Budget 2012: First Glance

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty introduced yesterday the first budget since the Conservatives won their coveted majority. The budget aims to cut $5.2 billion over 3 years by cutting an average of 7% per program and will phase out over 19,000 civil service jobs. It is worth noting that in the first 2 years of their first mandate back in 2006, the Conservatives increased program spending by over 40% and this budget is a far cry from restoring Canada to a prudent economic state.

The country is expected to be back in surplus by 2015 – just in time for the next election – but the road the Conservatives have taken us through for what will be close to a decade was painful and unnecessary. Canada went into deficit long before the American crisis occurred and bailed them out of public scrutiny and this deficit was caused by reckless spending projects that were unnecessary.

Over the past decade, the government has wasted money on hospitality, the propaganda department, a new agency dedicated to religious issues, prisons and fighter jets, gazebos in Tony Clement’s riding, and the list keeps adding up. During the same period, MPs got generous salaries and that golden 23-1 pension. If this wasn’t enough, expect to have 30 more ridings and 30 more MPs along with the associated costs in the next election, and expect to continue paying for an over-stacked Conservative senate who feel entitled to every cent they receive for propping up their political purpose.

In terms of specific measures in this budget:

Pensions

Old Age Security

• If you are younger than 54 on March 31, you will have to wait until the age of 67 to be able to get your pension.

Pensions for Public Servants

• Public servants will get their pension based on a 50/50 formula.
• Retirement Age of Public Servants increases to 65 for people hired in 2013, from the age of 60.

Economic Policy

• Tax incentives for job creation – $200 million for small businesses that employ, $50 million for businesses that hire students.
• Fast track oil sands development
• Governor General to pay taxes (but gets raise equivalent to the amount that he would pay as taxes)
• Duty-free Limits match Americans: $200 for 24 hours, $800 for 48 hours.
• Katimavik program for youth will be eliminated.
• Downsize and sell offs of government owned buildings abroad.
• Atlantic investment tax credit phased out.
• Phase out of Penny, create rounding system – saves $11 million
  
  

Cuts

• Department of National Defense loses $1.1 billion, 5.51%
• CBC loses 10% of income
• Foreign aid missions come to chopping block, losing $377 million and the CIDA will lose $319.2 million
• Department of Agriculture loses $309.7 million, 9.02%
• Department of Health loses $309.9 million, 5.72%
• Department of Heritage loses $191.1 million, 5.66%
• Canada Revenue Agency loses $225.4 million, 5.1%
• Elections Canada loses $7.5 million

Employment Insurance

• Recipients in provinces that create less jobs are encouraged to move to provinces that do (notably out west for new mining jobs and the oil sands)
• People who work less will get less EI coverage.

New Spending

• Canadian Coast Guard will get $5.2 billion over 11 years.
• First Nations will get $275 million for on-reserve schools.
• New National Park near Toronto in Rouge Valley

According to the Globe and Mail, the budget will put Canada ahead of the pack in terms of debt to GDP ratio but apart from jamming the Keystone project through the Legislative process and telling the unemployed to move out west, the Conservatives haven’t done much to spur job growth.

There are no specific policies that will guarantee the creation of new careers and long term jobs. Instead, it might be more feasible to get a cozy job in the propaganda room which is at its highest capacity of all time. Those Economic Action Plan commercials will air in conjunction with dirty attack ads while billboards tell you your money went to jobs but the only foreseeable jobs on the horizon are those building Gazebos in Tony Clement’s riding.

It is also worth noting that Canada’s economy is stagnant and unemployment numbers rose the last time around.

Canada was in a good position in 2006 and after reckless spending that lead to an early deficit and after bailouts to companies that didn’t need them, Canada now sits in an economic hole. This budget may not be the worst Canada has ever seen but it certainly isn’t the best.

Now, why are we still paying for all those senators? Why are we adding 30 MPs and not shrinking the size of government? Why do we insist on spending billions on a tough on crime program that Texans will tell us doesn’t work? Why can’t we be prudent?

Why are scientists – and in particular environmental scientists – under attack – being muzzled and cut?

We are advanced in our knowledge-based economy and there are plenty of principles that we’ve learned that can be applied to our current system. The truth is, we have the best of what the 19th century can offer and the Conservatives have done nothing to inspire a vision or set out a blueprint for the 21st and this blueprint is the crucial part for the survival and continued relevance of Canada in a market where new economies are emerging at our expense.

The opposition were quick to slam the budget but not to propose any concrete alternatives and if rumbling of tax hikes is all they have, they will have to do much better. We don’t need to raise taxes, we need to better manage our funds. Another tax hike – like the one in Quebec - will push bills, rents, and the cost of day to day goods even higher and the poor of this country simply can’t afford it.

As more news comes out, there will be updates. But for now, we have painted a simple canvas and while the cuts were minor, some were misplaced while others were not made. The government in the end, did not make enough cuts to the right places and did not provide a true and feasible way to generate prosperity and for those who think tax hikes are the answer, how does a redistribution system create wealth that simply doesn’t exist?

Feel free to follow us and leave your feedback! What do you think of this budget? Let us know! Facebook,Twitter, Google+.

Thomas Mulcair Takes NDP Helm

Winning 57% of the votes in the fourth ballot, Thomas Mulcair beats Brian Topp in his bid for NDP leadership.

After a long NDP leadership race and complications in the online voting process, Mulcair set himself ahead of the pack provoking attacks from his opponents who feared he would take the party to center.

Thomas Mulcair says "categorically" he will not try to merge with Liberals. "We want to move centre to us not move to centre" #ndpldr

— Evan Solomon (@evansolomoncbc) March 25, 2012

In his victory speech, he thanked his family and campaign crew and criticized the Harper government.

“We can’t ask our fellow citizens to do their part for our country if the government will not do its part for them,” Mulcair said.

He then spoke of how Canadians and particularly the youth are active in community groups and advocacy groups but are “so turned off by today’s politics that they don’t even walk down the street to cast a ballot.”

He criticized the current government’s message to Canadians that they have to accept less and criticized the fact that this would be the first time where the new generation has a lower standard of living than that of their parents. He added, “Our future is limitless if we get our priorities right.”

“The challenge that confronts us is not the failure of ability and talents, it is a failure of leadership and it is a failure that we intend to reverse.”

He then spoke about unity stating that there were some leaders that played on peoples fears and strived with division.

“I believe that no matter your political opinion, we all share the same values. We all want to live on safe streets, just like everyone else. Most Conservatives I know still take pride in the fact that as Canadians we care for one another when we get sick.

“From Medicare to public pensions, these values are reflected in the institutions we’ve built, institutions we risk losing under the policies of this current government.”

Mulcair concluded on the thought of unity.

“We will unite progressives, we will unite Canadians, and together we will work towards a more just and a better world.”

Mulcair will have his first caucus meeting tomorrow and we will see how he fairs in the House of Commons and in the next election. We will also see if he manages to keep Quebec under his wing.

For those that missed the convention, here is how it played out.

First Round Results

Thomas Mulcair: 30.3%
Brian Topp: 21.4%
Nathan Cullen: 16.4%
Peggy Nash: 12.8%
Paul Dewar: 7.5%
Martin Singh: 5.9%
Niki Ashton: 5.7%

Second Round Results

Thomas Mulcair: 38.3%
Brian Topp: 25.0%
Nathan Cullen: 19.9%
Peggy Nash: 16.8%

Third Round Results

Thomas Mulcair: 43.8%
Brian Topp: 31.6%
Nathan Cullen: 24.6%

Final Round Results

Thomas Mulcair: 57.2%
Brian Topp: 42.8%

How do you think Mulcair will do? Let us know! Facebook,Twitter, Google+.

NDP to Choose New Leader Today

The NDP are in the process of voting for Jack Layton’s successor after a long leadership race that will shape the face and role of the Official Opposition.

Up until recently, there were 9 candidates who were staunchly in agreement leading to what was a boring race with emphasis on perceived front runners.

However, the race is now down to the second ballot and has started to get interesting as Thomas Mulcair and Nathan Cullen emerge with interesting stances. Thomas Mulcair has come under fire for his: to take the party to the center.

This move and trends showing him as a front runner has brought division to a party which has traditionally been left wing. This has led to the war between change and status quo, left and center. It has led to prominent NDPers, who back Brian Topp, to speak out against Mulcair. As the race continues, the NDP candidates may strategize as the left try to fight against Mulcair who wants to take the NDP to  the center.

In the first round, Mulcair topped Brian Topp and three candidates, Niki Ashton, Paul Dewar and Martin Singh, dropped from the race.

The NDP has said that it will support the new leader with a wave of ads that will attempt to define him before the Conservatives do – taking advantage of observations of how the Liberals fell into the trap for a third time.

First Round Results

Thomas Mulcair: 30.3%
Brian Topp: 21.4%
Nathan Cullen: 16.4%
Peggy Nash: 12.8%
Paul Dewar: 7.5%
Martin Singh: 5.9%
Niki Ashton: 5.7%

Second Round Results

Thomas Mulcair: 38.3%
Brian Topp: 25.0%
Nathan Cullen: 19.9%
Peggy Nash: 16.8%

For more coverage, join us on any of our various social Networks: Facebook, Twitter, Google+. Tell us, who do you want to be the NDP leader and why?

Liberals Slam Conservative Economic Record

The Conservatives may have attacked Bob Rae in a recent set of attack ads but the Liberals are exchanging fire, blasting them on their economic record. However, no ad has been released – yet.

 

While attacking Rae on his record in Ontario, the Conservatives tried to promote their own but the facts don’t add up and the Liberals pounced.

Bob Rae’s Spokesman charged stating:

“They want to talk economic record? Stephen Harper took a $13-billion surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit in Canadian history,” Lauzon said referring to the historic $56-billion deficit that was built during the Economic Downturn.

Lauzon continued on the charge, stating, Harper added $125-billion to the national debt and 270,000 more Canadians are out of work since the Conservatives first took office in 2006.

During Rae’s mandate, the deficit in Ontario was $10 billion per year.

“I started subways, they destroyed them; I build social housing, they destroy it; I build people up, they tear them down,” Rae said Monday. “Plus the Blue Jays won the World Series twice when I was premier.”

The Liberals vowed to collect money to run an ad campaign and if successful, we will see the first non-election Liberal ad – we will see if they can match up to those of the Conservatives.

The Conservatives attempt to sway voters into believing that their economic record is sound but the numbers reveal a different story. They’ve got plenty of ads on behalf of the Conservatives and the Government of Canada taking pride in “economic success” that is in fact economic failure.

The government entered deficit before the recession and spending increased by over 40%. At the peak of the recession, the Conservatives managed to reach a record-breaking deficit of $53 billion. They inherited a $13 billion surplus in 2006 from the Martin and Chretien Liberals.

Comparing Canada to other countries is a bit pathetic considering that a true economic manager who is prudent wouldn’t have overspent in the first place – nor squandered a $13 billion surplus in less than 2 years.

Want to see Harper’s Record for yourself?

An Overview of Government Spending Patterns over the last 18 years
Conservatives Tax Employment Insurance Premiums
Conservative Contradictions

Not to mention that they raised EI Premiums – making hiring more expensive and are allowing jobs to slip in free fall as labor disputes break out. Since the Government has chosen its side, there is no longer a need for an agreement between management and the workforce. Expect a long and tough year and expect to retire later.

The Conservatives also taxed income trust, which Harper urged he wouldn’t do in 2006.

The Conservatives like to preach that they have a steady hand on the economy but it turns out they have a steady hand on disaster. Is this the government you voted for?

Conservative Strategy: Easy to Follow, Difficult to Beat

Rae didn’t make his defense against Conservative attacks of his record easy. By admitting on January 11, that the deficit increased and so did the debt, and admitting that some decisions were unpopular, Rae played into the Tory machine and if history has taught us anything, Liberals who get targeted by the machine struggle to win national support.

“While it’s also true that Ontario’s deficit and debt went up, yes that’s correct, they went up far less than the current Conservative Government,” Rae said on January 11.

“In fact, Stephen Harper increased spending over two and a half times quicker than I ever managed to do as Premier of Ontario. So listen up, Mr. Harper, while spending in Ontario increased by about 15% under the Rae government, over four budgets, Jim Flaherty’s first four budgets increased program spending in Canada by close to 40%.”

Everything Rae said is true in this feisty speech but he not only gave the Conservatives confirmation for their argument, he weakened his defense that he was not solely responsible. Given the weight and effectiveness of Conservative ads, saying that your record isn’t as bad as his doesn’t cut it and he will have a hard time defending himself as interim leader. Don’t forget, they will brainwash Canadians and they already have a good control over what people think of their opposition – except for the unchangeable partisans.

However, given that the Liberals are in third place and given that they don’t yet have a permanent leader, this attack is uncalled for but be warned, it signals the attacks that will go to the Rae camp if it ever does decide to go for permanent leadership.

One would think that the goal of the attacks is to get direct votes – it’s not. The Conservatives thrive from a strong NDP because it splits the opposition in a way that is favorable to them. Chances are, the NDP will not gain the center – unless it becomes centrist. By attacking the Liberals, and pushing them to the left – which is also a part of failed Liberal strategy – the Conservatives effectively marginalize their opposition and dissect centrist voters.

They don’t get these voters by appealing to them, they get them by destroying any other centrist option and then cause a clash of their opposition. While the Liberals try to take NDP grounds, the Conservatives gain the marginalized in the dispute – either by a direct vote, or by the simple mechanism of them staying home.

Canadians have traditionally hopped between the Tories and Grits throughout history and thus we can imagine that most Canadians lie at a center between the traditional Center and right wing spectrum. So by pushing his opponents to the left, Harper effectively drives home big wins for his party – assuming they aren’t fraudulent. This is in its basics: divide and conquer.

So what is the right push from here on in? Many will argue merger, but merger creates an Americanized two party system which will ultimately fail and become one of the same species – look at the Democrats and Republicans; one of a kind. It is now up to one of the parties to move to center.

Either the Liberals and NDP philosophically switch positions or the Liberals start pushing with more Centrist – and even to some extent – inherit more soft Conservative stances and views. That is to say, support freedom as always, but inherit a tough on crime mantra and promote cuts and more prudent financial management – and most importantly, avoid tax hikes. Why tax hikes? This is the one argument that the Conservatives will win on. Apart from Alberta, Canadians are taxed enough – and to top it all, Harper brought in an HST (which ironically isn’t being strongly resisted by the opposition).

If an opposition party can inspire Canadians to a better future and do so in a way that costs them less money, they will vote for it. And if you are in Quebec, Ontario, PEI, BC, you will understand as you are being taxed the most with little to no gain. The politics of division will continue to give the Conservatives the keys to 24 Sussex, but an inspiring and charismatic leader along with a revolutionary vision may just be the key.

And note that whether or not Election Fraud did apply, the same principle and logic in the last paragraph (right above this one) should apply. Canada should strive for greatness, not good enough.

Conservatives Take Aim at Bob Rae

With Conservatives claiming Bob Rae isn’t ruling out a bid for Liberal Leadership in the 2013 convention, the Conservatives have taken the time and effort to attack him on his record as Premier of Ontario.

Using the same smear tactic that proved successful against former leaders Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, the Conservatives have painted a picture of Rae that is far from flattering.

Stating that Rae had a record of failure, the Conservatives took aim at job losses, income tax hikes and deficits that took place during Rae’s time as NDP premier in the province.

The ad finishing asking viewers:

By the time he was done, Premier Rae turned Ontario into the welfare capital of Canada.

Bob Rae: if he failed at running a province, why does he think he can run a country?

Rae’s NDP government lasted for one mandate in the middle of two Harris governments which arguably created the mess that Rae inherited and failed to clean up.

Rae isn’t sitting idle on the attack, he came out condemning them as “character assassination” and charged that they were an attempt to "change the channel" amid the investigation over allegations of voter fraud in the last election.

"I knew perfectly well what the Tories were going to do," said Rae, who has never announced his intention to become full-time Liberal leader.

"Look, I'm the interim leader, I do take it as a compliment."

Immigration Minister Jason Kenny defended the ads stating, "He is acting like he's the permanent leader, and he has a record that hangs around his neck like a millstone."

"A lot of people don't know, and quite frankly, it's 20 years ago in Ontario. There's a lot of new people in Canada, a lot of younger voters who have no memory of the complete disaster (and) the economic wasteland that was Bob Rae's Ontario."

Conservative Party Spokesman Fred Delorey echoed Baird saying that Rae refuses to deny intentions to run for permanent leadership and “everyone knows he wants to be prime minister.”

He added that Conservatives believe that Canadians have the right to know about the leaders they plan to elect. He then further defended his party stating that the Liberals had started a new branding campaign about Bob Rae.

“The Liberal Party has billboards with Bob Rae on them, something that is unprecedented for an interim leader to do. And he’s changed the Liberal Party of Canada news releases so that they no longer refer to him as interim leader, but as leader,” DeLorey said.

However, unlike when previous Liberal leaders Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff came under fire, Rae’s Spokesman Daniel Lauzon vowed to fight fire with fire.

“My colleagues at the party will be asking Canadians to contribute financially to our response. The scale of that response will depend on how generous Canadians will be in our appeal to fight back,” Rae spokesman Daniel Lauzon said.

While the Liberals are third place in the House of Commons, recent polls show an upward trend for the party and put them as Official Opposition in a Conservative Minority Parliament. However, the Conservatives would rather weaken the Liberals to Strengthen the NDP vote and maintain their seats through vote splitting. Not to mention that there is no better time to attempt to distract everyone over allegations of electoral fraud.

NDP Win Landslide in Toronto-Danforth

In a by-election today, Jack Layton’s old riding of Toronto-Danforth remained NDP as candidate Craig Scott won 59% of the votes.

Despite being held by Liberal Dennis Mills for 16 years before Layton’s take over, the Liberals were unable to regain the seat and despite a lot of invested political capital, stood no chance to the NDP roots that have been built in the riding.

The results show the NDP leading with 59% of the vote and the Liberals following with only 29%.

The NDP victory comes 5 days before the party elects its new leader whom it plans to sell early, before falling into the same branding trap that the Liberals have once again fell into with Conservative tactics.

Raitt Responsible for More Bureaucratic Waste?

Lisa Raitt’s expenditures while being CEO of the Toronto Port Authority have again come under scrutiny by NDP MP Olivia Chow who demanded the government release the details back in 2009.

"If there is nothing to hide, then why don't they just say, 'There they are and here are the details' – and, yet, none of those details have been forthcoming," Chow said.

A report for the Star found that Raitt signed off on her own spending in 2008 after the board chair wouldn’t sign.

The report also exposed $50,000 worth of hospitality, including a $9,000 lunch at Harbor Sixty Steakhouse which wasn’t signed off by anybody.

Raitt took an absence from and eventually resigned from the federal public agency when she ran and won for the Conservatives in Halton in the 2008 election.

Chow has continued to try to get information on what has been a dead subject in the House of Commons and Transport Minister John Baird came to Raitt’s defense claiming nothing was new in the report and added, "The Toronto Port Authority has said many times that all expense and hospitality policies were followed."

Raitt said she was caught in a dispute between two factions of the board. Four members, including 3 Conservative appointees, complained to Baird and then Auditor General Sheila Fraser about a lack of oversight of finances.

Fraser said she didn’t have the resources to have an investigation and Baird ignored the topic.

"It's unfortunate that it features prominently in a piece – these kinds of accusations," Raitt said.

"What's happening right now is we have a TPA board matter, and clearly we're talking about a point in time when there was unrest within that port in terms of the board and it's continuing.

"You know there's two sides to every story and you've got one set of directors who are giving their side right now and there's another set of directors that I'm sure will come forward and talk about their side," Raitt said.

If these claims are true, we can add Raitt to the shameful train of bureaucratic waste that we have the pleasure of paying for with every paycheck and purchase we make. The Conservatives promised to cut waste and ever since their election in 2006, waste has become rampant in this country.

Robocall Scandal: Dean Del Mastro says It could have been ‘Mistakes’

On today’s Power and Politics, Dean Del Mastro was again put into the hot seat as he was introduced to the CBC investigation that found links between voters who got robocalls and their response to Conservative recruiters.

Del Mastro started off denying the existence of 700 complaints.

"So where are these people? Where are these people? Where are these people saying that I got the call, I went to the wrong station, and then I didn't vote?" Del Mastro said.

"There haven’t been any. No one has stepped forward and said that.”

He later claimed that they may have been simple mistakes.

"Some of these things, as I've already indicated, could have well been mistakes. I don't understand why folks jump to these things and run to a conclusion that they have no evidence of."

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand wants to speak to a House committee and Del Mastro indicated support, however, when it comes to a full public inquiry, the Conservatives are still strongly against.

It started with throwing a staffer under the bus, then claiming the Liberals were behind a “smear campaign” and now it may just have been a series of mistakes and everyone is making a big deal over nothing.

What will the next story be, what do the Conservatives have to hide?

In case you missed it, the CBC investigation was released at the same time as 700 cases of Electoral Fraud were confirmed by Elections Canada and a former Tory MP spoke out against his former party’s voter identification system.

The pieces are falling into place; everything is adding up. Do you think that the Robocall scandal is nothing more than an overblown mistake?

Robocall Scandal: More Pieces Fall into Place

Elections Canada confirmed yesterday that there were  700 cases of irregularities in the last election and told Canadians not to jump to premature conclusions. A CBC investigation found a suspicious pattern linking who got the robocalls and who they supported.

CBC Investigation unveiled on The National

A CBC investigation asked voters who have gotten misleading robocalls how they got them and found a pattern. It turns out that when the Conservative Party asked voters if they would support them, a ‘no’ answer led to a misleading robocall. One woman used her caller ID to trace the number which after a Google search and phone call ended up to be from the Conservative Party. Another woman claims that the number of the robocall and the number of the Conservative recruiter was also the same.

If that wasn’t enough, former Conservative MP Inky Mark spoke out against his former party’s voter identification system, CMIS, yesterday claiming that only high ranking Conservatives could access and control the data and that he quit because he didn’t want to be controlled by Tory headquarters.

"If they get mad at you and don't want you to access your own data, you're done," Mark said.

"I figured that out right off the bat and said I don't want to be under their control, so I just quit basically."

"I always knew that I had to do my own thing, because ... they can control you 100 per cent, and that's exactly what happened with CIMS."

The scandal first broke with complaints of phone calls from Elections Canada in Guelph, Ontario that informed voters that “due to an influx in voters, the polling station had been changed.” It turns out that Elections Canada would never make that call and as such the investigation began.

As more complaints filed in, and Canadians lost confidence in the results of the last election, media investigations found links to Racknine, an Alberta firm which is responsible for robocalls. It turns out that CEO Matt Meier was linked to the Conservative Party.

The Tories then played the blame game trying to throw Guelph staffer Michael Sona under the bus but then pointed fingers at the Liberals when it backfired. Parliamentary Secretary Dean Del Mastro called the allegations “unsubstantiated smears” and as more and more Canadians joined the chorus, it appeared that it wasn’t so.

Elections Canada will be looking into the scandal amid calls for a public inquiry which to date have been ignored by the Conservative Government. In light of the findings by CBC, the Conservatives denied to comment and declined an interview with CBC.

Conservatives to Reopen Abortion Debate April?

When Conservative backbencher MP Brad Trost introduced his controversial idea to reopen the abortion debate, Stephen Harper quickly came to the cameras and assured Canadians it wasn’t going to happen. It turns out that Conservative backbencher MP Stephen Woodworth has been allotted an hour of debate with a committee this spring and a second hour of debate this fall to review a law that comes short of defining unborn children as “human beings.”

“As you know, in our party, as in any broadly based party, there are people with a range of views on this issue,” Harper said on April 21 of last year. “But I think I’ve been very clear as party leader. … As long as I’m prime minister we are not reopening the abortion debate."

The special committee would review Section 223 of the Criminal code and determine whether the clause: “a human being . . . when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother” needs to be changed as Woodworth requests.

The section defines the homicide of a child to be when  someone “causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.”

Woodworth argues that the definition is 400 years old and needs an update.

“If a child five minutes before birth can be defined as not a human being, then the question is who's next?” he argued.

Despite his party displaying no interest in reopening the debate, Woodworth will move forward and reopen it for them.

“The prime minister and justice minister have to speak for themselves. I don't take any issue with any statement that the government won't reopen this debate,” he said. “I'm acting as a private member.”

However, given the fact that Woodworth will have a chance to debate his topic and events will be allowed to unfold, PM Harper could quickly find himself where he promised he wouldn’t go: a debate on abortion. When Pandora’s box is opened, there’s no going back.

Abortion has been legal in Canada since 1988, will that end in 2012?

Has anyone heard of Jeff? Del Mastro implicated in Robocall Scandal

Conservative defender Dean Del Mastro has found himself in hot water after two robocalls on May 2 left some of his constituents confused. Residents in Del Mastro's riding allegedly told his Liberal opponent Jeff Leal they got calls from "an imposter" and this was then reported through the Peterborough Examiner.

The message urged people to go vote and allegedly came from “Jeff.”

It turns out that Jeff is the name of Dean’s Liberal opponent – the party that Del Mastro charged was responsible for the robocalls. Jeff Leal told the Peterborough Examiner that he had heard complaints from constituents that said the caller was “an imposter” pretending to be him.

The same paper shows that Del Mastro admitted his responsibility to these calls, except, he said that Jeff was in fact Jeff Westlake, his campaign manager.

Two Jeffs are now at play but no one knew exactly which Jeff was the one who signed off the message and considering the opponent was named Jeff and would be more reputable than Del Mastro’s campaign manager, there is cause for confusion.

Del Mastro had Campaign Research, used by 39 other Conservative campaigns, to send out the robocalls that were a message from “Jeff.”

Nick Koivalis, principal partner to Campaign Research, defended the robocalls.

"He did identify the campaign office phone number on the call display," he said. "And Jeff, his campaign manager, introduced himself at the front of the script. I think they could have done a better job on identification, but it's pretty clear."

However, he said that the calls in Guelph couldn’t easily be identifiable.

"The person says they're somebody they're not," he said. "They don't give a phone number to call back. They're two different things."

What do you think of this new revelation? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Quebec Government Rejects Law C10

The Quebec government has announced today that it will do everything in its power to dilute Harper’s new crime laws and soften its clout.

“It is not a plan to abolish C-10,” Quebec Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier said stating that he would ensure that it respects existing Quebec laws. “C-10 is a law, but we've also got laws in Quebec. We can make them work together.”

Quebec and some other provinces also say that the federal government should foot the bill for the new prisons and maintenance costs of the laws. Quebec estimates that new prisons will cost $750 million and applying the new laws would cost an additional $80 million per year.

“It's not for Quebec to finance the costs of an initiative from a federal government that refused to collaborate with provinces on the content of the legislation,” Fournier said.

“The federal government can't hide its head in the sand and deny that some provinces will at least need to build more prisons, which takes time and money.”

Meanwhile, the Parti Quebecois, the separatist opposition party poised to form the government in the next provincial election as today’s polls stand, is arguing that the provincial government isn’t doing enough to oppose the bill.

“We no longer exist for them. Quebec no longer exists for Ottawa,” PQ critic Bernard Drainville said. “The retrograde agenda of Stephen Harper's Canada has passed another step.”

Hearing these words and these conditions should remind you of the all so painful and all so familiar separatist movement in Quebec that while may have appeared dormant in the last election is regaining steam as the PQ gain and the Bloc Quebecois rebuild.

The law has been slammed by opponents for being ineffective and costly.

What Happened to the Free Market, Tories?

As one of the advocates for a free market and little government intervention Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party have proven to be one of the biggest interveners of our day. From the Postal Workers dispute to the potential Air Canada strike and likely to the many future walkouts, the Conservatives will interfere with the will of the free market and levy its heavy hand as government.

In advance of a strike to be held by Air Canada unions, Labor Minister Lisa Raitt introduced back to work legislation, what was and should be one of the rarest forms of intervention in a free market.

Raitt may say that her government “supports collective bargaining,” however she states that her government interferes because “union members do not ratify the deals.”

The notion that an agreement is not a deal until members vote on it is a central tenet of collective bargaining and nor the labor minister, or her colleagues, seem to recognize that.

Let us also recall that failed piece of legislation introduced a while back by Minister Raitt which would make the economy an essential service and thus take away the bargaining rights of all workers and all unions.

With the Conservatives intervening in collective bargaining and giving bailouts to failed companies with taxpayers’ money, one has to wonder what will be left of the free market.

If senior management at any company or public service know that the government will sweep in to bail them out of a mess of their own making, why would they bother to negotiate a deal with its work force? This will only lead to polarization and further disputes in the long run.

In the public sector disputes can lead to decreased productivity and efficiency which will cost taxpayers more in the long term.

If the Canadian government will promise selected companies bail outs and actively intervene on their behalf, what will happen to competition as monopolies build?

Monopolies are the reason why internet, phone, TV, and many other services in this country are much more expensive than in countries like Britain (when currencies are adjusted to have equivalent value) where the market is free and monopolies have been torn down. Monopolies are also the reason why Canada is lagging behind its competitors as cozy companies see no reason to innovate or compete. This is one of the drives stagnant job growth – which tax cuts couldn’t overcome – and while PM Harper is disappointed with the outcome, he really should have seen this coming.

The markets should be opened and bailouts denied. Let the market, like nature, run its natural course. If a company blunders and finds itself in bankruptcy it should be left to restructure or disappear. Don’t forget how much money goes to CEO bonuses.

If Canadian companies cannot compete with foreign companies on Canadian soil, then they are unworthy of existence, and their workers deserve a better platform to work on.

It was the Conservatives that said, rightfully, that competition was good for the consumer and the economy and that intervention in the private affairs of business is bad, why are they backtracking?

Rae Demands Royal Commission into Robocalls

The Conservatives continue to play the blame game rather than look into allegations of voter suppression and voter fraud as more people take to the streets in what can be described as a loss of confidence in our electoral system.

The Conservatives continue to claim Robocall is an ‘unsubstantiated smear campaign’ but that is rich coming from their war room – especially when you look at their attacks on Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff over the last 3 years.

All the while, a feisty Bob Rae has come out demanding a Royal Commission be held over the Robocall scandal and the NDP demands that amendments be made within 6 months to give Elections Canada more power to gain information and punish those found guilty of election fraud in future and past elections – including this one.

“Nobody on this side has anything to fear from a Royal Commission,” Rae said. “We ask for it. We demand it.”

NDP Interim Leader Nycole Turmel followed Rae’s lead saying, “if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, a public inquiry is the way to go.”

The Conservatives, however, ignored the calls for a public inquiry and instead attacked the Liberals – again.

Parliamentary Secretary to PM Harper, Dean Del Mastro pointed out a Liberal robocall in Guelph that didn’t identify as a Liberal ad and was used to attack the Conservative candidate over his views on abortion.

“These deceptive robocalls, Mr. Speaker, used a phony number, a phony person and they attacked and suppressed votes in Guelph,” he said.

“That was the real intent behind them … the Liberal candidate and the party (has) acted in a fashion that is deceptive, disgraceful and dishonest.”

Liberal MP Frank Valeriote responded pointing out the difference between the Liberal robocall and that of the ones responsible for voter fraud.

“This was an issue-based call, which could have easily been tracked back to our service provider, totally different from the fraudulent calls that came from Pierre Poutine on Election Day,” he said.

Using a bit of logic, if the Liberals were guilty of Election fraud as the Conservatives are claiming, why are they making the biggest fuss about it and pushing for an inquiry which in Conservative theory would incriminate them?

Again, using logic, if the Conservatives are as innocent as they claim, why do they yet again insist on attacking those who brought up the allegations and not launch a clean and fair public inquiry which in theory should prove Conservative innocence and at the same time ridicule the opposition for bringing up the matter and wasting money on it?

Just as a side note, the Opposition parties aren’t the only ones who want a public inquiry…

Robocall Scandal: Canadians want a Public Inquiry

A recent poll suggests that the Liberals and NDP aren’t the only ones who want an inquiry. The matter has awoken Canadians from sea to sea to sea and 75% of them want an inquiry according to a poll conducted by Ipsos Reid for Postmedia and Global News.

The pollster asked a series of questions which led to the following responses.

The pollster gave respondents the following information before asking.

• Accusations that some people working for the Tories “made calls to supporters of other parties and either pretended to represent their party of choice and deliberately harassed them or to deliberately confuse them about which polling stations to vote at on election day.”
• Harper and senior Tories had said they had “nothing to do with these calls.”

Questions: Do you agree with the following statements?

• “A special, independent commission of inquiry with judicial powers should be established to find out what happened in the past election and make recommendations on our future election rules and structure.”
  Agree: 75%
  Disagree: 24%
• “Elections Canada will actually get to the bottom of these allegations and we will know the answers.”
  Agree: 57%
  Disagree: 42%

The survey found that only 50% think that the Conservatives are responsible while 47% think the Conservatives are innocent.

In terms of approval ratings, only 47% of Canadians approve of the direction of the Conservative government while 52% don’t.

In terms of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, 48% think he is doing a good job while 51% disapprove of his performance and 1% are unsure.

Dropping by 6 points after the last election, only 51% of Canadians think Canada is on the right path to success.

The firm initially took these surveys separately but merged them to find a margin of error of plus or minus 2%, 19 times out of 20. Both polls had sampled over 3000 people through online questionnaires and phone surveys

Do you think it’s time for a public inquiry?

Conservative Crime Bill Set to Become Law

The Conservative crime bill will be put to a final vote tonight where their majority in numbers will allow it to pass.

The bill was supposed to have passed last Wednesday but the NDP was able to delay the last debate to Friday and consequently the vote to today.

Bill-C10 contains a series of bills that have been rejected in the last session of Parliament.

The bill introduces changes to the criminal code to implement harsher sentences for drug and sex offenses, reduce conditional sentencing like house arrest, punish young offenders in a harsher way, make it difficult to get a pardon and allows terror victims to sue.

In December it cleared the House but was recalled when Liberal Justice Critic Irwin Cotler proposed fixes.

The bill has its critics, Texan law professionals, and former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Louise Arbour.

Arbour said the law tells judges to ignore circumstances and tie the hands of the guilty. With marijuana-related offences, mandatory minimum sentences "go completely against the modern thinking by world leaders about the direction that the so-called war on drugs should take after 40 years of failure."

The Tories argue that they are tackling drug traffickers but Arbour said the initiative wouldn’t put a dent in the worldwide problem but instead be "a very costly enterprise that is based on ideology rather than science and progressive experimental initiatives that Canada is very famous for."

These changes won’t come without a cost and for a government that claims to be prudent, this bill would be enough to completely cripple Canadian finances both federally and provincially.

For a government that claims to be tough on crime, using failed policies is only a recipe for disaster and in light of the Robocall scandal, it is amazing how the opposition are doing more work to find real criminals than the Conservatives.

Robocall Scandal: Alleged Suspicious Activity in Eglinton-Lawrence Riding

Former Liberal MP Joe Volpe has asked for a formal investigation into the Eglinton-Lawrence riding where he alleges Election Canada laws have been broken. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver called the allegations ‘unsavory’ and called Joe Volpe a ‘sore loser,’ claiming that there was no voter suppression in the riding.

"We conducted a completely clean campaign in Eglinton-Lawrence. I was very pleased that we won by over 4,000 votes," Oliver told said on Thursday. "I have no idea what this is about."

Meanwhile Liberal campaign lawyer Tony Pascale said “There were an inordinately high number of voters registering who were not on the voters' list, in order to cast ballots.”

Oliver said that the increase in turn out as due to hard work. “We increased the voter turnout by 5,000 votes,” he said.

But the allegations and the first rounds of evidence in the riding tell a different tale, one of possible vote rigging and robocalls.

CBC estimates that as many as 2700 names on the electoral list were fake and if that wasn’t enough, the riding was also struck by robocalls.

Dean Del Mastro said last week that the Liberals were responsible for the robocalls that went to their ridings, falsely trying to link them to an American firm. It just so happens that one of the Liberal campaign workers in the office received the call, while at Liberal headquarters.

The female caller claimed to be from Liberal headquarters, spewing the false information to Liberal Headquarters volunteer and Eglinton-Lawrence resident Marsha Sands. Sands traced the phone call to an American number and the caller said she worked for a research firm and quickly hanged up.

"This is not dirty tricks," Sands said. "What was going on is illegal."

Sands worked for Volpe’s campaign for 10 years and added, "Since this robocall and all the little schemes that went on in last year's election, we're no different than the people that we point fingers at, like China, Russia. What's the difference?"

The influx of unregistered users left addresses to non-existent locations and some to a UPS store, some left no address at all. CBC found that most of these same names don’t have a previous address. This raises real concern.

An Elections Canada official said that without this information, they would not have been given “authorized approval,” but they were.

"You know, if they couldn't provide sufficient evidence of their riding address then they should not have been allowed to have voted, so I'm very disappointed that that would have taken place," resident Kim Froats told CBC.

Robocall Scandal: Tories Play Blame Game

The Conservatives started with a failed attempt to blame Liberals and while continuing on their same failed mantra, Conservatives now start blaming Elections Canada for the misleading phone calls that may have lead to voter fraud in the last election. However, a reluctant Conservative party has now decided to cooperate with an Elections Canada investigation into the matter and prefer to play the blame game than get to the facts. For a party that prides itself as tough on crime, the idea of election fraud should strike their heroin attitudes, but instead it has left them hiding in the corner launching missiles in random directions. Failed tactics or something to hide?

Canadians want answers and they aren’t buying the idea that the Liberals would sabotage their own campaign and they don’t believe Dean Del Mastro’s failed argument that phone calls to Liberals were made by Liberals and that there was no possibility that they could have been impersonated by one who would like to alter the result. Being the government of the day and victor of the last election, how can they possibly be surprised that everyone looked to them first? Had the Liberals or NDP been the victor, the same would have happened – although based on their attitudes, a public inquiry would have been called.


Conservative backbencher MP Maurice Vellacott said,  "I suspect that at the end of the day, if Elections Canada has the resources to do a proper investigation, they'll find they're themselves significantly responsible," just two days after MP Dean Del Mastro and PM Stephen Harper commenced their failed assault on the Liberal party which has continued up until recently. Rather than calling for a public inquiry, the Conservatives hide behind a sea of allegations and spin.

Vellacott, however, justified his case stating that in his past contested election results, address errors had been found in Elections Canada databases.

"This is no reflection on our faithful, local returning officer ... and their office workers. The errors and misinformation are compiled and compounded by Elections Canada's head office," he said.

"We don't even bother trying to chase down, trace back and correct all these Elections Canada errors anymore. Too much valuable campaign time would be used up on such a project."

"Because Elections Canada too frequently provides incorrect information, and secondly because technological problems occur with trying to merge Elections Canada info for phone lists, there is a significant potential for error.

"Hired live phoners or automated calling systems are only as good as the data provided to them. You know the saying, 'garbage in, garbage out."'

As questions mount as 31,000 complaints are in queue for revision, the Conservatives blamed Michael Sona, the Liberals and now Elections Canada. Who’s next? Wouldn’t it be easier to prove their innocence with a public inquiry? Or is there something that should be left unsaid? The Conservatives only just decided to cooperate with the investigation – after reviewing the tapes for themselves. To their surprise, the Liberals gave in their data, as it is blatantly obvious they have nothing to hide. So what is taking the Conservatives so long to do the logical thing to try to clear their name of allegations – which they claim are false?

Tories Hold Steady, Liberals Gain in Nanos Poll

A new Nanos Poll suggests that the Robocall scandal has had no effect on the Governing Tories. The poll took place between February 25-29 and asked 1,203 random Canadians who were above the age of 18. The poll is accurate within 2.8% 19 times out of 20. It found a steady hold for Tories, 1.9% jump for the Liberals and 0.2% decline for the NDP among respondents.

Below is a comparison of the parties' standings in the last poll and the election.

Party	Current	Trend	Jan 28	Trend	May '11
	35.7%	NC	35.7%		39.6%
	29.5%		27.6%		18.9%
	25.0%		25.2%		30.6%

Nanos Research, March 5, 2012

Anonymous Releases Information on Vic Toews

It has been a busy week in politics. From election fraud allegations to the war against Bill-C30, Canadians can say that they have had quite a bit to deal with. Anonymous followed through with its word Friday, encouraging Canadians to research the talking points they discuss in their videos for themselves. These videos are said to be based on evidence from named and anonymous sources but some arguments rely on logical reasoning based on past events.

The expositions go as far as to claim that Prime Minister Stephen Harper knew about Toews’s poor record as a family man and purposely switched his cabinet position to save the Conservative Party from humiliation when the news of his divorce would make way. Nonetheless, Anonymous argued, the strong policies that alienated centrists passed despite replacing Toews with Rob Nicolson as Justice Minister in an attempt to paint a friendlier face, which was the argument for the shuffle at the time.

Anonymous said they would be back after at least a week to protect their anonymity and the anonymity of their contacts and resources as they fight against those who fight against freedom.
If you didn’t already see the videos, below are the two parts and their respective transcripts.

---

Videos

Part 1–Transcript Below

Part 2–Transcript Below

---

Respective Transcripts

Transcript for Part 1

Hello, citizens of Canada.
 
We are Anonymous.
 
As promised, we are revealing the information about MP Vic Toews that we have received not only from one, but several named and anonymous sources (not to be confused with the group Anonymous itself). 

This video will be split into two parts, as there is a great deal of information to be presented.  This may strain some of viewer's patience; however, this is a very serious allegation, and we must be dealt with in the most in-depth manner possible. 

On November 23, 2006, when Mr. Toews was serving the Minister of Justice, he appointed Catherine Everett, formerly a judge of the Provincial Court of Manitoba, to the Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba.  The allegations that Anonymous has received state that at the time this appointment was made, Vic Toews was engaged in an affair with Catherine Everett.
 
We are not legal experts by any means, but it seems to us that this would represent an enormous conflict of interest, especially since this information was not disclosed at the time of the appointment.  It also opens the door to the possibility that this appointment was made in exchange for sexual favours, either directly or indirectly, which would not only be unethical, but very likely criminal activity.  We can establish that Vic Toews and Catherine Everett were familiar with each other for some time, as he first appointed her to Provincial Court of Manitoba in 1998, long before her subsequent appointment in 2006. 

Of course, short of images or video of Vic Toews and Catherine Everett in romantic or sexual situations, we cannot prove conclusively that this allegation is true.  However, we can make an educated guess. 

First, we must consider the source of the information. 

Next, we must consider if this allegation is consistent with Mr. Toews' character.  As past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, and vice versa, we will ask ourselves several key questions, and answer them based on facts Mr. Toews himself has confirmed, with information through sworn court documents. 

These questions are:
1. Would Vic Toews commit adultery and have an ongoing affair while married to his first wife?
2. Would Vic Toews cheat on the woman he was cheating with?
3. Would Vic Toews risk his political career to engage in extramarital sex?
4. Would Vic Toews use his political connections to give the woman he was having an affair with a government job?
5. Would Vic Toews engage in hypocritical behaviour; ie, behave unjustly while the minister of justice?
6. Would Vic Toews engage in criminal behaviour associated with his political position? 

Finally, and most damning of all, we will examine a timeline of events from January, 2007 to late 2008.  Analysis of these events suggests to us that not only is the allegation true, but that Stephen Harper knew about it, and quietly removed Mr. Toews from his position as Justice Minister as a result, but not disclose Mr. Toews' actions to the authorities.   We will now go through these points one at a time.  Our viewers will be utterly sick of hearing the word "quote" by the end of this video, but it's necessary to avoid any confusion, so please bear with us. 

First, considering the source.  Anonymous obviously cannot release the identity of the individuals who revealed this information to us, as doing so would bring the full wrath of the government down upon their heads, as we have already seen with the creator of the Vikileaks account.  However, we can tell you that, even disregarding anonymous sources, more than one individual has made this claim to us, and we have confirmed through public records that they were employed in a capacity that put them close to either Vic Toews or Catherine Everett. 

There is always the possibility these individuals are part of a carefully orchestrated conspiracy to discredit Mr. Toews and the Harper government, as we are sure they will claim.  This seems unlikely to us, but just in case, let us give no weight to the identity of the sources whatsoever and analyze their claims based on the merits of the facts alone. 

Anonymous is fairly certain Mr. Toews will declare this video a character assassination.  It is more accurately described as a record of character suicide, as Mr. Toews himself admits to nearly all acts discussed beyond this point. 

Question 1. Would Vic Toews commit adultry and have an ongoing affair while married to his first wife?  

This we can answer with a conclusive yes.  Mr. Toews himself admits to this in sworn affidavits from his divorce proceedings. 

Quote: "In late 2006, I discovered that the woman with whom I was having an affair was pregnant with my child."  

There are several other statements in these affidavits from Mr. Toews' first wife, confirming he engaged in multiple and ongoing affairs:  

Quote: "He was in fact having an affair with our children's former babysitter from 1986 to 1993." 

Quote: "It is true that in 2006 Vic began suggesting that I should seek employment."  

Quote: "I know now, although I did not know it then, that Vic was involved in an affair at that time."  

Quote: "On January 28th 2007 Vic informed me that he had been having an affair for the past 3 years and that the woman was pregnant."   

This statement in particular we can confirm refers to Stacey Meek.  

Quote: "It was devastating for me because Vic had informed me in 1993 that he had been having an affair with my sister's nanny for 7 years."   

Quote: "He told me then that he would terminate the affair and promised to be faithful thereafter." 

And from Mr. Toews again:  

Quote: "The two affairs did not happen in isolation from the abusive manner in which she started to treat me shortly after we got married."  

Note that Mr. Toews only acknowledges having engaged in two affairs, one with the babysitter, and one with Stacey Meek.  That his wife did not bring up a third woman, or Catherine Everett in particular, suggests that if Mr. Toews did in fact engage an affair with her, his first wife was not aware of it.  

2. Would Vic Toews cheat on the woman he was cheating with?  

Note that above, Mr. Toews claims to have been involved with Ms. Meek for the past three years as of January 2007.  This would mean that if he was engaged in an affair with Catherine Everett in 2006, he would not only be cheating on his first wife, but his mistress Stacey Meek as well.  

We suppose it's possible Mr. Toews and Ms. Meek had established some sort of non-exclusive open relationship at that point, but we will not dwell on this as it is largely irrelevant.  It is safe to assume that a man willing to cheat on his wife of 30 years would also cheat on his mistress of 2 or 3 years.  

3. Would Vic Toews risk his political career to engage in extramarital sex?  

This we can also answer with a conclusive yes.  Vic Toews campaigned and was elected in one of the most conservative and religious ridings in Canada, and was once dubbed "The Minister of Family Values".  It was this now discredited public image that initially endeared him to the voters of Provencher.  

As mentioned in our previous videos, Mr. Toews campaigned to deny gay, lesbian, and bisexual Canadian citizens equal rights under the law, making statements such as:  

Quote: "Marriage is one of the cornerstones upon which our society has been built."   

Quote: "Heterosexual marriage has a unique social purpose that other relationships simply do not share.”  

Quote: "Marriage is a uniquely heterosexual institution, that indeed is a sacrament."   

It stands to reason that Mr. Toews had at the very minimum a reasonable expectation that his adulterous activities would ruin his carefully constructed image of a devoutly Christian family man, causing his religious base in Provencher to withdraw their support from his candidacy and Mr. Toews finding himself without a job.  

4. Would Vic Toews use his political connections to give the woman he was having an affair with a government job?  

This we cannot be sure of, though pure common sense will reveal it is certainly possible.  We do know for a fact that his former mistress, Stacey Meek, is currently employed in an administrative capacity by Conservative Senator Terry Stratton, is listed as a constituency assistant for Conservative MP Joyce Bateman, and was previously employed by Conservative MP Joy Smith, until either:  

A) Vic Toews' first wife had her fired from her job out of spite, as Mr. Toews alleges in the affidavits from his divorce proceedings. 
Or... 

B) The Conservative Party itself fired her in attempt to suppress a political scandal should Mr. Toews' affair be made public. 

If, as Mr. Toews alleges, his wife used her personal connections to have Stacey Meek fired, it stands to reason that an actual Conservative politician would be more than capable of using his personal connections to have her hired in the first place. 

5. Would Vic Toews engage in hypocritical behaviour; ie, behave in an unjust or unethical manner while in the position of provincial Justice Minister? 

This we can answer with a resounding, conclusive yes.  In addition to the points we've already discussed above:  Mr. Toews condemned gay marriage on the basis that it could lead to polygamy.  Apparently Mr. Toews only objects to ongoing sexual relationships and the fathering of children with more than one woman when it is formalized and done out in the open, as opposed to behind your wife's back.  

Speaking of marriage, another statement from Mr. Toews:  

Quote: "We are very concerned that people carry out their legal obligations to their spouses on the termination of the marriage, or otherwise, to ensure that both the spouse and the children receive the monies that they are entitled to."  

And from his first wife:  

Quote: "After the separation Vic paid support on a voluntary basis."  

Quote: "In February 2010 Vic closed the joint account into which the support was being deposited."  

Quote: "When I asked him to send the money to another account, he ignored me."  

Quote: "Eventually he admitted to my lawyer that he had no intention of paying any further support."  

Quote: "Vic missed the March 1st 2010 payment, so I have had no money since February 2010."  

Quote: "In addition I was raising our two children almost single-handedly."   

Of course, it is not uncommon for former spouses to level unfounded accusations at each other during divorce proceedings.  However, things like closure dates for bank accounts and the depositing of money can be proven through banking records.  If Mr. Toews had truly been paying regular child support or alimony, any lawyer worth his or her salt would have leapt upon this immediately as evidence that Mr. Toews' ex-wife's claims were unfounded.    And finally, from Mr. Toews again, in regard to his now 4 year-old son with Stacey Meek and his wife at the time:  

Quote: "She was prepared to remain in our relationship but stipulated that I was to have no contact with the child until he was 18 years of age." 

And from his then wife:  

Quote: "Vic was anxious to remain married and to do anything he could to keep the marriage together including agreeing to have nothing more to do with his mistress and nothing to do with the baby."  

Presumably "nothing to do with" includes not paying child support.  

Of course, while these examples are morally repugnant, they deal with Mr. Toews' personal, rather than political life.    

Perhaps the best example of Mr. Toews hypocrisy is that despite the fact that he is a convicted criminal, he states that government is not in the, quote, "business of forgiveness" and supports so-called tough on crime legislation.  Which leads us to our final question:  

6. Would Vic Toews engage in unethical or even criminal behaviour associated with his political position?  

This we can also confirm with absolute certainty.  In 2005, Toews was charged with violating Manitoba's Election Finances Act in the 1999 provincial election.  During the election cycle, it was discovered that his election campaign had spent thousands of dollars more than the allowed limit.  Mr. Toews was convicted of this offense. 

From the court case, Her Majesty The Queen versus Vic Toews. Sentence Delivered February 4, 2005, Provincial Court Of Manitoba: 

Quote: "It is not in dispute that Mr. Toews  exceeded the limitations on election expenses in his campaign." 

Quote: "Others worked to ensure that this was avoided. Others exercised due diligence. Mr. Toews and his campaign did not."  

We don't know whether to laugh or cry over the fact that in 2006, Stephen Harper appointed Mr. Toews to the position of Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.  And this is where things get very interesting.  

So far, we have only proven that Vic Toews is a manipulative, deceptive individual who is willing to misrepresent himself, tell bold-faced lies, and is willing to engage in unethical or criminal activity to get what he wants, both in the pursuit of political power and sexual conquest. 

In the next video, we will discuss an extremely suspicious series of events that occurred Jan 2007 to late 2008, that deal not only Vic Toews and Catherine Everett, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his possible involvement in this situation.

Transcript for Part 2

Nearly all the information discussed beyond this point can be confirmed by news media, governmental and other sources linked from Wikipedia articles.  We encourage Canadians not to take our word for it, but to confirm these facts for themselves. 

Vic Toews held the position of Minister of Justice, which he was appointed to by Stephen Harper, from February 6, 2006 - January 4, 2007.  

In November 2006, Toews announced that police representatives would be appointed to the provincial judicial advisory committees that review the qualifications of potential judges. This proposal was widely criticized by the Canadian media and by opposition MPs, some of whom argued that Toews' intent was to stack the courts with right-wing judges.  In an unprecedented move, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and the Canadian Judicial Council issued a statement that Toews's proposal would "compromise the independence of the Advisory Committees", and called for the minister to consult with judicial and legal representatives before making any changes.    

The Federation of Law Societies of Canada has also criticized Toews's plan, arguing that the government had "politicized" the judicial appointments process.  Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and Attorney General Michael Bryant added their opposition in early 2007, with Bryant arguing that "the forces of legal populism" were threatening to "tear asunder the basic principle of judicial independence".  Toews' indicated that he would proceed with his changes despite the opposition, though he was removed from the Justice portfolio before the new system could be implemented.  In January 2007, the Conservatives appointed two powerful Ontario police union leaders to an advisory committee.  

Prime Minister Stephen Harper shuffled his cabinet on January 4, 2007, and appointed Toews as President of the Treasury Board. Some commentators argued that Toews's hardline approach to law-and-order issues was damaging the Conservative Party's image among centrist voters, and described his replacement Rob Nicholson as presenting a more moderate image.  

The Cabinet shuffle confused many at the time, especially because despite removing Toews, the Conservative Party went ahead with his controversial plan to appoint high-ranking police officers to the provincial judicial advisory committee.  If it was truly Mr. Toews' hardline approach that motivated his removal from the position of Justice Minister, why then push ahead with the very policies that alienated so many in the first places? 

An article from Xtra.ca, published in August 2008, sheds more light on this confusing series of events and the conclusion people later came to.  The article begins:  

About six months before I spotted Toews at the Winnipeg Fringe Festival, Stephen Harper shuffled him from the high-profile Justice portfolio into the influential but less noticeable job of Treasury Board President. 

It was Jan 2007, and the move puzzled cabinet-watchers. It was seen as a demotion, even though Conservatives seemed to like Toews as Justice Minister. Apart from some controversial views, he hadn't done anything scandalous — at least not that most people knew about at the time.  In light of new revelations about his personal life, though, the move is now seen as Harper's attempt to distance himself from Toews.  That's because the Treasury Board President's formerly squeaky-clean image as an upright, Christian family man is now in tatters. 

His wife of 32 years, and the mother of his adult children has filed for divorce. A few months ago, another woman gave birth to a baby — his.  

Many people would say that's nobody's business, except for one thing: the way the Conservatives are allegedly trying to deal with the sticky situation of having an adulterer in their ranks.  

End of article for our purposes. 

Listen closely, because the following timeline is very important.  

November 23, 2006 - Justice Minister Vic Toews appoints Catherine Everett to the Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba.  

January 4, 2007 - Stephen Harper removes Vic Toews as Justice Minister, confusing many.  

People will later conclude, based on the birth of Mr. Toews son and his subsequent divorce, that this was the motivation behind his removal, as the Conservatives didn't want Vic Toews' marital scandal hurting the party's political prospects.  However, Vic had not even told his wife he was having an affair yet, and would not do so until January 28, as confirmed in sworn court affidavits. 

His son would not be born for another 6 or 7 months.  

His first wife would not file for divorce until more than a year later.  

These events cannot have been the motivation for Vic Toews' removal from the position of Justice Minister, unless you believe that Mr. Toews told Stephen Harper about his mistress's pregnancy nearly a month before informing his own wife.  

The other frequently offered explanation for Vic Toews' removal, that his hardline reputation was alienating voters, seems very dubious as the Conservative Party followed through with the very plans that caused so much controversy and earned Vic Toews that reputation in the first place.  

January 28th, 2007 - Court affidavits from Toews' first wife state, quote, "On January 28th, 2007 Vic informed me that he had been having an affair for the past 3 years and that the woman was pregnant."   

July, 2007 - Vic Toews' and Stacey Meek's son is born.  

March 31, 2008 - Vic Toews' first wife files for divorce.  

So, what then was Stephen Harper's motivation for removing Vic Toews from the position of Justice Minister, a position in which he was generally well-liked by Conservatives?  

Anonymous has been informed that not only did Vic Toews appoint Catherine Everett to the Court of Queen's Bench while sleeping with her, but that Stephen Harper was discovered this at some point in time during the month or so between Nov. 26, 2006 and January 4, 2007, and quietly removed Vic Toews from the position of Justice Minister in a careful orchestrated balancing act between protecting himself and the party by not having his sitting Justice Minister embroiled in a political and legal scandal were this information to be made public, and continuing to conceal this information in order to protect the Conservative Party's political prospects.  

If there was any justice in this country, an investigation would be launched into these allegations.  However, as our government seems hell-bent on calling those who engage in legal protests using social media before ethics committees and holding Anonymous in contempt of Parliament instead,  this seems unlikely.  We will not be holding our breath. 

Vic Taves has said in regard to Bill C-30, "I will continue to do my duty and carry out my responsibilities in respect of this piece of legislation."  Mr. Toews, it is not your duty to pass Bill C-30.  Bill C-30 represents the antithesis of your duty, and everything this country stands for.  Your duty is to serve the people of Canada, not invade their privacy, violate their civil rights, or treat them like criminals by presuming them guilty before they are proven innocent. 

Having released this information, Anonymous must now take additional measure to ensure both our anonymity and our security.  This means there will likely be no new videos released for a week or more.  Some will say that we have fled, or that we've given up the fight.  They will be wrong.  If it were possible to frighten Anonymous into silence, we would have deleted this account the day it was demanded we be held in contempt of Parliament, and we would never have released this information.  They said our first video was rhetoric and nothing more.  They said we had nothing to tell before we revealed the identity of Mr. Toews' mistress.  Anonymous has kept all it's promises to the Canadian public thus far.  Have faith in us.
 
Should we receive more information we feel the Canadian public must be made aware of, or should the Canadian government once again attempt to undermine the civil rights of Canadian citizens, we will re-emerge to meet these challenges to our collective liberty head on.  Our allegiance does not, and will never, lie with the government of this country... our allegiance lies with the Canadian people.
 
We are Anonymous.
 
We are Legion.
 
We do not forgive.
 
We do not forget.
 
Expect us, for O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.