So, Where do I sign up?

A day in the life of a Federal civil servant

When I was growing up, when you heard of someone who worked for the Federal government, you knew a few things right off the bat. One, they were probably not an ambitious individual, two, they didn't make a lot of money, and last but not least they would most certainly be serving a life sentence with the feds. It was a given that while a federal job didn't provide the big bucks that private industry did, it was a very secure position that in the end would provide a comfortable pension for ones golden years. Federal positions tended to attract those that wanted to take little risk on the career path and generally weren't overly eager to expend too much effort in earning a living.

Now fast forward to today's world......Lordy, Lordy, how things have changed and the pendulum has swung! Today's federal civil servant has rocketed ahead of us poor schmoes in the private sector to the point where one has to ask if the inmates are running the asylum in Ottawa. If by this time your beginning to believe that old Frustrated Joe is simply exaggerating the situation, just keep reading.

This boy is definitely a "chip off the old block"

As the Federal Liberals go through yet another leadership race in the hopes of finding someone to lead the chosen people out of the wilderness, I can't help but marvel at the desperation in their ranks.

Although one has to ask, why would we expect this race to be any different from ones of the past. In the last decade the Liberal party has certainly had some interesting potential leaders, looking back to 2006 they also produced a bumper crop of poor choices for party leadership.

Michael Ignatieff
Half the battle was teaching voters how to pronounce his last name (honestly, I never mastered it), but that was the least of the challenges facing the Liberal party with Michael. Here was a Canadian who moved to the United States, lived there for almost 30 years, crooned publicly about the wonders of living as a pseudo American, and then when he thought he could take the Liberal leadership and possibly become Prime Minister he parachuted back into Canada. Well as we all know he did become the leader of the Liberal party and went onto lead the party into a federal election that resulted in the Liberals almost being wiped of the face of the Canadian political map. Upon being soundly defeated, old Michael stepped down and now splits his time between teaching positions in Toronto and Harvard. Alas, a true Canadian patriot.

Bob Rae
Need I say more? As the former NDP Premier of Ontario, Bob was instrumental in leading that once successful province down the road of financial ruin. Bob made even America's President Obama look like a spendthrift when it came to holding the reins on the public purse. Once he had left a trail of fiscal destruction in his path he moved on and set his sights on the top job in Canada, Prime Minister. Now old Bob knows an opportunity when he sees one, and when the Liberals needed a leader he was not about to let the fact he was a card carrying member of the NDP party stand in his way, he simply jumped ship. However, what he couldn't leave behind was his record as Premier in Ontario, much to his dislike that stench clung to him and he was beat out by Michael Ignatieff. However, after Michael moved on Bob did get the job of acting party leader for the Liberals and the good news is that he could hold most of his caucus meetings in a broom closet.

Now , back to the present leadership race. The shining star in this one as far as most Liberals are concerned is Justin Trudeau, the son of former Canadian Prime Minister (and international playboy), Pierre Trudeau. Now amongst many Liberals, Pierre is held in the same reverence as say John Kennedy is with American Democrats. However most of us remember him better as the guy that flipped Canadians "the bird" from the back of the train on his way out of town or as the Prime Minister who coined the phrase "fuddle duddle". Someone who as a nation we could all be proud of, mind you I understand he did date Barbara Streisand.

So can we expect more from junior?

The NDP, Stupid is as Stupid does

It's no secret that I am not a big supporter of the Leftwing politics of the NDP, but to be fair I do realize that they have a place in the Canadian political landscape. Any political system to be truly balanced  needs to represent both sides of the political spectrum. Besides, in present Canadian Federal politics there is so little difference between the Liberal party and the NDP that even each parties supporters are confused. So if nothing else this tends to keep the Left in disarray, generally a good condition for them to be in as far as most sensible individuals are concerned.

Usually I am not the least bit surprised by any of  the socialist nonsense that the NDP generates on a regular basis, and I long ago stopped scratching my head trying to understand their logic. Having said that, recently the NDP surprised even me.

It's seems that last week the Federal Government announced that they had managed to cut their budgeted spending over the course of the fiscal year by $8 billion. Now generally anytime a government spends less than planned it is a cause for celebration, particularly due to the fact that it occurs on about the same frequency as  a pass by from Haley's Comet. Unfortunately this impudence on the part of the Feds did not sit well with the NDP who naturally felt something was amiss. After all an unspent taxpayer dollar is a wasted dollar in the mind of the NDP,  worse yet is the potential loss of an entitlement program, even one that serves no rational purpose. Never mind the fact that every dollar our Federal government spends is a borrowed dollar that adds to our ever growing Federal debt. So exactly how did the Federal NDP party view this "travesty"?

"It speaks to the lack of transparency and really the fundamental lack of accountability with Canadians," NDP finance critic Peggy Nash stated to the Globe and Mail. "People need to know what programs are being cut, what services are being undermined." 

Too funny....Let me get this straight, the programs that Peggy believes are being cut and the services that she suggests are being undermined are of such great importance that unless the government notifies us what they are, we might miss the entire event?  Really, is this the best she and her party have to offer Canadians? Peggy must be very familiar with the story of Chicken Little!

The ironic thing is that the Feds actually released Public Accounts' documentation last week that clearly indicated where the bulk of the savings were achieved. 

- $6.3 billion was originally budgeted for infrastructure and. $4.5 billion was actually spent.

- Ottawa spent almost $2 billion less than expected on Employment Insurance benefits.

-  The B.C. Provincial government returned $1.6 billion to the Feds after opting out of the HST.

As the official opposition the role of the NDP is to keep tabs on the government, but use some common sense please, there are plenty of places to find fault with our current government, you don't need to create issues where they don't exist. Speaking strictly from the viewpoint of a taxpayer, anytime the government shaves 25% off of a projected annual deficit of  $32 Billion, I am a happy camper. Too bad for the NDP that they don't see this as a good thing as well.

On a last note for my American friends who are reading this,  yes the dollar amounts cited above are correct. I can only imagine knowing this makes you feel even worse about your own Federal governments fiscal irresponsibility that is leading you over a fiscal cliff. You have my sympathy and I hope that Tuesday brings you a positive change in the Oval Office.

No need for a red carpet this time around

So, it appears that today we Albertans will be graced with a visit from the leader of the Federal NDP party, Thomas Mulcair. Tom will start his visit in Edmonton where he will meet with Alberta Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk,  Alberta Premier Alison Redford is in Virginia to attend the Bilderberg conference. Now there has been some criticism that Premier Redford herself should have been here to meet Tom, however my thoughts on this are simple. Why?

After all, Mr Mulcair is not the leader of our country, he is the leader of the official opposition, a position he was granted by his party (not the electorate) after another individual had done all the work to get the party to official opposition status. Sorry to bring it up Tom, but so far you are simply riding on Jack Layton's coat tails. My belief is that Mr. Mulcair is fully aware of his precarious status within the party (and amongst it's supporters) and as such understands better than anyone how important it is that he make his presence known amongst voters before another federal election. Where Jack Layton took the NDP in federal politics was nothing short of a miracle, unfortunately Jack has passed on, and lightning rarely strikes in the same place twice. It would appear that Tom has his work cut out for him. So whats his plan?

Enough already, time to stop playing hookey and get back to class

As a Canadian I have been watching with interest (and horror) the ongoing protests by students in the Province of Quebec over a proposed hike in university tuition. The original cause given by student groups for all of this turmoil was a near doubling of tuition fees over the next five years. Now, on its surface that idea may seem unreasonable, however Quebec's average tuition is a little more than a third of the weighted average of tuition in Canada (without including Quebec), so needless to say most students in the other provinces view Quebec with great envy. Tuition in Quebec which currently sits at $2,168 (and has been frozen at that for some time) was scheduled to increase to $3,793 over a period of five years. 

The increase amounted to $325 per year, or an additional $27.00 dollars a month each year, or $0.89 per day. To put that in perspective, $27.00 will buy you a dozen beer, lunch for two, or a night out at a movie by yourself. However it seems that as far as Quebec students are concerned, any increase is too much. So their solution is to take to the streets and attempt to bring an entire province and its economy to a grinding halt.

Now at this point, it is important to remember that the Province of Quebec is carrying a debt load of close to $184 billion and a recent report by the Desjardins groups states Quebec’s gross public debt to GDP ratio is at a whopping 94% placing the province in a similar position to countries such as Greece and Italy. Recently, The Financial Post’s Jonathan Kay coined the term “souvlaki economics” to describe the current situation in Quebec. Unfortunately this is a situation that can not continue in the long run as it is simply unsustainable. In a rare show of agreement both the ruling party and the official opposition came to the mutual conclusion that the ongoing budget deficits and the overall debt must be priorities and brought under control for the sake of future generations.

However, at present they face a major obstacle in the form of protesting students. The protests have been ongoing for about three months now and have literally cost millions of dollars in economic damage to the city of Montreal. Students have already blocked bridges, disrupted shareholder meetings for Power Corp, the National Bank and entered workplaces where mining companies are located, lord only know what these businesses have to do with tuition fees. Add to this the additional police costs incurred . Montreal police have temporarily brought on 150 officers due to the protests with the police union stating that overtime costs were expected to be between $2 million and $3 million. The Quebec provincial police overtime bill was estimated at $1.5 million.

So where does it all end?

A short walk, but an unforgivable betrayal

If you read this blog regularly it's no secret that Frustrated Joe's political philosophies tend to differ a great from those of the left, like say the NDP. However, once in while an issue arises that I find myself agreeing (at least partially) with someone I would normally be opposed to. Wow, that was a mouthful.

The issue at hand today are the shackles that are placed upon our Members of Parliament when they are expected to vote with their party on issues before Parliament. The particular case in question is that of Bruce Hyer, one of the NDP's northern Ontario MP's. Hyer was one of two NDP MP's that voted in November 2011 with the Conservative government on Bill C-19 to put an end to the long gun registry. Unfortunately for Hyer, that decision conflicted with his parties stance on the issue. The result, both MP's were disciplined by their party.

Now, maybe it is old school but as a voter I  personally feel that the first duty of elected officials is to those that elected them. Myself, I have always taken into account the candidates personal opinions and political philosophy (how close they are to mine) and given both almost the same weight in my voting decision as I give to their political parties views. After all this individual serves as your representative in government. You need to know "they have your back".

Government and Debt. How did we ever go down this road?

Just the other day I was watching television in my bed prior to drifting off for the evening. As I recall I was watching the news, and I got to thinking about how nice it would be to get rid of my 21" CRT boob tube and replace it with a brand new 32" Plasma, LED, or LCD HD television. You know the ones, fully loaded with all the bells and whistles.

Now I will admit that there is really nothing wrong with the TV I have, but lets face it the new ones are just a lot nicer. As I lay in my bed musing about this I thought that if I were to buy a new TV I might as well get one of those PVR satellite receivers, that way I could record programs and watch them at night. After all, in for a penny in for a pound. In fact since I am upgrading.... why not a couple of sets of wireless headphones for the wife and I, that way one could watch TV into the wee hours while the other slept. Ooops, almost forgot a DVD player, a Bluray, probably 3D with some wireless features (don't want to miss out on NetFlix).

Just as I was planning my run to BestBuy the next day, reality set in (it's a bitch at times). I needed all of this equipment like a "starving dog needs a second arsehole", more to the point where was the money coming from? After all it's not like I had a couple of grand set aside for tech upgrades, or that my employer would just cut me a cheque out of the goodness of their heart (and their understanding of my hi-tech needs). The bottom line was that the money would have to be reallocated from something else ( food, education, retirement, mortgage, emergency funds, saving, etc.) or borrowed, thus incurring some debt.

So, now that I have laid out my hi-tech bedroom fantasy (almost sounds risque doesn't it?) you are probably asking yourself what this has to do with Government debt.

Well its no big secret that governments at every level (civic, provincial, and federal) are and have been overspending for years, taking on ever increasing debt loads with no end in sight or any formal plan for repayment. So what is the answer?

Enough with the regulations and redtape!

As most Canadians go through their day to day life the last thing on their minds is the ever existing, non relenting government creep into our daily lives. Unfortunately, it creeps along taking our freedom a small bit at a time, not enough to raise a red flag, but there none the less. Like rats, one is just the first and before you know it your home is infested. Now the really insidious part of it is that it comes from all directions, from all levels of government, and seldom shows any indication of where it will lead say a decade down the road.

The underlying cause of all of this is that by default one of a governments main functions is to regulate. Think about it, at the end of the day once you set aside the most obvious top of the pile government duties like defense and such, what's left but regulation. Every level of government, civic, provincial, and federal all are at work continuously to rewrite, enhance, and create new regulations. Add to that the fact that with every change of government the "new guys" have to prove they can do better than the "old guard" by making changes to existing, trashing the old, writing new, or just being creative and making a crisis out of something that was never regulated before.

Think about it, what restrictions and regulations have been brought into place in just the last ten years? What regulations affect your daily life?

Government has gone from serving the people, to supervising the people. Canadians are now wards of the state, for the most part viewed as irresponsible individuals who have to be taken care of from cradle to grave, and told how to behave in society. Government regulation takes from our pockets as surely as taxes do, but regulations typically do it under the radar. Every product or service that you purchase almost certainly has regulations attached to it, regulations that incur costs for the provider, manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, and in many cases all of them at differ points in the path to the end user, which are in turn passed onto you as the consumer. So, just how bad is it?

Now this is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black......

"Sydney, what happened to you? You've become obese!"

Recently, Jim Flaherty Canada's Finance Minister has taken to publicly criticizing the spending habits of the provincial government of Ontario.

Now while I can't argue with the criticism nor would I in my wildest dreams ever consider defending Premier Dalton McGuinty and his merry band of free spending caucus members, I do have a problem with this.
Where do I start, well it seems Jimmy has suggested that the McGuinty Liberals should "look in the mirror" to see who is responsible for Ontario's current economic woes. A fine suggestion, but tell me Jimmy-Boy, do you own a mirror?

Rather than having me take off on a rant (something I tend to do occasionally), let's keep this short and use a couple of old but well proven adages that accurately describe this soap opera.......
"cast the first stone" or  "Those that live in glass houses....."

I am personally amazed that Jimmy feels he can tell anyone how to be fiscally responsible. It certainly is not based on his setting such a fine example to follow,  another old adage says it best  "Don't do as I do, do as I say"

On the other hand, maybe there is a simpler motivation at play here, like the fact that Jimmy's wife Christine Elliot is the deputy leader of Ontario's Conservative party. You know, the same Conservative party that would like to form the next government of Ontario and currently sits in opposition to McGuinty's Liberals.

So Jimmy, how about doing us taxpayers a couple of favors?
First, balance your own governments budget and address it's debt before you worry about the other guys, and secondly when your working on our nickel let your wife do her own campaigning.

Getting closer each day to the edge of the cliff in Ontario...

Ontario Premier McGuinty and his ministers

Is it just me or does it appear that having a complete lack of common sense or any level of financial savvy is one of the prerequisites to holding an elected office in Provincial or Federal politics?

Now a lot of us non elected types who manage businesses and our own households understand the most basic of financial concepts, that you can not continuously spend more than you take in. Sure on occasion, all of us have gotten a little loose with the purse strings in the short term, but generally we rein them in pretty quickly to avoid financial ruin.

So why is it that governments with their army of accountants and advisers can't seem to balance a budget? To be fair I understand that on occasion revenues will be lower that anticipated and might result in a short fall, but the theory is that you adjust spending accordingly. Our governments in general have gotten to the point, particularly in the last number of years where a balanced or surplus budget is the exception, not the rule. Where they celebrate the introduction of a budget that shows a slight reduction (not elimination) in its projected deficit from the previous years deficit. Case in point, the Province of Ontario.

Ladies and Gentleman, now we have a horse race!

It's official, April 23 is the date when Albertans will go to the polls to elect our next provincial government. Our current premier, Alison Redford met yesterday  with Lt.-Gov. Donald Ethell in his Alberta legislature office and the writ was issued at 10:00 am.

Immediately following her meeting with the Lt-Gov the Premier joined by members of her caucus spoke to the press on the steps of the legislature and had the following to say;

"This election will be a defining moment, where we will decide what we want the future to be and how we want to conduct ourselves, and I'm looking forward to talking to Albertans and letting them make those decisions over the next 28 days".

Pretty positive attitude for a politician who is facing what may be the battle of her political career up to this point. There's a lot riding on this election, Premier Redford who only late last year took the reins of the Conservative party via a leadership race, accepted with the role a lot of partisan responsibility. After all, the Conservative party has been running this province for 40 years and with just one more win will become Canada's longest serving government at 44 years, so needless to say the party will not look kindly on any sitting Premier that loses the throne. With Redford, seeking her first public mandate as premier she has a number of challenges to face going into this election, some of her creation, some not. So what makes this election so different from ones of the past? Let's face one reality, this is Alberta, a place where even a guy like Don Getty can hold the Premiers office, or an often times "not so sober" former Liberal turned Conservative, Premier Ralph Klein can be loved as a "man of the people" and referred to universally throughout the province as just "Ralph". The bottom line in the past was as long as you dressed an individual in Conservative Blue, chances were they would claim electoral victory. However I have a feeling it won't be quite that easy this time around. Why?

Maybe it is time for a new face in Alberta politics?

Back in December of 2011 I started to write a piece about the political landscape in Alberta and what options were available to voters.Unfortunately at the time other things caught my interest and life in general was keeping me pretty busy, so I filed away what I had written with the intention of one day blowing the dust off and posting it. Well yesterday, the front page of the Edmonton Sun caught my eye, or more to the point the results of a recent poll in Alberta awakened me. In a nutshell the headline was a simple one, big bold letters, a picture of our current Premier, Alison Redford photoshopped to appear to be staring down Danielle Smith leader of the Wildrose Party of Alberta and the text.....

Conservatives - 34% vs Wildrose - 29%
Redford - 33% vs Smith 25%

So what's it mean? well on the surface it appears that the Conservatives have a 5 point lead, and that people in general have a fondness for Redford over Smith. However, one poll does not win an election, so here's my December piece with the dust blown off and a few more paragraphs added.

And the beat goes on.....Oink, Oink

Is it just me or do our elected officials at times seem to be suffering from memory loss or possibly even dementia?

Just two days ago I posted an article about 21 Alberta MLA's who have been lining their pockets to the tune of $1000 a month for sitting on a Legislative committee that hasn't met in the last 39 months. The article was aptly titled Like pigs they head straight to the trough.... Well, this particular incident of pork barreling appears to have annoyed the public at large more than the regular gouging of the taxpayer that our elected officials participate in on a daily basis. It's the talk of the town, featured on the nightly news, in newspapers, and on talk radio everyday. It has actually gotten so bad that Alberta's Premier, Alison Redford addressed it personally from out of the country last week.

Last Thursday Premier Redford who was in New York conducted an interview with the Calgary Herald in which she stated that she was unaware that 21 government and opposition provincial representatives have been paid $1,000 a month - a total of $261,000 annually - to sit on a committee that hasn't met since 2008.
"I did not know," Premier Redford stated. She continued by saying the situation with the committee "wasn't something that connected to me at all. But it's not right."

Now lets jump forward a day to Friday when speaking with reporters the Premier went on to say that the fact provincial representatives were paid to sit on a committee that doesn't meet was "a ridiculous situation." "It isn't the way that Albertans want politicians to be paid," she said. "It's why I asked for an independent panel to look at how everyone in the legislature is being paid."

Now before we go any further just so I am clear on this, the Premier has called a panel to look into a committee? Wasn't enough financial damage done by the first committee, I guess not as she feels it necessary to form a second one and pay them as well. Although I suspect there is a deeper and more thought out reason for forming an "independent panel" to look into the payroll issue. Such a committee will make recommendations for changes moving forward, they will not make judgement or access any blame on individuals based on how they were paid within the guidelines previously. This will further support the MLA's who were paid for serving on, but never attending the The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing. After they were simply being paid under the guidelines that existed at the time, they did nothing wrong. Whereas, if the Premier were to take a strong a stand on the issue, agree that it is wrong, and insist on immediate rule changes she will have to by default answer questions about the integrity and honesty of the MLA's involved.

So why is this something she would rather avoid? Well the most obvious answer is that it is making the governing party look bad, something that is not desirable for her in an election year. However, if you dig deeper there is another issue that I suspect worries our Premier equally.

Like pigs they head straight to the trough....

Every year the Canadian Taxpayers Federation announces the annual winners of their Teddy awards. For 14 years running these awards have been presented for the best examples of government waste, federally, provincially, or at the municipal level. In fact upon reading the details of the winners there are times when the thought that this is fiction crosses your mind, unfortunately folks sometimes the truth about our elected officials is just plain ugly. These awards are a great public service as they bring to light just how frivolous those that we elect are with our money.

As an Albertan, when I was reviewing the winners of this years Teddies one in particular caught my interest for a number of reasons.... Here you go , courtesy of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (I love these guys)

Wanted: Premier for Ontario, No IQ test required

This week witnessed one of the most classic cases of  "foot in mouth" syndrome to have come along in a while, and lo and behold it came out of Ontario. The last time I can recall such stupidity from an Ontario politician was in January 1999 when Mayor Mel called in the army to perform snow removal in Toronto.  Then there was Bob Rae of course....

Recently Alberta's Premier Alison Redford sent a request to the Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty to show his support on selling the oil sands to the world, support that would be helpful at a time when Alberta energy is being referred to as "dirty oil" in some quarters. This undoubtedly seemed to Premier Redford to be a reasonable request considering the vital role Alberta's energy industry plays in the overall health of the Canadian economy.

Unfortunately Premier McGuinty apparently has a different opinion on Alberta's role in the Canadian economy, and particularly in regards to his own province. In fact rather than show his support for Alberta, he chastised our province and laid the blame for many of Ontario's financial woes right at our feet.

Come on Peter, just take your medicine like a big boy....

Peter Goldring (right) meeting with the
Prime Minister, prior to his troubles.

In late December 2011 Peter Goldring, an MP representing Edmonton ran into a little trouble that made headlines across the country. Apparently Mr Goldring after having attended a fund raiser was making his way home for the evening when he was pulled over by a police patrol as part of a routine Checkstop program.

Based on what Edmonton police spokesman Chad Orydzuk told the Edmonton Journal  Mr.Goldring was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample using the roadside screening test.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, it is an offense to Refuse to Comply with a Valid Screening Device or Breath Test Demand (often referred to as "refusing to blow"). In plain English this means that if a police officer makes a demand for you to provide a breath sample, or blow into a screening device, and you do not comply, you may be charged criminally under cc. 254(5).

Now this is where it gets interesting, although Mr Goldring refused to blow he has publicly stated he is pleading "not guilty to the charge", although he has not said why he refused to blow. Now, I know that at times the law can seem complicated, particularly to those of us who are not MP's or do not have the benefit of years of legal education. But please, there are only two options here, you blow, or you don't.

Now while Mr Goldring refuses to say why he would not blow, he has no problem stating loud and clear that he was not impaired or under the influence, that he had "only one beer". In his own defense Peter has stated that the fact he was not charged with impaired driving speaks to his innocence. Peter, Peter, Peter, there is a flaw in that logic, you were charged because you refused the test, not because you were impaired. No test, no evidence of impairment to lay charges of driving under the influence.

Unfortunately, Peter seems to have missed the point, he is not charged with being impaired, in fact what he did or did not drink has no relevance on his charges. He is charged with "refusing to blow", so Peter either you did or you didn't. The reason the "refusing to blow" law exists is so that the impaired can not dodge charges by simply not taking the test.

Now maybe Peter has an agenda we have yet to see, this is the same man that in 2009 posted on his website a letter he wrote opposing a proposal supported by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers that would allow police officers to use breathalyzer tests even if they didn’t suspect drunk driving. In his letter he stated civil liberties and the right to not self-incriminate had to be protected (on the surface, generally a concept I agree with). As well, just hours before Goldring was charged, he had been publicly debating Edmonton-Castle Downs PC MLA Thomas Lukaszuk on the merits of proposed Alberta legislation that would create harsher punishments for people suspected of impaired driving.

So, is Peter trying to prove a point about the merits and legalities of roadside checks and harsher penalties? Only time will tell, however if he is it is a risky road to travel. If he admits that this is a stunt to question the legality of the approach the government has taken to deal with drunk driving, then he risks a serious backlash from the Tory party, As well, considering his position as an MP he should know better than anyone that you don't break the law to change it, you work within the guidelines of the system. On top of that is the damage the incident and his virtual disappearance since the information went public in December  have done to his political career and family. In a recent interview , while holding back tears Peter stated “It’s been terrible,” Last but not least, if this is a stunt, it is an ill conceived one that will cost the court system (taxpayer) time and money and something that any responsible individual would have enough common sense not to undertake.

Peter currently sits as an independent member of the House of Commons. His parliamentary webpage lists his affiliation as Independent Conservative, but he has asked to be recognized as a "Civil Libertarian"

My money on this one is that Peter is scrambling to cover his own ass after bending his elbow a few too many times on the evening in question, but time will tell as his court appearance is scheduled for February 15.