As the Ontario provincial election seemingly tightens at the midway point of the election, Warren Kinsella is becoming more and more desperate.
It's actually rather ironic. Earlier in the campaign, "desperate" was his favourite word. He took to Twitter to declare the deseperation of the Tim Hudak-led Progressive Conservative Party.
Now, it's Kinsella and Premier Dalton McGuinty who are becoming desperate. But mostly Kinsella.
In a posting on his blog, Kinsella wails about the federal Conservative Party's treatment of a video taken at a barbecue Toronto Mayor Rob Ford held in July.
The guest of honour at the barbecue was Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who spoke about the upcoming Ontario election, and rallied guests to support Tim Hudak in defeating the Liberal government of Ontario.
Harper spoke of the need for a conservative hat trick in Ontario.
Kinsella's desperation in raising this video becomes clear when one considers that this non-story first came up in early August and it is now late September.
Frankly, it is precisely that: a non-story. There is nothing reasonably controversial about this video. Unless, of course, one is a Liberal voter or war room worker.
It's reminiscent of a past story in which a left-wing partisan snuck a video camera into a Conservative Party event in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper revealed that -- *gasp!* -- he and his party were working toward winning a majority goverment.
The story was not only a non-story, it was non-news. Everyone knew that Harper and the Tories had been working toward a majority government. Harper coming out and saying so was threatening only to left-wing partisans. Treating a video in which he said what everyone already knew as if it were remarkable or scandalous was nothing more than blowing the left-wing dog whistle.
Harper's words simply alert Kinsella and the left-wing partisans he's counting on to something only they will perceive as dangerous.
Now, in the middle of an election campaign, Kinsella is offering up video of Harper saying he'd like to see a conservative government in Queen's Park. In other words, video in which Harper simply says what everyone already knows. Kinsella is simply blowing the left-wing dog whistle, and in his desperation he's blowing it hard.
It's certainly Kinsella's hope that Harper's "conservative hat trick" comment will scare NDP voters into the Liberal fold. Looking at the poll numbers, looking at the embarrassing incidents his party has fallen victim to, Kinsella knows, as many other people know, that this is his party's best hopes of holding onto even a minority government, let alone holding on to their majority.
As for the federal Tories' efforts to shut the video down, chalk that up to an effort to discourage left-wing activists from resorting to the creepy means of hidden cameras in search of "gotcha" non-stories.
For Warren Kinsella, desperate times seem to call for desperate measures.
Showing posts with label Manufactured scandal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Manufactured scandal. Show all posts
Monday, September 19, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 1
Considering the raw hatred frequently being expressed for Stephen Harper over social networking sites like Twitter this election season, it shouldn't be shocking to see a website like ShitHarperDid.ca attract such a quick following.
What is remarkable is the steady stream of half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies that the website offers up.
Frankly, the ShitHarperDid website has proven to be so dishonest that one could fact-check its claims for days. Here at the Nexus, we'll be doing precisely that.
We start off with a familiar fib:
The CBC story in question about the "evolution scandal" (it wasn't a scandal) does a splendid job of telling about half of the story.
The other half of the story is that Goodyear later affirmed his belief in evolution, explaining that evolution is on ongoing process. Thinking themselves clever, the far-left responded by trying to excise the function of adaptation from the theory of natural selection.
In other words, they actually attempted to butcher scientific theory in order to pose as the defenders of it. Amazing.
As for the cuts the website complains of, the Harper government did, indeed, cut $148 million in 2009... from three specific agencies. While increasing bulk spending on science (including establishing 40 new Canada Research Chairs, and investing extensively in scientific infrastructure) by $3.5 billion.
In other words, Canadian science gave up $148 million in funding to receive $3.5 billion in new funding. But who's counting? Not the people behind ShitHarperDid.
As for the Environment Canada scientists, no organization in the world allows its employees to speak as if acting as official spokespersons without first obtaining the proper authorization. Moreover, plenty of climate alarmists have tried to muzzle any scientists who don't agree with them, but again: who's counting? Really?
What is remarkable is the steady stream of half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies that the website offers up.
Frankly, the ShitHarperDid website has proven to be so dishonest that one could fact-check its claims for days. Here at the Nexus, we'll be doing precisely that.
We start off with a familiar fib:
The other half of the story is that Goodyear later affirmed his belief in evolution, explaining that evolution is on ongoing process. Thinking themselves clever, the far-left responded by trying to excise the function of adaptation from the theory of natural selection.
In other words, they actually attempted to butcher scientific theory in order to pose as the defenders of it. Amazing.
As for the cuts the website complains of, the Harper government did, indeed, cut $148 million in 2009... from three specific agencies. While increasing bulk spending on science (including establishing 40 new Canada Research Chairs, and investing extensively in scientific infrastructure) by $3.5 billion.
In other words, Canadian science gave up $148 million in funding to receive $3.5 billion in new funding. But who's counting? Not the people behind ShitHarperDid.
As for the Environment Canada scientists, no organization in the world allows its employees to speak as if acting as official spokespersons without first obtaining the proper authorization. Moreover, plenty of climate alarmists have tried to muzzle any scientists who don't agree with them, but again: who's counting? Really?
Sunday, May 16, 2010
That's How the Cookie Crumbles, Murray
Writing on Rabble.ca, Murray Dobbin is positively apoplectic about the announcement that the government and opposition have reached an accord on how the viewing of documents pertaining to Afghan detainees will be handled.
"The agreement reached at the 11th hour on the uncensored Afghan torture documents is hardly a victory for democracy," Dobbin pouts. "It is precisely the opposite and it is the Liberals we have to thank for it. We have come to expect nothing better from the Harper Conservatives -- the most dishonest, anti-democratic and arrogant government in living memory."
The irony of Dobbin -- who continues to push his Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition government despite Canadian rejection of it -- labelling anyone as "dishonest, anti-democratic and arrogant" needs no further comment.
After all, NDP leader Jack Layton also hailed the agreement as a triumph for democracy.
"This is a victory for parliamentary democracy," Layton announced via written statement. "The Speaker's ruling made it clear that members of Parliament have the right to review all the information about the treatment of Afghan detainees, and not just what the government thinks MPs should see."
Yet somehow, in the eyes of Murray Dobbin -- who is forever content to suck up to the NDP -- Layton escapes any blame, and all the blame should fall to the Liberals.
Apparently, the Bloc -- who Dobbin loves well enough to include as party to a coalition government despite their separatist goals -- should also escape any blame for this all-party deal.
Dobbin insists that the change in Liberal Party attitude toward the documents should be attributed to a lack of will to "face down the bully Stephen Harper".
But the fact that the Liberal Party has changed their position is more likely attributable to the prospect that MPs will now be able to actually view these documents, and that they will be able to view them for the entire timeframe of the mission.
This has evidently deflated Liberal enthusiasm for the release of the documents, and with good reason. After all, it was the Liberal Party that negotiated the orginal prisoner transfer agreement under which all the problems actually took place. They approved a weak agreement that provided them with insufficient oversight of the treatment of transferred prisoners despite receiving numerous warnings about the prevalence of torture in Afghan prisons.
It was the Conservative Party that recognized the problem, investigated, and concluded an improved PTA to help quash the problem.
While the bellicose attitude of the opposition parties offered the Conservatives little incentive to release the documents, the national security issues raised by the Conservatives seemed to have been recognized by Speaker of the House Peter Miliken when he admonished the government and opposition to decide a manner of viewing for the documents that will respect the sensitivity of them.
The alternative offered by the most fervent anti-Conservatives has been rather striking: let us have the documents now, so we can use them to smear you now.
But even as certain assclowns are rather uncomfortable with the frequent revelations that the Liberal Party has had far more to do with the torture allegations than the Conservative Party has -- John Baglow going so far as to argue that the Liberals should be let off the hook for their "good intentions" (good intentions that he seems to assume the Tories wouldn't share) -- individuals like Dobbin continue to flail, insisting that there must be something in the documents that could be used to smear the Tories, and they want it desperately.
The Liberal Party, however, having spent so much time in government, seems to know differently: that there are legitimate security concerns complicating the prompt release of the documents. Knowing that the Conservatives couldn't release them without taking measures to prevent sensitive information from being leaked -- and thus knowing the documented extent of their negligence was safe from public disclosure -- the Liberals demanded the release of the documents, knowing they could cast the Conservatives as evasive.
Now that the table has been set for the release of the documents, Liberal feet have grown colder, and the agreement the opposition parties have reached is essentially the same as the one offered: examination by an expert panel, and release based on their recommendations.
When opposition parties play these kinds of political games, it's just the way the cookie crumbles. One would have expected that Murray Dobbin would be used to that by now.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Warning: Witchhunt in Progress
Evolutionary theory being bastardized in the name of manufactured scandal
A controversy was recently sparked when federal Science Minister of State Gary Goodyear recently refused to answer a question about whether or not he believed in evolution.
"I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate," Goodyear explained.
"I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. I think we need to recognize that we don't know," Goodyear later added -- a comment that some individuals have jumped upon as apparent proof that Goodyear believes in creationism.
Yet in a later interview, Goodyear further explained his refusal to answer the question.
"I didn't answer the question because it's not relevant to the portfolio, it's not relevant to what we have to do, [to] what Canadians are worried about," Goodyear explained on CTV. "It's unfortunate a reporter has chosen to take this as something of interest when in fact the focus should be on ...creating jobs and securing our economic future."
"The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong," Goodyear added.
When asked in that interview whether or not he believes in evolution, Goodyear confirmed his belief.
"Of course, I do," he said. "We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it's to the intensity of the sun ...or to the effects of walking on concrete. Of course, we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant."
Many of the most intellectually dishonest among those who are out for Goodyear's head are insisting that Goodyear's latter comments reflect an understanding of adaptation, not evolution.
The fact that they're ignoring is that, as a fundamental principle of the theory of natural selection, adaptation is also a fundamental principle of the theory of evolution.
It's very interesting that PZ Myers, a blogging biologist who has helped spread this controversy, has yet to acknowledge Goodyear's comments or correct any of his followers who are twisting evolutionary theory in order to preserve the controversy.
Unshockingly, the usual suspects think they have a real winner on their hands.
As usual, they'll ignore facts -- and apparently even bastardize the theory of evolution -- in order to enjoy a hollow triumph.
Canadians who aren't indulging themselves in willful ignorance will recognize Goodyear's comments for precisely what they are: affirmation of his belief in evolution.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Larry Moran - "Gary Goodyear 'Clarifies' His Stance on Evolution"
Pearce Richards - "Gary Goodyear - National Embarrassment"
Ian Bushfield - "I'm Not Buying It Gary"
A controversy was recently sparked when federal Science Minister of State Gary Goodyear recently refused to answer a question about whether or not he believed in evolution.
"I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate," Goodyear explained."I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. I think we need to recognize that we don't know," Goodyear later added -- a comment that some individuals have jumped upon as apparent proof that Goodyear believes in creationism.
Yet in a later interview, Goodyear further explained his refusal to answer the question.
"I didn't answer the question because it's not relevant to the portfolio, it's not relevant to what we have to do, [to] what Canadians are worried about," Goodyear explained on CTV. "It's unfortunate a reporter has chosen to take this as something of interest when in fact the focus should be on ...creating jobs and securing our economic future."
"The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong," Goodyear added.
When asked in that interview whether or not he believes in evolution, Goodyear confirmed his belief.
"Of course, I do," he said. "We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it's to the intensity of the sun ...or to the effects of walking on concrete. Of course, we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant."
Many of the most intellectually dishonest among those who are out for Goodyear's head are insisting that Goodyear's latter comments reflect an understanding of adaptation, not evolution.
The fact that they're ignoring is that, as a fundamental principle of the theory of natural selection, adaptation is also a fundamental principle of the theory of evolution.
It's very interesting that PZ Myers, a blogging biologist who has helped spread this controversy, has yet to acknowledge Goodyear's comments or correct any of his followers who are twisting evolutionary theory in order to preserve the controversy.
Unshockingly, the usual suspects think they have a real winner on their hands.
As usual, they'll ignore facts -- and apparently even bastardize the theory of evolution -- in order to enjoy a hollow triumph.
Canadians who aren't indulging themselves in willful ignorance will recognize Goodyear's comments for precisely what they are: affirmation of his belief in evolution.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Larry Moran - "Gary Goodyear 'Clarifies' His Stance on Evolution"
Pearce Richards - "Gary Goodyear - National Embarrassment"
Ian Bushfield - "I'm Not Buying It Gary"
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Denis Leary: Victim of the Politically Correct
Leary strikes back at critics
Denis Leary is an asshole, and he's proud of it.
In fact, throughout his comedy career Leary has built his reputation insisting that American citizens have the right to be assholes.
Leary seemed to have earned that label recently as his recent book, Why We Suck, was claimed to have taken Don Imus-like shots at autism.
As he pointed out on last night's Daily Show with Jon Stewart, however, the truth is actually quite different.
In fact, Leary address parents who seek autism diagnoses for their children.
"For me, the reason for writing the chapter was because I know people who have children with autism, and I'm offended by people actually trying to seek out a low-level diagnosis for their kids because they're too lazy to deal with their kids' behavior," Leary said.
Leary's alleged outrage stems from a single paragraph from the book -- one taken out of context by the New York Post. Yet that paragraph is accompanied by tales about autistic children Leary has known. He notes that autistic children are actually "smart and industrious, not lazy and stupid".
What Leary actually attacks is the diagnosis, not the condition.
Yet intellectually dishonest douchebags like the Boston Herald's Peter Gelzinis that the context in which Leary wrote his words is irrelevant. Galzinis insists that Leary is "twisting the truth", insisting on reducing the matter to Leary's choice of words.
Admittedly, referring to autistic children as "autistic fucking children" is more than just a little uncouth. But those who've bothered to get familiar with Leary's comedy know that Leary's disgust is not at autistic children, but at those trying to abuse an autism diagnosis in order to make excuses for their children.
In fact, it's individuals such as Gelzinis who are twisting the truth -- insisting that Leary's lowbrow brand of plebian humour justifies manufacturing an outrage in order to discredit him.
For his own part, Leary is willing to apologize for the offense that his words have caused.
“I have nothing but admiration and sympathy for the people I know who are raising children with autism. In fact, they were the inspiration for the chapter I wrote about the subject,” Leary insisted. “To them - and to all parents of children with autism - I apologize for any pain the out-of-context quotes from my book may have caused.”
All this while individuals like Gelzinis refuse to acknowledge their own role in the entire affair.
Denis Leary was the individual most likely to come under fire for being politically incorrect. It's just too bad that his critics won't admit the extent to which they've twisted words, and twisted the truth.
Denis Leary is an asshole, and he's proud of it.
In fact, throughout his comedy career Leary has built his reputation insisting that American citizens have the right to be assholes.
Leary seemed to have earned that label recently as his recent book, Why We Suck, was claimed to have taken Don Imus-like shots at autism.
As he pointed out on last night's Daily Show with Jon Stewart, however, the truth is actually quite different.
In fact, Leary address parents who seek autism diagnoses for their children.
"For me, the reason for writing the chapter was because I know people who have children with autism, and I'm offended by people actually trying to seek out a low-level diagnosis for their kids because they're too lazy to deal with their kids' behavior," Leary said.
Leary's alleged outrage stems from a single paragraph from the book -- one taken out of context by the New York Post. Yet that paragraph is accompanied by tales about autistic children Leary has known. He notes that autistic children are actually "smart and industrious, not lazy and stupid".
What Leary actually attacks is the diagnosis, not the condition.
Yet intellectually dishonest douchebags like the Boston Herald's Peter Gelzinis that the context in which Leary wrote his words is irrelevant. Galzinis insists that Leary is "twisting the truth", insisting on reducing the matter to Leary's choice of words.
Admittedly, referring to autistic children as "autistic fucking children" is more than just a little uncouth. But those who've bothered to get familiar with Leary's comedy know that Leary's disgust is not at autistic children, but at those trying to abuse an autism diagnosis in order to make excuses for their children.
In fact, it's individuals such as Gelzinis who are twisting the truth -- insisting that Leary's lowbrow brand of plebian humour justifies manufacturing an outrage in order to discredit him.
For his own part, Leary is willing to apologize for the offense that his words have caused.
“I have nothing but admiration and sympathy for the people I know who are raising children with autism. In fact, they were the inspiration for the chapter I wrote about the subject,” Leary insisted. “To them - and to all parents of children with autism - I apologize for any pain the out-of-context quotes from my book may have caused.”
All this while individuals like Gelzinis refuse to acknowledge their own role in the entire affair.
Denis Leary was the individual most likely to come under fire for being politically incorrect. It's just too bad that his critics won't admit the extent to which they've twisted words, and twisted the truth.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Speaking of New Lows...
David Orchard targets the RCMP for partisan gain
When Gerry Ritz's extremely outrageous comments regarding the listeria outbreak became public, the Liberal party released an attack ad denouncing it as "a new low".
Now, with a micro-scandal emerging in which it has been alleged that uniformed RCMP officers have been lending a helping hand to Rob Clarke, the Conservative incumbent in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, David Orchard, the Liberal candidate in that riding, has taken aim at the RCMP.
"It's completely unnecessary in a democracy for the national police force to be using its vehicles, openly, on the main street of a town, to drop off signs for a candidate," Orchard lamented. "It's a gesture of intimidation. It's frightening and unacceptable."
Only David Orchard could look at an off-duty RCMP officer delivering campaign signs and equate it with the popular cliche of a Texan Sheriff busting out people's tail lights. The Liberal party actually takes the intellectual dishonesty a step further, accusing the Conservative party of "abusing police resources".
If Orchard and the Liberals had merely denounced it as "unprofessional", they'd be right on the mark.
Of course, no one expects to hear Orchard or his party surmising that, considering that Clarke formerly commanded the RCMP detachment in nearby Spiritwood, Saskatchewan, this is simply a case of an RCMP officer helping out a political candidate he supports. Moreover, one he almost certainly knows personally.
The officer in question shouldn't have been delivering signs in uniform. Nor should they have been using a marked RCMP pickup in order to do it.
But for David Orchard and the Liberal party to try to use the RCMP in order to fear monger its way to an electoral victory is beyond shameful.
For Orchard, this ranks right up there with him comparing Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to slave traders.
It's a new low. One may wonder precisely how much lower Orchard could sink yet.
Maybe for his next act Orchard's going to suggest that his door-knockers are being Rodney Kinged. Given his own recent experience with door-knocking perhaps Orchard's colleague Garth Turner could help set that one up.
When Gerry Ritz's extremely outrageous comments regarding the listeria outbreak became public, the Liberal party released an attack ad denouncing it as "a new low".
Now, with a micro-scandal emerging in which it has been alleged that uniformed RCMP officers have been lending a helping hand to Rob Clarke, the Conservative incumbent in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, David Orchard, the Liberal candidate in that riding, has taken aim at the RCMP.
"It's completely unnecessary in a democracy for the national police force to be using its vehicles, openly, on the main street of a town, to drop off signs for a candidate," Orchard lamented. "It's a gesture of intimidation. It's frightening and unacceptable."Only David Orchard could look at an off-duty RCMP officer delivering campaign signs and equate it with the popular cliche of a Texan Sheriff busting out people's tail lights. The Liberal party actually takes the intellectual dishonesty a step further, accusing the Conservative party of "abusing police resources".
If Orchard and the Liberals had merely denounced it as "unprofessional", they'd be right on the mark.
Of course, no one expects to hear Orchard or his party surmising that, considering that Clarke formerly commanded the RCMP detachment in nearby Spiritwood, Saskatchewan, this is simply a case of an RCMP officer helping out a political candidate he supports. Moreover, one he almost certainly knows personally.
The officer in question shouldn't have been delivering signs in uniform. Nor should they have been using a marked RCMP pickup in order to do it.
But for David Orchard and the Liberal party to try to use the RCMP in order to fear monger its way to an electoral victory is beyond shameful.
For Orchard, this ranks right up there with him comparing Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to slave traders.
It's a new low. One may wonder precisely how much lower Orchard could sink yet.
Maybe for his next act Orchard's going to suggest that his door-knockers are being Rodney Kinged. Given his own recent experience with door-knocking perhaps Orchard's colleague Garth Turner could help set that one up.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Toronto Star Caught Red-Tongued
Liar, liar...
With the Toronto Star clearly behind Stephane Dion's Liberal party to the extent of distorting reality, it was only a matter of time until they tried to help Dion's erstwhile party leader, Elizabeth May (since she's writing his policies and all) win her uphill battle against Conservative deputy Prime Minister Peter MacKay.
Which they did yesterday when they dug up a story about a $16,400 bill for feeding some Passport Canada staff in March 2007. The author of the story, Dean Beeby, claimed that MacKay had "bent the rules" in order to approve the expenditure. But, as it turned out, some Toronto Star readers were kind enough to write in and reveal that the only one doing any bending was Beeby -- and he was bending the truth.
First off, we have Stephen J Leich of Mississauga, Ontario:
One would think that Beeby must have had a hard time explaining that one to his editor. (This is the Toronto Star we're talking about here, so probably not. -ed.)
But it's entirely possible, as some Liberal partisans will likely rush to insist, that Stephen J Leich is merely a Tory hack reacting on behalf of the party.
Fortunately, Toronto's Geoff Rytell pitched in:
That one must have been a little bit harder to take.
But in the end, this entire episode is considerably less than unsurprising. After all, this is the Toronto Star -- where publishing stories inflating mundane government business into manufactured scandals in the name of hurting the Conservative party is just another day on the job.
One would almost expect some kind of retraction of the obvious mistruths. But, then again (once again), this is the Toronto Star, where journalistic integrity isn't only something they talk about -- it's also something they discard.
At the very least, it's very kind of the Star to come out and actually say what they think of civil servants: they shouldn't be rewarded when they do more than what Canadians expect of them. Apparently, even a working lunch is too much to ask for the suddenly-converted fiscal tightwads at the Star.
With the Toronto Star clearly behind Stephane Dion's Liberal party to the extent of distorting reality, it was only a matter of time until they tried to help Dion's erstwhile party leader, Elizabeth May (since she's writing his policies and all) win her uphill battle against Conservative deputy Prime Minister Peter MacKay.
Which they did yesterday when they dug up a story about a $16,400 bill for feeding some Passport Canada staff in March 2007. The author of the story, Dean Beeby, claimed that MacKay had "bent the rules" in order to approve the expenditure. But, as it turned out, some Toronto Star readers were kind enough to write in and reveal that the only one doing any bending was Beeby -- and he was bending the truth.
First off, we have Stephen J Leich of Mississauga, Ontario:
"I have been in private sector management for a number of years and I find the tone of this article to be unnecessarily antagonistic.Ouch!
The total cost quoted in the headline looks like a big number and another example of government waste. Once you read the article, however, you can see that the amount spent comes to $42 per employee, over three weekends.
Most companies think nothing of providing lunches to employees working extra time for necessary projects; in fact, it is usually considered good employee relations. These Passport Canada staffers were dealing with a huge workload, caused by factors outside their control. If providing this minor amount per employee made it more palatable to them to put in this extra effort, I fail to see where it can be considered any sort of problem. Yes, it's unfortunate that the total was so high, and perhaps the deputy minister should have realized that this would be the case before the $5,000 limit was exceeded, but it appears he took steps to rectify the situation.
I know a number of people who were caught up in that backlog of passport applications, and I can't help but feel that this is not an unreasonable cost to minimize the impact on so many Canadians."
One would think that Beeby must have had a hard time explaining that one to his editor. (This is the Toronto Star we're talking about here, so probably not. -ed.)
But it's entirely possible, as some Liberal partisans will likely rush to insist, that Stephen J Leich is merely a Tory hack reacting on behalf of the party.
Fortunately, Toronto's Geoff Rytell pitched in:
"Breaking news: Peter MacKay bent government rules in giving the nod to $16,800 for passport officials' lunches. The facts, unfortunately, don't support the claim. The regulations say that civil servants can be fed at taxpayer expense if they're working overtime. If the cost is more than $5,000, the appropriate minister must approve. MacKay was solicited. He approved. The rules were followed. Assuming that the bureaucrats in question did not imbibe several bottles of Bollinger, where's the story? I, too, am anxious to show Stephen Harper the door but not at the cost of the truth."Ouch.
That one must have been a little bit harder to take.
But in the end, this entire episode is considerably less than unsurprising. After all, this is the Toronto Star -- where publishing stories inflating mundane government business into manufactured scandals in the name of hurting the Conservative party is just another day on the job.
One would almost expect some kind of retraction of the obvious mistruths. But, then again (once again), this is the Toronto Star, where journalistic integrity isn't only something they talk about -- it's also something they discard.
At the very least, it's very kind of the Star to come out and actually say what they think of civil servants: they shouldn't be rewarded when they do more than what Canadians expect of them. Apparently, even a working lunch is too much to ask for the suddenly-converted fiscal tightwads at the Star.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Inventing a Scandal: "Dirty Money" or Dirty Pool?
Journal op/ed article pedding scandal, concealing facts
In an op/ed article appearing in the Edmonton Journal today, D Braid insists something rotten is afoot regarding former premier Don Getty's application to have a carbon sequestration project subsidized by the provincial government.
Which, at first glimpse, would seem to be amiss. Braid certainly isn't far off the mark when he suggests that "there isn't another province where an ex-premier would even consider applying".
But when one looks a little closer at the article in question, it turns out that a few things are actually amiss within the article itself.
In fact, a significant portion of Braid's op/ed article relies on the insistence of "local dentist and community activist" Amil Shapka.
"That just makes me want to throw up," Shapka says. "Having a private company with political ties and no experience come in first, some red flags have to go up."
"We've been alarmed about this for months. There was money allocated for carbon sequestration in the federal green plan. Now the province is throwing more money in the pot."
"I hope the public interest will come into play, and the money will be awarded to the best applicants. I don't think Getty's company could do it."
Of course, as a dentist, Shapka is certainly qualified to make judgements on the qualifactions of Capital Reserve Canada to launch a carbon sequestering project.
But the question very much could be asked: that's an awfully resolute statement for a dentist to make regarding a matter well outside his personal field of expertise. Who, precisely, is Amil Shapka?
A little rudimentary research shows us that Amil Shapka is more than simply a local dentist and "community activist". He also happens to be both President and Chief Financial Officer of the Lac La Biche-St Paul Liberal party riding association.
Certainly not the kind of individual who could be expected to give a fair and honest evaluation of a former Progressive Conservative premier's ability to properly manage a carbon sequestering project.
Which is precisely why Albertans will expect that the government will evaluate Capital Reserve Canada's application based on the virtues of its proposal, and either grant or deny a subsidy based on that.
Braid also mentions the 1986 disaster at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, arguing it could happen near Two Hills, Alberta (where the project is planned) in the event of a leak in a CO2-carrying pipeline.
Yet he fails to mention that Lake Nyos is generally considered by scientists to have been the result of a combination of a volcanic eruption unlikely to occur in the North Saskatchewan river and unique conditions that resulted in the entire lake being effectively carbonated.
These conditions are unlikely to be duplicated in the North Saskatchewan River -- although it is a possibility that certainly warrants investigation, if only because of the lethal effects of the Nyos eruption.
All the same, it seems that Braid's article is little more than a combination of some less-than-seemly circumstances mixed with either ignorance of, or a discarding of, some of the relevant facts.
Not too much unlike what is typical of certain individuals who ironically also chose to comment on this story.
And while there certainly is potential for a patronage scandal in this matter, an application on its own does not a scandal make. Hopefully, the media coverage the story has already recieved will provide Albertan officials who may otherwise feel tempted to give Don Getty any undue benefit to think twice about it.
In the meantime, however, all the scandal mongering is simply dirty pool.
In an op/ed article appearing in the Edmonton Journal today, D Braid insists something rotten is afoot regarding former premier Don Getty's application to have a carbon sequestration project subsidized by the provincial government.
Which, at first glimpse, would seem to be amiss. Braid certainly isn't far off the mark when he suggests that "there isn't another province where an ex-premier would even consider applying".But when one looks a little closer at the article in question, it turns out that a few things are actually amiss within the article itself.
In fact, a significant portion of Braid's op/ed article relies on the insistence of "local dentist and community activist" Amil Shapka.
"That just makes me want to throw up," Shapka says. "Having a private company with political ties and no experience come in first, some red flags have to go up."
"We've been alarmed about this for months. There was money allocated for carbon sequestration in the federal green plan. Now the province is throwing more money in the pot."
"I hope the public interest will come into play, and the money will be awarded to the best applicants. I don't think Getty's company could do it."
Of course, as a dentist, Shapka is certainly qualified to make judgements on the qualifactions of Capital Reserve Canada to launch a carbon sequestering project.
But the question very much could be asked: that's an awfully resolute statement for a dentist to make regarding a matter well outside his personal field of expertise. Who, precisely, is Amil Shapka?
A little rudimentary research shows us that Amil Shapka is more than simply a local dentist and "community activist". He also happens to be both President and Chief Financial Officer of the Lac La Biche-St Paul Liberal party riding association.Certainly not the kind of individual who could be expected to give a fair and honest evaluation of a former Progressive Conservative premier's ability to properly manage a carbon sequestering project.
Which is precisely why Albertans will expect that the government will evaluate Capital Reserve Canada's application based on the virtues of its proposal, and either grant or deny a subsidy based on that.
Braid also mentions the 1986 disaster at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, arguing it could happen near Two Hills, Alberta (where the project is planned) in the event of a leak in a CO2-carrying pipeline.Yet he fails to mention that Lake Nyos is generally considered by scientists to have been the result of a combination of a volcanic eruption unlikely to occur in the North Saskatchewan river and unique conditions that resulted in the entire lake being effectively carbonated.
These conditions are unlikely to be duplicated in the North Saskatchewan River -- although it is a possibility that certainly warrants investigation, if only because of the lethal effects of the Nyos eruption.
All the same, it seems that Braid's article is little more than a combination of some less-than-seemly circumstances mixed with either ignorance of, or a discarding of, some of the relevant facts.
Not too much unlike what is typical of certain individuals who ironically also chose to comment on this story.
And while there certainly is potential for a patronage scandal in this matter, an application on its own does not a scandal make. Hopefully, the media coverage the story has already recieved will provide Albertan officials who may otherwise feel tempted to give Don Getty any undue benefit to think twice about it.
In the meantime, however, all the scandal mongering is simply dirty pool.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Obscuring the Point With Manufactured Controversy
The wolves are out for Pierre Poilievre -- never mind that he has a point
The Canadian political landscape is awash in outrage over some comments made by Nepean-Carleton Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre just hours before yesterday's historic residential schools apology.
In a radio interview with CFRA News Talk Radio, Poilievre questioned how effective the billions of dollars spent on reducing poverty on Canadian Indian reservations has been.
"We spend 10 billion dollars -- 10 billion dollars -- in annual spending this year alone now, that is an exceptional amount of money, and that is on top of all the resource revenue that goes to reserves that sit on petroleum products or sit on uranium mines, other things where companies have to pay them royalties," Poilevre noted. "And that's on top of all that money that they earn on their own reserves. That is an incredible amount of money."
"Now, you know, some of us are starting to ask: 'Are we really getting value for all of this money, and is more money really going to solve the problem?"
Of course, some people predictably don't like Poilievre's comments -- or, rather, like the opportunity to excoriate the Conservatives for a politically-incorrect gaffe.
In particular, Liberal Indian Affairs critic Anite Neville denounced Poilievre's comments as "ignorant" and "disgraceful".
"I invite him to take a tour of many of the First Nations communities in this country and see how people are living," she announced.
Now, there may be much to said about the timing of Poilievre's comments, or about his specific prescriptions for solving the problem (notably "hard work" and "independance" and "self-reliance").
But the real unfortunate twist -- for everyone involved -- in this particular controversy is that Poilievre hasn't said anything that Canadians don't already know: that our federal government spends billions of dollars per year on Indian reservations, with no discernable result to show for it.
Most Indian reservations are as impoverished as ever. Money alone hasn't solved this problem.
Canada's poverty-fighting measures on Indian reservations reflects William Easterly's two tragedies of poverty fighting. The first tragedy is the poverty itself, as poverty always is. The second tragedy reflects the fact that, for all the billions of dollars spent, there has been little discernable improvement in conditions on the reserves.
The sad truth of the matter is that Canada's Indian reservations have all too often been treated as a money pit in which various politicians and commentators have been more than content to pour billions of dollars into without any kind of accountability (accountability for how the money is spent, or even accountability for results) because, by golly, they don't have to live there.
A methodological shift is clearly needed regarding how Canadians approach poverty on Indian reservations.
The money, for the most part, should actually be treated as a non-issue. Fighting poverty costs money. How the money is actually spent is where the shift will be necessary.
It's impossible to believe that Canada's aboriginal population is so impoverished because they're all shiftless and lazy. In fact, many people who have actually worked with aboriginal people in the workforce know things to be quite different: like any other group of people, work ethic isn't a cultural trait -- it's a personal trait.
On Canada's Indian reservations there are thousands of individuals eager to build a better life for themselves, their families and their neighbours. They simply lack the resources to actually do it.
As Poilievre himself notes, a shift in spending away from funds being put into the hands of Band leadership -- who all too often turn out to be almost entirelty unaccountable -- is necessary. Instead, larger portions of federal funding should go toward microfinance that would allow those aboriginals so inclined to start small businesses and, in time, provide stable employment where it is needed the most.
By its very nature, this would also engender a shift in decision-making ability away from government bureaucrats and toward aboriginal community members who know best what their communities need.
In short, what is needed are fewer planners -- government bureaucrats who make funding decisions based on what they think is best -- and more seekers -- individual community members who know what their needs are, and just need the resources to meet them.
We as a country also need to realize that, no matter how much money is spent on fighting poverty on Indian reservations, there is no miracle cure for it. The dilemma of poverty on Indian reserves simply won't be solved tomorrow. Wiping out poverty on Canada's Indian reserves should be viewed as a 100-year project -- one that would have long ago been conluded if we had started on 1 July 1867 -- but one that we need to start making progress on now.
Poilievre is right to be alarmed by the amount of money spent on Indian reservations with no discernable improvement in conditions. Anite Neville should be, too, but unfortunately there's too little political gain in saying "I'm concerned about that, too."
The Canadian political landscape is awash in outrage over some comments made by Nepean-Carleton Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre just hours before yesterday's historic residential schools apology.
In a radio interview with CFRA News Talk Radio, Poilievre questioned how effective the billions of dollars spent on reducing poverty on Canadian Indian reservations has been.
"We spend 10 billion dollars -- 10 billion dollars -- in annual spending this year alone now, that is an exceptional amount of money, and that is on top of all the resource revenue that goes to reserves that sit on petroleum products or sit on uranium mines, other things where companies have to pay them royalties," Poilevre noted. "And that's on top of all that money that they earn on their own reserves. That is an incredible amount of money."
"Now, you know, some of us are starting to ask: 'Are we really getting value for all of this money, and is more money really going to solve the problem?"
Of course, some people predictably don't like Poilievre's comments -- or, rather, like the opportunity to excoriate the Conservatives for a politically-incorrect gaffe.
In particular, Liberal Indian Affairs critic Anite Neville denounced Poilievre's comments as "ignorant" and "disgraceful".
"I invite him to take a tour of many of the First Nations communities in this country and see how people are living," she announced.
Now, there may be much to said about the timing of Poilievre's comments, or about his specific prescriptions for solving the problem (notably "hard work" and "independance" and "self-reliance").
But the real unfortunate twist -- for everyone involved -- in this particular controversy is that Poilievre hasn't said anything that Canadians don't already know: that our federal government spends billions of dollars per year on Indian reservations, with no discernable result to show for it.
Most Indian reservations are as impoverished as ever. Money alone hasn't solved this problem.
Canada's poverty-fighting measures on Indian reservations reflects William Easterly's two tragedies of poverty fighting. The first tragedy is the poverty itself, as poverty always is. The second tragedy reflects the fact that, for all the billions of dollars spent, there has been little discernable improvement in conditions on the reserves.
The sad truth of the matter is that Canada's Indian reservations have all too often been treated as a money pit in which various politicians and commentators have been more than content to pour billions of dollars into without any kind of accountability (accountability for how the money is spent, or even accountability for results) because, by golly, they don't have to live there.
A methodological shift is clearly needed regarding how Canadians approach poverty on Indian reservations.
The money, for the most part, should actually be treated as a non-issue. Fighting poverty costs money. How the money is actually spent is where the shift will be necessary.
It's impossible to believe that Canada's aboriginal population is so impoverished because they're all shiftless and lazy. In fact, many people who have actually worked with aboriginal people in the workforce know things to be quite different: like any other group of people, work ethic isn't a cultural trait -- it's a personal trait.
On Canada's Indian reservations there are thousands of individuals eager to build a better life for themselves, their families and their neighbours. They simply lack the resources to actually do it.
As Poilievre himself notes, a shift in spending away from funds being put into the hands of Band leadership -- who all too often turn out to be almost entirelty unaccountable -- is necessary. Instead, larger portions of federal funding should go toward microfinance that would allow those aboriginals so inclined to start small businesses and, in time, provide stable employment where it is needed the most.
By its very nature, this would also engender a shift in decision-making ability away from government bureaucrats and toward aboriginal community members who know best what their communities need.
In short, what is needed are fewer planners -- government bureaucrats who make funding decisions based on what they think is best -- and more seekers -- individual community members who know what their needs are, and just need the resources to meet them.
We as a country also need to realize that, no matter how much money is spent on fighting poverty on Indian reservations, there is no miracle cure for it. The dilemma of poverty on Indian reserves simply won't be solved tomorrow. Wiping out poverty on Canada's Indian reserves should be viewed as a 100-year project -- one that would have long ago been conluded if we had started on 1 July 1867 -- but one that we need to start making progress on now.
Poilievre is right to be alarmed by the amount of money spent on Indian reservations with no discernable improvement in conditions. Anite Neville should be, too, but unfortunately there's too little political gain in saying "I'm concerned about that, too."
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Will Martin's Release Finally End the Media Circus?
Or will the government's efforts be rebuked again?
If recent history has taught us anything, it's that Canadians in legal trouble can bail themselves out by attracting a large enough media circus.
Recent history has also shown us that they need not always be honest about their situation, either. Brenda Martin and her supporters politicized her predicament by claiming the government had "abandoned" her and not done enough to help her -- claims that were proven to be false.
Now, the Brenda Martin case has come to a sad conclusion a Mexican court has found her guilty of knowingly accepting fraudulently-obtained funds, despite an alleged lack of evidence (her lawyer, Guillermo Cruz, says as much).
Regardless of whether or not Martin is guilty of her alleged crime -- and given the equally-sad state of Mexican "justice", there's an excellent chance she is innocent, and merely being hung out to dry so the system can save face -- there is little question that she and the terminally dishonest Liberal party hacks who have been milking her story for all the political gain they can manage are guilty of concocting a media circus around false pretenses.
Now Secretary of State for Multiculturalism Jason Kenney is riding off to Mexico to prod the release of Martin into the custody of the Canadian justice system along, and now another Canadian family has decided to try their luck at the media circus game, too.
This particular case swirls around Jimmy Chen Jian Yuan, who is currently imprisoned in China while being tried on a four-year-old $2 million fraud case.
Predictably, Chen's family is insisting that the government hasn't done enough to help him, despite the fact that, unlike Martin, he has been formally charged in China, has been tried, and is now awaiting a verdict.
Given the way in which details trickled out of the Martin case painfully slowly (and all too often were simply disregarded once it became apparent they didn't fit the standard politicized narrative), judgment will be reserved on the Chen case here.
Chen may be as innocent as his family insists, and as abandoned by the Canadian government. Or, as with Brenda Martin, there may be more to the story. Only time will reveal the details of this particular case.
However, one has yet to see if Brenda Martin's return to Canada -- and inevitably almost immediate release from Canadian custody -- will put an end to the partisan media circus that has surrounded the entire sorry affair.
One thing remains certain: only the in hands of a pack of unrepentantly dishonest Liberal spin doctors could the Conservative government -- which had done almost everything possible to ensure Martin's fair treatment -- be cast as the villain in this case over the irredeemably corrupt Mexican justice system.
Will Martin's return to Canada end the media circus? Only time will tell. But with the real masterminds of the media circus apparent -- Liberal MP Dan McTeague and former Prime Minister Paul Martin -- one has to suspect that will be rather unlikely.
If recent history has taught us anything, it's that Canadians in legal trouble can bail themselves out by attracting a large enough media circus.
Recent history has also shown us that they need not always be honest about their situation, either. Brenda Martin and her supporters politicized her predicament by claiming the government had "abandoned" her and not done enough to help her -- claims that were proven to be false.
Now, the Brenda Martin case has come to a sad conclusion a Mexican court has found her guilty of knowingly accepting fraudulently-obtained funds, despite an alleged lack of evidence (her lawyer, Guillermo Cruz, says as much).Regardless of whether or not Martin is guilty of her alleged crime -- and given the equally-sad state of Mexican "justice", there's an excellent chance she is innocent, and merely being hung out to dry so the system can save face -- there is little question that she and the terminally dishonest Liberal party hacks who have been milking her story for all the political gain they can manage are guilty of concocting a media circus around false pretenses.
Now Secretary of State for Multiculturalism Jason Kenney is riding off to Mexico to prod the release of Martin into the custody of the Canadian justice system along, and now another Canadian family has decided to try their luck at the media circus game, too.
This particular case swirls around Jimmy Chen Jian Yuan, who is currently imprisoned in China while being tried on a four-year-old $2 million fraud case.
Predictably, Chen's family is insisting that the government hasn't done enough to help him, despite the fact that, unlike Martin, he has been formally charged in China, has been tried, and is now awaiting a verdict.
Given the way in which details trickled out of the Martin case painfully slowly (and all too often were simply disregarded once it became apparent they didn't fit the standard politicized narrative), judgment will be reserved on the Chen case here.
Chen may be as innocent as his family insists, and as abandoned by the Canadian government. Or, as with Brenda Martin, there may be more to the story. Only time will reveal the details of this particular case.
However, one has yet to see if Brenda Martin's return to Canada -- and inevitably almost immediate release from Canadian custody -- will put an end to the partisan media circus that has surrounded the entire sorry affair.
One thing remains certain: only the in hands of a pack of unrepentantly dishonest Liberal spin doctors could the Conservative government -- which had done almost everything possible to ensure Martin's fair treatment -- be cast as the villain in this case over the irredeemably corrupt Mexican justice system.Will Martin's return to Canada end the media circus? Only time will tell. But with the real masterminds of the media circus apparent -- Liberal MP Dan McTeague and former Prime Minister Paul Martin -- one has to suspect that will be rather unlikely.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Dion Digging for the Wrong Dirt
Worse things than largely benign Reform policy afoot
In his naivete, Stephane Dion probably imagines he's finally hit that home run he's been itching for.
In debate over controversial new immigration rules contained, of all places, in the 2008 federal budget, Stephane Dion drug some old Reform party immigration policies back from history.
How far in history? About 20 years.
The document, written by Stephen Harper while he was still serving as the policy chief for the then-fledgling Reform party, outlined the party's immigration policy.
"[This] may look like an attempt to deliver promises made by the Reform party 20 years ago," Dion insisted.
Yet, then one has to look more closely at the "smoking gun" that Dion seems to think he's uncovered.
"Immigration should not be based on race or creed, as it has in the past; nor should it be explicitly designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada, as it increasingly seems to be," the document outlines.
The policy called for a number of changes to immigration policy, none of which are terribly malignant. It called for immigrants to have the necessary skills and training required by the job market. It insisted that immigration should serve an economic purpose. It suggested that family sponorships should be restricted to spouses and children under the age of 18 (parents, grandparents and extended family should be required to apply through regular channels). It also insisted that genuine refugees -- those who had legitimate cause to fear oppression -- be admitted to Canada.
The document also noted that the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution may have needed to be invoked in order to deal with illegal immigrants already landed in Canada -- something the government should be doing regardless.
The simple fact of the matter is that, whether supporters of the current government like to admit it or not, the current immigration bill is a failure of the big promise that the Conservative party campaigned on: accountability. More specifically, accountability's handmaiden, transparency.
One could not possibly argue that smuggling an immigration bill into a budget bill that anyone who's being paying attention over the past few months simply knew the Official Opposition wouldn't vote against represents anything even resembling transparency.
In all likelihood, one would have to expect the move was calculated in an attempt to avoid the criticism being directed at the party now.
It wasn't a wise decision. If anything, it only gives more ammunition to demagogues who want to insist the Conservative party has a hidden agenda. After all, it certainly looks that way.
It should be the lack of accountability and transparency that Dion is outraged about. Accusing a government that more than 400,000 foreigners into the country of having an anti-immigrant bias is simply too far off the mark.
In his naivete, Stephane Dion probably imagines he's finally hit that home run he's been itching for.
In debate over controversial new immigration rules contained, of all places, in the 2008 federal budget, Stephane Dion drug some old Reform party immigration policies back from history.
How far in history? About 20 years.
The document, written by Stephen Harper while he was still serving as the policy chief for the then-fledgling Reform party, outlined the party's immigration policy.
"[This] may look like an attempt to deliver promises made by the Reform party 20 years ago," Dion insisted.
Yet, then one has to look more closely at the "smoking gun" that Dion seems to think he's uncovered.
"Immigration should not be based on race or creed, as it has in the past; nor should it be explicitly designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada, as it increasingly seems to be," the document outlines.
The policy called for a number of changes to immigration policy, none of which are terribly malignant. It called for immigrants to have the necessary skills and training required by the job market. It insisted that immigration should serve an economic purpose. It suggested that family sponorships should be restricted to spouses and children under the age of 18 (parents, grandparents and extended family should be required to apply through regular channels). It also insisted that genuine refugees -- those who had legitimate cause to fear oppression -- be admitted to Canada.
The document also noted that the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution may have needed to be invoked in order to deal with illegal immigrants already landed in Canada -- something the government should be doing regardless.
The simple fact of the matter is that, whether supporters of the current government like to admit it or not, the current immigration bill is a failure of the big promise that the Conservative party campaigned on: accountability. More specifically, accountability's handmaiden, transparency.
One could not possibly argue that smuggling an immigration bill into a budget bill that anyone who's being paying attention over the past few months simply knew the Official Opposition wouldn't vote against represents anything even resembling transparency.
In all likelihood, one would have to expect the move was calculated in an attempt to avoid the criticism being directed at the party now.
It wasn't a wise decision. If anything, it only gives more ammunition to demagogues who want to insist the Conservative party has a hidden agenda. After all, it certainly looks that way.
It should be the lack of accountability and transparency that Dion is outraged about. Accusing a government that more than 400,000 foreigners into the country of having an anti-immigrant bias is simply too far off the mark.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Mulroney Finally Speaks
Mulroney appears before Commons Ethics Committee
Brian Mulroney finally broke weeks of silence today, as he testified before the House of Commons Ethics committee regarding his dealings with German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.
During the course of his testimony, Mulroney made it clear that he regrets ever having anything to do with Schreiber.
"My second biggest mistake in life, for which I have no one to blame but myself, is having accepted payments in cash from Karlheinz Schreiber for a mandate he gave me after I left office," Mulroney announced. "...My biggest mistake in life, by far, was ever agreeing to be introduced to Karlheinz Schreiber in the first place."
Mulroney testified that on August 27, 1993, he accepted the first of three payments from Schreiber. At that meeting, Mulroney said, Schreiber actually declared his intention to sue the federal government for not approving the Bear Head project. "[Shreiber] told me he had planned to pursue legal damages to recover costs and damages, he left me with a copy of the lawsuit."
"He then said that it would be very helpful to Thyssen to have a former prime minister assist in the international promotion of their peacekeeping vehicles and gave me a copy of merchandising documents regarding the vehicle."
"When I indicated that this kind of global activity was something I thought I could usefully do -- provided that none of the activity would relate to domestic Canadian representation -- he produced a legal sized envelope and handed it to me," Mulroney testified.
"At that point, Mr. Schreiber said this is the first retainer payment -- he told me there would be a total of three payments for three years."
Mulroney says he was hesitant to accept cash from Schreiber, but, "When I hesitated, he said 'I'm an international businessman and I only deal in cash, this is the way I do business.'"
Given that Schreiber has been noted to be in the business of dispersing money without leaving a paper trail, it's unsurprising that he would insist on dealing in cash.
Mulroney testified that he used the money to cover expenses while promoting Thyssen's Bearhead internationally.
"After accepting the international payment on the retainer, and during the time two subsequent payments were made, I made trips to China, Russia, Europe and throughout the United States of America where I met with government and industry leaders and explored with them the prospects for this peacekeeping vehicle,"
Yet, Mulroney's testimony before the committee clearly raises further questions.
First off, how much money was he paid in the first place? As well-publicized, Schreiber claims to have paid Mulroney $300,000 in three $100,000 installments (he was allegedly supposed to be paid $500,000). Today, Mulroney replied that he was, in fact, paid only $225,000 in three installments of $75,000.
Secondly, why did Mulroney claim he had never had dealings with Schreiber during the course of his libel suit against the federal government? If he hadd meant to note that he had no dealings with Schreiber regarding Airbust, that's exactly what he should have said.
It's evident that Mulroney has nothing to hide in regards to his dealings with Schreiber, but omissions such as that hardly help his case.
Last but certainly not least, Mulroney has yet to explain why he took so long to pay taxes on the $225,000.
Of course, further investigation into the testimony of each man will have to decide who is more credible. Naturally, Mulroney holds the advantage in this regard: presumably his lobbying visits on behalf of Thyssen will be recorded in the records of the Chinese, Russian, European and American officials he visisted while promoting the Bearhead.
Meanwhile, however, Schreiber has no paper trail to back his claims. His specialty has come back to bite him in the ass just as surely as he has come back to bite Mulroney's.
Brian Mulroney finally broke weeks of silence today, as he testified before the House of Commons Ethics committee regarding his dealings with German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.
During the course of his testimony, Mulroney made it clear that he regrets ever having anything to do with Schreiber.
"My second biggest mistake in life, for which I have no one to blame but myself, is having accepted payments in cash from Karlheinz Schreiber for a mandate he gave me after I left office," Mulroney announced. "...My biggest mistake in life, by far, was ever agreeing to be introduced to Karlheinz Schreiber in the first place."
Mulroney testified that on August 27, 1993, he accepted the first of three payments from Schreiber. At that meeting, Mulroney said, Schreiber actually declared his intention to sue the federal government for not approving the Bear Head project. "[Shreiber] told me he had planned to pursue legal damages to recover costs and damages, he left me with a copy of the lawsuit."
"He then said that it would be very helpful to Thyssen to have a former prime minister assist in the international promotion of their peacekeeping vehicles and gave me a copy of merchandising documents regarding the vehicle."
"When I indicated that this kind of global activity was something I thought I could usefully do -- provided that none of the activity would relate to domestic Canadian representation -- he produced a legal sized envelope and handed it to me," Mulroney testified.
"At that point, Mr. Schreiber said this is the first retainer payment -- he told me there would be a total of three payments for three years."
Mulroney says he was hesitant to accept cash from Schreiber, but, "When I hesitated, he said 'I'm an international businessman and I only deal in cash, this is the way I do business.'"
Given that Schreiber has been noted to be in the business of dispersing money without leaving a paper trail, it's unsurprising that he would insist on dealing in cash.
Mulroney testified that he used the money to cover expenses while promoting Thyssen's Bearhead internationally.
"After accepting the international payment on the retainer, and during the time two subsequent payments were made, I made trips to China, Russia, Europe and throughout the United States of America where I met with government and industry leaders and explored with them the prospects for this peacekeeping vehicle,"
Yet, Mulroney's testimony before the committee clearly raises further questions.
First off, how much money was he paid in the first place? As well-publicized, Schreiber claims to have paid Mulroney $300,000 in three $100,000 installments (he was allegedly supposed to be paid $500,000). Today, Mulroney replied that he was, in fact, paid only $225,000 in three installments of $75,000.
Secondly, why did Mulroney claim he had never had dealings with Schreiber during the course of his libel suit against the federal government? If he hadd meant to note that he had no dealings with Schreiber regarding Airbust, that's exactly what he should have said.
It's evident that Mulroney has nothing to hide in regards to his dealings with Schreiber, but omissions such as that hardly help his case.
Last but certainly not least, Mulroney has yet to explain why he took so long to pay taxes on the $225,000.
Of course, further investigation into the testimony of each man will have to decide who is more credible. Naturally, Mulroney holds the advantage in this regard: presumably his lobbying visits on behalf of Thyssen will be recorded in the records of the Chinese, Russian, European and American officials he visisted while promoting the Bearhead.
Meanwhile, however, Schreiber has no paper trail to back his claims. His specialty has come back to bite him in the ass just as surely as he has come back to bite Mulroney's.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Liberal Excitement Over Mulroney/Schreiber Affair Due to Drop Off in 5... 4...
Liberal involvement with Karlheinz Schreiber comes to forefront
Karma, as they say, is a bitch.
With the Liberal party bending over backwards to dig dirt on the governing Conservatives via the Schreiber-Mulroney affair, today's huge development in the story just might make this story worthwhile for Conservative partisans.
Those paying attention to the early goings of this emerging non-scandal may have noticed various NDP commentators such as Brad Lavigne, referring to mutual Conservative and Liberal connections to Karlheinz Schreiber. Surely, they must have also noticed various Liberal commentators warning those NDP commentators to "be careful" about what they said.
It turns out that these Liberals had every reason to be vaguely threatening, considering the recent developments in the story today.
According to the Globe and Mail, powerful Liberal cabinet minister Andre Ouellet lobbied fiercely in favour of building the Thyssen AG armaments plant in Nova Scotia.
In various letters marked "secret", Ouellet and then-Industry Minister John Manley clearly disagreed about the project. Manley clearly shared Brian Mulroney's view on the project, which at one point was expected to have potentially cost Canadian taxpayers $100 million.
It was also discovered that Schreiber's company donated $10,000 to the Liberals after they won the 1993 federal election.
Not only, however, did Ouellet lobby the government in favour of the Bear Head project, but it seems he may have lobbied Schreiber himself to change the planned location of the factory to Quebec.
Ouellet expected the project to create 500 jobs in a poor Montreal neighbourhood.
"This is in line with the federal government's policy that all investment proposals should fully take into account the net economic advantages to Canada," Ouellet wrote. "That is why I suggest that you consider very seriously this request from a foreign company that is willing to invest in Canada and to export a military vehicle that could be in increasing demand in the context of peace missions that are more and more numerous around the world."
Manley eventually relented to accepting an economic analysis of the project's benefits from Thyssen.
Now, before Conservative partisans get too excited, one needs to remember that Ouellet, like Mulroney did nothing wrong in his dealings with Schreiber and Thyssen.
In each case, each individual merely acted in what they felt may be the best interests of depressed areas of the country -- Nova Scotia in Mulroney's case, and East Montreal in Ouellet's.
There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that was their job at the time.
When the project was found to stand to cost Canada $100 million, Mulroney declared it dead.
When the government began preparations to purchase new armoured vehicles for the Canadian Forces, Ouellet declined to push Thyssen's product, instead urging the importance of an open competition. Purchasing the vehciles from Thyssen, or any other company, he noted, "without a tendering process would go against the rules of equity."
Neither man acted improperly, in any sense of the word.
That being said, if the Liberals want to use the Mulroney-Schreiber affair to portray the Conservative party as corrupt, they now need to realize that they'll be tarred with the same brush vis a vis the Ouellet-Schreiber affair.
Perhaps given the recent revelatins regarding Schreiber and his dealings, there will be significantly less will to waste Canadian time and money trying to get to the bottom of a matter in which no wrongdoings have transpired.
Or, the Liberals can keep trying to invent a scandal, and inevitably play into the hands of a hungry NDP.
Karma works quite well like that.
Karma, as they say, is a bitch.
With the Liberal party bending over backwards to dig dirt on the governing Conservatives via the Schreiber-Mulroney affair, today's huge development in the story just might make this story worthwhile for Conservative partisans.
Those paying attention to the early goings of this emerging non-scandal may have noticed various NDP commentators such as Brad Lavigne, referring to mutual Conservative and Liberal connections to Karlheinz Schreiber. Surely, they must have also noticed various Liberal commentators warning those NDP commentators to "be careful" about what they said.
It turns out that these Liberals had every reason to be vaguely threatening, considering the recent developments in the story today.
According to the Globe and Mail, powerful Liberal cabinet minister Andre Ouellet lobbied fiercely in favour of building the Thyssen AG armaments plant in Nova Scotia.In various letters marked "secret", Ouellet and then-Industry Minister John Manley clearly disagreed about the project. Manley clearly shared Brian Mulroney's view on the project, which at one point was expected to have potentially cost Canadian taxpayers $100 million.
It was also discovered that Schreiber's company donated $10,000 to the Liberals after they won the 1993 federal election.
Not only, however, did Ouellet lobby the government in favour of the Bear Head project, but it seems he may have lobbied Schreiber himself to change the planned location of the factory to Quebec.
Ouellet expected the project to create 500 jobs in a poor Montreal neighbourhood.
"This is in line with the federal government's policy that all investment proposals should fully take into account the net economic advantages to Canada," Ouellet wrote. "That is why I suggest that you consider very seriously this request from a foreign company that is willing to invest in Canada and to export a military vehicle that could be in increasing demand in the context of peace missions that are more and more numerous around the world."
Manley eventually relented to accepting an economic analysis of the project's benefits from Thyssen.
Now, before Conservative partisans get too excited, one needs to remember that Ouellet, like Mulroney did nothing wrong in his dealings with Schreiber and Thyssen.
In each case, each individual merely acted in what they felt may be the best interests of depressed areas of the country -- Nova Scotia in Mulroney's case, and East Montreal in Ouellet's.
There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that was their job at the time.
When the project was found to stand to cost Canada $100 million, Mulroney declared it dead.
When the government began preparations to purchase new armoured vehicles for the Canadian Forces, Ouellet declined to push Thyssen's product, instead urging the importance of an open competition. Purchasing the vehciles from Thyssen, or any other company, he noted, "without a tendering process would go against the rules of equity."
Neither man acted improperly, in any sense of the word.
That being said, if the Liberals want to use the Mulroney-Schreiber affair to portray the Conservative party as corrupt, they now need to realize that they'll be tarred with the same brush vis a vis the Ouellet-Schreiber affair.
Perhaps given the recent revelatins regarding Schreiber and his dealings, there will be significantly less will to waste Canadian time and money trying to get to the bottom of a matter in which no wrongdoings have transpired.
Or, the Liberals can keep trying to invent a scandal, and inevitably play into the hands of a hungry NDP.
Karma works quite well like that.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Ouch. That Had to Hurt.
Don Martin takes a savage kick to the 'nads
The conspiracy theories alleging Stephen Harper made a letter written to him by Karlheinz Schreiber disappear took a rather merciless kick to the balls today, as Marilyn MacPherson, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Corporate Services at the Privy Council Office, decided to clear the air regarding a recent column written by Don Martin.
In the column, Martin wrote:
Until, that is, one reads the recent letter by MacPherson to the National Post, wherein she writes:
One needs to remember that this is coming from an Assistant Deputy Minister, whom tend not to be elected officials, but bureaucrats selected for the job. When one also considers the remarkable number of deputy ministers not fired by the Harper government, one has to wonder what to make of the following passage from Martin's column:
It seems that Martin is forgetting that last particular fact. Whether or not one considers the current batch of deputy ministers to be "Harper's team" is immaterial. The fact is that they were also "Paul Martin's team" in this regard, and as such, one has to wonder what to make of such assertions when the Pricy Council office backs the Prime Minister's Office up, as McPherson has.
At the very least, one pretty much instantly knows what to do with the varying conspiracy theories regarding the Karlheinz Schreiber affair. It just so happens to be the same thing one knows to do with Martin's 15 November column.
The conspiracy theories alleging Stephen Harper made a letter written to him by Karlheinz Schreiber disappear took a rather merciless kick to the balls today, as Marilyn MacPherson, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Corporate Services at the Privy Council Office, decided to clear the air regarding a recent column written by Don Martin.
In the column, Martin wrote:
"For reasons that defy logic and established process, the Prime Minister's Office insists the incarcerated lobbyist's rant against former prime minister Brian Mulroney never reached Mr. Harper's intensely inquisitive staff.Martin goes on to vaccilate over whether or not Harper ever saw the letter itself. However, he notes, a conversation with Jean Chretien's old "mailbag man" predictably proved to be "constructive":
This just doesn't pass the smell test given the procedural checks in a system that handles roughly a million pieces of mail per year, which must surely represent the only million letter writers left in a nation of e-mailers."
"There are only two explanations: Either somebody dropped the ball in the bureaucracy or Mr. Harper's office is fibbing when they say Mr. Schreiber's package failed to reach even one of the 82 people listed in the PMO directory."Of course there is," Newman would probably want one to agree.
The standard correspondence form generates a six-digit reference number for every letter that arrives, and scans them into a database for instant retrieval. Bureaucrats can check off one of two options, to forward either the original or copies to one of seven sections in the PMO.
This once-senior official insists all correspondence addressed to the prime minister is routinely forwarded to his office unless the sender falls into the "frequent wingnut" category.
While some may argue that shoe fits Mr. Schreiber, keep in mind most correspondence staff have been there since Jean Chretien was prime minister, and that unique name would still set off a rocket's red glare for special attention.
"There's institutional memory in the unit for this particular file," the Liberal said. "A clerk would not be qualified to take responsibility for that sort of correspondence by themselves. They would need guidance from the PMO."
It probably doesn't matter that Mr. Harper didn't see the letter personally. But there's either a troubling failure to communicate between the two senior levels of government or a deliberate miscommunication with the public."
Until, that is, one reads the recent letter by MacPherson to the National Post, wherein she writes:
"I am writing to clarify several issues relating to Don Martin's Thursday column. Firstly, the headline of the column is misleading -- no letter went missing. All correspondence processed by the Privy Council Office is kept on file for the prescribed period of time. The statements attributed to a former supervisor in the correspondence unit of another government, to the effect that "all correspondence addressed to the Prime Minister is routinely forwarded to his office" is not accurate either. Due to the volume and nature of correspondence, in fact the vast majority of it is not forwarded to the correspondence unit in the Prime Minister's Office, but is processed by the Privy Council Office correspondence unit.
As we have stated with other media representatives, the Privy Council Office processes all incoming correspondence to the prime minister. In the case of correspondence from Karlheinz Schreiber, it was decided that replying would be inappropriate as a result of the author being the subject of an extradition hearing, as well as his involvement in other litigation.
Finally, I want to reconfirm here for your readers the accuracy of statements made by the Prime Minister's Office, that the Privy Council Office did not forward the March 29, 2007 letter to the Prime Minister's correspondence unit."
One needs to remember that this is coming from an Assistant Deputy Minister, whom tend not to be elected officials, but bureaucrats selected for the job. When one also considers the remarkable number of deputy ministers not fired by the Harper government, one has to wonder what to make of the following passage from Martin's column:
"Most of my media colleagues would side with the dishonest declaration view. PMO flaks have a well-deserved reputation for non-communication when they're not spinning exaggeration or fabrication.
The level of media distrust in getting the true goods on any issue from Mr. Harper's team is lower than any communications shop I've encountered in almost 30 years of covering politics."
It seems that Martin is forgetting that last particular fact. Whether or not one considers the current batch of deputy ministers to be "Harper's team" is immaterial. The fact is that they were also "Paul Martin's team" in this regard, and as such, one has to wonder what to make of such assertions when the Pricy Council office backs the Prime Minister's Office up, as McPherson has.
At the very least, one pretty much instantly knows what to do with the varying conspiracy theories regarding the Karlheinz Schreiber affair. It just so happens to be the same thing one knows to do with Martin's 15 November column.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Suddenly, He's Not So Eager to Talk
But the opposition is awfully eager to hear him
In the newly-revived and ongoing Mulroney-Schreiber affair, things took a turn for the even more acrimonious recently when Schreiber stated he wouldn't cooperate with the inquiry were he extradited to Germany.
Following a statement issued by German Justice officials stating they would allow Schreiber to be interrogated by Canadian investigators while in German custody, Schreiber has promised "not a fucking word would I speak".
In other words, Karlheinz Schreiber, the would-be victim of a conspiracy theory, a man more maligned than Maher Arar and disappointed in the Harper government's efforts to clean up Ottawa, has now resorted to attempting to blackmail the government of Canada.
And the opposition, desperate to score whatever political points thay can from the affair, are all too eager to cave in to him.
At some point, the writing on the wall simply becomes all too obvious. Karlheinz Schreiber is desperately trying to delay his extradition to Germany, and he's willing to say absolutely anything to do it.
Meanwhile, the opposition parties and the media, recognizing Brian Mulroney as a slam-dunk case in the court of public opinion, has jumped all over this story, Karlheinz Schreiber, and his most recent non-revelations.
Among those non-revelations, Schreiber states, "The whole thing is much broader than only Airbus and it starts already at the beginning, in the early '80s, when the situation was that Brian Mulroney intended to become the prime minister and needed help."
More humorously, "There are other revelations I intend to make in front of an inquiry which really made me very nervous when I heard about them," Schreiber notes (emphasis added). "You will understand that I want to leave quite a few important things for the inquiry."
What most people understand about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair is that it deals primarily with Mulroney's dealings with Schreiber. So why is Schreiber only hearing such details about his own dealings with Mulroney now? Unless he wants to implicate other people in this tale, in which case the proof would certainly be in the pudding.
Schreiber is desperately trying to write a new lease on his life in Canada, and he's desperate enough to regurgitate old news, rumours, innuendos, and very likely outright lies (let's not forget who we're dealing with here) in order to do it.
That the opposition wants Canada to deny German officials the opportunity to deliver Schreiber to justice there on this basis is actually quite shameful. Moreover, it could imperil future Canadian attempts to extradite criminals from Germany. On this note, it's double-shameful.
If Schreiber doesn't want to talk if extradited to Germany, so be it. If he were really so concerned about justice as he would like us to believe, he would speak regardless.
It will be a truly dark day when the government of Canada bends over backward just to hear the words of a known fraud.
In the newly-revived and ongoing Mulroney-Schreiber affair, things took a turn for the even more acrimonious recently when Schreiber stated he wouldn't cooperate with the inquiry were he extradited to Germany.
Following a statement issued by German Justice officials stating they would allow Schreiber to be interrogated by Canadian investigators while in German custody, Schreiber has promised "not a fucking word would I speak".
In other words, Karlheinz Schreiber, the would-be victim of a conspiracy theory, a man more maligned than Maher Arar and disappointed in the Harper government's efforts to clean up Ottawa, has now resorted to attempting to blackmail the government of Canada.
And the opposition, desperate to score whatever political points thay can from the affair, are all too eager to cave in to him.
At some point, the writing on the wall simply becomes all too obvious. Karlheinz Schreiber is desperately trying to delay his extradition to Germany, and he's willing to say absolutely anything to do it.
Meanwhile, the opposition parties and the media, recognizing Brian Mulroney as a slam-dunk case in the court of public opinion, has jumped all over this story, Karlheinz Schreiber, and his most recent non-revelations.
Among those non-revelations, Schreiber states, "The whole thing is much broader than only Airbus and it starts already at the beginning, in the early '80s, when the situation was that Brian Mulroney intended to become the prime minister and needed help."
More humorously, "There are other revelations I intend to make in front of an inquiry which really made me very nervous when I heard about them," Schreiber notes (emphasis added). "You will understand that I want to leave quite a few important things for the inquiry."
What most people understand about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair is that it deals primarily with Mulroney's dealings with Schreiber. So why is Schreiber only hearing such details about his own dealings with Mulroney now? Unless he wants to implicate other people in this tale, in which case the proof would certainly be in the pudding.
Schreiber is desperately trying to write a new lease on his life in Canada, and he's desperate enough to regurgitate old news, rumours, innuendos, and very likely outright lies (let's not forget who we're dealing with here) in order to do it.
That the opposition wants Canada to deny German officials the opportunity to deliver Schreiber to justice there on this basis is actually quite shameful. Moreover, it could imperil future Canadian attempts to extradite criminals from Germany. On this note, it's double-shameful.
If Schreiber doesn't want to talk if extradited to Germany, so be it. If he were really so concerned about justice as he would like us to believe, he would speak regardless.
It will be a truly dark day when the government of Canada bends over backward just to hear the words of a known fraud.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Liberals Striking Out on Corruption Allegations
Liberal desperation at bat starting to show
If one were to ask the Liberal party, they would certainly be assured that Canada's governing Conservative party is secretive, corrupt and untrustworthy.
Most Canadians would probably be forgiven if they thought that sounded more like the Liberal party, but I digress.
First off, the Liberals insisted that the Conservative party failed to report more than a million dollars in donations related to the party's 2005 convention. While it turns out that there were indeed undisclosed donations, they turned out to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, as opposed to millions. The scandal subsequently failed to gain any traction with the Canadian public.
Foul ball. Strike one.
Then, the Liberals insisted that the Conservatives had broken election law with their so-called "in and out" scandal, despite the fact that the expenditures themselves were well within the letter of the law.
Strike two.
Now, the Liberal party is seizing upon allegations that Brian Mulroney took several years to pay tax on $300,000 he recieved from Karlheinz Schreiber shortly after he left public office.Of course, it has been said that a bad penny always turns up again. But for the Liberal party, this is more like 30,000,000 bad pennies turning up, and all on their own accord.
See, the Liberal party has already had a bad experience with Brian Mulroney and this allegedly-scandalous payment. In fact, when Liberal leader Stephane Dion was in Jean Chretien's cabinet, the federal government was ordered to fork $2.1 million over to Brian Mulroney as a result of an RCMP letter written to the government of Switzerland that falsely accused Mulroney of a crime.
Now, one might expect that this latest allegation would represent a pitch that Dion simply may not want to swing at.
Guess again.
In fact, when Dion rose during yesterday's Question Period, he swung for the fences. "Will the prime minister take every step necessary regarding this disturbing information about Brian Mulroney to get to the bottom of this matter?" Dion asked. "The current prime minister owes the institution he represents a duty to shed full light on this issue. Will he do that? Will he set up a commission of public inquiry?"
When government house leader Peter Van Loan rose to answer, the sound of the ball hitting the catcher's mitt was clearly audible.
"That Liberal leader was part of a cabinet that had to pay 2 million dollars of taxpayers' money for falsely pursued allegations in exactly this case," Van Loan pointed out.
Kitchener Center Liberal MP and party whip Karen Redman would later try to step in as a pinch-hitter. "Taxpayers' dollars are lining the pockets of Brian Mulroney. Canadians deserve answers. Will this Conservative government launch an inquiry?" she asked.And she's right. Taxpayers' dollars are lining the pockets of Brian Mulroney. This happened because the RCMP, under the Liberals' watch, not only falsely accused Mulroney of a crime, but actually made those false accusations to the government of another country.
Strike three.
Perhaps it's ironic that the Liberals would like Canadians to now think of them as dedicated corruption-fighters while in opposition. Ironic because they had plenty of chances to do so while they were in government, and failed utterly to do so.
Shawinigate. Strike one.
Jane Stewart's HRDC billion-dollar boondoggle. Strike two.
The Sponsorship Scandal. Strike three.
The Liberals, in terms of battling corruption, have now struck out not only in government, but in opposition as well.
The Liberal party would certainly be well-advised to play to its strengths. Although insipid, the party is more likely to score some runs with their "mean Stephen Harper" invective.
As far as corruption goes, however, the party will likely continue to find that it's likely to continue striking out, particularly when they failed to swing at those pitches when it would have mattered most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)