Sorry, I've Been Kinda Busy...

That must be the reason that people like Transport Minister Lisa Raitt and her parliamentary secretary Jeff Watson haven't yet had time to read the Transportation Safety Board's damning report on last year's Lac-Mégantic train derailment that killed 47 people:

Political Ambition And Public Outrage

The interesting thing about political ambition and public outrage is that sometimes they work synergistically to produce positive results. Jason Kenney, whose ambition to become the Conservative Party's next leader have been widely rumoured, announced yesterday that fast food restaurants are being suspended from participation in the Temporary Foreign Workers Program after increasingly bad publicity over its misuse, resulting in higher rates of unemployment among Canadian citizens.

The following short video discusses a report from the CD Howe Institute which uncovered this disturbing fact:

However, how much of this is simply a temporary sop to the masses remains to be seen. Although McDonald's moved just prior to Kenney's announcement to suspend its use of temporary foreign workers, as the video below shows, its Canadian CEO, John Betts, regards the entire imbroglio as 'bullshit.'

Will this ban become permanent? The cynic in me suggests it won't, given that the program as administered by the Harper regime has become yet another way of assisting its corporate friends by distorting the labour market, enabling the industry to avoid paying its employees what the market demands.

However, should both the media and the public continue to be interested in the issue, perhaps a permanent solution will emerge. A big IF.

...Gone?

The tale of Eve Adams gets increasingly melodramatic, and increasingly reminiscent of Helena Guergis. That she will suffer Helena's political fate is looking more likely with each passing day.

Readers may recall that prior to her fall from grace, Helena Guergis, at the Charlottetown airport in February of 2010, allegedly threw a tantrum and screamed obscenities at staff who asked her to take her boots off for security screening. An airport worker said it was among the worst meltdowns he had ever seen.

Fast forward a few years and a similar outrageous sense of political entitlement was acted out this past December by Ms Adams who, it seems, showed her displeasure over a bit of ice remaining on her bumper after a car wash by blocking some gas pumps for 15 minutes at an Ottawa gas station.

John Newcombe, a Conservative supporter and the owner of the Island Park Esso station in Ottawa’s west end, said he contacted the Prime Minister’s Office in January to complain about an incident with Adams in December 2013:

An analysis of the incident can be seen here, from yesterday's Power and Politics:

Finally, also like Guergis, who suffered her lethal blow over allegations of misuse of her office, Ms Adams is being accused of misusing her political clout in seeking the nomination for the riding of Oakville North-Burlington. It has already cost her affianced, Dimitri Soudas, his job as executive director of the Conservative Party of Canada.

On yesterday's Power and Politics, Jeff Knoll, a board member of the riding association in question, explained why he signed a letter asking the prime minister to look into allegations about MP Eve Adams:

One wonders what particular brand of bottled water our elected public 'servants' drink from. If the kind of outrageous and contemptuous behaviour evinced by Ms Adams and countless others proves to come from something they drink, the product should come under immediate investigation by Health Canada and recalled.

Then again, perhaps it is just the Kool-Aid that is served to the entire Harper caucus.

On Tory Intractability And Contempt

Today's blog entry is really a video one, based on the testimony yesterday of Harry Neufeld, the elections expert and former B.C. Chief Electoral Officer whose report is being consistently misrepresented by Pierre Poilievre in his zeal to suppress the vote through the misnamed 'Fair' Elections Act. Perhaps one of the most disturbing points to emerge is Neufeld's estimation that, with the elimination of both vouching and the use of voter information cards as acceptable identification at the ballot box, up to 500,000 Canadians will be unable to vote in the next election.

I am posting four videos: the first two are quite brief, and the other two are longer, taken from yesterday's Power and Politics. What ties them together, what emerges so plainly for all to see, is the absolute contempt with which Mr. Poilievre, the official face of Tory intractability and disdain, treats all expert opinion.

It is a face all Canadians should keep in mind when they go to the polls in 2015.

In this final segment, you will notice that even the usually unflappable Evan Solomon gets increasingly frustrated by Poilieve's refusal to even entertain the possibility that his bill is flawed, despite the array of experts saying exactly that:

UPDATED: David Christopherson Rebukes Disruptive Tory Tactics; Pierre Poilievre Reassures All

Although the Opposition had been guaranteed uninterrupted testimony from Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand on the 'Fair' Elections Act, they didn't get it.

David Christopherson, NDP MP from Hamilton Centre, offered this trenchant rebuke:




Meanwhile, on Power and Politics, Minister of State for Democratic Reform Pierre Poilevre made it clear that Mayrand's testimony, in which he stated his objections to the Act and proffered suggestions for amendments, fell on deaf ears. His response to all of them was essentially, "Everything is fine. Marc Maynard is wrong. No need for amendments."


UPDATE: In the above clip, among other things, Evan Solomon tries to point out that that there is absolutely no proof of electoral fraud having occurred. Therefore, the disallowance of Voter Identification Cards and vouching as acceptable forms of identification at the ballot box is unwarranted. In typically oily manner, Pierre Poilivre insists that a report commissioned by Elections Canada to review the problem of non-compliance with the rules for casting ballots pointed to wide-scale fraud. The author of the report, Harry Neufeld, former chief electoral officer for British Columbia, says that Poilievre is misrepresenting his report. You can read his rebuttal here.

Kellie Leitch Speaks Again In Her 'Master's Voice'

Like the good yeo(wo)man she is, Ms Leitch never deviates from the Harper regime script as she 'answers' Evan Solomon's questions about the Temporary Foreign Worker's Program. One only hopes that her collar is not pulled too tightly; given Canada's doctor shortage, it would be sad to lose a trained practitioner who will, one hopes, be returning to the medical field after the next election.

Hmm... I wonder if Ms Leitch and the ever-faithful Pierre Poilievre get together on occasion to share some kibble and compare talking points?

Leading Climate Scientist Responds To Joe Oliver And His 'Neanderthal Government' - UPDATED

The other day I wrote a blog post on one of our national disgraces, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver. While in Washington recently promoting the proposed XL Keystone pipeline through the United States, Oliver took the opportunity to insult and denigrate one of the world's leading climate-change scientists, James Hansen.

In an interview with the CBC's Evan Solomon, Hansen uses the occasion to set the record straight and offer his own opinion on our federal government, which he terms 'neanderthal' on the topic of climate change. The video of that interview is available below:

UPDATE: Read Sorry, Jim: Apologies from Canada about Oil Minister Joe Oliver, written by John Bennett at rabble.ca.

H/t Penny Mills

Speaking of Political Integrity ...

See if you can detect even a modicum of it in Kellie Leitch, who starts talking at about the 9-minute mark of this video dealing with the massive abuses in the Temporary Foreign Workers Program:

Somehow, I don't think this is what Judith Timson meant when she talked about authenticity.

H/t Sandra Harris

F-35 Controversy – Did Conservative Laurie Hawn Admit To Much Higher Jet Fighter Costs?

I think I have begun to discern the actual truth behind the Harper government's claims about fighter jet costs.

Previously I have written about the confusion surrounding the Conservatives' assertions that they will be buying 65 F-35 jets starting in 2016 for $75 million dollars each. Appearing on Evan Solomon's Power and Politics over a week ago, Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Defense Minister Peter McKay, tenaciously clung to that figure, despite compelling evidence from both the Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page and the General Accountability Office of the United States that such a low figures bears no resemblance to any reality with which they are acquainted.

Last night, Evan Solomon interviewed U.S defence analyst Winslow Wheeler, who asserted that the true cost per plane is likely to be $150-200 million, and that for $75 million you would not be able to get a jet complete with some key components, such as an engine and a weapons system. When that interview ended, Solomon once more questioned Hawn on his government's continued cost assertions; again Hawn maintained that his $75 million figure is correct. However, two things he said make me think otherwise.

In his previous defence of that figure, he mentioned two or three times that the figure that is really important is the $9 billion for the entire program. He repeated that figure last night several times, saying that it includes the total cost: the F-35s plus all related infrastructure, including flight simulators, etc.

Hawn's bombshell, however, and one that Evan Solomon unfortunately did not pick up on, came when he revealed that the $9 billion contains substantial 'contingency funds,' and it was at this point I realized the Conservatives, in the face of irrefutable evidence that the $75 million figure is sheer fantasy, are trying to change the narrative.

Had Solomon asked for details about the contingency funds within the $9 billion set aside for the program, I suspect that it would have emerged that much of that fund is to cover the much higher costs for the jets that everyone else has been alleging.

By repeating several times that the $9 billion cost of the entire program is 'the important number,' I suspect Hawn and his political masters are anticipating a future narrative; if the press keeps asking questions, the Conservatives will try to rewrite the history of what they have said, and focus instead on that $9 billion as the figure that covers all of their costs, something they will say they have been consistent about. It will be their hope that their misrepresentations about relatively inexpensive jets at $75 million a pop will simply fade away.

If you have time, take a look at the above links to the interviews to see if I might be right.

A Supplement To My Previous Post

As was pointed out by a few commentators, in my previous post I seem to have been unclear in the matter of overall costs for the F-35 jets. I re-watched the interview with Laurie Hawn that I mentioned earlier. To be frank, even after a second viewing I'm not sure I completely understand what he was saying. Here's how I interpret his assertions after that second viewing:

Total Program Cost -$9 billion.
Total Units to be acquired - 65
Per Unit Acquisition Cost of the F-35 - $75 million

Using those figures for my crude calculations suggests a total alleged purchase price of under $5 billion. I therefore can only assume that when he says total program cost, he is including maintenance costs for the plane, acquisition of infrastructure to fuel the planes, since, for example, mid-flight refuelling is not possible using our current equipment, etc.

In any event, please judge for yourself. I probably should have included the link to the Hawn interview which immediately preceded the GAO interview. Nonetheless, I was struck by Hawn's insistence that each plane will only cost $75 million when there seems to be strong evidence to the contrary, as confirmed in the followup with the GAO. As well, his insistence that they will be buying the plane after initial costs come down is refuted by Sullivan. Production of the F-35s may begin by 2016, the year the Canadian Government is saying it will purchase the jets. That will, of course, also be when the plane is most expensive.

I welcome any further clarifications of this that you may be able to offer. Again, apologies for any confusion I might have created in my previous post.

To watch the Hawn interview, click here.
To watch the followup with the GAO, click here.

Evan Solomon's Explosive Interview Demonstrating Harper Lies

I have made no secret of my absolute disdain for the Harper government and the threat I sincerely believe that it poses to both democracy and our Canadian way of life. While Conservative true believers quite blithely dismiss such concerns as partisan hyperbole, sometimes something comes along that objectively suggests the foundation of lies upon which the Conservative Party is building its campaign.

That something occurred on today's (Tuesday's) installment of Power and Politics with Evan Solomon. Solomon first interviewed Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Defense Minister Peter McKay, who insisted that the Conservatives, despite the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assertions to the contrary, will be able to buy 65 F-35 jets for $9 billion, including all of the associated infrastructure. He dismissed the objections raised by NDP candidate Jack Harris and Liberal candidate Dominic LeBlanc that this figure cannot withstand scrutiny, and that the costs will be much higher, ($120-$130 billion for each jet), telling them that they didn't understand the math behind the figure.

After the interview, Solomon conducted one with Mike Sullivan, the Director of U.S. Government Accountability Office equivalent to both our Auditor General and our Parliamentary Budget Officer. It was during this interview that the deceptions being perpetrated by the Harper regime should have become obvious to even the most ardent Tory supporter who still claims to think independently. Click here to watch the interview.

Power and Politics: Evan Solomon's Interview with Helena Guergis

Watching last evening's interview with Helena Guergis, a politician I have never been particularly fond of, especially given her airport tantrum a couple of years ago, I couldn't help but think that the Harper Conservatives probably now wish that they had treated her better.

Readers will remember that she was summarily removed from Cabinet and expelled from the party for reasons that were never fully explained; the fact of her marriage to Rahim Jaffer, who came under suspicion for influence-peddling, presumably made her a victim of guilt by association and hence a liability to the party. This, despite the fact that embarrassments by other Conservative M.P.'s (Bev Oda and Maxime Bernier come to mind) have not resulted in similar party retribution.

Now sitting as an Independent Conservative, she acquitted herself with impressive grace, saying that she hopes to return to the Conservative Party when it is under 'a different leader.' She also talked about the freedom she feels as an Independent, no longer having to go through a long and complicated approval process for permission to speak publicly, fetters she has been bound by in the Harper regime, given as it is to exerting complete control over all government members, requiring them, amongst other things, to fill out a Message Event Proposal (MEP) detailing who they would like to talk to, why, and what, precisely, they wish to say.

She also revealed how her sister, Christine Brayford, Guergis' riding's chief financial officer, had been asked to be part of the 'in and out' scheme but refused, as it didn't seem legitimate to her.

You can see the entire interview here.

A Harper-Orchestrated Attempt To “Change The Channel”

Watching last night's edition of CBC's Power and Politics, as I frequently do, offered yet another opportunity for insight into the Harper mind, a mind that many would describe as dark, manipulative, and contemptuous of everyone outside of 'the Conservative philosophical tent' (which, when you think about it, must be a small abode indeed, given its very restricted range of thought and vision.)

The predictable discussion occurred throughout the first half-hour of the show, as Liberal Scott Brison, Conservative Tom Lukiwski and the NDP's Yvon Godin discussed the contempt of Parliament verdict by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. As was to be expected, Tory Lukiwski spun the partisan and already frequently-repeated line that the contempt finding was simply partisan politics and a sham. This is, of course, the Conservative narrative, one we will hear incessantly if an election is called. However, the really interesting development came in the next half hour.

In that segment, Solomon was interviewing Conservative James Rajotte, Liberal Ralph Goodale, and the NDP's Thomas Mulcair about the pending federal budget and how the contempt finding might affect the vote on it. Suddenly, looking at his Blackberry, Evan Solomon broke in with the news that there had been a leak about the Conservative budget, and he then went on to articulate the details of the leak: forgiveness of student loans for medical personnel willing to work in isolated areas, money for research and development, etc. At that point I believe Mr. Solomon thought that the CBC had scored a coup. I told my wife that there are no leaks in the Tory 'ship of state' (please forgive the tired metaphor), and that this revelation was clearly designed for another purpose.

My 'spider sense' tingling, I switched over to CTV's Power Play with Don Martin where, lo and behold, he was announcing the same leaks, when previously he had been talking about the contempt finding. Back on CBC, Solomon was trying to get Mulcair and Goodale to evaluate the specific details leaked and wisely they demurred, suggesting to the host that he was simply being used by the Tory apparatus for spin purposes. Solomon did look decidedly disappointed a few minutes later when he announced on-air that the leaks had been sent to several news agencies.

This transparent attempt to 'change the channel' away from discussion of the contempt of Parliament finding, I think, gives us an idea of how the Harper regime will conduct their campaign, should an election be called. Today may well see the beginning of the process culminating in a non-confidence motion on the budget so that the Government will fall on that issue, thereby circumventing a formal vote in Parliament on the contempt findings, which would allow the Conservatives to continue during the campaign with the narrative that the Committee’s finding of contempt is, once more, only a partisan sham, proven by the fact that the opposition voted down a responsible budget that would have benefited all Canadians.

It is clear to me that yesterday's above-described events offer potent proof that the Harper Government's contempt is hardly limited to Parliament. It suggests a mentality that cynically views most people as easily manipulated, easily distracted, and easily convinced to overlook all of the egregious violations of democracy they are guilty of.

God help us if they are right.