Sensible tax policy from Ontario

I like this announcement from health promotion minister Jim Watson. It just makes sense. The costs of smoking-related illness are a huge drain on the health care system, so why not make it cheaper and easier for people to quit? Any foregone tax revenue from the nicotine patch will be made back many times over in reduced health care costs down the line. Hopefully Ottawa will follow suit.

Smokers trying to quit are getting a break as the provincial government scraps its 8 per cent sales tax on over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy and challenges Ottawa to remove the GST.

The Ontario measures take effect Aug. 13 and will save consumers about $5 million a year on nicotine patches, inhalers, gum, lozenges, sprays and tablets, Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson said.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Resource/equalization issue a potential factor in 32 ridings

An interesting story in the National Post today that contains some stark but unsurprisingly low popularity numbers for the Cons in Atlantic Canada, but also points out the resource/equalization issue may be a real ticking time bomb for Deceivin’ Steven.

Between February and May, the federal Tories' satisfaction rating with Newfoundlanders fell from 47% to 17%, according to a Corporate Research Associates Inc. poll. At the same time, dissatisfaction with the federal government's performance rose from 47% to 78%.

Things aren't much better in Nova Scotia. Satisfaction fell from 50 to 37%, while dissatisfaction rose from 41 to 58%.
...
Derek Leebosch, a senior associate with Toronto pollster Environics Research Group, reports that in March, 38% of Atlantic Canadians approved of the way the federal government was keeping its promises. By June, that had fallen to 22% -- far lower than the rest of Canada, where the figure is typically in the 40s.

While the Atlantic Accord has gotten most of the attention and it’s easy for the Cons to dismiss the non-seat rich Maritimes, when you factor in Saskatchewan things start to get interesting:

But the problem for the Tories may be larger than just Atlantic provinces. Between Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan the resource/equalization issue could have an impact on what voters do in a total of 32 ridings.

"I suppose every seat counts and if you lose a couple there, then in your odyssey to get a majority, you have to make them up somewhere else," Mr. Leebosch added.

Forget a majority; with 32 seats impacted they’ll be fighting to hang-on to their minority. Particularly when you factor in another ticking time bomb, income trusts, plus the wheat board, Afghanistan, and a host of other issues that are already sapping Conservative popularity.

No wonder Deceivin’ Steven is in no hurry to call the rest of those by-elections…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I guess accountability means it's someone else's fault?

This story crossed my radar last week when Red pointed-out the proliferation of anonymous Conservative sources quoted throughout. It’s also an interesting article for another reason though: it underscores Deceivin’ Steven’s inability to take responsibility for anything. It’s always someone else’s fault.

In a nutshell, the article posits Finance Minister Jim Flaherty may be punted over the side and out of the finance portfolio due to the bungling of the Atlantic Accord. Indeed, “senior Conservatives” including some apparently from within the PMO, say Jimbo is on the way out.

Now, I’ll grant the anonomyi that Flaherty may have become radioactive, and a new face in the job might help smooth things over. But here’s where they lose me:

Some staffers in the Prime Minister’s Office blame Mr. Flaherty’s office for failing to anticipate the political problems the budget would cause on the East Coast.

"They were surprised that the department didn’t foresee how badly this would go over with the two premiers who are whining the most," said a source close to the government. "Work wasn’t done beforehand to signal that it was coming or correct it or whatever had to be done."

They’re saying this thing is Flaherty’s fault? That’s just stupid. Even if it wasn’t known that Harper is a control-freak, the fact remains Harper was calling the shots on this thing from day one. Nothing happens without the approval of the big man, not in Harper’s Ottawa.

But now they’re going to blame this on Flahety. But wait, it gets better. More anonuymous Cons, talking now about the imfamous letter to NS Premier Rodney MacDonald vowing no side-deals written by the PMO, the one Flaherty signed after Peter McKay refused to:

"Flaherty hurt himself in Atlantic Canada by agreeing to sign that letter from the Prime Minister’s Office," said one Tory. "Perhaps he should have exercised better judgment there, but he sees himself as a team player."

So, senior Conservatives, perhaps from within the PMO, are saying Flaherty exercised bad judgment in agreeing to sign a letter he was told to sign BY THE PMO?! Told you it got better. Crazy Jim, don’t you know the PMO are idiots? Don’t listen to them!

Hey, here’s someone talking on the record. Former Conservative MP Bill Casey, can you make sense of this for me?

Mr. Casey, who has been sitting as an Independent since voting against the Tory budget, says he’s not sure Mr. Flaherty is the problem, since Mr. Harper’s office wrote the letter that angered Mr. MacDonald.

"Mr. Flaherty was negotiating side deals until that letter appeared in the Halifax Herald, when he said there was no side deals," said Mr. Casey. "But I know the government of Canada was trying to negotiate side deals instead of the Atlantic accord. So somebody overruled him on that Saturday when that letter came out. They were negotiating but apparently they weren’t allowed to. It’s a puzzle to me."

Bill has it right. As much as I dislike Jim Flaherty and wouldn’t mind seeing him gone, in this particular case he’s not the problem. It would seem logical the person that overruled Flaherty should be the one walking the plank. I’ll give you three guesses who that was, and the first two don’t count.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On spin doctoring and odd journalism

Last week a story involving Natural Resources minister Gary Lunn went largely unnoticed. The NDP is alleging Lunn, also the MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands (where he’s being challenged by former Green Party activist Briony Penn for the Liberals) spent some $25,000 of taxpayer dollars on spin doctoring work that could have been done by his staff.

First, the odd journalism. I thought this passage was weird:

New Democratic strategist Brad Lavigne rejected suggestions that the party was picking on the Natural Resources Minister.

Why would the reporter suggest the NDP was picking on Lunn? I mean, what is this, grade school. They’re raising concerns about government spending. That’s not picking on him, that’s doing their job. Hopefully they didn’t hurt Gary’s feelings.

Anyway, on to more spin doctoring. Here’s some from the NDP’s Dr. Lavigne:

He did note, however, that the NDP came a close second in Mr. Lunn's riding, one of the tightest races in a province with many competitive federal seats.

OK, so the NDP was a close second and it was a tight race. Hmm, what were the results then?

The NDP ran second in Saanich-Gulf Islands in the 2006 federal election, winning 26.5 per cent of the vote, compared with 37.2 per cent for Mr. Lunn.

Put that into raw numbers and Lunn beat the NDP’s Jennifer Burgis by nearly 7000 votes. Calling that a close second and one of the tightest races in the province* is a bit of a stretch for Brad, I’d have to say. He ploughs forward undaunted, however:

"We are the alternative to the Conservatives in that riding as in many other ridings in [British Columbia]," Mr. Lavigne said from Ottawa.

Alrighty then, let’s see how the Liberals did in that riding:

The Liberals came third with 26 per cent in the riding north of Victoria that Mr. Lunn has held since 1997 under Reform, Alliance and Conservative colours.

Actually, the Liberal candidate, Sheila Orr, had 26.09 per cent compared to the NDP’s 26.54 per cent. Again, in votes that’s a 301 vote gap.

The alternative would seem to not be as clear as Brad was spinning. Perhaps the race for second was the tight race he was thinking of? With Penn in the race this riding is very competitive.

*I don't have time a the moment to check the results for each riding in the province, but a quick check shows S/GI wasn't even close to the tightest race on Vancouver Island. Indeed, it was the second highest margin of victory. That honour of closest goes to my old stomping grounds of Vancouver Island North, where the NDP's Catherine Bell won a squeaker over the incumbent, Con John Duncan, whom she'll face again next election.

Here's the margins of victory for the Island ridings:

1. Vancouver Island North: NDP, by 616 votes over CON
2. Esquimalt Juan De Fuca: LIB, by 2,166 votes over NDP
3. Nanaimo-Alberni: CON, by 5,767 over NDP
4. Victoria: NDP, by 6,783 over LIB
5. Saanich-Gulf Islands: CON, by 6,971 over NDP
6. Nanaimo-Cowichan: NDP, by 8,943 over CON

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Did the heat get to Deceivin' Steven?

I’ve had this article bookmarked for awhile but haven’t gotten around to posting it. These are comments made by our illustrious Prime Minister during his recent trip to Latin America (h/t):

In a rare and surprising shot at the U.S., Harper said Canada shared America's desire for free and open markets, democracy and accountability. But in a speech to a business crowd in Chile, he added Canada differs from the U.S. in its policies of "social cohesion," such as universal health care, equalization and other progressive institutions.

Unlike the United States, which has a checkered history of interests and interventions in Latin America, Harper said the region has nothing to fear from Canada.

"It is not in our past, nor within our power, to conquer or dominate," he said.

Don’t worry, we won’t try to invade you like those Americans, who hate progressive policies.

Have a Liberal PM make those same comments and the shrieks and howls of anti-Americanism would resonate from the loony right columnists and bloggers. I must have missed their similar condemnation of Harper’s remarks.

It is nice to see Harper trying to carve-out a positive role for Canada on the world stage however. It wasn’t that long ago after all that he said:

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status..."

Speaking about, cough, boasting about social services, glad to see Harper, um, boasting about our social services like universal health care (we're totally first rate now that the Cons are in power though, so it's cool). It wasn’t that long ago after all that he said this about a two-tier system:

"Well I think it would be a good idea. We're alone among OECD countries in deciding that we'll have a two-tier system, but our second tier will be outside the country where only the very rich and powerful can access it and will be of absolutely no benefit to the Canadian health care system."

It also wasn’t that long ago that Harper decried Liberal TV ads that ask “voters to choose between a country like Canada with generous social programs, or a country like the U.S. with its lower tax rates, referring to tax cuts proposed by Harper” as anti-American, and, get this, a potential cause of terrorism:

"I think given the security situation it's not appropriate for any political party to do anything that would encourage anti-Americanism or break down that co-operation at this point," Harper said after U.S. officials announced an increased terrorist threat Wednesday.

But I’m sure Harper’s asking Chileans to chose between Canada’s generous social programs and the U.S.’s history of invading Latin American countries is totally different. Somehow. Maybe the difference is that its worse? I dunno.

Anyway, lastly, on Harper's Latin American adventure and supposed foreign policy shift this Liberal reality check is worth reading.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

O'Connor's 10 days are up today

On July 17, the NDP joined the Liberals in drawing attention to the latest concerning actions at DND, namely General Rick Hillier’s clamping-down on previously available information on captured Afghan detainees and Minister Gordon O’Connor’s (continued) refusal to publicly explain why national security is being used as an excuse to save potential political embarrassment.

In her release, NDP defence critic Dawn Black gave O’Connor 10 working days to respond, or:

…Black will make a formal request under Standing Order 106 (4) for the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence to convene and discuss this matter on 48 hours notice and to call such witnesses as it wishes including O'Connor, the Deputy Minister, the Chief of Defence Staff and all relevant officials involved in this decision.

By my calendar, today is the 10^th working day, so that means O’Connor has until the end of the day to get back to Black, and Canadians, or Black will need to make good on her threat. And with the Cons having called back committees last week they have no right to complain about summer committee hearings.

We’re waiting Gordon…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Briefly, on by-elections

The Cons have called by-elections for Quebec; everyone else will have to wait.

If you accept the position of the unnamed Conservatives (talking on the record is so uncool) that the Ontario by-elections should be delayed until after the Ontario provincial, just for argument’s sake, that still doesn’t explain Deceivin’ Steven’s decision to delay the by-elections in British Columbia and Saskatchewan as well.

Our unnamed Conservative friends speculate these by-elections could be delayed well into 2008. Some six months by my calendar. Why not call them at the same time as the Quebec ones, save a little cash and get the people in those ridings some representation? There’s no election excuse in B.C. and Saskatchewan.

Is dodging the judgment of voters really accountability?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I guess he's not a politician after all

Or at least, not a Conservative one. Good thing Rick Hillier is only the defacto minister or he’d be kicked out of Deceivin’ Steven’s cabinet for crossing the big guy like this.

Hillier though has come out and called the titular defence minister, Gordon O’Connor’s, plan to create 14 army reserve units in cities across the country militarily unnecessary. While Hillier doesn’t come out and say it, it’s clear what O’Connor and Harper are doing here, and that’s using defence spending to buy votes in selected regions across the country.

"We're not in the business of creating new reserve units," Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier told the CBC. "We have sufficient units. ... We don't need new units."

O’Connor has been on quite the spending spree lately, dropping many hundreds of millions in military spending from coast to coast, although mainly in Quebec, where CPC fortunes have plummeted of late.

Alas, he still hasn’t found time to comment on the withholding from the public of previously available information in Afghan detainees Hillier. Any day now, I’m sure.

Stand on guard for thee

In the Globe article they included a list of military-related Con election promises, and their status in being kept. I found this one amusing. First, the promise:

An Arctic National Sensor System, including underwater surveillance technologies.

Alrighty, sounds interesting. Sort of like a SOSUS for the North I guess. And it’s status in being kept:

Mr. Harper is planning a northern tour this summer as part of an Arctic sovereignty campaign.

Umm. So is Harper like going to stand in an ice flow and look for intruders or something? Is he like a one-man sensor system or something? Me no follow.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

With friends like these...

Canada’s most beloved former PM, Brian Mulroney, thinks his boy Deceivin’ Steven is doing just a swell job:

"I think Harper is very smart, very effective and I'm sure he and his colleagues are going to come up with some very attractive ideas.''

They sure haven’t yet, unless you count negative attack ads, but any day now, right guys? Anything is possible.

"Judging from Prime Minister Harper's first -- I guess I could call it 'term' in office, in the sense that there appears to be a break coming -- I think he's done exceptionally well,'' Mulroney said, notwithstanding the present Tory minority's public support has stalled at around 30 per cent in opinion polls.

Yeah, look at all Harper has accomplished. There was…well, how about…Liberals bad!

Anyway, too bad only a dismal 30 per cent of Canadians actually agree with Lyin’ Brian. Then again, compared to Mulroney’s popularity numbers when he left office…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On talking points

Speaking on the war in Afghanistan, as part of the Conservative government’s new softer, not at all related to polling, line on the issue, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor was quoted today as saying:

Speaking on CTV's Question Period, he said the training of Afghan soldiers over the next four or five months will allow Canadians to take on a reserve role some time near the end of the Vandoos' tour, which concludes next February.“We're hoping that by the end of this rotation ... the so-called Vandoos rotation, we'll have about 3,000 Afghan Army operating in the Kandahar province,” he said.

“And as we train more and more of the Afghan army to carry out their own operations, we will continue to withdraw. With more emphasis on training … at some stage [we'll] basically be in reserve.”

Certainly all sounds hopeful, and I hope it’s true. But you know, if you close your eyes and replace Afghanistan with Iraq, that kind of sounds like Donald Rumsfeld talking. Because that’s the exact same line parroted by Rumsfeld with regularity, when he still had a job (and Gordo's days are numbered, the paralells are spooky).

Hopefully it works-out better for O’Connor than it did for Rummy. I at least like it better than “cut and run” and “against the war, against the troops” which were recycled Bush/Rumsfeld talking points that Harper and O’Connor were parroting last year.

After writing most of this post I came across this Liberal news release; I’m glad to see Liberal defence critic Denis Codere is on the same page:

Mr. Coderre also compared the Minister's remarks yesterday with those made two years ago by U.S. President George Bush. In August 2005, facing pressure for his policies in Iraq, the President said "We're also training Iraqis. Our troops will come home as soon as possible. 'As soon as possible' means when those Iraqis are prepared to fight. As Iraq stands up, our coalition will stand down."

"Again we see the Conservatives borrowing from the Bush playbook," said Mr. Coderre. "Canadians deserve better than this. If the goal of the Afghan army's sufficiency comes up empty in 6 months, will further rotations of Canadian troops also be emphasizing training instead of combat? The Minister must end the politically driven double-speak and present a clear and practical strategy for Canada's mission in Afghanistan."

More importantly

On another note, so I see O’Connor was on Question Period this weekend. It’s a shame those muckraking journalist hosts, Jane Taber and Craig Oliver, didn’t see fit to question Gordo on how his department’s decision to stop releasing previously available information, such as the number of detainees captured by Canadian soldiers, meshes with the CPC’s while accountability thing, not to mention hiding behind the troops to save political embarrassment by shouting national security.

I know some unnamed veteran citizens that would be interested in his answer.

Still waiting for an elected Conservative official to defend the decision…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Unnamed Conservatives make me laugh

No time for blogging until later in the day, but I wanted to share this funny passage from a Globe story this morning speculating on by-election timing.

The story indicates with a few more Liberal seats coming free the Conservatives may wait to have more by-elections (except the Quebec ones) at once, then goes on to give this anonymous, unsourced Conservative theory:

Wary Tories believe the Liberals may be staggering their resignations to allow for a series of "good news" elections in friendly ridings, rather than having them held all on one day.

That made me laugh. These Conservatives really need to get their spin straight. I thought the Liberal MPs were fleeing a sinking ship, hated Dion, yada yada. That was the CPC spin. And yet now Dion is pulling the strings and these guys are timing their departures for his benefit?

If it’s any consolation I’m sure most Cons don’t see the contradiction. Spin on, mes amis, spin on.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Book review: In Defense of Our America

Reading last week that Deceivin’ Steven planned to reintroduce anti-terrorism legislation that was defeated in the spring as a political wedge issue reminded me I needed to write a review of In Defence of Our America: The Right for Civil Liberities in the Age of Terror.

It was written by Anthony D Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and journalist Dina Temple-Raston. Its narrative format is interesting. Rather than telling each case in one self-contained chapter of its own, it intermixes and tells each story in pieces throughout the book.

And I found all the cases selected, of the government impugning the civil liberties of Americans, whether for reasons of national security or reasons of race, to be both fascinating and disturbing. Some of the cases will be more familiar than others.

Probably the most well known will the that of John Walker Lindh, better known as the American Taliban. Speaking to Lindh’s family, friends and Lindh himself, the authors chart how Lindh came to Afghanistan from suburban California, the abuses he suffered at the hands of U.S. authorities once he was captured, and the politically-motivated process that “brought him to justice.”

Probably also familiar will be the case of the prisoners left behind in New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina, but the depth of what they went for, the break-down of the justice system, and the corruption and incompetence of the authorities is really something.

A number of other interesting stories are also told, such as that of a gay teen who received a much tougher sentence because of his sexual orientation, the college anti-war activist spied-on by the military, and the fight for abortion rights in South Dakota.

Also very interesting was the moral and legal battle in Dover, Pennsylvania where a tough as nails biology teacher fought back against the school board’s push to teach “intelligent design” in the classroom, and the well-funded right-wing groups exerting pressure behind the scenes.

What these stories make clear is that the fight for civil rights is far from over, indeed, it is being waged harder than ever before. In the age of terrorism civil liberties are under threat perhaps more than ever before in the name of security. I’d recommend giving this book a read, perhaps some of these stories can serve as cautionary tales as this debate prepares to begin once more.

A review copy of the book provided by the publisher helped facilitate this review.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Bite me David Miller

I've never really cared much about Toronto municipal politics or really paid much attention to then but I'm going to have to start, because this news on transit cuts coming-out of city hall yesterday is total BS, and completely irresponsible political posturing by Miller and company.

Near as I can tell there’s a pissing match going on between the right wing and left wing factions at city hill, most recently over balancing the budget. When the right wingers embarrassed Miller and won a rare motion the other day to defer a vote on tax increases, Miller decided all of a sudden massive budget cuts were needed, primarily to the TTC. For some reason, he never mentioned this before the vote…

In addition to reducing hours for libraries and community centres, the biggest cuts are to the TTC including a major one, the mothballing of the Sheppard Subway line, plus the cancellation of 21 bus routes. And on top of that, a 25 cent fare increase.

Don’t remember Miller and his cronies campaigning last year on slashing transit service either…

This is though, this is all politics. One the one hand, it’s designed to turn public opinion against the right wing councilors that voted against Miller’s $350 million tax increase. Never mind the fact Miller’s side refused to even consider a symbolic pay cut for councilors, calling it a stupid stunt.

But more than that, this is about the upcoming provincial election, and it’s about the fallout of the downloading of the Mike Harris era. Miller wants more money from the province (and feds) to address systemic structural funding shortfalls and help him balance the budget.

This splashy scare mongering is really aimed at Dalton McGuinty and John Tory. Miller wants to make this a provincial election issue, hoping with the pressure of the campaign trail one or both of them will promise to pony-up big cash, saving the city from its manufactured fiscal crisis and letting the subway trains keep rolling.

I’m not unsympathetic to the arguments around downloading, I think it’s a real issue that needs to be seriously addressed. But recklessly playing games with the transit system at a time ridership numbers are finally starting to rise is not the way to do it. Just the news today alone is going to be sending many people back to their cars, clogging the highways and belching exhaust.

David Miller needs to grow-up and approach this responsibly. Is there any adult supervision down at city hall?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper is not a leader

Maybe he was just projecting with all those radio and tv ads, overcompensating just a little bit. Seems a likely conclusion to draw from the new Strategic Consel poll dissected at length in today’s Globe.

They go into all kinds of nitty-gritty but the headline really sums it all up: Harper failing to win over country, Poll puts Liberals, Tories in dead heat.

I’d like to welcome my friends at the Globe to the party, because I’ve been saying for some time that the poor Conservative numbers and their inability to grow their support even a smidgen from the last election, despite all the advantages of incumbency and billions in taxpayer dollars to bribe voters with, is a massive failure of leadership for Deceivin’ Steven. It’s something the MSM has largely ignored, they had the Cons “inching” to a majority for a year.

The top line numbers put the Liberals and Conservatives deadlocked at 31 per cent, with the NDP at 17 and the Greens at 10.

Critics on the right will say yeah, but Harper is a lot more personally popular that Dion. There’s factors like incumbency that help drive that, but it’s an issue I’ve raised as well. Critics within the LPC will say imagine where the party would be in the polls if Dion were more popular. I think he’s working on it, but that’s valid too, we haven’t been able to capitalize on CPC weakness yet. I’d wager though the numbers would be similar with Iggy, Rae or Kennedy.

Let me submit this however: imagine where the CPC numbers would be if it wasn’t for Harper’s personal popularity? If Harper’s popularity figures were lower would the CPC be below 30 per cent, and behind the Liberals? Something intriguing to ponder, n’est pas?

Demographics

Also interesting are some of the demographic and issue numbers, by percentage.

In the 18-34 age group it’s L36/21, age 35-49 it’s L29/C33, and age 50+ it’s C38/L30. That’s interesting; given all the focus the CPC is giving to middle-aged families I’d expect them to be further ahead in that demo. I’d like to see more pushing on the income trust issue to target that Conservative support among seniors, I think it’s a bit soft and there’s ground to be made there.

Along gender lines, among men it’s C37/L27, and among women it’s L35/C26. That’s not surprising as is inline with the trend. Along wealth lines under $50k its tied 27/27, $50-$100k it’s tied also 31/31, and more than $100k the Libs lead 42/31.

Pollster Peter Donolo, whom it must be noted has strong Liberal ties as a former longtime communications director to PM Jean Chretien, notes the Conservatives are off their year-ago high of 37 per cent largely due to declining support from women, French-Canadians and voters earning $100k+.

He ties the drop in support from women and Francophones to Afghanistan, and the drop in support from $100k+ earners to the decision to tax income trusts and recent foreign takeovers. I found the Con drop in support from that last demographic astounding: from a whopping 49 per cent a year ago to just 31 per cent today. That’s astounding. Again, I say push the income trusts issue!

Issues

The poll puts the environment as the most important issue for Canadians, followed by health care and terrorism/Afghanistan. We’re already doing a lot on the environment front, I think we need to keep pushing on the Afghanistan front, clearly articulating our policy and not let a poll-scared Harper try to redefine himself on that front and wiggle out of his past bellicose rhetoric. And some attention and innovation on the health care front would be good as well, while also drawing more attention to CPC failures on the front, ie. the disappearing wait-times priority.

Region by region

In vote-rich Ontario, the Liberals continue to hold a lead, with 41 per cent, versus 34 per cent for the Tories, a virtual replication of the month before. The NDP is up two points to 13.

Despite the strong Liberal number the urban/rural split will be important here, if the Liberal support is concentrated in the GTA the CPC will do better in seats than these numbers suggest.

In the West, the Tories have dropped four percentage points to 40 per cent, although they continue to lead the Liberals 40-25, with the NDP third at 24.

Again it’s hard to draw conclusions given the huge levels of support the CPC has in Alberta. B.C. will be a battleground, as likely will be the rest of the West save Wild Rose Country. Unless we can harness the Stemlach displeasure somehow.

In Quebec, the Tories continue to lag behind both the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals. The Bloc leads the pack with 40 per cent, while the Liberals are second with 25 per cent. The Conservatives are third with 16 per cent and the NDP fourth with 10 per cent, a jump of four points. The Tory figure is a drop of nine percentage points from the 2006 election.

Steve analyzes the Quebec numbers and I agree, positive news for the Liberals and reason for optimism for Dion. As Donolo said, Dion is becoming the second choice for Quebecers to the BQ. Doesn’t bode well for Harper’s French Kiss, although a sequel from Chantal would be premature.

But consider this figure too:

Among francophones, the Liberals lead the Tories by 21 per cent to 17 per cent.

One year ago, the Conservatives led the Liberals by 11 points.

Maybe Fortier should hang onto that Senate seat after all.

Go forward

I’ll save a discussion of the Afghanistan numbers for another post as this one has gotten long enough already. But clearly I think there’s a lot of positive here for the Liberals, if only in the fact that at least one media outlet has finally awoken to Harper’s massive failure of leadership and inability to grow his support.

While the Liberal support numbers are still unchanged, we are tied with the Cons and I see the seeds in place to pass them and take the lead. We need to keep the pressure on the Cons, don’t let them off the ropes. Stay united, and focus on our issues. The environment is the top issue named, we’ve got the right leader to take on that one. We’ve got the right position on Afghanistan, let’s talk it up and keep the heat on. Let’s get creative on health care.

And I’ll say it again, although I feel rather lonely here, but start talking-up income trusts and drawing attention to our sensible alternative policy on the matter, it’s a support winner. I really think it’s a sleeper election issue.

Lastly, one thing the poll pointed-out was a distaste for Harper’s combative style, epically among women, is a turnoff. I don’t know how you could get this across but Dion is definitely a Bizarro Harper in that respect, if there was any way we could highlight that contrast it may be helpful.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A way too easy news quiz

Can you guess which of these fairly important stories is NOT linked on news aggregator Bourque.com this morning?

A) Harper fails to win over Canadians, CPC and Libs tied in polls

B) Canadians oppose Afghanistan mission extension

C) Conservatives use access laws to hide wrongdoing

D) All of the above

The prize for guessing correctly is nothing, because it’s really way too easy. Isn’t it amazing what a few sponsorship dollars will buy these days? Money well spent. We Libs really do need to improve our fundraising.

You can, however, read all about a horde of Viking treasure.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The media needs longer attention spans, and so do we

Lawrence Martin is bang-on in the Globe today, talking about the Afghan detainee document cover-up at DND and another disturbing DND story I hadn’t heard about, their monitoring of a Canadian anti-war activist, Steven Staples.

A pattern is emerging, said Martin. Too often both DND and the rest of the Harper government are using Access laws to cover-up wrongdoing and embarrassing information.

Writes Martin:

The government, it need be recalled, promised a new era of transparency and accountability. After Liberal malfeasance, it was elected, in at least some measure, for this very reason.

Some might wish to remind the generals and others of the pledge. And they need to be reminded more than once. In many cases, what happens is that officials wait for the media blow-over effect. They realize that, after a couple of days, journalists will move on to other fare. Stories such as Steven Staples being put under surveillance will be forgotten, and they will be off the hook.

The media's memory has to be longer. They can't allow it to happen.

He’s exactly right. I’d never even heard of the Staples case, and the detainee document story has gotten minimal play. The media have been too busy going ga-ga over Conrad Black, but that’s another rant.

Whatever happened to investigative journalism? To the analysis piece? To keeping the pressure on until there are answers? Until the media start picking-up the ball I think it’s up to us as bloggers to keep highlighting these issues, keep talking about them and keep the pressure up.

The fact that neither O’Connor, Harper or any other elected CPC member has even commented on the document classification issue is glaring, but it’s not surprising. Without the spotlight of QP to provide easy stories for a lazy press gallery, Deceivin’ Steven is hoping it will just go away and be forgotten by fall. And I like his odds, frankly.

We can’t let that happen.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

NDP joins Liberal opposition to Hillier/O'Connor detainee cover-up

I was glad to see today that the NDP has joined the Liberals in speaking out against the Hillier detainee document clamp-down, and is calling for swift and immediate action. Following two releases from Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre over the past week, the NDP weighed-in with a release of their own on the topic yesterday.

The issue, of course, is the Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, issuing orders to not disclose previously available information on the number of Afghan detainees by Canadian soldiers, hiding behind national security, with the minister, Gordon O’Connor, hiding behind Hillier and refusing (or not being allowed to) defend the decision in public.

The first Liberal release was issued a week ago, and rightly called on the Information Commissioner to investigate the matter, filing a formal request with the commissioner and O’Connor:

“There is no doubt that it is in the public interest for the Information Commissioner to conduct this investigation. Canadians are asking questions about our mission in Afghanistan, and the only way to have an informed debate on the issue, is for all the facts to be laid out,” said Mr. Coderre.

“I have written to the Information Commissioner to request a formal investigation, and I have written to Minister O’Connor, asking him to take responsibility for what is happening in his department, and to reverse this politically motivated decision,” said Mr. Coderre.

The Liberals issued a second release on the matter yesterday, with O’Connor not having yet had the fortitude to address the mater publicly. The second release renewed the request for an investigation by the Information Commissioner, and called for O’Connor’s resignation:

"Enough is enough. The Minister has been the source of misinformation and confusion for too long. To avoid further exposure of his complete incompetence, he has been choking off access to legitimate requests about Canada's role in Afghanistan. He knows this is unacceptable and its time for him to go," said Mr. Coderre.

"Whether it's the cover up of the Department of Foreign Affairs report on torture in Afghanistan, or it's a blanket order to ignore the Access to Information Act, this runs against every accountability and transparency promise made by the Prime Minister in the last election campaign. Minister O'Connor can no longer hide behind his generals and his civil servants to keep Canadians in the dark about Canada's involvement in Afghanistan."

Following Coderre’s work on the issue over the past week, NDP defence critic Dawn Black released her own statement yesterday threatening to attempt to reconvene the HoC Defence committee and summon Hillier and O’Connor if O’Connor doesn’t explain himself:

“…these reports [of interference by the CDS] are concerning and I request that you advise me and relevant Parliamentarians as soon as possible as to the role the Chief of Defence Staff played in these decisions. If the reports are accurate, this would represent a major step backwards in accountability on the part of the Conservative Government, as well as a possible violation of the Access to Information Act and will have undermined the concept of civilian control over the military.”

I’m glad to see the NDP joining the Liberals in recognizing the importance of this issue and calling for action. Hopefully the BQ will come on board too and the opposition can be united here. This flagrant subjacation of Canada’s information and access laws for political ends cannot be allowed to stand, and whatever happens O’Connor has got to go.

Still hiding

And speaking of O’Connor, he still hasn’t summoned the courage to face the public on this, even through a spokesperson:

A spokeswoman for Mr. O'Connor could not confirm whether the minister had received the letter as of yesterday afternoon, but said all such requests are answered in a timely manner.

Conservative accountability: hiding behind unelected buracrats.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Readers, start your spin-cycles

The big story in the Globe this morning is on new crime statistics, reporting the national crime rate is at an all time low.

National crime rate at 25-year low: Statscan
Canadian Press
July 18, 2007 at 9:45 AM EDT

OTTAWA — A new study says the national crime rate hit its lowest point in more than 25 years in 2006, driven by a decline in non-violent crime.

Statistics Canada says the crime rate dropped by three per cent last year, mainly due to declines in break-ins, thefts under $5,000 and counterfeiting.

The national crime rate has decreased by about 30 per cent since peaking in 1991.
(more)

Rather than providing my analysis, I thought for fun I’d turn the issue over to my readers and allow you to flex your spin skills and pull things out, in context or not, to use the data to pump-up your party and trash your opponents.

• Does the decline mean the Conservative tough on crime legislation, most of which isn’t yet law, is unnecessary blustering? Or are criminals so scared of the proposed legislation they’ve stopped committing crimes even before its law?

• Does the increase in assaults with a weapon mean the gun registry is a boondoggle, or did the fact the Conservatives have neutered the registry without canceling it rendering it useless contribute to the increase?

• Does the decrease in the national homicide rate mean Harper is hard on crime and the Liberals soft, or does the increase in many serious violent crimes like attempted murder and aggravated assault mean the Liberals were tougher on crime and Harper is soft?

• Does the rise in crime by youth mean diversion programs and addressing root causes rather than “getting tough” was the right way to go, or does it mean Vic Toews was right, throw the kiddies in prison?

• Does the large drop in crime in PEI mean everyone in the province moved West and there's no one left?

• Or does the fact the data is only until the end of 2006, after less than a year of CPC government and before most, if not all, of the new Conservative crime legislation could be passed and implemented, render any political comparisons and partisan shots based on the data silly and useless?
  

Let the spinning begin!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ce n'est pas possible!

Telefrancais was how I learned my smattering of French in junior high. Unfortunately I haven't found the video yet of the pineapple jumping out of an airplane, which was classic.



Watching stuff like this again makes me curious, and a bit frightened, to learn how they teach French kids English.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is O'Connor muzzled, or just scared?

Sorry if it seems like I'm harping on this, but I think it's an important story that isn't getting the attention it deserves. Another day, and still no comment from defence minister (for now) Gordon O'Connor on the withholding from the public of previously available information in Afghan detainees ordered by the Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier.

As far as I can tell O’Connor has yet to comment on the decision, supposedly based on national security considerations, to withhold even the number of detainees captured by Canadian soldiers and turned over to Afghan authorities. Indeed, I don’t think any elected Conservative official has commented. Accountability indeed, Mr. Harper. Will the CPC hide behind bureaucrats all summer?

The decision to reverse course and stop releasing detainee information, which had previously served to deeply embarrass Deceivin’ Steven’s government and expose O’Connor’s incompetence, was announced by Hillier’s office. In a follow-up story, O’Connor’s office refused comment.

Today, DND trotted out another unelected official, deputy minister Ward Elcock, to defend the unprecedented decision which makes a mockery of Canada’s freedom of information and access laws.

“This is being done for one reason and one reason alone: to ensure there is no inadvertent release of information that could assist the enemy and put Canadian, allied or Afghan lives at greater risk,” the statement says.

Bullshit. I don’t want to put lives at risk; sensitive information on methods, procedures, strategy and so forth should be kept classified. But that information wasn’t released previously anyway. That’s a bait and switch.

Such simple information as the number of detainees captured is not in any way a security risk. That’s a laughable assertion. The national security excuse is a smokescreen. This is about politics, and the Conservatives should be ashamed to be hiding behind our troops and crying national security to avoid political embarrassment.

And O’Connor should be ashamed as well for hiding behind General Hillier, and now Ward Elcock, instead of stepping-up as an elected, accountable MP and Minister of National Defence and attempting to explain this policy to the Canadian people.

If you’re not muzzled, Gordon, step up and be accountable. And if Harper does have you muzzled (that’s my guess) just do the right thing and resign, because obviously you’re not able to do the job.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Bill Casey recognizes Harper's control freak tendencies

Interesting comments in this article from former Conservative MP Bill Casey on his view of Deceivin' Steven from the opposition benches. Casey, of course, was given the boot by Harper for standing-up for the CPC's election promise on the Atlantic Accord, voting against the budget and proving Peter McKay, once again, to be a fibber (Fiberative, perhaps?)

Former Tory MP Bill Casey is puzzled by the Conservatives' strategy of government control, and it's one he's now trying to comprehend from the Opposition benches.

You and me both William, you and me both. Actually I guess I’m more bemused than puzzled.

He said by centralizing services and programs in Ottawa, cutting the budget of Atlantic Canada's regional development body, and breaking signed contracts between provinces, the federal government has painted a picture of Atlantic Canada that he must speak out against.

Casey really shouldn’t be surprised, given his ex-leader’s previous comments on the region:

"Atlantic Canada's culture of defeat will be hard to overcome as long as Atlantic Canada is actually physically trailing the rest of the country." -- Harper

But back to the article, I found it interesting that Casey seemed to almost channel Preston Manning and the old Reformers here:

"If the people in Ottawa make all the decisions, they'll be made wrong because Ottawa doesn't reflect the country and it certainly doesn't reflect Atlantic Canada," he told the Times and Transcript…. "I believe that the government has a philosophy," he explained. "They want to run things the same across the country. They want to have one system for every program. The problem is you can't have a uniform program in Canada because we don't have a uniform country. Every area has different challenges, different cultures and different situations."

Some rather insightful comments from Casey I thought. Also interesting that the Conservatives sent out an ex-journalist and communications director for Peter McKay, Dan Dugas, to respond, rather than McKay himself.

Come to think of it, has anyone seen McKay lately? He seems to have disappeared since Harper embarrassed him over the whole Atlantic Accord thing and likely signed his political death papers.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A Gordon O'Connor sighting

I was just about ready to release the hounds in the hunt for Gordon O’Connor, rumored to be Canada’s minister of national defence, but he has turned up.

It seemed like he had gone to ground after General Rick Hillier decided to brush aside disclosure laws and the public’s right to know by refusing to release any information on Afghan detainees captured by Canadian soldiers, deeming even the number to be a national security issue.

The office of General Rick Hillier, Canada's top soldier, has halted the release of any documents relating to detainees captured in Afghanistan under the federal Access to Information Act, claiming that disclosure of any such information could endanger Canadian troops.

Noticeably absent from the news of the ridiculous decision, that seemed to have a lot more to do with saving Decievin’ Steven political embarrassment then national security, was any comment at all from Hillier’s boss, Minister O’Connor. A follow-up story the next day also had no comment from O’Connor’s office.

A spokesman for Mr. O'Connor had no immediate comment on the controversy.

But while his days in the job may be numbered, it appears O’Connor is still around. He was in my old stomping grounds in B.C. last week, politicking on an air force base (CFB Comox) and using the military as a backdrop for taking partisan shots at the Liberals (the riding went NDP in 2006 and the Cons want it back):

The federal government will spend $121 million on new construction -- including new living quarters and health-care facilities -- at 19 Wing Comox over the next 10 years.

Minister of National Defence Gordon O'Connor made the announcement at the base yesterday, saying the new spending would make up for the previous government's "years of neglect."

"I am here to demonstrate, once again, this government's support for our military -- and specifically for the brave men and women of our air force," O'Connor told a group of 19 Wing officers. "The future of this base is secure into the future as long as you can imagine."

I’m glad for the funding (wonder how much of it is old money and how much is new?) but the years of neglect line is simply a lie. Having lived down the road from CFB Comox for years, construction and investment on the base has been steady and consistent over the years. There is still work to be done for sure, but neglect is inaccurate. And the base’s future has always been secure; it’s the search and rescue hub for the West Coast. It’s not going anywhere.

Unfortunately, it seems none of the local media present at the O’Connor campaign stop asked the minister if he agreed with Hillier’s decision to withhold information on Afghan detainees, or how in the heck the number of detainees captured could possible be a national security concern.

Will Gordon be able to avoid the national media, and embarrassing questions, until Harper fires him later this summer? Time will tell.

In other news, Hillier says he’s not a politician. I guess he just plays one on TV.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What's the green game plan?

Steve writes approvingly of an apparent “unite the left” movement underway in the B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. Apparently some local Green Party activists would like to see the party not run a candidate there, bur rather unite behind the NDP or Liberal candidate to defeat a particularly useless Conservative, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn.

First of all, let me say I’d be pleased as punch to see Lunn out of a job. And the Liberals do have a great candidate for the left to unite behind in the riding in the form of a prominent former Green Party activist, Briony Penn. And the arguments made around vote splitting are certainly quite compelling.

But putting aside my partisanship for a moment and speaking more broadly, I have to wonder what the Green Party’s long term game plan is here. The initial May/Dion alliance, which I supported, was about two ridings. It was about getting Elizabeth May into the HoC.

It seems to have sparked discussion about vote splitting across the country though, and while as a Liberal I’m pleased when the discussion benefits my party, it has to be troubling for the Greens.

I don’t have the riding by riding vote totals, but Saanich-Gulf Islands has generally been considered one of the strongest Green ridings in the country, and in past elections has often been mentioned as a riding to watch for a possible Green breakthrough.

Given that, you have to wonder if they might not run a candidate in what may be one of their most winnable ridings, just where are they going to run candidates? And why even run anyone anywhere at all?

In a multi-party, first past the post electoral system votes are going to be split, it’s just the nature of the system. It happened for years with two parties on the right, Reform and Conservative. It will potentially be happening now on the Left with the NDP, Greens and Libs. It sucks, but without a merger or folding that's the way it is.

It may be realpolitik to step aside in contestable ridings like Saanich-Gulf Islands, but I’d wager it would also seem to neuter the effectiveness of the party. A catch-22 perhaps, but there you ago.

Whatever happens in this riding or others, it becomes increasingly obvious what the long term answer is: electoral reform.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is embedded media syndrome coming to Canada?

A very interesting story at Macleans.ca examines whether if, with Deceivin’ Steven having failed utterly in building public support for the mission in Afghanistan himself, the government and our military leaders are now using our soldiers to sell the war.

As the Rideau Institute's Steven Staples sees it, this is very much part of a concerted effort by the military. He points to a departmental communications strategy, produced by National Defence and released via Access to Information that foretold such a strategy.

"They felt that soldiers were held in much higher esteem by the public and would be much better salespeople for the war than politicians," he says. "Politicians are reluctant to debate anyone who isn't also a politician, especially someone in uniform."

In addition to the new strategy of forcing opponents of the conflict to appear as if they’re “against the troops” the article also suggests the media are falling for the strategy, and instead of questioning the spin are starting to fall into line with government policy much like the American media abdicated its responsibility before and during the invasion of Iraq:

Of course, no matter how meticulously planned a p.r. strategy, its ultimate success - or failure - depends on whether the media accepts the message. And, at the moment, it's safe to say military officials elicit a far less confrontational response from reporters (at least when compared to the rough ride politicians tend to receive).

"I've seen many journalists fall head over heels for soldiers in uniform and it absolutely colours their view of the war," Staples said. "Canadian journalists used to chide their American colleagues for their coverage and now they're almost worse."

An interesting hypothesis. They’re treading a dangerous line. Canadians do have the utmost respect for our military members. And part of that respect means reacting harshly if we sense they’re being used as political pawns.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Judge Scalia and Jack Bauer

This is an older story but I just came across it recently (h/t Jamie Weinman) and I wanted to share it. I find it amusing, intriguing, insightful and tragic, all at the same time.

Basically a debate panel at a recent international law conference on terrorism and torture law in Ottawa last month took an odd turn when US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stood-up for the right of Jack Bauer, a fictional character on TV’s 24, to torture terror suspects.

Here’s an excerpt:

Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge's passing remark - "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'What would Jack Bauer do?' " - got the legal bulldog in Judge Scalia barking.

The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

And here’s my favourite line:

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.”

And thing is, he's right. On the jury thing, not the torture thing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reading between the lines

What to take from these comments by Stephane Dion on the possibility of Bill Casey, the Nova Scotia MP booted from the Conservative caucus for standing-up for the Atlantic Accord, joining the Liberal caucus?

"I’m not there yet. He’s not there yet," Mr. Dion said in an interview Wednesday afternoon in Halifax.

"I have a lot of respect for what he has done and we will see what will happen. Where we are now does not allow me to tell you if it is under negotiation."

Interesting choice of words…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dear Jane Taber,

From: Jeff Jedras jjedras@XXX.com

Sent: July 12, 2007 5:06:23 AM

To: jtaber@globeXXXmail.com

Cc: egreenspon@globeXXXmail.com

Dear Ms. Taber,

As a fellow journalist, I'm wondering if you can tell me why you felt it necessary to grant anonymity to the person you called a "veteran Liberal" in your article in the Globe this morning, Dion loses a fifth Liberal MP. This person's comments, sent by e-mail even, seem to add little to the story except unattributed, unsourced gossipy backbiting.

As a journalist I totally understand the need for unnamed sources at times. For example, the whistle blower who is trying to expose wrongdoing, or the person exposing information on organized crime that fears for their life. Those are all scenarios where protecting the identity of a source would be warranted.

I wonder though, what's your rationale for granting your "veteran Liberal" anonymity? Does he or she fear for their life, or their job? It seems unlikely.

By granting them anonymity you make their comments useless. By not letting us know who they are you don't give us the information we as readers need to judge if their comments are valid. Is this just the bitter, jaded lashing-out of a minor organizer of another ex-leadership candidate? Or is it a credible person without an axe to grind whom should be taken seriously? I don't know, you haven't told me.

The other question is, given that their life is not in danger, would this person have still made these comments on the record? If the answer is no, you have to question why the Globe is willing to provide a forum for wimpy anonymous backbiting and gossip. Doesn't sound like Canada's national newspaper to me.

When considering granting anonymity to a source, which I've always thought should be done very sparingly, I was taught the exercise is to balance the public's need to know the information vs. the public's right to know the source so as to judge its veracity. Yet in it's political coverage the Globe seems to make a habit of anonymous sources. Frankly, it smacks of lazy journalism.

In closing, I'd like to know does the Globe and Mail have a policy when it comes to granting anonymity to sources? Is it made by the reporter or the editor? And how was the policy applied in this case?

Sincerely,

Jeff Jedras

A semi-veteran junior Liberal

UPDATE: Thank-you to Jane for her prompt, if unsatisfying response:

The issue of on-the-record and off-the-record is a tricky one. It always has been. I use off-the-record sources often. It's not ideal, I know, but sadly it's a reality of the job. I trust the people I speak to and quote ... And if you feel strongly about it then really strive in your writing to change this.
Thanks for ypur comments.
Jane

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

I'm still left wondering what the Globe policy is on anonymous sources, if any. Is there a discussion with editors, or is it the whim of the reporter?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Byelection bonanza -- six mini-referendums are pending

I'd lost count but a Citizen article the other day has the tally -- we could have as many as six federal byelections this fall. A general election may not be in the offing, but six byelections across the country will be pretty darned close.

There are three ridings in Quebec, two in Toronto and one in Vancouver on the list. The vacancies are in Vancouver-Quadra (Stephen Owen, Liberal), Toronto-Centre (Bill Graham, Liberal), Toronto-Willowdale (Jim Peterson, Liberal), Outremont (Jean Lapierre, Liberal), Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Yvon Loubier, BQ) and Roberval (Michael Gautier, BQ).

Harper’s lobbyist ex-campaign director, John Reynolds, “speculates” on timing:

September is a likely choice for three seats in Quebec. November is a good bet for two seats in Toronto and one in Vancouver.

The dates are up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, but Reynolds said those scenarios would avoid conflicts with other events, such as the Oct. 10 Ontario provincial election.

They say byelections are always a referendum on the government, and these ones will be interesting on a number of fronts as a test of how the Deceivin’ Steven’s government is playing on the West coast, where they’ve lost ground in past elections, in Toronto where they’d like to make gains, particularly with ethnic voters, and in Quebec, where they’ve been shoveling money off the back of a truck.

For the Liberals, it’s a chance to seize some momentum and start building towards a general, not to mention getting Bob Rae (Toronto-Centre) and Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale) into the HoC, as well as a former provincial environment minister in Joyce Murray (Quadra).

The NDP has big hopes for Outremont in particular with their star recruit, and a win by the NDP there would change the dynamics in Quebec in the general.

The BQ needs to hold its ground and Gilles Duceppe needs to redeem himself from his leaving, not leaving tomfoolery.

And the Conservatives need to show the public is behind them if they’re to keep the moral authority to govern.

So, big stakes for everyone. Think of it as a dry-run for the next campaign.

Enjoy the summer break, it will be a busy fall...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On Elliot’s Tory ties

I said earlier that I’m willing to give William Elliot a shot and the benefit of the doubt as next commissioner of the RCMP. While that still stands after learning the information below this now appears to be an even riskier appointment for Harper than originally thought.

But Mr. Elliott's Tory ties predate even his work with the Mulroney government.

In 1984, he was practising law with a large firm, but was also the president of the Ottawa West Progressive Conservative riding association when David Daubney was elected MP.

As far back as 1981, he was working on the campaign of provincial Progressive Conservative MPP Reuben Baetz, a cabinet minister in the governments of Bill Davis and Frank Miller.

I like the decision to go outside the ranks of the RCMP for the commissioner. But given the added scrutiny that such a decision brings it’s pretty risky for Harper to pick someone with such longstanding and obvious partisan ties to his own party.

A civilian commissioner is going to be under the microscope as it is. Elliot’s political ties will ratchet-up the scrutiny even further, and potentially make his already onerous task even more difficult. If Elliot has to make another decision like the income trust investigation announcement, for example, now it will be viewed through a political prism because of his partisan ties, rightly or wrongly. It puts him in a pretty tight spot.

I wish him well, because he has quite the tightrope to walk.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Polls: Stockwell's face a turnoff

Alright, my bad, that’s an exaggeration. But only a slight one, according to the results of government-commissioned (yes, that means taxpayer-funded) focus group testing. Geez guys, I could have told you that for free.

But first let me just say that, for a government that is supposedly too manly to listen to polls, how ridiculous is it they’re commissioning surveys like this? Alright, moving on.

According to a Macleans.ca piece, Sage Research was hired by the Department of Public Safety to find-out how the public liked their new Web site. A find use of taxpaper dollars, to be sure.

The results as reported by the article are rather amusing, including that most people had no idea just what the heck the Public Safety department did (the answer is protect us from the terror if you’re playing at home).

When asked to guess, they came up with a wide variety of suggestions, each more wildly inaccurate than the last, from street and road safety to workers' compensation and - slightly alarmingly - "civil war."

Yeesh. More amusing, though, the respondents were annoyed the Web site seemed to be more of a propaganda shill for Canada’s New Government ™ then a Web site designed to provide information to Canadians on public safety:

"The combination of the picture of the minister and the perceived amount of the website devoted to news items contributes to the following negative perceptions about the website," SAGE glumly reported. "The site is seen to be more focused on promoting the government than it is about providing information about public safety [and] the information is seen as 'propaganda,' depending on one’s politics."

I guess it’s not much different from every other ‘government’ Web site under Decievin’ Steven in that respect then.

But back to Stock. Along the same vein, it seemed focus group participants reacted poorly to seeing Day’s smiling mug plastered all over the Web site. Thankfully, it seems the government listen to them (who said they don’t listen to polls?).

There is no record of the minister's response when confronted with the report. But a quick glance at the department's current website suggests someone was listening. Not a single picture of Stockwell Day appears anywhere on the front page, nor does he turn up anywhere else on the site, with the exception of his ministerial bio.

Give the people what they want: Less Stock!

One question was left unanswered by Kady O’Malley’s otherwise enlightening article however. How much did this whole focus group exercise cost the taxpayers anyway? Was it more or less than it cost the taxpayers for his defamation suit?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Does O'Connor still have a job or what?

Like Rick Mercer, I've always liked our Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hiller. We've had our disagreements to be sure, but I like that he’s plain spoken and tough and stands-up for the troops. That’s what a good general should do.

And Hillier is a good general. But what he’s not is a politician. He’s our top soldier, and as such he shouldn’t be crossing into the political arena. He’s done it before, and these actions seem to be to be outside his purview as well:

The office of General Rick Hillier, Canada's top soldier, has halted the release of any documents relating to detainees captured in Afghanistan under the federal Access to Information Act, claiming that disclosure of any such information could endanger Canadian troops.

You’ll recall it was lies, obfuscations and confusion by DND and the Harper government on detainee disclosures that led to a lot of heartache for Deceivin’ Steven in the last parliament and probably ensured Hillier’s boss, defence minister Gordon O’Connor, won’t have the job all that much longer.

Never, however during the detainee disclosure gong show was security mentioned as a concern around revealing the information. But now…

In another e-mail on the same day, Lt.-Col. Clarke suggested it had been a mistake for DND to release information about detainees earlier and that the department was rethinking its disclosure policy.

So, they should never released it in the first place, they say. Security reasons, you see without explaining, as if that’s supposed to just end it. But Hillier has gone even further:

Even disclosure of the number of detainees captured by Canadian soldiers is now considered off limits, after the intervention of Gen. Hillier.

Is he serious with this? Even the number of detainees captured is now secret for security reasons? That stretches the plausibility of the security argument from weak to pathetic. It’s utterly ridiculous.

And why is this Hillier’s call in the first place? Guess what name doesn’t come-up one in this article? That’s right, there’s no mention of Gordon O’Connor. He’s still the Minister of National Defence right? Or did I miss a memo?

Assuming he is, this should be his call. Because he is the one that is elected and is (in theory) accountable to the people, and to the House of Commons.

And both O’Connor and Hillier and O’Connor should be called before the HoC Defence Committee to justify this trampling of the people’s right to know, and explain how knowing the number of detainees captured by Canadian soldiers could possibly be a security risk.

Because it seems to me, based on the last time they released this information, that the only security threat posed is to the security of Harper’s government.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Maybe a poll told them to start listening to polls

Remember how Deceivin’ Steven is always saying he doesn’t listen to, or make his decisions, based on polls? I guess that’s what he has Jason Kenney for. To listen to polls so he doesn’t have to:

A spokesman for Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity, defended the move. He noted that a public opinion poll showed a strong majority of Canadians - 79 per cent - favoured the flying of the Red Ensign at Vimy for the April commemoration ceremony.

I was wondering why he kept Kenney around. Hey Jason, while you're at it why don’t you give this poll a read:

The vast majority of Canadians want this country's military mission in Afghanistan to end as scheduled in 2009, according to a new poll.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It’s raining money in Newfoundland (and Labrador too)

According to the CBC, when tallied-up Newfoundland and Labrador’s minister in the Harper government, Loyola Hearn, has been making spending announcements at the rate of $440,000 per hour.

Apparently Hearn made 44 separate project announcements over three days last week on everything from waterworks to tourism chalets, with a total bill of over $32 million. Nothing new about doling out the dollars, although Hearn’s stamina is impressive for a fellow of his age.

This line elicited some guffaws however:

He denied that the announcements were part of a campaign to turn around the federal Conservatives' sagging fortunes in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ok, well how are the polls there for Deceivin' Steven?

A Corporate Research Associates poll released in June found that only 17 per cent of voters in the province were satisfied with the federal Tories.

Ouch. But I’m sure the money storm is just a coincidence. And monkeys might fly…

And here’s another interesting story on how Canada’s newish government spends our money.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I was so close to saying nice things about Deceivin' Steven!

I'm a Liberal partisan, I admit that freely, but I do try to at least somewhat fair in my writings and (however grudgingly) give credit to the other parties when it’s due. And hand to God I was ready to write an glowing post giving Harper credit for his appointment of William Elliott as the new RCMP chief. I was so close.

On the surface, I like this move. Appointing an outsider to head the RCMP, someone with a proven history of management experience and a former senior civil servant, is a great move. And, despite the inevitable protests that will come from certain elements of the force, bringing in an outsider with management skills is exactly what is needed to turn the force around. It’s the only way to combat the insider/old boys mentality in the force.

My only concern was to wonder if a career civil servant, used to taking orders his political masters, would be able to make the jump to leading the RCMP. Because the force is necessarily politically independent. Being a deputy minister isn’t quite the same as running the RCMP, as police chief you need to be willing to tell the politicians to take a hike. I was, however, willing to give Elliot the benefit of the doubt.

But then I read that Elliott isn’t just a former bureaucrat, but also has very strong Conservative ties. He was chief of staff to Mulroney’s deputy Prime Minister; you don’t get that job without strong political credentials.

Granted, he also served briefly as national security advisor to Paul Martin, so hopefully Elliott can/will be able to put partisanship aside here and do his job. And certainly the qualifications are there otherwise, so it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make a Bush/Harriet Myers comparison.

So, I’ll still give Elliott the benefit of the doubt and wish him well in taking on this challenge, but it’s not the perfect appointment it once seemed to be. Elliott is going to be watched, and scrutinized, very closely. Because the last thing the RCMP needs is a political loyalist/yes man at its helm.

Will Elliott be able to tell Harper to shove it when necessary? Time will tell, but I hope so.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Only the rich will run for office

These concerns were raised and fell on deaf ears when the Conservatives first teamed-up with the NDP on this legislation. Perhaps now that the banks are raising these very pertinent concerns they’ll be considered, although judging by the NDP and Conservative comments in the article I suspect not.

Either way, unlike past legislation this bill really is dumber than a bag of hammers, and this is what happens when you write laws that are designed to hurt your political opponents rather than improve the system. When they said accountability I didn't know they meant to the banks...

Banks want no part of political loans
STEVEN CHASE
From Friday's Globe and Mail
July 5, 2007 at 9:37 PM EDT

Ottawa — Canadian banks are growing increasingly uneasy about a recent Harper government bill that would force financial institutions to become the sole source of big loans to federal political candidates.

Senior officials at two major chartered banks say the financial sector was caught off guard by Bill C-54, which was tabled eight weeks ago.

They warn it may thrust them into an uncomfortable position of altering political careers with lending decisions and open them up to unfair criticism.

“What do [banks] do . . . with an application from a candidate with a spotty financial record?” said a senior bank official speaking on condition of anonymity.

“If they turn the candidate down, they may be influencing the democratic process,” he added.
(more)

UPDATE: Ted lays-out the argument against the legislation rather well.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Quadra is getting interesting...fall by-election?

Long-time Liberal MP Stephen Owen announced today he will be vacating his seat in Vancouver-Quadra at the end of the month to take an academic post at UBC.

Owen had already announced his intention not to run again so that’s not a surprise, but with Owen resigning with no general election in the offing it does set the scene for a very interesting by-election, and one that will be very important for both the Liberals and the Conservatives.

While the riding has been Liberal for some time (John Turner ran and won there as PM) and Owen carried the riding handily in 2006 (by some 12,000 votes over a high profile Conservative candidate, Stephen Rogers) it’s has been Conservative in the fairly recent past and it’s a riding that the Conservatives, and others, view as poachable. Often described as “tony”, while it includes UBC it also has Point Grey and it’s a wealthy and highly educated riding.

The Liberals already have a candidate selected in the riding in Joyce Murray, a former provincial environment candidate that ran unsuccessfully for the Liberals in New Westminster-Coquitlam in 2006.

According to the Sun the Conservatives don’t have a candidate yet. John Reynolds, the former Conservative MP, campaign co-chair and current lobbyist (who I guess is banned from the Conservative war room) is touting businesswoman and BC Cancer foundation chairman Mary McNeil as a star candidate, but unless she gets an appointment (or they pull a Cutler) she’ll face a challenge from UBC professor Deborah Meredith, who has a lot of old Conservative backing in Senators Pat Carney and a bbq-less Gerry St. Germain, plus the past candidate and even everyone's favourite reformer, Deborah Grey.

So before we even get to a by-election it looks like a rather interesting battle for the Conservative nomination, with some Conservative titans battling it out in the backrooms. We’ll have to watch and see how it plays -- or isn’t allowed to play -- out.

And when we do get to a by-election the results could be quite telling. Even though it is currently a Liberal riding, a by-election win in a riding the Conservatives are targeting would be a big boost, and getting Murray into parliament would be great. For the Conservatives, a win in an upper middle class riding like Quadra (and taking it from the Liberals) would help boost their desire to portray themselves as a new kind of CPC.

Let the campaigning begin. The only question is when will Deceiven’ Stephen pull the trigger? He has six months from July 27^th. There’s also Jean Lapierre’s riding in Quebec to be filled, the clock is ticking there too...

P.S. No matter who wins in Quadra the odds look good that the HoC will be gaining another female MP, and that's a good thing.

UPDATE: Dan raises a highly plausible conspiracy theory.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

No easy answers on Afghanistan

With the death of six more Canadian soldiers and their local interpreter in Afghanistan our mission there and its future are again thrust into the national spotlight, and the answers aren’t getting any easier.

Each tragic loss seems to only harden the opinions most have already formed on the Afghan mission. For some it will serve to harden their commitment to the job those soldiers gave their lives to do. For others, it will harden their view that we need to bring these guys home now, before more of them get hurt.

It’s important to note there that everyone supports the troops. At the heart of both opposing views is support for the soldiers, whether it’s wanting them home safely or wanting them to see the mission they believe in through. Trying to simplify this as a support the troops or not question is wrong, and it besmirches their memories.

Some say in a war there are casualties, and this is true. They say we shouldn’t make a big deal out of every death, and that is wrong. Whether you think we should be in Afghanistan or not we should grieve every life lost, because every life lost is a tragedy. I hope we never get to the point where casualties are just another number, and if we do get there something will be seriously wrong with us, and with our country.

But besides grieving their loss, how do we respond to their deaths? I don’t think the answer is blind allegiance to the mission, or a knee-jerk bring them home now. Instead, I think the answer is a thorough examination of the mission. Is it working? Have circumstances changed? Is it still achievable? Do we have the right tactics? The right equipment? Enough resources? Such questions aren’t breaking faith with our fallen. Indeed, it’s keeping faith with them and the goals they died to achieve.

I admit to being conflicted myself on where we go from here. I support the goals we set out to achieve in Afghanistan. I think those goals are noble. I worry about what would happen if the international community left.

While I disagreed with how it was handled politically by the government, I supported the extension of the mission. And I support the Liberal position of ending our mission there, at least in a combat role, when the current mandate expires. We’re a small country with a small military, and we can only do so much. Other countries need to play a role too.

As the death toll mounts I feel a strong impulse to resist demands to leave, because I don’t want to vindicate the tactics of the terrorists we’re fighting. But I also can’t help but question if we’re fighting a losing battle, and I don’t know how to reconcile the two.

So, as I said I don’t know the answers. I do know public support for the mission is falling, and that is unfortunate. And even amongst those that support it, I sense a certain fatigue is setting-in. It seems increasingly the sensible thing to do to inform NATO that we won’t be renewing our mission beyond 2008, as the public support just isn’t there. And we should let them know now so the planning can begin.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Deceivin' who? and Pessimistic Albertans

Canada Day always leads to a plethora of surveys and studies that are lapped-up by lazy media and, in this modern era, lazy bloggers (like moi). Found this bit from the Dominion Institute to be interesting though:

Even on a no-brainer such as this - "What is the name of the Prime Minister of Canada?" - 18 per cent didn't know it was Stephen Harper. (In the immigrant group, only 7 per cent didn't know.)

Do they really not know, my Dominion Institute friends, or are they maybe trying to forget? Maybe this is what happens when you spend all your money on ads attacking the other guy…

In other Canada Day survey news, here’s another interesting one. It surveyed Canadians’ optimism on the whole Quebec in Canada thing. Generally, we’re all feeling good about it (68 per cent optimistic).

When broken down by province though, which one is least optimistic about Quebec’s future in Canada? While I’d forgive you for thinking Quebec (65 per cent optimistic) but interestingly, it’s actually Alberta that is more. They’re more pessimistic on Quebec than Quebecers are and by a wide margin, at 55 per cent optimistic.

What’s up? Here’s the study’s explanation:

A larger percentage of Albertans — but a considerable number of respondents in other provinces — appear to feel that those concessions to Quebec could “come back to haunt” the country and revive the unity debate, he said.

“Some people in Alberta might feel that we haven’t satisfied (Quebec’s) appetite yet,” he said, adding that Alberta’s soaring economic status in the country may also be giving rise to a growing sense of its responsibility in dealing with Quebec in the future.

Alberta now has “more at stake,” he said, “and some of those concerns may be reflected here.”

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Fun with Conservatives

Came across this Conservative blog posting about the Young Liberals’ cheeky Take Back Canada campaign:

Take Back Canada Liberals Say.

That is the message coming from the Liberal Party of Canada's youth wing. Take back from who exactly I am not quite sure. I never realized it was missing. Did you?...

Perhaps GPConservative should ask his leader, Deceivin’ Steven:

“The news is spreading throughout the world: Canada's back,” Mr. Harper told the Ottawa crowd Sunday.

So, there you go GPC, Canada was missing. How do I know? Harper told me it was. But thankfully what once was lost has now been found, courtesy Deceivin’ Steven. GPC goes on to say:

Canada was not stolen from them like a possession of theirs, as they seem to believe. Yet somehow they think there is a need to take it back.

Umm, see above. Did Harper get that message there GPC? I don’t think he did.

Speaking of arrogance, how about Peter Van Loan, who tells us only Conservatives are real Canadians?

"Let me tell you what a real Canadian is. A real Canadian is somebody that stands-up for middle class taxpayers, helps working families with lower taxes, stands behind our troops when they're off in Afghanistan, and who does what he said he would do. That's what real Canadians are, and those are Conservatives."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

For poutine's sake, we're all Canadian

A Happy belated Canada Day to one and all. I wanted to wait a day to make some partisan comments on yesterday’s happenings. I was also busy yesterday watching Bruce Willis kick some ass. Perhaps not overly Canadian, but much fun.

Speaking of things Canadian, Canada Day is perhaps the only day of the year when it's considered Canadian to show a little patriotism. And certainly no where more so than the nation’s capital, where Parliament Hill hosts the official, taxpayer-funded Canada Day bash.

But it wouldn’t be Ottawa if there wasn’t a little politics mixed in with the patriotism, would it?

First, there was the orgy of Conservative blue all over the hill, at taxpayer expense. Since when was blue an official Canadian colour?

While the skies were mostly grey, there was a considerable amount of blue on stage.

The traditional red and white can be seen everywhere, on flags, as part of peoples' clothing and on a giant stage set up beneath the Peace Tower as the focal point of the festivities.

But an Ottawa radio station has called for a boycott of the festivities in protest against the Conservative party colours plastered on the giant “Canada” sign above the main stage.

And then there was an over the top speech by Deceivin’ Steven. I thought he had struck a better tone in his earlier video message, as did Stephane Dion in his video message, but in his speech I can't help but feel Harper crossed a line in his speech:

“The news is spreading throughout the world: Canada's back,” Mr. Harper told the Ottawa crowd Sunday.

As Steve quips, call off the search parties. Harper’s Conservatives have found Canada. I’ve been wondering where it had been (ed: Florida?), what with the balancing the budget, consecutive surpluses and staying-out of ill-fated disastrous wars in Iraq and what not. Scott has some thoughts too.

At least Deceivin' Steven didn't go as far as CPC House Leader Peter Van Loan did (audio) in May with these asinine and insulting remarks telling us only Conservatives are real Canadians, although I suspect Harper believes them too:

"Let me tell you what a real Canadian is. A real Canadian is somebody that stands-up for middle class taxpayers, helps working families with lower taxes, stands behind our troops when they're off in Afghanistan, and who does what he said he would do. That's what real Canadians are, and those are Conservatives."

Now, while this blatant partisanship has been ignored by most Conservatives, those that have chimed-in have, rather than defending Harper’s speech (ed: because it’s indefensible?) have pointed to the fact volunteer Young Liberals were passing-out bottled water down the street (off the Hill on the old Daly Building site, judging by these pics from Justin) as part of a campaign dubbed Take Back Canada, which includes an informative and cheeky Web site and a Facebook group.

For the partisans, the old Liberals Did It Too™ defence ends the argument, and on the surface it seems somewhat compelling. It’s really not though, and while I’ll be accused of being overly partisan here, I think there are some major and obvious differences.

For one, Harper was speaking on that stage not as CPC leader, but as Prime Minister of Canada. ALL of Canada. Not just Conservatives. It’s not a time for partisanship. It was also a Government of Canada event, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. All of them. That's Canada's stage, not Harper's.

That’s a far different thing than some Young Liberals down the street passing out water and cheeky pamphlets, and if the difference isn’t readily apparent then I can’t help you. I’d add if the Conservative Youth were to do something similar I’d be totally cool with it. Pass out water with Not A Leader labels or mocking French accents or something, have fun. (ed. except there is no Conservative youth wing, they voted not to have one.)

What I will say is that this tug of war for Canadianism that everyone seems to be engaging in is unfortunate. Because I think that Liberal or Conservative, NDP or Green, while we may diverge greatly on policy what we do all have in common is a love for Canada. While we may all approach it differently, we all want what we think is best for Canada.

On the Canada Day weekend, I’d rather we’d all just focus on that.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers