Want to learn more about the Auditor General's investigations into the Harper Government's military cost overruns? The Harper Government's former do-nothing 'integrity' commissioner's half-million dollar severance package? The Harper Government's mismanaged renovations on Parliament Hill?
Too bad.
The Harper Government *majority* on the public accounts committee forced the committee to go in-camera, and voted to not review those reports. How convenient. As a result, opposition members can't even comment on what was discussed.
Yes, we can read those reports, but Parliament will be acting on them, as the committee won't. How convenient.
Federally, transparency and accountability is getting worse and worse. The Harper Government figures the less we know, the less we will criticize.
We know the result. As we've already seen with gravy train gazebo Clement, jet-setter MacKay, and gold-embossed Baird, the Harper Government is very capable of the worse of excesses.
The more we tolerate this secrecy, the worse it will become.
Oh, as you may have noticed, I am constantly calling this government The Harper Government, just as his Prime Ministerialness likes it.
Might as well make him wear it.
Showing posts with label Scandal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scandal. Show all posts
Preserving Judeo-Christian Values in Canadian Society
Bearing false witness is apparently not much of a Judeo-Christian value these days.
Check this out:
"Naked in a bed in a brothel with a young Asian woman." Well, that's not in the story linked to. He was in the bed, she wasn't. And it was "suspected" of being a "bawdy house." Not the same as *being* a "brothel." Layton was questioned, but not charged. There wasn't anything to charge him over.
So, if you go to the wrong place to get a massage -- I see them all over and have no idea which is good and which isn't -- and the police come in, that's it, your public career is over?
This is Conservative endgame crap all over again. Remember Goodale and the baseless RCMP investigation announced at the end of the 2006 election? "Senate seat" Duffy releasing the tapes against Dion? Same thing.
I note that the NDP considers the story malicious. People need to be more cautious about what they write.
Check this out:
"Naked in a bed in a brothel with a young Asian woman." Well, that's not in the story linked to. He was in the bed, she wasn't. And it was "suspected" of being a "bawdy house." Not the same as *being* a "brothel." Layton was questioned, but not charged. There wasn't anything to charge him over.
So, if you go to the wrong place to get a massage -- I see them all over and have no idea which is good and which isn't -- and the police come in, that's it, your public career is over?
This is Conservative endgame crap all over again. Remember Goodale and the baseless RCMP investigation announced at the end of the 2006 election? "Senate seat" Duffy releasing the tapes against Dion? Same thing.
I note that the NDP considers the story malicious. People need to be more cautious about what they write.
Sheikh's resignation removed from Stats Can site
Yesterday I posted Munir A. Sheikh resignation letter from Statistics Canada, warning that t was likely to be removed.
24 hours later, it's gone. In its place is this:
Too late! Google claims 114,000 hits for Statistics Canada resignation.
This one's not going down the memory hole.
24 hours later, it's gone. In its place is this:
Media advisory: 2011 Census
July 16, 2010
OTTAWA — Statistics Canada is not in a position to answer questions on the advice it gave the Minister in relation to recent statements the Minister has made.
For more information, contact Media Relations at 613-951-4636.
For details on the 2011 Census, see 2011 Census questionnaire.
Cet avis aux médias est aussi offert en français.
Too late! Google claims 114,000 hits for Statistics Canada resignation.
This one's not going down the memory hole.
Stats Can head resigns over census
Clearly, Harper and Clement were imposing a political decision on the internationally renown Statistic Canada. Munir A. Sheikh stood up, and with honour, did the right thing.
If only we saw more such honour within, oh, let's say, the PCO.
Before it vanishes, here is his resignation letter:
----
UPDATE:
24 hours later, it's gone. In its place is this:
If only we saw more such honour within, oh, let's say, the PCO.
Before it vanishes, here is his resignation letter:
Media advisory: 2011 Census
July 21, 2010
OTTAWA — There has been considerable discussion in the media regarding the 2011 Census of Population.
There has also been commentary on the advice that Statistics Canada and I gave the government on this subject.
I cannot reveal and comment on this advice because this information is protected under the law. However, the government can make this information public if it so wishes.
I have always honoured my oath and responsibilities as a public servant as well as those specific to the Statistics Act.
I want to take this opportunity to comment on a technical statistical issue which has become the subject of media discussion. This relates to the question of whether a voluntary survey can become a substitute for a mandatory census.
It can not.
Under the circumstances, I have tendered my resignation to the Prime Minister.
I want to thank him for giving me the opportunity of serving him as the Chief Statistician of Canada, heading an agency that is a symbol of pride for our country.
To you, the men and women of Statistics Canada – thank you for giving me your full support and your dedication in serving Canadians. Without your contribution, day in and day out, in producing data of the highest quality, Canada would not have this institution that is our pride.
I also want to thank Canadians. We do remember, every single day, that it is because of you providing us with your information, we can function as a statistical agency. I am attaching an earlier message that I sent to Canadians in this regard.
In closing, I wish the best to my successor. I promise not to comment on how he/she should do the job. I do sincerely hope that my successor’s professionalism will help run this great organization while defending its reputation.
Munir A. Sheikh
For more information, contact Media Relations at 613-951-4636.
For details on the 2011 Census, see 2011 Census questionnaire.
Cet avis aux médias est aussi offert en français.
----
UPDATE:
24 hours later, it's gone. In its place is this:
Media advisory: 2011 Census
July 16, 2010
OTTAWA — Statistics Canada is not in a position to answer questions on the advice it gave the Minister in relation to recent statements the Minister has made.
For more information, contact Media Relations at 613-951-4636.
For details on the 2011 Census, see 2011 Census questionnaire.
Cet avis aux médias est aussi offert en français.
A modest proposal
Why not hold the next G8/G20 meetings in Second Life? I understand fake lakes are the norm there.
BP hires Dick Cheney's former press secretary
Anne Womack-Kolton has been hired to head its American public relations efforts.
From PR Watch:
From PR Watch:
Womack is a former employee of the PR firm APCO Worldwide, perhaps best known for its work on behalf of the tobacco industry. In 1995, Philip Morris hired APCO to orchestrate a massive national "tort reform" movement, and in 1993, PM hired APCO to organize the front group The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition to attack the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency after it rated secondhand smoke a Group A Human Carcinogen, the same rating the agency gives asbestos and radon gas. Womack also served as a White House spokesperson, defending Bush's White House Office Of Faith-Based Initiatives.This does not inspire confidence.
BREAKING: Latest BP well containment attempt a failure?
Bloomberg is reporting that the latest attempt to abate much of the gusher has failed, and there's nothing to do but wait until the relief wells are complete, sometime in August.
On the slightly brighter side, other news outlets are still reporting that the latest 'great idea' is merely stalled.
From that last link:
====
UPDATE:
Bloomberg is too early on the call. The gusher may be mostly capped in the next 24 hours.
On the slightly brighter side, other news outlets are still reporting that the latest 'great idea' is merely stalled.
From that last link:
"The slick from the crippled well has now drifted within striking distance of beaches on the Mississippi, Georgia and northwestern Florida coast."Here's an idea: If we can't solve a well failure like this, maybe we shouldn't be drilling at such depths? At all?
====
UPDATE:
Bloomberg is too early on the call. The gusher may be mostly capped in the next 24 hours.
Lyin' Brian gets to keep his $2 million
There's some great posturing from the Liberals about getting back the $2 million Mulroney "legally defrauded" from us taxpayers in his false libel suit. Unfortunately, in law, settlements are settlements; that is, when done, they are done. He gets to keep the cash. We get to stay screwed.
We didn't label him lyin' Brian for nothing!
Crooks and lairs have used libel law for generations to intimidate truth-tellers into settlement and silence. Politicians and captains of industry have long been loath to change these laws because they nearly alone have the ability to use the reverse onus nature of Canada's various libel statutes to grind whistleblowers into humiliation.
Demanding the money back is the right thing to do, but it'll never happen.
Here is one law for all in Canada, but some of us are better able to leverage it.
We didn't label him lyin' Brian for nothing!
Crooks and lairs have used libel law for generations to intimidate truth-tellers into settlement and silence. Politicians and captains of industry have long been loath to change these laws because they nearly alone have the ability to use the reverse onus nature of Canada's various libel statutes to grind whistleblowers into humiliation.
Demanding the money back is the right thing to do, but it'll never happen.
Here is one law for all in Canada, but some of us are better able to leverage it.
Whatever happened to the austerity budget?
The exploding G8/G20 security budget. Ya, you've heard it all already. But, so far, Don Martin says it best:
The inexplicably ludicrous billion-dollar security tab for the twin G20 and G8 summits, which soar far beyond any rational explanation when compared with similar summits held as recently as last September, is gaining political traction in Ottawa.
The Auditor General has been asked to probe the unfathomably escalating security budget by the Liberals. The parliamentary budget officer also has been called in to investigate by the New Democrats, and Kevin Page has agreed to give it a closer look.
No amount of righteous government bluster about living in post-9/11 protection paranoia, last week's bank firebombing in Ottawa or the precedent of hosting two back-to-back summits can explain how an $18-million security tab for the G20 in Pittsburgh last September, which involved 4,000 police, must balloon to a billion dollars in Toronto requiring 10,000 cops on the ground.
This is Canada, not Kandahar. In a London that has seen subway and bus terrorist bombings, the official security tab for its G20 gathering last March was $30-million.
Yet one month to the day before the G20 convenes for a dinner and half-day Sunday meeting behind the barricades, the protection tab reportedly surged another $160-million without explanation.
If that's true, total security costs now surpass $1.1-billion for about 16 hours of actual social and formal meetings at both summits - and that doesn't include the $100-million budgeted for host country organization and hospitality. At that ferocious spending rate, taxpayers will be on the hook for $75-million per hour of leadership schmoozing.
If there were tangible expectations of globe-enhancing accomplishment, this might be theoretically defensible.
But my diplomat golfing partner is undoubtedly correct - the broad-stroke results have already been pre-negotiated and the final press release need only be fine-tuned on June 28.
That's the true outrage in hosting a monetary squander without historic equal, particularly given what could be accomplished putting that much cash to work in the real world.
The tab for this security overkill could cover a third of the estimated international cost for the African family planning initiative, or pay two-thirds of Canada's 10-year humanitarian assistance program in Afghanistan.
A government that still hasn't delivered on its promise to beef up police forces could hire 2,500 officers for five years, buy a million advanced Tasers, pay a year's salary for 23,000 soldiers, procure a total of 366 LAVs or purchase five Black Hawk helicopters for every hour the leaders are yakking.
None of the government's subject-to-inflation estimates include serious disruptions to Toronto business, the drop in scared-off tourism from shutdowns of the CN Tower and Rogers Centre, or the productivity loss from motorists seething in traffic jams courtesy of closed expressways into the core.
Utter cluster-fornication.
Milliken: Parliament has the power to force government produce documents
Just this in from Kady's live blogging:
Fingers crossed...
And the result is... two more weeks for Parliament to come up with a plan that deals with security concerns while still allowing for the unredacted documents to be viewed.
And, says Milliken, this is a Matter of Privilege, so if the government refuses to play ball, there's going to be trouble.
So far, our stumbling parliamentary democracy appears to still be intact.
My fear? Harper is preparing to lawyer up, and frag this through our courts.
"In light of these various arguments," Milliken notes, the House does, indeed, have the right to order the documents in question, as it did in December. Got that, everyone? Now, the question is whether it would be a breach of privilege to refuse to comply. Oh wow, that last line just got a round of applause from the opposition benches. On the other side? Silence. Kind of unsettling silence.
Fingers crossed...
And the result is... two more weeks for Parliament to come up with a plan that deals with security concerns while still allowing for the unredacted documents to be viewed.
And, says Milliken, this is a Matter of Privilege, so if the government refuses to play ball, there's going to be trouble.
So far, our stumbling parliamentary democracy appears to still be intact.
My fear? Harper is preparing to lawyer up, and frag this through our courts.
Guergis makes me snore
The whole Jaffer/Guergis affair is simply a tale of incompetence and indiscretion. How boring.
Unless a photo surfaces of Guergis snorting coke off of some stripper's belly, this is all officially boring.
It's fine that this "power couple" is going down in flames. We deserve better in Parliament.
Oh, in other related news, apparently the OPP kept Jaffer from receiving a phone call from his lawyer, and a strip search was done despite the fact he was to be ROR, in which case it is not proper practice to do such an invasive search. So the Crown was likely right to cut a deal.
Of course, had the Crown let us know this up front, some of us wouldn't have spent so much time wondering if the Crown was compromised, either politically or intellectually.
Unless a photo surfaces of Guergis snorting coke off of some stripper's belly, this is all officially boring.
It's fine that this "power couple" is going down in flames. We deserve better in Parliament.
Oh, in other related news, apparently the OPP kept Jaffer from receiving a phone call from his lawyer, and a strip search was done despite the fact he was to be ROR, in which case it is not proper practice to do such an invasive search. So the Crown was likely right to cut a deal.
Of course, had the Crown let us know this up front, some of us wouldn't have spent so much time wondering if the Crown was compromised, either politically or intellectually.
Conservative win on the In and Out front
The Conservatives have a win on the In and Out 'scandal.'
I haven't time to read the ruling, but it appears, sadly, that it is now legal for a central campaign to eat up a local campaign's remaining spending limit.
I don't care that this is a win for the Conservatives. I care that this is a lose for local democracy.
Many local campaigns are going to be subject to pressure from central campaigns to hand over a (large) portion of their spending limits, an coercive event which can significantly limit grassroots initiatives. People will point out that the local campaign does not have to agree, but, give me a break. Defy the central party, and bad things happen. I've seen whole riding executives wiped out by central party trickery.
I know that political parties will strive to not shoot their own feet by further limiting the spending of ridings they believe they can win, but local riding associations often have a very different idea of what can be won and what is worth spending money on.
For those of us who believe that riding associations should be the political organs which legitimize political parties, this is just an other yoke around the neck of democracy.
The last thing Canada needs is even more centralized campaigning. People need to hear local voices more, and the sound of self-interested proroguing PMs less.
===
Update:
Kady is tweeting:
===
More update:
And... it still isn't good for local democracy. The Conservatives may still be in trouble with some of their case, but local democracy is still more inder the thumb of central control as a result of this ruling. Accidental Deliberations has the take.
I haven't time to read the ruling, but it appears, sadly, that it is now legal for a central campaign to eat up a local campaign's remaining spending limit.
I don't care that this is a win for the Conservatives. I care that this is a lose for local democracy.
Many local campaigns are going to be subject to pressure from central campaigns to hand over a (large) portion of their spending limits, an coercive event which can significantly limit grassroots initiatives. People will point out that the local campaign does not have to agree, but, give me a break. Defy the central party, and bad things happen. I've seen whole riding executives wiped out by central party trickery.
I know that political parties will strive to not shoot their own feet by further limiting the spending of ridings they believe they can win, but local riding associations often have a very different idea of what can be won and what is worth spending money on.
For those of us who believe that riding associations should be the political organs which legitimize political parties, this is just an other yoke around the neck of democracy.
The last thing Canada needs is even more centralized campaigning. People need to hear local voices more, and the sound of self-interested proroguing PMs less.
===
Update:
Kady is tweeting:
"have you read the full decision? it's a little less sweeping than i thought."I''ll try to read it later. Let's hope.
"it's basically 'unless and until someone is charged and convicted under the elections act, here's what has to happen'"
===
More update:
And... it still isn't good for local democracy. The Conservatives may still be in trouble with some of their case, but local democracy is still more inder the thumb of central control as a result of this ruling. Accidental Deliberations has the take.
Meanwhile, the Conservative Party continues to piggyback on our tax dollars
By chance, I noticed that a recent press release on the Conservative Party website is identical to one published on the Government of Canada's Office of the Prime Minister's site.
Conservative website: 2010: An international year for Canada
Government website: 2010: An international year for Canada
Both claim copyright, and neither attribute the other.
The government website requires in materials reproduced that "...The Office of the Prime Minister be identified as the source department."
The Conservative website has a boilerplate copyright notice.
So, who wrote the release? The government or the Conservative Party?
Somehow, I doubt the Conservatives are subsidizing the government. More likely it's the other way around.
Perhaps this issue can be raised in the House? Oh, right... prorogued...
Conservative website: 2010: An international year for Canada
Government website: 2010: An international year for Canada
Both claim copyright, and neither attribute the other.
The government website requires in materials reproduced that "...The Office of the Prime Minister be identified as the source department."
The Conservative website has a boilerplate copyright notice.
So, who wrote the release? The government or the Conservative Party?
Somehow, I doubt the Conservatives are subsidizing the government. More likely it's the other way around.
Perhaps this issue can be raised in the House? Oh, right... prorogued...
The Definitive Senator Duffy Chronology of Shame
It's almost always forgotten, but 'Senator' Mike Duffy is a senator for PEI. Camille Labchuk, whom I briefly became re-acquainted with yesterday at the informal Progressive Bloggers gathering in Toronto (a big thank you for that to Kelly John Rose and Tracy Cogsdill Rose of http://www.1337hax0r.com/ BTW), is from PEI and, among other things, reminds me with her latest post of the indignity islanders have to put up with having this pathetic partisan 'represent' them.
Mike Duffy: Canada's Worst Senator
Mike Duffy: Canada's Worst Senator
The Harper Government Counter Hits 9550
Martha Hall Findlay's ethics complaint is a cornucopia of examples of Harper's merging of his party's brand with the government.
Perhaps I'll write more on that later. But what caught my eye was a clever use of Google's ability to search within a domain, in this case, the GC.CA domain. That's our (non-partisan) government.
The phrase of choice? "The Harper Government"
The counts in the complaint:
Oct 6: 8990
Oct 16: 9350
So, I did one for today (Oct 27): 9550
That's an average increase of over 26 incidences per day.
I think I'll keep an eye on this.
Perhaps I'll write more on that later. But what caught my eye was a clever use of Google's ability to search within a domain, in this case, the GC.CA domain. That's our (non-partisan) government.
The phrase of choice? "The Harper Government"
The counts in the complaint:
Oct 6: 8990
Oct 16: 9350
So, I did one for today (Oct 27): 9550
That's an average increase of over 26 incidences per day.
I think I'll keep an eye on this.
WholeGovScam: Different MPs using same BigFatCheques
If Conservative MPs have been operating independently issuing big fat cheques with partisan messaging, as Harper's office pleaded yesterday, why are so many for different MPs using the same design with the same messaging?
From ChequesandBalances' photostream, here are some samples of the same cheque design, all from different Conservative MPs, including some ministers. The cheques feature a common slogan, Conservative colour, and the MPs name.
Who pays for the printing of the big fat cheques? The Conservative Party or taxpayers? No matter what the answer is, there is an ethical issue. If the party pays, then they're lifting credit off of our dime. If taxpayers pay, it's free partisan messaging. Again.
Curiously, this issue may be getting more mileage than the other overtly partisan, and far more expensive, abuses we've learned of recently. I think that's because there are visuals here, and they speak explicitly of money. Hearing about millions spent on partisan ads is not the same as an MP handing over a big fat cheque of our money as if it were his own.
Myself, I wouldn't care much about the cheques. After all, whenever you have an MP in public, you will have partisanship. But bundle this with tens of millions in partisan advertising spent with our dime, public funds being dolled out disproportionately to Conservative ridings, coerced PCO bureaucrats screaming partisanship, and you have a systemic problem which needs addressing.
Throw the bums out.
And if the next government doesn't get it, throw them out too.
And so on. Until someone gets it right.
Oh, and look, Harper signed a cheque too:
Yes, that's Stephen Harper's signature.
(h/t Impolitical)
From ChequesandBalances' photostream, here are some samples of the same cheque design, all from different Conservative MPs, including some ministers. The cheques feature a common slogan, Conservative colour, and the MPs name.
Who pays for the printing of the big fat cheques? The Conservative Party or taxpayers? No matter what the answer is, there is an ethical issue. If the party pays, then they're lifting credit off of our dime. If taxpayers pay, it's free partisan messaging. Again.
Curiously, this issue may be getting more mileage than the other overtly partisan, and far more expensive, abuses we've learned of recently. I think that's because there are visuals here, and they speak explicitly of money. Hearing about millions spent on partisan ads is not the same as an MP handing over a big fat cheque of our money as if it were his own.
Myself, I wouldn't care much about the cheques. After all, whenever you have an MP in public, you will have partisanship. But bundle this with tens of millions in partisan advertising spent with our dime, public funds being dolled out disproportionately to Conservative ridings, coerced PCO bureaucrats screaming partisanship, and you have a systemic problem which needs addressing.
Throw the bums out.
And if the next government doesn't get it, throw them out too.
And so on. Until someone gets it right.
Oh, and look, Harper signed a cheque too:
Yes, that's Stephen Harper's signature.
(h/t Impolitical)
WholeGovScam: Big Fat Cheques
Well, our Conservative MPs certainly are milking the handouts. We've got big fat cheques with Conservative logos, cheques which appear to be personally from the MP, and ones with Conservative slogans.
Oh, I know... "But... the Liberals..."
Well, I don't know if they ever did this,and I don't care. They aren't the government. I, for one, don't put up with shenanigans from anyone. Keeping throwing the bums out until someone does it right, I say.
Keep in mind, we the taxpayers may very well be paying for these promotional items Not much money, but the principle is there...
The photographic evidence.
First, David Miller, MP, who seems to have a huge wallet.
Peter Van Loan, MP, likes his slogans:
Then there's Colin Mayes, MP:
Oh, there's more.
Impolitical has more context, and reports on the PMO's official response.
You know, if this is what we can so easily see, what's under the hood?
Oh, I know... "But... the Liberals..."
Well, I don't know if they ever did this,and I don't care. They aren't the government. I, for one, don't put up with shenanigans from anyone. Keeping throwing the bums out until someone does it right, I say.
Keep in mind, we the taxpayers may very well be paying for these promotional items Not much money, but the principle is there...
The photographic evidence.
First, David Miller, MP, who seems to have a huge wallet.
Peter Van Loan, MP, likes his slogans:
Then there's Colin Mayes, MP:
Oh, there's more.
Impolitical has more context, and reports on the PMO's official response.
You know, if this is what we can so easily see, what's under the hood?
It's what Mike Harris would say...
Just a thought: I wonder if Harper will come to deal with the massive disproportionate doling out of stimulus funds to Conservative ridings by accusing opposition MPs of simply being lazy? Its not favoritism, we just do our job better, he'd say.
Any bets?
Any bets?
WholeGovScam
Nevermind my calling Harper's abuse of public funds ADSCAM 2. Scott Murray named it WholeGovScam on my Facebook wall, and with it potentially encompassing some $12 billion, um, ya.
Andrew Steele says it all:
And please, with all this money flowing to the favoured few, please don't forget about the comparatively paltry $30-odd million of taxpayer's money the 'Harper Government' just spent on partisan ads.
This is so huge, I'm not sure people are going to grasp the scale of it. I guess Harper figures that fortune favours the bold.
Kind of makes all that fuss years back over that hotel in Chretien's riding look ridiculously minor, don't it?
Andrew Steele says it all:
The worst example is in British Columbia, where ridings held by the government received 13 times more than those held by the opposition.
What makes this stunning is not the partisanship of public spending. Governments since the days of the Château Clique have used taxpayer dollars to reward friends and supporters.
But prior scandals of this sort were typically involving secondary initiatives with middling importance to both the economy and the political outcomes of the government.
What makes this story stand out is that a government that has bet its very survival in the economic success of the stimulus package would be this dumb.
Tying up the stimulus in red tape was the Conservatives fault. Had they flowed the money through municipalities directly, as the opposition pointed out, the dollars would already be creating jobs. But the government chose to retain control spending so they could direct projects where they liked.
The results speak for themselves: 12 per cent spent and over-weighted toward places represented by the front bench.
And please, with all this money flowing to the favoured few, please don't forget about the comparatively paltry $30-odd million of taxpayer's money the 'Harper Government' just spent on partisan ads.
This is so huge, I'm not sure people are going to grasp the scale of it. I guess Harper figures that fortune favours the bold.
Kind of makes all that fuss years back over that hotel in Chretien's riding look ridiculously minor, don't it?
Why isn't this Adscam? Part 2
Our politicians should start demanding the Conservative Party to pay back the $36 million in taxpayers' money it has abused on partisan ads and web presence. This is fraud or whatever you call it when the PMO or its agents force civil servants to spend our money on the Conservative Party.
I had written last week on the massive amounts of our money ($36 million) spent on obviously partisan ads by the 'Harper Government' promoting stimulus spending, openly wondering why this isn't a major scandal along the scale of Adscam.
Well, I do have an answer. Apparently, if some party members embezzle money from contracts awarded by government and spend it on your party, that's wrong, and is worth changing governments, whereas if you order civil servants to spend public money promoting your party it's just business as usual, not worth comment.
As if.
Just for comparison, the spending limit for a federal political party on an election is around $20 million. That's right. This dwarfs the amount spent on an election.
The ads clearly promote the Conservative Harper government message that an election should be avoided or else it would interfere with the economic stimulus spending. Such a clear lie as well as elections do not grind government programs to a standstill.
We need to know what meetings were held, what politicians and government employees were involved. To ignore this, is to belittle what we learned from Adscam.
The ads direct viewers to a website wallpapered with pictures of Harper, describing government as 'the Harper Government.' As of yesterday, there were less photos, a development made late one evening, obviously related to the ample public criticism and press coverage, the most effective being a comparison between this enormous partisan spending spree and the lack of advertisement over H1N1 precautions.
Given the obviously partisan nature of these ads, spent with -- I must say it again -- OUR MONEY, should not the Conservative Party start paying us back? That's $36 million, Harper. Pay up!
The Liberal Party paid back public funds due to Adscam. I say 'continue the tradition!'
Impolitical has covered this well, and if you are not up to speed, please go read, in order:
Conservative advertising hijinks: using taxpayer funds to support their message
Is there anything else we taxpayers can get for you trough swilling Conservatives?
A retreat from Harper megalomania
The case of the missing mug shots
One telling radio interview, reposted here from Impolitical, is of Gerry Philips. Philips is a staunch Conservative (libertarian) and former colleague of Harper's when Harper headed the National Citizen's Coalition, a right wing org pressing for small government. Philips has emerged as a significant right wing critic of Harper. Philips is particularly lucid here. It is worth a listen.
I had written last week on the massive amounts of our money ($36 million) spent on obviously partisan ads by the 'Harper Government' promoting stimulus spending, openly wondering why this isn't a major scandal along the scale of Adscam.
Well, I do have an answer. Apparently, if some party members embezzle money from contracts awarded by government and spend it on your party, that's wrong, and is worth changing governments, whereas if you order civil servants to spend public money promoting your party it's just business as usual, not worth comment.
As if.
Just for comparison, the spending limit for a federal political party on an election is around $20 million. That's right. This dwarfs the amount spent on an election.
The ads clearly promote the Conservative Harper government message that an election should be avoided or else it would interfere with the economic stimulus spending. Such a clear lie as well as elections do not grind government programs to a standstill.
We need to know what meetings were held, what politicians and government employees were involved. To ignore this, is to belittle what we learned from Adscam.
The ads direct viewers to a website wallpapered with pictures of Harper, describing government as 'the Harper Government.' As of yesterday, there were less photos, a development made late one evening, obviously related to the ample public criticism and press coverage, the most effective being a comparison between this enormous partisan spending spree and the lack of advertisement over H1N1 precautions.
Given the obviously partisan nature of these ads, spent with -- I must say it again -- OUR MONEY, should not the Conservative Party start paying us back? That's $36 million, Harper. Pay up!
The Liberal Party paid back public funds due to Adscam. I say 'continue the tradition!'
Impolitical has covered this well, and if you are not up to speed, please go read, in order:
Conservative advertising hijinks: using taxpayer funds to support their message
Is there anything else we taxpayers can get for you trough swilling Conservatives?
A retreat from Harper megalomania
The case of the missing mug shots
One telling radio interview, reposted here from Impolitical, is of Gerry Philips. Philips is a staunch Conservative (libertarian) and former colleague of Harper's when Harper headed the National Citizen's Coalition, a right wing org pressing for small government. Philips has emerged as a significant right wing critic of Harper. Philips is particularly lucid here. It is worth a listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Be Pleased at America's Greed
The Canadian Shield. Days! I have spent days wanting to write about Canada's attempts to negotiate a reduction in these coercive tariffs...
