It seems that former CTV reporter, David Akin, thought to throw a little gas on the fire by pointing out that the Conservative government gave a magazine that bills itself as “Western Canada’s Conservative Voice” $27,124 “on behalf of all [Canadian] taxpayers.”

Mr. Akin’s next line to drive the point home: “This, of course, was the day after CBC announced about 800 layoffs…because of a budget shortfall it hoped Canada’s government, on behalf of all taxpayers, might cover.”

The message is clear: The Harper Conservatives are cutting needed funds from the CBC in favour of funding for partisan, western voices. The only problem is, Mr. Akin’s shallow evaluation has no basis, and in fact it is the ‘conservative voices’ that are getting the short end of the stick.

Here we must applaud Mr. Lilley (who is a friend and colleague of David Akin) for bringing balance to the report.

“Never assume a conspiracy when plain old incompetence will do.

In fairness to David, he may not know that this funding flows freely from government’s of all stripes. I’ve worked in Canada’s arts industry, of which most magazine believe they belong and I’ve seen the programs first hand. While those in the industry will always tell you there isn’t enough government money, the feds spend plenty on Canadian magazines and it isn’t limited to $27,124 in funding to a group of Alberta’s conservatives.

Consider this line from the website of the fantastically left wing This Magazine, a magazine that just might consider Jack Layton a right winger

 ”This Magazine receives financial support from the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Publication Assistance Program and the Canada Magazine Fund. “

Count ‘em, four different types of funding from government, three of them from the feds.

The Walrus Magazine, another publication hardly friendly to the Conservatives or conservatism, was able to grab $110,522 from the Canadian Magazine Fund. If I was Report Magazine, I might be a little miffed that I didn’t get more money, I mean even Urban Male Magazine got more money than they did.”

So now that the full facts are known, it’s really hard to justify David Akin’s innuendo about Conservative funding isn’t it.

The question arises: Why are the media complicit in propounding the myth that Conservatives are ultra-partisan and direct public funds only in their partisan interests? That sounds exactly like the cheap stunts that the Liberals try to pull in their “press releases.” Someone of David Akin’s calibre and experience should know better (and he should research his stories better).

What is most troubling however is that the Liberals have tried to type-cast Prime Minister Harper since 2004 by innuendo, attack ads and baseless accusations. What they have done to Mr. Harper makes the profiling of Stephane Dion look like child’s play. The sad part is that so many in the media are complicit in parroting these accusations and giving them credibility in the eyes of the public - regardless of the lack of facts to back them up.

Evoking Mahatma Ghandi, he wrote a letter to the Times & Transcript in which he called for giving prosecutors and police “the necessary resources to investigate and make charges stick and deterrent necessary to cause people to reconsider their actions.” He further said that “the Government of Canada must act to ensure that laws are strengthened to provide that necessary deterrent to prevent crimes against animals or to properly punish those who continue to think this type of behaviour is okay.” That sure sounds like he is ready to get tough on crime.

In a separate letter a short time later, MP Murphy insisted that the government must not “allow animal abusers to get off without adequate punishment.” He also added that they must “ensure that those who abuse animals are swiftly and properly punished.” Yes, this is our Liberal MP calling for stiffer sentences and harsher punishment as a deterrent from crimes against animals.

At odds with his recent vigorous stance against animal crime however are his past comments on human crime. Here are a few quotes from MP Murphy when he was stonewalling Conservative efforts to get tough on violent crime:

• “Many if not all studies have shown that there is no link between more severe, longer and harsher sentences and the diminution of crime rates.” Source

• “being tougher on the books on crime does not deter crime” Source

• “Harsher punishments and reverse onus in bail hearings, as Bill C-35 proposes …will not help prevent crime or make Canada and our communities any safer” Source

• “studies that on the whole suggest that the deterrent effect of increased mandatory minimums is not there” Source (on C-10 Mandatory minimums for gun crimes)

• Of Conservatives: “They are not making the communities safer by locking everyone up. We ought to really take a non-partisan moment and say that if there is proof that these things work, show us.” Source

• “In fact, by cutting conditional sentences, sending more convicted individuals to …our jails, …by putting longer sentences in place …by cutting preventive and rehabilitation programs, we have no reason to think the crime rate is going to go down in Canada.” Source

• “Conditional sentencing is one important aspect of sentencing. This type of sentence plays a major role in the rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders.” Source 

When defending serious, violent repeat offenders and those who use guns in the commission of crime against people, Brian Murphy called for leniency, conditional sentences and an emphasis on rehabilitation. Now that he seeks to curry favour with animal rights activists, he is calling for increased penalties (longer jail time) and harsher punishment as a “deterrent to prevent crimes against animals.”

