PMO interferes with standard RCMP procedure in High River

The Alberta floods weren't without its controversy - from a PMO that tends to get itself deeper into problems every time it acts on something. The PMO ordered the RCMP return guns that officers took from the abandoned homes of High River as a standard safety procedure to prevent crimes in the wake of disaster.

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel told CBC's Power and Politics the Conservatives were intent on protecting the residents' property, justifying the PMO's statement earlier today.

"If any firearms were taken, we expect they will be returned to their owners as soon as possible," the statement said. "We believe the RCMP should focus on more important tasks such as protecting lives and private property."

But how does not temporarily removing revealed fire arms protect lives and private property? You don't need to be a sociologist to understand that there are people who take advantage of tragedies and loot abandoned homes and establishments. As a result, guns that aren't locked away are there for the theft and use to invade upon other individuals to steal their private property and commit whatever crimes they would need to commit to further their personal gain.

The RCMP justified taking the weapons as a matter of public safety while searching for victims.

"When RCMP officers were going door-to-door searching each residence for potential victims, we did come across a couple of residences where there were some firearms that were left insecure," Cpl. Darrin Turnbull said.

"In those situations, when they were out in plain view and they were not properly secured and stored, those firearms were taken by the RCMP member and safely secured in the High River detachment."

The guns were not permanently taken away from the victims, they were placed somewhere the looters can't get to them. While those who prefer their individual freedom and not have the RCMP or any authority taking property without their consent are clearly upset about the safeguarding, in times of disaster it is better to have the property temporarily brought to a safe place than let unknown looters take the items forever and use them to take more items from other individuals without their consent - which would be defined as theft, a crime is it not?

"The RCMP were not searching houses looking for firearms. The RCMP were going into homes looking for victims. If while we were in that home looking for victims there was an unsecured firearm that was out in the open, we had to take that firearm to make sure it was safe."

RCMP Isp. Gerret Woolsey said at a municipal and provincial gathering of officials that hundreds of guns were seized over the past several days. He noted people tried to move their guns and other property to higher grounds because of the floods.

Woolsey said the guns would be returned to their rightful owners once they are allowed to return to their homes as long as the guns are legal. He added that in "unlikely event" that an illegal firearm was found, the public prosecutor would be informed but otherwise, "in the vast majority of cases — I hope in all the cases — we are going to return these firearms to their owners as soon as possible."

"It's no different than Slave Lake, to seize firearms or to secure firearms that are in plain view, "Woolsey noted, referring to 2011's fire in the community.

While the PMO showed the extent they wish to interfere with the RCMP and with independent law enforcement matters, Alberta's Premier Alison Redford sided with the RCMP but wouldn't comment on the PMO's statement.

"There is no suggestion that people will not be able to have their guns back again, and I really hope that we can focus on more important matters at hand, like getting 12,000 people back into High River than continue to circulate this story," she said.

However, the PMO does have one ally, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association said seizing the guns "breached and sullied [the RCMP's] contract with the public to serve and protect."

"This act of aggression is further proof that the RCMP have a not-so-hidden agenda to take guns away from responsible gun owners."

However, this wasn't an act to seize property, it was an act to look for victims and help them if they are trapped or injured. Neglecting exposed firearms allows criminals to threaten other individuals and their public property which would essentially go against the RCMP's "contract with the public to serve and protect." The RCMP already said it was just safeguarding the weapons to ensure the disaster zone remains safe - and so do the guns.

The RCMP offered this same common sense explanation in response to the outcry.

"The last thing any gun owner wants is to have their guns fall into the wrong hands. Residents of High River can be assured that firearms now in possession of the RCMP are in safe hands, and will be returned to them as soon as is practically possible," said assistant commissioner Marianne Ryan, criminal operations, K Division RCMP. "Gun owners will also be provided the option of having the RCMP keep the guns until they are able to store them safely."

Do you think the PMO was right to interfere with the RCMP's standard protocol in a disaster where rules and order degenerate until things return to normal? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Obama: Keystone pipeline approval depends on its emissions

US President Barack Obama drew a clear line in the sand today on where he stands on the controversial keystone pipeline project. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver responded to the remarks, saying he's confident the facts support the approval of the project in a time when the Conservatives will likely be shifting their attention to the resource-based economy.

Obama told Americans as part of his climate change address that the keystone pipeline's zero net-increase in greenhouse gas emissions "is absolutely critical in determining whether this project will be allowed to go forward."

Oliver responded, saying, “On a net basis, I don’t see any increase on emissions.”

He continued his pitch saying 20% of the crude would come from Saskatchewan, North Dakota and Montana.

“That’s lighter crude, which has significantly lower emissions,” Oliver continued.

Oliver's next pitch was to compare the US's current imports to a future import from Canada. Oliver said Canada's oil-sands would release far less emissions than those of the US's current supplier, Venezuela. 

“I just think if you look at the facts and the science we’re comfortable the project will be approved,” Oliver said.

“The economic advantages are obvious and overwhelming,” Oliver said, pointing to a $7.6 billion project that would carry millions of barrels of bitumen from Canada to Texas refineries per week.

In terms of National Security, Oliver made the pitch that Canada's oil "would be displacing oil from a less reliable source.”

Obama rejected the project early last year, but when TransCanada was able to present an alternative that wouldn't harm ecologically sensitive regions of Nebraska, the state approved it. 

“The almost five-year review of the project has already repeatedly found that these criteria are satisfied,” a TransCanada spokesperson said in a statement.

“If Keystone XL is not built, it’s clear that the oil will move to market by truck, rail and tanker, which will significantly add to global greenhouse gas emissions to move the product.”

Sierra Club of Canada executive director John Bennett cited Obama's conditions were "an impossible task."

“Stating approval could only happen if it didn't lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions is clearly a death sentence for Keystone,” Bennett said.

The US government has yet to come to a conclusion on the project but will likely do so by this fall, leaving Obama with the final word on whether it will pass.

While the Harper government is hoping for a positive American response, they're not about to back down if the response is negative. 

Government sources told CTV they expect Harper to shift the narritive to the resource economy this fall, which he'll sell as economic stability for Canada.

As much as the choices are economic, given the rough political waters the government has been through, the shift in focus would bode well politically as it pits Harper against the opposition on a suit Canadians tend to favor Harper in.

"I do believe that diversifying Canada's export markets is the fight of our time," said one government source.

"These are defining issues, because we're taking one side on these issues, and the opposition's taking the other side of them. Canadians will have a very clear choice before them."

The Conservatives want to fast-track deficit elimination so they can roll out their big campaign promise: family income splitting. 

As the Harper intends to bring the economy back to the forefront of public attention, he hopes for a successful trade deal with Europe.

"We can look back at our record with pride and look ahead with confidence, because we have made good decisions," Harper said in Dolbeau, Quebec on Monday.

"Few countries in the world can brag they have an economy as dynamic as Canada's."

The calendar for such announcements, however, has been shifted since the Alberta floods delayed their convention and will require Government aid. 

The Harper government, plagued in scandal, is also expected to shuffle the cabinet to revamp momentum in his cause, something one Conservative warned was crucial.

"He has to show momentum," said one Conservative. "If we wait until later in July to take action, there's a risk it will go unnoticed."

But, don't expect the scandals to go away just yet. Canadians still don't have answers to the Duffy Affair and the opposition will likely try to hammer away at the government in the fall.

A shift to talking about the resource economy will likely give new life to environmental discussions, especially in the wake of the Alberta floods. It is clear climate change is happening, even if Conservatives deny it. As for Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, he likes to preach "scientific facts" but managed to insult internationally renowned and awarded Climatologist James Hansen who spoke in opposition to the keystone pipeline project.

Obama's decision and the future of Canada's resource-based economy will be interesting to watch. While Canada needs to take advantage of economic gains in this sector, one must caution of the consequences of leaving all of one's eggs in one basket, and the future costs of intensified climatic anomalies. What do you think Obama will do? Will the new narrative help a beaten government, or cause a further rift among Canadians? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

The Defense Department is still nothing but fat and bureaucracy

Despite a report two years ago outlining wasteful bureaucracy in the Department of Defense, and despite a cut to the department as part of the Conservatives' effort to reign in their deficit, the number of civilian staff members rose 30% in six years. For a government that preaches fiscal prudence, there is no place they want to seal off more than the Defense department.

The Parliamentary Budget Office released new numbers last week showing the status of the public civil service. The numbers show the number of non-uniform staff in the Department of Defense rose to 27,177 by the end of the 2011-12 fiscal year from 20,978 in the 2005-06 fiscal year.

The 30% increase in the Defense Department far exceeds the net 14% increase in the entire civil service.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper sent a letter to Defense Minister Peter MacKay last year telling him to second look the cuts he can make in his department, after seeing the swelling of administration that needs to be gutted.

Retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie gave the same warning in 2011 when he released his report on overhauling the military: Drastically cut the bureaucracy that was created for the Afghan war.

Two years after this report, however, it turns out the cuts MacKay chose to make hurt our men and women in uniform, the very people he was supposed to protect. The bureaucracy remains bloated, and the Canadian military is paying the price. It isn't that the military is underfunded, it's that the funding is wasted in bureaucracy.

"The underlying premise of the 2011 report on transformation was that everything possible should be done to protect the front-line teeth," Leslie told The Canadian Press yesterday.

The 2011 report also noted the civil service increase in the department "had been the highest in absolute and relative terms."

A spokesperson for MacKay said they aim to reduce the number from 29,348 to 25,408 by the end of this fiscal year. However, this reduction is a far cry from former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien's clean up of bureaucracy which reduced the number of civil servants in the department of defense to 17,037 in the 1999.

"This is in line with our department's transition to a lower pace of operations following the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan," Paloma Aguilar said in a statement.

In the last year, only 1,500 civilians were laid off as a part of MacKay's cuts. However, rather than coming out of the administrative offices and bureaucracy, that 1,500 came out from clerical staff at bases, gun range supervisors, radiation safety advisers, armoury workers and trades helpers -- people on whom the troops depend. This doesn't show that cutting is bad, it shows that MacKay cut the wrong places, the Defense Department, among others, is in need of a drastic clean up.

Leslie noted the elimination of these aforementioned affected positions would put the weight of these duties on soldiers and sailors - all the while offices remain bloated with administrators. 

"All of those folk who have received affected notices, at least the vast majority, are to be found on bases and directly support the front-line troops. And I don't see affected worker notices going out to where the vast majority of the growth has occurred since 2004, which is at the higher level headquarters."

Leslie's report showed a 57% increase in Ottawa-based administration and finance since Harper came into power in 2006.

"No one argues about the legitimacy of contributing towards reducing the federal deficit. It is where the cuts occur. That's always been the rub," he said.

Anguilar's statement, however, didn't state where the next round of cuts will be, however given the misguided target for the first round, one can only hope the second round is done properly.

During Leslie's initial assessment, he and his team were blocked by senior officials from looking at the civilian side of the Department of Defense - forcing the team to rely on external data from the federal Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission.

According to the PBO, when former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien inherited the $39 billion deficit from the former Conservative government, the Department of Defense had 37,200 civilian staff in 1990. As part of Chretien's successful clean up of the financial mess he inherited, he managed to reduce bureaucracy in the department down to 17,037.

If Liberal PM Jean Chretien and then-Finance Minister Paul Martin could cut the bureaucracy in the military by 54%, why aren't the "fiscally prudent" Conservatives able to do the same today? Harper once stood for reducing bureaucracy, what happened? What do you think of the news of how finances in the Department of Defense is mishandled - especially in light of recent procurement controversies with the F-35 and Arctic icebreakers? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Emails: Diplomats, Military Officials told to downplay F-35 fiasco

Emails show Canadian diplomats and military officials were instructed to downplay the scathing report from the Auditor General which outlined the Government's waste in the F-35 project when speaking with foreign officials. At one point, they were told to blame it on "bureaucratic" issues.

The Department of Defense's damage-control effort instructed officials to spread the blame, rather than accept or address their responsibilities.

Canada is among nine other countries who were purchasing the F-35 and given how tightly knit the project was, any change in order from one country would impact the order of the others, explaining a $40,000 meeting in February 2012 at the Embassy in Washington among the countries.

On March 13, 2012, Canada sent the first shock-wave down the partnership when then-associate defense minister Julian Fantino said, “We have not yet discounted the possibility of backing out of the program.”

The following day, National Defense director general Andre Fillion wrote in an email to procurement chief Dan Ross, “Dan, those are pretty specific words (from Fantino) and are not going unnoticed within the partnership.”

When Fantino's remark made international headlines, the Department of Defense was forced to issue a statement, affirming Canada’s “position has not changed,” that Canada remained “committed to the Joint Strike Fighter Program,” and that “a budget has been allocated.”

As the price tag ballooned, the next shock-wave struck, and struck hard. On April 3, 2012, Auditor General Michael Ferguson revealed the Defense Department was purposely misleading Parliamentarians and taxpayers by whitewashing reports that showed cost over-runs to ensure the purchase was made.

Diplomats responded to the department that the story made international headlines, including “a lot of articles on the subject in Norwegian and Dutch papers these days!”

Answers were demanded from foreign diplomats, the Dutch emailed the Canadian embassy saying, “In the Netherlands this report is already used by the factions which are against the F-35.”

The department's Director General Wendy Gilmor responded by emailing the partners telling that she must "emphasize" the issue was “tied primarily to internal Canadian bureaucratic processes.”

Officials were instructed to assure partners “we remain part of the JSF Partnership,” even though “specific decisions related to the timetable for the acquisition of Canada’s next generation fighter aircraft will be deferred.”

Whether the order was made at the political or departmental level remains unclear, but while the Defense Department accepted Ferguson's report, the Public Works department rejected the report claiming they managed the project with due diligence.

Canada's top military officer, Rear-Admiral Richard Greenwood focused the attention of foreign counterparts to specific lines in media releases.

“Canada remains committed to ensuring that the Royal Canadian Air Force has the aircraft it needs to do the jobs we ask of them,”one of the lines read, another stated $435 million in contracts created contracts for Canadian companies participating in the F-35 program.

A separate departmental document reveals a "counter-narrative" was ready for when the AG report was released. “The reputation of how DND conducts acquisitions is at stake,” and the counter-narrative was supposed “to bring balance and context to misrepresented and/or misinterpreted information.”

When the auditor general revealed the operation and maintenance cost of the planes being pegged at $45 billion, significantly higher than what was previously said, the Conservatives canceled the contract to purchase 65 F-35 stealth fighters.

The Conservative government then went to competitors and asked them to come up with better offers - something that should have been done in the first place.

The re-assessment process has brought companies like Dassault Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Saab Gripen, the Boeing Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin’s F-35 to the table. Their assessments should be complete by the end of the summer. Saab, however, has opted out of the assessment. From this point, the government will decide to either move ahead with the F-35 project, open a competition or kill the project.

Killing the project would drive up the cost and/or potentially create complications for the other countries in the F-35 program. Sources told CTV in December that Conservative officials were trying to bury the current proposal.

The emails show a desperate cover-up on the part of the Department of National Defense on the issue of procurement. Another contract that is likely to follow the same, out of control, route as the F-35 is the Arctic patrol ice breakers which has already cost taxpayers ten times more than in any other country just for the design. Will the Conservatives try to sweep the mismanagement of this contract under the rug as they did with the F-35 contract for the past several years? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

PMO orchestrated protest during Trudeau's speech this month

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau's accountability speech June 5 was crashed by protesters and aired on national TV. In addition to the "in over his head" attack ads and negative spin on speaking gigs, the PMO is also responsible for a partisan protest manned by young Tory interns.

The Huffington Post has learned the PMO assembled a group of young Conservative interns to make signs advertising key Conservative talking points and protest behind Trudeau.

Liberal researchers and journalists were able to identify several of the protesters.

 Maddy Stieva

• Summer internship since May
• McMaster University
• Secretary Treasurer for Ontario Progressive Conservative Youth Association
 

Stav Nikita

• Finished Political Science Degree at Concordia University
• President of Conservative Club at Concordia

Nick Young

• Conservative Documents: Party staffer responsible for political operations in Ontario

James Mitchell

• Conservative HQ in Ottawa
• In charge of political operations in Western Canada and Northern Territories.

Grant Dingwall

• Staffer 2008-2011
• Works for Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP Rob Milligan
•  "Communications professional looking for new opportunities"

Carl-Olivier Rouleau

• President of Conservative club at Universite de Montreal
• Internship with Conservative Research Group this summer (Government caucus research bureau)

Taxpayers are footing the bill for some of their salaries. According to stats from April, the CRG receives $2,484,368 in public funding annually for salaries, contracts and office supplies.

Despite receiving taxpayer money, MP-set rules state “National Caucus expenses are not subject to public disclosure.” The Conservatives aren't the only party to recieve such funding, the NDP got $2,363,187 and the Liberals got $1,177,425. The fund is intent to help MPs in parliamentary activities, “wherever performed and whether or not performed in a partisan manner.”

The money, however, is not supposed to be used on “activities related to the administration, organization and internal communications of a political party” or, in the context of an election campaign, “to support or oppose a political party or an individual candidate.”

Conservative interns are paid $1,700 per month and are given experience in HQ, MP's offices, and the research bureau.

Conservative party spokesman Fred DeLorey said, “Interns who spend the summer in ministers’ offices don't engage in partisan political activities; those who work for the Conservative party or CRG do.”

Parliament rules state MPs are allowed to conduct their duties without “obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation” and only hold ground inside the building and during travel to and from the chamber. It isn't clear whether the fake protest may have broken such a rule.

Liberal whip spokesman Vince MacNeil asked Parliament Hill's head of security Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers to look into the matter.

“It’s fine to disagree about public policy, but we don’t think mounting fake protests of each others’ media availabilities does any good for anyone,” MacNeil said.

The PMO is under scrutiny for the Duffy affair and while Prime Minister Stephen Harper dodges questions about his former chief of staff's payment to disgraced senator Mike Duffy, it appears the only thing the PMO can do is wreak havoc and play dirty politics in a desperate bid to distract the public.

What do you think of the PMO's orchestrated protest? Did they break Parliamentary rules? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Calgary Floods: An act of God or proof of climate change?

Climatologists have been warning the world for years about the ramifications of climate change. It is no secret global temperatures are on the rise and as the earth continually tries to regain equilibrium, climatic anomalies will continue to stagger in severity. Is the recent flooding, crippling Calgary, simply an act of god, or an example of what climatologists have long been predicting?

Stronger hurricanes, extreme temperature shifts, abnormal precipitation patterns, rising ocean levels and localized flooding are all on the list of short term consequences due to a changing climate. While the cause is split between natural cycles and human activity, one thing is clear: something is happening - something that was predicted.

The recent flooding in Calgary is unprecedented and deemed as a once in a century event; crippling the down-town to a point its mayor says may not return to normal for another several weeks or months. The flood became devastating, moving to Medicine Hat as we speak - only to eventually find itself in Saskachewan. Fuelled by saturated soil from a winter jam packed with snow and recent rainfall, the water simply had no other place to go.

While not measuring in magnitude, Manitobans and Quebecers know what it's like - both experiencing their own floods two years ago.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quick to tour Calgary with Alberta Premier Alison Redford, but some may take notice his reluctance to aid those in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec when then-Premier Jean Charest and locals were left to clean up the mess on their own - some even called his absence "an insult."

The Calgary floods have postponed the Conservative Party convention, which was due for later this month, showing that no man can be superior than the power of nature. The floods have brought our focus to the region in condolences, but it's also brought attention to its oil - one that is up for controversial debate.

The Conservatives are pushing one of the largest oil development projects in Canadian history - one that is centred in Alberta. Destined to trade in Asian markets, and a push for it to enter American and European markets, the oil is worth billions in an era of growing energy shortage. As countries catch up to the industrialized world, demand for our limited resource, one that is growing scarce across the world, is on the rise.

But while oil poses a great economic benefit to Canada, it's other consequences may bear the ultimate price. Further growth in carbon emissions, further trapped rays of light will add to the planet's thermometer and to the changing climate that will act to punish those in its wake.

But it seems climate change is unavoidable, and but an inconvenient truth we have to face.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was asked on CTV's Question Period yesterday if he thought the floods were caused by climate change. Kenny said, "Well no, this is a once in a century event, and there was no one talking about man-made climate change in 1892 when we saw the last flood of this nature. We haven't had a warm spring here, we had some rain for three days and a heavy run off that lead to this situation and the stuff that I've read and commentary from scientists says that there is not a connection between weather events of this nature and broader climate issues."

The narrative is consistent with the Conservatives who have been dismissive of climate science. In fact, our current Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver went on the record to insult well-known award-winning climatologist James Hansen in his visit to Washington DC, saying he should be ashamed of speaking out against the oil sands.



Kenney pegged the cost of the damages at more than $1 billion in losses to the Canadian economy, in addition to an expectedly hefty bill to repair Canada's energy capital. While Kenney says the Canadian government will be there to help Calgary, it is worth noting the military now charges communities, and provinces for their aid in disasters such as flooding and wildfires as part of cuts to the Department of Defence.

As the Conservative war on climate scientists wages on, Calgarians pick up the pieces of their town, ravaged by a once in a century flood, caused by abnormal weather patterns. So that leaves one question, was the flood in Calgary an act of God or proof of climate change? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

John Baird scrutinized for "freeloading" on taxpayers' property

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird is under scrutiny after CTV news learned he and six buddies had a vacation at the official residence of Canada's High Commissioner to Great Britain. The scrutiny intensified as we learned Baird used tax-payer owned assets in New York on two separate occasions for vacation use.

CTV reported Baird stayed in the Mcdonald House in central London with six buddies while on vacation in England. The house is only used by the Prime Minister and Governor General when in the UK on business.

Liberal MP Roger Cuzner called the vacation "disappointing."

“When you see a high-profile minister of the Crown that takes advantage of the taxpayer in this way…if he was on government business, that’s one thing but certainly being on vacation with a bunch of his buddies, it’s an abuse of the taxpayer.”

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar went a step further and said Baird and his friends were freeloading.

“The way it works for the Conservatives is if you’re a buddy of the Conservative Party, it’s open the doors and freeload,” he said.

The building was used by Canada since it was bought from the US government in 1960. The building sits in the central location in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

Baird's office said he paid his way. “Mr. Baird paid his own way. His own taxis. His own drinks.”

Gordon Campbell, Canada's High Commissioner to Great Britain, said he invited his boss to use the place. “I invited him to use the apartment. I wasn't going to be there and the staff was not there. He used it as my friends would use it.”

Baird's ministerial spokesman Joseph Lavoie defended him, saying, "The minister personally paid for the trip himself, including [the] flight, and personally paid for transportation to and from airport by cab, as well as around London."

Baird's office said he also took a vacation in New York city December 28, 2011 and January 2, 2012, using the residence of the Canadian Consul General John Prato. 

"The minister has two friends who happen to be heads of missions. He has taken them both up on their offer to stay as a personal guest of theirs," Lavoie wrote. "On both occasions, no expenses were incurred and no taxpayer monies were used."

Conservative Senate leader Marjory LeBreton defended Baird's visit during yesterday's senate question period, saying he saved taxpayers money. "This trip did not cost taxpayers a single dime. Minister Baird has saved taxpayer dollars in recent years by staying at official residences rather than in expensive hotels when travelling on official business."

Liberal Senator Jane Cordy responded the visits weren't business-related. "Those are pretty good accommodations for an eight-day stay in London. Eight days of accommodations, free of charge, in a mansion that is owned by the taxpayers of Canada and that is valued at more than $500 million. Who can sign up to stay there?"

Baird's professional management has also come under scrutiny. Contradicting LeBreton's statement, on his last official visit to London in 2012, Baird charged taxpayers $300 per night at the Carleton Club.

  

What do you think of the recent news that John Baird is part of the Conservative culture of entitlement? Are you fed up of politicians using taxpayers' money and assets for personal and/or partisan use? Who were the six guests that accompanied him in London? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

The Duffy Affair: Investigation broadens, implicates 12 Tory MPs

The Duffy investigation has broadened to grab the electoral records of 12 Conservative MPs and the spending claims of independent senator Mac Harb. Court records show the RCMP's sensitive and international investigations division has characterized the investigation as one on "Breach of Trust."

The records show the RCMP has records that show Harb owned a residence in Cobden Ontario until May 2011. Harb is suing the senate claiming he did nothing wrong and the senate mishandled the file.

Records held by CBC show Duffy claimed per diems while campaigning for a list of Conservative candidates in the last election.

• Scott Armstrong.
• John Carmichael.
• Robert Goguen.
• Gerald Keddy.
• Greg Kerr.
• Sandy Lee.
• Wladyslaw Lizon.
• David Morse.
• Joe Oliver.
• Tilly O'Neil Gordon.
• Gin Siow.
• Rodney Weston.

The senate has handed over two DVDs filled with documents pertaining to Duffy's expense claims and the minutes of May 28's Board of Internal Economy meeting.

What do you think of the broader investigation and the implication of 12 Conservative MPs? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

Grace Foundation never authorized letter to Trudeau

The Grace Foundation has released a statement amid a week that has left them "deeply distressed." The Foundation said it didn't authorize any letter to Trudeau, just days after controversy broke because of a letter released to the PMO from board member Susan Buck that said Trudeau's event last year was a "huge disappointment and financial loss for our organization" and deep Conservative ties that were easily exposed.

In a written statement, Foundation chair Ian Webster said no letter was authorised and board members "are deeply distressed about many statements made from various persons," but are "most concerned" over statements Conservative MP for Fundy-Royal Rob Moore made this week - we note Rob Moore is linked to board member Judith Baxter.

Webster said "there was never any intention for this .. to become a political topic of discussion on the floor of the House of Commons" and furthermore "did not authorize any member or agent to approach the Honourable Member for Fundy-Royal or any political person on this matter."

Webster confirms a "private letter" was sent to Speakers Spotlight after they learned of Trudeau's hefty speaking fees, but when they got no response, "it was agreed at the May board meeting that no further follow-up would be necessary."

Moore, however, had a different take. He told St John's CSHJ radio, "I was asked if I would try to exert pressure on Mr. Trudeau,"

Asked by whom, he said: "Asked by members of the Grace Foundation."

Moore didn't comment today on the statement, saying he hadn't read it.

Grace Foundation statement

The board of directors of Grace Foundation consists of local community volunteers serving the residents of an established nursing home in Saint John, New Brunswick. 

Subsequent to an article published in the Montreal Gazette titled "Trudeau errs on speaking fees" published on February 20th, 2013, by L Ian Macdonald, the board wrote a private letter to Speakers Spotlight, dated March 13, 2013, regarding speakers fees. 

After receiving no response, it was agreed at the May board meeting, that no further follow-up would be necessary. 

We are deeply distressed about many statements made from various persons. However, we are most concerned with the remarks that the Honourable Robert Moore, MP for Fundy-Royal has made concerning our foundation. 

There was never any intention for this matter to become a political topic of discussion on the floor of the House of Commons. 

The Board of Directors did not authorize any member or agent to approach the Honourable Member for Fundy-Royal or any political person on this matter. 

We believe our correspondence this week with Mr Trudeau will be helpful in clarifying the misunderstanding between Mr. Trudeau and ourselves. 

Ian Webster
Chairperson

In essence, this political stunt was manoeuvred by the PMO and the PMO alone. This shouldn't be a big surprise to many, as we've seen the pieces fall together the past few days. If anything, this is a confirmation that a desperate Conservative hierarchy used a link in the Grace Foundation to create a distraction that has only made them look worse - especially since it was found a Conservative Senator recently did the same.

Judith Baxter should step forward and clear the air. Did she go to Rob Moore? Did her husband go to Rob Moore? Did Rob Moore approach her or her husband?

For an organization that is allegedly dissatisfied with Trudeau's service, isn't it ironic they still have that 2012 post that highlighted their evening?

"Guest speaker Justin Trudeau spoke passionately about our roles and responsibilities as Canadians in the global community, challenging each individual to consider his or her contribution toward positive change," the posting says.

"Audience members agree it was an evening to remember."

NDP Ethics critic Charlie Angus blasted the Conservatives for wasting a political opportunity on Tuesday.

“You had a political gift. It was gift-wrapped for you. This was the easiest thing in the world and just out of sheer stupidity, blockheadedness and spite you’re blowing it. 

The Conservatives are starting to sound ridiculous on this. The story of Mr. Trudeau’s charging outrageous fees to schools spoke for itself. Just leave it at that.” 

Charlie Angus, NDP Ethics Critic, To the Conservatives

What do you think of the revelation that the Grace Foundation never formally approved a letter asking for Trudeau's refund? How has this scandal effected the way you see the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

NDP: Harper wastes political opportunity and money with Trudeau

The NDP aren't thrilled with the way the Conservatives are handling the Grace Foundation's "political gift" to them. All the while, the Conservatives are under fire over PMO resources that went to this partisan attack. The NDP had hoped to make political gains by having the Conservatives take the brunt for attacking Liberal leader Justin Trudeau who is ahead in the polls.

“You had a political gift. It was gift-wrapped for you. This was the easiest thing in the world and just out of sheer stupidity, blockheadedness and spite you’re blowing it. 

The Conservatives are starting to sound ridiculous on this. The story of Mr. Trudeau’s charging outrageous fees to schools spoke for itself. Just leave it at that.” 

Charlie Angus, NDP Ethics Critic, To the Conservatives

Just to add insult to injury, former Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber said “I see that as a very inappropriate use of taxpayers’ funds.”

“If the party mechanism wants to come up with those types of products or engage in that type of purely partisan warfare, that should come from the party machinery, not from the taxpayer-funded PMO.”

The controversy arose after a local Barrie paper, The Advance, leaked the PMO material offering rather than following the guidelines. Had they followed the guidelines, 2007 speaking events would have been scrutinized and the data would have came from a "source."

Angus said the Conservatives squandered a chance to point out Trudeau's "outrageous fees to schools." One of these schools is Guelph University - leaked by the PMO.

Lori Bona Hunt, a spokeswoman for Guelph University, said she has no intention of asking for a $7,500 refund for the speech he made in 2006.

It’s certainly a non-issue,” Bona Hunt said. “We did not ask and we don’t plan to ask for Mr. Trudeau to pay back any money.”

She didn't know how the PMO got the information about the event at the University but said she doesn't plan to investigate.

Meanwhile, Gregory Thomas, spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said “the Prime Minister’s Office is as political a place in Ottawa as anywhere,” condemning the use of taxpayer money on recent partisan attacks.

“What I think most Canadians hope is happening in the Prime Minister’s Office and with their taxpayer dollars is that it is doing work for them and cleaning up the expense problems in the House of Commons and Senate,” he said.

“It’s possible for the prime minister to refocus his staff in a hurry if he wants to. The prime minister needs to take a long look in the mirror and ask if this is what people voted for.”

Whether you think it is ethical for government officials to be accepting money from charities or other speaking events during their tenure isn't the issue. The issue is the Conservatives are looking to distract peoples' attention from the Duffy affair which is taking a hit on their poll numbers and the NDP, who are in third nationally, are looking for a political opportunity to slow down Trudeau's growth as Liberal leader. While it is arguable that this is politics and everyone winds up being opportunists at some point, it is worth noting the NDP have long been the party of "fixing Ottawa" and have long been the party standing against such political opportunism. It is worth noting that in light of the Trudeau distraction and the transparency debate, the "fix Ottawa" mantra is nothing but a political opportunity itself.

What do you think of the NDP's response to the Conservatives' handling of the charity controversy? What do you think of the Conservatives' decision to use the PMO to fuel partisan attacks? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Conservative Senator was paid for his charity work too...

The Conservatives are one to talk about ethics when Senators from their party committed the same acts as they claim were wrong for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau to do. Former NHL Coach and Conservative Senator Jacques Demers, however, did the same thing as Trudeau, painting Tory claims with a thick coat of hypocrisy. While collecting a salary in the senate, Demers collected money for speaking to a literacy charity.

Literacy Link South Central Executive Tamara Kaattari says Demers was paid $4,500 to speak at a charity event in November 2011. She recalled he agreed to give a $1,000 to $2,000 discount.

Kaattari said the speech was done to raise awareness over literacy and wasn't a fundraiser. As far as ethics are concerned, she didn't see a problem and added the bilingual speech was a good experience.

“Should have he done it for free? No, I don’t think so,” she said.

“Public speaking is not an easy thing to do. He’s a celebrity. I don’t begrudge him his price.”

She didn't recall paying for his flight from Montreal.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper dodged questions concerning the PMO's connection to the Grace Foundation and the proven ploy to smear Liberal leader Justin Trudeau from "sources."

Harper said “as someone who is paid by the public, I get good remuneration from the taxpayers.

“As a public servant, I don’t think it is appropriate for me to then take money from charity. I give money to charity. I do not take money from charities, and I don’t think it is appropriate under those circumstances.”

Trudeau didn't break any rules, but given the context and circumstance the Conservatives built these claims on, it is quite hypocritical to find they've done the same.

Do you think recent reports showing Conservative Senator Jacques Demers accepted money from charities while being a senator depicts a hypocritical stance for Harper and the PMO? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

PMO orchestrated Grace Foundation contradiction and smears

It is telling when a charity, which has clear links to the Conservative Party and PMO, demands a refund a year after enjoying an event with Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. Numbers discovered through the Canada Revenue Agency show an organization that's doing very well, contrary to the claims they made as part of an opportunist act orchestrated by the PMO. Just when the PMO didn't have enough problems with the Duffy affair...

The Grace Foundation recently demanded a $20,000 refund from Justin Trudeau after a change of heart about his fundraising efforts for the charity. They recently claimed in a letter from board member Susan Buck, circulated through the PMO and Conservative MP Rob Moore, that the event was "a huge disappointment and financial loss." 

In 2012, the same year as Trudeau's "evening to remember," The Hilltimes reports CRA records show the Church of St. John and St. Stephen Home Inc., the organization that owns the Grace Foundation fundraising arm, spent $3.2 million on management and administration while only spending $2.3 million on charitable programs. The revenues were listed as $4 million from the New Brundswick Government and $1.7 million in unspecified goods and services.

The Grace Foundation is in good shape, filing an annual financial and activity report showing $4.59 million worth in building and land assets and further ownership in "other capital assets."

The foundation reported $880,000 worth of 10 full-time salaries and a further $1,398,448 for 78 part-time workers. It listed $4,661,494 as the amount it spent for the year of compensation.

PMO Press Secretary Julie Vaux attacked Trudeau in response to the leak, claiming “Most parliamentarians raise money for charity, not from charities.”

Interestingly, The Hilltimes reports Grace Foundation Chairperson Ian Webster and trustee of the Church of St. John and St. Stephen Home Inc. was unreachable.

The scandal leaked through the PMO, rather than through Conservative Party research, raising questions on whether tax money was used to orchestrate the smear.

On June 16, the PMO sent information on Trudeau's 2007 Barrie speech, which allegedly lost money, to The Advance.

Yesterday, an email exchange obtained from Simcoe News showed PMO Communications Officer Erica Meekes sent information regarding a $10,000 speech that netted a $4,118 shortfall for the Georgian College. The information, however, was said to be coming from a "source" rather than the PMO itself.

“As a follow-up to the growing controversy over the weekend on Justin Trudeau charging charities for his speaking services, I have enclosed further materials that demonstrate the scope of this practice, cost on the organizations, and in many cases, poor outcomes and large deficits as a result of his speaking tour,” the email stated. “As discussed, these materials are provided to you on background, and should be attributed to a ‘source.’”

The information included invoices, a promotional poster, and a receipt for Toronto Four Seasons which Meekes responded, “To be fair, there is an in-house yoga studio at the Four Seasons!”

Meekes told Simcoe the PMO often reaches out to the media when confronted with the exchange.

Usually, Party researches leak information to the media, however, this time, it was the PMO. 

Meekes' email instructed the media to speak to "the local MP for Georgian College" Patrick Brown, who said Trudeau should be forced to refund the event, even though it happened before he entered politics.

“I don’t know why he wouldn't do it for free even before he was an MP. He didn't charge the Liberals to do speeches at their partisan events,” said Brown. “Why charge charities and not-for-profits, especially when they are losing money, based on his professional ability to draw crowds?”

Trudeau offered to reimburse charities who paid for his services between 2008 and 2012, which wouldn't include this one.

Recent activity on social media showed Grace Foundation board member Judith Baxter had a photo-op February 23 in the PMO and a picture of when she received a Jubilee reward with Conservative MP Rob Moore. Additionally, Baxter's husband Glen is listed on the board of directors in the Fundy Royal Conservative riding association - Moore's riding.

This is a desperate time for the PMO. After losing Nigel Wright in the Duffy affair, the Conservatives are desperate to change the channel on the mess they created but have in turn implicated the PMO in yet another scandal.

What do you think of the charity's finances? What do you think of the PMO's partisan initiative? Will this stunt hurt or help Liberal leader Justin Trudeau's image? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Grace Foundation charity refund another failed Conservative stunt

The Conservatives launched an attack on Liberal leader Justin Trudeau Friday, claiming he made profit on his charity services. The attack came as the Grace Foundation asked for a refund after claiming Trudeau's speech did nothing to further their efforts. Screenshots circulating on social media, however, show its board member, Judith Baxter has close ties with the Conservative government and a lucrative position in the public sector.

The screenshots leaked to social media depict yet another PMO attack gone wrong in the midst of an ongoing scandal and criminal investigation into dealings that took place in the Duffy affair.

Baxter is listed in the CRA as the Vice Chair of The Church Home Charitable Foundation and was also reappointed as a trustee to the Canadian Museum of Civilization by Heritage Minister James Moore on December 15, 2011.

Baxter also allegedly took a photo-op which she says was in the PMO on February 23.

Baxter also was presented a Jubilee medal by Conservative MP Rob Moore.

The Grace Foundation alleges they lost thousands of dollars after paying Trudeau $20,000 to give a speech. Trudeau has agreed to repay the money but it appears the case isn't necessarily as much about Trudeau's business as it is a potential favour to the Conservative government.

The refund was asked through a letter from board member Susan Buck to Trudeau, circulated through the PMO, saying the speaking event was "a huge disappointment and financial loss."

Trudeau's spokeswoman at first said Trudeau fulfilled the requirements and the complaint was made over a year later.

The “Grace Foundation did not contact anyone for reimbursement until almost one year after the event, despite having previously indicated that they were satisfied with the event,” Trudeau’s spokeswoman, Kate Monfette, told The Globe and Mail Friday. “With regards to this event, Mr. Trudeau fulfilled all obligations within his contract.”

In fact, on July 3, 2012, the Grace Foundation released a statement calling the event an "evening to remember."

"On Wednesday June 27, Grace Foundation hosted its inaugural fund raising event. Guest speaker Justin Trudeau spoke passionately about our roles and responsibilities as Canadians in the global community, challenging each individual to consider his or her contribution toward positive change. Following the formal presentation, audience members had an opportunity to pose questions and engage in conversation. Audience members agree it was an evening to remember." 

Grace Foundation, July 3, 2012, An Evening with Justin Trudeau

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was quick to weigh in.

“He was getting paid $160,000 as an MP, but he went and took a $20,000 cheque from a group of seniors trying to do a fundraiser to buy furniture,” Kenney said, later adding: “He pretends to be a defender of the middle class. Middle-class Canadians make charitable contributions. They do not take huge payments from charities, especially when it is their job to help them.”

Trudeau later responded in a conciliatory fashion, saying, "I am open to exploring all options with them to ensure that they are satisfied with the outcome."

Buck then told CBC by phone that she referred the matter to the board's chairperson Ian Webster after not receiving any word from Trudeau.

Meanwhile, Conservative MP Rob Moore said "only when embarrassed in the media" did Trudeau decide to repay the charity. "Trudeau did not go far enough, he did not categorically commit to repay the Grace Foundation and the many other charities across the country who deemed his services a 'big disappointment.'"

NDP Ethics critic Charlie Angus said charging the charity was inappropriate. "The question is whether or not he's making this offer because it's political damage control or because he's come to the realization that it was completely unethical for a Member of Parliament to be charging fees, especially outrageous fees, to charities and schools."

So the recent attack on Trudeau from the PMO - legitimate or another attempt at a smear? If the leaked screenshots indicate anything, is the need to question the Conservative and NDP attack as one that is based on opportunism rather than merit. The Grace Foundation seemingly has ties to the PMO through Baxter who is not only seen bragging about a photo-op in the PMO office, but being appointed by James Moore to the Canadian Museum of Civilization trusteeship. Over a year later in the middle of a scandal, all of a sudden the Conservatives are desperately looking for distractions, is this one of them? Has it been effective or has it backfired? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

UK Labour MP: Harper's Speech was "not prime ministerial"

Prime Minister Stephen Harper went to Europe to hammer out an EU-Canada free trade agreement and to escape the growing scandals that have plagued his government. However, when Harper went to speak to the British Parliament, he was not only met with protests, British parliamentarians were unimpressed with his speech.

Labour's shadow foreign and commonwealth affairs critic John Spellar said Harper's address was “distinctly partisan,” and sounded like “a meeting of the parliamentary Conservative party.”

He noted Harper's statements towards British Prime Minister David Cameron where he said the “determined efforts and your wise and principled leadership during these last few years as we have dealt with the difficult and critical issues facing our countries and the world issues which require the best of what has always made Britain unique and strong, and which you have plainly demonstrated.”

“Saying how wonderful Margaret Thatcher is – he might have noticed that this was a controversial issue,” Spellar said Friday. “Now, of course he’s a conservative, but throughout the speech to be obsessing about how only Conservatives had the answer and therefore he and David Cameron were the right people, is not the way to do it.”

Spellar continued and said Harper's speech was "not prime ministerial" and that much of the Labour caucus expressed how "disappointed they were" with Harper's address.

“All of these are common issues, certainly here between parties. They would be agreed issues,” he said. “That’s what makes it sort of slightly concerning when someone just seeks to make that a narrow, short-sighted partisan issue.”

Spellar has held is seat in UK parliament since 1992, serving as the minister of defence and transport in former Labour governments.

Spellar also noted a stark difference between Harper's address and those of former Prime Ministers Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.

“Canadian prime ministers in the past have had that broader perspective, so it’s not a case of saying ‘Here’s someone from Canada, they’re bound to be parochial’. That’s not the case at all,” he said. “It is that someone’s really not speaking for Canada, which is a G8 member, a G20 member, a major player in international affairs. And this wasn't a speech from a big figure from a big country.”

Harper left the UK to tour Europe, but during his stay in Britain, he was met with protesters who are very well informed of controversial events that have taken place in Canada in the past few years.

What do you think of British response to Harper's visit? How has Harper's image impacted Canada on the world stage? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

MPs increase their travel budgets and salaries

On March 25, the Commons Board of Internal Economy decided to give MPs a pay increase and larger travel allowance. MPs will be getting a 1.6% raise while also receiving 6.7% more money for their travel allowances. The changes were only made public Thursday when it was tabled in the House of Commons. In a time of economic uncertainty and a focus on reducing deficits, increasing MP salaries and travel allowances proves to be reckless and irresponsible.

As of April 1, MPs' accounts rose $1,762 to $28,000 per year. The account can be used by MPs to declare expenses for spending such as accommodation, meals, internet, cable TV, utilities, parking and travel-related expenses.

MP salaries are now $160,200 per year, up from $157,731 per year, the first increase in three years. Most Canadians wouldn't make this much, or have these perks, some, haven't seen a raise in a while and this one is being paid for by them.

The increases come amid a war over secrecy where every party has been negatively implicated. The Conservatives have several MPs and senators who have abused taxpayers' trust, as have the Liberals and recently, the NDP rejected calls to become transparent themselves.

Senators also got a pay increase, $135,200 per year, up from $132,300 last year.

NDP MP Nicole Turmel, a spokesperson for the board, thinks Canadians will be understanding of these hikes. She also stated the board cut other costs like printing. Meanwhile, she expressed her understanding Canadians are entitled to more transparency.

Conservative Government Whip Gordon O'Connor is the other board spokesperson and he refused to comment.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is up in arms over the increase, noting it is much more than inflation and the government's overall increase in expenditure.

“When the government itself is mandating austerity, in a secret meeting, these politicians decide to give themselves a raise and we don’t find out about it for almost three months,” Gregory Thomas, director of the taxpayers federation said. “This is another illustration that the expense control systems in Parliament are broken beyond repair.”

For the first time, the board took a step towards transparency, publishing the minutes of the meeting online. Previously, when minutes were tables in the Commons, people would need to make a request in order to see them. 

Despite the Board's attempts to become transparent, they are still hiding quite a bit. For instance, April 22's "security" notes are described as “The Board took note of a document regarding a security matter.”

What do you think of the increases in MP spending and salaries in times of austerity? Do you think Turmel is right by expecting Canadians to be understanding? If you had the decision, would you increase, freeze or decrease their salaries and spending? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

NDP only party against transparency measures

The party that wanted to position itself as Canada's "ethical alternative" to the Liberals and Conservatives has shocked Canadians Tuesday with their outright dismissal of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau's motion to make MP finances public. The NDP has further surprised taxpayers yesterday when the party refused to publish their finances online and refused to comment on their stance.

The NDP have introduced a double-standard in their bid to make Canada more transparent and accountable. When it comes to getting Liberals and Conservatives to shape up, Canadians can always count on the NDP to be at the front lines, but when it comes time for the NDP to join suit, they back out. Refusing to publish their MP expenses online has led to a very interesting question for New Democrats: Why? What do you have to hide? If the Liberals and Conservatives are bold enough to make websites to post their expenses on, why don't the NDP lead by actions and not by, clearly ungrounded, words?

+The Canadian Political Scene first reported the NDP's dismissal of Trudeau's transparency measures Tuesday and it was met with strong reaction. The NDP, who faced a lot of scrutiny for their sudden flip-flop, have responded and held consistent to their response. NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen, who accused the Liberals of playing a "political stunt" defended his stance on his Facebook page.

"Ok folks - let's clear up what happened yesterday and today. The Liberals asked for unanimous consent and didn't show us what they wanted until the very last minute. Today, Elizabeth May asked for the same thing but tried to work with us and we agreed with her. She doesn't sit on the BOIE so this is good. Liberals have a seat there but haven't said boo for more than a year while we worked on improving transparency. We're willing to work with all parties but let's actually work together to get things opened up." 

Nathan Cullen, June 12, 2013

However, despite claims of not knowing about the motion, no one could have missed Trudeau's candid pitch of the new measures a week prior. It is also worth noting the embattled Conservatives sided with Trudeau.

The Liberals have passed all of the NDP's recent accountability measures, including one Cullen admitted was a political attack against Trudeau - to investigate MP travel allowances and see if they're linked to speaking engagements. 

Cullen said the Liberals went against procedure, however, given the purpose of the motions and the announcement over a week ago, it is clear Cullen used this as an excuse to dodge having to support it. The irony remains that Cullen says the Liberals said nothing while the NDP have been trying to build transparency behind closed doors.

“The normal procedure is if you’re serious about getting unanimous consent from the House, you talk to the other parties,” Cullen told reporters yesterday. “You don’t surprise them. Because asking for someone to agree to something they haven’t heard about on the fly, especially something important, is more of a stunt than serious work.”

Please, provide a list of Canadians who were surprised that Trudeau introduced these measures, especially when he introduced them to the public so candidly which Cullen claims was but a mere "stunt."

Cullen furthered his political attack, claiming the Liberals only care about transparency when they need to.

“It seems to be a newfound interest,” Cullen said. “As soon as Liberal senators started getting in trouble, now the Liberals are suddenly interested in transparency.”

However, when CTV tried to ask NDP MPs to comment on Cullen's position, they kept walking and refused to speak.

Presently, every MP is allowed to charge $10,000 in hospitality every year with no required receipts. During parliamentary business, MPs are allowed to charge up to $90 per day for food. Each of their $284,700 office budgets can also be kept private. These expenses are tracked by an all-party committee that keeps the information behind closed doors. 

The Liberal Party promised to post their expenses online by the fall and the Conservatives followed suit. The NDP, however have opted not to follow suit and are instead fighting the idea. For such luxurious expense claims most Canadians won't even use in a week, why is it such an issue for NDP MPs to post their expenses online?

If the embattled Conservatives, who have several MPs and former senators implicated in spending abuses, can do so, why not the NDP? What do the NDP have to hide? Why are the NDP so quick to pounce on the Conservatives and Liberals if they cannot accept the same standards for themselves? 

“We are absolutely in favour of transparency,” Treasury Board President Tony Clement said. “We have always been looking for ways to do so with MP expenses.”

Many NDP supporters have dismissed the topic as partisan rhetoric but the real issue lies with the NDP's ability to act on its principles, rather than just preach them. Canadians counted on the NDP to lead by example, but have instead shown the mission to fix Ottawa was riddled from the start with petty politics and cynical motives.

What is even more telling is this is but a pattern, not just a flop. The only difference this time, is Canadians are watching and Canadians are ready to call out anyone who goes back on their principles and the NDP, unfortunately, have a track record.

When Canadians were outraged about the 23:1 pension plan MPs get last year, it was the NDP that came out to defend it.

NDP MP Ryan Cleary said in April 2012, “I work my butt off. Would I deserve a pension of $28,000 after six years? Probably not. It should be more than that.”

When Canadians wanted answers into Dean Del Mastro's involvement with the Robocall Scandal and irregular campaign expenses, it was the NDP chair of the committee looking into the matter that shut it down and then attacked the Liberals.

When Canadians watched in shock at the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer sent a letter to the Speaker to suspend two Conservative MPs from the House of Commons over issues with election expenses, it was the NDP who suggested they stay in the House of Commons and defended them.

The NDP chose to commit these actions, all the while telling Canadians they stood for ethical standards and integrity. No one forced the NDP to commit any of these acts. It is puzzling and mind-boggling, and even more so the Conservative-style response. Not to mention, Cullen wanted to be the NDP leader on the basis of cooperation with the Liberals.

There is no doubting the NDP will continue to push for accountability and transparency, but it is disturbing that when the spotlight shines on them, rather than act on their words, they withdraw and attack. Considering  NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is the leader of the Official Opposition and is head of a perceived government in waiting, Canadians, who care very much about the integrity of their system, will be taking a close look. If this is the image the NDP want Canadians to see, then the backlash they're getting is well-deserved.

Yesterday, the Conservatives rejected an NDP motion to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer more powers to make Canadian finances more transparent. The NDP were quick to pounce but still refused to post their expenses online.

So what do the NDP have to hide? Why can the Liberals and Conservatives open the doors and not the NDP? Has the recent events changed your view of the NDP? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.