The non conformer's Canadian Weblog

November 15, 2009


Free water bottles too political: I wouldn’t want a Shelly Glover water bottle either Political partisanship has no place in our schools. A Manitoba school division is turning down an offer of free water bottles for students because the items display a politician’s name and party logo.  Shelly Glover, Conservative member of Parliament for St. Boniface, wanted to donate an unspecified number of bottles to the Louis Riel School Division.  “What we discovered was that there was some personal information on the bottles,” Marilyn Sequire, chairwoman of the school division, told CBC News on Friday. “Because we have a policy that doesn’t allow that, we had to regrettably decline.” Sequire said distributing the bottles would have violated division policy.  “It’s very simple,” Sequire said. “It’s just related to our policy that we have that does not allow us to distribute anything in the schools that is overtly, even slightly, political.”    This is the type of behaviour that the Conservatives have campaigned against in the past. Why do they pull these tricks now?  Also, don’t forget… the money to buy these water bottles likely came out of taxpayers pockets. Why should my tax money go towards promoting a political party to school kids?  Ms. Glover – I suggest if you actually want to help, you would donate bottles without political info on them. How low will the Cons stoop? These cons have no shame. Next thing you know they will want to put their party logo on your kids forehead. Canada has been headed down a shameful road ever since these cons came to power,(minority) I might add!  If she was so worried about these kids and wanting to donate bottles she should have just did it with no advertising. Everyone is only looking for the benefits of giving by advertising themselves, not because they actually care. If the MP really cared about giving the water bottles to the kids first and foremost, then there wouldn’t be a logo. I’m sure she thought this might help the school to a degree, but clearly, the thought of free advertising for the cons was there.  Their defence will be “we were trying to help the kids! why is everyone stopping us from helping children?”   What’s their next defence “why are people stopping us from helping clothe the homeless? All we did was give them a bunch of conservative party shirts.” .ttp://
DOES THE WATER TASTE THE SAME WITH THE CON LABEL? cause so far the Con water leaves a very bad taste in many people’s mouths
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper is using taxpayers’ money to reward Tory cronies with plum posts, Liberal MPs charged yesterday. The Tories unleashed “unparalleled patronage” by appointing 233 former Conservative MPs, campaign workers, failed candidates and donors in the past year, said Liberal MP Wayne Easter. Liberals say the recent Harper-appointees contributed more than $272,000 to Conservative coffers.  NDP and Tory officials pointed out members of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s office also benefited from appointments, including diplomatic posts. yes but the hypocritical  Con kettle calling the pot black does not change the fact the kettle is immoral, liar, for it was elected on the basis that it would be a lot different over the Lieberals and not rather it’s twin..
 Canada’s Defence Minister denies knowledge of torture, of Canadian complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees who had been turned over to Afghan authorities, makes him NOW EITHER A LIAR OR CLEARLY A VERY POOR MINISTER.   Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed the demand for a torture inquiry Thursday while opposition parties hammered Canada’s Minister of Defence.
Mr. Tilson, you owe us an apology
Tuesday November 24 2009
 Open Letter to David Tilson, M.P.
Mr Tilson,
I received your recent “Keeping You Informed” Fall Newsletter and have what I think is an important issue you need to address. When reading it I couldn’t help but notice the grand cheque you were holding for $7 million. A large sum that will surely do some good in our community. It is welcome money! The issue I have when looking closely at the cheque is that it is signed by Stephen Harper and also has your name on it. Now call me crazy, but are we to suppose that Stephen Harper is somehow taking personal credit for this cheque? I don’t see the Government of Canada logo anwhere on it, which would lead a person with the intelligence of a post to see what is going on here. This money is not from Stephen Harper, or you, for that matter. You should be embarrassed by something like this, not smiling with this cheque in hand. It is “our” money and it is being paid for by the Government of Canada. Not you, not Mr. Harper or any political party. This did not come from your bank account or Mr. Harper’s. Now my letter is not about an anti-Conservative slant because lord knows the Liberal party was as guilty of this type of branding at every opportunity as any party in history. The problem here is that you were elected on a platform to clean things up and bring some responsibility/accoutability to government. We expect that from all of our representatives no matter their political stripe. As a tax paying citizen I think an apology is in order. This was not an oversight. The people in this riding expect and deserve a higher standard of conduct from the person that represents them. Your esteemed collegue, Gerald Keddy of South Shore Nova Scotia, at least stood up and apologized in a similar cheque fiasco recenty and noted it will never happen again. His excuse that he didn’t notice his giant signature on it was scary enough on its own, considering he is helping run the country (what else has he not noticed?). But aside from his pathetic attempt at an excuse, he at least apologized. Will you?

Carlos Cascallar,


Anyone who knows PM Stephen Harper knows that this power control freak does not share publicity with others..





NB government under fire in legislature over power deal with Hydro-Quebec The Canadian Press – FREDERICTON – The Conservative Opposition took New Brunswick’s Liberal government to task Wednesday over the proposed sale of NB Power during the first question period of the fall session of the legislature.

NB Power deal has penalties: Opposition

Eastern premiers continue war of words over NB Power deal Vancouver Sun – Daily Gleaner – Times and Transcript – The Canadian Press
The Canadian Press  SAINT JOHN, N.B. – New Brunswickers will have to wait a bit longer to hear from an advisory panel studying the proposed sale of NB Power to Hydro-Quebec. Panel chairman David Ganong says the $4.75-billion deal is proving to be very complex, and there will be no report until the panel fully understands it. Ganong and five others were appointed in November to provide independent advice on whether the proposed deal is in the best interest of New Brunswickers. The panel was tasked to study the financial implications, the impact on New Brunswick’s future energy sovereignty, and the long-term impact on residential power rates.A report was expected by Jan. 15, but Ganong says it will now be at least the end of the month. the delay seems to implicate tthat the sale it is not really all good news…

NB Power sale won’t help debt: auditor general    Auditor General Mike Ferguson says selling NB Power could actually worsen the province’s debt load. (CBC) New Brunswick’s auditor general says the sale of NB Power to Hydro-Québec will not help solve the province’s debt problem.. It becomes quite clear that this is a deal for Irving and other industrial customers only and no one else. I am sick of all of the Liberal red-wash that is being painted over this in a pathetic attempt to convince the province that this sale is a good idea. You know   red is also the colour of debt and deficit too. 


The Web 2.0 generation, such as the over 100,000 who joined the ‘Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament’ Facebook group, clearly has become politically engaged.  And another Facebook group that grew rapidly is  the one opposing the sale of NB Power to Quebec. The  sleeping giants have been awakened and they are not about to go back to sleep.


Quebec talking with PEI on power deal

NB Power sale expected to dominate new session of provincial legislature (NB Oilweek Magazine

 Times and Transcript – Telegraph-Journal – – The Amherst Daily News

Lord government considered NB Power sale –   New Brunswick’s Opposition Tories say the province should collect income taxes from Hydro-Québec if the Liberal government’s proposed NB Power deal is passed.

Quebec power exports not vulnerable in US debate The Gazette (Montreal)

NB Power sale expected to dominate new session of provincial legislature The Canadian Press

Telegraph-Journal – Times and Transcript – Daily Gleaner –
  HALIFAX, N.S. — Quebec would reap a windfall of “hundreds of millions of dollars” in federal equalization payments if a proposed deal to purchase New Brunswick’s public power utility goes through next year, a leading Newfoundland and Labrador economist says.Wade Locke, a professor of economics at Memorial University, said if Hydro-Quebec uses a portion of its profits – which were $2.7 billion in 2008 – to buy NB Power, that would result in a major drop in its contribution to the coffers of the Quebec government. That in turn would require the federal government to send more money to the province under Ottawa’s revenue-sharing formula, Locke says.” The use of money to expand the corporation into New Brunswick will mean they (Quebec)will have higher equalization than if Hydro-Quebec had given the money to the government,” Locke said in a phone interview. Locke said with Hydro-Quebec committed to spending $700 million for the $4.75 billion purchase, that would translate into reduced profits being sent to the province, thereby hiking Ottawa’s equalization payments to Quebec by “hundreds of millions” of dollars. 


Amid growing public opposition in New Brunswick over the proposed $4.75-billion Hydro-Quebec deal to purchase NB Power assets, the interprovincial power negotiations have been expanded to include Prince Edward Island.

Leaked report says gov’t overstating the need for new power lines in Alberta Thu Nov 19, 11:30 PM  EDMONTON – A political battle is reaching a peak in Alberta over whether the province needs billions of dollars worth of new power lines that will be paid for by consumers. 


 Quebec already had taken advantage of NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR IN THE PAST too…


The New Brunswick government is in negotiations with Quebec to revise a controversial deal to sell its power utility to Hydro-Quebec in order to retain an ownership stake for New Brunswickers, sources say.  Premier Shawn Graham has faced an outpouring of public and political outrage over a tentative deal signed last October, in which the giant Quebec power company would take over New Brunswick Power in exchange for taking on its debt and cutting or freezing power rates for customers in the Atlantic province.


FREDERICTON – New Brunswick and Quebec have made major changes to the proposed deal to sell NB Power to Hydro-Quebec.  A document obtained by The Canadian Press reveals that New Brunswick’s power transmission and distribution systems are no longer for sale.  The document says NB Power would continue to operate as a New Brunswick-owned and operated Crown corporation, employing more than 60 per cent of the utility’s current workforce.  Under the original deal signed last October, Hydro-Quebec would assume all the major assets of NB Power, including the transmission system, for $4.75 billion.  The revised deal – according to the document – is worth $3.2 billion and would still include hydroelectric facilities and the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant.  New Brunswick’s Liberal government has faced growing public opposition and dissent within caucus as a result of the proposed utility sale


Now in Alberta


Wildrose Alliance Leader Danielle Smith  says the conclusions in the EDC report strongly suggest that the Tory government is not doing enough to protect consumers.  There’ve been projections that it’s going to be $200 per year for the average residential bill for the next 15 years,” said Smith.Major power utilities will end up benefiting greatly from Bill 50, but consumers and landowners whose property will be affected by the new power corridors will end up as the big losers, said Smith. “My read of this debate so far is that the government is simply and blindly serving the interests of its corporate sponsors, not the interests of consumers,” she said. With all that supposedly extra surplus income as advertised in  Alberta the local citizens were now to live better off than elsewhere, instead of now continually being gouged with extra costs, and the hidden taxes.. the electrical costs now included..  for Alberta really does not have cheap hydro generated electricity but relies mainly on polluting coal fired generating plants..  and what else next?   GOVERNMENT OF Alberta IS ALSO SAYING IT IS HELPING THE CITIZENS NOT BIG BUSINESS..



Provincial Police Commissioner, police personnel also known to play dirty politics,

Canada’s too often bad cops, for  real actions speak louder to me than any words.

 When even the  police chiefs, police personnel  even are also known to play dirty politics, who can you trust then?

A criminal probe of perverse OPP  Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner  Fantino’s abuse of tax payer’s money is in order. If things do not go the way he wants in court, he merely appeals and appeals and appeals cause it costs him nothing, and he knows the taxpayers will pay for it.

OPP chief ordered to retake witness stand Globe and Mail – ‎Nov 13, 2009‎  Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino has been ordered to go back to the witness stand and pay $20,000 in costs to two officers in whose disciplinary hearing the commissioner had been subpoenaed to testify.  Commissioner Fantino had been in the unusual position of being cross-examined about allegations that he used the internal OPP disciplinary process to wage a vendetta against a high-ranking officer. The allegations were made in the disciplinary hearing of two OPP internal affairs officers, Superintendent Ken MacDonald and Inspector Alison Jevons. Already, the legal saga has cost nearly $500,000 in public money, according to documents that Supt. MacDonald and Insp. Jevons obtained through Freedom of Information requests, said their lawyer, Julian Falconer. The bill is assumed by the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services, an OPP spokesman said. Commissioner Fantino’s cross-examination had been halted after he alleged that the adjudicator in the disciplinary case, retired judge Leonard Montgomery, was biased. But in a unanimous ruling today, three judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the commissioner’s claim. “The events in this case fall far short of the type of conduct that would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias,” the judgment said. The court ordered the commissioner awarded $20,000 in legal costs for the two officers. According to testimony at the disciplinary case, Commissioner Fantino wrongly suspected Supt. MacDonald of leaking information to local municipal politicians. Mr. Falconer alleged in court filings that, as a result , the commissioner pursued a vendetta against Supt. MacDonald by charging him and Insp. Jevons in an unrelated disciplinary matter relating to their investigation of another officer’s acts in a domestic dispute.

” CP TORONTO – Accusations of high-level political interference, petty vindictiveness and tarnished reputations will be on public display this week as Ontario’s top cop heads to court to force an adjudicator he accuses of bias to step down from a police disciplinary hearing.  The Divisional Court case Thursday that has entangled Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino comes years after an act of domestic violence that, at most, would have been a media footnote.  Instead, a years-long process was set in motion that has raised troubling questions about the politics of justice in Ontario.  A dust storm of allegations – witness tampering, personal reprisals, professional wrongdoing, legal chess games and judicial intimidation and judicial bias – still swirls.  Court files and hearing documents show it all began when a frightened Susan Cole called 911 one evening in April 2004.  She said her estranged husband, provincial police Const. Robert Alaire, had taken a baseball bat to her car at their home in Gananoque, Ont.  Det.-Sgt. Mark Zulinski and other officers responded. They asked her to leave her home. They did not arrest Alaire.  Cole complained. Her husband, she said, should have been arrested.  “It should have been a slam dunk,” Cole said in an interview. “(Instead) it’s a nightmare. It’s just not right.”  Cole’s complaint reached the civilian agency that oversees the province’s police. It asked for an investigation.  Two senior officers in the Ontario Provincial Police’s professional standards bureau – Supt. Ken MacDonald and Insp. Alison Jevons – eventually concluded proper procedure had not been followed.  They recommended “education” rather than sanctions.  The union that represents provincial police officers was outraged.  “We may have the ammo to take down MacDonald,” the union’s lawyer, Gavin May, wrote in an email to Karl Walsh, the president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, in August 2006.  “We may get two for the price of one.”  The association formally complained about the two officers two weeks later. The complaint landed on the desk of Ontario’s top cop – freshly appointed Commissioner Julian Fantino.  Fantino was also dealing with fallout from his plans to restructure the 6,000-member police force he now headed. Someone was leaking the plans to town council in Caledon, northwest of Toronto, and some local politicians didn’t like what they were hearing.  Fantino concluded the leak must have come from MacDonald, witnesses testified.  In a parking lot on March 1, 2007, Fantino said to another senior officer: “Will you execute the disloyal one, or should I?”  Fantino later explained the comment as humour, or “appropriate” police speak, a way of saying he wanted the leak stopped and an end to the distractions it was causing.  What he didn’t know was that Chief Supt. Bill Grodzinski made notes of the conversation.  Fantino charged MacDonald and Jevons, both of whom he transferred out of the professional standards unit without speaking to them or their supervisors, under the Police Services Act.  The two officers stood accused of misconduct and deceit related to their investigation of the response to Cole’s 911 call.  Any suggestion he laid the charges to appease the police union or to get back at MacDonald for the leak were “hysterical nonsense,” Fantino has said.  The first two associates Fantino appointed to preside over the hearing against MacDonald and Jevons both stepped down over issues of potential bias.  Months passed before Leonard Montgomery, a retired Superior Court justice with 33 years on the bench, would step into the increasingly mucky swamp as adjudicator.  Called to testify, Grodzinski produced his notes, including those of Fantino asking about executing the “disloyal one.”  The next morning, the officer found out he was being transferred.  Fantino later said he thought he was doing Grodzinski a favour, although he expressed disdain about the “cheat notes.”  “People who know me do not hold onto these notes for later retribution,” he said.  Grodzinski was blunt.  “I viewed the transfer . . . as an immediate punishment, sanction, reprisal – use what word you wish,” Grodzinski said.  Intervention from Deb Newman, deputy minister with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, undid the forced transfer.  Julian Falconer, acting for Jevons and MacDonald, denounces the transfer threat as nothing short of witness tampering.  The hearings against MacDonald and Jevons proceeded amid increasing acrimony between the prosecution led by Brian Gover, a well regarded, experienced former Crown lawyer acting for Fantino, and the defence.  The defence argued to have the case thrown out as an abuse of process.  During hearings in October in which Fantino insulted Falconer and tensions ran high, Fantino changed some of his testimony. The notion that someone had tipped him off during a lunch break led Montgomery to remark that he was “upset.”  Gover filed a motion – Fantino was in the middle of being cross-examined – asking Montgomery to step down as biased.  He would take the matter to court if Montgomery refused, Gover said, adding the attorney general backed his position.  Within a few hours, the ministry disavowed any such backing and said Attorney General Chris Bentley had not been involved.  A stunned Montgomery branded Gover’s comments as attempted judicial intimidation and refused to step down.  If the ministry had indeed said it wanted him off the case, the political interference was astounding and the conflicts of interest “endless,” Montgomery wrote.  Gover remained adamant the attorney general wanted Montgomery gone and had pledged its support.  Falconer, in the interim, demanded his interrupted cross-examination of Fantino go ahead. Fantino’s new lawyer, Tom Curry, asked Divisional Court to stay the proceedings until the recusal motion was decided.   The court refused to interfere. Montgomery was perhaps just “calling a spade a spade,” the judge said.  Fantino appealed.  A three-judge panel split in his favour, staying his cross-examination until after the recusal motion is dealt with on Thursday.  In the interim, MacDonald and Jevons sit quietly through hours of hearings, seemingly no closer to having their case decided.  Cole, who said the two officers were the only ones who ever helped her, said she was dumbfounded at what her complaint unleashed almost five years ago.  All she ever wanted, she said, was for provincial police to implement a sensible policy when officers are involved in domestic violence.  “It’s gone on to actually hurt some really good people. Like it’s just endless.”” Nasty Fantino battle started with baseball bat, winds through courts 

OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino has lost an attempt to remove a retired judge presiding over a high-profile disciplinary hearing. The Ontario Divisional Court ruled yesterday that Justice Leonard Montgomery did not show bias against Commissioner Fantino in comments made as the adjudicator of a sometimes fractious hearing. “The matters complained of do not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias,” said the Divisional Court panel in a 3-0 decision. The court ordered the disciplinary hearing to resume in front of Judge Montgomery and indicated that it would be “conjecture” to suggest he would not act properly in the future, given the removal attempt by Commissioner Fantino. Otherwise, any side unhappy with a judge “could attempt to remove an unwanted judicial officer simply by bringing a complaint of bias against the officer,” the court said. “That would be inimical to the proper working of the justice system.” Julian Falconer, who represents Supt. MacDonald and Insp. Jevons, said his clients want to resume the hearing and the cross-examination of Commissioner Fantino as soon as possible. “This has been hanging over their heads for years. Apparently limitless (taxpayer’s)  resources have been poured into delaying this matter,” Mr. Falconer said, noting that there have been three separate court hearings related to the attempt to remove Judge Montgomery.


Here are other interesting blogs about the bad police in Ottawa and in Ontario you can look into more further too. 

Create a free website or blog at