Does this have anything to do with the Albanian situation?

In the past, I’ve generally been complementary of the Conservative government’s communications strategies, and particularly their ability to drive the agenda and distract attention away from their weak points. Complementary in a professional sense; it’s still all totally evil and what not.

Trying to reignite the Cold War though to divert attention from the economy? That's just lame, and reeks of lack of imagination. The macho chest-thumping this week from Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper last week was just embarrassing:

Peter MacKay wouldn't say whether he thought the Feb. 18 flight of the two TU-95 Bears, long-range Russian bombers, was designed to create mischief for a Canadian security system already stressed by the presidential visit. But he said the response of Canadian pilots operating under the command of NORAD sent a clear message to Moscow.

"I'm not going to stand here and accuse the Russians of deliberately doing this during the presidential visit, but it was a strong coincidence which we met with the presence ... of F-18 fighter planes and world-class pilots that know their business and send a strong signal that they should back off and stay out of our airspace," he told reporters.

In Moscow, an unnamed government official called MacKay's statement a "farce" and said the Russian government was reacting to Canada's objections with "astonishment," news agency RIA-Novosti reported.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Saskatoon that the incident was a real cause for concern that will not intimidate Canada.

"This government has responded every time the Russians have done that. We will continue to respond. We will defend our airspace."

First of all, the fact that we apparently can’t tell the difference between the turbo-prop TU-95 Bear and the TU-160 Blackjack, a jet bomber, is rather concerning. Yes, they’re both big airplanes, but that’s where the similarities end. They look nothing alike.

Secondly, for those who pay attention to such things, these sorts of flights are routine. They were commonplace up until the fall of the Soviet Union, when they did stop for a time. Under the presidency of Vladimir Putin, however, such flights began again some years ago. The Russians routinely test our air defences, and those of many other neighboring countries. So do the Americans. If we had long-range strategic bombers, I’m sure we would to. It’s what militaries do.

Norad spokesperson Michael Kucharek said it is not atypical to see Russian aircraft engaging in training exercises so close to Canadian airspace.

"This has happened quite often, this is a pattern that we generally see through Russian exercises of this type," he told CTV Newsnet on Friday afternoon.

He estimated that Norad had seen Russian fighters undertaking similar training exercises at least 20 times "over the course of the last couple of years."

Such incidents are commonplace, and are regularly reported on by the media -- usually as little brief items deep in the paper, receiving little notice. Which is why it’s disappointing the media played along with Harper and MacKay to blow this thing up to Defcon-2 to distract attention from other things.

Because I think there’s a few more important stories we should be paying attention to right now. Like the $3 billion slush fund the Conservatives have created for themselves, which they’re insisting have no oversight, accountability, or checks and balances. Or the fact they underestimated the cost of the Afghan War by at least $3.3 billion, and released an estimate that is as much as $7 billion shy of that of their own independent parliamentary budget officer.

Let’s not let Harper and MacKay distract us from the real issues, and their very real failings managing this country and this economy, with fearful tales of the red menance and Cold War rhetoric.

And if the media do want to do some international reporting, I suggest they get serious and look at WHY Russia re-started these sorts of flights under Putin, and the larger trend of how Russia, fueled by oil and energy revenues, is seeking to re-assert its dominance in its former satellite states and on the larger global stage. Mark MacKinnon’s The New Cold War would be a good primer.

However, I’ve seen little interest in such an analytical analysis of what such overflights mean in the larger global picture. Instead, this all just brings another sort of picture to mind…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Crime...boy, I don't know (with video)

With, to the chagrin of the BC Tourism people, Peter Van Loan having helpfully labeled Vancouver as “Canada's gang capital” last week (I suggest we stick with 'Supernatural British Columbia' on the license plates), his boss Stephen Harper was in town today to capitalize on public concern about gang violence introduce considered legislation aimed at addressing the problem.

And, almost as importantly, appear tough and decisive on crime while painting the opposition, particularly those lilly-livered Liberals, as soft on crime pansies that want to hug thugs and, I don't know, bake them cookies or something.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper insists tougher sentences included in the anti-gang legislation the Conservatives tabled on Thursday will deter crime but said he expects opposition parties will "parrot" critics of the measures because they believe in "soft-on-crime" policies.

Speaking in the Vancouver area, which has seen 18 shootings in the past month, Harper said the Tories received the Canadian public's backing in the last election to ensure violent criminals face strong penalties.

"The truth of the matter is, those who say that the tougher penalties on perpetrators will not work don’t want them to work because they don’t believe in his kind of approach," he told reporters.

"We know that we’re going to hear these critics, and we know that we’re going to hear the opposition parrot some of these critics because they all believe in soft-on-crime policies."

Yeah, that's right, people that oppose conservative crime policies actually WANT people to get shot and what not so our philosophical beliefs can be proven correct. Ladies and gentleman of Canada, your Prime Minister. Be proud.

But wait, what's this, in the next paragraph in that CBC story:

Shortly after the prime minister spoke, the Liberals and NDP announced they would support the bill in principle, while also criticizing the Tories for not going far enough in terms of crime prevention.

Oh, snap! How do you like them apples, Steve? We'll see your tough on crime, and raise you a you should have done it sooner AND do something about prevention, you old crime softie you.

You know, I may still be surprised but from what I've read so far, I have no problem with what the Conservatives seem to be proposing in this legislation.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would make any gang-related homicide a first-degree murder charge, as well as create a new charge for drive-by shootings that would carry a mandatory four-year minimum sentence upon conviction, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said.

The bill will also seek to increase sentences against those convicted of assaulting police officers with a weapon or causing bodily harm to a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Sure, why not. That's all fine with me. But if you think this is going to do anything to actually help the gang problem in B.C's Lower Mainland, you're on crack. Longer, tougher sentences. Sure. But are you under the impression gangsters don't know drive-by shootings, assaulting cops and running drugs is illegal? Do you think they're going to look at a longer sentence and decide 'yeah, it's not just worth it?' I really don't think so. They're aware it's wrong. They're aware of the risk. Make the sentences as long as you want. It may make the public feel better, but the impact on gang violence will be negligible.

It's not an either/or, prevention or tougher sentences, like Harper tries to make it. Why can't we do both? If we want to be truly effective, we need to. Ask yourself, would you rather throw the murderer in jail for life at taxpayer expense, or prevent them from turning to a life of crime in the first place. With the latter, not only do you save taxpayers the cost of incarceration but, well, you also save one taxpayer's life.

Frankly, a more effective thing that could be done to deal with BC's gang problem, and this is more something that needs to happen at the local level, would be to have one, single police force for the entire Greater Vancouver area. The mish-mash of different police forces, municipal and RCMP, that cover the area today is part of the problem. A single force would be more effective at dealing with a problem that crosses municipal boundaries.

Here's Liberal MPs Dominic LeBlanc and Ujjal Dosanjh reacting to the Conservative legislation. As a former BC Premier, and particularly as a former BC Attorney General, Dosanjh has some insight here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Psst! The Conservatives say the Afghan mission will cost $11.3 billion

I know the government has nothing to do with the order in which news clippings appear in my inbox, but the order of these three clippings does seem fittingly apropos:


Now which of these stories do you think the government wants to downplay? If you guessed the one sandwiched between the two big-ticket spending announcements, then you would get a gold watch if we hadn't had our budget cut, so you'll have to settle for a kudos instead.

Because hey, what better time to release your first full accounting of the cost of the Afghan war, and that you were $3.3 billion off on your earlier estimate, then a day you're also announcing flashy new anti-crime legislation in GangLand(TM) BC, investing millions in Vancouver-area rapid transit, and creating an emergency $3 billion fund for stimulus?

Here's the story they'd rather you not read above the fold on the front page tomorrow, or hear about in the first segment of the news tonight:

Ottawa pegs direct cost of Afghan mission at $11.3 billion
(Afghan-Cda-Cost)
Source: The Canadian Press
Feb 26, 2009 13:33

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

PANJWAII DISTRICT, Afghanistan _ The federal government has quietly revealed the direct cost of Canada's 10-year involvement in Afghanistan _ an estimated $11.3 billion.

It's the first complete fiscal accounting of the mission, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper had previously suggested would cost about $8 billion by the time it ends in 2011.

The figures include estimates for the involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian International Development Agency, Corrections Canada and the RCMP.

The incremental cost estimate does not include post-2011 disability and health care costs for soldiers wounded in battle or diagnosed with post-traumatic stress.

The forecast runs considerably less than the $13.9 billion to $18.3 billion estimate the parliamentary budget officer came up with last October at the height of the federal election campaign.

The new federal numbers suggest almost 80 per cent of the price tag _ $9 billion _ will be for military operations and hardware.

Oh, and perhaps the defence committee (or public accounts?) could summon Peter MacKay and Kevin Page and ask them about this:

The forecast runs considerably less than the $13.9 billion to $18.3 billion estimate the parliamentary budget officer came up with last October at the height of the federal election campaign.

You'll recall, of course, that was a report the Conservatives would much rather you hadn't seen during the campaign.

So why is the Conservatives' estimate so much lower than the estimate prepared by the independent parliamentary budget officer, a position they themselves created?

Inquiring minds, etc.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Confusion around new Liberal policy process

There seems to be some confusion in Liberal circles around the policy process leading-up to the not a leadership convention in Vancouver at the end of April. And after looking into it, I’m both more informed and more confused.

There have been some major changes to the policy development process, both to democratize the process, account for the shortened time-frame available, and the desire to streamline the convention as much as possible.

One problem though is that the changes haven’t been well publicized. The only place I’ve seen them mentioned is En Famille, the new Liberals-only online discussion forum I just logged-into for the first time last week. (Great forum, by the way) I think it’s incumbent on the party, and particularly riding policy chairs, to get the word out to the membership.

Then there’s the changes themselves. Here LPC president Doug Ferguson summarizes them in a post on En Famille:

In the past, policy resolutions were debated by delegates at workshops at a national convention. Delegates would then vote to select one policy that would be sent from each workshop to the main plenary for voting by all delegates.

This year, Policy and Platform Chair Joan Bourassa and her committee have changed this system. Rather than having delegated workshops, all party members will have an opportunity to debate and vote in En Famille on which policy resolutions will be sent to the main plenary.

This is another example of how we are trying to modernize the party and give party members a direct voice in important matters like policy.

While I was looking forward to having some policy debates at the convention, and this makes me question more just why I’m paying just under $1000 in delegate fees to attend a non-leadership conference for if we’re not even going to be work-shopping policy (there better be loads of free-booze hospitality suites at least) I like this in principle. I’ve always argued that the delegated convention system creates two tiers of membership: those that can afford to attend conventions to vote for leaders, policy and constitutional changes, and those who can’t. That's why I'm an ardent supported 0f (weighted) one member, one vote. So anything to empower the membership, writ large, is a bonus for me.

Here’s where more confusion comes in though, and where they might be losing me on the empowerment of the membership thing. Note this line from Doug’s post:

Rather than having delegated workshops, all party members will have an opportunity to debate and vote in En Famille on which policy resolutions will be sent to the main plenary.

To me, this would seem to be contradicted by a post the day before by a person identified as a staffer in the LPC office, who is explaining the policy process in more detail. I’ve bolded the relevant portion:

For the first time, all Liberals will be able to participate in the debate on which policy resolutions should be adopted as Party policy at the Biennial Convention, not just delegates. Replacing the traditional convention workshops, this year's policy workshops will be held on En Famille and open to all Librerals.

To participate in the debate here on En Famille, simply look through the 13 workshops, and hit reply to give your thoughts on the resolutions they contain.

Debate will last until March 15th. At that point, the forums will close, but remain open for review. From March 22-29, voting will open. Riding and provincial commission presidents will vote on behalf of their riding or commission. Ridings are encouraged to hold meetings with all their members to debate the resolutions and decide how the riding will vote.

The resolution from each workshop that receives the most votes will proceed to the Policy Plenary session in Vancouver, where delegates will vote on whether to adopt it as official Party policy.

So, which is it? Doug said EVERY Liberal will have an opportunity to vote on the prioritization of resolutions through En Famille, but the more detailed post makes it clear that only debate will occur En Famille, and that the only people that get to actually vote will be riding and commission presidents. The grassroots talk, the ex-officios decide.

I support the former, but I don’t support the latter. Expanding the debate through En Famille is great. But taking the prioritization vote from delegates and giving it to riding and commission presidents isn’t democratization of the process, it’s actually restricting the vote to a much smaller pool of people – the ex-officios. That’s not a step forward.

I can predict, and sympathize, with some of the expected counter-arguments. Not everyone can get online to vote, so that wouldn’t be fair. Riding presidents are encouraged to canvass their members, and even hold meetings, to guide their votes.

The latter argument, I dismiss. With some exceptions they’ll still vote how they want, bottomline. I’ve actually been trying to get involved with my riding association for over three years – the riding president has never returned my e-mails. They don't seem to want me involved. So I know my voice won’t be even be heard, never mind considered, by my riding president.

As for Web access, that’s fair, but I still think it’s more inclusive then just letting riding presidents vote. And you’re already countering that argument by having the debate online instead of at convention.

If you want to democratize the policy process then actually do it. Let all members vote.

And get the word out about the process. It’s incumbent on both the LPC, on the commissions, and on riding policy chairs to get the word out and get members involved if this is going to be a truly inclusive process.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Caption me please, Stevey in Times Square

"Did Rudy really get rid of my favourite shops?"

"I'm saying fromage. Now take the dammed photo, my face hurts when I make this expression."

"Why should I move my arms?"

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper on Fox News

PM Steve is in the Big Apple, and while there he's Talking to Americans, or at least the ones that watch Fox News:

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

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

"Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive," the Canadian Alliance leader says.

Opps, sorry. That's the last time he was on Fox News. Here's the current story:

Harper started his day on the American news network, where he said it was "great" to see Canada in the spotlight during U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Ottawa last week.

"Because we're not a squeaky wheel, we often don't get the grease and we're forgotten," Harper said.

"So it was great to have that kind of attention from our great friends in the United States."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Obviously Brad May and Stephen Harper have never met

Usually I let Stephen Harper's attempts to ingratiate himself to "average Canadians" via transparent hockey-related photo-ops pass without comment, but Harper (who is writing a book about hockey doncha know) visited with the Maple Laughs in NYC this weekend and I found this quote from Toronto's Brad May rather amusing (aside from May's school-girl fawning):

"I had no idea he was going to come see us," veteran forward Brad May said. "Obviously, it's one of those memorable moments you have not only in your career, but in your entire life. You wouldn't think he would have that much spare time, so it was great that he made time for us."

I can see how Brad would think that, particularly since PM Steve has been laying low lately, avoiding question period and other unscripted public appearances, 'lest he get tagged with this nasty little economic crisis. He must be a busy guy, no?

But I guess Steve still has time for the important things. And good luck with the book. I'm sure Michael Ignatieff would be happy to proof-read it for you, if you ever get it done. He managed to knock one out himself during his Christmas vacation.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Big win for the Canucks, great night for Sundin

As a Canucks fan stuck in Toronto it's not too often that I get to see my team on television, let alone in person. So I was psyched when I got an e-mail from Leafs' Last Minute Ticket Club last month and scored a ticket to Saturday's Canucks vs. Leafs, Hockey Day in Canada game, and at box office price too. And even more psyched when I realized it was going to be Mats Sundin's first game back in Toronto after signing with Vancouver.

It was the first time I've bought a Leafs ticket (been to a few as a corporate guest) and it was a pretty sweet game. I was surprised by the large number of Canuck jerseys in the audience. Not as many as there'd be Leafs jerseys when I'd go to games in Ottawa or Vancouver, but still a very strong Canucks contingent in the ACC, and loud cheers of “Looouuuuu!” every time Roberto Luongo made a great save. No Looouuuu on that brutal five-hole goal he gave up though, that was Toskala-ish.

I actually thought Vancouver played like crap for most of the game; certainly for the first two period. The Leafs took the play to them, they out-worked and out-hustled them. The Canucks seemed lackadaisical, refusing to hustle and get to loose pucks, loosing a lot of faceoffs, and taking dumb penalties.

I (and everyone else) was interested to see the reaction of Leafs fans to Sundin's return. By and large, it was very positive. There were some boo-birds, but they were largely drowned-out. During a mid-first period TV time-out the Leafs played a video tribute to Sundin that resulted in a two-minute standing-ovation from the ACC crowd. Sundin was on the bench, but seeing the ovation, Canucks coach Alain Vigneault sent Sundin's line onto the ice so he could acknowledge the crowd in an emotional moment.

The Canucks managed to pick it up in the third and tied the game, and there was some frantic and exciting end-to-end chances for both sides late in the third and in the overtime period. Nothing was settled though, setting-up the high-drama of the shoot-out.

Now I felt pretty confident. Who would you rather have in a shoot-out, I asked the Leafs fan a few seats down, Roberto Luongo or Vesa Toskala? The Canucks decided to send-out both their former Leafs for the shoot-out, Sundin and Kyle Wellwood. Good coaching, they've probably had thousands of shots on Toskala in practice with the Leafs.

In the end, it came down to Sundin as the final shooter with a chance to win the game with one-shot and he didn't miss, beating Toskala to give the win to the Canucks. He was named the game's first star, and came back onto the ice for another ovation from the crowd, and to take a bow.

Great night, couldn't have been scripted better.

(Click pics to enlarge)

Mats Sundin takes the opening faceoff.

Faceoff in the Vancouver zone.

The view from my seat, third row of the upper bowl. Great seats.

Roberto Luongo readies to face the first Leafs shooter.

Canucks take to the ice to celebrate the shoot-out win.

Mats Sundin takes a bow after bring named first star.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Barack visits the Byward Market

This was a fun little impromptu decision by Barack Obama during his visit to Ottawa, stopping by the Byward Market for a Beaver Tail and some cookies for his kids. Too bad he didn't have time to shoot down Rideau for a real Ottawa delicacy: schwarma.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Ignatieff and Obama

Video of interim Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's photo-op with US President Barack Obama, followed by Ignatieff's discussion of the meeting with CBC's Don Newman.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: BBC reports on Obama's visit

I always find it interesting to see how foreign media cover events in Canada. Here's a third-party look, as the BBC reports on U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Canada yesterday. From the British perspective there was just one key issue: Afghanistan. Makes sense, given the heavy military presence they have in the country. Also interesting that they used clips from just two people: Obama, and Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae. Nada from Stephen Harper.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The White House view on the Obama/Ignatieff meeting

Via Wells, an excerpt from the White House press secretary and State Department deputy secretary of state's briefing to U.S. reporters aboard Air Force One. This excerpt describes President Obama's meeting with "Mike" Ignatieff. No word if Iggy called him Barry...

P.S. No mention of Omar Khadr anywhere in the White House briefing. Found that interesting.

And that was the end of lunch. Then the press conference, as you all know. He then went over back to the airport and met with Mike Ignatieff and the two other members of the opposition in that briefing. And again, the issues focused on the economy. The leader of the opposition raised the concern about the danger of protectionism and sought the President’s assurance on “Buy America.” He repeated what you heard there.

Mr. Ignatieff spent a lot of time talking about the importance of bipartisanship in Canada on foreign policy and how they had made the decision to back the government on the deployment after the Manley Commission, and that they saw this as not a partisan issue; it was more important to get the country together on issues like the budget and on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that this was a commitment that they were sharing across the parties, and that they wanted to work together with the United States.

And Mr. Ignatieff also stressed the point about the importance of not thickening the border and making sure that the commerce and people could continue to move across effectively in working together, about that.

In all these meetings, both with the PM and with Ignatieff, the President stressed the fact that he felt that having Governor Napolitano at DHS gave us somebody who was really sensitive to this and creative about how to address these issues, and suggested that she would, you know, be working with her counterparts to address those issues.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Al Jazeera English: Coming soon to a Canadian television near you?

Today, Al Jazeera English (AJE), the English-language news network of Doha, Quatr-based Al Jazeera, the Arabic world's answer to CNN, formally applied to the CRTC for carriage on Canadian cable and satellite networks. And not coincidentally, former CBC News editor-in-chief Tony Burman, AJE's managing director, was in Toronto to talk-up AJE at an event I attended this evening organized by the Canadian Journalism Foundation.

First, the CRTC application, announced today. Burman says if successful, they hope to have AJE on the airwaves by the fall having, he said, already received unofficial indications form the major Candian carriers they'll carry the network post-CRTC approval. First the CRTC will study the application, and then will ask for public feedback. On that front, AJE has launched a Web site, www.iwantAJE.ca, to help rally the public to lobby the CRTC.

And in good news for journalists like myself, at a time when media outlets are laying off reporters, if AJE's application is approved Burman said they plan to open a Canadian bureau – making it the only international broadcaster to have a Canadian bureau. Last I heard, even the NY Times covers Canada from Denver.

On to Burman's presentation, and the q&a. Before sharing my thoughts, I'll share my notes on his (I also made an attempt at live-Twitter coverage, @BCerInToronto):

*He started out with a joke, noting that, much like Sarah Palin can see Russia from her home in Alaska, he can almost see Iran from his new apartment in Doha, Quatr, joking his gives him some special insight into events in the county.

*The idea behind AJ and AJE is to give voice to the developing world and bring their perspective to the news, speak truth to power and give voice to the voiceless.

*AJE is widely available in Israel and is the largest non-Israeli network in the country, a regular stop for Israeli government spokespeople, and the first Arab network to bring Israeli spokespeople directly to the Arab world. Why, he asked, is AJE available in Haifa but not in Halifax?

*AJE is regulated by Ofcom in the UK, and has never run afoul of their standards.

*AJE is a public broadcaster, much like the CBC and the BBC, and is funded by the Qatari government. Burman said like the CBC there is a firewall between the network and the government, and he's never seen any interference by the government in the network's editorial content.

*AJE has 69 bureaus around the world, and 150 journalists in the U.S. Its focus is in the Southern hemisphere, with large presences in Africa and South America.

*AJE was the only international broadcaster in Gaza during the recent war, and the only broadcaster to cover the war from both sides.

*AJ was created by the Quatari government to open the stifling media censorship in the Arab world, and was held up by the U.S. as the poster child for building Arab democracy. That changed, he said with 9-11.Particularly, he said, when AJ ran afoul by reporting during the Afghanistan war in 2001 that civilians were casualties of the U.S. attack, contrary to what the U.S. military had been insisting. Shortly later, AJ's Kabul bureau was bombed.

*From then on, Burman said, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal set-out to smear and brand AJ as a terrorist network. Sure, he said, Bin Laden sent his tapes to AJ – it's the largest network in the Arab world, he's after audience. The Unibomber sent his letters to the NY Times, but that doesn't make the Times a terrorist paper.

*Burman said Barrack Obama's decision to give his first TV interview to the Arabic world to Al-Arabiya, a network he said has a fraction of AJ and AJE's viewership, was viewed as puzzling and a mistake by the Arab world. The Arab world, he said, is hopeful but doesn't share the optimism the Western world has for Obama.

*He said he predicted a year ago internally at AJE that Obama would win the election in a landslide and he was viewed as crazy. People couldn't understand how the same people that elected George W. Bush twice could ever elect Obama.

*Addressing the complaints of hateful and controversial speech on AJ, Burman said these incidents are isolated and overblown. Much of it has come from an AJ channel that he describes as akin to C-Span, which shows live and unedited speeches and sermon. It's a product, he said, of AJ's free-speech inspired birth. But such views as sometimes heard aren't indicative, he said, of AJ or AJE's editorial perspective or mandate.

*There's aspects of American life of interest to the international community not usually covered by the US media. He expressed disappointment the CBC often covered the U.S. like an American network, rather than like a Canadian network with a Canadian perspective.

My Thoughts

I've never had a chance to watch AJE, but I say if we can have the option of watching Fox News, why not AJE? I think they would bring a very interesting perspective to international events, and perhaps for the Western world, an educational one. If AJE is in Haifa, indeed, why not in Halifax?

I think Burman somewhat glossed over some of the controversies in AJ's past, but it is the CNN of the Arab world and I think denying the option of AJE's perspective to the Canadian public is silly. I'll check it out if its on Rogers in the fall.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Calling Canadian libel lawyers with heart

Surely somewhere in Canada there is an experienced libel lawyer willing to help an unfairly maligned journalist and author find justice? I surely hope there is. Justice shouldn't only be open to the wealthy, and the rich should not be allowed to bully the poor without consequence. Is there a Canadian libel lawyer out there willing to take Tom Zytaruk's case on pro bono and win one for the little guy?

Zytaruk also has a column worth reading in today's Surrey Now.

And to Mr. Big Mouth Pierre Poilievre, be a man and repeat your accusations outside of the House, without the shield of parliamentary privilege to protect you.

Cadman biographer threatens to sue Conservatives

Updated Fri. Feb. 13 2009 4:49 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Chuck Cadman's biographer says he might sue members of the Conservative government for what he calls a smear on his reputation.

But facing a Tory party with deep pockets, Tom Zytaruk says he would first need a lawyer willing to work for free.

He says he's fed up watching Conservatives sully his reputation.

"This arrogant government knows they can say and do whatever they want -- or feels they can," Zytaruk said in an interview.

"What can little Joe regular Canadian do in response? They're laughing at me."
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Darrel Reid gets a promotion. Will Harper's base be mollified?

As Kady noted yesterday, according to GEDS, Darrel Reid has scored another promotion and is now deputy chief of staff to Stephen Harper, one step removed from the right hand of the father himself.

How quickly he's advanced through the Conservative ranks since then environment minister Rona Ambrose hired him as her chief of staff. At least one of them came out of that relationship on an upward career trajectory.

But, who, you ask, is this Darrel Reid? If you already know, you're no doubt asking if the Conservative talent pool has really gotten this shallow. Apparently, sadly, it has.

You may remember Darrel as the president of Focus on the Family Canada, an Evangelical Christian lobby group and offshoot of James Dobson's U.S.-based Focus on the Family. You know, the folks that told us Spongebob Squarepants was the speartip of some sort of homosexual conspiracy.

Or you may remember Reid as the Conservative candidate in Richmond in the 2006 election, where he used the churches to campaign against his Liberal opponent. And after Reid's defeat his former campaign manager, Robbie Robertson, blamed the loss on the Jewish-controlled media.

Reid has been a virtual quote-machine over the years, but here's a few of my favourites:

*[Bill C-250, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, adding "sexual orientation" to the list of "identifiable groups" to be protected] "isn't the first time in human history where tyranny has been imposed on people, you know it happened in Germany in the '30's, and frankly I see some real parallels there, because you know Adolf Hitler and his bunch really didn't care ultimately what you thought personally, but they really cared about what you said, because that became dangerous, and therefore when people spoke up about things like freedom or spoke up about their religious values, that was when the power of the state started coming down."

*"I think every Christian is under an obligation to change laws to reflect biblical values," says Reid. "Different Christians are going to try to change different laws, according to the call God gives them, you see Christians in all political parties. That reflects different understandings of what God's call is to us. That's a healthy thing. If the yeast congregates in one part of the loaf, it makes for pretty bad bread."

*"The liberalization of divorce laws was the biggest disaster to hit Canada, short of common-law marriage," asserts Darrel Reid of Vancouver, president of Focus on the Family Canada. But such "trial marriages" carry a high risk: marriages following common-law relationships are almost twice as likely to end in separation or divorce. "The statistical story on common-law marriages is very clear," says Mr. Reid. "They're short, they're dangerous, they don't promote any kind of social harmony.”

*Here in B.C., Darrel Reid, the Conservative candidate in Richmond, has described parents of an evangelical perspective as being "in a war" when it comes to what children are taught in the public school system. He worries about children being bombarded with messages about permissive sex education, evolution, or a curriculum that encourages young people to understand Islam.

*"I am not by any means an authority on human rights tribunals, but I am very much aware of places and issues where, for example, passages from the Holy Bible and from the scriptures have been ruled out of order. No, I'm not sure that it's for the chair people of human rights commissions to rule the bible out of order. I would certainly appeal to a higher authority."

So, congrats on the promotion, Darrel! Maybe this will keep some of the disillusioned ideologues on board the floundering ship Conservative.

Or not.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Last question to Bill Casey

Nice to see independent MP Bill Casey get the last question in QP today. Here it is:

>> The speaker: Order. The honourable member for Cumberland-Colchester Valley. Order.

>> (Bill Casey) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On September 23th, 2007, the RCMP informed the Conservatives that there was no evidence to back up the accusations of at the time and embezzlement against me by the official agent. Yet two weeks later, other Conservatives -- other Conservatives distributed the same accusations of theft and embezzlement to the media and on the internet. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you can see the accusations against me on the website stephen taylor dot ca. Last week, the Minister of Public Safety said there was only one person involved. But now obviously there's more than one Conservative, and I don't mean Conservatives in this house. But there is more than one Conservative involved. Will they release the names of all of the Conservatives?

>> The speaker: The Honourable Minister of Public Safety. Order. The Honourable Minister of Public Safety.

>> Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, as I advised this house previously, the RCMP looked into this matter, and made it clear that there were -- was no evidence of any wrongdoing. With regard to the member from Cumberland-Colchester, and I also confirm to the house that the Conservative Party was of the same view.

Not all Conservatives, apparently. What I find interesting here is that it appears Casey is saying the RCMP told the Conservatives there was nothing to these allegations BEFORE someone decided to shop the story around to various media and blog outlets in an attempt to smear Casey during/before the last election.

This would make it a pretty deliberate attempt to smear Casey. And I have a pretty hard time believing it was just one rogue operator involved here. Don’t let this go, Bill.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Nanos: Liberals and Conservatives neck in neck

New numbers from Nanos that confirm the horserace numbers we've seen in recent polls, putting the Liberals and Conservatives in a statistical deadheat:


With the national numbers virtually unchanged since the last poll, it looks like the Liberals and Conservatives are in a holding-pattern of sorts. The regional numbers show Conservative strength in the West (remember the Alberta advantage) but the Liberals gaining some ground on the NDP. The Liberals show strength in Atlantic Canada and Ontario. Finally, in Quebec the numbers are volatile. The BQ show a 10-point lead over the Liberals with the Conservatives well back, but with the Liberals having shedded 11 points since the last poll to the BQ and, interestingly, the Greens, With the regionals its always important to remember the margin, but there may be some annoyance with the Liberals there over the end of the coalition. If that's the case, though, interesting the NDP couldn't capitalize.


The leadership numbers also mirror the trend of recent polls, showing Stephen Harper still leading, but Michael Ignatieff quickly closing the gap. The trend since his becoming interim leader is striking. Speaking of trends, its interesting to note that Jack Layton's downward trend dates back to election day, although it accelerated with Ignatieff's arrival.


The leadership break-down shows across the board gains for Ignatieff, although Harper continues to lead across the board. Harper was down in trust and competence but held his ground in vision for Canada. Layton was down across the board, suffering his biggest drop in competence.


Here's the analysis from Nanos:

Our latest wave of ballot tracking shows that the tight race between the Conservatives and the Liberals continues. The Conservatives are ahead in Western Canada, while the Liberals hold an advantage in Ontario.

Stephen Harper continues to hold a leadership advantage over the other national leaders. However, Harper held a 44 point advantage when Stephane Dion was leader of the Liberal Party, since Michael Ignatieff stepped in as interim leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister's leadership advantage has decreased to 19 points. Also of note, Jack Layton's leadership score is down 16 points since the previous wave of research.

My Analysis

Since they first formed government the Conservatives have bounced around between appx. 31-38 per cent support, while the Liberals have bounced between appx. 26-34 per cent. Every once and awhile, they'd intersect.

I think the Conservative volatility speaks to a lack of firm, committed support beyond the 31 per cent level -- these voters can be moved, but they haven't been enamored with any of the alternatives. The Liberals have been able to knock those votes lose at times but haven't been able to convert them into Liberal support.

The leadership numbers reflect a willingness to give the Ignatieff-led Liberals a chance, but I think those numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt. Dion scored very poorly on leadership questions, so how bunch of this increase is Ignatieff and how much is "Not Dion" is an open question. While negative ads could impact these numbers, they do at least speak to an opportunity for Ignatieff to define himself and challenge Harper on leadership once more, potentially opening-up Liberal growth potential beyond 33 per cent.

Overall, I think we're in a holding-pattern. The budget seems to have changed little. The Conservatives are at the low-end of their trough, having gotten no budget bounce after dropping following their fiscal update shenanigans. The Liberals are at the high-end of their trough, but unable to capitalize on softening Conservative support.

I think people are waiting to see how the government governs through this economic crisis, and how Ignatieff performs as interim Liberal leader. If he can continue to improve his leadership numbers and demonstrate both competence AND a genuine alternative, he may be able to grow us past the 33 per cent ceiling. I've been saying for some time we have more growth potential than the Conservatives, but we've never been able to realize it, and it's possible Dion's leadership scores were holding us back from converting soft Conservative support.. The next few months will be interesting.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hello, Conservative base? It's me, Stephen

Last week, Stephen Harper hinted a debate would soon begin on scrapping the gun registry. More developments today on the re-connecting with a Conservative base annoyed with all the crazy spending front:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will give the keynote address at the 81st annual general meeting of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters next month.

The conference of the Peterborough-based federation will be held in Mississauga, Ont., from March 19 to 21.

Harper will deliver his remarks on the conference's final day.

The conference includes speakers on a number of topics including the moose program review, hydro power and the demographics of anglers and hunters.

Oh, and speaking of the gun registry (h/t Warren):

On Monday February 9th an elated Greg Rickford, MP for Kenora, stood proudly in the House of Commons to support Saskatchewan M.P. Garry Breitkreuz as he introduced a Private Members’ Bill to scrap the decade-old Canadian long-gun registry -- Bill C-301. “Gary has been working on this issue for a long time and I’m very pleased to see he is getting the chance see it through and get the long-gun registry dismantled once and for all.” Mr. Breitkreuz is near the top of the list for introducing a Private Members’ Bill which is typically difficult to pass through the house. “This Private Members’ Bill is special and may be different” said a hopeful Rickford.

Elated, that's cute. Interesting though that this isn't a government bill. Rather, it's a private member's bill sponsored by a backbench MP. Which has to make one question the Harper government's seriousness on the issue. It seems to my biased eyes like the Conservatives are making a rather half-assed attempt to assuage their base. Action if necessary, but not necessarily action.

The Conservatives have made no effort in three years to scrap or seriously modify the gun registry, despite it being supposedly an important party policy. Now, with their base upset over the budget, we get some vague promises of a future debate from Harper and a private member's bill from a backbench MP.

Will this half-hearted action mollify anyone in their party? I can't say but if I were them, I'd be asking why not a government bill? Are you serious or not? Maybe a more serious push will come. We'll see. But in the mean time, it seems like the Conservative strategy is more likely to just piss everyone off: their base will be annoyed with a lack of seriousness, and the left will be annoyed with an attack on gun control.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives never bothered by their hypocrisy

What, never? No, never! Certainly not when it comes to attending fancy galas with rich people:

Last September, Prime Minister Harper's wife, Laureen, pulled out of attending the NAC's October fundraising gala with singer Tony Bennett, just days after her husband's response to questions about Conservative cuts to arts funding.

That was then. Now the NAC has announced that star Conservatives will be among politicians and journalists making cameo appearances in the Gilbert and Sullivan-themed Black and White Opera Soirée on Feb. 21. The performance is a fund-raiser for youth programs run by Opera Lyra Ottawa and the NAC Orchestra, including performance tours to schools and training for young artists. NAC communications director Jayne Watson says the NAC has invited Mrs. Harper to attend, but has not heard yet whether she will make it.

Among the Conservatives who have agreed to spoof themselves are International Trade Minister Stockwell Day and Defence Minister Peter MacKay. They'll pop up in cameos during an evening that will include selections from The Mikado, H.M.S. Pinafore, The Gondoliers, Iolanthe and The Pirates of Penzance, sprinkled with updated references to the current political scene.

It was just a few months ago, during the election campaign, that the Conservatives were on the attack against these “fancy galas” and attacking culture and the arts. I guess they’re not expecting an election any time soon. What is this, example 301 of Conservative hypocrisy?

I’d give the Conservatives credit for growth if they’d truly been opposed to the arts before and were now seeing the light. But the fact is they went to these cultural events before the election, attacked them during the election, and now that the election is over, they’re going again.

It’s pretty transparently obvious. The Conservatives are trying to wage a culture war, to reach out to some pollster/demographer-identified slice of “Middle Canada” and tell them we’re just like you (and the Liberals aren’t). You work hard and play by the rules, and so do we. We’re Tim Horton’s, not Starbucks. We’re Corner Gas, not Opera Lyra. We’re just like you, and they’re not.
The problem is, its built on a lie. And the lie isn’t just that supports for arts and cultural programs is just as strong in Flin Flon as it is in Ottawa.

No, the lie is that the Conservatives ARE that which they campaign against. They are Starbucks. They are Opera Lyra. And as for playing by the rules, don’t get me started. They are establishment, and I think Canadians are smart enough to see beyond the facades they don to try to fool the “ignorant” masses.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Am I starting to feel sorry for Senator Brazeau?

I don't know if I'm quite feeling sorry for him, but this is starting to border on ridiculous.

Here's the latest on Conservative star Senator Patrick Brazeau:

Three times in the past five years, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most controversial new Senate appointee fell behind in support payments for a son he has not spoken to in eight years – payments that totalled less than $100 per month.

Patrick Brazeau, the 34-year-old former aboriginal leader who was appointed to the Senate in December, missed one payment as recently as 11 months ago at a time when he was earning a six-figure income.

In an interview yesterday, he said he did not want to air any personal "dirty laundry," but he acknowledged he had been late on some payments and said he would consider larger monthly payments for the well-being of his 14-year-old son now that he was earning more than $130,000 as a senator.

A number of legitimate concerns have been raised about Brazeau's suitability for public office, particularly his actions and conduct as head of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. These issues are perfectly germane, and certainly leave me of the view this guy isn't Senator material, and his appointment was a major foul-up by Stephen Harper.

But the story last week about how he drives a Porsche SUV...why should I care what car he drives? I assume he bought and paid for the car himself, and if that's how he wants to spend his salary, who cares?

Now the "investigative media" are turning their attention to his relationship with his son. Do I think it's dickish of Brazeau to, while he makes a six-figure income and drives a Porsche, be only paying $100 in child support? And that he fell behind on that pitiful amount? I do. But this is none of my business. It doesn't relate to his position as a Senator. The figure is low, but that's a matter between him, his ex and the courts, an avenue of redress I'd encourage her to consider. And is it really our business that he is estranged from his son?

As I've said, there's plenty of fault to find with Brazeau in the professional sphere without descending into the trivial (his vehicle) or the personal (his family). I wish the media would keep this in mind, and I hope the opposition parties don't stoop to personal attacks here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Conservatives and the economy, Who's on first?

The economy was the opening topic in question period today, and particularly, what seem to be conflicting signals from the Prime Minister and his finance minister on the economy. Jim Flaherty on Thursday says more stimulus may be needed. ,On Friday, Stephen Harper says we're done, no more stimulus. It all left Michael Ignatieff to ponder, who's on first?



I, for one, found the explanation of Ted Menzies, parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, rather unsatisfying. As did Ignatieff I'm guessing, judging by his post-question period scrum.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Romeo Dallaire on Omar Khadr

According to Liberal senator and former general, Romeo Dallaire, the US military lawyer for Omar Khadr was in Ottawa today. Lt. Commander Bill Kuebler was here to press the case of his client, a Canadian interned at Guantanamo Bay, ahead of the visit of U.S. President Barrack Obama to Ottawa, in hopes the Canadian government will make the case for Khadr's repatriation to Canada with Obama.

While Kuebler met with opposition representatives, including Dallaire and Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae, it's not surprising that, according to Dallaire, the Conservatives would not meet with Kuebler.

It's also keeping in line with the response Macleans blogger Aaron Wherry received from the PMO on a Khadr-related query:

“For the sake of clarity, specifically on what statement, aspect or precedent of international law is the Prime Minister basing his judgment that Omar Khadr was not a child soldier?”

Two weeks later, after some further prodding, the Prime Minister’s spokesman sent along a response this afternoon, reprinted as follows, in its entirety.

“I have no comment.”

Maybe they don't care about international law. Or maybe they're just burying their heads in the sand. In the mean time, while Harper ducks, the world is noticing. As Wherry notes, the French foreign affairs minister raised Khadr in his first meeting with the new US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

During their first official meeting, U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Bernard Kouchner had a wide-ranging discussion of the major global challenges, and most particularly, important international issues such as the Mideast, on which they issued a joint call for the opening of crossing points. They also discussed Afghanistan, Iran, certain African subjects such as Darfur, and the closing of Guantanamo.

Mr. Kouchner also drew Ms. Clinton’s attention to the case of Omar Khadr, the Canadian child who, as you know, was enrolled by al-Qaeda as a pre-teen. We wanted to draw the attention of the American and Canadian authorities to his case.

Even CNN is asking whether Khadr is a “teenage terrorist or confused kid” and note Canada's lack of leadership on the issue.

Yes, say Khadr's advocates, including the Canadian Bar Association. Its president wrote a letter last month to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling for the detainee's repatriation, saying the U.S. government has flouted his due process rights.

Harper has not taken a position on the case, and has deferred to the Obama administration.

As Dallaire notes in this interview, at some point Harper and the Conservatives are going to have to do something on the Khadr file before the Americans just drop him off on our border with bus fare and run away. Hiding behind the Americans' shirtails isn't leadership.

Here's the video:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ignatieff in Orillia (Updated)

Liberal interim leader Michael Ignatieff held a standing room-only town-hall meeting in Orillia on Saturday that has generated some positive local media coverage. Here's a sampling.

*Ignatieff visits Orillia
Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff began his speech to Orillians by connecting himself to a man that the people of this city are very familiar with.

“This town will be forever associated with Stephen Leacock,” he said to the crowd of 300 people crammed into the Orillia council chambers on Saturday afternoon. “Just a little story… My grandfather was a school teacher and he taught school with Stephen Leacock. They were personal friends.”

Ignatieff came to Orillia on Saturday to allow Orillians to “get a close look” at him, to encourage them to vote Liberal in future elections and to address questions that concern the people of this community.

“I’m here to listen to you,” he said. “I don’t think you can lead unless you listen and you’ve got to listen without a safety net, you’ve got to listen at whatever comes at you. So I would be happy to listen.”
(more)

*What Iggy had to say
Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff shares his opinion on topics concerning Orillians during his town hall style meeting in council chambers on Saturday. This is an edited version of his responses to questions.
(more)

UPDATE: Here's another from the Huronia Business Times (h/t):

*Grit leader grilled in Orillia
The Liberals supported the federal budget because “Canada needed an election like a hole in the head,” party leader Michael Ignatieff told an Orillia audience Saturday.

While vowing not to bring down the Stephen Harper Conservative government on “frivolous grounds,” Ignatieff warned that a non-confidence vote is inevitable.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives to revive gun registry debate?

While they vehemently campaigned against the gun registry in opposition, in government the Conservatives have done nothing to attempt to eliminate it. Hints now that may be about to change (from CP):

Harper told reporters during a whirlwind visit to Miramichi that local gun registry jobs are safe, despite his goal of eliminating the program.

More than 200 people work at the Miramichi firearms registry where the main processing centre is located.

Harper said a debate on the registry will happen in the near future, but jobs will not be lost.

``The Conservative party for a long time now has been committed to the abolition of the long gun registry, we are very clear about that,'' Harper said while visiting a hockey rink.

Can't find the CP coverage online yet, but the CBC has a report on the event that makes the plan to revive the debate seem more hypothetical.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Our "liberal" media at work

So late this afternoon its quietly announced that the Conservatives are dropping the $3.5 million libel lawsuit against the Liberal Party over the Cadman affair. Gee, the Prime Minister dropping a libel lawsuit against the main opposition party, questions still unanswered about just what "financial considerations" they offered a dying MP for his vote and what Harper knew and when. That seems newsworthy, yes?

Let's see how our infamous "liberal" media, as my conservative friends insist on liking to call them, are playing the story.

First, here's the National Post. They do give the story third-billing, so that's something. It might have gotten top billing, but this peanut butter story makes Watergate look like a church picnic, so how could they not lead with it?


How about the Globe and Mail. It's there somewhere, I'm sure...let's see, big photo of Harper with hockey players, he's doing something with arenas it seems, but I'm not sure what...there it is, third story, next to something about chickens chasing foxes.

Let's wander over to CTV. Obama looking pissed off, a cop looking even more pissed off...look, a kitten...now where's the story, must be here somewhere...ah, there it is, right between Harper saying Duffy insenuating a sexual relationship between two premiers was "perhaps" inappropriate and a gay couple married in Canada getting divorced in New Jersey. One of these stories is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...

Meanwhile, still nothing over in Blogging Tory-land on how this is a huge victory for their Dear Leader as I write this at 9:34PM EST. But if you want to read about reptile crap, people with accents arguing over fruit or Prince Charles' investment strategies, you're in luck.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives drop Cadman suit, Harper gets "personality" back

As you know by now, late on Friday afternoon (where the government dumps all the stories they'd rather not get too much play) the news broke that the Conservatives have dropped their $3.5 million libel lawsuit against the Liberal Party over the Cadman affair.

Stephen Harper has dropped a $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party over the Cadman affair.

A terse news release says the prime minister and the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada have agreed to settle all issues related to the suit.

The action has been dismissed without costs awarded to either side and both parties have agreed not to comment further.

While there will be no public commentary and no costs awarded, I've been working my sources in Ottawa and I've learned some of the terms of the resolution. It relates to this:

Harper's initial defamation claim was for $2.5 million but it was subsequently boosted last July by another million dollars for "misappropriation of personality."

I can exclusively report that, after much pleading, the Liberals have agreed to return Stephen Harper's personality in exchange for his dropping the lawsuit. Harper plans to have it dry cleaned over the weekend, and will again have a personality by Monday. Unfortunately, it's the same personality he had before we took it, so don't get your hopes up.

(BACKGROUND: My past Cadman affair posts:
*Why release non-relevant affidavits? Here's why
*Liberal Party, Give Harper back his personality right this minute!
*The Conservatives’ independent tape expert was a Republican donor and organizer
*Cadman tape: What's the motive, means and opportunity?
*Cadscam isn't over
*I'm not surprised
*Weston's Cadman theory still sounds legally infeasible to me
*Stephen Harper threatens to sue one third of Canada's population
*Harper can’t take a punch, threatens libel lawsuit
*Jodi Cadman: I burst into tears
*Charles Adler: Maybe it's Chuck Cadman's fault
*The Cadman affair continues, more information and more questions
*The Conservative allegedly tried to buy Chuck Cadman off)

But seriously, folks. Remember all the bluster from the Conservatives when they launched this lawsuit, backed by the bestest lawyer ever, and how they were going to make those dastardly Liberals pay for their lies? If you've forgotten, Paul Wells has a handy reminder. And a handy Cadman affair refresher timeline.

So, while the two sides say they won't be talking about this, what can we take from the Harper dropping the lawsuit?

I'd speculate it means there was probably more truth to the Liberal allegations than Harper was willing to admit, and what's more, Harper believes the Liberals were going to be able to prove it in open court. Remember, the onus wasn't on Harper to prove the comments libelous. The Liberals had to prove they weren't libelous. If Harper's calling it quits, a logical scenario would be him deciding the Liberals could made that case (in open court) and he was probably going to lose. Would also explain why his super-awesome lawyer jumped ship awhile ago.

There are other possibilities, but they don't hold water.

Maybe Harper had a change of heart decided to be a nice guy, and forget the whole thing? Unlikely to the point of laughable. Maybe the parliamentary privilege extending to the Web site argument looking like it would hold? Again, unlikely. If that were the case, Harper would scream blue murder and wouldn't have had no-commenting as part of the terms of dropping the suit.

No, I think it's the “both parties have agreed not to comment further” bit that is telling. Harper wanted out because he wasn't going to win, and was going to be embarrassed.

So, if that's so, you ask, then why did the Liberals agree to the no comment thing? Why not keep fighting, embarrass him, etc? That's a good question. The simple answer is money.

Even with a losing case, the Conservatives have the deep pockets to drag this thing through the courts for years if they want to. The Liberals, very much, don't have the money. As much as I'd love to see Harper on the stand in open-court, a lengthily discovery process, etc., a look at our fund raising numbers shows we don't have the money for that. So, for the Liberals, it makes sense to stop paying legal bills and devote those limited resources to organization. And remember, even if we're confident of an eventual victory, there's no guarantee we'd get our legal costs back.

And that's another argument in favour of the first scenario. Even with an iffy case, Harper and the Conservatives could have bled us dry on legal fees for months, which would play well with their goal to destroy the LPC as a functioning political party. The fact they're deciding not to is telling.

But this is all speculation on my part. We don't really know how or why it was ended. But we do know this: The Liberals have issued NO APOLOGY here, and NO RETRACTION.

Anyway, with the lawsuit now behind us, there are still many unanswered questions in the Cadman affair, and Harper has still yet to offer a credible explanation for what was said on the infamous audio recording:

Zytaruk: "I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars. Do you know anything about that?"

Harper: "I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?"

Zytaruk: "This (inaudible) for the book. Not for the newspaper. This is for the book."

Harper: "Um, I don't know the details. I can tell you that I had told the individuals, I mean, they wanted to do it. But I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind, he was going to vote with the Liberals and I knew why and I respected the decision. But they were just, they were convinced there was, there were financial issues. There may or may not have been, but I said that's not, you know, I mean, I, that's not going to change."

Zytaruk: "You said (inaudible) beforehand and stuff? It wasn't even a party guy, or maybe some friends, if it was people actually in the party?"

Harper: "No, no, they were legitimately representing the party. I said don't press him. I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity and, you know, just, you know, if that's what you're saying, make that case but don't press it. I don't think, my view was, my view had been for two or three weeks preceding it, was that Chuck was not going to force an election. I just, we had all kinds of our guys were calling him, and trying to persuade him, I mean, but I just had concluded that's where he stood and respected that."

Zytaruk: "Thank you for that. And when (inaudible)."

Harper: "But the, uh, the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."

Zytaruk: "Oh, OK."

Harper: "OK? That's my understanding of what they were talking about."

Zytaruk: "But, the thing is, though, you made it clear you weren't big on the idea in the first place?"

Harper: "Well, I just thought Chuck had made up his mind, in my own view ..."

Zytaruk: "Oh, okay. So, it's not like, he's like, (inaudible)."

Harper: "I talked to Chuck myself. I talked to (inaudible). You know, I talked to him, oh, two or three weeks before that, and then several weeks before that. I mean, you know, I kind of had a sense of where he was going."

Zytaruk: "Well, thank you very much."

Looks like work for one of our fine parliamentary committees to me.



ELSEWHERE, On the blogs

*“The truth is that this will prove to be in court the biggest mistake the leader of the Liberal Party ever made” Stephen Harper
*Tories: "Err...on second thought..."
*Harper's Cadman lawsuit a monument to political censorship
*My guess is you’ll hear crickets chirping over at Blogging Tory Central HQ.
*BREAKING: Cadscam Lawsuit Settled - No Apology!
*Cadman suit dropped
*Settled, but not forgotten
*Conservatives capitulate on Cadman
*Harper Lawsuit Pulled - No Liberal Retraction Requested
*How much have Conservative donors spent on Harper's failed Cadman lawsuit?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

BREAKING: Conservative party drops Cadman defamation suit against Liberals (UPDATED)

(Further update: Please read above post "Conservatives drop Cadman suit, Harper gets "personality" back " for my analysis/commentary on this news)

(Update: Replaced CP bulletin with newer story, commentary to follow)

Tories drop Cadman defamation suit against Liberals
Source: The Canadian Press - Broadcast wire
Feb 6, 2009 16:48

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper has dropped a $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party over the Cadman affair.

A terse news release says the prime minister and the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada have agreed to settle all issues related to the suit.

The action has been dismissed without costs awarded to either side and both parties have agreed not to comment further.

Harper launched the lawsuit last March after the Liberal party accused the prime minister of condoning immoral, illegal and unethical behaviour in the Cadman affair.

The Liberals charged that Harper was aware of an attempt by Conservative officials to bribe Chuck Cadman, the late independent MP, in return for his support during a crucial 2005 confidence vote.

(The Canadian Press)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: 78% of infrastructure $ going to Conservative ridings

Michael Ignatieff and Gerard Kennedy tag-teamed the Conservatives in question period today on the over-distribution of infrastructure funding to Conservative-held ridings, an admitted and unabashed Conservative practice.



Background:
* 78 per cent of Building Canada Fund announcements made in Conservative ridings

Media:
* Tories bulking up own ridings with infrastructure funds: Liberals
* Feds rewarding Tory ridings, say Liberals
* Taking care of their own

Other Blogs:
* 78% of Building Canada Fund projects in Conservative ridings: Kennedy
* Conservative Pork Barrelling of Canada continues
* There should not be Conservative infrastructure, it is Canadian infrastructure
* Vote Conservative or else...
* Ignatieff Gets Harper To Nibble, Kennedy Sets The Hook
* Con Ridings get 78% of Infrastructure Funding

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers