I've solved the nation question

For days, nay, weeks now the contentious issue of Quebec's nationhood has racked the Liberal Party, with all sides desperately searching for a comprimise. Well, it finally occured to me what the way out of this mess is: we agree that it's very, very important we do something here, and we postpone deciding what to do until 2050.

Stephen Harper, you have shown us the way. I don't care what those other bloggers have said about ya. You, sir, are a visionary.

Michael, Bob, Stephane, Gerard, you're welcome. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to book my train tickets to Rideau Hall to pick up my Order of Canada.

Go Canucks go! Anson who?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Question of the day – Taxes

Thanks to the very rosy economic picture the Conservatives inherited from the Liberals due to the Chretien/Martin legacy of balancing the budget and sound fiscal management, Mike Harris prodigy and Stephen Harper finance minister Jim Flaherty is musing tax cuts.

While there’s certain social program areas I think we should be investing in, I have always favoured targeted tax relief, as has the Liberal Party. In fact, the Liberals introduced massive, broad-based tax cuts over the course of their time in government.

So, you’d think that perhaps Jim might see fit to reverse the increase in personal income tax rates the Conservatives made happen to pay for his one per cent GST cut? As I’ve blogged before, that little tradeoff left average Canadians like myself in the hole. Jim at the time though had other priorities, and said we just couldn’t afford both, and that he needed more personal income tax revenue to finance his misguided GST cut.

Turns out now that we can afford both. So, whadya say Jim, how about lowering my income tax back down to what I was paying in the first half of the year? Not going to happen. It seems Jim is more interested in cutting capital gains taxes. This will cost the government some $2 billion, so all those average Canadians with huge stock portfolios can save a few bucks when they sell sell sell!

And naturally, the more stock you buy and sell, the more you save. Again, to an uneducated eye like mine, that seems like another initiative from the Conservative Party of Canada designed to favour the wealthy. It was the same with the GST cut, the more you spend, the more you save! Unlike, say, personal income taxes, where the savings is on your pay stub and tax rates vary based on income.

Here’s the question:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. When he brought in his much bally-hoed one per cent cut to the GST, the minister also reversed Liberal cuts to personal income taxes at the same time. We couldn’t afford both, the minister said, and so average Canadians would have to pay more income taxes to finance a cut that would disproportionately favour the wealthiest Canadians.

Now though, Mr. Speaker, thanks to the strong fiscal picture the Conservative government inherited from the previous Liberal government, in stark contrast I might add to the one we inherited from the last Conservative government, it turns out we could have afforded both. So, does that mean the government is moving to reverse the income tax hike, Mr. Speaker? Unfortunately no. Instead, it seems the government’s plan is another tax cut scheme that would again disproportionately favour the wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister of Finance, will he start governing for ALL Canadians and bring back in REAL tax relief in the form of the personal income tax relief that would benefit all Canadians that this government cancelled?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

But but but...Liberals bad!

This morning I blogged about Stephen Harper’s use of government Challenger jets to attend hockey games and party fundraisers, and his muzzling of the Defence Department from revealing the true costs of these joyrides, in my question of the day. Here’s an exchange on the topic that took place in this afternoon’s question period:

Navdeep Bains (Lib-Mississauga-Brampton South, ON): Mr. Speaker, this minority government’s obsession with secrecy and silencing public servants has spread to National Defence. When asked by journalists to provide information on the Prime Minister’s partisan political use of Canadian government jets, Defence Department officials were ordered by the “powers to be” to hide the true costs of the trip.

Why is this government muzzling Defence Department officials? Was the minister ordered by the PMO to participate in this Challenger coverup?

Hon. Gordon O’Connor (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, there has been no political interference at all within the practices of DND, which were originally set by the Liberal Party. We are following precisely the rules set by the previous administration.

Navdeep Bains (Lib-Mississauga-Brampton South, ON): Mr. Speaker, information previously available thru Access to Information is now regularly blacked-out, just like the names on these flights. Derek Burney’s name? Scratched-out from an (unintelligible) flight to Washington. The names of the Conservatives who took joyrides to Halifax and went to hockey games with the Prime Minister? Gone. Last year, the Conservatives said it cost $11,000 per hour to operate these flying limousines. Now they only claim 10 per cent.

Why won’t the government release the passenger lists, and will the Conservative Party settle its outstanding bills?

Hon. Gordon O’Connor (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, as I said we’re following the practices of the previous government. We have paid for any flights that were not on official government business. And I want to point out that the previous government was using Challenger jets at twice the rate this government is.

I’ve got to say that’s a pretty weak performance by our defence industry lobbyist turned defence minister. Last year, when in opposition, these same policies O’Connor now trumpets were assailed and attacked as cover-ups by his own caucus members. You Conservative voters that were voting for change? Yeah, sorry, not so much. I ask, if these policies are fine now, why did the CPC attack them before? Were they lying then, or are they lying now? And why are they muzzling DND officials? Accountability indeed.

On his assertion Cons are using Challengers half as much as the Libs, it’s a case of lies, dammed lies and statistics. Frankly, I’m surprised Gordo would even go there. As we have already learned, Challenger use is down because Conservative ministers are breaking the bank chartering private jets to traverse the country instead. In July I blogged about one such fellow, Veteran Affairs Minister Greg Thompson, who spent $18,000 on five charters to his New Brunswick riding rather than fly Air Canada. Doesn’t WestJet fly there now too? They’ve got live in-seat TV Greg, check it out. It’s sweet.

Lastly, as I blogged this morning, there’s still the matter of the minimum $3774 the Conservative Party owes the people of Canada for the Prime Minister’s joyrides. Is the cheque in the mail Gordon?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Norman Spector is an asshole

Shocked at that headline? Think it's over the line? Usually I'd tend to agree, but I'm guessing it would be just fine with Mr. Spector. After all, he went on the radio in Vancouver this morning and called Belinda Stronach a bitch. Yes, I kid you not. He really did.

You may know Norman, formerly Brian Mulroney's Chief of Staff, Canadian Ambassador to Israel and, as Kinsella never tires of mentioning, tobacco lobbyist, as a regular right-wing pundit on radio and television.

Via Public Eye Online, here's what Stormin' Norman said this morning on Bill Good's show on the Giant NW when discussing the Stronach/McKay doggie affair:

"I think she's a bitch. It's as simple as that. And I think that 90 percent of men would probably say she's a bitch for the way she's broken up (retired hockey player) Tie Domi's home and the way she dumped Peter MacKay. She is a bitch."

When another guest on that show called him on his language, pointing out we don't know what happened in the Domi case and besides, we don't use that kind of language to describe male MPs, Spector grabbed the shovel and dug deeper, defending him calling her a bitch:

"Why is it unacceptable? That's what I think about her. I think it was much worse - a few years ago - when one of the Liberal members referred to (former Edmonton North MP) Deb Grey as a slab of meat quite frankly. I think that was totally unacceptable. But bitch is a word that I would use to describe someone like Belinda Stronach. It is a word that I use regularly."

Young's comments were unacceptable. He also didn't lie, he admitted he made the comments and he sincerely apologized. That puts him at least two steps ahead of Peter by my count. But that aside, Norman, what are you getting at here? If the one was unacceptable, why isn't the other unacceptable as well?

Earlier, the pundit genius explained why this whole McKay dog thing is even a story in the media at all. You see, it's all those hysterical women in the press gallery:

"…is that half the press gallery now are women. And women find this very offensive."

Oh, it's not just women Norman. I assure you, it's not just women. And I'm sure they're not big fans of you at the moment either.

Unless Norman apologizes, and that seems unlikely at the moment, I'd encourage the producers at shows like Politics, Mike Duffy Live and Question Period to think twice before booking this genius to share his pearls of political wisdom.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Question of the day – Challengers

Interesting story on the CP ticker recently that provides yet more evidence that when the Conservatives talked about accountability and transparency it was never more than a punch line.

Back when the Liberals were in government, the Conservatives love to rail about ministers and the PM gallivanting around the country on the military's fleet of Challenger jets. Many, many times we were told by Jason Kenney and others that the true cost of operating the jets was $11,000/hour, and that the government was hiding this startling fact. Well, today the government is still hiding it, but now it's the Conservative government doing the hiding.

It's practice for the taxpayer to be reimbursed for non-government business travel. Harper and six staffers took the jet to a provincial fundraiser in Halifax in May, and the CPC reimbursed the government $6,630.90 for the flight. Earlier this month, Harper took his son and some staffers to a Leafs game, and reimbursed the taxpayers $2993.13 for that trip.

It raises a question though, given the fact the CPC has insisted for years the "true" cost of operating the Challenger was $11,000/hour. Were the CPC lying and artificially inflating the true cost for political points while in opposition? Or, were they right and is the true cost $11k? If the latter is true, given that it's unlikely Halifax/Toronto return is a 30 minute flight, then why are we subsidizing Harper's trips to hockey games and fundraisers?

It would seem sensible then to ask DND what the actual cost of operating the Challenger fleet is. Naturally, the reporter did:

A Defence Department spokeswoman said Friday the fleet of six Challenger executive jets costs $12 million a year to maintain. Flying costs are pegged at $2,233 an hour, plus between $800 and $1,000 a day in duty costs for flight crews sitting on the tarmac, plus ramp charges which are typically around $50.

Asked to break down the numbers into the true cost of the prime minister's February junket to Halifax, Lt. Carole Brown came back empty-handed.

"The word came back from the powers that be," Brown told The Canadian Press. "We were shut down on this one."

And we all know who the powers that be are, don't we? Yet more evidence the Harper PMO is more controlling that Martin or Chretien ever dreamed. Still, while the exact cost per hour isn't known, we do know that it is at least $2,233/per hour, and indeed more than that when other expenses are factored in.

But let's use that base figure for our calculations. We know that for the two trips the CPC reimbursed the people of Canada $9624.00. We know that total flight time for the trips was appx. six hours. At the very conservative (small 'c') operating cost of $2,233/per hour, that would cost $13,398. Which means Harper shortchanged the taxpayer by at least $3774. More, when you factor in the flight crews, ramp fees and other costs. Or, if Harper was telling the truth in opposition when his MPs would routinely say the true cost was $11,000/hour, then he owes the taxpayers some $56,376.

Here's the question:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. While in opposition, members now on the government side would routinely peg the so-called "true cost" of operating a Challenger Jet at $11,000 an hour. Now that they're in government, though, their tune seems to have changed, with the Conservative Party reimbursing the Government at a fraction of that rate for the Prime Minister's non-government travel.


One wonders, Mr. Speaker, were they wrong then or are they wrong now? When asked by the media for the actual operating costs DND claimed it was shutdown by the "powers that be" from answering.

I'd like to ask the powers that be across the way, Mr. Speaker, will they finally come clean, remove the bureaucratic muzzle and table documents in this House indicating the TRUE hourly cost of operating the Challenger fleet and the Prime Minister's hockey road trips?

And how about a supplemental, just for fun. We'll assume Kenney or O'Connor made some snide attack on the Libs without seriously addressing the question. A stretch, I know, but work with me here.

It seems like their motto is accountability and transparency if necessary, but not necessarily accountability and transparency doesn't it, Mr. Speaker?

It was my mistake though in not addressing my question to the actual "powers that be", so maybe I'll have better luck with the Prime Minister.

According to the minimal data provided by DND, before they were muzzled, the bare-bones minimum cost of operating a Challenger Jet is $2,233/per hour in flight costs. And we know flight time for the two trips by the Prime Minister was six hours. According to my trusty calculator, that means he still owes the taxpayers at least $3774, and even more if his $11,000/hour attacks over the years weren't just hot air.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Prime Minister will he be writing another cheque, or does he feel the taxpayers of Canada should be subsidizing his hockey road trips?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Blogging from Montreal

Well, it's been seven leadership-blogging free days now so I can finally break my leadership fast. I must say though, staying away from writing about leadership topics has been good for the soul.

And it was an eventful week too, and not just for members of Leafs Nation…er, I mean Maple Leaf fans. As far as this whole nation thing goes, let me just say I agree wholeheartedly with people much smarter than I, such as Paul Wells, Andrew Coyne, Warren Kinsella, the Big D himself and many, many, many others...

Also, I was having breakfast this morning and my cherios began to move, forming the face of our late great former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau dit:

"For god's sake, I've been dead for like six years. I know I was a kick ass Prime Minister, but get over it. I'm in heaven now, and I'm busy entertaining the young ladies. Merde, let me rest in peace, or you can just watch me do some serious haunting!!"

In other news, with my leadership juices recharged I'm on my way to Montreal. Well, not now, but in a month's time. Not as a delegate, alas, but I've been offered media accreditation to attend as a blogger. I'm happy to see the LPC reaching out to the blog community in this way. It's a very positive step, and I'd like to thank them for the invite. My apartment also thanks them, as I won't have to spend my furniture fund on a delegate fee.

So, I'll be at the convention with laptop in tow, blogging all the way with wall to wall coverage, plus lots of previews in the coming weeks. Once the show starts, watch this corner for in depth features on hospitality suite food and drink selection, fashion critiques of leadership candidate suit and tie combos (blue shirts are out this fall gentlemen and lady) and other news the Main Stream Media doesn't want you to know.

But seriously, does anyone heading to Montreal want to share a hotel room, or does anyone in Montreal want to let a blogger crash on their floor in exchange for a selection of some of Ontario's finer lagers? Let me know: jjedras(at)hotmail.com.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Question of the day -- Pastries

It's Friday, and most of our hardworking MPs fled Ottawa yesterday for the airport and a long weekend in their ridings, making Friday QP a generally dull affair. Still, that's no excise to mail it in today, epically with important issues such as this facing Canadians.

So, here's today's question:

Mr. Speaker, for years Tim Horton's has been an institution in Canada. An apple fritter and a large double double has sustained many a hockey Mom and Dad through many a 5:30 am minor hockey practice.

It turns out though that the pucks were not the only things once frozen at those hockey rinks. The donuts were frozen too. Apparently Tim Horton's is no longer baking its donuts in its restaurants, but is instead baking them in central locations and shipping them frozen to each store, making a mockery of its "Always Fresh" motto.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Speaker, just why is she sitting idly by while a piece of Canadiana is frozen? Why won't she stand up for Canadians, and our donuts?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

And now it’s time to play our game...

Let's play the fun new game that has been sweeping the nation since, oh, February-ish. It's Canada’s fastest growing quiz sensation, and it's called Spot the Conservative Flip-Flops. Here's how to play:

1. Read the article below. It’s fun, it’s all about Conservative staffers and secret trips on government Challenger Jets.

2. Count the number of flip-flops from previous statements and deeply held Conservative principles (no laughing in the back!) made by CPC spokespeople in the article, and for bonus points the number of violations of government policy and regulation revealed.

3. Post the number of flip-flops you find in the comments section. And remember to show your work.

4. If you're Peter McKay, feel free to reply: There is no article, what article do you speak of, I don't see any American tanks at the airport, I was just there this morning, that's crazy!

And please, as David Letterman always says, remember this is an exhibition not a competition so please, no wagering!

PMO officials not required to publicly post cost of Challenger flights: Tories

BRUCE CHEADLE

OTTAWA (CP) - Conservatives who once excoriated the Liberals for hiding the cost of the government's "flying limousines" are defending two senior staffers who failed to disclose a flight on the Challenger jet.

Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, and transition team leader Derek Burney flew to Washington in mid-March to try to jump-start negotiations on the softwood lumber impasse. The secret trip came to light through media investigations about a week later.

But no expense record of the excursion was posted by either of the men, despite a Treasury Board policy called Proactive Disclosure that requires all ministers and senior staff to post travel and hospitality expenses quarterly.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Crime: The hot new wedge issue for fall

So, Steve Harper says the Liberals are "half-tough on crime" because the Liberals graciously offered to fast-track the passage of more than half of the Conservative's crime-related justice, while opting to exercise the usual MP role of more carefully examining the rest. I think such work is in the MP job description somewhere.

You know, politics is politics, but could Steve be any more of a jerk? I mean seriously, he comes off like a petulant child half the time, not like a Prime Minister. Here the Liberals are trying to make this minority government work and foster some cooperation and comprimise, and instead Harper throws a temper tantrum. Laureen, no desert for Stephen tonight.

As for just who is actually tough on crime, everyone should read John Ibbitson's column this morning (this time he got it right).

He explains how the Conservatives don't expect most of this stuff to actually become law and, if it does, expect it to quickly be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. Apparently they're becoming increasingly pissed-off when the lawyers in the Justice department bureaucracy tell them things are unconstitutional. Not big fact fans, I guess.

But that's because they already know that, they just want the political club to beat the Liberals with. Here's how John put it:

Then why do it? So Prime Minister Stephen Harper can turn the defeated bills into a wedge issue in the next election. "You see?" he will say. "This is the price we pay for a minority government. The Conservatives want criminals doing real time, rather than lounging around under house arrest. We want to keep dangerous offenders behind bars, and we want to protect people of faith from being compelled to act against their principles.

"But the opposition parties are more worried about the rights of criminals and pleadings of lawyers than they are about your protection. That is why we need a majority government."

Except it's a lie, because minority or majority unconstitutional laws will get struck down by the courts. Unless he wants to go the notwithstanding clause route.

So instead, instead of working on legislation that will really reduce crime MPs will spend months debating bills the Conservatives know won't become laws/are unconstitutional just so the CPC can have a political wedge issue.

That's Canada's New Government and your tax dollars at work.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Today's question – The Military

Since yesterday's new feature, the question of the day, seemed to be well received here's today's installment. Today, the topic is the military, and the Afghanistan mission.

I know this is a politically dicey area for the Liberals to be treading on, given some of the divisions in our party on the issue. I think, given recent events though, some questions need to be asked and there are some things we can all agree on. We support our troops, and we support the goals of the mission. We just question the government's strategy in achieving those goals, and objected to the rushed nature of the vote on the extension.

But specifically, we've heard in recent days that sailors and air force members may be reassigned to the army and to the war zone to meet our commitments in Afghanistan; that 300 out of 1000 Canadian soldiers destined for Afghanistan may have failed drug tests; and today that the military is dropping any requirements for fitness testing for new recruits.

Here's today's question:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. There have been some disturbing reports from his department of late.

We've heard that, in order to main troop levels in Afghanistan, Navy and Air Force members may be rotated into Army units in Afghanistan. We've heard reports that an astounding 30 per cent of soldiers bound for Afghanistan may have failed their drug tests. And now we've learned that even basic fitness standards for military recruiting have been dropped.

This is all the fallout, Mr. Speaker, of this government rushing through a vote extending our commitment to Afghanistan without doing its homework, and without allowing this House to properly examine the proposal and whether we have the resources or not to meet it.

I ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, do we have the resources to fulfill this government's extended commitment without drastically dropping standards, and will he allow this House to finally properly consider this politically-motivated extension?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A QP double play today

I’ve taken to watching QP in the evenings recently (yeah, I know, I’m a nerd) and I must say, from the sampling I watched last session the Liberals do seem to be coming out with a bit more piss and vinegar these days. And I dare day, it’s about time.

Yesterday I blogged on Rona Ambrose’s misrepresenting what the Canadian Lung Association had to say about her so-called clean air bill. She left the impression the CLA is all for the bill, when in fact they actually have serious concerns, and feel it is not strong enough and not soon enough.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Liberal MP John Godfrey ask the following question in QP today:

John Godfrey: In an attempt to salvage her clean air disaster, the Minister of the Environment has been misquoting the Canadian Lung Association. What the Lung Association really said was that it “has serious concerns that the proposed approach under the Clean Air Act will not reduce emissions of green house gases quickly enough to lessen the health effects of climate change.”

Mr. Speaker, misleading the house like this shows this Minister’s utter disrespect for Parliament. Why did the Minister of the Environment misrepresent the real position of the Lung Association?

A very good question John. Here’s what Ms. Ambrose had to say in reply:

Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the honourable member likes to pull things out of the Lung Association’s press release (like their actual position on the issue? –ed) but they did say, in fact, that they are in favour of the clean air act to regulate indoor air because it’s one of the largest health risks associated with lung cancer for non-smokers. They are concerned about some of the health impacts of climate change, and we’re working with them and many other organizations to address those issues.

Pretty weak Rona, but thanks for playing. Again, for those interested here’s the actual CLA statement on the Conservative legislation.

And this morning I began a new blog feature, question of the day, proposing the question of the day I would ask were I an MP. Again, probably coincidence, but here’s the question Liberal MP Omar Alghabra asked in QP today:

Omar Alghabra: Mr. Speaker, it’s mid-term election time in the United States, and the Republican television attack ad has outraged many Canadians. The ad says, in part, “let Canada take care of North Korea. They’re not busy.” Is this what Canadians should be expecting to be the outcome of the cozying-up to Mr. Bush by this Prime Minister and his Conservatives?

I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will he call his mentor, President Bush, and demand this insulting ad be pulled from the airwaves immediately, and stand up for Canada, but for real this time?

Indeed, a fine question Omar, I must say. Here’s what Baghdad Bob, er, I mean Peter McKay said in reply:

Peter McKay: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the country has been greatly benefited by improved relations with the United States, as well as other countries, when it came to important and contentious trade irritants and other issues. And I would ask the honourable member to perhaps cast his mind back to some of the attack ads that were run in the last election campaign by his party directed at people here in his own country before he starts making these dispersions.

Pretty lame, Peter. But at least he didn’t deny the ad exists, so that’s something anyway. Jason, I think he should have gone with your answer myself.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Down the memory hole

I was going to write this afternoon about Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty's laughable assertions that the Liberals have a bad record on fiscal management and would somehow plunge the country into deficit.

In fact, it is the Liberal government of course that finally balanced the budget, mandated that surpluses be paid to the debt, made significant debt repayments that have saved billions in interest charges, introduced the most significant, broad-based tax cuts in Canadian history, and reinvested in our social programs.

I was going to blog about that, but since Steve have already done a great job of addressing the topic I'll invite you to read his post, and Bob's where he disects Flaherty's surplus spin.

Instead, I'll submit this as another piece of evidence that we as Liberals need to be strong, loud, proud and vocal in holding onto, trumpeting and defending our record, particularly as fiscal managers.

We can't let Harper, Flaherty and their Ministry of Truth colleagues rewrite history and send our historic achievements down the memory hole.

UPDATE: Liberal MP Stephen Owen also put it well this afternoon with this statement in the House of Commons:

Mr. Speaker, this government has shown contempt. Yesterday, it was claimed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Unelected Minister of Public Works that the Liberal government had racked-up deficits.

Has the honourable member been asleep for the last decade? The Liberal government’s economic record is the best Canada has ever known. Eight straight Liberal surpluses, paid down billions of dollars on the national debt which was spinning out of control at the end of Canada’s last experiment in Conservative government.

In fact, the last Conservative surplus, other than the one that they inherited from this government, was in 1912, Mr. Speaker! Conservative tax policies have already been exposed as anti-competitive, anti-democratic, and anti-everything that sound economic policy preaches.

They want to turn surplus to deficit with tax breaks for the rich, just like they did in Ontario, and the Mike Harris triumphrate across the way is here to help them do the job.

The Liberal economic record speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, as does the contempt that this government shows for Canadians…(mic cuts out)

Atta boy, Stephen! A number of other Liberal MPs also made similar statements, I'm glad to see we're not letting this nonesense slide by unanswered.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Question of the day -- attack ads

When I was watching QP last night I had an idea for what I think might be an interesting regular blog feature. Each weekday morning, at least when the HoC is in session, I'll try to post my question of the day.

It will be the question I might ask were I an MP in the opposition caucus. Not necessarily on the biggest story of the day, but something topical. If anyone is reading from the OLO feel free to throw it into the mix. No royalty payments necessary.

Today's question:

Mr. Speaker, its midterm election time in the United States and a Republican television attack ad now airing has outraged Canadians taking notice. The ad says, in part: "Let Canada take care of North Korea. They're not busy." Well, we are busy, Mr. Speaker. In fact, some 43 Canadian soldiers have died to date in the war against terror in Afghanistan, and we honour and respect their sacrifice. Unfortunately, it seems our U.S. allies don't. Instead they're more interested in scoring cheap political points on the backs of our soldiers. I'd like to ask the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, will he call the leader of the Republican Party, President Bush, and demand this insulting ad be pulled from the airwaves immediately?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Don’t be playin' me Rona

Watching the replay of question period this evening for the first time since my vacation in May, and it seems little has changed. Every answer is still “Liberals did nothing, Liberals bad.” Also, Jason Kenney should send Alfonso Gagliano some topical ointment because the old guy's ears must be burning.

But what I found particularly amusing amongst all the hot air was Environment Minister Rona Ambrose’s answer to a question from the Liberals on the Con’s so-called clean-air bill. Here’s her answer, in its entirety:

Well Mr. Speaker, I’ll take friends like the Canadian Lung Association and the Canadian Medical Association who are saying, Mr. Speaker, that millions of Canadians suffer from lung cancer. And while the opposition refuses to help them we are actually proposing Canada’s Clean Air Act, which will, for the first time in Canadian history, actually regulate indoor air, which is the leading cause of lung cancer in Canada among non-smokers. So if this member actually cared about clean air, and cared about the health of Canadians, he would support this act.

So, there you go, if you don’t vote for the Conservative bill you want all Canadians dead. Just kidding.

But if you’re just half-listening, you’d think she’s saying the Cons have the full support of the CLA. That’s certainly the impression she wanted to give. Look more closely though. What did she actually attribute the groups as saying? Only “that millions of Canadians suffer from lung cancer.” Then she goes into her why her bill is great speech, and lets listeners falsely make the link in their minds. Clever, Rona.

What does the group actually think of the Conservative bill? In a statement on their Web site, the CLA indeed welcomes the attention to indoor air, and is supportive of strong regulation in the area. Just one problem. They don’t think we can wait 44 years for Rona and Stevie to actually do it, nor does it find Rona's future proposals near strong enough:

The Lung Association has serious concerns that the proposed approach under the Clean Air Act will not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases quickly enough to lessen the health effects of climate change. Warmer temperatures caused by these emissions contribute to the difficulties of Canadians suffering from respiratory illness, for instance, by increasing the frequency and severity of smog conditions in urban centres.

“We are very concerned with the proposed targets for greenhouse gases and the use of intensity-based standards in the short and medium terms, since these will result in a continuing increase in total emissions,” said Dr. Barbara MacKinnon, Director of Environmental Research for the New Brunswick Lung Association. “‘We think both the targets and the time frame need to be revised to bring much earlier net reductions."

So, that’s what the CLA actually thinks of the bill, no matter what Rona wants you to think. And that's just one example of Conservative foolishness/dishonesty/trickery that I decided to highlight from today's QP. Runner-up was some fun Jason Kenney whoppers around debt repayment. Yeah, I know you're sad to miss that. Exciting indeed.

You know, if only we could harness the hot air coming from the Conservatives here they could meet their emmision reduction targets as early as, say, 2045.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Canada not a child abuser dumping ground, says Dalton

Following-up on Sunday's post about an American citizen, living in Canada but working in the U.S. as a teacher, who was convicted of child abuse in the U.S. for having an affair with a 15-year-old student in the U.S., and instead of prison was sentenced by the U.S. court to stay in Canada and not enter the U.S.

As Dr. Phil would say (in a completely non-sexist sense, Peter) that dog just won't hunt. At least Ontario's Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty, thinks so. McGuinty today rightly said this guy should serve his sentence in the U.S., where the offence took place. Crazy concept, I know.

This is a federal matter though, and he called on the Harper government to step up.

“This is obviously not the kind of precedent that we want to allow the Americans to establish,” Mr. McGuinty said. “It's not the kind of thing we're prepared to accept.”

“We will work with the federal government and we hope we are of one mind in this regard to ensure that we don't become some kind of a dumping ground for convicted offenders south of the border,” he said.

So far, the silence from Harper and his immigration minister, Monte Solberg, has been deafening. I guess they have no trouble with U.S. courts sentencing their sex offenders to "Canada." This is a dangerous precedent to accept.

Remember when these guys pretended they were tough on crime?

UPDATE: Signs of life in the Conservative caucus:

A federal cabinet minister, Rob Nicholson, said he was "infuriated" by the decision and vowed that Ottawa will do whatever it can to block U.S. pedophiles from serving their probation time in Canada.

"I think the Minister of Immigration has made it very, very clear that anyone who is convicted of an offence like this is unwelcome in this country and that all steps will be taken to indicate that that is the case," said Mr. Nicholson, the Government House Leader, who represents the riding where the man lives.

Immigration Minister Monte Solberg would not comment on the situation yesterday. Immigration Department spokeswoman Melanie Carkner said that while specific cases cannot be discussed, the next step in such cases would be to revoke an individual's status as a permanent resident of Canada.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper is an evil genius

Or at least Globe columnist John Ibbitson thinks so. Actually, I added the evil part. I buy that more than I do the genius part.

John, though, thinks Harper's calling two by-elections recently, one in Montreal and another in London, is so "so fiendish it just might work." Umm, yeah. How does he back up his thesis?

Well, first off, he says it will sow discord within Liberal ranks by pushing the seatless Bob Rae and Gerard Kennedy to run in the midst of a Liberal leadership race. I'd like to see a Conservative make that argument seriously when they've had a guy in their cabinet since February that has never contested an election in his life. You know, Michael Fortier.

Also, Bob and Gerard live in Toronto, neither have any ties to London. Remember that open seat in Quebec? It's in Fortier's home town, Montreal. I'll tell you what guys; if Fortier runs in Repentigny then I'll talk one of our leadership candidates into running in London. It would be the least I could do. Otherwise, give me a break.

The second plank in his Harper is a genius argument? The discord sown could give a chance to elect the person Ibbitson contends is Harper's favoured candidate, former London Mayor Dianne Haskett.

A win, opines John, would show the Conservatives can win the seats in vote-rich, middle class surburban Ontario needed to win a majority government. Maybe. But, despite devoting the following paragraph to the matter, he seems to miss a more important point:

Dianne Haskett was a very popular mayor of London from 1994 to 2000. A devout Christian and social conservative, Ms. Haskett earned national attention when she refused to proclaim Gay and Lesbian Pride Day in her city. For this, she and the city were fined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission during the 1997 municipal election campaign. Ms. Haskett responded by sitting out the rest of the campaign, for which voters rewarded her with a landslide.

So, she seems to be very popular in London. Maybe she'll even take the seat. But will a Haskett win "show that the Tories are capable of making inroads into middle-class suburban Ontario seats"? I doubt it. Her local popularity would negate any ability to read wider trends into a win.

Moreover, here's what the rest of the country would see: not long after moderate maverick Garth Turner is punted from the Conservative caucus (and joins the Greens maybe?) the Cons elect a rabid anti-Gay, social conservative nut bar with strong ties to the Bush Republican party. I'd like to ask John, where's the genius in that? Moderates out, so-cons in. How will that play in the burbs?

Let's have that campaign. I'd love to see the national media focused for five weeks on a London by-election, with Haskett making controversial statements, her past record being splashed on the front page. The Conservative star candidate, handpicked by Harper, that refused to proclaim Gay Pride Day. Canadians will get to see first hand Harper's kindler, gentler Conservative Party.

And, frankly, I hope to heck she wins too. Let's get her in the House of Commons. If I can speak on behalf of the opposition parties for a second, we need all the Diane Hasketts sitting in the Conservative caucus that we can get.

I take it back. Stephen Harper is a genius.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On high school romances...

…you know Helena, I'm tired of hearing about high school romances gone wrong too. So, why don't you do us all a favour? Go tell Peter to stop being such a baby. Where's Elmer to give him a thump on the back of the head? Yeah, Peter, so Belinda dumped you. Stop moping around Parliament like a pansy, giving her cold looks in the elevator and making snide comments in the House of Commons. Be a man. We know you said it. You know you said it. We've got audio, for Pete(r)'s sake. Be a man, McKay. Say you're sorry, get over it, and start acting like a grown-up. Helena is right. This isn't high school. You're not on the rugby team and Belinda isn't the cheerleader that dumped you for the quarterback, or whatever the hell it is in rugby. You're (shudder) Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs. Act like it dude.

Is Peter sexist? I doubt it, although when viewed alongside the "stick to your knitting" remark to Alexa McDonough and other incidents it isn't hard to see a pattern. Really though, I think he's just a jerk, and an adolescent one at that. For some people, it seems high school never ended.

Run Condi. Run far away.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Fortier est un poulet

If I were a Conservative, I would be praying to my higher power that my party remains in government forever. These latest by-election calls in the middle of another political party's leadership race is only the latest example of Harper and Co. ignoring the bounds of political convention and fair play that all sides have lived by since before confederation.

But hey, as they say, what goes around comes around. Of more interest to me right now is the empty Quebec seat in the Montreal area, Repentigny, and who will not be contesting it: Senator and Minister of Public Works Michael Fortier.

Since the day he was sworn in Harper's gang seems to have replaced the accountability plank they campaigned-on with arrogance. Because while there has been absolutely no sign of accountability from "Canada's New Government" the arrogance has been evident in abundance from Day One.

How else do you explain Harper's decision to take a Conservative party fundraiser who has never held public office, appoint him to one of the most politically sensitive cabinet posts there is, AND appoint him to the Senate where he can't face any questions (and be accountable) from the elected representatives of the people?

Particularly after you repeatedly promised to hold elections for all senate spots and not make appointments any longer, AND after Harper made this promise to a Radio Canada audience mere weeks earlier, during the campaign:

…but I say you need to be elected to the Parliament of Canada to become a minister.

How did Harper try to explain away this blatant double flip-flop? Well, he needed representation in Montreal since, for some crazy reason, Montreal didn't elect any Conservatives. He knew Michael (bagman and party leaders are usually tight), thought he was a great guy, and so he gave him the job.

But if Michael really kicked so much ass why didn't he run for election in the first place? Surely if he's so awesome he'd have won easily? Michael had the answer for that: he had better things to do. Democracy is sooo tiring.

A day after his surprise appointment as minister of public works and government services in Ottawa, Fortier told reporters: "I didn't run in the election because I didn't want to run in the election."

There you go. He didn't want to, so piss off. Never mind accountability, this guy is the poster child for the Conservative culture of entitlement.

So, now that there is an empty seat in the Montreal area is Fortier going to resign his comfortable seat in the plush Red Chamber and face the people in an election to put a stamp of democracy and legitimacy on his undemocratic appointment, and introduce a little accountability into this Conservative government?

The answer, unsurprisingly, is an emphatic Non. This riding is a BQ stronghold. Fortier would probably get smacked, so accountability is being delayed a little longer. Plus, if you asked him, he'd probably say something like he's not running because he doesn't want to run.

Not to mention the fact the impact of a prominent cabinet minister getting beat when a general election is likely six-ish months away would be a big blow for the government. So instead, quelle surprise, political expediency wins the day. I guess that's accountability, Conservative style.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

American child abuser exiled to Canada?

This story is just astounding. Apparently an American teacher in Buffalo convicted of having sex with a 15-year-old female student was given a choice of punishment: go to prison or leave the U.S. and spend three years in exile in Fort Erie, Ontatio. He choose Fort Erie.

Now I was born in Fort Erie, or Fort Dreary as we sometimes call it, and while I never lived there my grandparents, aunts and uncles and so on still do, and I visit regularly. It's not exactly a garden spot, but nor is it a place to send child abusers into exile.

But what the hell kind of plea bargain is this? Are we now the dumping ground for all the United States' undesirable criminals? I'm sorry Buffalo, but we don't want your child abusers. Did they bother asking Canadian authorities for our opinion before they decided to ship this child abuser over the border? How do they think the people of Fort Erie feel about accepting a child abuser into their community?

I know he hasn't been heard from much since February, but if someone could please page Monte Solberg to the white courtesy phone his services are required. There's no reason we have to let this guy into Canada. Send him back to Buffalo. I've been there. It's a lot like prison.

U.S. man convicted of child abuse exiled to Canada
Associated Press

BUFFALO — Jail or Canada? Malcolm Watson chose Canada.

In an unusual sentence that has immigration lawyers questioning its legality, Watson, a U.S. citizen, has agreed to stay out of the United States for the next three years as punishment for having sex with a 15-year-old female student.

The exile starts Monday for the 35-year-old former Buffalo Seminary teacher, who was arrested in April after a mall security guard noticed him and the girl sitting in a parked car for two hours.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Oh dear, John

It's been a rough ride so far for the members of the members of the Mike Harris "dream team" in Stephen Harper's cabinet. First it was Tony Clement seeing no problem with the Health Minister owning shares in a pharmaceutical company (sold that stock yet Tony?) and now it appears Treasury Board president John Baird may have run afoul of federal privacy and access to information laws.

The Liberals have sent letters to the ethics commissioner, the privacy commissioner and the information commissioner asking for an investigation into Baird's actions as federal point person on the City of Ottawa's controversial light rail expansion (Baird represents an Ottawa-area riding).

As The Hill Times reported Monday, Baird demanded the City of Ottawa provide him with a copy of the contract the city signed with the LRT contractors, a request that is apparently not standard procedure. He was however given a copy of the confidential contract, with the following stipulation in the cover letter:

"This information is being submitted to Treasury Board, in confidence, for its expedient review. The parties also advise that there is information in the Agreement which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of one or more of the Parties or to Siemens Canada Limited or PCL Constructors Canada Inc., as contemplated by section 20(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act.

"This Agreement contains Third Party Information and Personal Information as contemplated by the Access to Information Act and delivery and acceptance of this Agreement is based on the premise that no information contained in the Agreement and no part of the Agreement will be disclosed to any person other than those who have a need to review the Agreement for the sole purpose of the internal review by the Treasury Board without the express consent of the Parties or pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction."

However, that boring legalese apparently didn't stop Baird from releasing excerpts from the contract, often personally, to members of the media. It's probably worth noting there's a municipal election happening in O-Town and the city's longtime Mayor, Bob Chiarelli, is a well-connected Liberal.

I briefly covered Ottawa City Council back in the early 2000s when Baird was Mike Harris' community and social services minister; the city and the province were continually fighting over amalgamation costs and needless to say Baird and Chiarelli did not get along well at all.

There needs to be an immediate investigation into Baird's conduct here and pending that resignation he needs to resign from cabinet. At the very least he may have violated the confidentiality agreement with the city, if not access and privacy laws. Playing politics with federal infrastructure funding is one thing, but this is another. A minister of the crown has responsibilities beyond politics.

Between pharma stock owning Tony Clement, contract releasing John Baird, floor crossing David Emerson, the unelected Senator Michael Fortier and now Peter McKay calling his ex-girlfriend a dog and then denying it despite the fact there's an AUDIO TAPE, it is increasingly obvious that when Harper's gang talked about accountable government during the election they didn't actually mean, you know, a government that was, like, accountable and stuff.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

This blog's week will have 7 leadership free days

I know I'm not the only one suffering from leadership fatigue these days so I'm going to make a little commitment today. Beginning today, this blog is going leadership-free for the next seven days.

That's right, no dizziness-inducing spin on why Dion is the second coming, no (I thought) clever, subtle shots at Ignatieff, cheap shots at Rae or sage analysis on Kennedy and Quebec.

Instead, it will be all posts on why the Conservatives suck so badly, and maybe a comment or two on why the Canucks can't score a goal this year. I reserve the right to break my leadership fast if something astounding happens though, like Rae and Ignatieff are unveiled as alien replicons from beyond the stars.

So, no leadership-related posts from this end until next Friday, Oct. 27. Let the leadership-free week begin!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

And isn't it ironic? Don't you think?

On August 8, 2006, MP Garth Turner comments on my blog, in part:

…So, get it right or shut up.

Personal regards,
Garth

On October 18, 2006, MP Garth Turner is suspended from the Conservative caucus and becomes a free speech poster child.

It's like a black fly in your chardonnay, you know?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Mickey on politics, and roller coaster psychology

I’m back in the T-Dot, but last night I was in Anaheim at Disney’s California adventure, where I happened to run into Mickey Mouse. So, naturally, I asked Mickey for his take on the Liberal leadership race.*

Mickey said that he had and Minnie had been following the race, and even watched the last debate with some of the Disney gang. Apparently Minnie thought Gerard Kennedy was dashing, and Donald Duck thought Bob Rae’s Ontario baggage was overrated. Apparently Goofy and Tinker Bell got into a pretty heated shouting match over Stephane Dion’s grammar. Also, I hear Beaker stopped by and was upset that John Manley wasn’t in the race.

But Mickey told me though that he’s sick and tired of the whole thing, and can’t wait until it’s over. He asked me when the blogs are going to get back to holding the Conservative government to account (he is not a Stephan Harper fan at all) instead of attacking each other’s candidates. I didn’t have an answer for him, but I’m sure he’s all a twitter over today’s orgy of Garth Turner coverage.

Anyway, awesome time last night. The roller coaster was especially fun, I may finally be getting over my fear of heights. I find though that I do better with indoor roller coasters where it’s dark and you can’t see what’s coming, as opposed to the outdoor ones where you can see it all. Particularly that long, slow trip up, that’s the worst, the acid churning in my stomach.

P.S. Don’t have the Roast Beef sandwich from Air Canada’s buy on board service. Disgusting.

*No I didn’t. This disclaimer added because some people have absolutely no sense for humour. Or senses of humour for that matter.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why the Globe is wrong (again)

In January, the Globe and Mail’s editorial board used a lot of convoluted logic to write an editorial endorsing the Harper Conservatives in the last election, even though (the editors’) hearts really didn’t seem to be in it. They were wrong then, and have probably been wrong many times since, but I was reminded of that particular editorial when I read another of their editorials today.

Back in January, their editorial talked about the good things the Liberals had done but said people should reluctantly vote Conservative. In today’s piece, on the weekend’s Liberal leadership debates, the Globe’s editors proclaim Liberals “need ideas, not nostalgia.” I’d submit the Globe’s editors need to start paying attention. The ideas have been there. And nostalgia? Not quite, but we do need to start reclaiming our record again.

They actually loose me with their first lines, where they gush over Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff as “two of the best minds of their generation” and leave the impression they were the only two people on stage. Watching Rae and Ignatieff’s exchanges at that debate one would beg to disagree, the Globe’s school girl crushes aside.

But what I really wanted to touch on was the overarching theme of the Globe editorial, which I think is encapsulated in the following passage:

The Liberal Party of Canada clearly needs renewal, but what it provided on Sunday amounted largely to a series of smug declamations about the wonderful legacy of the Chrétien and Martin governments. The debate was burdened by the notion that the Liberals are right on just about everything, from the Kelowna accord to the Kyoto Protocol, and that Stephen Harper's Conservatives are wrong on about just about everything. Stéphane Dion, in particular, wore his Liberal pride on his chest. The only problem with this is that Canadian voters have already rejected the underlying premise.

Frankly, it’s the Globe comes off as smug as arrogant with its editorial today. With respect to Eddie I have to flatly reject the Globe’s underlying premise, just as the Globe itself rejected it back in January. Voters sent Liberals to the woodshed because of a serious of inexcusable ethical transgressions, not because of a wholesale rejection of Liberal policy. Voters did not reject our approach to the environment, to childcare, to sound fiscal management, to a strong, Canadian foreign policy.

Canadians wanted to send Liberals a message to shape-up and get its house in order, so they granted a tepid minority government to the Conservatives. A majority of Canadians voted for parties that support small-L liberal policies and approaches to government.

Does the Liberal Party need renewal? Yes, absolutely. Undeniably. But, as I’ve written before, throwing out the baby with the bathwater would be incredibly foolish and we need to stop aplogizing for being Liberals. Nothing is black and white and neither is our record. We have acknowledged our mistakes (see the Hell, Mad As tour), and we have a start on the structural changes with the renewal commission. I still think attitudes need to evolve.

But let’s not throw out the good with the bad. A record of slaying the budget deficit, returning seven consecutive balanced budgets, reinvesting in social programs, and a score of other positive things we have done. We can’t let Canadians forget the good while we’re atoning for the bad.

And to the leadership candidates that want to attack the Liberal record, in a leadership race that’s particularly shortsighted. You’re trying to gain support from people that worked hard for 13 years doing a lot of good, valuable work trying to build a party and a country, getting a lot accomplished. People that have the highest ethical standards and have done nothing wrong. To tell them they shouldn’t be proud of their accomplishments, of that record, that it should be forgotten, that “we didn’t get it done”…well, slapping me across the face isn’t likely to gain you my support, particularly if you weren’t there helping with the heavy lifting.

Anyway, last day in Anaheim today, flying back to Toronto in the morning. Off to Disney’s California Adventure tonight, I’ll ask Mickey for his thoughts on the leadership. I think he’s supportive, but I hear Goofy has some issues with Dion’s grammar.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Now that's entertaining

I’ve been watching the Liberal leadership debate on Newsworld before heading back out to the airport. It’s the first debate I’ve watched since the first one back in Winnipeg, and I must say I’m sorry that I couldn’t make it in person.

As David Herle just said to Don Newman, Stephane Dion really ate his wheaties this morning. He’s been passionate and aggressive in going after both Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff, I think and coming out on top from their clashes and throwing then off their games.

He went after Rae on his record on fiscal management and as Premier of Ontario, a record Rae has been trying to run away from. And he looked very good going after Ignatieff on the environment. When Ignatieff self righteously started repeating “we didn’t get it done, we didn’t get it done” attacking the Liberal record here I wanted to yell at Michael what WE? We were in Ottawa getting the fiscal house in order, WE were doing the heavy lifting and putting a framework in place. Michael was teaching at Harvard at the time. What WE, Michael? For the thirty-fifth time, we have a proud record and we need to stand on it, not attack or run away from it.

Volpe, Kennedy and Brison went at it on same-sex marriage and Scott really laid the smack down on Volpe over his past opposition to SSM. Gerard performed strongly on that one too I thought, looking thoughtful and strong, but Scott really did well there.

Off to the airport, I'll have to catch the post-debate spin later. Or not, if the pool at my hotel in Anaheim is more inviting.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The third distillation makes the difference

I’m back from Ireland, but I’m only in Toronto for a day. Sunday evening I’m flying to Anaheim for another conference, so unfortunately I’ll be missing today’s Liberal leadership debates in Toronto. But on the plus side, after this trip I'll have enough aeroplan miles to reach prestige status next year.

And it's not likely I'll likely to be missing much, and, from my readings around the blogsphere this morning, it doesn’t seem like I missed much while I was away either. Delegate results in British Columbia are still very much up in the air, the frontrunner stepped on another verbal landmine with everyone quick to pounce, and the Conservatives are still you know whats. Oh, and Bob Rae went skinny-dipping.

Meanwhile, over in Ireland, I visited many a pub in Dublin fair city (more photos here). We also toured the Old Jameson Distillery, producers of fine Irish whiskey, although not actually there, the actual plant is now in Cork. It was rather educational. For example, did you know that most American whiskeys are only distilled once, Scotch twice, but Irish whiskey is distilled three times.

That’s what they say makes it exceptionally smooth. While I’m not normally a whiskey drinker, I have to say this stuff tasted pretty decent, and smoother than the rye I’ll sometimes have with my ginger ale or cola. Apparently the third round of distillation really does make a difference. I’m sure there’s a metaphor for the Liberal leadership race in there somewhere, but I’ll leave it to you to find it and how it makes a better case for a Dion vote.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

All over Dublin...

...people are telling me they think Stephane Dion’s English is bloody class, he’s a fine bit of stuff and how all his opponents seem like stocious puss faces . There was much talk about the ROBTV debate, watched live here on satellite, and the consensus Iggy was shook for not taking part.

Much interest in his environmental platform in the pubs, and his plans for sustainable development. Some talk of Gerard too, who surprisingly seems to own a pub “Kennedy’s” in downtown Dublin. Who knew?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Meditations on clouds, culture and club sandwiches

I went to Chapters last weekend to pick up some reading material for my flight to Dublin. My tastes tend to skew toward John Grishman and Tom Clancy, but I decided to try to become a little more cultural and, wanting to get into the mood, I decided to pick-up a book by an Irish author.

My selection? A Portrait of The Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce. Waiting in the lounge in Pearson I cracked open the book, tried to read the first page…and yeah, that’s not going to happen. I’m not cultured, I’ve come to accept that now. From here on out is spy, war and politics books for me.

But why read when you can watch the clouds? They can be mesmerizing at times. And so wide and varied. As a young air cadet I learned all the different types of clouds and their names, that information has long since been expunged from my mind though. These clouds though look like a soft, warm blanket, almost comfortable enough to lay down on. That’s not recommended though.

And finally, had a club sandwich at Pearson before my flight. The bread wasn’t toasted! It just didn’t taste right. In fact, it wasn’t good at all. I thought it was standard practice to toast the bread on a club sandwich. Am I totally off base here?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sometimes politics is just so...political

In a few hours I’m off to Pearson for a flight via Philadelphia to Dublin, where I’ll spend the rest of the week on a business trip learning about the finer points of inkjet printing. I get back Saturday, and then it’s back on the road to Anahiem on Sunday for another conference until the following Wednesday.

While I’ll still be checking in on doings back in Canada while I’m gone, I have to say I don’t think I could have picked a better time to get out of the country for a bit. Is it just me or has this leadership race become very…political of late?

A few weeks back there was a kerfuffle over Bob Rae’s saying politics matters more than policy. He couldn’t be more wrong, and shame on him was the consensus. Well, what have we had since Super Weekend: no policy, all politics.

And I’m not innocent, I certainly tried to put as positive a light on the results for my candidate as possible. And it’s certainly understandable that we enter a new phase of the race, this jockeying for position, particularly among Rae, Kennedy and Dion, that things heat up a bit.

But this is getting really silly. Look at some of what we’ve seen. Kennedy is a drop-out that cheated on his taxes, Dion never talked about sustainable development until Sunday, Ignatieff is a debate-dodging chicken (and the devil, but we already knew that), Rae, Kennedy and Dion gave the finger the other candidates by not pulling out of a ROBTV debate that will be watched by 50 people, Dion missing a vote that was going to pass anyway with permission of the whip because of a previously scheduled event makes a mockery of his environmental commitment, everyone except our candidate is beholden to the old boys, and so on, and so on.

And then there’s the anonymous commenters pushing their own agendas with slander, distortion and lies. As I’ve commented previously, it’s like they see themselves as part of some righteous crusade; anything for the cause and all that. It would be a bit more credible if they were willing to stand behind their slanders.

Anyway, all this energy is being expended and is it going to change things in the leadership race? Not even a little bit. I recognize this sort of thing has its place in politics, I just don’t have the energy for it. If things had worked out a little differently a few years ago I could have gone to work in Ottawa, and many times since I’ve been glad that I didn’t. Politics is just so…political.

Is it December yet?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephane on QP

Stephane Dion was interviewed by Jane Taber on CTV’s Question Period this afternoon, and in my extremely-biased opinion I thought he did pretty darn well. I’d invite anyone that still harbours some doubt about his English skills to watch the video and judge for yourself.

Taber also asked him about the English issue in the interview:

"I think I have a clear way to express myself. I mean, I make mistakes but usually what I've said is not ambiguous, it's clear," he said.

"I think (the criticism) is mostly by people who have never heard me speak. When they say, for instance, I have no charisma; most of these people never saw me deliver a speech. But my strength is to reach the people. Each time when I've been able to meet the people, our members, anywhere in Canada, I left with more support than when I came, and that's the way to grow."

