Phil McColeman, our National Embarrassment

On Canada's national broadcaster, the CBC, Phil McColeman again embarrassed Brant. For those of us who thought that his vote for the anti-choice movement had signified a break from his Dear Leader Stephen Harper, we were mistaken.

Phil McColeman yesterday spilled this ultra-partisan vitriol in the most hallowed forum we call the House of Commons:

Mr. Speaker, when running for his party's leadership in 2011, the NDP leader promised a carbon tax that would go even further than the NDP's 2011 election platform. The NDP leader's plan would apply a carbon tax to all major sources of GHG emissions, not just the 700 largest industrial emitters envisaged in the NDP 2011 election platform.

In explaining his reason for expanding the scope of the NDP carbon tax, the NDP leader said that Canada “can no longer afford to focus only on the worst of the worst”. That means even more money taken from Canadian families than the $21 billion the NDP is banking on. The NDP leader opposite can deny it all he wants, but his words are clear. The NDP would hit Canadians with a job-killing carbon tax that would drive up the cost of gas, groceries and electricity.

It's embarrassing.

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?

Thirdly, the NDP is only seeking to implement the same cap-and-trade system that your very own party, the Conservatives, argued in favour of in 2004 and 2008. You argued for cap-and trade while you were demonizing Stéphane Dion for his carbon tax.

So… how does it feel to be a puppet of the hyper-partisan twenty-one year olds who run Stephen Harper's office?

And by the way, Mr. MP, you also embarrassed Brant in the Huffington Post (not a real newspaper, but read by many) and Canada's number one political source, Maclean's Magazine.

Phil Votes Against Women's Rights

Today, in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, a shameful spectacle unfolded. Phil McColeman, representative for Brant, voted to re-open the abortion debate.

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.

Phil Honours Troops by Spending $750,000 to Fight Them in Court

As the Globe & Mail reported today, the Conservative government wasted $750,000 of taxpayers' money on legal fees fighting veterans who just want a fair pension.

Phil McColeman often uses military troops and veterans for political posturing – e.g. here, here, here, here, and here.

But when it comes to paying veterans their fair share, where's Phil?? Probably at the bank deciding how to invest his own gold-plated MP pension.

Abortion

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.

Will Phil Kill Abortion Bill?

As noted earlier on DumpPhil.ca, Phil McColeman recently presented six petitions before Parliament asking to re-open the abortion debate. Now, we need to ask: How is Phil going to vote on Motion 312?

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 chose to present six petitions before Parliament asking for the abortion debate to be re-opened.
• Phil has attended pro-life, anti-abortion rallies and events in the past.
• Phil has made his small-c conservative stance clear with respect on other so-called "family" issues, by opposing a bill that would have protected transgendered people from hate crimes and by opposing same-sex marriage.
• Phil has earned the support of pro-life, anti-abortion groups.

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:

Get off the fence, Phil

Pro-choice or pro-life? Politicians do not get elected into office without being asked this question multiple times. So, when it comes to Motion 312, which calls for a parliamentary committee to re-determine when human life begins, it is expected that most politicians will know how they are going to vote. They will likely vote the way they told their constituents they were going to when the pro-life vs. pro-choice question came up during their election campaigns.

This however, does not seem to be the case for Brant MP Phil McColeman, who claims to be on the fence about the issue, despite having ran for office three times, and despite belonging to a party that repeatedly stated it would not be re-opening the abortion debate. The Conservative party was in fact, so adamant about this, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper even went as far as to state “as long as I’m Prime Minister we are not reopening the abortion debate”(Apr. 21, 2011. CBC). Interestingly enough, the individual that put forth this motion is actually a member of the Conservative party. Maybe he was trying to send Mr. Harper a message..

E. Jones
Brantford

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.

Bil C-30 – Looking Past Phil’s Political Spin

Phil McColeman recently wrote an interesting and misleading editorial in the Brant News on Bill C-30, the “online spying” bill that led to the infamous @vickileaks30 Twitter account. Of course, we here at Dump Phil also decry personal attacks of any kind, and we feel that criticism of any politician should be limited to his or her performance as a politician.

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.

But if you read the actual legislation, you will see that the Bill C-30 can and will constitute a grave intrusion on your online privacy.

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 power that Bill C-30 gives the police is massive. For Phil to compare it to a phone book is misleading and insulting to the intelligent citizens of Brant. I encourage all of Dump Phil’s loyal fans (and loyal detractors) to do their own research on Bill C-30. Even a simple Google search will bring up lots of results agreeing with what I have argued here.

Phil McColeman Attempts to Reopen Abortion Debate

Yesterday, Phil McColeman stood up in Parliament and said this:

Mr. Speaker, I have six petitions to present from my constituents asking the House of Commons to determine when a fetus becomes a human being.

In essence, he was asking the Canadian government to reopen the abortion debate. He did not have to present the petitions, he chose to present the petitions.

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?!?!?!?