OTTAWA—The Liberals will be using Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's position on the war in Iraq as a weapon against the Bloc Québécois in the next election.
Health Minister Pierre Pettigrew said yesterday that Quebecers will be reminded that a vote for the Bloc would help elect the Conservatives, and that Harper supported sending Canadian soldiers to Iraq as part of the American-led invasion a year ago.
"People will have to decide whether to vote in a way that favours the (Conservatives), who would have taken us to war (when he was leader of the Canadian Alliance)," Pettigrew said.
"Even now, Stephen Harper is saying blithely that Canada should have gone to war."
Pettigrew said this would be a factor in the coming election campaign, expected in late spring or early fall.
Not sending troops "was a decision which helped the Liberal party a lot in Quebec," he said. "It was a courageous and daring decision. We will remind people of it."
When the war in Iraq was declared a year ago, the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Bloc supported the decision by former prime minister Jean Chrétien to keep Canada out of the war.
Chrétien's decision was extremely popular in Quebec, and former Quebec premier Bernard Landry said he had telephoned Chrétien to congratulate him.
SHAWINIGAN, Que. (CP) — Jean Chrétien spoke out in defence of his political legacy today but the retired prime minister who prided himself as a political streetfighter declined to throw any punches at foes who questioned his integrity.
[. . . .] "You know, attacks are a part of life for a politician and you fight back. I loved to fight back but now I'm not in politics anymore."
He said he didn't have to offer any explanations for the sponsorship program, which is under investigation by police and two public inquiries following revelations that up to $100 million was funnelled to Liberal-friendly ad firms.
[. . . .] "I've already said I've answered 200 times in the House of Commons. There were 200 questions on this so I've had a chance to say in English and French and maybe a few times in joual (French slang). What do you want? I answered those questions. I don't answer questions about current affairs anymore."
[. . . .] But the loudest cheers for Chrétien during a speech Thursday night came when he reminded his audience of 700 that it was the one-year anniversary of his decision not to join the American-led war in Iraq.
He cited the Iraq announcement as a "great day" for Canada.
"Because it was a chance for us to show we are an independent country, with its own convictions, principles and a policy that respects the international situation," he said. "We believe in the United Nations, we believe in peace in the world."
[. . . .] "Thank you very much. And vive Shawinigan!"
Kevin is in retail. He sells tiny bags of marijuana on the corner of East Hastings and Hamilton, a few blocks from Vancouver's notorious Downtown Eastside. One gram, ten bucks a pop.
Traffic is steady, but street peddlers like Kevin must move lots of tiny plastic bags to get by. Pushing dope at this level is a risky, low-margin business. For every gram of marijuana Kevin sells, he keeps just $2; his "boss," he says, collects the rest.
He doesn't lack competition. On any given day, there might be two or three other dealers selling locally grown pot on his corner. To close a sale, Kevin must sometimes offer customers a discount. This means giving up some of his commission.
He does not relish the prospect of competing with legitimate businesses, such as, say, local pharmacies.
[. . . .] The idea of dispensing marijuana in pharmacies is being considered by Health Canada, the federal department that regulates the sale of drugs in this country. Health Canada officials say they have no choice but to make marijuana more accessible. In October, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled current regulations governing the distribution of marijuana for medicinal use are so restrictive as to render them unconstitutional.
Approximately 700 Canadians with certain illnesses have permission to consume marijuana. The drug can help stimulate appetite and can help relieve some forms of chronic pain. It is thought to be particularly beneficial for people suffering from the effects of full-blown AIDS or multiple sclerosis.
[. . . .] Acquiring the product legally can be even more difficult, the Ontario court noted. About 70 registered users consume marijuana that is supplied by the federal government. The pot is grown by a private company in an old mine shaft in Flin Flon, Man. Although raised under strict government supervision and subject to rigorous testing, the Manitoba marijuana is considered vastly inferior to black market weed.
[. . . .] "I won't go into details," Pharmaco partner Glenda MacDonald said. "We are still early in the development stage. But there is clearly a need for better access to medical marijuana. And we know it is effective in the treatment of pain and appetite improvement and muscle spasticity and seizure control."
[. . . .] Kevin needn't much worry about pharmacists muscling in on their turf with deeply discounted bud. The market for non-medicinal marijuana in Canada continues to grow, police say. Street prices remain steady. Our appetite seems insatiable.
OTTAWA - Landslide Annie has it all. Power. Perks. People to perform her biding. Drivers to chauffeur her places. Government jets to fly on command. Budgets to approve or axe behind closed doors.
But Anne McLellan has little chance to win back her seat in the upcoming federal election unless there's a startling reversal of Liberal fortunes in The West.
[. . . .] McLellan chairs the most critical Cabinet committee and has a Rolodex containing the access codes for contacting the Prime Minister whenever required, day or night.
She controls the RCMP, the prisons, the airports and the border as Public Safety Minister. Some 55,000 government employees call her The Boss.
[. . . .] So powerful has McLellan become that Air Canada executives have been fretting lately at the many missed connections on her flights through Toronto and have urged ground crews to try harder to keep that plane on schedule.
This week, Paul Martin set out to save [her . . .]
Martin put her front and centre at the announcement of a billion-dollar bailout for cattle breeders and feedlot owners hit by mad cow consequences and let it be known through his spin doctors that his deputy had been a particularly aggressive advocate for the package.
The sale of Petro-Canada's remnants was an emotional bonus for Western Trudeau haters and didn't hurt the Liberal chances.
And his federal budget had enough Western-friendly themes to attract above-average marks in The West, rare for a Liberal fiscal blueprint.
But dejected Liberal organizers in Alberta still whisper Anne McLellan is a "dead minister walking" without an unanticipated surge in poll popularity.
McLellan's election track record has never been particularly bright. She has never claimed victory by more than a 2% safety margin and the combined vote of the two right-wing parties, the merged enemy she now faces, would've defeated her three times in a row.
[. . . .] I'd bet McLellan survives, despite being minister in charge of the maligned gun registry, as her Edmonton West voters opt to retain a pivotal place at the Cabinet table.
[. . . .] Particularly aggrieved is inner city Calgary hopeful Julia Turnbull. After a year of campaigning, she's still being denied the right to claim party nomination colours as the Martin camp beats the bushes for a star recruit. They won't find one and even if they did, bumping a woman with thousands of memberships under her name to appoint a high profile replacement would ensure an anybody-but-Liberal victory.
The very idea of what the Prime Minister's camp is trying to do is profoundly undemocratic -- whatever political party does it. It seems to me sacrosanct that a riding should be able to determine the person to be its representative in an election. Why does so much power rest with the PM? Is it written somewhere? Someone, please enlighten me. NJC
Update: A Cow in Every Barn
A billion for Martin's "A cow in every barn" initiative. "Geez, I nearly forgot that we have to buy the West. Could we, maybe, get one rural seat in the west out of this?" It is not as if the money isn't needed; it is just the optics of the timing. I haven't had the chance to look at Martin's new budget. Reports are that it is relatively free of the usual pork servings. I will make sure I read the fine print.
Quebec Brigade Gets 100% off; Ontario Groops Get Partial Cut; Sailors Get Nothing
Will the Prime Minister note this? He probably did not intend dissension as the result, but that is what is happening. Will those who wish to form a government and who will work on a budget in future -- whatever their political stripe -- think about the implications of their gerrymandering of the distribution of tax dollars: of trying to be "fair", of trying to "reward" a particular group--for whatever reason--or to "right past wrongs".
There must be suggestions for change. Send them. I have thought of these, not the best, necessarily, but a start.
1. It is time for all citizens to be treated equally and I cannot think of anything more fair than a simple percentage of income as the government's share to use for the betterment of ALL Canadians, not for the ones they deem to be deserving or who belong to the governing party. I know there are arguments--good ones--against this having to do with the rich getting richer while the less favoured economically have so much larger an amount of their income grabbed by governments at all levels. Nevertheless, the alternative as it is now does not seem fair either. Let those with the capacity to make money make it; many of us are not jealous and would not invest our lives in the pursuit of great wealth.
2. Another idea might be a tax on consumption and no income tax at all. If your desire is to see those with wealth pay, this could be a solution. The poor, not having the money to consume as much, would pay less.
3. Get out of the business of money transfers from one area of the country to another -- from one have area to another have not area. Let those who generate wealth keep more of their own money and use it. It could be amazing what that might generate.
Quebec brigade gets 100% off; Ontario troops get partial cut; sailors get nothing
The federal government's limited tax break for soldiers on overseas missions came under fire yesterday from sailors in the Persian Gulf, military leaders in Bosnia and soldiers just back from Afghanistan.
The policy, announced in Tuesday's federal budget, is causing hard feelings within the military because many troops won't get the promised tax exemption on their pay while abroad.
The roughly 650 soldiers now in Bosnia are serving in an area not deemed dangerous enough to merit the tax break, and the policy also excludes the thousands of sailors and aircrew who participated in Operation Apollo, the Canadian contribution to the war on terrorism.
The crew of the frigate HMCS Toronto, now operating in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, does not qualify, even though American sailors in the U.S. Navy task force serving alongside them are exempt from paying taxes.
[. . . .] Because the tax-free status is retroactive to Jan. 1, the first Canadian troops who arrived in Afghanistan will also be largely left out.
[. . . . An anonymous] member of the Royal Canadian Regiment [ said ] "But I don't know why they gave the Vandoos [the regiment now in Kabul] six months tax free but not us. It's not like they're doing anything we didn't."
The Royal 22eme Regiment, one of the army's designated francophone units, has long been suspected by the rest of the army of receiving preferential treatment from Canadian Forces headquarters.
[. . . .] Australia however, does give its soldiers, sailors and airmen a tax holiday while they are deployed on missions such as the war in Iraq.
[. . . .] Because the tax-free status is retroactive to Jan. 1, the first Canadian troops who arrived in Afghanistan will also be largely left out. Members of that first rotation to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, most of whom are based in Petawawa, Ont., will be able to reclaim federal taxes on only about six weeks of their pay.
That's because the Petawawa group's six-month mission in the Afghan capital ended in mid-February.
However, their replacements, drawn from a brigade group in Valcartier, Que., will not pay taxes for the entire six months of their mission.
And that has raised some eyebrows among the English-speaking units of the army.
[. . . .] In Camp Julien, Afghanistan, soldiers were under a gag order not to speak publicly about the federal budget for 48 hours.[. . . .]
"That's incredible a cone of silence would be ordered over our men and women in uniform," Conservative defence critic Jay Hill said.
"I question the right of anybody to order our soldiers not to talk about this type of thing that has an effect not only on them but their families."
The tax break, which will cost the government an estimated $30-million a year, covers salaries up to $6,000 a month -- the maximum pay for non-commissioned officers. Officers up to the rank of captain will also get the full benefit, but senior officers will have to pay taxes only on that part of their salary over $6,000.
[. . . .] [US] Officers do not pay taxes on the first US$6,315.90 per month of their pay.
Check the ads on Blogger's Blogspot (above). Once Qui tam had been mentioned, these ads showed up on this site. They have interesting information. For example, on one site there an article excerpted below. (emphasis is mine) This goes along with a post Mar. 24, 03 which is linked to previous posts on qui tam.
Dr. Paul Michelson is an eye surgeon who filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against his former employer, ScrippsClinic and Research Foundation, and a former colleague for billing Medicare for unnecessary surgery and operations that were never performed. The clinic paid $355,000 in April 1988 to settle the qui tam case. A doctor at the clinic paid $250,000 in August 1990 to settle his portion of the lawsuit. Here is an edited version of Michelson’s story as told to a congressional subcommittee in 1990.
In 1977 I left a practice and affiliation with Harvard Medical School to move to southern California, where I took a position with a prestigious multi-specialty medical group.
In the mid-1980s, I discovered that a colleague was doing unnecessary surgery and billing fraudulently. This ophthalmologist was performing infrequent procedures with dramatic frequency. I felt compelled to investigate and reviewed some of his medical records.
I learned that he performed laser procedures to treat patients with secondary cataracts and glaucoma but billed Medicare for more expensive invasive surgical operations. Most troubling to me as a physician, however, was the discovery that this doctor had subjected his trusting, mostly elderly patients to dangerous treatments for glaucoma without having first attempted to treat them with simple safe eye drops and, in other instances, without having established a definite diagnosis.
Because of the risks involved, lasers are used to treat the common type of glaucoma only after maximum tolerated medical therapy has failed.
Notwithstanding this standard of practice known to all, my sampling of records proved that this colleague had repeatedly violated these guidelines. In many instances, he had treated unsuspecting patients who did not even have glaucoma. In each case, the patients and Medicare were billed over $1,000.
My efforts to correct the situation internally failed. I was forced to consider alternatives. I knew, however, of well-publicized instances in which doctors and medical organizations had attempted to curtail unethical or illegal actions by errant colleagues, only to find themselves the objects of truly punitive legal retributions by the accused party. I was certain that I, too, would expose myself to a potentially ruinous defamation or restraint of trade case in the event the authorities failed to act conclusively and expeditiously.
[. . . .] Fortunately, while searching for a solution, I read a newspaper article about the 1986 amendments to the federal False Claims Act. I learned that this law would guarantee me the right to my own legal counsel, would permit me to participate fully in the development of the evidence and the litigation, would require that the authorities promptly investigate any allegations and would provide court supervision of the progress.
[. . . .] The False Claims Act worked well to resolve this particular instance of unethical conduct and Medicare fraud. In return for an investment of my time and expertise, the qui tam provisions allowed me to stop abusive and dangerous medical practices and allowed the taxpayers to recover substantial funds.
[. . . .] Only we, as peers, can properly and effectively monitor each other. The amended False Claims Act has given us a potent instrument with which to do so.
Remember Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise that "Ottawa will never be the same," that "come hell or high water," he is going to "change the way Ottawa works?" . . . . his "Never Again" speech. . . Mr. Martin's repeated pledges to "get to the bottom" of the sponsorship scandal, or his assurance that all "Cabinet documents pertinent to this matter will be released?" These same promises, or variations on them, have been uttered repeatedly by Liberal ministers . . . .Reg Alcock, the Treasury Board president, for instance, invited everyone with details on Adscam to come forward and testify. . . .
But all that rhetoric aside, on Tuesday the Liberals used their majority at the public accounts hearing to block access by the committee to Alfonso Gagliano's telephone records and briefing papers, documents that could establish how deeply the former public works minister was involved, or not, in the doling out of tens of millions in public cash to Liberal-friendly ad agencies in Quebec. Last week, Mr. Gagliano told the committee, unbelievably, that he "didn't see, didn't ask" about the scheme and had given "no political direction" on where sponsorship monies were to go during his stint at the head of the department. Even Liberal committee members appeared frustrated by Mr. Gagliano's apparent stonewalling.
Yet on Tuesday, when Conservative members of the committee made a seemingly routine motion to obtain some of Mr. Gagliano's ministerial documents and telephone logs, every Liberal -- every single one -- voted to deny access. All those Liberal promises about co-operating with investigators would appear now to have been hollow; . . . . Mr. Martin himself selected the Liberal members of the committee, including three junior members of his Cabinet, creates the impression this obstruction is being orchestrated directly by the PMO.
The government-wide audit in the most recent audit is more extensive. Do those who investigate have the manpower and expertise to do a thorough investigation in a timely manner? It shouldn't take two years to figure out fraud and theft when people get paid for doing basically nothing. Figuring out where the money went from the ad firms may take a bit longer--potential money laundering.
This is what resulted from the first Auditor General's report; undoubtedly, there will be more.
You might want to look at the time involved for one investigation; then question whether proper and timely investigations will be possible -- given what could be seen as inadequate monetary provision for our security forces to do their jobs. Check the budget allocations in the 2004 budget; how much is there for hiring more investigative and other officers? It is very difficult to tell. One might be forced to conclude that the government would prefer that Canadian security and investigative teams be understaffed. Of course, that would be a cynical thought, would it not? NJC
Ottawa — The RCMP is expected to charge a handful of people connected to the sponsorship scandal in coming days, sources say.The file has been in the hands of Crown prosecutor Jacques Dagenais for two weeks, and a final announcement is expected by next week.
Mr. Dagenais has been combing through five boxes of evidence that the RCMP accumulated during a two-year investigation into contracts awarded by Public Works Canada.
In 2002, police started investigating three contracts worth $1.6-million awarded to Groupaction Marketing Inc.
The probe has grown to include millions of dollars in federal deals involving at least two other advertising firms.
According to Myriam Bedard's testimony before the Commons Public Accounts Committee, they're all Groupaction. The RCMP charges are not the end; rather, they will provide some idea of the extent of what needs to be done yet. NJC
[. . . .] Last September, Paul Coffin, president of Montreal-based Communication Coffin, was charged with 18 counts of fraud against the federal government regarding $2-million in allegedly fake invoices submitted to Public Works.
[. . . .] Communication Coffin was a relatively small player in the program, having received about $4-million of the $100-million in sponsorship funding that was funnelled to advertising firms from 1997 to 2003.
[. . . .] The opposition has alleged that the program was used to reward generous donors to the Liberal Party of Canada.
Prime Minister Paul Martin has acknowledged that the program had to function under "political direction," without stating who provided that direction.
Yet Prime Minister Martin knew nothing? A man who was capable of organizing his supporters in the background to negotiate a take-over of the Liberal Party's power at the riding level -- a power used to unseat a Prime Minister? It boggles the mind -- and invites disbelief. NJC
[. . . . ] In addition to the RCMP investigation, a judicial inquiry headed by Mr. Justice John Gomery will try to understand what happened in the sponsorship program. [Mr. Gomery has been on holiday. ]
The inquiry is currently setting up offices in Montreal and Ottawa.
A parliamentary committee is already looking into the sponsorship program, but it is struggling to obtain evidence laying out the involvement of specific individuals in its management.
PM Appointing SCOC Justices -- Appearance of Lack of Impartiality
Quotes to note: italicization is mine
*** Prime Minister Paul Martin has already promised that MPs will have a role in vetting future Supreme Court candidates
[. . . . ] The prime minister now names Supreme Court judges after he and his justice minister consult privately with unspecified members of the legal and political communities. ***
There is speculation about how the new judges to replace justices Frank Iacobucci and Louise Arbour for the SCOC will be appointed -- and several people and governments wish to make input on this.
OTTAWA — The prime minister is in a conflict of interest by having the sole power to name Supreme Court judges, says one of Canada’s leading legal experts.
“This is because the federal government is the most frequent litigator before the court and the prime minister is the most senior member of the federal government involved in the litigation,” Jacob Ziegel, a University of Toronto professor, told the Commons justice committee Tuesday.
There is, therefore, “an appearance of lack of impartiality” built into the system, said Ziegel, condemning it as “fatally flawed.”
On the first day of public hearings on possible reforms to the secretive process of naming Supreme Court judges, several well-known legal analysts said Canada needs a system that is more transparent and involves the public, given the importance of the positions in shaping the country’s legal landscape.
[. . . . ] Prime Minister Paul Martin has already promised that MPs will have a role in vetting future Supreme Court candidates, putting his government under intense pressure to come up with a new system in a short time.
Alberta and Quebec issued a joint news release on Tuesday saying that both Supreme Court and Senate nominees should be selected from a short-list drafted by the provinces.
The prime minister now names Supreme Court judges after he and his justice minister consult privately with unspecified members of the legal and political communities.
[. . . . There was] general agreement. . . . The provinces, members of the legal community, and the general public, should also be involved, possibly as members of a committee similar to ones that exist in each province to vet judges.
[. . . . ] Chris Manfredi, a McGill University professor, was dismissive of concerns that adopting an American-type process would lead to candidates being put through the political wringer — something he said rarely happens in the U.S.
Manfredi added that Canada’s current process is already political and made worse by the public being kept in the dark.
“A prime minister appoints people whose views are as close to theirs as they can predict,” Manfredi said.
The bones of a man whose body was found alongside a Montreal train track 97 years ago are the subject of a sensational case before Britain's highest church court in which the man's descendants want to conduct DNA tests on his remains — and compare them to those of Russian princess Tsarina Alexandra — to prove he was the bastard son of Queen Victoria's daughter Louise.
