Dippers...on a plane!

Not that I don't think this is serious because leaving your secret cabinet documents laying around, whether its at your ex-girlfriend's pad or with the Skymall catalogue in your seatback pocket, is a definite no-no, but the first thought I had when reading this…

Maxime Bernier left briefing notes out during a commercial airline flight where a New Democratic MP could read them, the NDP said yesterday, offering what it says is further evidence that the ex-foreign affairs minister was careless with documents.

“He was in the aisle seat, I was in the window seat. I could clearly read the exposed parts of the document - as I'm sure the folks across the aisle from him could too," she said. The notes offered Mr. Bernier advice on what to say to the United States about Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan as well as the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force there. "It was about what the minister should say to [U.S. Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice about Operation Enduring Freedom and the ISAF mission and [to] thank her for how communications between OEF and ISAF had improved," Ms. Black recounted.

… was man, I hope I don’t sit next ever sit near a member of the NDP caucus on an airplane…

A new APEC-related allegation surfaced in Parliament yesterday. An opposition MP said he overheard the Solicitor-General predict the outcome of the Vancouver inquiry.

NDP member Dick Proctor says he eavesdropped on Andy Scott while the two were travelling on the same plane.

Proctor says he took 11 pages of notes during the flight last week.

If the NDP elects more MPs I'm going to need to get one of those privacy screens for my laptop, I think. Where’s Samuel L. Jackson when you need him…

But seriously, don't leave your secret papers in the seatback pocket genius.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Canada is back, baby!

Lord knows Prime Minister Stephen Joseph Harper has been called many things. But don’t you dare call him a liar. This was him last Canada Day:

"The news is spreading throughout the world: Canada's back," Harper told the crowd of about 35,000 on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Sunday.

And oh, how right he is. Canada is back alright, and with a vengeance. Just take a look:

CNN: Canadian foreign minister resigns

Washington Post: Canadian foreign minister quits over secret papers

Hindustan Times: Ex-lover costs Canadian foreign minister his job

Alsumaria Iraqi Satellite TV Network (Yes, Iraq): Canada Foreign Minister resigns

Radio Australia: Canada's foreign minister resigns after document debacle

Daily Mail: Minister resigns after leaving files with 'biker chick'

Evening Post: Minister quits post after error

Sydney Morning Herald: Good night and very bad luck

The Australian: Canadian foreign minister Maxime Bernier quits over bungle

USA Today: Canadian minister resigns after leaving classified docs at ex-girlfriend's house

New York Times: Canadian Official Quits Ahead of Ex-Lover’s Interview

The Independent: Foreign minister of Canada quits over 'biker's moll' girlfriend

The Gaurdian: Minister quits over security lapse

The Scotsman: Minister quits over lost files and biker gang links of ex-girlfriend

The Telegraph: Canadian foreign minister Maxime Bernier resigns over secret document row

ABC News: Canada's Foreign Minister Resigns

And there’s a few more here too.

That’s a whole lot of back. Thank-you, Stephen Harper, for restoring Canada’s position on the world stage.

Mission accomplished!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Federal/provincial environmental disagreement

You've probably heard by that it seems there’s a difference of agreement on environmental policy between a federal political party and its governing provincial cousins:

The Alberta government is spending $25-million to spruce up the province's image for tourists, immigrant workers and environmental critics. As for the environment part of the message, Alberta should save the money. Alberta's climate change policy will soon be dead. It will be dead in the United States. It is already dead with the Harper government, even if the Harperites don't want publicly to administer last rites. It's dead with some of the smart people in the oil industry.

Oh, you were referring to the difference of opinion in the Liberal camp, with Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty supposedly being at odds with Stephane Dion’s in-progress carbon shift proposal? OK, we can talk about that one too:

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is at odds with his Ottawa cousins over a key plan to tax carbon emissions, saying he'd prefer a cap-and-trade system for the country's most populous province over a carbon tax.

The tax, which is expected to be a central plank in the federal Liberal election platform, is one way to put a price on carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but his "first choice" for Ontario is a cap-and-trade system, McGuinty said Tuesday.

Let’s look at what Dalton is actually saying, and what he didn’t say. He didn't say he's against a carbon shift. He said is “first choice” would be cap and trade. And his brother, surely a trusted source (sure David is a federal Liberal MP, but what would Mom say if he misrepresented Dalton’s views?) backs that up:

David McGuinty downplayed concerns that the carbon tax plan could drive a wedge between the Ontario and federal Liberals.

He said he had a "general discussion" with his brother about the merits of one system over another, but the premier didn't express an opinion about carbon taxes.

"It was more of an exchange of ideas around the two possibilities, the two primary market mechanisms that can be harnessed to achieve the same end, which is a price on carbon," McGuinty said.

In fact, a federal carbon tax could complement a provincial cap-and-trade system, he said.

"I think what the premier's said is, 'Look, given the here and now of the specificity of the Ontario economy, and how we would like to go forward in pricing carbon, we would rather go with a cap-and-trade system first,"' he said.

"But I doubt very much the premier's ruling out the notion of a carbon tax shift."

So, there you go. Dalton isn’t against a carbon shift, he just feels that for Ontario, and the provincial level, cap and trade would be best. It’s Dalton’s job to advocate what’s best for Ontario. And it’s Stephane Dion’s to advocate what’s best for Canada. I’m confident the two positions are far from mutually exclusive.

Indeed, as David (and lots of experts, and much of Europe) has said cap and trade and a carbon shift would (and overseas, do) compliment each other nicely, so any talk of a rift here is just media over dramatization. Nothing in the story, no direct quotes, supports the headline.

And as I mentioned the other, one benefit of the way the Liberal Party is developing this policy, and the fact that it hasn’t been finalized yet, is that the concerns of Premier McGuinty and Ontario can be heard, considered, and factored into the final policy.

I hope, and I trust, that we’re consulting right now with our provincial cousins, or in David’s case with his brother, to ensure the input of Ontario, and all the provinces, is factored into the final carbon tax shift policy before it is unveiled so that we can develop a proposal for federal environmental policy that works in harmony with, and compliments, the important work being done by many provinces.

I think that, in the end, Dalton’s input will only lead to a stronger, more effective and widely accepted policy. That would be a win win for Ontario, and for Canada.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If national security...

…is suddenly so important to Stephen Harper perhaps he'll retroactively do the right thing and ask Helena Guergis to "resign" as well.

In a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Dion said Guergis, the secretary of state for foreign affairs, put his security at risk by revealing details publicly of his itinerary in Afghanistan during a visit last weekend.

Information on such visits is usually blacked out to protect dignitaries, and the soldiers accompanying them, from attack by Taliban insurgents. But in an email to reporters on Saturday, Guergis discussed plans of Dion and deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to visit the Provincial Reconstruction Team before the two men revealed them.

Since Helena still has a job it would seem more likely it's embarrassing The Leader, and not national security, that led to Bernier's departure.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A Liberal green shift, and policy development 2.0

The discussion that has been initiated by Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party around a green tax shift is an opportunity for a public policy debate, involving a wide swath of the Canadian populace, around how we as a nation should be addressing the challenges around the environment, carbon and pollution, and the economy.

Inevitably however, when politics are involved actual debate on the merits of the issue usually proves all but impossible. The Conservatives and sympathetic pundits, for example, are raising the gas tax bogeyman, saying the dastardly Liberals want to raise your gas tax and, I don’t know, use the proceeds to build a giant statue of Pierre Trudeau made out of gold with his middle-finger extended towards Calgary or something. This, of course, ignores the fact that a) the statue will actually be built out of bronze and b) the Liberals have made repeated statements to the contrary:

“The policy hasn’t even been announced yet and already the Conservatives are on the attack, claiming we want to put up gas taxes. Nothing is farther from the truth. We already have enough excise tax on gas at the pumps. There are no plans—repeat no plans—to increase the excise tax.” -- Michael Ignatieff

The gas tax bogeyman has also been raised by the NDP, reaffirming the old notion politics makes strange bedfellows. They’ve also added in some of their own flava however, playing the “big bad corporate bogeyman is going to get you, your children, and your little dog too” card, insisting the Liberals are in bed with big business to gouge the “average Canadian” and ensure the corporate fat cats can buy bigger swimming pools and faster private jets or something.

Frankly, I think our friends the “average Canadians” can see through such bogeymen, and would prefer an actual debate on the merits of a green tax shift, actual fact-based arguments for and against, rather than fear-mongery politics as usual smears. Polls are consistently showing an appetite to at least discuss a carbon shift, and a strong base of support for the idea. Even if the public doesn’t end up supporting it, I think they’re likely to look more favourably on those groups that attempt to engage them in discussion, rather than scare them by going Boogedy Boogedy Boo a lot.

Which is what makes the Liberal approach to developing their carbon shift policy so interesting. They’ve put the idea out there, laid out a very few broad brush-strokes (no gas tax increase) and have let the debate ensue. Environmental groups, the media, the other parties, and other groups are all commenting and putting in their two cents.

As Steve noted over the weekend, this gives the Liberals a chance to hear many of the attack lines from the opposing parties and factor them into the final policy, blunting their attack lines when the policy is actually released. That’s useful.

Politics aside though, it’s also a sharp change from the usual method of policy development. Usually, in a political party, policy is developed in one of two ways. There’s the formal mechanism, where resolutions begin at the riding level and move up through the party structure to the national biennial for adoption by the delegates. These are non-binding and are usually ignored by the parliamentary wing. Then there’s the election platform, developed by the leader’s office and campaign team, in consultation with pollsters, and usually/hopefully selected stakeholders and interest groups.

The way this carbon shift policy is being developed though holds promise for a new, more open, more democratized way to develop policy. Rather than just involving a few special interests, open up the process to the country. Lay-out the broad direction and let everyone help fill in the details. Discover potential problems before the final policy is written and solve them preemptively. The end result can be a more sound, grounded policy with a greater chance of wide acceptance.

If the devil is, as they say, in the details, this is one way of getting those details right the first time.

Of course, such a road isn’t without risk. I’ve laid them out before: giving the opposition a chance to define it before you have, poisoning the ground. It’s a bold experiment though, one that could pay dividends, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

My environmentalist is bigger than your environmentalist

In the mean time though, the opposing parties are stuck in the old politics as usual framework. Such as this NDP release of last week, which has been seized-upon today by many of their supportive bloggers.

The NDP attempts to claim the Liberals are in the pockets of Scrooge McDuck by quoting a few opponents to a carbon shift and implying the only person in favour of such a move is a pro-business lobby group.

That’s laughable. While I don’t think the NDP’s strategy of whipping our environmentalists out and asking Canadians whose is bigger is really the best way to debate environmental policy, for the record here’s just a few of the people that support such an idea. I’ll leave it to you to decide if size really does matter.

David Suzuki: Famed environmentalist David Suzuki has strongly backed Liberal leader Stephane Dion's emerging carbon tax plan and slammed the NDP and Conservatives.

After hearing the NDP's criticism of Dion's plan, Suzuki said: "I'm really shocked with the NDP with this. I thought that they had a very progressive environmental outlook."

"To oppose (the carbon tax plan), its just nonsense. It's certainly the way we got to go," he said Sunday on CTV's Question Period.

Stephen Hazell: Environmentalist Stephen Hazell, executive director of Sierra Club Canada, said Mr. Layton's comments are regrettable because a strong climate-change plan would include cap-and-trade measures as well as carbon taxes.

"The carbon tax has a huge advantage over cap-and-trade in that it can be put in place very quickly and deliver results very quickly, whereas cap-and-trade, it's taken Europe decades to get that one figured out," he said. "It's just regrettable that he's focusing on the negative."

Mr. Hazell said there are ways to ensure low-income people receive assistance so they are not hurt by carbon taxes.

"It just seems a little bit like pandering to us," he said. "They're pandering to people who are afraid about rising gas prices, the folks who would typically support the NDP. But we think it's alarmist and it's not helpful."

Elizabeth May: "We need to act on the climate crisis, and a carbon tax is a litmus test of whether a party is serious about it or not," May told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.

Layton's opposition to a carbon tax "is not part of the global social democratic approach," she said, adding his political rivalry with the Liberals may be driving policy.

The Green Party also advocates a carbon tax.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dion supports Insite while Harper and Clement dither, possible Hill hearings Thursday

Liberal leader Stephane Dion was on the left coast on Friday, and I was glad to see he used a speech there to reaffirm the Liberal Party’s support for the Insite safe-injection site.

"The site must stay open," Dion said during his Vancouver visit Friday, flanked by his B.C. caucus members and Insite supporters. "It depends on the will of the prime minister.

"I ask them to listen to science, not their ideology," he added. "The science is telling us that this facility is saving lives. It's as simple as that. It's a matter of life and death for many people."

The last Liberal government granted the facility a temporary permit, and the facility's current temporary permit is set to expire June 30; the Conservatives have been dithering on the future of the facility and appear to be gearing-up to kill it, despite the fact the science says its working, and so do the people in the community.

The Conservatives are trying to hide behind the science. Health minister Tony Clement says they’re waiting for more reports to be in. In fact though the science is in, it just doesn’t support the Conservative ideology.

University of B.C. Dr. Thomas Kerr, the top researcher for Insite, said it has improved public order, reduced needle-sharing among addicts and gotten them treatment.

"The science is in," he said. "This health facility works. It's saved lives that would have been lost to overdose."

Also:

Since the site's opening, scientists have been conducting studies on its effectiveness, and Thomas Kerr, one of the principal research scientists evaluating Insite, said the results are conclusive.

"Insite is doing what it was supposed to do. It improved public order. It has reduced HIV-risk behaviours, in particular syringe sharing and connected people to treatment," said Kerr. "There is no academic debate. This is good public policy," he added.

So, the science says the facility works. It saves lives. Some 22 peer-reviewed studies all support the facility. That’s a whole lot of science. But what do the people in the community say? Surely, if the Conservatives ignored the community, they’d listen to the people, right?

The head of the Chinatown Merchant Association, Albert Fok, joined Dion at the facility to give support to the site remaining open.

Chinatown, which is two blocks from Insite, is the neighbourhood closest to the Downtown Eastside and Chinese merchants had opposed the facility.

But within two years of its opening, Chinatown merchants say they saw a marked decrease in street crime and are now staunch advocates of keeping the facility alive.

"It's an undeniable fact that the optics have improved as a result of the opening of the site and it should continue to be open," said Fok.

Clement and Harper say this isn’t ideological. Well, the science is in, and it’s in favour. The people that live there, in the community, on the ground, and were once even opposed to the facility, now say it’s not only working, and not only say it should say, they say it’s actually reducing crime. Will this be enough for the government to give Insite the support it deserves or is this just all about ideology for them after all? It seems to me that the Cons are desperately trying to find any non-ideological reason to make a decision that supports their ideological bent, and they're failing spectacularly.

I wonder what John Reynolds would say about all this? You’ll remember he was the national co-chair of the last Conservative election campaign, and a former senior Conservative MP. He has also been a registered lobbyist for Project CAST. According to lobbyist registry data, he was retained by Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan to help obtain a “grant for drug rehabilitation in Vancouver” by lobbying MPs, Health Canada, Justice Canada and, yes, the Prime Minister’s Office. According to Vancouver council both CAST and Insite are important parts of a comprehensive strategy on drug use.

With just over a month left for Insite as things stand now, it looks like this issue will be heating-up in Ottawa this week as the HoC’s standing committee on health hold hearings on the facility. Here’s some of the details for Thursday’s hearings (via the Sun’s Frances Bula):

Please note that the meeting will take place from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Witnesses will be appearing before the Committee from 10 a.m. to approximately 11:50 a.m., either in person or by videoconference.

At 11:50 a.m., the Minister of Health, the Hon. Tony Clement, will be addressing the Committee and answering questions until 1 p.m. Witnesses are welcome to remain in the committee room during the appearance of the Minister if they wish to do so. The entire meeting will be open to the public.

Witnesses are asked to limit their presentations to five (5) minutes in order to accommodate the large number of persons confirmed to take part in the meeting and to allow sufficient time for questions from members of the Committee.

Here is the list of witnesses confirmed so far:
Dr. Julio Montaner, Chair of AIDS Research, University of B.C. (by videoconference)
Dr. Thomas Kerr, Chief Researcher for InSite, University of B.C. (in person)
Inspector Scott Thompson, Youth Services Section, Vancouver Police Department (in person)
Liz Evans, Portland Hotel Society (in person)
Dr. Neil Boyd, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University (by videoconference) Dr. Donald Hedges, Addiction Treatment Specialist (by videoconference)
M. Mario Gagnon, Director General, Point de Repères in Québec City (in person)
Mr. Donald MacPherson, Social Planning for the City of Vancouver (in person)
Mr. Philip Owen, Former Mayor for Vancouver

It should be interesting to hear what Clement and the other witnesses have to say, and particularly the tone and track taken by the Conservative questioners on the committee. One snag though: I can’t find any notice that the meeting is happening on the parliamentary Web site. The only meeting of the health committee the site shows scheduled is for Tuesday, with the subject “Statutory review of the 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care."

Could just be a Web site update issue, I don’t know. Anyway, if the meeting does happen hopefully Macleans.ca live-blogger extraordinaire Kady O’Malley will be able to add it to her committee live blogging schedule.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives to kill student loan program

The Canada Student Loans program is an institution that have helped millions of Canadians over the years pursue and obtain a higher education, allowing them to go on and becoming productive, higher-tax paying members of society that contribute to an improved quality of life for all Canadians.

Once again showing their disdain for Canada’s youth and for post-secondary education, I’ve learned that the Conservative government plans to kill the student loan program that so many Canadians, particularly those from low-income families, rely on to go to university or college:

“That’s it, we are cutting off all the student loan programs.” – Peter MacKay, Macleans, May 2008

This is absolutely ridiculous! Without the student loan program thousands of young Canadians will have to either drop out of university for lack of funds, either postponing their educations or abandoning it altogether, or take on second or third jobs to pay their way, either delaying their studies or leaving them so tired during classes their grades suffer mightily.

This Conservative action to cut off all student loan programs is ridiculous. It must not stand!

At a time when higher education is more important than ever to compete in an increasingly knowledge-based global economy we should be ENCOURAGING our your to go to university, we should be making it EASIER. Instead, the Harper Conservatives are ensuring university is a bastion of the privileged and the wealthy.

This is not the Canada I know. Shame Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay! Shame!

*Don't be frightened, They’re not really going to cut off all student loan programs. Peter was making a joke at a soccer game. Here’s the source of the quote for context. But if the Conservative Party can take quotes and twist them ridiculously out of context for Conservative.ca articles and even national TV ads, then I thought I could have a little fun, show they’re just as vulnerable to this kind of childish nonsense too, and highlight just how dumb their misleading communications strategy really is.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If yes to a carbon shift but just "not now", then when?

After the last post I’m all lobby-blogged-out, so I’m not going near that angle with a 10-foot poll. When it comes to the blogger brouhaha of recent days though between Kinsella and Cherniak, there’s one thing I’m confused about.

James Curran gets to the salient point in the comments thread here:

Of course lost in almost all this Jason bashing and Warren bashing is the fact that the point was lost by most of the commenters on both blogs Warren:

"I'm not saying no to a carbon tax. I'm saying no to a carbon tax now."

You're a strategist. I believe the intent was to say this is bad strategy and let's debate Carbon tax later. Of course, that seems to be lost on Jason as well.

That was my read of Warren’s argument as well, or at least his initial argument. He’s not necessarily against a carbon shift, he just thinks that at the current time it’s too politically risky, if not suicidal. That’s a perfectly valid and defensible position, and depending on how things go it could well turn out to be prophetic. I’ve said from the start that, while I think this is worth doing, the politics of this will be very difficult. If we do it right it can be a real winner; if not, well, I think I said suicidal. Many think it can be done.

It’s a judgment call on the politics; perhaps its wishful thinking colored by the fact we need to do something about the environment/carbon that leads me to be willing to take the political risk on this, but where I begin to question Warren’s analysis is when he uses high gas prices (which aren’t expected to be impacted by the Liberal program, or so the scuttlebutt says (release actual details please LPC!)) as an argument against a carbon shift initiative.

*Oh, and just in time for the weekend, gas has gone up again, and we're being told to get used to it. Time for a carbon tax shift!

*Forget about the fact that, with fuel prices having gone up a billion per cent in recent months, we already have a driver-deterring carbon tax.

Yes, gas prices are high. But here’s the thing: when haven’t they been high? And when exactly will they be low? And I don’t mean comparatively speaking. Sure, a year ago gas prices were lower than they are now. Five years ago dido. But that doesn’t mean a year ago, or five years ago, we felt gas was cheap. No, we were complaining a year ago about high gas prices. We were complaining five years ago. Although I’m a young (but aging quickly) 30, I can’t remember a time when we weren’t complaining about high gas prices. I remember in my youth prices were around 55 cents/litre and people complained it was high.

If you think a carbon shift is bad policy that’s fine, differing opinions and all that. But if you think a carbon shift may be good policy, but we shouldn’t look at it now because gas prices are high, well, just when should we look at it? I suspect we’ll either run out of oil or the ice caps will melt before people consider gas cheap, or even moderately priced.

If we think it's good policy we should do it now. If not we should start talking about a Plan B, because I don’t think the environment can afford for us to wait for cheap gas prices before we start tackling the carbon issue in a serious way.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Can anyone fix a revolving door?

If you have expertise in revolving door repair, the Conservative Party has a job for you. Their door is broken, you see, and all these dastardly lobbyists are making their way through it in and out of their government and party. And they’re totally against that sort of thing:

On November 4, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper unveiled his Federal Accountability Act before a room filled with journalists, MPs and staffers on Parliament Hill.

At the time, his party was issuing a daily barrage of accusations in the House of Commons about Liberal lobbyists and a culture of entitlement prevailing in the nation's capital.

The Conservatives had been pinning the government down in question period on a daily basis on what appears to be a revolving door that sees people go into government and then leaving, using their contacts to launch lucrative careers lobbying the government they once worked for.

In that speech, Harper made a very strong statement about what things would be like in a Conservative government that sent shockwaves through Ottawa.

"Politics will no longer be a steppingstone for a lucrative career lobbying government," Harper told the room. "Make no mistake. If there are MPs in this room who want to use public office for their own benefit or if there are Hill staffers who dream of making it rich by trying to lobby a future Conservative government, if that's true of you then you better make different plans or leave."

Sadly though, with the door broken there’s just nothing they can do:

*A little more than three weeks after Harper warned those looking to cash in to make other plans, four Ottawa lobbyists deregistered from lobbying for their impressive list of clients to take a seat in the Conservative war room.

*But critics point at lobbyists Yaroslav Baran, of Tactix Government Consulting Inc., and Ken Boessenkool, of Hill and Knowlton Canada, who were an integral part of the Conservative's war room during the winter election before registering to lobby the new government this spring.

Opps, wait, not so quick on Yaroslav:

*Baran, who has been a high-powered lobbyist at Earnscliffe Strategy Group, is expected to once again take up his post running communications in the Conservatives' war room when an election is called, as he has done in the previous two campaigns. The fact that the Conservatives have declared a ban on lobbyists in their war room this time around won't affect him.

That's because Baran is no longer a lobbyist - he deregistered just last week. He is leaving Earnscliffe and will join Conservative House leader Jay Hill's office next week as his new chief of staff, clearing the way for his key organizational involvement in the campaign that could be launched as early as next month.

Darned revolving door, someone fix it quick! Anyone!

*A Tory election strategist and former adviser to both the prime minister and public safety minister became a lobbyist for Taser International soon after use of its stun guns came under intense scrutiny.

Consultant Ken Boessenkool registered the Arizona-based Taser maker as a client on Nov. 28, two weeks after the videotaped death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski unleashed international outrage.

*The head of an industry lobby group that is airing third-party ads praising Prime Minister Stephen Harper has quit the organization to work for the federal Conservatives.

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.

*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.”

*Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is facing new questions about his life as an Ottawa lobbyist after awarding a $30 million contract to a firm he once did work for.

O'Connor, who once lobbied for General Dynamics Canada, yesterday announced that the military company was getting a two-year contract to supply the Canadian Forces with new gear to detect biological threats.

Records show that O'Connor lobbied Industry Canada, Department of National Defence and Public Works and Government Services in the late 1990s, all departments that were involved in the contract announced yesterday.

*Former Conservative MP John Reynolds, one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's closest political confidantes, defended Monday his decision to register as an unpaid lobbyist for three B.C. groups seeking federal funds.

Reynolds, who promised after retiring last year to never approach Harper on behalf of any client, registered this month on behalf of three groups -- the Rick Hansen Foundation into spinal cord injury research, Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan's initiative to fight drug addiction, and Vancouver's Science World, run by a not-for-profit society.

Reynolds will arrange meetings on behalf of Sullivan, make presentations and telephone calls, and submit written communications to Justice Canada, Health Canada, members of Parliament, and the Prime Minister's Office, the filing said.

*Two former aides to Conservative ministers, Kevin Macintosh and David Salvatore, have already left their jobs to lobby the federal government on behalf of private clients…A third staffer, Tara Baran, worked as a legislative assistant to MP Vic Toews until he became Justice Minister in February, but has since registered to lobby several government departments, including Justice Canada.

*Prime Minister Stephen Harper has replaced his director of communications with former lobbyist Sandra Buckler…Buckler represented the Conservatives on a number of television panels during the recent election campaign. She has also been a lobbyist for Coca-Cola, De Beers Canada, Rogers Wireless and Power Corporation.

So, as you can see this revolving door has really become a problem for the Conservatives. If you do have experience in door repair they’d love your help. I think this guy is accepting the applications:

The man poised to become Prime Minister Stephen Harper's top aide is a whip-smart workaholic who helped implement former Ontario premier Mike Harris's "Common Sense Revolution" and has recently pushed for tougher lobbying regulations.

As chief of staff to Harris until 2002, Guy Giorno became known as the "intellectual heart" of the premier's office.

Now, Conservative insiders hope his Ontario connections, political savvy and experience in battle will help Harper gain ground in Canada's most populous province, which remains a Liberal stronghold.

Until IT sets up his PMO e-mail though, you can still reach him here:

Partner

Guy Giorno is widely recognized as Canada's leading expert on lobbying legislation and lobbyist registration law. He is co-author of the book Lobbying in Canada and routinely speaks, writes and advises clients on this emerging, complex field of law.

Formerly Chief of Staff and counsel to Ontario's 22nd premier, Guy joined Fasken Martineau as a partner in June 2002 and founded our Government Relations and Ethics group, serving as its first national director. In addition to his focus on lobbying law, Guy has significant experience in public sector ethics, accountability legislation (including freedom of information), election and election finance law, strategic communication, crisis communication and issue management and stakeholder relations. During the 1990s he routinely represented public-sector institutions (respondents) in freedom of information appeals, but Guy now acts exclusively for requesters, helping them to exercise their rights to obtain government records under freedom of information/access to information legislation.

He’s sort of a revolving door expert himself actually, having come to Harper via the lobbying industry…

…and from Mike Harris, with love I’m sure. From government, to lobbyist, back to government. If Guy Giorno can't stop the revolving door, no one can.

UPDATE: I was going to comment but it became long so I decided to update instead.

My issue so much with this isn't really the revolving door, as the Liberals (as the Cons would always complain) did the same sort of thing. My issue is that the Cons piously campaigned against the revolving door, promised piously to close it, and instead have it spinning faster than ever before.

I support the registry, because it provides transparency and makes it clear who is doing what with whom. I support rules governing how lobbying can be done, rules on reporting, and rules on what can be accepted as gifts.

However, I actually don't support a an outright ban on the lobbyist/back and forth. Certainly not a 5-year rule. Maybe six months. But I don't think it's fair to restrict people's ability to make a living by saying an ex MP or staffer can't lobby for five years. Is it slightly distasteful that they're trading on their government contacts and experience? Yes. But that's life.

If I as a tech journalist "crossed to the darkside" as they say and went into PR, pitching or "lobbying" my former colleagues in the tech media for coverage, I'd be trading on my media and industry experience to get the job. That's little different from a staffer becoming a lobbyist. It's part of their qualifications for the job.

The key, again, is transparency. The back and forth in and of itself isn't wrong. Watch it through tools like the registry. Analyze it. If it becomes clear unusual decisions made in government, for example, were made to the benefit of future clients then that should be investigated and punished as appropriate. Even if no laws were broken, the public can be informed and a decision rendered at the ballot box. The back and forth doesn't become wrong unless they're abusing their positions.

Again, with my post though my issue was the flagrantly broken Conservative promise. Because even if I don't think the back and forth is wrong, they sure did. Or at least they said so.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

And if my grandmother had wheels...

...she'd be a wagon.

Brodie to leave as Harper's chief of staff

BRIAN LAGHI

Globe and Mail Update

May 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM EDT

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Chief of staff, Ian Brodie, is expected to leave the prime minister's office this summer, signalling a shake-up in time for a fall election.

Mr. Brodie is one of the prime minister's closest confidants. Sources said last night that Mr. Brodie is expected to leave in July. One of the rumoured potential replacements is a former chief of staff to ex-Ontario Premier Mike Harris, Guy Giorno.

Sources said Mr. Brodie made the decision before the delivery of a report looking into a leak of information regarding the NAFTA free-trade deal which influenced the Democratic Primary in the United States.

On a side-note, another Mike Harris disciple as his potential replacement. Goodie.

Looking forward to reading that report. And I'm sure Ian will land on his feet. I hear there may be a judicial opening in Manitoba...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

For the sake of clarity...

...if Stephen Harper and the Conservatives truly want to lay claim to the authorship and inspiration for the Clarity Act, then I think a massive ad campaign in the Quebec media is the way to go. I'd gladly chip-in $50 towards a full-page Conservative ad in La Presse affirming Stephen Harper as the true father of the Clarity Act, so Quebecers can at last know the truth. What'dya say, Steve? Frankly, I don't know why Harper hasn't been on the husitngs already in Quebec, going door to door if necessary, trying to correct this injustice of history...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cadscam isn't over

All the RCMP decision means is there isn’t enough information to support criminal charges. That’s no surprise, I said that months ago. Heresay isn't legally admissible, Chuck Cadman can't testify, and those that made the offer/s to him have no reason to fall on their swords. The RCMP didn't say the charges were false. They said they can't be proven in a court of law.

The fact remains, the behaviour of the Conservatives during the Cadman affair, and since it came to light, is sketchy and unethical at best.

The fact remains, the Conservatives have yet to come clean and answer very basic, simple questions about their behaviour and their actions. Instead, they have deflected and obfuscated.

The fact remains, the Conservatives have yet to offer a explanation for just what sort of offer they made to a man on his deathbed that makes any sense at all.

The fact remains, the Conservatives have not explained what Stephen Harper meant on that tape when he said “financial considerations” and they haven’t told us what Harper knew, and when.

And why is Dona Cadman still a Conservative candidate if the party thinks she made the whole thing up?

There are many unanswered questions, and Canadians are still owed proper explications. Here’s what we do know. The Conservative Party made some sort of offer involving “financial considerations” in an attempt to secure the vote of a man dying of cancer. I don't think that's in dispute.

Was there any illegality involved? I don’t know. Clearly, at this point there isn’t sufficient evidence to support any charges. This thing was never going to be settled in court though. The public will have its say in the next election, and the public doesn’t need the RCMP or the judicial system to tell it offering a dying MP “financial considerations” for his vote is disgusting and morally wrong.

And as for the Conservative libel lawsuit against the Liberals, why would it be dropped? First of all, even if it looked like the case would be lost, frankly I think the spectacle of discovery, a public jury trial, and Stephen Harper on the stand testifying about the Zytaruk tape, would be worth whatever the libel award would end up being. Pass the hat for donations on that one, I'll chip in $20 to see Harper et al on the stand, under oath.

However, this libel suit won't hinge on the merits of the allegations; it’s whether or not statements made inside the House of Commons can be repeated verbatim in a news release under the shield of immunity. The argument there is as strong today as it was yesterday, and frankly, with the potential ramifications of the Conservative opinion for new media and bloggers (could be we sued for reporting on debate in the HoC?) the issue shouldn’t be abandoned.

Cadscam over? Far from it. With the RCMP investigation out of the way, now there’s absolutely no reason why the parliamentary ethics committee can’t begin to look into this. I trust that, like some of their blogging supporters, the NDP will now support such parliamentary investigation.

Trust me, this thing is far from over. Canadians need answers.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Things that make you go eww

I’ve been trying lately to catch-up on my reading of MacLeans. The Rogers behemoth recently offered me a subscription for $1.50/month, finally dropping it down to a price I don’t mind paying.

And the mag isn’t really too bad these days, as long as you ignore Mark Steyn, Barbara Amiel (really, why does she have a job with you Macleans, seriously?) and the ridiculous editorials. There’s usually some pretty decent and informative articles in each issue, not to mention columnizing from Paul Wells and Andrew Coyne.

It was in a recent Wells column called “Generation Harper” that I came across this disturbing insight. I was at Manchu Wok at the time and somehow, I managed to hold-down my honey garlic chicken.

The bars don't rock until closing time with quite as many suit-clad political staffers on the make. Tory staffers — never, ever speaking on the record to journalists — admit there's a subtle in-group pressure to get married and start raising a proper brood of children.

Growing the next generation of Conservative voters with good, strong, pure conservative genes. Have another baby for Steve Harper, do your duty for the leader.

I just hope this party-mandated baby boom has nothing to do with this:

Bemused Toronto commuters were repeatedly informed that "Stephen Harper eats babies" after a hacker tampered with advertising signs on city trains.

I'll remind you Harper never denied the allegation...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We wanted policy and now we've got it. Sort of.

If there's been one lament from many Liberal bloggers such as myself over these past many months, it has been that the party hasn’t been talking policy near enough. OK, there’s actually been one other pretty big lament, but that’s a well-trodden other story. Well, now our call for policy has been answered. Sort of.

By now, everyone has heard the Liberals are thinking about implementing a carbon tax, a carbon tax shift, call it whatever you want. Actually, for those paying close attention the musing has been going on for some time. During the last round of by-elections, I attended an all-candidates debate in Toronto-Centre where the topic came up, and Liberal candidate (and now MP) Bob Rae spoke favourably of the idea. Green candidate Chris Tindal rightly said sounds great Bob, but that’s not current Liberal policy. Bob, who is one of those charged by Stephane Dion with drafting the policy platform, said trust me Chris, it’s on the way. It appears he was right. On a side note, there was strong support in the room for the concept. And on a cautionary note, I wouldn’t consider a by-election all candidates meeting audience in downtown Toronto representative of much of anything.

Anyway, on the plus side everyone is not only talking about a policy idea, but they’re talking about a Liberal policy idea. On the negative side, we’re not putting any details out there, there’s no meat on the bones. This could have a couple of consequences if not managed properly. For those like me, who are inclined to defend the idea, that’s though to do without knowing just how it will work. We can all speculate how we think it could/should work, creating confusion with differing models. People can fill it the blanks with their own hopes, and undoubtedly disappointing many when the actual details emerge. It’s also a vacuum for Conservative and NDP misinformation and distortion that is tough to counter without the actual plan. Well no, we’d never do it that way we can say, but we can’t say what we will do.

If we are trial-ballooning this thing, using the country as a free national focus group, that’s great. But if we don’t frame the debate, put it in context, put a little meat on the bones, then our opposition will define it negatively for us and sour our sample group, making the results meaningless and the policy stillborn. Long story short, if we’re serious about this we need details.

If done properly, and I think that’s the key caveat, I think this would be a good policy. Most Canadians would agree with the idea that those that pollute more should pay more. Green behaviour should be incented, wasteful behaviour penalized. As long as sensible mechanisms are built in to account for things like differences in rural and urban life, for example (long a blind spot in Liberal policy development, remember long guns) and it’s revenue neutral, and it’s put in the context of a wider green agenda and plan for a green economy, then I’m behind it.

What’s more, it’s a bold policy initiative that stakes-out strong green ground and speaks to an activist Liberal Party. It’s a chance to begin defining ourselves again, allow the electorate to see us in another light besides the QP scandal cut and thrust, and to engage with them again on our terms.

Can we sell it though? That’s the challenge, and that’s my big question. I’d like to channel Barrack Obama and say Yes We Can, but the honest answer is I don’t know, but I hope so. Can we figure out how to communicate this thing in a sound bite? That won’t be easy. We’ll need to, but we haven’t shown an aptitude for it in the past.

Take the last election, and the Conservative promise to cut the GST. Of course, they didn’t widely publicize the fact they planned to pay for it by cancelling previously granted Liberal income tax cuts, or, in other word, the Conservatives planned to raise income tax rates. Nearly every economist in the country (including, I’m sure, Stephen Harper) agreed this was a bad idea economically. Anyone that looked into the issue could see this was bad policy. But boy, was it good politics. We couldn’t get past that 5% GST sticker cash register photo-op. We had the right policy then, and they didn’t, but they sold it better, and they won.

I understand the view of those that say a carbon shift may be good policy, but its too hard to sell so we shouldn’t do it. I understand, but respectfully, I think that’s a cop-out. No matter how uphill the battle, some fights are worth fighting. Some fights need to be fought. And in this day and age, what fight can be more important than the environment?

If we only stand for things when they're easy to do, and not when they're hard, then do we really stand for anything at all?

Frankly, if we’re going to go down in the next election (not that I think we will) I’d rather go down fighting for something that we know to be right, fighting the good fight, then go down running a cookie-cutter, politics as usual, play it safe campaign designed by consultants and focus groups.

I think we can win this fight though, and the next election for that matter. Arm us with more details, and quickly, and start driving the debate rather than floating balloons. Don’t let the opposition define this thing before we do and pull the rug out from under us. Don’t do this half-assed. If we’re going to suit-up for this fight, let’s do it right.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why Bernier’s girlfriends do matter

It may be easy to dismiss these stories out of hand and avoid being seen as gossipy busy-bodies, but no matter how amusing a line Steve Harper’s speech-writers wrote for him, the fact is Maxime Bernier’s ex-girlfriend having ties to organized crime is relevant. And it must be hard for the Conservatives to pretend its not because it comes down to an issue they claim to be all about: national security.

Bernier is Minister of Foreign Affairs. As such, he has access to a great deal of confidential information concerning our national security, and makes critical decisions every day. He also holds a high-level security clearance. Associating with people that have links to organized crime opens him to potential compromise, which may well be why the RCMP questioned him recently about a photo of him with a Montreal man facing criminal charges.

Even if I was willing to dismiss the girlfriend thing, and I think it mainly shows bad judgment more than anything else, in rushing to Bernier’s defence Stockwell Day goes too far:

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day dismissed opposition complaints yesterday, saying the government has no business doing security checks on a cabinet ministers' families or partners.

While cabinet ministers and even members of Parliament must file conflict-of-interest reports that include the financial holdings of their spouses, Mr. Day said there is no reason to perform security checks on family members or partners.

Given some of the other initiatives Day and The Right have advocated in the name of “national security” his supposed squeamishness here is amusing. This is usually where he’d say ‘if you have nothing to hide…” But seriously, to argue no security checks should be done on the spouses of cabinet ministers? That’s a ridiculous argument, especially from Day.

Why does it matter? Well, like anyone else do ministers not confide in their partners about their jobs? Could that not involve confidential information? Do they not bring papers home, that the spouse would have access to? I think a background check is entirely relevant, given the circumstances. Then there’s the possibility of compromise and blackmail.

Because someone trying to get close to such a person to gain information is not outside the realm of possibility. Indeed, while I think there’s probably nothing to the Julie Couillard thing, the Gerda Munsinger affair puts lie to Day’s sweeping assertion we shouldn’t care who cabinet ministers date:

Munsinger was at the centre of a spy sex scandal that rocked Ottawa in the 1960s. The East German-born Soviet spy came to Montreal in the 1950s and ended up being involved with government officials in the John Diefenbaker government, including the associate minister of national defence, Pierre Sévigny.

She was deported in 1961 and the matter was quietly dealt with internally. But in 1966, a Liberal minister brought it up in the House of Commons. A media frenzy ensued and Munsinger was tracked down in Munich and confirmed the story.

All we’re talking about here is ensuring that someone who, by virtue of their relationship with a cabinet minister, gains potential access to confidential information, is not a security risk. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. And it certainly has nothing to do with gossip.

On Bernier though, I'll agree with those that say there are other, better reasons to go after him: he's a really crappy minister.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Contrasting Conservative rhetoric, and action, on transparency with Liberal action

You’ll remember that the last Conservative election campaign made a big deal about bringing transparency and accountability to government. Heck, they even had a whole plank in their platform dealing with access to information:

That was the Conservative rhetoric. The Conservative reality though, as we’ve seen, is completely different. And as we know it’s far from the first time the farce of Conservative promises and rhetoric have been exposed by their actions, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

The federal Conservatives have quietly killed a giant information registry that was used by lawyers, academics, journalists and ordinary citizens to hold government accountable.

The registry, created in 1989, is an electronic list of every request filed to all federal departments and agencies under the Access to Information Act.

Known as CAIRS, for Co-ordination of Access to Information Requests System, the database allowed ordinary citizens to identify millions of pages of once-secret documents that became public through individual freedom-of-information requests over many years.

With this latest action by the Conservatives to restrict access to information, from its war with the media to stalling committee investigations, I was reminded of concrete, tangible action taken by the last Liberal government.

It was the Liberals that in December 2003 took a major step forward in opening government to accountability by bringing-in a system of proactive disclosure of expenses by cabinet ministers, their political staff, and senior civil servants. Every quarter their expenses need to be posted publically on the department’s Web site, where citizens and media can scrutinize how the servants of the people are spending our money.

For example, go to the Ministry of Finance Web site, at fin.gc.ca. After picking your language, scroll down and you’ll find a link for proactive disclosure, click Travel and Hospitality Expenses, and then reports. Thanks to this system we can see, for example, that Jim Flaherty dropped nearly $10k on air fare to go to Tokyo for a G7 Finance Ministers meeting. Or that his communications director, Dan Miles took a journalist to Ottawa’s Eggspectation and dropped $18.90 on the meal. (Hopefully the PMO doesn’t find out a Conservative staffer dined with a reporter, even if he or she bought their own eggs!)

You’ll find similar disclosure reports on all ministerial Web sites. Such tools are a great resource for the media and the public to hold ministers and staff accountable for their spending. Indeed, the very existence of the system, and knowing that their expenses will be made public, have led ministers and staff to curtail their expense spending.

That’s transparency and accountability, courtesy a Liberal government. Given that the Conservative style of accountability seems to be closing CAIRS and curtailing disclosure, one wonders how long it will be before they kill proactive disclosure of ministerial expenses too?

On a funny side note, on the main Finance Ministry page on proactive disclosure they have a little blurb on the history of the program, including a link to the PMO Web site on ethical conduct. Open the link and you get:


A blank page. Too funny. And very appropriate.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A tragically dumb column

The dumb column of the day award goes to Conservative apologist Don Martin, who coughed-up this embarrassing entry in the National Post:

Dead ducks are no 'tragedy'
Let's stop tarring and feathering Syncrude
Don Martin, National Post Published: Tuesday, May 06, 2008

CALGARY -Stephen Harper does not empathize easily.

The Prime Minister values self-reliance and a suck-it-up mentality in Canadians confronted by difficult circumstances and, except for cats, this feline fan doesn't fret about problems in the animal kingdom.

Which is why Mr. Harper's "terrible tragedy" designation for 500 unfortunate ducks that picked a toxic Syncrude oilsands sludge pond for their final dip last week, a casualty count that could be inflicted by just 55 hunters in a single day under Alberta duck-hunting limits, was so uncharacteristic.
(more)

Shorter Don Martin: F**k the ducks.

He’s completely off base. If Don dislikes overblown rhetoric though, he’d do well to advise to advise Stephen Harper to get serious about environmental protection in the oilsands, and move away the industry self-police mantra so favoured by the right towards real protection and real enforcement to balance the oilsands development with the good of the environment.

Fact is, if Harper didn’t have zero credibility in this area he wouldn’t have to call it a tragedy. Indeed, he’s overcompensating because he’s seen as an industry stooge and, as Don noted, people get very sensitive when it comes to animals.

Another shorter Don Martin: Leave the poor oil companies alone!

There's the possibility this incident could be a canary in the mineshaft. It should be fully investigated by the appropriate authorities, punitive actions taken as allowed for my legislation, and steps taken to ensure it doesn't happen again. That would be an even greater tragedy. The oil companies are making very good money in the oil sands, and they have a responsibility to us to ensure they're doing so as safely and cleanly as possible.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Summer tour a good idea

If we're not going to have an election this spring, then I like what I’m reading in The Hill Times for a planned summer tour of the country by Stephane Dion. And not just because I was calling for him to do this last summer.

Also positive is not only is a high-profile Quebec Liberal MP being quoted on the record in the media saying positive things about Dion and the party, but that Pablo Rodriguez and Denis Coderre are planning to role their sleeves up themselves this summer and blitz all 75 Quebec ridings on behalf of the part.

"He will be touring but a lot of us will be touring also. For Mr. Dion, it's a great opportunity to get better known. He's a man, the more you know him, the more you like him. So, being close to the people and having a chance to talk directly with Canadians will be very good," said Mr. Rodriguez.

"[The purpose of this tour is] Making sure that Canadians understand what we stand for and this is very very important for us. We have to communicate our message a little bit better and explain the key differences between us and the Conservatives on the environment on social issues."

This is the kind of on the ground grunt work we need to be doing to grow our support in the polls. That, and bringing down this government at some point soonish.

And on a lighter note, get a hold of this laugher from Conservative MP Mike Wallace:

"We have a great record to be running on in the next election. There's not one of our top five promises that they could point to that we did not move on. And on the ethics issue, in my public meeting, not one question on those issues. We have been running a solid clean proactive government since we were elected in January 2006," said Mr. Wallace.

Yeah Mike, and I’m starting at small forward next season for the Toronto Raptors.

I recognize the need to tow the party line in public, but how can people say crap like that without busting out laughing hysterically?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

CPC: Dupes and blind followers are IN, independent free thinkers are OUT

Another day, more interesting developments in the Conservative In and Out Scandal. Today we learn that Conservative candidates who were likely to say “hey, this allegedly sounds like a blatantly transparent attempt to circumvent our election laws, and enrich ourselves at taxpayer expense, and I question its legality” were pre-screened from participating.

Louise O'Sullivan, Conservative candidate in the riding of Westmount-Ville Marie and a former member of Montreal's executive committee, said her background in business and in municipal politics would have immediately prompted her to question the transaction.

"I don't think they would have done it with me because they knew that I was tied in to municipal (politics). ... They would have been afraid of me."

O'Sullivan described the other west-end Montreal Conservative candidates who agreed to the transfers as "all the 'yes' people."

"I was not approached and I wouldn't have accepted it," said O'Sullivan.

As Elizabeth Thompson writes in the Montreal Gazette, O’Sullivan’s campaign and riding fit all the criteria the Conservatives were looking for in In and Out participants:

In an email Dec. 15, 2005, Michael Donison, national executive director for the Conservatives, suggested the party look at some suburban Montreal ridings.

"I have been speaking to Paul Lepsoe," he said, referring to the party's lawyer. "He has suggested that surely there are contiguous ridings that we could include on the list - for instance what about all the Montreal South Shore? None of those campaigns can or will spend very much and could make their caps available."

Throughout it all, O'Sullivan and riding president Sean Ahern say they never got a phone call - even though her riding encompassed the highly visible western half of downtown Montreal.

Perhaps this riding was missing one key ingredient after all: a pliable candidate either willing to overlook the dubious ethic and legal status of the In and Out scheme, or one too daft to notice.

Lastly I just love the lame defence offered-up by Ryan Sparrow. You’ll remember him as the ringmaster of the top-secret roving press briefings. I wonder who was paying Ryan's salary when he coughed up this:

However, Conservative Party spokesman Ryan Sparrow said the fact O'Sullivan wasn't asked is evidence that there wasn't a grand plan.

"It continues to prove that the Liberal accusations that ridings were simply chosen to participate in order to receive a rebate is ridiculous. All the ads that aired were properly 'tagged' and all the rules were followed."

Grand plan? No way. No master strategy. No intelligent, rational thought and consideration. We just pulled it out of our asses and made it up as we went along, Ryan seems to say. That would seem to put lie to the Steve Harper, strategic genius myth, but I’m not buying it.

He also mangles the Liberal position but life is short and I'm voting no confidence in his communications skills. Besides, it’s a beautiful sunny day here in Los Angeles and I have a secret media briefing to get off to.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers