Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Phil McColeman embarasses himself again...

After resorting to cowardly personal attacks against the Member of Parliament from Ajax-Pickering, the Speaker forces Phil to withdraw his comments!

Phil is not giving Brant a good name, the Welcome to Brantford sign will one day say:


Thursday, November 25, 2010

Quotable Quotes: Finance Critic

The opposition finance critic Scott Brison visited Brantford last week. Here's what he said:
“Wayne Gretzky said 'you don’t skate to where the puck is at, you skate to where the puck is going.' What I fear is that the current government has been so focused on this week’s polls that they haven’t looked ahead.”
Mr. Brison said that we are still in a real recession, and the hard-working people of Brant know that. But the Conservatives, including Phil McColeman, are wasting money on the G20 summit and prisons, instead of investing in long-term solutions.

Phil Makes a Complete Phool of Himself

Phil has a reputation for saying stupid things in the Public Safety Committee and in Parliament. Well he's dunnit again:
Conservative MPs heaped praise Monday on three ex-convicts who've cleaned up their lives, without seeming to grasp they're exactly the types of serious, repeat offenders targeted by the government's latest tough-on-crime legislation.

"We need to clearly focus on the type of people -- and they are the repeat offenders, they're the most heinous people -- that we're trying to focus this legislation on," Conservative MP Phil McColeman told the committee.

That prompted witness John Hutton, the executive director of the John Howard Society of Manitoba, to interject.

"I'm sorry, these are the people you're talking about!" said Hutton, extending his arms to encompass the other witnesses at the table.
It gets even better…

As reported by Maclean's magazine, after the meeting Phil called Liberal MP Mark Holland soft on crime. Holland said that this was untrue. So Phil stood up in Parliament and said:
"Mr. Speaker, since being elected to the House some two years ago and a bit, I will take no lessons from the member for Ajax—Pickering when it comes to presenting issues to Parliament that are not based on any factual evidence. I will take no lessons from that member."
That's right – Phil is an expert at presenting issues that are NOT based on factual evidence!

That is what he does every time he blathers on about "tough on crime", after all.


Sometimes people who don't write for this blog make excellent comments about Phil McColeman. Check out this following letter to the editor:
Caring not enough for MP

After reading Blaine Field's letter "McKay, MP make him proud" (Nov. 16) it makes me want to share my thoughts on the subject of our MP's responsibility and obligations.

I totally agree with Field's comments about our MP's character, but character is only a small portion of their job description. Phil McColeman is a well-liked individual of our community but the job goes deeper than being kind, caring and well-spoken. I would guess at least a third of our community could do the same effort that Mr. McColeman has done for us.

It just seems to be that our political leaders are catering to the higher society of our region because that's where the votes are. But you look at the obstacles our city is facing over the past decade like poverty, homelessness, unemployment, with addiction and mental illness at the all-time high. Do you know about 1,000 people frequent one addiction clinic per day, plus the food bank users are at an all-time high?

It is unfortunate that our middle-to low-income families rarely vote because of depression and other problems.

The day our Mr. McColeman steps up to the plate and represents all the people of this fine city is the day I will be the first to shake his hand.

Part-time politicians are not acceptable with the many challenges we face today. Just a few thoughts to consider. Let's stay positive.

James Hildebrandt
This letter helps explain why Phil has his office in the green pastures of the north end, far from the grime of downtown, or the toil of the West End. It's hard to stay positive, James, when you have an MP who doesn't seem to care about most of his constituents.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

What exactly are Canada's foreign policy principles?

To a question about Canada being denied a seat on the UN Security Council, Phil McColeman had this response:
Our government makes foreign policy decisions based on what's right and on the principles that Canadians hold dear. These positions may not always be the most popular with some members of the UN, however we will not apologize for doing what is right.
Great work, once again parroting the party line without even understanding what it means. What ARE the principles that Canadians hold dear? Making a fool of ourselves on the international stage? Letting the rest of the world take care of funding for needy Africa? Being so belligerant in the Middle East that we get kicked out of the United Arab Emirates? Refusing to fund maternal health programs??

And by the way, Mr. McColeman, Canada's current position is not just unpopular with some members of the UN; Canada's position is evidently unpopular with most members of the UN. Yes Canada should stand beside Israel. But we could help out Israel a LOT more if we had a seat on the Security Council.

Maybe Defence Minister Peter McKay can explain what Canada's foreign policy principles actually are when he visits Brantford next week.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Phil Blames the Liberals… again

When he comes under fire for poor performance, Phil McColeman's only response is "Blame the Liberals." In the world according to Phil, there is apparently a vast Liberal conspiracy to destroy him (and this non-partisan blog is part of that paranoid worldview).

Opposition MP John McCallum is planning to use Brant as an example of how the Conservatives messed up their stimulus spending of taxpayer dollars. McCallum read some comments by City Councilor Richard Carpenter in this Maclean's article. Aside from the irony of someone named CARPENTER calling out Phil the self-proclaimed renovation nut, Mr. Carpenter has some valid criticisms (which can be found in this blog post).

Phil's response? "The liberal machine trying to win points to show that the government is wasting government money in Brantford."

Mr. Carpenter was above all that. He responded that he wouldn’t get caught up in “the party politics games."

Actually, Phil & friends have been playing the "Blame the Liberals" card for years. See this post and this post for example. How about actually addressing the accusations next time??

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Phil's Cronies Get Great Perks

Here's a recent letter to the editor in the Expositor:
New job for police chief

Our very recently retired chief of police, Derek McElveny, has been appointed to the National Parole Board. He made no mention of this when he retired just a few days ago, but he surely was aware of the appointment.

He will receive his full, unreduced, pension as a police officer and will receive a handsome salary as a member of the National Parole Board.

He is a very close friend of MP Phil McColeman, a "skiing buddy" who spends much time with Mr. McColeman in New York State.

How much was our MP involved in this appointment? Why did Mr. McElveny not tell us when he retired that he was getting this appointment? Does our MP think it is fair to take steps to ensure his buddies are rewarded with our tax dollars?

Richard Trebilcock

On its face, it looks like Phil is hooking up his buddies with sweet government jobs. If only he could stand up for ordinary Brantfordians with the same degree of success!

(In all fairness, this is a response letter to the editor in Phil's defence. It plays the typical "Blame the Liberals" card without addressing the substance of Trebilcock's original complaint.)

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Phil's Silly Stats

Phil claims that he conducted "fairly extensive" surveying of Brantfordians on the long gun registry issue. I wonder if he considers mailing an insultingly biased survey to your house as a statistically reliable source!

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Friday, September 24, 2010

Phil's Pointless Promise

Phil McColeman was very happy to announce funding for an extension to Brantford's famous Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre. But then he imposed an impossible construction deadline. Now city councilors are desperately trying to get a funding extension for the project beyond March 2011. If they don't get an extension, Brant is faced with the choice of either paying extra money to get the project finished early, or paying extra money to complete the project after the deadline.

Brantford City Councilor Richard Carpenter said that "the federal government was interested mainly in showy photo-ops and not needed work such as road repair, leading to an overwhelming amount of arena and community centre renovations across the country and thus causing a bottleneck situation with contractors" that ultimately raised the cost of doing these renovations.

In Ottawa, Phil was too busy blabbering on about the gun registry instead of fighting for issues that really affect Brantfordians. However, Liberal Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Critic John McCallum did stand up for Brantford. McCallum said,
Next year, the Conservatives will spend billions on corporate tax cuts, while offering no flexibility to cities and communities who had to wait on the government’s delays.… The federal government is stiffing municipal ratepayers with the bill for Conservative delays instead of helping to finish projects. We need to finish the job and extend the deadline.
But Brant city councilors doubt that Phil and the Conservatives will listen to their request.

One Mouth, Two Tongues

French Canadians have an expression that goes, "She has one mouth, two tongues." It means that somebody contradicts themself or says two opposite things. It certainly applied to Phil McColeman yesterday. First, he behaved like a sore loser after losing the vote on the gun registry, which has proven to be an invaluable crime-fighting tool. In Parliament he said:
Twenty coalition MPs originally supported the simple and straightforward bill to scrap the long gun registry, but under pressure from their Ottawa bosses, they turned their backs on their constituents and voted to keep the registry. One of those flip-floppers…

On this side of the House, we do not believe in treating law-abiding hunters, farmers and sports shooters as criminals and we will continue to work to scrap the $2 billion wasteful registry.
Well you know what, Phil? If I don't register and insure my car I can be charged on summary conviction and have to pay a fine. In other words, I'm a "criminal." That's because a car can be used as a deadly weapon and can cause damage to property, in addition to being an invaluable tool. Kind of like a gun, don't you think?

Then, Phil spoke in favour of a nonsensical tough-on-crime bill regarding prisoner transfers, despite the fact that crime has been decreasing for decades in Canada:
…we have taken action on the economy and on many other fronts including cracking down on crime. In particular, we have introduced several measures to crack down on violent gun crimes.

The bottom line, as I mentioned, is that Canadians want a justice system that works.

[This bill], therefore, reflects this government's commitment we have made to Canadians to stand up for victims and to ensure our streets, our homes, and our playgrounds are safer places.

This act would ensure the protection of our society is given paramount consideration
So instead of preventing violent gun crime by making people register their guns, Phil would rather punish people after they've committed the crime. In terms of considering the victim, I think that your average victim would rather not be a victim in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Just ask MP Scott Simms what it's like to have someone in your family killed by a gun. He is one of the "flip-floppers" who voted in favour of the gun registry. If we can prevent even a single death, he said, the registry is worth it. He didn't mention punishment after the fact.

(Mr. Simms also doesn't go around posting tasteless photos of himself with assault rifles.)

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Phil with an Automatic Weapon

True to form, Phil has posted a photo of himself with an automatic weapon on his website.

(See this post, this post, this post, and this post for more on Phil's unwavering hatred of the firearms registry).

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Philnocchio lied about the gun registry!

Everything Phil has ever said about the gun registry is false.

CBC broke the story...

Long-gun registry efficient: RCMP report
Last Updated: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 | 10:02 PM ET

CBC News

An RCMP evaluation report of Canada's long-gun registry concludes that the program is cost effective, efficient and an important tool for law enforcement, CBC News has learned.

The findings of the report, conducted with the help of outside auditors and completed six months ago, have been in the hands of the government since February, but have not yet been released.

Rifles line an Ottawa hunting store's shelves in this 2006 photo. An RCMP evaluation report of Canada's long gun registry concludes that the program is cost effective and efficient. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)
One section of the report states: "The program, as a whole, is an important tool for law enforcement. It also serves to increase accountability of firearm owners for their firearms."

The report found that the cost of the program is in the range of $1.1 million to $3.6 million per year and that the Canadian Firearms Program is operating efficiently.

“Overall the program is cost effective in reducing firearms related crime and promoting public safety through universal licensing of firearm owners and registration of firearms," the report states.

The full report contains over 40 pages of analysis of the effectiveness of the firearms registry, in both urban and rural areas. The RCMP would only confirm that the report is still being translated and could not give a firm date for its release.

The Conservatives have denounced the long-gun registry, which was introduced by the Liberal government of Jean Chr├ętien in 2002, as wasteful and ineffective.

A private member's bill being considered this fall that would scrap the registry.

Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner's bill, which passed second reading in the House last spring, is slated to face a vote in the House of Commons in September.

Earlier this week, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said Canadians must see the report before Parliament votes on the issue.

“If that information is in fact made available to Canadians and to Parliamentarians then perhaps our parliamentarians will be in a far better position to make an informed decision about Bill C-391 and they will have a much better understanding of the value of the gun registry to law enforcement and public safety," Blair said.

His comments came as members of the police chiefs' association at their annual meeting endorsed a national firearms strategy that includes a recommendation for a public relations campaign to explain the value of the long-gun registry.

Police chiefs and police organizations across Canada have voiced support for the registry, saying it is a valuable tool in assisting officers in doing their job.

But some police officers have expressed support for eliminating the registry, saying it doesn't give frontline officers any comfort when they are entering a home or pulling over a driver.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Phil's Gun Crazy

The following is a great recent article in the Expositor:

Keep the long gun registry, Mr. McColeman

By Pat Kawamoto, The Brantford Expositor, August 7, 2010

Contrary to Brant MP Phil McColeman’s recent article on ending the long gun registry, not all Canadians are fed up with paying for it.

While the initial cost to implement the registry was high, police associations confirm that it is now controlled by the RCMP and costs this country a reasonable $4.1 million per year to run.

Also, while McColeman’s article iimplies that police chiefs and officers do not support the long gun registry, it should be noted that all of the major Canadian organizations representing police support the registry -including The Canadian Police Association, representing 41,000 police officers in Canada and The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs.

Additionally, Ontario’s Attorney General, public health organizations, labour organizations, social organizations, women’s safety experts and many others support the long-gun registry.

In fact, the parliamentary standing committee on public safety and national security, which McColeman acknowledges he is a part of, recommended to the House of Commons in its latest report that the government should keep the long-gun registry as it is a tool “…that promotes and enhances public security and the safety of Canadian police officers.”

Here’s what the experts are saying (visit www.guncontrol.cafor more information) and what McColeman’s article didn’t tell you:

– As of 2009, 111,533 firearms were seized by police for public safety reasons. Of those 87,893 or 78.8% were long guns;

– Of the 16 police officer shooting deaths in Canada since 1998, 14 were the result of long guns.

– Police across Canada access the long gun registry about 11,000 times a day, or more than four million times a year. Of those inquiries, more than 2,800 a day, or one million a year, directly involve community safety issues.

– Between 1974 and 2008, 40,000 long guns were stolen from Canadian residences and 1.85 million long guns changed hands in Canada since 2006. Registering long guns holds owners accountable for the safe storage of their firearms, for reporting lost or stolen guns and reduces the chances that legally owned guns will be diverted to unlicensed owners.

– On average, one in three women killed by their husbands is shot -88% of them with legally owned rifles and shotguns.

– When firearms are available, domestic homicides are more likely to involve multiple victims and end in suicide.

– Northern Ontario communities have higher rates of long gun ownership and gun-related injuries than the provincial average.

– Contrary to popular belief, it is relatively easy to register a long gun and it is free.

McColeman states in his article that the Conservatives support the registration of prohibited and restricted weapons but not the registration of long guns.

His argument for this is that the long gun registry is ineffective as criminals do not register their guns. If criminals do not register their long guns, why would they register their prohibited and restricted weapons?

Where is the logic in supporting one registry over another?

In closing, keep the long gun registry, Mr. McColeman — don’t waste the significant tax dollars already spent and please help protect our families and communities.

Pat Kawamoto was born and raised in Brantford and is a career banker currently working as an independent financial planner. She is a strong believer in giving back to both the local communities in which we live and the broader global communities with which we share our humanity.


Monday, July 5, 2010

Phil the Barbarian gets clubbed by Heritage Canada Official!

Recently, Phil the Barbarian complained that Heritage Canada officials did not let him and his demoliton crew storm the gates of Brantford and commence the destruction of heritage buildings on Colborne Street.

Fortunately, the folks at the Heritage Canada Foundation are used to dealing with barbarians who hate arts and culture a.k.a. the Conservative Party of Canada. Natalie Bull the Executive Director of the the Heritage Canada Foundation in a clear and concise way suggests that Phil and elected officials should be gratified that a federal law designed to protect our natural and cultural heritage might just be doing the job it was created to do.

Given that Phil has a history of using the Canadian flag as his personal advertising space; it should come as no surprise that he is wrong on this issue as well.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Phil McColeman's unFLAGging disrespect for Canada...

Almost a year ago Phil McColeman pissed off a whole town by vandalizing the Canadian flag. We have not seen such shameless advertising since Ashley Madison decided to promote her business. Phil is not one to learn from past mistakes, or admit to them.
See below:

Phil is going to see if he can generate even more bad press.

Phil fails to realize that the Canadian flag is not the ideal location to self-promote one's generic website which barely gets more views than this blog. Try googling "Phil McColeman" and you'll see that THIS blog is hot on its heels for Google search supremacy!

Monday, May 10, 2010

Phil calls Brantford "small-town Ontario"

Here's a quote from Phil during a committee session on May 6, 2010 (where he was spinning lies about gun control):
in my part of the country, small town Ontario, $3.1 million is a lot of money
Is "small-town Ontario" how we want the world to see Brantford? Absolutely not.

Brantford is a city moving from its proud industrial past into an even prouder knowledge-based economy. Its past: Brantford was once the third-largest manufacturing exporter in Canada, and a rail hub for Southwestern Ontario. Its future: education, skilled workers, innovation. "Small-town Ontario" is not a phrase that will attract investment and respect.

And Brantford is clearly a city. It has been a city since 1877. Census Canada requires a census metropolitan area to have a regional population of at least 100,000 with a core population of 50,000. Brantford clearly meets this requirement. Brantford is a metropolis!

Brantford is the 31st-largest city in Canada. It is larger than St. John, NB; Peterborough, ON; and the birthplace of Confederation Charlottetown, PEI.

Brantford is not "small-town Ontario." Brantford is a city, a metropolis looking to the future. Phil McColeman has insulted Brantford. He should set the record straight.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Phil McColeman: Soft on Crime, pt. 2

There's been a lot of debate over my post in Dec. 2009 titled "Phil McColeman: Soft on Crime." So I thought I'd follow up.

The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards have both decided that the Firearms Registry DOES prevent crime. This is despite what certain armchair pundits claim. Yet Phil McColeman does not support the continuation of this valuable tool. In fact, he has spoken up in Parliament, calling opposition members "bullies" for fighting to keep the Registry.

At the same time, Phil has sent out numerous flyers to the constituents of Brant claiming to be "Tough on Crime." The fact is that Harper's tough on crime strategy involving harsher jail sentences WILL NOT reduce crime, but WILL be very expensive. This is a proven fact.

Therefore, while Phil claims to be "Tough on Crime," he is not actually doing anything to lower the crime rate. All he advocates is 1) scrapping a valuable crime-fighting tool, and 2) replacing it with a very expensive strategy that will accomplish nothing.

Phil McColeman is NOT tough on crime. If he claims to be tough on crime he is lying or ignorant.

I encourage Brant students to participate in Phil's Public Safety Essay Contest by writing about the efficacy of gun control compared to the efficacy of harsh prison sentences.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Phil Investigated by Ethics Commissioner

We know that Phil signed his own name on cheques that should have been signed by the appropriate Government minister (see here and here). He was then investigated by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

The Commissioner found that Phil and other MPs acted unethically; using oversize partisan cheques undermines public confidence in the integrity of Parliament and the government.

Lazy Phil Worked One Day in 1½ Months

We know that Phil McColeman supported the anti-democratic prorogation of Parliament earlier this year. He probably supported it because he ONLY WORKED ONE SINGLE DAY DURING THE WHOLE THING! So while hard-working Canadians were busting their butts to stave off the recession, Phil was relaxing in Ottawa or something.

Dissatisfied Citizens

There have been some real zingers in the Expositor lately regarding Phil and the Conservatives. Here's a sampling:

Cost of McColeman's Advertising

Dear Editor,

I read that Members of Parliament have chosen not to disclose their office expenses, which total millions of taxpayer dollars.

Of course, an individual MP can disclose his/her expenses and our MP Phil McColeman should do so as a matter of integrity.

He has spent a lot of money advertising himself, which is not the purpose of his office budget. Many ads have been paid for by us, as taxpayers, ads which show Phil's and/or name - coffee with the MP, skating with the MP, eat pork with the MP, not to mention his website at the bottom of the flag.

Tell us,Phil, how much of our money have you spent advertising yourself? We want to know before the next election.

Nic Coivert

You tell 'em Nic! Here's another letter about how McColeman's Conservatives are wasting our money more generally:

PM showing his true colours

The federal Conservative government has been fairly successful in hiding their puppet-master behind a curtain of secrecy and deceit. Glimpses of the wizard, however, are beginning to show as the curtain flaps in the wind. We are beginning to see some instances of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's views on issues like women, retirees, the arts, the environment and justice. It's not that he is trying hard to be open, it's just that his slip is showing. Here are a few actions that point to the course he is tacking.

* Scrap a national day-care plan that would allow more women to go to work and pay income taxes vs. $100 a month, which doesn't even cover the cost of diapers and wipes.

* Scrap the long-gun registry, even though the evidence shows long guns were used in 40% of domestic violence homicides prior to its implementation-now reduced to 15%.

* Scrap the promise to not tax income trusts, causing retirees to lose millions of their invested retirement funds.

* Scrap the Kyoto accord whilst denying climate change, tarnishing Canada's international image.

* Scrap the promise to reform the Senate, all the while stacking the Senate with Tory appointees.

* Scrap major features of Corrections and Conditional Release Act to allow for longer sentences for inmates at a cost of up to $100,000 a year per inmate.

* Feign indignation about a lax parole system even though the National Parole Board is now stacked with conservative patronage appointments.

*Feign surprise that inmates over 65 years of age receive pensions. The government has had four years to figure things out.

Soon, the wizard will be revealed on full display in living colour, pulling strings and manipulating the smoke and mirrors to try to obscure the rest of his agenda, including Canada's role in the torture of Afghan prisoners, abortion and family planning.

Rick Trebilcock, Brantford

It's time to change, and that change can't come too soon!

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Demolishing Democracy

Phil has secured a couple bucks for the demolition of the south side of Colborne St. Well, better late than never.

And at the same time, Phil supports the demolition of democracy.

Which demolition project will leave the bigger crater?

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Lazy Phil Takes a Vacation

While native land claims and unemployment continue to be top political issues in Brant, Phil McColeman somehow thinks that he can justify taking a two-month vacation. Stephen Harper has yet again prorogued Parliament, and this is what McColeman has to say:
The Liberal Party of Canada will certainly continue to make accusations suggesting that this decision will waste time for Parliament, while the opposite is true. The Liberal Party has been wasting the time of all Parliamentarians for months by using the Liberal-controlled Senate to gut vital legislation that has already been approved by the House of Commons. However, through this move, the Conservative government will put an end to Michael Ignatieff`s opportunistic political games and be able to take a majority position in the senate. This will allow us to take important bills that have been blocked by the Liberal Senate and get those bills passed, for the benefit of all Canadians.
If we want to talk about "opportunistic political games," how about undermining democracy yet again just because Harper doesn't want to face questions about abuse of Afghan detainees. Shutting down Parliament in a recession is irrational and cowardly; justifying the decision by saying that it will allow the Conservatives to stack the Senate is basically stating that democracy should be put on hold so that the Conservatives can consolidate power. It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Except that Harper is cutting the nose off the face of Canada, to spite the Liberals.