|
Post by REALITY on Apr 6, 2007 20:47:38 GMT -5
B.C. mayor faces string of criminal charges
Updated Thu. Apr. 5 2007 9:58 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
The mayor of Port Coquitlam, B.C., is facing a string of criminal charges, including criminal harassment, after he was arrested overnight.
Mayor Scott Young is being held at the Coquitlam RCMP detachment, Const. Brenda Gresiuk told CTV British Columbia on Thursday.
The RCMP would not release details behind the arrest.
The mayor is facing seven charges, including:
* Two counts of assault * One count of break and enter with intent to commit an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. * One count of criminal harassment. * Three counts of breach of a court order.
Young is to appear in provincial court in Vancouver on Tuesday morning.
In 2002, Young was charged with assaulting his ex-wife, but the charge was stayed. In Feb. 18 of this year, he was arrested at his home for allegedly harassing an ex-girlfriend. He was subsequently released on condition he keeps the peace and has no contact with the woman.
Young was then said to have breached the conditions of his release -- although no formal charges were laid as a result of those incidents.
Ahead of a Port Coquitlam council meeting on Thursday, Acting Mayor Michael Wright said he understands this latest arrest is connected to that incident, although he would not elaborate.
In the face of calls from the public for Young to resign, Wright said it's not in council's power to remove a mayor.
"This council cannot and will not ask the mayor to resign," Wright told CTV British Columbia. "That's not part of our responsibility, it's not part of the legislation which we work under."
Wright said the mayor's problems would not affect the "good governance of Port Coquitlam."
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Apr 8, 2007 21:04:17 GMT -5
The Charter's challenges TheStar.com
The document is widely lauded but recent federal funding cuts have made challenges even more difficult to mount
April 07, 2007 Tracey Tyler LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER
Twenty-five years ago, a series of signatures on a rain-dappled document jolted Canada into a new era.
To some, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Pierre Trudeau's greatest political legacy, was a supremely undemocratic development, weakening governments and handing judges the power to decide some of the most pressing social issues.
But for the vast majority of Canadians, the Charter has become a symbol of national identity, taking its place alongside the Maple Leaf, hockey and snow. In poll after poll, most embrace the Charter as a kind of national mission statement, asserting the country's commitment to tolerance, fairness and equality.
And since that drizzly ceremony on April 17, 1982, when the Charter was entrenched in Canada's newly patriated Constitution, hundreds of cases have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine how far the country will go on abortion, same-sex marriage, the death penalty, private health care, police powers, Sunday shopping and freedom of speech.
A quarter-century later, the Charter is at a crossroads. While there may be much to celebrate, the process of using it to establish rights is time-consuming and expensive, almost entirely dependent on government subsidies and the benevolence of lawyers to bankroll cases, sometimes costing millions of dollars.
Restrictions on legal aid and a decision last fall by the Conservative government to kill the Court Challenges Program, which helped fund individuals and citizen groups fighting for constitutional protections, have made the Charter more inaccessible than ever.
Today, many experts are pessimistic about its future as a tool in battling for equality and fending off unwarranted government intrusions into people's lives. Like fine champagne, the Charter is in danger of becoming a luxury many never taste.
"I'm really angry about it," said Toronto lawyer Doug Elliott, a veteran of more than a dozen Charter battles, including the fight to legalize same-sex marriage. "It's like the Dom Perignon that's locked behind the door at the LCBO. It may taste great, but if you can't get at it, what does it matter?"
This Thursday, a major conference at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre will look at the Charter and its impact over the past 25 years.
Unlike the United States, where people whose constitutional rights have been breached are often awarded significant sums of money by the courts, Canadians are rarely entitled to damages when their Charter rights are violated.
Without some way of subsidizing the litigation, average Canadians stand no chance of bringing a Charter claim, Elliott said.
"These cases cost millions of dollars. Millions – because governments fight them tooth and nail. Forget about legal aid. In most cases, you're not going to get it," Elliott said.
"It doesn't seem right that the government enacts the Charter and commits itself to having individuals protected through our justice system, and yet makes it economically impossible for that to happen," said Paul Schabas, a Toronto lawyer who's fought Charter cases pro bono and heads an organization called Pro Bono Law Ontario.
