Category: Politics

Fitzpatrick wrote up his bill after the Canada Revenue Agency ruled that the room and board provided to junior hockey players living away from home in the communities in which they were playing were receiving a taxable benefit and were therefore subject to pension and income tax deductions. Fitzpatrick said in his speech on this bill  that this added $25,000 a year to the operating costs of some Tier II teams in his area that were barely struggling to survive.

“The amendment to the Income Tax Act would have the effect of providing a small exemption to amateur athletic teams of $300 per month per player for the duration of the season. That would be exempt from the reaches of the income tax department. It would extend to all amateur sports teams in which the membership would be 21 years or under. It also would be limited to teams that were non-profit, community-based organizations trying to operate a junior team, or a midget triple A team, or a skate team, or gymnastics team or whatever it may be,” Fitzpatrick said in the House on June 1.

Until this afternoon, Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald (left) has been a relatively moderate voice in the debate about the Atlantic Accords and the federal budget. But this afternoon, MacDonald ramped it up after he read a letter to the editor in the Halifax Herald Saturday that was penned by federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

“As late as Friday, we, along with MP Peter MacKay, MP Gerald Keddy, and MP Bill Casey were working hard to protect and restore the Offshore Accord,” the premier said in a statement issued by his office late today. “When I read Mr. Flaherty's letter in the Halifax Herald on Saturday, June 9, it became clear that he was determined to undermine these efforts and undermine our good faith discussions. Mr. Flaherty has turned his back on Nova Scotians, and our quiet talks are about to get a whole lot louder.”

Here’s Flaherty’s letter to the editor, followed by the full release from MacDonald:

Ottawa respects Atlantic accords

By JIM FLAHERTY

I often wonder how an urban myth comes to be treated as fact. I suppose if people repeat it or read it often enough, they assume it must be true. That certainly appears to be the case when it comes to our government’s budget and its treatment of the Atlantic accords.

Whether it has been through elevated political rhetoric or selective reporting in the media, some people have been left with the impression that they are in some way being shortchanged.

Let me be clear, Canada’s New Government is honouring the Atlantic accords fully in its budget. Nothing has changed from what was signed in 2005. Nothing has been taken away from the province.

Our budget provides two positive options for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Labrador. They can stay with the current arrangement or opt into the new equalization formula. It is their choice.

Nova Scotia has opted into the new equalization formula for this year and gained an extra $95 million in federal transfers. That’s $95 million more to fund the priorities that matter to the residents of Nova Scotia, such as health care, education and infrastructure like roads, harbours and public transit.

Budget 2007 does more than just provide additional equalization money to Nova Scotia. Just look at the benefits it brings:

•$42.5 million for the clean-air and climate-change trust fund;

•$24.2 million for the patient wait-times trust;

•$7.1 million more for new child care spaces;

•$30 million more each year for social assistance and post-secondary education, with an automatic three per cent increase each year;

•$14 million annually for labour market training starting in 2008-09;

•$8.5 million for a life-saving vaccination for girls and women to prevent cervical cancer;

•Over $63 million a year for infrastructure spending, plus more for Atlantic Gateway funding;

•$15 million for a new Life Science Research Institute at Dalhousie University.

Nova Scotia taxpayers and families will also benefit from more federal tax relief from a new working income tax benefit worth $17.8 million, a new child tax credit worth $39.6 million, and a change to the basic spousal amount worth $8.3 million.

It’s no wonder Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley MP Bill Casey said good things about the budget, telling the Truro Daily News, “I have never seen a budget that has had more in it for the people in my riding than this one does.”

Equalization is a complex issue, as Mr. Casey admits. It is regrettable that he failed to take the time to fully understand how the budget respects the Atlantic accords before casting a vote against his own government.

Over the past few weeks, members of the Atlantic caucus and our entire government have been working diligently towards the same goal: ensuring the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Labrador realize the full benefits of the Atlantic accords.

But there should be no misunderstanding: Our government is not in the process of making any side deals for a few extra votes. You cannot run a country on side deals. Equalization has been restored to a principles-based program for the first time in many years. That’s what all premiers asked us to do and that’s what all Canadians expect us to do.

Every decision we make will be made in the best interests of all Canadians, including the good people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Labrador.

As for the urban myth, it’s time to let this one drift off into the sunset. The fact that our government is fully respecting the Atlantic accords, while lacking a certain sense of controversy, can no longer be ignored for the sake of a sharp soundbite or a bold headline. It is simply incorrect and irresponsible.

Jim Flaherty is Canada’s minister of finance.

PREMIER'S OFFICE–Premier Calls On MP's, Senators to Vote Against Federal Budget Legislation—————————————————————–

Premier Rodney MacDonald is calling on Nova Scotia's members of parliament to vote against federal budget legislation on third reading. He is also calling on senators to delay passage of the bill if comes before them. The 2007 federal budget effectively cancels the Atlantic accord.

The premier said this move is prompted by federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's disrespect for the professional approach that levels of government should use to resolve federal-provincial differences.

“As late as Friday, we, along with MP Peter MacKay, MP Gerald Keddy, and MP Bill Casey were working hard to protect and restore the Offshore Accord,” the premier said. “When I read Mr. Flaherty's letter in the Halifax Herald on Saturday, June 9, it became clear that he was determined to undermine these efforts and undermine our good faith discussions.”

“Mr. Flaherty has turned his back on Nova Scotians, and our quiet talks are about to get a whole lot louder.”

The premier is requesting a hearing before the Senate where the bill must go after third reading if it is passed.

“I will call for every Senator to delay passage of that bill until they've had a chance to understand our position and fully understand the impact of the budget on the Offshore Accord and equalization,” said Premier MacDonald. “The province of Nova Scotia will not accept anything less that the signed Atlantic Accord.”

The premier said he remains convinced that the right and responsible way to resolve disagreements between governments is through reasoned and reasonable discussions.

“Our relationship with the federal government goes well beyond the accord, and it was in Nova Scotians best interests for us to pursue negotiations until now,” he said. “Mr. Flaherty has slammed that door shut, and we must now do everything in our power to help everyone understand what he has done.”

The offshore accord is a contract between Nova Scotia and Canada. It guarantees that Nova Scotia will be the principal beneficiary of petroleum developments off our shores, a principle agreed to by the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia more than 20 years ago and culminated in the accord signed by Premier John Hamm in 200

On Tuesday, the Conservative Party launched a new series of advertisements, which will air on mainstream television and radio stations, which attack Liberal leader Stephane Dion.

Today, the Young Liberals of Canada announced a plan to hit back but do not have the money to buy TV and radio ads. Instead, they will use online services such as Google’s YouTube, Facebook and a collection of sympathetic bloggers and instant messaging services.

Some of the Liberal ads (left) pick up on ads run by Apple Computer “I”m a Mac. I’m a PC.” In the YLC incarnation, “I’m a Liberal. I’m a P.C.”.

Here’s an excerpt from the Young Liberal press release:

“Look, it's no secret the Conservatives are a wealthy party who can afford all kinds of fancy marketing executives and focus groups,” admits (Youth National Director Scott) Pickup, “but within the Liberal family we've got talent, we've got dedication, and we've got a clear vision for Canada of which we're proud.”

The three parody ads will be promoted through a multi-pronged approach that utilizes youngliberals.ca, Facebook, youtube.com, instant-messenger programs, and bloggers. This cohesive online campaign provides an opportunity for members and supporters to disseminate and share their messages quickly and affordably.

“The internet isn't a magical playground in a computer,” says Youth Campaign Director and Online Campaign Co-chair Denise Brunsdon. “This is another layer of social interaction, and a far cheaper method of communication than t.v. and radio.”

“Our commission has always worked on a shoestring budget. I'm constantly impressed by what a few smart Liberals can accomplish when we put their heads together,” agreed Young Liberal President Cory Pike.

In 2005, Canada fiddled with its patent laws so that developing countries — the reform initiative was called the “Jean Chretien Pledge To Africa Act” — could get cheap access to drugs that could help fight AIDS, tuberculosis and other diseases. Since the passage of the “Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime” (CAMR) legislation, not one pill has ever been exported.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science, and Technology thinks that’s a rotten record of achievement and it wants to see what can be done about it. That committee’s chair, Conservative MP James Rajotte, has written a letter to Industry Minister Maxime Bernier about the problem:

I am writing on behalf of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology concerning Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR). The Committee is concerned that since the passage of the legislation that created CAMR in 2005, no pharmaceutical products have been exported to any country under the regime . . .

Here is an excerpt of testimony the committee heard last month from the CEO of generic drug maker, Apotex, Jack Kay:

  In Africa, hundreds of thousands of people die needlessly from HIV/AIDS every year because they do not have access to [the right] medicines. The reason is simple: the multinational pharmaceutical industry does not like to reduce its prices, and it's better to sell to industrialized countries, where it can charge higher prices.

After listening to a speech by Stephen Lewis, we made a corporate commitment to do something about the problem. In 2002 we made an offer to the federal government of the day that we would produce five antiretrovirals at our cost, as long as the government got them to where they could be used in Africa. The government never even offered to look at our proposal. Part of the problem was that there was no mechanism to facilitate the process, and there was a lack of infrastructure for effective distribution. In the meantime, millions continue to die from HIV and AIDS.

    Then in 2003 Bill C-9 was tabled, and hope was high that something was going to get done.

    Here is a recap of the Apotex experience. We worked in consultation with Médecins Sans Frontières, who outlined the HIV/AIDS medicines that were in critical need and advised us that a combination drug of Lamivudine, Zidovudine, plus Nevirapine was needed. We started working on Apo-TriAvir, and a special R and D team was assigned to this project. They doubled their efforts, working weekends and overtime to complete the submission dossier. Many worked on their own because they wanted to do something important for HIV/AIDS patients in Africa. This drug could potentially save millions of lives, and Apotex was committed to providing Apo-TriAvir at cost.

    At the same time, Health and Industry Canada defined an expedited approval route. Work on the fixed-dosage combination began in April 2005, and the submission dossier was finalized in December of that year. The dossier was approved by Health Canada in June 2006, and pre-qualification at the World Health Organization was achieved following the Canadian approval. This assured recipient countries of its efficacy and safety, authenticity and availability.

    Apotex has invested over $2 million to date on the research and development of this drug.

    Yet, having done ail of this to get this important HIV/AIDS medicine ready, the real problem for Apotex is the legislation, as the CAMR requirements are impossible to navigate. First, it's a voluntary license versus a compulsory license, requiring the recipient country to be identified up front, and the recipient country needs to initiate the request. The entire burden is left on the shoulders of the poor countries, who do not have the expertise or the resources. The legislation is designed for pharmaceutical companies doing business in the industrialized world, not Africa.

    The effectiveness of the legislation is compromised by its lack of clarity. Maybe the objective of CAMR has to be clearly defined: quality medicines for critical diseases in a timely manner.

    The current complex legislation tries to balance the interests of big pharma first. Why? We need to get our priorities right as Canadians and focus on those who are dying every day from AIDS in Africa.

Immigration Minister Diane Finley was mighty unhappy at the grilling bureaucrats in her department received recently at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. A letter from Finley to the committee members was sent at the end of last week, on May 16. Some opposition MPs say it represents interference by the Minister in the workings of the Committee. House of Commons Committees are, by tradition and parliamentary rules of order, pretty much masters of their own destiny. When Stephen Harper was in opposition he decried attempts by Liberal ministers to interfere in committee business.

Now, in her letter of May 16, Finley says she has advised her bureaucrats that “if the witnesses have any doubt about answering a question put to them by Committee memberes, the should not answer immediately, but provide a response, in writing, at a later date.” She says this is for their protection.

Here are some extracts from her letter:

I am writing to express my deep dismay with respect to the appearance, on May 2,2007, of various CIC officials before the Committee, and the manner in which that appearance unfolded. At times, the atmosphere and questioning were very hostile and I believe attempts were made to intimidate the witnesses. Innuendoes and accusations were made that, in effect, called into question the witnesses' integrity and truthfulness, without any basis whatsoever. What we members of Parliament sometimes see as the normal cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate 1s certainly not the kind of treatment that should be meted out to any witnesses appearing before this Committee, including members of the federal
public service, and with good reason . . .

The public servants who will appear before the Committee will present fie best information they can, within the limitations placed upon them in their role as public servants. On May 2nd and gth, the assertion is plainly made that certain Committee members felt that witnesses had lied and this is why they needed to be sworn in. Such an allegation is tembly inappropriate, and frankly could well be actionable if uttered outside the protection of the Committee. Whether or not public servants are placed under oath prior to testifying, they will provide the best information they can. In an abundance of caution, now, I will ask that my Deputy'Minister indicate that, if the witnesses have any doubt about answering a question put to them by Committee members, they should not answer immedately, but provide a response, in writing, at a later date, This may delay the Committee receiving full and complete answers to their legitimate questions, but as it is your intention to swear them in, this guidance is for their protection.

The House of Commons is in recess until May 28 and MPs are back in their ridings. That’s probably a good thing. Last week in Parliament, Conservative MPs filibustered three Committee meetings; Conservative Royal Galipeau jumped Liberal David McGuinty in the House of Commons and, yesterday, Conservative whip Jay Hill (left) blew up at Liberal Denis Coderre:

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, June 2 will be my 10th anniversary as a member of this House. I have always worked hard, passionately and with great determination. 

During question period, we ask honest questions. We are now spending $6.1 billion on a mission, and we support our troops, yet we have a minister who says that it costs a certain amount of money, then comes back the next day and says that it costs twice as much, so I think it makes sense to ask about that during question period. 

I invoke Standing Order 18. The government whip cast aspersions on my passion and my patriotism by calling me an idiot. He said: “Tell that to the troops we are supporting, you idiot”.

I would ask the government whip, who often gets carried away, to withdraw his comment.

Hon. Jay Hill (Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I too have been here quite some time now, about 14 years or close to it.

I have, as my colleagues have, for the past number of weeks listened to the member for Bourassa denigrate and personally attack our Minister of National Defence. The member says he has been asking these questions properly. The Minister of National Defence is a man with an outstanding 35 year career serving our country in the Canadian armed forces. The member has called him an “arms dealer”. Today he called him a “spendthrift” for the minister's efforts to rebuild the Canadian Forces and to give it the equipment it needs, to give it the tanks it needs.

If he wants me to apologize, I will apologize. I should not have called the member an idiot because even an idiot would support the Minister of National Defence.

If you ever get the chance to visit the House of Commons during Question Period, you will almost certainly hear the heckling of Marlene Jennings, the Liberal MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine (left). She is easily the loudest and most persistent heckler in the House, so much so, that if you watch the Liberal side closely you might see her whip Karen Redman trying to shush her several times in a session.

Now whether you approve of this kind of heckling or not, Jennings is very good at it in the sense that she really — I mean, really — gets under the skin of those on the Conservative benches. Yesterday, Treasury Board President Vic Toews had had enough:

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, while I was asking questions of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, the President of the Treasury Board made the comment,“Take your medication”. He was clearly referring to me. The member for Hull—Aylmer also heard the President of the Treasury Board.

That would obviously be an inference that any member of Parliament who takes their responsibilities seriously and who communicates the anguish, the anger, the frustration of their constituents, and in this case it is a whole list of organizations in my riding that are still awaiting responses from the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development on the summer jobs program as to whether or not their applications have been refused. The fact that I show emotion and outrage at the fact that these organizations are still awaiting a response and would require medication, I believe is unworthy of this House. It is disrespectful to every single member sitting in this House who is elected to represent the wishes, the desires, the wants and the needs of their constituents. I intend to do that to the best of my ability.

I do not appreciate having a minister of the Crown make an inference that because I attempt to properly represent my constituents that I would need some kind of medication, implying either mental illness or some other condition.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask through you that the President of the Treasury Board have the courage, the intellectual honesty, to admit to what he said and to apologize to me and to every other member in this House.

Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here listening to the minister give an answer and all I heard was absolute screaming and yelling from the member. The member has a practice and a habit of absolutely screaming and yelling. This is what she consistently does throughout question period. I am sure members sitting around her can attest to the fact that that member specifically screams and yells on all occasions. What I indicated to her is perhaps she might want to take some medication.

I do not know what the issue is over there, but I have never in my time in this House heard a member act in such an irrational way. Perhaps that member might seriously consider something.

If she feels that type of conduct is appropriate, I can only say that I think most other members would disagree. This is not an isolated issue. This is a consistent pattern of conduct by that member.

The political staffer who recently impersonated his boss, Ontario Conservative MP Gord Brown, in an e-mail exchange with a constituent says sorry:

May 4,2007

Please accept my apology for any misunderstanding caused by my response to your concern this week. I erred when I responded on behalf Member of Parliament Gord Brown (sic) without his prior authority , knowledge or approval.

The email that is in question was sent on Wednesday, May 2.

It followed a series of emails and telephone calls from you. I am responsible for emails, telephone calls and letters from all constituents in the riding and in this instance I showed a lack of judgment.

Feeling under pressure to respond to certain accusations and allegations, I did not handle this
situation properly.

I know this was wrong and regret taking this action.

My behaviour and the content of the email was not professional and I wish to point out that it in no way reflects Member of Parliament Gord Brown's position on the matters discussed.

Again, I extend my sincerest apologies to you and journalist Jennifer Ditchburn for this incident

Yours sincerely,

Mark King
Legislative Assistant
Gord Brown, MP
Leeds-Grenville

Here’s Liberal Environment Critic David McGuinty (left) responding to today’s developments in the “Green Leak” affair. He is being questioned by several different reporters from different news organizations in a scrum in the House of Commons lobby after Question Period today:

Reporter:   So, Mr. McGuinty, what about the arrest of this Environment Canada employee?  Is this justified?

McGuinty:  Look, it's a very strange set of circumstances. Just 10 days ago at most the Minister of the Environment sent me an eight-page speech to the opposition lobby fax machine.  The elements of that speech were very much the same elements in this so-called secret plan.  Is the Minister of the Environment being investigated by the RCMP?  Are his staff being investigated by the RCMP? It's a bit rich.

Secondly, it's important for us to remember if this person's a whistleblower — for example, let's say this person is saying that I felt an obligation to reveal this document because the government's plan is a breach of international law under the Kyoto Treaty – which the government's plan is.  If the person was acting in good faith that way, had there been an actual commissioner of the kind that the government created — the post that we created collectively as Parliament, the one that Gwyn Morgan was supposed to fill, if that position had been filled, maybe the individual would have gone to that person instead to find out what his options could have been. 

But the heavy hammer here is very suspicious.  As a former criminal lawyer, it's very, very strange to see that someone's hauled away in handcuffs at seven o'clock in the morning in front of their workmates to be then released only an hour or so later, to be told they're not even being charged.  Then of course the charges that are levelled are the wrong ones because the RCMP says that he's being apparently charged under the Criminal Code for breach of trust for revealing detailed regulations.  That wasn't the case at all. 

Question:   Is the RCMP becoming a de facto arm of the PMO?

McGuinty:   You know that's a very tough question.  I know that the RCMP are now increasingly trying to keep, for example, the media away from ministers, media away from press conferences, the media corralled until official meetings are over.  That's not the common practice of the RCMP. I'm sure the RCMP themselves are uncomfortable fulfilling that function.  So, you know, is the RCMP basically here just an organ of the state so to speak at the beck and call?  That's a question for the prime minister.

Reporter:   Do you think there should be radical activists in the civil service who openly criticize the prime minister and his policies?

McGuinty:   I think that there should be a balance here and I think that the public servants that are there, that are doing their job, hundreds of thousands of them are doing their job well.  If they have a beef or a gripe there should be some kind of place to go.  The government still hasn't filled — the government still hasn't filled the whistleblowing commissioner's job. They tried to shove Gwyn Morgan down Parliament's throat.  We all said no because he's a Tory bagman and he's too close to the prime minister. I gave the prime minister an option.  I said give us five days, we'll give you five more names with all-party agreement.  He still hasn't filled the position. If the position were filled, maybe a public servant would feel comfortable going to that position and saying I have a problem.