CBC & PSAC faux Conservative scandals in lead up to Oct. 19th, 2015 election

PSAC arranged protest by "scientists." Click for link to source & credits.
PSAC arranged protest by “scientists.” Click for link to source & credits.

Yesterday, the federal election was just five months away, to the day. Surprise, surprise! Faux and mini scandals implicating the Conservative Government in Ottawa are starting to become a daily mainstream media occurrence.

No surprise there. As I wrote recently in another post, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, (PSAC), the union that serves many federal bureaucrats, said it was going to spend $5 million dollars to campaign against their Conservative employer.

Well, meet the federal scientists in the photo above left, along with PSAC and other public sector unions, in their attempt at making the Conservatives seem like controllers.

How?  By “muzzling” the federal scientists from being able to say whatever they like, whenever they like!

The reality is that apart from working in a university setting where you have autonomy, no scientist speaks out without approval from his or her employer or major funder.

In fact, even if in a university setting, if your research is in some way related to your employer or your funder, you wouldn’t report the findings and/or conclusions without first getting permission to do so. As the saying goes, been there and done that. Unless, of course, you are willing to risk either your tenure or being approved for more funding.

Yet, as the column on the CBC’s website says: “Public-sector unions have organized rallies in a number of locations across the Ottawa area on Tuesday to protest the alleged muzzling of public scientists.”

Click for Ottawa Citizen link.
Click for Ottawa Citizen link.

Continuing on that topic, there is this piece in the Ottawa Citizen that blames the low turnout of federal scientists at the “muzzling” protests on a “climate of fear.”

Talk about desperation. Read the whole Citizen article and it will become very clear who the controllers really are.

A faux scandal if I ever heard one.

Which brings us to today’s “mini” scandal courtesy of Josh Wingrove of Bloomberg News. Mary Dawson, the Ethics Commissioner, is talking about a $594.00 (Cdn) expense for tickets to attend three gala dinners as a horror. She says: “I’m rather delighted with the horror with which the Bonner Report has been met, because at least people have noticed.”

Horror? Pardon me? Over $594.00? Compared to what the media is not reporting on Ontario Liberal scandals involving billions of dollars?

An aide (Michael Bonner) to then Environment Minister Jason Kenney, apparently, used the tickets to attend the galas, saying it was part of his job. Yet, even though neither the Aerospace Industry Association, Vale Canada Limited or the Forest Products Association of Canada (who donated the tickets) were ever found at fault, Bonner had to pay for the tickets himself and then leave Kenney’s office in October (2014). Which means, this “scandal” is old news.

Interestingly, the same Bloomberg column mentions that the complainant is able to remain anonymous because he or she claims to be a whistleblower. I mean, isn’t it relevant that Bonner’s former fiancée has ties to the Liberal Party of Canada and is suspected of being that complainant?

Apparently not. As Wingrove writes: “She [Dawson] didn’t reveal the complainant’s name partly because a complaint was also made to another watchdog who doesn’t reveal complainants. While she acknowledged ‘personal overlays’ in this case, Dawson said motive or background is irrelevant.”

Unfortunately, given that both the liberal media and both public and private sector unions (including Unifor) are starting to spend huge amounts of money trying desperately to undermine Canadian democracy and the Conservative Record of achievement, Canadians can expect more of these faux and mini anti-Conservative scandals leading up the vote on October 19th, 2015.

My advice? As I have said before, voters should ignore them. However, the CPC and the Conservative Government should also refute each and every exaggeration in a loud and clear voice!

 

Advertisements

Published by

Sandy

Sandy is a retired educator, author & former conservative political strategist. She operated the first "Crux of the Matter" from 2006 until 2017 and opened this "Crux of the Matter 2.0" blog in late August, 2018.

38 thoughts on “CBC & PSAC faux Conservative scandals in lead up to Oct. 19th, 2015 election

  1. Faux scandals, lies and damned lies will be the order of the days to come approaching the election.

    There are always those who are not up to speed with what’s happening beyond their own circles or even their front doors or politically tuned in will not be able to separate fact from fiction, these are their targets. Unless we pay for the resources needed to counter every damned lie put out the country could end up in the grips of Unionistas and a fr Left government that will pillage this country.

    Yes, we who are responsible citizens can ignore them, all we can hope is there are more of us than THEM.

    Like

  2. Thanks Liz. I have now added a final sentence as follows: My advice? As I have said before, voters should ignore them. However, the CPC and the Conservative Government should also refute each and every exaggeration in a loud and clear voice!

    Like

  3. Considering the Duffy trial has turned into a yawnfest (quelle surprise), all of these these tax-dollar-sucking groups – with no bigger one than the CBC itself – must figure they need more faux scandals because the big one they had counted on has completely fizzled right out of the gate. And a $594 ‘scandal’?… talk about desperation.
    Guess the unions figure their attacks worked in Ontario, so their going with the same MO federally now.

    Like

  4. Spot on, Sandy. I commented elsewhere on the so-called scandal of the “scientists” employed by the federal government, who are therefore federal public servants. Federal public servants are expected to be non partisan and are forbidden to speak out against government policy and direction. Under the Liberals some rather senior public servants were fired for speaking out against the metric system being imposed by the Liberal government. I also recall some losing their job for speaking out against official bilingualism, again under the Liberals. There have been other examples as well, all of them under the Liberals. So why is this suddenly a big horrible scandal? Because for the first time it happened under PM Harper’s watch. We may not like this policy concerning people working for the federal government, but it was not created nor only implemented by the “Harper government”. This is one of the advantages of being old enough to have known our history pre-CPC.

    Like

  5. Yes, Guffman, so many have hopes that Duffy will pin everything on the PM and PMO. Like the PM helped him submit his expense requests. Sheesh!

    Like

  6. Hard to see in all fairness how Duffy or anyone else can pin anything regarding the Duffy Barnum and Bailey on PM Harper . The PM does not run the Senate or make their rules or dole out cheques for expenses. He appoints as per our system, he has also tried to change it by asking the provinces to elect and then be appointed by the PM of the day.

    We can expect a lot of mischief making by the usual subjects to create situations where the PM and his government will have to take some kind of action or react to. No matter what those actions are they will be made big issues of . They’ll start their little fires and try to keep them stoked.

    There was some sort of “art” contest today on the Hill where participants were to draw pictures of Mohammed and other religious figures. The Government stepped in and stopped it because it was deemed a security threat. Seems like a common sense action for obvious reasons but proponents are saying they’re shutting down “freedom of speech.”…..maybe in this case they’d be more accurate calling it freedom of expression.

    Perhaps some people need to learn living in a free country still requires a bit of responsibility, you don’t toss a lit match into a tinderbox. We are fighting a movement among us and snaking around the free world who hate our way of life and all we stand for, ever ready at any excuse or opportunity to harm us. This government is protecting us as governments are expected to do.

    Like

  7. I sincerely hope we are not pillaged any more than we already have been. during my life time I have seen every party of every stripe in power somewhere in Canada and so far I have never experienced a reduction in the size of government or the overall reduction of the debt created by pandering to socialist values that the average Canadian embraces. the numbers are there in black and white.

    Like

  8. The reason for the “numbers in black and white” “old white guy” is that is what it takes to get and stay elected in this country. Like it or not, even our Conservatives are somewhat progressive. However, Flaherty did reduce the debt by some $30 billion back in 2007 prior to the global downturn/recession. Actually, there are no Western nations anywhere that would be as “right” as you would want.

    So, interestingly even you are putting forward, at least here, another faux scandal — as in “the Tories have increased the size of government.”

    Like

  9. I could have also added the supposed RCMP destruction of the Gun Registry Data after parliament passed the law to destroy the registry. Apparently a single Information Request was current and the data should not have been destroyed. In other words, an outside source was trying to get at the data before it was destroyed. Sounds to me like the opposition were simply trying to undermine the gov’t. Of course, the source is the Toronto Star.

    H/T Jack’s Newswatch.

    Like

  10. Just thought of something else re the gun registry data, it makes me wonder why the “privacy” commissioner is not speaking up. Can you imagine the noise if the private information in the gun registry had been released. Meaning, the Conservatives would have been blamed either way.

    Like

  11. Stephen Maher obviously dislikes PM Harper. Everyday he has an article in our daily newspaper against the Govt. Today it’s “Prime Minister is controlling Science message”. Then he had one about the “Unfairness ” of the Fair Elections Act.” Then one about Conservative Senators…then he had one about “politicians desperate for their close-up”(using words like dim-witted partisan propaganda, vanity video’s, pestering people with their flyers, twaddle, flunkies, bragging, these guys, ). He then went on to say” PM Harpers adoring staffers produce a weekly video celebrating his doings, which almost nobody watches and video’s of photo ops which endanger our troops.”

    We used to get Sun news people in our paper. No more. We also get Michael Den Tandt, another alleged Liberal supporter.
    I put a letter in the paper about the senator article Maher wrote and am waiting for one I put in about the “Fair elections act”. It’s tough to stomach when our paper supports the Liberal party and picks their articles accordingly, to suit their agenda, against the Govt.
    Now the CBC is another headache…every “The National” has at least 3 negative PM Harper stories….They REALLY, REALLY, REALLY need to be dealt with because this is third party advertising with tax payers money for a political party Liberal/NDP platform daily 24/7.

    [Revisions made by blog admin.]

    Like

  12. Ontario Girl — I hear you. Actual third party advertising has no rules when it is pre-writ. So, we can expect to be bombarded over the next few months, especially from the big unions. Of course, in relation to CBC, only the CPC can go after them, or RebelMedia — although they too could get sued.

    Please note that I had to change your first sentence and other descriptors for those same legal reasons.

    Like

  13. I have heard people say that PM Harper is controlling. I’s say Trudeau is controlling. And I believe that the NDP are going to make sure the Union bosses get out there to spread there lies. The left likes to spread that PM Harper has a secret agenda.

    If the truth be known PM Harper has been one of the best PM Canada has ever had. He has done more for the people by creating jobs, keeping us safe, keeping more money in our pockets. If people would go to the Federal Conservative Party of Canada web page, they would be able to see all that the Conservative have done for the people and for Canada. I will leave it at that.

    Like

  14. With all respect, does that mean we have to accept a continuous ratcheting further to the left and end up with a bureaucrat in every plate?

    I am kind of with oldwhiteguy on this. While I applaud PM Harper’s government for many accomplishments, they have certainly not rolled back the size of government in any meaningful way. The one roll back of government that I did see was the lifting off the backs of prairie rural municipal councils the heavy hand of Oceans and Fisheries. Oceans and Fisheries did their best to make every council and councilor a criminal for repairing road culverts without Oceans authorization, which could take months and keep roads closed in the meantime. We had midnight repair crews, so to speak.

    The bringing up of faux scandals and keeping them in the public eye is just the typical Marxist method of operation. Tell a lie often enough and the people will begin to believe it. The Conservatives need to be spending money to combat these half truths and lies.

    As a side note, the PSAC flag reminds me of the anarchist banners in the Russian revolution.

    Like

  15. Ken — I hear you. I agree the Conservatives need to be spending money combating union lies and exaggerations. Only CPC can do that, however, as it is a partisan political issue. The rest, we will just have to agree to disagree. Others may share your opinion, however. I base mine on working for a Mike Harris era MPP. He knew that they would not have been elected if the ONPC had kept up the anti SSM and abortion rhetoric, as well as the size of gov’t. They actually tried to make gov’t smaller and Walkerton was the result. Taking away programs is much harder than adding them in the first place.

    Like

  16. Ken — Regarding rolling back the size of government, do you know why the ONPC won a majority in 1995? Two primary reasons. The PCs campaigned against welfare fraud and how recipients should be working at something. They called it “workfare” and the whole idea was very popular because everyone knew of a welfare cheat. The NDP had raised the welfare limit to the point it made more sense to collect pogey than to earn minimum wage.

    The second reason was because the PCs promised to get rid of photo radar. I kid you not. Research was done after the election and the photo radar issue was the main issue in that campaign. The people of Ontario did not wake up to NDP fiscal abuse or false Liberal promises.

    In fact, those were the two issues my MPP heard going door to door in the campaign. People were just ticked off re welfare bums and photo radar.

    Yet, the Common Sense Revolution said, if elected, they would reduce the size of government. They definitely tried. But, it was not a topic that would have garnered enough votes to win a majority.

    In other words, in 1995 pragmatism won. Hudak lost because he scared people with the 100,000 layoffs — even though there have probably been that many laid off at this point in the Wynne term.

    Like

  17. According to the various and sundry scribes and trumpeters on the tube Stephen Harper has to be the busiest PM we’ve ever had what with controlling his Senators, and matters within the Senate, controlling his MP’s as well as traveling to various places around the globe and still has a good record for showing up in the HOC for the daily QP/gotcha exhibition from the opposition.

    As for Trudeau. I still cannot believe he himself is making any decisions, but rather he’s being handled and fed information. This is most obvious when he has trouble answering questions and flubs through.

    How he will do in debates may be a prime concern for the Liberal brain trust.

    Like

  18. This just in…CBC is going ahead with their two debates..one in English and one in French with Elizabeth May in both debates and also the Bloc in the French one. Mulcair and Trudeau said they will participate(no word about PM Harper yet) Also PM Harper is going to have a debate with the Munk school on foreign affairs….Here’s Trudeau’s comment below:

    The Liberals, however, haven’t committed to any individual debates. On Thursday, a Liberal spokesman released a statement calling for a series of conditions in order to participate, including a “blackout period” on political advertising between pre-writ debates to the official start of the election in order to ensure a “fair process.”

    Also Mulcair is putting out a book 3 months before the election.

    Like

  19. I’m always baffled by public servants who criticize the elected government. Insofar as the critics work for the government over whom the elected officials are supposed to be overseeing on behalf of the electorate who are paying the wages. If any civil servant doesn’t like elected officials overseeing the public service then do everyone a favour and find a new job. Preferably one where there is no oversight by anyone so you can just blow your own cash on your own pet projects. I read an article about one government scientist who was doing something (I know not what) with heritage oats. It would seem that Canada geese like heritage oats because they were trampling the oats before the ‘experiment’ was over. Solution? RENT a dog for $40,000.00 PER YEAR!!!!!!! to keep the geese away. I saw an ad for that same breed of dog and the puppies were $250.00 each.

    Like

  20. Thanks for that Ontario Girl. If the PM doesn’t agree, then they can argue amongst themselves. The consortium are real whiners.

    Like

  21. I am afraid I have to agree with you Joe. Some purpose of some social science research studies really are pathetic and embarrassing. The whining now is also embarrassing. Prima donnas the lot of them!

    Like

  22. The hypocrisy of the CBC in flogging these non-scandals is just incredible. A few years back, star operator George Stroumboulopoulos got caught hosting a lavish private party at the Toronto Film Festival, see link here:
    http://www.torontosun.com/2011/12/19/cbcs-glitzy-strombo-party-cost-72gs-plus

    Estimates of the costs had to be dragooned out of CBC, but H LaCroix claimed a low figure of $64,000 before a Parliamentary committee, the real figure is suspected to be over $72,
    000.
    In what way does Stroumboulopoulos hosting a party of British and American celebrities, advance the ability of CBC to report on this new event? CBC’s objective reporting credibility takes a beating for the people invited to the party, obviously CBC friends. Not for the first time, CBC cannot decide if it should simply report the news, or go much further and become part of the story.

    In this event I imagine the vast majority of taxpayers would have Stroumboulopoulos pay for his own shindig.

    Like

  23. Up-date..PM Harper won’t go into a debate run by CBC/CTV/Global/Radio Canada.(the consortium) I don’t blame him…who wants to be in a debate run by CBC and the rest when they spend all their shows running down the Govt. and building up the Liberals/NDP? In the debate with Elizabeth May, they had her sitting beside a small glass table and she spent the time screeching in PM Harpers ear. If he would of tried to answer he would of been called a bully. To me this would be like having TWO LIBERALS . As far as taking questions from “people on the street” CBC would be able to cherry pick which ones had the questions for their agenda…..like DUFFY etc…anything to try and embarrass PM Harper and a soft free ride for Trudeau. The more people, the less time for Trudeau to have to talk and Elizabeth would be there to defend him. Look what happened in the 2008 debate with Mansbridge…PM Harpers interpreter sounded like he had a close pin on his nose. CBC says PM Harper wants to CONTROL the debates….no, CBC wants to control them.
    As far as reaching more people, why can’t the CBC bring their cameras to the other debates like they had no trouble doing with the Duffy trial?

    Like

  24. I for one wouldn’t waste my time watching a debate with any of the opposition leaders,nor would I read a book written by any of them!

    Like

  25. MV — I have approved your comment because your name is in your email. But, in future, please use an easier handle. Re the collusion, I agree. Yet, they would deny it till the cows come home.

    Like

  26. Soldiers of the Consortium are hard at it in the printed rags.

    We have “Tom Mulcair may be the next prime minister, so it’s time to start looking at his big ticket promises”, National Post, Michael Den Tandt.

    Then to prove they know full well they have full intention of using the debates to GET Harper we get this: ” Will Harper’s debate gamble pay off or will it prove his downfall?”, National Post, Stephen Maher.

    Apparently the Conservatives are targeting Trudeau as opposed to Mulcair and that seems to be bugging them. At the face of it ,it seems odd since Mulcair is higher in the polls ,so why do they care?

    IMO if people rely on debates or polls to make a decision as to who should take over the affairs of state they are not responsible voters.

    Like

  27. Harper is going to regret that he didn’t give the CBC the old wheat board treatment.

    Like

  28. Agree Liz. I saw all those articles on the weekend. They are upset that JT is being marginalized. Pitiful really. Much like just happened in the U.K.

    Like

  29. Jamie — The problem is no federal gov’t can get rid of the CBC because they are the only option in the near north and north. Until the private companies will spend the money to provide choice in every Canadian community, the CBC stays.

    This no to the consortium has them acting very strange as they simply don’t know what to do to control the PM and Conservatives. As Liz says, the plan was clearly to “get” the PM. The last time Elizabeth May was beside him, it was disgusting. It was 4 against 1 for the whole debate. As I recall, it was Dion, Layton, Duceppe and May against Harper. He held his own but it would likely be worse in 2015 given the Senate issue, the fighting against ISIS, etc.

    Like

  30. Sandy – I don’t think he had to “get rid of” it. But he had four years to seriously de-fund it without breaching any contractural obligations to remote communities – which, with the advent of cyber and satellite communications, are hardly as isolated as they were when the CBC charter was drawn up. In other words, just like the wheat board, the original purpose has gone the way of VHS tapes. Face it, when you’ve got satellite TV in Kugluktuk, it’s hard to make an argument that CBC is still necessary.

    Much of the mud that has been slung in Harper’s direction could have been avoided. Duffy and Brazeau should not have been appointed to the Senate – it isn’t as if their characters were a secret. The F35 deal was badly mismanaged, and the Conservatives are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on the climate change hysteria. I cold go on and on.

    As the election approaches there will be more and more of the “mountains out of molehills” stuff coming from the opposition – dutifully magnified and distorted by an irresponsible and biased press. Harper had better learn to go on the offensive and point out the hypocrisies coming from the NDP and the Liberals: Trudeau’s many absences from parliament while double-dipping from speaking fees at charities or publicly-funded institutions (the ethical lapse is the same), and the NDP’s predilection for pilfering public finds to finance things that are clearly party responsibilities.

    But Harper’s biggest problem will be getting it through MP’s heads that they have to really think before they answer leading questions from the opposition-friendly press.

    Like

  31. Re CBC, the publicly funded broadcaster, like the Old Grey Mare, she ain’t what she used to be. It has evolved into a shameless political arm and tool for the Liberal Left. It’s job is to provide fair and balanced reporting of the facts on all fronts, as well as other programming of interest to the various regions of this vast country. At this point they can’t even keep their political opinions out of their news reports, they manage to fool some into accepting them as facts.

    It bothers them to cover or print anything positive the Conservative PM does., a case of tales and omissions. If CBC is all some people get for news they are not informed, they then are ripe for any and all lies politicians tell them to get elected. It might explain some of the election results we get from areas served only by CBC.

    I don’t like supporting it either but it’s not going to be dealt with any time soon. Actually the Conservatives have been as generous with the corporation as any Liberal government.

    Like

  32. Jamie — I agree and I expect everyone who comments here would agree. I rarely watch it anymore. In fact, I rarely watch CBC, CTV or Global. It’s disgusting the bias. Yet, I read comments under MSM columns and some on the left actually believe CTV is pro-conservative.

    Sigh.

    Like

  33. I am with you here Sandy, cancelled our cable two years ago, with no regrets, I get all the news I want from the internet!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.