The Interview The Prime Minister Will Regret

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe Accountability is an old, old wooden 

ship that was used during the War of 1812.

On June 5th, 2012, Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave Peter Mansbridge an interview touching on multiple topics. One of the topics was his awareness with news stories:

MANSBRIDGE:  Do you read it?  Do you read Canadian media?
HARPER: No.
MANSBRIDGE:  ...Seriously? 
HARPER: No. My staff every day gives me a review of the headlines, a review of the major stories on television, just an overview.  I want to get the view the public gets of media reporting.  The public sees the big picture.  They don't get into every single editorial, or is every single, you know - is every single reference of me positive or negative? I don't need to know that stuff. I would go crazy if I spent all my time obsessing on that stuff. I need to know the big picture, what's the public hearing and seeing and to the extent that they are able to communicate back, what they are saying.  But other than that, I need to be able to keep my head clear, and focus on whether decisions are right or wrong.

On April 18th, 2013, the leading political headline from Global News was Mike Duffy welching on his promise to repay the $90K. If this leading political story did not reach his ears, it would differ from the routine that his office has setup. If his Chief of Staff didn't inform him on the absurd situation of Mike Duffy being given a $90K cheque only to go in front of cameras claiming he expects to be vindicated and not have to pay a scent, then there's a serious problem as to how that office operates.

This is the same PMO did was dealt a black eye by Bev Oda's extravagance of hotel rooms, limos and orange juice. The topic of accountability and personal conduct was either important to the Prime Minister, in which case he would've been told; or it wasn't, in which case the whole refrain of "The Conservative Party is the party of accountability" is an empty slogan.

Either way, when it comes to accountability, Stephen Harper has a lot to answer for.

The Case Against The Prime Minister In The Mike Duffy Scandal

Ran out of scotch so he's making a ruckus.

To quote the loquacious and disgraced Mike Duffy: "Words are important."

In that spirit, let's take a careful look at Nigel Wright's resignation press release to see if it can shed light into this whole affair:

In light of the controversy surrounding my handling of matters involving Senator Duffy, the Prime Minister has accepted my resignation as Chief of Staff.
My actions were intended solely to secure the repayment of funds, which I considered to be in the public interest, and I accept sole responsibility.  I did not advise the Prime Minister of the means by which Sen. Duffy's expenses were repaid, either before or after the fact.
I regret the impact of this matter on the Government, our Caucus, and all of my colleagues, for whom I have the highest regard.  I came to Ottawa to do my part in providing good government for Canada, and that is all that I ever wanted and worked for in this role.

A statement that puts Hemingway's minimalism to shame. I've italicized a few words in the statement to show how ambiguous it makes the entire sentence. What "means" is he referring to? Is he discussing in general terms the amount of $90k+ being given to Duffy or does he refer to the method of payment (personal cheque, certified cheque, suitcase full of $100 bills)?

Also, the statement doesn't state that the Prime Minister didn't know about it, it just affirms that Nigel Wright never "advised" the Prime Minister. Quite possibly, Nigel Wright didn't have to advise the PM because he was already fully aware of the payment.

Let's backtrack to early February of this year when the Senate hired Deloitte to run an audit concerning the expenses of Senators especially concerning residency allocation funds. Mike Duffy kept hurling insults at reporters that sought clarifications over his claims that he's a PEI resident when he's lived in Ottawa for decades.

In late February, Mike Duffy made the rounds on the TV circuit and said he would pay back the money.

Then came news in April that would payback the money if it's "required".

A day later, he reveals that he repaid the money in the month of March. Now we know that Nigel Wright footed the bill. So the Prime Minister's Office met with Mike Duffy in March and worked out a deal. CTV reports that a letter of understanding was drawn up and that a deal was made to help him out with the $90k and that the Senate report would whitewash the whole affair.

Imagine an unlikely scenario where Stephen Harper is kept in the dark regarding news stories that are shaming his party. Imagine that Stephen Harper just decides that this story isn't worth his time. I can't think of one but still, let's move forward from the month of March under the guise that the Prime Minister was never made aware of this.

Remember that it was in April that Mike Duffy said he would repay the money if "required". That must have sent Nigel Wright off the deep end! Here was Mike Duffy, whose expenses were repaid by Nigel Wright, talking about not having to refund the claimed expenses.

Of course, this was a leading story on Global News as they broke the story in April. Nigel Wright must have been livid while the Prime Minister must have been irritated to see Mike Duffy embarrass them again. The next day, they must have discussed something!

The most likely scenario is that they didn't have to because they both knew exactly what was going on. But even if he didn't in March, he had to know come April.

And the reason Stephen Harper didn't want to see Nigel Wright resign is that if he were to acknowledge that his Chief of Staff broke ethical rules and was in the right to resign, then what would be the ethical course of action for a Prime Minister who's whitewashing the allegedly illegal conduct of a senator who's ripping off taxpayers?

We won't see another Commander Hadfield for years due to Harper Government budget cuts

Stephen Harper plans to eliminate joy by 2015.

Did Commander Hadfield's trip in orbit spark your enthusiasm for space travel and science?

Well Stephen Harper and Canada's Economic Action Plan has been implementing its jobs, growth and prosperity agenda on the Canadian Space Agency by cutting jobs, freezing wages and witnessing the its former president prosper in the private sector as he quit his post due to cuts in funding of 10% over 3 years.

So feel good about Commander Hadfield's mission now because the Harper government doesn't share your enthusiasm.

In fact, the employees of the agency such as engineers and scientists have already gone without a pay raise in 12 years, (thanks for blazing the trail Liberals!) and are now facing cuts of $29.5 million.

The result will be that no Canadian will be in space before 2016 at the very earliest.

So while the Prime Minister is happy soaking up the limelight with Commander Hadfield in a livechat where the astronaut was answering children's questions from orbit, the Canadian Space Agency was still rudderless as a result of the Harper government's inaction.

After the live chat, the Prime Minister wasn't available to answer questions about former head of the Canadian Space Agency, Steve Maclean, a former astronaut, leaving his post before his mandate was finished. Nor was he available to answer questions about ballooning costs of the Radarsat Constellation project due to National Defence.

With large budget constraints, no permanent president for the agency and a lack of vision from our Conservative Government, we can only hope that Commander Hadfield's trip to space won't be the last time Canadians feel pride in our space program for a long time to come.

Hopefully this video will hold you over until then:

Senator Mike Duffy Feels He's Entitled to His Entitlements

Unelected? Check. Unaccountable? Check. Unethical? Check.

Senator Mike Duffy announced today that he hasn't paid back the federal government any of the housing allowance he collected for his Ottawa home since it was revealed in February 2013 that he was pilfering from the public purse.

In fact, Mike Duffy now doubts paying back the $33,000 he's collected annually since 2010 is required.

According to Global, Mike Duffy had stated in the past that:

Rather than let this issue drag on, my wife and I have decided that the allowance associated with my house in Ottawa will be repaid

He had cited confusion over complicated senate forms that, it turns out, aren't complicated at all.

Keep in mind, with his base pay of $135,200 and coupled with his expense allowance that, according to records, hit a whopping $298,310 in 2012, you can probably see why he's scraping every nickel and dime he can find.

Now, let's go down memory lane all the way back to 2005. Here's former Liberal Cabinet Minister David Dingwall explaining himself before committee on his $417,780 severance package at the Royal Canadian Mint:

The Conservative Party of Canada even had an attack ad featuring that statement.

Now, let's go back further down memory lane: all the way back to 1985. Here's journalist Mike Duffy mocking the Senate:

This is a place where you're supposed to sip scotch quietly and make sure that you don't cause too much ruckus.

Seems that Mike Duffy fits right in on entitlements with the Liberals and the Pierre Trudeau Senate appointees.

Of course, when he was appointed, Stephen Harper "vowed to continue pushing for Senate reforms, and said all incoming senators had promised to support eight-year term limits and other Senate reform legislation" according to the CBC.

Senate reform, handled by Tim Uppal (he of the botched election reform legislation), in year 7 since the Tories came to power, has resulted in questions being submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I guess any day now, huh?

So congratulations go out to Mike Duffy for continuing that long standing Senate tradition of ripping off Canadian taxpayers!

Edit: So it turns out that he did pay the money back. But he didn't SAY that. Of course, then this means he's contesting having to pay back the money which is simply reiterates the point: he's still trying to rip off taxpayers.

The CBC Interview Makes Justin Trudeau Comes Off As The Progressive Version Of George W. Bush

"And always twirling, twirling towards freedom!"

Peter Mansbridge interview with Justin Trudeau revealed that the Liberal leader has economic chops of a teenager with ADD.

To begin, he should know that you don't run a government like a household. You don't run a government like a business. An experienced politician is fully cognizant of this fact.

But not Justin Trudeau.

Peter Mansbridge asked him if he leaned towards a Keynesian vision or Hayekian one for the economy. Did he privilege austerity measures or increased borrowing? As a centrist whose party hammers its Goldilocks message of not going into one "extreme" or the other, the seemingly benign question should have been answered with "a mixture of cuts and key investments".

Here's what he answered instead:

I'm definitely someone who thinks the deficit should come down. I'd much rather be part of a government with a surplus than a deficit. But that doesn't mean I'm opposed to borrowing when we need to if we need to stimulate the economy. There's nothing wrong with going to the bank and taking out a loan of 1,000 bucks. If you spend it on a new flat-screen TV, that's different. If you go and invest it in your buddy's startup company out of his garage and he goes on to succeed. One way you'll have trouble paying down that debt and in another, you're going to profit from it and it keeps the economy rolling.

There's nothing revealing or significant about his first three sentences. But then he veers into a nonsensical tangent about household borrowing. He differentiates between smart investing and wasteful spending. That's fine until he highlights their differences. What he judges to be good practice is government spending on programs that prove themselves to be profitable.

Here's the problem with that: the near totality of government spending doesn't bring in profit.

Nor should it.

A lighthouse by the coast isn't profitable. However, if you take them away, there are real impacts on trade and shipping. Old Age Security does not "keep the economy rolling" as it were but it's a commitment from one generation to another that the elderly won't be abandoned to destitution and poverty. Same thing for health care. Peacekeeping isn't profitable. Would he continue Harper's contempt for the Canadian tradition?

If the economic spending he favours is one that will be profitable and discourages unprofitable spending, then he's planning to run government through the optic of Cost-Benefit Analysis.

And if profitability is the determining factor for government spending under a Justin Trudeau government, expect very relief for those on the bottom wrong of the social-economic ladder and very little will distinguish a Liberal government from a Conservative one.

But maybe I'm simply making more out of what's there so I won't deliver the verdict that a Trudeau government will lead to a dystopian libertarian country quite yet. Here's more of the interview:

Peter Mansbridge: Does the economy need to be stimulated right now?

Justin Trudeau: No. No, the economy needs to be managed. We're already deeply into deficit. We need to get out of deficit. The way to do that is to grow the economy and the way to do that is make sure we're not dogmatic. Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty have set up a specific target: "We have to eliminate the deficit by 2015! Just before the election, perhaps so he can offer all sorts of goodies to Canadians in the 2015 election campaign."  And that's a political target that they are adjusting the reality of everything else around. They say "we need infrastructure spending". That's great. But they're reducing infrastructure spending and promising to raise it after their mandate is over in 2016.

So he's in favour of growing the economy by... not being dogmatic. The Non-Dogmatic Economic Plan. That doesn't mean anything. Is that raising taxes? Increased borrowing? Cutting spending?

Oh, oh, let me guess: he'll lower taxes, get rid of the deficit and increase spending?

But it seems clear by this transcript and the video that Justin Trudeau is simply rambling incoherently about the economy. He says things that sound good to him even if they make no sense. Going from one topic to another that are completely unrelated. He comes off as a complete neophyte and making it up on the go.

I don't really think he advocates a utilitarian vision of Canada and plans to transform the country into a market society but that's what he's saying.

To really highlight just how out of his depth he is, his answer to Peter Mansbridge's question about whether too much emphasis is being placed on his first performance at Question Period encapsulates his laziness:

[...]What Canadians are going to notice, over the coming years, over the coming months: am I growing? Am I learning? Am I bringing forward the kinds of things that they want me to bring forward?

To be clear: Canadians don't give a shit if you grow or learn. No one is rooting for you besides lil' old ladies. What Canadians want is a progressive government in power that won't set the country back a decade by mismanagement and incompetence. Right now, Justin Trudeau is on a path to deliver exactly that.

The son of the nation's leader. Born into privilege. Unqualified, lacking in curiosity and intellectually lazy.

The same traits that defined George W. Bush but lacking the Texas twang.

Justin Trudeau's Message to Elizabeth May: Not Running A Candidate in Labrador Is Patronizing

Why does the Green Party want to cooperate with the Liberals again?

Consider Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May who's fought for progressives to cooperate in elections. To that effect, the Green Party has not fielded a candidate in the Labrador by-election as she explains in this statement:

The Green Party is committed to electoral cooperation in the interest of proportional representation.  At this point only the NDP joins the Greens in officially supporting voting reforms that eliminate First Past the Post. Some Liberals, notably leadership candidate Joyce Murray, favour cooperation and proportional representation. I call on all progressive voters to make the Labrador by-election a place where the goals of cooperation and proportional representation are advanced

Some Liberals are NOT Justin Trudeau. What does new Liberal leader Justin Trudeau think of Elizabeth May's endeavour to have progressives work together?

I think, uh, those people don't necessarily understand the political spectrum in this country which is not, uh, about, you know, Right and Left but about Right, Left and Centre. [...] Canadians are tired of this "You win at all cost" mentality of the Conservatives are putting forward. I don't believe in taking away choices from Canadians and say "You Canadians can't seem to figure out how to get this right because 60% of you don't like Mr. Harper but we still are getting him as a Government. What we're going to do is make it simpler for you Canadians: we're going to remove choices for you at the ballot box and THEN you'll figure out how to make a responsible choice." No! I believe in giving more choices to electors and that's why, in the next election, in 338 ridings, right across this country, there will be extraordinary strong, grounded, community leaders as Liberal candidates.

He believes that fielding a candidate is tantamount to showing trust in the judgment of Canadians. To not field a candidate would be patronizing. Therefore, Elizabeth May's refusal to field a Green Party candidate in the Labrador riding is patronizing of Canadians according to Justin Trudeau.

Not only does he think that cooperation is a bad idea, he believes that proportional representation is a mistake.

So if the Green Party platform is one that states "True democracy makes every vote count" and your reason for not running a Green Party candidate in Labrador is to further the interest of proportional representation, don't you think that it's a mistake to not have a candidate there to support this initiative since the Liberal candidate won't be fighting for it in Parliament?

Aren't you glad that the NDP is there to give voters that option? And if making every vote count truly a goal of the Green Party, isn't the NDP living up to that ideal more than the Green Party is with its refusal to field a candidate?

The Hater's Guide to Justin Trudeau

Justin Trudeau has the courage to refer to himself in the 3rd person.

So the name of "Justin Trudeau" is being repeated over and over again on the news and it's really difficult to avoid it. In fact, some people you know have mentioned his name as well and you don't really know anything about him except that his name seems familiar.

Should I know him?

You should know the name Trudeau but no one sane will hold it against you for not knowing who Justin Trudeau is. Pierre Trudeau, his father, was Prime Minister of Canada from 1968 to 1979 (edit: and 1980 to 1984).  Justin Trudeau just became leader of the Liberal Party of Canada: a centrist party.

Is that a big deal?

Not anymore. There's been 6 leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada in the last 7 years. Also, the Party has never had as few seats in Parliament in its history as it does today.

So Justin Trudeau is going to turn their fortunes around?

That's what he'll try to do. He certainly has the pollsters excited. He's supposed to be the Liberal's Moses and deliver them out of the bondage of 3rd party status and then be their Joshua and lead them into the Promised Land of a Majority Government.

The expectations seem rather high...

They are. His name engenders that much excitement for Liberal supporters.

But what's his most noteworthy accomplishment to date?

He beat some political clown named Patrick Brazeau in an amateur boxing fight. Brazeau gassed himself out by the 3rd round and Trudeau capitalized on the mistake. It garnered a lot of media buzz.

And his most noteworthy political accomplishment to date?

Excluding this win, he was the Liberal critic for Youth & Multiculturalism, Citizenship & Immigration, and Post Secondary Education, Youth & Amateur Sport.

Citizenship & Immigration sounds like it could be tough...

It was! He got in trouble using social media and objecting to labelling as "barbaric" the practice of "honour killings". When people were upset, he answered "I didn't expect people to react to this: I said the same back in 2009 about Barbaric and no one picked up. Election-time now". He apologized later on but after the election, he was relegated to Liberal Critic for Youth & Amateur Sport by Interim Leader Bob Rae.

So what was he professionally before he was a politician?

A high school Social Studies and French teacher. He was named to several prestigious positions but the teaching position was the only one obtained through merit.

So why is everyone hyped up about him?

His last name.

Is that it?

Yes.

But doesn't he have to be charming and charismatic to woo the public?

Not at all. His supporters project all their aspirations onto him and his detractors project all their negativity onto him. The fact is, his political speeches are delivered in his "daddy voice" and its content is syrupy vacuousness that either galvanizes voters or turns them against him.

Some people said he was "crowned" leader...

The leadership race for the Liberal Party of Canada wasn't very competitive. Both Dominic Leblanc and Bob Rae checked with Trudeau as to whether he would run for the leadership before they made up their own minds regarding their own bids for leadership. They didn't want to go up against him. The most prominent contender Marc Garneau, a former astronaut, quit midway through and endorsed him. Every other contender lacked a national profile of any sort. Despite his paper thin credentials, many people rightly contend that his last name scared off worthy challengers for the leadership of the party.


So if his last name is the draw, should I base my opinion on his father's legacy?

No. Whatever you thought of his father, good or bad, he isn't him.


Has he taken any position on any issue?

The CNOOC-Nexen deal. The Chinese energy company wanted to purchase a Canadian energy company. He cited "jobs" as his main reason for allowing it and didn't address the fact that Canadians cannot invest in Chinese energy companies and some of the other Chinese companies such as Huiyong Holdings Group which is the majority owner of HD Mining International that hires "temporary foreign workers" so they don't have to pay Canadians a competitive wage.

He also views the threshold for Quebec sovereignty, should a referendum take place, at 66% of the popular vote of Quebecers. Considering that the last 2 Quebec referendums were set at 50+1 and that the upcoming Scottish referendum is also set at that threshold, it kind of puzzled people.

What's his best chance at being elected in the next federal election?

An election campaign that heavily features his family and especially, his wife, Sophie Grégoire. She's good-looking and charming.

What's the worst thing he can do right now to sink his fortunes?

Go unscripted and answer questions honestly.

But I like honesty!

You like informed honesty. Often, Justin Trudeau appears to be improvising answers from which he knows nothing about. He comes off as lazy and artificial.

What's the best thing about Justin Trudeau?

He refers to himself in the 3rd person as seen here... Note the reporters turning away from the camera to stifle laughs when he mentions "the freedom to do what you want with your body"...

Here's Why Removing "Socialism" From the NDP's Constitution Preamble is Superb

Modernizing the terminology is a good step forward.

While there were grumblings with some of the delegates regarding this change, allow me to put forward the thoughts of British historian and essayist Tony Judt on the appellation of socialism (25:25 mark to 28:45) regarding the term "socialism" as the NDP removes it from its constitution's preamble.

Here's the highlight:

[...] we cannot get away from the fact that we have lived through a century in which the word Socialism was both pejoratively and enthusiastically identified with political systems which turned out to be or could be seen to be from the beginning both economically inefficient, politically repressive, culturally sterile. We can't deny that. There's no point in pretending otherwise. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was after all, by its own account, socialist. Most communist states described themselves in various ways and various purposes constitutionally and so on, as socialist. 

I don't think there's much point in defending the word. What we have to do is rather different and that is: shift the conversation from abstractions to substance. I am not interested, even if I were to live another 20 years, in trying to promote some abstraction called socialism.  

If we're going to promote abstractions, I'd rather promote Justice or Fairness. 

I'd rather promote Equality.

Warren Kinsella: Invertebrate Political Consultant

No tragedy should go unexploited

It takes a lot of courage to stand up to the majority and speak up in defence of the oppressed.

Fortunately for Warren Kinsella, courage is never required from him because that's not the business he's in.

Kinsella, lawyer, political consultant and book peddler, is in the political exploitation game.

The tragedy that befell Rehtaeh Parsons has certainly resonated with Canadians especially not long after Amanda Todd's suicide.

So how does Warren Kinsella deal with this?

He asks hacker group Anonymous to take ambiguous action against RCMP investigative officer Alphonse MacNeil, Nova Scotia Attorney General Ross Landry and Nova Scotia NDP Premier Darrell Dexter.

He doesn't ask his readers to push for Ross Landry to reexamine the events that led to her death but asks hackers to... well, let's just keep that nebulous and claim "plausible deniability" here.

If he's in any way informed, Kinsella would know that Landry decided to reexamine the case the day before Kinsella wrote his open letter to Anonymous.

As a lawyer, he is fully aware that Dexter can't just take over a police investigation.

So what's the purpose of his open letter if the Justice Minister already committed to reexamine the case? It's not that Anonymous could simply secure convictions for the four teens.

And why drag Darrell Dexter into it?

Because this is not about justice for Rehtaeh Parsons. This is about scoring political points for the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia and against the NDP.

This is the same man who was shocked and offended when political pundits dare mock a beer company for asking the press to stop using a photo of the murdered Jun Lin with a t-shirt with their brand on it.

His stance of sober propriety in respect of the victim goes out the window if political points can be scored against a political rival.

I certainly hope that Stephen MacNeil and/or the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia aren't a client of Kinsella's consulting group...

Dumbest Thing Said by a Politician in 2012: Vic Toews

2012 was the year that Vic Toews became a hashtag.

When questions were raised regarding Vic Toews' internet snooping bill, he uttered the now infamous words:

Either stand with us or with the child pornographers.

And what fun it all was to see that self-satisfied Public Safety Minister become headline news for his hubris. The notion that a majority government could pass anything it damn well wanted was squashed as people spoke out. Among other things, #TellVicEverything caught on and the added scrutiny made the Harper Government recoil.

Then he played the victim card when publicly available information was made.... public and disclosed some of the more sordid details of his personal life. Namely, he divorced his now dead wife after he "got one past the goaltender" with his babysitter (if I may be forgiven the hockey parlance). Then he married the much younger woman.

Sources suggest that his current wife is very particular about potential babysitters.

Somehow, the media tut-tutted as Vickileaks embarrassed the Minister. John Baird then embarrassed himself by accusing the NDP without any shred of evidence. Finally, they tried to make a big show of dragging the Liberal staffer in front of everyone but it just reminded everyone of how Vic Toews really really doesn't like it when you bring up the fact that he was diddling the babysitter.

While this ways going on, internet hacker group Anonymous made Vic Toews shit his pants and he wanted to drag them in front of Parliament. At one point, someone tried to explain to Vic Toews what anonymous actually means.

But if you take away anything from this fracas, it shouldn't Vic Toews's sexual proclivities but rather a more uplifting message that unity of purpose and political engagement do make a difference in Canadian politics

And with that: Happy New Year!