Stamps and Guns and "Other Expenses"

I thought I'd post a three catch-ups on items that I posted earlier this week.

1.) Stamps, Guns and Candice: On Wednesday, I posted a writeup about Candice Hoeppner's attempts to influence voters in Wayne Easter's Malpeque riding using her MP postage budget regarding her Private Members Bill C-391. Yesterday, in the Globe and Mail, she admitted that she had sent out between 500 and 800 letters to "people who indicated to her that they are interested in the issue" of dismantling the gun registry. She sent these letters to voters in the eight Liberal ridings whose MPs voted for her bill in second reading back in November 2009, against their Party. She's urging these people to put pressure on their MP to vote for the Bill. While I am in agreement with her Bill (although it is $2 billion too late), I am not in agreement with her tactic. Yes, according to "the letter of the law", she complied with the rules of the House and is allowed to use her postage budget in this manner. My concern is that she has now wasted roughly $450 of taxpayers' money strictly to further promote her own agenda on this one issue. That is wrong, especially in light of the recent ban on the clearly partisan "10 percenters".

2.) Go get 'em Sheila Fraser: In yesterday's posting, I discussed the MP refusal to allow Auditor-General Sheila Fraser access so that she could audit their MP expense budget. The Board of Internal Economy used the excuse that it was beyond her mandate and then took off for a one week break. Despite the media's attempts to ask both the Liberal and Conservative Government House Leaders about this issue, they were unsuccessful. As well, a recent poll indicated that 88% of Canadians thought that MPs expenses should be public but I guess that's not enough for the Board of Internal Economy, after all, 12% still think MPs shouldn't be scrutinized! Fortunately, the Globe and Mail has posted a pdf file listing all Member's expenditures for the 2008 - 2009 fiscal year. It is downloadable (after you click a few times on the Scribd website) but it makes for fascinating reading. You don't get specific expenditures (i.e. how many toilet seats were bought) but you do get an idea of how much is spent on travel, telephones, printing, office rent etcetera and you can see how much your own MP spends compared to his or her peers. One column I found particularly interesting was "Other" Some MPs like Ken Epp of Edmonton - Sherwood Park had expenses as little as zero in that column, others like Steven Fletcher of Charleswood - St. James - Assiniboia had "Other" expenses as great as $308,905. It sure would be nice to know what that was spent on but taxpayers will never know because Board of Internal Economy decisions are made behind closed doors.

I say, keep trying Ms. Fraser, Canadians deserve to know how 500 million tax dollars are being spent.

3.) Helena Guergis: On May 13th, 2010, the much persecuted Helena Guergis posted this press release on her website. I don't have much to say about it other than it does seem to contradict some of the statements she made in the CBC interview with Peter Mansbridge earlier this week. What stood out to me was the reversal of her comments on Monday regarding her husband's non-use/now use of her Parliamentary email account through her Blackberry. This story has more twists and turns than a drunk driver on a mountain highway. The press release is worth a read if only to put her spin on things after she took the time to mull over her Mansbridge interview.

Helena and Vic on CBC

1.) Helena makes an appearance on Monday Night Live with Peter:

Watching Monday night's CBC interview with Helena Guergis was, to put it mildly, painful. I did manage to make it all the way through and have picked out a few salient points that have been somewhat glossed over by the mainstream media.

Here's what I saw:

1.) I found it fascinating how they opened up with a discussion and viewing of the CATSA video of Helena's behaviour in the Charlottetown airport. Peter Mansbridge's comment that he had seen worse behaviour from the sweaty masses started off the interview on an interesting foot. Since the Charlottetown incident was the beginning of the end for her political career, if this incident is minimized or dismissed as being no big thing, the foundation of the CPC and media case against her is destroyed. This leads to the illusion that everything that has been said about her has been fabricated.

2.) When first asked if she used drugs she said "No, no, no" but then when pushed by Peter Mansbridge, she admitted that she had tried to smoke marijuana when someone tried to offer it to her when she was 14 years old, claims that she coughed and got nothing out of it. Her defence was another case of the old standby Bill Clinton "I didn't inhale" syndrome? Further along, you'll see how I manage to work Bill into her interview yet again.

3.) She claims that Rahim did not use her Parliamentary email or office for his business or personal affairs. She claims that he has his own accounts, emails etc. I'm not sure, but these emails from the CBC website seems to prove otherwise. She also claims that he promised her that he would not lobby but in the same breath, she tells Peter that she didn't know his business and what it did, yet, she still insists that he did not lobby. Either she knows about both his business and his lobbying or she doesn't. Either he lied to her or he didn't.

Here's an example of Rahim not using Helena's Parliamentary email:

...and here's another:

Yes, Helena is right, it does appear that he did have his own email address but he does seem to use her Parliamentary email too, well past the 2 week period after he got turfed as an MP by the voters of Edmonton-Strathcona when she claims he had to use her office to go through his confidential MP files. Since all members of Cabinet are bound for life by the Privy Council oath of secrecy, I would suggest that any access Rahim had to her email account could have easily led to a breaching of that oath.

4.) The Ontario Provincial Police charged Rahim Jaffer with cocaine possession, driving under the influence and speeding to which he pled guilty to careless driving. He told his wife that he had no idea how the cocaine ended up in his jacket and she believed him. Every warm-blooded Canadian male would love to have a wife that believed each and every story he told her. Rahim is one lucky guy.

5.) Helena claimed to be a compassionate person and reminded us all that she came from a good, Christian family, just in case we forgot, right around the time she burst into tears. Her very transparent appeal to the religious right who vote for the CPC reminds me of the media coverage during the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair when Bill was shown walking out of church with Hillary in one hand and a Bible in the other just to show us what an upstanding fellow he was. Was Helena trying to tell us that, "Sure, I married a Muslim, but hey, I'm still a card-carrying member of my local church so please vote for me next time out?".

6.) I noticed that Helena had trouble pronouncing the surname of Mr. Gillani and referred to him more than once as "the gentleman or the guy I went out to dinner with". She stumbled over his name the same way Stephen Harper stumbled over the name "Guergis" when he announced that she had "resigned" from Cabinet/been tossed under the bus. Did she take a page from the Harper "See, I don't really know the person in question that well because I can't pronounce their surname properly" handbook? They must have the same spinmeister/handler/talking point consultant.

She had the appearance of a wounded deer compared to her usual cocky, overly self-confident demeanour. While I am very suspicious of Mr. Harper's motives for tossing her under the bus, this interview did nothing to convince me that she deserved to be a Junior Minister in any government. I am sure that her appearance did convince some Canadians that she has ben wronged but not this Canadian. There are just too many inconsistencies in her story to make me a believer. I did find it interesting that when the CBC went back to the streets of her riding to talk to "the man on the street" this time, they broadcast commentary from those who were sympathetic to Helena. This is in sharp contrast to their earlier coverage where they broadcast only those who wanted her gone. Viewers never know how much media censorship goes into the broadcasting of these street-level interviews; the CBC could easily select only those interviewees that agree with the tone of whatever viewpoint they are taking on any given day.

2.) Changes to the Rules for Granting Pardons

Yesterday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews announced changes to the National Parole Board's policy of granting pardons to convicted criminals. I agree that changes are much needed. Mr. Toews noted that this change was part of the Conservative government's "Tough on Crime" stance. What he forgot to mention was that the Conservatives have now formed the government for the past 4 years and had made no effort to change the policy of granting pardons until the Graham James 2007 pardon was uncovered by the media back in early April. Why wasn't the Harper government aware that Mr. James had been granted a pardon 3 years ago? Who was minding the store? If the media hadn't publicized Mr. James' pardon, would the Harper government have made any changes to the legislation? Not likely. This government tends to be reactive rather than proactive, preferring to wait to see what the public wants and the polls show before taking any action on an issue. So much for leadership.

My suspicion is that the Harper government acted so quickly on this issue once it actually reached their radar screen because they are afraid of the public backlash when Karla Homolka is eligible to apply for a pardon this summer. Reactive again? You betcha.

Helena yet again...the story that never ends

From various press reports this week, it appears that Helena Guergis is most upset that she is being passed over as a potential nominee for the CPC in the Simcoe-Grey riding where she now resides as an Independent since being tossed under the bus by her former boss, one Stephen Harper.

I took the opportunity to look through the Conservative Party of Canada Constitution which is freely available to any one who lives in the Simcoe-Grey riding, any other Canadian or any resident of Planet Earth that might care here.

From the CPC Constitution, I have taken the following excerpt from section 14:

14. CANDIDATES FOR PARLIAMENT

14.1 The rules and procedures for candidate selection set by National Council may provide for a candidate selection committee at the national level, and a candidate selection committee in each electoral district. The candidate selection committee at the national level shall have the right to disallow the candidacy of any person before or after nomination by the electoral district association, subject to the appeal of such a decision to the National Council whose decision shall be final and binding or who may refer the matter to the Arbitration Committee for decision by a panel. (my bold)

14.2 Every electoral district association shall provide organizational and financial support to the Party’s candidate in the electoral district.

Okay, maybe the nomination process isn't fair, it isn't right and it borders on benevolent dictatorship but it is quite clearly there in black and white. It isn't even in legalese so should be easy for just about everyone to understand. If Ms. Guergis didn't read the CPC Constitution before she offered as a nominee her first time out, if she didn't understand what it said or if she didn't believe that it applied to her, she's got no one to blame but herself. Maybe she should just admit that the bus ran over her, get up, dust her pride off and get on with life after politics.

What is surprising about the CPC Constitution is the control that the central Party has over who is nominated and whether they are acceptable to "the men in the smoke-filled rooms". Remember, the CPC morphed out of the ashes of the Reform/Alliance Party where the the membership had control over a substantial part of the Party's agenda and that the grassroots basically were the Party. This change tells us something about the control the CPC Leader has exerted over the direction of the Party.

Just in case Helena decides to change her political stripes and run for the Liberals, here's an excerpt from the Liberal Party of Canada Constitution regarding the selection of candidates from page 44:

CHAPTER 12 – CANDIDATES

ELIGIBILITY

(1) To be eligible for selection as a candidate of the Party for election to the House of Commons, a person must:

(a) be a member of the Party;

(b) be eligible to be a candidate in an election of a member to serve in the House of Commons under the Canada Elections Act;

(c) have complied with the rules made by the National Election Readiness Committee under Section 60 and with the Canada Elections Act.

(2) If the National Campaign Committee or the Leader, acting in their absolute discretion, declines to approve a person to be the candidate of the Party in the next election, then that person is not eligible for selection as a candidate of the Party for election to the House of Commons. The decision of the National Campaign Committee or the Leader is not reviewable by the Permanent Appeal Committee. (my bold)

Well, so much for that idea. I guess it's off to the NDP.

Here's where I ran into a wall. I attempted to search for the NDP Constitution on the internet, unfortunately, it cannot be found anywhere even on their own website despite the fact that, as an individual, you have to click in a box agreeing that you promise to abide to the (missing) Constitution of the NDP if you wish to become a member. Strange but true. Maybe Helena would fit best there what with the secrecy and all the under the table stuff!

Now it's off to the Green Party of Canada. While Helena doesn't particularly strike me as the "green type', one never knows. Here's an excerpt from their Constitution regarding becoming a candidate:

Bylaw 5 Selection of Candidates for Member of Parliament

5.1 Candidates shall be selected by the Party as follows:

5.1.1

Where there is an Electoral District Association, the electoral district shall select the candidate in accordance with the association's Bylaws.

5.1.2

Where no Electoral District Association exists, candidates will be selected in accordance with a process determined by Federal Council or by Bylaw.

5.1.3

Where there are no Party Members in an electoral district, selection of a candidate shall be by a General Meeting, Federal Council, a committee established by a General Meeting or Federal Council, or by a procedure mandated by a General Meeting or Federal Council.

So, after examining all of the options for you Helena, I've got to say, I think you should go Green. It looks like there won't be anything or anyone standing in your way. Go for it unless, of course, the bed and bath business is looking more appealing.

As an aside, I have no idea why she'd want to run for a party and a leader that publicly humiliated her by tossing both her and her husband under a very large bus but I guess that's why I'm not in politics and they are. I'm guessing that sense of entitlement runs REALLY deep.

References:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/helena-guergis-decries-tory-retaliation/article1558921/

...and this isn't influence peddling?

Here's a quote from the Globe and Mail earlier this evening:

"Last Friday, Mr. Prentice announced to the House that Mr. Jaffer approached a senior staffer to make "representations" on behalf of someone else’s company. There was confusion on where the meeting took place, but under questioning by Liberal critic David McGuinty today (Monday April 26th, 2009), Mr. Prentice confirmed that the meeting took place in Helena Guergis’s ministerial office."

Here we thought the Conservatives were "tough on crime" and "tough on lobbying". Apparently, they are only tough when it's not one of their own sullying their little pigpen.

When testifying before the Parliamentary Committee last Wednesday, Rahim denied using Helena's office other than to store some boxes when he was booted out of his office after losing the 2008 election and other things that normal husbands use their wife's office for....except, that she WAS the Minister of State for the Status of Women at the time, hardly what could be termed a "typical Canadian office occupant".

Here's what he said during his "interrogation" when asked about using his wife's office:

"I'm glad you're raising that, I would like the opportunity to respond. When I was an MP, I never abused my privileges nor would I abuse my wife's resources in any capacity. Where the confusion happened is after the last election, I had 2 weeks to clear my office. I sent boxes to my wife's office. I rarely went in there, other than help here with Christmas cards, sit in on scheduling meetings (I don't know about you, but I never sat in on scheduling for my wife's business meetings). My role had changed. We had a separate office for my business. The only reason I used the Blackberry was to keep track of my wife's schedule."

You'd think that the Conservatives would regard this whole affair like a bandaid, the quicker you pull it off, the less it hurts. Instead, the Canadian media and the Opposition is having to drag information out of the ruling party one tidbit at a time. Maybe the Harperites are hoping that we'll get tired of rubber-necking this accident and just move along.

You've got to hand it to Rahim and Helena though, they've both got cohones! And a couple of econo-sized cases of entitlement to go with them.

References:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/prentice-drops-jaffer-bombshell-tories-reignite-abortion-debate/article1547270/