Saturday, July 31, 2010

A tale of two fainters

As I read this passage from Aaron Wherry's essay on Michael Ignatieff's travels in the Toronto-area today with the Liberal Express...

About a half hour into an event in a courtyard in downtown Oakville, a middle-aged woman fainted. A doctor in the crowd stepped forward to attend and an ambulance called. She was out for a minute, then opened her eyes. Michael Ignatieff who had been shaking hands and posing for pictures, came over to check on the woman, holding her hand for a bit, then comforting her husband. The paramedics put a brace around her neck, then lifted her onto a backboard and carried her away.
...I couldn't help but be reminded of this video...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The intrusive census, Greece edition

In a story on Greece's attempts at financial reforms, as usual the lame-stream media buried the real story: the super-intrusive Greek census! It seems the Greek government wants to know how many people it has working for it:

This week, Greece completed a special census to determine how many people are on the public-sector payroll – a number that has never been known, making cuts or assessments of their value difficult.
I can't believe the people of Greece stood for this unwarranted and unprecedented intrusion into their privacy! The government has no right to know if it's employing me or not! That's personal information. I mean, it's a slippery slope! First, they'll want to know if I work for them. Then they'll ask how many bedrooms I have. And then, it's a police state.

Thank-goodness this could never happen in Canada. This proves why we need to spend $16 billion on F-35s to defend our borders.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Friday, July 30, 2010

Vander Zalm's anti-HST fight financed by undertakers and unions

Elections BC has posted the financial filings for the referendum initiative launched by Bill Vander Zalm to oppose the Harmonized Sales Tax. With more than two-thirds of the donations coming from unions, corporations and non-profits, it's worth noting that under federal financing rules this initiative would never have gotten off the ground.


The Zalm's crew raised nearly $118,000 in support of their referendum initiative. Nearly $73,000 was in contributions, and nearly $45,000 from the "sale of Fight the HST buttons, bumper-stickers, certificates." Thankfully, as this was before the tax came into force, the Zalm didn't have to charge HST on his souvenir sales.

They spent just under $105,000, leaving them a $9,000 surplus. The biggest expense was nearly $30,000 for "convention, workshop, meeting fees and other rentals" followed by $22,000 on media advertising. Sadly, they spent nothing on a victory/thank-you party, despite the healthy surplus. These guys are just no fun at all.

Where did they get their donations from? Well, $21,618 came from individuals but the bulk of the $72,803 came from other sources. Non-profit organizations gave $18,686, followed by trade unions at $13,155 and corporations at $10,971, accounting for more than two-thirds of the amount raised.

The single biggest donor was the Family Funeral Home Association of BC, which gave a cool $10,000. Next was the Canadian Autoworkers Local 111, which gave $5,250, followed by the Council of Senior Citizen Organizations and the BC Retired Teachers Association, each at $3,000.

Finally, here's something that I'm puzzled about, and perhaps something some intrepid media can explore. I have no problem with how businesses spend their money, and how unions spend their dues is a matter for them and their members. But these donors caught my eye:

* City of Burnaby, Bonsor and Cameron Rec Centre: $2,180.30
* Sunshine Coast Regional District: $259.90

If municipal governments want to have a position on the issue, they're absolutely free to do so. But should they be donating tax dollars, or taxpayer-funded goods and services, in support of a political cause? Seems highly questionable to me.

Read the full filing:

Related Reading:

Will B.C. have a referendum on the HST?
The HST affair showcases all that’s wrong with politics today
HST Powerplay: Bill Vander Zalm vs. Carole James?
I don't know what this HST is, but I know it's bad

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Ruskies are coming! Conservative talking-points for stupid people

It's amusing to see the Conservatives attempt to spin the routine intercept of ageing Russian turbo-prop bombers by our young-by-comparison CF-18 jets as proof we need to drop $16 billion without tender or a needs analysis to buy F-35s. Because in fact, when you think about it, these intercepts prove a number of cheaper alternatives may do the job just fine.


The intercepts do show we need a fighter capability. That's not really in doubt though, at least not by anyone likely to be governing any time soon, so let's accept that as a given and move on.

First of all, the fact is these intercepts are routine, and have been ably met by our boys in blue with our current CF-18 force. If the Russians were flying circles around us, flying over Glace Bay with impunity while we were able to do nothing but shake our fists at them, maybe the Conservatives would have a point that we need super-expensive stealth fighters to stop them.

But no, the CF-18 did just fine, thanks. Now, we are going to have to replace them. They're approaching end-of-life in the medium term. The incidents the Conservatives trumpet though illustrate that, having met the threat with current-generation technology, any number of next-generation alternatives cheaper to the F-35 could easily meet this same threat: the revamped F/A-18 SuperHornet, for example (The US Navy is buying them). Or the Eurofighter Typhoon (being bought by the Royal Air Force). Or even the next generation of the F-15, the Silent Eagle, a plane purpose-built for this sort of air superiority mission. All would do this mission, and all would do it cheaper than the F-35.

Contrary to the Conservative talking-points, MacKay and company have actually underscored the Liberal position by creating this drama: the F-35 may well be over-qualified to meet our primary threats, we should do a proper competitive analysis to ensure we're finding the right plane to do the job, and we should put it to public tender to make sure we're getting it at the right price.

And by the by, something that hasn't gotten enough notice: the government hasn't signed a contract yet to buy the F-35s, and won't for a few years. Seems that dog and pony show a few weeks ago was just about getting MacKay's picture taken in a fake jet, and doing some PR for the Pentagon. Which means, the next government can put this thing to a proper tendering process without any penalties or problems.

P.S. I found this very amusing, in a death of my profession sort of way:
The TU-95 bomber, known as the Bear, is capable of carrying nuclear weapons and may have been loaded with warheads on this trip. One military analyst tells QMI Agency the Russians have been known to fly with nukes on board just to flex their muscle and prove to the world they are still a powerful country.
Yes, nukes! They might have had nukes! Build a bombshelter in the basement of your condo, Chad and Buffy! We have no information that they did have nukes, but we won't let that stop us from speculating baselessly, because that's what good journalism is all about.

Also, the Bear might have had a cargo of angry, rabid bears. Or cute, cuddly kittens. Or, NUKES! We. Just. Don't. Know.

Fox News North. We speculate, you decide.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Ignatieff can learn from Chretien's history

I'm in Denver this week covering a conference so I won't have too much time for blogging, unless it's about Avnet's solution plans or how Oracle is trying to win over Sun's channel partners. Not what you come here to read though, I don't think. Before I left though, I filed a dispatch for the folks at The Mark.


It's part of a feature examining historical precedents for Canadian political comebacks that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff can (and should) learn from. My contribution looked at Jean Chretien's early days as opposition leader, which had some interesting parallels to Ignatieff's challenges today, and some interesting lessons that can be applied to the current situation. The bottomline:
Don’t try to be something or someone you’re not because the voters can spot a phony, and if you’re uncomfortable with yourself, they will be uncomfortable with you too. The ones that brought you to the leadership aren’t always the ones who can take you to the next step. Organization matters. It takes a strong team. If you don’t stand for something, you stand for nothing. Oh, and tell the nervous nellies to shut it.

And be sure to check out the other historical precedents explored in the feature.


Rob Silver tackles Chretien a few years later.

Lanny Cardow looks at Robert Borden.

And Michael Valpy looks at Pierre Trudeau's comeback against Joe Clark.

(Step one for Michael: Find Snow. Step two: Walk in it. Step three: Run against Joe Clark.)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thursday, July 22, 2010

It's "Where's Waldo?" with Justin Trudeau

Can you spot Justin Trudeau in this photo of Jean Chretien and Michael Ignatieff?


Or in this one?


How about this one?

Picture him with a toque and glasses and you'd swear it was Where's Waldo. His ability to get into the centre of a Chretien/Iggy sandwich is quite impressive.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Munir Sheikh, Tony Clement and the war with Eastasia

The two figures at the heart of the census brouhaha – Industry Minister Tony Clement and now former Statistics Canada boss Munir Sheikh – actually have a lot in common. But it’s the one major difference that really sets them apart.

Sheikh resigned yesterday on a point of principle, his position having been made largely untenable by the government and the minister his department falls under, Tony Clement. It was about more, I believe, than just the wrong-headed Conservative decision to end the mandatory long-form census and replace it with a voluntary one that will produce useless data for more money. If a senior civil servant resigned every time their political masters told them to do something stupid, there’d be no one left.

As important was Clement deliberately misrepresenting the advice he had received from and the position of Statistics Canada on the census changes. Clement tried to throw Sheikh’s department under the bus to deflect some of the blowback he was taking, knowing full well the civil servants weren’t in a position to publicly respond and correct the record; they'd essentially be calling BS on the government. Sheikh’s choice was either let Clement destroy the department’s hard-earned reputation for excellence and competence by letting the Clement-created contention they'd failed Grade 11 math stand, or resign on principle. He choose the honourable path, and also set a standard for the public service.

Which brings us back to Clement. What do he and Sheikh have in common? Well, it would seem they both agree going to a voluntary long-form is stupid, and bad policy.

Another source said that Clement had, in fact, advised against the decision, as had Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Both were overruled. “It was a one-man decision,” Harper’s.

“The PMO thought nobody would care,” added the source. But now, it’s said to be stunned by the range and depth of the backlash, from right across the political spectrum.

But while Sheikh was willing to fall on his sword over principle, and to protect his integrity and that of his department at the cost of his job, Clement was not. His ministerial salary, car and driver, Challenger Jet access, and ability to sprinkle taxpayer dollars across his riding like Santa Claus was more important to him. Asked by the Prime Minister to implement policy he knew was badly flawed, he could have said no. He could have followed in Sheikh's path, in the path of Michael Chong, and stood on principle. But that's not easy.

Instead, Steamboat Tony is out in public and on Twitter making a fool of himself, resorting to nonsensical arguments and mythical Twitter supporters as he tries to lamely defend policy he himself knows to be wrong, all to keep his cushy job and please his political master. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad, but that’s too much the norm in modern politics.

Meanwhile, the Harper government has had Sheikh’s resignation letter disappeared from the Statistics Canada web site (you can still read it here).

And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Monday, July 19, 2010

If Chewbacca is a Wookie, you must support ending the mandatory long form census

A source in Ottawa not pleased with the Conservative government's position on the scrapping of the mandatory long form census (I understand it's causing some dissension in the party ranks) has leaked me the latest set of talking points that PMO spokesperson Dmitri Soudas is expected to begin using in support of the government's position in the coming days. I fear they may prove frightfully persuasive.


***
Talking Points
Internal Distribution Only, Confidential
From: Dimitri Soudas, PMO
Re: Long form census, decision to make voluntary

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed country, I have one
final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with the long form census? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with the long form census! It does not make sense!

Look at me. I'm the director of communications for the Prime Minister of Canada defending a major policy decision, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're in that voting booth deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed country, it does not make sense!

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must support scrapping the mandatory long form census!

The defense rests.

***

You know the government is desperate when they resort to the Chewbacca Defence...

UPDATE: Liberal release demolishes some of the actual, but only slightly less silly, Conservative talking points.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sunday, July 18, 2010

More about Michael

Interesting story the other day, again from the Toronto Star's Susan Delacourt, that talks a little about Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and his family life. An excerpt:

On Thursday, during a question-and-answer session in Ajax, Ignatieff was asked about the role of mediation in divorce law. Not everyone in the audience noticed, but his answer strayed into his own experience.

Ignatieff, whose marriage breakdown was the subject of headlines in British tabloids, said: “Sometimes, things go badly wrong in families. And it can be excruciatingly painful. . . . When the family begins to break apart, and they do, life is under pressure. Life is tough sometimes.”

In the Star interview a day later, he said it’s important to discuss the Canadian family in clear-eyed, “unsentimental” terms.

“What I’ll say about that is that it’s no secret, never concealed, that I lived a very painful divorce. And I’ve been through it. And you want to do right by your kids and it’s more important than anything in the world that the people you love don’t get hurt. And all I can say is that I lived through it,” he said.

“That answer was something I care about, because I care a lot about families. But . . . families break up. Marriages break down. It’s extremely important that we have institutions that help people find the way towards reconciliation, doing what’s right for the kids, not having the lawyer screw it up, because they can. . . . I’m 100 per cent in favour (of mediation).”
As the Star story says, Ignatieff's political opponents (we can all guess who) are routinely trying to use his family history against him, sending negative e-mails alleging all kinds of nastiness to reporters and bloggers who, by and large, have ignored them. I used to get just disgustingly nasty e-mails about the Dion family, and about Bill Graham before him. Seems to be a long-standing tactic for some people. (And why they'd think I, as a Liberal blogger, would publish them I don't know.)

But you know, the fact is most Canadian families are imperfect. My parents divorced when I was in junior high school. Nearly as many of my friends came from broken families as did not. Life is hard, and people aren't perfect. I think those that seek to exploit the lack of perfection of others should remember that we're a country of imperfect people, doing the best we can. That's all we can ask of each other, and I think most Canadians agree.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Saturday, July 17, 2010

The Conservative $16 billion fighter jet boondoggle

I should start off by noting that I was an Air Force brat, growing up on Canadian Forces bases in Summerside, Trenton, Baden and Comox. I was also an Air Cadet. I think fighter jets are cool, and the F-35 is a particularly kick-ass jet. The Conservatives, however, are making a boondoggle of replacing the CF-18.

We do definitely need to replace the CF-18, that’s not in doubt for me. I have little time for the argument that we somehow don’t need fighters anymore. If we’re a sovereign country, we do need the tools to protect ourselves, it’s that simple. The question we need to ask ourselves though is, what are the missions we want our air force equipped to handle, and what are the tools they need to fulfill those missions? As I see it, the primary mission is domestic: to patrol and protect our borders, such as intercepting and identifying unknown aircraft approaching our borders, escorting passenger aircraft under suspected terrorist threat, and so on. Secondary would be potential overseas combat missions which, I would agree, are becoming less likely of a threat. With the CF-18 we flew combat missions in the first gulf war and in the former Yugoslavia but, tellingly, not Afghanistan. This raises the question, do we need a ground-attack capability or is air superiority our primary mission?

The key question is to identify the mission, and then determine the best jet to fulfill it. There is some question if the F-35 is a too pricy and over-equipped choice to meet the primary mission I identified above. One oft-heard objection is if we really do need stealth technology for sovereignty patrols. The two most-mentioned alternatives are the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon. I’d reject the Superhornet out of hand. It’s essentially a souped-up version of the F-18 that we already fly. It is a double-engine jet however, a key advantage over the single-engine F-35. Also double-engine is the Typhoon. I don’t really know much about it though. My concern with buying a European aircraft would be what industrial benefits would be available to Canadian industry.

What I’d like to see first is for the government to let us know what the mission is. What is the role that they see Canada’s Air Force playing in the 21st century? If you really want to build support with the public for the largest procurement project in Canadian history, your argument needs to be more than “it’s the best because we say so, and if you disagree with us you don’t support the troops and are a commie.” Treat us like adults and make an actual argument for why we need these jets. Because I think we do, and the ham-fisted way you’re doing this isn’t helping.

The even larger mistake they’re making here though is to not have a competitive tendering process for this purchase. I mean, to not put a potential $16 billion contract to competitive tender is the height of stupidity. Hell, even when you buy a used car you negotiate a little with the dealer. You say you saw this great car at another dealer for a lower price. You pretend to walk away. You get them to come down off sticker, maybe throw in new seat cushions or something. You don’t just walk into the dealer, say I'm not looking at any other cars, this is the only car and I want, and offer to pay full sticker. It’s madness.

A competitive tender lets you identify and clarify your needs and evaluate the options. It forces the competing companies to actually compete and put together the best bid they can. Sole source it and there’s no competition at all.

And this is more than just buying X fighter jets. With a military procurement of this level, what will set one bid apart from another, and where the competition between bids really comes, is around the industrial benefits. Where biders usually compete the most is around what portion of the contract work will be done in the purchasing country, creating jobs and giving business to local businesses. These contracts can mean a lot of work for Canadian companies. Don’t put it to tender and we’ll see less spinoffs in Canada, less jobs for Canadians.

And then there’s the maintenance contract, which will be worth as much as $7 billion (that’s how we get from $9B for the jets to $16B overall). The government hasn’t even bothered to negotiate that yet. That’s right, they’re buying the jets from Lockheed but they’ll negotiate the contract with Lockheed later. And just what leverage will they have, given that they’re already agreed to buy the jets? Little to none. It will be uphill battle to maximize the Canadian content of that contract. And for those that don’t think fighter maintenance is important, go take a look at the role CF-18 maintenance contracts played in the creation of the Reform Party.

Now, the Conservatives say there has already been a competitive process with the F-35, and the Liberals initiated that process. They’re being deliberately obtuse. The F-35 is the result of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, which saw Boeing and Lockheed-Martin develop prototype aircraft for the next-generation of fighter aircraft, primarily for the U.S. and the British. Canada was one of a number of investing partners, a decision that was made under the Liberals, and the process saw the Lockheed-Martin aircraft selected.

That, however, did not commit industrial investors such as Canada to purchase any aircraft. Canada’s investment in the program secured access to contracts for Canadian aerospace companies, and the industry has reaped many contracts from the investment. But there was no commitment to purchase, no evaluation of this aircraft versus other options as to which will best meet Canada’s defence needs, no comparison for value for dollar, and no competition to provide industrial benefits to Canadian companies in exchange for purchase. To say otherwise is to deliberately mislead, or worse.

I’ve listed a myriad of reasons why it makes good sense to put this contract to competitive tender. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why it needs to be sole-sourced. We have time left in the operational life of the CF-18 to do this thing right, so there seems little need to rush through a $16-billion process. Particularly with the economy and the budget in the state it’s in, if we’re going to do a deal of this magnitude (and I think we do need to) we should be ensuring we’re getting the right aircraft and that we’re delivering maximum benefit to the Canadian economy in terms of jobs and contracts.

Instead, the Conservatives seem determined to rush head-first with their eyes closed into a potential $16 billion boondoggle, at a time when the rest of the country is about to asked to tighten their belts as we enter a time of austerity. Doesn’t seem like a recipe for success.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Auditioning to renovate 24 Sussex

The new ballot question: who would you trust to do unskilled manual labour during the construction of your home?



* The answer is trust neither. Always use a certified contractor, and get at least three references.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ignatieff makes it personal on the arts

Yesterday, I wrote about the need for Michael Ignatieff to start letting Canadians know who he is, what he's about and why he's here.


Today, we see a very good example of what I was getting at, in Susan Delacourt's story on Ignatieff's position on supporting the arts:
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he has a personal stake in supporting artists in Canada, as well as the CBC.

“It’s personal. People think I spent my life up there in the ivory tower,” Ignatieff told about 100 Liberals gathered on Wednesday in Kingston for lunch with the leader.

“I actually spent 20 years as a freelance writer and journalist. I wrote screenplays. I wrote a couple of films. I lived by my wits. The writing life is a world of six-month contracts, Ignatieff explained, “and that’s the reality of life for many in the arts community in Canada.

“For 20 years I lived six months at a time. No safety net. No pension. No coverage. That’s the life of an artist, he said. I lived the insecurities of it, I lived the thrill of it. The thrill of being your own master. I lived the thrill of reaching an audience with no help from anyone except for what was coming out of my pen. I understand this world. I understand its risks; I understand its perils.”
I like these comments. He could have just said I think the arts are important because art uplifts, art inspires, art brightens, and so on. And that would have been fine, and all true. But by tying it back to his personal narrative he also made clear why this is personal for him, why this is an issue that he wants to address, and gave us a little more of a sense of who he is, and how his experiences shape his policy and beliefs.

Hope to see more of this.

Photo: Sue Humphrey

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Just who is this Michael Ignatieff fellow?

Every once in a blue moon, when hell has frozen over or a bus transmission has malfunctioned, I find myself actually agreeing with something that L. Ian MacDonald has written. One of those two things must have happened, because this is one of those times.


I agree with his comments on Stephen Harper’s own bungle-filled 2005 boonies tour (how short some people's memories are). And while I wouldn’t say what he says here matters just to women, I do agree with the sentiment here about Michael Ignatieff:
It's highly unusual for a Liberal leader to suffer from a gender gap. But it's no mystery, either -women won't vote for a man who doesn't talk about his children. Ignatieff recently attended the graduation of his daughter, Sophie, from university in Scotland, and that should have been the only story of his trip. Instead, the headline was out of his meeting with British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, whether they discussed Britain's new coalition government, and its possible application to Canada. Just when Ignatieff had fended off the merger story, his side trip to London allowed it to pop up again.
I don’t think L put it well with the Clegg/grad thing but he is on to something. If Canadians are going to trust him, if they’re going to be open to hearing about his policy ideas and believing he can implement them, then they need to have a sense of who Michael Ignatieff is, why he’s here, and what makes him tick.

Right now, they don’t. They know he’s tall, wonkish, lived overseas and has bushy eyebrows. He seems a little academic, a little aloof. People don’t need to like a leader to support them. But they do need to have a sense of their values, to trust that they’ll try to do the right thing. They need to respect them. We’re not there yet, as any number of polls will show you.

There’s no reason though that we can’t be. Remember, when he came on the scene, and for years to follow, Stephen Harper wasn’t exactly Mr. Personality. I still don’t think he is, but I’m obviously biased. He did, however, make a concerted effort to soften his image, and it has paid him dividends.

It’s a fine line in politics to talk about family and your personal life, and to put them forward into the public sphere. There needs to be a careful balance. But with every photo-op – sending his kids off to school, taking Ben to a hockey game, or Rachel to a concert – Harper has been carefully softening his image, and destroying the cartoon caricature of himself. He’s no monster, sure he’s a bit nerdy but he’s a loving parent, just like us. That’s an important and powerful subliminal message.

Which brings is back to Michael. I remember a meet the candidates session during the aborted second leadership race, the one at an LPC(O) conference in Mississauga with all the drama in the hallways. Inside the session though, in response to a question about skills training, Ignatieff talked about how his son had enrolled in a trades program and it was really helping him find his way, and it brought home for him the importance of encouraging such programs. It was a little thing, but it gave me a better sense of what this guy was about and what drove him, and it personalized him as well.

I’m not saying bring the kids on the campaign trail. But I am saying that, if he’s going to be successful, Michael needs to start talking about his personal narrative. Tell us why you spent so many years overseas. Tell us what you learned, how it changed you. How did reporting on the former Yugoslavia, or the Kurdish peoples of Northern Iraq, influence your views on foreign policy and Canada’s role in the world? What drove you to come back and get into politics, what change do you want to see, what do you want to accomplish? And why is this important to you?

Before he kicked-off the bus tour yesterday, Ignatieff did an AM hit on CBC Newsworld. I don’t recall the question, but at one point he told the anchor “this isn’t about me.” And he’s right, in a sense. It’s about Canada, it’s about the future, and our vision for it. But he’s also wrong, in a sense, because Canadians won’t trust a stranger with their future.

So whether it’s his wife and children or his personal narrative, it’s time to give Canadians a sense of just who this Michael Ignatieff fellow is. I know we have a seemingly impossible to-do list already this summer, but that needs to be near the top.

Photo : Richard McGuire

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

I love the smell of hypocritical outrage in the morning. Smells like sulphur

My colleagues at the National Post are all upset because Michael Ignatieff said something mean or not nice about Stephen Harper or something. And I must say, I wholeheartedly share their outrage.

Ignatieff making this personal attack on the Conservative leader clearly shows that he's just in it for himself. He's just visiting. He's out of touch because he lived in England and taught at Harvard. He isn't a real Canadian. He wants to raise taxes on everyone and everything. He's an ivory tower elitist. And he didn't even cry when Goose died in Top Gun -- that's just not human.


We can't allow this unprecedented un-positivity from the Liberal leader go un-checked. Why, if we don't nip this in the bud now, who knows where it could lead. Attack ads outside of an election campaign? Web sites dedicated to made-up personal smears? Turning over our own web site to negative smears and photo-shopped images of our opponent instead of talking about positive isues and policy?

My friends, I don't want to travel that road.

Please, won't someone think of the children!

BTW, the usual media suspects are entirely missing the point of Ignatieff's sulfur comments, as usual. In fact, with the clever allusion to scripture, the comments were a coded message designed to woo Christian voters.

And fans of the periodic table of the elements. Next week, he links Harper to barium.

So, watch for that.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Harper Conservatives: Soft on murder?

In a bold and courageous move yesterday, Conservative minister Rona Ambrose ended years of ambiguity in the government’s position on this key issue by making it clear: the Conservative Party thinks murder is wrong:

"Killing or mutilating anyone, least of all a family member, is utterly unacceptable under all circumstances," Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Status of Women, said Monday.

Ambrose went on to announce bold legislative action would be forthcoming to make murder a crime under the law:

She also said the government is “looking at” adding honour killing as a separate charge to the Criminal Code.

Except Ambrose immediately had the rug pulled out from her by a spokesperson for the justice minister:

But Justice Department spokeswoman Pamela Stephens said that the government has no plans to add honour killings to the Criminal Code.

“An intentional killing is murder, regardless of the motive,” she said late Monday evening.

“The expression ‘honour killing’ is not listed in the Criminal Code nor is ‘domestic violence. Rather, the two are addressed through the existing offences in the code such as assault, criminal harassment, murder, and related aggravating factors.”

Well thank goodness that’s settled: murder is already illegal. Good to know. Let's get the word out.

Meanwhile, in related crime news, the government that with great fanfare made street racing illegal (well, even more illegal than it already was, like Rona wants to do with murder) is spending tax dollars advertising with video games that glorify street racing:

The online description of one of the games reads, “Compete at the highest level of street racing with Need for Speed ProStreet. It’s no longer good enough to simply rule your local neighborhood; you need to dominate on a global stage.”

The government placed ads in a number of video games during February and March of this year. The ads were part of an attempt to encourage young people to complete their apprenticeship training and alert them to grants of up to $4,000.

A spokesperson for the department of whimsy and caprice confirmed that, thankfully, irony is not (yet) a crime.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Monday, July 12, 2010

I like the cut of this GG to be’s jib

The more I read the biographical sketch of our Governor General to be, the more I must say I like the cut of this fellow’s jib.

Why just look at this resume:

  • Respected author.
  • World-class academic.
  • Connections to Ivy League institutions in the United States and England.
  • Hosted a show on public television.
  • Distinguished eyebrows.

Why, this fellow sounds like the perfect choice for Governor-General to me!

But wait a minute. Doesn't Michael Ignatieff already have a job?

P.S. Thank-you to Stephen Harper for keeping the CBC GG connection alive. That’s three in a row!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sunday, July 11, 2010

The Conservatives and data privacy, 19 times out of 20

It’s no surprise I’m not a fan of our Conservative government, but I think I’d be a lot less annoyed with them day-to-day if I could sense there were at least some guiding principles behind their decisions. Even if I don’t agree with them, a little logical consistency would be nice sometimes.

Take the issue of data privacy. For a somewhat nerdy and technical issue, proposed Conservative changes to the census have been getting a lot of attention lately. In essence, the Conservatives want to drop the mandatory long-form census that goes to a certain percentage of the population, and replace it with a voluntary one that goes to a larger group. Statisticians say this would render the data useless and make the whole exercise pointless. The Conservatives say people have privacy concerns about the long-form, they feel it’s true intrusive and don’t trust the government with the information, even though it is only used in aggregate. So, the government claims, this is a data privacy issue and we must heed their concerns.

Contrast this with another story that has been getting less attention, but is also quite important. The Conservatives are pushing a bill that would give the personal passenger information data of Canadian citizens to the U.S. government if their flight overflies U.S. airspace, even if the flight is going to a third country and is never even landing in the U.S. What’s more, the U.S. government would be able to veto any passenger on security grounds, and prevent them from taking that flight. It’s also worth noting many domestic Canadian flight-paths overfly U.S. airspace, particularly those in and out of Southern Ontario.

So, if you’re following at home, the Conservatives are vetoing a mandatory long-form census, even though the data is only used in aggregate to help make better informed public policy decisions, because some people (apparently, so they’d have us believe) have concerns about their private data going to their government. But they have no concerns sending the private data of Canadian citizens to the a foreign government and allowing a foreign government to prevent Canadians from boarding flights to other countries for reasons they don’t even have to share with us.

Makes complete sense to me.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Fadden defenders are missing the point

A week or two ago, shortly before CSIS chief Richard Fadden was due to testify before a House of Commons committee to explain his stupid remarks in a CBC interview – you know it’s serious when MPs trek to Ottawa during the summer break – I received an invite to join a “Supporters of Richard Fadden” Facebook group. Since I believe Mr. Fadden’s foot in mouth disease was entirely self-inflicted, after I stopped laughing I clicked no.

After his testimony, as I read some of the pro-Fadden commentary from the Fadden apologists, various activists, and even Senators who should know better, what struck me is how they all, deliberately or otherwise, were completely missing the point.

The problem, or at least my problem, with Fadden’s comments is not the suggestion that foreign powers are seeking to gain influence with Canadian politicians so as to influence policy, gain access to inside information and trade secrets, and so on. I think that this is indeed happening should be obvious. And it’s not a new phenomenon. Countries have used their foreign intelligence service for this kind of thing for as long as there have been intelligence services. Well, except for CSIS, they’re only allowed to spy inside Canada. For the others though, this is standard operating procedure. That’s why we have counter-intelligence services, such as CSIS. If these threats didn’t exist, Fadden wouldn’t have a job.

So I don’t think anyone seriously doubts the premise that foreign intelligence services are trying to gain influence with Canadian politicians. It was a statement of the obvious by Fadden, like the RCMP commissioner saying “some people are committing crimes in this country.” Of course they are, that’s why they have police.

No, what was objectionable about Fadden’s comments was that he said CSIS has information that specific politicians were in fact under the influence of foreign governments. For those that have forgotten, here’s what started all this:

Canada's spy agency suspects that cabinet ministers in two provinces are under the control of foreign governments, CBC News has learned.

Several members of B.C. municipal governments are also under suspicion, Richard Fadden, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, told CBC News in an exclusive interview.

"We're in fact a bit worried in a couple of provinces that we have an indication that there's some political figures who have developed quite an attachment to foreign countries," Fadden said.

"The individual becomes in a position to make decisions that affect the country or the province or a municipality. All of a sudden, decisions aren't taken on the basis of the public good but on the basis of another country's preoccupations."

He said the politicians and public servants see it as a long-standing relationship and have no idea they are being used.

"There are several municipal politicians in British Columbia and in at least two provinces there are ministers of the Crown who we think are under at least the general influence of a foreign government."

Fadden said the agency is in the process of discussing with the Privy Council Office the best way to inform those provinces there may be a problem.

"We'll do the same with the public servants. I'm making this comment because I think it's a real danger that people be totally oblivious to this kind of issue."

This wasn’t just a case of saying “there’s this broad challenge we should be aware of and guard against.” No, this was Fadden saying he knows the names of municipal politicians and cabinet ministers that have been compromised. And by refusing to name names, to provide evidence, to make his case in the light of day, with his accusations he tarred hundreds of politicians across the country unfairly, putting them under a cloud of suspicion.

If Fadden does indeed have information about specific individuals, he should take action. If laws have been broken, file charges. If you’re still developing a case, why compromise your investigation in this way? And if all you have is rumour and innuendo that won’t pass legal muster, then don’t go running your mouth off and tarring the reputations of hundreds of innocent public servants.

Fadden made specific allegations that put hundreds of people under unfair suspicion, with a reckless regard for the consequences. THAT is the issue we’re dealing with here, THAT is the problem that I and indeed most critics have with his problem. Perhaps instead of constructing strawmen, the “Fadden Supporters” could address that. Or maybe they’re trying to divert the issue for the simple reason that they can’t defend it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Friday, July 09, 2010

On the road again aboard the deja vu express

Next week, the (latest) make or break summer bbq tour kicks off for a Liberal leader, where (once again) their future, and that off all Liberal-kind, will depend (again) on how well they do kissing babies, flipping burgers and, what do you do with corn, turn it? Turning corn?


Frankly though, I think in the four or so summers I've been a blogger, I've written at least that many blogs about how the leader really needs to have a really strong performance working hard on the BBQ circuit this summer to finally connect with Canadians, build momentum, develop a positive, substantive persona, and what not.

Rather than writing that blog again, I figured I'd just post links to the same blog when I wrote it every other summer and let you read those ones instead:


This time, though, they're taking a bus. So, that should be interesting.

Seriously, I don't want to come off as too skeptical. I think these tours can be important. They can work, and this needs to be done, both to connect Michael and the Liberals with Canadians and to get Michael comfortable and ready for the coming campaign. And I like some of what I'm hearing about this tour, with its focus on rural Canada, with the indications we will (finally) make health care an issue.

It's just that it feels like we Liberals have been stuck in the same position for four years. Party slumping in the polls and lacking policy definition. Leader failing to connect with Canadians and needing to get comfortable in own skin. We know our challenges, we know what we need to do.

So there's really nothing left for me to say. Either we'll do it, or we won't.

LAST SUMMER:
An update from the Michael Ignatieff Hiding in Plain Sight Summer Tour 2009

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper’s road to an elected Senate: Appoint Conservatives that can't get elected

I’ve long held that when it comes to his supposed commitment to Senate reform, Stephen Harper is a fraud. The mountain of evidence is so overwhelming it seems almost churlish to point-out more examples. Still, churlishness is mandatory for bloggers, so I shall forge ahead and do just that.

Today, Stephen Harper asked Her Majesty to call to the Senate one Salma Ataullahjan, to fill a vacancy in Ontario. I know little about Ms. Ataullahjan. I wish her the best, and I hope she serves the people of Ontario ably and well.

The only think I do know about her is that she was a Conservative candidate in the 2008 election, where she was rejected by the voters of Mississauga-Brampton South in favour of Liberal MP Navdeep Bains.

And Ataullahjan is far from the only failed Conservative candidate from the 2008 election to be called up to patronage heaven. Far from the only one indeed.

Senator Yonah Martin ran in New Westminster—Coquitlam and lost to the NDP’s Dawn Black.

Senator Claude Carignan ran in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and got whooped by the BQ’s Luc Desnoyers.

Senator Fabian Manning lost in Avalon to Danny Williams, er, Liberal Scott Andrews.

And that’s just Conservative senators that were rejected by the electorate in the 2008 election. Stephen “I want elected Senators” Harper has sent many people to the Senate that have failed to get elected.

Senator Michel Rivard ran for the Canadian Alliance in the riding of Québec in 2000, losing to the BQ’s Christiane Gagnon.

Senator John Wallace ran in Saint John in 2006, losing to Liberal Paul Zed.

Here’s a fun one. The 2000 election in the riding of Laval West featured two future Harper Senators, both of whom lost. The Canadian Alliance candidate was Leo Houskas, a Harper fundraiser called to the Senate in 2009. And the Progressive Conservative candidate was Michael Fortier, infamously called to the Senate and cabinet following the 2005/06 election. Both of them lost to Liberal Raymonde Falco as the voters said non, merci to both future Senators. Fortier, of course, resigned from the Senate to again run to be the MP for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, and once again was rejected by the electorate, losing to the BQ’s Meili Faille.

And finally (have I missed anyone?) let’s not forget Senator Suzanne Duplessis, rejected as a Progressive Conservative by the voters of Louis-Hébert in favour of the BQ’s Philippe Paré in 1993.

You ask, dear reader, what’s my point? It’s this: how can someone who professes to believe that electing Senators is a democratic imperative (that would be Stephen Harper) be taken seriously when they keep appointing Senators that, when they were on the ballot, were rejected by the voters? The answer, of course is no, they can’t be taken seriously at all.

Look, for the record I’m not a fan of electing Senators. If you want to mess around with the Senate, I say just abolish the thing. Failing that, I’d support elected Senators but only as part of a wider constitutional-based reform that also looks at regional representation and the balance of powers between the House and the Senate. Otherwise, under the status quo I’m fine with appointing learned and respected people that perhaps couldn’t get elected normally, but bring a needed voice and perspective to the chamber.

Stephen Harper, however, does pretend to be a supporter of electing Senators. Which is why it’s ridiculous for him to habitually appoint Senators who, when their names were on a ballot and the voters had a chance to elect them, were rejected.

Like all of Harper’s supposed Senate reform principles, it’s a farce. Like the supposed commitment of his appointees to term limits and supporting an elected Senate – once appointed, they’re changing their minds. And since the "commitments" are unenforceable, there's jack squat he can do. (Except boot them from caucus, which he hasn't bothered to do.) Like the piecemeal reform legislation he keeps pushing is bad for the country and possibly unconstitutional. And like his unwillingness to do what it would really take to reform the Senate – open the constitution.

If anyone still believes Stephen Harper is serious about Senate reform they’re either gullible, deluded, or just plain lying.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Only one of Toronto's disasters was man-made

An earthquake, the G20 and a blackout in the middle of a heatwave. It’s been a busy few weeks for Toronto. Only one of those incidents though is a man-made disaster, so I’ll focus on the G-20.

This is one of those issues for me where there are many shades of gray, which will upset those that prefer to see everything in black and white. If only the world was like that.

I sympathize with the police for the very difficult situation they faced: trying to secure a major conference in downtown Toronto, trying to deal with large crowds of protestors exercising their democratic rights, and trying to tell who is a peaceful protestor trying to make a point and who is a hoodlum hiding in their midst trying to cause trouble. And I’m angry at the police for unfairly targeting those peaceful protestors while trying to get to those hoodlums, for being too slow to act on Saturday and too fast to act on Sunday, I’m angry about the reports of excessive violence, of suspension of civil liberties, and the apparent dishonesties of the police leadership.

I sympathize with the protestors that wanted to make their voices heard and raise concerns, whether I agree with them or not, that were important to them, that had their voices drowned-out, that faced violence and confinement. And I’m angry at those that view these events as anarchist summer camp, that seem to lack any coherent message, and that use peaceful protest as a cover for mindless violence and vandalism.

I sympathize with the media that put themselves on the frontlines to bring those of us at home the true picture, or as true a picture as an on the ground eye-witnesses with only one piece of the puzzle can bring. TVO’s Steve Paikin did a great job. And I’m angry at the media for their simplistic coverage, for focusing on the violence, to the near exclusion of all-else. Who were the “real” people protesting? What were their points? Did they have any merit? From the media coverage, I have no clue.

In the end, it will all take time to sort out. Police conduct will be closely scrutinized and investigated, as it should be, with lessons being learned and appropriate consequences meted-out. It’s unlikely most of the so-called Black Block-tactic types will face justice, but one can hope. I’m content to let those processes play themselves out.

These are symptoms though of the underlying issue of last weekend: was it right to hold the G20 in downtown Toronto, and were the results of the conference worth the $1 billion price-tag and the ensuing chaos in our streets? I have to say the answer to both questions is a resounding no.

Stephen Harper’s decision to hold the G20 in downtown Toronto instead of at the CNE, as the city preferred, or even on a military base or some other isolated location, created a cascade of negative effects. It increased the security costs exponentially, it made the security task of the police much more difficult, it inconvenienced more people and cost more businesses money, it put more people and property at risk, and it made protests more disruptive, damaging and difficult to contain.

I sympathize with those that say we can’t let the threat of violent protest dictate where, when and how we meet. But at the same time, sensible planning dictates both a security analysis and a cost/benefit analysis. And the cost and security benefits of a more isolated, easily-secured location far outweigh whatever advantage you get by giving delegates a glimpse of Bay Street from your shuttle bus inside the security zone.

Then there’s what was discussed and accomplished at the conference itself, which is why we’re going through all this hassle and expense at the first place. At least if there were substantive achievements, you could say well, it was worth it. Unfortunately, there were not.

What did we get? Statements that Iran and North Korea are bad. Funding for maternal health that falls short of expectations, and is mostly old or re-directed money (although the sentiment is positive). A non-binding commitment to eliminate deficits that countries can decline to pay attention to. And an agreement that those that want to tax banks can, and those that don’t want to don’t have to, not that they could be forced to anyway. Did I miss anything? We did, though, get lots of photos of Harper with world leaders. And reports say that, not having tripped on his shoelaces or been stuck in the bathroom for any photo-ops, he was a great host. Oh, how high we set the bar.

I don’t side with those that say these conferences are a waste of time. There is value in bringing world leaders together, face-to-face, for discussions on important issues, to coordinate international responses to major issues. But I don’t support the Conservative boondoggle that was the Toronto G20. The cost-benefit analysis just doesn’t hold; this wasn’t worth a billion dollars, and the security chaos.

All that ensued a week ago in Toronto, the protests, the security chaos, the lost business, the police investigations, at the root of it all is bad decisions made by the Harper Conservatives. Every other conference has been held for a fraction of the price, and not near the disruption. But for Conservative mismanagement, poor decision-making and pre-occupation with showering Tony Clement’s riding with pork, this one could have been to.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers