Picking our winning issues

Much has been written about the horse race polling data of late, with nearly every reputable polling firm showing a virtual dead-heat between the Liberals and the Conservatives. That means either party can win the next election, and the race will come down largely to campaign execution. And that success will be determined, in large part, by the issues each party decides to focus on.

In it's latest polling release, Harris Decima has the horse-race at:

Liberals: 34 per cent
Conservatives: 33 per cent
NDP: 15 per cent
Greens: 9 per cent
BQ: 7 per cent

As I said, these numbers have already been heavily analyzed, and indeed have been largely static for some time. More telling, and where I'd like to focus, is on the issue numbers.
The pollster asked respondents to consider a list of issues, and indicate how important each would be in determining which party they will cast their vote for. This is important, because they're not just asked if they care about the issue, but how much it will move their vote:


As you can see from the chart, health care is still the clear issue leader for Canadians, ranked as extremely important to voting intention by 31 per cent of Canadians and very important by 55 per cent. Following are managing the economy, trust in the leader and the environment.

This next chart asks those who said each issue is important to ask them which party they're confident is best able to handle that issue.

I think it's important to note their methodology here. As I understand it, they only asked those who ranked an issue as extremely or very important to chose the party they have confidence in to handle it. I think that gives different results than if they'd asked everyone to pick a party for each issue. For example, supporters of party X could be more likely to feel issue A is important than supporters of party Y, so they'd be more heavily weighted in answering their party as the one to handle the issue.

Nevertheless, here's the numbers, and I think there are still some insight to be gleaned from them:


As you can see, the Conservatives score highest on defence, taxes, managing the economy and making tough decisions and trust in the leader. The Liberals lead on foreign affairs, health care, child care, aboriginal affairs and the environment. Interesting to note that, on trust in the party, they're tied; if the Liberals can get Dion's numbers up that shows growth potential. Lest I leave out the NDP, their best areas look to be child care and aboriginal affairs.

So, what are we to take from these numbers? The Conservatives are likely to run an election on Stephen Harper as the steady leader (and Dion as not) best able to manage the economy through these tough times, with a dose of lower taxes tossed-in.

My advice for the Liberals: tie the environmental/Green Shift message in with a wider platform and plan for the economy. Put a plan forward, emphasize our solid economic credentials taming the deficit and returning record surpluses, and attack the Conservatives HARD on their undeserved reputation on the economy. The Conservatives only have a six-point margin on managing the economy, and its the second top issue for Canadians. They're vulnerable here.

Tie-in health care too (the environment is a health issue), and lead with a comprehensive health care policy. Not only is it the top issue for Canadians, not only is it an issue where we have an advantage, but it's an issue where the Conservatives are vulnerable. We're still waiting for any action on wait-times, their missing fifth priority. Child care is also somewhere that we should be spending some time along with, while its not listed here, fighting childhood poverty.

To close, here's the analysis from Harris/Decima's Bruce Anderson:

“Canadians are gearing up for an election. Although they weren’t sure they wanted one, they seem mostly accepting of the idea that there will be one. As the parties approach the starting gate, it seems clear that the Conservatives are stronger than the Liberals in the west, but the Liberals are comparatively strong east of Manitoba. Canadians show good levels of confidence in the Conservatives on taxes and defence, but like the Liberals more on social issues and the environment. For the Liberals to win, they need to draw soft NDP, BQ and Green Party voters, be vigorously competitive on economic issues, and play up environmental and possibly foreign policy differences as well, taking into account the debate south of the border on world affairs. For the Conservatives to win, they need to illustrate convincingly why they are a better choice for the economy and taxes, and make the case that they offer more appealing leadership. The outcome may ultimately rest, as it has in the last two elections, on the question of whether the campaign is highly polarizing: and if so, whether the polarization serves to galvanize and grow even by a little bit, the Conservative support pool, and whether it results in the migration of Green and soft left voters towards the Liberals.”

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Blair Wilson: Not the standard-bearer the Greens would have hoped for

I've long held a soft-spot in my political heart for the Green Party, and so I'm pleased they at long last have their first MP, even if he wasn't elected under the Green banner. I also think that Elizabeth May should be in the leaders' debates, and this should help make that happen. It's really unfortunate, though, that their standard-bearer, the person who will go down in history as the first Green MP in Canada, had to be Blair Wilson.

It really should have been Elizabeth May. And she may well still end up being the first elected Green MP, as I think she's going to give Peter McKay a real run for his money in Central Nova.

This should really be a big day for the Green Party, and for all supporters of democracy in general. In some ways, it still is. But it's tainted by the person they've cast to fill this historic role.

The fact is, there's a reason why Blair Wilson was asked to leave the Liberal caucus, and there's a reason why his repeated pleas, both public and private, to re-join the Liberal caucus were firmly and soundly rejected. Blair Wilson is not MP material.

After a long investigation by Elections Canada the 24 allegations of campaign finance irregularities against him were reduced to three, which he acknowledged as violations as entered into a compliance agreement with Elections Canada.

He was asked to leave caucus, though, because he hid a laundry list of legal disputes from the party when he sought and accepted the Liberal nomination, and repeatedly refused to cooperate when word of the allegations began to come out.

The list of allegations unearthed in an investigative series by the Vancouver Province last fall, including failed business dealings, friends and investors and suppliers left holding the bag, lawsuits and more, reads like a soap opera:

Among the allegations against Wilson, The Province has learned:

- Wilson did not report campaign expenses to Elections Canada and paid for supplies off the books, in cash, a breach of the act.

- Wilson and his wife, Kelly, borrowed roughly $1.9 million from his in-laws to purchase six properties, and much remains unpaid despite the fact they have sold some homes.

- Wilson and his wife were subject to Social Services Tax Act liens on three properties and owe $2.1 million in bank mortgages.

- Wilson misled the media about the true extent of his business success, exaggerating the number of restaurants he founded and claiming to have sold an accountancy business his in-laws claim closed, among other discrepancies.

- Wilson lost hundreds of thousands of family investors' money in the stock market and yet billed them for management fees.

- Wilson's two restaurants, Mahoneys and Wilson's Steakhouse, closed. He was taken twice to the B.C. Employment Standards Tribunal for refusing to pay employees, was sued twice for failing to pay contractors, was twice compelled by the courts to pay GST owing, and was also taken to court by a supplier over $33,839 that was owed (this amount was later paid).

- Wilson bought extravagant gifts for a girlfriend in Poland while working for a restaurant chain called Pan Smak Pizza Inc.

And yes, if you're wondering, Blair is married. Perhaps his time in Poland will help him in his new role as the Green Party's immigration critic. A second article has even more on the business history of Blair Wilson, and the damage and losses he left in his wake.

All this history, which should have been disclosed to the party as a matter of course, was hidden by Wilson when he applied to be a candidate, and would likely had disqualified him from running had it been known. That's why he wasn't allowed to run for the Liberals again. He has consistently failed to demonstrate the ethics, honesty and integrity that should be expected of a Member of Parliament. If a person isn't going to be open and honest with the party, how can he be trusted to run under its banner?

Interestingly, it seems like it's those that know Blair Wilson best, those that have been close to him, that feel most strongly that he is unfit for public office.

Like former NHLer Tony Tanti, who lost the $50,000 he invested in a Wilson business:

Tanti, for one, says he can let his $50,000 loss go, but not his worries about Wilson's suitability for office.

"My concern about the whole thing, him getting into politics, [is] if he is doing that to so-called friends and everything else, what is he going to do when he's got [public] money in his hands?

"My $50,000 was a lot of money, but it's not going to change my lifestyle. But now he has public funds. That's my biggest concern."

And Wilson's own father-in-law, Bill Lougheed, who had to resort to legal action over unpaid loans to Wilson:

The Lougheeds claim Wilson misrepresented himself to voters in his riding, pretending to be a wealthy politician while he was secretly saddled with enormous debts. Wilson's defaulting, Lougheed feels, makes the MP "not fit for public office."

Lougheed feels the MP's "insatiable need for money" and the fact that he's "living beyond his means" has put his family in jeopardy.

And friends who themselves volunteered for Wilson's campaigns have told me some unsettling stories about the experience, and his suitability for office.

In announcing Wilson's move to the Greens, May claims to have investigated all this and to be satisfied with his explanations. I just hope that, in her desire to have this historic announcement, and to secure her place in the debates, she hasn't made decision she will one day come to regret.

Wilson likes being an MP. He likes the prestige, the perks, the attention. He has been pushing for months to get back into caucus, and as late as mid-August he was pushing the caucus to consider the matter when it meets next week in Winnipeg. To his credit, Stephane Dion bluntly told him it wasn't going to happen. Only then, with an election imminent, did Wilson make his move to the Greens.

Is getting their first MP and getting into the leaders' debate worth getting into bed with someone like Blair Wilson? I suppose time will tell. I just feel bad for my Green friends that this is how this historic day had to happen. Given the long-held commitment of the Green movement to democracy, honest and integrity, this can't be quite how they would have pictured this day.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Greens have an MP!

This is big, surprising news. According to the Globe and Mail, MP Blair Wilson, formerly of the Liberal Party, is about to become the Green Party's first member of parliament:

OTTAWA — The Green party is poised to announce it has its first federal member of Parliament - even before an anticipated fall election call.

Green party Leader Elizabeth May will introduce former Liberal MP Blair Wilson as a Green MP at a news conference this morning in Ottawa.

The Vancouver MP was turfed from the Liberal caucus after revelations of spending irregularities in his 2006 campaign.

He's been sitting as an Independent.

Let me say I agree with the reasons Wilson was expelled from the Liberal caucus, and I agree with the decision not to re-admit him.

That said, I think it's great that the Green Party finally has its first MP. It's just unfortunate that it's unlikely he'll ever have the chance to sit in the House of Commons under the Green banner, with an election call almost certain before the House returns.

Assuming he runs for re-election under the Green banner, this will make things a little more interesting in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, a riding the Conservatives were eying as a sure pick-up (it was John Reynold's old riding).

More importantly, this should make it impossible for Green Party leader Elizabeth May to be denied a spot in the televised leaders debates in the next campaign. I sincerely hope that Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe will now do the right thing and join Stephane Dion in calling for May to be allowed to participate in the debates.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives wanted LOWER listeria standards

Stephen Harper and Gerry Ritz are talking tough now about strengthening our food safety system, after a listeria outbreak has led to the death of at least 15 people. And Tony Clement is down in Denver making macabre jokes. But before? Before the crisis they were doing everything they could to weaken the system:

OTTAWA — The Canadian government strongly opposed tougher U.S. rules to prevent listeria and lobbied the United States to accept Canada's more lenient standards, internal documents reveal.

Briefing notes prepared by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for an April 7, 2006, meeting with the board of directors of the Canadian Meat Council outline how both industry and the Canadian government were frustrated with the increased precautions the United States was demanding.

Specifically, Canada opposed daily inspection visits and the testing of finished products for Listeria monocytogenes.

Further, the documents show the CFIA agreed to the meat packing and processing industry's request to end a 20-year-old practice of having inspectors issue reports and rankings on facilities. The Canadian Meat Council complained the reports were ending up in the hands of reporters through the Access to Information Act, leading to bad coverage.

Yes, we wouldn't want the media to find out which plants were failing inspections and not meeting standards, would we? They would tell the public, and the public might decide to buy their food from the safer plants, forcing the bad plants to either improve or go out of business.
That would be...wait a minute, isn't that exactly how the free market is supposed to work?

The government documents indicate Canada's meat producers were frustrated that they must add more stringent safeguards to their production lines when producing meat for export to the U.S. market.

"Industry would prefer a single set of standards for both the Canadian and American market," states the document prepared by Dr. Richard Arsenault of the CFIA, anticipating what meat council board members would tell CFIA at the meeting. "[The CMC] will also express their frustration about the recent [United States Department of Agriculture] imposition of product testing for Listeria monocytogenes and of daily visits in U.S.-eligible meat processing plants."

When it comes to something as fundamental as food safety, we shouldn't strive for the lowest common denominator. And in certainly seems in hindsight like more listeria testing would have been wise. If we need to harmonize standards, and given the heavily export-driven nature of our economy I think that makes sense, shouldn't we harmonize to the highest standard?

Gerry Ritz thinks so...now, after the crisis has erupted:

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, who is responsible for the CFIA, hinted this week that Canada might move toward U.S. practices of preventing listeria, such as the pasteurization of packaged meat.

But before the crisis his department was taking a different track:

But the documents reveal the CFIA lobbied the United States to adopt Canada's rules.

"The CFIA is working at bilateral levels to convince the USDA that its system is equivalent to theirs in order to minimize the need for extra import rules," the document says.

It's easy for Stephen Harper and Gerry Ritz to say now, after 29 confirmed cases of listeriosis and the death of 15, that they support higher standards. But these documents and the documents released previously show their true thinking on the matter.

It's their thinking then, before a crisis erupted, before the public and media glare was on them, that showed their true judgment. And they had it completely wrong. They're only now being shamed into stronger action by the glare of the public spotlight, following the eruption of a food safety crisis.

On how many more issues, on how many more matters that have yet to become a crisis, have they and are they now executing this same bad judgment? On how many more issues, on how many of the little, every-day decisions of governing that are so impactful on the country, are they donning they applying their ideological mantras to their decisions instead of governing in the best interests of all Canadians?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tony Clement must apologize or Stephen Harper must fire him

Some 15 deaths have been linked to the listeria outbreak and the Maple Leaf Foods recall, and more are likely to come. It’s a public health crisis.

And where is Tony Clement, the minister of health in Canada’s Conservative government? Is he working on the issue? No. He’s down in Denver, making jokes at their expense: (H/T Pogge)

The Canadian government sponsored a swish lunch reception at its consul-general's Denver residence.

The food included bite-sized bits of beef, shrimp, tortellini and potatoes gratin. Health Minister Tony Clement, whose absence from Canada during the tainted meat crisis has not gone unnoticed, was there and introduced himself:

"I'm Health Minister Tony Clement, and I have to say I approved this food."

No one is laughing, Mr. Clement. There’s nothing funny about the death of 15 Canadians. This is not a joking matter.

Tony Clement needs to apologize to the people of Canada immediately, and especially to the families of the 15 Canadians who have died because of this outbreak. And if he doesn’t, Stephen Harper needs to fire him.

We’re waiting Tony.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper and Listeria: The wrong priorities and the wrong leadership for Canada

Can we draw a direct line between the Stephen Harper Conservatives and the listeria outbreak that has killed at least six (and now Quebec cheese is being recalled) in the same way the Walkerton tragedy can be traced back to cuts by the Mike Harris Conservatives? Perhaps not, although there is an argument to be made for "prime ministerial responsibility."

You can say, however, that the listeria situation serves to highlight exactly why Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party are the wrong people to be running this country. It serves to highlight that their ideological motivations and beliefs are in contradiction to the wishes, the desires, and the best interests of Canadians.

Yesterday, Maple Leaf Foods president Michael McCain fell on his sword, saying its his company that should shoulder the blame for this tragedy:

Also Wednesday, the president of Maple Leaf Foods said his company should bear the responsibility for the distribution of meat that led to the outbreak, effectively absolving the Canadian food safety system of blame.

"This week, it's our best efforts that failed, not the regulators or the Canadian food safety system," Michael McCain said at a separate news conference Wednesday in Toronto.

"I emphasize: This is our accountability and it's ours to fix, which we are taking on fully. We have and we continue to improve on our action plans," he said.

That's all well and good. The company is to blame he says, not the system. Well, the fact is we learned recently that the Harper government wanted to blow-up our food safety system. Harper and Gerry Ritz and Mike Harris-crony Tony Clement wanted to take government out of the equation, and turn responsibility for the safety of our food system over to the industry. To let them police themselves, so to speak.

A government plan to transfer key parts of food inspection to industry so companies can police themselves will put the health of Canadians at risk, according to leading food safety experts who have reviewed the confidential blueprint.

The plan, drafted by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and approved by the Treasury Board, details sweeping changes coming to food inspection in Canada.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is also ending funding to producers to test cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease) as part of a surveillance program, the document indicates, a move that is expected to save the agency about $24 million over the next three years.

The new system, part of a push to trim the agency's budget by five per cent, was approved last November, but a public announcement "has been deferred owing to significant communications risks," according to the confidential Treasury Board document obtained by Canwest News Service.

The document, addressed to the president of the agency, details how the inspection of meat and meat products will downgrade agency inspectors to an "oversight role, allowing industry to implement food safety control programs and to manage key risks."

Leading food safety experts, who reviewed the document, say the plan is a recipe for disaster.

We learned about these secret plans to gut Canada's food inspection system when a public servant blew the whistle and made them public. The government responded by firing the whistle blower, musing about criminal charges, and praising the person that outed the whistle blower. And they're stonewalling a parliamentary committee on the issue.

Speaking of Ritz, he too was insisting yesterday that the government system did its job in the listeria case:

Federal inspectors in charge of overseeing health standards at a Maple Leaf Foods processing plant at the centre of a deadly outbreak of listeriosis were doing their job properly, Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said Wednesday.

Ritz, joined by members of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada at a news conference in Ottawa, denied allegations that the federal inspector responsible for the plant was mired in paperwork and was not present on the floor of the plant.

Let's review. Both industry and government say it's industry that fell down here, and the government wasn't to blame. Harper is promising “reforms” to the system.

And what reforms were Ritz and Harper considering before this outbreak? They wanted to hand over the government's role to industry. That's right. They wanted to ax the side that they all say was working, and turn it over to the side they all say failed.

The conservative mantra of industry self-regulation makes no sense, and conservative ideology can't be allowed to dictate food safety policy in this country. Contrary to what Harper, Ritz and Clement were cooking-up, we need a BIGGER role for the CFIA and the government when it comes to food safety inspections, not a SMALLER role. Industry self-inspection is NOT the answer.

I think the CFIA needs to do a much better job. I think it needs to be reformed. But the answer isn't conservative ideology. When it comes to food safety, big government isn't a bad word. REGULATION isn't a bad word. We shouldn't be proposing cuts to the CFIA like the Conservatives. We should be investing more heavily in the CFIA, making sure it has the tools to perform its vital oversight role.

Conservative ideology being applied to arts funding is bad enough. We don't need it applied to something as vital as the safety of our food supply.

We don't know what happened yet, but we know the Conservative cuts are not the answer. I shudder to think what would have happened had the Conservatives had the chance to push these cuts through, and carry out their plan for industry self-policing. That they were even thinking of this is frightening. It's a failure of judgment, and we shouldn't give them another chance to make such a mistake.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Green Shift can benefit Alberta

Former Alberta Liberal leader and current Senator Grant Mitchell has an op/ed piece in the Edmonton Journal today, where (in my view) he argues rather persuasively that, despite the uninformed fear mongering of the anti-environment conservative right, the Green Shift is actually a very good thing for Alberta

And don't listen to those that call this plan complicated. It's really quite simple: big tax cuts on income, tax increase on carbon and pollution. Less tax on good stuff, more tax on bad stuff. Seems simple to me. The only difference between the Liberal plan and the others is that we give you tax cuts; with the others you'll just be out of pocket.

The Conservatives are all stick. We're including a big carrot.

Stéphane Dion is offering us the kind of politics that we say that we want. He has taken a stand on the Green Shift to deal with the climate-change crisis in a way that no self-serving politician would ever do. He has accorded Canadians and Albertans the level of respect they deserve for their intelligence and thoughtfulness.

The Green Shift premise is this: Let's stop taxing those things we want to encourage like income and profit, and start taxing those things we must discourage, like greenhouse gases (GHGs).

The money raised from GHGs will be used to reduce income and corporate taxes, create further tax benefits for families, provide additional support for low-income Canadians, and help rural and Northern Canadians meet their particular fuel demands.

Canada's auditor general will confirm that the shift will be revenue neutral, in an annual audit required by law.

It seems so anachronistic, so 19th-century, to continue to tax income and profit, when there is a far less acceptable output in our economy to tax.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper's Arctic promises melt faster than the ice cap

There must be an election coming. Stephen Harper is in Canada’s North, and he’s making big promises:

In an Ottawa statement designed to set the tone for his trip, Mr. Harper announced $100-million for a major project to map the Far North's mineral and petroleum wealth.

"Use it or lose it is the first principle of sovereignty in the Arctic," he said just before he flew to Inuvik, 200 kilometres north of the Arctic Circle and the northernmost Canadian town that's accessible by road. (Inuvik locals also boast of having the northernmost traffic stoplight, which is anchored in the permafrost outside Mr. Harper's hotel.)

The Prime Minister's trip is scripted as a pre-campaign tour, with each day to include an announcement related to one aspect of his northern policy, first on the economy, with geo-mapping, then the environment, then sovereignty.

Sound familiar? It should. During the last election campaign, Harper was delivering the same talking-points on the Arctic. Here’s a snippet from a Toronto Star story dated Dec. 23, 2005, the middle of the last campaign:

After a week spent pushing back against the perception the Liberals are best placed to handle the nettlesome issue of national unity, Harper yesterday set his sights on demonstrating his party will be able to assert Canada's continental role.

He unveiled the Tory strategy to protect Canada's Arctic sovereignty, a $3.5 billion plan that includes the construction of three new troop-carrying icebreakers, a remote-sensing system to detect the presence of foreign vessels, an Arctic army training centre, and a deep-water naval and civilian port in Iqaluit.

The party would also bolster air patrols, deploy unmanned drones in the region and increase the ranks of the Canadian Rangers, aboriginal militia who travel throughout the most remote areas of the Arctic.

"We would hope that an aggressive approach to our sovereignty would persuade countries to respect that sovereignty and to obviously deal with us before they send vessels in our water," Harper said, adding "sovereignty is something that you use it or you lose it."

Sound familiar? As I said, he recycled the talking points from 2005 for this year’s trip. Now, though, after some two-and-a-half years in government, he has a record of incumbency to consider. That allows us to go beyond his talking points and look at his record of achievement, or lack thereof.

And he did make some big promises, didn’t he?

a $3.5 billion plan that includes the construction of three new troop-carrying icebreakers, a remote-sensing system to detect the presence of foreign vessels, an Arctic army training centre, and a deep-water naval and civilian port in Iqaluit.

Those were the promises. The reality? Far, far less:

Advocates of a robust Arctic strategy note the government has scaled down its plans on the military side. Instead of three new armed icebreakers, for example, the government now says it will build one new icebreaker and buy up to eight Arctic patrol vessels with limited icebreaking ability.

Limited ice breaking ability as in they can only operate in the summer. Useful. And up to eight actually means six. And the procurement process is delayed. So we might see then in 2015. If we’re lucky. And much of the rest of the 2005 promises remain just that: promises.

Promises that may never be realized, according to defence analyst David Jones in an June 27, 2008 Ottawa Citizen column that was scathing of the Conservatives’ much discredited "Canada First Defence Strategy":

But will this come to pass? There is a tendency by outside observers to say, "better than nothing" or "maybe it will work out."

Bluntly, however, an analyst must be skeptical given historical perspective. There has been a Canadian tradition of vast plans connected with half vast implementation. (Remember the Mulroney-era fleet of nuclear submarines?) The real costs of items such as the Arctic icebreaker(s) and the Nanisivik base may prove beyond fiscal justification. The projected increased funding (over 20 years, no less) is hypothetical -- based more on a continued Tory government than any bi- or multi-partisan commitment to significantly improved defence. Likewise, the equipment procurement (and the personnel increases) can be canceled

And indeed, those original promises have been whittled down so substantially as to be barely recognizable:

Mr. Harper will likely face sharp questions over the cancellation of a $2.9-billion plan to build three support ships for the Canadian Navy and the purchase of 12 mid-shore patrol vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard. The support ship project was touted as essential for keeping the overstretched Canadian navy at sea, and the mid-shore vessels were expected to have been used for patrolling the Arctic.

Harper talked big in about protecting Arctic sovereignty in 2005, about using it or losing it. Once elected though, his grandiose promises melted away like an Arctic ice floe. (Surely nothing to do with global warming? – ed.). Now it’s nearly election time, and he’s back again with the same talking points and bellicose rhetoric, and a record of half-fulfilled promises.

Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again

UPDATE: For more on Harper's melting Arctic credibility see Red and Scott.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives wrong on transit

More evidence today that when it comes to public transit, the Conservatives have the wrong approach that puts getting electoral credit above good, sound public policy that will get people out of their cars and into an efficient, well-run transit system:

The TTC is looking to end a major incentive for Metropass holders, charging them up to $6 a day to park in its jammed commuter lots.

A staff recommendation to be voted on at tomorrow's Toronto Transit Commission meeting calls for eliminating free parking for Metropass holders, who make up 80 per cent of the drivers using the lots.

The move, which could be implemented in about six months, would hit more than 10,000 drivers who use the TTC's 16 parking lots. They'd have to pay the same daily rates other drivers do – from $6 at the huge Finch Ave. subway station lot, to $2 at the Lawrence Ave. E. RT station.

There's not one single silver bullet when it comes to building an effective transit system, and encouraging people to make the move from car to transit. It takes a lot of different elements, and free parking for Metropass holders is definitely one of them. It makes a lot of sense. Rather than drive downtown clogging the roads and then pay to park, park for free at the end of the subway line and take the subway in. Start charging to park, and many will decide to just drive instead. They may have been on the edge about transit already; this will flip many back onto the car commuter side.

What does this have to do with the Conservatives? A lot, actually. The TTC is considering this move because they're starved for operating funds. They want to divert the money they're spending subsidizing parking to improving, and really just maintaining, service levels. If they had more operating funds they wouldn't have to consider this move.

Rather than pump new, long-term, stable operating funds into public transit across the country, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty made a conscious decision to give a tax cut on monthly transit passes, like the TTC Metropass. It made sense politically. Every year when you do your taxes, you remember that Conservative tax cut. It's not good policy though, if it's not coupled with more operating funding, and indeed its counterproductive to the goal of getting people on transit.

How so? Well, sure, a tax cut on transit passes will get more people to give transit a chance. But when they get on board, what do they find?

They find a system that is straining to meet the demands of increased ridership without increased operating funding. More crowded buses and trains, longer waits as full ones pass by. The system becomes strained and begins to buckle and the new riders don't like what they see, so they go back to their cars. And you wind up with the TTC considering cutting parking to ease that operating strain, but that just makes it an even easier decision for people to ditch transit.

Politicians like capital spending too: they love to cut ribbons. But again, without operating funding, we end up with the scenario where the TTC nearly shuttered the Shepard line to make ends meet.

Operating funds aren't sexy for politicians. There's no ribbon to cut. People aren't reminded of it when they file their taxes. But if the goal is a greener Canada, if the goal is less cars on the road, if the goal is really an effective, efficient public transit system, then we absolutely must increase, in cooperation with the provinces, direct operating funding assistance to transit systems across Canada.

Too bad the Conservatives are more concerned about political credit and building unneeded lines through Conservative-friendly ridings than actually making transit work.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Epp tells Nicholson, Harper to suck a lemon

In a post yesterday evening on the Harper government’s pre-election move to scuttle Ken Epp’s Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, I noted that justice minister Rob Nicholson indicated they hadn’t bothered to talk to Epp yet, that neither had any members of the media, and that Epp had already dismissed all of the objections raised by Nicholson when they were made by others previously. What, I wondered, would Epp’s reaction be?

Well, now we know. He says hells no, my bill won’t go (h/t):

Epp, an Edmonton Tory, said he was given no warning of the pending government legislation.

"I definitely will not be withdrawing my bill," Epp told Sun Media. "They're quite different. I don't intend to let up."

So, as promised, I hereby award a gold star to Christina Spencer of Sun Media. Bravo.

Now, one wonders, what is next?

The house coming back is looking unlikely, but if it does it seems Epps’ bill will continue through the legislative process. Should it come to a vote it would be very interesting to see how it shakes out. It would be defeated, although I’m sure some of the so-con idiots in the Liberal caucus will vote yey.

What of the Conservatives, though? I’m sure they’d still publicly call it a free-vote, but will the so-cons of the Conservative caucus risk the wrath of Stephen Harper, defy the wishes of the PMO, and vote their ideological conscience? It would be interesting to see, but I suspect we’ll never get the chance.

More likely, Epp’s bill will die with the dissolution of parliament. Which Nicholson knew, making his show of distancing the government from Epp’s bill clearly a pre-election PR exercise to excise a so-con skeleton from the Conservative closet.

What, though, of Epp? He has already announced his retirement, perhaps why he shows no fear of the PMO death star. Will he symbolically leave caucus? Will Harper symbolically kick him out? Neither, I suspect. We’ve probably heard the last of Ken Epp. And his ideological brethren on his caucus, liking their jobs and not wanting Doug Finley to pull their nominations, will likely bite their tongues.

The questions I asked in my previous post though about how the socially conservative wing of the CPC will react still stand though. Time will tell.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A glimpse into the madness of Angry Steve

Out here in the real world, people go about their end of summer routines. A good portion of my office is on vacation this week, for example. Myself, I'm going to cover an event about software piracy this afternoon. Exciting stuff. Inside the bubble that is Ottawa, however, the election cauldron Stephen Harper is brewing consumes all, and it looks about to boil over.

Most people out here in the real world have no idea. I mentioned to a colleague yesterday that we were probably going to be in an election in a week or two. He had no idea, hadn't heard a word of the elaborate theater being played-out in the nation's capital, and didn't much care, other than not being keen on an election. He has been hearing lots of negative Conservative radio ads, though they didn't seem to have much impact on him. But then he's a dipper anyway.

I mention this because I don't think the extraordinary lengths that everyone, particularly Stephen Harper, seem to be going through to not “get blamed” for triggering an election will really matter one iota. As I've said before, how we get into the vote is a one-to-two day story at best. Campaigns have a life of their own, and we'll quickly move on.

Still, the kabuki play those of us who are paying attention are watching (and if you read political blogs, that includes you) is telling to the personalities of the different leaders, and particularly Stephen Harper.

Here's the latest election hysteria update:

The rush for a snap election is quickening as senior Conservatives indicated that Prime Minister Stephen Harper might not wait to meet Stéphane Dion before calling a vote if the Liberal Leader does not agree to talks next week.

That could set the stage for a campaign triggered next week, with some Conservatives circling Sept. 5 as the most likely date.

Mr. Harper indicated last week he wanted crisis-atmosphere meetings with opposition leaders within a few weeks before deciding whether to call an election, but that has led to a cat-and-mouse game over the timing of the tête-à-têtes.

We've talked before about the influence of the Mike Harris crew on the Harper regieme. Well, hearing Harper talk about a wanting a “crisis-atmosphere” I'm reminded of Harris-era education minister John Snobelen, who talked of wanting to “create a crisis” in the education system in order to enact drastic reforms.

If there's a crisis here, it's one of Harper's own making. We've long talked about his control freak tendencies, and they're on full display here. He's looking increasingly like a petulant child, lashing-out when he can't get his way.

He wants all the leaders to drop everything and rush to Ottawa to have “crisis-atmosphere meetings” when no actual crisis exists. The leaders agree to meet but not just this moment, they have busy schedules to coordinate too. And what's the hurry? It's not until Sept. 15 that the HoC is scheduled to return anyways. That's not good enough for Harper though. And Kory Teneycke even seemed to suggest they do this by phone or something:

“In the age of modern communication, if somebody's saying they can't find a way to talk to you, with cell phones and telephones and the fact that they live in the same city, only a handful of blocks apart etc., I think you're getting an answer.”

Or why not just text, Kory? Here's how that might go:

HarperPM1: Will u vote my balls?
DionLib: Eww! ROTFL. Wat?
Harper PM1: Bills!
DionLIB: Wat bilz?
HarperPM1: My bilz!
DionLIB: MayB, will c. :)
Harper PM1: Not good enuf! Election!
DionLIB: WTF? Need more 411.
HarperPM1: Election now!
DionLIB: OMG, seriouz?
HarperPM1: Take u down!
DionLIB: LOL watevr.

Not the best way to decide the fate of this parliament, but then the meetings were always to be just theater anyway. Window-dressing. Harper wanted to be able to come out of the meeting, have a presser, and say despite his best efforts at trying to make this parliament work, the unreasonable Libs refused to agree to his very reasonable demands, so now he's off to the GG to ask for an election and it's all Stephane's fault.

But since all three leaders are refusing to rush to Ottawa, Harper is now threatening to go to the GG before the meetings. After all, if he waits the by-elections will go off first, and he'd rather now have headlines of four Conservative losses following him into the general. Not to mention more ethics committee hearings, his own Elections Canada lawsuit, a tell-all from Julie Couillard, and much, much more dogging him just before a campaign.

But back out in the real world, people are barely aware of all this, if at all. They'll know there's an election when they start to see signs around town and canvassers knocking on their door. They'll half pay attention, and then trudge down to an elementary school on e-day and do their democratic duty before taking the kids to soccer. They won't care who met with whom or didn't and whether there was a vote in the house or not.

In Ottawa though, and for those out there in the world that are paying attention, far from being the strong leader he once seemed, as I said Harper seems increasingly the petulant child that stomps his feet when he doesn't get his way. When people, this time the opposition leaders, refuse to give him what he wants, when it looks like his carefully crafted plots may go awry, he gets angry. And history shows us when Harper gets angry he lashes out, and it costs him support.

In a campaign, Steve's anger is his kryptonite. If the opposition parties can keep knocking him off his game like they are now, he could be in trouble.

UPDATE: Coyne is funny.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tories abort Ken Epp's bill, but where's Epp?

As a number of other folks have already mentioned, the Conservative government announced its intention today to scuttle Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, a bill that many fear could lead towards the erosion of womens' reproductive rights:

The Harper government cut loose a contentious private member's bill that would have made it a crime to take the life of a fetus just as election speculation hits fever pitch.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced Monday that the government will draft a new bill to replace Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, so that it closes the debate about fetal rights and focuses instead on penalizing criminals who harm pregnant women.

The act, which was introduced last year by Tory MP Ken Epp of Edmonton and passed second reading in the spring, would make it a separate offence for killing an unborn child when a pregnant woman is slain.

Pro-abortion advocates have denounced it for giving the fetus some human rights. Last week, the Canadian Medical Association voted to oppose the bill, and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion spoke out against it, challenging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to clarify his own views on abortion.

I'll hold my thoughts on the Conservatives' true plans on the issue until when (or if) we see actual legislation. I question their ability to come up with something that will be acceptable. But clearly, they're trying to clear the decks for the looming election campaign and Stephane Dion's comments on the topic in Oakville last week (and the reaction they garnered) had an impact.

One thing confuses me though. Reading the Web story at the Globe site, they quote just Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. Looking elsewhere, Reuters also has the PMO's Kory Teneycke. Bloomberg just has Nicholson. Ditto CP and Canwest.

The CBC adds some insight on Epp' status, although without Epp himself commenting:

"We've heard the criticism from across the country, including representatives from the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill could be interpreted as instilling fetal right," Nicholson said.

He said the new bill was specifically worded to avoid that interpretation.

"This bill will be very clear and straightforward, and the bill will not be misinterpreted," he said, noting that Epp had not yet been informed that another bill was being introduced to replace his.

Nicholson would not give exact details about how the two bills are different.

Interesting. First reporter to chase down Ken Epp and ask him how he feels about the death of his deeply-felt legislation wins a gold star. Possible questions: did you get a phone call from the government before they announced they were killing your bill? Will you and your socially conservative brethren support a watered-down version?

And for you parliamentary procedure wonks out there, can the government simply decide to kill private member's legislation, which according to the wire coverage seems to be what they're doing? Note, they say Epp hasn't even been informed.

Now, if there's an election the bill dies, of course (and the Cons wouldn't have a chance to introduce their bill, making this all a pre-election PR exercise). However, lets say the HoC returns for a fall session, and carries on to the fixed election date. Now, of course the Cons can ask Epp to withdraw his bill, and if he didn't agree he'd be Garth Turnerized might quick. But suppose he said no. Would his bill remain on the order paper and continue through the legislative process?

A look at Ken Epp's Web site shows he's still full-steam ahead with his bill:

Surely bad planning by the PMO not to have white-washed his Web site yet.

But back to questions for Epp, given that in a number of lengthy statements posted on your Web site you reject and dismisses the concerns of legal and medical professionals, do you also reject and dismiss Nicholson's objections? If not, why not?

You says your bill has nothing to do with abortion or fetal rights, and that such concerns are off base:

And yet your justice minister says that, not only are the concerns of your opponents justified, he's drafting a new bill to address those concerns:

"We've heard criticism from across the country, including representatives of the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill as presently drafted could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights. Let me be clear. Our government will not reopen the debate on abortion," Mr. Nicholson said. "

For this reason ... I'm announcing that the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights."

And in May, when Liberal MP Brent St. Denis introduced private member's bill C-543, which aimed to address the issue of violence against pregnant women without jeopardizing a women's right to choose, you were opposed:


How is what Nicholson is proposing now any different than the St. Denis approach that you have already rejected?

Anyway, also interesting will be the reaction of the social conservative wing of the Conservative Party. Of course, the ones in caucus will shut-up in fear of the Dear Leader. How about the rank and file though, the activists, the fundraisers? Will they hold their nose and still vote Conservative? Will they sit on their hands and stay home? Or will they rise up in anger and demand action? Will they take their votes to the Christian Heritage Party (join here disgruntled so-Cons!), or one of the other right-wing fringe parties?

After all, Stevie has burned them before. How long will he be able to keep them in the fold while kicking them in the nads? Time will tell, I suppose. You want to talk about hidden agendas come majority? No one is praying harder that Harper actually has one than the socially conservative wing of the Conservative Party.

UPDATE: Epp lives, and so does his bill.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Transport Canada whistleblower speaks-out on Agriculture Canada case

On the weekend I wrote about the ongoing war being waged in whistleblowers by the Stephen Harper Conservatives and how this flies in the face of their election promises, and I highlighted the recent case at Agriculture Canada where whistleblower Luc Pomerleau was fired for bringing serious concerns about the government's plans for our food inspection system to light. Particularly important, given the ongoing listeria situation with Maple Leaf Foods. The whistleblower was fired by the government, and the person who fingered him was praised by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, who openly mused about “charges” for the whistleblower.

Shortly after this post I heard by e-mail from Ian Bron, himself a whistleblower. Bron, a former naval officer, was chief of marine security regulatory affairs at Transport Canada when he blew the whistle on systemic mismanagement that was undermining the safety of Canada's marine transportation system in a report he sent to the auditor general, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, the Public Service Integrity Office and the Senate committee on national security and defence.

I asked him if he would share his thoughts on the Agriculture Canada whistleblower case, and he agreed. I think he makes some very interesting points from the perspective of a former civil servant, and as a whistleblower that has faced government reprisial for his actions.

I know only what I’ve read in the papers, but my gut reaction is that ministers are sometimes misled by their senior executives. This happens because all too often self interest and the public interest get confused in the minds of these executives. This leads to a peculiar line of thinking which goes something like this: “If the public finds out about this, it will look bad. That will erode confidence. Eroded confidence will undermine the system.” Thus, what is bad for an individual (or worse, a group of individuals) ends up being depicted as bad for Canadians. And, once committed to the story, it becomes impossible for the executives to change direction. They dig in, circle the wagons and hope the attacks will peter out. And usually they do.

The problem is made worse if a minister is too accepting of the version of events fed to him. This may be the case here – for I seriously doubt the Minister Ritz has any first-hand about Mr. Pomerleau’s actions or motives, or those of the people who fired him.

As this matter is likely destined to end up in the courts, Bron also makes the point that Ritz's strident comments, which his staff later attempted to backtrack somewhat, could be even more damaging to the government.

What concerns me is that he has joined the attack. There in no mistaking this: he has publicly stated that Mr. Pomerleau is guilty and deserves the punishment he received. This is, in my opinion, shocking. First of all, this matter is far from over; the union will fight for Mr. Pomerleau and the matter may end up in the courts. The Minister may be forced to eat his words one day. Secondly, the breach as reported was so small (especially considering the regularity with which sensitive documents are found in Ottawa garbage cans), the circumstances so questionable and the punishment so harsh that ordinary caution should have tempered his reactions.

His suggestion that Mr. Pomerleau should face charges might also cause some discomfort to his colleague, Maxime Bernier, who left far, far more sensitive documents at his girlfriend’s house.

An excellent point about the Bernier case, something I'm sure Ritz wasn't thinking about when he made that comment. And it serves to remind us that the Bernier case remains unsettled, and is another one of the issues Stephen Harper hopes will just go away in his rush to an election.

Just as bad is the signal that these comments sends out to others in government who wish to either report wrongdoing or ensure proper consideration is made of issues before a decision is made. Based on what I’ve read, I believe that Mr. Pomerleau was acting without malice and with the intent to do good. To crush him under the heel like this looks like a nasty betrayal of past promises to protect whistleblowers. Even if this case had justified the firing of Mr. Pomerleau (which I doubt), it just sets a bad example to everyone – from managers to workers.

The timing was also particularly poor. The recent listeriosis deaths linked to Maple Leaf products, new leaked documents about planned cuts at Agriculture and Agri-foods Canada and the criticism of food labeling are all front-page news and all lend credence to Mr. Pomerleau’s concerns.

Bron also notes the parallels to the Allan Cutler case, a point I made in my initial post on the Agriculture Canada case.

Minister Ritz should take a look back into recent history to learn a lesson or two. When Allan Cutler first came forward, his concerns were swept under the rug and he was punished. When he blew the whistle, the effort to bury the problems got even more vigorous. The ultimate result was a major scandal that essentially led to the election of the Tories. Does he really want to use the same tactics used then? And is he really willing to trust his senior executives to the point that it may endanger his own career – and, more importantly, the lives of Canadians?

Finally, Minister Ritz needs to better acquaint himself with the concept of whistleblowing. I believe I can speak for Allan Cutler – who is a friend – and other whistleblowers in saying we are offended by Minister Ritz’s characterization of the person who reported Mr. Pomerleau. He/she is not a whistleblower. The individual may or may not have acted in good faith – it doesn’t matter. Whistleblowing was defined by Ralph Nader in 1972 as “an act of a man or a woman who believing in the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he serves, and publicly blows the whistle if the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent or harmful activity.” It is a good description that much better fits Mr. Pomerleau.

One wonders what the impact of the consistently hostile actions by this Harper Conservative government against civil servants that blow the whistle in the interests of Canadians will be. Will it have a chilling effect? I suspect that's what the government is hoping, and perhaps it will to a degree. I suspect, though, that it will only anger civil servants, and lead to more leaks and brown envelops to the opposition and the media.

More importantly though, I think this Harper war on whistleblowers will only serve to discourage our best and brightest from pursuing a career in the civil service. That would be unfortunate for all Canadians.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Guelph sign review

I don’t know about you but as a political junkie I’m always interested to look at campaign signs, and see the different themes, messages and strategies the different parties are trying-out.

And it’s always more interesting during a by-election, when the centralizing hand of the central campaign is a little less heavy and local campaigns are more free to be creative with their sign designs.

Therefore I’ve had my camera with me this weekend while I’ve been out in about in Guelph, and I thought I’d take a few snaps to share with those elsewhere interested in getting a for a little campaign sign review, by-election edition. Here’s my ranking and review of Guelph sign design:

1. Frank Valeriote, Liberal

The candidate’s name is large and prominent, standing-out well with black lettering on a largely white background, and doubling as a Web site address to drive traffic to the campaign site in an economical use of space. Stylized Canada flag motif is attractive, adding a dose of patriotic appeal. And a small saying on the bottom, Doing the right thing.

I like these signs, my only concern is how the detail of the waving flag design will hold up in the sun and weather, particularly if this morphs into a marathon campaign with a general election call. There’s a risk the detail could fad. With sign design, keeping it simple is always the way to go. Still, good signs.

2. Tom King, NDP

This is a simple, appealing sign design by the NDP. Like the usual NDP template it’s white name on orange background, and the candidate’s name is large and prominent. The large swath of green across the top corner is an interesting touch, perhaps an attempt to meet the challenge of the Green Party (who could draw more support than the NDP here if you believe that now-infamous poll) as well as counter the surging Liberal Green shift challenge. This sign also advertises the candidate’s Web site address and includes a saying on the bottom, Guelph’s National Voice. Good, simple message.

3. Mike Nagy, Green Party

Points to the Greens for having the only bilingual signs in this campaign, likely a function of the national template. Unfortunately, it does make for a more busy and cluttered site design. Dark green background on white text stands out, and reminds us, well, they’re the Greens. The white text on colour background seems to be favoured by all parties except the Liberals.

I’m not keen on their yellow party logo, and a Web site on the sign would have been a good idea but as I said it’s too busy already. Interesting construction too. Rather than have two pieces with a metal stake in between them, or wooden poles on either side, they attack the stake to one side and drill holes in to attach it with ties. Looks a little funny close up, but probably greener on materials.

4. Gloria Kovach, Conservative Party

A very basic, cookie cutter design that looks to have no deviation from the standard Conservative Party template. Which makes sense for a candidate that clings fiercely to the central party line, with no deviation from the standard Conservative Party template. Riding name in the top right corner, in case people aren’t sure where they are. No Dorthy, you’re not in Arnprior.

Elect in the top left corner standing-out in red, so you know she’s running for something. I know all parties often use elect or re-elect. But frankly, it just seems a tad archaic these days. Re-elect can serve to remind of incumbency sure, through that’s not always a good thing. Besides, don’t use elect and its easier to re-use those signs when you’re running for re-election…probably something Gloria needn’t worry about.

The white text does look good on the blue background though, and she has her Web site on there, which is also good. It’s a solid, workmanlike sign but it’s just so…bland. It’s a by-election, ask Doug Finley for permission to live a little Gloria!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Did I fall asleep and miss election day?

As I mentioned earlier I’m spending the weekend in Guelph, and using by keenly honed powers of observation, deduction and reasoning I can tell you that there appears to be a by-election happening here. It's unmistakable. There are big signs along the road, small signs on lawns, literature being dropped, and a bustling office of Liberals working to elect a fine fellow named Frank Valeriote.

It all sure looks like a by-election campaign to me. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell the Cambridge Times, and its reporter Lisa Rutledge:

But as a candidate vying for re-election, surrounded by other Conservative candidate hopefuls, including the newly elected Conservative Guelph MP, Gloria Kovach, Goodyear said the prime minister's visit doesn't exactly hurt the cause either. A backdrop of each of the candidates' signs lined the cultural centre's grounds where Goodyear stood.

That article was published last Thursday, and the error was pointed-out by several bloggers last week.

Wait, did I say someone forgot to tell them? Actually, that’s not quite true. I sent an e-mail to the editor of the Cambridge Times, Jeff Hurst, on Friday. It included a link to the article, I politely pointed out the error and mentioned the by-election date, and suggested he may want to correct the article. Easy enough to do with a Web piece, a few clicks. And mistakes do happen.

So imagine my surprise when I open up the story again on Sunday, and find:


Either these guys don’t work Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays, or they have no problem with allowing blatant and obvious errors to stand that make them seem like Conservative stooges. Dammed Liberal media!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The election madness contagion has broken containment

If you haven't yet been infected stock your pantry and then lock the doors, draw the blinds, and hunker-down: a major election fever system is spreading throughout the land. No one is safe. At least keep your children off the streets.

At first it seemed like Stephen Harper was just stoking election speculation to distract attention from the myriad scandals hammering his government and to distract from the increasing traction the Liberal Green Shift has been getting as Stephane Dion aggressively pitches it to receptive audiences accross Canada, including a crowd of 1400 that came out for a town hall in Oakville on a summer weeknight last week.

Now though, the election hysteria machine seems to have kicked into a whole new gear. I'm spending this weekend in Guelph volunteering for our Liberal by-election candidate, Frank Valeriote, and there is certainly general election buzz in the air here. The word on the street here, and back in Ottawa, is that Harper is serious this time. Gentlemen and ladies, start your engines.

Certainly a general writ drop in the next week or two will be a major inconvenience for all the by-election campaigns of all the parties in Guelph, St. Lambert, Westmount and Don Valley West. There's the administrative issues, the financing issues, what happens to advance votes already cast, and certainly they'll have a few less e-day volunteers than they've been counting on.

The thinking is Harper wants to go before the by-elections because he knows he's going to lose in all four, and he wants to avoid those headlines. I can tell you though, if he was going to lose these ridings before, if he aborts these by-elections he'll lose these ridings by even more. People here are going to be pissed.

As we've canvassed here the reception for the Liberals and Frank has been very strong. With a strong get out the vote effort we should be in good shape. Haven't knocked on one door yet where someone has admitted they're voting Conservative. I met Gloria Kovach's former next door neighbiour last night, and she was on the fence but leaning Liberal. If she can't win over her neighbours... At a few doors we were also asked what would happen if a general is called before Sept. 8. And everyone who brought it up was very hostile to the idea, no matter how they're voting. People can tolerate a four-week campaign, make it eight or ten weeks of annoying politicians bothering them and they'll be pretty pissed. The Conservatives will face a backlash.

Myself, in short form, if we're going to have a general now, I say fine, so be it.

Would I prefer to wait to get these by-elections done? Absolutely. I think we're going to get some great results in these campaigns that will give us some great momentum going into a general.

Do I think Harper is up to something? Absolutely. He's crazy like a fox, with his chess playing and what not.

Would I prefer that we defeat him in the House of Commons, on an issue of our choosing or otherwise? You betcha.

In the end though, if he's going to dissolve he's going to dissolve, and while we should absolutely slam him for the hypocrisy of flouting his own fixed election date legislation, we shouldn't try to stop it from happening. Not that there would be anything we could do, besides going with the NDP to the GG and asking for a chance to test the house. Health Minister Jack Layton, anyone?

But seriously, an election has been inevitable for some time now, and if its going to be sooner rather than later that's how it's going to be. The timing is never going to be ideal, we don't control all the levers of timing. I don't care much how we get into the election (in the HoC or request for dissolution), the trigger is forgotten by Day Two.

While if the writ drops in a week or two I'll feel for my overworked friends in Guelph, St. Lambert and the other ridings, I won't weep. We're ready for an election. We've got the policies, we've got the team, we've got the issues and we've got the momentum.

Bring it on. We play chess too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

So it's Joe Biden, but curse you Obama!!

I didn’t sign-up for the infamous get a text message when Barack Obama picks his VP thing (wasn't worth the 15 cents to me). I did, however, sign-up for the e-mail option. I would be the first to know when Barack picked his running mate, I was told.

In the meantime, I’ve been getting regular messages about why John McCain sucks and what not, which is to be expected I suppose but was getting annoying and had me considering unsubscribing. Stay the course though, I told myself, I’ll be one of the first to know when Barack makes his VP pick.

Well, I got this message at 12:54 AM EST from CNN:

CNN Breaking News

From: CNN Breaking News (BreakingNews@MAIL.CNN.COM)

Sent: August 22, 2008 9:54:29 PM

Reply-to:newseditor@MAIL.CNN.COM

To: TEXTBREAKINGNEWS@EMA3LSV06.TURNER.COM

-- CNN confirms Sen. Barack Obama has chosen Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to be his vice-presidential running mate.

>+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
CNN covers the conventions: the Democrats live from Denver starting Monday and the Republicans live from Minneapolis-St. Paul starting September 1 on CNN and CNN.com. http://www.cnnpolitics.com
>+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

Clicking send/receive again, and again, still no e-mails from my buddy Barrack.

And meanwhile, over at BarackObama.com they’re still teasing me:

Mainstream media 1, Web 2.0 0. Was a nice idea though. Maybe the text messagers fared better.

UPDATE: About six hours after CNN broke the news, along with the rest of the MSM, my "first to know" message finally came as I slept soundly:

The Next Vice President

From: Barack Obama (info@barackobama.com)

Sent:August 23, 2008 3:56:40 AM

Reply-to:info@barackobama.com

To: Jeff Jedras (*****)

Jeff -- I have some important news that I want to make official. I've chosen Joe Biden to be my running mate. Joe and I will appear for the first time as running mates this afternoon in Springfield, Illinois -- the same place this campaign began more than 19 months ago. I'm excited about hitting the campaign trail with Joe, but the two of us can't do this alone. We need your help to keep building this movement for change. Please let Joe know that you're glad he's part of our team. Share your personal welcome note and we'll make sure he gets it: http://my.barackobama.com/welcomejoe Thanks for your support, Barack P.S. -- Make sure to turn on your TV at 2:00 p.m. Central Time to join us or watch online at http://www.BarackObama.com.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper’s war on whistleblowers: What would Allan Cutler say?

If I were an enterprising young political journalist, or even a lazy middle-aged political journalist, I’d be looking to get on the phone with Allan Cutler and ask him what he thinks about this story:

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz praised an unnamed public servant yesterday for fingering former Canadian Food Inspection Agency biologist Luc Pomerleau as the source of a politically embarrassing leak.

"Some people have likened him to a whistleblower. I dismiss that," said Mr. Ritz in a phone interview. "The whistleblower was the gentleman who turned Mr. Pomerleau in."

Mr. Ritz went so far as to predict Mr. Pomerleau "will face charges," but his office later said the minister misspoke.

Word of CFIA plans to save money by giving industry a greater role in food inspections, among other cutbacks, first became public last month when Mr. Pomerleau was fired for emailing what has since been termed a cabinet document to his union.

Mr. Pomerleau, who was also a union representative, said yesterday that he found the document on an internal server that was available to all CFIA employees and forwarded it both because of its impact on CFIA jobs and public policy.

So in Conservative-land, it’s not the guy that made public plans to gut the public food inspection system in favour of an “industry-led” program that's the whistleblower, it’s the guy that fingered him as the leaker and got him fired.

I mention Allan Cutler, because his claim to fame is as the sponsorship scandal whistleblower. The Conservatives were so eager to get him as their candidate in Ottawa-South in the last election, they paid another candidate to step aside and then denied it until he sued (they settled). They trumpeted Cutler (who went on to lose to David McGuinty) as a model civil servant and the principled whistleblower. And they promised in their campaign platform to take greater steps to protect whistleblowers such as Cutler:



Oh how far they’ve come, eh Mr. Cutler? And this is far from the first hostile anti-whistleblower act by the Harper conservatives:

*A doctor in Northern Alberta who previously drew action to increased cancer rates he believes may be related to carcinogenic pollution from the tar sands development is now the subject of a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding his claims. The complainant is none other than Health Canada.

*A contract worker arrested for allegedly leaking the Conservative government's climate-change plan is portraying himself as a defender of the public interest and a victim of a politically motivated "witch-hunt."

Jeff Monaghan was arrested Wednesday and led out of his Environment Canada office in handcuffs by the RCMP. He was quickly released, but still faces possible charges of breach of trust for allegedly sending documents to a journalist and environmental activists.

I recall something about a scientist in B.C., I think from Natural Resources, but I can’t find the background. And of course the biggie:

*Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn defended his decision to fire the head of Canada's nuclear safety watchdog Wednesday, arguing she lost the government's confidence over the way she handled the shutdown of a medical isotope-producing nuclear reactor late last year.

From trumpeting a whistleblower as their star candidate and promising to protect them, the Conservatives have gone to firing whistleblowers instead, and musing about criminal charges. As I said, I wonder what Allan Cutler would say? It seems he now offers advice on these issues for a living:

UPDATE: I'm informed that Allan Cutler is actually now the president of Canadians for Accountability. According to their Web site, they're a group of a volunteers dedicated to:

Educating Canadians about whistleblowing and abusive management situations through counselling, education and assistance in accordance with the law,


To promoting an understanding of whistleblowing: what it is, the dynamics, the culture, mechanisms and solutions,


Promoting public awareness of the importance and value of whistleblowing in the Canadian context, including labour unions, senior management and employees, and


Advocating for a culture of truth, transparency and integrity in Canada's public and private sector institutions and Canadian society in general.

And it looks like perhaps some of the whistleblowers wronged by the government should perhaps give these guys a call, maybe they can help:

If you've witnessed wrongdoing in the workplace, and don't know what to do, we're a sympathetic ear. Call us or meet us, and we'll do our best to help you understand your situation and what you can do about it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers