In August 2006, Kate, myself and other bloggers initiated a blogburst against the tax-payer supported, perpetual grievance machine known as Status of Women Canada.
“In September the same year, the Tories announced they had cut $5 million over two years out of the agency’s $23 million annual budget. In December, Heritage Minister Bev Oda said 12 of the agency’s 16 offices were going to be shut down across the country, after a re-evaluation of the program showed it was not offering concrete help directly to women. According to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, 61 of the 131 jobs at the Status of Women were cut.”
But that was then…
“Subsequently, however, the Tories renewed federal funding of the organization. A Parliamentary review of the cuts took place in February 2007. REAL Women told LifeSiteNews.com that the House Committee was stacked with witnesses who opposed the cuts. The 27 witnesses opposed to the cuts were all funded directly by Status of Women and according to their testimony, said they regarded the government grants as their ‘entitlements.'”
(…)
“Verner said the total [2008] budget for the federal organization was $29.9 million, ‘a record for Status of Women Canada’. Under the government’s new Women’s Partnership Fund, the government provided $10 million to the agency in 2007 and has no plans to stop.”
Some things never change. I take it then, that in order to prevent the “scarey” label from being applied in the drive for a Conservative majority, this will help keep some of the Cons detractors “on side”? Show me the conservatism! These guys have been “Ottawashed”. Their new colors are more pink then blue rinse.
Don’t know which angers me more – another Conservative say one thing do another thing or more funding for a propeganda organization that should be self funding if its views are wanted in the market place
in a related case . . . A Day at the Theatre of the Absurd”
“By now you may be asking why we’ve wasted so much effort on this case, which ought to be a slam-dunk for Dr. Stubbs. The answer is that human rights commissions have become self-perpetuating grievance machines. Ontario’s commission seems to have regarded this case as a landmark test of transsexuals’ access to medical care. Clearly it is no such thing. ”
http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20080215/wcowent16.html
Record budget for “outdated, ideologically driven sink-hole”
Geez, when I first saw this I thought it was another “Senate” story.
Then I read it and find out it’s worse than that.
That’s depressing, it really is.
One step forward, two steps back. The Conservatives have missed a number of good opportunities to show that they are thinking ahead of the pack.
[sigh] Call your MP, ask him/her WTF?!!!, express your concern, don’t let it slide.
This is how we progress. Even a CPC politician’s job is to take the path of least resistance. We change what they do by changing which direction is easier.
What do you think the Lefties do? They whine, they moan, they kvetch, and they never, ever shut up.
Consider how it happened, before you bash the COnservatives for not flinging out this outrageous Make-Work-For-Middle-Class Bureaucrats committee…called The Status of Women Committee.
This socialist heap does nothing for women in need. It’s an employment centre for socialist women, middle-class activists. The money doesn’t go to any women in need. It goes to these bureaucrats – their salaries, their benefits, extra medical care for them and their families, pensions, vacations. And their offices, computers, on and on and on. Over 80% of the money goes to THEM. Then, there are their student employees (how patronizing), their research assistants, their…
What’s left? About nothing.
That’s why the govt tried to shut it down.
BUT – govt still has to operate by ‘due process’. Otherwise, the Conservatives get blasted by the Press (who are primarily Liberal activists) as well as the ever-ready socialist sycophants in the House – as being Authoritarian, autocratic, violaters of due process, violaters of human rights, violaters of….etc and etc.
So, due process was a review of the Committee. And, it was stacked.
What do you expect? Yes, we would dearly like such outrageous groups to be flung into the North Atlantic. It would be great. But, we aren’t a totalitarian country. We can’t authoritatively undo the years of Liberal-ease establishment of an enormous, content, fat bureaucracy of activist socialists who live off the taxpayer, while mouthing ‘social welfare’ platitudes.
It takes time, it takes educating the public to stop funding these employment centres for the wealthy.
C’mon, cut the poor bastids a break. That’s one of the downsides of democracy, you have to get elected. Anyone familiar with the constant lies and deception riddling the leftwing moronosphere knows that “Conservatives hate women” is one of their favourite chants. Harper’s doing what he has to do, if a politician doesn’t bend a little in the wind he ends up at soap box corner rather than in Parliament. It hurts me just as much as it does any of you to see my tax dollars pissed away but I’ll grit my teeth and bear it if my boy Harper thinks it’s necessary.
and now send in the Auditor General for a “routine” review and then expose them over the total waste of money, high overhead, non-productive programs, wasted travel to useless feminist conferences – the ones they hold in Bahamas in January.
“C’mon, cut the poor bastids a break”
Exactly. Besides, it’s easy – and sadly unavoidable – to buy a little co-operation once they know upon which side their toast is buttered and jammed.
This is appalling. Do the Conservatives honestly believe that even one of the parasites at this organization will sincerely say, “Thank you”? Do they believe that this will translate into one single additional conservative vote? Conservatives have to learn to stop being nice to liberals. There’s no point in it. When have liberals ever, once, tried to be nice to conservatives? It doesn’t happen. It’s never happened. It never will happen. Liberals only ever grow up with tough love — i.e. getting their heads slammed repeatedly into the concrete wall of reality. An honest job, doing honest work, having to market their skill set in competition with everyone else in the labour force is the only thing that will show these leaches what an utterly useless waste of money they are and how utterly irrelevant to women in the real world their vacuous prattling really is. Disgusting!
If I understand the Conservative apologist’s theme in here it is, “Give them a break, they have to get elected. You shouldn’t expect them to deliver on their promises – even if they did help them get elected last time.”
But these are matters of principle. Should we be funding special interest groups or special interest courts, or should we as conservatives be taking steps to reduce government invovlement in our lives and reduce the expenditure of tax dollars on non essential services.
I agree that this will take time, but it will not happen at all if we don’t stick to it. And I don’t think there were all that many potential supporters of the Conservatives that would be motivated to vote for the Conservatives because they caved and funded this group. No, I think they are losing the battle against the bureaucracy and the momentum of Canadian Values. And that doesn’t bode well for a coming election.
Fred – that’s exactly what should be done. An audit of the money processing in the Status of Women and similar groups.
What I think would greatly help the Conservatives is -blog exposure. Just as blog exposure has helped to expose the outrage that is the Human Rights Commission – blogs can help expose the Status of Women for having NOTHING to do with helping women in need, but instead, functioning as an extremely comfortable employment centre for feminist activists.
What is needed, is a publication on blogs, of
1)their income;
2)number and salaries of employees – both those well-funded ‘directors’ and ‘associate directors’ and their reams of assistants and research assistants;
3)list of benefits, pensions
4)office costs, office equipment and supplies
5)travel and meeting costs (heh, this will be very large)
6)publications, brochures, etc costs
7) other? legal costs – ah yes; insurance, travel insurance, funding for external reports
I’ll bet that almost the entire amount of funding goes directly to the above list. I’ll bet that maybe 2% goes to any ‘women in need’.
These Liberal-Ease committees are not for the benefit of the Canadian public; they have one and only one purpose. They provide an extremely comfortable employment site for professional women ‘working’ within the ideology of feminist activists. They do not help women outside of this group of employees. The focus is on these employees and their well-being.
So- blogs need to publicize this financial data.
Some days I feel like I’m living a horror movie called: “Endless Days & Nights of the un-Dead socialists”
No matter what I seem to do, they keep coming back to life and reanimating.
rroe – I’m not a conservative apologist. I’m a realist, a pragmatist.
Could you please tell me, simply, how a democratic government can shut down a program without due process of investigating that program, its activities and its funding, and providing REASONS for such a shut down?
To my understanding, the govt tried to do this, and the due process committee came up with almost all witnesses denying the govt view.
Thanks in advance.
DrD – I doubt if the govt ‘caved’ because they wanted votes from these fat-cat ladies in SOW. They caved because the due process investigation couldn’t uphold their reasons for cutting SOW’s funding. The fact that the due process committee was stacked by SOW-funded witnesses, requires a second investigation.
I suggest – blog publicity. Lots of it, showing the accounts of SOW, showing how it is really a set of fat-cat bureaucrats, with benefits, pensions and lots of travel – hidden under the weeping towel fake cloak of ‘helping women in need’.
Well, since they’re now funded to the gills, maybe they could look at this womens’ rights issue:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7244579.stm.
Fred wrote: No matter what I seem to do, they keep coming back to life and reanimating.
Thanks for the laugh, let us be honest the current Conservative Party isn’t conservative it’s more like Diet Con or liberal light. I see not a modicum of difference between the leadership style of Harper than that of the Martin. We’ve been coned, literally by the Conservative Party.
Ironicly SOW’s latest audit stated that they have grown passe, they serve no usuall purpose. Alas throw money at faminazis who have no other place to work other than the hallowed Halls of Academia.
Sometimes, getting informed is so disheartening!
I doubt that one more vote will be secured, for the Conservatives, by caving in to this lobbying.
There needs to be a full accounting for this money. If this government wants to keep those who have stood by them while they promised accountability, then do some *real* audits into groups like the SWC, and get it out to the public.
While they are at it, get some answers for Canadians on where that $40 million from the past years went.
And how about those exclusive Foundations!
And the CWB books?
As for the CBC, we expect that a conservative point of view could at least be presented, at minimum, in some proportion to the voting percentages.
We may never toss the CBC, but surely, we have some need to at least hear from a conservative voice. We are out here!!!
Is anyone paying attention in the PMO to its base?
And while you are in there, Conservatives, how about getting those committee reports online faster!
I am beginning to understand why people walk away from participating in their one vote every 2 or 3 or 4 years.
…unfortunately, the Conservatives are starting to show their true colours, the old Progressive ones.
Give it a couple of years and we won’t be able to tell who’s in power, they’ll all behave the same.
28B’s eh? That’s a lot of potential Personal Income tax cuts gone up in smoke.
So maybe it’s time to bombard SOW’s website with queries about their plans for assisting Muslim women in Canada. For starters.
ET, realist? pragmatist? apologist? You say ToeMayToe I say ToeMahToe. They seem to be pretty much the same thing in this instance. The Conservatives gave money they said they wouldn’t and there was no apparent justification.
You suggest that there is a need for due process? What type of due process is needed to stop the government from spending my money. Doesn’t the present government claim to be conservative in approach? Didn’t they get elected to represent me? Isn’t that due process enough?
I think you are mixing up a legal principle of due process in a court of law with the concept of due process in the court of public opinion. They are different. And that is what is causing the Conservatives to drift from what we can expect from a conservative government. They are focusing on the court of public opinion and drifting away from conservative principles.
Dismantling a system of entitlements will never be popular with those being dismantled. There will always be members of the public who have an opinion against it. They will take every opportunity of process to speak aganist it. But having 27 or 270 or 2700 people speak in favor of protecting their place at the trough does not make it right. Nor does it seem to me to be a realistic or pragmatic way to solve the problem. They get their money. No – they get more money. Due process would require that the other side be represented. Were they? And if not, then the other side was denied due process. And if they were, that would have been all that would have been required for the committee to decide against the allocation for due process is not a numbers game of who has the most witnesses. This was not a due process issue. It was something else and until the reasoning is explained I will continue to see it as a betrayal of conservative principles.
We should be pulling together to stop this unnecessary and irresponsible spending and not appologizing for it or explaining it away. The blog disclosure that is being sought here should be expanded to include all of the groups that get funded to advocate a special interest or represent a special group.
In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive a car,
in Saudi Arabia a woman will be beheaded on charges of witchcraft
but here in Canada we spend millions “helping” women who are not victims of ANYTHING and who are free to do ANYTHING and are doing EVERYTHING they want.
A woman who’s main “qualifications” were being able to read the news on a teleprompter on Radio-Canada is now Governor General of Canada, if that does not says everything you need to know about how well Canada treats women then I do not know what does.
Spending millions on helping women in Canada makes as much sense as spending millions on sending sand to Saudi Arabia.
“Could you please tell me, simply, how a democratic government can shut down a program without due process of investigating that program, its activities and its funding, and providing REASONS for such a shut down?”
Jeezus, what tripe! Sounds just like a bureaucrat, you know one of those endlessly employed tax-suckers of the really employed, justifying your job. Frankly, the Cons are Liberal-lite, perpetuating the conclusion that I came to years ago, that Conservatives were only the “care-taker” faux conservative government, while the “real” government – Liberals, sort out their leadership hopefulls, scandals or what have you, to get back into the good graces of the elctorate to come back to haunt us. Screw the Cons. I’ll vote Liberal to hasten the inevitable collapse of this dysfunctional country, because I’m not waiting for Godot, Christ or the invasion of the body snatchers for the Cons to do what they are elected to be, Conservative. Spout off all you want, sport, I lost all patience with your sort of soothing “wait for….” words with the NEP and the list of Conservative poseurs who’ve come along since. I’m sticking a Liberal sign front & center on my lawn, next election. I’m kicking all the Cons’ signs down, because they really don’t belong there, they’re poseurs, imposters, fakes.
I agree with ET. We see the Status of (Lexus Liberal) Women here in Toronto all the time.
Conservatives have a problem with getting women to support the party, especially in Ontario. Why? It’s complex. Best we leave it to women like ET to comment, but it would be helpful if more women would do so.
IMO, males tend to kvetch about the CPC capitulating and then these voters behave like the GOP did in the USA in 2006 when they got mad at the lack of conservatism, stayed home and got Reid and Pelozi. Given that momentum the US may get Obamania which will be as bad as Trudeaumania.
Instead of kvetching, what we need to do is go to work for our Conservative MP and MPP candidates and try to get some elected in vote rich Ontario which is even more swamped in Libranoi$m than Quebec used to be
The problem is with Ottawa mandarins. These leaches run the show. When a new government takes power the deputy ministers lie low for a period and then emerge and insidiously begin brainwashing the new ministers. That process probably takes a year or two which brings us to the present.
The political minister doesn’t really have a chance. He or she takes charge of a ministry that is loaded with liberal/socialist bureaucrats who are intent on carrying on business as usual.
So the new minister is surrounded on a daily basis by sycophants who will try to sabotage and convert their boss at every turn.
The Americans have it right. When a new political regime takes power all senior bureaucrats from the previous administration are fired and the new regime brings in their own like minded senior people to run the departments.
I am also surprised the government did not ask he auditor general to review the SOW when it was going through its review process. I am hoping that this is just a “treading water” compromise in hopes of getting a majority in the next election. One has to remember the MSM (liberal propoganda machine)is always looking for something to jump on and will spin anything against the “evil” Tories. Look at how things were spun when the Tories issued the cuts to the SOW. Showing true conservatism will only get you minority status in this country.(truly sad times we live in)
Harper summed everything up right before the election when he talked about how we are surrounded by lefties, in the public service to the senate. Common sense has been on holiday here’s to hoping for a Tory majority so we can clean house, get smaller govt, etc. I want to feel proud rather than embarassed to be a Canadian a lot more often that I have been.
Canada has been so liberal from top to bottom for so many years ( well enough years that a lot of young people of voting age today have known a liberal Canada all their life ) that any change by the Conservatives must be brought about carefully and slowly.
Baby steps.
I wish Harper could make things “more Conservative” and do it faster but any Conservative, Canada is a still liberal “land mine” with liberal apointees every where controlling almost everything from the courts to the CBC.
And don’t forget the combined opposing parties still have more seats than the Conservatives…
so don’t be too quick to reject Harper.
ET said:
“Could you please tell me, simply, how a democratic government can shut down a program without due process of investigating that program, its activities and its funding, and providing REASONS for such a shut down?”
Answer:
Forgive my woeful ignorance of parliamentary processes, but isn’t the Conservative braintrust able to fashion an acceptable answer based on the following points?
1. Canadian women already have equal rights, protections and political representation under Canada’s constitution and laws as men — indeed, every other citizen — do.
2. Virtually any imaginable aspect of women’s lives is already addressed by various other government departments which are continuously subject to lobbying by a variety of special-interest groups representing women of all political stripes and with every imaginable demand for government intervention.
3. Despite Canadians being dangerously overtaxed, the federal government obviously cannot fund every program requested — regardless of how worthwhile its proponents, or the government itself, might consider it.
4. Given (1), (2) and (3) above and the high priority that this Conservative Government places on … (Pick one or more of these: (a) Increasing the effectiveness and safety of our troops in Afghanistan by equipping them with helicopters and …, so that their mission can be completed as soon as possible for the benefit of ALL Canadians; (b) Renewing Canada’s crumbling urban infrastructure (assuming this to be true) for the benefit of ALL Canadians; (c) Continuing to dramatically reduce personal and business taxes in order to spur the economy and productivity-enhancing investments which benefit ALL Canadians; (d) Numerous other competing government investments which would benefit ALL Canadians; etc, etc,)
If the Conservatives are unable to knit these points into a strong argument that concludes: “For these reasons, we elect to shut down the SOW program.”, then they aren’t ready for prime time IMHO.
As a political junkie, I was unaware that this program had been re-funded to its highest historical level. So, clearly, a majority of Canadians, including women, will be utterly unaware too and will give the Conservatives NO CREDIT WHATSOEVER. (Indeed, like me, most probably only recall that the Conservatives cut the SOW budget. This reflects the current government’s general ineptitude when it comes to public relations.) Regardless, the feminist lobby is reflexively anti-Conservative and would never make any noticeable effort to acknowledge this government’s actions on behalf of women.
This bravado of yelling “Harper start acting conservative or I’ll …” is based on a bad understanding of recent history of minority governments. I think we may be stuck with minority governments for decades, if you look at the history:
Pearson had minority governments. So did Trudeau, but he got some majorities because of his phony charisma and because we were scared of the FLQ and separation. Canadians thought, rightly or wrongly, that Trudeau was the best chance of the country not busting up.
Then we had Mulroney who only got majorities because in retrospect, he made a deal with the devil … Bouchard and the Bloc.
Then we got Chrétien who only got majorities because the Conservatives were in the wilderness for 13 years.
We may never have a majority for a long time. We should get used to that idea or work our butts off to support local conservative candidates.
No, jt – I profoundly disagree with you. You are not a Conservative, but a Liberal. You expect that Government will do everything. You expect and insist that govt will not merely start up programs, but, it will take them down. You rely on the Big Government to do it all. You are basically a Liberal.
Same with rrose – you are not a Conservative but a Liberal. You expect the Govt to do everything.
I’m a Conservative. I know that we, as individuals, must retain power to Make Things Happen. And not put govt into the role where only Govt makes things happen – and that includes not only setting up programs but taking them down.
Due process doesn’t just operate in a court of law, but in ALL employment systems and heavily, particularly, in unionized and government employment systems. I assure you – that due process must be followed – and that includes everything from the number and type of people on a committee, on a hiring/firing committee, the time frames of operation, the type of evidence allowed..on and on and on and on.
This has NOTHING to do with public opinion. These due process rules and regulations are written into the contract of all govt employees, including full time and contract work.
So, your suggestions of ‘to heck with due process’ are invalid. One step away from due process and the Unions and the individuals involved will file a grievance, will file a lawsuit – and the Opposition, and the MSM will jump in with claims of Violation of Due Process, Violation of Our Rights, Totalitarianism! etc.
I agree with prospector- the civil service is Liberal dominated and it is extremely difficult to get anything through without their interference. They’ll make sure that there are lots of feminist activists at the SoW meetings to ensure funding. And so on.
But, for people here to insist on Big Govt, to both set up and take down programs – that’s pure Liberal/NDP mentality. We, the people, must take charge; we must inform our govt that WE are in charge and that we don’t want or want, certain programs.
How? We have a greater power in our hands than we’ve ever had – the blogs.
At one time, newspapers and radio were agencies of factual data; now they are activist centres for partisan propaganda. Canada is primarily a dependent economy and dependent ideology; we therefore opt for Big Govt and Big Business doing it all for us.
But Canada is maturing. It’s time individuals started to move away from Big Govt doing it all. So, my suggestion that blogs should expose the account books of groups like the Status of Women, will override the due process requirements of the unionized employees of that Status of Women enclave of well-fed feminist activists.
Nomdeblog (love that by the way) – so we are supposed to support our Conservative MP (or candidate). But what do they stand for? From what I see, they’re just like the other guys. Do we vote for them because we like the color of their lawn signs more than the color of the other guys?
No, I think we have to help them create a brand that will sell to the majority of Canadians, including the women in Ontario and the women in the rest of Canada. That means we have to debate issues like this and help them to come to a clear understanding of what they stand for and how that resonates with the public they are seeking the support of. And on this issue, they really need help in refining the brand image. Do they stand for more money for special interest groups and advocates or do they stand for conservative principles here?
If this and other fundamental questions aren’t resolved and the brand identity clarified I’ll have no reason to vote for the candidate with the blue lawn sign over the candidate with the red lawn sign.
all the more reason for Harper & CPC to get a majority.
then do all the dirty work in the first year.
can the SOW, CBC, other make work projects.
weather the storm for the next year.
then you got two more years after that for the electorate to forget.
offer up a fat tax cut leading up to the next general election.
The bureaucracy runs Canada, not the politicians, least of all the Conservatives. Most senior bureaucrats are Lieberal appointees, and these job-for-life bureaucrats would never do anything to support conservatism, especially if it means reducing “social justice’.
I fully agree with prospector. The same thing happened to Harris in Ontario. Remember when he said he had to make changes to the education system for example as quickly as possible or the bureaucrats would discuss, committee meet and delay until nothing was done. Now almost all the things he did, like zero tolerance, have been weakened or slowly disappearing.
The federal government bureacracy is solidly liberal and will block every change they can.
Meanwhile we conservatives demand action and consistency and are frustrated and angry when we see this leftist slide happening. The Liberals love it as the marbles begin to roll to the left.
Another example of different rules is the Toronto Catholic School board trustees and their stealing of expense money. My former Vice President went to jail for a year for doing the same thing these trustees are doing yet when caught by the Toronto Sun they just pay back a portion of the money they blatantly STOLE and move on. We are entitled to our entitlements, sound familar.
Wouldn’t surprise me if deal making is involved. Give the PIGS their funding back and we will make our senators pass your crime bill.
rroe, agree and to keep this on topic , until we get out of minority, we are a blended government of Dipper/Liberal/Bloc/MSM propaganda machine … thus we have to backtrack sometimes with this women’s issue being an example.
Yes, help “create the brand”, which you only get to do after a couple of years of banging away from inside your riding association and you only get listened to if you have put some sweat into the game, canvassing, phone banks etc.
As to what we stand for … we had 5 priorities last time, we’ll have 5 well researched priorities to campaign on this time. Once in power with a majority, after say 2 years, we can role out more conservative policies and campaign on those successes (hopefully) in say 2013.
Meanwhile I recommend you hang in until you see the new priorities that we will fight the next campaign on.
I believe that too many are taking an over-simplistic view of this issue. The prudent exercise of power in a minority govt must be a constant and pragmatic balancing act. Do you recall Harper’s warning during the last election, that there would be no true CPC majority as the civil service, the Senate and the judiciary are stacked with Liberals from days gone by? Add to this the fact that many parliamentary committees have a majority of opposition members and that the majority of the MSM drip constant bias against the CPC. Look at what’s going on in H of C regarding the CPC’s legislative initiatives – they simply cannot push some things thru with the current configuration of power. There is deliberate obstruction of useful legislation, simply for partisan purposes.
Given this overall scenario, which of the following is more likely? that CPC members have walked away from their long-held beliefs, OR that they simply do not yet have the power and influence necessary in our political system to effectively translate these beliefs into action?
Conservative values constitute a sea change to the existing socialist operational realities in Ottawa. Can we really have thought that the CPC, having gotten into power with a slim minority, would be able to waive a magic wand and just change everything in a couple of years? While this constant, slow see-saw of progress is frustrating in the extreme to watch, this IS how our system works (or doesn’t work in some cases). Harper, with a slim minority, does not have the type of power that Cretin, with his majorities, enjoyed – that is the reality.
Much more effort will be necessary to wake Canadians up to what has happened to our country. However, there are some signs that the message may be starting to resonate. The whole issue of the HRC’s and free speech rights, for example, appears to be catching on. The journey has been started, but it’s a difficult and long road,with some unwelcome detours.
TSowell fan – you are being, as I am often accused of being, very rational, with your suggestions that all that’s needed, is for the govt to explain to the population that we don’t really need these particular programs (eg, Status of Women, Court Challenges, Literacy etc); that hard facts show that all these issues are dealt with within other areas of govt; are not valid, are..etc.etc.
But, much as I agree with your suggestion of publicizing this – it’s not what the issue is really about.
These agencies are EMPLOYMENT Systems; they operate under the ‘social justice’ rubric of socialist welfare rhetoric of ‘helping the people’. Rubbish.
They are really centres that provide career lifelong jobs with many benefits, pensions, etc. That’s their real focus. The jobs of the people in these Commissions and Centres and Services. Very little of their budget goes into providing any services.
Now – the govt can inform the public how all these services seemingly supplied by these Centres are already looked after by other govt agencies. That won’t work, because these Centres are NOT about providing services; they are providing very well paid jobs for career public servants.
The rhetoric that these career public servants, and their union, will use to keep their jobs is pure hyperbolic emotive hysteria: eg, ‘the number of women who will suffer’; the appalling literacy rate in Canada – we were told that 40% were illiterate in Canada. Sure; the number of women who were victims of abuse in Canada *but SOW does nothing do deal with this)…on and on and on.
No data base provide by rational, reasoned arguments can be heard in the hysteric rants of emotive activists. So, your, and my, wish that all that would be necessary, is to provide the basic facts – wouldn’t work.
That’s why I’m saying that Other Voices have to be active. If we whine and cry in anger that our Conservative govt isn’t doing what we want – then, we are actually acting as Liberals. Insisting that Big Govt do everything.
I’m saying that Other Voices have to be heard. That includes blogs. It includes our own exposure of the financial actions of the Status of Women. It includes letters to MPs, to editors and so on.
Look – Ezra Levant didn’t whine that Big Govt ‘ought to’ take down the HRCs. He acted on his own. He’s got a blog site about it. And the ‘whoosh’ of speed about the HRCs abuse, as it took off from the blogosphere and moved into the MSM – and into the House, was quite remarkable.
So, we have a choice. We can act like Liberals and insist that Big Govt does it all. Or we can act like Conservatives, and take charge ourselves, and act as entrepreneurs and start up things on our own.
The Conservative party just got my last supporting money.If they want financial support ,they can get it from SOW from now on.
No, jt – I profoundly disagree with you. You are not a Conservative, but a Liberal. You expect that Government will do everything. You expect and insist that govt will not merely start up programs, but, it will take them down. You rely on the Big Government to do it all. You are basically a Liberal.
Ah, Liberal? I never said anything as to what the above statement attributes to me, read my post. I voted Conservative last election and the several before that. My riding MP is Harper. The government that I want is the government that gets out of my face and leaves me to take responsibility for myself! I’m sick of dragging around the ball and chain of “social responsibility” and minding everybody else’s business. I have yet to see the government that “I deserve” and probably never will in this Liberal-land country. This Conservative government is still Big Government minded like Big Government Liberals are, and until they change their attitude I might just as well join the flow, sport, because you guys are selling me “conservative” shinola for the alternative. Like I said above, I’m out of patience. Fish or cut bait!
“Verner said the total [2008] budget for the federal organization was $29.9 million, ‘a record for Status of Women Canada’.”
If one understood inflation, immigration, and economics one would understand that nearly every gov’t program you can name is currently at “record” levels, at least in terms of nominal dollars.
Canada has added 500,000 immigrants since Harper came to power, not to mention natural growth rates, so it is only logical that all programs would be receiving more funding than at any time previously, since there are more people.
The federal government spends $225 billion a year. People looking to defeat the government over a paltry $5 million or so are, by definition, insane. 5 mil represents such a tiny % of 225 billion that my calcuator is displaying it in scientific notation: 2.222e -5.
If your revolution is not mathematically sound I’ll pass, thanks.
I was aware that dollars had been reinstated to the Status of Women, but also that there were new guidelines regarding how it was to be spent. My understanding is that a good chunk of the money was to be spent on practical programs in local communities. If that is the case, I have a lot less trouble with this than if the money were still just for SOW political posturing, middle-class salaries, etc. Also — if this is the case, word does need to get out. Re-directing funds into practical programs is something that women should support. A lot of the lack of support for the Harper government among women, I believe, has to do with the fact that many women are badly misinformed about the issues, in part because women are very busy and do not have the opportunity to investigate issues in detail. A possible solution for this would be for Harper to work very hard ad becoming more of a public presence. Anytime I actually see him in an interview he is very impressive. He also appears to be a caring family person. I just don’t think women see that — and certainly the negative publicity by groups such as SOW makes matters worse.
This is not about big government dismantling something outside of government – it is about the amount of the funding government gives to an organization set up to give money away to interest groups desiring to promote a cause within their organizational mandate (if you look at the website on the Status of Women you see that there is a budget that is to be spent on a Women’s Community Fund and a Women’s Partnership fund). Sure there’s probably some government employees working on this – but if they don’t get money to give away then they go away. And as we learn from decreasing funding to this organization we can learn about decreasing funding to others too. It is about the opposite of big government. It is about creating a smaller government footprint on the world we live in. No funding, no SofW etc. In fact it was big government that created these monster institutions. It is the opposite of big government to not fund them.
It is a big cop out to say that it it the mandarins in Ottawa that overpower the Ministers. It is more accurate to say that the Conservatives have their eye on the court of public opinion; they see that by reducing spending in this area they risk pissing off over 700 women’s groups that work together to gender equality and that in an election if these folks are united against them, their chances of getting elected are reduced. I understand that, but why increase the funding?
The problem with the HRC’s isn’t new. Its been here as long as this particular organizational issue has been here. And it works the same way. We give money to special interest groups to represent their cause which in reality amounts to funding them oppress people who they don’t agree with – including our elected representatives who are supposed to be held responsible through the principle of responsible government – ie, being replaced at the next election.
So this is all about politics – politics without principles. Whatever else you may think about the Trudeau Liberals – at least they had a vision that they stuck too. I’m not sure I see one here, and believe me I’m looking desperately.
Nomdeblog et al – I’m sorry I cannot just go for the blue lawn sign without knowing what it stands for. And the issue of government support of agencies that attack it and other parts of civil society is huge (see the 2 examples above). Fortunately it can be tied up in marketable policies such as reduced government involvment in your life and encouraging increased self reliance and self determination while ensuring the presence of necessary safety nets.
[quote][So, we have a choice. We can act like Liberals and insist that Big Govt does it all. Or we can act like Conservatives, and take charge ourselves, and act as entrepreneurs and start up things on our own.
[/quote]
Well-said ET! Use the power not to diminish but to enable those that allow themselves to be used.
There is an elegant significance to the phrase [quote]As American as MOM “and” Apple Pie [/quote]
Liberals like to say “mom’s apple pie” for some strange reason. Maybe they have a guilt complex .. of sorts
It’s becoming clear to me that the problem is not with the Conservative party – it’s doing exactly what it always did – generally emulate what the Lieberals do so as to stay in power as long as possible. The NDP does the same thing. The leaders of both have found it easier to rise to the top of a smaller organization.
The root of the misunderstanding lies with the people who foolishly thought that the Reform Party was going to have a measureable effect on the “alliance”. Well folks, it’s time to wake up – the Conservatives used whatever power the Reform party earned to give themselves a leg up for the last couple of years of power. They’re squandering it, and like it or not, M. Dion has a real chance of taking power back.
Income Trust investors – sorry dudes, had to tell a little white lie there to get your vote. Hope you forget by the time the next election rolls around.
Anyone who thought the bureaucracy would be cut back? Sorry dudes, it’s better to keep those cats onside, so they don’t pass too many of our secret directives to the Lieberals. Or the NDP, depending on whether membership in CUPE enters into the decision. Hopefully you too will have a memory lapse in time for the next election.
Yup folks, we’ve been duped. Poor Canada.
I’ll go with rroe: “I’m sorry I cannot just go for the blue lawn sign without knowing what it stands for.”
I voted Conservative in the last election. Since then what I voted for has morphed into Liberal-lite. The Cons have a PR problem, one with their base and one with the bulk of the ROC. Who do you think will win that fight? Not the Cons “base”. In their warped little Conservative minds “who they gonna vote for” rings loud. So, next election what are the Cons going to offer, as their “brand” – more Liberal-lite? Funny, I’ve become color blind, so I probably won’t see the blue for the red all over the ballot.
rroe – The Status of Women IS a government committee, in the sense that its mandate for existence and ALL its funding comes from the government.
Therefore, deciding not to fund those ’employees’ of the Status of Women isn’t ‘outside of government’. They are protected by the union and by due process of their mandate.
And the majority of their budget isn’t spent on women’s groups or women-in-need. The majority of their budget goes in the salaries, benefits, pensions, travel etc of the women who WORK in the offices of the Status of Women.
jt – the reason I called you a Liberal is because you expect the govt to take all action. We were discussing how to get rid of SOW. Some people were saying that the Conservatives should have closed it completely. I was saying that they can’t do it; it’s a government committee, funded by govt, and ‘due process’ must be complied with and that we must ‘wait for’ this process..and a conservative majority’.
You, jt and rroe, rejected this; you both insist that the govt should take action. You, jt, wrote:
“Screw the Cons. I’ll vote Liberal to hasten the inevitable collapse of this dysfunctional country, because I’m not waiting for Godot, Christ or the invasion of the body snatchers for the Cons to do what they are elected to be, Conservative. Spout off all you want, sport, I lost all patience with your sort of soothing “wait for….”
So, you are both insisting that the Govt do what we want – End the SOW (among other things). That’s insisting that everything is up to the govt’; that’s the Liberal way of thinking, which is why I suggest that both are you are thinking in the Liberal mode.
I’m suggesting that the Conservative way of doing things is less govt and more of ‘us’ voicing our desires and taking action.
We should post, on many blogs, our opinions about the SOW. And post, on many blogs, the number of fulltime and part time employees, how much money is spent on salaries, how much on travel, on research, on..etc..etc. We’ll find out how little is spent on ‘women in need’. Most of it goes to fund these career jobs. It’s up to us. Not up to the Big Govt.
rroe “So this is all about politics – politics without principles. Whatever else you may think about the Trudeau Liberals – at least they had a vision that they stuck too”
Yeah, they have a vision all right, they see your wallet and you are happy to hand it back to them again. I guess your idea of Liberals sticking to their vision would be when Trudeau beat Stanfield on the “wage and price control” flip flop. The Chrétien GST flip flop.
Don’t BS us that the HRCs have been understood for a long time.
99.9% of the population did not even know that Section 13 existed until a few weeks ago.
In a democracy, to sneer that Conservatives “have their eye on the court of public opinion” is a dead give-away of who you are and where you are coming from with your Machiavellian attempt to throw banana peelings onto this thread. Did you get trained in an HRC or a Gender Study group employed in one of those make-work projects that ET described?
The real hidden agenda of Conservatism is de-centralization and a return to the BNA Act.
rroe and jt are Liberals who see the decentralization that Harper is undertaking will gradually empty the excess taxation of Ottawa back to the Provinces and make it impossible for the Natural Governing Party to ever buy our votes and control our lives again. Time is running out to reverse decentralizing and these 2 Liberals are hiding in the Trojan Horse on this thread.
jt and rroe are 2 peas in a pod …reminders for Conservatives to work hard when the election comes. Because there are a whole lot of lefties who are Liberals in sheeps’ clothing that we have to very very work to beat after nearly a century of NGP dominance that has infiltrated every facet of our lives.
exactly, nomdeblog –
The Liberals/Trudeau had a vision? Most certainly, and Trudeau’s vision of Big Govt, of govt offices open only to bilinguals, of balkanizing immigrants into easily-manipulated and bought identity groups, of a Charter that denied individual rights and privileged identity groups, …yes, that’s a vision. But is it a constructive and good vision?
Harper’s CPC have a vision as well- decentralization and less govt. But, just ‘saying’ these words won’t get it done. You may not believe it, but Harper is not Harry Potter; he can’t wave a wand and presto, the change appears.
Income Trusts? Almost every economist says that Harper did the right thing. Why? Because so many corporations etc were moving into the terrian, and declaring their funds non-taxable because they were relabelling them as ‘Income Trusts’ that the loss of taxed money to the govt would have meant that INDIVIDUAL Income Taxes would have had to be increased..to make up for the shortfall.
Do you guys who are so angry about Income Trusts prefer that personal Income Tax rates should be increased instead? Hmmm?
The problem with the HRC isn’t new? Yes it is; the HRCs and their actions were essentially unknown to the Canadian public. And the original HRCs were set up to deal with discrimination in the work place and housing. With not enough cases in these areas, they grew into their current focus on inhibiting free speech.
Most Canadians didn’t even know about this, because the defendants couldn’t protect themselves, didn’t have the money to hire a lawyer. And the protagonists were ‘the good guys’ in our Liberalese – gays, lesbians – and Richard Warman and the CJC. But suddenly, we’ve had two defendants who CAN defend themselves, and we’ve heard about it. As nomdeblog said, most Canadians had never heard of Section 13.1 a few weeks ago. And, had never taken it apart and examined what it really, really means.
So, Liberals, such as jt, and rroe, who want Big Govt – that’s your wish. Most of us want small govt, decentralization, and more power to the individual.
And another thing , Liberals like rroe and jt do not want Conservatives to “get it” on the female voting demographic in mega-cities .. Librano$ last life line.
Yes it is a problem to suddenly put women out of work who have been mislead into thinking that what they are doing is real and valuable. If they are say 50 years old with a BA in the Social Studies of Queen Bees , then suddenly their government funded employment center is closed , then yes that’s a problem .. .a real problem and a political problem.
Now at least a few options can happen. Once warned of the precariousness of the funding:
they can look elsewhere
they can retrain themselves
these make-work projects might even re-invent themselves into something useful
it will slow down the recruitment process , young women will be very leery of deluding themselves into working in one of those government funded ‘pretend’ organizations that ET describes.
The damage that these Librano$ identity politics creations have heaped on our country will take years to un-wind. If we attack everything the way Mike Harris did, then we will find ourselves out of power and un-able to bring capitalist solutions and smaller government ideas forward again for years.
If you suddenly stop funding something that people have been taking for granted then what you end up with is like the ending in Charlie Wilson’s War where he wants to keep putting money into Afghanistan even after the Russians have been defeated. He wants to build schools because he says “otherwise unemployed boys will turn on us and terrorize us”. (This analogy isn’t perfect, but you’ll get the idea if you’ve seen the movie)
BTW, according to a reliable source, Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Status of Women, is a feminist.
Her position is probably a patronage appointment because Quebec is “entitled” to it.
Our political system’s a bloody mess–and that’s before we even consider the politicians!