What an appalling mess!:
Conservative MP Eric Duncan questioned why the election date was pushed back from Oct. 20 to Oct. 27. “You have a lot of cultural and religious observances that take place in the fall,” Sutherland said, referencing the Sikh and Hindu holiday of Diwali.
Duncan responded that the proposed election date was moved back for “purely political purposes” to help secure the pensions of the Liberal and NDP MPs, saying the Tories and Bloc MPs were not invited to the meetings.
“We’re going to find out who was at those meetings and when they took place,” he said.
They have their rea$on$.
Justin would have it no other way:
When Johnston resigned and Trudeau was forced to call a public inquiry, two discouraging things happened: First, the Government significantly expanded the mandate for the inquiry, indicating yet another instance of obfuscation from the core issue of Chinese interference in our recent elections.
Second, the commissioner of the inquiry, Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, allowed three Canadian politicians with ties to the Chinese government to stand in the inquiry (granting them access to confidential documents and the capacity to cross examine witnesses). The presence of these individuals led two Chinese diaspora groups to refuse to participate, citing security concerns. With a truly tragic irony, even the inquiry meant to address foreign interference became a venue for repression and interference.
Following the interim report from the public inquiry, the government did table Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference, but even here the efforts are minimal. As national security expert and Macdonald-Laurier Institute senior fellow Christian Leuprecht testified before the House of Commons Committee on National Security and Public safety, the bill “represents the absolute minimum the government would have to do anyway… only once its hand was forced.”
The Prime Minister’s abdication of responsibility also came through loud and clear in the NSICOP report itself. In a section titled “briefing parliamentarians,” it becomes clear that between 2018 and 2022 the Prime Minister received, and failed to respond to, at least four detailed reports from three different government bodies or advisors recommending that new MPs be briefed on risks of foreign interference. When asked why he didn’t act on these recommendations, Trudeau reportedly responded that he thought that the Parliamentary Protective Service already briefs new parliamentarians about foreign interference. That is shocking negligence.
Canadian democracy is flatlining and those tasked with defending it are at best asleep at the wheel and at worst complicit in its downfall.
As long as they vote Liberal:
Immigration Minister Marc Miller’s department in an internal report admits it took no steps to determine if foreign workers took Canadian jobs or kept wages low. “Impacts are not monitored,” said the report: “The program is less aligned with commitments to consider Canadian workers first.”
From the least transparent government in the country's history:
Auditor General Karen Hogan has declined a House of Commons committee’s request for a second, deeper audit of the so-called “green slush fund,” arguing that it likely wouldn’t dig up anything new.
In a letter to the public accounts committee dated Oct. 21, Hogan confirmed to members that her office would not be undertaking the “value for money and performance audit” of Sustainable Development Technology (SDTC) requested by the committee last month.
That’s because she says the report she tabled in June on the foundation — rebranded as the “green slush fund” by Conservatives — was essentially what MPs were asking for.
That scathing report found “significant lapses” in SDTC’s governance and handling of public funds. For example, Hogan discovered 90 decisions in which the fund had violated its own conflict-of-interest policies.
The report also discovered that 10 of the 58 SDTC-funded projects that she audited were ineligible and yet had still received a total of $59 million.
But in September, PACP members approved a Conservative motion calling on Hogan to conduct another “value for money and performance” audit of all projects funded by SDTC since Jan. 1, 2017, as opposed to a sample as she did in her first audit.
“We know that where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and there’s probably a lot more going on here than the 226 projects the Auditor General looked at out of the billion-dollar Liberal green slush fund,” Conservative MP Rick Perkins said at the time.
But in her October letter, Hogan said that’s unlikely.
She said that during the audit, her office looked at “all projects” related to allegations that were brought to her attention as well as every funding decision record by the board of directors during the audit period.
The audit team also used “representative sampling” when choosing which projects to assess that led to results with a confidence level of “no less than” 90 per cent and a margin of error of no more than 10 per cent.
“Given this approach to our audit work, it is highly unlikely that our main findings conclusion, and recommendations would be different if we were to look at additional projects,” Hogan wrote.
“We did a very thorough audit,” Hogan told MPs during a testimony to committee on Monday.
Rather, another look would only be costly, time-wasting and result in no punishment for the guilty parties.
Why even have an auditor-general?
**
A $2.14 billion Telesat “Lightspeed” satellite loan announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on a promise of universal high speed internet does not require that any specific number of households actually get connected, records show. Trudeau had called it a taxpayers’ investment in “really cool stuff.”
What would Justin know about investments?
The forced climate plans are costly scams to satisfy eco-fanatics and fill governmental coffers with taxes that will never be used genuine environmental concerns.
But don't take my word for it:
Cabinet must be forthright in telling Canadians climate programs will be painful, says David Dodge, 81, former governor of the Bank of Canada. “We are all going to pay for it one way or another,” Dodge testified at the Senate energy committee: “I’ll call it pain.”**
The government is also going to establish a cap-and-trade system that Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said will reward lower-emitting producers and incentivize higher-polluting ones to do more.
The regulations, which are still only in draft form and about two years behind schedule, were met with dismay from industry leaders and are further straining relations between Ottawa and the Alberta government.
**
A new cap on emissions in Canada’s oil and gas sector could eliminate over 112,000 jobs by 2040, with minimal environmental benefits, according to an analysis by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI).
The think tank argues that the federal measure, set to reduce emissions by 35% from 2019 levels, will weaken the economy while having little impact on global oil demand.
“By targeting Canadian producers, the federal government has no effect on global oil demand,” said Krystle Wittevrongel, MEI’s director of research.
“Every barrel of oil Ottawa keeps in the ground here will be replaced by a barrel produced elsewhere.”
Wittevrongel criticized the policy, attributing it more to what she described as Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault’s “bias against the energy industry” than to effective environmental strategy.
The MEI analysis reflects findings in a report from Deloitte, which estimates the cap could lower Canada’s GDP by 1% by 2040, equating to a $34.5 billion loss in economic potential.
According to Deloitte, the regulation could cost Canada 112,900 jobs, many of them high-paying positions in oil and gas extraction, where average salaries reach $151,461 — almost 2.4 times the national average.
Wittevrongel expressed doubt that workers displaced by the emissions cap would find equally well-compensated positions in other industries.
"Considering the negligible effect it would have on oil and gas consumption, it’s easy to understand why workers in the industry think it’s not worth the risk,” she said.
The emissions cap, which takes effect in 2026, is part of Canada’s broader effort to address climate change. But the MEI argues that restricting domestic production will not reduce global emissions, as other countries would likely increase their output to meet global demand.
**
Cabinet yesterday would not release a statutory cost-benefit report detailing direct costs of a proposed cap on oil and gas emissions. “You owe it to Canadians,” Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, Alta.) told the Commons natural resources committee: “If Canada did not have contributions from oil and gas right now, Canada would be in a recession.”
As far as the Liberals are concerned, if Alberta burned to the ground, they would not care:
Parks Canada knew of dead pine throughout Alberta’s Jasper National Park prior to a disastrous July 24 fire, Jasper’s mayor testified at the Senate agriculture and forestry committee. Mayor Richard Ireland declined comment when asked if dead trees contributed to the blaze that left 40 percent of townspeople homeless: “I am not a scientist.”
**
It is “astonishing” to question if politics played any role in forest management prior to a disastrous fire in Jasper National Park, Liberal MP Adam van Koeverden (Milton, Ont.) said yesterday. Van Koeverden, parliamentary secretary for the environment, made no mention of Access To Information memos showing Parks Canada feared “political perception” in managing fire risks.
Do explain the memo, Adam.
No comments:
Post a Comment