Details

Two months after asking for an appointment with my MPP, Christine Elliott, I am getting one and I am grateful.  

This morning’s ERA newspaper tells me others aren’t so lucky.

I have been given 15 minutes on Monday 12 August 2019 to say what I have to say and after the usual pleasantries I won’t have a second to waste. 

I want to raise two issues and I have given Dawn Gallagher Murphy, the Constituency Manager and Executive Assistant, notice of what these are.

There will be no pointless ambushes. 

Issue 1: I want to find out what’s happening with the Beer Store Act. It has gone through the legislature but has not yet been proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor and is still not law. The Lieutenant Governor acts on the advice of the Executive Council of Ontario which is Ford’s Cabinet by another name. If Ford wants it proclaimed he only has to ask and it will be done.

However, press reports suggest the Act will just lie there and not be brought into force. This would persuade the big brewers who (in the main) own the Beer Store to sit down and talk about the current contract with the Province which, says Ford, stifles competition. 

A year ago, on 7 August 2018, Elliott told the legislature:

“Buck-a-beer is part of the government’s commitment to transforming alcohol retailing in Ontario, which includes expanding the sale of beer and wine to convenience stores, grocery stores and big box stores. This is just further evidence that our government is going to do what we said we would do, and that’s put Ontario consumers first.”

So…

It's Question Time for my MPP

Question 1: When will Andrew’s Convenience Store in Aurora be able to sell beer and wine?

Question 2: When will the Beer Store Act (the Liquor Control Act as amended) be proclaimed?

Question 3: When that happens what is to stop the Beer Store owners going to Court for breach of contract? 

Question 4: If the Province negotiates with the Beer Store owners and decides to settle out of Court, what would that settlement look like?

Issue 2: As a matter of good government, Public Bills being considered by the Legislative Assembly should have a Committee Stage – unless there is some kind of emergency that makes that impossible.

Bills have committee stages to allow our MPPs to hear from and take evidence from the public and from those who might be directly affected by legislation.

Parliamentary Process and Procedure subverted

While in Opposition many Progressive Conservative MPPs complained about Parliamentary procedures being subverted in the rush to get Bills passed and on to the Statute Book.

With the Ford Government, there was, of course, no committee stage of the Beer Store Bill which barrelled through the legislature in double-quick time. Likewise there was no committee stage for the Bill which cut the size of Toronto City Council by half.

The Ford Government is considering big changes in the structure of municipal government and it would be lunacy to embark on an expensive and disruptive reorganisation of municipal government without hearing from the public first.

Question 5: Will any Bill to restructure municipal government have a Committee Stage whose duration reflects the complexity of the Bill’s provisions?

Ding! Ding!

Time’s up!

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Notes: The Beer Store owners may seek damages for breach of contract. But is this even possible given the nature of the legislation?

The Beer Store Bill states there is no remedy for the Government’s breach of contract.

Yet the 2015 Master Framework Agreement negotiated and agreed between the Wynne Government and the brewers says this:

8.6 Remedies for Breach

(a) Any allegation of material breach of this Agreement (or with respect to Section 8.6(d), the Shareholders Agreement) shall be resolved pursuant to Sections 8.1 and 8.6, including the requirement in Section 8.1(b) of a Notice of Dispute. In determining whether such a material breach has occurred, an Arbitration Tribunal appointed pursuant to Section 8.1(d) and Schedule 8.1 shall treat all obligations in this Agreement, including post-termination obligations in Section 8.7, as binding and enforceable against the Province despite its status as the Crown, even where the alleged breach results from a change in legislation or public policy.  (My underlining)

In late May 2019 (before the legislation passed the Legislature) the Beer Store President told the Globe and Mail:

“The government cannot extinguish our right to damages as outlined in the Master Framework Agreement."

Details

The Federal Government’s inaction on banning handguns and assault weapons is inexcusable. 

Trump today on the El Paso and Dayton mass murders

Their timidity is deplorable.

The Minister in charge of the dithering, former Toronto police chief Bill Blair, says the Liberal election platform may include something on assault weapons. And while there will be no nationwide ban on handguns municipalities are likely to be given the powers to impose additional restrictions on handguns in their own patch. Seriously? Is this it?

Mass shootings now the new normal

Mass shootings have now become normalised in the dysfunctional United States. They happen all the time. In El Paso 22 people are murdered and 26 injured. In Dayton, 10 are slain and 27 injured. There are the usual thoughts and prayers but nothing will change down there. 

If Sandy Hook Elementary School (27 killed); Las Vegas (58 killed, 422 wounded) and Orlando Night Club (49 killed, 53 wounded) couldn’t persuade Congress to act then nothing will. 

The United States has shown itself to be incapable of addressing this epidemic of mass murder.

But why don’t we act to stop this madness from taking hold in Canada? Here there is no Second Amendment right to bear arms.

After Danforth what does it take?

A year ago we had Danforth where 3 people were killed and others left with life changing injuries. A young woman in the prime of life is left paralysed from the waist down. Who weeps for her?

Not the Federal Government. It is content to “consult” on the way forward. Ministers are afraid of offending the 2.1 million firearm licence holders in Canada. But what about the rest of us who don’t want or need guns?

The Government is strengthening gun laws (C72) but it is not enough.

The Government’s own figures show gun homicides have nearly doubled (98.5%) from 134 in 2013 to 266 in 2017. 

More than half (55%) of firearm-related homicides in 2017 were committed using handguns. 

Violent offences specific to firearms have increased by 45% since 2013, rising from 1,892 incidents in 2013 to 2,734 incidents in 2017.

And the spiralling incidence of gun crime shows no signs of levelling off.  

Government relies on flawed survey results 

The Government’s consultation in the wake of Danforth told us they had 135,00 responses to their on-line questionnaire.

But the survey was seriously flawed. Astonishingly, people could vote multiple times – and they did, invalidating the result.

But did Bill Blair comment on this? No.

It was no surprise that the key finding from the fraudulent online questionnaire was this:

“Majority of respondents did not support further limiting access to firearms and assault-style firearms”

Bill Blair gives weight to this tosh.

And resolves to keep us safe from gun violence.

How?

Gordon.prentice@shrinkslessorsquare

There are three categories of firearms in Canada:  Restricted: handguns, certain rifles and semi-automatics; Prohibited: certain handguns, fully automatic rifles, and sawed off rifles; and Non-restricted: standard hunting rifles and shotguns.

Update on 8 August 2019 from the Toronto Star: Tougher gun measures on election agenda.

Details

Tony Van Bynen, the freshly minted 69 year old Liberal candidate for Newmarket-Aurora and our next MP, continues to block me from reading his Tweets.

I have tweeted the Liberal Party (@liberal_party) to ask if that’s OK and what’s going to happen when, in 12 weeks time, he is my MP. 

Once he is comfortably settled in Ottawa will he respond to my emails on public policy issues or will he still block me? 

If I want to talk to him about, say, a ban on handguns or the climate emergency or income inequality or any one of a thousand other issues will he silently ignore me? 

Or will he engage with the argument? 

Tony Van Bynen's Liberal Campaign Team tells us he needs volunteers 

“to help with the crucial task of connecting with our voters at the door”.

I am left wondering if Tony will be knocking on my door to connect with me.

Tony needs YOUR HELP

In any event Tony is counting on YOUR HELP and you can join him at any or all of these fun events:

Saturday August 3rd 1.30-4pm. Meet at Talent Montessori School, 69 McLeod Dr, Aurora  

Sunday August 4th 1.30-4pm. Meet at Sir William Mulock S.S, 705 Columbus Way, Newmarket 

Tuesday August 6th 6.30-8.30pm. Meet at Devins Dr PS, 70 Devins Dr, Newmarket. 

Thursday August 8th 6.30-8.30pm. Meet at Ray Twinney Arena, Newmarket. 

Saturday August 10th 1.30-4pm. Meet at Newmarket Community Centre, 200 Doug Duncan Dr. 

Sunday August 11th 1.30-4pm. Meet at Sir William Mulock S.S, 705 Columbus Way, Newmarket 

Onwards and Upwards!

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Below: Tony wows his audience at his nominating meeting on 8 July 2019. Tony was the only candidate to throw his hat into the ring. 

Details

Why on earth does the convicted fraudster Conrad Black want to return to the United Kingdom to reclaim his seat in the House of Lords?  

Does he just like dressing up? Or has he got something to say?

Black has been on leave of absence from the House of Lords. To get back he needs to give the Clerk of the Parliaments three months notice that he intends to sit in the Lords again.

The BBC recently reported that Black was planning a return to the House of Lords for the first time since he was convicted in 2007.

“Lord Black said he had already planned to retake his seat after being released from prison but the presidential pardon “makes it easier”.”

The reporter points out:

“Your co-defendants convicted of the same crime (Richard Boultbee and Peter Atkinson) did not receive a pardon.”

And Conrad Black replies:

“But they haven’t asked for one… I don’t see why they don’t apply for one.”

Pardon me. Pardon them.

I suppose His Lordship could make a recommendation to Trump, to pardon them as Trump pardoned him.

Eric H. Sussman, who prosecuted Conrad Black, told readers of the Financial Post that the presidential pardon is a mockery of justice:

“The pardon lays bare the fact that justice in Donald Trump’s America is unapologetically linked to who you know and how much money you have.”

Sussman says he was saddened but not surprised that Trump decided to pardon Black for his theft of millions of dollars from public shareholders and obstruction of justice.

“Nothing betrays the mockery that President Trump has made of our justice system more than the fact the Black’s co-defendants, Richard Boultbee and Peter Atkinson, Canadians who were convicted by the same jury, at the same trial, of the same fraud crimes as Black, did not receive any pardon consideration from President Trump. They remain convicted federal criminals with no pop singers or right-wing pundits to vouch for them.”

In fact, Black did not go through the usual channels (ie the US Department of Justice) to apply for his pardon. He lobbied the White House directly through Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor who is one of Trump’s staunchest defenders.

The Washington Post reported on 23 May that:

“Conrad Black (had) enlisted one of Trump’s biggest on-air defenders, Alan Dershowitz, to get the president’s attention.”

And it worked.

Black has refused to send me the Report from the White House Counsel’s Office which allegedly persuaded Trump to issue his pardon. So I asked the Office of the Pardon Attorney for a copy. They tell me:

“We have received your correspondence requesting a copy of a report alleged to have been created by the Office of White House Counsel related to Conrad Moffat Black, who was granted a Presidential pardon on May 15, 2019.”  

“Please be advised that Mr. Black did not submit a pardon petition through the Department of Justice (the Department), so we are unaware of and cannot confirm or deny the existence of the records used by the President to make the above-referenced clemency decision.”  

Black's contributions in the House of Lords

Black joined the Lords on 31 October 2001.

In his maiden speech on 15 May 2002 Baron Black told his fellow peers:

“My Lords, it is a privilege to be here. After the tortuous course that I pursued getting to your Lordships’ House I would be remiss if I did not thank the former Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister for their kind persistence on my behalf…”

Next up is Viscount Slim who says it is a great privilege to hear from Lord Black:

“We hope to see him here often. I congratulate him on a marvellous maiden speech.”

We hope to see him here often!  

In all his many years as a member of the House of Lords Conrad Black has spoken twice. (The second occasion was on Iraq on 28 November 2002.) 

Isn’t it an impertinence to allow someone like Black, a convicted fraudster, to be part of the UK’s legislature, making the laws for everyone else? 

Criminal Record not "expunged" by Trump's pardon

To be clear, Black’s criminal record is not expunged by Trump’s pardon. Only a Court of Law can expunge a criminal conviction.

New rules set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Lords, agreed in 2015, make provision for the expulsion or suspension of a member but these are not retrospective. He is a peer for life and has been registered to sit as a cross-bencher (or independent) since the Conservative whip was withdrawn in 2007 on his imprisonment. 

In the House of Commons the rules are different. A jail sentence of a year or more for an MP means automatic expulsion. 

Despite everything Lord Black of Crossharbour retains his title and his privileges and his trade-mark braggadocio.

When he eventually stirs himself and returns to the House of Lords I am left wondering what his third speech will be all about.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Black renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2001 to get into the House of Lords. On his release from prison in the United States in 2012 he was allowed into Canada on a temporary residence basis. He is still here. 

 

Details

Central Moscow is in turmoil as thousands of protesters take to the streets to demand fair elections to the City Council on 8 September 2019. 

Over 1,300 people were detained by police over the weekend with reports of protesters being brutally clubbed and manhandled.

The protesters say the election authorities are refusing to register candidates they don’t want to see on the City Council, inventing reasons to keep them off the ballot paper. We are told disqualified candidates submitted forms that contained errors or fraudulent signatures.

The demonstrations are happening just days after I return home from Russia. In Moscow I saw little groups of flag waving protesters but nothing on the scale now being reported. Otherwise I would have joined in to learn more about the issues.

Heavy police presence

There is a heavy police and security presence in central Moscow but I figure this is just normal.

The Western tourists I speak to marvel at the prosperity and freedom of today’s Russia, at least in the big tourist destinations. They and their tourist guides openly crack jokes about the KGB and the old surveillance state when everyone was frightened to say boo! to a goose. Things are different now, they say. 

A bronze dog in the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg – pointed out to us as we file by - is the spitting image of Vladimir Putin. We all chortle. Then gales of laughter. What fun! 

The huge GUM store on Red Square – once the shopping destination of choice for the Soviet Union’s nomenklatura offering goods that couldn’t be found anywhere else – is now full of high-end fashion outlets and very expensive international brands.

But behind the glitz there is a different reality. 

Assassination a stone's throw from the Kremlin

One morning as I am walking over Stalin’s bridge to Red Square I come across two women, perched on little stools, in front of flowers and photographs of Boris Nemtsov, a Russian politician and an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin whom he believed to be deeply corrupt. 

Nemtsov was assassinated on 27 February 2015 on this very bridge, a five-minute stroll from Red Square. As tourists wander past, unaware of that brutal killing four years ago, I ask the women how long they’ve been there and what the authorities think about the protest. I learn there are about 60 of them who take it in turns to keep the protest going. They’ve been there every day since Nemtsov was shot dead with four bullets in the back. 

They want those responsible to be tracked down and brought to justice and for a memorial to be erected on the spot where Nemtsov was slain. Personally, I can’t see it happening. 

In the early days, they tell me the authorities were very hostile to the protest but the women are now largely left alone. Sometimes men in boots appear and throw the flowers over the bridge parapet. When I ask for a leaflet explaining more about the protest, the women shake their heads (there are no leaflets) but one gives me the lapel badge she is wearing.

 Now I am reading about an opposition politician Alexei Navalny who has been hospitalised as 

 “the result of harmful effects of undefined chemical substances”. 

Radioactive relationships

We all know about polonium but I wonder what else is in the cupboard? 

The former UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, reportedly told Putin in a private meeting at the G20 summit in Osaka last month that, in relation to the Salisbury poisoning, there was:

“irrefutable evidence that Russia was behind the attack – based on painstaking investigations and cooperation with our allies”

Russia, of course, denies this.

Russia Today just reports the news as they see it.

In the same way, the assassinated Boris Nemtsov and the four year vigil on the bridge is not news and is therefore not reported.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Soviet Union collapsed on 26 December 1991. 

Update on 31 July 2019 from the Globe and Mail: The Kremlin lashes out, but Russians are no longer afraid to fight back.

Update on 3 August 2019 from the Guardian: Opposition leader detained. And more here.

Update on 4 August 2019 from the Observer on the police crackdown.

Update on 11 February 2020: From the Guardian. Prague Square - home to the Russian Embassy - is named after Boris Nemtsov.

  • You are here:  
  • Home