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

BBQ'ing with Stephane and Iggy, but what about Bob?

After nearly three years of living in Toronto (my god, has it really been that long? i'm getting depressed) I made my first trip on the ferry over to Centre Island yesterday evening, for a BBQ with some 400 Liberals.

The occasion was a reception for supporters of The Victory Fund, the Liberal Party’s answer to the riddle of raising money in small amounts. Contributors sign-up for monthly donations to a riding and to the party, starting at $10/month ($5 to the riding association of their choice, $5 to the party). My riding $5 is going to my old riding of Vancouver Island North, where we have an energetic young candidate in Geoff Fliescher ready to take on NDP incumbent Catherine Bell and ex-Conservative MP John Duncan. It's a great program, if you're a Liberal and you haven't joined yet, do it today.

As I said some 400 Victory Fund members were in attendance for the BBQ (hamburgers and hot dogs, most opted for the latter) and organizers indicated the fund already has some 1000 members in Ontario alone. A very good start, hopefully we’re turning a corner in this department.

A lot of the Liberal heavyweights were in attendance, including a lot of MPs and candidates from the Greater Toronto Area. Bonnie Crombrie was the MC, she’s our candidate chasing Wajid Khan ‘round the moons of Nibia in Mississauga-Streetsville. Gerard Kennedy and Martha Hall-Findlay were there too, and Michael Ignatieff gave a really good speech in introduction of Stephane Dion. Dion looked confident and relaxed, and gave a good, short speech toughing a range of topics from the Green Shift to the economy and why we need to take the fight to Stephen Harper.

Noticeably absent from the event was Bob Rae, particularly as I thought it was his riding although I was told later it was actually Trinity-Spadina, which Tony Ianno will fight to claw back from Olivia Chow. According to Bob’s Facebook status he’s in B.C. at the moment. Last night though I was speculating on his absence, and came up with two possible theories:

*Ryan Sparrow called, he said Bob’s not here because he doesn’t like the Green Shift.

*He was standing beside Ignatieff on the ferry ride over to the island, and Iggy pushed him over the side. I was hoping to see a soaking-wet Rae emerge from the waters of Lake Ontario, breathing fire.

All in all a fun night, despite the very expensive bar prices. Very strong blogger turnout as well, including The World According to CDLU, A View From the Left, Calgary Grit, Jason Chernaik, The Wingnuterer (who let me guest-live blog via is mini-laptop) and The Liberal Bag.

Proof below that Stephane Dion talks to bloggers, as he poses for a photo surounded by bloggers. Of course, I have my eyes closed. No metaphor there, I assure you.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

My NDP friends, welcome to my world

You may remember that Jack Layton was for an immediate election before he was against an immediate election:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be "misguided" if he chose to call a federal election before Parliament resumes sitting on Sept. 15, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Thursday.
...
Layton said it's up to the prime minister to make Parliament work and he intends to ask him to work with the other parties to accomplish that.

"I'd love to see a prime minister who says lets all roll up our sleeves and work together," he said. "I'm not holding my breath, but that's what I'd like to see."

What happened to the Jack Layton that wanted an election NOW, that pilliored the Liberals for waiting, for abstaining, for being missing in action? You know the guy. Average height, with a mustache? Remember him? Well, he's stroking that mustache now as he ponders Harper's motives:

The NDP leader said Harper's assertion that Parliament isn't working is at odds with the facts.
"He's managed to get his entire program through with the help of the Liberals and the Bloc [Québécois]. So it's actually not a valid complaint," Layton said. "So he's up to something."

Harper is up to something indeed. Oh, the thoughts that must be running through Jack's mind. Yes, we want an election. But now Harper is saying he wants one too. So maybe we shouldn't want one, because he wants one so it must be good for him and so it's bad for us. Or does he just want us to think he wants an election so we won't give him one, and really he doesn't want one?

And what if the Liberals decide they actually want one too and we need to make a decision ourselves for a change? Oh, he's so crafty, that Harper, with his chess playing!
Getting frustrated yet my NDP friends? Welcome to my world, mes amis. Pull up a chair.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Links on bloggy and copyrighty issues

*Good news for advocates of copyright reform and fair use, as long as you live in the United States that is:

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel has ruled that fair use -- a complex set of exemptions to copyright meant to allow for commentary, criticism, and parody -- must be taken into consideration before rightsholders request the removal of infringing content from websites like YouTube.

Here in Canada, alas, Jim Prentice is trying to ram through a far more draconian copyright approach on behalf of the Conservatives and their friends in industry.

*Bad news for anonymous blog commenters:

Take EDF Ventures, an obscure Michigan VC firm, which may well have gotten a bum rap on TheFunded.com, a VC-ratings site. After issuing a subpoena to find the identity of the entrepreneur who said the VC firm was "to be avoided unless you are desperate," it has now filed a lawsuit against the anonymous commenter. "If someone lies about you, it isn't right," says Mary Campbell, the firm's founder.

Reading the comment they’re actually taking issue with, EDF seems rather overzealous in initiating legal action here. I just hope they don’t sue me for saying so.

*Still on anonymous blog commenters, Wired has a much different, and more important, story on relating to the issues of Web anonymity, how it can be misused, where the privacy lines should be drawn, and what the role of the courts and libel law should be when the Web is used to attack and defame:

"Women named Jill and Hillary should be raped."

Those are the words of "AK-47" -- a poster to the college-admissions web forum AutoAdmit.com. AK-47 was one of a handful of students heaping misogynist scorn on women attending the nations' top law schools in 2007, in posts so vile they spurred a national debate on the limits of online anonymity, and an unprecedented federal lawsuit aimed at unmasking and punishing the posters.

Now lawyers for two female Yale Law School students have ascertained AK-47's real identity, along with the identities of other AutoAdmit posters, who all now face the likely publication of their names in court records -- potentially marking a death sentence for the comment trolls' budding legal careers even before the case has gone to trial.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You kids get off my lawn or I'm keeping your laptop!

I don’t subscribe to the theory that blogging will mean the death of the mainstream media. I do, however, think that journalists and media outlets that don’t adapt to how the new media is changing journalism will perish and fade away, and some day the rich deposits of those old media journalists running through the ground beneath Toronto will be drilled and used to power our flying cars.

I bet Christy Blatchford alone could get your flying car all the way to Obamatown (renamed from Washington, DC in 2020). Christy writes today from the Beijing games about these young whipper-snapper reporters and their infatuation with “blogging” about the games:

The unofficial end to journalism as I know it may have come earlier this week, when my Globe and Mail sporty colleague Matt Sekeres and I were at the triathlon venue in the north end of the city, waiting for the event to start. … Mr. Sekeres is a fine writer and engaging company. This isn't about him. He was merely doing what everyone - from paid professional writer to Olympian to the average guy in the stands - does now. He was committing his most idle thoughts and mundane observations if not to paper, then to its modern equivalent, a blog.

Because Christy’s idle and mundane thoughts are much more engaging in dead three format. But let’s turn serious for just a sec:

And journalism wasn't meant to be a conversation, anyway. It was maybe a monologue, at its most democratic a carefully constructed dialogue. If readers didn't like or agree with the monologues in paper A, they bought paper B. What was most important about their opinions was that they thought enough to spend the coin.

Or, we the journalist don’t care what you the readers think. You can’t do what we do. We’re right, you’re wrong, and if you don’t like it suck a lemon. And people wonder why people don’t like journalists.

I can assure you, however, that her thoughts aren’t reflective of where the field of journalism is going, they’re just the thoughts of an older generation ill-adapted to change. Under the influence of things such as blogging and Web 2.0, journalism is becoming more immediate. That’s not a new trend, journalism has been becoming more immediate for a hundreds of years, from periodicals to the news weekly to the daily newspaper to radio to television to the Web. And it’s becoming more visual. Again, not a new trend. Most importantly though, journalism is becoming more interactive. The Internet allows instantaneous feedback, and blogging allows the readership to hold the media responsible and accountable for what they produce to a degree they never have been before.

All this is for the better. It will mean better journalism, and better journalists. Blogging won’t kill journalism, the citizen blogger can’t hope to replicate the resources and the professional standards, or the (don’t laugh) commitment to ethics and impartiality of the main stream media.

And by taking the best of what the blog world has to offer and morphing it with journalistic practices, far from dying, journalism only becomes stronger.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Presidential Steve and Workmanlike Dalton

An interesting contrast highlighted here in Murray Campbell's column in the Globe this morning. Not to read too much into it, but it does lend some interesting commentary as to the style and attitude of the leaders, Stephen Harper and Dalton McGuinty:

The Prime Minister travels these days in a motorcade of at least a dozen cars that uses police motorcycles with flashing lights to stop traffic to clear a path. By contrast, the Ontario Premier is crammed with his staff and police bodyguards into a hybrid SUV that stops for traffic lights.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

In PEI is it a red shift?

The Charlottetown Guardian reports that Keith Milligan, the candidate that lost to the infamously departed for business reasons Robert Morrissey for the Liberal nomination in Egmont, will again seek the Liberal nod:

Milligan, who lost to Morrissey in last fall's closely fought nomination battle, said he has carefully considered the consequences of the new political developments in Egmont.

“I am not making any rash decision here, I have carefully thought through the situation and have consulted very extensively within the party...It is after this process that I am now announcing.”

Milligan has considerable political experience. He was elected to the provincial legislature six times and has held a number of high-profile portfolios, including being premier.

When reached for comment, Conservative spokesperson Ryan Sparrow said Milligan has decided to run for the Liberals again because he really, really hates Stephane Dion's Green shift. He just hates it so much!

Don't forget to tip your waitresses folks.

(Red shift because of the red soil.)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Don't make Dalton angry...you won't like him when he's angry

If there's a federal election coming up soon (fingers crossed), then Dalton McGuinty will be suiting-up:

Premier Dalton McGuinty vowed today to remind Ontario voters in the next federal election that Ottawa is short-changing the province, just as Prime Minister Stephen Harper took a campaign-style swing through Canada's most populous province.

"I think that's my responsibility," McGuinty said in Kitchener, ahead of Harper's scheduled stop in the southern Ontario city.

"I intend to be more vocal than I have been in the past and help Ontarians fully understand the nature of our economic challenge."

...

McGuinty, once dubbed the "small man of Confederation" by the federal Conservatives, shot back with a sharply worded letter to Harper, accusing Flaherty of undermining confidence in Ontario and failing the province by not using the hefty federal surplus to stimulate its economy.

The war of words died down after polls suggested the bickering was backfiring on the Tories and costing them crucial support in vote-rich Ontario.

McGuinty's pledge Tuesday to ramp up the rhetoric seemed to be aimed squarely at Harper, whose whirlwind tour through southern Ontario has heightened speculation that an election will soon be called.

Also suiting-up will be the team that helped the McGuinty Liberals clobber the Tory Tories and win a second, even larger majority in Ontario last fall. Just how popular are the provincial Liberals? Says Nanos:

The poll, conducted in early August, shows Premier Dalton McGuinty and the ruling Liberals are maintaining a 10-point lead over the second-place Progressive Conservatives -- similar to the results of last fall's provincial election.

"The NDP have managed to improve support in the last two months, but there's been no significant change in support for (party leader) John Tory's Conservatives since the last election," said Nanos Research President Nik Nanos.

The results show the Grits with 41% support among decided voters and the Progressive Conservatives with 31%. The NDP came in at 17%, followed by the Green Party, who sit at 11%.

What about the Harper Cons? Well, according to Decima:

In Ontario, latest results show the Liberals leading with 40%, the Conservatives with 31%, the NDP at 14%, and the Greens at 14%. Averaging three weeks, the Liberals lead with 40% compared to the Conservatives at 31%, the NDP at 15% and the Greens at 13%.

It's a nine point Liberal lead already in vote-rich Ontario. And with Team McGuinty suiting-up in a campaign, some Conservative seats are going to be in play...

That whole Stephen Harper/Jim Flaherty strategy of Ontario sucks, don't invest there is looking like more and more of a strategic genius move by the day.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Pin the bridge on the Guelph riding map!

Want to play the fun new party game that's sweeping the nation? It's easy.

Just print out this handy Guelph riding map that has the local rivers marked in blue:

and these handy-dandy bridges:


Paste the map to the wall, and cut out the bridges. Affix a piece of rolled-up scotch tape to the back of each bridge. Be sure each person writes their name on their bridge.

Then, each person sticks their bridge on the map at the point they think the Conservatives will promise to build a fancy new bridge if Guelph residents only vote Conservative.

Then, just wait for the inevitable vote-buying announcement. The person who put their bridge closest to where the Conservatives promise to build one is the winner!

Good, wholesome family fun for kids age 8 to 80!

*Caution, side effects may include nausea, deja-vu, and disillusionment with democracy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I see your bridge...

Ho, boy, a billion dollar bridge if you vote Conservative! The Conservatives are taking these by-elections seriously, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise:

The Harper government promised yesterday to build a new $1-billion bridge between Montreal and the South Shore, just three weeks before a by-election in a suburban riding that would directly benefit from the new link.

Not to be outdone, this morning Liberal candidate Roxanne Stanners promised that, if elected and if the Liberals form the next government, the Liberals will use tax dollars to buy every voter in St. Lambert a pony.

How you gonna top that, Mr. Harper! Unicorns? They're mytical, so ha!

And that loud thump you hear from the West is thousands of Reformers banging their head on a wall.

UPDATE: Breaking News! I'm ready to call this race now for the NDP, with the promise this morning by its local candidate to buy the residents of St. Lambert a stairway to heaven. It's over folks.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

See Tony be a hypocrite

Tony Clement is lecturing the medical community on ethical and moral standards. Yes, that Tony Clement. The Conservative. No, really. He is.

Health professionals who support Vancouver's safe injection site are unethical and immoral, federal Health Minister Tony Clement suggested on Monday.

Umm say, Tony, speaking of professional ethics and all that why’d it take you so long to sell those shares in Prudential Chem Inc.? You know, that pharmaceutical company you had a 25 per cent stake in while health minister? An industry that, as health minister, your decisions decidedly influence?

And it’s just coincidental, of course, that in February the government gave Prudential Chem owner, Vikram Khurana who Clement transferred his shares back to, an appointment to the Asia-Pacific Foundation.

Yeah, that Tony, he’s a real beacon of ethical and moral virtue. A true role model for the medical community.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The party of the nation, or the party of the country?

A MacLean's blogger reports a possible new Quebec strategy for Stephen Harper, abandoning the whole compete with the BQ for soft nationalists thing and fight the Liberals for the federalists. And he also points the way to this quote:

“During the next election, Quebecers will have to make a choice. They will be able to choose between the party of separation (the Bloc Québécois), the party of centralization (the Liberal party) or the party of the nation (the Conservative party),” says a Conservative strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Hmm, so the Conservatives are the party of the nation. Note the singular, denoting one nation. So which nation would that be exactly, Stephen? I'm guessing the Quebecois nation? So, should all the other nations just vote for another party then?

BTW, the party of the nation? If we Liberals tried a line like that the Cons would attack our arrogance. They're welcome to the line though. We'll just have to settle for being the party of all nations, the Pan-Canadian party.

Anyway, an interesting, likely poll-driven strategy by the Conservatives. Maybe third time's the charm. I've long been advocating for the Liberals to adopt a staunch federalist strategy. I've seen no evidence they actually have though. But with the Cons and BQ fighting for the soft-nationalist space and the NDP joining in, I've long argued there's room for the Liberals to own the staunch federalist vote, and that's an area that plays to Stephane Dion's strengths.

So, if this is indeed the new Conservative strategy it will be interesting to see how it plays this out. I know this though: in an election fought on national unity, in a battle for the staunch federalist vote, I sure wouldn't bet against Stephane Dion.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Just the facts please

There's been a lot of talk lately, and spin, about all the Liberal candidates/MPs supposedly “jumping ship” and what not. The best antidote for such Tom Foolery is the facts. And here are the facts according to Pundits' Guide:

*Liberals: 23 24 candidates resigned or stepped down, 8 9 of whom have been replaced or have nomination meetings scheduled. Add this to 9 incumbents already retired, and 10 who have announced they will not seek re-election.

*NDP: 21 candidates resigned or stepped down, 12 of whom have been replaced (in 5 cases by themselves after running provincially) or have nomination meetings scheduled. Add this to 3 incumbents who have announced they will not seek re-election.

*Conservatives: 10 candidates resigned or stepped down, 5 of whom have been replaced. Add this to 10 incumbents who have announced they will not seek re-election.

*Greens: 5 candidates resigned or stepped down, 4 of whom have been replaced.

*Bloc Québécois: No record of any candidates resigned or stepped down. However, 1 incumbent is deceased, 3 have already retired, and 1 other has announced she will not seek re-election.

The facts, as we see, tell a different story than the spin. Yes, more sitting Liberals have resigned. Various reasons for that, ie.an older, longer-served caucus. On the candidate front though, just two more candidates have left the Liberals than the NDP. The Cons have also lost five, although in fairness they canned five of them. And 10 Conservative incumbents aren't running again. Are they just ready to move on, or it proof Stephen Harper is Not a Leader? Only the shadow knows. And Ryan Sparrow.

You can try to read whatever you want into candidate comings and goings. Conspiracy theories are fun. Doesn't make them accurate though, and I'm fairly certain no one outside the Ottawa belt cares much anyway.

Oh, and I came to the Pundit Guide post from National Newswatch.

NN's headline link to the story:

List of Liberal candidates that have stepped down

And here's the actual headline of the linked article, which contains an exhaustive list of candidates form ALL parties, and as you've seen its a reasonably balanced list at that:

List of Candidates who have stepped down

Is National Newswatch going down the tourqed-headline road of Bourque? I certainty hope not, but this isn't the first indicator I've seen. If they want to that's their perogative, but I liked this site for the just the facts approach of its headlines, faithfully producing the header of the linked article without editorial comment. Ah, well.

UPDATE: The folks at NN tell me the headline was a simple mistake, and wasn't intentionally changed/tourqued. That's good to hear.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

At least Thibault didn't mention her knitting

Robert Thibault’s comments re: Marjory LeBreton were dumb. He should apologize, and I understand that he has. Here’s what he said:

Mr. Thibault called Ms. LeBreton an "idiot" and said: "Marjory should go back to making tea for Brian Mulroney and stay out of serious people’s business."

As I said, stupid, inexcusable remarks. Here’s the thing though. If you were one of the people defending Peter McKay when he called Belinda Stronach a dog and lied about it despite the tape, when he told Carolyn Bennett to “calm himself” and “be more helpful,” then I don’t want to hear you piously preaching about Thibault’s sin.

If you were one of the people that heard these remarks Peter made about Alexa McDonough:

"We'll just see what happens," MacKay replied. "I think you better stick to your knitting and win your own riding."

…and took pains to explain how that wasn’t sexist at all, that it’s just an expression, then you don’t get to say “making tea” or “serious people’s business” constitutes sexism. Sorry, but I just don't want to hear it. You can’t have it both ways. Partisanship doesn’t determine sexism.

I said Peter was wrong at the time. And I say Robert was wrong now. They were both wrong. Life is much easier with a little ideological consistency.

P.S. Can we chip in and send Thibault on a vacation? Somewhere far away from microphones, preferably. This guy really needs to get out of town and take a break.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday quick takes

Let the Argos in: The taxpayers built and paid for BMO Field, so frankly, I don’t care much for the complaining of the fat cats at Maple Leaf Sports that want to keep it a soccer-only stadium. Want to keep it soccer-only guys? Reimburse the taxpayers for every dollar they invested into the facility, plus interest, or buy your share at market value, whichever is higher, and then you can do whatever the heck you want with it. Until then, if the Argos want in, I say so be it. Of course, the Argos should pay for the costs of any upgrades to accommodate football. It looks the Toronto FC wants more seats for soccer anyway, so that cost can be shared. And steps should be taken to maintain the soccer ambience. I’d like to see the Argos at BMO though, and Mayor Miller better have a good story if he tries to block them. If taxpayer dollars are going to subsidize professional sports facilities (which I believe firmly they should NOT) then we shouldn’t play favourites.

Can I have a grant too?: This story is just too funny. If anyone in the government is reading this, if you want to give me $3000 in cash I didn’t ask for and send me to Cuba for a week, and then have Ryan Sparrow make fun of me in a few months, I’m fine with that. But really, its stories like this that give lie to the “Harper/Conservatives are strategic genius” meme. Unless looking like fools is part of their master plan…

Not a leader: In a story I could have sworn I read a few months ago, the talk is again that David Emerson might run again, in a more friendly riding of course. Don’t believe your own press clippings David. Sure, you may look like the second coming at the cabinet table, but take a look around you. If he doesn’t run again though, I think we should get a head start on making-up reasons for why because, of course, the media will be turning to the Liberal Party to explain why a Conservative isn't running again. That’s just how these things work. (For reasons why NDPers aren't running again, you ask the Bloc Quebecois). Will he not run because Harper doesn’t have a real plan for the environment? Or because Harper isn’t a leader? Because he thinks the Liberals will form the next government and we’ve already told him he’s not crossing back over? The last one if my favourite, but get your votes in now to LPC Spin Central.

Not in my back sky: This story takes NIMBYism to a whole new level, so to speak. First of all, something really needs to be done about air traffic management in the New York area, it’s incredibly congested and the delays are severe. Second, interesting that it’s the wealthy neighbourhoods fighting to keep the routing over the poor neighbourhoods, when it’s far more likely to be people from those wealthy areas that are actually flying on the dammed planes.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

How do you justify funding sports, but not the arts?

I'm down in Boston for a conference, right now I'm stuck in the lobby of a Westin while I wait for the powers that be to straighten-out my room booking. A TV off to the side is showing, of course, the summer games in Beijing. And as I boarded my Air Canada flight this morning in Toronto, the seat-back TVs were running an Olympic-themed slideshow. I was also up far too late last night watching rowing, or sculling or whatever the heck it is, and volleyball and what not. Olympic fever.

And while Canada is so-far meadal-ess, should our athletes reach the podium they'll be in for cash bonuses. Indeed, our governments over recent years have been investing heavily in amateur sport and our Olympic programs, with the goal of improved performances and more medals. And we should be making those investments.

As we read today though about more cuts by the Conservatives to arts funding, one wonders how they can justify heavy investment in sport while scaling back investment in the arts and somehow unworthy, as not the kind of thing the government should be involved in? How is one more meretirous than the other?

Do sports and the arts really offer differing returns on our investment? Both raise our country's prestige and standing on the world stage. Both provide role models for youth, and encourage them to explore their talents and get involved in their communities.

I hesitate to proffer the theory that Conservatives see sports as macho and the arts as, well, not, but that may be part of it. It may well be many of them would cut sports funding too, if they had their druthers. They'd be hard-pressed to get away with such cuts now though, in the lead-up to the 2010 Vancouver Games.

Both sports and the arts are important though, and both are worthy and deserving of our support.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

UFOs good, Museum of Civilization bad?

Conservative left hand (h/t):

OTTAWA -- The federal government will cancel a program on Friday that sent artists abroad to promote Canadian culture because the program's grant recipients included "a general radical," "a left-wing and anti-globalization think-tank" and a rock band that uses an expletive as part of its name.

The Conservatives are cancelling the $4.7-million PromArt program administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade because most of the money "went to groups that would raise the eyebrows of any typical Canadian," said a government official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Meet Conservative right hand:

Dishing out taxpayers’ dollars is hardly alien to governments, and a UFO fest in Shag Harbour has received a $2,000 boost from Ottawa.

The money is for the Shag Harbour Incident Festival, which will commemorate a "well-documented sighting of an unidentified flying object in the skies above Shag Harbour," a recent release from the federal government says.

It says the festival will take place Aug. 8 and 9, and feature lectures, artisan displays, tours of the site and other activities.

The federal government provided the money through the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage program, overseen by the Department of Canadian Heritage, the release says.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Please pray for Stephen Harper

According to the CBC's Political Bytes blog, Conservative MP Bev Shipley has been distributing the following bookmark in his riding. This one was left for congregants in the back of a church hall. (h/t)

Political Bytes notes:

More investigative-minded readers may find it interesting to read the entire biblical chapter quoted here. First Timothy 2 goes on to ask that the "woman learn in silence with all subjection," and not "to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

One presumes these verses do not reflect the position of the Conservative Party on the role of women in Canadian society.

Actually, I'm impressed Bev asked that Stephane Dion be included in his prayers. Now if Bev and his colleagues could just apply some of that scriptural foundation to their attack-ridden Web site, and turn the other cheek instead of launching partisan lawsuits to silence opposition and free speech, then we'd be getting somewhere.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The National Post can't stand alone

Speculation on the possible sale of the perennially money-losing National Post has been running rife of late, with far more people than those that actually read it mulling over its fate.

Lawrence Martin says the Post’s sale would be politically ground shaking, particularly if a Liberal such as Senator Jerry Grafstein picks it up, given the Post’s long-held Conservative bent (it tried single handedly to bring Jean Chretien down with the manufactured Shawinigate scandal – Jean actually gained seats in the next election). But then again, we heard the same thing when the Liberally-connected Aspers bought the Post, so who knows.

And in the Post itself, Jonathan Kay says the death of the Post will somehow be the death of print journalism, and the opening of the drawbridge to the unwashed blogging hordes. Actually no Jonathan, the death of the Post won’t be the death of print journalism. Heck, as much as I’d wish it so, the death of the Post won’t even be the death of really bad print journalism. Just the death of a really bad newspaper.

If I could put my business journalist fedora on for a moment though, I have trouble seeing a standalone sale of the National Post being likely, even for peanuts, as I just don’t see a business case. No one is likely to write a cheque if they can't see a path to profitability.

Now, one part of Conrad Black’s decision to found the National Post, after Thomson wouldn’t sell him the Globe and Mail, was definitely vanity. He wanted a national pulpit to take on, and take down, the dastardly Liberals and to espouse all his closely-held Conservative ideals, such as, oh, delicious irony, cracking-down on crime and attacking lenient judges and sentencing.

Vanity aside though, while I’m no Conrad fan I wouldn’t consider him a dumb businessman, and the Post was about business. Mainly, advertising business. Southam owned most of the daily newspapers across the country, and at least one (sometimes two) in every major market except one, the biggest one: Toronto.

More than vanity, the Post was about getting a foothold in the Toronto market and allowing Southam’s ad sales teams to be able to sell advertisers a national ad package in papers from coast to coast. To be taken seriously, that package had to include Toronto.

The National Post was a national newspaper in name only. That’s even more true today, with the Post having disappeared from many markets. It has always been a Toronto paper. And it has failed to compete in this market, which was already saturated before it arrived.

Even though it has lost money from day one, in the context of a Southam or a CanWest, the Post made some sense as a loss-leader, given the already discussed advertising considerations and the prestige factor of being in the nation’s largest market. For CanWest today though, given the tightening media market overall, and the Post’s continual cash hemorrhaging, clearly the losses now outweigh benefit of having a Toronto paper in their ad package, unless they hope to work out an ad sales deal with the new ownership.

Which is why a sale makes even less sense. Well, getting rid of it makes sense. But, subtract the need to have a Toronto paper in a national ad buy, who would want to buy the National Post.
Perhaps another chain needing their own Toronto media market, but what chain would that be?

With consolidation there are few other conglomerates of any size left in the print world. The only one with national scope is Bell GlobeMedia, and they have the Globe. On a more regional level there’s TorStar, but they have the Toronto Star. Black Press is confined to the West. The Irvings have some papers in the Maritimes.

That leaves the possibility of operating the Post as a stand-alone entity. And as I said, it’s essentially a Toronto paper, and in this market it’d be going up against the Star, Sun, Globe, and subway freebies. And in every other market, it would now have to compete with the Canwest dailies (Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, Montreal Gazette, Calgary Hearld and so on). And a new owner would have to hire staff across the country if it wanted to continue pretending to be a national paper. The Post relied heavily on content from its Canwest cousins. Either that would change, or a healthy fee would be extracted by CanWest for “wire” access.

If the Post wasn’t a viable business in the context of a national chain needing ads in the Toronto market, its far less viable as a standalone paper. Just what would the business model be?

As much as it pains me as a journalist to say this in an era when jobs in my field are scarce, it makes more sense to just shut the doors and sell the assets. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

EDITED TO ADD: One scenario that could possibly work: buy it cheap, dump everything but the business section, and revert to being the Financial Post. That's what the paper was before Conrad bought it and wrapped news, sports and arts around it. But could a business daily survive in the Internet age, and in Canada/Toronto? I frankly doubt it. It would be a slightly less crazy scenario though.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Unnamed, unsourced exclusive: Dion's not taking the dare

Like (See) Jane (Not run stories with people on the record) Taber, I have my own anonymous sources. All very senior Liberals. The most seniorest. Maybe even more senior advisory than Ms. Taber’s.

According to Taber, Stephane Dion is ready to accept Stephen Harper’s dare that he force an election.

I can report that, according to my own very senior, highly-placed sources within the Liberal Party, the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, and the Stornaway kitchen, this is absolutely false. Dion is not going to take Harper’s election dare. Nor will they give in to a double-dare, despite the insistence by Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff that in no way would the Canadian people accept the Liberals backing down from a double-dare.

Dion and his advisers will meet with senior caucus members at Stornaway this weekend to decide what level of dare to hold-out for from the Conservatives before they’d be compelled to force an election. I hear the doves are holding-out for the infamous triple dog dare, while Dion and the others would go on the lesser double dog dare.

Surely we agree that, were Stephen Harper to issue a triple dog dare, Dion would have no choice but to acquiesce and agree to an election. I mean, that's the nuclear bomb of dares. We would be the laughing-stocks of the nation, if not the world, to wimp-out in the face of a triple dog dare. You can bet the NDP would make big use of it in their campaign literature, as would the Conservatives. It would cement the not a leader meme.

I just hope that this divide between the double dog dare and triple dog dare wings of the Liberal Party can be mended, as it has the potential to tear the party apart. This is a time when we need unity.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Globe In and Out editorial is the farce

The learned minds of the Globe and Mail editorial board are in full tut-tut mode today, wagging a disapproving finger at “all parties” for making a farce of the last round of ethics committee hearings into the Conservative Party’s In and Out scandal, and chastising Liberal committee chair Paul Szabo for issuing 31 summons for witnesses ahead of next week’s hearings.

In issuing an astounding 31 summons for apparently reluctant witnesses - some of them senior Conservative operatives and officials - to appear at hearings that restart next week, Mr. Szabo has made terribly gratuitous use of his powers. And in sanctioning him to do so, the committee's opposition majority has all but ensured that the hearings will take on an even more adversarial tone than before, particularly when partisans are not just asking the questions but also answering them.

But hey, before you get too upset, the Globe does reluctantly admit that maybe, just maybe, a bunch of senior Conservative Party officials refusing to cooperate with a parliamentary committee, forcing the committee to resort to summons, might not be totally the Liberal Party’s fault:

But the Conservatives have to bear some of the blame. The party should have respected the authority of Elections Canada to investigate alleged improprieties during the 2006 election campaign, when the Tories may have inappropriately funnelled national campaign expenses through individual ridings. Instead, they have done everything in their power to undermine the agency's credibility - claiming without evidence that it is on a partisan crusade against them. In so doing, they have invited the opposition to take a stronger interest in the matter than they otherwise would have.

I don’t know, maybe it’s the fact the Globe editorial board endorsed these clowns in the last election, maybe they’re feeling buyer’s remorse. Maybe they’re interpreting fair and balanced to mean taking shots at all sides, whether they make sense or not.

But to attack Szabo for making “terribly gratuitous use of his powers” is ridiculous. He was forced into this action by the Conservatives, and their refusal from Day One to cooperate with either Elections Canada or parliament on investigations into their alleged scheme to circumvent election spending limits and enrich campaign coffers at taxpayer expense.

The Conservatives stonewalled in committee after committee, delaying these hearings for many months. When they came, they mercilessly attacked the integrity of an officer of parliament appointed under their watch, whose name they put forward. And about this next round of hearings, it’s the Conservatives that have refused to have their MPs testify (and MPs can’t be summoned). And I have little doubt they put the word out their officials on the witness list to refuse to voluntarily comply with the requests to testify, forcing Szabo to go the summons route.

This is the party of accountability and transparency that you endorsed, Globe editorial board.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to cooperate with parliament? Why did they force summons? And why won’t their MPs testify? Those are the questions they should be asking, and the actions they should be condemning. Blaming Szabo is like making the fireman share the blame with the arsonist.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Umm, no John Furlong

Vancouver Olympic organizing committee boss John Furlong wants everyone to stop giving the Chinese a hard time, as the Vancouver games are coming up soon and people might start picking on us:

In an interview just before boarding a flight to Beijing, where he will take in the entire 17-day Games, Mr. Furlong played down the firestorm of criticism over everything from air quality to human-rights abuses in the authoritarian country, including the furor late last week over continuing Chinese censorship of some Internet sites. In another blow before the Beijing Games, 16 Chinese police officers were killed yesterday morning in a violent attack in the Muslim region of Xinjiang, in what authorities called a “suspected terrorist plot.”
...

At the same time, VANOC knows only too well that when the last drum has been pounded at the conclusion of the closing ceremonies in the famed Bird's Nest Stadium, the spotlight will shift immediately to the next Olympic city, Vancouver. As the world has focused on every twitch and turn, good and bad, leading up to these Olympics, so too will it begin to scrutinize preparations for the 2010 Winter Games.

“You suddenly realize you're up next, and every move we make will be analyzed and spoken about,” Mr. Furlong said. “For us, the end of the Games in Beijing is the signal that we're on the straightaway, and the training time is almost over. There's no doubt we're going to be coming back home with a considerable new level of scrutiny and weight.”

Unless you're planning on suppressing human rights, censoring the media and pumping the skies full of pollution during Vancouver 2010, I wouldn't worry about it John. In the mean time, issues of human rights and broken Chinese promises about media freedom should continue to be raised, and the Chinese government (and the IOC that gave them the games) should be held to account.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers