It's a litmus test...no its not...if we win it means majority...if we lose it means nothing

That, in a nutshell, sums up the Conservative line on the Guelph by-election. They downplay it, but at the same time admit they’re pouring resources in and consider it a bellwether riding to their majority chances. You’d positively get whiplash from the differing messaging.

Why, take the messaging in this one story on the Globe this morning alone. A story, by the way, that took one and a half journalists to write, is ostensibly about how the Conservatives view Guelph, and only managed to get one person to speak on the record: a Liberal senator.

First, from the downplaying expectations side:

* even as they say publicly that they can't win

* The Tories are playing down expectations of a positive result in Guelph. The Liberals won the riding by nearly nine percentage points over the Tories in the 2006 election, which is a difficult margin to turn around.
And now the bellwether side:

* Harper Conservative strategists are privately looking for a breakthrough in the by-election in Guelph, Ont., a riding they consider one of the keys to forming a majority government

* "If we can win ridings like Guelph in the next election, this is almost majority territory," a senior strategist said. "It will be a wake-up call for us if we don't do that well in Guelph."

* it is one of the 30 ridings on the Tory's main target list

* It is considered a bellwether riding, said the Tory strategist, as it has a mix of urban and suburban and its constituents would be affected by issues such as Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's proposal to put a tax on carbon fuels.

* the party is putting resources into the riding, where they have an attractive candidate in Gloria Kovach, a long-time Guelph city councillor. High-profile cabinet ministers will make many visits over the next few weeks

Here’s the line that I fine the most amusing from this story:

The Tories are playing down expectations of a positive result in Guelph…Privately, it's a different story.

Privately, it’s a different story? It’s a different story in the same story. And when you’re talking to the media, whether it’s unsourced or not, it’s not exactly privately. You’re still aware that it’s going to be printed in a newspaper, and read by people.

Nothing the Conservatives are saying here is wrong. Guelph is a bellwether riding for them. It’s the sort of riding they need to win if they’re going to have any hope at a majority. And if they don’t win, as the unnamed senior Conservative says, that should be a wake-up call for them.

My point is about expectations. If even the Conservatives are admitting that Guelph is a litmus test for them (and shouldn’t they be making showings in Westmount and St. Lambert as well?), even if it their admissions are coming “privately” in the pages of national newspapers, can we stop pretending please that the Liberals are the only ones with something to lose in these by-elections?

Guelph is on their list of 30 targeted ridings. They admit its a bellwether. They're pouring in resources to support their "star" candidate. If they lose, won't that then mean the Conservatives are in trouble? Can we start talking more about Harper's failure to move his party into majority territory, despite spending us into a deficit while showering tax dollars all over the country? Can we start questioning his leadership then? Will he have hit a wall?

Expectations. They're not just for Liberals.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The fate of the universe, nay, of life intself, rests on these by-elections

It must be great to be a Conservative. I mean, besides the whole having a heart made of stone thing, and being afraid of the sun. And hating puppies. Why do they hate puppies?

But I've digressed.

We’re about to have three (likely four) federal by-elections. We had four in the spring. And there were two back in fall of 2006, IIRC. And the consensus/collective wisdom as purveyed by the establishment powers that be each time is as follows: the Conservatives have absolutely nothing to lose no matter what happens and everything to win; the Liberals need to win absolutely everything to meet expectations, and there’s no way they can get a victory even if they win every seat by a gazillion votes. And if they lose one, Stephane Dion will be run out of town on a rail.

I would love to be the Conservatives in that scenario. You can’t lose.

I perused the Globe and Mail today over lunch (steak stuffed burito and fries supreme at Taco Bell, if you're wondering), and found myself nodding with their editorial saying we shouldn’t be putting so much hype into by-elections as an indicator of this or that, because they’re not. And I agree. And then on the next page, Lawrence Martin explains how super-important these by-elections are as indicators of this and that. Sigh. Why do you tease me so, Globe and Mail?

The whole by-election conventional wisdom thing, though, is a great example of what I like to say about media bias: they’re not pro-Liberal, or pro-Conservative, they’re pro-good story. They’re pro-good narrative. And they’re pro-sticking to their stated narrative once the pack has picked it, come hell or high water.

That’s why they insist Conservatives are the sound fiscal managers and the Liberals are the big spenders, ignoring the big-spendingness of Flaherty’s budgets contrasted with the Liberal defict taming. That’s why they’ll look for socially-Conservative skeletons in Conservative closets (hiya Randy White circa 2004) while ignoring the so-Cons in the Liberal ranks. And that’s why almost every by-election is make or break for the Dion Liberals, despite the fact Harper handpicked the candidate in London that lost to Glen Pearson, stage-managing her campaign and sending her staff. They’ll play-up the Liberals busing in volunteers to Outremont as desperation while ignoring the NDP doing the same thing, or the Conservatives doing it in Guelph. And they’ll ignore the fact that, if the Cons are going to get a majority some day, they kind of have to start winning seats they DONT ALREADY HOLD at SOME point, and if they fail to do so that could be a sign of something.

They’ll ignore it if it doesn’t fit the narrative. It’s not pro or anti any party. It goes both ways. They just don’t like to be proven wrong. So when it comes to by-elections, its all on the Liberals. Plus it’s the summer, so they need something to get excited about and fill column inches.

That said, these are absolutely the most important by-elections in the history of the world, and the fate of the universe itself hangs in the balance.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Warren Kinsella unplugged and offline

Headed to Toronto-Danforth this evening (where Liberal Andrew Lang is ready to give Jack Layton a fight in the next election) to hear Warren Kinsella talk about European post-impressionism... ok, about politics. How to campaign, and how to win.

Much of his talk would have been familiar to readers of his blog writings over the years, but it was still interesting to hear it in person and it was an entertaining presentation. Here's a few random points he made:

*Speaking about the Conservative Party's obscene money advantage, he rightly noted that (as important as money is) if money was everything, Ross Perot would have been elected U.S. president. Or Steve Forbes. Or some other rich guy.

*What the Liberal pitch should be: government services, go green, the economy. We have the plan and the team, the Conservatives don't.

*The fight Jim Flaherty has been picking with Dalton McGuinty will go down as the dumbest strategy in history, and the best thing is they can't help themselves. Dalton was just re-elected last fall with an even bigger majority, clearly Ontarians much think he's doing something right. And agitating him will only get his loyalists more active federally for Stephane Dion. Also on Ontario, the fed Liberals would be wise to support McGuinty on his fiscal fairness push.

*Stephen Harper is doing well with male voters, they're not falling in love but many are thinking he's not as bad as we'd feared. Female voters, however, are smarter and more intuitive. They don't like Harper; they can tell something is off.

*In Quebec, Harper's spooning with Jean Charest is over and Mario Dumont has proven a wet firecracker, cozying up to him was a mistake. Harper's in trouble in Quebec. Yes, the Liberals aren't doing well either. But Quebecers are strategic voters, they like a winner, if the Liberals can get momentum in the rest of the country Quebecers will sense it and join the parade.

*Bloggers that think they can really affect political change should give their heads a shake, blogs will not supplant the main stream media. The Conservatives have deliberately decided to piss off the media, big mistake. They're putting a lot of stock in the new media, they think the political discourse is happening on the Web...it's not, and it's a fundamental miscalculation by the Conservatives.

*Stephane Dion is a decent, hard working guy...and so are Canadians. Well, and gals too. Canadians will always gravitate to the person most like them, because they think (rightly or wrongly) that's the person that will best understand them. Don't try to change Dion, people can sense a phony. Let him be himself, he comes off as earnest and sincere...just to eager and in a hurry. If he can slow down a little and explain what he's about, what he's proposing, people will get on board.

*Lastly, on the Web he says it's becoming all about being visual, and video. People won't read long blocks of text (except you, you're an exceptional Canadian, rock on). Campaigns need to get into video clips, like the McGuinty Liberals did last fall. (I made an amateur attempt last week.)

UPDATE: Now with video:



FURTHER UPDATE: Aaron Ginsberg of All Politics is Local was there too and adds his thoughts. And Dan too, with the top ten list.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cher Stephane, please keep your musings private

Liberal election rhetoric has become as predictable as the changing of the seasons, and just as sure as winter becomes spring and the swallows return to Capistrano, the election saber rattling is invariably followed by an embarrassing, emasculating climb-down.

And wax on, wax off, the cycle begins anew…

OTTAWA — Liberal leader Stéphane Dion is hinting a fall election centred around his party's Green Shift plan is on the political horizon.

Following the first of a series of election-style speeches across Eastern Ontario, Mr. Dion said the odds are increasing that he will pull the plug on the Conservative minority government.

I hope that this time is different, and that we’ll have an election this fall. We’d better have an election this fall. But please Stephane, and all the other Liberal poo-bahs, please keep your musings to yourselves. No ponderings. No speculations. No ratcheting-up expectations. Anonymous or otherwise. We’ve been down this road before. We don’t need you quoting odds on fall elections.

We will continue to work inside and outside Parliament to address the concerns of Canadians, and we will force an election when the time is right. That’s all you need to say. Green shift good, environment, megatons of jobs, it’s a health issue too. Pivot to the message. Maybe toss in a little Conservative ad scam in Quebec bad.

But keep talking policy, and about the green shift. About what we’d do in government, after an election. Keep laying the groundwork for an election. Have the logistics in place. Evaluate the strategic situation and pick the right spot.

But this constant yo-yo of ratcheting-up election speculation and then dashing them…I’ve lost count how many times now…its nauseating, counterproductive and unnecessary. If you do keep going down this road, you need to follow through this time. It could be you fully intend to…and you could have fully intended to the other five times too.

Point is things could change, and since you gain nothing with rhetoric at this point that will only garner laughs AND box you into a corner, just keep your eyes on the prize, talk policy, and keep the heat on the Conservatives.

And keep your musings private.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What CTV didn't tell you about Scott Newark

On CTV's Question Period program this afternoon, Craig Oliver moderated a discussion on Omar Kadhar and his ongoing “trial” in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by a U.S. Military court. Discussing the situation were Khadr's U.S. Navy JAG lawyer, Lieutenant Commander William Kuebler arguing for, naturally, the pro-Khadr side. And to argue the opposing viewpoint there was one Scott Newark.

Here's how Craig Oliver introduced Scott Newark:

...a former crown prosecutor and now a security analyst.

Both of those things are true. But there's a lot that CTV didn't bother to tell you about Newark's credentials that certainly seem germane to the discussion, and his objectivity.

For example, in February of 2006, Newark joined the office of the Conservative Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Stockwell Day, as senior policy advisor. He served in the position for three months before joining the famed “revolving door” and going back to his consulting group, Northgate Group, just in time to begin work on a $312,400 contract awarded by Day's department. In fact, Newark was still working for Day when the bidding closed on the contract.

And how did Newark get around the code that “prohibits a public office holder from accepting employment for one year from a firm ''with which they had direct and significant official dealings'' with during the year before they left public office”? Easier than you might think:

But Newark said he avoided contravening the code by simply declining to sign government papers that would have made him a public office holder during his three-month contract as an adviser to Day.

The code defines a public office holder as ''a person, other than a public servant, who works on behalf of a minister of the Crown or a minister of state.''

Newark refused to specify exactly his services to the ministers while under contract as an adviser.

Now that's a helluva loophole in the Conservatives' vaunted Accountability Act. Just don't sign the papers, and refuse to say what you did. Problem solved.

That's just Newark's recent history though, and his strong and ongoing ties to the Conservative government. Before his stint in Day's office one of his past positions was as executive director of the Canadian Police Association. In an essay he wrote in that position for Alberta Report in January 1998, here's what he had to say about charter rights. Somewhat germane, given that much of the discussion was about the rights of a Canadian citizen, Omar Kadhar:

Anything effective in law enforcement will inevitably be forbidden under the Charter [the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]. As we always say, the charter helps only murderers, pedophiles and judges. This year the Supreme Court decreed, on the authority of the Charter, that the provinces must give their judges pay raises.

[Judicial activism and judge-made law] What we have now in Canada is a supposedly enlightened despotism--rule by people who think they know so much better than everybody else. Well, no thanks. I'm in favour of anything that brings [judges] back under the rule of law--public reviews of candidates, public petitions to force performance reviews of sitting judges, and Section 33 [the "notwithstanding clause"]--every time they do something crazy.

Scott Newark is much more than a “security expert”, Mr. Oliver. And you'll forgive me if I don't give much credence to the views on the Khadr case and his rights as a Canadian citizen of a guy who thinks the charter helps only murderers, pedophiles and judges.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is this "so-called" Liberal media bias?

You may have read today that PEI Premier Robert Ghiz is endorsing the Liberal Party's Green Shift initiative to reduce carbon emissions, including sweeping tax cuts for Canadians and specific help for those living in poverty.

“I think green shift is the way to go,’’ Ghiz said in an interview with The Guardian.

“I think it’s a good idea but what we have to do is make sure it doesn’t hurt jurisdictions like Prince Edward Island.

“What we have to do as a provincial government is make sure that we work with whatever party is in power federally to make sure that when that tax shift does take place that seniors have more money, that low-income Islanders do have more money.’’

Here's how the major paper in the province, The Guardian, which “covers Prince Edward Island like the dew” by the way, headlined the story:


A fairly neutral headline I think. Now, the Guardian put the story on the Canadian Press wire, and it was pulled down by a one of their maritime cousins, the Turo Daily News in Nova Scotia. They decided to put a different spin on the story by re-writing the headline thusly:


“So-called green shift”? Well, at least they didn't totally adopt Conservative talking points (like, say, the National Post editorial board) and call it a tax trick. But it's not a so-called Green Shift. It is called the Green Shift (pending the outcome of assorted wacky and contrived legal tom foolery). The headline writer may have their doubts on how green it is, or how shifty. But it's not their place to editorialize in the headlines of newspaper articles.

On another note, after the comments from Ghiz the article features commentary from the PEI Conservatives' energy critic, Mike Currie. His party has crunched the numbers and, surprise surprise, it's the end of the world as we know it. But here's what I found quite amusing:

“I think that this guy (Ghiz) is running this government off the seat of his pants,” said Currie, who has spent 20 years in the oil business.

Trust the oil man folks, this environment plan is all bad. Global warmin', schmobal swarmin'. Consume!

P.S. I tried mightily to work a Anne of Green Gables or Road to Avonlea reference into this post, but I could not. I apologize. I have failed you.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Penny Priddy's departure puts Surrey-North in play

With the announcement yesterday by NDP MP Penny Priddy that she won’t seek re-election, the race in her riding of Surrey North becomes even more interesting. And it was already one worth watching.

That’s because Surrey North, of course, is Chuck Cadman’s old riding. And it’s also the riding where Chuck’s widow, Dona Cadman, is the Conservative candidate. Dona has been much in the news as the story as unfolded around Stephen Harper’s taped comment on “financial considerations” and the Conservative attempts to secure Chuck’s vote to bring down the Paul Martin government a few years back.

Dona has been caught in the middle, trying to reconcile her statements on the record and those of her daughter and in the Tom Zytaruk book with her desire to remain a Conservative candidate and be loyal to the cause, leading to some interestingly creative statements and affidavits like the recent depends on your definition of a portico filing.

In the last election Priddy, a long-time Surrey politician who held several senior cabinet portfolios in the provincial NDP governments of the 1990s, won rather handily over her Conservative opponent:


We’re losing one interesting dynamic with Priddy leaving the race; she and Dona Cadman were longtime friends, and Cadman actually endorsed Priddy in the last election. That’s a favour I doubt Priddy will be returning, by the way.

It will be interesting to watch this race unfold now though with Priddy’s departure. I suspect a lot of her large margin of victory in 2006 had to do with her personal popularity (helped perhaps the Cadman endorsement), and I doubt a new NDP candidate will be able to hold all that vote.

At first blush this would seem to be a big boost for the Cadman campaign. What I wonder though, and I’m not on the ground in the riding so I can only speculate, but I wonder what impact this whole Cadman affair is having on Dona’s chances in the riding. Chuck was extremely popular and I’d have said before that she was a virtual shoe-in, or at least a coin-toss with Priddy. But as the controversy around the vote wooing has unfolded, and with Dona caught in the middle seemingly contradicting herself while trying to prop-up the Conservative libel case, could this be hurting her credibility, and her support? I don’t know, but its worth watching.

The Liberals finished a distant third in this riding in the last campaign. I’m not sure if they’ve nominated a candidate yet or not. But with Priddy’s departure, and the controversy around Dona, there may be a chance for the Liberals to sneak-up the middle here with the right candidate. It’s a challenge, but as I said things are getting more interesting in Surrey-North.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

In and out day two, a few textual thoughts

I'm feeling under the weather today so I'm home sick, and after a morning of rest I've been drinking plenty of fluids and watching the ethics committee hearings in the Conservative In and Out election financing scandal on CPAC.

I missed most of the morning session, but then I hear so did CPAC. They did replay the morning session during the lunch break though, and so I caught most of that and then the afternoon session.

From what I can gather most of today's activities were bogged-down in procedural wrangling. Not overly exciting viewing unless you're a bit of a parliamentary procedure wonk and Roberts Rules fan. Which I am of sorts, so I found it all mildly entertaining.

Elections Canada boss Marc Mayrand was dismissed early around midday, although not before the Conservatives complained bitterly about sending him home early. Hard to believe there was a time they didn't want much to be here, now they don't want to leave. The wanted another 8 rounds of questioning at least, while the other parties seemed to be done. The Cons though claimed to have tons more blockbuster questions that, if they could only ask them, would blow the lid on the grand conspiracy about how Elections Canada, the Liberal Party and the Stone Cutters are all out to get the Conservative Party.

The problem is, their questions were are are all outside the scope of the terms of reference the committee has agreed to for the hearings, or they relate to the court case launched by the Conservative Party themselves (actually several of their candidates' official agents to be specific) and so can't be addressed by Mayrand.

If the Conservatives really had any blockbuster questions they would have asked them during the day and a half of questioning. Instead they spend the time flailing asking irrelevant questions trying to support their conspiracy theories and failing spectacularly. On day one, Mayrand indicated clearly he instructed his officials to investigate if there were other returns (filed by candidates from other parties) in the last election of a similar nature. There were not.

And the Conservatives have yet to provide any conclusive evidence that there were. They've been fishing for months and they've come up empty. They keep harping on transfers made by the BQ that are similar. This is true. But it was also during the 2000 election, when the law was different. The courts have upheld the legality of those transactions.

The Conservatives though ignore the law (which they seem to do a lot) and try to create a smokescreen to support their utterly discredited “all parties do this” thesis. A rational examination of their case though shows their claim to be groundless. And by the way, let's say there was something here, why would the Liberals want to hide alleged BQ wrongdoing? Doesn't make sense.

They also have some supposed evidence against the NDP's Libby Davies that is similarly uncompelling. The best they can do against the Liberals is to complain that Elections Canada didn't investigate the sponsorship scandal. Yeah, that whole thing was ignored wasn't it? Unless you don't count investigations by the HoC Public Accounts Committee, the RCMP, forensic accountants, and a Judicial Commission of Inquiry televised on national TV.

After lunch it was on to discuss the next round of hearings on In and Out in mid-August (mark your calendars now for the week of Aug. 11) and who the potential witnesses will be. Each of the parties submitted names in the morning, the duplicates were purged and the list is to be considered by the committee.

Ethics is one of the few committees where both the chair is from the opposition and the opposition MPs have a majority, and it looks like the opposition has been able to secure a few pages from the infamous Conservative Big Book of Committee Trickery. The chair, Liberal Paul Szabo, rules a bunch of proposed names as out of order as they're outside the committee terms of reference as discussed above.

Before the Conservatives can contain their rage enough to object (as pretty near every name disallowed was from their list) Liberal MP Marlene Jennings breaks-in with a non-debatable challenge the chair motion.

Why would Jennings challenge the chair, I'm thinking. But it's all perfectly clear, as the Conservatives quickly shout in protest: it's Liberal trickery! The NDP and BQ join in the Liberal trickery and uphold the chair's ruling. Debate on the ruling pre-empted, the exclusion is a done deal.

The NDP's Pat Martin moves a motion to invite the remaining witnesses with the exception of Robin Sears (ex of the NDP, more recently an advisor to Brian Mulroney, and defender of In and Out) whom he moves be struck from the list.

At this point, to their chagrin, the Conservatives realize every single name on their proposed witness list has been struck, with Sears being the last one. Ha. Well guys, that's because all the names have one thing in common: they have nothing to do with the committee terms of reference, and everything to do with your diversionary and irrelevant fishing expedition. So it's hard to have much sympathy for them.

Jennings for good measure moves to strike a few more names that the Cons didn't submit, and amends the motion to let the chair compel some witnesses to appear if necessry. This is no doubt aimed at some of the senior Conservative Party strategists on the list who are unlikely to be energetic witnesses. Also on the list are many Conservative MPs flagged as taking part in In and Out. They can't be compelled though, and Pierre Poilievre makes clear they won't be coming to this “kangaro court.”

The motions pass, and Jennings quickly moves to adjourn, which is passed. Conservative MP Scott Reid has some motion (of which I don't know the details) that was left on the agenda and he seems pissed it won't be heard. I don't blame him, although if it was a stupid motion I reserve the right to change my mind.

Anyway, Reid et. al. leap to their feet in anger as CPAC cuts the mic to end coverage, and can still be seen shouting as the screen fades to the accompaniment of classical music. The juxposition makes me smile. And I might feel bad for them had they not made a history in this parliament of using every bit of the procedural handbook to their committee advantage. Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik.

Of course, for the definitive live-blogging coverage see Inside the Queensway.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

In and Out hearing video highlights

With yesterday's In and Out testimony at the ethics committee yesterday I decided to take my first crack at video blogging, and make a video with some of the highlights of the testimony and my comments. The result follows:



I'm not overly happy with how it turned out. My camera and mic are pretty poor quality, I was plagued by technical difficulties, and I need some better editing software. After spending too much of yesterday evening playing around with it I just decided to call it a day and go with it as is. It's a first attempt though, I'll try some different things in the future and get it right hopefully one of these days. And of course I should have been saying Mayrand, not Maynard.

For more on day one of the hearings, visit these links:

MSM
Toronto Star: Tory party violated rules, MPs told
CBC: Election chief counters Tory defence on election expenses
CP: Electoral officer tells MPs of $1.3 million in suspect Tory campaign expenses
Toronto Sun: Vote czar zaps Tories

BLOGS
Liberal Arts and Minds: From fact to fiction with a sprinkling of funny
Far and Wide: Everyone doesn't do it
Impolitical: Heckuva job, Pierre
Accidental Deliberations: On fabrications

And for the definitive live blogging coverage:

Inside the Queensway: In and Out Inside Out: Liveblogging the Ethics committee and And now, a very few pointed questions from the audience: Liveblogging the Ethics committee's afternoon session

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

High-flying hypocrisy: The Conservatives, Bombardier and corporate subsidies

I don’t have a huge issue with select corporate subsidies when they’re in the public interest, and my view on that doesn’t change no matter whom the party in power may be. Given this news though…

And, as soon aircraft maker Bombardier announced a new jet Sunday at an air show in England, Industry Minister Jim Prentice put out a news release reminding voters in Quebec that the federal government was giving the company $350 million to ensure it made those planes near Montreal.

…I thought it would be interesting to see what Stephen Harper and his MPs have had to say on the issue of Bombardier and corporate subsidies in the past.

*June 3, 2005, National Post column by John Ivison on a speech by Stephen Harper to the Toronto Board of Trade:

Harper promised that there would be a dividend down the road for businesses in the form of reduced business income tax and capital gains tax rates but that these cuts would be contingent on the Conservatives finding savings of around $4-billion from the $18- billion in corporate "welfare" spent annually by the government.

He issued a challenge to business: "If you want lower business taxes, you must be willing at the same time to stop receiving government subsidies. I won't lower one without lowering the other."

*March 19, 2005, National Post news article:

Conservative party members endorsed an economic agenda yesterday that highlights widespread tax relief and the eventual elimination of financial aid to corporations.

"I think what this shows is that small-c conservatives are in the party and they are making their voices heard," said Gerry Nicholls, vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition. "We've been urging them to do that -- and that's what they are doing. It's good for the party and it's good for Canada."

What earned the most bullish response from Mr. Williamson and Mr. Nicholls was a resolution calling for an eventual end to financial subsidies to corporations. The resolution was approved but not after heated debate among delegates -- particularly members from Quebec who warned that companies such as Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. needed federal aid.

"Giving handouts to business is not the answer," Mr. Nicholls said. "What Conservatives should be doing is coming up with a policy that creates a better environment for business with lower taxes and less regulation."

*June 26, 2004, Globe and Mail news article:

Mr. Harper argued Monday during the French-language debate that Bombardier doesn't need subsidies to succeed. Liberal Leader Paul Martin and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe responded that Mr. Harper's policies would hurt the economy and eliminate jobs.

*October 8, 2003, Burnaby Now, Letter to the editor:

Editor:

Last week, in two separate speeches, Paul Martin, prime minister to be, and Paul Tellier, president and CEO of Bombardier, tried to defend the indefensible. They tried to defend corporate welfare.

Canadian taxpayers have poured billions of dollars into Bombardier over the past 20 years in the form of grants, contributions, loans and contracts. These funds would go a long way towards tax relief or health care for Canadians. Yet, Mr. Tellier tells us to stop whining.

With all due respect, Mr. Tellier, no, we won't. Canadians deserve to know exactly how much his company has received and how much it has paid back.

In the Canadian Alliance, we have consistently maintained corporate welfare must stop. It is time to put an end to grants, preferential loans and sole-source contracts.

In the past, our party has raised concerns about the amount of money given to Bombardier over a 15-year period. Canadians still don't know the exact amount of money given to Bombardier by our federal government or how much has ever been repaid. Indeed, we still don't know if Bombardier intends to pay back the $87-million "loan" Technology Partnerships Canada gave to his company in 1996.

The problem resides with Paul Martin and the Liberal government. Each year, the federal government transfers between $20 and $25 billion to companies, lobbyists and special interest groups for a variety of purposes. Most of the money is never repaid.

On numerous occasions, the Canadian Alliance has called for the federal government to account for this mess and wean companies such as Bombardier from the public purse. We are still waiting for an answer.

The Liberals keep digging deeper and deeper into a hole as they give money to Bombardier and others. It is time to stop digging.

James Rajotte
Canadian Alliance MP, Edmonton Southwest

*Sept. 16. 2003, Montreal Gazette news article:

Most recently, for example, Charlie Penson, trade critic for the Canadian Alliance, blasted the federal government for freeing up $1.2 billion in loans to buyers of Bombardier's jets through the cabinet-controlled Canada Account.

"I'm always amazed at how quickly they react for their pet company," Penson said.
--

These are just a sampling too. Besides the letter from James Rajotte (who now chairs the committee on industry, science and technology, btw), I think my favourite line from these articles was from the story about the 2005 Conservative policy convention, about “the eventual elimination of financial aid to corporations.” By eventual, I take it just as soon as they win enough Quebec seats for a majority.

Finally, for those that will undoubtedly say ‘Liberals do it too’ yes, that’s true, but the Liberals also don’t have a record of strident opposition to doing this. It’s not the policy, it’s the hypocrisy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Will we really care what leaders come to the Vancouver games?

I like to think I love a chance to rip on Stephen Harper just as much as the next guy, if not even more, but I’m having a hard time caring much about whether or not Harper attends the opening ceremonies for this summer’s Beijing Olympics:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is resisting growing pressure to attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer, but his Trade Minister Michael Fortier insisted yesterday that the Prime Minister's absence would have no lasting impact on bilateral relations.

Sure, reversing course and going may be the real politik thing to do, and with the leaders of France and the U.S. attending he’d have plenty of cover for a decision to go. Harper has insisted from day one it’s a scheduling and time decision and not message-sending on human rights. It’s probably a little of both I suspect. But I find it difficult to believe whether or not our Prime Minister goes to the opening games will have any impact one way or the other on our bilateral relationship.

I really think Bob Rae goes over the top here though with his release and comments on the topic:

Mr. Rae has called on the Prime Minister to reverse course and attend the Games' opening ceremony, saying Canada will "pay a price" for the snub. …

Mr. Rae said Mr. Harper seems to be suffering a "hang-over" from the Cold War, when Conservative parliamentarians were courted by Taiwan and were staunch critics of Red China.

"I think it is ironic that Chiang Kai-shek's followers in Taiwan are quite prepared to seek a rapprochement with China, but Chiang Kai-shek's followers in the Conservative cabinet are not," he said.

Alrighty then. The Harper policy on China has been decidedly lacking in nuance and tact. But if relations with China are frosty it’s for a myriad of reasons. We have some legitimate beefs with their government, from its treatment of its own citizen to its treatment of some of ours. On some issues, a firm hand by the Canadian government has been appropriate. In other cases, we’ve overplayed our hand for domestic consumption, wanting to be seen as being tough in certain communities at home, and it has cost us.

Harper’s attendance at the games shouldn’t be the issue. The issue should be is the government’s wider China policy serving our dual interests to advance both trade and human rights. It can be a difficult balancing act to be sure.

But as for the games, who cares. Any ill feelings in Beijing won’t be cured by Harper’s being in the stadium. And I really doubt we’ll be seeing headlines in two years about this leader or that snubbing Vancouver by not showing-up at BC Place, and the Canadian government planning retribution. I think then Prime Minister Stephane Dion will know better... frankly, I could care less which leaders come to Vancouver and which don’t.

Except for President Barrack Obama. He’d better be there, or we’re cutting off the oil.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On X-Rated newspaper folds

From the department of unfortunately-placed newspaper folds comes this entry from the Review section of today’s Globe and Mail.

The story is on some ancient stone club from B.C., dating to 1800 BC that could be sold to a collector in the U.S. Accompanying the story is a colour photo of the club:

Normal enough so far. However, as you can see the top of the club is cut off by the newspaper fold. Here’s what’s above the fold:

Opps. Bad Globe and Mail! Naughty naughty.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Looking for a good desktop with TV tuner/PVR

I’m in the market for a new desktop computer at the moment, My Dell laptop is coming up on three years old, and while I intend to get another year or so out of it I’d like to retire it to road use only and get a more powerful desktop for home use.

I’m looking for something with a digital TV tuner that I can use as a PVR. I’m currently making a monthly rental fee to rent a PVR from Rogers when I could be getting just a regular box free, so with a PVR-capable desktop I’d be able to downgrade to a regular cable box and save the monthly rental. So my desktop needs to be PVR-capable, and I’d also like to run a line back to the TV to watch recorded programs there.

I don’t do a lot of high-end gaming, but I do need decent performance as I’d like to get more into video editing. And of course, a good deal of storage is also a must. I’m looking to spend around $1000, w/o monitor.

I’ve got my eye on this machine at Best Buy, the HP Pavilion Elite M9250F. I like HP’s machines, and I’ve heard good things about their Media Center software. I’m also inclined to prefer the Intel chipset over AMD’s equivalent, don’t know if that’s fair or not. This machine looks to meet most of my requirements, and offer a good deal of performance for the price.

Does anyone have any advice or thoughts on this machine, or similar machines that might do the job? Any experience using a desktop as a PVR back to the TV, easy or a pain in the behind?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Maybe it's that other Chantal Hebert

A scathing column on the NDP's opposition to the Liberal Green Shift by Chantal Hebert in the Toronto Star today. Unfortunately, due to my deep dislike of Hebert I can't get too excited, but it's still a nice read. And she actually resists taking unfair potshots at Stephane Dion for a change too.

As twisted as it may seem, the logic of advancing the cause of climate change by waging war on the Liberals at a time that party is winning kudos from much of Canada's environment movement for its Green Shift plan is what passes for strategy for the federal NDP these days.

And speaking of the possibly upcoming by-elections, the Liberals have two pretty good Quebec candidates there in Marc Garneau (Westmount--Ville-Marie) and Roxane Stanners (Saint Lambert). Fall by-elections would also likely include Guelph, where the Liberals are running Frank Valeriote, and Don Valley West, where the Liberal candidate is Rob Oliphant.

I'm not convinced we'll see by-elections this fall though. Even if they're called I expect (or hope) they'll be preempted by a general election this fall, unless a)Liberal cold feet resurface, b)The Cons play prorogual games to delay the HoC return, or c)After the Liberals agree to go, the NDP and BQ decide they don't want to just yet.

UPDATE: More from the Star on the carbon shift, this time from Lynn McDonald. In addition to being a professor, Lynn was an NDP MP from 1982 to 1988, including a stint as environment critic.

But does the NDP not realize that the poor are the worst hit by climate change? And will increasingly be harmed as global heating gets worse? Would Tommy Douglas have missed this?

Already there are environmental refugees and victims of drought and food shortages in Third World countries. In Canada traditional hunters (with very low incomes) have seen their livelihood harmed. What protection will the urban poor have as temperatures rise?

The NDP has historically been a leader in advocating social justice, but not now.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Yo, will Stephen Harper make it to 91?

After Stephen Harper helped block real action on climate change at the G8 meetings that opposed 2020 targets, a tepid plan was developed that may halve emissions by 2050:

Canada trumpets G8 vow to halve emissions by 2050
Last Updated: Tuesday, July 8, 2008 | 11:55 AM ET
CBC News

The Group of Eight industrialized nations on Tuesday endorsed halving global emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 in a declaration praised by the Canadian government.

By which time Stephen Harper expects to already be long since dead and buried (literally, not just politically):

“In four decades I’d probably be dead — I’m sure that I will be dead.” (Stephen Harper, Dec. 18, 2006, Toronto Star)

As I look outside on a smoggy Toronto afternoon, I can’t help but wonder if Steve, and many other Canadians, might have a better shot at seeing 2050 if we did something about emissions just a little sooner then 2050. We’d need to lay off the apple fritters too, but it would help.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why release non-relevant affidavits? Here's why

There have been two threads buzzing with comments today over at Inside the Queensway about an affidavit filed by Dona Cadman related to the Stephen Harper libel lawsuit against the Liberal Party over the Chuck Cadman affair.

From reading ITQ's coverage of the statements and the who said what and when it seems pretty clear to me the Conservative are blowing smoke here; none of their alleged inconsistencies alter the essential facts of the case, change what Stephen Harper is heard to say on the Tom Zytaruk tape, or shine light on just what the Conservatives allege was doctored from the tape, and how that would change the meaning of what Harper is heard to say.

What I did find tangentially new with this latest development (and again, thanks for keeping the story of your attempt to secure the vote of a dying MP by offering to “replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election” alive) is that they seem to be going after the journalist, Tom Zytaruk, in a way they haven’t before. Indeed, they’ve generally avoided attempting to impugn his credibility previously. In the infamous “doctored tapes” presser they avoided saying just whom they allege did the doctoring, when their timeline only seems to allow opportunity to Zytaruk and/or his publisher. How far will they go down this road before Zytaruk might decide he has a libel case?

Anyway, I’d been wondering earlier just what the Con strategy was here, denying things no one said happened on points not pertinent to the actual issues at hand. But then I saw this headline, and all was clear:


Lazy headline writers is what they were banking on, and lazy readers. Many people will just read the headline, or the head and the lead. What’s this? His widow denies the author’s story they’ll say. And that will be filed away as a mark against the allegations in their consciousness.

Nevermind she’s not denying the relevant points of the allegations, just that they talked inside the house. Something it's unclear he ever really even claimed, and that doesn't matter anyway. They’ll just see “widow denies” and move on.

So, all in all, a good bit of short-term communications and media management by the Conservatives, all for the cost of an affidavit.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Journalists: We don't suck as much as you might think

How about some non-political polling news for a change? These figures come from Ipsos-Reid via the Canadian Journalism Foundation, and as a journalist by trade they help to soothe my tiny journalist heart a little:

An Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of the CJF reveals that when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly, seven in 10 (69%) Canadians have "trust and confidence" in traditional news media such as newspapers, news magazines, TV and radio. Canadians were also asked whether they feel there is a political bias in the media, if the media's primary goal is truth or business oriented, and if they would encourage their children to pursue a journalism career.

Some 31 per cent didn’t have very much confidence in the media and four per cent had none. Journalists are generally thought of as derided but see, but it seems we don’t totally suck after all. Take that lawyers and politicians!

Clicking this link will get you a word file (weird, I know) with lots more interesting figures from the survey, but I’ll highlight a few:

*On blogging and online media, 41 per cent indicated they have trust and confidence in them to report the news fully, accurately and fairly, while 52 per cent had ‘not very much’ confidence and 7 per cent had none at all. Not surprising the numbers are lower here. While the gap is played-up more in the release, I think the fact that just 28 per cent trust the MSM more than blogs is pretty good, and something the MSM should take note of.

*Speaking of bias: what bias, say Canadians. More Canadians (20 per cent) think the media has a Conservative bias then think it has a Liberal bias (18 per cent). Sorry Blogging Tories. Like Goldilocks, 62 per cent say the media is “just about right.” And here’s a stat I love, and Stephen Harper will hate:

…when senior government officials deny reports in the national news media and say that the reports are not accurate, most Canadians tend to believe the news media (84%) in these cases, not the government (16%).

How do you like them apples, Sandra Buckler?

Finally, I’ll sign-off with some regional and demographic breakdowns on the blogging/new media trust numbers:

*Atlantic Canadians (54%) are the most likely to have trust and confidence in this type of media, while those in Quebec (43%), British Columbia (42%), Ontario (38%), Alberta (38%) and Saskatchewan and Manitoba (36%) are considerably less likely.

*Men (44%) are more likely than women (38%) to have trust and confidence in new types of online media.

*Younger Canadians (46%), aged 18 to 34, are more likely than middle-aged (40%), aged 35 to 54, or older Canadians (37%), aged 55 and older, to have trust and confidence in new forms of online media.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Live-blogging Prorogue Watch 2008

14:55: Will they prorogue, or won’t they? Speculation last week was that the Harper Conservatives, likely to prorogue parliament this fall anyway to delay its return and avoid a possible fall election, may prorogue Parliament a little early to avoid summer committee hearings into their electoral In-and-Out scandal:

Opposition MPs fear the Harper government is preparing to cut off parliamentary business for the summer rather than endure an inquiry into allegations of election spending fraud by the Conservative party.

After months of Tory filibustering that delayed a probe of the so-called in-and-out election financing scheme, the Commons ethics committee is finally scheduled to begin hearings on July 15.

Chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand and other officials from Elections Canada, the independent watchdog that red-flagged the alleged irregularities, are slated to be the first witnesses.

But some opposition critics suspect Prime Minister Stephen Harper will prorogue Parliament, a pre-emptive procedural tactic that governments usually employ when they want to wipe the legislative agenda clean and start fresh with a new throne speech.

In this case, since the full House of Commons has already adjourned for the summer, the main impact would be to dissolve all committees, thus thwarting the planned examination of the in-and-out affair.

The committee hearings are now less than 24 hours away . Will Harper prorogue? Will they filibuster? Or is there some crazy, unrevealed chapter in the committee dirty tricks handbook?

Stay tuned for regular updates.

15:05: There’s been a prorogual!...in Pakistan:

The seventh session of the Punjab Assembly was prorogued here Saturday after sixteen days of business during which the provincial budget for 2008-09 was passed by the house. Acting Speaker Rana Mashhood Ahmed Khan chaired Saturday’s proceeding but he had to prorogue the session when Q-League MPA Amna Ulfat pointed the quorum, which was incomplete on head count.

So close, and yet so on the other side of the world a few days ago. I’ll keep an eye out though.

15:30: Still no sign of any hot proroguing action. It is getting steamy out here in suburban Toronto though. Tomorrow they're calling for 41C with the humidex. Madness. Will probably be hot in Ottawa too. To hot for committees? We'll see.

16:00: O'Malley reluctantly informs me that I got the date of the committee meeting wrong. It's actually NEXT Tuesday! Personally, I blame Stephane Dion for this committee timing trick. So that means Prorogue Watch 2008TM has eight more days to go. Maybe Harper will put us out of our misery early with a snap decision?

16:41: It's all quiet on the proroguing front. On the plus side though, I can now spell prorogue. It's a hard one to spell too. I'd have gone with perogue originally. Seems more natural. If you're wondering, the word comes from the Latin prōrogō, or to defer. The last hard to spell word blogging taught me to spell? Ignatieff.

17:01: Time to head home from work, and at last check no prorogue yet. Would a promulgation be the same thing? While they're similar words, the meanings are actually different. Wikipedia says "Promulgation or enactment is the act of formally proclaiming or declaring new statutory or administrative law when it receives final approval."

All this proroguing talk though has made me pretty hungry, and I'm craving, go figure, perogies. So I'm off to Price Choppers to pick up the necessities. How do you like to cook and prepare your perogies? Does Jason Kenney really like perogies, or just when he's trying to woo the Ukranian community?

18:42: My coverage of Prorogue Watch 2008 has been interrupted so I cal bring you Perogy Watch 2008. I've returned home perogies in hand, and I'm just waiting for them to defrost before panfrying them with some bacon. Might top with a little grated cheddar. Healthy, I know, but I got the light sour cream so it all balances out. Just realized I forgot to get mushrooms and onion which, along with the light sour cream, would practically have made this health food. Ah, well. Updates as warranted.

21:45: Perogies were quite good, although the mushrooms and onions would have been nice. This will conclude Perogy Watch 2008.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Slim Liberal lead on the environment

On Sunday I wrote that the Conservatives were trying to shift the Green Shift debate from the environment to the economy because the former is a weakness for them and the latter a strength, so I’d be remiss if I didn’t present these numbers from Nanos on the environment question released Monday:

Question: Which federal party do you trust most to manage the following issues?
The environment
Liberals - 21%
Conservatives - 18%
NDP - 14%
Bloc - 3%
Greens - 13%
None - 16%
Unsure - 16%

And commentary from Nanos:

The poll shows a statistical tie between the Liberals and the Conservatives for trust on the enviroment. Of note, even with the launch of the Liberal “Green Shift Plan” the Liberals did not enjoy a significant advantage over the Conservatives on the environment.

Interesting numbers, and a little disappointing for the Liberals. Clearly we have some work to do, and with none and unsure totaling 32 per cent there are a lot of people on the fence waiting to be wooed. And frankly, if we can frame and sell this Green Shift right, with an actual plan we have a better chance of wooing those people than the Cons do with their “tax on everything” rhetoric but then, as discussed previously, the Cons aren’t trying on this category.

Rather, they and the NDP with their similar anti-shift rhetoric, are trying to blow-up the Liberal numbers on this issue. I’d argue those attacks contribute to the high none/unsure numbers, although dissatisfaction with the Liberal environment record in office (which I could defend somewhat but that’s another post) also makes it a little tougher for us to convince Canadians we’re serious this time, leaving people to sit on the fence here.

Despite the “statistical tie” as Nanos calls it, I think we’re best positioned here, IF we can convince Canadians that a) we’re serious this time and b) this is the right plan. The Cons aren’t going to move much here, particularly since they’re not trying. The NDP has been trying, and this is an area they’d expect to be strong. But they’re four back of the Cons and just one up on the Greens here. I think their opposition to a carbon shift while backing cap and trade, which is also part of a Liberal plan, has the potential to move some NDP support to the Liberals here. Some of their traditional green allies are confused.

Lastly though, I’d really like to see the regional breakdowns of these numbers. The PDF with the breakdowns hasn’t been posted on the Nanos site yet. As I noted Sunday with the economic numbers, high Conservative numbers in Alberta (and a little less in Quebec) made their lead on the economic question management seem higher than it was. It will be interesting to see how the environment question breaks-down across Canada.

Other numbers

Today’s release included two other issues that weren’t released previously, FYI:

National Unity
Liberals - 29%
Conservatives - 25%
NDP - 8%
Bloc - 4%
Greens - 2%
None - 17%
Unsure - 17%

Healthcare
Liberals - 25%
Conservatives - 23%
NDP - 14%
Bloc - 4%
Greens - 1%
None - 17%
Unsure - 16%

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Serving general stumps for the defence minister?

The Hill Times has a piece today on the looming battle in the riding of Central Nova, where Elizabeth May is taking on Peter MacKay in an interesting battle, with the NDP having a strong shot as well. This line in that article caught my interest:

Mr. MacKay got another boost recently, when he arranged a visit to the county by wildly popular and then-outgoing chief of defence staff Rick Hillier. Mr. Hillier attended fundraisers, visited monuments and hospitals, and chatted up the locals on the waterfronts and main streets.

The excitement over Mr. Hillier's visit was splashed across the local newspaper, one headline declaring: "Hillier wows 'em."

Is it really appropriate for a serving general, and the chief of defence staff, to be stumping for a member of parliament and the minister of defence? After he’s retired he can do whatever he wants, but while he’s still wearing the uniform it hardly seems appropriate.

Kind of serendipitous though that, after his tour through Central Nova and a boost to Peter MacKay’s fortunes, the now retired general has a new job:

Fresh from running a war, Rick Hillier, who stepped down as chief of the defence staff this week, is temporarily joining Gowlings, a huge law firm in Ottawa, to consider a future "career in the private sector." The general is not a lawyer and says he has not made any firm decisions about his future. Still, a statement provided by the firm said he "has indicated that when he assumes a new career in September, he is looking to provide strategic advice, leadership training and other consulting services." And Gowlings can help him with all that. Does this spell lobbying? Certainly, Mr. Hillier's name and expertise in the defence world will add even more cachet to the national firm, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP.

Not a lawyer..strategic advice…won’t lobby…where have we heard this before? Oh, right…

John Reynolds, the man who co-chaired the Conservative national election campaign, is now offering advice to some of Canada's largest companies on how to access the government.

Reynolds has been hired by Lang Michener, a national law firm with offices in Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver. The company says it's hired Reynolds for his wealth of experience and connections….

The company said he was hired as a senior strategic adviser for Lang Michener's clients who need access to government, but Reynolds denies that means he's now a lobbyist.

Reynolds, of course, quickly changed his mind and registered to lobby his old boss. I wonder how long it will be before Hillier follows suit, and signs-up to lobby MacKay? And after a visit to Central Nova to boost the sagging fortunes of his old boss, the least Peter could do would be to take the call…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Defining the issue: The environment, or the economy

I read somewhere last week that the reason the Cons are hiding their environment minister, John Baird, and are attacking the Liberal Green Shift (when they move beyond spit balls and raspberries) on economic, and not environmental, grounds is because they feel on safer ground making it an economic discussion.

That makes sense, particularly given the fact they have zero credibility on environmental issues. On the economy though, Conservatives (and conservatives) consistently tend to get better marks from the public as fiscal managers. The Cons likely had numbers like these from Nanos in mind when calling the play:


As a Liberal these are frustrating numbers. We usually see similar figures in the U.S., where Republicans are generally seen as better on the economy, despite the fact it was the Democrats and Bill Clinton that balanced the budget and returned a surplus, which the Republicans and George W. Bush turned into a trillion-dollar deficit with tax cuts for the rich that failed to trickle down. And in Canada, people tend to forget it was the Liberals that balanced the budget and returned us to the era of surpluses, while Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper have turned-in the highest-spending budgets in Canadian history.

It’s just one of those common perceptions that’s actually a misconception, I suppose. Can the Liberals ever claim their rightful, deserved high ground as the soundest fiscal managers? It’s a public relations challenge, and while we don’t want to shift the debate to a perceived Conservative strength it is a point worth making, I think.

And maybe we’re not that far behind the eight-ball on the economy after all. The Nanos PDF doesn’t include regional breakdowns. I happened to pick up the Toronto Sun today though (I don’t do it often, I promise) and it did include regional numbers. And while the national numbers give the Cons an eight-point lead, the regional numbers are illuminating:

Atlantic Canada: Liberals 25.9, Cons 25.3, NDP 5.9, Greens 0.0
Quebec: Cons 26.1, Liberals 19.5, Bloc 11.3, NDP 8.2, Greens 1.3
Ontario: Cons 30.4, Liberals 30.1, NDP 8.2, Greens 0.8
West: Cons 39.0, Liberals 20.0, NDP 9.5, Greens 2.0

Looking at the breakdown, I’d argue the Cons’ 19-point lead in the West is skewing the national numbers. And I bet the number is something like 99 per cent in Alberta, so in the rest of the West it would be a little more competitive. With the exception of Quebec and the West/Alberta, the Liberals are actually competitive on the economy in the rest of Canada, tied within the margin. Given that this is a traditional Conservative area of strength, those are positive numbers, and argues a Liberal push on the economy, while a challenge, isn’t the uphill battle the national figures make it seem.

Which isn’t to say we should move away from the environmental ground when it comes to the Green Shift. That’s an area of strength for us. But in addition to being an environmental issue, this absolutely is an economic issue too. The new green economy is going to create jobs developing and implanting new clean, green technologies. That’s where the “megatonnes of money” quote the Conservatives cut and pasted out of context came from (speaking of tape editing...).

And we need to do a better job of poking holes in the myth of Conservative sound economic management. I like John McCallum, but having a more dynamic finance critic in the fall might help. Maybe Martha-Hall Findlay can be more up front. From income trusts to ballooning spending to questionable tax cuts to picking fights with Ontario, the Cons are vulnerable here.

It's not a choice between the two. The environment and the economy don’t exist in isolation. We need to push on both.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Where's the Harper personality that leads?

As you may know, after the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, called the Liberal Green Shift environmental plan presented by the Leader of the Opposition, Stephane Dion, "crazy" and declared it would "screw everyone" Dion invited Harper to participate in a public debate on the topic. Harper declined.

Then, Dion offered to hold the debate in Calgary. In the Lion’s Den. Oil Country. Where they eat Liberals for dinner. Particularly mild-mannered Quebecois professors that wear glasses and have dogs named Kyoto and mothers from France. Still, Harper wimped-out:

Accusing the prime minister of indulging in "low blow politics and character assassination," Liberal leader Stéphane Dion challenged Stephen Harper yesterday to a one-on-one carbon tax policy debate in Calgary, the Conservative PM's riding and the energy capital of Canada.

Harper dismissed Dion's challenge for a leaders' duel on his home turf over "which plan - his plan or my plan - on climate change is the best, both for climate change and for the energy sector."

"Mr. Dion hasn't even realized that the debate started weeks ago," Harper's spokesman Dimitri Soudas said.

How could we have missed the start of a high-minded debate? The talking oil spot really should have given it away. Maybe if Dion agrees to let Harper’s mom be the moderator, and hold it at a Calgary Tim Horton’s, they’ll go for it.

Seriously, it’s all rather silly. No one expects Harper to agree to a debate on this. But if there’s one thing the Conservatives have proven, it’s that good politics is often silly. And by being seen to dodge Dion, while offering up unintelligent retorts like “it’s crazy” it portrays Dion as a leader and Harper as having something to hide.

Throughout this drama I’ve been reminded of an incident during the last election campaign. During one of the televised debates Paul Martin challenged Gilles Duceppe to debate him anywhere, anytime on unity and sovereignty. Duceppe said ok and Martin sheepishly backed away.

Since the Vancouver leaders' debates last week, when Martin challenged Duceppe to "meet him on every street corner, in every city and in every town and village in Quebec," Duceppe has been calling for a direct exchange with the prime minister.

Then Harper stepped-in and said I’ll debate you Gilles, I’ll speak for Canada. Gilles then sheepishly backed away, with the Liberals imploding in Quebec there was no benefit for him to elevate Harper’s stature in the province.

Harper also took a jab at Martin for turning down Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe's offer of a one-on-one debate in French between the two.

"I'm prepared to take that challenge, instead," said Harper to loud cheers as he made a farm-support announcement. "I look forward to debating Mr. Duceppe in the near future."

Duceppe appeared less than eager to take on Harper's challenge -- possibly because of the positive reception that the Conservative policies have been receiving in Quebec.

"There were no challenges made by Mr. Harper, telling me to meet him anywhere in Quebec," Duceppe said.

That dramedy though was a turning point (one of many) during that campaign. By taking-up that debating challenge, Harper was seen as Prime Minsiterial. As a leader. People began to take him more seriously.

I wonder what happened to that Stephen Harper, the one that picked-up challenges, that led? Maybe the Liberals stole that part of his personality too. Either way, by Harper ducking Dion’s challenge, this time it’s the Liberal leader gaining credibility, while the Conservative sheepishly backs away.

P.S. Speaking of Harper's personalities, remember this golden oldie?

Harper, however, is refusing to back down from his statement.

Campaigning in Chatham, Ont. on Wednesday, Harper said he doesn't go around demanding apologies, and even boasted that he can "take a punch."

Whatever happened to TakesPunches Harper? Instead we've got Lawsuity McDemandAlottaApologies Harper.

Could he have multiple personalities? Did someone else give the above quote (I'm looking at you Rahim Jaffer)? Will the real Stephen Harper please stand up?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal Party, Give Harper back his personality right this minute!

This made me laugh heartily:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has upped the ante in his $2.5 million defamation suit against the Liberals, claiming an additional $1 million for "misappropriation of personality."

So that's what happened to Stephen Harper's personality. The Liberals stole it! Bad Liberals, give Stephen back his personality right this minute!

Oh, and thank-you Conservative Party of Canada for once again bringing the Cadman affair back into the headlines and reminding us just how morally bankrupt you are, allegedly making million-dollar offers to secure the votes of dying MPs.

And for reminding us that you've yet to offer a credible explanation for Stephen Harper's comments on the infamous tape, what he meant by "financial considerations", just what you allege was "doctored" from the tapes, how that would change what Harper was saying, just who did the alleged doctoring, and how in the heck you could possibly expect anyone to believe all you offered him was help with his next campaign, when everyone knew there was no chance Chuck Cadman was ever going to run again.

But really, give Harper back his personality guys, that's just not nice.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Don't shoot me please, I'm Canadian!

From the Canadians are from Mars, Americans are from Venus files comes this story from Atlanta. It seems gun rights advocates are upset they aren’t allowed to carry concealed handguns…at the airport!

In the pre-security area mind you, but still! It boggles the mind. It seems a new state law may give concealed carry permit holders the right to carry their weapons pre-security at the airport. To their credit, the airport authority and the city say screw that, this is an airport, bring your gun here you’re getting arrested.

Guns were the issue. But words and federal lawsuits became the weapons of choice Tuesday as Atlanta officials declared Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport a "gun-free zone," and gun advocates immediately retaliated by suing them.

A Rambo-channeling state representative had planned to bring his gun to the airport while picking up friends in a bid to get arrested and fight the airport on it, bit appears (relatively) saner heads have prevailed, and it will be fought in the courts instead.

Bearden, a former policeman who authored the new law, said Monday he would come to the airport on Tuesday to pick up relatives and would be carrying a permitted concealed weapon. DeCosta vowed to have him arrested if he did. By Tuesday, Bearden had decided to let the courts decide the issue.

"That showdown will take place in the courts instead of an airport parking lot," said Bearden, who still planned to go to the airport, but without a gun.

Guns at the airport, really?! You can convince me on the need for rural residents to have long guns for wildlife control, and on hunting, but you lose me when it comes to carrying a concealed weapon in an airport.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On policy, foreign; wars, Iraqi; and marriage, same-sex

Missed this one during my round-up of the orgy of Canada Day polling data but it still bears mentioning, with a number if interesting comparatives to out American cousins.

First, the war on Iraq:

Opposition to the war is huge in Canada, where 82 per cent of respondents said the invasion was the wrong decision. That's a major reversal from five years ago, during the early days of the conflict, when 51 per cent of poll respondents said Canadian troops should jump to the aid of the United States.

It's also a change that is being reflected south of the border where 54 per cent of American respondents to this month's survey said their country never should have become involved militarily in Iraq.

I don’t recall the war polling that high in Canada at the time, unless the sample was confined to newspaper columnists, editorial writers and the Conservative caucus, or Alliance caucus, whatever they were calling themselves back then. Nice to see though that time has reaffirmed the sound decision of Prime Minister Jean Chretien and the Liberal government of the day. And it bears mentioning we’d be in that war now if Stephen Harper had been Prime Minister at the time:

Opposition leader Stephen Harper has told Fox News in the U.S. that most Canadians outside Quebec support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite our government's decision not to take part in the war.

In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking "for the silent majority" of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war, Harper said.

OK, I guess they were calling it the Alliance then. Anyway, what I actually found more interesting were the numbers regarding same-sex marriage, which again vindicate another decision taken by the previous Liberal government, and opposed tooth and nail by the Harper Conservatives:

And finally, the poll suggests that Canadian support for same-sex marriage is growing. Two years ago, 55 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they would not want to repeal the law that allows the unions. The more recent survey found that 68 per cent of respondents back gay marriage.

Support in the United States is not as strong; just 44 per cent of people polled in that country said they are in favour.

These numbers aren’t surprising, but they are reassuring. They show Canadians are a reasonable, understanding people. Many weren’t too comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage a few years ago. But now that we’re there, and the sky hasn’t fallen, they see it’s not such a big deal. We’re evolving as a society, and moving forward. Even if some want to take us backward.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sundin to be a Canuck?

I spent most of my Canada Day discovering the series Mad Men via Rogers on Demand, so I missed this huge news from the world of hockey:

On the first day of NHL free agency, the Vancouver Canucks made a stupendous offer to Mats Sundin and an offer sheet to David Backes.

…

New Canuck general manager Mike Gillis put a two-year, $20 million thunderbolt in front of Sundin and the 37-year-old centre went to bed Tuesday in Stockholm to sleep on it. Gillis hopes to receive an answer today.

"Our offer makes Mats the highest paid player in the league so I'm optimistic that we've made the best offer he can receive," Gillis said on a conference call. "We think we presented an opportunity here that he would like. The city is a great city to live in and we've had tremendous success with Swedish players who loved living here and want to stay here.

"So we think we have a lot of positives to offer in addition to the financial ones."

Sundin as a Canuck, that’s very interesting. He’d fit in well with the Sedins, and it may also give Markus Naslund a reason to stick around another year. I was apprehensive about Mike Gillis taking the helm as Canucks GM, but at least he’s mixing things up a little. And after last year, this team needs a little mixing up.

Although, if the Canucks do sign Sundin, it will be even more impossible to get a ticket for their game in Toronto next season. Guess it will be off to Buffalo for me.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

How about Conrad?

While I think that Dr. Henry Morgentaler is more than deserving of joining the Order of Canada, I wasn’t planning on commenting until I read this silly editorial in the National Post today where they express their opposition:

Conferring this award on Dr. Morgentaler was a mistake -- one we expect will be greeted by many long-standing Orderholders returning their medals and pins. One wonders whether the Order of Canada will ever reclaim its former prestige.

I think we should all watch for what, I’m sure, will be the coming deluge of Order of Canada holders turning in their pins in protest. I bet there are hordes running to Rideau Hall right now. Hopefully the good folks at the Post will keep us regularly up to date on all the names.

And the first one, I hope, should be the guy that founded the National Post, Conrad Black. Or does the Post not think that having a guy in the order that has been convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice, serving 6 ½ years in prison, does a little to hamper its prestige? Perhaps not, since they've defended him every step of the way.

Really though, I think the Morgentaler appointment was just cover for this guy:

The CBC's Peter Mansbridge is to become an officer of the Order of Canada, according to a list of 75 appointees released on Canada Day by Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean.

Mansbridge, the chief correspondent of CBC News, anchors the flagship nightly news program The National and also hosts Newsworld's Mansbridge One on One.

The dreaded CBC! Where are the howls of protest? Thank goodness the right-wing hordes are busy elsewhere. But good for Peter.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Mason: Carbon shift opponents “playing politics with the planet”

Good column in the Globe and Mail yesterday by Gary Mason on the carbon shift debate. He focuses mainly on the debate between the Campbell Liberals and James NDP in B.C., but also makes several references to the national debate over the Dion plan as well. There are actually pretty clear parallels between how the opponents both federally and provincially are trying to take the idea down.

You know what the most depressing thing is about the carbon tax implemented today by the B.C. government? It's not the 2.34 cents a litre it adds to the price of gas at the pump. It's the sad, pathetic and often hypocritical political attacks the tax has been under at the expense of any clear-eyed, intelligent discussion about feasible alternatives.

(Just to note, of course, no direct gas tax increase through the Dion Liberal Green Shift plan.)

If I could urge Canadians to do anything in the next few months, it would be this: Don't let politicians do your thinking for you. Arm yourself with knowledge so when they come and try to snow you for crass political gain, you can call them on it.

There's too much at stake to do otherwise.

Indeed. To do otherwise would be, to use a word, crazy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Happy Canada Day, nineteen times out of twenty

It’s Canada Day, that one day of the year (outside of the Olympic hockey tournament every four years) when it’s reasonably socially acceptable to display a modicum of patriotism. And it’s the day where newspaper editors and assignment editors hit us with a barrage of polling data and other statistics on the Canadian condition, to tell us how we feel about ourselves. It’s the Canadian way.

Even more Canadian is to compare ourselves to the Americans and so MacLeans scores a double-whammy: a raft of data in time for Canada Day comparing ourselves to the United States. And with the rightward editorial bent of the mag I was expecting bad news; after all, conservatives always want us to be more like the United States. However, the news is actually pretty good. In short:

Compared to the U.S., we work less, live longer, enjoy better health and have more sex. And get this: now we're wealthier too.

All that, and we manage not to invade Iraq too. That's why we're the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the Earth. Et tu, Sean Hannity?

While Sean mulls that over, there’s important breaking news from Sun Media:

The poll, released yesterday, found that 86% of Canadians are proud of the flag and 80% are proud of the military.

That’s even more popular than puppies, which polled at 72 per cent, down 7 per cent from 2007. I mean the Stephen Harper pro-cat agenda myself. We need an election now, dog lovers.

It’s not all sunshine and donuts over at Canwest though:

Fifty-six per cent of respondents in the Ipsos Reid poll said Canada was on the right path, while 44 per cent felt the nation was "headed in the wrong direction." "It's not an enthusiastic country at the moment," said John Wright, Ipsos Reid's senior vice-president. "But it's not the end of the world and it certainly isn't a time when people are panicking."

It’s not the end of the world, Happy Canada day everybody! Such an upbeat message. But Canwest isn't done depressing us:

The Conference Board of Canada, in its annual report card, notes that it's a lagging performance that has eroded Canada's economic standing among the 17 most advanced economies to 11th from third in the 1970s.

It's a continuing deterioration that, in recent years, is being masked by high prices for the commodities that Canada produces and exports, it said.

It's a "myth" that Canada has one of the highest living standards in the world, the board said, noting that living standards here have fallen to ninth in the world from fourth in 1990, citing as other myths the idea that Canada has a highly educated population and that it is a world leader in science and technology.

And just when MacLeans had me feeling so upbeat. Personally, I blame this on the Liberals and Dion’s stupid, crazy tax on everything.

The other Canada Day media tradition is to product Canada Day quizzes and lament how little kids these days know about the fur trade and what not. Here's a few:

MacLean’s: Canada Day Quiz
Canwest: Canada Day quiz 2008
Winnipeg Sun: Canada Day Quiz
Globe and Mail: What's the score, eh?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers