Today’s House of Commons

PM Harper cannot keep his story straight, and with his office knee-deep in the Senate scandal, his backbenchers are still doing as they are told. Loyal to the end or just too trained to speak up?

PM Harper's House of Commons trained seals.

Paul Martin had the balls to call on Gomery even though he and the Liberal Party knew full-well that it would cost them the election, yet PM Harper resists attempts to come clean. The Conservative Party ran on a platform of accountability – so where is it? Now is the time!

The Conservative Party are having their convention this week – will Harper survive the week after facing the plebs?

Oh Canada! Where Art Thou?

With each passing day I find myself asking the question – what has happened to Canada during these Conservative years. It’s been said that Tory times are tough times, but considering what we have in power now, I’d gladly take the real Tories like Joe Clark, David Orchard and yes, even Brian Mulroney. While I couldn’t and wouldn’t always agree with them, at least you knew where they stood and for all their blunders, at least they left some meaningful legacies behind. The ‘Tories’ of today on the other hand, seem to have delved into a bizarre world where up is down and wrong is right. And as for legacies, I struggle to find one meaningful thing that a majority of Canadians could agree upon by this government.

For over the past few years Canada is now a place where:

  • We have replaced experimental lakes with fake lakes.
  • Gazebos equal security.
  • Transparency and openness have transformed into appointed officials taking the government to court to see requested documents.
  • Government information ads have turned to non-stop propaganda – paid by the taxpayers of the nation.
  • Increased duties mean tax cuts.
  • Questioning the government means you are a radical or a supporter of pedophiles.
  • Omnibus budget bills of 20 pages are a problem but ones 20 times larger are not.
  • A per-vote subsidy is a bad thing, but 28 illegal campaign contributions is just an oversight.
  • A single junior staffer can run a country-wide electoral fraud campaign.
  • Scientists are to be seen but never heard.
  • Smaller government means a historically large PMO.
  • Fiscal responsibility means $16 glasses of orange juice and massive deficits and debt.
  • The root cause of terrorism is terrorists.
  • Robocalls are just a way of helping Canadians to the polls.
  • Attack ads and character assassination are go-to campaign materials.
  • Blue-washing government website portals is streamlining.
  • Supporting the troops means denying and delaying benefits.
  • Fishing and lobster feasts equal search and rescue training.
  • A medical isotope shortage is sexy.
  • Set election dates are not really set.
  • Senate reform includes appointing party faithful.
  • And on and on.

And before anyone claims I am only hard on the Conservatives – I’ve been writing on politics for over a decade now and I was as hard or harder on the Liberal Party under Chretien and Martin. The Liberals were not always open and transparent and at times seemed intent on selling Canada to the lowest bidder via trade deals not in our favour, but they knew how to run an economy and govern for the majority most of the time. That cannot be said now. This current government really could care less about the majority or how they always say one thing than do another. They refuse above all else to ever admit to being wrong.

Sorry to say, but a party born out of deceit stays in deceit. Stay strong Canada, the light at the end of tunnel is approaching. And if the Greens, NDP and Liberals find a way to work together come election time, that light will be a glaring spotlight of change.

Contributed to the Federal Politics Journal by Roy Whyte.

Electoral Reform Coming But Wait Nobody Told Elections Canada

Yes that title is correct. The ruling Conservative party will present a bill to reform Canadian election laws this Thursday and while that seems like a good thing, someone forgot to run any of the proposed changes by Elections Canada.

The Minister of State for Democratic Reform Tim Uppal announced, “Our government is pleased to announce that it will introduce comprehensive legislation on Thursday to improve the integrity, accountability and administration of Canada’s election laws. The new legislation will respond to the motion passed by the House of Commons last year and a recommendation made by the chief electoral officer, the procedure and House affairs committee and others.” This announcement comes only seven months late on the March 2012 non-binding NDP motion calling for changes to election laws, which was unanimously agreed upon.

While this is not a new thing (first consulting with Elections Canada), one would think, no one would hope, that in light of the robocall affair currently before the courts that more would be done. But if the ruling party doesn’t consult Elections Canada or any other interested group just how far are they prepared to go? And that’s a very valid question considering the same Conservatives cut the budget of Elections Canada while the biggest electoral fraud investigation in Canadian history was taking place. Yes, as absurd as that sounds – that’s what they brazenly did.

The Conservatives loves to remind Canadians of Adscam, but what they always leave out is the reaction of the Liberal Party under PM Paul Martin. Martin knew full-well that the Gomery Commission would spell electoral disaster for his party but as history shows – his government did the right thing anyways. So why won’t the Conservative party under PM Harper do the same? It’s not like we are talking about Canada-wide electoral fraud or anything. And if you follow the advice of MP Vic Toews, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

Do what’s right and needed. Don’t just fiddle with the election laws, give them teeth and back them up with a fully-funded and supported Elections Canada.

Contributed to the Federal Politics Journal by Roy Whyte.

Peter Penashue – Deception or Ignorance?

With the case of Conservative MP Peter Penashue’s overspending, donation irregularities and airline write-offs one must ask as disdainful as it is, was he being purposely deceptive or was he just plain ignorant of the rules? In response to the allegations before him, Penashue hid away from the opposition and media and later reappeared in his home province where he released an online cop-out where he blamed his official agent for any mistakes.

Penashue’s official agent for the 2011 campaign was Reg Bowers who responded to Elections Canada at one point by stating, “Given the circumstances, record keeping and budgeting did not get the top priority. In the beginning we had very limited funds, we couldn’t get internet connection and, as mentioned, very limited help so there was a lot of wasted time running back and forth using my own computer and resources. We had to make the most of what we had and what we knew and I got advice wherever possible.”

In response to being blamed by Penashue, Bowers stated, “When it left my desk, it was under the cap.”

Bowers was removed as official agent for Penashue after being replaced by the Conservative Party’s chief financial officer. For his work Reg Bowers was rewarded with a golden position as a federal appointee on the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

So with the overspending and irregularities in his electoral campaign return, including possible corporate donations, the question of deception or ignorance is a valid one. Penashue seems content to blame the official agent yet every single candidate for election in Canada must go through the same procedures in order to run for office and at the end for their candidate electoral campaign return. Penashue ran for the Conservative Party of Canada – the same party that likes to brag about their deep pockets and top-notch campaign team, yet this combo failed to stay within the rules and when caught out – flail about with blame.

So how is that candidates for the parties with no seats like the Christian Heritage Party or the Canadian Action Party who neither have deep pockets or election winning campaign strategists, managed to fill out their forms correctly and stay within the rules, but Penashue could not? They also had rookie official agents and candidates, and also had to wade through the same Elections Canada literature, regulations and forms – but with one glaring difference – they appear to have got it right and stayed within the rules.

Penashue should also explain how and why he signed his name to the following without knowing that everything was correct and within the rules:

Elections Canada form EC 20120 (all candidates must sign this declaration)

I hereby solemnly declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

– the information contained in this return is correct;
– all election expenses in respect of the conduct or management of the election have been properly recorded;
– no money, goods or services have been provided by way of loan, advance, deposit, contribution or gift during the election, except as appears in this return; and
– no other person or entity has, on behalf of the candidate made any payment or given, promised or offered any reward, office, employment or valuable consideration or incurred any liability on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the election, except as specified in this return.

I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.

To all of this Penashue has managed to say, “I’m not quitting, I’m not quitting. It’s very important to me that my constituents understand the allegations and the comments being made.” We would all like to understand how Penashue signed his name to the EC 20120 declaration without knowing if it was correct or not. Someone wishing to take on such an important role as MP should ensure that anything they put their name to is above-board and factually correct. Is that too much to ask?

So if there was no deception intended, was it down to just ignorance of the rules? Outside of Parliament each of us is held to our actions and in our places of work if we managed to bungle something so important and then sign our name to it – most would be facing the unemployment line. The least we can do is hold our elected officials to that same standard. PM Harper thus far is standing by his man.

Contributed to the Federal Politics Journal by Roy Whyte.

The Great Canadian Sellout

Like those nail-biting episodes of 24 where the clock is ticking down and there is a heated race to head off disaster, the nation of Canada finds itself in such a scenario. The mass media has all but ignored or barely mentioned the looming Great Canadian Sellout to communist China courtesy of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Not content with being the party that sold Canada up the river with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1989 after which the U.S. trade representative Clayton Yeutter bluntly stated, “We’ve signed a stunning new trade pact with Canada. The Canadians don’t even know what they have signed. In twenty years they will be sucked into the U.S. economy,” they are now upping the ante and selling Canada out to China.

Clayton Yeutter was exactly right, as the U.S. government had no intentions of removing dumping and anti-subsidy laws, and this was made abundantly evident over the years with such things as softwood lumber, wheat exports, PEI potatoes and other Canadian exports. It wasn’t bad enough that the Harper Conservatives sold Canada out with softwood lumber and allowed the American timber conglomerate to essentially steal hundreds of millions of dollars from Canada, the federal Conservatives are now poised to sign away even more in an utterly one-sided trade deal with China. But wait it gets better! This deal with China, the Canada-China Investment Treaty, or FIPA, will not be discussed in the House of Commons or any committee, it will simply be ratified by default come November 1, 2012. Unfortunately for Canadians, the sunshine that is disclosure and accountability will not be allowed to disinfect this looming disaster.

What is the purpose of electing MPs and having a House of Commons if binding trade deals are constructed and negotiated behind closed doors and become binding with no public oversight? Why is this government the antithesis of its own election campaign slogans of accountability and transparency? If this deal is such a boon to Canada than prove it to Canadians via our democratic institutions – don’t conduct meetings in secret then proceed to ratify FIPA by default.

So what’s in this sweetheart deal for Chinese investors (most of whom are state controlled)? Like NAFTA there are clauses contained that allow for damages to be awarded via ‘expectation of profits’. In layman’s terms this essentially means Chinese state investors can sue Canada via a system outside of Canadian control for just about anything they deem detrimental to their profit taking. For example, this binding trade deal overrides any municipal, provincial or even federal law or regulation that in any way impedes profits for Chinese investors. Simply put, Canadian-made laws and regulations will be tossed out the window in favour of Chinese investors. And just for good measure, the arbitration method will be conducted behind closed doors in secret and only by the federal government!

Many Canadians are unaware that the sometimes-reviled National Energy Policy has been gutted in the advance of free trade. No longer can Canada try to establish Canadian pricing for oil that is manufactured, refined and sold in Canada. Canadians ceded that ability when the ruling Liberal Party signed onto NAFTA. Canada now has little to no control over supplies and pricing. During free trade negotiations the Mexican negotiators were smart enough to balk at the American proposal to write into law that Canada and Mexico must give them a full two-thirds of all of natural gas production. This is still in place today, and what this means is that even though Canada ships over two million barrels of oil a day south, the two-thirds rule guarantees that we cede our ability for national pricing. If Canada wanted to cut back on exports of natural gas or oil, we must also cut our own national consumption by an equal amount. A staggering thought in this age of dwindling supplies and record consumption. FIPA sadly takes this to the extreme.

FIPA also contains these clauses but takes them a step further covering ALL of Canada’s natural resources. Timber, copper, uranium, rare earth elements, water, and every other natural resource is potentially subject to this deal and if Canada ever wanted to reduce Chinese access to these resources, we MUST reduce our own access to our own resources by the same order. Talk about removing national determination…

FIPA also opens up more Canadian industries to Chinese state investors, and governmental oversight is extremely limited in ensuring any such takeover is in the best interests of Canadians. So say goodbye to Canadian energy and mining industries, as everything will be fair game under FIPA. The Chinese government is sitting on nearly $3 trillion in monetary reserves, so such a deal is an invitation to a buying frenzy.

NAFTA can be abrogated with six months notice, FIPA is one year. FIPA is also binding for a total of 31 years! Yes, for 31 years Canada will be bound by this secret trade treaty where Canadian laws will be tossed aside so Chinese state investors can profit at our expense.

Concerned Canadians need to act fast as the clock is most certainly ticking and the worst trade deal Canadian’s have ever seen is looming large. The choice is simple – a Canada for Canadians, or one for made for Chinese investors.

Contributed to the Federal Politics Journal by Roy Whyte.

Further reading: