Your Craven, Greedy, Useless and Deceptive Government and You

There is no need for this:

Trudeau Green Slush Fund whistleblower confident the RCMP will confirm the 'criminal activities' that took place.

Parliament is paralyzed by Liberals covering up the release of the documents.

400 million dollars went to Liberal insiders.

Enough with the corruption. Enough with… pic.twitter.com/6QRdAx2bAc

— Larry Brock (@LarryBrockMP) October 9, 2024

 **

Meaning that NO ONE would know what goes on behind closed doors, especially the deals to hide this corruption:

During question period on Wednesday, Liberal House leader Karina Gould said the quagmire — triggered by a Conservative privilege motion over the government’s refusal to hand over unredacted documents related to the now-defunct Sustainable Development Technology Canada’s billion-dollar “green slush fund” scandal — should be resolved in the committee room, not the House.

 

They will not turn on Justin even to save their own skins:

When their plane landed in Hawaii for a refuelling stop, Ng said she turned on her phone and saw multiple media reports about efforts by some of her Liberal colleagues in media outlets such as CBC News and The Toronto Star.

“I would say that I’m disappointed because Canadians expect us to be focusing on Canadians,” Ng said.

“I’m a Liberal MP and I have full confidence in Justin Trudeau as my leader.”

 

This Mary Ng: 

Ng's office had awarded a contract to the public relations firm Pomp and Circumstance in the spring of 2020. While it was only worth just under $17,000, Bezan raised concerns over a potential breach of conflict-of-interest rules, given the existence of a friendship between Ng and the firm's co-founder Amanda Alvaro.

She is defending this twerp:

“At this time of backlash against progressive policies of inclusion and diversity, you know, are we going to double down on making sure that everyone gets to participate or play?” Trudeau said in an interview with Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith on his podcast program “Uncommons” released on Oct. 1.

 

As the weather gets colder and people are wondering how to heat their homes this coming winter, the aging frat-boy falls on his old stand-bys of "diversity" and "inclusion". 

Let's not forget that morons voted for this incorrigible excrement.

Also:

Canadian businesses have become "addicted" to temporary foreign workers, Immigration Minister Marc Miller told the Senate, acknowledging concerns over the country's growing reliance on migrant labour.

It's a shell-game:

Giroux found the Liberals’ claim that most Canadians receive more in rebates than they pay in carbon taxes is accurate. Only people in the highest income brackets in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia will pay more in taxes than they receive in rebates.

But Giroux also went further, examining the economic impact of the carbon tax, which his analysis found slightly reduces Canada’s overall GDP and adds other costs to the economy. He found in that case, taking in both the direct and indirect cost of the carbon tax, most households are worse off.

“When we use the government’s own numbers and isolate the fuel charge itself, we still find that the average household is worse off, including the economic impact,” he said.

Giroux’s new numbers show that an Ontario family in the bottom 20 per cent of incomes would get $642 more per year back in rebates than they pay in carbon taxes in 2030, when the carbon tax is set to be $170 per tonne. A family in the highest 20 per cent of incomes would clear $28 after paying carbon taxes and collecting rebates.

However, when the economic impacts of the carbon tax are added in the numbers shift. The same Ontario family in the bottom 20 per cent of incomes ends the year $540 ahead, but a family in the top 20 per cent of incomes has a net loss of $3,467. On average, an Ontario family comes out $903 worse per year.

 

 

Because "transparency" and "freedom" and so on:

A Liberal-appointed senator yesterday apologized for censoring a newspaper commentary written by a Conservative opponent. Senator Lucie Moncion (Ont.) invoked her authority as chair of the Senate’s committee on internal economy in rewriting an opinion piece she deemed “incorrect.”

 

I'll just leave this here:

 

**

In August, Nunavut’s Information and Privacy Commissioner warned against using platforms like WhatsApp for government business. Such practices, the commissioner said, erode transparency frameworks by making critical records stored on non-government servers inaccessible “if the employee dies, resigns, goes on leave, or for any other reason is unwilling or unable to cooperate. They are not available to successors. They are not archived and stored.”

But, of course, that is often precisely the point. It is worth reflecting on federal government employees’ use of disappearing messaging apps on their government-issued devices to evade transparency.

While the government has banned TikTok, WeChat, and Kaspersky on these devices, there remains a glaring oversight. When I recently inquired about the use of messaging apps, the government admitted it “does not monitor or track individual apps” on its devices except for these three, allowing officials to download any other apps they want – and potentially conduct official business through third-party apps that bypass government servers and watchdogs’ scrutiny.

Government officials utilizing third-party apps (such as Signal, Confide, Wire or Dust, which feature encrypted and disappearing messages) does not seem to raise any concerns. Additionally, the use of Russian platforms such as Telegram, VKontakte, and Mail.ru appears acceptable. Discord, the platform used by Massachusetts Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira to leak Pentagon records, also seems to pose no issues.

Despite the Trudeau government’s posturing against Meta in recent years, including suspending government (but not Liberal Party) advertising on Facebook and Instagram, government officials also remain free to use Meta’s digital communication technologies, such as WhatsApp, to conduct government business on their taxpayer-provided phones.

As the federal government’s Policy on Service and Digital states, government officials are permitted to use their devices to “discuss professional issues … via online forums or social networking sites” and even “visit social networking sites to connect with family and friends.”

This lax approach speaks volumes about the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability, as well as its stance on “privacy and security” – two values highlighted during last year’s rushed ban of TikTok on government-issued devices. That decision was always about marketing, not merit; a truly transparency-enhancing move would see the government ban all social-media and messaging apps on all government-issued devices – unless there is a business justification otherwise – and redirect their messages back through government applications and servers.

This would also address concerns about “the use of social media platforms for data harvesting and unethical or illicit sharing of personal information with foreign entities” – the focus of a parliamentary hearing I was asked to attend last year, which selectively focused on TikTok.

Like so.