FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Oct 5

It’s Not More Legislation That’s Necessarily the Solution, It’s Also Enforcement of Existing Laws

by bcurry

President Obama has again referred to the need for more gun control legislation in response to the recent tragic mass shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. As complex societies, we have legislation regulating activities throughout our two nations, including those dealing with public and worker health and safety, the environment, financial institutions, transportation, etc., etc. It would seem that we are well regulated already in most of our daily activities. Yet, terrible things keep happening in communities across North America — be it the mass shootings in Oregon and elsewhere or the train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec that killed dozens of people in 2013.

Years ago in order to reduce so-called ‘government bureaucracy’ and reduce operational expenditures, governments began to introduce the concept of ‘self-regulation’ in a number of areas. This meant that industry had to ensure that businesses were in compliance with the standards found under various forms of existing legislation. It also meant that the regulators would reduce the number of proactive inspections and restrict their interventions to investigating accidents and incidents affecting health and safety, particularly where there were fatalities and injuries. In other words, in a much more reactive mode, enforcement primarily became targeted at violations committed by bad actors. Where violations are found, penalties are imposed in the form of fines and in fewer cases criminal charges.

However, all of this enforcement activity is performed ‘after the fact’. People become sick from unsafe food, water sources are polluted by hazardous materials releases, air quality suffers from high pollutant emissions from diesel vehicles, workers die in coal mine explosions, etc., etc. Fewer inspectors and administrators means less preventive and proactive regulatory activity. Having a registry of persons with mental illness or criminal records is meaningless if states and local authorities don’t provide much needed information to the responsible regulator in a timely and efficient manner. Without the effective enforcement of existing government requirements, more people are going to die at the hands of some mass killer.

Enforcement of standards and regulated activities has to improve in many areas involving societal oversight. Otherwise, more tragedies will occur affecting all of us in one way or another. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Hopefully, politicians will finally recognize this.

Canada Federal Government Gun Control

Leave a comment »
Sep 21

Should Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Ever Fly in Canada?

by bcurry

The answer is clearly a resounding “NO”. As a result of the current Canadian federal election underway, the governing Conservative Party is still defending its involvement in a plan to purchase F-35s to replace the current aging fleet of CF-18s. The problem is, Canada can’t afford it and there are several practical reasons why the F-35s don’t make any sense in the Canadian context. Both the New Democratic and Liberal parties have indicated that they would scrap F-35 purchases should they form the next government, and will look at cheaper and more suitable alternative aircraft.

The following are detailed concerns expressed by insiders and recorded by several media outlets in Canada, the U.S. and other countries:*

  • Right from the start, Pentagon officials were warned of the dangers of beginning to produce an aircraft before it was fully tested. (New York Times, 2012)
  • In 2010, Pentagon officials estimated that the planes could cost as much as $5 billion more than previously estimated. That comes on top of a $2.8 billion increase, which brought the total for development alone to $50 billion. (New York Times, 2010)
  • In 2011, S. defence specialist Winslow Wheeler estimated the planes would cost around $148 million apiece or more. (Ottawa Citizen, 2011)
  • The Canadian military does not have the ability to conduct aerial refuelling of the F-35, a must for longer flights in our North. The Defence Department had listed air-to-air refuelling as a mandatory capability for any new fighter aircraft Canada (Ottawa Citizen, 2011)
  • F-35 would not be able to safely land on runways in Canada’s North as those are too short for the fighter. (Ottawa Citizen, 2011)
  • The Pentagon official in charge of the F-35 project said major cracks and “hot spots” had been discovered in the stealth fighter’s airframe, causing further delays and testing. (Postmedia News, 2011)
  • F-35s don’t have the satellite capabilities necessary for communicating in the Arctic. (Postmedia News, 2011)
  • The Pentagon grounded all of its F-35s after a routine inspection found a crack in one of the stealth fighter’s engines. (Postmedia News, 2013)
  • Lockheed needs more foreign orders to realize volume savings. In 2012, Italy cut its planned order 30 percent. Britain and Australia delayed decisions on how many F-35s to buy. Lawmakers in Canada and the Netherlands were questioning the costs. (New York Times, 2012)
  • Several countries, including Britain and Japan, have stated that they may have to cancel their F-35 order in view of the cost overruns, technical problems and delays. (Postmedia News, 2012)
  • Retired Canadian colonel Paul Maillet, an aerospace engineer and former CF-18 fleet manager, said the F-35 does not meet the needs of the government’s Canada First Defence Strategy, a key pillar of which is Arctic sovereignty. “How do you get a single-engine, low-range, low-payload, low-manoeuvrability aircraft that is being optimized for close air support . . . to operate effectively in the North?” he asked. (Postmedia News, 2012)
  • In 2012, Auditor General Michael Ferguson delivered a report highly critical of the Defence Department’s handling of the F-35 project. The auditor general’s report indicated Defence Department officials twisted government rules, withheld information from ministers and Parliament, and whitewashed cost overruns and delays afflicting the F-35 program. (Postmedia News, 2012)
  • The first F-35s were supposed to be delivered to Canada in 2015. The federal government quietly decided in the fall of 2015 to spend $400 million to extend the life of Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets past 2020. (Ottawa Citizen, 2015)
  • With all the delays — full F-35 production is not expected until 2019 — the U.S. military has spent billions to extend the lives of older fighters and buy more of them to fill the gap. (New York Times, 2013)
  • Mark Gunzinger, a retired American Air Force colonel who is now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, noted that the F-35 could be too sophisticated for minor conflicts, and its relatively short flight range could be a problem as the Pentagon changes its view of possible threats. (New York Times, 2012)
  • S. air force data demonstrates that single-engine jets have crashed more often. The manufacturer and the government have argued that improvements in technology have made the F-35’s engine more reliable and safer than its predecessors. A report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Rideau Institute noted: “The single-engine versus twin-engine issue has not been resolved by improvements in the reliability of jet engines”. “Engine failures will still occur, and when they do so away from an airport, a second engine is the only thing that can prevent a crash.” (Canadian Press, 2014)
  • A 2014 government-commissioned report on the F-35 and its competitors shows little difference between the four warplanes when it comes to the vast majority of missions they will be required to perform. The only major exception is fighting against another country, though the report says such an event is “highly unlikely” to occur in the future, and even then, “the government is not obliged to undertake such a mission.” (Ottawa Citizen, 2014)
  • An Industry Canada report said that the four aircraft companies reviewed had all laid out plans for bolstering the Canadian economy with jobs and other benefits should their aircraft be chosen to replace the CF-18. (Ottawa Citizen, 2014)
  • In 2015, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated that progress had been made on some of the problems that have plagued the controversial jet fighter’s development for years. These include designing a new pilot’s helmet and fixing an issue that resulted in cracks in the aircraft’s frame. But the GAO, which serves as Congress’s independent auditor, said “key gaps” persist that threaten to increase costs and put development even further behind schedule. Problems with the aircraft’s engine have delayed aircraft deliveries and testing. (Ottawa Citizen, 2015)

*In addition to Canada and the U.S., the original F-35 project included Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel, Singapore and Japan.

Canada Federal Election Federal Government Justin Trudeau

Leave a comment »
Apr 8

More and More Government Handouts – Another Canadian Federal Election Must Be Coming

by bcurry

How about one more tax credit for the middle class?  Now we have Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc. lobbying the federal government for a fitness tax credit for adults of all ages.  So if I like, as a mature adult, to ski, play in an adult sports league or work out at a gym club, I could receive a tax credit up to $500 per person.  This would be on top of those tax credits already available for any children involved in fitness activities, to be bumped up to an eligible amount to $1,000 per child.  Needless-to-say, all these tax credits will eventually cost the federal government hundreds of millions of tax dollars in the near future.  The costs of implementing the adult fitness tax credit have been estimated by the government to be $69 million in the first year and $275 million each year after.

Now, I have a real problem with subsidizing Goodlife Fitness Centres with taxpayer money.  I also have a problem with subsidizing those adults who, of their own volition, decide to participate in sports or fitness activities which the average taxpayer cannot really afford.  Let’s face it, given the annual fees for gym clubs, tennis clubs and ski lodges, most of us would probably pass on such activities.  I couldn’t even justify paying for those fancy gym outfits and shoes designed to impress the other members.  Instead, we regular people look for more affordable past times like walking, hiking in parks, riding bikes, skating on public rinks, etc., etc.

Why not invest in infrastructure from which all of us can benefit!  I for one would like to see more taxpayer investment in national and local parks, in playgrounds, public swimming pools, boys and girls clubs, school fitness programs and outdoor public facilities accessible to everyone, regardless of income levels.  Today, obesity and other health issues are a concern not only for the middle and upper classes, but also for society as a whole.  In the name of gaining a few extra votes, why is it that the ruling party has to be so short-sighted?  Is it because poor people tend not to vote in large numbers?  Where are the studies that show that such tax breaks really make a difference one way or the other?

After all, we are a free society where people can make their own choices about where to spend their hard earned dollars.  If your income is such that you can spend it on fitness or arts and music activities, then that’s your choice.  Why I as a taxpayer have to subsidize it is a whole other matter.  Sorry, Mr. Finance Minister, my vote cannot and will not be bought by such obvious ploys.  As a society, we have many more urgent issues to resolve: national security, the economy, unemployment and the environment to name only a few.

Canada Federal Election Federal Government

Leave a comment »
Feb 18

At This Pace, Say Good-bye To Our Freedoms

by bcurry

It’s ironic that governments always declare that we have to give up some of those very freedoms that our ancestors fought to protect in past wars.  In the name of national security, you appear to be able to justify just about anything.  Freedoms, like to freedom of association are also being watered down by recent government actions.  The right to unlawful search and seizure has also been compromised both in Canada and the U.S. by recent government actions.  In Canada, the authorities now have the ability to seize cell phones, tablets and other personal electronic devises without a warrant if a person is arrested for an alleged crime.

In both countries, various governments have moved to take away the right to strike from public sector unions during collective bargaining.  Given that the public sector is the last bastion of unionization, such government actions will further diminish the ability to collectively bargain for better working conditions and compensation.  Fortunately, some courts have and will rule that such prohibitions affect our freedom of association.

Just the other day, a young female student in the province of Quebec was stripped searched by the school’s principle on suspicion of possessing or selling drugs in the school.  This was done without the presence of her parents or the police.  Indeed, such searches were openly applauded and defended by a number of Quebec politicians.  I can only hope that such a denial of basic rights never happens to a child of their own.

The Canadian government’s most recent proposed anti-terrorism legislation would allow the authorities greater powers to search, seize and share personal information all in the name of national security.  As was the case in the U.S. after 9/11, our spy agencies will have increased powers to monitor our every move, physically or electronically.  Civilian oversight of the monitors appears to be weak, and should be of great concern to those who value their privacy and freedom of expression.

Sometimes, individual rights and considerations have to be adjusted for the good of the collectivity and society as a whole.  However, when the impact on basic freedoms is so great as to erode their effective value and respect, it’s time to take a step back and consider the real consequences.  Just how much power do we want to give to Big Brother as a free and democratic society?  How many freedoms are you willing to have watered down?

Anti-Terroism Canada Federal Government

Leave a comment »
May 9

When It Comes to the Public Service – Politicians Always Look to the Easy Answers

by bcurry

Well, here we go again. In both Canada and the U.S., certain political factions are continuing to treat public servants as “costs” rather than as “assets”. They believe that all one has to do to get deficits under control and to balance budgets is cut public service jobs and freeze public servants’ wages. Even better, let’s just make the public service operate more like private corporations — a crazy notion that I previously had blogged on.

However, the fact of the matter is that many of government’s human resource problems have arisen from changes in the nature of the public sector workforces and a lack of political will. While clerical jobs once dominated the bureaucracy, professional occupations do today. Governments need to recruit and keep employees to fill those posts. Current job classification systems prevent agencies from aligning compensation with what comparable occupations in the private sector pay, undermining government’s ability to attract top performers. Political motivated attacks on the public service only help to increase what have already become stressful working conditions. This in turn has increased concerns over the mental health of senior managers and public sector employees, and subsequent lost of productivity.

Cuts in operating budgets of various departments/agencies often lead to program and service delivery becoming “dysfunctional”, no longer able to effectively serve their respective clients. Since this primarily is a consequence of token cuts, one has to ask oneself why a government would continue to support the existence of reduced programs and services. Maybe it’s time that politicians bite the bullet and make some hard choices. Governments need to do their evaluations and eliminate programs and services that they believe are no longer essential. There will no doubt be an outcry by affected interest groups, including unions, and various supporters of such programs. However, governments will just have to have the political will and stamina to face such opposition, something that hasn’t been too much in evidence in the past.

Moreover, governments will no longer be asking public servants to do more with less and to undertake the near impossible. While such program elimination will result in a “leaner and meaner” public service, it will also lead to ensuring adequate resources and support are provided to ensure the effectiveness of the essential programs and services. After all, is it not the role of government to make the hard choices? Once done, politicians must stop simply attacking public servants, get on with modernizing the public service to meet its future challenges, reduce unnecessary contracting out of services, and improve government’s ability to attract top performers.

Canada Federal Government Federal Government Public Service Public Service US

Leave a comment »
Apr 15

Why Performance Pay Doesn’t Work in the Public Service

by bcurry

Recently, both federal administrations in Canada and the U.S. have reintroduced plans to implement merit-based pay systems in the public service. Every few years, discussions about the introduction of a more performance-based pay system for public servants surface. This year is no different. From past experiences the problem is that, for the non-executive groups in particular, the implementation of such pay systems doesn’t work very well — if at all!

In the U.S., the Partnership for Public Service has proposed a plan to introduce a federal pay system that would compensate workers at a level on par with their cohorts in the private sector, with extra pay for only those who perform above expectations. Federal-worker unions have opposed the plan, saying the current pay system has served the nation well. The government has experimented with pay-for-performance programs in the past, particularly with the Defense Department’s National Security Personnel System, which Congress canceled in 2009. According to unions and other federal-worker groups, that program failed in part because employees did not trust that it would work fairly.

In Canada, the federal Treasury Board, which oversees pay structures for federal departments, recently introduced pay-for-performance programs for the non-executive categories of public servants. However, federal unions are challenging the Conservative government’s new performance management regime, touted as a “new beginning”. The government claims it will make Canada’s public servants more productive and efficient while weeding out poor performers. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has filed a policy grievance on behalf of 17 unions against key provisions of employees’ new mandatory performance agreements, saying these violate collective agreements. The unions are also concerned that the performance appraisal approach is unfair, biased and flawed, often depending on the personal relationship between managers and departmental staff.

Proposing performance-based compensation systems to bring the public sector into line with private sector approaches is like comparing eggs and apples. So much of what the public service does is in immediate response to the policies and politics of the government of the day. This more-or-less precludes any reference to a genuine “bottom line” when assessing results and achievements in meeting organizational objectives. This leaves managers with a need to simply assess employees’ contributions to meeting daily operational activities and their ability to effectively adjust to the whims of one’s political masters. Even measuring short-term efficiencies can be tricky, if not impossible, under such circumstances. Measuring long-term effectiveness is even more difficult given the ever present winds of political change.

Setting up a valid and legitimate merit-based appraisal system is the first and foremost ingredient for any potential success. Ensuring that managers are adequately trained in order to respect and maintain such a system on a continuing basis is the next most important requirement. Finally, the system’s development and implementation has to involve consultations with those employees who are directly affected, otherwise there can be no employee buy-in. Without these three key elements, any performance-based approach will result in an inequitable and fraudulent compensation system. What the stressed-out pubic service doesn’t need right now is another claim to disrepute!

Canada Federal Government Federal Government Public Service Public Service US

Leave a comment »
Feb 27

What’s Going On With All That Snail Mail?

by bcurry

Well, it looks as if the time has come once again to replace the horse and buggy with the horseless carriage. Yes, what we’re talking about is the ongoing debate over the viability of postal services in Canada and the U.S. Both postal services are loosing significant amounts of money with so-called ‘snail mail’, and need to reduce their costs and increase revenue sources. They are billions of dollars in the red, and the federal governments apparently are not interested in intervening to save their butts. Governments claim that they have enough on their plates with current deficits and the ubiquitous desire to balance their books.

In Canada, over the next five years Canada Post is planning to cut door-to-door delivery where it currently exists in favour of the use of more community postal boxes. In addition, there will be about 8,000 fewer postal positions by the end of this period. In the U.S., talks have evolved around discontinuing Saturday postal deliveries and reducing the number of outlets in communities. Of course, the cost of postage stamps keeps climbing in both countries!

The removal of direct postal delivery has raised the ire of some citizens, although community postal boxes have been around for some time now. It is argued that seniors and persons with disabilities will find it especially difficult to get to such boxes to pick up their mail. Indeed, for many seniors and persons with disabilities the loss of mail delivery is a major concern, particularly as these persons most likely rely heavily on this service. Given this winter’s severe weather, I can certainly understand their reluctance or inability to leave their homes. Some kind of alternative ways of picking up their mail will have to be worked out, either through volunteers or other subsidized means.

Let’s face it, in some communities the postal service is the most direct way in which the federal government communicates with its citizens. Not everyone has access to the Internet, can afford it or wishes to have access to it. For this reason, politicians are going to have to deal with these issues. Already, municipalities, local community bodies, businesses and charities are expressing their concerns over what impact the reduction in regular door-to-door mail delivery will have on them. Up until now, the debate has narrowly centered on the bottom line of the postal service and how to improve competition with private delivery services.

However, now is the time for a much broader and in-depth discussion as to the consequences of such policies for our citizens, especially at the community level. Such decisions are far too important as to not include much more debate at the federal political level. As an essential national service, there still is a need to explore all possible alternatives. In turn, the rationale for any resulting policies must then be clearly explained to everyone’s satisfaction. Otherwise, there could be the danger of a citizen revolt and countless actions against the postal services. It may be snail mail, but its delivery is still important to many individuals and communities through rain, snow, wind or hail.

Canada Federal Government Federal Government US

Leave a comment »
Jan 20

New Year and Crazy Politics to Look Forward To

by bcurry

Well. A new year has arrived and with it the certainty that politicians in the U.S. and Canada will provide us with plenty of entertainment — no matter how painful. Once again, one is starting off the year with new scandals, thanks largely to Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey and what is now being called “Bridgegate”. Apparently, four days of George Washington Bridge delays in September were allegedly caused on purpose by Governor Christie’s office in order to punish a local Democratic Party mayor. In addition, questions are being raised about how the good Governor had directed some of the federal recovery funds in aid of the victims and extensive damage resulting from Superstorm Sandy. New Jersey Lt.-Gov. Kim Guadagno strongly denied that Christie’s administration had tied Superstorm Sandy recovery funds to support for a prime real estate project in Hoboken. However, Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer ratcheted up her allegation about the funding link and apparently has turned over documents to a federal prosecutor investigating his staff. Remember, Governor Christie was expected to be a strong contender for the Republican presidential nomination for 2015. Maybe not so much anymore?

Here in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is still going to have to deal with a number of Senate spending scandals — some of which are currently under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). With federal elections coming up in October 2015, it will be very interesting to see just how long it will take for the RCMP to proceed with any potential criminal charges? In the meantime, the current government’s standing in the polls is going down. It appears that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been making headway with average Canadian voters, despite his apparent inexperience and having misspoken a number of times. Given the Liberal Party’s position in support of the legalization of marijuana (alias pot, Weed, reaper, Mary Jane, food, ganja, kush), I’d certainly vote for his party! Think of all the revenue one could raise. It may even help some people cope better with what’s going on!

Then we have President Obama telling us how we all need “Big Brother” to oversee your interests, whatever those may be. If the American spy agency is reading this, please note that I love spy movies. As your neighbour, I love Americans and would never walk on your manicured lawns without your permission and for fear of being shot. Carry on Mr. President and please let us know how it all works out in the name of national security.

I can’t wait to see what the coming year has in store for us. More of the same I trust. Meanwhile, keep smiling and enjoy the rollercoaster ride. Happy New Year!!!!!

Canada Federal Government Justin Trudeau Political Scandals Political Scandals US

Leave a comment »
Nov 14

Is there a shortage of strong political leaders in Canada?

by bcurry

In the past year, we have seen a Canadian population that has become more and more cynical about their political leaders and governing parties. This has been particularly true at the municipal level. For example, as many as four Quebec mayors and interim mayors have been forced to step down amid a province-wide corruption investigation, two other big-city mayors have faced court challenges on their mandates, and another faced criminal charges. Of course, Toronto’s mayor Rob Ford stands out from the crowd.

At the federal level, there have been the expense scandals in the Senate, resulting in the suspension of three implicated senators. Payoffs to one senator were made through the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), resulting in the resignation of the PM’s Chief of Staff. While it is obvious that numerous officials in the PMO were aware of the illicit financial arrangements, Prime Minister Stephen Harper continues to deny any knowledge of such activities. What makes matters worst is that it was Harper who had appointed the three suspended senators in the first place.

There is a difference between a “strong” leader and one who is “strong-willed”. A strong leader builds support among elected and appointed officials and facilitates a “team” approach in dealing with policies and political interests. A strong-willed leader simply believes in his or her ultimate entitlement to do whatever they see fit, while loosing the confidence of supporters and potentially the electorate. Strong leaders delegate responsibilities to members of their executive, all the while maintaining transparency and accountability within the administration. Strong leaders lead by example, both personal and public.

The adage that the “buck stops here” becomes an even more important one. Strong leaders will accept their ultimate accountability for their behaviour and that of their administration. Failure to do so will result in reduced public confidence in the abilities of political leaders. A recent Leger survey of Canadians showed that only 14 percent of respondents said they were significantly confident in the provincial governments they elected. A matching 14 percent expressed significant confidence in the federal government. Only 21 per cent of Canadians said they were confident in the work of their local officials.

Have we set the bar too low? Are we discouraging potential strong candidates from entering politics? Is the Canadian electorate tuning out, fed up with the shenanigans of federal, provincial and municipal leaders? Public life is hard enough without having to carry the baggage of past scandals, political corruption and discreditable conduct. For once, I’d like to see more reports of incidents of strong leadership in Canada. Unfortunately, it seems that this doesn’t make the news! I wonder why?

Canada Federal Government Leadership Political Scandals The Senate

Leave a comment »
Jun 20

Justin Trudeau’s Speaking Engagements and the Prime Minister’s Office

by bcurry

Well, here we go again. It appears that the taxpayer-funded Prime Minister’s Office (aka PMO) has nothing better to do but to lead a campaign to disparage a Member of Parliament (MP) from one of the opposition parties. Now, one must remember that the powerful PMO is responsible for almost everything to do with the PM, in this case Stephen Harper. In fact, the PMO calls the shots for much of what the Conservative government is doing or saying in the legislature and in public. It is the exclusive operational arm of the executive. Indeed, it appears to have so much influence that even a number of Conservative back benchers have complained about the PMO’s obsession with control.

Among the PMO’s latest activities is the apparent spearheading of partisan attacks against the Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau. Remember that recent polls have shown that Trudeau represents a real potential threat to the ruling Conservatives in the next election, his popularity being even greater than that of the PM. Due to his popularity and charismatic attributes, the younger Trudeau is often invited by various groups to speak at events, including those promoting a charitable cause. As an MP, Trudeau is in his right to be paid for such speaking engagements, as long as they are reported the federal ethics watchdog Mary Dawson. However, the Conservatives have tried to depict his acceptance of speaking fees as being unethical, particularly where charitable organizations are involved. I have no problem with such partisan political meanderings, but please do it on your own dime and not mine.

It appears that the PM and his staff are treating the PMO as an extension of the Conservative Party’s machinery. Recognizing that the PMO is staffed with party cronies, it is however paid for out of the public purse. The PMO’s chief administrative responsibility is to coordinate the ruling party’s agenda in Cabinet and in Parliament and to liaise with the federal bureaucracy. However, the PMO today has become much more as a result of exercising an inordinate amount of control over the Conservative caucus, Cabinet ministers and the party’s members of parliament. This obsession of Stephen Harper with absolute control has exasperated even members of his own party, to the point where one member recently left the caucus to sit as an independent. Under threat of excommunication, MPs are not allowed to speak their own minds or to speak out of turn either in the legislature or in public. Big brother is watching.

Using the PMO to spearhead political attacks on opposition leaders and to deflect recent negative publicity surrounding the Conservative government’s inappropriate behaviour and abuse of powers is unacceptable and dangerous. It’s about time that Canadians wake up to the bastardization of parliamentary institutions by this government. Elected on the promise of greater transparency and accountability, control-freak Harper has demonstrated even more secrecy and lack of openness in his administration. What’s worse is that the other parties may be becoming just as control conscious!!! So much for independence of thought.

Canada Federal Government Justin Trudeau Political Scandals

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.