# Politics in 2013



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2012)

I found  these three predictions by the _Good Grey Globe's_ John Ibbittson interesting:

1. The unbiased panel will decide that the F-35 is the best aircraft available because, as Ibbitton says, the others are just as expensive and the F-35 gives us better interoperability with the US;

2. BC wil have a NDP government in 2013 and _Northern Gateway_ will be a dead duck, at least for a few years; and

3. Justin Trudeau will be Liberal leader and he will displace Thomas Mulcair in the polls ... for a while; by end of 2013 Mulcair will, once again, be No. 2 in popularity and the Trudeau Liberals will slip back into third place.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Dec 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I found  these three predictions by the _Good Grey Globe's_ John Ibbittson interesting:
> 
> 1. The unbiased panel will decide that the F-35 is the best aircraft available because, as Ibbitton says, the others are just as expensive and the F-35 gives us better interoperability with the US;


Especially when the U.S.'ll have to do at least some of the aerial refuelling, right?


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Dec 2012)

And, in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, Michael DenTandt lets us in one every journalists wet dream: a cabinet shuffle in summer 2013 ~

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Canada+Conservatives+learn+from+their+mistakes/7738608/story.html


> Can Canada’s Conservatives learn from their mistakes?
> 
> By Michael Den Tandt, Postmedia News
> 
> ...




I agree there is lots of talent available and I further agree that some ministers can, productively, move one.

I do not think Peter MacKay is all that easy to kick around. The Conservative Party "owes" him for making the current situation possible and he has a pretty fair "cheering section" in the party. But Toews to the bench and MacKay to Justice might be possible.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Dec 2012)

> Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who must at some point assume responsibility for the F-35 mess



For a mess largley fabricated by the Opposition and Press?


----------



## Remius (24 Dec 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> For a mess largley fabricated by the Opposition and Press?



DND has its hands dirty in that too, don't kid yourself.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Dec 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> DND has its hands dirty in that too, don't kid yourself.



Never said otherwise, but calling for his resignation for a plan that was started, and launched, under the liberals is a bit rich.

There's plenty of pages on the whys and wherefores, but my point was the incessant badgering and put up witch hunt mounted by those two groups. Not to mention the time and money wasted chasing boogey men and shadows, neither of which exist sufficiently at fault of any one individual to belie the lengths that they went too in their attempt to crucify anything Conservative that they could, simply out of spite.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Dec 2012)

>There is no attempt to debate or discuss

Does Mr Den Tandt represent a meaningful consortium of journalists, editorialists, pundits, political operatives, and politicians who vow to debate and discuss in return, rather than indulge in the usual mud throwing?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2013)

The popping sound you can hear is from "lefty" heads exploding all across Canada because of this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Montreal Gazette_:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Stephen+Harper+keeps+support+coalition+voters+poll/7767378/story.html


> Stephen Harper keeps support of ‘coalition’ of voters: poll
> 
> 
> By Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News
> ...




Approval (and disapproval) rates do not predict election outcomes but ...


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jan 2013)

I'm wondering if they're equating "No preference" or "Don't know/care" into the against Harper column, either at Ipsos Reid or at Postmedia. 2 choices adding up to 100% everytime sounds fishy to me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jan 2013)

In MacLean's Paul Wells is now suggesting that Thomas Mulcair was smart to have taken a "wait and see" approach to Chief Spence's little charade. He also hints that the audit was leaked to CBC (and others?) in order to discredit Spence prior to this week's meeting between Prime Minister Harper and an AFN delegation.

While Chief Spence is a fraud - in a personal sense, certainly, in a legal sense, maybe - _Idle No More_, like _Occupy ______, while inchoate, raises some important issues that need to be filtered out from all the noise and rubbish and which might be useful, politically, to deal with in 2013 and into 2014.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jan 2013)

The NDP can afford to kill Northern Gateway as there are roughly 5 LNG terminals proposed for the coast 2 at Prince Rupert (British Gas and Petronassa) and 3 for Kitimat (KMLNG, Shell and Douglas channel small LNG) In reality there is just not enough trained labour to support all the planned project, although I would be surprised if more than 3 of the LNG plants are built. KMLNG is the furtherest ahead with ground clearing ongoing. Also expect to see the “Chinese labour” issue being high on their radar.
The gutting of CEAA, Fisheries Act and the NWPA is going to create a lot of animosity with FN’s , expect legal challenges and blockades similar to the 80-90’s


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2013)

Rather than start another new thread ...

CBC News is reporting a cabinet shuffle:



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has shuffled his cabinet a week after accepting the resignation of John Duncan as aboriginal affairs minister.
> 
> New Brunswick MP Bernard Valcourt is replacing Duncan. Valcourt had been associate minister of national defence, putting him in charge of buying equipment for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2013)

Two, indirectly related, items from today's news, both from the _Globe and Mail_:

First, NDP insider Jamie Heath advocates for Liberal leadership longshot Joyce Murray's position of some form of Liberal/NDP union to defeat the Conservatives. He makes some interesting and useful points:

_"Progressives_ [by which he means many (most?) Liberals and the NDP] _can’t form a majority without Quebec, and so depend on a sizable contingent of federalist MPs. As Paul Martin and Stéphane Dion both know, navigating a minority Parliament in which the Bloc Québécois – not the NDP – is the second-largest progressive party changes the rules ...

As such, the progressive party that Quebeckers support matters greatly. If they vote separatist, the clamour for ever-weaker federal roles on issues such as the environment will leave progressives, including most Quebeckers, with no way to act on the values they admire most about Mr. Obama.

People who think the 2011 election was a blip, and hope things quickly get back to normal, should be careful what they wish for: Normal is 50-odd separatist MPs undermining a progressive majority’s ability to work on shared values. So let’s resist temptation to paint the NDP breakthrough as coming mostly at Liberal expense; its prime victim was the Bloc.

There are other truths, too. Liberals haven’t won a majority versus a united right in 33 years; New Democrats never have. It’s worth suggesting that both absorb the likelihood that, if they aren’t in opposition after the next election, a coalition government looms."_

Second: Tom Steyer, a California billionaire, has targeted the controversial Canadian _Keystone XL_ pipeline project. Mr Steyer is a "player" in the US and he is taking direct, political aim against _Keystone_.

Why are they related?

Because Mr. Heath's _"progressives"_ are Obama fans fanatics and I'm guessing that President Obama, in search of his _legacy_ will veto _Keystone_ or, at least delay it for a very long time. I'm also guessing that failing to approve _Keystone_ will give Prime Minister Harper a familiar (and politically useful) horse to flog: the Americans are _dissing_ us. Suddenly, President Obama will be the enemy for many (most?) Canadians and, as the old saying goes, "the friends of my enemy" - the _"progressives"_ in the Liberal and New Democratic parties - "are my enemies, too."


Edit: spelling   :-[


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2013)

More on the _politics_ of the _Keystone XL_ pipeline in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/keystone-is-the-democrats-new-litmus-test/article9955346/


> Keystone is the Democrats’ new litmus test
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




It is important for Canada to get oil to _world_, not just US, markets. A decision to veto or delay _Keystone_ might be good for Canada in a perverse but long term way.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Mar 2013)

Turn off the taps to the south and sell it to China.

The US will notice when their gas goes up by a few bucks a gallon overnight and continues to rise.

I really don't care who buys it, as long as they take all we can send them.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Mar 2013)

> Mr. Steyer has already targeted one Massachusetts Democrat who dared back Keystone.



Mr. Steyer should be careful. Sometimes people get upset when outsiders start throwing around money trying to influence local events.


----------



## GAP (19 Mar 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More on the _politics_ of the _Keystone XL_ pipeline in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> It is important for Canada to get oil to _world_, not just US, markets. A decision to veto or delay _Keystone_ might be good for Canada in a perverse but long term way.



 :goodpost:


----------



## Journeyman (19 Mar 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Two, indirectly related, items from today's news...


Very good linkage and assessment of seemingly diverse issues.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Mar 2013)

Kind of ironic that a guy who made a fortune from coal is concerned about the environmental aspects of oil. Or is it just Canadian oil, now that California is set to be the largest oil producing state?


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Kind of ironic that a guy who made a fortune from coal is concerned about the environmental aspects of oil. Or is it just Canadian oil, now that California is set to be the largest oil producing state?



California has the _potential_ to be the largest oil producing state, but the granola eater lobby is very powerful and it will take many years to overcome opposition to extracting oil and shale oil in that state. What will overcome the opposition is reality, in the form of massive and unsustainable debt and the tidal wave of civic bankruptcies as pension obligations come due. If that wasn't enough to spur action, the same pension liabilities exist on an even grander scale in CalPERS; the State pension fund. 

Look for changes starting in 2016....


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2013)

giant inforgraphic on govvernment spending in the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/22/graphic-the-governomics-of-canada/

Much interesting data and information


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2013)

There are two articles, today, about a small_ish_, but still, I think, significant revolt within the Conservative Party:

     First, in the _National Post_ - John Ivison says The backbench revolt is the closest thing to a revolution Harper's seen; and

     Second, in the _Globe and Mail_ - Gloria Galloway says Conservative MPs close ranks on house muzzling.

The issue is that Prime Minister Harper is muzzling his caucus. They are forbidden to use the "Members Statements" period to talk about their own pet issues - like abortion. Some, especially those with deep roots in the Reform Party, and even more especially those with no hope of a seat at the cabinet table (because there are too many Alberta MPs), have had enough.

*Personally*, as most people who read my posts know, I have no sympathy. I think Prime Minister Harper, and his successors, must drag the CPC, kicking and screaming, into the political centre; the alternative is to cede perpetual power to the Liberals and NDP. I know many social conservatives don't like that; I don't care what they like; they have alternatives. What Canada needs is a system wherein two major parties in the centre and a few minor parties on the left and right fringes contest for power so that power will, always, reside in the centre - sometimes a bit right of centre, sometimes a bit left of centre but never in the hands of doctrinaire parties like the Greens or the Christian Heritage Party.

But, this is a revolt and, eventually, Prime Minister Harper will need to quell it.

Asking Speaker Scheer to intervene in internal party _tactical_ matters, as Conservative MP Mark Warawa has done, is silly - I'm being charitable - and proves that Mr. Warawa is not front bench material.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Mar 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... The issue is that Prime Minister Harper is muzzling his caucus. They are forbidden to use the "Members Statements" period to talk about their own pet issues - like abortion. Some, especially those with deep roots in the Reform Party, and even more especially those with no hope of a seat at the cabinet table (because there are too many Alberta MPs), have had enough.
> 
> *Personally*, as most people who read my posts know, I have no sympathy. I think Prime Minister Harper, and his successors, must drag the CPC, kicking and screaming, into the political centre; the alternative is to cede perpetual power to the Liberals and NDP. I know many social conservatives don't like that; I don't care what they like; they have alternatives. What Canada needs is a system wherein two major parties in the centre and a few minor parties on the left and right fringes contest for power so that power will, always, reside in the centre - sometimes a bit right of centre, sometimes a bit left of centre but never in the hands of doctrinaire parties like the Greens or the Christian Heritage Party.
> 
> ...


I like your previously-shared COA ....


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... (The PM) should read the riot act to the religious conservatives and tell them that while it's OK to promote their pet causes they must, in every speech, confirm that their opinion are not the Conservative Party position and the Prime Minister is firm in his resolve to treat those issues as settled. Those who cannot manage that will not get their nomination papers signed. (That is the _nuclear_ option open to every party leader.)


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Mar 2013)

The real irony is that the same people frothing at the mouth over Mr Harper's discipline of his members would lose their minds if those same members were able to champion pet causes like abortion etc.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Mar 2013)

But that's exactly why "they" froth over message discipline; "they" want to "lose their minds" - which is to say, they desire Conservative MPs who might say something outlandish (or something which can be twisted to seem outlandish) to speak freely so that "they" can work themselves up into a state of outrage and propagandize the off-hand remarks of a few to represent the beliefs of the whole.  Harper's tight message control deprives "them" of oxygen.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Mar 2013)

I have some, actually a lot of sympathy for the argument that MPs need to be able to express their views, and the views of their constituents, on a range of issues. But the desire to represent constituents' views must, always, be tempered with Edmund Burke's sage letter to teh electors of Bristol.

But politics has come a long way since Burke sat in the House of Commons (1765 to 1794), not always for the better, and party discipline is, now, a very necessary part of the process.

But ~ another but ~ there can be, and in my personal opinion is too much discipline on too may issues. There is no question that every MP on the government side must support his party on every single _treasury_ bill or be, immediately, drummed out of that party. No discussion, no exceptions: the _treasury_ is at the very heart of our system of parliamentary democracy and the _treasury_ is always the main business of parliament. If one is elected as a member of the governing party and one cannot support its _treasury_ bills then one was elected under false pretenses.

But ~ a third but ~ no other issues, not even the Constitution or law and order or the defence of the realm, require the same _loyalty_ and members may disagree with, speak against and even vote against their party, even when it is the governing party, so long as: they make clear, in every speech, that they understand that speaking against the policies of their own party and that they are prepared for the consequences of so doing.

"But," you ask, "what if the government fall?" My answer is that, the government should not allow _confidence_ to be an issue on any matter that is not tied to the treasury. There are too many _confidence_ issues, tied to a quite recent notion that everything laid out in the _Speech from the Throne_, the government's legislative agenda, must be a matter of confidence. That's silly. I repeat: the _treasury_ is the very foundation stone upon which our system of parliamentary democracy rests - and has since, at least, the time of Henry I (1100 to 1135) and the establishment of the royal exchequer - and the right to control the national _treasury_ is the only meaningful test of _confidence_ for any government.

Prime Minister Harper has a chance to use this _peasants' revolt_ to reform parliamentary democracy in Canada, but i doubt he will; he is not fond of the bold stroke.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Mar 2013)

I have to agree, Edward that there is too much control these days. Not every issue has to be a confidence matter. If we take our cue from other Westminster style houses, government bills fail all the time - it doesn't result in a change of government. Our system has grown too acrimonious and confrontational to be effective. 

That being said, I firmly believe that this instance is nothing more than an attempt by these MPs to reignite the abortion debate. They failed before, and they will likely fail again. That some of our more ardent left leaners support their so-called free speech claim should serve as warning. They're just waiting to pounce when the inevitable anti-abortion commentary follows.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Apr 2013)

Except when you throw in everything under a budget bill including the kitchen sink. If a bill to change an act can't survive parliamentary debate on it's own feet, then it does not deserve to be law. I have seen first hand the making of a new bill in recent times and frankly I would not trust the drafters to do my laundry, much less make law.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Except when you throw in everything under a budget bill including the kitchen sink. If a bill to change an act can't survive parliamentary debate on it's own feet, then it does not deserve to be law. I have seen first hand the making of a new bill in recent times and frankly I would not trust the drafters to do my laundry, much less make law.




And the _National Post's_ Matt Gurney (and I) agree with you. His views are in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/04/matt-gurney-memo-to-the-tories-stop-being-jerks-before-its-too-late/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


> Memo to the Tories: Stop being jerks before it’s too late
> 
> Matt Gurney
> 
> ...




The Conservative front bench is not bad, maybe not as good as Mulroney's in 1984, but, all-in-all, competent. I think one thing Prime Minister Harper might try is to trim his cabinet by merging several ministries into fewer "super-ministries," each under a strong, trusted minister and each with enough _associate_ (junior) ministers to satisfy all the Canadian regional, ethnic, linguistic, racial and whatever else requirements. Then he should let the trusted few run their portfolios, guided by a fairly public "master plan." He needs manage a careful balance between the ill conceived but popular law and order agenda, with which part of his constituency is very happy, and a broader socially moderate agenda that is needed to regain and retain the trust of suburban Canadians. He can write off the major urban cores of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver but he must retain and even strengthen his hold on rural Canada and make more, real gains in the suburbs, too. Vic Toews is a hazard in suburban Canada, so, albeit to a lesser degree, is Tony Clement. But Clement is a very good political tactician and manager; Toews needs to be appointed to the Manitoba Bench.

There is time to turn things around, but Stephen Harper has been prime minister for over six years. He's not past his "best before" date ... yet. But nothing can destroy a government faster than growing stale.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Apr 2013)

Problem is they believe Canadians when they say; "We want less red tape" What they are really saying is : "I want less red tape effecting me, but by Jesus you better deal with that fellow down the road that causing me problems!!!"


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2013)

And a poll, in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CBC News_:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/11/pol-nanos-liberals-ahead-of-conservatives-in-new-poll.html


> Federal Liberals lead Conservatives in new poll
> *Nanos poll suggests NDP drop to third as number of undecided voters plummets*
> 
> By Laura Payton, CBC News
> ...




The Liberals, especially M. Trudeau, have dominated the media for the past few weeks - with, by and large, favourable coverage - so it should not be surprising that they have a _bounce_ in the polls. But note the (indented) history - a _leader bounce_ does not translate into electoral success.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Apr 2013)

I hope there is enough bounce to make the Conservatives sweat, in fact I would like to see them in a minority government or the slimmest of majority next time around. I am less than impressed with many of their current practices. I hold no illusions about what the other side has to offer either.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Apr 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Problem is they believe Canadians when they say; "We want less red tape" What they are really saying is : "I want less red tape effecting me, but by Jesus you better deal with that fellow down the road that causing me problems!!,!"



The Canadian public is very fickle.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The Canadian public is very fickle.




While the _Globe and Mail_ has been a celebrity obsessed as all other media, its editorial board still has its head screwed on as it demonstrates in this editorial, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, which is, rightfully, very critical of Justin Trudeau's silly, adolescent level comment about "root causes:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/justin-trudeau-and-the-problem-with-root-causes/article11402107/


> Justin Trudeau and the problem with ‘root causes’
> 
> The Globe and Mail
> 
> ...




Despite his good looks, appealing, genuinely pleasant personality and celebrity status, M. Trudeau is a lightweight.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Apr 2013)

Didn't take him long to drag out the campfire circle and start singing Kumbaya  :

He, obviously, hasn't bothered watching much real news for the last 20 years and is disconnected with the way the real world works.

Probably the outcome of living in his little self absorbed bubble all his life.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (19 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Despite his good looks, appealing, genuinely pleasant personality and celebrity status, M. Trudeau is a lightweight.



Yes, unfortunately I'd have to agree that his quotes in the article you shared indeed show is juvenile (not said to be insulting to him, but more as an accurate view of his ideals) sense and inexperience in the "real world," as Recceguy stated.  I'd like to think that it isn't a precursor of attitudes and disillusionment to come, but I feel it might be.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Apr 2013)

Personally I think that Mr Trudeau`s focus on "root causes" is no more than thinly veiled blame the victim. That the victims in this case happen to be Americans, then that fits well with Liberal party history.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2013)

"Mid-term malaise" is shaping up to be the _"mot du jour"_ for the media and here are two contrasting views on the subject, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from, respectively, the _Toronto Star_ and the _National Post_

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/19/attack_ads_part_of_tories_midlife_malaise_hbert.html


> Attack ads part of Tories’ mid-life malaise: Hébert
> *With attacks ads on Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are focusing on the consequences rather than the root causes of their drop in popularity.*
> 
> By: Chantal Hébert National Affairs,
> ...



While, in contrast:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/19/john-ivison-despite-conservative-malaise-only-spectacular-collapse-could-keep-stephen-harper-from-winning-next-election/


> Despite recent Conservative malaise, only spectacular collapse could stop Stephen Harper
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




That the CPC is down in the polls in undeniable; but it is mid-term and my sense is that's the norm for all governments. (I'm happy to be corrected on that by someone with access to good data.)

The question is: can Prime Minister Harper use the next two years to stiffen and then expand his popular support and win another majority? My answer is and unqualified "Yes." The "senior Ontario Conservative" who suggested that what is need is "putting a kind face on a consistent Conservative agenda" missed two points:

     1. Canadian don't really care that Prime Minister Harper is less than lovable, they don't really "like" him but they do respect him. They want competence; and

     2. Which "Conservative agenda?" Social conservatism is a loser; law and order conservatism gets mixed reviews; fiscal conservatism is risky. Most Canadians vote in the _mushy middle_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2013)

And, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html





Justin Trudeau: the gift that keeps on giving


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And a poll, in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CBC News_:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/11/pol-nanos-liberals-ahead-of-conservatives-in-new-poll.html
> 
> ...




"Polls are a snapshot in time," says a Conservative insider in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Hill Times_, in which a Liberal insider posits that while there is unlikely to be much of a "bleed" from the CPC to the Liberals the Liberals are well poised to suck a lot of support away from the NDP:

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/04/22/tories-ndp-not-worried-by-polls-but-liberals-say-they-should-be/34462?page_requested=1


> Tories, NDP not worried by polls, but Liberals say they should be
> *Federal Liberals say the national political landscape has changed and all parties say they’re now in permanent campaign mode.*
> 
> By BEA VONGDOUANGCHANH |
> ...




I doubt that even the most optimistic _Dippers_ believe that the NDP can hold all or even most of its support in Quebec. Despite being a Quebecer, M. Mulcair is unlikely to be a popular in Quebec as is M. Trudeau (and neither will, likely, match the late Jack Layton's popularity). My guess is that the Liberals will make some gains at the NDP's expense and a revitalized BQ (or another Quebec _nationalist_ party) will also eat into the NDP's seat count.

I agree with Warren Kinsella that the CPC is unlikely to lose much to the Liberals, but a few seats are vulnerable - more likely the Liberals and CPC will be more competitive in some ridings and that may allow a few NDP candidates (or even a Green) to "come up the middle," in a tight race.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2013)

I'm oversimplifying of course, but Quebec doesn't matter anymore. No one cares about a Quebec battleground (except maybe Quebec). The Libs and NDP can fight and waste all their resources there. Quebec is no longer needed to win. 

And on a personal note, it's nice to see a sitting government that won't be blackmailed by them, for a change.


----------



## Remius (22 Apr 2013)

I wouldn't go that far.  I don't think that Quebec matters as much as it may have seemed before.  But don't discount  the effect that province can have.  It traditionally votes as a complete geo-political entity.  Enough seats to put the Liberals back into relevancy and could mean the difference between a majority and a minority government for the CPC.  Anything less than a majority will be a major defeat for the CPC and Harper.

As well, although the Conservative government is viewed as "standing" up to Quebec it had no problem getting in bed with the bloc when they were in a minority situation and are not really facing the Quebec of 20, 30, years ago when they posed a real threat.  Seperatism is in its death throes if not already clinically dead already.  The old guard is dead or dying, the people of Quebec have adopted a more global view of the world and the thirst for seperation is just not there.  Plus the current government has benefited from having a PLQ government for most of it's time in power plus a minority PQ government now and likely until the next federal election.  In fact, what the PQ and sovereignists want is more power to the province which the Conservatives are all to happy to do given their willingness to de-evolve power from the central government.  Their interests align more than people think.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2013)

The _National Post's_ John Ivison is promoting a cabinet shuffle (something that excites pundits) in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/28/young-tories-hoping-for-cabinet-post-mere-pawns-in-stephen-harpers-game/


> Ambitious young Tories hoping for Cabinet posts are mere pawns in Harper’s game
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




While I agree with John Ivison on the complexities of cabinet making in Ottawa I think he is missing the point that Prime Minister Harper needs to give more potential leaders an opportunity to shine plus, the government needs a fresh, friendly, younger and competent face going into 2014/15.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2013)

Perhaps the natural progression could be done by allowing these ambitious young members more "face time" in the media. This could be a sort of "Parliamentary Idol" to determine who is articulate and quick on their feet, without too much danger (it is easy to throw an MP under the bus without too much damage to the CPC brand), and keeping cabinet ministers out of the line of fire.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting bit of prognostication about the 2013 _prepatory phase_ for the 2015 election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-challenge-to-reboot-and-refresh-his-government/article11672152/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper’s challenge: To reboot and refresh his government
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




It's a fine balancing act: Prime Minister Harper wants to keep the _socially liberal/fiscally conservative_ wing (the _centre_ of the CPC) on side while, at the same time, not alienating any of the _social conservatives_ (some of whom, especially in the "new Canadian" communities, are also fiscally conservative), the _law and order conservatives_ (which includes many senior citizens) or the free spending _Red Tories_.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 May 2013)

We are dealing with a issue that gets a lot of traction out here, Ottawa has ignored it for years, but now we are getting a sense that they will throw some money at it, but will wait for the election year to announce it. A very typical Liberal response.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2013)

Another faux scandal shrivels under the light:

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2013/05/that-missing-31-billion.html



> *That "missing" $3.1 billion*
> 
> Strange. Despite all the media reports and Opposition demands, I can't find any reference in the Auditor General's report saying anything close to "OMG! The Conservatives lost $3.1 billion!? Where did it go?!"
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (4 May 2013)

So the headline could just as easily read "Government doesn't spend 3.1 billion". Not likely of course, but there's a great deal of difference between losing money and a budget allocation not spent.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 May 2013)

Prime Minister Harper's "not the time time to do sociology" remark (regarding Justin Trudeau's "root causes" gaffe) caused all manner of consternation amongst the _chattering classes_, most of whom are charter members of the _Laurentian Consensus_ ...



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Toronto Star_ continues to fret that "Two years of Conservative majority government have brought profound changes to Canada, and some may be hard to undo. Not everyone is celebrating Thursday’s birthday" - the "not everyone" refers to the so-called _Laurentian Consensus_ which, John Ibbitson posits, managed the Canadian socio-economic and political agenda for pretty much all of the 19th and 20th centuries ...



Now, as if to demonstrate their tin ear where Canadians are concerned, a loooooong list of sociol scientists weighs in to condemn the PM"s "anti-intellectualism" and to defend the "doing sociology," in this letter to the editor which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Montreal Gazette_:



> Letter: Let’s all ‘commit sociology’
> 
> The Gazette
> 
> ...




Who needs Tory attack ads when the _intellectuals_ parody themselves and remind Canadians of why they like solid, even stolid Stephen Harper better than the representatives of the _Laurentian Consensus_:






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


The Laurentian Consensus


----------



## Old Sweat (4 May 2013)

Wow! The letter is more deserving of rabble.ca than a respected daily paper. Even the starting point, that the Prime Minister attacked sociology as a discipline, is untrue. While there may well be a place for victim studies and all the rest of their field, to suggest claim that the country is on a path that runs against everything the writers stand for is beyond the pale. The whole thing is weak, full of overwrought rhetoric, poorly constructed and unworthy of distinguished academics.

It may even have escaped their ken that Canada is one of the minority of countries that allows them to mount such a criticism of the ruling administration without fear of reprisal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 May 2013)

I'll leave it to our own resident academics to pass on whether the signatories are "distinguished" or not; I was happy to note the *absence* of several names - people I cite fairly often - from that list.


----------



## CougarKing (5 May 2013)

With this latest commentary by Lord Black below, isn't it about time we have superthread about the abuses and excesses of certain unions? 

To think there was a recent Maclean's article, titled "The new $100,000 club" of why people in certain professions in the provincially-paid public sector workers such as firefighters, police officers and teachers are getting unreasonable high salaries, partially because of gains from union action. In some cases, they earn more than lawyers and engineers; in Ontario, as quoted from the article, more than half of these government costs go to incomes and benefits. 

National Post link



> *Conrad Black: Public-sector unions are a blight on our society*
> 
> The announcement this week by Tony Clement, Canada’s capable Treasury Board President, that representatives of his department would attend collective bargaining sessions at Crown corporations, is entirely welcome. The entities he singled out for careful examination in search of budgetary economies were Canada Post, Via Rail and the CBC. These all present different administrative challenges, but the idea is a first positive step in the long-overdue overhaul of this entire process.
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (5 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'll leave it to our own resident academics to pass on whether the signatories are "distinguished" or not; I was happy to note the *absence* of several names - people I cite fairly often - from that list.



Remember, being an "academic" these days often means (a) your parents had enough to pay for you to do a 7 year undergrad, (b) you can write a paper about a book the prof made you read and/or (c) you are in an "academic department" that considers protesting and orgies to be credit worthy material is the degree mills that many university programs have become....


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> With this latest commentary by Lord Black below, isn't it about time we have superthread about the abuses and excesses of certain unions?
> 
> To think there was a recent Maclean's article, titled "The new $100,000 club" of why people in certain professions in the provincially-paid public sector workers such as firefighters, police officers and teachers are getting unreasonable high salaries, partially because of gains from union action. In some cases, they earn more than lawyers and engineers; in Ontario, as quoted from the article, more than half of these government costs go to incomes and benefits.
> 
> National Post link



Lord Black is wrong about one thing. He says, "Collective bargaining is a defiance of the free market, which is efficient and meritocratically fair." A "free market" - one without trade unions - cannot make a sensible calculation of the real cost (or value) of labour which is, almost always, an important input cost. There's an old adage which says "you can't manage what you can't measure" and collective bargaining allows us to "measure" both the cost and the value of labour.

I separate cost and value for a reason: sometimes, very often in the case of traditional, industrial work, increasing costs of the workers have the predictable effect of lowering the "value" of each worker and higher wages bring automation and "off shoring."

There is no problem with public sector unions, _per se_. What is problematical is the _conditions_ under which they were established. Public sector unions were given the rights won by industrial unions - including the silly Rand formula - but they did not lose their "iron rice bowl." Traditionally public sector workers were paid less than their counterparts in the private sector (not the case any more!) but they had enviable, excellent job security.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 May 2013)

>A "free market" - one without trade unions - cannot make a sensible calculation of the real cost (or value) of labour which is, almost always, an important input cost.

The "free market" knows the value of labour full well; most private sector labour is not unionized.  What needs to be shown is that the public sector's estimate of the value of its labour is more accurate than that of the private sector - for any given job.


----------



## mariomike (5 May 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> With this latest commentary by Lord Black below, isn't it about time we have superthread about the abuses and excesses of certain unions?



Not sure which "certain" unions you mean, but a member started a discussion of Emergency Services pay and benefits here:

"Civilians complaining about Police/Emergency Services' Pay"
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/102608.0.html
  


			
				S.M.A. said:
			
		

> To think there was a recent Maclean's article, titled "The new $100,000 club" of why people in certain professions in the provincially-paid public sector workers such as firefighters, police officers and teachers are getting unreasonable high salaries, partially because of gains from union action. In some cases, they earn more than lawyers and engineers; in Ontario, as quoted from the article, more than half of these government costs go to incomes and benefits.



Like the story says, "Since police, firefighters and paramedics—so-called essential workers—aren’t allowed to strike, the task falls to an arbitrator when municipalities can’t arrive at a new agreement."

They are just living by the system that was instituted.  

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is lobbying for changes to the arbitration system.

May 2, 2013 

"Rising Emergency Service Costs 
Ontario municipalities are deeply concerned about the unchecked rise in emergency service costs. Wages and benefit increases in this area are greater than increases for other municipal employees, the rate of inflation, increases for Ontario's population, and the capacity of many municipal governments."
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1157745/ontario-budget-delivers-infrastructure-investment-silent-on-tools-to-manage-costs


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 May 2013)

Just to show that internecine warfare is not the exclusive province of the Liberal Party of Canada, here is a somewhat nasty opinion piece by disgruntled Conservative insider Peter G White:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/stephen-harpers-costly-french-kiss-off/article11714708/#dashboard/follows/


> Stephen Harper’s costly French kiss-off
> 
> PETER G. WHITE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




This is not Mr. White's first kick at this can - see, also, here (MacLean's magazine) for a similar piece with the same message from early in 2013.

Now I am one of those who is not disturbed by what I see as a considered Conservative programme to "govern without Quebec" - not *against* Quebec, just not depending upon policies which appeal to Quebec nationalists. I believe that the Conservatives can compete for the 15-20 solidly federalist seats in Quebec if they adopt a position which is more sympathetic to linguistic minorities (not just the English), but that's another issue.

I expect, before I die, to see a House of Commons with nearly 400 seats, with just over ¼ being from "old Canada" (Quebec and Atlantic Canada). Why would the CPC alienate their new "coalition" of rural conservatives and suburbanites in order to placate either Quebec or Atlantic Canada?

But: Mr. White is not alone. There is, still a fairly large _Progressive Conservative_ rump in the CPC and it remembers when Brian Mulroney achieved success by uniting rural conservatives, some suburbanites and Quebec's _soft nationalists_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 May 2013)

Is this really how Justin Trudea wants to counter the CPC attack ads that suggest he's a lightweight?





Justin Trudeau appears in a campaign video sent to Liberal supporters Monday morning.
Source: _National Post_

I'm assuming the aim is to cement his attraction to the _Facebook/Twitter/YouTube_ generation, but I doubt it will help in the fast growing suburbs where fiscal policy is the key issue.


----------



## PanaEng (6 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is this really how Justin Trudea wants to counter the CPC attack ads that suggest he's a lightweight?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That may actually be a very good played political move in order to attract the younger votes by seeming more down to earth.


----------



## Remius (6 May 2013)

Indeed.  Plus the Liberals seem to be getting the coffers filled with at least 1 million raised since Justin was crowned.  

And now a possible win in a Labrador by-election.

But how long will the wind stay in the sails?

Edited for grammar.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 May 2013)

I see he's still sticking to his Obama 'Hope and Change' script though. At least this time he changed it to 'Hope and Hard Work'  :


----------



## CougarKing (6 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is no problem with public sector unions, _per se_. What is problematical is the _conditions_ under which they were established. Public sector unions were given the rights won by industrial unions - including the silly Rand formula - but they did not lose their "iron rice bowl." Traditionally public sector workers were paid less than their counterparts in the private sector (not the case any more!) but they had enviable, excellent job security.



Speaking of unions in general...

National Post headline: "Harper unlikely to take on unions so close to election," says John Ivison


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 May 2013)

>They are just living by the system that was instituted. 

"They" unions know how to exploit the "system" very effectively.  Basic recipe: pick a weak jurisdiction; throw all resources into sustaining a strike that breaks the employer's will to resist demands.  Then, in all other jurisdictions, wait for arbitration to roll out the goodies.  Very cost-effective.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >A "free market" - one without trade unions - cannot make a sensible calculation of the real cost (or value) of labour which is, almost always, an important input cost.
> 
> The "free market" knows the value of labour full well; most private sector labour is not unionized.  What needs to be shown is that the public sector's estimate of the value of its labour is more accurate than that of the private sector - for any given job.




But while the "free market" may have "known" the _value_ of labour, for many generations business owners/managers refused - because they could - to pay fair wages for the value of the work provided. It took concentrated _friction_ throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries to provide some balance and big labour - big enough to actually _compete_ with big business - was an essential part of that process.

Just as the _balance of power_ was tilted towards the owners/managers in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it tilted, thanks to government and legal interventions, to the labour side in the second half of the 20th century. It's like a pendulum: management had too much power _circa_ 1910, organized labour, especially public sector unions, have too much power now. But that doesn't mean that organized labour is either "bad" or unnecessary.


----------



## GAP (7 May 2013)

> But while the "free market" may have "known" the value of labour, for many generations business owners/managers refused - because they could - to pay fair wages for the value of the work provided.



And what did business do? 

It exported it's manufacturing to regimes where it could reduce the labour costs....

Fair and equitable wages and benefits are wonderful if everyone is playing by those rules. Business will generally go with the lowest common denominator.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2013)

The corporation has a duty to its owners (shareholders) to maximize profit. Paying "fair," market value wages and providing "fair," market value benefits is, broadly, good business. But, in the latter years of the 20th century the management/labour pendulum swung too far towards labour, until the negotiated costs of labour far exceeded its value. Two wholly predicable things happened: 

     1. Automation; and

     2. Outsourcing and "offshoring."

Public service jobs are harder to automate and outsource and so public sector unions have enjoyed all the "benefits" for which the the industrial unions fought so hard in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but they do not take many of the risks - job losses - that industrial workers did and still do.


----------



## GAP (7 May 2013)

agreed


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 May 2013)

I think the _Globe and Mail's_ Brian Gable has, pretty much, summed up politics in 2013 (to date, anyway): the media is _star struck_.






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/look-justin-trudeau/article11638060/#dashboard/follows/

Even (relatively) pro-Conservative columnists are fascinated by the prospect that Justin Trudeau might upset Stephen Harper on the basis of nothing more that _charisma_.

As Brian Gable suggests, the big losers are Thomas Mulcair and the NDP but, according to recent polling - remember Harold Wilson and "a week is a long time in politics" and all that - the Liberals have a seven point lead over the Conservatives, despite having no policies and a young, vague, untested leader.


----------



## Nemo888 (10 May 2013)

For a century North America had a shortage of labour. The working class had their wages and bargaining power increase steadily until they took for granted what they fought for with blood and bullets. Then communist China realized it's main unexploited resource was excess labour. Ironically it was the communists that ended the supremacy of the working class.


----------



## dapaterson (10 May 2013)

Politics is just high school all over again.

For the past several years, the wonks have been running the place.  And the Liberals tried to out-wonk the wonkiest wonk of all, Stephen Harper.

That didn't go so well, as the parade of failed Liberal leaders can attest.

But now they've gone for one of the cool kids.  Who the wonks dislike and distrust.  But the wonks don't understand that the cool kids relate to each other differently, and spending your time attacking him and tearing him down may build you up in the eyes of your small peer group, but doesn't do much for you in the larger school population.


----------



## Haletown (10 May 2013)

in other politics, an RNC advert they chose not to run in the last election.


http://tinyurl.com/dxmlrcx


They probably should have run it . . .  if Hillary runs in 2016 I'd bet they will run it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 May 2013)

Well my program just got cut nationwide by about 44%, we lost 4 project coordinators. None of the organizational planning was done by the regional managers, it was all done at the EX level using rather dubious data. We just lost our best administrator, who was also the most experienced. They have also gotten rid of our GIS tech and the person running and upgrading our database. Just because they are core tools to our job does not mean we need that stuff right? Meanwhile 2 useless types in HQ survive. 
Had they give a the regional managers a salary figure and told them to modify our org structure within that confine, we could have done a much better job. No doubt in 4 years when they realize we are not meeting the Service Fee standard and cannot charge fees, then they will hire people back again. 2 more years till I am 55 and pin pulling am I. There is no joy, satisfaction or pride left.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 May 2013)

Is this Stephen Harper's _Watergate_?

Remember _Watergate_? It was a low level blunder that need not have brought down a sitting US president ... but it did.

I'm with Andrew Coyne; I cannot fathom what possessed Nigel Wright to give Sen Mike Duffy $90,000. Duffy isn't that important, is he? I know he's a pretty good communicator - as a regular donor to the CPC I get periodic video messages from him - but he's not *that* good, is he? His brand is now tarnished; he has to go. Nigel Wright has, also, tarnished the PMO and he needs to go, too - and he's a helluva lot more valuable than Duffy.

Prime Minister Harper needs to step out in front of this, as soon as he gets back from New York, and call it what it is: inappropriate, even scandalous and intolerable. That's what Richad Nixon didn't do when _Watergate_ happened and it was a decision he lived to regret.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 May 2013)

More on the Mike Duffy front in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/mike-duffy-the-reporter-would-have-known-what-questions-his-story-raises/article11959318/#dashboard/follows/


> Mike Duffy the reporter would have known what questions his story raises
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I think Prime Minister Harper can make a small silk purse from this sow's ear. 

He needs to fire Duffy from the Conservative caucus and, sadly, fire Nigel Wright, too; but then he can say, "My fellow Canadians, I'm sorry that I appointed two people (Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy) who betrayed our trust - our trust, mine and yours. But it demonstrates one thing: *your* political judgement is better then mine, better than mine or Jean Chrétien's ... and that why we need to elect all senators. You need to take the power away from me and use it yourselves to select the people you want to represent your province in the Senate of Canada."

"A lot of people," the prime minister should add, "including several provincial premiers, don't like elections because, I guess, they are a bit afraid that you might make decisions that they, or I, might not like. That's the problem with democracy, isn't it? *You* get to decide, not me, not a premier, not a bureaucrat or a back room operator, just you; and that makes a lot of people nervous. I'm not afraid of your decisions; I will learn to work with the good people you send to Ottawa."


----------



## Remius (16 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is this Stephen Harper's _Watergate_?
> 
> Remember _Watergate_? It was a low level blunder that need not have brought down a sitting US president ... but it did.
> 
> ...



Agreed Mr. Campbell.  This whole thing raises a lot of questions.  I was listening to Pierre Polievre defending this whole thing this morning  :facepalm:.  Nothing short of removing Duffy and likely Wright as well is going to remove this cloud of the PM.


----------



## dapaterson (16 May 2013)

Fiercely partisan.

Fiercely loyal.


Two key traits of Stephen Harper.

I fear those will override Mr Campbell's prescription.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 May 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Fiercely partisan.
> 
> Fiercely loyal.
> 
> ...


As much as the "Campbell Solution" would make the most sense, this is how I, too, would bet my loonie.

Edited to add:  One more point to add to DAP's list - Reluctant to admit errors.


----------



## Remius (16 May 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> As much as the "Campbell Solution" would make the most sense, this is how I, too, would bet my loonie.



Just when you thought it couldn't get worse...

Seems like he was double dipping as well.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/05/16/pol-duffy-expenses-double-dipping.html

I really won't feel too bad for him if he gets charged over this.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 May 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Just when you thought it couldn't get worse...
> 
> Seems like he was double dipping as well.
> 
> ...




And that's why Prime Minister Harper needs to get "out in front" of this: to take the "high road," admit that he made mistakes, picked the wrong people, etc, but has "cleaned house" - cleaned up the caucus and the PMO - and now will appoint only senators who are elected and agree seek regular re-election.

Sens Duffy, Brazeau and Harb all appear, on the currently available evidence, to have abused the public trust - Sen Duffy now needs to join Sens Brazeau and Harb on the "independent" benches. It would be better if all three would resign but I fear that's too much to expect.

I think that a federal system needs a bicameral legislature: one chambre representing all the people on a roughly equal basis and the other representing the provinces* and, therefore, I think the NDP is wrong to want to abolish the Senate. So, since I think we need a Senate, the question becomes: how can it be made qualitatively better? I am serious when I suggest that Prime Minister Harper admit that the people's judgement is, usually, better than his own and that elected senators are unlikely to be as sleazy as appointed ones.

_____
* The provincial premiers' "Council of the Federation" is not sufficient; the federal parliament needs to represent both the people and constituent parts of the federation.


----------



## dapaterson (16 May 2013)

Where is Frank Magazine when you really need it?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 May 2013)

So, step one is complete: Mike Duffy quits Tory caucus citing 'distracting' controversy, says the _Globe and Mail's_ headline writer.

Step two is for Nigel Wright to resign and for Prime Minister Harper - uncharacteristically, to be sure - to shoulder some of the responsibility for picking senators (Brazeau and Duffy (and Wallin?)) who have abused the public trust.

Step three is for the Senate (aided by the RCMP?) to expel Sens Brazeau, Duffy and Harb (and Wallin?) for breach of trust.


----------



## dapaterson (17 May 2013)

Left out a step: Full disclosure of where Mr Wright got the money.  Was this an attempt to make an end-run around political financing rules?

It stinks to high heaven; just letting people resign without accountability is more damaging to the body politic in the long term.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 May 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Left out a step: Full disclosure of where Mr Wright got the money.  Was this an attempt to make an end-run around political financing rules?
> 
> It stinks to high heaven; just letting people resign without accountability is more damaging to the body politic in the long term.




I doubt there's any question about the source of the money - he is on leave of absence from his day job: managing director of Onex Corp (which has several billions in assets under management) so I doubt he has any trouble finding $90K under his mattress.

But: *it is wrong* to give a legislator such a sum ~ it doesn't matter if it is a gift or a loan. It is, simply, wrong. Mr. Wright needs to resign, now. He is doing a grave disservice to Prime Minister Harper.


----------



## dapaterson (17 May 2013)

The wealthy do not get that way or stay that way by spending their own money.  (See Black, Lord Tubby, convicted crook).

Paying off a Senator's debts is an intensely Political (big P) act.  What did Mr Wright hope to gain?  Or, what did others hope to gain by doing this?


Paris is worth a mass.  And a Senator, apparently, is worth $90 000.


----------



## Nemo888 (17 May 2013)

The most delicious irony is that this all started to get rid of Brazeau. Remember when he was the black eye? To quote Deliotte; "Senator Patrick Brazeau has fully and completely co-operated with Deloitte LLP regarding his residency. All documents have been found to be in order. Deloitte concludes Senator Brazeau meets all 4 Primary Residence Indicators." 

So funny that Duffy is the one who is double billing the Conservative Party and the Canadian Government at the same time. But this wasn't enough. He had to shill for corporate interests on the side like the Sun News Network on top of it. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mike-duffy-tried-to-influence-crtc-decision-on-sun-media-source-1.1285555 Duffy screwed everyone and now the PM has to bail him out to keep him quiet. Deliotte even called Duffy to tell him their finding in advance. If an _independent_ inquiry ever starts things will get even more interesting. Liberal Mac Harb is no saint either or Pamela Wallin for that matter. There is plenty of corruption to go around for everyone. I laugh at how Brazeau is actually one of the more honest Senators.


----------



## dapaterson (17 May 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I laugh at how Brazeau is actually one of the more honest  *less dishonest* Senators.



FTFY


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 May 2013)

Seems the CPC want s to sully Mulcair a bit as well. I suspect this might backfire given the antics of some of the tories

_
According to Radio-Canada Thomas Mulcair has known about corruption in Quebec politics since 1994, when the Mayor of Laval allegedly offered him “help” in the typical Liberal style: an envelope.

Thomas Mulcair appears to have kept this sordid affair to himself for seventeen years. In 2010, he even denied having ever been offered a bribe. Yet after seventeen years of silence, Mulcair finally spoke up after investigations were already underway in 2011.

As a result, Thomas Mulcair could be called before the Charbonneau Commission to explain his (in)action.

Mulcair kept his firsthand knowledge of corruption from the public for two more years, before choosing to dump it today, when he felt the media would be distracted by other stories.

This presents some difficult questions for Mr. Mulcair:

1.     Why did he protect Gilles Vaillancourt and cover up this alleged criminal activity for 17 years?
2.     Why did it take a public inquiry into the biggest corruption scandal in Canadian history for Thomas Mulcair to finally come clean with Canadians?
3.     Why did Thomas Mulcair lie and say he was never offered any money by Gilles Vaillancourt?
4.     Will he agree to appear if called to testify under oath before the Charbonneau Commission?_


----------



## Journeyman (17 May 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Seems the CPC wants to sully Mulcair a bit as well.


I'd be hesitant to point fingers at the Conservatives on this, but since you have to actually _search_ CBC.ca to find the story....


----------



## Nemo888 (17 May 2013)

The is enough sh!t in the outhouse on the Hill for everyone. You can't vote against corruption.


----------



## Remius (17 May 2013)

The one comfort I take from this is that Mike Duffy's life has been completely turned upside down.  And it's all his own doing.  His hypocrisy and ego has finally been turned against him.  He's now hiding in PEI (ironically) and is obviously feeling the pressure.  Reputation and legacy is completely destroyed.  I hope this goes as far as it has to.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 May 2013)

And a lot of this developed because the Senate operated on the honour system, which meant Senators did not have to substantiate claims with receipts and other documentation. What possibly could go wrong with that?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 May 2013)

Now CTV News is reporting that Sen Pamela Wallin has resigned from the Conservative caucus.


----------



## Remius (17 May 2013)

Wow.  This thing is unravelling faster than a kid's gift at Christmas.  Follow the money...


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 May 2013)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Halifax Chronicle Herald_ is a another symptom of the _Ottawa disease_ (patronage):

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1130152-crtc-commissioner-patrone-takes-job-at-sun-news#.UZahL8sTwZE.twitter


> CRTC commissioner Patrone takes job at Sun News
> 
> May 17, 2013
> 
> ...




Now, this should be taken with a small grain of salt, while the _Chronicle Herald_ does not compete "head to head" with _Sun Media_, news organizations love to dish the dirt on one another.

There is nothing that says, as far as I know, that CRTC Commissioners have to forsake all gainful employment (and _caveat lector_, in my "second career" I had a friendly, collegiel relationship with the former Acting Chair of the CRTC and with another serving commissioner, in both cases before they joined the CRTC). They serve, generally, for a five year term; it is adequately paid but it is "public service" and, in at least some cases, the salary is not competitive with the private sector. But: it is influential public service and Marc Patrone has returned to his previous business (he is listed, in his Linkin profile as Director News Operations Western Canada at Sun News Network, so he's not in the regulatory business) and one cannot help but wonder if he was hired on merit or in return for holding favourable views while still in the CRTC. It smacks of _patronage_: a defeated Conservative candidate is appointed to the CRTC and then, when his tour of duty is finished he joins a Tory friendly broadcast news network.

Patronage is not unique to the Conservatives: the Liberals were, and still are in many respects, masters of it - there are still many long time Liberal loyalists in the upper reaches of the civil service and they still hire Liberal friendly academics and consultants. Do they do it consciously? Is there a "little red book" of _reliable_ people? No, but when they need a consultant or an academic they often turn to people they know, people with whom they have dealt over the years, people like them - people from what John Ibbitson calls the _Laurentian elites_.*

But the Senate of Canada is the worst example of partisan political _patronage_ in Canada and the solution is simple: elections.

_____
* See The Big Shift


----------



## Jed (17 May 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And a lot of this developed because the Senate operated on the honour system, which meant Senators did not have to substantiate claims with receipts and other documentation. What possibly could go wrong with that?



Yes, human foibles raise their ugly heads again. We definitely need a triple E senate and to nip some of this patronage issue in the bud. It is my hope though, that the talking heads keep this matter in proper perspective. (I wish the media was in the information business as opposed to the infotainment business)

The problem here is appointed public officials being creative in claiming expenses reimbursement from the public purse. It has gone on since the days of Roman Senators and it is not new.

In my opinion, it is not in the same league as the wholesale corruption that is occurring in Quebec or the Liberal Adscam business a few years back, or the absolute abuse of power occurring in the US ala the IRS strong arm tactics or the Benghazi political posturing that cost soldier's and diplomat's lives and careers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2013)

CBC Radio is reporting that Nigel Wright has resigned.

I cannot find a reference yet.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> CBC Radio is reporting that Nigel Wright has resigned.
> 
> I cannot find a reference yet.



If so, it was both overdue and inevitable despite all his admirable qualities. 

Edit to add: See Rex Murphy's comment here on the hidden agenda:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692/post-1230559#msg1230559

- mod edit to edit link -


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> CBC Radio is reporting that Nigel Wright has resigned.
> 
> I cannot find a reference yet.




Here is the story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CBC News_:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/05/pmo-chief-nigel-wright-quits-post-over-duffy-payback-deal.html


> PMO chief Nigel Wright quits post over Duffy payback deal
> 
> by Kady O'Malley
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> If so, it was both overdue and inevitable despite all his admirable qualities.




Indeed!

Now, all that remains is for the PM, when he returns to Ottawa, to make a *public mea culpa*, which will go against every political instinct he has, and use this scandal to press for an elected Senate - not a _Triple E_ Senate, that would require a Constitutional amendment.

I have, in the past outlined how the PM can, without amending the Constitution, _force_ an elected Senate.

First he writes two letters:

     1. One to each provincial premier and territorial leader saying:

          a. I will not appoint any senator who (in additon to meeting all the other Constitutional requirements) is not elected in conjunction with a provincial general election, and

          b. I will not appoint any elected senator who does not provide, first, a signed letter of resignation effective the date of the next provincial general election; and

     2. One to each senator asking for their resignation effective the date of the nest general election in their province.

Second: he needs to promise to appoint four new senators, as he is allowed to do in §26: two for the _Assembly of First Nations_, one for the _Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami_, and one for the _Métis National Council_ (to be elected, in public, by those organizations) to give first nations a permanent, elected voice in Canada's Parliament. (There is a Constitutional wrinkle: each of those four senators must represent "equally the Four Divisions of Canada" which are Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. It's a wrinkle, not an insurmountable obstacle.)

Third: he needs to be prepared for a Supreme Court Challenge.

The provincial premiers will howl because an elected Senate will be _effective_, that's a natural outcome of being elected, and an elected, effective Senate will diminish the premiers' collective power.

Not all, maybe not even many senators will agree to resign - but some will and the others will eventually either: 1)follow suit when they realize they are "second class senators;" or 2) retire, as they must at age 75. We should remember that it took the USA about 20 years (back around 100 years ago) to move from an appointed (by state governors) to an elected Senate.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 May 2013)

Edward-

I think that your prescription has a lot of merit. In particular, your idea of appointing senators to represent First Nations also neatly provides a legitimate voice for those communties in a way that is both constitutionally and politically acceptable.

The question is: can and will the PM do it?


----------



## Old Sweat (19 May 2013)

Edward

Re your comment regarding a Supreme Court challenge, I believe he has already asked the Supremes for a ruling on what he can do regarding Senate reform.

It will be interesting to see in due course how PM Harper goes about making lemonade out of the bunch of lemons that have landed on his desk this time.


----------



## GAP (19 May 2013)

the sad thing about all this was the fact that these were prominent, conservative appointments screwing up by the numbers...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> the sad thing about all this was the fact that these were prominent, conservative appointments screwing up by the numbers...




But that can be a "good thing," IF the Prime Minister _plays_ it as: "tell you provincial premiers that YOU want to elect your own senators because YOU *will make better choices* than I."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 May 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'd be hesitant to point fingers at the Conservatives on this, but since you have to actually _search_ CBC.ca to find the story....



They sent me this e-mail. Mulcair, can respond that "I was not sure if it was an attempt to corrupt and as for corruption in Quebec I and (rest of Canada) had suspicions but no proof. However Mr Speaker let us ask our esteemed colleagues about the $90,000 paid to Senator Duffy...."


----------



## OldSolduer (19 May 2013)

What, or more correctly who, irks me in all this is Pat Martin, the swearing blowhard from Winnipeg.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 May 2013)

The cynic in me wonders if the media's focus on Senators Duffy and Walin is at all connected to the their being conservative media in their prior lives. I notice that Mr Harb is hardly ever mentioned.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 May 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The cynic in me wonders if the media's focus on Senators Duffy and Walin is at all connected to the their being conservative media in their prior lives. I notice that Mr Harb is hardly ever mentioned.


I would tend to agree with your assessment. 

Non bias media? Not in Canada you say? Pity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I would tend to agree with your assessment.
> 
> Non bias media? Not in Canada you say? Pity.




I don't expect an unbiased media; hell's bells, I don't even want an unbiased media.

I do want some accurate reporting of facts, but I'm a very average _Joe_ and I can sift the factual fly shit out of the pepper the media serves.

An unbiased media would be a deadly bore - so dull it would fail.

So I don't mind that the _Toronto Star_ supports the Liberals and goes after Toronto's Mayor Ford, or that the _Sun_ papers and _Sun TV_ are heavily biased towards the Conservatives - I know that when I read either or both I have to wade through oceans of BS and that's OK, we all have mental hip waders.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Halifax Chronicle Herald_ is a another symptom of the _Ottawa disease_ (patronage):
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1130152-crtc-commissioner-patrone-takes-job-at-sun-news#.UZahL8sTwZE.twitter
> 
> ...




And yet more, same source, about the _patronage_ problem in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Halifax _Chronicle herald_:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1130470-behind-the-job-rigging-at-acoa#.UZnuQWen-9o.twitter


> Behind the job-rigging at ACOA
> *Officials tailored hiring criteria for MacKay aides, Public Service Commission finds*
> 
> May 20, 2013
> ...




The various "opportunity agencies" in Industry Canada are shams, to begin with - just a way to funnel money into regions for partisan political purposes. If they were well managed subsidy programmes, with clear targets - like ship building - I would be less annoyed, I don't like subsidies but, since everyone does it, they are grudgingly acceptable.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 May 2013)

Interesting phrasing in the former Chief of Staff's statement.....


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is the story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CBC News_:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/05/pmo-chief-nigel-wright-quits-post-over-duffy-payback-deal.html
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (20 May 2013)

There seems to be a direct correlation between how long a party has been in power and how corrupt it becomes. Perhaps changing the diaper more often would make for better governance. 

If I thought the electorate could do something I would hope for changes to campaign financing and the punishment for things like what Duffy did to be more in line with treason. Instead he gets a large bribe from a party insider to keep quiet. That is pretty corrupt.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 May 2013)

Would you please explain what a misuse of housing allowance by an unelected senator has to do with campaign financing, especially cosidering how restrictive the rules for campaign contributions already are?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 May 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> There seems to be a direct correlation between how long a party has been in power and how corrupt it becomes. Perhaps changing the diaper more often would make for better governance.
> 
> If I thought the electorate could do something I would hope for changes to campaign financing and the punishment for things like what Duffy did to be more in line with treason. Instead he gets a large bribe from a party insider to keep quiet. That is pretty corrupt.



Actually, the Conservatives have considerably strengthen campaign financing rules, much to the discomfort of the opposition parties. I get that you viscerally dislike Harper, but one has nothing to do with the other.

This is not to minimize the current situation.  If ever there was an opportunity to reform the Senate, this is it.  The fact that the PMO's office (through bad judgement, likely) got dragged into this speaks more to the problems created by the PM (any PM, really) appointing Senators than anything else.  And until the Provinces come on board with a plan appoint elected senators that does not reopen the Constitution...none of this will ever change.  Regardless of who forms Government.


----------



## Nemo888 (20 May 2013)

Here is how legal corruption works at a local level. I had a friend who was a real estate developer. He has a large stable of municipal politicians in his pocket. It took many years of course. Some he groomed since before they won an election. Stuck with them even if they lost the first couple. He would give the maximum amount every year legally and a little more help on the side. Logistical help like giving employees paid weeks off to volunteer at election time, jobs for close friends and finding election managers. 

The years go by and let's say he buys some land by the river in Richmond County. The is no infrastructure  (roads, water, sewers, electricity waterfront building permits, etc, etc,) in place to build so he gets it dirt cheap. He asks for a zoning change. Tells the Councilman from Richmond no hard feeling if he votes against it. All the rest vote for the change. He builds his condos. The city foots the bill for the new infrastructure and the locals go nuts because their infrastructure is crumbling and it wrecks the waterfront. 

Costs of getting Councilors in your pocket about 300,000$. Profit on the deal is roughly 3 million.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 May 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Here is how legal corruption works at a local level. I had a friend who was a real estate developer. He has a large stable of municipal politicians in his pocket. It took many years of course. Some he groomed since before they won an election. Stuck with them even if they lost the first couple. He would give the maximum amount every year legally and a little more help on the side. Logistical help like giving employees paid weeks off to volunteer at election time, jobs for close friends and finding election managers.
> 
> The years go by and let's say he buys some land by the river in Richmond County. The is no infrastructure  (roads, water, sewers, electricity waterfront building permits, etc, etc,) in place to build so he gets it dirt cheap. He asks for a zoning change. Tells the Councilman from Richmond no hard feeling if he votes against it. All the rest vote for the change. He builds his condos. The city foots the bill for the new infrastructure and the locals go nuts because their infrastructure is crumbling and it wrecks the waterfront.
> 
> Costs of getting Councilors in your pocket about 300,000$. Profit on the deal is roughly 3 million.



I get how that works, but I fail to see how any law on campaign financing will fix your situation.

Politicians are like you and me.  They have lives and friends and business colleagues.  They don't get severed from Canadian society when they get elected to office.  What is your prescription?


----------



## Nemo888 (20 May 2013)

That is the 2000 year old question. Politicians are highly adaptable by nature so it is always an arms race.

Federally and Provincially some recent changes to the number contribuitions you could make to candidates and parties threw a  wrench into some of these guys operations. Finding the covert support which will take up that slack will be almost impossible. Jobs, time off, paying third parties under the table for campaigning, patronage and even ghost employess are very hard to ferret out. Most especially becuase all the parties rely on this system.

One of the very best ways is to throw out incumbents and have some fresh new faces. Fresh new faces often have no longstanding relationships and hence the corruptive infulence is lower, at least for the first few years. The Reform Party was awesome for that. As the years go on my respect for Preston Manning grows. His stance on corruption, especially the legal kind, makes up for all the things I disagreed. The ammalgamation made the Reform more like the old Conservative Party, not the other way around.

Full disclosure the man I am taling about did this with Team Liberal. Though Team Conservative was exactly the same(at least locally) and the NDP wished they could. NDP did occasionally do the patronage thing, but without influence they had little opportunity to be corrupt. That would of course change a few years after they got some. In the shadows someone is whispering poison into their ears from the first day they get the job. Without credible punishments eventually politicians succumb to the temptation.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 May 2013)

The NDP is extraordinarily corrupt.  There is a feedback loop between the NDP and unions, specifically public sector unions.  Neither side of that arrangement supports the other out of altruism.


----------



## Nemo888 (20 May 2013)

Unions are corrupt to be sure, but my friend seemed to think they were a joke. He had more money to throw around than the local unions of 10,000 members or more.  They simply don't have the resources to be much of a player by comparison.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 May 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Unions are corrupt to be sure, but my friend seemed to think they were a joke. He had more money to throw around than the local unions of 10,000 members or more.  They simply don't have the resources to be much of a player by comparison.



Did the Ontario Union of Teachers or some union in Ontario own part of the Maple Leafs? 

That ain't chump change.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Did the Ontario Union of Teachers or some union in Ontario own part of the Maple Leafs?
> 
> That ain't chump change.



The Teachers' Pension Plan owned the team  collection of hockey players.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Did the Ontario Union of Teachers or some union in Ontario own part of the Maple Leafs?
> 
> That ain't chump change.



They owned controlling interest in MLSE, which is the Raptors, Blue Jays, Leafs, and Toronto FC. Sold it to Bell/Rogers for $1.32 Billion last summer.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 May 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The Teachers' Pension Plan owned the team  collection of hockey players.




Slightly off topic, but the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan is one of the richest, best managed and most aggressive investors in North America.

It's CEO is Jim Leech (RMC class of 68) (Old Sweat: he served as a subaltern in 4CMBG Sigs in 69/70, do you remember him? He was a first rate athlete. Younger brother of MGen (Ret'd) John Leech and son of the late Brig George Leech, former Comd 2CIBG.)


----------



## Old Sweat (20 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic, but the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan is one of the richest, best managed and most aggressive investors in North America.
> 
> It's CEO is Jim Leech (RMC class of 68) (Old Sweat: he served as a subaltern in 4CMBG Sigs in 69/70, do you remember him? He was a first rate athlete. Younger brother of MGen (Ret'd) John Leech and son of the late Brig George Leech, former Comd 2CIBG.)



No, I never had the pleasure as I rotated home in 1967 to get back on the golden anglo gunner circuit of Shilo, Petawawa and Gagetown with side trips to Kingston, Ottawa and St-Hubert.  :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 May 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> No, I never had the pleasure as I rotated home in 1967 to get back on the golden anglo gunner circuit of Shilo, Petawawa and Gagetown with side trips to Kingston, Ottawa and St-Hubert.  :facepalm:



Oh, yes ... all the "resorts" of our careers - I missed Shilo (as an officer) and St Hubert (as other than a visitor) but the rest: oh joy!  :


----------



## mariomike (20 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Did the Ontario Union of Teachers or some union in Ontario own part of the Maple Leafs?
> 
> That ain't chump change.



The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System ( OMERS ) also has an impressive portfolio. 
http://www.omers.com/investments/Our_Investments_Major_Investments.aspx


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 May 2013)

>They simply don't have the resources to be much of a player by comparison.

Not every contribution is made directly in dollars.

As the brouhaha over Duffy shows, people believe that one form of corruption is when a person or organization gives money to a politician or party, expecting some sort of future favour.


----------



## Jed (20 May 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >They simply don't have the resources to be much of a player by comparison.
> 
> Not every contribution is made directly in dollars.
> 
> As the brouhaha over Duffy shows, people believe that one form of corruption is when a person or organization gives money to a politician or party, expecting some sort of future favour.



No political party would even be able to function without this sort of an unstated 'quid pro quo' between supporters and representatives. This would be a great Utopian world to strive for, but I don't see it ever happening in the real world.

This is why I don't see this matter as a major corruption issue. Just something that is off colour, and not quite right.


----------



## Remius (20 May 2013)

Jed, I think I disagree with that assessment.  This whole thing stinks.  You have a senator that has spent public money inappropriately and dare I say with complete disregard and contempt.  This isn't a case of him getting a free lunch.  It's 90 000 dollars.  Then he states he was going to pay it back as if he was the one doing it because it was the right thing to do.  But it turns out the PMs COS arguably the closest person to the PM pays his debt off in a clear case of inapropriate behaviour and suddenly the problem goes away.  Only it doesn't because it comes to light.  And it looks bad.  Really bad because now more details are emerging about double dipping, lies and who knows what else.  If Mike Duffy isn`t corrupt he sure is doing the best he can to look that way.  And if all of this was just a simple mistake or misunderstanding then the PM, his COS, Mike Duffy et al are all looking pretty incompetent.  

The COS did the right thing to step down.  It had to happen.  The next step is once the second audit goes through and the RCMP decides whether or not to lay charges, Mike Duffy needs to step down as senator.  He can no longer be effective and represent his province.  His office is tarnished no matter what the outcome.

He did something bad, someone tried to make it go away with money.  That`s corrupt.


----------



## Jed (21 May 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Jed, I think I disagree with that assessment.  This whole thing stinks.  You have a senator that has spent public money inappropriately and dare I say with complete disregard and contempt.  This isn't a case of him getting a free lunch.  It's 90 000 dollars.  Then he states he was going to pay it back as if he was the one doing it because it was the right thing to do.  But it turns out the PMs COS arguably the closest person to the PM pays his debt off in a clear case of inapropriate behaviour and suddenly the problem goes away.  Only it doesn't because it comes to light.  And it looks bad.  Really bad because now more details are emerging about double dipping, lies and who knows what else.  If Mike Duffy isn`t corrupt he sure is doing the best he can to look that way.  And if all of this was just a simple mistake or misunderstanding then the PM, his COS, Mike Duffy et al are all looking pretty incompetent.
> 
> The COS did the right thing to step down.  It had to happen.  The next step is once the second audit goes through and the RCMP decides whether or not to lay charges, Mike Duffy needs to step down as senator.  He can no longer be effective and represent his province.  His office is tarnished no matter what the outcome.
> 
> He did something bad, someone tried to make it go away with money.  That`s corrupt.




I have no argument with everything you say here. What has come to light looks pretty damning for Sen. Duffy. It also looks quite foolish of the PM's COS. He has obviously done the right thing in putting in his resignation.  

My point is that this is not a black and white world. There is broad range between the right thing to do, the expedient thing to do and the immoral thing to and the evil thing to do. Democratic politicians of all parties work in a world of compromise in order to lead us, preferably by a consensus of opinion, in the optimal direction.

If the money, (the money used to help Sen. Duffy pay back his allegedly grafted expense claims)  did not come out of the public purse I personally don't think this matter comes even close to being evil corruption. What I personally despise even more than the common greed you find in the average human being is a true righteous hypocrite who allows no fault from others yet overlooks his own foibles.

Airing one's dirty laundry to the world is something that I wish had never come into fashion. The world is a less gentile and sadder place with all this fake honesty and false righteousness. I prefer true humility, honest shame and eventual forgiveness.

As a citizen and taxpayer, I demand that we have above average politicians hold public office and that they be personally accountable.  

I also understand that politicians operate in a world that requires daily compromise and that they sometimes take the wrong path. For me, it is how they recover and get themselves back on the right road that shows their true character and mettle.


----------



## Nemo888 (21 May 2013)

So Duffy getting 90,000$ to keep quiet and go away is not an issue for you? Deliotte called him in advance so clearly it was not an independent inquiry. Paying him off makes it look even more like a cover up. Duffy had well over that amount in assets and could easily have gotten a loan.

Wallin's 300,000$ in mostly fake travel expenses are next. Then we can take back Harb's 22,000 a year fake housing allowance. Likely we will have to pay back Brazeau the 48,000$ fine as ironically he met all the criteria. This inquiry was anything but independent. It was a witch hunt for Brazeau that backfired on the PM.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 May 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> My point is that this is not a black and white world. There is broad range between the right thing to do, the expedient thing to do and the immoral thing to and the evil thing to do.


And where does "not following the rules" fall in this spectrum?



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> Democratic politicians of all parties work in a world of compromise in order to lead us, preferably by a consensus of opinion, in the optimal direction.


Again, true as long as it's within the established rules.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> If the money, (the money used to help Sen. Duffy pay back his allegedly grafted expense claims)  did not come out of the public purse I personally don't think this matter comes even close to being evil corruption.


When it comes to conflict of interest, it's not JUST the conflict, but the APPEARANCE of conflict - why would a key political aide of the PM cut a $90K cheque to a senator to bail him out?  And if it was a "gift", why were legal beagles needed?



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> I also understand that politicians operate in a world that requires daily compromise and that they sometimes take the wrong path. For me, it is how they recover and get themselves back on the right road that shows their true character and mettle.


True - and it took a while before the principals involved in this one to do the right thing (even if not all have done what many think is the _entire_ right thing yet).


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2013)

Political pundit John Ibbitson guesses at Prime Minister Harper's response to _l'affaire Duffy_ (and Brazeau and Wallin and Wright and let's not forget Harb) in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright ct from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/harper-seeks-forgiveness-from-friends-over-senate-expenses-scandal/article12033423/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper seeks forgiveness from friends over Senate expenses scandal
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I agree that the prime minister needs to _change the channel_ back to "who can manage the economy?"

But, I also think he has to mollify Canadians; uncharacteristic as it may be for Stephen Harper he must admit to having made errors in judgement and he needs to throw Duffy, especially, under the bus - even the police bus. Nigel Wright can, and I am very sure will, come out of all this without real damage - maybe, in fact, his reputation for loyalty will be enhanced.


----------



## GAP (21 May 2013)

initiating the 2015 campaign rhetoric now would be a huge mistake in timing....now it needs to be a "changing of the channels"


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2013)

Columnist Margaret Wente pretty well sums up what many (most?) politically aware people are thinking in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/columnists/margaret-wente-ottawa-insiders-look-after-themselves/article12032223/#dashboard/follows/


> Ottawa insiders look after themselves
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



I have said many times that the Conservatives will, sooner or later, make themselves unfit to govern ...



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> I know, with absolute certainty, that sometime between now and 2020 the Conservative Party will become fat, lazy, corrupt, bereft of ideas, and, generally, in need of a few years in the political _reserve_ (opposition) to regroup and reorganize. I seriously doubt that Thomas Mulcair can lead the NDP far enough into the political centre to make them a safe government for Canada. While the Liberal record, post M. St Laurent, is spotty on pretty well every issue, even Justin Trudeau has renounced much of the policy vandalism and sheer lunacy that his father, Pierre Trudeau (Canada's worst ever prime minister), foisted upon us and the Liberals are, in my opinion, the best hope we have to be a (barely acceptable) government in waiting.
> ...



Have they already gotten there - to Bryce Mackasey and David Dingwall land?

No, I think not, but I do think the party - caucus and back rooms - needs to take a good hard look at what it wants to achieve between now and about 2020. They, the Conservatives - politicians and insiders, need to tell Canadians why we need them to stay in government. Mike Duffy is not the problem but he is a symptom ...






    ..............     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Liberal Bryce Mackasey (left) was the poster boy for greed
and corruption and crass patronage in the 1980s, now it's
Conservative Mike Duffy (right). They are symptoms of a
long standing Ottawa disease.


----------



## Jed (21 May 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Wallin's 300,000$ in mostly fake travel expenses are next. Then we can take back Harb's 22,000 a year fake housing allowance. Likely we will have to pay back Brazeau the 48,000$ fine as ironically he met all the criteria. This inquiry was anything but independent. It was a witch hunt for Brazeau that backfired on the PM.



As far as Sen. Wallin is concerned, this issue is and always has been, the rules regarding primary  place of residence and travel expenses. No one know the details on this just like we don't know the details on your travel expenses.

I do know that she has spent a great deal of time in small town Saskatchewan doing her job and is well loved by the people out here. She has the support of one and all except for a few political hacks and slobbering second rate journalists who see gain in her downfall.

If you ever had to travel by air from Saskatchewan to Ottawa you would know that direct flights are rare and hard to come by. You almost always have to go through T.O. and then carry on to Ottawa. The travel time takes as much time as flying to Europe from a larger city including going through customs.


So, if you think this was just a witch hunt for Sen. Brazeau, think again. I really doubt he was also conducting a witch hunt on Sen. Wallin.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2013)

I listened to Prime Minister Harper's address to his caucus. I don't think he went far enough and I suspect he will, sooner or later, have to go the whole hog and apologize for his own bad judgement.

But, and it's a *Big BUT*, I also considered that his conclusion - what Canadians want - is correct and I also concluded that neither Thomas Mulcair nor Justin Trudeau has the mix of policies and the team necessary to get this country back on a sound socio-economic footing in this new, difficult world. Therefore, just moments ago, I phones Conservative Party of Canada HQ and *increased* my monthly donation to the maximum allowed by law.

I think _l'affaire Duffy_ stinks to high heaven and I want real, punitive sanctions. But even more, I want a reformed, elected Senate and I want a reformed, smaller, better focused national government. In other words I want something like Stephen Harper's Canada and I'm willing to put up my own money to help get it.


----------



## Jed (21 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I listened to Prime Minister Harper's address to his caucus. I don't think he went far enough and I suspect he will, sooner or later, have to go the whole hog and apologize for his own bad judgement.
> 
> But, and it's a *Big BUT*, I also considered that his conclusion - what Canadians want - is correct and I also concluded that neither Thomas Mulcair nor Justin Trudeau has the mix of policies and the team necessary to get this country back on a sound socio-economic footing in this new, difficult world. Therefore, just moments ago, I phones Conservative Party of Canada HQ and *increased* my monthly donation to the maximum allowed by law.
> 
> I think _l'affaire Duffy_ stinks to high heaven and I want real, punitive sanctions. But even more, I want a reformed, elected Senate and I want a reformed, smaller, better focused national government. In other words I want something like Stephen Harper's Canada and I'm willing to put up my own money to help get it.



My sentiments, as well.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Therefore, just moments ago, I phones Conservative Party of Canada HQ and *increased* my monthly donation to the maximum allowed by law.



So, they're crooks and liars, and to punish them, you're giving them more money.

I expect Mike Duffy to shortly begin a new career running a construction company in Montreal - he's got the "underhanded payments" part down pat...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, they're crooks and liars, and to punish them, you're giving them more money.
> 
> I expect Mike Duffy to shortly begin a new career running a construction company in Montreal - he's got the "underhanded payments" part down pat...




Yep. Prime Minister Harper didn't say enough, not by a long shot, and I am convinced that he will have to: a) say more and, more important b) do something ~ audits, even more disclosure, police investigations, etc.

But: what's the alternative? Mulcair's NDP? Trudeau's Liberals? Do we really want Libby Davies or Hedy Fry with their hands on the levers of power?

My solution: the devil I know ... and trust, as far as we can trust any politician.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2013)

Better solution:  Not one red cent until they order the RCMP into the Senate and open the books of both houses to the OAG for public discussion and disclosure.

Tell them that you're cutting them off until they reform.

Giving them more because "They're less incompetent" just encourages a race to the bottom.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Better solution:  Not one red cent until they order the RCMP into the Senate and open the books of both houses to the OAG for public discussion and disclosure.
> 
> Tell them that you're cutting them off until they reform.
> 
> Giving them more because "They're less incompetent" just encourages a race to the bottom.




Disagree. Now is the time for partisans to _engage_ their respective parties and to demand change. Dollars speak louder than polls.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Disagree. Now is the time for partisans to _engage_ their respective parties and to demand change. Dollars speak louder than polls.



Precisely.  Dollars speak louder.  And withholding dollars until there is change is effective.

Unless, of course, you've got friends who'll drop $90K for you to make your problems go away, but not have the money show up on the party's books.  That's also an effective way of getting what you want.  But then we're crossing that pesky line from "partisan support" to "corruption."


Interesting that most major dailies have multiple letters to the editor from well-connected Canadians bemoaning the fact that Mr Wright has left government for a mere $90 000 payoff to a senator.  Almost as if there's an organized campaign going on to cover for Mr Wright's "indiscretion".


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2013)

I noticed those letters, too. Nigel Wright's actions remain, for me, inexplicable: stupid, at best, maybe even verging on criminal.

Maybe political chiefs of staff are different from military ones but, briefly, many, many years ago, I was a chief of staff of sort - to a branch chief in NDHQ (a two star) and my job was to relieve him of detail and make things run more smoothly. I had to understand what was important and make his priorities mine - and the staff's. I had to have, at least, a good mid-term _view_ on our work. That's where Mr. Wright failed, miserably, in my opinion: he tried to solve an immediate term problem but he failed - and that's the inexplicable part - to think the thing through, even in the mid-term. He didn't make things smooth; he dropped his boss, the PM, right into the shit.

At its simplest level - using Warren Bennis as a guide - they ALL failed; not only did they not "do things rights," they really didn't "do the right thing."

I have written to the PM (to his political correspondence secretary) telling him that I want even more public accountability from officials - elected, appointed and hired. I want the AG to look into parliamentary spending, too. But I also told him that I regard _l'affaire Duffy_, as he does, as a distraction and a disappointment - but a symptom of the _Ottawa disease_ that he told us all he came here to cure. What I really want, I said, is smaller, less intrusive, more efficient, more effective and better focused government.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2013)

Of course, the Duffy et al scandal will suck the air out of Ottawa for a few months, slowing down other governmental activities.  Government inaction can be a good thing, if it slows the onslaught of "good diea fairy" initiatives.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2013)

So Duffy found a way to serve his country after all?


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So Duffy found a way to serve his country after all?



Reminds me a bit of Montreal's late Mayor Drapeau.  Immortalized by the Gazette's cartoonist for his statement "An Olypics can no more have a deficit than a man can have a baby"; Aislin drew a naked, rotund Mayor Drapeau clutching his belly and holding a telephone saying "Allo, Dr Morgentaler?"


I'm hoping Sen Duffy can make as much of a contribution to Canadian visual arts...


----------



## Nemo888 (21 May 2013)

It is a completely non-partisan fact. Democracy is a high maintenance bitch.  If we neglect it we get what we deserve.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 May 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> It is a completely non-partisan fact. Democracy is a high maintenance *****.  If we neglect it we get what we deserve.



I do not often agree with you, but this got to be one of the best posts, ever.

Well done.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 May 2013)

Apparently we are having a mandatory ethics and values meeting tomorrow, gee it's just like the Liberals, senior guys get busted for doing stupid stuff and rest of the staff who generally have a better grasp of ethics anyways gets the lecture.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 May 2013)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I do not often agree with you, but this got to be one of the best posts, ever.
> 
> Well done.



I agree as well. Canada has the government it deserves.



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> It is a completely non-partisan fact. Democracy is a high maintenance *****.  If we neglect it we get what we deserve.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2013)

Jeffrey Simpson, a charter member of both the _chattering classes_ and the _Laurentian elite_ and no fan of Prime Minister Harper offers his completely fair and unbiased  :sarcasm:  assessment in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/for-conservatives-this-too-shall-pass-unless-it-doesnt/article12043923/#dashboard/follows/


> For Conservatives, this, too, shall pass (unless it doesn’t)
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Jeffrey Simpson details _"two characteristics of the government, neither of which is_ [in his view]_ terribly pleasant":_

     1. *"Ubiquitous, juvenile partisanship"* - I agree with him, on this one; the Harper Conservatives are relentlessly partisan, so, to some degree is every government but Prime Minister Harper
     seems, to me, to take it to greater lengths than any prime minister except Pierre Trudeau; and

     2. *"The rather monochromatic way the government looks at the world"* - I also agree, in part, with this but I doubt it is much of a problem. Canadians don't care much about foreign policy and
     some Canadians actually share the government's "monochromatic" world view. The Canadians who are all hot and bothered are part of the _Laurentian consensus_ and they aren't going to
     vote for Stephen Harper under any circumstances so he needn't worry about offending them.

On balance, this will provide fuel for anti-Harper campaigns but, as I have said before, he can turn this into a (very minor) win by using it to press for an elected Senate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2013)

Same subject as above - the potential for electoral fallout - in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/harpers-tried-and-true-crisis-management-tactics-fall-short/article12050938/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper’s tried-and-true crisis management tactics fall short
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




The final two paragraphs are all you really need to read. The all important socially _liberal_ (or indifferent) and fiscally _conservative_ part of the base of the Conservative Party of Canada - that part to which I and most suburban Ontarians (and many Albertans and British Columbians, too) representing the margin of victory in 35± ridings belong - is very upset. Will it vote Liberal? Maybe not, but it might sit on its hands or it might, as our friend dapaterson suggests withhold its financial support.

The solution - which will be a political winner, in my opinion - is to _cleanse the temple_, so to speak, by _driving out the money lenders_: letting the Auditor General look at parliament, too; bring in the RCMP - even when CPC members are involved, and press, harder, for an elected Senate. It will also give him a political legacy that will eclipse that of other Canadian prime ministers except, maybe, Macdonald and Laurier.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2013)

And there is a lighter side:






Source: _Gable_ in the _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/captains-request/article11638060/#dashboard/follows/
(Reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And there is a lighter side:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps 'lighter', but _I don't think_ the issue is anywhere near 'Titanic'.

I'm also pretty sure, but may be wrong, that it was the MSM that named it the 'Harper Government' as a way of demonizing them and not the CPC themselves.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 May 2013)

Just as a trip down the rabbit hole it appears to me to be qualify for politics all you have to do is scream shrilly "burn the witch" or "you must resign" or stamp your feet while stating you hate a certain American president.

Such is the state of Canadian politics. :facepalm:

Oh, I notice Mr. Mulcair has been somewhat silent.......


----------



## Jacky Tar (22 May 2013)

I've noticed Mr. Mulcair's silence as well. I'd like to think it stems from taking the high road, so to speak, but I suspect it's more a case of not wanting to draw fire himself. Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, hasn't been in federal politics long enough to get in shit, so I think one might actually be able to say it is high-mindedness on his part that he's keeping silent.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Just as a trip down the rabbit hole it appears to me to be qualify for politics all you have to do is scream shrilly "burn the witch" or "you must resign" or stamp your feet while stating you hate a certain American president.
> 
> Such is the state of Canadian politics. :facepalm:
> 
> Oh, I notice Mr. Mulcair has been somewhat silent.......




I think that's unfair, Jim. The politicians I have met were, pretty much, committed to _public service_ - in the best sense of that word. Sure they were partisan, sometimes almost childishly so, and sometimes they were frustrated by the *need* to be partisan. One politician explained it as: "I think we, the _team_ (party) to which I belong, has the best, overall, programme for Canada - where the other parties have better ideas we'll steal 'em. The best way to do what's best for our country is to gain and hold power. That is a highly partisan exercise and it is one in which, however reluctantly, we must engage."

Some politicians are venal - in about the same proportion as the general population; some are fools - also in about the same proportion as the general population; and so on; BUT most - in my opinion - are trying to do what they *honestly believe* is in the best interests of their community, their country and, indeed, the whole world.

There are some politicians, not all that many, who, over the years, I have thoroughly detested - on both policy and, in a couple of cases, personal grounds - but I still judge that they, too, were trying to do what they thought best.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2013)

The prime minister took questions in Peru about _l'affaire Duffy_, according to this excerpt from a _CBC News_ report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/22/harper-peru-mining-trade-senate-scandal.html


> Harper frustrated, sorry, angry about Duffy expense repayment
> *Prime minister says he 'was not consulted' and did not sign off on chief of staff's 'gift'*
> 
> CBC News Posted: May 22, 2013
> ...




I now have two questions:

     1. WTF was going through Nigel Wright's mind? and

     2. I wonder if he took a question from Terry Milewski ~ remember this event from the 2011 campaign?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> ...
> Oh, I notice Mr. Mulcair has been somewhat silent.......




Well, he's spoken up now, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndps-mulcair-takes-aim-at-senate-abolition/article12058932/#dashboard/follows/


> NDP’s Mulcair takes aim at Senate abolition
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




For reasons I have explained more than once here on Army.ca, the NDP is wrong on this: a federal state needs a bicameral legislature. Not for "sober second thought" which is an even more offensive notion today than it was in 1867, but because a federal state is a _bargain_ between (previously) sovereign political actors - the provinces in our case - and they need representation in that national parliament, something that the provincial premiers' _Council of the Federation_ cannot provide.


----------



## observor 69 (22 May 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Perhaps 'lighter', but _I don't think_ the issue is anywhere near 'Titanic'.
> 
> I'm also pretty sure, but may be wrong, that it was the MSM that named it the 'Harper Government' as a way of demonizing them and not the CPC themselves.



"Tories re-brand government in Stephen Harper's name"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-re-brand-government-in-stephen-harpers-name/article569222/
The source for this story is the G&M and I also found a similar story on the TO Star and the CBC.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 May 2013)

To be fair to the MSM (gag), the CPC did eventually brand themselves as the "Harper government". So they can wear their own mistakes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2013)

There is an _immediate term_ political price to be paid for _l'affaire Duffy_ according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/23/trudeaus-liberals-hit-historic-highs-as-senate-scandal-has-drastic-effect-on-tories-poll/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
My *emphasis* added


> Trudeau’s Liberals hit historic highs as senate scandal has ‘drastic effect’ on Tories: poll
> 
> Josh Visser | 13/05/23
> 
> ...




First: we are, at least, two full years from a general election - it is scheduled for the fall of 2015 but, as discussed before,  a spring 2015 election is also possible.

Second: it is instructive to look at where M. Trudeau appears to have not scored all that well: middle class suburbanites in Ontario and the West.


----------



## Remius (24 May 2013)

The problem now is that the Prime Minister seems, and I say seems, to have lost control of this entire mess.  Add to that a recent but minor uprising by backbenchers and we have a bit of a storm within the party itself.  

The Conservatives have always been good at controlling whatever message they've wanted to.  This time though it seems their tried and true tactics are working against them and this mess is spiralling out of control as they keep trying to shoot a tank with 5.56  

More bullets aren't helping.  Time to switch weapons.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 May 2013)

I'm afraid I can't get overly excited about this. The PM has been in tougher positions and pulled through just fine. I have confidence he'll do the same again.

As well, the Opposition and the Liberals should have learned long ago that poking a sleeping bear doesn't end well.


----------



## Remius (24 May 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I can't get overly excited about this. The PM has been in tougher positions and pulled through just fine. I have confidence he'll do the same again.
> 
> As well, the Opposition and the Liberals should have learned long ago that poking a sleeping bear doesn't end well.



I'm not so sure recceguy.  I firmly believe the PM had no knowledge of this.  I also think he's been blindsided and really has no idea how to react.  For someone who is used to controlling everything this can be a bit overwhelming.  This is likely the toughest position he has been in.  

Complacency is likely not the right way to go about this.  People should be concerned.  Conservatives I think are.  How the PM deals with those concerns will be telling.


----------



## dapaterson (24 May 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I can't get overly excited about this. The PM has been in tougher positions and pulled through just fine. I have confidence he'll do the same again.
> 
> As well, the Opposition and the Liberals should have learned long ago that poking a sleeping bear doesn't end well.



How about poking an overweight self-entitled Senator from Kanata PEI?


----------



## Remius (24 May 2013)

Who might have quite a bit to say if he feels he's being thrown under the bus...

I wouldn't put it past him if he has nothing to lose.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 May 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure recceguy.  I firmly believe the PM had no knowledge of this.  I also think he's been blindsided and really has no idea how to react.  For someone who is used to controlling everything this can be a bit overwhelming.  This is likely the toughest position he has been in.
> 
> Complacency is likely not the right way to go about this.  People should be concerned.  Conservatives I think are.  How the PM deals with those concerns will be telling.



I believe this also. So he needs a little extra time to regroup, but regroup he will.

He's only as controlling as any other PM has been. There has been lots of worse control freaks in that office.

However, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 May 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> How about poking an overweight self-entitled Senator from Kanata PEI?



Sorry. Not playing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 May 2013)

Well, I guess there's another COS resume entering the mix today.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 May 2013)

The Bank of Canada needs to get a life.  This is funny.  Shared under provisions of Sec 29 of the copyright act photos and links at story link below.



> Bank of Canada cries fraud on $90K 'Duffy buck' cartoon
> by John Bowman Posted: May 29, 2013 2:54 PM Last Updated: May 29, 2013 3:00 PM
> 
> The Bank of Canada says an editorial cartoon depicting a $90,000 bill bearing the likeness of Senator Mike Duffy runs afoul of its copyright on Canadian bank notes and has ordered it taken off the web.  Cartoonist Dan Murphy published the cartoon May 17 and it has been published in several newspapers and websites, and circulated on social media ever since.
> ...


----------



## DBA (30 May 2013)

People care most about government actions and policies that effect them or the causes they support. The school yard fights inside parliament don't resonate with all Canadians nearly as much as they do with political junkies or the parliamentarians themselves. This is the trap the Liberals and NDP fell into last time which gave the Harper Conservatives a majority.


----------



## jpjohnsn (30 May 2013)

DBA said:
			
		

> People care most about government actions and policies that effect them or the causes they support. The school yard fights inside parliament don't resonate with all Canadians nearly as much as they do with political junkies or the parliamentarians themselves. This is the trap the Liberals and NDP fell into last time which gave the Harper Conservatives a majority.


I'm not so sure about that.  The vast majority of the people I work with (who mostly tend to conservative) or are within my social circles (who are all over the political map) are neither parliamentarians nor are the political junkies but this particular "school yard fight" has definitely caught their collective attention.   I've seen some pretty heated discussions lately, that have included people who never, ever talk politics.


----------



## Remius (31 May 2013)

The story that just won't go away.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/30/pol-senate-mike-duffy-email-.html

The irony is that he was warned 4 years ago not to do the things he's now accused of doing.  Are people really that dense?  That's rhetorical btw.  But it just adds on to what Mike Duffy has been revealed to be.

This would likely go a lot easier on him if he just stepped down.

What else is to come?


----------



## RangerRay (31 May 2013)

I have always found it unseemly when journalists are awarded political appointments.  You know it's not for their unbiased reporting skills!


----------



## Remius (31 May 2013)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I have always found it unseemly when journalists are awarded political appointments.  You know it's not for their unbiased reporting skills!



Well when he was appointed it made me raise an eyebrow.  I was at an event a few years before his appointment where he spoke about who would be the best political choice for the military. I won't get into too many details but like I said, my eyebrow was raised when he was appointed...


----------



## Jed (31 May 2013)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I have always found it unseemly when journalists are awarded political appointments.  You know it's not for their unbiased reporting skills!



I guess you were not a fan of Adrienne Clarkson for Governor General.


----------



## Remius (31 May 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> I guess you were not a fan of Adrienne Clarkson for Governor General.



Well at least the current one was one of Prime Minister Harper's better appointment recommendations.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 May 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The story that just won't go away.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/30/pol-senate-mike-duffy-email-.html


Interesting - wonder who got the e-mail to CBC?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 May 2013)

I don't know if they knew what they were doing or if it is just a coincidence:

I find it ironic that the subject line of the email is "Duff".

In the Navy, "duff" is the name of the sweets you get at the end of your meal: desserts.


----------



## dapaterson (31 May 2013)

And in the Army, on the Radio, "No Duff" means what follows is real and not an exercise event.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 May 2013)

Then there's the _other_ Duff ....


----------



## Remius (31 May 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting - wonder who got the e-mail to CBC?



Everything seems to be pointing at the CPC or someone there.  It makes sense really.  Some senators have spoken up and so have some MPs about how unhappy they are with Duffy.  In Stephen Harper's world, nothing is unscripted.  This is all a calculated move to discredit Duffy and show this as a Duffy issue not a conservative issue.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jun 2013)

I'm not sure the headline writer has this exactly right, but Rex Murphy speaks for and about a lot of Conservative supporters - me included - when he says, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, that "When this fades, as all scandals eventually do, it will have left a permanent scar:"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/01/rex-murphy-how-a-90k-cheque-became-a-death-warrant-for-harpers-brand/


> How a $90K cheque became a death warrant for Harper’s brand
> 
> Rex Murphy
> 
> ...




It's only 2013, we are, at least, two years, maybe 28 months away from a general election - that's 100 to 120 weeks, and, as British PM Harold Wilson so famously said, a week is a long time in politics. There is a lot that Prime Minister Harper and his team can do, likely will do to refurbish the Conservatives' reputation; there's also a lot that Messers Mulcair and Trudeau can, and likely will do to harm their reputations and causes. But a core element of the Conservative brand is damaged - maybe beyond repair ... unless the prime minister takes some bold, decisive, and very, very uncharacteristically apologetic action. As Rex Murphy says, Canadians, ordinary Canadians, including those who support the Conservatives, "get" this and what the get is that the Conservatives are no better than the Liberals. That hurts and it will still hurt in 2015. 

I do not advocate fighting an election on the Constitution, much less on Senate reform. I'm guessing that the _Supremes_ are going to tell him that:

     1. He cannot abolish the Senate ~ and, therefore, neither can the NDP; and

     2. He needs some significant - but not unanimous - level of provincial/regional support to, formally, _reform_ it.

A proposal to _informally_ reform the Senate - something like my "two letters" proposal - by _Constitutional convention_, however, might and, in my opinion should be one plank of the 2015 platform.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jun 2013)

Lookit all the lookin'-into that's being done....


> Marjory LeBreton, the Conservative government’s leader in the Senate, plans to ask the federal auditor-general to do a “comprehensive audit’ of Senate expenses, her office said Monday.Officials from the auditor general’s office said last week they had no plans to conduct a review of Senate expense claims, following an audit released in June 2012 that identified problems with a lack of documentation for some travel and living-expense claims, and delivered recommendations for improvement.
> 
> Experts have warned *the auditor general’s mandate is limited and that the office might not be able to fully probe the political decisions behind the $90,000 payment* ....


_National Post_, 3 Jun 13



> The federal government should create one independent inquiry into the politically explosive Senate expenses scandal, instead of the overlapping and confusing investigations currently underway by the RCMP, Elections Canada, and the federal ethics commissioner, say opposition MPs.
> 
> “I think, unavoidably, because of how the government has handled this mess, there are a thousand rabbits running around in a thousand different directions. For a period of time, at least, it’s bound to be confusing,” said Liberal MP Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Sask.).
> 
> ...


_Hill Times_, 3 Jun 13


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2013)

It's not all bad, according to Andrew Coyne in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyrigth Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/03/andrew-coyne-independent-thought-crawls-out-of-the-blasted-landscape-of-canadian-politics/


> Independent thought crawls out of the blasted landscape of Canadian politics
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> 
> ...




Indeed!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jun 2013)

tolls were common and we had then growing up on the lions gate bridge and since 1986 to 2010 on a highway here and on our new bridge. The fundamental issue people have with tolls are that the new generation of tolls will not be tied to a specific piece of infrastructure. So where does the money go and the people living in the areas considered are already bleeding disposable income and another tax means less money for local businesses. Most of the congestion I see seems linked to transit and traffic management schemes for the sole purpose of creating the issue and creating the conditions to support transit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not sure the headline writer has this exactly right, but Rex Murphy speaks for and about a lot of Conservative supporters - me included - when he says, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, that "When this fades, as all scandals eventually do, it will have left a permanent scar:"
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/01/rex-murphy-how-a-90k-cheque-became-a-death-warrant-for-harpers-brand/
> 
> ...




John Ivison, who is, pretty much, a solidly Conservative voice in the Canadian media, appears to agree with me in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/04/john-ivison-things-look-bad-for-the-tories-but-theres-life-yet-in-the-harper-conservatives/


> Things look bad for the Tories, but there’s life yet in the Harper Conservatives
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




The Conservative Party of Canada is:

     1. In unfamiliar territory - *not* is John Ivison suggests, because they are not at the top of the polls but, rather, because they have failed to adjust to being in a majority government position;

     2. Adrift - which is a common problem for most governments at the mid-point of their mandate; and

     3. Unsure about what its own essential plurality of Canadians wants.

I *think* I can help with the last point and addressing it should help with the first two.

What do Canadians ~ the 40% of Canadians who want to support the Conservative Part of Canada ~ want?

Three things, I think:

     1. Solid, _conservative_ fiscal management - less and less spending, better management of the spending that must be done, and lower taxes or, at least, no tax increases;

     2. Social moderation which means less intrusion into our lives. This must be balanced with the fact, and I believe it is a fact, that there is a large "law and order" constituency out there,
         especially amongst senior citizens who, wrongly, I think, believe that society is more dangerous to them; and

     3. Integrity; old fashioned integrity, à la Prime Minister St Laurent and Prime Minister and Mrs Diefenbaker who, famously, insisted on paying rent for 24 Sussex Drive, a _custom_ that ended in 1971.

Canadians might not understand monetary policy or, even, defence spending but they do understand padding expenses (Duffy and Harb) and freeloading. Canadians ought not to be afraid to walk the streets of most urban centres but some, especially some seniors, are afraid - unreasonably, in my opinion, but afraid of things and people that are _new_ and _different_. Canadians know intuitively that they are over-governed but they don't have any ideas of their own about how to deal with that ~ they expect governments to do that for them.

This government has 100 weeks to turn things around, to convince 40% of Canadians that they, the Conservative Party of Canada, deserve another majority government. Most of the 40% live and work West of the Ottawa River. That "most" can deliver 228 of 338 seats in the next election. If the CPC can hang on to 25 of the 27 "Old Canada" seats they won in 2011 then they need only hang on to the 147 seats they won in the North, West and Ontario to have a small majority in 2015. That is a highly achievable goal but it requires something other than "staying the course."

I think cabinet shuffles are overrated but I do understand the value of a visible and popular "team," especially when the prime minister is so unpopular with the media. I also don't think the "shine" will wear off M. Trudeau; he appears to be a smart and very pleasant young man; I expect many, many Canadians to like him. The trick is to temper their honest affection with doubts about his abilities to lead the country in the direct they 40% want to go.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2013)

But cracks are apearing in the Conservative wall:

     1. Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggests he would quit the party if the leadership selection rues are changed; and

     2. MP Brent Rathgeber has resigned from the CPC caucus because the party amended his financial disclosure private member's bill. 

The leadership rules issue has been a problem since Harper and MacKay merged their two parties (Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives) into today's CPC. The old _Reform_ based Western populists want a one party member-one vote system while MacKay, and many others, want a one riding association-one vote system. I personally, am much, much closer to MacKay. I think our current system of leadership conventions is, actually, anti-democratic. The parliamentary leadership should be decided by a mix of riding associations and elected MPs - weighted in favour of the sitting MPs.

I am also on Brent Rathgeber's side. He made a good, useful proposal in his private member's bill; there is no upside to the party leadership's changes - they make the party look like it has something to hide and it cost them a member.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2013)

A series of _tweets_ today by (generally) conservative _National Post_ columnist Matt Gurney:

     "I hope a few other Tories follow Rathgeber's example.
        I sometimes wonder why anyone who really considers themselves a conservative, and does not expect/hope to lead the CPC, hasn't quit caucus.
           _I mean, what's in it for a blue blood Tory backbencher? Is being a CPC MP instead of an independent worth signing off on massive deficits?
              Is it worth supporting supply management? And EAP ads? And blocking basic transparency measures? And appointing senators?_
                 I guess if you really think you're going to run the CPC one day, hang around. Everyone else? Quit. Save your integrity"

It's pretty straight shooting. I'll bet more than a few Conservative MPs are asking themselves the same questions.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Jun 2013)

Edward-

With respect (and not excusing some recent poor Conservatives performances) the question that has to asked is not: Are the Conservatives Perfect?  

The questions are:  Are they still better than the alternatives?  Are we going to get more personal freedom and smaller government out of a Liberal Government?  What would deficits look like under an NDP government?

So- do all of these backbenchers resign in protest and trigger a confidence motion (and an election) the Conservatives get to fight as a split force?  1992 all over again?


----------



## Nemo888 (6 Jun 2013)

We need a real alternative. Currently you cannot vote against corruption and nepotism. I'm tired of choosing the least worst flavour of shite to eat.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2013)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Edward-
> 
> With respect (and not excusing some recent poor Conservatives performances) the question that has to asked is not: Are the Conservatives Perfect?
> 
> ...




Those are, indeed, the right questions; but, we liberals who are Conservatives ought to be pressing our preferred only choice to act in a _better_ way. I stand by what I said yesterday: the CPC, under Prime Minister Harper have failed to adapt to power ~ hey are still stuck in a _minority_ mentality: they should take a leaf from Joe Clark's book and "govern as though they have a majority."


I think the CPC is is the midst of the "mid term blahs," and I think there is plenty of time to turn things around, but it is the partisan _centre_ that is the problem, not principled back-benchers - and some ministers, too, so I hear.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2013)

The _Good Grey Globe's_ charter member of the _Laurentian elite_ and head cheerleader for the _Laurentian Consensus_ chimes in, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on the _Conservative base_ and demonstrates, yet again, that he, like most of the _Laurentian elite_ just don't "get" 21st century Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/dont-forget-the-base-you-can-bet-harper-wont/article12426834/#dashboard/follows/


> Don’t forget the Base – you can bet Harper won’t
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




What Simpson doesn't "get" (and what Bricker and Ibbitson do) is that there is not one, big, Western, rural, gun-toting, religious Conservative base. There are, at least, three:

     1. The Western, rural base Simpson describes;

     2. The Western urban base that represents all of Calgary, Lethbridge and Red Deer and most of Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg; and

     3. The BC and Ontario suburban and small town base.

Simpson gives of a list of the attributes of _his_ base:

     1. A high degree of religiosity;

     2. A moralistic view of foreign policy;

     3. A populist dislike of government;

     4. A loathing of the media (except Sun News Network, Sun newspapers and a few very right-wing columnists);

     5. A distaste of anything that smacks of high culture;

     6. A reverence for the military;

     7. An abhorrence of abortion;

     8. A suspicion of “intellectuals” and their reasoning;

     9. A belief (against all evidence) that crime is out of control; and

     10. A generalized sense that honest, God-fearing people like themselves have been marginalized and patronized by secular “elites.”

Of course, few members of any of the three bases share all or even moist of those attributes; but they are the opposite of the core values of the _Laurentian elite_ which is, broadly: irreligious, wedded to an amoral _neutralist_ foreign policy, supportive of big government, "informed" by the CBC/TORSTAR/_Le Devoir_ view of Canada, _cultural nationalistic_, anti-military, pro-abortion, suspicious of any "intellectuals" who do not share its beliefs, anti-police, and patronizing of the emerging, broad, anti-Laurentian consensus.

There is a divide in Canada:

     1. Most of "Old Canada,"* - everything East of the Ottawa River - is, if not supportive of the _Laurentian_ view of Canada, suspicious of the "New Canadian" view; and

     2. "New Canada" - everything West of the Ottawa River - is divided -

        a. Large parts of it, in most rural, Western urban and most suburban areas is Conservative, while

        b. Many urban areas, especially in Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa, are split between he Liberals and NDP.


_____
* I don't recall, exactly where I found the "old Canada"/"New Canada" idea, it's not original; I think I read it first in an article by Michael Bliss but _Google_ doesn't help me to find it


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2013)

Jen Gerson gives some advice to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/07/four-things-stephen-harper-can-do-to-fix-the-conservative-partys-problems/
My _emphasis_ aded


> Four things Stephen Harper can do to fix the Conservative Party’s problems
> 
> Jen Gerson
> 
> ...




In other words:

     1. Propose a *Big Idea* that will divide the left;

     2. Get those attack ads ready and use them often and far in advance of the election when, not if, M. Trudeau stumbles;

     3. Don't fuss Brent Rathgeber's defection, *but* step out and address the misconduct and corruption issues; and

     4. Keep accentuating the positive ~ the things (policies and actions) that Canadians want from a Conservative government.

Sounds like pretty good advice to me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Good Grey Globe's_ charter member of the _Laurentian elite_ and head cheerleader for the _Laurentian Consensus_ chimes in, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on the _Conservative base_ and demonstrates, yet again, that he, like most of the _Laurentian elite_ just don't "get" 21st century Canada:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/dont-forget-the-base-you-can-bet-harper-wont/article12426834/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...




See, also, this interesting article about the urban core/suburban split in Toronto. It's about Rob Ford but it speaks to the divide that Bricker and Ibbitson describe in _The Big Shift_. Rob Ford may be grotesque but he is actively opposing the downtown Liberal/NDP branch of the _Laurentian elite_ and he is attracting 50%-60% support in the suburbs of North York and Etobicoke. That's why Conervsatives represent all the suburbs West of the Ottawa River.

It's hard to shake those suburbanites' _faith_ in Rob Ford; they support him even though they doubt him. It's going to be harder to shake those suburbanites' _faith_ in Stephen Harper.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jun 2013)

Candace Hoeppner is cute.


Just sayin


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2013)

Halifax journalist Dan Leger suggests, in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Chronicle Herald_, that Justin Trudeau may have just offered Prime Minsiter Harper a way out of the _corruption_ mess (it isn't, really, a scandal ... yet):

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1134432-leger-just-deal-with-accountability-in-parliament


> Just deal with accountability in Parliament
> 
> BY DAN LEGER
> 
> ...




But, see this contrary opinion by the _National Post's_ Terence Corcoran in which he says that the only result of so-called _sunshine_ laws (public disclosures of salaries and expenses) _"was outrageous breaches of personal privacy that have produced no benefit whatsoever."_

There IS a *right to privacy*. How much of that right those who aspire to public service must surrender is open to debate. _Sunshine_ laws are popular so Mr Leger is, probably, correct, in his analysis but how far should we go?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jun 2013)

Public servants salaries are public and our travel expenses and notes are subject to ATIP request. All people have to do is request my job title and work description and they know pretty close to what I make. Which means they are with a little work able to determine if my lifestyle is equal to my pay. This is a good balance for people at my level. When you start going up the food chain, that where problems lurk historical. I am all in favour of public disclosure of PS members who make $180,000 or more, because I struggle to comprehend why we we should pay that much or more for anyone. The thought that we are paying Civil Servants $440,000 and more just boggles my mind. I have not seen any decisions made in 15 years that warrant that sort of pay and most decisions are generally a large amount of group think and ponderous review anyways. (still they rarely get it right)


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jun 2013)

I agree with Colin.  As has been explained in the past, PS salaries are traditionally lower than private sector but this was counter-balanced by iron-clad job security.

Now, some PS folks pull in 200k+ a year and get the job security.

For what its worth, the salaries of my fellow soldiers and I are available for all to see.  No privacy for us....

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/pay-sol/pr-sol/rfor-ofr-eng.asp


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jun 2013)

Public service pay scales are also openly available.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/rates-taux-eng.asp


Of course, when a department hires a contractor to work as an ADM, that information is not available.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jun 2013)

So if all the grunts have their pay rates on the internet, than what is the controversy?  Execs?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So if all the grunts have their pay rates on the internet, than what is the controversy?  Execs?




Even the EXs are public - up to $198,000/year. The real _targets_ are the executives in the "crowns:" CBC, Canada Post and so on.

But, as I have mentioned before, _campaigning_ against the civil service is always useful for Conservative politicians. No matter how untrue it may be, the Conservative base thinks believes that the Canadian civil service is composed of overpaid, lazy, underachieving French Canadians. They have an even lower opinion of those who work for the "crowns."

Anecdote: I was talking, a couple of years ago, with an acquaintance - a very well educated, successful "new Canadian" who was (still is) an active Conservative and a parent. Our discussion turned to education and I asked if he had considered the French immersion programme. He was shocked: "Do I want to raise my kids to be civil servants?" he asked. "I want them to be productive and useful and to make a real contribution to their family, their community and even the world. They will need a real education and real jobs." He is not untypical.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, see this contrary opinion by the _National Post's_ Terence Corcoran in which he says that the only result of so-called _sunshine_ laws (public disclosures of salaries and expenses) _"was outrageous breaches of personal privacy that have produced no benefit whatsoever."_
> 
> There IS a *right to privacy*. How much of that right those who aspire to public service must surrender is open to debate. _Sunshine_ laws are popular so Mr Leger is, probably, correct, in his analysis but how far should we go?





> Public service pay scales are also openly available.



Public service base salaries at the municipal level are also openly available. 

But, what makes the Sunshine List interesting, at least in Emergency Services, is that it shows how much some at HQ - who do not work Operations - _really_ make.

The Sun published a story last November reporting, "The Toronto Sun can reveal some Toronto EMS senior management staff have claimed an almost unimaginable amount of overtime in the past 12 months alone — all paid in cash rather than taken as time in lieu."  "The list goes on and on because there is no EMS overtime cap."


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jun 2013)

Cabinet shuffles, real or imagined, are always great fodder for speculation and here is a bit, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/10/john-ivison-cabinet-shuffle-could-be-what-saves-harpers-government-from-the-noose/


> Cabinet shuffle could be what saves Harper’s government from the noose
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




Is it only me, or do others detect a whiff of despair in John Ivison's plea for _something_, anything to "change the channel?"


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2013)

I think it's real, myself and others who supported them are quite disgusted with the ommibill approach and the control of messaging is getting out of hand and is costing time and money.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> See, also, this interesting article about the urban core/suburban split in Toronto.



I believe it has been that way for a long time. The Islands and Allen Expressway versus Forest Hills are a couple of examples. If I recall correctly, we used to say City / Boroughs rather than urban / suburban.

For example, whereas now we only have one mayor, prior to 1998 we had six at a time. Even though the geographic area has not changed since 1954.

But, we only had one Metro Chairman. It seemed to me that he had the real power. The nickname of the first was "Big Daddy". The department I belonged to answered only to the Metro Chairman. Not the mayors. The people in the boroughs got the very same service from "Metro Police" and "Metro Ambulance" as the ones downtown. However, there were six fire departments.   

Prior to 1987, the Metro Chairman was not required to be an elected member of Metro Council.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jun 2013)

Gordon O'Connor was, in my opinion, always a strange choice for whip. The whip is part drill sergeant major, part nursemaid, part political tactician and part father confessor. His (or her) job is to keep the back benches both (reasonably) happy and in line. I saw O'Connor as a capable minister ~ not especially quick on his feet but stable and reliable. I think he did a pretty good job in Defence but the PM, evidently, disagreed because he was "demoted" or, at best, moved sideways to Revenue. Some might argue that Chief Government Whip represents a promotion but I still find the man ill suited for that particular job. Mr O'Connor is 74 and I'm guessing that he can be shuffled out on the basis that he will (likely) not seek re-election.

Van Loan is a more difficult problem for the PM. He's one of the old time Progressive Conservatives who fought hard for the new, united CPC. He's a skilled lawyer and, by all accounts I have heard, was a competent minister. I think he needs to be kept in cabinet and not, obviously, demoted. Like the whip, the house leader should be both a bit of a dictator and a bit of a favourite uncle. His (or her) goal is to steer the government's legislative programme through the HoC and he must have a big stick but he should prefer to use the carrot as much as possible ... something about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar. But, assuming Vic Toews can be rewarded with a move to suitable senior bench as a judge then Van Loan migt be a good fit in Justice or in Defence if the PM wants to move MacKay to Justice.

Personally I don't have a huge problem with omnibus bills provided they are properly crafted - i.e. every part is, clearly, tied to the budget, for example.

I also think that there needs to be some unity on the messaging front but probably not as much as this PMO wants to exert. Members must, in my opinion, stand with the party on all key issues identified in the election platform. If you cannot support the platform then you ought not to have run on it.Equally, when your party leader stakes out a position, as Prime Minister Harper has done on abortion then I think MPs who choose to stay in the caucus must represent that position back to their constituents and support their leader. But there are many issues, it seems to me, for which parliamentary "freedom" is still or ought to be still available to all MPs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2013)

In the "be careful what you wish for" category:

     1. The NDP turns the tables on M. Trudeau and, after defeating his motion to make MP's expensive "transparent," introduces a motion, which "asked for an investigation
         into the potential use of MPs’ travel allowances to attend paid speaking engagements." NDP House leader Nathan Cullen "confirmed the motion, which passed with
         unanimous consent, was aimed specifically at Mr. Trudeau;" and

     2. Liberal warhorse Judy Sgro was reminded that Liberals are not immune from scrutiny. While her problem is a bit dated she didn't like it publicized.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2013)

Not to mention that when Judy Sgro was Minister of Immigration, IIRC, Romanian "ballerinas" were quickly given entry to Canada. 

Yes, this is a tangent. My apologies.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jun 2013)

Ommibills force the quick writing of bills with little input or forethought. The Act I will have to enforce was barely dry when thrown into the ommibill and many issues are still to be resolved. It's a poor way to do law and creates future problems which could have been avoided. Governments will always claim a crisis was the reason to do such, but there is always a crisis, do want to be in perpetual crisis management or would you rather actually plan for something?


----------



## Remius (12 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In the "be careful what you wish for" category:
> 
> 1. The NDP turns the tables on M. Trudeau and, after defeating his motion to make MP's expensive "transparent," introduces a motion, which "asked for an investigation
> into the potential use of MPs’ travel allowances to attend paid speaking engagements." NDP House leader Nathan Cullen "confirmed the motion, which passed with
> ...



And now it seems that the NDP is left trying to explain why they wouldn't support what even the Conservatives were smart enough to agree on.  If you think about it Trudeau or someone advising him just pulled a fast one.  The CPC could have been against it but given where they are right now it just would have added fuel to the fire.  Luckily they didn't fall for it.  And for Mulcair who is still likely regarded as the Third party, didn't want the NDPs thunder stolen but voting against it has now removed any legitimate indignation the NDP has or had, but Trudeau is now seen as the the guy championing this cause.  And seeing as how the CPC is levelling their own accusations at Mulcair, he's not looking to good.

Trudeau has just positioned himself as the face fighting the CPC and the whole transparency issue.  And Mulcair essentially handed it to him.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And now it seems that the NDP is left trying to explain why they wouldn't support what even the Conservatives were smart enough to agree on.  If you think about it Trudeau or someone advising him just pulled a fast one.  The CPC could have been against it but given where they are right now it just would have added fuel to the fire.  Luckily they didn't fall for it.  And for Mulcair who is still likely regarded as the Third party, didn't want the NDPs thunder stolen but voting against it has now removed any legitimate indignation the NDP has or had, but Trudeau is now seen as the the guy championing this cause.  And seeing as how the CPC is levelling their own accusations at Mulcair, he's not looking to good.
> 
> Trudeau has just positioned himself as the face fighting the CPC and the whole transparency issue.  And Mulcair essentially handed it to him.




Here are Messers Cullen and Trudeau on their respective motions. I'm still thinking it's "advantage Cullen," even though we are nowhere near match point.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jun 2013)

Always felt the NDP missed the long haul benefits, when they took Mulicur over Cullen


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jun 2013)

> The federal ethics commissioner has suspended her examination of the $90,000 cheque written to Mike Duffy by the prime minister's top aide to cover illegal expenses claimed by the senator, because the RCMP has opened a criminal investigation.
> 
> Mary Dawson said Thursday that under law, since Stephen Harper's former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, is also being investigated for the same matter by the RCMP to determine whether he has committed an offence under an Act of Parliament, she must cease her examination into whether Wright was in a conflict of interest when he wrote the cheque.
> 
> The RCMP will investigate why Wright gave a personal cheque to Duffy so he could repay money owed to the Senate for improperly-claimed living expenses. Wright has since resigned from his post with the PM and Duffy has resigned from the Conservative caucus, and is now an Independent senator ....


CBC.ca, 13 Jun 13



> The RCMP says there's enough evidence to start a criminal investigation into the $90,000 the prime minister's chief of staff gave to Sen. Mike Duffy to cover bogus housing claims.
> 
> Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson confirmed the criminal probe in a statement announcing she was suspending her own investigation under the Conflict of Interest Act into Nigel Wright's "gift."
> 
> ...


Sun Media, 13 Jun 13


----------



## mad dog 2020 (13 Jun 2013)

Maybe I'm missing something. Since grade school we were taught right from wrong. You never take something that don't belong to you. Then life got more complex and we learned about fraud and operating under false pretences.  
So to doctor your claims for money you are not entitled to. Or is there so much available the perks or entitlements become expected.
But anyone who has this much life experience and were bestowed a place of honour should not sell their integrity. 
Real sad. They knew........and if this was the common man he would be fired on the spot and face jail time.
No, we will dock their pay, they broke a trust, you should be held to a higher standard. 
No just show some respect.  Resign or else. Dive on your sword. No wonder we are going down this sad path? Look at the appointed leaders.


----------



## Remius (13 Jun 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Always felt the NDP missed the long haul benefits, when they took Mulicur over Cullen



How do you feel now that he had his meltdown on the hill today lol


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2013)

This is not, by any means, a _Grey Lecture_, but it is a good, solid statement of the Canadian government's intentions, at home and abroad.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jun 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> How do you feel now that he had his meltdown on the hill today lol



Cullen has a good rep in his area and could have knitted both the West and Central Canada to the NDP flag far more than Mulcair can.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2013)

I think the reason we have seen so many examples of corruption these days is there wasn't a sufficient reaction to previous scandals.

If people had been doing the perp walk for events like Shawinigate, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, ADSCAM, and so on, then other people would be thinking twice about doing the same things when claiming expenses, giving out contracts or pulling stunts like the gas plant cancellations in Ontario.

Of course it isn't too late to rectify the problem.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2013)

The CPC, unable to "turn the page" on the Senate scandals is trying, instead, to paint everyone with the same brush. In Question Period Jason Kenny attacked M. Trudeau for his paid speaking engagements and one, in particular, attracted the attention of a pair of _Globe and Mail_ reporters and resulted in this story which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-wont-refund-20000-speaking-fee-from-charity-fundraiser/article12573370/#dashboard/follows/


> Trudeau refuses to refund $20,000 speaking fee to New Brunswick charity
> 
> JOSH WINGROVE AND STEVEN CHASE
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I don't think the _Good Grey Globe_ is anti-Trudeau, much less pro-Conservative, but this is a fairly stinging attack and it really brought the Liberals, who dominate the _Globe's_ comments section, out in force to defend M. Trudeau and trash Prime Minister Harper.


----------



## GAP (15 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't think the _Good Grey Globe_ is anti-Trudeau, much less pro-Conservative, but this is a fairly stinging attack and it really brought the Liberals, who dominate the _Globe's_ comments section, out in force to defend M. Trudeau and trash Prime Minister Harper.



Oh, the CBC comment section rehearsing for the shutdown? ......how fast can we transition to the Globe & Mail.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jun 2013)

While I enjoy The "Little One" stewing in his own juice, I have limited sympathy for the charity that failed to do their own homework and now blame a speaker who they requested. Trudeau did show up and did speak, so he upheld his side in the bargain.  Now had he been smarter (or had his team) he would have realized the charity did not make any money and would have modified his fee so they could have made a bit of money out of it. He could have come out looking good and charitable. Now it's just plain damage control mode and everyone knows it.


----------



## Remius (17 Jun 2013)

First off, while the optics look bad, but it also seems like he didn't do anything illegal or anything he wasn't allowed to do.

Agreed that his reaction to this is indeed damage control but it was the right course of action to take.  

I'm questioning the timing of this whole thing, 8 months after teh fact, after he becomes leader and after their own websiet said it was a success.

The CPC is desperate to change the channel and this reeks of that desperation.  More and more, I'm not liking what is coming out of the CPC on this whole thing. I wish they would just concretely adress the whole thing in a decisive manner.  not this smoke and mirrors crap.


----------



## MeanJean (17 Jun 2013)

It is a year after the fact that they are requesting a refund of the fee.  It sounds like poor planning on the part of the charity commitee to hire a speaker for $20 000.  That money could have purchased furniture but instead someone had the idea that they needed Justin Trudeau and not another MP that would have taken his/her commitment to public service seriously and spoken at the event without charging a fee.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jun 2013)

A caveat is in order: in many cases, when dealing with charities, people will bill for their services and then donate the fee they receive back.  That's driven by CRA and their income tax regulations / interpretations.


----------



## Remius (17 Jun 2013)

I'm not sure about the reputation of this blog and it might be partisan but it does raise some questions about the timing and who is involved in this.

http://thecanadianpoliticalscene.blogspot.ca/2013/06/grace-foundation-charity-refund-another.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A caveat is in order: in many cases, when dealing with charities, people will bill for their services and then donate the fee they receive back.  That's driven by CRA and their income tax regulations / interpretations.


True, but one would think The Curly-haired Prince would have said something by now to that effect if that _was_ the case.  As it appears, he's now offering to remediate after the horses have all left the corral ....


> Justin Trudeau is promising to compensate all groups that paid him hefty speaking fees since he became an MP.
> 
> The Liberal leader said Sunday he’ll either give back the fees or find some other way to “make it right.”
> 
> ...


iPolitics.ca, 16 Jun 13

Well done, Justin :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jun 2013)

I have no doubt that the CPC orchestrated the "leak" of this; maybe the NB charity sought some help from a friendly Conservative after M. Trudeau rebuffed them. But the media - the _Globe and Mail_ and the _CBC_, especially, neither of which are exactly pro-Conservative - have run with it. The story has "legs," as the journalists say. It is a "hook" one can use to raise doubts about M. Trudeau's political acumen, his _ethical judgement_ and even about his _values_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jun 2013)

And the "who started it" issue appears to have been overtaken by events, which now have an apparent life of their own. The media have sunk their teeth into M. Trudeau and the _Globe and Mail's_ headline,  Trudeau promise to repay speaking fees from charities doesn’t quell controversy and a similar CBC story indicate that they, the media, plan to chew on him for a while.


----------



## GAP (17 Jun 2013)

Notice that nobody is talking about those nasty senators?......hmmm......


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jun 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Notice that nobody is talking about those nasty senators?......hmmm......




Well, between M. Trudeau's well aimed shot into his own foot and the continuing saga of Mayor Ford, Prime Minister Harper seems to have caught a break.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jun 2013)

And if you would like an idea of *how* this happens ... see here. It's a story from _The Barrie Advance_, not exactly a "big league" newspaper, about details of a speaking engagement that netted Trudeau a $10,000 fee, but left Georgian College, which serves Central Ontario - Barrie, Midland, Muskoka, Orangeville, Orillia, Owen Sound and South Georgian Bay, with a $4,118 shortfall; the "details" were sent to the _Advance_ by Erica Meekes, a communications officer in the Prime Minister Office. (Please remember that two distinctly different offices sit, cheek by jowl, in the Langevin Block: the Prime Minister's Office, which is the partisan, political _centre of power_, and the Privy Council Office, which is the _policy_ centre of power. The former is wholly political, the latter, while politically sensitive, even expert, is about policy and the "machinery of government," the business of translating plans into the legislation and regulations which govern our daily lives.)


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, between M. Trudeau's well aimed shot into his own foot and the continuing saga of Mayor Ford, Prime Minister Harper seems to have caught a break.



Yes but as soon as the channel was changed it was changed back again with this 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/17/harper-government-denounces-corruption-following-arrest-of-former-conservative-staffer/


----------



## GAP (18 Jun 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Yes but as soon as the channel was changed it was changed back again with this



And.....did they also note that the majority of the others charged were Liberals....provincial or otherwise?


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> And.....did they also note that the majority of the others charged were Liberals....provincial or otherwise?



Not really.  At least not in that article.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jun 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> And.....did they also note that the majority of the others charged were Liberals....provincial or otherwise?



There is no provincial conservative party in Quebec.  The Quebec Liberals do have close links with the Federal Tories, though - Jean Charest left the PCs to lead the Quebec Liberals.


In the immortal words of Brian Mulroney, there's no whore like an old whore.


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

Here is the who's who...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/a-who-s-who-in-the-montreal-scandal-1.1330035

No mention of any Liberals.  Tremblay was a Liberal MNA some 20 years ago but, really, linking the provincial or even the municipal parties to their federal namesakes is a stretch.

The problem for the CPC is that this involves one of their own who was already controversial and left suddenly... 

I'll say it plainly.  The CPC needs to stop trying to tar everyone in response to all of these scandals.  Taking decisive action is their best strategy to move on.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jun 2013)

Yikes, looks like Mr Trudeau is being introduced to the big leagues now.  There is a reason Mr Harper and Mr Mulcair are where they are now....


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yikes, looks like Mr Trudeau is being introduced to the big leagues now.  There is a reason Mr Harper and Mr Mulcair are where they are now....



Yep.  And how he handles it will be dissected for sure.


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

Here is what I find interesting.  In less time than it took to look at it, the Trudeau speaking thing went from him refusing to pay back, to him paying back or wanting to.  The media is starting to ask questions of the sources behind these leaks (the PMO apparently).  The CPC asks the Ethics commissioner to look into it. Now it seems Trudeau followed all the rules according to the Ethics commissioner.  Is the CPC trying to make him look good?

Now to make matters worse, a debate about secondary income is brewing.  192 MPs have claimed secondary income.  I'm sure a good chunk of that are Conservatives.  Some I'm willing to bet won't be too thrilled when the light shines on them and you know it will.

The smear tactic seems to be short lived gains for long term pains.  This is what frustrates me.  Could shut the conversation down but they keep getting themselves in trouble.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jun 2013)

There seems to be an excess of tactics in the absence of strategy.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jun 2013)

It's called "a strategy of tactics".  See COIN, 2006-2014.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jun 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Here is what I find interesting.  In less time than it took to look at it, the Trudeau speaking thing went from him refusing to pay back, to him paying back or wanting to.  The media is starting to ask questions of the sources behind these leaks (the PMO apparently).  The CPC asks the Ethics commissioner to look into it. Now it seems Trudeau followed all the rules according to the Ethics commissioner.  Is the CPC trying to make him look good?
> 
> Now to make matters worse, a debate about secondary income is brewing.  192 MPs have claimed secondary income.  I'm sure a good chunk of that are Conservatives.  Some I'm willing to bet won't be too thrilled when the light shines on them and you know it will.
> 
> The smear tactic seems to be short lived gains for long term pains.  This is what frustrates me.  Could shut the conversation down but they keep getting themselves in trouble.



You read too much into things. These are mere distractions. The real games have yet to begin. They're simply looking over the tops of their glasses at each other and sizing up their opponents.

Don't be thinking the CPC is shooting themselves in the foot or young Trudeau is dancing his father's jig. It's early, settle down and wait till they really put the armour on. Right now, the horses aren't even in the tilt.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The real games have yet to begin.





> They're simply looking over the tops of their glasses at each other





> sizing up their opponents.





> shooting themselves in the foot





> young Trudeau is dancing his father's jig





> wait till they really put the armour on.





> Right now, the horses aren't even in the tilt.




That's awesome, you put 7 metaphors into that post!


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

Listening to Marjorie Lebreton complain about the media didn't help my opinion on this.  It's a good thing the House has risen for the summer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jun 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's awesome, you put 7 metaphors into that post!



See, I'm not just a pretty face


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jun 2013)

From a purely partisan, Conservative point of view I say, "thank heavens" for this: House adjourns after Tories back NDP motion for independent scrutiny on MP expenses.

But it is also, I think, good for the _process_, too. It is time for a fresh, mid-term, start: a new parliament, a new throne speech, and a new programme over which all parties can contest.


----------



## Nemo888 (19 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> From a purely partisan, Conservative point of view I say, "thank heavens" for this: House adjourns after Tories back NDP motion for independent scrutiny on MP expenses.
> 
> But it is also, I think, good for the _process_, too. It is time for a fresh, mid-term, start: a new parliament, a new throne speech, and a new programme over which all parties can contest.



So covering up a corruption scandal by giving yourself a paid vacation from work is OK? My party right or wrong.

This is the problem. ALL parties feel that they can be corrupt because of people like you. They know the team will still stick together when they get caught. You are ignorantly turning the Federal Government into Montreal in terms of corruption. You actually tolerate it.  "Thank heavens," we are walking down that road Quebec's mayors started treading years ago. 

You are why I can't vote against corruption.


----------



## Jed (19 Jun 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> So covering up a corruption scandal by giving yourself a paid vacation from work is OK? My party right or wrong.
> 
> This is the problem. ALL parties feel that they can be corrupt because of people like you. They know the team will still stick together when they get caught. You are ignorantly turning the Federal Government into Montreal in terms of corruption. You actually tolerate it.  "Thank heavens," we are walking down that road Quebec's mayors started treading years ago.
> You are why I can't vote against corruption.



A little harsh and starry eyed in your judgement there, Nemo. What cover up by the Feds? It has been front and centre for a lengthy time. Where were you when Adscam was in full bloom and was covered up for years?

Have a look at what is happening south of the border. Get some perspective, man.


----------



## Nemo888 (19 Jun 2013)

I have some painful memories. Eventually corruption takes out honest people.

Decades ago I did private security work in Toronto. I was as straight an arrow as you could get. Honest to a fault and very by the book. I transferred to a district in Toronto that was not ideal. There were a number of side businesses that were not exactly legal going on. I needed the support of my partners for safety so I said that I didn't want to know about it. This must have cut into profits.

One day I came in and was given what I call "The Talk". A senior person took me aside told me that he respected my honesty. That they had someone with similar leanings at the airport. Something bad happened to him. He was asked repeatedly to get on board and refused. Some time later a pound of marijuana was found in his locker at work and he went to jail. I was asked if I could get on board. I was a bit panicked and said yes. I went back to the locker room a bit shaken. Two other rather shady officers were there.  Arms crossed leaning on the lockers. When I came in one gave a head nod to the other and left.

Tow days later I got an envelope. I bought a really nice TV with it that night. The TV is gone now, but not the stain on my character.

I learned the hard way the acceptable amount of corruption is ZERO.


----------



## Remius (19 Jun 2013)

Nemo: While I understand your frustration, I can't agree with what you wrote.  first of all MPs are not on vacation.  The house has risen for the summer.  MPs will take some time off yes but they are expected to back to their ridings and will likely be working hard at connecting with their constituents.  the House always rises around this time.  This isn't some way of dodging anything.  It's just timing.

Second.  Mr Campbell has stated from the beginning and has always stated that he is a card carrying Conservative.  He wears his political stripe on his sleeve.  From a partisan point of view he has expressed his relief that this session is over.  I don't think you accusing him of what you are is even close to the mark but I'll assume, that like me, you are a little infuriated with the state of politics right now.  Blaming Mr. Campbell for what is going on and that he is somehow turning the system into Montreal style corruption is a stretch and frankly insulting.  You are actually angry because he's engaged in the political system we have?  I wish more Canadians were as engaged on either side of the political scene.

Jed: I get what you are saying but this is exactly what I don't like.  It's the "Well the Liberal have adscam and look at the US".  Instead of dealing with the issues and facing them head on they are just passing it off as something less serious than what others are doing.  I want leadership.  They should be saying that yep, there's a problem with these guys (our guys) and here is how we intend to fix it.  i don't care if Trudeau made 20 000 in 2007 at a speaking engagement.  Tell me what you are going to do about the the guys and the problems we have right now in 2013 so it does not happen again.

The CPC's core being was about not being like the Liberals of the past and here they are turning into them.  I'm a neutral type of voter, could vote one way or the other.  I vote based on platforms, policies and yes I vote to punish at times.  Right now I will be voting in a by election provincially that will be a punishment vote against the Liberals, not because I like Time Hudak and what he has to offer.  And right now, the CPC is losing ever so slowly my vote because of this crap going on and their lack of real leadership on these issues.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jun 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> A little harsh and starry eyed in your judgement there, Nemo. What cover up by the Feds? It has been front and centre for a lengthy time. Where were you when Adscam was in full bloom and was covered up for years?
> 
> Have a look at what is happening south of the border. Get some perspective, man.




It is beyond, "starry eyed," it is a silly comment. Politics is the most human of activities and humans (unless something remarkable happened while I was sleeping) are imperfect.

Our imperfection is demonstrated by the continued failures of socialism, in all its forms from the mildest _Obama statism_ to hard core _Marxist-Maoist communism_. All socialism rests, and has rested for 2,000 years, on a single, simple Marxist principle: _From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs_. That's wonderful in theory but it requires one thing: perfect humans - and see my first sentence. That is why, no matter what people want to believe socialism, in any of its forms, cannot work - it requires an impossible precondition. Time travel is more likely than a working socialist system.

Some politicians are corrupt ~ not "most politicians," not even "many," just "some." They are, I suspect, corrupt in about the same proportion are we find corruption amongst bankers, plumbers, lawyers, carpenters, colonels and Emergency Medical Technicians, and they are just as hard to detect, in advance. Do you think we try to elect corrupt politicians or that TD Canada Trust tries to hire corrupt bankers? Of course not! But we get some and, fortunately, we seem to discover many of them.

When I first started to vote, _circa_ 1960, I supported the Liberal Party of Canada even though I knew there were some (too many) corrupt Liberal politicians; but I understood that it was the same for the Progressive Conservatives and the CCF. It was _policy_, not morality, that drove me away from the Liberals and to the (equally imperfect) PCs and it is _policy_ that keeps me in the Conservative camp. I want the CPC to clean its own house and to try to make it more difficult for ALL politicians to break the fundamental rules - but I do not expect them to be perfectly "clean," and I will not blame the Liberals or the New Democrats for, also, being imperfect.

Most politicians, including Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau are honest, honourable men and women; a few are tempted to take advantage of thier office and and even tiny fewer are dishonest from the get go. But they are all humans and they are all imperfect.


----------



## Fabius (19 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell,
That was very well articulated and I could not agree more with what you wrote. 
While corruption is not to be tolerated, it is unrealistic to expect any organization or activity to be perfectly clean and have zero corruption at all times. Certainly a noble goal to strive for and one which all parties must support, but also a goal that must be tempered (by the voters) as you indicated by the understanding that humans are imperfect.

The political process, I believe, would be much better if the focus was the respective parties policies and their merits. or lack there of. 


Edit: Grammar


----------



## Jed (19 Jun 2013)

Fabius said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell,
> That was very well articulated and I could not agree more with what you wrote.
> While corruption is not to be tolerated, it is unrealistic to expect any organization or activity to be perfectly clean and have zero corruption at all times. Certainly a noble goal to strive for and one which all parties must support, but also a goal that must be tempered by the voters as you indicated by the understanding that humans are imperfect.
> 
> The political process I believe would be much better I believe if the focus was the respective parties policies and their merits. or lack there of.



Right on, milpoints inbound.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have no doubt that the CPC orchestrated the "leak" of this; maybe the NB charity sought some help from a friendly Conservative after M. Trudeau rebuffed them. But the media - the _Globe and Mail_ and the _CBC_, especially, neither of which are exactly pro-Conservative - have run with it. The story has "legs," as the journalists say. It is a "hook" one can use to raise doubts about M. Trudeau's political acumen, his _ethical judgement_ and even about his _values_.



Indeed. There are stirrings in the Blogosphere about the Young Dauphin's "speaking fees" were for exactly. There seems to be a general settling of consensus that this is simply another way of getting around campaign contribution laws (bloggers are digging at possible Liberal party connections to any board or organization that agreed to pay a speaking fee to the Young Dauphin) and this article which argues that it was campaign financing for a particular action on a piece of legislation:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/06/19/justin-trudeau-and-unions/



> *Justin Trudeau and unions*
> by Paul Wells on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4:10pm - 33 Comments
> 
> Should a political leader accept thousands of dollars from an interest group and then take positions on policy issues that defend the interests of that group?
> ...



So even if there is nothing to this, once again there will be a perception that something underhanded was going on and yes, the Young Dauphin's values and judgement will indeed be questioned.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2013)

I commend independent MP Elizabeth May for releasing her expense receipts on her website.

One hopes that other MPs - from all parties - will follow suit without having to be shamed into it.

I take issue with two of Ms May's issues:

     1. She notes that she sees other BC MPs in "First Class" (I'm guessing in _Executive Class_ on Air Canada) and suggests that this is, somehow, a bad thing. MPs are not going on vacation when they visit their ridings,
          it is, still, part of their work. Having traveled far and wide and often for work in my two careers (military and second, civilian one) I can attest that for flights of a certain duration - say three hours or more -
          _Business Class_, by whatever name an airline calls it, can and often does make good sense;* and

     2. She tells us that she does not claim for "phone, Internet, cable or other utilities, even though she’s entitled to do so." That's just plain silly - those are essential tools for an MP in Ottawa and she is "grandstanding,"
         not displaying commendable frugality.


_____
* When I was a director in NDHQ (many years ago) I managed a large travel budget - my responsibilities were global and face-to-face negotiations in committees and working groups were the normal way of doing our work. DND, like all of government, was conscious of travel costs and of appearances. Like everyone else I had to stretch every dollar and there were many times when I eschewed _business class_ (to which I was, routinely, entitled) *but* there were also many times when I ordered my subordinates into _business class_ when I understood that they had to work enroute and start working immediately on arrival. Time and money both matter and sometimes one (wisely) spends scarce money to save even more scarce and valuable time. Comfort is not a luxury when one travels extensively and must work after a long trip.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jun 2013)

Andrew Coyne, who is no great fan of the current CPC government, gives some advice to the CPC, which is going into its annual policy convention which is scheduled for Calgary in just five days, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tories+rescued+from+self+destruction+salvation+must+come/8560015/story.html


> If Tories are to be rescued from self-destruction, salvation must come from party base
> 
> By Andrew Coyne, Postmedia News
> 
> ...




Does the party "get it?" Yes, almost certainly ... but there are divisions within the CPC, especially between the "original reformers" (a group that would like to include Stephen Harper in its number) and the "old _Progressives_" led by Peter MacKay. Both are trying to drag Prime Minister Harper away from the economically focused, _centrist_ position in which he finds himself most comfortable. The "original reformers" are Western, rural, broadly (but not always deeply) socially conservative and "tough on crime;" the "old _Progressives_" are Eastern, urban, socially liberal and wedded to Trudeau era programmes like EI. The problem, for both, is Ontario which has a small rural base that shares many of the "original reformers'" positions, a larger urban base in which the "old _Progressives_" might be competitive and a *HUGE* suburban base which finds nothing attractive in either of the 'extreme' wings of the party.

The big challenges for the CPC are:

     1. Keep it together ~ do not let either of the "original reformers" or the "old _Progressives_" totally abandon the party; and

     2. Move the platform markedly in the direction of suburban Ontario (and, albeit to a lesser degree, towards suburban Alberta and BC, too).

Don't forget that this chap is the mayor of Calgary:






And there are more of "him" in suburban Canada than there are either "original reformers" or "old _Progressives_" or, even, members of the _Laurentian elites_ in Toronto and Montreal.


Edit: typo


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2013)

First preview of the Liberal/NDP battles coming up in Ontario and Quebec. I also expect the Green party to be out on full force in Toronto and the Bloc in Quebec (even if "full force" might only be section or platoon sized). The other "Progressive" parties will attempt to feed off the potential pool of Liberal voters. Given the need for "momentum", narrow margins of victory will not reflect well on the LPC.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/21/weve-got-to-decimate-the-ndp-liberals-bracing-for-fierce-race-in-toronto-after-for-raes-exit/



> *‘We’ve got to decimate’ the NDP: Liberals bracing for fierce race in Toronto after Rae’s exit*
> 
> Tobi Cohen and Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News | 13/06/21 | Last Updated: 13/06/21 11:24 AM ET
> More from Postmedia News
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jun 2013)

And more on what the Conservatives need to do and _might_ do to "turn the page," in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stephen-harper-looks-to-woo-disenchanted-tories/article12758615/#dashboard/follows/


> Stephen Harper plans a fresh start with shakeup of cabinet and PMO
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




If Steven Chase is correct about the changes to PMO then the differences - very subtle and increasingly difficult to detect since the late 1960s - between the PMO and the parties' campaign offices will almost disappear and we will look more and more like Washington DC and that, in my personal opinion, will be bad for policy and politics.

I think the Senate resonates, for now, with more than just "original reformers." I suspect that most Canadians want some sort of meaningful Senate reform and I'm guessing that Prime Minister harper can kill two birds with one stone ~ win back the affection of "original reformers" and appeal to the mainstream by offering something bold.

But he needs to be careful to not stray too far off the message that appeals to these folks:






They want "clean" government but, mostly, they want less government, except in areas that are, essentially, local/civic in nature.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Andrew Coyne, who is no great fan of the current CPC government, gives some advice to the CPC, which is going into its annual policy convention which is scheduled for Calgary in just five days ...




Have just learned that the CPC Policy Convention, scheduled to begin on 27 Jun 13 in Calgary has been postponed ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jun 2013)

A retired RCMP officer, Garry Clement offers some sinsights into what the RCMP might do in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Deaing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Hill Times_:

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/06/24/proof-of-duffy-wright-cheque-won%E2%80%99t-spare-pmo-from-rcmp-probe/35120


> Proof of Duffy-Wright cheque won’t spare PMO from RCMP probe
> *Former RCMP national director says a thorough investigation required to get to the bottom of Senate expense scandal.*
> 
> By CHRIS PLECASH
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jun 2013)

> ...but in June the CBC published a story alleging...



hmmmm...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Have just learned that the CPC Policy Convention, scheduled to begin on 27 Jun 13 in Calgary has been postponed ...




And postponing might be an advantage says John Ibbitson in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright ct from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/cancelled-convention-a-blessing-in-disguise-for-harper-co/article12792940/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#dashboard/follows/


> Cancelled convention a blessing in disguise for Harper & Co.
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Earlier I mentioned that: 





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... It is time for a fresh, mid-term, start: a new parliament, a new throne speech, and a new programme over which all parties can contest.



John Ibbitson picks up on that when he says: "[the] _convention will act as a curtain raiser for the return of Parliament and a new throne speech. There are worse ways to reset an agenda._"


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2013)

Some fuel for the _cabinet shuffle_ fire in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/many-mps-may-rush-to-retire-before-pension-changes-kick-in/article12859169/#dashboard/follows/


> MPs may rush to retire before pension changes kick in
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Take a good look at some of the names on that list. Consider, for example, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, aged 47; if he retires before the 2015 general election his pension will kick in in eight year and be worth $117K per year. If he runs again might forgo a HUGE amount of money. MacKay says that "rumours of his political demise are greatly exaggerated," but he is newly married with a young family and politics provides an uncertain future. He is a respected public figure and can earn big money in the private sector.

Gordon O'Connor, whose pension is worth over $100K/year, is already 74 and I'm guessing that he will retire anyway.

Ron Nicholson, the Justice Minister is 61 but his pension is worth $140K+/year.

Peter VanLoan, often mentioned as a "must move" in cabinet shuffle rumours, is only 50 but his pension is worth $75K+/year. He is a potential Justice Minister if Nicholson retires.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jun 2013)

The cabinet shuffle rumours are flying about, thick and fast; the _Globe and Mail's_ Stephen Chase cites some _"sources"_ as saying that

     1. "... the Prime Minister’s Office is telling some Conservative MPs and ministers to stay within 24 hours’ travel time of Ottawa in early July:" but

     2. Given that the PM and many Alberta MPs *MUST* be in Calgary next week for the Stampede, Stephen Chase hedges his bets by also reporting that, "One senior Conservative suggested that rather than
         announce a shuffle in the second week of July, Mr. Harper may use that time to talk to MPs and ministers about possible moves."


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is an _immediate term_ political price to be paid for _l'affaire Duffy_ according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/23/trudeaus-liberals-hit-historic-highs-as-senate-scandal-has-drastic-effect-on-tories-poll/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
> My *emphasis* added
> ...



But, as always, a week is a long time in politics and a month is an eternity and thing change ... "events, dear boy, events" and all that ... and so do polls and prospects according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/28/shine-has-come-off-the-trudeau-express-liberal-support-dropping-as-tories-make-up-ground/


> ‘Shine has come off the Trudeau Express’: Liberal support dropping as Tories make up ground
> 
> Allison Cross
> 
> ...




I wouldn't bet on Jim Flaherty being moved without his agreement which will come if he is actually ill.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> First: we are, at least, two full years from a general election - it is scheduled for the fall of 2015 but, as discussed before,  a spring 2015 election is also possible.
> 
> Second: it is instructive to look at where M. Trudeau appears to have not scored all that well: middle class suburbanites in Ontario and the West.
> 
> ...





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Although I never factored him into the _leadership sweepstakes_, it is still a bit of a surprise, to me, to learn that Ted Menzies will not run again in 2015.
> 
> Ted Menzies is Minister of State for Finance and _might_, in my mind, have been in line for the Finance job IF Jim Flaherty moves on. Maybe his resignation signals that Flaherty will not move.




John Ibbitson thinks it would be counterproductive to move Jim Flaherty and he explains why in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/replacing-finance-minister-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-and-harper-knows-that/article12944795/#dashboard/follows/


> Replacing finance minister is a recipe for disaster, and Harper knows that
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




The relationships between finance ministers and PMs are often contentious; in additon to Ibbitson's examples consider Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson in the 1980s, and, more recnetly, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Jim Flaherty is at the very least a competent and maybe even good finance minister; there is no indication of much "space" between Prime Minister Harper and Minister Flaherty; Mr. Flaherty's medical problems seem *not* to be an insurmountable political problem; thus there is no good reason to ask him to move on.

My guess is: Flaherty stays until after the 2015 budget. He will be 65 when the next federal election rolls around; he's been a working politician for 18 years now; so, in 2015, he may be ready to move.


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2013)

And...according to the numbers quoted earlier about people not running in 2015 because of pension issues....none of that touches Jim Flaherty.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And now CTV's Bob Fife is reporting that Diane Ablonczy, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs) will also not run again in 2015. Once again, while I did not factor her into to my leadership equation she has been far more asset than liability to the CPC and to Prime Minister Harper.




And David Akin, _Sun Media's_ National Bureau chief and Army.ca member, suggests that the following have announced or will announce their resignations: Fisheries Minister Ashfield, Public Safety Minister Toews, Government Leader in the Senate LeBreton, and Ministers of State Ablonczy and Menzies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And David Akin, _Sun Media's_ National Bureau chief and Army.ca member, suggests that the following have announced or will announce their resignations: Fisheries Minister Ashfield, Public Safety Minister Toews, Government Leader in the Senate LeBreton, and Ministers of State Ablonczy and Menzies.




And, in a _Globe and Mail_ report: "Marjory LeBreton is stepping down as Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s right hand in the Red Chamber ... Ms. LeBreton, who turned 73 on Thursday, was appointed to the Senate in 1993 by former prime minister Brian Mulroney after serving at Mr. Mulroney’s deputy chief of staff and appointments director ... She also worked for John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield and Joe Clark."


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Jul 2013)

As noted, Senator LeBreton just turned 73, and thus would retired from the Senate in two years. That probably is not a good time for a change in a key appointment with a Federal election on the books for 2015. 

And in another gee whizz theory, maybe the evil gnomes in the PMO fired her for not keeping a grip on the tory senators. I am surprised this one has not hit the airwaves yet.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jul 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As noted, Senator LeBreton just turned 73, and thus would retired from the Senate in two years. That probably is not a good time for a change in a key appointment with a Federal election on the books for 2015.
> 
> And in another gee whizz theory, maybe the evil gnomes in the PMO fired her for not keeping a grip on the tory senators. I am surprised this one has not hit the airwaves yet.




But there are rumours that Prime Minister Harper will not appoint the next Government Leader in the Senate to the cabinet.

I believe he should appoint one of the three elected senators - Doug Black, Scott Tannis or Betty Unger, all from Alberta - to a minister of state position in one of the portfolios (like Health or Natural Resources) where the national government intrudes into areas of (_Constitutional_) provincial responsibility.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jul 2013)

Opposition Leader Thomas Mulciar strikes what I think is just about the right tone in this video clip from the _Globe and Mail_ website.

I think that both Prime Minister Harper and M. Trudeau have to, at least, equal this performance ~ and make no mistake: this weekend and next week, in Calgary, is all about "performance." The national media - which has, in my _guesstimation_, about equal sympathy for the Liberals and the NDP and much less for the Conservatives - will be parsing each statement, looking to award "advantage" to one leader or the other. Of course, Mr. Harper has control of the public purse so he can "do" while the others can only cajole but he will be advised, by his most senior _mandarins_, to "do" as little as possible and to wait as long as possible before doing even that in order to make sure that Alberta has used up every penny it can find and to avoid setting an over-generous precedent. He will need to balance _politics_ (which will argue for quick action and generosity) against _policy_ (which will argue for fiscal prudence).


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And David Akin, _Sun Media's_ National Bureau chief and Army.ca member, suggests that the following have announced or will announce their resignations: Fisheries Minister Ashfield, Public Safety Minister Toews, Government Leader in the Senate LeBreton, and Ministers of State Ablonczy and Menzies.




And the _CBC's_ Greg Weston reports that"As Stephen Harper prepares for what is shaping up to be a major remake of the federal cabinet, sources tell CBC News they expect Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will announce Friday that he is retiring from politics."

Public Safety is a significant portfolio and someone who needs to be moved - say, Peter Van Loan who is rumoured to be a _toxic_ Government House Leader, toxic to members of his own party, and who has been Public Safety Minister before (2008-2010)  - could be put back there again or he could be involved in some sort of three way shuffle.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2013)

And now Mercedes Stevenson is reporting that Environment Minister Peter Kent is signalling that, while he intends to run again in 2015, he would not mind serving as a backbencher. There is some speculation that Kent has been told he is on the way out and is trying to make his exit graceful, voluntary.

Edit to add:

And here is Peter Kent's press release:

http://www.peterkent.ca/view/pressrelease/54


> Press Release
> Statement by the Honourable Peter Kent PC MP
> 
> Posted: July 05, 2013 | 0 comment(s)
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I found  these three predictions by the _Good Grey Globe's_ John Ibbittson interesting:
> 
> 1. The unbiased panel will decide that the F-35 is the best aircraft available because, as Ibbitton says, the others are just as expensive and the F-35 gives us better interoperability with the US;
> 
> ...




At the mid point (plus a wee bit) John Ibbitson's predictions, which started this thread, are:

     1. Still in limbo;

     2. False ~ and, along with the Alberta election, making us rethink polling; and

     3. Partially true (M. Trudeau is Liberal leader and he has displaced Mr Mulcair in the polls) but we have half a year to go until year's end.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2013)

Despite disasters, natural and man-made, the political media remains fascinated by the cabinet shuffle. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ and _Star Phoenix_ respectively are two articles ~ one quite useful one from a political _insider_ explaining "cabinet making in Canada" and one "prescriptive" one from a pundit:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/harper-will-weigh-his-cabinet-timber-carefully/article13041903/#dashboard/follows/







> Harper will weigh his cabinet timber carefully
> 
> DAVID MCLAUGHLIN
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Cabinet+shuffle+chance+change+tone/8628756/story.html






> Cabinet shuffle a chance to change tone
> 
> BY MICHAEL DEN TANDT
> THE STARPHOENIX
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2013)

Mercedes Stephenson (CTV News) is reporting that: "Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will resign at 11am EST.  He will resign as a Minister and MP effective tomorrow."


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Mercedes Stephenson (CTV News) is reporting that: "Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will resign at 11am EST.  He will resign as a Minister and MP effective tomorrow."


Now official....


> Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has announced he is resigning as a minister and Member of Parliament effective Tuesday.
> 
> Toews said in a statement that he is leaving public life in order to focus on his family and to pursue opportunities in the private sector.
> 
> ...



Edited to add link to text of Toews' statement here


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2013)

Perhaps leaving before the High River RCMP mess blows up in his face :


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jul 2013)

Latest leaks anonymous sharing uses the word "substantial" in describing a cabinet shuffle coming today....


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper is giving his cabinet a makeover today and the changes are being described as "substantial and significant."
> 
> He will carry out his cabinet shuffle at 11 a.m. ET at Rideau Hall.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jul 2013)

The new MND is Rob Nicholson.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Gordon O'Connor was, in my opinion, always a strange choice for whip. The whip is part drill sergeant major, part nursemaid, part political tactician and part father confessor. His (or her) job is to keep the back benches both (reasonably) happy and in line. I saw O'Connor as a capable minister ~ not especially quick on his feet but stable and reliable. I think he did a pretty good job in Defence but the PM, evidently, disagreed because he was "demoted" or, at best, moved sideways to Revenue. Some might argue that Chief Government Whip represents a promotion but I still find the man ill suited for that particular job. Mr O'Connor is 74 and I'm guessing that he can be shuffled out on the basis that he will (likely) not seek re-election.
> 
> Van Loan is a more difficult problem for the PM. He's one of the old time Progressive Conservatives who fought hard for the new, united CPC. He's a skilled lawyer and, by all accounts I have heard, was a competent minister. I think he needs to be kept in cabinet and not, obviously, demoted. Like the whip, the house leader should be both a bit of a dictator and a bit of a favourite uncle. His (or her) goal is to steer the government's legislative programme through the HoC and he must have a big stick but he should prefer to use the carrot as much as possible ... something about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar. But, assuming Vic Toews can be rewarded with a move to suitable senior bench as a judge then Van Loan migt be a good fit in Justice or in Defence if the PM wants to move MacKay to Justice.
> 
> ...




So, Gordon O'Connor is gone, replaced as whip by John Duncan who resigned, earlier this year, as a result of "inappropriate communication" addressed to the Tax Court of Canada. But Peter Van Loan stays on as house leader. The back benches will be partially pacified.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The new MND is Rob Nicholson.



So we get a minister generally ignorant of military matters, lest you count knowing that there was a fort at Niagara-on-th-lakes called Fort george, that saw action in the war of 1812, but otherwise a minister who has proven to be quiet, efficient and generally solid and untouched by scandals.


----------



## GAP (15 Jul 2013)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So we get a minister generally ignorant of military matters, lest you count knowing that there was a fort at Niagara-on-th-lakes called Fort george, that saw action in the war of 1812, but otherwise a minister who has proven to be quiet, efficient and generally solid and untouched by scandals.



Not necessarily a bad thing.....better than using it as a stepping stone to future considerations as leader......

May not be that bad if he uses good common sense...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Jul 2013)

Military experience in an MND can be overrated.

I'll take analytic, common sense, decision making anyway of the week.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (16 Jul 2013)

http://o.canada.com/2013/07/15/canadas-new-defence-team-to-focus-on-budget-cuts-long-term-plan-for-military/

"While known as a strong supporter of Canada’s men and women in uniform and the minister in charge during the bloodiest years in Afghanistan, MacKay struggled to implement those cuts despite orders from Harper."


Struggled or stood up for the Canadian Military despite of Harper?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> http://o.canada.com/2013/07/15/canadas-new-defence-team-to-focus-on-budget-cuts-long-term-plan-for-military/
> 
> "While known as a strong supporter of Canada’s men and women in uniform and the minister in charge during the bloodiest years in Afghanistan, MacKay struggled to implement those cuts despite orders from Harper."
> 
> ...




I'm not sure how supporting too many bloated HQs, for example, can be seen as standing up for the CF. He may have stood up for some flag and general officers who are defending their _Pentagon_ inspired empires, but that's not supporting the CF.

Further, one main premise of cabinet government is that it, the ministry, takes collective decisions and acts in unison; we were left with the _impression_ that Minister MacKay acted alone, against the collective will of the ministry. Maybe there was/is more to it ~ there often is ~ but what we saw, in public, was sensible _direction_ from the prime minister to make cuts in the C2 _superstructure_ and _push-back_ from Minister MacKay and Gen Lawson, saying that HQs were already as _lean and mean_ as they can get.

Do you really believe that cutting field force training is "better" for the CF than eliminating overlap and duplication in several large, high ranked HQs?


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2013)

While I agree with E.R. Campbell, my fear is that those things won't be where the cutting happens and that the Government will cut things that are easy to cut but will have a profound effect on morale, effectiveness and capabilities.  We are already seing the degradation of skills and knowledge from lessons learned in Afghanistan and our priorities are shifting.  While we may not be cutting CF personnel, cutting recruiting numbers might as well amount to the same thing.  Ammo, fuel, mothballing equipment...all easy and quick ways to save money and I fear, that history will repeat itself.  PLD, pensions etc etc.

Are they really going to cut bloated HQ's?  Do they even care?  Or is it about reaching a target they have set themselves and don't care how they get to it?


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jul 2013)

Jack Granatstein:



> Nicholson inherits a mess at Defence
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=8662309



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2013)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Jack Granatstein:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Professor Granatstein is nearly 180o degrees off course.

Previous military experience is of little if any use in a MND. While, arguably, Brooke Claxton was one of Canada's best ever MNDs, his military experience, as a WWI Battery Sergeant Major was useful mainly in allowing him to cast a jaundiced eye on the vast plans, based on far less less vast resources, of military commanders.

The government is embarked upon a course of action which does not put DND's interests very high up the priority list. This has been the normal state of affairs with only a very, very few (and all too brief) exceptions. The government's policies may not sit too well with Prof Granatstein but they got themselves elected and he didn't so he's free to snipe, snidely, from the sidelines.

Procurement is a mess. Even, I suspect, the government knows that. The civil service, at the senior levels, certainly does and it knows that it can and will find big, Big, BIG cash savings after it _reforms_ defence procurement. But it, the _mandarinate_, also knows that _reform_ is, itself, going to be disruptive, bloody - in terms of jobs lost and career ambitions (political and bureaucratic) scuttled, and expensive. The latter factor explains why it is on the back burner until the budget is balanced. Procurement will be reformed - and it will not matter which party forms the next two governments - but it, defence procurement, is an administrative/management rather than a political priority.

Prof Granatstein is right about one thing: "... there is no vision in the government on defence questions — there is none in sight on the Opposition front benches either ..." Had he left it at that I would have suggested he was only 90o off course, but he finished by suggesting that the government should listen to him and the arm chair quarterback in the RCMI in Toronto and that is the very worst thing the government might do. It isn't "twentysomethings" in the PMO who make policy, it is the smart people in the PCO and they are letting defence drift because it's not part of the government's _centre core_ of programmes.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> but he finished by suggesting that the government should listen to him and the arm chair quarterback in the RCMI in Toronto and that is the very worst thing the government might do.



Isn't that what got us pips and crowns?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Isn't that what got us pips and crowns?




BINGO!

As I have mentioned several times before, no serving officer, including Peter Devlin, who enrolled in 1978 or even Walter Natynczyk, who enrolled in 1975, ever wore pips and crowns. You would need to be my age (in my seventh decade) to remember them. That was the work of those who _*a)*_ are active in Conservative Party politics, and _*b)*_ have time on their hands. Look in the ranks of the "honoraries" for the culprits.


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> BINGO!
> 
> As I have mentioned several times before, no serving officer, including Peter Devlin, who enrolled in 1978 or even Walter Natynczyk, who enrolled in 1975, ever wore pips and crowns. You would need to be my age (in my seventh decade) to remember them. That was the work of those who _*a)*_ are active in Conservative Party politics, and _*b)*_ have time on their hands. Look in the ranks of the "honoraries" for the culprits.



I would just mention that several reserve unit officers have indeed worn pips and crowns on ceremonial dress and patrol dress.  But I understand your point.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As I have mentioned several times before, no serving officer, including Peter Devlin, who enrolled in 1978 or even Walter Natynczyk, who enrolled in 1975, ever wore pips and crowns. *You would need to be my age (in my seventh decade) to remember them. That was the work of those who a) are active in Conservative Party politics, and b) have time on their hands. Look in the ranks of the "honoraries" for the culprits.*


All the precursors to good idea fairy plans everywhere, it seems (present company excluded, of course, ERC)- well summed up.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a good, solid, reasoned analysis of the cabinet shuffle from an unlikely source - _Harper Hater_TM Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/harpers-cabinet-shuffle-is-a-good-facelift-but-whats-behind-it/article13240121/#dashboard/alerts


> Harper’s cabinet shuffle is a good facelift, but what’s behind it?
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I'm _guessing_ that Lawrence Martin might be off course on Rona Ambrose and the "reset" button. My _suspicion_ is that Prime Minister Harper does want to press "reset" <CTL> <ALT> <DEL> on health care. I think Minister Flaherty's unilateral, no discussion, take it or leave it funding decision was <CTL>. My _guess_ is that Minister Ambrose will press <ALT> when she tells provinces that they can and should experiment with health care funding options without fearing cuts to federal funds just because they violate the outdated, unhelpful Canada Health Act. <DEL>, I _think_ may come, for the Canada Health Act, after the 2015 election.

I also think Mr Martin is wrong when he says, in the final line, "decisions on what to sell were still to come." I think Prime Minister Harper just reaffirmed that what's on sale remains unchanged: fiscal prudence, a balanced budget in 2015 and no new taxes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2013)

One thing Lawrenec Martin got right in the article I just posted was that "Having fallen to 30 per cent support from 40 per cent in the last election, the Tories have lost one quarter of their support. The base is behind the party, but not many others are." But I don't think Prime MInister Harper is anywhere near a panic button and this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Abacus Insider_ explains why:

http://abacusinsider.com/politics-public-affairs/road-2015-voter-segmentation-rebuilding-conservative-majority-coalition/


> THE ROAD TO 2015:REBUILDING THE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY COALITION
> 
> Posted by David Colette on July 15th 2013
> 
> ...




One is tempted to write Q.E.D. except of course that the _demonstrandum_ bit ~ getting from the 30% that Lawrence Martin concedes to the 40% that most observers think will produce a comfortable majority government in 2015 ~ has yet to be done, but Mr Coletto outlines how the CPC can get there.


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2013)

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/15/pipsqueak-promotion-cheapens-shuffle

A surprising article from the Sun.  Not so surprising is who authored it...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/15/pipsqueak-promotion-cheapens-shuffle
> 
> A surprising article from the Sun.  Not so surprising is who authored it...




Warren Kinsella and Pierre Poilievre are two sides of the same coin. It happens that Mr Poilievre is not someone with I would, willingly, dine, but then I feel exactly the same about Mr. Kinsella, and for exactly the same reasons.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Jul 2013)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Military experience in an MND can be overrated.
> 
> I'll take analytic, common sense, decision making anyway of the week.



That was my thought exactly when I heard of his appointment. And a Queen's grad to boot. (Dig for JM)   >


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2013)

Two article, both reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, about federal-provincial relations:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/26/andrew-coyne-premiers-excel-at-telling-ottawa-what-to-do-while-ignoring-their-own-jurisdiction/


> Why do the premiers bother meeting when they ignore issues in their jurisdiction?
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> 
> ...



And

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/26/john-ivison-the-premiers-accomplish-more-when-they-arent-grandstanding-against-stephen-harper/


> The premiers accomplish more when they aren’t grandstanding against Stephen Harper
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




All I can say is: "yes, indeed."

Who can blame Prime Minister Harper for eschewing federal-provincial conferences?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Good Grey Globe's_ charter member of the _Laurentian elite_ and head cheerleader for the _Laurentian Consensus_ chimes in, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on the _Conservative base_ and demonstrates, yet again, that he, like most of the _Laurentian elite_ just don't "get" 21st century Canada:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/dont-forget-the-base-you-can-bet-harper-wont/article12426834/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...




And speaking of the _Laurentian consensus_ and its cheerleaders, the _Laurentian elites_, here is another voice from the loony left, Linda McQuaig, _explaining_ Stephen Harper's _hidden agenda_ ® in a column which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/05/07/harper_stokes_resentments_in_discreet_class_war_mcquaig.html


> Harper stokes resentments in discreet class war: McQuaig
> *Thatcher-style attempt to crush unions would leave Canadian workers powerless.*
> 
> By: Linda McQuaig, Columnist
> ...




One hardly knows where to begin, but ... a significant minority of Canadians, probably 25% to 40% of them, will believe every word Ms McQuaig writes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> One hardly knows where to begin, but ... a significant minority of Canadians, probably 25% to 40% of them, will believe every word Ms McQuaig writes.


You mean THIS Linda McQuaig? 
"Linda McQuaig vies for NDP nomination in Toronto Centre"


----------



## Inquisitor (6 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> One hardly knows where to begin, but ... a significant minority of  xxxxxx, probably xx% to xx% of them, will believe every word Their favourite pundit writes.


 TFTFY

I also refer to your reference to the conservative base and their loathing of media except sun new et al.  Matched by liberal base and Toronto star. Same/same in US. 

Not healthy in my view but hey.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2013)

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> TFTFY
> 
> I also refer to your reference to the conservative base and their loathing of media except sun new et al.  Matched by liberal base and Toronto star. Same/same in US.
> 
> Not healthy in my view but hey.




As I pointed out, above, there is no such thing as "the conservative base." Those who think there is are either ill informed or intellectually lazy or, more likely, both.

The Conservative Party of Canada has at least three bases:

     1. The (mostly Western) rural base;

     2. The Western urban base that represents all of Calgary, Lethbridge and Red Deer and most of Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg; and

     3. The BC and Ontario suburban and small town base.

Within those three bases we find:

     1. A small group of social conservatives or the _religious right_ who are, by and large, happily ignorant of the wider world. They, like social/religious conservatives everywhere are, by and large, against
         things more than being for much of anything.

     2. The fiscally prudent, socially moderate _middle_ ~ the largest part of the base, a mix of Western urbanites, pan-Canadian suburbanites and small town folks from across the country. They are, generally,
         employed, home owners and parents; and 

     3. The _classical liberal_ ideologues - people like me - who favour small, very limited governments that are bound, by law, to respect the fundamental rights (life, liberty, property) of the sovereign individual above all else.

The Liberal party of Canada's base is similarly complex but focused on different issues. the NDP's base is simpler, even though Thomas Mulcair wants to remake it into a more complex centrist party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> You mean THIS Linda McQuaig?
> "Linda McQuaig vies for NDP nomination in Toronto Centre"



Yep, that's her ~ good writer but economically illiterate, to be charitable.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an analysis of Chrystia Freeland, about whom I commented earlier, vs Linda McQuaig:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/toronto-riding-is-a-testing-ground-for-ndp-and-liberals-economic-mantras/article13627574/#dashboard/follows/


> Toronto riding is a testing ground for NDP and Liberals’ economic mantras
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




If McQuaig is the NDP candidate, and if she has real "star power" then she will put Thomas Mulcair in between a rock, his desire to move the NDP into the fiscally responsible centre, and a hard place, McQuaig's loony-left rubbish.






But Ms Freeland might just do the same to M. Trudeau because her mantra about the "hollowing of the middle class" is, demonstrably untrue. It was true _circa_ 1995 but it is not today, not in Canada.





Source:  http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/07/12/what-is-happening-to-middle-class-incomes/


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, step one is complete: Mike Duffy quits Tory caucus citing 'distracting' controversy, says the _Globe and Mail's_ headline writer.
> 
> Step two is for Nigel Wright to resign and for Prime Minister Harper - uncharacteristically, to be sure - to shoulder some of the responsibility for picking senators (Brazeau and Duffy (and Wallin?)) who have abused the public trust.
> 
> Step three is for the Senate (aided by the RCMP?) to expel Sens Brazeau, Duffy and Harb (and Wallin?) for breach of trust.




Now the man who is often left out by the media (because he's a Liberal? or, more likely because he's NOT a Conservative?) Mac Harb get's a fair share of attention, for the same reason Duffy/Wright smells so much, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/expense+scandal+surrounding+Senator+Harb+deepened+with/8760907/story.html


> Mac Harb loan from Ottawa businessman under scrutiny
> 
> BY JORDAN PRESS, ANDREW SEYMOUR AND ZEV SINGER,
> 
> ...




Here's a video of Sen Harb presenting Brian Karam with his QDJM; I like the comment which follows: "Here's your medal Brian. and here's﻿ your 50 grand Harb" (grammar and spelling corrected).


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2013)

Although this is dealing with an international event, I find it interesting from a domestic political perspective.

Here's what John Baird is quoted saying about a proposed anti-gay law in Russia ....


> Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird denounced Russia's controversial new anti-gay law as hateful Thursday, saying it could incite violence.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with The Canadian Press, Baird described how Canada has worked behind the scenes to persuade Russia not to follow through with the law.
> 
> ...


.... and a national women's group responded with the attached statement (it seems it's hard to get into this link to the statement right now):


> Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, has abused his position as a cabinet minister to *impose his own special interests* in the foreign countries of Uganda, Kenya and Russia.
> 
> He awarded $200,000 of Canadian taxpayers’ money by way of the Department of Foreign Affairs to special interest groups in Uganda and Kenya to *further his own perspective on homosexuality*.  He also insulted the speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, at a meeting of the International Parliamentary Union in Quebec City when he criticized Uganda for its position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  In response, Ms. Kadaga stated that Uganda was a sovereign nation and not a colony of Canada, and no one could tell Ugandans what to do.
> 
> Last week, Baird admitted working extensively behind the scenes to prevent Russia from passing legislation designated to protect Russian minors from homosexual propaganda.  Baird blasted these laws as hateful, anti-gay and intolerant ....


Uh, does this group realize that generally, Cabinet ministers don't really "freelance" such remarks and initiatives?  That this is the Government of Canada's move, not Mr. B's alone?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Aug 2013)

The _religious right_ ~ a category within which I believe _REAL Women_ fits, neatly ~ doesn't "realize" much of anything. It "believes" and it is certain of its beliefs, as is very often the case with those who accept the _Big Man_ (in the sky) theory of the creation of the universe rather than, say, the _Big Bang_.

People are entitled to believe what they want; they are also entitled to espouse their beliefs in public, despite the fact that when they do so they usually embarrass themselves; but making a bloody fool of yourself is not a crime either ... thank heavens.


----------



## ballz (8 Aug 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Uh, does this group realize that generally, Cabinet ministers don't really "freelance" such remarks and initiatives?  That this is the Government of Canada's move, not Mr. B's alone?



I read this earlier, too. It's clearly going to fall on deaf ears, thankfully.

I think they are trying to suggest that the CPC, because it represents social conservatives, must be anti-homosexual and that John Baird should "fall in line" with that view from some of the grassroots supporters.

That would be a real smart hill for the Tories to die on... :


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Aug 2013)

So Sen Pamela Wallin says:

     1. The audit process was “fundamentally flawed and unfair;" but

     2. She will repay all expenses, with interest.

Sen Wallin is 60 years old; she can serve another 15 years in the Senate if she chooses. She is also a skilled, effective and well connected communicator.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Aug 2013)

John Ibbitson notes, in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that the _magnitude_ of a scandal doesn't seem to be what annoys the public most:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/what-makes-something-a-scandal/article13708395/#dashboard/follows/


> Public reaction to political scandal is far from objective
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I think campaigning on _abolition_ of the Senate is a dead end: the _Supremes_ will make it, abolition, too hard ~ and rightly so. Senate _reform_ on the other hand can be a winner with both the "old" CPC base and in the suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver. New Canadians are baffled at our appointed Senate, it is, simply, undemocratic and it cries out for change.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think campaigning on _abolition_ of the Senate is a dead end: the _Supremes_ will make it, abolition, too hard ~ and rightly so. Senate _reform_ on the other hand can be a winner with both the "old" CPC base and in the suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver. New Canadians are baffled at our appointed Senate, it is, simply, undemocratic and it cries out for change.



And any half-decent opposition politician will ask "Is the man who named Brazeau, Duffy & Wallin to the Red Chamber the right man to reform it?"

It will take a grand _mea culpa_ from Mr Harper to make that sales pitch - one I don't think he has in him.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Aug 2013)

Or he can turn it around as beautiful PR campaign for change:

PM Harper to journalists:

"You are all aware of the recent unacceptable deportment of some members of the Senate. Yes, some even appointed by this government. Obviously, the reputation and public image of some of them, Senators Wallin and Duffy for instance, made them quite suitable at the time of their appointment. This turned out to be wrong as we now know. However, there is nothing this government can do at this time: As you all know, I do not have the power to remove a senator once appointed.

And this is one of the reason this government has advocated for the longest time for the reform of the Senate, particularly by way of introduction of elected senators and limited fixed terms for their service in the upper chamber. It is my belief that the Canadian electorate when acting collectively  is much smarter than any Prime Minister and his staff at selecting appropriate representatives. Moreover, the fixed term and election system would make it possible for Canadian to refuse to reelect a senator that proved to be unworthy of their trust.

By the way, did I mention that my reform plans would include the possibility of citizen driven recall ...."


----------



## dapaterson (13 Aug 2013)

Mike Duffy was inappropriate at appointment.  Even the most cursory discussion with peers and co-workers would have revealed patterns of behaviour that would label him as high risk.  But he was also high profile, and did yeoman work in partisan fundraising once appointed - high risk, high reward.  (How did Mulroney describe such folks?  Oh yes - "There's no [senator] like an old [senator]")

Taking ownership of this failure will never occur - and it will leave Mulcair and Trudeau with a constant ability to attack the PM's judgement.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2013)

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

I was just listening to Sen George Baker on the local (Ottawa) CBC radio morning show.

He makes one good point: the steps taken, this year, by the Senate to provide some _transparency_ ("sunshine") to senators' expenses are likely to help prevent repeats of the kind of disrepute into which Sens Brazeau, Duffy, Harb, Lavigne and Wallin have dragged parliament. The _transparency_ ~ including "opening" the Senate to the Auditor General and making "internal economy" reports public ~ will likely make senators think before they spend. It will put the Senate into the position of letting in some "sunshine," which, according to an old political maxim, "is the best disinfectant."*

But, as Sen Baker suggested, the Senate's _reforms_ need to be made permanent and even expanded in the Senate, itself, and applied to the House of Commons, too. The Parliament of Canada should be at least as open and transparent as is the Government of Canada. Members' and senators' expenses should be as visible as are those of senior civil servants. (I am *not* suggesting that the government's Directive on Travel, Hospitality, Conference and Event Expenditures is an especially good system but it does provide some visibility without violating the privacy of officials.)

As a genera rule: *transparency in government is a good thing* ... provided that transparency is balanced against government's real, valid need for security. What's good for government is, also generally, good for parliament, too.

There is, I believe, an opportunity here for Prime Minister Harper.

_____
* I think the quote can be attributed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis (1856-1941)


----------



## Remius (14 Aug 2013)

The Prime Minister (and by that I include the CPC as teh governing party) does not have the best record on transparency.  There may be an opportunity but is it one he wants to take?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2013)

Sometimes, "events", unanticipated events, are most likely to blow governments off course. This could be one of them.

I'm not a sailor but, in politics, when a government is blown off course it needs to do two things, in my opinion:

     1. Plan on how to get back on course ~ i.e. wake up the navigating officer (party _strategy_ team) and put him to work; and

     2. Sail with the (political) wind, going where it (the events) takes you, until it changes, again.

In Canada, right now, the _wind_ is blowing in the direction of parliamentary _reform_. Another political maxim, reputed to be from _Megatrends_ author John Naisbett, suggests that success in politics was all about figuring out which way the parade was going and get in front of it. That's what Prime Minister Harper should do, now. His own MPs, including his own ministers, and many political scientists and _strategists_ will howl, and some will have a few fair constitutional points about parliament's hard won liberty and privacy, but, on balance, reform will be popular, even with a broadly anti-CPC media.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Aug 2013)

PM's looking for Director of Comms #8 (in 7 years), according to this news release....


> MSLGROUP, Publicis Groupe's strategic communications and engagement network, has appointed Andrew MacDougall as Senior Executive Consultant in the London office. MacDougall, who will be a senior strategist and central player in the development of the company's London operation, will join the team in November, and report to Jeremy Sice, CEO of MSLGROUP in the UK.
> 
> "Andrew's unique combination of political communication, crisis communication, and digital media experience will bring a fresh perspective to our clients as they navigate an increasingly complex communications environment," said Sice. "We are pleased to welcome Andrew to our growing team in the United Kingdom."
> 
> MacDougall currently serves as Director of Communications to Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. In that role, MacDougall provides communications advice to the Prime Minister, serves as lead spokesman for the Government of Canada, and develops communications plans for government policy announcements. He also leads the Prime Minister's digital and social media teams. MacDougall will serve in the Prime Minister's Office until early September ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
> 
> I was just listening to Sen George Baker on the local (Ottawa) CBC radio morning show.
> 
> ...




Here in more on Sen Baker's comments, excerpted from a CBC News report:

     In a separate interview, Liberal Senator George Baker praised the initiative, saying, "The auditor general is looking at everything," although Michael Ferguson told a Senate committee in June he could not say if he
     would examine every senator's expenses or just a sample, or whether he would name errant senators.

     Baker did blast MPs for not following suit and inviting the auditor general to put their expenses under the microscope. "If I were mining for gold, I'd go right there with the pan," he said, meaning the House of Commons.

     Baker continued, pointing out he was an MP for 29 years before his Senate appointment, "There are three times as many people over there. They have much greater budgets over there. They have much more
     leeway in their spending over there. They're not micromanaged like some people are in society. So I imagine the same thing would result and you may have down the road criminal charges laid, and you may see
     some people go to jail."

     Baker, as a Liberal Senator, will have to join Liberal MPs in September and begin posting his expenses online in fine detail, enumerating every trip and its cost. Publicizing expenses was a promise made by Liberal
     Leader Justin Trudeau, who has also publicly disclosed his personal finances.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Aug 2013)

Isn't it a little rich for Paul Dewar, the only MP ever fined for the Robocall issue, to spearhead this for the NDP?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2013)

There are, sometimes, especially in the media, rolled eyes   :  when the Conservatives _bash_ the public sector, especially the unions, because they are hotbeds of partisan Liberal or NDP activism.

That the public service _unions_, _per se_, are in bed with the NDP is undeniable ~ but not, necessarily many union members nor some private sector unions. This article gives further evidence; it is headlined: "Senior PSAC exec to seek federal NDP nomination in Montreal." The article says:

     "Larry Rousseau, regional vice-president with the Public Service Alliance of Canada for the National Capital Region, announced on Wednesday that he would be seeking the nomination for the New Democratic Party in the Montreal riding of Bourassa.

     The 56-year-old has spent more than 30 years working as a civil servant in Ottawa and in his high-profile job as an elected official in one of Canada’s largest unions, he has never been shy about voicing his
     displeasure with Stephen Harper and his government."

There is, still, deep suspicion amongst many Conservatives that the _executive_ ranks of the public service are little more than Liberal MPs in waiting ... John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney and Stephen Haper all harboured and expressed such views, and it is not too difficult to see why:







        
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




           
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
Lester Pearson ~                     Mitchell Sharp ~                                    Marcel Massé ~ 
former senior civil servant,       former senior civil servant,                    former very senior civil 
later Liberal MP and PM            later Liberal MP and minister                servant and later Liberal MP and minister

See, also, this article from a few months ago.

The fact ~ and I *beleive* it is a fact ~ is that many senior civil servants share the so-called _Laurentian consensus_ (which may or may not be collapsing, as John Ibbitson suggests). It is not surprising ~ it takes 25+ years to rise from "desk officer" to deputy minister. That means that today's senior civil servants joined when Brian Mulroney was still in power, were mentored by senior officials who grew up in the Trudeau era, and advanced into the senior ranks in the Chrétien era. There wasn't really much to differentiate Trudeau from Mulroney or Mulroney from Chrétien in _national policy_ terms: they were different in degree, not basics. Stephen harper is the first "different" PM since Trudeau oveturned Louis St laurent's _vision_ of Canada.

Now, it is important to note that there are fundamental differences between e.g. public sector *union* executives like Larry Rousseau and public sector executives like Richard Fadden, the DM of DND. Mr Rousseau's biography and Mr Fadden's curriculum vitae could hardly be more different, and we ought not to be surprised that they, probably, hold equally different political views. Mr Fadden joined the foreign service when Allan Gotlieb (who is strongly connected to Brian Mulroney's government) headed it, he served under people like Marcel Massé and, indeed, followed Massé into the PCO. Is Mr Fadden a member of the _Laurentian elite_? He is, certainly, qualified for it but I do not know his _national_ views. My *guess* is that Richard Fadden does not vote NDP. It is also important to note that public sector unions, while, broadly and generally, in theNDP's camp, cannot "bring out the vote." Many, many, probably most public servants do not share the NDP's views on most issues.

_- mod edit to fix photo -_

Edits: spelling  :-[ and formatting


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Aug 2013)

I noted upon Harpers winning a majority that quite a number of PS types were hoping for a less corrupt, more competent and focused governance. Barring one or two shining stars, it’s been a massive disappointment and any support in the PS has withered away. The message control mantra that started under the Liberals has turned into a massive time and resource eating monster under the CPC. I won’t say much here. But seeing some of the handling of issues from the inside, I won’t be volunteering or donating next election. In fact I am feeling rather politically homeless right now. As a gun owner I was the NDP/Liberal/Green scapegoat and a Civil Servant I am the CPC scapegoat.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2013)

In this informative little video The _Good Grey Globe's_ John Ibbitson explains why a new session of parliament is very likely and what he expects to see in the Speech from the Throne.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2013)

CTV News is reporting that the Auditor General has said he will examine the expenses of all senators.

That will put pressure on the House of Commons to _invite_ him to review their accounts, too.

Edit to add: And here is a report from _Global News_ with a bit more detail.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Aug 2013)

[quote author=E.R. Campbell]
CTV News is reporting that the Auditor General has said he will examine the expenses of all senators.

That will put pressure on the House of Commons to _invite_ him to review their accounts, too.

[/quote]

I get the feeling that the senators will regret creating creating this poostorm.   I simply can't believe that a few controversial senators are the whole problem.  Brazeau even said he didn't make anything up.  He asked what to claim.  They told him and he claimed it.  There are politicians at every significant public event.  I can't believe that much of Wallin's disallowed expenses for public events are considered personal.  I really don't think that's what the Senate would want.  Most politicians consider attending public events akin to charity, that is except  Trudeau who sees it as an income opportunity.

Marjory Labreton was dropped from cabinet and not replaced.  I suspect it was because she failed to control the Senate and created a scandal that could only affect the government.  The Senate stupidly set the bar so high that a thorough accounting could mean dozens of them will be writing cheques.  I suspect 100% of overclaimed expenses were a misunderstanding of what would be tolerated and tolerances changed without preparing the members.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Aug 2013)

It will be interesting to see which party has the greater number of miscreants. 


"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Matthew 7:3


----------



## ballz (15 Aug 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see which party has the greater number of miscreants.
> 
> 
> "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
> Matthew 7:3



I'm not a man of God, but tonight I am a man of beer, so I can't quite comprehend that quote at the moment, but I think/hope it means something along the lines of what I am thinking...

Making this a game of measuring who committed a *lot* of fraud versus who only committed a *small amount* of fraud would surely be missing the root of the problem... the Senate is full of frauds.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Aug 2013)

It's another case of "burn the witch" trial by media.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (17 Aug 2013)

"23(5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed;

23(6) In the Case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.

31. The Place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the following Cases5) If he ceases to be qualified in respect of Property or of Residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to have ceased to be qualified in respect of Residence by reason only of his residing at the Seat of the Government of Canada while holding an Office under that Government requiring his Presence there."

Note that the constitution does not say exclusively resident or primarily resident. It says "resident" and there is nothing odd, unusual, or illegal about having more than one residence. Counting days or asking neighbors is irrelevant. I highly doubt that there could be any requirement to live anywhere for any length of time provided the possession of a residence in the province or division of appointment.


----------



## GAP (17 Aug 2013)

There are specific time requirements to be considered "resident".

The person would have to meet the requirements for that particular area...


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2013)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Note that the constitution does not say exclusively resident or primarily resident. It says "resident" and there is nothing odd, unusual, or illegal about having more than one residence. Counting days or asking neighbors is irrelevant. I highly doubt that there could be any requirement to live anywhere for any length of time provided the possession of a residence in the province or division of appointment.





			
				GAP said:
			
		

> There are specific time requirements to be considered "resident".
> 
> The person would have to meet the requirements for that particular area...


True enough - if it was _that_ simple, we wouldn't have senators applying at the 11th hour for a health card for the place he's supposed to represent.

Also, how confident would you be with a representative for your area who doesn't live there?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (17 Aug 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> True enough - if it was _that_ simple, we wouldn't have senators applying at the 11th hour for a health card for the place he's supposed to represent.
> 
> Also, how confident would you be with a representative for your area who doesn't live there?




Every different piece of legislation defines resident in terms it deems relevant.  The Constitution Act does not define resident so ordinary English usage applies.  The tax, motor vehicle, and health care residencies are irrelevant.

 Blacks Law Dictionary
4th Ed., Page 1176

As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not indentical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence simply required bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. Fuller v. Hofferbert, C./A.Ohio, 204 F.2d 592, 597. [see also In re Riley's Will, 266 N.Y.S. 209, 148 Misc. 588.]

The general definition applies only to the suitability to serve as a resident of a province or a Quebec division.   Reimbursement of expenses is defined by the Senate itself and is a different matter although I think they might be applying some definitions that are assumptions and not fact.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> True enough - if it was _that_ simple, we wouldn't have senators applying at the 11th hour for a health card for the place he's supposed to represent.
> 
> Also, how confident would you be with a representative for your area who doesn't live there?




Lester B Pearson, a native of Newtonbrook, ON (now part of Toronto in the Yonge/Finch area), who made his home in Ottawa (and overseas) after 1927, represented the riding of Algoma East (consisting of the territorial district of Manitoulin, and the parts of the territorial districts of Algoma and Sudbury) from 1948 until he retired in 1968. Prime Minister Pearson visited Algoma East during each election campaign but it wasn't a natural fit. It was, however, a safe Liberal seat and Mike Pearson, despite his personal charm and skills as a diplomat, was a notoriously poor campaigner.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (17 Aug 2013)

Tommy Douglas couldn't get elected in Saskatchewan so represented Burnaby, BC for a long time.  William Lyon Mackenzie King was MP for different terms in PEI, Ontario and Saskatchewan.  Sir John A. Macdonald represented BC for 1 term.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2013)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Every different piece of legislation defines resident in terms it deems relevant.  The Constitution Act does not define resident so ordinary English usage applies ....


I wish it was that straightforward, and not an area where there has been, at one point, as many as three different opinions on what a "resident" is.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Lester B Pearson, a native of Newtonbrook, ON (now part of Toronto in the Yonge/Finch area), who made his home in Ottawa (and overseas) after 1927, represented the riding of Algoma East (consisting of the territorial district of Manitoulin, and the parts of the territorial districts of Algoma and Sudbury) from 1948 until he retired in 1968. Prime Minister Pearson visited Algoma East during each election campaign but it wasn't a natural fit. It was, however, a safe Liberal seat and Mike Pearson, despite his personal charm and skills as a diplomat, was a notoriously poor campaigner.





			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Tommy Douglas (1935–44, 1961-79)  couldn't get elected in Saskatchewan so represented Burnaby, BC for a long time.  William Lyon Mackenzie King (1921-1948) was MP for different terms in PEI, Ontario and Saskatchewan.  Sir John A. Macdonald (1843–1857) represented BC for 1 term.


Didn't know these tidbits - one really does learn something every day.

Anybody want to bet on the chances of similar results in similar circumstances with MP's that aren't party leaders _today_?  Call me old fashioned, but if my MP (and, maybe down the road, Senator) isn't from even generally where I live, we might as well just elect MP's at large, or vote the party, and trust the party to go with a slate - everyone representing everyone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> John Ibbitson notes, in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that the _magnitude_ of a scandal doesn't seem to be what annoys the public most:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/what-makes-something-a-scandal/article13708395/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> I think campaigning on _abolition_ of the Senate is a dead end: the _Supremes_ will make it, abolition, too hard ~ and rightly so. Senate _reform_ on the other hand can be a winner with both the "old" CPC base and in the suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver. New Canadians are baffled at our appointed Senate, it is, simply, undemocratic and it cries out for change.




And, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin explains how the _Supremes_ will get to grips with the questions:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/17/supreme-court-chief-justice-says-theres-a-lot-of-work-to-be-done-before-answer-on-senate-reform-can-be-given/


> Supreme Court chief justice says ‘there’s a lot of work to be done’ before answer on Senate reform can be given
> 
> Jennifer Graham, Canadian Press
> 
> ...




The "final answer" from the _Supremes_ is unlikely to be the last word. It will, I think, take some (several?) options off the table but my *guess* is that the court is unlikely to say "this is the only way to go.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is beyond, "starry eyed," it is a silly comment. Politics is the most human of activities and humans (unless something remarkable happened while I was sleeping) are imperfect.
> 
> Our imperfection is demonstrated by the continued failures of socialism, in all its forms from the mildest _Obama statism_ to hard core _Marxist-Maoist communism_. All socialism rests, and has rested for 2,000 years, on a single, simple Marxist principle: _From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs_. That's wonderful in theory but it requires one thing: perfect humans - and see my first sentence. That is why, no matter what people want to believe socialism, in any of its forms, cannot work - it requires an impossible precondition. Time travel is more likely than a working socialist system.
> 
> ...




I'm generally reluctant to take a stringent _moral_ position on politics, and ever time the notion strikes me I usually reconsider the career of Robert Walpole, often called, simply, "the great man," arguably one of history's greatest politicians but a decidedly amoral one. But one bit in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _New York Times_ struck me and so I add it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/opinion/sunday/dowd-money-money-money-money-money.html?_r=0


> Money, Money, Money, Money, MONEY!
> 
> By MAUREEN DOWD
> 
> ...




Here's what caught my eye: _"Bill Clinton earned $17 million last year giving speeches, including one to a Lagos company for $700,000. Hillary gets $200,000 a speech ..._[but]_ ... Until Harry Truman wrote his memoirs, the ex-president struggled on an Army pension of $112.56 a month. “I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable,” he said, “that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency.”_

In my weekend papers several pundits are trying to explain _l'affaire Brazeau/Duffy/Harb/Wallin__ in political terms. maybe that's just a step too complicted, maybe it is a simpler moral question. Maybe it's Harry Truman ~ the politician we all want, versus Bill Clinton ~ the politician we all elect. So, maybe, the problem is, as is so often the case, in our mirrors.
_


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....Maybe it's Harry Truman ~ the politician we all want, versus Bill Clinton ~ the politician we all elect. ....




Interesting to compare Harry against Bill and their peers (Gallup Polls).

Apparently honourable, honest, tight-fisted presidents (and prime ministers?) are less popular than philandering, spend-thrift rakes.  But that should be little surprise.  Even as people proclaim morality the clergy dies and Hollywood prospers.

And on the Supremes and the Constitution:

It is all a bit of a mug's game.  As was alluded to up-thread residence can mean many things.  In 1864, the Lords, the entity on which the Senate is modelled, held income generating lands all over Britain with manors in the country.  In the City, they held town houses which they occupied in The Season.   Mike Duffy is different only in that he only has a cottage in the country.  But that cottage is worth more than the minimum realty value required to qualify for the Senate.

And in Pamela Wallin's case I am willing to bet that, unlike most Ontario and Quebec Senators, she could still easily win election as a Senator in Saskatchewan.

Final word:

In our house we regularly heard "Yes.  You can leave the table.  You may not."

The Supremes will only decide if GOD (Government of Day) is legally able to modify the Constitution.  The Provinces will still decide if GOD is permitted to make the changes.

Still, the reference to the Court is right and necessary if only to clarify murky waters and prevent opponents saying "You can't do that".


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Aug 2013)

Billary.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2013)

Here is an _editorial_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, with which I fully agree:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/Editorial+Sober+second+thoughts/8798553/story.html


> Editorial: Sober second thoughts
> 
> 
> BY OTTAWA CITIZEN EDITORIAL, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> ...




As I have said before, quoting the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." And we need some "sunshine" in both chambers and in the hallways (lobbies).

Sadly, the witch hunt, against which the _Citizen's_ editorial board warns, is already well underway, led by the Conservative government.

But, kudos to the Senate for taking a _beau risque_ ~ we can be sure that some Senators will be caught in the Auditor General's dragnet; we must demand that the prime minister open the windows of the House of Commons, too, and let the "sunshine" (the AG) in.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2013)

Right with you right up until you move from "Parliament (Upper or Lower)" to "Government". How do you manage the application of sunlight in an organization that categorizes information.

What do you do with entries in the e-calendars that include words like: restricted, secret, top secret, cosmic, noforn, five eyes.....?   And why do I, a civilian, already recognize some of those classifications in any event?

I don't believe Government can operate in sunlight.  Parliament is something else.  

But the Government has to operate in Parliament.

But that is the role of trusted members of parliament,  acting with the blessing of their constituents as Burkean representatives and as loyalists of  Her Majest in name of the state - whether in Government or in Opposition.

The witch-hunting press, seeking easy headline fodder - well they can go play with their nether regions.  

But what do you do when the MPs feed the Press?


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Right with you right up until you move from "Parliament (Upper or Lower)" to "Government". How do you manage the application of sunlight in an organization that categorizes information.
> 
> What do you do with entries in the e-calendars that include words like: restricted, secret, top secret, cosmic, noforn, five eyes.....?   And why do I, a civilian, already recognize some of those classifications in any event?
> 
> ...




There are legitimate secrets, things about which you and and the Auditor General I have no business asking, and which need to be kept secret from friend and foe alike. The media hates this idea but it's a fact of life.

Past governments weakened security laws and regulations and, I suspect, it is very, very hard to get them back to a proper level.

But civil servants and military folks alike are careless with security and they often misuse it in order to obey the first commandment of public service: "don't embarrass the minister." Using security to shield politicians and bureaucrats from embarrassment is worse than revealing real secrets, because it degrades the entire system.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are legitimate secrets, things about which you and and the Auditor General I have no business asking, and which need to be kept secret from friend and foe alike. The media hates this idea but it's a fact of life.
> 
> Past governments weakened security laws and regulations and, I suspect, it is very, very hard to get them back to a proper level.
> 
> But civil servants and military folks alike are careless with security and they often misuse it in order to obey the first commandment of public service: "don't embarrass the minister." Using security to shield politicians and bureaucrats from embarrassment is worse than revealing real secrets, because it degrades the entire system.



Agreed on all points.  

I merely point out that all systems are built on the need to trust fallible people.   I have seen a lot of efficiency studies.   Generally high efficiency outcomes are only generated by narrowly defining the operational environment.  More typically a well run, self-aware operation will operate in the 70 to 80% range.  That still leaves a lot of room for screw-ups and addressing their outcomes.

Government can not narrowly define its operational environment.  Screw-ups have to be accepted as a part of life.  The trick is in the managing of the screw-ups.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Aug 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The trick is in the managing of the screw-ups.



So you're saying not to name the screw-ups to the Senate?


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So you're saying not to name the screw-ups to the Senate?



Well, on the 70% efficiency basis, the appointer will screw-up 30% of the time, meaning that some 30 Senators are beyond all hope of redemption.  The remain 75 will screw up 30% of the time.  So if 70% of the Senate is right 70% of the time then 49% of the time the Senate will be in non-screw up mode.

A dollar coin is in non-screw up mode 50% of the time.




There's a proposal for Senate reform.  Hire a cadre of bodies in Black and White striped shirts and issue them a 1 Dollar coin.

Every bill passed by Parliament goes to the Coin for a line by line review.  Heads it stays in the bill.  Tails it is dropped.  The amended bill goes back to Parliament for third reading.

What's the going rate for a CFL ref in the Off Season?


----------



## X Royal (21 Aug 2013)

On Monday, Stephen Harper announced that he will prorogue Parliament until October.
This is getting far too common for this government in my opinion.
3 times is truly pushing it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2013)

Prorogation is a normal, healthy part of the life of parliaments. It allows the government to "push the rest button" on its legislative agenda, and start afresh with a new throne speech. Wikipedia has a useful little article which does two things:

     1. Distinguishes between a recess, prorogation and dissolution; and

     2. Highlights a few controversial prorogations ~ Macdonald in 1873, Chrétien in 2002, Harper in 2008 and McGuinty, in Ontario, in 2012. But given how often parliaments have been prorogued, over 100 times in the past 145 years, it is a normal event.
         
Some prime ministers prorogued rarely ~ Trudeau kept the 32nd Parliament in session, without proroguing, for 1325 days in 1980-83, and others have prorogued a lot ~ Louis St Laurent had seven sessions in the 21st Parliament which lasted only slightly longer, 1367 days, from 1949 to 1953. I don't think there is any correlation between the _quality_ of politics and prorogation. I think the 21st Parliament was one of the most productive in Canadian history and the 32nd was one of the worst. 


Edit to correct grammar ~ an incomplete sentence.   :-[


----------



## Journeyman (21 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Wikipedia has a useful little article....


Ah, the difference between "opinions" and "informed opinions"

Perhaps I'll forward that to the local NDP Association President, who was all over the local media proclaiming the sky's falling, and how _everyone_ is up in arms over this (I'm going to assume that his circle of confidants tend to be NDP Assn members, or otherwise fellow-travellers).


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Aug 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ah, the difference between "opinions" and "informed opinions"
> 
> Perhaps I'll forward that to the local NDP Association President, who was all over the local media proclaiming the sky's falling, and how _everyone_ is up in arms over this (I'm going to assume that his circle of confidants tend to be NDP Assn members, or otherwise fellow-travellers).



While you're at it, ask him/her how many times Bobbie Rae prorogued government while premier of Ontario.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Aug 2013)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> While you're at it, ask him/her how many times Bobbie Rae prorogued government while premier of Ontario.


Like the song says, "Once, twice, three times a lady".


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2013)

While I understand the government's desire to express "muted concern over Quebec’s plans to legislate a new approach to minority accommodation," it is an area which should be left alone.

Premier Marois and the Parti québécois have two aims:

     1. To appease the many French Canadian voters, especially those outside of Montreal, who are both *a)* afraid for the future of the French language in North America, and *b)* generally hostile to people who are "different;" and

     2. To reclaim an old club from the _activist_/protest bag of the 1960s ~ to make the "forces of order," the national government and the _Anglo_ media, in this case, overreact to provocative actions and confirm in the minds of the undecided
         that Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver are hostile to Quebec's "legitimate aspirations" as a "nation" and want Quebec to conform to a homogeneous _pan-Canadian_ model.

It would be better for Ottawa to wait and allow Quebec courts to overturn Quebec laws.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> While I understand the government's desire to express "muted concern over Quebec’s plans to legislate a new approach to minority accommodation," it is an area which should be left alone.
> 
> Premier Marois and the Parti québécois have two aims:
> 
> ...



Given the current internation zeitgeist how might one respond to a resurrected Arcand?  And lest I be considered overly provocative with that I would note that Arcand had a contemporary across the water, name of Mosely.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2013)

I think the _Good Grey Globe's_ Brian Gable is correct, Justin Trudeau has, successfully, "changed the channel" on Prime Minister Harper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/damage-claim/article13538502/#dashboard/follows/




Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think the _Good Grey Globe's_ Brian Gable is correct, Justin Trudeau has, successfully, "changed the channel" on Prime Minister Harper:


And thereby demonstrates that democracy, as we know it, is nothing more than a popularity contest that has nothing to do with governance and good government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2013)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And thereby demonstrates that democracy, as we know it, is nothing more than a popularity contest that has nothing to do with governance and good government.




The _popular vote_/_majority rules_ part of democracy is, indeed, somewhat remote from good governance, but the popularity issues, the "beauty contest" is not the only, maybe not even the most important part of democracy. There are other key facts: rule of law, equality at law ~ for governors and governed alike, respect for laws and social institutions and the very existence of _institutions_, big and small, global, national, regional and local, themselves.

The popular vote system is our primary inheritance from the Athenian _Agrora_, I suppose, and I guess we want to endow our democracy with such classical roots. But it took a lot of work, Roman work and English "work" stand out, to make a system based on laws, not men, because the _heritage_ of Athens is a form of mob rule based on "bread and circuses."


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, step one is complete: Mike Duffy quits Tory caucus citing 'distracting' controversy, says the _Globe and Mail's_ headline writer.
> 
> Step two is for Nigel Wright to resign and for Prime Minister Harper - uncharacteristically, to be sure - to shoulder some of the responsibility for picking senators (Brazeau and Duffy (and Wallin?)) who have abused the public trust.
> 
> Step three is for the Senate (aided by the RCMP?) to expel Sens Brazeau, Duffy and Harb (and Wallin?) for breach of trust.




Well, Sen Harb has saved the Senate from the messy business of firing him. One wonders if Sens Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin will follow and maybe others when the AG has done his work.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, Sen Harb has saved the Senate from the messy business of firing him. One wonders if Sens Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin will follow and maybe others when the AG has done his work.



Sen Harb has been there long enough to collect a Pension.  The others have not.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> While I understand the government's desire to express "muted concern over Quebec’s plans to legislate a new approach to minority accommodation," it is an area which should be left alone.
> 
> Premier Marois and the Parti québécois have two aims:
> 
> ...




Both John Ivison, _National Post_, and John Ibbitson, _Globe and Mail_ disagree with me as these two articles, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the respective journals, attest:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/08/26/john-ivison-tory-silence-on-the-religious-symbols-ban-is-pure-politics/


> Tory silence on Quebec’s proposed religious symbols ban is pure politics
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




And


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/why-staying-out-of-quebecs-secularism-debate-is-dangerous-for-thomas-mulcair/article13964959/#dashboard/follows/


> Why staying out of Quebec’s secularism debate is dangerous for Thomas Mulcair
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I understand both the righteous indignation of John Ivison and the, somewhat cooler, political perspective of John Ibbitson but I'm afraid even trotting out the estimable William O Douglas cannot persuade me that we want to play into Premier Marois' hands and make this an _Anglo Canada_ vs _Franco Québec_ battle. I remain convinced that this will offend Québec's own judges and they will strike it down on their own.

Make no mistake: it is small minded, racist, xenophobic legislation, unworthy of a modern, civilized, _liberal_ state, but it is Québec's duty to sort out its own society. French speaking Québec is drifting, steadily, towards third world status, thanks to generations of failed political leaders - from Duplessis through Lesage, Lévesque and Bourassa and, now, Marois - and an unhealthy focus on domestic chauvinism.


----------



## Dkhorsand (27 Aug 2013)

This law is clearly designed to oppress faithful members of the Klu Klux Klan who simply wish to provide honest services for your children. Those who want to express their dedication to Protestant and Anglo-Saxon purity through their pointy, white hoods should be allowed to wear their garb to work even if they are history teachers or nurses. You are racist if you disagree.

 >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Aug 2013)

TheRightsOfMan said:
			
		

> This law is clearly designed to oppress faithful members of the Klu Klux Klan who simply wish to provide honest services for your children. Those who want to express their dedication to Protestant and Anglo-Saxon purity through their pointy, white hoods should be allowed to wear their garb to work even if they are history teachers or nurses. You are racist if you disagree.


 :rofl:

You forgot your sarcasm smilies


----------



## Dkhorsand (28 Aug 2013)

Added one in for ya! Seriously though, I support this law. Freedom of religion asserts freedom FROM religion. Secular people should not be forced to deal with non-secular ideas in secular places. As per my previous example, any religion that someone may try to visually represent may offend people or even openly display their incompetence to perform their work. We should not be forced to respect values that are racist, sexist or homophobic. And don't kid yourself, all religions are, and those who need to wear their religious gear at all times definitely are.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2013)

TheRightsOfMan said:
			
		

> Added one in for ya! Seriously though, I support this law. Freedom of religion asserts freedom FROM religion. Secular people should not be forced to deal with non-secular ideas in secular places. As per my previous example, any religion that someone may try to visually represent may offend people or even openly display their incompetence to perform their work. We should not be forced to respect values that are racist, sexist or homophobic. And don't kid yourself, all religions are, and those who need to wear their religious gear at all times definitely are.




And William Watson, in this opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ offers you some support:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Column+Quebec+values+hard+things+down/8839634/story.html


> Quebec’s values are hard things to pin down
> 
> BY WILLIAM WATSON, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...




Of course I cannot resist the temptation to proclaim, yet again, that the unwritten, Constitutional, _rule of law_ by custom is far superior to all the written constitutions, including our (1982) muddle and the Americans' one, too.

But William Watson does zero in on QC's (and our) great weakness: _statism_, our blind, uninformed belief, with no evidence to support it, that governments are "good." They, and laws, may be essential but that doesn't make them desirable.

Our government, your government, every single government in the whole world is too big, too cumbersome, too hidebound, too corrupt, too mired in laws and regulations. All governments are in urgent need of an arbitrary 10% cut in income and employees. There is not a single government, anywhere in the world, that would not be better off with far fewer functionaries. But Quebec, like its model France, is worse than most in its blind, uninformed faith in _statism_.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Aug 2013)

TheRightsOfMan said:
			
		

> Added one in for ya! Seriously though, I support this law. Freedom of religion asserts freedom FROM religion. Secular people should not be forced to deal with non-secular ideas in secular places. As per my previous example, any religion that someone may try to visually represent may offend people or even openly display their incompetence to perform their work. We should not be forced to respect values that are racist, sexist or homophobic. And don't kid yourself, all religions are, and those who need to wear their religious gear at all times definitely are.


Pretty myopic and unsubstantiated opinion.


> Freedom of religion asserts freedom FROM religion.


True, but we already have sufficient safeguards to ensure that.


> As per my previous example, any religion that someone may try to visually represent may offend people or even openly display their incompetence to perform their work.


There is no right not to be offended, and your contention that someone is incompetent because they have religious conviction is an assumption and not based in fact - one does not equal the other.


> We should not be forced to respect values that are racist, sexist or homophobic.


The only correct thing you've said so far.


> ...and those who need to wear their religious gear at all times definitely are.


Bullsh*t! I know lots of folks who wear religious symbols who are far more tolerant of others' beliefs than their secular peers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A
> Our government, your government, every single government in the whole world is too big, too cumbersome, too hidebound, too corrupt, too mired in laws and regulations. All governments are in urgent need of an arbitrary 10% cut in income and employees. There is not a single government, anywhere in the world, that would not be better off with far fewer functionaries. But Quebec, like its model France, is worse than most in its blind, uninformed faith in _statism_.



A cut in income and employees prior to the cut of Acts, regulations and policies, generally makes life more difficult than less. Our clientele i finding that the hard way since my program took a 40% cut in anticipation of a saving due to a change in regs due sometime next year, except the cuts have been made recently and despite a grace period, those people are leaving for secure jobs elsewhere now, yet the workload remains and the proponents suffer, as do the remaining staff.
Cutting regulations is always applauded, until it's your sacred cow on the block. When I tell people that what X is doing is not breaking any laws, they are mystified. They are outraged by X, therefore X must be breaking a law, somewhere, somehow. I don't see average Canadians being very comfortable with the reality of their desires.


----------



## Dkhorsand (28 Aug 2013)

Good article. While government and laws are an unfortunate reality, we need them because of our own moral ineptitude. Laws that are designed to protect the rights of women, such as that employed by France, are to be admired. As Christopher Hitchens put it in his essay, _In Your Face_:

_The French legislators who seek to repudiate the wearing of the veil or the burka-whether the garment covers "only" the face or the entire female body-are often described as seeking to impose a "ban". To the contrary, they are attempting to lift a ban: a ban on the right of women to choose their own dress, a ban on the right of women to disagree with male and clerical authority, and a ban on the right of all citizens to look one another in the face. The proposed law is in the best traditions of the French republic, which declares all citizens equal before the law and-no less important-equal in the face of one another. _

Some of you may be surprised by this because of my stance on the topic at hand, but my father is from Iran and I grew up around many of his countrymen and their families. Most of my dad's friends could hardly be called Muslims, and some simply weren't, but there were two men in particular (the most pious of the bunch) who founded my resentment of religion as a child. 

One of the men had a wife and two children (a boy and a girl) and the other had just had a wife. While both men seemed pleasant enough at parties and picnics, both had their own ways of forcing the women in their lives to cover their hair with a scarf. One threatened his wife and daughter that they would move back to Iran if they did not oblige, and the other threatened his wife with violence. What made this even more outrageous was that both wives were tremendously intelligent and outspoken, and longed to fully embrace the lifestyle of their newly adopted home. I remember one conversation in particular between one of the wives and my mom, where the woman joked that one day she would find a Canadian husband and go to Wasaga beach in a bikini. You can imagine the courage of these women to even talk about these issues with their friends.

This courage is not lost among women who are stuck living in countries ruled by Islamic law. It's quite easy to find recent articles on women who have been beaten, lashed, stoned, hanged or attacked with acid for standing up for their rights. You may remember a story from Tunisia about Amina Tyler, who was jailed, lashed, disowned by her family, and sent to a mental institution for doing a topless protest.

What disturbs me the most is that under the wrong circumstances, life for a woman or girl in Canada may be no better than life in Tunisia or Iran. We are supposed to be a country of personal freedoms and equality, yet we offer no protection to wives and and daughters who are forced to submit to sexism and child abuse in the name of religion. 

If we were to remove religious garments from public view, religious oppressors would lose their power. If you do not like this idea, I challenge you to think of a realistic alternative that would ensure all women power over their own dress. If there is a good alternative, I will definitely support it. 

By the way, I'd like an answer to this: Are you okay with a KKK member teaching your kids or acting as your nurse in their hooded attire?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Aug 2013)

Boy, you're really fixated on the KKK aren't you?

Besides it's not a religion so your insistence on constantly using them, to advance your point of view, is moot.


----------



## Dkhorsand (29 Aug 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> True, but we already have sufficient safeguards to ensure that.


Actually, we don't.


> There is no right not to be offended, and your contention that someone is incompetent because they have religious conviction is an assumption and not based in fact - one does not equal the other.



There is no right not to be offended by someone teaching your kids wearing a KKK outfit? And there are plenty of situations where religious convictions would cause incompetence at work. Could you trust a Mormon to teach black history? How could a Muslim woman working at a bank, donning a burka, verify my ID when I need a new debit card?



> Bullsh*t! I know lots of folks who wear religious symbols who are far more tolerant of others' beliefs than their secular peers.



And I have not met a single one who believes that women and homosexuals deserve equal rights.


----------



## Dkhorsand (29 Aug 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Boy, you're really fixated on the KKK aren't you?
> 
> Besides it's not a religion so your insistence on constantly using them, to advance your point of view, is moot.



The KKK are a sect of Protestant Christianity.


----------



## JesseWZ (29 Aug 2013)

TheRightsOfMan said:
			
		

> Could you trust a Mormon to teach black history?



Yep. Mormonism was (as were many other groups) a reflection of *American Society * at the height of the jim crow era. Also, there are many African American Mormons. If it furthers your point (though it shouldn't), I'm not a Mormon.



			
				TheRightsOfMan said:
			
		

> How could a Muslim woman working at a bank, donning a burka, verify my ID when I need a new debit card?



By carefully scrutinizing your ID picture with your face and validating *your* identity. Why does the teller need their identity validated? They aren't the ones who are undergoing ID checks to withdraw money.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Aug 2013)

TheRightsOfMan said:
			
		

> The KKK are a sect of Protestant Christianity.



The KKK is still not a religion, no matter who their membership is comprised of.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Aug 2013)

>The normally garrulous Conservative minister turned bashful all of a sudden. 

Avoid the unnecessary battle.  No point in setting out to silence the horse until it proves it can sing.  No point in pig wrestling until the pig shows up.  Etc.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2013)

Brian Gable gets it exactly right in this, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:






http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/xxxxx/article14052163/#dashboard/follows/






All hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas.

The question is: how gullible are most Canadians? My fear is that enough (20% who would vote Liberal if Vladimir Putin was the leader + 20% who are, simply, "star struck") vote for him then he will form a majority government ~ still devoid of policy and burdened with, mostly, a weak front bench. My _guess_ is that the Liberal brain trust is gun shy on the policy front: Messers Martin, Dion and Ignatieff had, arguably, too much policy and too little charisma, so they will go the people with M. Trudeau's sex appeal ... which may be enough.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2013)

> E.R. Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And still more from another voice of the _Laurentian consensus_, this time Heather Mallick whose column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_:



> The new Canadian passport is pure Harperlandia: Mallick
> *The new Canadian passport is a nightmarish tribute to a stultifying past.*
> 
> By: Heather Mallick Columnist, Published on Mon Sep 09 2013
> ...




No comment; the _Laurentian elites_ speak for themselves.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Sep 2013)

Obviously a slow no news day.   :boring:


----------



## pbi (13 Sep 2013)

TheRightsOfMan said:
			
		

> Added one in for ya! Seriously though, I support this law. Freedom of religion asserts freedom FROM religion. Secular people should not be forced to deal with non-secular ideas in secular places. As per my previous example, any religion that someone may try to visually represent may offend people or even openly display their incompetence to perform their work. We should not be forced to respect values that are racist, sexist or homophobic. And don't kid yourself, all religions are, and those who need to wear their religious gear at all times definitely are.



Except that it isn't quite as logical and simple as you've depicted. The _Charte_ will leave a large Christian crucifix displayed on the wall inside the National Assembly, apparently because this "respects Quebec's heritage", or something. So, while a Jewish public servant can't wear a yarmulke because it might offend some people, it is quite alright for the widely-recognized symbol of one particular religion to dominate Quebec's parliamentarians as they go about their work?

While mere lowly public servants will not be allowed to wear their nasty, disruptive and threatening religious symbols while at work, elected members of the National Assembly will, apparently, be exempted from this restriction. How does this make any logical sense? The elected representatives of the people (who are the source of power and authority for these same public servants) are somehow immune from the evil effects of these overt religious signs?  Quebecers don't want to see clerks with crucifixes, but an elected member wearing one is OK?  What?



> Secular people should not be forced to deal with non-secular ideas in secular places.



Do you cover your eyes when you walk by a church or synagogue, to avoid being "_forced to deal with non-secular ideas_"? The public street is provided by the government through the public purse, so it should be a secular place, right? Please! What sort of a life do you think you are going to lead if you believe you can isolate yourself from anything that might challenge or offend your own personal beliefs?  A hermit? The response to ideas that  challenge your thinking isn't to ban them: it's to reason with them. You are in danger of falling into philosophical league with the book burners.



> As per my previous example, any religion that someone may try to visually represent may offend people or even openly display their incompetence to perform their work.



I'm sorry: your leap of logic left me way behind. You reached these conclusions how, again? As already pointed out, the fact that an idea or an expression of an idea  might offend or challenge you is not sufficient basis for anything except a good argument, never mind for a silly law like this one. If we follow your logic to its ultimate conclusion, there will be no free expression at all, period. Even Canada's hate speech laws don't encompass this.



> We should not be forced to respect values that are racist, sexist or homophobic. And don't kid yourself, all religions are, and those who need to wear their religious gear at all times definitely are.



Wow.........(gob-smacked)....any other sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations you'd like to unload?


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Sep 2013)

>We should not be forced to respect values that are racist, sexist or homophobic.

Please don't abuse the proper meanings of "respect", "tolerate" (and "celebrate", of which the politically correct lemmings are particularly fond).

Canada is full of people who don't pull their weight, are irrationally prejudiced, spend entirely too much time poking their nose into others' business (in my view).  I celebrate none of them.  I respect few of them.  I tolerate all of them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2013)

I remain convinced that we, those of us in _English Canada_ who are upset with Mme Marois' _tactics_, are actually playing into her hands. We need to understand that _la charte des valeurs québécoises_ has a _strategic_ objective: to secure, for the _Parti québécois_ back to back to back majority governments from 1914 to 1925 2014-2025 and beyond, enough time, Premier Marois hopes, to finally get enough French speaking Quebecers to vote _Oui_ and provide a real, legally "clear" majority for sovereignty. One of her allies, she believes (and so do I), is voluble English Canadian hostility to what many, many (most?) French Quebecers _believe_.

It appears, to me, that a solid majority of French Quebecers, especially those living outside Montreal, _believe_ in _laïcité_ ~ a concept denoting the absence of religious involvement in public life: in schools, in courts, in government offices, and so on. In Québec, I think, this goes beyond just the public sector, some (many? most?) French Quebecers are unwilling to "accommodate" or even "tolerate" _les autres_.

Thus, in my _opinion_ Canadian _opinion leaders_ (politicians, editorialists, public intellectuals, etc) should calm down and let Quebecers decide for themselves ~ through their own democratic political and legal processes ~ what it is they want in their own _nation_. It is my belief that:

     1. The PQ will have broad public support for passing this legislation; but

     2. Québec's courts will disallow much of it if it passes as currently proposed.

The real problem, in my _opinion_, has nothing to do with _valeurs québécoises_, it has everything to do with inept political and economic management in Québec, by the _Parti québécois_ and the _Parti libéral du Québec_ equally. See this, for example. The real problem is that the _statist_ *Québec Model* doesn't work; it never worked, it was a dumb idea in the 1950s and it is a silly idea now, but Québec's chapter of the _Laurentian elite_ is wedded to both the model, itself, and to Québec's right to manage its way into economic ruin and the consequential social despair.



Edit: to correct a bit of "time travelling"  :-[


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2013)

And, by the way, it's not only Québec; see this, from England. The issue of "accommodation" is difficult and, as Brad mentioned we need to understand what we mean by words like _tolerate_. The fact that we, as a society, tolerate something does not mean we agree with it or respect it; tolerate means that we _allow_ something to exist because the societal "cost" of banning it is too high.

And by the way, despite my defences of Islam in these fora, I overflow with cultural biases, just as much as any _redneck_ anywhere.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And speaking of the _Laurentian consensus_ and its cheerleaders, the _Laurentian elites_, here is another voice from the loony left, Linda McQuaig, _explaining_ Stephen Harper's _hidden agenda_ ® in a column which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Star:
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/05/07/harper_stokes_resentments_in_discreet_class_war_mcquaig.html
> Quote
> ...




And, as David Akin reports, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Sun News Network_, it is *"Super Sunday"* for the Liberals and NDP in downtown Toronto, last bastion of the Laurentian elites:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/09/20130915-072221.html


> Super Sunday for political geeks in downtown Toronto
> 
> DAVID AKIN | PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...




I suspect that the by-election, when it comes, will be a bruising battle between the Liberals and the NDP. Both leaders need to win.


----------



## pbi (16 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I remain convinced that we, those of us in _English Canada_ who are upset with Mme Marois' _tactics_, are actually playing into her hands... One of her allies, she believes (and so do I), is voluble English Canadian hostility to what many, many (most?) French Quebecers _believe_.



As appalled as I am by this mean-spirited proposed law, and its call to some of the worst aspects of Quebec nationalism, I have to admit that this possibility has crossed my mind. It would require a level of cunning on the part of the Marois government that I wouldn't have credited them with, but the danger is real.  I don't know how successful she would be : I had the impression that the separatist movement was gradually collapsing under demographic and social change and concerns about the economy, but you never know.

Because the rest of Canada is increasingly (and for the most part, peacefully...) multicultural/multi-ethnic, and our major urban centres are more and more diverse (and because the Tories prize their gains amongst the ethnic minorities in Canada), this proposed bill was bound to cause a very negative reaction in the rest of Canada. Perhaps this is just what Mme Marois is hoping for.

An excellent way, I suppose, to create that "_backs against the wall_" sensation that all ethnic nationalist movements thrive on: the _pur laine_ selflessly defending the shining hope of a secular Brave New World against the medieval Rest of Canada, infested as it is by priests, imams and rabbis, whose real aim is to crush the Quebec nation once and for all, and restore the rule of Popery!

It is  a potentially dangerous dilemma, one that I'm sure Harper never wanted in his worst nightmare. But, that said, now we may  see just how far the federal government is actually willing to go to protect civil rights against the acts of a provincial legislature.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2013)

Brian Lee Crowley, of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, is someone with whom I often agree on socio-economic issues. This opinion piece, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ resonates with me:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Quebec+charter+wrong+execution+principle/8910568/story.html


> Quebec charter wrong in execution, not principle
> 
> BY BRIAN LEE CROWLEY, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...




I cherish freedom of conscience as a near fundamental or _natural_ right (along with life, liberty and property,* which John Locke set forth as our _natural_ rights) and I regard freedom of expression, including the freedom to express one's religious views as being nearly as important. But I also believe that the first duty of the sovereign is to protect me from the whims of her government and its minions. Thus I find the Quebec "solution" to be back-asswards in execution but, in a way, correct in its AIM. The problem is that the Government of Quebec is fundamentally _illiberal_, like many (most?) people of Quebec.

_____
* Which is just one of the reasons I dislike the Canadian "Charter of Rights" its "fundamental rights" are: Conscience and religion; Thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of press and other media of communication: Peaceful assembly; and Association. Our real, _natural_ rights are relegated to the category of "legal rights," a very, very European (as opposed to English) view of rights and one which I believe to be fundamentally wrong.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2013)

ERC:

There is a very simple solution.  Issue public servants uniforms.  (And while you're at it remove names from uniforms - there was a reason for identifying police officers solely by their badge number - names identified tribes, religions and homes).


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ERC:
> 
> There is a very simple solution.  Issue public servants uniforms.  (And while you're at it remove names from uniforms - there was a reason for identifying police officers solely by their badge number - names identified tribes, religions and homes).




Isn't there already a civil service uniform?






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




But I agree we should standardize the ties ~ maybe one per department, maybe one per branch in large departments. How about coloured stripes: sloped down from right shoulder for useful departments (finance, defence, foreign affairs, etc) and down from the left shoulder for silly departments (status of women, etc).


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2013)

Don't forget the bowler and brolly.  

I think mufti is what you had in mind.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2013)

Note that the two princes' tie stripes slope down from their left shoulders ~ suggesting that the Household cavalry is useless.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Note that the two princes' tie stripes slope down from their left shoulders ~ suggesting that the Household cavalry is useless.



Not completely useless.  Its always good to have a guardsman around if you need to knock on wood for luck.  "The best wood is hairy wood".


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2013)

On _Twitter_, Rosemary Barton, a CBC journalists, ask LGen (ret'd) Andrew Leslie, *"Can you confirm you're now part of the Liberal team?"*

Edit to add: And Michael Den Tandt says it's true. "General Andrew Leslie ... has joined Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s team as a senior adviser on foreign and defence issues, and is not ruling out running for a Commons seat himself in 2015," De Tandt says.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> On _Twitter_, Rosemary Barton, a CBC journalists, ask LGen (ret'd) Andrew Leslie, *"Can you confirm you're now part of the Liberal team?"*
> 
> Edit to add: And Michael Den Tandt says it's true. "General Andrew Leslie ... has joined Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s team as a senior adviser on foreign and defence issues, and is not ruling out running for a Commons seat himself in 2015," De Tandt says.


With this interesting Twitter tidbit from Sun Media's man on The Hill ....


> Lots of buzz that Gen Leslie approached/was courted by (not quite sure) the Conservatives to run; chose #LPC


----------



## Remius (18 Sep 2013)

So didn't become CDS but might become MND...ugh.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Sep 2013)

Both his grandfathers were Liberal Ministers of National Defence.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Both his grandfathers were Liberal Ministers of National Defence.


Interesting - who from his mom's side?


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Sep 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting - who from his mom's side?



Brooke Claxton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Claxton


----------



## dapaterson (18 Sep 2013)

Andrew Leslie?  Political ambitions?

[Casablanca]

I'm shocked, shocked to find that going on here.

[/Casablanca]


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Sep 2013)

His long term goal (well 5-7 years) is to be PM and reduce the size of the government in Ottawa and all the Departmental "Head Offices", as well as get rid of consultants etc.

Only HDHQ will survive the phoenix.


----------



## pbi (21 Sep 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Andrew Leslie?  Political ambitions?
> 
> [Casablanca]
> 
> ...



Yes, quite. I almost spilled my gin and tonic on the  _Times_. How unexpected! What next? Sending messages through the air with electrical sparks? Devices that play music when you insert coins into them? What will Man think of next?

But, never fear...the track record of generals who become MNDs is such an excellent one in this country.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2013)

Army.ca member and _Sun_ journalist David Akin _tweets_ what I think will be the great lesson of 2013/14: "The #NDP and the #CPC have learned (both the hard way) that the Media is most definitely not their friend. Not yet sure about the #LPC."

My _suspicion_ is that while M. Trudeau's "honeymoon" with the media (and the public) is longer than those of Messers Ignatieff and Dion, it will not last. Journalists will, eventually, want to "look under the hood" and my guess is that will not find much. Mr Harper never expected much in the way of _sympathy_, except for _Sun News_ and the _National Post_, and even less _empathy_, although he gets it from _Report on Business_ and the _Financial Post_, but M. Trudeau can count only on the _Toronto Star_ and its reach is pretty limited outside Toronto, proper.

I think Mr Mulcair needs to deploy some of his bright, attractive, young members to challenge M. Trudeau, directly, on issues ~ something akin to the Liberal "truth squad" in the 1963 election. Think of:






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




and 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                                         Anne Minh-Thu Quach                                                                                               Paul Dewar                                                                 and                                                   Laurin Liu

M Trudeau is vulnerable on issues, that's why he's trying to build a cadre, but I think that is a problem for him, too, because it highlights is need for outside help, suggesting he's a lightweight.


----------



## pbi (21 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My _suspicion_ is that while M. Trudeau's "honeymoon" with the media (and the public) is longer than those of Messers Ignatieff and Dion, it will not last. Journalists will, eventually, want to "look under the hood" and my guess is that will not find much.  M Trudeau is vulnerable on issues, that's why he's trying to build a cadre, but I think that is a problem for him, too, because it highlights is need for outside help, suggesting he's a lightweight.



I think that you are probably right here. For as many people who might be inspired (or, at least, interested...) by the Trudeau name, I think there are many more who are very skeptical, including  or perhaps especially Quebec where his father was hated in some quarters. I don't see much in the way of substance either. His biggest appeal is probably to the demographic that doesn't traditionally vote much: the under 30's.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2013)

There are two interesting, and loosely related, articles in this morning's papers: one is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ and the other, under the same provisions, from the _Globe and Mail_. The first looks at _campaigning_ and, more specifically, at the efficacy of "attack politics," and, finally, arrives at a few 'principles:'

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/25/andrew-coyne-on-political-lessons-dont-blame-your-defeat-on-your-opponents-nastiness-or-the-public-for-your-failings/


> Andrew Coyne on political lessons: Don’t blame your defeat on your opponents’ nastiness or the public for your failings
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> 
> ...




The 'principles' are:

     1. "Don’t blame the public for your failings;"

     2. "It isn’t enough to say something’s a problem. You have to offer serious solutions before people will pay attention;" and

     3. "If you can’t persuade people, probably best to choose another line of work."


Regarding that last 'principle,' the polls show that relentless adherence to a _persuasive_ message works:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/support-falling-for-liberals-and-ndp-holding-steady-for-tories-poll/article14539717/#dashboard/follows/


> Support falling for Liberals and NDP, holding steady for Tories: poll
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




But, on the basis that "a week is a long time in politics" we are about 100 _long times[/i[ away from polls that actually matter._


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2013)

Ooopsie ....


> Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro and one of his 2008 campaign staffers are facing charges under the Elections Act.
> 
> Elections Canada alleges Del Mastro, who represents Peterborough in the House of Commons, overspent his 2008 campaign limit and reported a $21,000 expense as $1,575. It also alleges he contributed too much money to his campaign – $21,000, nearly $20,000 over the individual candidate contribution limit.
> 
> The Public Prosecution Service of Canada laid the charges ....


CBC.ca, 26 Sept 13
Still listed as the PM's a Parliamentary Secretary here as of this post - listed as moving to become PS of economic development agencies as of about a week ago according to the MP's Parliament of Canada web site profile.

Updated to add latest from Sun Media:


> Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro has been suspended from Conservative caucus, QMI Agency has learned, after he was charged Thursday under the Elections Act related to expenses in the 2008 federal election ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Ooopsie ....CBC.ca, 26 Sept 13
> Still listed as the PM's a Parliamentary Secretary here as of this post - listed as moving to become PS of economic development agencies as of about a week ago according to the MP's Parliament of Canada web site profile.
> 
> Updated to add latest from Sun Media:




See here for more on this.


Edit to add: the _Globe and Mail_ say Tory MP Dean Del Mastro resigns from caucus, the _Twitterverse_ says he had no choice: resign before you're kicked out.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> See here for more on this.


Thanks for the extra info - I was almost going to throw this into the Robo-calls thread, but wrong election fit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are two interesting, and loosely related, articles in this morning's papers: one is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ and the other, under the same provisions, from the _Globe and Mail_. The first looks at _campaigning_ and, more specifically, at the efficacy of "attack politics," and, finally, arrives at a few 'principles:'
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/25/andrew-coyne-on-political-lessons-dont-blame-your-defeat-on-your-opponents-nastiness-or-the-public-for-your-failings/
> 
> ...


_


Regarding the second article, the "Support Falling for Liberals and NDP" one, David Akin reports, in his On the Hill blog that the three main parties are in a near statistical tie.

He includes two graphs:






ABACUS Data's views of Voter Intentions






Ipsos's view of Vote Support


Maybe, just maybe, the Conservative slide has been arrested - but we'll see how the Dean Del Mastro affair plays out - and, also just maybe, the Trudeau "honeymoon" is over.

What does seem clear, from both graphs, is that the Liberals have been eating the NDP's lunch since May of 2012.
_


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2013)

Tom get *Angry*

Angry Tom [size=14pt]SMASH![/size]


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Brian Lee Crowley, of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, is someone with whom I often agree on socio-economic issues. This opinion piece, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ resonates with me:
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Quebec+charter+wrong+execution+principle/8910568/story.html
> 
> ...




There is an interesting _political_ issue in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/secular-charter-case-shows-supreme-court-judges-can-be-ideological-and-wrong/article14622511/#dashboard/follows/


> Secular Charter case shows Supreme Court judges can be ideological – and wrong
> 
> EMMETT MACFARLANE
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




It's not surprising, to me, at least, that Mme Justice L’Heureux-Dubé has strong _political_ opinions. Judges are human and she is a reflection of her culture which is, as I have said many times, _illiberal_. I'm not overly worried that she has taken this stand publicly; if nothing else it _might_ make other retired judges less timid about expressing their reasoned disagreement with her.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> As appalled as I am by this mean-spirited proposed law, and its call to some of the worst aspects of Quebec nationalism, I have to admit that this possibility has crossed my mind. It would require a level of cunning on the part of the Marois government that I wouldn't have credited them with, but the danger is real.  I don't know how successful she would be : I had the impression that the separatist movement was gradually collapsing under demographic and social change and concerns about the economy, but you never know.
> 
> Because the rest of Canada is increasingly (and for the most part, peacefully...) multicultural/multi-ethnic, and our major urban centres are more and more diverse (and because the Tories prize their gains amongst the ethnic minorities in Canada), this proposed bill was bound to cause a very negative reaction in the rest of Canada. Perhaps this is just what Mme Marois is hoping for.
> 
> ...




Québec's proposed _Charte des valeurs québécoises_ is back in the news (still in the news) because it is attracting so much attention from former Québec nationalist leaders. But Andrew Coyne, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, reminds us that the PQ and its leaders, reflecting their societal base, are not models of toerance:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/10/04/andrew-coyne-dont-be-fooled-the-parti-quebecois-has-never-been-inclusive/


> Don’t be fooled, the Parti Québécois has never been inclusive
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> 
> ...




Let me be clear: this is all related to an old, old French problem. France, and I suspect all French speaking cultures, are _illiberal_. That they are _illiberal_ is, I believe, undeniable; why is, I think, because they are _reacting_ to their ancient, _liberal_ enemy: the English. I know it's a we bit more complex than that ~ the sins of the Roman Church played a HUGE role in the development of the idea of _ laïcité_, but, post the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (1572) the French people gave the Church much of the power it abused in order to counter the hated _Anglais_.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2013)

Fascism, National Socialism and their various offshoots are not a particularly "French" issue, there were plenty of supporters of the National Socialist idea throughout Europe, Canada (look up National Unity Party (Canada)), in the United Kingdom and even America during the 1930's (and Fascism had plenty of enthusiastic adherents among the "New Dealers" in the Rooseveldt Administration), and of course the best known example is the German _Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei_.

These parties gain and maintain adherents (and occasionally power) by the promise of using the State to set the terms and conditions that favour some clearly defined group (usually ethnic, but Oswald Mosley and William Dudley Pelley demonstrated that wasn't always required), so in this regard the call for "par lain" Quebecers to seize the levers of power and gain the rewards is really an old and very effective action plan for gaining and maintaining power.

And of course, Andrew Coyne had identified the issue in his article (even if he does not spell it out):



> There is a basic, unresolvable incompatibility between a pluralist, open, civic nationalism and a nationalism devoted to the interests of a particular ethnocultural group. No amount of careful obsequies can paper this over. Once you have freed yourself from the obligation, incumbent on governments in every other liberal state, to govern on behalf of all your citizens equally — once you have decided, frankly and unashamedly, to speak of and for “nous” — you have made your choice. If the province’s ethnic minorities have failed to respond to the PQ’s entreaties, that may explain why. If, after all, it were really about an inclusive nationalism, with equality for all, if that were the society you were trying to create, what need would there be to separate?


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2013)

Scott Stimson presents a provocative piece (my comments are incorporated in colours) about the forthcoming Throne Speech; it is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/10/11/scott-stinson-how-stephen-harper-can-embrace-an-genuine-consumer-friendly-agenda/


> How Stephen Harper can embrace a genuine consumer-friendly agenda
> 
> Scott Stinson
> 
> ...




I hope someone in government reads the good bits.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2013)

The _Globe and Mail_ suggests that "The federal government will unveil plans this week to force cable and satellite TV providers to offer consumers so-called pick-and-pay services." The report sites Industry Minister James Moore as the source of the story.

This refers to the first point in *FREE OUR ENTERTAINMENT* in the preceding post.


----------



## CougarKing (14 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have said, several times, that I want the Liberal Party of Canada to get its act together with a good leader and a good front bench team. I'm a Conservative, and a significant contributor to that party, *but I know that the CPC is going to get stale and corrupt and will need to be replaced for a term or two while they re-energize themselves*.



Let's hope that what you fear for the CPC, according to what you said above, won't come to pass if they get more time to govern. We saw what happened when the LPC stayed in power too long and actually they got into their heads they were the "natural governing party of Canada".  

National Post



> *The Conservative plan to become Canada’s Natural Governing Party*
> 
> 
> OTTAWA — Canada’s Conservatives, after nearly eight years of power, have become the country’s Establishment Party.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2013)

And, back in 2011, Dan Gardner gave a somewhat self serving but still, in 2013 and in my opinion, valid critique of the Harper government in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his blog:

http://www.dangardner.ca/articles/item/151-stephen-harper-condemns-stephen-harper


> Stephen Harper Condemns Stephen Harper
> 
> Friday, 27 May 2011
> 
> ...




It is important to go back and actually read Prof Donald Savoie's book _Governing from the Centre_ to understand that what we see today began, in earnest, in the 1970s, when the late Michael Pitfield concentrated power, massively, in the new _centre_ (PCO + PMO).

Brian Mulroney, and to a greater degree Jean Chrétien, actually _decentralized_ power somewhat by giving more and more authority to Finance and the Treasury Board ~ not always willingly, by the way. To his credit, Stephen Harper has done the same.

But: Canada is a "democratic dictatorship." It is the nature of the Westminster system: we sacrifice the "checks and balances" of some representative governments (and we can see why in Washington, DC, this week) in order to have _responsible_ and _representative_ governments. The Brits have managed this system somewhat better than we have, in my opinion: constituency parties and the _centre_ are both less powerful there.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Oct 2013)

While we await the Speech from the Throne, this ....


> The Harper government is bracing for what could be another year to 18 months of bad news from the Senate.
> 
> iPolitics has learned that Auditor General Michael Ferguson is expected to break his audit into senators’ expenses into three separate segments — which will likely be released piecemeal between now and the 2015 election.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Oct 2013)

Here's a thought about the 'other place.' If the Supreme Court rules that the government cannot act unilaterally to reform it, nothing is more guaranteed to preserve it than an ongoing litany of revelations of abuses, especially if the voters transfer their dispeasure over the current incumbents to the CPC. No prime minister with a modicum of a sense of self preservation is going to disturb the Senate's place at the trough considering the outrage the voters vented on the convenient target provided by the government of the day.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Oct 2013)

The latest via Twitter on those pesky Senators ....


> Conservative senators give notice of motions to suspend Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau. Motions have not yet been tabled.


----------



## Remius (17 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The latest via Twitter on those pesky Senators ....



Hopefully they saved for winter...


----------



## GAP (17 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The latest via Twitter on those pesky Senators ....



Don't they have to be convicted first?


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Oct 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Don't they have to be convicted first?


I guess we'll see ....


			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Hopefully they saved for winter...


Wherever they live.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Oct 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Don't they have to be convicted first?



Of course they deserve a fair trail. _Then we hang them!!_


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Oct 2013)

While I might wish for a strict punishment, I also want due process


----------



## Lightguns (18 Oct 2013)

Got an email from the Liberal Vets Critic.  They will be wining and dining and Press Conferencing with former Cpl MacEarchern as she ends her walk.  It would seem, she is about to become the face of PSTD vet issues for the opposition.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2013)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> .... she is about to become the face of PSTD vet issues for the opposition.


Maybe "a" face for this 15-minute round of fame, but too many issues with her story to be "the" face, even for the Liberals.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 Oct 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> While I might wish for a strict punishment, I also want due process



Sorry, I should of put one of those smiley faces behind my comment.


----------



## Remius (18 Oct 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> While I might wish for a strict punishment, I also want due process



While I tend to agree with that, just take the criminal aspect out of this and look at the mismanagement side.  Many employers will suspend with or without pay their employees that have shown enough evidence of mismanagement or innapropriate behaviour to warrant an investigation.  When exonerated they get back pay, if found culpable they are terminated.

Also, these members have had plenty of opportunities to defend themselves and have chosen to stay quiet, not appear at comitee or cooperate with the audit.

I'm not sure what due process you want to afford them.


----------



## Remius (21 Oct 2013)

Mike Duffy's Lawyer is on the news now, explaining certain things and has provided some emails that might be problematic for the PM.  I guess Duffy didn't appreciate being thrown under the bus and is singing whatever song he thinks he know.  

This story never ends...

Edit:  So the lawyer made a pile of accusations based on evidence he has, which he won't produce...jeezuz.  Waste of time.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Oct 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Mike Duffy's Lawyer is on the news now, explaining certain things and has provided some emails that might be problematic for the PM.  I guess Duffy didn't appreciate being thrown under the bus and is singing whatever song he thinks he know.
> 
> This story never ends...
> 
> Edit:  So the lawyer made a pile of accusations based on evidence he has, which he won't produce, which the CBC et al will feast on none the less...jeezuz.  Waste of time.



FTFY


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2013)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Post_, Terrance Corcoran warns the good electors of Toronto Centre to be ready for strong doses of "crypto-Marxist revivalism." The two candidates, Linda McQuaig and Chrystia Freeland have, he says, "the same message, the same economic inspirations, the same collection of manufactured indicators.  They would divide and polarize, spread guilt and alienation."



> Linda McQuaig and Chrystia Freeland stage Marxist battle in downtown Canada
> 
> Terence Corcoran
> 
> ...




If either or these two win, and Ms Freeland is favoured by past results, it will be bad news. NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair will regret having Ms McQuaig in bis caucus because he is trying to move his party towards the political and economic centre and Ms McQuaig is the very definition of a a "loony lefty," opposed to the moderate middle. By selecting Ms Freeland as an economic advisor M. Trudeau is demonstrating, clearly, that he is in over his head. He has good, solid, centrist economic experts like John McCallum and Scott Brison; his decision to add Ms Freeland, a polemicist, to the mix is inexplicable as anything other than simple bad judgement.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2013)

Thought this belonged more here re:  the thrust/parry of politics, as opposed to being about the Senate in particular.



> Senator Mike Duffy finally had his say Tuesday, dropping a political bombshell before the entire Senate, by saying Prime Minister Stephen Harper told him to repay his inappropriately claimed expense money.
> 
> Before a stunned audience of senators and reporters in the Senate gallery, Duffy said Harper told him, in the presence of his then chief of staff Nigel Wright, it was the perception of the "base" that was important, not what Duffy said about his own innocence. After Duffy said he didn't have the money, he related, "Nigel Wright said, 'Don't worry, I'll write the cheque.' " ....


CBC.ca, 22 Oct 13



> Sen. Mike Duffy says Prime Minister Stephen Harper, concerned about how the senator's burgeoning expense scandal was going over with the Conservative "base," ordered him to repay $90,000 in disallowed housing allowance claims.
> 
> In a riveting speech to his Senate colleagues, Duffy spun a tale of "conspiracy" as he described a February meeting with Harper and his then chief of staff, Nigel Wright, during which the senator pleaded his innocence.
> 
> ...


_Toronto Star_, 22 Oct 13

Edited to add attachment of transcript compiled by The Canadian Press.

op:


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2013)

Here's what the Tory Government House Leader had to say in the House of Commons in response to questions about the Senate issue (Commons debate apparently happened before the Senate discussion - also attached in case link doesn't work for you):


> .... Statements by Prime Minister Regarding Repayment of Senator's Expenses
> 
> _Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC)_:  next intervention
> Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay, regarding the Prime Minister's remarks in question period on June 5, 2013. These comments are supplemental to my initial comments last Thursday. I assured the House that I would return, and that is what I am doing right now.
> ...



Still no Senate Hansard available as of this post.


----------



## Nemo888 (23 Oct 2013)

The Headline should be,...

Duffy Invites Harper to Join Him Under the Bus

Harper is pretty screwed on this one.


----------



## Remius (23 Oct 2013)

We'll see in time I guess.  This is a complete gong show.  Wallin is going to speak today and I'm sure she'll add more to the fire.  Likely not as explosive as yesterday.  The PM has not been able to change the channel on this.  I'll give Duffy credit for picking his time to do this.  He played that one quite well.  And the thought of giving him credit for anything bothers me.  

Proroguing the house, hoping that the CETA deal would be more of a headline grabber etc etc.  None of his tricks have worked.

This isn't over by a long shot.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'll give Duffy credit for picking his time to do this.  He played that one quite well.  And the thought of giving him credit for anything bothers me.


I'll give credit where due as well - he had me on the due process bit, but he lost me when he complained about who would pay for all his heart meds if he lost his salary/benefits.

Who would pay?  Who pays for people his age who aren't senators and don't have a salary or outside insurance?  _*That's*_ who would pay.


----------



## pbi (23 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'll give credit where due as well - he had me on the due process bit, but he lost me when he complained about who would pay for all his heart meds if he lost his salary/benefits.
> 
> Who would pay?  Who pays for people his age who aren't senators and don't have a salary or outside insurance?  That's who would pay.



Agree 100%. I listened to him this AM. I almost spat my Timmy's when he started whinging about "Oh, I'm feelin' poorly y'know". Please: spare us the search for pity. You're not St Michael the Martyr.

That said, while I am not at all convinced that the Senator is blameless, I have a feeling that there is truth to his story. Sad to say as somebody who has voted Tory all my life, I have had this sneaking, ill-defined suspicion for a few years now, that there is a fundamentally undemocratic strain lurking in the Party. Or maybe it's just good old back room politics and I'm overreacting.

As an aside, it must be extremely frustrating for the PM that one of his own creations is acting up like this, not to mention Sen Wallin.

The whole business of the power of the PMO, regardless of which party is in power, is one that I think could use a lot more heat and light. Over the years, I have gained the (admittedly unscientific) impression that the PMO is far too powerful an organization in a supposedly democratic country.

Maybe it raises a bigger question of just what true "checks and balances" exist in our system in general, and in particular where the PM and PMO are concerned. I'm not in general a cheerleader for the US political system, but I think they have a much better system of checks and balances, and of scrutiny, in place.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2013)

It isn't over, to be sure, but nor, I *suspect* is there anything like as "much" there as the media, especially, want us to believe.

Pretty much everyone, including all the _Harper Haters_® agree that Stephen Harper and Nigel Wright are smart people. It is nearly inconceivable, to me, that Stephen Harper would, knowingly, lie to the House of Commons, that would be a stupid and unnecessary risk ~ there was no political downside in saying "I told Sen Duffy to pay back the questionable expenses even if they are, technically, legitimate, and fight it out later with the Senate's Board of Internal Economy." It is very conceivable, to me, that Nigel Wright, knowing that Stephen Harper demanded that Duffy pay back the doubtful (but politically toxic) expenses, offered to pay out of his own pocket because he was, indeed, covering up, for PM Harper ~ because that's what political chiefs of staff do. It is also very, very conceivable for me that Nigel Wright, being a very smart guy and a very loyal chief of staff, would have, intentionally, kept PM Harper "in the dark" because he would have wanted the PM to have "plausible deniability."

My guess is that both Duffy and Harper are telling the truth but that neither is telling the whole truth. I suspect that Nigel Wright did tell some other people about the Duffy _transaction_, but not, ever, the prime minister.

I think it is, now, incumbent, on the Conservative political machine to destroy Duffy's credibility. There ought to be several inconsistencies in Duffy's account and little if anything, other than his word, to back up his position. Watch for an all out attack on Duffy's honesty through friendly media.

I'm guessing that Wallin _might_ sneak through but that Duffy and Brazeau are toast in the Senate.


----------



## GAP (23 Oct 2013)

Brazeau is and always was dead man walking. 

Duffy picked his battles, but as ER surmised, he too will be toast. He was caught milking the system, whether others did it or not, he got caught and was arrogant about it. So be it...

Wallin, if she plays mousy may sneak through, but she's burned bridges too....


----------



## pbi (23 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...I think it is, now, incumbent, on the Conservative political machine to destroy Duffy's credibility....



What might actually be more incumbent on them is to tell the truth.

But, I agree that the finely tuned and robust Tory info ops machine will likely engage very soon, no doubt using a "comprehensive approach". Such a full court press would, IMHO, indicate fear on their part, as opposed to just letting Duffy drill himself into the ground.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is very conceivable, to me, that Nigel Wright, knowing that Stephen Harper demanded that Duffy pay back the doubtful (but politically toxic) expenses, offered to pay out of his own pocket because he was, indeed, covering up, for PM Harper ~ because that's what political chiefs of staff do. It is also very, very conceivable for me that Nigel Wright, being a very smart guy and a very loyal chief of staff, would have, intentionally, kept PM Harper "in the dark" because he would have wanted the PM to have "plausible deniability."


Or, at most, no more than a quick "it's been sorted out, Prime Minister."



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My guess is that both Duffy and Harper are telling the truth but that neither is telling the whole truth.


I get the sense that the media champing at the bit to make "PM told me to leave" = "PM knew about the cheque".  As juicy as that would be, Duffy's statement according to Hansard doesn't make that link:


> .... after caucus on February 13 of this year, I met the Prime Minister and Nigel Wright, just the three of us. I said that despite the smear in the papers, I had not broken the rules, but the Prime Minister wasn't interested in explanations or the truth. It's not about what you did; it's about the perception of what you did that has been created in the media. The rules are inexplicable to our base.
> 
> I argued I'm just following the rules like all of the others. But it didn't work. I was ordered by the Prime Minister: Pay the money back, end of discussion. Nigel Wright was present throughout, just the three of us.
> 
> ...





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that Wallin _might_ sneak through but that Duffy and Brazeau are toast in the Senate.


 :nod:


			
				pbi said:
			
		

> I agree that the finely tuned and robust Tory info ops machine will likely engage very soon, no doubt using a "comprehensive approach". Such a full court press would, IMHO, indicate fear on their part, as opposed to just letting Duffy drill himself into the ground.


 :nod: - especially with the sense of entitlement suggested in some of Duffy's comments available as ammunition.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Oct 2013)

If what Duffy says happened, is not written down somewhere, emails, tapes, etc, it's all hearsay at this point.

He'll need all those people, he's attacking, to back him up and lend credibility to his statements.

All he has to go on, at this point, is his credibility.

He has none.

And he's exasperated his, already damaged, profile by showing he's a whiny sniv that can't be trusted.

I doubt whether there is much sympathy or support coming his way.


----------



## Lightguns (23 Oct 2013)

He is in the House and as a member of the House, he can say anything he wants and cannot be charged with slander.  He knows that and that is why he is saying it.  It is for the consumption of the great unwashed masses who require no evidence.  He is trying to destroy everyone at this point.  Great system.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2013)

pbi:  Agreed entirely on the "telling the truth" bit.

In that vein - if what Duffy is reported as saying is true.......

When the PM determined that Duffy's conduct was not passing the smell test he told Duffy to repay the money.  Punkt.

At some later period Nigel Wright wrote a check for Duffy.

When the PM found out about the check written by Wright he fired Wright.

On that basis I would inclined to "re-hire" Harper while reconsidering my intention to "re-hire" the Tories.

The good news for the Tories is the Liberals still have the same bunch of crooks operatives they always had, hiding behind a vacuous new face while the NDP, while honest, are honestly idiots.

I predict a further reduction in turnout at the next election.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2013)

Well, if one thing is quite evident to those who really look, the Prime Minister was indeed correct when he told Duffy to pay the money back, whether he was right or wrong, due to the "perception" that would arise.  The "perception" has been the news for months now.  Whether either party is guilty or not, it is the "perception" that is the news.

Another problem is the "perception" that the PMO is the Prime Minister.  They are two different entities.  One is the group of individuals who serve the Prime Minister, and the other is an individual who can not be expected to know all the intricate aspects in the lives of others, including his/her staff.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ..... all the _Harper Haters_®


  I like it.   ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Oct 2013)

Off with their heads! 

Burn the witches!


This seems to be the attitude


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Oct 2013)

Just listening to Senator Wallin and she is making some good points.

The Senate needs to be reformed - Elected, Effective and Equal.


----------



## Remius (23 Oct 2013)

Apparently the PM is hitting back, and actually answering instead of what he did yesterday which was spew some talking point.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2013)

>the PMO is far too powerful an organization in a supposedly democratic country.

I think you understate the problem.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2013)

Actually the PMO is only as powerful as elected MPs, Conservatives and Liberals, have allowed and still allow it to be.

The _centralization_ of authority in the PMO began under Pierre Trudeau, in 1975, when he appointed Michael Pitfield as Clerk of the Privy Council and Jim Coutts as Chief of Staff and steadily stripped authority away from PCO and ministers and worked to a new "master plan." The then ministers and MPs did not resign or protest. Brian Mulroney did nothing to redress the power imbalance; none of his ministers or MPs resigned in outrage, either. As we saw in testimony at the Gomery Inquiry, Jean Chrétien's PMOs, although somewhat shrunken in both size and influence, still reached deep into departments, past ministers and deputies, when necessary, to control actions that interested the PM, himself. Still no resignations based on the _principle_ that ministers and MPs ought to be relatively independent of the "hired guns" in the PMO. Stephen Harper's PMO is about as powerful as Trudeau's was and I have only seen one CPC MP resign from caucus on _principle_ ~ Brent Rathgeber.

Maybe a handful of Conservative Senators (led by Hugh Segal?) will set an example by revolting against PMO control and not expelling Pamela Wallin.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe a handful of Conservative Senators (led by Hugh Segal?) will set an example by revolting against PMO control and not expelling Pamela Wallin.


That would be a HUGELY interesting development, but I'm not optimistic that even someone like Segal would be willing to take on PMO and the PM.

Now if _the PM_ did something about his PMO .....  op:


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2013)

There's no reason for a PMO to do much to or about his PMO. As I mentioned, Jean Chrétien did reduce both the size and power of the PMO ... on some issues. On issues that were central to M. Chrétien's personal agenda ~ which appeared to include his personal business dealings ~ the PMO remained all powerful and was feared in Ottawa, more feared, i think than is PM Harper's PMO today.

But PMs do have _agendas_, and they aren't really hidden. I doubt anyone is really surprised about many of the policies PM Harper has advanced: many are generally and genuinely _conservative_ in that they aim to _restrict_ government, in general. I am pretty sure he would have encountered some resistance from the PCO and ministries on several policies - long gun registry, long form census, C-17s, etc. I am also pretty sure he then used the power of his PMO ~ power he inherited from Trudeau/Pitfield/Coutts ~ to push his priorities through, despite both internal political and public service dissent.


----------



## jpjohnsn (24 Oct 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Another problem is the "perception" that the PMO is the Prime Minister.  They are two different entities.  One is the group of individuals who serve the Prime Minister, and the other is an individual who can not be expected to know all the intricate aspects in the lives of others, including his/her staff.


This is where you lose me.  Since being elected, more and more threads of communication and information have been gathered in by the PMO and the PM to the point that an MP can't sneeze without it being reviewed and approved first.  The claim that the PM knew nothing about what would obviously be a potentially major scandal until late in the game and then did not follow up suggests to me that he is:

1. Lying;
2. Inattentive to the goings on of his staff;
3. Willfully blind; or,
4. Purposefully being kept in the dark by his staff.

None of these look good for Mr Harper .  And, in many ways, the last one would be the most disturbing as the head of our government is being prevented from getting information to make informed decisions.  It doesn't matter if they were trying to protect him or they were trying not to get caught, there seems to be a culture in the PMO that is disturbing to me coming from a government that campaigned and won their first election on a platform of transparency.


----------



## pbi (24 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually the PMO is only as powerful as elected MPs, Conservatives and Liberals, have allowed and still allow it to be...



Agreed: and this IMHO is a big part of the problem. All PMs of all political stripes probably enjoy the power this office exerts, and the ability to get things done "off the net".



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe a handful of Conservative Senators (led by Hugh Segal?) will set an example by revolting against PMO control and not expelling Pamela Wallin.



I was wondering about this too. This whole business must be mortifying for a PM with such a penchant for tightly disciplined "info ops": a palace revolt would only be a further nightmare.

Or not..... It could be an oportunity to smoke out any independent thinkers whose ideas of being a Conservative don't match with the PM's, and to give the PM a stage to make a public demonstration of how they will beat the nasty, undemocratic and corrupt  Senate into shape.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2013)

Or it could be a blessing in disguise ...

My *guess* is that the _Supremes_ will say that:

     1. The Senate cannot be abolished without a full blown _constitutional_ change; but

     2. The PM has broad _latitude_ within the existing Constitution (§§ 23-33) to decide how to select senators but he (the GG, actually, but on the PMs advice) must (§§ 21 & 24), periodically, "_summon_" senators
         so he also cannot allow it to wither and die.

If that happens my guess is that PM Harper will insist that provinces elect their own senators or he will cause them to be elected under federal authority.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> This is where you lose me.  Since being elected, more and more threads of communication and information have been gathered in by the PMO and the PM to the point that an MP can't sneeze without it being reviewed and approved first.  The claim that the PM knew nothing about what would obviously be a potentially major scandal until late in the game and then did not follow up suggests to me that he is:
> 
> 1. Lying;
> 2. Inattentive to the goings on of his staff;
> ...



Really?  If I may, I will use you as an example.  Your profile says you are a Capt in the Cadet program.  Can you as such, honestly tell us that you are privy to every aspect in the lives of those under your supervision?


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> This is where you lose me.  Since being elected, more and more threads of communication and information have been gathered in by the PMO and the PM to the point that an MP can't sneeze without it being reviewed and approved first.  The claim that the PM knew nothing about what would obviously be a potentially major scandal until late in the game and then did not follow up suggests to me that he is:
> 
> 1. Lying;
> 2. Inattentive to the goings on of his staff;
> ...



I have to agree.  The fact is that the PM had three caucus members from the Senate embroilled on what was starting to become national news.  Their residency and their exopenses were coming to light in a prominent way and I find it very suspect that he would not be briefed on a regular basis about this.  And if he wasn't then plenty of people should be fired.

This is a complete disaster.  Again, the Conservatives are resorting to old true and tried tactics that are failing them.  They can't get this to go away.  Blame the media, blame the public, but eventually you have to blame yourself.  

Bringing this motion to suspend at this time was a complete miscalculation.  i'm not sure what they were thinking. I will assume they wanted them to go away and be placed out of sight and out of mind.  It worked for Guerguis and others but these three are fighting back and breathing even more life into this story.

Doing this, eclipsed CETA.  Doing this will likely make for an uncomfortable party convention as well.  They underestimated the public and they underestimated at least two of these Senators who decided not to be thrown under the bus by themselves.

The PM I think can salvage this IF he keeps up like he did yesterday.  ANSWER the questions, not with ridiculous robotic talking points, but with answers that are direct, firm and get the point accross.  The PM can easily frame this as him taking on excess and innapropriate behaviour.  Instead he's only managed to implicate himself.  Yesterday was the first time he's managed to re-frame the story or at least his part in it.

The other issue, which I think is more serious for the Pm is his own party.  I will be curious to see if the Conservative Senators are whipped how many might break ranks.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The PM I think can salvage this IF he keeps up like he did yesterday.  *ANSWER the questions, not with ridiculous robotic talking points, but with answers that are direct, firm and get the point accross.*  The PM can easily frame this as him taking on excess and innapropriate behaviour.  Instead he's only managed to implicate himself.  Yesterday was the first time he's managed to re-frame the story or at least his part in it.


Call me a wild-eyed optimist, but I agree.  Direct, firm and get the point across answers early on prevent festering later on.


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Another problem is the "perception" that the PMO is the Prime Minister.  They are two different entities.  One is the group of individuals who serve the Prime Minister, and the other is an individual who can not be expected to know *all the intricate aspects in the lives of others*, including his/her staff.


This isn't about what they had for lunch, it's about what they were doing _at work_ in the name of the PM.  We're talking an organization of ~100 people, not hundreds or thousands.  If someone screwed up, the PM has to be seen to do something about it.  A Chief of Staff has come & gone, but it sounds like more than just he was involved.

As in most "he says she says" situations, I'd have to agree with this ....


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My guess is that both Duffy and Harper are telling the truth but that neither is telling the whole truth. I suspect that Nigel Wright did tell some other people about the Duffy _transaction_, but not, ever, the prime minister.


But I also agree that the the former COS would have been too smart to let the PM know about "the deal".  And the PM would have been too smart to ask in more detail.


----------



## jpjohnsn (24 Oct 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really?  If I may, I will use you as an example.  Your profile says you are a Capt in the Cadet program.  Can you as such, honestly tell us that you are privy to every aspect in the lives of those under your supervision?


If there was trouble coming down the pike directly to related to squadron activities, and one or more of my direct subordinates knew about it, yes, I'd like to think I wouldn't be caught napping.  And if I'd given directions to fix the problem, I'd be sure to follow up to make sure it happened.


----------



## Lightguns (24 Oct 2013)

I am sorry, but having worked as an EA to a General, COS are very good at keeping their General out of the loop purposely to protect him from the nasty flying brown stuff.  Indeed, it is one of the jobs of COS to fall on his sword for a commander over the admin storms.  IF, the COS has not been proactive in steering around those storms that is.  Wright did good as a COS, maybe not the right thing but the loyal thing.

Duffy and Wallin have long been in the Prima Dona class of Canadians, they are having a hard time grasping that they did anything wrong.  That is really whats going on here.  If caught, I would have immediately admitted, apologized and ask mercy.  Had that been done this would have been over.  Both are acting as spoiled children and should be hung to dry.

I see nothing on this issue that would cause me to not vote Conservative again (other issues are another story).  Heck we are up to 3 Liberal senators in hot water now and they are getting an incredibly easy ride.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2013)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> ......  Heck we are up to 3 Liberal senators in hot water now and they are getting an incredibly easy ride.



And flying fairly much under the radar.  

This is one of the faucets of political life; scandals are so easily raised or fabricated if you wish.  Currently I don't see any of our Political Parties as being dedicated to "building Canada"; but more concerned more with their own personal political and financial gain.  They are all the same, and we the electorate are left with little choice but to elect the lesser of two or more evils.  How I wish we had a strong leader and Party that wanted to "build" Canada into a strong, prosperous nation, not selling off our natural resources, industry and intellect to foreign interests for a short term financial gain.  One can dream, I guess.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2013)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I am sorry, but having worked as an EA to a General, COS are very good at keeping their General out of the loop purposely to protect him from the nasty flying brown stuff.  Indeed, it is one of the jobs of COS to fall on his sword for a commander over the admin storms.  IF, the COS has not been proactive in steering around those storms that is.  Wright did good as a COS, maybe not the right thing but the loyal thing.
> 
> Duffy and Wallin have long been in the Prima Dona class of Canadians, they are having a hard time grasping that they did anything wrong.  That is really whats going on here.  If caught, I would have immediately admitted, apologized and ask mercy.  Had that been done this would have been over.  Both are acting as spoiled children and should be hung to dry.
> 
> I see nothing on this issue that would cause me to not vote Conservative again (other issues are another story).  Heck we are up to 3 Liberal senators in hot water now and they are getting an incredibly easy ride.



 :goodpost:

I was, _de facto_ COS to a Flag Officer back in the late 1980s. (My title was Director of _This_ and _That_ Policy, but my duties were those of a Chief of Staff). I screened and sorted into an order of priority almost everything that came in (there were a couple of exceptions - "eyes only" stuff from on high - but they were very, very rare). The screening process allowed me to remove things from the "chain:" perhaps to send them back to divisions for more work because I was sure the admiral would be unhappy with what was presented, perhaps to deflect them to another branch because I didn't think they were our responsibility, sometimes to put them into _limbo_ for at least a while because I didn't want the boss to get involved in something of dubious judgement.

When I moved things out of the way because they didn't pas my "smell test" I was, _de facto_, taking personal responsibility for them and "covering up," too.

I will tell you that, on principle, my boss wanted to see the embarrassing things so that he could put them right but he also understood that, in practice, he accepted that I was doing the necessary thing (not the _right_ thing, just the necessary thing) to free him up to focus on his real work. We got through a couple of years of that. I can well recall that one problem I "punted" came back to haunt (and end the career of) the individual who started it but my boss was untouched and I was barely singed in the resulting firestorm. I remember telling the COS to an even more senior officer that I had decided to kick the problem back towards the originator rather than report it up the chain because we were too busy and it didn't seem like our business. He smiled slightly as he admonished me for being "expedient."

In the case of Stephen Harper, Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy, I repeat: Harper, Wright and Duffy are all telling some of the truth. Harper and Wright are not telling and will not tell any lies, but Prime Minister Harper, at least, will skate around some embarrassing bits.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was, _de facto_ COS to a Flag Officer back in the late 1980s. (My title was Director of _This_ and _That_ Policy, but my duties were those of a Chief of Staff). I screened and sorted into an order of priority almost everything that came in (there were a couple of exceptions - "eyes only" stuff from on high - but they were very, very rare). The screening process allowed me to remove things from the "chain:" perhaps to send them back to divisions for more work because I was sure the admiral would be unhappy with what was presented, perhaps to deflect them to another branch because I didn't think they were our responsibility, sometimes to put them into _limbo_ for at least a while because I didn't want the boss to get involved in something of dubious judgement.
> 
> When I moved things out of the way because they didn't pas my "smell test" I was, _de facto_, taking personal responsibility for them and "covering up," too.
> 
> ...



I agree.  

That is the point I have been trying some to understand.  The PM is aided by his staff in the PMO in the performance of his duties.  At the same time his staff, as part of their "duties" will filter things, perhaps triage things, that come in and at times the boss will not know of them.  The Prime Minister is not "all seeing; all knowing".  He is a very busy man and only human.  For us to expect more is rather largest on our part.


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2013)

Except now, the PM has been accused of being there in the room with Duffy and Wright.  The message has changed so much since day one, a message that the PM has been touting.  From stating teh expenses were in line, to hey he paid up, to we knew nothing of his, to the COS acted alone, to well maybe not, to etc etc.

They've changed their message everytime in a reactionary way.  If Duffy was in fact in the office with the PM and Wright it shows that this was important enough for the PM to be in the loop more than he is letting on.  Never mind who else might have been.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> That is the point I have been trying some to understand.  The PM is aided by his staff in the PMO in the performance of his duties.  At the same time his staff, as part of their "duties" will filter things, perhaps triage things, that come in and at times the boss will not know of them.  The Prime Minister is not "all seeing; all knowing".  He is a very busy man and only human.  For us to expect more is rather largest on our part.




Plus, as others have mentioned, the COS will, *intentionally*, keep things from the boss, to give him "plausible deniability" because some _expedient_ things don't pass the "smell test." It is very likely that Prime Minister Harper knew nothing at all about the $90,000 cheque; it is highly believable that his COS said, "Prime Minister, I have spoken to Sen Duffy and he will repay his questionable expenses very soon." For whatever reasons, including, as you suggest, being very busy, it is unlikely that the PM would want to know the "why" and "how" of it all ~ not his business.


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Oct 2013)

Some predicted this when the Reform merged with the remains of the Progressive Conservatives. I think many people are missing the ability to vote Reform.  Where is Preston Manning saying I told you so?


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2013)

*Caution*: I am a *C*onservative partisan and a media skeptic, but even on that basis I think that Terence Corcoran has got it 99% right in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Post_:



> Mike Duffy’s verbal flimflam turned villain into victim in the eyes of the media
> 
> Terence Corcoran
> 
> ...




I take issue with Mr Corocoran on one point: he says, "Duffy somehow wangled a $90,000 personal cheque out of Mr. Wright. " I don't think he "somehow wrangled" the money from Nigel Wright, I think Nigel Wright, making a colossal error in judgement, offered the money ~ thinking (because he was too preoccupied with the _inside the greenbelt_ world of the PMO) that he was helping the PM by solving in problem when, in reality, he was complicating a problem and making a small scandal into a crisis. That's not Sen Duffy's fault; the blame lies with Mr. Wright.

But, on the main point, Mr Corcoran is spot on: this is *not* a crisis and, as scandals go, it is pretty bush league ... remember Alfonso Gagliano and, currently, Joe Fontana? This _crisis_ is, almost entirely, a construct of a parliamentary press gallery and a _commentatiat_ that mirrors the _Laurentian consensus_, both of which see prime Minister Harper as the devil incarnate.

In the fullness of time there will be formal, sworn statements and it will be clear that:

     1. Sens Brazeau and Duffy, at least, knowingly committed fraud. Sen Wallin _might_ be guilty only of stretching some pretty opaque rules to her advantage;

     2. Nigel Wright _may_ have committed a legal breach by offering money to a legislator in exchange for a _service_. Mr Wright is guilty of a gross error in judgement;

     3. The Prime Minister *did not lie* ~ but he was not as forthcoming as he might have been. He was, honestly, in the dark about the $90,000 but he was "guilty" of bullying Sens Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin for partisan political purposes.


----------



## GR66 (25 Oct 2013)

I agree that there is a significant difference between what the Press present as a "big deal" and what the public believes is a big deal.  I don't think that many in the public now view Mike Duffy as some kind of victim.  The people I've spoken to about the issue certainly haven't changed their opinion of his misdeeds.  That however doesn't mean that what he said isn't damaging to the Prime Minister.  

No pitchforks or torches will be raised as a result of any of this but I think it does reinforce a widely held perception that PM Harper (and "his" government by extension) has too great a focus on the control of information and opinion.  Even to the point of borderline dishonesty.  As long as there is no real credible political alternative to the Conservatives I don't think that they are in much risk of losing power, but as long as this underlying "discomfort" that many Canadians seem to have with the PM remains I think they will continue to struggle in minority territory.  They run a significant risk though.  One "real" scandal, or a bunch more little issues like this combined with at least a palatable alternative leader for the Liberals could cause enough Canadians to turn their back on them to lose an election.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Oct 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> ..... at least a palatable alternative leader for the Liberals ......


Where I currently live, Justin Trudeau is viewed as the second coming (there could be some ugly squabbles around Easter).  The alternative isn't remotely the Conservatives, but the NDP, and many of them are still mourning Saint Jack Layton -- who becomes that much more awesome with each memory -- to organize anything effective, politically.

I think the Liberals believe they have a leader who is much more than merely palatable.


----------



## Haletown (25 Oct 2013)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Duffy and Wallin have long been in the Prima Dona class of Canadians, they are having a hard time grasping that they did anything wrong.  That is really whats going on here.



Somewhere, David Dingwall is chuckling to himself and enjoying his entitlement to his entitlements.


----------



## Remius (25 Oct 2013)

And now Brazeau is claiming he was offered a backroom deal...


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Oct 2013)

So we have two completely corrupt parties and a third option which is a bunch of ideologues with no experience whatsoever who will quickly become corrupted once they are elected. 

I'm not even seeing a least worst option.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Oct 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I'm not even seeing a least worst option.


If this tempest in a teapot is so traumatizing as to make Canadian politics impossible for you, I suggest you broaden your horizons and check out the rest of the planet.   :


Once again, I thank the site owner for the ignore function.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Oct 2013)

Let me say this:

If what I am hearing is correct, the way Senator Wallin was investigated was by using new claim rules and backdating them

So how many of you here would say that's fair? It's like saying you broke the rules of today three years ago and now we are charging you for it.

Think that would fly in the AJAGs office?


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2013)

The beauty of this for the PPG and other Harper Haterstm is this is another faux scandal that can be endlessly spun to the detriment of the CPC. 

Oddly, the same hound dogs are silent about the case of Liberal Senator Harb, and I strongly suspect that as the net is cast more widely, other Senators of all persuasions will find themselves being caught as well. Much like the Robocalls story, I also predict a sudden pall of silence when the first new Liberal Senator is implicated in questionable or at least questionable looking expenses.

And people wonder why the PM, PMO and Party are so concerned about controlling the messaging?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Oct 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The beauty of this for the PPG and other Harper Haterstm is this is another faux scandal that can be endlessly spun to the detriment of the CPC.
> 
> Oddly, the same hound dogs are silent about the case of Liberal Senator Harb, and I strongly suspect that as the net is cast more widely, other Senators of all persuasions will find themselves being caught as well. Much like the Robocalls story, I also predict a sudden pall of silence when the first new Liberal Senator is implicated in questionable or at least questionable looking expenses.
> 
> And people wonder why the PM, PMO and Party are so concerned about controlling the messaging?



The silence in the media these days over Liberal Senator Harb, and even Justin Trudeau's lecture payments, is a sure sign of media partisanship.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2013)

While this is an American example, we all see the same thing here in Canada with the PPG and other Harper Hatertm media supporters of the Laurentian Consensus, and I suspect that Europe may have similar issues in how their institutional press reports things. The UK tabloid media is an entirely different animal...

The interesting take away from this is the people who are going to follow this advice will be reverting to the sort of underground flow of information that was common during the Soviet era (and is expressed in many eras of repression). Look for _Samizdat_, subversive messages hidden in songs, sayings or other "open" media (with meanings decoded by people in the know, much like the American Underground Railroad for freeing black slaves in the pre civil war era), and other channels that the legacy media and government do not control:

https://www.billwhittle.com/commentary/bamboo-spears



> *BAMBOO SPEARS*
> 
> I suppose it’s still possible that some people haven’t heard this about me, because God knows I repeat it often enough: when I was five years old, I saw the USAF Thunderbirds flying F-100 Super Sabers at Kindley Air Force Base in Bermuda; from that moment I spent twelve years preparing to enter the United States Air Force Academy, and have been in love with flying ever since.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Much like the Robocalls story, I also predict a sudden pall of silence when the first new Liberal Senator is implicated in questionable or at least questionable looking expenses.


For the record, within the last 24 hours ....

_"RCMP alleges former Liberal senator Mac Harb committed fraud with Senate expense claims"_
_"RCMP allege former senator Mac Harb committed fraud"_
_"Police expand investigation of ex-senator Mac Harb"_
_"New documents filed in an Ottawa courthouse suggest the RCMP believes former Liberal senator Mac Harb may have engaged in mortgage fraud on the properties outside Ottawa he once claimed as his primary residences."_


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Oct 2013)

>Where I currently live, Justin Trudeau is viewed as the second coming 

In other areas, it's more along the lines of premature ejaculation.


----------



## ballz (25 Oct 2013)

I find it very easy to not take sides with this whole Senate thing. We can bicker about Liberal senators and Conservative senators all we want, but the fact is, our system is a nice warm petri dish to culture corruption/greed/fraud. If an appointed representative is a fat kid on a diet, the rules surrounding accountability (or lack thereof) and our willingness to just let them "pay it back" without any real repercussions other than *maybe* their own personal reputation (which I don't think means much to them once they are appointed to a position that they basically can't lose), is a greasy sausage, the kind that magically has cheese in the middle to make them extra delicious and extra fattening.

The level of indifference I feel with the whole thing is starting to resemble apathy, and as someone who gets riled up over these things rather easily, that's kind of scary.

We literally need to clean house and start from new, but I fear there is no change that resembles anything "substantial" in the near future... no matter who has whatever seats in the House of Commons.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> For the record, within the last 24 hours ....
> 
> _"RCMP alleges former Liberal senator Mac Harb committed fraud with Senate expense claims"_
> _"RCMP allege former senator Mac Harb committed fraud"_
> ...





I'm glad that that is finally out in the open, but how long has that story been quietly ignored?

As a matter of fact, looking at these stories, it seems there is a real difference between Senator Harb and Senators Duffy and Wallin: Duffy and Wallin *may* have misinterpreted the rules but there seems to be _mens rea_ in Harb's case. The story around Senator Brazeau  is much murkier, and there may be _mens rea_ in how the rules and regulations were interpreted there. 

Really, a full Court of Inquiry should be called (if not a real Court) so due process can be applied to all these cases and the truth allowed to emerge.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Really, a full Court of Inquiry should be called (if not a real Court) so due process can be applied to all these cases and the truth allowed to emerge.


:nod:

Meanwhile, more from the Duff-ster - highlights mine....


> A Canadian senator at the centre of a spending scandal on Monday accused the prime minister's office and his own Tory party of scripting his lines in an alleged coverup.
> 
> Senator Mike Duffy and two others appointed to the upper chamber by Prime Minister Stephen Harper are being targeted for suspension over what an audit revealed were "troubling" expense claims.
> 
> ...


Agence France-Presse, 28 Oct 13



> ....
> 
> Duffy said he had been coached by the prime minister's office to say he had taken out a loan to pay back the C$90,000. In fact, Harper's chief of staff, Nigel Wright, wrote him a check to cover the amount.
> 
> ...


Reuters, 28 Oct 13

That channel ain't changin' just yet ....


----------



## Remius (29 Oct 2013)

No, the channel isn't changing but the story and plot line sure is...

How much to do you want to bet that Duffy is saving something for the day of the CPC convention to try an upstage the PM's speech?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> No, the channel isn't changing but the story and plot line sure is...
> 
> How much to do you want to bet that Duffy is saving something for the day of the CPC convention to try an upstage the PM's speech?




If Sen Duffy hasn't used all his weapons yet then's he's a lousy tactician. He may be out of the Senate ~ and therefore unable to use _parliamentary privilege_ to shield himself from lawsuits ~ before Prime Minister Harper speaks in Calgary.

I have considerable sympathy for Sen Wallin: I think she used the rules, as written, to her personal advantage, but so, I _suspect_, did many, many of her colleagues. I think she was caught when the auditors used new rules against her old actions.

I have a tiny bit of sympathy for Sen Brazeau: I believe he knowingly cheated but, again, so did others and he may have thought it was normal. He should have known it was unacceptable.

I have no sympathy for Sen Duffy: he was billing the people of Canada for things for which he was already being paid bythe Conservative Party of Canada; that's not "harmless" _double dipping_, that's fraud and that's a crime.

I have one big problem with idea of a Senate inquiry. If such a thing is held and evidence is called it will, likely, make any subsequent legal action impossible ~ I think criminal courts will regard all such evidence as _tainted_ and will not allow it to be used or even introduced thus giving Duffy _et al_ a "get out of jail free card."


Edit: punctuation  :-[


----------



## Remius (30 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If Sen Duffy hasn't used all his weapons yet then's he's a lousy tactician. He may be out of the Senate ~ and therefore unable to use _parliamentary privilege_ to shield himself from lawsuits ~ before Prime Minister Harper speaks in Calgary.




I agree with everything you said except this part.  I think Duffy (again I hate giving him credit) knows exactly what he is doing and is playing his cards exactly the way he knows how.  he was in journalism for decades and knows how to use the media and make this stretch out as long as he can.  He has more and is going to reveal more at the right time I think.  He completely overtook the throne speech, ceta and anything else the CPC and the PM have tried to use to deflect this.  Just as the Pm was starting to get ahead he dropped another bomb derailing the message yet again.  the PM has even taken to talk radio for god's sake to stop the bleeding.  This is a man that never gives interviews.

The motion to suspend will likely not go ahead until early next week.  The convention starts Thurs with the PM speaking on Friday.  I expect that Duffy will have more on that day and will attempt to upstage the PM and will likely succeed.  the media is feeding off this like sharks.

The CPC wants this motion exactly because they want to shut him up.  I suspect they know he has more but I doubt they know exactly what.  They probably deleted any record of anything but Duffy kept some of those, at least what related to him.  This is far from over.

The PMO should have got ahead of this months ago but didn't, have lost the initiative and are scrambling to stem the bleeding.


----------



## pbi (30 Oct 2013)

Perhaps this is an object lesson for all Govts that no matter how anal and hyper-scripted you try to be in your information policies, somewhere out there, there is a wild card  just waiting to pop up when you least expect it.

"Messaging" and "bridging" the rest of that good old Media Training 101 stuff is IMHO a bit like the Maginot Line. Run headlong into it, and it stops you dead with its interlocking fires and defense in depth. 

But, outmanouevre it and then just watch a fortress try to "take the initiative".


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2013)

This came to me from _TVOntario's_ flagship public affairs programme _The Agenda_:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This came to me from _TVOntario's_ flagship public affairs programme _The Agenda_:



Do I dare say the MSM is about to start eating one of their own?

That would definitely create a dilemma for them.

Could they denounce, ridicule, chastise and disenfranchise Duffy without appearing sympathetic to the PM? 

Or at least agreeing the PM was right?

Hmmm. The worm turns.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Oct 2013)

Bruce MacKinnon's cartoons in the Chronicle Herald have very cutting on Duffy.  Rightly so, the Pratt.  

I do wonder if this will be Harper's Waterloo moment and undoing come 15?  I expect that whomever it was who suggested those three would be good candidates as Senators is no longer working on the hill at any capacity beyond janitor now.


----------



## Jed (30 Oct 2013)

I don't feel a lot of sympathy for any of the Senator appointments, however; It is very unjust to lump them all together bringing them all down to the lowest common denominator.

It is not a fair comparison to judge Duffy with Wallin or with Brazeau or Harb. It seems to me the Liberal mindset of the Eastern side of Canada wishes to smear those from the Midwest Conservative mindset by lumping Wallin in along with Duffy.  Not much of a comparison if you ask me. You Maritimes folks can shoulder the responsibility for Mr. Duffy and we prairie guys can carry our burden of Ms. Wallin. I will take that trade any day.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Oct 2013)

I'm a transplanted Albertan.  All four of those fids you named aren't worth a pinch of Coon shit.  They're all the same witn their snouts firmly planted in the trough.  They milked the taxpayers of this country for hundreds of thousands and were caught at it.  I have no sympathy for any of them.  At least Harb did a somewhat correct act  by resigning.   Neither the Liberals or Conservatives can claim the high moral ground here.  Only the Dippers can to a point and that's because they don't have their own waste of rations sitting in the Senate.  I hope the axe the lot of them and save us millions each year.


----------



## JorgSlice (30 Oct 2013)

Question here is whonto believe? Duffy/Wallin or Harper? One side has documents, one side does not.

I fear that even though I've lost respect for Harper, he still has the better portfolio to run this country, this will be the death of his political career.

On the other hand though, I think that Duffy and Wall in are full of shit and will get axed.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2013)

Or has the Prime Minister, being the master of poitical tactics, set things up to discredit the Senate and can now move ahead with Senate reform?

The individual senators have shown themselves to be rather tone deaf to the idea they should be accountable stewards of our monies, and the Senate itself hasn't done a very good job of either policeing themselves or holding individuals accountable. Powerful arguments to make when advocating for reform of the Senate, and being the champion of Senate reform might be the way to ride out of this smelling like roses.


----------



## JorgSlice (31 Oct 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Or has the Prime Minister, being the master of poitical tactics, set things up to discredit the Senate and can now move ahead with Senate reform?
> 
> The individual senators have shown themselves to be rather tone deaf to the idea they should be accountable stewards of our monies, and the Senate itself hasn't done a very good job of either policeing themselves or holding individuals accountable. Powerful arguments to make when advocating for reform of the Senate, and being the champion of Senate reform might be the way to ride out of this smelling like roses.



Quoting Homer: "Mmmm... _Senate Reform_"


----------



## pbi (31 Oct 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Or has the Prime Minister, being the master of poitical tactics, set things up to discredit the Senate and can now move ahead with Senate reform?



This is just what I have been musing on, when I feel in a tin-foil hat mood. >

 But, seriously, what a masterful choreography that would be! And the Three Bad Mice (Duffy in particular...yukkk...martyrdom at its most schlocky...) are playing into this script as unattractive trough-snufflers.

Could it be? (_Theme from X-files playing in the background..._)


----------



## Remius (31 Oct 2013)

Riiight.  There are far more effective ways to reform the senate than that kind of theater.  And less damaging.  There is broad and deep support to reform or even abolish the senate that this kind of fantasy is very unessary.

The PM needs to fire some of advisors.  But I bet that with Nigel Wright gone, the talent isn't as good...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2013)

There is no broad and deep political consensus for reforming the Senate, and the PM has been making attempts to move forward for several years now, with a resounding "no" from the provinces as an answer.

This sort of thing makes the position of the provinces and the Senators themselves much weaker, while making the PM's hand much stronger.

While he may not have set things in motion, I'm sure he has been working to find the advantage to be had from this.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Oct 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Riiight.  There are far more effective ways to reform the senate than that kind of theater.


I don't think anyone here, or even the media Harper Haters,TM stated that this was some diabolical plot to set the stage for Senate reform.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Remius (31 Oct 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Or has the Prime Minister, being the master of poitical tactics, set things up to discredit the Senate and can now move ahead with Senate reform?



Sorry, when I read this I thought it was meant as some sort of allusion to a master plan of some sort.  apologies if I misinterpreted.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Oct 2013)

I wish people would stop treating this blip as some sort of palace coup. It's only news because the MSM, and the Opposition, is making it news.

If the MSM, the HoC and the Senate were *truly* interested it this, they would freeze *ALL* Senators expenses, call in an outside accounting firm and do a forensic audit on the whole senate.

But they're not going to. Why? Because they have a chance to embarrass the PM. That's it, that's all.

This isn't about hog troughing senators, or what the PM knew, or how the PMO handled it

This is simply childish, playground name calling and bullying. The MSM and the Opposition playing 'Gottcha'.

It really is the only thing they have to grasp hold of.

If anyone seriously thinks this could topple the government, they have to move to a planet where the sky is blue, because the one they're on is way out there.

 :boring:


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Oct 2013)

> Harper Haters,TM



I thought the media here and the US still have Bushitis.


----------



## Remius (31 Oct 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I wish people would stop treating this blip as some sort of palace coup. It's only news because the MSM, and the Opposition, is making it news.
> 
> If the MSM, the HoC and the Senate were *truly* interested it this, they would freeze *ALL* Senators expenses, call in an outside accounting firm and do a forensic audit on the whole senate.
> 
> ...



Well, I would hardly call this a blip.  It has been going on for almost a year now and it is mostly of the CPC's making.  From the poor decision to name them in the first place to throwing them under the bus to the ever changing stories.  So yes the media is all over it but, they keep feeding them.

It is relatively minor yes, agreed.  But it is hampering the government's effectiveness because they are forced to focus on this.  It also harms the credibility of the party and the PM.  Most people I know could care less about prorogation, stymied committees, limits on independents and backbenchers etc etc.  But this story has drama and they are all listening and watching or at least somewhat informed.  

Can anyone explain why in gawd's name they brought that senate motion forward when they did?  They should have just stayed the course, refer everything to the investigation at hand and carry on.  instead they have to deal with the monsters they created.

This won't topple the government but it is hurting them.  As I said, advisors should be sacked over this.


Edited for grammar


----------



## Jed (31 Oct 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well, I would hardly call this a blip.  It has been going on for almost a year now and it is mostly of the CPC's making.  From the poor decision to name them in the first place to throwing them under the bus to the ever changing stories.  So yes the media is all over it but, they keep feeding them.
> 
> It is relatively minor yes, agreed.  But it is hampering the government's effectiveness because they are forced to focus on this.  It also harms the credibility of the party and the PM.    Most people I know could care less about prorogation, stymied committees, limits on independents and backbenchers etc etc.  But this story has drama and they are all listening and watching or at least somewhat informed.
> 
> ...



It is truly amazing how the Harper Hater TM media can cog up the normal governmental process on matters of minimal importance. The same thing seems to be happening south of the border only it appears to me they tend to favor the current US administration against all common sense.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> It is truly amazing how the Harper Hater TM media can cog up the normal governmental process on matters of minimal importance. The same thing seems to be happening south of the border only it appears to me they tend to favor the current US administration against all common sense.




Sorry, I'm anything but a _Harper Hater_®, quite the reverse in fact, and I think these, dishonest legislators and an unelected legislative chambre, *are* matters of significant import.

The only saving grace, I think, is that next year, maybe early in 2015, but before the next election, the Auditor General will tell us that financial irresponsibility is the hallmark of many, too many Senators - Conservatives and Liberals alike - and the thrust towards serious reform will grow in intensity.


Edit: grammar  :-[


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Oct 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well, I would hardly call this a blip.  It has been going on for almost a year now and it is mostly of the CPC's making.  From the poor decision to name them in the first place to throwing them under the bus to the ever changing stories.  So yes the media is all over it but, they keep feeding them.



It's been going on for a year, simply because the MSM and the Opposition has nothing else to whine about. Throwing them under the bus? You're kidding right? What were they supposed to do, ignore what was going on? Duffy, et al, hung themselves.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> It is relatively minor yes, agreed.  But it is hampering the government's effectiveness because they are forced to focus on this.  It also harms the credibility of the party and the PM.  Most people I know could care less about prorogation, stymied committees, limits on independents and backbenchers etc etc.  But this story has drama and they are all listening and watching or at least somewhat informed.



Again, the only real drama is that created by Duffy's whiny, woeful obfuscation of the issue. That, and again, it's all the MSM and Opposition have to try pin on the PM.

This has as much drama as a daytime soap. A bad one at that. 



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why in gawd's name they brought that senate motion forward when they did?  They should have just stayed the course, refer everything to the investigation at hand and carry on.  instead they have to deal with the monsters they created.
> 
> This won't topple the government but it is hurting them.  As I said, advisors should be sacked over this.



Monster  :facepalm:

I'm sure Stephen Harper is reading this and will take your recommendations under advisement.

That's it. I just can't do this any more.  :ignore:


----------



## Remius (31 Oct 2013)

I'm sorry you are taking this personally Recceguy.  I actually enjoy the political threads on this forum and enjoy speculating, analysing and figuring out how things might play out.  Reminds me of dinner table conversations minus the personal attacks.  Feel free to ignore if you want but I prefer engaging conversation.  As such I will respond to some of your points without attacking you. 

Sadly, many of the base and many in the CPC circle are not willing to just put blinders on as to what is/might be going on.  They are voicing their concern.  I suspect some of those concerns will be aired at the convention.  There has been some tactical errors and things need to be fixed.  Dismissing it hasn't worked.

And one can blame the media only for so much.  Eventually one has to take a more objective look at things.  When even conservative pundits and talk radio hosts are voicing concern then it raises eyebrows.  

Aside from the current environment, an election is still far off. This story while far from over, will likely not have any more legs by 2015 and the media et al will probably be on to something else.  Hopefully the economy will be the real story by then and when the time comes, people will vote on that or other items of substance.

A year is a long time for damage to be made but a year is also a long time to change the channel and make people forget.   The CPC just hasn't figured out how to do that _yet_


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm anything but a _Harper Hater_®, quite the reverse in fact, and I think these, dishonest legislators and an unelected legislative chambre, *are* matters of significant import.
> 
> The only saving grace, I think, is that next year, maybe early in 2015, but before the next election, the Auditor General will tell us that financial irresponsibility is the hallmark of many, too many Senators - Conservatives and Liberals alike - and the thrust towards serious reform will grow in intensity.
> 
> ...




I just learned, last night, from a Senate insider, that *a)* the Auditor general's work has already started; *b)* the report is due in late 2014, but interim reports are likely; and *c)* names will be made public. That's good news for Prime Minister Harper and, likely, bad news for many individuals: Conservatives and Liberals alike.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2013)

I'm torn, but I'm putting this here because it's part of political discourse, even if it's also about procurement.

Am I the only one reading this as a government MP sorta-kinda back-handedly blaming the opposition for the death of at least some Canadian troops in Afghanistan in a statement to the House of Commons yesterday?


> Mr. Speaker, as November 11 approaches, I rise to remember 41 brave women and men from CFB Petawawa who made the supreme personal sacrifice for their country as members of the mission to Afghanistan.
> 
> Lest we forget, it was the decision of the previous government to play politics with military procurement. The short-sighted cancellation of the Sea King helicopter replacement contract led to many preventable casualties. By forcing our soldiers onto roads mined with bombs and improvised explosive devices, precious Canadian blood was spilt. Only after our Conservative government provided the right equipment, heavy-lift Chinook helicopters, did casualty levels drop.
> 
> Lest we forget, the opposition continues to play politics with military procurement. Come next election, we will remember.


Has anyone briefed whoever wrote this statement that (and I stand to be corrected) even if the Sea Kings were replaced by past management, those likely wouldn't have been the choppers used in Afghanistan?  Apples, meet oranges?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm torn, but I'm putting this here because it's part of political discourse, even if it's also about procurement.
> 
> Am I the only one reading this as a government MP sorta-kinda back-handedly blaming the opposition for the death of at least some Canadian troops in Afghanistan in a statement to the House of Commons yesterday?




I'm with you ... it's a cheap shot that attempts to exploit our war dead to score a partisan political point. Ms Gallant is a permanent backbencher, but she is popular in her (largely rural) riding and she's very pro-military; but her "pitbull" political tactics are often objectionable; this one certainly is.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm with you ... it's a cheap shot that attempts to exploit our war dead to score a partisan political point. Ms Gallant is a permanent backbencher, but she is popular in her (largely rural) riding and she's very pro-military; but her "pitbull" political tactics are often objectionable; this one certainly is.


Bad form, indeed.  Interesting, then, that it made it through whatever sausage machine is in place to vet such things.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm torn, but I'm putting this here because it's part of political discourse, even if it's also about procurement.
> 
> Am I the only one reading this as a government MP sorta-kinda back-handedly blaming the opposition for the death of at least some Canadian troops in Afghanistan in a statement to the House of Commons yesterday?Has anyone briefed whoever wrote this statement that (and I stand to be corrected) even if the Sea Kings were replaced by past management, those likely wouldn't have been the choppers used in Afghanistan?  Apples, meet oranges?



When I was there last in 09, there were SeaKings flying out of KAF.  If there had been new birds, who knows?


----------



## Remius (1 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I just learned, last night, from a Senate insider, that *a)* the Auditor general's work has already started; *b)* the report is due in late 2014, but interim reports are likely; and *c)* names will be made public. That's good news for Prime Minister Harper and, likely, bad news for many individuals: Conservatives and Liberals alike.



That is interesting indeed.  I can see two possible scenarios come of this.  One being good for the PM the other bad.

The bad being that the current senate debacle will have been abated but will once again be front and center with the media focusing on implicated or named Conservatives, particularly anyone named by PM Harper.

The good being that with some long time senators possibly being named, liberals in particular, the finger waving will stop from the liberals, and they might also get hurt in the process as will the CPC, with only the NDP having a foot to stand on (which really helps the CPC).  If the PM gets ahead of it and makes this his issue on tackling senate reform in a meaningful way. 

Either way, I predict a rash of early retirements from those who qualify from all quarters around or prior to the release of the report.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2013)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> When I was there last in 09, there were SeaKings flying out of KAF.


As in _Canadian_ Sea Kings?  Who knew (obviously, _me_)?  I had heard of Brit Sea Kings being in theatre ....





.... but not Canadian.


----------



## Remius (1 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm torn, but I'm putting this here because it's part of political discourse, even if it's also about procurement.
> 
> Am I the only one reading this as a government MP sorta-kinda back-handedly blaming the opposition for the death of at least some Canadian troops in Afghanistan in a statement to the House of Commons yesterday?Has anyone briefed whoever wrote this statement that (and I stand to be corrected) even if the Sea Kings were replaced by past management, those likely wouldn't have been the choppers used in Afghanistan?  Apples, meet oranges?



Yeah, it is a cheap shot using the dead for sure.  But she's said worse things before in my opinion.  This kind of statement is not damaging though.  She's popular in her riding, but I think people there would be better served by someone else.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Nov 2013)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> When I was there last in 09, there were SeaKings flying out of KAF.  If there had been new birds, who knows?


Those were not Canadian Sea Kings.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Nov 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> She's popular in her riding, but I think people there would be better served by someone else.


And that point right there is nothing but pure political snobbery.  "They deserve someone else".  Well, Mr. Crantor, it is up to her constituents to decide, _for themselves_, whom they want to elect to represent them in Ottawa.  Not you.  Not me.  Them.


Your opinion is noted, even though it's totally irrelevant.


----------



## Remius (1 Nov 2013)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And that point right there is nothing but pure political snobbery.  "They deserve someone else".  Well, Mr. Crantor, it is up to her constituents to decide, _for themselves_, whom they want to elect to represent them in Ottawa.  Not you.  Not me.  Them.
> 
> 
> Your opinion is noted, even though it's totally irrelevant.



Fair point.  Her riding association obviously supports her as the CPC candidate. It is their choice indeed and if they were unhappy with her they would apply whatever pressure to have her changed.  Her views have been a liability before and I guess I have a formed  an (and yes biased) opinion based on that.  However, on a more objective view of her, she is a hard working MP for her riding (I've seen her at a few military functions, grad parades etc in pet and know she attends much more than I've seen).  She's been relatively quiet about her social views compared to a few years ago as well.  But her brand of social conservatism has worried me in the past and is the kind that turns right of center people like myself away.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm with you ... it's a cheap shot that attempts to exploit our war dead to score a partisan political point. Ms Gallant is a permanent backbencher, but she is popular in her (largely rural) riding and she's very pro-military; but her "pitbull" political tactics are often objectionable; this one certainly is.


Also, if one had done their homework, they would have found out who/which party sold the old Chinooks in the early 1990s.

Wrong/sad statement on a number of levels.


----------



## Remius (1 Nov 2013)

Indeed.  But not likely to get any real traction.  As mentioned, some of her statements before have been objectional.  While sad and wrong it is pretty minor, and like many backbench MPs that have limited speaking time they try to score what they can when they can.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2013)

Here are two opinion pieces, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from, respectively, the _National Post_ and the _Globe and Mail_ that speak for me. One is outraged, the other is resigned and I guess that's how I feel: outraged and the conduct (and morals) of most politicians but resigned to the fact that we seem, today, to select our politicians from a rather shallow and stangnantpool:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/10/30/andrew-coyne-to-recap-the-prime-minister-is-not-responsible-for-almost-anything/


> To recap, the prime minister is not responsible for almost anything
> 
> Andrew Coyne | 30/10/13
> 
> ...



And ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-senates-real-problem-146-years-of-wink-nudge-and-shut-up/article15207287/#dashboard/follows/


> The Senate’s real problem: 146 years of ‘wink, nudge’ and shut up
> 
> ROD LOVE
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




One one key issue I agree wholly with Prime Minister Harper: senators and Members of Parliament, too who are found by our Auditor General to have defrauded you and me by misusing their allowances must go. 

I wonder how effective we can be with about 125 MPs and 25 senators?


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2013)

The Canadian Forces has a pretty basic and straightforward system of incidentals and per diem. If it is good enough for Pte Bloggins (who has an unlimited liability contract) then the same amount paid for incidentals and meals is good enough for senators, politicians and bureaucrats.

I'm sure a movement can be launched and the public can get behind this sort of leveling.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Canadian Forces has a pretty basic and straightforward system of incidentals and per diem. If it is good enough for Pte Bloggins (who has an unlimited liability contract) then the same amount paid for incidentals and meals is good enough for senators, politicians and bureaucrats.
> 
> I'm sure a movement can be launched and the public can get behind this sort of leveling.




CF members and federal bureaucrats have the same regulations.

Members of Parliament need and, in my opinion, deserve some special _perquisites_ ~ trips back to the riding, spousal travel, etc. But I agree that, for the most part, the government rates for  hotels, meals and incidentals are adequate for all, except for the approved rate for breakfasts - I don't think there's a hotel in the world that serves a breakfast at the Canadian government rate which is, I think, still under $10.00.

(But, when I was serving I used to go to some places where the approved rates were wholly inadequate and I claimed "reasonable and actual" - which meant a receipt for every single meal, taxi, phone call, laundry order, etc, etc, etc.)


----------



## GAP (1 Nov 2013)

Receipts are not a big deal.....businesses do it on a daily basis, I do it on a daily basis, and I am the guy to tallies it all up at month end.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Members of Parliament need and, in my opinion, deserve some special _perquisites_ ~ trips back to the riding, spousal travel, etc. But I agree that, for the most part, the government rates for  hotels, meals and incidentals are adequate for all, except for the approved rate for breakfasts - *I don't think there's a hotel in the world that serves a breakfast at the Canadian government rate which is, I think, still under $10.00*.


Happy to report a bit of progress on that front  ;D  The latest Treasury Board rates show $15.75 for brekkie for Canada/U.S. travel (going as high as $22 in Nunavut).


			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Receipts are not a big deal.....businesses do it on a daily basis, I do it on a daily basis, and I am the guy to tallies it all up at month end.


That may be true, but I think it would be less paperwork going without receipts.  Besides, the present fracas isn't about senators ripping off meal money


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> One one key issue I agree wholly with Prime Minister Harper: senators and Members of Parliament, too who are found by our Auditor General to have defrauded you and me by misusing their allowances must go.
> 
> I wonder how effective we can be with about 125 MPs and 25 senators?


Let the countdown of members continue - the latest via The Canadian Press ....


> Documents filed in court by RCMP investigators allege Sen. Pamela Wallin committed fraud and breach of trust "by filing inappropriate expense claims contrary to ... the Criminal Code."
> 
> The unproven allegations are related to an independent audit released in August that flagged more than $140,000 in questionable travel expenses Wallin claimed between Jan. 1, 2009, and Sept. 30, 2012 — expenses Wallin has since paid back ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Let the countdown of members continue - the latest via The Canadian Press ....




I just saw that. It appears that my "considerable sympathy for Sen Wallin" was misplaced.  :not-again:


----------



## Remius (1 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I just saw that. It appears that my "considerable sympathy for Sen Wallin" was misplaced.  :not-again:



But at least now for the PM, this justifies her dismissal and should add some much needed credibility to the actions of late.  I still believe the motion to suspend was premature and should have gone ahead only once charges had been laid.  This should  reduce some of the pressure and allow some good return fire on his part.   

Interesting turn of events.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2013)

Being somewhat cynical, I'll still stand behind this prediction:

The Senate story will be dropped like a hot rock the moment another Liberal Senator gets tagged by an audit or the RCMP. 

Notice there is one (former) Senator who was implicated before the Gang of Three, yet somehow never gets mentioned in these stories?


----------



## rifleman (2 Nov 2013)

I'd say it might be that the PMO wasnt appearing to make it go away


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> As in _Canadian_ Sea Kings?  Who knew (obviously, _me_)?  I had heard of Brit Sea Kings being in theatre ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry if I wasn't clear.  It was British SeaKings I was referring to as well.  I was wondering if our replacements  (had not Jean Chretien cancelled or 148's gone smoothly to date etc) might not have made an appearance.  I remember prior to my last tour that the subject of SeaKings to the sandbox came up and it was reported that they wouldn't be able to fly there because of the conditions (heat, altitude).  I saw the British there and said hmmm.  Mind you there's no way I'd want to trust our SeaKings over bandit territory.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Nov 2013)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ....they wouldn't be able to fly there because of the conditions (heat, altitude).  I saw the British there and said hmmm.


The British Sea Kings may look similar to ours, but their Rolls-Royce engines are more powerful than our General Electrics, and they have completely updated avionics.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Nov 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The British Sea Kings may look similar to ours, but their Rolls-Royce engines are more powerful than our General Electrics, and they have completely updated avionics.


Its nice to see someone knows about updating airframes. Apparently we don't. Maybe I'm being unfair.....


----------



## George Wallace (2 Nov 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Being somewhat cynical, I'll still stand behind this prediction:
> 
> The Senate story will be dropped like a hot rock the moment another Liberal Senator gets tagged by an audit or the RCMP.
> 
> Notice there is one (former) Senator who was implicated before the Gang of Three, yet somehow never gets mentioned in these stories?



Of course not.  He had enough time in the Senate, unlike these three, to "retire" with full pension.  These three do not have the time in to receive a pension, so I guess someone in a high position is hoping to save monies on not giving out three more extravagant pensions to them.  Of course the Canadian public are not perceiving this as a concern.


----------



## DBA (2 Nov 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Its nice to see someone knows about updating airframes. Apparently we don't. Maybe I'm being unfair.....



Deciding how much to spend on upgrades and major maintenance to current equipment while procuring replacements isn't easy. The longer the lead times on such activity the higher the stakes. The cost of an upgrade plus all the new spares needed will seem wasted money if the new equipment comes on time. Don't do the upgrades and you end up using outdated equipment with increasingly hard to acquire spares if replacements are late.  There is no way to get it right except in hindsight. 

Politically it makes for a no-win situation as one of "wasted money" or "deficient equipment" will always apply.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2013)

Back to the Senate for a bit:

One point I don't remember being made is that Harper campaigned on Senate reform. Arguably he has tried to reform the Senate and has been denied the opportunity by the people criticizing him now.  He was forced to make appointments when others failed to offer him candidates. He has referred the issue to the Supremes to determine what his arcs are.

His base had and has low expectations of the Senate.   He isn't losing them over this issue.

I believe that the worst that will happen is that the profile of Senate Reform will have been raised from a "risible" issue in the minds of the cognoscenti to a "critical" issue.  Depending on the timing of the Supreme's opinion Harper may be able to get it on the 2015 agenda with both an approved COA and a popular head of steam.

Interestingly enough the very issue that has stymied constitutional matters in the past might play into his hands now.  Anybody willing to bet that you couldn't find 50% of the population in 2/3 of the provinces willing to reform the Senate today? (Abolition is just a species of reform).

Harper might actually be able to create it as a wedge to cleave some Liberal and Dipper support in 2015.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2013)

WRT the Helos 

Not only did the Brits fly Sea Kings in Afghanistan (as well as Iraq and Oman) but they also flew Merlins (presumably the UTTH variant) in Afghanistan.

Had the Sea Kings been swapped for the Cormorant/Merlins they might easily have been used there.   Having said that, if that were the case the Chinooks might not have been bought and that would have been a shame.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't think there's a hotel in the world that serves a breakfast at the Canadian government rate which is, I think, still under $10.00.



With respect ERC,

I regularly spend time at Holiday Inn Express (and therefore actually qualify as an expert  ;D ) and get adequate quantities of the major food groups (grease, salt, sugar, coffee and orange juice) to start my day included in the price of the room.  And lest I be accused of promoting the Holiday Inn, I've noted a recent trend in the hotels out West to include both Bed and Breakfast in their standard price.

So if your per diem includes a $10.00 breakfast allowance you can pocket that.

Unfortunately no linen or hot and cold running waitresses are on offer.  Plastic and polystyrene are the order of the day.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Nov 2013)

Fair enough, Kirkhill. I was thinking about conferences I often attended where we had little or no choice of hotels and the options for breakfast ($20.00+ in the hotel a decade ago) were very limited i.e. no McDonalds down the street.

I was just remarking to a friend that I have some favourite hotels, especially in Asia, where the girls on staff *are* hot  :nod: by the way, and I stay in places that give me a "free"* full breakfast.

_____
* Of course: nothing is free but one balances cost and benefits to one's best advantage.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> With respect ERC,
> 
> I regularly spend time at Holiday Inn Express (and therefore actually qualify as an expert  ;D ) and get adequate quantities of the major food groups (grease, salt, sugar, coffee and orange juice) to start my day included in the price of the room.  And lest I be accused of promoting the Holiday Inn, I've noted a recent trend in the hotels out West to include both Bed and Breakfast in their standard price.
> 
> So if your per diem includes a $10.00 breakfast allowance you can pocket that.



No.  If breakfast is provided, you are not entitled to claim it and should remove it from your claim.

Claiming a meal that is already provided is fraud.


----------



## Remius (2 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No.  If breakfast is provided, you are not entitled to claim it and should remove it from your claim.
> 
> Claiming a meal that is already provided is fraud.



Correct, but correct me if I'm wrong but if a continental is provided, I believe you can still claim a certain difference as some of those "breakfasts" are hardly a meal and are entitled to a certain differential.  Ie, juice and muffin is what you get you could still claim 6$ towards a bagel and coffee at timmies.  I think it's a set amount but not sure.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No.  If breakfast is provided, you are not entitled to claim it and should remove it from your claim.
> 
> Claiming a meal that is already provided is fraud.



Different institutions, different rules perhaps.

The places that I have worked where a per diem was the standard then the per diem was calculated as a sum of prescribed allocations (room, breakfast, lunch, supper, perhaps local transport) and you were granted a fixed sum from which to find those requirements.

If you chose to stay at pricier hotels and pick up the additional costs yourself that was your affair.  If you chose to skip breakfast and lunch and buy a four star meal that, equally, was your affair.  If you chose to stay in low rent hotels and pocket the change,  again your affair (within limits the companies had certain standards necessary for marketing image).

On the other hand, the alternative to the per diem system was, and is, submitting claims for each expenditure.  In which case, submitting an unreceipted claim for a full breakfast covered in the hotel cost is, indeed, fraud.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Nov 2013)

The media and the natinal _commentariat_ has now chewed over Prime Minister Harper's address to the CPC Convention, some coverage was _balanced_, but  some was despairing and some was even helpful to those trying to understand what went on for a full 45 minutes.

It was, as John Ibbitson suggests, a speech which was carefully aimed at one smallish audience: the CPC base. Prime Minister Harper tsakes no interest in what the national media, especially the parliamentary press gallery, thinks or even says about him and his ideas. Jeffrey Simpson doesn't even exist in Stephen Harper's mind and he, Harper, is indifferent to the few thousand Canadians who hang on Simpson's every word.

I have said before that the CPC _base_ is not monolithic ~ it is, like the Liberal Party of Canada, a fairly big tent. The speech needed 45 minutes because Prime Minister Harper had to speak, however briefly, to each component of his base ~ there was even something for "small government" Conservatives like me, a segment that is usually overlooked.

I was dismayed, but not overly surprised, to hear the CBC's James Cudmore, usually a better reporter than many, misunderstand Prime Minister Harper's remarks about the courts trying to prevent Senate reform: he was talking about the recent Quebec Court decision, not the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2013)

To be honest I think he did achieve his aim.  With some grumblings from the base about recent events he had no choice but to address the base.  TBH I thought he would steer clear of the whole senate thing but by briefly touching on it and not dwelling on it I think it was (his speech) pretty effective and _I think_ we'll see a re-energised CPC.  Some will bemoan him for not taking a more mea culpa type of speech (which really is something the media and interested) in that regard but as Mr. Campbell has stated, he was appealing to his base and not the nation.  

It will always be difficult to find a balanced view without listening to many sides but I can still understand Cudmore's point (although likely misunderstood) given that the media is literally taking every thing word for word when it comes to the PM.  It seems like semantics at times but they will attach litteral meaning to his every word, and can see why he has to stay on message less it be distorted.


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Nov 2013)

And Brazeau has also jumped on the "It's not my fault" bandwagon:  Suspension debate ends with Brazeau warning to colleagues: 'It can happen to you'


----------



## dapaterson (5 Nov 2013)

A little seasonal humour...


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2013)

Would it be Guy?


----------



## Lightguns (5 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A little seasonal humour...



Remember, remember, the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and plot ;
I know of no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot. 
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes,
'Twas his intent.
To blow up the King and the Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below.
Poor old England to overthrow.
By God's providence he was catch'd,
With a dark lantern and burning match 

LOL, for those not consumed by English culture!


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A little seasonal humour...



I'll go with the Catholic Gentleman from England.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Nov 2013)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'll go with the Catholic Gentleman from England.   ;D



Jacobite !!!!  Cavalier !!!! Tory !!!!  >


----------



## GAP (5 Nov 2013)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'll go with the Catholic Gentleman from England.   ;D



couldn't remember his name huh?  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Nov 2013)

It's a start...  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-votes-to-suspend-brazeau-duffy-wallin-1.2415815


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2013)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's a start...  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-votes-to-suspend-brazeau-duffy-wallin-1.2415815




Yes, and I heard Sen (LGen (Ret'd) Roméo Dallaire on the radio and he sounded as though he expects to be "caught" when the Auditor General reports ~ the report being due in late 2014. As John Ivison has suggested in the _National Post_ that could well be the most helpful interaction any PM ever has with the AG if, as I expect it will, it shows a broadly based disregard for financial propriety.


----------



## GAP (5 Nov 2013)

I am of the mind that "due process" was not followed.

1. The rules of the senate do not allow them to do that without a criminal conviction
2. The partisan nature of the committee's does not lend itself to credibility.
3. An outside, independent accounting of all senators should have been done before decisions like
    this were made
4. The courts should decide criminality, not some senators with an agenda.
and.....
5. This is going to come back and bite them in the ass, big time.
6. This will not help Harper, it looks too vindictive and panicy 

my  :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2013)

Plus, I suspect that the Senate's actions may preclude any future legal actions, deserved though they may be. As I understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected, when the police finish their investigation they take their case to a (maybe three) crown prosecutor who then decides if there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction in court. I'm guessing that judges and lawyers might find all the evidence already used by or "published" in the the Senate as being tainted and the crown prosecutor(s) will decline to take the case to court so Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin  will "skate," while Harb, who resigned before this could be done to him, will be prosecuted in court.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...... so Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin  will "skate," while Harb, who resigned before this could be done to him, will be prosecuted in court.


Sorry; Mac Harb was a Liberal appointee.  He'll never see a day in court.

/cynicism


----------



## pbi (6 Nov 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sorry; Mac Harb was a Liberal appointee.  He'll never see a day in court.
> 
> /cynicism



All the more reasons for the Tories to go after him, to get a balance in the body count.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2013)

Rumour has it that the Auditor General, whose final report on Senators is due in late 2014, will both: _*a)*_ make interim reports; and _*b)*_ name names. My guess is that Conservative, Independent, Liberal and Progressive Conservative senators will all be _stung_. Coupled with the fact that I am 99.99% certain that the _Surpemes_ will say that abolition of the Senate is not possible without a major _Constitutional_ overhaul but some (considerable?) reform is within the Prime Minister's powers, I think the AG will give Prime Minister Harper a huge stick with which to beat the Senate reform  :deadhorse: in the 2015 election campaign. Plus, I think it, Senate reform, will be a winning issue for the CPC.


----------



## Remius (6 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Rumour has it that the Auditor General, whose final report on Senators is due in late 2014, will both: _*a)*_ make interim reports; and _*b)*_ name names. My guess is that Conservative, Independent, Liberal and Progressive Conservative senators will all be _stung_. Coupled with the fact that I am 99.99% certain that the _Surpemes_ will say that abolition of the Senate is not possible without a major _Constitutional_ overhaul but some (considerable?) reform is within the Prime Minister's powers, I think the AG will give Prime Minister Harper a huge stick with which to beat the Senate reform  :deadhorse: in the 2015 election campaign. Plus, I think it, Senate reform, will be a winning issue for the CPC.



Hmm.  I heard that a preliminary report naming names may come out as early as Dec.  and has many senators on edge.  I'm sure that many of those, qualifying for pensions might make quiet or speedy exits a la Mac Harb to avoid prolonged spotlight.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Plus, I think it, Senate reform, will be a winning issue for the CPC.



Until someone brings out the footage of the PM cavorting with Mike, Pat & Pam, and points out that they were named to the Senate on the PM's recommenadation.

"Look at the crooks I named to the Senate! I'm the only one who can clean it up!"  does not resonate.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Until someone brings out the footage of the PM cavorting with Mike, Pat & Pam, and points out that they were named to the Senate on the PM's recommenadation.
> 
> "Look at the crooks I named to the Senate! I'm the only one who can clean it up!"  does not resonate.


And I'm sure electing senators will certainly keep party politics & partisanship out of the process too, right?


----------



## Remius (6 Nov 2013)

I guess the real test will be to see how the PM and the leader of the third party react to their members being named.  Will they throw them out of caucus and will there be government motions to have them suspended without pay.  It will be curious to see how consistant everyone is.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2013)

Suspended generally means being set aside until further developments.

IF the AG comes out with an interim report describing improprieties and naming names, could the PM not  do the following?

1.  Declare that it has become apparent that the Senate rules are poorly understood and even more poorly policed

2.  Declare, further, that steps will be taken to improve the Senate's internal economy

3.  Since the problems that the Hon BDW experienced are inherent in the system and not solely the fault of the miscreants/unfortunates they will be reinstated to their duties with/without backpay.  

Go forth and sin no more!


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2013)

So, a question:  The motions suspended the Senators, but granted them continued coverage under various benefit plans.

Does that not constitute a financial action?  By custom, the Senate cannot originate financial bills; would the decision to extend benefits to Senators even while suspended not break that rule of Parliament?


----------



## pbi (6 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Suspended generally means being set aside until further developments.
> 
> IF the AG comes out with an interim report describing improprieties and naming names, could the PM not  do the following?....Go forth and sin no more!



No: I think it would be a political train wreck for him. It would not satisfy the blood hounds and Senate killers in the CPC base, and it would make him look inconsisent or dithering in front of the Opposition. Not to mention the stink that the Three Bad Mice would put up after being dragged through the sh*t pond.


----------



## Remius (6 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, a question:  The motions suspended the Senators, but granted them continued coverage under various benefit plans.
> 
> Does that not constitute a financial action?  By custom, the Senate cannot originate financial bills; would the decision to extend benefits to Senators even while suspended not break that rule of Parliament?



I believe it is an administrative action.  They didn't pass any bills, only a motion.  A government motion which is odd for that sort of thing but if you are trying to stop debate (closure) and get on with it it is the most effective way to do it.


----------



## Remius (6 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> No: I think it would be a political train wreck for him. It would not satisfy the blood hounds and Senate killers in the CPC base, and it would make him look inconsisent or dithering in front of the Opposition. Not to mention the stink that the Three Bad Mice would put up after being dragged through the **** pond.



Agreed.  Inconsitancy has been damaging so far.  The fall out would not be good if they do not use the same standards applied.  The media would jump all over that.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> No: I think it would be a political train wreck for him. It would not satisfy the blood hounds and Senate killers in the CPC base, and it would make him look inconsisent or dithering in front of the Opposition. Not to mention the stink that the Three Bad Mice would put up after being dragged through the **** pond.



You're probably right.  It'll be interesting to watch Harper (try to) tidy up the pieces over the next two years.  He has until Oct 19 2015 to get it right.

Key elements:

Balance budget and move back into surplus  
Sort the Pipelines
Sort the Senate Reform issue
Sort Military Procurement generally and the F35/FWSAR in particular 

Detail:  See if he can gain traction of NDHQ staffing. 

The first two supply the money
The second both appeals to Harper and his base as well as being necessary to remove a stench from the nose of everyone else
With money in place then sorting military procurement becomes easier/more acceptable.


----------



## Remius (6 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Balance budget and move back into surplus



Ultimately, _this_ is the most important part.  While everything else is likely secondary. But if you screw up too many secondary targets, your primary target might not be enough.


----------



## pbi (6 Nov 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Ultimately, _this_ is the most important part.  While everything else is likely secondary. But if you screw up too many secondary targets, your primary target might not be enough.


I certainly have my differences with this flavour of Tories, but if there is one area where I think they have strength and promise it is that of managing the economy (or at least managing govt spending and programs in a way that helps the economy or hurts it least.)

I am an economic ignoramus, but I think they can use their majority powers to impose things that hurt a bit right now, but may set us well for the future.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2013)

Bruce MacKinnon, in the Halifax _Chronicle Herald_, gets it about right:






Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2013-11-07-editorial-cartoon

Maybe this belongs in the _*C*onservatism Needs Work_ section ~ some _*C*onservatives_ need work, that's for sure.


----------



## CougarKing (9 Nov 2013)

More on Trudeau's gaffe from his so-called "ladies' night" earlier this week...

Trudeau admires China's "basic dictatorship"...  (was he even aware that China is more of a one-party oligarchy than a single-leader autocracy?)

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

At least he's "honest" about what he REALLY wants...absolute power.  :

National Post



> *At Toronto fundraiser, Justin Trudeau seemingly admires China’s ‘basic dictatorship’*
> 
> *Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is facing criticism for confiding an apparent admiration for China’s dictatorial tendencies during a “ladies-night” themed fundraiser held in Toronto on Thursday.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2013)

I think M. Trudeau is no different than the average well educated* young_ish_ Canadian: he knows little or nothing about any topic except in his relatively - in his case very - narrow area of expertize. M. Trudeau's area of expertize is, I guess, drama ~ that's what he taught, in a high school, wasn't it? I don't expect him to understand Chinese politics ... or I wouldn't if he didn't aspire to be Prime Minister of Canada while I am still alive. And I don't even expect him to "known" even then, just to have surrounded himself with smart advisors who will tell him to not say incredibly stupid things in public, as Prime Minister Harper has. My *guess* is that the reason Prime Minister Harper is so taciturn is that he knows that he doesn't know all that stuff.

M. Trudeau is not ready, yet ...

_____
* Well educated = two university degrees ... three if the first two are in a "hard science."


----------



## pbi (10 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think M. Trudeau is no different than the average well educated* young_ish_ Canadian: he knows little or nothing about any topic except in his relatively - in his case very - narrow area of expertize. ... M. Trudeau is not ready, yet ...
> 
> _____
> * Well educated = two university degrees ... three if the first two are in a "hard science."



My feelings exactly. 

While I believe strongly that democracy is only healthy when there are a range of party choices available to keep the incumbents "honest" and the voting populace interested, I don't see this Trudeau as a viable candidate for PM. If he doesn't appeal to me, can you imagine how he plays with all the folks to the Right of me? 

I am also quite worried about what would happen if his current defence advisor were to become MND and was able to give unfettered free reign to some of his ideas. >


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> My feelings exactly.
> 
> While I believe strongly that democracy is only healthy when there are a range of party choices available to keep the incumbents "honest" and the voting populace interested, I don't see this Trudeau as a viable candidate for PM. If he doesn't appeal to me, can you imagine how he plays with all the folks to the Right of me?
> 
> I am also quite worried about what would happen if his current defence advisor were to become MND and was able to give unfettered free reign to some of his ideas. >



Actually, I'm less pessimistic. We survived Trudeau _Père_ and I am confident we will survive Trudeau _Fils_. And yes, that means I expect Justin Trudeau to become prime minister of Canada: hopefully not until 2019 or after, but sooner or later. By then I expect him to have a better team, and Andrew Leslie may or may not be part of it.

The Liberal Party of Canada remains deeply divided. The division was created at the Kingston Conference of 1960 and was deepened and widened by Pierre Trudeau. Pierre Trudeau was an early NDP stalwart (he was an Eastern _silk stocking socialist_, not a prairie _coop_ type who supported the CCF) but he joined the Liberal Party after the Kingston Conference and was recruited into the national party by Mike Pearson who, while remaining a traditional _conservative_ (St Laurent) Liberal, opened the door to the political left. The division has never healed and it remains a real, serious, political problem. In 2015 M. Trudeau will, above all, have to fight against Thomas Mulcair in Quebec and Quebec is the most _socialist_ province in Canada. M. Trudeau will need to "campaign left" in French even if that will cause him problems in Ontario and the West ~ but so will M. Mulcair and NDP so only the Conservatives gain from that. But, eventually, in 2019 or later, M. Trudeau's Liberals will get the formula right and will come to power.


----------



## CougarKing (10 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> I am also quite worried about what would happen if his current defence advisor were to become MND and was able to give unfettered free reign to some of his ideas. >



Do you mean John Mackay, their one-time Liberal defence critic? Unless he made Marc Garneau or retired Gen. Leslie as Trudeau's advisor and I didn't catch it...

Question: does the Liberal defence critic automatically become the MND once they get into power? Or isn't there some shuffling involved once the reality of a party's win sinks in...  ???


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Do you mean John Mackay, their one-time Liberal defence critic? Unless he made Marc Garneau or retired Gen. Leslie as Trudeau's advisor and I didn't catch it...
> 
> Question: does the Liberal defence critic automatically become the MND once they get into power? Or isn't there some shuffling involved once the reality of a party's win sinks in...  ???




M. Trudeau announced, publicly, that Andrew Leslie joined "his newly formed advisory council on international affairs". We can assume he wants LGen (Ret'd) Leslie for both his international and military insights.

You are correct: _cabinet making_ in Canada, especially, is a fine art that pays little attention to professional qualifications. And, of course, LGen Leslie must, first, convince voters to send him to parliament ~ something his grandfather failed to do.


----------



## pbi (10 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> M. Trudeau announced, publicly, that Andrew Leslie joined "his newly formed advisory council on international affairs". We can assume he wants LGen (Ret'd) Leslie for both his international and military insights.
> 
> You are correct: _cabinet making_ in Canada, especially, is a fine art that pays little attention to professional qualifications. And, of course, LGen Leslie must, first, convince voters to send him to parliament ~ something his grandfather failed to do.



And which I doubt he will do either.


----------



## pbi (10 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm less pessimistic. We survived Trudeau _Père_ and I am confident we will survive Trudeau _Fils_. And yes, that means I expect Justin Trudeau to become prime minister of Canada: hopefully not until 2019 or after, but sooner or later. By then I expect him to have a better team, and Andrew Leslie may or may not be part of it....



When I said "this Trudeau" I wasn't clear. Maybe I should have said "this Trudeau, right now". I agree that if he survives politically for the next few years, and develops a more mature image, and at the same time can "re-invent" the Liberal Party to deal with the alienation/decline of its traditional bases, then yes, he might do it.

Unfortunately, his lack of wisdom is shown by the ridiculously thoughtless comment he made about China. His advisors must have cringed. I heard today on CBC that some (unspecified) Asian Canadians are very upset and are demanding an apology or retraction. IMHO, this is another example of  Liberals shooting themselves in the face with a constituency of growing electoral importance. (One that the Tories have been doing increasingly well with).


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Nov 2013)

Our whole system is rotten. Parties care only about pandering for votes, pushing their social agenda on us and enacting screwed up laws (such as the latest in Ontario, forcing barbers to learn how to style hair or face fines!)
This is why I will no longer vote, because I refuse to participate in beauty/popularity contests.


I can't believe I deployed to fight for such a rotten system.


----------



## larry Strong (10 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, his lack of wisdom is shown by the ridiculously thoughtless comment he made about China. His advisers must have cringed. I heard today on CBC that some (unspecified) Asian Canadians  are very upset and are demanding an apology or retraction. IMHO, this is another example of  Liberals shooting themselves in the face with a constituency of growing electoral importance. (One that the Tories have been doing increasingly well with).



A little more about who wants the apology. From the CBC of all places...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/justin-trudeau-s-foolish-china-remarks-spark-anger-1.2421351


----------



## pbi (10 Nov 2013)

Yes: I heard their spokeswoman on the CBC today. 

BTW, the CBC is actually not a tool of Satan. It clearly isn't Fox News, or the Sun, or even the National Post, but I don't find that it nearly lives up to the rep it gets around here.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> BTW, the CBC is actually not a tool of Satan. It clearly isn't Fox News, or the Sun, or even the National Post, but I don't find that it nearly lives up to the rep it gets around here.


We'll have to agree to disagree.  

I'll listen to CBC Radio for music and interviews, but *their TV is news is absolute garbage*.  

For international news, I get much more balanced reporting from al-Jazeera English  (That's NOT sarcasm;  al-Jazeera is a _very_ credible international news source, since they're going out of their way to be seen as objective.)


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Nov 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> For international news, I get much more balanced reporting from al-Jazeera English  (That's NOT sarcasm;  al-Jazeera is a _very_ credible international news source, since they're going out of their way to be seen as objective.)



I enjoy their news coverage as well, I think western media should be modeling how they do business after AJZ.


----------



## pbi (10 Nov 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> We'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I'll listen to CBC Radio for music and interviews, but *their TV is news is absolute garbage*.
> 
> For international news, I get much more balanced reporting from al-Jazeera English  (That's NOT sarcasm;  al-Jazeera is a _very_ credible international news source, since they're going out of their way to be seen as objective.)



I don't usually watch their news that much, as I don't watch TV very often. I read their web news every AM, and listen to their radio news while out in the car.  I've been listening to "Ideas", "As It Happens" and "Cross-Country Checkup" for about 30 years now.  I haven't looked at Al Jazeera yet (maybe I will...) but I do look at BBC and, for comic relief, Pravda.


----------



## larry Strong (10 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Yes: I heard their spokeswoman on the CBC today.
> 
> BTW, the CBC is actually not a tool of Satan. It clearly isn't Fox News, or the Sun, or even the National Post, but I don't find that it nearly lives up to the rep it gets around here.



You are correct, and that was not my implication. I was quite surprised that they were critical of JT....

I also read the CBC web news on a daily basis, along with others from all ends of the spectrum.


Larry


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Nov 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> We'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I'll listen to CBC Radio for music and interviews, but *their TV is news is absolute garbage*.
> 
> For international news, I get much more balanced reporting from al-Jazeera English  (That's NOT sarcasm;  al-Jazeera is a _very_ credible international news source, since they're going out of their way to be seen as objective.)


I agree with this 100%. And I like the BBC.


----------



## Scott (10 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> I don't usually watch their news that much, as I don't watch TV very often. I read their web news every AM, and listen to their radio news while out in the car.  I've been listening to "Ideas", "As It Happens" and "Cross-Country Checkup" for about 30 years now.  I haven't looked at Al Jazeera yet (maybe I will...) but I do look at BBC and, for comic relief, Pravda.



I have CBC Radio going almost all the time. I have learned to shut it down any time Evan Solomon or Terry Many Letters are on - too much blood pressure.

I have a digitial subscription and weekend delivery of the Chronicle Herald. They have gotten much more balanced, IMO, and have a couple of guys who can flat out tell a story, one of whom I know personally. Bruce MacKinnon is always a plus as well.

I read BBC online since starting work in the UK good for updates on wrecks over there, or the everlasting debate on the Aberdeen Airport Bypass - and pissing off Donald Trump ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2013)

For me it's the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 for news ~ of all sorts, not just business/economics, analysis ~ again of all sorts, and opinion. I find it: balanced, focused, literate and sensible.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Nov 2013)

It's a mistake to take anything away from reportage except the basic facts: something happened, somewhere, somewhen.  Anything resembling interpretation is untrustworthy.

How often does anyone write accurately about something concerning the CF?  And why would you imagine any other reporter covering any other beat to be any better?  People writing the news are not the best and brightest in the university system, often have nakedly clear political preferences, and not many these days seem to work very hard to become reliable beat reporters.


----------



## CougarKing (12 Nov 2013)

;D

National Post



> *Andrew Coyne: Justin Trudeau’s gaffes reveal the gulf between his intellectual reach and grasp*
> 
> Not everything that comes out of Justin Trudeau’s mouth is simple-minded prattle, though you could be forgiven for thinking so. The Liberal leader has long made a habit of sticking his tongue into the nearest electrical outlet, and shows no sign of giving it up. It is harder and harder to see this as a refreshing candour, or even a dangerously loose lip. Rather, we seem to be tapping directly into the workings of a cluttered and undisciplined mind.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (12 Nov 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> One gaffe does not disqualify him from office, nor even do four or five. But the more evidence they are given of his flightiness, the less willing Canadians will be to hand him the keys to the car.


This presumes that Canadian voters reflect sufficiently _at all _on what these gaffes indicate about Trudeau himself, rather than just chalk it up to some form of a Harper-esque media conspiracy designed to unfairly embarrass the anointed one.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Nov 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> This presumes that Canadian voters reflect sufficiently _at all _on what these gaffes indicate about Trudeau himself, rather than just chalk it up to some form of a Harper-esque media conspiracy designed to unfairly embarrass the anointed one.



The voters who believe that Mr Harper controls the MSM are already convinced of Mr Trudeau's divinity. Much better to focus on the ones who aren't.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Nov 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Much better to focus on the ones who aren't.


Fair enough   :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Nov 2013)

This ruling, by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, "Ontario court rules mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes unconstitutional" is a blow struck *for* law and order.

The CPC have proposed and passed poorly drafted laws and the courts are overturning the most egregious errors.

No one doubts, I hope, that those who use deadly weapons, including firearms, during the commission of a crime should be locked up for a long time - I'd say ten years. But, as Ontario's top courts noted: "The law as written could capture anyone from a person keeping an unloaded restricted gun, with ammunition accessible, in their cottage when their licence requires it to be in their home." The court also noted that its "ruling has no significant impact on sentences for people engaged in criminal conduct or who pose a danger to others, saying they should continue to receive sentences to emphasize [both] deterrence and denunciation."

I am persuaded that the bad drafting has two sources: politicians demanding draconian measures and civil servants intentionally sabotaging the legislation - knowing appeals courts will strike it down.


----------



## Remius (12 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am persuaded that the bad drafting has two sources: politicians demanding draconian measures and civil servants intentionally sabotaging the legislation - knowing appeals courts will strike it down.



I would respectfully agree with the first part and disagree with the second.  That law was rammed through the system as an omnibus bill with little to no committee work done on it and debate on the bill was severely limited by the government.  It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that it would be challenged and likely declared unconstitutional.  While the intent might seem good the execution wasn't.

Here's a National Post article in regards to that: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/02/omnibus-crime-bill-rushed-through-senate-liberal-senators-say/

Modified to add source.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Nov 2013)

Common law has within it the ability to deal with specific circumstances, mitigating or aggravating.  Minimum sentencing takes this flexibility away.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Nov 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Common law has within it the ability to deal with specific circumstances, mitigating or aggravating.  Minimum sentencing takes this flexibility away.




Exactly: judicial discretion is an advantage almost all the time - but in a few, a very few, instances judicial decisions are hard to fathom, especially by a _detached_ general public and then politicinas feel compelled to weigh in.

But, the CPC's "law and order" agenda is there to appeal to a distressingly (to me) large share of the Conservative base.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I am persuaded that the bad drafting has two sources: politicians demanding draconian measures and civil servants intentionally sabotaging the legislation - knowing appeals courts will strike it down.




Bad drafting on my part ...

I'm not suggesting that civil servants are deliberately sabotaging legislation out of partisanship, rather I'm suggesting that they just throw their hands up in the air, in the face of obtuse political direction, and say, "Well, OK, if you say so ~ we'll just wait for the courts to confirm that you're wrong."


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Nov 2013)

Sometimes you just have to let the wheel fall off in order to get it fixed properly.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... LGen Leslie must, first, convince voters to send him to parliament ~ something his grandfather failed to do.


And here's where that convincing may happen ....


> Retired general Andrew Leslie is looking for an Ottawa riding in which to run for Parliament and is leaning toward Ottawa-Orléans.
> 
> Leslie, who was chief of the land staff and then chief of transformation for the Canadian Forces, left the military in 2011 to become a private consultant and signed up as an adviser to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau last September.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It’s a complicated, growing riding with a large francophone population and a major military presence, he said...


He'll fit in well as a  politician -- being out of touch with reality and all -- if he thinks a military-populated riding is a benefit.  Many of us know him too well to ever vote for the self-aggrandizing menace; maybe he should back away from his mirror and press-clippings for a bit and reconsider his campaign strategy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> He'll fit in well as a  politician -- being out of touch with reality and all -- if he thinks a military-populated riding is a benefit.  Many of us know him too well to ever vote for the self-aggrandizing menace; maybe he should back away from his mirror and press-clippings for a bit and reconsider his campaign strategy.


No need to sugar coat it, tell us what you REALLY think  ;D


----------



## Remius (15 Nov 2013)

It's also heavily populated with public servants.  Given the showdown with the PS he might actually benefit as most people outside of the Army really don't know much about him.

_Edited for phrase structure_


----------



## Infanteer (15 Nov 2013)

To bad that, out of all those military members, barely any of them vote in that riding.  Military members vote in the riding that is on their MPRR which is generally where they enrolled from.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> To bad that, out of all those military members, barely any of them vote in that riding.  Military members vote in the riding that is on their MPRR which is generally where they enrolled from.



Some do.  Some don't.  Their families, however, do not have that capability.  Their spouses, and voting age children, perhaps a Reservist or two in that lot, would have some inclination as to who he was from talk within the family circle.  There are also a large number of Reservists and civilian DND employees, not to mention Retired Service Members, still residing in ORLEANS.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Some do.  Some don't.  Their families, however, do not have that capability.  Their spouses, and voting age children, perhaps a Reservist or two in that lot, would have some inclination as to who he was from talk within the family circle.  There are also a large number of Reservists and civilian DND employees, not to mention Retired Service Members, still residing in ORLEANS.




Two points:

     1. Ottawa—Orléans has a strong Francophone base and they, rather than the newer suburbanites, tend to vote _en masse_. The riding was held from 1988 through 2004 by Liberal Eugène Bellemare. The Tories ran a "star" _Anglo_ candidate,
         Walter Robinson, in 2004, and he was an odds on favourite, but he was, narrowly, upset by relative unknown Liberal Marc Godbout. The riding has been held since 2008 by Conservative Royal Galipeau; and

     2. Voting is in decline across Canada but Ottawa—Orléans is still recording 70%+ turnout. My _perception_ is that the Francophone base in the riding votes for one of its own.

My suspicion is that Andrew Leslie will find Ottawa—Orléans a challenge against a Francophone Conservative ... any Francophpne Conservative.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Nov 2013)

An interesting observation from the _Twitterverse_ by CBC journalist Tonda MacCharles: "I'm guessing Kenney Nation in GTA is broader than Ford Nation."

I'm guessing she's right and that, therefore, Prime Minister Harper is not mourning the demise of Mayor Ford ... except that he's enjoyed the respite it provided from the media's focus on the Senate Scandal.®


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Nov 2013)

And here, in this column which is reproduced uder the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, the _Laurentian elites_ fire back:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/ford-nation-stands-by-its-man-no-matter-what/article15519571/#dashboard/follows/


> Ford nation stands by its man. No. Matter. What.
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




There is a _Laurentian consensus_ and Jeffrey Simpson is one of its most prominent representatives.

He, and they, are ...






                                   ... he, Simpson, and they, the rest of the _Laurentian elites_ can see the meteors smashing their world, but they cannot understand what is happening.

It's not 30% of Canadians who are Tory, come what may, it's closer to 20%, maybe even fewer. The 30+% who support Stephen Harper, right now, despite e.g. the _Senate Scandal_® are doing so because, as Margaret Thatcher so famously said: *There Is No Alternative*. It is likely, as I have said before, that _Kenney Nation_ is bigger and far, far more important than_Ford Nation_ and it is the very existence of _Kenney Nation_ that baffles Simpson, _et al_.






Nor is it low taxes that drives _Kenney Nation_; it is smaller, less intrusive government and they understand that paying less means we all get less. _Kenney Nation_ understands that paying taxes is one of the prices we all pay for a sensible, civilized community but they want "value for money" and they understand that about half the departments and agencies on this list do not provide good, or even barely acceptable value for money. That's why the Auditor General, not Stephen Harper, is their real hero.

Jeffrey Simpson is bewildered by _Ford Nation_ but it's not the threat to him and his Green/Liberal/NDP world; it is _Kenney Nation_, based in suburbs West of the Ottawa River, that will spell doom for the _Laurentian elites_.


----------



## pbi (20 Nov 2013)

Although I generally agree with the points ERC raises about the angst-filled decline of the Laurentian Consensus crew, I have to say that Simpson, like him or not, does raise some common sense and logical questions about the thought processes that seem to drive the FordNation folks. I don't understand, either, how these people can apparently push the "override" button on circuits that I understood were pretty deeply hardwired in the conservative psyche.

I've rambled endlessly on and on over just about all of these at some point or another on various threads, but the dissonance (IMHO) comes down to:

1) Support for Law and Order/Tough on Crime/Support the Police VS "Rob's Just A Guy Like Me'n You! Leave Him Alone!"; "It's only personal problems!"; or "The Toronto Police are Out of Control!". I just can't imagine that this kind of charitable and compassionate thinking would be extended to "gang bangers" or to lesser public servants or to politicians that the FordNation doesn't like. Or that any of these good folks have recently criticized the Toronto Police for other episodes where maybe they were out of line;

2) Zero Tolerance for Drugs VS "He Only Did It Once"/"He Only Does It On His Own Time"/"Yeah, You All Do It Too!". How many of these FordNation types want drugs being bought and sold in their neighborhoods, or want drinking drivers on their streets?;

3) Family Values VS well...you get it.

Can lefty people engage in the same mental gymnastics? Yes, probably. IMHO it has very little do with where you hang your hat on the political spectrum and lots to do with our ability to shut out reality as it suits us.


----------



## Remius (20 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Can lefty people engage in the same mental gymnastics? Yes, probably. IMHO it has very little do with where you hang your hat on the political spectrum and lots to do with our ability to shut out reality as it suits us.



 :goodpost:

This part.  I've been critical of the actions of certain parties and individual and for some reason for some people that translates to being for the other guy when it does not.  Some people will never change their opinion and no matter how much you try to convince them that they are looking at a cat they'll still tell you it's a dog when that's what they want it to be.

Politics these days is getting incredibly (and depressingly) partisan.


----------



## Remius (20 Nov 2013)

Well, seems like the media is shifting back to the senate with the latest:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wright-duffy-accused-of-bribery-fraud-in-new-rcmp-documents-1.2433427

Some interesting stuff in there.  I'm betting a few people are hoping mayor Ford does something to distract from this... ;D

2013 has certainly been a weird year for politics.


----------



## pbi (20 Nov 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ...Politics these days is getting incredibly (and depressingly) partisan.



And this is the bit that bothers me, and will worry me long after the Ford Bros, Barnum and Bailey Circus has sunk beneath the radar.

Ford and FordNation did not spring out of nothing. IMHO they are symptomatic of a very bitter and deep-seated anger in a significant number of mostly middle class Torontonians/Canadians who are convinced that their concerns are utterly ignored and that worse, their (truly) hard-won way of life is endangered by wasteful governments catering only to the bicycle riding downtown latte-sippers who only eat in gourmet restaurants.

The reign of David Miller can probably be fingered as one of the key ingredients in the boiling stew that spewed out Ford and his folks: Canadians usually vote "against" somebody or some party rather than "for" it. Ford, for all his evident faults,is apparently a pretty effective populist, and these folks championed him against all that they thought Miller and company stood for. 

And here we are.

What I hope is that we can all take a deep breath and pull back from the edge a bit. The worst outcome would be that this sad spectacle becomes the trigger for a marshalling of Canadian society into much harder and more doctrinaire divisions than what we have ever seen.

While I am in no way a fan of the Fords and their misbegotten ways, the latte-sippers should also stop and think (as Rick Mercer pointed out the other night) that there are angry people here. And that, maybe, people who have worked hard to be able to own homes and to send their kids to school to seek a better life, or are trying to run small businesses, or are genuinely concerned about stupid and wasteful public spending have a good point, and don't deserve to be marginalized or automatically regarded as ignorant plebeians. Maybe there is intelligent life in the suburbs.

On other hand, I like craft beer, I try to eat local (OK....no....not like what Rob Ford means...) I like riding my bike, and my wife I go to really good restaurants when we can afford to do it. I like to think that my leaders really are "elite", in the best and most positive sense of that word. "Elite" isn't a swearword and we have to stop making it into one. I don't like seeing people who don't look, act and think like stereotypical FordNationites being dismissed as effete, imported-beer drinking wasters who are opposed to all business and development, etc.etc. It's bullsh*t.

But, if we keep drifting towards the schism that the Ford story may have revealed to us, we may find that demonizing, poisoned discourse and blind partisanship have become the order of the day. And that, I think, will be too late.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Nov 2013)

This has been harped on previously - but it goes back to ERC's seminal observation that "culture matters".

For those of us of British extraction there is a visceral, and not complimentary, reaction to the word "Intellectual".  It has never been popular among the Tories, who used to aspire to amateurism.  It was even less popular among Ramsay MacDonald's cloth bonnets of the early Labour movement.   The gold standard for both parties was Thomas Reid's "Common Sense".  Intellectuals were either genial eccentrics who knew their place or meddlers like the Fabians.

That anti-intellectual antipathy does not seem to be as common outside of Britain,  or perhaps it is just that that portion of the non-British society that aspires to public office is more inclined to see themselves as intellectuals - and, perhaps, separate from, different to and possibly even better than, those they purport to serve.

Those in power, generally, just don't seem to see themselves as belonging to the generality of Canadians. And the generality reciprocates.


----------



## mariomike (20 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> The reign of David Miller can probably be fingered as one of the key ingredients in the boiling stew that spewed out Ford and his folks: Canadians usually vote "against" somebody or some party rather than "for" it. Ford, for all his evident faults,is apparently a pretty effective populist, and these folks championed him against all that they thought Miller and company stood for.



As a Toronto voter, I support the politicians who support our Emergency Services. 

When Rob Ford was running for mayor in 2010 he said, “If they’re going to get a bit more money for doing it – I have never had a person come up and say, “Rob, I object to paying Paramedics, Firefighters, or Police more money. I have no problem paying our Officers, or our Firefighters, or our Paramedics good money to do a job.”

Judging by the contracts, he seems to have done that.

Although he eliminated the vehicle registration tax "The war on the car is over", we still have the land transfer tax.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Nov 2013)

"Anti-intellectualism" is customarily misrepresented as some sort of anti-science irrationalism.  It is not.  It is skepticism rationally deduced from a realistic appraisal of the gulf between what is knowable about a problem domain (eg. society and all its institutions) and what is known about the problem domain (to be precise, the knowledge to make accurate predictions from observed initial conditions and to and execute changes with predictable and accurately predicted outcomes).  Put simply, a lot of people who think they are experts are wrong, and a lot of people who take the experts' opinions on faith are fools.

Someone who knows 95% of all that is known (the "body of knowledge") about a problem domain will fairly be described as an "expert".  But if the body of knowledge amounts to, say, 1% of the problem domain's totality, the ignorant amateur isn't really much worse than the "expert".

I think what sticks most in some craws is that when the "experts" fu<k up, they rarely apologize or undo their mistakes.  It always seems to be someone else's fault, they meant well, and we should continue to move in their chosen direction instead of backing out and re-thinking courses of action.  So the common-sense candidate with a hockey-sock of personality flaws becomes relatively attractive.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Nov 2013)

Kelly McParland sums up his reading of the RCMP submission and by doing so puts a number of things in perspective. The piece from today's National Post is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

I’ve never met Nigel Wright, and all I know of him is what I’ve read. But after consuming the 80-page, minutely detailed RCMP document released Wednesday, I have to say I sympathize with the guy. He comes across in the document just as his defenders have described him: capable, dedicated, “a person of good faith, of competence, with high ethical standards,” as Jason Kenney put it. You get the impression of a man who found himself in a rat’s nest, and tried to keep one of the rats from destroying himself. Instead, he got destroyed, too.

That’s not the sentiment you’re supposed to have toward Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff. You’re supposed to denounce him as the Machiavellian hand behind the dark and devious manipulations that helped bring a corrupt Senate to public disgrace. His great sin, personally paying off $90,000 in expense claims made by Mike Duffy, was a monumental mistake. But you can understand how he got there after months of maddening efforts to achieve what must have seemed a simple quest: getting Mr. Duffy to repay the $90,000 he’d claimed in inappropriate housing and other expenses.
From the start, Mr. Wright doesn’t think Mr. Duffy has broken any laws. The Senate rules on “primary” residence are such that Mr. Duffy may be able to justify a claim that, legally, he’s done nothing wrong. “I … believe that Mike was doing what people told him he should do, without thinking about it too much,” he relates in one message. But Mr. Wright is convinced it’s a clear ethical breach and Mr. Duffy is morally bound to repay the money. It’s getting the senator to admit as much that causes the headaches.
In an interview with RCMP Cpl. Greg Horton, who headed the investigation and prepared the exhaustive outline, Mr. Wright reveals that since joining the Prime Minister’s Office he hasn’t filed a single expense claim, paying all his flights, hotels, meals and other costs from his own pocket. It has already cost him tens of thousands of dollars, but, thanks to his corporate career, he can afford it, and, Cpl. Horton writes, “it is his global view and contribution to public policy that taxpayers not bear the cost of his position if he can legitimately afford to fund it himself.” He gives the same reason for his fatal decision to write a cheque to cover Mr. Duffy’s expenses, after concluding Mr. Duffy legitimately didn’t have the money: “He did not view it as something out of the norm for him to do, and was part of being a good person. He said it was a personal decision, and he did not want a lot of people to know about it.”
Initially, his contacts with Mr. Duffy are friendly enough. He calls him “Mike” or “Duff.” At that point (i.e. last February) it’s believed Mr. Duffy’s expenses problem involves $32,000 he collected by claiming money for his Ottawa home while identifying a cottage in Prince Edward Island as his “primary” residence. Mr. Duffy insists he has no desire to take money he’s not entitled to, but is afraid that admitting he lives in Ottawa might disqualify him as a P.E.I. senator and cost him his job. Mr. Wright assures him there’s no danger of that, that owning property in P.E.I. is enough. Confirming that fact, and repaying the money, “is all that is needed to close out the Duffy situation … and to stop our public agony,” he tells PMO colleagues. But every time he thinks he has Mr. Duffy convinced, the senator slips off the leash, and relations between the two quickly go south.
A turning point comes when Conservative Senator David Tkachuk reveals that Mr. Duffy’s expenses total $90,000, not $32,000. Until then, a solution appeared in sight. Senator Irving Gerstein, who controlled a Conservative party fund, had indicated it could cover Mr. Duffy’s costs. Mr. Wright was OK with that — the fund often helped party members with legal costs — but Mr. Duffy kept making additional demands, insisting he be excluded from an audit being carried out by Deloitte, and that “media lines” be written to protect him from any criticism. He wanted absolution, while Mr. Wright wanted the bills paid. Responding to an early email from Mr. Duffy’s lawyer, who transmits many of his fears, Mr. Wright complains: “Does [Duffy’s lawyer] truly understand that if Mike has improperly charged for travel on Senate business when no Senate business actually took place that we cannot now say to him that those expenses are in order?”
Once the bigger bill comes to light, Mr. Gerstein quickly backs off his offer to help. Mr. Wright tells a PMO colleague he is “beyond furious” to learn Mr. Duffy has also been claiming for meals and incidentals. Mr. Wright, Cpl. Horton notes in the documents, “was incensed that Senator Duffy was getting paid for meals that he ate in his own house in Ottawa.” A full-scale press is put on to get the money repaid and the issue out of the headlines. The taint is spreading and there are fears it will reach the prime minister, despite Cpl. Horton’s view, as stated in the documents, that there’s no evidence indicating Mr. Harper had any knowledge or involvement in the gathering mess.
Mr. Wright, however, is having almost as much trouble with the Senate Conservatives as with Mr. Duffy. He hopes to calm Mr. Duffy by softening the criticism he faces in the Senate and Deloitte examinations. The PMO feels that if Mr. Duffy’s expenses are repaid, it negates the need to decide where he really lives. But while Tories dominate the Senate, and have a majority on the subcommittee examining Mr. Duffy’s case, they’re not as blindly obedient to PMO demands as detractors suggest. “We are not in total control of how that subcommittee does its work,” Mr. Wright says in one email. “Please convey my thanks to Sen. LeBreton’s office for making this more difficult,” he remarks acidly in another. In a message to Conservative Senator Carolyn Stewart Olson, who professes “I am always ready to do exactly what is asked,” he grumbles: “Despite agreement to this in advance from you, Marjory [LeBreton] and David [Tkachuk], no one on the Senate side is delivering.”
But Mr. Duffy is the biggest problem, ping-ponging around Ottawa, sharing his troubles, blabbing to reporters and digging bigger holes for himself. When Mr. Duffy mentions he’d spoken to Mr. Tkachuk about per diems charged while he was in Florida, Ms. Stewart Olsen warns the PMO: “He just handed the Libs the reason to go to police.” In March, Ms. LeBreton emails that Mr. Duffy “was whining to me” that he might be forced to sit as an independent. “I asked him where on earth he heard such nonsense and wondered if he lies awake at night dreaming up these things!” she says. When Mr. Duffy tells reporters he repaid the debt himself with the help of a bank loan, Ray Novak, who succeeded Mr. Wright as chief of staff, laments: “His lying really is tiresome.”
At one point Mr. Wright believes the worst is over, only to have Mr. Duffy suddenly volunteer to appear before the Senate committee, and the Deloitte auditors he has been pleading to be saved from. Ms. Stewart Olsen emails the PMO; Mr. Wright responds, “Never heard of this. Is bad.” On the day a Senate report is to be revised to weaken criticism of Mr. Duffy, an official in Ms. LeBreton’s office mounts a last-minute effort to block the move, prompting a PMO official to email Mr. Wright: “This is unbelievable.”
It appears clear from Cpl. Horton’s account that the PMO was doing its best to manipulate the Senate caucus. The RCMP officer notes that desired changes to the Senate report were handed to Ms. Stewart Olson by a PMO official just before the final meeting. “I reinforced with her that the implementing of all the changes to the report was the fulfilment of her commitment to Nigel and our building,” he tells Mr. Wright.
In a February email, Mr. Wright makes clear that “we are going to need to manage the briefing of the Conservative senators (including, hopefully, the chair) of the committee. If the rules and procedures committee doesn’t have the right membership, then the Senate by motion should constitute a special committee that will have the right senators on board. We cannot rely on the Senate leader’s office to get this right … have to do this in a way that does not lead to the Chinese water torture of new facts in the public domain, that the PM does not want.”
Of course, that’s exactly what happened. Cpl. Horton writes, “I have seen no evidence that the prime minister was involved in having Senator Duffy’s legal bills paid.” But with each new revelation public trust in Mr. Harper erodes. The damage continues after the $90,000 payment is disclosed and Mr. Wright resigns. When Mr. Duffy makes a dramatic last stand in the Senate, with two emotional appeals to his colleagues, Cpl. Horton painstakingly goes through details of his speech and pinpoints inaccuracies.
Mr. Wright, notes Cpl. Horton, never said he had checked Mr. Duffy’s claims and found them in order, as Mr. Duffy maintained. In another example, Cpl. Horton recounts Mr. Duffy’s dramatic declaration that Mr. Wright told him: ‘Don’t worry … I will write the cheque,’ ” adding that Mr. Duffy had previously claimed he was unaware Mr. Wright was the source of the money.
Contrary to Mr. Duffy’s claim that the PMO offered to intervene with Deloitte for him, it was Mr. Duffy via his lawyer, Cpl. Horton writes, who repeatedly demanded he be removed from the audit. He says there is no evidence to support Mr. Duffy’s claim that the PMO dreamed up and schooled him on a false story claiming he’d borrowed money from the Royal Bank to pay his debt; instead, Mr. Duffy’s own account suggests “there was no such plot.” Noting Mr. Duffy’s accusation that “this monstrous fraud was the PMO’s creation from start to finish,” Cpl. Horton comments: “The evidence that I have seen shows that the demands made by Sen. Duffy in February were the start of the ‘monstrous fraud.’ ”
What’s more, despite Mr. Duffy’s widely reported claim to have “hundreds of emails” he was willing to supply to police, Cpl. Horton says that at the time of writing his report he hadn’t received a single one. The RCMP officer is equally unimpressed with interviews with Ms. LeBreton and Ms. Stewart Olsen. “I believe that Sen. Stewart Olsen’s version of events to police was incomplete, and not consistent with the facts,” he notes dryly.
Throughout it all, the PMO gives the impression it’s trying to clean up a problem that should never have happened. “I personally don’t think Mike committed a crime at all,” writes Mr. Novak, after replacing the departed Wright as chief of staff. “If I did we would have pursued a different course.”

But perhaps most prescient is an email from Mr. Wright to PMO colleagues in the earliest days of the conflict, long before it made any serious news: “Let this small group be under no illusion. I think that this is going to end badly.” He was smarter than he knew.



[Edit by George Wallace to add LINK:  http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/21/kelly-mcparland-nigel-wright-a-good-man-caught-in-an-ugly-world/    ]


----------



## Infanteer (22 Nov 2013)

Fascinating.  It appears Mr Wright was trying to smooth waters and ended up being shark chum.  The real cast of antagonists in this appear to be Senators and a sense of entitlement.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Nov 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Fascinating.  It appears Mr Wright was trying to smooth waters and ended up being shark chum.  The real cast of antagonists in this appear to be Senators and a sense of entitlement.


To me, the most interesting Nigel West revelation from the RCMP docs (downloadable here - 80 pages, but _well_ worth the read if you have the time) is this (from page 18) - with highlights mine:


> .... Mr. Wright explained that he is financially comfortable, having been successful in the private sector prior to agreeing to work within the PMO.  *Since taking on the position within the PMO he has not filed expense claims for anything, including meals, flights, hotels or legal fees.  He estimates he (sic.) out of pocket tens of thousands of dollars, but it is his global view and contribution to public policy that taxpayers not bear the cost of his position if he can legitimately afford to fund it himself.*  Because of his person beliefs and financial ability, he took the personal decision at that time to pay back the $90,000.  He did not view it as something out of the norm for him to do, and was part of his being a good person ....


None of the RCMP Information document has been proven in court, but that bit in yellow is a good piece of ammo for Wright's defence counsel - certainly makes some politicians' sense of entitlement look a bit different.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> To me, the most interesting Nigel West revelation from the RCMP docs (downloadable here - 80 pages, but _well_ worth the read if you have the time) is this (from page 18) - with highlights mine:None of the RCMP Information document has been proven in court, but that bit in yellow is a good piece of ammo for Wright's defence counsel - certainly makes some politicians' sense of entitlement look a bit different.



No kidding!  This is really despicable to read ( LINK )



> Wright tells a PMO colleague he is “beyond furious” to learn Duffy has also been claiming for meals and incidentals. Wright, Horton notes in the documents, “was incensed that Senator Duffy was getting paid for meals that he ate in his own house in Ottawa.”


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> To me, the most interesting Nigel West revelation from the RCMP docs (downloadable here - 80 pages, but _well_ worth the read if you have the time) is this (from page 18) - with highlights mine:None of the RCMP Information document has been proven in court, but that bit in yellow is a good piece of ammo for Wright's defence counsel - certainly makes some politicians' sense of entitlement look a bit different.




I doubt Mr. Wright will ever need defence counsel because I suspect that no crown prosecutor believes that he can, or should even try, to win in court. Mr Wright is, I think, guilty of some crime; I think giving a _favour_ to a legislator, which Sen Duffy was and still is, and expecting something in return (Duffy's cooperation in "changing the channel") is against the law. But I also think the crown has to prove _intent_ or a "guilty mind" and I suspect Mr. Wright had neither. But ...

     Against Sen Duffy? Yes, I think, Sen Duffy will end up in court and I guess there will be a good case to answer.

          Against Sen Wallin? Maybe ...

               Against Sen Brazeau? Doubtful, but also a maybe ...

                    Against former Sen Harb? Looks like a slam dunk to me, but I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No kidding!  This is really despicable to read ( LINK )
> 
> 
> > Wright tells a PMO colleague he is “beyond furious” to learn Duffy has also been claiming for meals and incidentals. Wright, Horton notes in the documents, “was incensed that Senator Duffy was getting paid for meals that he ate in his own house in Ottawa.”


Yup, that's pretty entitled alright.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I doubt Mr. Wright will ever need defence counsel because I suspect that no crown prosecutor believes that he can, or should even try, to win in court. Mr Wright is, I think, guilty of some crime; I think giving a _favour_ to a legislator, which Sen Duffy was and still is, and expecting something in return (Duffy's cooperation in "changing the channel") is against the law. But I also think the crown has to prove _intent_ or a "guilty mind" and I suspect Mr. Wright had neither.


At the very least, if found guilty of the letter of the law, I see a _lot_ of mitigation for sentencing compared to Duffer.


----------



## pbi (23 Nov 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Fascinating.  It appears Mr Wright was trying to smooth waters and ended up being shark chum.  The real cast of antagonists in this appear to be Senators and a sense of entitlement.



We may yet find out just what it was Wright did or did not do, but for sure the exposure of a sickening sense of pig-trough entitlement (yet again); an exclusivist view of how the law is applied to public figures; and a shallow "legalistic" interpretation of the letter of regulations rather than conforming to their ethical or moral intent, remind me of that old saw: "Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely"

The older I get, the more I believe that old saying. IMHO our inability (unwillingness, inertia...whatever) to really deal with this deep seated problem in the Canadian political system prevents us from really enjoying democracy the way it could be enjoyed, and I'm quite sure explains the miserable voter turnout.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> We may yet find out just what it was Wright did or did not do, but for sure the exposure of a sickening sense of pig-trough entitlement (yet again); an exclusivist view of how the law is applied to public figures; and a shallow "legalistic" interpretation of the letter of regulations rather than conforming to their ethical or moral intent, remind me of that old saw: "Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely"
> 
> The older I get, the more I believe that old saying. IMHO our inability (unwillingness, inertia...whatever) to really deal with this deep seated problem in the Canadian political system prevents us from really enjoying democracy the way it could be enjoyed, and I'm quite sure explains the miserable voter turnout.




This column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ and written, as the author admits about an old, albeit not close friend, suggests that Mr. Wright is a _victim_ in all this:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/22/andrew-coyne-nigel-wright-a-victim-of-mike-duffy-bait-and-switch-ploy/


> Nigel Wright a victim of Mike Duffy ‘bait and switch’ ploy
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> 
> ...




Having been, as I have mentioned before, in a "chief of staff" appointment, serving a very senior officer I can sympathize with Mr. Wright's dilemma. One wants to spare the "great man" the burdens and details of the solutions to many problems. It is, often, usually, enough that he knows that *a)* there is a problem; and *b)* his trusty COS has a solution in hand. I remain amazed that Mr. Wright, by all accounts a sterling business executive, was either _ethically challenged_ or unaware of some of the legal possibilities probabilities. But I am also conscious of the fact that people in "executive suites" develop a sort of tunnel vision ~ seeing every problem through a "fix it" lens.

I guess I can understand that "they" (Mr. Wright and the prime minister's close, personal staff) wanted to make a problem go away, but everything that everyone did after the PM told Sen Duffy, at the caucus meeting, to pay back his expenses, made things worse and worse and worse.

I suspect Mr. Wright is _innocent_ of wrongful intent ... but guilty of at least one or two offences against Canadian law.


----------



## pbi (25 Nov 2013)

> Having been, as I have mentioned before, in a "chief of staff" appointment, serving a very senior officer I can sympathize with Mr. Wright's dilemma. One wants to spare the "great man" the burdens and details of the solutions to many problems. It is, often, usually, enough that he knows that a) there is a problem; and b) his trusty COS has a solution in hand. I remain amazed that Mr. Wright, by all accounts a sterling business executive, was either ethically challenged or unaware of some of the legal possibilities probabilities. But I am also conscious of the fact that people in "executive suites" develop a sort of tunnel vision ~ seeing every problem through a "fix it" lens.



Having been a COS myself, I can also attest to the truth that no matter how hard you think you are trying to run a good HQ, a few people can act in ways that will surprise and shock you. It's disconcerting that in the relatively limited and focused world of an HQ, there can be other agendas at play, and people who appear to be "towing the line"  are then discovered not to be doing that at all. So, in that sense, maybe I have a bit of sympathy for Wright.

But, on the other hand, is it possible (as you suggest) that in his single-mindedness he contributed to the existence of a staff environment in which "fixing" problems (and problem people...) became the goal without regard for ethical considerations or possible second or third order effects/unintended consequences?  The "bad apple" theory is a popular one, but remember that "bad apples" are often encouraged by the environment they sense around them. That environment is created by leadership, good or bad.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Having been a COS myself, I can also attest to the truth that no matter how hard you think you are trying to run a good HQ, a few people can act in ways that will surprise and shock you. It's disconcerting that in the relatively limited and focused world of an HQ, there can be other agendas at play, and people who appear to be "towing the line"  are then discovered not to be doing that at all. So, in that sense, maybe I have a bit of sympathy for Wright.
> 
> But, on the other hand, is it possible (as you suggest) that in his single-mindedness he contributed to the existence of a staff environment in which "fixing" problems (and problem people...) became the goal without regard for ethical considerations or possible second or third order effects/unintended consequences?  The "bad apple" theory is a popular one, but remember that "bad apples" are often encouraged by the environment they sense around them. That environment is created by leadership, good or bad.




In my opinion it is not only possible it is, my _opinion_ again, the most likely explanation.

It seems to me that the higher the office - and, consequentially, the more media interest in it - the greater the _perceived_ need to "manage" problems. Men like Nigel Wright - classic Type A personalities - while, generally, honest, are most interested in results than in process, and it is in _process_ that ethical issues often arise.


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In my opinion it is not only possible it is, my _opinion_ again, the most likely explanation.
> 
> It seems to me that the higher the office - and, consequentially, the more media interest in it - the greater the _perceived_ need to "manage" problems. Men like Nigel Wright - classic Type A personalities - while, generally, honest, are most interested in results than in process, and it is in _process_ that ethical issues often arise.



And it is entirely conceivable that after having been blindsided by Duffy and/or his lawyer introducing new and unpleasant material on several occasions, the objective in Mr Wright's mind came to be to put an end to the mess and move on.


----------



## Lightguns (25 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In my opinion it is not only possible it is, my _opinion_ again, the most likely explanation.
> 
> It seems to me that the higher the office - and, consequentially, the more media interest in it - the greater the _perceived_ need to "manage" problems. Men like Nigel Wright - classic Type A personalities - while, generally, honest, are most interested in results than in process, and it is in _process_ that ethical issues often arise.



I think that is an excellent assessment and I think that Wright felt he was dealing with a team player, not a self important twit like Duffy.  Although the moment the PMO had to deal with Duffy through his lawyer there should have been red flags waving.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2013)

But, we need to remember that, despite what are, I'm certain, his many sterling qualities, in his efforts to "fix the problem" Mr Wright broke, at the very least, the letter of a a law or two: the ones that say that one cannot give a legislator a 'gift' and expect something in return ... something like his cooperation in covering up a mistake. It may be that Mr Wright's intentions were good but there's a reason Prime Minister Harper, initially, distanced himself from him and, later, threw him under the bus: Sen Duffy looks, to my untrained (legal) mind, like someone who committed fraud, and Mr Wright looks like someone who offered him a bribe to help cover it up.

The more I read abut this the less it looks like inexplicably bad judgement (my initial assessment) or an ethical lapse (my second reaction) and more like a simple crime: bribery.

I understand that Mr Wright was/is well liked and respected in business and political circles but, IF what we are reading is true, he broke the law .. plain and simple. It may not have been his intent but it looks like that's what he did.


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Nov 2013)

I think that you are correct, although Mr Wright may not have realized it. This begs the question of who else outside him, Duffy and Duffy's lawyer knew? It makes one wonder about the competency of the political operatives who woek in the PMO. A warning signal should have gone off when the Tory fund keeper refused to reimburse the expenses above the original figure.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Nov 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ... A warning signal should have gone off ....



All stations, Charlie Charlie or "memo to self".

As COS managing this I assume you mean the latter.


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, we need to remember that, despite what are, I'm certain, his many sterling qualities, in his efforts to "fix the problem" Mr Wright broke, at the very least, the letter of a a law or two: the ones that say that one cannot give a legislator a 'gift' and expect something in return ... something like his cooperation in covering up a mistake. It may be that Mr Wright's intentions were good but there's a reason Prime Minister Harper, initially, distanced himself from him and, later, threw him under the bus: Sen Duffy looks, to my untrained (legal) mind, like someone who committed fraud, and Mr Wright looks like someone who offered him a bribe to help cover it up.
> 
> The more I read abut this the less it looks like inexplicably bad judgement (my initial assessment) or an ethical lapse (my second reaction) and more like a simple crime: bribery.
> 
> I understand that Mr Wright was/is well liked and respected in business and political circles but, IF what we are reading is true, he broke the law .. plain and simple. It may not have been his intent but it looks like that's what he did.



I am rather partisan but it does really look like Wright got snookered by Duffy. Everyone always underestimates the fat guy. His threats to damage the PM were anything but idle.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Nov 2013)

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, provides what I regard as a fair assessment of the Conservative party of Canada at the end of 2013:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/by-elections-show-tories-looking-weaker-and-a-little-out-of-shape/article15600335/#dashboard/follows/


> Tories looking weaker after by-election nail-biter
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




While I agree with Campbell Clark about the malaise that infects the Conservatives, I'm not so sure Conservative weakness translates, nearly two years from now, into Liberal strength.

The _Senate Scandal_® is real, it matters to Canadians ~ maybe to Conservatives more than many others ~ and it has tarnished both the Conservative and Harper brands. Suddenly Stephen Harper does not look as "clean" as he likes to paint himself. He wanted to use the _Senate Scandal_® to make himself look like a "good guy" who was making Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin pay back their ill-gotten gains, instead he looks like a co-conspirator. Prime Minister Harper and his party can recover from this, and there is time enough to turn this sows ear back into a political silk purse.

But, for now: the CPC looks old, tired, somewhat dirty and in need of a rest on the opposition benches.

See, also, this, about one _possible_ outcome.


----------



## Remius (26 Nov 2013)

That's a pretty fair assessment.  As much as the CPC took a hit, I agree that Mulcair was the biggest loser in all of this.  This despite his stellar performance in the House of Commons recently.  While I believe that the CPC can recover (barring anymore scandals) I don't know that the NDP can.

One thing of note though, is that the number of Liberal Party memberships in Brandon and Provencher, more than doubled.  Even though they are still low in comparison, is more telling (given that part of the country) than an increase in popular vote and may indicate a trend.


----------



## Haletown (26 Nov 2013)

ER,

Agreed the CPC looks old/tired, but what of the alternatives.

NDP is beyond old and tired, still mired in 1930 style trade union dreams and schemes and with a deeply divided membership - Urban green tinted champagne socialists vs blue collared mine and forestry workers.

The GPC  is a minor protest party with a tiny voting bloc that has zero national footprint, failing credibility and a leader who is two steps away from the nutter cliff.

The LPC has no policies, a leader who thinks he is Canada's Hopey Changey guy and relies on sympathetic media to cover up his goofs.

What the CPC has, if they care to use it, is time before the next election for some mea culpa politics and an improving economy that will likely deliver  the budget surpluses that will translate into political competency and election tax relief.


----------



## Lightguns (26 Nov 2013)

Ack that, the government is always punished in by elections and the Globe and Mail is hardly an unbiased assessment of anything not Liberal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Nov 2013)

It, the _Senate Scandal_® poses a dilemma for Prime Minister Harper. It is a dilemma with political, legal and moral dimensions according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/26/nigel-wright-lawyers-face-legal-repercussions-unless-harper-knew-about-the-duffy-deal-expert-says/


> Nigel Wright, lawyers face legal repercussions unless Harper knew about the Duffy deal, expert says
> 
> Stephen Maher, Postmedia News
> 
> ...




Predictably, in another newspaper, the _Globe and Mail_, Liberal/Laurentian elites shill Jeffrey Simpson argues that Prime Minister Harper is political "dead weight" and that the coronation of Justin Trudeau is a foregone conclusion while the arch Harper Hater® Lawrence Martin declares that "the credibility of the highest office in the land is being shredded." (One might wish to quibble and argue that the Governor General or even the Queen, herself, is the "highest office in the land,' but you get the idea ...) It, the current political situation, *IS* a problem, Prime Minister Harper is wounded, the sharks are circling, but time and "events"* have a habit of changing the political landscape.

_____
* "Events, dear boy, events," is the answer that the late Harold Macmillan is reputed to have said (but probably didn't) to a reporter who asked him what is most likely to blow governments off course.


----------



## Remius (27 Nov 2013)

This article in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen by David Sachs (by all accounts an active and stalwart conservative)shows that, indeed, the sharks are circling.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Stephen+Harper+puts+Conservatives+bind/9211218/story.html

One has to wonder if this is the opinion of many conservative members who may be feeling disallusioned by recent events.

**Grammar**


----------



## Journeyman (27 Nov 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> One has to wonder if this is the opinion of many conservative members who may be feeling disallusioned by recent events.
> 
> **Grammar**


**Spelling**   

Unless of course, you _are_ referring to those people who don't feel that recent events are _alluding_ to anything.     :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Nov 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> This article in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen by David Sachs (by all accounts an active and stalwart conservative)shows that, indeed, the sharks are circling.
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Stephen+Harper+puts+Conservatives+bind/9211218/story.html
> 
> ...




It is, certainly, the opinion of some Conservatives ~ I'm not sure how big a number (percentage) "some" represents.  My guess is that many Conservatives - the religious right, the "law and order" wing, the _social conservatives_, and so on - are not too troubled.

I am troubled by the centralization of power in the hands of political "backroom boys," the infamous "hacks, flacks and bagmen," but I recognize that: *a)* this began 45 years ago, under Pierre Trudeau, it's not Stephen Harper's fault; and *b)* government is, now, a big business and it needs a _corporate HQ_ with all that implies. I am more troubled by the fact that here in Canada, in the 21st century, as we approach the 150th anniversary of Confederation, we still have an unelected chambre in our national legislature. I am most troubled by something to which I alluded: the very size and scope of government. I am firmly and unalterably convinced that the major threat to our democracy is the government itself. It is not an issue of trust for me ~ I actually believe that most politicians and civil servants are decent, honest people who want to _serve_ their country and their communities. But I think the HUGE, bloated morbidly obese construct in and around Ottawa *cannot be controlled* and will, one by one, strip away our liberties in the name of the "greater good" until democracy, itself, is meaningless.

So, I want Stephen Harper to:

     1. _Contain_ and then reduce government ~ focus on the (relatively few) things that are the "core business" of a modern, federal, democratic nation state ;*

     2. _Reform_ the Senate ~ steamroll an elected Senate, notwithstanding whatever the _Supremes_ of provinces say. An elected Senate may take decades - it took the US twenty years early in the 20th century to move to an elected senate - but it will make
         itself effective. Equality may be, Constitutionally, too hard;

     3. _Reform_ the machinery of government by strengthening ministries and parliamentary committees at the expense of the centre (PMO);

     4. _Contain_ discretionary spending and move authority over (and tax points for) most social policies back to the provinces, where they belong;

     5. _Focus_ on protecting and promoting Canadians' fundamental rights: life, liberty, property (as defined by John Locke _circa_ 1662) and privacy (as defined by Warren and Brandeis in 1890).

I think five tasks is enough - maybe too much.

_____
* And I suspect that you could delete ½ of the departments and agencies on this list and still have too many useless, even counterproductive organizations interfering with the fundamental rights of Canadians.


----------



## Remius (27 Nov 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> **Spelling**
> 
> Unless of course, you _are_ referring to those people who don't feel that recent events are _alluding_ to anything.     :nod:



 Crap...thanks.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Nov 2013)

Or, to quote a comic book, "People shouldn't be afraid of their government.  Governments should be afraid of their people." (Alan Moore, V for Vendetta)


----------



## mariomike (28 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Where is Frank Magazine when you really need it?



Nov 25, 2013 

Rob Ford, Mike Duffy inspire Frank magazine return
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rob-ford-mike-duffy-inspire-frank-magazine-return-1.2439895

Website:
http://frankmag.ca/


----------



## pbi (28 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or, to quote a comic book, "People shouldn't be afraid of their government.  Governments should be afraid of their people." (Alan Moore, V for Vendetta)


Increasingly, a motto I subscribe to.
But governments will never fear a politically inert population of disengaged net surfers who can't even be bothered to vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2013)

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, paints a fairly detailed and sympathetic portrait of Nigel Wright and _l'affaire Duffy_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/behind-nigel-wrights-fateful-decision/article15575692/?page=all#dashboard/follows/


> Behind Nigel Wright's fateful decision that darkened the Senate
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail (includes correction)
> ...




I'm assuming Ms Galloway has some good, validated sources.

I remain persuaded that Mr Wright suffered a major HUGE failure in judgement and, having started down an unethical and, possibly criminal  path, he broke the cardinal rule: he didn't stop digging.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Nov 2013)

The solution as mentioned was simple, let duffy pay back his expense however he can. the party & PMO should have said, your in a hole of your own making and told the public, "it's unfortunate but the rules while not perfectly clear must be followed and we hope the Senator will repay his debts and do the correct thing.

 Sometimes I think smart people out think themselves. I also agree that the "culture" of the workplace plays a part. I suspect if Wright goes down for a bit without implicating anyone else, he will eventually be rewarded for his loyalty. but drowning men do strange things....


----------



## Privateer (28 Nov 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect if Wright goes down for a bit without implicating anyone else, he will eventually be rewarded for his loyalty.



With a seat in the Senate?


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Nov 2013)

>forbids anyone dealing with the government from making a payment to a government official

I hope for the sake of those who want Wright convicted that the actual law is expressed differently than paraphrased above.  "anyone dealing with the government" is just some guy looking for contracts.  In his capacity at the time, Wright effectively was (part of) the government.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >forbids anyone dealing with the government from making a payment to a government official
> 
> I hope for the sake of those who want Wright convicted that the actual law is expressed differently than paraphrased above.  "anyone dealing with the government" is just some guy looking for contracts.  In his capacity at the time, Wright effectively was (part of) the government.


According to this RCMP doc (which has NOT been proven in court), here's the relevant Criminal Code sections in play re:  Wright from sections 119 and 121:


> .... 119. (1) *Every one* is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
> 
> (a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or
> 
> (b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity ....





> .... 121. (1) *Every one* commits an offence who .... (b) having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place ....


Because of the yellow bits, it doesn't appear to matter whether someone's in or out of government.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Nov 2013)

I deal a lot with business, I find people unused to dealing with government types are taken aback when we decline lunches and beers, etc. In businesses establishing a "relationship" is seen as a key element and meals, drinks, gifts are used as tools to build that relationship. The majority don't comprehend that what they are doing could be seen as "corrupting a government official" and I can think of only one time in 15 years that I might suspect that the motives of the consultant were less than honourable. People who come to government from business also struggle with the level of oversight in this regard and understanding the rigidity of the requirements. Also as a Civil Servant you must also be aware of the perception of the public when interacting with the proponent or their consultants, even if everything you are doing is above aboard, it may not appear that way to someone looking in.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Dec 2013)

For the moment, at least, this moment, the end of 2013, David Parkins is the _Globe and Mail_ has it right:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/on-laytons-wings/article15688440/#dashboard/follows/




Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For the moment, at least, this moment, the end of 2013, David Parkins is the _Globe and Mail_ has it right:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/on-laytons-wings/article15688440/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...


Careful there, Icarus ....


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2013)

I couldn't make this up ....


> Independent Senator Patrick Brazeau has a new job as a reporter for Halifax’s Frank Magazine.
> 
> Last month the Senate voted to strip Brazeau and Senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin of their salaries and office resources.
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (4 Dec 2013)

I think that's what known as a Reverse Duffy (or a Backwards Walllin).


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2013)

I was tempted to post this in the On the lighter side thread (which I just resurrected) but it is a serious story, really  :nod:  and it is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/12/13/green_party_doubles_caucus_as_former_ndp_mp_bruce_hyer_joins.html


> Green Party doubles caucus as former NDP MP Bruce Hyer joins
> *Bruce Hyer, elected as a NDP MP, announces he is joining the Green Party led by Elizabeth May.*
> 
> By: Susan Delacourt Parliament Hill
> ...




It really doesn't belong in On the lighter side, it's a serious political story ... really ...


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2013)

And yet he joins the Green Party, who wants to keep the long-gun registry and "fix" it.

http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2011-04-12/long-gun-registry


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And yet he joins the Green Party, who wants to keep the long-gun registry and "fix" it.
> 
> http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2011-04-12/long-gun-registry




Please, PuckChaser, I'm having enough trouble keeping a political straight face today ...  ;D


----------



## Journeyman (13 Dec 2013)

Yes, and we're going to see real progress now: 
“Unlike other leaders, I want an unruly caucus,” May told the Star. “I want a _large_, unruly caucus.”   

Yep, the two of them are going to kick Commons ass     :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, and we're going to see real progress now:
> “Unlike other leaders, I want an unruly caucus,” May told the Star. “I want a _large_, unruly caucus.”
> 
> Yep, the two of them are going to kick Commons ***     :nod:



Glad she didn't mis-pronounce "caucus", or it would have been a slightly more hilarious news day.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (13 Dec 2013)

If we're lucky the Conservatives will have gerrymandered May out of a job and the voters will spank Hyer.  One issue Luddites.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2013)

WTF? It isn't April 1 today.

Get that Hyer guy a calendar!


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Dec 2013)

Looks like the Sponsorship Scandal isn't quite dead yet:

Jacques Corriveau charged with fraud in sponsorship scandal


----------



## Jed (13 Dec 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Looks like the Sponsorship Scandal isn't quite dead yet:
> 
> Jacques Corriveau charged with fraud in sponsorship scandal



So, what are the odds that the MSM, liberal supporters that they mostly appear to be, will look at the quantifiable perspective between the Sponsorship scandal and the Senate scandal? 40,000,000 of taxpayer dollars vs 90,000 of party coffers dollars.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Dec 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> So, what are the odds that the MSM, liberal supporters that they mostly appear to be, will look at the quantifiable perspective between the Sponsorship scandal and the Senate scandal? 40,000,000 of taxpayer dollars vs 90,000 of party coffers dollars.



Drinking already?
 ;D


----------



## Jed (13 Dec 2013)

Not yet, give me a couple of hours.  8)


----------



## Journeyman (13 Dec 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> > Drinking already?
> > ;D
> 
> 
> Not yet, give me a couple of hours.  8)




A couple of hours?!   rly:







   :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2013)

If I drank enough to deal with that, my liver would catch fire....


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Dec 2013)

The liver is evil, it must be punished!


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Dec 2013)

2013 has been a good year for the Liberals according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/liberals-rebound-from-disaster-with-big-poll-leads-in-2013/article16023788/#dashboard/follows/


> Liberals rebound from disaster in 2013, with national and provincial poll leads
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




But, the old adage (Harold Wilson's adage, actually, so it's not _that_ old) is that a "week is a long time in politics," and we've got about 90 "long times" until the next general election is scheduled.


Edit: format


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Dec 2013)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> If we're lucky the Conservatives will have gerrymandered May out of a job and the voters will spank Hyer.


Hyer's in my riding, and I think he underestimates how much his being part of the "Orange Machine" was a factor in his being elected here.  And it appears the Orange Machine is unhappy, given they didn't say bupkiss when he left the caucus to become an independent.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2013)

"The shock they needed to renew themselves"?

What renewal is he talking about? Where are the policies, the fundamental philosophies or even the candidates with outstanding resumes that are needed to renew a party? They haven't even cleared away the old scandals like ADSCAM, or the fact that multiple former leadership candidates are afoul of the law WRT illegal campaign contributions dating back to the Stephan Dion era, much less blazed a new trail.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Dec 2013)

>In British Columbia, Christy Clark defied the odds and was re-elected in May.

Weak analysis.  The BC Libs are _not_ synonymous with the federal Libs; although Clark is part of the faction of the BC Libs which does favour the federal Libs, she was partly a liability and in the end the BC Libs can probably thank the people who couldn't bring themselves to support Adrian Dix.  If that is representative of the whole, the entire article probably isn't usable for much more than cage liner.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Dec 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2013 has been a good year for the Liberals according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/liberals-rebound-from-disaster-with-big-poll-leads-in-2013/article16023788/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...



Éric Grenier extends his look back at 2013, this time for the Conservatives, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:



> Conservative support hits lowest point since Harper became PM: polls
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I agree with Éric Grenier that Ontario and the West are the keys to another Conservative majority government. Prime Minister Harper must secure and, ideally, increase the strength of his Western base; he must hold Ontario and gain some strength in the new, essentially suburban ridings. The CPC must learn to govern without Québec ~ not _against_ Québec, just with very minimal (say three to ten seats) in that province ~ and with only scant support in Atlantic Canada. This means making promises and enacting policies that foster job creation in Western Canada and Ontario and _inviting_ Eastern Canadians to go there, to "go West," and take some of those new jobs by making it less and less attractive to remain in low productivity areas of the country.


----------

