CIDA/Fantino Rule Breaking Latest in List of Offenses

Breaching the trust of the Canadian public has become so commonplace now for the Conservative government that their tactics have become positively predictable.

Here’s the golden rule of disaster communications for this government and it’s ministers: if a Minister gets in trouble, blame the staff.

This was the inevitable result of Julian Fantino’s partisan screed that surfaced on the Canadian International Development Agencies website two days ago against the NDP. This was only the second of three partisan appeals written using government resources by the CIDA Minister.

The first was a few days before the NDP rant, this time pointed at the Liberal party.

The third, aimed at “correcting” a Huffington Post blogger, was less partisan aimed but still raises questions about how CIDA resources are being used.

The result? A quickly created twitter account just to deal with this one specific issue. At the time this post was being written there were twelve tweets, eleven of which were identical responses to queries, that read as follows:

@ottawacitizen CIDA was asked to add appropriate web content. These were posted in error. CIDA was asked to remove them immediately.

— Meagan Murdoch (@FantinoOffice) January 16, 2013

There you have it, an error. Don’t worry though, it was only government resources used for partisan attacks. They were removed, so now all is well and good in the world, right?

Something has to strike you as odd though when you begin to look back at similar incidents of error by government Ministers. It’s hard to believe that this was an accident, given how much this party makes these “errors.” The excuses given at the end of the day typically lay blame at the foot of either staff members or some other agencies (read Elections Canada).

Cases in point:

In 2007 a connected Tory was “handing…an untendered $122,000 contract to write the 2007 budget speech.” It was blamed on the Chief of Staff of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Flaherty “regretted” that policy wasn’t followed and said he trusted his Chief not to make the same mistake again.

In response to questions regarding Tony Clement’s G8 slush-fund,then Infrastructure Minister John Baird stated agreed that the Auditor General found “administrative deficiencies surrounding the intake of these(G8) projects.” No fault on the Ministers responsible for these files, rather the blame lands administrators who are likely only told what to do.

Of course, let’s not forget the In-and-Out scandal, where the Conservative Party of Canada shifted money around constituencies in order to flout Elections Canada advertising rules.

For a full history of this scandal, click here.

The response from the frontline communicator (and permanent opened mouth) Pierre Poilievre then was “This is a question of a long-standing administrative dispute with Elections Canada.” This was Poilievre’s constant refrain. Nothing to see here. Move along. it’s just an administrative dispute.

When all is said and done though, the party did plead guilty and paid a small $52,000 fine in order to save the buts of four charged Conservative Party insiders.

This is the modus-operandi of this party and its approach to being caught with their pants down. Blame a staffer or something else in order to deflect and distract from the person or persons who should actually be responsible.

It is the government who should ultimately be responsible for these missteps. Don’t take it from me though:

…ministers are answerable to Parliament and to its committees. It is ministers who decide policy and ministers who must defend it before the House and ultimately before the people of Canada…Ministers ran for office and accepted the role and responsibility of being a minister. Staff did not.

Inspired words. Who said them? Jay Hill, Government House Leader for the Conservative Party of Canada. He said this little more than two years ago on May 25th 2010.

Five months later, Mr. Hill would resign from the government.

I guess his idealism went with him.

UPDATED: This Just-in: Justin Trudeau Would Be The End of the Liberal Party

There is little doubt that the entrance of Justin Trudeau into the Liberal leadership race is big news. The media loves him. Why not? He is the son of Canada’s most popular and polarizing Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau and like his father, Justin exudes charisma and cuts a dapper image, even when he is modeling himself after a Musketeer (I can’t take credit for this comparison alas, it came from  here). He’s part of a political dynasty that this country has never had provincially or federally (save for the Bennett’s in BC and the Manning’s) and likely the entrance of Justin Trudeau into the race is exciting news for those hungry for intrigue in Canadian politics.

The question that will occupy politicos and Liberals alike in the coming months until the April 14th 2013 Liberal Leadership convention is this: does Justin Trudeau have what it takes to lead the Liberal party out of third-party status and into the light, back to ‘natural governing party’ success? Below are the reasons why I believe the answer to that question is a resounding, no.

First, let’s leave Justin out of the equation and look at his opponents in parliament. On one side you have Thomas Mulcair, leader of the Official Opposition New Democratic Party. Mulcair is a no-nonsense Quebec federalist who has shown already he isn’t afraid to take on contentious positions (Dutch disease anyone?). He has fashioned a coalition of Atlantic and BC progressives together with Quebec progressives and soft nationalists. Mulcair is actively fashioning this coalition and working to expand and gain traction into the prairies and build up support in Ontario. It will be very difficult to pull votes away from this coalition, which Trudeau will need to do if he wants to break back into old Liberal territory.

On the other side of the aisle you have Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada for the past six years and guaranteed by the Constitution to lead the country into his tenth year in 2016 (as an aside while convention has had majorities call elections after every four years, the Constitution has mandated elections every five years). Harper and his team is a master of labeling. In no time flat he was able to label the past two Liberal leaders Stéphane Dion as “Not a Leader,” and Michael Ignatieff as “Just Visiting” with very little truth to hang off those accusation. Does anybody think he’d have a difficult time labeling Justin Trudeau as “the entitled son, his father’s son, out for himself, inexperienced, hot-headed, or son of the NEP”? There is ample fodder and Trudeau hasn’t even launched his race yet.

In a recent column and in top cynical form, political commenter Andrew Coyne adds another layer to the analysis of Justin Trudeau and his suitability to lead the Liberal Party and it’s something I’ve noted as well. If he has any firm policy stands, few people accept Justin Trudeau likely knows what they are. We know he’s been an advocate for youth, especially the Katimavik program, as well as an advocate for the environment (parliamentary expletives aside) but what else would he stand for? None of Justin’s parliamentary pronouncements nor his public ones give any clue to what he would do regarding the Nexen oil deal, EI claw backs from Canadians living in Atlantic provinces and as Andrew points out, using a deficit to stimulate the economy or reducing it to “reassure financial markets”. On a great many things, mum has been the word thus far.

Justin himself is no dummy (he has a degree in Literature from McGill and a degree in Education from UBC). He is passionate and certainly speaks like a leader at times. He won a difficult riding that many thought would be unwinnable by a Liberal and certainly by a Trudeau. Let’s also not forget that he won the boxing match against Senator Patrick Brazeau and he has a lot of twitter followers. These are all impressive achievements but in my mind, they don’t add up to a successful leader of a major Canadian political party? The missteps he’s made will be easy bull’s-eyes for a Conservative party that has been unafraid to stretch the truth to absurd lengths in the past. The NDP is not likely to give up the gains they have made without a fight, so attack ads from both camps are likely. I’m certain that the governing party already has “separatist” ads in the can just waiting to be released once Trudeau announces his leadership bid this coming Tuesday. With the above standing in his way though, and his apparent inability to watch what he says, he may indeed be the biggest liability the Liberal leadership contest has.

UPDATE: This column has been updated to reflect the submission I made to the Huffington Post Canada. I made some changes and wanted them to be reflected here.

For a characteristically cynical look at Justin Trudeau’s Liberal race check out Andrew Coyne’s article here.
You can read columnist John Ibbitson’s Globe and Mail article here.
Gerald Caplan takes a somewhat parallel look to mine here.

The Quebec Election and What It Means

Let’s get the first fact out of the way: separatists are the government in the province of Quebec.

Now that that’s on the table let’s disband any fear of a referendum by stating some facts upfront: the Bloc Quebecois is less then a shell of it’s former self in the House of Commons, leaving little federal recognition to a separatists party that has dominated Quebec for most of the last 20 years on the federal scene. Next, a recent poll by CROP put the support for sovereignty at less then 30% and that on top of the 32% support Marois’s PQ received shows me that her and her party have a fine line to walk if they want to stay in power. Her main opposition party is a Federalist party that has powerful allies in the Federal Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Canada, all parties that don’t support separatism and would fight hard if a referendum were ever called.

All the hullabaloo I’ve heard leading up to, during and following the provincial campaign is based on fear. Fear that ignores the fact that there aren’t any, ANY, winning conditions for separation in Quebec. Tempers flare and emotions become heated when talk of separation comes up and yes, many in Canada are of the mind that if Quebec were to opt for separation, that the new “country” should be let go. I think both the fear in the first hand and the rejection of Quebec in the second are both over the top, emotional responses to a condition that hasn’t arisen and shows no signs of emerging. In this case I think that Stephen Harper will likely come down strongly on Marois, seeing that she has a weak mandate and a populace that isn’t remotely hungry for another referendum campaign.

To the question of what this new government means for Thomas Mulcair? I don’t actually think it means as much as some in the media make it out to be. Mulcair has fought in two referendums, is a strong federalist and would be a bold and courageous supporter of Canada if such an event were to take place. Sit back for a second and imagine a possible NO campaign led by Harper and Mulcair: WOW! How could such a thing not survive?

So no, don’t be frightened about separation. Look at the current situation in Quebec as I do: a leftists government has been elected to a minority that will push a left wing progressive agenda and whose separatists sympathies will be kept in check by the minority it holds in the National Assembly. A referendum isn’t coming anytime soon!

Cross Posted at Sister Sage’s Musings

Harper Says to Trust The Science, Science Quits In Protest

Now hear this: Stephen Harper is in favor of science. Don’t take my word for it though, take his own words, spoken at a news conference in Vancouver two weeks ago: “The only way that governments can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis scientifically, and not simply on political criteria.” A startling statement given by a Prime Minister who to date is leading an administration that, on a constant basis, is butting heads with scientists.

The Harper record on science has been far from glowing so one has to ask a series of questions following the above statement, namely:

If science is so important, then why issue a letter to ninety-two staff within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) saying that their positions will be cut (DFO is responsible for analyzing waterways that will be impacted by the Northern Gateway Pipeline)?

Why cut 5.8% of the entire DFO operating budget, hindering their ability to fully and thoroughly assess the risks of the Enbridge pipeline?

Why disband the contamination group (Adaptation to Climate Change Research Group) that was responsible for cleaning up oil spills in the event of an incident?

Why gut environmental legislation?

Why axe the National Roundtable on The Environment and the Economy?

Why take environmental assessment responsibilities out of the hands of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and place it in the prevue of the Minister responsible for industry and the National Energy Board (among the boards responsibilities is the export and import of energy)?

Why provoke the ire of scientists to such a degree that they launch a campaign against you to stop muzzling them (a campaign that was underscored by harsh criticism from the journal Nature, one of the worlds leading science journals)? (If you want to read an open letter from science journalists and commentators to Prime Minister Harper regarding muzzling of scientists click here.)

Of course let’s also not forget the firing of Linda Keen, the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for speaking out about the Chalk River reactor. We also must not forget about Kristi Miller, a fisheries biologist who was muzzled by the Harper government regarding a $6 million dollar study into the collapse of the salmon stocks on the west coast.

You’ll understand then why it’s rich to hear Harper talk about science as if his government uses it as a guiding light. Likely the only reason he props it up is because environmental research in Canada has become so gutted, so dismembered and centralized, that any hope thorough scientific research can be done unimpeded by government has long since vanished.

The Tyee (REPOST) – Stand up for Better Pensions

By Jim Sinclair

The latest effort from British Columbia’s business elite to wring every last dollar out of B.C.’s middle class is focused squarely on the hard-earned pensions of working people.

Sure, they will pretend that their calls to dismantle quality pension programs are meant to protect working people from the scary pension liability bogeyman. But the bogeyman doesn’t exist and they aren’t being honest about their intentions.

As American companies have been struggling in the wake of an economic collapse caused by unbridled and irresponsible greed among the nation’s financial elite, pensions have become a favourite, albeit misguided target.

Major auto companies were among the worst culprits. As management made error after error, the companies began underfunding their pension responsibilities, essentially financing their poor management decisions on the backs of their employees’ retirement funds.

But that wasn’t the story we heard. We heard that overly-generous pensions were what were bringing these companies down. It didn’t matter that it wasn’t true.

Clearly, Canada’s business elite were watching. They witnessed working people in America turn on other working people and back measures that took away pensions from workers who had earned them over decades. Since then, we have seen a number of trial balloons floated in Canada and in B.C., along with increasingly amped rhetoric about pensions. It’s without foundation and middle-class Canadians will be captured by this American-style rhetoric at their own peril.

Playing the envy card

It is a preposterous argument we hear from politicians like Christy Clark and her big business shills, that a key reason to take good pensions away from those who have them is that more and more people don’t have them.

They are hoping that British Columbians without good pensions will be motivated by envy rather than ambition, and willingly get on board the race to the bottom. I think British Columbians know that we all lose when we join that race.

Well, not everyone loses. The same investment bankers and financiers who caused the world economy to collapse stand to gain a great deal. Lower wages, lower pension costs, lower benefits all add up to more profits and bigger bonuses.

That motivation means we can expect a barrage of criticism of fair pension plans over the coming months from right-wing think tanks, from the BC Liberal party and from selfish business organizations.

Their arguments won’t be based in facts. They will be based in rhetoric and trumped-up projections of how the sky will most certainly fall if big business isn’t able to squeeze more money out of the middle class.

I, for one, welcome the conversation. Because it’s time we got serious about allowing Canadians to live out their retirement in dignity, and not take for granted that the retirements that most working and middle-class Canadians have now is nearly good enough. And it’s time we fight for good pensions for those who don’t have them.

Why can’t we all retire with dignity?

When it comes to retiring, defined benefit pension plans are indeed the best means by which working and middle class British Columbians can be assured a predictable retirement free of ongoing financial stress. Is that not something we should all want? For ourselves? For our families? For our neighbours?

I say yes, and that it is entirely reasonable to believe that we can all retire with dignity and confidence.

Here are some key facts. Public service pensions across Canada are well funded, with ratios from the high 90s to the low 100s. In B.C., they are fully funded and Finance Minister Kevin Falcon acknowledges that far from being a vulnerability, our public pension system is a large part of the reason for our triple-A credit rating.

Here’s another fact. An average government worker retires today with a pension of about $1,500 a month. Compare that to the minimum pension Stephen Harper will receive of $223,500 per year, or almost $20,000 a month. Or, take his B.C. counterpart Christy Clark and her recent complaints about pensions for career childcare workers and care aides being too generous at less than $1,500 a month. If Clark has bought back her pensionable service, she will be in line to receive more than $80,000 a year for only 11 years of service as an MLA.

Canadians have a right to be angry about politicians who complain about middle-class pensions, while padding their own pockets with a guaranteed luxury retirement. But surely our anger at Stephen Harper and Christy Clark shouldn’t translate into a desire to ruin the retirements of our friends and neighbours who’ve earned their pensions through hard work and in good faith.

Instead of racing to the bottom, let’s start an honest conversation about how we can lift everyone up. 

Jim Sinclair is President of the B.C. Federation of Labour. This article first appeared in The BC Federationist, an online publication of the BCFed.

Video Blog: Scarborough Shooting Raises Questions About Gun Policy

Absense…

Hello fellow progressive Canadians. I will be having a period of absense from my blogging for an undetermined period of time. I am not gone though, and you can continue to catch my posts on twitter and on my facebook page. 

Why am I going away? Well,to be honest, I’m exhausted. The combination of a more then full time job with the added pressure of producing a video podcast and maintaining a blog as well as my social media presence and all the reading and research that needs to be done; I’m just plum tuckered out.

So I’m taking a break from the blogging. I will still have a video podcast up, hopefully one or two a week. I do look forward to getting back to blogging on a regular basis, after some much needed rest and recouperation.

I thank everybody who follows my blog and finds my musings inspiring. Keep fighting, don’t give up and remember that you can make a difference.

Cheers and so long for now.

Ryan L. Painter

Want To Help The Poor? End Supply Management!

A system has never seemed so completely backwards to me as does Sully Management. Here is a system that wholly and completely insures that Canadians will pay more for the key staples of their diets: poultry, dairy and egg products. This system drives up the prices of these staple foods some two to three times. It’s in place because, as defenders say, it protects producers by maintaining a steady price and not subjecting producers to the risk of the market system.

I’m sorry, but I have little sympathy for the various wealthy agri-corporations when I know people are struggling to feed themselves and their families.

It takes a bold politician to face down supply management and it looks like we’ve found one in former Liberal Party MP Martha Hall Findlay. Her column on supply management has already received rave reviews from the likes of Andrew Coyne (whose head virtually explodes with the mere mention of Supply Management) and has resulted in her ideas getting lots of press coverage(Coyne here, Ottawa Citizen here and Natty Po here). Her column also seems to be a jump off point for her eventual run at the leadership of the Liberal Party.

I welcome this debate, as I also welcomed the debate on the Dutch Disease. It seems that Canada has turned a corner and we are starting to discuss real issues in a broad and thoughtful manner.

Let’s hope this continues.

I want to leave you with a final thought from Andrew Coyne’s article

If you cannot bring yourself to say it is wrong to make poor families pay three times the market price of milk to prop up a handful of wealthy farmers, you are not in the business of serious politics.

Silence of the Conservative MP’s

My first video. Enjoy!

Seven Reasons to Support Lower Tuition Fees

Who are you calling spoiled? Young Quebec protesters are making the case for wider access to higher education, a good idea for many reasons.

I read a really good article from The Tyee this morning posted by Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives economist Iglika Ivanova. You can read the entirety of the article here but I wanted to post the seven reasons for you to read and give some thought to.

1. Making university education more affordable would allow more Canadians to access this key tool for social mobility.

2. Financial barriers to education impact Canada’s economic well-being.

3. Questions of access to education are more important today than ever before because higher education is increasingly becoming a standard job requirement.

4. Student loans don’t make up for high tuition fees.

5. An educated society benefits everybody, not just the people who go to university.

6. The fact that individuals gain from having higher education is not sufficient reason to rely on tuition (i.e. user fees) to finance education.

7. Education is a great investment for our public dollars: students repay the full cost of their education through taxes over their working careers.

Please do read Iglika’s article and leave a comment there. Of course, please also feel free to leave a comment here.