Politics in 2013

[observor 69]

Military experience in an MND can be overrated.

I'll take analytic, common sense, decision making anyway of the week.

That was my thought exactly when I heard of his appointment. And a Queen's grad to boot. (Dig for JM)  >

 

[Edward Campbell]

Two article, both reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, about federal-provincial relations:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/26/andrew-coyne-premiers-excel-at-telling-ottawa-what-to-do-while-ignoring-their-own-jurisdiction/

Why do the premiers bother meeting when they ignore issues in their jurisdiction?

Andrew Coyne

13/07/26

It is possible to imagine a situation in which it would be useful for the premiers to meet, just as it is possible to conceive of a reason why anyone should pay them the slightest attention.

Suppose the premiers agreed, at one of their preposterous annual costume balls (“First Ministers” was pompous enough, but with “The Council of the Federation” we are in the realm of fan fiction), to eliminate all of the hundreds of inter-provincial trade barriers that still disfigure the landscape, a century and a half after Confederation. Suppose they agreed to eliminate any of them. Okay, suppose they started with one — say, regulations some provinces impose barring citizens from ordering wine from out-of-province vineyards. That would be worth a self-congratulatory communiqué or two.

Suppose, in the same fantastic vein, they agreed to stop their professional bodies from discriminating against those who have received their training elsewhere. Never mind grandiose national energy strategies: suppose they just agreed to allow each other’s oil and hydroelectricity to cross their soil without being held to ransom. Suppose, with regard to health care, they agreed to collect and adopt each other’s best practices — not one or two, here and there, but comprehensively, for savings that have been estimated in the billions, not the millions of which the provinces now boast.

Suppose they agreed to reform the Sen — nah, I can’t even say it. Oh hell: suppose they simply agreed to put their budgets on the same system of accounts, so the public could have some idea of how much they were spending, relative to each other. These would all justify the premiers meeting.

Certainly there is nothing to prevent the premiers from doing any of these. Because, you see, they all have the inestimable advantage of being within the premiers’ jurisdiction. And yet somehow that is never the order of business at any of their meetings. It isn’t just that they almost never agree to anything that is in their power to do — no, not even the one about the wine. They barely even talk about it.

Instead, they talk about the feds: what Ottawa should do, how much money it should spend, and on what. On this, let it be said, they have no trouble agreeing. The tone of this week’s meeting — or of any previous — can be gathered from the headlines: Premiers to press for new federal funding model for infrastructure projects. Premiers seek new train safety rules. Premiers urge Ottawa to consult them on jobs training, energy. Premiers urge Stephen Harper to improve disaster relief. Premiers urge cyberbullying to be included in Criminal Code. (That’s a lot of urging for one meeting. Premiers, it seems, have an irresistible urge to urge.)

Some of these are squarely within federal jurisdiction, as for example when the premiers demand a role in international trade negotiations, or when they issue edicts on how the federal employment insurance or the federal old age security programs should be designed. Certainly they all involve federal cash. And, of all the things the premiers might think to suggest the federal government spend more on, what do you supposed tops their list? Why yes: themselves.

What the federal government trumpeted in this year’s budget as a major new infrastructure commitment was dismissed by the premiers as penny ante, on the way to demanding more of it — more, that is, than the $14-billion already earmarked for provincial projects. Accordingly, the premiers announced the formation of a “working group” on “strategic infrastructure investment,” or as the Maclean’s website headlined it, “Provinces make late push for federal infrastructure money.” Oh, and the provinces, not the feds, would decide where and how it was spent. That’s the “new funding model.”

Yet as eager as the premiers are to assert control over an ever-larger share of federal spending in areas of federal jurisdiction, they are no less insistent that the feds spend more in their own fields as well, as in the perennial demands for more federal transfers for health care. “More” here means over and above the $30-billion Ottawa already provides them every year (plus another $30-billion in other transfers, separately labelled, though in fact they all go into general revenues and can be spent any way the provinces like), a number the feds have promised will grow no slower than the economy, more or less in perpetuity.

And when they have finished all this — when they are done writing Ottawa’s budget, and amending the Criminal Code, and drafting federal safety regulations, and demanding to be consulted on everything under the sun — the premiers use whatever time they have left to complain about federal interference.

This is particularly incoherent when it comes to health care, where the premiers are also accustomed to demanding federal “leadership.” But as that game seems to have played itself out, the focus this year was on stopping the new Canada Job Grant, with its promise of $300-million in federal funding to help employers train skilled workers, before it gets started.

Why would the premiers want to do this? Because the money is conditional on the provinces (and employers) matching the federal contribution. They don’t have to, you understand: it’s just that if they don’t, their workers and employers won’t get any of the federal cash. Whereas the feds used to just hand the money over to the provinces to spend, gratis.

Spending 33¢ dollars? With no right to “opt out, with full compensation,” i.e., do nothing and still get the cash? Why, it’s intolerable. Same time next year, everyone.

Postmedia News

And

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/26/john-ivison-the-premiers-accomplish-more-when-they-arent-grandstanding-against-stephen-harper/

The premiers accomplish more when they aren’t grandstanding against Stephen Harper

John Ivison

13/07/26

NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE – So what conclusions can be drawn on the state of the confederation from the annual premiers’ gathering in Ontario’s wine country?

Most obvious is the dysfunction – Canada’s federal and provincial governments are like an old bickering couple that can’t live with or without one another. The suggestion that politics makes for estranged bedfellows was never more apt.

In her press conference Friday, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne explained that these Council of the Federation meetings are “a mix of coming together and speaking to the federal government with one voice and also deciding what we can do ourselves.”

The former inevitably descends into an incessant airing of grievances. The federal government was named as the villain of the piece for imposing unilateral changes on skills training, Employment Insurance, Old Age Security and health-care funding. One communiqué even referred to the “ongoing fiscal imbalance” between different levels of government. You might as well poke the Prime Minister in the eye as talk about fiscal imbalances – in 2007, he swallowed then Quebec premier, Jean Charest’s line about this illusory spending gap, wrote him a cheque for $700-million and promptly watched the provincial leader hand it out to Quebecers as a tax cut.

Ms. Wynne said it would be more productive if the federal government was at the table to have face to face discussions with the premiers. But Stephen Harper operates on transmit, not receive.

Ottawa’s approach toward the provinces has long been characterized by mistrust and aversion. Sweeping changes have been handed down without consultation, leaving provinces to howl in impotent frustration.

The provinces may be more successful in their opposition to the new Canada Jobs Grant – it was something of a surprise that they got conservative Western premiers like Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall to sign up to a communiqué critical of a skills training initiative with which he agrees in principle.

The feds have failed to make a convincing case to justify a complete reversal from their position in the 2007 budget, when they transferred responsibility for the delivery of training programs for those unable to access Employment Insurance to the provinces. They now claim that the mismatch of unfilled skilled jobs and workers who can’t find jobs means the provinces have not been giving Canadians value for money – even if the evidence is largely anecdotal.

But no-one in their right mind would try to make policy by sitting in a room with 13 grandstanding provincial and territorial leaders. Command and control politics is pretty much the only way that anything gets done in this country. Pierre Trudeau once mocked Joe Clark’s Conservative vision of the country as being like the head-waiter to the provinces. Mr. Harper sees himself more like a head-master but that position has hardened because the provinces have for so long acted like errant, ungrateful school kids.

The real justification for this expensive talking shop is Ms. Wynne’s second point – the work they can do on their own.

Mr. Wall updated reporters on the progress being made by the health-care working group, including lowering the cost of drugs for Canadians through bulk-buying. Provinces set the price for the six most common generic drugs, resulting in $100-million in savings annually, he said. Negotiations with suppliers have been completed for 10 brand name drugs and an additional 17 drugs are under negotiation – adding potential savings of a further $60-70-million. These are the kind of concrete results that most taxpayers expect to see when they fund these elaborate set-pieces.

The news with the greatest potential to benefit Canadians was the joint announcement between British Columbia’s Christy Clark and Alberta’s Alison Redford that they have asked their senior bureaucrats to explore common ground on energy development, including pipelines. While hardly earth-shaking, it is a sign the relationship is back on track after last year’s premiers’ meeting in Halifax, where Ms. Clark made clear her unhappiness at the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline through B.C. by refusing to sign Ms. Redford’s national energy strategy. She subsequently brought forward five conditions – including a financial “fair share” – before her government would give the project its blessing. She has since made clear this was not a grab for Alberta’s resource royalties and the announcement Friday suggests the two provinces will now work more closely to make Gateway a reality.

That, of course, is likely to mean forming a common front against the feds to secure B.C.’s “fair share.” But it was ever thus.

National Post

All I can say is: "yes, indeed."

Who can blame Prime Minister Harper for eschewing federal-provincial conferences?

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Good Grey Globe's charter member of the Laurentian elite and head cheerleader for the Laurentian Consensus chimes in, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, on the Conservative base and demonstrates, yet again, that he, like most of the Laurentian elite just don't "get" 21st century Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/dont-forget-the-base-you-can-bet-harper-wont/article12426834/#dashboard/follows/

What Simpson doesn't "get" (and what Bricker and Ibbitson do) is that there is not one, big, Western, rural, gun-toting, religious Conservative base. There are, at least, three:

    1. The Western, rural base Simpson describes;

    2. The Western urban base that represents all of Calgary, Lethbridge and Red Deer and most of Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg; and

    3. The BC and Ontario suburban and small town base.

Simpson gives of a list of the attributes of his base:

    1. A high degree of religiosity;

    2. A moralistic view of foreign policy;

    3. A populist dislike of government;

    4. A loathing of the media (except Sun News Network, Sun newspapers and a few very right-wing columnists);

    5. A distaste of anything that smacks of high culture;

    6. A reverence for the military;

    7. An abhorrence of abortion;

    8. A suspicion of “intellectuals” and their reasoning;

    9. A belief (against all evidence) that crime is out of control; and

    10. A generalized sense that honest, God-fearing people like themselves have been marginalized and patronized by secular “elites.”

