Remember, back during the election campaign, all the jabbering about productivity and how sure, you may think the economy is doing great, but really we’re falling behind the U.S. in productivity, the sky is falling, there’s a productivity gap threatening our economic prosperity (and so vote Conservative)? Turns out Stats Can forgot to carry the two and yeah, we’re plenty productive, thanks.
I don’t usually read the business section, but needing something to read on the bus ride home today I had a copy of yesterday’s Globe in my bag, and Report on Business was the only section I hadn’t read (except Auto, but I wasn’t that desperate). Here’s the story I found on the front page:
We're not slackers
HEATHER SCOFFIELD
Globe and Mail Update
Whew.
Last year's productivity numbers, which have been the basis of political platforms, the raison d'être for a long list of policies, and the source of much angst among economists and at the Bank of Canada, are not nearly as bad as once thought.
Statistics Canada issued a correction Wednesday for its 2005 estimate of productivity growth, and the figure is twice as high as previously reported last month.
Productivity for the year actually grew by a strong 2.2 per cent, the statistical agency said, not the mediocre 1.1 per cent published in March. It's the strongest surge since 2000, and means the gap in productivity growth between Canada and the United States narrowed to 0.5 percentage points last year — the slimmest in five years.
(more)
As a business journalist I’m regularly bombarded with press releases and studies bemoaning the “productivity gap” and calling for government tax breaks to encourage Canadian companies to invest more in technology infrastructure as a way of becoming more productive. Unsurprisingly, it’s usually the technology vendors (that sell that infrastructure) behind those studies and releases, and so I’m naturally skeptical.
And even if there were really a “productivity gap” it’s not such a big deal. While we should pay attention to it, productivity is but one measure of the strength and health of an economy. On a number of other indicators Canada is doing quite well, thank-you. And there are also systemic institutional and cultural reasons why we’re not as productive as the U.S. that aren’t going to change.
I myself though had a very productive week, and now I’m planning a relaxing and thoroughly unproductive weekend.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Actually, we’re not slackers
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Conservatives seek to fix election...dates
There's word today the Conservatives are testing the opposition waters for support to introduce fixed election date legislation, and has found the NDP receptive. While it would obviously mean little for the current minority government's longevity (other than potentially ganing the NDP's favour), it would impact any future majority governments.
This is one of those things that sounds great in theory. Take election dates out of the hands of the politicians so they can't go early to suit their purposes or hang on late hoping their fortunes improve, or go on a vote-buying spending spree just before dropping the writ.
In practice, though, it hasn't worked out that way. Luckily, we have a case study to follow here in
Critics of fixed election dates raise fears of an American style system of perpetual campaigning, and I'd have to say the B.C. example bears those fears out. The campaign was far from confined to the writ period, but began long, long before. The government more than ever used public money in a carefully orchestrated series of feel-good announcements designed to target key demographics in the year before the vote. Not a lot of governing got done and controversial decisions were avoided, but the government did craft a long, expensive, taxpayer funded "the good times are here" ad campaign that seamlessly morphed into the party's ad campaign during the writ period.
About the best that can be said about fixed election date legislation is that a majority government can't go early or late to suit its political calculations and the opposition parties all know when it's coming. The trade off a drastically extended period of campaigning when little to no governing gets done and even more government manipulation of the levers of power to buy votes.
It's not perfect, but I say let's keep the current system. If people are upset at a government's election timing the best solution is a far easier one: punish them at the polls. That's true democracy.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Crow’s not the problem
There’s been no blogging for a while as I’ve been down in Orlando for a conference (warm and humid, btw, and Universal kicked ass) but I’m at the airport now waiting for my flight back to Toronto, cruising the Internet and catching-up on some of the news I’ve missed (and add Orlando to the airports with free wifi, although I understand it’s only temporary, which is a shame).
There’s been a lot happening on the political front it seems, mainly to do with flags and fallen soldiers, and more posturing between Stephen Harper and the media. Perhaps more on that later. Hockey is on my mind though, especially since there hasn’t been too much hockey news down here in central Florida.
I see though that the Canucks have fired their head coach, Marc Crawford. While this may have been inevitable, Crawford wasn’t the Canucks’ problem, the players were. It’s always the easy way out to fire the coach, but it doesn’t necessarily change anything.
I watched a lot of Canuck games this year (subscribed to NHL Centre Ice, won’t next year though) and the problem with this team, some key injuries aside, wasn’t coaching. It was an inability to score goals, particularly the big goals at the big times, and to hang on to a lead.
I stood by Todd Bertuzzi for a long time. I don’t support his actions on the ice in the Moore affair, but I felt he had paid his debt and it was proper for him to come back. I wanted to see him recapture his magic with Markus Naslund and Brendan Morrison. The so-called big line just wasn’t the same though. More than that, they were a defensive liability most of the time. I haven’t examined their plus/minus, but I’m sure it’s not pretty.
Todd has to go. Not because of the incident, but because it’s obvious he won’t regain his form in Vancouver, and instead he has become a liability and a distraction. Morrison has value at centre, and while there’s the risk Naslund will go back to Sweden if buddy Todd leaves I hope he stays around.
The future of this team is the Sedin brothers and Anson Cater, and I hope they use the money they save on Bertuzzi’s salary by locking those guys up long term. Another solid defenseman that can score is also needed, the absence of Ed Jovanovski for much of the year really hurt.
The big question mark as always with the Canucks is in goal. This was to be the last chance, make or break year for Dan Cloutier, but then he went and got injured early in the season. Alex Auld came in with little experience, and none as a regular NHL starter, and he played really well. Auld can’t be faulted for the Canucks’ finish, he got little to no defensive support for much of the season. So do we give Cloutier another shot, dump him for Auld, or trade for a name? It’s tough. With Auld’s play last year it’s hard to bump him for Cloutier.
It will be a long, interesting off season in Vancouver. The Globe speculated the Canucks want Brent Sutter as their new coach. He’s been successful with the kids in the WHL, it would be interesting to see if he fares any better with some of the egos in the Canucks lockeroom than Crawford did.
In the mean time, while the Canucks aren’t in the playoffs I take solace in the fact the Leafs aren’t either. Go Flames, and Go Sens!
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Martin lives, Harper Doublethink, and Harriet Miers
Let me be perfectly clear: it sounds like Stephen Harper is starting to channel Paul Martin. He forgot the ‘perfectly’ part, but while I haven’t seen video I’m sure the hand gestures are coming along. Could it be the mole's influence?
“Let me be clear: governments should be able to appoint people who support their agenda.”
That was Harper’s response to why he “nominated” a long time party loyalist, and fundraiser for the Reform, Canadian Alliance and now the Conservative Party, as the head of the new Public Appointments Commission.
Here’s the 411 on the PAC from the Conservative platform:
The Liberals have repeatedly appointed insiders, in some cases completely unqualified, to important public offices. Liberal insiders, candidates and MPs have received appointments as heads of Crown corporations, board members, and ambassadors. Liberal staffers, including some of those responsible for the sponsorship program, have worked their way into key positions in the public service.
A new government is needed to make sure that important public appointments are filled on the basis of merit and not simply as favours to friends and political supporters.
The plan
Stephen Harper will:
Umm, “Stephen Harper will”? And they said Martin was creating a personality cult with all that Martin Team stuff. It takes a village, Stephen.
Any-ho, here’s Harper’s main thrust “The Liberals have appointed insiders to important public offices, so we need to create this new buracracy to change that, and I’m naming a Conservative insider to head this important public office.”
Classic Conservative logic, and classic doublethink. In fact, I’d say it’s doubleplusgood doublethink.
I’m also reminded of this amusing SNL bit from a little while back, on the topic of cronyism and W. Bush’s failed appointment of his good pal, Harriet Miers, to the U.S. Supreme Court:
President George W. Bush: I don't get it, Dick. You know, I don't know why everyone says that cronyism is a bad thing. You know, I'm a crony. You're a crony. This is what we do. Cronyism. Do you think I got into Yale because of my grades? No. I cronied my way in there. You think I got to own a baseball team because I'm a good baseball team owner? Big time crony on that one. Now, hey, you know, look at me now: I'm the President of the United states. You can't get cronier than this.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Meet Gwyn Morgan
"But if Morgan decides to make politics his business, the Liberals should worry…"
The Conservatives are creating something called the Public Appointments Commission, and yesterday Stephen Harper "nominated" a fellow Calgarian, ex-EnCana president and CEO Gwyn Morgan, as its chairperson.
Putting aside for a moment the irony of a Conservative government creating a new bureaucracy to oversee appointments to the bureaucracy (aren’t conservatives all about smaller government?), I think if we can get the appearance of political bias out of the appointments process that's a good thing.
With a non-partisan person at the helm judging appointments on their merits, not their party loyalty, we’ll get better people in these positions that have the confidence of everyone. I don’t necessarily think all the appointments made through the old PMO process were unqualified, far from it, but it’s the old appearance of bias thing.
Which brings us to our new appointments Czar, Gwyn Morgan. At first glance he looks good. Respected former CEO. Doing the job for $1 year, so it’s not about the Benjamins for him. Named Canada’s most respected CEO in 2005, nice.
- First appearance of possible trouble comes in his PMO provided bio. A director of the Fraser Institute? We can forgive him that though, nobody’s perfect after all.
- Where have we heard his name before though? Oh, that’s right. He was up for the Ambassador to the U.S. job a few months back, along with Reform Party founder Preston Manning.
- The people at Calgary’s alt-mag FastForward don’t seem to be Gwyn fans, something about EnCana leaving behind an “environmental disaster” in Ecuador during his time with the company. Media bias though, I’m sure.
- Alberta Venture magazine wanted Morgan to run for the Alberta Conservative leadership, and replace Ralph Klien. Said the mag: “He's a genuine small-c conservative, fearlessly opinionated and a proven leader.”
- I guess you can call Ezra Lavant a Gwyn-a-holic. Sorry Stock. In a Calgary Sun column on Morgan called “Conservative star rises” Levant practically gushes, lauding him for fighting tooth and nail against Kyoto, and prays he’ll jump into politics. There’s some good quotes, including the one at the top of this post. Here’s another, from a speech Morgan had recently made at the Fraser Institute:
“In a speech subtitled "what politicians are afraid to say," Morgan took on every sacred cow in modern politics. From government intervention in the economy, to the attempt to de-Christianize Christmas, to the stifling effect of overweening labour unions, to government-run health care, to the failure to acculturate foreign immigrants, no stone was left unturned.”
- CP reported on his recent speech to the Empire Club today, and here’s the text of the speech. It’s all about “Canadian values” and no; things like SSM aren’t a value. But freedom from corruption is. Liberal corruption, of course. Here’s an excerpt where he discusses the Liberal Party, members of which I’m sure will get a fair shake from him. He also tows the party line on David Emerson and Michael Fortier…"Stephen Harper acted as a statesman."
We have witnessed the party that governed our country over most of its history, embroiled in behaviour that is comparable to that of countries at the bottom of the world corruption index.
And if that wasn't enough, the same party ran attack ads which took the Canadian political process to unprecedented lows in civility, respect, and honesty.
We saw an orchestrated attempt to impugn a Canadian political leader whose integrity is beyond reproach and a person who openly honours Christian values, but respects all religions. A person whose modest home, wife from small town Canada, two much-loved kids (and cats) place him solidly in the middle class mainstream of Canadian values.
We saw a governing party torn apart by dissention and corruption, a party which alienated the West and fanned the flames of separation in Quebec, actually base its election campaign on convincing Canadians that it best represented "Canadian values" and that it could best preserve national unity. Well, at least a plurality of Canadians saw through the charade.
This was also an election where the leaders of two national parties seemed to adopt as their principal definition of Canadian values "we're not American."
How sad. How counterproductive. Canada has so much to be proud of, and I for one, want the leaders of our country to champion the best of what we are, not what we are not.
- Remember when Stockwell Day was being sued for defamation, and there was a stink about paying his legal fees? It seems “Alliance fundraiser” Gwyn Morgan was involved. Interesting reading.
- In the Calgary Sun again, in a piece called "Waay right!", columnist Rick Bell says Morgan, “a strong backer and fundraiser for the federal Conservatives”, says the things Harper can’t say. Things like unions bad, gun registry bad, equalization bad, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and the Maritimes all bad. I’ll let this section go without comment. The “he” is Morgan.
With child care, he gives a nod to Harper without naming him. He attacks those who defend the present health-care system and takes a poke at the PM.
"Why do we expect different behaviour in Toronto, Ontario, than in Kingston, Jamaica," he asks, also singling out "a portion of our Indo-Chinese immigrants," maintaining most immigrants abusing our society are refugees.
So what?
So, what does it all mean? Merely that Morgan is a long-time Conservative loyalist and party bagman that shares Mr. Harper’s Conservative views. It’s not surprising that he’s taking a job with the Conservative government, and I’m sure he’ll fit right in.
But is he the person to de-politicize the appointments process? Is he the non-partisan person to take the partisanship out of the appointments process in the way the Conservatives promised with their accountability initiative? Not by a long shot.
You can give someone a fancy title, but this is just business as usual: a party loyalist in charge of doling out patronage. Which is fine, but let’s just call a spade a spade, shall we?
Recommend this Post on Progressive BloggersThursday, April 20, 2006
The wheels on the bus
Putting aside politics for a few minutes, why is it so many people are lacking even basic bus etiquette?
I'm a regular transit user. Every month I shell out close to $100 to the TTC for a transit pass (looking forward to that transit pass rebate you promised Stephen…wait, I said no politics). I take the bus to and from work every day, and often venture downtown from
People generally seem to have mastered the stand right, walk left rule on the escalators. It's on the bus things seem to fall apart. My bus is often quite packed, particularly in the working with kids (teens) going to school. If I don't time it right I'll get left behind. No one need be left behind though if people would just move back!
Yes, all the way back, even up the stairs to the raised area at the back. It's both amusing and maddening to be sitting on the bus, watching people trying to get on, and hear the driver get on the PA to say move all the way back please. Of course, despite lots of space to move back to, no one budges. I guess they think he's referring to someone else. They're just fine blocking the aisle half-way down.
My other pet peeve is people traveling alone that sit in the aisle seat of a two-person seat, forcing people to ask them to move if they want to occupy the other seat. Do the decent thing and, when you see more people getting on the bus, move down to the window seat, and leave the aisle seat available.
OK, rant over. Thanks.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Oceania has never been at war with Eurasia
We’ve already learned from the Conservative campaign manager that “campaigns are campaigns” and now we get another lesson from Stephen Harper himself: any promises made before the last election don’t count.
A cynical person would say given Harper’s record on staffers becoming lobbyists, appointing unelected Senators, putting unelected people in cabinet, accepting floor crossers, and a host of other promises from the most recent campaign they’ve already broken, apparently promises from the last election don’t count either.
But they’d just be forgetting the first rule: campaigns are campaigns.
The second rule came from Mr. Harper today. You may remember the Tories had promised at one time (not all that long ago really) that if they formed a government they would stop charging GST on the portion of gas prices above 85 cents.
Peter McKay still thought it was a swell idea, but Harper laid the smack down firmly.
From the Globe:
At one time, the Conservatives had said they would stop charging GST on the portion of gas prices above 85 cents.
However, Mr. Harper said Wednesday that promise was “two elections ago” and had given way to the planned broader GST reduction.
So, there you go. Take note, Tory bloggers. Your leader has spoken. You can no longer bring up any Liberal campaign promises made before November 2005. The word “red book” is now verboten. No more “you promised child care in 1993” because hey, that was like five elections ago. Dido the eliminate the GST promise. Just pretend it never happened.
And Oceania is not at war with Eurasia. Oceania has never been at war with Eurasia.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
I completly agree with Stephen Harper
Don't let it be said that I can't reach accross the aisle, put partisanship aside and find areas of agreement with my political opponents. Here's an example of something I am in complete agreement with Stephen Harper on: I'd rather he be a hockey player as well...
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says that while running the world's second largest country isn't a bad job, he'd much rather be an hockey player.
Harper, whose Conservatives won the January 23 election, is a huge fan of the sport and is writing a book about its early history. He also tries to catch all the games his young son Ben plays in.
"I love my job as prime minister, but if you could be a hockey player, I mean, what could be better than that?" Harper said in an interview with sports channel TSN due to be aired later this week.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Why poll reading should be accompanied with salt in granular form
I’ve been a somewhat lonely voice at times when I’ve warned against underestimating Stephen Harper and his political acumen, especially after the rocky start he had in government. The guy is no dummy. Recent polling bares that out, but not too much should be read into it. In fact, the poll is rather misleading.
I’m referring to a piece today in the Globe “PM’s agenda resonating with voters: poll”, that reports on a recent Strategic Counsel poll. First off, I think this particular polling firm is rather useless, given their piss poor job predicting the last campaign and the fact Alan Gregg is a staunch Conservative.
Let’s look at the numbers though. Gregg said the Conservatives’ vaunted “five principles” are quite popular with Canadians. How popular? Well, he doesn’t give any numbers for that one, and given his sketchy analysis track record (as Conservative friendly as he can spin it) who can say what the number is.
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others
I’m sure it’s fairly high though. And why not? Let’s refresh ourselves on the five priorities: accountability, child care, reduced waiting times for health care, safe streets and a cut to the GST.
What’s not to love? Accountability? Why not. Child care? Everyone loves kids. Reduce wait times? Well, we don’t want to increase them! Safe streets? Yes, please. Cut the GST? Taxes bad, gimme gimme.
So, read just those five bullets over the phone by a pollster, who wouldn’t support them? I’m sure it polled at 105 per cent. But how would it poll if people knew a little more?
Accountability: Sounds good, but we’re hearing the proposed legislation has more holes than Swiss cheese. Then there’s Fortier in the Senate, Emerson in cabinet, Reynolds and a bunch of staffers becoming lobbyists, the war with the media, and muzzling the military.
Child care: The baby bonus redux sounds nice, but it won’t create any spaces for those that need them, and will be a drop in the bucket of the cost of child care. Good, although not much, for stay at home parents. But for low income Canadians, how much will be clawed back in taxes?
Safe streets: We’ll see what they have proposed here, but tough on crime, while it sounds good, hasn’t necessarily been proven to be overly effective. And statistically, if I’m not mistaken, the streets are getting safer. Not that I feel any more comfortable in Scarborough after dark.
Reduce wait times: Why not, but how? The Martin Liberals were promising that too. They threw a crap load of money at it and got no where. At the end of the day it’s up to the provinces, and there’s not a lot the feds can do.
Cut the GST: I’ve blogged on this at length. This will cost people money, and if people wake up to that the anger will be substantial.
The thing is though, not that many people know the story and the facts behind those five bullet points. Ask someone if they support the GST cut knowing their income taxes will be going up in return, and what would that do for the numbers?
This shows why Harper is no dummy. Feed the public appetizing sounding pablum, and keep them in the dark. Pick a battle with the media, so any negative media seems like spite. Clearly, the opposition parties need to do a better job getting the word out, but most people won’t be paying attention until the next election. In the end, it makes a poll like this useless. It’s like asking people if they like puppies. I’m sure most people will say yes, but so what?
Spin, Allan, spin
The rest of the story is filled with much silly spin from Allan doing his best to pump-up the Conservatives and Harper. Nothing to loose any sleep over; his record speaks for itself and his bending of reality is obvious.
I did want to touch briefly on his last point though. Gregg said 60 per cent want to wait at least two years for another election. Said Allan:
“There is no huge appetite for an election.”
Is there ever an appetite for an election? For a nice veal parmesan, sure, but not for an election.
“In fact, there tends to be a predisposition to say, go in the direction you are going in, govern for at least two or three years and then we'll look at this again.”
Now you’re really full of crap Allan, give me a break.
The appetite for an election question is one of the stupidest questions in political polling. When has there ever been an appetite for an election? People are nearly always going to say no to that question. But does it really matter? Not really. There was “no appetite” for an election with the Conservatives forced the last one. People still went out and voted.
It’s like asking people if they have an appetite for going to the dentist. Even with the raspberry fluoride and free toothbrush, who is going to say yes? They’ll still go though, because they don’t want cavities.
The question to ask after that question is would you be negatively disposed to the party seen as forcing the election? Word it however you like, but the point is to get to how much people care about election timing, and if it will impact their vote. I’m not saying the opposition should force one tomorrow, because tomorrow is Easter Sunday, just that if the right issue were to come along no one will care about the timing.
And finally…
...any polls about party popularity are useless until the Liberals have a leader in place. And polls about potential Liberal leadership candidates are useless for any number of reasons, and even if they weren’t I hope party members will make their decision based on the candidate, their ideas and their vision, and not any polling results. If we build it, they will come.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Leaders need to lead
There’s been some interesting posts lately in the blogsphere about the shape of the still beginning Liberal leadership race. Cherniak says potential matters, and Red Tory wonders where the bold vision is. I’ve been wondering too. They both have their points, but I’d like to add another thing that I’m looking for: I’m looking for a leader.
Someone with upside potential is important. I’d like to see someone grow into the job, although a certain base of experience and skill is obviously a necessity. And we need someone with ideas and vision, and while it’s early yet, no one has shown that seize the day spirit.
What we need more than anything is a leader. No more governing by focus groups, pandering to every interest group, and trying to appeal to everyone. Being open and inclusive is important, but for god’s sake have strong ideas.
Know what you want Canada to be, what you want to do, and how you want to get there. Argue passionately for your vision, and get people behind it. That’s leadership.
A true leader shouldn’t have to use the whip to rally people behind their vision. The force of their ideas, their passion, their vision, should be whip enough.
Sometimes leadership is using the whip though. Leadership is saying on some issues that speak to fundamental Liberal values I am going to whip my caucus, ie., in support of SSM. Know that before you elect me. That’s the kind of leadership I’d like to see.
Is that candidate in this race? Maybe, but I haven’t seen it yet. That’s why I’m still undecided. And maybe that leader won’t emerge, and we’ll pick the best of a field of very credible and worthy candidates. I hope that leader is there though.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Oh Dingwall, we hardly knew ye
After reading some of the news and blog coverage I feel I should comment on the news the arbitrator has upheld David Dingwall’s severance payment. But before I start, let me just say I will only be taking two questions, and they both need to be on the Vancouver Canucks and what they need to do to improve in the off season, which sadly for them will be beginning Sunday morning.
That out of the way, let me first of all say I’m no Dingwall fan. I thought his behaviour through the mess that led to his “constructive dismissal” was arrogant and smug, and I felt then, and to some extent still do now, that he deserved to be canned.
Unfortunately, it would seem labour law doesn’t agree with me. And while politicians, especially opposition politicians, love to mug and feign righteous moral outrage for the cameras, when they’re in government politicians also have legal responsibilities.
Dingwall had became an embarrassment and a political liability to the government, thanks to accusations that have since been proven baseless and without foundation, made by the then Conservative opposition. This was compounded by his own smug behaviour, and his infamous “entitled to my entitlements” speech.
The then Martin Liberal government had two choices. Stand by the Chretien appointee and help him clear his name, or do the politically expedient thing and throw him over the side, probably giving a little screw you to the JC gang at the same time.
He wasn’t their man so they didn’t stand by him. That was a mistake. Sure, it was politically expedient to cut him loose, but it was also a shitty thing to do, and it was also wrong because the government also had a duty to Dingwall as an employer, and they didn’t act properly in that relationship.
Briefly, on this was he fired or did he quit thing. I’m not a labour lawyer, but in a nutshell, it’s called constructive dismissal. They didn’t say dude you’re fired, but they didn’t stand by him and fed him to the Conservative wolves, so he had no choice but to resign. Under labour law that’s not a voluntary resignation, it’s a forced resignation, hence he’s entitled to severance. It’s a confusing thing so I’m not surprised many were confused, and given the money on the line it’s natural an arbitrator was brought in to settle it.
So, I think I’ve adequately laid out why the last Liberal government screwed the pooch on this one. Now, I’d like to move on to the Conservatives. This whole thing started based on completely false and baseless accusations made against Dingwall around expense reports during his time as head of the Royal Canadian Mint. It was a Conservative partisan witch hunt that stirred up the shit storm around Dingwall, leading to the weak-kneed Liberal government’s abandoning him, him suing for severance, and the recent arbitrator’s ruling.
They Conservatives have a lot of responsibility for this mess but hey, that’s what being in opposition is all about, right? While a little accountability might be nice and perhaps an apology might be in order for falsely smearing the reputation of an innocent man, I won’t be holding my breath. If I were Dingwall though, I might consider legal action against my accusers.
Sure, opposition is opposition, but the Conservatives are the government now. They don’t have to take this “example of Liberal mismanagement and ineptitude” as Conservative MP Brian Pallister, one of the original witch hunters, recently called it.
If you were so right then, if you’ve done nothing wrong Mr. Harper, then use your perogative as Prime Minister to disallow this ruling and invite Mr. Dingwall to fight it out in court. If you were right all along, then you’ll win a righteous victory for the taxpayers of Canada. If you were wrong all along, then in addition to the severance payment you helped create you’ll be dinging (no pun intented) the taxpayers for even more in legal fees for yet another partisan political witch hunt.
But, since I know your motives are as pure as can be, you’ll pick up this righteous gauntlet for the people of Canada and take Dingwall to court. Otherwise, Mr. Pallister and your fellow Conservatives, please spare me your righteous indignation. It rings hollow.
Hail to the chief, cause she's the one we all say hail to
For those of you wondering where Commander-in-Chief has been, it's back with a new episode tonight at 10 pm on ABC.
Which seems like another occasion for me to ask why the heck doesn't the CBC, CTV or Global have a drama called The Langevin Block, The Hill, or something like that? I think a Canadian version of the West Wing would be pretty popular. The CBC tried something that showed promise for a few episodes, focusing on a new to Ottawa staffer working for a Sheilla Copps like minister on the outs with the new leader, but then it disappeared.
Still, I think there's potential there. I'd suggest tv producers get busy before our new heritage minister cuts all the funding that supports Canadian produced dramas.
State of the Unions
While Mac prepares to deliver her first State of the Union Address, Rod, out solo at a reception, winds up in a compromising position with an intern… while the cameras flash. An incriminating photo ends up on the cover of the papers the next day, humiliating Mac and threatening to overshadow her State of the Union. Meanwhile, Templeton sets out to sabotage Mac's Homeless Initiative Bill, forcing her to play political hardball in return. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Baaaad, clean guv'ment
As a public service, I will be regularly posting recent Conservative announcements and speeches in different dialects, via The Dialectizer, to make them more understandable. Today, I give you the accountability package release, in Jive talk.
Federal Accountability Act introduced
11 April 2006
"Wid de Federal Accountability Act, we is creatin' some new culture uh accountability dat gots'ta change fo'eva' de way business be done in
De Federal Accountability Act and Acshun Plan would, dig dis:
- reduce da damn oppo'tunity t'exert influence wid bre'd by bannin' co'po'ate, union, and large sucka'al political donashuns;
- cut Canadians confidence dat lobbyin' be done edically wid some five-year lobbyin' ban on fo'ma' da mans, deir aides, and senio' public servants;
- ensho' man sucka's who see problems in guv'ment know dey kin rap down by providin' iron-clad protecshun fo' whistleblowers; and
- ensho' man Canadians know how deir bre'd be spent by enhancin' de powa' fo' de Audito' General t'follow de bre'd.
"Dese measho' mans gots'ta strengden and streamline guv'ment so's it kin funcshun mo'e efficiently," head honcho Harpuh' said. "We is followin' drough on our commitment t'deliva' baaaad, clean guv'ment t'Canadians."
* * * * *
Also visit, dig dis: www, so cut me some slack, Jack.accountability. Slap mah fro!gc. Co' got d' beat!ca
Recommend this Post on Progressive BloggersTuesday, April 11, 2006
War, what's it good for? Absolutely, maybe, something?
I was reading the story yesterday about reports the Bush administration is preparing for an invasion of Iran, and I was reminded of a paper I wrote as a naive young high schooler on the topic Is War Ever Necessary, or something along those lines.
What got me thinking of that high school social studies exercise was this line in the Globe and Mail story, on the White House's view of the current Iranian regime:
… the White House regards Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler who must be stopped.
Clearly, Bush et al are looking for a new selling-point for any future potential military.
The
In that high school paper I wrote oh so many years ago I used the Versailles Treaty, Hitler, the Nazis and the
For the non-history majors out there, in the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW I a defeated
20/20, and The Prime Directive
So, a minor military exercise in 1936 could have prevented the bloodbath of World War Two. While in hindsight it makes a pretty compelling case for preemptive War, what was so clear even in 1940 wasn't so clear in 1936. Even if his scriblings in Mein Kamph were taken seriously at the time, who could have known what Hitler would have wrought?
So if we could go back in time to change history, should we? If science fiction shows have taught us anything it's that messing with the timeline can seriously screw things up, often for the worse. That's why Star Trek gave us the temporal prime directive. Go back and take out Hitler and democracy could flourish in
War if necessary, but not necessarily war
And that's why while it's intriguing, I can't buy Bush's playing the Nazi card to justify preemption vis a vis
So, I think preemption as a cause for war can't be legitimate unless there is an immediate, verifiable threat. Speculation of future actions just isn't good enough, because the consequences just can't be predicted, and there are still other options. If those options are exhausted, then preemption should only be considered through broad international consensus.
The carrot does need to be accompanied by a big stick, but walk softly with it unless you're about to get sucker punched.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Blackberries or Spyberries?
According to The Hill Times the Conservatives have banned Blackberries from their caucus meetings. It's going to be tough for the Conservative Crackberry addicts to go cold turkey. Tough love though, say I, no government-funded treatment programs. And jail the offenders!
But seriously, while the whole paternalistic aspect of this ban is amusing, it was this line in the story that caught my eye:
The House of Commons security officers told the Conservatives that the physical presence of cellphones and BlackBerries, even if turned off, could be used to transmit what's going on inside caucus to anyone outside without the knowledge of the person who is carrying the equipment.
You know, I've been a technology reporter for, oh, maybe nine years now and I've got to say that's news to me. Even turned off, a cell phone or Blackberry can be used to spy without the knowledge of the person carrying it? Seems highlily unlikely. Anyone at RIM, or with a modicum or technical know-how, or just some common sense, care to weigh in?
Funnily enough though, the story says Blackberries are still welcome at cabinet meetings, just as long as they're not used. Because anyone who knows Ottawa knows the really sensetive decisions are made at caucus, not cabinet.
RIP Leo McGarry
We knew it was coming after John Spencer's unfortunate passing but that didn't make it any easier Sunday when his character, Leo McGarry, passed away Sunday on The West Wing.
I'm a big WW fan, and while the show had begun to go downhill even before creator Aaron Sorkin left/was forced to leave, this has been a great season and as we get to the final few episodes I'm starting to realize how much I'm going to miss it. I guess we'll still have Commander-in-Chief, although it's not the same (and where did it go anyway?).
It was a difficult episode, with Leo's passing on the eve of the
I did feel there wasn't enough emotion in the response to his passing though. While perhaps we'll get it next week with the funeral episode, I did feel there was something missing and it didn't hit me until this morning as I listened to my MP3 player on the way to work what it was: the musical sequence.
It was something that Sorkin did so well, and even John Wells did passably at times, overlaying music and cutting the dialogue, and letting the actors emote in response to major events.
There was Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms on the walk to the MS press conference, Jeff Buckley's Hallelujah when CJ's Agent Donovan was shot and killed, the Shakespearean song later that episode as Special Forces killed Shariff, and Lisa Gerard's Sanvean as the
Music can really evoke a powerful emotional response and today still when I hear those songs it takes me back to those episodes. Leo deserved a song. Maybe next week.
On a P.S., apperantly Vinnick was going to win, but the writers decided after John's passing that loosing Leo and the election would have been to much for views to take. I have to say, with the show cancelled too, that would have been going out on a down note indeed.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Home again
Sorry for the absence of posts of late. I was down in San Francisco for much of the week on a business trip/vacation.
It was a fun trip. NetSuite had the tech media down for a launch event for its updated flagship product, and what made it fun was they held it at the home of one of their customers, baseball’s Oakland A’s. It was serendipitous, as I was just finishing-up the book Moneyball, about how A’s boss Billy Beane used statistical analysis to keep the low budget team competitive.
Serendipitous as well that the A’s opponent was the Evil Empire itself, the big-budget New York Yankees. It was a chilly night in the open-air McAffee Coliseum, but a great game as the A’s overcame a 4-0 deficit to beat the Yankees 8-4.
I also took a vacation day to explore the city, and had a lot of fun checking out the old ships along Fisherman’s Wharf, touring a WW II submarine, and enjoying the view from Coit Tower. Unfortunately the Alcatraz tours were all booked, that will have to wait until last time.
Busy days
And it seems I missed quite a busy few days while I was away. There was the throne speech reaction, while I paid little attention to, as throne speeches have never really mattered for much. Belinda Stronach shows more smarts than I ever gave her credit for by opting-out of the leadership, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff are in, and Bob Rae stays on the fence. The more he fence sits, the more Liberal he seems.
It’s shaping-up to be an interesting field, with Gerard Kennedy and Ken Dryden all but in too. The only sad thing (with apologies to Martha Hall-Findlay) is the lack of credible female candidates.
And for those who still insist on pooh-poohing the Liberal field, I leave you with this lists from another party’s race:
Announced they wouldn’t run:
Scott Brison, Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, Bernard Lord, Peter McKay, Brian Pallister, Jim Prentice, Bob Runciman, Larry Smith, Chuck Strahl.
Holly-crap, look at all the big names that took a pass! That party must be in big trouble, they won’t be in government for years and years!
Did run:
Stephen Harper, Belinda Stronach, Tony Clement.
Where’s the star power, where’s the big names? An unchirismatic MP/economist that Parliament for a while to run a lobby group, as heiress, and an uninspiring Harris-era ex-Minister? Bo-ring.
But did you know, that unchirismatic economist went on to be....the unchirismatic minority Prime Minister of Canada (for a little while anyway)?
And now you know the rest of the story.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Trouble is brewing at NDHQ
That's National Defence Headquarters for the acronym challenged, the home of the paperpushers that run our military, just across from the Rideau Centre in lovely downtown Ottawa. It seems though that all is not lovely between Canada's top soldier, Gen. Rick Hillier, and his new political boss, retired Brigadier-General and defence lobbyist, and new Minister of National Defence, Gordon O'Connor.
Jim Travers reports in the Toronto Star this morning that Hillier and O'Connor are already butting heads. Apparently Hillier wants to build a lighter, more flexible, operations-oriented military, while O'Connor wants to stop the Rushkies from taking West Berlin, and by lots of expensive equipment Hillier doesn't want from his defence contractor friends. Here's an excerpt:
Dismissed as a sausage general, O'Connor is accused of dragging the military back to a time when troops that weren't peacekeeping were in barracks and officers like him sat behind desks in Germany planning a never-to-be, set-piece confrontation with the Soviet Union.
Ouch, snap. Defence isn't one of the five priorities so Harper won't let O'Connor can't talk, and it isn't appropriate for Gen. Hillier to speak publicly. Still, things must be interesting behind the scenes on Colonel By Drive.
I know one thing for sure though. I wouldn't want to get into a scrap with Rick Hillier.
There won't be a word about it in today's throne speech, but Afghanistan isn't the only conflict overshadowing a new government trying to make a good first impression. At defence headquarters, a military desperate to move forward is pinned down between the opposing forces of past and future as they fight a quiet but deadly civil war.
Bluntly, the immensely popular Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier and his poorly regarded political master are butting heads.
(more)
Monday, April 03, 2006
Why didn't the flags come down?
According to a brief in 24 Hours today, no government flags were lowered to honour the Canadian soldiers that have died recently in
If the Liberals were still in government and I was a Blogging Tory, I'd go on about how this shows typical Liberal disdain and disrespect for our soldiers. Since, however, the Liberals aren't in government, and since I'm neither a Tory nor an asshole, I'll just say I hope the government provides an explanation here and takes remedial action in the future.
As the article says, flags were lowered to honour fallen Canadian soldiers in
A fuller version of the CP article ran yesterday in the
By CP
An online government listing of ceremonial flag-lowerings at the
All three soldiers died last month in
Are your parents ugly? You're lucky to be alive
In the really stupid academic studies department comes this entry. According to a
Jodie Sinnema, The
Published: Saturday, April 01, 2006
There's a good chance they're ugly, suggests new research from the
(more)
Sunday, April 02, 2006
It's conflict of interest season again
We can look forward to lots of conflict of interest stories next week.
Our air force needs a replacement for its ageing fleet of Hercules transport aircraft, and some of the main contenders are coming to Ottawa this week eyeing the $12 billion-plus deal. Luckily for Conservative defence minister Gordon O'Connor, at least one of the contenders aren't strangers. He used to work for one of them.
Back when he was a lobbyist with Hill & Knowlton (and by back when, I mean way back in 2004) one of O'Connor's clients was Airbus. And now, Airbus is one of the contenders for that billion-dollar contract, and O'Connor is the minister of national defence. I bet they're pleased as punch.
While naming a former defence lobbyist your defence minister is just, well, dumb and arrogant, this particular contract shouldn't have been an issue. That's because, since the military needs these new planes rather badly, some months before the election the Liberals attempted to fast track a process to buy new Hercules C-130J aircraft from Boeing. These were the aircraft the military wanted, and a fast track process would ensure they got them more quickly.
Not so quick, though. The Conservatives balked and raised all kinds of hell, and the Liberals backed-off. They wanted Airbus to be able to bid too, even if it meant the military waiting years longer to get the aircraft. And who was leading the charge for the Conservatives? If you guessed their defence critic, and former Airbus lobbyist, Gordon O'Connor, that give yourself a pat on the back.
So, defence critic O'Connor helped kill the contract going to the competitors of his former clients, and now defence minister O’Connor gets to help decide who does get the contract. If it goes to Boeing after all he looks pretty stupid for the wasted time, money, and delay in the military getting the aircraft, and if it goes to Airbus he looks really bad because even if he doesn't interfere one iota, he is in a completely untenable position because there would still seem to be to anyone with a pulse at the very least the appearance of be a conflict of interest.
Anyway, as the Ottawa Sun reports it looks like the aerospace road show is coming to town, towing the conflict of interest wagon right along with it. Should be fun.
Defence contractors lining up to land plum contracts
By STEPHANIE RUBEC, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU
Armed with dirt on their rivals, the world's largest defence firms are converging on Ottawa this week in anticipation of a flood of billion-dollar federal contracts under the new Conservative government.
(more)
P.S. And it’s not just Airbus. O’Connor also lobbied for BAE Systems, General Dynamics, and some 24 other defence companies. I wonder how many will now be getting-in on that “flood of billion-dollar contracts”?
Recommend this Post on Progressive BloggersConservatives not picking-up the phone
Last week I talked-about how the softwood dispute is only getting worse and its impact spreading, despite the campaign bluster of the Conservatives.
In particular, I linked to a story in the Comox Valley Record on Woodland Flooring, a small floor manufacturer in Comox, B.C. that is being hit hard by a recent decision by the George W. Bush administration to escalate the dispute by extending the scope of the tariff. The cost of Woodland's product has increased by 25 per cent as a result.
Well, it seems the local NDP MP has taken up their cause and will be making this an issue when the House of Commons returns next week. Look for questions from their trade critic on this in question period. But, as a follow-up Friday in the local paper makes clear, it seems the Conservatives could care less how this 11-person small business, and so many like it across Canada, is getting screwed.