Joining the crowd

Ever see a crowd forming, a crowd you're not part of, and then start to get nervous that you are missing out on something important?

I'm starting to get that feeling.

So before my nerves are completely frazzled, I'm going to join that crowd with this official announcement:

There, now I feel better. I can join the crowd, made up of John Manley, Frank McKenna, and now Brian Tobin:

Another Liberal leadership prospect has dropped out of the early race to replace Paul Martin, with Brian Tobin announcing he will not be putting his name in the hat.

Tobin, a former federal cabinet minister and premier of Newfoundland, was considered the last strong candidate for the job.

Tobin's announcement came Tuesday.

Funny thing is the way the media keeps calling this a race:

Outgoing Prime Minister Paul Martin triggered a leadership race when he announced his intention to resign as Liberal Party leader as he conceded defeat to the Conservatives' Stephen Harper in last week's federal election.

Technically, don't you need at least two runners before you have a race? One runner and it's just a jog. No runners, and, well, I guess it's just a line of dirt.

More financing weirdness

I studied the money raised by Ajax-Pickering candidates Mark Holland (Liberal) and Rene Soetens (Conservative) in the 2004 federal election.

With regards to the lack of individual donations to Mark Holland, indeed it might be that those donations were made to the riding association, then transfered to him. There might be no issue here.

But the interest-free loan of $17,000 from developer Ron Halliday to Mark Holland is something else.

A Toronto Councillor and the other CPC

One of the things we all have to get used to is that there are two "CPC" political organizations in Canada:

• the Conservative Party of Canada
• the Communist Party of Canada

I think it's safe to say that they share little else than initials.

I bring it up because Toronto is likely to get a gas-fired power plant to help stave off rolling blackouts, blackouts created in part because of energy shortages resulting from the closure of coal-fired power plants (as opposed to upgrading them to cleaner designs) by the provincial Liberals.

That plan is going to be met with stiff opposition by Toronto City Councillor Paula Fletcher, who once led the CPC in Manitoba.

No, not the the Conservatives. The other guys.

Paula Fletcher's motto:

Mark Holland, Liberal MP, and an interest-free loan [Udpated]

The election is over, but I think it is interesting to see how different the Liberals and the Conservatives operate. Financial declarations are not yet available for the 2006 election, but the 2004 election, held a mere 17 months earlier, provides a fascinating insight.

Let's look at my riding of Ajax-Pickering. In 2004, Liberal Mark Holland beat Conservative Rene Soetens.

Here's the breakdown of the money.

Looming crisis in Iran

I guess the world doesn't believe in "easing into it".

Andrew Stronach and SheTips: The main stream media and scary implications

Recall the two posts I put up concerning Andrew Stronach, brother of Liberal MP Belinda Stronach? How he seemed to be in charge of an online gambling operation involving the use of curvaceous women, elaborate computer networks to hide money trails, and offshore servers to possibly evade domestic gambling regulations?

Well, the main stream media has picked up the story.

Maclean's has added some fascinating details, details that have suggested to me a remarkable model for this operation that fits the facts as we now know them.

A model that is, frankly, very disturbing.

McKenna is out

From CTV:

Canada's outgoing ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna, announced on Monday he won't run for the leadership of the Liberal Party, saying he's not ready to commit the next decade of his life to politics.

The rest of the article goes on about why he's not running, why he quit his job as ambassador, and so on and so forth. No mention of the whole abortion angle, though. Do you think he figured that he could never survive a leadership campaign in today's Liberal Party with that in his past?

Well, no matter. Thanks to the miracle of blogging, all that can be filtered out, and the focus can be put back on what is important -- who stands in the way of Belinda Stronach?

With McKenna out of the leadership race, there is no clear frontrunner.

However, speculation is already turning to other contenders such as former public works minister Scott Brison; recently elected Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff; former cabinet minister Belinda Stronach; and former Newfoundland premier Brian Tobin.

John Manley, the former deputy minister, and Frank McKenna, have say no. I can't help but wonder if both men came to the same conclusion -- despite the brave words, the Liberal Party is not destined to return to power anytime soon, and it would be a waste of time and ambition to be a leader of a party that has become a fixture in the opposition benches.

Think of it this way: if the Liberals had won a strong minority, and Paul Martin decided to retire a winner, would Manley and McKenna be on the sidelines today?

Unavoidable hypocrisy?

From Ezra Levant's column in the Calgary Sun:

Needless to say, the Liberals don't want an early election either -- they're already fighting over the rules for their leadership race, and a dozen candidates are gearing up to run. One hundred leaderless, indebted, bickering Liberal MPs will support nearly any Harper initiative to avoid an election before they're ready.

Harper's official to-do list is very short -- five priorities, including the GST cut. Expect him to finish that up in early 2007, and call an election, catching the new Liberal leader unprepared. It will be Harper who chooses the termination of his minority, not his opponents.

I hate to say it, but wouldn't purposely putting forward an issue guaranteed to cause the fall of government in order to time an election when the Conservatives are in the strongest position just a bit hypocritical? From the Conservative election platform:

Introduce legislation modeled on the BC and Ontario laws requiring fixed election dates every four years, except when a government loses the confidence of the House (in which case an election would be held immediately, and the subsequent election would follow four years later).

Part of dealing with the democratic deficit was to remove from the Prime Minister's Office the ability to pick and choose election dates based on favourable polls. That power favours the incumbent, of course.

Now I suppose that in a minority situation, where a non-confidence vote is a real possibility, having the ability to manipulate the date for an election could be seen as a consolation prize for not having been given a majority by the people. But then no one is owed a majority, so that doesn't really wash.

In a perverse way, a prime minister in a minority situation has an important tool to improve his chances at re-election that is denied to a prime minister of a majority government.

I don't know how to fix this, or even if it needs to be fixed. Just seems a bit bizarre though.

Let the healing begin!

From the Hill Times (via Bourque):

Buried in a multi-million dollar debt, the once mighty federal Liberals will need to emerge united from their upcoming leadership race if they want to regain the trust of the population, several party officials said last week.

"We'll make sure that this new party will be reborn from these ashes after this last decade of infighting on the left and right," said Françoise Boivin, who lost her re-election bid in the former Liberal stronghold of Gatineau, Que., to Bloc Quebecois candidate Richard Nadeau. "It's difficult to fight against your adversaries, but it's even harder to fight when you have traitors on the inside who are trying to sink everything."

Traitors? I thought Boivin was the traitor, and those other people were fighting to save the soul of the party. At least that's what they say. Or maybe the traitors were those people on the outside sniping at the party from the sidelines.

How is the Liberal Party going to ever heal itself unless it is determined exactly who was the traitor and who was poor victim whose loss on January 23 was not their fault?

I suppose we won't really know who the traitors were until a new party leader is elected. Then the traitors will be whoever backed the losing leadership bids. Punishment can be meted out and the healing process will be complete.

Evil Overlord of the Great White North? [Updated]

I guess you know you've made it when the torches-and-pitchforks crowd is gathering with the intention of taking you down.

Jack Layton's pragmatism: A delicate problem

Jack Layton is trying to figure out how to make to make Parliament work. More importantly, he will have to figure out how to make making Parliament work work.

Confused? Just be glad you're not Jack Layton.

More positive reviews for Stephen Harper

The honeymoon continues:

None of the people co-ordinating Stephen Harper's transition to prime minister were involved in his election campaign, and none will be involved in running or lobbying his government.

Harper's choice of transition team suggests the Conservative leader has learned from Paul Martin's example that it's a big mistake to rely on the same group of ultra-partisan advisers to run both campaigns and government, blurring the line between political and public interest.

In setting up his government, Harper appears to have recognized the value of independent advice from experienced people who have no personal stake in how the government is structured or staffed.

Team A gets Stephen Harper elected.

Team B, which has none of the baggage that Team A is carrying in the aftermath of a nasty election campaign (and all election campaigns get nasty at some point), looks to build up Team C.

Team C, made up of people not from Team A or Team B, but selected on merit, help run the government.

We could talk about Team D, but they remain essentially the same before, during, and after, the election, and are unaffected by the staffing process. They just keep blogging away.

But back to Teams A, B, and C. How does this compare with the Liberal Party model under Paul Martin?

By contrast, Martin relied heavily on a tight-knit inner circle of advisers for both political and governmental advice. His 2003 15-member transition team consisted of a number of lobbyists, including team head Michael Robinson, as well as a host of people who wound up as senior staffers in his Prime Minister's Office.

Also on board was David Herle, a communications consultant who headed Martin's leadership and subsequent election campaigns while simultaneously under contract to various government departments.

Martin has been heavily criticized, even by fellow Liberals, for blurring the line between his political objectives and the public interest. Many Liberals complain that the inner circle who helped him wrest the leadership from Jean Chretien did not have the temperament or skills to run the government.

Remember how Paul Martin kept insisting that the Sponsorship Scandal, and the kickback scheme at its centre, in which government contract money made its way in the Liberal Party bank account, the ultimate blurring of public interest and party interest, was Jean Chretien's problem, and how Martin and his government were completely exonerated?

Maybe they were exonerated, but they were on the very next train heading down the same track to exactly the same terrible crash. Thankfully, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have taken the first step to putting Canada on a different track.

If the Harper government is successful, and I think it will be, then the administration model Harper is using is likely to become the gold standard against which future governments are measured.

Look at that. Not even sworn in yet, and already Stephen Harper has a better legacy than Paul Martin.

Frank McKenna is seriously out of step with today's Liberal Party

From the Liberal Party website:

There are a number of ways in which an anti-choice government could restrict or limit choice, including:

• Refusing to approve new contraceptives;
• Placing restrictions on family planning agencies that receive federal funding;
• Changing government health policy to allow provinces to opt out of funding for abortions; and
• Changing the Criminal Code or the Constitution to give legal status to foetuses.

Mr. Harper needs to come clean and tell Canadians whether his government will move to restrict choice for women. Canadian women deserve to know.

Of course, Stephen Harper is on record as saying his views on the topic are complex, and that he doesn't want to bring any sort of abortion legislation to a vote.

Indeed, for all their digging, the Liberals can't find a single quote by Stephen Harper in which he takes an unequivocal stand on the issue. Hence they rely on the "hidden agenda" tactic.

But the same can't be said of the current front-runner for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, Frank McKenna:

Premier pledges to fight any attempt to open a clinic

The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Feb 18, 1988. pg. A.3

FREDERICTON (CP) - The New Brunswick government will fight any attempt to open an abortion clinic in the province, Premier Frank McKenna said Wednesday.

"If Mr. Morgentaler tries to open a clinic in the province of New Brunswick, he's going to get the fight of his life," McKenna told reporters.

Dr. Henry Morgentaler said this week that New Brunswick continues to restrict access by paying only for abortions that are deemed medically necessary by two doctors, and performed in approved hospitals.

Morgentaler said New Brunswick's position goes against last month's Supreme Court of Canada ruling that struck down as unconstitutional the federal law requiring abortions to be approved by hospital committees.

Morgentaler said he would fight the New Brunswick announcement and might try to open a clinic in the province.

"I see no need for Mr. Morgentaler to do that in the province of New Brunswick and we'll resist it," McKenna told reporters.

The premier, a practising Roman Catholic, refused to say how New Brunswick would fight attempts to open an abortion clinic, since there is currently no criminal restriction on abortion.

Frank McKenna's three sins:

• trying to classify abortion as a medical procedure and so involving the medical establishment in the decision-making process, which of course is a form of restriction
• defying the Supreme Court, the same body to which Paul Martin was going to provide the final say in all Charter matters by promising to eliminate the ability of the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause
• following his religion (worse yet, a Christian religion, and worst of all, Catholicism, the most evil strain of Christianity -- George W Bush is a Christian, doncha know)

Frank McKenna fought the opening of clinics in New Brunswick for seven years, until finally they gave up to a court ruling in 1995. Frank McKenna was premier of New Brunswick from 1987 to 1997 -- so I think it's fair to say that fighting the unrestricted access to abortion was a mainstay of his time as a leader of government in Canada.

It'll be interesting to watch the Liberal Party leadership rivals start slinging abortion mud at each other. One wonders if they'll be doing it with the same vigour as when it was aimed at Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper was never the head of government anywhere in Canada. He has never made any attempt to restrict abortion. He has never said that he wants to.

Frank McKenna, on the other hand, was the leader of single longest sustained effort by a government in Canada to restrict abortion.

Any bets on which Liberal Party leadership rival will be the first to call McKenna a religious zealot?

George W Bush tests Stephen Harper

Much has been made of Stephen Harper standing up to the US on the issue of Arctic sovereignty.

Not to take away from Harper's performance, but you do realize it was a test, don't you? And I think Stephen Harper passed.

Harping on Harper

From the Calgary Herald:

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.

Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.

So Albert Gore wants his fans in the eco-movement to maintain a vigilant watch on the "ultra-conservative leader". Being an amateur study of classical mythology, I could not help but be reminded of figures from Greek mythology who were also tasked to maintain a watchful eye.

They were the Harpies, grotesque creatures that merge man and beast, in this case, a hideous woman's head and torso with the wings and lower half of a vicious bird.

Funny how so many of the awful creatures in classical Greek mythology were beings that were as humans that had somehow lost too much of their humanity to nature.

But back to the Harpies.

Their job? To punish Phineas by maintaining a watch over him as he was forced to sit in front of a mouth-watering buffet. When Phineas would reach for the food, a Harpy would sweep in and steal it away, befouling the plate with its own waste.

Seems appropos to me. Ever notice how liberals befoul any discussion of importance, any attempt at rational debate, any attempt to weigh the pros and cons of a decision with serious consequences, with their own verbal waste? Whether it Al Gore labeling Stephen Harper as an "ultra-conservative", or Paul Martin insisting that Stephen Harper will be a pawn of George W Bush, or the cruder works of leftist bloggers and their fans tossing out the Nazi label, the result is always the same.

The sumptious banquet of honest debate is ruined beyond recovery. Like poor Phineas, surrounded by screeching Harpies, we are left wondering what it would have been like.

The election result ban and the internet

With permission, I've reprinted an article appearing in today's Kingston Whig-Standard, print edition, about the publication of elections results in Canada, the law, and the internet.

Liberals altered reports to deny weapons to border guards

A farce at the border could have turned into a tragedy. What's worse, it could have been prevented had the previous Liberal governments taken the advice they had asked for and paid for, but that they ultimately ignored and hid from view.

I'm back

Hardware issues resolved. Blogging will resume.

A healthy divide

I've managed this post for today, a consideration of the divisions we have in this country, and which ones are legitimate, and which are ones of our own making.

Did I say our own making? I meant Liberal governments' making.

No posts today

A serious hardware failure means I won't be posting much, if anything, today. I am reading emails though, so I'm not completely disconnected. I should be up and running by tomorrow night at the latest.

Planning for the future? Not on the Left

A minority government has formed. Time to plan how to make things work, right? How to compromise and cajole?

Well, thank goodness none of these guys are providing advice to Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe. Let's just hope that the people who are advising them are cut from a different cloth.

Moonbats on Parade: The low point of election night

Listening to Jack Layton's speech, I witnessed what I thought was the low point of the night, and it made me nervous.

Jack Layton of the NDP thanked each of his opponents in turn: Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois, Paul Martin of the Liberals, and of course, Stephen Harper of the Conservatives.

But while the mention of names of Duceppe and Martin were met with polite applause, a chorus of boos greeted Stephen Harper.

Jack Layton didn't miss a beat, or scold his supporters, but carried on with a congratulatory message.

I worry that in Canada, the potential exists for what has happened in the US -- the fight between the Left and the Right will become intensely personal, at least for the Left. George W Bush is hated on a very personal level by Americans who have never met the man. Is Stephen Harper in for the same sort of treatment, hated for committing the crime of being a conservative?

The jeers made me wonder if that process has already started. I blame Paul Martin for this. The attack ads, especially the group that included the "military ad", were intensely personal. They depicted Stephen Harper as duplicitous and without scruples, though without any real evidence. And in the last days of the election, Paul Martin constantly reminded people that "Stephen Harper's values are not Canada's values." What are Canada's values? Whatever the voters say they are, I think. That why we have elections, in part, to elect leadership that embodies the values a majority thinks are important today. To imply that Canada has one static set of values and that Stephen Harper and his supporters don't share them is to say Stephen Harper and his supporters aren't really Canadian.

Casting the enemy as the outsider, the foreigner, the alien, is the first step to convincing someone to hate the enemy.

I understand that the NDP crowd was tired and punchy after a long campaign and a long election night. But somehow they found it in themselves to applaud the Liberals, a party with strong corporate ties, run by a multi-millionare shipping magnate, and mired in scandal involving millions of dollars taken from "working Canadians".

Stephen Harper, a man with young children, an academic not unlike Jack Layton, hardly a rich man or the product of Corporate Canada, is subjected to jeers.

Here's hoping that Jack Layton can maintain some level of control over this element of his party as he tries to find ways to work with the Conservatives in the minority parliament. If Layton allows the moonbats to take control, he might be forced to pull the plug on the government against his will, and who knows what will happen next.

A return of the Liberals? A Conservative majority? No way to know, except to be certain that the Canadian voters are likely to punish the NDP if it forces an election out of spite.

I'd say he played a major role

Damian Brooks has a point:

OK, Glenn, how about this: find a single prominent Canadian blogger who agrees that Captain Ed "can claim a major role" in producing a Conservative government. Come on, big guy, put your money where your mouth is on this.

Captain Ed's role during the Gomery publication ban in March 2005 was to publish information that would have eventually been made public anyway. He didn't discover the information himself.

Having said that, the timing of the release was important -- if it had languished under a ban for months or longer, it is possible that the impact of the kickback relevations would have been far less. As it was, the ban itself magnified the impact dramatically.

For that we have to be grateful to US bloggers.

Also, the experience energized the Canadian blogosphere, showing that the Canadian political establishment was no more protected from the effect of bloggers than the US.

But does this constitute a "major role" in yesterday's win? That's trickier. Paul Martin called the June 2004 election in order to get a mandate before the worst of the Gomery Inquiry became known. He was rewarded with a minority government.

Jean Brault has not gone to trial yet, so if the ban had not been defied, that knowledge would still be under wraps today. If the ban had not been broken, it's possible that yesterday's election would have been fought without knowledge of the kickbacks, and the Liberals would have done better. On the other hand, maybe if the ban had been in place, the information might have leaked right in the middle of the election.

Or not.

But remember too that the Conservative success in Quebec was due in no small part because of the Liberal collapse as a result of Brault's revelations. Had that information not been made public back in March, the Liberals might have been stronger in Quebec, and the Conservatives would have been frozen out. As it was, the Conservatives had a lot of time to prepare the ground made fertile by the Brault revelations made public by Captain Ed in March 2005.

On the balance, I'd say Captain Ed played a major role. He was a big domino early in a long line of dominos that finished tipping last night.

Are the US bloggers spending too much time on his contribution, making him out to have single-handedly defeated Paul Martin and the Liberals? Sometimes it seems like it, but chalk that up to general ignorance of the most recent events here that played a much more immediate role in the outcome: beer-and-popcorn, the income trust scandal, the military ad, Option Canada.

When all is said and done, the story of this election will be written by Canadian observers and not Americans, and I think they'll be able to strike the right balance.

Final count, winners, and losers

From Elections Canada:

Conservatives: 124
Liberals: 103
Bloc Quebecois: 51
NDP: 29
Other: 1

Here's my list of winners and losers:

Winners:

Jack Layton: Increased his seat count, increased the NDP's share of the popular vote, and made his Toronto breakthrough. Given the lack of Tory representation inside Toronto, that might be a useful card to play during the next parliament. But most importantly, the NDP won enough seats to make sure they can stop the Conservatives by joining the Liberals, as long as the Bloc stays out of the way.

Paul Martin: For exceeding expectations. Not much of a winner, of course, with a legacy of a historical footnote in the list of Prime Ministers. But on balance, he blew it it, but the Liberals were not wiped out.

Michael Ignatieff, Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison, etc: Hey, they won!

Alberta and the West: The centre of power has shifted westward.

Stephen Harper: This is a tough call. Some would relegate Stephen Harper to the Losers list. That would be unfair. He belongs here when you look at the totality of his achievement. He has taken a new party, not even two years old, with an agenda and a philosophy that runs counter to many Canadian assumptions about the role of government in their lives, took on the ruling party, and beat it. Not just nationally, but in Quebec, where Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had no business winning by most accounts. He failed to meet expectations for this election, but those expectations were not set at the beginning of the election. They were set in the last two weeks based on polls. Go back to the election call in November, and recall what people thought of the election call and the likely result. And remember too that he lost in 2004. Instead of resigning, he and his team fashioned a brand new campaign, learning the lessons from the mistakes. This bodes well for the future.

Tom Flanagan, Tim Powers, etc: The Conservative Party intelligentsia who fashioned and fought a campaign based on principles and true conservatism led by non-Quebecker, and won.

Losers:

Gilles Duceppe: The BQ went from pondering a complete sweep of Quebec to earning fewer seats and fewer votes than during the last election. And this loss was handed to them by a socially conservative Albertan who barely speaks French! The separatist movement has taken a blow, and fingers will point at Duceppe.

The Liberal Party: Though Paul Martin might have pulled miserable defeat from the jaws of disaster, the Liberal Party has still suffered a terrible loss. Crushed in Quebec by both the Conservatives and the BQ, for the most part shut out of rural Canada, relegated to urban strongholds and Atlantic Canada. The fundamental problem of the Chretien-Martin split still needs to be addressed, and quickly. A minority government might last two years or so -- not a lot of time to rebuild.

Toronto and Montreal: No MPs from the winning party in any of the ridings. That means no representation for these two cities, either of which rivals most provinces in size and financial clout.

The Pollsters: For misreading the public. Or influencing it. Setting high expectations that were not met, perhaps because the expectations were set so high, and so spooked voters.

Negative advertising: You might think this to be another winner. And Liberal attack ads did seem effective at eroding the Conservative lead during the last week of the campaign. But the Conservatives won, and assuming they are successful at not being scary now that they are in power, this approach won't work again in the next election. These ads depend on the unknown, and Stephen Harper and the Conservatives now have a chance to let all Canadians get to know them. Of course, negative ads based on incompetence and scandal will still be around. Stephen Harper and his team will have to make sure they don't provide any ammunition to the other parties on this count.

Svend Robinson, Anne McLellan, Pierre Pettigrew, etc: Hey, they lost!

CTV is calling for a minority Conservative government!

It's 10pm.

CTV is calling for a Conservative minority government.

Details as I hear them:

Potential range of Conservative seats: 120 to 150

Liberals will be official opposition.

Peter MacKay has kept his seat. So did Scott Brison. Conservative have picked up seats, but Liberals still hold most of Atlantic Canada.

Anyone think Scott Brison will try to cross back to the Conservatives? I don't think so either.

Current leading numbers:
CPC: 100
Lib: 82
BQ: 46
NDP: 21
Ind: 1

Who's the independent?

Is this going to be a strong minority? Will the Tory seat count exceed the Liberal and NDP total? Right now it is too close to call.

CFRB is talking about Quebec. Apparently the Prime Minister is trailing in his riding.

The independent is in Quebec somewhere. Still no details.

Ken Dryden kept his riding.

The Liberals seem to have avoided complete disaster. Jack Layton might be in trouble if he has failed to pull more Liberal votes to the NDP.

Paul Martin has taken the lead in his riding.

Josee Verner has been declared a winner in her Quebec riding, which means the Conservatives have at least one Quebec MP. I expect they will have more.

Marc Garneau flames out. Defeated by the BQ.

Bourque has numbers up:
CPC: 111
Lib: 86
BQ: 51
NDP: 23
Ind: 1

Bourque's numbers have the Tories holding off the Liberals and the NDP as long as the Bloc sits on the sidelines. In fact, the only pairing of opposition parties that can defeat the Tories on a vote is the Liberals and the Bloc -- not likely going to happen. If these numbers hold, it means that Stephen Harper only has to gain the support (or abstention) of one party to pass any legislation.

Scott Brison has company. CTV has announced that Belinda Stronach has won.

New numbers from CTV:
CPC: 115
Lib: 97
BQ: 50
NDP: 24
Ind: 1

Not so much good news with these numbers.

Lawrence Cannon has been elected in Pontiac. I guess that closes the book on David Smith and Abotech.

Liza Frulla is gone.

If the BQ end up with fewer seats than what they had in the last parliament, having lost them to an Albertan, can Gilles Duceppe survive?

The independent is "shock jock" Andre Arthur -- thanks to readers.

Good news for Pierre Bourque! Michael Ignatieff has been elected. More "egghead" headlines.

Bad news for Paul Martin. Michael Ignatieff has been elected. But I figure Martin will quit before Ignatieff can make his move.

Tony Valeri has been defeated. Back to his job as real estate speculator.

Mike Duffy is reporting that Paul Martin is not conceding.

Svend Robinson loses. Canada wins.

Paul Martin...about to speak...smiling...he's about to concede, I'm sure.

Pierre Pettigrew is out; Olivia Chow is in

Paul Martin at the podium
...general greetings
...honour to represent the riding, sounds like a goodbye
..."17 years is a long time"; he's getting ready to bail
...he concedes to Stephen Harper and wishes him luck
...sorry to his family
...story about little girl who called him "Paul" accidently; says she can call him "Paul" again; a signal
...resigning as PM but remaining in caucus

Investigate or fumigate?

Should the Conservatives open the books on Liberal mismanagement?

If the Tories win tonight, should they implement their Federal Accountability Act and leave it at that, or should they open the books and begin an investigation on the last dozen years of Liberal mismanagement?

The answer is not so obvious to me.

An investigation certainly appeals to a sense of justice. Liberals, both in and out of government, being forced to explain where millions, or billions, of dollars went. Maybe even facing criminal prosecution.

But there is a danger in that. The focus can shift from merely cleaning government to chasing down the guilty. Every Liberal accused or charged will hire lawyers (some of whom might be very eager to see the issue go away for their own reas0ns) and will tie up the courts with motions. Government lawyers will be forced to fight these motions.

How much are we willing to pay for justice?

What if the target is still sitting in parliament? Expect accusations of a prosecution motivated by the desire to shift the balance of power in parliament in favour of the Conservatives.

Accusations that will be hard to refute, frankly.

Maybe we need a reconciliation commission, like the one is South Africa after the National Congress took power. The importance was that the truth was told, and the money was found. But the vast majority of the people were not prosecuted.

Whatever else the Liberals did, I don't know that anyone would accuse them of anything as awful as apartheid.

So maybe a general amnesty for those who come forward might make sense. Some high ranking people would not be eligible for such an amnesty, being at the core of the mismanagement, but for most, it will give them a way out, on the understanding that they reveal everything they know.

Can this work? I'm not sure. For many involved, testifying would mean breaking the Official Secrets Act. Still, I'm unsure where the path of judicial retribution will end, and whether if it would be better not to go there.

Talk Radio, Blogs, and Elections

From the point of view of America's Radio Equalizer, Brian Maloney.

Yours truly was invited to add a few thoughts. I'd hesitate to call them insights.

Voting by candlelight

A blizzard has struck Tuktoyaktuk in the far, far north.

Really far north:

Located on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, at the uppermost edge of Canada, Tuktoyaktuk, or just Tuk as it is more commonly known, is a small Inuvialuit community and a unique travel destination. From dogsleds, to the Midnight Sun, Northern Lights and pingos, Tuk has much to offer the adventure tourist. Approximately 150 kilometres north of Inuvik, Tuk is accessible by plane or ice-road and is well worth the extra travel time. Whether visiting in the summer or winter, Tuk will offer travellers an adventure of a lifetime.

But they are struggling in, voting by flashlight and by candle.

Thanks to all the people of Tuktoyaktuk for showing us all how important and precious a vote is.

Starchoice Blackout

So I turned to channel 341 on Starchoice, which is ATV out of Halifax.

Blacked out.

So I turned to channel 342 on Starchoice, which is ASN out of Halifax.

CBC Halifax. Blacked out. NTV out of Newfoundland. Blacked out. Global TV out St. John's. Blacked out.

Ah well, so much for a sneak peak.

Polls are still open in Ontario and points west of course, so if you haven't voted, go do so. No matter who you choose to support, remember every vote counts.

Didn't I say that?

In the Toronto Star, via NealeNews:

Here's a scenario to curdle the blood of some voters: Conservative Leader Stephen Harper wins the most seats but Prime Minister Paul Martin stays in power.

Governor General Michaelle Jean is entitled to choose the next prime minister and it's not just a question of which party has the most seats.

Jean could favour the Liberals if she had indications they would get support from the New Democrats, for example.

Canada had a coalition government during the First World War, when Robert Borden's Unionist Conservatives joined forces with the pro-conscription section of the Liberal party.

In 1985, an NDP-Liberal coalition entered a formal two-year deal that toppled the Progressive Conservative dynasty in Ontario, even though the Conservatives won the election.

Now go read my piece from January 20. I think I nailed that one, and I didn't even need to find a constitutional expert.

Get your election programs here!

I've created an Excel spreadsheet to help track the election and the changes in from 2000 to 2004 to 2006.

Here are some screenshots:

Feel free to download the spreadsheet yourself and fill in the data as it comes in. Remember that many of the fields include formulae to calculate things like percentage of popular vote and percentage change, as well as summing up totals and subtotals.

If you see any problems with the starting point data, let me know, and I'll upload updates. Right now we're at version 1.0.

How much heat will Jack Layton and the NDP take over this?

Over and over again, pundits are pointing to the the announcement of the RCMP criminal investigation into a leak in Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale's office concerning income trust taxation as the turning point in the campaign.

Those pundits are absolutely right. I know because I agree with them. I have also investigated myself thoroughly, and can announce that I have found no evidence that I'm wrong about this.

OK, putting that bit of Goodale nonsense aside, let's not forget who launched the torpedo that seems to have sunk the Liberal ship.

It was the NDP under Jack Layton, with Judy Wasylycia-Leis pushing the button that put that torpedo in the water.

I'm not sure just how much we on the right appreciate the simmering anger that lies under the surface on Canada's left. Anger that is barely restrained and aimed right at the NDP.

If the vote goes well for the Conservatives, and especially if the Conservatives win enough seats that the Liberals and NDP together cannot block Stephen Harper's legislative agenda, many on the left will blame Jack Layton.

Sure the NDP is likely to have more seats tomorrow, but it has lost the balance of power. In the previous parliament, the NDP was able to make the Liberals dance to the NDP tune.

And remember too that the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois were unable to unseat Paul Martin, that is until Jack Layton decided to vote with them.

The impending Tory victory is thanks to the election the NDP allowed to happen, and thanks to the disaster that befell the Liberals courtesy of a letter to the RCMP sent by the NDP.

If the Conservatives succeed tonight in forming a government, and then succeed at proceeding with their legislative agenda, and further succeed at restoring conservatism as a legitimate choice in Canada, perhaps even the preferred choice, we'll have the NDP to thank for helping it happen.

The significance of this is not lost on many NDP supporters:

[I will not forget] the disengenuous BS income trust allegation. NDP is dead to me.

Another potential fallout for today is a realignment of the far left, perhaps a split in the NDP between the labour side and the radical side, with the Green Party and others picking up the radicals.

Jack Layton might end up regretting all the extra seats he's positioned to win tonight.

Liberal arrogance pervades their vocabulary

Consider this from Liberal blogger GritPatriot:

There will be another election in 18 months. No matter what happens tonight it is win-win for the Liberals.

We know that a significant percentage of CPC votes are from traditional Liberal voters who are upset over sponsorship. It will be difficult for HArper to hold on to this support after the election. He will very quickly lose these votes. Meanwhile the Liberal Party will be reborn and back stronger than before. HArper will not be able to please his Alberta base. They will expect a socially conservative republican agenda and HArper will not deliver that.

The next election will see strong Liberal support in the east and BC. Alberta and Saskatchewan will be frustrated and disillussioned by HArper. The next election will be a Liberal majority. A Joe Clark interregnum is very good for the Liberals.

I'm not certain about the consistent spelling of "HArper". If it means something, it is lost on me.

Considering his arguments, I think they are flawed. He doesn't consider the state of the Liberal Party finances, depleted by a poor showing in 2004 and the wholesale abandonment by traditional Liberal financiers. He does not consider the fact that the Bloc is likely to support the Conservatives for quite some time, for both political and financial reasons. He does not consider the potential backlash of an electorate against the party who forces yet another election, especially if the election is forced as a power grab instead of over some serious national issue.

But consider his final sentences: "The next election will be a Liberal majority. A Joe Clark interregnum is very good for the Liberals."

An "interregnum" is a period between kings. Kings? Divine right and all that? The people of Canada are going to be voting for a government today. The ballot question is not whether you believe that the ruling Liberal Party needs a short break before returning to their pre-ordained role as government.

Here's hoping that whatever happens today and then over the next few months and years, this attitude of the divine right of the Liberal Party to rule over Canada is shattered. It is the people decide who will govern them, and to those that are awarded that power for a short time, they have the mandate to govern. It is not the role of the Conservatives or the NDP to act as seat warmers while the Liberals go outside for a brief stretch.

That attitude insults every person who casts a vote, for the Liberals or not. It suggests that the vote is just a charade, that the result is illegitimate unless it is in favour of the Liberals. Article 6 of the old Communist constituion from the Soviet Union reads:

Article 6 (1) The leading and guiding force of the Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, of all state organizations and public organizations, is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people. (2) The Communist Party, armed with Marxism-Leninism, determines the general perspectives of the development of society and the course of the home and foreign policy of the USSR, directs the great constructive work of the Soviet people, and imparts a planned, systematic and theoretically substantiated character to their struggle for the victory of communism.

It's difficult to imagine that there are people who think this approach to government, that a single particular party is somehow allocated a unique and primary role, is a good thing.

Makes me think this election is even more important than cleaning up corruption.

Michelle Malkin on election trauma

From Michelle Malkin:

After the 2004 election, so many American liberals came down with depression that medical professionals coined a new phrase for their unhinged condition: post-election selection trauma (or PEST).

One wonders what malady Canadian liberals will contract after they lose at the polls in today's election.

Good question. It's hard to say. Given that the American election in 2004 between George W Bush and John Kerry could have gone either way on the day of the election, and that it followed on the heals of the Bush-Gore nail-biter in 2000, American liberals were, on two occasions, taken to the edge of victory, then denied.

For Canadian liberals, the situation is a bit different. Though things might still go badly for the Conservatives, the polls have been suggesting otherwise for weeks, and that foreknowledge will help temper the blow.

Also, in the Canadian system, there is the consolation prize of holding the Conservatives to a minority. If a minority Conservative government is elected today, that will provide some solace.

On the other hand, so many on the Canadian left have convinced themselves, though not others it seems, that Stephen Harper is Canada's own George W Bush. The American left, and the left worldwide, including in Canada, have invested a great deal of pseudo-intellectual effort in demonizing the President. It is a very personal and visceral hatred that goes far beyond political debate.

The Liberal Party attack ads of the last few days, and Paul Martin's rhetoric in his most recent speeches, certainly attempted to tap into that feeling. The infamous "military ad" is a perfect example of this attitude. The fact that the ad was even made reveals one of two things.

At best, strategists at the highest levels of the Liberal Party were ready and willing to indulge to hard left in their paranoia in order to win votes.

At worst, strategists at the highest levels of the Liberal Party actually believe in the Stephen-Harper-is-evil-like-George-W-Bush dogma.

The fact that a plurality of voters nation-wide, and a huge number of Quebec voters, in excess of the number supporting the Liberals, are looking likely to vote for Stephen Harper means the worst nightmare is about come true for the hard left in Canada.

It is a nightmare of their own making, of course, constructed out of the apocalyptic proclamations from America's shattered left wing. For that reason, I don't think I'll be reaching out any time soon to comfort these people. It might do them some good to let them rant and rave.

If nothing else, it is likely to be entertaining.

[More observations at Captain's Quarters.]

This ain't over -- the Liberal comeback

From the Ottawa Sun:

Liberal volunteers, organizers and even MPs are admitting certain defeat tomorrow night at the hands of Stephen Harper's Conservatives barring an 11th hour change of heart by Canadian voters.

So what's the plan? A period of serious soul-searching? A program to re-evaluate the policies and philosophies of the Liberal Party in order to find a way to re-connect to voters who have rejected them?

The aide said there's a silver lining to defeat, pointing out that a small minority would make Harper vulnerable to defeat on his first budget vote and see a likely comeback by the Liberals.

OK, some aid speaking anonymously is hardly something to bet on. Still, recall that the Conservatives voted in favour of the Liberal budget in February 2005 after the June 2004 election, trying hard to find a reason to support the legislation and not send Canadians back to the polls unless absolutely necessary.

There might have been some Tories who wanted to pull down the Liberals on principle. Their advice was rejected.

But then the Gomery Inquiry heard testimony on kickbacks, and everything changed.

In this case, the vote hasn't even happened yet, and some Liberals are planning an immediate election to give the Canadian people another chance to get this right.

Mighty generous of the Liberals.

Open Post

I'll be on the road and probably out of communications for most of today, perhaps until tomorrow.

As a result, I would like it if no important news happens today.

But in case it does, or if you just want to chat, this post is open for comments. Enjoy.

The Anglosphere is rooting for us

Check out Silent Running.

Liberal candidate to veteran: Get out of Canada!

At the Pembroke Outdoor Sportsman's Club, Liberal candidate Don Lindsay revealed a portion of the Liberal platform related to complensation for gun owners should their legally owned weapons be confiscated. Essentially, if you think you are owed something, think again.

To be even more precise, if you think the Liberals owe you something, you should hit the road:

Don Lindsay's self destruction continued when club member and Canadian Veteran George Tompkins stood to ask the candidates his question. "If the handgun ban goes forward. What plan would your party offer to compensate those of us who legally own the guns that would be confiscated?" To which Lindsay replied "Sir America is our neighbor not our nation, if you elect a society that talks about that kind of perspective I suggest that perhaps you go there!"

Maybe Lindsay thought grabbing Paul Martin's line from the leader's debate would work for him.

Of course, Linday's comments don't even make much sense. If the majority of voters do elect a government with that sort of policy, then wouldn't it make sense that Lindsay be the one looking for somewhere else to live? I don't think he needs to. He is welcome to stay, of course.

I don't think people should leave for holding different opinions, and voting based on those opinions.

Too bad he couldn't extend that courtesy to a man who fought for this country.

It's moments like these that a Conservative candidate lives for. Cheryl Gallant showed she can think on her feet:

Cheryl Gallant responded to the question with "George I have seen you at the legion in uniform representing our country I hope you stay in Canada," she said. "This is not an issue if the Conservative's get elected because there will be no ban on handguns. But if the Liberals are elected we know there would be no compensation, there never is," she said.

Well, maybe the right thing to do is to put emotion aside and depend on logic. Let's see how that works for the Liberals:

Club member Don Linke stole the show with his question for the candidates. "It seems like we are blaming legal gun owners for the theft of their guns. Should we also ban banks from holding money because that's what causes all bank robberies?" Gallant responded that a Conservative government would put money towards a victims support program to compensate victims of crime. Lindsay simply responded "No we won't ban banks from holding money."

OK, logic isn't Don Lindsay's strong suit, either.

(via Bourque)

Polling magic: Making a lead disappear

Remember those scary polls that showed the Tories with 18-point lead? The papers would barely mention them? Then the lead got "cut" to 10 points, and the headlines announced a Liberal surge?

Just remember, the polls were very different. Not only did the questions change, the rolling average dropped from three days to two.

Polling from January 16 (the big lead):

• Findings have been rolled up and analyzed over a three day period. Interviews were conducted on January 12th, 14th and 15th.
• From what you can tell, which party, if any, is gaining the most popularity and momentum leading up to the election. Is it the ...?
• If the election was being held tomorrow, do you think you'd be supporting the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
• In that case, which party's candidate in your local area would you be leaning towards at this time? Would it be the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
• Generally speaking, would you say your overall impression of (READ AND ROTATE LEADER'S NAME) is very favourable, somewhat favourable, somewhat unfavourable or very unfavourable?
• Which one would you trust most to be the Prime Minister of Canada?
• If you had to guess right now, which party do you think will win the most seats in the January 23rd federal election?
• If a Conservative majority government is elected would it be very good, good, bad or very bad for the country?

Polling from January 18 (the narrowing lead):

• Interviews were conducted between January 17th and 18th. Findings have been rolled up and analyzed over a two day period.
• Some people have been saying it’s time for a change and that a new government should be voted in. Other people have said that now would be the wrong time to make a change and we should return the Liberals to power. Which one of these two views best represents your own?
• If the election was being held tomorrow, do you think you’d be supporting the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
• In that case, which party’s candidate in your local area would you be leaning towards at this time? Would it be the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
• If a Conservative majority government is elected would it be very good, good, bad or very bad for the country?

Apples and oranges. Which numbers to believe? Well, they had no problems publishing the big lead by combining the results of the January 16 answers. And again with the new set of questions from January 18.

But I'm not a pollster, so what do I know?

Massive irregularities

From small dead animals:

Via campaign manager Victor Marciano:

Laurie Hawn, Conservative Candidate in Edmonton Centre, has filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Elections Canada after massive voter list irregularities were uncovered by his campaign.

For some time, there have been rumors of election irregularities in Edmonton Centre. At an all candidates meeting with Elections Canada on January 4, 2006, it was revealed that two buildings had been struck from the electoral rolls because they were not residences. In reality, these buildings were both mailbox stores.

Several days later, the Laurie Hawn campaign identified a third non-residence building which sells mail boxes and reported it to Elections Canada.

A few days ago, the Laurie Hawn campaign was alerted, via e-mail, by an Edmonton lawyer that:

"Lots of [Anne McLellan] supporters are enumerated at their downtown office address instead of at their houses. One of them was bragging about how many times he could vote liberal (sic) based on the number of leases he had in her riding."

This has to be the saddest story out of this election. Stuffed ballot boxes? Repeated voting? I hope it's not true, but apparently there is enough evidence to file a complaint.

Individual MPs saying stupid things, dumb stunts by their supporters, unfunny jokes on blogs -- people do silly things during elections.

But electoral fraud? This is our democracy we're talking about here. What's the point of having elections in the first place? Is it just a show for the cameras? Something to make the proles feel good every few years while the Liberals enrich themselves?

Shameless self-promotion

Two bits of news that have no impact on anyone except me!

First, a generous reader has gifted to me my very own domain name. So now, you can reach Steve Janke: Angry in the Great White North at stevejanke.com. Update your bookmarks and blogrolls. As you can see, I'll be incorporating my name into the Angry brand.

Clarification: I'm still at angrygwn.mu.nu and have no plans to be re-hosted. The new domain name just forwards to mu.nu. In the long run, this is better should I ever move to a new host, since I can simply re-point stevejanke.com and everyone will auotmatically get to the new site. This does mean though that you don't have to change your bookmarks and whatnot.

Why? Because a lot of people were quite adamant that using my name was not just a good idea, but critical to my "future". Apparently they have a better idea what that might be than I do.

Second, as part of that roll-out, I've reworked the Angry logo with the new URL:

If you haven't already checked the online store, go to the right side of the blog and click on the pink tee. A number of neat products have been emblazened with the new logo. And if you're wondering, yes, people have been buying these things.

Conversions

Let's play a hypothetical numbers game.

Let's say the Tories win on Monday. Now go further, and say they win 152 seats, just three shy of a majority.

You're Stephen Harper. What do you do?

Do you try to entice three opposition members over? Heck, there may be more than enough volunteers. Grits like power for power's sake, and they would be miserable after a miserable campaign. The Liberal Party would essentially be leaderless (either lame duck Paul Martin, or equally lame duck interim leader). In ridings that were close calls, becoming a Conservative might help, especially in currying favour with constituents disappointed that they missed out being in a government-held riding.

The upside is a majority government -- but then there is the downside, a majority government. A majority government can be scary. No excuses for failure.

Personally I think Stephen Harper and his team can handle a majority, but if they win a majority by grabbing a few Liberals, that might take some of the shine off. Some people will wonder if there is any real difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives after all.

Given that potential problems, maybe a minority that verges on a majority should be left well enough alone.

Of course, there is a middle ground. You have three MPs from the Liberal Party who want to join up. You tell them in no uncertain terms that they'll have to sit as independents for at least six months. No party support, no seats on committees, etc. Then, if they still want to join, and if they've been supportive of the Conservative legislative agenda, they can, but only as back-benchers, with no chance of a cabinet post until after the next general election, assuming they win.

Unless, of course, the MP's name is Belinda Stronach. Then don't even bother asking.

Defying the Powers the Be!

Michael Ignatieff, author of 16 books, deep thinker, teacher in an American college, was faxed to the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore as part of the process of getting him into Parliament, then into cabinet, and ultimately into 24 Sussex Drive and in charge of the country.

This is called democracy.

In a blow to democracy, a well-known resident of Etobicoke-Lakeshore has decided to follow his conscience:

In a last-minute blow to high-profile Liberal candidate Michael Ignatieff, the president of the party’s riding association in Etobicoke-Lakeshore swung his support today to Conservative rival John Capobianco in Monday’s federal election.

The controversial process by which Ignatieff was acclaimed the candidate over local hopefuls ruled ineligible by the party was a major factor in the decision, said Ron Chyczij, who had hoped to contest the nomination himself.

“I can no longer in good conscience support the Liberal candidate in this riding,” he said in a statement released this afternoon.

“After the nomination fiasco, I’ve purposely waited on the sidelines to see if Michael Ignatieff can in some way redeem himself as a credible Liberal candidate in this riding . . . this has not happened.”

Toronto-born Ignatieff left his job at Harvard University near Boston in mid-December to run in the election and teach at the University of Toronto after being out of the country for almost 30 years.

He bought a condominium near the university last year; he does not live in the riding.

Chyczij knows not the powers he defies at his peril.

The Liberal Party! Oooooo, scary-y-y-y.

On the other hand, maybe he does know, and maybe the Liberals just don't seem so intimidating anymore.

(via Bourque)

Steve Janke by Day, Kate McMillan by Night

This bizarre dual life is the only explanation for this headline at the BBC:

That, or Kate McMillan has really let herself go.

Maybe I'll just get in touch with the Beeb and see if we can't get this straightened out.

Media and Politics -- the New Math

Here are the complex equations used to model the interaction between powerful media figures and political parties. Apologies if the subtlety of the advanced mathematical modeling overwhelms you:

• ( Powerful Media Figure + Conservative Party ) * Publicly-Voiced Support = Bad
• ( Powerful Media Figure + Liberal Party ) * Private Back-Room Help = Good

For a full understanding of how this works, Joan has the goods.

Sloppiness at the Globe and Mail online (but quick response!)

An image captured from the front page of the online election section of the Globe and Mail:

But that's not what it says inside:

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy at work, but for a simple three letters -- "not" -- the home page gives the person glancing at the page exactly the wrong impression. Of course, the headline doesn't even match, so the confusion doubles. But the sublink, about Gilles Duceppe attacking Stephen Harper on Bill 101 (Quebec's language law) reinforces the suggestion that Stephen Harper is going to try to change the law.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Conservative campaign is one predicated on respecting provincial authority. No meddling, no games. Here's your transfer, go do your thing.

This is the single most important reason Stephen Harper is popular in Quebec. He actually respects the provinces.

You would think that an editor would glance at that first paragraph, and wonder why Stephen Harper is advocating meddling in one of the most contentious provincial responsibilities of all -- language. It certainly caught my eye.

Update:

I sent an email to my reporter friend, who sent it on to someone else, and within 5 minutes, the page was updated and corrected. Now that's new media!!

The "Mystery Caller" was campaign worker George Laliberte: affidavit

From the Conservative campaign office:

Paul Martin and Liberal candidate Chris Axworthy have a lot of explaining to do. Two days ago a person from Mr. Axworthy’s campaign office called a local television program and falsely accused Conservative Member of Parliament Maurice Vellacott of having been charged with sexual assault.

In perhaps the most incredible claim of the campaign, Chris Axworthy admitted the call was placed from his office, but said someone not connected to his campaign sneaked in and made the call (CP Wire, January 19, 2006).

Today, the Conservative Party released an affidavit (attached) from Tom Hengen, past leadership candidate for the Saskatchewan Liberal Party, swearing the “mystery caller” is one George Laliberte – a well-known associate of Mr. Axworthy.

“The Liberal campaign was caught making false accusations, and now appears to be caught in a cover-up,” stated Conservative Party Campaign Chair John Reynolds. “Mr. Axworthy had a chance to come clean and instead chose to deny any involvement. Paul Martin should take immediate action to remove his party’s support from Mr. Axworthy.”

As the Liberals become more desperate, they will say anything to hang onto power.

The notion that the vile phone call was made by someone who snuck into the office has been roundly ridiculed.

But now things take a serious turn. This affidavit means that Liberal candidate Chris Axworthy has to face the music. He can deny that George Laliberte made the call, and face the possibility of even more people coming forward to put a name to the voice.

Unfortunately for Axworthy, he might not have the option of simply dismissing Laliberte. That sort of thing has to be done quickly. Now if Axworthy admits that Laliberte was the caller, he will have to face questions as to why he did not recognize the voice of his close associate. Those questions won't go away by merely firing Laliberte, but will remain, suggesting that Axworthy was attempting a cover-up.

That problem moves up to the national level. Unless the Liberal Party at the national level moves quickly to cut Axworthy from the main body of the Liberal Party, as they did with David Oliver, the question of a cover-up will be asked there as well.

Could the Liberals and the NDP cheat the electorate?

As the volatile polls shift back and forth between predicting a majority or minority Conservative government, the possibility exists that Paul Martin will remain prime minister after January 23.

If the combined seat count for the Liberals and the NDP exceeds the seat count for the Conservatives, Paul Martin, who is still prime minister until he resigns, can go to the Governor-General and advise her that he retains the confidence of the house.

Paul Martin can do that if he shows that Jack Layton and the NDP are committed to supporting the Liberals in a coalition of some kind. It happened in Ontario in 1985, when the Liberals under David Peterson signed an accord, on paper, with the Bob Rae and the NDP and replaced Frank Miller's Progressive Conservative government after a non-confidence vote, avoiding an election. The accord was not a formal coalition, and the NDP received no cabinet posts, but it pledged support, and the Lieutenant Governor allowed Peterson to replace Miller as premier.

Jack Layton has already shown that he will deal with Paul Martin, despite the ethics baggage. Faced with a Conservative government, and grumblings in his own caucus, Layton might just sign up to such a deal.

What could the Conservatives do? Perhaps not all that much. A counter-deal with the Bloc Quebecois would be very dangerous politically. The best thing to do would be to allow the coalition to take power, and hope that the plurality of voters who have seen their election win snatched away by the Liberal Party clinging to power and the NDP facilitating it will become furious, especially in Quebec and Alberta. Bide their time, and hope for a new election in short order to tap into that anger.

And hope in the mean time that Quebec fury won't translate into a referendum on separation. Unless Alberta beats Quebec to it. But then the Liberals would risk that to stay in power -- of that I have no doubts.

It's an unappealing scenario, but it's possible.

Richard Mahoney's civil servant friend Craig Taylor in the clear

It certainly looked like Richard Mahoney was using the services of a civil servant, Craig Taylor, to manage his campaign web site.

After the bringing the situation to light, the facts are now becoming clear, and Craig Taylor's explanation, that someone else entered his name and contact information, has been confirmed by an embarrassed Bruce Jackson.

I have just learned of your concerns regarding Mr. Craig Taylor and his impartiality as a civil servant.

I am a friend of Craig's. In the fall of 2000, the Canadian Internet Registry began allowing private individuals to register .ca domains. Prior to that only corporations and other entities could register these domains. At that time, I chose to register my domain (the-jacksons.ca). It was registered Nov 16, 2000.

On either Nov 16th or 17th, Craig and I were speaking about CIRA's policy change. Craig asked if I could register a .ca domain for his friend (Richard Mahoney) which I did. You with see the date of original registration of RichardMahoney.ca is 2000-11-17. I have no connection with Richard Mahoney, in fact I have never met him. When I registered the domain I mistakenly used a government address instead of a personal address. This error was completely mine.

So you are aware, Craig has not asked me to contact you, however, I will be in contact with him to apologize for the embarrassment I have caused him.

Your respectfully,
Bruce Jackson

Thanks Bruce for clearing it up. And Craig Taylor, I'm glad to see that this did turn out the way it did.

But does he have a face for TV?

I am speaking, of course, of Bob Tarantino, of Let It Bleed, who will be appearing on TVOntario's Studio 2, starting at 8pm, to talk about blogging and the election.

The bad news? It will be taped, so Bob's propensity to swear violently at the mention of either Paul Martin, Robert McLelland, or Stephen Taylor, a verbal tic so much fun to witness in person, will be edited out.

The good news? Bob will have a chance to introduce his own contribution to the expanding lexicon of the English language, "patheticker", to a much wider audience. Mark my words, we'll all be saying it in a week.

Liberal damage control reduced to lame excuses

In the matter of the allegation of sexual assault made against a Conservative candidate by someone calling from inside the Liberal campaign headquarters for the riding, there have been developments:

An already tense race in the riding of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin has taken a downright nasty turn.

Liberal candidate Chris Axworthy has apologized to Conservative incumbent Maurice Vellacott after someone used a phone in Axworthy's campaign office to falsely accuse Vellacott of sexual assault on a live televised candidates' forum earlier this week.

But then it wasn't Axworthy's fault:

Axworthy concedes the call came from his office but believes someone not connected to his campaign sneaked in and made the call.

Of course, I scoffed at what sounded like a lame excuse, but then a still from the office security video clearly shows the perpetrator defeating the security measures in order to surreptitiously use the phone:

Or maybe there's a simpler explanation:

But Vellacott insists that it was an Liberal supporter because someone he knows recognized the voice and says he's prepared to take legal action.

Vellacott's explanation is simpler, sure, but not nearly as much fun as Axworthy's version.

Belinda Stronach: Not so picky

An eyewitness account:

We just saw Belinda at a Aurora Chamber of Commerce Luncheon. Our communications chair Rita Smith walked up to her and asked her what she thought about Hargrove endorsing the Bloc, which Belinda replied: “All I care about is that he endorsed me”

Is it just me, or is Belinda not a very discriminating woman? But then we all sort of knew that already.

The funny thing is, back in May, Stronach was very particular when it came to associating with someone she thought made common cause with the separatists:

Seated next to [Paul] Martin at a morning news conference in Ottawa, Stronach said she doesn't see Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper as being "truly sensitive" to the needs and the complexities of Canada.

"Also, by forcing an election before the Conservative party has grown and established itself in Quebec, the hold over Quebec of the Bloc Quebecois can only grow into the vacuum. The result will be to stack the deck in favour of separatism, and the possibility of a Conservative government beholden to the separatists."

But now she doesn't mind being beholden to CAW boss Buzz Hargrove, who is encouraging Quebec voters to vote for the separatist Bloc Quebecois?

All I care about is that he endorsed me.

Makes you wonder what other endorsements she'd be willing to accept, as long as it helps her keep the only thing she cares about -- a big office and people around her who pretend she is anything but an intellectual lightweight.

Benefit of the doubt

Craig Taylor responds to what appears to be partisan support of Richard Mahoney's campaign website:

Dear John,

I received your email this morning and read it with growing alarm. I too would have great concern if what you have stated was correct. I would like to explain the situation.

I am a friend of Richard Mahoney, and have been for over a decade. In the fall of 2001 he wanted to have his own Internet domain name so he could have personalized e-mail. A friend of mine was registering domain names for himself and I asked him to register Richardmahoney.ca. He did and being unaware of my personal e-mail address entered my governmental e-mail address. I was unaware of this and did not check the Internic web site, I just sent the documentation to Richard. This was well before he chose to run for office.

In November of this year, Richard's campaign office called me and told me that when they renewed the domain name they noticed that I was listed as the administrative contact - I checked the Internic site and discovered, much to my horror that not only was I listed as the contact person for the site it included my departmental e-mail address. I immediately changed it to my home e-mail address and searched my records from 2001 found the id and password for Internic and requested that Richard's campaign replace my name with that of the appropriate individual, which they did.

Unknown to them, and to me, updating the Internic site does not update the official CIRA (Canadian Internet Registration Authority) site where it continued to list me as the administrative contact. When this was pointed out to me I immediately corrected that error and realising the potential for misunderstanding and embarrassment contacted the appropriate officials at the department, explaining to them, as I am doing with you, that I have never actually administered this site nor any web site associated with this domain. It was turned over to Richard in 2001 and aside from recently amending the contact information have had no dealings with the site.

As you know from our days working for the CTC I have being a career civil servant for many years and I am proud to be a member of the Canadian Public Service and I treasure its non-partisanship, which was why I was so concerned when my departmental e-mail was referenced in concert with a political web site.

I have worked loyally for all the parties that have formed governments over the last twenty odd years and will do so in the future. It would be a sad day for all Canadians if the trust in the objectiveness of our public service was undermined, which is why I am answering your question at such length.

I hope that this clears up the situation, though I am available to discuss it further if you wish. Please feel free to forward my response to whomever might be interested, though I would hope that you quote it in its entirety.

Sincerely

Craig Taylor

I think we might have to give Taylor the benefit of the doubt, unless someone else can refute his story. Internet archives show richardmahoney.ca became an active site only by mid-2004, in time for the election. It is quite possible that in all the time before that, the domain name was being used to support a personalized email address.

It is quite possible that Taylor's friend entered the email address and fax number without Taylor's permission. And that Taylor never noticed. Of course, it would also require that not a single fax or email was sent to the administrator of the site (Taylor) in the five years until the 2006 election.

And that includes the 2004 election, when the website was born at this address. I would have thought that would have generated some emails, but apparently it did not.

Is all this believable? Hard to say.

My argument was never with Craig Taylor, as such, but with Richard Mahoney. His pronouncements on Stephen Harper's concern about the impartiality of a civil service grown accustomed to over a decade of Liberal rule were shrill, and quickly undermined by his own cozy relationship with civil servants.

Some elements of Taylor's explanation are not easily taken at face value, but short of specific evidence of Taylor's further involvement in Mahoney's political activities, evidence that I haven't found online, we'll have to take Taylor at his word when he says he will work diligently for any duly elected government.

When all's said and done, that's what I wanted to hear, so I probably shouldn't complain.

Liberal candidate drops out of race and concedes to Conservatives

Former Liberal candidate Gilles Savard

Reported by Radio-Canada:

Jean-Pierre Blackburn n'aurait jamais pu en esperer tant. Son adversaire liberal, Gilles Savard, plie l'echine et se dit convaincu que M. Blackburn sera elu depute de cette circonscription, lundi prochain.

Le candidat liberal, à qui les sondages n'accordent que 5 % des votes, loin derrière les bloquistes et les conservateurs, recommande tout de même à ses partisans de voter liberal.

Here's a horrible translation:

Jean-Pierre Blackburn could never have hoped for this. His Liberal opponent, Gilles Savard, has conceded, convinced that Mr. Blackburn will be elected representative of this riding next Monday.

The Liberal candidate, who is polling only 5% of the votes, far behind the Bloc and the Conservatives, is recommending that his supporters vote Liberal anyway.

Of course, every vote earns the Liberal Party $1.75 per year until the next election.

Still, who is going to vote for the guy who is not even running? Who has thrown up his hands in defeat?

Who's going to want to vote for tax dollars to go to the party that figures it should just get the money, even without a candidate in the running.

Here's what should happen. If you withdraw, the party should lose the fraction of the money represented by the votes cast in that riding.

Expect those votes to go Conservative.

Update:

The National Post is telling a different story, carrying a story from the Canadian Press. According to them, Savard is telling people to support the Conservatives!

A Liberal candidate in Quebec is conceding defeat and urging his supporters to vote for the Conservative party.

Gilles Savard, the Liberal candidate for the riding of Jonquiere-Alma, is throwing his support behind the Tories to stave off a Bloc Quebecois victory.

Savard pulled out because polls showed he only had five per cent support in the riding in a province that has seen a recent swell of support for the Tories.

The story at Radio-Canada has not changed. Did I translate it wrong? I don't think so.

Update #2:

The truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. From CTV:

A Liberal candidate in Quebec has admitted he is not going to win, and is calling on undecided voters to support the Conservatives in order to defeat the Bloc Quebecois.

Gilles Savard, the Liberal candidate running in the Jonquière-Alma riding, will remain on the ballot and is still asking his own supporters to vote for him.

Initial reports claimed Savard had pulled out and asked his supporters to back the Tories, with local polls predicting he would only receive five per cent of the vote.

Well, I'm back to my original position. If he has pulled out, ballots for him should be considered spoiled ballots, and the Liberals should receive no funding based on votes for Savard.

More rumours of Liberal troubles

From a source:

Reporters are telling me that the Libs will be stuck in Ottawa for most of the next two days because they have run out of cash to run the tour.

Funny if true.

Allegations of sexual assault leveled at Conservative candidate -- from Liberal campaign HQ! [Updates]

Liberal candidate Chris Axworthy

Officially Screwed has lead on this story.

"Officially screwed" might also be the term for Liberal candidate Chris Axworthy if this turns out to be malicious slander:

I just heard on CFRA that a huge breaking story is hitting the wires about a televised debate on the Shaw Cable network for the riding of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin.

During the debate, a caller called in and accused Conservative Candidate Maurice Vellacott of sexual assault on a church secretary.

When they tracked the number back, they came up with the Liberal campaign headquarters of Chris Axworthy.

So a Conservative candidate is being interviewed live, no delay, and someone from within the Liberal campaign headquarters for the riding calls in to accuse that candidate of sexual assault?

We'll see how far this develops. On the lookout for confirmation.

Update: An official press release

OTTAWA - Tuesday night on Shaw Cable, a caller phoned in falsely accusing front-runner Conservative incumbent MP Maurice Vellacott of sexually assaulting his church secretary at North Park Church. The technicians who have no 7 second delay cut the call off. Vellacott responded quickly by looking directly into the camera, stating to the technicians that he needed to get the name and phone number of that caller for defamation proceedings.

After the cable show ended, Vellacott was handed the requested phone number by Shaw Cable producer Gracie Field. Upon arrival back at his campaign office he was told that a person had reported in and was 100% confident that it was the voice of George Laliberte. The caller maliciously and falsely accused Vellacott of being "removed from North Park Church because you were charged with sexual assault" on his church secretary. Laliberte is a friend of Chris Axworthy's and apparently owes Axworthy some favours. When the 1-306-956-2570 number provided by the Shaw Cable staff member was dialed, it was found to be Chris Axworthy's campaign office phone number. At that time Laliberte could not be reached at his home number of 1-306-683-3650.

Vellacott has never been accused by any woman of sexual assault and was never a Pastor at North Park Church or ever in attendance there. Bishop Jerold Gliege former long-term Pastor of North Park Church and now of Holy Covenant Orthodox Church, confirms that Vellacott never served there (home 306-664-2808; Church 652-3339). Gliege says, "Vellacott is an upstanding, honourable man who has served this Saskatoon-Wanuskewin constituency very diligently. He is a courageous person and has been an effective representative for this riding on a whole range of issues. He has a big heart for people and stands up for seniors, the vulnerable and the underdog. Because he is an articulate defender of life, marriage and family, he is the target of attacks by those who have differing views."

It appears that Axworthy endorses spreading lies and attempted character assassination. Vellacott says this is typical of nation-wide sleazy Liberal tactics in the dying days of their desperate campaign. After this kind of evil tactic, Vellacott predicts that Axworthy will be damaged irreparably and unable to pursue public office again in this province.

Vellacott challenges Paul Martin to distance himself from Axworthy and such sleazy, corrupt, dishonest actions so typical of the Liberal Party across the country over the last number of years.

Furthermore, Vellacott says Ralph Goodale has now shown himself not only to be less than forthcoming on the income trust scandal but also a poor judge of character when he recently made a spurious reference to Vellacott when he spoke of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin needing representation "by a person of class and quality like Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon StarPhoenix, January 10, 2006, page A4)." Some class and some quality! Vellacott says that in view of these sleazy tactics those individuals who signed Axworthy's nomination papers should disassociate from Axworthy. The names of Axworthy's nominators for this election are on record at the Saskatoon-Wanuskewin Electoral Office at 275 First Avenue North and can be scrutinized by any member of the public between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm.

Previously Axworthy's campaign was exposed as being associated with a website that misleads, perverts and maliciously rips things out of context. Eric Hovius the originator of the website at first denied being at Axworthy's office, but when caught in a lie by StarPhoenix reporter Darren Bernhardt, he acknowledged that he knows Axworthy and has spent time at Axworthy's office. (Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Jan. 14, 2006)

Vellacott is expecting election day to be a vindication of his hard work on behalf of his constituents in Saskatoon-Wanuskewin.

Gratitude

Go here.

Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney is "Standing up for Canada"

Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney

Ottawa Centre candidate Richard Mahoney, running for the Liberal Party, has an interesting title for this piece of campaign literature. It reads "Standing up for Canada":

Sure sounds a lot like the "Stand up for Canada!" campaign slogan that the Conservatives have been using for months.

What's wrong? "Choose your Canada" -- the Liberal Party slogan -- didn't sound good to Richard Mahoney?

Or does he hope that people might be fooled into thinking that he's actually a Conservative and so vote for him?

OK, that last one is a stretch, but then "Choose your Canada" was the Liberal slogan in the 2004 election. It's not like Mahoney was compelled to come up with his own slogan. Plus this document was created on December 30, well after the Conservatives had started using "Stand up for Canada!"

I wonder if Paul Martin knows that his candidate and former advisor is cribbing slogans from the other guys.

Frankly, I can see why Mahoney would go with the CPC slogan. "Stand up for Canada" is a call to action. It engages the citizens and lets them know that they are partners in government. It tells them that they will be expected to contribute, and to take on responsibility for themselves and for their country. "Choose your Canada" is passive. It implies that you will be handed something on a platter, and that you just to pick what exactly you want it to be.

"Choose your Canada" sounds like something a gameshow host would shout just before spinning the big wheel.

And by the way, wasn't it the Liberal Party that got its collectives shorts in a knot over copyright violations in the "Even Liberals..." Conservative campaign commercial that made use of statements made by Liberal candidates to news media?

In this case, however, I would encourage all Liberal candidates to follow Richard Mahoney's example, steal the Conservative campaign slogan, and announce that they too are "Standing up for Canada".

Stephen Harper: Cool guy to hang out with

Don't take my word for it. There is a web site devoted to Stephen Harper's innate coolness.

Policy wonk? Or policy heartthrob?

You decide.

Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney and the impartiality of the civil service

Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney

From the Ottawa Citizen:

Some say Mr. Harper's comments could set off some of public servants' worst fears about a Tory government that could shrink the size of government, cut jobs and privatize operations. Area Liberal candidates jumped on the comments as signals of spending and job cuts in the public service to pay for his election promises.

"He needs $23 billion in savings and that's going to mean public service cuts. So couple that with his attack on the impartiality of the public service as Liberals. It sounds like the old Stephen Harper is back, not the 'evolved' Stephen Harper," said Ottawa Centre Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney.

How horrible for Stephen Harper to think that civil servants are anything but impartial. Clearly Canada's civil servants know the difference between working for a government and working for a party.

And Richard Mahoney, a chief advisor to Paul Martin when Martin was finance minister and a key aide during Martin's campaign to take over the Liberal Party, knows some civil servants.

Like Craig Taylor.

Craig Taylor is a civil servant who works for the Department of Canadian Heritage. In fact, he's an acting director for web and applications development. Sounds like a guy who knows a thing or two about web sites. Here's Taylor's entry in the Government Electronic Directory Services:

Now Richard Mahoney, Liberal candidate for Ottawa Centre, close personal friend to Paul Martin, and friend of Canada's impartial civil servants, has a web site, richardmahoney.ca. Here is the registry record for his web site, or at least the way it looked until recently:

And we can see that impartial non-partisan civil servant Craig Taylor, acting director for web and applications development for Canadian Heritage, put together the web site for Liberal candidate and Paul Martin confidante Richard Mahoney. Craig Taylor also provided his government fax number and his government email address as official contact information for anyone who had questions about Liberal candidate and Paul Martin confidante Richard Mahoney's web site.

Let's ponder the irony of Richard Mahoney's words, criticizing Stephen Harper for "his attack on the impartiality of the public service as Liberals". Because Stephen Harper has no reason to believe that Liberals would try to use civil servants for partisan purposes, and because Stephen Harper has no reason to believe that some civil servants would allow themselves to be used.

Funny thing is, Richard Mahoney is right. When it comes to the impartiality of the civil service, Stephen Harper should stand back and let Richard Mahoney answer some questions. Perhaps Mahoney's friend Paul Martin can stand by him for moral support.

Interestingly, the contact information has been scrubbed clean, and Kieran Green is listed as the main contact, no fax number, and an anonymous gmail address.

MADD mad at Liberals

At CTV via NealeNews:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has accused a Nova Scotian Liberal candidate of trivializing their message, "Friends don't let friends drive drunk."

Gary Richard, the Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley candidate, is using the slogan "Friends don't let friends vote Conservative" in his campaign pamphlets.

The similarity of the two slogans has upset the president of the Cobequid Chapter of MADD.

"We're disappointed with it. We feel it trivializes a very serious message about driving impaired," Kathleen Foster-Alfred said.

Time to rev up the apology machine.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Oh God, I'm so sorry.

But seriously, I don't try to influence the votes of others. Not if I want to keep them as friends. If asked about my opinion about the election or about an issue, I might offer it, but then only if I think it won't cause bad feelings.

Usually I know who is really interested and who is looking for a fight.

But to say that if you let your friend exercise his or her right to cast their vote as they see fit in an election, and they see fit to vote Conservative, then you aren't a true friend, well, we're only a step away from the Liberals calling Conservatives and their supporters kickers of kittens.

Jack Layton trying to dodge the blame

There's an election, and the Tories are now on the verge of winning, quite possibly changing Canada for years, if not decades, to come.

Or that's the NDP nightmare.

Funny thing is, this is NDP leader Jack Layton's fault, since the Tories and the Bloc had been saying throughout the fall that the government would fall as soon as they had the votes.

They had the votes only when Jack Layton threw in his support for a non-confidence vote.

Clearly, Jack Layton was hoping for a different outcome:

Mr. Layton went on to suggest that crumbling Liberal fortunes in this election is leading to a further polarization of the political left and right in the country.

It was definitely not what the NDP envisioned when they withdrew their support for Paul Martin's Liberals. Throughout the campaign, Mr. Layton has not asked to form government, only to have more MPs with the implied understanding they would hold sway over another Liberal government.

Mr. Layton tried to escape responsibility for the government's fall by saying Monday he "had no idea why Mr. Martin called this election."

Hey Jack, Paul Martin called an election because you voted his government out of existence!

Did Layton really think Canadians would be stupid enough to vote Liberal again?

To be fair, not a lot of people were thinking strong Tory minority, or even Tory majority -- but then Stephen Harper and his people have been planning for this election since June 2004.

Wasn't Jack Layton a wee bit suspicious about Stephen Harper's eagerness to have an election, even though the polls put the Conservatives firmly in second place?

Shouldn't politicians have better instincts than that?

I guess Jack Layton really thought the Tories wouldn't win any more seats, while Liberal seats would shift to the NDP, except in Quebec.

But here's the bottom line. Jack Layton is sounding like a guy trying to avoid the blame. And that can only mean that there are people trying to pin the blame on him. Who still thinks Jack Layton's job is safe?

Buzz Hargrove and Liberal doublethink

And you thought Buzz Hargrove was Paul Martin's friend.

I'm starting to think he's the mole!

The Liberals were in damage control mode Wednesday after a high-profile campaign endorsement by the head of Canada's largest private-sector labour union turned disastrous.

Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove used a campaign stop in nearby Strathroy to call Conservative Leader Stephen Harper a separatist whose Alberta-born political principles place him outside mainstream Canadian values.

Liberal Leader Paul Martin issued a retraction on Hargrove's behalf as soon as the comments hit the news wires, and was forced to praise Harper's patriotism in an effort to quell the controversy.

"I have large differences with Stephen Harper but I have never doubted his patriotism," Mr. Martin said at a news conference in London.

So what did Buzz Hargrove say? Well, he would rather people in Quebec vote for the Bloc, because Harper is the real separatist threat:

"If you devolve all the powers to the provinces, what do you have left?" he said. "His view of the country is a separatist view."

Under repeated questioning from reporters about whether Quebeckers should vote for the separatist Bloc Quebecois rather than a Conservative, Mr. Hargrove appeared to support the Bloc.

"I would urge them to stop Harper in any way they can," he said of Quebec voters.

His comments on Alberta were even more provocative.

"Mr. Harper doesn't have a sense of Canada and its communities," the union leader said.

"His sense is about Alberta. The wealth of Alberta everybody recognizes is much greater than it is anywhere in Canada. Those principles that he is brought up with and believes in coming out of there don't sit well with the rest of Canada."

Defeat separatism by voting for the Bloc Quebecois?

Has that vaguely Orwellian flavour, doesn't it? in Nineteen Eighty-Four, "doublethink" is "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them". So you defeat separatism and promote Canada's interests by voting for the Bloc. Get it?

"War is peace"

"Freedom is slavery"

"Ignorance is strength"

I guess that makes Buzz Hargrove the strongest man on the planet!

The Toronto Star urges readers to sell their votes

The Toronto Star has endorsed Paul Martin and the Liberals, dismissing the scandals, and justifying the choice based on the fact that the Liberals will tax us and then give us stuff in return.

First, forget about scandals.

Many Canadians are disenchanted with Paul Martin's hesitant, lacklustre leadership over the past 26 months and remain angry about the sponsorship scandal. Even some Liberals feel the party might benefit from a stint in opposition, to renew its leadership, sharpen its vision and ideas and reconnect with the electorate. Win or lose, the Liberals need to clean house and rebuild. But that is not voters' concern on election day.

Got that? They'll clean house, whether they are in government or not. Being tossed out isn't going to make any difference in that. Stop worrying about that.

The important thing is the money!

At root, his $75 billion platform for change constrains Ottawa's freedom to fund any national objective by imposing hefty tax cuts and by shuffling more cash to parents instead of starting a national daycare network. That hollowing out of Ottawa defines the Conservative agenda.

Beyond that, his tax preferences would ensure Ottawa plays a less activist role shaping national social policy. The country's rich-poor gap might grow. And cash-poor cities like Toronto would get less federal support.

Historically, the Liberals have stood for progressive, activist government and social policy. They gave us medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and old age security. Martin has kept up that tradition by proposing the first new social program in a generation, a child-care network, by pumping $40 billion into medicare and by legalizing same-sex marriage.

Money, money, money, same-sex marriage, beer-and-popcorn, money, money, money.

Oh, and national unity:

The Liberals remain better placed in Quebec to speak for Canada.

What was the latest news from Quebec? La Presse in the Liberal stronghold of Montreal has endorsed the Conservatives? Don't the polls show the Liberals and the NDP tracking at about the same level of support while the Tories have pulled away?

Just exactly how are the Liberals better placed?

This editorial is relegated to the bottom of bird cage.

Blogging Tories: The jig's up boys, let's blow this joint!

The Blogging Tories have been unmasked!

Elections Canada has been asked to investigate the Conservatives after allegations that the party is overseeing a group that operates partisan on-line web logs.

Canada's election watchdog received a complaint Tuesday morning from a disaffected party member who claims the Tories tried to sway political opinion in cyberspace in the leadup to, and during, the election by setting up the popular "Blogging Tories" website.

So what gave us away? The word "Tories" in the name? Or the the fact we've got Conservative MPs like Monte Solberg in the group?

Curses!

I guess we should have been more careful.

The site appears to be a coalition of like-minded individuals who have met in cyberspace to share their political opinions and express their frustrations with Paul Martin's Liberals.

But appearances can be deceiving. We are in fact the hub of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (Canada Branch Office).

But a Victoria, man, Eugene Parks, and Toronto Tory dissident Carole Jamieson allege the venture may be in contravention of the Elections Act and third-party financing laws. They say it may have "unduly influenced the election coverage and potentially the outcome of this campaign."

We unduly influenced the election coverage? Like Mike Duffy dances when I snap my fingers! Dance, Duffy, dance!

Carole Jamieson is, of course, at the heart of the Dump Harper movement, seeing Stephen Harper as unable to lead the Conservatives to power.

But Parks' allegation that the group was set up as a concerted effort by senior Conservatives to win the election casts the website in a controversial light.

"They're trying to make it look like these are individuals rather than a party effort," Parks said.

Maybe it looks like an individual effort because it is an individual effort.

Parks said he split with the party in June because he was uncomfortable with what he said was a hostile tone among some party members toward French-Canada and aboriginals.

Funny that French-Canada and aboriginals seem happy enough with Stephen Harper.

For the record, I do not work for the Conservative Party. I don't even have a Conservative Party membership. I signed up but frankly couldn't come up with the pledge money (baby budget issues), so I'm on the outs. I started blogging over a year ago, and blogged for months via Live Journal and Blogspot before I even heard of the Blogging Tories. And I was a critic of the Liberals (and of Canadian liberal leanings) even then.

Do I get tips? Yes. From Conservatives. From Liberals. From people active in politics and those whose days have passed. From industry insiders. From media people. From average folks who have noticed interesting in a local paper and wanted it spread to a larger audience.

But I do my own research and pick my own stories. The Abotech series, for example, was pure "Angry", with not one jot of support from either the media or the Conservative Party.

And I've been critical of the Conservatives during this election cycle as well. Of course, that could be a calculated attempt to look like I'm not a Conservative front-man.

I suppose I should just switch to cat-blogging.

A report from Pontiac: Stephen Harper is hot!

Julie Murray, the intrepid reporter for the West Quebec Post and close personal friend of Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford, reports in from the Harper rally in Buckingham, Quebec:

Bruce and Steve,

I was at the rally on Sunday and took the opportunity to visit local businesses on behalf of The Post (we're always looking for news from Buckingham).

Cannon's office was open, and yes, Smith's office was closed--lights out, no one there.

I thought perhaps that it was because a Sunday and Harper was just an hour away from visiting. But now that you mention it, Bruce, it seems to me that the weekend before the election, there should be some life going on in a campaign office.

Smith was in Chelsea last weekend and in the course of a conversation with a journalist who works for my editor (Pontiac Journal, I believe), he mentioned taking legal action against The West Quebec Post.

He was absolutely furious with my editor because the Post was the only local paper that didn't take Smith and the ethics commissioner at their word. Fred actually read the report and pointed out the limited scope and how it really doesn't exonerate Smith at all.

Back to the rally--I swear, it was like a rock concert. The crowd was completely on fire; a couple dozen people waited outside for a half an hour in minus thirteen temperatures to get a good seat. I met one self-described "Harper groupie" who said, "It's about time we had a prime minister who is hot!"

Cannon's French is flawless, absolutely perfect. And the crowd cheered when Harper said, "Quebec needs Lawrence Cannon. I need Lawrence Cannon. He will be a member of my cabinet. That's why Pontiac should vote for him."

Harper's stressing that a non-national party can never adequately represent the needs of Quebec is a winning message to the separatists here, IMO.

Liberal MP David Smith's campaign office has seemed to have been abandoned, meanwhile the shift is moving from campaigning to litigation. That is always a sign of desperation.

On the other hand, Stephen Harper is pushing hard for his candidate Lawrence Cannon, promising a role for him in cabinet. That sort of promise can only help, and is the sort of promise that the Bloc can never make.

Julie's report matches up well with this one:

I spotted various national media types wandering about. Mike Duffy was talking with CFRA's Michael Harris against the wall. On the other side was Terry Milewski chatting with a cameraman. And Rick Mercer wormed his way through the crowd talking to a camera.

Lawrence Cannon, whose campaign I'm working on, opened up the show with quite a rousing speech. I've been exposed to a lot of political rhetoric in the past few weeks and have come to the conclusion that speaking in public is much harder than it looks. But Cannon really has the stuff. I'm genuinely impressed by him.

Oddly, Bruce missed spotting Julie working the crowd.

So can the Conservatives take Pontiac? Well, Harper has groupies who think he's hot, so I'd say he's got the groupie vote locked up! But all I've heard suggests that groupies aren't the only voters who will marking their ballots for Lawrence Cannon and the Conservatives on January 23.

Coderre vs the NHL

News broke today that Shane Doan, the captain of NHL's Phoenix Coyotes, has filed a lawsuit against Liberal MP Denis Coderre over a letter Coderre wrote to Hockey Canada in an attempt to have Doan tossed off the Olympic team over the alleged comments Doan made to a French-Canadian referee.

The NHL found no evidence of a slur, and the exonerated Doan filed his suit as a result.

Well, Coderre is counter-suing:

Coderre, the federal MP for the Montreal riding of Bourassa, said during a news conference Tuesday that he would not apologize and vowed to fight the lawsuit "right up to the end."

He said he asked the NHL for a copy of the referees' report on the incident and was turned down. He said he would have the report and the referees' account of the incident made public in court if necessary.

The NHL sounds like its had enough of Coderre ankle-biting:

But Colin Campbell, the NHL's executive vice-president and league displinarian, said Coderre won't see it.

"Our game reports are not for public dissemination and particularly not for politicians who may be using this whole disjointed affair to seemingly garner votes," Campbell told The Canadian Press.

So now the Liberals are taking on hockey. That can't be good.

I wonder why Coderre is doing this. As an MP, he represents his riding constituents. Who in the riding is demanding that Coderre get Doan off the Olympic team? And if there is someone in the riding of Bourassa agitating for Coderre to take on Doan, are there not two more who are hockey fans who want Coderre to sit down and shut up? And three more who are indifferent to hockey, but who figure that if the NHL has investigated and found no reason for discipline, then their local MP should leave well enough alone and focus on riding issues?

So unless Coderre is working on behalf of an infuriated riding, why doesn't the Liberal Party step in and tell Coderre to stop making a fool of himself, and by extension, a fool of the Liberal Party itself?

I just don't understand what Coderre thought he had to gain by starting all this.

Liberal MP Denis Coderre is flattened against the boards!

Liberal MP Denis Coderre

Nothing like a good fight during a hockey game.

Or during an election.

But now we have both:

Phoenix Coyotes captain Shane Doan filed a lawsuit against Liberal MP Denis Coderre on Tuesday, alleging the former sports minister falsely accused him of making a slur against francophones during an NHL game.

Doan also demanded that Coderre make a public retraction in the motion filed in Quebec superior court.

Coderre had asked Hockey Canada in a letter on Dec. 22 to expel Doan from Canada's Olympic hockey team unless he apologized for reportedly uttering an ethnic slur to referee Stephane Auger at the end of a Dec. 13 game between the Coyotes and the Montreal Canadiens. Copies of the letter were released to the media.

Doan denied making the remark and an investigation by the NHL found no evidence that he used an ethnic slur.

Doan is asking for $250,000 in moral and punitive damages, which he says he'll give to charity if it is awarded.

Now why would Coderre, who is fighting for re-election in the riding of Bourassa, get involved in this issue that was being handled by the league? He was Secretary of State for Amateur Sport under Jean Chretien, but has not held that post since 2002. In fact, after the June 2004 election, Paul Martin declined to appoint Coderre to cabinet in any way, shape, or form.

I suppose that could make a guy pretty bitter. Bitter enough to lash out? Maybe lash out at some anglophone who might have said something nasty during a hockey game?

Doan, from Halkirk, Alta., was given a misconduct penalty by Auger for verbal abuse of the officials at the end of the game won by Montreal at the Bell Centre. Both referees and both linesmen for the game were francophones.

Coderre repeated the alleged ethnic slur in his letter to Hockey Canada president Bob Nicholson, a copy of which was sent to Canadian Olympic Committee president Mike Chambers.

In his letter, Coderre said that Doan "has not only insulted our country's francophones, but the vast majority of Canadians."

Because as we all know, there is no swearing in hockey.

Needless to say, Coderre's meddling was not appreciated:

A senior NHL official unloaded on federal MP Denis Coderre on Thursday after the former minister in charge of sports asked Hockey Canada to reconsider Shane Doan's selection to the Olympic hockey team over an alleged ethnic slur.

Colin Campbell, executive vice-president and director of hockey operations, criticized Coderre for his letter.

"Mr. Coderre should focus on getting re-elected and not on how we run our business," Colin Campbell, executive vice-president and director of hockey operations, told The Canadian Press.

"The NHL manages its business properly and I have discussed this 'alleged' incident with Shane Doan and am fully confident there were no inappropriate comments in this incident. Mr. Coderre is getting involved in something without the correct or any information.

Like Mr Campbell said, Coderre should focus on keeping that backbench seat nice and warm. Because in politics, just like in hockey, some players will never be more than benchwarmers.

Rumour: Liberals are not go!

This is just a rumour that I've heard, but the word is that the Liberal campaign plane, with Paul Martin on board, has broken down out west, and they are scrambling to find an alternative.

If I might make a suggestion, perhaps the Thunderbirds can come to the rescue:

Not only is Thunderbird One always ready to take to the skies, but compared to these guys:

the Liberals would look almost lifelike:

If the rumour turns out to be true, I'll let you know as soon as the Liberals are go!

The Aboriginal vote does matter

In one of the most revealing moments of the Abotech affair, the campaign manager for Liberal MP David Smith, his brother Dan Smith, attempted to dismiss the criticism leveled against David Smith by the Kitigan Zibi First Nations people, whose band lands are in Smith's riding. The criticism was of the legitimacy of David Smith's Metis status, which is predicated on a great grandmother being aboriginal, and that's all.

Dan Smith's retort? "They don't vote, these people."

I got in touch with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, and they provided me with this helpful chart based on the June 2004 general election, the one that saw the Liberal Party under Paul Martin elected to a very slim majority:

In that election, CAP endorsed the Liberals, so the top chart focuses on those ridings that could have gone Liberal by a margin smaller than the number of eligible aboriginal voters who neglected to cast a ballot.

The bottom chart shows the remainder of the ridings where the balance could have been tipped in any other direction had the aboriginal turn-out been stronger.

Notice that David Smith's riding of Pontiac is there.

I would urge any candidate in Pontiac, and for that matter, in any riding anywhere, to not ignore the aboriginal vote. CAP has decided to endorse Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. That newsworthy endorsement itself is likely to generate interest, and hopefully, more participation.

I would be very careful before assuming that their concerns could be dismissed by assuming that 'they don't vote, these people". Patterns change, and that sort of attitude is likely to fuel that change, especially if "these people" realize how much they could influence the results.

Should Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe worry about their jobs?

The conventional wisdom is that Conservative leader Stephen Harper will lose his job if the Conservatives fail to win the election on January 23.

For Paul Martin, his job is in jeopardy if the Liberals don't win a majority (and maybe even then).

But what of Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe? Did they go into this election with goals that, if not met, could spell the end of their tenures as party leaders?

For Jack Layton of the NDP, the previous parliament saw the NDP miss holding the balance of power by a single seat. The NDP has been targeting ridings that were close in the last election in 2004, hoping to pick up a handful of seats, enough to give the NDP that role.

But if the Conservatives win a majority, a distinct possibility though not a certainty, then the question is moot, and Jack Layton is probably safe. But if another minority parliament forms, and the Tory minority is a strong one, even a modest of number of pickups by the NDP won't help.

In that situation, expect the Bloc to sit out votes on legislation that doesn't directly hurt Quebec, and to support legislation that aids the province. Even if the NDP is stronger in this parliament coming, if the Liberals are dramatically weakened, then the Liberals and the NDP together might not be able to stop the Conservatives, even if the Bloc declines to support the legislation.

Despite any NDP success in increasing seat count, Liberal misfortune could deny the NDP that position of influence. Could Jack Layton be blamed for this? Could he be replaced, perhaps from the ranks of the NDP's rural or Western wings, who might see Jack Layton's urban Toronto background as a liability?

This could be a particular problem for the NDP is they fail to make a breakthrough in Toronto. If Jack Layton and Olivia Chow can't combine to deliver more Toronto seats (right now the NDP has exactly one seat -- Jack Layton's), Jack Layton might have to face some grumbling from NDP ranks.

What of Gilles Duceppe? You would think that his job is safe -- it is unlikely that he will end up with fewer Quebec MPs in the next parliament. But he has two things to worry about.

First, in the last election, the BQ won 48% of the popular vote. Many observers have already noted that early in the campaign, Duceppe made it clear that the BQ was gunning for over 50% of the popular vote. Such a success would give a huge boost to separatists, since it is separatist dogma that a referendum vote of 50% + 1 is sufficient to declare nationhood.

I think to make Gilles Duceppe pay for a percentage variation in popular vote is a bit harsh, but the separatists have a tradition of dealing harshly with their leaders. But I think Gilles Duceppe has another problem. If the Liberals collapse in Quebec, and votes flow from both disenchanted Liberals but also from Bloc supporters thinking strategically to the Tories, it is going to be a serious problem for him. For a social conservative, from Alberta of all places, to come to Quebec and in a matter of weeks bleed significant support from the Bloc will be seen as a serious failure in the BQ campaign. Worse yet if that shift in votes translates into a significant number of seats moving from the Liberals to the Conservatives, even if the Bloc still benefits from other seats moving from the Liberals to the Bloc.

Gilles Duceppe could be blamed for allowing the Conservatives become a force for unity. So many people will find that situation so strange, that Gilles Duceppe could be seriously threatened by allegations that he totally missed that development, focusing on the Liberals for too long. His detractors could blame him for being lazy, attacking the Liberals as the easy target on the corruption charge, and allowing the Conservatives to stake out a position of strength based on the argument of renewed federalism with more respect for the provinces, both in terms of authority and with financial transfers. The Conservative argument is more difficult to debate, and some will say Gilles Duceppe waited too long before taking up that challenge.

Issues of election strategy aside, the BQ could win more seats in Quebec in this election, and yet Gilles Duceppe could be the subject of grumblings from rank-and-file who might think that Duceppe has become too comfortable in Ottawa, too willing to act as a partner in federalism, too accomodating to the legislative agenda of the other parties. Hardliners will argue that the Bloc Quebecois should be obstructionist on every issue, even legislation that favours Quebec, in order to lay the groundwork for another referendum based on frustration.

If Gilles Duceppe's "reasonableness" does not reap electoral gains, or enough electoral gains, the popularity Duceppe enjoys with all Canadians, who despite his agenda see Duceppe as an honest politician, might become the basis for a challenge to his leadership.

Imagine a leader losing his job because he is liked from coast to coast.

I don't know that either Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe really have much to worry about. But they both have spoken and unspoken goals, and if they fail to achieve them, they will have to defend their leadership, at least behind closed doors.

The Abotech Affair: More references to Pontiac

As we watch the clock run out in this election, my attention continues to shift to the riding of Pontiac, where Liberal MP David Smith is attempting to win despite the baggage of the Abotech affair, and the serious Tory contender in the person of Lawrence Cannon.

The Abotech affair was researched in large part by this blogger.

So here is small update, almost an afterthought, from Michael Harris' column in the Ottawa Sun:

Meanwhile, on the other side of the river, events in the Pontiac this week registered a legitimate seismic disturbance in our national politics. With a day off and in the company of my friend Mike Duffy, I took in Stephen Harper's appearance at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Buckingham. It wasn't Trudeaumania, but it wasn't a paid political announcement either.

Tory candidate Lawrence Cannon lit the first match and then Stephen Harper burnt the barn down with a speech that featured impressive French and even more impressive confidence. This guy is no longer the geek trying to paste on a cheesy smile to look warm and fuzzy to the national media.

My friend Julie Murray, reporter for the West Quebec Post, was there as well, and she described it in similar terms in an email to me.

Stephen Taylor reports that the fight in Pontiac is between the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois.

Who would have thought the Pontiac would be the sight of a political seismic event?

PEI Buses and Sweetheart Deals

Anne of Green Gables is not the only sweetheart on Prince Edward Island. You could use that word to describe certain business deals, too.

The story is somewhat long, and a bit convoluted. But read it through. See what you think. I'm not sure anyone did anything wrong, but it is certainly the case that in this story from Prince Edward Island, people seemed to profit from knowing the right people, and the only thing that kept questions from being asked was that certain people were not entirely up front about their business dealings.

And you thought PEI was all about potatoes and Anne of Green Gables.

Show me the motion! Show me the money!

ThisCanada has a point:

On November 1, 2005 the Liberal Party of Canada announced with great fanfare that it was remitting to taxpayers the sum of $1,142,818.27 as a result of the findings of the Gomery Report.

Has anyone seen this money? A cancelled cheque? Neither Sheila Copps nor my MP has been able to find out.

Or are we to trust the Liberals that "the cheque’s in the mail"?

Here's the announcement from the Liberal Party:

The Liberal Party of Canada today announced that it is remitting to taxpayers the sum of $ 1,142,818.27 as a result of the findings of the Gomery Report. The Party’s National Executive met by conference call at noon today at the request of the Leader, the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin, and approved the remittance.

A full version of the approved motion is attached. It sets out exact amounts which, taken together, represent a full and complete repayment of improperly received funds, and contributions called into question by Justice Gomery, by the Liberal Party of Canada and its Quebec wing.

The motion is no longer available.

Show me the motion!

A copy of the canceled cheque has never been made available.

Show me the money!

I don't see what the problem is. A copy of the cheque. The statement that shows the transfer. An announcement from the Receiver General stating he has received the cash. The teller picking Paul Martin out of a line-up as the man who brought in $1.4 million in loonies.

Anything. Anything at all.

Roundups and outliers

YLC executive Milton Chan

Andrew Coyne has a round-up of election polls and predictions:

With a week to go, a roundup of the latest seat projections:

• UBC Election Stock Market (latest price): Fascists 135 Crooks 88 Commies 31 Traitors 53
• LISPOP (Jan 7-10): 139-84-25-60
• DemocraticSpace (Jan 15): 135-82-32-59
• jord.ca (Jan 10-12 Ipsos): 144-67-37-59
• Trendlines (Jan 16): 141-75-31-60
• ElectionPrediction.org (Jan 15): 97-77-17-51 Too close to call: 66
• Loblaw Federal Election Pool (average): 130-97-22-59

He's got the links, and excellent commentary.

Notice the outlier? ElectionPrediction.org?

Just so you know, ElectionPrediction.org is run by Milton Chan, the Vice-President for Policy for the Young Liberals of Canada.

You can see his name at the bottom of the page. It is the same guy. As I recall, this project was part of his thesis.

Too close to call. Yeah.

Liberal Party kills advanced polling for out-of-town students in Tony Ianno's riding

Liberal candidate Tony Ianno

From the Globe and Mail:

Students at the University of Toronto will not be able to vote by special ballot in the upcoming election, a decision which angered student union leaders.

Elections Canada said a special ballot initiative, whereby students could vote over several days in the week before the election, was deemed unnecessary. Advance polling stations will be open for students in the Trinity-Spadina riding, a spokeswoman said.

Student leaders were upset because the special ballots, which also would have allowed students to vote in their home ridings, had been widely advertised on campus. The initiative was designed to make voting easier for young people, many of whom are away from home and may not know where to vote.

Guess who helped kill this initiative. The Liberals and Tony Ianno, as per this report from AM640 radio:

However, student organizer Paul Bretscher says he was working with Elections Canada, only to find out that the Liberals in the Trinity-Spadina riding put the brakes on the plan.

"The Tony Ianno campaign informed us that it was Liberal legal council in Ottawa that had filed something with Elections Canada that resulted in these polling locations being removed from campus."

Ianno campaign manager Tom Allison says Elections Canada agreed that the impromptu polling sites weren't allowed.

Tony Ianno, of course, is in a fight with NDP candidate Olivia Chow.

These advanced polls were not illegal. At least Elections Canada didn't think so at first. The Liberal Party decided to spend time and effort to argue that they weren't necessary. Now why would they care to be certain that voting is only as convenient as it absolutely has to be?

Could it be that in the case of university students, they tend to vote NDP?

Updates courtesy of babblers:

York University:

Elections Canada has agreed to set up a polling station at York University for this month's federal election, reversing an earlier decision that outraged students at the country's second largest university.

In past federal elections, York students have had the option of voting on campus, as have their peers at Ryerson University and the University of Toronto.

So they were taken by surprise when Elections Canada said it would not set up a polling station for the Jan. 23 vote in this campaign.

Late Thursday, Elections Canada had a change of heart and announced that there will be a polling station at York.

However, officials refused repeated requests to explain the decision.

And Carleton and the University of Ottawa:

Problems at the polls at the University of Toronto, where Elections Canada cancelled a special ballot at the last minute, were not echoed on Ottawa campuses.

Last week, both the University of Ottawa and Carleton University held special student polls on campus -- and everything went off without a hitch.

Long line-ups of voters during peak periods at both city campuses attested to the polls' success.

Things went so well at Carleton that the polls stayed open late on Friday to accommodate the turnout, said Liam Lynch, the university's vice-president external of the Graduate Students' Association.

Joel Duff, Ontario chairman of the Canadian Federation of Students, said voting that was to start at the U of T yesterday was suddenly cancelled by Elections Canada without explanation. However, he said, a candidate in the riding may have complained about the special polls.

Ottawa earthquake?

From CTV:

A new Conservative TV ad is reminding voters some of Paul Martin's own candidates disapproved of a controversial Liberal attack which some say implied a Tory government would send tanks into the streets.

The Conservative ad recycles quotes from prominent Liberals including John McCallum, former defence minister, who last week called his party's ad a mistake.

The Liberal response:

The Liberals called on the Conservatives to withdraw the ad in a statement Sunday, saying they believe it violates copyright laws by using CBC footage which they did not have permission to use.

In other news, the US Geological Survey announced that a major earthquake had struck Ottawa, then withdrew that announcement when subsequent analysis suggested that the frequency of the tremors were not consistent with shifts in the Earth's crust.

Instead, the USGS spokesperson said that "gales of laughter" and "the dropping of human bodies to the floor gripping their sides in spasms of mirth" were probably the best explanation for what was detected.

Thanks

Don't worry, this isn't a farewell speech.

But a moment to say thanks to everyone.

To the mu.nu folks who thought I had a quality blog and invited me to join their club, free of charge, with a professional blogging setup, tons of disk space and bandwidth, and loads of technical support. Looking back, this blog would have gone belly up if I was trying to run it from Blogspot.

To the fellow who drew up my "angry beaver" logo without charging me. I hope you appreciate how recognizable that little guy is becoming. I certainly do.

To John who has set me up with my domain name (to be rolled out soon) free of charge. It is the impetus I need to re-work Angry in the Great White North yet again. To everyone who is offering opinions, please keep 'em coming.

To the half-dozen people who have put a tip in the tip jar in the last couple of weeks, special thanks. All the tips, as well as the few bucks I get from advertising, go into the family budget for diapers (2 boxes a month) and milk (a dozen bags every week or so -- four kids go through milk at an appalling rate) and toys (books usually) for the kids. Everything is on a shoestring, and every little bit helps immensely.

As for the future...there may be changes, and not just to the blog. Changes that could co-locate me to the center of power in this country, and you know what that can do for my blogging. I'll let you know as soon as I know. The trick will be the cost of transition, but even if I can't make it fly financially, the blogging will continue to the best of my ability.

Cheers all!

What's next for bloggers?

From Warren Kinsella's Musings for January 16:

Media folks, like regular folks, wanted the Grits booted out of power – but they still harbour serious reservations about what the Harpies will do, and not do. By the same token, I’ll be interested to see how the blogosphere – who are overwhelmingly white, male, conservative and oppositional – will handle power. If you blog, it’s easy to carp about the ruling class. When your ideological flavour supplants the ruling class, who are you going to bitch about, then? We’ll see.

Interesting question, and not the first time I've heard it or pondered it. Look to the US for an example. Clearly their man is in office. So what are the bloggers doing?

For one, keeping George W Bush honest. When he nominated Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court, the outrage was immediate. Conservative bloggers are not the lapdogs of the Republicans, nor will they be the pawns of the Conservative Party in Canada.

Some will continue in their role as media watchdogs, highlighting, adding to, and if necessary, correcting, stories being printed in the main stream press.

Some will fight against the left side of the internet. While conservatives hold the blog high ground it seems, the left prefers message boards. They have Democratic Underground, we've got rabble.ca.

Some will shift their focus farther afield. After the intense navel gazing of the election, I expect some Canadian bloggers to again turn their focus internationally.

Some will shift their focus closer to home. After the intense focus of national issues, I expect some Canadian bloggers to return to municipal and provincial matters.

Some will look at moving blogging forward, technically speaking. Time to experiment with videoblogs and other gee-whiz variants.

Some wil take a break. I expect more than a few bloggers will shut down for a few days or even a few weeks, perhaps longer, to focus on other matters. Some might say goodbye to blogging for good.

Some will do some of these things. Some will do all of these things. Some will do none of these things.

Fact is, there are many bloggers, and each will respond to whatever happens on January 23 in their own way. And how they repond will itself be an interesting side story to history of this election, when it is written.

A different sort of campaign

Taken from a posting to this blog.

From today's National Post:

With part of his leg blown off, Master Cpl. Paul Franklin wrapped a tourniquet around his thigh, then went to help three other wounded passengers after a suicide bomber destroyed the military vehicle he was driving.

"He's a medic, so he had the wherewithal to do that," Audra Franklin said from her home in Edmonton, proudly describing her husband's heroic actions yesterday in Kandahar.

This is a degree of military heroism in the face of hostile enemy action, which is truly beyond normal and is commendable in the extreme. It is almost superhuman, but it wasn't, he is a Canadian citizen who happens to be a dedicated medic and who loves his fellow soldiers.

The shock must have been incredible... yet keeping his head, he provided lifesaving first aid to himself, then began helping his comrades in arms.

This man is heroic in every sense of the word. Should he not be a candidate for the Victoria Cross (Canada)?

Qualifications for the Canadian Victoria Cross, which since its creation in 1993 has never been awarded, include:

...most conspicuous bravery or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy...

Canada does not officially have to declare war to give acknowledgement of the existence of a hostile force that fits the above description. This means that a Canadian serving as part of a peacekeeping operation is eligible to be awarded the VC if the servicemember fulfills the above criteria.

I agree with this post, with one caveat. No award should be given prior to January 23. Unfortunately, an award ceremony would turn into a photo op during this election campaign. I'm not suggesting Paul Martin would like that to happen (the Governor General presents the award in any case) but everything is seen through the prism of election politics right now.

Having said that, I believe we should all take a moment to email the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to make the case for Paul Franklin to be so recognized.

Liberal Values

Choose your Canada, eh.

American-style ads -- maybe there's a reason

Kate McMillan (who blogs at small dead animals) has a very well written and well thought out post concerning the American sensibilities in the latest Liberal attack ads, appearing at the CBC roundtable:

A Harper victory will put a smile on George W. Bush's face.

Well, at least someone will be happy, eh?

Not only does it acknowledge Paul Martin's failure to develop a good working relationship with the Bush administration, it promises to keep things that way.

That's not just bizarre - it's downright deranged.

For a nation that depends on the United States for over 80% of all our exports and the very lifeblood of our economy, it's a deeply cynical ad, and recklessly dangerous for Canadians who value their standard of living.

The ad was designed, one assumes, with the advice of a Canadian ad agency. Where did the Liberals find such incompetence? What communications pro in their right mind attacks a competitor at such grave risk to the "brand"?

The Liberal "all American" ad suggests that, for whatever expertise the authors might have in despising George Bush, they seem unnaturally indifferent to Canadian interests.

Yet, for all the Canadian "tone deafness" displayed, the ad carries a familiar ring. It's evocative of the deranged, juvenile taunting of some on the Democratic left, exemplified by DNC chairman Howard Dean and failed presidential candidate Al Gore.

Got me wondering, so I did some poking around. Found this column written by columnist Allan Fotheringham about Jack Fleischmann, the head of the Liberal 2006 advertising campaign, when he was head of the advertising campaign in 2004:

Most hidden secret: That would be one Jack Fleishman, who may have won it all for the fumbling Martinites. Who's Jack? Senior producer at ROBTV, which is owned by the Globe and Mail, which is owned by BCE.

Its star is Amanda Lang, back from four years in New York with CNN, daughter of Trudeau-era justice minister Otto Lang, stepdaughter of Trudeau-era finance minister Donald Macdonald. She's headed for Paula Zahn fame.

Fleishman, to the puzzlement of many, took a leave of absence from ROBTV to run the Paul Martin American-invented attack ads on the kid from the flat prairie. His friends (the scribbler being one) thought he had committed suicide, as early polls indicated he would be down at the welfare office looking for a job flipping hamburgers.

As it turned out, of course, the abortion/gay rights boondoggle frightened off enough female voters to turn around Ontario voters. One suspects Jack will have his job back. Perhaps with a raise.

Otto Lang and Paul Martin are still tight. In March of last year, Paul Martin appointed Otto Lang to be co-chair of the Manitoba chapter or the National Liberal Campaign Committee.

CNN, of course, is seen by many to have too cosy a relationship with the Democratic Party. From the politics of founder Ted Turner to the allegations of Chief News Executive Eason Jordan, CNN seems only too happy to help out the Democrats, or at least torment the Republicans.

So Jack Fleischmann runs the Liberal ad campaign. In 2004, the negative ads that helped win the election for Paul Martin were Fleischmann's idea, borrowing heavily from the American model. His star employee at ROBTV is Amanda Lang, daughter of former Liberal cabinet minister and Paul Martin campaign appointee Otto Lang. Amanda Lang worked for CNN as an anchor and correspondent, and certainly would have met people intimately connected with the Democratic Party.

The more I think about this, the more I wonder just who is acting and thinking like an American. Stephen Harper, as alleged by the Liberals in their ad campaign? Or Paul Martin and his team at Red Leaf Communications?

Numero uno!

From the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem, the community of Canadian blogs:

And as we all know, on January 24 when the election is over, I drop to 18 hits a day.

Liberal candidate says sue critics of the Liberal Party

Liberal candidate Rod Finnie

From the CBC:

Mr. Justice John Gomery has touched a nerve.

By concluding that Jacques Corriveau, a close friend of former prime minister Jean Chretien, masterminded an "elaborate kickback scheme" to funnel money to Liberal party headquarters in Quebec, he has confirmed the party's worst fears.

"Jacques Corriveau was the central figure in an elaborate kickback scheme by which he enriched himself personally and provided funds and benefits" to the Liberal Party, Gomery wrote in the summary of his fact finding report.

Gomery concluded that Jean Chretien and his former chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, tolerated a "culture of entitlement" but cannot be blamed for Corriveau's "misconduct."

The Liberal Party of Canada "as an institution cannot escape responsibility for the misconduct of its officers and representatives," he said.

Got that? The Liberal Party of Canada must accept the responsibility, and suffer the consequences, for misconduct, because that miscounduct was institutional.

Now the Liberal candidate for Wellington-Halton Hills, the Mayor for Erin, Rod Finnie, has a problem with that:

Erin Mayor Rod Finnie says he nearly stormed off the stage at last night's candidates' debate in Fergus after yet another remark about Liberal corruption.

In a debate that was mostly void of any fiery exchanges the Liberal candidate for Wellington-Halton Hills was in the awkward position of defending the record of a government he's never been a part of.

With New Democrat Noel Duignan sitting on one side of him and the incumbent, Conservative Michael Chong, on the other, Finnie was often in the crossfire. It was the first public candidates' debate in this largely rural riding and Finnie didn't hesitate to raise his voice and fire back.

"Stephen Harper, and others who say all Liberals are corrupt, should be sued for slander," Finnie said in his closing remarks.

Chong, who won the riding in 2004 by about 2,306 votes over the second-place Liberals, said that "Liberal corruption" is responsible for the ressurgence of separatists in Quebec.

"I was ready to jump off the stage after that comment," Finnie said after the debate. "It's easy to paint most of the people as bad. It's totally irresponsible to spread statements like 'they're all corrupt.' "

Sue people for slander for speaking of "Liberal corruption"? Once again, to be clear, the Liberal Party "as an institution cannot escape responsibility for the misconduct".

Cannot escape responsibility.

For misconduct.

As an institution.

Self-respect for politically engaged prisoners

From small dead animals talking about a program in which prisoners develop a sense of responsibility and self-respect by being allowed to escort other prisoners on shopping trips:

[Correctional Services Canada] spokeswoman Michele Pilon-Santilli insisted the program is valuable for teaching responsible citizenship and said only "minor incidents" have been reported.

Like the Ferndale Resort Prison, the $700,000 CSC "pilot program" to provide prison tattoos (pick your gang affiliation from the samples on the wall!), spa days for women inmates and the unbelievable policy that prohibits prison guards from carrying weapons of any type when escorting dangerous inmates in public - why isn't this an election issue?

The Canadian government paying for tattoos. One wonders if it covers other body art, like this one, since being politically aware is certainly an important part of "responsible citizenship":

No, it's not a Photoshop. It's real. And paid for by you and me.

As we all know now, prisoners overwhelming vote Liberal.

But in this case I'm not going to be upset about paying for this haircut. Let's spread this image around. Let everyone see the face of the Liberal voter and ask themselves why a Liberal voter is wearing a blue jumpsuit and waiting in line for one of his three squares a day before his hour in the exercise yard.

And then maybe they'll ask themselves whether some Liberal party members who have been caught in this scandal or that should be spending some quality time getting to know their supporters better.

Maybe the jumpsuits should be Liberal red.

It's funereal!

Love that word: "funereal".

It just rolls off the tongue.

Get a load of the funereal picture gracing the Liberal Party main page -- small dead animals has the picture and some comments.

My theory about the glum faces? They're talking to an empty room, yet again.

Remember the Waterloo? I mean the education announcement at the University of Waterloo. Paul Martin talking to an empty gymnasium? Go to the 11:09 mark.

He wasn't looking too happy then either.

A breakthrough endorsement

Just released from the Conservative Party:

Conservative Indian and Northern Affairs Critic Jim Prentice today welcomed the support of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Congress National Chief Dwight Dorey and National Vice-Chief Patrick Brazeau today endorsed the party after meeting with Prentice to discuss the Conservative Party’s policies on Aboriginal affairs. The Congress represents Aboriginal peoples living in urban, rural, and remote areas throughout Canada.

“After 12 years, the lives of Aboriginal peoples have not improved,” Prentice said. “A Conservative government would do better, and we will work closely with groups such as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to achieve the goals outlined in the Kelowna agreement.”

The party’s election platform, Stand up for Canada, includes a plan which respects Aboriginal people and provides opportunities for them. A Conservative government will also work with groups to develop a northern vision to guide economic, social, and environmental progress in the region.

“The Conservative Party is the only party with a plan to help Aboriginal Canadians,” said Mr. Dorey. “Their plans provide real choice and provide real opportunities, and I am encouraged by their policies.”

“Stephen Harper has opened the door for the Congress and other groups to work together to improve the lives of Aboriginals,” Mr. Brazeau said.

With the Tories surging in Quebec, making inroads in Atlantic Canada, polling well in Toronto, and now with a major aboriginal organizing endorsing them (CAP represents the interests off-reserve aboriginals), is Stephen Harper fashioning a legitimate coalition? A chance for Canada to find some real unity, instead of the false unity based on being financially beholden to the Liberal Party social programs and insider favours?

And for sharp-eyed readers, Patrick Brazeau is Frank Brazeau's brother. Frank Brazeau, of course, is the bureaucrat at the centre of the Abotech affair. Though this announcement has no relation (that I can think of, anyway) to Abotech and the troubles plaguing Liberal MP David Smith of Pontiac, I wonder if we'll finally learn what was going on at CAC if the Tories win on January 23.

Do you think any Liberals are throwing races?

Do you think any Liberals, particularly cabinet ministers, would be glad to lose their seats than sit in opposition?

Especially if they'd have to sit in opposition for years, if the Conservatives win another mandate after the one it appears they'll be winning on January 23?

Of course, that leads to another question. With the potential for a Liberal miracle diminishing to zero, how many Liberals, especially cabinet ministers used to the perks of power, are quietly, even subconsciously, sabotaging their own chances to eek out a win?

Truth is, I hope there aren't any. If there are any, they represent a subversion of democracy, cheating riding constituents of the choices they should have. Not to mention the fact that the Liberal Party receives $1.75 every year for every vote they won in 2004. That's money the taxpayers coughed up to help fund our democracy. As a taxpayer forced to pay this money, I expect value for what I paid for.

Reasons for and against

The Globe and Mail has officially announced its endorsement of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada.

In the endorsement, it explains the reasons to vote for Stephen Harper and against voting for Paul Martin:

Mr. Martin himself has shifted all over the map in recent years — on ballistic missile defence, on same-sex marriage, on the Clarity Act. In the run-up to the election in June of 2004, we wrote: “We wish Mr. Martin had afforded himself the opportunity of an 18-month tryout before going to the polls. Now the voters have the opportunity to impose a probationary period themselves.”

Mr. Martin did not pass that 18-month probation. He doesn't deserve the public's opprobrium, or an electoral wipeout, but neither has he earned the right to a fifth Liberal term. A spell out of power would give the Liberals the time they so clearly need to renew themselves.

In that same 2004 editorial, we characterized Mr. Harper as “a product of Central Canadian caution and Alberta's can-do frontier mentality.” But, noting his propensity to “respond to challengers withquiet contempt and truculence,” we expressed doubt that he had “matured into a truly national leader.”

There is greater reason to feel comfortable with Mr. Harper today. He has shown himself to be an intelligent man and one, in this campaign at least, who has learned to master his emotions. He has gained control of a party inclined to fly off in all directions, moved it to the centre and proposed a reasonable if imperfect governing platform. His targeted tax measures are measured, his defence policies are sound, and his approach to waiting times is worth experimenting with.

His pledge not to use the notwithstanding clause on same-sex marriage provides some comfort, as does his promise not to reopen the abortion debate. In both cases, he has demonstrated a deft political touch, giving something to his base but leaving himself ample political room to steer clear of unnecessarily divisive issues. (Private members have their rights, but we doubt they can muster a majority.) It is the same pattern with his gradualist approach to Senate reform and his willingness to engage the once-dreaded Red Tories.

The question many ask — who is the real Stephen Harper? — cannot be answered with exactitude. Then again, who was the real Pierre Trudeau — the civil libertarian or the invoker of the War Measures Act? All politics contains a degree of posturing and calculation. That said, the evidence suggests Mr. Harper has indeed evolved as a national leader.

Via Bourque.

More policy announcements pulled from the nether regions?

From CTV:

Prime Minister Paul Martin announced four initiatives today to enhance the role and influence of Canada on the world stage.

The four initiatives are:

• the Canada Corps Governance Program to build on Canada's strength in governance, democratic development and human rights
• the Canada Corps Global Citizenship Program to provide opportunities, particularly for young volunteers, to contribute to Canada's overseas development priorities, along with a $12,000 voucher for university or college tuition for those who complete the program
• the Canada Centre for Peace and Democracy in the Middle East to assist Palestinians in building a state founded on democracy, the rule of law, strong public administration and good governance
• over the next five years, double to five per cent the federal funding for research and development that is devoted to the research priorities of developing nations including health and environmental technologies

None of these initiatives are spelled out in the official Liberal Party platform.

Are these initiatives over and above the announced $46 billion in spending?

To be fair, the Liberal Red Book states explicitly that Table 3 only covers initiatives up to January 7. Really, it actually says "Initiative Announced During Campaign (Through 7 January, 2006)".

Like the authors needed to cover themselves in case more initiatives came out of the blue.

Speaking of blue, the Conservative platform doesn't contain any weasel words. It is supposed to be complete. Of course, Stephen Harper might reach in where the sun don't shine to yank out a policy surprise, but I doubt it. And then at least Harper can be called out on it. The platform keeps him honest.

The Red Book seems to written to expect surprises.

Almost like the authors knew better than to expect Paul Martin and the Liberals to campaign on the contents of their platform with confidence.

Liberals take early lead in advance voting

Do I have access to the voting results? Of course not. They're not even being counted; they'll be kept sealed until January 23, and then counted along with everyone else's ballots.

In fact, I'm certain the Conservatives have taken the lead, assuming we could count the ballots.

But my headline was meant to attract you so you could read this, about a lead the Liberals have taken with one particular special interest group:

Advance polls opened across the country Friday, including at the Stony Mountain Institution, north of Winnipeg, where inmates cast their ballots in the federal election.

Many inmates said they had a strong interest in the parties' crime and justice platforms.

Not surprisingly, the Conservative platform is not popular.

Fellow inmate Jeff Power had a red "L" for "Liberal" painted on the side of his head. He was jailed for drug trafficking and robbing two pharmacies.

He said he would not vote for the Conservatives because they've talked about tightening up parole rules.

Of course, one could argue that if it seems popular with inmates, it's a reason to vote for the other guy.

But interestingly, there is a bigger issue at play, beyond the details of parole policy:

Power said there's another reason he cannot vote Conservative: party leader Stephen Harper has said he would strip prisoners of the right to vote by using the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution.

Power said that's just one more way of isolating inmates, and it would make it even more difficult for them to integrate back into society once they're released from prison.

In 2002, the Supreme Court struck down an earlier law that denied inmates the right to vote, ending an 18-year battle over the issue. Inmates have a choice voting for candidates in the riding they lived in before they were arrested, or the riding in which they were convicted.

Well, prison is supposed to be isolating. The prize of being allowed to vote again should be a carrot dangled in front of an inmate to entice him to behave, shape up, and earn parole.

But I did not know that a prisoner could vote in the riding in which they were convicted. I always thought it was the riding of their last known address.

That's terrible. Imagine a prisoner convicted of murder. In that riding, a father or mother, a son or daughter, some hard-working store clerk, or perhaps just a victim of a random mugging, is dead.

He or she will never vote again. But that person's killer is allowed to vote in their stead? And of course, this killer will vote for whomever is likely to let him out earliest.

Doesn't this seem perverse to you? It certainly does to me.

Let's hope the Conservatives move quickly on this if they win on January 23. And let's see what opposition MPs have the temerity to oppose taking away the vote from prisoners.

Frank McKenna: Keep him close?

Frank McKenna, former premier of New Brunswick and loyal Liberal, is also Canada's ambassador to the United States.

As an ambassador, he has made the news. That's not a good thing for an ambassador. In particular, he delivered a speech critical of, even insulting to, the United States.

Is he likely to be looking for a new job if the Tories win on January 23?

I'm not so sure.

First, his speech would never have been delivered except with permission from Ottawa. One would presume that under a Conservative government, McKenna would present a very different face. The US might be willing to put up with McKenna, especially if a new Canadian government was able to convince Washington that McKenna was just marching to the Liberal Party anti-American drumbeat.

Second, as ambassador, especially to the United States, Frank McKenna is on a very short leash. In the short term, it means that Frank McKenna would not be able too much time in Ottawa, working his network in preparation for a leadership bid, if and when Paul Martin steps aside.

That would keep a potentially popular Liberal leader sidelined.

Of course, McKenna could resign his post. But then one of the most powerful positions in foreign affairs heirarchy would become open, ready for the appointment of high-profile Conservative spokesperson, without the messiness of dismissing an ambassador, and without having to put up with allegations of pushing out former Liberals to make room for Conservative patronage appointments.

Politics is such a subtle business.

Liberals dump David Oliver; a painful decision for Paul Martin

From CBC:

The Liberal party has dumped one of its B.C. candidates following allegations he offered an NDP candidate a job to drop out of the race and support the Liberals.

In an affidavit filed with Elections Canada, Jeffrey Hansen-Carlson alleges that Liberal candidate David Oliver and his campaign manager guaranteed him a win in the next municipal election, and offered him a job in Ottawa – if Oliver went on to win the election on Jan. 23.

Hours after the story came to light, the Liberal party issued a statement saying they were dropping Oliver as a candidate.

"Subsequent to consultations with the national campaign, Prime Minister Martin decided that it was in the best interests of the party that Mr. Oliver cease campaigning as a Liberal candidate and that he not sit in the Liberal caucus should he be elected," the Liberal party said in a statement.

Martin has also asked Oliver to no longer publicly identify himself as the Liberal candidate, the statement says, and directed the British Columbia Liberal campaign to repossess any Liberal party promotional material bearing Oliver's name.

Though this was the right thing to do in light of the brivery allegations, I can't help but think that someone else is being protected.

But do you think Paul Martin had a lump in his throat when he made the decision? I ask only because David Oliver was one of 33 BC riding presidents out of 34 who nominated Paul Martin for leader:

Canada News-wire
Thursday, March 6, 2003
Section: General News
Dateline: OTTAWA
Time: 14:37 (Eastern Time)

The Honourable Paul Martin, MP for LaSalle-Emard, was nominated today as a candidate to lead the Liberal Party of Canada with the signatures of 33 of 34 Liberal riding presidents from British Columbia.

"Paul Martin has breathed new life into the Liberal party in B.C.," said Darren Blois, President of the Kamloops-Thompson-Highland Valley Riding Association. "With Paul as party leader I believe we are set to win seats we haven't won in more than 30 years."

RIDING ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTS

Number Nominating Mr. Martin

Name / Province / Riding
David Oliver / BC / Fraser Valley

You would think riding presidents would have more sense than to try bribing their way into a win.

And I just had to include Darren Blois' comments. Instead of winning seats they haven't won for 30 years, it looks like they may have to wait 30 years to win some of those seats again.

The Income Trust Scandal: More news...on the news

Heads up! The CBC will be running more on the income trust scandal on Politics (4:30 to 5:30 Eastern on CBC Newsworld), and on The National.

Check your local listings.

The Abbotsford Bribe: Who was behind it?

Let's assume the bribe attempt happened (and that has not been established). Allegedly, Liberal candidate David Oliver tried to bribe NDP candidate Jeffrey Hansen-Carlson.

Notice that the incumbent is Conservative Randy White, and he's not even running again. The Conservative candidate is Edward Fast.

What I'm getting at is that none of the players are actually MPs. Certainly no cabinet ministers. None of these people are in a position to offer anything:

If I [Jeffrey Hansen-Carlson] was to sell out the NDP they [Oliver and campaign manager Gordy Kahlon] guaranteed me a win in the next local general election and they also said a job in Ottawa would be waiting for me if Mr Oliver did in fact win the riding.

A guaranteed win in the local election? Another democratic deficit, I suppose.

And the job in Ottawa? What job? Who was offering the job? I wouldn't throw a race just so I could answer phones and stuff envelopes in Oliver's office. It would have to be a pretty good job. Not something Oliver could offer himself. There are more players involved.

Unless...Oliver was yanking Hansen-Carlson, offering him something he could never deliver.

Or this whole thing is a hoax.

Did a Liberal candidate offer a bribe to an NDP candidate to drop out of the race?

Abbotsford Liberal candidate David Oliver

Oh. My. God.

The place is Abbotsford, British Columbia. The Liberal candidate is David Oliver.

The NDP candidate is Jeffrey Hansen-Carlson.

A formal letter (a copy of which was received by this blogger), was sent to the Commissioner for Elections Canada:

OTTAWA
January 12, 2006

Mr. Raymond Lavigne
Commissioner for Elections Canada
257 Slater St.
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0M6

Mr. Lavigne,

It has just been brought to my attention that on the evening of January 10th, 2005 the Liberal campaign in Abbotsford requested a meeting with our candidate in that electoral district.

Please find attached a notarized statement by our candidate Jeffrey Hansen-Carlson of the events that took place. At this meeting a proposal was made which appears to be in contravention of section 481 (1) of the Election Act

481. (1) Every person is guilty of an offence who, during an election period, directly or indirectly offers a bribe to influence an elector to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate.

This allegation is a very serious matter, and questions the integrity of the Liberal campaign and could involve a serious breach of the Act governing the electoral process in Canada. I urge you to investigate this matter as soon as possible.

If I can be of any assistance in these matters, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Eric Hebert
Federal Secretary, New Democratic Party of Canada

A news release has also been prepared:

Jan 13 2006 10:13:13 - Source: CCN [CCNMatthews ]

NDP Files Complaint With Elections Canada: Abbotsford BC Liberal Can
FOR: NDP

Date issue: January 13, 2006
Time in: 10:13 AM e

Attention:

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(CCNMatthews - Jan. 13, 2006) - The NDP has written to Elections Canada requesting an investigation into allegations that the Liberal candidate in Abbotsford, B.C., offered the NDP candidate in that riding a bribe in exchange for dropping out of the race, NDP Federal Secretary Eric Hebert said today.

The NDP candidate, Jeffery Hansen - Carlson, submitted a notarized statement federal NDP headquarters that outlines a meeting he had with the Liberal candidate and campaign manager on the evening of January 10. That sworn statement is attached, along with a copy of Hebert's letter.

"Mr. Hansen-Carlson's statement contains troubling information about **> Liberal Party<** actions that we believe to be contrary to the Canada Elections Act, and we had a responsibility to the voters in Abbotsford-and, indeed, voters throughout the country-to formally ask Elections Canada to investigate," said Hebert.

NOTE TO EDITORS/REPORTERS: Hansen-Carlson will be available for comment later today. To arrange an interview, please call Clay Suddaby in Vancouver at 604-313-1138.

Update: The sworn statement.

Assuming this email is legit -- this is shocking. Will this nightmare never end?

Tony Valeri and Joe Ng: A familiar story

From the Hamilton Spectator:

Hamilton Liberal cabinet minister Tony Valeri more than doubled his money in three months when he flipped a property next to his home to the son of a prominent businessman with ties to the Liberal party.

Valeri, Liberal MP for Hamilton East-Stoney Creek, purchased the property on Ridge Road along the escarpment in upper Stoney Creek for $225,000 last April.

Three months later, Valeri sold the property for $500,000 to John Ng, son of Joe Ng, whose Hamilton-based engineering company has been a longtime supporter of the Liberals at the federal and provincial levels.

From the Union-Tribune in San Diego:

A defense contractor with ties to Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham took a $700,000 loss on the purchase of the congressman's Del Mar house while the congressman, a member of the influential defense appropriations subcommittee, was supporting the contractor's efforts to get tens of millions of dollars in contracts from the Pentagon.

Mitchell Wade bought the San Diego Republican's house for $1,675,000 in November 2003 and put it back on the market almost immediately for roughly the same price. But the Del Mar house languished unsold and vacant for 261 days before selling for $975,000.

Now the Hamilton Spectator notes that the Valeri property was assessed at $201,000. On the building permit, the value was listed as $205,000.

It certainly seems like Joe Ng grossly overpaid for the property. One wonders if like Mitchell Wade, Joe Ng is going to take a bath when he tries to sell the property.

But then sometimes you have to spend money to make money. In general, I mean. I'm sure that doesn't apply here. Right.

Just like the conclusion of the Cunningham story is not likely to be relevant either. But for the sake of completeness, here's what happened:

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham tearfully resigned Monday after pleading guilty to bribery and admitting he took $2.4 million to steer defense contracts to conspirators using his leadership position on a congressional subcommittee.

"He did the worst thing an elected official can do - he enriched himself through his position and violated the trust of those who put him there," U.S. Attorney Carol Lam said in a prepared statement.

After the hearing, Cunningham was fingerprinted then released on his own recognizance until a Feb. 27 sentencing hearing. He could receive a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

Cunningham agreed to forfeit to the government his Rancho Santa Fe home, more than $1.8 million in cash and antiques and rugs.

Daniel Dzwilewski, the FBI's special agent in charge in San Diego, called the violations "staggering" for a U.S. congressman.

Staggering? I get the feeling that Agent Dzwilewski is easily impressed. In Canadian scams, $1.8 million is a rounding error.

"Beer and Popcorn" vs "Donuts and a Coffee" -- all those choices for negligent Conservative parents

Ottawa West-Nepean Liberal candidate Lee Farnworth

Why won't "beer and popcorn" go away?

Maybe because Scott Reid's and John Duffy's comments, that if Canadian parents were given child care money instead of allowing a Liberal government to spend it on their behalf, that these parents would spend the money on beer and popcorn instead of childcare, set the tone for the rest of the campaign.

Still, who knew back then how far up the gaffe-o-meter would actually go?

[Update: Apparently there is a gaffe-o-meter.]

At a local all-candidates meeting last night in an Ottawa riding, the Liberal candidate brought it all up again, as described in this email from someone who attended:

I thought you might find this amusing...

At an Ottawa West-Nepean all-candidates' meeting last night Liberal candidate Lee Farnworth responded to a pregnant woman’s question about Scott Reid’s "beer and popcorn" comment by admitting that Reids’ comments were inappropriate and that she personally did not agree with the statement. She then put her foot in it by suggesting that if you're lucky the Conservative tax credit was only enough for a donut and coffee… a Tim Horton’s coffee, "not even the Second Cup or Starbucks’ kind."

The comment was greeted by jeers from the audience.

A pregnant woman asks for an apology for comments from two senior Liberals that suggested she could not be trusted with the task of taking care of her child, and the Liberal candidate turns it into a cheap partisan joke.

She wants an apology! She deserves one!

And this Liberal candidate, Lee Farnworth, cheats her of her apology. No wonder the audience jeered.

Or maybe some of the jeering was for dissing Tim Horton's. Canadians love their Timmy's coffee.

In Ottawa West-Nepean, vote John Baird.

.

The Liberal Mole: Globe and Mail picks up the story

With the issue of the Liberal ad campaign front and centre, the leaked emails from August between the Liberal advertising team members are of interest again.

Today, in the Globe and Mail, those leaked emails are discussed, and a blogger gets credit in the main stream media for his role in the story:

Paul Martin defended a Liberal television ad yesterday that warned the Conservatives would put "soldiers with guns" on the streets of Canadian cities.

After saying several times yesterday that he had approved the ad, Mr. Martin reversed himself last night.

"No I didn't approve it," said Mr. Martin. "That's what happens. The ad was prepared. I don't prepare the ads. And then immediately upon seeing it, we said this ad is going to be misconstrued."

The Liberals appeared to be planting the seeds for negative ads in August, according to a leaked e-mail exchange between top Liberals. The e-mails were responding to a series of Conservative ads that tried to portray the Tories as more centrist.

"I'd say we should take a look at producing material that scratches the paint on their bright new Buick," wrote Jack Fleischmann, who oversees election advertising for the Liberal Party.

"I'd look at taking a run at where their daycare, their health care, their cutbacks would leave Canadians. If they want to fight on the issues, great. We ought to welcome a debate on the issues," Mr. Fleischmann wrote in an exchange that also included Liberal campaign director David Herle and officials from Bensimon Byrne, the Toronto ad agency behind the party's English language ads.

The e-mails were leaked this week and published on the "Angry in the Great White North" blog.

Mr. Fleischmann said the ads indicated that the Conservatives recognized they couldn't be painted into the "same extremist corner" as they were in the 2004 election and were already working to set the agenda for the next campaign.

"We should also look at producing some creative of our own," he wrote. "A series that strips away the CPC (Conservative Party of Canada) gloss and speaks to what we've done and we're doing."

"Creative" is industry jargon for advertising.

But Liberal adman Jack Bensimon argued that it would be a waste of money to air ads so long before the actual election campaign.

"I suggest we continue to manage our brand image through earned media and reserve our war chest for the time when voters are actually engaged," Mr. Bensimon wrote on Aug. 24. Earned media refers to press reports, as opposed to advertising. Mr. Bensimon is president of Bensimon Byrne.

It'll be interesting to see if this pick-up by the main stream media adds yet another chapter to the ad campaign saga.

Perhaps we could have Jack Fleischmann describe the state of the Conservative Buick paint job to Mike Duffy.

While we wait for the advertising brain trust to explain to Canadian what they were thinking, and how work that started all the way back in August culminated in what we've seen this week, we can spare a thought for the mole who leaked the email in the first place, and play Andrew Coyne's pick-a-mole game.

For obvious reasons, I'll be recusing myself from casting a vote.

Breakthrough issue that turns this campaign around

The breakthrough issue for Paul Martin's Liberals that will turn this campaign around:

British scientists are seeking permission to create hybrid embryos in the lab by fusing human cells with rabbit eggs.

The proposal drew strong criticism from opponents to embryo research who yesterday challenged the ethics of the research and branded the work repugnant.

Who else but Paul Martin, with his brave plan to ban the use of the notwithstanding clause by the federal government, will protect this new fuzzy minority group and their rights against those who would call them "repugnant"?

New leadership on January 24, and I'm not talking about the Liberal Party

From December 4:

Liberal Leader Paul Martin urged members of the Canadian Auto Workers to abandon the New Democrats, a pitch that won qualified support from the head of the union.

CAW boss Buzz Hargrove said there should be a strong NDP opposition, but urged members to vote Liberal in ridings in which the NDP has no chance of winning.

He said the minority Liberal government "deserves to go back to Ottawa with even bigger numbers."

"Whether you elect a Liberal or an NDP, the overall numbers don't change in terms of the ability to form a coalition government," he said. "We're out to stop the Tories."

"We're saying to people don't waste your vote. Make sure we don't send any more Tories to Ottawa. We don't need them."

The sin for which Buzz Hargrove might be forgiven: executing a plan to abandon the NDP in order to boost the Liberals and hurt the Conservatives.

The sin for which Buzz Hargrove must pay: Should the polls hold, failing.

Jack Layton: If it's good enough for me...too bad for you

NDP leader Jack Layton has been struggling of late with a controversy of his own:

NDP Leader Jack Layton, who's campaigning as the defender of public health care, had surgery at a private clinic in the 1990s, The Canadian Press has learned.

Layton had hernia surgery at the Shouldice Hospital, a private facility in the Toronto suburb of Thornhill, while he was serving as a Toronto city councillor.

The NDP leader said he wasn't aware the clinic was private when he went for his surgery in the mid-1990s.

"It's just part of the system,'' Layton said in an interview. "The doctor says, 'Go there.' You pay with your (Ontario health) card. It never occurred to me (it was) anything other than medicare, which it is.

"I can tell you now if my doctor ever refers me anywhere, I'll ask him that question. It never occurred to me at the time, it wasn't a controversy at the time. It wasn't something on one's mind.''

Hey, he had a medical condition and it was resolved, and for that I'm glad. But now, hale and healthy, Jack Layton says he would check the next time, assuming there is a next time:

Layton pointed out he has been aiming at curtailing the growth of for-profit health-care facilities on the federal election campaign.

Actually, the NDP platform does not distinguish between for-profit and non-profit private facilities:

• Stop further privatization and protect public health care from being dismantled and privatized.

Private is private, and that is a bad thing that needs to be stopped.

What I'd like to know is whether, having benefited from the fine work performed at this private clinic, Jack Layton is going to deny other hernia sufferers the same benefit?

Wouldn't it be enlightening to see Jack Layton confront a man with a hernia, about to go into the Shouldice Hospital, and explain to him that even though Jack Layton was well served by the doctors here, he would strongly recommend that the poor fellow hobble over to a public hospital?

Because, you know, Jack Layton needs to curtail the growth of these facilities.

I can bounce back

From the Toronto Star:

Tories are also worried about finding qualified staff, for a majority or minority.

Thanks to Harper's promise to ban former political aides from lobbying or government relations for five years, few people in mid-career in those businesses will be willing to jump into work with a new Tory government.

That could mean that when Conservatives go looking for political staff, they will have to look to older veterans dating back to the years of Brian Mulroney's government, people near retirement, for instance, or to relatively inexperienced rookie staffers who aren't worried about losing their jobs and careers when the government collapses.

Fully trained engineer here, meaning I can always go back to project management. Just saying.

Ten days to go...

...and the media is still talking about the ad.

Excellent.

Who said anything about incest?

A report paid for by, and delivered to, the Liberal government, and then suppressed, recommended that polygamy be legalized:

A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships.

"Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,'' says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

Slippery slope, eh? Remember what we were told? Same-sex marriage would never lead to this. Stop worrying.

Another report for the project, also led by two Queen's University professors, dismisses the slippery-slope argument, saying that allowing same-sex marriages promotes equality while polygamous marriages are generally harmful to women's interests and would therefore promote inequality.

So what is the Liberal government's attitude about this?

Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said he has seen only a summary of the research reports, but already rejects lifting the criminal ban on polygamy.

"At this point, the practice of polygamy, bigamy and incest are criminal offences in Canada and will continue to be,'' he said from Montreal.

Incest? Who said anything about incest? Where did incest come from? Is there another report that Cotler is sitting on?

Ewwwww.

[Hat tip to small dead animals.]

Anger turns to derision

Very insightful.

Ralph Goodale clears up the confusion

I'm kidding, of course. Ralph Goodale is surrounded by some sort of Higgs field that interacts with subatomic particles in the brain to cause a proliferation of confusitrons to be emitted.

Accordingly, the confusion is multiplying by leaps and bounds.

According to the Finance Minister, who has appeared briefly to chip in his two cents while ducking calls from the RCMP, the OSC, and the SEC interested in the Income Trust Scandal, the ad that is currently running in Quebec was not endorsed or released by the Liberal Party.

Got that? Not the English ad that appeared and then disappeared from the web site. The French version that is currently on the air.

Bizarre.

Read the whole thing at small dead animals.

And let me make it clear before he has another conniption: there is no evidence that Don Black was involved in this.

David Asper calls Paul Martin a hypocrite

From the Canada News Wire, via Bourque:

Also joining Peter Kent's Big Tent was the Chairman of the National Post, David Asper. David Asper and his family have been well-known for their past support for the Liberal Party. In his statement, Mr. Asper said in a prepared letter of recommendation that, "the need for a man of Peter's integrity became even more clear to me after hearing the Prime Minister say during the last English language debate that 'we've got to have a more intelligent debate. Enough is enough: this idea of drive-by smears doesn't make it true', and then the next day launch a series of Liberal advertisements that are some of the most insulting, base attack ads that I have ever seen. The Prime Minister is correct. Enough is enough. It's time for a change and Peter Kent is someone who represents not only change itself, but change for the better."

Not only did David Asper endorse Conservative candidate Peter Kent, he took the time to call Paul Martin a hypocrite!

The Aspers (David, Leonard, and Gail) have personally donated over $30,000 to the Liberal Party over the years. CanWest Global, the gem of the Asper media empire, put over $220,000 into the Liberal Party over the years, hugely more than donations to any other party.

There was personal support too. CanWest Global donated a cool $100,000 to Paul Martin's leadership campaign in the summer of 2003.

And let's not forget the editorial support from Asper-controlled media.

The Aspers helped put Paul Martin in 24 Sussex Drive -- and now they're helping to boot him out.

I guess it's time to bring Feschuk out again.

Paul Martin makes his Deputy Prime Minister look stupid

Paul Martin, on television, January 12, 2006:

Paul Martin defended the series of controversial ads his Liberal Party unleashed this week and continued his attack on Stephen Harper, painting him as a leader who subscribes to a far right-wing ideology.

In an interview Thursday morning on CTV's Canada AM, Martin said he approved every one of the harshly critical ads -- including one that suggested the Tory Leader would use the military to occupy Canadian cities.

Anne McLellan, in an email, January 11, 2006:

The Liberal ad related to military presence in Canadian cities was never approved by the Prime Minister and was never aired on Television.

The funny thing is, if you cross your wires like that on the floor of the House of Commons, someone has to resign.

The Liberal Party Blog: The court jester speaks

I have to say that after an initial bad reaction, I quickly grew to like Scott Feschuk's blog at the Liberal Party website.

He can be a pretty funny guy, which is a good thing, since he's supposed to do funny for a living.

But today's entry is odd. He rants against fruit and muffins, having seen them day in and day out in hotel meeting rooms. It's amusing, but there is nothing about recent announcements, the problems with the Conservatives or the NDP, the media...nothing of substance at all.

Hey, it's a blog, but I immediately thought of this from the National Post yesterday, lifted from Warren Kinsella's musings for January 11:

What blogs do you read, if any? - MR. LAYTON: "Paul Wells's." - MR. HARPER: "Monte Solberg and James Moore ... and I really think that Warren guy is on to something." - MR. MARTIN: "Other than Scott Feschuk's, none."

In a campaign that seems to be crumbling down around him, I can't shake this image of Scott Feschuk as the court jester, trying to tease a smile from the morose and disconnected king, prattling nonsense while loyal followers scramble, leaderless, desperately trying to shore up the castle walls in a last ditch attempt to save themselves.

Anne McLellan: We all misunderstood the military ad

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan

She enlightens us via an email to a young Conservative campaign worker:

From: information@annemclellan.com
To: Calev Rhyason
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:19:15 -0700
Subject: Re: New Liberal adds
Dear Calev.

Thank you for writing to Anne's campaign and for your comments about recent ads that have appeared on the Liberal site.

Please be assured that Anne does not support negative campaign ads and has always run positive campaigns based on her record and accomplishments.

The national campaigns of both the Liberal and Conservative parties have produced what some would consider to be negative campaign adds. The Liberal ad related to military presence in Canadian cities was never approved by the Prime Minister and was never aired on Television. While it did appear briefly on the Liberal website, the ad was pulled because it did not effectively convey the message intended.

What it was supposed to highlight was the fact that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have made statements that they would like to disperse Canada's military presence further by providing a stronger military presence in urban cities. This flies in the face of the military's own plans to rationalize their operations.

Anne regrets that some people were offended by these Ads. Anne has tremendous respect for the significant contributions that members of Canada's Armed Forces make to Canada.

Thank you for conveying your concerns to Anne.

OK, so let's review. I will assume, of course, that this email written from her office represents accurately Anne McLellan's opinions on the matter.

Anne McLellan does not support negative campaign ads.

Does that means she does not support her own party's ads? She admits that "some would consider" some of the ads produced as negative. She doesn't offer her own opinion, of course.

That's brave of her.

But then the "military" ad wasn't really negative, was it? According to Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Public Safety, we all misunderstood the ad. The problem that was being highlighted by the ominous music and the "soldiers...with guns...in our cities" voiceover was that it was poor military strategy. It was not about Stephen Harper turning Canada into an Orwellian nightmare. We weren't supposed to think that.

Dispersing the troops? I suppose we need them in one place, in order to meet the enemy with maximum strength!

That was the message the ad, unfortunately, "did not effectively convey".

Ah. Yeah. Now that I watch it again, clearly that was what the Liberals were trying to get at. I'm certain all those military officers who went to the Royal Military College in Kingston got the message. It was just us civilians, media and bloggers alike, that missed the point.

I would have thought Anne McLellan would support having troops stationed near where natural and man-made disasters are likely to strike hardest, cutting down reaction time, creating a core group of soldiers familiar with the area who could lead a military response -- but then I'm not a minister charged with the safety of the Canadian public.

Obviously I got it wrong. Thank goodness General Anne McLellan is there to help us get it right, and help explain the "message" of the ad.

Gee, why didn't John Duffy explain all that to Mike Duffy instead of attempting to shut him up? John and Anne need to talk more.

Who wants to have Anne McLellan on TV to explain this, once and for all? I'm sorry, but one email doesn't cut it. Come on, Minister McLellan, set the record straight!

Conservative Party details its position on child labour

Presumably a fully-staffed working group spent months weighing the pros and cons, while pollsters gathered public opinion to come up with this policy statement:

This waste of time was brought to you by the Liberal Party:

Mr. Harper’s proposal to “protect” property rights borrows heavily from radical right-wing conservatives today in the United States who want to use the “protection” of property rights to prevent the United States government from regulating.

Led by Justice Clarence Thomas, the “Constitution-in-Exile” movement seeks to return the American legal landscape to the Lochner Era of the 1930s, where the Court struck down laws forbidding child labour, setting a minimum wage, establishing workplace safety standards, and promoting unionization, all in the name of “protecting” property rights.

The federal government [under Liberal Pierre Trudeau] feared including property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Section 7 as a direct result of this American experience when drafting the Charter.

We now return to regularly scheduled programming.

Liberal Party quotes a "prominent Canadian conservative blogger" on their website

Apparently, I have been noticed.

Great.

From a Liberal Party post (that's right, a Liberal Party post) "Is Stephen Harper Serious About Adding Property Rights to the Charter?":

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper wants to add property rights to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

“I think there should be property rights protection in our Charter,” Mr. Harper said during Tuesday night’s Leaders’ Debate.

Can he be serious?

Mr. Harper’s radical proposal to include property rights in the Charter could be used to strike down laws that protect workers, children, unions and the environment.

<snip>

Prominent Canadian conservative blogger Stephen Janke lays out the potential implications of this idea in a post on Angry in the Great White North:

“[Harper’s proposal] impacts everything. People who have seen property values destroyed by environmental legislation limiting development without compensating landowners. Gun-owners who are faced with confiscation of their legally purchased weapons without any recourse…. Intellectual property owners, such as pharmaceutical companies, being strong-armed by the government to hand over valuable patents so that the government can legislate, distribute, and profit from them.” (available at http://stevejanke.com/archives/150637.php)

Is this why Harper wants to include property rights in the Charter? Remember, Mr. Harper called Canada a “Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term.”

OK, to be clear, what I was trying to do was enumerate reasons why property rights are a good thing.

This is sort of embarrassing. Stephen Taylor is going toss me out of the Blogging Tories for sure. Ezra Levant is going to ban me from the Shotgun.

On the other hand, what does it say that the Liberals are coming to conservative blogs for articulate and thoughtful commentary on the issues to post on their website?

Alberta Liberal candidate ashamed of her party

Liberal candidate Judy Stewart

From the most recent Airdrie City View (not yet online):

Liberal candidate "ashamed" of her party's ads

Nathan Anderson
Airdrie City View

In front of a group of middle schoolers, Wild Rose Liberal candidate Judy Stewart officially let her own party have it, Jan. 11.

Stewart denounced Liberal Party campaign advertisements released the previous day, advertisements intended to vilify Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper.

"I'm not wearing red," Stewart told the students of Ralph McCall Middle School, "I'm not wearing my colours this one day of the campaign because I'm ashamed of these negative attack ads."

Earlier in the day Stewart lodged a complaint with the Liberal Party's Edmonton office over the ads.

While few of the children in attendance at the school event had seen the ads, Stewart's announcement drew an ovation in the middle of her opening statement.

Stewart said after the event that her party's decision to run attack ads doesn't make any sense.

"We have a very good national policy, why we should even care about what Stephen Harper would do is beyond me... I want to talk about out policies and the things we can do," said Stewart.

"It's not just the Liberals. The NDP launched an ad before Christmas that was senseless garbage. Then the Conservatives had one that made Paul Martin look like some sort of outlaw... What kind of messages are we teaching to our children," she said.

Wild Rose incumbent Member of Parliament Myron Thompson says the ads spell the beginning of the end for the down-in-the polls Liberals.

"I think having to resort to that level of campaigning means they are on a down hill slide. These ads will keep it going that way," he said.

The ads begin with a an unflattering close up photo of Harper, out of focus, and a military drum beat. They accuse Harper of everything from planning to put armed soldiers on Canadian streets, to being a puppet of the United States. Each ad ends with catchline "Choose your Canada" above some small print placed above Harper's upper lip, resembling an Adolf Hitler mustache. NDP candidate Shannon Nelles tends to agree with Thompson, saying that Stewart lambasting her own party's ads isn't a surprise.

"This is the only way for a Liberal to handle the situation they put themselves in. Admitting the problem is the first step," she said. Green Party candidate Sean Maw, a friend of Stewart, says her statement is the right way to handle the situation.

"Good for her - it shows she has integrity to stand up to her own party. When a party has been in power as long as the Liberals it is only human nature to become complacent and sloppy. It's inevitable. But she and candidates like her are the future of that party," he said.

"As for the ads, they are disgusting. They are an embarrassment to the system. Catering to fear and ignorance - the Liberals used to be better than that."

I wonder if there are more stories like this out there.

Mike Duffy vs John Duffy: The Off-Camera Encounter

This afternoon on Charles Adler's program on CJOB, Mike Duffy appeared, and described what happened. Here is my transcript of the conversation:

[Starts with a replay of the "military" ad]

Charles Adler: That's the ad that implies that our soldiers are a bunch of thugs that intimidate the population. Mike Duffy on CTV Newsnet, his program is called Countdown. I'll happen to be on it later at 8pm Eastern time.

Mike Duffy, last night, had one of the Paul Martin "pantry boys" with him, a spokesperson for the prime minister, John Duffy, no relation to Mike.

Here's what happened.

[Plays the audio of famous confrontation]

Mike Duffy was scheduled to be on this program today, and I don't see any reason not to bring him on just because he had a confrontation with someone very close to Paul Martin last night.

Mike, we're going to talk about the election, but the audience needs to know what happened. A talk show host like myself are sometimes slagged as just being entertainers, tabloid, looking for a charge, confrontational for the sake of being confrontational.

That's not what you do. What did you do, and why did you do it, last night?

Mike Duffy: Well, I've sat and listened over the last thirty years to an awful lot of political BS, Charles, and for 99.99% of the time, I've been quiet, listened and let people do their thing, and trusted the judgment of the audience to make a decision as to who's right and who's wrong on the issues. But if you're not allowed to raise an issue, if you can't debate an issue because you're not allowed to raise it, you don't get a chance to put that issue in front of the Canadian public. In other words, it becomes a sin of omission.

And something that happened to me last night during the commercial break when I was alone in the TV studio with the studio crew. John Duffy ran in from the make-up room during the commercial break and began hectoring me. I was sitting down and he was standing up. He was putting the fingers in the eyeballs and saying "You will *not* raise this issue!" and blah-blah-blah.

The next thing they're yelling "Twenty seconds!" He runs out and I come back up on the air and try to do my job.

Later on, he comes on with the others and he starts at it again. And so that's why I gave the answer I gave. I don't want to be part of the news story but my philosophy is we put all the opinions on the table and let the people argue it out. The public is smart and they'll make their own decision. That's how it works in a democracy. But if you're not allowed to put an issue on the table because one of the participants physically threatens you then I don't think that's appropriate and that's why I said what I said and I really don't want to go down this road because I don't want this to be about me or John Duffy. We all have bad days in our lives and let's just get on with things.

Mike Duffy goes on to praise John Duffy as a skilled writer, thinker, and strategist. Mike Duffy clearly wants to put this behind him. John Duffy does too, I'll wager.

I suppose we should all do the same.

Oh well.

The audio file is available at the CJOB Audio Vault, January 11, 2pm. The Mike Duffy interview begins at the 44:10 mark.

Young Liberal of Canada Executive concedes conservative bloggers are winning the day

Jason Cherniak is a major Liberal Party activist and a blogger:

I am currently working as an articling student at a major Toronto law firm. I graduated from Dalhousie Law School in May 2005 and went to Trinity College at the University of Toronto for undergrad. I am a recent former member of the National Executive of the Young Liberals of Canada and chaired the YLC Convention in March.

Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson participated in an online question-and-answer session with readers. Jason Cherniak comments:

Jason Cherniak: John, as the campaign goes on, I am finding that blogs are having a greater and greater impact. Although I would argue that the Conservative bloggers are winning the day, that is a different issue entirely. I am really curious to know whether you read any blogs and whether you think they have the capability of becoming even more important in Canadian political reporting.

Thanks, Jason.

By the way, John Ibbitson doesn't read blogs. He reads books.

Mike Duffy stands up for the media

Angry Mike


Smacked John

[Update: For the benefit of Charles Adler fans, I've bumped this post to the top to make it easier to find. I haven't added any new material.]

[Update: Stephen Harper's lead has evapourated overnight as Mike Duffy has become the hands-down favourite choice to win on January 23.]

The Liberal Party top strategists continue to makes us wonder what qualifications are required for the job. Clearly a lack of common sense is not an obstacle to becoming a "top strategist".

Watch this remarkable and memorable exchange, first captured by ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

John Duffy is a top Liberal strategist. Apparently he thought a good strategy would be to try to intimidate Mike Duffy of CTV, threatening him in some unrevealed way to not bring up the horrible Liberal ad equating Canadian soldiers to some sort of cadre of Conservative brownshirts.

Mike probably told John to stow it, and that he would ask whatever he damn well pleased. Now angry, John makes the startling decision to scold Mike, on camera, for asking the question.

Why? Who knows? He's supposed to be a top strategist. I wonder what a crappy strategist would do. Could it be any worse?

The Liberals, via their War Room brain trust, have alienated CTV, and their top political reporter. If Paul Martin has any sense left at all, he'll fire John Duffy tonight. Immediately. And hope against hope that Mike Duffy accepts that as apology enough.

Mike Duffy wasn't angry because someone tried to intimidate him, I'd reckon. He was angry because an arrogant political operator, fresh from smearing Canada's military for political gain, was trying to undermine the function of the free press.

Bloggers, I've always thought, have been too quick to taunt the main stream media. Maybe the MSM has become sloppy and lazy in large part of late. I've been critical plenty of times. But I think there is a strong streak of professionalism and pride, and over the course of this election, in parallel with the Liberal slide, we've seen the media, in large part, shaking off the funk they've been in.

John Duffy besmirched Mike Duffy's professional pride, not just once, but twice. And on camera. So on behalf of himself, his network, his colleagues, and maybe on behalf of amateurs like us, Mike Duffy breaks a cardinal rule and becomes part of the story, in order to cut John Duffy down to size, and left John Duffy and his party and his leader looking like fools on national TV.

NDP inadvertently defends the Conservatives

The NDP never names Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party by name, but in their press release, they pull no punches in their excoriation of the Liberal attack ads, noting that 500 army troops would be in Winnipeg, participating in exercise Charging Bison:

"Charging Bison" is a Canadian Forces training exercise to help our soldiers prepare for the tough, complex and dangerous jobs they will be facing in places like Afghanistan.

But if other parties were like the Liberals, there would be ominous ads threatening that a Liberal victory would mean "soldiers in the streets of Winnipeg. With guns."

But we're not Liberals, so we don't manipulate the truth to scare Canadians - or insult the brave men and women in our armed forces.

And one final point - the last time we saw large numbers of soldiers in the streets of Winnipeg, it was another election year - 1997. They were helping to save the city from flooding.

Inadvertently defending the Conservatives. But then an attack on the Liberals is what they need to do right now.

Of course, there is the sincere feeling of disgust and disappointment at the way the Canadian Armed Forces were treated in this ad. But the NDP is using this situation to piggy-back what is probably going to be their final message in this campaign.

If the Liberals really are imploding, and they are shedding support, the NDP needs to act fast to collect as many of those votes as possible. Many of course will go to the Tories, either because of personal conviction, or because of a feeling that if the Tories are going to win this, the local MP had better be from the winning party. Many other Liberal voters will choose to stay home instead of vote for the party.

There is an opportunity here for the NDP to peel off support. If the result of the election is a forgone conclusion, or just about, the strategy changes. The previous concern was of not attacking the Liberals too much for fear of a Tory surge causing strategic voters to shift their support from the NDP to a Liberal Party still in the running.

If the Liberals are out of it, then the gears have to shift, and the NDP has to try to collect as many Liberal voters as possible before they go Tory. Attacking the Tories doesn't do the trick, because frankly the Conservatives might be too far along to be vulnerable to stagnant and predictable NDP attacks. But by attacking the Liberals, the NDP sends a message to these new voters in play that the NDP is not just another flavour of Liberal Party.

It might work.

CBC Promo Girl doing Liberal attack ad voice-overs? Not true

Shauna McDonald

According to the rabble crowd, including rabble contributor Scott Piatkowski, the woman providing the voice for the Liberal attack ads is the CBC "promo girl" Shauna McDonald.

Let's assume Piatkowski is right about this. Frankly, I can't tell one way or the other.

I've contacted my friend at the CBC, who contacted CBC Winnipeg, and I'm told that it is definitely not Shauna McDonald. Frankly, I'm relieved.

Is she volunteering? Is she getting paid by the Liberal Party? Is she getting paid by the CBC? Was she selected by the Liberal Party ad team under Jack Fleischmann, or by one of the crew at Bensimon-Byrnes?

Is it just a coincidence then that CBC resources are being used on Liberal campaign ads? Or is it just accepted practise? Are there any other CBC personnel contributing to the Liberal ad effort?

And how would the management at the CBC, a crown corporation, feel about their people, especially on-air talent, participating in such over-the-top partisan activities, even if it is on their own time?

A corollary question: Where does the Conservative Party go for voice-over talent and other professional help?

Paul Martin and John Duffy

Anyone else wondering what Paul Martin had to say to John Duffy today?

I wonder if the mole knows?

Here, moley, moley. I've got a nice piece of cheese for you.

No wait. Mice like cheese. Dammit.

The Conservatives indulge in some Yankee-bashing of their own

From the news release emailed out this morning:

Conservative MPs Monte Solberg and Jason Kenney today rebuked the Liberal Party of Canada for its offensive American-style attack ad that insults Canadian Forces members, Canadian reservists, and Canada’s veterans. The ad suggested that the presence of Canadian Forces members in Canadian cities poses a menacing threat to society. [emphasis added]

The fact that a Canadian party came up with the ad, with the help of a Canadian advertising firm located in downtown Toronto, means that there is nothing uniquely "American" about it.

I call on the Conservatives to avoid the use of the phrase "American-style" to mean tasteless or crude.

Attack the ad on its content and its presentation, but don't try to pander to the quintessential Canadian smugness born of some misguided idea that we are morally superior to the Americans.

There was nothing "American" about that ad. It was 100% home-grown Canadian content. Let's not try to assuage our collective embarrassment by suggesting it was anything else.

I have to say I was disappointed to see that phrase used in this email. I hope someone clears the air on that.

Studying the Red Book...closely

Here's an interesting thing I've noticed. These are the properties of the Liberal Red Book posted at the Western Standard:

Notice the creation date? January 9, 2006, 12:53:50 PM.

It was then modified on January 10, 2006, 11:58:36 PM.

But as has been noted, there is no mention of the key plank in the platform announced at the debate on January 9 to remove the ability of the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause.

The debate took place a mere seven hours after this document was created.

Does this suggest that the idea was cooked up during those seven hours? Maybe during the drive over to the studio? Maybe in the dressing room?

It was such a shock that the authors of this document were not prepared to include it in the text after it was announced, just in case you were thinking that it was deliberately left out in order to help keep it a secret.

Any person who thinks constitutional change can be planned on the fly in a panic could not possibly be fit for office.

The wait is over...Liberal Red Book is now available

The policy platform of the federal Liberal Party hasn't actually been released.

But it is available.

At the conservative magazine, the Western Standard, published by Ezra Levant.

I can only assume the mole has struck again.

Go read it. Analysis to follow.

1: No mention anywhere about the notwithstanding clause! If we needed any proof that Team Martin was winging it when they decided to tear open and constitution in a desperate ploy for votes, I thing we've got it.

2: Page 77 suggests the following for improving democracy: more free votes, more power to Parliamentary committees, more transparency and oversight for appointees. Sounds like an attempt to steal the Conservative Federal Accountability Act or NDP ethics packages. But those documents run many pages. The Liberal Red Book has two pages devoted to the subject.

3: [thanks to a reader]: Liberals have already addressed wait times! In BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec -- shorter wait times. In Nova Scotia....a web site showing wait times. I guess something to look at while you wait. [page 11]

Did Anne McLellan willingly use a law she knew was unconstitutional?

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan

Anne McLellan, the Liberal MP for Edmonton Centre, is Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

But from 2002 to 2003, she was Minister of Health. And while she was Minister of Health, she was told by her own bureaucrats that a particular provision in the Food and Drug Act would almost certainly not withstand a court challenge on the grounds of freedom of speech.

This blogger has in his possession a memo proving that Anne McLellan knew this to be true.

Yet despite being armed with this knowledge, and despite being a law professor, a dean at the University of Alberta law school, and despite having served on the board of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Anne McLellan voted against a change in this unconstitutional law, and then used this unconstitutional law to prosecute a private firm in Alberta.

I can only speculate that vested interests, and perhaps well-heeled donors, won out over the Charter, over freedom of speech, and over Anne McLellan's supposed commitment to the civil liberties of Canadians. Or maybe she doesn't really think the Charter matters all that much.

The section in question prohibits certain types of advertising:

3. (1) No person shall advertise any food, drug, cosmetic or device to the general public as a treatment, preventative or cure for any of the diseases, disorders or abnormal physical states referred to in Schedule A.

(2) No person shall sell any food, drug, cosmetic or device

(a) that is represented by label, or

(b) that the person advertises to the general public

as a treatment, preventative or cure for any of the diseases, disorders or abnormal physical states referred to in Schedule A.

For example, it is well known that folic acid, taken early in pregnancy, helps prevents certain birth defects. But I would be arrested and fined under this provision of the Food and Drugs Act if I bought air time to inform pregnant women of this fact and offer my brand of folic acid supplements.

Note that the provision does not punish snake oil. Any product, herbal or artificial, cannot be advertised, efficacious or otherwise.

Why can't I reach out to fellow Canadians, as long as I'm not lying? As it is, the major pharmaceuticals are not affected by this law. They don't depend on advertising. They sell directly to the government, which then distributes drugs through the Canadian health care system.

It is the manufacturer of herbal alternatives that are hobbled by these restrictions. Doctors don't prescribe them. The law says they can't advertise.

If the product is not illegal, and meets standards for safety, then why can't we talk about them openly?

The answer is that we almost certainly can, and the law itself is illegal:

Look in the top right corner of this memo from October 2002. The stamp indicates that Health Minister McLellan saw the memo. The memo, in part, reads:

"...Department of Justice considers that the current provisions would probably not withstand a Charter challenge. Forthcoming under separate cover is a legal opinion of a possible charter challenge on the grounds of freedom of speech."

In March 2003, Dr James Lunny (a chiropractor), Canadian Alliance MP for Nanaimo-Alberni, introduced Bill C-420, to change the way "Natural Health Products" are handled by the Food and Drug Act, essentially treating them as foods instead of drugs, and repealing sections 3(1) and (2) of the Food and Drug Act limiting advertising:

“There is something wrong with the way Health Canada manages natural health products. The new Natural Health Products Directorate is maintaining antiquated subsections 3(1) and 3(2), and will continue to take products with a health claim off the m a r k e t . H e a l t h Canada sent the police to raid the computers of a little company in Raymond, Alberta, and has obstructed delivery of the product,” stated Dr. Lunney.

Are herbal medications as efficacious as traditional pharmaceuticals? I'm not going to make that judgment.

The case in Raymond, Alberta involved Truehope Nutritional Support Ltd, and clearly there is a serious difference of opinion.

Perhaps Truehope sells snake-oil. But the officials in Justice decided that talking about snake-oil is protected speech.

In March 2003, law professor and civil libertarian Anne McLellan voted against repealing those sections of the Food and Drug Act limiting the freedom of speech of producers and distributers of these products.

This despite the fact that law professor and civil libertarian Anne McLellan knew that the law in question was almost certainly unconstitutional on the grounds of freedom of speech.

In July 2003, Health Canada, under the leadership of law professor and civil libertarian Anne McLellan, raided Truehope for contravening sections 3(1) and (2) of the Food and Drug Act.

This despite the fact that law professor and civil libertarian Anne McLellan knew that the law in question was almost certainly unconstitutional on the grounds of freedom of speech.

This makes a mockery of Prime Minister Paul Martin's attempt to portray himself as the defender of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when his most powerful minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, a professor of law, a civil libertarian, knowingly supported and prosecuted a law she knew was unconstitutional.

Cornering the tinfoil hat vote

A Liberal attack ad that was quickly pulled:

So what exactly was the message? That Canadian soldiers can't be trusted? That Stephen Harper will use Canadian soldiers to suppress dissent? To mount a coup?

That Canadian soldiers would join him?

This is absurd. Absurd and insulting.

I suppose the Liberals are trying to corner the tinfoil hat vote. They're welcome to it.

Has Anne McLellan been negligent in guarding Canada's borders?

Today, the Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise, the union representing Canada's unarmed border guards, released a report on what it claims to be the deliberate plan by the government to deny sidearms to border guards, and to mislead the guards, Parliament, and the Canadian people as to the risks faced by border guards defending Canada's access points, even as border guards have been tasked with arresting fugitives and smugglers, a change that happened in July 2002.

Along with the report, CEUDA issue three open letters, one to Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan, one to Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) President Alain Jolicoeur, and one to the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser.

The CBSA falls under Anne McLellan's cabinet portfolio.

CEUDA makes some startling allegations, and wants the Auditor General to investigate. In 2002, a Calgary-based risk management firm ModuSpec was hired to evaluate the risks associate with the duties of Canada's border guards. A draft report was delivered, and then a final report issued. CEUDA alleges that the report was altered:

From documents obtained, it is clear that ModuSpec's original "draft" Final Report, or "Working Copy", was submitted to the CCRA [Canada Customs and Revenue Agency] and not to the joint union-management Occupational Heath and Safety Committee. That original draft called for an armed police (not Customs) presence at six large border crossings throughout Canada, namely the Windsor Tunnel, Windsor Bridge, Peace Bridge, Bluewater Bridge, Douglas/Pacific Highway, and Lacolle. Presumably, as a result of discussions between ModuSpec and unspecified persons at the CCRA, the armed presence recommendation was removed and replaced with a recommendation against arming Customs Officers. The fact of that change was not conveyed to CEUDA prior to the release of the Final Report in February of 2003.

That quote comes from the Northgate Report, a study commissioned by CEUDA that documents the evidence that the Liberal government, first under Jean Chretien, and then under Paul Martin, refused to arm Canada's border guards, to the point of ignoring the recommendations of studies the government itself commissioned:

Moreover, Northgate obtained an undated copy of a memorandum written after the launch of the ModuSpec study, but before its completion, by CCRA Commissioner Rob Wright to then Minister Elinor Caplan. In it, Mr. Wright notes:

"Notwithstanding our agreement to conduct the Job Hazard Analysis, based on our analysis to date, it remains our position that Customs Officers do not require firearms to carry out their duties safely and effectively."

Mr. Wright then advises the Minister that a Deputy Ministerial Committee that he cochaired would, in the future, be recommending against further arming of federal enforcement officers. This almost certainly refers to what is the now the Government of Canada policy on the same subject, not issued until November 2003.

It will be interesting to hear from Minister McLellan how the government intends to keep smuggled American guns off the streets of Toronto when her own border agency is purposely kept unarmed, and undermanned:

Information received suggests that CBSA/CCRA has operated a managerial 'bonus' system where individual managers received personal financial benefit for meeting BMP [Border Management Plan] quotas and for reducing staffing costs. Such a system in a law enforcement environment invites corruption of the enforcement mandate which is precisely what the Northgate study suggests may be ongoing.

Reduced staffing costs. Any doubt about which party stands on guard for thee?

Remember that line from Monday's debate, where Paul Martin huffily reminded Stephen Harper that the US is our neighbour, but not our nation? From the Northgate Report:

It was discovered that U.S. Customs management has directed their Officers to not take their sidearms with them if they go into Canada to assist Canadian Officers. Fortunately for some Canadian Officers, this policy appears not to always be strictly followed. The reliance on U.S. Customs by some Canadian border locations is a verifiable sign of the risk to the lives of Canadian Border Services Officers and further demonstrates the need to provide sidearms to Officers in these locations.

At a minimum of 12 locations (see Table 12), U.S. Customs and/or Canadian Border Services Officers reported incidents of U.S. Customs providing an armed back-up to CBSA Officers. Northgate associates suspect it occurs at other remote POE across Canada.

At the locations listed in Table 12, U.S. Officers, some of whom were interviewed for the Study, would keep watch of the Canadian PIL. When they saw a car sit too long in the lane, they would walk over to see if the Canadian Officer needed assistance. Officers also did not wait for the U.S. to wander over and check on the Canadian Officer and called U.S. Customs requesting their armed assistance.

Also interviewed was one Officer who stated he hit his PASS panic button during a dangerous situation, because he knew the PASS panic button system automatically called U.S. Customs first.

There is much, much more. The Northgate Report alleges, for example, that two CCRA reports and one Audit Canada report were suppressed, again because they recommended arming border guards. Other reports and documents were destroyed. Labour complaints related to safety were undermined by a refusal to share reports related to risk factors.

I will continue to read this material -- the report runs almost 200 pages.

But it is clear that Canada's border guards are very upset, and have been for years. The union member who emailed me with the heads up says a mass walkout is possible.

But then they might just wait until January 24 before making a decision. Stephen Harper has made border security an issue:

Measures to crack down on firearms smuggling and toughen security at Canada's border crossings, including giving our customs agents the support and equipment they need to do their job.

CEUDA had this message for Anne McLellan:

Should you remain in a position to deal with these matters following January 23rd, 2006, CEUDA remains willing to work with you constructively to do what's right for front line and inland CBSA officers and Canadians.

Sounds like they plan to wait.

Cynical about pollsters and newspaper publishers

From the Ottawa Citizen via NealeNews:

Two major newspapers and a pollster decided to sit on the results of a weekend poll that showed a double-digit breakthrough by the Conservatives over the Liberals because they felt it would be irresponsible to release the "stunning" numbers on the day of the English debate.

Calling it a "difficult decision," Frank Graves, the president of Ekos Research Associates, said he and his media clients, the Toronto Star and Montreal's La Presse, agreed to do further polling yesterday to increase the sample size to 1,200 respondents. He confirmed the weekend findings -- from a sample of 500 calls -- indicated Stephen Harper and the Conservatives were on their way to forming a majority government similar to the ones enjoyed by Brian Mulroney in 1984 and Jean Chretien in 1993.

I understand that a pollster's reputation is critical to his success. One bad poll and he'll never be allowed to live it down.

But between you, me, and the virtual lamppost, do you think if the "stunning" numbers showed a Tory collapse, that the Toronto Star would have sat on the numbers?

Maybe I'm being a tad too cynical.

Ironically, by not releasing the numbers in a very public way, the Toronto Star ensured that everyone following the election went into the debate pondering just exactly how far ahead the Tories had surged.

Maybe the folks at the Star figured that it was a win-win situation. By delaying, they avoid the embarrassment of publishing a bad poll, on the remote chance that the poll had been wrong, while at the same time drumming up intense interest in what the poll would say, and so sales of the newspaper.

See? There I am being cynical again.

But I thought Paul Martin was the face of federal liberalism

Via Bourque, an invitation to a fundraiser for Michael Ignatieff:

Nowhere on the invitation is Paul Martin mentioned. Not a big deal in of itself, but when David Paul Smith introduces someone as the "new face of federal liberalism", you take notice.

David Smith was a major Chretien booster:

In the 1990s, he worked as a senior backroom adviser to Liberal leader Jean Chretien, playing a leading role in the party's election campaigns. A Chretien loyalist, Smith was appointed to the Canadian Senate in 2002, and was outspoken in his support for Chretien against attempts by Paul Martin to force the Prime Minister to retire. Since Martin became Liberal leader, Smith has urged party unity.

Well, party unity is not an issue any longer. Now it is about the post-Martin era. A potential challenger, Ignatieff, is being introduced by a long time Chretien loyalist.

The knives are being sharpened, and Jean Chreitien is plotting his revenge from beyond the political grave.

Debate? Martin's attack? Here's real news!

The election home page of the Toronto Star, the morning after the debate, during which Paul Martin went on the attack, and shocked the Conservatives and the nation with a promise to protect minority rights (ie, same-sex marriage) by eliminating the notwithstanding clause:

Guess it's time for Plan B. No wait, this was Plan B. Plan A was to wait until after Christmas to start campaigning and allow Stephen Harper to reveal himself to be scary. Or was Plan A to try to scare the opposition into delaying the non-confidence vote because of the backlash that Canadians would direct at them for forcing a Christmas election?

Hard to say. When each plan seems to flop, they start to sort of merge together.

Conservatives are charting a course toward a majority on Jan. 23, according to a new national poll completed yesterday.

The survey, conducted by EKOS Research Associates for the Toronto Star and La Presse, shows Stephen Harper's Conservatives have sailed into majority government territory after a stunning week of rising popularity, largely at the expense of the Liberal party.

The EKOS survey of 1,240 Canadians through the weekend and yesterday found 39.1 per cent support for the Conservatives. The Liberals had 26.8 per cent support; the NDP 16.2 per cent; the Bloc Quebecois 12.6 per cent; and Green party 4.6 per cent.

"This is the breakthrough Harper has been waiting for," EKOS president Frank Graves said.

This is, of course, the survey that was delayed for 24 hours so that EKOS could interview more voters. The survey suggested something so remarkable that Frank Graves couldn't believe it.

Apparently, his eyes no longer deceive him. The Conservatives are beating the Liberals in both Ontario and Quebec:

In Ontario, the Conservatives have widened the gap to a 10-percentage-point lead over the Liberals. Of the 518 Ontarians surveyed, 43.8 per cent supported the Tories, 33.5 per cent the Liberals, 16.2 per cent the NDP, and 5.4 per cent the Greens.

Even in Quebec, the Conservatives are ahead of the Liberals. A total of 330 people were surveyed in that province and 19.1 per cent threw their support behind the Tories, compared with 17.4 per cent for the Liberals.

Now the two weeks from hell. Why is Stephen Harper walking funny? You try walking on eggshells.

Charter games: The Conservatives reveal a bold idea, unnoticed

Paul Martin's surprise announcement to yank the notwithstanding clause from the constitution (technically, it would remain, but only the provinces could use it, effectively giving Quebec the power to pass any sort of language law it likes without any chance of the federal government intervening) is lame, and seems like a haphazard desperate measure.

Heck, they may have been planning this for months. Who can tell?

But in the hubbub, a far more signficant change to the constitution was announced, a change that would directly affect all Canadians and change the relationship between the people and the government.

In the midst of the nonsense over contributors to the Conservative campaign, Stephen Harper blurted this non-sequitur:

I think the Charter should be strengthened. I think there should be property rights protection in our Charter.

It's too bad it was lost in the silliness, because unlike the theatrics of the Liberal plan to deny Parliament, the elected representatives of the people, their only tool, imperfect as it is, to resist the arbitrary pronouncements of an activist court, the inclusion of property rights is both modest and profound.

It seems so simple. Canadians would have a constitutional protection against the government taking away property without compensation, and against arbitrary legislation limiting their use of their property.

This impacts everything. People who have seen property values destroyed by environmental legislation limiting development without compensating landowners. Gunowners who are faced with confiscation of their legally purchased weapons without any recourse, even simply to challenge whatever compensation package the government sees fit to implement. Intellectual property owners, such as pharmaceutical companies, being strong-armed by the government to hand over valuable patents so that the government can legislate, distribute, and profit from them. Pensioners who have seen their government pension surplus raided for government programs, or to pay down government debt.

This will be a hard one to pass, though. Philosophically, neither the Liberals, nor the NDP, nor the Bloc would naturally support this conservative, individualistic idea. Provinces, who have enjoyed the ability to pick and chose property to confiscate and manage, would shriek at the prospect of the onus being put on them to justify their confiscations, instead of on citizens to justify the social value of their continued ownership.

If the Conservatives are serious about this, I think they would have to go straight to the people. Bypass parliament and the provinces and build up a groundswell of support.

It's too bad this platform plank was just blurted out, virtually unnoticed. It deserves a news conference and a serious examination of the impact as any Tory election promise that has come before.

Of course, Stephen Harper might have been musing. I suspect he wants to tackle this, and soon, but only after a Conservative majority is in place.

Let's hope we don't have to wait too long.

A thought about leaks and surprises

Here's a weird thought.

Do you think Paul Martin's surprise tonight in the debate -- his promise to eliminate the notwithstanding clause from the constitution -- was born of the massive leak exposed on this blog?

I know it sounds arrogant, but follow me on this. You are in the Liberal War Room. You learn last night that not only has the mole talked, he's provided nearly incontrovertible evidence of his existence. Emails, which you know are authentic, have appeared on the blog of one of those meddling kids!

Tonight is the debate. The Conservatives quite possibly have in their possession the entire notebook Paul Martin would be using during the debate.

What do you do?

You lock the smallest bunch of advisors in a room. Just the trusted spinmeisters. No lawyers. No outside experts. No consultants. Just the yes-men you know are absolutely loyal.

There is no time to re-write the playbook, so you have to come up with something big and come up with it fast. What is Stephen Harper's weakness? He's a Christian, a family man, and a social conservative.

Of course! Same-sex marriage! But you already won that battle.

Or did you?

If you can somehow imply that the battle is going on, you can be the champions of minority rights again. Harper helped by saying he'll have another vote on the issue. But he won't invoke the notwithstanding clause.

You don't believe him of course...wait a minute...that's it!

You promise to amend the constitution to remove the clause, thus pulling the rug out from under Harper!

Brilliant.

Of course, fearful of a leak, you've kept out the people who might have told you why this was a bad idea. Why constitutionally, you can't remove this clause without rethinking other aspects of the balance of powers. Why the provinces won't go for it**. Why you'd expend valuable political capital on a fool's errand. Why you'd be handing control over to the opposition by giving them the means to defeat you in a vote on this issue that none of them have a vested interest in.

** Actually, since the proposal only affects the ability of the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause, the provinces might actually support this serious reduction in federal power. I didn't appreciate this subtlety when I first wrote this. The funny thing is, I'm not sure turning this particular point around 180-degrees makes the idea any more palatable.

So with this super-secret surprise in your pocket, you go to the debate. You spring this on the other leaders. If they looked surprised, it's only because they couldn't believe what a silly idea this was. But I wonder if the real look of shock appeared on the faces of every Liberal watching, from the loyal voter to every member of cabinet running for re-election to every person in the war room who wasn't at that meeting.

Except for the mole. He or she is the one grinning.

The Debate: The Layton Disappointment

Of the four leaders, perhaps Jack Layton was the biggest disappointment for me. He might have answered 30% of the questions directly. Maybe more, but it didn't seem like it. He seemed to use every question as an excuse to talk about seniors, socialized housing, and childcare.

He doesn't get it. We know his position on those issues. When he is asked about how he would work with other parties, for example, the answer is not why the other two national parties have inferior programs. The fact is, one of them will win. If it's a minority, the Layton might have an opportunity to influence the direction of the country. Canadians deserve to have an answer to the question of how he would barter and compromise.

Jack Layton might have to provide leadership from third place, as it were. I have no idea how he plans to do it. In fact, I'm not even sure if he knows, since he seems incapable of discussing it.

Stephen Harper answered the question about managing a minority government by talking about how it could work, including how it would work with the separatist Bloc as a unique case. He might have wanted to talk about something else, like Liberal corruption, but he respected the question and tried to answer it.

I was hoping for more respect from Jack Layton.

The Debate: Separatism

Paul Martin and Gilles Duceppe get into it, and it's pretty nasty. For Duceppe, Quebec is different from the rest of Canada -- not better or worse, just different.

Paul Martin gets passionate and asserts that all Canadians are the same. Well, that's a bit of a broad statement.

Stephen Harper is asked to get into it. Harper will work to find room for Quebec aspirations. I don't know if it can be done, but at least he doesn't dismiss Quebec the way Martin does. But Harper brings up the question of the debate challenge from Duceppe to Martin, that Martin declined. Harper makes a point that he would have debated Duceppe, and any prime minister should have accepted the challenge.

Ouch. I'll be interested in how the French press reacts tomorrow. Has Martin lost points by saying all Canadians are indistinguishable? That is not going to go down well.

Jack Layton? More childcare spaces. That will solve the unity problem. Whatever.

The Debate: Stephen Harper -- so very not scary

Question to Jack Layton: Stephen Harper has suggested that the Conservatives could work with the NDP on issues in a minority parliament. Is this possible?

Answer from Jack Layton: hiss-spit-snarl

Answer from Stephen Harper: Well, elections are not the time to make deals. Liked Ed Broadbent's ethics package and saw nothing incompatible with the Conservative plan. Of course all leaders are trying to sell their platform as the best for Canada. After the election, we'll still talk.

Later, Harper actually points out that the Bloc and NDP positions on transit funding can be made to work with the Conservative approach.

Isn't this the crazed neo-con that will destroy Canada? The one that needs to be stopped?

The Debate: An early impression

Nice try by the Liberals to take control by pledging to kill the notwithstanding clause.

Problem is, of course, that his idea is fatally flawed. The notwithstanding clause can be used by Parliament to ignore a Supreme Court Charter decision for five years. Clearly, Paul Martin is trying to revive the same-sex marriage debate. He wants to pull the clause in order to portray himself as the only leader that will guarantee same-sex marriage by removing the ability of Parliament to overturn it.

I am no fan of the notwithstanding clause. But removing it without re-balancing the relationship between Parliament and the Supreme Court will exacerbate the problem. Parliament has no oversight, constitutionally speaking, over the selection of judges. It is the exclusive domain of the executive branch. The legislative branch does not act as an effective counterweight to the executive branch.

The clause is an extreme tool in a constitutional system that seems to be built out of extremes.

Pulling the notwithstanding clause to score points with same-sex marriage supporters and to try to embarrass the Conservatives is ridiculous. It smells of desperation -- an attempt to get traction by shifting the focus from scandals to the Liberals' past success in passing Bill C-38 back on July 20. I just hope everyone sees that.

Two more Liberal ministers with some explaining to do

Prime Minister Paul Martin can now expect the company of Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Lucienne Robillard (Westmount-Ville-Marie, Quebec) and Canadian Heritage Minister Liz Frulla (Jeanne-Le Ber, Quebec) when reporters ask questions about scandals engulfing the Liberal Party.

From the Globe and Mail:

A secret organization called Option Canada was created before the 1995 referendum campaign and illegally spent several million dollars to promote national unity, two Quebec authors said Monday.

Normand Lester and Robin Philpot wrote Les secrets d'Option Canada (The Secrets of Option Canada) based on documents from the organization they say were left in a cardboard box behind a suburban Montreal shopping mall.

The book alleges that the Liberal government of the time under Prime Minister Jean Chretien ignored Quebec's electoral laws that limited each side of the referendum to a budget of $5 million each.

Option Canada allegedly spent up to $3.5 million illegally.

Paul Martin was finance minister at the time. Lucienne Robillard was the minister responsible for the federal referendum campaign. Liz Frulla was the vice-chair of the "NO" committee.

Surely one of those three had to know what was going on.

Mr. Lester said Liberal Leader Paul Martin, who was then finance minister, must have been aware of Option Canada and its spending.

He and Mr. Philpot also say that cabinet ministers Liza Frulla and Lucienne Robillard were also aware of what Option Canada was up to, as was Claude Dauphin, former president of Option Canada and a former Martin adviser.

Expect more "No comments" being lobbed at the Quebec press in the days ahead.

Paul Martin might try to point out that this is a 10-year-old story. That's true, but to that I respond with two points:

• If Quebeckers feel that their democratic process was undermined in 1995, they won't care if it happened 10 years ago or 10 minutes ago. Nor would a Canadian living in any other part of the country. Remember that every Quebec license plate bears the motto "Je me souviens" -- "I remember". Given the feelings that these revelations will engender in Quebec, it'll be amusing to see Paul Martin attempt to argue that only he and the Liberal Party can keep the lid on Quebec separatism.
• As Jason Roy of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia points out in the comments to this story in the Globe and Mail, "Mr. Martin is trying to downplay this by saying it is a 10 year old story. If memory serves me correctly the Liberals couldn't try to get an 8 year old speech by Stephen Harper out in the open fast enough."

Drinks for election night

From the rabblers:

Topic: What are you drinking Jan. 23?

response #1:

Lefties from coast to coast can cheer for the orange team while sipping on an NDPeel Me an Orange cocktail:

NDPeel Me an Orange

1 1/2 oz Beefeater Orange
3 oz tonic
Splash of orange juice. Garnish with an orange slice.

response #2:

Hemlock

The first respondent provides a link to this list of appropriately coloured drinks for election night, including the Conservatini.

As for the second respondent, well, sheesh, lighten up!

News too good to share?

A most interesting thread at Free Dominion, concerning this article published today at La Presse. Here is a clumsy translation from this French-language paper:

The last daily poll from EKOS shows such a spectacular showing for the Conservatives that the firm decided to wait this evening before revealing the results, in order to double the sample of 500 voters.

"Our data is so surprising that it would be irresponsible to reveal it on the eve of the debate", explained the president of EKOS, Frank Graves, to La Presse.

If the respondents repeat themselves today, one will be able to evoke the possibility of a majority Conservative government, he says.

"While waiting, the Conservatives have at least the wind in the sails. Something is occurring, it is certain. What remains to be specified, it is the exact size of this surge." According to the pollster, the Conservative wave strikes everywhere in Canada, including in Quebec, where it harms the Bloc Quebecois especially.

Elsewhere, it is the Liberals who are bailing out. This weekend, a survey CPAC-SES Research revealed already that 23% of the Quebeckers would prefer to have Conservative leader Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, whereas only 13% of them thought the same thing before Christmas.

Liberal leader Paul Martin and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe collect for their part 18% and 17% of support, which represents a tumble.

Results that scare pollsters?

Stephen Harper accepts the blame

Leadership:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is ready for prime time — even if that includes playing a starring role in Liberal attack ads on television.

But Harper insisted he is not worried this time because he does not believe the Liberal ads alone caused him to lose the last election.

"If you actually look back ... at the data, the Liberal attacks were less effective than they think they were," he said, marvelling that the Liberals appeared hell-bent on fighting the last war.

Harper added that he believes the Conservatives were architects of their own defeat 18 months ago.

"The big problem was we did not clearly define our agenda for the public," he confided.

"It wasn't that the Liberal attacks worked, it was that we did not communicate effectively where we would take the country. That was the problem," Harper said.

"I always reveal strategy afterwards," he joked.

In this campaign, the Tories have tried to unveil a substantive new policy each morning and spend the entire day talking about it.

Nice to hear a political leader taking the blame for something that went wrong:

The Martin government blamed 14 federal employees for the entire sponsorship scandal yesterday as the Opposition countered that it was the work of a web of well-organized Liberal "bandits."

Prime Minister Paul Martin took vigorous and government-wide actions to contain Tuesday's scathing report from the Auditor-General, but seemed to play down the extent of the problem yesterday, insisting that it was the work of a "very small group" of 14 people that could not have been caught earlier.

Interesting contrast.

Toronto Star readers voting Conservative?

In today's very unscientific reader poll, readers are asked to respond to this:

With polls showing the Conservatives leading are you more likely to vote:

• Bloc
• Conservatives
• Green
• Liberals
• NDP

Now Toronto is a huge Liberal stronghold. The NDP have their star candidates here in the persons of leader Jack Layton and his wife Olivia Chow.

Here are the results, so far:

Not good for the Liberals. It would require a massive shift of votes from the NDP to the Liberals to make up the difference this poll shows. If Toronto falls...

But then this is just a reader's poll, so perhaps we shouldn't read too much into it.

Operation Scratch-the-Buick

From the Globe and Mail:

Stephen Harper's Conservatives have opened up an eight-percentage-point advantage over the Liberals, the biggest gap of the campaign going into tonight's crucial debate, a new poll shows.

The poll of 1,500 demonstrates that Mr. Martin and his Liberals will have to move quickly to try to dent Mr. Harper's credibility.

But even that may be difficult, given the strong policy-heavy campaign the Conservative Leader laid down during the first half of the campaign.

The Liberals are expected to run aggressive advertisements aimed at reminding Canadians about the Conservative Party's previous positions on issues like the notwithstanding clause and the Iraq war. Earlier in the campaign, however, Mr. Harper made an effort to inoculate himself against such attacks by ruling out using the clause to ban gay marriage and rejecting any notion of sending Canadian soldiers to join the U.S. in the Middle Eastern conflict.

If you believe the leaked emails to be authentic, then you know that the attempt "to dent Mr. Harper's credibility" is the plan promoted by Jack Fleischmann, the Liberal Party's National Director of Advertising:

These [Conservative Party] messages are more finely crafted than anything they've done up to now.

The content is much stronger, the writing crisp. The tone is moderate, hopeful, upbeat.

I'd say we should take a look at producing material that scratches the paint on their bright new Buick.

I wonder if, in a day or two, some reporter is going to ask Paul Martin or one of the top campaign officials if they feel that they've successfully scratched the Conservative Buick.

Klander's comments require an apology

Patrick W Brown, the Conservative candidate for Barrie, is demanding that the incumbent, Liberal MP Aileen Carroll, apologize for (former) Liberal Party (Ontario) Executive Vice President Mike Klander's smear on Barrie:

Barrie’s Liberal candidate must immediately denounce and condemn “totally insensitive and absurd” statements that slander opponents of the Liberal Party and Barrie, the city she represents in Parliament.

Not only were the people of Barrie attacked by the Liberals, the whole City came under the shameless broadside of a top Liberal strategist Mike Kander who wrote:

“Check out the Live 8 website and the list of all the concert venues: Hyde Park, London; Circus Maximus, Rome; Red Square, Moscow, Palais de Verdaillis, Paris; Museum of Art, Philadelphia; Siegessaule, Berlin and finally Park Place in Barrie. Every one time I say that I can’t help but using the Monster Truck Announcer Voice – PARK PLACE IN BARRIE.”

“Barrie! Where the hell is Barrie? You know, London, Rome, Moscow, Berlin and Barrie. I’m sorry but I don’t even know what the hell the Siegessaule is, but it sure sounds more impressive than PARK PLACE.”

“I call upon Aileen Carroll to not only denounce the comments by the Executive Vice President of the Ontario wing of her federal party, but to apologize to everyone concerned, especially the citizens of Barrie,” said Patrick Brown, Conservative candidate for Barrie.

“To make derogatory comments about election opponents, especially making fun of physical deformities, is in outrageously poor taste,” said Brown. “But to show complete disrespect to a whole community, especially to one as significantly important to Canada as Barrie, is shocking.”

“It’s just another example of how crass, crude and contemptuous those running the Liberal Party really are toward what they perceive to be average Canadians.”

If you live in or around Barrie, or heck, even if you just like the place, and you think the people of Barrie deserve to have an MP who will defend them against nasty statements about their city made by a top Liberal strategist, send an email to Aileen Carroll, or give her a call at (704) 719-9039, and tell her you think Patrick Brown deserves an answer.

The Liberal Mole: A look at Liberal advertising planning

Ever wish you could be a fly on the wall while the Liberal Party plots and schemes? Not that other parties don't plot and scheme too, but the Liberals seem to do it with particular relish.

Well, thanks to the Liberal Party mole that everyone has been hinting at all week, we have the actual emails sent back and forth between high level Liberal Party advertising strategists back in August, responding to the announcement of the Conservative ad campaign. They plan the lines of attack, mock the Conservatives while paradoxically impressed with the crispness of their message, dismiss the NDP and the Bloc as irrelevant and distracting, and the consider the best time to start, with an eye on the lack of money to actually pay for advertising.

Quiz Time

Who knows what this is?

Here's a hint. The official name is Condylura cristata.

Now for extra points: Why would I be talking about this animal?

Stay tuned for the answer.

And I thought Christmas was over already...

...then I get another gift.

At The Province via NealeNews:

Svend Robinson's past troubles with the law are derailing his bid to become MP for Vancouver Centre, a new poll suggests.

Liberal incumbent Hedy Fry, the riding's MP since 1992, is in the lead in a Mustel Group Poll commissioned by The Province.

You can't help but feel sorry for the constituents in this riding, with a choice between the NDP thief and the Liberal loon:

Veteran incumbent Fry is trying to fend off a challenge from Robinson, who is attempting a political comeback after quitting politics in 2004 after confessing to stealing an expensive ring.

Well, it's their fault for not seriously considering the Conservative candidate, Tony Fogarassy.

Hedy Fry, of course, is famous for her allegation that racists in BC were burning crosses on lawns. Only in her fevered imagination, as it turned out.

So why is Robinson trailing 33% to 41% in this riding?

Twenty-five per cent cited "past criminal charges" or "honesty, integrity, and character." That's far behind the 44 per cent who said they "prefer policies of the other party."

But [pollster Evi Mustel] said it's notable because answers in this area were not prompted by pollsters and "the fact that one-quarter would volunteer it as a reason shows it is significant."

I'm not eager to see any Liberal MP win a seat, but in this case, Hedy Fry is the lesser of two evils. Svend Robinson stole a $64,000 ring, then when it was known that the authorities had videotape from security cameras, Robinson came forward, turned on the waterworks, spoke of stress and how he stole the ring for the poor to pay down the deficit to pay for a Guatemalan orphan's operation to give to his boyfriend, and walked away with nary a scratch.

Anyone else would have seen the inside of a jail cell, at least for a while.

It was bad enough that Jack Layton signed off on Svend Robinson's nomination papers. It seriously hurt Layton's credibility when it came to talking about higher ethical standards.

But if Svend Robinson succeeded in returning to Parliament Hill, it would have sent a terrible message. Law and order is a major issue in this campaign, and Robinson's very presence in the House of Commons would make a mockery of any debate on the subject. Not that the Liberal Party is much better on this count. Still, Hedy Fry is one Liberal MP I am rooting for on January 23.

Dueling budgets

From CTV:

In the latest assault on their Tory combatants, the Liberals are accusing Stephen Harper's Conservatives of making campaign promises that would drive the country back into a deficit of at least $12.4 billion over five years.

"There are a lot of question marks looming over the Conservative plan," Liberal candidate and Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said in a written statement.

"The biggest one is what their real agenda is, because this one cannot be delivered."

The Liberals say a Harper-led Tory government would have to rack up huge deficits or slash programs to realize their vision of a smaller government.

Slash programs? I rather think that's the point, but in this case of dueling forecasts, here is the Conservative response (via an emailed news release):

OTTAWA - The Conservative Party of Canada today released a letter from the Conference Board of Canada (attached) showing that the Conservative platform is fully affordable in each year from 2005 through 2011.

"In summary," wrote Paul Darby, Deputy Chief Economist of the CBoC, "we found that the Conservative Party's economic platform is affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011. In each year there is enough fiscal room to pay down at least $3 billion a year in debt, as in the [government's] fiscal plan."

The Conference Board also found that there is substantial surplus in the Conservative fiscal plan: "Over the five-year forecast horizon to 2010-2011, the CBoC economic and fiscal outlook suggests that there remains $15.7 billion in unallocated fiscal room, over and above the annual debt payment, which provides further cushion to ensure that deficits do not occur due to adverse economic effects."

The Conference Board was given access to the entire Conservative platform in order to conduct its analysis. The Conservative party will release its whole platform and supporting fiscal framework later this week.

"The Conservative plan includes balanced budgets, annual debt repayment, and a package of tax reductions far more generous than that offered by any other party," said Monte Solberg, the Conservative Party's Finance Critic.

Hey, aren't the Liberals the one who said the surplus was $1.9 billion, then when they realized an election was imminent, decided that the surplus was $9.1 billion and started making expensive promises?

And aren't the Liberals the ones who are broke?

But then some people figured this out already.

The messageless campaign revealed

From CTV via Bourque:

In yet more controversy on the Quebec front, Environment Minister Stephane Dion seemed to suggest it would be okay to vote Conservative or NDP.

"The key point is vote for candidates who believe in Canada to not vote for the Bloc," he said.

Though I suppose Stephane Dion should be credited for his intellectual honesty -- he was pulled into government for the sole mission of defeating the separatists -- but in the current campaign environment, this is ridiculous.

If a person running for office cannot articulate a reason to vote for him, he should not be running. He should not be running just as a way of spoiling someone else's chances at winning, in this case, the chances of the Bloc Quebecois.

He should be running because he believes he is best suited to represent the interests of his constituents. He has to believe that, even if the polls show the constituents are too dense to realize it. And if he is in that situation, then he has to redouble his efforts to enlighten them.

Give Jack Layton credit for understanding that. He won't form the government, but he won't encourage people to vote Liberal just to block the Conservatives from winning.

Jack Layton believes in himself and in the NDP message.

Which just goes to show that the Liberals don't have a message, and probably haven't had one for a very long time. The Liberal Party is in it for the power. Now that it appears that they might be denied that power, they have nothing to say. The only thing left to do is to attempt to manipulate the end result, in a final power play, still treating the voter as sheep, and telling people who aren't even listening to the Liberals how to vote.

This empty shell of a party is still arrogant even as it is losing.

I suppose power does that to you.

The Toronto Star putting dangerous words in Harper's mouth

The Toronto Star headlines the article:

Man the barricades! The Conservatives smell victory! They need to be humbled, because 12 years in oppositions, destroyed, fractured, and only painfully put back together, is not enough humbling for Canada's right!

Start voting strategically. Start voting Liberal.

Well, if you can't articulate a good reason to vote for the Liberals, I guess you are forced to come up with reasons against not voting Liberal.

Here's what Stephen Harper actually said:

Asked if he were frustrated that it appears electorally impossible for the Conservatives to win a majority, he bristled.

"I don't think we know that yet," Harper said.

"Polls will keep changing. As I said from the beginning, we'll know the result on Election Day. Nobody's voted yet," he said at a campaign event near Kitchener yesterday morning after some 2,000 people attended a London rally Friday.

"Any range of outcomes is possible, so I keep telling our people — stop these games of talking about minorities or majorities.

"We're nowhere near that yet. We've got ... a little over two weeks left. A lot can change; I suspect a lot will change between now and then."

Stephen Harper hasn't ruled it out and he hasn't ruled it in. In fact, he's saying the standard long-time-until-polling-day-it's-not-over-yet line.

But he is feeling good about the way things have gone:

Still, Harper could not resist taking a dig at media pundits who wrote him off before the election was called Nov. 29.

"A few weeks ago, if you read back in the first 10 days of this campaign, the conventional wisdom was that only one party (the Liberals) could possibly win this election. Now at least we're over that hurdle," he said.

And for that burst of confidence, the Toronto Star has to punish him.

The Liberal Party: Appreciating the contribution of women

From the Ottawa Citizen, November 25, 2004:

Immigration Minister Judy Sgro yesterday refused to fire her chief of staff after he went to a Toronto strip club to discuss the owner's request to obtain temporary work visas for foreign nude dancers.

Terry Koumoudouros, president of the House of Lancaster 1 and 2, said he called Ihor Wons, a top aide, close confidant and Ms. Sgro's campaign manager, before the June 28 election to seek his help in bringing strippers in from the Dominican Republic.

He was frustrated his clubs couldn't book strippers from Romania because of a dispute with a booking agency while the Immigration Department wouldn't give him visas for women from the Caribbean and Mexico.

Mr. Wons, who played a key role in getting Ms. Sgro to grant a temporary resident permit for a 25-year-old Romanian stripper and election volunteer, met Mr. Koumoudouros at the Lancaster 2 strip club to discuss his efforts to obtain visas for 18 exotic dancers.

Not only did Wons get Sgro to issue the resident permit for the stripper, Wons took the time and trouble to go to the Lancaster to meet with Koumoudouros to discuss getting visas for 18 more nude dancers.

I wonder if Wons expensed this bit of field work. How many ten and twenty dollars bills got listed under the category of "other"?

That help seems to have paid off. Judy Sgro's re-election signs were seen on the House of Lancaster II in Etobicoke.

To be fair, I think this is a setup. Strictly speaking, the Liberal candidate for that postal code is Mario Silva. The original House of Lancaster is in Michael Ignatieff's riding. Judy Sgro's riding of York West is north of these ridings.

But besides the amusement factor, it does make a mockery of Belinda Stronach's impassioned speech:

The Liberals are the most woman-friendly party, cabinet minister and one-time Conservative Belinda Stronach said at a campaign rally Thursday night in Newmarket.

Stronach brought 15 other female candidates to the rally in her riding north of Toronto to drive home her point that more women feel at home in the Liberal party.

"We have a leader who really respects what women contribute," Stronach said.

Then why didn't this leader, Paul Martin, make Judy Sgro do something about Wons in a timely manner?

Then why didn't this leader, Paul Martin, make an example of Scott Reid and John Duffy when they insulted all Canadian mothers when they made it clear that moms could not be trusted with money with which to take care their children?

Then why doesn't this leader, Paul Martin, ask Belinda Stronach (yes, the same Belinda Stronach) to make a statement in reference to her brother Andrew's businesses that use strippers and centrefold models in skimpy clothes to entice men to gamble, and for the right price be rented out for parties?

Personally, I think women have plenty more to contribute.

SEC Investigation: The importance of transparency

From CTV:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is reviewing last November's alleged income trust leak and may launch an investigation, the regulator revealed in an e-mail sent to NDP Finance Critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

The e-mail was written Thursday by Ann H. Sulzber [sic], special counsel to the SEC.

"We are taking your complaint very seriously, and have referred it to the appropriate people within the SEC," Sulzber [sic] writes, and refers to a telephone conversation with Wasylycia-Leis from the previous week.

Sulzber [sic] adds that "the SEC generally conducts its investigations on a confidential basis and neither confirms nor denies the existence of an investigation unless we bring charges against someone involved … As a result, we will not be able to provide you with any future updates on the status of your complaint or of any pending SEC investigation."

The special counsel is Ann Suzlberg, not Sulzber (the Toronto Star got the spelling correct). She works for the Division of Enforcement.

So by my count, there are three simultaneous investigations ongoing into the Income Trust scandal.

But recall that on December 22, this blogger had confidential information that the OSC had initiated an investigation. So by my reckoning, Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale knew for two weeks that the OSC had concerns.

Did they announce the investigation in order to assure the investment community and Canadians at large that the regulatory mechanisms that ensure that Canadian markets operate in a fair and open manner were themselves working?

Of course not:

The next hallmark of the rule of law is transparency.

Transparency is particularly important in financial sector regulation and supervision because of the need for confidence in the system.

Who spoke these words of wisdom? Finance Minister Paul Martin, at Cambridge University in England, on July 12, 1999.

I guess transparency matters only some of the time. At other times, it is important to be evasive and opaque.

How can you tell when? I don't know. Even those rulese are not all that transparent.

OSC Investigation: It's worse than we imagined

Now that I'm back online (I do have a life beyond blogging), I can give the OSC statement some proper attention.

A complainant, still unnamed, asked the OSC to investigate two issues:

1. insider trader allegations
2. a report that Ralph Goodale's staff tried to silence a CARP member who said the group got advance notice

Thanks to CTV, we know that CARP member was assistant director William Gleberzon. We also know that Gleberzon retracted his comments, much to the confusion of CTV such that the network stood by the original story.

CARP was so adamant that no such communication took place that they made the error of calling Warren Kinsella a liar. Bad move. Within a few days, CARP backed off that allegation.

One shudders at the thought of what Kinsella had to say to them.

But clearly someone got to CARP, and that is even more interesting, and potentially far more damaging, than allegations of insider trading.

If true, someone from within Ralph Goodale's office (or the PMO) threatened Gleberzon in particular, or CARP in general. Threatened with what? A lifetime of audits? Suspension of this license or that?

Even if the threats were bluffs, even if there was no way some functionary within Ralph Goodale's office (or the PMO) could actually follow through on the threat, the utterance of a threat, even a hollow one, is a crime.

Moreover, the allegation suggests that one or more people within Ralph Goodale's office (or the PMO) felt it was appropriate to use the power of the government to protect and preserve the fortunes of the Liberal Party.

This is worse than Adscam. The Sponsorship Program generally involved willing participants in both government and in the private sector engaged in a scheme to steal taxpayers' money. Though some witnesses claimed that they felt pressured to engage in these activities, the threats were of the nature that if they did not play ball, they could no longer expect government largesse.

Unseemly, to be sure. But the crime was the theft of the money, not of behaving boorishly.

But here, the tone of the report suggests that one or more people within Ralph Goodale's office (or the PMO) behaved like soldiers in an organized crime syndicate. Using the threat of violence (in this case, probably financial violence) to compel someone to lie.

This is no longer about Liberal Party bungling and waste. This is no longer about Liberal Party theft. This is about a Liberal Party that, when entrusted with the vast power of the government, sees no problem in using that power to intimidate and punish its enemies.

From the OSC:

"The commission takes allegations of trading on insider information and allegations of potential interference with an investigation very seriously. Your concern has been forwarded to the Enforcement branch of the OSC for further review.''

Has the Liberal Party stopped being merely an incompetent and greedy organization? Is the Liberal Party now a dangerous one?

OSC Investigation: It's official!

The CP is reporting the existence of the official investigation into the Income Trust Scandal by the Ontario Securities Commission, first reported by this blogger on December 22.

Via the Toronto Star:

However, the OSC was somewhat more forthcoming in a letter sent two days later to another complainant, who asked to remain anonymous, from senior inquiries officer Jeffrey W. Fennell.

This complainant asked the OSC to look into insider trading allegations and also reports that Goodale's staff may have tried to silence a member of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons who indicated that his group got advance notice of the income trust announcement.

Fennell wrote that he'd been asked to "co-ordinate'' a review of the complainant's concerns and added:

"The commission takes allegations of trading on insider information and allegations of potential interference with an investigation very seriously. Your concern has been forwarded to the Enforcement branch of the OSC for further review.''

Fennell further advised that "this may or may not result in a formal investigation'' and warned that the OSC doesn't normally comment on the existence, nature or status of any investigation unless it "brings proceedings in the matter.''

The income trust controversy has dogged Martin throughout the crucial post-Christmas phase of the campaign and has helped reactivate concerns about the Liberal government's ethics as he heads into the home stretch for the Jan. 23 vote.

Goodale has denied that he or any of his staff leaked information about his income trust decision ahead of time. But it has emerged that Martin, three of the prime minister's senior staff, and two other cabinet ministers, as well as some of their staff, had advance knowledge of the announcement.

INDEX: POLITICS JUSTICE BUSINESS

I will get a web link soon.

Some thoughts about the significance of the OSC investigation.

Another day, another scandal: Gun control kickbacks?

In what could be yet another scandal that could have major implications given the current concern over which party is best able to deal with gun violence, the RCMP has been asked to initiate yet another investigation into the Liberal Party (via Bourque):

The RCMP has been asked to probe a Liberal consultant over a $380,000 contract she was awarded to lobby Ottawa for funds for the ailing firearms registry.

The five-month contract was awarded by the justice department to Kim Doran in March 2003 to lobby the federal solicitor general, Treasury Board and Privy Council, according to a detailed lobbyist report.

At the time, Doran was representing the Coalition for Gun Control. The group, which receives both government and private funding, claims to represent anti-gun groups and municipalities. It is a strong supporter of the gun registry.

"The whole thing smells of corruption and cronyism," said Tony Bernardo, of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.

The group yesterday asked the RCMP to probe the matter.

The entry in the lobbyist's database clearly shows $380,600 going to Kim Doran of the Capital Hill Group from the Department of Justice to help pay for her services to lobby on behalf of her client, the Coalition for Gun Control.

I guess the Coalition for Gun Control got a freebie. A professional lobbyist, paid for by the government in order to tell the government what it wanted to hear.

Of course, they would listen to Kim Doran. Why? Well, she's the Deputy National Director (Organization and Policy) of the federal Liberal Party, as reported by the Toronto Sun.

Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz has been working the gun control file for a long time now. From Breitkreuz we get this spreadsheet showing contracts and expenses paid to the Coalition for Gun Control.

In August of 2002, the Coalition was paid by the government $380,600 to "develop strategies for implementation of the firearms law".

That's the same amount that went to Kim Doran in March of 2003 of that year to pay for lobbying services according to the Toronto Sun report.

What could this mean?

Here's what it looks like to me. The government cuts a cheque to the Coalition for Gun Control for $380,600 for a three-year contract to develop strategies to implement the gun control law.

But in March 2003, senior Liberal Kim Doran becomes a lobbyist, and on paper is paid $380,600 for her services, as per the Toronto Sun report.

Money flows from the Justice Deparment to the Coalition for Gun Control, then from the Coalition for Gun Control to Liberal executive and professional lobbyist Kim Doran, then from Kim Doran to her firm Capital Hill Group, then...where?

Well, if that money flowed through Kim Doran to the Capital Hill Group in 1993, it is interesting to note that between 1993 to 2003, the Capital Hill Group pumped over $136,000 into Liberal Party coffers.

Or are we dealing with some strange kind of coincidence here? Maybe we're misinterpreting one of the payments. Maybe we've misread the lobbyist report in some way, and "Government Funding" refers to the client and not to the lobbyist (but then the next lines "Contigency Fee" and "Communication Technique(s)" clearly refer to the lobbyist and not the client).

I would like to see what the Coalition for Gun Control delivered after three years and $380,600.

Andrew Stronach insults Special Olympians

Gaming mogul Andrew Stronach

Remember the babes-and-gambling businesses of Andrew Stronach, brother of Liberal Human Resources Minister Belinda Stronach?

One involved scantily clad women running bets for gamblers.

The other involved renting those scantily clad women for parties.

The two websites, SheTips and Spirits and Sports, prominently display the Special Olympics logo, claiming to be proud supporters.

Brent Colbert decided to ask the people at Special Olympics how they felt about that association.

Today he got a reply, which reads in part as follows (emphasis added):

December 14, 2005

Your website, www.shetips.com, states that "proceeds go directly to select charities around the world" and includes the Special Olympics name and logo.

The use of our name and logo on your Web site is inconsistent with the principles of Special Olympics, confusing, and offensive to Special Olympics athletes, volunteers, and supporters worldwide.

Special Olympics respectfully demands that you immediately cease the use of the Special Olympics name and logo in any media or form...and that you confirm in writing to me by December 31, 2005 that you have done and agree to do the foregoing.

J. Drake Turrentine
Chief Legal Officer & Secretary

Go read the whole thing. Apparently the logos are still up.

Dangerous musings, Blue Liberals, and 70s easy listening music

One of the calculations that is constantly being updated and revised by pundits (even those who are fans of the Captain and Tennille) is how a minority Conservative government would function.

Andrew Coyne (the aforementioned fan of 70s easy listening music) has an impressive post pointing out that the standard Conservative + Bloc or Conservative + NDP configurations are analyzed to death, at the expense of the most obvious Conservative + Liberal cooperation. Coyne also discusses how the notion that the Conservatives and the Liberals would never vote together, as silly as that is when you think about it, is used by all the parties to drum up votes, thus ensuring that no one is willing to actually consider this obvious situation out loud.

Of course, we are all treading on dangerous ground. I risk putting a jinx on the Conservative campaign by assuming it has won. It hasn't won, and I know that. If I believed it was all over, I wouldn't be writing this. But looking ahead is generally prudent.

I wonder if there isn't another configuration that we might see evolve in a new parliament: Conservative + Liberal splinter.

If the Conservatives fall short of a majority by 20 seats, give or take, it might not take much effort, on an issue by issue basis, to find the necessary number of Liberals willing to vote for a bill they like, even if the Liberal Party brass is against it. This is not the norm in Canadian politics, where party discipline keeps this sort of thing from happening, but if the Liberal Party implodes, and party discipline collapses along with it, the opportunity exists to find "Blue Liberals" willing to vote for Conservative bills.

Especially if those bills are popular back home. In other words, a Liberal Party in disarray becomes an organization in which bottom-up pressure from riding constituents takes precedence over top-down orders from party leadership, at least some of the time.

Could it happen? In 1993, when the Progressive Conservatives were crushed, they were left with two seats, so the question was moot. Right now, I don't think even the most pessimistic outlook for the Liberals predicts that outcome. So with a sizable number of MPs, and a party potentially embroiled in a leadership race, and with individual Liberal MPs attempting to distance themselves from the party centre and its association with the scandals of the last 12 years, parliamentary politics might take on a different shape after the votes are cast.

Of course, the Liberals might turn out to be far more cohesive than I imagined. It might turn out to be like the Captain and Tennille song says, "Love will keep us together".

[For the record, Andrew Coyne informs me that he has no Captain and Tennille records in his collection. I do have it on excellent authority, however, that he has borrowed, but not yet returned, Warren Kinsella's copy of the Sex Pistols "Never Mind the Bollocks".]

The Perils of Pettigrew in Papineau

One of Pierre Pettigrew's re-election posters defaced by Haitian activists

The race for Papineau is going to be one of the most closely watched on January 23. That's always the case when a cabinet minister is vulnerable.

That's certainly the case for Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew.

None of this is news, but for many of us who have been focused on the Income Trust Scandal and Klander's Slander and so forth, it is important to remember that elections are fought, and won, riding by riding. A look at the riding of Papineau shows the Liberals in as much trouble with local perceptions as they are nationally.

Funny Rabble give and take

You thought the hard left was just a bunch humourless socialist grad students and radical feminists and eco-radicals?

Well, they are, but then once in a while they can shake the "humourless" thing:

posting: Liberals have the momentum! Like um when you take a rock and throw it off a tall building it gets momentum.

response #1: So if it was a 15 m high building, assuming there is no wind resistance, how long would it be before that rock hit the NDP?

response #2: The NDP is at the bottom. I'd say about 20 years.

Funny and perceptive.

A missing element to the Conservative plan for law and order?

From the Conservative Party web site:

The Conservative Stand up for Security plan includes:

• Mandatory minimum prison sentences of five or ten years for major firearms offences, including five years for possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited weapon such as a handgun, and an end to revolving door bail and parole policies;
• Filling more than 1,000 unfilled RCMP positions and working with provinces and municipalities to hire at least 2,500 more police officers across the country;
• Measures to crack down on firearms smuggling and toughen security at Canada’s border crossings, including giving our customs agents the support and equipment they need to do their job; and
• Investing $50 million over five years in programs to promote crime prevention and assist youth at risk.

Good immediate response. Even the mid-term is addressed. But what of the long term problem?

By that I mean judicial appointments. Judges with lifetime appointments, chosen from among lawyers friendly to the Liberal Party, accountable to no one, continuing to implement Liberal policies in their sentencing for years to come.

The first bullet addresses much of that with mandatory sentencing guidelines and tightened bail procedures.

But I'm worried about the culture at the judicial level. I would like to see the Conservatives tackle the problem of how judges are selected. More oversight from Parliament. Public committee hearings so that the Canadian people and the media can see who is being considered for these important positions. A clear and balanced mechanism by which judicial performance can be assessed, and if necessary, corrective actions taken.

Perhaps it's a matter of the art of the possible. Perhaps the Conservatives decided that going beyond what they've already announced would be too ambitious, or would create constitutional questions that would only distract from the core message.

Nevertheless, I would like to see the issue considered one day. One day soon.

Option Canada Investigation: Confirmed

To me, the most intriguing thing about the reported RCMP interest in the Option Canada affair is the potential it has to bring the Sponsorship Program back into public focus, but in a way that links it closely to Paul Martin through his friend Claude Dauphin.

Could the timing be any worse for the Liberals?

Update: Stephen Taylor has more on the nature of Option Canada, and the significance of its role as a shell corporation that allowed the federal Liberal government and its allies circumvent both Quebec rules on referendum funding and the federal government's own rules on accountability -- the Sponsorship Program scandal was the inevitable consequence.

Another Liberal Party scandal?!

Claude Dauphin, Former head of Options Canada

Update: The rumour has been confirmed.

Update: Stephen Taylor has more on the nature of Option Canada, and the significance of its role as a shell corporation that allowed the federal Liberal government and its allies circumvent both Quebec rules on referendum funding and the federal government's own rules on accountability -- the Sponsorship Program scandal was the inevitable consequence.

From Captain's Quarters:

A source within Canadian political and media circles informed CQ earlier this afternoon that the media will break a story on an almost-forgotten scandal involving Options Canada, where $4.8 million disappeared without much oversight from the Liberal government in 1995. The money came from the Heritage Canada office, which disbursed the grant in three rushed payments on the eve of the 1995 referendum on autonomy for Quebec.

Of course, the government buried the scandal:

The federal government has quietly closed the books on a controversial $4.8-million grant to an obscure Montreal federalist group, but how the money was spent is still a mystery.

The grant, made in three hastily arranged payments to Options Canada by Heritage Canada on the eve of the 1995 referendum, violated most of the department's key accounting rules.

An internal Heritage audit was launched two years ago after reports about the grant began appearing in the Montreal media. The audit noted that the money had been issued on an "urgent" basis and found that it had been handed over in a way that "lacked the rigour and scrutiny one would expect for such large sums of money being given to a new unproved client."

So who ran Options Canada? Claude Dauphin.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage wrote Claude Dauphin, the senior advisor to the Minister of Finance and former president of Option Canada, who, two and a half years after the fact, still cannot tell the people of Quebec and Canada how, in the midst of the referendum period, he spent $4.8 million in 33 days.

Could the minister tell the House whether she has received a reply from him?

Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for clarification from the member, who totally misinformed the House last week. I am still waiting.

Why should we care? For one, Claude Dauphin was also Paul Martin's right-hand man in Quebec, an issue that continues to plague Paul Martin to this day, literally just before the election call.

From Hansard for November 24, 2005:

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): He [Paul Martin] also refused to allow the House to inquire into Option Canada, even though that organization contravened the Quebec Referendum Act and clearly broke federal Treasury Board rules; that is concealment.

Here we have an organization created at the last minute getting $4.8 million two or three weeks before the 1995 referendum, one week after it was created. Never before did the federal bureaucracy move so fast. What a strange coincidence.

We can see why the Prime Minister is afraid to bring things into the light. Option Canada was run by Claude Dauphin, a man the Prime Minister later hired as a special adviser on Quebec. What a great message for the Prime Minister, defender of rights and the law, to send us in making that appointment.

One wonders if Paul Martin had no idea what Claude Dauphin was doing with millions of dollars, just as he, Martin, had no clue about the serious problems in the Sponsorship Program, all going on under his nose.

So why is this news?

Back to the Captain:

All of that is the background. Watch the news for more recent developments in the next couple of days -- especially, I'm told, the Globe & Mail -- on the Options Canada grant money.

I'm all a-tingle.

Five Weird Things

Robot Guy tagged me with the latest "tag" meme: list five weird things about yourself, then tag five others to do the same.

So here goes:

1. When I was a kid, I used to read the dictionary. Still do. I love opening to a random page and finding words I have never known, or just thought I knew.
2. I have an analytical mind, but I love writing as a craft. Mulling over the choice of wording, or the structure of an essay.
3. I don't ice cream on my cake. I like my ice cream in a bowl, and my cake on a plate, and not having one put on the other. Or as my wife says, I don't like stuff on my stuff.
4. I get great pleasure from mercilessly teasing my 4-year-old daughter, Clare:
   • "The pirates just called, and they want you to join them. You are going to have to change your name to 'Clarrrrg'." "PAPA!! Stop it!!"
   • "The farm just called, and they need a new chicken. I told them you'd go try." "PAPA!! Stop it!!"
   • "I brought a book home, but you can't read it. It's called the Necronomicon, and it's so scary, it'll drive you crazy. Booh-gah, booh-gah!" "PAPA!! Stop it!!"
5. Not really weird if you have small children, but I really like Danny Phantom and Catscratch. I watch these cartoons even when the kids aren't around.

So picking five blogs at random:

markpeters.ca
North American Patriot
Canadianna's Place
daveberta
GayAndRight

Sarmite Bulte, copyright laws, and her staged debate

I haven't covered the Sarmite Bulte issue in part because it was being covered elsewhere, and I didn't think I'd have much to add.

But today, I got an interesting email, so I thought I'd share it with you.

First, a recap of what this is all about. Sarmite Bulte is the MP for High-Park--Parkdale, and she is under fire for plans for a fundraiser on January 19, the attendees will be major players in the entertainment industry, all eager for Sarmite Bulte to make sure Canadian laws favour them. She already is known for her advocacy of the most extreme copyright laws:

Sunday, January 1, 2006

Bulte (Canadian MP) gets big entertainment bucks, promises new copyrights

Sam Bulte, the Canadian Liberal Party MP for Parkdale/High Park is having her election campaign bankrolled by the Canadian entertainment cartel. Bulte previously authored a one-sided report proposing crazy, US-style copyright laws for Canada, and now her pals from the Canadian Recording Industry Association are throwing her a $250/plate fundraiser -- just the kind of high-ticket event that the poor artists Bulte claims to represent can't afford to attend. Instead, expect this dinner to be stacked with industry fat-cats.

Bulte fired off an angry letter to the Toronto Star in 2004 when columnist Michael Geist outed her for leading the effort to rewrite Canadian copyright laws after collecting big donations from the entertainment industry. Here she is again, though: hoovering up giant corporate bucks while campaigning to deliver just the kind of copyright laws that will make crooks out of ordinary Canadians and line the pockets of massive, US-owned entertainment companies.

The sponsors of this event, to be held four days before the election?

• Doug Frith (President of Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association)
• Graham Henderson (CRIA President)
• Jackie Hushion (Executive Director of the Canadian Publishers Council)
• Danielle LaBoisserre (Executive Director of the Entertainment Software Alliance) and
• Stephen Stohn (DeGrassi producer).

Within the boundaries of the Election Act, MPs are of course free to fundraise any way they like and individual Canadians are free to contribute to those same MPs. However, with the public's cynicism about elected officials at an all-time high and Canadians increasingly frustrated by a copyright policy process that is seemingly solely about satisfying rights holder demands, is it possible to send a worse signal about the impartiality of the copyright reform process?

Bulte's NDP opponent is Peggy Nash, the Tory candidate is Jurij Klufas.

Michael Geiste's work on this is available on his blog.

Well, last night there was an all-candidates meeting in the riding, at the Swansea Town Hall. For those who don't know, I grew up in the area -- Bloor West Village to be exact. A person who lives only 5 minutes walk from my childhood home emailed me with what he witnessed:

I am a constituent of the Parkdale-High Park riding. I attended an all candidates debate last evening at Swansea Town Hall and thought you would be interested in the way the copyright law ethics issue was handled by Sarmite Bulte and her campaign team.

In order to divert attention away from this controversy and to preempt it from becoming an issue, the Liberal team planted a questioner in the audience to lob an accusatory question at the NDP candidate, Peggy Nash. The very first questioner, a first year university student named Jamie who works for Bulte’s campaign, accused Nash of not being concerned about copyright issues because she had no information about this subject on her website.

Sarmite Bulte’s campaign manager, throughout the course of the evening, orchestrated and choreographed the way in which Liberal plants in the audience asked questions in order to deflect attention from any topics that would be considered controversial for their candidate and to eat up time by using innocuous questions. He could be seen constantly communicating with people in the audience, signaling with his hands what they should be doing.

One questioner was finally able to ask about the ethics of attending a lunch organized by industry lobbyists. Bulte responded by calling University of Ottawa Law Professor Michael Geist’s claims about this issue “egregious” and stated that the organizers and attendees were all personal friends of hers for many years. She then invited everybody in the audience to pay $250 to attend the lunch, for which they would receive a generous tax deduction.

Nice, eh? More of that darn democratic deficit. Where was Belinda Stronach to save the day?

Turns out another attendee who also got in touch with me met with Jamie just prior to the meeting. Jamie is a Liberal to the bone, or so I'm told, and has aspirations to live at 24 Sussex Drive one day. When asked what he thought about the copyright issue, Jamie told this person that he didn't understand the issue and that he did not have opinion.

But apparently Peggy Nash doesn't catch a break on that count.

The original plan for the meeting was to set up a microphone and have people line up with questions. That plan was scrapped in favour of having someone walk around with a microphone and respond to raised hands. Of course, that means the known troublemakers, that is, Conservatives, would suffer severe shoulder strain before their raised hands would be acknowledged.

How vulnerable is Sarmite Bulte on this issue? Apparently it is a real race between Bulte and Nash. With the problems being suffered by the Liberals at the national level, there is an opportunity to tip this race. If people realize that Sarmite Bulte is one of the most blatant examples of a Liberal Party member working for wealthy special interests instead of for her constituents, it will be hard to say that this problem is just isolated in a few bad apples.

With less than three weeks to go, we'll see if the Toronto-area media picks up on this. It might be interesting for CityTV or CFTO to do a story on the issue. In the meantime, the people of High Park / Parkdale will have to put up with these orchestrated Potemkin debates.

Running out of friends

The Liberal Party is rapidly running out of friends. Certainly, the president of the Aboriginal Musicians Association, and fellow blogger, Derryl Sanderson, does not count himself as one:

For their 12 years in power the Liberals have failed the Metis' and First Nation people miserably. Boil water advisory, third world living conditions on many reserves, For the Metis' we get a small mention by Paul Martin in a speech. Imagine....finally in the year 2005 the Liberals recognize our existence. Should we be thankful for this ??? NOT !!!We should be outraged at The Liberals for again trying to by the Aboriginal vote with money.

But the Aboriginal people, you know, they don't vote, these people, as the campaign manager of Liberal MP David Smith, a Metis himself, informed us, so their complaints don't really count for all that much.

That's one point of view.

Maybe we can hear some other points of view, perhaps from some First Nations people. Personally I'd like to hear them, regardless of whether they vote or not.

The Income Trust Scandal: The Americans take note

From PoliticsWatch:

[ NDP finance critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis] has also filed complaints with the Ontario Securities Commission and the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission.

She said the OSC will not confirm or deny if they are investigating the trading activity, but the SEC has responded.

"They did acknowledge that the letter has been registered. They've given me a file number, a person that is in charge and say they are having discussions with their international affairs office."

But the SEC has a policy of not confirming an investigation until a case is filed in court and Wasylycia-Leis said they were pretty clear to her they would not divulge any other information regarding her complaint.

Just one more reason for the Liberals to be nervous.

Donald Black: Personal friend but not a political friend?

Donald Black has been caught up in the Income Trust Scandal. He has had close ties with Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale. Goodale, of course, is at the center of the controversy involving the RCMP investigation into the possibility that there was a leak of sensitive information concerning the taxation of income trust funds to select traders before the public announcement.

Donald Black was present at a meeting with Goodale as a director of the Investment Dealers Association. Goodale met with the IDA the morning before the announcement. That afternoon, there was a huge spike in trading in income trusts by certain traders. After the markets closed, Goodale announced that income trusts would not be taxed. The next day, income trust unit values soared, making a tidy profit for those traders who bought the afternoon before.

Donald Black is a fund manager, and his funds include major holding in income trust funds.

Donald Black is a close personal friend of Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale.

Donald Black insists, however, that he is not a political friend of Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale:

Conservative finance critic Monte Solberg described Black as a Liberal insider, so "I don't think he's the right guy to be defending Ralph Goodale on this."

Black had said he was a personal friend of Goodale's, but not a political one.

Really?

On the CBC report on this story last night by Margo McDiarmid, at the 14:49 mark, Margo reveals the following:

[14:49] He [Donald Black] is Goodale's close friend, contributing a quarter of a million dollars to his '93 campaign.

By my accounting, anyone who donates a quarter of a million to the campaign of an MP is a political friend.

Remember that from 1988 to 1993, Ralph Goodale was working at Pioneer Life in a senior position given to him by Donald Black.

Ralph Goodale was elected with the help of that quarter million dollar donation, and was made Minister of Agriculture by Jean Chretien.

In 1995, less than two years after that generous donation, Goodale appointed Donald Black as head of the Farm Credit Corporation, ignoring charges of patronage from the opposition.

I just don't buy the idea that Donald Black is just a personal friend and not a Liberal insider.

Huge polling news for the Conservatives

Yestery, the news was that SES Research was showing the Conservatives ahead in the polls, 36% support to the Liberal's 33%.

It's been less than 24 hours, and the Toronto Star is publishing a new poll:

The election campaign has taken a dramatic turn, with the opposition Conservatives jumping into their first real lead over the governing Liberals, a new poll shows.

The survey, conducted by EKOS Research Associates for the Star and La Presse, found that 36.2 per cent of decided voters say they will support the Conservatives, while 30.4 per cent favoured the Liberals.

A huge six-point lead. Well in excess of the margin of error. But to find the real news, check the details:

Results for Ontario and Quebec are eye-catching. In Ontario, where the Liberals have always enjoyed a big lead, a real dogfight has now emerged, with the Liberals at 38.5 per cent support and the Tories at 35.3.

In Quebec, where Harper has spent an unusual amount of time, the two parties are in almost a dead heat with the Liberals at 21.9 per cent and the Conservatives at 20.2. The Bloc Quebecois is well ahead at 43.8, but the increased Tory support has come at the Bloc's expense. The shift shows Quebec voters are eyeing a federalist alternative other than the Liberals.

The Conservatives and Liberals tied in Quebec? Voters in Quebec starting to view this election as a choice between the Bloc and the Conservatives? Where is the traditional "the-Liberals-are-the-only-legitimate-alternative-in-Quebec" attitude?

Can this get any worse for Paul Martin?

What about BC, where tight races meant the Liberals thought there were opportunities to gain seats?

In B.C., the Tories, at 46.5 per cent, are gaining at the expense of both the Liberals and the NDP, who both have around 23 per cent support.

Are the Conservatives peaking too early? Maybe. But if you want to address the "fear" that pundits say starts to to materialize when the Tories start to lead in the polls, best to get in the lead early, and help people get over that fear.

It takes time to address people's concerns and change attitudes. Right now, it looks like the Conservatives should be thanking the Liberals for the long campaign.

What is with the CBC?

Is it just me, or is the CBC turned on a dime in this election?

Look at this capture from the main election web page:

A photo of Stephen Harper looking prime ministerial.

Top of the news: Conservative to reducing immigration barriers.

Next story: media wants election gag laws lifted.

Next story: Harper takes on Martin on commitment to Canada.

Next story: The big Liberal plank on health-care, fourth story down.

You might think this is a matter of more recent news pushing down older news. You'd be wrong. The story about the Conservative immigration plan is dated "Wed, 04 Jan 2006 11:33:11 EST", while the story on the Liberal health care announcement is dated "Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:13:02 EST". The story describing the Conservative immigration plan is 40 minutes older, and yet the story on the Liberals was shuffled down the line in order to keep the older story about Stephen Harper front and centre.

And look at this picture of Paul Martin used in the health care story:

Is the CBC trying to make Paul Martin the poster boy for more health care? He looks sickly.

I've been watching the media, like a lot of people, and it's hard not to suspect that, for now at least, the Conservatives are getting the more favourable treatment.

Why? Are the people in media just as fed up with Liberal arrogance and corruption as many Canadians in the general population are?

Or has the main stream media been frightened by incidents like this one, where the instant and vociferous response from their viewers in reaction to a blatantly partisan email not only forced the CBC to quickly apologize, but apparently cost the producer her job.

Maybe the directive came on down from above to start behaving and stop with the partisan garbage. Maybe the higher ups finally realized that the people weren't merely watching the news anymore, but were watching them.

And maybe the media sees the writing on the wall, and is expecting to have to deal with a new government on January 24.

Whatever the reason, I am worried that they might be overcompensating. Balance and fairness is what we need from them.

At least they seem to be trying.

Relocation Scam: Did Scott Brison tell a lie on the floor of the House of Commons?

What a story shaping up on Conservative Life!

Check out this contract:

That looks like a billion dollars to provide relocation services.

Then what did Scott Brison mean by this?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this contract is for approximately $155 million. The hon. member may be confusing the information relative to flow through benefits that can go to a range of subcontractors, including real estate agents and appraisers, across the country. I think that is where he is making an error in his question.

Beyond that, I can assure the hon. member that this was a fair and open process and that Canadian public servants will get the relocation services they need with the best possible value for Canadian taxpayers.

Best possible value for Canadian taxpayers? But what was the value?!

CTV thought it was worth a billion:

A billion dollar contract to relocate civil servants across the country is mired in allegations of mismanagement and cronyism so serious that the parliamentary spending watchdog may send it to Canada's Auditor General for review next week.

The contract has been an embarrassing thorn in Ottawa's side for years -- ever since competing bidders complained that public servants handling the file were too cozy with Royal LePage executives.

In one case, an internal audit at the Ministry of Public Works and Government Services found that a senior official in the judging process went on a Caribbean cruise with a Royal LePage executive before the contract was awarded.

An embarrassment for years? Clearly not embarrassment enough. I don't want to criticize the main stream media -- they've been working the income trust scandal hard. But maybe this long time and ongoing issue needs to be revisited and some answers demanded.

Once and for all. This issue has been lingering for far too long.

The bloggers at Conservative Life haven't let this one go, and have a lot more than this one post that I've summarized.

The Income Trust Scandal: Mike Duffy says CARP is changing its story

From December 7:

"The day they made the announcement they phoned us and said something is going to be said," the associate executive director of Canada's Association for the Fifty Plus, William Gleberzon, told CTV News.

Gleberzon said the call came from a senior policy advisor in the finance minister's office.

When asked what exactly he was told, Gleberzon indicated the specifics were vague, but the underlying message was clear.

"They said something was going to be announced later in the day. And we assumed that if they told us that ... it would probably be something we'd be happy with."

So CARP got a nudge-nudge-wink-wink call? Well, the next day CARP backpedalled:

There is no truth to the serious accusations that CARP had inside information about Minister Ralph Goodale's announcement regarding Income Trusts. In fact, the political crossfire regarding who knew what, when and how about the Minister's announcement has created the false allegation that there was a leak to CARP.

The record must be set straight! At no time was CARP given an indication by the Minister's office of when the announcement would be made or what it would say.

Needless to say, the Mounties are interested in talking to these CARP folks:

The RCMP interviewed an executive member of a seniors group shortly before launching a criminal probe into a possible federal leak about income trust changes.

Gleberzon says he received a phone call from Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office indicating there would be an announcement on income trusts.

But he denies being told of the content or timing.

The article doesn't provide more detail on that interview, but tonight on Mike Duffy's Countdown, Mike Duffy said to Ralph Goodale's Parliamentary Secretary John McKay that he, Duffy, "understood" that CARP was reversing its reverse, returning the original story it told to CTV and later retracted.

John McKay had no response, and Duffy let it drop.

Has Bill Glerberzon returned to his story that the phone call from Goodale's office indicated the nature of the decision yet to be announced? If so, why the reversal of the reversal? And did any other elements of the CARP story change?

Stay tuned...

The Income Trust Scandal: Don Black to appear on TV tonight

And you thought blogs don't matter.

The blogosphere's interest in Don Black seems to have been noticed.

My MSM source tells me that Don Black, close personal friend of Ralph Goodale, will be answering questions on a story being aired on CBC Newsworld tonight an 9pm EST and again on CBC's The National at 10pm EST. And he'll be appearing live on CTV Newsnet on Mike Duffy's Countdown at 8pm EST.

Check your local listings.

The Income Trust Scandal: Goodale's secret meeting included his good friend

Donald W Black, good friend of Ralph Goodale

Update: Check out Stephen Taylor's review of just how honest Ralph Goodale has been over the years, including some new insights into the cosy relationship between Ralph Goodale and Donald Black. Some of that information has been added below.

We all know, after some initial denials, that Ralph Goodale met with the Investment Dealers Association just hours before letting the rest of us know that income trusts weren't going to be taxed (too late, of course, for the rest of us to do anything about it):

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale had an hour-long meeting with senior representatives of Canada's investment community -- at which the issue of income trusts was discussed -- only hours before his decision on the issue was announced, CanWest News Service has learned.

An official in Mr. Goodale's office confirmed yesterday that the previously undisclosed meeting with the executive committee of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (IDA) took place, but said those who attended left the morning meeting "no wiser" about the decision that was announced later that day after markets closed. [emphasis added]

Of course, Goodale's people insist it was all on the up-and-up:

"There was a very vague, very general discussion," [John Embury, Mr. Goodale's director of communications,] said, adding it dealt with the association's planned submission on the income trusts issue. "They left the meeting no wiser than when they came through the door."

Really?

Let's look at who would have been at this important meeting. I have a source who tells me Donald Black was at the meeting. Donald Black is a director at the IDA:

Donald W. Black, C.M.
Chief Executive Officer
Greystone Managed Investments Inc.

Greystone manages funds, including this fund, Hartford Growth and Income Fund (D), that invests heavily in income trusts:

Top Holdings as of Nov 30, 2005
TSX Group: 4.32%
Canadian Oil Sands Trust: 4.16% [income trust]
Bank of Montreal: 4.12%
Fortis Inc.: 4.00%
Great-West Lifeco: 3.99%
Canadian National Railway: 3.96%
Royal Bank of Canada: 3.93%
AltaGas Income Trust: 3.92% [income trust]
IGM Financial: 3.90%
Bank of Nova Scotia: 3.86%

I guess that's why he was at the meeting. Of course, Black is particularly eager to make sure that Greystone thrives:

Based in Regina, with offices in Edmonton and Winnipeg, Greystone offers a full range of investment products and services to a national clientele. Greystone is majority owned by its employees, more than half of who are shareholders.

So who is Donald Black? Just what are his links to Ralph Goodale and the Liberal Party?

In December 2003, following the advice of Prime Minister Paul Martin, Black was made a member of the Order of Canada:

A distinguished leader in the Canadian financial services sector, Donald Black has been instrumental in restructuring many large companies and redirecting them to financial profitability. Equally committed to the welfare of his community, he has given generously of his time and expertise in support of a myriad of charitable, healthcare and educational organizations. A long-time supporter of the United Way of Regina, he created and sustained its Leadership Giving Program. In addition, the Hospitals of Regina Foundation Inc., the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College and the CNIB have benefited from his dedication and leadership.

He is also Ralph Goodale's good friend and a generous contributor to Goodale's campaigns (see this update as well). They worked together at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Goodale helped him out in getting this plum patronage appointment:

OTTAWA NOTEBOOK
October 29, 1998
Western Producer Barry Wilson

Regina investment manager Donald Black has been re-appointed chair of the Farm Credit Corp. for a second three-year term. It is a part-time position for the president of Greystone Management Inc. When he was appointed in 1995, the announcement was greeted with some skepticism by opposition politicians because Black was a friend of then-agriculture minister Ralph Goodale. [emphasis added]

His re-appointment was made by Goodale's successor, Lyle Vanclief. The minister praised Black as "a strong proponent of corporate governance" who has helped create the rules that separate the duties of the FCC management from the responsibilities of the directors.

Of course, that plum appointment was a return for Black helping out Goodale (see Stephen Taylor for a longer history):

So, how close are Goodale and Black? Greystone Capital Management is based out of Regina, Saskatchewan. Black ran Pioneer Life Insurance and gave Goodale a senior position in the firm during his brief stint in the private sector [1988-1993]. According to some sources, Goodale was appointed this senior position to allow the now Minister of Finance to continue working on his political ambitions.

No wonder the opposition squawked in 1995. Can you blame them for not trusting these two to be in the same room together and not exchange favours?

I wonder if the skepticism the opposition members voiced in 1995 when Donald Black got this little plum from Ralph Goodale will be repeated when they realize he was in that critical income trust fund meeting ten years later?

The Income Trust Scandal: Goodale meets with the RCMP

From CTV via Bourque:

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale met Tuesday with RCMP investigators to talk about the income trust affair.

"Well, obviously it's not a normal part of the campaign, but it's a circumstance that has to be dealt with, and I'm very glad and happy to deal with it because I'm absolutely confident of my position," Goodale said from his campaign office in Regina.

But yesterday we were being told that the meeting had been postponed:

[Jason Kenney, a Conservative MP,] noted the finance minister's spokesman said earlier Tuesday there would be no meeting with the RCMP this week. "Yet it turned out he was meeting with him today. What is there to hide?" he asked.

One thing we don't know is the nature of this meeting. Was Goodale deposed? Was there counsel present? Was Goodale warned of his rights and obligations?

Or was this a planning meeting? A get-together to sort out schedules and arrange for a proper interview?

One thing is for certain, and that is we can't depend on the Liberals to clarify any of this. Their only hope now is to keep the situation confused and murky. As long as we Canadian are not quite sure what is going on, a significant number will find it easy to ignore the whole thing and vote Liberal.

Clarity is Paul Martin's enemy.

The Income Trust Scandal: Which ministers knew? We need names

The income trust scandal is becoming more and more muddied. As we all know, on November 23, after trading had closed, Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale announced that income trusts would not be taxed. The next day, the value of units in income trusts surged.

Curiously, trading in income trusts surged in the hours before the announcement. Was there a leak? The RCMP is investigating.

One of those traders who made a lucky trade was TSX CEO Richard Nesbitt, who invested over $700,000 that afternoon, and on November 24, realized a profit of $100,000.

In my piece on Richard Nesbitt, and his simultaneous role of a stock exchange CEO, a major personal investor, and a lobbyist registered to talk to the government on income trading, which might or might cover income trusts, I mentioned that one of Nesbitt's team, David Ablett, had worked closely with Jim Peterson in the past.

Jim Peterson is Ralph Goodale's cabinet colleague. Peterson is the Minister of International Trade. That ministry is works closely with Finance.

I wondered if Peterson knew what was going to happen. Until yesterday, the Ralph Goodale and Prime Minister Paul Martin were the only two cabinet ministers to have stated that they knew what was going on.

Until yesterday.

From CTV:

However, Goodale appeared flustered when asked if other cabinet ministers were in the loop of his Nov. 23 announcement on income trusts.

"There where [sic] ministers that obviously were involved in the discussion because they simply had to be," he said.

Did that include Jim Peterson, a person who had worked closely with David Ablett, a member of the lobbying team of Richard Nesbitt, who profited so handsomely by making trades ahead of the announcement?

And even if it did not, just who did it include? And who among their staff?

Or maybe it would be easier just to tell us who didn't know. Other than small investors, of course. We know they had no chance to make a quick profit.

The Abotech Affair: The CBC Radio One two-part investigation

On December 20 and 21, Evan Dyer of CBC Radio One in Ottawa presented a two-part investigation into the issue of Liberal MP David Smith, member of parliament for the riding of Pontiac.

David Smith's home-based business Abotech was in the news when several government contracts were terminated after a KPMG audit for reasons that have never been clearly explained by the government. An investigation by this blogger raised all sorts of interesting questions, and those questions have piqued the interest of the main stream media.

You can now listen to those reports here. These broadcasts are recreated here with the permission of the CBC.

December 20: David Smith and his aboriginal roots

December 21: The business of Abotech and the politics of Pontiac

The Income Trust Scandal: RCMP isn't ready to meet with Ralph Goodale

From the CTV Election Blog:

Last Friday, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale told CTV's that he would be meeting with the RCMP "next week" to discuss the RCMP's income trust investigation. He said that during an interview with CTV's Craig Oliver that was aired Sunday on CTV's Question Period.

Well, that was Ralph Goodale's understanding. Or assumption. Or wish, hoping to get the interview over with as quickly as possible.

Well, if wishes were fishes...

On Monday, we asked Goodale's press secretary Pat Breton what day of the week this meeting would take place and whether or not it was taking place in Regina or Ottawa. Today, Breton sent this reply:

No mtg has been scheduled.

He went on to say:

it's up to the RCMP to determine precisely when. And they haven't.

If we assume all the facts are true as reported, the RCMP has decided to investigate further. This is a double blow to the Liberals, as I see it. First, it means that the scandal will not die an early death in terms of being in the news. Even if there are no new revelations and the story fades, the interview is certain to thrust it back into the spotlight. The closer that interview is to January 23, the worse it is for the Liberals.

Also, and I could be wrong with this, but an interview has two purposes -- to ask questions about information already known, and to reveal new information. The more precisely planned the former, the more likely that you will succeed at the latter.

If the RCMP is investing more time before the interview, I suspect it is because they feel that they haven't exhausted the first level of investigation. That can't be good for Ralph Goodale or anyone else who is going to be interviewed. The more the RCMP can dig up ahead of the interview, the more nasty that interview will be.

[Thanks to reader JW]

Did the Liberals get suckered?

Over the Christmas break, the Conservatives kept warning the media and the Canadian voters that after the break, the Liberal Party under Paul Martin would start airing seriously negative ads:

The Conservatives plan to air a negative television ad, warning that Paul Martin's Liberals are preparing to unleash a negative campaign, as the Tories aim to forestall attacks against their own leader.

The unknown, when attached to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, is what threatens the Conservatives the most. Stephen Harper is not a former cabinet minister or provincial premier. The Conservative Party of Canada is new, and has never formed a government. It is different in many ways from the old Progressive Conservatives.

How well will they govern? Who knows?

So playing to those fears will have some traction with the electorate.

But why telegraph the punch? Why let everyone know that you are ready for the onslaught? Why tell the Liberals to "bring it on"?

Consider the Liberal reaction:

In contrast to the Tory ads, [Jonathan Rose, a political studies professor at Queen's University,] called the newest Liberal spots a "barrage of feel-good motherhood images and ideas."

In one ad, Mr. Martin speaks to the camera, saying the Liberals are running on their economic record.

But the economy, he says, is just a means to an end, leading to tax cuts, shorter hospital waiting times and a national child-care program.

Another ad hits on similar themes, through a voice-over against quick images of Canada, Canadians and Mr. Martin.

Both ads refer to Liberal successes in balancing the budget.

Did the Liberals cleverly trick the Conservatives by proving them wrong and "going positive"?

Or were the Liberals the ones being tricked? Was the whole point to fool the Liberals into doing exactly what the Conservatives wanted them to do, and that is to avoid directly negative ads aimed at the Conservatives?

While the Liberal ads continue to discuss dry budgetary questions and describe an even more bloated government intruding ever deeper into the lives of Canadians, in other words, the same as the last twelve years, the Conservative campaign to date has been about being different.

Money given back to Canadians, directly, into their pockets.

Government that willingly devolves power to parliament or to the provinces.

A military that will actually give reason for other nations to listen Canada's distinct voice on international affairs.

You get the picture.

Have the Conservatives tricked the Liberals into leaving them alone? To let the Conservative message, already signed, sealed, and delivered during the first half of the campaign, float in front of voters to be considered and digested without direct criticism?

All by insisting that they, the Conservatives, knew all along what the Liberals were going to do, and so prompting them to do something different?

Could the Liberals have fallen for something so simple?

Richard Nesbitt: TSX CEO and Income Trust Fund Lobbyist

TSX CEO (and registered income trust lobbyist) Richard Nesbitt

Recall the CTV report that was quite brutal in providing evidence that a leak happened just prior to Ralph Goodale's announcement that income trusts would not be taxed?

The allegation of insider trading following that leak has led to a formal criminal investigation by the RCMP into the highest levels of the Paul Martin Liberal government, dealing a body blow to the Liberal Party during this election.

One of the revelations from the CTV report was that Richard Nesbitt, the CEO of the Toronto Stock Exchange, made out very well for himself:

Richard Nesbitt, CEO TSX Group: According to CTV, Nesbitt purchased $759,000 worth of stocks hours before the announcement and made $100,000 in profit the next day. However, he could not be reached for comment, yet his spokesman said that he was only filling up his core holdings before the calendar year end.

What the spokesperson did not mention was that since August 19, 2005, Richard Nesbitt was also a registered lobbyist, and still is today.

What topics did he discuss?

2. discussions with the Department of Finance with regards to fixed income trading.

Fixed income trading includes trading in income trust funds. In fact, it's mostly about that.

Now that the CEO of the TSX talked to the Minister of Finance and his people about income trusts and tax policy is probably fine. But then one wonders whether he really was just "filling up his core holdings" at exactly the right time.

Of course, the fact that part of his team included David Ablett, now VP of Public and Corporate Affairs at the TSX, and formerly a Senior Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet in the Privy Council Office, couldn't hurt. Now that was a long time ago, 1978 through 1983. That doesn't mean that he hasn't had his hand in government business, of course. For example, Ablett helped Jim Peterson write this report on the preparation of budgets, and public participation in that process, in 1995.

Citizen involvement in budget-making was seen as a good thing.

Where is David Ablett's friend, Jim Peterson, today? He's still in government, in cabinet in fact, as the Minister of International Trade. One wonders if Peterson was on the "need to know" list.

What? No cabinet post? He really did it on principle?

From NealeNews (originally appearing in the Ottawa Citizen):

A prominent Calgary Liberal - a hand-picked candidate by Paul Martin for the 2004 election - has defected to the Conservatives, saying the Liberals are unprincipled and that Mr. Martin has failed Canadians.

Dale Muti, Liberal candidate in four federal and provincial elections since 1988, said yesterday he's switching because of what he calls the Grits' unethical behaviour, as outlined in the Gomery report on the sponsorship scandal, but also because the prime minister is ignoring the concerns of Albertans.

The Liberal Party is downplaying this, of course:

Brian Thiessen, president of the federal Liberals in Alberta, said the former candidate's jumping ship is surprising - but no big blow. "I don't think Dale Muti leaving the party has much of an effect on party morale, to be frank. I think the rank and file won't even notice," he said.

Actually, not a lot of people will notice, regardless of their party affiliation. That's because Dale Muti is not jumping just prior to a critical confidence vote in the House of Commons. That's because Dale Muti is not receiving a major cabinet appointment as a reward for pursuing personal political gain. That's because Dale Muti is not being displayed like a prize horse at a news conference by a preening political leader who, at a news conference last May, was openly laughed at by reporters when he spoke of integrity and not about political survival and rewards.

That's because Dale Muti is doing it solely because it's the right thing to do:

A member of the federal Liberals for more than 20 years, Mr. Muti says he's tearing up his membership card and will sign on with the Tories - the party he insists is best able to provide a clean and accountable government.

"I found that the trust is broken. The Liberal party is not the party that I joined over two decades ago," Mr. Muti said. "This party has failed to hold the values it had at that time. Paul Martin has failed to hold those values and has failed to give Canadians an accountable, clean government.

"When a party cannot hold itself accountable, it should not look at forming government," he added.

Dale Muti has managed to save his political soul. On January 23, a lot of voters, long-time supporters of the Liberal Party, will have the same opportunity.

The Abotech Affair: Don't get distracted by the fear thing in Pontiac

From the Globe and Mail via Bourque:

Ben's Motel, a mundane watering hole with a neon-lit bar, Formica tables and a couple of slot machines facing the main street of this now-faded historic town, may seem an odd place to search for a potential wellspring of Conservative Party renewal in Quebec.

What is remarkable are the dozen or so people sitting around a group of tables pushed together in the bar, a mixture of anglophones and francophones, a sprinkling of municipal politicians and a recently retired activist from the pulp and paper union. They are all former long-time federal Liberals; until recently, one was still a member of the Pontiac Liberal Riding Association executive.

They are all there to endorse Lawrence Cannon, the Conservative candidate for this riding that stretches more than 200 kilometres along the Quebec side of the Ottawa River and up into rocks-and-logs hinterland. He is potentially the Conservatives' ace up their sleeve in Quebec.

What happens here on Jan. 23 could have implications far beyond this riding, which has previously been taken for granted as a federalist, mostly Liberal, duchy because of its proximity to Ottawa and Ontario. The riding could launch a credible Conservative presence in Quebec where there is only a lacuna now. If Stephen Harper wins a minority government and Mr. Cannon wins his seat, he will be a major player in Quebec and in the country.

I certainly had no idea how important this would be when I first started investigating the problems with the incumbent Liberal MP David Smith, and his firm Abotech:

But can he win Pontiac? Liberal MP David Smith got 48 per cent of the vote in 2004, compared with 33 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois and 28 per cent for the Conservatives.

Mr. Cannon's chances are improved by the whiff of scandal enveloping the incumbent Mr. Smith. Claiming aboriginal status because his maternal great-grandmother was native, Mr. Smith incorporated Abotech, a computer services consulting company that has received about $1-million in contracts through a program intended to encourage aboriginal entrepreneurs.

Read the whole column, and then be ready to follow this particular riding on January 23.

One of the concerns, of course, is that the Bloc Quebecois could win if Daivd Smith and Lawrence Cannon split the federalist vote. Well, guess what? Some people think it'll make little difference for local constituents:

After Mr. Cannon moved on, some of the mill workers talked about their concern that if they vote Conservative, it could reduce the Liberal plurality to the point where the Bloc goes up the middle to win.

"What if they do?" asked Ron Stafford, one of the recent Conservative converts.

"It will be just one more guy sitting on his ass [a reference to Mr. Smith's low profile in Parliament and in the region]. Let's not get distracted by this fear thing."

Don't get distracted by the fear thing. Good advice for life, I think.

Want to see a wolf? Look in the mirror

Mom? Dad?

Does the Prime Minister actually think these things through?

Liberal Leader Paul Martin has begun the new year by claiming a Conservative government would toss Canadians to the wolves and have them "fend for themselves" without government assistance.

The new Liberal message is all about Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

"I think he has a very different perspective on the role of government than I do. It hasn't been hidden," Martin told The Canadian Press.

"His role of government is very much to fend for yourself."

Then Paul Martin has the audacity to bring up childcare:

The prime minister is calling state-subsidized and regulated child care "a classic example" of these value differences.

"I believe that government has a very strong role to play in child care. That's a fundamental difference and that applies across the wide range of issues in which you deal with family."

Follow my thinking here.

If we vote for a Conservative government, Stephen Harper will throw us to the wolves.

A Liberal government will protect us from that which endangers us.

Our children need protection.

If left to parents, money that is best spent on children will be misspent by their parents on hedonistic pleasures, like "beer and popcorn", as established not once, but twice, on national television by the most senior Liberal Party strategists, Scott Reid and John Duffy. The only apology ever issued was for the wording, and not for the philosophy behind it. Scott Reid and John Duffy continue to work for the Liberal Party.

Children, therefore, need to be protected by the Liberal government from their parents. We're the wolves. Didn't Mike Klander lose his job for comparing Olivia Chow to a dog?

Canadian parents are as dangerous wolves to whom Stephen Harper will cavalierly throw this nation's children.

Canadian parents must act to protect their children from, well, Canadian parents, by voting Liberal.

Wow, that Stephen Harper is really an evil guy. Doesn't he have two young children of his own? Maybe someone should ask Paul Martin if he believes that Stephen Harper's children would have been better off in government-financed day care instead of fending for themselves in the Harper household.

Globe and Mail names AGWN in Best of the Web

Quite the honour. Angry in the Great White North was named along with Stephen Taylor in the "Sleuths" category for Best of the Web 2005 by the Globe and Mail's in-house blogger Dan Cook (see the entry for January 2, 3:38pm)

Small Dead Animals and Calgary Grit win for Best Blog, and Warren Kinsella for Best Pundit.

Check out all the winners.

Toronto Star plagiarism

The Toronto Star plagiarizes a 10-year-old news story, word for word, as the basis of an editorial. Not only that, the Star actually steals the gist of the editorial itself!

People lose their jobs for less.

More ministry staff being used to work local Saskatchewan issues?

Ralph Goodale's ministerial staff seem to spend a great deal of time working the Saskatchewan file, to the exclusion of any other province. Remember, we are talking of Finance Ministry staff, not riding staff.

These are the people who are supposed to be working financial issues for the country as a whole.

And more interesting, all these expenses are being charged to the federal government budget.

Ralph Goodale, Minister of Finance
$3010.59 in travel expenses to attend "meetings" in Regina, Saskatchewan
November 20 to 25

Will Adams, Special Assistant, Minister's Office
$,32,78.40 in travel expenses to attend "Agricultural meetings" in Regina, Saskatchewan
November 22 to 24

Patrice Breton, Director of Parliamentary Affairs, Minister's Office
$2,742,18 in travel expenses to attend "meetings with minister" in Regina, Saskatchewan
November 8 to 11

James Miley, Senior Advisor to the Minister
$842.12 in travel expenses to provide "staff support to the Minister at various meetings in Saskatoon"
November 5 to 7

Donnie Parker, Director of Operations, Minister's Office
$40.99 in hospitality expenses to have a "lunch meeting to discuss regional issues impacting Saskatchewan"
September 14

Donnie Parker, Director of Operations, Minister's Office
$48.36 in hospitality expenses to have a "dinner meeting to discuss regional issues impacting Saskatchewan"
September 15

Donnie Parker, Director of Operations, Minister's Office
$82.98 in hospitality expenses to have a "meeting to discuss regional issues impacting Saskatchewan"
November 7

Christopher Vivone, Policy Advisor, Minister's Office
$2,622,53 in travel expenses to "attend various regional meetings" in Regina, Saskatchewan
November 16 to 20

Christopher Vivone, Policy Advisor, Minister's Office
$34.00 in hospitality expenses to have "lunch to discuss Saskatchewan issues"
November 16 to 20

You would be hard-pressed to find much focus in Ralph Goodale's office on Ontario or the Maritimes or British Columbia or even Quebec.

Actually, you won't find any mention at all of any other province, at all. One exception: I spotted Ontario in one set of expenses in the last three months, and that's it.

But with Stephen Taylor's recent scoop of a Goodale staffer using a ministerial number to deal with local riding issues for the Liberal Party, I wonder just what constitutes "regional issues impacting Saskatchewan" and why five out of the 12 most senior staff at the federal Department of Finance were tasked by Minister Ralph Goodale to devote so much time to these "issues" in the dying days of this government, in the run-up to this election.

Can I be blamed for wondering if these issues were more partisan than financial in nature? Seems like an easy thing to clear up. Ralph Goodale could simply provide detailed explanations of these meetings, the issues discussed, and the attendees.

Ralph Goodale's office doing partisan work

Apparently, back in May, a staffer in Ralph Goodale's office was using federal resources to manage an audit and other Liberal Party business for Saskatchewan ridings.

This is not allowed. Ministerial resources are for ministry business.

Stephen Taylor has the story.

Tip of the iceberg? Almost certainly.

And for me, I find it interesting that Ralph Goodale, who defends himself against the RCMP investigation of insider trading allegations by insisting his staff is as honest as he is, had a staffer playing fast and loose with the rules.

Sort of takes the air out of Goodale's balloon, doesn't it?

Long elections and long descriptions

The vote on January 23 will mark the end of a 55-day election campaign, the longest Canadian federal election since the 66-day election called in 1979.

A long election indeed.

In this election, the fate of the Liberal Party, the established party of government in Canada, is going to be decided.

People like me are working to change the political landscape, and remove the Liberals from their perch as the establishment party. I guess that makes me a member of the de facto disestablishmentarianism movement.

There are other bloggers, trying to prevent bloggers from me from succeeding. Many do not like the Liberals under Paul Martin, but dislike the alternatives even more. They seem more for preventing change than protecting the status quo. That makes them bloggers with a strong streak of antidisestablishmentarianism.

A long word for a long election. The longest word you'll find in the disctionary, as everyone knows.

OK, technically, antidisestablishmentarianism refers to opposition to the disestablishment of the Church of England.

In any case, at 28 letters, it deserves to be used more often.

Of course, my effort might fail. Paul Martin might surprise us all an exhibit a miraculous talent for talking himself out of this difficult situation, dropping in the polls and embroiled in scandal as he is.

There is a word for talking yourself out of a bind. It's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. At 34 letters, you sound very clever if you can use it in a sentence:

The Income Trust Scandal: A question for Anne McLellan

Anne McLellan, Liberal MP for the riding of Edmonton Centre, is Deputy Prime Miniser and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

That's relevant because the Minister of Public Safety is responsible for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

As such, it would be interesting to ask Minister McLellan whether she believes that Commissioner Zaccardelli is on a wild goose chase now that the RCMP has decided to initiate a formal criminal investigation to determine if the decision not to tax income trusts was leaked to select traders prior to the formal announcement on November 23.

Would Anne McLellan support her Mounties?

"I support the Commissioner's conclusion that a criminal investigation in the matter of a potential leak from either the Finance Minister's Office or the Prime Minister's Office is justified. The professionalism of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is beyond question, and I know they will serve Canadians by following the investigation wherever it leads."

Or would she undermine the federal police in favour of her fellow Liberal cabinet ministers?

"I am certain that there is no evidence of wrongdoing to justify the allegation of a leak from within the government. An investigation will certainly show that the market was responding to speculation, and not leaked information. This is an exercise in response to an opposition ploy to use the RCMP to embarrass the finance minister, a man above reproach, the prime minister, and the Liberal Party, during an election campaign."

Prime Minister Paul Martin has already decided that the Mounties are wasting their time and has said so publicly:

Martin said Friday the investigation is taking place solely because NDP Finance Critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis requested it.

"The statement by the RCMP said there's absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that there is, in fact, any wrongdoing here at all," Martin said while campaigning south of Montreal. "And we're dealing with opposition allegations in the middle of an election campaign."

I wait for a reporter to ask the question of Anne McLellan.

The Income Trust Scandal: The same old same old

"the same old same old"

1. something that has not changed (Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms)
2. an attitude that potentially spells doom for Canada's Liberal Party

The new year opens with an Ipsos Reid poll showing the Conservatives and Liberals in a tie, but significantly, the Conservatives slightly ahead and the Liberals slightly behind.

And momentum is favouring the Conservatives.

What about attitudes?

With three weeks to go, attitudes are souring against the Liberals:

Just one-third of Canadians now agree with the statement "I'd be comfortable voting for Paul Martin and the Liberals in the next election because they will govern very differently next time due to the lessons they learned from the Gomery Inquiry"

That's down 7 percent from a week ago, when Paul Martin garnered more support.

Paul Martin scorched the Liberal Party landscape when he succeeded Jean Chretien. The entire cabinet was replaced. Chretien loyalists like Sheila Copps were hounded out of the party, or turfed at the 2004 election.

The goal was to make the new Liberal Party different from the old Liberal Party.

Why? The old Liberal Party was the party of corruption. The new Liberal Party is the party of integrity. That's what we were supposed to believe. The suspicion that the changes were driven by Paul Martin's desire to be surrounded by loyalists was unfair. This was about cleaning house and earning the trust of Canadians.

Canadians want change? Fine. Vote for the Liberals. They're different. They've changed.

The old Liberal Party was the party of Adscam.

The new Liberal Party is the party of ... um ... the Income Trust Scandal?

Not really all that different. And Canadians are realizing that. Last week 40% of Canadians bought that line. This week, it dropped to 33%. Next week? Who knows? But it's not trending well for the Liberals.

Old Liberal Party? New Liberal Party? Same old same old.

The Income Trust Scandal: Who had December 31 in the pool?

From CTV:

As he prepares to answer to RCMP investigators in a matter of days, Ralph Goodale remains defiant in the face of unyielding calls by Tories and New Democrats to step aside from his post as finance minister.

Mid-campaign allegations of insider trading have rocked the Liberal Party, threatening to derail Paul Martin's quest for victory in the Jan. 23 election.

But Martin has unequivocally backed his minister of finance. And Goodale repeated Sunday on CTV's Question Period that he's "absolutely confident" he and his staff will be absolved of any wrongdoing in a criminal investigation into allegations that his Nov. 23 plan for income trusts was leaked in advance.

"I am determined to stand my ground, based on over 30 years of ethical conduct that I'm very proud of," said Goodale in an interview with Question Period co-host Craig Oliver.

A number of observers thought December 31, 2005 would see Ralph Goodale step aside. Well, we are now well into January 1, 2006, and there is no hint of a resignation. Anyone who had December 31 in the resignation pool has lost out. Indeed the rhetoric has become more defiant, more strident.

My guess is that the Liberals have decided to ride out the RCMP investigation. If nothing changes between now and January 23, they've decided that the investigation will fade as the campaign focuses on attacks on the Conservatives.

What will it take to change things? The RCMP could announce, or leak, some preliminary findings that establish that a leak happened in November. Alternatively, the opening of a second investigation, by the OSC (which I know to be in progress, though I can't prove it), or by the SEC in the US, could make the situation untenable.

Three weeks to go. We might have have to put up with Ralph Goodale's protestations for the duration.

A request for technical assistance

I have a standard audio cassette tape sent to me by Evan Dyer of CBC Radio One, with the two part David Smith investigation he presented December 20 and 21.

Together, the piece runs twenty minutes, maybe less.

Is there anyone in the Toronto area, preferably Durham region, with the ability to create one or more MP3 files suitable for posting on the Internet?

Please contact me by email. Sorry, but I can't pay for the work, but I'd be happy to put a plug for your business or your blog, if appropriate, on AGWN.

What a kickoff to the New Year

Warren Kinsella listed me as one of his Top Ten Bloggers!

Wow! I'm honoured. Really. When I started blogging seriously 13 months ago, I had hoped I could use blogging to meet interesting people that I had only read about before. Maybe, if I was lucky, get a short and dismissive (but polite) email ("Thanks for your interest") and treasure it. Instead, I've actually gotten to know many of these people, talked to them on the phone, met them in person. And they all seem to think I was worth meeting.

Wow!

Now I just need to figure out how to translate this into a job of some kind. A project for 2006, I suppose.

To Warren, thanks for the pat on the back. And for the record, I think that staffer comment by Gomery was a bit below the belt, or only just barely above. I just couldn't resist the urge to tease.

Counting chickens and coming up short by one

From Bourque, concerning the signs of a revolt within the Liberal Party, of knives being sharpened, of plans being laid to oust Paul Martin if he fails to deliver a majority government on January 23:

To wit, the names of Bevilacqua, Cauchon, McKenna, Manley, Volpe, Brison, Dryden, even, let it be said, ex-Tory Stronach and the American-dipped Ignatieff, among other lesser mortals, all networking their contacts and cobbling standby underground leadership teams ready to activate in the coming weeks, or not, depending on how the stars align for each aspirant. All are sounding out various Liberal rainmakers, regional chieftains, leftover used-to-bes, and ambitious soon-to-bes.

Curious, but I would have expected Sheila Copps to be on the list. It seems to me that she has kept herself in the public eye by going back to journalism and maintaining her profile as an activist (see her website for more).

Maybe she made it clear she is no longer interested in the job of Liberal Party leader, and I just missed it.

Angry in the Great White North by Steve Janke is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License. Based on a work at stevejanke.com.