First of all, Phil totally exhausted that whole "carbon tax" rhetoric in the 2008 election.
Second of all, Phil, do you really not care about the environment that much? You have kids. Do you really want your children to grow up in a world that you not only you did nothing to protect, but in which you fought to defeat those who sought to protect it? Do you want them to drink that dirty water, to breathe that dirty air? Are you willing to pay that price, for partisan politics?
Phil has to realize that he's more than just bumblin' Phil McColeman. His job is to represent his constituents. Phil may be anti-choice personally, and that's okay. We're all entitled to our opinions. But when he takes his personal ideological beliefs and forces them into the political sphere, that's where it becomes a problem. Brantford is not full of Tea Party supporters, and Phil's not representing Brant when he votes like a Tea Partier.
Decades of progress in women's rights, and Phil would have dumped them like yesterday's trash. Well, if ever we needed a sign, here it is: it's time to DUMP PHIL.
It goes to a vote Wednesday. What will Phil do?? He has three options. He can join the Tea Party caucus of the Conservative party, where we know his heart truly lies. He can oppose the motion and stay loyal to the Dear Leader. Or he can skip the vote together and risk incurring the wrath of whichever side loses (and appear a coward at the same time). This is going to be an exciting week, folks.
Motion 312 is a private member's motion put forward by Phil's Conservative colleague Stephen Woodworth, who hails from neighbouring Kitchener (click here to read Motion 312 on Woodworth's website).
Motion 312 would re-open the abortion debate by re-opening the debate
about when life begins – currently, Criminal Code s. 223 states that life
begins at the moment of birth. If the Conservatives change that law to state that life begins earlier (for example, if the Conservatives decide that life begins at the moment that sperm fertilizes a female egg), then abortion would be legally considered murder and, therefore, quite illegal.
Phil McColeman has not stated how he will vote on this bill. But we can be fairly certain that Phil supports re-opening the abortion debate in Canada, for the following reasons:
Phil owes it to his constituents to come right out and state that he wants to re-open the abortion debate, notwithstanding that it could result in the deprivation of women's rights across the country. Here's a recent letter to the editor calling Phil out for his cowardly silence:
On a final note, DumpPhil.ca would like to wish a Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there, and also offer our support for a woman's freedom to choose whether she will become a mother or not.
Phil is correct when he writes that “This proposed legislation will not allow police to read e-mails or browse web history without a warrant.” The police cannot just hack into your computer and go through your files.
The first part of Bill C-30 (sections 6 – 15) require all Internet service providers to record your IP address, and to have the capability to track your IP address to your name and address. What is an IP address? It’s like a digital fingerprint that you leave on any website that you visit. And anyone who runs any website you visit has access to those “fingerprints”. The police will also have access to those "fingerprints". So under Bill C-30, your Internet company is now obligated by law to keep a file that links that “fingerprint” to your name and address.
The second part of Bill C-30 (sections 15 – 21) lets the police demand that the Internet service provider give them the file connecting your IP address to your name and address, and the Internet service provider has to comply. In other words, all the police have to do is ask your Internet company, “Who does this digital fingerprint belong to?”, and your Internet company has to give the police your name and address. The most important part about these sections is that they DO NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT.
The final part of Bill C-30 (section 23) overrides another law designed to protect your privacy (the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or "PIPEDA"). The PIPEDA requires a warrant if the police want to get your name and address based on your IP address, except in cases of emergency like matters of national security.
Phil didn’t mention any of this in his article, because he doesn’t want you to know. Phil doesn’t want you to know that experts have said that Bill C-30 will likely result in police “fishing expeditions” that will compromise your online privacy. The police will be able to track your IP address, and then ask your internet company for your name and address. In this way, the authorities will easily be able to figure out what you’ve been up to online. Most importantly, the authorities will be able to do this WITHOUT A WARRANT.
Been researching explosives for a school science project? You might get police knocking on your door. Been looking at adult pornography online? Busted. Been leaving anonymous comments on Dump Phil? You’re not so anonymous anymore.
The optics of this alone are fantastic. A middle-aged white guy standing up in Parliament and trying to overturn decades of progress for women’s rights. Amazing. Bravo. Somebody give this guy a medal. Somebody name a park after him.
This is not the first time I have wondered: What. On. Earth. Is. Phil. McColeman. Thinking?!?!?!?
We now need to know whether Phil also used Front Porch Strategies to call voters. We need to know for a couple of reasons:
First, it is hypocritical for Phil to use a U.S. company while he spends so much time talking about creating jobs for Canadians. In fact, there's a great call centre in downtown Brantford. Why does Phil use an American company instead of contributing to Canadian jobs?
Second, Front Porch Strategies does most of its work for the Republican Party. If Phil is using a Republican call centre, it is just importing into Canada the dirty, opportunistic, U.S.-style political tactics that Phil himself has criticized in the past.
Third, if Phil used Front Porch to deliver automated phonecalls, perhaps he used the calls to send Liberal/NDP voters to non-existent voting locations. As the Robo-call scandal deepens, we need to know if Phil was involved
Phil needs to come clean on the extent of his involvement with Front Porch Strategies. And if he has any balls, he should also call for a public inquiry into the Robo-call election fraud.
Here's a great cartoon from the Brant News. It features Phil pretending to care about seniors, while at the same time slashing their Old-Age Security benefits, and hiding his gold-plated MP pension behind his back:
Brant MP Phil McColeman was fear mongering in Parliament on Feb. 2 when he said it “is necessary at this point…to reinforce the sustainability” of your old age pension benefits by cutting them.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, experts from the OECD, leading universities and the government itself have all said our Old Age Security (OAS) program does not face major challenges and there’s no pressing need for change.
Canada’s parliamentary budget officer says that Old Age Security is sustainable beyond the year 2082. Payments today cost 2.4 per cent of our national GDP. When the boomers max out in 2031, that percentage will climb to 3.1 per cent, but then drop off again.
Conservatives like Phil McColeman are really trying to raid your retirement savings to pay for their extreme ideological agenda.
They say current seniors won’t see their benefits cut, but they aren’t saying anything about tomorrow’s seniors – hard working Canadians who have based their retirement plans around having old age pensions available to them.
The fact is that more than half of old age pensions go to seniors earning less than $25,000 year.
Canadian workers have paid taxes their entire careers expecting that these benefits will be available to them when they turn 65.
Raising the age for OAS will mean that some will have to stay longer in the workforce, whether they’re physically up to it or not.
Seniors’ poverty rates could rise by one-third. That’s just not right – not in a successful country like Canada.
Scott Brison, MP
Liberal Party of Canada finance critic
Phil McColeman's constituency office was occupied by protesters who were suitably upset over his support for cutting Old-Age Security benefits (OAS). The protesters were worried that their retirement would be jeapordized by the OAS cuts. For more details, see articles in the Brantford Expositor and the Brant News.