More Conservative Double Standard

Yesterday, when the Conservatives limited debate on the budget, NDP Pat Martin tweeted his frustration with a colorful expletive. He remains unapologetic, as he should.

Why the media is giving this so much attention is beyond me, but the Harperites have certainly managed to take the focus off their budget and onto something that few care about.

The photo above is Conservative MP Daniel Petit, giving the finger in the House of Commons. Pierre Poilievre was also caught making a rude gesture while Peter Milliken was speaking, and launched his own F-Bomb during a Parliamentary Committee meeting.



Evan Solomon had Tom Lukiwski on his program, with Lukiwski suggesting that Martin's language crossed a line. Ah yes, that beacon of propriety:



The full tape is filled with so many F-Bombs I'm surprised that it didn't blow itself up.

Andrew Scheer is looking into a formal punishment, that's how far they are willing to take this.

This government has often turned the House of Commons into an Animal House frat party. From Elizabeth May's book, Losing Confidence:

In one memorable Question Period, the question was about the safety of pet food in response to the tragic incident of poisoned pet food from China. The Conservative backbenchers started barking, "Woof, woof. Bow-wow" ... Heckling has also taken a crueler tone. Sexist taunts are more common. Government MPs have even taken to loud booing of certain Liberal MPs they most dislike, even before a question can be asked. This is particularly the case for women MPs. For a while, whenever Judy Sgro rose to speak, the Conservatives would chant "pizza" in reference to the allegations from a campaign worker that she had violated elections laws by accepting free pizza for her volunteers. Although she was cleared by Elections Canada, chanting "pizza" seems to entertain the Conservatives.

A lot of things entertain the Conservatives.

But they're not necessarily as stupid as their actions often imply.

Where is the media critique of the budget? Most headlines relate to a 140 character tweet.  It makes me so f#$%**% mad!

Things in Pierre Poilievre's Riding Turn Ugly

The Liberal candidate in Pierre Poilievre's riding of Nepean-Carleton not only had his signs vandalized, but became the target of hate.

I’m extremely disappointed that someone would target our campaign signs in such an organized manner,” said Keon. “I think we all realize that signs do sometimes become damaged in a campaign, however, our signs were directly targeted in different communities across Nepean-Carleton.

“This really is a direct attack on our democracy. This election is about presenting myself as a viable alternative to the current Member of Parliament. I have two young children at home, and I now have to explain to them why their father’s picture on my campaign signs has a bulls-eye on my head. It’s incredibly disturbing to me, my family and to our democracy,” concluded Keon.

This is what happens when you run a campaign on hatred and fear mongering. You incite rather than inspire. Hopefully the message will reach Harper and he'll tone the rhetoric.

Poor Pierre Poilievre. He Had to Buy Constituents. Literally.

Just how annoying do you have to be, when as a politician you can't get people willing to have their picture taken with or for you?

Let's ask Pierre Poilieve. To create a website suggesting that he is a friend of the immigrant community (I guess he got Jason Kenney's memo), he had to buy photos of immigrants from Stockphoto.com

At first glance, the photograph on Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre’s website appears to show him surrounded by a happy and diverse group of constituents. There’s a young Asian family with two daughters, a doctor who appears to be of Indian descent with an elderly white patient, and a three-shot of a young girl with her mother and grandmother. They stand in front of a large Canadian flag with a mist of red maple leaves around them.

But none of these people pictured on Poilievre’s website is actually a constituent of his Nepean-Carleton riding or, for that matter, a Canadian citizen. The images of this multi-ethnic group were purchased from online stock photo agencies and inserted into the website graphic with photo editing software.

Unbelievable. I wonder what staffer will be "fired" over this one.

Stephen Harper and His Cheating Ways

Your cheatin' ways,
They make us weep,
We'll cry and cry
And try to sleep,
You broke the law
We're onto you
Your cheatin ways, mean that you're through...

When you're brought down,
For causing pain,
You'll flail around,
And curse our name,
But there's the door,
We've had enough
You tried to lie, but we called your bluff...

Your cheatin' plan,
to steal from us,
It's been exposed,
Now eat my dust,
You knew the rules,
You made your bed,
You didn't think. What was in your head?...

But it's now come down,
To a beaten man,
And his frightening base
Who no longer rule the land,
There's just one more thing
Before you go
Tell me who is, the jackass now?

If Ignorance is Bliss Pierre Poilievre Must be Down Right Giddy

It would appear that after numerous legal wranglings, court challenges, and enough bluster to fill a stadium, the Conservatives have run out of talking points to justify their 2006 election fraud, so have brought in their most lethal weapon: Pierre Poilievre.

And if you're a fan of the sideshow, he doesn't disappoint. But I don't think he's going to be able spin his party out of this one.

The Federal Appeal Court has ruled against the Conservatives in the so-called "in and out" financing case, in which cash was transferred between local Tory riding associations and the national party during the 2006 election.

Elections Canada says the Conservative Party of Canada violated campaign financing rules by moving $1.3 million in and out of 67 ridings to pay for national ads. The manoeuvres allowed the party to exceed the campaign spending limits and allowed candidates to claim rebates on expenses that weren't actually incurred, the agency said. The ruling Conservatives won a lower court case on the rebates issue last year, but Elections Canada appealed.

This puts into question their validity as a government. Something that many others have questioned since this story first broke over two years ago.

Some media faithfuls are bringing up the sponsorship scandal but there is a big difference. The Liberals themselves called for an investigation, allowing the Conservatives to use the resulting Gomery Report in attack ads. And no elected official was involved, only bureaucrats, many of whom were hired by Brian Mulroney.

By contrast, Stephen Harper himself has continually hindered the investigation, preferring to instead launch an attack on Elections Canada. Yes he sued them when he was with the National Citizens Coalition, because they said corporate funded AstroTurf groups could not spend unlimited amounts of money to engineer an election. It's undemocratic.

And this is not an "accounting" argument as little PP would like us to believe. It was a scam. Or as one Conservative candidate, David Marler, who refused to take part, called it in his book Sixty-Six Said Yes: "money laundering".

This also involved many elected officials including cabinet ministers. The list includes Conservative MPs:

Maxime Bernier: Beauce
Sylvie Boucher: Beauport-Limoilou
Daniel Petit: Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles
Jacques Gourde: Lotbiniere-Chutes-de-la-Chaudiere
Dick Harris: Cariboo-Prince George
Jim Abbott: Kootenay-Columbia
David Anderson: Cypress Hills-Grasslands
Ron Cannan: Kelowna-Lake Country
Colin Mayes: Okanagan-Shuswap
Pat Davidson: Sarnia-Lambton

Cabinet Ministers who took part:

Stockwell Day: Okanagan-Coquihalla
Josee Verner: Louis-Saint-Laurent
Christian Paradis: Megantic-L'Erable
Lawrence Cannon: Pontiac
Jay Hill: Prince George-Peace River (now retired)

And when a committee was established to investigate the "accounting" issue, Stephen Harper told witnesses to ignore subpoenas and then simply shut the committee down.

Later there was a question whether or not the 17 Conservative MPs would be able to vote on the throne speech, but again, Harper abused his power and told them to vote anyway. Elections Canada was powerless until they could first lay charges, something Harper used every trick in the book to avoid happening.

If Elections Canada did exercise that power in this dispute, however, it would mean that as many as 17 MPs – including Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon and Heritage Minister Josée Verner, as well as chief party whip Jay Hill – would all be ineligible to vote on the throne speech.

The Tories shut down a Commons committee that tried to look into the controversy this month. "We do not respond to false allegations from the Liberal party," spokesperson Ryan Sparrow said yesterday.

Went right to the partisan attack suggesting that the Liberals were behind the whole thing. How insulting to Elections Canada, an agency that is well respected worldwide, even being invited to oversee elections in other countries with fragile democracies. I'm glad they are now being given an opportunity to clear their themselves.

And according to Bruce Cheadle: Tory election allegations ‘illegal’ not administrative, prosecutor says

A spokesman for the Director of Public Prosecutions said the charges relate to allegations of “illegal activity.” The four Conservative Party officials, Dan Brien said, “are not charged under the Criminal Code. They are Elections Act offences that are alleged. It's still illegal activity.”

Illegal activity. Not "administrative". Not an "accounting error". Illegal activity. The MPs, including cabinet ministers, and the two senators should step down. We are still paying their salaries, and they are still voting on important bills that affect Canadians.

They have no validity.

I Think I Might Finally Have the Hang of This YouTube Thing

This one came out much better. I have been drafting some ads that I will also put to video. Shorter and hopefully snappier. I'm going to fix the first one I did and then get to work. This is so much fun.

And after searching everwhere I have found a copy of David Lewis's Corporate Welfare Bums on Ebay. I can't wait until I get it. It was written decades ago but we are facing the same challenges today. Corporate welfare has escalated and Stephen Harper is trading away our sovereignty.

It's time for action.

Did the Conservatives Cheat or Are They Guilty of Criminal Activity?

The "In and Out" scandal is hitting the news again and new revelations show that the Conservatives passed off even more national spending to the riding level.

And again they are suing us, instead of finally answering to the Canadian people.

Pierre Poilievre is suggesting that past lawsuits vindicated them, but that is not true.

Pierre Poilievre, parliamentary secretary to Harper, was dismissive. "We disagree with Elections Canada on this matter," he said. He went on to note that "Elections Canada has been wrong in its classification of expenses" in the past.

"In fact, two courts have already ruled against Elections Canada in favour of the Conservative party." Poilievre was referring to a Conservative victory in a civil lawsuit launched by two Tory candidates in the in-and-out advertising case. However, the party is not entirely in the clear on that front yet.

Elections Canada and the party, for different reasons, have both appealed the court ruling. And the commissioner of elections is still conducting a separate criminal investigation into the in-and-out affair and has referred the matter to the director of public prosecutions, who is still considering whether to lay charges.

Many who got involved in the alleged swindle are sitting MPs, and several like Stockwell Day, Christian Paradis and Lawrence Cannon, are in cabinet.

Candidates who allegedly received disputed funds
The Canadian Press
Apr 21, 2008

QUEBEC
Suzanne Courville: Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel
Marie-Eve Helie-Lambert: Bas-Richelieu-Nicolet-Becancour
Maxime Bernier: Beauce
Sylvie Boucher: Beauport-Limoilou
Daniel Petit: Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles
Gary Caldwell: Compton-Stanstead
Jean-Marie Pineault: Drummond
Patrick Robert: Gatineau
Gilles Poirier: Hull-Aylmer
Andrea Paine: Lac-Saint-Louis
Jean-Serge Beauregard: Laurentides-Labelle
Steven Blaney: Levis-Bellechasse
Jacques Gourde: Lotbiniere-Chutes-de-la-Chaudiere
Luc Harvey: Louis-Hebert
Josee Verner: Louis-Saint-Laurent
Christian Paradis: Megantic-L'Erable
Yves Laberge: Montmorency-Charlevoix-Haute Cote Nord
Neil Martin Drabkin: Mount Royal
Allen Mackenzie: Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
Don Rae: Pierrefonds-Dollard
Lawrence Cannon: Pontiac
Howard Brule: Portneuf-Jacques Cartier
Frederik Boisvert: Quebec
Jean Landry: Richmond-Arthabaska
Ishrat Alam: Saint-Laurent-Cartierville
Jean Lambert: Shefford
Marc Nadeau: Sherbrooke

ONTARIO
Ian West: Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing
Theresa Rodrigues: Davenport
Steven Cage: Kitchener Centre
Dan Mailer: London-Fanshawe
Jurij Klufas: Parkdale-High Park
Pat Davidson: Sarnia-Lambton
Roxanne James: Scarborough Centre
David Leskowski: Thunder Bay-Rainy River
Ken Graham: Timmins-James Bay
Kren Clausen: Toronto-Danforth
Sam Goldstein: Trinity-Spadina
Richard Majkot: Vaughn
Al Teshuba: Windsor West
Steve Halicki: York South-Weston

BRITISH COLUMBIA
George Drazenovic: Burnaby-Douglas
Marc Dalton: Burnaby-New Westminster
Dick Harris: Cariboo-Prince George
Troy DeSouza: Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Ron Cannan: Kelowna-Lake Country
Jim Abbott: Kootenay-Columbia
Norm Sowden: Nanaimo-Cowichan
Colin Mayes: Okanagan-Shuswap
Stockwell Day: Okanagan-Coquihalla
Jay Hill: Prince George-Peace River
Elizabeth Pagtakhan: Vancouver East
Kanman Wong: Vancouver Kingsway

NEWFOUNDLAND
Aaron Hynes: Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor
Cyril Pelley: Humber-Ste-Barbe-Baie Verte
Joe Goudie: Labrador
Cynthia Downey: Random-Burin-St. George's

NOVA SCOTIA
Robert Campbell: Dartmouth-Cole Harbour
Andrew House: Halifax
Rakesh Khosla: Halifax West
MANITOBA
Helen Sterzer: Winnipeg Centre
Gareth McDonald: Winnipeg North

NEW BRUNSWICK
Omer Leger: Beausejour
Charles Doucet: Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe

SASKATCHEWAN
David Anderson: Cypress Hills-Grasslands
Jeremy Harrison: Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
George Noble: Malpeque

The Politics of Jabberwocky: As Canada Plummets Down the Rabbit Hole

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Watching Question Period, something I no longer do, is like stepping into a parallel universe, since the Harper government came to power. They perform like they are in opposition.

But even more than that, their performances are unusual. Almost frightening, as if something has possessed them. It's like a really bad play, that while it offends and leaves you embarrassed for the actors, also keeps you spellbound. Can this really be this bad? Will the plot finally be revealed that explains their actions? Will Canadians stand up and cheer when it reaches it's climax, or simply demand their money back?

In Lawrence Martin's new book Harperland, he explains why during Question Period, everything appears both robotic and chaotic at the same time. The performances of the Conservative MPs are pre-scripted and they actually hold "dress rehearsals" before the big show.

[Says adviser Keith Beardsley] "I'd throw the question out and the PM would be sitting there watching. And if the minister wasn't prepared, Harper knew it." The ministers had their own briefing books with preset answers. "But the last thing they wanted to do was to be frantically looking through their books with the prime minister staring at them.' When an iffy answer was given, Beardsley would look over at Harper with raised eyebrows, as if to say, "What do you think?" And Harper, he recalled, "would just shake his head like 'That's no damn good."' (1)

And according to David Emerson the Liberal MP who crossed the floor immediately after winning his seat as a Liberal:

"You'd go through a dry run as to what was going to be said, and the prime minister himself would intervene regularly to shape someone's response to an issue. And the discipline was amazing." So were the results. The prep session was remarkably accurate in forecasting what would be asked during Question Period. "You'd probably capture 90 percent of what was coming..."(1)

Now this would be admirable if the script dealt with the issue, but it does not. It only provides ammunition for an attack on the person asking the question.

It was clear from the start .. that all the prepping was not intended to produce candid answers to opposition queries. The strategy was not to reveal information but to shield it and counterattack ... Harper's cabinet had documented Liberal failures on every conceivable issue. On some days, the Tories turned almost all of the Opposition queries into a counterblast. All governments had used this tactic, but it soon became apparent that this government would exceed all others. The Conservatives didn't mind looking evasive. They didn't mind if it looked intellectually infantile to defend their own inadequacies by pointing to the inadequacies of others. (1)

I'm reminded of an incident when my children were younger. After calling his sister "stupid", my daughter responded to my son, with "well at least I'm not as stupid as you are". To which my brilliant boy fired back "You are so".

During the first year of Harper's government, one of their favourite responses to any question was the inclusion of "for the past thirteen years", referring to the length of unbroken Liberal reign.

But they got a little carried away, allowing it to exceed it's best before date, until NDP Pat Martin reminded them that they were now part of that "thirteen years". They never used it again.

I wonder how future historians will view this period, and what their impressions will be of the Harper government, after reading the transcripts? They will no doubt determine that this was a group who was functionally illiterate, intellectually depraved and categorically insane. How else could you explain it?

Wait! I know.

It's Pure Jabberwocky

Jabberwocky was the name of a poem of pure nonsense, included in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. I used to think that the Conservatives behaviour was like 'Lil Abner meets the Muppets', but then after reading Elizabeth May's description of their antics, that poem immediately came to mind.

You need a special dictionary to translate what the Harperites are trying to say. Some call it Orwellian, but I think that's too deep. Nope. It's pure Jabberwocky.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

Brillig is simply 4 o'clock, 'slithy' is 'lithe and slimy' 'Toves' are "something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews" (undefinable creatures), while "gyre and gimble," means to "rotate and bore". Mimsy is 'flimsy and miserable' 'borogove' a thin shabby-looking bird, 'Mome' means to seem 'grave' and 'outgrabe' is something between bellowing and whistling. So the translation:

’Twas 4 o'clock and the undefinable creatures
Did rotate and bore on their thistle;
So flimsy and miserable were these shabby birds,
That they gravely began to bellow and whistle.

Or as Elizabeth May says:

Heckling has become much more common over the last two decades or so ... [but] it has now become far worse. One unpleasant aspect to the current heckling is the willingness of the government front benches to engage in rude shouting across the floor. Bad behaviour used to be reserved for backbenchers who tended to remain rather anonymous in their interruptions. Even when such opposition heckling was notorious, as in the case of the famous Liberal "Rat Pack," it was by a scattering of MPs, not by an entire caucus and rarely, if ever, by government ministers. Under the current government, a number of ministers will initiate heckling across the floor. The prime minister himself does not stoop to it, although it is clear that he encourages a pit bull approach from his ministers on certain files. (2)

See. Jabberwocky. "Outgrabe" - bellowing and whistling.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

Jabberwock is "offspring". The Jubjub is "a desperate bird that lives in perpetual passion". Frumious is a combination of "fuming" and "furious", and Bandersnatch, "a swift moving creature with snapping jaws".

“Beware the horrible offspring, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that snare!
Beware the desperation, and shun
The snapping jaws of little Pierre!"

A perfect description of Pierre Poilievre. The little man-boy who struts around in perpetual passion, with jaws flapping and snapping. A perfect Bandersnatch. Belligerent and aggressive, Harper pulls him out when the questions get tough and they have no script.

He's been known to flip the bird, use profanity, and once even did a little pixie dance when the Speaker of the House was asking his caucus to settle down. (3)

He took his vorpal sword in hand:

Long time the manxome foe he sought—

So rested he by the Tumtum tree,

And stood awhile in thought.

Vorpal is "verbal" and "gospel", manxome "manly" and "buxom". Are you seeing Jason Kenney? I know the manly is debatable, but remember when he denied removing the protection of gays and lesbians from the citizenship guide, then ran out the door in tears? He was later forced to admit to his dirty deed, but running away with his buxom chest extended is his modus operandi.

"He took his Bible on tape in hand:
Looked into the mirror, the foe he sought—
Then rested he by the Tumtum tree,
In hopes that his nonsense they had bought!"

Jason Kenney to a tee.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

Uffish means "when the voice is gruffish, the manner roughish, and the temper huffish". Jabberwock another offspring. Tulgey is "thick, dense, dark". Burbled is "a mixture of the three verbs 'bleat', 'murmer', and 'warble'".

I know ... John Baird, right?

Grouph, rough and in a huff he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through thick, dense and dark,
Bleating and warbling as he came!

It is so much easier to understand what the Harper government is saying when you realize that it is Jabberwocky.

Like when Stephane Dion, then leader of the Opposition asked for information about press reports of the ill treatment of Afghan prisoners. Instead of answering the question, Stephen Harper responded in typical fashion.

Stephen Harper attacked Dion and questioned why he cared more about the Taliban than our own soldiers. [March 21, 2007]. I actually felt the air being squashed from my lungs, so deep was my shock at this answer from the prime minister: "I can understand the passion that the Leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for Taliban prisoners. I just wish occasionally they would show the same passion for Canadian soldiers." (2)

"T'was late in March when the slithy tove,
Did gyre and gimble in the House;
And mimsy were his arguments,
His outgrabe that of a louse."

It's easy really. Jaberwocky. It doesn't have to make sense, and clearly it never does.

But maybe Alice says it best: 'It seems very pretty, but it's rather hard to understand! Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas— only I don't exactly know what they are! However, somebody killed something: that's clear, at any rate.'


Previous:

The Politics of Contempt: The Nixon-Harper Ticket

The Politics of Hate: Where Will it Lead?

The Politics of Conceit: "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better"

The Politics of Opportunity: Election Tampering


Sources:

1. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 44-45

2. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 70

3. It's time to ask: Is Poilievre fit to hold public office? By Randall Denley, The Ottawa Citizen, June 15, 2008

Pierre Poilievre Has Meltdown Because he was Expected to Play by the Rules

Little PP made an ass of himself once again. Upset that security refused to bow to his greatness, but made him wait like everyone else, he had a hissy fit, called for his mommy and stormed off.

What a little creep.

CTV News says the prime minister’s parliamentary secretary is being investigated over a potential security breach on Parliament Hill. It says Pierre Poilievre, an Ottawa-area MP, was waiting in line to drive through a
security gate on Tuesday.

CTV says Poilievre became impatient, jumped out of his car and pushed the entrance button without waiting for security to inspect his vehicle. It’s a clear violation of security rules and CTV says the RCMP is investigating. Poilievre says he has apologized, but CTV is reporting he only did so after the network rejected pleas by Conservatives not to run the story.

The RCMP is investigating.

The RCMP is investigating a security breach on Parliament Hill, allegedly by Pierre Poilievre, the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister ... Everyone entering Parliament Hill must pass through security, including elected officials.

Oh but Pierre wasn't elected. He was anointed.

So Stephen Harper Was Going to Go See the Queen

In Lawrence Martin's new book: Harperland, we learn that had Stephen Harper not been granted his wish to prorogue Parliament in December of 2008, he would have gone above the head of the Governor General and gone to the Queen.

It's inexcusable that a prime minister would be so ignorant of the Canadian parliamentary system.

The Queen would have done nothing. The Letters Patent state: And We do further authorize and empower Our Governor General to exercise all powers lawfully belonging to Us in respect of summoning, proroguing or dissolving the Parliament of Canada.

The GG had the final say.

He hated that there was someone with more power in this country than he.

Pierre Poilievre Reminds us of Why the Reformers Must Go

"While alleging to work within legal boundaries, they worked to undermine the parliamentary system and foment disorder. As obstructionists, they regularly disrupted proceedings with vulgar and rowdy behavior, if they didn’t boycott them."

No that was not written about the Reform-Conservative movement, though it could have been.

It was written about the Brown Shirts who helped to bring Adolf Hitler to power, though it's a tactic as old as the hills, usually followed by a food fight.

If you want to deflect attention you resort to animalistic behaviour and Pierre Poilievre has mastered it. This may have been a page taken from Stephen Harper's 200 page manual on how to make sure that Parliamentary committees can't function , but little PP made a complete ass of himself.

At issue was staffer Ryan Sparrow's attempt to withhold the fact that Stephen Harper spent five million dollars of our money promoting himself during the Olympics.

And the little pit-bull Poilievre was acting so badly that several times they were forced to turn off his microphone. And yet we are paying him an enormous salary to protect our money from being wasted in such a matter. It's pretty clear that this little Brown Shirt does not work for us.

Obstruct, distract and ignore was the strategy adopted by the Conservative government today at a Commons ethics committee hearing on Access to information.

Tory MPs attempted to block testimony and when that didn’t work they threw softball questions at the witness. Pierre Poilievre, known for his attack-dog nature, also took on the committee chair, Liberal Paul Szabo, after he called Mr. Poilievre out-of-order on several occasions.

It was a tense meeting; at times it was awkward. The chair twice ordered Mr. Poilievre’s microphone be shut off.

John Baird, Pierre Poilievre and the Ottawa Taxpayer Advocacy Group

The City of Ottawa was recently named the best city to live in Canada:

Ottawa's great economy, low crime rate and steady population growth put the city back on top as the best place to live in Canada, according to rankings released Thursday by MoneySense magazine.

You would think given that, people in Ottawa would be proud and perhaps congratulate their government for a job well done.

I'm sure many do, and have, but not a new group of rabble rousers calling themselves the Ottawa Taxpayer Advocacy Group. They claim to be non-partisan but their leader, Ade Olumide, was a candidate for the Conservatives in 2006, and their battle cry parrots most neo-con groups associated with Stephen Harper "The Silent Majority is Silent No More"

Stephen Harper was always speaking up for the muzzled Canadians. Now he muzzles everyone else, but whatever.

In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking "for the silent majority" of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war, Harper said. "Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive," the Canadian Alliance leader says.

Ironically most of these "silent" groups are pretty noisy, but what is this really about?

I've read their quotes in newspaper articles and perused their website and they are just another cut taxes, reduce the size of government, bust unions and privatize until Canada has nothing left, advocacy group, for the Conservative Party of Canada and Tim Hudak's Neo-cons.

They raised a flap when Ottawa's buses refused to allow their advertisement attacking the bus drivers union, to be driven around the city. If I could get John Baird and Pierre Poilievre to wear T-Shirts with my ads 'I'm with stupid' pointing at each other, I'd gladly pay, but I suppose that wouldn't be fair.

And speaking of the gruesome twosome, they've both spoken at the group's functions. I think they were billed as 'An Evening at Yuk Yuks with The Ottawa Taxpayer Advocacy Group', because I laughed and laughed.

Federal Transport Minister John Baird waded into Ottawa civic politics on Sunday, blasting municipal officials for what he said were a misplaced sense of priorities. Baird, the MP for Ottawa West-Nepean, told an audience from a taxpayer advocacy group Ottawa's city hall has a history of wasting money.

"There are some people who can't make priorities," he told a Sunday audience gathered to hear potential municipal candidates in Ottawa's upcoming election.

Considering that Baird's government is on record as spending the most amount of money since any government before them, and he himself has created such an accounting nightmare in his department that it may be years before it's sorted, I don't really think he should be judging anyone else's spending habits.

MP Pierre Poilievre applauded OTAG as a counter-balance to special interest groups which, he said, apply pressure on governments to spend more money on programs. A special interest group getting praised for dissing special interest groups. He is funny.

I'll bet it would be neat to follow the money here though wouldn't it, because they sure have a bunch of it. Not to worry though they are non-profit ... and of course non-partisan.

Advocacy groups are important and if they were genuinely concerned with the people of Ottawa, they would offer better solutions than simply no tax hikes and reduce their staff by 10%. And if they were really non-partisan they wouldn't have two of the loudest mouths of the neoconservative movement speaking for the "silent majority".

Maybe I'll try to follow the money with these guys, something our media should be doing before quoting them all over the place. Just a thought.

Top Ten Reasons Why I Want to be a Lobbyist With Harper's Reformers

Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch sent me an excellent link yesterday outlining the many flaws in our system and how easy it is to exploit them. His organization has been trying to keep government clean for years, with the emphasis on trying.

The Helena Guergis/Rahim Jaffer drama that is unfolding is just the icing on the cake for the Reformers though, because the warning signs were always there.

For me the first sign was when Harper brought in the Mike Harris flunkies, John Baird, Jim Flaherty and Tony Clement. (Helena Guergis was an administrative assistant for the Harris government so she knows how the games are played) I remember thinking that maybe we should just give them all our money, and they'd go easy on us.

These guys were behind every shady deal in the book. In fact Mike Harris was forced to resign after being caught in the shade, in an out of the way restaurant, claiming that he just happened to be the neighbourhood.

Sign two was when Harper put John Baird in charge of drafting an Accountability Act and then sending Pierre Poilievre into the arms of Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, the man Rolling Stone Magazine dubbed one of the ten worst congressman:

Sensenbrenner, whose $10 million fortune stems from his great-grandfather's invention of the Kotex sanitary napkin, won $250,000 in the lottery in 1997. He also enjoys the perks of office: No congressman has racked up more frequent-flier miles on junkets sponsored by corporate lobbyists ....

He is also notorious for hiding things in bills, mostly involving the removal of human rights. He was behind the Patriot Act and when Congress refused to extend it because Americans wanted their civil liberties back, he stomped out in a huff. So I guess we know what they were hoping to learn from Jimmy boy.

So let's do a David Letterman top ten reasons why I want to be a lobbyist in the hallowed halls of Harper's government. Or actually the lobbies. Seeing thousands of snapshots of the big guy would freak me out. Far too Big Brotherish.

It used to have some paintings on the wall. Past prime ministers, certainly a formal portrait of the Queen. Landscapes. I know there was the occasional photo of current Prime Ministers, but when I walked in this time, I felt chilled to the bone. Every available wall space had a large colour photo of Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper at Alert. Stephen Harper in fire fighter gear. Stephen Harper at his desk. Stephen Harper meeting the Dalai Lama. Even the photo of the Queen showed her in the company of Stephen Harper. None were great photos. None were more than enlarged snapshots in colour. They didn’t feel like art.

Top Ten Reasons Why I Want to be a Lobbyist for Harper's Reformers

10. They are so easily bought. Host a fundraiser for Lisa Raitt and provide box seats at a Blue Jays game with all the perks for Rick Dykstra and you can write your own cheque.

9. And speaking of writing your own cheque, they cut out the middle man. Just ask Phizer. Instead of having to lobby they just make you an employee.

8. Need a lobbyist but too lazy to hire one? Not problem. Brian Jean can provide you with a member of his staff. Instant lobbyist, just add water .. or cash.

Breaking the rules of his own accountability act, he removes Erin Wall, assistant to Brian Jean, Member of Parliament and Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. (aka John Baird) and sends her to work for Global Public Affairs. Ms Wall is then registered as a lobbyist for the Houston based International Commodity Export Corporation, the largest beneficiary of government subsidies to the [Ridley] terminals. You will notice here that her appointment took place on June 19, 2009; just before the firing of Dan Veniez, and on the same day that ICEC underwent a name change to give it the appearance of a Canadian company.

7. And bored lobbyists can always get a job with the PMO where you can straddle the fence and hope you don't fall off. Just ask Kory Teneycke.

6. Obtaining military contracts is as easy as 1, 2, 3. Harper's first defense minister, Gordon O'Connor went right from being a lobbyist for military contracts to being the person awarding military contracts. But then that whole torture, lying thing got in the way of a perfectly good business. Not to worry though. I'm sure he passed off his Rolodex.

5. For a little bit of infused patriotism with a group called Canadians for Afghanistan, you can be sure those military contracts never end:

The Canadians For Afghanistan website lists its main contact as Josh McJannett, a former Conservative staffer who worked for government whip Jay Hill until September. He had previously worked as an aide to Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer. After leaving the Hill, Mr. McJannett* became a lobbyist with Summa Strategies, an Ottawa government-relations firm that counts some defence contractors, including U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing, among its clients. Canadians for Afghanistan was formed a few months later.

4. You get to arrange YouTube "live" videos of Stephen Harper with a little Google-a-go-go

Meaghan Rusnell: Legislative assistant to MP Rick Dykstra .. left the Hill in 2008 and began lobbying with Playbook Communications, a Toronto-based firm with Tory ties. She listed as clients Google Inc. and the Economic Club of Canada

3. If you're a poor corporation down on your luck at a time when Canadians are out of work and down on theirs, you can be sure that your 25 million dollar revenue is safe with these guys:

What we do know, when we see it, is big time corporate subsidy seeking, backroom politics, scheming lobbyists and cabinet ministers throwing their weight around to satisfy the big time corporate interests. In this case, the corporate interests include the B. C. and Alberta coal industries, whose coal production flows through Ridley Terminals. The political players include two Conservative cabinet ministers, House Leader Jay Hill and Transport Minister Rob Merrifield.

2. Lobbying for a private school was never easier with Diamond Jim Flaherty. If Sensenbrenner taught these guys anything it was how to hide stuff in bills.

1. And my number one reason for wanting to be a lobbyist for Harper's Reformers. You get to play revolving door until you're dizzy. It's better than Prozac. But if you need a little Prozac, have I got a lobbyist for you.

* Josh McJannet has indicated to me that he is no longer with Canadians for Afghanistan.

So We're Expecting John Baird to Make Sense Now?

As much as it annoys the hell out me every time I hear someone in the media talking about
Harper's Reformers being secretive after promising transparency, I must admit that their expecting John Baird to make sense, gave me a chuckle.

And then it annoyed the hell out of me.

They should realize by now that there never was an accountability act and there was never any intention of producing an accountability act. Sure there were a few words on paper, but they were mostly just four letter words. Lots of them. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ....

My first clue, besides the Republican Pollster Frank Lutz's advice to Harper on how to get a majority: preach accountability, flap about lowering taxes and tap into national symbols like hockey; was the fact that little PP got instructions for this so called accountability act from Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner.

Yikes. What Bernard Madoff wasn't available?

The Conservatives are considering an American-style law that would pay a bounty to a whistleblower who sues a company that defrauds the federal government or wastes taxpayers' money. Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, who is overseeing the Harper government's whistleblower reforms, is meeting with U.S. legislators in Washington over the next several days to see if the U.S. False Claims Act can be adapted to Canada as part of the much-touted Federal Accountablity Act.

In Washington, Mr. Poilievre is meeting with Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, who chairs the House Committee on the Judiciary, as well as officials from the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, to explore whether employees in security agencies should be excluded from whistleblower laws. He will also be briefed on the Bush administration's Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Act -- known as the No Fear Act -- which came into force in 2003 to make departments more accountable for violations of anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws.

A monetary reward for whistleblowers is one of the six reforms Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised during the electin campaign to beef up the Liberals' whistleblower bill.

So who's Jim Sensenbrenner?

On April 26, 2005, it was widely reported that Sensenbrenner has had lobbyists pay for his transportation, a violation of congressional rules. His total travel expenses are higher than any other congressman

Although the devastation inflicted by Hurricane Katrina and the inadequate government response to the disaster is expected to cause further economic misery for the poor residents of New Orleans and other affected areas, Congressman Sensenbrenner has refused to allow victims of the hurricane to enjoy any exception to the recent Bankruptcy Reform, a recent bill passed with widespread support of the banking industry that aims to make it more difficult for consumers to declare bankruptcy. "If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply," Sensenbrenner said.

Sensenbrenner held an important role in the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, acting as one of the House managers.

Sensenbrenner believes in criminal prosecution of broadcasters and cable operators who violate decency standards as opposed to the current Federal Communications Commission regulatory methods.

His revolving door lobby

He won "jerk of the week" honours for denying global warming

And remember NAFTAgate when Stephen Harper tried to derail Obama's campaign? It was Sensenbrenner's son Frank who was behind it.

Frank Sensenbrenner, the one-time Young Republican fundraiser now at the epicentre of a scandal over a leaked Canadian memo which wounded Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama, was always a poor fit at the Canadian embassy. The ambassador, Michael Wilson, didn't want him there.

The diplomatic corps on Pennsylvania Ave. didn't want him there and ultimately were so distrustful of the son of a right-wing Republican congressman, they muttered that they wanted his door left open so they could hear who he was talking to.

But officials in Stephen Harper's office wanted him there and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day particularly wanted him there, based on Sensenbrenner's long links, dating back to school days, with the former Reform party, the precursor of today's government in Ottawa

The Republicans aren't out of office, they're just now in Stephen Harper's office, teaching 'accountability' ... to John Baird and little PP. Crafting clever lobbying loopholes so convoluted we may never know where our money is. While Alykhan Velshi is telling Canadians who and who can't come to this country and talk.

Anyway, the net result of this relatively little-known loophole is this: Even if a minister "quietly designates" his parliamentary secretary as "the government's exclusive gatekeeper" for a particular grant or contribution program -- which, according to the Hill Times, was what Transport Minister John Baird did by "tasking" Brian Jean with "identifying potential projects ... and candidates ... to be considered for the Green Infrastructure Fund ... and forwarding them to the department for evaluation" -- there is currently no way to find out which companies, or consultant lobbyists, may have come knocking on that gatekeeper's office door.

Which, I have to say, doesn't seem quite as transparent a system as one would, perhaps, expect to see in what Pierre Poilievre is so fond of reminding us was supposed to be the "toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history." What, for instance, is to stop a minister from designating his or her parliamentary secretary as the contact point for all lobbyists, which would allow any subsequent discussions to flourish unfettered by any obligation to report all registrable interactions? Pretty much nothing, as far as I can tell, although as the aforementioned staffer pointed out, it's their job to enforce the law as it stands.

Maybe Mark Foley could get Jason Kenney a date:

The "In and Out" is Not Dealt With Despite What Poilievre Thinks

The judge has ruled in the case of two Ref-Con candidates whose claims for rebates had been denied, because of irregularities in the election funding scheme, dubbed the "In and Out".

Pierre Poilievre immediately stated that the matter was settled.

Not so fast Pierre. The matter is far from settled.

Because the legality of the actual scheme had not yet been determined, Elections Canada could not withhold rebates. However, should they pursue this further, and I believe they will, anyone claiming a rebate might still be in trouble.

Remember that several were suspicious from the start.

As Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch explains:

The Federal Court ruling today dodged the issue of the legality of the Conservatives’ 2006 federal election ad spending scheme issue even more than Aaron hints at, as the ruling went in favour of the candidates only because the basis of the “balance of convenience” principle means that they should be reimbursed for their full expenses now because the legality of the scheme is yet to be determined.

So, in order to have the issue of the legality of the scheme ruled upon by the courts, Elections Canada must proceed with a prosecution through the Director of Public Prosecutions, and/or an appeal of today’s ruling to the Federal Court of Appeal.

In the meantime, based on this ruling and to save court resources, Elections Canada should reimburse all expenses to all the candidates who participated in the scheme (again, while at the same time prosecuting them all).

It is in the public interest to have the legality of the scheme ruled upon by the courts so that everyone will know what is legal for the next, and future, federal elections, so hopefully Elections Canada will appeal and/or proceed with a prosecution.

Conservatives Refuse to Apologize for Bullet Hole Photo on Website

If you go on the Reform Conservative website today they still have a horrendous photo of Stephane Dion with bullet holes in the wall behind him and a line up of suspects below.

It is very tacky, and despite many complaints, they still flaunt it with glee.

This was approved by the party and obviously seen many times by Harper, yet they continue to display it. What kind of people would promote this kind of thing?

Ironically, as part of a photo shop campaign, there appeared very briefly a photo of Stephen Harper in the Oswald assassination scene, before being removed as inappropriate. This was not designed by any Liberal staffer, as the horrible Conservative designed Dion assassination attempt above.

But obviously to try and deflect attention from the Detaineee issue and bumbling in Copenhagen, the Reformers have gotten themselves into a right flap.

Jeff Jedras mentions the hypocrisy on his blog after a heated radio appearance, and of course little Pee Pee got in on the action:

Everyone's favourite Conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre, weighs-in (I guess he didn't get the talking-points from the PMO not to comment):

But Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre called on Ignatieff to deliver a direct apology for the shocking photos.

"This disturbing picture appeared on the official Liberal party website and Michael Ignatieff is responsible for the actions of his party," he said. "Mr. Ignatieff should do the honourable thing."

Just for fun, here's Pierre a few weeks ago on accusing MPs of supporting anti-semitism:

Federal Conservatives say Liberal MP Irwin Cotler is pretending to play the victim as he attempts to wring an apology for a flyer they sent to his riding that he says accuses him of being anti-Semitic.

Quoting a conservative columnist, Tory MP Pierre Poilievre told a Commons committee on Tuesday that politicians live to be unjustly accused of something because “the opportunities to play victim are too tempting.”“I think that puts some of this into its proper context,” Mr. Poilievre said.

Reform-Conservative Pierre Poilievre Has Exposed a Secret Plan

A CBC producer received a strange phone call from Pierre Poilievre's office, putting out feelers for an election (which they want so bad), and hinting at a coalition. What was strange though, and sadly typical of this party's obsession with Michael Ignatieff, is that they only ever use his name. All the others are simply parties.

I can't believe that politics has stooped to this level, but to suggest that there is an 'Ignatieff/NDP/Bloc' coalition in the works, while the Harper government is being propped up by 'socialists', is nuts. If they continue with this insanity, they could reverse their recent gains in the polls. Take a deep breath little PP. You haven't won anything yet.

Ring! Ring! Good Evening ... Um, You Want An Election?
October 8, 2009
By Andrew Davidson
CBC News

So, there's this phone, see? And this phone just so happened to belong to a CBC producer in Ottawa. And last night, just as it was born to do, it RANG!

On the other end was an actual non-recorded human voice -- male -- conducting a poll on behalf of her local Conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre. Curious, she participated in the poll, which was clearly trying to gauge her interest in an election now and who she'd support -- while ever-so-subtly reminding her about the home renovation tax credit and federal infrastructure money to build the Strandherd Bridge in her riding, brought to her by the Harper government. (Brought to you by a 56 billion dollar deficit and counting)

The pollster was very quick and unscientific didn't ask her name, age or occupation, she said.

Said CBC producer also found the language used by the pollster interesting. He didn't use the word "Liberal," but used Michael Ignatieff's name. But when the pollster referred to the other parties, he did so by party name.

He also asked if she'd support the "Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc coalition" and was unresponsive when she asked him about the current Conservative-NDP interlude/bromance/whatchamacallit in the House of Commons."Really no sense of humour with these guys," our producer said.

Is Blake Richards Competing with Baird and Poilievre as Biggest Self Promotor?

When Blake Richards, the Member of Parliament for Wild Rose Alberta, came to my backyard in Kingston Ontario, distributing taxpayer funded attacks ads; I visited his backyard, and what a mess.

This self-promoter could sure give John Baird and Pierre Poilievre a run for their money.

In fact if you read Poilievre's Wikipedia that he updates every few minutes (last time today) and Blake Richards' (last time July 28), they sound pretty much the same, focusing on 'charity work', committees and the like.

Richards was involved in a hockey game, which raised funds for his local community. This is a good thing and can be found in his local media if you google it. But is this a necessary part of his Wiki bio? It's not like he found a cure for cancer or heaven forbid, made an attempt to stop wasting our tax dollars (I had to throw that in because I'm so tired of these tax funded attack ads)

Swedish philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg once said that “True charity is the desire to be useful to others without thought of recompense” If Poilievre and Richards seek recompense in the form of political brownie points, it reduces their 'altruism' to simple narcissism.

All politicians engage regularly in charity work. It helps raise their profile in their communities, and creates a rapport with their constituents. However, cutting and pasting from your website to make yourself good is a little tacky.

But hang in their Blake. Maybe you'll steal the crown from John Baird and become Hill Times biggest self-promoter. Just think. Something new to add to your Wiki Wacki profile.

Josee Verner Says 'You'll Watch What I Tell You to Watch'

I don't know if Josee Verner herself is this narrow minded or if she's just like all Conservative women. Good little girls who do what the big boys tell them to do. Was this why she so easily agreed to become involved in an alleged money laundering scheme that she is yet to be accountable for? (nothing has been proven in court and won't be until this matter is allowed to be heard in court. The Conservatives still declare they did nothing wrong)

However, her defense of arbitrary Bill C-210, sure shows her inadequacies.

This got buried in the last budget, courtesy of Harper's pal, Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, who taught them all the dirty tricks he knows, and believe me, he's a master.

Pierre Poilievre had a little rendezvous with the man to learn how to pretend to have an Accountability Act, while hosing taxpayers, and look how well that's going.

Six Questions: Sex, Tax and Bill C-10
April 30, 2008
Jeanette Lee

In February 2008, members of the Canadian film and TV industry publicly denounced amendments to the Income Tax Act contained in Bill C-10, Dlabeling them "censorship." Director David Cronenberg was quoted in Xtra.ca, an online magazine, as calling the provisions an assault on freedom of expression, and the source of potential catastrophe to financing a film "because the whole thing would fall apart like a house of cards." Minister of Canadian Heritage Josée Verner rebuffed the censorship claims, asserting that Bill C-10 has nothing to do with censorship and its goal "is to ensure public trust in how tax dollars are spent."

Why the fuss? This six-question primer covers key and background points in the current controversy over Bill C-10.

1. WHAT?

Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, amends the definition of "Canadian film or video production certificate" in subsection 125.4(1) of the Income Tax Act. A production must receive a Canadian film or video production certificate in order to qualify for certain federal tax credits administered by the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office (CAVCO).

Under the changes, a "Canadian film or video production certificate" will mean a certificate issued in respect of a production by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, certifying that the production is a Canadian film or video production in respect of which that minister is satisfied that certain criteria have been met concerning revenue share, and that "public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy [emphasis added]." This ‘public policy’ provision is the source of the controversy.

The heritage minister has stated that Bill C-10’s public policy provision will address "only the most extreme and gratuitous material." News reports speculate that criteria for denying tax credits could include grounds such as gratuitous violence, excessive sex, significant sexual content that lacks an educational purpose, or denigration of an identifiable group.

In fact, the language of Bill C-10 provides no explanation of the criteria according to which a film could be considered, in the heritage minister’s discretion, "contrary to public policy." Bill C-10 also provides that the heritage minister shall issue guidelines under which a film or video production would satisfy the criteria. The bill expressly states that the guidelines will not be statutory instruments under the Statutory Instruments Act (and therefore not governed by the process of review and public comment afforded to regulations).

At the time of writing of this article, the heritage minister had not released any guidelines nor given precise indications of their content, despite urging from members of the film and TV industry.

On April 2, 2008, the Department of Finance reportedly argued, before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, that the criteria for offensive film and TV productions should not be included in the legislation or its regulations — the court could void regulations due to vagueness but were likely to be more lenient with criteria contained in guidelines.

Minister of Canadian Heritage Josée Verner (now James Moore. I have no idea what Josee is doing these days but it doesn't appear to be much) also appeared before the Senate banking committee, stating that Canadian Heritage would not apply the public policy provision until 12 months after Bill C-10 received royal assent. In addition, she invited input from the film and TV industry on the development of the guidelines. Members of the industry have subsequently voiced concerns about being involved in the development of censorship guidelines, since they are opposed to their very concept.

WHEN?

The bill was passed by the House of Commons with all-party support (hidden in the budget) on October 29, 2007. It received its second reading in the Senate on December 4, 2007. At the time of writing this article, the Senate banking committee was conducting hearings on Bill C-10, and concerned parties were appearing before the committee.

WHERE?

The bill must undergo its third and final reading in the Senate. The Senate banking committee delayed a third and final reading of Bill C-10 in late February 2008, when public criticism of the bill erupted, putting the matter on hold until April 2008.

WHO?

Objectors within the industry include a wide range of groups and individuals, including directors, actors and politicians who have publicly voiced opposition to the bill. Groups expressing concern or lobbying to challenge the bill include ACTRA (Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists), the Writers Guild of Canada, the Directors Guild of Canada, and the Canadian Film and Television Production Association.

WHY?

A similar "public policy" provision was proposed in draft regulations to the Income Tax Act in 2003 by then Liberal Heritage Minister Sheila Copps. Ms. Copps was quoted in various press reports as explaining that the intention of her proposed provisions was to establish "reverse onus" for producers of extremely objectionable material, and to give the heritage minister discretion to prevent a film from receiving a tax credit in extreme cases.

The 2003 proposal arose in response to the film Karla about the lives of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, and the hypothetical scenario where a film such as Karla might be eligible for tax credits had it been produced in Canada. However, the Income Tax Regulations enacted in 2005 did not contain the provision granting ministerial discretion to deny tax credits to films considered contrary to public policy.

The motivation for the Conservative government’s inclusion of the public policy provision in Bill C-10 is unclear. Traditionally, the tax credits have been highly labour-driven, designed to encourage producers to hire Canadians using relatively objective criteria that award points to a production based on Canadians hired for key positions. Current regulations already exclude content such as pornography, news, reality television, game shows, talk shows, corporate video and advertising.

HOW?

The affected federal tax credits are not the only source of funding available to film and TV producers. Other direct and indirect sources are available from federal, provincial and private sources, including Telefilm Canada (also administered under Canadian Heritage), banks, provincial tax credit programs and other private financiers. Practically, however, CAVCO tax credits and Canadian Program certification are often critical components to secure funding for Canadian productions. Consider that:

Domestic film and TV productions typically apply and may obtain subsidies at the script stage, but refundable tax credits are subsequently applied for and received after completion of principal photography.

Domestic productions often rely on funding from more than one source. Other sources of funding may base their funds or advances to the producer on the expectation or condition that the federal tax credit and certification as a Canadian Program by CAVCO will be received.

A producer (or financiers) therefore will not know if a production is unacceptable until after it has been shot, monies have been spent and the reviewing committee has reviewed the film and rendered a decision, should it choose to do so.

Producers who are denied tax credits could face a great risk of exposure to repay financiers whose grants or advances (e.g., Telefilm Canada, bank and distribution advances, etc.) were based on anticipated tax credits. This could potentially result in business or personal bankruptcy for the producer.

The public policy provision may not affect foreign productions shooting in Canada that receive CAVCO-administered federal tax credits but are not considered "Canadian" productions. Canadian Heritage representatives have argued that such tax credits are intended to encourage investment based on spending in Canada and not on content.

Supporters of the public policy provision claim it is only fair that public monies not be used to support the production of offensive content, and that nothing stops producers of such content from making their projects using other funding.

Opponents of the amendments raise numerous concerns, including:

the importance of the tax credit and Canadian program certification to financing arrangements;
the lack of clarity about who will decide what norms are "contrary to public policy";
the lack of guidelines or criteria;
the discretionary nature of how review and decisions will be exercised;
the volatile and practical effect of the timing and subjectivity of decisions;
the resulting inability of producers to secure adequate financing for their productions; and, of course,
the aftertaste of censorship.

Banks may be discouraged from providing the necessary loans to edgier, riskier productions if the projects may not be eligible for the tax credits on such subjective terms.

If the guidelines are put in place, some opponents argue self-censorship will result — writers and producers will write to the guidelines in order to ensure tax credits are received so the production can be made. Either way, they argue, the end result may be a freeze on the artistic expression of edgy, unique Canadian voices in film and TV.

Bill C-10 may be law but our fight isn't over
Public Service Alliance of Canada
March 13, 2009

Our parliamentary democracy continues to be tarnished with the passage into law of another Conservative omnibus budget bill. Unable to accept their position as a minority government, the Conservatives have chosen, once again, to ram through legislation completely unrelated to the budget without time for proper scrutiny.

Bill C-10 is full of poison pills including wage roll-backs, a new pay equity law for federal public sector workers that is anything but, watered down environmental protection of our navigable waters and considerable loosening of foreign investment limits, among many other changes.

At the same time, the budget and its stimulus measures provide virtually no help for social infrastructure such as child care or for industries and jobs that are not “shovel ready”.

The Conservatives' callous use of the unemployed to get its budget bill passed – the extra five week's of benefits only become effective once the bill becomes law – is reprehensible, as is their refusal to fix the system to allow more workers, particularly women, to access the benefits they have been paying for and to provide a reasonable level of benefits. They even reinforced this position when they recently voted against an opposition motion to improve EI. The motion passed but the government will take no action.

The Harper government had a choice. They could have introduced a budget that was just a budget. There was absolutely no reason to include such a wide range of legislative changes in the budget bill, changes that would normally have been introduced as separate pieces of legislation with sufficient time for proper scrutiny by the House of Commons and the Senate. Instead the Conservatives chose to abuse our parliamentary democracy.

More than 550 pages of a bill have been given Royal Assent and have become law. I doubt very few of our MPs and Senators can tell you the extent of Bill C-10, much less what impact it will have on us, our economy, our environment and our country.

C-10 became law but not without a valiant effort by our members and staff who met with, phoned, e-mailed and petitioned both MPs and Senators; who demonstrated and made their opposition known; who joined with women's groups, the unemployed and other concerned citizens to protest against the ugliest features of this bill. I thank you for everything that you have done.

PSAC will continue its fight against unjust legislation. Challenging bad law in the courts is one avenue. But legal action isn't enough. We all need to talk to our family, friends and neighbours and to connect with others in our community who believe that what this government is doing is unjust and undemocratic. We need to continue the pressure on our MPs to bring them to account. We need to be prepared for the next election. And we need to start this now.

John GordonPSAC National President

Jacques Gourde Joins Poilievre and Petit as Dishonourable Members of Parliament

We may have been disgusted with Daniel Petit when he gave the finger in the House of Commons, or with just about everything that Pierre Poilievre does, but Conservative MP Jacques Gourde, showed that he can be just as obnoxious as his colleagues.

Another MP who should have the 'Honourable' removed from his title; he too gave an inappropriate gesture when he found he had nothing intelligent to say.

Soon these guys won't even need talking notes. They can just flip and flap like a goose in heat, to make their point.

MPs fuss over obscene gesture
Obscene gestures in the House of Commons had the Liberals and Tories at each other's throats Wednesday, with the opposition calling for the heads of a pair of MPs for bad behaviour.
CanWest News Service
June 15, 2006

OTTAWA - Obscene gestures in the House of Commons had the Liberals and Tories at each other's throats Wednesday, with the opposition calling for the heads of a pair of MPs for bad behaviour.

The schoolyard-style spat was sparked by rude gestures made by Conservatives Jacques Gourde and Pierre Poilievre during a vote on a motion to protect Canadian dairy products on Tuesday night.

While both MPs later apologized, the Liberals remained miffed, and demanded Prime Minister Steven Harper sanction Gourde and Poilievre who are parliamentary secretaries to the agriculture minister and the Treasury Board president, respectively.

'' these actions were not simply insulting to Parliament, but showed contempt and disrespect for all Canadians in this institution,'' Liberal Leader Bill Graham said.

We've got to start demanding better. We pay them a very good salary and we expect them to act like adults. If they can't do that they need to be removed.

Back to: The Jacques Gourde Story: He Does Better at Pantomime