Principled Conservative

2006-12-06T10:16:00.000-05:00

Apologies For Recent Spam

My apologies for the recent inappropriate spam postings that were received in the comments sections. I have now enabled comment moderation, so that this type of posting does not occur again.

2006-11-25T18:48:00.000-05:00

PRESS RELEASE: Stop Talking About Political Reform and Start Listening For It

Nov. 22, 2006
Toronto, ON -- Progressive Canadian Party president Jim Love issued a statement to the media today attempting to clear up what Love characterized as a "glaring misrepresentation" in both the media and the publications of one of the political parties involved in the London by-election.

"It came out in a conversation we were having with a representative from Fair Vote Canada," said Love, "where it came up that there were so few women in senior roles in political parties. We had to once again point out that there are a lot of very capable women in politics. The problem is, they aren't leading the so-called "big four".

"I thought, how will we ever achieve "proportional representation" if we can't get women's voices heard in proportion to their presence in the political process? When they come forward to lead parties, they are marginalized by the press and even organizations that that purport to support the idea of more diversity in the electoral process."

Love pointed out that there are actually 6 leaders of federally registered parties:
-Liz White, Animal Alliance;
- Sandra Smith, Marxist Leninist;
- Connie Fogal, CAP;
- Barbara Wardlaw, First Peoples;
- Tracy Parsons, Progressive Canadian; and
- Elizabeth May, Green Party

Tracy Parsons, Leader of the Progressive Canadian Party was clear that she was against playing what she termed the "gender card". "But when I see organizations like Equal Voice, where I am a member, listing Elizabeth as the only female federal leader, I felt that Jim was right in taking this to the public’s attention."

Love, himself an avowed feminist, was critical of May for perpetuating the myth. The following is a quote from the Green Party website "Elizabeth is the only female leader of a national political party."

"Ms. May is well aware that she is not the only female leader in this country and I'm more than a bit shocked that she would allow this on her website and repeat it in public". stated Love also referring to a recent event in London where Ms. May referred to herself as the only Federal leader."

Love noted, "I'm certainly not afraid to say that there are 6 female federal Leaders in this country. I may not agree with their politics, but I'm very proud of their courage, and not afraid to talk about them."

Parsons, who noted that she is not looking for support as a "female" stated that she is concerned that this might mislead voters who might be inclined to support "the only" female leader. "Ms. May should be trying to get votes based on her platform, her merit, not by playing the "female" card and not even telling the truth in the process. I'm supporting Steve Hunter in this riding, not because of his gender, but because of his talent and his integrity."

Parsons went on to state, "A lot of people are talking about integrity. How about we start acting with some integrity. Our party has a stated program to encourage diversity from across the spectrum. That’s the type of thing that should be reflected across the entire political system. Equal voice needs equal time."

The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party is a registered Federal Political Party comprised of progressive-conservative minded Canadians rebuilding from the roots of the former Progressive Conservative Party.

2006-10-29T10:17:00.000-05:00

From the top down...

It really gets to me when certain individuals interested in our party say that they will wait to see if we, "pick up momentum". There are many people that currently hold memberships with the Conservative party that are not happy with the direction the party is taking, but are far too removed from the Liberal Party to join with them.

It is sad that the right-of-centre alternative (that is Progressive Conservative) is still available, under the new Progressive Canadian banner, but still many of our potential members feel that they are better to sit with the CPC instead of working with us to rebuild the centrist alternative.

We are a socially progressive and fiscally conservative party. The new Conservative Party is not socially progressive.

However, if history is of any use, it will be that a party that does not respond to it's membership and a party where most decisions come from the top down, is destined to fail. I patiently await the self-destruction of Harper's Conservatives. Just as the Canadian Alliance/Reform party eventually led the takeover of the Progressive Conservative Party, we will eventually take the centrist membership from the CPC.

Slowly, surely, and patiently, we will rebuild the Progressive Conservative alternative.

2006-10-02T20:20:00.000-04:00

Have Canadian Values Changed?

I don't think so. Perhaps certain Harperites would like to think so, but I tend to disagree.

Harper and Co. have already reduced the basic personal exemption rate (putting an exceptional amount of families back on the tax rolls), raised taxes for Canada's lowest-income earners, and now have cut funding to many programs that need the funding most.

The biggest lie behind it all, is that they claim that this is "being responsible with taxpayer's dollars." These cuts only account for about 0.5% of total government spending.

I don't know about others, but if I was working to save 0.5% at my income level, I would make one less stop at the local McDonald's every month.

2006-08-23T18:58:00.000-04:00

Worth a thought...

First there was this.

And now this.

Could the Conservative Party be heading down a path of destruction with these new rules? It seems to me that these new rules give too much power to the national level, and takes away control from the grassroots. Not listening, nor responding to membership can be very dangerous indeed. Isn't it this sort of behaviour that destroyed the former Progressive Conservative Party?

2006-08-22T18:12:00.000-04:00

Softwood an Issue of Confidence

"As such, and because of its fiscal measures, the vote on this will be a confidence measure."- PM Stephen Harper

Could he be hoping on obtaining a majority if the government falls? Is he hoping that he will be able to put the fault of this election on the opposition parties since the majority of Canadians do not want another election called?

Risky business I must say. The latest polls have been showing that support for the Conservatives is actually dropping, putting them neck-and-neck with the grits in some regions.

With any luck, Harper will lose even his minority government. Hopefully the leaderless grits can organize a better campaign this time around, and attack him where he is most vulnerable.

2006-08-19T10:53:00.000-04:00

HIV/AIDS: "Too Politicized"-Harper

The Conservative government will not be offering any announcements with regards to the fight against HIV/AIDS as the issue has become "Too Politicized", according to PM Harper.

In addition, the Conservative government is not offering assurance that the federal approval will be granted for the Safe-Injection program in Vancouver, which offers drug users clean needles to help reduce the spread of HIV.

"Too Politicized"? Call me cynical, but I think that this is just a way of buying time in hopes that they can come up with a funding package that will help to buy back support after all of the negative press they received on this issue.

2006-08-05T20:36:00.000-04:00

I haven't been posting much...

And it looks like this will continue.

I am not sure how widespread the news concerning the tornadoes in Combermere and surrounding areas is, but the damage is unbelievable.

I recently started working with an insurance restoration company, and we have been working non-stop since Thursday trying to get people's houses/cottages usable. It looks like this will be going on through much of August, and I will be far too tired to post. I have not even been able to find the time or energy to remove the tree that fell on my house on Wednesday during the storm (top left corner).

Monday's Civic holiday will not apply to me, and I am amazed that we will be taking Sunday off. The situation is truly unbelievable, and my heart goes out to these people who have lost their homes and property. It feels good to help them.

That's all for now.

2006-07-23T07:28:00.000-04:00

PRESS RELEASE

Harper Snatches "Defeat from the Jaws of Victory" - U.S. Court Rules In Canada's Favour but Canadian Government Ignores The Victory to Proceed With Deal That Punishes Canadian Producers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 22, 2006

Toronto, ON - It has been and is the position of the Progressive Canadian Party that the export taxes applied on Canadian softwood lumber (at a rate of 15% at present lumber prices was the July 1st agreement in force now) is illegal. The July 21, 2006 unanimous decision of three judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade (U.S. CIT) held that the United States cannot defeat the judgment of a NAFTA panel and impose duties on Canadian softwood lumber supports this position.

The Harper Government -for whatever its reasons- has stated its intent to ignore this decision and proceed with an agreement that continues Canadian producers being penalized and, adding insult to injury, agrees to give $500 million of the illegally collected $5 billion to those who launched the spurious suits -- the so-called "Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports".

The Conservative Party of Canada was prepared to destroy the protection for Canadian exporters under the North American Free Trade Agreement by circumventing panel findings. Now, it proposes to do so even when the U.S. courts have ruled in our favour.

"These questions must be asked and answered", stated Jim Love, PC Party President "Whose side is this government on? What does 'Steve' owe to 'George' that keeps this Conservative government continuing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? What other than this has led Harper to alter his view of less than a year ago that "If the Canada-U.S trade relationship is to remain a fair, stable, rules-based system, then the United States has a moral obligation to return those duties to Canadian softwood lumber companies." ?

Party Leader Tracy Parsons concluded "It is our profound hope the Parliamentary majority will care enough for the future of Canadian-American trade relationships to ask the questions in the House of Commons and, when there are no satisfactory answers forthcoming, defeat the enabling legislation for the agreement initialled July 1st "
Canadians do not wish another election. But the precedent of the Government of Canada bending to the will of American lobby groups' influence on their government despite NAFTA panel and American Court decisions is just too important to our future to be established without the expressed opinion of the Canadian electorate.

The Prime Minister is threatening an election on this as the issue. The Progressive Canadian Party looks forward to defending the integrity of the terms of the NAFTA the Progressive Conservative Government negotiated against the Conservative Party of Canada's destruction of its Chapter 19's rule-based dispute settlement mechanism.

For more information on the PC Party, it's policies, structure or general information, go to http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ or call 866-812-6972.

-30-

For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

Tracy Parsons, Leader

Progressive Canadian Party

Tel (866) 812-6972

tracy.parsons@pcparty.org

Jim Love, President

Progressive Canadian Party

Tel (647) 403-5519

jim.love@pcparty.org

QUOTE CITED DRAWN FROM:
Address by the Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P. HALIFAX Wednesday September 7, 2005

2006-07-16T17:02:00.000-04:00

Ontario Politics: Bill 52

Let me just say that I have thought that the mandatory age of school attendance should be raised from age 16 to 18 for quite sometime (despite the fact that I left school at the age of 17), but I think that this bill goes too far.

For one, compliance with the education act becomes a requirement for an individual under the age of 18 to obtain his/her driver's license. I suppose that the Liberal logic is that "it's for their own good", but restricting privileges when a person is not attending school should be the role of the parent, not the government. If the individual has withdrawn from parental control, there are still sufficient measures (fines, etc.) that can be taken to persuade this individual that he/she would be better off to comply with the education act. Also, in rural areas, having a driver's license is nearly a necessity. A trip to the grocery store could be 20 km for some, and in rural areas we do not have public transit. I suppose that a primarily urban based party such as the Ontario Liberal Party would not understand this.

Also, many home-schooled students may not be eligible for a driver's license under this act. A home-schooled student is required to get the signature of a representative from a school board on a document that states that he/she is being educated properly at home in order to be eligible for a driver's license. Certain representatives may not be willing to sign this document because of their feelings surrounding home-schooling.

I agree with the thought that the mandatory age of school attendance should be raised to 18, but making compliance a requirement for a person's driver's license is simply going too far.

2006-07-15T07:30:00.000-04:00

Where's our fifth priority?

The Conservative Party has developed a new slogan, "Promises made, promises kept" but it seems that Harper has missed a priority along the way. During the 2006 election, Harper laid out five priorities for the Conservative Government:

1. Clean up government by passing the Federal Accountability Act;
2. Provide real tax relief to working families by cutting the GST;
3. Make our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime;
4. Help parents with the cost of raising their children; and
5. Work with the provinces to establish a Patient Wait Times Guarantee

I guess he's done well, if you agree with his policy, taking action on 4 out of 5 priorities, but I can't help but wonder what has happened to this fifth priority.

Apparently this fifth priority does not require further transfers to the provinces, according to Prime Minister Harper and Health Minister, Tony Clement.

Ontario Health Minister, George Smitherman, commented that Clement has told him that there will be no additonal funds given to the provinces to help shorten wait times.

Could Prime Minister Harper be secretly working on an agenda for a two-tier healthcare system? As Liberal hopeful Bob Rae said on the issue: "Their real agenda is to drive the provinces to establishing two tiers. That's what the real agenda is, it's to tell the provinces and the public that if you want speedy treatment, go to the private sector."

I'm Not a fan of Bob Rae, but I think he's got it right on this one...

2006-07-13T23:19:00.000-04:00

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 55% Conservative, 45% Liberal

Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

Not Sure what to think, but seems about right.

2006-07-13T22:20:00.000-04:00

Kennedy... A front-runner?

Kennedy appears to lead Liberal race

I must admit that I really didn't think Gerard Kennedy would stand a chance against the other high-profile front-runners, Ignatieff and Rae , but it seems that he has been doing well.

I really like what I've heard so far from Mr. Kennedy. Ignatieff seems to be quite right-wing in his thinking, and I hope that the members of the Liberal party truly understand some of the things he has been proposing and understand where his beliefs truly lie. Stop Iggy proves that there are some Liberal members that know what Iggy is about.

As for Bob Rae; did anyone follow what went on in Ontario in the early 90s? Perhaps as leader of the Liberal party, there could be Rae Days for all.

2006-07-07T05:53:00.000-04:00

PRESS RELEASE Too high a price for mending fences.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 6, 2006

Toronto, ON - Stephen Harper mental lapse in having forgotten that his position last September on findings of NAFTA dispute panels on soft wood was that "achieving full compliance should be the objective of the Prime Minister." was compounded by his distortion of reality Wednesday night in Washington when he said of the softwood agreement initialled in Geneva July 1st "The legal text represents the original agreement." and that "We expect that to have the same support for it that we had for the original agreement."

As Trade Minister Emerson said "The demands keep coming, the goalposts keep shifting", the last being the demand by the Americans for inclusion of an escape clause reducing the length of the agreement from 7-9 years to 23 months. Not part of the original agreement, despite Harper's words, it is contributing to stronger opposition than existed against the original agreement.

With all three opposition parties raising questions about the agreement as it stands, with plans to reconstitute a parliamentary trade committee, the belief express by the London Free Press "A deal that jeopardizes our softwood industry is a high price to pay for mending fences with the lame-duck Bush administration. Canada must not sacrifice hard-won principles of NAFTA just to be able to say it has restored good relations with the United States." will become ever more widespread .

Harper saying "The softwood lumber deal is going ahead," may well will turn out to have been bravado for the benefit of President Bush. Should this position be maintained that "the deal initialed on Saturday by Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson and U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab is final and cannot be revised." and enabling legislation introduced in September, Harper's intransigence may well lead to an election, indeed ought to.

The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party is a registered Federal Political Party comprised of progressive-conservative minded Canadians rebuilding from the roots of the former Progressive Conservative Party. For more information on the PC Party, it’s policies, structure or general information, go to www.progressivecanadian.org or call 866-812-6972.

-30-

2006-07-05T05:41:00.000-04:00

PRESS RELEASE: National interests betrayed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 3, 2006
Toronto, ON - Less than a year ago what ought to have been Stephen Harper's position regarding the softwood lumber dispute were enunciated by him in Halifax:

"Under a Conservative government, we will stand up when our national interests are at stake.

We will stand up for Canada

THE CALL TO THE PRESIDENT
It is at least now established that the Prime Minister and President will speak about the softwood issue in the hopefully-not-too-distant future. If I were Prime Minister at that time, what would a Conservative Prime Minister say in that conversation?

First and foremost, I would seek a clear commitment of the United States to comply with the NAFTA ruling. If the Canada-U.S. trade relationship is to remain a fair, stable, rules-based system, then the United States has a moral obligation to return those duties to Canadian lumber companies.

There can be no question of Canada returning to a conventional bargaining table, as the U.S. Ambassador has suggested.

You don't negotiate after you've won.

The issue is compliance.

And achieving full compliance should be the objective of the Prime Minister.

The Geneva Agreement initialled on Canada Day was arrived at through "returning to a conventional bargaining table". By it national interests are in the process of being betrayed. The result was not compliance with the dispute mechanisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is an agreement which if implemented will sets this precedent for other disputes that will arise under the North American Free Trade Agreement, that the Canadian Government will cut and run rather than stand firm.

Law suits are still in process that may yet place the United States with little choice but to accept, as the then Leader of the Opposition phrased it, "a fair, stable, rules-based system" of settling trade disputes.

What must be carefully watched for are any indications the Government of Canada is pressuring private companies to act against their interests as they see them.

The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party is a registered Federal Political Party comprised of progressive-conservative minded Canadians rebuilding from the roots of the former Progressive Conservative Party. For more information on the PC Party, it’s policies, structure or general information, go to http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ or call 866-812-6972.

-30-

For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

Tracy Parsons, Leader
Progressive Canadian Party
Tel 866-812-6972
tracy.parsons@pcparty.org

Jim Love, President
Progressive Canadian Party
Tel (647) 403-5519
jim.love@pcparty.org

SOURCE OF QUOTE:Address by the Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P. Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada Leader of the Official Opposition

2006-07-05T05:36:00.000-04:00

PRESS RELEASE: It's not the system that has failed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 4, 2006
Toronto, ON – "What must be carefully watched for are any indications the Government of Canada is pressuring private companies to act against their interests as they see them.", prophetic words.

Pressure has been put on lumber industry firms to withdraw court cases through this threat "Canadian firms that do not agree to drop their lawsuits would not receive a duty refund, and critics of the deal have accused the federal Conservative Government of using that to force the deal through quickly."

Clearly the strong arm method did not work as had the threat made in March " that the industry would either accept whatever deal the Government would negotiate or be abandoned."

The statement " No one in Canada will prosper from this deal and, through this deal, government will control export permits and quota allocations which makes it awfully difficult for companies to stand up and say 'no.' " is most unsettling.

For whatever reasons the Harper Government has chosen not to follow through on the continued rejection of the validity of U.S. lobbyists' claims. The Canadian softwood lumber industry "has relied on the dispute system of the North American Free Trade Agreement and was within months or even weeks of final, conclusive, legally binding resolution vindicating the Canadian industry, yet under terms signed this weekend the new deal proclaims that the system has failed."

"Saying "that the system has failed." is inaccurate," stated Jim Love President of the Progressive Canadian Party, " It's the Harper Government following its own agenda that has failed the industry and Canada. A Government that must come to realize it's slogan "Stand Up For Canada " is not enough. The words must be translated into action - in this instance following through with the dispute system of the North American Free Trade Agreement rather than persisting in pressing forward an agreement opposed by the lumber industry and the provinces."

The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party is a registered Federal Political Party comprised of progressive-conservative minded Canadians rebuilding from the roots of the former Progressive Conservative Party. For more information on the PC Party, it’s policies, structure or general information, go to www.progressivecanadian.org or call 866-812-6972.

-30-

For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Tracy Parsons, Leader

Progressive Canadian Party

Tel 866-812-6972

tracy.parsons@pcparty.org

Jim Love, President

Progressive Canadian Party

Tel (647) 403-5519

jim.love@pcparty.org

2006-07-02T07:39:00.000-04:00

GST CUT Savings

You wouldn't believe the tax savings I was able to enjoy yesterday, thanks to the Conservative GST cut. I bought a can of coke, a chocolate bar and a large bag of chips,, and saved $0.05. I spent 10.00 in various items to celebrate Canada day and saved $0.10. My fiancee spent $100.00 on various GST-taxable items and saved $1.00!

Between me and my fiancee, we spent a total of $115.00 on an assortment of items, and saved a grand total of $1.15. Truly amazing. But wait, if the GST were dropped to 5% (as will be the case in the future if we re-elect the CPC), we would have saved $2.30. Even better.

But wait... for all Canadians, today also marked a drop in the Basic Personal Amount Exemption:

Basic Personal Amounts
The basic personal amount-the amount that an individual can earn without paying federal personal income tax-will be increased by $500 to $8,648 for the 2005 taxation year. For the first half of 2006 it will then be increased by indexation plus a further $200, for a total of $9,039. The basic personal amount will be reduced by $400 to $8,639 on July 1, 2006 at the same time as the GST rate is reduced.

As well as this:
The lowest personal income tax rate will be reduced to 15 per cent from 16 per cent effective January 1, 2005. The rate will then be raised to 15.5 per cent effective July 1, 2006.

Between me and my fiancee, we saved $1.15 today by spending $115.00. Unfortunately for us, when we file our income taxes next year, it looks like any savings we accumulate over the year will be recollected, and then some.

Let's all celebrate the GST Cut, and while we're at it, we can also celebrate the raise in Income Taxes for the lowest income Canadians!

2006-07-01T06:59:00.000-04:00

Hope everyone has a great Canada day

Need I say more...

2006-06-29T18:49:00.000-04:00

Sometimes I wonder...

Big brother watching you surf?
Are our rights being violated by the proposed bill in the article above?
Will this bill actually help to achieve the resolution desired?
I think this is an invasion of our privacy as Canadian citizens, and will not help achieve the resolutions desired.

Other comments?

2006-06-29T13:07:00.000-04:00

Support efforts to Save The Trillium
JUNE 28th, 2006
You may have read news reports in the last few days about how Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals have re drawn Ontario's Trillium symbol to more closely resemble the Liberal Party Logo.

We believe this is unacceptable. Ontario's Trillium has become a symbol of hope and opportunity for all of us. It's been used for more than 40 years no matter which political party was in office.

Instead of focusing on running the province, Dalton McGuinty is spending taxpayer's dollars (more than $200 000) and given the work to a Liberal- friendly ad agency to play around with Ontario's symbol. We've heard from many of you who are outraged by this.

So today a new campaign www.savethetrillium.ca was launched. The site is designed to help engage Ontarians in our campaign to save the Trillium.
We need your help today to further inform the broader public on what Dalton McGuinty is doing to our provincial symbol. Please log on to the site and and help us reach out to more people with our concerns about McGuinty's plans to politicize Ontario's Trillium.

What do others think of this? Are the Liberals politicizing the trillium?

2006-06-29T06:16:00.000-04:00

Their Hands Aren't So Clean

Conservatives May have taken close to $2 million in illegal contributions

They preach of transparent government, but censor the media. They preach of ethics, but "did not know" that they should consider convention fees to be donations.

Normally these convention fees are considered donations by parties to help offset the cost for those that attend. Politics can be expensive, and it is these tax receipts that help to relieve some of the burden.

With a maximum of $1000 donation to polictal parties, this convention may have put many members of the CPC over their limit.

Perhaps convention fees need not be considered donations under the law, and if this is the case than these convention fees were probably not illlegally obtained. Unforunately, I do not know the requirements of the law.

Other thoughts?

2006-06-24T11:45:00.000-04:00

It's been awhile...

The following may not make sense, may not be viable, and the author is prepared to take criticism. Try not to be too hard on me, this is my first attempt at trying to find a solution to any problem.

The following is a proposed policy alternative to the current PC Policy of dealing with student debt. I believe this plan is more in tune with our Aims & Principles as a party, and helps promote personal responsibility more than the previous plan. Comments are welcomed.

1. Enact a new Education Savings Plan (ESP) similar to CPP (without the employer contribution). This plan will allow employees to contribute a percentage of their wages to put forth to their children’s post-secondary education, deducted from each paycheque. This plan will be accessible to self-employed persons as well.
2. This ESP would be similar to the current RESP with high interest rates and additional funds contributed to the savings plan by the government. We will base the government funds contributed based on need. The less you are able to contribute (based on % of wage), the more the government will help subsidize.
3. Given that this plan promotes long-term savings and will not help those who have children approaching secondary school, we will allow for an ESP loan for children born prior to 2000, provided that the parent aggress to guarantee this loan and either the parent or student agree to contribute a set amount to the ESP for a set number of years.
4. We will also work with the provinces to allow those in more unfortunate situations to be provided with the opportunity to send their children through post-secondary education programs. In many provincial programs, such as Ontario Works and Ontario Disability, children who have reached the age of 18 are left behind, with no guarantors to even be given the opportunity to access a student loan. We cannot allow these young adults to lose their future because of the unfortunate position their parent/parents were in. We should work with provinces to enact a program as part of Provincial Social Assistance that would fully fund these student's education.
5. Should an ESP holder pursue work in the trades, these funds would be made available for vocational training, purchasing of tools, other certifications, etc.

2006-06-17T20:51:00.000-04:00

Media Advisory 
Founding Meeting Prince Edward Hastings

Bancroft, ON- The Prince Edward Hastings Progressive Canadian Association would like to invite all media to a founding meeting on Saturday, June 17th at 1:30. Location is at the lower level of 1 Woodview Lane, in the town of Bancroft, Ontario. Keynote speaker for the event will be Tracy Parsons, Leader of the Progressive Canadian Party. Miss Parsons will be available for questions after the meeting.

Thomas Beeston, organizer of this event stated, "I am very excited to have our leader attend this meeting. When I extended the invitation, I really didn’t think she’d be able to come. She has certainly shown her commitment to all areas of Canada by flying in from Nova Scotia to attend this meetingto meet local members of the party and those who want to learn more about the PC Party."

The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party is a registered Federal Political Party comprised of progressive-conservative minded Canadians rebuilding from the roots of the former Progressive Conservative Party.

For more information on the PC Party, its policies, structure or general information, go to www.progressivecanadian.org or call 866-812-6972.

-30-

For further information contact:
Jim Love
National Campaign Manager
(647) 403-5519
jim.love@pcparty.org

Thomas Beeston
(613) 332-2487
thomas.beeston@pcparty.org

PRESS RELEASE Equity demands funding flow from votes cast.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 17, 2006
Toronto, ON – Commencing January 1, 2004, some registered political parties annually receive $1.75 for each vote that the party obtained in the most recent previous federal election, others do not.

Neither the Harper government or the Martin government before it have adopted the view that the funding ought to flow from the votes cast and have instead set their own arbitrary percentage – one that ensures that their parties will continue to receive funding.

The following action will proceed in Ontario SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE June 20th and 21st, starting at 10 a.m. at 361 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario:

This application concerns the extent to which Parliament can constitutionally restrict the ability of candidates and supporters of small political parties to participate in federal elections. The Canada Elections Act was recently amended so that, commencing January 1, 2004, registered political parties annually receive $1.75 for each vote that the party obtained in the most recent previous federal election. However, this allowance is restricted to those parties that obtained at least 2% of the national vote or at least 5% of the vote in those ridings in which they ran candidates. The Applicants are political parties (and members of political parties) that failed to meet this threshold and thus were denied funding. It is the Applicants’ position that denying funding on that basis contravenes the principles of fairness and relative voter parity that are inherent in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also submitted that denying this benefit to supporters of small parties infringes the freedoms guaranteed by sections 2(b), 2(d) and 15(1) of the Charter.

In order that those within the media unable to attend the proceedings be aware of the arguments presented the FACTUM OF THE APPLICANTS is attached.

"As matters presently stand there is a gross inequity favouring parties established prior to government funding being introduced. Only by funding flowing on the basis of individual voter's preference as expressed through casting a ballot can this be redressed." stated Jim Love, President of the Progressive Canadian Party.

The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party is a registered Federal Political Party comprised of progressive-conservative minded Canadians rebuilding from the roots of the former Progressive Conservative Party. For more information on the PC Party, it’s policies, structure or general information, go to www.progressivecanadian.org or call 866-812-6972.

-30-

For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Jim Love
President
Progressive Canadian Party
Tel (647) 403-5519
jim.love@pcparty.org

2006-06-11T20:36:00.000-04:00

PC PRESS RELEASE: What's the rush?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 11, 2006

Toronto, ON-- Only one reason exists for the Government of Canada bullying those concerned about the terms of the Canada-United States Agreement on Softwood Lumber. Prime Minister Harper wants to have it ready to be signed when he meets with President Bush early in July. That strategy has two benefits. The first is that it prevents concerned Canadians from making the case to the Canadian public that this is a bad deal. Mr. Harper does not want Canadians to realize that this new agreement gives us less than we have already won under existing agreements and dispute mechanisms. The second reason for speedy passage is that it keeps this issue out of the U.S. mid-termelections and prevents U.S. consumers from realizing it is a bad deal for them as well – adding as much as $1,000 to the price of a new home.

All prior NAFTA panels have ruled that claims of subsidies are unsubstantiated. Yet this new agreement not only gives up these prior judicial victories, but it also requires a complete surrender of Canadian sovereignty in the area of forestry management. Despite their constitutional rights, Provinces cannot implement any new forestry management practices without permission from Washington, "the anti-circumvention clause". Further, the deal is also predicated on U.S. approval of new and as of yet unspecified practices which will also require U.S. approval. In short, we have won nothing and paid dearly.

Coast Forest Products Association Rick Jeffrey was absolutely correct in stating "We think that it's better for us to go slower and either reconvene Parliament . . . and get a good deal rather than rushing through the agreement and getting a bad deal,"

How will the Prime Minister react should some of the lawsuits launched to protect producers interests are not withdrawn? Presumably he will follow the same strategy that has mired Canadians in Afghanistan for an additional two years. He will retreat from the press, rush through debate and label anyone who dares to oppose him as anti-American.

What should he do? He should face down American pressure and press forward with the NAFTA dispute settlement process.

He should stand up for Canadian producers interests. He should realize that Canada's window of opportunity lies in the upcoming American Mid Term Elections .

There are interests in the United States in support of the NAFTA findings and opposing the Harper-Bush Agreement. Groups like the American Consumers for Affordable Homes and the Manufactured Housing Institute do not support having an estimated $1 000.00 U.S. added to the cost of every home constructed in the United States of America. These groups oppose the representatives of the U.S. Lumber lobby whose support has been purchased with over 500,000,000 dollars taken illegally from Canadian companies.

Tracy Parsons, Leader of the Progressive Canadian (PC) Party reiterated her statement of August 2005 "The current US policy has had dire impacts on Canada, but also has negative consequences for the average American. For instance, a US homebuyer is paying far more than they need to for housing. Our government needs to reach out and get this message out."

Jim Love, President of the PC Party restated the Party's position "The BC Chamber of Commerce has taken the lead in acting to influence American public opinion. The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party urges the Government of Canada to follow their lead. With American mid-term elections the U.S. government will not want to be seen as pandering to special interests at the expense of consumers."

The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party is a registered Federal Political Party comprised of progressive-conservative minded Canadians rebuilding from the roots of the former Progressive ConservativeParty. For more information on the PC Party, it's policies, structure or general information, go to http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ or call 866-812-6972.

-30-

2006-06-08T22:01:00.000-04:00

The Golden Bib Awards
For those who know what's best for us... from mychoice.ca

Best Nanny Government:The Bibbie goes to the Liberal Government of Ontario, for ignoring its own economic experts along with smokers, charities, war veterans, bar owners and anyone else who will bear the brunt of its actions, and rushing through its province-wide anti-smoking ban with only token public hearings. And for also ignoring their own ministry reports which show major negative repercussions from a province-wide smoking ban - possibly up to $500 million a year in gaming revenue losses as well as more than a thousand jobs.

Runner up:The NDP Governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and the Conservative Government of New Brunswick for continuing to pretend they know best and that their province-wide bans, have not hurt bars, charities, casinos etc, or divided communities, or left smokers seeking alternatives on First Nations Reserves or staying home in droves.

Best Nanny Individual: The Bibbie goes to Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman, for never reading an anti-smoking lobby claim or study he didn’t like or hearing an anti-smoking argument he didn’t agree with, and for apparently never reading any other studies at all – even his own government’s economic ministry reports, or listening to the opinions of anyone who might contradict his opinions. Mr. Smitherman also gets nominated for officially extending the justification for smoking bans from protection of the general public to trying to punish smokers into quitting.

Runner up:Mr. Smitherman’s Quebec counterpart, Quebec Health Minister Philippe Couillard, for all the same reasons as him, plus the fact that he is on the record as saying smokers have no rights because they are under the influence of a substance.
Best Nanny Municipal: The Bibbie goes to the City of Kingston, Ontario, for banning both indoor and outdoor patio smoking.

Best Nanny Organization:The Bibbie goes to the Ontario Coalition for Action on Tobacco for not being satisfied with winning a provincial law that kicks smokers out of private clubs, Legions, charity bingos, separately enclosed and ventilated DSRs everywhere, covered patios, underground garages and more. Soon after the law was passed they were vowing to get the law amended to ban smoking on patios, nine meters from any doors, in cars, private homes, and more.

Runner up:The World Health Organization for its alarming and offensive new employment policy to no longer recruit smokers. Anyone who says they smoke and would continue to do so if hired, will not be invited to an interview.

Best Foreign Nanny: The Bibbie goes to the State of California because it got the total indoor ban rolling and is trying for the second time to ban smoking in cars, on beaches and anywhere else it can think of.

Runner up:The Michigan health care company Weyco for decreeing that employees who smoke would be fired if they did not quit smoking, and then firing four workers who refused to submit to testing to see if they had been smoking on their own personal time away from the office.

2006-06-02T22:43:00.000-04:00

Harper to Hold Free Vote on SSM

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/02062006/2/national-harper-says-free-vote-sex-marriage-coming-commons-fall.html&printer=1

I hate that this has been re-opened, but I in a way I'm also glad. It shows that the party is still removed from the socially progressive policy and serves as ammunition in the next election.

We all know PM Harper has been quite socially conservative in the past. It's good to see that he's beginning to show his true colours again.

2006-05-31T22:45:00.000-04:00

Ontario Smoking Ban: More Government Intrusion

The Liberals love to intrude. Tell you what's good for you, what's bad for you, etc. We now face more intrusion. In Ontario, a new law came into effect May 31, 2006 banning smoking in all public places and workplaces.

This law, pushed by anti-smoking activists, intrudes on personal choice. From a business perspective, many businesses that, up until recently (or perhaps May 31) allowed smoking, did so partly because this was part of their "target market". This smoking ban will negatively effect their business. One can argue that the drop in smoking customers at this business may be offset by the rise in non-smoking customers, but why must we intrude on the choice of the individual or the choice of the business owner?

Many believe that facilites that allowed smoking interfered with the freedom of non-smokers. But this is simply not the case.

If a smoker goes out to a bar and fills it with second-hand smoke, they are in no way interfering with a non-smoker's freedom to go where they want or when they want. They do make it inconvenient or unpleasant for a non-smoker to visit this bar, but that is not in any way the same as infringing on their rights - and besides, it shouldn't be up to either of them (or the government) in a privately owned establishment. With this law a smoker can no longer go to any bar and fill it up with smoke, but the non-smoker is still free to gow where they want, when they want.

We are not talking anymore about ensuring freedoms, we are only talking about ensuring convenience, but only for the side that is perceived as having the higher moral ground.

My final thought is this... let the market cater to non-smokers and smokers, whomever they prefer to target. Not add another level of government intrusion.

2006-05-30T01:07:00.000-04:00

Some Favourite CPC Member Quotes

Many more available at In Their Own Words.ca

"I think you'll see more uses for the Notwithstanding Clause in the future."
- Conservative MP Randy White in the documentary film Let No One Put Asunder, May 19, 2004.

"We should try to keep our mothers in the home and that's where the whole Reform platform hangs together."
- Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative MP for Yorkton-Melville, in the Vancouver Province, October 11, 1993.

"We're it not for the idiocy of the Liberals contemplating the extrapolation of spousal benefits to roommates, it could be argued that parental leave discriminates against infertile couples -- but that may lead to the risks of extending parental leave payments to those who merely go through the motions!"
- Cheryl Gallant, Letter to the Editor, Fredericton Daily Gleaner, October 28, 1999.

"If they say they're personally opposed to abortion but they don't want to impose their opposition on society, ask them if they're personally opposed to child abuse, ask them if they're personally opposed to slavery. "
- Concervative MP Jason Kenney, Canadian Catholic News, May 24, 2004 Edition.

"That should be a no-brainer, shouldn't it?"
- Conservative Health Critic James Lunney stating that a 'parrallel' system of private health care services should be available to take pressure off the public system and reduce waiting lists, Vancouver Sun, February 21th 2001.

"Do you notice that in Toronto there has been increased crime from certain groups, like Jamaicans? "
- Calgary Northeast MP Art Hanger during a get-acquainted tour of Toronto's ethnic communities, to a storekeeper about crime, quoted in the Edmonton Journal, March 14th 1994.

"Let's lower the age to ten."
- Conservative MP Myron Thompson, commenting on the age at which he believes one should be tried as an adult, at a Vernon, BC meeting.

2006-05-27T08:38:00.000-04:00

It's been awhile... Harper Muzzling again

Harper is up to his old tricks again.

The Prime Minister has warned Conservative MPs not to comment on the marriage of two gay RCMP officers. This message was said to be for "the small minority who might say something stupid".

I doubt this is a small minority. If it were, than the CPC Policy declaration under section 63, part iv) wouldn't state, "A Conservative government will support legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman". Or did this small minority manage to force this policy through against the will of it's members, much like the CPC has been going against Parliament on the Kyoto issue?

He may fool some, but this "small minority that might say something stupid" is just part of a larger majority that feel the same way, but are smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

2006-05-19T09:22:00.000-04:00

May 15, 2006:Kramp wants to extend EI Benefits for the Sick

Ottawa- Prince Edward-Hastings MP, Daryl Kramp, introduced, today in the House of Commons, a Private Members’ Bill entitled Convalescence Benefits Act.

The bill, if passed, would provide for an additional 35 weeks of employment insurance benefits to individuals convalescing from a serious health issue and unable to work after exhausting their sick benefits.

"Recovering from a serious health matter is stressful enough without having to worry about meeting financial obligations." Kramp added, "I want to eliminate the gap between sick benefits and disability pension that leaves too many people without any source of income."

Kramp explained that after collecting the maximum 15 weeks of sick benefits, a person can only apply for a disability pension if their health problems are permanent. Individuals who are expected to make a full recovery, those convalescing, do not qualify leaving them without income protection.

According to Kramp, there are a number of people in the local area who, while battling serious health issues such as cancer, find they are without any income protection.
"Many of these people have worked their whole lives. They deserve better than to be abandoned and told to fend for themselves after 15 weeks," said Kramp.

-30-

This is long overdue.

Daryl Kramp is the MP for the riding of Hastings-Prince Edward and represents the Conservative Party of Canada. So far, Daryl Kramp has done well as our MP, and efforts like this are to be commended. Unfortunately, he represents a party that I feel should not be supported.

Judging so far, he is a reasonable man with good intentions, but he is with the wrong party. Come to the PC Daryl... you never seemed to fit well with the Alliance.

2006-05-16T06:14:00.000-04:00

PRESS RELEASE

Standing down: Actions betraying slogans.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 15, 2006Toronto, ON – Mr. Harper came to office under the slogan “Stand up for Canada” but he drops final determination that the United States has abrogated a signed treaty (NAFTA) in return for an agreement that returns only part of the money taken illegally from our lumber industry. This alone is enough to say that this new Conservative government has lost the "moral authority to govern", to use Harper’s words.

"Open Federalism", another Harper feel good phrase, in the softwood lumber agreement is accepting that alterations in provincial forest policy changes be subject to U.S. government approval and requesting the provinces agree to this and all other terms within 24 hours.

This new Conservative minority has mastered “spin” – and the defenders will try to persuade Canadians there is no loss of sovereignty. Or they’ll go on the attack. But the reality is – so far, there is only one party that has come out strongly on this issue and it’s the Progressive Canadian party. We were critical of the Liberal approach and we abhor the neo-Conservative approach.

The P.C. Party is absolutely against giving up our sovereignty and has the expectation our trading partners keep their agreements. Doing anything else merely telegraphs that we can be bullied whenever it is convenient.

As one agreement being broken another “agreement” is negotiated. No wonder they want it done quickly. The government is practicing “sleight of hand”. It doesn’t want people thinking this through carefully, debating the implications or even reading this agreement and finding out how we have given away our sovereignty so that the Harper government can redeem Mr. Emerson. There is no cost to the U.S. It doesn’t have to live up to the North American Free Trade Agreement, why would one more agreement matter? The only possible rationale is that this new agreement is so lopsided in favour of the U.S. interests that they’d be fools not to follow it.

There are no doubt MPs on the government side who know this is wrong but refuse to speak up. They have seen what Mr. Harper does to anyone who disagrees with him. There are also those who know this is wrong but would make a deal with the devil because they are so close to power that they can taste it. Either way, Canada’s interests go undefended.

Speaking in defence of the Agreement, Mr. Emerson speaks of the U.S. making "concessions" where none exist. He says "At the end of the day the government has to represent the public interest and of Canada as a whole," which for him is avoiding the situation that " if Canada continues to rely on NAFTA, the Americans are likely to expand their attacks on the Canadian forest industry to include other products."

Canadians ought to be informed of what is happening. Mr. Harper is once again denying his words, “Canadians don’t turn and run” by his actions. We are to accept tucking our collective tails between our legs and begging the U.S. to give us back part of the money they took from us illegally. And we’ll go cap in hand with any forest management program we have to have the U.S. tell us what Canadian provinces can and can not do. If that’s not turning and running, what is?"

As every child learns in the school yard, you don’t deal with a bully by running, hiding or begging. You stand up to them. Quietly and with dignity you say --- no, I’m not going to take this. And you stand your ground. That’s what people with character do.", stated Tracy Parsons, Progressive Canadian Party Leader.

Stand up for Canada? It requires a back-bone to stand up. There is none evident in the Bush-Harper agreement. There is courage in following through with the challenge the U.S. has made to the March 17 NAFTA panel findings which went in favour of Canada. Anything else is like failing to show up for the last game of the Stanley Cup finals.

The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party is a registered Federal Political Party comprised of progressive-conservative minded Canadians rebuilding from the roots of the former Progressive Conservative Party. For more information on the PC Party, it’s policies, structure or general information, go to http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ or call 866-812-6972.

-30-

For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Tracy Parsons, Leader
Progressive Canadian Party
Tel 866-812-6972
tracy.parsons@pcparty.org

Jim Love, President
Progressive Canadian Party
Tel (647) 403-5519
jim.love@pcparty.org

QUOTES AND INFORMATION CITED DRAWN FROM:
Emerson defends softwood deal http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/05/12/1577382-cp.html

Ottawa's softwood deadline called 'railroad'TREATIES I The Tories are fast-tracking the agreement processhttp://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=0c6be61b-4616-45cf-b6e5-1a6742e6f51d

Forest policies must now be vetted by U.S., Emerson saysSOFTWOOD DEAL I B.C.'s timber pricing system awaits Washington approvalhttp://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=d2238df1-293b-44c4-aca4-e223df2f6cd4

2006-05-13T02:23:00.000-04:00

(courteousy of Al Gullon)

The "progressive conservative" legacy of Sir John A. Macdonald
"Sir John A's 'risen from the Dead!..
...to slap Stephen 'arper upside 'is 'ead."

Since the 2004 election media pundits have made much of Stephen Harper's sudden and mysterious modesty but without pointing out that the disastrous election results have left him with much to be modest about. Moreover, on the one point on which he has been less than modest since that election he is blatantly wrong. His frequent claim that the "new" Conservative Party (aka Reform III) is continuing in the legacy of Sir John A is at best a misreading of history... and at worst an outright lie.

On "Black Wednesday", October 15, 2003, with the surprise revelation of the Agreement in Principle, a new political party was born of an illicit liaison between senior officers of the "parent parties". Over the next two months they walked roughshod over and through the Constitution of the PC Party on their way to register the new-born during the weekend of December 6-7. On the official "birth certificate" issued by Elections Canada on that "Silly Sunday" the word "Progressive" was conspicuous by its absence.

Exactly 150 years previous to these "sorry events", and in stark contrast to their secret nature, the not-yet-Sir John A. Macdonald was very publicly wrestling with the faults and fissures in the policy platform of the"olde conservative party". In a February 9th, 1854 letter to a colleague*, he stated his conclusion that the future growth and development of Canada required that,

" … our aim should be to enlarge the bounds of our party so as to embrace every person desirous of being counted as a "progressive Conservative", and who will join in a series of measures to put an end to the corruption which has ruined the present government and debauched all its followers."
(*one Captain Strachan, in the National Archives, see extract on p.2)

Some nine months later Macdonald, although not yet Leader, was able to pull together a coalition of the less-radical liberals and the more-progressive conservatives into the MacNab-Morin government. Throughout the fall of 1854 that government enacted "a series of measures" which removed many of the "Conservative" privileges of the Seigneurs (in Quebec) and the Family Compact (in Ontario) and released the economic energy of the individual to begin to build the strong Canadian economy we know today. [George-Etienne Cartier participated in those measures and joined Macdonald in the Cabinet in early 1855.]

This progressive platform continued to characterize the Conservative party through Confederation and Canada's expansion to the Pacific and Arctic oceans. The addition of the adjective "Progressive" at the 1942 AGM was thus not, in fact, a policy change for the Party but a public proclamation of Macdonald’s progressive policies which have been maintained now for 150 years … and which the PC Party, re-registered as the "Progressive Canadian Party" [because Elections Canada rejected our application for "Progressive Conservative"], is determined to continue for the next 150 years!

In summary, Macdonald forged a coalition of progressive-minded citizens and, with them, enacted "progressive Conservative" policies which removed the elite's economic privileges in favour of "the little guy". In contrast Stephen Harper's new party drove away the more progressive members of the PC Party and now appears to be advocating a return to the "traditional conservative values" of 150 years ago which Macdonald had the wisdom to abandon. The illicitly born "new Conservative Party" has both repudiated his policies and reversed his actions and thus has no claim whatsoever to the legacy of Sir John A.

2006-05-11T22:06:00.000-04:00

Keep It Simple Stupid
Conservative Budget: In Laymans Terms

This is my take, without any rambling...

If it is likely that you voted for the Conservative's in the last election or that you would be likely to switch your vote to Conservative next-time around, then you will benefit somewhat from this budget. (normally, the middle-class to rich, and corporations).

If it is unlikely that you voted for the Conservative's in this budget, or that you will switch your vote to Conservative then you will NOT benefit from this budget. (if you're poor, you're income tax just went up by .5%, my friend).

If your province (namely, Quebec) is likely to help win a Conservative majority next time around, you will receive special treatment from the Conservative government.

In summary, Harper is a "strategist", and everything he will do until he has his majority is considered only in terms of politcal gain, not in terms of what will be best for the country in the future.

Don't be fooled...

2006-05-11T21:51:00.001-04:00

Copyright Laws on File Sharing
Artists Speak Out

Read This: Artists Speak out on Copyright Laws

As a musician, I would never argue the fact that a musician has the right to be paid for his/her work but I do not think that creating laws that will make it easier to sue fans is the way to go.

The music industry will need to adapt to the changing market, and create innovative ways to make the best of it. We do not need to litigate music-lovers.

This market may actually help certain musicians (particularly independent ones) who may not have had the opportunity to make their music available to the public in the past.

2006-05-11T16:55:00.000-04:00

PC PRESS RELEASE

Threat to withdraw government support unconscionable.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 11, 2006 Toronto, ON – It is unconscionable the Government of Canada overtly threatened the Canadian softwood industry in order to obtain acquiescence to its hurriedly thrown together Agreement with the Administration of the United States.

"The industry will be on its own in every respect -- financial, diplomatic and legal." is the threat alleged in a report which states concerning the Agreement "If the seven-year agreement is ratified, the Canadian industry will face permanent restrictions on its access to the U.S. market, as well as rates of tax that will consistently exceed any duty rates that may have survived a bid to end the dispute through a process of litigation." (Three lumber groups attack Ottawa over softwood deal )

The United States has challenged this March 17, 2006 finding: "The NAFTA panel affirmed the DOC’s finding that Canadian softwood lumber production is not subsidized." At that time the Minister Emerson is quoted in a Government of Canada Press release as stating “We will be working with the provinces and industry toward a resolution that is in Canada’s best interest."

http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.asp?publication_id=383767&Language=E

"The interests of consumers in the United States are negatively affected. This deal will ensure that Canadian lumber prices are kept at artificially high levels to avoid competing fairly with U.S. providers. It’s important to remember that these actions have been deemed illegal under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Canadian producers and their employees are being bullied into accepting a bad deal and a bad precedent" stated Tracy Parsons, Leader of the PC Party.

It is the position of the Progressive Canadian (PC) Party that Canada's best interests are served by proceeding with litigation before the NAFTA panel. The Agreement arrived at serves only the interests of the two governments and the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports which has applauded "the tireless efforts of the Bush Administration officials who negotiated a means of offsetting Canadian unfair lumber practices."

http://www.fairlumbercoalition.org/origdocs/releases/press_release_4-27-06.pdf)

Jim Love, PC Party President's asks “Is this what Mr. Harper means when he says Stand up for Canada?” Once again, the U.S. refuses to honour the treaties that they have signed – as they did under the Liberals. The difference this time is that the U.S. can now depend on their man in Ottawa, Stephen Harper, to not only take a bad deal, but to put a positive spin on it for them. They announce a victory, when we get nothing of the sort. They (the U.S.) still keep a large chunk of money illegally taken from Canadian producers . In return, we get a seven year term that guarantees nothing thanks to a little noticed term that will add an “export tax” when prices fall. By not continuing to final determination by NAFTA Mr. Harper is not only refusing to “stand up for Canada” – he’s given every other special interest group the blueprint for an end run around any trade agreement we sign.

The Progressive Canadian (PC) Party is a registered Federal Political Party comprised of progressive-conservative minded Canadians rebuilding from the roots of the former Progressive Conservative Party. For more information on the PC Party, it’s policies, structure or general information, go to http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ or call 866-812-6972.

-30-

For more information or to request an interview, please contact:Jim Love, PresidentProgressive Canadian Party(647) 403-5519jim.love@pcparty.org

2006-05-10T22:26:00.000-04:00

We have a REAL Choice...

With Liberal Arrogance at an all-time high:

"There's actually no plan for early learning and child-care spaces. So it's a good job they're putting more money for prisons in the budget, because we're going to need them if we don't get this early childhood right." - Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, criticizing the Harper budget.

And Harper reneging on commitments, refusing to see the other-side of any equation, using government funded websites to promote his partisan agenda and taking a partisan approach to his dealings with the provinces, it seems that the two front-running parties (LPC and CPC) are simply a choice between lesser evils.

Luckily for us, we have a real choice. Politics can be done differently, and I encourage you to visit our other bloggers in the Progressive Canadian Party, as well as our home page.

2006-05-09T07:25:00.000-04:00

Harper picking fight with
Ontario?

Prime Minister Harper has once again shown his partisan approach to government in his dealings with Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty.

Last week, Harper met with the Premier for a mere 45 minutes, in a low-profile, no camera situation. After this, the Prime Minister made an appearence at the Provincial Progressive Conservative Fundraiser where he called the leader of the provincial party, John Tory, "the next Premier of Ontario".

The Ontario Premier has been having difficulties even arranging to meet with the Prime Minister, and this meeting had taken 3 months to arrange. In the meantime Prime Minister Harper has been publicly courting Jean Charest (Premier of Quebec), and now he's playing politics with John Tory.

Although I support the Pronvincial Progressive Conservative Party, I don't think Harper has respected Ontario's democratic choices. This sort of action reminds me of Rick Mercer's take on equalization. (under March 28, 2006)

This partisan approach to being Prime Minister is simply not appropriate. However, Harper has shown during his short-term in office that political ethics (beyond the Accountability Act) is not one of his five priorities.

2006-05-08T08:47:00.000-04:00

Taxpayer Dollars Feed Conservative Propaganda Machine

I had originally posted this news release but discovered that Sean Tisdall beat me to it. I do my best to refrain from being redundant so you may read the release at his blog.

If you would like the pdf file that came attatched with this release, please email thom.and.char@hotmail.com.

2006-05-07T22:14:00.000-04:00

Daycare thoughts: Opinion Requested

To truly formulate an appropriate opinion on the daycare debtate, let us first identify the different positions:

There is not enough daycare spaces (parents cannot find childcare facilities if they have 2 earners).
In lower-income families, one parent may be unable to work because the possible wage this parent may earn will not offset the cost of childcare. They are not eligible for any provincial funding for daycare.
There are many families that choose to have one parent stay-at-home (that is, they can make it by with one income) but they too want to be awarded some benefit (this is where the additional $1200 baby-bonus comes into play).

Does anyone have any ideas how we can address these issues and keep everyone happy?

2006-05-07T08:03:00.000-04:00

McGuinty Top 50: Broken promises

1. "I won't raise your taxes."
2. Balance the Budget every year of their mandate
3. Balance the Budget by 2007
4. Roll back tolls on the 407
5. Fund Medically-Necessary Health Care Services (de-listed eye exams, chiropractic care and physiotherapy
6. Not Add to the Province's Debt
7. Stop 6,600 Houses on the Oak Ridges Moraine
8. Abide by the Balanced Budget law
9. Cap Hydro Rates at 4.3 cents per Kilowatt Hour Until 2006
10. Respect MPPs and Democracy
11. Allow all non-cabinet MPPs to criticize and vote against government legislation
12. Provide autism treatment beyond age six
13. Reduce Auto Insurance Rates by 10% Within 90 Days
14. Reduce Private Consultants
15. Cancel P3 Hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa
16. Public Inquiry into Meat Inspection
17. Withdraw Government Appeal on the Richmond Landfill
18. Make Ontario's Chief Medical Officer an independent officer of the Legislature
19. Govern with honesty and integrity
20. Respect the Outcome of the Kawartha Lakes Referendum on Amalgamation
21. Better mental health care
22. Value and Support the Public Service
23. Divert 60% of municipal garbage to recycling by 2005
24. Close "private" MRI and CT clinics
25. Stop School Closings
26. "Immediately" establish an Arts and Culture Advisory Council
27. Provide Adequate, Multi-Year Funding for Hospitals
28. Hire Over 1,000 Teachers a Year
29. Hire 1,000 New Police Officers
30. Close Coal-Fired Electricity Plants by 2007
31. Hire 100 New Parole and Probation Officers
32. Double the Number of Apprentices
33. Create Tens of Thousands of New Child Care Spaces
34. End the "Clawback" of the Federal Child Tax Credit
35. Build 20,000 New Affordable Housing Units
36. Spend "Every Penny" of the New Health Tax on Health Care
37. Cut Ministers' Pay for Running a Deficit
38. Eliminate Barriers to Foreign-Trained Professionals within One Year
39. Require Trades and Professions to Accept Qualified Immigrants within One Year
40. Repeal the Tenant Protection Act within One Year
41. Establish a Standing Committee on Education to Hold Yearly Hearings
42. Liberal Promises Would Cost $5.9 Billion
43. Provide Legal Rights to Victims of Crime
44. Hire 8,000 nurses by the end of 2007
45. Make the Ministry of Agriculture a lead ministry
46. Invest in rural roads and bridges
47. Support the Province's Cities
48. Make sure health dollars are being spent wisely
49. Stop the waste of taxpayers' dollars
50. Guarantee stable, long-term funding for our rural communities

(from: Pay More Get Less)

2006-05-06T21:22:00.000-04:00

American War Deserter Rejected by Harper

I'm sure that no one is surprised that Prime Minister Harper has refused to accept the request of American War Deserter Cindy Sheehan (pictured above), who recently asked the Prime Minster to offer sanctuary to American War Deserters. In addition to Harper's support of the Iraq war, Harper has been trying to improve Canada's relations with the United States. Such action would not help. Cindy Sheehan has become one of the best critics of this war, since her son, Casey, was killed in Iraq.

Unfortunately for Harper, he has forgotten that he does not have control over parliament. His refusal of this request could be rejected by an opposition motion if it is put forth. If the other 3 parties agree that Canada should offer sanctuary to American War Deserters, then we will, and Harper may finally realize his lack of a mandate.

If an opposition motion of this sort is brought forth, theoretically Harper could make it a vote of confidence, which would force an election.

I am skeptical that he would want to fight an election on the Iraq war.

2006-05-06T08:33:00.000-04:00

Budget 2006: Tax Cuts, Focused Spending, Debt Paydown

CPC News Release:
02 May 2006
Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty today presented a balanced federal budget that significantly cuts taxes, focuses federal spending on priority areas and pays down debt.
The budget delivers $20 billion in tax relief over two years—that is more tax relief than the previous four budgets combined. Key tax measures include:
A one-point reduction to the GST, effective July 1, 2006.
Broad-based income tax relief.
Targeted tax measures to help Canadians with the cost of:

Tools.
Textbooks.
Transit passes.
Kids’ sports.
The budget prioritizes and focuses federal spending including:
$3.7 billion over two years for the new $1,200 Universal Child Care Benefit.
$1.5 billion more this year for agriculture.
$1.4 billion more this year for policing, border security and public safety.
$1.1 billion more over two years to rebuild the Armed Forces.

The budget is balanced and specifically commits $3 billion per year in debt paydown.
For 2005–06, the federal surplus is currently estimated at $8 billion.

With respect to restoring the fiscal balance, a commitment to address concerns over fiscal imbalance; greater certainty with respect to 2006–07 Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing payments; up to $3.3 billion in additional funding support to provinces and territories to help address short-term pressures in post-secondary education, affordable housing and public transit; and a commitment to a principle-based framework for fiscal relations, outlined in the companion document Restoring Fiscal Balance in Canada.

2006-05-05T23:06:00.000-04:00

PC NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 5, 2006

Political expediency priority one.

Toronto, ON – The Progressive Canadian Party believes that the Harper Government has crafted a budget designed to maximize short range support within the electorate rather than present any vision for the future. The first budget of the new Conservative Party reflects the absence of progressive thought. It focuses on tax cuts and giveaways designed more to buy votes than solve either long or short term national problems.

"The $1200.00 renewal of the Baby Bonus will not increase the availability of day care spaces, nor transit tax credits have more than minimal effect on degrading of the atmosphere," stated Party Leader Tracy Parsons. "The abrogation of the Kelowna Agreement, for whatever reason, may be received as a challenge to native peoples already unsettled by confrontations in Caledonia."

Chris Schnurr, Health Critic for the Progressive Canadian Party, sees very little in this budget to ensure that provinces effectively manage federal dollars appropriately. "What we are seeing is increased funding to health care at nearly three times the inflation rate, with the 6% annual escalator to the Canada Health Transfer payments, with no safeguards to ensure that our tax dollars are used appropriately by the provinces."

"This is basically throwing billions of dollars at problems without addressing how the system is managed by individual provinces," he continued. "With over $20-billion in tax cuts, I also am concerned at how sustainable this funding is, especially if Canada slips into a recession."

The decrease in GST at the expense of increases in income tax disproportionately benefits high income earners.

The budget of 2006 is a document directed at the short rather than longer range well being of Canadians. With a strong economy and surplus revenue this is the time to embark on an exciting new program to meet climate change and a rapidly changing world economy. We need public investment in education, training, and research to develop new technologies for meeting the challenges ahead. The time has come to stop simply handing back money to a corporate sector that continues to take profits rather than invest in new ideas.

That the Prime Minister would be pleased to take this budget to the electorate is apparent. An election precipitated by challenging the other party leaders to defeat it in the House of Commons evaporated when the Bloc declared support. Rather than being pleased to go forward with the business of running the country, the Prime Minister’s immediate reaction was to shift his challenge to the Liberal controlled Senate.

"Make no mistake about it, with the polls indicating increasing support, priority one is to get thrown out of office. Harper’s challenge appears to be driven by desperation for the power flowing from a parliamentary majority," concluded Jim Love, Progressive Canadian (PC) Party President.

2006-05-05T22:28:00.000-04:00

Are Ontarians Pocketbooks in McGuinty's Sights Again?

With the Conservative budget released, one can only wonder if Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has his eyes on Ontarians' Pocketbooks once again. McGuinty, who promised during his election campaign that he would not raise taxes introduced the infamous "Ontario Health Tax" which costs the average Ontario family aproximately $690/yr, as well as cancelling income tax cuts which would have saved the average family about $240.38/yr.

Unfortunately, with many tax-cuts announced under the new Conservative government, McGuinty seems to be thinking of raising taxes again. When asked whether or not McGuinty intended to raise taxes again to offset the federal savings, the Premier was silent.

The Liberal government is continuing to tax more and deliver less. It is unclear whether Ontarian's will even benefit from the federal tax cuts or whether McGuinty will tax the savings back. We Ontarian's should be very concerned, I think McGuinty's dreaming of our dollars again.