A Liberal came up with the MMP system?

I'm going to take a hard look at that before I vote on it.

I sure hope this isn't a backdoor method to retaining power.

Nice blog Steve.

Cockroaches hate light too.

Posted by: at August 28, 2007 07:59 AM

Reject MMP it's a scam to allow liberals to split the vote by running sycophant indi candidates and win the house through cooperative alignment after the election.

An insider sleaze paly if there ever was one.

If a Liberal is fogging a mirror they are actively plotting to scam you.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at August 28, 2007 09:10 AM

I am offended by the nightly ads on tv for "workingfamilies" that tell us that Mike Harris and Ernie Eves cut this and destroyed that, yada yada but for the "last four years" things have improved greatly and things are finally back on track. These are not Liberal Party ads? I guess they are banking on Mr. Barnum being correct.

Posted by: muttsrus at August 28, 2007 09:25 AM

Steve, you're investigative work is truly amazing!

I am somewhat surprised that the MSM hasn't picked up on this story. Perhaps they are lazy and content for you to do all the hard investigative work, or perhaps they are simply looking the other way, hoping the story will disappear?

You wrote:

"The phone number associated with the website was answered by the Michael Bryant constituency office, announcing that you have reached the "Michael Bryant Election Campaign".

Does that not confirm a direct link between Bryant’s NGNF website and his election campaign? If the website is directly linked to his election campaign (as indicated by the common phone number) shouldn’t its development and maintenance costs be reported as a campaign expense for the equivalent value of the professional services rendered, even if these costs are donated?

If that phone is in Bryant's constituency office, I wonder who is paying for that phone line? If it is funded by his re-election campaign, then the website support is at least partially financed by his election campaign and should be reported. One the other hand, if the phone line is funded by the constituency office, then wouldn’t that constitute a misuse of government resources?

I also wonder whether the person answering that phone line or returning its voice messages is being paid as a constituency office (ie. government) employee or is a campaign worker?

If the person is a constituency office employee, they shouldn’t be collecting government salary for campaigning. If the person is a campaign worker, why are they working out of a government office? Is Bryant’s campaign paying rent to the government for use of that office?

On Aug 23 in The Star, Michael Bryant was quoted as calling John Tory “truly boneheaded” for criticizing the Liberal government for sending Crown lawyers and judges to luxury resorts at a cost to the public of nearly $700,000. Given Bryant’s sloppy work of covering up his stealth campaign website, perhaps he should look in the mirror for the real bonehead.

I wonder if someone is working on a “No Bryant No Bonehead” website?

"We are a group of Ontarians dedicated to competent government. In particular, we support the election defeat of the Ontario Sloganator-General, Michael Bryant."

Posted by: Alan at August 28, 2007 09:48 AM

and then there is the matter of how well it will work

Statistics Canada has reported that 2.27% of homicides in Canada were committed with a registered gun and only 1.21% were committed with a registered firearm that was owned by the accused (Statistics Canada study of 5,194 homicides between 1997 & 2005). In short, these new gun control proposals will have a direct and immediate affect on the law-abiding, perhaps some small affect on perceptions of safety and a vanishingly small affect on organized crime. However clever it may be for provincial politicians to define the problem in a way that makes it a federal responsibility, as a crime control measure “No Guns = No Funeral” is doomed to failure.

In 2003, there were 161 gun homicides in Canada. Assuming that each shooting involved a separate gun we can calculate what percentage of Canadian guns were involved in these murders. If we take the official figure of seven million guns we get (161/7,000,000 = 0.000023 or .0023%). Only 23 ten thousandths of 1% of the Canadian gun stock was involved in a homicide.

If we pursue our policy of regulating crime by strictly regulating gun availability to the general public we can reasonably expect that .0023% of our efforts will affect guns used in homicide and 99.997% of our effort will be wasted.

Posted by: Bruce at August 28, 2007 07:02 PM

I agree that if the Liberals are pushing it= VOTE AGAINST IT.

It has to be another scam. Just like all the others.

Posted by: zilla at August 28, 2007 07:49 PM

I know nothing about the "No Gun, No Funeral" site.

But one blogger above says "A Liberal came up with the MMP system?"

Well, no. The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform was 103 citizens selected at random by Elections Ontario, and chaired by Judge George Thomson. Check it out:

http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/OCA%20eng%20web_MASTER-001.wmv

The result has multi-party support:

"The three of us reflect three competing, democratic, partisan traditions in Ontario. We differ on many matters of public policy. We strongly unite, however, in our commitment to an electoral system that is democratic in more than name. The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform produced an imaginative and practical proposal that will give us more choice, fairer results and stronger representation. We urge all Ontarians to come together and vote Yes for MMP in the October 10 referendum.”

Carolyn Bennett, MP, Liberal Party
Ed Broadbent, former NDP leader
Senator Hugh Segal, Conservative Party"

http://www.voteformmp.ca/about_campaign/campaign_activities

Posted by: Wilf Day at August 29, 2007 11:21 AM