was previously fixed at 5 years by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With this amendment to the Elections Act, the maximum fixed term is moved back from 5 years to 4 years between elections. We invite the Liberal leader et al to demonstrate how the Prime Minister could possibly violate this law by asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. From the rhetoric regularly spewing from the opposition, it is clear that the Conservative government does not have their confidence. It is interesting to watch all of the opposition parties squirm now that they are faced with the prospects of being held accountable for their bellicose allegations.

Bill C-16 (partial quote)

Date of General Election
Powers of Governor General preserved 56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.
Election dates (2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

viagrageneric viagra onlinebuy cialis onlineorder cialis soft tabsgeneric cialis onlinebuy viagra soft tabsbuy viagra professionalbuy cialis softbuy viagra softorder cialis super activeorder viagra super activebuy effexorbuy lexapropurchase cialis onlinepurchase viagra onlinebuy cialisbuy viagraorder cialis professionalorder viagra professionalorder generic levitraorder generic cialisbuy generic viagraclomidfemale viagracialis super activeviagra super activebrand cialisbrand viagralevitrageneric cialisgeneric viagracialis professionalviagra professionalcialis soft onlineorder cialis super activeonline viagra canadaviagra online reviewsviagra side effects alcoholviagra how it worksorder viagra super activepurchase viagra onlinegeneric viagra onlinebuy cialis professionalorder cialis no prescriptionbuy cialis online usacialis discount pricecialis onlinecialis onlinebuy cialis discount priceorder cialis onlinegeneric cialis onlinebuy viagra consumers discountviagra overnight deliveryviagra best quality lowest priceshow buy viagra onlinebuy viagra master visabuy viagra no prescriptionpurchase viagraorder viagra canadabuy viagra discount priceviagra price comparisonfemale viagrabrand cialisbrand viagracialis sublingualorder cialis softorder viagra softviagra mastercard purchasepurchase viagra onlineorder cialis generic indiaorder viagra overnightcialis price compareviagra price compareorder viagra canadabuy levitra onlineorder viagra online no prescriptionorder cialisorder viagrabuy paxil onlinebuy effexor onlinebuy lexapro onlinecialis mastercard purchasepurchase cialiscialis professionalcialis super activeviagra super activeviagracialis professionalbuy cialisgeneric viagracompare viagra pricesbuy cialis no prescriptioncialis sublingualgeneric levitracialis buy on lineviagra order on linecompare cialis pricescialis pricesbuy viagra onlineorder cialis onlinecialis visa purchaseviagra visa purchasecialis professionalcialis pill priceorder viagra professional

Would the Prime Minister be “breaking his own law” by calling an election?

“But if Mr. Harper calls an election, Mr. Dion said the campaign would open with Opposition allegations that the
prime minister cannot be trusted since he’s breaking his own fixed election law.” - National Post, 19 August 2008

The Legislation

“This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to provide that, subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this enactment comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009. The enactment also provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may recommend an alternate day if the day set for polling is not suitable.”

What is “fixed” about this legislation?

1. If Parliament is not dissolved sooner, the election must be held on the third Monday of October.
2. If Parliament is not dissolved sooner, the election must be held in the 4th calendar year after the previous election.
3. If Parliament is not dissolved sooner, the first “fixed election date” after this legislation comes into force is 19 October 2009.
4. Whenever an election is called, the Chief Electoral Officer may move the date to “the Tuesday immediately following the Monday that would otherwise be polling day or the Monday of the following week.” [56.2 (4)]

Nothing in this bill changes anything about our Westminster tradition which allows the Governor General to dissolve Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister. Witness the following:

“56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.

56.2 (3) If the Governor in Council accepts the recommendation, the Governor in Council shall make an order to that effect. The order must be published without delay in the Canada Gazette.

57 (4) In the case of a general election that is not held on a day set in accordance with subsection 56.1(2) or section 56.2…”

“The Governor in Council” is defined as: “In Canada, the governor in council is the Governor General acting on the advice of the federal cabinet.”

Parliament of Canada elaborates:

“The process is set in motion when the Prime Minister requests the Governor General, who represents the Queen as the head of state, to dissolve Parliament and to request the issue of Writs by the Chief Electoral Officer for an election.

…the government must retain the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons or tender its resignation.” (1)
Dissolution terminates a Parliament and is followed by a general election, the date of which is set by the Governor in Council, with the Constitution Act, 1982 providing that Parliament must sit at least once every 12 months.

Dissolution is proclaimed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. In the absence of such advice, dissolution is automatic following the expiration of a Parliament’s maximum five-year term. As a matter of interest, however, this has not yet occurred in Canadian parliamentary history. Parliament may be dissolved at any time. If the House is sitting, and there is not to be a prorogation ceremony, dissolution is usually announced to the House by the Prime Minister or some other Minister of the Government. If the House is not sitting, Parliament is dissolved by a proclamation of the Governor General. (2)

[Note: As of May 2007, the maximum five year term was amended to four years by Bill C-16. None of the other conditions were changed.]

Elections Canada’s clarifies the current status:

There are two things that regulate the timing of elections - The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and newer legislation passed by an Act of Parliament in 2007 which backs the maximum date up from 5 years to 4 years.

“According to subsection 4(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.”

That maximum five year term was amended in the Elections Act to be fixed at no more than four years.

“Since May 2007, the Canada Elections Act requires that a general election be held on a fixed date: the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following the previous general election. The first “fixed-date election” would be held on Monday, October 19, 2009. However, the law does not prevent the Governor General from dissolving Parliament at another date, for instance, when the government loses the confidence of the House of Commons. The date of a general election is set by the Governor in Council.”

What does the Prime Minister have to say for himself?

“We did establish a fixed date for the next election. That said, in this minority parliament, two of the parties (the Bloc and the NDP) have indicated for some months now that they want an election immediately. Mr. Dion has indicated that the government should be defeated, but he’s not sure when he’ll do that because he hasn’t got good enough polls. I don’t think that’s a particularly responsible position.

I think polls do indicate that the next election in all likelihood would be a minority one way or the other. The fact of the matter is, what I will have to decide over the next few weeks is whether or not we can have a productive fall session of Parliament, or whether in fact the government needs a new mandate. That’s a decision, that’s an analysis I’ll have to reflect on.

I’ll have to talk to some of the other parties, but what’s absolutely clear from the comments of all three opposition leaders (including Mr. Dion) is that they have no intention of respecting the fixed election date so obviously we’re going to have to judge how the Parliamentary agenda is unfolding. I think we’ve had a productive two and a half years, I do think that has slowed somewhat in recent weeks. I will take the next few weeks do a thorough evaluation of the situation and ensure one way or another we can have a productive parliament in the future.” (CTV News 12:01 ff)

The law is clear, when the Government has lost the confidence of the “majority of the House of Commons [it must] tender its resignation” notwithstanding a fixed date for the maximum term of a mandate. The only thing that is absent is the Liberals’ formal declaration of non-confidence. Stéphane Dion is making a mockery out of Parliament and the democratic process by publicly declaring his non-confidence in the media, but refusing to back it up inside the House. The media is complicit in this, as they are the perception that the Prime Minister would be ‘breaking his own law’ by calling an election.

The CBC is reporting that Newfoundland and Labrador are ready to close a deal with Chevron on the Hebron oil field worth $16 billion over the next 25 years. Sources say there are at least 731 million barrels of oil in Hebron alone. Known reserves in “the combined fields on the Grand Banks appear to hold 2.751 billion barrels of oil.”

This is being billed as a windfall for Newfoundland and Danny Williams is wasting no time in congratulating himself. On the other hand, someone else is no doubt seeing dollar signs as well - that would be Stéphane Dion.

IF the Liberals get their way and institute their carbon tax, it will mean taxamania for Dion. According to those who should know, the various fuels produced from a barrel of oil produce 317kg of CO2. That translates into 1 tonne of CO2 for about every 3 barrels. The 2.751 billion barrels in Newfoundland’s offshore reserves will produce over 873 megatonnes of CO2. The Liberals plan to tax those carbon emissions at $40/tonne. Here is how the formula would look if entered into a cell in an Excel spreadsheet: =((2751000000/3.15)*40)

Yes that’s right, Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax means a $35 billion green shift from the hospitals and roadways of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the greedy pockets of tax and spend Liberals! So why isn’t Danny railing against the carbon tax? Surely he knows how to use a calculator! Perhaps he should shift his slogan from Anyone but Stephen to Anyone but Stéphane. Let’s hear from Danny on the carbon tax. Why so silent Danny, afraid to eat all that crow in one big bite?

The Liberals’ tax grab would reverse the recent good fortunes of Newfoundland and Labrador and send them back to the dark ages. That surely won’t help Danny get reelected.

The Liberal press loves to link Stephen Harper to US president George Bush because he has become the whipping boy for America’s stumbling economy and the unpopular war in Iraq. Leaving aside whether this criticism is justified, this is an age-old political trick of trying to saddle a political opponent with the stigma of a leader who is widely reviled in Canada.

This raises the question however of “What will the opposition do when George Bush is gone?” Perhaps that is why Stéphane Dion is threatening an election this fall; after November he will lose a major stick that he regularly uses to whip his minions into a frenzy.

A case in point that reveals just how phoney this partisan stereotyping is, the Edmonton Journal published an article this week stating that Japan’s Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, is demanding that “developing countries be obliged to join their industrialized counterparts in cutting greenhouse gas emissions under a new international framework to combat global warming to come into force in 2013.” This is virtually identical to the position taken by the Harper government on the inclusion of all major emitters.

Of course this raises the question of who is following whom. At the end of the 2008 G8 Summit in Japan, the Prime Minister announced a “breakthrough” agreement on the urgent challenge of global warming.

“There is a new consensus on climate change,” said Prime Minister Harper. “The United States and Russia have joined with us this year and now all G8 countries agree on the goal of a 50 percent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Moreover, G8 leaders have also accepted our longstanding argument that the post-2012 global climate change framework must include all major emitters.”

Where is the Liberal apologist in the press who coins the new epithet “Fukuda clone“? It is just possible that Stephen Harper is demonstrating common sense and leadership because “developing countries are not obliged to cut CO2 emissions under the current framework” according to the article? The Edmonton Journal goes on to report that:

“Except for small island countries and the world’s least-developed nations, Japan will propose that developing countries be categorized based on certain indicators, such as per capita gross domestic product and their percentage of global CO2 emissions. Based on indicators showing the economic development levels of developing countries, Japan will demand those nations also be obliged to cut emissions.

The Japanese proposal aims to try to persuade emerging economies, such as Brazil, China and India, to accept obligatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts.”

So is this some sad spinoff of The Clone Wars, or are world leaders finally coming to the conclusion that you can’t make any significant reductions in global emissions when the countries that produce nearly 3/4 of the world’s carbon are excluded from the agreement that Stéphane Dion led Canada into?

Trying to saddle Stephen Harper with George Bush’s unpopularity is a rapidly evaporating apparition. Sadly for the Liberals, “Fukuda clone” does not resonate with Canadians because the Japanese PM is not particularly unpopular here. No Liberal MP’s have been caught on tape stomping dolls of the Japanese leader. In short, the Japanese just don’t make as good of a lightning rod as a US Republican president. That is why you will hear very little in the press as the new crop of world leaders begins to coalesce around the brilliant leadership of Stephen Harper. That would only make him look better on the world stage, and the press will have none of that.

order viagra free shippingexpress delivery viagrabuy cheap sale viagrageneric viagra canadabuy viagra fedexbuy viagra mail orderpurchase viagrabuy viagra consumer discountbuy viagra best pricebuy generic viagra onlineorder cialis securelybuy cialis no prescriptioncompare cialis pricebuy cialis fedex shippingorder nexium onlineorder paxil onlineviagra onlinebuying viagralegally purchase viagradiscount price viagrabuy cialis softorder viagra free shippingexpress delivery viagraorder viagra discount pricebuy generic cialisorder viagra amexviagra best priceviagra onlineviagra onlineorder viagra softcheap cialis substitutebuy cialis Discount Pricewhere buy cialisbuy cialis securelybuy cialis next day deliverybuy cialis legal salesbuy cialis online pharmacybuy generic cialisbuy cialis no prescriptionpurchase cialis onlinebuy cialis american expressbuy cialis money buybuy cialis international shipsbuy cialis cheap priceBuy Viagra Discount Priceorder viagra low priceorder viagra american expressorder viagra no prescriptiongeneric viagraviagra super activebuy viagra softcialis onlineorder paxilorder lexaproorder venlafaxinepaxil onlineorder imitrex couponsgeneric imitrex priceimitrex cheap pricecheap cialis substitutebuy cialis australiacost cialis covered insurancehow to buy cialisbuy cialis securelyorder cialis fast deliveryorder cialis legal salesorder cialis official drugstoreorder generic cialis cheaporder cialis low pricebuying cialisorder cialis phoneorder cialis upsdiscount price sale cialispurchase generic cialismail order cialis prescriptionbuy cialis onlinebuy cialis discount priceviagra price comparisonorder cialisbuy cialiscialis softviagra softcialis super activeviagra super activegeneric cialigeneric viagracheap cialis substitutecost cialis covered insurancehow to buy cialisbuy cialis securelyexpress delivery cialisorder cialis legal salesapproved online pharmacy cialisgeneric cialis canadabuy cialis free shippingbuy cialis fedexbuy cialis mail orderorder cialis fedexbilling cialisbuy cialis consumer discountorder cialis best pricebuy cialis prescriptionorder cialis onlinebuy viagra mail orderorder viagra fedexbilling viagrabuy viagra consumer discountorder viagra best pricebuy viagra prescriptionorder viagra onlineorder levitraorder cialis sublingualorder viagra super activecialis professional onlinegeneric viagra onlinegeneric cialisorder viagra onlineorder generic viagraorder viagra no prescriptionorder viagra online ukbuy cialis onlineorder viagra overnight delivery order viagra no prescription buy viagra onlineprednisonebuy cialis softantabuseimitrexflomaxdiflucanzocorpropeciabuy cialis sublingualzybaneffexorlexapropaxilviagra super activecialis super activebuy cialis softbuy cialis super activebuy cialis probuy cialis professionalorder cialis prescriptionbuy cialiscialis canadaorder cialispurchase generic cialis onlineorder generic cialisorder cialis professionalbuy cialis onlineviagra soft tabsviagra super activegeneric viagrabuy cialis softcialis super activecialis professionalorder generic cialisorder cialisbuy generic viagraorder viagradownload movies in mpegorder effexororder paxilorder viagra onlinegeneric cialis onlinebuy viagra super activeviagra professional onlineorder cialis onlinebuy levitrabuy viagrabuy generic viagraviagra professionalcialis soft tabsviagra super activegeneric cialisgeneric viagraviagra soft tabsbuy viagra professionallevitra onlinelevitra onlinebuy cialis super activebuy generic cialisbuy cialis super activecialis soft tabsorder generic cialisviagra soft tabsorder viagra professionalorder brand cialisorder brand viagrageneric cialisbuy viagra super activebuy viagra soft tabsbuy cialis super activebuy levitraorder viagra super activesublingual cialisorder generic levitraorder cialis professionalbuy clomid