Woe is BC: First softwood lumber, and now this?

We already watched while the Harper Conservatives sold-out the B.C. lumber industry by signing a softwood lumber “deal” that let a billion dollars slip away and failed to buy any trade peace. Now it looks like one of B.C.'s other major industries may be threatned under the Conservative watch:

Pot replaces poppy in fields of Afghanistan
RAHIM FAIEZ
Associated Press

KABUL — The fields of Balkh province in northern Afghanistan are free of opium poppies this year.

It's a success touted often by Afghan and international officials.

But one look at some fields uncovers an emerging drug problem.

Three-metre-tall cannabis plants flourish where poppy plants used to grow.

The crop — the source of both marijuana and hashish — can be just as profitable as opium but draws none of the scrutiny from Afghan officials.

First the BC lumber industry took a major hit, and now our even more famous export, BC Bud, may be in trouble too.

Will Stephen Harper stand-up for Canada, and for BC marijuana? Will International Trade Minister, and B.C. MP, David Emerson errect a tarrif wall to protect us from cheap Afghan imports? It's time for action!

Elsewhere, Red Tory has a more serious take.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If the price is right...

You may recall the disdainful reaction from Canada’s New Government when high-end retailer Harry Rosen poked fun at Stephen Harper in an advertising pamphlet this summer. Said a Conservative spokesthingy:

"Harry Rosen’s is over priced and we would never shop there. . . It’s completely overrated. . . Conservatives would probably never shop there anyway."

It appears not all high-end retailers are equal in the eyes of Conservatives, however. From an article today on gifts received by Canada’s second couple:

Feb. 13, 2006
Laureen Harper received a Gucci scarf from Holt Renfrew.

No word if Conservatives also consider Holt Renfrew completely overrated, but I guess at least this time they weren't over priced...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Bigger swimming pools and faster private jets

The Cons want to give tax cuts to the rich. Yes, you read that correctly. Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty wants to give the wealthy and richest amongst us a tax break. Kind of a reverse Robin Hood I guess. The benefits will trickle down eventually to us poor, unwashed masses, I'm sure.

At least he's being honest this time in saying he wants to give the wealthy a break. Unlike with his GST cut which, while sold as being great for Joe and Jane Canadian, was really a much greater benefit to Todd and Buffy Canadian with the money to drop on a new BMW, while average folks saved nickels and dimes.

Anyway, this time Jim is beating the brain drain/competitiveness drum, saying we're losing our wealthy to other countries with lower taxes.

"We need to do more on the personal income-tax side because we still have marginal rates that are disproportionately high when I look at our competition," Mr. Flaherty told reporters in Oshawa. "And one of the things that politically is more difficult to do but it still needs to be done and that is in the higher earning categories between $100,000 and $200,000 a year in income."

Yes, pity those poor folks making $200,000. But in all seriousness, it would be nice to see Jim give us some stats to bolster his case. For example, where does Canada rank in the G7 on tax rates in these income brackets? And, more importantly, is there some large outmigration of people in this bracket, and if so, are they citing taxation as a concern?

But there's another element here in this whole debate that's always overlooked. Certainly by the Conservatives anyway, who want to make government small enough to drown in the bath tub. And that's the fact taxes pay for things.

Does Canada have a higher tax rate than the US? I don't doubt it. We also have universal Medicare. Put medical costs on top of their tax rate and then make the comparison again. Our taxes also pay for many other things that contribute to making Canada a more livable country. Like generous social programs. Our wealthy also don't need to live in big gated communities to "protect" themselves. It's too simplistic to just say our taxes are X higher than this competing jurisdictions, so we need to lower them. Taxes are only one thing to consider.

More importantly though, should tax cuts for the rich really be a high priority for the government? If you're concerned about economic competitiveness, why not broad-based across the board cuts, with larger cuts for the low and middle income brackets? They're much more likely to pump their savings back into the economy and stimulate economic growth. Plus, they need it more.

The politics of this thing too are highly dubious. But I'd love to see the Cons run a campaign on tax cuts for the wealthy. Particularly with the questionable cuts they've made in other areas, despite the surplus. It may not be easy to set priorities, but this is a little much.

And speaking of priorities, Flaherty's truly are out of whack. At the same time he's telling us we need to give tax breaks to Richie Rich, he's turning a blind eye to crumbling infrastructure:

In response to a national report saying the crumbling infrastructure in Canadian cities would cost $123 billion to fix, Jim Flaherty said municipal leaders upset at the lack of funding should stop "whining . . . and do their job." Mr. Flaherty also said the federal government was "not in the pothole business."

So, according to Conservative priorities, instead of fixing roads and bridges and investing in public transit, we should cut taxes for the rich. We'll just squeeze tighter onto the Go-Train so Mr. CEO can buy a third Lexus. Totally makes sense to me Jim.

Last word to an actual economist (I know Harper is supposedly one too, but this guy actually knows a little bit about economics):

Don Drummond, chief economist of Toronto-Dominion Bank, joked that he "would never want to dissuade anyone from providing tax relief to bankers. That is a great idea that should be supported by all Canadians."

But, he said, "if it's marginal personal income tax rates one is concerned about, the gaze should fall at lower income levels. There we truly have impaired the incentives to work, save and invest, because once various benefits are clawed back, individuals and particularly families keep very little from that last dollar earned."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

There's no accounting for taste

No matter what one may chose to read into Gerry Schwartz's attendance at Gerard Kennedy's public lecture at Ryerson last week (I for one don't read much into it at all), it appears Heather Reisman still has her mind firmly made up:


A Heather's Pick for Brian, and not Jean? No accounting for taste I guess. But that's fine. Just less crap to peal off the cover anyway. :)

On a sidenote, I've finally finished the Mulroney bio and I'll try to get a review up soon. I do have a copy of Jean's book but first I'm reading Richard Gwyn's bio of Sir John A. MacDonald. It's a very interesting read so far, with some compelling comparisons to make to the challenges Conservatives still face in achieving electoral success today.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Caption this pic

This picture on the Globe Web site from Harper's thus far disastrous trip to a climate change conference in Africa just begs for a caption contest.


My submission?

"Wow man, look at my hand! I mean, wow! My fingers are, like, moving man, wooooo!"

UPDATE: Rather than download the pic I'd just linked to the Globe site, and it seems they've taken the pic down. So, I guess the captioning fun is over. Trust me though, 'twas a hilarious pic.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You can't eat a red shirt, even if it is Friday

Perhaps someone can explain this math to me, as I’m totally confused.

How does Exhibit A:

The federal government is heading for a record tax haul and another huge surplus, revealing Friday it has accumulated a $9.3-billion surplus in the first six months of the fiscal year.

Plus Exhibit B:

"Our troops get the strength they need for the hard, dangerous work we ask them to do from the support they get back home," Harper said in a brief speech to open a fundraiser for the base's family resource centre.

"So, my job, and our government's job, is to support the families just as much as we support the troops."

Possibly equal Exhibit C:

The federal government is about to stop its practice of giving extra money to Canadian soldiers posted to some of the country's most expensive cities.

Since June 2000, almost half of Canada's soldiers have been receiving a bump in their monthly salary -- the posting's living differential -- for living and working in cities with a high cost of living.

However, the Tory government will put a halt to the payments for soldiers in places such as Toronto and Ottawa.

More than 28,000 Canadian soldiers living in major urban centres currently qualify for the cost-of-living allowance.

In Toronto, soldiers would lose more than $1,200 a month, according to figures from 2004.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The House Comedy of un-Canadian Activities

My name is Jeff, and I’m a proud Canadian. While I don’t drink beer, I do like hockey and maple syrup, as well as making endless small talk about the weather. I also believe a couch is a chesterfield, and what not.

I’m a strong supporter of Canada’s Armed Forces, having grown-up an Air Force brat at bases across Canada and in Europe, and spent my teen years as an Air Cadet. I support the troops.

I’ve always considered myself a proud Canadian. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that, according to my government, I’m not a Canadian at all. Or, at least not a real Canadian, because I’m also a Liberal. I believe in universal Medicare. I believe in a social safety net. I believe in helping those in need, and I believe we have a societal obligation to one another.

And I also think allegations juveniles transferred to Afghan authorities may be abused and the process might be against human rights treaties should, at least, be examined.

Mr. MacKay replied: "What is immensely clear is that the bombast and the blast coming from the member for Bourassa does nothing to demonstrate that his party or that member support the troops.

"These scurrilous allegations that somehow Canadian soldiers are complicit in war crimes is beyond contempt. It is reprehensible. It is un-Canadian for that member to make those kind of allegations in this place."

First of all, jackass, no one is accusing Canadian soldiers of anything, and it is completely chickenshit for you to hide your privileged frat boy ass behind our soldiers while ducking the real issue. Indeed, we owe it to our soldiers to ensure any juveniles they transfer to Afghan authorities are treated in accordance with Afghan law. We should explore these allegations and clear this up TO PROTECT OUR SOLDIERS Peter. That’s your job, Mr. Defence Minister! You know, actually supporting the troops, not just mouthing the words as a political prop.

Instead of doing his job though, Peter would rather lob insults straight out of the U.S. Republican smear handbook, and question the patriotism of those that dare to disagree with him.

This isn’t a new tactic for the Conservatives though. Indeed, the Conservatives have already made it abundantly clear that, as far as Canada’s New Government is concerned, in Steve Harper’s True North Strong and Free, only Conservatives are ‘Real Canadians.”

Said Peter Van Loan a little while back:

"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."

The Conservatives are heading down a very dangerous, scary road. I don’t need blowhards like Peter McKay or Peter Van Loan to tell me what a real Canadian is, to tell me I’m un-Canadian, or to question my patriotism or my love for my country. How do they think Canadian will react to such tactics, particularly given the fact a majority of the population disagree with their policies?

Accusing people of un-Canadian activities? Is that really the road Harper wants to go down? Because that sort of thing has worked out so well in the past, hasn’t it?

What has made Canada a great country, in my view, has been our tolerance of diversity and difference of opinion. We’ve been a country that resists easy definition or categorization.

But accusing someone of un-Canadian activity, or not being a real Canadian? Why that’s practically…un-Canadian.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Schadenfreude

Oy! I know the schadenfreude is a bad thing, forgive me. I’m getting verklempt. But this story today on the Mulroney thing. I mean, it's fun on so many levels. Luc Lavoie should get a sketch comedy show or something. Whenever I need PR help, he's going to be my first call.

Brian Mulroney was in financial straits and worried about his future when the former prime minister made the “colossal mistake” of accepting a $100,000 cash payment while still a member of parliament, his spokesman says… At the time, Mr. Mulroney was cash-strapped and worried about the future, Mr. Lavoie said.

I mean, yes, I can see how poor Brian really must have needed the money. I mean, here he was, this little scamp from Baie-Comeau, son of an electrician, he must have needed the money. After all, Prime Ministers don’t make very good coin. I know Conservatives have been saying for years our politicians are vastly underpaid, right? The PM today makes, what, let’s say around $280,000. That’s chicken feed! And I bet, back in Mulroney’s day, we probably actually paid the PM in chickens. On the plus side, he could sell the eggs for some walking around money. Or fry them up for breakfast.

“Mr. Mulroney is not a wealthy man. He doesn't come from a wealthy family ... Whatever savings he had he had spent while he was prime minister,” he said.

And it isn’t like Brian was a successful businessman before politics. He was just the president of a little company called Iron Ore Canada. The private jet was the company’s, not his. Besides, that was years ago though, and Gucci loafers aren’t cheap. And it’s not like the PM had a fashion consultant back then either, he was totally on his own.

“Prior to entering politics, he was the CEO of a major corporation and still had children when he left politics and he wanted to offer them the kind of living that they had before he entered politics,” Mr. Lavoie said.

Sure, he was a CEO of a major corporation before. But that’s no guarantee he could find gainful work after nine years as Prime Minister. Remember, people really disliked him back then. He’d probably built up a good stretch of Employment Insurance eligibility, but that’s not your full salary you know, it’s like little more than half. And once that runs out, what, welfare? The man had a family to raise people! He couldn’t rely on his gold-plated MP pension alone.

It’s not like he was bosom buddies and close friends with major business leaders like, say, Paul Desmarais, who might help him get on some boards and make a little coin for his golden years. And what demonstrable skills did he have beside politics…a law degree? Please, everyone knows lawyers make peanuts! It’s true, when Mulroney was leaving office how could he not be concerned about his financial security? He was one step away from flipping burgers at Harvey’s.

In all seriousness though, as fun as this article has already been, I think my favourite was this graph:

“Then he said ‘I would give you $100,000 a year' and then he pulled out an envelope with $100,000 and Mr. Mulroney said ‘what is that.' He said ‘well, I want to pay you in cash.' So Mr. Mulroney asked a few questions. ‘Why would you do this in cash' and all that,” Mr. Lavoie told the Ottawa Citizen. “Mr. Mulroney admits today that he made a colossal mistake.”

An envelope of cash, how delicious is that? I only have one question. Brown, or manila?

Forget what I said earlier about keeping this thing going for strategic reasons. This is getting really entertaining.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stay the course on Mulroney

A recent Decima poll says the Mulroney/Schrieber drama hasn’t yet resonated with voters or hurt Conservative support (hasn’t helped it either). That’s not totally surprising, and shouldn’t dissuade the opposition from pursuing the case

The fact is, these things take time to percolate and seep into the public consciousness, and begin to impact polling numbers. I don’t want to bring forward case studies of past scandals, but nevertheless history bears out that these things take time.

Whether it is moving the polls yet or not, there are several very good strategic reasons for the opposition to continue pressing on this issue. Although, if I can digress for a moment, we shouldn’t go all Mulroney all the time. Child poverty, cities, Afghanistan, we need to be talking about a variety of issues.

We should keep the Mulroney pressure on though, for a number of reasons. Particularly the Harper PMO’s handling of the affair and the letter/s. For one, even if we don’t gain in the polls from it, tying Harper to this is important. The Conservatives ran the last election on being squeaky clean, doing politics differently, accountability, yada yada. We need to knock that undeserved halo off their heads. Even if the public attitude is a pox on all their houses, at least the pox is on their house too, and their hypoctical holier than thouness is exposed. With that playing field leveled and arrow taken out of their quiver, we can move the debate to issues that will benefit us.

Secondly, the more we push on this, the more Harper needs to distance himself from Mulroney. We’ve already seen him forbid all ministers and MPs, including Mulroney friends like Majorie LeBreton and Hugh Segal, from talking to Mulroney until this is resolved. The more pressure applied, the more we’ll see old Reform/Alliance types saying ‘hey, I was a Reformer, I didn’t like the PCs’ and other comments distancing themselves from the Mulroney legacy. For those Mulroney loyalists and old PCers still in the CPC those comments will grate, and start to tear a the fragile seams that hold the delicate CPC marriage of divergent interests (westerners, PCers, Quebecers) together. If those seams start to tear, the opposition will begin to benefit in the medium to long term.

And the other, non-strategic reason to keep the pressure on is simply because there are important issues that need to be settled here, and questions that need to be resolved. Should $2.1M in taxpayer dollars be recovered? Might someone have broken some rules? That should be found out.

So, I hope that, regardless of what short term polls say, we keep the pressure up on this file. Because polls don’t always tell the whole story, particularly in the short term. Stay the course.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What's the deal with Pat Martin?

I blogged the other day on the changing positions of the NDP’s Pat Martin on the accountability act, but reading an account of his behaviour in the HoC ethics committee yesterday one has to wonder if he’s taken to hanging-out with Pierre Poilievre or something. This is just bizzare:

However, Mr. Szabo's effort to ensure the committee acts within its mandate dissolved into a confrontation with New Democratic Party MP Pat Martin, who pitched his pencil over a committee table and stormed over to Mr. Szabo to accuse him of stalling his efforts to get an ethics committee inquiry off the ground.

"You're a disgrace," Mr. Martin told Mr. Szabo, who remained seated in his chair. "That's it. You're done."

Sticks (and pencils) and stones, Pat. At least he didn’t ask him if he had the gonads to chair this meeting, or challenge him to a duel or something. Yeah, he's a disgrace Pat, and you're a credit to your party. Really classy.

P.S. CBC compiled this entertaining list of parliamentary insults awhile back, enjoy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Gerard Kennedy lectures at Ryerson

After work yesterday I headed downtown to Rye High for Gerard Kennedy’s first public lecture as a visiting lecturer at Ryerson’s school of management. The topic of his lecture was Towards a New Enterprising Canada.

It was a decent-sized crowd of what looked to mainly be university types. Also in the crowd though were prominent Liberals like Tom Axworthy and Sergio Marchi, as well as Kennedy’s former deputy minister at the provincial education ministry.

As for the topic, I don’t agree with all of Gerard’s points but I did agree with most of them. His main thesis I can agree with, and that’s that we’ve become complacent in Canada. We’ve come to take our success and prosperity for granted; we’ve come to believe Canada can advance without conscious effort, or sacrifice, on our part.

That’s a problem for Canada, he said. We need to have some sort of a shared vision to move forward. In a comment sure to annoy the small government conservatives, he also said since the 1982 recession government has not called on the national capacity to innovate, like it did with medicare and pensions.

He also added we’re slow in Canada to recognize excellence, regularly holding-up two different examples of the sort of excellence he says we need to emulate, and recognize: Jean Vanier and Gerry Schwartz. I'm not sure about Schwartz, but I guess it is a business school.

They’re examples, he says, of the kind of enterprising we need to encourage. Schwartz is successful in business, Vanier in charitable service. Both, however, have encourages entrepreneurship and made contributions to society.

Many people that aren’t leading organizations have great ideas, he said, but they’re not being listened to. We need to create a culture that rewards innovation and original thought. That’s what he tried to do as Ontario’s education minister, he said, give the stakeholders the freedom and capacity to be creative and innovate.

What Canada needs, he said, is a way to get people active and participating in the going-forward of the country. And we need to make government part of our competitive advantage,

All in all, an interesting, non-political speech. I agree with his feeling Canada needs to galvanize the national capacity for innovation. We have become complacent. While it wasn’t a political speech, I would like to see our politicians talking more about a vision for Canada, about national projects. We’re certainly not going to get that from the Harper Conservatives.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal growth potential in the 905?

As a frustrated Greg Weston earlier griped, if it were up to Ontario the Liberals would be in government and Stephane Dion would be Prime Minister. Indeed, most polls have showed strong Liberal strength in Ontario, both for Dion and for the party.

Indeed, the latest SES numbers show the Liberals up by nearly 10 points in Ontario:

Liberals: 35.7 per cent
Conservatives: 26.6 per cent
NDP: 15.6 per cent
Greens: 5.3 per cent
Unsure: 16.9 per cent (more than support the NDP, interesting)

And when only decided voters are included:

Liberal: 42.9 per cent
Conservatives: 31.9 per cent
NDP: 18.8 per cent
Greens: 6.4 per cent

What is also interesting, and could lead to positive seat growth for the Liberals, is some of the demographic shifts taking place in the 905 belt, that suburban area outside of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). This suburban area is where Mike Harris won his majorities. They tend to be more Conservative-minded, and this is where Harper has been making inroads, with plans for more in the next election.

An interesting article in the Globe last month however, written after the provincial election, identified an interesting trend that could have important federal implications as well. The 905 ridings are becoming increasingly urban and, therefore, more likely to vote Liberal:

Ryerson University political scientist Neil Tomlinson said the movement of people from Toronto to rapidly growing suburbs such as Milton or Barrie was reflected in the shift away from the Tories on Wednesday. Their share of the provincial vote fell in 21 of 23 ridings, only eight of which went Conservative.

Prof. Tomlinson said the change in 905 voting comes from a fundamental shift in values.

"The whole character in these areas is now so different than a traditional suburban area. They are really urban. ... And as the character of an area changes, the issues that resonate with them change," he said.

And those issues are particularly interesting, as they are issues that the Harper government has all but ignored, not boding well for his chances in the 905. The whole drop dead incident comes to mind. The issues?

…the new suburbanites are more concerned with issues such as urban sprawl and the environment than the 905 denizens of the past, who found their rural and small-town values better represented by the Tories.

Now, in the interests of fairness, the professor does say he doesn’t think Harper needs to worry, as provincial issues and dynamics drove the seat results in October. True enough. But if he’s correct in identifying the demographic shifts then I’d say Harper does need to worry.

If the Liberals can make city issues front and centre, issues Harper has continued to ignore, then there would seem to be great room for growth in the 905. And, if nothing else, fighting a holding action would make Harper’s majority much more difficult to achieve.

Now, the other major driving factor in the 905 belt is ethnic issues, an area Harper and Jason Kenney have been putting a lot of effort into. But that’s a whole other story, and one others are better suited to address then I.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

NDP puts politics ahead of poverty, and the facts

I met Peggy Nash, the NDP MP for Parkdale-High Park (and Gerard Kennedy’s opponent in the next federal election) at the Progressive Bloggers BBQ this summer. We only spoke briefly but she seemed nice enough, and I give her credit for wading into the lion’s den and attending a blogger get-together.

So, I’d like to hope that she’d have an innocent explanation, or be willing to apologize and correct the record, because the following statement she made to the National Post, in a story on Dion’s very well received anti-poverty plan:

The New Democratic Party's critic, Peggy Nash, also questioned the Liberal record on eradicating poverty when in office.

"Child poverty has increased in this country while we had Liberal majority governments and surplus budgets so I think Mr. Dion has a credibility gap on this," she said.

Except it is really Peggy and the NDP that lack credibility on this issue, because she’s just plain wrong.

According to Statistics Canada, the child poverty rate in 1993, the year Jean Chretien took office, was 16.7 per cent. In 2005, the last year of Liberal minority government under Paul Martin, the rate was 11.7 per cent. That’s a decline of some five percentage points. If measured in real numbers, the number of children living in poverty, according to Statistics Canada, dropped from 1,157,000 in 1993 to 788,000 in 2003.

Those are the after tax low income cutoff (LICO) numbers. The before tax figures (which aren’t as good a measure, as there are tax measures designed to help here) show higher raw numbers, but still show a decline. From 1,541,000 or 22.3 per cent in 1993, this measure dropped to 1,132,000 or 16.8 per cent in 2005. A drop of some 5.5 percentage points over the Liberal term in government.

While child poverty is still unacceptably high, the statistics show child poverty actually declined over the Liberal term in government, both in real numbers and in per cent, and did not increase, as the NDP’s Peggy Nash falsely claimed.

If Peggy’s intention was not to intentionally mislead Canadians, and to ignore the facts and just fling more mud at the Liberals, then I hope she’ll apologize to Stephane Dion and correct the record here. It would be the right thing to do.

It may just be a knee-jerk NDP reaction, to reflexively attack anything and everything the Liberals do, facts be dammed, while ignoring the real, common enemy. I’d like to hope though that, on an issue as important as child poverty, we can have a real debate, not just glib partisan mudslinging like these comments from Peggy and the NDP.

The ball is in her court.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Get your Daily Show fix

Proving once again how humour used intelligently can be a devastatingly effective way to make your point, the striking writers at The Daily Show have put together a hilarious little video that really puts the whole writer's strike in context, and makes complicated issues like royalties crystal clear. (h/t Mike) The faux Daily Show-style montage is particularly good.

In other Daily Show news, it seems Canadian Samantha Bee will be on next week's episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie. She plays a CSIS agent.



UPDATE: Looks like The Colbert Report writers are in on the act too (h/t CalgaryGrit):

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Women and Ontarioins are twits, says Sun columnist?

While blaming everyone else for your shortcomings and refusing to look inward is certainly not a problem unique to conservatives by any means, they do it so well, and with such disdain and hatred, that they really do deserve special recognition.

The phenomenon is typified by a recent Sun Media column by Greg Weston. It’s on the recent SES poll results, and our dear Greg is just plum confused.

As you may recall, on the best PM side it was very bad news for the Liberals. Harper is well out in front at 37 per cent, Layton 17 per cent, Dion 13 per cent. I may explore that embarrassing result at length later, when I have ready access to hard liquor. But also telling were the horserace numbers which show a virtual tie, at Cons 35 per cent, Libs 34 per cent, NDP 17 per cent.

An interesting dichotomy there, obviously, between those two sets of numbers. You can see why Gregory may be confused. What does Greg do when he’s confused? He lashes out wildly and incoherently. Take the headline of his column: True Grits or twits? Ontario loyal to federal Liberals, despite qualms about Dion.

From there Weston expands on his thesis, at best stretching the numbers to explain how everybody dislikes Dion. Really Greg, these numbers are bad enough without you fiddling with them. Then he goes on to dismiss the horserace numbers saying “as always” they’re not the real story (because they’re not positive for the Conservatives, that is). Anything that doesn’t fit the narrative gets ignore. These guys also ignored the Mulroney story until the very last minute.

Anyway, Weston does ask the right question, or at least raise the right issue. After dissecting the leadership numbers, he writes:

Yet, if an election were held today, the same poll of the same voters shows the Liberals led by Dion would be in a virtual dead heat with Harper's Tories.

Indeed, and that has to be maddening for the Conservatives. You’d think a seasoned political columnist and pundit might draw from their breadth of experience to examine that seeming disconnect. Why aren’t Harper’s popularity numbers translating into ballot support? Why, despite misgivings about Dion, are Liberals not shifting their support to the Cons, NDP or Greens? What do the Conservatives need to do to break though here?

That would be interesting political commentary, and, from a Conservative point of view, useful introspection.

Instead, Weston decides to lash-out. First target? Women, who are more likely to vote Liberal:

If it were up to Canadian women, the Liberals would form a minority government and Dion would be the next prime minister.

Go figure.

Yeah Greg, women, tell me about it. But did you ever consider, perhaps the problem isn’t with women, but that the Conservatives haven’t been speaking to issues of importance to women? Nah, that can’t be it. It’s the women’s fault.

The real hatred though, as it so often was with the old Reform crowd, is reserved for the women (and men) of Ontario:

But it is in Ontario that we find what we unscientifically call the fence-post syndrome -- as in the Liberals could be led by one and still get elected.

It doesn't seem to matter that only 18 out of the 1004 voters surveyed by SES thought Dion was a "good leader."

The SES-Sun Media survey shows that in a race to the ballot box, the Liberals would command 43% of the vote, a full 11 points ahead of Harper and the Conservatives.

Since Ontario has more than a third of all the seats in Parliament, the current level of Liberal support in the province would make it virtually impossible for Harper to come anywhere close to winning a majority.

Probably explains this decision, no? But anyway, back to Greg:

No wonder Western voters look east and throw up their hands in despair.

Yeah, you suck Ontario! Oh, wait, I live here now too. Actually, doesn’t Weston too? Maybe he’s a self-hating Ontarioin.

Now, if I was to make any kind of comment questioning why Albertans persist in electing anyone with a pulse as long as they’re conservative I’d be accused of some kind of racial bias. I mean, imagine, for a second, that, let’s say, the Toronto Star ran a headline implying Albertans are twits, Mein gott, the wacko outrage would make that silly Harper tells cities drop dead nonsense look like a tea party. But Ontario bashing, it seems, is perfectly acceptable.

And it’s wholly counterproductive to their cause. It’s like a toddler that didn’t get what it wants banging its fists and having a tantrum.

Again, Weston has identified the problem. Ontarians don’t like the Conservatives. Rather than having a tantrum though and blaming Ontario, wouldn’t it make more sense to consider why? It’s not because we’re evil. Could it, perhaps, be that we have serious issues with the Conservatives? Could it, perhaps, be Harper’s failure to address these issues that explains his poor showing here?

To be frank though, I’m perfectly happy for the Cons to keep blaming everyone but themselves for their inability to break into majority territory, to not have the support of women, and to be losing ground in Ontario. Because if they stopped lashing-out, they might actually solve the problem.

So carry on my conservative friends, forget I mentioned it...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is bullshit a renewable fuel?

I think it's entirely possibly that, at this point, Conservative hypocrisy has ceased being news. It has become so common that, at this point, the very frequent examples of the wide gap between haughty Conservative principles and actual Conservative action should perhaps just be treated like a sports section box score, summarized in small font.

Nevertheless, until Stephen Harper et al decide to finally climb down off their moral high horse, it would seem to be a worthwhile exercise to continue highlighting examples of Conservative flip-foppery, if only as a public service.

In that vain, remember this much ballyhooed promise from the Conservative platform:

"Under the Liberals, lobbying government - often by friends and associates of Paul Martin and other Liberal ministers - has become a multi-million dollar industry. Senior Liberals move freely back and forth between elected and non-elected government posts and the world of lobbying."

And then there’s this Harper speech on “accountability” that’s still on the Conservative Web site:

We are determined to end the revolving door syndrome so often seen in the past involving ministers’ offices, the senior public service, and the lobbying industry.

Lofty rhetoric. Too bad the implementation has fallen laughably short, from day one. Although heck, as former Conservative campaign co-chair John Reynolds, now a lobbyist himself (oh delicious irony) infamously observed: campaigns are campaigns.

The latest development on this front though is amusing on a number of levels. You know those annoying I Love You Stephen commercials and billboards from the totally non-partisan Canadian Renewable Fuels Association? They caused some very contrived and manufactured copyright-related controversy over in Blogging Tory land, you may recall.

Well, anyway, it seems the executive director of that totally independent third-party lobby group that ran (is running) pro-Harper commercials is now going to work for (in name as well as practice) the Conservative Party:

Kory Teneycke, the former executive director of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, was hired this fall to lead the Conservative research bureau, which prepares talking points for Tory MPs and digs up dirt on the opposition.

You see, they didn’t want to stop the revolving door. They just wanted to bar Liberals form going through it. That must have been in the fine print of the Accountability Act.

Always able to be counted-on for righteous indignation, the NDP’s Pat Martin is, well, righteously indignant:

"The Federal Accountability Act set out to tie a bell around the neck of lobbyists, and virtually nothing has happened," said NDP MP Pat Martin, who considers Harper's showpiece legislation to be "stalled and dead in the water."

"It's business as usual," said Martin, "and the revolving door is still swinging freely between Conservative (political) staff and lobby houses, and then back again."

I hate to be the predictable guy that always attacks the NDP the way dippers always attack the Libs, but I find Pat’s indignation a touch amusing. After all, when the Libs were raising serious issues about the (lacking) Accountability Act, the NDP and Cons were teaming-up to block the Liberals and push the bull through committee. Pat Martin was the act’s biggest cheerleader:

PRESS RELEASE: NDP hails passing of Accountability Act
Fri 08 Dec 2006.
More ethical government for average Canadians

OTTAWA - NDP MPs Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) and Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre) are celebrating today the passage of Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act.

"This is an accomplishment we can be quite proud of," said Martin, NDP Ethics Critic.

Proud indeed, bravo Pat. My (metaphorical fictional) grandma always said when you lay with dogs you’re gonna get fleas. Lesson learned, I hope.

Back, however, to the Conservatives. As the Star article goes on to outline, while some Con apologists will say the Act was only intended to prevent people leaving government to lobby, not lobbyists joining government, the reality is the revolving door is swinging both ways:

The latest in a long list of examples includes a senior member of Environment Minister John Baird's staff and a member of Public Works Minister Michael Fortier's staff, who both recently left to work as lobbyists in Ottawa.

Mike Van Soelen, Baird's communications director when the former Treasury Board minister was shepherding the accountability act through Parliament, quit this August to set up Playbook Communications. The Ottawa public relations company promotes itself by stating that its "government expertise can help clients achieve their objectives, from raising an organization's profile to securing specific regulatory changes."

Darcy Walsh, who served as Fortier's director of parliamentary affairs at Public Works, quit last month to join Hill and Knowlton Canada. A news release from the lobbying giant said Walsh will ``implement the marketing and sales plans for the Public Relations and Public Affairs divisions of the Ottawa office."

I will, however, give the Conservatives credit for having the balls to post this statement on their Web site today:

This is the choice that Canadians face in the next election. They can choose the strong leadership of Prime Minister Harper who backs up his principles with real accountability and real action, or they can choose the weak leadership of Stéphane Dion and the Liberals who are prepared to sacrifice principles and accountability in the pursuit of short term political gain.

Have you no shame, sir? At long last...Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Hmm, is bullshit a renewable fuel? If it is, then Harper really does deserve thanks, because he’s excreting it by the gallon.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If Ottawa went hip hop...

Amusing video on YouTube, Ottawa Goes Hip Hop. I particularly like the I don't want no scrubs riff on Jack Layton...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney: A no longer convenient marriage

The Mulroney saga continues to dominate the headlines, helped along mightily by today’s revelation that Mulroney himself now wants the Harper government to skip the third-party investigation into the need for an inquiry and go straight to a full blown inquiry. You might say he’s mad as hell, although I doubt he’ll be launching a cross-country tour to remind us.

There’s certainly lots of interesting stuff to chew on for politicos in this story. While I’ve usually been agreeing with Garth Turner of late, I disagree with him when (before the Harper announcement) he regularly asked what the big deal was about here.

I’d think it’s pretty clear, but to me, the deal is the $2.1 million settlement the feds paid to Mulroney under Jean Chretien and Alan Rock a few years back. The (as yet unproven) allegations that have come to light recently about the alleged payments by Karl Heinz Schreiber to Mulroney raise the question whether or not that $2.1 million payment was appropriate, and perhaps should be recovered. Given that’s $2.1 million of taxpayer dollars, I definitely think that’s something the government should be looking at. That’s what the big, or at least moderately, sized deal is.

That, however, was last week.

...it’s the cover-up

There’s an old saying that’s it’s not the crime that will get you, it’s the cover-up. Not to suggest that a crime has been committed here, I’m not suggesting that, in case any libel lawyers are reading. It’s just an expression. And it’s often a particularly pertinent one in politics.

As it is in this case. While the issue of the validity of the $2.1m payment is an important issue, you could argue this isn’t an issue that impugns the integrity of the current Harper government. And, while there are many key links between the Harper government and Mulroney that I’ll get to later, largely you’d be right.

What is directly relevant to the Harper government however is the issue of this letter from Schreiber (maybe two letters?) to the Harper PMO, containing the very allegations that caused Harper to launch his investigation into an inquiry, that was apparently sent months ago but supposedly never made it to Harper’s desk.

Garth does agree with me on this point, crystallizing it well today:

Did he brief Stephen Harper? No idea. If he did, our prime minister has a problem, since Mr. Harper took no action until found out. If he did not, the prime minister still has a problem, since Mr. Brodie allowed the public Mulroney love-in to continue, knowing what he knew. Knowing Mr. Mulroney might be charged. Knowing the implications.

This is the question that brings this whole issue into new territory, and lays it squarely at the feet of Stephen Harper and his PMO.

A marriage of convenience

Back to what I’d originally intended to write about though, which is the Harper/Mulroney relationship. Now, I certainly don’t want to do Harper a favour by attempting to minimize it. The links are clear, from folks like Senator Marjorie LeBreton, Senator Hugh Segal, Peter McKay and his dad Elmer and Rob Nicholson. And of course Harper has saddled-up closely to Mulroney himself over the past few years, regularly tapping him for advice and feting him in public.

In their orgy of weekend coverage on the Mulroney saga however, I thought the Globe went a bit too far with a headline describing Mulroney as Harper’s political mentor. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

The truth is, the Harper/Mulroney relationship was always one of convenience. They don’t particularly like each other, but they needed each other. There was something in it for both of them, so they kissed and made nice.

Brian Mulroney needed rehabilitation. He was (is) in danger of being remembered as one of the least popular Prime Ministers in Canadian history, certainly a big blow for a man of his considerable ego. He needed a Conservative Prime Minister to help restore his reputation, a Conservative government to allow him to play the role of elder statesmen, to bring attention to the positives of his record, and being him back to public consciousness in a positive light. Harper delivered that.

Stephen Harper needed to unite the Progressive Conservative and Reform wings of his party. He needed Mulroney’s help to do that, as the man still holds considerable loyalty and sway amongst many members of his old party. He needed the political experience and wisdom of Mulroney loyalists like LeBreton. Otherwise, government would always remain out of reach. Mulroney helped bring the restless PCs firmly into the Conservative fold, helping deliver Harper his government.

The two certainly weren’t bosom buddies though, nor was Mulroney, by any stretch of the imagination, Harper’s mentor.

While Harper gets little mention in Mulroney’s biography, and certainly no negative attention, I find it unlikely that Brian has forgotten Stephen’s role as one of the architects of the Reform Party, and the role he played in destroying the old Progressive Conservative Party he so loves.

As for Harper, it was the policies of the Mulroney government that drove the former PC member and Hill staffer Harper into the arms of the movement that would found Reform. Read books like William Johnson’s Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada and you’ll see the widely divergent views the two held on the issues, and Harper’s lack of love for Mulroney.

Ironically, as he began to saddle back up to Mulroney in the past few years, trying to form a government, Harper would begin to espouse some of the same Mulroney views that drove him away in the first place, ie. pork for Quebec. The difference between former Conservative principle and current Conservative action is by now well documented.

This would seem to further illustrate the thawing of the Harper/Mulroney was driven purely by political expediency. As soon as the negatives outweighed the positives for Harper, he dumped Mulroney over the side. Wholly unsurprising really. And not the actions of a ‘mentor’ to be sure…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Finally some fundraising creativity

Fundraising letters don’t have to be flashy to be successful. And, it has been said, when it comes to fundraising letters hooky works. So I was glad to see the folks at the LPC are using a little creativity in their fundraising, sending this ‘Teledispatch’ to my mailbox last week.

You may laugh, but letters like this are how the Conservatives have been so successful in raising lots of money, in small amounts, and have been continually smoking us at fundraising since the new campaign finance regime came into force.

So, I’m glad to see the LPC is getting on board with direct mail solicitations; I hope it’s a success and that they do more of it. I’ve also been seeing more e-mail solicitations from the party lately, I think they could do a little better in terms of rapid response and issue-based solicitations, but they’re heading in the right direction.

While I disagree with Robert on cautioning against mail-outs, indeed we need to do more (and more targeted to issues as well), I do take his point on supplementing such traditional fundraising methods with some other, more creative ones as well. I think they’re working on that too, the recent One Night, 100 Dinners is a good example. Hopefully we’ll see more continued creativity, and people will offer their suggestions.

In the meantime, as priceless as my kvetching from the sidelines is, I’ve sent in my $50 in response to the solicitation. I hope some of my Liberal blogging brethren will do the same.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Alan Riddell saga ends not with a bang, but with a whimper; questions remain however

And so, in all likelihood, ends the saga of the Conservative Party and Alan Riddell, which I’ve chronicled at length since the last election:

The Conservative party has reached an out-of-court settlement with Alan Riddell in the Ottawa lawyer's libel suit against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the party's president, a party statement says.

The one-paragraph statement says nothing about the terms of the settlement and does not name Mr. Harper or party president Don Plett.

"The Conservative Party of Canada and Alan Riddell announce that they have mutually settled all legal proceedings brought by Mr. Riddell against the Conservative Party of Canada and Conservative Party officials," says the statement, sent to a reporter yesterday by the communications director Ryan Sparrow.

I’ll leave you to the Citizen story and the past posts to get all the background and nitty-gritty details. It would appear this is likely the end of the story though, certainly from a legal and most likely from a media point of view as well.

It certainly should not be though as there is one remaining unanswered question. It’s a very important question, its one Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party needs to answer and its one Canadians deserve an answer to.

I’ve asked this question before, and not having seen an answer yet, I’ll ask again. With the settlement, while they initially denied it it’s now abundantly clear the CPC had a deal with Riddell. Which begs the question why, during the last election campaign, did Harper make this statement:

"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.

And yet, as we now know, they sure did have a deal. When the legal process began they admitted that, their only point of contention was not the existence of a deal, but whether or not Riddell’s going public negated the deal.

With the Cons running sponsorship whistleblower Allan Cutler in Ottawa-South, admitting they’d bought-off Riddell wouldn’t have exactly fit with their cleaning-up government messaging at that point of the campaign.

Harper may have settled with Riddell, but he hasn’t settled with Canadians. Given his election statement, and what his party has now admitted in court, Harper and the CPC need to come clean with Canadians. Did Stephen Harper lie about the existence of a deal with Riddell, when asked point-blank, in order to win an election campaign, or did party officials deliberately keep their leader in the dark and send him out onto the podium to mislead Canadians?

Neither scenario is particularly palatable. It’s time, however, for answers.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jay Hill makes no sense

I know a Conservative making no sense is hardly anything new, but usually they let some time go by between their contradictory statements, instead of just giving one single statement that they purport makes their point when, really, it makes no sense at all.

In today’s Hill Times (which for some reason doesn’t let you link directly to the few stories they do post online gratis…hey, even Warren Kinsella has permalinks now guys), there’s a story on the Conservative strategy vis a vis Stephane Dion. You know, the whole not a leader, didn’t get it done shtick.

Anyway, in the piece Hill is making a big deal about the Liberals abstaining on the throne speech. Reporter Abbas Rana had the good sense the point out a little recent history on that point (long-term memory isn’t always a ready media quality):

Conservatives themselves are no strangers to abstaining from a confidence vote as they were the first to set a precedent in Canadian political history to abstain en masse in 2005 on the budget vote as the official opposition.

Indeedly-do, another case of Conservative do as I say, not as I do, only this time they’re actually being called on it. And how does Conservative whip Jay Hill reply. Totally different, he says. No surprise he’d say that. What’s surprising is how spectacularly he fails to articulate the supposed difference:

"At that time, our leader Stephen Harper clearly said this is not a Conservative budget, he didn't spend a whole bunch of time trashing the budget. He stated the obvious, 'It's not a Conservative budget. If I was prime minister, I would have done a lot of things differently but on balance this is not a budget worth forcing another election on Canadians.' End of story," Mr. Hill said in a telephone interview from his riding, adding that it was a credible position to take. "When we abstained, everybody knew in advance we were going to abstain, there was no surprise and [Mr. Harper] was able to maintain his personal credibility. Stéphane Dion's problem is that his two positions are directly contradictory. You can't tell Canadians, on one hand that this is terrible and then credibly say, 'Oh, by the way, we're going to sit on our hands and we're going to allow the government to continue.' So, one of two things has to happen, I would think is that in order to maintain his credibility, either he has to defeat us or he has to find a few more good things to say about our policies."

Umm, say what Jay Hill? You lost me. Harper said it’s not a Conservative budget, that he didn’t like it, but Canadians didn’t want an election, so he had his caucus abstain, and told everyone that right away. Dion said this wasn’t a Liberal throne speech, that he didn’t like it, but Canadians didn’t want an election, so he had his caucus abstain, and told everyone that right away.

Only difference between the two scenarios is one leader is named Harper, and the other Dion. And yet to Jay Hill, the two situations are totally different. I’m not buying it Jay. Actually, there's one other difference. The Harper abstention was on a budget, the Dion one on at throne speech. I'll leave it to others to debate the weightiness of the two.

You can agree with the abstention decision or not. And you can argue Dion’s credibility may be on the line here. That’s all totally fair. But don’t try to tell me there’s some big moral difference between the Harper abstention decision and the Dion abstention decision. Jay, that dog just won’t hunt. Pot, kettle, black.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Review: Rick Mercer Report, The Book

Compared to the weighty Brian Mulroney biography I’m still currently slogging through, Rick Mercer Report, The Book is a very slim volume. But don’t let the size fool you though, despite the vastly different lengths the two books are certainly comparable in insight.

I’ve been a fan of Rick Mercer from his This Hour has 22 Minutes days, thru Made in Canada to The Mercer Report. He’s a very funny guy but his it not just empty humour, or humour for humour’s sake. He uses humour to get across a message, to make a point, and it’s usually very effective.

This new book is mainly a compilation of his infamous rants from The Mercer Report on matters political, from Paul Martin thru Stephen Harper, from 2004 thru 2007. In addition to the rants, interspersed is new material, such as stories of his trips to Afghanistan to visit with and entertain the troops and to Africa in support of Spread the Net.

While Conservatives complain Mercer is a Liberal shill, I don’t think that’s at all true. Certainly he has taken a lot of shots at the Cons over the years but, in fairness, he has given them a heckuva lotta ammunition. He’s an equal opportunity comedian though, and takes some rather salient shots at Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion, for example.

While it’s a slim book, and a quick and easy ready, as I said that doesn’t mean it’s not weighty. Mercer uses humour very effectively to make rather insightful and prescient points about the state of political discourse in our country today and the jobs our political leaders are doing. While we laugh, we’d also do well to heed some of his advice.

P.S. If you’re on Facebook, join the group One Million Strong for Rick Mercer. Why? Why not?

*A review copy from the publisher helped facilitate this review.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Selective memory: A portrait

This whole saga surrounding the proposed national portrait gallery has probably flown under the radar of most people, save the portrait gallery fan community and their numbers are fairly small, as fervent as they may be.

Most people though likely haven’t been paying attention, which may be why the Harper Cons thought they could get away with this (though why the media let them try I dunno):

Portrait gallery on hold

Tim Naumetz, CanWest News Service

Published: Friday, November 09, 2007

OTTAWA - The federal government will announce today it has scrapped a six-year-old Liberal plan to build a Canadian portrait gallery in the former U.S. embassy and will instead spend $23-million on the project at another location.

Heritage Minister Josee Verner and Public Works Minister Michael Fortier scheduled a news conference for today where they are expected to announce a new proposal that could include use of private-sector space for the gallery.

The end of the plan to put the gallery in the former embassy would cap a turbulent history that began soon after it was announced by the Chretien government in January, 2001.

The controversy centred primarily on skyrocketing costs, from an original construction budget of $22-million to an overall cost of $44.6-million by last year.

Gee, those dastardly, money-wasting Liberals, no? Not quite. Because I have been paying attention (more because of my interest in pork barreling then my love of portraits, though I do like a good portrait as much as the next guy), and so I recall this story, even if CanWest doesn’t, from nearly one year ago:

National Portrait Gallery: 'It's pork barrel politics'

Documents and leaks to an Ottawa MP point to the gallery being built in Calgary, home to the Prime Minister's riding, and partly funded by EnCana

VAL ROSS

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Although an Ottawa home for the proposed National Portrait Gallery is already under way -- more than $9-million worth of work has been done on a magnificent Beaux Arts building on Wellington Street -- an Ottawa MP says the gallery will go to Calgary.

NDP MP Paul Dewar had made an access-to-information request for documents related to the portrait gallery. All but two sentences in the 42 pages he obtained were blacked out, but Dewar says they, and subsequent government leaks, indicate that gallery will be built in the city of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's home riding, partly funded by energy giant EnCana. "It's pork barrel politics," Dewar told The Globe and Mail. "And no one is denying it."

And CanWest themselves covered it at the time too:

Calgary location for national portrait gallery expected

Paul Gessell , CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen

Published: Wednesday, December 06, 2006

OTTAWA - A deal between the federal government and energy giant EnCana to locate the Portrait Gallery of Canada to Calgary is expected to be announced within a few weeks.

New Democratic Party MP Paul Dewar said Tuesday he had been tipped in an anonymous e-mail that the gallery would be located in a new development by EnCana in downtown Calgary and largely financed by the company.

Both the government and EnCana have refused to confirm or deny the partnership, but Heritage Minister Bev Oda confirmed she has been shopping outside of Ottawa for a new portrait gallery home and EnCana has said it will be making an announcement ''within a few weeks'' concerning the occupants of 100,000 square feet of ''cultural space'' within its new building. That building is set to open in 2010 or 2011…

Some six months after the supposedly imminent announcement however, the deal was off:

Portrait gallery not moving to Calgary: MP

Tom Babin, CanWest News Service

Published: Friday, June 29, 2007

The future of the peripatetic Portrait Gallery of Canada appears uncertain again as controversial plans to house the federal gallery in a Calgary office tower have apparently been dropped.

Jim Prentice, the Minister of Indian Affairs and an MP for Calgary, confirmed the government will not locate the proposed gallery in a 58-storey office project being built by EnCana Corp., the oil and gas giant. EnCana put in a bid to house the gallery last year.

So, it will be interesting to see where the gallery ends up after all. If the Conservatives do indeed actually make an announcement this time. Pretty sure it won’t be in the originally intended and renovated location in Ottawa though. Stephen Harper has other plans for the former U.S. embassy, along with a few more million of our taxpayer dollars in reno fees:

… it’s odd Harper would want to take a space that was intended for a public portrait gallery and convert it into a multi-million dollar, private, receiving-hall for Pres…Prime Minister Harper to welcome foreign dignitaries…

So, if we’re going to talk about controversy and skyrocketing costs, that's fair, but let’s not forget the facts like that this should have all been settled a year or more ago, that the delay was an attempt by the PM to put the gallery in his own riding, and that the PM also wants to add to the tab by paying to renovate the already renovated building that was intended to house the gallery by turning it into his own private receiving hall so he can pretend he’s the president.

Would seem like some relevant context to some...

UPDATE: As I wrote this post, Conservative Heritage Minister (yes, they have one) Josee Verner announced a nine-city competition/rfp process to decide who gets to host the gallery. In the running will be Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver.

"Our government has set forth the notion that national cultural institutions do not necessarily have to be located in the national capital," said Heritage Minister Josée Verner at a news conference Friday announcing what she called "a bold and innovative step."

Or they might be. Or they might be located in Calgary. Or they might not be. What a mess that has been made of this whole thing. First they give the finger to Ottawa, and the money already spent to prepare the site there, so say it’s going to Calgary. And then they give the finger to Calgary, saying maybe you’ll get it, maybe Ottawa will, maybe Halifax will (my advice: don’t get too excited until the paintings are on the wall, Halogonians).

If it does indeed come to Ottawa (again, breath should not be held Ottawans) it won’t be in the embassy site. What about the money already spent preparing that site? Everyone’s favoutite unelected, unaccountable, appointed Senator, Michael Fortier, addresses that:

…Fortier said about half of that would have been spent on the project even if work hadn't begun on the site in Ottawa.

And half wouldn’t have been. But hey, it will help defray the costs of Stephen Harper’s regal receiving hall, so there is a silver lining after all.

Anyway, instead of opening in 2007, the Conservative ‘management’ of the gallery issue has delayed the opening until at least 2011 or 2012, according to Fortier, if then. Nice work guys.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Governing is about choices...let’s give them choice

If you polled 1000 Canadians, I bet you, say, 80 per cent of them would say they like cake, and they’d love it if the government enrolled them gratis in the cake of the month club. Starting with angel food in January, all the way through to ice cream cake (my fave, the one from DQ with the chocolate fudge crackle) in December. Because, except for those that perhaps can’t eat sugar, everyone loves cake. And, even better, what tastes sweeter than free cake?

That’s why the results of this particular poll are wholly unsurprising to me (h/t Steve):

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll – conducted in the three days after the Halloween economic update – found that 83 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they supported the income tax cuts.

Seventy-six per cent approved of reducing the GST by one percentage point.

So, Canadians would, by and large, not say no to a tax cut. And they’d like a free cake too.

What would happen, however, if you introduced choice? Because our free cake program would cost money. We’d need to buy the cakes, for one, although by buying in bulk we could probably get a deal, maybe from some super bakery in China. We’d need some bureaucrats to run the program, a department of baked goods if you will. Maybe even a cake registry so we can track the cakes to make sure no one gets extra cakes, and ensure everyone gets their just deserts. The lessons learned on the gun registry will come in handy – don’t worry, we’ll get it right this time, no billion-dollar flans.

So, to pay for our cakes for the masses program we’re going to need to trim somewhere else in the budget. Luckily though, we have a surplus at the moment, so no budget cuts needed. We could do something else with the surplus though than buying everyone cake. Like, say, universal daycare, and a cupcake per month for every child under six.

Ask Canadians if they’d like free cake they’re going to say yes. Give them a choice between free cake and universal daycare and a cupcake for their kid (with the option of two cupcakes and a juice box if the parent chooses to stay at home or enlists grandma to babysit) and the result will be very different.

The key, though, is to give people that choice, and that’s what we Liberals have been doing a bad job of. Harper is out there offering everyone free cake, and we’re just saying cake bad, no cake for you! Of course people are going to respond poorly to that. I would too. Tocuhe pas my cake Stephane!

We need to offer Canadians a choice. Cake looks good in isolation. But, when brought into context and contrasted with, say, a major push to eliminate child poverty, cake, or tax cuts, cake is viewed in a whole other light. When contrasted against such a choice, be it a real, flexible (meaning some kind of consideration for parents to opt-out and home care) daycare, or fighting child poverty, Harper’s GST cut is more easily seen for what it is: a cynical, selfish vote buying measure that 101 economists agree makes piss poor economic sense.

That’s why I’m cautiously optimistic to read this (again H/T to Steve):

Stephane Dion is poised to unveil a central plank in the Liberal election platform — a "bold" plan to reduce poverty in Canada.

An insider close to Dion said the Liberal leader will set ``aggressive but realistic" multi-year targets for reducing poverty in general and child poverty in particular.

He will also outline the policy tools a Liberal government would use – bolstering existing income support programs and new investments in things like child care and education – to meet those targets.

If this is true, if we are going to come out with some real, comprehensive and bold policy then it’s about bloody time, says I. Because it’s time we started defining ourselves as something other than merely just opposed to the Harper agenda. And it’s time we started illustrating the stark contrasts between Liberal and Conservative philosophies. And it’s time we started offering Canadians choice.

An income tax cut and a per cent off the GST, or an income tax cut and a major initiative to tackle child poverty? I know the side of that debate I’d like to be on. I’ll bring my own cake to the party.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why not sober second thought on, as well as in, the Senate?

This whole Senate referendum seems to have faded from the headlines, at least for now. Which is good, because the headlines deserve to be more Mulroney Airbus alleged shenanigans dominated, and this story should help on that front. Also, the capital punishment thing. And this immigration backlog is noteworthy too.

I’m sure the Senate thing will be back though, and as it’s an issue I’ve written on often in the past I did want to weigh in.

But first of all, the timing of the recent kerfuffle seems rather curious, didn’t it. It was certainly to Harper’s benefit to push the Mulroney thing off the front pages for a few days and Layton was fine with that, as long as it had the potential to sow dissension in Liberal ranks. They make a cute couple.

Anyway, on the issue itself, I’m actually on the record (as they say) in favour of abolishing the Senate. Turn it into a Loblaws. Or, more likely, office space I suppose. I highly doubt it will ever be abolished though, because it’s not as easy as it sounds, and (at least in theory) the Senate does (could) serve an important purpose: regional representation balancing the rep by pop of the House of Commons.

Abolishing the Senate would mean a constitutional amendment. The constitutional amending formula from 1982 requires an amendment be passed by the HoC, the Senate, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislatures representing at least 50 per cent of the national population. After the 1995 referendum the Chretien government also gave constitutional vetos to Ontario, Quebec, the Prarie Region, the Atlantic Region and, after some prodding, B.C.

Now, the purpose of the Senate is to balance-out the rep by pop of the HoC to ensure the increasingly populous regions (wassup Ontario!) don’t overly dominate the voices of the less populous regions. So, ask yourself, with a HoC increasingly dominated by Ontario, is, say, Quebec or the Maritimes with their declining populations likely to give-up their regional Senate counterweight, at least without substantial (in Quebec’s case additional) guarantees of representation not justified on rep by pop alone in the HoC? Not likely. At least one veto is all but guaranteed.

I think, given the amending process and the regional politics of this country, it’s fair to say the Senate is not going to be abolished any time soon. And it really is too pretty a chamber to turn into office space. Red is my favourite colour, and the paintings on the walls would be tough to relocate.

Why, then, this sudden debate on Senate abolition when everyone knows its very unlikely to ever happen? Because it’s a sop to Harper’s base, much like the death penalty thing, because his base feels a little abandoned as he continues making nice in his majority quest. And it has always been NDP policy, and even if it serves no purpose, the NDP are happy to take the spotlight off the Harper Cons for a bit if it means stirring the pot in the Liberal camp. Nothing new there. Just politics.

Back to policy though, if we can. If we’re going to have a Senate debate, why not have a real Senate debate? Not posturing to score political points like Jack and Steve are doing, but real, achievable reform?

Not the kind of piecemeal measures Harper has been taking, like appointing only elected Senators. As I’ve written in the past, these kind of piecemeal gestures are dangerous and counterproductive, and ensure real Senate reform will never happen.

By having a mix of elected and appointed Senators without real reform to the chamber and its role in government we create two classes of Senators: the legitimate elected and the illegitimate appointed. The powers of the Senate today are very vast, but they are rarely recognized, because senators recognize that as appointees they need to tread a fine line, and while they have a role (sober second yada yada) to play, they must not improperly trump the will of the elected MPs. However, elected Senators would be under no such reserve, they would feel free to use the full powers of their office. This could potentially lead to legislative gridlock.

Additionally, today the regional balance in the Senate is skewed. For example, B.C. is greatly underrepresented. By taking piecemeal steps like appointing elected Senators, steps that don’t require constitutional change, the motivation for and likelihood of real Senate reform diminished, and the regional inequalities are enshrined. Senators will be exercising real power, and B.C. will be continually shortchanged.

Senate reform needs to be all or nothing. If we can’t abolish the thing, let’s make it elected, equal and effective, although powers-wise we’d need to debate that, I’d prefer it be less powerful then the HoC. And heck, I’d even favour some kind of non-first past the post electoral system for the Red Chamber while we’re at it.

That would be if we were having a meaningful debate on Senate reform, however. Given that no one’s really interested in that though, or in attempting Charlottetown Accord II, I’m going to go back to cataloging Harper’s evil doings, Layton’s blatant hypocrisies, and other more relevant if less weight matters.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Who is writing the headlines at MSN Canada?

Logging-into my Hotmail this morning I was greeted by this headline:


Weird headline, I thought. Surely it can’t mean what I think. Perhaps it relates to financial support for U.S. fossil excavation efforts on behalf of Iraqi universities as part of some kind of hearts and minds program...

However, the link went this story:

Paris Hilton made the most of Hallow-week, reportedly purchasing 14 costumes. The provocative ensembles had themes like sailor, Alice in Wonderland and Tinkerbell, all with a certain je ne sais "XXX." But for the party the heiress was hosting at Lax in Las Vegas, titled "A Very Sexy Halloween," she wanted to make a political statement. Dressed in a strapless, camo dress that barely covered her bottom, stockings held up by a garter belt, high heels and a jaunty camo hat, Paris said her costume was in support of "the troops."

"I know that they're having a hard time right now and can't really be celebrating Halloween, so, a little shout out to them," she told a Raw Vegas reporter, a blonde woman who was dressed as a slutty bee. Inside, Paris continued her political crusade, donning a black and white striped convict dress with the words "jail bait" printed on the bum in bold, orange letters. Because there are plenty of imprisoned hookers who can't celebrate Halloween either.

Yep, it’s what I thought it meant. I think they’ve hired five-year-olds to write the headlines at MSN Canada.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Polling B.C.

Mustel Group came out with its latest polling numbers for British Columbia(opens a PDF). While on the surface the numbers look similar to the federal numbers, given regional factors in the province things could be rather interesting.

While some polling firms have had the Liberals in the lead in B.C., Mustel has the Cons in front at 37, with the Liberals at 30, the NDP at 21 and the Greens at 12. Here’s the chart:

The disappointment there has to be for the NDP, and also that the Cons aren’t stronger. The Libs are also off historic Mustel highs. That said, the Cons have been gaining at NDP expense. From the last election the NDP has dropped 8 points; Mustel has said most of that has gone to the Cons. Sounds odd, I know, but a lot of the B.C. electorate is anti-establishment, and the Liberals are still seen as the Eastern establishment, so swings between Cons and NDP are not uncommon. The recent NDP swings have been stark though, from 20 in March, a peak of 29 in June, and then a dive back down to 20 for October.

Despite gaining NDP support however, the Cons are still exactly where they were last election, meaning they’ve lost support elsewhere too, balancing the NDP gains. The Liberals are up one point, but look to have a fairly steady base to build on at 30-33 per cent. Also interestingly the Greens have been on a steady upward trend, from 5 in the election up to 12 today. Not seat territory, but enough to play spoiler. Also, with the May/Dion alliance it will be interesting to see where that 12 per cent goes on e-day; it may bode well for candidates like Briony Penn in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

To truly make sense of these numbers though we’d have to see where they break down. The Liberals are largely a non-player in a lot of interior and coastal ridings, where the Cons and NDP have and will likely continue to fight it out. If the NDP is truly losing support in B.C. we could see ridings like Skeena-BV (Nathan Cullen), Vancouver Island North (Catherine Bell) flip Conservative, possibly Nanaimo-Cowichan as well (Jean Crowder).

The Liberal vote in B.C. tends to be very efficient and urbanized, and in these ridings our opposition isn’t generally the Cons, but the NDP, putting ridings like Victoria (Denise Savoie) and Burnaby-New Westminster (Peter Julian) on the table, and making it a little easier to reclaim Vancouver-Kingsway from the Cons (David Emerson). It may also be time to finally unseat Nina Grewal in Fleetwood-Port Kells.

Looking briefly at some of the other numbers provided in the polls, here’s the approval figures for Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion (none were provided for other leaders):

If I were to spin here for a moment, although I think it’s sensible spin, Dion’s disapproval rating is only 4 points higher than Harper’s, and given that Harper is the PM spending billions of taxpayer dollars, and millions on attack ads targeting Dion, that’s pretty darned good. The big number is 39 per cent no opinion on Dion: that’s a lot of room for growth. On the downside, the 7 month trend is troubling, and should give the party pause.

On the government’s approval on issues, on the environment they’re 45approve/44disapprove, crime 47/38, Afghanistan 28/47.

And if you’re interested in the fine print, 851 BC adults were polled Oct. 10-22, with a MOE of +/- 3.4 per cent. And undecideds were 15 per cent.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thoughts mentally composed at 36,000 feet over the Gulf of Oman

Dear person sitting behind me on the airplane,

Hey, how are you? These long flights sure do suck, don’t they? The complimentary wine helps. And thank-god for the personal tv screens and video on demand, because Die Hard 4 is even better the third time around.

Anyway, you’ll notice I haven’t reclined my seat back into your lap. It’s not just that I don’t find reclining my seat to make me particularly much more comfortable. It’s also that I get pissed off when the person in front of me does that, and I kind of believe in that whole do onto others thing, you know? So I make it a policy not to recline.

Speaking of doing onto others, did I mention how cool those personal tv screens are? They’ve really helped me pass some in-air time. Knocked-up is one funny ass movie. Sometimes, though, after my 34^th lifetime viewing of the Shawshank Redemption (Morgan Freeman rocks) it’s time to flip off my screen, put on the complimentary British Airways eyeshades , pop in the foam ear plugs (mine, not BA’s) and try to get a little shut-eye. That’s hard to do when you’re pounding on your video screen with a hammer though. Because your video screen is in my seat, and I feel every jab in my back, making shut-eye impossible. Besides, like a lady, video screens don’t respond to brute force. Being gentle will get you better results, be your desire Lost World, Jurassic Park (what a lame remake) or Evan Almighty (Morgan kinda phoned this one in but Steve Carrel was funny). So be gentle.

And, in a similar vein, you know that pocket where you stuff your magazines? That’s also attached to my seat. Feel free to store your in flight necessities in there, please. But could you please try not to constantly kick your in flight necessities? Because you’re also kicking my back, and while the odd kick every now and again is understandable – hey, it’s a small space and shit happens – but every 2 minutes for 11 hours? That can’t be good for your in flight necessities. I know it’s not good for my back. Or for my sanity.

Maybe you’d find the kicking harder to do if my seat was reclined back into your lap? I’m just saying…

Sincerely,

The guy sitting in front of you trying to sleep

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers