I've solved the nation question

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

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

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

Go Canucks go! Anson who?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Question of the day – Taxes

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the question:

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

But but but...Liberals bad!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Norman Spector is an asshole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Question of the day – Challengers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the question:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Blogging from Montreal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Question of the day -- Pastries

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

So, here's today's question:

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

And now it’s time to play our game...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRUCE CHEADLE

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

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

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

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Crime: The hot new wedge issue for fall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Today's question – The Military

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

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

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

Here's today's question:

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A QP double play today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Down the memory hole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Question of the day -- attack ads

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

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

Today's question:

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Don’t be playin' me Rona

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Canada not a child abuser dumping ground, says Dalton

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember when these guys pretended they were tough on crime?

UPDATE: Signs of life in the Conservative caucus:

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper is an evil genius

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I take it back. Stephen Harper is a genius.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On high school romances...

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

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

Run Condi. Run far away.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Fortier est un poulet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

American child abuser exiled to Canada?

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

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

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

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

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

BUFFALO — Jail or Canada? Malcolm Watson chose Canada.

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Oh dear, John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

This blog's week will have 7 leadership free days

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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

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

…So, get it right or shut up.

Personal regards,
Garth

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Mickey on politics, and roller coaster psychology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why the Globe is wrong (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Now that's entertaining

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The third distillation makes the difference

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

All over Dublin...

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Meditations on clouds, culture and club sandwiches

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sometimes politics is just so...political

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it December yet?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephane on QP

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Scanning the headlines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It’s completely false and just speculation.”

“There is no such proposal.”

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

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

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

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

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

A Happy Thanksgiving Weekend to all.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Briefly, on Quebec

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

There’s doings a transpirin’ on the Left Coast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ranking my top four

Now that we're past super weekend, with the exception of a slew of ridings in British Columbia, a bunch of others across the country still unreported, and the little matter of a recount of every ballot in Quebec, for many people thoughts are turning to second choice picks.

Particularly for those supporting one of the lower-tier candidates still in the race but without a realistic chance of winning, but also those supporting one of the top four candidates, in the event their favoured candidate doesn't make it to the final ballot.

Here's my personal ranking of the four candidates that can win, and some of the positives and negatives I see for each. Keep in mind this isn't my predicted order of finish, this is my order of preference, or how I would vote were it a preferential ballot. I've tried to be fair and honest, and a bit pragmatic, in both the positives and the negatives for each.

There has been some movement over the course of the campaign, and there may be more movement to come (in the bottom three only, of course.) But at the moment, for me it's:

1. Stephane Dion

Positives: Recognized for honesty, policy breadth, intellect and intelligence, demonstrated passion on the campaign trail, untainted by scandal but able to run on the positives of our governing legacy, good potential to unify the LPC as a consensus candidate.

Negatives: Quebec leader fatigue, fighting misconceptions about his English ability and popularity in Quebec, will get tagged unfairly with much Chretien/Martin baggage.

2. Gerard Kennedy

Positives: A young and energetic new face that has generated excitement with youth, strong governing experience at the provincial level, strong social liberal credentials, good potential to unify the LPC as a consensus candidate.

Negatives: Not at an acceptable level of bilingualism, lack of national/international policy experience.

3. Michael Ignatieff

Positives: Engaging speaker, strong international policy experience, well-read smart intellectual, within Liberal mainstream on most issues, a new exciting face, will help build centre-right support, tells you what he thinks, would build centre-right support.

Negatives: Lack of experience on domestic issues, wide body of academic writings and past positions can easily be unfairly taken out of context in an election campaign, inexperienced as a politician (he tells you what he thinks), lack of past Canadian presence makes it easier for opponents to negatively define him, would bleed centre-left support.

4. Bob Rae

Positives: Engaging speaker and dynamic campaigner, very politically savvy, great deal of domestic and international policy experience, very smart, has governing experience, would build centre-left support.

Negatives: Was a very unpopular NDP Premier of Ontario, would bleed centre-right support.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Your morning snark

The new Michael Ignatieff campaign slogan was unveiled in the blogsphere this morning:

In Montreal, hold your nose and vote for Iggy!

I hear they're having bumper stickers made up. Makes you feel all warm, fuzzy and inspired, doesn't it? :)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Waiting on Canada Post--UPDATED

(Scroll down for update) You've probably noticed the LPC Super Weekend ticker is stalled at 410/469. Actually, I think it went up one riding this morning.

I was under the impression that mail-in ballots for the 16 remaining British Columbia ridings would be counted today but I've been told that actually the B.C. ballots will be counted beginning Oct. 11, and the count is expected to take "a few days."

Not sure why the delay, if indeed there was one, my initial information could have been wrong. I did hear that some rural areas got their ballots with very little time to spare before the deadline for them to be returned, and the complicated and long ballots caused a lot of confusion.

So, if it's to give a chance for Canada Post to get all properly postmarked ballots to HQ then I'm for it. It is a bit susspensful though, and tough on those waiting to learn if they've gotten delegate spots or not.

Also still to come are one Alberta riding, seven in Manitoba, one in Nunavut, 20 in Ontario and 14 in Quebec. I don't know when they plan to do their counts.

UPDATE: Public Eye Online reports the one-week delay in the counting of ballots in B.C. is because some people appealed to the regional returning officer that they didn't recieve their ballots in time. It gets a bit complicated. But here's what I can gather.

Last Wednesday, the RRO issued a written ruling saying if you didn't get a ballot, inform her in writing by end of day that Friday and arrangements will be made to vote by phone.

On Thursday, the Michael Ignatieff campaign appealed that ruling to the National Returning Officer. On Sunday, the NRO ruled that the phone thing would be out and new ballots would be issued by mail, apperantly to everyone that didn't get one or says they didn't, not just those that resonded to the RRO's ruling to let her know by the end of day Friday.

Here's the contentious line from the NRO's ruling:

For those members whose ballot were issued to the right addresses, we will extend the delay for the postmark until October 6th, and reception at LPC(BC) by October 9th, 2006.

That would seem to indicate that everyone who actually got a ballot but didn't bother to vote can now do until this Friday, which would put 2100 more ballots into the ballot boxes that were recieved but not returned, or for which no effort was made by the voter to get one before super weekend.

That's the subject of an appeal by the Gerard Kennedy campaign filed yesterday with the permanent appeals committee. They're calling that unfair (and I agree) and are saying only the people that informed the RRO they didn't get a ballot by the deadline should have their late ballots counted.

So, now I guess we're waiting on that appeal, which Public Eye reports is supported by a number of other leadership camps.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

They are sooo good at naming things

Perhaps tired of all the press the Liberal leadership race has been getting (latest rumour, Rae to endorse Dryden, pass it on) the Conservatives made some news of their own today by releasing plans to introduce a "Defence of Religions Act."

Man the barricades! Or, as the witty Zac put it, Onward Christian Soldiers!

You know, I've said it before and I'll say it again, no one is better at naming things then the political right. These are the people that gave us the Death Tax and the Defence of Marriage Act, after all. A source close to Conservative CoS Ian Brodie tells me Defence of Religions Act narrowly won-out over their second choice, the Defence of Cuddly Wuddly Puppies Act.

Make no mistake though people, this has nothing to do with protecting religion. Or puppies. Religion is protected. How do I know? Well, the law says so, and so does, who was it…oh yeah, The Supreme Court of Canada. My friend (when he's not talking about Dion) TDH (now permalinkable!) lays out the history there quite clearly. As for puppies, they have the SPCA.

Clearly then religion is just being used here as cover, as nearly everyone would say heck yeah, religions should be protected. And they ALREADY ARE PROTECTED. So, what's this about then? Well, clearly one motivation is to rally their base in advance of the next election. Because hey, the Republicans do it every two years, and it works for them, right?

That's part of if, but there's more. This is from the Globe piece:

The measures would seek to ensure, for example…that a justice of the peace cannot be compelled to marry a same-sex couple in violation of his or her religious beliefs.

I agree that churches shouldn't be forced to perform ceremonies. Everyone does. But a justice of a peace isn't a priest or a rabbi. They don't work for a church. They work for THE GOVERNMENT. THEIR JOB is to marry people. If you don't want to marry some people, don't take the job! What if it's against their beliefs to marry, say, an inter-racial couple? Should that be acceptable too?

Here's more from the Globe, bolding is mine:

…there is acknowledged uncertainty about the rights of individuals to publicly criticize homosexual behaviour, to take out advertisements that quote scripture demanding that homosexuals be put to death, or to refuse to do business with groups whose views an individual or group finds objectionable.

Umm, why would we want to protect such speech as that in bold. Try replacing homosexuals with jews, blacks, Asians, etc., still acceptable? And on the issue of refusing to do business with "objectionable" people, how will that work? So, you're gay? Sorry, that Harvard MBA is impressive but you're not getting the job.

This proposed act has nothing to do with religion. Religion is protected. What this proposed legislation is about is legislated gay bashing, and I surely hope it will never see the light of day. Clearly, some Conservatives hope so as well:

Conservative MP Garth Turner, however, said Wednesday that such a law could be the “slippery slope” toward protecting bigotry and intolerance.

And fellow Tory Art Hanger said Charter protections of religious freedom are “cast in stone,” so another law may be unnecessary.

Cast in stone. Slippery slope to bigotry. Thats from your own caucus. Time for a rethink, Vic.

UPDATE: The always witty, and biting, Canadian Cynic sees the upside to the proposed Conservative legislation.:

I mean, surely no one is suggesting that taxpayer-funded bigotry be restricted to only the devout, are they? If Canadian Christians are granted that kind of freedom, it would seem inarguable that all taxpayer-financed Canadians will have the same choice to associate, or not, as they see fit based on nothing more than their personal beliefs. And, oh, the possibilites are endless.

For instance, teachers in Canada's public school system might decide that they just don't feel like teaching students who are strict Biblical creationists. (Such students are typically a royal pain in the ass anyway, so booting their sorry asses out the door of the science classroom can't help but be an improvement.) And why stop there? Why, indeed?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

How so, Sheila?

In her column today, Sheila Copps makes this observation about the weekends delegate selection results:

The losers last weekend were Canadian women. The lone female, Martha Hall-Findlay, enters the final stretch with fewer votes that any man in the race. She has bravely vowed to stay put. But her last-place status is an embarrassment to a party that prides itself on equality.

and

Politics is no worse than other sectors when it comes to sexism. But to see a trilingual, dynamic candidate bring up the rear in a race of also-rans should be troubling to all of us.

While the fact she finished behind Volpe is extremely disappointing, given his time in the party and years spent organizing it's not overly surprising. Organization is hugely important, and he had a years-long head start. But Volpe aside, Ms. Copps contends the fact she finished last is "an embarrassment to a party that prides itself on equality."

I'm sorry, but no, it's not. I would love to see a female Prime Minister. I would happily vote for one. However, I'm not going to vote for a candidate for that reason alone. I'm going to vote for the most qualified person, male or female.

I like Martha Hall-Findlay. I wish she'd done better in the balloting. I think everyone likes her, and everyone wishes she had done better. And yet, she didn't get that many votes. Does that say something about how the Liberal Party values equality? Not at all.

What it says is that, having followed the candidate's performance during the campaign, the voters decided that a 46-year-old lawyer who has never held elected office was not ready to be Prime Minister of Canada. That's all it comes down to. If she gets elected to the HoC and the Liberals form a government, she'll be a dynamite cabinet minister and a real contender next time.

But this time, the voters looked not at the sex but at the qualifications and experience of all the candidates, and they voted accordingly. Isn't that what equality is supposed to be about?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Rumours, rumours

An anonymous blog poster is circulating the rumour that Dion will drop out at the next debates to support Kennedy. That makes no sense for many reasons, so I’ll pay it no more heed. It was far from the only rumour circulating on the blogsphere today. The more interesting one is Brison to Ignatieff.

Is it going to happen? Hey, who knows. They seem to have some common ground around Afghanistan, less in common in other areas. But in case he does, I’d like to get a head start by providing Scott with some material he could use for his endorsement speech. Here’s a few clips I was able to find (I’ve bolded some of the highlights he may want to use):

Michael Ignatieff was portrayed Wednesday as a gaffe-prone amateur by at least one Liberal leadership rival after the presumed front-runner was forced to clarify his latest controversial comment.

In the most pointed broadside yet against the acclaimed academic, Scott Brison said Ignatieff's repeated miscues suggest the rookie MP has poor political judgment and insufficient experience to lead a national party.

"These gaffes are damaging to a leadership campaign but they will be terminal to a national general election campaign," Brison said in an interview.

Brison's attack was prompted by what he called Ignatieff's "gaffe of the week" -- a refusal to commit to running in the next election if he doesn't win the party's leadership.

Here’s some more:

However, Brison said that in nine years in politics he hasn't made as many "retractions and clarifications" as Ignatieff has made in just nine months.

Brison compared Ignatieff to Stockwell Day, who jumped from provincial politics to become leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance without any experience at the federal level.

Day's tenure at the helm of the Alliance, which eventually merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative party, was short-lived and disastrous.

Brison said Ignatieff is "smarter than Stockwell," now Harper's minister of public safety. But he added Ignatieff faces an even steeper learning curve, having spent almost 30 years out of the country as an academic and journalist.

Brison took Ignatieff to task for other recent so-called gaffes, including telling the Star that Canadians "live and operate in a heartless world and you need leadership that understands that."

"When you see the world as being heartless, that helps someone justify ruthless acts," such as Qana, Brison said.

He also chided Ignatieff for saying that Canada's peacekeeping tradition "died" with the genocide in Rwanda.

Brison said that remark could only come from someone who's spent 30 years outside the country and fails to appreciate how important peacekeeping is to Canadians and to Liberals in particular, who view party icon Lester Pearson as the father of peacekeeping.

He also scoffed at Ignatieff's recent admission that he's not sure he's "up to the price you have to pay" to succeed in politics.

"If you go in to have heart surgery and the surgeon says, `I think I'm ready to do this but I've never done it before,' you're probably going to look for a surgeon who's done it before," Brison said.

To be clear, I thought Scott’s broadsides here were WAY over the top. They’re his words though. Really, I’d love to see Scott go to Iggy just for the sheer entertainment value of trying to walk all that back. I'd say that just for that reason I don't see it happening, but this is politics, far stanger things have happened.

Anyway, the silly season is upon us folks. Hang on for the ride!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If only we'd known!

So, apparently, if documents would "irreparably harm" your political party you can just refuse to make them public. Problem solved!

Were you aware of this Jean? Paul? Anyone!!??

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cead Mile Failte

Sometimes I really like my job. Not that I don't like it usually (hi boss!). But one week from today I'll be boarding a plane for Dublin and I couldn't be more looking forward to it.

I travel fairly regularly for work (Orlando and New York last month, Anahiem just after Dublin this month) but this will be my first work-trip outside North America. And since I'm one quarter Irish (I like to say it's the biggest quarter) this is particularly cool for me.

I have been to Ireland before. I was an Air Force brat growing up and we were stationed in Baden, Germany for four years (1986-1990). One summer, when I was maybe 10, we hopped in the Westphalia and drove as quickly as we could across France, boarded a ferry over to the white cliffs of Dover (didn't see any bluebirds over) and drove across England to Wales, catching another ferry for a very bumpy ride across a rough Irish Sea to Dublin. My father's family lived in Birr, and we spent a few days meeting them before heading off to see the rest of the country, including the obligatory kissing of the Blarney Stone (got me where I am today, I'm sure).

This will be just a quick trip, travel aside there's two days of conferences/work stuff and one day on my own to explore. So I'm looking for ideas. If you had one day to spend in Dublin, what would you do? Keep in mind I'm not a beer drinker, so a blotto-faced pub crawl is probably out. :)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

In the MSM, and not as a nutbar this time

Two other times my blogging foray has garnered some small MSM attention, and both times I came off as a crazed nutbar plotting insurrection and coups.

So when I got a Google News Alert tomight that my name had been mentioned in the Toronto Star I was a touch nervous. Besides, with Volpe’s poor showing I’d ordered the Soviet ships carrying my nuclear missiles to Toronto Island to turn around before they reached the US naval blockade.

Luckily though it was a good piece. Susan Delacourt wrote a short piece on the LPC’s leadership ticker, quoting myself, Paul Wells and Steve MacKinnon. Not bad company to be in and I come off sounding fairly intelligent, or at least not crazy, and what more can you really hope for?

One Web poster, a Liberal partisan named Jeff Jedras, who runs the blog "A BCer in Toronto," wrote that he was ambivalent about the snazzy gadget.

"On the plus it certainly generates interest, excitement and buzz. It also serves to help counter some of the speculation, rumour and spin that would be circulating," Jedras wrote. But he worried that the "unofficial" nature of the results could tilt perceptions the wrong way until official results come in later this month.

On another note, I should mention nominations are now open for the 2006 Canadian Blog Awards, be sure to check it out. Blogging, particullarly the progressive side, certaintly seems to have grown by leaps and bounds over the past year.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Gerard will crown the next leader

Wow, what a weekend! I've tried to sit back and watch the weekend unfold, keeping an eye on the results as they come in and chuckling at the spin coming out of the various camps, and the backing-off as pictures shifted.

Now that things are pretty much set (there's still mail-in ballots to be counted, LPCBC counts on Wednesday) I think it's safe to weigh in with some thoughts. Forgive the length, but I've been holding it in all weekend.

First of all, there are only four people left in this race now. Actually, three, but I'll get to that in a bit. But really, the rest of the candidates, while they may stay on for the first ballot, are now not contenders. I hope Martha-Hall Findlay stays on for Montreal; I'd like to see her have a chance to address the convention.

Now before getting to my guy, I'd like to touch on the other three.

Michael Ignatieff

Michael finished with just under 30 per cent, roughly inline with his camps attempts at lowering expectations over the past few weeks but short of the slam-dunk he needed to have ended this race here and now. Can he grow? He'll get a boost from a very strong chunk of the ex-officio vote (ironic that a "renewal" candidate has the bulk of the party establishment behind him), but it remains an open question if he can grow enough to put him over 50 per cent. As Peter Donolo said in the Globe this morning, "garnering the next 20 per cent will be much more difficult than the first 30 per cent." Clearly though, Iggy remains the favourite, and the only question is who will face him on the final ballot.

Bob Rae

Bob put in a solid performance to finish second, ten per cent back of Ignatieff and about three per cent up on Kennedy and Dion. Not bad for just a few months as a Liberal. I was surprised at his strong showing in B.C., where he was the leader with nearly 30 per cent of the vote. The Ontario numbers aside don't believe the spin that Rae being well back of Ignatieff is a disappointment. He never was neck and neck with Iggy; that was a media creation and Iggy spin to lower expectations and take the heat off their guy. Anyway, while Bob had a strong showing where they know him best though, Ontario, the former Premier finished a disappointing third to Iggy and Kennedy. With growing Ontario so important to the next election, I suspect Liberals will be giving Bob's Ontario baggage second thoughts. Warren Kinsella had an amusing, and also relevant, comment here over the weekend: "…there's a reason why Bob Rae is strongest in Newfoundland and BC. It's because they are the furthest points from Ontario."

Gerard Kennedy

As I said a few months back, reports of Gerard's death were greatly exaggerated. He has a top notch organization and a lot of very savy political operators in his camp, and it showed with a very (nearly) impressive performance finishing in third, just a few delegates up on Dion. He's just one per cent back of Iggy in Ontario, leads in Alberta (the CalgaryGrit factor no doubt), was strong too in B.C. and did reasonably well across the rest of the country. His Achilles heel, though, is Quebec, where he only managed less than two per cent of the vote. After all the talk from his camp about his improving French and summering in Quebec, this will be hard to spin away. If he had managed even 10 per cent he'd be in an incredibly enviable position. But we need Quebec, and Gerard just has too much ground to overcome there between now and the next election. Clearly, though, Gerard has proven himself as the bright young rising star of the Liberal Party, and the clear favourite for the next time.

Stephane Dion

I can, with all honesty, say I am very pleased with Stephane's performance. Who would have believed, back after the election in late January, that he would be here? He has exceeded expectations and come from nowhere to have a serious chance at the crown, and I couldn't be happier with his positioning going forward. He put in solid numbers across the country, showing not overwhelming but solid cross-Canada support. Some are trying to spin his Ontario numbers as disappointing; I'd be lying if didn’t say I'd have liked them to be higher. Heck, I'd have liked him to win every delegate everywhere. But let's be serious, of the top seven delegates he was the only one not from Ontario. Up against the popular frontrunner from Ontario, a popular former Ontario cabinet minister and a former Ontario Premier, Stephane finished with a very respectable 10.3 per cent. Against so many local favourtites, not to mention Volpe's Toronto organizational strength and Dryden's Leafs Nation, that's no disappointment. Then there's Quebec. More amusing spin here, as the same people that called Dion an unelectable pariah in Quebec spin it as a disappointment that he didn't carry the province. An amusing contradiction there. Stephane finished a solid second with 29.3 per cent, which should put the question of his popularity in his own province to bed. (Worth noting among the Quebec electorate he polls higher than all other candidates, and the LPC too.) Another interesting fact: combine Stephane and Bob's vote and over 52 per cent of Quebec Liberals voted for candidates that don't want to reopen the constitutional can of worms. Given that Stephane came to his position with conviction, not political expediency, I like his positioning there going forward.

Going Forward

As I said earlier, Iggy will be on the last ballot. The question is who will he face? Unsurprisingly, I think it will be Stephane, but let me tell you why.

We are a party that needs renewal, and that needs to be united. Of the top four candidates, there are only two that I haven't heard people say they're going to leave the party if they get elected leader. I don't have much time for people that take such attitudes (Volpe haters excepted), but that's not a factor to be dismissed when considering where support will go. They're also the two candidates with the least party establishment backing and so best positioned to be agents of change.

With Bob's Ontario baggage shown still to be a factor and his growth potential limited, that leaves Gerard and Stephane. As I've said I like Gerard, but I don't think he can overcome the handicap of his poor Quebec showing. With a solid showing across the country, a respectable showing in Ontario and a very strong placing in Quebec, not to mention his acknowledged "everyone's second choice" status, I think Stephane is clearly poised to do battle with Ignatieff on the final ballot.

In the end, though, much will depend on Gerard. While I don't think he can win this time he does have the opportunity to be the kingmaker. Where he throws his support will go a long ways in determining who the next Liberal leader is.

Naturally, I'd like to see him support Stephane. I think it is a natural fit though. It would allow him to tap into a Quebec organization to begin building his one weak point for next time, and moreover in a Dion cabinet he could be the senior Ontario minister and a true partner in the great history of the Liberal Party, a position he couldn't get in a Rae or Ignatieff cabinet. Politics aside though, I think they have the most in common policy-wise and philosophy wise, and it's a natural fit.

Two more months to go, I'm sure it won't be boring!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Five things feminism has done for me

Ted over at Cerberus has started this “five things feminism has done for me” tag-game, and while I don’t usually take part in these things, since this one is to draw attention to right-wing blog crusade to eliminate the Federal government’s Status of Women agency this time I’ll make an exception.

While this is a serious issue, because many of the other tagged bloggers are going the serious route I’d like to take a bit of a lighter approach in answering with two serious things and three hopefully humorous ones, if I may.

1. I’ve learned to consider things from different perspectives. This is how I see this issue as a man, but what if I was a woman, or an immigrant, or a minority, would it impact be differently? It’s made me a touch more well rounded and enlightened.

2. Feminism is just about women’s rights, but it’s also about advancing issues that women care about. Growing up I benefited from child care programs, and after my parents divorced and my mother supported us, our family benefited from programs to encourage women to enter the workforce in typically male-dominant industries, like carpentry, and by the strides made by the feminist movement to make women welcome in all areas of work, and for equal pay.

3. Hours of enjoyment listening to and watching conservatives banging their heads against the wall railing against “Feminazis” and other moronic nonsense.

4. A more exciting dating world as we’re left to wonder, do I open the door for her or will she be insulted, or will she be insulted if I don’t open the door, arggh!

5. It’s now socially acceptable for women to ask out men outside of high school Sadie Hawkins dances. So, any time now ladies...

It's now the practice to tag five more people to take part, so I'll tag:

Red Tory
TDH Strategies
Written Inc.
Behind the Headlines
Sudden Sage

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More on the feminism front

I blame Ted myself, but I’ve been tagged again, this time by Jason Bo Green, to talk about what I’ve done for feminism, as opposed to the last tag thing, which was what feminism has done for me.

I wasn’t going to respond as, as mentioned earlier, as a rule I don’t like these tag things. However, Jason’s Kennedyesque (John F., not Gerard) “Ask not what feminism can do for you, but ask what you can do for feminism” imagery sold me. So, before I directly tackle that topic, I want to address the wider issue and some of the points he and others have made in their posts on the topic.

Jason expresses some views about feminism on his site, and his take generally isn’t too positive. That’s fine, and not all his complaints are invalid. I dislike extremists too. But I think where he errs is by seeming to tag the wider group with the views/actions of those on the extreme. It shouldn’t be a mistake a conservative would made, as they’re often reminding us not all conservatives are gun nuts, or anti-abortion, or whatever and that we shouldn’t judge all conservatives for the views of a minority. It’s a fair, valid point.

And it’s just as valid, I think, with feminism. Not all feminists, in fact very few, are man haters. Feminism, IMO, is at its core about equal rights, and about choice, and I’d like to think that’s something that we can all get behind. If I judge his post correctly, I’d think Jason agrees.

Anyway, what have I done personally for feminism? Well, I haven’t written a cheque, but I’m also not campaigning to have my taxpayer funding to the SWC cut. I have, though, in my life tried to treat women with respect and equality. I’d like to think that’s really what it’s all about.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You Spin Me Round

As I look around at the many posts in the Liberal blogsphere at mid-Super Weekend discussing and prognosticating on the streaming delegate selection results, this video comes immeditately to mind. BTW, I hear Bob Rae is going to drop out on Monday and throw his support behind undecided. Clearly undecided has the momentum, having come out of nowhere, and, since Bob has already said these campaigns aren't about ideas and undecided has none, it's a natural fit. But seriously, I'll save my spinning till all the results are in. Clearly, though, everyone will drop out before Montreal to support Dion, since the trends indicate only he can win.Third place with a bullet, baby!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers