I was part of Blue Jays Nation last night at the Rogers Centre, but I’m demo’ing the new Motorla Q smartphone from Telus right now for my day job right now, so while surfing between innings I followed the great nation debate at Coyne, Cherniak and Calgary Grit’s blogs. Ironically, the Jays beat the Nationals 8-4.
As I read the threads and comments I was reminded of the two Canadian studies classes I took while a student at Carleton University. (On a tangential side-note, also in both classes was Jean-Pierre Kingsley’s nephew.) The classes were filled with lots of this sort of talk, and lots of the political correctness beloved in the halls of academia. Melting post versus mosaic, what’s a nation, yada yada. I considered a double Canadian Studies major at one point, but the second year course got just a little too stuffy and pretentious for my tastes.
My take on this whole thing is that sure, the Quebecois are a nation. Not in the country sense, but in the sense of a group of people with shared culture and values. I think it’s pretty hard to deny the Quebecois (not Quebec) fit that definition. I’ve heard critics, particularly on the right, say to admit that is playing into separatists hands, because most people don’t understand different definitions of the word nation, so we should just shut-up and dodge the question.
To that I say three things: One, you have a pretty low opinion of Canadians, Sir. Two, definitions of words are important, and I think Canada should be led by a leader who understands what words mean. Three, leaders don’t dodge the tough questions.
So, the Quebecois are a nation. They’re distinct. What does that mean for Canada? Not a whole lot, I don’t think. We have many First Nation nations in Canada as well, hence the term First Nations, I suppose. You could argue the Newfoundlanders are a nation. They’re certainly a distinct society, as is much of the Maritimes. If you’re distinct, then by virtue of not being you am I not distinct from you, and therefore, distinct as well?
Iggy wants to re-open the constitution to recognize Quebec as a nation? That’s crazy-stupid on so many levels. First, opening the constitution at all is dumb. Second, the Quebecois people are a nation, the province of Quebec is a geographic region containing the Quebecois people and other nations, including First Nations. Moreover, if Iggy wants to recognize Quebec or the Quebecois as a nation constitutionally, how about all the other nations in Canada? They’re going to want their piece too. And what does it all mean? What’s the point? Pour quoi, Michael?
I feel that Canada is a nation of nations, a community of communities. The distinctness of our parts makes the whole distinct, and unique. That’s our strength, that we don’t insist on assimilation. The clichéd melting pot v. mosaic. I’ll tell you one thing though. I may call myself a BCer in Toronto, but first and foremost, even if I don’t drink beer, I Am Canadian. Not a British Columbian, an Ontarioin, or (shudder) a Torontonian, but a Canadian. Period.
Friday, June 30, 2006
You say nation, I say potato
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
A not so Angry blast from the just five months past
Apropos of really absolutely nothing, while catching-up on my blog reading this evening I was reminded of this story from waaaaay back in January, in the Brandon Sun. The bolding is mine.
By Curtis Brown
Portage-Lisgar MP Brian Pallister will have some extra, taxpayer-funded help with him when he stops in western Manitoba next week to suss out how much support is out there for him to become the next leader of the provincial Progressive Conservative party.
Pallister, who announced late last week he will tour the province this month to size up support for a leadership bid, said yesterday that staff from his federal MP’s office will assist him as he meets with Manitoba Tories.
Criticized already for waiting until after the Jan. 23 federal election to make a decision on the provincial leadership, Pallister is now taking more heat as he will not only continue to draw his MP’s salary, but will also use his federally-funded staff to help him sound out his leadership prospects.
(more)
A snap election: Folly or brilliance?
I read with interest a piece in the Toronto Star the other day saying that the Liberals were planning in case Stephen Harper calls or arranges a snap election this fall, before the new leader in place.
There's no mention of counterfeiting to give the cash-strapped party a few dollars to spend in such a campaign, but the talk of virtual balloting to elect a new leader is interesting. And if that whole donation limit thing isn't sorted-out, it may be necessary even without an early election.
Logistics aside though, I wonder, would Harper be able to get away with arranging an election this fall, just nine months after the last election? (Pop quiz: What was the last minority government to last 9 months?)
He would need help from the BQ or the NDP to do it (assuming the Liberals don't play along), and it would be interesting to see which one would cooperate. There's always the possibility the GG would ask the other parties if they want to test the House
But let's assume that doesn't happen and Harper gets his October election. Will it be a brilliant strategy that leads to a huge majority, or crass political opportunism that gets punished by the voters?
I tend to lead more toward the latter than the former. A lot will depend on how the government brings itself down. There's always game playing and spin here, but I find it difficult to see how Harper could frame it in such a way to convince the public another election is necessary after just nine months, while the opposition is leaderless, and it's not just striking when the iron is hot and he thinks he can get his majority.
As a blogger, I'd enjoy posting quotes from just last month when he brought in his fixed election date legislation to stop governments from timing elections for political gain. I think it would be a fun campaign.
So, what would the result be? I think it would backfire on Harper, big-time. It would not get him his majority; rather, I think he'd be punished for his blatant opportunism and hypocrisy. How will it all shake-out though? It depends.
The Liberals are poor but a newly-minted leader would have some sheen. However, will voters be willing to go back to them? The NDP made gains in January and has potential for growth in the West, but will people lend Jack their votes again? The BQ has been fighting tooth and nail with the Tories in Quebec: Flaherty's fiscal imbalance comments help them, the PQ being linked to adscam hurts them.
What will be telling is how the votes of those pissed at Harper's early call divide amongst the opposition parties. Harper already has a pretty slim minority, so I don't think he'd be able to maintain it. At best for him, I'd see a weakened Tory minority, with the balance of power shifted to the NDP. A more likely scenario in my view would be a Liberal minority government, possibly with the NDP in the driver's seat.
What do you think? Take the poll on the left, if I managed to set it up correctly.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Harper is hindering democracy: Gerry Nicholls
Last week in a post about the Harper government’s decision to limit average Canadians right to donate to political parties to $1000, I referenced Harper’s old lobby group, the National Citizens Coalition, and its fight a few years back against caps on election spending by lobby.
Given that the NCC had said then that money=speech, I wondered why Harper favoured gagging average Canadians while giving lobby groups a bullhorn. I’m still wondering, but one thing I’m not wondering any longer is what Harper’s old friends at the NCC think about their old boss’ donation cap. Turns out they don’t think much of it at all.
In fact, in an article in the Globe and Mail in April, NCC vice-president Gerry Nicholls said it was bad for democracy. Here’s a quote:
…Prime Minister Stephen Harper should rethink his plan to limit political contributions. Either he should raise the limit or, preferably, scrap it altogether.
Mr. Harper certainly has a mandate to bring about change.
But the changes should help democracy, not hinder it.
Now, let me be clear I don’t agree with Gerry on everything in this piece. I believe in capping corporate donations. I believe in the per vote subsidy. And I don’t believe in unlimited personal donations, I thought $5400 was reasonable. I think though that he does make some good points on why capping personal donations to $1000 is wrong and likely ineffective, and I found the point about shutting-out new parties interesting. And since the NCC can hardly be called Liberal hacks I wanted to pass the article on.
Wed Apr 19 09:24:30 2006
NCC Articles
By: Gerry Nicholls / globeandmail.com
Not everything contained in the new Conservative government's recently introduced Accountability Act will make government more accountable.
For instance, the part of the act that would further limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to political parties won't make government better or honest. If anything, these limits will trample on individual rights and, ultimately, undermine our democratic system.
(more)
Beer, blogs and marketing
Am I an opinion influencer? Does my little blog sway minds? I find that highly doubtful (just in case it does, vote Dion please) but someone must think so. Judging from an e-mail I received today it seems the trend of companies trying to use bloggers as a marketing tool as come to Canada, and if random blogs across Canada suddenly begin jabbering on about Kokanee beer we’ll know it’s working.
The note was from a pr person at Toronto’s Hill & Knowlton. Now, I often deal with H&K in my day job (they rep HP and many other tech companies) so it was a little awkward, but since the e-mail went to my Hotmail address and not my work account I gather they’re just targeting bloggers and didn’t recognize the name or realize I’m an ink-stained wretch by day.
Anyway, here’s the note (some info I've X'd out):
From: "XXXXXXX" XXXX.XXXX@hillandknowlton.ca
To: jjedras@hXXXail.com
Subject: www.rockymountaintruth.ca - what do you think?
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:23:07 -0400
Hi Jeff,
Given your interests in Canadian politics and hockey (two great Canadian traditions), we thought you might also be interested to hear about what we’re sharing with other select Canadian bloggers.
We’ve been asked by Kokanee to help highlight to Canadians what it is that makes a “real” mountain beer, and what others in the beer industry only claim to be “real”. We’re basically trying to set the record straight, and let Canadians know they’re being misled about something that many take seriously: beer.
We’re inviting a few folks to take a sneak peak at a web site Kokanee will be launching in the next day or so. If you’re inclined, feel free to share this with your readers, and to rip the photos and images. You can check it out at www.rockymountaintruth.ca.
We’d also like to provide you with news about some of the exclusive events coming up in your region. Let us know if you want to be on our list.
We’re excited about being able to talk directly to Canadians, so don’t hesitate to give us your feedback.
Cheers
XXXX
Well, I certainly feel important being called a “select blogger.” Fess up though, who else got a note too? Anyway, I took a gander and it’s a somewhat cheeky, amusing site. For all their laying the smack down on Coors for brewing their beer in Toronto (Etobicoke?) though, you may find a little history lesson interesting. Kokanee tried to launch in the Ontario market in the late 1990s, like Coors with a plant in the Ontario. When people found out it wasn’t actually “brewed in the rockies” the backlash was so strong Kokanee withdrew from the Ontario market and only recently came back, shipping product from B.C. So, a little beer harpocracy but also a lesson learned, and now exploited against a rival.
Anyway, this trend of companies trying to woo bloggers and influence them to pitch their products has been around in the U.S. for a while but I wasn’t aware it had come to Canada. It’s interesting. I guess it’s a sign blogs are being taken more seriously, but can/will it be effective? That remains to be seen.
Really though, in theory it's little different than the relationship between the media and corporations. Companies buy display ads in a newspaper or on blogs through Google Ads, or they can attempt to get "earned media" by pitching a story idea to a reporter or a bloger and hope they print or post an article, and that the coverage is favourable. But is it ethical? Now that’s another question. If bloggers become corporate shills then not so much. If they’re upfront and honest, then I’d say it’s fine.
But anyway, it's dinner time and I need to go grill some Johnson brats on my Black and Decker indoor grill, and pour myself a glass of Diet Cherry Vanilla Doctor Pepper and have a bowl of Coffee Crisp Ice Cream (on sale this week at Price Choppers) for desert.
So then, what do I as a “select blogger” think of Kokanee? Well, there’s just one problem: I don’t drink beer. :) But, if Bacardi or Captain Morgan are reading...
Et tu, Joe?
Besides being the right thing to do, sometimes doing the principled thing can be good politics too.
I had that thought today when I read a story about how the Harper government refused to accept amendments to its "Accountability" Act last week that would have restricted donations from minors, much to Joe Volpe's dismay.
The irony of course is that Harper made great hay over the Joe Volpe campaign's acceptance of over $27,000 in "kiddie donations" to his leadership campaign, donations which he later returned without admitting he'd really done anything wrong or showing much remorse. It was and is a black-eye for the Liberals.
The argument can be made that it is quite hypocritical for Harper to make political hay out of the practice on the one hand, and refuse measures that would stop it on the other. There's an attack to be made there…but by Joe Volpe? That's the theatre of the absurd.
While Joe is the worst possible Liberal to point out Harper's hypocrisy on this issue, the fact is there aren't any other Liberals that can make any traction on the issue either. That's because the party leadership as a whole refused to call Volpe to account on the kiddie donation issue.
If he had been harshly chastised/kicked-out of the race, then we would have some standing to say we took action, and when we tried to bring in rules to prevent it from happening again Harper refused. But because we didn't take action then our belated action now rings doubly hollow.
The moral being the Liberal leadership should have done the right thing in the first place on this issue and kicked Volpe out. It was the right thing to do, and now time has shown it would have been the politically right thing to do as well. Instead, Harper gets away with his cake and the eating thereof.
But politics aside
That's the political strategy at play here. Policy-wise, I'm not sure I agree with the Liberals on this one. It must be snowing in hell because I actually agree with Pierre "F-Bomb" Poilievre, who made the point that the problem isn't with youth donating money, but with parents funneling donations through their kids, something that is already illegal.
Pierre said the solution for that is enforcement, and he's right. As an aside, it would have been nice (and politically prudent) for the Cons to have proposed measures to beef-up enforcement.
Generally though, he's right. An outright ban on donations by those under 18 would be unfair and a gross over-reaction to the Volpe mess. Youth should be able to donate their own funds to a political party if they so choose. And this isn't just donations; it's also attending fundraisers and conventions that would be impacted by an outright ban.
What's needed is the enforcement of rules already on the books, a little discipline and brains from campaigns and some leadership from the leadership, not an outright ban on donations by youth.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
It’s not just about the leader: we need real reform
I was in Montreal on Thursday and Friday at the invitation of Intel Corp., they’re sponsoring the BMW Sauber Team in this weekend’s F1 race and they brought in some technology media to see how BMW is using Intel technology to gain a competitive edge for their drivers. And I hope to be back in Montreal again in December for competition of another sort: the Liberal leadership convention.
But as important as picking a new leader is, it is not the only factor crucial to the revitalization of our party. In fact, it may not even be the most important one, as the leader’s ability to reform the party apparatus is limited.
It will be overshadowed by the leadership race and perhaps viewed as an afterthought, but the executive positions in the LPC that will be filled in Montreal are far more important to reforming out party. And it’s not just the LPC executive but that of all the PTAs across the country, like the LPC(BC) and the LPC(0). If these positions are continually filled by the same elites, nothing will ever change in our party.
At the LPC(O) convention in May only one executive position was contested and went to election, and the rest were acclaimed. I don’t know any of the executive members so I can’t attest to their competency, but I do know acclamation is never good for democracy.
At that same convention LPC president Mike Eizenga gave a great speech where he pointed to the need for drastic reforms in our party apparatus: shrink the organization by slashing commissions and the huge national executive structure, and implement a national membership list. And fundraising is still pathetically mismanaged.
It sounded great, and I agreed with him. But as a veteran Liberal friend pointed-out to me, we’ve heard this umpteen times before and things ain’t changed a lick. Why? Because it’s a herculean task that no one as been willing to take on. Mike has been president for a year and a half and his term is ending this winter, and this was the first I’ve heard of it from him. Speaches are great but action is needed, and this smacks of too little, too late.
Also, too many people have comfortable positions that give them power and influence within the party that they don’t want to give up, even if it would be for the greater good. And that’s the problem: it’s not in the interests of the elites to change, so why would they?
As the party grassroots, we need to get more active in looking at the positions being filled beyond the party leader. And not just at LPC, but at the PTAs and commissions as well. Seek out the candidates and ask them where they actually stand on party reform, get them to commit to specific actions if they’re elected, even if it means the ending of their position.
And if the candidates are just the same old party hacks that mouth platitudes but make clear they won’t change anything, that we need to find candidates that will change things or even run ourselves.
As the grassroots we have the power to change things, but only if we choose to get active and exercise that power. It is our complacency that has let to a bloated and ineffective organization unable to respond to change; only by out getting involved will it ever change.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Opposition, and ending the cycle of stupidity
I was going to write a post about the dismal performance the Liberals have turned in as an opposition party, but instead I’ll just direct you over to Behind the Headlines as I agree with pretty much everything Zac said.
On a semi-related note, while we do have a lot of work to do, as Warren Kinsella said in a (mostly) great post yesterday reports of the death of the Liberal party have been greatly exaggerated.
However, while Warren is mostly bang-on there are a few points he makes that are far from it, and illustrate the problems we still have to overcome within the party:
The Martin period was an aberration - but, ultimately, seasonal and arguably necessary. Like cicadas, Liberals turn every twenty years or so to political disasters (eg. Turner, Martin), get reminded why out-of-touch, out-of-work business executives make lousy leaders, and then get back to finding real Liberals... I'm not going anywhere near the LPC until the Martinite thugs are exiled to Serbia or, ideally, Mars…the Martinite elements in the Liberal Party, whose names are interchangeable with "losing,"…
I guess he just couldn’t resist a few more shots. And I had such high hopes after the love-in a few months back. Anyway, whether Warren wants to be involved or not is his prerogative, but his rehashing of the Chretien/Martin feud is sad. We need to move past this.
Even though I was rather amused when he accused me of being a “Board Member” over on the defunct Comments Please board during the campaign, the fact is I had already made my break with the Martinites and it was long in coming. Their tactics were brutal and divisive, their campaign strategy incompetent and their attempt at governing, well, let’s just say it was unfortunate.
So does that make them the devils incarnate? No. If they had all went as a group to one candidate I’d be wary, but that didn’t happen. Members of all camps are working together for all candidates. Wounds are being healed, because we’re all Liberals.
No one is innocent in this feud. I’m no historian (well, that was my major, but there was no course in LPC Drama and Intrigue) but my understanding is this goes at least back to the Trudeau era, if not further. Turner beats Chretien for the leadership (ref. Warren’s “out-of-work business executives make lousy leaders” comment), Turner loses two elections while feeling Chretien’s people are constantly undermining his leadership. Chretien then beats Martin for the leadership after Turner quits, and Martin keeps on organizing for the next one, and/or constantly undermines him, depending on your perspective, with many of Turner’s old supporters now backing Martin and carrying on the old fight against the guy they view as ruining their guy’s tenure.
The point being no one is as clean as the virgin snow here. While they each have their flaws, I like both Jean and Paul. But it is time for the cycle of stupidity to stop. I'm sick to death of it, and hearing about Chretienites and Martinites. Are we going to wage this asinine war within the Liberal Party for another 20 years? I surely hope not. It’s time to look to the future, not refight the battles of the past.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Are you !^%# kidding me?!
I'm planning to write more on Liberal renewal and our performance in opposition tonight when I'm home from work, but I saw this story that we're backing down on the Ambrose motion and I couldn't let it go without a brief comment.
OTTAWA (CP) - The Tories won the latest game of political brinksmanship Wednesday as the Liberals refused to support an NDP motion calling for the resignation of Environment Minister Rona Ambrose.
If the motion had passed, it would have gone to a vote in the House of Commons next fall and possibly triggered an election. Liberals on the Commons environment committee said they'd abstain from voting on the motion calling for the resignation of Environment Minister Rona Ambrose.
(more)
This is just a stupid move by the Liberal opposition. Harper had no grounds to call this a confidence motion. The government can't just make anything it wants a confidence motion. In fact, during the Martin minority I believe Harper said exactly that.
Liberal environment critic John Godfrey… denied that the Liberals were abstaining because they don't want to face an early election.
I don't buy it John. Walks like a duck, etc. We've set a precedent, and now Harper can make his breakfast order a confidence motion if he wants to. There was no way he could have triggered an election here, and if he'd tried he'd have looked like a dope and it would have backfired big time. Instead, we look like spineless wimps and he's a strong leader.
We've got a lot of learning to do about being in opposition. More later. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
I thought money was speech?
There's been much written about how the proposed $1000/year individual political donation limit in the Conservative's Orwellianly-named Accountability Act may scuttle the Liberal leadership convention, and that's true. But I think our self-interest is clouding a more important question here: why does Harper want to limit donations by private Canadian citizens to $1000 in the first place?
I was all for Jean Chretien's campaign finance reforms, which sharply curtailed corporate donations, even though it put the Liberal Party into a financial hole it still hasn't been able to dig itself out of. And I agreed because of concern the influence corporate and union donations can have on the political process. It makes sense to limit that and I agreed, even if some did call it "dumber than a bag of hammers." And you can't call it a partisan-motivated change, because it screwed the corporate donation-reliant Liberals and favoured the Cons and NDP, who get more individual donations.
So, what then, prey tell, is Mr. Harper's rationale for limiting the amount private Canadian citizens can donate to a political party to $1000? Why was $5400 too high? I haven't heard him articulate that. Does he think private citizens are having too much influence on the political process?
His buddy/potential successor in New Brunswick, Conservative Premier Bernard Lord, has proposed legislation that would limit individual donations in his province to $3000? Why is $3000 OK for New Brunswick, but more than $1000 is unacceptable federally?
I'm sure it's only a coincidence that the Conservatives (and the NDP, who support the measure) get more smaller donations while the Liberals get less larger ones, so it's primarily the Liberals that will take the hit here. I'm sure he has some higher morality here than just trying to pass laws to strangle his political opposition.
It wasn't that long ago that Harper was the head of the National Citizens Coalition and the NCC was suing the federal government, arguing restricting third party advertising during election campaigns was unconstitutional. The government didn't want well-funded lobby groups swaying election campaigns with unlimited ad spending, but the NCC argued money was speech and shouldn't be curtailed.
So, tell me Mr. Harper, if money is indeed speech why do you feel average citizens should be silenced but well-heeled special interests and lobby groups should be given a bullhorn?
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Canucks promote from within
Well, looks like my Vancouver Canucks have a new head coach. He's not a Sutter, but hopefully he can turn this group of talented but lazy, unmotivated millionares around. I'm just happy it's not Pat Quinn. Next up for Dave Nonis, dump a few disruptive fellows from the dressing room, re-sign Jovo and Carter and lock-up the Sedins!
Canucks hire Vigneault as head coach
Alain Vigneault is the new coach of the Vancouver Canucks.
The NHL team made the announcement on Tuesday afternoon, promoting Vigneault from their AHL team in Winnipeg and giving him the task of motivating a team GM Dave Nonis says needs a "kickstart."
The former Montreal Canadiens bench boss will take over for Marc Crawford, who was fired in April after the Canucks missed the playoffs for the first time since 2000.
"I know this group might not have met expectations, but there's a solid base here," Vigneault said. "Obviously, there's some things that are going to be done personnel-wise.
"I'm going to make sure (the team is) well-prepared, works hard and plays with commitment and passion. All my teams have done that."
The Manitoba Moose were third in the AHL's North Division with 100 points under Vigneault this year and advanced to the second round of the AHL playoffs.
The 45-year-old Vigneault has spent most of the past 20 years as a head coach.
In addition to leading the Canadiens from 1997 until 2000, he's spent time as an assistant with the Ottawa Senators and a head coach in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League with Trois-Rivieres, Hull, Beauport and PEI.
Dead minister walking
If you'd asked me in February to place bets on who would be the first Conservative minister to walk the plank I'd have probably put my money on Stockwell Day, or maybe David Emerson.
Now, however, with his health minister mired in scandal the question seems to be how much longer will it be before Stephen Harper votes Tony Clement off the island?
The pressure would seem to be mounting on Tony, the former Mike Harris health minister in Ontario, and one third of the dynamic field of candidates that captured the imagination of Canadians in the exciting 2004 Conservative leadership race.
His troubles began two weeks ago when it was revealed the health minister holds a 25 per cent stake in pharmaceutical manufacturer Prudential Chem. Seem like a potential conflict of interest for a health minister? I'd think so. Tony, however, said he talked with his good friend the ethics commissioner (you may recall the Conservatives respect him so much they want to fire him) who said it's cool, so leave him alone.
Here's how Harper's communications honcho was talking about the commissioner in March. Now, though, he's the bees' knees.
"The Prime Minister is loath to co-operate with an individual whose decision-making ability has been questioned, moreover who has been found in contempt of the House," said Sandra Buckler, the prime minister's director of communications.
Back to Tony, he met further media questions with a "none of your business," thereby demonstrating that higher standard of accountability the Conservatives promised…or not. Perhaps he should have just referenced his entitlements, and his entitlement to them.
I like how the Montreal Gazette put it in an editorial:
Imagine yourself, newly arrived in Ottawa, as the freshman Minister of Cheeseburgers. Before moving into your office, might you be inclined first to divest yourself of your personal interest in Harvey's? Particularly if your interest amounted to a whopping one-quarter ownership of the company?
Clement even throws out the requisite "the Liberals did it too" defence that I'm sure Canadians just love, as days of repeated questioning start to get to him. It's the grown-up version of "but he started it!"
"I'm not responsible to the Liberal opposition to conduct myself ethically, especially considering that Liberal opposition. So forgive me for being hot under the collar, but this is a nonsensical witch hunt that has nothing to do with reality."
Still, while his behaviour flies in the face of years of Conservative proselytizing about morality, higher standards of accountability and ethics (even Paul Martin selling CSL AND recusing himself wasn't good enough for them while in opposition) he probably could have rode the storm out.
The other shoe has dropped on Mr. Clement, however, with the news this week he hired a senior campaign staffer and long-time crony to his department on a $25,000, un-tendered contract for 33 days of work. Coincidentally, the maximum amount allowed for un-tendered contracts. He got $125/hour. Hey, I wonder where the Conservatives are on raising the minimum wage for ordinary Canadians?
Anyway, said the Toronto Sun:
Haugh has also played a leading role in several of Clement's political campaigns, including his leadership bids for the federal and provincial Conservatives and the January election.
Was he rewarded with taxpayer dollars for services rendered to the party and to the minister? I don't know, but I think we can agree this smells pretty darned bad.
But wait, there's more. The fellow is also head of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association, a lobby group for the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. Say, which federal ministry do you think they're interested in lobbying?
That's three strikes on Tony; so when is Stephen Harper going to call him out? It's time for you to do the Dear Leader a favour Tony and resign. Go with the "I want to spend more time with my family" line, that's always a winner.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Babies, bathwater and leaders
Well, it seems like our quiet little leadership race is starting to heat-up a little bit, and the gloves are beginning to come off. In particular, I wanted to respond to a lot of criticism I've been reading in recent days that Stephane Dion is the epitome of the old guard of the Martin/Chretien days and that somehow makes him unclean.
Much of this talk seems to be coming from Gerard Kennedy supporters upset with Dion's statement in their debate on the weekend that Gerard hadn't put forward any policy ideas, a statement they find unfair. So, it's natural they would want to lash-out while defending their candidate. I didn't watch the debate (saw Nacho Libre instead, it sucked bad) but my understanding was that, after a swipe by Gerard, Stephane's statement was specifically referring to Gerard not putting forward any ideas in their debating exchange, not in the campaign at large as some seem to have implied/thought. An important distinction, I think.
But anyway, I really wanted to address this Dion as the old guard argument. That's an interesting one. If you go by caucus endorsements Gerard has twice as many as Stephane and Michael Ignatieff is the runaway leader, so it's hard to say he's the establishment candidate. Nor is he the only former federal minister that's a candidate, there's also five others. But, I guess since he's breaking away from that pack it's only natural he gets tagged with it.
And there has long been a debate: do we need a fresh face from the past 13 years, to distance ourselves from assorted scandals? It's easy to say yes, isn't it? But let's look at this more closely. Is it really a fresh coast of paint that we need, or is it new ideas? Is is substantive change that's needed, or just new window dressing? Look at the Wikipedia endorsements page, all the candidates have establishment backers. It's easy to look for a new messiah to rally behind but it's not smart, and it's not the answer.
Yes, we need a new start, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. We need to BALANCE our need for freshness with being proud of the good we accomplished over 13 years in government.
Contrary to Conservative spin the last 13 years were not all gloom and scandal, and we should stop pretending that they were. We took a country teetering on the edge of insolvency and we balanced the budget, that's a monumental accomplishment. We followed it up with years of surpluses that have been reinvested into our social fabric and returned to Canadians through targeted income tax cuts that actually benefit those Canadians that need them the most. Our investments in university research helped reverse the brain drain, bringing Canada's best and brightest home. We worked to create a climate for investment that has helped bring unemployment to lows not seen in years.
We have a record to be proud of and we need to stop running away from it. Yes, Stephane Dion was a member of that government. I think that's a plus. I also happen to think a few years of experience at the federal cabinet table might come in useful to a future Prime Minister.
As I've blogged before, it's time to stop apologizing for being Liberals. We need new ideas and a new direction; I think Stephane brings that to the race. We also need to remind people of the good we did during our time in government, and I think he can do that too.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Narrowing the field: Dion, Rae and Ignatieff
Via Inkless Wells, La Presse columnist Michael Auger weighs in on yesterdays’ Liberal leadership debate and he says there were only three candidates on the stage that have what it takes to lead a G8 country: Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae.
Auger writes money and organization aside, these three are the only ones that have shown they have the policy heft, the ideas and leadership needed to lead the country.
The article is in French, but if you run it through the Babel Fish translator you can get the gist.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Hypocrisy of the day, Liberal edition
I know it’s so easy to pick on Joe Volpe that it almost seems unfair, like taking candy from a baby or something. But I just couldn’t resist when I read this comment from him in the Globe today talking about, what else, Afghanistan:
“I haven't heard one person yet — not one person — support a changed mandate in Afghanistan,” Mr. Volpe said in an interview this week. “In fact, if the truth must be said, they want us out of there — period.”
That’s odd, not one person Joe? Not even some people, say, around the Liberal cabinet table a few months back when OUR government decided to change the mandate? You were a member of that cabinet Joe, did you miss that meeting? Maybe you were taking a potty break when the topic came up? Or did you just put your fingers in your ears and go “la la la”?
Friday, June 16, 2006
A Friday funny
I nearly laughed out loud (or LOL'd if you prefer) when, while reading a story from the Ottawa Citizen this morning about the location of the RCMP's new HQ, I came across this line written by reporter Kathryn May:
The Harper government, which won the last election on its promises of accountability, is hypersensitive to any suggestions of cronyism and conflict of interest.
They are? Really? I mean, come on. Let's be serious here for a little bit.
If that is the case, apparently health minister Tony Clement didn't get the memo. When it came out that the health minister owned stock in a pharmaceutical company and had no intention of selling it, or putting it in a blind trust, that raised, you know, suggestions of a possible conflict of interest. How did our hypersensitive minister respond to reporter's questions on the topic? "It's none of your business," said Clement.
Then there's the former conservative staffers becoming lobbyists. Or former senior Conservative MP and 2005/6 campaign co-chair John Reynolds becoming a non-law practicing, non-lobbying advisor to companies that want to lobby the government. But he doesn't lobby himself. If he's hypersensitive to anything, it's criticism.
And then there's my favourite example, good ol' Gordon O'Connor. Harper wasn't too hypersensitive to appoint a former lobbyist for the defence industry as his defence minister. Passing out many billions of spending amongst his former clients and their competitors? No potential conflict to be hypersensitive about there, no sir.
And I could go on. But seriously Katherine, before writing something like that check to see if it passes the laugh test. Thanks for the funny though.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Enough media spin...(nearly) all these candidates are great
It's a beautiful, warm sunny Thursday in Toronto, and I've taken the day off work to take in the Jays/Orioles afternoon game at Skydome. But before I head downtown, I wanted to say I’m getting really annoyed with the opposition spin on the quality of the candidates in the leadership race.
The same, old tired line was parroted again this morning in an editorial in the Edmonton Sun. Yes, I know, reading the Sun Media chain papers is bad for my blood pressure, but a certain news site had linked to it. Here’s a taste:
If a retreaded NDP ex-premier and an alleged Harvard intellectual with minimal connections with the party he wants to lead are the pick of the litter in the federal Liberal leadership race, then all of Stephen Harper's problems are little ones.
And the revitalized and re-energized Conservative party's term in office should be a long and fruitful one.
As I read this “alleged” editorial I thought at first they had called Rae retarded. They didn’t, but that was about the intellectual level this piece of verbal diarrhea strived for. And who says Ignatieff and Rae are the frontrunners, pray tell? Anyway, I’m so sad that our leadership race hasn’t inspired the ultra-Conservative editorial writers at the Edmonton Sun to rush out and get Pierre Trudeau tattoos.
I think Liberals feel a little differently though. While there are definitely tiers of candidates, and Volpe can take off, I think we’ve got a great crop of candidates here. I’m looking forward to the next election campaign.
And you know, perspective tends to change over time. Let’s rewind back to the Conservative leadership race in 2004, and how their three leadership candidates were viewed at the time:
Stephen Harper: Been the Alliance leader for a short while, before that headed a ring-wing lobby group. Boring, uncharismatic, angry, an alleged academic and economist. Can an Albertan break the party into Ontario?
Tony Clement: Was the health minister in the oh-so popular Mike Harris government in Ontario, at which time he did not own any stock in pharmaceutical companies. Has some support in Ontario, but lacks charisma and can’t excite anyone.
Belinda Stronach: Auto parts magnate and heiress, a political novice that helped bring the Alliance and PCs together. Good friend of Bill Clinton. Brings excitement and glamour, but questions if she has the intellectual heft, and some question her true commitment to Conservatism.
Because wow, aren’t those just the three most fantastic candidates you could ever imagine? You can see why that exciting leadership race captured the imagination of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Their debates were riveting TV watched by millions. Allegedly.
And today, one of those unassuming candidates is…the Prime Minister of Canada. And now you know…the rest, of the story.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
A Tory blogsphere one act play
Setting: A coffee shop (think Tim Horton's) in Anytownsville, Canada
Players: Coffee Shop Employee, Average Blogging Tory One, Average Blogging Tory Two
The employee clears an empty coffee mug and wipes down the counter, the bell ringing on the door as our two Tory bloggers walk into the coffee shop and grab two seats at the counter. The employee smiles and walks over.
Employee: Hey guys, what'll ya have?
BT 1: Cuppa' joe, plain, none of that fancy pants lefty liberal cappuccino crap.
BT 2: Yeah, same here Mac.
Employee: You got it guys.
The employee pours two steaming cups of coffee and sets them down in front of our bloggers, who each take a sip.
BT 1: Yeah, that's the stuff. Good Canadian coffee, not like that Starbucks swill.
Employee: You got it brother. So, ya hear the latest out of Oterwa?
BT 2: No, I'm just glad Stephen Harper and the boys are there now to set things straight again, and I do mean STRAIGHT!
BT 1: Amen brother, all these gay marriages have really been hurtin' the sanctity of my marriage!
BT 2: Mine too. But anyway, what happened now man? Media whining again?
Employee: Well last week, in one of them committees, this guy got pissed off at some questions and told the MPs from the other party to, well, F OFF. And yesterday, this same guy and a buddy of his gave the other party the finger, you know, the bird, and this time in the actual House a Commons!
BT 2: Gawd, those dammed arrogant Liberals and their culture of entitlement, it pisses me off! No respect for the opinions of others.
BT 1: Yeah, me too, geez! Ain't there no decorum or respect anymore? Someone disagrees with the Liberals so they flip them the bird? That's what wrong with politics today I tells ya! That's why we sent Stevie and the boys in there, to clean things up and bring back traditional family values!
BT 2: Dammed straight! If my boy tried to pull a stunt like that I'd paddle him red! I bet that dammed Liberal media will cover it all up, you won't see this news in the main stream media!
Employee turns a bit red, looking nervous as he speaks-up meekly.
Employee: Umm guys, actually it was a Conservative MP that flipped the bird and used the F word.
BT 2: Right on man, that's what we need! Good Conservative MPs that tell it like it is and don't take no crap from them Liberanos! I hope they keep it up. I'm proud of them.
BT 1: If I was there I'd flip them Liberanos off too, they deserve it! Good on them boys, I'd buy them a beer if I saw them at the bar.
BT 2: I bet you it will be all over the Liberal media too! The main stream media will say it's bad, but they're just out to get Harper. Everyone knows that. Besides it's not a big deal, dammed Liberal whiners! They gave us the finger and dropped the F-Bomb, boo-hoo!
BT 1: Yeah, Trudeau did it too!
Employee comes back with the coffee pot.
Employee: Refill?
In the interests of balance…
…I'd like to present links to a few of the stories I've been reading on the international presence in Afghanistan in recent days that I've found enlightening, but that have also left me a little more concerned about the situation over there.
The First is from yesterday's Globe, and it's entitled "Afghan journalists living with fear" and perhaps is struck a little closer to home with me as I am a journalists, although I don't generally fear Oracle or Microsoft all that much.
The piece though paints a disturbing picture of the threats Afghan journalists face in doing their job from members of the government itself. A free press is essential to any democracy, and hearing of behaviour like this by the Afghan government makes me question what we're doing over there supporting them.
The Second was published in Salon today, entitled "All unquiet on the eastern front" and it's a broader piece that paints a disturbing picture of a growing insurgency, growing displeasure with the international coalition forces by the populace, and a country teetering closer to descending into chaos. It certainly doesn't speak well of the government of President Hamid Karzai.
It seems to me the situation is disintegrating. The international community hasn't been able to deliver on its commitments on the nation building front and different elements in the country, some of which have made that job more difficult with their attacks, are further taking advantage of the frustration of normal Afghans by fueling even more unrest for their own ends. Further, Karzai doesn't seem to be doing himself any favours.
The more I read on the situation on Afghanistan the more questions I seem to have and the more unclear I am. Do we pull out and let things fall where they may, or do we re-evaluate our strategy, learn from our mistakes and try to get it right?
I still think a continued international presence is the only answer, for the alternative is far more unpalatable. We need to make some changes though, because the road we seem to be heading down isn't a good one.
Getting REALLY tough on crime
Forget killing the gun registry to get tough on crime, perhaps Stephen, Vic and Stock should consider following the example of some communities in Britain.
They've come up with an innovative, low-cost way of dispersing local gangs of hoodlums: pipe in uncool music. Perhaps that explains why I'm often greeted by the strains of Mozart or Bach when passing through Warden Station.
Is it a testament to my uncoolness that I actually like classical music (but god, no opera please!) and some of the songs on this list? Probably.
From the Globe's Social Studies section this morning:
Local councils in Britain have been given a list of uncool music selections that will disperse obnoxious teenagers. The central Local Government Association (LGA) calls for the councils to launch "pilot projects for the Manilow method," referring to experiments in Sydney, Australia, where strains of Copacabana and Mandy were piped into a car park to disperse congregations of young hoodlums. The 20 selections suggested by the LGA include such songs as: Release Me (Engelbert Humperdinck), Achy Breaky Heart (Billy Ray Cyrus); Happy Birthday Sweet Sixteen (Neil Sedaka); Bridge Over Troubled Water (Gene Pitney); (They Long to Be) Close to You (The Carpenters); Uptown Girl (Billy Joel). However, some local officials "fear that the songs on the Manilow method list could inadvertently become cool and even enjoyed by the young people they are supposed to deter," says The Independent on Sunday.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Don't be playerhatin', or Afghanistan batin'
Sorry, but after a few busy days without posting this is a long one.
While I'm still confident my chosen candidate for the leadership, Stephane Dion, will sweep to a first ballot victory in December with 105 per cent support on the first ballot, in case the unthinkable happens I have been paying some attention to the views and actions of the other candidates to help me clarify my secondary preferences.
I can promise you Bob Rae won't be on that list, but there's a name that might be that wasn't on my original shortlist, and that's Michael Ignatieff.
Call me contrarian, but I've been annoyed by the recent negative press and attention he's been getting. If anything, it's made me a little more sympathetic toward him. After all, if you've got Joe Volpe attacking you, you've got to be doing something right.
I was disappointed at Ignatieff's poor showing defending his Afghan vote on Saturday though. His saying he couldn't vote no because a soldier had died that day doesn't fly. He's a smart man and even in the limited time allotted he was capable, or should be capable, of making a far better argument than that. Because I do agree with his vote on that issue, and it was the right thing to do.
And just slightly off topic but in the same vain, lay off Scott Brison. Yes, his "headline the next day on the NY Times" analogy was poorly chosen, but his wider point was valid. How Canada's foreign policy decisions will be viewed by the global community is relevant. It was an easy slap shot for Martha Hall-Findlay, but it was still a cheap one.
But back to Michael. He wasn't on my original shortlist for a few reasons. It's not because I don't like him, I just don't think it's his time. I don't think he's been back in Canada long enough. Also, I think his academic writings are far too easy for his opponents to take out of context and smear him with. It's unfair, but that's politics, and since he hasn't been back on the Canadian scene long enough to build a presence yet that's tough to combat.
I think thought that he brings a needed voice to our foreign policy debate. Distortions aside, his support for the Afgan mission and his position on the issue are a lot closer to my own and a lot closer to most Liberals, than say, Bob Rae.
Bob's a smart guy, and he seems to have latched on to Afghanistan as the issue that will differentiate himself from the pack and his former roommate, Ignatieff, letting him share headlines with the media-anointed frontrunner.
I have to fundamentally disagree with Bob on this issue. He seems to put forward the view that the Afghan mission doesn't mesh with Canada's traditional role as peacekeepers, and so we should get out when the current mandate expires in 2007.
I can see wanting to deploy our forces elsewhere, although leaving the country in a vacuum is a bad idea. But it's on peace-keeping vs. peace-making the he loses me, where our foreign policy philosophy begins to veer radically away from each other, and where I think both Ignatieff and Dion (although I still think he should have voted for the extension) add a little realism to the debate.
Perhaps once there was a line between peace-keeping and peace-making, but it has blurred so much in modern times as to become almost indistinguishable. There are times where we as a people, and a global community, agree that as a moral imperative we must intervene. That intervention won't always be welcomed by all parties. But that doesn't make it any less right.
Rae supports intervention in Darfur, and so do I. But can he guarantee that will be a peace-keeping mission only, and not become peace-making? Is there even much of a peace to keep in Darfur? If our troops attack, or witness attacks, will they be able to intervene to restore peace, or will they be forced to stand aside and watch or be pulled out?
That's why I'm not sure where Rae is going here. If he wants to stay true to his NDP roots by adopting that party's traditional pacifist stance then he is certainly entitled to do so, and that's perfectly valid. But I don't think many Liberals will be sharing that view. We are still the party of Lester Pearson, and I think Mr. Pearson would have some thoughts on the moral imperative of peace-keeping/peace-making.
Rae would do well to remember that it was the Liberal government that sent our troops to Afghanistan in the first place, and approved the more dangerous combat/peace-making role. Most of our MPs didn't vote against the mission, they voted against Harper's political games.
And with that, and not being able to come-up with any kind of an eloquent ending to this post, I'm going for ice cream.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Not being afraid
This was me not being afraid at the Blue Jays game this afternoon. Actually, if I do look a little afraid, it’s only because I’d just heard Ted Lilly was pitching. And that fear was mainly unfounded; while he did take the loss he didn’t pitch that bad a game.
On my way downtown I wasn’t afraid in the subway either. And I’m not sure if I passed through “South Toronto” or not on my way out from Scarborough, but if I did, I wasn’t particularly afraid then either.
I mention all this because I’ve been mulling over the “I am not afraid” campaign over the last few days. You’ve probably heard of it by now, it was conceived by Warren Kinsella and others as a response to the recent terrorism-related arrests in Toronto, and involves a march and attending a Jays game in a few weeks as a way of showing any potential terrorists types out there that they can’t terrorize us.
An admirable sentiment, to be sure, and I have no quarrel with the idea or its organizers. Their hearts are definitely in the right place. I can understand the feeling of wanting to do something, and wanting to channel that feeling into something positive. And let me say that, whether these recent allegations are proven true or not, I don't underestimate the seriousness of the threat.
I just wonder, though, if this is the best way of doing it. I’m not afraid, and I don’t need a t-shirt to say so. I really don’t think we need a rally to proclaim that we’re not afraid. I don’t agree with those that say such a event emboldens potential terrorists, that’s silly, such people have no problem boldening themselves. I just don’t think they’re worth the attention.
I think the best way to show them we’re not afraid is to just not be afraid. We don’t need to change our daily routines. Keep on going to Jays games, especially on sunny days when the roof is open or when Halladay is pitching. Keep riding the subway when the mechanics haven’t walked out. Keep visiting South Toronto, and if you find out where it is, let me know. I am apartment hunting at the moment for something downtown.
To the I am not afraid people I hope your event is a success, and I may attend myself. After all, the Nye Mets are my favourite squadron (after the Jays, of course). But in the meantime, I’ll just keep on not being afraid on my own.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Point/counterpoints in glass houses
Two stories in the news today that remind me that no matter how much people like to talk about doing politics differently and being accountable, politics is still politics and politicians are still politicians.
The First story is a CP wire piece that suggests at least eight of the 11 Liberal leadership candidates have used their MPs' offices on Parliament hill to distribute partisan campaign material. Given that eight candidates are sitting MPs, I guess that means all of the MPs. I'm shocked, I say, shocked, to learn there's gambling in this establishment!
For the record I don't support the use of taxpayer-funded resources for partisan political activities. It shouldn't happen, and if candidates are doing it they should stop it.
I also said the same thing when Tory MP Brian Pallister took his taxpayer-funded staff along with him as he toured Manitoba seeing if they wanted him as their next provincial Conservative leader, just days after he was re-elected in January. I said the same thing during the election, when my then local Conservative MP sent out a taxpayer-funded mailer weeks into the campaign. And I have said the same thing over the last few years when, while living in BC, Jack Layton regularly used his franking privileges to send me notes about how badly the Conservatives and Liberals sucked and the NDP rules. Our Conservative-held riding was targeted as winnable by the NDP and they peppered us with franked mailings, and it worked: with enough votes lent the new MP is the NDP's Catherine Bell.
My point is no one should do this kind of thing, and it should stop, but remember that EVERYONE does it before staking out the morale high-ground, my Blogging Tory friends.
The Second story is the expulsion of Senator Raymond Lavigne from the Liberal caucus over allegations he misused taxpayer resources for personal activities. This guy sounds like a real piece of work, and while he's innocent until proven guilty I'm glad he's been expelled from caucus and I hope, if he is found guilty as justice takes its course, he'll be booted from the Senate altogether.
At least the Liberals kicked him out of caucus though. You know who is facing similar, as yet unproven but equally disgusting, allegations however? Conservative MP Rob Anders. A former employee alleges in a wrongful dismissal lawsuit that Anders repaid personal loans the staffer made to him by raising his salary, among other things.
What's more, and this related back to the first story too, the lawsuit alleges "Certain of Anders staff worked full-time on the Stephen Harper campaign while being paid a salary from the House of Commons."
Unproven, but deeply troubling charges that should be investigated. And last I checked Rob Anders was still a member of the Conservative caucus.
Again, the point is no one should he so quick to climb up on their high horses and seize the morale high ground without cleaning up the manure in their own stables.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Village in British Columbia doing what Conservatives won't
The tiny village of Cumberland, B.C. voted unanimously recently to honour members of the Canadian Forces that die in the service of their country by flying the village's flags at half-mast.
You may recall the Federal government used to do the same, but when the Conservatives came into power this year they abruptly ended the practice, which had begun under the previous Liberal government.
The Comox Valley Record reports that Cumberland has joined Trail on a growing list of communities across the province choosing to honour our fallen soldiers by flying their flags at half-mast.
I think this is a great idea, bravo Cumberland and bravo Trail! I hope other municipal and provincial governments will follow suit and adopt similar policies. If all the flags are flying at half-past on the death of a soldier except the Federal government's Harper will have no choice but to reserve his decision and grant this honour to our citizens that die for Canada.
By Colleen Dane
Record Staff Writer
Jun 07 2006
After approving a policy that would see Cumberland’s flags lowered to half-mast from the death to the funeral of a Canadian Forces member, Coun. Bronco Moncrief said it could be one step to spreading the practice nationwide.
“I certainly believe it should be national, but maybe it’s one way to put a little bit of a squeeze on the politicians in Ottawa,” said Moncrief.
Coun. Gwyn Sproule noted it could be a complicated step, depending on how long Canada stays in Afghanistan, but fully supported the motion anyway.
It passed unanimously.
Morning smile: South Korea hearts GST daddy Mulroney
Everyone knows Germans love David Hasselhoff, but you may not know South Koreans love Brian Mulroney. Or at least their President does.
The Globe this morning reports that whenever he's in a pickle, South Korean President Roh Moh-hyun just asks himself WWBD: What Would Brian Do?
I particularly love this quote from a South Korean newspaper editorial:
"Mr. Roh seems to think of Mr. Mulroney whenever he meets a crisis," Lee Chul-ho wrote. "Why does the President choose wicked people as role models?"
I don't know about wicked, but it is odd Roh chose a Canadian, let alone one of our most hated former leaders, as his Canadian Idol. And he's trying to introduce a South Korean GST too. I wonder, does he also have a super-annoying son masquerading as an entertainment reporter?
Asian leader adopts former Canadian PM as 'role model' for implementation of GST
PETTI FONG
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
SEOUL — In times of political hardship, which occur often these days for South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, the embattled politician takes inspiration from the boy from Baie-Comeau.
The President consoled officials in his ruling Uri party last week after crushing defeats in local elections by citing the example of Brian Mulroney.
(more)
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
MP withdraws support for Volpe
The Vancouver Sun is reporting Joe Volpe has lost the support of MP and "personal friend" Sukh Dhaliwal over the kiddie donation fiasco. Let's hope it’s a sign of things to come, and causes Joe to reconsider his options. (H/T to Dan Cook on Politics)
The Sun calls Dhaliwal, the Liberal MP that knocked-off Conservative recording artist Gurmant Grewal in Newton-North Delta, "a crucial link to the Indo-Canadian community that plays a major role in Liberal leadership campaigns" so it's a doubly hard blow for Volpe.
Dhaliwal said he and his constituents could not accept Volpe's accepting $5400 donations from children or Volpe's belated and half-hearted attempt at damage control.
"This whole affair is not something I am comfortable with. I ask myself if the people of Newton-North Delta elected me to take an interest in all of this. I know their answer.''
Good on Sukh for doing the right thing. The Sun lists other Volpe supporters in caucus as Joe Comuzzi, Jim Karygiannis, Wajid Khan, Massimo Pacetti, Lui Temelkovski, and Yasmin Ratansi. We're waiting guys; it's time to step up.
Peter O'Neil
CanWest News Service; Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
OTTAWA - Liberal leadership candidate Joe Volpe, whose campaign was rocked last week by disclosure he was receiving major campaign contributions from the children of corporate executives, suffered another setback Tuesday when Liberal MP and personal friend Sukh Dhaliwal withdrew his support for Volpe's campaign.
(more)
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Not exactly 24-karrat commentary from Richard Diamond
Would someone please grab Young Liberals of Canada president Richard Diamond and give his head a shake for him? But gently, please, I don't want to be an accessory to any assault charges.
Richard, however, is guilty of assaulting common sense and logic with his comments to the CanWest chain in today's papers. Diamond attempts to downplay the stupid and unethical behaviour of Joe Volpe in accepting (and later not so sheepishly returning) $27,000 in donations from five children, including two 11-year-old twins.
Our young Mr. Diamond takes a page the debating strategy of our Conservative friends by going off on a tangent to construct a straw-man and then defending that rather than attempting to defend the indefensible.
Here's a taste:
"In terms of people being involved under the age of 18, I think it's critical that if you can get involved in a party and be involved in a youth wing, I think that that will create an appetite for political engagement, civic engagement that will last you the rest of your life. There has to be room so that young people can be politically engaged."
And what does Richard think about Volpe?
"Returning the money is very consistent with the ethical man that I know that he is," Diamond said.
Yeah, he's a peach. But come off it Richard. This is not about barring youth from taking part in the political process. Do you really think two 11 year olds just each on their own decided to donate over $5k of their own money to Volpe because they liked his speech? What this is about is colluding to violate the spirit of the election financing regulation and using your kids to do it.
This diversion method of debate is sad. But it's easy. I can do it to: Volpe gave the money back and he's an ethical guy, but he also likes puppies. I don't think we should ban puppies, they're cute and loveable and they bring joy to so many people. How could you not like puppies?
Anyway, if you're a Young Liberal and you don't share Richard's views, or you want to give him an 'atta boy, you can drop him a polite note at rdiamond@liberal.ca. I'm sure he'd be happy to hear from you.
Leadership in the Websphere
When it comes to leadership Web sites I think that Michael Ignatieff still leads the pack, but I just took a sneak-peak at Stephane Dion's soon to be re-launched Web site and it's a vast improvement over the previous effort.
What makes Iggy's good is the interactivity and Dion's Web designers are moving in that direction with a forum and the ability to comment on different articles. There are also lots of news clippings and thoughts from Dion.
Many have lamented the lacy of policy discussion in this race, and while I view Dion as one of the handful of candidates that have been raising policy issues that was an area that wasn't fully developed on his old site. That has been rectified nicely here, with a plethora of video clips' speeches and articles all grouped under different policy areas, from the economy and the environment to agriculture and social justice.
The new site is not yet currently live, a preview was offered to bloggers supportive of Stephane, but I'm told it should be online shortly so keep an eye out.
It's a nice effort, but I strongly stress to his Web people and the Web people for all the candidates the importance of keeping the site CURRENT and updating it FREQUENTLY.
Web sites aren't a static thing these days, they need to be dynamic. There's nothing worse that going to an events calendar and finding only events from last week, or event just events happening tomorrow. You can have the best looking Web site in the world, but if the content is stale it's useless.
I know it's time consuming and laborious. I volunteered as a media/Web coordinator on a riding campaign a few years back, and I spent hours every night writing an e-mail update for our contact list and posting fresh content to our Web site. But if you're going to do these things, you've got to do them right.
Monday, June 05, 2006
At least one riding president has some guts
Well, it's Monday afternoon, almost the end of the working day here in The Centre of the Universe, and unless I've missed a memo Joe Volpe is still a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. I'm far from the first to ask, but allow me to do so again" WHY?
Judging by his behavior at the B.C. Federal Council (all the B.C. riding presidents and the LPC(BC) executive) meeting in Victoria this weekend, he won't be leaving the race any thing soon, doesn't believe he's done anything wrong, and is one arrogant guy.
You can read the full report over at Public Eye Online, but here's the short version. Volpe and Martha-Hall Findlay were in town and spoke to the meeting and took questions. Apparently Jason Walker, president of the Esquimalt-Juan De Fuca riding association (held by Keith Martin) was the only person there with the guts to call Volpe on the kiddie donations flap. Apparently Joe admitted no wrong doing and recycled the "the kids were inspired by one of my speeches" line of BS he spewed in the media last week. Not having a taste for BS, Jason walked out.
To quote Jason, via Public Eye Online:
"(Volpe) didn't say what happened was wrong. He just didn't get the fact that taking money from children in that way is wrong. And it shouldn't have happened....I was embarrassed. And I said so. And I left."
"The party is in a situation where we need win back the public trust. And we had just spent an entire day talking how we need to take the high road and rise above things and get back to business. And, unfortunately, in my opinion what happened with Mr. Volpe taking money from children sends the wrong message to Canadians. It sends the wrong message to our party. And his excuse for it was not acceptable."
Right on, Jason! Bravo! I agree wholeheartedly, and more people need to stand-up and start making these points. I'm glad at least one person in a leadership position in our party has done so.
As Public Eye also notes, Jason was "hassled" on his way out of the room by Volpe organizer and Scarborough-area MP Jim Karygiannis, who was pissed at him for even daring to raise the issue. The arrogance is just unbelievable!
Obviously Volpe is not going to do the right thing here. By allowing him to remain in the raise, we sanction his behaviour. This isn't a matter for Elections Canada; it's a matter for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Show Volpe the door!
Like big daddy, like son?
The Queen's Park (Ontatio) Press Gallery is having their Spring Fling* on Wednesday. I gather it's like the Ontario provincial version of the Parliamentary Press Gallery dinner in Ottawa.
Says the Toronto Star:
An off-the-record-event -- despite the best efforts of some in this space to rectify that -- the gallery show will boast humourous speeches, sketches and videos from Premier Dalton McGuinty, Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory, NDP Leader Howard Hampton, and journalists.
I wonder though, have the press gallery Pooh-Bahs confirmed John Tory's attendance? After all, given that his mentor, Big Daddy Harper, is boycotting the federal event you'd think Johnny would want to show his solidarity with his federal father. I'm sure Stephen has sat Johnny down for a talk on the dangers of fraternizing with the evil media hordes.
Careful John, you don't want to upset Big Daddy. Or catch coodies.
* "Spring Fling"? Did my Air Canada flight on Saturday take me back to 1955? If so, I'd much rather attend an ice cream social. Or maybe a boxcar social, although I'm not sure just what one is. Or how about a sock hop?