Canada is crazy for nuclear energy, says government poll

Earlier this year, Natural Resources Canada hired Ipsos-Reid to go find out how Canadians felt about nuclear energy, particularly in the context of finding a source of power that doesn't produce the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. The results, considering that Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn and many other Conservatives are unabashed fans of nuclear power, are not surprising:

“The findings of this research indicate some openness to the idea of nuclear energy as a part of addressing air quality issues. Half of Canadians agree that if we are to have cleaner air, we must increase the use of nuclear power in Canada, compared to one in three who disagree. The same proportion agree with the proposition that if we are to have reduced greenhouse gasses, we must increase the use of nuclear power in Canada, compared to one in three who disagree. Only in Quebec do more respondents disagree than agree with these two statements. In response to a specific scenario (the extraction of oil from Canada’s oil sands which requires a significant expenditure of energy that releases greenhouse gasses), two in three Canadians indicate that they would approve using nuclear power to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that result from the extraction of oil in the oil sands.”

This poll was conducted Feb. 16 to Feb. 22, 2007. The pollster says it surveyed 2,001 Canadians and that its results are accurate to within 2.2 percentage points.

Zogby says Obama can beat GOP, not Hillary

For a long time in the Democratic race, there was a feeling that, if the goal was taking the White House back from the Republicans, then Hillary Clinton was the best candidate to do that. Not any more. Pollster John Zogby says “Obama would defeat both McCain and Huckabee, while Clinton would lose to McCain and only defeat Huckabee by a small margin.”

So, if a presidential race were held today, here's the pairings and the results:

McCain: 42% beats Clinton: 37%

Obama: 47% beats McCain: 36%

Clinton: 40% beats Huckabee: 37%

Obama: 49% beats Huckabee: 34%

Zogby surveyed 7,468 “likely voters” in an online poll conducted Feb. 8-11. The pollster says the results have a margin of error of +/- 1.2 per centage points.

Conservatives selling access to the Finance Minister?

While the Conservatives were throwing mud at the Liberals over their fundraising practices, the Liberals and NDP were throwing a little mud themselves at the Tories. The Tories last night held a fundraiser for their candidate in Ottawa Centre. Here’s the pitch (I have put some parts in bold as they’d be the key things to zero in on here):

Friends and Colleagues:

I have the honour and pleasure of hosting a small Reception and Dinner with the Honourable Jim Flaherty, M.P. on Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 from 6-8 pm at the Rideau Club. [Ed note: The Ottawa Rideau Club is a swanky private club that costs thousands to join and counts many of the country’s movers and shakers among its members. ]

Minister Flaherty has generously given us his time to discuss directly the Government’s outlook on our economy, its plans for our financial future and the fiscal direction the Government will be taking over the course of its mandate.  As you are aware, this is a very busy time for the Minister as Budget Day approaches so his offer to join with us is even that much more appreciated.   

As you are aware, we are constantly facing the possibility of a general election in a minority government.  It is imperative we prepare for this election immediately and to accomplish that,     I need your financial support. Your attendance at this event will help us achieve our financial targets for the next campaign.  

I look forward to seeing you at the Jim Flaherty event and hearing from you over the course of the next few days. Thank you, in advance, for your support.

Sincerely,

Brian McGarry

Conservative Party of Canada

Candidate – Ottawa Centre

O  YES, I WILL ATTEND THE MINISTER FLAHERTY RECEPTION AND DINNER 

Please call Michael McNeil to reserve your ticket(s) @ $500.00 each.

I asked Minister Flaherty on his way into the House if the Conservatives were, in fact, “selling access” to him, something the Conservatives in opposition often criticized the Liberals for doing with their Laurier Club events. Flaherty said that such a suggestion was “complete nonsense” and that he does hundreds of these a year.

Still, the promo pitch did promise those who ponied up $500 the chance to hear from the guy who is working ont the federal budget, “the Government’s outlook on our economy [and] its plans for our financial future” so we asked the NDP’s Pat Martin what he thought about it:

“Well so much for taking big money out of politics.  I thought the whole idea was you weren't supposed to be able to buy access just because you had a big enough bank roll.  I mean that's good old fashioned tollgating and I find them both offensive.  SO you've got both the Liberals and the Tories in the weeks leading to a federal election campaign violating both the spirit and the letter of the law in terms of election financing.”

Liberal finance critic John McCallum was pretty critical, too:

Well I think the idea that a Finance Minister just 10 days or so before his budget should ask people to come and listen to his views on his own budget for $500 a person, I think that is highly inappropriate because essentially what he's doing is selling access.  And we don't know what he said, we don't know what they said, but clearly the people paying $500 a person, why don't they get a little bit of tidbit, of inside information from the Finance Minister himself.  So I think it was entirely inappropriate.

And finally, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre and I had a discussion about this:

AKIN:   So now you have some objections with the Liberal fundraiser tonight.

POILIEVRE:  That's right.

AKIN:   Can you explain why?

POILIEVRE:  Well, the idea that politicians could auction themselves off, that is allow people to pay them for the privilege of eating in their company or playing tennis together really means that all the politicians in this place are for sale.

AKIN:   Last night you auctioned off Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, in the Rideau Club, access to the Finance Minister two weeks before —

POILIEVRE:  How much?

AKIN:   Five hundred bucks.

POILIEVRE:  That's right and that's —

AKIN:  You could only get in if you paid 500 bucks.  Isn't that selling access?

POILIEVRE:  That's under the thousand — the $1,100 donation limit in the law.

AKIN:  Politicians still for sale.

POILIEVRE:  Under —

AKIN:   Still for sale. Finance Minister!

POILIEVRE:  Whenever you're ready for me to answer, I'm ready to go.

AKIN:   Go ahead.

POILIEVRE:  I'm very proud that Jim Flaherty held a fundraiser that followed the law.  The Liberal Party did not follow the law with its fundraiser.  That is the difference.  We follow the law.  They're breaking the law.

AKIN:   But doesn’t it violate the spirit of the Accountability Act?  You've been on about the spirit of the Act and here Jim Flaherty is selling access.  That's breaking the spirit.  You're selling access to, of all people, the Finance Minister two weeks before the budget.

POILIEVRE:  You are the finance journalist for CTV, right?

AKIN::   Mm hm. 

POILIEVRE:  Is 1,100 bigger than 500?

AKIN:   Yeah, sure.

POILIEVRE:  Okay, that's right.  So he's six hundred dollars —

AKIN:   I can't afford either!

POILIEVRE:  — less than the limit.  And Jim Flaherty has held a perfectly legal fundraiser, the kind of which is permitted under the law and no one contests that.  However, Liberals have said they will take corporate money, lobbyists' money.  They will take any kind of money and as much as you want to give.  And they're prepared to keep it a secret.  That's what their fundraiser tonight pledges to do.  It's a violation of the law.  They should cancel the fundraiser altogether, apologize and explain to the Chief Elector Officer what it is they were trying to get away with here.

Liberals change the fundraiser rules

The federal Liberal party changed the rules on a fundraiser being held in Ottawa tonight. Originally, the Liberals were going to auction off things like a round of golf with former PM Paul Martin or lunch with Michael Ignatieff. The Liberal flyer advertising the event  with the “sky being the limit” and encouraging corporations and unions to bid as the purchase of an auctioned item was not going to be considered by the Liberals as a political donation. 

The Conservatives and others howled that the Liberals were trying to get around election finance laws that prevent donations from corporations or unions and limit individual donations to $1,100 a year. Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe got a good zinger in by deftly linking in the Liberal sponsorshop scandal: “Je pense qu'ils sont passés de Groupe Action à Group Auction!”

Well, a purchase of those auction items will count as political donations, the Liberals have decided. Here’s Liberal spokesperson Elizabeth Whiting on the reasoning behind the change:

We didn’t believe that this fundraising activity contravene the Canada Elections Act.  We chose this morning to modify the auction rules to avoid any perception of wrongdoing or impropriety.  Only bids from individuals were to be accepted, and only to their maximum contributions.

In addition, it was our intention that, pending clarification from Elections Canada, proceeds from the auction would be put aside and would be returned or donated to a local charity should the auction be found to contravene the Canada Elections Act.

We have since gotten confirmation from Elections Canada that they consider donations of this kind in an auction to be contributions for the purposes of the Canada Elections Act. 

The Liberal Party of Canada respects the role of Elections Canada in applying and enforcing the Canada Elections Act and will, of course, follow all regulations.

This is in contrast to the Conservative Party of Canada who, when challenged by Elections Canada on their election spending practices, publicly smeared the Chief Electoral Officer and took the regulatory body to court.

Meanwhile, Whiting’s counterpart at the Conservative Party, Ryan Sparrow, quickly sent around this “Reality Check” trying to make the point that the Liberals should have know all along how auction items ought to be treated:

Strangely, while Liberals are holding their fundraising auction tonight in Ottawa, their own Deputy Leader previously said that auctions were indeed covered by donation limits!:

The facts:

  • Michael Ignatieff Campaign Previously: “Please note that individuals can donate a maximum of $5400 to all leadership campaigns combined.  In additional, an individual can donate an additional $5400 to the Liberal Party of Canada or a riding association.  To qualify, bids must not exceed $5400 or any other amount that would disqualify an individual’s donation to the Michael Ignatieff Campaign.” (http://auction.michaelignatieff.ca/, August 28, 2006)
  • Liberal Party Today: “The sky is the limit during this auction! A successful bid is not a political  contribution and is not eligible for a receipt for income tax purposes. Your successful bid will not affect your annual political contribution limit of $1100. As such, individuals, partnerships, corporations, and associations are free to bid as high as they want.” (Liberal Party Flyer for Eight Riding Cocktail to be held in Ottawa, February 13, 2008)
  • Among the items up for auction tonight is lunch with none other than Michael Ignatieff
  • Why would Michael Ignatieff participate in an event that he obviously knows was violating election financing rules?

And, the NDP’s Pat Martin, knowing a juicy target when he sees one, chimed in as well:

Well if they're willing to play by the rules, we have very little criticism.  That doesn't explain the fact that we no sooner plug one loophole than the Liberals are trying to find another.  I mean, they were clearly contemplating ways to circumvent the election financing laws and if we hadn't caught them, presumably that's what they'd be doing.  So you know, why do they only comply with the law when they get caught?  And how many of these, how many other fundraisers like this are going around, around the country that we don't know about. 

 

A tale of two caucuses

Garth Turner, the MP for the Ontario riding of Halton, was elected to the House of Commons as a Conservative, was turfed from that caucus, sat as an independent, and is now a member of the Liberal caucus. As a Liberal, Turner was behind closed doors (with BlackBerrys ordered shut off) last night as that group weighed their options on Afghanistan. Turner has an illuminating post at his blog about the differences between what life is like at a Liberal caucus and what life is like across the hall in the Conservative caucus room:

Every voice was heard spontaneously within this national Liberal caucus. To speak, one needed only raise a hand. In the Conservative caucus, advance permission to rise must be granted in advance by a subordinate caucus group. In this caucus, the leader is among the first to enter and the last to leave. In the Conservative caucus, Stephen Harper makes an entrance and MPs must stand. In this caucus, policy is formulated, changed, vetted by the representatives of the people. In the Harper caucus, elected people are told, often by PMO staff, what they will do, say, support and believe.

Liberals walk out: Goodale explains why

At the conclusion of Question Period today, Speaker Peter Milliken rose to call for a vote on a motion that called for the Senate to pass the a crime bill that had already been passed by the House. The motion had been declared a confidence motion by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. The Liberals were having none of this “false crisis” created by Harper. So they walked out, leaving the Bloc Quebecois to vote with the Government and the NDP to vote against. With his caucus standing behind him, Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale stood at a microphone outside the doors of the House of Commons and explained why they took the dramatic action they did:

Goodale:  Hi everyone.  I just have a, a few short remarks and then be happy to take your questions. 

Liberals are boycotting this current vote on the Conservative message to the Senate on bill C-2.  We said last week that we have no intention of allowing the government to defeat itself on this vote.  Their motion is a trick to provoke an artificial crisis and we're simply not going to play their game.  Liberals have been dealing seriously with crime legislation.  It is a serious subject.  That's why back in 2006, we offered to fast track 70% of the government's justice legislation.  They rejected our offer.  They'd rather have an argument than get the job done. 

In 2007, much of that legislation was well advanced, in fact, a good portion of it in the Senate.  But the government chose then to prorogue, to kill it all and to start all over again.  Why?  Again, to perpetuate the illusion of ongoing parliamentary delay.  Again, they would rather have an argument than get the job done.  Now, with this motion, we're seeing more of the same.  The Senate has had about three weeks to deal with C-2 so far.  They've moved it through second reading.  They put it in their Justice Committee and they've now agreed to extend its sitting hours and additional sitting days.  Clearly, there is no filibuster and no delay. 

But beyond bill C-2, which we supported in the House, Liberals want more action on effective crime fighting.  That's why we have called for more police officers on our streets, better coordination between all governments and law enforcement agencies to fight organized, better police access to new technologies, more Crown attorneys to speed up prosecutions and partnerships with community based organizations to fight the root causes of crime like poverty, illiteracy and addictions.  The Liberal approach is sound and reasonable.  If you want to see bare faced stalling tactics in Parliament, look at this government trying to kill bills in the Senate on foreign aid and on the Kelowna Accord and look at their ongoing filibuster in the House Procedure Committee to block an investigation of Conservative financial violations under the Canada Elections Act. 

The Liberal Motion on Afghanistan: Harper's reaction

A few minutes after Liberal Stephane Dion presented his party’s amendments to the Conservative motion on Afghanistan, Prime Minister Harper convened a press conference in the House of Commons foyer to talk about the Liberal position. Whereas the Opposition Leader’s office allowed reporters to ask Dion at least 16 questions over the better part of 30 minutes, the Prime Minister’s staff limited reporters to just four question, two in English and two in French. Here’s what the PM said in English:

Harper: I welcome the greater clarity in the Liberal position on the mission in Afghanistan.  I think the position, as I understand it today, is very clear and that is that Canada should remain with a military mission in Afghanistan through to 2011.  We will obviously examine all of their proposals in detail before responding to all of them, but I think this is important progress that has been made and I remind all of you that the government established the Manley Panel last fall with the express intention of bringing a bipartisan or non-partisan consensus to this particular mission and I think we've made progress here. 

We have two positions now in the House of Commons.  We have our position and the position of the Liberal Party, which is to essentially support the continued presence of Canada in Afghanistan according to a range of things — our international obligations, our obligations toward the Afghan people, … and obviously our obligations to our men and women in uniform who believe in their mission.  At the same time, we have the position of the NDP and the position of the Bloc, which is to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan as early as next year, a position that's fundamentally different. 

We’re going to go through this all in great detail.  There are other differences in the motion but the government's objective is to seek common ground, so we will look at these in great detail with the express intention of trying to find common ground.  But I think this is a positive development and one that I think is moving the debate in the right direction. 

Reporter: Sir, what do you make of the fact that the Liberal motion makes no mention that there be no combat role post-2009.  Is this enough movement in your mind to fashion a compromise and to avoid an election on this issue?

Harper: Let me clear that the government believes that the Afghan mission is important enough, it's important enough in terms of Canada's international reputation and obligations in terms of the obligations we've taken on towards the people of Kandahar and in terms of the obligations we've taken on to the men and women in uniform that we've asked to pursue this mission and to sacrifice and, and for whom, and to whom it is something they believe in very strongly, I think this motion is significant enough that it has to be a confidence matter.  And that's why we said that. 

I don't think we could just abandon this mission and pretend nothing had happened.  That said, I would agree with what the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party said last week.  I don't think it is desirable for the government or for the country to fight an election over this issue.  It is desirable for us to find a bipartisan consensus.  And I don't think in the end it matters whether it's a Conservative motion or a Liberal motion because it can't be a Conservative mission or a Liberal mission.  It must be a Canadian mission that there's some degree of consensus on. 

One of the things I'm encouraged about in this motion is that it backs away from any suggestion that we would dictate operational decisions to military commanders on the ground.  Afghanistan is an extremely dangerous environment and I don't think it is realistic that military commanders would be phoning 24 Sussex every other day to ask whether they could undertake certain operations or not other operations.  So I think the fact that the Liberal Party has backed away from any suggestion of that I think it's a positive development. 

Reporter: Prime Minister, your government has been asking NATO countries for a thousand troops as reinforcements in Kandahar.  Mr. Dion says they have to take over the counter-insurgency operations in Kandahar and suggests there should be more.  Is that doable?  Is it feasible to ask NATO countries for that?

Harper: Well as I say, we're going to look very carefully at the wording in the Liberal motion.  I think what's very clear is that to be successful we do need additional NATO commitment in Kandahar.  And I think NATO needs to understand that for NATO to be successful, NATO needs to be making those additional commitments in Kandahar and elsewhere.  I think NATO really has begun finally to grapple with the seriousness of the challenge in Afghanistan and the necessity of making changes in order to have success. 

I think what's important as we look at specific missions is we obviously want a motion — the Liberal Party agrees with us I think — the upshot of what they're saying is that we do need those additional troops.  They agree with the Manley recommendations in that regard.  I think it's important that we not put other things in the motion that would cause NATO not to come forward with those additional resources.  So I don't want the motion to be internally contradictory in that sense, but we're going to look carefully at what is proposed, that we need to get those troops, we want to get those troops and I think if we phrase this right, we certainly are making it very clear to allies that Canada's looking for a partnership in Afghanistan.  We are not looking to, you know, impose our will on other military countries.  We are looking to have a partnership in Kandahar and I think, I think that's the way to, to frame this particular request. 

And then, a couple of hours later, there was this exchange during Question Period in the House of Commons:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, former prime minister Lester Pearson said, “Of all of our dreams today, there is none more important or so hard to realize than that of peace”. It is clear that the Liberal Party has now abandoned that pathway and it is a sad day. It has chosen to follow the government in extending this war for another three years. Will the Prime Minister at least agree that there will be a vote on this matter prior to the budget vote taking place, so we can know where the House stands on the prolongation of war versus the–

The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are working on getting a consensus on a motion that can indeed pass the House of Commons and obviously uphold Canada's obligations and international reputation and support our men and women.

It is not normally my habit to defend the Liberal Party, but the Liberal Party, for example, not only entered us into Afghanistan, but the Liberal Party directed this country through World War II, because the parties that run this country understand that in a dangerous world, we sometimes have to use force to maintain peace.

 

 

The Liberal Motion on Afghanistan

Here is the full-text of the Liberal amendment to the Government’s motion on Afghanistan:

That all of the words after the word “That” be deleted and the following substituted therefore:

 

this House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan;

 

this House believes that Canada must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan beyond February 2009;

 

this House takes note that in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar to join the international coalition that went to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that this deployment lasted for six months at which time the troops rotated out of Afghanistan and returned home;

 

this House takes note that in February 2003 the government took a decision that Canada would commit 2000 troops and lead for one year, starting in the summer of 2003, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul and at the end of the one-year commitment, Canada’s 2000 troop commitment was reduced to a 750-person reconnaissance unit as Canada’s NATO ally, Turkey, rotated into Kabul to replace Canada as the lead nation of the ISAF mission;

 

this House takes note that in August 2005, Canada assumed responsibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar province which included roughly 300 Canadian Forces personnel;

 

this House takes note that the government took a decision to commit a combat Battle Group of roughly 1200 troops to Kandahar for a period of one year, from February 2006 to February 2007;

 

this House takes note that in January 2006, the government participated in the London Conference on Afghanistan which resulted in the signing of the Afghanistan Compact which set out benchmarks and timelines until the end of 2010 for improving the security, the governance and the economic and social development of Afghanistan;

 

this House takes note that in May 2006, the government took a decision to extend the military deployment in Kandahar for an additional two years so that the mission was then scheduled to end in February 2009;

 

this House takes note that it has long been a guiding principle of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan that all three components of a comprehensive government strategy – defence, diplomacy and development – must reinforce each other and that the government must strike a balance between these components to be most effective;

 

this House takes note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict; and

 

this House takes note that in order to achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the corrections system;

 

therefore, it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to February 1 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission shall consist of:

 

(a)               training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;

 

(b)               providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and

 

(c)                the continuation of Canada’s responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:

 

(a)               NATO secures sufficient troops to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009) to allow Canadian troops to be deployed pursuant to the mission priorities of training and reconstruction;

 

(b)               to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and

 

(c)                the government of Canada immediately noti
fy NATO that Canada will end its military presence in Kandahar as of February 1, 2011, by which point the time allotted to reach all of the benchmarks set out in the Afghanistan Compact will have expired, and as of that date, the redeployment of the Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar will start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by July 1, 2011;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that the government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada’s contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should:

 

(a)                               be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan;

 

(b)                               focus on our traditional strengths as a nation, particularly through the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and strong political institutions on the ground in Afghanistan and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada in addressing the chronic fresh water shortages in the country;

 

(c)                                address the crippling issue of the narco-economy that consistently undermines progress in Afghanistan, through the pursuit of solutions that do not further alienate the goodwill of the local population; and

 

(d)                               be held to a greater level of accountability and scrutiny so that the Canadian people can be sure that our development contributions are being spent effectively in Afghanistan;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players including the naming of a special Canadian envoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in Canada’s diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that the Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada’s role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military and, for greater clarity, the Government should table in Parliament detailed reports on the progress of the mission in Afghanistan on a quarterly basis;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that the House of Commons should strike a special Parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and other senior officials and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan.

 

And it is the opinion of this House that the special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information from Parliament, the Courts and the Canadian people to ensure that Canadians are being provided with ample information on the conduct and progress of the mission;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the Government must:

 

(a)                                maintain the current suspension on the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities until substantive reforms of the prison system in Afghanistan are undertaken so the systemic risk of torture is eliminated;

 

(b)                                pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people; and

 

(c)                                commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to release the results of any reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials; and

 

And it is the opinion of this House that the government must commit to improved interdepartmental coordination to achieve greater cross-government coherence and coordination of the government&r
squo;s domestic management of our commitment to Afghanistan, including the creation of a full-time task force which is responsible directly to the Prime Minister to lead these efforts.

 

Barbara George fires back at MPs

The MPs on the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee say RCMP Deputy Commissioner Barbara George is in contempt of Parliament for deliberately misleading the committee in her testimony on the RCMP insurance and pension scandal. This afternoon, George fired back, released this statement:

“During the past year, the Public Accounts Committee have used this forum to cause irreparable damage to me, my family and my friends. The committee process and its procedures are inherently unfair, as they provide complete immunity for members and no protection for witnesses by way of procedural fairness.

Since the Public Accounts Committee first undertook its review of matters arising from the administration of the RCMP pension and insurance plans, I have appeared before it as a witness on four separate occasions. During those appearances, I provided the committee with more than six hours of oral testimony on a range of issues. On many occasions, I tabled internal RCMP documents and correspondence which corroborated my perspective on the events in question and which proved I had done nothing wrong.

In the course of those four appearances, I answered every question honestly, accurately and to the very best of my personal recollection. Early in this process, before all the evidence had been presented, it became clear that certain members of the committee had already reached a different conclusion and would not allow themselves to be convinced otherwise. I was disappointed to learn that the report issued today by the Public Accounts Committee reflects their distorted interpretation of my testimony.

The report tabled today claims that I gave misleading testimony in response to questions about whether I had ordered the removal of Sgt. Mike Frizzell from the Project Probity investigation. Inexplicably, the report then acknowledges that there are still questions about whether or not Sgt. Frizzell was “actually removed‚” and the Committee ultimately concludes that “it is not necessary to determine whether or not he was ‘removed.’” It is unclear how the Committee could have been misled about whether I had a role in removing Sgt. Frizzell, if he was not “actually removed” from the investigation.

A final sign of the unfairness of this process became clear late yesterday when sources within the committee began discussing the confidential report with the media. I had asked to receive an advance briefing on the contents of the report, but was told that the rules of the House of Commons expressly prohibited anyone from disclosing or discussing a confidential report before it was tabled. By leaking the contents of the report, therefore, one or more members of the committee may themselves be in contempt of Parliament.”

Conservatives ask Elections Canada to probe Liberal fundraiser

Tomorrow night in Ottawa, eight Ottawa-area Liberal riding associations will hold a fundraiser. The fundraiser includes an auction, in which attendees can bid on the following:

  • A round of golf for four with former PM Paul Martin
  • Attend a Senators vs Canadiens hockey game in the company of Ken Dryden
  • Tennis with Bob Rae and his brother John
  • Lunch with Michael Ignatieff
  • Lunch with Justin Trudeau

At the bottom of the flyer advertising this event, there is this paragraph:

“The sky is the limit during this auction! A successful bid is not a political  contribution and is not eligible for a receipt for income tax purposes. Your successful bid will not affect your annual political contribution limit of $1100. As such, individuals, partnerships, corporations, and associations are free to bid as high as they want.”

The Conservatives say the promise in that paragraph is a violation of Canada’s Election Finance laws and today, Ottawa-area Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre sent this letter to Commissioner of Elections:

 Dear Sir,

I have become aware of a Liberal Party of Canada Cocktail Event scheduled for February 13th boasts that “the sky is the limit for this auction. A successful bid is not a political contribution…as such individuals, partnerships, corporations and associations are free to bid as high as they want.”

This event raises serious questions surrounding the legality of the fundraising practices of the Liberal Party of Canada. I respectfully ask that you investigate whether or not this event complies with the sprit of the Federal Accountability Act and other federal political party fundraising legislation.  

If you allow the Liberal Party to use these methods, you will have unilaterally repealed all of the campaign finance legislation passed over the last five years, and you will be reintroducing big money and corporate cash into our political process.  

With the possibly of a federal election happening in the near future I hope that this matter can be dealt with great expediency.

 

The Liberals say they are breaking no laws and that, under the financing laws, they are allowed to sell items so long as they receive fair market value for those items. So, you can’t sell a $100 restaurant meal in a fundraiser for $1,000. You would then be making a $900 donation — the difference between what you paid and the fair market value (FMV). Liberal Party spokesperson Elizabeth Whiting continues:

The interpretation of donations correct and legal. All is being done by the book.

Goods and services provided by parties at Fair Market Value (FMV) are NOT donations. However, some goods purchased at an auction that have some unique value (ie an autograph), the FMV is what someone is willing to pay for it.

In most auctions, FMV is assigned to an item. Anything paid in excess of the FMV is considered a donation (paying 200 for a 100 dollar painting is a donation of 100).