It’s been a year since a Regina Walmart illegally hired two foreign students, and triggered a drama with them confined to churches granting them sanctuary from the Harper Government’s punitive mean streak. For Immediate Release June 18, 2013 One Year Anniversary: University Students Still in Hiding This week marks one year since two University of […]

That is all.

That is all.

I’ve felt badly for a while now that conservative voters have no ethical right wing party to vote for in Canada (or the USA, for that matter). The Conservative Party of Canada is the only Canadian political party with the word “coalition” in its Constitution. The CPC coalition of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives, removed right wing voters’ choice, so Harper’s new CPC could more easily cheat their way to victory.

Rathgeber: “There is speculative talk about starting a new political party and even reviving old ones.” brentrathgeber.ca/brents-blog/— Paul Wells (@InklessPW) June 17, 2013

With the (Read more…)

G8 Leaders convene in Northern Ireland Monday. France, the United Kingdom, and the United States will be leading the charge to take some action on Syria where, those three countries have concluded, dictator Bashar al-Assad has been using chemical weapo…

What to make of the PM’s speech to the UK Parliament yesterday? When a leader is accorded that type of honour, surely they’ve got to come up with something worthwhile. And this did seem to be an effort to make a type of legacy statement on Harper’s part.

What was his touchstone in the speech? The economy, of course, what else could it possibly be from Harper. And he seemed to be doing two things in his speech with that focus in mind.

First, he explained Canada’s domestic economic success in a distinctly conservative way. There were at least four references to low taxes. The trade agenda, government efficiencies. Which all seemed to be wrapped in an effort to portray this as some type of value statement, about what economic values Canada possesses. Here is some of it: 

“So, friends, knowing these things, in Canada, when times were good, we ran surpluses, and we used them.
“Not to expand the state, but to pay down debt and to lower taxes.
“As a result, since our Government came to office, the average Canadian family now pays about $3,300 (about 2,200 pounds) less in federal taxes every year.
“Canada now also has the lowest rate of tax on new business investment in the G-7.
“Consequently, we are widely regarded as the best place in the world to do business, and we have the best post-recession job creation record among the major developed economies.
“Our values also tell us, as you have put it, Prime Minister, that you cannot borrow your way out of a debt crisis.’
“In Canada, we have no debt crisis, so during the recession we were able, to deliberately borrow to sustain economic activity and confidence, but in a way that was timely, targeted and temporary.
“And we are now returning, gradually but surely, to a balanced budget, without raising taxes.

I hesitate to reiterate all that but it’s about showing Mr. Harper’s limitations. This seems like the kind of rote thing you’d say to the local Board of Trade. Except for the accompanying effort to spin it all into some kind of economic values system.

Then we heard a sort of Harper doctrine. The short version: There are world perils and threats that nations will have to meet but…our national bank account must be liquid, people! Otherwise, it’s a no go. 

“Countries that do not bring their finances under control or that close their economies to the world, will face consequences.
“And those consequences are not only economic.
“In the absence of solvency, relevancy will also disappear.
“Nothing can lead more quickly and more completely to diminished influence
in the world than the decline of economic performance and financial credibility.
“Should we fail to faithfully adhere to our values in economic matters the wider values that we wish to protect for all humanity, values of freedom, democracy and justice, of dignity, compassion and security, those valueswill almost certainly be eroded.
“And they will be eroded friends at a time, when they are most needed.
“Because for good to happen in this world, someone must speak up for these values, and have the will and the capacity to act, so that these values are not mere sentiments.
“I speak of the courage to denounce oppressors and aggressors, to counter extremist ideologies,and to confront the abominations that must not be tolerated.

Nothing leads to diminished influence more quickly than the decline of economic performance? Solvency? Shades of JFK but please add the economic fine print to this: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” See how much better that is?

It’s also ironic, these conservative leaders talking up the need to have stable domestic economies in order to meet world threats. The right wing policies that leave nations in debt and deplete treasuries are the economic results that have been seen. See also such economy destroying policies as invading Iraq.

More from the same crux of the speech where he defines the central challenge:

“But, make no mistake, if we wish to spread prosperity to others, we must be
prosperous ourselves.
“Without prosperity, there can be no aid.
“Indeed, without prosperity, we will have little ability to project any of our values anywhere.
“And, of course, we cannot hope to effectively spread these values unless we live by them ourselves and demonstrate our own success by virtue of doing so.
“Lord Speaker, Mr. Speaker, distinguished guests, I believe this is the challenge we face in the West today.
“There are massive shifts, shifts of epic dimensions, taking place in the world economy.
“To the extent this means that traditionally less fortunate people are beginning to enjoy prosperity, and the other fruits of our values, much of this is a good thing.
“But there are also, as there have always been, rising powers that do not share our values, and dangerous forces that seek to destroy them.
“We cannot, in the face of this, be at all complacent or, as I have said elsewhere,
We cannot entertain the notion, as I think some in the West do, that our wealth and influence can be assumed, that they are some kind of birthright.
“I know, Prime Minister, that neither of our governments think that, which is why we take the difficult decisions we do, to ensure our people will remain among the most fortunate and prosperous for the generations to come.
“But, just as we cannot be complacent about our wealth, neither can we allow our peoples, in these times of tough decisions and shifting fortunes, to become fatalistic.

Without prosperity there can be no aid, said the Prime Minister who will tout our world leading economic strength yet slashes foreign aid and dismantles CIDA but nevertheless praises Britain for keeping their levels up. The emphasis on western prosperity as what must be guarded rings hollow. There’s an us versus them tone to Harper’s remarks. We cannot give to you unless we remain well off. We cannot project our values unless we retain our wealth and influence.

Honestly, in reading such speeches that are occasions, and caring citizens should take a few moments to consider, you really want to hear and feel a sense of your country in them. But it just doesn’t seem to come with Mr. Harper. He doesn’t complete the job. Economics is cool territory, there’s no heart in it. It doesn’t grasp the essence of what Canada is and that could be portrayed to the world if this is a ground shifting moment, as he sees it.

Here is a clip – yes, one exists! – of the MacKenzie King speech to the UK Parliament in 1944 and his speaking of Canada entering the war. Harper included one of King’s lines in his remarks, saying we entered “not from obligation, but ‘was the outcome of our deepest political instinct, a love of freedom and a sense of justice.’” Out of our deepest political instinct. Times and instincts have changed…

Via the CPC:

I think I’ll go with the take of a little birdie who sent me a note on this…just proves that Harper has been making a mockery of the Conservative party:)Hyuk, yuk. 

If there was no John A. Macdonald, there would be no Canada.

Our most important founding father and first Prime Minister died 122 years ago today. Canadians of all political persuasions should take a moment and remember John A. Macdonald because they share so much in common with the man who made this country.

For Conservatives they owe much to Macdonald. Their majority government was elected because of moderation and stability, two values Macdonald owed his 19 years as Prime Minister to.

Jack Layton undeniably shared perhaps the most valuable trait with Macdonald, and that is being a man of (Read more…)

John Gormley attempts to sing a lullaby; Mixes up the words. [L]eave us alone to reconnect with life and keep the warmth coming. And get back to us when you’ve fired some Senators and Toronto is done. [...] advice is neatly summarized in Seven Things You Need to Stop Doing Every Day. The don’ts include […]

Mike Duffy once mocked Stephane Dion for asking for restarts to questions for a TV interview. Journalists typically grant these requests, as was explained at the time by less biased journalists. Future Conservative Senator Duffy, mocked Dion on his program. The Duffy laughing part is loud and annoying, but otherwise it’s a funny video with […]

Mayrand has come out to say finally that the Conservatives are not cooperating with the investigation into the robocall election fraud of 2011. I do not find this surprising, and if you’ve been reading my blog the past year, you’d know that’s because the evidence points to the Conservative Party as being involved in the […]

Peter Foster:

Harpergate, the rickety contraption hastily assembled by a team of the media’s worst handymen, has come off its hinges.

… What this “affair” has exposed more than anything is a pandemic of Harper Derangement Syndrome, combining lack of  proportion with an almost psychopathic desire on the part of the media to “get” a Prime Minister who won’t pander to their self-importance.

… These twin aspects came excruciatingly together on the CBC’s The National on Wednesday night. The programme pulled out all the stops in attempting to compare Mr. Harper unfavourably with President Obama.

… More egregious than this pile of flapdoodle – which muddles accountability with media accessibility … the most stunning part of the CBC report, which was what it left out about the performance of a President who, far from being a model of accountability, has recently been compared to Richard Nixon.  [Dennis Miller joked that the only difference between Obama and Nixon is that "when Obama gets around to saying 'I'm not a crook' they'll have to put it on his teleprompter."]

… The CBC entirely ignored the administration’s attempts to spin last year’s Islamic terrorist attack on the consulate in Benghazi, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the Ambassador.

… even some of the most incisive political analysts, such as our own Andrew Coyne appear to have been carried away by HDS.

… the notion that this was ever an affair that might have justified Stephen Harper’s removal from power is about as unhinged as the CBC’s claim that “accountability changes at the border.”

Great column, Peter!

Peter Foster:

Harpergate, the rickety contraption hastily assembled by a team of the media’s worst handymen, has come off its hinges.

… What this “affair” has exposed more than anything is a pandemic of Harper Derangement Syndrome, combining lack of  proportion with an almost psychopathic desire on the part of the media to “get” a Prime Minister who won’t pander to their self-importance.

… These twin aspects came excruciatingly together on the CBC’s The National on Wednesday night. The programme pulled out all the stops in attempting to compare Mr. Harper unfavourably with President Obama.

… More egregious than this pile of flapdoodle – which muddles accountability with media accessibility … the most stunning part of the CBC report, which was what it left out about the performance of a President who, far from being a model of accountability, has recently been compared to Richard Nixon.  [Dennis Miller joked that the only difference between Obama and Nixon is that "when Obama gets around to saying 'I'm not a crook' they'll have to put it on his teleprompter."]

… The CBC entirely ignored the administration’s attempts to spin last year’s Islamic terrorist attack on the consulate in Benghazi, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the Ambassador.

… even some of the most incisive political analysts, such as our own Andrew Coyne appear to have been carried away by HDS.

… the notion that this was ever an affair that might have justified Stephen Harper’s removal from power is about as unhinged as the CBC’s claim that “accountability changes at the border.”

Great column, Peter!

The Senate under siege

With the press baying at the prime minister, calling for answers to serious questions about a possible deal with a senator accused of fudging expenses, PM Stephen Harper decided to leave Canada and visit South America. Resolute in his own righteousness, Harper refused to allow “distractions” to prevent his government from concentrating on the economy.

Harper said he was “not happy” with the actions of some senators and with the conduct of his own office.

He promised to accelerate Senate reform, “uphold a culture of accountability” and not be sidelined by “distractions” that get in the way of his main priorities, such as job creation.

But the prime minister did not explain — or apologize for — the actions of his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, who resigned Sunday over controversy from his decision to secretly give Sen. Mike Duffy a personal $90,000 cheque to repay his ineligible housing expenses.

 

The Duffy Deal

That left his second-in-command, MP Baird, to rise in Parliament and answer questions about any deal that might have been cut:

Among them: Why did Wright decide to do this favor for Duffy? Did the ruling Tories “whitewash” a Senate report on Duffy’s expenses so it would not be critical? What did Harper know about the deal and when did he know it? Is it true that Wright used Harper’s former special counsel and legal adviser, Benjamin Perrin, to draw up a letter of understanding with Duffy in February? Did Wright break the law by giving Duffy the money?

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair asked the government to bring in the RCMP to conduct an investigation, while other New Democrats urged the governing Tories to end a “cover-up.”

“Was taxpayers’ money used to bankroll Senategate?” asked Mulcair.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said Harper had lost his “moral compass.”

“The prime minister’s right-hand man secretly paid a parliamentarian $90,000 to obstruct an audit,” said Trudeau in the Commons. “Canadians deserve better. They deserve actual transparency and accountability.”

“The government is being very clear that the prime minister was not aware of this payment until media reports surfaced last week.”

As well, despite media reports that a written agreement was prepared for the Wright-Duffy deal, Baird said it’s “our understanding there is no document.”

Baird’s answer has opened up a chink in the Harper government’s stalling tactics. 
 

What? Me worried?

By carefully stating that it’s “our understanding that there is no document” capturing any deal with Senator Duffy, Baird and Harper have chosen to directly contradict reports by CTV that there is an agreement, and moreover, that the agreement was reduced to writing.

Expect the PM to return head of his planned time, to take personal control of the explanations.

The Senate under siege

With the press baying at the prime minister, calling for answers to serious questions about a possible deal with a senator accused of fudging expenses, PM Stephen Harper decided to leave Canada and visit South America. Resolute in his own righteousness, Harper refused to allow “distractions” to prevent his government from concentrating on the economy.

Harper said he was “not happy” with the actions of some senators and with the conduct of his own office.

He promised to accelerate Senate reform, “uphold a culture of accountability” and not be sidelined by “distractions” that get in the way of his main priorities, such as job creation.

But the prime minister did not explain — or apologize for — the actions of his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, who resigned Sunday over controversy from his decision to secretly give Sen. Mike Duffy a personal $90,000 cheque to repay his ineligible housing expenses.

 

The Duffy Deal

That left his second-in-command, MP Baird, to rise in Parliament and answer questions about any deal that might have been cut:

Among them: Why did Wright decide to do this favor for Duffy? Did the ruling Tories “whitewash” a Senate report on Duffy’s expenses so it would not be critical? What did Harper know about the deal and when did he know it? Is it true that Wright used Harper’s former special counsel and legal adviser, Benjamin Perrin, to draw up a letter of understanding with Duffy in February? Did Wright break the law by giving Duffy the money?

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair asked the government to bring in the RCMP to conduct an investigation, while other New Democrats urged the governing Tories to end a “cover-up.”

“Was taxpayers’ money used to bankroll Senategate?” asked Mulcair.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said Harper had lost his “moral compass.”

“The prime minister’s right-hand man secretly paid a parliamentarian $90,000 to obstruct an audit,” said Trudeau in the Commons. “Canadians deserve better. They deserve actual transparency and accountability.”

“The government is being very clear that the prime minister was not aware of this payment until media reports surfaced last week.”

As well, despite media reports that a written agreement was prepared for the Wright-Duffy deal, Baird said it’s “our understanding there is no document.”

Baird’s answer has opened up a chink in the Harper government’s stalling tactics. 
 

What? Me worried?

By carefully stating that it’s “our understanding that there is no document” capturing any deal with Senator Duffy, Baird and Harper have chosen to directly contradict reports by CTV that there is an agreement, and moreover, that the agreement was reduced to writing.

Expect the PM to return head of his planned time, to take personal control of the explanations.

Senator Duffy

I have underlined and bolded an explosive sentence in the Andrea Janus article about the CTV report on the agreement dealing with the payment to Senator Duffy of an amount of $90,000 regarding expenses he claimed.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former special counsel and legal adviser worked on the legal deal between Nigel Wright and Sen. Mike Duffy’s lawyer that called for Wright to help Duffy pay off $90,000 in invalid expense claims, CTV News has learned.

Sources told CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife that back in February, Benjamin Perrin helped draft the letter of understanding that called for Duffy to publicly declare that he would repay the money. In return, sources say, Wright would give a personal cheque to Duffy to cover the $90,000. Sources say the agreement also stipulated that a Senate investigation into expense claims would go easy on Duffy.

The Prime Minister’s Office insists that neither Perrin nor Wright told Harper about the payout to Duffy or about any aspects of the secret arrangement.

The PMO also declined to release the letter of agreement, saying it is now in the hands of Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson, who is investigating Wright’s $90,000 cheque to Duffy.

Dawson’s investigation could take a year or more.

This thing is getting mighty interesting.

Senator Duffy

I have underlined and bolded an explosive sentence in the Andrea Janus article about the CTV report on the agreement dealing with the payment to Senator Duffy of an amount of $90,000 regarding expenses he claimed.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former special counsel and legal adviser worked on the legal deal between Nigel Wright and Sen. Mike Duffy’s lawyer that called for Wright to help Duffy pay off $90,000 in invalid expense claims, CTV News has learned.

Sources told CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife that back in February, Benjamin Perrin helped draft the letter of understanding that called for Duffy to publicly declare that he would repay the money. In return, sources say, Wright would give a personal cheque to Duffy to cover the $90,000. Sources say the agreement also stipulated that a Senate investigation into expense claims would go easy on Duffy.

The Prime Minister’s Office insists that neither Perrin nor Wright told Harper about the payout to Duffy or about any aspects of the secret arrangement.

The PMO also declined to release the letter of agreement, saying it is now in the hands of Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson, who is investigating Wright’s $90,000 cheque to Duffy.

Dawson’s investigation could take a year or more.

This thing is getting mighty interesting.

Good news on the RoboCon front: A team of talented, non-political-party-aligned Canadians is working to notify masses of people of the piles of evidence detailing the largest election fraud scheme in Canadian history. There are piles of evidence. I’ve collected some of the most important bits here for you to listen to, or look through. […]

Note: This blog post below was written on March 9th but not published. Given this news of the past day, “Harper Government Spends Millions Monitoring Press Of Own MPs,” thought it would be useful additional context. Also, note to self: Listen more inte…