Nice work LPC

On Monday I mentioned I thought it would be a good idea for the LPC to send out a fundraising e-mail to the membership in response to the Conservative attack ads. The NDP and Conservatives are very good at these kinds of issue-based, rapid response e-mail fundraising solicitations, and if we're to survive in this new fundraising era we need to be too.

I guess great minds think alike, as they say. While I didn't get one for some reason, a friend says an e-mail went out yesterday evening (and CLICK HERE to donate online). An issue backgrounder was also attached to the e-mail.

I hope we'll see more of this sort of thing in the future. Nice work guys.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

LPC goes YouTubing

It looks like the Liberal Party has its own page on YouTube now.

I think this is a great idea, and a low cost way for the party to communicate its message directly to Canadians. Hopefully we'll see this updated regularly with new videos and messages.

Already up is Stephane Dion's message from the other day on the reopening of Parliament, in both official languages.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The taxing politics of income trusts

As I’m still dealing with student loan debt and trying to furnish my apartment (traded in the fouton for a mattress and boxspring from Sears Monday, very comfy, but weird sleeping so high off the ground again) I have to say I’m not too familiar with the stock market or income trusts. I am somewhat familiar with politics though, and it’s being played fast and furious here.

And politics, as usual, isn’t helping to bring any clarity to things. I caught a bit of Jim Flaherty’s performance before the Commons finance committee yesterday, and specifically Flaherty’s tete a tete with Liberal critic John McCallum. The contempt wasn’t even a bit veiled between those too. I thought they were going to hurl their slide rules at each other.

As I said I don’t know much about income trusts, but I think clearly the government had to take action. Things were spiraling out of control, the tax burden balance between corporations and individuals couldn’t be allowed to continue to tilt in the direction it was going. So, last October Flaherty made the right call.

That’s the policy. Then we get into the politics. The Conservatives promised quite explicitly in the last election campaign they would protect income trusts, into which Canadians, including, as Steve was careful to point out, seniors, were heavily investing their retirement savings. Canadians couldn’t trust the Liberals, Steve said, but they could trust him. You may have seen the video.

When the Conservatives decided to flip-flop on that promise last fall the seniors weren’t mentioned, it was all about making corporations pay their fair share now. While we might not all get as turned-on by that sort of rhetoric as NDPers do, everyone can generally agree with it. But the collateral damage here was not just to corporations, but also to average Canadians, and yes, to Steve’s seniors, who have lost billions.

All sides agree that the trust decision had to be made, but it’s those average Canadian investors that we’re talking about now. And you can’t just say they invested in a risky investment vehicle and took their chances. You could, were it not for the fact Harper promised them he’d keep that vehicle safe, and it was his actions that crashed it into a wall. Their fault for trusting him I guess.

That’s what McCallum and Flaherty sparred about, those regular Canadians that lost their shirts. And it’s here Flaherty’s messaging got confused. You see, he’s trying to both explain away the campaign promise flip-flop AND blame the Liberals for not acting at the same time. He’s having to do somersaults to get the twofer though, and it’s not working.

He blamed the Liberals for not acting on income trusts when we were in government. I think there’s a kernel of truth there, I think politics trumped policy on that one. Hearing that attack from Flaherty though begs the question, why’d the Cons promise not to act on trusts in the campaign if he’s saying the Liberals should have acted on trusts at that time? Isn’t that, as the kids say, the opposite? Were the Cons playing politics too?

Well, he replied the situation was different then, the Cons didn’t anticipate the increase in conversions to trusts until last summer, once they were in government. Things had changed. But then, how can he blame the Liberals for not acting on trusts at a time when he said things hadn’t changed yet, at a time the Conservatives not only didn’t think it was necessary to act, and were promising not to act, but also were promising to stop us from acting? (Have a headache yet?) You can’t have it both ways Jimmy.

It’s the same as their new messaging on the environment really, (falsely) blame the Liberals for doing nothing at a time they were fighting against our doing anything. Heck, Harper even fundraised to stall or stop any environmental progress. Coincidentally, same thing on the Arar settlement. Blame the Liberals when at the time Harper, Stock and friends were attacking the Liberals for trying to help a “suspected terrorist”.

Anyone see a pattern developing here? Perhaps we should be flattered. In a sense the Conservatives are saying on all these issues and more the Liberals should have known how wrong they were all the time, and that we, and Canadians, should have just ignored them.

But back to trusts. I don’t know enough to know what the opposition proposals for extensions really mean. If it would mean some help for those average Canadian investors that got suckered in by Harper, and not for the corporations, I'd probably be for that. And who knows how the politics of this will all shake out.

But there’s one thing Brian Mulroney and I both know, and Steve may well learn this come election time: it never pays to piss off the seniors. And from what I hear, they're plenty pissed off.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

To go negative or not to go negative...

...that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to suffer the outrageous Conservative slings and arrows...ok, that’s enough. Yesterday I made the case for a positive response to the Conservative attack ads. Over at Daily Canuck though, former Trudeau staffer Tom Axworthy makes the case for going negative:

The Liberals should cut their own series of ads, linking Harper’s Republican Lite game plan to the negative politics of disunity that so disfigure the electoral process in the United States. Dion cannot allow an impression to grow that he is a scholarly and honourable man not quite up to the cut and thrust of modern politics… The Conservatives have begun the 2007 campaign by going negative. The Liberal Party must respond immediately and in kind.

I agree with Tom’s sentiment, but I disagree with his strategy.

First of all, these ads are over the top, personal, and coming outside of an election they reek of desperation. Refute the factual inaccuracies in the ads, yes, defend our record and, as I discussed yesterday, pivot to our message. Talk about how the new-found Conservative love for the environment rings hollow. We saw that line in question period Monday. We can do that with our earned media and through other channels though, we don’t need to do it through an ad buy.

Also, hammering the “US-style attack ads” angle is unnecessary, and inflammatory. People will make that link on their own, us hitting them over the head with it only lets the Cons come back at us with the Libs are anti-American card. And do we have money for ads at the moment anyway? We don’t have a CPC-sized warchest. They’ve got more money that they can spend, we very much don’t. Every dollar we spend now is one less we can spend during the campaign.

I’m not saying the time won’t come to go negative; such ads do very much have their place in the electoral process. But that time is not now and indeed, right now I think we’re better served by a high road approach. Defend and correct, yes, throw mud back, no.

Definitions

Other then advocating going negative Tom does also make a rather good point. We need to work harder at defining Stephane Dion. As Tom says he’s been doing the right things to bring the party together internally, and that’s important, but it’s been inside the Queensway type stuff:

Dion has to get out of the Ottawa bubble and show dramatically that he intends to reach out to women, the young, and others usually ignored by the Ottawa establishment. He has to insist that Elizabeth May and the Green Party be invited to the Leaders’ Debates. He has to combine issues, showing, for example, that a healthy environment is a pre-condition to health in our bodies, so that the Liberal Party gains credibility on the two top-of-the-line issues of concern to most Canadians.

I agree. He needs to start speaking to the general public, to the people. And not through the soundbite cut and thrust of question period, that’s not going to resonate with Canadians. He needs to get out and give speeches, talking about issues and vision. Tour the country and meet with Canadians, in small and large groups. Sit down and talk with local community newspapers, radio and television stations. Take his message to the people.

Going negative right now though would be a mistake. Now is not the time. We can be firm without resorting to these sorts of attacks. We’ve been going negative for at least the last three years. Let’s give the other way a try for a bit, shall we?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Paging Jason Kenney...

Well, it would seem we probably don’t need the Status of Women Agency after all, judging by this story. The right of women not to be stoned is safe, at least in this Quebec town. However, Jason Kenney, your services as Steve Harper’s multiculturalism guru may be required here...

I'm concerned about the use of "in public" here too. Surely stoning, whether in public or in private, should be forbidden. And it doesn't mention men. Hopefully I can't get stoned either.

Seriously, I get the idea here. Helping educate new Canadians about our cultural norms is important. But this just seems creepy and insulting to me.

Rural Quebec town bans stoning women
Canadian Press

Montreal — A rural Quebec town has taken the unusual step of formally declaring that it is forbidden to stone women in public — part of a list of “norms” that it says is aimed at potential immigrants.

Herouxville, about 165 kilometres northeast of Montreal, passed a document at a town council meeting this month that outlines what it considers to be its official behavioural norms.

The document, sent to both the provincial and federal governments, states that “a woman can. . . drive a car, sign cheques, dance, decide on her own.”

However, covering one's face other than on Halloween, burning women alive or burning them with acid is not considered acceptable.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hey LPC!

If anyone is reading this over at the Liberal Party of Canada office, and I know some of you do from time to time (wassup?), here's a little project you may want to consider for this afternoon. Why not send out an e-mail, preferably this afternoon, to every Liberal on our e-mail list.

Mention how they've probably seen or heard of these new Conservative attack ads. Mention how they're silly and desperate. Mention how Stephane needs our help and support to take the LPC's positive message, of sustainable development and social justice and what not, to the Canadian people. Any donation can help, $20, whatever. We need your support to bring our positive message to Canadians and counter this Conservative negativism. And include a secure link where they can donate online with their credit card.

I think that would be a good afternoon project. Strike while the iron is hot.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

WE don’t need to go negative

Having now seen the Conservative attack ads frankly, I’m more amused than anything else. It will be interesting to see how Canadians at large react. I don’t see them having much impact, but much will depend on our reaction.

As Rob and others have noted with these CPC ads the media are going to be coming to us for reaction. While they’re going to want reaction to the ads specifically there’s no reason for us to respond specifically to the ads. Don’t be defensive. For Stephane particularly, each interview opportunity is a chance to pivot to our message. Well Jane, it’s not going to distract us from our three pillars approach…

By using each chance we’re given to respond to these negative attacks as an opportunity to pivot to our vision and policy message not only are we getting our message out to Canadians, we’re leaving an unspoken impression in the minds of Canadians: while the Conservatives are launching personal attacks, the Liberals are talking about a positive message about the issues that matter to Canadians. The direct contrast will be quite stark. They're trying to define Dion, well, he's also getting a chance here to define himself.

It’s up to others, such as us bloggers, to make other points about these ads. Such as pondering if launching attack ads months before an election is strong leadership or weak leadership. Or, pointing out that when they say Under the Liberals, emissions have risen 27 per cent since 1990, that’s inaccurate and misleading. As I recall, the Liberals didn’t come into office until 1993. From 1990 to 1993 it was a Conservative government. Some inflating of the numbers there. Or we could mention ads on policy are one thing, but ads attacking personality are desperate.

Finally, we might point out that Stephane is right. Setting priorities isn’t easy. Particularly when the Conservatives leave you with a huge deficit. We had to make tough choices, but we made them always with Liberal compassion while cleaning up their mess. Setting priorities takes leadership, and when it comes to our priorities and Conservative priorities I’ll take ours any day, and I think given a choice most Canadians will too.

Anyway, that’s all secondary, a debate for us politicos to engage in amongst ourselves. Most Canadians could care less. They’ll see the Conservative ads, and they’ll see a clip of the Liberal response on the media. On the latter note, I think Dion has it about right with the video posted on the LPC Web site yesterday. Let’s keep on this track.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dirty money

So apparently the Conservatives have so much money in their war chest they need to get rid of some of it, so they’re going to launch a series of attack ads against Stephane Dion, on issues like the environment, among others. Apparently they’re upset he didn’t launch more environmental programs they could cancel and then reinvent under another name so they could pretend they’re doing something on the environment.

Anyway, I’ll wait to comment further on the ads until I’ve actually seen them. But just remember where this overabundance of Conservative funds they’re now dropping on attack ads came from. It came from e-mail solicitations like this one, shamelessly launched while thousands of Canadians were still waiting to be evacuated from the Lebanese war zone and Conservatives, now trying to appeal to the multicultural community, called them ungrateful whiners and questioned their citizenship rights:

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

En Francais | In English

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

Dear,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With my sincere thanks,

Michael D. Donison
Executive Director, Conservative Party of Canada

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

One step forward, one step back

While I'm obviously a Liberal partisan I always try to give credit to others where it's due, even when we're talking about the Harper Conservatives. I have to tell you though, Steve is making it really tough these days.

Take the Arar apology and settlement. A good thing, tarnished by Steve’s asinine decision to play politics with it.

And then there’s the porkbarelling around the Boeing procurement contract I’ve been blogging about. Un-elected Public Works Minister and appointed Senator Michael Fortier was threatening to use his unaccountable ministerial authority to delay the contract until Boeing agreed to move investment earmarked for other regions of Canada to Quebec. After all, he needs to get elected there eventually, doesn’t he?

Well, it seems Steve finally stepped in and told Fortier to smarten up. Market forces will determine where the $3.4 billion in investment goes, not Fortier:

A senior Conservative source added that Mr. Fortier was "hauled out on the carpet" at the cabinet committee meeting for his efforts to boost Quebec's share of the benefits.

"The view was that Fortier was getting too greedy," said the source, who added that the other senior Quebec minister on the file, Industry Canada's Maxime Bernier, has taken a pan-Canadian view.

So, good for Steve. He stepped in and did the right thing as the leader of the government, fulfilling his pan-Canadian responsibility to ALL of Canada, even if Fortier had forgotten that as a minister he had the same responsibility. And the government avoids a repeat of the CF-18 fiasco that saw the Mulroney government overlook a cheaper bid from a Manitoba company to give a maintenance contract to a Quebec firm, helping spur the creation of the Reform Party. The West was getting pissed off here again too:

Manitoba Premier Gary Doer criticized Mr. Fortier's position.

"His comment that 'I am not going to sign a contract,' well, no one died and made him prime minister. He is an unelected senator, swaggering around making inappropriate comments about matters that are in the dustbin of Mulroney history," Mr. Doer told the Winnipeg Free Press this week.

But while I’d give Steve credit for stepping in and doing the right thing here, even if it did take awhile, here’s where he loses me and makes it one step forward, one step back:

The source added the government is trying to find a way "to help save Mr. Fortier's face," and that a number of proposals are still being considered to achieve the objective.

In other words, don’t worry Michael, we can’t let you divert this money to Quebec to help you get yourself elected, but we’ll find some other taxpayer dollars we can divert your way so you can show how good you are at bringing home the pork and buy yourself some votes. Classy.

The Reform Party is dead. Long live Mulroney II.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hands off! NEP 2!

Would anyone care to predict what the reaction from the usual suspects would be if a Federal Liberal suggested that perhaps Alberta’s oil boom is causing skills issues for the rest of the country, and perhaps Alberta should share the wealth a bit by outsourcing some work to other provinces?

Luckily, we won’t be treated to any fits of righteous indignation, cries of National Energy Plan Deux and references to the dark, cold deaths of Eastern bastards: the comments were made by a Federal Conservative minister.

Alberta should export work, federal labour minister says
FREDERICTON (Jan 27, 2007)

Alberta should start exporting work, instead of only importing workers, federal Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn said yesterday.

Blackburn, who was in Fredericton for an annual meeting of labour ministers, said that by attracting out-of-province workers to combat its skilled labour shortage, Alberta is causing the same shortages in other provinces.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Our defeat was no accident

Paul Wells’ latest column is an interesting read as always, talking about Stephane Dion’s recent trip back to his old high school and some of the usual Quebec questions. But his last two sentences (what we like to call the kicker) in particular make a very important point all Liberals should read:

Stéphane Dion's first big challenge is not his broken English or his estrangement from Quebec's elites. It is the bedrock conviction among many of his troops that defeat was an accident that will correct itself.

You can talk about the strategic mistakes of the Martin campaign staff, or the hanging cloud of sponsorship. But the fact is our defeat in 2005/06 was a long time in coming. It wasn’t an accident we lost. Canadians sent us a message: smarten the hell up.

I’ve long been saying we need to stop apologizing for being Liberals. I believe that firmly. We have a lot in our record to be proud of. But we had also become lazy and arrogant in 13-odd years of government. We took power for granted, we developed a sense of entitlement…a deep rot took hold in our party.

That’s why I believe so strongly in the need for renewal and reform in the Liberal Party. We got a start on that with the renewal commission reforms passed in Montreal, and the grassroots revolution that propelled Stephane into the leadership. And he has mainly had a good start at continuing this since his victory.

But lest any among our party be toiling under any illusions, let’s be perfectly clear: our defeat last January wasn’t any accident. It wasn’t some aberration in the natural order that will be swiftly corrected for a return to business as usual. We need to work to re-earn the trust of Canadians.

While it won’t be easy, I think we can do it. But only if we all recognize the challenge, and work hard to meet it together.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You're supposed to be Prime Ministerial, dumbass!

Devin is pissed off, and so am I. Pretty sure we're not the only ones. Today the Harper government announced it had reached a $11.5 million settlement with Maher Arar, and offered him an apology. I'm happy about that, it's entirely appropriate and deserved.

Here's what pisses me off though. In the official letter of apology, and in the press conference, the Prime Minister of Canada decides to score partisan political points off of the case of a man sent to Syria and tortured (emphasis added):

Although these events occurred under the last government, please rest assured that this government will do everything in its power to ensure…

There's a time to be the leader of the Government of Canada, Steve, and times like this are it. To play partisan politics here, to attack the Liberals in the actual freakin' apology letter is doucebaggery of the highest degree. Particularly when you consider YOUR OWN RECORD and the record of your own party on the Arar file.

For example, in QP in November 2002, Opposition leader Harper chastised John Manley for defending Arar, whom Harper called "a suspected terrorist":

While the minister participated in high level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist, it apparently took a trip by the U.S. Secretary of State for the minister to admit what he really knew.

And Diane Ablonczy went even further:

Mr. Speaker, it is time the Liberals told the truth: that their system of screening and security checks is pathetic. Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government. It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the U.S. had to clue it in.

How is it that the U.S. could uncover this man's background so quickly when the government's screening system failed to find his al-Qaeda links?
..
Mr. Speaker, the government needs to take responsibility for what it is doing to protect Canadian security. The fact is that these Liberals were asleep at the switch. Arar was not properly checked. Instead, the government ran around chastising the U.S. for sending Arar back to Syria, where he is also a citizen. Why is it that the Liberal security system is so weak here that they overlook vital information that the U.S. picked up on a routine check?

Grievous mistakes were obviously made, and the previous government did its best to get to the bottom of them while Harper and his party chastised the Liberals for defending suspected terrorists.

I'm glad that the government, which is supposed to be a larger thing than a political party, has apologized to Arar and agreed to a settlement. But what should be a positive thing, something Harper would get plenty of credit and good will for otherwise, is tarnished by his playing politics and being a dick about it.

I've read many one-year stories saying how "Prime Ministerial" Harper has been. There was no Prime Minister up there today.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Knowing your enemy

Well, enemy seems too harsh. Opponent is better. Anyway, I've just finished reading William Johnson's biography of Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, and I wanted to share my thoughts.

This edition has recently been updated post-election and a few months into Harper's Prime Ministership, but the tale begins before Harper's birth, when his ancestors left England for the Maritimes and a better life.

Overall, I have to say it’s a very flattering portrait of Harper. He begins by comparing Harper to Trudeau (in a positive way my Con friends).Johnson is very sympathetic to and supportive of Harper, seemingly agreeing with most of his decisions, minimizing his mistakes and glossing over the achievements of others, particularly Liberals. This became particularly striking as we move closer to the present day, and his account of Harper as PM.

Still, despite these flaws it's a very interesting, if slow read. I started just before Christmas and just finished yesterday, so nearly a month, all told. It wasn't an easy read, can't put it down kind of book like Paul Wells' Right Side Up.

It is very much worth the read though if you're interested in getting past some of the partisan spin from all sides and learning more about Stephen Harper, who he is and where he came from, and what has influenced him.

It is very enlightening, and illuminating. For example, in his youth, young Steve was an admirer of Pierre Trudeau and even joined the Liberal Party. Crazy kids!

I was most struck though by how much Harper has changed, or at least appeared to change, over the years. He has gone from a very rigid, inflexible personality, evidenced by his disagreements with Preston Manning for example, to someone much more willing to compromise to achieve his greater goals. With tables reversed Cons would call it flip-flopping, I'd prefer to call it learning.

The schism with Manning was also something I wasn't too familiar with, and was interesting to read more about. Manning wanted Reform to be not left or right, but a true grassroots reform party drawing from the PCs, Libs and NDP equally, while Harper wanted a conservative-focus, leading them to butt heads. They also disagreed over Manning's populist desires, Harper was very much not a supporter of the more populist, power to the people aspects of Reform and it's unsurprising we haven't heard talk of recall or referenda from this new CPC.

Anyway, take Johnson's conclusions with a grain of salt but there's a lot of interesting source material that better informs our knowledge of the man who, for the time being anyway, is our Prime Minister.

*The publisher provided a copy of the book to facilitate this review.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Storm clouds circling over Colin Mayes

Something is rotten in Okanagan-Shushawp and it may cost Conservative MP Colin Mayes his job as chair of the HoC’s Aboriginal Affairs Committee. Couldn’t come at a worse time for Steve’s moderation project too.

There seem to be some serious issues at the local Conservative riding association, with 10 of the 30 directors having left the board since last March. One member who was recently fired off the board, Miles Lehn, said he was canned after expressing concern over the growing control the religious right was accumulating and exerting over the riding association:

“What I found on the board was that they were basically all members of (Mayes’ church) congregation. It seems to have gone in the direction of dirty liberal policies and tactics.”

Then there’s Colin’s executive assistant fighting against homeless shelters (h/t Audacious Onthology):

... At the public hearing into rezoning for the proposed Salmon Arm shelter, Terri Jones, executive assistant to Okanagan-Shuswap MP Colin Mayes, ... “I don’t think it’s a good mix to have people who are either alcoholics or people who are on drugs in situations where they’re around kids or the elderly – especially when it’s a fact they will steal to support their habits,” she said in an interview after the meeting. ...

Unfortunately, the RCMP say Terri’s theory is pure BS:

Cpl. Henry Procé is media relations officer with Vernon RCMP and has spent eight years policing in Vernon, five of them as a watch commander. He said he hasn’t seen any evidence that homeless shelters present a danger. “From the police point of view, I don’t see this as a cause of increased crime. In fact, it may have the opposite effect, with a place where they’re warm and dry and not so desperate – not sleeping in bank foyers.” ...

But that’s not the worst of it. Now the latest broadside to hit Mr. Mayes: accusations of racism. Remember, he’s also chair of the Parliamentary Aboriginal Affairs committee:

Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap) replied “good joke” in an Oct. 21, 2006 e-mail responding to a joke about an aboriginal man with a shotgun, speaking in broken English, who enters a coffee shop and has an exchange with an employee who calls him “chief” and “Tonto.”

The local TV station has a news report with video online that sums up the recent doings well and gets a weak, feeble defence from Mayes.

In a statement, Liberal Indian Affairs Critic Anita Neville called for Mayes to step-down as committee chair and apologize for his praise of the offensive joke:

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Mayes would support and find funny something that is so insulting to First Nations. His attitude indicates that he is not qualified to chair the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. He should resign immediately as chair and apologize to First Nations people. As Chair his responsibility is to ensure that Aboriginals from coast to coast to coast get a fair, unbiased hearing at committee.”

If the name Colin Mayes sounds familiar, it should. He’s the genius that was forced to apologize for suggesting journalists critical of El Presidente Steve and the CPC should be thrown in jail.

You may also recall Mayes replaced Maurice Vellacott as the committee chair after Vellacott was forced to resign for complaining about the “Godlike powers” of Supreme Court Justices.

Gee, with such a tough act to follow, and all the talent in the CPC caucus, I can’t wait to see what winner Steve finds to take Colin’s place.

P.S. Here's another ironic note. Up until the last election, Colin's riding was held by good ol' Darell Stinson. You'll probably remember him from this famed line, where he challenged my current MP, Liberal John Cannis, to a fight on the floor of the HoC, nearly ten years ago:

"I hear the word 'racist' from that side. Do you have the fortitude or the gonads to stand up and come across here and say that to me, you son of a bitch? Come on."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Please daddy, can we go outside?

I understand security, but really, as this article points out other dignitaries have been escorted outside the base. It reminds me when O’Connor and Steve wouldn’t let the Governor General go over to visit the troops because of security concerns, but then let a minister go over just a little later, the concerns apparently having evaporated. Security concerns Gordon, or political concerns?

Canadian MPs may get to leave Afghan base
Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Visiting Canadian MPs confined to base in Afghanistan might be about to get a weekend pass.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has relented a bit and announced that eight MPs visiting Kandahar may be allowed to leave the NATO base — provided the military can ensure their safety.
(more)

I’m heartened by Gordon’s “change of heart” but seriously, why is he treating Members of Parliament, the elected representatives of the people, like children? I think someone needs a refresher course on the roles of the executive and the legislative branches.

Liberal MP Ujal Dosanjh, who is one of the visiting committee members, raises a pertinent point:

“I believe it's highly improper for a minister of the Crown to interfere with the travel of the committee,” he said Tuesday. “I thought that was the kind of decision that one makes on an operational basis. The general makes that decision. What does the minister know about safety, sitting in Ottawa?”

The commander of the Canadian troops in Afghanistan, Brig.-Gen. Tim Grant, confirmed this one has been O’Connor’s call all the way:

He said Mr. O'Connor made the decision about travel arrangements for the group, not the military.

I support our mission in Afghanistan. But playing stupid political games like this, just like Steve did when he banned cameras from covering the return of fallen soldiers and then lied about why, will not help build public support for the mission at all.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hit the road

Interesting story from the Canadian Press. Greenie Stevie says top off the tank of that SUV and burn, baby, burn that sweet, sweet crude!

Canada won't follow Bush on reducing oil consumption: Harper
TERRY PEDWELL

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada won't follow the Bush administration's lead in setting hard targets for reducing oil consumption, but will instead impose tougher emissions standards on the auto sector and other industries, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
(more)

I’m all for toughening emission standards and other measures, but why the heck shouldn’t we also encourage people to use less energy? Come to think of it, that’s the first of the three Rs. Reduce.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

No! Non! Noooo!

To echo Ottlib, Steve, Werner, Zac, Miranda, John and Westmount (Liberals all), no way in hell should Marc-Yvan Cote or anyone else banned from the Liberal Party for life for their roles in adscam be let back in. I mean, why is this even a topic for discussion? Seriously, I’d really like to know. Why the hell are we even talking about this? Wouldn’t it be easier to just bang our heads against a wall really hard instead?

Dion told Quebec newspaper Le Soleil in remarks published Wednesday that he has no objections to Marc-Yvan Cote being allowed to resume his Liberal membership.

Cote, a former party organizer in Quebec, was one of 10 members banned for life from the party by former prime minister Paul Martin in the wake of the sponsorship scandal.

Dion added that Cote's punishment was "exaggerated,'' and that he'd recognized his error and shouldn't be penalized for life.

That’s nice. But I don’t care. They didn’t just screw up. They violated our trust, and the trust of Canadians. I don’t care how sorry they are, or what lesson they’ve learned. They’re out.

It’s not like we’re talking about a pardon for a prison sentence. Penalized for life? Give me a break. They’ve been banned from joining the Liberal Party of Canada. Boo hoo. It’s not the end of the world. I’m sure they’ll get over it.

And seriously, why are you talking about this Stephane? Seriously, WHY? So a newspaper asked a question. Don’t answer it for the love of god! That’s in the past, you say, I’m focused on the future of the Liberal party. Green yada yada.

I mean, seriously, what the hell guys? Have things just been going too well lately or something?

UPDATE: The Globe this morning has Stephane issuing a clarification of sorts, saying no application for reinstatement has been made by anyone, he doesn't want to re-open it, it's not his decision, and he's not recommending anything. Fine. I hope this is a lesson learned.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Happy firewallaversary Steve!

I can’t believe I nearly missed it! But it was six years ago today, on January 24, 2001, that the National Post published an open letter to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein that became known as the infamous "firewall letter," penned by a scrappy group of Albertans including one Steve Harper.

Why, it seems like only yesterday…

---

Dear Premier Klein:

During and since the recent federal election, we have been among a large number of Albertans discussing the future of our province. We are not dismayed by the outcome of the election so much as by the strategy employed by the current federal government to secure its re-election. In our view, the Chretien government undertook a series of attacks not merely designed to defeat its partisan opponents, but to marginalize Alberta and Albertans within Canada’s political system.

One well-documented incident was the attack against Alberta’s health care system. To your credit, you vehemently protested the unprecedented attack ads that the federal government launched against Alberta’s policies – policies the Prime Minister had previously found no fault with.

However, while your protest was necessary and appreciated by Albertans, we believe that it is not enough to respond only with protests. If the government in Ottawa concludes that Alberta is a soft target, we will be subjected to much worse than dishonest television ads. The Prime Minister has already signaled as much by announcing his so called “tough love” campaign for the West.

We believe the time has come for Albertans to take greater charge of our own future. This means resuming control of the powers that we possess under the constitution of Canada but that we have allowed the federal government to exercise. Intelligent use of these powers will help Alberta build a prosperous future in spite of a misguided and increasingly hostile government in Ottawa.

Under the heading of the “Alberta Agenda,” we propose that our province move forward on the following fronts:

• Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund. Pensions are a provincial responsibility under section 94A of the Constitution Act. 1867; and the legislation setting up the Canada Pension Plan permits a province to run its own plan, as Quebec has done from the beginning. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?

• Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax. Now that your government has made the historic innovation of the single-rate personal income tax, there is no reason to have Ottawa collect our revenue. Any incremental cost of collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility that Alberta would gain, as Quebec’s experience has shown.

• Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 and create an Alberta Provincial Police Force. Alberta is a major province. Like the other major provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we should have our own provincial police force. We have no doubt that Alberta can run a more efficient and effective police force than Ottawa can – one that will not be misused as a laboratory for experiments in social engineering.

• Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose under the Canada Health Act. Albertans deserve better than the long waiting periods and technological backwardness that are rapidly coming to characterize Canadian medicine. Alberta should also argue that each province should raise its own revenue for health care – i.e., replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec has argued for many years. Poorer provinces would continue to rely on Equalization to ensure they have adequate revenues.

• Use section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back onto the national agenda. Our reading of that decision is that the federal government and other provinces must seriously consider a proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum. You acted decisively once before to hold a senatorial election. Now is the time to drive the issue further.

All of these steps can be taken using the constitutional powers that Alberta now possesses. In addition, we believe it is imperative for you to take all possible political and legal measures to reduce the financial drain on Alberta caused by Canada’s tax-and-transfer system. The most recent Alberta Treasury estimates are that Albertans transfer $2,600 per capita annually to other Canadians, for a total outflow from our province approaching $8 billion a year. The same federal politicians who accuse us of not sharing their “Canadian values” have no compunction about appropriating our Canadian dollars to buy votes elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Premier, we acknowledge the constructive reforms that your government made in the 1990s – balancing the budget, paying down the provincial debt, privatizing government services, getting Albertans off welfare and into jobs, introducing a single-rate tax, pulling government out of the business of subsidizing business, and many other beneficial changes. But no government can rest on its laurels. An economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta’s prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power. It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.

Once Alberta’s position is secured, only our imagination will limit the prospects for extending the reform agenda that your government undertook eight years ago. To cite only a few examples, lower taxes will unleash the energies of the private sector, easing conditions for Charter Schools will help individual freedom and improve public education, and greater use of the referendum and initiative will bring Albertans into closer touch with their own government.

The precondition for the success of this Alberta Agenda is the exercise of all our legitimate provincial jurisdictions under the constitution of Canada. Starting to act now will secure the future for all Albertans.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen HARPER, President, National Citizens’ Coalition;
Tom FLANAGAN, professor of political science and former Director of Research, Reform Party of Canada;
Ted MORTON, professor of political science and Alberta Senator-elect;
Rainer KNOPFF, professor of political science;
Andrew CROOKS, chairman, Canadian Taxpayers Federation;
Ken BOESSENKOOL, former policy adviser to Stockwell Day, Treasurer of Alberta.

* This letter represents the personal views of its authors and not those of any organizations with which they are or have been connected.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Greenpeace or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation?

Browsing a journalism and communications job board (if you’re reading boss it was just curious browsing, honest!) and was amused to find these two jobs at divergent ends of the political spectrum. Just goes to show that left, right or mushy centre, you still need flacks. I suspect there won’t be much overlap in the application pool for these two jobs though…

Communications Director, Greenpeace
This is a dynamic position that will require you to be responsible for all aspects of Greenpeace’s external communications…
(more)

Communications Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Working out of the Federation’s Toronto office and reporting to the national communications director, the communications director is responsible for CTF communications in the province of Ontario…
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

How do we beat them? How do we win?

After talking about a year of Steve Harper in government yesterday, today let's look ahead to the next election, and specifically, what strategies the Liberal Party should adopt to win it.

I wrote yesterday that Harper isn't the scary so-con of Liberal lore. Many in his party are; many aren't. But by governing reasonably non-scarily from a so-con standpoint he has removed that card from the Liberal deck. Commenter Jay yesterday took exception to that contention, saying he found the vote to re-open SSM scary. I agree. Talking about taking away rights is scary. It was a half-hearted attempt doomed to failure though, since he ruled-out invoking the notwithstanding clause. Both sides knew this; so he alienated the so-con right by doing it half-assed and SSM advocates by doing it at all.

But I've digressed. The fact is, the Liberal Party ran on scary, scary Conservatives in 2000, 2004 and 2006, and obviously with less success each time. It worked in 2000 because the right was still divided, Stock Day was a boob, and he actually was a bit scary. In worked in 2004 only very late in the campaign and only because the Cons let it, with incidents like Randy White's interview, Cheryl Gallant's eruptions, and Steve's child porn release. In 2006 Harper learned his lesson and kept a tight reign on his candidates, not giving the scary fire any oxygen, and he moderated his platform.

And now, after a year of Harper government, people see that the sky hasn't fallen. Yes, he just has a minority. Sure, you might think he'll go so-con loco with a majority. Strategically though, that's irrelevant. You're not going to convince Canadians he has a hidden agenda to ban abortion or something. It won't fly. After three elections we need a new strategy.

He's still scary

Steve still scares me a little. Yeah, he's not so-con scary. But he's small government scary. He's anti-strong Federal government scary. He's fiscal Conservative, gut social programs to fund huge tax cuts for the wealthy scary. He's all about that kind of scary.

I have no doubt that, handed the keys to a majority government, Steve Harper would set about remaking Canada into a country nothing like the one most Canadians want, nothing like the country most Canadians identify with. That's a point we can make.

Liberals believe in a strong Federal government that, while respecting provincial rights, is a leader in setting national standards and goals. A government that is compassionate and caring. Liberals believe government can, and must, be a force for change, and an instrument for good.

Conservatives, well, they believe the opposite. They think government is bad. What's that famous conservative quote, they want to make government small enough that they can drown it in their bath tubs? That about sums it up right there.

Choose your Canada

That's a distinction we can make, an ideological line we can draw and a choice we can ask Canadians to make. Let's make the case for government as an instrument of good.

This morning a Globe piece quotes Bob Rae as saying the Liberals plan to borrow a phrase from the Conservative strategic playbook, focusing on a key priorities and "pithy phrases."

That's fine. Focus is good. (One of) the mistakes of Paul Martin was that he had 1000 priorities, and all of them were his top priority. When you try to be everything to everyone you don’t' end up being anything to anyone.

We should take a focused, defined agenda with deliverables to Canadians in the next election. A sustainable economy that drives green jobs and economic growth. Protecting the environment and tackling climate change. And more.

But we need to tie that agenda to an idea, a vision for Canada, contrast that with the narrow-minded small government vision of the Harper Conservatives, and ask Canadians which Canada they identify with.

Do that, and I think we have a chance.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Lobbying versus unfair influence

The other day I expressed displeasure with Michael Fortier's holding up a $3.4 billion defence contract to extract more pork for Quebec. Today we read Peter McKay is lobbying hard for more benefit from that contract for Atlantic Canada, and I'm fine with that.

Am I a flip flopping Liberal? Well, maybe, but not on this one. There's a key difference between the two: Peter McKay isn't in charge of government procurement…he's not the one buying the planes.

In the earlier post some asked what was wrong with a minister lobbying hard to get maximum benefit for their region. The answer is nothing. As long, of course, as you don't rob Peter to pay Paul. In this case, there is a set amount of dollars, and any increase in Quebec's share would come from elsewhere, such as Western Canada.

But generally speaking Quebec members (or, in this case, unelected, unaccountable Senators appointed to cabinet) should lobby hard for Quebec; Atlantic members should lobby hard for the Maritimes, and so on. And the Prime Minister's job is to ensure all the regions are treated fairly.

But the difference here is that, besides being a Quebec minister, as I mentioned Fortier is also Minister of Public Works, he's in charge of procurement and tenders. That gives him a great deal of sway over all government procurement, including this $3.4 billion aircraft buy.

So, he's wearing two hats. He has a political responsibility to his region (although Lawrence Cannon is the senior Quebec minister, the lobbying could be left to him). And he has a responsibility to the crown to fairly and efficiently handle government procurement. The two hats can be difficult to wear…just ask the former Canadian ambassador to Denmark.

That's why I have no problem with McKay lobbying for his region; he can't unfairly influence the decision in his favour. Fortier, however, with his two hats has a trickier line to straddle. Nothing wrong with him making the case for Quebec investment, it seems like a strong case can be made. But where he hits trouble is when, wearing his other hat, he delays or otherwise impedes/influences the procurement process while trying to win his lobbying case. That's when he crosses the line, abdicating his government responsibility for his political responsibility.

Now the Prime Minister needs to step in, make the call, and get these aircraft to the air force sooner rather than later.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

And I'm passing the savings on to you

After nearly 14 or so months of blogging I felt it was time for a new look and feel, hence the new blog template and layout you see here now.

The old one seemed a bit stale, and more practically it often seemed to be difficult to read and slow to load. Trimming down the sidebar didn't seem to help, watching it load it seemed like more of a template issue than a sidebar issue.

Therefore, time for a change. I think this new look is a lot cleaner and easier to read, hopefully you'll agree. As always, comments and suggestions appreciated.

P.S. Now with a larger default font size.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Earth is still turning

It’s been one year since Canadians tentatively gave Steve Harper a minority government. It’s been a year that has challenged our presumptions and preconceptions of Mr. Harper, but a year that hasn’t given us much more insight on who this guy really is, or how he would govern with a majority.

Clearly, the scary Steve Harper of Liberal mythology hasn’t materialized in 24 Sussex. Some may argue it lies in wait of a majority. Inarguably Harper has been moderating his agenda; the whole year has been an exercise in appealing to the middle enough to get his sacred majority.

While there have been hints of a harder Conservatism from the Harper government, from Vic Toews’ musings on kiddie jails, the government’s slashing of the Status of Women and the scrapping of the Court Challenges Program to name but a few, I don’t think the scary Steve Harper so-con of lore really exists. There are certainly many of those folks in his party, and his caucus, and how long he’ll be able to keep them placated is unclear. But I don’t think Harper himself is a so-con, but rather a provincial rights, small government, decentralizing fiscal Conservative. Scary enough, perhaps, but abortion should be safe.

Indeed, in many areas this so-called Conservative government has been decidedly liberal, or at the very least un-Conservative. While there have been notable exceptions, Harper’s government has seemingly borrowed a few pages from the Red Tory playbook of old, perhaps the influence of Brian Mulroney and the Mulroney protégés that joined Harper’s inner circle after the 2004 election, such as Senators Hugh Segal and Marjory LeBreton.

We saw a budget that increased spending, created new programs and rather than offering simple, broad-based tax relief, created a myriad of targeted tax credits designed to appeal to specific demographic groups. Rather than the usual Conservative mantra of less red tape, the changes created a heavy burden of paperwork for taxpayers.

We also saw a Mulroney Conservative-style approach to Quebec, from shoveling the pork to recognizing nation status for the Quebecois, of the sort that made a young Steve Harper bolt the Progressive Conservatives to help found the Reform Party some 20 years ago.

We also saw a great deal of the old-style politicking that Reformer Steve used to decry, from welcoming floor crossers with cabinet posts, appointing Senators and putting them in cabinet, doling out the patronage appointments to the party faithful and putting Conservative partisans on the bench.

It all begs the question, just whom is the real Steve Harper? Has he grown and changed, or is he bidding his time?

He has certainly shown himself to be ready to adapt and compromise in recent years. He has taken to heart the political lessons handed to him during his career, particularly those of the 2004 campaign. Pragmatism has been the refrain from Conservative supporters; he’s doing what he needs to do to broaden the base and get a majority.

Harper’s recent seeming attempts to out-liberal the Liberals, including re-implementing many of former Environment Minister Stephane Dion’s green programs, have caused some observers on the right to lament the seeming death of Conservatism. I don’t know about that; I’d say it’s likely in hibernation. He does risk losing his support base though; their patience won’t be limitless.

But as this Harper government hits the one year mark the political landscape is murkier than ever. Whatever we may suspect he’d do with a majority, the Harper minority government has been decidedly and purposefully unscary; that card has been removed from the Liberal deck. But while he accomplished that, Harper can't be happy about being stalled in the polls at the one year mark. He's not gaining traction yet.

Perhaps because in his quest to not let the Liberals define him as scary Harper has failed to offer an alternative definition of himself. And indeed, many of his Conservative base seem to be wondering what happened to the Steve Harper they thought they knew.

That will be his biggest challenge for however much of a second year he has before an election. He may try to run on Liberal scandal, but Canadians will be judging the Harper Conservatives on their record in government and it’s a record that defies easy categorization.

Will they still harbor fears of Scary Steve? Will they see the moderate Steve as a true conversion of philosophy, or a pragmatic calculation by a saavy, power-hungry political operator?

Only time will tell. With a re-energized Dion-led Liberal Party and a surging Green Party though, it’s safe to say that for Harper year two will be a great deal more challenging than year one.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

But will there be punch and pie?

What do you get for a one year anniversary? It’s paper, right? I can think of a few things we could write on the card...

P.S. I wonder who is paying for this birthday party? I trust it’s not the taxpayers, surely Citizen Steve wouldn’t do that.

Public events for January 23, 2007

January 22, 2007
Ottawa, Ontario

Public events for Prime Minister Stephen Harper for Tuesday, January 23rd are:

12:00 p.m. – Prime Minister Stephen Harper will deliver remarks at the rally marking the one-year anniversary of the election.

The Adam Room – Ground Level
The Fairmont Château Laurier Hotel
1 Rideau Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 8S7

*Open to media*

Note: Media are asked to bring valid employment identification for accreditation.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The suite life

The life of a technology journalist for a trade pub is decidedly unglamorous. It does have the occasional perk though. And it being a Friday, I thought I'd share a few pics from Wednesday's Raptors/Kings game at the Air Canada Centre, where I got to take in the game from a suite.

The crowd is still filtering in, although Sacramento didn't seem to be a big draw.

Looking from the back of the box out into the arena bowl.

Not far to go for drinks.

The view from my seat.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Fortier wants more pork for Quebec

The Conservatives have said they need to fast track defence contracts because our military needs the equipment tout de suite. But apparently that won’t stop them from delaying delivery of that equipment to funnel more pork to Quebec.

It has to do with the $3.4 billion government purchase of four C-17 cargo aircraft from Boeing. The deal requires the company to invest an equivalent amount in supplies and services within Canada.

Here’s the sticking point though: while Boeing plans to invest 30 per cent of the total in Quebec, unelected Public Works Minister is insisting Quebec get a much larger share. Boeing is balking and negotiations are stalled, potentially delaying delivery of the first aircraft.

He hasn't publicly set out a target for Quebec's share of these economic benefits, but he is staunchly defending the industry that is mainly located in the Montreal area. Mr. Fortier, an unelected senator, will be running in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, just west of Montreal, in the next election. As Public Works Minister, he has the final responsibility for signing the contract.

It would seem that Mr. Fortier is letting his concerns about finally getting elected at some point interfere with his duties as a Minister of the Crown, particularly the one with responsibility for government procurement. Hey, we should ask him about this when question period starts again…oh, yeah. Crap.

At least Industry Minister Maxime Bernier appears to be doing his job, apparently putting his ministerial responsibility ahead of politics in the negotiations.

"Mr. Fortier is acting as the minister for Quebec, while Mr. Bernier is acting as the minister for Canada," an industry official said, who added that Mr. Fortier's goals are "unrealistic."

Anyway, if Fortier gets a bigger share for Quebec than Boeing was intending to spend, remember that it is a finite pie of investment dollars. Where do you think Quebec’s bigger share will be coming from?

Yep, and the West gets screwed by the Conservatives again. Gee, this all sounds a bit familiar doesn’t it? Quebec as a nation, screwing the West on equalization...a Mulroney in sheep’s clothing indeed. How long before Reform II?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I know you are, but what am I?

I was half watching Newsnet last night as it ran a piece on the Dion shadow cabinet announcement, and it was mentioning how Michael Ignatieff was appointed, or reappointed really, as deputy leader.

What was interesting though was the reporter said the Conservative Party is apparently trying to make hay out of this by circulating one of the videos we heard so much about from the Iggy haters during the leadership campaign, when he speaks to an American TV audience a few years back about then presidential candidate John Kerry. The dreaded clip where he refers to Americans as “we.” Oh, the humanity!

Interesting that Conservative operatives are circulating this video, and interesting too was the comment the reporter got from Conservative Senator and secretary of state for seniors Marjory LeBreton:

“…maybe he’ll use his new position to rid the Liberal Party of some of this anti-Americanism…”

Come on Marjory, didn’t Mulroney teach you better then this? It is soooo transparent. It’s so amusing that the Cons routinely decry anti-Americanism in the Liberal Party (never mind all the anti-Frenchism…anti-Francophonism? rampant in Citizen Steve’s CPC), heck, she even decries it in this clip.

But look at the Conservative’s strategy here. They’re trying to create anti-American sentiments in the Liberal Party by shopping around an old TV clip so they CAN THEN decry the Liberals for having anti-American sentiments over an old TV clip.

Yes, ironically, while they’re decrying the use of anti-Americanism for political ends they’re trying to stoke anti-Americanism so they can use it for political ends.

Pot…kettle…and so forth.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

In case you were wondering...

...the sometimes funny sitcom Scrubs jumped the shark tonight, during their very special musical episode. If you’re scoring at home, it was in the first act during the song “Everything comes down to poo.”

Speaking of musical episodes though it wasn't the worst I’ve ever seen. But that’s only because I had the misfortune once of watching a very special musical episode of 7^th Heaven that was truly, truly, truly horrible.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Watching the CBC last night...

...and specifically Little Mosque on the Prairie. Like the premiere it was amusing but not spectacular. Which is fine for Canadian TV.

But they kept playing promos for the show during commercial breaks, with quotes from reviewers (Joe Siegel says it's a non-stop thrill ride, etc). That's when I heard something I most assuredly thought I'd never ever hear:

"'Allah be praised!' raves the National Post!"

Surely the end must be nigh…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The shadow knows...and now we do to

At long last new Liberal leader Stephane Dion unveiled his shadow cabinet this morning. Some interesting choices and some interesting names.

I won’t go over the full list; it's a long one. It's available in full in PDF format.

In addition to the 56 names on the list of shadow cabinet portfolios and responsibilities like whips and house leaders, and a priorities and planning committee, there are also four other committees with a chair, vice-chair and six to nine members. Interestingly, the committee chairs and vice chairs didn't get shadow cabinet roles, so it will be interesting to see the importance placed on these committees and their work.

Particularly since Ken Dryden didn't get a critic portfolio. He'll be chairing the committee on social justice, with vice-chair Andy Scott. John McKay will chair the economic prosperity committee with Massimo Pacetti. John Godfrey will chair an environmental sustainability committee with Geoff Regan, and Bryon Wilfert will chair Canada and the World with Keith Martin.

As I said, besides the committees it's a list of 56 people with critic or officer responsibilities. It's 38 male, 18 female by my count. And by province:

Ontario: 23
Ouebec: 11
BC: 6
New Brunswick: 4
Manitoba and Nova Scotia: 3 each
Saskatchewan, Alberta, PEI, Newfoundland and the Yukon: 1 each

What, Alberta you say? Yes, we do still have some Senators there.

Obviously it would have been nice to be closer to gender parity here. Still, we need to work with the caucus we have now, and work to get more qualified women on the ballot and elected in the next election.

Still, many high profile positions went to women, such as both the leader and deputy opposition leaders in the Senate. Plus Lucienne Robillard as Deputy House Leader and Karen Redman as whip, Tina Keeper in Canadian Heritage, Belinda Stronach in Competitiveness and the New Economy, Bonnie Brown in Health, Marlene Jennings in Justice (glad to see her get a high profile job), Sue Barnes in Public Safety, Anita Neville in Indian Affairs and Ruby Dhalla in Social Development.

Joe Volpe is still around in transport, c'est la vie. An interesting choice is Dennis Coderre for National Defence, not sure how that will work out. No knock on Dennis, I just don't know of his background on the file.

I think Pablo Rodriguez will be interesting going up against poor James Moore in public works. Mark Holland should school Gary Lunn in Natural Resources. Scott Simms should do well in fisheries and Ujal Dosanjh moves to foreign affairs. John McCallum will be fine in finance, and Scott Brison in industry should give him a chance to work on some of the issues he campaigned on. And of course David McGuinty in the environment, that's a great pick.

Overall, some interesting choices. I hope these cabinet committees aren't just make-work projects though, because if they are sidelining Ken Dryden is a big mistake. Same with Keith Martin, he's a very able MP.

While Michael Ignatieff is still deputy leader I'm a bit surprised he wasn't also given a critic portfolio, like foreign affairs perhaps. I'm just not sure how high profile deputy leader is going to be in the HoC, unless Dion plans on being away a lot.

I like the mix of youth and experience though, should be interesting.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is Harper looking for his Sister Souljah moment?

As we eagerly await the big shadow cabinet announcement this morning my mind is on the environment; more specifically, the oil sands, and Steve Harper's election strategy. Two interesting stories this morning seem to be setting up an interesting potential political opportunity for Steve: His Sister Souljah moment.

The first story (Steve, Scott and Jason have more) represents an intriguing challenge for the Harper Conservatives and their traditional Alberta power base:

The U.S. wants Canada to dramatically expand its oil exports from the Alberta oilsands, a move that could have major implications on the environment. U.S.and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a “fivefold expansion” in oilsands production… A fivefold increase would mean the exportation of five million barrels a day, which would supply a quarter of current American consumption and add up to almost half of all U.S. imports. But the current extraction of oil from the tarsands results in the spewing of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere: it’s already the biggest source of new greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

So, Bush and the U.S. want more oil (insert mandatory Harper/Bush wisecrack here) and you know Alberta dearly wants to give it to them. We're talking big bucks here. And Harper's base, of course, is Alberta. But how to square the desires of his Alberta base with the resulting environmental impact of such a massive increase in production, particularly with Harper's need to at least look green if he wants to grow elsewhere in Canada?

Coincidentally or not, I also read this story today. Environment Minister John Baird is musing about killing tax incentives the Liberal government brought in back in 1997 to encourage development in the oil sands. What's this, the Cons musing about killing tax breaks that largely benefit Alberta industry?

Environment Minister John Baird questioned the wisdom of tax incentives introduced in the 1990s to boost production in Alberta's oilsands, and hinted yesterday the Conservative government might have more to say on the issue when it tables its spring budget…"I cannot explain why the Liberal government of [new leader Stephane] Dion made these changes," Mr. Baird said, speaking in French.

Hmm, I wonder if my BT friends will be calling Baird a socialist now, like they called Dion when he mused about reducing royalty incentives last week? Yeah, I doubt it. Anyway, Baird's silly partisan shots aside, while I'd point out the situation was a lot different in 1997 the incentives are no longer necessary today and I'd agree with scrapping or reducing them. Interesting comments by Baird though, given the likely negative reaction that can be expected from Alberta industry.

What's coming?

Using this desired five times production increase as an impetus (and Natural Resources Canada participated, so he knew it was coming) Harper has the opportunity to say this forces me to bring in tough measures to minimize the resulting environmental impact. If Baird's musings are any indication, he is prepared to give the oil industry some tough medicine. And with Harper's rumoured equalization plans he's already shown he's willing to trade Western votes for support elsewhere.

And by showing the rest of the country he's willing to stand up to his Alberta base, and on the environment no less, he will have established his centrist credentials in the minds of voters, not to mention taking the Green issue away from the opposition.

And Steve will have his Sister Souljah moment.

The budget, and Clean Air Act Part Deux, will tell the tale.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ryerson Review of (Convention) Journalism

An article in the Ryerson Review of Journalism looks at how the media on the ground covered the Liberal Leadership Convention in Montreal last month (has it only been just over a month?!). A section is devoted to blog coverage, with the author speaking to Miranda from A View from the Left and Devin of Maxwell's House.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Interesting governing strategy

Am I beginning to see a pattern developing here?

Tories’ green plan to take shape, Many of programs likely to resemble scrapped Liberal plans with new names

And…

Ottawa aims to rebuild frayed ties with China

What's the overarching theme here? The Conservatives create the problem, and then they rush in later and try to take credit for fixing it. I think there may be a medical syndrome that describes this kind of behaviour, but it escapes me and google at the moment.

The Cons scrap a bunch of environmental programs just because they were launched by the Liberals, and then later they realize oh crap, some of those were good programs and we need them, so they revive them under different names (look for a big splash about their new environmental commitment) and hope no one notices they cut much of this stuff in the first place.

And they dial up the rhetoric on China to unnecessary levels for domestic political consumption, and then when business leaders express concern about the impact this may have on our trading relationship they go over to try to mend fences with a trade mission.

Does Steve-o perhaps have John "Let's manufacture a crisis" Snobelen on retainer?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Policy platform consultations starting in BC

Yesterday, Stephane Dion appointed Martha-Hall Findlay as Platform Outreach Chair. And while I suspect she'll trade in the Big Red Bus for airline tickets, she'll be setting out across Canada to consult with grassroots Liberals and the general public on the next Liberal platform.

A full list of the consultations hasn't been published yet; the party says they'll be advertised locally. But Sean over at Public Eye Online reports they'll be kicking off tomorrow in Victoria and Vancouver.

In addition to consultations with the B.C. Federal Liberal Council this weekend, Martha will meet with Vancouver Island Liberals in Victoria tomorrow, with the general public in Victoria on Friday, and with Liberals in Vancouver at SFU, with Bob Rae too, on Saturday (more details on Sean's site).

I'd heard about the consultations with the BC Federal Council a few days ago and I was disappointed that there weren't grassroots consultations happening as well. I'm glad to see that won't be the case, and that the general public will be invited to participate as well.

I'll keep an ear open for the Toronto-area events.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Testify!

I think this is an excellent idea:

Liberal MP Albina Guarnieri today formally demanded the Foreign Affairs Committee call Conservative MP Wajid Khan before it to present and discuss his report on the Middle East.

Then there's the Globe piece today with reviews from some of the fine folks he met on his $13,000 Excellent Middle Eastern Adventure:

"When I said the [security] wall is like a sharp knife cutting our flesh, he said, 'I [would] not have believed it until I have seen it,' " said Mahdi Abdul-Hadi, who attended the lunch and said Mr. Khan's reaction to the barrier "was a real cultural shock."

"He basically listened to my opinion on basically everything, from political reform, the Arab-Israeli conflict, regional security issues and so on," Mr. Kassem said.

I like that last one in particular. It reminds me of what a teacher might write on the report card of a C student when they're trying to say something nice. "Johnny is well behaved and attentive in class, but needs to work on his penmanship."

Lastly in today's round-up of News You Totally Khan't Do Without, I'd be remiss not to comment on this election funding loan thing. I have to confess to being unsure of exactly what's going on, not being an expert in the nitty gritty of election law.

It's unclear just how widespread knowledge of what was happening is; obviously Khan knew, his official agent, probably the riding president and treasurer I'd think would have to, but it wouldn't necessarily be beyond that. Did Khan knowingly leave us with a mess? Maybe. I'd have to think it would be in his interest to get the loans repaid though. After all, if they're not wouldn't Khan and his business be in an illegal contribution situation?

Anyway, all we can do now is be open and transparent, accept whatever responsibility appropriate, and take the steps that need to be taken on our end. It was, after all, on our watch. More financial oversight of ridings by the party would seem to be in order; using a riding association to funnel money from your business to your campaign isn't acceptable.

But Khan's a Conservative now, so they have responsibility here too. They can't just say this is a Liberal thing and be done with it. He's their man now, either they stand with him and condone what he's done or they condemn it, unless becoming a Conservative magically washes all your sins away. He also has ongoing personal responsibilities that he can't just walk away from.

All I'll say is Steve, you're welcome to him. He seems like a real prize catch.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Whaaaaaaa?

I've been called a few times over the years for research surveys, on everything from politics to consumer goods. And if I have the time, I'm usually happy to participate. But I have to say I've never had a call for a survey like the one Leger apperntly put in the field recently: just how racist are you? (H/T to Scott).

The Léger Marketing survey, splashed across the front of the tabloid Journal de Montréal – the headline screamed "59 per cent of Quebecers say they are racist" – shows 15 per cent of respondents describe themselves as either "moderately" racist, and 43 per cent say they are "faintly" so. Another 1 per cent admit to being "strongly" racist.

I'm just flabbergasted, I mean, how would you do a survey like this?

Caller: Hello, I'm calling from Leger Marketing. Could I speak to a Mr. Smith please?
Smith: Yes, speaking.
Caller: Hello Mr. Smith. Would you have five minutes to answer a few questions for an important survey we're conducting?
Smith: …honey, the baby is crying!...Um, yeah, sure. Shoot.
Caller: Great, thanks so much. Fist I need to ask a few demographic questions for classification purposes. How old are you sir?
Smith: I'm 35.
Caller: And do you have a spouse and any children?
Smith: I'm married and I have a daughter.
Caller: Alright, and would you identify your self as Caucasian, First Nations, Black, Hispanic…
Smith: Caucasian.
Caller: Great, thanks Mr. Smith. Now the study we're conducting today deals with racial attitudes. Would you describe yourself as strongly racist, moderately racist, faintly racist, or not at all racist?
Smith: Excuse me?
Caller: Would you like to hear the choices again sir?
Smith: Yeah, sorry the baby is crying. Honey, get the kid I'm on the phone!
Caller: No problem sir. Would you describe yourself as strongly racist, moderately racist, faintly racist, or not at all racist?
Smith: Hmmm….Well I am somewhat racist, but I wouldn't say I'm strongly racist. What were the other choices again?
Caller: Strongly racist, moderately racist, faintly racist, or not at all racist?
Smith: I'm going to go with moderately racist.
Caller: OK then. Now let's talk about specific races you don't like…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

UPDATE: How much for a friendly headline?

It would seem around $10,000 a month.

Updating my post from this morning about the CP story about selling headlines on Bourque Newswatch, I’ve noticed an updated version of the story has been put on the wire this evening, with more sources commenting.

Unfortunately, one of them is still not Bourque himself, but the reporter did get a rather cryptic statement from the Conservative Party:

Mike Donison, the executive director of the federal Conservative party, did not personally return messages about what his party receives as a listed Bourque client.

Instead, a recently hired party spokesman was given a single media talking point to deliver to all questions from The Canadian Press:

"I can't confirm anything but what I can say is we have commercial contracts with all sorts of individuals and businesses and it's not our practice to discuss the details," said Ryan Sparrow. "That will be the only comment we'll be giving."

We also learn that buying headlines on Bourque ain’t cheap:

Even at up to $10,000 a month for the headline service "it's really cost-effective," said a political source. You can also buy the headline service for a day or two at a time, as issues or stories arise that you want highlighted.
…
While it is not known which clients specifically bought headlines, multiple current and former clients say that as a paying advertiser, it is understood you will get favourable news links on the site.

Also interestingly, no comment yet from Elections Canada on the key issue, namely the treatment of such paid headline services under campaign advertising rules:

Elections Canada, which oversees the strict rules on transparency in paid political advertising during election periods, did not respond to inquiries about paid headline services.

I hope the lawyers at Elections Canada are studying the issue and will be providing further guidance soon, because I would suspect in the approaching election campaign all political parties will be looking more and more to the Web as a marketing vehicle. Some clarity from Elections Canada would be helpful.

Particularly, I think, for the Conservative Party, which seems to have had trouble correctly interpreting Elections Canada regulations in the past.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Boy Who Cried Boondoggle

Overall, while I'd much rather be in government I have to say blogging in support of an opposition party is fun. (Queue Conservative that's good, get used to it comments). As fun as it can be to challenge and oppose though, it's important that you pick your battles. Oppose every little thing and call it the apocalypse and you'll lose credibility, and look pretty dumb.

Unfortunately, Ontario Progressive Conservative (THEY're still Progressive, right?) Tim Hudak doesn't seem to have gotten that message.

It seems Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty is leading a trade mission to India, and while there he stopped to check out the Taj Mahal. This sent Hudak, John Tory's finance critic, into a fit of righteous indignation:

Conservative finance critic Tim Hudak issued a press release on Friday in which he called the mission "a taxpayer-funded boondoggle" and said "Dalton McGuinty is sightseeing in India but is blind to what is taking place in Ontario's economy."

Noting that the Ontario economy actually shrank in the third quarter of 2006, Hudak added: "This McGuinty government is (missing in action) and completely abdicating its responsibility . ... Are they looking for inspiration from the beautiful sites overseas to help develop a plan to reverse the manufacturing job losses here at home?"

Is he serious with this? McGuinty flew all the way to freakin' India to lead a trade mission, and while there he checked-out the Taj Mahal. So what? Wouldn't you stop by the Taj Mahal if you were in India on a business trip, maybe pick up a t-shirt for the kiddies, or a pewter Taj Mahal paperweight? I mean, doesn't the guy get a coffee break, or evenings off?

I'm sure Mr. Hudak could find legitimate grounds to criticize the McGuinty government's economic policy. Then again, maybe not, if he's issuing press releases on stupid crap like this. But crying boondoggle because a guy took an hour off to sight-see makes you look like an idiot. Grow up Tim, and heed the sage lesson of The Boy Who Cried Boondoggle.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Putting the CON in CONservative

(bump)

With a judge ruling that the Conservative Party of Canada must pay up to $50,000 to a former candidate that agreed to step aside for a star candidate in Ottawa-South, it’s time to revisit whether or not Steve Harper lied to the Canadian people to help win the last election campaign.

We’ll get to that in a moment. I’ve been blogging about the Allan Riddell saga since December of 2005, during the campaign. See posts here, here, here and here. Riddell was seeking the Conservative nomination for Ottawa-South in an open nomination process, but then the party brass recruited sponsorship whistleblower Alan Cutler and wanted him to run there. What to do with Riddell? He was pressured to step aside, finally agreeing to bow out if the party agreed to pay the expenses he incurred winning the nomination.* The party brass agreed, Riddell bowed-out, Cutler ran and lost to Liberal David McGuinty.

An interesting aside on Cutler. Apparently the Conservatives also promised him compensation before he agreed to run for them if they won the election. Except this compensation would have come from the taxpayers. The Conservatives later denied that one too.

Anyway, after the election the party started to balk on paying Riddell and he went public with their little arrangement. At that point the CPC said Riddell was supposed to keep the shady arrangement secret; he violated that by going public. Riddell sued, the Conservatives kicked him out of the party, fought the case, and last week they lost. An arbitrator will come up with the exact amount the Conservatives owe Riddell, who still has lawsuits outstanding against Steve Harper and CPC president Don Plett for defamation.

CTV’s Dave Akin has lots of analysis on the ruling over at his blog, including links to the court ruling if you want the nitty gritty. It is truly a sorrid mess of politics at its worse that proves once again beyond a doubt that all the Conservative chest-thumping about accountability and cleaning up politics was a big load of crap.

Akin also hits on the larger issue here, if only briefly and rather belatedly. That’s the fact that Conservative Party officials admitted during the case that they had indeed made a deal with Riddell. That wasn’t at issue. The CPC contended by going public Riddell had invalidated the deal, that’s what the court case was about; the judge said they still had to pay.

Why is that important? Because as Akin notes, and as I blogged way back in September, during the election campaign Stephen Harper was asked point blank if there was a compensation deal with Ridell, and he flatly denied it:

"The party does not have an agreement to pay Mr. Riddell these expenses, and Mr. Riddell has not been paid anything to date," he said, explaining that the party's national council had decided Riddell was not an "acceptable'' candidate.

Except they did, Stephen. Your party didn’t even dispute that before the courts. So, it would seem appropriate to revisit your answer to that question during the election campaign, when you were going before the people of Canada and asking them for a mandate, promising them a new, clean, responsible, accountable government. Were you bring straight with us Stephen?

As I blogged back in September, I see two explanations here:

1) Harper knew there was a deal and also knew that admitting it would seriously torpedo his plan to campaign on being a new clean and ethical government, just as the election was getting underway, so he lied to the media and the Canadian people, or

2) Harper was kept in the dark about the deal and therefore told the truth as he knew it, which means his staffers and/or party executives hid this damaging information from him and set him up to the microphones in December to unknowingly lie to the Canadian people

Either possibility is quite serious. Either Harper blatantly lied to the Canadian people to win an election, or members of the CPC campaign team/inner circle lied to their leader and made him look a liar and a fool.

No reporter has seen fit to dig into this yet or question Harper on the discrepancy between his answer and, well, reality, even though this contradiction has been obvious for some time. I would think that the possibility the Prime Minister of Canada may have, at best, deliberately mislead the people of Canada to help win his election would be worthy of some investigation. Maybe it’s just me.

*Edited because I was mistaken in saying Riddell had won the nomination in 2005. He hadn't yet, he was seeking it and was pushed aside for Cutler, with the agreement to cover his expenses.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

How much for a friendly headline?

If you followed the questions a week or so about news blogger/aggregator/whatever Bourque Newswatch you may find this CP story interesting:

How much for a friendly headline?
BRUCE CHEADLE
Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Reader beware: the headline on your favourite Internet news site may have been bought and prescribed by a political party, candidate, lobbyist, corporation or TV show.

In fact, just about anyone with deep enough pockets can pay some private Internet web proprietors to highlight legitimate news stories of their choice -- along with deeply provocative, or flattering, headlines.
(more)

It seems not many people were willing to comment for the story, including Mr. Bourque. Interestingly though, the reporter did however speak to Conservative lobbyist/strategist Tim Powers, whom Cheadle identifies as a Bourque client:

"It's on the screen that you can buy the service," said Tim Powers, a Conservative party strategist and Ottawa lobbyist. "There's nothing hidden, there's no small print."

It’s not clear if Powers was purchasing Bourque’s services for his lobbying firm or the Conservative Party of Canada. Both are listed on the Bourque site as clients. The article raises why the question of the CPC buying Bourque headlines is important:

…it does raise troubling ethical questions and opens a quagmire in Canada's election advertising laws, especially during campaign periods when parties' ad expenditures are supposed to be closely monitored.

If a political party pays a news site to highlight as a top story something that is deeply negative about an opponent, complete with a deliberately torqued headline, should that be considered advertising?

As I blogged before, while I believe in disclosure ethically I don’t care how Mr. Bourque wants to run his business, that’s his prerogative and the market will decide its value. But if the CPC is buying sponsorship on Bourque’s site that is running during an election there are strict election rules to be followed, and I'd like to know if they were or not.

If Mr. Cheadle or another reporter were to persue a follow-up to this story, I’d encourage them to find Stephen Harper, campaign co-chairs John Reynolds and Michael Fortier, or a CPC spokesperson and ask them these questions I posed a week ago:

1. Has the Conservative Party purchased headlines, or other advertising and/or sponsorship, on Bourque Newswatch?

2. If so, did any of this spending occur during the writ period?

3. If it did, was the advertising expense properly declared and accounted for by the Conservative Party in its filings with Elections Canada?, and

4. If it did, did the advertising purchased on Bourque Newswatch by the Conservative Party during the writ period duly include the "Authorized by the Official Agent for…" disclosure as required by Elections Canada?

UPDATE: Devin and Eugene also have thoughts on the story.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Dion Haters Handbook

Over on his blog so-called Conservative Olaf has published the Harper-Haters Handbook. We’ll need to track down the source of this leak, but in the mean time coincidently I’ve come into possession of a copy of the CPC’s Dion-Haters Handbook.

The first thing I noticed is it’s a much slimmer volume than the anti-Harper text. But then again, that’s not surprising. Conservatives have always decried bureaucratic red tape and besides, it’s much harder to find things to hate about Stephane Dion. Because, really, what’s not to love?

Anyway, the flyer is broken down into two sections: Anti-Liberal in general, and Anti-Dion specifically:

How to Debate the Liberals Without Having to Think Too Hard or Resort to Facts
Written only by Stephen Harper, with absolutely no help from anyone
Conservative Party Press

Fighting the Liberals

1. Whenever responding to the Liberals or writing an attack of your own, the language you use is very important. For example, never use the word Liberal. While Liberano is still an acceptable substitute, Fiberal is now preferred.
2. No matter what the topic, be it child care funding or national defence, be sure to include a reference to the sponsorship scandal.
3. Whenever Conservatives are being called on a broken promise, just say it’s pragmatism and an example of The Leader’s superior political acumen. Then mention the sponsorship scandal.
4. Whenever you’re seriously on the ropes, being called on any negative action by the Conservatives, you can always fall back on The Liberals Did It Too defence. Just change the channel by mentioning some past Liberal scandal, real or imagined.
   

Fighting Dion

1. Much like the Fiberal rule, always refer to Dion as Citoyen Dion to remind people he committed the egregious sin of being born to a French mother. Resist Liberal attempts to rebrand him as Freedom Dion.
2. Remember, since he’s a Quebec MP he must have known something about sponsorship, despite all evidence to the contrary. And hey, you’re from Alberta? Do you know Frank? Tall guy, black hair?
3. Dion was environment minister for just over a year, that was plenty of time to fix all the so-called problems.
4. We’re still working on more attack lines, so in the mean time just make fun of his accent and/or ask if we want another PM from Quebec because hey, we’ve never gone wrong with that kind of thing before, now have we?
   

This message will self destruct in 30 seconds.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dion shadow cabinet speculation

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is expected to name his shadow cabinet within days, CTV Newsnet tells me every 15 minutes. Shadow cabinet speculation isn’t as fun as cabinet speculation but hey, we take what we can get. Think of this as a speculative training run.

Oh, and by the way, I’ve learned from sources that Rona Ambrose will cross to the Liberals within days, and be given the environmental critic portfolio by Dion. Also, upset his report won’t be made public, Wajid Khan will be crossing to the NDP. Apparently he likes Jack’s commitment to family values. Media and bloggers please be sure to credit A BCer in Toronto when reprinting this exclusive information.

Anyway, I’ve seen no speculation as yet as to whom will be getting what critic portfolio. The media reports speculate Ralph Goodale will be left out of the shadow cabinet. Is Ralph not running again? If he’s not, it may make sense to promote the other Saskatchewan Liberal MP, Gary Merasty. But if he is running, it seems tough to leave out such a capable veteran as Ralph.

On with the speculation though. I’m not going to go through all the possible positions (here's the current list), but some of the bigger names anyway.

Michael Ignatieff is already deputy leader and I think he’d be a good critic for foreign affairs or national defence. I think he’d tear either Peter McKay or Gordon O’Connor to shreads.

Bill Graham would also be good in either foreign affairs or national defence, as a former minister of each. Whichever one Iggy doesn’t get.

Carolyn Bennett as a doctor and former Minister of State for Public Health would seem a good fit for health critic.

Ken Dryden is someone I think would be a very interesting choice for Canadian Heritage.

Scott Brison talked a lot about the environment in his speech in Montreal. I think he might be an interesting environment critic, but I’m undecided. As a business Liberal he would help emphasize the green economy portion of the policy reassuring the right, but the left could see it as an opportunity to question our true environmental commitment. If not the environment then rural affairs, another key campaign issue for Scott and one the Liberals need to give more profile to.

I won’t go through more names, but I’d invite your speculation/wishful thinking in the comments section. I’ll say out in BC though I’d hope for higher profiles for Blair Wilson, Don Bell and Keith Martin. Ujal Dosanjh shouldn’t be forgotten too.

On a completely unrelated note, great post today by HarperBizarro on the Conservatives using taxpayer-funded mailers for partisan attacks in Manitoba, which is a definite no-no. Besides the foul odor of such attacks, there are strict House of Commons rules governing the content of such mailers. I suspect we haven’t heard the last of this story.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's branding, stupid

Now that we should get ahead of ourselves, there is much work to be done. But, if there is an election soon and somehow the Liberals win, we need to be ready.

The Canadian Cynic has outlined the success the Conservatives have had with their Canada's New Government moniker. As a Blogging Tory he links to notes, branding is important. And should Canada's New Liberal Party win the next election a re branding effort will surely need to be our first priority.

With that in mind, I ask you:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Relatively quick Saturday hits

Dion visits Alberta, Chiarelli eyes Baird, Khan’t we all just move on, and what to do in Outremont?

*Stephane Dion was in Alberta yesterday, and he was talking the environment and sustainable development to the oil sands. He seems to be advocating a carrot and a stick approach, with rewards for companies that voluntarily meet emission reduction targets and penalties for those companies that don’t. Werner was there and has extensive coverage. Dion also apparently got a little snub from new Premier Ed Stemlach. Now, I’m not an environmental policy expert, far from it. But there seems to be something sensible in a carrot and stick approach to me. And I’ll say this too: When you’ve got the far left of the blogsphere criticizing you for being too soft and the far right of the blogsphere criticizing you for being too hard you may well be on the right track.

*The Ottawa Citizen reports a Chiarelli/Baird battle royale in Ottawa West-Nepean is moving closer to reality, with the former Mayor Bob reportedly talking to the riding association about the nomination and taking on his long time arch-nemesis. And don’t we all need an arch-nemesis? I’m sadly without one at the moment, but applications are being accepted. Anyway, I hope Bob goes for it, as I’ve blogged before it would be a helluva fun race. (H/T La Ruche)

*My friend Jonathan over at TDH Strategies is encouraging Libloggers to move on from the Khan story. I agree with his sentiment. I think protests like the one the other day are of limited utility.

As I’ve blogged before, I don’t have a big problem with the concept of floor crossing per se. But what is important is the exposing the true reasons and motivations for the floor crossing so people can make a judgment based on the facts. It has become readily apparent that the circumstances of this floor crossing as first spun by Khan and Harper were misleading, if not untrue. Then there’s the issue of his report and it’s apparent partisan nature, that’s as much a use of taxpayer dollars issue as a floor crossing issue. Not to mention the patronage appointment for his former opponent.

Anyway, while I share Jonathan’s desire to move beyond this issue, and I agree Wajid isn’t really worth the attention, I think it’s important we not allow Harper falsely frame the debate. Perhaps now that the odor of this thing has been made clear though, as Jonathan hopes we can move on to finding the next MP for Mississauga-Streetsville.

*One of the first tests for Stephane Dion as a leader committed to a renewal of the Liberal Party will be what to do in Outremont in the wake of Jean Lapierre’s departure. (And so far, I must say, while he sucked as a Quebec Lieutenant I’m loving him (though not necessarily agreeing with him) as a tv pundit).

There’s long been talk that riding was reserved to appoint a star candidate; while I’m not a big fan of bypassing nominations if it’s a truly accomplished star candidate I’d get over it. I also support his desire to get more women candidates.

But we also apparently have at least two strong candidates interested in this riding. Former YLC(Q) president and Belinda Stronach staffer Brigitte Legault is organizing and is said to have strong support on the ground; Justin Trudeau is also reportedly interested in the riding. I understand Brigitte wants an open nomination process, I’ve not heard if Justin is angling for an appointment or wants an open process too. I’d hope it’s the latter.

Anyway, if there is an appointment it’s sure to be contentious. How contentious depends on whom is appointed. If it is someone truly accomplished outside of politics, a true star candidate, then it will be less so. If it’s a political partisan with the right connections, then the outcry will be titanic and rightly so, and I’ll be part of the protest.

I don’t envy Stephane here. Frankly, unless they can appoint his sister Celine or someone of equal stature (apparently Louise Arbour passed), I think it may be best to let this one be an open nomination race and let the grassroots of Outremont decide.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Remedial Canadian Politics 101 for Jason Kenney

Came across this quote from our brand-spanking new Secretary of State for Multiculturalism (another sign of the impending apocalypse), Jason Kenney:

"It’s a great testament to [Khan] that, within a week of moving to government caucus, [he has] the Prime Minister and Canada’s First Lady, Ms. Harper, in [his] constituency," Kenney said. "This is a sign that Wajid is already getting things done."

If by getting stuff done you mean lying to Canadians and arranging pointless political photo-ops on the taxpayers' dime then yeah Jason, he's kicking ass and taking names.

But, what was that again that Jason said:

… and Canada’s First Lady, Ms. Harper…

Umm, who is the head of state in our system of government, Jason? If you answered Governor General Michaelle Jean, give yourself a gold star. (I guess I should really say the Queen, but Mme. Jean fills in for her round these parts). You see, the Parliament makes the laws…

Sorry Jason, but as much as you may wish it, Stephen Harper is not the President of Canada, Laureen isn't the First Lady, the Navy Band won't play Hail to the Chief when he enters the room and we don't have any M&Ms with the seal of the Prime Minister on them.

P.S. In the same MacLean's piece we see that Stock Day will be visiting Khan in his riding tomorrow. Maybe Stock can give Wajid some column writing tips…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New Year's Levee with Gerard Kennedy

If you're in the Toronto area you may want to swing by this gratis event on Sunday afternoon:

You can RSVP on Gerard's Web site.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Khan's a liar, and Stock just outed him

Remember Wajid Khan saying it was the big meanie Stephane Dion telling him to choose a party already that forced him to cross the floor to the Conservatives? Remember Harper saying the same thing? Turns out, unsurprisingly, that was baloney. And, surprisingly, it was Stockwell Day that exposed them.

You know, Stock's constituency columns are just the gifts that keep on giving. Whether it's imaginary unrest in Mexico, questionable racial comments or global warming denials, Stockwell's columns have become must-reading for Canadian from coast to coast to coast.

In this week's column, after telling some hockey anecdotes, fawning over Harper's skill as a hockey analyst and commenting on the cabinet shuffle, Stock weighs in on the Wajid Khan crossing:

Somewhat in the shadows of all the Cabinet announcements there was another important change which took place that didn't get too much attention. A Liberal crossed the floor and joined the Conservatives. I also happen to know this individual fairly well. He's a very influential person in the Muslim community and well known in that capacity across the country. As a matter of fact I had the opportunity to hear him speak in a Toronto area mosque on one of the occasions when I was also invited to speak to a Muslim congregation.

Mr. Khan is a common sense guy who has been frustrated by a number of Liberal policies even when they were still the government. He knew a cabinet shuffle was coming but wanted to wait till after the announcement was made before he crossed the floor to join us. He didn't want any suggestion that he was doing this in hope of getting some kind of appointment.

I've bolded the important line. What Stock has done here is confirm that Wajid had already made his decision to cross the floor BEFORE Dion told him to make a choice. Unlike the Harper/Khan spin, the Dion "ultimatum" had absolutely no effect on Khan because he had already made up his mind to cross the floor; it was just the timing that was to be worked out.

Put this revelation into context now with Harper's refusal to release Khan's supposedly non-partisan report because he doesn't want the Liberals getting a whiff of his super-secret foreign election platform and the patronage appointment for Khan's former Conservative opponent.

It is increasingly clear that, despite the Conservative spin, the Khan crossing has been in the works for a long time.

Why don't they stop misleading Canadians and just say so?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Wajid Khan's $13,000 super secret Excellent Middle Eastern Adventure

After a barrage of pressure from the media and the opposition, the Harper government has finally disclosed the expenses for turncoat MP Wajid Khan’s super-top secret, super important, non-partisan Middle Eastern trip.

Here they are:

As you’ll see over some 19 days Mr. Khan visited Damascus, Riyadh, Aman, Cairo, Jerusalem and Beruit. All the garden spots, to be sure. He spent nearly $8000 on air fare, just over $3000 on accomodations, and some $1600 on meals for a total of just under $13,000.

Then he went home, wrote his $13,000 report that he promised he’d share with everyone, his Conservative friends gave his old election opponent a patronage job, he supported Joe Volpe for the leadership, then he supported Bob Rae for the leadership, then he supported Stephane Dion for the leadership, then apparently he was upset Dion’s foreign policy wasn’t more like Michael Ignatieff’s foreign policy, and finally jumped ship to the Conservatives for reasons that seem to change by the news story.

Any-ho, did the taxpayers of Canada get value for money from their $13,000? We’re not going to be able to find out. As mentioned, the report is super-duper-tip top secret. If it was released, I mean, the Earth would stop spinning on its axis, day would become night. What’s that? You’re asking, what about all that Conservative stuff about accountability? Hey, look over there! Adscam! Liberanos and so forth!

P.S. Hey, David Emerson, could you join me over at camera three?

Hey David. How ya doin? Fabulous. Listen bud. Look at this expense report Wajid filed. Just under $8k on air fare and he hit six cities in the Middle East. Six! Including Beruit! I mean, I don’t think WestJet exactly flies there, you know what I’m sayin’?

I’m just asking…maybe you could use Wajid’s travel agent for your next trip, rather than spending $10k on a roundtrip to Geneva. You know what I’m saying big shooter?

Thanks chief.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The CPC's new multicultural policy

Blogging Tory Joan Tintor:

Liberal protest fades to white
Just caught the CBC story on the Stephen Harper visit to Wajid Khan's riding today, which included a shot of about five Liberals outside the venue "protesting" Khan's floor-crossing with homemade signs. Every single one of them was, er, Caucasian.

Shorter Joan Tintor: Sorry all you white people in Mississauga, sure he's your MP too but your voices don't count.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Politics Watch replaces distorted Chretien photo

Updating my post from this morning, on a doctored and distorted photo of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien that was run to accompany a news story on popular national political news site Politics Watch.

Here’s the photo they ran again:



I sent an e-mail this afternoon to Politics Watch asking, politely, what on Earth they were thinking about. As yet I have year to hear back from them with any kind of explanation, but refreshing the page late this afternoon I saw that the photo had been replaced with another, un-doctored pic:


No note on the site though, or explanation for that initial insulting photo. I’m glad they’ve changed the pic; I still think an explanation/apology would be in order though.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The politics of wait times

In Toronto today Steve Harper took a baby-step towards fulfilling his infamous missing fifth priority. Appropriate it was a baby step, since he made the announcement at the Hospital for Sick Children.

The unfulfilled priority I refer to of course is this one:

…work with the provinces to establish a Patient Wait Times Guarantee

And I say infamous because, as first noted by Paul Wells, it simply seemed to disappear from Harper's list of priorities at some point without much progress having been made or acknowledgment given. Over the last few months the sense of abandonment on this priority generated a dollop of media attention, and with an election coming some time soon (I'm betting not before a by-election in Outremont though) Harper's need to nip this one in the bud grew, no doubt bringing us today's announcement:

Ottawa will invest $2.6-million to help 16 pediatric hospitals across Canada set up a data base to collect information on how long children are waiting for surgeries…The 15-month pilot project will develop the first pan-Canadian system to measure waiting times for six key surgical areas: cancer, neurology, cardiac, sight, spinal deformity and dental treatment that requires anesthesia.

The problem with Harper's campaign promise on the wait times priority was that it was one he knew he couldn't follow through on. But it was still politically attractive at the time to make it anyway. It was an election and he wanted the votes.

Take a look at the income trusts issue: again, he new economically he'd have to tackle trusts, but it was politically advantageous in the campaign to promise otherwise.

Back to the vaunted five priorities though. All the other five priorities were quick deliverables that he could easily deliver on himself, solely within the federal realm: child care, GST. Bam, done.

For wait times he needs to rely on the provinces. Health is a provincial domain. The only lever he has to get the provinces to act is money, but even if he had lots of money for it and was willing to use it as a club to beat the provinces with, the fact is fixing wait times isn't as simple as spending more money. You need to identify metrics and standards, set definitions, and get multiple cross-jurisdictions on board. It's a real logistical and management headache.

The Libs made their own wait times promise in 04 as part of Paul Martin's healthcare "fix for a generation" (we loved that double entrende out in B.C. btw, our jaws dropped in our little rural campaign office when we heard it...might have moved a few votes out in EastVan) and when he tried to follow through on it post-election he ran into a wall, threw some money over it and declared victory.

So, when I heard that promise from Harper in the last campaign I knew immediately that was going no where. And so did Harper.

Therefore, politically they should take a hit for not keeping the promise. They knew full well keeping it wasn't near as easy as they implied, yet they decided to reap the political benefit (votes) for making the promise anyway.

However, if Harper and Clement are actually serious about starting the hard work to tackle this problem (jury is still out there) then I'll be happy. From the brief bit I've heard on today's announcement I think they may be on the right track; it sounds like a good start on doing the work that needs to be done. Let's hope it is.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Politics Watch doctors Chretien photo?

(see update above)

I like the Politics Watch site. They do good, usually non-partisan journalism on Canadian political issues, often breaking things the main stream media have missed. But I'm mad as hell at them right now.

I stopped by their site this morning as part of my regular reads and clicked on a story entitled "Liberal Adscam legal bills remain a mystery." An interesting story, and an interesting report. But what stopped me in my tracks and made my eyes bulge-out was this photo of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien that accompanied the story:


Take a closer look:

OK, seriously, what the hell is that? I met Jean once, and he doesn't look like that. This photo has obviously been doctored, I don't know by who, to make Mr. Chretien's head appear extremely larger than his body. And it's a crappy photo-shopping job at that.

Read the photo caption and there's nothing to indicate this is an illustration, or any reason for distorting a photo of a former Prime Minister of Canada. An editorial cartoon is one thing, but this is a news story on a supposed non-partisan news site.

I don't know how this ridiculous and insulting photo made it onto the Web site of a supposedly reputable news organization. This is Frank Magazine-style nonsense. It has no place on a serious news site.

The editors of Politics Watch need to remove this photo immediately and issue an apology to their readers and, more importantly, to Mr. Chretien.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Bloggers for sale

No, no, I'm not talking about that. But I did come across two interesting articles in the arena of blogging for profit that I thought I'd share:

• Bloggers for sale: Call it payola for the internet age or simply a new spin on marketing, but many bloggers are increasingly getting paid for writing about products without telling their readers.

• Influential bloggers get free computers, Vista from Microsoft: Microsoft Corp.'s efforts to woo influential bloggers by sending them free computers loaded with the Vista operating system is generating controversy, with some online writers attacking would-be Vista reviewers for taking what were tantamount to bribes, while recipients defend their editorial independence, arguing that journalism-style rules prohibiting such gifts are outdated.
  

Interesting questions raised certainly in both pieces that touch on an issue I've long been interested in: are bloggers journalists, or what? And if so, what kind of standards of journalistic ethics (hey, stop snickering!) are they obligated to follow.

I think the answer to the first question is some are, and some aren't. Well, not quite journalists, but something close. They do basic research, talk to people, try to get the story, and get it out, with a side dish or partisan spin. More like columnists maybe. Others are just about the partisan spin; I wouldn't put them in the semi-journo category.

That brings us to the second question, what standards of journalistic-type ethics should bloggers hold themselves to? Besides a requirement to be aware of libel law, there is no requirement for bloggers to hold themselves to any kind of a standard at all, beyond those that may be set by any aggregators/communities they join. Nor should there be, the Internet is meant to be a bit Wild West like.

It is purely voluntary, but the good bloggers should, and will, hold themselves to a standard, whatever it may be for each person. It's a matter of credibility. Because it's that first group of bloggers, which try to meet some level of journalisticy standards, which are taken more seriously by the wider community of readers.

And when it comes to the kinds of blogging ethical standards questions raised in these two pieces, the answer usually is disclosure, and honesty. Don't hide the fact you took a computer but rather include that fact in your posting, and explain why. Then the reader has all the information, and is able to judge accordingly.

In the interests of journalistic full disclosure I'll say last month I was contacted by a book publisher and asked if I'd be interested in copies of political books from time to time so I can review them on my blog. I accepted and a review of the first book, the Harper bio I mentioned the other day, will be posted soon. And the review will include a note that a review copy was provided.

I've got to say though that personally, you can't keep the computer people. Some bloggers awhile back were offered cell phones to review and were allowed to keep them; I passed as I wasn't with the particular wireless carrier but some accepted. That's fine, again as long as the circumstances are disclosed.

But a free computer? That's just ridiculous. There's a line, and taking a free computer is way over it, IMO.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

My unfair partisan snark of the day

I liked this quote from Conservative national campaign co-chair John Reynolds (who I hear will be co-chairing the Conservative campaign again and who totally isn't a lobbyist at all…or a lawyer…he just works for a law firm…):

"Last election was the first time -- and I think a major reason we won -- that every Conservative candidate had to have a BlackBerry. He or she woke up in the morning and they got their message in the BlackBerry -- the talking points, the messaging, the 'Here's what you talk about today.' "

I hear next campaign they plan to bypass the BlackBerry and implant a microchip directly into each candidate's brain stem to relay instructions from the Harper Hive Mind…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The factanistas strike again

That blasted Liberal-biased main stream media is at it again! I mean how dare they report the, you know, the facts, especially when they're so embarrassing to the Canada's Relatively New Government and make a mockery of the Conservatives' pious campaigning about accountability and doing politics differently. The nerve!

The Conservative cabinet minister in charge of helping the world's poor spent more than $4,000 for a fill-in chauffeur while her regular driver was off for 11 days, Sun Media has learned.

Documents released through Access to Information show Quebec's Josee Verner, the minister of international development, awarded the contract to Maurice Cyr last March. The records obtained by NDP MP Pat Martin's office show the daily hours billed ranged from four to 16.5 for a total of 124, but chauffeurs often sit idle while ministers are between meetings, events or hospitality functions.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

This is scary

When you grow up on Vancouver Island ferries are a part of life. While I usually walk on board, from time to time I need to drive over to Vancouver and I have to admit to always having a bit of nervousness as the car crosses over from the dock onto the ferry.

Particularly after another accident in the early 1990s. It was also in Nanaimo, and if I recall involved a minivan and a family, possibly from Alberta. The ferry pulled away from the dock unexpectedly and the fan went off the dock into the water. Three people were killed.

Very scary, and a massive investigation was launched and stringent safety measures supposedly put in place to make sure it never happens again.

Well, it did happen again. People will be looking for answers. We need to have confidence in our ferry system. If not, the howls for full privatization will only increase, which would be very bad news for the many small coastal communities in B.C. that rely on the system.

Truck falls into water from B.C. ferry ramp
Canadian Press

NANAIMO, B.C. — A ferry unexpectedly pulled away from the loading dock here Tuesday evening, sending a pickup truck tumbling into the water.

No one was hurt in the accident because ferry crew members alerted the lone man in the truck and he escaped before it fell off the ramp, BC Ferries spokeswoman Deborah Marshall said.

"Thankfully there were no injuries and no persons entered the water during this incident," she said in an interview.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Fighting the blogging echo echo echo chamber

One of the knocks on the blogsphere is that it tends to be an echo chamber. Two recent interesting initiatives aim to possibly bring left and right a little closer together, expose people to different opinions and ideas…and maybe spark a little spirited debate too.

The first is a new aggregator, called Opinions Canada, that aims to provide a place to scan headlines and summaries from blogs across the Canadian blogsphere. Creator Suzanne at Big Blue Wave is still beating the blogsphere bushes to add new sites and is working out some of the technical kinks of the aggregator, but be sure to bookmark it and check it out.

The other new initiative is in the spirit of the old Comments Please site, which aggregated posts from professional bloggers like Coyne and Kinsella in one spot and provided a forum for spirited cross-partisan comment, debate and discussion…sometimes a little too spirited, as Comments Please vets will recall.

Rather than professionals though, with The Pundit’s Lounge creator Jamie is bringing together a sampling of amateur bloggers that represent a diversity of opinions. To start with the stable includes myself, Cherniak on Politics, The Prairie Wrangler and Chucker Canuck. A motley crew indeed, but an interesting one I think, and good lads all.

The Pundit’s Lounge has also just gotten off the ground; I hope you’ll stop by and visit and, if this phrase isn’t trademarked, leave your comments please.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Getting to the issue

On this Bourque thing again, let me just say that I don't begrudge the guy's right to make a buck.

If his business plan is to slant his headlines to suit his advertisers and sponsors, and that can prove to be a sustainable business model, then good for him.

I think it would be the right thing to do to make your biases clear, but that's entirely up to him. I also think when you try to make a major scandal out of Dion crossing the street against the light (alternate spin: opposition leader ditches government car, walks to work) then your credibility tends to suffer, but again, entirely his choice.

Pierre is a businessmen and I believe in free enterprise. The market will decide the value of what he has to offer, long live the market.

My concern is more with the Conservative Party of Canada. As Warren notes today, it's no secret that Pierre sells headlines on his site. Heck, he even says so.

So my question is, given this line in the book excerpt I quoted yesterday:

Bourque Newswatch was a popular Ottawa-based site which published political news and gossip, and it had on occasion published items the Conservatives wanted out in the blogshpere.

And given the stridently anti-Liberal, pro-Conservative tensor of the headlines on Bourque Newswatch during the last election campaign, as this five day archive of headlines from the campaign indicates:

Dec 1
RCMP PROBES INCOME TRUSTS
LIBERALS ROCKED BY NEW SCANDAL
IGNATIEFF DEBACLE: ALF APPS' EMERGENCY EMAIL
TURMOIL EMBROILS IGNATIEFF'S CANDIDACY
COPPS: LIBERAL DEMOCRACY ? HA !
HARPER CALLS FOR OFFICE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
ADLER: HARPER THE NEXT PM

Dec 2
HARPER TO CUT GST TO 5%
PAPER: MARTIN LACKS RESPECT FOR VOTERS
HAMM ENDORSES HARPER

Dec 3
MARTIN OUT OF SYNCH
SLOWPOKES: PARTY HAS YET TO TURF ADSCAM LIBS
IS OPPOSING GST CUT HOMOPHOBIC?

Dec 4
HARPER KEEPS MOMENTUM
CHAREST REFUSES TO CAMPAIGN FOR MARTIN LIBS
LAYTON DEFENDS JEWEL THIEF CANDIDATE

Dec 5
TORIES LAUNCH STRAIGHT TALK ADS
HARPER: CANADIANS "MASSIVELY OVERTAXED"
CAW MEMBERS SNUB BUZZ'S PRO-LIB STAND, OPT FOR NDP INSTEAD
FREE SPEECH? MARTIN HECKLER JAILED 4 DAYS
LAYTON WAFFLES ON PRIVATE HEALTH CARE
MARTIN FLIP-FLOPS ON MIDEAST

I would like to ask Stephen Harper, John Reynolds and Michael Fortier these questions:

• Has the Conservative Party purchased headlines, or other advertising and/or sponsorship, on Bourque Newswatch?
  
• If so, did any of this spending occur during the writ period?
• If it did, was the advertising expense properly declared and accounted for by the Conservative Party in its filings with Elections Canada?, and
• If it did, did the advertising purchased on Bourque Newswatch by the Conservative Party during the writ period duly include the "Authorized by the Official Agent for…" disclosure as required by Elections Canada?

I would also put the same questions to any third party pressure/lobby groups supportive of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative "media" ranking: Bourque, then Levant

Given the flurry of posts recently questioning the perceived Conservative leanings of online news aggregator/blogger/whatever Pierre Bourque (Olaf has another take) it was quite serendipitous I came across this passage in the Stephen Harper biography I'm currently reading by William Johnston, called Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada.

You'll remember the big scoop Ezra Levant of the Western Standard had during the last campaign, posting the full Liberal platform online before it was released by the party. The document of course came to Ezra courtesy the Conservative campaign, which got it from the infamous Liberal mole, no doubt.

The passage though indicates Ezra wasn't the Conservatives' first choice for a Conservative-friendly outlet to leak the platform to though:

The initial Conservative idea had been to leak the Liberal platform to Pierre Bourque's website, called Bourque Newswatch. That would conceal the fact that it was the Conservative Party that first received the leaked document from a mole. Bourque Newswatch was a popular Ottawa-based site which published political news and gossip, and it had on occasion published items the Conservatives wanted out in the blogshpere. But, when the war room finally got in hand the long awaited Liberal platform, no one could find Pierre Bourque to give him the scoop. In a last minute switch, they sent it instead to Ezra Levant's Western Standard; he was former communications director to Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day.

Interesting, that. What does it say about how Conservative-friendly you consider your first choice to be when your second choice is Ezra Levant and the Western Standard?

Johnson's bio (recently updated post Harper PMship) is an interesting read btw, watch for a review soon.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Lowering expectations

Because sometimes you needn't read more than the headline, which can sometimes say it all:

Green plan limited, PM warns

But read the rest of the story anyway, and watch Steve weeble and Steve wobble as he desperately tries to ratchet down the expectations of any meaningful action by the Conservatives on the environmental file.

P.S. By request, I refrained from making any "so-called" remarks. It wasn't easy either. You're welcome.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Laying out the welcome mat for Wajid?

Commenter KTR in the previous thread makes an interesting observation. It appears that the Conservative government may have been laying the groundwork for a floor crossing by Wajid Khan as early as October, arranging a cushy patronage appointment for the previous Conservative candidate in his riding.

Not that I’m one to subscribe to conspiracy theories or anything, but it is interesting.

You’ll remember it was August when Khan was appointed by Harper as his special advisor on the Middle East. Two months later, on October 31, then Immigration Minister Monte Solberg appointed Raminder Gill as a citizenship judge. Gill was the Conservative candidate for Mississauga-Streetsville in 2006 where he lost to the Liberal candidate…Wajid Khan.

I’m sure Monte and Stephen were just planning ahead, preparing for every eventuality, making sure there was a welcome mat with lots of comfy fur ready for their special advisor. Probably a big coincidence, I'm sure.

I'm reminded of another big coincidence though. David Emerson's crossing to the floor to the Conservatives just days after the election was a big shock. We heard later though that his Conservative opponent in that election, Kanman Wong, was ready to step aside and let Emerson have the Conservative nomination before the 05/06 campaign had even began. Generous offer, but David of course decided to stay as a Liberal long enough to win his seat under the Liberal banner and then cross the floor to the Conservatives for the good of the country.

One wonders what Wong knew that the rest of us didn't. Dido Solberg. Pretty coincidental coincidences.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Just when I think I'm out...

...they pull me back in. I wanted to leave this Khan thing behind but I couldn’t let this comment by Coyne go. It’s also a line I’ve seen repeated on various BT sites, so it must be one of the talking points:

It's encouraging that Khan was not given a cabinet post or other inducement to cross the floor, unlike the Stronach and Emerson affairs.

There was an inducement Andrew. The PM named him a special advisor on the Middle East. The inducement just came a few months before. The floor crossing was inevitable from that day. Let’s not kid ourselves. I like Bill Graham, but he was a substitute teacher. If we hadn’t had an interim leader this would have come to a head then, not now. Harper was playing political games trying to sow discord in the Liberal ranks during a leadership race, just like he did with the snap Afghanistan extension vote.

The other talking point I’ve seen in lots of places seems to be that Kahn is putting country over party and partisanship, so why did Dion have a problem here? Umm hmm. Well, I have yet to hear a Conservative honestly try to answer this question posed by Scott and others: If PM Martin had named a Conservative Belinda Stronach a special advisor on democratic reform, or whatever, would Steve and Co. been cool with her staying in the Conservative caucus?

Just curious.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Red Rover, Red Rover, we call Wajid over

One last comment on the Wajid Kahn floor crossing before we hopefully put this thing behind us and move on to more important things.

I’ve been mulling over my opinion on floor crossing and I think I can sum it up as this: when someone crosses to the Liberals I’m fine with it, when a Liberal crosses over to someone else I don’t like it.

But seriously? It’s part of our system, and unless and until the rules are changed to prohibit it then it’s perfectly permissible. That’s why, and I’m sorry Jason, but I wouldn’t support petitions or a call for an immediate resignation by a floor crosser to contest a by-election.

Each floor crossing is different. Why did the person cross, what was their motivation? What was the timing? Was there a payoff promised and/or given? These are all things that make a floor crossing odious or not. There are situations where someone can cross for principled reasons. There are situations where someone can cross purely as a naked power grab.

At the end of the day, the verdict will be passed by that person’s constituents. They will have the final say on the motivations and acceptability of their representative’s decision in the next election. That doesn’t mean political partisans shouldn’t make as much hay as possible in the meantime, of course.

Personally, when it comes to floor crossing I think Keith Martin has set the example I’d hope others would follow. Finding his party no longer represented the his principles and the principles he felt it once did, he left the Conservative caucus and sat as an independent until the next election, when he ran and won as a Liberal.

Perhaps I would support some kind of rule change along those lines, but on the other hand I’m not sure you can or should be trying to legislate good character and good behaviour. In the mean time though, the rules permit floor crossing, and so be it.

Kahn’s constituents will have the opportunity to pass judgment on his character and his actions soon enough, and Canadians to pass judgment on Harper’s. That’s the fight we should be focusing on.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Alan Rock to make a comeback?

Once touted as a star leadership candidate himself, when Alan Rock endorsed Stephane Dion just before the first ballot voting in Montreal last month it was a big boost of early momentum for the Dion campaign. Could a Rock comeback now be in the works?

In an entry on CTV’s Politics Blog, David Akin reports a comment from a Liberal source that says Wajid Kahn did the party a favour by opening-up the Liberal nomination in his Toronto area-riding. An analysis shared by and large by the Liberal blogsphere as well. But what I found interesting was one of the names the source put forward as a possible Liberal candidate there:

“He's done the party a huge favour by opening up a Toronto seat for a high profile candidate. We were having problems finding a spot in the event nobody retired,” my Liberal source says. “Could be Rae, Kennedy, Findlay or someone else. Maybe even Rock."

First time I've heard that particular rumour. Could it be time for a comeback for the 59-year-old former UN Ambassador and cabinet minister?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Behind the headline lies only bluster

Having breakfast this morning at 24 Sussex Steve Harper clearly saw the headline in the Globe that he hoped his cabinet shuffle would generate. "PM charts a greener course" the above the fold headline blares. Eddie, if only wishing made it so.

I wondered last night why Steve would time today's Kaaahhhhnnn! floor-crossing for today, thereby moving the news cycle away from his cabinet shuffle and to what is sure to be a bevy of Kaaahhhhnnn! stories instead. Indeed, the shuffle is already being pushed off the Web news pages, and I'm sure the TV news too.

The answer though is really a simple matter of political communications strategy. He wanted the day one story: PM makes environment a priority. He didn't want the more introspective day two stories though, when an inquisitive media begins to question the PMO's talking points and do some analysis pieces, and see if this is really greener course or just more hot air.

Because that's what the greener course spin really is, it's just hot air. There is no greener course. There is no policy shift. This is just putting lipstick on a pig and changing the salesman, nothing more. The course has always been charted in the PMO.

You can make the argument that Harper moved-out the underperforming Ambrose and put in one of his most trusted ministers, and his wife's first consort, Baird. That's true. But you can't argue that means he's charting a greener course. Because that's not what Baird was sent there to do. Baird doesn't bring strong environmental creds, or really any environmental creds at all. He hasn't articulated any new policy directions or shifts that would justify talk of "a greener course." Harper sent in Baird because he recognizes Canadians are concerned about the environmental issue, that's true. But Harper doesn't want a greener course. He wants to neutralize the environment as an election issue.

That's why he sent in his attack dog: to kill the issue, and attack the Liberals. It's not a greener course; it's an attack the Liberal record course. That has been clear from Baird's media comments since the shuffle. And not only is that not a greener course, it's not even a new course. Attack the Liberals was Ambrose's game plan too; perhaps Baird will execute better.

Greener course?

If Harper really want to plot a greener course, as Devin commented he would have tapped Bob Mills for the portfolio. I mean, just look at his Web site. A respected veteran Conservative MP, Mills was their environment critic for four years, chairs the HoC environment committee, and has been recognized by the Sierra Club.

A few years back Mills came to my riding in B.C. to discuss environmental policy at the invite of our then local Conservative MP. I went to check it out, expecting to hear some wacky, nutty stuff I could file away for future oppo. Dammit though if the guy didn't make sense, demonstrate real passion and understanding on the issue, and have some great ideas. I walked away rather impressed with Bob Mills.

That's who Harper would have picked if he was serious about going green, and wasn't just serious about election politics and positioning. Look past the window dressing and it's obvious.

Next story

Which brings us back to Kaaahhhhnnn! The media will never do that kind of second look introspection now. Their attention spans are too short. We're going to go straight from PM charts greener course to PM attracts Liberal defector. Once again, Harper demonstrates his acumen as a political strategist; it's great media management and communications strategy. I've always given Steve credit for that.

It's just too bad that, like most Harper strategies, it's also really bad policy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom

Apropos of undoubtedly very reliable information posted today by a prominent Conservative blogger whose name I shan’t mention just because he asked that we mention it, although I met him in Montreal and he seems like a swell chap (for a Conservative), I’m reminded of this prediction I posted on Wajid Kahn on August 11^th last year.

Turns out I was off on the one month from now thing, but still. I just mention it because I’m so rarely right. I mean, last year while in Las Vegas I visited the Mandalay Bay's sportsbook and put $20 on the Canucks to win the Stanley Cup and they didn't even make the freakin' playoffs. I mean, come on!

Predicting the future: Let me gaze into my crystal ball and predict where this Wajid Khan thing might be going, and why I think Stephen Harper, while I dislike him and his policies, is crazy like a fox:
Say, one month from now, Khan and Harper hold a press conference to announce that Khan has crossed the floor to the CPC. "This wasn't my first choice," said Khan. "I was a loyal Liberal and a loyal Canadian, and I wanted to contribute to Canada in the spirit of bipartisanship by offering my help on the Middle East issue. But my Liberal colleagues have made it clear they no longer want me in their caucus, so, with a heavy heart, I have agreed to follow their wishes."

A somber Prime Minister Stephen Harper welcomed Khan to the CPC fold, saying it was unfortunate the Liberal caucus wasn't more welcoming to such a talented MP and supportive of his efforts to find a solution to the Middle East crisis, but added Khan will be a welcome addition to the government team.

Angry Liberals lashed out at Khan's move, calling it a betrayal and demanding he resign to run in a by-election. Kahn dismissed their complaints, however.

"How can they be mad at me for doing exactly what they asked me to do?" asked Kahn. "They forced me into this decision."

Not that you had to be genius to see Wajid’s move coming a mile away the second this hair brained advisor thing was first popped. It was just a matter of choosing the timing that Harper felt would be most advantageous for the Conservatives. Interesting that he wants to shorten the news cycle for the cabinet shuffle story though.

Anyway, onward and upward. And as Scott points out, there is a silver lining for the Libs.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

John Baird video fun

Someone has some video fun on youtube with our new environment minister, the always reasoned, measured and calm John Baird.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Moore shafted at the last minute?

I mentioned earlier how it continues to suck badly to be James Moore. But he may have come closer to a ticket to Rideau Hall than we thought.

Moore was widely expected to get a secretary of state spot with responsibility for the Winter Olympics or Amateur Sport. Makes sense, given that he's a Vancouver-area MP and Vancouver-Whistler is hosting the Winter Olympics in three short years.

Instead Harper, in his wisdom, gave the sport portfolio to an Ontario MP, giving the finger to British Columbia once again. This is, after all, the PM that addressed the contentious B.C. issue of First Nations salmon fishing rights in a letter to the Calgary Herald.

Ironically that MP, Helena Guergis, will be working under David Emerson, the floor crosser than snagged the cabinet spot that was supposed to be Moore's last year. It's enough to make Alanis weep.

But here's the kicker. In preparation for the swearing-in this morning, the PMO uploaded a picture of Moore to the ministerial section of the PM's Web site, at http://www.pm.gc.ca/grfx/ministry/moorej_s.jpg:

Ouch, James. Left at the altar once again. Remember the old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…

James, allow me to quote the Oprah-blessed author of He's Just Not That Into You: The No Excuses Truth To Understanding Guys, Greg Behrendt . I think you can benefit the advice of the next Dr. Phil here:

"If a (sane) guy really likes you, there ain’t nothing that’s going to get in his way. And if he’s not sane, why would you want him?"

Why James? Why indeed?

UPDATE: Turns out the always intrepid Sean Holman at Public Eye Online was all over this one. And it seems James has some company in misery: Diane Ablonczy also had her headshot uploaded to the Web site and didn't make the final cut. Perhaps the two can go for coffee or something, maybe see a movie. I plan to go see The Good Shepard this weekend if they'd like to join me.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jack Layton joins Harper cabinet

Actually, no he didn't. Just kidding. There were no surprises of Emersonian or Fortierian proportions in the swearing-in of Stephen Harper's new cabinet this morning at Rideau Hall.

I'll leave a listing and evaluation of all the moves and new faces to others, and just share some random observations.

*Well, a year later and it still sucks to be James Moore, doesn't it? Still no cabinet or even sub-cabinet job for the hard-working, talented and popular Vancouver area MP, not even as a thanks for a year of carrying the unelected, unaccountable Minister Fortier's water in the House.

*Alas, Vic Toews moves from justice to treasury board, which means I won't be able to make anymore snarky remarks about the justice minister being no stranger to the justice system. Booo!

*Clearly Harper is trying to make it clear Rona Ambrose's move isn't a demotion by giving her Intergovernmental Affairs, responsibility for Western Economic Diversification, and president of the Queen's Privy Council. Then again, Steve-O didn't exactly keep Michael Chong in the loop when he had that job.

*Speaking of Rona, here's a candidate for whopper spin of the year from Conservative spinner Tim Powers, on CPAC, speaking of Ambrose:

"She suffered from being too honest at times."

Yeah Tim, her big issue wasn't incompetence. It was her bureaucrats constantly having to correct the overly honest testimony she gave to the environment committee and her overly honest representations in QP.

*Jason Kenny as secretary of state for Multiculturalism and the Canadian Identity? Jason-Freakin-Kenny? Someone on the CPAC panel (can't tell who, the video was on Rideau Hall) quite loudly snickered when that one was announced. The media members of the panel found that one shocking; even Tim Powers walked a fine line, saying:

"You generally know where Jason stands, I think it's fair to say that."

We know where Jason stands on science fiction magazines, for example.

*The consensus seems to be Gerry Ritz as secretary of state for small business and a tourism is a reward for his great work for the Conservative Party. A reward that comes with a salary increase courtesy the Canadian taxpayer too.

*Overall this has to be characterized as a fairly major shuffle, with eight cabinet members changing responsibilities and five joining the junior cabinet as secretaries of state. It's a clear admission by Harper that he had to make changes to get his government back on track. It's also a cabinet that seems designed to govern for a while, which would seem to argue against an election in the near-turn. Of course, Harper has confounded the conventional wisdom many times before, so who the heck knows.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

11 Harper appointees donated $7200 to Conservative Party

While you were busy during the holidays, with visions of sugar plums dancing in your heads, you may have missed the appointment bonanza the Conservative government tried to sneak under the radar, which was how they wanted it.

Some of the details have already been discussed in the blogsphere and in the press, such as the stacking of the Assisted Human Reproduction Panel with no fertility experts but lots of so-cons and the judgeship for Harper’s Alberta co-chair. The media has also touched on the Conservative credentials of many of the appointees. Some of the highlights:

*Former Mulroney cabinet minister Barbara McDougall named to the Agreement on Internal Trade panel
*Former Reform MP Ian McCelland named to the board of Edmonton Northlands
*Former Conservative candidate for Ottawa-Vanier Gilles Guenette named to the Immigration and Refugee Board
*Former Nova Scotia Conservative Premier John Hamm will chair the Assisted Human Reproduction Panel
*New Brunswick Conservative bagman Stephen Campbell named a director of the Saint John Port Authority
*The former chair of the nomination committee for the Whitby-Oshawa Conservative Association (Jim Flaherty was their only nominee) named head of the employment insurance board of referees for the Toronto district
*Prominent Vancouver Conservative lawyer Sharon White named a director of Farm Canada
*Prominent Sarnia Conservative James Carpeneto named to the board of employment insurance refugees for the Sarnia district

What you haven’t read in the media though is that 11 of the Conservative appointees donated to the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2004 and 2006 elections, pumping some $7200 into Conservative coffers. Here's what running the list of Conservative appointees against the Elections Canada contributions database for the last two election campaigns revealed:

*I mentioned Sharon White of Vancouver, appointed to a three-year term as a director of the Board of Directors of Farm Credit Canada:

*I also mentioned Gilles Guenette of Ottawa, appointed to a three-year term to the Immigration and Refugee Board:

*There’s also Judith Crockford of Dundas, named to the Immigration Review Tribunal for the region of Hamilton for a term of three years:

*I mentioned Sarnia’s James Carpeneto, named as chairperson of the EI Boards of Referees for the Ontario Regional Division, and particularly for the District of Sarnia, for a term of three years:

*There’s Robert Emigh of Saskatoon, named part-time member of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal:

*I mentioned Stephen Campbell of Rothesay, New Brunswick, named a director of the Saint John Port Authority, to hold office for a term of three years:

*And we all remember Barbara McDougall of Toronto, named to the roster of panellists required by Article 1705 of the Agreement on Internal Trade for a term of five years:

*The media seemed to miss former Mike Harris cabinet minister Bill Saunderson of Toronto on the list. Bill was named a director of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board for a term of three years (the S. Saunderson is at the same address as the others, possible data entry error, so I included it in the graphic but not the $ total):

*Let’s not forget Dallas Miller, appointed a Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta and a member ex officio of the Court of Appeal of Alberta:

*Also in the judges category is Nicoll Scarvelli of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and a Judge ex officio of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal:

*One more judge is Alex Pazaratz of Hamilton, Ontario, appointed a Judge of the Family Court branch of the Superior Court of Justice in and for the Province of Ontario, and a Judge ex officio of the Court of Appeal for Ontario:

That's an average of $665/appointee. Not a bad return on investment.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jack Layton is flame retardant

That's among the findings of testing for chemical contaminants done by an environmental group on four Canadian politicians. I wouldn't recommend testing that finding though.

Here's how the four ranked, from most polluted to least (all were more polluted though than the average Canadian):

John Godfrey (Lib): 55 pollutants

Tony Clement (Con): 54 pollutants

(tie) Jack Layton (NDP): 54 pollutants

Rona Ambrose (Con): 49 pollutants

While Layton was the most flame retardant (handy for a politician) Godfrey had the highest level of organophosphate pesticides and Ambrose took the arsenic crown.

Suggested spin headlines based on the findings for my BlogCon friends:

"Liberals are contaminated: study"

"Toxic Liberals"

"We're all overly partisan and silly"

Liberals should blame it on Brian Mulroney. And Dippers, as always, you should ask "will someone please think of the children?"

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Creepiest video ever

I can't get the video blog thing to work in You Tube, so this link will have to suffice. And I am serious when I say this is one of the creepiest things I've seen in some time. You've been warned.

And bonus, Care Net is in Canada too, so watch for a Daddy/Daughter Purity Ball coming to a city near you soon!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Let’s go consultin’

It’s the so-called environment, stupid, as nearly everyone now seems to be agreeing. And we’re hearing this morning about the latest so-called action by the Steve Harper Conservatives on the green front:

The Prime Minister's senior aides, including legislative assistant Bruce Carson and policy director Mark Cameron, are seeking advice from environmentalists on how to beef up the government's record heading in to a key winter session.

After being shut out in the past, environmentalists are reluctant to discuss the meetings. But sources confirmed the Prime Minister's Office is quietly opening the lines of communication with its harshest critics.

Sounds like a fabulous idea. But, wait a minute, what person seems to be missing from that consultative line-up?

If you answered the Minister of the Environment (whomever that may be next week) you are absolutely correct.

Glad to see Mr. Harper is finally following-through on the whole cutting red tape, more efficient government thing though. Just cut out the pesky do-nothing Minister and deal straight with the PMO staffers that make the decisions, that’s the way to do it. The Minister can be filled in later and issued their talking points.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

2007: Mass killing, but "the Lord didn't say nuclear"

Your daily crazy, courtesy the always entertaining Pat Robertson (kudos to the understated headline writer):

Pat Robertson predicts unpleasant 2007
Associated Press

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted Tuesday that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in “mass killing” late in 2007.

“I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear,” he said during his news-and-talk television show The 700 Club on the Christian Broadcasting Network. “The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that.”

Mr. Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place some time after September.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Latest from the nomination rumour mill

In the Globe's speculative Harper cabinet shuffle piece this morning I noted with interest this nugget towards the end that suggests former Ottawa Mayor Bob Chiarelli may be looking to take on Conservative Treasury Board president John Baird in the next election:

Interestingly, the Liberals also recognize Mr. Baird's talent and there are rumours that former Ottawa mayor Bob Chiarelli, who lost in the recent municipal election, will run federally against Mr. Baird.

Mr. Chiarelli served as an MPP before going into municipal politics. Liberal thinking is that at the very least the well-known Ottawa politician would force Mr. Baird to stay close to his riding during a federal campaign, limiting his ability to campaign across the country for Mr. Harper.

Baird's riding is Ottawa West-Nepean, a fairly urban/suburban riding. He defeated Liberal newcomer Lee Farnworth in the riding in 2006 by 5000 votes, but it had previously been Liberal for some time under Marlene Catterall. Chiarelli once represented the same area as an MPP.

I think this would be a very interesting, compelling match-up that at the very least would keep Baird close to home. I covered Ottawa City Hall around 2000ish, post amalgamation, when Chiarelli was Mayor and Baird was Minister of Community and Social Services in the Mike Harris government. Needless to say there was no love lost between the two. They were constantly fighting over how much Harris would pay toward amalgamation; not a council meeting would go by without Chiarelli launching a broadside at Baird and his government, their Toronto favourtism, etc. I think Baird once called a press conference during a council meeting, down the road at the Mint, to needle Chiarelli, forcing half of press-row to leave mid-meeting. Then there's Baird's more recent intervention in Chiarelli's light rail proposal.

It's been a few years since I've been in Ottawa; I know Chiarelli lost re-election last fall so I don't know how popular he is. From what I hear of the job his successor is doing though, perhaps he's viewed a bit more fondly now. Still, he is a big name with solid Liberal credentials, and it would be fun to see him take on Baird.

And this could be a swing riding. It's ridings like this one that Liberals need to be able to take back if we're going to get anywhere.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Same sex marriage still not safe

Just when you think it's over. While you may have thought last month's failed sham vote in Parliament to revisit same sex marriage put an end to the issue, its clear Steve Harper's socially conservative allies aren't willing to let this issue die just yet.

According to the Vancouver Sun an informal coalition of socially-conservative groups with very strong ties to Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada are preparing to press the government to reopen the issue, and will be calling on the Harper government to create a Royal Commission on marriage and families to "make recommendations on a variety of matters, from family tax policy to child care" and, of course, revisit SSM.

The groups behind the push include Focus on the Family Canada, the Institute for Canadian Values and the Canada Family Action Coalition. All should be familiar to followers of Conservative politics.

Focus on the Family's former president Darrel Reid, for example, was the CPC candidate in Richmond in the last election, losing to Liberal Raymond Chan. He was muzzled by the party office, perhaps for making comments like this:

"Canada could become like Nazi Germany, with Christians facing jail if they speak out against homosexuality."

Or maybe it was comments like this:

"It's about high time that Muslims showed the world that theirs is a religion of peace, rather than a religion based on threat, intimidation and terrorism."

That of course didn't stop him from becoming Chief of Staff to the soon to be shuffled Rona Ambrose (the same position he once held with Preston Manning) and a fine job he's been doing there too.

The same group's current Ottawa spokesperson, David Quist, was the CPC candidate in Nanaimo-Cowichan in 2004, losing to the NDP's Jean Crowder. Quist had spent six years as executive assistant to former CPC MP Reed Elly and also worked in Harper's OLO.

Anyway, Joseph Ben-Ami of the Institute for Canadian Values makes it clear what this Royal Commission, which would cost a healthy chunk of taxpayer dollars (any estimates, few million maybe?), would be all about, and why Harper had better come through for his benefactors:

"I think the prime minister and I think the Conservative party have to spend some time looking at the relationship it has with social conservatives, and I think there's some damage that has to be repaired, some fences that have to be mended," Ben-Ami said.

"I'm a small-c conservative, don't expect me to go out and vote Liberal. But I do have an alternative and that's staying home."

He said so-cons are "infuriated" Harper has refused to strongly defend traditional (whatever that is) marriage in Parliament (defend from what I've never understood). On the plus side though, Ben-Ami said they're pleased as punch about the cuts to the Status of Women and the killing of the Court Challenges Program. Still, he said baby-steps aren't enough, he and his so-con friends will be looking for real action from Harper. Starting, I guess, with a multi-million dollar Royal Commission to reopen an issue most people consider closed.

It will be an interesting question to follow. In his majority quest Harper is trying desperately to moderate his image, but will he go so moderate that his so-con base leaves him? Will any gains he can make on the left offset support lost on the right? Will he toss them a few bones to try to keep them onside, besides a few judicial appointments?

Stay tuned.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Flying saucer in Chicago?

You know I don’t blame them for changing their minds. I hate flying into O’Hare too. Connecting there is such a pain, espically if you need to change terminals. The food court deep dish pizza is delish though.

Flying saucer fails to land at O'Hare
Associated Press

CHICAGO — Federal officials say it was probably just some weird weather phenomenon, but a group of United Airlines employees swear they saw a mysterious, saucer-shaped craft hovering over O'Hare Airport last fall.

The workers, some of them pilots, said the object didn't have lights and hovered over an airport terminal before shooting up through the clouds, according to a report in Monday's Chicago Tribune.

The Federal Aviation Administration acknowledged that a United supervisor had called the control tower at O'Hare, asking if anyone had spotted a spinning disc-shaped object. But the controllers didn't see anything, and a preliminary check of radar found nothing out of the ordinary, FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said.

“Our theory on this is that it was a weather phenomenon,” Ms. Cory said. “That night was a perfect atmospheric condition in terms of low (cloud) ceiling and a lot of airport lights. When the lights shine up into the clouds, sometimes you can see funny things.”

The FAA is not investigating, Ms. Cory said.

United spokeswoman Megan McCarthy said company officials don't recall discussing any such incident from Nov. 7.

At least one O'Hare controller, union official Craig Burzych, was amused by it all.

“To fly 7 million light years to O'Hare and then have to turn around and go home because your gate was occupied is simply unacceptable,” he said.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Happy New Year!

A Happy New Year to one and all, and all the best for 2007. I think it's going to be an interesting, exciting year, and hopefully a good one for those of us in Liberal land.

But no blogging for today. I got back home last night from a week at the grandparents for the holidays and it's back to work tomorrow, so today is a day to rest and recuperate from my week of rest and recuperation.

Today I plan to spend most of the day enjoying my Christmas gift to myself: Madden NFL Football 07 on my PS2. Go Seahawks!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers