Politics in 2013

[Edward Campbell]

It is truly amazing how the Harper Hater TM media can cog up the normal governmental process on matters of minimal importance. The same thing seems to be happening south of the border only it appears to me they tend to favor the current US administration against all common sense.

Sorry, I'm anything but a Harper Hater®, quite the reverse in fact, and I think these, dishonest legislators and an unelected legislative chambre, are matters of significant import.

The only saving grace, I think, is that next year, maybe early in 2015, but before the next election, the Auditor General will tell us that financial irresponsibility is the hallmark of many, too many Senators - Conservatives and Liberals alike - and the thrust towards serious reform will grow in intensity.


Edit: grammar  :-[

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well, I would hardly call this a blip.  It has been going on for almost a year now and it is mostly of the CPC's making.  From the poor decision to name them in the first place to throwing them under the bus to the ever changing stories.  So yes the media is all over it but, they keep feeding them.

It's been going on for a year, simply because the MSM and the Opposition has nothing else to whine about. Throwing them under the bus? You're kidding right? What were they supposed to do, ignore what was going on? Duffy, et al, hung themselves.

It is relatively minor yes, agreed.  But it is hampering the government's effectiveness because they are forced to focus on this.  It also harms the credibility of the party and the PM.  Most people I know could care less about prorogation, stymied committees, limits on independents and backbenchers etc etc.  But this story has drama and they are all listening and watching or at least somewhat informed.

Again, the only real drama is that created by Duffy's whiny, woeful obfuscation of the issue. That, and again, it's all the MSM and Opposition have to try pin on the PM.

This has as much drama as a daytime soap. A bad one at that.

Can anyone explain why in gawd's name they brought that senate motion forward when they did?  They should have just stayed the course, refer everything to the investigation at hand and carry on.  instead they have to deal with the monsters they created.

This won't topple the government but it is hurting them.  As I said, advisors should be sacked over this.

Monster  :facepalm:

I'm sure Stephen Harper is reading this and will take your recommendations under advisement.

That's it. I just can't do this any more.  :ignore:

 

[Remius]

I'm sorry you are taking this personally Recceguy.  I actually enjoy the political threads on this forum and enjoy speculating, analysing and figuring out how things might play out.  Reminds me of dinner table conversations minus the personal attacks.  Feel free to ignore if you want but I prefer engaging conversation.  As such I will respond to some of your points without attacking you.

Sadly, many of the base and many in the CPC circle are not willing to just put blinders on as to what is/might be going on.  They are voicing their concern.  I suspect some of those concerns will be aired at the convention.  There has been some tactical errors and things need to be fixed.  Dismissing it hasn't worked.

And one can blame the media only for so much.  Eventually one has to take a more objective look at things.  When even conservative pundits and talk radio hosts are voicing concern then it raises eyebrows. 

Aside from the current environment, an election is still far off. This story while far from over, will likely not have any more legs by 2015 and the media et al will probably be on to something else.  Hopefully the economy will be the real story by then and when the time comes, people will vote on that or other items of substance.

A year is a long time for damage to be made but a year is also a long time to change the channel and make people forget.  The CPC just hasn't figured out how to do that yet

 

[Edward Campbell]

Sorry, I'm anything but a Harper Hater®, quite the reverse in fact, and I think these, dishonest legislators and an unelected legislative chambre, are matters of significant import.

The only saving grace, I think, is that next year, maybe early in 2015, but before the next election, the Auditor General will tell us that financial irresponsibility is the hallmark of many, too many Senators - Conservatives and Liberals alike - and the thrust towards serious reform will grow in intensity.


Edit: grammar  :-[

I just learned, last night, from a Senate insider, that a) the Auditor general's work has already started; b) the report is due in late 2014, but interim reports are likely; and c) names will be made public. That's good news for Prime Minister Harper and, likely, bad news for many individuals: Conservatives and Liberals alike.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm torn, but I'm putting this here because it's part of political discourse, even if it's also about procurement.

Am I the only one reading this as a government MP sorta-kinda back-handedly blaming the opposition for the death of at least some Canadian troops in Afghanistan in a statement to the House of Commons yesterday?

Mr. Speaker, as November 11 approaches, I rise to remember 41 brave women and men from CFB Petawawa who made the supreme personal sacrifice for their country as members of the mission to Afghanistan.

    Lest we forget, it was the decision of the previous government to play politics with military procurement. The short-sighted cancellation of the Sea King helicopter replacement contract led to many preventable casualties. By forcing our soldiers onto roads mined with bombs and improvised explosive devices, precious Canadian blood was spilt. Only after our Conservative government provided the right equipment, heavy-lift Chinook helicopters, did casualty levels drop.

    Lest we forget, the opposition continues to play politics with military procurement. Come next election, we will remember.

Has anyone briefed whoever wrote this statement that (and I stand to be corrected) even if the Sea Kings were replaced by past management, those likely wouldn't have been the choppers used in Afghanistan?  Apples, meet oranges?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm torn, but I'm putting this here because it's part of political discourse, even if it's also about procurement.

Am I the only one reading this as a government MP sorta-kinda back-handedly blaming the opposition for the death of at least some Canadian troops in Afghanistan in a statement to the House of Commons yesterday?

I'm with you ... it's a cheap shot that attempts to exploit our war dead to score a partisan political point. Ms Gallant is a permanent backbencher, but she is popular in her (largely rural) riding and she's very pro-military; but her "pitbull" political tactics are often objectionable; this one certainly is.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm with you ... it's a cheap shot that attempts to exploit our war dead to score a partisan political point. Ms Gallant is a permanent backbencher, but she is popular in her (largely rural) riding and she's very pro-military; but her "pitbull" political tactics are often objectionable; this one certainly is.

Bad form, indeed.  Interesting, then, that it made it through whatever sausage machine is in place to vet such things.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm torn, but I'm putting this here because it's part of political discourse, even if it's also about procurement.

Am I the only one reading this as a government MP sorta-kinda back-handedly blaming the opposition for the death of at least some Canadian troops in Afghanistan in a statement to the House of Commons yesterday?Has anyone briefed whoever wrote this statement that (and I stand to be corrected) even if the Sea Kings were replaced by past management, those likely wouldn't have been the choppers used in Afghanistan?  Apples, meet oranges?

When I was there last in 09, there were SeaKings flying out of KAF.  If there had been new birds, who knows?

 

[Remius]

I just learned, last night, from a Senate insider, that a) the Auditor general's work has already started; b) the report is due in late 2014, but interim reports are likely; and c) names will be made public. That's good news for Prime Minister Harper and, likely, bad news for many individuals: Conservatives and Liberals alike.

That is interesting indeed.  I can see two possible scenarios come of this.  One being good for the PM the other bad.

The bad being that the current senate debacle will have been abated but will once again be front and center with the media focusing on implicated or named Conservatives, particularly anyone named by PM Harper.

The good being that with some long time senators possibly being named, liberals in particular, the finger waving will stop from the liberals, and they might also get hurt in the process as will the CPC, with only the NDP having a foot to stand on (which really helps the CPC).  If the PM gets ahead of it and makes this his issue on tackling senate reform in a meaningful way.

Either way, I predict a rash of early retirements from those who qualify from all quarters around or prior to the release of the report. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

When I was there last in 09, there were SeaKings flying out of KAF.

As in Canadian Sea Kings?  Who knew (obviously, me)?  I had heard of Brit Sea Kings being in theatre ....

.... but not Canadian.

 

[Remius]

I'm torn, but I'm putting this here because it's part of political discourse, even if it's also about procurement.

Am I the only one reading this as a government MP sorta-kinda back-handedly blaming the opposition for the death of at least some Canadian troops in Afghanistan in a statement to the House of Commons yesterday?Has anyone briefed whoever wrote this statement that (and I stand to be corrected) even if the Sea Kings were replaced by past management, those likely wouldn't have been the choppers used in Afghanistan?  Apples, meet oranges?

Yeah, it is a cheap shot using the dead for sure.  But she's said worse things before in my opinion.  This kind of statement is not damaging though.  She's popular in her riding, but I think people there would be better served by someone else.

 

[vonGarvin]

When I was there last in 09, there were SeaKings flying out of KAF.  If there had been new birds, who knows?

Those were not Canadian Sea Kings.

 

[vonGarvin]

She's popular in her riding, but I think people there would be better served by someone else.

And that point right there is nothing but pure political snobbery.  "They deserve someone else".  Well, Mr. Crantor, it is up to her constituents to decide, for themselves, whom they want to elect to represent them in Ottawa.  Not you.  Not me.  Them.


Your opinion is noted, even though it's totally irrelevant.

 

[Remius]

And that point right there is nothing but pure political snobbery.  "They deserve someone else".  Well, Mr. Crantor, it is up to her constituents to decide, for themselves, whom they want to elect to represent them in Ottawa.  Not you.  Not me.  Them.


Your opinion is noted, even though it's totally irrelevant.

Fair point.  Her riding association obviously supports her as the CPC candidate. It is their choice indeed and if they were unhappy with her they would apply whatever pressure to have her changed.  Her views have been a liability before and I guess I have a formed  an (and yes biased) opinion based on that.  However, on a more objective view of her, she is a hard working MP for her riding (I've seen her at a few military functions, grad parades etc in pet and know she attends much more than I've seen).  She's been relatively quiet about her social views compared to a few years ago as well.  But her brand of social conservatism has worried me in the past and is the kind that turns right of center people like myself away. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm with you ... it's a cheap shot that attempts to exploit our war dead to score a partisan political point. Ms Gallant is a permanent backbencher, but she is popular in her (largely rural) riding and she's very pro-military; but her "pitbull" political tactics are often objectionable; this one certainly is.

Also, if one had done their homework, they would have found out who/which party sold the old Chinooks in the early 1990s.

Wrong/sad statement on a number of levels.

 

[Remius]

Indeed.  But not likely to get any real traction.  As mentioned, some of her statements before have been objectional.  While sad and wrong it is pretty minor, and like many backbench MPs that have limited speaking time they try to score what they can when they can.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here are two opinion pieces, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from, respectively, the National Post and the Globe and Mail that speak for me. One is outraged, the other is resigned and I guess that's how I feel: outraged and the conduct (and morals) of most politicians but resigned to the fact that we seem, today, to select our politicians from a rather shallow and stangnantpool:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/10/30/andrew-coyne-to-recap-the-prime-minister-is-not-responsible-for-almost-anything/

To recap, the prime minister is not responsible for almost anything

Andrew Coyne | 30/10/13

To recap, the prime minister is not responsible. He is not responsible for appointing Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau to the Senate. He is not responsible for appointing senators from provinces in which they were not resident, and he is not responsible for their subsequent activities shilling for the Tories across the country at public expense.

And he is most certainly not responsible for the clandestine campaign, involving officials in his office, the chairman of the Conservative Fund Canada, and several leading Conservative senators, to repay Senator Duffy’s falsely claimed expenses on his behalf and conceal his misdeeds from the public. He is not responsible for his spokesman’s statements, even after the plot had been exposed, praising Mr. Duffy for “doing the right thing” and vouching confidence in his chief of staff, Nigel Wright.

On the other hand, he is responsible, by his own account, for telling Mr. Duffy to repay his expenses, though he had for months denied having any involvement with the file, and he was briefly responsible for “dismissing” Mr. Wright, though he had earlier claimed he resigned, and though he now seems unwilling to say which version is operable.

But he is not responsible for the current campaign to suspend the three senators two years without pay for “gross negligence” — a made-up penalty for a made-up offence, meted out by a process that seems to change by the day. He is not responsible because, as everybody knows, the Senate is wholly independent of the prime minister — as independent as his own office.

He is not even responsible for answering questions about his responsibility in this affair. He does not answer questions from the media, and when called upon to answer questions in Parliament as often as not passes them off to his parliamentary secretary. Even when he does answer questions, he doesn’t answer them.

The notion that Stephen Harper should bear any responsibility for the actions of his staff, or indeed his own, is one of those quaint relics of a bygone age, like outdoor showers or honesty. There was a time when public office holders were expected to take responsibility for these things, as a matter of personal honour if nothing else. But conventions last only as long as they are observed. Today, the prime minister clings to his position — I was the victim of a conspiracy involving everyone around me — as tightly as Senator Duffy clings to his paycheque.

Indeed, the notion that conventions matter is itself a convention. In recent years they have been discarded by the dozen, and the faster they fall the less any of them are missed. A glance at the headlines is enough to see how little remains.

It used to be a convention that bills of differing purposes would be introduced and voted upon separately, not packed into a single omnibus bill. The first time this was attempted it was shocking. The second was tedious. The third, now before Parliament, is not even news.

That debate on the bill itself has been cut off — the government’s entire fall agenda, pushed through in a matter of days — adds to the sense of vertigo. Once, invoking closure — or its politer form, time allocation — was the stuff of epic parliamentary battles. Now it is more the convention to shut off debate than to allow it. And it is the convention not to mind.

Wait, as Senator Duffy might say: there’s more. The minister of intergovernmental affairs, with responsibility for matters such as national unity, publicly repudiates the stated policy of the government in which he serves on the most important matter it is ever likely to face — namely, that a “clear majority,” and not a mere 50% plus one, in any referendum on secession is one of the conditions for any subsequent negotiations. He does so, what is more, not as a matter of idle speculation, but just as the government is in court to defend its position.

Once, it was a convention that members of the cabinet were bound to uphold the policies of the government, and to be accountable for them, and that if they could not support those policies, they could not serve in that government. That, too, has long since ceased to apply.

There does not seem to be much that does bind the government: not convention, not its own promises, not even basic facts. It issues deficit projections at the beginning of the fiscal year that bear no resemblance to the figures that go into the books at the end. It claims to be on track to meet its greenhouse gas targets even as its environment commissioner issues reports showing that it is not even half-way there. It continues to defend its costing of major defence purchases even after the auditor-general has found them to be fraudulent.

So the revelations of how far senior government officials were willing to go to lie and cover up in the matter of Senator Duffy’s expenses should be no more shocking to us than it apparently is to the prime minister. I don’t want to say there was ever a convention that people in politics shouldn’t lie, but there were once some limits of decency: you could lie, but you couldn’t lie.

But these days it seems the only expectation is that you should not actually break the law. What once were honest lies have been rechristened “spin,” a term that is itself the best example of what it describes: even the liars can’t tell when they are lying any more. Should we be surprised that, in all this spinning about, they get a little giddy — that the closer they spin to the edges of legality, the greater the likelihood they will fall off?

But then, it is only a convention that we obey the law.

And ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-senates-real-problem-146-years-of-wink-nudge-and-shut-up/article15207287/#dashboard/follows/

The Senate’s real problem: 146 years of ‘wink, nudge’ and shut up

ROD LOVE
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Nov. 01 2013

Pardon my boredom, but as the CBC leads the Ottawa wolf pack in declaring that the “Senate Scandal” shakes the country to its very foundations, I offer the following News Bulletin: Some members of the Senate of Canada have been padding their expenses since Confederation.

I don’t know about you, but a practice of various Senators playing fast and loose with their expense accounts for 146 years could be described as a pattern.

The pattern is: wink, nudge, the rules are kinda loose, don’t be stupid, just order one extra bottle of wine, not two, make sure there is at least some, however questionable, rationale for it being connected to obscure Senate business when you submit the expense account, and then shut up.

And thus it has ever been.

The problem this time is that the pattern of cronyism on both sides of the aisle has been exposed.

Here is the real issue: Since Sir John A. Macdonald himself, Prime Ministers appoint fundraisers, luminaries and celebrities to the Senate who’s real job is to use their star power to go out into the boonies and raise money for the governing party, and charge the expenses to the Senate.

As in….

Senator: “Yes, I did go to Nowhereville, Manitoba to chair a Senate sub-committee on the Manitoba Duck Eggs Regulations.”

Journalist: “Did you also speak at a fundraiser for the governing party on the same visit?”

Senator: “Yes, but that was not the main reason for the trip.”

Journalist: “Oh, OK”.

And the Senate gives Canadians the bill for the airfare, hotel, meals and ground transportation of the Senator and his/her staffer, safe in the knowledge that the Senate sub-committee on Manitoba Duck Egg Regulations have done their indispensable work, (and that the governing party pulled in 35K at the fundraiser down the road on the same night).

Do you think Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin were appointed to the Senate for their vast grasp of the complex issues facing the country?

The Prime Minister’s challenge at his speech to the Conservative Convention on Friday night is to address head-on this built-in culture of soft look-the-other-way corruption that has Senators of all parties doing the party’s business on the public’s tab.

This isn’t about the future of the Senate, abolition or otherwise.

This isn’t about Duffy, or Wallin, or Brazeau, or Harb, or any others who will eventually be exposed for their questionable expenses.

This isn’t even about about the mysterious $90,000 payment of Mr. Duffy’s expenses and further payment of legal fees. The cops will get to the bottom of all that.

This is all about a Canadian Senate that has been used since Confederation as a de facto arm of the governing party’s political fundraising machine, with a weary Canadian taxpayer footing the bill.

Listen, former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin’s government eventually collapsed because he looked backwards.

By appointing the Gomery Commission to look at what happened in the past, Mr. Martin unwittingly exposed a nasty tradition of this backslapping institutionalized crony corruption.

Of course, he should have taken the advice of the wily old Jean Chrétien to let the fuzz figure out who broke the law, and throw them in jail, and then move ahead with reforms.

Same for Stephen Harper if he recognizes the risk here.

There is an RCMP investigation of all the financial improprieties underway – let it happen.

In the meantime, address the larger issue of Senators being semi-official political bagmen with little or no oversight, guidelines, or rules.

Mr. Harper could be the Prime Minister that solves the real problem and changes 146 years of soft Senate corruption.

Call in the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada and direct them to bring in the most stringent and transparent expense accounting rules in the solar system.

And bring in a vetting process for Senate appointees that weeds out the celebrity fundraisers and leans towards people who actually know something about sound public policy development.

Personally, I don’t care if Mike Duffy “resides” in PEI.

I do care that a star fundraiser was appointed to the Senate, goes to Yellowknife or wherever on phony Senate business, raises money for the Conservative Party (of which I am a member) and then sends the bill to the Senate who then sends it to me.

And please, for God’s sake, please don’t televise the Senate proceedings.

If they are on TV, they won’t be able to take their naps. And Lord knows if they aren’t napping, they’ll probably be billing – Us.

Rod Love is a consultant who was chief of staff to former Alberta premier Ralph Klein.

One one key issue I agree wholly with Prime Minister Harper: senators and Members of Parliament, too who are found by our Auditor General to have defrauded you and me by misusing their allowances must go.

I wonder how effective we can be with about 125 MPs and 25 senators?

 

[a_majoor]

The Canadian Forces has a pretty basic and straightforward system of incidentals and per diem. If it is good enough for Pte Bloggins (who has an unlimited liability contract) then the same amount paid for incidentals and meals is good enough for senators, politicians and bureaucrats.

I'm sure a movement can be launched and the public can get behind this sort of leveling.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Canadian Forces has a pretty basic and straightforward system of incidentals and per diem. If it is good enough for Pte Bloggins (who has an unlimited liability contract) then the same amount paid for incidentals and meals is good enough for senators, politicians and bureaucrats.

I'm sure a movement can be launched and the public can get behind this sort of leveling.

CF members and federal bureaucrats have the same regulations.

Members of Parliament need and, in my opinion, deserve some special perquisites ~ trips back to the riding, spousal travel, etc. But I agree that, for the most part, the government rates for  hotels, meals and incidentals are adequate for all, except for the approved rate for breakfasts - I don't think there's a hotel in the world that serves a breakfast at the Canadian government rate which is, I think, still under $10.00.

(But, when I was serving I used to go to some places where the approved rates were wholly inadequate and I claimed "reasonable and actual" - which meant a receipt for every single meal, taxi, phone call, laundry order, etc, etc, etc.)

 

[GAP]

Receipts are not a big deal.....businesses do it on a daily basis, I do it on a daily basis, and I am the guy to tallies it all up at month end.