Nanaimo Conservatives: In and Out ads helped the NDP win

Another interesting angle to the Conservative In and Out scandal coming from the Left Coast, and my old stomping-grounds of Vancouver Island.

One of the Conservative campaigns roped into participating in the ill-fated In and Out scheme was the Norm Sowden campaign in Nanaimo-Cowichan, a riding that has been conservative in the past but was won in the last election by NDPer Jean Crowder.

While they participated in the scheme, it seems Nanaimo Conservatives were pissed off because the ads attacked the Liberals, while they were in a fight with the NDP, making them essentially useless, if not counterproductive to their electoral efforts.

Nanaimo-Cowichan Conservative candidate Norm Sowden's campaign, in a fight against NDP incumbent Jean Crowder, took up the request from national headquarters and sent $8,089.20.
…
However, the Liberal attack ads didn't help Sowden because he was in a fierce fight with the NDP. Court documents cite an e-mail from Hallsor to party headquarters which relays the Nanaimo-Cowichan campaign was "really pissed off" its money was being wasted.

Also:

Several thousand dollars went back and forth between the national body and the campaign of Nanaimo-Cowichan candidate Norm Sowden, too, though there are indications the local Conservatives weren't happy with the result. The affidavit cites an e-mail from prominent Victoria Conservative Bruce Hallsor to Michael Donison, the party's then executive director, in which Hallsor says the Nanaimo-Cowichan people were "really pissed off" because the advertising bought with the money attacked the Liberals, not the NDP, who were seen as a much more dangerous opponent. Indeed, New Democrat Crowder won the seat.

Adds columnist Paul Willcocks, in a great column on In and Out:

The Conservatives have offered two defences.

First, they say the candidates really wanted those national ad campaigns to run. They recognized that they mattered less than the leaders and hoped the party effort would help them to victory.

But Elections Canada has evidence that contradicts that. Mostly, the local candidates and their volunteer agents just did what they were told. Sometimes, they said the national ads actually hurt them.

Here on Vancouver Island, the Nanaimo-Cowichan Conservatives complained they were made to pay for advertising that hurt their effort. The ads, directed at a national audience, attacked the Liberals. The local Conservatives' main opponent was New Democrat incumbent Jean Crowder. The attacks, by discouraging Liberal votes, might have helped Crowder to victory.

This all really puts to rest the myth that these were local ads, not national ads. If they were local ads, why were local campaigns so pissed off and why were they indeed unhelpful, if not counterproductive, to the needs of the local campaign?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Say what, Howie?

The Globe has an other story on the equalization fight between the McGuinty Liberals and the Flaherty/Harper Conservatives. And it has an interesting nugget from Ontario NDP leader Howard Hampton:

"Is the McGuinty government really saying that the federal government should change the tax system so that they take less money from Ontario? How fair would that be for the rest of Canada?"

Perhaps Howard might want to consider what’s fair for the people of Ontario, whom he's supposed to represent, instead of sanctioning this province shipping $20 billion to other provinces to let them cut corporate taxes while our economy suffers.

Another interesting observation, this one from Ontario Conservative leader without a seat John Tory:

However, Ontario's opposition parties accused Mr. McGuinty of using his complaints about the equalization formula to deflect attention from the fact the province's economy is falling far behind the rest of Canada because of Liberal government policies.

OK, so if I accept that its McGuinty’s policies that are hampering the Ontario economy, does that also mean that a) Jean Chretien and Paul Martin can fairly take credit for the boom times of the mid to late 90s, and b) Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty are to blame for the slowdown of the national economy?

Because whenever I make those arguments, the right tells me governments can’t take credit or blame for the economy. Just curious.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More than election law, In and Out is about $720,000 of our money

Throughout all the coverage around the Elections Canada investigation into the alleged Conservative in and out scheme, the RCMP raid on CPC headquarters, the alleged attempts to circumvent election spending limits, allegations of forgery and lack of confidence in independent democratic institutions, it’s important to keep one thing in mind: it’s also about taxpayer dollars.

Particularly when Deceivin’ Stephen Harper is making completely off base comments like this:

To that end, he mocked the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois in a speech to an evening party rally where he called the Liberals crooked and the Bloc impotent. About 400 party supporters, including two dozen area candidates, were in attendance.

"We spend our own money, the Liberals spend stolen money," he said in a speech that made no reference to current allegations of election spending irregularities by his party in the last election.

First of all, what stolen money Steve? I think we should serve him with a libel notice unless he can back that up because, as he knows, if he’s referring to sponsorship he knows the LPC returned to the taxpayers every penny that was identified by multiple independent investigations having ended-up in Liberal coffers. (And on a side note, interesting to compare the responses of the two parties to those incidents: The Liberals call in the AG, call in the RCMP, hire forensic auditors and appoint a judicial inquiry. The Conservatives stonewall committees, sue independent bodies, insult the RCMP, and vote no confidence in Elections Canada.)

And second, on his comment that the Cons spend their own money, I call bullshit. A key part of their in and out scheme was to enrich local Conservative campaigns with taxpayer money they’re not entitled to. By funneling this national spending through local campaigns, it allowed these local campaigns to increase the rebate of election expenses they’re entitled to from the taxpayers. This wasn’t a side benefit or an afterthought, it was spelled-out by the CPC to local campaigns as their carrot for participating in the scheme: we send you this money, you send it back, you get a bigger rebate.

In fact, this is such a central part to the Conservative scheme that, when Elections Canada rightly denied 67 Conservative candidates’ attempts to count this spending towards their taxpayer rebates, on the grounds national expenses aren’t eligible, the Conservatives launched a lawsuit against Elections Canada to fight for the money.

So Steve, this IS about the CPC wanting to spend taxpayer money it’s not entitled to. It’s about a scheme that, in addition to allegedly being an attempt to circumvent election spending laws, is also an attempt to squeeze another $720,000 out of the taxpayers for Conservative campaigns. Money that, told they’re not entitled to, they’re suing to get anyway.

Because, I suppose, they feel entitled to their entitlements.

People don’t generally get too upset about election spending limits. But a transparent attempt to grab nearly $1 million in taxpayer dollars? That’s another matter altogether.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why not a GI bill for Canada?

I was watching CNN last night and they ran a story on the issue of U.S. soldiers coming home for Iraq and becoming saddled down with student loan debt as they attempt to pursue higher education.

It’s long been a recruiting pitch for the U.S. military: serve your country, and then go to university on the government’s dime. However, according to the news reports the finding formulae has become some outdated that the program now barely covers community college tuition, never mind books and other expenses or university tuition, leaving many former soldiers to abandon their educations or become saddled-down with loan debt.

The Senate is trying to resolve the problem, naturally it has become bogged-down in political wrangling and whether benefits should be focused on soldiers that serve their four years and leave or more on career soldiers.

What occurred to me though is that the Liberals should propose a similar program for Canada, I think it would be a real winner. Free college or university education for Canadian soldiers that have served their country for a set period of time. It would be a suitable reward for those that have sacrificed to serve, and the country and the economy would benefit from a more educated workforce.

I think we should give it a try. The only challenge, with Harper and Flaherty having flittered away the surplus, would be finding the funding. Surely though, for something like this, it could be found.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Clemens: Talk about steroids, please!

Yesterday I was sitting in California Pizza Kitchen, waiting for my lunch and reading the LA Times sports section (I’m in Los Angeles for a few days) when I came across this AP story that says Roger Clemens may have some troubles that aren’t baseball or steroid related:

Country singer Mindy McCready confirmed a long-term affair with retired pitcher Roger Clemens, who has been embroiled in a federal steroids probe, according to the New York Daily News.

"I cannot refute anything in the story," a tearful but resolute McCready told the News.

Through his lawyer Clemens denied his relationship with McCready when she was a 15-year-old aspiring country singer was sexual, but what I found interesting, and amusing, was part of the denial statement his lawyer released (emphasis mine):

"Mindy McCready is a longtime family friend of Roger Clemens and the Clemens family," Hardin said in a statement Monday. "At no time did Roger engage in any kind of inappropriate or improper relationship with her. It is unfortunate that the Daily News has chosen to report anonymous allegations that are completely unfounded, have no basis in fact, and have nothing to do with Roger's baseball career or the issue of steroid use in baseball."

Shorter Roger Clemens: Who wants to talk about me and steroids? Anyone? Anyone!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is there a criminal angle to the in-and-out scheme?

That's the question raised in an Ottawa Citizen piece today based on information contained in the documents and affidavits supporting the warrant that led to the RCMP raid on Conservative Party headquarters last week:

In the affidavit to support the search, an executive for Retail Media, the agency that purchased broadcast advertising on behalf of the Conservative campaign, is said to have raised doubts about the veracity of an invoice used to back up one Ontario Conservative candidate's expense claim for $39,991.

Marilyn Dixon, chief operating officer of the agency, "speculated that this invoice must have been altered or created by someone, because it did not conform to the appearance of invoices sent by Retail Media to the Conservative Party of Canada with respect to the media," according to the sworn affidavit of investigator Ronald Lamothe.

Mr. Lamothe also notes in his affidavit that invoices on Retail Media letterhead filed by nine Conservative candidates outside Quebec bear the same invoice number and each contain the same typographical error -- spelling "invoice" as "nvoice." A similar typo appears on other invoices, the affidavit says.

As Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc says, that raises the possibility of criminal acts of fraud or forgery which, at the very least, merit an RCMP investigation. And a criminal investigation would be a whole other kettle of fish than the Elections Canada investigation the Conservatives are already facing.

"Our initial impression is that some of the allegations made by Elections Canada in the sworn affidavit lead us to a concern that there may have been forgery or fraud that could ultimately run afoul of the Criminal Code," said Mr. LeBlanc.

The Conservative response to these allegations, in my view, raises more questions than it answers:

The Conservatives maintain that the documents provided by candidates to Elections Canada were legitimate. A Conservative official, speaking on background, said the party received an invoice from Retail Media with totals for all the candidates listed together.

To simplify, party officials cut and pasted the amounts for each individual campaign onto individualized documents to show each campaign how much each had spent for the advertising, without showing every campaign the figures for other candidates. But these documents were not intended to be official receipts. The source compared the move to dividing up a restaurant check at the end of meal.

That seems to support the contention that this wasn’t really local advertising at all, but was actually, as the opposition and Elections Canada has insisted, national advertising funneled through local campaigns.

If, indeed, this was just local advertising, then why didn’t Retail Media invoice each campaign directly, instead of sending a group bill to the central party? Why did the CPC apparently need to create new invoices for each campaign? And why do it on Retail Media letterhead? If all was aboveboard, and this was just a group ad buy, why didn’t the CPC invoice the campaigns on its own letterhead, collect the money, and pay Retail Media?

I don’t know about you, but when I divide up the restaurant check at the end of the meal I don’t photo-shop new receipts for each person. I actually usually ask for separate checks, but then again I’m not trying to funnel by lunch through my co-workers to get around my meal spending limit, and get them more frequent flier miles on their credit card.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The storm before the typhoon

Yes, the bulk of today’s coverage of the latest round in the Conservative In-and-Out Scandal is focused on their Monty Pythonesque attempt at media spin Sunday afternoon. If you’re worried there’s been little focus on the actual, very serious charges and allegations the Conservatives are facing don’t worry, that focus will come. And then some.

There’s a few reasons for how this first round of coverage has shaken-out. For one, the way the Conservatives handled things yesterday, from secret media briefings to hotel musical chairs to fire escape retreats, was just too good not to be covered, and mocked. It will do them no favours with the public.

As well, until today the details of the warrants leading to the RCMP raid, ie. the new information, will not have been available to the media at large. The Conservatives made only redacted, partial information available to their handpicked media members. The rest of the media aren’t going to cite their competition at length in their reportage even if they had the full, not redacted by the Cons for spin purposes version.

So, today the full, unredacted warrant information leading to the unprecedented RCMP raid on Conservative Party HQ will be available to all and sundry, including the media.

Most media outlets, undoubtedly miffed from the CPC “select media” list, will be on the story, and all its salacious details, with a vengeance. And the “select media” the CPC did invite, no doubt a little embarrassed by all the attention they’re getting today, will be all over the full warrant today too, eager to prove they’re not anybody’s lackeys.

So I’m looking forward to a veritable typhoon of round two in-and-out coverage focused on the nuance of the alleged Conservative scheme, and what led to the RCMP raid. The inept CPC media strategy has guaranteed full and detailed coverage.

And despite the media sideshow, a lot of salaciousness is already emerging from the redacted information the CPC released:

* Barbro Soderberg, the official agent for Tory candidate Steven Halicki, says she spoke to senior party officials and was assured that "this process is legal."

Still, the cash shuffle rang alarm bells for Soderberg.

"I had contacted the Conservative party in Ottawa and was reassured that this was okay. As a bookkeeper, I know that sometimes you have to use creative accounting between small companies but I found this move was being a little too creative," Soderberg would later tell Elections Canada investigators.

* In the statement, Lamothe said that he has "reasonable grounds" to believe the party exceeded its election spending limit and that candidates "improperly" claimed expenses.

"I have noted a consistent pattern created by the Conservative Party of Canada or the Conservative Fund Canada to deposit funds into the accounts of various campaigns, only to have the same or similar amounts transferred, always under the control of the Conservative Party or the Conservative Fund Canada, back to the Conservative Fund Canada, the chief agent of the Conservative Party of Canada," he stated.

* The warrant says that the elections commissioner believes that the Conservative Party of Canada and its official agent, the Conservative Fund of Canada, violated the Canada Elections Act. The party and the fund are separately accused of exceeding the maximum amount allowed for elections expenses. The Conservative Fund is also accused of filing financial returns "that it knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a materially false or misleading statement."

And much more to come today. Stay tuned, this storm is still gaining strength.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

This is a party with nothing to hide?

For a party that continues to vehemently insist on its innocence, the Conservatives are certainly acting like they have something to hide. The events of Sunday afternoon, from secret clandestine meetings, to misleading the media, to sneaking out stairwells, certainly paint a picture of a Conservative Party running from accountability and transparency.

You’ll remember last week the RCMP, acting on behalf of Elections Canada, executed a search warrant on Conservative Party headquarters in Ottawa, carting out several boxes of documents. The raid was believed to be (and is) in relation to the so-called In and Out Scandal, which allegedly saw the CPC funnel national money through local riding campaigns to buy national advertising in an attempt to circumvent national spending limits, as well as increase the taxpayer refund each local campaign is entitled to. Elections Canada has denied the expenses as not being local spending and continues to investigate the scheme, the CPC is suing Elections Canada over the denied refunds (they want money from the taxpayers they’re not entitled to.)

Actually, the Conservatives don’t really contest how the scheme worked. They just don’t think it was against the law. Unfortunately for them Elections Canada, the body charged with interpreting and enforcing election law, disagrees with them. The Cons also claim all the parties do this; a claim again dismissed by Elections Canada. And, as we know, the Conservatives have had some difficulty with the nuances of election law in the past.

But back to the raids. The media successfully fought in court to have the 700-page search warrant released to the public; that will happen Monday. The Conservatives of course already had a copy of the warrant, after all, they were the ones being served and searched or, as they put it Sunday “stormed” by the RCMP. Imagine if the Liberals impugned the motives of our national police force in that way? The Conservatives would be up in arms. But I digress.

In an attempt at spin and damage control, the Conservatives decided Sunday to leak portions of the warrant to hand-picked media in top-secret briefings, in an attempt to frame the story in the most positive light possible ahead of the release of the warrant Monday. It didn’t work out too well, as the media coverage shows. Just read the headlines:

RCMP targeted alleged Tory spending scheme
Tories on defensive over Elections Canada raid
Tories violated elections law: Elections Canada
Search warrant cites 'false and misleading statements' on Conservative ads
Tories battered, evidence mounts of vote scheme
Riding deposited $40,000, money returned 5 days later

So, mission accomplished there. Actually, this thing went off the rails pretty quickly for them Sunday. Garth Turner broke news of the planned secret briefings at the Lord Elgin Hotel in Ottawa, and media members got wind of them too, leading to this exchange where CPC spokesperson Ryan Sparrow denied any briefing was happening:

When one reporter asked in an e-mail about the news conference, Mr. Sparrow replied: “No conference, not sure where you got that from.”

The reporter then flipped Mr. Sparrow back an e-mail in which he had told another reporter who was on the list that the briefing would be at “4:30 Lord Elgin, Boardroom 800. Embargo until 7:30 pm Sunday night.”

To which Mr. Sparrow replied: “I meet with journalists privately all the time.”

As a journalist myself I’ll tell you one thing, we don’t like being lied to or misled, and we tend to react strongly when we are, so it’s generally not a good idea.

But it gets better. As the rest of the media pack got word of the secret briefings, and were understandably miffed to be shut-out, they decided to stake-out the Lord Elgin. This forced the Conservatives to beat a hasty retreat to the Shearton where, as Kady blogs, the media stake-out continued.

Finally, after conducting a few briefings, the CPC decided to call the whole thing off and get out of dodge, leading to my favourite bit of this story so far:

The first briefing for select television outlets took place but, by that time, the excluded reporters found out the new location and began to stake out the hotel.

That led the Conservatives to cancel all subsequent briefings, including the one they had planned with The Globe. And Mr. Sparrow, Mr. Finley and Mr. Lepsoe fled from the Sheraton down a back set of stairs.

Other reports indicate it may have been a fire escape which, all things considered, seems rather appropriate, given that their pants may well have been on fire. The chase actually continued into the parking lot however, as shown in this exclusive video:



But while this whole thing with the media at various Ottawa hotels today does indeed come off like a Benny Hill farce, the alleged Conservative actions in this in and out scheme, as outlined in the warrants, are anything but farce:

The document alleges the Conservatives violated the Elections Act "by incurring election expenses that exceeded the election expense spending limit" by $1.1 million.
It also alleges that 67 Tory candidates "improperly" sought taxpayer-funded rebates on expenses they did not incur.

Adds the Star:

The third allegation comes under the obligation to file "true and complete reports." The allegation is that the party's official agent filed returns with Elections Canada "that it knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a materially false or misleading statement" on its expenses.

The range of penalties for exceeding the election expense limit for a party's chief agent is $1,000 fine, three months imprisonment or both. A registered party is liable to $25,000 fine.

Also of note is this from the Globe:

According to the CTV report, the affidavit handed out by the party does not reveal much more about the case than was known already. But it does confirm that the search was not related to a lawsuit launched against Elections Canada by the Conservatives after the Elections Commissioner had begun an investigation of the scheme.

Which puts to lie this early Conservative post-raid spin:

In the Commons, Harper linked the raid to the ongoing civil lawsuit launched by the Conservatives against Elections Canada's interpretation of the 2006 campaign advertising financing rules, and an alleged $1.2 million in campaign overspending.

The party insider, speaking on condition he not be identified, slammed the extraordinary raid that took place on the eve of a hearing during which Elections Canada officials were to be questioned by Conservative party lawyers…

"Is it a coincidence that they visited party headquarters today when tomorrow they fully knew that their officials were going to be examined (by Conservative party lawyers) as early as tomorrow morning? We see this as a PR stunt, a tactic of intimidation."

And it’s important to note the Conservatives only released partial information today; we’ll have to wait until Monday morning for the full warrant information to be released and to see what they didn’t want to show their hand-picked media contacts Sunday. It should make for interesting reading.

For more blogging takes on Sunday's events, see Garth Turner, Apply Liberally, Impolitical, Poggee, David Akin, Paul Wells, Adam Radwanski, Accidental Deliberations, Scott Tribe, Jason Cherniak and Saskboy.

And from Dan Cook, a little art:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

There's courts of law, and there’s the people's court

Lower case. Not the one with Judge Marilyn.

The word goes crazy and I’m out of the country. Still in Boston, at Logan Airport enjoying cheese and crackers in the United Lounge and waiting for my flight to San Francisco. But thanks to the wonders of PDAs, and Facebook, as I strolled (ironically enough) through the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum I was made aware of this cheery news:

Mounties raid Tory HQ
The Canadian Press with Globe and Mail Update
April 15, 2008 at 12:28 PM EDT

OTTAWA — The RCMP raided Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa on Tuesday at the request of Elections Canada.

A spokesman said elections commissioner William Corbett had asked the assistance of the Mounties to execute a search warrant, but he would not say why.
(more)

Needless to say, everyone here and here is going bananas. Paul Wells is one of the rare voices of caution, reminding us of the presumption of innocence in our legal system and what not. Fair enough, but no matter what happens in the court of law, the more important verdict will be that from the court of public opinion. And there, the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply so much, and the burden of proof is a very different thing.

These headlines are going to be splashed all over the airwaves tonight, and all over the newspapers tomorrow. A raid on a political party HQ? It’s unprecedented. And if there’s good film to be had, then it’s the makings of some devastating campaign. Remember how much mileage the Cons got from Dingwall’s entitled to his entitled footage, even though it turns out he actually was entitled? A crapload.

The public doesn’t pay much attention to the ins and outs, if you will, of the day to day political goings-on. But this one will get their attention. And no matter what happens down the road, this is what they’ll remember. That’s politics. And that’s the people’s court. It’s their verdict that will count.

I need to pack-up and catch my plane, so I’ll refer you to my past blogging on the in-and-out scheme for more on the scandal behind the headlines.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

From the way-back machine

Just for fun, here's Chantal Hebert writing about Stephane Dion back in January, 2006, just after the last election talking about the soon to begin Liberal leadership race:

"If the Liberals are to move them past those episodes, they may have to look beyond Cauchon, perhaps to the brainy Stéphane Dion, to help them get there. If this is to be a Liberal year when talking heads matter more than political animals, a rare time when participating in the race could be as important as winning it, Dion would be a good fit for this campaign."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

BCer in Boston for Bruins and haBs

A few photos from game three of the first round matchup between the Boston Bruins and the Montreal Canadiens at the TD Banknorth Garden in Boston, Mass. It was a great game, lots of action for a low-scoring affair, and great goaltending on both ends. Final score 2-1 Boston in overtime, Montreal still leading the series two games to one.

Outside the rink, some Canadians fans getting ahead of themselves a touch.

A bear with an opinion.

The clean ice before the game.

Canadiens fans were out in force.

Some nice saves from Corey Price.

A little game action.

One of the many Habs fans ejected by the Boston PD. Interestingly, I only saw Habs fans ejected. Little home-town advantage, I suppose. The cops pushed this guy down the stairs so hard he nearly took a header over the railing.

Boston's Tim Thomas has a great game too.

The Bruins celebrate the OT win.

And the crowd goes wild.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ole ole, and leadership polling numbers

I’m a BCer in Boston today. After a two-hour delay on the tarmac in Toronto because of a “hookey switch” as the captain put it, I’m in Beantown. It’s a business trip, but today is pleasure, as I’ve got tickets for game three tonight in the Bruins/Canadiens playoff game.

I’ve just been for a walk down to TD Banknorth Garden to pick up my ticket (why must all these new arenas look the same?) and some lunch in Quincy Market, and the town is crawling with Habs jerseys, worn by jubilant fans signing Ole Ole through the streets. They certainly are exuberant. Saw a group near Faneuil Hall with a homemade Stanley Cup…easy mes amis, 14 wins to go.

Really looking forward to the game tonight though, I’ll post pictures tomorrow. First though, for my political content I wanted to comment briefly on the leadership polling numbers referenced by Steve, showing Dion is a drag on the Liberal brand:

The question was asked, how would voter intention change if the various party leaders left? For the Conservatives, their support would drop a full 6 points if they replaced Harper. The NDP support would drop another 3 points in Layton was replaced. The Liberal support is the anomaly, our numbers would rise 3 points if Dion wasn't the leader.

I don’t disagree with any of Steve’s analysis, I just wanted to add something about the numbers he didn’t. I don’t dispute their badness, but I think, frankly, all those numbers need to be taken with a slight grain of salt, because as far as I can tell the poll doesn’t ask about potential replacements.

Ask if you’d vote for the Liberals if Dion weren’t the leader, that’s one thing. It lets you imagine the leader is whomever you want it to be. What I’d like to know, is what would the number be if Bob Rae were the leader, or Michael Ignatieff? Would we gain more than we’d lose with one or the other?

The number might drop more if there’s a name attached…without a name while the number is certainly noteworthy, it’s only a piece of the picture. Either way, let's get Dion's numbers up.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's YouTube's fault! And other odd conclusions on drunken fighting from the Blue Jays

I'm a Blue Jays fan (their embarrassing sweep by the Athletics notwithstanding), I’ve seen three games thus far this young season and I intend to see many, many more before the fall. And I understand the problems Jays CEO Paul Godfrey is taking about here:

The chairman and chief executive officer of the major league club was reviewing the public-relations wreckage of two fight-filled nights in the stands - and tightening a zero-tolerance policy for illicit booze and brawling…

But on two occasions at the Rogers Centre in this young season, what may have started as a party in the stands degenerated into an ugly, scrappy disturbance. Each time about 100 rowdies were ejected.

"The entertainment is supposed to be on the field, not the stands," he said.

Indeed. I was at the home opener, I usually sit in the 500 level, and I saw some of this behaviour. I was also at Tuesday’s game, and saw the brawls as well, although they were on the other side of the stadium. On my side, while I had a bunch of inebriated college-types they confined themselves to really annoying taunts they thought were pretty clever. Can’t say I agreed, but no biggie.

It’s the booze though, says Godfrey. Probably. Tuesday’s game was part of the team’s Twoonie-Tuesdays promotion, where tickets in the upper bowl go for $2. Godfrey says the Jays are going to stop serving the booze in the upper bowl, and may scrap the $2 Tuesdays all together. They say they’re also going to crack down on stopping fans from bringing booze into the stadium.

The crackdown on booze smuggling makes sense, although one wonders why they weren’t doing that already? I’ll note though, despite Godfrey’s badmouthing of the fans in the cheapseats, the only time in my 50+ Jays game over three years I’ve seen fans with outside booze at a game, it was two suit-wearing Bay Street douchebags in $50 seats in the 100 level, not in the 500.

Banning alcohol sales isn’t the answer. And I say that as someone that doesn’t even drink at the ballpark. I don’t like beer, and it doesn’t seem like a wine sipping activity. But the link to the booze sales, $2 Tuesdays and rowdiness is somewhat tenuous to me. First of all, the tickets may the $2, the beers are not. Regular price on those tickets is about $10. So, you’re saving $8. That MIGHT be enough for one small beer, I haven’t checked lately. If someone can afford to get drunk on $10 beers, the ticket price isn’t a barrier for them.

The fact is, they’re probably coming drunk. So, in addition to cracking-down on booze smuggling, make like an airline and don’t admit intoxicated fans to the stadium in the first place. Most of the annoying taunters in my section Tuesday came pre-inebriated. I’m sure the rowdy fighters did too. And when it comes to alcohol sales, limit sales to one beer at a time, insist on ID and don’t sell to the underage, even if they are attractive young ladies.

Then there’s this gem from Godfrey:

The sudden surge in drunkenness and fighting in the cheap seats at Toronto Blue Jays games may be a YouTube phenomenon, with rowdy, attention-starved fans filming themselves and posting the videos on the Internet site, Paul Godfrey says.

…"Some people go, film their experiences and then call out to friends and unknowns alike to come down and join their party."

Really, its YouTube’s fault? I wonder if YouTube will be replacing video games as the source of all of society’s ills. It’s an interesting theory Paul, but drunken idiots fought at sporting events before online video sharing, that hasn’t changed.

Anyway, forget all this attention to drunken rowdy fans. Why in the hell do the Jays play great against top teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, and then tank against teams like the Athletics? That’s the question we should be wondering about.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper gets it wrong, again

Apologies for the blogging hiatus of late. I’ve just been swamped at the place they pay me to write, and I’m also concerned that blogging might cause heart attacks.

I did want to briefly pop my head up though to address these comments from Deceivin’ Stephen:

"I know the Liberal party wants to go back to what they consider the good old days, the good old days where backlogs just kept getting longer, where one needed special access to government members, where, frankly, they gave priority to strippers in terms of immigration policy," said Harper, referring to a 2004 controversy over former Liberal immigration minister Judy Sgro's decision to award a visa to a Romanian exotic dancer.

Little problem there Steve. The backlog has actually gotten much larger under the Conservative watch, because you’re not appointing enough adjudicators. Must be having trouble finding enough Conservative partisans to fill the roles.

Canada's backlog of refugee claims is soaring to record numbers due to the government's failure to appoint sufficient adjudicators, says the chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The backlog has ballooned along with the number of board vacancies since Prime Minister Stephen Harper took office in February 2006.

…In its recent report to Parliament, the board projects that the number of pending claims will soar to 62,300 this year. That's more than triple the line-up when Harper took office and well beyond the previous record of 52,325 pending claims in 2002.

…The board was taking an average of 11.7 months to process a refugee claim when the Harper government took office. But Goodman says the processing time is "significantly affected'' by the lack of adjudicators and is now approaching 16.5 months.

So if it was the good old days under the Liberals, backlog wise, then it must be double happy days now. And on the stripper issue, as I showed about a year ago that dog just won’t hunt.

Oh, and I agree with Telegdi. It’s a horrible bill, and I wouldn’t vote for it either. As for a party that agrees it’s horrible and votes for it in first reading anyway, pledging to fix it in committee? Sounds like a nice plan. But I agree with Dan. I’d say those words could come back to haunt them, but I’m kind of numb to it by now.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We need a little Clarity on Quebec

After Conservative intergovernmental affairs labour minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn’s pronouncement that a Conservative majority government would re-open the constitution to address “Quebec’s historical demands” the backtracking quickly began.

Out to quickly distance the Conservative government from Blackburn’s comments was intergovernmental affairs transport minister Lawrence Cannon, emphasizing Blackburn was expressing his own views, not the government’s:

"There is absolutely no appetite to open the constitution and to have any amendments to the constitution. We practice a federalism of openness in Quebec as well as with the rest of the provinces."

Still, after Cannon’s rebuke Blackburn left the door open, saying the time will come:

"As a Quebecer I think we can all wish to one day see all of these measures form part of the Canadian constitution. Now, to do that, there has to be a will on the part of the provinces. The circumstances have to lend themselves to being able to proceed in that path - I think everybody recognizes that the fruit is not ripe at this stage and we will continue with our agenda."

It will ultimately be up, said Blackburn, to Stephen Harper, who has conveniently been out of the country during all this nonsense. Here’s what he said to La Presse though in December (via Danielle and Paul):

“Stephen Harper souhaite que la résolution qui reconnaît les Québécois comme une nation soit incluse dans la Constitution canadienne”

Or, badly translated:

"Stephen Harper wish that the resolution which recognizes the Inhabitants of Quebec as a nation is included in the Canadian Constitution"

Which of course differs from what Jason Kenney was telling the English media last year:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has no plans to take up Mario Dumont's offer to re-open the Constitution, one of his top lieutenants said Monday.

"Our focus is on concrete, tangible deliverables, not abstractions,'' Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity, said in an interview.

So, if I’m following all this correctly, the Conservatives are saying we totally want to get the Quebec as a nation thing into the constitution so give us a majority and hey maybe the time will be right, but hey English Canada the time isn’t right at the moment so totally don’t worry about it.

It all seems purposely confusing and misleading. The Conservatives want to have their cake (hey Quebec, we’re going to take care of you) and eat it too (don’t worry rest of Canada, not gonna happen). National unity shouldn’t be used as partisan ploy for political gain. The consequences can be serious.

A guy who knows a little about national unity and what not, Stephane Dion, is calling BS on the Harper government:

Dion, a former minister in charge of the unity file and a constitutional academic before he came into politics, said the Prime Minister wants Quebecers to believe he'd recognize their nationhood within the Constitution, but in fact, has no plans to do so.

Dion said that Harper has been deliberately vague with Quebecers about how he intends to handle nationalistic aspirations in that province – dating all the way back to his campaign speeches in that province in the last election campaign.

"The Prime Minister should say, very clearly, which federal powers he wants to transfer to provinces, and to the province of Quebec in a special deal maybe. He must clarify that," Dion said yesterday.

What Stephane didn’t say, but what he could (and should) have, is that we need a little clarity here, if you will.

I found this interesting:

Senior Liberals said they suspected the Constitution was thrown out for public debate merely to make mischief for Dion, who is dealing with internal party strife and huge dips in party support in Quebec.

History has shown that debates over Quebec's place in the federation can prove hugely divisive in the Liberal party and can pit Quebec Liberals against those in the rest of Canada. The fact that this information was leaked to an English-language newspaper seemed to feed that suspicion.

Maybe, maybe. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the Conservative strategy here. I also think Blackburn went off script. But a few things:

a) The purposely vague, say one thing in English and another in French actions of the Conservatives can easily be exploited by pointing-out the discrepancies and calling for clarifications, as Dion has done here.

b) This is an opportunity to stake out clear and defined policy ground for the Liberal Party. Articulate an alternative policy, a federalist alternative. The BQ and Conservatives are both fighting over the same soft-nationalist ground. Who is speaking for federalist, pro-Canada Quebecers?

c) I recognize such a position may alienate the establishment members running the LPC(Q) (into the ground). Well, it’s not like they’re helping much right now anyway. C'est la vie.

d) A strong federalist push would play to Dion’s strengths, and his base, and the Liberal base. The Conservatives want to give Dion a chance to play Captain Canada again? Fine with me.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Up in smoke

I know we Liberals can use all the votes we can get, but I for one think we could do without this kind of publicity:

SIMCOE, ONT. — Tobacco farmers upset over the lack of a buyout strategy brought their frustrations to Tory MP Diane Finley's office in Simcoe, Ont., Thursday.

Ms. Finley told Simcoe radio station CHCD that some of the 150 farmers who gathered outside barged into her office, tore up signs and intimidated staff.

Some growers then walked to the office of Eric Hoskins, a Liberal candidate in the next federal election, and took out party memberships.

Tobacco farmers in southwestern Ontario have long sought a $1-billion buyout package to help them switch to other crops.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper’s Quebec constitutional foray, and where’s Rona?

I find it interesting that this…

The Harper government is telling Quebec that if the Conservatives win a majority in the next election, they will look to reopen the Constitution and give more meaning to their recognition of Quebeckers as a nation.

Emphasizing the Conservative receptiveness to “Quebec's historical demands,” Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn raised the possibility of winning 30 to 40 seats in the province, up from the current 11.

“The recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada allows us to think that we can put some meat around it, and that a majority government is more able to do a number of things, while being respectful of all of the provinces,” Mr. Blackburn said in an interview.

…comes just a few days after this:

Mr. Dion also appointed Gerard Kennedy, who will run in a Toronto riding in the next election, as intergovernmental affairs critic. It is a potentially contentious move because Mr. Kennedy, who threw his delegate support behind Mr. Dion in the December, 2006, leadership contest, had not backed the idea of the Québécois as a nation within Canada.

I suppose the timing could be coincidental, but I suspect it’s not. It will be interesting to hear Gerard’s first public comments on this. And speaking of intergovernmental affairs, interesting that the Conservative minister, Rona Ambrose, is no where to be heard from in this story. Instead it’s a senior Quebec minister, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, making the comments.

I wonder if Blackburn gave Ambrose a courtesy phone call? Hopefully Rona keeps her mouth shut; we all remember what happened to her predecessor when Harper first brought-up this Quebec as nation nonsense:

The federal Parliament formally recognized Quebecers as a "nation united within Canada" Monday night, but it came with a high cost for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who suffered his first resignation from cabinet over the divisive move.

Michael Chong, the minister of intergovernmental affairs and sport, prefaced his resignation by telling reporters he continued to have faith in the government, the Conservative party and the prime minister. But he charged Harper's recognition of Quebecers as a "nation united within Canada" smacked of what he called "ethnic nationalism."

"The reason why I got involved in politics is my belief in this nation we call Canada. I believe in this great country of ours and I believe in one nation, undivided," he said. "This is a fundamental principle for me, not something on which I can or will compromise. Not now, not ever."

While Michael made a move of principle, opting to resign when he was cut-out of a matter squarely within his ministerial responsibilities and asked to defend a position he disagreed with, I suspect Rona will want to keep the car and driver instead. And it’s not like she hasn’t been busy.

Why, look at these media releases for 2008:



Well, maybe 2007 was a busier year:


OK, well, maybe not. It’s probable telling though whose picture is on the front page of the ministry Web site, and whose is not:


Maybe some enterprising member of the parliamentary press gallery will track down Michael Chong down in the hallways and ask him for his thoughts on Blackburn's promise. Anyone?

Anyway, back to the Conservatives; constitutional musings , which have generated quite a bit of blogsphere reaction. I thought the nation motion in 2006 was supposed to be the end of it, was that not what Harper told us? I think the only person that wanted to re-open the constitution for this, at least back then, was Michael Ignatieff.

Anyway, even if I favoured putting this in the constitution, and I don’t, it would never work. You couldn’t do just this one thing. You need to get the other provinces to support it. You can ask them to give this to Quebec and ignore the Senate inequality concerns of the West, the seat distribution concerns of Ontario, and other issues. We’d quickly get bogged down again in the constitutional moray and that’s not the priority of Canadians.

This is all just politics, of course: the Conservatives sense Liberal weakness in Quebec, and they’re looking to gain ground. It’s a continuation of their fighting with the BQ for the soft nationalist vote. It’s akin to Russian roulette though, because every vote Harper gains in Quebec by pandering to soft-nationalists is going to cost him one in the West. And that’s if he can convince Quebecers he’s serious. The BQ and PQ are going to constantly be moving the goalposts, and will use any failure to meet them as a betrayal of Quebecers, stoking the separatist fires.

And whatever Harper does, they’ll just raise the stakes higher. We saw that in 2006 with the nation motion. Duceppe was pleased as punch with how it played out, and his next demand was ok great, now let’s constitutionalize it. Now that Harper is doing that, I wonder what the next demand will be?

To square the circle, frankly I’m glad Gerard Kennedy, with his lack of support for the nation motion, is now our intergovernmental affairs guy. I think he’s actually the right person for us on this file.

We can’t compete with the BQ and the PQ for the soft-nationalist vote in Quebec. But there is an opening in Quebec, and in the rest of Canada, to be the strong federalist champion. It has been a traditional Liberal role, but it’s one we’ve gotten away from since the aborted Paul Martin era began. Let’s pick that federalist mantle up again.

If we do we’re appealing to a segment of Quebec the other parties are ignoring, and a segment that actually thinks positively of Stephane Dion. We need to get those voters back; if we do we’ll hold our own there. And we’ll gain ground across the rest of Canada as well.

We’ll have to wait and see what play gets called though. It's not without risk, but as Warren says it could galvanize the party. So for god's sake, don't wuss-out yet again.

Anyway, I leave you with these comments from Stephane Dion the leadership candidate on this issue back in 2006:

"People are all mixed up about this." Dion says. "It’s a very interesting discussion at a seminar of political science, but the moment you talk about putting that in the Constitution and you blame the other candidates for being afraid to raise the issue, then legitimate questions come: If you are a nation, what am I, mashed potato?"
--
"Now all of a sudden, the burden of proof is back on our shoulders. We need to deliver this mysterious constitutional change that will change Canada into a Federation of Nirvana through a magic word that everybody would agree upon. It will not work. Keep the burden of proof on the separatists."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers