Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 824
- Points
- 1,160
Crantor said:When is he being sentenced?
Mid-July I think. And I heard something on CBC radio the other day that he may lose his federal pension from his time as a Liberal MP.
Crantor said:When is he being sentenced?
![]()
From Alberta to Toronto, oil is Liberals’ litmus test in by-elections
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Globe Staff
The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jun. 30 2014
Justin Trudeau has had to dance around the issue of oil pipelines in Ontario and Alberta, stepping between those who love them and those who hate them. Now we’ll see if this is really the wedge issue his opponents can use to trip him up.
In two of the four ridings where by-elections will be held Monday, pipelines are an important issue – and those two constituencies, in left-leaning downtown Toronto and the oil-sands hub in Alberta, couldn’t be further apart.
Mr. Trudeau’s trying to make headway in both. But he faces different opponents in each riding, coming at him from each side – Conservatives who favour pipelines, and New Democrats who usually oppose them.
In Toronto’s Trinity-Spadina, the Liberals have star candidate Adam Vaughan trying to win the seat vacated by the NDP’s Olivia Chow, and the New Democrats are trying to use Mr. Trudeau’s support for the Keystone XL pipeline as the key issue to fend them off. But in Fort McMurray-Athabasca, the oil-sands hub where the Liberals are mounting a long-shot challenge, the Liberal Leader faces charges he would hurt the oil economy by blocking the Northern Gateway pipeline.
Mr. Trudeau shed the Liberals’ image as opponents of Alberta oil, but thread the needle on the issue. He’s embraced oil-sands development and favoured Keystone, while arguing that Stephen Harper’s failure to address greenhouse-gas emissions prevented political approval from Washington. But he’s also opposed the Northern Gateway pipeline to the West Coast saying it could bring oil spills in the Douglas Channel.
In Fort-McMurray–Athabasca, the Liberal candidate, Kyle Harrietha, is seeking an unlikely upset by arguing the Conservatives have taken booming Fort Mac for granted. But as Mr. Trudeau campaigned there last week, he was forced to fend off accusations he’d hurt the oil patch by rejecting pipelines like Northern Gateway.
He did so by expressing support for oil pipelines to the West Coast – just not Northern Gateway. He backed the idea of twinning the existing Trans-Mountain pipeline to Burnaby, B.C., saying, according to the Fort McMurray Today newspaper, that he hopes the project gets the social license to proceed. In other words, he’s in favour, as long as it’s not too unpopular. He has also supported the Line 9 project to carry Alberta oil to eastern Canada. He sounds bullish on pipelines.
But his candidate in Trinity-Spadina, Mr. Vaughan, doesn’t. He expresses worry about the environmental impact of the oil sands. At a press conference with a nodding Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Vaughan said all parties support one pipeline or another – but he was skeptical about Line 9, saying it shouldn’t go ahead until there’s a public consensus behind it.
Oddly enough, pipelines are probably a bigger issue in downtown Toronto than in Fort McMurray. The Trinity-Spadina by-election is a battle on the left, and the NDP is using Mr. Trudeau’s support for Keystone XL to argue he favours oil over the environment.
“This is a progressive downtown riding,” NDP candidate Joe Cressy said in an interview. “The environment has become a big issue in downtown Toronto. The Keystone pipeline has become a key distinguishing point in this election.”
The NDP haven’t been shy about that. And they’ve had help from activists who mounted a website called bigoiltrudeau.ca, aimed directly at Mr. Vaughan. One of their videos includes a jogger on Toronto’s waterfront slipping on an oil-soaked duck, followed by shots of Mr. Trudeau declaring support for Keystone.
Together, the dynamics of the two ridings have the Liberals squeezed. For many voters, the issue isn’t really pipelines, it’s oil-sands expansion, and it’s hard to appeal to both sides.
In truth, the other parties have danced, too. In June, the Conservatives approved Northern Gateway but distanced themselves from its fate. The NDP had said they favour Line 9 because the bitumen would be processed in Canada – making their stand on that pipeline more about jobs than climate – but recently, they muddied their stand.
Still, both have stressed one simple side of their message – the Tories are for pipelines, and the NDP against. That makes it easier to use it as a wedge issue. And if there’s any two ridings where they should be able to use the issue to trip up Mr. Trudeau, it’s these ones. That’s why these by-elections are a test of Mr. Trudeau’s dance steps.
Oh, I don't know. I think he sucks and he blows...GAP said:Trudeau......trying to suck and blow at the same time..... :![]()
E.R. Campbell said:Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is a look at a key wedge issue:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/from-alberta-to-toronto-oil-is-liberals-litmus-test-in-by-elections/article19388260/#dashboard/follows/
Results: later this evening.
E.R. Campbell said:Voter turnout was very low.
Bruce Monkhouse said:Could they have picked a worse day for an election? At least it wasn't a complete Federal, otherwise the only good turnouts would be in cottage country.
Rocky Mountains said:Before anyone starts forming conclusions about 35 % of voters voting Liberal in Fort MacMurray, remember that almost everyone in The place comes from outside Alberta and might actually be comfortable with voting Liberal despite the promise to essentially kill their jobs. 35 % of 15 % turnout means 5% of residents thought the Liberals were important enough to vote for them. And some media people are painting this as a near Liberal landslide??
Crantor said:No worries. Some people have a hard time understanding how the tax system works in Canada and might feel that way when confronted with it. As for me I've nothing more to add to this thread that I already haven't.
Cheers.
![]()
Pen and the politics of charity
MARGARET WENTE
The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jul. 24 2014
Has the Harper government declared jihad against Pen Canada? Margaret Atwood seems to think so. On Monday, Pen’s tiny Toronto office was invaded by Canada Revenue Agency auditors, who are investigating whether Pen has engaged in political activities that might jeopardize its charitable status. “Why does freedom of expression threaten them?” she tweeted.
Pen is an advocate for writers who’ve been targeted by repressive regimes around the world. It isn’t too fond of the Harper government either, and has said so, often.
But the Harper government is only indirectly responsible for siccing the auditors on them. Its real target is unfriendly environmental groups, such as Environmental Defence and the David Suzuki Foundation. In its view, such groups abuse their charitable status to wage war against pipelines and the oil sands, and to spread their “radical ideological agenda.”
Once upon a time, charities simply did good works. They fed the poor or supplied health care and education. But today, the vast charitable sector includes think tanks, right-to-life groups, right-to-choice groups, promoters of social justice, and hordes of environmental activists.
By law, these groups are not allowed to spend more than 10 per cent of their budget on “political activities.” But what, pray tell, are those? Are “partisan activities” okay? To find out, you’ll have to hire a lawyer – preferably before you’re audited by the CRA.
The government and the environmental groups have been at war for years. The government thinks the environmentalists are nakedly partisan and implacably hostile. “Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth,” wrote Joe Oliver, then Natural Resources minister, in an open letter in 2012. “No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.” Many of these groups, he charged, are funded by foreign foundations run by “billionaire socialists.”
Environmental groups don’t see it that way, of course. In their view, they are a vital part of civil society, and the government is on a witch hunt. (They also blame Ezra Levant, the Sun News Network, and the cabal that runs Ethical Oil.) “The Harper government attack on non-profits is unprecedented,” one fundraiser told The Canadian Press. “I essentially see it as a bullying tactic.”
The Canada Revenue Agency insists that it is acting at arm’s-length and that it’s impartial. Only it can decide whom to audit. This is true. But the government put its thumb on the scales by giving the CRA an extra $8-million in 2012, along with an explicit policy directive to audit groups that might be engaging in excessive “political activities.” The CRA has so far identified 52 such groups. It says 32 of these audits are “ongoing or already closed.”
It won’t name names, but they include seven major environmental organizations, as well as Amnesty International, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and the United Church of Canada’s Kairos charity, all of which have poked their thumbs in the government’s eye at some time or other. Some of the audits have stretched out for two years, and have been costly for the subjects.
The fear of audits has already led countless charities to tone down their messages and scrutinize their practices. The CRA rarely delists a charity for political activities, but the very possibility is chilling.
Charities don’t pay income tax. They can write tax-deductible receipts, and they get foundation grants. Without charitable status, many of them wouldn’t survive.
Personally, I think the government has a point. I don’t see why we should give tax breaks to a bunch of left-wing activists. For that matter, I don’t think we should give tax breaks to left-wing think tanks or pro-choice groups. But I don’t see why right-wing activists and think tanks and pro-life groups deserve them either. Perhaps we’ve stretched the definition of “charity” much too far. Canada’s charitable sector now amounts to an enormous $223-billion, and I think that plenty of Canadians might be surprised at where their subsidies go.
I am also not convinced that monitoring the “political activity” of charities is the most urgent task in the philanthropic world. Charitable expert Mark Blumberg says the real problem is the abuse of receipting privileges, which costs the government billions.
So Pen is right. It is on the pointy end of a political attack that is essentially a waste of time. There is an upside, though. The donations and memberships are pouring in.
1) I suppose the Conservatives kept this in mind when THEY sought written answers to questions pre-2006?Answering a single written question from a Liberal MP cost the federal government $117,188 in staff time, according to information tabled this week in the House of Commons.
The right to ask departments for written answers is a key tool for MPs – primarily on the opposition benches – to dig up information that can later be used against their political rivals.
(....)
Over less than a four-month span up to Jan. 29, 2014, the total was more than $1.2-million.
The answer to Mr. Wallace’s question was provided by individual departments and compiled by the Government House Leader. The estimate is based on how much it would cost for a public servant with a salary and benefits of $116,160 – equivalent to $60 an hour – to produce the answer.
Rifleman62 said:Members of Parliament are barred from visiting Canadian military bases except under restricted circumstances. Defence Minister Rob Nicholson’s office says the policy was created by the military, applies to MPs from all parties and is designed to “ensure the resources of the Canadian Armed Forces are used effectively.” Two weeks ago, MP Yvonne Jones, the Liberals’ search and rescue critic, was denied permission from the minister to tour Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt and CFB Comox, both major hubs for the military’s search-and-rescue operations in B.C.