Why the double standard? Does he believe that harsher penalties act as a deterrent or doesn’t he? Is he suggesting that crimes against animals are somehow more heinous than those perpetrated against human beings?

That is not the least of what leads to confusion about his true stance on animal rights. In his statements referenced above, he at once trumpets Bill C-229 (a private member’s bill introduced by his Liberal buddy, Mark Holland) and at the same time demeans a recent animal rights bill that actually passed into law last year. Of Mr. Holland’s bill he says it “ought to be looked at seriously and passed.” Of Bill S-203 (by Liberal Senator, John Bryden) Brian Murphy says it “was a good start but doesn’t go far enough.”

Of course MP Murphy doesn’t miss an opportunity for partisanship, calling on the Conservatives to introduce Mr. Holland’s private member’s bill as government legislation but saying “the Conservative government has given no indication they will support this.”

The idea of course is to portray the “meanie Conservatives” as not caring and against protection for animals. The fact is that there were two votes required in the House of Commons to pass the Senate animal rights bill (S-203) into law. At both of those votes, Brian Murphy voted YEA along with virtually the entire Conservative caucus!

While every Conservative MP voted to pass the new legislation protecting animals, more than 28 Liberal MP’s voted against it! Those who voted NAY at both votes include: Mark Holland, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Martha Hall-Findlay, Irwin Cotler and a host of other prominent Liberals.

Clearly the Conservatives DID support animal rights while many Liberals DID NOT (including the sponsor of Bill C-229, Mark Holland). Bill S-203 passed by a wide margin (189/70) because it was reasonable legislation. It invokes protection against:killing, maiming, wounding, poisoning, injuring, causing unnecessary pain or suffering, fighting, baiting, administering injurious substances, shooting, or neglecting the care and safe conveyance of” animals. Bill S-203 increased the penalties for animal abuse to as much as 5 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. It also provides for an “order of prohibition” which disallows those found guilty from even being on the same premises as animals.

With all of this in mind, MP Brian Murphy says Bill S-203 “doesn’t go far enough.” What exactly is it that makes our MP think that Mark Holland’s bill (C-229) is in any way superior?  

A bit of research via the Parliament’s Legisinfo reveals the vast deficiencies of Mr. Holland’s bill. First of all, it is a re-introduction of failed legislation dating back to the Liberal majorities of Jean Chretien. It was first introduced as Bill C-10 by Martin Cauchon in October 2002. In its original iteration, it contained the words “any other animal that has a capacity to feel pain” (i.e. a satient being). That phrase was stripped out of subsequent reintroductions of the bill which showed up as C-22 (Irwin Cotler, March 2004), C-50 (Irwin Cotler, May 2005), C-373 (Mark Holland, October 2006), C-373 (Mark Holland, October 2007) and C-229 (Mark Holland, January 2009).

Despite repeated failure of this legislation under the Liberal governments of Chretien and Martin, Brian Murphy wants the Conservatives to adopt it as their own. What exactly are the differences between Bill S-203 (which was passed) and Bill C-229?

1. There are no increases to penalties. The maximums are still 5 years in prison or a fine of $10,000. Mark Holland’s bill does nothing to make penalties longer and more harsh and does not serve as a greater deterrent.
2. MP Holland’s bill does not include language addessing all sentient beings, but rather defines animals as “all vertebrates” (thus excluding 98% of the animal kingdom from this legislation!).
3. By expanding the definition from primarily domestic animals to all vertebrates wild and domestic, Bill C-229 encompasses all fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals. That is why Brian Murphy grudgingly admitted that “there is concern that the changes proposed could cause problems for hunters, fishermen or those in farming.”
4. Bill C-229 would criminalize hunters (particularly bowhunters), fishermen (recreational and domestic) and of course eliminate Canada’s seal hunt. On the other hand, it would do nothing to protect spiders commonly sold in pet stores from having their legs pulled off by twisted miscreants.
5. Bill C-229 states that it is illegal to kill an animal “regardless of whether the animal dies immediately.” No hunting and what are the implications for slaughterhouses and chicken farms?
6. Bill C-229 states that it is illegal to “place poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by an animal.” There is no exclusive provision made for exterminators or homeowners who seek to battle infestation of rats and mice. This would make a simple mouse trap a criminal weapon!
7. Bill C-229 also criminalizes anyone who “negligently causes unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal.” While this sounds innocuous on the surface, it raises serious questions about pet owners who choose not to engage expensive surgeries for dogs and cats. Simply allowing nature to take its course may no longer be an option.

Given these problems, it is no wonder Bill C-229 (aka C-10, C-22, C-50, C-373) never made it past first base even under Liberal majorities! It is simply weak and nebulous legislation which does nothing to increase penalties or the “deterrence” factor against animal cruelty. Nevertheless, MP Brian Murphy says it “ought to be looked at seriously and passed.”

Why would a well-educated lawyer justify coddling the “animals” who brazenly attack other human beings with guns, while demanding harsh and lengthy sentences for those who hook a big salmon or hang a trophy buck on the wall? It makes no more sense than demeaning legislation that garnered widespread support and increased penalties (S-203); while promoting a rehash of failed proposals that didn’t make it past first base under Liberal majority governments.

What’s next, being sued for mental cruelty for insisting that Fido wear a collar and leash? 

The first such case was when someone from Brian’s office apparently complained to the T&T about not getting enough coverage. As a result they were publicly rebuked. Next came the leak from Murphy’s office that funding had been approved for a new Peace Centre in Moncton. As it turns out, the funding had not even been applied for yet. The T&T publicly wondered if our MP was “out to lunch.”

Now Mr. Murphy finds himself at odds with his former prime promoter once again. This time the issue is enhanced driver’s licenses that would allow easier transit across the US border.

When asked whether NB should sieze the initiative and take the lead in providing licenses with citizenship data included, Mr. Murphy responded: “This is like walking through deep snow. Nobody wants to be the first to do it. Maybe New Brunswick is right to stay on the well-worn path and not be the first and make the mistakes, but be third or fourth and get it right.”

The Times & Transcript took issue with his reticence and encouraged Mr. Murphy to show some leadership instead of waiting for others to blaze a trail. “We also don’t subscribe to the rallying cry of Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe MP Brian Murphy, who suggests it is fine for New Brunswick to be third or fourth among Canadian provinces to adopt this technology. Moncton and Fredericton have been listed as two of the seven most intelligent cities on the planet. Smart card technology should not stump us. It’s time to show some technological leadership.”

As usual however, the facts are at odds with the rhetoric. Like the supposed “cuts” to Status of Women funding (which were actually positive changes that resulted in increases to the women’s program budget), these accusations are without merit.

Hon. Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board, wrote an excellent article this week in the Ottawa Citizen. He explained that changes were being made to the way Government addresses pay equity; it is not being eliminated as the opposition contends.

Salient points of the article are as follows:

1. Conservative action on the issue is based partly on recommendations from a Liberal appointed task force, circa 2004. The Liberals never acted on their own panel’s recommendations, but the Conservative government is progressive in their response to the deficiencies of current legislation.
2. Women seeking pay equity are forced to wait up to 20 years for compensation following gruelling and divisive court proceedings.
3. Many employees have already left the public service by the time complaints are settled.
4. The proposed Conservative legislation does not change human rights, it protects them.
5. Under Conservative legislation fnes will actually be imposed for the first time on either employers or unions who do not comply with their duty to ensure fair wages.

Minister Toews concluded by saying: “Women deserve fair pay rates now and every time their collective agreements are renewed. Not 20 years from now.” Now that’s Conservative values.

This really is a must read article for anyone who wants to intelligently discuss the issue.

Many have long perceived a liberal bias in the media, but never has that been more evident than since Stephen Harper has become Prime Minister. Conservatives have never asked for ‘kid glove’ treatment, only fairness and balance in reporting - without the obvious delight at exploiting every misstep and warping the message.

In the last week we have seen two examples that indicate there might be some light at the end of the tunnel.

The first is a CBC Reality Check [link2] (can you believe it?) that actually defended the Prime Minister from accusations that he has reversed his opinion on the mission in Afghanistan. Many times the media has parroted opposition claims that the Prime Minister was inconsistent in his message, but the CBC clearly took exception this time. Will wonders never cease?

The second ray of hope came in the form of an editorial from the National Post (not as surprising) which openly chided the media for skewering the Prime Minister, while giving more liberal politicians a free ride on essentially the same comments. Two issues that they cited were budget comments by Prime Minister Harper and Dalton McGuinty respectively, and the second was Barak Obama’s virtual echo of our Prime Minister’s comments on the opportunity presented by low stock prices. The contrast in reporting was striking.

When the media begins to take note of media bias, perhaps there’s something to it after all.

The one fact that the Post left unremarked on was the reaction to the national vs. Ontario projected deficits. When the Conservative government proposed a $40 billion stimulus package to jump start the economy, the reaction ranged from how ‘outrageous’ and ‘unconservative’ it was of them to “this is not nearly enough!”

Consider this: Canada’s national GDP is somewhere in the range of 1.5 trillion dollars. The GDP of Ontario is less than $600 billion (about 38% of Canada as a country). So while Ontario produces roughly one third of Canada’s national economic output, they will be facing a deficit which is nearly half that of the entire country! Translation - Ontario’s deficit is much larger proportionally than what the Conservatives are proposing for the entire country. This is compounded by the fact that Ontario will be the largest recipient of federal stimulus, yet they are facing a massive deficit because they are adding to provincial debt as well.

Reporting on Prime Minister Harper’s deficit spending to stimulate the economy: ‘The world is coming to an end.’
Reporting on Premier McGuinty’s deficit spending (in addition to the federal stimulus): Silence

Perhaps an honest comparison of the facts is just too much to hope for - yet.

One Liberal party member noted to the Globe and Mail that cancellation of the leadership convention and Mr. Ignatieff’s seizure of power ” robbed the party of a key fundraising opportunity and the chance to sign up new members.” As a result, Czar Michael has decreed that “MP’s must file their paperwork proving their membership numbers with the party by June 1.”

Here are the new criteria:

1. Sitting MP’s must maintain a roster of 400 party members.
2. They must also maintain a minimum of 40 monthly ‘Victory Fund’ donors
   (those signed up to shell out at least $10 or more per month).

That may prove to be a challenge for an MP who has seen the Liberal vote decline from 63% in the heyday of Claudette Bradshaw to only 39% of the electorate (just over 17,000 votes) in the last election. That low vote total might actually help Mr. Murphy however because there is apparently some type of low performance exception whereby “MPs who received fewer than 20,000 votes in the last election will be allowed to have a lower membership threshold.”

How typical of the Liberals to reward under-performing. A fundraising goal of only $4800/year for the “Victory Fund”? Only 400 members in a riding with 75,000 electors? Even that goal is diminished by the low-performance benefit, yet Mr. Ignatieff feels compelled to crack the whip to get his minions motivated to achieve these new heights of organization! Good luck with that.

Brian Murphy: “…the Prime Minister has backed away from such hard stances before, and he suspects Harper will do what’s right in this case too.”
Ralph Goodale: “Liberals are standing down from an election standoff with the Harper government, insisting they want to compromise over measures to stimulate Canada’s sputtering economy.”

In fairness to Mr. Murphy, he was likely just trying to be a good partisan Liberal. The problem is that when Liberals start blowing smoke, sometimes the signals get crossed.

In response, Maurice LeBlanc from the Peace Centre board wrote the Times & Transcript because he felt ”compelled to correct the misinformation provided to our community.” He went on to say that “the column wrongly alleges that the federal government has approved funding… In fact, at the time of this article’s printing, the group was actually preparing to meet with the Honourable Keith Ashfield, Minister of State of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and had yet to formally submit its funding request to the federal government.”

It seems that our ‘voice in Ottawa’ got a little ahead of himself when he sniffed an opportunity to grab some headlines ahead of the actual news. Now he’s at it again claiming that there is something suspicious about the Government’s plan to accelerate stimulus spending, while at the same time crying that they should “spend more” and “get it out the door faster.”

According to the News 919 article, “Brian Murphy says the Liberals want the Conservatives to come forward with precisely how the money will be spent.” As Mr. Murphy should know, that is the process of supplementary estimates and supply that (in normal course of government procedure) will not be completed until sometime in June. That means another 3 months before the money can start flowing in its normal course, and the Liberals have been dragging their feet instead of passing a budget they claim to have forced on PM Harper!

What the government is asking for is the ability to inject $3 billion of needed stimulus into the struggling economy right away. That is what the opposition has been crying for; now they are stonewalling. Mr. Murphy goes on to say that he is “just looking for accountability.” That again is a false premise because the Government readily agreed to additional reporting measures in exchange for Liberal support on the Budget. Mr. Ignatieff made a big deal about “putting the Government on probation,” but now he apparently doesn’t trust his own party for accountability.

The projects covered in this accelerated stimulus spending are partnerships with provinces, muncipalities and NGO’s that are ready to go ahead once the Liberals agree to pass a motion and make the money available. This not money going to Liberal ad firms where no work will take place. It all requires Treasury Board approval (Sponsorship scandal money didn’t) and extensive reporting requirements are already in place (whereas they weren’t during the Liberal adscam fiasco).

A large part of what is driving the decline in Canada’s economy is a lack of consumer confidence and lack of credit availability to businesses. The longer the Liberals delay stimulus money from actually entering the economy, the more Canadians will actually feel the results of the recession. The ‘accountability’ smoke screen is an invention of the Liberals so that they can continue to beat the Government with the ‘worsening economy’ stick. There is no lack of accountability. There is no need to delay getting money to those who need it. The only thing that will force an election is Liberal desperation to go on the campaign trail before the economy begins to recover.

What passes for “news” from our MP is really nothing more than smoke signals.