05.01.2013 08:37 AM

Dear Justin Trudeau

Want something to hit Harper with, hard, over and over, until he can’t breathe? Here it is:

This revelation hits the Harper Cons at the very core of their being: as sound fiscal managers, and as protectors of the Canadian homeland, they are a joke.

Go at it, over and over and over, relentlessly. God has just given you a gift.

Use it.

Sincerely,

 

Warren

69 Comments

  1. Terry Maloney says:

    Idle No More is saying this shows that Canada needs third party management.

    Hard to disagree.

    • Damn Straigtht!! This man makes Mulroney look like a fiscal genius. Please encourage right thinking progressive Tories to commit democracy and ditch-bag Harper and sit as independents, then out with the Harper hooligans!

  2. Audrey Grenier-Williams says:

    He will use this for sure!!!

  3. dave says:

    Boy oh boy!Wait till Ezra rips into the Harper regime for this!

  4. Greg says:

    The biggest lie in Canadian politics is that the Cons are – or ever have been – sound fiscal managers. The weeping and wailing would be relentless if a Liberal or (god forbid) NDP government came to power with an operating surplus and within two years turned it into a deficit as the Harper Cons did.

    • deb s says:

      I know…it drives me mad. Cons must live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance, or perhaps they really do live in a bubble with earplugs and blinders. Selective memory and selective reasoning. I have one friend who just makes up shit as he goes along to ease all that scandal that keeps leaking out, one of my faves…the MSM lies.lol
      But he follows sun news religiously to get the “FACTS” I find the whole thing so annoying that I stopped responding to his BS. I am glad to see that SunNews finally announced the story…it was in the MSM yesterday:P
      If JT doesnt go for the throat on this issue, he is crazy!

  5. Graham says:

    Ummm, Warren???

    The story clearly indicates that:

    1) There is no evidence there is any wrong doing

    2) The dates the AG looked at are from 2001 to 2009. Your Liberals were in power until 2006. There hands aren’t clean here either. We don’t know if the $3 Billion was allocated and unspent by the Liberals.

    3) I see Tom Mulcair quoted in the story, but nothing from Trudeau. Was he even in the HOC yesterday or off at another personal speaking engagement?

    • GPAlta says:

      1) There is no evidence either way, yet… Who knows what will come out over the next two years.

      2) Except that the AG reviewed the very same program in 2004 and said:

      3.156 The current management framework of the Public Security and Anti-Terrorism initiative met most of our audit criteria. The vast majority of funds allocated in the 2001 Budget have been channelled to identified priority areas. In addition, the Treasury Board Secretariat is taking care to track spending and is attempting to assess the improvements achieved by the initiative.
      http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200403_03_e_14895.html#ch3hd3d

      3) Maybe Trudeau wants to avoid jumping the gun on this one, since he was so harshly criticized for getting the Boston bombings situation exactly right “too soon,” Maybe Trudeau would rather focus on the residential schools whitewash that the AG report identifies.

    • Kevin T. says:

      Ok ok, you make a very sound and convincing argument. I’m sold, there is nothing to see here folks. This is totally a non-story, I mean, what is so important about a missing $3+ billion dollars of taxpayer money anyway?
      But then you also imply that the Liberals had their part and their “hands aren’t clean here EITHER”, does that mean the HarperCons DO have dirty hands? Now I’m confused, is this a non-story or is everyone dirty?

    • Graham says:

      Again – 2001 to 2009.

      This is under the Liberal AND Conservatives watch.

      • Ted B says:

        Not really.

        It covers program spending started under the Liberals, but, as per the 2004 AG report, nothing to be worried about.

        Think of it like this: in 2001, Chretien approves a 10 year spending program on military equipment. After 5 years, you still have 5 years to go so there is no issue. In 2011, however, the full amount should have been spent and the AG can only find evidence of 70% of it being spent. Where’s the other 30%?

        That’s the question being asked.

        It’s not a Liberal issue because the Conservatives have been in charge for 7 years.

        The AG does many other audits so the stuff Chretien budgeted in 2001 to spend in 2002 has already been audited. Same with the stuff Harper budgeted in 2008 to spend in 2009. This is a broader based audit of spending.

        But at least you agree that it is very damning of the current government’s handling and reporting of spending.

  6. ottawacon says:

    Not a postivie sign for the Liberals, because clearly their reaction time and/or ability to think on their feet is way below where it needs to be – that became a gift for Mulcair and the NDP. Trudeau was dangerously irrelevant, and it is hard to escape the suspicion that he was inadequately prepared. The search and rescue file is fairly damning as well.

  7. Austin So says:

    Yup.

    Any fiscal conservative may now finally realize that “conservative” is only in name with that big clusterfuck.

  8. Steven says:

    The HarperCons: They’re in over their heads.

  9. J.W. says:

    The Libs got clobbered yesterday as Mulcair was prepared to hit the Conservatives hard on AG report using the old “billion dollar boondoggle” line. Libs weren’t there at all. Trudeau had a question but weak.This was obviously a staff advisor problem. Trudeau not as experienced in hard nosed Parliamentary politics could be forgiven for not being ready to go at 2pm. Mulcair got a good scrum clip on TV as well as QP.

  10. Dana says:

    I truly hope he does but I suspect he won’t.

    In his naivete I suspect he considers that stating, and exploiting, unattractive truths about one’s opponent would be negative campaigning.

    I do not want to be right about this because I want to see Harper in a gutter somewhere begging for pennies and cigarette butts. Preferably in the third world.

  11. Brian says:

    We all knew that with the F-35, the record deficits and the failure to see a looming recession. A missing measly $3 billion is just another day at the PMO.

  12. Ted B says:

    What was the amount that the Cons absconded from border security to pay for Tony Clement’s re-election? $50 million?

    Money slotted to protect us at the border that they used for beautification project to help Tony get re-elected.

    And now we have $3.1 BILLION missing in security money.

    And they have the gall to just tell us to “trust them”?!?!

    And by the way, I don’t think it would have been prudent for Trudeau to speak out yesterday. Trudeau trying to grab this issue, allows Harper to point the finger right back at him/Liberals. They are very good at deflection and smoke and mirror, and the media are super good at regurgitating their talking points. That’s no answer when the attacker is the NDP. Remember the NDP and the Bloc were the first out of the gate on Sponsorship and the so-called Billion Dollar Boondoggle (that wasn’t), but it was the Cons who made the most of it.

    As long as the focus is on Harper, it’s all good. The election is a year and a half away.

  13. Graham says:

    A story with more details:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-cant-account-for-31-billion-in-anti-terror-funding-auditor-finds/article11629983/

    – National Defence spent $510-million on military operations such as the mission in Afghanistan which would not be reported to the Treasury Board

    – more than $100-million in funding lapsed at Public Safety and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority,

    – the Canadian Security Intelligence Service spent $100-million of its PSAT funding on secret initiatives, with little information provided to the public.

    – $129-million was allocated to a Marine Security Operations Centre, but the project was reduced in scope and only $26-million was spent.

    That’s almost a third of the “missing” funds right there

  14. m5slib says:

    Sincere qusetion Warren.

    I get that you want Trudeau to hammer at this (wisely), but keeping with his stay positive perspective, does he lose out by letting Mulcair go all attack dog on this? Either way the mud is thrown, and this way he’s not in the crossfire.

    What say you?

  15. Marion says:

    But Warren, what if it’s determined that that most of the $3 Billion was “unaccounted for” during the Liberal watch from 2001 to 2006, and monies spent by the Conservative government from 2006 to 2009 were fully accounted for?

    I smell a Conservative trap that will further discredit previous Liberal governments. Watch out!

    • Come off it. The CPC can trot out a million long winded arguments in a week, or a month, or a year. Joe Sixpack will remember they Lost $3 bill, and add it to his growing mental list of Shit Harper Did, lol.Your comment is like argueing that Attack ads only work if they are true. Difference here is no media buy is required. I assure you that any and every Trudeau response will receive wall to wall coverage this evening and tomorrow morning. If Clement keeps on claiming that it was not wasted, then the story will grow a whole new set of legs, and stretch for a few more days.

      • Gerry says:

        “Come off it. The CPC can trot out a million long winded arguments in a week, or a month, or a year. Joe Sixpack will remember they Lost $3 bill, and add it to his growing mental list of Shit Harper Did, lol.”

        So it really doesn’t matter to you then whether the Conservatives were responsible or not, nor whether it may have been Liberal incompetence which caused the problem? The only thing that matters is that we pin it on Harper? Your comment says a lot about political intelligence in this country, and some folk’s blind willingness to jump on the bandwagon of a Party who may just lead us down the path to economic ruin. Unreal!!

        • Kaspar Juul says:

          As opposed to a party quickly leading us into economic mediocrity and inequality eh Gerry?

        • don’t bother trying to tell me what does and does not matter to me. If you have something to say, say it, and take ownership of the language and words you use. You are far from a giant of rhetorical devices, just a whingeing wannabe sophist.

          • Koffi says:

            Jayzus Bluegreen, quite a response from a guy who writes on his blog “Dissent is the path to truth”. Personal attacks on people who don’t agree with you, won’t encourage much dissent, I suspect. I think Gerry (whom I know, by the way, and who has never been a fan of CPC/Harper), said exactly what many Canadians already think about the LPC…..power at any cost. Good luck with that. I think voters are smarter than many give them credit for. Responsibility will be determined relative to the missing dollars, and no amount of spinning by ANY party will diminish the truth about it…..CPC will wear it if it’s their responsibility…and I suspect, so will the LPC if it happened on their watch.

          • Koffi, I detest the practice of putting words into other peoples mouths, and then refuting them. Strawman BS. Perhaps I reacted strongly, but I most emphatically did NOT say that ‘it really does not matter to me whether the conservativers are responsible or not, etc. etc.’. This post is about the tactic of slamming the Conservatives on their vulnerability. I made a point that the finer points are irrelevant to that topic. They are vulnerable, they will get hurt if slammed on it, and long winded arguments will not protect them. HAd Gerry prefaced his comment with ‘I think that etc. etc.’ had he said ‘many canadians think’, then that would constitute fair comment.

    • Ted B says:

      No the 2004 AG report gave them a pretty clear approval on spending in these areas. That kind of money was not noted as being unaccounted for in 2004.

      Martin did map out a lot of spending, but that would have also been almost all monitored/reported on under Harper’s watch.

      To know how concerned the Conservatives are about this, watch for the talking points and spin machine to launch. Right now, everyone would be under strict orders to say nothing, until the talking points can be produced. Then you will hear no end of the talking points from every single Con MP.

  16. As a taxpayer, I’ve grown to expect governments to lose, waste, blow, misappropriate, misdirect billions and billions of dollars. It follows my maxim, “when did the government ever get anything right?”. Give them a billion (or three) to lose, and they’ll lose it every single time. Doesn’t matter if it’s Liberal (hello HRDC boondogle) or Conservative. A pox on all their houses.

  17. deb s says:

    I would think that if JT shows enough passion about this issue…the fiscal conservatives out there might be swayed. If he is not saying anything, if he lets Mulcair do all the mudslinging or if he pretends its not a big deal…then most will wonder if he is indifferent or he plans on behaving just a badly with taxpayers money.

  18. Chris Shrive says:

    Buy ahellofalot of gazebos……..

  19. Al in Cranbrook says:

    I’d be cautious on this. This is the same government that got basically the good housekeeping seal of approval for their administration of the stimulus program. Nobody, not even…cough…Liberals, is sloppy enough to lose that kind of jake. But the fact that this dates back to 2001 should be cause for Libs to tread lightly here. They’ve had enough of their scandal claims blow back in their faces over the last several years.

    Nevertheless, I’m sure the MSM will relentlessly pound this one for all it’s worth…right up until the moment it’s cleared up, at which time they will go silent as church mice.

  20. Tom Woodward says:

    Deep Throat: Follow the money.
    All the President’s Men

    From time immemorial, following the money has universally uncovered everything from pilfering cashiers to the grimmest of sins – Judas’s thirty pieces of silver for example.

    Canadian politics has seen its share of creative accounting, graft, and mysterious transfers of lucre. Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber’s brown paper bags are legendary. So-called bingogate brought down the NDP government of Mike Harcourt – ironically, his successor Glen Clark would get tangled up in “casinogate.”

    Now, Stephen Harper and his Conservative minions have, if one believes the auditor general, disappeared about 3 billion dollars from the terror fund – if one assumes 20 million Canadian adults, about $150 of your tax dollars have disappeared. I’m tending to like the ring of “terrorgate.”

    • “Casinogate” never happened. It was a total smear job from start to finish and Clark was cleared of any wrongdoing in the courts. Bingogate, while a real scandal, wasn’t Harcourt’s scandal. He had nothing to do with it, but sadly he stepped down anyway when the knives came out, thinking it would be best for the party. He should never have backed down and let the right-wing bully him like that. Both of these are examples of political assassinations, not actual malfeasance. The facts of history show clearly that Libs and Cons are frequently corrupt. The NDP has a much, much better track record.

  21. wow, I went to the National Post article, there are so many comments rolling in my computer froze up repeatedly when I asked it to sort the comments. Not a good day for the Harperits, not a good day at all.

  22. Kelly says:

    In Winnipeg on CBC radio the only person I heard commenting on the issue was Trudeau. He made a cogent effective statement along the lines of … The conservatives have lost $3 billion that was supposed to be used to keep Canadians secure from terrorists. This mess demonstrates that the Conservatives are incompetent hypocrites. It’s almost as if JT read Warren’s post this morning.

    • Graham says:

      That’s odd.

      Ijust watched a clip of him in a media scrum and he didn’t seem at all interested in responding to this subject when a reporter asked him a question and pointed out the Liberals were in power for 5 of the 8 years in question.

      Mumbled something about after 9/11 the government wanted to get money to the agencies asap.

      • Al in Cranbrook says:

        That’s the thing, eh? 5 out of 8 years. And one arguably could toss in about another year of bureaucrats doing things the same way before a new government could implement their own procedural policies.

        …fictionally speaking, of course.

    • Attack! says:

      er, no, it’s not a 5 / 3 split, it’s a 4.2 to 3.2 split:

      the period of the audit was from the proclamation of the Dec. 2001 Budget to March 31, 2009:

      so, that’s less than the last quarter of 2001/2, and fiscal 2002/3, 2003/4, 2004/5, and all but last couple months (the election was the end of Jan 2006) of 2005/6 under LPC, = >4 plus a quarter,

      vs. 2/3rds of last quarter of 2005/6, plus fiscal 2006/7, 2007/8 + 2008/9 under CPC = 3 plus most of a quarter.

  23. Kip says:

    Here’s the thing: if I read it in the newspaper, I take it to be true. If I hear it from a politician, I take it to be partisan B.S. If a politician trusts me to be informed, I take that trust to the voting booth.

  24. PP says:

    Not a peep in QP today from JT about this apparent manna from heaven. $3B of tax dollars are apparently missing and JT is still trying to appear as the champion of the middle class. Also, not a peep from JT about the $29B in uncollected taxes since 2006. In contrast, it was the NDP that addressed those issues. Does this mean that a Liberal government under JT would be as unconcerned as Harper apparently is about these issues? Somewhere along the way, attack ads regardless, JT has to appear to be more than a one trick pony if he hopes to become the next PM.

  25. John McCulligh says:

    Marry this with the stealing of the election of 2011 by vote transfers and voter suppression, how can Canadians trust the Harperites.

  26. Cam says:

    If the Harper Government can’t account for the 3 billion dollars, then a legitimate question has to be, did the Harper Government use the 3 billion dollars for the good of the Conservative Party and their buddies?

  27. JohnJ says:

    Let’s look for the “root cause” of losing accountability for the $3 Billion… maybe somebody felt unappreciated and decided to stuff their bank accounts. Oh well, I hope it was all for a good cause…..

  28. Brad Young says:

    If I were Justin Trudeau, I’d try and find out what happened to all the stimulus money from the action plan. We have a huge deficit because of that. I can imagine so much was wasted or fell off ten back off a truck.

  29. Graham says:

    According to one report, most of the poor record keeping happened under previous Liberal governments.

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/05/20130501-162216.html

    “With most of the poor record-keeping happening while the Liberals were in power, the Grits have been very quiet on the issue.

    Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau refused to accept that his party might have dropped the ball.

    “Certainly in the years following 9/11 there was a great emphasis on reacting and putting money out for anti-terrorism, counter-terrorism measures,” Trudeau said.

    • Attack! says:

      again (5 posts from you, on ‘but it was under the Liberals, too’ ?! pathetic), citing a lazy Sun writer’s article hardly addresses the fact that in March 2004 the AG found that for the first 2.25 yrs of the program — i.e., over half the LPC’s tenure with it — “The vast majority of funds allocated in the 2001 Budget have been channelled to identified priority areas.” http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200403_03_e_14895.html#ch3hd3d

      How could the AG have said that if there was such poor record-keeping under the LPC? they wouldn’t — she/they would have said something like, “It was difficult to determine what a large portion of the funds were spent on.”

      • Graham says:

        The 2001 budget was released in March 2001.

        The rush for anti-terrorism, counter-terrorism began after the attacks happened in September 2001.

        None of that spending would be in a budget released 6 months earlier, so an AG report from 2004, reporting on the allocation of funds from the 2001 budget is useless.

        • Attack! says:

          again, READ the AG reports this is about: “Based on these proposals, $7.7 billion for “Enhancing Security for Canadians” was included in the December 2001 federal budget” http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201304_08_e_38193.html

          and this Anti-Terrorism program was done in response to the 9/11 attacks, genius, which was in SEPTEMBER of that year, not before March. Give your head a shake — maybe some of the denial will drain out.

        • Attack! says:

          “The 2001 Canadian budget was a Canadian federal budget for the Government of Canada presented by Minister of Finance Paul Martin in the Canadian House of Commons on December 10, 2001. It was known as the “Security Budget” for its focus on security after the September 11 attacks in the United States.

          The budget was unusually presented in December 2001, federal budgets are normally released in February or March. However the election in November 2000 had been preceded by a detailed “budget update”.

          …The largest outlay was $7.7 billion over five years to improve security. ”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Canadian_federal_budget

      • Graham says:

        Lookng at your link, were did you get the impression this was for the first 2.5 years of the program?

        You correctly state the 2004 report says ““The vast majority of funds allocated in the 2001 Budget have been channelled to identified priority areas.”

        I take that to mean they looked at the 2001 budget ONLY.

        What about funds allocated in the 2002, 2003, and 2004 budgets?

        The report released yesterday looks at 2001 to 2009.

        • Attack! says:

          from the part that says that Budget set out a funding envelope for 6 years, you lazy reader:

          “the $7.7 billion announced in the December 2001 Budget as new spending over 2001–02 and the following five years for enhanced security, emergency preparedness, and improving border infrastructure”

  30. ok says:

    I like your title:

    “Harper lost $3 billion”

    so we know now why harper couldn’t lost his weight! instead he become gain big fat tummy each year

    I wish I was prime minister I could travel alot…

    keep looking you can
    check under of his pillow first!
    sorry

    Please check all orginized crime in Canada they may have answer for you.

    Sometimes I tell to myself we must be thankfull to all Orginzed crime and give noble price to nicely job smart organized crime

    if organized crime was not there how can be anybody can pay all those increase bill each year they are back the people
    even today I heard they have recruiting agency and made people from teen and small age to become biggest criminal in Canada MOST WANTED
    otherwise all welfare people must stay on street begging for money and it become wrost.

    Always There is root and cause of action for any crime I guess…

    few years ago I was shopping at the Bay in downtown and few month after they sent me big bills I said i did ot bought those dress I only bought one and I asked could you sent me copy of signature and that signature not match mine and it took so long process but I told myself only person who saw my visa was Bay cashier how come they can not identify her easy… I noticed no body care

    then next year some one stole my car near my home again I called police siad they took my lamp outside and put donw on floor to turn off light you can do finger print police said NO do not worry just call your insurance they will replace it for you we do not have time to look for these smaller theives..

    then I suspected again which kind of police is 33 divison are that not care may be they are link with oginized criminal too
    then I noticed corruption is come from Nobody care to stop it from early age when bigger powerfull do it why not small do it too nobody care!!

  31. ok says:

    My best suggestion for all these organized crime is to instead of use thier mind doing wrong in smart way they use their brain and do it right it may work too.
    I told one Indian aboriginal lady why your community rather drug using and trafiking involve of selling other items they becom bigger than Loblaw company.
    a year ago Galen said this farmer kill someone and NOW so many employees killed in Bangladesh.

    If people seat rather make mone from either cut from poor or steal from other to think how to make money in right way all people become happy that is education need to give them from garde ONE in school to not steal… or your hand will anser to god in other world.
    organized crime cost become higger and their theft become bigger and bigger they are also gridy too they want more from us.

  32. Tracey says:

    Tracking of this was stopped by Stockwell Day back in 2010. Govt stopped reporting on the money allocated. This is why the AG couldn’t get any further info.

    But yet the money was still allocated and dispensed. Or not? But up till 2009 we lost over $3bill. This amount is surely even more now since 2009.

    Why did Stockwell Day stop the reporting of this? This alone is damning. Could it be that he knew there was problems?

    Either way, they steered the ship, they suppressed info and cancelled reports on spending.

    At best? Harper govt is inept, fiscally irresponsible & lost the money. At worst? That some form of corruption (gazebos?) has left this country with $3bill gone.

  33. wsam says:

    Tony Clement spent it on gazebos.

  34. Art Cramer says:

    You Libs did nothing about this when you were in office. You facilitated this by your negligence while cutting taxes for the wealthy and continuing to ignore the recommendations of the Carter Commission. You guys don’t have any issue with this, because there is NO difference between you and the Tories. You are both Corporatist parties on the take from the wealthy. The ony way this is going to change is under a NDP goverment. You guys believe, like the Tories, that the wealthy shouldn’t have to pay anything. Shame!

  35. It’s 3.1 billion since 2009. Since that, it’s probably ballooned up to 5 billion now.

    BAM BAM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*