Monday, July 15, 2013
Harper overhauls his cabinet - may do more harm than good
Monday, July 8, 2013
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews leaves politics tomorrow
"It takes a great deal of deliberation on the part of those who decide to enter politics," said Toews in a statement today.
"It takes an even greater amount of consideration and effort to step out of office when one still enjoys the support of those who elected them. However, for me, the time has come to step aside and begin the next chapter of my life."
Toews has had his notable moments, none more notable than his Bill C30 and Bill C51 which blatantly tried to allow the government to intrude on people's online activities without a warrant and is unconstitutional. When the opposition ripped the bill apart, Toews told Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia he could "either stand with us or with the child pornographers."
This led to serious backlash - from a Twitter account called Vikileaks which leaked details of his divorce to Anonymous's address leaking every detail they allegedly have on him - responding directly to his child pornography statement.
Despite the controversy surrounding Toews, he believed he did the right thing.
"When I entered federal politics in 2000, I did so with the intention of making a positive contribution to Canada by being a part of the movement to unite conservatives across the country. Looking back, I believe I accomplished what I did because of my desire to work with other like-minded people," Toews said.
Toews is responsible for much of the Conservative tough-on-crime agenda which includes raising the age of consent to 16 from 14, abolishing the long gun registry and enhancing the RCMP Accountability Act.
Toews is also responsible for the RCMP, in an interview with Global's The West Block on April 28, 2013, he took full responsibility for the control over the RCMP.
“I'm responsible for the RCMP. I need to know exactly what the RCMP is doing and saying because if I go into the House of Commons and I have no idea what is being said, I'm at a distinct situation where it appears that I'm not carrying out my responsibilities to the House of Commons,” Toews said.
“Essentially what happens, especially if it’s MPs from my party, they’ll come to me and say, ‘Look I want to talk to the RCMP,’ and I’ll refer them to an individual and that’s the end of it,” he said.
“The RCMP clearly has to communicate as an entity, especially on issues of national and public security.”
“I'm responsible for the RCMP. I need to know exactly what the RCMP is doing and saying because if I go into the House of Commons and I have no idea what is being said, I'm at a distinct situation where it appears that I'm not carrying out my responsibilities to the House of Commons,” Toews said.
“Essentially what happens, especially if it’s MPs from my party, they’ll come to me and say, ‘Look I want to talk to the RCMP,’ and I’ll refer them to an individual and that’s the end of it,” he said.
“The RCMP clearly has to communicate as an entity, especially on issues of national and public security.”
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Document: Conservative Party wanted to repay Duffy's expenses
Sworn affidavits in the Ontario Court of Justice in Ottawa show Cpl Greg Horton alleges Duffy broke the law when he accepted "an advantage or benefit of money ($90,124.27) from Nigel Wright."
The documents reveal two RCMP officers discussed the repercussions of the cheque with Wright on June 19.
According to the documents, lawyers said the Conservative Party was planning to repay the illegal expenses.
“The Conservative Party was initially going to repay the money for Duffy from a Conservative fund, when it was believed that the amount he owed was approximately $32,000,” the documents read.
However, while the Conservatives intended on paying the amount, when Conservative Senator Irving Gerstein saw the price tag, lawyers told the RCMP, “It was too much money to ask the Conservative Party to cover.”
Wright then opted to pay the cheque on two conditions: “pay back the money right away” and “stop talking to the media about it.”
Lawyers say Wright repaid the costs “believing it was the proper ethical decision that taxpayers not be out that amount of money.” The document said that Wright “did not expect the money to be reimbursed” by Duffy.
The document alleges Harper's former legal advisor Benjamin Perrin along with two other people inside the PMO were aware of the deal.
In May, Perrin was approached on his involvement and said, “I was not consulted on, and did not participate in, Nigel Wright’s decision to write a personal cheque to reimburse Senator Duffy’s expenses.”
Wright's lawyer insists Harper was unaware of the dealing and the RCMP haven't yet made “a decision on whether to interview Wright as a suspect or witness.”
The RCMP also noted the sanitized report two months later.
“The final Senate report … relating to Duffy’s expenses was less critical than the original draft report, which is consistent with the purported deal between Duffy and Wright,” the RCMP investigator report wrote.
“I believe there was an agreement between Duffy and Write involving repayment of the $90,000 and a Senate Report that would not be critical of him, constituting an offence of Frauds on the Government.”
What do you think of the new revelations showing the Conservatives wanted to write the cheque? With the knowledge spanning so widely around Harper's office and party, do you believe he was left in the dark? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.
Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair
Read more
Bureaucracy ballooned under Harper at expense of services
The Canadian government needs a clean up. Taxpayers are paying millions for bureaucracy that slows down and starves services. Under the Conservatives, a number of departments saw hiring sprees and payroll increases - not for services Canadians care about, but bureaucracy that continues to pose as leaks in a deteriorating hose.
While the Conservatives muse on public sector pensions, sick leave and collective bargaining, they are the cause for a drastic increase in Canada's bureaucracy.
New figures from the Parliamentary Budget Office show the Department of Defence wasn't the only department to be swamped with new bureaucrats and suffocating mismanagement.
Between the fiscal year of 2005-2006 (when Harper came to power) and 2012, the number of people on federal payroll was up 14%.
In the same period, information service employees were up 15.3%, administrative services ballooned 20%, financial management staff rose by 35% and welfare program employees rose 43%.
These increases don't mean these services got better, these increases mean there were more mouths to feed as money trickled down - this means money that would have went to services, instead went to these new bureaucrats.
The Canada Border Agency ballooned 54.6%. The Correctional Service jumped 31%.
The RCMP's bureaucratic fat rose 40%. The RCMP admits bureaucracy now represents 25% of its staff, up from 21% in April 2006.
Public Safety Canada jumped 53% but officials say that excluding the part-timers, "the departmental workforce has in fact increased by only 35.56%."
The Canadian Security Establishment ballooned 42%. Meanwhile, FINTRAC — the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada which tracks money laundering, organized crime and terrorist financing spiked 88%.
The Department of Defence rose 29.3% where Ottawa-based finance and administration jumped 57%.
The Justice Department saw a 10.7% increase in staff.
Aboriginal Affairs saw a 38% increase and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency nearly doubled.
The Treasury Board, meanwhile ballooned by 163%.
Canada's security, corrections and spy agencies also saw drastic jumps in bureaucrats, but surprisingly, the Finance Department dropped 22% (back to where it was when Jean Chretien's Liberal government made drastic cuts in the '90s), Industry Canada dropped 10%, the Heritage Department dropped 7%, Citizenship and Immigration dropped 8.3% and the Privy Council Office dropped 4%.
"By 2015 the Department of Canadian Heritage will be nearly 40 per cent smaller than it was at the start of the economic downturn in 2008," said Jessica Fletcher, a spokeswoman for Heritage Minister James Moore.
"We cut the bureaucracy and protected funding for Canadians outside Ottawa who needed it most," Fletcher said.
The Department of Natural Resources has spent more than ever trying to advertise the tar sands project, but has at least cut their bureaucracy by a mere 1.4%
The Library and Archives was down less than 1% and the Privy Council Office dropped 4%, despite being one of the largest in history.
Over the next 5 years, the Conservatives intend on cutting 19,000 jobs but according to the PBO, the overall increase in bureaucracy introduced 34,000 new individuals since 2006.
What do you think of the Conservatives' mantra of prudent economic managers given the amount bureaucracy increased while austerity crippled public services? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.
It is clear a government that wants to focus on services will need to reform the current infrastructure to ensure taxpayers' money is being put to good use. As a result, it would be recommended to cut the bureaucratic increases by at least the amount they increased since 2006.Summary of Bureaucracy Increases
Overall: 14%
- Treasury Board: 163%
- Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada: 88%
- Canada Border Agency: 54.6%
- Public Safety Canada: 53%
- Welfare Program: 43%
- Canadian Security Establishment: 42%
- RCMP: 40%
- Aboriginal Affairs: 38%
- Financial Management: 35%
- Correctional Service: 31%
- Department of Defence: 29.3%
- Administrative Services: 20%
- Information Services: 15.3%
- Justice Department: 10.7%
Summary of Bureaucracy Cuts
- Department of Finance: 22%
- Industry Canada: 10%
- Citizenship and Immigration: 8.3%
- Department of Heritage: 7%
- Privy Council Office: 4%
- Department of Natural Resources: 1.4%
- Library and Archives: 1%
What do you think of the Conservatives' mantra of prudent economic managers given the amount bureaucracy increased while austerity crippled public services? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.
Conservative Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton resigns
LeBreton was the star of the Duffy Affair and was renowned for her stark criticism of the media. She offered little reason for her resignation after 7 and a half years at the post and thanked PM Harper for "the opportunity of a lifetime." LeBreton will stay in the Conservative caucus and will have to retire in 2015 when she hits the mandatory retirement age of 75.
"Most of all, I want to thank him for his trust, his strong leadership and his friendship," she said.
"While I will be leaving the position of government leader in the Senate, I will continue to be an active member of the Conservative caucus over the next few years," said LeBreton. "I intend to step up my efforts in support of meaningful Senate reform and also actively back the new strengthened rules we introduced regarding Senate expenses."
LeBreton isn't the only Conservative stepping aside. Three MPs have stated they won't run for re-election in 2015.
Calgary MP and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Diane Ablonczy, Alberta MP and Minister of State for Finance Ted Menzies, and New Brunswick MP and Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield have all released statements declaring they won't run for re-election in 2015.
Meanwhile, polls show things are only getting worse for the Conservative Government. A CTV poll suggests 70% of Canadians say its time for change, and a number of polls indicate Justin Trudeau's Liberal party would form a government if an election were held today.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to announce his cabinet shuffle next week and he will have a good number of seats to fill. The shuffle will be a chance for him to give his government a much needed face-lift as Canadians tire of the current state of affairs - but will it work?
Trudeau visit to catholic elementary school spurs controversy
As a result, the school board changed the rules to ensure all partnerships “shall be forged to ensure respect for the distinctive nature of Catholic education and adherence to the Roman Catholic tradition.”
The board says the new rules come from the outcry of parents who want to protect their religious values.
Trudeau spoke to the school last November as part of anti-bullying week but parent Gillian Keenan argued “if you Google anything about Justin Trudeau, it comes up very clearly that he is strongly against some important Catholic teachings.”
“What it suggests is that the Catholic school and anyone supporting the Catholic school, therefore supports his platform,” Keenan said.
“He’s not all bad, but my point is just that we don’t need the star factor like him if what he stands for is contrary to Catholic teachings.”
However, speakers and partnerships weren't the only thing that concerned these parents. Field trips and who their children met on them was also a factor. Trips to El Salvador came under fire because some of the student groups part of Save The Children were in favor of abortion and stood against bullying, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of discrimination. One of the parents said the group's stances were promoting “the normalization of homosexuality.”
LifeSiteNews, a website launched by the Campaign Life Foundation, a Toronto-based anti-abortion group, and has ties to Harper's Conservative Party, amplified the criticism of allowing catholic-raised children to participate in normal society. A "Get out the vote" field trip during the last American election campaign was canceled after an article on LifeSiteNews claimed the teacher that was organizing the trip was a Barack Obama advocate. The parents didn't want their kids campaigning for Barack Obama who is pro-choice.
The controversy over the restrictiveness of the Catholic community wouldn't be as much an issue if the Catholic education system wasn't receiving taxpayer funding. It is understandable that parents who refuse to accept the world around them want to keep their children ignorant of opposing views and people. It is understandable that discrimination is alright for these people when it applies to their religious views. It is also understandable that the children are being brainwashed and used as political vehicles as they attempt to impose their views on society when no one is forcing them to enact in same-sex relationships and when no one is forcing them to get an abortion when one of their members get pregnant.
It appears this scandal and revisions to the board's policies are but a mere tactic to save the sinking ship that is the Conservatives - but even they came under fire by the same people for not doing enough to impose their values on Canadians. This brings the irony of a government that claims it promotes freedom while imposing its views on the public.
It appears this scandal and revisions to the board's policies are but a mere tactic to save the sinking ship that is the Conservatives - but even they came under fire by the same people for not doing enough to impose their values on Canadians. This brings the irony of a government that claims it promotes freedom while imposing its views on the public.
What do you think of the controversy surrounding the Catholic community and their new rules to further isolate their children from the outside world? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.Policy Changes
Partnerships, sponsorships and donations
Old policy: “Partnerships and sponsorships with individuals, parish and community groups, business, industry and government shall be consistent with the Board’s philosophy, Vision Statement and Catholic Social Teaching. The principles of Catholic Social Teaching include reference to the dignity of the human person, human rights and responsibilities, common good, solidarity, the preferential option for the poor, and the value and dignity of human work. The international image and dealings of a corporation shall be just as important as local concerns in the decision to form partnerships.”
Revised policy: “Partnerships and sponsorships with individuals, parish and community groups, business, industry and government shall be forged to ensure respect for the distinctive nature of Catholic education and adherence to the Roman Catholic tradition. The Board’s philosophy, vision statement, as well as Catholic Social and Moral Teaching, will also direct partnerships and sponsorships.”
Old policy: “Students shall not be involved in promoting commercial products in any way.”
Revised policy: “Students shall not be involved in promoting commercial products in any way and shall not be involved in partisan political activity.”
Old policy: “Any business sponsoring activities within the Board or its schools will be accepted as environmentally safe, and be consistent with a healthy lifestyle. Controversial products and services are to be avoided (e.g., alcoholic beverages and tobacco products).”
Revised policy: “Any business sponsoring activities within the Board or its schools will be accepted as environmentally safe, and be consistent with a healthy lifestyle and aligned with Catholic Graduate Expectations. Controversial products and services are to be avoided (e.g., alcoholic beverages and tobacco products), as well as influences contrary to Catholic social and moral teaching.”Field trips and excursions
Old policy: “The Board shall endorse and encourage field trips of an educational nature.”
Revised policy: “The Board recognizes the educational value for students and staff to participate in field trip experiences and encourages field trips and excursions as part of an enriching Catholic educational program for all students.”
Old policy: “Opportunities will be provided for Sunday worship on all weekend field trips.”
Revised policy: “Attendance at Sunday Mass on all weekend field trips is required.”
New policy: “Field trips and excursions will be linked to the Ontario Catholic School Graduate Expectations (CGE’s) and the distinctive culture of Catholic curriculum.”
Friday, June 28, 2013
PMO interferes with standard RCMP procedure in High River
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+.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Obama: Keystone pipeline approval depends on its emissions
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."
"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."
“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."
"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+.
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
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
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+.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
PMO orchestrated protest during Trudeau's speech this month
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
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.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)
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+.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Calgary Floods: An act of God or proof of climate change?
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+.
Friday, June 21, 2013
John Baird scrutinized for "freeloading" on taxpayers' property
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 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+.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
The Duffy Affair: Investigation broadens, implicates 12 Tory MPs
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.
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
Read more
Grace Foundation never authorized letter to Trudeau
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.
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+.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
NDP: Harper wastes political opportunity and money with Trudeau
“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.”
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.
Conservative Senator was paid for his charity work too...
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.