Exigenomicon

Plutocrats Believe Their Own Hype in Senate Scandal

The Watchmen are watching the Watchmen whilst running amok, except when they are averting their eyes.

Like Watching Spartacus

The Senate appears less a sober, second chamber and more a hedonistic Roman orgy, thick fingers dipping into public purses with impunity, making up the rules as they go along, crucifying some and worshipping others; no paperwork, no muss, no fuss. It is an honour system without the honour. It is an aphorism - an anachronism that doesn't know and cannot even suspect that it is obsolete.

Squirming in the Net

And to watch the endless parade of plutocrats squirm in this dragnet is not an easy thing.

• To watch them twist the definition of honourable into its doppelganger and then wear it on their lapels like a wilted rose demands the greatest of naivete.
• To listen to their irrational logic one might surmise they believe themselves omnipotent, and that their statements are true because they have had life breathed into them.
• To watch them turn on each other like jackfish in a barrel is wondrous and sad at the same time.

Secret Cabal

Lawyers are used for gentleman's agreements, $90K cheques are written, reports are whitewashed; it all seems to be done by some secret cabal at the very height of government, right under the nose of the Prime Minister, making secret deals, compounding illegal and unethical actions in order to protect each other, claiming honour yesterday and shame today, obuscating the truth and hiding behind any shield in the storm.

A good example from Erin Wherry: Maclean’s exclusive: David Tkachuk on Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright and the Senate

Q: … no, more specifically, regardless of whether there was an agreement, was it ever suggested to you that you should treat him differently? Did Nigel ever suggest that you should go easy on Mike Duffy? 

A: No. I mean, you’ve got to remember I would have been having a number of discussions with Nigel, I had a few of them. He didn’t tell me to do anything, really. We discussed Mike and the situation that he was in. I mean, the Prime Minister’s Office was very concerned about this. They don’t like this scandal going on. It was hurting us politically. And I didn’t like it going on, but he never said, he never told me to whitewash anything or to let him off the hook or anything like that.

Conclusion

This senate/PMO collusion is a swirling vortex of scandal, privilege and excess, each player beholden to his or her teammates for their station, all the while coached by the Prime Minister (sometimes players are cut from the team or demoted to the farm team).

The senate is out of control, out of touch and out of time.

A Real Life Get Out of Jail Free Card

This week has been a literal gold minefield for Canadian politics. Incredible juicy exploding nuggets of scandal and intrigue, uncovered under every nook and behind every cranny.

I encourage you to explore all the scandal eviscerating the senate right now, but I want to focus on one particular angle from this article: Damning Findings Removed from Sen. Mike Duffy's Audit Report.

Sources say the whitewash was part of a backroom deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright.

Fife revealed earlier this week that Wright helped Duffy pay back a $90,172 debt to the Senate for improperly claimed living expenses.

The PMO then confirmed that Wright, a former Bay Street executive, wrote a personal cheque to Duffy as a gift to an old friend, although sources say the two men are not close.

To put this into context, Nigel Wright has stuck his neck out not once, but twice, for Mike Duffy, and in both cases the circumstances are dubious at best and may prove yet to be criminal. And many people want to know the answer to a very simple question: Why?

In the absence of any coherent or believable communications from the Senate, the CPC or the PMO, all we're left with as an electorate are insidious conspiracies and anti-elitist fantasies.

Let's approach it logically

What would it take for Person A (Duffy) to get Person B (Wright) to whitewash damning reports and give A, under a cloak of secrecy, $90,000 in order to repay possibly fraudulently claimed expenses? These are the possible scenarios:

• B is so honourable that he will fall on his sword protecting A
• C is making B fall on his sword protecting A
• B owes A a previous debt
• A has made promises to B
• A has control over B

B is so honourable that he will fall on his sword protecting A

While this is possible, it isn't really plausible. Wright is an extremely competent person, from what I've read about him - smart and driven. These are rookie mistakes, if they are mistakes at all.

C is making B fall on his sword protecting A

Andrew Coyne also wonders why and suggests that a Fear of Audits led Conservatives to cover for Mike Duffy:

The question is why? Why go to such lengths to protect him? Why risk so much for so little? The revelations of recent days suggest one reason: because of the sorts of things the auditors were likely to uncover, had they been allowed to do their work.and to this possibility - that powers greater than Wright are pulling his purse strings.

There is only one person in the whole country that could make Wright risk so much for so little.

The PMO has been uncategorically supportive of Wright but has cut Duffy adrift, a flusterpated zeppelin about to be engulfed in a fantastical fireball.

B owes A a previous debt

It is possible and plausible that Duffy did something in the past for which he received a real life Get Out of Jail Free card, if it were to come to that.

He is a vociferous fundraiser and, against the rules, an influential campaigner.

B has made promises to A

We can't legitimately believe that snow-white altruism led to the gift of $90K. That there were no strings attached to either the whitewash or the money is not plausible. No one risks this type of exposure without some expectation of patronage, especially Wright, who seems to have broken the cardinal rule about being PM CofS:  "never become the story".

It is possible and plausible that Duffy has promised some future mark to be called in on a whim, no questions asked, or perhaps he's already fulfilling those promises in his hermitage.

A has control over B

It might be that whenever Duffy comes calling Wright must answer for reasons entirely unknown. It may not even involve Wright directly. While this is possible, it does not seem plausible.

Conclusion

This story is moving too fast - Nigel Wright resigned this morning, but there will be more to come and more and more it appears that a mysterious Person C is making Wright fall on his sword for Duffy, but we'll have to watch and see.

 

The Leaders of Canada, Ladies and Gentlemen

Recently a co-worker of mine asked me whether I was concerned about the heaping of attention poured upon Justin Trudeau and what it might mean for 2015.

It is true that the current Conservative-Liberal war certainly takes up a lot of the limelight. It appears that the Conservatives will stop at nothing, not even wasting taxpayer money on partisan "10-percenters", to attempt to grind the Liberals into the dust. This is an ongoing vendetta that sometimes plays out in public, sometimes in the House and always on social media.

On the one side that sort of blind partisanship, that singularity of focus, makes me question all that 'focusing on the economy' rhetoric, but that is another story altogether.

So in my opinion it makes the Conservatives appear vengeful and spiteful, it probably has an effect on Trudeau's ratings (or else they wouldn't do it), which is actually pretty good for Mulcair, since he can focus on things that actually matter to Canadians.

And lo and behold, here is Tom Mulcair making a lot of sense, in the midst of this hyper-partisan war of attrition.

 

So here we have three leaders:

1. Harper is attacking Trudeau on all fronts with his entire arsenal
2. Trudeau is trying to deflect the barrage
3. Mulcair is talking evidence-based policy, jobs and manufacturing

Gnashing of Teeth Puts The Banks In Line

For those of you that don't remember, in the recent past Jim Flaherty, through the Bank of Canada, chastised Canadian corporations for sitting on piles of dead cash ($600B). Flaherty thought that if he gave them lower corporate taxes, that the offset would be used to create jobs. It wasn't used that way - instead it was squirrelled away into rainy day funds, never to be seen again.

For more information about this see my blog post Why Corporate Canada Should Voluntarily Follow Mark Carney's Imperatives.

Flaherty Learns a Lesson

Flaherty has realized that direct action is more effective than second-hand 'through the Bank of Canada' action:

On Tuesday, Flaherty admitted he asked a member of his staff to phone Manulife Financial Corp. (TSX:MFC) after it had cut its posted rate for five-year fixed mortgages to 2.89 per cent from 3.09 per cent.

It’s the second time in a few weeks that Flaherty interfered in the mortgage market. Earlier in the month, he called the Bank of Montreal (TSX:BMO) after it had dropped its posted five-year rate to 2.99 per cent, but on that occasion BMO did not reverse itself.

“As I said before, we encourage prudent lending practices, we don’t want a race to the bottom on mortgage rates by our financial institutions so I’m pleased at their response,” he said.

“I had one of my staff call them and indicate my displeasure, which is the same thing I did with the BMO except I called myself.”

Flaherty blasted for pressuring Manulife to reverse mortgage rate cut

Good Idea, Bad Tactics

I understand that Flaherty does not want a 'race to the bottom'. No one wants a mortgage crisis in Canada. But that is not up to Flaherty. It is up to all Canadians, including Flaherty. And we, apparently, are not to be trusted. Flaherty needs to operate within his purview and use the tools available at his disposal, which I am assuming are myriad. This is not one of them.

He needs to come up with a better solution that bullying banks into homogeneous mortgage rates.

Father Finance Minister Knows Best

By exploiting his position, Flaherty does us no favours.

It's not like after this happened I was like 'oh, I guess I trust the government and banks more now and their independence is further proven'.

From the Conservative Party of Canada website:

Now is not the time for instability, or for reckless, opportunistic experiments. (quote unattributed)

I think that all Canadians, regardless of partisan stripe, would agree that reckless, opportunistic experiments are bad. Can directly influencing competitive free market bank rates through a phone call be considered reckless? Possibly. I leave it to you to decide. You can also consider whether it is opportunistic, just before the budget is announced.

Investors Should Be Furious

If I were an investor at one of these banks and had products that included mortgages, and I found out the government politely forced my bank to not maximize my dividend according to a business plan, I would be livid.

It Must Be Serious

For Flaherty to try and bully banks twice in the last couple of weeks and try to force them to change their rates, the situation must be dire.

It doesn't give me much confidence in the economy or the upcoming budget either. When the Finance Minister goes rogue to protect Canadians from themselves in the 'greatest economy in the world', you know things are going south.

It also makes me think that maybe interest rates are going to go up. Soon. And often.

Conclusion

The housing market is crashing. The government is desperate to fend off a housing crisis and it seems all but inevitable when Ministers gnash their teeth at banks in reaction to market pricing adjustments.

Related articles

Flaherty says 'concern for Canadians' prompted mortgage move

Flaherty blasted for pressuring Manulife to reverse mortgage rate cut

Why Liberal and NDP Cooperation Won't Work in Saskatchewan

Much has been said recently of an NDP/Liberal cooperative slate in the next election, allowing all disenfranchised voters to voice their dissatisfaction with the Harper government through a single conduit candidate.

This cooperative government would then implement electoral reform to replace the first-past-the-post method to some other method by which each vote truly counts, such as proportional representation.

Then the government would call another election and proceed under the new system as if no collusion had taken place to oust the current government.

I do not believe that this cooperative agreement will come to fruition, using Saskatchewan as my example.

Saskatchewan is Mostly Blue with a Little Red

Federally, Saskatchewan is represented by one Liberal and thirteen Conservative MPs.

It is an easy decision to let Ralph Goodale stand for re-election in his riding. Ralph understands that he is supported by many in the NDP who do not want to see a Conservative sweep of the province.

Liberals Would Essentially Vapourize

However, the NDP came in second in all Conservative ridings. So would the Liberals be content to remove thirteen candidates from their federal slate? I doubt it. And this would need to be established at least a year in advance in order to begin effective messaging.

And if Goodale chose not to run, the NDP would challenge the right to represent that riding in any cooperative agreement, thus wiping the federal Liberals off the map, quite literally, for one election.

For the federal Liberals, cooperation is political suicide any way you slice it here in Saskatchewan.

 

I am endorsing Erin Weir for Saskatchewan NDP Leader

Let me begin by saying I've really enjoyed the SaskNDP Leadership Campaigns.

And one of the things I've enjoyed is making up my mind to support a candidate. I've chosen Erin because he has economic vision that will make the people of Saskatchewan stand up and take notice in the next election and even before that.

Expert in Economics

I truly believe that the next leader of the NDP in Saskatchewan must be able to provide a credible alternative economic vision for Saskatchewan. Like it or not, the Saskatchewan Party has made the economy their ongoing campaign tool, and so the NDP must be razor sharp on the economy.

If you haven't heard Erin speak about economics, you should. He is razor sharp.

I believe that the NDP can provide a strong vision of the province with progressive ideas within the framework of an economic narrative. And I feel that this vision can be best presented by Erin.

$7/Day Early Learning System

It is this type of bold policy that will set the NDP apart from the Sask Party in the next election. If you've got young children or want to start a family, this could save your family thousands of dollars a year.

• Universal Childcare

But I invite you to examine Erin's platform for yourself.

• www.erinweir.ca/

I recommend reading this blog post first:

• From Opposition to Proposition: Fiscal Politics Versus Fiscal Policy

 And finally, a tongue-in-cheek video:

• The Sask Party Can't Stop  Talking About Erin Weir

The Conservative Real-Time Narrative, Omnibus Bills and Talking Heads

Recently I wrote a piece on how Peter Julian changed the NDP narrative with his budget filibuster.

In this article, I attempt to describe the federal Conservative narrative.

Real-Time Narrative

If the NDP owns the narrative of and for the people, as I argue in my previous post, then the Conservatives are feverishly attempting to own what I want to call the real-time narrative.

In a nutshell: The latest (last) 'thing' that was said or written is the truth and that anything said or written before no longer exists (or even existed in the first place).

It no longer exists because this new X, Y or Z has been put on the table. The narrative is the only good for the moment the words are being said. The narrative has no past and no future - just a perpetual present tense.

Proclaiming that X is Y and then that X is Z and that Y never existed is a time-consuming and onerous task.

It means being in a perpetual war with reality, because reality has a past and a future, not just a present. Unfortunately for Canadians, we live in the reality with which the Conservatives have waged war.

How to Spot Real-Time the Real-Time Narrative

• Interrupting and overtalking on political panel TV shows - literally grasping at the narrative over other panelists by talking over them and usually denying what is being said and then saying the opposite.
• The repetition of talking points during interviews when the questions change
• Prepared statements sent to media instead of MPs or spokespeople (and the media seems only to happy to read the prepared statement as if that is good enough for a political panel)
• Not taking questions from the press but delivering speeches during scrums
• Direct contradictions of statements made in the past (F-35 anyone?)
• Arguing ad infinitum on social media with anyone who dares question the narrative
• Blaming the media when the narrative runs aground or afoul

Implications of the Real-Time Narrative

• No election promises need to be kept
• The electorate remains confused about what is actually happening
• Anything goes as long as it is said at some moment

Omnibus Bills

The omnibus bill is a good manifestation of the real-time narrative. If the narrative is 'in the moment' then the omnibus bill is the best way to cram as much as possible into that moment. It is a real-time event that affects hundreds of pieces of legislation simultaneously.

Omnibus bills also allow the Conservatives to do things that they never said they'd do, but because it is in the bill it automatically becomes something they said they'd do (but they just never said it before, which doesn't matter). They have said it now, in the moment, in the bill, and that's what counts.

Conclusion

This real-time narrative is confusing, maddening and saddening. It takes so much effort and requires so much obtund obedience by the Conservative MPs and spokespeople that it cannot be maintained indefinitely.

Remember: If you only have an eye to the present, you will not be part of the future.

Overuse of sick leave by federal employees highlights Ottawa bully culture

I used to work for a company at which the president yelled at the vice-presidents on a daily basis. He would fume, insult and bully throughout the day, and even at special events, such as when he levelled an attack at a vice-president during his Christmas dinner speech, literally during what was described in the program as a 'blessing'.

At some point, the vice-presidents began to fume, insult and bully the general managers. And so on down to lower management. And so on to the employees. And pretty soon - yep, you guessed it - engagement plummeted. We're talking about 25 points on a 100 point scale in two years. In fact, the last engagement survey was boycotted by many and many simply rated every question at its lowest possible answer, and did not provide a single word or comment within the survey, with the exception of a few employees who provided the exact same line for every comment section, which read something like 'I'm not providing feedback because it won't matter'.

No one even wanted to be at work anymore. It was a caustic, dreadful place. In point of fact, it was making people sick.

The Federal Public Sector

Recently it was learned, through the media, that Public Sector sick days cost $1B a year:

The internal Treasury Board report indicates federal public servants are staying home an average of 18 working days a year, or almost a full month off the job.

That is about 2½ times the average rate of absenteeism in Canadian private industry, and almost twice the level of sick leave and disability claims in the rest of the public sector.

Tony Clement, MD

The response from Tony Clement, President of the Treasury Board, was swift, predictable and telling: Blame the Employees

If you want employees to only take sick days when they're truly sick, then you need engaged employees.

Bully culture

It's no secret that the current government are bullies. Just watch Question Period or read the news. Watch the way they voted down every one of 700 amendments to the omnibus budget bill. Watch Dean Del Mastro or Randy Hoback in committee. Watch David Wilks dripping with emasculation after he tried to put on a brave face for his constituents. Watch MPs blame bureaucrats for unpopular decisions that they themselves voted for. Watch the crude, belligerent attack ads. Watch Conservative MPs yell down dissenting opinions on political talk shows. You can see it every day.

And of course this attitude pervades the lower eschelons of bureaucracy. The top bureaucrats are lambasted by government officials, who in turn emasculate and bully lower bureaucrats. And so on.

Could it be low engagement?

Is it possible that the bully culture has created an endemic system of bullying and apathy within the federal bureacracy? It is not only possible, it is probable.

Engagement is affected by two thing (primarily):

• Pay/benefits
• Direct management

As we've mentioned earlier, a bully culture would definitely lower engagement. Low engagement means people are less proud of their work and less loyal to their workplace. Less loyalty means that benefits are used up. What Tony "Doc" Clement fails to realize is that sick leave is a benefit, and stressed, non-engaged employees are far more likely to use sick leave because they have no loyalty to the company, since it is stressing them out every day. Their job is a paycheque and nothing more. Their benefits are their benefits and while an engaged employee might not feel a headache should keep them from work, a non-engaged employee might stay home at the slightest sickness-related provocation or symptom.

Could it be stress?

And is it possible that stress is making people sick? I think anyone who has held a job knows that stress can make a person sick.

High levels of stress = high levels of absenteeism. This affects all levels of work, including the Senate, as Patrick Brazeau illustrated this week.

Conclusion

If absenteeism runs rampant in an organization, it is usually a clear indication that either management is stressing out the employees or the pay structure is insufficient. Since the pay and benefits of federal bureaucrats seems to be livable, it stands to reason that the absenteeism and higher sick leave is a result of a bully culture that pervades the entire federal apparatchik. Stress is a sickness, and one does not have to look very far to see evidence that federal employees are stressed out, possibly to a breaking point.

Why is Embarrassment a National Security Threat? My Rant

It was recently in the media that the government of Canada perceived 'embarassment' a security threat at the G20 summit.

But how did 'embarassment of the Canadian government' become a national security threat? For the answer I believe we have to look to the current government's approach to governing: No apologies. No humility. No fallibility.

No apologies

It is impossible for a person to go through life without ever uttering an apology. It is a natural part of the way people interact, expressing empathy and remorse for both ill-advised and well-intentioned decisions and actions that go awry. Apologies do not show weakness; they show strength. There is strength in apologizing and strength in accepting an apology.

We can start with the most recent: Tories tried to limit RCMP apology to Pickton Victims.

Komagata Maru

On June 2, 2012, the Conservatives rejected a Komagata Maru apology. The event took place in 1914.

May 23 marked the 98th anniversary of the date the ship arrived from Hong Kong in Vancouver. Due to the discriminatory “continuous journey” regulation, passengers were prevented from disembarking while the ship remained in Burrard Inlet for two months. Passengers were denied basic necessities, including food and water. The ship carried 376 passengers from India. This was one of several incidents in the early 20th century involving Canada’s exclusion laws, designed to keep out immigrants of Asian origin and descent.

Painting Canadians as Child Pornographer Sympathizers

Even when faced with an absolute need for an apology, where there is no question whatsoever, no apology is given. Vic Toews, on the record in the House of Commons, said that anyone who was against Bill C-30 was 'with the child pornographers'. If ever an apology was necessary, to prove some form of humility, some form of empathy, then this was it.

Asked Monday about privacy issues surrounding his new online surveillance bill, C-30, Toews told Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia he could "either stand with us or with the child pornographers."

A number of critics have expressed concern about the bill, including Ontario's privacy commissioner.

In an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CBC Radio's The House, Toews said he has given some thought to the comments.

"And I've thought about this very carefully. If fair minded Canadians have come to the conclusion that my comments in that respect that I made in the heat of Parliamentary debate were not appropriate, I'm prepared to accept their judgment," Toews said.

There was an immediate and harsh online backlash to the bill and to the proponent, wherein it was learned that Vic Toews had an affair with a  babysitter. You may draw your own conclusions, but this seems to be where irony meets hypocrisy. An apology would have shown Vic Toews to have been human, but instead he went on the war path.

Vikileaks Witch Hunt

This also prompted a witch hunt on Parliament Hill, with the Conservatives hurling insults and demanding apologies without evidence. And of course once again, unfounded accusations result in...no apologies. It is important to remember that no laws were broken and nothing illegal took place. What took place was an attempt to deflect humility that resulted in humiliation.

"I call on the NDP to stand up, to take responsibility for these dirty tricks, to apologize, Mr. Speaker, and to identify which one over there is responsible," said  John Baird.

NDP Whip Chris Charlton demanded Baird retract the allegations. IT staff at the House of Commons confirmed the IP addresses could belong to any member of House administration or any user from any political party, she said, and the Speaker's office is looking into it.

"I would call on the minister to table in this House any evidence to back up his unfounded claims and if he doesn’t have such evidence, I would like him to immediately apologize and withdraw his statements unconditionally," she said.

Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan refused to apologize, referring again to the media report.

When the culprit was finally discovered, it had nothing to do with the NDP, and while the government abused the Ethics Committee scope and influence, no apologies were delivered to any of the affected parties.

Calling Canadians Radicals for Opposing Pipelines

In an Open Letter to Canadians, Joe Oliver demonizes millions of Canadians using alarmist rhetoric:

Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade.  Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry.  No mining.  No oil.  No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.

This sums the whole point up nicely, from iPolitics:

“The Harper government strategy with regard to environmental groups has unfortunately dramatically increased the polarization of energy politics in Canada. The Canada characterized by compromise is not Harper’s Canada.”

As far as I could find through a number of searches, Joe Oliver has not apologized. This is yet again a great time to apologize, get a little bit of good press, show you're human etc.

No Humility

A long time ago I was friends with someone who would lie to avoid humility and would continue to lie, regardless of how absurd, to continue to avoid humility. So much so in fact, that the humiliation in the face of the evidence was often worse, not that my friend noticed. Nope, my friend believed that there was only humiliation in defeat, and the only defeat was admitting to being wrong in the first place. If the words were never uttered, then the defeat never happened, no matter how messy the situation became. The ends absolutely and utterly justify the means.

Of course this is a strange and quirky way to engage with people. And yet it seems that with the F-35 fiasco, and the fallout from the robocalls scandal, that is exactly what is happening. Lies are piled on top of lies and fall guys are piled up on top of fall guys. The goal is to obfuscate the issue so confoundedly that no one knows the truth of it anymore.

Pork Barrels and Gazebos

To make a long story short, John Baird and Tony Clement, two Ministers of Parliament, divided up $50M they pilfered quietly from the Border Infrastructure Fund and funnelled the money into Clement's riding for beautification projects that were denoted as potential tourist destinations resulting from spinoff of the G20 Summit, as if there were a burgeoning G20 Summit Tourism industry.

And from the scathing AG's report, which had many recommendations, not the least of which was that two federal ministers shouldn't funnel $50M into one of their ridings without any oversight. And all John Baird could muster was that "[the government] has completely accepted (the A-G’s) good advice”. I am not impressed that two federal ministers didn't realize the error of their ways sooner. There was no instance, no situation at any time, that one looked at the other and said 'you know, if we get caught this really isn't going to look good, no matter how you slice and dice it'.

No Fallibility

To begin, no human or organization is infallible. There is no real divine right of kings. In fact, to put on the air of infallibility is one of many displays of hubris that a person or organization can manifest. The government, unlike its own self-promulgated claims to the contrary, is, like every other organization on the planet, is imperfect and prone to errors. Everyone knows this, detractors and acolytes both.

And yet the government constantly attempts to prove that it is incapable of making errors, no matter how ludicrous the situation becomes.

Erin Wherry breaks it down in MacClean's:

“Mr. Speaker,” the Immigration Minister declared, “the reality is that no government in the modern history of Canada has done more to invest in giving the equipment necessary to our men and women in uniform.”

The general concept of “modern history” is said to describe all time since the end of the Middle Ages, or something like the last 500 years. In that sense, the governments that saw this country through the first and second world wars might quibble with Mr. Kenney’s presumption of peerlessness. If, on the other hand, Mr. Kenney meant something like “recent history,” he might be right. Of course, it might also be noted that none of this country’s other recent governments have spent so long at war.

And even the day before, the Conservatives were making superlative claims:

Mr. Kenney now boasted, “objectively speaking, has made more progress on the quality of our environment and the air that we breathe than any government in the history of the dominion.”

Are these things true? The first one isn't, as Erin Wherry points out. The second one?

According to Environment Canada, air quality indicators focus on measuring two key elements of smog: fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone.

"Between 2000 and 2009, there was no statistically significant increasing or decreasing trend detected in PM concentrations."

"In 2009, the average concentration of ground-level O₃ in the outdoor ambient air was 36.9 parts per billion (ppb) in Canada, about 2% lower than the previous year. However, between 1990 and 2009, the trend shows a total increase of 9%."

So the short answer is 'no', it is not really true. But it does provide perspective on the government's belief that it is the best government ever and that it has never done anything wrong. To be wrong is to be weak.

F-35 Fighter Jet Secretariat

When the walls came crumbling down on the F-35 procurement, and that it appeared that two sets of books were being kept, one for public consumption and one for internal consumption. First it was $9B. Then $16B. Then the internal numbers came out and they were $25B. And through it all the government maintained that nothing was wrong and nothing bad had transpired.

For more on the jetstream of money, see Andrew Coyne: "Not $9-billion. Not $15- or $16-billion. Not $25-billion. Forty-billion dollars. So far."

Once again, to be fallible is to be human. As the government attempts to colour the lenses rose on all Canadians glasses, it appears weak because it proclaims itself deitific, incapable of anything but perfection. Canadians do not expect perfection, and certainly tend to question it more fulsomely when claims of perfection are made day after day. When one can do no wrong then one is placed under intense scrutiny to be proved otherwise.

Conclusion

The government is acting like a cross between a spoiled brat, a horrible boss and a sore loser. And it is this behaviour that is embarassing.

Canadian values include empathy, humility and learning from mistakes. These are not the values of the government. While the government puts forth the notion that Conservative values are Canadian values, the reality is that they are drifting farther and farther apart. The perception of the government weakens with each attempt to show strength.

This is a government that will not apologize, will not be humbled and will never admit fallibility. And so why is embarassment a national security threat? Simply put, embarassment would force the government into a position where it might have to apologize, express humility or show that it made a mistake - in other words exhibit true Canadian values that the government abhors.

Employment Insurance: Malaise, Crime and Health Costs

The changes to the Employment Insurance system that have slowly trickled out over the last couple of weeks are concerning.

For what those changes are, see Exploited Natural Resources Required to Exploit Natural Resources.

I'd like to examine those changes to predict that the changes will create a malaise across affected Canadians and that it will drive up crime, both of which will contribute to higher health costs over time and a Canadian populace that is less happy and less healthy.

Forced to work for less money

The government seems determined to use Employment Insurance as a set of spurs, with which to drive people receiving EI to take jobs that pay a minimum of 70% of their previous employment. If they don't take those jobs, then their EI is cut off. The standard line is that 70% of your last wage is better than 55% of your last wage on EI.

EI premiums are paid by people specifically so they can be drawn when needed. What the government is saying is that if there is a job that pays 30% less then EI is not needed. Lording this money over the heads of Canadians will create an atmosphere of anxiety and will contribute to stress, which is a huge factor in overall health.

So I'm working for 30% less money in a government-spurred job. What do I do when I am disenfranchised at work?

• I work less
• I produce less
• I call in sick more
• I am less focused and attentive
• I cost my employer more in benefits and lost productivity

 All these things can contribute to not only my own health but the health and welfare of those around me, especially if I am in an industrial or resource-based job, which have been constantly touted as 'acceptable work' in the Maritimes.

As well, if I'm forced to take a job for less money, it is even possible I want to be fired, to get back on EI after my foray into the government sponsored world of work opportunities.

Forced to relocate

This has been downplayed by the government but the writing is on the wall. People will be forced, through the withholding of their EI payments, to relocate for jobs, specifically seasonal employees and long-term EI recipients.

So I had to relocate. What does this mean?

• I am far more likely to actively try to get a job in my previous community
• I am far more likely to take a job in my previous community and re-re-locate
• Without a support network in place, relocating will probably be more expensive

This also drives up the cost of training and hiring for businesses, as they will soon realize that government-forced employees have one eye on the door at all times and could leave in a puff of smoke at the drop of a hat. This places additional stress up the employer as well as the employee.

Everyone has unskilled labour skills

The government firmly states that, on the one hand, people will not be expected to take jobs that do not fit their skillset. But on the other hand they also make constant reference to a lack of people to fill unskilled jobs, which by extrapolation everyone has the skills for. I have unskilled labour skills! You do too!

A nation of skilled labour being put to work by the government in unskilled jobs. Sounds like a dystopian movie. This will create a general malaise amongst ex-EI claimants, especially those with specialized skills, working in those jobs. Remember, you can make someone work but you can't make someone happy at work. And unskilled jobs are not as rewarding when you have skills in other areas.

Revolt equals crime

So let's say I've decided to not work for less than I think I am worth, and let's say I'm not going to move just because the government says I have to. Let's say I'm going to stay right where I am and continue to look for work but EI be damned. Now what?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist working at McDonald's to realize that the nature of the EI changes will lead to an increase in crime. I need money. The government is making me dress up in a monkey suit and grind an organ for that money. I won't do it. I'll find the money somewhere else.

So now that I'm engaged in some crime to support my family, my stress levels are up and I'm angry at the government.

I'm angry that they would put me to work 'in the mines', in a McJob, and at the same time repealing the fair wages act, so no matter what happens I'll probably make less. But I'll have a job and the government can brag about their 'net new jobs', and apparently everyone will be the happier for it. Except for me. I'm still angry and feeling boxed in.

And when Canadians are pushed, especially when their families are involved, they will push back. Hard.

Conclusion

The government has taken the term 'human resource' and placed it in the context of 'natural resource'. We are all now just natural resources to extract other natural resources. We are no longer Canadians, we are taxable units of work energy.

As Ted Menzies said, on the record in Hansard:

A mining company in St. John's, Newfoundland is looking to hire 1,500 people through the temporary foreign worker program. 

There are 32,500 people [in Newfoundland] looking for work right now. That is why we are trying to make EI more effective, to help these mining companies get people to employ.

Canadians will be looking to a government that is not grooming them for the mines.