Emerson thinks he'd win???

Is the man really this delusional? I wonder what colour the sky is in David Emerson's world. I mean, yes he's obviously politically stupid but you don't become CEO of a multi-million dollar company without having some brains. His arrogance though is breathtaking. Culture of entitlement, thy name is David Emerson.

So David, you think you could win a by-election. OK then, put your ministerial limo where your mouth is and run in one! Or don't you have the gonads?

That sound you hear is me not holding my breath.

An an aside, from a media management and communications pov, since that is my background, why in the hell is he making these comments now? This thing is (was?) fading off the national radar screen. The storm, other than local protests, had passed. His line when asked should have been "I'm moving on and I'm focused on some files that are very important to my constituents and to Canada. With the Torino games over we're now focusing on Vancouver 2010..."

He really didn't need to open this can of worms back up at all. Unless he's trying to deflect attention from something else (dammit, what is Michael Fortier up to now?).

Can win despite backlash, Emerson says

Globe and Mail Update

Controversial International Trade Minister David Emerson said Monday he thinks he could still win an election as a Conservative despite the continuing furor over his decision to switch teams just weeks after January's election.

"I actually do think I could probably win an election as a Conservative,” Mr. Emerson said, appearing on CTV Newsnet. “The whole issue of whether a by-election or part of the next general election, of course, is a point of some debate."

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dollars for post-secondary education

It's nice to see the Premiers talking about the need for more funding for post secondary education (Premiers push PM for money to boost higher education) and hear that they will be driving this point home during their "entertaining" evening with Stephen Harper.

I just hope, however, that the Premiers are truly serious about boosting post secondary funding and aren't just using this issue as the latest window dressing for their annual extort more money from the feds fundraising drive.

Post secondary education is one of my pet issues so I'm glad to see it being addressed seriously. During the campaign I posted my evaluation of the parties' education platforms, and I talked about how cuts to federal/provincial transfers in the mid-1990s, along with ballooning health care budgets, forced provinces to slash post secondary funding to meet rising health care needs (and offer irresponsible tax cuts, hey Mike Harris!).

That's my concern here. If the feds transfer $X more for post secondary, will the provinces divert $X of their own contribution to post-secondary elsewhere, say to health care? If so, then this exercise would be proven to be just another provincial cash grab with post secondary only used as window dressing. I hope that's not the case.

In the education section of their policy platform, the Conservatives promised the following:

*In cooperation with the provinces, remove postsecondary education funding from the Canada Social Transfer and create an independent Canada Education and Training Transfer to ensure that there is dedicated funding for postsecondary education and training.

The Conservatives need to follow through on that promise. Increase post secondary funding, but do it through a dedicated post secondary education transfer and attach strings or extract promises from the provinces that their own funding levels for education will be maintained, so this truly does mean more funding for Canada's universities.

And then the provinces need to get off their duffs and do something about tuition fees.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper: The Entertainer

Had a chuckle when I read this media advisory from the Stephen Harper PMO. He's going to "entertain" the Premiers and Territorial leaders at 24 Sussex Drive. I hope his show is good, because that's one tough crowd. Even Sheila Martin's brownies couldn't win them over.

It should be interesting, beause when I think of Stephen entertainment isn't the first word that comes to mind. I do like Stephen's impressions however. His John McCallum is dead on, but you've got to aim higher that John frickin McCalum man!

I hope he doesn't show slides from his family's vacation last summer to Drumheller, Alberta, the "Dinosaur Capital of Canada" because family vacation slides just aren't entertaining, I don't care what you say. I think there's a piano at 24 Sussex, does Harper play? Maybe they'll have a sing-along. That could be fun, maybe Gordon Campbell could bring his guitar and play Taxman Glen, or Danny Williams could lead the gang in a drunken round of Barrett's Privateers.

Prime Minister Harper to entertain Premiers and Territorial Leaders

February 23, 2006
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will host an informal dinner for the Premiers and Territorial Leaders at 24 Sussex Drive, Friday, February 24 at 5:00 pm (EST). The Premiers and Territorial Leaders are also in Ottawa for activities related to the Council of the Federation. There will be a photo opportunity only of arrivals at the front steps of 24 Sussex Drive.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Prime Minister announces appointment a Royal Commission to investigate the state of hockey in Canada

Prime Minister announces appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the state of hockey in Canada

NEWS RELEASE

February 23, 2006

Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the appointment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the state of the sport of hockey in Canada, to be chaired by Conservative Senator David W. Angus

"The Hon. Mr. Angus played varsity hockey at Princeton University in the late 1950s, giving him a unique insight into the game," says Prime Minister Harper. "Plus, Frank Mahovlich and Ken Dryden are Liberals and they wouldn't cross the floor."

Following the disappointing performance of the Canadian men's hockey team at the Torino Olympic Games, the government feels it is obvious there is a deep rot in hockey in Canada that must be investigated by a Royal Commission. While it doesn't want to prejudge the work of the inquiry, the government feels that clearly this is somehow the fault of the Liberals, and former Prime Minister Paul Martin.

The commission is expected to call former Liberal sports ministers Dennis Coderre and Paul Devilliers, as well as David Here because he probably had something to do with this mess too.

"This commission will not rest until we find the Liberals responsible for this shameful performance," says Mr. Angus. "Wayne Gretzky won't be required to testify, his Uncle Al was a Conservative candidate so he's probably cool."

The commission has been allocated initial funding of $100 million, and is expected to hold hearings across the country and conduct research via corporate boxes at National Hockey League matches accross North America.

A sole-source contract for legal services to a Conservative-friendly law firm will be announced shortly.

Biography of Senator Angus: http://sen.parl.gc.ca/wdangus/biography/bio-e.htm

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A memo to Lawrence Martin

To: Lawrence Martin, columnist, The Globe and Mail
Cc: Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Canada
Re: Your column this morning

Mr. Martin,

Regarding your column this morning "A Conservative Pierre Trudeau is taking charge."

I knew (not really) Pierre Trudeau, I (didn't) work with Pierre Trudeau. Stephen Harper, sir, is no Pierre Trudeau.

P.S. Your ass-kissiness is obvious and nauseating.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Paul Martin lives on in cyberspace

He's (kind of) gone but he's not forgotten. I wonder how long it will take for them to re-register the domain? Will we get billgraham.ca, or maybe we can just forego the personality cult and revert to liberal.ca?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sometimes shoes are just shoes Ms. Kwan

Yesterday was budget day in British Columbia and Liberal finance Minister Carole Taylor, following the tradition of finance ministers wearing a new pair of shoes on budget day, wore "a snappy pair of $600 Guccis" from Holt Renfrew.

Who cares, right? Well, NDP finance critic Jenny Kwan seems to. Kwan seems to be making an issue of Taylor's footwear choice as some kind of grand symbol of the gap between rich and poor in BC, how Gordon Campbell is out of touch with the working people, workers of the world unite, yada yada. Said Ms. Kwan:

"That was her choice," NDP finance critic Jenny Kwan said of the tradition whereby the finance minister wears new shoes when presenting a budget. "But they're also a reflection in terms of the budget related to the shoes. While she can afford Gucci shoes, many British Columbians could not. And the budget should have reflected the government's acknowledgement of how average British Columbians' every-day lives have been hard hit by the government agenda over the last four years....

"I would have hoped the minister of finance might have chosen a pair of shoes that would be more practical for British Columbians, that were longer lasting into the future."

Aren't people always complaining that guys pay too much attention to what female politicians are wearing? This is just as silly. Sometimes shoes are just shoes. It's stupid crap like this that distracts from the real issues. So Jean Chretien took his cabinet from the swearing-in to their first meeting in a bus, or Stephen Harper rented minivans, this is photo-op crap that means nothing. What message would running shoes have sent? Flats? Sandals? For the record though, $600 for shoes, what's up with that? As long as she didn't expense them though, I don't care.

To be clear I don't like the Campbell Liberals, I find them far too conservative for my liking. I also liked the moxie Kwan and Joy McPhail showed as a two-person opposition for four years. But there's plenty to attack the BC Liberals about on their record without resorting to superficial crap like this that makes you look silly.

Taylor's shoes lack soul, Kwan charges
$600 Guccis send wrong signal, party says
Miro Cernetig, Vancouver Sun
Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2006

VICTORIA -- Finance Minister Carole Taylor's defence of her shoes she wore to Tuesday's budget -- a snappy pair of $600 Guccis -- won applause from the peanut gallery of special interests and financial analysts at the back of the briefing room.

But the New Democratic Party saw those Guccis, picked up at Holt Renfrew, as emblematic of a budget and minister out of touch with British Columbians not prospering quite as much in the economic current boom.

(more)

Finance minister faces questions over $600 'budget day shoes'
Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, February 21, 2006

VICTORIA -- Despite the stylish shoes, Carole Taylor portrayed herself as a cost conscious shopper in presenting her first full budget Tuesday as B.C.'s finance minister.
"I believe strongly in infrastructure investment,'' joked Taylor, former chairwoman of the CBC who was first elected to the legislature last May. "My shoes are amortized over 20 years.''

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cheney's got a gun

The parodies have been numerous but this one at Tooned In (via Salon) is particulaly amusing with new lyrics to the Aerosmith classic and animation a la Loony Toons. Cheney as Elmer Fudd? Hi-larious.

Enjoy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Court nominee to face fire? Not likely

Lots of newspaper headlines and TV reports last night and today about how Stephen Harper's nominee for the Supreme Court will be facing a grilling from an ad hoc, all party committee of Parliamentarians on Monday. The reality though? Not so much.

Where does the nominee stand on abortion? Same-sex marriage? The right to privacy? Sorry, but there's another piece of the U.S. model we're adopting: no litmus tests. Said Harper's Justice Minister, the Hon. Vic "has a record" Toews, on CBC's Politics broadcast yesterday:

"It would be inappropriate for a committee member to ask about how a judge would rule in future cases, for example, because that would prejudice litigants, either before the courts or litigants who may want to bring matters before the courts."

Fair enough Vic, so what could the nominee be asked about then…

"There are background questions that the committee members could ask..."

So nothing on issues that might come before the court. As a public service to the committee here's a few questions acceptable within the Conservative guidelines:

Would you describe yourself as goal-driven?

What do you expect to be doing in five years?

Why did you decide to seek a position in this company Supreme Court?

What kind of supervisor do you work best for? Provide examples.

Describe a situation where you found yourself dealing with someone who didn't like you. How did you handle it?

What is the biggest mistake you've made?

Valuable insight to be gained here for sure. I can see what Toews is saying to a point, but if blindingly relevant questions are out of bounds then why are we wasting our time?

The answer is this dog and pony show is a public relations exercise, nothing more. Combine the out of bounds questioning with the fact the committee has no veto, and won't even take a vote to make a recommendation, and this is even more obvious.

I don't know what the right system would be. I don't want an American-style politicization of the appointment system but this is an awful lot of power to be invested in the hands of the Prime Minister (you mean a Conservative one, don't you? -inner snark). But a toothless, meaningless committee hearing is just a waste of time.

It does, however, make people forget about David Emerson and Michael Fortier for a little while though so hey, nice work there.

UPDATE

Nice piece in Politics Watch on Toews' flip-floppery on the appointments process: Vic Toews then and now.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Brison is hitting the campaign trail

Unless I missed a memo Scott Brison hasn't declared himself a Liberal leadership candidate yet, but it looks like he'll be hitting the campaign trail in British Columbia Wednesday.

Sean Holman at Public Eye Online reports that B.C. Liberal power couple Mark Marrisen (Paul Martin's B.C. lieutenant/enforcer) and Christy Clark (former provincial deputy Premier) will be hosting a reception for Brison at their home Wednesday. The note makes clear the couple aren't endorsing Brison, and there will be more repceptions to come.

The leaked e-mail and more are here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Lapierre leaving, dare we dream?

It's only rumour at this point, meriting just one sentence in the requisite weekly Hill Times story today about Liberal leadership speculation (new name this week: Dominic LeBlanc). Still, I can hope, can't I?

Moreover, there are rumblings about whether or not Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Que.) will want to stick it out in this Parliament.

Maybe Jean and David Emerson could share a ride to the airport?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's about ideas, stupid

With apologies to James Carville, but this time it really is (I hope) going to be about ideas.

The chattering classes, the reactionaries on the right and even the nervous nellies within the Liberal Party (apologies to the other JC this time) have made much of the number of high profile names opting out of the Liberal leadership race. I, for one, couldn’t be happier.

As I’ve blogged in the past the Liberal Party is in need of renewal. We’ve lost our ideological compass. We won’t find it again overnight. What we need is a wide-open leadership race with a range of intelligent, competent, and impressive candidates bringing new and different ideas to the debating table.

The last thing we need is a coronation. And if Frank McKenna, and to a lesser degree John Manley or even Brian Tobin had run that could well have been what we’d be in for. With the Harper minority off to a shaky start the pressure would have been incredible to push aside the also-rans and get behind the frontrunner, get them in place quickly, slap together a few issues and bring down the government as soon as possible.

That would have been the worst possible thing for the Liberal Party. The world isn’t going to end in the next 18 months. Harper is limited in what he can do, and if he makes the mistake of thinking we’ll swallow anything to avoid an election leader or no leaderwe’ll make him pay dearly for his arrogance, or rather the Canadian people will.

But I’m excited. There is no frontrunner. No easy choice. No clear winner. But there are serious, credible people looking to run, people that will bring ideas and vision and passion to the debate. It's going to be fun, and I can't wait.

As I think Carville would say, it’s about ideas, stupid.

Excellent column Friday by Adam Radwanski in the National Post. He gets it.

For once: a battle of ideas
Adam Radwanski, National Post
Published: Friday, February 17, 2006

Those who haven't worked in politics tend to assume it's at its ugliest during election campaigns. They're wrong. By far the most vicious, hard-nosed, bare-knuckle politics happens during leadership campaigns.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The CRTC is getting uppity

The Conservatives have talked for years about reforming or doing away with the CRTC, and here's one place Stephen Harper and his Heritage Minister, Bev Oda, may want to start.

I certainly don't like what I see here. Basically, the CRTC is unilaterally funneling $625.7 million that should be refunded to Canadian telephone customers toward expansion of broadband Internet services to remote communities because the unelected poobahs of the CRTC think that's a better use of the money. The money came from a CRTC mandated overbilling of Canadians to facilitate greater competition in the industry.

Expanding broadband Internet access to rural communities is important, and as I recall it was one of Brian Tobin's pet projects as Industry Minister, but when did it become the CRTC's mandate to set innovation and infrastructure policy, not to mention allocate hundreds of millions in funding? If I'm not mistaken, that's still Parliament's job.

If the government wants to fund rural broadband Internet expansion it should include it in its next budget, and the telcos should write a cheque to their customers to refund the over billing. The CRTC falls under the Heritage Minister, who, I'm pretty sure, can overrule this decision.

So Bev, whadya say?

CRTC decision sparks outrage
No refunds for consumers overbilled by $652 million
By: Rosie Lombardi
IT World Canada (17 Feb 2006)

Consumer advocacy groups are outraged at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's (CRTC) decision, announced yesterday, to funnel $652.7 million resulting from deliberate overbillings of telephone customers to expansion of broadband services instead of refunding the money.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

"The charter helps only murderers, pedophiles and judges": Stockwell Day's senior advisor

Public Eye Online has the scoop on Scott Newark, the new senior policy advisor to Stockwell Day, Canada’s new Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. The Cons have been having a hard time finding senior staff, so he must be quite a catch.

When he was executive director of the Canadian Police Association in January 1998 he was quoted by Alberta Report in an essay entitled “The makings of a counter-revolution.” Here’s a few of his quotes, via Conservativeforum.org:

Anything effective in law enforcement will inevitably be forbidden under the Charter [the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]. As we always say, the charter helps only murderers, pedophiles and judges. This year the Supreme Court decreed, on the authority of the Charter, that the provinces must give their judges pay raises.

[Judicial activism and judge-made law] What we have now in Canada is a supposedly enlightened despotism--rule by people who think they know so much better than everybody else. Well, no thanks. I'm in favour of anything that brings [judges] back under the rule of law--public reviews of candidates, public petitions to force performance reviews of sitting judges, and Section 33 [the "notwithstanding clause"]--every time they do something crazy.

Here’s some more words of wisdom from Mr. Newark, who as also an Alberta crown attorney and held a senior security position in the Mike Harris government.

"The linkage between human rights violations and not selling arms is typically wrongheaded to begin with," stated Scott Newark, a Canadian security commentator. “Let's face it, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and the Sudan are no doubt nasty places but we really don't need to be that worried about what they might get up to with French fighter jets or German submarines.”

--Jan. 29, 2004, Newsmax.com

Sounds like just the guy to be providing policy advice to the Minister of Public Safety. I feel safer already.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stupid comment of the day award: Roy McGregor

In an article in USA Today yesterday on Wayne Gretzky and the betting scandal (which by the way has been getting major (sports) media play down in the States), veteran Globe and Mail columnist Roy McGregor offered this comment on the situation:

"This is the Danish cartoon of Canadian sports," said columnist Roy McGregor of The Globe and Mail.

Now McGregor is a respected veteran journalist and I don't know him but people I know and respect that do know him say he's a stand-up guy. And I have been out of the country for a few days, so is it possible I missed a massive uprising of irate hockey fans across the country taking to the streets in protest and burning down arenas?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I hope this post doesn't annoy you…

I'm safely back home in the true North strong and free. Breezed through customs last night so I guess my worries about the new regime not letting me back into the country were unfounded. Or maybe they've just been too busy abandoning campaign promises. It's one of the two.

Anyway, I was reading my gratis hotel copy of USA Today on the plane and came across this article that I found very interesting, and I think could have very interesting implications for the blogging world. Not us here in Canada yet, but still food for thought.

Cyberstalking law opens debate on what's annoying
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — It didn't get much publicity, but an anti-stalking bill passed by Congress recently makes it a federal crime to "annoy" someone over the Internet.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Watch the Left...

There’s been some talk about the relevance of the NDP today by some of the Progressive Bloggers and I wanted to expand on my thoughts a bit rather than trying to condense it into a comment.

Say what you will about Jack Layton but he's no dummy. Jack dreams of making the Liberals irrelevant and being the party of the centre to the left, opposing the Cons to the centre right. A two (national) party system.
The Liberals have shifted rightward in some respects in recent years and have been adrift on other issues for a variety of reasons. Nobody knows what we stand for anymore, and so people looking for a party that reflects their views and values are looking elsewhere.

The Cons are trying to make the Liberals irrelevant from the right by moving to the centre on policy, presenting themselves (before the election, anyway) as the Liberals minus the stuff you don't like. Jack has been playing a similar game from the left, striking a more fiscally cautious tone and moderating in some areas to appeal more to the centre (where most Canadians are), and presenting the NDP, not the Libs, as the party to keep the Cons honest.

While the Cons are in government the real danger long-term to the Liberals is from the NDP on the left. I think the Liberals need to move leftward on the policy front, and use this time of renewal to develop some real, substantive policies that our party and our caucus can get behind.

I think we need to do something a little radical on the policy front, poach something from the NDP and get behind it as a policy we will implement. Maybe it’s electoral reform. I was on the fence about the Single Transferable Vote (STV) referendum in B.C. last May, mainly because I think the proponents didn’t do a very good job of explaining it. But I think its time has come. Support for electoral reform is growing across Canada, and will only keep growing. Incidents like L’affaire Emerson and the rage it has generated only serve to fuel the desire for change.

The establishment, natural governing Liberal Party implementing a system that would make it far more difficult for it to form a majority government? Crazy, I know, but that’s what I meant by radical. I think we could do it though. After all, only Nixon could go to China.

And to close the circle, how would this help us fend off the NDP? They can promise electoral reform, but they’re not going to form a government. The Liberals can, and that may move much of their electoral reform-supporting vote over to us.

I’m not sure if electoral reform is THE issue, and frankly it’s not as simple as cherry picking an issue from the NDP. Before we can do anything we need to decide who we are as a party and what we want to be, and that goes deeper than individual issues. It’s about philosophy and outlook. The basics.

If Stephen Harper gets the ship of state back on track, and I don’t doubt for a second that he will, and manages to go from now to the next election casting himself as a competent, prudent, and not scarily Conservative manager, people will find it a lot easier to vote NDP in the next election and the stop Harper Liberal strategy of strategic voting (which shifted seats to the Libs from the NDP) won’t work anymore.

Strategic voting isn’t an electoral strategy. Neither is bad mouthing our opponents or questioning why they exist. We need to give people reasons TO VOTE Liberal, not just give people reasons NOT TO vote NDP or Conservative.

My point is this: don’t obsess with the Conservatives, for the real threat to the Liberal Party is the NDP.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Isn’t Florida supposed to be warm?

I flew down to Miami yesterday for a work-related conference (business process management software, terribly exciting stuff), so blogging will be less regular over the next few days. Unless I go clubbing with J-Lo or get shot by Jeb Bush, in which case I’ll post a full report.

It’s my first time in the Sunshine state and so far I have to say it’s frickin cold! I’m stuck actually attending the sessions instead of lounging by the pool, because they’re calling for a high of 13c today and a low of 4c.

Now, I know I shouldn’t complain, as I’m informed it’s currently snowing and –12 with the wind chill back in Toronto. But still, this is Florida! The chill was the lead story on the local newscasts last night and while they’re not calling out the army yet it is being treated like a calamity. They even devoted a segment to the proper use of space heaters.

I’m hoping it will warm-up before I head home but it’s not looking good, so I guess it’s lots of talk about solutions, synergies and scalability for me. The resort, at least, is very nice. I’ll be back in Toronto Wednesday night, assuming the Conservatives haven’t put me on a watch list and allow me back into the country.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Meet Bizarro Stephen

After the success of the Mr. Dithers moniker it has become clear one of the most important tasks an opposition party faces is coming-up with a suitable nickname for the Prime Minister. After this past week under PM Stephen Harper I think I may have it: Bizarro Stephen.

If you’re drawing a blank you must not be a Seinfeld fan. In one of the more memorable episodes of the show’s long run. Elaine meets a group of people that are the exact opposite of her usual group of friends. There’s a Bizarro Jerry, George, Kramer, and even a Newman (whom they actually like), all with mirror opposite personalities and behaviour, but remarkably similar physical appearance, mannerisms, and so on.

Here’s a snippet from the script, a conversation between Elaine and Jerry discussing her discovery.

"He's reliable. He's considerate. He's like your exact opposite."
"So he's Bizarro Jerry."
"Bizarro Jerry?"
"Yeah, like Bizarro Superman, Superman's exact opposite, who lives in the backwards Bizarro world. Up is down, down is up, he says hello when he leaves, goodbye when he arrives."
"Shouldn't he say badbye? Isn't that the opposite of goodbye?"
"No, it's still goodbye."
"Does he live underwater?"
"No."
"Is he black?"
"Look, just forget the whole thing.”

What better name could there be for our new PM after his first week on the job then Bizarro Stephen? The contrast between campaign-Stephen and PM-Stephen has been remarkable. The change has been well documented, from floor crossing and the Senate to lobbying and free votes but not free speech, so I needn’t belabour it here.

Instead, I’ll just ask “What’s the deal Stephen? Whaaaat’s the deal?”

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Another Con blogger bites the dust

First Monte left the blogsphere behind, which given his new ministerial responsibilities is probably a pretty good idea, although he will be missed. Now it seems his blogging comrade James Moore has also logged-off.

His final post was actually Wednesday but I just noticed it today and haven't heard it mentioned elsewhere. Here's his last entry:

February 8/2006
I'm afraid, like my friend Monte, this will be the final posting on my blog. I have always been of the view that if you cannot do something with all your intensity and commitment, don't do it. As a result, this blog is going to be a casualty of my new responsibilities and my prioritizing of my spare time. I have really enjoyed blogging, may return some point, but for now.... bonsoir.

Like Monte's decision, this is probably a good one for James too. Although he doesn't have ministerial responsibilities like Monte...scratch that....altough he doesn't have a ministerial title like Monte, as Parliamentary Secretary to an unappointed Quebec party bagman running the most patronage-prone ministry in government I suspect James is going to be mighty busy putting out brushfires in the House of Commons. While we won't have his blog entries, we will have lots of him on his feet in QP, so it's not all bad.

It's probably for the best though, because I don't know how he could have topped this pre-cabinet selection post:

February 5/2006
A few words seared into my brain that I've been saying for about 2 weeks now: "Mr. Harper will announce his cabinet on Monday. I have nothing more to say." Where is Superman when you need him to spin the globe a little faster so Monday arrives sooner?

Poor kid. Where is Superman indeed. Yes, where is Superman indeed.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hey Harper, get your hands out of my pocket!

I’m reminded of those ****** annoying hands in my pocket commercials right now because it was payday today, for the third time in this New Year.

Usually it's a happy day (I like to treat myself to a McDonald's breakfast buritto breakfast on paydays, yum) , but my joy was tempered when I remembered something from the campaign that had been drown-out amidst the din of beer and popcorn, promises of elected Senators and promises that you need to be elected to sit in a Stephen Harper cabinet: the Conservatives are going to raise our taxes!

But they’re going to cut the dreaded GST, you say, by a whole one per cent! And another one per cent if we behave and give them that majority they want! Quite true. But buried in the fine print was how they were going to pay for it: by canceling tax cuts made by the Liberal government. Or, to describe it more accurately, by raising personal income taxes.

I’ll allow Rick Bell, of all things a Calgary Sun columnist, to explain it:

In November of last year, before the election, the Liberals brought in a one percent reduction to the lowest tax rate. For the first $36,378 of our taxable income, the rate goes down from 16% to 15%. The Grits made the move retroactive to Jan. 1, 2005. By the year 2010, the next two tax rates on incomes higher up the food chain also go down a point.

In addition, the basic amount you can make before forking over anything to the feds is raised by $500 a year.

Harper has said he will allow the new rates for 2005 but will scrap them this year. Nixing the reduction means the 2005 rate of 15% will be-come the 2006 rate of 16% and the personal exemption before you pay taxes will go down $400.

That, dear friends, is a tax increase.

You bet it is Rick. This fiscal stuff can be dry though, which is why the media and politicians like to use examples to help people relate (Billy-Bob and Suzy-May have three children…). I don’t have a crack research staff at my disposal, so I’ll use myself as an example.

Since the beginning of the year, the Liberal tax cut has saved me $16.79 every paycheck (every two weeks). This being the third pay period, that’s an extra $50.37 in my pocket. And no, Scott Reid, I’m actually saving it. Over the course of the year that would be an extra $430 or so in my pocket. To me, that’s real money. Except the Harper Conservatives want to raise my taxes, and take that money away.

Now I’m not a tax lawyer or a mathematician, so correct me if I’m wrong, but here’s how I read this. The Liberals made the tax cut retroactive to 2005, but those with taxes deducted from their pay had it deducted at the higher rate. Therefore, nice refund this April for the overpayment. Score!

However, now that we're in 2006 our taxes are being deducted at the lower, Liberal rate. But Harper has said, while he’s letting the 2005 reduction stand (ain’t he a peach?) for 2006 it’s back to the higher rate. Therefore, when he pulls the trigger on that tax hike my paycheque will go down by $16.79.

Let’s say, being optimistic, he gets this passed April 15. At that point, my Liberal tax cut savings will be $117.53. That's nearly $120 cash in my pocket, if I haven't blown it on Cabarnet and Camembert yet. But I shouldn’t have been paying that lower rate for the past three-and-a-half months. So, if I read this right, Harper will be clawing back that $117.53 on my 2006 tax return, in addition to cutting my pay by $16.79 every two weeks from April 15th on.

Still, we'll have a one per cent lower GST though. Here’s a fun little challenge:

1. Save your receipts for two weeks, and add up how much you pay in GST.
2. Calculate how much you’d have saved with a one per cent lower GST.
3. Compare it to how much the tax deducted from your pay every two weeks has decreased. Which number is bigger?
   

And I’m on to you Michael Fortier! If you go out and buy a plasma screen TV this week to watch Question Period on be sure you divide the cost out over 12 months. No skewing the statistics, we’re looking for an average here. I’m willing to bet the average Canadian will be saving more on their income tax than they would with the GST cut.

Not to mention the fact a million and one economists will tell you income tax reductions are far more fair and desirable than consumption tax reductions. But don't just take my word for it.

"If you want tax cuts that are going to promote work, going to promote saving, help us invest more and raise living standards in the future, the GST is not the tax you would go after."

-- CD Howe Institute

And Jim Davies, an economics professor at the University of Western Ontario, puts it even more succintly. Here's how he described the Conservative plan.

"Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid."

-- Jim Davies, UWO

I could see three stupids, but when he pulls out the fourth you know he's serious. Why, even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (well known Liberal stooges, I know) thinks raising the income tax is a bad idea (shocking, I know). The CTF wants the lower income taxes AND the GST cut! Go big or go home, I guess. Sayeth the CTF:

The Conservatives say they plan to increase the lowest income tax rate from 15 per cent to 16 per cent. Such a change will incur the wrath of taxpayers and peg Mr. Harper as a tax hiker.

I’m not sure how we could afford to do both, although it would fit in with the conservative making government small enough to drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub mantra.

I do know one thing though, and that’s I don’t want to give Stephen Harper $430.

Stephen, keep your hands out of my pocket!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Says the ref: Turner a touchdown, Fortier a fumble. Says I: Turner for speaker!

Public relations firm Veritas Canada sends out a weekly e-mail called Touchdowns & Fumbles reviewing recent news events and judging how the principals performed from a communications and public relations perspective.

I’m sure they were expecting the political entries to lessen with the campaign over, but it would be impossible to overlook this week in political communications. They’ve chosen to dissect two events: Michael Fortier’s disdain for democracy and Garth Turner’s commitment to it.

Fortier is obvious but I don’t think I totally agree on Turner, in the sense I don’t see Stephen Harper bringing Turner into cabinet a la Chris Stockwell to shut him up. Maybe his colleagues will elect him speaker, as a (not so) silent protest (it's a secret ballot, right?). Or maybe the Liberals, NDP and BQ will. Hey, there’s an idea. Turner for speaker! Would that ever piss off Harper!

Anyway, here's what Veritas has to say. The full newsletter is available here.

FUMBLE:

Newly Appointed Fortier Says He Didn’t Want to Run for Office

Michael Fortier, the new Conservative government Public Works Minister, is an amazingly talented guy. I’ve met him. He’s brilliant. He has had a remarkable private sector career to show for it. But he may still have a few things to learn about communications in politics. As questions were raised about the Conservative Quebec organizer being suddenly appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Stephen Harper – remember, the Reform wing of the Conservative party long lobbied for an elected, democratic Senate – so that Fortier could sit in cabinet, the new minister’s comments to reporters didn’t help matters. "I didn't run in the election because I didn't want to run in the election," Fortier said. The essence of a parliamentary democracy in Canada is based on individuals being elected as Members of Parliament and the party electing the most members forming a government. Fortier didn’t pass that democratic test, because, as he admits, he didn’t want to take it. Had the Conservatives lost, Fortier would have continued his lucrative private sector law career. "I had a great career, five young kids, and so it wasn't the right situation for me to run when the election came around. That's just the simple truth," he said. But it does strike many as a tad opportunistic to say that since the Conservatives did form a government, Fortier found acceptable the personal sacrifice of joining cabinet so long as he didn’t need to go through the sometimes messy electoral process. There was better messaging for Fortier to stick to, namely that he planned to run in the next election or a by-election should one occur; and that during the election campaign all his time and energies were focused on the Conservative party breakthrough in Quebec. Later, he did admit: "It would be wise of me to start looking (for a constituency) soon.” But his initial comments were a Fumble.

TOUCHDOWN:

Garth Turner’s Vermin-Infested Dank Basement

Newly elected Halton Conservative MP Garth Turner most certainly wouldn’t receive a communications Touchdown from his own government or political party, but he gets one from us this week. Turner made some comments earlier this week about David Emerson, who was elected in Vancouver as a Liberal, but switched to the Conservatives to joined Harper’s cabinet. "Anybody who switches parties should go back to the people. To do otherwise is to place politicians above the people when, actually, it's the other way around," Turner said. Then, he commented in his online blog about a dressing down from several party officials and even Harper himself. "If you would like a course on how not to be popular in Ottawa, then take a seat... after today I'm expecting the Whip will be assigning me a renovated washroom somewhere in a forgotten corner of a vermin-infested dank basement in Ottawa. That should go well with my seat in the House of Commons that will be visible only during lunar eclipses." Keep in mind, Turner is strategically addressing his brand as an outspoken maverick, one honed over years as a newspaper columnist and TV and radio commentator. The Tories knew what they were getting when Turner became a candidate. In most governments there are mavericks who criticize their own regime. Some say they can even be useful to the government. Mike Harris had Chris Stockwell, and Brian Mulroney had Alan Redway. Sometimes these mavericks eventually become such a pain that they themselves are elevated to cabinet (as both Stockwell and Redway were). So in terms of his own brand and his own positioning in the new Ottawa, Turner scored a Touchdown.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative candidate was ready to drop-out of election for Emerson

Maybe I should start reading those free commuter mags on my way into work in the morning, as it seems like they're doing some real journalism. The Vancouver edition of 24 Hours (via Dan Cook) has this piece this morning with a revelation I haven't seen elsewhere: the Conservative candidate running against David Emerson in Vancouver-Kingsway was ready to drop-out of the race even before the campaign began to let Emerson run under the Conservative banner.

This raises all kinds of questions. For one, when did the talks of Emerson jumping ship really begin? Was it during, or even before the campaign? Was his involvement in holding-up a softwood lumber deal part of his jumping to the Conservatives? Was he talking with the Conservatives before he accepted the money the Liberal riding association transferred to his campaign? I could go on further but I would be accused of veering into tinfoil hat territory, but as more revelations like this come to mind, maybe it wouldn't be too far out there after all.

Um David, you really need to have that press conference today, and maybe show-up this time. And since both you and the media are both right there in Ottawa, why not do it in person? The National Press Building right across the street from Parliament has a lovely theatre for just this sort of thing. Microphones, cameras, chairs, the whole nine yards. Or, for a more intimate setting, there's the Charles Lynch press theatre right in the basement of the Centre Block. I'd be happy to provide directions if needed, just let me know.

Tory had plan to assist Emerson

By IRWIN LOY, 24 HOURS

Vancouver Kingsway Conservative Kanman Wong says he had a backup plan to step aside for controversial new cabinet minister David Emerson - long before January's election.

"That was my plan. I heard lots of rumours that Mr. Emerson wasn't happy with the Liberal party long before the election," Wong said in an interview yesterday. "If one day Mr. Emerson prepared to cross the floor I was ready to step aside for him."

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's no big deal in the business world...

...um yeah, not so much. The Globe's business section today weighs into the Emerson affair with a piece on the differences between the political world and the business world. It's actually a very interesting read.

I'll have to blame the headline writers though for misleading and false headline though: "Switching teams: No big deal in business, but Emerson learns politics is different" because I knew one of the writers, Simon Tuck, when I was a technology reporter in Ottawa. He's a smart guy, so I know he'd remember this story, which after all wasn't that long ago. And it's only one of the more high profile, recent examples...

Microsoft wins first round of Google employee lawsuit

By: Matthew Broersma
Techworld.com (02 Aug 2005)

Microsoft has won the first round in its legal action against Google, with a restraining order that prevents a former Microsoft employee from engaging in competing work at the search company.

The ruling came from King County Superior Court in Seattle on Thursday and represents an initial, if small, win for Microsoft. The software company is suing to prevent Dr Kai-Fu Lee from taking work with Google that would compete with Microsoft's search engine strategy in China.

(more)

On an unrelated note, it's my birthday today and I don't know how Bourque knew but with a link to this post on his site last night I woke up to a smoking counter this morning. So merci Pierre, and bonjour to the nearly 1300+ Bourque.com readers who have visited my humble blog so far today. Really though, I was just linking to a post from Sean Hollman at Public Eye Online, it was his scoop.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

History lessons for separatists, part deux

Just getting around to watching today’s Politics broadcast and they had their weekly panel of party communications directors discussing, what else, L’Affraire Emerson.

No surprises (other than that William Stairs needs to do something about that 5 O’clock mustache shadow*), but my ears did perk-up and my lips curl into a smile when I heard this comment from the Bloc Quebecois representative, Claude St. Hilaire.

I think Mr. Emerson should do what Mrs. Copps (did). He should resign, and have the courage to run again and ask his people (if) they want him as a Tory or as a Liberal.

Hey, I don’t disagree with you Claude. However, you may want to educate to educate yourself on the history of the party you speak for…

The Bloc Québécois was started in 1990 as an informal coalition of Progressive Conservative and Liberal MPs from Quebec, who left their original parties around the time of the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord. The party was initially intended to be temporary and was given the goal of the promotion of sovereignty at the federal level. The party aimed to disband following a successful referendum on sovereignty. The term "temporary ad hoc rainbow coalition" is now used by the Liberal Party of Canada to refer to the group of MPs who founded the Bloc Québécois, primarily in reference to Jean Lapierre, who was once part of that group but has since renounced separatism and rejoined the Liberals under Paul Martin.

The initial coalition that led to the Bloc was led by Lucien Bouchard, who had been federal Minister of the Environment until he was fired by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (as pointed out in The Secret Mulroney Tapes). He was joined by several of his fellow Tories, such as Nic Leblanc, Louis Plamondon, Benoît Tremblay, Gilbert Chartrand and François Gérin, along with several Liberals, notably Gilles Rocheleau and Lapierre. The first Bloquiste candidate to be elected was Gilles Duceppe, then a union organizer, in a by-election for the Montreal riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie on August 13, 1990. He ran as an independent, since the Bloc had not been registered as a federal party yet.

History lessons for separtists, part un

* In fairness to William, I laughed hard at this line:

"The Liberals have been cherrypicking people for years and nobody is ever going to go to the NDP so they don't have to worry about this..."

Ouch, that's a wicked burn. Sweet!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A preview of day five of the one day Emerson story

Globe and Mail blogger Dan Cook reports the Hon. David "be nice to me please, I can't take a punch" Emerson will lower himself and speak to the unwashed media horde this afternoon, in time for the evening news and newspaper deadlines. It's a conference call though, so no weepy pictures for the cameras.

"International Trade Minister and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics David L. Emerson will be available for a conference call with representatives of the media at 4:30 p.m. today."

Any bets what most of the questions will be about?

In other news, at least one CPC MP has come out of his shell today and found his spine by speaking on the record about Emersongate (ok that doesn't work, I'll keep brainstorming) AND still say what he was saying mere weeks ago, and dammed if it isn't Garth Turner:

“I said during the campaign that I think anyone who crosses the floor ultimately should go back to the people for ratification and I stick by it,” Ontario Conservative Garth Turner told reporters in Ottawa.

I'm no fan of Garth Turner, but good on him for sticking to his principles. And I'm sure the fact he wasn't on this list, or even this one, has nothing to do with his frankness. Nothing at all.

Nor does her name being on one of those lists have anything at all to do with this:

Conservative Revenue Minister Carol Skelton, who in the last session introduced a motion to restrict the practice of party-switching, told reporters she does not plan to renew the call when the House resumes.

“That was last year,” she said. “We talked about it, and I decided not to proceed with it. It's one of those matters that is debatable.”

I can't add a thing to that. Bravo Carol.

UPDATE

Remember that Emerson media conference call scheduled for 4:30 pm est? Dan Cook dialed-in. Here's his report:

Update 4:52 p.m. EST: Still on hold.
Update 4:54 p.m. EST: Operator announces Minister Emerson has been caught in traffic; the conference call has been cancelled. Guess they don't have cell phones in limousines.

Oh well, maybe tomorrow. I don't think this story is going away...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Did Emerson and the PMO block a softwood deal?

Well, things just keep getting more and more interesting. The Toronto Star reports this morning that, in a nut shell, there was a deal to be had with the U.S. to settle the softwood dispute before the election but David Emerson and the Paul Martin PMO put it on hold for political reasons.

Wow. I don't know where to start with this. I'll proceed on the basis this report is true. If so, no one comes out of this looking good.

...Emerson was instrumental in delaying a breakthrough in the decades-old … the former Liberal industry minister worried that a pre-election announcement would damage Liberal prospects in key British Columbia ridings.

So, I guess the line that Emerson was an independent, non-partisan kind of a guy doesn't quite hold water, now does it?

They say the B.C. government and its powerful forestry industry only lost interest in the plan after meetings with Emerson.

Paging Gordon Campbell to the white courtesy phone, Gordon Campbell. Gordo, you got some 'splainnin to do.

...along with concerns in Paul Martin's office that a pre-election deal would stop the then-prime minister from using George W. Bush as a campaign punching bag, convinced Liberals to delay formal negotiations at least until after the January election.

Oh that's just freaking genius guys. Whose bright idea was this? Marrisen? Cunningham? Beaton? Yeah, let's put off settling a dispute that has cost thousands of jobs and devastated coastal B.C. so Martin could paint the Americans as bogeymen. Morons.

But for reasons Liberals now blame on Emerson, it stepped back from a deal that now falls into Stephen Harper's lap.

Emerson comes out of this looking like shit, and I'm far from letting him off the hook. But I am more pissed-off with Paul Martin, his PMO, and whomever else in the Vancouver MRO that went along with this asinine decision.

According to the sources, Emerson, a former top lumber executive, also warned that some companies could object to the higher stumpage fees.

This puts the conflict of interest allegations around his letter of recusal into a new light. He shouldn't have been involvd in this. One of those forest companies that could object? Canfor. The company Emerson was supposed to be recused from issues involving? Canfor. The company he's the former president and CEO of? Canfor. The company with a direct financial interest in the stumpage fee question? Canfor. The company Emerson still has financial links to, which is why he had recused himself? Canfor.

It's not clear if or when Conservatives learned about the advanced softwood talks. What is known is that the small circle of those aware of the backroom discussions expanded during the final campaign weeks…So less than 24 hours after the election, Emerson and Conservative campaign co-chairman John Reynolds were discussing the defection…

Wow, what a story. Emerson comes out of this with his credibility and integrity torn to shreds. Mr. Non-partisan held-up a settlement for a) political considerations, and because b) his old friends at Canfor might not like it. It's a file he publicly recused himself from. And when exactly did he start talking about moving to the Conservatives, and what role did his holding-up the deal play?

I also find it amazing/surprising the Liberals would leak this as some kind of smoking gun, because they come out of this looking like absolute idiots, buffoons and worse. As I said, they held up a vitally important trade deal to settle a dispute that has devastated coastal B.C., and also impacted Northern Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes so they could play the U.S. bogeyman card for votes in Ontario (Toronto).

As you can guess I'm a British Columbian, from an area economically impacted by this dispute, and this pisses me off big time. I want names. Who was involved? Are they still working in Ottawa? This is bullshit. Politics is politics, but when you're in government that's a trust with the people of Canada. They've betrayed that trust.

Emerson blocked deal on softwood: Liberals
Feb. 9, 2006. 04:52 AM
JAMES TRAVERS
NATIONAL AFFAIRS COLUMNIST

OTTAWA—Here's the plot of a real-life political thriller: David Emerson defected to the Conservatives this week carrying a multi-billion dollar softwood lumber deal that Liberals, for political reasons, didn't finalize before the federal election.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Emerson the softwood saviour? Yeah, not so much

From Politics Watch via Coyne. You know how Liberal traitor David Emerson joined the Conservative cabinet to solve the softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. and save Canada? Well, not so fast.

Turns out the former president and CEO of Canfor Corp., Canada's largest forestry companies, signed a public decleration of recusal in November 2004 with the ethics commissioner forbidding him from being involved in matters that directly involve Canfor. And Canfor is specifically named by the U.S.'s anti-dumping case at the heart of the dispute. So yeah, the softwood dispute involves Canfor.

"In order to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest situation from arising, I have undertaken, in the exercise of my duties and responsibilities to abstain from any participation in discussions or decision-making processes involving direct dealings with Canfor Corporation, its subsidiaries and affiliates."

- Emerson's letter

Maybe Harper could have found out about the letter if he'd returned the ethics commissioner's phone calls?

Well, so much for that idea Stephen. And no, we don't want him back in our caucus. Jack Layton, I'm looking at you....balance of power....whadya say?

Softwood may be too hot to handle for Emerson

by Romeo St. Martin
[PoliticsWatch Updated 5:00 p.m. February 8, 2006]

OTTAWA — Questions are being raised about whether David Emerson, the newly appointed Trade Minister will be able to work on the softwood lumber file, the most pressing file in his department.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hey, if it's good enough for Bushie...

Many Conservatives don't seem to see anything wrong with making a former lobbyist for the defence industry your defence minister.

Going from government to lobbying, das ist verbotten! But from lobbying to government? Alles gut. Warum nicht?

Sorry, back to English. I guess they figured it worked out so well for George W. Bush, so why not give it a try?

Courtesy Al Franken and his book Lying Liars...

In charge of

Name	Position	Previously lobbied for polluters of	In charge of
Mark Rey	Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment	Forests	Forests
Bennett W. Raley	Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science	Water	Water
Rebecca Watson	Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management	Water	Water
Carmen Toohey	Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for Alaska	Alaska	Alaska
Patricia Lynn Scarlett	Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management and Budget	Government regulations	Everything

And that's just from the Department of the Interior! I must admit though, it's an elegant logic. Who would be better suited to write environmental law than a former paid shill for the big polluters? Or, who better to decide what size the warning labels should be on cigarette packages than a former tobacoo lobbyist?

Just don't go back to lobbying after you leave government though, beause that would be wrong. Unless you're John Reynolds, in which case go for it brother.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dammed meddlesome reporters!

When they're not asking why you're enticing opposition MPs across the floor with cabinet posts and/or appointing your organizers to the Senate and cabinet when you pledged not to do such things, oh, a few weeks ago, they're asking you why you're putting a former lobbyist in charge of the ministry he used to lobby.

This governing thing would be so much easier without the meddlesome press asking questions. Maybe that's why the Conservatives left them standing by the side of the road today as they went on a cabinet field trip to Meech Lake (hat tip Dan Cook).

There was one group of people not allowed to ask questions of ministers on Wednesday - the media. The few reporters who covered the meeting were forced to stand alongside the highway leading onto the property while ministerial sedans drove past.

-CP

That's one way to avoid troubling questions I guess. The other way is to pre-select the questioners and then leave, as Stephen Harper did in his first post-election press conference a few weeks ago.

After about 30 minutes of taking questions from reporters who were pre-selected by Conservative handlers last Thursday afternoon, Prime Minister-Designate Stephen Harper walked away, with a number of frustrated Parliamentary scribes still trying to get some answers.

- The Hill Times

On a side note, that was quite the convoy of limos. I guess the minivan from Monday had to go back to Hertz.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why making a former defence lobbyist your defence minister is a bad idea

News today in the G&M that new Conservative defence mininister Gordon O'Connor, whose appointment is already under fire because he is a former lobbyist for the defence industry, will have as one of his first orders of business making a decison on a $4.6 billion purchase that could involve Airbus, one of his former clients.

The military is in the market for new transport planes, and they need these things yesterday. You may recall last fall, former Liberal defence minister Bill Graham and chief of defence staff General Rick Hillier proposed a fast-tracked procurement process to purchase Lockheed Martin's C130J aircraft, a modern version of the Hercules aircraft we currently fly.

That plan was derailed though by Conservative attacks this would circumvent a long, drawn-out procurement process, and that Airbus and its A400M plane, although it won't be ready to fly until 2008, should be given a chance to compete.

Who led those Conservative attacks? Why their defence critic of course, the former defence industry lobbyist with Hill and Knowlton, Gordon O'Connor. And it turns out that, guess what, Airbus was one of O'Connor's clients!

So O'Connor helped derail a proucrement plan favoured by the military that would have seen them get planes faster so his former client could be given a chance to compete. His scuttling of the plan successful, he'll now play a big role in designing the procurement process and selecting the winner as defence minister.

Webster's dictionary defines a conflict of interest as "a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust."

But surely O'Connor will recuse himself, right? Well, he wasn't talking yesterday. But here's what he said Monday:

"I will not recuse myself from anything. I do not have any links to any company whatsoever."

Sure, if you don't count BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Airbus, and the 24 other defence contractors he was a registered lobbyist for...

New Defence Minister lobbied for Airbus
O'Connor pushed Ottawa to buy A400M but denies any conflict of interest

CAMPBELL CLARK
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Canada's new Defence Minister, Gordon O'Connor, was involved in lobbying the armed forces to buy military transport planes that are now at the centre of the hottest military-supply controversy in Ottawa -- one that he will have to settle.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper's (d)evolving principles

I think I'll just let this transcript speak for itself, as on its own it illustrates clearly enough Stephen Harper's hypocrisy, and Jason Kenney's weak-ass attempt at spin is just too funny.

This comes from Tuesday's afternoon broooaaaadcaaaast of Politics with Don Newman on CBC Newsworld. The video is on the web site, and this portion begins at about 28:15. First they show a clip from a formal, sit-down interview Harper did on Radio Canada on Jan. 12 (yes, 2006). Following the clip, Newman goes to Kenney for reaction.

Stephen Harper, in a TV interview with a Radio Canada reporter, January 12, 2006
(translated from French)

Interviewer: Mario Dumont, who is giving you his support today, he would make a good Minister. If you take power and do not have many MPs what do you think?

Harper: I appreciate Mr. Dumont's support. Mr. Dumont has many positive ideas for Quebec and I think that Mr. Dumont would like to avoid another referendum and would like to respect Quebec's autonomy in the Canadian Federation. I cannot, frankly, I cannot name any ministers during an election campaign, but I say you need to be elected to the Parliament of Canada to become a minister.

Interviewer: Well, if you get a minority government (with) not many MPs from Quebec, what would you do at that point?

Harper: I have the intention of having winning candidates in Quebec because personally, I think this is quite realistic.

End of clip and back comes Newman as poor Kenney looks like a dear caught in the headlights.

Newman: Well it was realistic. He had 10 from Quebec but he still put Michael Fortier into the cabinet and into the Senate, so he changed his mind obviously.

Kenney: Well, he said he's not going to name people during the, the election and he didn't--

Newman: Well he said that, and then he said but you have to be elected to be in the cabinet.

Kenney: And, uh, he's made the commitment, as has Mr. Fortier, that he ah will uh run in the--at the next available opportunity. Umm he will be accountable in the Senate. We will still have Senate elections. Uhhh and this is a way that the second largest city in Canada can be represented in the Government of Canada. Umm it's a big, complex country geographically. We've always known that. Mr. Harper is demonstrating he understands---remember when Belinda Stronach left? She said he didn't understand the complexity of Canada, and with these decisions it's clear that he does.

P.S. Keep watching the video past this segment. I don't know how to explain it, but it's one of the most bizzre things I've seen. You'll know what I mean.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers