03.19.2011 07:12 AM

Why Harper is crazy to campaign now

Check this out:

“Almost a year after that, Carson was charged by Ottawa police with the misappropriation of funds. At that time, he was living on Colonel By Drive. The charges included two counts of theft, two counts of forgery and one count of uttering a forged cheque. In December, he pleaded guilty to the charges, and in February 1983, Carson was sentenced to 18 months in jail.”

I met this guy at the 2006 Liberal leadership convention. To the Cons present, he was clearly a big deal. They flitted around him like flies.

And Harper had hired him to work in PMO – after the results of his security check were known. After.

He had a Top Secret security clearance.

Why is Harper certifiable to hit the hustings now? Because almost every day will bring a shiny new Carson cruise missile. Right now, investigative reporters are digging away. They won’t stop.

Remember Jaffer? That one had sex and sleaze, too. It went on and on for months.

This one is different. It leads directly into the Office of the Prime Minister.

And, officially, these Reformatories have become what they said they’d destroy. They are the biggest hypocrites in Canadian history, full stop.

They make me sick.


  1. Leon Brule says:

    One thing about Carson that helps the Cons is it makes Bernier look like a boy scout.

  2. Steve V says:

    “And, officially, these Reformatories have become what they said they?d destroy. They are the biggest hypocrites in Canadian history, full stop.

    They make me sick.”

    Sing it!!

  3. hugger says:

    This needs a tag for quick reference purposes. Moving forward in the world of a Scandal a Day government, it gets harder to know which one is being referred to.

    At first I thought this one Waterbus.

    Then as the undercover details emerged I pondered simply The Carson affair.

    In and Out 2, The Sequel; has a ring to it.

  4. James Bow says:

    Kakistocracy. Like the word? Feel free to use it.

  5. bc says:

    Warren, I know you’d love nothing more than to equate the recent Conservative bad press with the Liberal offenses of days passed, but they simply aren’t the same.

    Unfortunately there are dumb, unseemly people in all parties. And while it’s certainly not good to have one of these people thumping his chest about knowing the PM, nothing at all has been directly connected to the highest office.

    I do agree, however, that these types of stories seem to stick around. Anything with drugs, sex and money seems to have a way of lingering. But unless one of the media busy bodies actually finds a link, your anger is premature.

    The “scandals” the Conservatives have dealt with are still negligible compared to the corruption that was rife through the Liberal party in the 90’s and early 2000’s (especially in Quebec).

    Afghan Detainee is a nothing story that Canadians DON’T care about
    In and out is akin to getting creative with your taxes
    Jaffer is a coke fiend who got booted appropriately
    Oda is simply dumb and needs to step down
    Fake Lake made for a great headline.

    But none of these events had literally millions and millions of dollars lining private peoples pockets. At least not yet.

    • James Curran says:

      “The ?scandals? the Conservatives have dealt with are still negligible compared to the corruption that was rife through the Liberal party in the 90?s and early 2000?s (especially in Quebec).”

      Listen fawkwad,

      You’re full of shit! People like you that think Canadians are dumb fawks deserved to be cyber slapped. Not a single Liberal MP, Senator or PMO staffer was charged in the so-called millions of dollars scam you speak of. Two Con Senators have been CHARGED and they will not be Charlie Sheen winning that battle anytime soon. Harper hired a previously convicted senior aide. He will not be Charlie Sheen WINNING anytime soom when they convict him in violation of the Accountabiltiy Act.

      And yes Canadians will remember that this is party that won an election based on ACCOUNTABILITY! And they will now hear every day what the meaning of Contempt of Parliament is just as they learned what the meaning of Prorogation was.

      P.S. When EVERY media outlet begins to call for your head, your head will roll sooner than later.

      Have a nice .

      • bc says:


        Is this what discourse has come to in the country? Insults.

        I’ve no time for you.

        • hugger says:

          Lord Farquaad then? Better?

          It was this part that gave it away “In and out is akin to getting creative with your taxes”

        • smelter rat says:

          @bc….And no one has time for you, dipshit.

          • Pete says:

            Ditto..he’s probably a right wing Christian blinded by Hapercrite’s allegiance to the biblical stuff for his base while being a true hypocrite and trying lie and cheat his way to the coveted dictatorship he so craves.

          • bc says:

            “Tolerant” Liberals, I see.

            Talk about hypocrisy.

    • Emily says:

      I don’t care taht you’re pissed off that Canadians are starting to care but millions and millions lining peoples’ pockets is a tad over the top, no?

      • bc says:

        No, it’s not over the top. Millions of dollars were mis-directed to Quebec which then paid out to private companies. Someone cashed those checks…

        But Emily, you are most certainly wrong about Canadians starting to care. According to all the polls, then Conservatives still have a healthy lead and are even in majority territory. I’m no pollster, but if Canadians were “caring”, you’d think the popular opinion would drop…even slightly…but it hasn’t.

    • james Smith says:

      um dude, really?
      Seems the RCMP don’t agree with you.

      • bc says:

        Let me know when the RCMP gets the power to elect our officials.

        If we’re talking about “caring” then public opinion is all that matters. And so far (not saying it won’t change) it has remained steady.

    • Gayle says:

      This sounds a lot like wishful thinking.

  6. Anne Peterson says:

    And then they financed whatever this crook was doing at the University of Calgary and I bet they financed whatever other organization he works with too.

    So much for Harper’s judgement and what does it maybe say about hidden agendas that he hires someone he knows is corrupt. Like to like perhaps.

  7. Scott Tribe says:

    IT sorta dovetails nicely with the one new Liberal ad, doesn’t it? Nice of the CPC to make people look at that ad and think, “wow, there’s really something to that!”

    That would be this, if you folks need a reminder:

  8. bc says:

    By the way, the father of one of my closest friends was a lawyer 20 some years ago. He slipped into alcoholism, and ended up doing some inappropriate things with clients money. He served time. Hard time.

    But 5, 10, 15, 20 years later, is he still the same person? Absolutely not. He’s sober. He’s intelligent. And he’s honourable. The point is that we can’t tarnish people forever.

  9. Malcolm Barry says:

    In the Telegraph Journal March 19/11 the headline reads,” THE EMBATTLED ODA INSISTS SHE USED COMMON TORY PRACTICES”. That, in short, seems to say it all.

  10. George says:

    You’re right Mr. Kinsella, although the Ignatieff Liberals will not be very happy when THIS hits the fan

    • kat says:

      It was the lie to Parliament, stupid. And why should CIDA employees be treated like dirt and not take offense?

    • Gayle says:

      Actually that makes me very happy. Now I know that once the CPC are gone we can get back to normal. I want a government that does what is right, not one that does whatever their ideology tells them to do.

      Oh, and the issue is the lie. This is Sandy’s attempt to change the tune. She of the “list of Harper accomplishments” fame – as though actually doing your job is something to celebrate. Heh. I should get my boss to post a list of my accomplishments!

    • Namesake says:

      Well, I’m glad you brought CIDA up, what with the impending contempt ruling on it, and all.

      First of all, that article you connies are talking about is not a smoking gun to trouble the _Libs_: not surprisingly, you completely misunderstand what it’s getting at:

      which is that — through no fault of the bureaucracy (which is where the Oda apologists keep trying to take that) — CIDA’s policies & priorities are (and maybe have almost always been) hopelessly politicized, pulling it away from what it’s autonomous goals should be as Canada’s official international development funding agency, and towards whatever other agendas the gov’t of the day has, whether on foreign policy, trade, or domestic politics (in terms of what “very ethnic” votes the ruling party’s trying to win, or what enemies it wants to punish, or which political movements abroad it wants to suppress, or which markets it wants to open up, etc.)

      Many have recognized that this has been particularly acute under the Harper regime, with CIDA’s focus going away from Africa & to South America, e.g., and with so much of its aid just being an extension of the Afghan war / reconstruction, and with the omnipresent Israel lens being applied to alter any of its decisions, sometimes under very mysterious and last-minute decisions. That’s why some of the reforms being called for include: TRANSPARENCY.




      As for some of the testimony yesterday… grrr. Here’s but one beef:

      So, they finally produced a couple more examples of what was supposedly a ‘common’ practice at CIDA, of the Minister ‘not-ifying’ the previously signed funding recommendation memos without bothering to initial it or have a new document drawn up clearly signalling her decision to over-ride the Department’s recommendation.

      (Globe article here, http://urlm.in/hiys with its pdf of the other memos here: http://urlm.in/hiyt )

      But — although this may have escaped notice, so far, due to the distant dates — far from vindicating the Minister, these two additional bizarre & possibly illegal-anywhere-else uninitialized changes to previously signed documents make her
      look MORE guilty,

      since both were Odasized in March (5 and 8), 2010: several months AFTER the Kairos memo was auto-penned on Nov. 30, 2009, and so appear to have been done deliberately to give plausible deniability to the Kairos issue (which had already been raised in the House for an explanation, by then).

      So, not only are a mere 3 examples out what the Minister herself has complained is about 800 memos a year she, sniff, has to sign, a mighty poor indication indeed of this being a ‘common’ practice,

      but it also looks like yet another attempt to mislead the House, trying to exploit the facts that the Kairos signing itself happened over a year before most think it did (it was finalized in Nov 30, 2009, but only really hit the news in a big way in Dec 2010), and since these new ones also had earlier 2009 hand-written recommendation dates which would stand out more than the date-stamped ones, it might escape the Committee’s (and the public’s) notice that they were actually done AFTER the disputed episode, and thus are _entirely_ irrelevant to whether that was a common practice at the time.

      • Jan says:

        Good catch – I missed what documents they brought forward. I thought the ‘they’re only internal documents’ argument was really amusing. It’s those internal documents that are subject to FOI requests, inquiries, lawsuits etc. – they’re the public record for God’s sake.

        • Namesake says:

          yeah, as Kady noted while live-blogging this yesterday,

          “2:25 Just pointed out to me by email: Despite Lukiwski’s characterization of the Kairos application dociments as an “interoffice memo”, it was, in fact, a record of decision (RoD) on a possible expense of public money.”


          And even tho’ they’re normally only seen internally, in some gov’t departments like HRSDC / Service Canada / EI, such Records of Decision ARE legal documents which cannot (legally) be altered once they’ve been finalized by their authors, and they can be accessed by the clients if and when the unfavourable decisions are appealed.

          • Jan says:

            I continue to be blown away by the casualness with which this crew operates. It’s frightening.

  11. JH says:

    So Carson’s legal problems were in 1980 – 21 years ago and he suffered the consequences. While I hold no brief for him, the posts on here would seem to indicate that no matter how long ago the crimes and misdeeds, they continuously have to be paid for and there is always a debt to society. Plus when an incident like the current one comes up – the individual is always to be considered guilty until proven innocent, because of a shady/criminal past. There is no forgiveness, no redemption – in politics you are always guilty and remain so. That’s a pretty good message for the politicians and their party’s supporters to pass along to everyone who has ever committed a crime.
    As for reporters digging – that’s funny! I wonder how much investigation many in the press themselves would hold up under, before something turned up.
    It’s also a double-edged sword I would think. I wonder what digging into the private lives of those folks surrounding the opposition parties might turn up. No doubt that too is happening right now.
    This is a slippery slope for all concerned I would wager and will really encourage folks in their faith in the system and have them rushing out to vote. So let’s have an election – it’ll probably be the lowest turn-out ever. It will also be an indication of the contempt with which the general public hold all politicians and their parties. And deservedly so!

    • Jan says:

      This is the typical Con slime ball defense. Harper has a an adviser with a criminal record in his inner circle and when it blows up – a threat to find something on the opposition. No honour amongst these thugs.

      • JH says:

        I’m a thug – hmm. That’s quite a stretch and certainly a great way to argue you’re point of view. I still say though that I have my doubts of either all members of the press or those folks surrounding the opposition parties being as pure as the driven snow. Time will tell though.
        And perhaps you’ll tell us when you think a person who has paid for their mistakes should be allowed into polite society again – if ever? Just curious.
        And no Jan, I don’t intend to lower myself to personal attacks because you have a differing view. Carry on.

        • Jan says:

          I love the smell of passive aggressiveness in the late afternoon – JH. Nobody’s saying he should have been locked up and the key thrown away – that is more of a Con idea. Just don’t want him working in the PMO.

    • Pete says:

      The slippery slope is the one greased by the cons when they played their slimball stuff against the Libs……… this tory gang is a bunch of hypocrites, liars and thieves.

      paybacks are hell they say. I like the paybacks tories have reaped in spadesl!!!!

  12. JH says:

    Sorry should have said the criminal charges were laid 31 years ago.

    • Jan says:

      How could Carson have gotten a security clearance – or was it waived?

      • Jan says:

        Well, he would have had a little gap in his work record. The Law Society would be well aware of his activities – they tend to frown on this sort of thing – it brings the law profession into disrepute. You think the RCMP and CSIS would have missed this?

      • Namesake says:

        But that’s just a guess, and likely a bad one.

        I’m sure it’d be a great comfort to some to think there’s a statute of limitations on untrustworthiness, but even if they’re ‘just’ white-collar crimes that took place in the ‘Gimme Decade’ (the ’80s), the embezzlement one was convicted for in one’s 30’s WOULD show up on one’s criminal record, and thus would be reported by CSIS & the RCMP in a high-level security check, most likely with a recommendation NOT to hire….

        which apparently both the PC & CPC parties were only too willing to over-ride, since they WANTED those kind of creative accounting skills & out-of-the-box thinking (to help circumvent pesky campaign caps with IN & OUT transfers, e.g.).

        That, at least, is the implication of Elizabeth May’s tweet, and before you character assassinate her, remember that, unlike you, she actually DID undergo such a top secret security clearance, and thus knows whereof she speaks, in order to become a senior policy advisor in the Enviro. Dep’t for the Mulroney gov’t in the late ’80s.


  13. nastyboy says:

    Is Harper responsible for the actions of a former advisor who no longer works for him?

    The PMO called in the RCMP to investigate, just like Warren’s boss did when they caught wind of Adscam. Both were the right things to do.

    This will have no more traction with the public than Jaffer/Geurgis. If the LPC wants to die on this hill by calling an election most Canadians don’t need or want, I think they’ll be very disappointed.

    And before you all start pointing at me screeching “Conservative!!” like Sutherland at the end of Body Snatchers, I’m as non-partisan as they come and have voted for all 3 main parties at one point or another in my life. And I’m sick of these side shows. Give me a reason to vote for you instead of not voting for the other guy.

    • james Smith says:

      So you’re OK with this present PM & how he can’t play well with others? You’re good with taxpayer money ($41 mil I think) on on ads that are essentially ad’s for the Reform party for gov spending that is over and done with? You sleep well at night knowing we had a police state in Canada’s largest city for a week & the largest mass arrest in our history? I’ma guessing you think the largest purchase in Canadian history should go untendered, with no clue how much it’ll cost, & that’s a good thing? Happy with a massive spending spree on jails to help petty crooks (not Tory ones like your pal of now & 27 years ago) learn how to be really serious criminals?

      K, fine, good

      So I’ma think’n you LIKE a fella who’s spent the last five years doing nothing but break institutions, rules, the economy and his word, all the while launching personal attacks on his rivals & civil servants.

      Yeah, I take your point I think somebody should give you a reason to vote for someone else. Wait I got it! what if Iggy promises not to attack the reputation of the present PM’s father? Would that be enough for ya? No I guess not because you think they all lie.

      • Nastyboy says:

        James…take a deep breath and brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Where did I say I “like” Harper or the CPC?

      • Nastyboy says:

        And you didn’t answer my initial question. Is Harper responsible for the actions of a man who hasn’t worked for him in years and a private citizen? Was Cretien responsible for Chuck Guite or Jean Brault?

        • Namesake says:

          but not only are those bad analogies, since they were low-level whereas Carson worked very closely with the PM in the PMO itself, but it’s also not true that “he hasn’t worked for him in years”;

          in fact, as I pointed out in the prev. thread, not only was he _still_ working for the PM, in a way, since the feds created & funded a job for him in this ‘Spin for us on how clean Alberta oil’ think tank, but he was also brought _back_ to the PMO at least once since 2008:

          “When Mr. Harper was opposition leader he served as his director of research. When the Conservatives moved into government he was in the PMO until after the 2008 federal election.

          Mr. Carson then left the government briefly to work on the mandate of the Canada School of Energy and the Environment, where he is currently the executive director. The government gave the school, which is a collaboration between the universities of Alberta, Calgary and Lethbridge, a $15-million grant in the 2007 budget. It has a funding agreement with Industry Canada that lasts until 2014.

          In January 2009, Mr. Carson returned to politics on a leave of absence from the school to work as the director of policy and research at the PMO….”


    • Philip says:

      We call Gord a Con-bot, because he actually is a Con-bot. Gord is a bit rubbish at it though, but you can only play the hand you have been dealt I suppose.

      I agree with you in part. There has to be something positive, on the policy side, to make any party attractive to voters. It isn’t enough just to say the other guy is evil, you need to spell out exactly how and why you would do things differently. The whole “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” routine is a non-starter in my book. I honestly see this election as an opportunity to start some change that our current political system needs.

      This particular Conservative charlie foxtrot will have more traction with most Canadians for two reasons. Firstly, it’s really quite funny. You can’t outline the story so far with out at least breaking into a smile. It’s our very own political dirty joke, our “Man from Nantucket” if you will. That alone makes it stick well in the public mind. Second, sex or at least the suggestion of it, is an attention getter. For all the wrong reasons of course but true none the less.

      I do part ways with you on the whole “unneeded election” statement. I believe we do need elections in general and this one in particular. I feel there is enough fiscal mis-management on the part of the Conservative Party to climb that particular hill and do battle. I won’t bore you with the list of gross Conservative financial incompetence but the weight of evidence suggests that they could no more balance a cheque book than plan a piss up in a brewery. What ever historical credibility on fiscal prudence the Conservative Party ever had has been completely squandered by this current collection of losers. That is why this election is needed in my books.

    • Gayle says:

      I don’t think Harper is responsible for his actions. I do think that were this about the liberals the CPC supporters and the CPC MP’s would be out in full force demanding resignations and doing whatever they could do to make this stick to the party.

      Politics suck. But if you are going to live by the sword you best be ready to die by it too.

  14. Emily says:

    another Jaffer/Conservative-like incompetent ;0)

  15. kat says:

    bc… don’t talk too loud because we all know that the principals of the 90s and early 2000s were Tories like Chuck Guiti. They learnt all at Mulroney’s knee.

  16. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Worth noting, some in the media also are surprised by Carson’s actions. Greg Weston granted him considerable respect yesterday on P&P, and seemed genuinely perplexed as to how he could have come to be involved in something like this. Robert Fife offered that no doubt the Prime Minister is “stunned” by these revelations. The guy was well known amongst media types, and obviously well regarded.

    At the end of the day, and as always, there’s no accounting for human nature. Who really knows what anyone is capable of getting themselves into, or what temptations might trump their good judgement? What are you going to do, hang tracking bracelets on the ankles of everyone who leaves the civil service for the following five years???

    And lastly, when a Liberal offers someone whose paid for his sins to society a second chance, it’s compassion. But when a Conservative does as much, it’s complicity? Uh, huh…

    • bigcitylib says:

      “And lastly, when a Liberal offers someone whose paid for his sins to society a second chance, it?s compassion. But when a Conservative does as much, it?s complicity? Uh, huh?”

      I dub you SOFT ON CRIME!

  17. kat says:

    Except when they don’t learn from their mistakes………… or just remain crooks forever.

  18. Robin says:

    Yeah, so I guess he was very much welcome amongst Conservatives is what you demonstrate here. But it is consistent, I mean look at the company that Mulroney kept, what with his criminal friends handing him money in envelopes. Imagine what we might find out about Harper 10 years or so after he leaves office!

  19. C.W. says:

    Does the ‘not being very successful at it’ argument work for pedophiles and terrorists? Especially with a prior criminal record?

  20. Robin says:

    So is success the threshold here? If I attempt to murder someone, but do not succeed, I should be fine to go about things as free as can be? I’m surprised the harsh law and order types usually give these kind of transgressions a pass (or attempt to explain them away).

    What’s worse, this guy wanted to give his hooker fiancee a 20% commission, all on the backs of the Aboriginal population that live in squalor and forced to drink water the quality of which none of us would allow our own pets to drink. Fat, white, overprivileged fucks getting rich by exploiting the unfortunate living conditions of the wretched of Canada: that’s why, Gord, success or failure in this loser’s attempt does not matter, at least not morally.

    • bc says:

      No. You should be charged. It’s like attempting to sell sugar on the street as if it were cocaine. It’s still a crime even though all you did was pass over a bag of baking supplies.

      But what is not clear (yet) is how this impacts the PM, if at all.

      And I’m sure Warrens intentions with this post was to not rip on some old man, but rather to show how this might hurt the Conservatives fortunes in a possible election.

  21. Jan says:

    Gord – what are you – soft on crime?

    • Jan says:

      So why are you making all these excuses – it’s not that bad, everybody does it etc? We don’t even know exactly what went down here and you already in forgiveness mode.

  22. Harvey Martin says:

    Right now, geezer Tories in Ottawa are freaking out, knowing that it won’t be long before this busty hooker offers her client list to the highest bidder. When that happens, the crap will truly hit the fan. It’s not as if Carson was her only client.

    I can’t wait for the photo of said hooker posing with the PM at some swanking event for Tory insiders.

    • Harvey Martin says:

      OOPS! I meant “swanky”, not “swanking”. Freudian slip.

      • JH says:

        Harvey again I’d be careful. WK has probably been at some swanky events in Ottawa, as I have and it wasn’t only geezer tories with some busty type ladies hanging on their arms. Seriously! Living and dying by the Sword – we’ll see.

      • Iris Mclean says:

        Ha Ha! “Swanking” is probably closer to the word that would describe a sixty-odd year old fart who hooks up with a twenty-two year old professional hottie.
        Creepy. I hope she cleans him out, financially, that is.

        • Jan says:

          Swanking is a keeper. Well, she already has her name on that house. Maybe it was an engagement present…

          • Iris Mclean says:

            Swanking it is! I really hope she takes that “gentleman” for a long and expensive ride.

    • Cath says:

      I’m pretty sure there are a few boobs in the LPOC these days Harvey:-)

  23. MH says:

    Odd. I feel a Liberal Policy developing that looks like: Guilty Until Proven Innocent. Hmmm. Couldn’t be, could it??

    • Namesake says:

      No, you’re thinking of Harper’s policy on Guergis: Guilty Even After Being Proven Innocent. And don’t forget, it’s he who called the RCMP in on both of these individuals. We’re just taking it all in.

  24. Nastyboy says:

    “And, officially, these Reformatories have become what they said they?d destroy.”

    Yes…they’ve become as crooked as the Liberal Party.

    • Philip says:

      I guess I missed Harper’s big speech in which he promised to be as bad as those he replaced.

    • Pete says:

      Even more so becasue thyye said they wwere there to clean it up and simply made the tory sleaze even worse. this scandal has legs that haven’t even started to grow. The libs will release every little bit of furhter detail day by day and make the harpercrites twist in the wind while they lose the election big time.

      If Harper even tries to avoid the election now it will only get worse for him….win win for the opposition

  25. Jan says:

    If it was added to the Investment Act how would that be going outside a contractual agreement. Going after the companies after they violate agreements isn’t proving too successful.

  26. james Smith says:

    Guess if one needs more than the obvious to be convinced of the disreputable nature of the present PM one must therefore (at the very least) find this present PM acceptable. Guess’n acceptability & likeability are different, however; if one is willing to accept this latest scandal I would argue one must LIKE the this present PM over the alternatives.
    But hey that may be a real big leap & I’m just a sophomoric partizan with poor reading skills, not a Mensa club member posing as a non-partizan.
    As for read’n & ‘sorb’n you may consider the reason for Mr K’s post was: “crazy to campaign now” . You don’t like the alternative, fine. You don’t think this fellow with a sketchy past & present working for the present PM matter, K, that’s you. The perception & how this plays going into a campaign is not going to fit with sweaters & lounge lizard Beatle tunes with most folks, I’d agree with Mr K that the opposite is true.
    So go ahead & keep practicing your best paraphrased LOST TREASURE OF SIERRIA MADRE line: “Eelec-shionn? wee don’t need no steenkking eelec-shionn!”

    • Nastyboy says:

      You fly pretty fast and furious with assumptions. Where did I say I “accept this latest scandal”? I prefer to wait for all the facts. And I understand how hyper-partisans have a hard time thinking clearly outside of an us-vs-them bunker mentality, but you do realize that there are more options than the Liberals and Cons right? That by not being a liberal supporter (right now) doesn’t have mean I’m CPC and that maybe I think you’re both full of shiate?

  27. Namesake says:

    meh; for the kind of cases he’s talking about there — where a foreign company promises a certain level of employment in order to be allowed to do business & extract profits from here and then renege on that — it’s like putting a lien on the property or garnishing the wages of a deadbeat dad (which governments do agree to doing).

    But here’s a wedge issue right back at ya, oh, ‘Don’t tax, but spend, spend, spend Conservatives’:

    “The Conservative government announced more than $1 billion in funding for social housing, the forestry sector and crime prevention, among other projects, in a five-day period last week, as election speculation continued to mount. About half of that — more than $504 million — was earmarked for Quebec. … [It] was all new spending.” http://urlm.in/hjav

    • Jan says:

      Much more lucrative for the Bloc than joining a coalition. And what could go wrong with money going to the construction industry in Quebec?

    • Pete says:

      in typical tory VOODOO economic style they promise everything under the sun and just add to the deficit knowing full well it won’t be them having to clean up the mess.
      In the meantime they will have filtered a lot of money to their corporate buddies who will land them cushy jobs post election.
      Harper is like someone on his deathbed trying to take us all down with him when he gets the boot.

  28. Philip says:

    Notice how Astro Gord changed the channel there?

  29. Namesake says:

    So, it keeps getting better, as both more details and more institutional memory emerges.

    Pity the APTN are getting scooped on their story, and were taken off-guard by how quickly the PM summoned the bus, er, RCMP; this was all meant for their 60 Minutes style investigative report show that only comes out every two weeks (so, next Friday).

    Paul Wells has helpfully linked a 2008 Macleans profile of Carson as one of the (then) trusted 12 Harpostles, which pace Gord, makes it clear that he was valued precisely BECAUSE of his connections to the old CPC party & ways:


    And the NDP blogger AccidentalDeliberations links a new Stephen Maher column which notes that even though Carson doesn’t really have any personal stake in this H20 Pros filter company himself beyond the fact that his girlfriend and future mother-in-law work for it,

    he DOES appear to have run afoul of a number of lobbying and federal contracting rules:

    “Rules brought in by Harper restrict public office holders like Carson from lobbying government officials on behalf of clients for five years, but he met officials in the Indian Affairs department four times between September 2010 and January 2011, The Canadian Press has reported. And emails obtained by The Chronicle Herald show Carson made a direct sales pitch to Lysane Bolduc, senior infrastructure engineer in the infrastructure operations directorate at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in Ottawa.

    …[His fiancee] McPherson [also] signed a contract with H20, witnessed by Carson, that was to grant her a 20 per cent cut of any sales to First Nations, a document uncovered by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.

    Federal contracting rules forbid such commission deals.”


    • Namesake says:

      oops, “the old CPC party & ways” should of course be, “the old PC party & ways”; it’s just so darn hard to keep them straight, these days.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.