I will raise one point out of fairness. Both Taber and the accompanying news story said Dion is in third place. I wish it were so, and he very nearly is, but in fact he is in fourth place, although just a scant .2 per cent behind Gerard Kennedy. There’s still polls to report though, so you never know...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Scanning the headlines

Here’s some media: They’ve been complaining about their lack of media coverage, so it’s nice to see that today Gerard Kennedy gets the full Linda Diebel-profile treatment in the Toronto Star. It’s a very thorough piece that talks to many people and seems to cover all the bases, at times positive and at times tough. For most of the story I thought she hadn’t actually talked to Kennedy himself, she did but it doesn’t seem that much from the interview was used. Still, I think it’s a good piece. It also hits on one of his biggest challenges as seen over the campaign: managing expectations.

Calling Mr. Kennedy
He is seen as ambitious. Staffers work tirelessly because he never takes a break. Yet many point to his kindness and the value he places on friendship. The two sides of Mr. Kennedy

Oct. 8, 2006. 07:31
Linda Diebel
STAFF REPORTER

Politics are addictive; at no time more so than when players test themselves in a struggle for the leadership or at election time. They are a special breed who compete among themselves as vigorously as against any rival. Late on a Saturday night in Vancouver, a small group of such players in the Liberal leadership race dawdled long after the hotel-lounge pizza had been devoured, loathe to give up the passion of talking politics.
(more)

Courting the media vote: Communications strategists always lament it’s impossible to get the media to write about policy; they’re far more interested in covering the horse race of politics, polling results and war room intrigue. Except, of course, when the policy is about the media. I say this as a journalist, but no one who is not a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery gives a crap about this story. If the media suddenly have a hankering to start writing about policy in this leadership race can I suggest they ask the candidates about education, health care, you know, stuff actual Canadians care about?

Candidates pledge ban of reporters ‘list’
Grits vow openness, won’t restrict who can ask questions
By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA — All eight candidates for the leadership of the federal Liberal party have promised that, as prime minister, they would end the current government’s practice of demanding that reporters put their name on a list if they want to ask the prime minister a question.
(more)

Bogedy-bogedy-bo: Stephen Harper tells the ultra-Liberal Calgary Sun that he kicks so much ass the Liberals have to make up stuff and construct elaborate boogey-men to attack him with, since he has done nothing that can be fairly criticized. Excuse me while I go expel my breakfast…

OK, I’m back, sorry about that. Anyway, as I was saying, as an example Harper mentions last week’s kerfuffle over the “Defence of Religions Act.” Harper sayeth:

“It’s completely false and just speculation.”

“There is no such proposal.”

Gee, now I wonder where those bastard lying Liberals got the idea that there was? Oh yeah, I remember now, it was from Harper’s minister of justice, Vic Toews:

While refusing to discuss specifics, Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government's intentions yesterday in an interview.

“The nature of the concerns that are being raised with me are relating to freedom of religion and freedom to practice religion [and] freedom of expression,” he said.

Now, I find Vic a bit creepy myself, but I wouldn’t call him a bogeyman. But then again, Steve has always demonstrated a somewhat malleable view of reality.

And finally, I leave you with this thought. Is it just me, or does Saturday Night Live really suck bad this year? About the only decent bit last night was that Andy Sandberg jogger from 1982 bit, and that was like 30 seconds long. I recall nothing memorable from the premiere last week.

A Happy Thanksgiving Weekend to all.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Briefly, on Quebec

Since SuperWeekend I’ve been reading posts around the blogsphere from supporters of Gerard Kennedy trying to justify, minimize or explain away his 1.7 per cent performance in Quebec, particularly after the early talk from them about how well he’d do there.

Well, Dion only got 10 per cent in Ontario was one of the original lines. Then, it was Kennedy started late and all the organizers were working for other people. The second half of that one sounds correct, I don’t think he started much later than anyone else but he indeed did not have an organization in Quebec. Some say he decided not to focus much on organizing Quebec, but I don’t know.

In the latter half of the week though the new focus has been on low turnout in Quebec delegitimizing the performance of those that did well. If turnout is indeed low compared to national numbers then that is unfortunate, and I have no doubt the LPC has work to do in Quebec. I hear it was rather low in B.C. as well, where he finished a strong second. From what I’ve seen, there’s work to be done across the country,

However, that still doesn’t change the fact that those people that DID come out STILL only voted 1.7 per cent for Gerard. For me, this is what it all boils down to: Is it the fault of Quebecers that they didn’t come out and vote for Gerard, or is it the fault of Gerard and his campaign that he didn’t win more Quebecers and get them out to vote for him?

I like Gerard and I like many of his supporters, but to me there’s something vaguely insulting about this whole line of rationalization. To his credit, Gerard himself seems to recognize what happened in Quebec, and is not blaming Quebecers for his showing but rather acknowledging he has work to do in Quebec and pledging to work even harder from here on out.

That’s the right course to take, I hope his supporters will follow his lead.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

There’s doings a transpirin’ on the Left Coast

It’s been quite a week for Mason Loh, who up until his resignation today was Bob Rae’s campaign chair in British Columbia.

It was a very good Superweekend for the Rae team in B.C. The latest numbers (32/48 reporting) have Bob in first place in B.C. at 29.2 cent, a comfortable eight per cent lead over Gerard Kennedy. I was a bit surprised to hear of those results, but I understand he has some solid, well respected organizers working for him in the province.

And Mason Loh, whom you may recall from the Vancouver-Kingsway nomination saga, was leading the charge as Bob’s B.C. campaign chair. Until today that is when, according to Public Eye Online, Loh tendered his resignation to the Rae campaign.

Something seemed to be building throughout the week though, if you were following things at Public Eye Online. Here’s how it went down:

On Monday came news of a free post-DSM victory dinner (date TBD) Loh was organizing for Rae voters. It was advertised to supporters in a letter on Sept. 25. How could they get into this dinner? After they voted (for Bob, presumably) at the DSMs, get the envelope the letter came in stamped by the Rae scrutineers at the polls. This brought to mind to some the rules that forbid campaigns from spending money “for the purpose of facilitating in any manner whatsoever...the presence of any member of the Party at a delegate selection meeting.” Loh said no it’s not a violation of those rules.

On Tuesday Manuel Pereda, whom you may know for his organizing against turncoat David Emerson in Vancouver-Kingsway, and who was recruited by Loh to run as a Rae delegate, withdrew his support for Rae over the dinner scandal citing the questionable ethics of the idea.

Also that day, the question was raised of who was paying for the dinner. Loh said it’s a campaign event that will be paid for by the campaign, but Rae’s national spokesperson said it’s not a campaign event and they don’t know who will be footing the bill, but it ain’t the campaign.

On Wednesday, it was reported that, on super weekend, teams of people were spotted working DSMs across Vancouver decked out in snazzy red and white baseball caps bearing Mason Loh’s name. Seems a bit weird, was Bob on the ballot after all.

On Thursday, it was still unclear who is paying for the Rae dinner.

And now today Loh has resigned as Rae’s top guy in B.C. It’s still not clear who is paying for the dinner, or if it is still on, but Public Eye reports the resignation was related to issues surrounding the filing of delegate nomination forms. It’s unclear just what the issues are, the picture painted is that “some inexperienced volunteers” made “innocent mistakes” in the filling-out of the forms, and so Loh decided to resign and “take full responsibility.” The Rae campaign spokesperson also said, though, that “they were serious enough that he thought the party should be made aware of it.”

As I said, quite the week for Mr. Loh. I wasn’t going to comment on the dinner thing because, while it seemed fishy, to do so seemed a tad petty and I was confident the matter would sort itself out in time. But when piled on top of these undisclosed “serious” mistakes around the delegate nomination forms and Loh’s resignation, to which there seems to be more than meets the eye, I have to ask what in the heck is going on here?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers