Harper photos removed from government website

Harper photos removed from government website



Only a half-dozen of PM's 40 or more photos survive the cut after boosterism accusations
Sep 22, 2009 04:30 AM
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA–The Government of Canada website set up to promote the Conservative economic action plan had a leaner look yesterday: more than 30 photos of Prime Minister Stephen Harper had been removed.

Critics have complained that the website, actionplan.gc.ca, looks like a partisan promotion – complete with a Tory-blue colour scheme, glowing third-party testimonials, more than 40 photos of Harper and repeated references to "the Harper government" rather than the Government of Canada.

Published reports have highlighted the $34-million budget for promoting the economic plan.

A story by The Canadian Press, published in the Star yesterday, noted that the $34-million budget for promoting the economic plan dwarfs the federal budget provided for informing Canadians about swine flu prevention as the flu season starts.

Non-partisan public service ads on preventing the spread of the H1N1 virus began airing yesterday. The Public Health Agency of Canada picked up the $2 million tab.

The latest TV ads promoting the stimulus package, part of a $34-million campaign, cost $5 million, and include Conservative-friendly tag lines such as "We can't stop now."

Rules on government advertising say it is to be non-partisan and not promote any party or individual.

There are also rules on government branding, including using the word Canada in any department or agency name, or including Government of Canada in close proximity.

References to the "Harper government" remained on the website yesterday. But photos of the Prime Minister were reduced to about seven, from the original 40-plus.

Ontario adopted a law in 2004 in an effort to prevent partisanship in taxpayer-funded provincial government ads. The rules include barring any images of the premier in government-paid promotions.

On Sunday, a PCO spokeswoman defended the Harper photos on the website, writing by email that "(Harper) is the chief spokesperson in the Government of Canada for the (action plan)."

Further written questions to the Privy Council Office about government policy on advertising received no immediate response yesterday.

On Patronage and Senate Appointments

Last updated at 8:29 AM on 14/09/09

Cheers & Jeers
CHEERS & JEERS
The Telegram


Jeers: to the continuing effort to fight patronage - by stuffing more of your own party members into federal jobs. Fresh from packing the Senate with cronies of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Tories have named a former Conservative cabinet minister to head the Federal Court of Appeal. And right on the heels of Harper being caught on videotape complaining about the Liberals appointing their own to the courts when they were in power. Apparently, it's not really hypocrisy when you're doing it yourself.


.................................................................................

dgb...

Ethics and integrity, transparency and accountability, congruence -- saying what you mean, and meaning what you say: all of these are 'election buzz words' that prospective leaders use all the time to try to seduce the public into giving them a shot at power.

Pessimism, cynicism, hyprocrisy, and narcissism often become the 'public sentiment and buzz words' after these former 'supposedly charging political idealists' actually take office for a year or less and start withering into complacency, entropy, and narcissistic consolidation.

In Canada -- and probably to a greater or lesser extent in America too -- ethics seems to be something that is largely left outside the Prime Minister's (President's) door as other more politically pragmatic characteristics seem to take priority.

Election promises are 'forgotten'. No more 'Senate Reform'. Just 'load the Senate with your own'.

As power increases, personal and party ethics tends to decrease while personal and party narcissism tends to increase. Such is the nature of politics and, indeed, seemingly any rise to more and more unbridled power.

Thus, the need for more and more journalist and philosophical candor -- to show how pre-election 'ethical idealism' changes to 'partisan righteous-narcissistic ideology' based solely on being either out of power, looking in, or in power, looking out.

-- dgb, Sept. 15th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain

MLA expenses: Openness welcome

MLA expenses: Openness welcome


Mon. Aug 17 - 4:47 AM

NOVA SCOTIA MLAs should have to provide receipts for all reimbursable expenses.

Period.

There simply isn’t any justifiable reason why provincial politicians should be given $1,000 a month, to cite one current practice, when there’s no way to verify if the funds are being spent on legitimate public purposes.

Defeated MLAs in Nova Scotia also get $45,000, no receipts required, to wrap up their constituency offices.

As NDP Deputy Premier Frank Corbett put it succinctly last week, "when there’s no receipt, there’s a chance for misuse."

So we heartily applaud the NDP government’s intention, as laid out by Mr. Corbett, to reform all expense claim accounting procedures for MLAs.

The deputy premier said the government intends to make recommendations to the legislature on the issue this fall, likely around the same time the province’s auditor general issues his own report on MLA expenses.

Scott Hennig, a spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, says it is "very unusual" for provincial politicians to have significant expense accounts for which they do not have to provide receipts.

Earlier this year, a scandal over the misuse of MPs’ expense claims erupted in Britain, resulting in resignations of half a dozen cabinet ministers and reimbursement to the public purse of about $900,000.

We’re not suggesting there’s a similar problem here. The point is, however, that without records of receipts, it’s impossible to know.

Public cynicism about politicians is already well entrenched. A system that puts thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money into politicians’ hands every year, to spend without a speck of scrutiny, only deepens that public distrust.

Given that, it was also welcome to hear Mr. Corbett say the NDP government wants the legislature’s internal economy board, the committee of MLAs who meet in private to approve increases in various politicians’ expenses, to become "more open and transparent."

Overall, Mr. Corbett said, the government wants to look for "efficiencies" and "savings."

The NDP can certainly show the party is serious about changing the way politics is practised here in Nova Scotia by significantly tightening up MLA expense accounts.

The public will no doubt be supportive.

As of yet, of course, it’s too early to know just how far, or deep, such changes could — or will — go, if and when implemented.

Nova Scotians will certainly be watching closely to see if the new majority NDP government turns good intentions into concrete reforms.

( edits@herald.ca)





RECOMMEND THIS STORY?

10 votes
COMMENTS
(5)

POST YOUR COMMENT
Malachy wrote:
Oh I'm sure we'll see some changes from the NDP (well, not a name change...)but they will be small changes and enough to show the press and public that they "at least did something". Pittance really to what could - nay, should - be done. If the public truly knew how much money politicians wasted and how taxpayer dollars are really spent, when so many people go without and are barely able to feed, house and clothe themselves, there would be rioting in front of province house. Maybe that's what the city needs - a good, anarchy-like riot to slap the politicos across the back of the head. Or maybe its the people that need the slap to wake them up.

MarkyMark wrote:
I agree 100% with this editorial.

Although I do not suspect the majority of our elected representatives of taking advantage of the lax financial reporting rules, the potential for abuse is there.

Creating unambiguous transparency is an important part of the democratic process and the Dexter Government is to be commended for taking this next logical step.

The editorial cites the recent spending scandal in the UK parliament but we have one much closer to home in Atlantic Canada with the Newfoundland and Labradador legislative assembly, not to mention the sponsorship scandal in the Canadian parliament, as well as numerous cases of questionable past provincial legislative spending practices across this country.

Democracy 250 was a bust last year with the tomfoolery that went on here in Nova Scotia with the minority government of Rodney MacDonald. Please make a lasting legacy for D-250 and enact reforms such as this one to make this province the shining example of open transparent government - at the provincial and municipal levels.

Another beef of mine is all the in-camera sessions that municipal councils have - fix it !!!!!

JABBPR wrote:
Let's also remember that although $1,000 may not be a large sum to them, it's actually more then some incomes out there. Some people raise children on that amount of money. I'm a student and I'm earning hardly more then that a month. They're burning it up on drinks at the Old Triangle!

danby wrote:
Cancer patients often live on less than $1000 per month are expected to pay medicare and drugs so they must do without as well.Yes, they should live within our means and cut non-necessity perks.The money is no longer there to live the good life so people have to get real.

worldly wrote:

While I believe the vast majority of politicians are prudent with their expenses, and I have no issues with the salary and expenses, I do see the lack of accountability for the spending as a real concern. I'm glad to see that's being tackled. In fact, the honest politicians should be in support of any measure that shields them from undue criticism.


..................................................................

Harper invites Ignatieff to rare tete-a-tete before critical vote

From Yahoo News....


2 hours, 11 minutes ago

8:50pm Monday June 15th, 2009.


By Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press



OTTAWA - The threat of a BBQ-season election hovered over the nation's capital like smoke off the grill after Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Liberal rival made tactical moves designed to place the fate of Parliament in the other's hands.


Harper invited Michael Ignatieff to a rare tete-a-tete Tuesday to see if a truce could be forged before a critical confidence vote by week's end.


With the NDP and Bloc Quebecois committed to voting against supplementary budget estimates, the ball and the government's fate was in Ignatieff's hands.


Ignatieff took the ball Monday morning and tapped it softly at Harper.


Show me your plans for EI, how much has been spent so far on stimulus projects, when you'll pay down the deficit and what your plan is for medical isotopes, Ignatieff demanded gently.


But if meeting those demands takes longer than this week, that's OK too by Ignatieff.


Cooperation, not confrontation, was the Liberal leader's mantra. That conciliatory tone was carefully calibrated to betray neither weakness nor bloodlust.


"My party doesn't control the timing of elections in any case. It's the prime minister and his government's responsibiity to maintain the confidence of the House," Ignatieff told reporters.


"For our part, the Liberal party has consistently shown that we want to make Parliament work for all Canadians. The real question is does Mr. Harper want Parliament to work?"


Harper's response was equally measured, offering the slightest hint of compromise.


He noted that his government planned to announce changes that would bring self-employed Canadians into the EI program, but that they were not measures that could be finalized in a matter of days.


"I would encourage Mr. Ignatieff and his party if they want to contribute to that idea or if they have other ideas, to be clear about them, and we'll certainly be prepared to dialogue about them over the summer," Harper told reporters.


But that was as far as Harper would go, underlining that the opposition would be to blame for stalled stimulus spending if the government fell. That provided a glimpse of the prime minister's campaign rhetoric.


"It's quite a contradiction. You can't say you're concerned about spending not happening and then vote against giving the government the parliamentary authority to spend money."


NDP Leader Jack Layton scoffed at Harper's line.


"They can't have it both ways. They're saying all this money has gone out, but now they're saying this money won't go out if there's an election - which is it?"


Ignatieff later said that Harper had taken a "couple of milimetre steps," but "we're not out of the woods yet."

No party in the Commons wants an election. The Conservatives are declining in the polls, the Liberals are cash-strapped, the NDP are trying to regain ground they've lost since last fall and the Bloc Quebecois are also on shifting ground in their home province.

The public doesn't want one either. A Harris-Decima poll Monday pegged the number at 78 per cent opposed.

Pollster Nik Nanos, of Nanos Research, calls it a "game of poker where everyone's bluffing, but nobody's holding anything."

Nanos said Ignatieff made an impressive strategic play - exploiting perceived Harper weaknesses of transparency, accountability and intractability.

"The prime minister has to be looking at the current environment and the numbers and knowing that he can't really risk his government on an election, knowing that Michael Ignatieff hasn't set anything down that's a big ask," Nanos said.

But it's a high stakes game for Ignatieff too, who is haunted by the shadow of former leader Stephane Dion. The former Liberal leader made and lost a leadership career by excoriating the government's policies and then ensuring that his caucus turned up for confidence votes in insufficient numbers to bring the government down.


....................................................................................

MPs' secret meetings loosen rules for cash and benefits

MPs' secret meetings loosen rules for cash and benefits


Sat Jun 6, 1:07 PM



By Tim Naumetz, The Canadian Press


OTTAWA - Members of Parliament have exempted the cash and benefits they receive from political parties and riding associations from restrictions and public disclosure under the House of Commons conflict-of-interest code.

The move was unanimously approved without a vote in the Commons after a series of committee hearings conducted entirely in secret.

The closed-door decision counters a trend to more accountability in government and should have come under public scrutiny, a democracy advocate says.

The change also could erode the independence of backbench MPs and make them more beholden to party bosses instead of voters, adds Democracy Watch chief Duff Conacher.

All four parties in the Commons approved the change last Thursday after a House rules committee and one of its subcommittees held eight meetings on the topic that were closed to the public.

The watchdog over conflict of interest for MPs and public office holders, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson, gave evidence and advice at four of the closed-door meetings.

But her comments will remain a secret, along with all statements and comments MPs made about the topic during the in-camera hearings.

Conacher - who says he gave an invited opinion at one of the meetings on condition that portion remain open to the public and then answered questions in camera - criticized Dawson for taking part in the secret deliberations.

"She's a watchdog," he said. "A watchdog does not meet behind closed doors with the people they watch."

A committee report on the change says Dawson advised MPs to replace a blanket prohibition on gifts related to their positions, other than those they receive as a normal expression of courtesy or protocol, with a more relaxed test that nonetheless is aimed at preventing improper influence.

The code requires MPs to disclose all gifts and benefits valued at more than $500.

The MPs expanded the change to specifically exclude money that is not repayable and property and services obtained from a political party or riding association from the definition of "benefit" in the code.

The amendment means there is no limit on money or goods and services MPs may receive in that context, and no obligation to report it on a public registry maintained by the ethics commissioner.

"Political parties and riding associations oftentimes pay, or reimburse, registration fees, travel expenses and hospitality to members for their participation at political events," the committee report says.

"These benefits cannot, under any circumstances, be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity, and, therefore, should be excluded from the definition of 'benefit."'

Conacher argues the change means MPs might be able to build up campaign war chests under the radar between elections - a practice Parliament itself ended several years ago with the elimination of blind trusts in riding associations.

He says the change could also lead to the kind of MP expense abuse that has rocked the British Parliament.

"If you look at the whole scandal of what happened in Britain, this will allow parties to give all those kinds of gifts, those were gifts of services and money, to MPs in secret," he said.

"It will allow the parties to buy off MPs in secret and make it much more likely that they will toe the party line instead of representing voter concerns."

Conacher also noted between 30 and 60 per cent of the coffers of federal political parties come from taxpayers through tax deductions for contributions, election reimbursements or public allowances from Elections Canada.

Dawson did not respond directly to the criticism that she took part in closed-door hearings to amend the code, but confirmed she earlier raised concerns with MPs about difficulties interpreting the previous ban on gifts.

"This committee decided to hold in-camera meetings to consider the provisions of the code that relate to gifts," Dawson's communications officer, Jocelyne Brisebois, said in an email.

"The commissioner was pleased to work with the subcommittee."

While MPs exempted the monetary and other benefits from their own conflict-of-interest code, an Elections Canada spokesperson said the transactions must be disclosed if they occur during an election campaign.

"If the benefit given to a candidate by a party or a registered association is given to the candidate personally and not for the use of his campaign, it is a gift and the candidate will be required to report it under the Canada Elections Act if the value exceeds $500," said Maureen Keenan.

"The cost of the gift would eventually be reported by the party or a registered association in its financial reports.

"If the benefit is used to directly promote the candidate during an election period, it constitutes either a monetary or non-monetary transfer and will be required to be reported both by the candidate and by the political entity that made the transfer."

MPs defended the secrecy of the hearings, arguing they wanted to discuss personal experiences with the conflict code.

"I guess we want to protect personal identities," said Liberal MP Marcel Proulx.

Canadian warship thwarts suspected pirates, helps boatload of Somali refugees

DGB Editorial: It is about time someone started to do something about these Somalian pirates. They are not going to stop pirating these vessels unless or until there are significant negative consequences to those who do it? Who is standing up to the plate? Who is going to do anything about these Somalian pirates? At least this article indicates a start. Much more is needed.

Is there a NATO jail anywhere in the world? What happens to violators of international law? Obviously the Somalian pirates and North Korea are two entirely different cases. However, the dynamics are the same. Some bands of people/countries (The Somalian Pirates, The Taliban, North Korea...) are going to keep pushing The United Nations and/or NATO, transgressing international law at their leisure and whim, unless or until they are faced with, and confronted by, a more powerful international police force and/or army that is capable of destroying and/or at least imprisioning them.

It seems obvious to me that there is a growing need for a stronger, more powerful, more intimidating international governing body of politics, law, and soldiers/police force that is better than anything we have in existence right now. This concept goes right back to Thomas Hobbes philosophy. Diplomcacy and democracy must be essential features of this international governing body. But when push comes to shove, there has to be a very real powerful international army to 'outmuscle' the capabilities of any one democratically transgressing nation, or band of pirates, or international group of extremist-terrorists -- religious and/or political.

-- dgb, April 5th, 2009.


........................................................................

From the internet, Yahoo News...


Canadian warship thwarts suspected pirates, helps boatload of Somali refugees


2 hours, 27 minutes ago, April 5th, 2009.






By The Canadian Press



TORONTO - Warding off suspected pirates and coming to the aid of a boatload of fleeing Somali refugees is all in a day's work for the crew of HMCS Winnipeg in the Gulf of Aden.


In the past 24 hours the Canadian warship has sent its Sea King helicopter after several skiffs that were shadowing a commercial vessel, using a large red "Stop" sign to tell the speedboat crews to get lost.


Commander Craig Baines says the suspected pirates did just that when they saw the sign, written in Somali, hanging out to chopper's door - along with the aircraft's machine-gun.


The Pacific Opal vessel had earlier radioed for help.


Baines adds that today the Winnipeg saw more action when it spotted a boatload of Somalis, trying to get from Somalia to Yemen.


He says they had been at sea for two days and were hungry and thirsty, so crew from the Winnipeg were able to get supplies to them.


The Winnipeg is currently participating in a NATO-led counter-piracy mission known as Operation Allied Protector.


With a crew of approximately 240 officers and non-commissioned members, the warship has been at sea since early February, and won't return to Victoria until August.

PM, cabinet, soldier families decry Afghan rape law

From the internet...Yahoo news...

PM, cabinet, soldier families decry Afghan rape law
April 1st, 2009, 6:15pm.

39 minutes ago


By Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press



OTTAWA - Angry Canadian politicians say the country hasn't sacrificed soldiers' lives and spent billions of dollars in Afghanistan so that men there could be permitted to rape their wives.


There's growing outrage over legislation that would restrict the rights of Afghanistan's minority Shia women, making it illegal for them to refuse sex to their husbands or even leave the house without permission.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he's deeply troubled by a move which flies in the face of what the international community wants to accomplish in Afghanistan.


"This is antithetical to our mission in Afghanistan," he told a Canadian media outlet in London, where he's attending the G20 summit.


"The concept that women are full human beings with human rights is very, very central to the reason the international community is engaged in this country. . .


"It's a significant change we want to see from the bad, old days of the Taliban."


Canada has lost 116 soldiers and spent up to $10 billion to support the government of President Hamid Karzai. Several members of Harper's cabinet voiced similar outrage, as did opposition politicians and one military family.


Defence Minister Peter MacKay said he will use this week's NATO summit to put "direct" pressure on his Afghan counterparts to abandon the legislation.


"That's unacceptable - period," he said Wednesday. "We're fighting for values that include equality and women's rights. This sort of legislation won't fly."


The proposed Shia family law has cast a shadow over an international conference in Europe on Afghanistan's future.


Critics say Karzai approved the law in advance of his country's elections in the hope of winning critical swing votes from conservative Shia men.


But it remains shrouded in mystery: it has not been published, Karzai's office has refused to comment on it, and its alleged details have been made public by Afghan parliamentarians who opposed it.


There are even differences of opinion about whether the law is in effect; the Canadian government says it understands the law is not yet finalized.


Confusion over the legislation is so widespread that even Afghan diplomats appeared sideswiped by the news. Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, said he's unclear on its basic details and is working to get information from Kabul.


Canadian officials have contacted Karzai's office and demanded more details.


U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly upbraided Karzai over the proposed law during this week's 80-country Afghanistan summit in The Hague.


Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said he's outraged by the legislation and Canada must make it clear to Karzai that it's unacceptable.

International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda said she was in "disbelief" when she first heard about the legislation. She noted that the equality of the sexes is a key Canadian objective in Afghanistan.

"We've invested a lot, we've put a lot of energy and resources into that," Oda said.

"It's very problematic. It's of great concern, and it is going to be a difficulty for Canada - because of our investment and our commitment to human rights, the rule of law, and equality. . . the steps we're taking, the investment we're making, and the work we're doing."

The father of a dead soldier also expressed anger. But he said Canada must continue working to modernize the country.

"My son gave his life up for all these causes and to have President Karzai's government bring in a law like that, that's insulting," said Jim Davis of Nova Scotia, whose son, Cpl. Paul Davis, was killed in Afghanistan in 2006.

"The law is offensive but what is the alternative? We just have to continue on with our effort and hope that we can make some improvements. . . The country has a long way in the last six years so hopefully we can just continue on our efforts and see some more improvements."