Max tells all?

Maxime Bernier, the horn-dog of Canada's Greatest GovermentTM, has told an audience of his loyal followers in his home riding of Beauce, that the Julie Couillard misunderstanding was not a misunderstanding... it was a plot to get him.

“Did Ms. Couillard inform me of her past ties with people involved in organized crime? The answer is no. She did not inform, and no one else ever informed me, at any level. I knew of her past exactly what she wanted to tell me,” claims Maxie.

His dad, former MP Gilles Bernier, goes the extra step for poor Maxie. "It was certainly a trick,” he exclaims. So why did Maxie have to resign if he was set up? Dad says, "In the heat of the moment, he was forced to. He had no choice." Boo Hoo!

Got to admit though, Dad makes a better case than does Maxie.

Dad defends the misplacement of the so-called secret documents with this quip, "... he did not even know the nature of the documents." 'Scuse me? The cabinet minister did not know the nature of the documents in his red box?

But that is a better excuse than Maxie comes up with. "The level of importance of these briefing notes did not justify them being numbered so their disappearance would be noticed or they could be tracked." He seems to be claiming that he did know the nature of the documents. Is he saying that Dad is wrong?

So let's cut to the chase in this issue.

Max Bernier took Julie Couillard to visit with the GG, the PM and the rest of the Con cabinet to view his swearing in. And no one checked out Ms Couillard before the ceremony. Fire the RCMP.

Then Maxie took Julie overseas on a government jet and no one bothered to check her out? Fire the RCMP and PMO.

Maxie's department did not number the briefing notes he left in Julie's playroom. Fire his department.

Maxie's dad is making up lies to cover for his son. Fire Gilles, or at least cut off his pension.

According to Bernier, Julie is the blame for this set-up. She must be a spy so make her go away.

The only innocent person in this whole sordid affair is... wait for it... Maxime Bernier!

How cruel was it of the PM to demand his resignation?

Green Shift plan?

Dion released his Green Shift plan yesterday. I downloaded a copy of the guide so that I could comment with some facts behind me, rather than just empty rhetoric as which comes out the mouths of the opponents to fixing the climate.

"Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy," blurts PM Harper to anyone who will listen (and the numbers who listen are growing smaller by the day).

Even the ultra left Deputy NDP leader Thomas Mulcair branded the plan "a train wreck of programs..."

Is the plan complete? No. I would prefer that the plan give some more obvious estimates of the effects of the plan on carbon emissions. The Liberals have stated that their goal was to reduce 2020 emissions to a level that will be 20% below the level in 1990. Is that do-able? Certainly the Con and NDP policies of capping emissions won't do it.

Is the plan possible to achieve, especially the revenue neutral part? Both the Cons and the NDP, as well as most of the media gloss over the statement in the plan that the Auditor General will make sure that money in versus money out as outlined in the plan is achieved. Do the Cons, NDP and media not trust the Auditor General?

To underline and personalize the way the plan will work, the Green Shift web site (www.thegreenshift.ca) has a calculator to determine what your tax offset will be under the plan. However, rather than being personal on the cost side, the plan makes a general statement that the cost will be $350 per household, offset by the savings in taxes. We have two vehicles, live in the country and have gas heat. Are we typical? I am not sure.

Have we gone so far to partisanship in this country that we automatically oppose any idea if it isn't our own? Pretty sad state of affairs.

Two sides to an agreement

In my June 12 entry, I applauded Harper for the apology over residential schools, while at the same time wondering how sincere he was; considering that his pet-MP, Perfect PP, was given a clean bill of health by Harper when he (PP) should have been hung and quartered over the timing and tone of his comments about First Nations folks.

I also have a lingering doubt about the sincerity of First Nations folks surrounding this apology... this admission of guilt... on behalf of Canadians.

It is said that there are two parties to an apology. One to make it and one to accept it. We certainly had both parties to the apology on the Hill last week. But it also takes two parties to make an agreement work. I wonder if we have two parties.

I refer to the fact that, on one hand, the federal government does not seem to have a plan in mind to move forward from this apology and, on the other hand, some members of the First Nations seem to think that they have a blank check to screw Canadians.

Take, as example of the latter, the issue at Summerville Lake near Campbell's Bay, Ontario. Cottagers in the area have been told that their land is now part of a land claim and that, according to gun-toting natives, they, the cottagers, have to pay road access fees to local natives who run a camp nearby. The law is on the side of the cottagers with respect to road access and the issue of land claims did not even come up until after the natives bought the nearby camp. Before that there was no land claim. In fact the closest reserve to Summerville Lake is over 60 kilometers away. I wonder if the natives feel emboldened to blackmail Canadians because Canadians apologized for a past problem?

The natives are now saying that they are going to claim the entire Pontiac area of Quebec as their native territory and demand that the government pay them a land claims. Sounds like a money grab to me.

Did you know that 117% of BC is claimed by one native group or another? The First Nations can't agree between themselves which group has an historic right to which territory. It sounds a bit like they are throwing copious amounts of feces at the wall, hoping that some of it will stick.

There are some legitimate land claims and some bogus ones. Will Phil Fontaine and the Assembly of First Nations stand up and be counted to move their relationship with Canadians forward by helping to sort these out?

PP does it ever again

Two hours before PM Harper rises in the Commons to issue an solemn apology from all Canadians to "victims" of the Residential Schools fiasco, his Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, the Perfect PP, Pierre "potty-mouth" Poilievre does it again. This guy is an embarrassment to the whole country... not just to his constituents!

PP goes on radio and wonders out loud if giving $4 billion to First Nations, as part of the apology, is good value-for-money. (Never mind that he cannot even get the amount right!) He then goes on to suggest that First Nations people are lazy, the cause of their own problems and demands an accounting of the $10 billion given to First Nations yearly.

Even if you have some good points, PP, did you not think that blowing off your mouth like this two hours before your Boss rises with an apology, might not be appropriate?

PP made an apology in the Commons today so, according to the PM, everything is hokey-dokey. The First Nations leaders and the opposition called for PP to lose his job in the secretarial pool but Harper will have nothing of it. I guess he needs PP to keep saying stupid things so the no one notices the rest of his government.

Makes you wonder how heart-felt Harper's apology was?

Time to cut the neighbours loose

Let's say that you tell your kids and some of the neighbours kids that they cannot throw a ball against your garage door. The neighbours hear about the ban and they confront you. There is an obscure clause in a city bylaw, they say, that states that you cannot prohibit the neighbours kids from throwing a ball against your garage. Ludicrous you say? Can't happen, you claim? Well listen to this!

In 1951 the Alberta government enacted a law (Alberta Gas Resources Preservation Act) that states that the province must maintain at least a 15 year reserve of natural gas before they can export any to other provinces or to the US. In my example, that is akin to you telling the kids not to throw the ball against the garage.

In 1989, the Canadian government and the US entered into the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement, (think of it as the city bylaw in our example) which included an innocuous clause which referred to proportionality with respect to Canada's natural gas and oil and its export to the US. In fact, the clause has the effect of forcing Canada to make available about two thirds of its energy capacity to the US - regardless to the needs or situations of Canadians. This clause was carried over into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Alberta, according to recent studies, has only eight years of proven reserves, much less than the 15 years demanded by their own law. So, the Alberta government should be restricting their export taps a bit to get their reserves back up to the legal minimum, right? Can't! The FTA (and NAFTA) make the Alberta law invalid. The US controls the exports of Alberta energy through the FTA. The US controls the laws of Alberta.

Can you say unacceptable?

NAFTA (which interestingly includes Mexico but the carried-over FTA proportionality clause does not affect them) has a six month exit clause. With six months notice we can get out of NAFTA including: the tribunals that have screwed up our environment by stopping us from banning dangerous chemicals from entering Canada; the lopsided actions that have screwed up our softwood lumber, potato and beef exports; and demands that we give the US, our partner, two thirds of our energy, even if our own country is in need.

Barrack Obama has mused about renegotiating NAFTA. Maybe Canada's Greatest Government(TM) should muse that also. No... hang on a bit. CGG(TM) is owned by the oil companies and their lobbyists.

Maybe Harper will apologize to Canadians when he finished apologizing for the Residential Schools, to Sikhs over Komagata Maru and whatever other groups he wants to pander to.

Van Looney slips a cog

Con House Leader and robust member of the burger-of-the-month club, Peter Van Loan, is not well known for his civility in the kinder, gentler Con regime up on Parliament Hill. He is better known for spewing invective and insults at any one who dares to ask a question of Canada's Greatest Government(TM), even if the question is directed at someone else. His most recent target was MP Bob Rae.

During Question Period on June 4, Bobby had the audacity to ask why the PM (praise be his name), Homeland Security Czar Stockie Day and the former Minster of Foreign (and I suppose, Domestic...) Affairs, Max Bernier, refused to meet with the parliamentary committee set up to discuss Max's misunderstanding of what constitutes national security and confidentiality. I am sure that Peter would have responded in a civil way (yea, sure) except that Rae prefaced his question by quoting the PM. According to Rae, the PM said in a throne speech in 2006, that: "No aspect of responsible government is more fundamental than having the trust of citizens....It is time for accountability."

How dare you quote our exalted PM, blurts Pete. He is a deity to be revered... not quoted, he screams, with Burger King drool dripping from the side of his mouth. He then slagged the Canadian system of government by saying; "Here we go with another kangaroo court, Mr. Speaker."

Hey Pete. It was a good question. Why not answer it? And do you have such a low opinion of all Commons Committees or just the ones not run by Cons?

A note to Cons - Look out your window

Back on April 17, I mentioned in my blog that there were no secrets in Ottawa, just people who try to make them. I was referring to the accusation made by the Cons that Elections Canada had "tipped off" the Liberals that the Con party HQ was about to be visited by the Federales with respect to the "In and Out" scandal... err misunderstanding.

Just for kicks I decided to locate the Con and Lib HQs on Google Earth and guess what? You can see each others building from each others offices.

Is it possible, Cons, that someone in Lib HQ saw the RCMP wagons circle your HQ and went to take a look, grabbing a video camera as they were going out?

The image above shows you the locations of the Cons on Albert St and the Libs on Metcalfe St..

Hey, I am just asking.

It's perfect to be Perfect

I have started 4 companies, hired, or caused to be hired, about 45 people and sometimes I had to go into debt to do this. According to Mighty-Mouth, the Perfect PP, MP Pierre What's-His-Name, Nepean Carleton's answer to hoof-and-mouth, I cannot be trusted to run Canada because, by having debt, I am too weak to manage my own finances.

Seems that PP has found a new item to work himself into a lather over, in the fact that Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has some lingering debts from his leadership campaign 18 months back. The horror! PP has to get his kicks in before the Elections Canada 24 month deadline for Dion to pay off the debt... just in case Dion does pay them off and PP has nothing to foam at the mouth over.

PP does not represent the people of Nepean Carleton. Most, if not all, of them have mortgages, car loans and/or credit card debt. According to PP this makes them too weak to manage their finances. Let's not ignore the fact that PP, as a Parliamentary Secretary, makes over $170,000 plus expenses, plus housing allowance plus tax free goodies like free train travel, air travel and the clean rarefied air of self-importance. God only know how much his live-in (Not married? The horror!) paramour tops the family income up to. The average family income in Nepean Carleton is less than half of what PP sucks from the public teat.

PP does not represent Mr. and Ms. Nepean Carleton. He should be told so at the next election.