Time For Pushback From The Public

Despite the fact that Stephen Harper is 'toughing it out' in The House of Commons under the relentless grilling of Thomas Mulcair, probably believing that the majority of Canadians are either incapable of or unwilling to follow the byzantine path of the Senate scandal, a wealth of letters in today's Star calls into doubt such a cynical assessment. I encourage you to personally check them out, as well as a link I place at the end of the post. I reproduce a few of the highlights below:

Scrappy PM denies role in Duffy coverup, Oct. 24

Stephen Harper now acknowledges that he told Duffy “he should repay his expenses” and that “It is not appropriate for people to claim an expense that they really did not incur even though they think they can technically argue it is somehow within the rules.”

By this statement, Harper is saying that Duffy lives in Ottawa and could only use a technicality to claim living expenses. Then is Harper not guilty of using the same technicality that Duffy owns a cottage in P.E.I. to appoint him as the senator representing P.E.I., when the Constitution says a senator appointed for a province must be a resident of that province?

The real scandal is that the prime minister acts as if he is above the law.

Charles Shrybman, Brampton

With his long foreshadowed and theatrical speech in the Senate, Mike Duffy has basically given voice to what many Canadians already believed was the truth. Stephen Harper’s reputation as prime minister is that of a control freak. Public perception is that elected officials are not allowed to speak without permission and then must restrict their remarks to PMO-approved talking points. Keeping underlings on message is a Harper tactic and he is not above micromanaging their portfolios. To believe that this prime minister could have senior staff in his office conducting affairs of this magnitude without him having the least inkling strains credulity.

Rory McRandall, Bancroft

Stephen Harper claimed that he had no knowledge of the plan concocted in his own office and carried out by Nigel Wright to repay Mike Duffy’s questionable expenses, because “I obviously would never have approved such a scheme.” Then why did Harper so vigorously defend Wright for this action for days after it became public? Why did he send Pierre Poilievre to the political talk shows to defend Wright’s writing of this cheque out of his own pocket, claiming that it was an almost heroic thing to do and that he was saving the taxpayers a lot of money? People don’t usually defend a scheme they wouldn’t approve of.

Margaret Perrault, North Bay

This pithy missive is perhaps the best one to end with:

Stephen Harper came into power promising to get rid of the Senate. It might just be the Senate that gets rid of Stephen Harper.

Edward Carson, Toronto

By the way, for more about how Stephen Harper and his ilk regard the general public, The Star's Susan Delacourt's piece is well-worth reading.

Vengeance Is Mine, Sayeth Harper Regime: An Update On Sylvie Therrien

This past July I wrote two posts on Sylvie Therrien, the government employee suspended because she leaked documents that revealed federal investigators were told to find $485,000 of Employment Insurance fraud every year.

An update on her fate, published in today's Star, reveals that she has been fired. The alleged reason?

According to Employment and Social Development Canada, Therrien had her “reliability status’ ... revoked, and therefore she no longer met the conditions for her job.

The real reason, I suspect, is that she dared to stand up to the bullying tactics of the Harper regime, and thus serves as a very public example of what can occur when integrity trumps the 'situational ethics' imposed by a cabal in which morality is a risible concept meant to be treated with the contempt that this government regularly shows to anyone or anything that impedes its debased journey.

Guest Post - The Salamander

A frequent contributor of provocative analyses and insights, The Salamander left a comment on one of yesterday's posts that I am taking the liberty of featuring here. I strongly recommend that you take a look at the Huffington Post link he provides at the outset, offering, as it does, some insights into the morally 'ambiguous' world of Harper cabinet minister Kellie Leith and her paid position with Dundee Reitt, which has large contracts with government tenants and widespread interests in the oil and resource industries.

Ms Leitch failed to reveal this relationship to the Federal Ethics Commissioner, despite the fact that she did not resign from the company until some five months after her election. Conflict of interest? You bet. At home in the world of Harper 'morality'? Right again:


.. I'm sure you've come across this bizarre info ..
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/amy-macpherson/mp-leitch_b_4124776.html
The hits just keep on coming .. !

Since the Black Swans have arrived en masse
and are circling Stephen Harper
and dozens of his despicable lickspittles
I think it wise to consider who is the most dangerous person in Ottawa ?

No.. not the Duffster.. not Pammy..
and sorry, not 'The Distinguished' Globe n Mail's Yank, Tom Flanagan
Nope, not Ray Novak, Stephen Lecce or Fantino or Jenni Byrne
Conflict Oil Ezra ..? not even close..
Slack Jaw Joe Oliver ? Nope .. (thanks MoS)
the mysterious Quebecois Un F_ck Withable .. (maybe !! So watch out !!)

But.. how about an un-named IT geek or sysop or aide or contractor
tasked to search and delete n wipe all PMO email servers, drives
re ANY Wright/Duffy emails, comms
and ensure any hard copy binders, folders, memos, cc's
are gone, gone .. fried .. permanently redacted to black on black, dead !!

Now there's someone the RCMP can track and turn ..
After all .. somebody is paying them for that expertise .. and service
They have a name, a job description and hey !! An immediate supervisor !!
And that supervisor has someone above them ..
and likely, none of them will ever get to be on an ENERGY board of directors..
or be fabulously wealthy like the upper echelon of the Harper food chain

We can't identify this person (or team) who can blow Stephen Harper
out of the water.. and all his pompous trained n whipped seals ???

Any beat cop, detective would have ID'd such an obvious target
in the 1st 5 minutes..
So lets get real ..

This is Canada.. last time I took a breath ...
and if Stephen Harper has trouble recognizing that..
or has never understood us ..
c'est la vie ..
well that's his problem..

No Comment Needed

Cowardly Stealth - UPDATED

It has been said that at their core, bullies are cowards. Usually they set their sights on weaker targets, and when the time is propitious, unleash their fury. Stealth is often the preferred tactic, given their reluctance to have their deeds exposed for what they are. It is hardly earth-shattering to observe that Stephen Harper is a classic bully, his cowardice and his bullying capacity existing in almost equal measure.

While those Canadians with even the slightest interest in politics have been understandably transfixed by the increasingly dark revelations about the government's efforts to subvert the Senate by exercising its oppressive influence, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty introduced another omnibus bill the other day, Bill C-4.

Following the pattern established in previous Harper omnibus bills, Bill C-4 covers a lot of territory that has nothing to do with budgetary matters. And like previous bills, it is massive at 321 pages, the better to confuse and obscure some of its more anti-democratic elements.

What are those elements? In today's Star, Thomas Walkom identifies one of its most sinister, designed to amaze and delight his core, another attack on unions:

The bill would give the government the unilateral power to determine which civil servants are essential workers and thus disqualified from striking.

However, the most insidious aspect follows:

But the real bite in the government’s proposed changes to Canada’s Public Service Labour Relations Act has to do with arbitration. Most federal public service labour disputes are settled by neutral arbitrators without the need for strike or lockout action. The new law would permit arbitration only when the government agreed.

Even in areas deemed essential, the government could veto arbitration unless it had designated at least 80 per cent of the workers as ineligible to strike.

This bill also ensures that the arbitration process is rigged:

... in those instances where arbitration was permitted, arbitrators would be required to give a “preponderance” of weight to the government’s claims as to what it could afford.

The abrogation of basic bargaining rights, no doubt appealing to those who hate and envy unions, is striking inasmuch as it upends the customs and practices that have worked reasonably well in labour relations for many many decades.

As pointed out in today's Star editorial, just this small part of the bill deserves its own separate bill:

Canada’s lawmakers ought to have the chance to carefully study and debate the merits of handing the government such power, and the Tories should have to make a compelling case for its necessity.

Instead, of course, this and a host of other non-budgetary items ranging from Supreme Court appointments to workplace safety to immigration policy have been hidden, as is the practice of the cowardly, from open view.

Cowards always like to conduct their nefarious activities by way of stealth lest the light of day expose them for what they are. So far, Stephen Harper and his cabal are adhering to that classic pattern without deviation.



UPDATE: The sneering contempt of Tony Clement in a CBC Ottawa radio interview tells you all you need to know about Conservative arrogance regarding their attack on public sector unions.

The Puffster's Senate Speech

As much as I detest Mike Duffy and everything he stands for, I have to confess that in listening to his Senate speech yesterday I was much-taken with both its content and delivery. Thundering at his erstwhile allies and colleagues, Duffy rebuked the motion of suspension pending against him and Senators Brazeau and Wallin. While undoubtedly heavily self-serving, Duffy portrayed a PMO and, by extension, a Prime Minister who abandoned him despite earlier reassurances that all was kosher with both his expenses and residency, all for the sake of political expedience.

During a meeting with Nigel Wright and Harper, the latter is alleged to have told Duffy:

"'It's not about what you did. It's about the perception of what you did that's been created in the media. The rules are inexplicable to our base' …, after which he was ordered to pay back the money.

Hardly a smoking gun, but the unfolding portrait is one that promises to further erode Harper's credibility on claims of knowing nothing about anything pertaining to Wright's arrangements to write the $90,000 cheque to Duffy. I am sure more will be revealed in the forthcoming weeks and months.

Will Duffy's words be enough to circumvent the suspension? Today may provide the answer.

If you would like to hear Duffy's speech, click here.

Pat Robertson Rarely Disappoints

Whenever I want a little theatre of the absurd, I turn to Pat Robertson. He rarely disappoints: