RANDOM FIRE

The Conservatives under Stephen Harper have mastered the buckshot approach to governing, with their omnibus bills and continuous fire at their rivals on the horizon. When it comes to cementing misinformation and dishonest stories, they've spread the news, and good.
As we head into the key debate portion of the Liberal leadership race, it would be cool if more members of our blogosphere teammates would keep an open mind when it comes to what candidates have to say and propose.
I'm a proponent of the current supply management policy that has been Canadian government operations for many, many years. That doesn't mean I'm going to hector Martha Hall Finlay when she speaks her piece. I don't necessarily agree that Canada's telecommunication industry should be opened further to foreign investors; but I've got lots of time to listen to Marc Garneau.
When I hear a revered blogger like C4SR continue to catcall Justin Trudeau because the MP for Papineau has said that the long gun registry is dead and was a failure, I'm wondering exactly what C4SR is trying to achieve.
Does he want the long gun registry re-deployed? If so, which party and which leader is standing up for that exact thing? While it was through massive lies and falsified facts, the CONs under Stephen Harper have convinced Canadians that the registry was a waste of money and was poor policy. A majority of Canadians want stronger gun control but when push comes to shove, it is an issue that does not mobilize voters. Admittedly, a successful registry produces fewer victims, thus fewer tragic headlines, which are things that are hard to quantify. No one is running newspaper stories about "Jane Doe is alive today because her husband didn't have ready access to a long gun"... The CONs lied -- Sheila Fraser demonstrated that. We can agree that Canadian police chiefs, first responders, victim services and women's support groups all wanted the long gun registry saved -- but Canadians are not marching in the streets in solidarity, unfortunately.
If Trudeau was talking about how the past and current governments failed to demonstrate how the gun registry was working, and how it failed to galvanize support over the years under the barrage of CON lies, he was correct. Marc Garneau also says there will be no returning to a long gun registry if he was to be elected Liberal leader -- because he knows that would be a sure-fire vote loser. Even the NDP straddled the line between support and apathy towards the registry, because it saved lives -- their own.
In suburban centres and ridings, I believe we can find something towards an agreement about gun control -- but that is not Canada. Certainly as someone who talks from the Prairies, C4SR understands the divisiveness that this issue has played in the past -- especially when it is manipulated by those with less than honourable intentions. Trudeau, and to a lesser extent, Garneau don't want to get caught up in that game with the CONs. So at this stage, take it off the table. Let the party membership put together a cohesive policy. It's something that requires finesse and debate -- but healthy debate, not namecalling or catcalling.
With that in mind, I challenge C4SR to open up the debate on his blog. Let comments flow -- he or she will find there are those who agree and those who disagree. But through discussion and engagement -- of the kind Trudeau, Garneau, Hall Findlay, Joyce Murray and their fellow leadership rivals are trying to create.

Return of Rockfish!

Welcome back!
This blog has been in a self-induced slumber, but is, like that ol' SCTV intro, back on the air.
Life, it seems, continues whether we blog or not.
And unfortunately, Stephen Harper's madness -- the angriest white man in faux-biz -- continues unabated. His omnibus bills continue to flood parliament with thousands of cuts and significant program attacks, showing him to have told the truth when he said: "After I'm finished with Canada, you won't recognize the place."

We've got 3 byelections on Monday, which hopefully will produced some surprising results. It is exciting to hear that Calgary could be a horse race, and Victoria is heating up. I have heard little about who will be buying the orange juice for Durham -- and considering that is the only one of the ridings where someone quit amidst controversy, that is disappointing.
In the meantime, here are a few interesting links:

Harper confidante tells social conservatives they just need to change their message to get what they want.

Harper's heavy-handed tone and the Conservatives' boldness in being bullies needs some pushback - Michael Harris, iPolitics.

Special interest groups (ie. anyone who has nothing to do with the crooked Conservative party) need to be ready for more cuts ahead - G&M.

WHOPPER THURSDAY...

... with their majority freshly minted, the Harper government doesn't even need to use Friday for its 'bad news' dump -- unless there's something worse than admitting deception on fiscal responsibility for the sake of votes?
Who's suppose to have it their way, anyways?

SELECTIVE MESSAGING...

Steady Eddie and blustery Brad weigh in for the home team:


“If it isn’t, then I do think we need a time of stability. I think the government that wins the most seats needs to be able to bring down a budget and get the country moving forward,” said Wall.

These blue tories didn't even listen apparently to the Mansbridge interview before stepping into the cowfield -- perhaps they were using the 'selectively edited' CON talking points edition? They also don't like Westminster parliamentary rules, coalition governments (boo Britain, Australia and Finland!) or Canadian history.
Of course, their blinding support of Stephen Harper's Power At All Costs Tour kind of steps around Harper's own dalliance with 'fewer seats, more power' and Jack and Gilles in 2004.

What's good for the goose is not ducky with the hens, apparently.

DEAD HORSE, MEET STUNNED PARROT...

The Harper CONbots are up in arms twisting in circles and trying to create a controversy over Michael Ignatieff's response to Peter Mansbridge's question on what happens if a minority government is elected on May 2nd.
This is what Ignatieff said...

“[I'd] talk to Mr. Layton, or Mr. Duceppe, or even Mr. Harper, and say, ‘We have an issue, and here’s the plan that I want to put before Parliament, this is the budget I would bring in,’ and then we take it from there.”

... and this is different from this in what way?

If ignorance is what Canadians are when it comes to their own governance, then Stephen Harper has provided the perfect platform. However, it is also obvious that there is someone on the hustings who is only in it for himself, and that person is Stephen Harper.

Which leads us to something completely different...

SOMETHING TO SAY...

Of all the things that I wish had been brought up during last night's english language debate, one specific theme should have had its 2-minutes of talk: Honesty and integrity.
But how would that be massaged into a four-circle bickering match, while making a salient point about the choices Canadians are facing? Well, let's imagine...

IGNATIEFF - Mr. Harper, you continue to talk about the necessity of having a steady hand helping guide the Canadian economy, protecting jobs and creating opportunities.
All these things are part of the Liberal Party platform, and have been accomplished by past Liberal governments.
But when it comes to leadership, I think what you've delivered falls far short of what Canadians deserve. Just yesterday, one of your senior members had to humbly apologize for your government's deliberate choice to take words the auditor general applied to a report on fiscal management -- a report she wrote in 2004 -- and pasted it onto the preliminary discussion on the G-8 summit.
As someone who spoke fervently at one time about accountability, you continue to relegate responsibility to others when you've been found with your fingers in the cookie jar.
So I ask you, sir, will you apologize for this secretive, undemocratic and trust-breaking act you have done?

HARPER: Mr. Ignatieff, the auditor general's report on the G-8 summit remains unreleased, the documents being leaked to the press, as she has suggested, are not representative of her final report ...

IGNATIEFF: I'm sorry sir but you're misleading the Canadian people here. I'm not talking about the auditor general's final report, of which members in your own caucus continue to suggest are known to you.
I'm talking about the report, tabled to a Commons committee, in the final week of Parliament. You stole quotes from Ms. Fraser and made a mockery of integrity, sir. You sent out Stockwell Day to apologize for it, when Mr. Day had nothing to do with it. I can understand, how you -- having been caught already for plagarizing a speech, and avoiding responsibility on that -- would prefer to sweep this under the rug and avoid talking about it. However, you are talking to the Canadian people, or are you just talking to that camera? Here is your chance to show some leadership Mr. Harper, to say what all Canadians understand to be true -- that plagarizing and misleading people about what someone else has said, are wrong? Will you do that?

HARPER: Again, our government has directed its efforts on guiding the economy during tough times and mistakes have been made, when Mr. Ignatieff distracts Canadians with expensive problems, an unnecessary election...

IGNATIEFF: I'm sorry sir, but that doesn't sound like accountability, Mr. Harper, it sounds like denial, that you having something to hide. Great leaders, and Canada has had many, have taken responsibility for their mistakes. They've not a stable of ministers and assistants take the blame for them, like you have. If you refuse to take accountibility for this one act, which sends a seriously wrong message to young and old alike, how can Canadians trust you with the keys to their economy? I must compliment you on your game-playing skills, Mr. Harper. If we were playing a game, I would admire it, however we are talking about leading a country. The Canadian people are not part of a game who you can mislead and misapropriate from, Mr. Harper.

... and I'm sure it would translate into french...

READ BETWEEN THE LINES...

Stephen Harper has been known to say one thing and do another.
He's also tried to dance like Toller Cranston around the intentions of his actions and words of the past.
While I think Canadians are eager to have a new debate on how their health care system has to adapt to meet the changing demands and rising costs, Harper is happy to skirt the issue and just pledge what the other guys are pledging (not to let the other leaders off on a technicality, however they are in opposition and not the current government).

Just in case you've forgotten, here is what so-called leader Stephen Harper has said about Canada's health care system in the past:


"We also support the exploration of alternative ways to deliver health care. Moving toward alternatives, including those provided by the private sector, is a natural development of our health care system."

- Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, October 2002.



"It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."

- Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997.



"What we clearly need is experimentation with market reforms and private delivery options [in health care]."

- Stephen Harper, then President of the NCC, 2001.



"I know this is a dangerous subject. My advisors say don't talk about it, but the fact is sometimes provinces have allowed in the past few years, they've brought in private services covered by public health insurance... Why do I care and why do we care as a federal government how they're managed? What we care about is whether people can access them. This is just an ideological agenda."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper at the leadership debate, June 15th 2004, conceding that he shouldn't talk about his positive view of privatization of health care.

CHAPTER 421 IN HARPOCRISY...

... The Chicken is trying to turn the page after he turned the other cheek and ran.
He laughingly tries to blame the per-vote subsidy in putting parliament on a regular election cycle.
That downplays the role of his own party, under Stephen Harper's own watch, that began with regular stunt bluster in calling everything a confidence motion, then launched into out-of-election advertising ad nauseum, which has resulted in the lead he holds today. Yep, no argument here, advertising when done slickly and abundantly, does work. At CON central tho, truth plays no factor.
He says parties are bankrolled for an election almost immediately following an election due to the Chretien implemented per-vote subsidy. As someone who's involved with local riding politics, I know for a fact that the rebates for the per-vote subsidy typically take two years to arrive. Another Harper lie.
That being said, I do agree that the per-vote subsidy should be tinkered with, even democratized.
If each ballot had another check box, this time at the bottom -- requesting the voter if they wished a $2 subsidy to go to the party of their choice -- it would enable those who don't like the subsidy to have their way. Also, there should be a proportional element that rewards parties that run more candidates; one-province parties should not receive the same amount of subsidy per-vote as a party that runs candidates (and meets the 5% threshhold) in 250+ ridings. Ring up the subsidy in 1/4s - 1/4 if you run candidates in 78 ridings or less; 1/2 of the amount if you run candidates in 156 ridings or under, etc.

JUST ANOTHER 'BUYING OPPORTUNITY'?

The whole Bruce Carson scandal says so much about Stephen Harper.
One of Harper's closest advisors -- a man who earned the nickname 'the mechanic' for being able to move into a department on Harper's sayso and 'fix' things -- had taken hold of a scheme to sell First Nations groups with serious water issues, while making his escort/fiancee a whole lot richer in the process.
Carson, who had been working for government on the environmental file not long ago, also was linked to Big Oil through an appointment to the University of Calgary's Canada School of Energy and the Environment. In northern Alberta, what is one of the biggest factors in undrinkable water? Oil.
Most importantly is the question why water is being continually treated as a saleable commodity over its use for citizens.
I hope all parties come out and make this one of their main campaign promises: Drinking water is a critical resource and will be established as an unassailable right for all Canadians.

READY, SET...

While they accuse the opposition of being too eager for an election, this arrived in my mailbox 11:12 a.m. pst...

Faux outrage is quaint. Good luck getting this candidate (or 303 other CON candidates, for that matter) to a debate or public meet and greet.

Go Read This...

... because it's a scintillating read.
Of course, in Stephen Harper's world, forged documents are not unlike faked tapes, plagarized speeches, doctored documents, non-compliant accountability and baldfaced lies.
Bloggers like Curiousity Cat, Impolitical and FarnWide continue to lead the way.

NO KIDDING, EINSTEIN...

Jim Flaherty to Peter Mansbridge after delivering his budget:
"This isn't Paul Martin."
After wiping the Canadian taxpayers for $40.5-Billion deficit in 2010, after a $55B one in 2009 (and spending the cupboard bare in 2008 BEFORE the economic downturn), Jimbo finally calls one right.
You sir are no Paul Martin.

But give the Stephen Harper CONservative government kudos on one thing -- they sure know how to create a pot of chicken soup. Too bad it isn't edible.

SCOUNDRELS AND BLACK HEARTS...

It's been obvious for a long time that the 'new' CONservative party knows no bounds when it comes to stooping.
They've changed the parameters of politics -- it's all about the win, and rules and honour are for whiners.
Their latest attack on Michael Ignatieff is again part of their modification of history, where they get to tell someone else's story. However, their latest launch is an incredibly new low -- attacking the dead relatives of the leader of the opposition.
For those who worry about the state of our country and the tenor of our nation's current leadership, every new gamesmanship strategy from Harper is a confirmation of what is wrong within our community. Non accountable, without ethics or moral compass, Stephen Harper's war machine will continue to salt the political landscape until people with backbone stand up, speak up and demand facts and reality as opposed to whispers, malicious lies and innuendo.
Do we really deserve that kind of governance?

WHERE THERE'S SMOKE...

... You don't suppose the fact that a TV station was doing an investigative piece on the scummy buddy of Stephen Harper had anything to do with said so-called leader tossing his buddy under the bus, or at least to the bushes where his other buddy, Mr. Grumpy Pants Elliott, could 'speed things up', do you?
Check into Bruce Carson's background and you'll see he didn't suddenly become an unethical sleazy bastard overnight. He was fine as a confidante/advisor until the heat and election drive got tangled up in blue.

HARPER'S NUCLEAR SECRET...

Stephen Harper's boast of Canada being the new energy superpower was just one more of those fake channel changers, ie Northern Star... or was it?
While we all watch with horror, compassion and empathy at what's happening in Japan, we should be reminded that our own so-called leader was (is?) eager to plant Canada's energy future in the nuclear camp.
He's tried to tie his faux environmental plan (a plan that must include mermaids and unicorns, because all of them have the same basis in reality) to a nuclear 'strategy'.
Impolitical has treaded this topic well, here and here.
Harper's abject interest in reducing public oversight, breaking down a publicly owned corporation and selling it piecemeal to likely Harper-friendly big business stirred up some concern. But it's been well hidden and nearly forgotten.
Let's remind ourselves that Stephen Harper's central focus is reducing public investment in areas where he deems it 'competition' to his friends, to eliminate the government's ability to provide safeguards and checks and balances, and let industry police itself.
Oh, no doubt Harper's next spiel about 'nuclear' will be in that sweater voice, expressing caution while placating his allies with deep pockets. It's like handing out 0-down, 40-year mortgages in one sentence, then bemoaning the level of debt Canadians carry.
We don't need to hear his psychic dresser tell us where that could end up, do we?

SIGN OF ROUGH SEAS AHEAD?

...as the rats start to leave?
No doubt the Stephen Harper CONs will be able to find potted plants in these ridings to run (and win), but the signal's pretty clear.
Exit while the getting's good.

One more chance to flash back to one of Day's worse performances as a lying CON...

NEW STORY, SAME OLD LINE...

Stephen Harper says that the $530,000 buyout was the quickest and most efficient way to extricate disgraced integrity commissioner Christiane Ouimet from her position.
The person the Harper regime put in place to oversee whistleblowers and watch over the ongoings of governmental departments had proven to be a colossal failure and drain on the department's resources -- unless of course you're the self-satisfied Prime Minister of a government with lots to hide.
It's bad enough when the odd leak gets out -- all governments know that -- so the occasional William Elliott situation or stompin' mad performance from the soon-to-be senator for Millhaven may create a bad impression on Stephen Harper, he of the carefully, psychic-guided image issue.
So, along with the free pile of taxpayers money is what is now guaranteed CONservative policy: a confidentiality agreement.
Nice to see Stephen Harper takes care of his own.
Could he at least do it with his own money for once?

WHO'S MINDING THE STORE...

Of course, when the higher-ups are busy forging documents, making 'financial offers' to dying MPs for their vote, and busy misleading parliament and the people of Canada, should we even ask?
From the CP:
OTTAWA — Conservative staffers with minds of their own or speed-bumps under the wheels of Tory re-election buses?

The resignation of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's director of multicultural affairs added another name to the lengthy list of Conservative aides who have quit over stumbles, blunders or scandals.

Kasra Nejatian resigned last week after his name appeared on a party fundraising letter sent on Kenney's parliamentary letterhead. Kenney said Nejatian disobeyed his explicit instructions not to do partisan work at the ministerial office.

Nejatian is not alone. Since the Tories took power in 2006, at least a half-dozen staff have taken the blame for controversial actions they say were completely their own.

Half of those resignations occurred since the Conservatives announced that ministers would be accountable for the actions of their staff.

"There is a clear case to be made that the accountability of political staff ought to be satisfied through ministers," former House Leader Jay Hill told the Commons last May.

"Ministers ran for office and accepted the role and responsibility of being a minister. Staff did not."
I guess we can just chalk it up to more unreported criminal activity in Harperland.

TAKE THAT, LESS FORTUNATE...

A House of Commons human resources committee took three years to come up with 58 recommendations that Ottawa could utilize to fight poverty in Canada.
Guess who's not interested?
Stephen Harper's CONservative government, that's who. It's because Harper and sadsack minister/future jailbird wife Diane Finley have their own plans for the less fortunate of the land.
It involves prorogued promises, mega prisons for those practitioners of unreported crimes, and something extra -- courtesy of the Canadian taxpayers -- for those who take care of themselves first.
And if it's a job the poor are looking for, there's a position open in the PMO office: Wanted, stooge able to look guilty on command and able to take the hit when the $#!% hits the fan...

Oh, and those pesky stats that help both public and private groups research and reach out to those in poverty? Well, while they may be perfectly fine for assisting CON ministers in devising ways to scam the public for funding partisan ventures and misrepresenting government business, Stephen Harper has found a way to avoid having to answer to other 'special interest groups' like the poor, underrepresented and ungrateful.
But how about that cake, eh?

GOOD FOR THE GOOSE...

Here it is in a nutshell.
While he can make the law, Stephen Harper isn't above it, despite what he wants you to think.
Unless he makes forgery and stealing legal.