Bad math: Toronto giveth, but Toronto taketh more away

Some recent events leave me more befuddled than ever at the state of affairs in our fair City of Toronto, and wondering more than ever if intelligent leadership may emerge in time for next year's municipal election. Heck, I may actually have to pay attention to local politics for a change.

A few weeks ago I arrived home to my Scarborough apartment to find a letter addressed to "current tenant" from the City of Toronto. Great news, the letter and accompanying brochures and backgrounder heralded: my rent is being reduced!

Yes, the city elders have seen fit to lower property taxes in Toronto the good. As an apartment renter, of course, I don't pay property taxes directly: they're part of my rent, and are paid by thge property owner. By law, though, when property taxes are decreased by 2.49% or more, I get an automatic rent decrease.

How much, you ask? Why starting December 31, 2009, I can reduce my rent by a whopping 0.55%! For me, that amounts to a reduction of $4.34/month. Or, for the year, $52.08. Not much but hey, better than nothing right?

Then a few days later I went to buy my January Metropass, because the TTC is how I commute between my office and my luxury pad in Scarberia. And, as reported earlier, the TTC has raised prices. A lot. So the Metropass that cost me $109 in December cost me $121 for January. An increase of $12/month. Or $144 for the year.

So when you net out my property-tax driven rent decrease with my Toronto's massive funding shortfall-driven TTC fair increase, I'm in the hole by $7.66/month, or $91.92 over the year. And since I don't have the pleasure of working for the city I don't get an automatic pay increase that will cover it. Actually, we all took pay cuts this year due to the economy.

So thanks for nothing, City of Toronto. And by the way, why would you cut property taxes AND jack-up TTC fares? Obviously the city has money troubles, that was your justification for the fare increases. But then why would you cut property taxes?

I thought David Miller was supposed to be some kind of socialist or something. I didn't major in poly sci, so perhaps the nuance escapes me. But the logic of cutting property taxes, which will disproportionately benefit wealthy property owners (who probably don't take the TTC, I'd bet) while jacking-up TTC fares, which disproportionately hurts the less wealthy that can't afford to drive (and probably aren't big property owners) escapes me. It seems more like Reganesque trickle-down economic theory than anything else.

Are there any adults left at city hall?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Donate $20.10, and send a message to Stephen Harper on proroguing parliament

Here's a great way to send a message to Stephen Harper that you don't get to take two months off with pay for the Olympics, and you don't think our MPs should be able to either: Make a $20.10 donation (or $210.0 if you prefer) to the Liberal Party of Canada, or your local Liberal riding association, today.

It's also coming to the end of 2009, so tomorrow is your last chance to get your end of year donations in to have them count for the 2009 tax year, so you can get the deductions back on your income tax in a few months. If it's your first donation of the year, a $20.10 donation could cost you just $5.03.

I just made my $20.10 donation. And it'd be great to send a message by seeing lots of other $20.10 donations in the Q4 numbers. So go to the Liberal Web site today and make your donation to send a message to the Harper Conservatives that ordinary Canadians don't get to take the Olympics off, so neither should he!

P.S. If you support one of the other opposition parties, I'm sure you could send $20.10 their way too. :)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper prorogues ... and still the world keeps turning

So the political twitter/blog world is all a buzz today with the word Stephen Harper -- surprise surprise -- will prorogue parliament until March.

Officially this allows him to reconstitute Senate committees with a Conservative majority following the Senate appointments he will make in a few days that will give his party its first majority in the upper chamber since Brian Mulroney stacked it full of Conservatives to ram through the GST. Of course, as a happy not so side benefit, he also takes some of the heat off his government on issues such as the torture of Afghan detainees, why his government seems to have mislead parliament and Canadians on what they knew and when, and how someone as staggeringly incompetent as Peter MacKay can be allowed to serve in a position of authority.

I agree with all the arguments being made about how Harper is tucking tail and running, thumbing his nose at parliament, ignoring the democratic will of the people. Andrew Coyne is particularly irate, and as a former history major I certainly appreciate appreciate any columnist who draws amusing historical parallels. Most columnists can't go back further than four years.

Really, though, as much as it saddens me, it doesn't really matter much. It's no coincidence that this announcement came during the post-Christmas, pre-New Year week when people are paying even less attention to politics than usual. And it's no coincidence it comes on the same day the Canadian Men's Olympic Hockey roster is being unveiled. Wonder which will lead the news tonight? Clearly, they're embarrassed and are trying to low-key this thing.

Really, though, I don't know why they'd even bother. If Canadians didn't care when Harper prorogued last December to avoid imminent defeat in the House of Commons, they certainly won't care he's doing it now for much less odious, although still suspect, reasons. It just won't resonate. Frankly, I'm having a hard time mustering anything more than pro-forma partisan indignation. Perhaps the Harper reign has numbed my sensitivities?

So sure, make the case about how Harper is thumbing his nose at democracy, turning tail and hiding from parliament, and all that. But focusing all our righteous indignation around making that argument and trying to rally Canadians in some kind of futile anti-prorogation, respect for democracy crusade would be a waste of time, and ultimately pointless.

Want to stop Harper from thumbing his nose at parliament and at democracy? Get into a position where you have a reasonable prospect of defeating him. Gain the confidence of Canadians as a credible and competent alternative to a government they're not enamored with, but like slightly better than the current alternatives.

The Liberals and Michael Ignatieff need to use these next two months as an opportunity to get outside of the parliamentary chatterbox and connect with Canadians. Get out from the scandal-of-the-day track that question period drives and talk about real issues that matter to real people. Discuss our vision for the country. Talk about the economy and the budget and our alternatives.

That's what will ensure Harper has to respect parliament and take it seriously: a credible, strong opposition he won't be able to ignore. Right now, that's just not the case.

So let's stop whining, get to work and play the long game here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If bloggers want to be treated like journalists they should act like journalists

Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling broadening the libel defence available to Canadian journalists, and opening the door for such protection to be extended to bloggers, reminds me that I’ve yet to blog about the second presentation I made during last month’s World Blogging Forum in Romania.

I mention the conference because my second presentation to the conference (first is here), on the theme of blogging becoming media and professional standards, seems to have a pretty direct link to what the Supremes had to say in yesterday’s ruling.

I’ll leave it to James Morton, Warren Kinsella and Ian Capstick to get into the nitty-gritty of the ruling and how it could apply for bloggers; check their posts out for the details. But I’d sum up the court’s statement as this: bloggers can avail themselves of the same libel protection as journalists, but only if they engage in the same journalistic standards of due diligence and public interest.

And that's not far from my message to my fellow bloggers in Romania (video here, audio is not too good). I’d heard a lot there, and back here, about how bloggers want to be taken seriously as news sources, about how citizen journalism should be considered as legitimate as traditional media, and that bloggers should be granted the same level of access, say to press conference or parliament hill, as the professional media.

My response to them was fine, but if you want the benefits of being a journalist, you also need to shoulder the responsibilities. If you want to be a journalist, act like one. That means respecting libel law, that means making good-faith effort to verify information, that means allowing the right of response if serious allegations are being leveled, and publishing good-faith corrections when appropriate. Basically, it means abiding by certain professional standards.

Right now, I said, the Internet and blogdom is something of a lawless wild west, and as long as that prevails, citizen journalism is unlikely to evolve. Sure, mainstream media readership is declining rapidly and moving online. But people aren’t moving to Joe’s Blogspot to get their news.

They’re getting it, by and large, from the web sites of traditional media outlets. Not directly, but through aggregates that give them content-specific links from sites around the world, but that’s another post.

The point is, people are getting their news online but still from the same professional media organizations. Only the content delivery mechanism has changed. Why? Because we can trust the Globe and Mail or the New York Times. We may have our issues with them, but we know who they are and we know that they subscribe to a code of conduct and certain journalistic principles. I don’t know who Joe’s Blogspot is, so how can I judge the veracity of what they write?

I argued it’s that lack of trust or inability to judge the bonafides of blogs (without regular, long-term readership) that will hinder the wider adoption of citizen journalism. The question then becomes, what are we going to do about it?

Certainty, I as an individual blogger can make the choice to conduct myself according to certain principles. Over time, you as readers can see that I conduct myself in a certain way, and I begin to gain your trust and build credibility. Still, that’s a very long-term process, and happens for each reader one at a time.

Here is where it starts to get complicated, but I suggested something to consider would be a blogger code of conduct. A list of certain principles that a blogger would agree to hold themselves to, and would so state with a badge on their sidebar. Then, even if a visitor doesn’t know the individual blog, they would know at least that this blogger subscribes to this code, and so can have a certain level of confidence in their writings.

Immediately, a number of flaws in this concept were pointed out to me. It would be quite bureaucratic. How would everyone agree on a code? How could it possibly be enforced? Would people be kicked off for non-compliance? Who would judge that? Some countries where freedom of expression is limited would have concerns. All valid points with no easy answers that make such a concept likely unworkable.

So, I’m not sure what the solutions are. Credibility may just have to continue to be earned on an individual, blog-by-blog basis. Perhaps news aggregate communities/publications, such as The Huffington Post, are a better solution as well. Building communities where the credibility of the community is bound by the conduct of its members seems important.

The point though, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court ruling, is that if bloggers want the credibility, and the legal protections, of journalists, they need to conduct themselves in a professional, journalistic way. Because you can’t have the meat without eating your vegetables too.

(Just to add as a post-script, there are many other impediments faced by blogging here vs MSM: the resources for research and reporting for one, not to mention the legal and fiscal resources required to initially defend even frivolous libel charges. But an easy, and crucial, place to start is with our own conduct.)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Iggy Wants His Groove Back campus tour 2010

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, like Robin Williams and Dennis Leary before him (but with slightly less profanity), has announced a coast-to-coast campus tour that will take him to 11 university campuses over one week in January.

The idea of a New Year campus tour was previewed in one of Ignatieff’s year-end media interviews:

As soon as the Liberal leader returns from an extended Christmas holiday – destination kept secret – he is headed out on the road, to connect with university students and rooms full of what he calls the "unconverted."

"The stuff I like doing is going out on the road," he says. "So we're going to universities. It's important to preach to the unconverted. Some of what I have to do is rally the base, raise money. But the stuff I enjoy the most is going into rooms that aren't full of Liberals – university crowds, university students are the future of Canadian politics and we have to get to them. And then the town halls I do are not full of Liberal partisans and we want to get them engaged."

It’s important to note this isn’t going to be an exercise of preaching to the converted with one-way stump speeches. The goal is to meet the undecided and unaligned and engage them in a discussion and debate on the issues of the day and the issues that matter to them, and how they should be addressed. It’s also about bringing ideas to the long-awaited “thinker’s conference” in Montreal in March.

The entirely predictable response from covseraland has already been registered: ohh lade da, the professor is going to talk to students, how elitist, he should meet with “real people” who didn’t need no fancy book-learnin’ and Tim Horton’s hockey blah blah why do you hate the troops. Fuddle-duddle, I say to them.

For one thing, Iggy needs to get his groove back. A big part of the problems we’ve experienced over the year is that Ignatieff just isn’t comfortable in his own skin right now. Being an opposition leader isn’t an easy gig, and it’s very different job than any he’s had before. My read is he has ideas about what he wants to do, the challenge is translating that into a vision he can communicate to Canadians, deciding the strategy of how and when to communicate it, learning how to do it, and finding the right balance for an opposition leader between attacking the government vs. presenting alternatives.

There are adjustments and changes to be made in all of those areas, but none of it will be successful if the leader can’t sell it, if he can’t project confidence and optimism and competence. That’s why he needs to find his comfort zone again. And that’s why a campus tour can help.

The campus environment is one where he’s at home. A former professor used to having learned debates on important issues with the students, he’ll be more at home here than in the sound-bite attack fest of parliament. Going to some campuses, rolling-up his sleeves and talking politics and policy with students will help him connect the comfort of his old job to the challenges of his new one and perhaps, by making that connection, he can use it to grow into a better opposition leader.

Secondly, it’s a sign that maybe, just maybe, we’re willing to take the “elitist, out of touch academic” narrative the Conservatives have mindlessly parroting head-on and turn it into a strength. For the last year it seems like we’ve been desperate to avoid drawing any attention to the fact a) our guy has a brain, and b) is a world-renowned academic and journalist.

That’s a mistake. You’re not going to get anywhere running from yourself. It’s time to take his resume and make it a strength. Don’t run from it anymore; embrace it. Let Ignatieff be Ignatieff. Tell us how Ignatieff’s academic and journalism experience have influenced and shaped his politics and his priorities, and will make him a better Prime Minister.

Thirdly, spending some time on campuses engaging in policy debates with “the unconverted” may be able to do a very useful thing: remind Ignatieff of why made the switch from journalism and academia to politics in the first place: the opportunity not just to debate and discuss policy in the abstract, but to actually shape, influence and implement it. For the opportunity to do something about the issues he reported and studied on. It’s very easy to lose touch with that during the parliamentary circus. The reminder of what it’s all about can be a good motivator.

You don’t need to read between the lines of the recent messaging from the Liberals to see the strategy has shifted to a long-game. And it is going to be a long road to get to the point where the Liberals and Ignatieff are seen as a comfortable, credible alternative to the Conservatives that’s ready to govern. It's not going to be one big thing -- there is no silver bullet. It's going to be lot of little things.

So spending one week in January sending Ignatieff to campuses to engage in policy debate with students, and maybe remind him why he decided to shift into this political circus in the first place – for the chance to make policy, not just debate it – is certainly a good investment of time.

So go get your groove back, Iggy, because there’s work to do.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Talking about pictures on the radio

I hadn't intended to wade into the HarperPhoto-ShoppedPhotoGate story as I felt what had to be said had been well said elsewhere already, but yesterday afternoon I got a call to discuss the issue on Rob Breakenridge's radio show in Calgary last night.

Turns out the Conservative guest for the segment was blogger Steve Janke. You can listen to the audio of the segment here.

My views, in point form, on this issue are as follows:

* The photo was unacceptable, way beyond good taste, and should never have gone online.
* Clearly, the screening process failed and corrective action should (and has, I understand) been taken.
* It's important to remember this was user-generated content in a contest, and wasn't created y the party.
* The photo was taken down and an apology was made, that's the appropriate response.

That said, I also feel it important to note:

* The feigned moral outrage of people like Janke is hard to see as credible given that his party has spent the last three years and millions of dollars launching coordinated and considered vicious personal attacks against Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff. Mocked their speech, their spouses, their citizenship, their patriotism. And a graphic, created by the Conservative Party, showing Dion surrounded by bullet-holes with headshots of possible shooters, IS STILL on the Conservative Web site. Dion is still waiting for an apology for that one. Yes, the photo was wrong, and should never have been posted. It was taken down and we apologized. If only they'd hold themselves to that standard.

Anyway, the segment unfortunately quickly descended into a shouting match as it seemed Janke was more interested in interrupting and shouting over me than allowing each of us to make our points in a respectful and civilized way. I tend to turn-out such partisan pundit slugfests myself, as they offer little educational value, so I wasn't pleased to find myself in one. I tried to stay out of it for the most part, but unfortunately I wasn't completely successful.

A much more civilized debate on the topic was had by BigCityLib and Stephen Taylor over on CBC's Power and Politics last night. Taylor did dial-up the rhetoric a few degrees too many as well, but I think with his measured tone he came off as a more credible advocate for his position than Janke did in our exchange. Great job by MJ Murphy too, the satellite interview thing ain't easy.

UPDATE: Everyone's favourite Conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre, weighs-in (I guess he didn't get the talking-points from the PMO not to comment):

But Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre called on Ignatieff to deliver a direct apology for the shocking photos.

"This disturbing picture appeared on the official Liberal party website and Michael Ignatieff is responsible for the actions of his party," he said. "Mr. Ignatieff should do the honourable thing."

Just for fun, here's Pierre a few weeks ago on accusing MPs of supporting anti-semitism:

Federal Conservatives say Liberal MP Irwin Cotler is pretending to play the victim as he attempts to wring an apology for a flyer they sent to his riding that he says accuses him of being anti-Semitic.

Quoting a conservative columnist, Tory MP Pierre Poilievre told a Commons committee on Tuesday that politicians live to be unjustly accused of something because “the opportunities to play victim are too tempting.”

“I think that puts some of this into its proper context,” Mr. Poilievre said.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

My hometown can't handle snow

The community paper back in my hometown, the Comox Valley Record, has posted some pictures in its Facebook group of the community's recent snowfall. A minor dusting by TDot standards, I assure you. But this photo in particular caught my eye:

Yes, that's right, they pile the snow in the middle of the street and cut holes for left-hand turns where appropriate. Been doing it that way for years. Craziest dammed thing I've seen. They probably don't have the budget for full-blown removal and remediation, and most often it melts by lunchtime anyways. But when it does stick around, and pile up, it makes driving interesting, to say the least.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Peter Van Loan is Zoro?

Think about it. Have you ever seen Peter Van Loan and Zoro in the same place? Granted, there isn't a strong physical resemblance. But in his signature on the government's quarterly progress report on Afghanistan, he does kind of give it away:

Oh, and the government released a quarterly progress report on Afghanistan.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal/NDP coalition viable without the BQ and Dion?

There were two major factors that made last December’s opposition coalition a tough sell and, ultimately, likely doomed it to failure: the presence of the Bloc Quebecois if only on the tertiary, and the unpopularity of Stephane Dion. The fact we’d just had an election that had increased Conservative seat count didn’t help any either. But what if Dion and the BQ weren’t in the equation – does a coalition become more viable?

Some numbers today from pollster Angus Reid suggest that, while it would still be an uphill battle to sell it, under the right circumstances a Liberal/NDP coalition may not be as toxic as originally thought by some, including, well, me.

Asked if they’d support formal power-sharing coalition between the Liberals and the NDP, 42 per cent said yes and 47 per cent said no, with 11 per cent undecided. Those 11 per cent would be critical, and much would demand on the circumstances at the time: electoral result, issues of the day, and so forth. Some 64 per cent of Liberals would support a coalition, and 70 per cent of NDPers. Interestingly, a majority of Green supporters, 51 per cent, would be opposed.


Angus Reid also polled other questions under a “unite the left” theme. While support was highest for the coalition option, they also polled running joint candidates to avoid vote-splitting and a party merger. Here it’s the Liberal and NDP supporter numbers that are really most relevant, as they didn’t ask if the options would change voter intention.

On an agreement between the Liberals and NDP not to run candidates against each other where it would split the vote, 55 per cent of Liberals and 51 per cent of NDPers were supportive.


And on a full-blown merger between the Liberals and NDP, 50 per cent of both Liberals and NDPers would be supportive.

Frankly, I don’t consider the latter two likely enough scenarios to discuss at length. Even if agreements could be reached around non-competes in swing ridings, the per-vote subsidy, which both opposition parties ironically fought hard to keep, is a major disincentive to not running strong with 308 candidates on the ballot.

As for an out-right merger, there’s not the historical unity on the left there is on the right. I doubt the far-left would be willing to be shut-out or would be placated as easily by a LPC/NDP as the far-right has by the Conservatives. There would be much more likelihood of a left-wing splinter party emerging and, while the remaining moderates would still be a force, there would be some bleeding on the centre-right to the Cons. And besides, I don’t think the lefties would let the NDP go without a dogfight.

Back to the coalition question, while it appears the battle wouldn’t be as uphill as I’d previously thought, I still think it’s highly unlikely. For starters, I think both parties would need to signal openness to the possibility before an election. You can do it after, but to try to arrange one after an election when you went into it saying no makes the sales battle all the much harder. It could be overcome, but it wouldn’t be a good start.

Declaring openness to a coalition before an election though is highly unlikely, at least for the Liberals. The NDP would probably be fine with it. That’s because the possibility of a coalition going into an election will bleed Liberal votes to the NDP. The Liberals run to win, and part of that strategy is always going to be “we’re the only party that can stop Harper and form a government” which means solidifying the anti-Harper vote in the Liberal column. Openness to a coalition gives license to NDP swing voters to avoid going Liberal to stop Harper, ie. voting strategically. I know that’s cynical, but this is politics.

So, in the next election I expect every party will run hard to win, and then the chips will fall where they may. I think a far more likely option than a coalition, other than a Conservative government of some variety, would be a Liberal minority with a governing agreement short of a formal coalition. That would mean no joint government caucus, no joint cabinet, but a Liberal government with NDP support for a given period based on a set of agreed-to legislative priorities.

Whether the NDP would accept that scenario instead of a formal power-sharing coalition would depend on how well each party does in the next election. The NDP would likely of course want the formal coalition; their chances of getting it would be dependent on their bargaining power, determined by their support. Neither party would want to be seen by Canadians as putting personal ambition ahead of a progressive government. And such governing agreements have a strong history in the Canadian system, and so would be seen as credible by the public.

But anyways, looking at those Angus Reid horse race numbers, that’s still a bridge far, far away.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Clement made right call, but it's time to revisit foreign ownership restrictions

Governments around the world have a habit of dropping significant news on Fridays, and this Friday is no exception with word that Industry Minister Tony Clement and the federal cabinet have over-ruled the CRTC and will allow Egyptian-connected Globalive to offer mobility and cellular service to Canadian consumers.

"We have concluded through normal review that Globalive meets the Canadian ownership and control requirements," Mr. Clement said in a press conference Friday morning.

The much-anticipated announcement comes six weeks after the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission denied Globalive's bid to be the country's fourth-biggest wireless operator. The CRTC initially said Globalive's corporate structure violated foreign-ownership rules, as Egypt's Orascom Telecom Holding SAE held too much control through debt financing.

The decision is expected to be a blow to the big three wireless providers -- Rogers Communications Inc., BCE Inc., and Telus Corp. -- as they fought to keep Globalive out of the Canadian market.

Clement made the right call in isolation here in over-turning the CRTC and giving Globalive the go-ahead. While overturning the regulatory authority is a major step, it had to be done.

Clement’s decision was necessary to untangle the mess created when Globalive was deemed Canadian-enough by Industry Canada to bid on spectrum and invest hundreds of millions of dollars to build a service in Canada, but not Canadian-enough by the CRTC to comply with foreign ownership restrictions.

Allowing the CRTC’s ruling to stand would have opened the government up to huge legal liabilities, as Globalive would probably sue their asses off, and rightly so.

Still, this seems to be a problem of Industry Canada’s making, and not the CRTC’s. The CRTC is empowered to interpret and apply the laws and regulations as they’re on the books, and I believe that’s just what the CRTC did in this case. Clement’s department created this mess when they allowed Globalive to bid on the spectrum; that’s why he had to over-rule the CRTC.

I support Clement’s decision, and I do think we need increased competition. But I’m disappointed Clement is not seizing this opportunity to launch a review of our foreign ownership rules for telcos, with an eye to allowing more foreign ownership and increased competition.

Instead, he appears to be spinning it not as him bailing-out the department, but as correcting a CRTC mistake, which just isn’t true.

Canadians pay insanely-high rates for mobility and cellular service. The way to change this is opening-up the market to more competition, and that means allowing more foreign players. In an interconnected, 21st century world, our regulations in this area are outdated.

Rather than blaming the CRTC, Clement should use his Globalive decision as a springboard to re-examining our foreign ownership rules to provide a legal framework for increased competition, not to mention head-off legal challenges from the incumbent carriers for a decision unsupported by the current laws.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Flawed Conservative logic: Anti-semitism and weightism

Now is the time when we juxtapose at A BCer in Toronto.

The Conservatives want you to know that Liberal MP Irwin Cottler is a big whiner for being pissed off the Conservatives sent taxpayer funded flyers to his riding all but accusing him of anti-semitism:

Federal Conservatives say Liberal MP Irwin Cotler is pretending to play the victim as he attempts to wring an apology for a flyer they sent to his riding that he says accuses him of being anti-Semitic.

Quoting a conservative columnist, Tory MP Pierre Poilievre told a Commons committee on Tuesday that politicians live to be unjustly accused of something because “the opportunities to play victim are too tempting.”

“I think that puts some of this into its proper context,” Mr. Poilievre said.

But if you imply in a tweet that A Conservative may be a few pounds over their ideal weight, well, how dare you, apologize immediately, how dare you pick on me, shame!

Mr. Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I am in fact saddened to rise on this point of order because I had hoped members in the House would not sink to this level. However, this morning the member for Scarborough Southwest made an entry on Twitter that I find particularly demeaning, discriminatory and unbecoming of a member of Parliament. This morning in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I had to put up with the abhorrent behaviour of a partisan chair who pays no attention to the rules governing parliamentary committees whatsoever. However, during that meeting I provided the respect that each member is in fact due. The member for Scarborough Southwest wrote on her Twitter, and I apologize as I will have to use my name, “In committee this morning, MP Del Mastro should grow up not out.”

I hear some people in the House laughing and that is unfortunate. I apologize for not being perfect and perhaps my stature does not meet the criteria that some members in the House set, but I have actually battled that problem since birth. I apologize for not actually fitting into the requirements. I am still hearing the chastising going on. It is this kind of arrogance and elitism that will be the downfall of the Liberal Party if this continues. I am giving the member the opportunity to apologize. The actions of the members in committee this morning do nothing to discourage me. They only encourage me. I would ask the member to take the opportunity to apologize for what she wrote. She may wish to consider that a number of her own constituents are less than perfect and she represents them as well.

So, if you're scoring at home, according to Conservative logic, say something unkind about an MP's girth on twitter is arrogant elitism that requires a self-aggrandizing sob-story speech in the House of Commons and for every media outlet that will have you.

But if an MP, a leader in the Jewish community respected across the country for his character and integrity, opts to defend himself from scurrilous accusations of anti-semitism that call his very character and life's work into question? Well, he's just a whiner that's playing the victim-card and should shut-up.

“I think that puts some of this into its proper context."

Indeed, Pierre.

Indeed.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Not hot in the DonOLO: Pointy shoes and loud colours

I’m not sure how Jane Taber missed this revelation but, buried deep in Susan Delacourt’s story on the fictional Raesurection in the Star today, she reveals news that should warm the hearts of Liberal partisans from Scarborough all the way to Mississauga, and ensure any future fictional displeasure in the Liberal caucus will never occur again:

Much hope rests on Peter Donolo, former communications director to Jean Chrétien, now chief of staff to Ignatieff. Donolo has spent the first few weeks cleaning house and professionalizing the office culture, including instituting a dress code.

A long overdue move, in my opinion. You’ll recall it was the clothing habits of OLO staffers that got the Liberal Party in the situation we’re now in, and that has gotten the caucus in such a state that they’re having fictional conversations in hotel bars. Seriously, the skinny jeans, the pastels, it was completely out of control.

Senior Liberal strategists are now referring to the Ignatieff OLO (Opposition Leader's Office) as “Parliament High” because of the legions of inexperienced young people who populate it.

They even have a uniform. Says one veteran Liberal: “Why is it everybody in the Leader's office, guys or girls, wears blue jeans, pointy shoes and tight button-up shirts with loud colours? … It's pack mentality.”

Thank goodness this situation has been corrected. As I was saying to fictional senior Liberals in a fictional conversation at the Royal York oh, let’s say, last Katilsday, Jean Pelletier would never have permitted loud colours and pointy shoes in Jean Chretien’s office. Sure, Jean was a man of a people, la petit gars, but your belt had dammed well better match your socks. I mean, we’re not barbarians!

So I’m confident that, with order now restored to the dress code of the OLO, victory is nigh.
Well, nigher anyway.

More nigh?

An increased level of nighness, is the general point.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: On CBC's Power and Politics

Every Friday, CBC's Power & Politics show has a bloggers panel. This week, I was invited to participate in the panel along with conservative blogger Adrian MacNair, CBC resident blogger extraordinaire Kady O'Malley, and of course host Evan Solomon.

I've done some radio stuff before, and I did one taped interview for CTV Newsnet during the Liberal convention in Montreal, but this was my first time with live tv and I was rather nervous. I always like to joke I have a face for radio and a voice for print.

It was an interesting experience. It was done by satellite with Adrian in Vancouver, and Evan and Kady in Ottawa. So I rushed home to shave and change (decided against a tie because, after all, I'm a blogger) and headed downtown to the Mother Corp. HQ on Front Street. A producer brought me in through the halls I recognized from Ken Finkleman's The Newsroom, and into the non-fictional CBC newsroom, where the shoot the satellite pieces.

It's an interesting set-up. At one end of the large, open-concept room there's a little raised platform with a camera and two chairs, that's where they shoot the pieces. And around us, the producers and journalists were at work. I had some time to kill so I took a seat in the newsroom and had a look around. I think they were working on that night's The National beside me, they were watching a live closed-circuit feed of the Montreal/Boston game, and Wendy Mesley came by to check in with them.

When the time for my segment approached I sat in the large chair and they wired me up with an ear piece and mic. It was a little weird because you're told to look directly into the camera and pretend the person you're talking to is there, but you can't see anything there, it' a blank screen. So it's hard to feel like you're really talking to someone. There's a monitor off to the left, but if you look at it you're looking off camera and appear shifty. The camera guy actually tilted the monitor away from me to I guess help me resist temptation, but I still looked over when I was off camera to try to feel a little more comfortable. I think it would be a lot more fun to do it with the other guests in studio.

Content-wise, the segment felt like it went pretty fast, and I think it went alright. I was rather nervous and felt I didn't remember to make all the points I wanted, and I feel I didn't do a good job of what they primarily wanted: talk about how the blogs have shaped the two issues we were discussing, the climate change e-mails and the Afghan torture documents.

On the e-mails, the point I tried to make was that, first of all, I doubt any of the bloggers going crazy on both sides have actually read all 3000 pages of e-mails. Those I've read that have, and considered them in context, conclude there isn't much at all to this story. But by and large, this is red meat for the deniers and a few bad pr days for supporters. But at the end of the day, climate change denial is no longer a mainstream position. There is broad societal acceptance that climate change is real, and we need to act. There is disagreement on what the action should be, for sure. But even the Conservative government agrees climate change is real. Denial is an increasingly fringe position, and no coordinated campaign to hack climate scientists around the world to steal e-mails is likely to change that. But the blogs do give these groups the opportunity to spread their theories and find like-minded supporters, and spread their views with or without the MSM.

On the torture e-mails, on this one I don't think the blogs have been necessarily active in shaping the story. There have been cases where the media have ignored a story for whatever reason, and after much publicity on the blogs they were forced to cover it. In this case though, the media and the blogs have both been all over it from the start. The blogs have been doing some good watchdog work though -- they were all over Christie Blatchford -- and have been helpful tracking the shifting changes in Conservative positions from day to day and keeping things in context. That's perhaps the best difference blogs can make: they can be more analytical and big picture. The MSM tend to focus on spot news without considering the wider context.

Things seemed to veer off there when Adrian took what seemed to me a shot at Kady's journalistic ethics, which naturally Kady and Evan took exception to and led to a spirited back and forth while I watched a little incredulous from Toronto, pondering if I should have prepared an attack line against my hosts (maybe something like "Evan Solomon, Don Newman was a way snappier dresser!").

I thought Adrian was off-base. The climate gate nonsense has gotten plenty of media play, certainly more than it deserves. To compare it to the torture e-mails is a false comparison. The torture story speaks directly to the behavior of the Canadian government, and has wide-ranging consequences for both the government and our mission in Afghanistan. The climate story may impact support for stronger action on climate change going into Copenhagen, but that's debatable. And while the people pushing the e-mail story insist it's the scandal of the millennium or something, they're unable to prove their case definitively. So instead, they play that favourite tool of the right: blame the media.

Finally, we ended with the sites of the week. I picked The Pundit's Guide, great non-partisan site for tracking party nominations, and for analysis and data on party fund raising and spending. Adrian went with the Canadian Blog Awards (where I'm nominated for Best Political Blog, btw, if you'd like to go vote early and often) and Kady went with Wikileaks.

Without further ado, the video:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

One year ago: Don Newman depants John Baird

As long as we're looking back to coalition anniversary moments, one year ago today was the day the Harper government went hat in hand to the Governor-General to beg her to prorogue parliament and save him from a confidence vote he was certain to lose.

And one year ago this morning, while we waited for the GG's meeting with the PM to play out, John Baird went live on CBC Newsworld with the great Don Newman, who proceeded to kick the crap out of him on national television, while Baird desperately looked around for an exit.

Vintage Newman, and certainly one of my favourite moments of last year's drama:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Briefly, on torture redactions and on Chinese rebukes

I'm in the busy period of the holiday season so time for blogging has been limited of late. I would though like to make two brief comments on recent events.

First, the Heavily Redacted Torture Documents that the Conservative government has been releasing in an attempt to make it seem like they're not hiding anything while still hiding plenty. Their excuse, national security, seems rather dubious to many observers.

Let's take a big leap of faith for a moment here, and suspend rational thought, and posit that both sides are acting in good faith without political motive: that the opposition want to get to the bottom of serious accusations, that the government has legitimate national security concerns around full disclosure, and that neither is motivated solely by political aims (embarrass the government, or hide the government's culpability.)

There is a way around this. During the Paul Martin government he had each of the opposition party leaders sworn in as members of the privy council. This gave them high security clearance so that, in theory, they could be briefed on confidential and secret matters of national security.

So, IF the government isn't just hiding to hide misdeeds, and if the opposition isn't just out to score points, WHY doesn't the government call in the opposition leaders and brief them. Show them the full, uncensored documents. If the documents show no cause for concern, then we move on. If the documents do raise serious issues, then they continue to call for a full public inquiry.

Of course, such a solution would require all sides to put politics aside and behave like adults. So let's not hold our breath.

Second, China's Premier Says Bad Things About Stephen Harper. Frankly, I largely agree with Wen Jiabao on the substance of his criticism of Harper's China policy. Nevertheless, the episode leaves me feeling sympathetic towards Harper, not China.

As the saying goes, "no one can hit my brother but me." So when the leader of a country like China takes a shot at our PM I'm going to be pissed, even if that PM is Harper. It's an instinctive defensive, nationalistic reaction.

Besides, to offer the criticism behind closed doors is one thing. To do it in public was a total dick move by China.

As for the opposition, including my Liberals (hi Bob!), you'd be wise to constrain your comments to legitimate criticisms of Harper's China policy. Saddling up beside a Chinese government with a history of human rights abuses, of oppressing its people, censoring the press and the Web, and so on, just to buttress your political attacks ... that's just another dick move, frankly.

To coin a phrase, We can do better...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers