Tag Archives: KPMG

GAMING THE SYSTEM AND OTHER MISDEEDS: THE GREAT LIBERAL BETRAYAL

Posted on May 20, 2016 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises; for never intending to go beyond promises, it costs nothing. – Edmund Burke

One may smile, and smile, and be a villain. – William Shakespeare

The fawning, sneaking, and flattering hypocrite, that will do or be anything, for his own advantage. –Edward Stillingfleet

Frank Pelaschuk

THE SELF(IE)-LOVER

He strides effortlessly across the global stage equally at ease with royalty, world leaders and the hoi polloi clamouring around him. He smiles freely, a dazzling beacon, clasping hands with both of his suggesting warmth, sincerity, a depth of feeling that cannot be denied whether greeting the shakers and movers or the humble smitten citizen. He is generous and gracious with his time, not only with the media but also with the public, willing to pause with the minions and pose with them as they take selfies of themselves with this truly charming Canadian darling; occasionally, even more ingratiatingly, he will take the iPhone from them and snap the selfies himself. It’s endlessly entertaining and endlessly flattering for those who get to stand next to this great man, a moment that will be relived and recounted for the rest of their days and passed on to generations to come. And the images captured will be splashed on Facebook as validation of the moment when they, too, however humble, have been blessed, however briefly, by the touch of greatness. By such easy gestures, fans and votes can be won for life.

The wunderkind knows it, recognizes he’s blessed, that he’s destiny’s child; you can see it in his bearing, in the tilt of his head, the awareness of all awed eyes turned on him taking in his every move and every ear attentive to every utterance whether explaining quantum physics to reporters or performing pushups and a one-handed plank at the Invictus Games or doing the peacock pose on a table. Is there nothing Trudeau can’t do? No false modesty; it would be unbecoming and unnecessary. His youth, energy, intelligence, and family, the children adorable and his wife, Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau, almost as telegenic and popular as he, are embellishments adding to the charm.

But to what does this add? Not much, really.

Glad-handers and grandstanding are not unusual in politics. It’s well and good that young Justin stands in Parliament, as he did Wednesday, May 18, apologizing for Canada turning away the Komagata Maru loaded with Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus seeking to emigrate to Canada in 1914. It looks and sounds good and offers solace to those wanting to believe Trudeau really does care and is prepared to do things differently. But such gestures, fine as they are and even if sincere and well intended, are just gestures. It allows Trudeau to look good and will offer some solace to those feeling the need for such gestures. It will be another positive added to his CV, purely symbolic and going a way to assuage the guilt some might needlessly experience. Unfortunately, on that very same day, by his own foolish actions, all the goodwill Trudeau may have garnered from those with reservations might have been washed away by an unpleasant and incredible Parliamentary fiasco unheard of in recent Canadian memory and it is this episode that I suspect is truly reflective of the man and is as telling of him as the aloofness, duplicity, and controlling manner was of Conservative Stephen Harper.

On Tuesday, May 17, Government House Leader Dominic LeBlanc made a move to strip opposition members of any ability to play the traditional role of opposition including delaying by various means the passage of any bill they may oppose. The move, Government Business No. 6 or simply Motion 6, sounds innocent enough but is without doubt one of the most dangerous and direct attacks against Canadian democracy. Trudeau’s Liberals sought to wrest decisions made by the Speaker that could forever alter how Parliament works. Harper began the anti-democratic initiatives in earnest long ago but, unlike the Liberals, only a few months in office, had never quite dared to commit to such a dangerous move that would absolutely immobilize the opposition. Government ministers and Parliamentary secretaries would now have the power to introduce, extend and/or adjourn debate, which would be considered immediately adopted on their say so only. The Speaker has been effectively sidelined and opposition members seriously limited in putting forth motions, such as happened Monday, May 16, when the NDP engineered a snap vote catching the Liberals flat-footed and scrambling. Motion 6, clearly a retaliatory response, would no longer allow such things to happen to future governments; government members would call all the shots. Then, on Wednesday, May 18, following the apology for the Komagata Maru incident, LeBlance moved to cut off debate on the physician-assisted dying bill, C-14. Members of the NDP party mingled on the floor of the House, hoping to delay the vote by preventing Conservative opposition whip Gordon Brown from taking his seat before the vote began. Incensed by this, Trudeau left his seat, forced his way through the NDP pack (some reports had him muttering, “Get out of my fucking way”), and grabbed Brown by the arm inadvertently slamming an elbow into the chest of NDP member Ruth Ellen Brosseau. He led Brown back to his seat and then, for some reason returned and went to the NDP side out of camera range evidently to apologize to the NDP member who had left the chamber shaken. Trudeau, in going back to his seat was confronted by Thomas Mulcair enraged that his member, accidently or not, had been struck by Trudeau. Nathan Cullen stepped between the two members and that was it, cooler heads prevailing. The time allocated vote for the physician-assisted dying bill, C-14, took place without Brosseau. Her vote would not have altered the outcome but that is not the point. Trudeau’s manhandling of Brown and the accidental blow to Brosseau and his foul language, if accurately reported, are revelatory reminiscent of childish rock stars who misbehave with the arrogance of the privileged. And Trudeau clearly believes himself among the privileged. Watch him in the House during question Period as he responds to questions he does not like; he is smug, dismissive and imperious. This is a man used to having his way on stage at all times, the sneer for foes, the excessive oozing charm for those he wishes to woo, the public out there. Unfortunately for him, he lost his cool May 18 and the public was treated to the ugly side of him with the stripping away of the apparently very thin veneer of civility and bonhomie. This was the narcissistic bully in action and convincing enough to demonstrate the Harper gang did not have a monopoly on offensive and anti-democratic behaviour. The damage is there but for how long and how much is really up to Trudeau though I suspect it will not be long lasting or significant. That the Conservatives and NDP milked it for all that it was worth is not surprising but that, too, was childish. Trudeau, wrong as he was, clearly had no intent or desire to elbow Brosseau. Public response was not surprising. For many, it was much ado about nothing. Among the imbecilic, Trudeau’s rating went even higher; he can do no wrong, anything is acceptable and forgivable. It should not be. Some have blamed the NDP for what happened, saying it was their impedance of Gordon Brown in hopes of delaying passage of C-14 that precipitated Trudeau’s rash act. There may be some truth to that. So what? It does nothing to absolve Trudeau. He should not have lost his temper. He should not have crossed the floor and grabbed Brown by the arm. You do not lay hands on other members of parliament. The opposition job is to act in the best interests of Canadians and if the government hamstrings it unfairly, then it is incumbent on the opposition to seek ways to do their job with the use of any reasonable tactic. It was childish yes, but Trudeau’s behaviour is at issue here. His was not the act of an adult, let alone an adult leading a nation, but of a spoiled individual used to having his way and who, when thwarted, responded in the only way he knew how: a display of temper. Trudeau supporters evidently see things less objectively just as Harper’s did when he abused his majority. In their responses to bad behaviour, even egregiously bad behaviour, supporters on both sides are not that much different being just as blind and stupid as most are who refuse to acknowledge the faults of those they love that they would condemn in those they do not. It’s a wilful blindness that does credit to no one. It cannot be defended nor should it be.

Now, Trudeau has apologized again and again for his actions admitting they were intolerable. Let us accept that. But let us also remember that brief crack in the façade allowing insight into his character that most have never seen before. That said, we should not lose sight of Motion 6. That should alarm every Canadian of every stripe. Harper showed the way when he slipped legislation into endless omnibus bills and created the so-called Fair Elections Act and when he curtailed debate time-and-time- again. Motion 6 virtually strips the opposition of all power to perform their duty. To their credit, May 19, the day after the Komagata Maru apology and the brouhaha, LeBlance announced the Liberals have withdrawn Motion 6. That was a good and right move. However, the Liberals did not grant more time for debate on the assisted dying bill, which the opposition and even some Liberal members find inadequate and contrary to the intent of the Supreme Court ruling. The Liberals insist the bill must be passed before the June 6 deadline imposed by the court. Unfortunately the genie is now loosed. Motion 6 is there for another time perhaps by this government or another; it will be used by someone sometime. It is not a good sign for the future and offers us another glimpse of Trudeau that is neither glorious nor good. The Trudeau the public saw May 18 was not the Trudeau they voted for October 19, 2015.

But if the episode was astonishing and ugly, its impact appears to have the same effect of titillating entertainment. It’s about style over substance and by god that Trudeau has plenty of style even playing the bad boy.

VETERANS BETRAYED AND OTHER BROKEN PROMISES

But they are clever these Liberals. They have clearly learned from the Harper crew doing just enough, sometimes even well, to allow diehard sceptics in a weak moment to concede they have done not a bad job.

Oh, he did well with the Syrian refugee crises and a few other things, mostly symbolic as his apology for the Komagata Maru incident but it’s in the big things that he fails. He has brought back the long form census. He has ended Canada’s bombing mission against ISIS. He has removed the muzzles from government scientists. He has created an advisory board of prominent citizens to recommend nominees to the Senate based on merit. These are good moves, no denying. But it’s the broken promises that really matter.

Where, for example, is the $3 billion over the next four years for better home and palliative care services? What have the Liberals done to reform the Access of Information Act to make information “open by default” as promised? When the Canadian Press sought the release of notes on moves to reform the Act, much of the material had been redacted. So much for openness.

For veterans, especially those with disabilities inflicted during the performance of their duties, the Liberal betrayal must be particularly bitter and painful. Left feeling bruised and abused by the Conservative party to whom they were naturally allied politically, the veterans saw in the campaigning pandering Trudeau the real possibility of a turnaround for them. Though he is young, they believed Trudeau smart and one who recognized and truly respected the contributions made by our military men and women particularly those who returned home broken in body and spirit. The veterans clearly believed the promise he would commit to them as those men and women committed to Canada. They bought the persona they saw before them, who could not, Trudeau standing before them, right palm tapping left breast, expression oozing sincerity. They knew he would reopen the nine veterans offices closed down by Harper because he said he would. They knew he would re-instate life-long disability pensions with an allocation of $300 million annually for support programs for the military because he said he would. They wanted to believe him; they wanted to give him a chance to prove himself. He did. They are still waiting for the offices to open. He did not re-instate the life-long disability pensions. Instead, he simply increased the one-time lump sum disability payment that Harper had put in place. Most galling of all is the Trudeau gang’s resumption of a BC Court of Appeals case to deny Afghan war veterans benefits for injured soldiers. How that betrayal must hurt! “The plaintiffs have argued in court that the government has a sacred obligation to its injured soldiers and that the lump-sum payment wounded veterans receive under the New Veterans Charter — as opposed to the pension that was previously offered to veterans before 2006 — is inadequate compensation, as they receive less money over the course of a lifetime” (John Paul Tasker, CBC News May 17, 2016). The government view is that no special obligation is owed to the vets. That is an extraordinary commentary from a regime promising more and better led by a man with a fondness for embracing everyone and tapping his right fingers over his heart as if to emphasis the depth of his empathy. Now, I realize, he’s just trying to determine where it is or wondering were he might have left his pen.

Trudeau is not a bad man but he is certainly no more admirable than Harper and there was nothing about Harper that I admired.

Trudeau fails when he justifies with excuses the Saudi light-armoured vehicle deal: the deal can’t be broken; it was a done deal by Harper; the Liberal’s were locked in; the world will punish us for breaking this deal. Trudeau fails himself as well as his supporters by such antics, revealing himself as a man of hollow convictions who is only eager to do the right thing – next time. Human rights? Oh, they matter, but not today, not when it can cost the loss of a $15 billion deal and 3,000 Canadian jobs. All that faux sincerity when he dwells upon human rights, the plight of our soldiers – it’s a joke, it’s phony. Trudeau is a showboat who finds it easier to follow through with the easy.

Trudeau fails, too, with bill C-267, the Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials bill by then Liberal Irwin Cotler. Referred to as Magnisky’s law for a Russian lawyer murdered in prison for exposing tax fraud by Russian officials, the bill, unanimously passed in 2015 was meant to tighten sanctions against Russia for abuses against its own citizens. The Conservatives under Harper, however, were in no rush to pass legislation to begin sanctions and did nothing. Now, with Trudeau in office, the Conservatives are eager for the Liberals to impose the act and made a motion to impose sanctions on Russia. How the tables have turned. Trudeau however, now in power, is less interested in acting despite his electioneering to do so. Trudeau wants to “re-engage” with Russia. In other words, when it comes to doing the right, the decent, the moral, the ethical thing, Trudeau and the gang are again quite willing to close their eyes and plug their noses in order to do the pragmatic thing: do business with Russia. Stephane Dion, foreign minister, disappoints because he apparently has opted to move wholeheartedly into the dark side of political wheeling and dealing by offering excuses as he did with the Saudi Arabia arms deal that the Special Economic Measures Act does not allow Canada to place sanctions on Russian individual or entities. That’s a crock and is surely not Dion’s finest moment. Human rights is a honey if it don’t cost money.

This is the real state of politics. We have a government now doing what it opposed in opposition and an opposition now opposing what it supported while a government. It’s a topsy-turvy world. One needs a strong stomach to even say Conservative or Liberal, easier to simply say hypocrite.

GAMING THE SYSTEM

Then we have the CBC reporting on the shenanigans of the CRA and tax cheats, the CRA granting amnesty to fraudsters provided they pay what they owe Canadians and keep their mouths shut about the deal. We have allegations of the accountancy firm KPMG helping tax cheats set up shell companies in the Isle of Man and executives meeting secretly at the exclusive Rideau Club with bureaucrats from the CRA, a clear conflict of interest. It has been estimated that $7 to $9 billion a year is lost through tax schemes. Shortly after the CBC story caught traction, the CRA proudly announced the recovery of $1.5 billion. Nice, but peanuts to what Canadians have lost and will continue to lose. What about the billions stolen from Canadian coffers? What about the peculiar reluctance of revenue minister Diane Lebouthillier to punish the tax cheats and the companies helping them defraud the government? These are fraudsters and should be punished with severe financial penalties and jail time. Unfortunately, not a word on that front from either the CRA or Lebouthillier.

Clearly, it does pay to be wealthy. Unfortunately, it’s our government helping them cheat us and it’s the rest of us paying the price.

In the not too distant past, we had the Conservatives rigging the game with the misnamed Fair Elections Act. At that time the bill was simply rammed through with little to no discussion. Certainly no referendum. Trudeau promised to amend parts of the Act. No action thus far.

He also promised to bring an end to first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting. Towards that end his minister of democratic reform Maryam Monsef and government house leader Dominic LeBlanc set up a rigged committee that consists of six Liberals, three Conservatives, one NDP and two MPs not allowed to vote, one from the Bloc Québécois and Elizabeth May of the Green party. With absolute lack of shame, the Liberals have stacked the deck not to reflect the proportion of the vote but the number of seats won! They used the very system they wish to end in order to rig the committee and the outcome. This is Trudeau gaming the system to ensure that, if there is a change (which many suspect the Liberals do not want), it will reflect the change that Trudeau’s Liberals desire: the ranked ballot system which strongly favours the party of the centre which is what the Liberals are perceived as being. In truth, such a system would likely ensure governance by Liberals or Conservatives forever. The committee is a sham. Maryam Monsef gave the game away when she said that the solution must not be complex. In other words, proportional representation will not be an option because it is unfamiliar thereby deemed too difficult to understand though the majority of democratic countries have a form of PR. She is really saying Canadians are too stupid to understand what the rest of the democratic world does. She also suggested on CBC’s Power and Politics with Rosemary Barton that it was pointless to hold a referendum because many eligible voters don’t vote. Say what? Isn’t that what we wish to change? She also went on to suggest a referendum was undemocratic and that Twitter offered a more accurate reflection of the public will. Twitter for god sake. And that is the voice of reason?

Monsef is less than truthful when she says the committee will represent the wishes of Canadians. It will reflect the wishes of the Liberal party, that’s true. Having won his majority with 39% of the vote, Trudeau stacks the deck with 60% of the seats. Neat. Shameless. Dictatorial.

Monsef, though a newcomer acts very much like a Liberal pro from the old school: rigging the game and manipulating the outcome and offering the empty blandishments. The same old same old.

When Trudeau campaigned, he talked about civility and change and making Canada a better place than it was under Harper. Mostly he talked about the middle class, raising taxes for the wealthy and cutting them for the middle class. I don’t recall him much speaking about combatting poverty, of doing more for the young and elderly, of ending homelessness. It was all about sunny ways but for whom? Certainly not those on the bottom rung.

Recently, there was a small kerfuffle because the PMO was looking for ways to assist the other half of the star pair, Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau. Now Canadians already help pay for one staffer and two nannies. No one should begrudge that. Nor do we begrudge the fact that she may need help when she does attend some affair that may tenuously be linked to her husband’s role as prime minister. I have no doubt she is “swamped” with requests for appearances for many worthwhile causes. If she opens a museum the government has paid for, if she speaks to students on the role of the wife of a prime minister, let Canadians pay for that. If she attends a charity event, let the Liberal party pay for that for it would likely be the real beneficiary in publicity of such an appearance. At the risk of appearing churlish, I was not impressed by her SOS. “I need help. I need a team to help serve people,” she had put out. I am a mother, my husband is prime minister. Poor little rich girl, thanks for reminding us. I am not opposed to her getting the help she needs but I might have been more sympathetic if I had heard from her husband less about tax breaks for the middle class and more about helping the single parent holding down two minimum-wage jobs. There was nothing for them. Nada, zilch. Too, I might have been favourably disposed towards helping her if, instead of appearing on the cover of Vogue with Justin, both were photographed eating a meal with homeless individuals or families or even just embracing one while dressed in their expensive togs. As it is, I will save my sympathies for those who live mean lives on mean streets. Poor Sophie, I don’t mean to be dismissive of your plight. I’m sorry, but my heart just doesn’t bleed for you. I know there are many who do want to help you. I just wish they felt as much sympathy for those who have much less than you, those hard-scrabble toilers who struggle just to survive, who really do understand what it is to be swamped by life and misery.

THE BIG LETDOWN

I have no doubt that Justin Trudeau regrets what happened May 18 with his grabbing of Gordon Brown and accidental striking of Brosseau. For a flash we saw the ugly side. For some, it was entertainment. For others, not so much.

We have witnessed the past few months a government ready to turn its back on many of its promises and just as eager as Harper’s ever was to use its majority as a club. We have seen a shift from openness to secrecy, of Liberal ministers placing themselves in conflict of interest positions by attending fund-raising events with those with the potential to benefit from the decisions made by their ministries. We have seen the broken promises and witnessed again the bullying of our veterans by the government and a nation that owes them so much. We have seen the shameless attempt by this government to strip the opposition members of any power to perform their duties in the interests of Canadians. We have observed how this government has increased the wealth of the middle class while doing absolutely nothing for the poorest amongst us. We have watched as this government has operated with breathtaking arrogance and watched a prime minister so narcissistic he believes nothing will stick: broken promises, manhandling members of parliament, ministers placing themselves in conflict of interest positions and ministers working to jettison or rig, either is a possibility, electoral reform.

This regime has increasingly shown itself willing to betrayal itself and its supporters who, perhaps naively, really held the profoundest of hopes that things would, indeed, get better, that this government, this Trudeau Liberal government, would really be all that it seemed to promise.

It is not too late for Trudeau. He does not have to turn his back on those folks who really trust and believe in him. Just keep to the promises. Do revisit the physician assisted dying bill. Do go through with electoral reform and go with the system that truly, accurately, reflects the will of the voter. You cannot lose by doing what is right.

If the goal is as it has been for all previous governments one of grabbing power and clinging to it, of self-enrichment and helping friends, of retribution rather than rehabilitation, of punishing the poor and weak, the Liberals should continue as they have. They may believe they have won, the polls and the results may say they have won, but their loss will be greater than their gains. There is more honour in standing tall in defeat knowing one has done his utmost to do what was right and honourable. May each broken promise cynically offered rest as a stone on your heart and each kept promise with the weight of a feather.

***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine.

***

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

4 Comments

Posted in Canadian Politics, Political Commentary and tagged CRA, elbowgate, electoral reform, FPTP, Gordon Brown, KPMG, motion #6, physician-assisted dying bill, Ruth Ellen Brosseau, Saudi Arabia light-armoured trade deal, tax cheats, Trudeau apologies, veterans offices closed, veterans with disability pensions. Bookmark the permalink.

PIGGIES: POLITICIANS, THE GRAVY TRAIN AND THE LEGITIMIZATION OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR

Posted on May 5, 2016 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. – Rex Stout

In every well-governed state wealth is a sacred thing; in democracies it is the only sacred thing. – Anatole France

The people came to realize that wealth is not the fruit of labour but the result of organized protected robbery. – Frantz Fanon

An honest politician is an oxymoron. – Mark Twain

Frank Pelaschuk

Because I do not believe people inherently good or wise, I am occasionally surprised when they do what I believe the right and moral thing. This is particularly true of politicians and voters. I would prefer the politician to be honest and with a conscience and the voter exactly as the cliché every losing politician trots out to show what a good sport he is: The voter is always right. When it does happen, the voter electing a politician who behaves with integrity and in a non-partisan way for the interests of all citizens, I immediately become alarmed believing I will soon awaken to the political nightmare that is our reality.

While perhaps not to the degree of the transit of Venus, I believe the politician of unwavering honesty and steadfast principle a rarity. It should not be but it is. That is our fault. We make it easy for them by demanding too little and expecting even less. Both politician and voter measure each other by their own values and, because they do, often end with an inferior product: It’s what’s in it for me rather than how can I help make us both better. No voter, no con man, makes the politician corrupt, greedy or deceitful any more than does opportunity, lax rules, or systemic rot within an organization; the culpability lies with the individual, with his failure of character and lack of intellectual and moral substance. Unfortunately, the voter all too often plays the role of enabler and likely for the same reasons. He will forgive almost anything as long as he gets his cut.

THE GIVERS

They have always been with us, those citizens who put themselves forward, often “reluctantly”, willing to temporarily “sacrifice” personal ambitions and family life for the “greater good” as a way of “contributing” towards a “better” more “just” society and as repayment of a “debt” for the life they now enjoy. “Serving” some will modestly say. Nice sentiments, almost noble, perhaps even true for some – once. Much of it is baloney and most of it self-serving.

There are exceptions of course, there always is, those who enter politics with the best of intentions and the purest of motives. Occasionally they succeed and do honour to themselves, their families, their community, and to the offices they hold. Sadly, they are not the norm. Too many take the easy route adopting the party line or going with the flow; the path of least resistance is much easier than going against the tide. Cooperation, giving a little ground is perceived as weakness and disloyalty to the party or to the government. Too little attention is paid to the concerns and welfare of all citizens particularly the weakest and meanest among us because the real goal of any governing party is to maintain power preferably with a majority to inflict the greatest damage to those in opposition.

But whether a government of years or relatively new as is the Trudeau regime, there is too much effort directed towards enriching the party fortunes when it should be directed towards improving the lot of the citizens they govern. As a consequence, too much goes into secret fundraising cocktail dinners with the wealthy and powerful from all sectors. That such events often fail to pass the smell test and clearly transgress conflict of interest regulations are dismissed as the petty cavilling of envious opposition members unable to sell their favours as easily and as richly because theirs is a toothless power: second place is simply that.

HAVE YOU SEEN THE BIGGER PIGGIES

IN THEIR STARCHED WHITE SHIRTS

YOU WILL FIND THE BIGGER PIGGIES

STIRRING UP THE DIRT

ALWAYS HAVE CLEAN SHIRTS TO PLAY AROUND IN – Piggies by The Beatles

For such as these, optics and public opinion matters not a jot until, as with Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberal party, it becomes a public issue when the media picks up the story. Even then, media attention and public disgust may not work. Christy Clark clearly doesn’t give a toss what the public thinks. If it’s legal but ethically dubious, no matter, they will do it. Ethics are for suckers and imbeciles. These are folks who game the system, mostly in secrecy though, it is true, sometimes openly and shamelessly, because they believe, mostly know, public apathy is their salvation unless it is provoked to fury over the sheer pettiness of some acts such as happened when Canadians learned of Conservative Bev Oda charging to the public purse a $16 glass of orange juice. Tax evaders rob the public purse of billions but it is the orange juice that gets our attention! Even so, not to worry, particularly these days. Extravagant spending, false expense claims, unethical picking of the public pocket has been legitimized; all one has to do is plead innocence, ignorance and naiveté.

It is astounding, not only the extent to which the public purse is milked for claims that are often of dubious merit, but also the shamelessness of such. It is not theft in the legal sense that happens, but it is pilfering nevertheless. Claims are made that to the average person often seem frivolous, questionable, petty, and bordering on illegal. Every once in a while, a politician is caught with his hand in the till. Sometimes they receive a slap on the wrist, most times, nothing happens. Occasionally, the miscreant is forced to resign or shamed into resignation but that is as rare an occurrence as was a direct answer to a direct question in Question Period during the Harper years: politicians are shameless; they have to be when they pander. When they are caught, exposed to the glare of the media, they will justify their acts resorting to legalese weasel words, the wormy deviousness of the shady and dishonest as they extract every nickel and dime possible from the public purse: It was legal, allowed, permitted, within the rules. Occasionally they will claim the rules are “obscure, vague, unclear, difficult to understand”. At other times, they may claim that a higher authority approved their actions. Occasionally they will point out others have done the same thing and that, over time, such acts have become accepted as normative practice. If I am to be punished, so must others. They will often make claim to the adherence of the law by which they mean the “letter of the law” but never in this manner, and will likely keep silent regarding its spirit. It’s what one can get away with that matters.

They do not talk much of moral compasses, personal responsibility, common sense, conscience, and personal integrity unless pushed and pushed hard. Of course, they will insist, they themselves possess all these admirable qualities. Nor do they much dwell upon propriety, possible conflicts of interest, of the public good, or of public perceptions of doing something that not only doesn’t seem right but isn’t right: If it’s allowed, I will do it because it’s allowed. With the verdict of the Duffy trial, that view has apparently become legitimized. I wonder what will happen now regarding other senators who have paid back money for undeserved claims or who have been referred to the RCMP for investigation. Unless things change drastically, we can expect continued pillaging of the public trough with the same foul weaselly justifications.

Ethical behaviour is not about appearing to do the right thing but actually doing the right thing. I have nothing against a senator or an MP making claims, but let them be legitimate claims, earned claims. Don’t charge the public for your meals at home or for the coffee and donut you bought for a friend. Don’t travel across country on the public dime on the pretext of doing Senate business that can be handled with a five-minute phone call because you want to spend a few days with your family. Don’t claim expenses for a home you’ve lived in for forty or so years claiming your other property visited a few weeks a year in a province you supposedly represent as your primary residence. It may be legal but it’s certainly not ethical nor is it justifiable.

Whatever happened to common sense and judgement? Why is less attention paid to these rather than the excuses often stretching one’s credulity when politicians and senators misbehave? I can’t imagine our common variety street corner petty thief being granted as sympathetic an indulgence while standing before a judge. The rules are unclear; I didn’t know it was wrong; everyone else does it; there is no law against what I did; I made a mistake; I believed it was okay; I thought it was standard practice; my staffer made a mistake; my dog ate the rule book, I was told by my boss it was okay (in this instance the higher the level of approval the more likely the chance of absolution and no one paying the price). What is so difficult about knowing right from wrong? One who fudges seldom offers explanations he offers justifications and excuses.

So, when I look at Liberal premiers Kathleen Wynne and Christy Clark, and their responses to breaking stories regarding serious ethical lapses regarding conflict of interest in the way of secret meetings with corporate executives and/or anyone with the money to pay for the privilege, I am torn. While both deeply trouble me, it was the response of each that allowed me to declare Clark the winner among the ethically challenge but not by much.

When news broke of two of Wynne’s cabinet ministers, Charles Sousa, finance minister, and Bob Chiarelli, energy minister, attending an unannounced (secret) fundraiser that benefitted the Liberal party with $165,000 and a cabal of banks to the tune of $29 million with the privatization of 15% of Hydro One, an embarrassed Wynne announced not only an end to ministers raising money from those who may benefit from their decisions but also the end of $500,000 quotas members of her cabinet were instructed to raise each year. Wynne clearly was chastened but not unduly; the changes would be phased in over time and probably not in place before the next election. Was there a conflict of interest? Absolutely. Did anything illegal occur? I don’t know, the rules allowed such shady shenanigans. Legalese. Again. Unethical? Most certainly. Shameful? You bet but one wouldn’t know it from the response by Sousa and Deputy Premier Deb Mathews. Sousa said that was “part of the democratic process”. Mathews, dismissive of a need for an inquiry, said there is “absolutely no evidence ” of wrongdoing. Of course not, nor will there be unless there is an investigation. But explain that to the citizens of Ontario who were recently informed of steep rate hikes because Hydro One didn’t earn as much as expected because of the mild winter. Unethical? Yes. When a consortium benefits from a secret fundraiser it puts on for a political party something is rotten and it’s not in Denmark. If the fundraiser was so innocent, why was it kept from the public and how was it that the finance and energy minister sat with the very folks who raised money for the Liberals and walked away with millions from the Hydro One deal? Coincidence? I think not.

And then we have princess Christy Clark of BC who earns $200,000 as premier and another $50,000 from her party, which calls it a “stipend” for her impressive fundraising efforts. As reported in the National Post, Clark has earned $301,900 in stipends since she became leader in 2011 (Rob Shaw, Postmedia News, April 28, 2016). When questioned regarding this, Clark laughed it off saying she had believed it was a car allowance. Really? It’s all a joke to these folks but I wonder how much laughter there was from the single parent minimum wage earner holding two jobs upon hearing this. Were those who donated to the party amused when some of that money went to Clark who could use it as she sees fit? Stipend suggests a token payment usually to offset additional expenses. Clark’s amused response to receiving $50,000 is the carefree let-them-eat-cake attitude. But, before we feel too bad for those minimum wage earners, she promises to give them a raise from $10.45 to $10.85 this September. That should keep those carpers quiet. It’s contemptuous and callous. So, what does she do to earn this stipend? Well she’ll meet privately with anyone who can raise $20,000 to $30,000. Clark clearly believes there is nothing wrong with this saying she governs for all British Columbians (just works harder for some for a price) and has no plans to review or do away with the private (and lucrative) meetings between her and wealthy suitors. She claims no favours are exchanged for cash. We have to take her at her word for that. It’s difficult. Between Wynne and Clark, it could be a toss up judging which is more ethically challenged. Clark may have the edge simply because of her shameless disregard for public perception. She cares just enough to rub salt into the wounds by raising the stipend of minimum wage earners 40 cents. Car allowance I guess.

And then, of course, we have the newcomer, Liberal Jody Wilson-Raybould, the federal minister of justice, who, along with her boss Justin Trudeau, should know better but apparently doesn’t or doesn’t care. She sees nothing wrong with attending a fundraiser with the very people who stand to gain from her decisions regarding justice. The ethics commissioner Mary Dawson evidently agrees. “The rules are scant,” she told CTV News (Thursday, April 7, 2016). Again, legitimacy is granted to weaselly outs by the very body meant to oversee ethics. Judgement and common sense are not required. It cost $500 to attend the two-hour cocktail event. That’s not much when one considers what it costs for a private audience with Christy Clark ($20K to $30K) or Sousa and Chiarelli ($7,500). I have heard some commentators suggest no politician would risk their reputation for a mere $500. That’s nonsense and beside the point. It’s not a measly sum when it’s $500 times the number of guests and all from the same field holding the same interests and wanting the same outcome. Conflict of interest? Absolutely. Unethical? Without doubt.

Folks who shape ethics to suit their own wants are suspect. Meeting with constituents is not a problem; meeting them in secret in exchange for money is. I certainly do not believe that anyone, regardless of how wealthy, would simply fork over $20 or $30 thousand for the simple pleasure of having had tea with Christy Clark. He expects something in return and the politician princess, regardless of how dim, knows it. Yet we must take Clark at her word: no favours are exchanged. How can we? Why should we?

AND THE WINNER IS…ALL THE LITTLE PIGGIES IN WHITE SHIRTS

Honesty in politics seems to be an increasingly missing ingredient. And I am not talking about folks simply picking our public purse. I am thinking of the integral aspects that make us what we are, character if you will.

The last election provided very good examples of similar failures. We had the Conservatives fearmongering with a vile campaign playing the cards of racial and religious intolerance. There was Kellie Leitch the ambitious bundle of mediocrity now running for the Conservative leadership. There she was standing before the media with Chris Alexander at her side both of them announcing the creation of a snitch line for Canadians to report and stop the barbaric cultural practices of you-know-who. It was contemptible and meant to play to the worst aspects in us. Recently, Leitch on Power and Politics with Rosemary Barton disavowed her role almost on the verge of tears…well it was a good if phony act. “We weren’t talking about race, we were talking about kids … but that message was completely overtaken and I regret that, and I regret that it occurred, and it shouldn’t have been done,” she said (CBC, Power & Politics, April 21, 2016). “It shouldn’t have been done.” No kidding. Leitch is a reputable professional and from all I have found, good at her profession, and I have no doubt she cares for her patients. But the fact is indisputable: she was part of a team that made race and religion an issue. She cannot disavow that. Anyone with a shred of dignity, decency and intelligence would have walked away from the suggestion of the snitch line. More importantly, she would have walked away from the real message of the snitch line. The target was not abuse but the Muslim community. Neither Chris Alexander nor Kellie Leitch walked away from that filthy campaign. That says something about character or, more precisely, lack of same. It was an unpleasant spectacle because so willingly engaged by Alexander (he lost his seat) and Leitch (she kept hers). She is not leadership material but she certainly is a politician. When she says they weren’t talking about race, I suggest she is less than truthful. We have 911 and other services across the country to assist families and children. As with so many of that Harper gang, Leitch is just another sad example of another MP who, in hindsight, sought to refurbish a tarnished image with a subdued apology, faux tears and a flimsy defense without any evidence of sincere acknowledgement of her role in the sorry debacle. Of late we have seen too much of this, arrogant politicians caught in their own snares and then repenting with showy displays of phony tears only when the game is over or when seeking re-election perhaps or the role of leader to their party. They must stand before mirrors these bad actors in every sense practicing the quavering voice, the trembling lips, the tears sliding down cheeks with, perhaps to offer verisimilitude to the act, snot precariously leaking from one of the nostrils. I am unmoved convinced the tears are only for themselves. Perhaps, when done rehearsing the scene of self-abnegation they will then seek to relax by facing the mirror all pretence stripped away hands on hips making rubber faces before finally bursting into genuine laughter as they imagine the sympathetic response of the public they will face with teary eyes.

Anyone can misspeak and err but what happened that October 2 day with Leitch and Alexander was no mistake, no slip of the tongue. It was a media event staged during the final days of a failing campaign in desperate hopes of garnering a rush of support from the fearful and the intolerant. It did not work. Where was the shame at the time?

Conservative Jason Kenney is another likely to throw himself into the leadership race. He should not. When he used government letterheads to fundraise for his party, he demonstrated he was willing to fudge; he crossed the line. Last year he posted tweets on International Women’s Day to rally support for the war against ISIS. He posted two photos, one of women in chains and one depicting a child bride with her “husband”. Her hands were tied. The tweets were clearly meant to inflame sentiments against the Muslim community and ISIS in particular. Both were bogus and he knew it. The first picture was of a re-enactment of an historical event. The second was simply a fake. When asked about Canada’s expanding role in Iraq, he offered this as explanation: “The United States is the only one of those five that has precision-guided munitions. That is a capability the Royal Canadian Air Force has, so one of the reasons our allies have requested we expand our air sorties into eastern Syria is because with those precision-guided munitions our CF-18s carry, we can be more impactful in the strikes we make against ISIL” (David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen, March 25, 2015). That was a lie. But Kenney is used to lying. As multicultural minister, he used his government email account to suggest Trudeau held sympathetic views for terrorists based on his visit to the Al-Sunnah Al-Nabawiah mosque when he was an MP. The US intelligence community had released documents that they believed the mosque had links to al Queda. This bit of news was made public a month after Trudeau had visited the mosque. But Kenney and the other Conservative members kept this to themselves. Can such an individual who deceives, misrepresents and proves himself a glib liar time-after-time be worthy of governing a nation? We had that kind of leadership from Kenney’s previous boss. We don’t need a repeat. All the above suggest an individual with serious ethical issues. Evidently he’s a man of some ability. That may be true. He is also untrustworthy.

Behaviour matters. But, judging by the support Donald Trump and the deceased Rob Ford managed to garner, not much to many. Rude, foul-mouthed misogyny, drunken rowdyism, name-calling and shameless lying, racial and religious intolerance seems, in fact, the endearing qualities that draw the stupid and ignorant to support worthless notables of that ilk. Politicians have taken note.

Secret meetings between politicians and influential community and business types for a fee, have apparently been and still is the accepted practice. Does this matter?

Duffy, legally cleared of all charges, will re-enter the Senate chamber and likely make claim for restitution for pay for the more than two years he lost while absent from the red chamber. The Senate itself has made changes but will they be enough, will they endure. I suspect not. As long as there are folks willing to bend rules by pleading ignorance or turning a blind eye, the Senate will remain the dysfunctional, unloved and unwanted institution of a bygone era of partisanship and entitlement. Going along to get along, doing what others have always done is not sufficient. Yet that is how the zoo operated. Men and women took advantage of the laxity of rules and oversight and thought nothing of pilfering from the taxpayer coffers. The Duffy verdict seems to have legitimized such abuses. The offender is not liable. The offender is a victim in fact. Sometimes I want to join Howard Beale from Network and scream, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” But then I guess I’ve been doing that the past three years.

But where does the blame really lie? Why must the public accept that a politician can claim ignorance or was unable to understand the rules? If you watch a man going to the washroom, do you pocket the wallet he left behind knowing that it is his? If so, you’re a thief. Would you take that wallet claiming he had left it behind therefore there was not theft? Would you say, “If I hadn’t taken it someone else would?” There are just some things one does not do even when the water is muddy or opportunity presents itself. People without character play dumb, do not question, do not wish to know; they prefer to close their eyes to the wrongdoing of others or to join in saying if it’s okay for one, it’s okay for all.

Politicians who accept money for private meetings are corrupt. What they do may be legal but it is certainly immoral, unethical, and dishonest. They should not hold office and voters should not forget or forgive. Getting away with something simply because one can or because there are no rules against it doesn’t make it right.

PIGLETS

But let’s turn our attention to Trudeau and the Liberals. They swept into office promising new and better and, as have all previous governments, promised openness and transparency. Well, they have failed and continue to fail. Think about the meeting with lawyers by Jody Wilson-Raybould. She said she attended as an MP not as minister of justice. When you are a minister of the crown, there is no such distinction. A few years back Shelly Glover was skewered (and I joined in) when she was filmed attending a secret fundraising event that violated conflict of interests guidelines simply because many of the attendees could possibly benefit from the decisions made by her ministry. Now Glover did not want to be caught but caught she was. She at least paid back the money. Wilson-Raybould? Well, thus far there’s no word of what she’ll do but I can guess and suspect you can as well. Remember this next time you vote: She as minister of justice met with the very folk who stand to gain or lose by the decisions she makes.

But there is something equally as troubling and that concerns the CRA offering amnesty to tax cheat clients of KPMG, one of Canada’s large accountancy firms who allegedly helped these tax cheats set up accounts on the Isle of Man. Amnesty was offered on condition the tax evaders paid the taxes owed and kept their mouths shut regarding the deal. Now that is not only patently unfair, that is corrupt providing more evidence to those already suspicious that governments are more interested in protecting the wealthy and punishing the weak and helpless. The scheme is simple. Firms such as KPMG help businesses or wealthy clients create shell companies offshore and then help them get it back as tax-free “gifts”. Recently the CRA proudly announced it had recovered $1.5 billion from tax cheats. Big deal. What does that do about the rest of the estimated loss per year of $7 to $9 billion? Stats Canada says there is a total of $199 billion declared money in offshore accounts. That is likely a fraction of what is undeclared. In the House, May 3, 2016, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair asked Trudeau if he would hold an investigation of the matter and of KPMG. Trudeau responded thusly: “Once again, Mr. Speaker, the NDP is always willing to play parliamentary procedure games as opposed to digging into the real facts of the issue. We’re working with the Canada Revenue Agency,” (CBC News, Question Period, May 3). The answer was clearly “No!” to Mulcair’s question, which, as posed, clearly indicates he and the NDP do want to dig into the facts. Trudeau said the government was working with the CRA…and skirted the issue of a government agency, assisted by the government, also working with tax cheats and those firms who help the tax evaders in their cheating.

So, from Trudeau and the government, no penalties for stealing, and that is exactly what tax evasion is. If anyone is playing a game, it’s Trudeau, but it’s a rigged game with Canadians losing to the wealthy thanks to the our political leaders taking on the role of accomplices. It may have started with the Harper gang but it is unconscionable that our government continues to protect cheats with promises of amnesty and demonstrates absolutely no desire to go after the corporations who help them cheat some more. Even after the story broke the CRA was still quietly meeting with KPMG. None of this however is surprising; the Liberals have a history of scandal, of working with Big Business and dipping into the public trough. With the Trudeau crew it looks like we will, over time, witness the return to the bad old days of bad old ways.

Good words mean nothing. We have heard the Senate to which Duffy has returned is not the Senate as Duffy knew it. Don’t believe it. The Senate fails in all counts. The changes made are too little too late. The Senate members will behave for a time but before long, the greedy greasy fingers will again be picking at the public purse.

Trudeau’s government fails because it has proven itself flexible in ethics when Trudeau sanctioned the Wilson-Raybould cocktail dinner. The government also lied to its citizens regarding human rights when it ignored government regulations by signing off on the Saudi Arabia light-armoured vehicle trade deal. Trudeau lied to our veterans when he said he would restore disability pensions. He didn’t. He just increased the lump sum payments. He has done some things I do like but he could do much better; he has changed the tone of parliament and has a balanced cabinet of many capable individuals, there is more openness (but already showing signs of second thoughts on that front) and a better image internationally; for these reasons and a few others, he deserves very high marks. But he also broke his word on the big things that count and this is where he may eventually fail. I would prefer it if he had honoured Canada’s commitment to human rights when trading with other nations today and not down the road; yes, the Saudi deal is big, $15 billion. There are Canadian jobs at stake that too is true. But, as a nation, we have to be counted. Can we really justify setting aside human rights until the next international trade deal? Should monetary concerns really trump when dealing with one of the worst offenders of human rights?

Nor should he have reneged on his promise to veterans with disabilities. I would prefer he spent less time posing before every camera he meets and think more seriously of what he wants to do and what he will do and be more open about it. He has what it takes, but fudging on ethical matters, even if a little, suggests he is on the same path as others before him. One thing is clear; the people mobbing him still love him even as he jobs them. They at least got a picture with him.

Politics is a filthy game. It needn’t be. But as long as we allow our politicians to bend the rules, to act unethically, to lie, cheat and deceive and to meet in secrecy with the wealthy and powerful special interest, little will change.

Politicians may be corrupt, but so are we. Join Howard Beale: Get mad as hell. Do something!

***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine.

***

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

4 Comments

Posted in Canadian Politics, Political Commentary and tagged Barbaric Cultural Practices, conflict of interest, CRA amnesty, Hydro One, Jody Wilson-Raybould fundraiser, Kellie Leitch snitch line, KPMG, Mike Duffy verdict, Muslims, Ontario Liberal fundraiser, secret fundraisers, tax cheats, Trudeau visits Montreal Mosque, unethical behaviour, veterans disability pensions. Bookmark the permalink.

BOUGHT AND SOLD: POLITICIANS AND THE TRUE COST OF DEMOCRACY

Posted on April 8, 2016 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen. – Pretty Boy Floyd by Woody Guthrie

But the banks are made of marble,

With a guard at every door,

And the vaults are stuffed with silver,

That the farmer sweated for. – Banks Are Made of Marble by Pete Seeger

Einstein’s theory of relativity, as practiced by Congressmen, simply means getting members of your family on the payroll. – James H. Boren

Frank Pelaschuk

If any group was emblematic of the filth of politics in recent years, it was the Harper regime. For them, as I have often said, no dirty trick was too low, too vile to not be used and no target was off limit when it came to the smear campaign or fomenting fear and racial and religious intolerance as played by the likes of Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney, Pierre Poilievre, Peter MacKay, Kellie Leitch, Chris Alexander (gone), Dean del Mastro (gone, serving a month in jail for election fraud), Michelle Rempel, Shelly Glover (gone), Maxime Bernier, Tony Clement, and Leona Aglukkaq (gone) to name a few of the worst in that vile pack.

Today, playing second fiddle without the majority with which they abused their offices and wielded as a bludgeon against opposition members, they are hard at work attempting to present a kinder face and gentler manner in the form of Rona Ambrose at the helm; it doesn’t work, the nastiness and arrogance by which they comported themselves came too easily to be anything but bred in the bone. That is what they are.

The Liberals replaced them, sweeping into office with fresher younger faces, more energy, with many promises including more openness and greater transparency. The last regime promised the same and immediately ushered in close to ten years of secretive, corrupt, bullying governance. The Liberals were convincing; I would have preferred the NDP but I didn’t really begrudge Trudeau his win. However, just a few months into their mandate, the Liberals appear to be offering less than voters may have hoped and more than they may have bargained for.

THE BIG REVEAL

When finance minister Bill Morneau released his budget declaring a plan to run a deficit of $29.4 billion the first year, critics raised serious concerns that Morneau had deliberately lowballed incoming revenue by pegging oil prices at $25 rather than stabilizing at $40 a barrel as most economists predict. The Liberals dismiss the charge calling this approach “prudent” while others call it hocus-pocus, the familiar shell game of lowering expectations and then taking credit for sound fiscal management when expectations are exceeded even if barely. Mostafa Askari, assistant parliamentary budget officer, has informed us that the Liberal budget was not as transparent as it could be because the numbers projecting cost estimates for the next five years have been marked as “confidential”. As a result, the PBO could not give a complete report on the first Liberal budget. According to the Ottawa Citizen’s Kathryn May (Citizen, April 7, 2016), this had not happened over the past 12 years under Paul Martin and Stephen Harper though, it is true, the PBO had been forced to take the Conservatives to court to get access to information regarding budget cuts and the impact as a result. Barring a catastrophe, no one should be surprised if the Liberals balance the book or arrive at a surplus by next election. We’ve seen this game before. It’s ugly, deceitful and has unfortunately become accepted practice. That still makes it wrong and it’s certainly not all that transparent which seems to put a chink in the Liberal promise of openness and disclosure.

Sure, I understand why the voters bought the youth and vigour, but surely they wanted more than the end of a regime of mean-spirited negativity, of partisan cheap shots, of fudged numbers, of smear campaigns, of targeting critics as enemies, and of laws furtively slipped into omnibus bills. Surely they wanted more than the hope and optimism promised by Trudeau’s “Sunny ways”. Voters wanted a government that acted humanely and decisively on the Syrian refugee crisis. They got that, probably not as quickly as promised but they got it. That was good, very good. More importantly, it was right.

In 2006, Harper abolished disability pensions for veterans forced to retire from the military because of injuries. He replaced the pension with lump sum payments. Trudeau and the Liberals campaigned on bringing back the pensions. They also vowed to bring back the nine veterans offices closed by the Harper gang and, now elected, have promised the offices will reopen by year’s end. That’s a good, wise, move which most Canadians likely support. However, they will not reintroduce disability pensions. Instead, they will increase the amounts of the lump sum payments. That’s not only an extremely bad move, it’s a broken promise. It’s a betrayal of those who sacrificed and will sacrifice so much for this country. For the veterans, the Trudeau win was preferable to Harper’s return but it’s still a mixed bag of win, loss and betrayal.

Trudeau has made application to regain a seat on the UN Security Council for Canada. That’s another good move. In doing so, he declared Canada would promote peace and human rights. Well, he was less than truthful on that, I suggest, after announcing his government would honour the light-armoured trade deal with Saudi Arabia one of the world’s egregious violators of human rights. The deal, brokered by Harper is, itself, in contravention of Canada’s own human rights policy regarding international trade, which states that Canada must monitor and ensure that the other party to the deal does not violate human rights. That was expected of Harper, but Trudeau? The young prime minister offers several excuses for going through with it. Firstly, he says the deal was already signed and sealed and cannot be broken. Secondly, he claims no other nation would want to trade with us if we broke the contract. Those are excuses and they ring hollow. The Dutch had no qualms about breaking a contract with the Saudis over human rights. Liberal Jean Chretien had no qualms about walking away from a Conservative helicopter deal that resulted in severe penalties for Canada. As for the second excuse, well, that’s just ridiculous. Canada still signs global trade deals clearly suffering no fallout over the failed helicopter debacle, though, it must be noted, again under Harper, Canada has inked a deal with China another violator of human rights. Canada’s standing would almost certainly rise globally as a defender of human rights were Trudeau to cancel the deal likely leading to even more trade with better trading partners. Even if not, should human rights be of secondary consideration? Sometimes doing the right, moral thing does come with a cost; it could also pay dividends. Liberals, no doubt holding their noses will honour the deal because $15 billion and 3,000 Canadian jobs are at stake. Not all that much different from Harper really when it comes to the bottom line. But, for those seeking consolation, Trudeau did promise that he would, in the future, consider human rights when brokering a trade deal. It doesn’t help the citizens of Saudi Arabia nor does it do anything to curtail human rights abuses but, what the hey, there are 3,000 Canadian jobs saved if not Saudi lives. No, the Liberals will not lose any sleep over abuses. Principle’s a honey if it don’t cost money. If the voters expected more and better from this government on this issue, they did not get it.

Nor did they get what they might have hoped for when they look at some of the Liberal hiring practices.

Bill Morneau, a powerhouse in the private sector as executive chair to one of the largest Canadian human resources firms, has created an economic advisory council made up mostly of upper management from such diverse private corporate sectors as Canada’s GE branch; Cenovus a tar sands company; Linacare a Vancouver-based cosmetics company; two executives from Starfort Investments; and from Mohr Davidow Ventures (Rabble.ca, Karl Nerenberg, March 21, 2016). Now, the Trudeau government would want us to concentrate on the fact that, of the fifteen members to the Council, 8 are women. That part is good. However, as Karl Nerenberg points out, absent are representatives from Labour and the Indigenous communities. Now that’s not good. Apparently Big Business has as strong an ally with Trudeau’s regime as it had with Harper’s. So much so in fact, representatives from the corporate world can be found working for, or with more likely, various ministers. Sharan Kaur a former communications expert for TransCanada, works for Morneau as Senior Special Assistant. Jim Carr, natural resources minister, has hired a former executive of Shell and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Janet Annesley. So what has really changed with this change of government? Well, it seems, it’s a bit of a mixed bag but not when it comes to business. The plutocrats are going to do very well with Trudeau at the helm.

Welcome back, Liberals, they missed you. Sort of.

In the trade area, Canadians can expect little to change. By now, we have come to accept NAFTA apparently untroubled that it allows corporate interests to supersede the sovereignty of the trading nations. The Europeans, having taken note of this, have insisted upon changes to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), called “gold plated” by Canada’s international trade minister, Chrystia Freeland. It is all but a done deal. The changes are to the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause allowing for appeals, a putatively independent 15-member permanent trade tribunal that will make it slightly more difficult, but not impossible, for companies to challenge the laws of a nation that may impact corporate profit-making. “Gold-plated”? Absolutely. Corporations for some time have become more powerful than some nations with corporate interests superseding the laws of a nation. If that worries you, the Trans-Pacific Partnership with Canada and eleven other nations including the US, which calls it an “American Made” deal, will prove even more problematic. Negotiated under a cloak of secrecy, with severe penalties for anyone revealing details of the deal, Canadians have little to no knowledge of what will be gained or, more likely, lost until the deal is ratified which Trudeau appears ready to move on. For some critics, the TPP is one of the worst deals ever granting multinationals even greater powers over a nation’s right to introduce laws protecting their citizens from the depredations of Big Business. How different are the Trudeau Liberals from the Harper Conservatives? Not much. How far are we now from a true Corporatocracy? Not far.

YOU’RE A HYPOCRITE. NO, YOU ARE!

Most of us are familiar with the Temporary Foreign Workers Program and the numerous abuses allowed under the Conservatives that encouraged the suppression of Canadian wages of low-income earners. In 2015, Trudeau and the Liberals demanded the program be scaled back, that there be greater transparency, compulsory workplace audits etc. (go to http://ntfw.ca to find out more on the Liberal stance on TFWP), all laudable. However, the governing Liberals, clearly cognizant of the debt owed to the east coast for its sweep of 32 seats and hounded by its own elected east coast MPs working on behalf of seafood processors, have very, very quietly removed the requirement that companies file a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) form. Foreign workers are now free to work for the processors. The Liberals claim this is a temporary measure. Well, we heard that before.

The truth is, Canadians have always suspected it, felt it in their bones: the rich are treated differently from us and better; they have more advantages, more tax loopholes, and more government ears eager to hear what they have to say particularly when the speaker is waving a wad of bills. Recently, surprise, surprise, there has been much in the news seeming to confirm that suspicion. Corporations and wealthy individuals do get more and better and more and more again.

Fintrac (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), a federal anti-laundering agency, has recently revealed that a Canadian bank has been fined $1.1 million for failing to report suspicious activity, including transfers of money. Of particular interest is the federal agency using its discretionary powers to withhold the name of the bank. The fine, a pittance that can likely be written off through some loophole, will, Fintrac claims, act as deterrence by sending a strong message. How? Where is the deterrence when the offender escapes public notice and possible censure? In the past, Fintrac has fined smaller companies without hesitating to name them. Why did this bank get special treatment? True, this is a first fine ever imposed on a bank. Strangely enough, I derive no solace from this bit of information because I find more worrisome the fact that a government agency, in not naming the bank, appears more interested in protecting the interests of the bank, which may or not be assisting gangsters or tax evaders, rather than that of its customers or of Canadians in general.

That appears to be the trend with Canadian governments. The previous government under Harper appeared loath to pursue tax evaders with offshore accounts though it has been estimated corporations and wealthy individuals have stiffed Canadians to the tune ranging from $7 to $9 billion a year. Yet, instead of going after possible tax cheat ripping off billions, the Harper gang laid off over 3,000 CRA workers and proceeded to politicize the agency by ordering it to audit and harass “left” leaning charities purely on a partisan basis. When Trudeau became prime minister, he said targeted audits of charities would cease but those already under investigation would continue. Nothing then about tax cheats or offshore account.

So, how serious is this government when it comes to tackling offshore accounts and tax evaders? Probably not at all serious.

On March 8, 2016, CBC reported a story straight out of spy school in which a member of their team received a brown envelope containing documents revealing CRA amnesty offers, with a confidentiality clause, for wealthy tax dodging “high net worth clients”, fraudsters in other words, of KPMG, provided they pay back what is owed. KPMG is a huge auditing firm that has allegedly helped individuals and corporations set up shell companies in the Isle of Man (CBC News, Mar. 8, 16, Harvey Cashore, Dave Seglins, Frederic Zalac, Kimberly Ivany http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cra-kpmg-anger-at-secret-deal-1.3479792 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2752975-May-2015-CRA-amnesty-offer-to-KPMG-Clients.html ). What makes this news even more difficult to endure is the fact that other Canadians, ordinary and unsophisticated, have been innocently caught up in similar scams by unscrupulous firms. The CRA not only went after them, they went after them with a vengeance with penalties grossly disproportionate to the offence levying fines ranging from $50,000 to $70,000 for illegitimate claims between $10,000 and $20,000. Even recently, KPMG and members of the CRA have been caught meeting at the Chateau Laurier. When CBC’s Frederic Zalac attempted to speak to the new Canada Revenue minister, Diane Lebouthillier, she refused to respond to his questions. Said Trudeau regarding the leaked news, “It is a concern to us that Canadians – all Canadians – pay their fair share of taxes, and we will ensure that that continues to be the case in the future. (italics added FP) (CBC).” In the future… that’s rather telling isn’t it? There have been some who say the cost of trying to recover money owed would be too costly. How’s that? Some politicians have said the same, as have some columnists. Even some ordinary coffee drinking folks, those law abiding tax-paying suckers buy it. That argument can be made when we spend many thousands to punish and imprison petty criminals, but when fraudsters stash billions in foreign havens, the argument is specious. If the object is to punish criminals, tax evaders, who are cheats, fraudsters, and thieves, have a greater and wider impact on all citizens. And those who abet them, those politicians who write laws making it easier for people to funnel their money elsewhere, to evade paying their fair share, to rip off and gouge Canadians, are as culpable. What the CRA has offered with the secret document is tantamount to a reward: Go thou and sin; if caught, apologize, pay up what you owe and sin no more, all is forgiven. Hysterical isn’t it?

Laughably, the CRA denies there are special deals. If that were so, why insert a confidentiality clause? Trudeau initially promised to set aside $90 million a year for five years ($444.4 million) for “special added” tools to combat tax cheating. A good start would be to hire back the 3,000 CRA accountants fired by Harper. Then they might take a look at look at the activities of some of the large accounting firms and our banks, RBC for one. Among the 11.5 million leaked documents from Mossack Fonesca a Panamanian law firm exposing the world of offshore accounts, RBC was named as creating at least 370 foreign corporations on behalf of clients. Now, offshore accounts may be legal but making up a corporation seems to be a tax avoidance dodge. With the leak of the so-called Panama Papers, politicians of all stripes have expressed faux outrage, mock surprise and offered platitudes and promises to look into the matter. The sad thing is, this has been going on for decades. It’s not news nor is it new. Tax cheats are no secret. What may have been is the role government plays in passing laws making it easier for corporations and the wealthy to cheat. One thing is certain: corporations and wealthy individuals caught cheating must pay the severest penalties, including jail time. Now that may be a deterrent.

HAPPY HOUR

And then, when it seems things couldn’t possibly get worse for the average taxpayer, it does.

For most of us, the closest we get to politicians may be on television or, when running for office, they knock on doors begging for support and money. A few of us may write letters seeking help or to scold or to offer suggestions on some issue; even fewer receive anything but a form reply.

But there are a privileged few able to access politicians at any time – for a price. Lately, we’ve been hearing a lot about this but it’s a practice likely as old as politics. As long as there is money, politicians will always listen. Everyone once-in-a-while, there are flurries of reports of politicians in on the take. Politicians will parade before the media expressing shock and outrage hastening to add that such breaches are rare, most who serve the public are honest, hard working members of parliament. The public will awakened momentarily, they’ll huff and puff and quickly go back to sleep and it will be business as usual.

It shouldn’t be.

For a price, one could meet Kathleen Wynne, the premier of Ontario or any member of her cabinet. We have the report by Adrian Morrow for the Globe and Mail March 29, 2016, of two Ontario provincial ministers, Charles Sousa, Finance Minister, and Bob Chiarelli, Energy Minister, attending a fundraiser at $7,500 per individual December 7, 2015. The Liberals raised $165,000. The event, promoted by the Bank of Nova Scotia, one of the banks behind the privatization of Hydro One, took place a month after the initial public offer (IPO), which resulted in 15% of the government company being sold for $1.8 billion earning the syndicate $29.3 million from the privatization deal. Very cozy. Regarding the secret fundraiser, Sousa simply commented this was “part of the democratic process”. Say, what? Morrow also notes there had been another fundraiser with Wynne and, again, Chiarelli meeting lobbyists at $6000 per individual. So that is Sousa’s version of the democratic process. It’s not mine.

Following the revelations, a rattled Wynne called off all private fundraising events and hoped her ministers, who, she admitted, had been instructed to raise up to $500,000 a year, would do the same. You see she wanted to take the lead in setting an example. That might have had merit had she done this on her own rather than nudged by blaring headlines. Further, she vowed she would change regulations regarding fundraising. Corporate and union donations would not be allowed or accepted. There would be changes regarding third-party advertising. And there would be limits for individuals (it’s $100 max in Quebec). But, and one likely expected this, there was a caveat: the changes would be phased in over time and not be completed by next election. Presumably this provides enough warning and time for lobbyists to pour money into the party coffers and party shakedown artists to get to work on others.

It has been reported that Christy Clark, the premier of British Columbia, can be met privately for $10,000 and $20,000. Unlike Wynne, Clark says there will be no changes in how she and her party raise funds. She governs for everyone, she says and owes no favours. Maybe so. But we’ve heard all this before, bags of money waved before politicians and not a single one of them influenced. Yeah, right. The dough raised by the Liberals and the profit made by the syndicate at the fundraising event just happened to be a coincidence. They really do believe we are that stupid.

Then we have federal justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould attending a fundraiser held by a prestigious law firm for $500 a head. Which makes her a piker next to Clark. That she did so is unseemly fairly shrieking conflict of interest. When asked about it, she said she was there as a Liberal minister not as Justice Minister. Incredible. Did I neglect to mention they really, really do believe us that stupid? This incident seriously leads to questions regarding her judgement. Her response is legalese, a weasel’s plea that makes her contemptible. Yet Trudeau, her boss, sees nothing wrong with it. This is the man who promised to introduce a new era of brighter, better, more transparent governance; he has just demonstrated he is as phony as Harper who promised exactly the same when they took over from the Liberals.

Now there are folks who will defend such conduct. There are folks who will defend offshore accounts saying they are legal while ignoring ethics. Ethics are for suckers. There are folks who will also defend fundraising efforts where those with money buy access to politicians. I’m not one of them. Politicians will say no favours are bought. They will say they cannot be bought and claim they can look themselves in the mirror. That’s because they possess no shame. We are to take them at their word. After all, they are referred to as Honourable members. But why should we? How can we? Meetings held in secret do not offer affirmation of integrity. They certainly do not offer reason to not doubt. I know this, when I offer money, I expect something in return. Even when I give to charity, I expect to feel better. And I know when someone offers me money he wants and expects something in return. Politicians will not even admit that.

Not all politicians are bad or corruptible. But neither are they all good, decent, truthful, and trustworthy. The revelations we have been plagued with recently have cast a harsh glare on those in whom we place our trust. The news regarding those who have held and are presently holding office, mostly Conservatives and Liberals, even the NDP, both federally and provincially, provide the clearest evidence of the certainty that politicians, some even handsome and youthful, and relatively inexperienced wear many masks, all ugly. Over the years, I have seen the masks of Shamelessness, of the Liar, of Hypocrisy, of Cravenness, of Avarice, of the Panderer, of Complacency, and of Deceit. Almost every member of the Harper gang wore those faces, some all at once. The Liberals before them were the same but, probably, with a bit more flare. Even today, with a relatively new mandate, we can see signs of the old Liberal party habits that eventually led to their exile for ten years. How long has it been since the public has set eyes upon the faces of Nobility, of Integrity, of Decency? These are characteristics that need no masks. A few may recall Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles, and Robert Stanfield; occasionally we have sightings of Joe Clark and Ed Broadbent who offer hints of the better part of nature.

It’s one thing for politicos to make large promises and then scale them back or even break them. But I would prefer it if they did not offer the same excuses: the other guys made the mess, the other guys left the cupboard bare, the other guys do it so why can’t I.

Politics is a filthy game. Whatever nobility may have been are now distant, not even memory.

So what are we to make of politicos who craft laws that benefit the wealthy and corporate interests, who can grant themselves raises four times higher than they grant public servants? We have heard a lot about offshore accounts and those taking advantage of them and those holding office saying they are legal. So what if they are legal? Why are appearances and ethics dismissed? Why should corporations and the wealthy be allowed special private access to politicians and granted loopholes denied most Canadians to maximize their profits and minimize paying their share? Why are tax cheats offered special, secret deals by the CRA?

Perhaps the answer lies with those politicians who meet in secret with individuals with fistfuls of cash.

Yes, I’d rather meet a con than a politician because the politician’s likely both.

On a Personal Note: I wish to honour the memory of my dear, dear friend, Gunther Voigt. To those of us who knew and loved him, he was simply “Dutchie”. He was loud, brash, sometimes crude but he was also much more. He was always kind, generous, truthful. He was always there for you. For the past few years, we did not meet as often as we wished but when we did, it was as if we had never been away. He was the brother I never had. I will always cherish his memory and my thoughts will be with his match and his love, Ingrid. Our thoughts are now with her and his two daughters.

***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine.

***

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

4 Comments

Posted in Canadian Politics, Political Commentary and tagged Christy Clark, Fintrac, fundraisers, Hydro One, Isle of Man, Jody Wilson-Raybould, Kathleen Wynne, KPMG, Mossack Fonseca, RBC, Saudi Arabia arms deal, secret meetings, shell companies, tax cheats, tax evaders, tax havens, TFWP, the Panama Papers. Bookmark the permalink.

	Frank A. Pelaschuk on TRUDEAU: STARSTRUCK, BAD CHOIC…
	Ingrid on TRUDEAU: STARSTRUCK, BAD CHOIC…
	Frank A. Pelaschuk on THE NDP AND JAGMEET SINGH: THE…
	Pamela Mac Neil on THE NDP AND JAGMEET SINGH: THE…
	Frank A. Pelaschuk on TRUDEAU, HYPOCRISY AND THE RES…

Political Knocks

Tag Archives: KPMG

GAMING THE SYSTEM AND OTHER MISDEEDS: THE GREAT LIBERAL BETRAYAL

PIGGIES: POLITICIANS, THE GRAVY TRAIN AND THE LEGITIMIZATION OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR

BOUGHT AND SOLD: POLITICIANS AND THE TRUE COST OF DEMOCRACY

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Personal Links

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Meta

Archives

Categories

Copyright © Frank A. Pelaschuk Political Knocks 2013

Political Knocks

Tag Archives: KPMG

GAMING THE SYSTEM AND OTHER MISDEEDS: THE GREAT LIBERAL BETRAYAL

Share this:

Like this:

PIGGIES: POLITICIANS, THE GRAVY TRAIN AND THE LEGITIMIZATION OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR

Share this:

Like this:

BOUGHT AND SOLD: POLITICIANS AND THE TRUE COST OF DEMOCRACY

Share this:

Like this:

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Personal Links

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Meta

Archives

Categories

Copyright © Frank A. Pelaschuk Political Knocks 2013