Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Stephen Harper G8 LiesHe asked parliament for 80 million dollars for border security, and spent 50 million on useless infrastructure in Musoka, where a Cabinet minister resides.

Harper knew he would be safe as the report would only come out after the election. He will downplay the issue, but by not leaving a paper trail about the investments, you know Harper is hiding something.

The final report on the G8 legacy infrastructure fund concludes that the government “did not clearly or transparently” identify how the money was going to be spent when it sought parliamentary approval for the funding.

Moreover, the report criticizes the utter lack of documentation to explain how and why 32 infrastructure projects in the Parry Sound-Muskoka region in Ontario were selected to receive the government largesse.

The result was that members of Parliament were kept in the dark about the Harper government’s dispersal of tens of millions of taxpayers’ funds, the audit concluded.

Read More :

Conservatives Misled Parliament

G8 Spending  Under Scrutiny

Stephen Harper’s government misled Parliament and skirted spending guidelines as it sprinkled tens of millions of dollars across Muskoka to provide a G8 legacy, an independent probe has concluded.The federal Conservatives passed off the $50 million G8 Legacy fund as part of an $83 million investment to reduce border congestion when they sought Parliament’s approval for funding, a report from the Auditor General of Canada said Thursday.

The result was that members of Parliament were kept in the dark about the Harper government’s dispersal of tens of millions of taxpayers’ funds, the audit concluded.

Stephen Harper has a chance to deepen his imprint on Canadian law and society, for decades to come. The sudden retirement of two Supreme Court judges has handed Prime Minister Stephen Harper the chance to remake the high court along conservative lines, opening a debate over how to select their successors.

By the time Stephen Harper’s term as prime minister is over, four years from now, more than half the judges who make up the country’s top court will have stepped down.

 

 

 

Name Date of birth Home province Appointed on the advice of Date appointed Mandatory retirement date
Beverley McLachlin
(Chief Justice)
7 September 1943 British Columbia Mulroney /
Chrétien (as chief justice)
30 March 1989 /
7 January 2000
7 September 2018
Ian Binnie 14 April 1939 Ontario Chrétien 8 January 1998 14 April 2014
Louis LeBel 30 November 1939 Quebec Chrétien 7 January 2000 30 November 2014
Morris Fish 16 November 1938 Quebec Chrétien 8 May 2003 16 November 2013
Marshall Rothstein 25 December 1940 Manitoba Harper 1 March 2006 25 December 2015

 

Legal experts now believe Mr. Harper will use his choices to usher in a decades-long course of conservative Charter of Rights rulings and low-key deference to Parliament. It conjures up a potential nightmare for the political left and civil libertarians who look to the Supreme Court to strike down laws that offend the Charter and to safeguard the rights of the accused.

From property rights to issues of federal-provincial jurisdiction to law and order, not to mention the balance between national security and individual liberties, there’s all sorts of room to help turn Canada into a more small-C conservative country.

The decisions that are being made at the Supreme Court just this year alone are going to be incredibly important, and the stuff that’s almost certainly going to end up there—prostitution, marijuana, polygamy—are all things that have a direct impact on people’s lives and their rights.

Read More :

Wikipedia Supreme Court

Remake Along Conservative Lines

How Far Can Harper Go on Supreme Court appointments ?

 

Opposition parties may soon lose millions thanks to Stephen Harper.

Stephen Harper will phase out the per-vote subsidies on which federal parties have relied since the end of the Jean Chrétien era. The Conservatives, who have built a tremendously successful fundraising machine, will be just fine; the other parties will be in deep trouble.

Federal Conservatives have raised more money since 2004 than their three federal political rivals combined.

Political parties need money to compete – not just during election campaigns, but between them. And if they were just relying on the money they raise from individuals, without the $2 they get per vote, the opposition parties wouldn’t be competing at all.

In the final quarter of 2010, the Conservatives raised $5.23-million from individual donors – well more than the Liberals ($2.19-million), New Democrats ($1.66-million) and Bloc Québécois ($348,000) combined.

Here’s what parties would have netted each year on the subsidy (based on the election vote totals):

CPC: 10.2 million
NDP: 7.9 million
LPC: 4.9 million
Bloc: 1.6 million
Green: 1.0 million

I don’t see why we’re going to do away with this,” Chretien said in Quebec City.

“And who will this benefit? It will benefit those who have the most money. Suppose the poor wanted to have a political party, they wouldn’t have the means to do it.”

Chretien’s government introduced the subsidies in the wake of corruption scandals, with an aim to reducing graft and donor influence.

He said slashing the allowance could give Canada a system that resembles the one in the United States, where parties must raise billions to fund a campaign.

I think being politically different than the United States is good since it gives more options to choose from in North America. At worse, the per vote subsidy is not bad – not good. Heck it just cost 27 million. If Harper and his intelligent team can cut the budget by 11 billion, I’m sure they can find more democratic ways to cut election spending.

Read More :

Parties Will Suffer

Can The Subsidy Backfire ?

 

Stephen Harper Misled Canadians About G8 Costs

He asked parliament for 80 million dollars for border security, and spent 50 million on useless infrastructure in Musoka, where a…

Stop Harper, Says Brigette DePape In Senate Chamber

Brigette DePape staged an unprecedented protest on the floor of the Senate chamber, walking out into the red-carpeted centre…

Can Stephen Harper Keep His Promise On Senate Reforms ?

There seems to be confusion over the constitutionality on senate reforms. Stephen Harper originally proposed an 8 year term…

Stephen Harper’s Senate Appointees May 2011

Harper has constitutional responsibility to fill any vacant seats in the Senate, but his choices are very questionable. The 3…

TAGS