Of course, few members of any of the three bases share all or even most of those attributes; but they are the opposite of the core values of the Laurentian elite which is, broadly: irreligious, wedded to an amoral neutralist foreign policy, supportive of big government, "informed" by the CBC/TORSTAR/Le Devoir view of Canada, cultural nationalistic, anti-military, pro-abortion, suspicious of any "intellectuals" who do not share its beliefs, anti-police, and patronizing of the emerging, broad, anti-Laurentian consensus.

There is a divide in Canada:

    1. Most of "Old Canada,"* - everything East of the Ottawa River - is, if not supportive of the Laurentian view of Canada, suspicious of the "New Canadian" view; and

    2. "New Canada" - everything West of the Ottawa River - is divided -

        a. Large parts of it, in most rural, Western urban and most suburban areas is Conservative, while

        b. Many urban areas, especially in Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa, are split between the Liberals and NDP.


_____
* I don't recall, exactly where I found the "old Canada"/"New Canada" idea, it's not original; I think I read it first in an article by Michael Bliss but Google doesn't help me to find it

And speaking of the Laurentian consensus and its cheerleaders, the Laurentian elites, here is another voice from the loony left, Linda McQuaig, explaining Stephen Harper's hidden agenda ® in a column which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/05/07/harper_stokes_resentments_in_discreet_class_war_mcquaig.html

Harper stokes resentments in discreet class war: McQuaig
Thatcher-style attempt to crush unions would leave Canadian workers powerless.

By: Linda McQuaig, Columnist

Published on Tue May 07 2013

The willingness of much of the Canadian media to go along with the Conservative narrative about Stephen Harper’s “moderation” has allowed the prime minister to wage a discreet class war against working people without attracting too much attention.

Canadians don’t like Harper’s anti-worker agenda — when they notice it. That’s why there’s been such a public outcry since the temporary foreign worker program was exposed as a mechanism by which the Harper government has flooded the country with hundreds of thousands of cheap foreign workers, thereby suppressing Canadian wages in the interests of helping corporations.

Apart from this clumsy fiasco, the Harperites have been adroit at keeping their anti-worker bias under the radar. Instead, they’ve directed their attacks against unions, portraying them as undemocratic organizations run by “union bosses” who ignore the interests of ordinary workers.

It’s revealing that this harsh critique of unions largely comes from business think-tanks and conservative politicians — folks who aren’t generally known for championing workers’ rights but who apparently can’t sleep at night at the thought workers aren’t being well represented by the people they elect to run their unions.

Of course, the real reason Harper attacks unions is because they’ve been effective in promoting the interests of working people over the past century. By establishing norms for higher wages and benefits in the workplace, and by pushing governments to implement universal social programs, unions are largely the reason we have a middle class in this country.

But Harper has long aspired to crush union power — as his hero Margaret Thatcher did in Britain. Thatcher’s legacy is severe inequality in Britain, just as Ronald Reagan’s anti-unionism promoted extreme inequality in the U.S. Canada is rapidly catching up to both.

Since winning his majority, the prime minister has increasingly given vent to his anti-union venom. Last fall, he brought in a bill placing an onerous and unnecessary financial reporting burden on unions, while sparing professional and business associations a similar burden.

Breaking the back of public sector unions is key to any plan to smash labour power in Canada, since the public sector is much more unionized — 75 per cent, compared to just 16 per cent of the private sector — and therefore better equipped to withstand attacks.

So Harper’s latest salvo — legislation enabling the cabinet to intervene in collective bargaining at Crown corporations — is aimed at revving up his campaign against public sector unions.
Business think-tanks, like the Fraser Institute, are helping out by generating papers showing that pay is higher in the public sector.

That’s true; that’s what collective action achieves. But the difference is not dramatic, and is mostly due to higher public sector wages for women and minorities in low-paid jobs. This is offset by generally lower pay for public sector professionals and managers, compared with their private sector counterparts, notes Andrew Jackson, senior policy adviser to the Broadbent Institute.

But harping on the allegedly overpaid public sector allows the Harper team to do what it does best: drive a wedge between people. Harper hopes to stoke resentments in struggling private sector workers, duping them into thinking the big rewards have gone to public sector workers rather than to where they’ve actually gone — into corporate coffers and CEO pay.

There are raw emotions at play here. Knocking down public sector workers a peg or two might provide satisfaction to private sector workers who’ve seen their own wages and benefits eroded, and yet have to pay taxes that fund public sector salaries.

The problem is that once the powerful public sector unions are gutted, there won’t be much left of the Canadian labour movement, leaving workers not much better protected than their predecessors in the early industrial era who risked their lives battling for the right to unionize.

Of course, without unions, working people will be able to rely on new tools like . . . well . . . social media.

As Harper draws on the full resources of the state to ramp up his class war, workers can count on tweeting any of their concerns or sharing Facebook photos of their friends working longer hours for less.

Linda McQuaig's column appears monthly. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca

One hardly knows where to begin, but ... a significant minority of Canadians, probably 25% to 40% of them, will believe every word Ms McQuaig writes.

 

[The Bread Guy]

One hardly knows where to begin, but ... a significant minority of Canadians, probably 25% to 40% of them, will believe every word Ms McQuaig writes.

You mean THIS Linda McQuaig?
"Linda McQuaig vies for NDP nomination in Toronto Centre"

 

[Inquisitor]

One hardly knows where to begin, but ... a significant minority of  xxxxxx, probably xx% to xx% of them, will believe every word Their favourite pundit writes.

TFTFY

I also refer to your reference to the conservative base and their loathing of media except sun new et al.  Matched by liberal base and Toronto star. Same/same in US.

Not healthy in my view but hey.

 

[Edward Campbell]

TFTFY

I also refer to your reference to the conservative base and their loathing of media except sun new et al.  Matched by liberal base and Toronto star. Same/same in US.

Not healthy in my view but hey.

As I pointed out, above, there is no such thing as "the conservative base." Those who think there is are either ill informed or intellectually lazy or, more likely, both.

The Conservative Party of Canada has at least three bases:

    1. The (mostly Western) rural base;

    2. The Western urban base that represents all of Calgary, Lethbridge and Red Deer and most of Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg; and

    3. The BC and Ontario suburban and small town base.

Within those three bases we find:

    1. A small group of social conservatives or the religious right who are, by and large, happily ignorant of the wider world. They, like social/religious conservatives everywhere are, by and large, against
        things more than being for much of anything.

    2. The fiscally prudent, socially moderate middle ~ the largest part of the base, a mix of Western urbanites, pan-Canadian suburbanites and small town folks from across the country. They are, generally,
        employed, home owners and parents; and

    3. The classical liberal ideologues - people like me - who favour small, very limited governments that are bound, by law, to respect the fundamental rights (life, liberty, property) of the sovereign individual above all else.

The Liberal party of Canada's base is similarly complex but focused on different issues. the NDP's base is simpler, even though Thomas Mulcair wants to remake it into a more complex centrist party.

 

[Edward Campbell]

You mean THIS Linda McQuaig?
"Linda McQuaig vies for NDP nomination in Toronto Centre"

Yep, that's her ~ good writer but economically illiterate, to be charitable.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is an analysis of Chrystia Freeland, about whom I commented earlier, vs Linda McQuaig:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/toronto-riding-is-a-testing-ground-for-ndp-and-liberals-economic-mantras/article13627574/#dashboard/follows/

Toronto riding is a testing ground for NDP and Liberals’ economic mantras

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Aug. 07 2013

The potential battle between journalists Linda McQuaig and Chrystia Freeland for the riding of Toronto Centre is shaping up as an economic battle between the NDP and the Liberals for the hearts of voters across Canada.

Ms. Freeland advocates incremental efforts to lessen the economic disparities between the 1 per cent and the rest of us, while Ms. McQuaig champions a more aggressive program of higher taxes and stronger state control.

The relevance of this campaign to the rest of the country depends on the extent to which the ideas of either of these prominent public voices can be translated from the downtown Toronto constituency they seek to represent to the place where much of the middle class actually resides: the vast swaths of suburban ridings outside the downtown.

Bob Rae’s old seat – his resignation prompted the need for a by-election expected later this year – comes with its own bully pulpit, simply because so much of Central Canada’s media class lives in or near it. That could be why not one, but three, prominent journalists are fighting for a nomination.

Ms. McQuaig announced Monday that she is seeking the NDP nomination. The Toronto Star columnist, who is also the author of several books, has long argued for higher taxes on corporations and the rich to protect and advance social programs, and for greater economic autonomy from globalization in general and the United States in particular.

While Liberals talk a good game, she said in an interview, their approach is to “take the full hit of the consequences [of globalization] and try to mitigate them a bit.”

But if, as Ms. McQuaig believes, globalization is “a deliberate set of policies that are deliberately put in place by a very powerful elite that pushes this agenda, then we can change the policies.”

Ms. McQuaig is competing for the nomination against broadcast reporter Jennifer Hollett, who lists “human rights and social justice” on her Web page as primary concerns.

If Ms. McQuaig does prevail, then her most serious competitor is likely to be Ms. Freeland, who has returned to Canada after a decade practising journalism outside the country.

The former deputy editor of The Globe and Mail has written extensively on the social and economic tensions created by income inequality, as the very rich get very much richer and the middle class struggles to cope.

Ms. Freeland declined to comment on Ms. McQuaig’s announcement, saying that “my twin focus, right now, is on running for the Liberal nomination in Toronto Centre, which I am pursuing relentlessly, and in organizing schools for my kids.”

She added, however, that she is very concerned about the threat that income disparities caused by globalization pose to the future of a large and stable middle class, and that “we have to be really smart,” in finding ways to protect middle-class mobility and security.

Ms. Freeland, should she win the Liberal nomination, is considered the favourite to win Toronto Centre, because it has never gone NDP. But the riding splits in two for the 2015 election, because of redistribution. Ms. McQuaig said it was far too early to speculate on whether she would run in Toronto Centre in 2015 if she loses the by-election. But there is a very real chance that both women could be in Parliament after the next election.

The Conservatives have not yet fielded a candidate for Toronto Centre. But they take issue with the notion that they have neglected the middle class; their majority government rests on suburban middle-class voters.

If McQuaig is the NDP candidate, and if she has real "star power" then she will put Thomas Mulcair in between a rock, his desire to move the NDP into the fiscally responsible centre, and a hard place, McQuaig's loony-left rubbish.

But Ms Freeland might just do the same to M. Trudeau because her mantra about the "hollowing of the middle class" is, demonstrably untrue. It was true circa 1995 but it is not today, not in Canada.

Source:  http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/07/12/what-is-happening-to-middle-class-incomes/

 

[Edward Campbell]

So, step one is complete: Mike Duffy quits Tory caucus citing 'distracting' controversy, says the Globe and Mail's headline writer.

Step two is for Nigel Wright to resign and for Prime Minister Harper - uncharacteristically, to be sure - to shoulder some of the responsibility for picking senators (Brazeau and Duffy (and Wallin?)) who have abused the public trust.

Step three is for the Senate (aided by the RCMP?) to expel Sens Brazeau, Duffy and Harb (and Wallin?) for breach of trust.

Now the man who is often left out by the media (because he's a Liberal? or, more likely because he's NOT a Conservative?) Mac Harb get's a fair share of attention, for the same reason Duffy/Wright smells so much, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/expense+scandal+surrounding+Senator+Harb+deepened+with/8760907/story.html

Mac Harb loan from Ottawa businessman under scrutiny

BY JORDAN PRESS, ANDREW SEYMOUR AND ZEV SINGER,

OTTAWA CITIZEN

AUGUST 7, 2013

OTTAWA — The expense scandal surrounding Senator Mac Harb has deepened, with new documents showing that he accepted a loan from an Ottawa businessman and philanthropist who does business with the federal government.

Harb, whose living expense claims have already made him the subject of an RCMP investigation, accepted a $55,000 loan on May 17 from a numbered company, according to property records obtained by Postmedia News.

The senator filed an updated disclosure statement to the Senate ethics officer on June 12 indicating he owed an unspecified amount of money to 1202864 Ontario Ltd. A corporate profile report obtained by the Citizen shows Ottawa lawyer and businessman Brian Karam as the company’s president and only listed officer.

Documents also show Karam is the president and a director of another numbered company, 595799 Ontario Ltd. That company operates as The Business Inn, a hotel at the corner of MacLaren and Elgin streets (MacLaren’s pub, which Karam also owns, is on the building’s ground floor). The Business Inn has been awarded federal contracts, including a current contract with a value of $1.87 million.

The Criminal Code states that government officials cannot accept an “advantage or benefit” of money from someone who deals with the federal government without first getting written permission. So far, Harb, Karam and the Senate have all declined to comment.

The news comes as new information is emerging on the file of Sen. Pamela Wallin, specifically that her decision to regularly break up her trips between Ottawa and Saskatchewan by staying overnight in Toronto is the main focus of a lengthy audit of her travel expenses.

That audit, to be released next week, will outline whether that travel pattern added significant costs to taxpayers for flights, as well as taxis to and from a Toronto condominium she has owned for years — costs she arguably would not have incurred had she taken one continuous trip to Saskatchewan from the nation’s capital.

“We’ll want to know why this was happening and have some kind of an explanation,” said Sen. Gerald Comeau, chairman of the Senate’s internal economy committee, which is overseeing work on Wallin’s audit.

“Then it’s up to us to determine whether we’re satisfied with the response to any of these questions.”

Wallin has already repaid $38,000 for improper expense claims that she has said were related to her work on corporate boards. Comeau confirmed auditors have also zeroed in on additional instances where Wallin may have improperly filed travel expense claims for trips more related to corporate work than to Senate duties.

The Senate has already ordered Harb to repay $51,482.90 in ineligible expense claims, which he did under protest.

Before being thrust into the Senate expense scandal, Brian Karam, the man who loaned Harb $55,000 in May, was best known for his business acumen and charity work.

Karam was the founder of the Elgin Area Property Owners Association and Elgin Business Association. A licensed lawyer, he was awarded a Community Builder Award from the United Way in 2010 for his work with charities like the Ottawa Snowsuit Fund and REACH, an organization whose mission is to improve the quality of life for citizens with disabilities by offering lawyer referral and educational services at the community level.

He is also a member of the Elvis Sighting Society, hosting a variety of fundraisers over the years for charities such as The Ottawa Hospital, the Ottawa Heart Institute, the Elizabeth Bruyere Hospital, the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre and Peace Camp Ottawa, according to the United Way.

Karam donated $5,000 to a campaign to raise money for the construction of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre’s youth wing.

He is also past president of the Dewaan Association of Lebanese businessmen, past president and vice president of the Canadian Organization for Development through Education and was one of the founders of the National Indian Arts and Crafts Corporation, according to the United Way.

Court documents showed that Karam owned a building on Gilmour Street that housed offices leased to Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Meanwhile, the Senate’s internal economy committee will return to Ottawa on Monday for a rare summer meeting. Senators who are members of the committee will see the Wallin audit for the first time and have a chance to question auditors who worked on the review, which has taken six months. Wallin also will have a chance to see the audit and speak to the full committee on Tuesday when it meets behind closed doors to debate a draft report from its three-member executive, which includes Comeau and senators George Furey, a Liberal, and Conservative Carolyn Stewart Olsen.

That committee will decide what, if any, actions the Senate should take, including requiring committee approval of her expense claims or ordering repayment of funds to the Senate.

The RCMP is currently investigating Harb and two other senators, Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy, over allegations of breach of trust. Duffy is also being investigated for potential frauds on the government over a $90,000 payment he received from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff Nigel Wright to cover repayment of his improper housing allowance claims, according to RCMP court documents. None of the allegations have been tested in court and no charges have been filed.

With files from Canadian Press

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Here's a video of Sen Harb presenting Brian Karam with his QDJM; I like the comment which follows: "Here's your medal Brian. and here's your 50 grand Harb" (grammar and spelling corrected).

 

[The Bread Guy]

Although this is dealing with an international event, I find it interesting from a domestic political perspective.

Here's what John Baird is quoted saying about a proposed anti-gay law in Russia ....

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird denounced Russia's controversial new anti-gay law as hateful Thursday, saying it could incite violence.

In an exclusive interview with The Canadian Press, Baird described how Canada has worked behind the scenes to persuade Russia not to follow through with the law.

Baird outlined the details of eight meetings, dating back to January, during which Canadian officials pushed the issue with the Russians, before and after President Vladimir Putin signed the controversial bill into law in June.

Baird says he is deeply concerned about Thursday's comments by Russia's sports minister that the new law will be enforced during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.

(....)

"This mean-spirited and hateful law will affect all Russians 365 days of the year, every year. It is an incitement to intolerance, which breeds hate. And intolerance and hate breed violence."

Baird said he is aware of hate crimes against gays in Russia and of internet luring and violence in recent days and weeks.

The minister said Canada will work with like-minded countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom to pressure the Russian government to change the law ahead of the Olympics.

The law imposes fines for spreading information about gay choices to minors, and it bans gay pride rallies ....

.... and a national women's group responded with the attached statement (it seems it's hard to get into this link to the statement right now):

Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, has abused his position as a cabinet minister to impose his own special interests in the foreign countries of Uganda, Kenya and Russia.

He awarded $200,000 of Canadian taxpayers’ money by way of the Department of Foreign Affairs to special interest groups in Uganda and Kenya to further his own perspective on homosexuality.  He also insulted the speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, at a meeting of the International Parliamentary Union in Quebec City when he criticized Uganda for its position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  In response, Ms. Kadaga stated that Uganda was a sovereign nation and not a colony of Canada, and no one could tell Ugandans what to do.

Last week, Baird admitted working extensively behind the scenes to prevent Russia from passing legislation designated to protect Russian minors from homosexual propaganda.  Baird blasted these laws as hateful, anti-gay and intolerant ....

Uh, does this group realize that generally, Cabinet ministers don't really "freelance" such remarks and initiatives?  That this is the Government of Canada's move, not Mr. B's alone?

 

[Edward Campbell]

The religious right ~ a category within which I believe REAL Women fits, neatly ~ doesn't "realize" much of anything. It "believes" and it is certain of its beliefs, as is very often the case with those who accept the Big Man (in the sky) theory of the creation of the universe rather than, say, the Big Bang.

People are entitled to believe what they want; they are also entitled to espouse their beliefs in public, despite the fact that when they do so they usually embarrass themselves; but making a bloody fool of yourself is not a crime either ... thank heavens.

 

[ballz]

Uh, does this group realize that generally, Cabinet ministers don't really "freelance" such remarks and initiatives?  That this is the Government of Canada's move, not Mr. B's alone?

I read this earlier, too. It's clearly going to fall on deaf ears, thankfully.

I think they are trying to suggest that the CPC, because it represents social conservatives, must be anti-homosexual and that John Baird should "fall in line" with that view from some of the grassroots supporters.

That would be a real smart hill for the Tories to die on... :

 

[Edward Campbell]

So Sen Pamela Wallin says:

    1. The audit process was “fundamentally flawed and unfair;" but

    2. She will repay all expenses, with interest.

Sen Wallin is 60 years old; she can serve another 15 years in the Senate if she chooses. She is also a skilled, effective and well connected communicator.

 

[Edward Campbell]

John Ibbitson notes, in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, that the magnitude of a scandal doesn't seem to be what annoys the public most:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/what-makes-something-a-scandal/article13708395/#dashboard/follows/

Public reaction to political scandal is far from objective

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Aug. 12 2013

Two events in the news this week offer proof that scandal is relative, having more to do with how the public sees a government than with the facts on the ground.

Ontario voters, who have sustained both the Conservatives in Ottawa and the Liberals at Queen’s Park, appear to be as angry over a penny-ante affair involving a few senators’ expenses as they are over the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted in cancelled gas-plant contracts. What gives?

What may give is that voters do not address scandals objectively, but as a sign of something bigger.

In Ottawa, we will learn this week how much Pamela Wallin may have improperly expensed as a Conservative senator. It is becoming clear that, while some rules may have been broken, and even some laws, any improperly expensed travel or living expenses by senators will cost the taxpayer little or no money.

Senator Mike Duffy paid back the $90,000 he owed – albeit with inappropriate help from Nigel Wright, Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff. Senator Wallin has promised to pay back everything she owes. Senators Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau are resisting, but the Senate is taking steps to deduct at least some of what they should be giving back from their pay.

At the very worst, the taxpayer may be out some tens of thousands of dollars. And there is no tangible evidence the Prime Minister condoned or was even aware of anything improper.

The situation in Ontario is far more serious. The gas-plant contracts –which appear to have been cancelled for purely political reasons – have cost taxpayers $585-million, at last count. There was conspiratorial talk of strong-arming the Speaker of the Legislature into reversing a ruling unfavourable to the government. The Liberals (taking a page from the federal Conservatives) had the legislature prorogued in an effort to shut down debate.

As scandals go, they don’t come much riper. And Dalton McGuinty did step down as premier – though after nine years he was due for retirement anyway. But under Kathleen Wynne, the Liberals have fought back, doing better than expected in recent by-elections. There’s a reasonable chance the Liberals could actually survive gas-plantgate.

Ontario voters may be overplaying the Senate expenses scandal while underplaying the gas plant scandal. This could say something about how they view the two governments.

If the voters are moving toward the conclusion that the Harper government is tired and arrogant and secretive and possibly corrupt, then they will latch onto anything that fits the hypothesis. The Senate expenses scandal fits the hypothesis.

If they shudder at the thought of making Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak or NDP Leader Andrea Horwath premier, then they will search for a reason to forgive the Liberals.

It certainly helps that Mr. Hudak is facing a leadership challenge from within his own party, and that Ms. Horwath has done nothing to suggest the NDP has learned from the mistakes of two decades past, when it last governed the province.

Nothing is cast in stone. Though Mr. Harper faces, in Justin Trudeau, the most dangerous Liberal leader since Paul Martin, he still has time and space to recover momentum, by successfully concluding major trade or pipeline deals.

If all else fails, the Conservatives could campaign on abolishing the Senate, in an effort to turn a negative into a positive.

And in Ontario, the provincial Liberals and Conservatives appear to be equally popular, or unpopular. Mr. Hudak could yet be premier after the next election.

No one can predict the political future in Ottawa or Toronto. All we know is that two scandals have thrown everything up in the air, even though the one is so very much smaller than the other. Scandals are funny that way.

I think campaigning on abolition of the Senate is a dead end: the Supremes will make it, abolition, too hard ~ and rightly so. Senate reform on the other hand can be a winner with both the "old" CPC base and in the suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver. New Canadians are baffled at our appointed Senate, it is, simply, undemocratic and it cries out for change.

 

[dapaterson]

I think campaigning on abolition of the Senate is a dead end: the Supremes will make it, abolition, too hard ~ and rightly so. Senate reform on the other hand can be a winner with both the "old" CPC base and in the suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver. New Canadians are baffled at our appointed Senate, it is, simply, undemocratic and it cries out for change.

And any half-decent opposition politician will ask "Is the man who named Brazeau, Duffy & Wallin to the Red Chamber the right man to reform it?"

It will take a grand mea culpa from Mr Harper to make that sales pitch - one I don't think he has in him.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Or he can turn it around as beautiful PR campaign for change:

PM Harper to journalists:

"You are all aware of the recent unacceptable deportment of some members of the Senate. Yes, some even appointed by this government. Obviously, the reputation and public image of some of them, Senators Wallin and Duffy for instance, made them quite suitable at the time of their appointment. This turned out to be wrong as we now know. However, there is nothing this government can do at this time: As you all know, I do not have the power to remove a senator once appointed.

And this is one of the reason this government has advocated for the longest time for the reform of the Senate, particularly by way of introduction of elected senators and limited fixed terms for their service in the upper chamber. It is my belief that the Canadian electorate when acting collectively  is much smarter than any Prime Minister and his staff at selecting appropriate representatives. Moreover, the fixed term and election system would make it possible for Canadian to refuse to reelect a senator that proved to be unworthy of their trust.

By the way, did I mention that my reform plans would include the possibility of citizen driven recall ...."

 

[dapaterson]

Mike Duffy was inappropriate at appointment.  Even the most cursory discussion with peers and co-workers would have revealed patterns of behaviour that would label him as high risk.  But he was also high profile, and did yeoman work in partisan fundraising once appointed - high risk, high reward.  (How did Mulroney describe such folks?  Oh yes - "There's no [senator] like an old [senator]")

Taking ownership of this failure will never occur - and it will leave Mulcair and Trudeau with a constant ability to attack the PM's judgement.

 

[Edward Campbell]

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

I was just listening to Sen George Baker on the local (Ottawa) CBC radio morning show.

He makes one good point: the steps taken, this year, by the Senate to provide some transparency ("sunshine") to senators' expenses are likely to help prevent repeats of the kind of disrepute into which Sens Brazeau, Duffy, Harb, Lavigne and Wallin have dragged parliament. The transparency ~ including "opening" the Senate to the Auditor General and making "internal economy" reports public ~ will likely make senators think before they spend. It will put the Senate into the position of letting in some "sunshine," which, according to an old political maxim, "is the best disinfectant."*

But, as Sen Baker suggested, the Senate's reforms need to be made permanent and even expanded in the Senate, itself, and applied to the House of Commons, too. The Parliament of Canada should be at least as open and transparent as is the Government of Canada. Members' and senators' expenses should be as visible as are those of senior civil servants. (I am not suggesting that the government's Directive on Travel, Hospitality, Conference and Event Expenditures is an especially good system but it does provide some visibility without violating the privacy of officials.)

As a genera rule: transparency in government is a good thing ... provided that transparency is balanced against government's real, valid need for security. What's good for government is, also generally, good for parliament, too.

There is, I believe, an opportunity here for Prime Minister Harper.

_____
* I think the quote can be attributed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis (1856-1941)

 

[Remius]

The Prime Minister (and by that I include the CPC as teh governing party) does not have the best record on transparency.  There may be an opportunity but is it one he wants to take?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Sometimes, "events", unanticipated events, are most likely to blow governments off course. This could be one of them.

I'm not a sailor but, in politics, when a government is blown off course it needs to do two things, in my opinion:

    1. Plan on how to get back on course ~ i.e. wake up the navigating officer (party strategy team) and put him to work; and

    2. Sail with the (political) wind, going where it (the events) takes you, until it changes, again.

In Canada, right now, the wind is blowing in the direction of parliamentary reform. Another political maxim, reputed to be from Megatrends author John Naisbett, suggests that success in politics was all about figuring out which way the parade was going and get in front of it. That's what Prime Minister Harper should do, now. His own MPs, including his own ministers, and many political scientists and strategists will howl, and some will have a few fair constitutional points about parliament's hard won liberty and privacy, but, on balance, reform will be popular, even with a broadly anti-CPC media.

 

[The Bread Guy]

PM's looking for Director of Comms #8 (in 7 years), according to this news release....

MSLGROUP, Publicis Groupe's strategic communications and engagement network, has appointed Andrew MacDougall as Senior Executive Consultant in the London office. MacDougall, who will be a senior strategist and central player in the development of the company's London operation, will join the team in November, and report to Jeremy Sice, CEO of MSLGROUP in the UK.

"Andrew's unique combination of political communication, crisis communication, and digital media experience will bring a fresh perspective to our clients as they navigate an increasingly complex communications environment," said Sice. "We are pleased to welcome Andrew to our growing team in the United Kingdom."

MacDougall currently serves as Director of Communications to Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. In that role, MacDougall provides communications advice to the Prime Minister, serves as lead spokesman for the Government of Canada, and develops communications plans for government policy announcements. He also leads the Prime Minister's digital and social media teams. MacDougall will serve in the Prime Minister's Office until early September ....