FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

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 »
Jan 6

Canada’s Arms Trade and Unequal Balance Between Making a Buck and Human Rights

by bcurry

Lately I’ve been reading about Canada’s desire to increase its arms trade with developing countries — most notably countries such as Columbia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Chile, Peru, South Korea, India and Kuwait. As you may be aware, a number of these countries have demonstrated recent violations of their citizens’ human rights.

These and the other countries were or are expected to be added to what is called the Automatic Firearms Country Control List, all in the name of expanding Canada’s share of the global arms trade. The arms industry represents a $12 Billion sector in Canada, and is said to be responsible for about 109,000 jobs in Canada. The list itself was established more than 20 years ago by the Canadian Government to represent the only states to which Canadian defence companies and others can export prohibited weapons and military equipment. At the time, its intentions certainly appeared to be honourable.

However, experts now believe that the above list is being expanded to take into account a significant drop in arms sales to such traditional markets as the U.S. and Britain, primarily as a result of the current reduction in the NATO-led mission to Afghanistan. Indeed, the U.S. and British governments, in general, have also drastically slashed defence spending in an effort to get their financial books in order. There is little doubt that both countries will continue to compete with Canada for arms sales to developing countries, regardless of the purposes of their eventual use in those countries.

For example, Canadian-made light armoured vehicles of the type used by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were sold to Saudi Arabia several years ago and later used in 2011 to help crack down on protesters in neighbouring Bahrain. The addition of Colombia to the list in December 2012 was followed several days later by the sale of 24 similar armoured vehicles for $65 Million despite concerns about human and labour rights inside that Latin American country. Peru has also struggled when it comes to respecting the rights of indigenous peoples, particularly around mining projects. Brazil was swept with protests for more than a month that include allegations of police brutality. In addition, Canada may be contributing to further destabilizing relationships between bordering countries such as India and Pakistan.

The Conservative government has been promoting Canada’s defence industry as an economic priority, in large part because it hopes doing so will help offset the thousands of manufacturing jobs that have been lost in other sectors. But at what cost to the advancement of human rights in the listed countries? Although Canada is a relatively small arms dealer on the international market, its contribution to domestic abuses by governments in certain countries cannot and should not be ignored. The Conservative government’s high-profile refusal to sign on to an international treaty aimed at curbing the illicit sale of arms and ammunition, and a lack of transparency on Canadian arms sales in recent years doesn’t inspire confidence. We might very well ask whether selling guns to developing countries is the wisest and best way for Canada to make a buck.

Arms Trade Arms Trade Treaty Canada

Leave a comment »
Dec 8

Why Rob Ford Can’t Handle the News Media as a Reflection of Today’s Politics.

by bcurry

Toronto Councillor Doug Ford, the brother of the city’s controversial Mayor Rob Ford, has accused the media as practising [Soviet] Stalin-era Pravda journalism and has blamed a left-wing “media conspiracy” for the Mayor’s continuing problems. What does this say about the relationship between the media and today’s politicians? It’s no surprise that certain political leaders, such as Prime Minister Stephen Harper, try to stay clear of media scrums. In Harper’s case, any regular media events are strictly controlled and orchestrated to publicize the ruling party’s objectives. Let’s face it, the media can make or break political careers. Like his career, Rob Ford’s recent handling of the media has been a mess.

One must remember that reporters or journalists are put in place to represent the public. They’re trained and obligated to ask the questions that people would ask if they could speak to the leaders directly. After all, when the Fords and Harpers refuse to answer reporters’ questions, they’re refusing to answer the people’s questions. Some politicians even attempt to bypass the media either through their own talk shows as in the case of the Fords or through the practice of holding press conferences without taking questions. Such efforts to bypass the media speak to an alarming trend of addressing voters without the checks and balances that journalists are meant to provide. One important reason why we have freedom of the press is because we want politicians’ statements to be subjected to intense scrutiny. So what is lost (when politicians speak directly) is that needed scrutiny of those statements. Good journalists do their homework, and are usually better prepared to ask those tough questions.

In Canada and the U.S., there is little doubt that many people have become suspicious of the press in recent years, labelling some media representatives as either too “leftist” or “right wing”. For this reason, the “blame the media” strategy has worked to an extent. In some cases, such as in the Rob Ford situation, supporters of a particular viewpoint can easily lump the media in with the so-called “elites” — who supposedly don’t care about the average person. What people fail to realize is that the media is simply reporting the news, normally with as many facts and careful objective scrutiny as is required.

Of course, the media itself can be manipulated by politicians themselves. Indeed, Rob Ford has offered photo availabilities with his family in the past for his own political reasons. When things began to turn bad in the media (claiming an expectation of privacy) he immediately lambasted the press for approaching or indirectly referring to his family. Sorry Mayor Ford, you can’t have it both ways! If he were, at any point, to ask the media to refrain from taking photos of his children or his wife, the media would very likely have respected that and stopped. However, he never did.

Then there are those crazy off-the-cuff scrums before the media. Mayor Ford could have and should have made himself available for more real press conferences, with one question and follow up at a time. You see President Obama doing these all the time. Or he could have done more longer sit down interviews with one reputable media outlet which could ask follow up questions and broadcast or show the entire video of the interview. Either way, the public would have been able to see and judge his answers to every question still unanswered. From this example, one can only conclude that he and numerous other politicians should relearn all about media relations and stop blaming the messenger for each of their faux pas. After all, the free press thankfully isn’t going away any time soon.

Canada Political Scandals

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 »
Oct 8

Obamacare – Solution or Stop-Gap Measure?

by bcurry

Well it’s finally here, much to the consternation of the Republican Party and half of the American population according to recent polls! As of the first of October, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) went into effect and the uninsured multitudes were invited to go on-line or in person to seek out an appropriate health insurance plan. However, the continuing debate is anything but over. Article after article continues to explore the pros and cons of this new healthcare initiative. Critics see it as being too costly for middle class families, forcing many small and medium-sized businesses to lay off workers, being overly complex or hurting the quality of healthcare in the U.S.

On top of which, a Supreme Court’s ruling on the healthcare law last year, while upholding it, allowed states to choose whether to expand Medicaid, the government’s medical insurance program for the poor. As a result, some claim that millions of poor people will be left uncovered by the ACA. They live in states, mainly found in the South, largely controlled by Republicans who to date have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid. About 60 percent of the country’s uninsured working poor are in those states, many of whom are Black or Hispanic. They are now among the eight million Americans believed to be impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help.

Regardless of the implementation of Obamacare, the fact is that according to a recent study by the Commonwealth Fund, a private healthcare foundation, almost half of working Americans between the ages of 19 and 64 currently have no insurance or are under-insured. Other recent studies concluded that more than 65 percent of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to healthcare costs. Compared to other member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development who have universal government-run healthcare programs, Americans are paying a lot more for healthcare and getting a lot less value for services provided. Furthermore, it pays to be rich in the U.S. in order to have access to quality health care. Lack of regulations essentially allows hospitals to charge whatever they like. According to a database of hospital medical charges, there are huge disparities for pretty well every medical procedure everywhere in the United States. Sticker prices are shockingly inflated and the differences are in many cases astronomical. In 2005, the average cost of a day in a hospital was anywhere from $1,629 (for for-profit hospitals) to $2,025 (for nonprofit hospitals). For cancer patients, the average cost was $3,000 a day.

Dependent upon the private insurance sector in U.S., an important reason for the high healthcare costs is that prices for healthcare goods and services are negotiated between individual health insurers and physicians, hospitals or drug companies. On top of which fees in the private healthcare sector have been jealously guarded trade secrets among insurers and providers of healthcare. In other countries, prices either are set by government or negotiated between associations of insurers and providers of care, on a regional, state or national basis. In Canada, healthcare costs are regulated by provincial healthcare agencies, in consultation with hospital and physician representatives.

One of the major problems with Obamacare is its complexity and general coverage. Indeed, polls indicated that most of the uninsured Americans didn’t know that the health insurance exchanges or marketplaces had opened on October 1rst. It is there that persons who don’t have coverage through their employers can shop for insurance and compare prices and benefits. Incredibly, failure to secure health insurance can end up in one being penalized by the government. Starting in 2014, almost every legal resident of the U.S. will be required to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty, with exemptions for financial hardship, religious objections and certain other circumstances.

All of this is complicated and even confusing. However, it appears to be the best that the current administration can do at this time under difficult circumstances. It certainly isn’t the end all and be all to healthcare reform, and is often portrayed as a stop-gap measure to at least insure the estimated 30 to 40 million Americans that had no health insurance what-so-ever.

Still, here we have former members of the Tea Party holding the Republican Party hostage in a senseless act to delay the ACA’s implementation and its subsequent funding, three years after the Act was passed by Congress. Oh, let’s just shutdown the government and blame the President for not willing to compromise and proceeding with “socialized medicine”! Compromise on what? As in Canada, the healthcare debate will go on for years to come, especially given an aging population and ever increasing healthcare costs. Politicians in both countries will have plenty of future opportunities to bicker over the numbers and options, public or private, short-term or long-term. Bandages aren’t enough when only major surgery may be required.

Health Care US

Leave a comment »
Sep 9

Quebec’s Proposed Charter of Quebec Values – Why We Should Be Concerned

by bcurry

The Oxford dictionary defines “dogma” as “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertible. By incontrovertible, one believes that something cannot be denied or disputed. “Xenophobia” is defined as “an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange”. “Secularism” refers to the view that “religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education”.

Although the bill proposing a Charter of Quebec Values has as yet not been introduced, there is already a good deal of concern being expressed as to its implications, not only for Quebec but for Canada as well. Initial indications are that it will prohibit the wearing or display of religious symbols in publicly-funded institutions such as hospitals, schools, day-care centres, etc. Leaked details, published in media reports, suggest that the plan is to prohibit people like doctors, teachers and public-daycare workers from donning turbans, kippas, hijabs and visible crucifixes. The dogma here appears to be the belief that such a ban will somehow protect Quebec’s intrinsic values and culture.

According to the province’s Premier, the proposed charter would affirm, once and for all, the equality between men and women and would reflect not only “universal” values, but Quebec values as well. The position taken is one that the imposition of Quebec values through the reinforced secularization of public institutions is simply the culmination of a long process that began a half-century ago in Quebec. However, some critics of the proposal see this simply as another form of the recent emergence of xenophobia in the province as part of Quebec’s independence movement led by the Parti Quebecois. With globalization, such notions are generally seen as being outdated and detrimental to the well-being of any country: the current unrest in France often given as an example of such policies.

How the wearing of religious headwear or symbols by individuals undermines basic Quebec culture is difficult to explain. This is like the belief that openly gay teachers could influence children in some unhealthy way, in a province where the rights of gays is currently respected. To many Quebec-born residents and recent immigrants, the wearing of religious garments, headwear or symbols is an important part of not only their faith, but also of who they are as individuals. To most, being part of a society and being devoted to their faith is considered a normal part of everyday life, and not some form of dogma. Tolerance of all faiths is seen as an indispensable Canadian trait, internationally making Canada among the most recognized leaders in the effective integration of immigrants into its society. Should Quebec move forward with its proposed Charter, it may very well damage Canada’s reputation in the international arena and Quebec’s reputation within Canada. As was the case throughout history where a perception of state “persecution” existed, there is always the danger of a resulting exodus by the targeted population.

Canada Charter of Quebec Values

Leave a comment »
Aug 19

Why Minimum Wage Still Remains an Important Issue in North America

by bcurry

Here we go again! Controversy has surfaced over discussions in Canada and the U.S. over raising the existing minimum wage levels at the federal, state and provincial levels. In both countries, minimum wages differ among states and provinces. In the U.S., the federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour. In Canada, minimum wages vary among provinces: the highest being in the territory of Nunavut at $11.00 per hour to the lowest in Alberta at $9.75 per hour. The current provincial average rate in Canada is around $10.00. There is no Canadian federal minimum wage for industries under federal jurisdiction, as the federal government has simply adopted provincial minimum wages in its labour standards legislation.

In his February 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama urged Congress to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9, saying the move would reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. As usual, critics argue that increasing the minimum wage would raise businesses’ costs and, in turn, reduce the number of employees they could hire. However as noted by the Department of Labor, the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981. When adjusted for inflation the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s, and more than $10 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s.

This brings us to the question of what is a minimum wage and how is it determined? Originally, minimum wages tended to be calculated based on some percentage of the average industrial wage. For example, one may have desired it to be set at 50 or 60 percent of the average industrial wage. Today according to Statistics Canada, the average hourly wage in Canada for persons 15 years and older is $23.75. In the U.S., the average hourly wage in the private sector is around $24.00. However, what has happened over the recent decades has been a lag in minimum wage levels when compared to yearly increases in industrial wages. Indeed, average minimum wages have rarely even kept pace with inflation rates, not being adjusted for the annual cost of inflation increases. Instead, increases in minimum wage rates are dependent on governments to prescribe in law, a process often taking place over the course of several years.

We are now no longer talking about a “living wage”. How can a family of four expect to live comfortably in an urban setting on one income based on a minimum wage? At or slightly above the poverty line, this is why there are so many families with both couples working: often referred to as the “working poor”. With the loss of good paying jobs in manufacturing in particular, the so-called “middle class” is slowing shrinking. Many unemployed persons are forced to seek employment in the retail and services sectors where minimum wages play a much greater role in effectively determining wages.

Moreover, politicians are less likely to be influenced by anti-poverty groups than by industry lobbyists. Recently, members of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in Canada stated that almost 20 percent of Ontario workers were forced below the poverty line in the three years since the provincial Liberal Government froze the minimum wage at $10.25 per hour. ACORN’s province-wide campaign is calling for the rate to be immediately increased to $14, reflecting the rise in inflation since 2010. A Minimum Wage Advisory Panel, appointed by the Liberals in July 2013, is examining a potential provincial minimum wage increase in 2014. However, one can be certain that industry representatives will once again raise the age-old specter of increased unemployment in those sectors where minimum wages are currently used as base income levels. As in the U.S., it is very unlikely that there will be any significant changes to minimum wage rates in Ontario or in Canada. Perhaps, it’s about time for Ontario to take the lead and ensure that workers are entitled to a real “living wage”.

Minimum Wages Minimum Wages

Leave a comment »
Aug 1

Afghanistan: Good Investment or Sink Hole and Lost Cause

by bcurry

Well, here we are over ten years later and one is still uncertain as to what has been accomplished in Afghanistan. Let’s look at a few facts:

• In 2013, $4.7 billion U.S. is being allocated for the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), an amount that the U.S. government can’t continue to expend.

• Questions about the ability of the ANSF to provide the necessary security against future Taliban attacks and incursions continue to surface.

• How many American troops will be permanently assigned there after 2014 is still up in the air, and to what effect?

• The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have to date never issued a remotely credible report on the progress and impact of the civilian surge or any aspect of the civil aid program.

• Amid complaints of corruption, support among the populace for President Hamid Karzai’s government continues to be weak.

• Beyond Kabul, Afghan warlords are still in control of much of the country, often financed by the ongoing drug trade and American contract monies.

• Support from other NATO countries for the so-called reconstruction phase in Afghanistan is luke warm.

• It appears that any real meaningful negotiations with the Taliban are not likely to happen any time real soon. Especially as the Taliban are patiently awaiting the withdrawal of foreign troops and the level of trust on both sides is extremely low.

• The Taliban are not viewed by locals in the same way as al-Qaeda was, al-Qaeda having all but disappeared from the landscape.

• The Taliban are securely entrenched in Pakistan where the authorities are unable and unwilling to deal with the insurgents.

Have there really been any significant changes within Afghan society over the past ten years? It would appear from recent evidence that the answer is a strong “no”. Recent interviews by journalists of the New York Times with dozens of Afghan youth paint a picture of a new generation bound to their society’s conservative ways; especially when it comes to women’s rights, one of the West’s single most important efforts in the country. Attempts to alter women’s roles in society remain controversial among the younger generation. In addition, many Aghans consider democracy a tool of the West. The vast majority of Afghans still rely on tribal justice, viewing the courts as little more than venues of extortion. There continues to be strong support for adherence to Shariah law in Afghanistan, much of which actually comes from tribal traditions. Afghanistan is still an ancient and poor country with tribal ways, always suspicious of western ways and culture.
What does all this mean? Afghanistan has become a continuous burden to the American taxpayer, a real sink hole. Obama and other western leaders had better get out while they can, and let the Afghans resolve their own issues and employ their own measures. Only then, can they realistically determine their future, whatever that might be. I don’t think that we can afford another ten years of the same.

Afghanistan

Leave a comment »
Jul 11

Quebec’s Deadly Train Derailment At Lac-Megantic Is Only Tip of the Iceberg

by bcurry

The horrendous derailment of tank cars carrying thousands of liters of crude oil and the resulting explosion and fire killing dozens of people in the small community of Lac-Megantic represent a further reminder of the dangers of transporting hazardous materials through populated areas. In addition, waves of crude oil were dumped into nearby water bodies in what officials call an unprecedented environmental disaster for the province of Quebec.

According to the American Association of Railways Rail, such shipments of crude oil have increased enormously since 2008 when 9,500 carloads were shipped. Last year, crude oil shipments topped 230,000 carloads. That figure is expected to jump again this year with first quarter shipments already at 97,000 carloads. On top of which, the National Transportation Safety Board in Washington reported that older, unsafe tank cars make up about 70 percent of the existing North American fleet — and that those cars will be on the rails for decades. These older tank cars have a service life between 30 and 40 years and the industry is apparently resisting the billion-dollar-plus price tag to retrofit them. As well, getting the new stock is expected to be a very slow process given the current back orders in the industry.

In 2008, a parliamentary committee investigating railway safety in Canada stated that it had “serious concerns” about delays and the manner in which railway safety management systems have been implemented by railway companies and the federal government. More recently, agencies such as the Canadian Transportation Safety Board and federal Environment Commissioner issued scathing audits raising safety concerns over the transportation of dangerous goods by rail. However, the Board and Environment Commissioner can only make recommendations to the government based on their findings. It is up to the government and the responsible departments, in this case Transport Canada, to respond to their recommendations with changes in policies, legislation and regulatory practices. Furthermore, it has been more than five years since the last federal comprehensive safety review of the rail industry. While a number of their recommendations have since been implemented by the government, the freight-rail industry continues to evolve particularly as a result of the above-noted rapid growth in moving crude oil by rail.

The primary problem is with the government’s past and current policy aimed at deregulation of the transportation industry, making it primarily industry’s responsibility to implement effective safety policies and practices. With deregulation and in light of the industry’s growth, there are fewer inspectors to carry out safety inspections and to follow up on corrective measures by employers where safety violations are uncovered. Moreover, the government relies heavily on the industry to police itself. Yet, as we have witnessed in Canada, the series of derailments involving dangerous goods in recent years, including that at Lac-Megantic, have demonstrated that greater enforcement and regulator activity is really what is needed. Otherwise, more such tragic incidents will occur with both significant human and environmental impacts. Be it rail cars or pipelines, governments have been far to slow to respond to the increasing dangers, suggesting that Canadians and Americans will themselves have to step forward and demand better policing and mitigation measures.

Transport of Oil

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.