I wonder what/who you'd find at the bar in the Fort Garry hotel say between 7pm and late.
thanks for the reporting Dawg...you are now all over speecher sites including my own.
P-203 is on it's way to the floor... That's got be driving dawggie nuts!
Buh-bye, NAMBLA-Dick. Serious commenters only, please.
It's kind of heartening that 203 passed overwhelmingly, as that will make Harper's betrayal of the party on the issue all the sweeter.
As for hoping Parliament will actually redefine marriage... I thought Tories were generally opposed to the faint hope clause. They must like handing questions to reporters that make Harper and Sparrow disavow the party.
Dawg:
What are the chances of you getting your hands on Steven Fletcher's speech from last night?
Hm. P-203 passed. I'd be blogging about this but I'm absolutely overwhelmed with dissertation work.
How much authority does Harper have as party leader to nix the proposal if the delegates want it? Can he just veto them?
Because that's what he's going to do. Whatever else you want to say about Harper, he's comes across as pretty shrewd.
Ah, man, I'm going to have another reason to pick on the guy. That's great!
Devin:
Not likely there are more than his notes--it was really an introduction of Laureen Harper, maybe three minutes or so in English and French. Not a speech per se.
Terrence:
The PM considers these resolutions "consultations." You can read between the lines.
The resolution passed the workshop stage. Plenary tomorrow. No surprises expected.
P-223 makes me a bit worried. Bands are already audited numerous times during the year. More often than any other government agency. Don't know why Conservatives are so hot on that issue.
Good point Troy. I wondered about that myself. Hell, right now they are not only audited more that any other group in Canada but the stats collected on First Nations by INAC are vast. Makes you wonder why the would put our Aboriginal people under further scrutiny. (Personally I think they are seeking justification to screw FN people out of their collective rights that are found in treaties. Harper is closely aligned with the Congress of Aboriginal People who are opposed to the positions taken by the Assembly of First Nations.)
Hey Beijing, I've gone and put on my tinfoil hat again.
I'll post it here too, even if it is a bit of a wild conspiracy theory at this point.
As Dr Dawg has already pointed out, these are what Harper will consider as 'consultations' rather than policy, but Harper never consults anyone else for policy direction, so who's he trying to fool?
Something else I'm a bit worried about too concerning P-223 is that the Conservative government hasn't seen it as unlawful installing over the band members' objections band governments compliant to the Conservative's agenda, which is the opening up of reserve lands and disputed lands to corporations.
If the Conservative government should start auditing bands even further, it would seem to all appearances that rather than seeking any criminal activity on part of band leadership in regards to band funds, they are rather trying to create the illusion of misuse on the part of band leadership.
Such invasive audits might be used a tool of intimidation to force compliance of band leadership, or to forcefully remove said leadership so that INAC can install governments that share the Conservative's ideology.
Please remember that the only thing changed about the old DIA is the name. INAC is still very much the same British-style imperialist sword of the government aimed at the throat of First Nations. In the hands of Harper, I would not be surprised at him not hesitating to at least bludgeon First Nations with the flat of the blade to get what he wants.
"On his "pragmatism v. ideology" comment in his keynote speech last night, his one example was Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty's intervention in our economy, in what he called an "unprecedented" fashion. That's pragmatic, he said: Conservatives don't favour a lot of state intervention. But Flaherty did it, he went on, without costing the taxpayer a dime, and without nationalizing anything."
Good! So now the Conservatives will have no problems investing in mortgages for residential co-ops? Right? Oh....
"P-208. Cutting back on student loans, but letting kids with rich parents have access to what remains."
The loans and grants are insufficient as it stands now. If you try to get funding to go back to school when you have kids, the max amount offerred simply is not enough. Idiots.
"P-212. Abolishing position on childcare. Defeated."
Of course.
"P-213. Abolish notion of equal pay for work of equal value. Passed."
WTF? I mean, I'm not surprised, but how can anyone be against this?
mark francis:"P-213. Abolish notion of equal pay for work of equal value. Passed."
WTF? I mean, I'm not surprised, but how can anyone be against this?
maybe it promotes communism?--I mean the ACCEPTABLE Canadian version
Try to define value, mark. I mean at the individual level vs the group.
In regards to audits,it should be stated that audits in themselves are not a bad thing if the goal is to improve the transparency
of the Band councils and Indian Act Chiefs in order to make them more accountable to the peoples & communities they supposedly represent.
God knows grassroots indigenous peoples have been screaming for forensic audits for years,such is the level of nepotism,favoritism,corruption.The facts are far to many reserves are run like banana republics.
That said,I am suspicious of the conservatives motives,they are definitly not motivated out of any concern for ordinary indigenous,nor their(grassroots) call for improved and accountable governance.
Also one has to take the comments & complaints of the Indian Act Chiefs and AFN with a bit of salt when it comes to audits.These audits would not be needed or even called for,if the Indian Act Chiefs and Band Councils,heeded the call of their own peoples for transparency and public/community accounting of where all the money goes.
Uh, dirk:
- "In regards to audits,it should be stated that audits in themselves are not a bad thing if the goal is to improve the transparency
of the Band councils and Indian Act Chiefs in order to make them more accountable to the peoples & communities they supposedly represent."
Me and Beijing have already pointed out, bands are already audited. They
re self-audited every year. They're audited by INAC several times over the course of a year.
- "God knows grassroots indigenous peoples have been screaming for forensic audits for years,such is the level of nepotism,favoritism,corruption.The facts are far to many reserves are run like banana republics."
Really? Can you uh, name any off the top of your head?
For my own band, an audit is completely dehabilitating. They cost a hella lotta moola.
"Also one has to take the comments & complaints of the Indian Act Chiefs and AFN with a bit of salt when it comes to audits.These audits would not be needed or even called for,if the Indian Act Chiefs and Band Councils,heeded the call of their own peoples for transparency and public/community accounting of where all the money goes."
The only band leaders we really ever have problems with are the ones who open up reserve lands to corporations for little or no compensation.
First of all I am very critical of the Band Council system and the Indian Act Chiefs,as they represent the Indian Act indeed their power and positions are inextricably tied to the Indian Act.A piece of legislation,designed to break down indigenous peoples ties to the land and relegate them to just another ethnic minority.
Troy-You might find Janice Switlo writings quite helpful
http://www.switlo.com/opinions.php
also
http://www.taiaiake.com/
As for examples etc of the corruption and nepotism check out
http://www.newtfn.com/
And please do not read my remarks about audits as somehow implying I support the Cons.
My apologies Dirk.
Thanks for the links. I've given them a quick glance, and have found them interesting.
Commenting by HaloScan