Adding to the problem is a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada itself, which all but closed the door to advance funding to those battling alleged discrimination.
Little Sisters, a gay and lesbian bookstore in Vancouver, had asked the court to order the federal government to pay costs up front in its legal battle with Canada Customs over the seizure of homosexual literature at the border. The court refused.
The bookshop, which spent $500,000 on a legal battle with Canada Customs seven years ago, says it was forced back to court because the federal agency, despite pledges to the contrary, continues to seize its books at the border. The Court Challenges Program funded interveners in both cases.
Public interest groups had hoped a ruling in favour of Little Sisters would open a funding avenue for Canadians who believe their Charter rights have been violated.
"That decision really gets my blood boiling," Elliott said. "The judges who were in the majority tag-teamed with Stephen Harper (in killing the Court Challenges Program) to choke access to justice in this country under the Charter of Rights."
Corporations were initially among the biggest beneficiaries of Charter rulings. In 1986, for instance, the Big M Drug Mart chain succeeded in having restrictions on Sunday shopping struck down as a violation of freedom of religion.
Since then, the Supreme Court has worked hard, notably through equality rights decisions, to expand the Charter's protections to minorities, said Lorne Sossin, a law professor at the University of Toronto.
But he said it's only in rare cases that groups acting on behalf of the poor can afford to spend years slogging through the courts with a Charter claim.
"There is all this fancy language (in the Charter) and every day we have people complaining about Charter violations and human rights violations, but in a lot of cases we can't help them," said Atulya Sharman, a community legal worker with the South Asian Legal Clinic in Toronto.
No one knows that better than Hedy Halpern, the Windsor nurse who helped launch a Charter challenge against the ban on same-sex marriage, which was struck down in Ontario in 2003.
"When we first got involved in the marriage challenge, one of the things we were told was that in the unthinkable event we lost, we would be personally responsible for the full cost of the court challenge," Halpern said. "Colleen and I looked at each other and said, `We have to do this.' But we stood to lose our homes, our car, whatever...We are average working people with a home and mortgage and kids in school. So, it was pretty scary."
People launching Charter cases can get a portion of their legal costs awarded if they win, but courts don't always award costs – and almost never award full costs.
The Court Challenges Program was by no means expensive for the government. It had an annual pool of $2.75 million to help individuals and groups alleging violations of language and equality rights. Recipients of funding included disabled groups fighting VIA Rail for the right to full access to trains and Chinese Canadians seeking compensation for the head tax.
Rainer Knopff, a political scientist at the University of Calgary, said the program was "a biased boondoggle that had gone well past its `best before' date."
The program only funded groups on "one side" of the political spectrum while "socially conservative groups never got any money. Not a penny, as far as I know," said Knopff.
He also echoed then-Treasury Board president John Baird's suggestion, made in defending the decision to kill the program, that it made no sense for Ottawa to spend public money helping groups challenge its own legislation.
But Frank Addario, vice-president of the Criminal Lawyers Association, says programs of this kind serve a "valuable social purpose."
"When someone says my Charter right has been violated because of some government action ... they are surrogate litigants for the rest of us, forcing the courts to define the rights that the rest of us enjoy."
"I don't want to pay for surrogate litigants," said Knopff, arguing public interest groups should raise their own money for Charter cases. "If they can't raise the money – tough."
But some Charter claimants may not attract much sympathy, let alone money.
William Brydges took on the state after being arrested in an Edmonton murder and denied access to a legal aid lawyer before police interrogated him, a case often described as Canada's "Miranda" decision.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that Brydges and every other person arrested by police had a meaningful right to counsel, which included information on how to contact duty counsel through legal aid, a decision that sparked the creation of 24-hour duty counsel systems throughout the country.
Richard Stroppel, Brydges' lawyer, said Alberta's legal aid plan funded the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
Ian Golden's challenge to his treatment by Toronto police after being arrested for cocaine possession prompted the Supreme Court in 2001 to outlaw routine strip searches of anyone charged with a crime.
In finding the practice an unwarranted intrusion of privacy, the court adopted arguments put forward by the African Canadian Legal Clinic, an intervener, that members of the black community are often victims of racial stereotyping and likely to be hit hardest by the practice. The Court Challenges Program funded the clinic's work in the case.
As "meagre" as the funding was – a maximum of $60,000 for a trial – it had a big impact when it came to groups intervening in support of Charter claimants, Elliott said. They served as a "counterbalance" to provincial attorneys general, who often intervene to support the federal government.
With public funding drying up for groups and individuals alike, one alternative might be to relax the rules on who can bring Charter claims, said Sossin.
Instead of limiting it to people whose rights are allegedly violated, the courts could let public interest groups bring claims on their behalf, he said. For example, in a case now before the courts in British Columbia, the Canadian Bar Association is trying to sue on behalf of the public at large for the right to legal aid in civil cases.
But these changes could take a long time, said Sossin. Until then, using the Charter will likely depend on "public-interest-minded lawyers" willing to take the case on a pro bono basis, he said.
Even Schabas, whose organization is dedicated to promoting pro bono work, says it's not the answer.
"It's haphazard and luck of the draw as to whether you can find representation," he says. "Pro bono lawyers can help, but they shouldn't be the solution."
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Apr 10, 2007 8:44:11 GMT -5
Openness more than releasing a list of salaries
The Review Editorial & Opinion - Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Updated @ 7:22:02 AM
By now we've all had the chance to read and digest the so-called Sunshine List, the annual compendium of people making more than $100,000 at taxpayers' expense.
The legislation was passed in 1996 by the former Conservative government headed by Mike Harris. The idea was to promote openness and accountability among public institutions, giving all of us an idea of how some of our money is being spent.
We're all for this. But we still can't help but wonder how really committed governments are to the concept of transparency, the Sunshine List notwithstanding.
Provincial governments in Ontario now bask in a self-generated glow of responsibility each April when the names and figures are released. And boy do they ever bask. But truly, what does it all mean? What are governments actually doing for its citizens with this exercise?
Opposition politicians spend 48 hours or so unleashing their predictable rants, all in defence of the common working man. We get to satisfy our voyeuristic tendencies by gawking into the private world of public people, clucking at how so-and-so is overpaid and under worked.
But does any of this demonstrate real, sincere, ongoing commitment to responsible and open government?
Not by a long shot. We suspect the motivation behind the Tory legislation was less about taking a moral stand and more about taking heat off politicians, whose own pay packets have long subject to public scrutiny.
Don't get us wrong. We think the Sunshine List contains valuable information that belongs in the public realm. And no doubt it has exposed some gross abuses at the civic trough. But there are many other matters which deserve and need exposure. Matters which can be argued are of equal if not greater importance than cranking out a list of salaries every 365 days, then going back to business as usual.
We've said it before and we will no doubt say it again: Bill 142, also known as the Transparency in Public Matters Act, ought to have support and passage.
If enacted, the law would force numerous government agencies, such as the Niagara Parks Commission, to open their meetings to the public, provide timely minutes and create a complaints procedure for those who may feel a decision was made behind closed doors when it shouldn't have been.
We can't understand why such important legislation is left to the vagaries of the private members' system.
Bill 142, sponsored by Niagara Falls MPP Kim Craitor, should be government policy, plain and simple. Premier Dalton McGuinty could make it happen any time he wants. Yet he has steadfastly refused to go this route. Moreover, when asked about Craitor's bill, McGuinty hides behind procedural mumbo-jumbo and launches into a display of fancy footwork that would almost certainly bring him victory on Dancing With The Stars.
We don't get it. A government can't be for transparency and against Craitor's bill.
Craitor makes excellent points when he refers to the most recent Ontario auditor-general report that outlined a host of spending abuses by provincial agencies. Millions of dollars in unreceipted expenses were found at Hydro One and there were instances of teachers and executives of Children's Aid Societies rewarding themselves with luxury vehicles, foreign trips, DVDs and Christmas lights. We can only wonder what other waste and misuse of money has yet to be uncovered.
Why shouldn't the Niagara Parks Commission meet in public? Or Niagara Falls Hydro? Why should the Niagara Health System or the Niagara Regional Police Services Board be able to take portions of their meetings behind closed doors, and decide for themselves what information should be available for general consumption? They are not guarding official secrets, although you have to wonder the way some of them cling to their blackout privileges.
All of these organizations could easily operate under the rules set out by the Ontario Municipal Act for elected councils, where in-camera sessions are permitted for discussion of legal and personnel matters. Everything else is (or should be) out in the open.
There is a provincial election this fall. It's not too early to start asking candidates about their stand on Bill 142. Tell them you're tired of the secrecy.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Apr 10, 2007 12:08:23 GMT -5
As you know we At Sarnias Smoking Gun have a dedicated team that exercises our right to free speech and have also joined the fight for accountability. The people of Sarnia may find this artical interesting knowing that our soon to be gone MPP was such an advocate on this subject. When Dicocco took her position in the cabinet she was well aware that it would mean the death of her own bill, Im assuming that she would have had the decently to at least vote for Bill 142, but as you know it came as no suprize that not only did she not even vote on this bill but she did manage to cast her vote in favor of the 25% pay raise in the following vote that took place in less then half an hour after the vote for a bill that has the same dynamics of her claim to fame bill. this alone shows total disrespect to her community but most and formost it shows that Dicocco's priortys are not for the best of our common public but truly for whats best for her pocket book. Openness more than releasing a list of salaries The Review Editorial & Opinion - Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Updated @ 7:22:02 AM By now we've all had the chance to read and digest the so-called Sunshine List, the annual compendium of people making more than $100,000 at taxpayers' expense. The legislation was passed in 1996 by the former Conservative government headed by Mike Harris. The idea was to promote openness and accountability among public institutions, giving all of us an idea of how some of our money is being spent. We're all for this. But we still can't help but wonder how really committed governments are to the concept of transparency, the Sunshine List notwithstanding. Provincial governments in Ontario now bask in a self-generated glow of responsibility each April when the names and figures are released. And boy do they ever bask. But truly, what does it all mean? What are governments actually doing for its citizens with this exercise? Opposition politicians spend 48 hours or so unleashing their predictable rants, all in defence of the common working man. We get to satisfy our voyeuristic tendencies by gawking into the private world of public people, clucking at how so-and-so is overpaid and under worked. But does any of this demonstrate real, sincere, ongoing commitment to responsible and open government? Not by a long shot. We suspect the motivation behind the Tory legislation was less about taking a moral stand and more about taking heat off politicians, whose own pay packets have long subject to public scrutiny. Don't get us wrong. We think the Sunshine List contains valuable information that belongs in the public realm. And no doubt it has exposed some gross abuses at the civic trough. But there are many other matters which deserve and need exposure. Matters which can be argued are of equal if not greater importance than cranking out a list of salaries every 365 days, then going back to business as usual. We've said it before and we will no doubt say it again: Bill 142, also known as the Transparency in Public Matters Act, ought to have support and passage. If enacted, the law would force numerous government agencies, such as the Niagara Parks Commission, to open their meetings to the public, provide timely minutes and create a complaints procedure for those who may feel a decision was made behind closed doors when it shouldn't have been. We can't understand why such important legislation is left to the vagaries of the private members' system. Bill 142, sponsored by Niagara Falls MPP Kim Craitor, should be government policy, plain and simple. Premier Dalton McGuinty could make it happen any time he wants. Yet he has steadfastly refused to go this route. Moreover, when asked about Craitor's bill, McGuinty hides behind procedural mumbo-jumbo and launches into a display of fancy footwork that would almost certainly bring him victory on Dancing With The Stars. We don't get it. A government can't be for transparency and against Craitor's bill. Craitor makes excellent points when he refers to the most recent Ontario auditor-general report that outlined a host of spending abuses by provincial agencies. Millions of dollars in unreceipted expenses were found at Hydro One and there were instances of teachers and executives of Children's Aid Societies rewarding themselves with luxury vehicles, foreign trips, DVDs and Christmas lights. We can only wonder what other waste and misuse of money has yet to be uncovered. Why shouldn't the Niagara Parks Commission meet in public? Or Niagara Falls Hydro? Why should the Niagara Health System or the Niagara Regional Police Services Board be able to take portions of their meetings behind closed doors, and decide for themselves what information should be available for general consumption? They are not guarding official secrets, although you have to wonder the way some of them cling to their blackout privileges. All of these organizations could easily operate under the rules set out by the Ontario Municipal Act for elected councils, where in-camera sessions are permitted for discussion of legal and personnel matters. Everything else is (or should be) out in the open. There is a provincial election this fall. It's not too early to start asking candidates about their stand on Bill 142. Tell them you're tired of the secrecy.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Apr 10, 2007 12:43:46 GMT -5
Provincial legislation requiring meetings of public bodies to be open to the public and other transparency measures, is officially dead. After being watered down under pressure from the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) the Transparency In Public Matters Act (Bill 123) was withdrawn when Ontario Liberal MPP Caroline Di Cocco was jettisoned into cabinet last April. Liberal MPP Kim Craitor promised to champion an improved and strengthened version of Bill 123 but Craitor has failed to do so or even mention it in a recent statement of his priorities. It is unlikely the bill will resurface as a private members' bill or in government sponsored legislation. Premier Dalton McGuinty has effectively confirmed Bill 123 is dead. Di Cocco has become an apologist for the Liberal government's lack of action on transparency and the killing of Bill 123 through her appointment to cabinet. "Politicians that become ministers become easily seduced by the attractions of secrecy," according to John Reid, the Federal Information Commissioner
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Apr 10, 2007 12:53:27 GMT -5
The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada is a pan-Canadian, non-profit membership-based organization dedicated to promoting quality child care which is accessible to all.
The project's objectives are:
to increase knowledge of curriculum issues in national policy making through dissemination of research findings and current issues;
to increase collaboration between sectors involved in early learning and child care through public consultation to identify and implement common values and early childhood educational goals; and,
to create a national curriculum/pedagogical framework that will provide a common foundation on which to build programs that enhance children's early learning and development. So were giving them over a quarter million dollars to lobby the government on 'curriculum issues and network with other like-minded advocacy groups. The third point is supposed to provide the justification for the funding. If the federal government wants to develop a 'national curriculum/pedagogical (teaching) framework' they have the appropriate public servants to do so, in conjunction with their provincial counterparts.
The Canadian taxpayers should not be funding advocacy/lobbyist groups to develop policies and programs or to conduct research. If the government wants to fund research on these issues, then direct the funds to the appropriate accredited university.
If these organizations wish to continue advocating specific issues, they are free to do so with their members money, not the taxpayers.
If you want my money than ask me up front and convince me to support your cause. Stop picking my pocket through the government.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Apr 10, 2007 13:08:16 GMT -5
Work hard, say the right things and Toronto's cultural elite may even allow you to grace their hallowed halls. Good thing Ontario's new Culture Minister Caroline Di Cocco isn't from Petrolia, then she'd really be in trouble. Canada never lacks for culture ministers As for Di Cocco, Ontario's new culture minister, it's much too soon to predict how she will fare. One point in her favour: As culture critic when the Liberals were in opposition, she knows the file. One disadvantage: She's from Sarnia, which is not exactly the centre of Ontario's cultural industries. Tongue in cheek or not, this is insulting on so many levels. I wonder how the "centre of Ontario's cultural industries" would fare if all of us hicks from the rest of the province spent our money elsewhere. Those who can, do. Those who can't ...
|
|
|
Post by Lucifer on Apr 10, 2007 17:02:39 GMT -5
Openness more than releasing a list of salaries The Review Editorial & Opinion - Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Updated @ 7:22:02 AM By now we've all had the chance to read and digest the so-called Sunshine List, the annual compendium of people making more than $100,000 at taxpayers' expense. I saw Lambton's "Sunshine List" in the Observer a couple of days ago. I'm glad to see that Bob Henry is doing so well. I remember Bob as the operator of the old Transference BBS in Petrolia. I first met Bob when I bought 3.5" floppy disks from him back in the old BBS days. He offered a pretty good deal on generic floppy disks, and the proceeds went into supporting the BBS. So it was a cause worth supporting. Unfortunately, when he moved from Petrolia to Bright's Grove, calling his BBS meant long distance charges for many users outside of Sarnia proper. This coupled with the subsequent arrival of the Internet in Sarnia lead to the demise of the Transference BBS. Bob used to be a big Commodore Amiga fan. I wonder if he still uses obscure platforms? I would guess that he's probably a Mac or Windows user now. But who knows? He might be running Linux. Regardless, good educators are worth every penny of their salary.
|
|
|
Post by Lucifer on Apr 10, 2007 18:17:57 GMT -5
I saw Lambton's "Sunshine List" in the Observer a couple of days ago. I'm glad to see that Bob Henry is doing so well. I remember Bob as the operator of the old Transference BBS in Petrolia. I first met Bob when I bought 3.5" floppy disks from him back in the old BBS days. He offered a pretty good deal on generic floppy disks, and the proceeds went into supporting the BBS. So it was a cause worth supporting. Unfortunately, when he moved from Petrolia to Bright's Grove, calling his BBS meant long distance charges for many users outside of Sarnia proper. This coupled with the subsequent arrival of the Internet in Sarnia lead to the demise of the Transference BBS. Bob used to be a big Commodore Amiga fan. I wonder if he still uses obscure platforms? I would guess that he's probably a Mac or Windows user now. But who knows? He might be running Linux. Regardless, good educators are worth every penny of their salary. I just want to point out that I never actually met Bob Henry and that he never actually ran a BBS called Transference. Bob also didn't sell generic 3.5" floppy disks, nor did he ever use an Amiga computer in his entire lifetime. I never ever called his BBS, obviously, because he never ever ran one. So when I speak of my little 1200 baud modem and my old Atari 8-bit and ST computers, I'm actually feeding you all a line of shit. I never ever had discussions with Bob on his BBS about how Atari was better than Amiga. Of course, if I had had such discussions, Bob probably would have agreed with me because he's never used an Amiga. Bob never ever lived in Petrolia and he never ever moved from Petrolia to Bright's Grove. I apologize for lying to you clever people. I should have realized that you would do your homework and expose me as a liar and a fraud. And I especially want to apologize to Bob Henry for making up stories about him. He's probably insulted that I would make up such nonsense about BBS's and Amiga's and stuff. I'm sorry for lying about you Bob. I hope you will give me a second chance. Everybody knows that I was actually out chasing girls around when I was younger. I was never ever really that interested in computers and it's all a big lie. I was never a user of the Inside Track BBS either. And I definitely wasn't a sysop of that BBS. As a matter of fact, I lied about ever owning an Atari computer. I've never owned one and still don't own one. As a matter of fact, this message is being typed on an old Olivetti typewriter. Once I type it out, I put it in an envelope and mail it to the National Center for Forum Input in Toronto. Once the message arrives there by Canada Post, it's carefully screened for typos and grammatical errors, before being passed on to the clerical staff for entry to the designated Internet forum. In this case, it's the Sarnia's Smoking Gun forum. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whew, that's a load off my chest. I'm going to start telling the truth from now on. All these lies just weigh too heavy on my conscience. Again, I apologise to Bob Henry for making up such a story about him. Please forgive me. Hopefully you'll find it in your heart to give me a second chance.
|
|
|
Post by Lucifer on Apr 10, 2007 19:00:22 GMT -5
I just want to point out that I never actually met Bob Henry and that he never actually ran a BBS called Transference. Bob also didn't sell generic 3.5" floppy disks, nor did he ever use an Amiga computer in his entire lifetime. One other thing. If Bob Henry insists that he did operate a BBS called Transference, don't believe him. If Bob Henry insists that he was a loyal Amiga user, don't believe him. If Bob Henry insists that he did sell generic 3.5" floppy disks from his home in Petrolia, don't believe him. If Bob Henry insists that he did move from Petrolia to Bright's Grove, don't believe him. It's obvious a clever ploy that Bob and I worked out in order to cover my tracks. So don't believe anything that Bob Henry says. You should instead, listen to the fine people of Blackburn Radio Incorporated. Because the people at Blackburn know that everyone who corroborates my story is a liar. So if Bob Henry corroboates my story about running a BBS on his Amiga computer, he's obviously lying and trying to help me out. Remember, Ron Dann knows what is true and what is not. So if Bob Henry insists that the things I said are true... Then you should disregard what Bob Henry says and believe Ron Dann instead. Ron Dann is a genius. He knows everything. By the way, did you know that Ron Dann is my hero?
|
|
|
Post by bizzi on Apr 10, 2007 20:20:56 GMT -5
Luc, That has to be the most pointless two posts I have ever read. Thank you for making me waste 5 minutes reading that, and that 5 seconds I will never get back.... Maybe I just missed somthing... ...
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Apr 10, 2007 20:28:43 GMT -5
I hear ya Bizzi.....
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Apr 10, 2007 20:37:09 GMT -5
NDP Vote Against Help for Children
TORONTO, April 10 /CNW/ - Today the Ontario NDP chose to put politics ahead of children and vote against the 2007 Budget. "Howard Hampton can say whatever he wants but the McGuinty Liberals have been working hard to make progress on behalf of families. Howard Hampton's NDP are standing in the way and voting against help for families," Liberal MPP Dwight Duncan said today.
<< Today the NDP voted against:
- a new Ontario Child Benefit - Increasing Ontario Disability Support and Ontario Works benefits by two per cent - Increasing the minimum wage to $10.25 an hour by 2010 - Enhancing child care through an additional $25 million in 2007-08 and $50 million in ongoing support in 2008-09 - Launching new affordable housing initiatives >>
Here is what Gail Nyberg, Executive Director of the Daily Bread Food Bank had to say about the McGuinty Liberal budget: "It's been a long time since poverty reduction measures were at the forefront of a provincial budget in Ontario. We congratulate the government for having the courage to take on this significant issue, and we expect to see a reduction in food bank use in the coming years as a result. The Ontario Child Benefit will reduce barriers faced by families with children who are trying to leave welfare for work. At the same time, it will help reduce child poverty and hunger." (March 27, 2007) "The McGuinty Liberals are working hard to turn around the years of NDP and Tory damage. We have a balanced budget that helps Ontario children with a new Ontario Child Benefit. This budget boosts investments in our schools, our hospitals and our communities," said Duncan. "To vote against this progress shows the NDP is putting politics ahead of Ontario's children."
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Apr 10, 2007 20:37:47 GMT -5
Conservatives Vote Against Help for Families
QUEEN'S PARK, April 10 /CNW/ - John Tory's weak leadership was exposed again today when he put politics ahead of Ontario children and families by voting against the McGuinty Liberal budget. Just three weeks ago, John Tory said there was not one item in the McGuinty Liberal budget he would reverse: Reporter: "(Are) there any initiatives in yesterday's budget that you would reverse?" John Tory: "No, I can't think of one I would reverse... I can't think at the moment... I can't think of one that I would tell you right now that I would reverse." (Tory Press Conference, March 23, 2007) Yet, just 19 days after pledging he would not reverse any items in the McGuinty budget, John Tory came out and voted against it. If John Tory is too weak to stand up to his own caucus, how can anyone think he would ever stand up for Ontario families? The balanced McGuinty budget brings forward real investments for the future of Ontario. A new Ontario Child Benefit program, increases to the minimum wage, and relief from the Business Education Tax. Ontario families don't want to turn back the clock to Conservative days of cuts to our health care, damage to our schools and neglect of our air and our water. Would John Tory vote against a budget he says he supports? Is that a 'different' kind of leader, or just a weak leader?
|
|
|
Post by Lucifer on Apr 10, 2007 20:58:08 GMT -5
Luc, That has to be the most pointless two posts I have ever read. Thank you for making me waste 5 minutes reading that, and that 5 seconds I will never get back.... Maybe I just missed somthing... ... Sorry about that bizzi. There was a point to be made with those posts, but it wasn't a point that was meant for you. It was meant for the lame people that insist on calling me a liar. I'm sick of people telling me that my previous life didn't exist merely because the reality of my life doesn't jive with their bullshit allegations. You probably know what I'm talking about. They make an allegation against you, then they fabricate a bullshit story to support their allegation. And everything that you offer in defense is immediately dismissed as a lie. So I decided I would beat them to the punch. I'd offer something that was totally true, then admit that the truth is actually a lie. It's pathetic what a piece of shit at a radio station -- or a piece of shit at a bar -- will come up with. I'm sick of these fscking morons. It's time for action. It's time for action that is long overdue. And I really don't care if important powerful people lose. Better them than me, as I always say. So to the corrupt elite, I say, "Welcome to defeat! We've been expecting you!"
|
|