Journal: Dion the compromise candidate

Nice column in the Edmonton Journal today that makes a lot of good points about why Stephane Dion is the right person to take the helm of the good ship Liberal.

I think the alternating leaders between Quebec and the rest of Canada thing isn't the factor it's often made out to be, but otherwise the author makes a lot of sense.

There's a number of choice quotes in the piece, but I'll choose to highlight this one:

In two of their last three leadership conventions, the Liberals opted to anoint a "winner" who could walk right into the Prime Minister's Office. John Turner and Paul Martin both proved a disappointment and led their party to defeat. In the other contest the Liberals opted for the less flashy, more solid Jean Chretien, who could lead them in Opposition and provide an alternative for Canadians when the Mulroney Conservatives collapsed.

While I think Stephane has plenty of star quality, I see what he's saying, and I think he has a good point. It's also a good piece of advice for those who are determined to find the next Trudeau. If we're looking for substance over style (and I really think we should be) Stephane has it in spades.

And as I think anyone who has seen him on the campaign trail will attest, he's working on the style too.

Stephane Dion has qualities to take Liberals far
Cabinet experience, Quebec link among strengths
David Watts, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Monday, July 31, 2006

Stephane Dion is the compromise candidate who may just succeed in holding the other Stephen, Prime Minister Harper, to a minority in the next election, and replacing him in the election after that.

Third of three front-runners, he may emerge by default after the other two have been examined and found wanting.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Iggy’s on his way

(Scroll down for update) Where’s Iggy? seems to have replaced Where's Waldo? as one of the more popular past times in the Liberal blogsphere over the past week or two. Rumours abound, but I can report Michael Ignatieff should now be back in the country.

Those watching the candidate’s online calendar will know he was scheduled to be in Comox, British Columbia today for a get together with local Liberals in Vancouver Island North. That’s my old stomping grounds, so I was interested to hear how the event went, and hoped some of the soap opera rumours swirling around might be put to rest.

Turns out Ignatieff wasn’t there, but I think with good reason. David Hurford, his Western co-chair, explained to the 30 Liberals (good Fed Lib crowd for the Comox Valley) that had gathered to meet Ignatieff that he and his wife Zsusannah have been in Budapest visiting her very ill mother and father. Their original flight back to Canada was cancelled, leaving them scrambling to book another. The next flight they could get didn’t get them into Toronto until Sunday night, so they should be in the country by now, but alas, couldn’t make the Comox gathering.

A make-up visit has been scheduled for August 20^th, just before the Liberal caucus meeting in Vancouver, and the people that had turned out were very understanding of the situation and appreciative that Hurford had come to keep the date.

I think the communications around Ignatieff’s time away could have been handled better by his campaign but I firmly believe, as I think those who had hoped to meet him Sunday did too, that family must always trump politics. He has been where he has needed to be, and I won’t fault him for that. In fact, it’s a bit refreshing for a politician to say I’m taking care of family right now, no press releases, no conference calls, family comes first.

I hope that those who dislike Ignatieff will confine their criticisms to the policy arena. Going after a man for putting family first won’t get you very far in my books, and I don’t think I’m the only one that feels that way.

UPDATE: I'm told Michael has phoned the hosts to apologize for his absence from the event yesterday. So, we learn that a) He is now somewhere with phone access, and b) He's a classy guy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

George Bush singing "Sunday Bloody Sunday"

It being Sunday, I thought it would be a good day to share this video. It's rather well done, enjoy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Yuan nominated in Kingsway

(Scroll down for the update) The Canadian Press is reporting local businessperson Wendy Yuan was nominated todayas the Liberal candidate in Vancouver-Kingsway, the riding that David Emerson won as a Liberal before crossing the floor to negoiate a softwood lumber sellout no one seems to like, except for his old friends at Canfor.

No word on numbers, except that it was close. The other candidate for the nomination was local lawyer Mason Loh. The CP story didn't have his reaction to the result. Earlier in the week, he had complained about the timing of the meeting.

Whether Emerson runs again or not (if i was a betting man, I'd bet no) Yuan is right when she said the NDP will be the real competition in that riding. Should be an interesting race, and it begins today.

Liberals nominate new federal election candidate
TIFFANY CRAWFORD
Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — The Liberals nominated a new federal election candidate on Saturday in the Vancouver riding currently held by Liberal defector and Conservative Trade Minister David Emerson.

Wendy Yuan, the president of a B.C.-based export company, won the nomination against lawyer Mason Loh in what a Liberal spokesman called a close race.
(more)

UPDATE: Vancouver radio station CKNW is reporting the results of the nomination race as Yuan 324, Loh 296, and quotes Loh's campaign manager, Greg Wilson, as saying Loh is considering an appeal.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We’re picking a leader, not a Canadian Idol

The Toronto Star seems to feel the current Liberal leadership race is boring, lamenting there is no Pierre Trudeau amongst the field. Frankly, what I find boring is this old, tired media line. We’re not trying to entertain the media, we’re trying to pick a leader that can lead the country.

The author laments the lack of a Trudeau and calls the field boring. Just whom, I wonder, does she think would have set things on fire? Would we have seen McKenna mania had Frank entered the race? Manley mania? Rock-mania? I very highly doubt it.

I liked Pierre Trudeau, but frankly in death he has obtained a mythic status he didn’t have in life, or at least certainly not in office, at least after 1968. It’s time we as Liberals stopped focusing on the past, and instead looked to the future.

But back to the past for one moment, the last leadership candidate to evoke some shades of PET was Paul Martin. We all know that story. I liked Paul. But even without the baggage, the warning signs were there. People saw in Paul what they wanted to see, even if it wasn’t really there. He helped that along by making so many promises he became all things to all people. Visions of Martin-mania danced through our heads, along with dreams of 308 seats. When it came time to deliver on all these promises, real or imagined, he couldn’t. They were often diametrically opposed. The result? Not much got done, and the opposition began its dithering routine.

It’s time we stopped looking for the next Trudeau/Moses to lead us from the wilderness and into the promised land. There hasn’t been a Trudeau since Trudeau. Have the Cons ever had a Trudeau? If they have, it’s not Steve. Ed Broadbent might be the NDP’s Trudeau, but I don’t think Jack is.

We have 11 candidates for the Liberal leadership, and I like most of them. There’s a number here that I think would make excellent Prime Ministers. So why have they failed to generate excitement?

Well, I don’t necessarily grant the premise, but here’s a few things to consider. We’re tired. We’ve been through two elections and now a second leadership race in just a few years. We’re also now on the opposition benches, bone weary after the events of these past few years. It’s hard to get too excited right now. Also, it’s the summer, it’s a ways until Super Weekend.

But the way you recover from an election defeat isn’t to do lots of splashy stuff that will get lots of national media play (such as jet skiing up to a dock in a wet suit). As Steve Harper learned, in this exercise the national media is really irrelevant. Rebuilding, which is our task now, is a ground game. It’s going into every riding in the country, to church basements and bake sales and clam bakes and bbqs, meeting with groups of 10 and 20 Canadians and talking about the country and our vision for it.

It may not be exciting, but that’s how you win leadership races, that’s how you win elections, and that’s how you rebuild a political party. That’s where our focus needs to be. If it fails to excite the media, frankly, I could care less.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More opposition to softwood sellout

Looks like all this talk of softwood brinksmanship may turn out to be unnecessary. The CEOs of two of B.C.’s largest forestry companies, with enough combined clout (by virtue of their outstanding lawsuits against the U.S.) to kill the deal have spoken out against the proposed agreement for the first time.

They indicated the deal is unacceptable in its current form and in need of change. They haven’t said they’ll kill the deal yet, but with PM Stephen "accountability" Harper steadfastly refusing to even think about any changes, it’s not looking good.

There is one big forest company in the province supportive of the sellout though. Interestingly it’s the company that has its former CEO in the Harper cabinet, and still collecting a company pension. He’s also the guy that negotiated the billion dollar sellout. Who is he? Why he’s David Emerson, of course.

Small world indeed.

Unhappy B.C. forest CEOs could kill softwood deal
SOFTWOOD LUMBER : West Fraser Timber and Interfor say they want Ottawa's deal changed
Gordon Hamilton, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, July 29, 2006

Two of British Columbia's leading forest industry CEOs with enough clout to kill the proposed softwood lumber deal said Friday they don't like the agreement Prime Minister Stephen Harper intends to introduce in the House of Commons in September.

Hank Ketcham, CEO of West Fraser Timber, and Duncan Davies, CEO of Interfor, both said the agreement before Parliament is lacking and they are attempting to have it changed. They refused to say whether they would go as far as exercising the veto they have.

The statements mark the first time industry leaders with enough exporting clout to end the deal have spoken out. Both CEOs made the comments in separate conference calls with investors.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Blogging and work

Do you blog while at work? I’ll admit I do from time to time, but I always confine it to downtime or lunchbreaks, and make the time up elsewhere as needed. I also avoid blogging about work and topics I’d cover at work.

It’s a fine line though that all bloggers need to carefully tread. According to a story in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, one blogger in Paris went too far and was fired by her employers for “loss of trust” and damaging her employer’s reputation. She’s suing her former employers for US$110,000 in damages.

In this case, it looks to me like she might have gone too far. For example, two days she took off work to allegedly care for her children she acknowledged in her blog she was playing hooky. It's still a sad story though, and a cautionary tale.

There have also been cases closer to home, notably Penny Cholmondeley, who was fired from her job as a marketing officer for Nunavut Tourism in 2004 because they objected to her blog writings.

Interestingly, it seems there is a term for bloggers bring fired for their blogging: getting “dooced.” It refers to the case of a Heather B. Armstrong, who was fired for blogging about her colleagues. Her site is www.dooce.com, hence “dooced.”

H/T for the Paris story to The Mediasphere & The Blogsphere. It’s the blog of Dr. Abby Goodrum, a professor at the Ryerson School of Journalism. On a semi-related sidenote, she’s currently working on a study of blogging and journalism that should make for an interesting read.

Back to blogging and work, there’s also an interesting conversation on the topic happening at Carmi Levy’s Written Inc. blog.

Given the increasing frequency of cases like this and the libel chill story the other day, I know I’m going to be more careful in the future about when, what, and how I blog. Initially I blogged anonymously, concerned about the work/personal life divide. But a few months later I decided that as long as I avoided work topics it shouldn’t be an issue, and I felt blogging under my name lent more weight to my writings than blogging anonymously.

Whether your're anonymous or not though, as these examples show the risks are still the same. I’d be interested in hearing from you. How do you handle the work/blog divide? How did you make your decision on anonymity/non-anonymity, and why?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Con Mid-East fundraising flap media round-up

It looks like this story has broken from the blogsphere into the MSM in a big way, with both TV news coverage and coverage by daily newspapers across the country today.

Interestingly, the Blogging Tories have been silent on the issue. I’ve only seen one of them post on the topic, of course dismissing it as no big deal, taking much the same line as Con commenters have taken here and elsewhere.

Again, I have no problem with issue-based fundraising. I think the Liberals need to do a better job of it. But it is absolutely classless to attempt to raise money on Harper’s handling of the Middle East crisis with the crisis is far from over, when thousands of Canadians are still waiting to be evacuated from Lebanon, and people are still being killed and wounded every day. Nine Canadians have died so far, and he’s fundraising?

The bombs are still falling and Harper is shaking-up Canadians for cash. I still fail to see how people can defend that. I think most Canadians, whether they support Harper’s foreign policy position or not, are just as disgusted as I am.

Globe and Mail: Tories ask for special donations, By Bill Curry

Toronto Sun: Tories milk war for cash, By Alan Findlay

Toronto Star: Tories draw on Mideast crisis to raise money, by Linda Diebel

And of course a CP story yesterday evening by Joan Bryden is getting wide play.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

MSM picking-up Harper’s Middle East fundraising

The Canadian Press now has a story on the wire about the Conservative Party of Canada fundraising e-mail sent out yesterday soliciting soliciting funds based on Harper’s handling of the still ongoing crisis in the Middle East, which has seen at least eight Canadians killed so far, and bombs still falling.

I’ll let you read it but I will point out that while the author of the letter, CPC executive director Michael Donison, couldn’t be reached for comment, an unnamed “senior Conservative source” (why not go on the record Sandra?) not only refused to apologize for the letter, but actually defended it:

But a senior Conservative source made no apologies for the executive director's pitch.

"The point of the letter is to remind Canadians that they have a prime minister that's able to make decisions and at times those decisions may be tough," the source said.

I’d like to know why this Prime Minister made the decision to send out this letter, and use an ongoing war as a fundraising pitch. That wasn’t a tough decision Stephen, that was an easy one. It's wrong.

Tories use Harper's stand on Middle East conflict to pitch for donations
July 28, 2006 - 18:30
By: JOAN BRYDEN

OTTAWA (CP) - Conservatives are trying to turn Prime Minister Stephen Harper's principled stand on the Middle East conflict into a money-maker for the party.

Using the Lebanese turmoil - in which hundreds of civilians, including at least nine Canadians, have been killed - to make a fundraising pitch has drawn the ire of at least one Liberal leadership hopeful.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cons fundraising on the Mid-East conflict

Well, just when you think you've seen it all, you're proven wrong. But it seems the Conservative Party of Canada is using the current conflict in the Middle East as a fundraising pitch to solicit donations from Canadians. All while the bombs are still falling, and Canadians are still being evacuated.

Sean Holman has the scoop over at Public Eye Online, with the text of a fundraising pitch sent to the party faithful via e-mail yesterday by CPC executive director Michael Donison.

I debated doing a para by para 'Fisking' of the e-mail, and I could go on a rant about the shamelessness of this. But really, I think why this is disgusting is obvious and the e-mail speaks for itself.

I don't know what else to say, except I don’t know how this could be defended.

Here's the e-mail:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Finally - A Leader who's willing to stand up and take a tough stand
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:20:16 -0700
From: Conservative Fund Canada
Reply-To: donate@conservative.ca
En Francais | In English

During the last federal election, Stephen Harper promised to give Canada a principled foreign policy that advances and defends the Canadian values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. As Prime Minister, he is delivering.

Dear,

Our Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper was amongst the first of the world's leaders to take a principled stand on the new turmoil in the Mid-East. Since then, leaders the world over have risen to stand with Stephen Harper. Our nation has every reason to be proud.

Admit it: Moral clarity feels a lot better than the endless equivocation we found with our previous government.

But not everyone is grateful for the strong, clear direction of Canada's new government and this includes in particular the opposition parties who are only interested in maneuvering for party advantage.

And so, I must turn to you to ask you for your support. The fact is: the opposition is not thrilled with the growing strength of the Harper government and the resurgence of national pride Canadians are showing in their country. You need only look at their ceaseless machinations to see that they are doing everything in their power to bring this government down..

We must be ready for an election now because the opposition is blindly determined to drag the country to the polls, on any pretext they can contrive.

As a matter of public record, everyone knows the Conservative Party of Canada managed the last election without adding a dime to the Party's debt. You made that possible, it's just that simple. And if we intend to win the next election and win a majority - we need to continue moving heaven and Earth to be ready.

When an election comes, we will have just days to mount a campaign and ensure the continuance of the most dynamic and forward-looking Canadian government in recent memory. The time to lay the foundation is right now and we continue to need your help if this effort is to succeed.

It is a wonderful thing to be reminded of the power of ideals, principles in which we believe and on which we will act. We have had far too many years of vacillation on ideals and fundamental values about which the majority of Canadians are clear and certain.

Unsurprisingly, Don Martin got it just right in his July 20th National Post column, speaking of Prime Minister Harper, he wrote: " He's proven himself bold, imaginative and unpredictable. This is something refreshing on the Canadian political landscape - a leader willing to take risks to do what's right in the face of certain criticism. It stands him in stark and favourable contrast to the hesitant poll-driven Martin reign."

What did surprise me, though, were the private comments of a Liberal acquaintance, among them the following: " I have never been so proud to be Canadian. I'm thrilled that we're investing in our military. I'm thrilled that we're staying to finish a job in Afghanistan, and I'm ecstatic that we are finally taking a position on issues of global importance like what is happening in the Middle East. Please let Stephen Harper know that I've never been more proud of being a Canadian."

Ultimately, not everything is about party politics. Canadians know what's right and wrong and it is a great satisfaction even if one may not politically admit it - to have a government that has the courage to tell the plain truth.

This government is worth the fight; help us make sure we win the next election whenever it comes. We can expect an avalanche of Liberal fury to get back into power and a flood of media support for their effort. Help us keep the focus on principle and character and Canada's return to its place in the world.

I ask you to make a special contribution now of $150 or $75 to the Party today and help us be prepared to defend the decisive leadership of Stephen Harper and our New Conservative government.

With my sincere thanks,

Michael D. Donison
Executive Director, Conservative Party of Canada

P.S. - Your contribution is tax deductible. To find out the specific tax advantage of your contribution, we've provided a simple tax calculator. For more specific information on the rules governing personal contributions to political parties, click here.

If you prefer that I not contact you again by email, please click here.

Authorized by Conservative Fund Canada, Chief Agent of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Handle nominations delicately

I try to be fair and even-handed and call them as I see them, so I'd be remiss if I didn't point out this story in the Vancouver Sun today about the process around the selection of a Liberal candidate in Vancouver-Kingsway, Dave Emerson's stomping grounds.

The column raises the possibility that the nomination process has been rushed (the meeting is Saturday and was announced last Monday) with the possible intention of ensuring the selection of a favoured candidate, Wendy Yuan. The implication is she got a head start, and with her campaign manager also being an LPC VP for BC, also has the establishment backing.

At least one competitor has emerged, Mason Loh, who apparently is scrambling to catch up.

This isn't news to regular readers of Public Eye Online where Sean Holman has been reporting on the situation for a few weeks, most recently here, here, here and here.

Now, I should say at this point this is all just unsubstantiated innuendo, and I don't have any inside information or insight here. I know nothing about any of the potential candidates. This does, however, potentially look a little fishy.

As I wrote previously I'm in favour of getting a candidate place in this riding sooner rather than later, because of the unique situation with Emerson having crossed the floor. Getting a candidate nominated as a Liberal spokesperson to keep that issue alive and act as an MP in exile alive is great political strategy.

However, if the nomination process is seemed as tainted or rigged, that's doubly bad. Usually the trigger isn't pulled on a nomination meeting until at least a few quality candidates have been recruited; it's unclear in this case if there was more than one. Also, why only 12 days notice? Yes, there is a constitutional bare minimum but this isn't an emergency meeting, we've got a little time. Why wasn't it scheduled for a month away, to give potential candidates a more equal footing to sign-up members and organize? When notice of the meeting was given, the backdated membership deadline was three days earlier.

For a race in a riding where ethics is going to be a huge issue, this doesn't seem to be an encouraging start.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Libel chill in the Canadian blogsphere?

This press release from a Toronto law firm crossed my virtual desk this morning, and as a blogger it certainly made me pause. It certainly has me rethinking the wisdom of continuing to allow unmoderated comments.

For those of you in the T-Dot, I'd also like to draw your attention to these two events. I'm going to try to attend the first. (UPDATE: Scratch that, I can't, same day as the Progressive Bloggers BBQ. Too bad.)

*To raise awareness, Pilling and Newton will be participating in a public roundtable on freedom of expression in Toronto on August 5th at the Centre for Social Innovation, 215 Spadina Avenue, Suite 120, from 3-5PM.

*A benefit concert will be held at Toronto landmark, The Rivoli, at 334 Queen Street West. Doors open at 9PM. Cover is $10.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 26, 2006

Lawsuits threaten to chill online freedom of expression

TORONTO, ONTARIO and LAKE COWICHAN, BRITISH COLUMBIA - In May, one of the Internet's most notorious companies, and one of its most controversial personalities, sued a blogger from this tiny community on Vancouver Island.

Sharman Networks, the Australia-based owner of the KaZaA file-sharing application, and Sharman CEO Nikki Hemming, launched a suit against Canadian Jon Newton, alleging that an article he posted to his Web site p2pnet.net, and readers' comments in response to it, were libelous. The plaintiffs also demanded the identity of the anonymous posters.

Canadian defamation law does not require a plaintiff to show that she has suffered damages to sue. It also presumes that if speech appears libelous, it is until proven otherwise. The onus is on the defendant to prove that the speech is either not defamatory or that it should be allowed in the public interest.

"Canadian libel law in effect says 'Guilty until proven innocent' and if the plaintiff wins, in my view, Canadian bloggers might as well pack up and close their Net accounts," says Newton.

Newton is not alone in his feeling that Canadian defamation law is antiquated and in need of an Internet-age refit.

Michael Pilling, the Toronto-based founder of the political discussion site OpenPolitics.ca, also found himself on the receiving end of a libel suit after a contributor posted an article on his site about Green Party financier, Wayne Crookes. When Crookes claimed parts of the posting disparaged him and were untrue, Pilling edited it, only to have the reader repost the content shortly afterwards. When Crookes objected again, Pilling explained how Crookes could use the site to contribute his own point of view.

"Democracy requires open debate. The purpose of my site is to give everyone an opportunity to express their position, and hope people start listening to each other," explained Pilling. "Instead, I was served with a lawsuit."

Newton and Pilling have decided to defend their respective actions because they feel that the rights of Canadian bloggers to freedom of expression are in serious danger. They have agreed to work together to raise awareness of the issue.

"Of course freedom of expression has to be balanced against other rights, but the law is pernicious. Anyone who runs a blog, a wiki site or an online discussion forum in Canada is in jeopardy of what someone else might say,"says Pilling. "A mere allegation of unproved libel will cost thousands to defend against, regardless of whether the speech is true, you wrote it or were even necessarily aware of it."

"The Internet enables expression as never before, and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is supposed to guarantee freedom of expression," adds Newton, "Defamation laws should not be available as weapons. Our laws need to reflect a greater sensibility."

To raise awareness, Pilling and Newton will be participating in a public roundtable on freedom of expression in Toronto on August 5th at the Centre for Social Innovation, 215 Spadina Avenue, Suite 120, from 3-5PM.

A benefit concert will be held at Toronto landmark, The Rivoli, at 334 Queen Street West. Doors open at 9PM. Cover is $10.

-- 30 --

Press Contacts: Concert and Roundtable Information:
Jon Newton Neil Leyton
jon@p2pnet.net nleyton@gmail.com
Michael Pilling Tina Siegel
mlpilling@gmail.com tina.siegel@gmail.com

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New to the blogsphere

Two of my work colleagues have thrown their keyboards into the blogsphere.

A recently minted Canadian citizen and fellow tech reporter, Mari-Len DeGuzman is blogging on current events from a Filipino-Canadian perspective at Mightier than sword.

Also, our consumer electronics expert Jim Ducharme has set-out his digital shingle at Huge Head. I shall decline comment on whether or not that is an apt moniker for him.

Welcome to the blogsphere guys!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Snakes…in the mail!

The BBC reports a woman in Germany caused a panic when she tried to mail a 5ft python in a box marked "glass" and it broke free inside the post office.

It's just a good thing this happened in Germany and not in Canada. With our vast distances mail is often moved by air, and that would have meant….Snakes On A Plane!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Education redux, Where's the beef?

As a follow-up to my post yesterday on post secondary education policy I decided to visit the candidate Web sites to see if they had anything on the topic. The results, as you'll see below, were less then stellar, to say the least.

As a result, I've decided to e-mail a few questions on the topic to each of the campaigns. I'll let them know I plan to publish whatever responses I've received by August. 2. While I'm no Warren Kinsella, I'm hopeful I'll hear something back.

In other news, the Globe's John Ibbitson writes on post secondary education in his column today. While I'm glad he's raising the topic, I disagree with part of his take. John, we should require strings for any additional post secondary funding. The federal government's role is to set national standards, and that is the mechanism it has for doing so.

Lastly, I came across this section in a student newspaper story on The Rae Report (scroll down to Bob's name in the candidates section for more) and I thought it might be interesting to the pull up your bootstraps, in my day we walked to school uphill both ways (in blizzards) crowd:

Universities have gone through major changes in the last few decades. In the '70s, there were about 240,000 university students in Canada.

By 1985, there were more than 472,000 students.

And the numbers have continued to rise as university degrees become necessary for work that once required only high school diplomas.

During this time of growth, government funding decreased from $20,000 per student in the '70s to $13,000 by 1985.

By the end of the '90s, per student government funding was just under $11,000. Because of these reductions, university fees increased 137 per cent throughout the '90s.

The Candidates on Education

Carolyn Bennett: In her reading room there are policy papers and additional resources on a number of areas, from health care, the environment and women issues to the Middle East, affordable housing and terrorism. Nothing, however, on education.

Maurizo Bevilacqua: On his "Maurizo Views" page the candidate tells us why he's running, but no detailed policy or issue statements I can see, and nothing on education.

Scott Brison: On his "Scott's views" page, in a section on 'A Progressive Society" the candidate at least mentions post-secondary education, although in passing:

He wants to protect the existing role of a strong federal government that respects the jurisdiction of strong provinces. He would respect the Canada Health Act and provide stable and adequate funding to provinces for quality health care and improved access to post-secondary education.

He gets points for mentioning it, even in a wishy washy kind of a way. I'd like details though on how he would improve access, and what he considers adequate funding.

Stephane Dion: A search of the "On The Issues" page fails to find a mention of the word education, and clicking on the various linked speeches and documents only found a few mentions of the last election platform, nothing on new ideas or current positions. All I could find on point was this section from the "Investing in a stronger Canada" section:

…we have to invest now in the education of Canadians, especially at the post-secondary level, so that we have the most highly educated workforce in the world that has the capacity to invent the best new technologies, and bring to the global marketplace products that will sustain the new economy.

I agree, but how? Where's the meat? I'd hoped for better from my candidate.

Ken Dryden: I was excited when I saw a section on learning in his "The Issues" section. Ironically though, I learned nothing from its boilerplate, except that he's in favour of learning.

Martha Hall Findlay: On her "The issues" page, only one mention of the word education and it's brief at that. Under her vision for Canada:

A Canada with opportunities for all Canadians to work toward a brighter future for themselves, their children and generations to come, through good education;…

Hedy Fry: Followed her policy link, found links to four policy areas, one of which was titled "Education Policy." Much excited, I was. Clicked the link:

Stay tuned... Detailed policy coming soon!

Michael Ignatieff: Speaking of learning, my top personal accomplishment from the leadership campaign so far is learning to spell Ignatieff without looking it up. Still working on Bevilacqua though. Anyway, looking around the candidate's Web site I was unable to find a specific policy page. There's a policy discussion forum, but I didn't see anything with policy statements from the candidate.

Gerard Kennedy: I didn't see a policy statements page, the closest was a "policy dialogue" page. It includes discussion papers on Energy and the Environment and Eliminating the Immigrant Success gap (I assume this is the one TDH wrote before he left the campaign) but nothing on education that I could find.

Bob Rae: In Bob's (he said I could call him that) "On the Issues" pages there's a number of mentions of education, but few in detail from a post secondary perspective. The most meat was this section here:

An Education, Training and Research Strategy: education, training, commercialization and ready access to the Internet are foundational elements of an innovation agenda for Canada, and must re-emerge as priorities of the national government. Mr. Rae proposes among other things revamping the Canada Student loans program to provide more direct aid to students for living expenses, direct federal support for university research, promotion of apprenticeships, and greater recognition of foreign credentials.

While it's brief, there's more details here than I've seen from other candidates. Sounds nice, although I wonder some of the how on these things. I'm concerned about Bob on this issue though, because of a study he wrote on post secondary education for the Ontario government. While there were some good recommendations there, including more funding for universities and more grants for low income students, more troubling was his advocacy of substantially higher and possibly deregulated tuition rates and an income contingent loan repayment scheme.

Briefly, why is income contingent loan repayment bad? Well, because while you make smaller payments the interest keeps accruing, so in reality you're paying much more for the same education with a fortune in interest charges. It just increases the debt burden on the poorest people. It's like the scam of rent to own furniture that targets the poor.

Joe Volpe: While he's dead to me (sorry Toronto Liberal and Davenport Liberal) I did check out his "Joe's Views" page. In a long page with lots of bolded action-words, this was the closest to something like education policy I could find:

We must invest in skills training and post graduate research and become a nation that is capable of exporting talent, innovation and technology; more importantly, a nation capable of attracting foreign direct investment, because the labour pool and talent is here to return on that investment.

My Questions for the Candidates

Dear Liberal leadership candidates,

I've been an active Liberal member since I was a high school student, and while I'm now in the workforce post secondary education issues remain very important to me. I've been disappointed with the lack of debate on the issue during the current campaign, so I've decided to send a few questions to each of the campaigns.

I'd appreciate it if your campaign could provide me with brief responses to these questions, which I hope will spark a debate we need to have on post secondary education, and the role the federal government has to play. I plan to publish any responses received by August 2 on my Blog, A BCer in Toronto.

Thank-you,

Jeff Jedras

1. Do you support the creation of a dedicated transfer to the provinces to post secondary education, and would you attach strings to the funding to ensure federal goals are met around issues like tuition levels, access for low income students, and ensuring provinces don't cut their own funding to negate the impact of any federal increase?

2 What would you do to reform the Canada student loan system?

3. The Canada Millennium Scholarship program is due to end in 2009. What would you do to replace it, and to improve accessibility for low income students?

4. The last Liberal government exempted student loans from the bankruptcy act. Would you reverse that decision? If not, why not?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Post secondary education: The forgotten issue

While I'm no longer a Young Liberal I'm still youngish at heart, and student issues remain one of my top issues of interest. My monthly student loan payments probably help keep it top of mind.

That's why I'm a bit disappointed student issues haven't been getting much play of late, either in Parliament or in the leadership race. If I was a YLC executive member I'd be demanding the candidates release detailed policy statements on issues like

a) Reforming the student loan system and student aid

b) Once again having student loans fall under the bankruptcy act

c) Increasing base funding to post secondary education through a dedicated provincial transfer

d) Paul Wells' favourite issue, research funding, and, as importantly, facilitating the commercialization thereof

I was reminded of the forgotten student issue when reading this story today on a research report from a think tank that argues by focusing extending student aid and financial assistance to the middle class all parties have been engaging in a vote buying exercise that is costing the government more money without actually helping those that need it.

I think the study makes some interesting points. One that I would make is that it is unfair to judge the situation solely on parental income, as some parents may be unable or unwilling to pay, so cutting off those students from financial assistance and student loans cuts them off from post secondary education.

That said, the system is a mess. Student loan horror stories abound. Tax credits are great, but most students don't have income so the credits are transferred to their parents, who may or may not be helping the student out.

During the election, I examined the three main parties' educaiton platforms here.

What to do?

I think the first thing to do is negotiate with the provinces to create a direct transfer for post secondary funding (this was a Conservative campaign promise), and increase its size. As part of the deal, provinces should agree not to decrease their own funding. In exchange for the increased funding, universities should be required to cap tuition at inflation, with a channel for increases if they can show a specific need. Also, a portion of that funding should go to fund scholarships and bursaries for low income students at the university level.

The student loan program is in such need of reform it's hard to know where to start. But one place would be to take its administration away from the for-profit banks and back within the government (the righties will love that one). Also, allow students in dire straits to be able to bankrupt their student loans once more. It's a last resort, but it's unfair that a failed businessman can take that route and not a former student fallen on tough times.

The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation is scheduled to die in 2009 with no sign of replacement, killing $350 million in annual grants to low income students. It wasn't a perfect program, but we need something like it to continue. Whatever it is, it must be targeted.

Beyond that, maybe it's time we started thinking outside of the box. Some European countries offer free tuition. Maybe we should look at tiered tuition rates based on parental income. Or maybe interest free loans, as long as the required payments are being made.

I don't know, but I do know that it's time student issues took on a larger issue on the national stage and in the Liberal leadership campaign. If youth delegates are so important to this process why aren't candidates talking about these issues and, more importantly, why aren't the youth demanding that they do so?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Toronto the not so bad

It was a year ago this week that I arrived in the heat and humidity of Toronto from British Columbia to find an apartment and start a new job on the East side of Younge, er, Yonge Street. (It’s not my blogaversery though, that’s in November) And, all in all, it’s been a pretty good year and I think I may finally be getting over my anti-Torontoness.

Which is sad in a way, because my Toronto hatred had been nurtured so carefully over the years. Particularly during five years in Ottawa (watching Sens/Leafs playoff disasters), and growing-up in oh so alienated Western Canada. I think the combination of the cool mountain air and the salty breeze off the ocean creates some kind of hallucinogenic anti-Toronto feeling.

After spending a year in the Centre of the Universe though, I have to say it’s really not all that bad. It was a tough start. My arrival seemed to coincide with Toronto’s “summer of the gun.” Freaked me out a bit, but I’ve never really felt unsafe here. I was just glad my Mom doesn’t watch the national news too much.

While I can’t say much for the humid summers and the cold, snowy winters, I have come to like it here. Particularly in the warm weather months. I like the multicultural feel of the city and how there’s always some festival or celebration happening somewhere every weekend. I like the hustle and bustle, although I don’t have to drive in it. If I did, maybe not so much.

I like hating the Maple Leafs, particularly when they’re loosing. But I also love the Blue Jays. I’ve caught 12 or so games this year so far, including three in the current series against the Yankees. I know people here love to hate the Skydome, but on a sunny Saturday afternoon with the roof open, hot dog and coke in hand and the Jays on the field, there’s nowhere I’d rather be.

So now, one year later, when the jumbotron directs the fans to “get loud because We Are Toronto!” I no longer feel queasy. And when I am driving around the city I no longer avert my eyes from the CN Tower in an attempt to make myself forget where I am. Denial is for me once again just a river in Egypt.

While I will always remain at heart a BCer in Toronto, I think I’m finally ready to admit to myself that I do live in Toronto now, and hey, it ain’t so bad.

However, the Maple Leafs still suck.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You're welcome Peter!

So Peter McKay isn't happy with a Globe and Mail story about the government's handing of the evacuation and so he wrote a long, whiny letter to the editor about it. Well, I say quit your whining Peter. We've had enough of your ungrateful bitching. You should just be grateful the media is covering your minority "government" at all. I mean, my taxpayers dollars are paying the salary of this "Minister of Foreign Affairs" and he's so ungrateful!

Signed,

A sarcastic and ugly Liberal whiner

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Lessons in manners from the Blogging Tories…no, really

Scanning through the Blogging Tories Web page before heading off to bed tonight (although I really shouldn’t though, it angries-up the blood) and post after post (I counted at least eight) are attacking those “whiny” Canadian evacuees leaving or waiting to leave Lebanon.

The BTs call them “ungrateful” and “whiners” that should "be grateful” they’re being rescued at all, and should just “quit bitching.” And, of course, lots of gratuitous shots at the media, for actually, you know, reporting what people said. It's a conspiracy, you know. It seems, after waiting for days in 30 to 40c weather in makeshift camps and then enduring long, cramped crossings in crowded boats where many suffered from sea sickness, many of these evacuees were less than bright eyed and chipper when disembarking on the other end.

If you’d just been through such an ordeal, would you be in a great mood? They’re not really pissed at Harper, they’re just hot and hungry and tired, in a pissy mood, and, given they’re escaping a war zone, maybe just a little freaked-out about the last few days.

Has the evacuation been handled as well as it could/should have been? I don't know, it remains to be seen. Such questions are legitimate, and the exercise should be examined, but it's too early to say at this point. Right now let's just focus on getting everyone out safely, there's no need for armchair quarterbacking yet.

But I mean come on, give these people a break. In a few days, once they’ve gotten a good night’s sleep, taken a shower and put on some clean clothes and had a change to get over the shock of their experience, I’m sure they will be expressing their gratefulness and thanks to the Canadian government. For now let’s cut them some slack. Picking on evacuees from a war zone? Really classy guys.

While I’m not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories (unless it involves the (John F.) Kennedy assasination) I do find it interesting that this groundswell of Blogging Tory outrage seems to have erupted so widely all of a sudden. Coincidence, I’m sure. But it seems while Steve Harper can take a punch, his followers clearly can’t. Oh, and clearly, as experience has shown, Harper really can't take a punch either.

UPDATE: I have to say I'm a bit shocked at the vehamance some people are expressing here. Even Stephen Harper is willing to cut these people some slack:

“A lot of [these] people are very grateful,” the Prime Minister said on the dark pre-dawn tarmac at the Ottawa airport. “A lot of [these] people are very frustrated. They had a long and difficult trip.”

And from the same Globe story, here's a quote from someone who appears to meet all of the Conservative requirements of "true Canadians", and illustrates the shift I'm saying will occur:

Despite the anger expressed by some at the embassy's disorganization, their mood seemed to improve the moment they were finally put on boats. “I was a little cranky last night after being in the sun for seven hours, but now I'm just glad to be going,” said Janet Jacobsen, a 61-year-old physiotherapist from Crofton, B.C.

She had been in Lebanon for a friend's wedding, which took place last Friday despite the fact many guests were unable to attend because of the bombing.

“This was the adventure tour of Lebanon,” she said as she settled into her seat for the ride out.

As I wrote in the comments, I just hope none of you ever find yourselves in a war zone, with your kids in tow, bombs going off around you, food and medicine becoming scarace, not sure when or how you'll be able to get out. I'll try to have some sympathy if the stress makes you say a few things you may regret later.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

When is a Canadian not a Canadian?

Sadly, that seems to be a debate we're going to have to have in this country once all the Canadians of varying degrees of residency and hyphenation have been safely evacuated from Lebanon. I'll tell you now where I stand though: A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

With some estimates pegging the number of Canadians in Lebanon at around 40,000, not all of whom are looking to leave, the question that has been raised is what is the obligation the federal government has to these people.

And I can accept that question, to a point. Even before this latest crisis the region was far from safe, and wasn't high on my list of possible vacation spots. When you travel to the Middle East I think you have to be ready for the possibility of trouble, and accept a certain level of risk.

However, all-out war is a different matter, and in such cases governments have traditionally taken pains to evacuate their citizens. While it might not be in the Charter, it's one of the duties governments have come to owe their citizens, and I think that's right. I think most Canadians would agree with this principle.

The debate tends to get more complicated though when we get to the issue of dual citizens, and residency. Some are asking, if they're a Canadian citizen but have lived in Lebanon for some time, do we owe then a boat cruise to Turkey? Or, what if they're Lebanese-Canadians currently living in Lebanon; do we have the same obligation to them as a non-hyphenated Canadian?

While I can see somewhat where such critics are coming from, I have to say an unequivocal yes, they are all Canadians and we have the same obligation to them all, no matter their residency or hyphenation.

Going down such a troubling road would lead to different classes of Canadians. Perhaps a rating scale of one to four. Citizen? One point. Born in Canada? One point. Resident in Canada? One point. No dual citizenship? One point. Four out of four, congrats, go to the head of the line. There's another troubling question that bears asking here. Would we be having this debate if we were talking about British-Canadians, for example? Perhaps not.

If there is a will in this country to change our laws to prevent citizens from holding dual citizenships, that's one thing. I'd disagree with that policy, but that would be a fair and legitimate debate to have.

In the meantime though, there are no varying classes of Canadian citizenship. A Canadian is a Canadian, and all should be treated equally.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is Slobodan the new Adolf?

Just wondering. If comparing the Conservative’s softwood sellout to the failed appeasement of Nazi Germany is bad (I think it is, and so did she) then isn’t it also bad to compare, say, the Premier of Ontario or Vancouver City Council to practitioners of ethnic cleansing?

I'm genuinely curious here.

Also, while it seems that while Germany circa World War Two comparisons are out, it looks like Germany circa World War One comparisons are just fine.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

At least it wasn't a WW2 memorial

Must focus on work today, but couldn't let this item found during my morning reading pass without comment. It's from the Toronto Star's political blog, and an entry on the Harpers' touring World War One cemeteries in Northern France yesterday.

I did the same thing myself some years ago, participating in a Remembrance Day ceremony at a Canadian military cemetery in Northern France. It was an emotional experience, and I can certainly understand the emotion Laureen Harper must have felt visiting the grave of her great Uncle.

What I can't understand though is this comment later in the day by Stephen Harper, while he was touring the Vimy memorial site, comparing the German soldiers who fought the Canadians at Vimy to the Parliamentary Press Gallery:

Harper walked through the preserved battle trenches nearby. But, with news photograhers following his every step, he seemed a bit preoccupied with his sometimes strained relations with Canada's media.

As they recorded his exit from one trench, Harper looked at the photogs and mused about the war fought here 90 years ago. Back then, he said, "the enemies had guns, not cameras."

I don't know what to say about that. It's just pathetic. I could go on about the role of media in a democracy, about disrespecting the sacrifice of our soldiers, or about how those young kids having to face gassing and bullets and the hell on earth of trench warfare has absolutely NO comparison to a media scrum. But instead I'll just say get a life Stephen.

UPDATE: Paul Wells weighs in on Harper's "Back then, the enemies had guns, not cameras" quote with this biting remark:

True. Which is why Canadians are so greatful that back then, our soldiers were less likely to wallow in bottomless self-pity than, say, some of today's political leaders.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Great Canadian Tax Experiment, the Wrap-Up

The receipts have been processed and the numbers have been crunched. To sum it up in three words: I got hosed. I'm paying more taxes under the Conservatives then I did under the Liberals. But hey, the government knows how to spend my money better than me…right?

A few weeks ago, on Canada Day, to celebrate the Conservative one per cent cut to the GST that came into effect that day I decided to save all my receipts for a month, track my spending, and see how much I'll actually save. Also, with the Conservatives raising/lowering the lowest income tax bracket to 15.5 per cent, I wanted to see if I came out ahead or not.

I quickly learned saving all my receipts is a pain in the ass, and some places look at you funny when you ask for one. So, I decided a 15-day window, also coinciding with one pay period, would be a representative sample. I could use that data to forecast a month's worth of spending, and add in regular monthly expenses like rent and utilities.

As I set out downtown on Canada Day to catch a Jays game it was clear some businesses hadn't changed to the new rate yet. The newsstand at Warden Station still charged $1.75 for a Black Cherry Vanilla Diet Coke, and they still do two weeks later, so I guess they've pocketed the savings there. And they're not the only businesses that seem to have done so.

The Blue Jays are passing the savings on to their fans though, even though it makes life tough for the guys hawking beer and popcorn in the stands. The Jays used to have even numbered tax inclusive concession prices to make change more easily, but that has changed. For example, with GST and PST a popcorn used to run you an expensive, but even, $5. Now it will set you back an uneven $4.95. A nickel savings. I'd imagine most people let the popcorn guy keep it.

The numbers

When you add up all the numbers and project it over the month, including everything from rent to phone and student loan to groceries and entertainment, I spent $1728/month. Man, I really need to start saving more. Not all of my spending was GSTable, for example most groceries aren't, nor is my single largest monthly expense, rent on my palatial Scarborough pad. But thanks to Stephen's one per cent GST cut I did save $3.99/month. Projected out over a year, that's $47.88. Not a lot, but hey, it's something, right?

Not quite, for now the other shoe drops. For on July 1, the new old revised lowered but higher income tax rate kicked-in and began to impact those of us that have federal tax withheld on our paycheques. Before the last election the Liberal government moved to lower the rate from 16 per cent to 15 per cent, and in their budget the Cons set the rate at 15.5 per cent, which is more than 15 per cent. They said it was to pay for their GST cut.

Now, before I have the Cons all over me, I know the Liberal tax cuts that came into effect before the last election were never officially passed and proclaimed into law. I also know that's not immediately necessary for income tax changes, and I also know that I and every other Canadian was paying the lowered rate of 15 per cent up until June 30. If I was paying 15 per cent before, and 15.5 per cent now, proclamation or no that's an increase.

So, the black and white of my pay stub shows I am paying more in federal tax now than I was before June 30, and so is every other Canadian. In my case, my pays stub for the first 15 days of July shows I paid $4.74 more to the Feds in tax this pay period than I did in the last one, or $9.49/month. Or, if you prefer, a $113.88/year tax increase, gross.

Now let's factor in those big GST savings. Subtract my GST savings from my increased tax payment and I'm behind $5.50/month. Or, over the course of the year, the Conservatives are taking $66 more in taxes from me than the Liberals were.

Remind me again who the tax and spenders are? But hey, I'm sure Steve will spend the extra $66 I'm sending him wisely, right?

Now yes, you'll say, but if I bought a brand new house or a luxury car I'd save even more. And I'd say to you man, I wish I could afford a house or a luxury car. But, you see, I've got these student loan payments because when I went to school in Ontario in the late 1990s, tuition skyrocketed when the Mike Harris Conservatives slashed university funding to pay for his "Common Sense" revolution. So, alas, that Lexus will have to wait.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals call nomination meeting in Emerson's riding

The LPC(BC) has scheduled a nomination meeting for July 29^th to select a Liberal candidate for the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, which is held by turncoat Conservative cabinet minister and "softwood savior" David Emerson.

You may recall Emerson was elected under the Liberal banner, promising Stephen Harper he'd be his "worst enemy." Just days after the election though Emerson was negotiating to cross the floor into his enemy's arms, and was sworn into Harper's cabinet.

The news of a nomination meeting is interesting. I'm not aware of any other Liberal nomination meetings having been scheduled, and I read recently the Conservatives haven't either. Clearly they have a candidate or two in place.

I like this strategy. Let's get a Liberal candidate in place and they can start campaigning now, and speaking-up for the thousands of constituents who elected a Liberal, not a Conservative, and were disenfranchised by Emerson's floor crossing. Shadowing him every time he's back in the riding. Nice work.

Side note, with the Conservatives likely to stop protecting sitting members from nomination challenges will Emerson even be able to win the Conservative nomination, assuming he still wants it?

Follows the press release from LPC(BC):

For Immediate Release
Nomination Meeting Called for the Riding of Vancouver-Kingsway

Vancouver (July 17, 2006) - Today, the Liberal Party of Canada (BC), on the call of BC Election Readiness Chair, Sharon Apsey, and with the approval of the National Election Readiness Co-Chairs, Mike Eizenga and Lucienne Robillard, issued notice for a nomination meeting in the federal riding of Vancouver-Kingsway.

"Liberal voters in Vancouver-Kingsway were disenfranchised by David Emerson's stunning decision to cross the floor just days after the last election," said LPC (BC) President Jamie Elmhirst. "The executive of the Vancouver-Kingsway Riding Association has consistently asked for an early nomination meeting to help provide a positive outlet for voters' anger and frustration."

The nomination meeting will take place on Saturday, July 29, 2006 at the Alpen Club, 4875 Victoria Drive, Vancouver BC (33rd and Victoria Drive). Voter registration begins at 12:00 PM and will end at 5:00 PM.

Potential nomination candidates have until 5:00 PM on July 21st to seek approval from BC's Election Readiness Co-ordinator, Sharon Apsey and the Green Light Committee. To vote in the nomination, local members must have joined the party on or before July 14, 2006.

This notice is being published providing notice according to Section 11.0 of the Nomination Rules for British Columbia and is hereby made available to all eligible voting members of Vancouver - Kingsway Electoral District

Members of the Liberal Party of Canada (BC) will be required to show identification proving both identity and residency to the satisfaction of the Returning Officer. In order to establish identity, at least one piece of identification shall be photo identification. Members must establish residency at the residential address on the Party's membership list.
---

UPDATE: Sean Hollman at Public Eye Online reported last month that Wendy Yuan was seeking the nomination. He reports today she's still the only known candidate although more may still come forward by this Friday.

---

Past posts on Emerson:

February 6: At least dogs are loyal
February 6: Liberal riding association president responds
February 10: Conservative candidate was ready to drop-out of election for Emerson
February 27: Emerson thinks he'd win???
March 2: Emerson earns an Olympic DNF
March 12: The one-day Emerson story, Day 33
May 15: Speaking of lawsuits, Oh David...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Refooooooooorm is needed, so let's start talking about it

I don't agree with everything outlined in the media coverage of Belinda Stronach's proposal for reforming the Liberal Party (I'd like to read the full, uncensored document) but I'm impressed and glad that a senior member of our party is putting these issues out there for discussion.

It's a discussion we need to have, but haven't been having. She's been taking a lot of unsurprising flack, but while she's a newcomer to the party I haven't heard many of the old crowd taking reform. Carolyn Bennett has talked about returning power to the grassroots but I haven't heard any specifics, and her second-tier candidate status makes it tough for her to garner attention. I'm also doubtful about the LPC's renewal commission. While I may yet be surprised, revolution rarely comes from within the old guard, and this seems like an old guard exercise.

On to Stronach's ideas now, as outlined on the media coverage.

*$1 memberships
I think I like this. It's unclear from the coverage whether she would also favour a national membership list, but I think that would be necessary to make it happen. A national membership would relieve pressure on the regions letting them focus on organization, and improve membership services by streamlining the process and consolidating the process. Why should I need to buy a new membership when I move to Ontario, a year after buying a 4-year membership in BC? A $1 membership fee would level the playing field across the country, and ensure cost is no barrier to political involvement. It would also remove the "did they may for their membership?" stigma of mass sign-ups. On the flip side though, is $10/year or $20/year really much of a barrier? There is a cost involved to process each new membership; I think the fee should be at least cost recovery, particularly given our sorry fundraising record. Maybe $2?

*One member, one vote
I liked this idea at first. Delegated conventions do seem to be rapidly becoming a thing of the past. It rubs me wrong that one person could vote 5 times for the leadership if they're a member of a campus club, women's club, the aboriginal commission, their riding association and elected as a delegate. There was an angle I hadn't considered though until I read a post at Bowie's Call and that's regional representation. A large membership base in Ontario, or even Toronto, would overwhelm the West and the Maritimes. Scared of Volpe's 36k signups now? This isn't an insurmountable hurdle though. Design a system where each riding gets an even number of votes, divided amongst the candidates based on how its members vote.

*Substantially streamline the party infrastructure, reform fundraising
Specific details were lacking in the coverage, bit I agree in principle here and have said so in the past. Would like specifics.

*Caucus elects the cabinet
This is just loopy, and is a horrible idea for many reasons. It's so far out there I'm not going to dwell on it, although I certainly could. It'd just be too easy though, and given this will never happen it'd also be a waste of time.

As I said, the media coverage was lacking in detail in the proposals and focused on the most sensationalistic of them, with the least chance of happening: caucus electing the cabinet. The report is supposed to be circulated amongst the party, and I hope to read it soon.

While I don't agree with all of her ideas, and I think the cabinet thing is way off base, I'm glad someone is finally thinking a bit out of the box anyway, and hopefully this will be the start of a party-wide debate on some of these issues.

And another thing

As I read some of the snarky comments and insults Stronach is taking from members of our party for even speaking out, I'm both saddened and more convinced than ever that more needs to be done to bring more women into politics, remove barriers to entry and most sadly, in this day and age, change attitudes.

I'm glad Stephane Dion is raising this issue and I like some of his ideas, but not all of them. I have trouble with hard and fast quotas for either appointments or nominations. If we can address the systemic issues and barriers, quotas shouldn't be necessary. That's where we should focus our efforts.

UPDATE: Thanks to Zac for noting the Stronach document is available online here (clicking link opens an Adobe PDF file). Looking forward to reading it after work.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I am in love with this motherf'in snake!

When I first saw a clip from the upcoming Samuel L. Jackson movie Snakes on a Plane on The Colbert Report I thought it was a joke, but it seems it's a real movie and I can't wait to see it.

Sometimes a movie is so bad, it's good, and this looks like one. Read more here and here, watch viral videos here, and see the official site here. And hear from Colbert here.

It's already a cult classic and it's not out until August 18. I love though how, when the studio wanted to change the title from Snakes on a Plane to Pacific Air Flight 121, Samuel L. Jackson would have none of it:

"What are you doing here? It's not Gone with the Wind. It's not On the Waterfront. It's Snakes on a Plane! "We're totally changing that back. That's the only reason I took the job: I read the title."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Playing hardball with softwood

Not having time to write at length about Bob Rae’s response to Harper's softwood lumber brinksmanship between work this afternoon and dashing off to a disappointing Blue Jays game this evening, I would now like to try to expand a bit on the topic now. To borrow a phrase it's a complex file, so I'll try breaking it down into questions and answers.

Is the softwood lumber agreement a good deal?

No, it’s not a good deal at all. When they’re honest, I think even its supporters tacitly admit this, admitting ‘well, it’s the best deal we can get.’ Canadian Cynic had a great post on this topic the other day that provides a nice retort to that sentiment. Putting aside the next question for a moment, I think we can all agree this is a bad deal. Basically, we’re paying $1 billion in extortion money for them to stop picking on us and to get a limited time period of peace, rather than face the uncertainly of continued illegal duties and legal challenges in the hope of getting it all back and settling this once and for all.

So should we bend over and take it?

Now that’s the $4 billion question, isn’t it? To bend over, or not to bend over. The legal road is a long and risky one with no guarantees, and the U.S. hasn’t shown itself too keen on obeying rulings anyway. Despite feeling we’re in the right, if we’re going to abandon that road in exchange for certainty and give something up we feel we shouldn’t have to, we still have to get enough back to make it palatable, otherwise staying the course remains more attractive. A clear verdict on this point seems to be emerging, and from those with the most knowledge and interest in the question: the governments and forest industry in B.C. and Quebec.

I think we have to put a lot of stock in the fact that so much of the industry, and it would seem these two provinces as well, have serious reservations about accepting this deal. Why? Because they have the most to lose. It’s the industry’s $5 billion, it’s jobs and the economy in their provinces that’s suffering. If they say this deal just doesn’t do it, I’ve got to believe them.

It has been a long, tough road. But those impacted have persevered through it by saying it will be worth it, by sticking the course we’ll finally settle this thing once and for all, and we won’t have to go through this all again in a few years. But, with this agreement, the suffering would have been for naught, and we’d be right back at square one in a few years. This is no long-term fix, it’s a very expensive bandaid.

Should this be a confidence motion?

No. Harper says he can make anything he wants a confidence motion because he’s the PM. A year and a half ago, he said Martin couldn’t make anything he wanted a confidence motion just because he was the PM. Still, if Harper wants to make this a confidence motion, he’ll probably make it happen. But, legitimately, should a deal to resolve a trade dispute really be a matter of confidence? Nope.

Why is he making it one then?

Once again, to weaken and divide the opposition and push through his agenda. I like his strategy, but he needs us to vote for the deal to carry it out. He wants this agreement, he wants to campaign as having solved the softwood crisis in BC during the next campaign. Wait a minute, we Liberals would say, that was a crappy sellout of a deal. Well then, why’d you vote for it then? the Conservatives would retort. So, Harper campaigns as the softwood savior even though it’s actually a bad deal, and we’re unable to call him on it because we got goaded into voting for it because we were to weak to stand up to his posturing and bluffing.

Does Harper really want an election on this?

No. Why would he? He’s made some progress on his ever-evolving priorities but he’s not there yet. Even with the Liberals in leadership flux, getting another budget would still be ideal for him. Also, to get his majority Harper needs Quebec and BC, and this deal is quite unpopular there. An election called with Harper on the wrong side of this issue and the opposition parties on the right side would motivate a large concerned voter group in those provinces, and Northern Ontario too, to vote.

Would it really be a softwood election?

After a few days, certainly not nationally. But again, remember the regional considerations. It would be to certain key segments across the country. But more than the merits of softwood, a larger issue would be why the Cons wanted to bring us to the polls over a trade dispute in the first place, when they could have just respected the democratic will of the House of Commons and moved on. There would also be many other issues, which I won’t get all into now. Long story short, I wouldn’t mind our chances.

But wait, weren’t the Liberals going to sign a similar agreement?

Well, we heard that one was on the table. What exactly it looked like, I don’t know. It did seem to be hushed-up, that pissed me off at the time. It seems when the industry was consulted they indicated it was unacceptable, so the thing was shelved until after the election. The rest is history. So, does that make the Liberals offside on this? Hardly. Let’s look at it. Both the Liberals and the Cons negotiated, both reached some kind of tentative accord. Both took it to industry. Industry told both it wasn’t good enough, let’s keep negotiating/fighting. Liberals said ok, we’ll get back to this after the election, which they subsequently lost. The Cons said suck it industry, take it or leave it, because we’re cutting and running, and while we said we’re going to stand up for Canadians, we didn’t mean you guys. And as far as Emerson attesting to anything, David is hardly a model of chastity and virtue, particularly in BC where they’re likely to care about all this.

Bottom Line

The Liberals need to vote no on this, and if Harper insists on irresponsibly making it an election, so be it. We can’t vote no because we’re scared of an election, or because it doesn’t suit our leadership timetable. The Canadians that voted Liberal and sent Liberal MPs to Ottawa didn’t send us there to put our election timing issues or leadership agendas first. They sent us to represent their interests. This deal isn’t in their interests, so we should vote against it. Plain and simple. It’s time to be decisive.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Call Harper's softwood election bluff: Rae

I've been hard on Bob Rae in this blog over the past few months. I think he's dead wrong on Afghanistan, for example. The sky may be falling, however, as I think I agree with him here. More thoughts later, really must work.

Risk election over softwood, Rae urges Liberals

JOAN BRYDEN

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae is urging the party's MPs to vote against the softwood lumber deal, even if it means toppling the minority Conservative government and plunging into an election before the Grits have chosen a new chief.

Mr. Rae, a former Ontario NDP premier and a leading contender for the top federal Liberal job, dared Stephen Harper to call an election over the trade agreement reached on July 1.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Don't play the race card

Following up on Stephen Harper's letter to the nowhere near an ocean Calgary Herald, Conservative Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice yesterday once again reaffirmed his government's opposition to a "race-based fishery" in British Columbia. Pardon my language, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one.

At least Mr.Prentice made his comments in B.C. this time. In fact, the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre is just steps from the harbour. And credit to Jim for doing it before a far from friendly crowd, the annual general assembly of the Assembly of First Nations.

Here's a quote from Prentice's speech, as reported by the Globe this morning:

"We are not supportive of a racially segregated fishery," Mr. Prentice told chiefs gathered for a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations.

You know what; I'm not supportive of a racially segregated fishery. I doubt the AFN is either. And we don't have a racially segregated fishery today. First Nations access to the fishery isn't based on race; it's based on treaty rights, court rulings, and law. They were here first, the government signed treaties with (some of) them, and those rights need to be respected.

The attempt by Harper and Prentice to frame the issue of access to the fishery, which is a difficult and contentious one, as one of race is dangerous, divisive, and irresponsible. I thought a friend of mine from Campbell River and a leader in the native community who was at the meeting and confronted the minister, Dan Smith, said it well:

"The segregated fishery or race-based fishery comments, do you know what that does to our people in the community, in the schools, at home in terms of interacting with the non-native community? It fuels the fire of prejudice and discrimination. That's what it does, Mr. Minister," said Chief Dan Smith of Campbell River First Nation, within which the Fraser River flows.*

My own feeling is that conservation needs to be the top concern. I think the fishery has been hopelessly and unfairly mismanaged, and significant reforms are needed. We should look at reform, and debate the issue. However, attempting to frame this is an issue of race is a red herring that will only inflame tensions and distract from the real issues. This isn't behaviour we should expect from the government of Canada.

Don't play the race card, Mr. Harper.

*Just a note to my fellow Carleton alum Bill Curry at the Globe. Campbell River is on Vancouver Island, the Fraser River is on the mainland, so the Fraser River does not flow through the land of the Campbell River First Nation.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What’s happening at Veteran’s Affairs?

A story in the Globe today raises some troubling questions about spending practices at Veterans Affairs, both by the minister and his chief of staff.

The other day the Conservative-friendly press did a lot of crowing about how little the new Conservative government is using the government’s fleet of Challenger aircraft, and by comparison how much of a spendthrift our Head of State is. Turns out there’s a good reason at least one Minister wasn’t using the government’s Challengers: he was chartering private flights instead.

The Globe reported this morning that Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson spent $18,000 taxpayer dollars on five charter flights, averaging $3,600 a pop, between Ottawa and his New Brunswick riding, as well as PEI and Nova Scotia. Cost of a commercial flight on Air Canada, Fredericton to Ottawa return? Between $500 and $1900. While the Buy on Board selection is poor, at least you earn Aeroplan points.

Anyway, I’m sure our friends at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation will be denouncing the Conservatives on this any moment now. Anyone hear crickets?

But more disturbing, really, is the allegations contained a little further down in the Globe story. According to expense reports, Thompson’s chief of staff, Jacques Dubé, expensed $8,100 in air fare to attend “five sets of regional meetings in New Brunswick.” Yet, according to his same expense reports, he must have been in Ottawa on at least some of those days, because he also expensed lunches in the capital in the middle of these New Brunswick trips.

This information is all available on the Web, so I took a gander for myself. Here’s one example. Here we see Mr. Dubé flew to New Brunswick for regional meetings from April 3^rd thru April 7^th, claiming just under $1700 for air fare and transportation.
And here we see Mr. Dubé claimed $36.64 for a working lunch for two at the Lord Elgin in Ottawa on April 5.
A fairly thrifty lunch to be sure. But, wait a minute, I thought he was in New Brunswick April 3th thru 7^th, how could he expense a lunch back in Ottawa on April 5^th?

A little later in the month and Dubé is back in New Brunswick for more regional meetings April 10^th thru 12th, this time dropping nearly $2000 in air fare.And again, in the middle of the trip, on April 11 he claims $54.05 for a slightly more expensive lunch for two, this time at the Shearton Hotel in Ottawa.
I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation for how Mr. Dubé could be in two places at once, and charging the taxpayer in both Ottawa and Fredericton at the same time.

The Globe put the problem to a spokesperson for the department, but his explanation has only left me more confused. The bolding here is mine:

The spokesman said that while these regional meetings did not actually happen, the travel was work-related and the expenses were filed under a misleading heading.

"I agree that it's confusing," Mr. Lefebvre said. "He is constantly in meetings in New Brunswick and he is constantly in meetings in Ottawa." (At the same time? - BCer)

What does that mean, "these regional meetings did not actually happen"? If they didn’t happen, why was Dubé apperantly reimbursed for air fare to these non-existant meetings? And what does he mean by the expenses were "filed under a misleading heading"? Either the dates are wrong, or the locations are wrong. Is that the case? If it is, why not say so and correct it?

I’m sure there’s some reasonable explanation here. At least, you would hope there is. But we still haven’t heard one yet…

UPDATE: A commenter points out that Dubé actually lives in Fredricton, and would appear to be commuting to work in Ottawa at taxpayer expense. The Globe story does indeed mention Dubé calls Fredricton home. Coupled with the departmenal spokesperson's comments that these regional meetings never actually happened, that raises some questions about whether these trips between home and work charged to the taxpayers were indeed legitimate business trips that are expensable, or just commuting to work, which is not an acceptable expense to charge the taxpayers and wouldn't be kosher at all.

Something seems very rotten here, and I thought the Globe missed the story somewhat by leading with Thompson's charter flights. Journalists call it burying the lede. I hope some enterprising reporters are looking into this further. Myself, I have to go look into supply chain management software.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Wells on Harper's five priorities shell game

Great column from Paul Wells in Maclean's this week. He points out that PM Steve has, on the fly, decided to replace his fifth priority, a wait times guarantee, with "strengthening our country at home and around the world" and just hoped nobody would notice the change. It's a must read.

When the going gets tough I guess Steve…changes the rules. Handy that. And Oceana has never been at war with Eurasia…

July 13, 2006
Stephen Harper's new game: Hide-the-Priority
What happened to establishing a wait-times guarantee? That promise has disappeared
PAUL WELLS

This week's tale is really quite odd.
(snip)
Harper is playing Hide-the-Priority. And he's being pretty clumsy about it.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Does Steve's Canada include BC?

Unless you lived under a tree during the last two election campaigns and/or we scare mongery Liberals really weren't doing our job properly, you know PM Steve Harper once co-penned a letter advocating building a firewall between Alberta and Eastern Canada. I just didn't know the wall would be on Alberta's western border with BC as well.

It would explain, however, why Steve wrote a letter outlining his thoughts on so called "race-based" fisheries in B.C. the other day to the Calgary Herald. (As in Calgary, Alberta).

While I hear the fishing is pretty good in Cold Lake (spent a summer there with the Air Cadets, no time for fishing though0, his letter was addressing a BC issue, which makes a letter to the Calgary Herald an odd choice to open debate on the issue. Here's just a few pubs that might have been more appropriate places to deposit his (staff's) words of wisdom:

The Vancouver Sun
The Vancouver Province
The Victoria Times Colonist
The Prince Rupert Daily News

Or he could of, you know actually talked to reporters. But that's crazy, forget I mentioned it. Silly me.

I'll leave an alalysis of the merit, or lack thereof, of the content of Steve's letter for others. Long story short, his lack of legal understanding is obvious, and it's simple pandering to his base. And when it comes to letter writing he's no Stephane Dion.

Myself, I look forward to reading PM Steve's next letter, on Quebec's place in Canada, in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Media knows best, and leadership phase two

I read with interest a piece in the Toronto Star saying that, according to their investigation, Gerard Kennedy signed-up the most new Liberal members by the deadline.

There's still no official numbers but I wouldn't be surprised, as Gerard has a very strong team across the country working hard for him on the ground and a lot of caucus support, which is important for such an organizational effort as well.

What I noted with some interest and amusement in the Star's piece though was this graph:

It has been conventional wisdom in the party that MP Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke Lakeshore) has had a strong lead, followed by former Ontario premier Bob Rae.

NO IT HASN'T! That has been the conventional wisdom in the MEDIA, not in the party. Rae is a media darling but his support on the ground is limited, a mile wide but an inch deep. With respect to Bob, he has never been a frontrunner. The Rae as frontrunner myth is and was solely a media creation. Silly, silly Star.

Phase Two

On another note, now that the sign-up phase is over, and given the somewhat low overall numbers of new members, the real challenge now over the coming two months will be to convert and bring the existing Liberal membership base onside.

I think that will be more of an important factor than it has been in past leadership races, as we oldtimers are a higher percentage of the membership pool this time, and that's a healthy thing.

Also, I think it requires a different set of skills than those required to sign-up new members. Now it's the time to talk about policy, and to get specific about ideas and vision for the country. No longer will "we're focusing on signing-up members" be an acceptable non-answer to policy questions.

Lastly, I wouldn't view all these new member sign-up numbers for each candidate as set in stone. I think, as we have a real debate of ideas in this next phase, many of those people will be up for grabs as they hear more from all the candidates. It should be interesting, and fun.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Make it about engaged, and not...qualified, and not

Apropos of nothing much, I wanted to share a little West Wing / Aaron Sorkin wisdom that I think relates to politics in Canada today and that we Liberals may want to consider.

The first selection (more context here) is from the season three episode Heartsfield’s Landing. I think it has some resonance to political discourse today, and the direction we need to take. I’ll leave it to your imagination which leadership candidate I feel can best take such a tact. :)

The scene is the Oval Office, the staff is just back from a day on the campaign trail against Republican presidential candidate Rob Ritchie and staffer Toby Ziegler is playing a game of chess with President Bartlet. Bartlet has been downplaying his academic intellectual background in favour of emulating Ritchie’s “plain folks” routine, and because, as Jeb said, “nobody likes the smart kid in class.”

Toby has had enough of this BS, and he calls the president on it.

BARTLET
[approaches to sit across from him] What’s your point?

TOBY
You’re a good father, you don’t have to act like it. You’re the President, you don’t have to act like it. You’re a good man, you don’t have to act like it. You’re not just folks, you’re not plain-spoken... Do not – do not – do not act like it!

BARTLET
I don’t want to be killed.

TOBY Then make this election about smart. And not. Make it about engaged. And not. Qualified and not. Make it about heavyweight. You're a heavyweight.

Also relevant , I think, is this section from the season four episode “Game On” where Ritche and Bartlet debate. Plain-folks Ritche has been employing a strategy of ten word answers, and Bartlet soundly smacks him down.

I think this quote speaks so well to the simplistic “five priorities” strategy that the Conservatives have employed.

Moderator: Governor Ritchie, many economists have stated that the tax cut, which is the centrepiece of your economic agenda, could actually harm the economy. Is now really the time to cut taxes?

Ritchie: You bet it is. We need to cut taxes for one reason - the American people know how to spend their money better than the federal government does.

Moderator: Mr. President, your rebuttal.

Bartlet: There it is. That's the ten word answer my staff's been looking for for two weeks. There it is. Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They're the tip of the sword. Here's my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I'll drop out of the race right now. Every once in a while... every once in a while, there's a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts. Other than that, there aren't very many unnuanced moments in leading a country that's way too big for ten words. I'm the President of the United States, not the President of the people who agree with me. And by the way, if the left has a problem with that, they should vote for somebody else.

Oh, if only Jeb Bartlett was a) a real person, and b) Canadian. Bartlett for Prime Minister!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

CG on Dion: A mini-series

Calgary Grit has posted part one of his recent interview with Stephane Dion today, with two more parts to follow. While CG is supporting Gerard Kennedy he has and is giving all the candidates a fair and evenhanded shake, and the first installment of his Dion interview is certainly well worth a read.

CG’s was also the second blog I began to regularly read a few years ago (via Kinsella, who was the first) and his perspective is always interesting, informative and insightful (I'm on an alliteration kick right now) so I’m looking forward to seeing the rest of his take on Stephane.

I also wanted to highlight this section from CG’s interview. I think Stephane is bang-on here, and I don’t just say that because I’ve said much the same thing myself in the past! The answer here is in response to a question on sponsorship, and if, as a former Quebec minister, Stephane would be tainted by it as leader.

If Harper tries that, I would say that my integrity has never been tarnished at all. The fact is, we have been too kind and we need to say “no more mister nice guy”. The people who were crooks went to jail and will go to jail, but our 75 candidates in Quebec are honest people and we need to aggressively defend their integrity. If Gilles Duceppe brings it up, I would ask him about the Parti Quebecois accepting illegal funds from Group Action. If he calls the Liberal Party crooks, I would sue the Bloc. If Harper brings it up, I would ask him to release the names of the donors to his first leadership campaign in the name of integrity.

Right on, and whomever wins I hope they take this attitude.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why's everybody always picking on the GG?

It seems to be the favourite pastime of the right-wing media, politicians and lobby groups to pick on our Governors-General. Adrienne Clarkson was a favourite whipping girl of theirs, and now it looks like they're starting-in on Michaelle Jean.

A story in the Ottawa Sun today "GG Challengers' best client" is both an example of lazy summer journalism, completly lacking in news value, and of a piece so puffy it could have been written by the CPC communications staff.

Before I dissect a few paragraphs, let me say there is no news here. The GG's job is to travel the country to cut ribbons, accept flowers and meet with Canadians. She's the head of state; she can't fly WestJet for security reasons. She needs to take a Challenger, even if it doesn't have in-seat satellite TV. The RCMP insists on it.

Let's take a few of the graphs in this story, shall we? Here's the lede.

The Conservative government has kept the pricey Challenger jet fleet mostly grounded since taking office, leaving Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean as the most frequent flier of the government aircraft.

Well, the bias of this story is clear right from the start: Conservatives thrifty, GG spendy. I'm surprised they forgot to say she was appointed by the Liberals. All this stuff is just filler, the subtext really is the Liberals flew Challengers all the time and the Conservatives aren't.

In the records for the first three months in office, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor were the only two ministers to board the aircraft. Other frequent travelers, including Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, have flown commercial.

Hey, I remember a Challenger trip a bunch of the Conservative lads (six MPs and four PMO flunkies) were on. Now, what was it again? Oh yeah, Steve took a bunch of the boys in his caucus on the Challenger to a hockey game in Calgary! We won't mention that though, it doesn’t fit with our Conservatives as thrifty theme.

Jean used the plane to make official visits across Canada and to Italy, Haiti and El Salvador. Only one trip was for personal travel -- a family March-break trip to the Bahamas -- requiring the jet to make two separate trips to return the aircraft to Ottawa and go back to fetch Jean's family a week later.

Again, for security reasons the head of state can't fly commercial. That's also why the PM will take the much larger Airbus for international trips. Also, take note of that bit about only one personal trip. We'll get back to that later. First, here's Jean's aide on why she flies by Challenger.

"It's always been a security advantage; the RCMP has requested domestic and international travel by the Challenger," he said. "One can ultimately override, I would say, and go against the recommendation of the RCMP. But no, that is not done -- both the prime minister and the Governor General follow the security recommendations of the RCMP."

Could you imagine George W. Bush flying SouthWest? On the plus side, maybe we'd get to see him in A&E's Airline, being denied boarding for intoxication, or complaining he missed his flight because he was in the bar and did hear the pages. That'd be fun.

Now, let's hear from my favourite right-wing reactionaries, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The bolding is mine.

Adam Taylor, a spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, called it "business as usual" at Rideau Hall since the days of Adrienne Clarkson, who was criticized for extravagant spending.

"I think if you're in an office that largely has to be supported by the taxpayers that you would limit your family vacations," he said. "To veil that under a security clearance issue -- I don't think taxpayers will buy that."

OK, remember when I said to take note of that vacation line above. Now you see why. Adam wants her to "limit" her vacations. Now, how many vacations did she take? ONE! Can't get much more limiting then that without eliminating them, and I believe she's legally entitled to at least two weeks per year.

Second, Adam seems to be dismissing the security concerns of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as illegitimate. Really Adam, you know more about security than the RCMP? I don't trust the CTF on tax issues, and I sure don't on security. I'll have to side with the police on this one Adam.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Radwanski on conventions and leadership

The National Post's Adam Radwanski wrote an interesting column on Friday that's posted on his site now and is worth a read. It touches on a number of areas, from mass signups and convention affordability to needed reforms to the leadership selection process.

A few thoughts of my own:

* This isn't necessarily a comment to Adam, but generally I think we need to be careful about linking ethnic communities and mass member signups. It's a link that shouldn't be made. An insta-Liberal that only comes to cast a ballot and isn't seen again can be of any ethnicity. A mass-signed up person can become a loyal, active Liberal, and we should give them the benefit of the doubt. However, lengthening the time period of required membership to be eligible to vote at delegate and candidate selection meetings is something that should be considered as part of reforming the process.

* I agree with Adam when he talks about delegate fees and convention funding. High fees were charged in the past because many campaigns, covertly or overtly, subsidized or paid the way for their delegates. That's supposed to be a thing of the past. Is it still reasonable then to charge so high a fee? I like this quote from Adam

"Suppose that, this December, you find a thousand dollars. You might spend it on Christmas gifts, or put it toward a vacation somewhere warm. You could go out for a decadent night on the town, or stash it away for a rainy day. But what you won't do, unless you're very rich or very insane, is hand it over to the Liberal party for the privilege of casting a vote for one of its 11 leadership candidates."

Just like the Liberal Party needs to adjust to the new fundraising reality it needs to adjust to this new reality as well, and get leaner and meaner.

* Adam advocates reform of the system in the form of an American-style primary system. I'm not sold on that, I can see some potential issues. While it would do away with some of the excitement of a delegated convention, I think some kind of one member, one vote preferential ballot system may be the way to go in the future.

Published in The National Post on July 7, 2006
The leadership campaign is still a dirty business

Maybe I saw too many membership forms filled out for newly minted Liberals who were barely aware they were joining a party. Too much cash passed under the table to pay convention fees for people who had no interest in paying their own way. Too many organizers enlisting friends, acquaintances, entire ethnic communities -- people who couldn't care less about politics, but owed a favour. Too many riding associations run as MPs' personal fiefdoms.

Maybe I just spent too much time in the Liberal party. But even with all the added scrutiny, the new fundraising rules, the claims that the party has turned a new leaf, I'm having trouble believing the race to replace Paul Martin is all totally above board.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The NDP is having a convention and I’m invited!

Got an e-mail from the NDP today, they’re having their national convention in Quebec City in September and I’m invited! OK, so it was a bulk e-mail sent to everyone on their mailing list, but still, it’s nice to be wanted, isn’t it?

Out of curiosity, I went to the Web site to check out their delegate fees. Here they are:

Early-bird registration
(registration payment sent on or before July 7^th)

Youth Delegate $50
Unwaged Delegate $50
Regular Delegate $95
Alternate Delegate $95

Regular Registration
(registration and payment after July 7th)

Youth Delegate $65
Unwaged Delegate $65
Regular Delegate $175
Alternate Delegate $175

Observer
$30 per day or $75 for 3 days

You also have to pay for your travel, accommodations, and meals.

Now, this isn’t a leadership convention, but still, would someone please tell me how the NDP can make their convention work at $95/head, but the Liberal Party needs to charge $995? Granted, the Liberal fee includes some meals, but we’re not talking Filet Mignon here. Travel and accommodation is still extra.

I’m aware of the Liberal travel subsidy program, but still, this gap is insane, and given donation limits that program may need to come to an end. As much as I want to go to Montreal, I’m having a hard time justifying $995 plus travel and accommodation. Besides, having donated more than $5 already something would have to give.

But donation limits aside, the LPC needs to work to bring delegate fees down to a more reasonable and accessible level. If the NDP can do it I would think hope the LPC could too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Globe hops on the blog wagon, Volpe stays off

This is what we in the journalism biz call "a matcher." A competing publication has a story that you don't, so you assign a reporter to write the same story for a quick turnaround. Usually it's a news story, but in this case the Globe has a (Web-only) matcher of the Star's Liberal leadership blogging story. And they didn't talk to Kinsella either…

Much of the story is the same as Delacourt's, although they do mention my humble little blog, so thanks for that Campbell. But seriously though, I think Campbell actually offers some interesting meat in his article by getting the Volpe campaign's thoughts on blogging:

Mr. Volpe's campaign is wary of blogging. MP Jim Karygiannis, Mr. Volpe's national campaign co-ordinator, said one stupid comment posted on the Internet can set a campaign on the defensive for days, so he has a standing admonition for campaign workers: "Don't blog."

You may remember Jimmy K, he's the guy that "hassled" a Liberal riding association president on his way out of a B.C. Federal Liberal Council meeting last month for daring to question Volpe's kiddie donation fiasco. Classy.

I can see why you're shying away from blogs Jim; it's hard to defend the indefensible.

Update: Cherniak says the Globe called him before the Star piece ran, so it appears this isn't so much a matcher as a case of great minds thinking alike and what not.

Contenders for Liberal leadership go to the blogs
Campaigns trying to harness influence of burgeoning Internet community
CAMPBELL CLARK

OTTAWA -- Should dissident Liberals start a new party if Joe Volpe wins the leadership? Should Ottawa impose a carbon tax? Are Scott Brison and Homer Simpson's neighbour, Ned Flanders, twins separated at birth? These are some of the questions floating through the Liberal blogosphere.

But many of the 11 Liberal leadership campaigns have their own question about the legion of Internet blogs dealing with party matters: Can they win delegates there?
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dion and Quebec, C'est tout bon

One of the questions I keep hearing about Stephane Dion is yeah, he's great, but isn't he a pariah in Quebec? Not at all, and the evidence is mounting.

I've maintained for some time he is absolutely not, and that he is, in fact, that he's the ideal Liberal candidate to make gains for us in his home province. (Scroll down to What about Quebec? for my theory.)

For those of you still harbouring doubts about Stephane's popularity in Quebec though, I'd like to invite you to read Lysiane Gagnon's column today in the Globe.

I'd also like to point-out this graph from a recent Paul Wells column, on Steve Harper and the Quebec Fete Nationale:

Several pundits -- Rex Murphy, Chantal Hébert, even Michel Vastel -- say Stéphane Dion is the surprise of the Liberal leadership race. Quietly, Conservatives admit they would rather not have to think about that, because Dion would present them with something besides an empty net in Quebec. Fortunately for Harper, Liberals have worked hard lately to make his life easy. Why would that stop?

Dion's Quebec comeback
LYSIANE GAGNON
From Monday's Globe and Mail

For years, Stéphane Dion was the most-reviled politician in Quebec. He was the so-called “arch-federalist” that all sovereigntists and nationalists loved to hate and whom most francophone federalists were unwilling to defend. He was the father of the Clarity Act that even Paul Martin dared not support. Because of his mousy face, La Presse cartoonist Serge Chapleau used to represent him as a rat, with small pointed ears, its mustachioed muzzle contracted in an arrogant sneer, and the tail emerging from beneath his suit.

One would wonder how anyone could survive such treatment. But he did. The frail, bespectacled academic obviously had nerves of steel and an unusual resilience. And, in an unexpected turn of events, the former Liberal minister has become the surprise of the Liberal leadership campaign.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Germans love David Hasselhoff...but why?

Oy, the things you can find on the Internet. Was looking around Google Video and came accross this music video by David Haselhoff. It's destined to be a camp classic, it's just...it's hilarious.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Short, snarky comments on recent news stories

Story: Provinces urge Clement to help plot a pharmaceutical strategy
OTTAWA -- Provincial health ministers who will meet today to approve a progress report on a national pharmaceutical strategy say a pan-Canadian program to cover the burdensome costs of some drugs cannot fly without the financial help of the federal government.

Snark: I can see why they'd want Clement's help with this, after all, not only is the the minister responsible for the pharmaceutical industry, he also owns a bunch of stock in a pharmaceutical company.

Story: Cloutier deal caps salary concerns
Canucks general manager Dave Nonis sent Cloutier to the Los Angeles Kings for a second-round draft choice in 2007 and another pick in 2009 if the netminder re-signs next summer with Marc Crawford's Kings.

Snark: I guess Nonnis couldn't get them to throw-in a bag of pucks.

Story: Despite fraud, Guité 'an exemplary citizen,' lawyer says
MONTREAL -- Aside from the fraud case against him, Chuck Guité is "an exemplary citizen," his lawyer said yesterday as she argued for the release of the former sponsorship bureaucrat, pending an appeal of his conviction.

Snark: No snark needed here, the headline writer beat me to it.

Story: Tory agent tossed over nasty e-mail
A former spokeswoman for the Conservative Party of Canada has been fired from an Alberta MP's office after issuing a blistering personal e-mail to a woman who wrote to several federal politicians.

Snark: She should just get elected, as a Conservative MP she could tell people to f***-off or give them the finger with impunity.

Story: Volpe gains ground in recruiting drive
OTTAWA -- The now-completed membership drive by Liberal leadership candidates has allowed Toronto MP Joe Volpe to claim membership in the top tier of contenders, although Michael Ignatieff retains front-runner status.

Snark: Looks like we may be forming a new party on Dec. 4. We should start thinking about names now to avoid any CCRAP issues with the acronym.

Story: Bush applauds PM's leadership on softwood
U.S. President George Bush heralded Prime Minister Stephen Harper's leadership on resolving the longstanding softwood lumber dispute after their meeting in Washington on Thursday.

Snark: It's great Bush is happy. Now if only Harper's constituents, you know, Canadians, and our forest industry, shared Bush's pleasure.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

NDP says it's sorry, kinda sorta

You may remember back during the election campaign the NDP alleged one of its candidates in B.C. was offered a bribe by the Liberal candidate to drop-out of the race. They made great hay with it and garnered national headlines. Turns out the NDP is now admitting the allegation was crap. Opps.

The allegation was laid by the NDP's candidate for the riding of Abbotsford, Jeffrey Hansen-Carlson, against Liberal candidate David Oliver. As a result of the ensuing media circus the Liberals dumped Oliver as the party candidate.

The NDP's leader Jack Layton made great hay out of the affair, saying his poor candidate had "a horrifying experience" while "trying to participate in the democratic process."

Both Hansen-Carlson and the NDP's official agent have issued apologies to Oliver, who is still perusing a defamation lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court. No apology yet from Layton though, and I'm not holding my breath. And the NDP appears in no hurry to settle, even though they've apologized, judging from their recently filed statement of defence.

It indicated they're sorry, but hey, they thought it was true at the time, so what's the big deal. The NDP's making national media hay out of the false allegations was done "without recklessness or malice [in the] honest belief that this was a matter of legitimate public scrutiny," says the party, and surely not just in the interests of winning more votes, each vote coming with a taxpayer subsidy.

But here's my favourite line from their statement of defence quoted by the Sun:

"The fact is that in an election, all allegations are received with skepticism by the electorate, especially those which are taken as complaints to Elections Canada."

Or, in other words, people know we make all this stuff up or exaggerate it, so they don't believe us, so it's OK for us to just keep on making stuff up and exaggerating things. Great message guys.

Lastly, I note with some sadness that Oliver's lawyer indicates the Liberal Party has yet to respond to requests for an apology for its treatment of Oliver in this sad affair. Bill Graham, get on that.

NDP apologizes for alleging Liberal bribe
Candidate says he 'misinterpreted' discussion
Peter O'Neil, Vancouver Sun
Published: Thursday, July 06, 2006

OTTAWA -- The federal New Democratic Party has apologized for alleging during the 2006 election campaign that one of its candidates was offered a bribe by his Liberal competitor in B.C.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It’s called a meal allowance, so buy a cheeseburger or something

I'm a bit surprised this story hasn't gotten more play, but apparently MPs have decided they can use their taxpayer-provided, tax-free "meal allowances" to help pay mortgages on their Ottawa residences, should they own a second-home in the nation’s capital.

While I dislike knee-jerk reactionism on issues like MP pay raises and the like, this one is just stupid. They already get a daily accommodation allowance. This is a meal allowance, go to McDonald’s. If I recall, there’s one at the foot of Bank and Wellington. Also, I’d recommend the Marroush International Schwarma on the Sparks Street Mall, if it’s still there. It’s nonsense like this that breeds cynicism and disgust with politicians and politics.

This isn’t a partisan political thing, all parties would have to support this for it to be happening. Only Liberals were dumb enough to be quoted supporting it though, sometimes Harper’s control-freak tendencies pay dividends. The only Conservative quoted is the maverick Garth Turner and he’s against it.

MPs pay mortgages with meal allowances
Secret panel allows $75 per diem to help finance Ottawa houses
Tim Naumetz, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, July 03, 2006

The secret board of MPs that manages internal House of Commons affairs is allowing MPs who own a house or condo in Ottawa as their second home to pay down their mortgages with a $75 per diem intended for meals, the Citizen has learned.

The per diem is in addition to a $25 daily accommodation allowance MPs receive year-round if they own a second house or condominium in the capital, and using it to buy a home is allowed despite a rule forbidding mortgage payments from a separate $24,000 expense allowance.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why are movie reviewers such jerks?

Really, I mean it, why are they? It's like they're the cool kids in the class that are just so much better than everyone else, and spend all their time looking down their noses at the ignorant plebes.

Jaded, cynical, snotty. If a movie isn't arty it's an abomination, and if it's popular then it must be horrible. They seem to revel in their own cleverness and self-importance.

I'm on this rant because I went to see Click this weekend. Confession time: I like Adam Sandler. I think he's freakin' hilarious. Happy Gilmore and The Wedding Singer are among my favourite movies.

Frank Capra he ain't, but you'll bust a gut laughing and have a fun hour and a half. I liked Click too. It's a nice story idea well executed, with a lot of funny stuff and some emotional scenes. And Kate Beckinsale too. About the only unbelievable part of the film was that anyone would use their life-controlling universal remote to fast-forward through "quality time" with her.

If I relied on reviewers like Liz Braun in the Toronto Sun though I probably wouldn't have gone to see the movie though. Luckily, I didn't read her review until today. Liz says it's "Like It's A Wonderful Life on speed. Like that." OK Liz, you've seen It's a Wonderful Life. We're proud of you.

Liz wasn't as bad though as the dean of reviewers, Roger Ebert. Roger sees it as a Scrooge ripoff, and haughtily laments Click "could have been elevated into a metaphysical adventure, as in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," or made to generate a series of paradoxes, as in "Being John Malkovich," but "Click" stays resolutely at Level 1 -- the tiresome explication of the basic premise." Or, you might say, funny.

Is there some rule that film reviewers have to hate any entertaining, popular movie that appeals to the common masses? Maybe it's taught at film reviewer school. Or maybe they're afraid of getting beaten with biscottis by their reviewer colleagues.

Maybe it's something in the water. Assigned to write a film review for The Charlatan back in the day, I went into the theater determined to be positive. Alas, I just couldn't give a positive review to Tomcats. If you were one of the 10 people that saw it, youd understand.

Click, though, I liked. Roger can go watch that French movie with the red balloon floating around Paris all day long, I'll take Big Daddy, thanks.

I also saw Superman Returns over the weekend, the 3D Imax version. The 3D was pretty cool, and so was the movie. It was very much in keeping with the feel of the 1978 original. I much prefer the Superman style, corny though it may be, to the darker Batman style. Two thumbs up for Superman as well.

And what's the deal with all this Superman is gay nonsense? Surely it's not just because he presses his clothes and combs his hair? Judging from the movie, he clearly still has the hots for Lois Lane, not Jimmy Olsen. And when she's played by Kate Bosworth, who can blame him?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Let’s err on the side of inclusivity

While I can understand how leadership candidates would want to do everything they can to maximize their candidate’s chances of success, I was still disappointed with the reaction of some of the candidates, as reported in the Globe today, to a decision by the Newfoundland Liberal Party.

In a nutshell, as I understand it, in Newfoundland and New Brunswick the parties are in the process of reforming their membership rules, from a system of lifetime memberships to one requiring annual renewal. After some confusion, Newfoundland has given some 50,000 members until September to renew and still be eligible to vote for the leadership.

So, who would have a problem with that? According to the Globe story, the Volpe campaign. I don’t know about the other campaigns as they’re not quoted, but I sure hope they don’t share the views of those quoted in opposition. Mark Watton from Ken Dryden’s campaign is also quoted, but while he’s “annoyed” with the situation he at least says he accepts it.

Volpe continues to show himself to be the old-time, win at any costs, mud-slinging politician. His spokesperson, Corey Hobbs (you may remember Corey from kiddie-donationgate) says this whole thing is a nefarious Bob Rae plot. I won’t attempt to synthesize his theory, read the story if you’re really interested.

The Newfoundland ruling seems quite fair to me. It’s consistent with the rule that allows lapsed members to renew within six months of their expiry and still be eligible to vote an candidate selection meetings and other meetings that require people to have been members for X days. It would be a travesty to see 50,000 people disenfranchised because they weren’t aware of a rule change. We’re not talking about insta-Liberals here, these are in many cases long-time party members.

If we’re going to err, let’s err on the side of inclusivity and ensuring every possible Liberal is able to make their voices heard. Any candidate that wouldn’t support that shouldn’t be running to lead our party.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Soldiers don’t like Harper's media ban either

The Harper government initially said its ban on the media covering homecoming ceremonies was out of respect for the wishes of the families, but that was quickly proven a lie when the families said they wanted the media there. And, judging from a CP story today, the soldiers want the media there too.

Harper banished the media to the other side of a fence outside the base beside a highway outside CFB Trenton during the arrival ceremonies. To help the media out though, and to show their displeasure with the situation, the base personnel moved equipment out of the way so the cameras could have a clear shot at the ceremony.

If it wasn’t obvious before, it would seem to be painfully obvious now that this whole mess by Harper and his defence lobby minister O’Connor has been about nothing but politics from day one. Conservatives. Playing politics with our solders. In our cities. I did not make this up.

I look forward to watching the Conservatives try to spin this one. Recommended spin/attempts at obfuscation for my Conservative friends:

• Must be a slow news day.
• Clearly the media is out to get Harper again, whay with reporting actual facts and all, and like, the truth.
• I don’t care what evidence there is, I feel in my gut we're right and they're wrong.
• When are the Liberanos going to pay back some sum we made up to rectify some imagined scandal, while we ignore evidence of wrongdoing in our own party?
• Hey, look over there! (While they’re looking, run away.)

Soldiers upset over homecoming ceremony media ban
Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Senior military officials opposed the Conservative government's controversial ban on media coverage of homecoming ceremonies for soldiers killed in Afghanistan, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act suggest.

A Department of National Defence official snapped photographs outside a repatriation ceremony in April to illustrate how the government's policy was causing security concerns.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Great Canadian Tax Experiment

A Happy Canada Day to one and all! I hope everyone has a great day. It’s my first Canada Day in Toronto and I’m heading downtown shortly to check it out, and take in the Jays/Phillies game.

Today is also the first day of a 1 per cent GST cut, and day one of my Great Canadian Tax Experiment. Beginning today, thru July 31, I am going to save every receipt and keep track of every penny I spend. The goal? To see how much I save from Mr. Harper’s one per cent slashing of the dreaded, but economically sensible, goods and services tax.

I’ll track how much GST I save, and how much of my spending isn’t GST’able or is on purchases where the vendor didn’t pass on the savings. Each week, I’ll post an update with my spending and GST savings, and at the end of the month I’ll tally my GST savings and compare it to the increases amount of tax that is now being deducted from my pay check, and we’ll compare the two numbers.

What a fun way to start the summer! If nothing else, fear of public embarrasment may force me to cut back on my McDonald's breakfasts, as delicious as their breakfast buriotos are. And please, this experiment is for entertainment purposes only, so as always, no wagering.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Survey says

The poll box was a little obtrusive on my sidebar, and I think after 61 votes it’s about as statistically valid as a Web poll is going to get, so I’ve taken it down. The bottom-line of the results: if Harper pulls the plug in the Fall, the respondents think he’ll maintain a government of some sort.

The question was “If Harper forces a fall election, what will the result be?”

1. 16 votes, or 26.2 per cent, said A Larger Conservative Minority
2. 12 votes, or 19.7 per cent, said A Conservative Majority
3. 12 votes, or 19.7 per cent, said A Liberal Minority
4. 10 votes, or 16.4 per cent, said A Smaller Conservative Minority
5. 9 votes, or 14.8 per cent, said the U.S. Annexes Alberta for the Oil Sands
6. 2 votes, or 3.3 per cent, said A Liberal Majority
7. 0 said an NDP Minority (Sorry Jack)

So, breaking it down a bit most think the Liberals will stay in the penalty box a bit longer, and that Harper will stay in minority territory. As I said previously, I think the Liberals would pull off a minority in such a scenario.

There’s a few wildcards though. How the government falls, who is seen to blame, and who the Liberals have as leader. This poll was also before the Conservative donation scandal, if that has legs that’s another wildcard.

Really though, I don’t think Harper would be dumb enough to go this fall, although if his arrogance overwhelms his brains who knows, and I wouldn't want to bet against his arrogance.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers