Is same-sex marriage a "single issue" issue?

Some people have pointed out that the same-sex marriage debate is a mountain being made from a molehill. The number of homosexual couples who will avail themselves of marriage will be small, the effect on day-to-day life negligible, the safeguards for religious freedoms sufficient.

In my "drilling down" piece I suggested what might go wrong, but I didn't really highlight it well enough. So I'm going to try again.

It's about taxes.

Predictions -- Drilling down

Based on some comments here and at other blogs, I want to drill down a bit on my prediction with regards to churches and the law.

C-38 Passes -- I hope I'm wrong

Bill C-38, the bill that re-defines marriage to include same-sex couples, passed third reading last night. Now it's off to the Liberal-dominated Senate for easy passage and then royal assent.

Now some predictions, all of which I hope are wrong.

Paul Martin has to be listening now

Not all opinions are made equal, and Paul Martin has been made aware of one of those more important opinions. Now let's see if something comes of it.

Debate? We don't need no stinking debate!

The nanny state steps in to urge people to stop talking about stuff and getting themselves all worked up:

Federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh says he's "disappointed" with Canada's doctors -- and especially the head of their influential national association -- for planning a debate at their annual meeting this summer on the role of private health care in this country.

"I would have expected the president of the [Canadian Medical Association] to be a little more circumspect."

Talking leads to thinking and thinking leads to criticism and criticism leads to a new health minister.

Time to nip this talking thing in the bud!

[Hat tip to NealeNews]

[The Americans take note of our healthcare silliness.]

Canada-Taiwan Checklist

CSIS issues warning in 1999 about Communist China's methods for influencing foreign governments: CHECK

CSIS issues prediction in 2000 about war over Taiwan more likely after 2005: CHECK

Sleep-walking Liberal government ignoring CSIS in favour of wealthy interests: CHECK

Newspaper headlines and the power to influence

The function of a newspaper headline is to provide an idea of what to expect from the article that follows. At least that's what I always thought.

Boy, am I naïve!

Tories must heed the wisdom of Yoda

Is there no limit to what we can learn from Star Wars?

Why same-sex marriage makes no sense (part 2)

I know I said the other post would be the last one, but based on some comments, I think a follow-up might be helpful.

Why same-sex marriage makes no sense

I can summarize it in one word: rights!

Child labour horror in Alberta!

Sometimes the ways the media can spin the story to almost submininally guide the formation of an opinion in the mind of the reader are subtle and difficult to spot.

And at other times, they are as subtle as a brick to the back of the head. Albertans might be particularly interested in how a major central Canadian paper tries to leave the reader with the impression that Albertans are exploiters of child labour in the best Dickensian tradition.

Rattling Chains -- A warning to America about where the Kelo decision will lead

I wrote this essay early this morning after having ruminated on the Kelo decision and its implications for Canadians and Americans. It's aimed at Americans, so feel free to post links at any American blogs you think might appreciate it.

Kelo fallout and yet hope for Canada?

The Kelo decision continues to tear across the American political landscape. Meanwhile in Canada, there are people pushing for change for the better.

The Blogging Tories -- The Rankings

There is a new community on the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem called the Blogging Tories. Remember that the ranks are defined by the amount of linkage you have from within the community.

The Kelo Decision

South of the border, American bloggers are up in arms over the Kelo decision. As quoted by Michelle Malkin:

A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Now understand that the situation is different for our American friends. They do still have a fundamental right to private property. If the state decides that property is needed for some public purpose, compensation must be provided as per the Fifth Amendment.

The furor is over how the scope of "public use" has been dramatically increased to include private property of use to the public, and that anger is justified in my view.

Still, they have it much better than we do here,

In Canada the Authorson decision made it clear that the Canadian government can take anything from anyone at anytime, no compensation, no warning, no nuttin'. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government is essentially unfettered by any restriction. The Americans have taken a huge and dangerous step in that direction.

[As you can see from the strikeout, my thinking has evolved overnight, and I've come to believe that the Kelo decision is far worse than I originally thought.]

[Kevin Libin at the Western Standard walks us through the details.

Captain Ed and QandO gives us an extended analysis from the American point of view.]

[Update: Apparently this is shaping up to become a blogswarm in the United States. Why not a debate in Canada about our property rights, or lack thereof?]

More trouble for Paul Martin

First, the Ethics Commissioner is going to target Paul Martin for investigation, and now Paul Martin's sons are being questioned:

[Canadian Steamship Lines] has been the greatest source of Paul Martin's significant wealth and we've always known that our Prime Minister pays his corporate taxes to a foreign country, at a tax rate of about 2%, to avoid paying into social programs as a corporate citizen. Now his sons, which hold the company in a "blind trust" have been called before the [Standing Commitee on Finance] to answer questions its questions concerning CSL.

The appearance will take place in October. In time for a fall election?

A brilliant idea from the National Post

From their editorial:

It's time for someone with suitable experience, a strong stomach and the courage of his or her convictions to take over this vital position. And with that in mind, we can't help but wonder if a replacement might not be found in Mr. Shapiro's toughest critic -- New Democrat MP Ed Broadbent.

The former party leader is expected to soon make his exit from politics to care for his ailing wife. But if he were able to find the time, Mr. Broadbent would be an ideal ethics commissioner. Well-respected, outspoken and capable of being objective, we can't think of anyone better suited to holding Ottawa to a higher ethical standard.

I like it.

The Prime Minister will be investigated by the Ethics Commissioner

The hunt is on!

Is the mess that is the Sgro Report evidence of influence?

The blogger Phantom Observer has said something that made me think there may be an explanation as to why the Sgro Report is such a mess, and the Grewal Report was so clear and concise.

The magical powers of Selwyn Pieters

Can you be harassed when you're not even in the room? It seems to be an almost psychic ability, like bending spoons or guessing what card I have in my hand (oh no, it's the race card!). Some people can sense the pseudo-harassment of others through time and space, and exhibit feeling of harassment themselves.

Problem is, some of these psychically empowered people are lawyers.

Your help has been duly noted

People who helped with the floods in Alberta were thanked in the House of Commons yesterday. There were some pointed omissions.

The Grewal Ethics Report -- Grewal cleared (clearly)

A second ethics report has been released dealing with the allegations that Gurmant Grewal was in conflict of interest when he took bonds to guarantee the return of people holding temporary visas. This report is an example of clarity and of confidence, something that cannot be said of the Sgro Report.

Gun Registry Overruns -- The Cost of Dithering

The Hill & Knowlton report on the gun registry reads not as a dry audit, but as a damning indictment of the government's indecisiveness. The dithering that has been going on non-stop is identified as the core reason that the registry has cost so much and accomplished so little.

I've said the dumbest thing ever

Actually, I disagree. I think I was making an excellent point. But read on and decide for yourself.

What a difference 24 hours can make

What a difference 24 hours can make. When the Sgro Report was released, much of the main stream media was quick to announce the Judy Sgro was absolved (or mostly absolved) of conflict of interest charges. Apparently, we transited some sort of subspace corridor last night while we were asleep, because a very different story is being told in this alternate universe today.

I thought he was supposed to clear things up

The whole point of an ethics commissioner is that he's supposed to help parliamentarians in particular and Canadians in general navigate the complexities when issues concerning conflicts of interest are raised. When I see an ethics commissioner who is confused and hesitant, then I figure I can do that just as well.

Shapiro's "Many Shades of Grey" reveals more Liberal corruption

Has another example of Liberal corruption been missed, or ignored, by the main stream media? Is there a bombshell hidden in the ethics commissioner's report on Judy Sgro?

Montreal can wait, Prime Minister

One can be cynical about "photo ops", but the sight of a leader visiting and reviewing the damage in a disaster area resonates regardless of your politics. A visit like that is a communal recognition of the pain and suffering, and represents a promise for help, if help is desired.

As such, you have to wonder about the Prime Minister making spending announcements in Montreal, while in Alberta rivers have risen, and receded, and people are already working on reparing the damage to their property and to their lives.

Since when did Greenpeace get so lazy?

The Internet is a wonderful thing, bringing people together for all sorts of reasons across vast geographic distances. But for some things, there is no substitute for actually being there.

Fine art?

Picking on modern art seems to be too easy sometimes. I don't usually bark the refrain "I could have done that!", since it's obvious to everyone that most modern art can be made by just about anyone (it is because art has become devoid of craft -- but that'll be the subject of another post).

However, there is "art" that just demands to be made fun of.

Police corruption case takes place outside of view of public

Whenever a courtroom is closed to the public, questions must be raised. It should be a rare event, and should be justified. But in Canada it happens all too often, all too quickly, and with all too little notice.

Justice cannot be served in the dark, in secret, especially when an element of the justice system itself is being scrutinized.

Alberta flood relief -- Appeal for help

There are people who need help -- give what you can.

Canadian Red Cross appeals for funding to help victims of Alberta flood

The Canadian Red Cross in Alberta has launched an appeal to raise money
for the largest flood relief effort in more than 10 years in this
region.  Donations support the recovery efforts in flooded areas across
Alberta and help provide for basic needs not covered by insurance or
the government recovery program.

From CTV: 2,500 Edmontonians set to flee flooding

A blogger's photo spread.

Slow news day

On days like this, these stories start to look interesting:

It has long been a source of irritation for opponents and tennis fans alike.

Now women players who grunt loudly when hitting the ball have been accused by the referee in charge of Wimbledon of doing it deliberately to win matches.

At last year's championship, Russian Miss Sharapova produced the loudest grunts, yells and squeals ever heard on Centre Court.

The noise the 18-year-old makes when striking the ball has been measured at 100 decibels, equivalent to a small aircraft landing nearby.

Imagine the racket she makes trying to open a stubborn bottle of ketchup.

(Hat tip to NealeNews)

Clash of the (Auditing) Titans

While researching Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton for the piece about the Industry Canada audit, I found this tidbut which is not directly relevant, but interesting nevertheless:

Deloitte Claims Grant Thornton Held Back Parmalat Information

Big Four accounting firm Deloitte has accused a smaller rival, Grant Thornton, of hindering its audit of Parmalat, the once-mighty Italian dairy giant that collapsed amid accusations of widespread fraud.

According to the Financial Times of London, Deloitte's Chief Executive Bill Parrett told the newspaper that Grant Thornton withheld information during the audit.

"We did not perpetrate this fraud," he said. "It has been reported that this has been a massive fraud, which has been going on for more than a decade. It also appears that possibly other professionals were lying to our people."

He said the "other professionals" were at Grant Thornton. The newspaper reported Parrett as saying, "Based upon the way the prosecutors have dealt with Grant Thornton, it would be reasonable to expect, in the final analysis, that they had information we did not have, and we wished we had."

I wish I could meet Stephen Harper

Dour humourless political android? Guy with an easy smile, quick wit and self-deprecating sense of humour?

I don't know which describes Stephen Harper. I hear descriptions like the first one, and then descriptions like the second one.

I can't form a coherent opinion. One day, I'd like to meet the man and form my own opinion. Until then, I think I'm going to lay off and let Mr. Harper do his job.

Another funding scandal? Auditors in conflict of interest?

The most important thing in an audit is absolute trust in the auditors. But with a half-billion of taxpayer's money on the line, we're facing a situation in which we can't be certain whether the auditors are in conflict of interest.

Tim Murphy has to be honest -- he signed a paper promising he would be

Stephen Taylor has discovered quite an interesting thing. Apparently, Tim Murphy is subject to investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. That's not just our interpretation of the Conflict of Interest legislation. Tim Murphy actually signed a document that says so.

Stephen Taylor found it in 5 minutes. But Bernard Shapiro is "still learning the ropes".

"Stephen Taylor, Ethics Commissioner" -- works for me.

Bernard Shapiro -- Is he Buckets of Grewal?

Could Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro be the mysterious blogger Buckets of Grewal?

I only say that because it would explain why Shapiro is not getting any work done.

Two commencement speeches in contrast

A speech to a graduating class is an opportunity to share wisdom and experience to a group of people in great need of both.

It is a shame when that opportunity is lost to narcissism.

Stephen Taylor interviews Andrew Scheer, MP

Check out the interview (in two parts) of MP Andrew Scheer. Kudos to Stephen Taylor. His access to the Conservative Party is something we all appreciate.

Part 1
Part 2

Knock me over with a feather -- they're not blaming Stephen Harper!

Sometimes I idly wonder when a column in a Canadian publication will appear blaming Stephen Harper and the Conservatives for the attack on Pearl Harbour. It seems like everything else is their fault.

So imagine how surprised I was to see Paul Martin being berated for something that the Conservatives are actually responsible for!

Link to web site of Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz

At the web site of the Member of Parliament for Yorkton-Meville in Saskatchewan, the Honourable Garry Breitkreuz, you will find reams on information on the gun registry.

Under his list of "Gun Control Articles", he has reproduced the Sun Media article concerning the Hill & Knowlton "audit". Added to the bottom has been added a link to this blog's article about the actual services provide by Hill & Knowlton, and how that plays into the audit being discussed.

Needless to say, I am very pleased that Mr. Breitkreuz and his staff have decided that my post should be included in their huge collection of media clippings on gun control. He is quite the expert on the subject, and I'm flattered that my piece was considered worthy.

Keep up the good work, Mr. Breitkreuz.

A dumb and hurtful decision, regardless of your point-of-view

In the rush to generate controversy and thus become the centre of attention, the oh-so-wise folks who run the University of Western Ontario have forgotten that they are not the centre of the universe, and that certain days are reserved for lesser people to be praised for their work.

"Oh yeah? Well...well...you're fat!" -- Prime Minister of Canada, 2005

There's nothing worse than a lame joke. Well, perhaps there is. A lame joke delivered in front of hundreds, seen by thousands, and recorded for all time in video and in print.

Buckets doesn't understand the Blogger's Creed

Not that there is an actual creed written down anywhere, but blogs are supposed to be a persistent record. Corrections can be made, and changes when new information is made available, but those changes have to be recorded so that people can see the evolution of a story.

Tapes to be released soon, I'm sure

Apparently, no offer was made:

Belinda Stronach was handed a plum cabinet job only after deciding to join the Liberals, says a spokesman for the prime minister.

Scott Reid, Paul Martin's director of communications, says negotiations over Stronach's responsibilities in a Liberal government weren't launched until she had made up her mind to leave the Conservatives.

But Reid said former Ontario premier David Peterson didn't have to exert too much pressure on Martin to secure a cabinet post.

"In Belinda Stronach's case, her talents are exceptional and obvious," Reid said of the millionaire auto-parts heiress.

This is a remarkable piece of news.

I'm sure Scott Reid will be releasing tapes of the conversations with Belinda Stronach to back these statements up.

Senate Reform -- Based on money?

www.kyid.net has a fascinating post concerning Senate reform based on GDP of each province. Check it out. It turns out to be a possible way of balancing power regionally in this country.

The government buries bad spin on the Gun Registry

A Conservative MP has gotten hold of a report, an "audit" that is not really an audit, that shows the gun registry is in danger of spiralling out of control (though many would say that ship has already set sail). He had to get that report via an Access to Information request, and even then the most important bits were blacked out.

The Western Standard

Yesterday I was invited to become a contributor to the Western Standard in-house blog, the Shotgun. Special thanks to publisher Ezra Levant for believing that my work would make a useful addition to this great blog, and for giving me this opportunity to reach even more readers. The confidence he's showing in me is greatly appreciated.

As a person who has never been farther west than Chicago, to be contributing, even in this modest way, to the "Independent Voice of the New West" is slightly nerve-wracking. I hope my brand of Central Canadian neo-conservatism finds favour in the New West. If you are a reader of the Shotgun and just discovering Angry in the Great White North, I'd love to hear from you.

The Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem Re-Imagined!

For those who have been following the rankings of Canadian blogs, there have been major changes.

Fraud in the Main Stream Media

A fascinating story of fraud in the main stream media coming out of the US.

Why this book could not be written in Canada

From Captain's Quarters:

Bernard Goldberg, the former CBS reporter who blew the lid off institutional media bias with his book Bias, will name the top 100 American screw-ups in his upcoming publication, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America : (and Al Franken Is #37).

That sounds like a pick-up for me. Read the post -- some great hints about some of the silliness exposed. My favourite: the congresswoman who complains that not enough hurricanes are named after black people.

I thought hurricanes weren't named after anybody, but just given names. I guess she meant not enough black names, like "Moesha". You know that in Canada they'd pass a law that would require alternating English and French names, then suffer through the lawsuit demanding that First Peoples aka Aboriginals aka Indians get a slot in the rotation. I'm sure the Charter of Rights would get pulled into it somehow.

Maybe Canadians are lucky that we don't suffer much from hurricanes, and not just because of the physical damage.

I thought about Canadians who might make our list, but then realized it was a pointless exercise. Such a book could never be written here. People on the list would use Canada's libel laws to sue, or take the author in front of a human rights tribunal alleging that they had been vicitmized by a hate crime.

So Stephen Harper was on the road to Damascus one day...

Sometimes the obvious is not so obvious to everyone.

"Paul Martin, you lying scum ... good work!"

Prime Minister Paul Martin is accused misleading the Canadian people on what the same-sex legislation really means for religious institutions.

That accusation comes from fervent supporters of the legislation. Moreover, they heap praise on Paul Martin for lying.

I really wanted to see that movie

I really wanted to go see "War of the Worlds". It looked like a great special effects extravaganza. The jack-ass-ity of Tom Cruise is somewhat of a turn off, but I was willing to suffer through the discomfort.

By the way, I wonder how many people are like that. When a "star" gets $20 million and a percentage of the profits for six weeks work (I made those numbers up -- I don't know what Tom Cruise's deal was, nor do I care), it's not because he's an amazing actor. Any competent actor working for scale could do what he does. It's because his celebrity status guarantees a massive opening day turnout. At least that's the theory. Are there a lot of people like me who are turned off by Tom Cruise, and by any movie where "Tom Cruise" is written in larger print on the movie poster than the title of the movie itself? Probably not enough.

But back to my point. I was looking forward to "War of the Worlds", but the weirdness of Cruise is starting to make me think that I'll pass on it. Check out the latest from Michelle Malkin and the "Tom Cruise Death Grip".

Alls I know is that if I were going out with a woman who as a little girl dreamed about going out with me, I'd be keeping it a secret. I have enough self-awareness to know what looks like a pervo to other normal folks. Hey, I thought Scientology was supposed to make you more self-aware.

Guest blogging on small dead animals -- Comments

For a few days last week, I was guest blogging on small dead animals under the name "Danger Guy". People seemed generally pleased, but some people were not. Instead of bothering Kate, please consider posting your criticisms, constructive or otherwise, to this post. I promise to read every comment.

Monte Solberg Podcast

Part 3 of Stephen Taylor's three-part podcast interview with Monte Solberg is up.

Irwin Cotler should considering resigning

When a minister is frozen out of discussions that, as the minister responsible, he should not only be allowed to attend, but indeed should be required to attend, that minister needs to seriously consider if he should continue in cabinet.

In days past, when honour was something more in evidence, a minister in such a situation would have delivered his resignation. Clearly those days are long gone.

Monte Solberg Podcast

Part 2 of Stephen Taylor's three-part podcast interview with Monte Solberg is up.

Hot times in Ottawa tonight

The drama that is Canadian politics continues...

Fries, Lies, and Statistics

There are certain truths we hold to be self-evident.

I'm not talking about rights. That's passe. I'm talking about the fact that we're too fat.

You hear it all the time. Obesity is an epidemic. We eat the wrong things. Try this diet. Or this one. Or this one.

And let's not even get close to the political aspects -- the greed of corporate America! Don't believe me? Then talk a walk in the Brain Garden.

Well, maybe we should think again. From the pages of Scientific American:

[C]onventional wisdom [is] that excess adiposity [adipose: Of, relating to, or composed of animal fat; fatty] kills more than 300,000 Americans a year and that the gradual fattening of nations since the 1980s presages coming epidemics of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and a host of other medical consequences. Indeed, just this past March the New England Journal of Medicine presented a "Special Report," by S. Jay Olshansky, David B. Allison and others that seemed to confirm such fears. The authors asserted that because of the obesity epidemic, "the steady rise in life expectancy during the past two centuries may soon come to an end."

Can't argue with scientists and their "Special Report", can we?

The life expectancy costs of obesity that Olshansky and his colleagues actually calculated were based on a handful of convenient, but false, presuppositions. First, they assumed that every obese American adult currently has a BMI of 30, or alternatively of 35--the upper and lower limits of the "mild obesity" range. They then compared that simplified picture of the U.S. with an imagined nation in which no adult has a BMI of more than 24--the upper limit of "healthy weight"--and in which underweight causes zero excess deaths.

To project death rates resulting from obesity, the study used risk data that are more than a decade old rather than the newer ratios Flegal included, which better reflect dramatically improved treatments for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The authors further assumed not only that the old mortality risks have remained constant but also that future advances in medicine will have no effect whatsoever on the health risks of obesity.

If all these simplifications are reasonable, the March paper concluded, then the estimated hit to the average life expectancy of the U.S. population from its world-leading levels of obesity is four to nine months. ("Two to five years" was simply a gloomy guess of what could happen in "coming decades" if an increase in overweight children were to fuel additional spikes in adult obesity.) The study did not attempt to determine whether, given its many uncertainties, the number of months lost was reliably different from zero. Yet in multiple television and newspaper interviews about the study, co-author David S. Ludwig evinced full confidence as he compared the effect of rising obesity rates to "a massive tsunami headed toward the United States."

Jaw-dropping. They make the most absurd simplifications and the number crunching comes out to a lousy nine months premature death, tops. So then they pull two to five years out of thin air as a guess. A guess?

Why even bother with the analysis? These guys should be facing a tsunami of lawsuits.

So what are the real causes of obesity, and what can we do about it?

One of those complicated realities, concurs [Paul F.] Campos, a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder [and author of The Obesity Myth : Why America's Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Your Health], is the widely accepted evidence that genetic differences account for 50 to 80 percent of the variation in fatness within a population. Because no safe and widely practical methods have been shown to induce long-term loss of more than about 5 percent of body weight, Campos says, "health authorities are giving people advice--maintain a body mass index in the 'healthy weight' range--that is literally impossible for many of them to follow." Body mass index, or BMI, is a weight-to-height ratio.

The article has some very interesting statistics. Here's one:

[J. Eric] Oliver [author of Obesity: The Making of an American Epidemic] points to a new and unusually thorough analysis of three large, nationally representative surveys, for example, that found only a very slight--and statistically insignificant--increase in mortality among mildly obese people, as compared with those in the "healthy weight" category, after subtracting the effects of age, race, sex, smoking and alcohol consumption. The three surveys--medical measurements collected in the early 1970s, late 1970s and early 1990s, with subjects matched against death registries nine to 19 years later--indicate that it is much more likely that U.S. adults who fall in the overweight category have a lower risk of premature death than do those of so-called healthy weight. The overweight segment of the "epidemic of overweight and obesity" is more likely reducing death rates than boosting them. "The majority of Americans who weigh too much are in this category," Campos notes.

Got that? You are likely to live longer if you are overweight.

So how did we get to this state?

What is really going on, asserts Oliver, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, is that "a relatively small group of scientists and doctors, many directly funded by the weight-loss industry, have created an arbitrary and unscientific definition of overweight and obesity. They have inflated claims and distorted statistics on the consequences of our growing weights, and they have largely ignored the complicated health realities associated with being fat."

I recommend you go read the article online, or better yet, pick up a copy of the magazine -- all the supporting charts and graphs are in the print edition. There are some other cool articles, like the one about whether the fine-structure constant is truly constant.

And the next time you get a snippy look from your colleague eating his fat-free gluten-free dolphin-friendly soy-based tuna-substitute on a bed of sprouts, invite him for a ride, and take him to the nearest library, get this issue of Scientific American out, and have him take a look.

And if you pass your favourite fast food joint along the way, go in for a bite. Let your friend look down at you all he wants. The likelihood is that you'll have the last laugh.

But what does democracy and human rights have to do with profits?

Microsoft is working with the Chinese government, presumably in a very profitable relationship, to bring blogging to the Chinese people. The problem is, of course, that the Chinese government has certain, let's say, issues:

The policy affects Web logs, or blogs, created through the MSN Spaces service, said Adam Sohn, a global sales and marketing director at MSN.

On Monday, Agence France-Presse, the French news agency, said bloggers were not allowed to post terms to MSN Spaces such as "democracy," "human rights" and "Taiwan independence." Attempts to enter those words were said to generate a message saying the language was prohibited.

Five million blogs created since May 26 in China via MSN Spaces, and not a single mention of democracy.

Microsoft is a private company, and not an arm of US foreign policy.

As such, there is nothing wrong in what it is doing.

By the same reasoning, however, it should not allow itself to be used an arm of Chinese government policy either.

Given the massive market presence of Microsoft in the world of desktop computing, and the power Microsoft wields, it had an opportunity here to tell the Chinese government that its corporate policy is to remain neutral. Moreover, given the suspicion with which Microsoft is viewed by many as a company that is out to control its customer base, this was an important opportunity to show that the company is opposed to control of any kind.

Finally, Microsoft could have used the opportunity to point out that its own success has everything to do with the democratization of computing in the West, and in particular, the United States, where free market rules govern both the marketplace of consumer products and the marketplace of ideas.

It was an opportunity missed.

Want more background? Check out Chinese Whispers and other articles at the China Digital Times.

Hansard: Line of the Day

From Question Period, discussing the suggestion that the Martin Liberals are in cahoots with Jean Chretien to derail the Gomery Inquiry:

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the public works minister was correct when he said several weeks ago that there was no agreement made by the Government of Canada with Mr. Chretien.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister is now referring to himself in the third person. I guess it has not gone to his head.

Giggle...

The Chretien Challenge

According to details of the interview with Brian Saunders, the Liberals are welcoming the challenge by Jean Chretien alleging the Justice Gomery is biased:

Brian Saunders, a Justice Department lawyer, denied there was a deal about any future challenge.

"The bottom line is he (Chretien) should wait until Justice Gomery issues his report before bringing any judicial review," he said.

"It has been our position since the issue was raised in January that Justice Gomery is not biased. It's our position when we filed our factum; it's still our position. So there's no surprise to Mr. Chretien."

The "deal" refered to is one rumoured to exist between the government and former prime minister Jean Chretien in which the government agrees not to intervene in a challenge issued by Chretien before the report is issued.

But according to Mr. Saunders, the government would clearly have no problem having an issued report put into legal limbo.

Let's imagine Paul Martin talking to reporters in January, 2006: "It is the position of this government that while challenges are still pending to whether the tapes have been altered the Gomery Report is biased in any way, asking the Canadian people to pass judgment is the height of irresponsibility. Canadians must be presented with pristine recordings with a report that is clearly unbiased or we run the risk of Canadians coming to unwarranted conclusions about the subject of 4 hours of conversations the implications of a mountain of corroborating evidence what a few rogue party workers might have done. I stand by my promise to call an election with 30 days of the report being tabled. But as this might not be the final report, the election will have to wait. But I promise that in the mean time the Liberals will continue to govern with all the integrity that no one has proven we don't have."

Prediction: No election before spring 2006

Hey, predictions are cheap. You make a wrong one, and few people even remember. But if you nail one, boy, the high-fives never stop.

So here's my prediction: we won't have a federal election in this country before March 2006.

I've suspected as much, and alluded to those suspicions in previous posts (see here and here and here and elsewhere). Here's a sample of my musings:

Unless...unless...unless the Liberals have given the NDP some reason to believe that the government could be standing well beyond late fall or Christmas. Is there a plan to renege on the promise to hold an election in the late fall? If the NDP knew that the Liberals intended to govern well into 2006 before an election was called, that would definitely prompt them to start making these sorts of medium- and long-term plans.

and here:

I grow more and more worried that the Gomery Inquiry will be derailed before it manages to deliver a report. If that's the case, and if the Liberals are still in power tomorrow, the chances are good that with no report, there will be no fall election. With the help of the NDP, the Liberals will remain in power for a year or two, ride out the anger from the allegations already raised at the Inquiry, and when the exhaustion sets in, go to the polls and win back full control of government.

But news today clinches it for me.

From the National Post:

Sponsorship inquiry commissioner John Gomery is consulting with his lawyer after a report suggested former prime minister Jean Chretien may relaunch a legal challenge of his impartiality as head of the inquiry, a spokesman said Monday.

But Brian Saunders, a Justice Department lawyer, denied a published report that the government struck a deal with Chretien not to oppose any new legal challenge filed against Gomery.

"There is no deal,'' Saunders told reporters, acknowledging that a letter accompanying the court submission didn't clearly indicate the government's continued confidence in Gomery.

Of course, no Liberal will ever use the word "deal" except in the phrase "There is no deal" for fear of tape recordings or remote viewings by telepaths.

The government is under no obligation that I can think of the defend Justice Gomery in court. If Jean Chretien takes the commissioner to court and succeeds in proving to a federal judge that there is bias, there will be no report. Even if the judgment is appealed, weeks and months will go by. The Liberals will hold to their promise of calling an election within 30 days of the report that may never come.

National Post and Angry -- Walking in Step

On May 20, 2005, I wrote on this blog:

Can Stephen Harper redefine that question (ie, "What does it mean to be a Canadian?")? I'm not so sure, because I think to attack something as basic as that, we need an ideological demagogue. An Anti-Trudeau, as it were. Flashy, charismatic, fiery, but Conservative. A Ronald Reagan or a Maggie Thatcher, each of whom in their own way didn't just earn votes, they each earned a following that lives to this day, long after each left the political scene. Then the Conservatives can win an election not on the basis of punishing the Liberals, but on the basis of leading Canadians.

Can you imagine someone having a picture of Stephen Harper up years after he is no longer the leader of the Conservative Party? I know Americans who still have a picture of Ronald Reagan in their offices.

From the National Post on June 13, 2005:

We are not calling on Mr. Harper to resign. But recent events have put into question whether he is the man who should be leading the Conservatives. In particular, the failure of the party to surge ahead of the Liberals in popular support, even as the government has been buried in scandal, and Mr. Harper's misplaced trust in Gurmant Grewal's claims regarding his jobs-for-votes tapes, suggest this is a good time for reflection.

The problem lies not, as Red Tories would have us believe, with the party's socially conservative roots.

Rather, we imagine the trouble lies with how the message is being delivered. Mr. Harper is a glum, moody figure who has shown little enthusiasm for the rituals of mass-media politics and for the simple glad-handing expected of party chiefs. And instead of hiring communications staff who make up for these weaknesses, he has hired glum, clannish people who reinforce them.

Mr. Harper should think long and hard this summer about how badly he wants his job. Is he prepared, or even able, to do the things necessary to win at retail politics? If the answer is yes, Mr. Harper should return this fall a man transformed. If it is no, then he should consider bowing out.

"A man transformed"

If he does come back after the summer break, assuming there is no election, I think we have the Conservative election slogan:

[Update: Captain Ed weighs in.]

Gilles Duceppe staying put?

From the Toronto Star:

The Bloc Quebecois' Gilles Duceppe has been leaning toward announcing today that he will stick with federal politics and pass up a chance to lead the provincial Parti Quebecois, a Bloc MP says.

Duceppe's announcement will kick off another round of political spectacle on Parliament Hill, where Prime Minister Paul Martin's precarious minority government faces confidence votes tomorrow night that could possibly topple the Liberals and force a snap election.

Why wouldn't Gilles Duceppe take the PQ top spot, which by all accounts is his for the taking?

A few reasons, I think.

One is his stated desire to take the Bloc Quebecois into the next election. He must be looking forward to giving the Liberals a severe drubbing.

But as always, there must be more than just that.

The problem with the job of BQ leader is that if and when sovereignty comes, he's out of a job, while the leader of the PQ becomes King of Quebec. So why stay with the BQ?

I see two basic reasons.

The PQ might not win the next sovereignty referendum

If he leads the PQ into a losing referendum, and success in a referendum is by no means guaranteed, that would spell the end of Gilles Duceppe. The PQ membership would eat him alive, as they did with Parizeau, Bouchard, and now Landry. If he has doubts that the PQ can win a referendum, then the job as leader of the BQ is definitely more secure.

And anyway, the BQ will always be an opposition party -- always complaining about what's wrong but never having to come up with a solution. Quebec has a lot of problems economically and otherwise, and being the leader of the PQ is about much more than referenda. Indeed, to win a sovereignty referendum, a key element is to show that Quebec can stand on its own. Gilles Duceppe might prefer to have someone else have those headaches.

The PQ might win the next sovereignty referendum

OK, I'm covering my bases here. But consider. If the PQ wins a referendum on sovereignty, the leader of the BQ becomes the key figure in the negotiations with the federal government. Arguably, that job will be more important than the thankless job of leader of the province. The premier of a Quebec on the verge of sovereignty will have to deal with the chaos in the markets, in housing speculations, the flight of capital, the flight of people, and so on and so forth. The leader of the BQ, deep in negotiations with the federal government, can avoid that headache.

Also, if a sovereign Quebec tanks, the leader of the PQ will not be remembered fondly. Federalists will remember him as the person who led Quebec to disaster. Sovereigntists will remember him as the person who screwed up the dream.

If Gilles Duceppe harbours severe doubts about the viability of a sovereign Quebec, he might prefer the role he is playing now.

I'm sure there are other issues too. His support within the party might not be as strong as we think, and he might know that. He might not like the PQ as a party, filled with radicals and extremists. He might be gunshy given the experience of his predecessor Lucien Bouchard.

Of course, he might be pulling a Scharzenegger. The Governator allowed rumours that he would not run governor of California to spread, then floored everyone when he announced his candidacy on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. The fireworks from that surprise announcement gave his run a kickstart that he was able to ride all the way to Sacramento.

Monte Solberg podcast

Stephen Taylor, ever on the bleeding edge of blogging technology, will be releasing the first of 3 podcasts with his interview with Conservative MP and finance critic Monte Solberg. Following close on the heels of that will be the interview with MP Andrew Scheer.

If you don't have an iPod, here's your excuse to get one. Of course, you can always listen to the interview with your computer's MP3 player, but then I don't get any Amazon referral fees that way.

A reason to go to work tomorrow

So now the possibility exists that Canada will soon see a two-tier health care system, in which people with means can pay for essential services out of their own pocket directly, or by purchasing private health insurance, which until the Supreme Court ruled last week, was not allowed to cover essential services, thereby guaranteeing the government monopoly on keeping us healthy.

Now the possibility exists that soon I will be able to use the compensation I receive from my employer to enhance the medical services my family receives, assuming I can afford it.

Sounds like a reason for me to go into work and be more productive and earn a raise. Sounds like a reason for everyone to go to work and be more productive and earn raises.

Let's hear it again how two-tier health care is going to wreck Canada. Imagine a nation of hard-working people using their wits and sweat to make things better for themselves and their families.

I guess those people are right. It sure ain't the Canada we're used to.

[The Americans take note of our healthcare silliness.]

Selective earthquakes

From Warren Kinsella's musings for June 10, 2005:

Did you feel that tremor, yesterday morning? It was Canada changing under your feet. Without you, the voter, being asked first [by the judiciary] whether you approve.

He was talking about the health care ruling. Or was he talking about same-sex marriage?

Seems to me that some people are selective about which rulings are earthquakes that require approval and which ones are common sense that we must accept without substantive debate in Parliament or grassroots opposition.

Funny thing is, the health care argument is based on a right that does appear in the Charter ("security of the person"), while sexual orientation is not listed in the Charter as a basis for a charge of discrimination, nor is marriage listed as a right.

A comparison of two experts

Exhibit #1: A "forensics expert" who, working off digitized copies of the Grewal tapes, concluded that they were altered deliberately and that artifacts could not be explained as being a result of a copying or conversion process:

John J. Mitchell ("Jack"), Years experience: 30+/audio - 3/forensic audio. Education: * 1964-1976; The Pennsylvania State University

• Under graduate & graduate study - music education and music composition.


• Began study of electronic music in 1967. Such study includes recording and editing techniques, signal design, analysis, processing and full semester physics courses which were specific to the physics of sound. Have been involved with audio and signal analysis and processing in one form or another ever since.


• 1992: Univ. of New Mexico: 1 credit short course - Music and Technology


• Other: Have taught both public school and college. From 1987 to 1995 was the editor/arranger/orchestrator for the John Donald Robb Musical Trust, University of New Mexico Foundation.

Thus far, I am able to boast a realistic 99% success rate with regard to my forensic work. (That assessment has come from clients, not myself). JM

Jack Mitchell owner/engineer: Commercial Audio \ Forensic Audio
Computer Audio Engineering aka: CAE Studio

He also boasts accreditation from the American College of Forensic Examiners as his only forensics certification, of which it has been said:

"He basically takes people's money and gives them a worthless piece of paper," says Robert Phillips, an Audubon, N.J., document examiner. "He's just in it for the money." Phillips claims he has reason to know. He says he resigned as chair of the organization's certification committee in 1993 after discovering that O'Block was issuing credentials to unqualified candidates behind the committee's back.

Andre Moenssens, a law school professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and an expert on scientific evidence, goes even further. He says O'Block's organization is basically a certification mill. "For the right amount of money, he will certify just about anybody as an expert in anything," Moenssens says.

Exhibit #2: A "professional audio engineer specializing in post-production work" examining the original tapes, making no claim as a forensic specialist, states that the clips were unaltered clean recordings. Here are his credentials:

Summary of qualifications
2002 - present: Professor, Broadcasting - TV, School of Media & Design, Algonquin College, Ottawa

2001 - present: Operations Manager, dMAX Media, Ottawa,
- managing a production/post-production company as well as performing videography & editing tasks in the field.

1995 - present: Freelance Post-Production Consultant
- contracted to consult and implement the production & post-production process for numerous clients' productions. Assisted with all tasks from program concept to completion & delivery of finished productions. Clients include; The Discovery Channel. WTN, CPAC, CBC, CTV, Global TV, Government and Corporate contacts as well as many independent producers.

1985 - 1995: Senior Editor, General Assembly Production Centre (GAPC) Ottawa,Ontario
- edited thousands of programs for various producers. Involvement included conceptual assistance in program, graphics and animation creation as well as post-audio consultation. Regularly assisted in coordinating the entire post-production process from off-line to delivery of finished programs.

Related Experience
- June 2003: received manufacturer's training: Discreet Logic Fire & Inferno on HDTV platform, SGI Onyx, Unix OS.
- currently using & instructing various 3D & 2D animation applications such as: 3ds Max, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Photoshop & Steinberg Cubase VST 24, Adobe Audition, Pro Tools to list a few.
- have operated various non-linear hard-disk recording/editing systems; Avid Media Composers & Media Suite Pro, Media 100, Final Cut Pro 4, Imix Videocube/Stratasphere, Adobe Premiere, D-Vision & Discreet Logic
- have earned numerous local & international awards for dramatic & non-dramatic editing of programs such as Music Videos, Corporate presentations, Government and Institutional programs, documentaries, commercials etc.

A college professor and an award winning editor familiar with a list of explicitly named recording and editing systems. Presents himself as an expert in modern electronic media and nothing else.

I've said enough. You decide.

The Conservatives have two weeks to make their case before the next election is called

Am I predicting an election in two weeks? Oddly enough, no.

It looks like when this session wraps up in late June, there will be virtually no more opportunities to face the government during Question Period before an election is called in the fall:

In an effort to dispel notions of fatigue and drift the Liberal government is preparing a seven-month plan that could include a cabinet shuffle and a new policy-setting throne speech.

Liberal sources say the plan would include several phases: a cabinet shuffle as early as this month, proroguing Parliament in the fall, and a mid-winter throne speech that would form the crux of an election platform.

Got that? They'll prorogue Parliament just as it sits, spend a few weeks working on a throne speech, then call the promised election.

Potential damage to the Liberals, and benefits to the Conservatives, from the Gomery Report will be limited if the Prime Minister and his ministers are not required to answer questions in the House of Commons, but only deal with a compliant press corps.

It seems unlikely that the ethics commissioner will deliver either the Sgro report or the Grewal report before this session rises. If that's the case, then the Opposition will have only limited opportunity to question the government on these issues before the fall prorogation.

Bottom line is that the governing Liberals are going to make sure they don't have to put up with any serious questioning, spin the reports to a helpful press, and craft a throne speech that promises to bribe us with our own money.

Time to consider fixed election dates...

Memorials turned into political screeds

I think I know where the folks who designed Canada's War Museum are. They're in New York, designing the 9-11 memorial:

The World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex will be an imposing edifice wedged in the place where the Twin Towers once stood. It will serve as the primary "gateway" to the underground area where the names of the lost are chiseled into concrete. The organizers of its principal tenant, the International Freedom Center (IFC), have stated that they intend to take us on "a journey through the history of freedom" -- but do not be fooled into thinking that their idea of freedom is the same as that of those Marines. To the IFC's organizers, it is not only history's triumphs that illuminate, but also its failures. The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond. This is a history all should know and learn, but dispensing it over the ashes of Ground Zero is like creating a Museum of Tolerance over the sunken graves of the USS Arizona.

The driving force behind the IFC is Tom Bernstein, the dynamic co-founder of the Chelsea Piers Sports and Entertainment Complex who made a fortune financing Hollywood movies. But his capital ventures appear to have funded his true calling, the pro bono work he has done his entire adult life -- as an activist lawyer in the human rights movement. He has been a proud member of Human Rights First since it was founded -- as the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights -- 27 years ago, and has served as its president for the last 12.

The people who visit Ground Zero in five years will come because they want to pay their respects at the place where heroes died. They will come because they want to remember what they saw that day, because they want a personal connection, to touch the place that touched them, the place that rallied the nation and changed their lives forever. I would wager that, if given a choice, they would rather walk through that dusty hanger at JFK Airport where 1,000 World Trade Center artifacts are stored than be herded through the International Freedom Center's multi-million dollar insult.

At least the Americans have a chance to change things. We're stuck with our War Museum:

The issue revolves around a large painting of a Canadian soldier torturing to death a young Somali thief who had entered Canadian lines, and a display about the Korean war that advertises 41.4% of those who served in Korea contracted venereal disease.

Many Korean-Canadians are also puzzled at their homeland being depicted as a country rife with venereal disease for Canadian soldiers. In Canada, the Korea Times Daily has run front-page stories of the VD "slur," and the president's office in Seoul has reportedly been alerted to it.

If the museum is interested in VD, surely it should be comparing the rate in Korea with rates in WWI and WWII -- though what this has to do with soldiering or war is incidental.

The torture painting is more controversial. While museum officials may feel it shows the horrors of war, "warts and all," that particular incident has nothing to do with "war." It has to do with an individual soldier and a young thief. Although an atrocity, it is not soldiering.

WWII and Korean veterans who follow the Korea Veterans News (Koreavetnews@aol. com) are incensed at the museum.

They have a point -- which brings us back to the possible insensitivity of those who run the museum. As a group, they seem to have an academic rather than a personal feel for wars and those who fought in them.

You have to wonder who approves these things. Did anyone show the veterans the plans of what how the museum was going to chronicle their lives in the military and in war?

Of course not, because these people already know what needs to be said. Why do you need approval when you know you are right?

At least in the United States, the plans are in the open, and there is a movement to take back the memorial site from the "Blame America" crowd. Good luck to them.

Two reporters but only one journalist

Why can't we have more reporters like this? Fox News reporter Brian Wilson was interviewing Democratic National Chair Horward Dean about strange remarks he's been making. And applying logic!

Wilson raised his voice. And he didn't wait his turn. And he didn't ask "substantive" questions. Translation: He didn't genuflect before the Democratic leadership or the Beltway journalistic elite, and he asked exactly what viewers wanted to know.

[Wilson] asked Dean "if people are focused on the other things that you've said about hating Republicans, about Republicans being dishonest and then this latest comment about the Republican Party is full of white Christians. You say you hate Republicans -- does that mean you also'' hate white Christians?

Brilliant! Read the piece to see the reaction.

Clever reporters who think on their feet and who don't cut sloppy thinkers any slack. My kind of people.

Instead, we've got Mike Duffy:

Gurmant Grewal was first elected in 1997. Belinda Stronach was first elected in 2004. But according to the Minister's suggestion, Mr. Grewal would have needed to put in some more time as a back bencher on the Liberal side of the House before he could expect a Cabinet position. At least that is the defence being offered [by federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh] as to why it would not be credible to interpret the conversations captured on tape as a promise of a Cabinet post. [CTV interviewer Mike Duffy] should have been expected to pounce on Minister Dosanjh and challenge him explain how the case of Belinda Stronach stands in relation to the general principle he'd just articulated.

Of course, Mike Duffy did no such thing.

Every so-called journalist in this country should be held to these sorts of standards. If they can't manage it, they can get a job at a fast food joint, since the level of questions they can handle doesn't seem to rise above "Do you want fries with that?"

Boy punished for listening to his foolish mother?

In Chicago, an 11-year-old boy was allowed to drive the family minivan to school. Turns out it was lucky no one was hurt:

A Chicago woman allowed her 11-year-old son to drive the family's minivan to his elementary school, where the boy crashed the vehicle near a group of children.

The mother, Erin Sarandah, and a sibling were in the van as passengers. Mom had a legal license, so police are puzzled as to why she would let her son drive.

Sarandah was cited for damage to property and allowing an unauthorized person to drive, [police spokesman Pat] Camden said.

But here's the weird part:

The boy received a traffic ticket for negligent driving and driving without a licence.

The boy was doing what his mother told him to do. Obviously the details of the case are murky, and I trust the judgment of the police on the scene, but I'm curious as to what the circumstances were that led the police to issue tickets to child who, to this observer anyway, seems to the victim of abuse -- that's my take on putting your child in a situation of adult responsibility for which he is not prepared, either by training or by maturity.

Moreover, they seem to piling it on the boy:

The boy, however, was expelled from school and both he and his mother were ordered to traffic court later this month.

Is this one of those zero tolerance rules being applied with zero thought?

[I've checked the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, and I haven't been able to find any more details that what appears in this AP story.]

I thought the rule was the Americans come and we're doomed

It's supposed to be simple. Canada has home grown businesses, indeed cultural icons. The Americans come with their competing products, made faster and cheaper, but without any understanding on Canadian values. Nevertheless, cost conscious Canadians, who have little discretionary income because of high taxes, purchase the cheaper product, and the Canadian firm goes out of business or is bought out.

The left wails about free trade.

Rinse and repeat.

But then what happened here?

The court-appointed monitor of a Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. franchisee in Canada that has suffered steep losses began selling the operator's doughnut-making equipment, store leases and other assets, a newspaper report said Friday.

Ernst & Young Inc. was brought in by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to oversee the restructuring of KremeKo Inc., the Wall Street Journal said in an online article, citing a court filing.

KremeKo filed for protection from its creditors in mid-April and owns and operates Krispy Kreme locations in all Canadian provinces except for British Columbia.

Tim Horton's (which is ultimately owned by Americans as well, by the way) seems to be doing fine. Weren't they supposed to be squished by the Krispy Kreme folks? Well, apparently Krispy Kreme is suffering in the US as well:

Problem: The company grew too fast; profits took a hit; it ousted its CEO and now the government is probing its accounting. And one other thing -- calorie-conscious consumers dumped the doughnuts when the "low-carb fad" gripped the nation last year.

Solution? Expand into other types of breakfast foods like rival Dunkin' Donuts. Said Johnson, "This company bet the baby's booty on a fatty snack and it's hard to convince people that a sugary doughnut is good for you."

Mmmmmm...donuts.

Setting up the ethics commissioner

From the National Post:

The NDP has asked Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro to investigate the conduct of Prime Minister Paul Martin and his chief of staff in the Grewal affair.

In a letter Thursday, NDP whip Yvon Godin said if investigating the prime minister is the only way to get at Tim Murphy, then so be it. "If you cannot include Mr. Murphy in your investigation, then I am requesting of you and your office to include in your inquiry Mr. Martin," Godin wrote.

Shapiro, who acknowledges he's still learning his job, has twice refused NDP requests to investigate Murphy because he's an unelected official.

It has been pointed out several times that the mandate of the ethics commissioner includes staff, for the obvious reason that their behaviour impacts and influences the behaviour and the decisions of elected ministers.

Indeed, in the Sgro affair, he absolved Judy Sgro and blamed the staff for the mess. Clever trick for a man who won't investigate an unelected official. But his argument is that he can only investigate staff of an official he is investigating. So now the request for an investigation of the Prime Minister.

It is interesting that the request came from the NDP and not from the Conservatives. Are the NDP after the Prime Minister, who gave them $4.6 billion in sociallist goodies in the latest budget? Well, they are after Tim Murphy, and in any case, they have to maintain their reputation as the only honest party in the House of Commons. At least that is how they are seen by their supporters, and they have to protect that view.

But also, the NDP has no love for the ethics commissioner:

In response to questions from New Democrat MP Ed Broadbent, Shapiro initially said ministerial staff such as Murphy were not within his mandate, then later suggested they were - as long as their bosses were the subject of the complaint.

He said he would investigate and pass judgment on Murphy provided he was convinced any complaint filed against Martin "wasn't an abuse of the process or the legislation."

During committee hearings, Broadbent repeatedly quoted the Parliament of Canada Act, which in part defines a public office holder as "a person other than a public servant who works on behalf of a minister of the Crown."

In this, they have an ally in the Conservative Party:

Earlier, members of the Commons ethics committee appeared frustrated and confused during two hours of testimony from Shapiro, whom Conservative Russ Hebert described as "an absent-minded professor" who doesn't know his job.

"He's making it up as he goes along; he's not sure of himself," Hebert said after grilling the ethics commissioner about the Grewal issue and about a separate investigation of former immigration minister Judy Sgro.

"He comes across as incompetent; he obfuscates his answers."

Certainly, Bernard Shapiro's poor performance in front of the committee has given the NDP and the Conservatives the means to set the stage in case the ethics commissioner delivers a report that they don't like. Now that they've established that they have severe doubts about Bernard Shapiro's suitability for the role of ethics commissioner, they can use those doubts to discredit ethics reports.

Politics is a nasty game, especially for those who show weakness.

Same-sex marriage off Tony Valeri's radar

From yesterday's Question Period:

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the official opposition House leader, I would like to ask the hon. government House leader the Thursday question. Could he project for us the business of the government for the balance of this week and the week ahead?

Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion. I wish to designate Tuesday, June 14 as an allotted day, which means that the main estimates shall be dealt with that day.

Tomorrow we will begin report stage of Bill C-43, which is the first budget bill. This bill will be our priority until it is disposed of. When Bill C-48, the second budget bill, is reported from committee, it, too, shall be given our top priority.

There are discussions among the parties concerning the early disposal of Bill C-2, the child protection legislation; Bill C-53, the bill respecting proceeds of crime; and possibly Bill C-56, the Labrador-Inuit legislation.

The other pieces of legislation that we can anticipate debating in the next week are: Bill C-26, the border services bill; Bill S-18, the census legislation; Bill C-25, RADARSAT; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment; Bill C-28, the Food and Drugs Act amendments; Bill C-37, the do not call legislation; Bill C-44, the transport legislation; and Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill.

No mention of C-38, the same-sex marriage legislation.

Stephen Harper -- some insight

Adam Radwanski of the National Post provides some insight into Stephen Harper, the man:

That the Conservative leader has a less than sunny disposition is obvious. But not enough has been said about his utter failure to connect even with those who want to be connected with.

On several occasions, he's met with this newspaper's editorial board -- on the whole as friendly a group of journalists as he's likely to encounter. And each time, he's looked like he'd rather be anywhere else -- coming off as cranky, condescending and uninterested in any opinions that weren't his own.

That, by all accounts, is how he treats everyone outside his inner circle. And that's mostly why the road between the Liberals and Conservatives only has traffic in one direction.

Not good.

Liberals lose two MPs!

We already know that MP Pat O'Brien is stting as an independent, and that he is willing to vote against his former colleagues in the Liberal Party if the same-sex marriage legislation is not lowed down in order to hold more hearings.

But Chuck Cadman is also going to be out of town:

Independent MP Chuck Cadman has said he won't be in Ottawa to prop up the Liberals.

This is significant because the Liberals have to pass several bills, each one a confidence vote, in order to put their budget into action.

The Conservatives are not happy:

The Tories are bucking the extension of Commons hours and crying foul over what they say are heavy-handed tactics to fast-track money bills.

The main budget bill will be back in the Commons today for debate. Once MPs finish speaking to the legislation, it will be put to a third and final vote.

Tory MP Monte Solberg slammed the Liberal-controlled finance committee for shutting out witnesses put forward by his party and criticized ministers for failing to explain how the $4.6 billion will be spent.

With Chuck Cadman out, a confidence vote could swing to the Tories and the Bloc. Pat O'Brien could clinch it, though it sounds like the government is folding on the same-sex marriage legislation, at least for now, so he might vote with the Liberals.

The ball is in the court of the Tories again.

Conservative expert -- tapes were unaltered

With a hat tip to NealeNews, the following news release was issued:

Jason Kenney, MP
Opposition Deputy House Leader
Calgary Southeast

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 9, 2005

News Release

Original Murphy/Dosanjh recordings clean and unaltered: expert

OTTAWA – Conservative Deputy House Leader Jason Kenney today released a letter to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper from Randy Dash, Senior Editor and Manager of Operations of dMAX Media in Ottawa. The letter summarizes Mr. Dash’s analysis of copies of original recordings supplied by Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal.

“Mr. Dash’s analysis of the recordings shows that they are clean and unaltered,” Kenney said. “These recordings speak for themselves. Now, it’s time for Paul Martin, Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy to begin answering the questions about their involvement in offering rewards to members of parliament in exchange for their votes. To this day, there has been no information produced by any of these individuals to dispute the facts on these recordings.”

Kenney pointed out that Mr. Dash, a professional audio engineer specializing in post-production work, is the only expert thus far to have examined copies of the original recordings, and invited others to do the same. “There has been a lot of conjecture about the authenticity of the recordings,” Kenney said. “None of this speculation is based upon fact, and would indicate that those speculating have not taken the time to listen to or examine the entire recordings, which are publicly available.”

The phone number for Mr. Dash points to an address in Nepean, a suburb of Ottawa. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to determine any other details concerning Mr. Dash or the operations of dMax Media.

It is significant to note that the Conservatives are not claiming any forensic skills of their expert, something that the Globe and Mail did, and I believe was not warranted for the expert they hired.

Mr. Dash is described only as a professional audio engineer specializing in post-production work. As such, he could only be expected to make pronouncements on whether the tapes were altered, but not on motives or legal repercussions, or any such aspects that are properly only discussed by forensic specialists. He seems to follow these guidelines in the letter he sent to Stephen Harper:

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Harper,
In the past several days, I have had the opportunity to review the audio clips supplied to your office by Mr. Gurmant Grewal. I have reviewed these clips numerous times and offer this evaluation to you.

As a professional audio engineer, specializing in post-production work, it is my opinion that the clip entitled "Various Calls to Gurmant Grewal from Sudesh Kalia" appears unaltered and is a clean recording.

The clip entitled, "Meeting between Gurmant Grewal and Ujjal Dosanjh, joined by Tim Murphy (1:00 PM Ujjal Dossanjh’s Office, Confederation Building) May 17, 2005" appears unaltered and is a clean recording.

The clip entitled, "Various Calls to Gurmant Grewal from Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy" is a very poor recording throughout. There is a great deal of loud ambient noise and distortion. While there are several places that have unusual sounds, I cannot conclude that these are the result of any audio editing.

The clip entitled, "Meeting between Gurmant Grewal and Tim Murphy, (10:00AM), Mr. Grewal’s Office" seems to be unaltered and is a clean recording.

Please accept this as a summary of my findings. Should you have any questions, I am available at your earliest convenience.

Yours truly,

Randy Dash
Senior Editor & Manager of Operations
dMAX Media, Ottawa
(613) 820 8619

So one expert cancels the other, and we're back to the questions Tony Valeri and Anne McLellan refuse to answer in the House. Perhaps they will answer them now.

American government officials should avoid Canada

Amnesty International has embarrassed itself by calling on nations to kidnap American officials and hold them for war crimes with regards to the "gulag" that is the Guantanamo Bay detention centre for suspected terrorists. As quoted at Captain's Quarters:

If the US government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior US officials involved in the torture scandal. And if those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them.

They go on to list officials from George W. Bush on down who should be detained.

The American bloggers have been doing a bang up job on this nonsense spouting from Amnesty International. But Amnesty International has many friends. One of them is the Parliamentarians for Global Action, and it is one of only nine links so honoured as International Justice websites on Amnesty International's International Justice page.

Now Amnesty International is a big booster of the International Criminal Court, and though the call to kidnap American officials doesn't explicitly mention it as a venue for prosecution, the organization is on record as saying "the court should have jurisdiction over other crimes against humanity [including] arbitrary deportation across national frontiers".

Who else is a big booster of the ICC? The PGA:

At the 2001 Annual Forum in Stockholm, Sweden, PGA members decided that the theme for PGA's next annual forum would be the effective functioning of the ICC. Furthermore, it was proposed that this forum launch the Consultative Assembly of Parliamentarians for the ICC which could thereafter convene on an annual basis at The Hague or elsewhere as appropriate.

The principles for supporting the ICC were formalized at the 24th Annual Parliamentary Forum, held in Ottawa, and hosted by Canada's Chair of the PGA National Group (Canada), our very own Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler:

At the request of its members, PGA has held numerous ICC ratification events in Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia. Technical assistance is made available to parliamentarians from countries that have made the decision to ratify or accede to the Rome Statute and need to implement enabling legislation to ensure full cooperation with the Court. To maintain a high level of parliamentary involvement and contribution to the ICC process, PGA members created the “Consultative Assembly of Parliamentarians for the ICC and the Rule of Law,” which met for the first time in Ottawa in November 2002. As a Steering Committee member of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court (CICC), PGA's network of MPs belonging to Justice, Foreign Affairs and/or Human Rights Committees will continue to work with the CICC on the ICC Campaign.

Visit that last web page -- there's a picture of him hobnobbing with Deputy Speaker of Ghana.

In fact, the PGA takes great pride in playing an active role in creating the ICC in the first place:

Since its inception in 1989, the Programme has focused primarily on the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC), which was identified as an essential catalyst in the effective enforcement of fundamental human rights when their violations amount to the most serious international crimes. While for decades the idea of a permanent international criminal court was confined within the premises of legal scholars and human rights activists, PGA played a crucial role in bringing the ICC to the decision-making table of politicians and government. In 1989, PGA held a series of parliamentary meetings to devise new initiatives for global cooperation to be launched in a post-Cold War world. In the fall of that year, H.E. Mr. A.N.R. Robinson, Trinidad and Tobago, then Prime Minister and PGA member, successfully launched a resolution before the United Nations General Assembly proposing the establishment of an ICC.

My question to Irwin Cotler is simple. Will Canada attempt to detain American officials who enter Canada and hand them over to the ICC, in accordance to the declaration of Amnesty International, and in accordance to the policy of supporting the work of the ICC, an institution created by the PGA of which you are the national group president for Canada?

If so, will you warn the American administration of your intentions?

If not, will you go on record as ignoring the call of Amnesty International to detain American officials, and will you make it clear that Canada's support of the ICC will be on a case-by-case basis, opposing the statement by the PGA that the the ICC is "an essential catalyst" in prosecuting human rights violations?

Well, I doubt he'll read this. Maybe it can be brought up in the House of Commons.

Paul Martin -- Echo chamber

First the same-sex legislation was being put on the sidelines.

Then, literally the next day, the legislation was being fast-tracked.

Now the word is that it was being throttled back again.

I'd like to order a plate full of dithers, please:

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler insisted yesterday the government is committed to passing the same-sex marriage bill before the summer break, while senior Liberals privately conceded that may not happen.

Prime Minister Paul Martin, according to insiders, told his caucus yesterday that the two budget bills are the priority and made no mention of Bill C-38, which redefines marriage to include same-sex couples.

Apparently, there is a deal in the works:

Senior Liberal insiders also indicated yesterday that if a deal is made with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois to pass the two budget bills by next week, the government will not sit into the summer to pass the marriage bill.

Indeed, some Liberal MPs were predicting yesterday that a deal will be struck and the House could rise by June 16. Many MPs from all parties are extremely weary and lack the will to sit much longer.

Given the how fantastically bad this legislation slapped together by Irwin Cotler is, this should come as no surprise.

Frankly, it's not an issue that will cost the Liberals an election if they drop it. Indeed, the Conservatives stand to gain if the Canadian people see this legislation rushed through, even from many of those who support same-sex marriage in principle.

But it was the threat of revolt by Liberal MPs that made the difference:

Insiders say that MPs told Mr. Martin in that meeting that their constituents do not want them to rush the same-sex legislation through an all-party committee and into the House of Commons.

A senior Liberal said yesterday that those comments "resonated" with the Prime Minister.

Empty vessels resonate when you make sounds containing the right frequencies. Paul Martin's resonating frequencies corresponds to the phrases like "hold on to power" and "no principle is worth losing an election on" and "Cotler isn't fooling anyone".

Speaking of Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, he still insist it's full steam ahead:

"How long do we have to study this thing after we've accepted it in principle to begin with?" Mr. Cotler asked.

Even I know the answer to this one: you keep studying the question until you notice that your grip on power is no longer threatened. Then suddenly you announce consensus and pass the bill in whatever state it happens to be in, claim victory, and look for another special interest group you can buy off.

Perhaps Irwin Cotler should spend more time listening to the echoes reverberating from his boss. Clearly Cotler's opinions are not "resonating".

The government prepares to defend...the government

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that, yes, you can be trusted to use your brain to pursue health care options with whatever resources you can and care to apply, the government has promised to stand on guard for...the government:

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that the Quebec ban on private insurance violates Quebec's charter of rights.

The Canadian Medical Association called it a "historic" ruling that could "fundamentally change the health-care system in Canada as we now know it."

But Prime Minister Paul Martin downplayed such concerns.

"We're not going to have a two-tier health-care system in this country," he said.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler also insisted the ruling doesn't threaten medicare.

Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh argued that governments can prevent the rise of private health care is by strengthening the public system.

Doesn't all that concern for the bureaucracy just make you feel all warm and fuzzy? On the other hand, that warm feeling might be a fever. Don't worry, the government is going to help you out. How? The only solution that makes sense to them -- spend more money!

Martin said the extra $41 billion his government is investing in health care will improve the public system and protect it, especially by reducing wait times.

"Our purpose is to strengthen our universal public system and to provide timely access to medical services.

"So when we put in the $41 billion we also said we need proper benchmarks in place with all the province that will allow us to determine by how much waiting times must be reduced."

Think of all the doctors and health providers will to spend their own money to help you out, if only we were allowed to have health insurance that covered private health care for medically necessary services. I'm willing to be we will be able to, and very soon. So does John Williamson:

"This is the end of medicare as we know it," said John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

"This is a breach in government monopoly health care in this country.

"It's going to open up litigation across the country in the other nine provinces as taxpayers there press for the same right which is the right to seek and buy insurance to cover private health care."

As one monopoly goes, so will others. This has to have the federal and provincial governments very worried. How worried? Well, the Quebec government could use the notwithstanding clause to protect the Quebec law that bans private insurance. With Jean Charest's government low in the polls, this sort of move might pay dividends in statist Quebec:

In Quebec City, interim Parti Quebecois Leader Louise Harel said Quebec's public health system is threatened and she urged Premier Jean Charest to defend it.

Will Canada end up with a patchwork of rules? Some provinces that allow private insurers covering medically necessary services, and others hiding behind the notwithstanding clause to protect their monopolies? Will the federal government punish provinces that allow private insurers, witholding funds, for example?

One of the largest and most powerful government bureaucracies is threatened. I don't expect a fair fight.

If American unions are doing it, what about Canadian unions?

This incredible story being followed at Captain's Quarters:

Massachusetts has launched an investigation into corruption in a Boston longshoreman's union as investigators discovered falsified records of employment, listing children as young as two years old as dock workers. Union officials apparently issued worker cards to their children and grandchildren in order to build up their seniority and increase their wages and access to jobs when they became old enough to work.

Now the union bosses stack the rolls with their kids before they even get out of diapers, and it isn't just about the wages, either. Seniority plays the largest part in determining who gets the best job assignments, and also who becomes shop stewards. Those people wind up as labor officials and move up the organization.

In effect, the union bosses have devised a corruption which allows them to create a nepotistic chain of succession that keeps union power in the hands of a few powerful families. Their children and grandchildren would wind up running the union after their retirement.

Attorney General Thomas Reilly is on the case, but I have to wonder if any of these sorts of shenanigans are going on here, north of the border.

Maybe a quick check of the union rolls is in order...

Cotler fails to deliver and people will lose their jobs

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has been vocal to the point of rants about "rights" and then more "rights" when it came to same-sex marriage. Moreover, he has assured Canadians, as has the Prime Minister, that religious freedoms will be respected.

Turns out it's all so much hot air:

Liberals will tweak their contentious same-sex marriage bill but can't guarantee ironclad religious protections, admits Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

Churches won't be forced to perform gay weddings, he says.

But it's beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away same-sex couples, he conceded Wednesday.

Ï'm not sure what the difference is between a "church" and a "religious organization". I bet the courts will figure it out. Any bets on what the outcome will be?

"That's right," Cotler said, when asked if his hands are tied by jurisdictional limits.

Ottawa has the authority to define marriage, but provinces have the power to solemnize weddings.

Marriage commissioners in several provinces, including Manitoba and B.C., have stepped down after receiving provincial orders to perform same-sex unions against their beliefs.

Funny. He seemed pretty sure in December that he could protect people of conscience:

In what some analysts are calling a concession to Stephen Harper's Conservatives, Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has indicated he will add a clause to the proposed same-sex "marriage" legislation allowing civil servants to opt out of performing the weddings, if it violates their conscience.

"Even if it is civic officials and not religious officials, we can bring about the kind of mutually respectable and tolerant accommodation . . . where we can protect both equality rights and freedom of religion," Cotler said Tuesday, as reported by the Canadian Press.

CanWest News Service reported that Cotler also said, "No one should be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage contrary to their religion or belief. We believe we can reach accommodations so that those who do not want to perform that same-sex marriage, religious officials or civic officials, by reason of religion or conscience, will not be required to do so."

So much for protection. Fact is, no one will be able to protect churches and religious-minded officials from the gay rights movement trying to use the courts to force their way in and redefine private religiously-based morality. Cotler knows that. He just doesn't care.

Property Rights -- Complacency is not for everyone

You'd think that the fact that property ownership is a statutory fiction and not a fundamental right in Canada, and the government attitudes towards regulation that spring from that fact, would worry more people. Fortunately, not everyone is complacent. Check out Rural Revolution: This Land is Our Land.

Wasn't the American Revolution driven by farmers and other land owners? Well, these guys have certainly been making noise and getting noticed.

The Supreme Court ruling on health care is in

With a hat tip to reader Matt and to Daimnation!, the Supreme Court ruling is in on whether the government has the power to prevent us from getting health care on our own.

The answer is: NO

Wow!

For American readers who don't quite understand, we have socialized medicine in Canada, which means medical care is paid for through our taxes. We show our health card, and billing happens behind the scenes. It does not cover prescription drugs, eye care, and other items, just basic doctor's visits, as well as operations and other treatments. But here's the twist. If you had money and you wanted to pay for your own treatment, you'd be breaking the law and you could be charged. The public health system is not just universal, it's mandatory. The government does not tolerate people getting well outside of the control of the bureaucracy, and actively works to prevent it.

In this particular case decided by the Supreme Court, the provincial law being challenged was one that banned private insurers from covering medically necessary services, thus keeping the government the sole supplier.

Daimnation is working through the ruling, so go there to get the nuts and bolts of the decision. But here is the summary from the CBC:

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that the Quebec government cannot prevent people from paying for private insurance for health-care procedures covered under medicare.

In its ruling Thursday, the court said the provincial policy violates the Quebec charter. But they split 3 to 3 on whether it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, meaning there is no immediate impact on the Canadian health-care system as a whole.

One justice gave no opinion on whether the laws violate the charter.

Well, I think the statement that there will be no immediate impact is wishful thinking. Look for Alberta to take this ruling and run with it, daring the federal Liberals to take it to court. In other provinces, look for private clinics to spring up in cooperation with insurers willing to push the boundaries, underwritten by speculators willing to spend money to on legal actions against provincial and federal authorities, figuring that they can win, and that they'll recoup the costs by being the first clinics to open.

When that happens, watch for the rush of other clinics, staffed by physicians and nurses who are fed up with being civil servants, but who have resisted the urge to go the United States (and thanks to all of you, you've deserved more, but we're grateful you stayed anyway).

And farther down the road? More challenges on the way the government tries to manage our lives and limit our choices, all referencing this decision as the basis for the challenge.

To close, the words of the lawyers for the federal government who fought to make sure that the government had complete control over our medical care:

Lawyers for the federal government argued the court should not interfere with the health-care system, considered "one of Canada's finest achievements and a powerful symbol of the national identity."

Canada's symbol of our national identity is not the flag or our shared history or even hockey. It's an overarching, bloated, power-crazed bureaucracy charged with controlling one of the most basic and fundamental of our rights as human beings -- the right to seek out solace and care in times of pain.

Looks like we're going to have to look for a new powerful symbol of national identity. It's about time.

Mike Brock and Steve at Angry in the Great White North are on the same page

Mike Brock is taking a lot of heat for suggesting that it's time for Stephen Harper to go. I guess it goes to show how much more important a blogger he is than me, because my suggestion on May 20 generated hardly the level of emontional response that Mike has been subjected too.

Maybe I was being a bit more philosophical than Mike. I think it's because he's a lot more credible.

But he's making points that have to be addressed. If you haven't read it already, read it now (and mine too), and think about it.

And stop giving Mike a hard time!

[More discussion at bound by gravity]

The Canadian government does not tolerate freelancers

The Authorson case was a landmark in Canada. The case dealt with a situation in which the government owed disabled veterans benefits and interest, and the bigger issue of the right to private property, which was left out of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms written by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau of the Liberal Party, and that was signed into law in 1982.

A lower court ruled that the government owed the money and interest, but the government appealed. They did not appeal on the basis of whether these men, and their widows, were owed this money. The government already agreed that the money belonged to the veterans and was owed to them.

The facts of this appeal are not at issue. Joseph Authorson and thousands of veterans received pension and other benefits from the Crown for decades. The Department of Veterans Affairs (the "DVA") would often administer the funds on behalf of those who were deemed incapable of managing their money. However, these accounts were not credited with interest. The subject of this appeal is the Crown's liability for that interest.

No, the problem was that the government passed a law saying they did not need to pay the money they admitted they owed. The veterans (and their widows) argued that they were being deprived their property.

The law was passed in 1990:

It is not in dispute that the respondent is owed interest, and that this omission continued until legislation changing government practice was enacted in 1990. The appellant, while agreeing that the respondent is owed money, argues that Parliament has, by enacting legislation to that effect, made the debt unenforceable.

The class sued the Crown, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and claiming that the s. 5.1(4) bar was inoperative under the Canadian Bill of Rights, because it was inconsistent with the right not to be deprived of the enjoyment of property except by due process of law (s. 1(a)) and the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of one's rights and obligations (s. 2(e)).

So this one we can lay at the feet of the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney (though I can't find any record online of how the other parties in 1990 voted on this legislation).

But it is significant that the class action lawsuit was launched in 1999, six years after Jean Chretien's Liberals came into power. And instead of repealing the legislation passed by the Progressive Conservatives nine years earlier, the Liberals fought this tooth and nail, finally taking it to the Supreme Court in April of 2003, and winning the decision in July of that year.

This is what the court said:

The respondent and the class of disabled veterans it represents are owed decades of interest on their pension and benefit funds. The Crown does not dispute these findings. But Parliament has chosen for undisclosed reasons to lawfully deny the veterans, to whom the Crown owed a fiduciary duty, these benefits whether legal, equitable or fiduciary.

In short, the Legislature within its jurisdiction can do everything that is not naturally impossible, and is restrained by no rule human or divine. If it be that the plaintiffs acquired any rights, which I am far from finding, the Legislature had the power to take them away. The prohibition, 'Thou shalt not steal,' has no legal force upon the sovereign body. And there would be no necessity for compensation to be given.

So there you go -- that is what passes for property rights in Canada. If the government passes a law that says they want your house, and they won't give you a dime for it, too bad.

This got me thinking. Why do we prosecute theft in this country? A thief takes my property. But it isn't really my property. Inasmuch as I own anything, it is at the pleasure and sufferance of the government. If I don't fundamentally own it, then how can I claim that it was stolen?

Put aside the practicalities of the social anarchy that would result from people just grabbing stuff willy-nilly. I'm philosophizing here.

It has occurred to me why we continue to prosecute theft. The government can take anything it sees fit to take, without offering compensation. As the court ruled, 'Thou shalt not steal' has no legal force upon the sovereign body. But that power is jealously guarded.

When you or I take something, we're freelancing. Stealing is a federal monopoly in this country.

If you want to be a thief, you need to be a member of the federal civil service.

But let's look at that line again:

In short, the Legislature within its jurisdiction can do everything that is not naturally impossible, and is restrained by no rule human or divine.

Makes a mockery of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights, doesn't it.

When the Conservative Party of Canada comes into power, I'd like to see this miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the old PC party and the Liberal Party in power today corrected. First, the veterans and their survivors are owed that money. Second, the unlimited power of the legislature is an affront to all the principles of a true democracy. If we can't commit ourselves as a nation to reworking the constitutional roles and limits of the various branches of government, and to enshrining our full spectrum of natural rights into the fundamental law of the land, then we've made a mockery of the sacrifices made by those same veterans that have been so shamefully mistreated.

[From the CBC: Joseph Patrick Authorson died at the age of 88 on June 5, 2002. He was a veteran of the Second World War. After returning from the war, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder (shell shock) and spent most of the rest of his life in mental hospitals in London, Ont.

In 1991, a doctor found Authorson fit to control his own money. He received $188,000 in pension funds and $166,000 of personal funds (from an inheritance). However, he did not received interest on his pension from 1943 to 1991. Lawyers estimated Ottawa owed him $500,000 to $2 million.]

[Update: The Kelo ruling in the United States has given the government more power in taking people's property. But even so, property ownership is a right, and compensation must be provided. As bad as the situation has become in the United States, it's still better than here. Here's a round-up of US blogs considering this situation:

Captain's Quarters
Professor Brainbridge
Michelle Malkin
Ranting Right Wing Howler
Arguing with Signposts
Instapundit
The Age of Reason
Say Uncle
Brain Shavings
Vodkapundit
GOP Bloggers
Wizbang]

Judicial appointments process should be reviewed -- but won't be

On June 3, there was a motion put forward in the House of Commons by Mr. Richard Marceau, Bloc MP for Haute-Saint-Charles:

That the House denounce the recent remarks made by Mr. Justice Michel Robert stating that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of political opinion when appointing candidates to the federal judiciary and that it call on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to create a special subcommittee with the mandate to examine the process for appointments to the federal judiciary and make recommendations for reform, with the primary goal of eliminating political partisanship from the process, by October 31, 2005.

Mr. Marceau went on to quote the data printed in the Montreal Gazette (and first revealed in this blog over a week earlier) that 60% of Quebec judicial appointments went to key Liberal supporters.

He suggests reducing the number of members of the selection committee appointed by the minister of justice be reduced from three out of the seven members, and that the ability of the minister to select an appointee who is not on the "highly recommended" list be constrained. But that's just his recommendation -- the motion calls for a subcommittee to study the problem.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler then delivered a speech defending the current process, and I urge you to go and read it. It's a good speech, but I think there is a blind spot here, in which the government refuses to acknowledge that the process has resulted in politicized appointments, something that Justice Michel Robert thinks is just fine. Mr. Cotler will not be voting in support of the motion:

Accordingly, because of this I will be voting against this motion, which I regard, taken as a whole, as being inappropriate, uninformed, unconstitutional and prejudicial to the independence of the judiciary and the responsibility of Parliament. Indeed, I am very concerned about the trafficking in innuendo in relation to the judiciary over the past few months.

The vote happened yesterday, and true to form, the Liberals voted against it, and the Bloc, the NDP, and the Conservatives vote for it, for a final vote of 157 to 124 in favour of the motion.

Of course, the motion is not binding, but as the fellow who first discovered the disturbing trend in judicial appointments, it's nice to know that I've made some sort of impact. Now if we could actually make the government responsive to the wishes of the elected representatives, then the impact would actually matter.

[Cross posted to small dead animals]

What century is this?

Did I just step out of the TARDIS into medieval England, when the streets were open sewers? You might think that in Vancouver, our most progressive city, and our answer to San Francisco:

The ripe stench of human excrement is getting stronger in downtown lanes, curling the stomachs of workers who no longer want to relax by the back door for smoke breaks.

The 10-block city slum is swollen with up to 5,000 injection drug users who have less control of their bowels. Many are homeless and have nowhere to go to the toilet.

One idea to fix things -- public toilets:

Stakeholders have been discussing for years a plan to put self-cleaning, automated public toilets in the downtown, but have been afraid that they would be used for prostitution and to shoot drugs.

The city has a contract with a street furniture company to provide six of the units and just has to decide if they are something the community would respect and where to put them.

"There have been problems with illegal activity happening in the toilets in other cities, like Seattle and San Francisco," said Gauthier.

Of course, toilets free for use by homeless drug addicts won't satisfy some people:

Kim Kerr, general manager of the Downtown Eastside Resident's Association, said he is disgusted with the plan.

"We are worrying about the mess of piss in the street while homeless people are dying. Let's spend the money on toilets on houses. We treat human beings in this city with less concern than we show animals."

With all due respect to Mr. Kerr, he's wrong on two points.

First, we don't build houses for animals.

Homeless animals are gathered up and killed. Be careful with your comparisons, or you might get people thinking.

Second, building a house for a drug addict is not going to solve anything. As the article pointed out, public toilets in European cities have become places for people to inject drugs and engage in prostitution. Give them a bungalow, and you've just created a crack house. Build a block of them for a whole bunch of homeless folks, and you end up with a drug ghetto where the problems are intensified and magnified.

If the European model of public toilets, subsidized housing, and welfare benefits is not working, what other model should we consider? How about New York where Rudolp Giuliani challenge the status quo, and aggressively started moving homeless people into work programs?

No wait. That's an American idea -- that'll never work.

Teenage sex online

Police in Hamilton have discovered a group of teenagers practising safe-sex, and have cracked that ring:

The rules of the Safe Sex Club were simple: Everything happens behind closed doors. Anything goes. Don't let your parents find out.

For at least the past two years, police say, a group of teenagers in Hamilton were caught up in an unusual extracurricular activity. The teens set up a virtual sex network from their bedrooms, using instant messaging chat programs and cameras that broadcast video from one computer to another using the Internet.

They dubbed this intersection of new Web technology and old-fashioned teenage hormones the Safe Sex Club.

Police found out when one 16-year-old boy recorded the performance his girlfriend was giving online, and distributed it. It's not clear from the story if she was alone -- I assume she was. He'll be charged with possession and distribution of child pornography, though no other charges have been laid against other club members. Computers containing computer video files have been seized.

So what is the law?

The age of sexual consent is 14, so simply masturbating on-line in front of another under-18 teenager is not a crime. However, that is not the case if an adult is involved, if the broadcast involves three or more parties, or if a recorded broadcast is distributed, Det. Constable Rees said. (Legal experts have said the simple recording of such a broadcast may not be illegal, as long as the act it depicts is legal and it is not distributed.)

I scratched my head on this one. What makes three or more parties illegal, but two fine?

Is there some sort of discrimination against polyamorous relationships?! Quick, let's get that law changed too!

Well, alls I know is that when the kids are old enough to use the computer, it's going to be out in the hallway.

Latest polls

Latest polls:

The Liberals had a 14-point lead over the Conservatives in popular support, suggests a new poll taken earlier this month.

The Decima survey showed the Liberals with 37 per cent support and the Tories with 23 per cent, in a virtual dead heat with the NDP at 21 per cent.

Now the article goes on to talk about volatility and fragile support and so forth. But you gotta wonder. Is Paul Martin looking at this and wondering if he should engineer the collapse of his government?

Maybe a whispered word to one of those Liberal MPs who are against same-sex marriage, promising nothing whatsoever (wink-wink) in return for pulling down the government.

Maybe orders to his cabinet and the PMO staff to stop trying to recruit opposition MPs:

Paul Martin to staff: Stop talking to opposition MPs.
Staff member: No problem. wink-wink
Paul Martin: No, I really mean it. No offers.
Staff member: We never made offers. No offers were made. wink-wink
Paul Martin: Stupid Grewal!

Maybe break a promise that the Conservatives will care about by that Canadians as a whole won't (like increased support for the military).

You gotta wonder...

[Update: Captain's Quarters looks at this from the Conservative point of view]

Breathtaking medical news

See the details here!

More headline spin in the media

From the Toronto Star:

Of course, this is not true. An accurate headline would be "Opponents of the redefinition of marriage won't defeat the government", but then you would miss the opportunity to make opponents of the redefinition of marriage synonymous with homophobes. Because the Toronto Star wants everyone to know that concerns about the impact on fiddling with an institution like marriage for whatever reason are unjustifiable, and people who express these concerns are motivated only by homophonia, or worse.

And yes, I realize they only have so much space to work with, and that we all know what they meant by "same-sex foes", but then if it was me being described, even by accident, as a person who hates homosexuals, I might just start to cry. Maybe I can get some money from a human rights tribunal from this.

Oh grow up! or "Var inte så barnslig!" as the Vikings would say

Thanks to Richard at the Cannuckistan Chronicles for this. He's looked up the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal judgment on Bill Whalcott, which forms the backdrop to the latest story of the Canadian government's hunt for doubleplusungood thinking:

Complaint of Mr. Taylor as submitted to the SK Human Rights Tribunal

Mr. Taylor who is gay, testified that he was hurt by the contents of the flyer. The next day he read it again and started to cry.

Oh grow up!

First of all, he seems to be a glutton for punishment, reading it not once, but twice. And then crying? Crying?

You know, when I see something I don't like aimed at me, or people like me, I get mad. But then maybe this delicate little flower Taylor cries a lot, I don't know. I've never met him nor commented on his oh-so-tasteful window treatments that he closes so that he can collapse into a sobbing huddle in privacy. Maybe missing on getting tickets to the latest Andrew Lloyd Webber musical makes him cry. Maybe a disappointing showing in the Olympics by the Canadian men's figure skating team makes him cry.

So Taylor gets $2,500 for his weepfest? I get mad and get zip. Maybe I need a new tactic.

Starting immediately, this blog will be henceforth known as "Sobbing Fancy Pants in the Great White North".

In the meantime, I will be taking all of Scandinavia to court over the insults to my homosexual brethren made by Vikings (hey, if people today can be held responsible for slavery over a century ago, why not go after the Vikings):

Rather, it was felt that a man who subjected himself to another in sexual affairs would do the same in other areas, being a follower rather than a leader, and allowing others to do his thinking or fighting for him. Thus, homosexual sex was not what was condemned, but rather the failure to stand for one's self and make one's own decisions, to fight one's own fights, which went directly against the Nordic ethic of self-reliance. (Sørenson 20). Being used homosexually by another man was equated with cowardice because of the custom of sexual aggression against vanquished foes.

Similarly, the Icelandic law code Grágás (ca. 1100-1200 C.E.) has: Þav ero orð riú ef sva mioc versna máls endar manna er scog gang vaðla avll. Ef maðr kallar man ragan eða stroðinn eða sorðinn. Oc scal søkia sem avnnor full rettis orð enda a maðr vigt igegn þeim orðum þrimr. Then there are three terms which occasion bringing such a serious suit against a man that they are worthy to outlaw him. If a man call a man unmanly [effeminate], or homosexual, or demonstrably homosexually used by another man, he shall proceed to prosecute as with other terms of abuse, and indeed a man has the right to avenge with combat for these terms of abuse (Markey, 76, 83).

I'd go one, but I need to have a good cry right now.

Paul Coffin has pleaded guilty -- still waiting for full transcipts

On May 31, Paul Coffin pleaded guilty to 15 charges of fraud in relation to the Sponsorship Scandal. Now consider this ruling from Justice Gomery from April 27:

None of the questions put to Mr. Coffin refer specifically to the criminal charges, but in two of his answers he made statements that might, correctly or incorrectly, be considered by potential jurors to be admissions of the fraudulent acts which will be the subject of his trial. Since the purpose of the publication ban was to protect Mr. Coffin from a breach of his right not to incriminate himself, those statements should not be published.

Accordingly the publication ban ordered on March 29, 2005 is lifted with respect to the deposition of Paul Coffin and all representations by counsel made with respect to it, except for the following portions of the transcription of Mr. Coffin's testimony for April 26, 2005 and the related portions of the broadcast tapes, namely:

1. Page 19459, line 16 to page 19460, line 13;
2. Page 19496, lines 1 to 19.

Those sections are still blacked out in the online transcripts, even though there are no "potential jurors" to be affected.

When will we be able to see the full transcripts?

Canada's Supreme Court and Medicare -- An opportunity for activism

A court case that could change medicare in Canada is in front of the Supreme Court of Canada:

The Supreme Court of Canada will render judgment tomorrow in a case that could have far-reaching implications for the future of medicare.

A Montreal doctor and a patient, who waited almost a year for a hip replacement, argued that waiting lists in the publicly funded system have become so long, they violate the Charter of Rights' guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person.

If the court agrees with their complaint, governments could suddenly be forced to open the door to a new private health care system to operate alongside the public system.

Philippe Trudel, the lawyer for the patient, said, "The issue at hand today can be boiled down to one question: Can the state keep people from obtaining the medical services that they need?"

Pretty stark question when put that way. Here's what the court can do, or so says Senator Michael Kirby, who presented to the court in this case:

He said there are three likely scenarios as to how the court could rule: maintain the status quo; allow a parallel private system; or, as a compromise, require governments to provide a so-called "care guarantee" to patients on how long they have to wait for treatment in the public system. Provinces that did not meet the benchmark would have to pay for the patient's treatment in another province or the United States.

This bugs me. The third option is a legislative solution. Suddenly the Supreme Court would be creating a law ex nihilo, giving it the name "care guarantee" and setting down the rules for how the law works.

In my opinion, the proper role for the court is to answer the question on the limit of the state's power to manage a private citizen's health care choices, and especially to prevent a citizen from getting health care at all. This is a profound question, and worthy of the court's attention.

But for the court to tell Parliament how to solve the problem? Again, this is the job of legislators -- 300 elected Canadians versed in the law, supported by civil servants, and bound by an oath to serve. Once the court decides on the limits of the power of the state, Parliament will have its boundaries within which to fashion a solution. I'd rather they try than nine unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative judges, especially with the hints of judicial appointments being politically motivated raised during the Gomery Inquiry.

He called people names -- fined $17,500

Canada is on the hunt for name-callers:

Two thousand leaflets attacking gays and lesbians have put a Christian activist in western Canada under investigation by Edmonton police for hate crimes.

"Attacking"? Like with a stick?

The flyers by Bill Whatcott of Regina refer to gay marriage as "sodomite marriage" and use graphic language to describe the alleged sex practices of homosexuals.

The handouts also used derogatory terms to describe federal Defence Minister Bill Graham.

Oh, that sort of attacking. Like what children do. Calling people names. Being rude.

Children get their feelings hurt, and run to their parents. Adults are tougher than that, and ignore the offensive person, or dish it back out. They don't run to their...

No wait -- this is Canada. We do run to mommy government:

"The material is offensive and it's an affront on the basic tenets of our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co-existence," Const. Steve Camp, of the Edmonton police hate crimes unit, said.

Last month, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined [Bill Whatcott of Regina] $17,500 for handing out similar material.

"Hate" crimes are a crock. Since when does the motivation of a crime alter its criminality? If I attack a man and take his wallet because I resent his wealth, I'm a common criminal. If I resent a Jew for his wealth, and take his wallet, I'm charged with a hate crime. Does the hurt felt by the first man count any less because my motivations were merely my anger at his wealth versus my poverty?

Arguably in the first case, I'm more of a threat, since I threaten all wealthy people, regardless of their religious beliefs. See the weird and twisted logic that comes into play when you try to incorporate the criminal's thinking, and not just his actions, into the criminal justice system?

It is our liberal arrogance that prompts us to believe that we can understand, and thus pass judgment, on a person's thoughts as well as on his actions.

But in this case, no one got hurt (and by that I mean bruises, cuts, scrapes, contusions -- not hurt feelings). The pamphlets, according to the CBC story, do not encourage criminal activity (and by that I mean setting fires or hitting people -- not criminal "thinking").

They were "offensive" and "an affront". Time to get the cops involved. Because an affront, which means "to insult intentionally, especially openly" must be pursued with the vigour and power of the state. It's indicative of a bad thought that must be expunged for the good of all.

I better stop before someone comes after me for my doubleplusungood thoughts.

Morphing Headlines

You have to wonder if editors even read the stories they put on the pages. It seems like this editor took 12 hours to figure out what this story was about. Just watch as the headline changes and changes again.

Doesn't fix what is a poorly written article, though.

Main-stream media prints, or steals, my corruption story

I posted this story on June 1:

The folks at Transparency International compile an annual index of "Corruption Perceptions". They review many sources of information (the Economist Intelligence Unit, the Global Competitive Report, the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, and so on) and put together an aggregate ranking of 0.0 (most corrupt) to 10.0 (least corrupt).

2000:
Overall Ranking: 5
Score: 9.2
Surveys Used: 9
High-Low Range: 8.1-9.9

2004:
Overall Ranking: 12
Score: 8.5
Surveys Used: 12
High-Low Range: 6.5-9.4

We think Adscam cost taxpayers somewhere in the vicinity of $350 million. Looking at this list, I can't help but wonder if it is costing us a great deal more.

Today at Canoe.ca:

Canada's global reputation as a good place to live and a safe market for investments has been sideswiped by political controversy surrounding Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal, says a global watchdog.

Suggestions of trading in political favours, coming on the heels of the sponsorship scandal, will drive down Canada's ranking on Transparency International's global corruption index, says Wes Cragg, chairman of the watchdog's Canadian chapter.

Canada, which likes to see itself as a world leader in clean, ethical behaviour, dropped to 12th place last year - from fifth a few years ago - on the anti-corruption watchdog's ranking of 146 countries because of the sponsorship scandal.

Good story, all in all, though the headline "Grewal tape controversy driving down Canada's global corruption ranking" omits reference to Adscam.

The story also mentions, but neglects to emphasize, the yearly drop in the rankings since 2000.

But I'd like to know where Sandra Cordon got her idea to do this story, because it looks a hell of a lot like mine from just six days ago!

Tony Valeri and his two audio experts

In the House of Commons yesterday:

Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is basing his questions on tapes that have been proven by many audio experts to have been manipulated. Mr. Jack Mitchell, the forensic sound expert hired by the Globe and Mail, said:

These tapes have been edited. This is not a maybe. This is not something that's unexplained. This is not, “Oh, this is odd”. This is a definitive statement. The tapes have been edited.

That is what the hon. member is basing his questions on, on tapes that have in fact been edited as has been stated by experts.

The Liberals went on to quote other experts to bolster their case. I'm curious to see if Jack Mitchell will continue to be used as expert testimony in the coming days given the depth of his credentials.

The Liberals might depend on John Dooher from the CBC, as Mr. Valeri did later in the debate, calling him a "forensic audio engineer":

Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is basing his question on tapes that have been proven by many audio experts to have been manipulated. I can quote from many. John Dooher, a forensic audio engineer hired by the CBC, said:

This sounds to me, not only that this is an edit, but an edit done with something very crude.

But thePolitic has some interesting data on him as well:

He’s an Ottawa record producer who also works on government contracts. Here’s how the magazine, Ottawa Life, described him:

John Dooher began producing records in 1985. Since then, he has produced, written, performed, cogitated, philosophized and engineered music in Ottawa…. Dooher’s label Dark Skippy Records has penetrated the European market with The Radio Kings and is poised to do the same with the upcoming album by New Car Smell.

That’s the CBC’s big expert: an Ottawa producer-musician who calls himself a philosopher while hyping cheesy bands between day-gigs doing contracts for the Liberal government.

Neither is he exactly “independent” from the CBC. In 1996, Dooher joined a few others to circulate an email petition from someone named “Studio Employee” to “save CBC radio.”

So here’s the bottom line: The CBC hired a friendly record producer with government contracts to cast doubt upon the Grewal tapes to support their Liberal friends.

Experts...

I wonder what Peter Stoffer thinks about Stronach and O'Brien

Peter Stoffer is the NDP Member of Parliament for Sackville--Eastern Shore, an area I'm familiar enough with from my time living on Canada's lovely east coast. He introduced a private bill, C-251, which underwent first reading November 1, 2004. Let me quote the summary:

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (members who cross the floor) This enactment provides that a member’s seat in the House of Commons will be vacated and a by-election called for that seat if the member, having been elected to the House as a member of a political party or as an independent, changes parties in the House or becomes a member of a party in the House, as the case may be, at any time during the term for which he or she was elected. A member’s seat will not be vacated if the member, having been elected as a member of a political party, chooses to sit as an independent at any time during the term for which he or she was elected.

A bill to make into law what is common sense and good taste. If you leave your party and sit as an independent, that's fine. If you join a different party, a by-election is called so that your constituents can pass judgment on being represented by a different party (though the same MP) than the one they voted for. This bill has not reached second reading, nor can I find any evidence of how far along it is in committee. I've sent an email to Mr. Stoffer asking how far along the bill has gone. Seems to me this is a bill worth considering. At least it would have forced Belinda Stronach to jump through one hoop to get her cabinet position.

The Globe & Mail Expert deconstructed -- he's a musician

With a hat tip to reader Grook, from Poison Whispers, the c.v. of Jack J. Mitchell:

John J. Mitchell ("Jack"), Years experience: 30+/audio - 3/forensic audio. Education: * 1964-1976; The Pennsylvania State University

• Under graduate & graduate study - music education and music composition.


• Began study of electronic music in 1967. Such study includes recording and editing techniques, signal design, analysis, processing and full semester physics courses which were specific to the physics of sound. Have been involved with audio and signal analysis and processing in one form or another ever since.


• 1992: Univ. of New Mexico: 1 credit short course - Music and Technology


• Other: Have taught both public school and college. From 1987 to 1995 was the editor/arranger/orchestrator for the John Donald Robb Musical Trust, University of New Mexico Foundation.

Thus far, I am able to boast a realistic 99% success rate with regard to my forensic work. (That assessment has come from clients, not myself). JM

Jack Mitchell owner/engineer: Commercial Audio \ Forensic Audio
Computer Audio Engineering aka: CAE Studio

I have to say I was expecting more.

To start: the man is a musician. Now that doesn't mean he can't evaluate a tape, or learned how along the way, but he can't call himself an engineer either. An engineer is a title properly confered by a university upon satisfactory completion of a required set of courses over a four year period.

Unfortunately, unlike the title of "doctor" and "lawyer", there is no law in the United States to enforce this, and so anyone who works on technical problems adopts the title "engineer".

He went to Penn State to get his music degrees (in music education and composition). Penn State is not an Ivy League school. The University of Pennsylvania is an Ivy League school. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but it seemed important to some people.

His upgraded formal learning (see 1992) was still in the field of music.

He gives courses not in forensic analysis, but in music.

Nor do I see any formal or informal training in the law.

Finally, and this is the weirdest part, he claims that his clients have given him an assessment of a 99% success rate.

Read that again. His clients are pleased with his work, since his answers almost always please them!

This doesn't track for me. He's the expert. He teases out the truth in an audio sample -- hidden voices, evidence of tampering, etc. His success rate is 100% in that he always stands by his analysis. What his clients think is irrelevant. Whether his work supports their case or not is neither here nor there.

Fact is, I'd rather see half his clients angry with him -- it would give him some credibility.

No forensic specialist in any field would brag about pleasing his clients with a "success rate". His only duty is to the truth (to be fair, the American College of Forensic Examiners says the same thing). Consider the Code of Ethics put forth by the Society of Forensic Engineers and Scientists, an organization to which Mr. Mitchell does not appear to belong:

The Society of Forensic Engineers & Scientists (hereafter "SFES") members are professionals, that is, people who by virtue of training and experience have expert knowledge in their area of specialization, knowledge significantly beyond that held by the lay person. SFES members as forensic professionals supply their expert knowledge as consultants to attorneys and others concerned with dispute resolution. Usually, SFES members will be retained and paid by one party to a dispute but are at the same time professionally obligated to be uninfluenced by this in all opinions expressed publicly. There are thus ethical issues which are unique to forensic professional practice and which create the need for a Code of Ethics for The Society of Forensic Engineers & Scientists.

Or how about the National Academy of Forensic Engineers (which does not appear on Mr. Mitchell's list of memberships):

The National Academy of Forensic Engineers (NAFE)® along with the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) are among a very limited group of professional societies designated to make recommendations to the Federal Courts under a special program to provide independent scientific and engineering experts to trial judges (in addition to experts provided by litigants) to assist the courts in the most complex technical cases.

The program administered by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) resulted from studies by the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists (NCLS), a joint standing committee of AAAS and the Science and Technology Law Section of the American Bar Association (ABA) and will be titled as "Court Appointed Scientific Experts (CASE)."

Coordination of the joint NSPE/NAFE participation will be made by NAFE, all of whose members are required to be registered as Professional Engineers (PE) and to be members of the NSPE.

They even recommend some courses (their focus is on civil engineering):

ENGR 5340: Advanced Topics in Engineering (Introduction to Forensic Engineering), University of Texas at Tyler.
CE 5805: Failure Analysis and Condition Assessment in Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado at Denver.
EE 595G: Medical Device Accidents and their Engineering Analysis, Purdue University.
TECH 525: Applications in Forensic Engineering Technology, Purdue University.

It looks like to call yourself a "forensic engineer" is a big deal. Check out the requirements to join the American Academy of Forensic Sciences:

Membership is available only to those persons of professional competence, integrity, and good moral character:

1. Who are actively engaged in the field of forensic sciences and who have made some significant contribution to the literature of forensic science, or
2. Who have advanced the cause of the forensic science in some other significant manner, and
3. Who satisfy the requirements for membership of the section applied to or recommended for, and
4. Who have earned a baccalaureate or higher academic degree from an accredited college or university (except Student Affiliates).

And no, Mr. Mitchell does not seem to be a member of the AAFS. The American College of Forensic Examiners has a different set of requirements for membership: a credit card number and a resume. The also don't seem to have a code of ethics published on their site, but ads for Avis and how you can learn to be forensic document examiner from home.

The Senator who got away

Thanks to Scott Brison for bring this to my attention:

Further, section 25 refers to section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Section 14 has been repealed and in fact there is a new code of conduct for senators. If the hon. member has any complaint to make in terms of a senator's code of conduct, he ought to contact the ethics commissioner in the Senate.

What is he talking about? That empty building in Ottawa that Canadian taxpayers were paying rent for:

Alexis Nihon won the contract in February 2002, for a building completion date of December 1, 2003. But the building sat completely empty till the fall of 2004 due to what public works officials say was an "incomplete merger" of the National Library and National Archives. Even now it is only half occupied.

The CEO of the Montreal-based Alexis Nihon Group is Liberal Senator Paul Massicotte.

Seems a bit fishy. Prior to March 14, 2004, the rules in the Parliament of Canada Act read as such:

14. (1) No person who is a member of the Senate shall, directly or indirectly, knowingly and wilfully be a party to or be concerned in any contract under which the public money of Canada is to be paid.

(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall forfeit the sum of two hundred dollars for each day during which the contravention continues.

(3) A sum forfeited by any person under subsection (2) is recoverable from that person by any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction in Canada.

(4) This section does not render any person liable to forfeiture by reason only that the person

(a) is a shareholder in any corporation having a contract or agreement with the Government of Canada, except any company that undertakes a contract for the building of any public work;

(b) is, or has been, a contractor for the loan of money or of securities for the payment of money to the Government of Canada under the authority of Parliament, after public competition; or

(c) is, or has been, a contractor in respect of the purchase or payment of the public stock or debentures of Canada, on terms common to all persons.

15. Proceedings for the recovery of any forfeiture imposed by section 14 may be instituted at any time within but not later than one year after the time when the forfeiture was incurred.

So from February 2002 onwards, Paul Massicotte was in apparent contravention of this code of ethics because he indirectly (perhaps directly -- maybe the CEO signed the contract) was a party to a contract under which public money was paid.

The story broke on April 21, 2005.

But then we find out the law changed 26 months after he started breaking it. On March 31, 2004:

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence

[Assented to 31st March, 2004]

1. Sections 14 and 15 of the Parliament of Canada Act are repealed.
2. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 20:

The added sections don't address the information missing from 14 and 15. In fact, it is quite clear that Senators are allowed to earn money, hence this quote from Paul Massicotte in April 2005:

"Remember senators are different than the House of Commons. Senators have had another life and they usually continue with their other life," says Massicotte.

What he did not mention is that "difference" only came into effect in a year earlier, and that prior to that, the "other life" of Senators could not include accepting taxpayer's money. And that he was breaking the law for over two years until the changes came into effect.

I guess we can chalk this one up to one that got away.

Edward T Bear continues

Well, he's certainly enjoying the traffic surge.

Edward T Bear is still upset at my concerns about the credentials of Jack Mitchell:

If you want to challenge the explanations given by Mr.Mitchell, on the basis that he is not a real professional expert in forensic audio analysis you better have something more substantial to attack or impugn his credibility with than a link to a "justice for all" website (put out by non-experts in audio analysis) who say that the professional trade organization that Mr.Mitchell belongs to is a "diploma mill".

My concern is that I can't tell if he's a "professional expert" (actually, "expert" would be sufficient). His only credential has been challenge by another party. I can't resolve which one to believe, so I have to skeptical. Mr. Mitchell can lay this to rest by listing the remainder of his credentials to offset the suspicious ACFE accreditation.

Mr.Mitchell was very clear in his analysis, that in at least a few instances, there is irrefuteable proof, (for instance the "cup of tea" segment that was spliced into the mix twice) that the tapes have been tampered with. He has done a comprehensive analysis.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. He said he's performed a complete analysis. I don't know if I can believe him...yet.

Well, how bout the livelihood and professional reputation of Mr.Mitchell, for starters? He was hired by the G&M to do an analysis. That's it. That's the extent of his involvement in these affairs.

I wish Mr. Mitchell well. And I'm certain his livelihood can only be enhanced by providing a complete and unedited list of his credentials.

The claim that some guy from New Mexico is obviously part of some VAST LIBERAL MEDIA CONSPIRACY TO MAKE GURMANT GREWAL LOOK BAD, is just preposterous.

I agree. There is only a VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY (Mwu-ha-ha-ha-ha!).

All I asked you people to do is either retract the "mail-order diploma mill" lie about Mr.Mitchell, or give your own credentials in trying to counter the points that he made about the tapes/recordings.

The allegation about the diploma mill was made by a third party. Take your complaints to them. I've presented their allegations in the spirit of full disclosure of all relevant facts -- readers are welcome to discount whatever elements they find less than compelling. One more time: I'm not countering the points he made about the recording. I'm bringing up an issue about his credentials that assert he can make those points in the first place. In my original post, I stated that another analysis by another party might help put all this to rest.

That's right. So... I am simply asking, what are YOUR qualifications in disputing Mr.Mitchell's credibility, or indeed even his statements about his analysis?

Oh... I see.
You have none.

Actually, I am qualified by virtue that I can read. I can read his website, I can read his credentials, I can read the ACFE website, and I can read the criticism aimed at ACFE. Putting all that together leads to the inevitable conclusion that there are questions here that should be answered.

Well Sherlock, why don't you call Mr.Mitchell, or email him and ask? Would it kill you to do that?

No it wouldn't. I've already done that. I'll let you know when he responds.

I'm optimistic that the rest of his curriculum vitae is very impressive and will put an end to this debate.

And a bit of advice to Edward T Bear -- stop with the name-calling. Calling me "rabid" and "Sherlock" doesn't bother me, and only serves to make you look bad. You're making some excellent points -- don't distract people from those points with the childishness.

"Every opportunity -- bar none"

The words of ex-Liberal MP Pat O'Brien, now sitting as an independent, on defeating the same-sex marriage legislation:

The veteran MP from London, Ont., told a news conference he'll employ "every opportunity I have to use - bar none - in order to defeat this legislation."

While the same-sex marriage bill is not considered a matter of confidence that could bring down the government, O'Brien said his tactics could include voting against the Liberals on next week's critical budget legislation.

"That's not my goal in life, to defeat this government," said O'Brien.

"My goal is to defeat Bill C-38. But I won't rule out any democratic means to do that."

And he's not alone:

Jim Karygiannis, another Liberal opposed to gay marriage, later said he's spoken to two or three colleagues who are also considering using the budget confidence vote to kill the marriage legislation - and the government.

"Some of them are very serious," said Karygiannis, adding he's begged them not employ such a scorched-earth tactic.

And another Liberal opponent of the bill, John McKay, didn't rule out more MPs quitting to sit as Independents.

The Liberal cone of silence is going to be working overtime.

The question now, do the Conservatives want to bring down the government? The polls are twitchy. The Gomery Inquiry bombshells are fading away. The "hidden agenda" nonsense is being bandied about again in the media. Many special interest groups are salivating over the money being promised in the budget.

Meanwhile, Gilles Duceppe is considering a jump to provincial politics to replace outgoing Parti Quebecois leader Bernard Landry. An election would be a major distraction, and could hurt his chances if he makes a misstep during a campaign. Will he vote against any move to bring down the government?

The Credentials of Jack Mitchell

From my post:

A few things. It would have been helpful to know what degree he graduated with, and when. Those would have seemed to be the most obvious details to include, but for some reason Blank Out Times missed them.

From Edward T Bear at Blank Out Times:

Is it really all that suspicious that Mr.Mitchell wouldnt post his Penn State grad credentials on his blog? I don't think so. In fact, if I were hiring Mr.Mitchell to do some work for me, I would be much more interested to see what kind of work he has done in the past, and for who, than which University he graduated from. Penn State is a highly respected school in the United States. It's Ivy league, like Yale, Princeton and Harvard.

My response:

I don't care that Penn State is an Ivy League school (update: Reg writes in the comments that Penn State is in fact not an Ivy League school -- there seems to be some confusion on this point). You could earn a degree in agroecology from Penn State. Doesn't prepare you for your career as a forensic audio specialist.

I don't think for a minute that Jack Mitchell is an agroecologist moonlighting as an audio engineer. I'm sure his degree is relevant and impressive. It seems odd though that it is taking so long to figure out what it is.

It looks like I'll have to write to Jack Mitchell myself.

By the way, I appreciate the credit Edward T Bear has given me with regards to following his track on this story and bringing it to the attention of other readers for their consideration. I would say that you're being a bit unfair to small dead animals and Captain's Quarters -- they haven't said anything that isn't true.

My letter to Jack Mitchell:

Dear Mr. Mitchell,

With your recent citation in the Globe and Mail with regards to the analysis of the Gurmant Grewal tapes, questions have been raised about your qualifications. Essentially, your website cites only the membership in ACFE, which in turn has been accused of being a diploma mill. It is unfortunate that qualified people would be tainted by the troubles at thge ACFE. To set the record straight, can you provide the following information:

* What academic degrees do you hold? From what universities and colleges, in what fields, and from what years?
* In what professional associations do you hold a current membership, beside the ACFE?
* Have you ever published papers in academic or forensic journals that can be cited? Ideally online, but not necessarily.
* Have you any citations or letters of appreciation from the Department of Justice or other clients that you'd like to share?
* Any other information that you think is relevant would be welcome.

A challenge from Edward T. Bear

My post on the Globe and Mail analysis of the Grewal tapes has ignited quite the little firestorm.

Blank Out Times is issuing a challenge:

It has come to my attention that many of you are complaining about the use of "experts" by the Globe and Mail with respect to the forensic examination of the Grewal Tapes.

Now, I issue this challenge to all of these "nattering nabobs" who claim that the Globe and Mail's hired Gun, Mr.Jack Mitchell is not qualified to give his opinion about the subject...

Please email me your audio engineering credentials. Also include a jpg copy of your transcript for whatever unniversity or school that you graduated in. Please also give a complete account of your work experience in doing forensic audio analysis.

Mr. Bear is missing an important point. We don't need to supply anything, as long as we don't make pronouncements on the tapes themselves. As best as I can tell, no one has insisted that the tapes are real. I certainly have not. Nor has Captain Ed.

What we have done is raise questions about the qualifications of Jack Mitchell to make those pronouncements. He has issued an opinion based on an analysis of digitized copies of the tapes downloaded from a website, the means of copying unknown, the parameters for compression unknown, the quality of the original media unknown (well, unkown to me). Moreover, the organization which he touts as the source of his credentials, the seal of which he put on his web site, has been declared a diploma mill by one source, TruthInJustice, which is concerned with the vulnerabilities of the US justice system, for example, from poor quality "experts".

The onus is on Jack Mitchell to defend his qualifications and his analysis. I found his credentials a bit wobbly. But this shouldn't be too hard to address. A fellow who has worked "regularly" with the US Department of Justice should have no problems snowing me under his academic credentials, his other professional affiliations, his citations for excellence in forensic analysis from the Director of the FBI and from the Department of Justice, his picture shaking hands with the President, and so on and so forth.

Heck, I'm doing him a favour. If I'm less than impressed by what I could learn from Googling he details on his website, potential clients might be too. He should take this as a wake-up call to throw on more stuff about his credentials other than the ACFE certification, and maybe move the ACFE thing to a less obvious place on the page.

I don't understand what the big deal is.

Update on the credentials of Jack Mitchell [and more updates and more updates]

Blank Out Times takes checking on Jack Mitchell, the expert used by the Globe and Mail, one step further, and has a friend call him and check on his credentials:

In response to AGNW characterization of Mr.Mitchell, he was kind enough to clarify that he is a graduate of Penn State University. He regularly does work for the Department of Justice, States Attorney's Office, Federal Prosecutors, and US Police agencies, DEA, FDIC (some of this was even mentioned in the G&M article.)

Click here for a complete list of Mr.Mitchells' clients.

A few things. It would have been helpful to know what degree he graduated with, and when. Those would have seemed to be the most obvious details to include, but for some reason Blank Out Times missed them.

With regards to the list of clients, I saw them, and they seem impressive enough. Again, some dates and descriptions of the actual work done would have helped put the client list in context. Of course, there may be confidentiality issues that prevent Mr. Mitchell from doing much more than listing names, but then it would have helped to know that too. I'm not sure where the notion that these are "regular" clients comes from -- the client list doesn't say one way or another. I assume it came from the interview, the transcript of which is not supplied.

All in all, I don't see much here to shift my suspicions. He has a university degree in something earned some time ago. A bunch of people have paid him to do something or other, maybe once or maybe many times.

The only hard information I have with regards to his competency as a forensic investigator is the link to the American College of Forensic Examiners, and we already know that not everyone is impressed with that.

From my original post:

This is not to say the Jack Mitchell is not a qualified expert but it is unfortunate that he has associated himself with a questionable organization like the ACFE.

That's the bottom line here. If he has a degree from Penn State, then why doesn't he list it? If he lists his relationship with a questionable association first and foremost, then I think it's fair to start asking questions about everything, including his client list.

But kudos to Blank Out Times for doing something I didn't try to do (for lack of time and frankly, it's not my style -- I work off public information that everyone can access and judge for themselves, and not from personal interviews the accuracy of which people have to take on my word).

Update #1: Though I was impressed with the initiative shown by Edward T. Bear at Blank Out Times in trying to find out more about Jack Mitchell, I was put off by his abrasive attitiude. For instance, and let me make this absolutely clear to all the people I have bitten in the last two weeks, I do not have rabies, as suggested at Mr. Bear. He also starts in with the name calling aimed at small dead animals.

Update #2: Edward T. Bear has jumped the shark, it seems. First he suggested that Jack Mitchell initiate legal action against everyone who dared raised doubts about the value of his certification from ACFE. Definitely un-blogger-like! If there was a treehouse for bloggers, I would so make sure he was banned!

But it gets worse. Not only does he specifically target Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters (since he's an American, and Edward Bear thinks, incorrectly I believe, that it makes him an easier target for fellow American Jack Mitchell) as being the best target for such a lawsuit, he actually wrote to Captain Ed and alludes to "questions of liability". The Captain smacks him around a couple of times. You can see it in the comments.

Update #3: Check out the comments to this post to see how easy it is to get people confused. There is a Jack D. Mitchell, a graduate from Penn State, and chock full of degrees and space stuff and chairmanships. He is not Jack L. Mitchell, the expert used by the Globe and Mail, and purported to be a graduate of Penn State by Edward T Bear.

Book Tag

Right, I've been book tagged, it seems. What fun...

So here goes:

1. How many books do you own?
Let's see, 12 or so boxes, probably 40 or so paperbacks each, called it 500 or more.

2. What was the last book you bought?
Arrogance Of The French by Richard Chesnoff.

3. What was the last book you read?
Arrogance Of The French by Richard Chesnoff

4. Which 5 books mean a lot to you?
Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien

Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov

1984 by George Orwell

The Closed Circle : An Interpretation of the Arabs" by David Pryce-Jones

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality by Brian Greene

5. Can you tag 5 more victims--er, interested bloggers?
The emails will go off tonight...

By the way, I was tagged by Girl on the Right, Relapsed Catholic, and Robot Guy, so go check out their reading selections.

The future of Canadian politics

Soon to be seen in Ottawa: Liberal MP Pat O'Brien, who has announced that he is leaving the Liberal Party to sit as an independent over the rush of the Liberals to push through same-sex marriage legislation, and Prime Minister Paul Martin's Chief of Staff Tim Murphy, sitting at a table at a noisy restaurant, each completely naked, their heads encased in plexiglass domes connected by a tube.

The noisy environment...no clothes concealing microphones...the always amusing Cone of Silence from Get Smart...that's right, it's Tim Murphy offering absolutely no deal to Pat O'Brien to stay with the Liberals!

Another news blackout -- the Cecilia Zhang murder

The performance of the Canadian justice system in the Cecilia Zhang tragedy will happen without Canadians being able to see:

Today, Min Chen, 22, the man accused of the 9-year-old's murder, will begin hearing evidence against him when a preliminary hearing begins in a Brampton courtroom.

The hearing before Justice Peter Wilkie, scheduled for 15 days throughout June at the A. Grenville & William Davis Courthouse in Brampton, will be held under a complete news blackout.

No reason is given for the blackout. No politics appear to be involved. No other trials are related to this case, the police think Chen worked alone and his has been the only arrest in the case.

So why the blackout? Admitted it is just the preliminary hearing, but I worry about the trial itself.

To spare us the gruesome details, perhaps? How much worse can it get? A nine-year-old girl is taken from the house and the murdered, and her decomposing body is found five months later. Was she sexually assaulted?

To protect the family? Why? What questions are being raised? For instance, how did he know the girl was in the guest room that night, he regular room being used by the girl's grandfather visiting from China? Was it just a lucky break that he went into the right room? Maybe the explanation is simple (he did know the family, and was friendly with the boarder who lived in the home), but with a publication ban, how will we know?

To protect Chen? Again, why? Who is he, besides a foreign national in Canada on a student visa? Does he have connections in China? Police from mainland China help in the investigation. What information did they turn up? Can it be trusted? Are we going to be allowed to know?

Or is it to protect the police and the prosecution? With the heat from the Karla Homolka debacle, law enforcement and the justice system have had serious questions raised about their integrity and their competency. Are we going to see publication bans raised as a matter of course in Canada?

Liberals lose an MP

Hat tip to Neale News, a report on CTV:

Liberal MP Pat O'Brien, who opposes his party's position on gay marriage, says he's quitting the Grits to sit as an Independent.

The move comes less than two months after he held a news conference in April to announce he was staying with the Liberals despite misgivings.

He decided to stick with the Liberals in April after Prime Minister Paul Martin promised expanded debate of the marriage bill, including cross-Canada hearings.

But O'Brien said the "full and fair'' debate he expected has not happened.

No it hasn't as reported here. At the time, Mr. O'Brien complained that the promise was not being kept. He's followed through on that complaint.

First of many? There were 35 Liberals MPs, including Mr. O'Brien, opposed to the government's handling of this issue. Maybe...

The Globe and Mail "expert" on the Grewal tapes -- certified by a certification mill?

The Grewal tapes have been examined by a US expert hired by the Globe and Mail, and some disturbing things have been discovered:

The recordings initially released by Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal were altered, and it is unlikely that the changes in the tapes he made were caused by digital copying, as the Conservatives have stated, concludes a forensic audio expert employed by The Globe and Mail to examine the controversial recordings.

However, [Jack Mitchell, a U.S. forensic audio expert,] said that he not only found instances of possible edits, including sections where it appeared that phrases had been added to the recordings, but also a telltale repeat of a brief snippet of conversation that was repeated exactly.

In addition, a section of another conversation reviewed by Mr. Mitchell, in which Mr. Dosanjh asserts that any arrangement made with Mr. Grewal "requires a certain degree of deniability" appears to have been edited in from another conversation, as Mr. Dosanjh had alleged. But Mr. Mitchell said it would take further analysis to determine that with certainty.

"The phrase is suddenly -- the amplitude is higher, the frequency content is different, meaning that essentially there are more bottom frequencies in it. The noise signature is different, and on either side of that phrase, they're the same."

I think the Globe and Mail should have considered the source of these pronouncements are bit more carefully. I checked out Jack Mitchell, and I have to say I'm not impressed.

Jack Mitchell is the owner of Computer Audio Engineering in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In an interview I found, he definitely sounds like he knows what he's talking about (even if the interviewer didn't -- an "FFT" is a "Fast Fourier Transform" -- a way of depicitng sound content as a spread over frequencies instead of a spread over time). On the other hand, he proudly lists the American College of Forensic Examiners as as his only professional forensic certification.

If the ACFE home page looks a bit cheesy, you're not the only one to notice.

Robert O'Block has come a long way since 1994, when he made $40,000 a year as a professor at the College of the Ozarks in Point Lookout, Mo.

Now he's making a six-figure income as the executive director of the American College of Forensic Examiners, a Springfield, Mo.-based nonprofit organization that credentials forensic experts.

One former associate calls him a con artist. And more than one describes his organization's credentialing process as a complete scam.

"He basically takes people's money and gives them a worthless piece of paper," says Robert Phillips, an Audubon, N.J., document examiner. "He's just in it for the money." Phillips claims he has reason to know. He says he resigned as chair of the organization's certification committee in 1993 after discovering that O'Block was issuing credentials to unqualified candidates behind the committee's back.

Many of the nation's leading forensic scientists don't seem to have much use for O'Block or his organization either.

James Starrs, a professor of law and forensic sciences at George Washington University, says the organization's certification process lacks objectivity. "It's driven by the felt needs of the people in charge," he says. "If they want you in, you're in, even if they have to break all of the rules to do it."

Andre Moenssens, a law school professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and an expert on scientific evidence, goes even further. He says O'Block's organization is basically a certification mill. "For the right amount of money, he will certify just about anybody as an expert in anything," Moenssens says.

This is not to say the Jack Mitchell is not a qualified expert but it is unfortunate that he has associated himself with a questionable organization like the ACFE. I have my doubts about the Grewal tapes. But I also have my doubts about Jack Mitchell, and I'd like to see an analysis by another organization, like the FBI, or another private audio firm in the US not associated with the ACFE, before passing judgment.

I'd also like to know why the Globe and Mail can't do a better job of vetting their experts and finding someone with better credentials.

Canadian military to be re-organized

I'm sorry, but when I read this article, I immediately thought of this dialogue from Star Wars:

TARKIN: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.

TAGGE: That's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?

TARKIN: The regional governors now have direct control over territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.

The article I read, appearing in the Globe and Mail, described the major re-organization of the Canadian Armed Forces:

Canada's military command structure is about to be turned upside down so the Armed Forces can deal more quickly with natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.

In the biggest restructuring in four decades, Gen. Rick Hillier has ordered a transformation that will see control of domestic military assets turned over to integrated regional centres, known as Canada Command.

Mr. Hillier, the chief of defence staff, wants the command structure to be more "top down," with regional commanders in control of all military personnel and hardware.

"They'll now come under an integrated commander at a regional level," said a spokeswoman for Mr. Hillier.

OK, so the comparison is silly, but for some reason Star Wars is in my head a lot. For what it's worth, though, what Grand Moff General Hillier makes a lot of sense:

The military also wants certain equipment assigned to specific units. As an example, the JTF2 -- Canada's elite commando unit -- might want full control over aircraft that could see the unit deploy faster, instead of having to wait for approvals from the air force to use a plane.

The problem is, of course, that in just about any military, it is the army that, in the end, matters most. Boots on the ground and all that. The navy and especially the air force exist to enhance the army. Of course, navy and air force guys will vehemently deny this. In the US, of course, the navy can do with its marines a lot that the army does, but then that just goes to show that landed forces, regardless of what you call them and who commands them, are what matters most.

So it's no surprise that our Chief of Defence staff, General Rick Hillier, is army. Prior to his appointment as CDS, he as chief of the land staff, which is Canada's uninspiring name for head of the army. His immediate predecessor, Ray Henault, was a fighter pilot.

It'll be interesting to see what the review comes up with, especially the equipment "wish list" (no word if it will include a terror-inducing battle station with an exhaust vent that has inexplicably been left uncovered by even a screen door). I doubt any of it will be implemented by a Liberal government beholden to the socialist NDP, of course, but it will be a fascinating exercise in the hypothetical.

Bloggers, have you been in the news?

I'd like to start and maintain an ongoing listing of Canadian bloggers in the news. To start things off, I'd like for everyone who blogs in Canada to send me an email about past media appearances (see the format of the email below). An "appearance" can be any of the following:

• You and your blog were mentioned in the context of being a blogger, in some piece about blogging.


• Your blog was credited by a news piece as a source of information or otherwise as a contributor to a media story.


• You've had some writing published in the media, or you've made some other media appearance (on a panel for a TV or radio program, for example), on any topic, not necessarily blogging related. Ideally, you were identified, even in passing, as a blogger.


• Anything else you can think of that seems appropriate for the list.

When I've collected enough to seed my list, look for it to appear in the left sidebar, probably above the blog rankings in an expandable box.

I'm suggesting the following format for your email to me:

Name of Blog:
URL of your post regarding the appearance:
Date of appearance:
Name of media organization:
Type of media: [TV | Radio | Newspaper | Magazine | On-line | Other (specify)]
URL of your appearance (if applicable)]:

I don't intend to post media appearance pieces, just links to other people's posts. If you've had some kind of appearance, but didn't create a post for it, create one now, and send me the email as mentioned above. Even belated credit is worth having.

If there is enough material to get things started, then going forward let me know of new media references and I'll keep the list updated. Don't be shy -- if you were interviewed for your local weekly shopper or your school paper, it counts!

Also, if the volume is there going forward, I might consider a "This week in the media" roundup post.

Finally, feel free to email me (using the above format) announcements of future appearances. If you've taped an interview and it will show at a certain date and time, then let me know, and it will go on the list.

Red Ensign has been raised

The Red Ensign flies at West Coast Chaos.

Maybe Mark Holland doesn't want to face his opponent

[As a preface, let me say that I don't condone McVety's tactics with regards to the domain names. I think he is probably crossing the line into cybersquatting, and even if he isn't, it still feels unseemly to me. But I do believe he is being singled out, and that he and his supporters are being targeted for promoting a moral, specifically Christian, point of view.]

My MP, Mark Holland, is working hard to make sure he doesn't have to face his conservative opponent Rondo Thomas in the next election.

small dead animals has a memo, allegedly from Holland's executive assistant Richard McGuire, that outlines the uppity actions of some Christians, and how they must be silenced. Needless to say, Rondo Thomas would be caught up in that net.

Here are some relevant portions. Definitely go and read the whole thing and decide for yourself.

A couple months ago I wrote to you about the fact that Charles McVety, President of Canada Christian College, has been registering domain names of MPs, a practice called "cybersquatting."

Well, not really. Technically, cybersquatting is a bit more restricted in definition:

A victim of cybersquatting in the United States can now sue under the provisions of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) or can fight the cybersquatter using an international arbitration system created by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The ACPA defines cybersquatting as registering, trafficking in or using a domain name with the intent to profit in bad faith from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.

Some Hollywood celebrities have successfully prosecuted cybersquatters, arguing that their well-known names are essentially trademarks, but normally a properly registered trademark must be involved.

Furthermore, cybersquatting traditionally involved inactive web sites, in which the name has been registered for the sole purpose of enticing the owner of the trademark to pay money to get the site name. If the website is being used for a reasonable purpose, then the accusation of cybersquatting is harder to prove.

The question here is whether http://www.josephvolpe.com, named after a politician, discussing that politician's poltical beliefs, and clearly identifying itself as not being the official website of that politician, is a reasonable use of that website name.

Apparently to Mark Holland, it is not. A Christian can only proclaim his beliefs from a pulpit in a Church in front of like-minded people. Going outside and talking to the public in general? Then you have to be careful with Mark Holland around.

Another question is whether the registered charity, the Canada Christian College, is engaging in poltical activities. Again, Mark Holland has a pretty broad definition of what engaging means.

First, you'd have to show that the College resources were being used to engage in political activities. The only evidence to support this is the fact that Charles McVety is using his College phone number as a contact in the registration info for the websites (though not in the website itself). The organization registering the site is DefendMarriage, a political action group. Franky, this is a bit sloppy on McVety's part, but hardly much to go on. If the registering organization was the College, then Holland would be on to something.

Heck, I give my office phone number for a lot of registrations, simply because that's where I am during the day.

Second, you'd have to specifically provide some example of a political activity. This is where Holland goes off the rails. He brings up the nominations of Christians to run as Conservatives in ridings.

Got that -- he's got a problem with Christians in government. He neglects to mention that in his own riding he will be facing one of these nominees. But put that aside for the moment.

Does he claim that the College is somehow using its resources to get these people nominated?

No.

Does he claim that McVety is getting these people nominated by using his position as President of the College to achive this goal?

No.

He is concerned that "associates of McVety...have also been trying to nominate their people as Conservative candidates".

Mark Holland's Canada has become a country where who your "associates" are can get you in trouble with the government. Nice.

So the Canadian Christian College is in Mark Holland's sights because its president gave his office phone number when he engaged in website registration for his separate political action group, and because people McVety knows are successfully engaging in the democratic process in riding nominations, debating and challenging current nominees and getting their own people nominated by majority vote.

Rondo Thomas works for the Canadian Christian College. He and McVety are associates. But no one has provided any evidence that College resources are being used.

Mark Holland thinks people who are against same-sex marriage are bigots, and has said so in news releases. Of course, that means all practising Catholics are bigots. Presumably that means all practising Catholics, and their books of worship, and their places of worship, are subject to anti-hate legislation. The same goes for other Christians, like Thomas and McVety, who share the same position on this issue.

I'd like to see Mark Holland in a community debate with Rondo Thomas. I'd like to see the reaction of his constituents, like those who attend St. Bernadette's Catholic Church at Harwood and Bailey, to the argument that to be against same-sex marriage is to be an anti-homosexual bigot.

But why have that debate, and risk the reaction that will follow? Judging from a community meeting I attended run by Holland, the reaction would not be in his favour. Better to involve the Liberal caucus, the Liberal legal counsel, and perhaps even Revenue Canada (he hints at the charitable status of the Canadian Christian College being revoked -- I wonder if the same goes for other bigots like the Catholic Church?), and shut Rondo Thomas and Charles McVety down.

No need for a messy election. Better to have a comfy seat in Parliament and make speeches that no one listens to.

Bernard Landry quits -- repercussions

In a surprise announcement, Parti Quebecois leader Bernard Landry is quitting as party leader and leaving politics altogether.

He was unsatisfied, even humiliated, upon receiving on 76.2% support of the party membership in a leadership review Saturday, and so immediately resigned.

If only Paul Martin was so thin-skinned.

Landry was being punished for being old-school. In the wake of the narrow referendum loss in 1995 (the close call led to the formation of the Sponsorship Program by the federal Liberals), and then the loss in the 2003 provincial election, the PQ has been struggling internally between one camp that is holding to the traditional approach of holding one referendum to support separation from Canada, then holding negotiations, then holding a second referendum on the result of the negotiations, and the other camp of radicals who want just one referendum, or no referendum at all, but just a vote in the National Assembly or even just calling a win in a provincial election a de facto referendum.

Other hardliners are trying to restrict English even further, concerned about such statistics as the one that shows that 55% of immigrants to Quebec choose to join with and assimilate into the English minority that makes up something 10% of the overall population. The concern here is that the English people in Quebec will survive with such influx, so ideas are being floated to strangle that flow of fresh blood. Leaders like Landry have always resisted these ideas, and that has been reflected in the confidence vote.

So what next? There are hopefuls from within the PQ like François Legault and Pauline Marois who are going to be scrambling to set up for a leadership campaign. Of more interest is whether the leader of the federal Bloc Quebecois will make a move to the provincial party.

A lot of people think he will.

There are others to consider as well. For me, the most interesting long shot is Jean Lapierre. He is currently the minister of transpot in the Paul Martin cabinet, but he was also the co-founder of the BQ before casting his lot with the Liberals. One might think being a cabinet minister with the hated federal government would make you ineligible for the job of PQ leader, but it didn't hurt Lucien Bouchard. Who knows? Given the difficult position of the federal Liberals, and the horrible polling in the province of Quebec, Lapierre might be wondering how much longer he can expect to be a federal cabinet minister. If he figures that his job might soon be gone, and worse yet, that Quebec is on its way to sovereignty, he might be thinking it's time to switch sides, again.

rabble.ca -- just so much noice

What I figure is the worst fear of the rabble.ca crowd is coming true -- they are seen as irrelevant:

You'd probably never heard of the website rabble.ca before last week -- and most people still have no idea what it is. Fear not, there's little to know. The usual safe and smug columns and opinions from the lugubrious left.

That sets the tone for the rest of this Michael Coren column. What does he think of the infamous Pope cartoon:

It's a sort of socialist Benny Hill on a bad day.

But to be a tad more serious, Mr. Coren puts it all in perspective:

Pope Benedict was an anti-Nazi who risked arrest during the war and was forced into the Hitler Youth. His father lost his job and very nearly his life by working against Hitlerism as a police officer in Bavaria.

Benedict XVI now leads the most radical organization in the world. A body that, for example, calls for the forgiving of all Third World debt, opposed the Iraq war and forced the international pharmaceutical companies to reverse their policies on various AIDS drugs to make them affordable in Africa.

A little more revolutionary than a group of old Marxists in downtown Toronto congratulating one another on a fatuous cartoon insulting Canadian Catholics.

Read the whole column. It touches on issues of bigotry and free speech and the relationship between Church and State in a democracy. All important topics, but he never lets us forget who he thinks the least important player in all this is.

The coffee-house Marxists at rabble.ca:

What a rabble!

Is Jack Layton reaching his limit?

The announcement of an offical inestigation by the ethics commissioner into the actions of Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, who is caught on tape dangling rewards in front of Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal in return for support of the Liberal budget, seems to have crossed the line for Jack Layton, the leader of the NDP, and the critical pillar of support fot the minority Liberals:

"It's incumbent on Mr. Dosanjh to step aside ... at a minimum that should be happening," NDP Leader Jack Layton said. "Instead, what each side seems to be doing is defending their own and pointing the finger."

Ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro yesterday agreed to NDP requests that he investigate the alleged votes-for-favours scandal as fresh questions emerged about the tapes made by Conservative Gurmant Grewal during his secret talks with top Liberals.

Of course, the most cynical among us might point out that the NDP were bought with $4.6 billion in budget changes, but to be fair, making changes to legislation is what Parliament is all about, whether we like those changes or not.

Yet another cynical take on this would be to suggest that Mr. Layton is trying to make an opening in cabinet in order to bargain for an NDP member to set it cabinet. Again, this is unlikely -- the NDP have never suggested forming a true coalition government. They know the Liberals are best kept at arm's length, lest the stench of corruption become indelibly attached to your own party. I suspect they have gotten too close already, but Mr. Layton thinks he can manage this relationship to his benefit.

And I've got to say that making these calls for better ethical behaviour from the Liberals, including key resignations, goes a long way to keeping the Liberal stench at bay.

But perhaps we're something different. As I alluded to at the beginning, Jack Layton might be sending Paul Martin and the Liberals a warning: there are limits to what we'll put up with for $4.6 billion. If that's the case, one has to wonder who else but the Liberal Party could offer someone $4.6 billion and get turned down because the seleaze factor is greater than the money involved.

Can Paul Martin go now? [Updated]

I argued way back that with an election looming, and the polls showing the Liberals heading for disaster, Paul Martin will have no choice but to lead the Liberals. No one would want the job, and the Liberal brass wouldn't let him quit.

Things are quite different now. The threat of an election has receded. Scandals still plague the Liberals, but like all scandals, time heals. The question hungry leadership hopefuls are considering is whether the time between now and the promised election in the fall will be enough to heal the wounds sufficiently such that the Liberals can win.

The question is important, because Paul Martin is in dire straits. He still appears to be rudderless, reacting to events instead of controlling them. The Grewal tapes are a major embarassment, and call into question his choices for his staff and his cabinet. There is a lot of bad blood lingering from the Belinda Stronach appointment.

I could see someone like John Manley, or even Sheila Copps, making a run for the Prime Minister, and quite possibly succeeding at toppling him. They are in private life right now, so relatively untainted by scandal.

The time line is tempting. Win the leadership of the party once Paul Martin is deposed, and win in a snap by-election. Immediately prorogue Parliament if the Grewal scandal seems to have legs, otherwise run the clock out until the end of June and the summer recess. Spend the summer talking about how different the new leader is from Paul Martin. When Gomery comes out, either point out that it wasn't the current leadership involved, or if the mud is clinging, defer the election, arguing that it was Martin's promise, not the new leader's.

The trick is to continue to maintain a grip on Parliament, but thanks to Paul Martin and Belinda Stronach and Todd Russell and Chuck Cadman, that might not be too hard. And the NDP might be more willing to work with the new leader than with Martin, who they might see as damaged goods.

Each potential successor to Martin is thinking the same thing: has Paul Martin bought enough time for me to take control and turn Liberal fortunes around? Are Canadians looking for any excuse to stay with the Liberals, even as difficult as Martin has made that for many? Will they be relieved and grateful if I take over?

Paul Martin's success in staving off an election might have spelled his doom as Prime Minister.

Update: This post has generated a lot of interesting commentary. Let me add something else to the mix. When Paul Martin won the leadership in 2003, the expectation was that he would be party leader, and probably prime minister, for the next 10 years. His opponents retired from politics, in no small part because they saw their time had come and gone. Paul Martin's disastrous turn as prime minister means that this generation of leadership hopefuls have been granted something most of us never get in life -- a second chance.

The trick is to grasp this opportunity before the next generation of leadership hopefuls decides it's now their time. The pressure is to roll the dice one last time. And remember that fortune favours the bold.

Is the Royal Canadian Mint asking for trouble?

From the National Post:

The Royal Canadian Mint is set to unveil two special coins to honour Pope John Paul II this summer. The 2005 John Paul II pure 99.99% silver coin and the 2005 John Paul II 10-karat gold coin will be issued on June 14 and July 14 respectively.

Sounds reasonable enough. But wait for the rabble.ca crowd and their ilk to start raging about how wrong it is to honour this homophobic misogynistic anachronism who quietly condones hate crimes and pedophilia.

Maybe they'll surprise me and the criticism will muted. But I'm not optimistic.

Ethics commissioner will investigate Grewal tapes; Stephen Harper needs to show leadership

From the Globe and Mail:

Federal ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro announced Friday he has launched a formal investigation into the Gurmant Grewal secret tape controversy.

Mr. Grewal, a Tory MP, secretly recorded his phone conversations with Paul Martin's chief of staff Tim Murphy and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh on the eve of the Liberal budget vote two weeks ago.

In the tape, Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Murphy are heard making vague references to rewards if Mr. Grewal and his wife Nina, also a Conservative MP, supported the Liberals during the budget vote. Mr. Murphy is also heard saying he might be able to speed up an investigation by Mr. Shapiro.

Everyone involved is being investigated:

The ethics investigation will attempt to examine if Mr. Grewal sought rewards from Mr. Dosanjh or Mr. Murphy, or if either man offered Mr. Grewal an inducement to change his vote on the budget.

Ethics investigations are performed behind closed doors, so we shouldn't hear anything until the investigation is finished, and the report delivered to the Speaker of the House. Moreover, the investigation is suspended if the RCMP, who have been formally asked by the Bloc Quebecois to look into the matter, decide to open a criminal investigation.

For me the question is simple: now that Chief of Staff Tim Murphy and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh are officially under investigation for ethics violations, will the Prime Minister suspend Murphy from his duties, and remove Dosanjh from cabinet, until such time as they are cleared?

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper should take the lead in the face of Paul Martin's dithering and announce with regret that until the matter is resolved, Gurmant Grewal is excluded from caucus. Mr. Harper needs to make the case that the Conservatives operate under different ethical rules than the Liberals. It's not a pleasant step to take, but then true leadership often requires making unpleasant choices.

Toronto Star: Martin cabinet is starting to fracture?

From the editorial pages of the Liberal-friendly Toronto Star (free registration required), Chantal Hebert speaks of rebellious whispers:

If there is a lasting subtext to the tape transcript that has immortalized tawdry Liberal haggling over the purchase of the soul of a Conservative opposition member this week, it is that precious little stands between Paul Martin and a repeat of the sponsorship episode.

Justice John Gomery can be as thorough as is humanly possible in his report -- and there is every probability his recommendations will fully live up to the high hopes of Canadians -- but even he cannot make up for the poor quality of the moral fibre of a government.

All this is old news, I suppose. Even the most partisan Liberal supporter must, deep down, be feeling disappointed and betrayed by what has been going on. And who is more partisan than a cabinet colleague?

It is a malaise that permeates the upper reaches of the government.

Some of Martin's cabinet loyalists are now quietly questioning whether their loyalty to him is in conflict with their duty to the country -- and so probably should the rest of us.

The House of Commons is fractured, irreparably until the next election, between the government and the opposition. And now, if Ms. Hebert is to be believed, fractures are appearing within cabinet itself.

What I'd give to have her sort of contacts.

Rabbler-rouser makes me laugh

Funny comment on rabble.ca with regards to what consequences the government will face over the Grewal tapes:

From an earlier post: "When the Canadian public read these transcripts it has to spell the end of this Liberal government."

Response: Sorry, but no. If Paul Martin was caught eating a live puppy on the steps of parliament while clubbing a baby seal to death with a homeless persons wooden leg and flushing the Koran down a toilet while screaming "death to all homosexuals', he would still get support in Ontario because the liberals who control the CBC say Stephen Harper has a hidden agenda.

Funny. Probably true. But funny.

Curtain comes down on Gomery, but first a preview of the final report

From the Globe and Mail:

The final day of testimony at the Gomery inquiry yesterday aptly featured former minister Alfonso Gagliano, who went through a roller-coaster hearing in which he fended off allegations of pork-barrelling with an emotional defence of his integrity.

After denying allegations he was involved in the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Gagliano, who was minister of public works for most of the duration of the program, was slammed by a federal government lawyer for allowing sponsorship funds to be spent in his riding and in a village in Italy.

Nice to go out with a bang. But the real fireworks cam from Justice Gomery himself. The lawyer for Jean Chretien tried to prevent the four commission counsels from working on the final report.

Needless to say, Justice Gomery feels that he can draw on their help and expertise to prepare the report, though he will take full responsibility and authorship of the conclusions:

Judge Gomery quickly rejected the submission, saying that he will rely on his legal team to define the facts at the heart of the scandal, but that he alone will decide who deserves a finding of misconduct.

"The decision that will be written will be written by me," Judge Gomery said.

A cute attempt to make the report late? Or worries that Bernard Roy, the lead counsel, who was prinicipal secretary to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and no friend of Jean Chretien, will try to mess with the conclusions?

Well, now you've made the judge angry, so there's no point in worrying about the counsels. Actually, I expect Justice Gomery to be eminently fair, despite the headaches created by Jean Chretien.

So does this mean that we can expect to Gomery-free until November. Not quite:

Regarding the final report, due in November, Judge Gomery said he plans to prepare an outline of his decision over the next two weeks based on the evidence he has heard.

That will be interesting, and might fuel some fires in the House of Commons ahead of the summer recess.

Ed Broadbent: Ethics commissioner must resign

From the Toronto Star (free registration required):

While MPs defended Shapiro's integrity, some criticized his performance over the last year. New Democrat MP Ed Broadbent went so far as to suggest that Shapiro, who was named to the job just a year ago, should quit.

"I think he should seriously think about it," Broadbent said.

"In terms of public performance on a whole range of decisions, I think (there are) extraordinarily serious credibility problems," Broadbent said.

When one of the few MPs in Parliament who I would say is as far above suspicion as any mortal can be says that the ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro should resign his post, I think it means something.

Mr. Broadbent's concerns stem from disturbing revelations in the last few days that call into question the ethics commissioner's, well, uhm, ethics:

• Chief of Staff Tim Murphy is captured on tape telling Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal that he has the power to see that the investigation into Grewal currently underway is accelerated (a power that the ethics commissioner says Murphy does not have)


• Shapiro is in the habit of preparing reports on the ethical behaviour of MPs, but instead of delivering the report to the Speaker of the House, as is required by his mandate, he allows the subject of the investigation to see the report and comment on it; indeed ex-Minister Judy Sgro would have seen the report on her had not these questions been raised over the last 24 hours -- Shapiro is "reconsidering" his plan

One question is whether the events of the last few days mortally wounded the ability of the ethics comissioner to do his job without hint of bias, or has his reputation merely been dented?

My next question: is there really a difference?

Stephen Taylor -- Thinking outside of the box

Stephen Taylor has some interesting ideas for how the Conservatives can make a breakthrough in Quebec and take control of events. Read this thought provoking post.

Anne McLellan -- Remorseless Automaton

I swear, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan must has a pull-string hanging out of her back, being yanked by whoever sits behind her (according to the seating plan, that would be either Tony Valeri or Karen Redman).

Check out Anne McLellan's ability to provide the same answer, no matter what the question:

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC):Mr. Speaker, in response to allegations of vote buying, the Prime Minister initially said, " I made it very clear that no offers were to be made, and no offers were made". Yet yesterday he admitted knowledge of the negotiations.

The attempts to distance himself from this deal are failing. The tapes show the health minister saying, "Cabinet can be arranged right away". The health minister and the Prime Minister's chief of staff set up the deal and the Prime Minister, the big boss, seals it or formally okays it.

Does the Prime Minister still deny that his health minister and chief of staff were making a deal on his behalf?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has been very clear about this, but let me clarify it again. When the Prime Minister was informed that the member for Newton-North Delta was interested in joining our caucus, the Prime Minister was absolutely clear in relation to what he told Mr. Murphy. He told Mr. Murphy, "do not make an offer" and no offer was made.

And again:

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): We only have to take a look around the benches to see how that works. A deal was offered. The chief of staff said that the Prime Minister would be "prepared to talk to you directly both by phone and subsequently in person as we see fit".

There is a blatant contradiction between the Minister of Health, the chief of staff and the Prime Minister's version of events. Which Liberal is telling the truth?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. The Prime Minister was clear. The Prime Minister told Mr. Murphy that there was no offer to be made. There was no offer made.

And again, this time three times in a row:

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. I did not ask if the Prime Minister knew about someone wanting to join the Liberal Party. My question is this: Did the PM's health minister and chief of staff tell him that this member was asking for compensation to switch sides? That is their current line of defence. Did they advise the Prime Minister that doing so would be a criminal offence? That is my question. I would like an answer. Was the Prime Minister informed, yes or no?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify and I hope that I answer the hon. member's question. The Prime Minister knew that the member for Newton-North Delta had approached our side of the House about joining our caucus. The Prime Minister then made it absolutely plain that no offer was to be made to anyone in any way.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to hear the Deputy Prime Minister answer the question put to her. Was the Prime Minister informed of the fact that the Conservative member was asking for some compensation or reward to join the Liberal caucus? Did the Prime Minister know that such a request had been made?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it plain that no offer was to be made in this situation. I am sorry, I do not know what else one can say. The Prime Minister said there were to be no offers made and no offers were made.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. If the Prime Minister was aware that the member had set conditions for supporting the government and no offer was made, could the minister explain two things to us? First, why did the chief of staff and the Minister of Health spend four hours talking with the member? Four hours to tell him they had nothing to offer sounds like a long time.

Second, why did the Prime Minister not inform the RCMP, knowing that a criminal act might be committed? That is clear.

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be plain about this. The Prime Minister was aware of the fact that the member for Newton-North Delta had approached our side of the House. The Prime Minister was clear that no offers were to be made to the member for Newton-North Delta and no offers were made.

No offer made...no offer made...no offer made. The question is whether the Prime Minister knew that Gurmant Grewal was looking for an offer. The answer? No offer made...no offer made...no offer made. The question was why wasn't the RCMP informed that a Conservative MP was trying to sell his vote. The answer? No offer made...no offer made...no offer made.

Is it going to rain today? No offer made...no offer made...no offer made. See Star Wars yet? No offer made...no offer made...no offer made.

At this point, Redman and Valeri must have switched, because I have to assume who ever was pulling McLellan's string was getting tired, and McLellan had yet to deliver her debating masterstroke.

What masterstroke is this? To insist that no offer was made to even more questions that have nothing to do with whether the Liberals made an offer!

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, as the minister says. Was it not more like this: the Prime Minister was advised that the MP had sought compensation and, rather than inform the RCMP, he did as his chief of staff and health minister had done, he said to continue negotiating and if things were resolved and he agreed to wait, they would have done nothing. That is what the Prime Minister wanted to do. It is the usual nobody knew story. This is why the minister is not answering my question. Exactly why. She is trying to clear the Prime Minister-

The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the only thing the Prime Minister knew was that in fact the member for Newton-North Delta had approached our side of the House, interested in leaving the official opposition. That is what the Prime Minister knew. The Prime Minister went further and said, "I don't want any offers made". Full stop. It could not be clearer.

And again!

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying that the Prime Minister had not been told that the Conservative member was looking for a reward. In the meantime, his chief of staff and the Minister of Health are defending themselves by saying that they did not make an offer, even though the hon. member spent two days looking for a reward.

I have the following question for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister still have any faith in his Minister of Health and his chief of staff, when they hid the fact that a Conservative member was trying to get something in return for his vote? How can he accept that today, since both men are saying-

The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was clear. There were to be no offers made and no offer was made.

Gilles Duceppe at this point says out loud what everyone is thinking -- the Anne McLellan talking doll is stuck:

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, speaking of tapes, this one is starting to sound the same. Maybe we need to ask the question three times to get an answer. We are starting to get to the bottom of what happened.

According to them, the Prime Minister did not want to know that someone was looking for a reward. That is their line of defence. That is the version given by the Minister of Health and the chief of staff.

How can a prime minister tolerate as a senior advisor a chief of staff who kept him in the dark about what went on, a criminal offence, and a member of his cabinet who is fine with the fact that a criminal offence may have been committed? How can he tolerate that?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Again, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was clear that no offer was to be made. No offer was made. I will say again that if the hon. member has information that leads him to believe a criminal offence has been committed, he should turn that evidence over to the RCMP. The RCMP will review that information and decide whether an investigation should be initiated.

Though the printed House record does not show this, parliamentary TV cameras captured the image of smoke rising from the Anne McLellan automaton. While the worn out "no offer was made" loop tape was being removed and a fresh one inserted by harried Liberal staffers, the business of the House moved on.

No doubt the fresh "no offer was made" tape will make its premiere today. I look forward to hear more of what passes as debate in the House of Commons these days.

The state of government: "It's just a joke"

Words of an unnamed "senior Liberal MP" quoted in the Globe and Mail discussing Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Prime Minister Paul Martin's Chief of Staff Tim Murphy. These two senior Liberals are on tape discussing various rewards that can be offered to Conservate MPs Germant Grewal and his wife in return for for betraying their own party.

His voice, and the voices of other named and unnamed Liberals, are added to the rising tide of demands that Dosanjh and Murphy be fired.

Sarnia MP Roger Galloway says "it just makes my skin crawl" and is on record as saying the two should be turfed. He says he is not alone in the Liberal caucus, but democracy being what it is in Canada today, these other MPs are keeping their heads low, speaking in whispers, looking over their shoulders lest they be heard and the Prime Minister's Office gets wind of their disloyalty.

That, to me, is the saddest part.

Makes me wonder what would happen if during one of the remaining Opposition Days, the Bloc or the Conservatives or the NDP tabled a motion that it was the advice of the House that the Prime Minister demand the resignation of these two individuals pending the completion of probes in the affair. You think maybe one or two or a dozen Liberal back benchers, tired of seeing cabinet posts being offered (Gurmant Grewal) or actually granted (Belinda Stronach) to opposition MPs as a reward for political treachery, might actually stand up and be counted in support of such a motion?

That might do more for democracy and for integrity in government than all the inquiries and ethics investigations and RCMP probes might ever achieve.

Bloggers in the Media (and Angry's identity is revealed)

Under the banner of "Informed Sources", page A18 of today's National Post (but not in the electonic edition), this piece by Steve Janke (aka Angry in the Great White North):

National Post

The question Mike Duffy should have asked

On Wednesday, Mike Duffy of CTV News interviewed federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh in the wake of release of the Gurmant Grewal tapes. What follows is an abbreviated transcript of Mr. Dosanjh's remarks, as they appeared on CTV's Web cast:

"The backbenchers work hard. From time to time, prime ministers reward that hard work. And I don't believe that we were prepared to offer Mr. Grewal anything in return for crossing the floor. It was after he crossed the floor, if he worked hard like all the other backbenchers, he may be rewarded by the Prime Minister."

This interview bothered me because Mike Duffy allowed the Minister to say all this without issuing a single challenge that just about every viewer was privately thinking.

On May 18, Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and was immediately appointed to the position of Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Gurmant Grewal was first elected in 1997. Belinda Stronach was first elected in 2004. But according to the Minister's suggestion, Mr. Grewal would have needed to put in some more time as a back bencher on the Liberal side of the House before he could expect a Cabinet position. At least that is the defence being offered as to why it would not be credible to interpret the conversations captured on tape as a promise of a Cabinet post. Any interviewer should have been expected to pounce on Minister Dosanjh and challenge him explain how the case of Belinda Stronach stands in relation to the general principle he'd just articulated.

When will the media in Canada step up to the plate and demand answers Canadians want answered?

How not to make friends or influence people

From Yahoo News:

The federal ethics watchdog says he doesn't appreciate being used as a bargaining chip by the prime minister's chief of staff.

Bernard Shapiro was reacting to secretly taped negotiations between MP Gurmant Grewal and the Liberal government over Grewal's potential defection from the Conservatives

On the tapes, Tim Murphy suggests he might be able to help Grewal by speeding up Shapiro's independent investigation of the Tory MP.

Murphy is heard saying that getting Shapiro to issue an interim report might be helpful.

Shapiro says no demand was ever made by the prime minister's staff and that such an approach would not be appreciated or countenanced.

The ethics commissioner also says he doesn't appreciate having his office "bandied about in negotiations."

So do something about it. Demand Tim Murphy's head on a platter. Investigate whether or not the Prime Minister can be trusted to act in an ethical manner with a Chief of Staff like Tim Murphy.

The Ethics Commissioner does not need a complaint to start an investigation:

27 (4) The Ethics Commissioner may, on his or her own initiative, and on giving the Member concerned reasonable written notice, conduct an inquiry to determine whether the Member has complied with his or her obligations under this Code.

The Prime Minister is holding firm [Updated]

From the Globe and Mail:

The prime minister is refusing calls to have his chief of staff and health minister step aside while the Mounties investigate the Gurmant Grewal secret taping affair.

Is this it? Is this the live grenade, the pin pulled, being held just a bit too long, that finally blows up in Paul Martin's hands?

Is he going to hold off dumping Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy for just a moment too long?

He might, given that the Prime Minister says the real scandal is the work of the special effects wizards in the Conservative Party:

Paul Martin says allegations that the tapes were doctored are disturbing, and raise questions that need to be answered by Mr. Grewal and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

[Health Minister Ujjal] Dosanjh says some portions of the tapes were altered to take out parts of conversations, and to move other parts to suggest wrongdoing.

I'm not an audio expert, but I do understand enough about the technology of magnetic media recording to be fairly certain that any attempt to move bits and pieces about a tape will leave magnetic artifacts that can easily be discovered by any competent sound engineer, even if the audio sounds flawless. I also happen to think it highly improbable, by the way, that the audio would sound flawless after that sort of editing.

Maybe someone reading this can confirm or discredit my assertion.

In the mean time, we are left with the image of Stephen Harper in a sound studio, working with a sound engineer sworn to secrecy, cutting and pasting bits and pieces of conversations together to weave a coherent and damning image of the Liberals.

Conversations in Punjabi, no less!

I'm sorry, but that sounds absurd. Moreover, if I'm right, that sound engineer would have told Stephen Harper that the tape would never hold up to technical scrutiny. But I encourage the Prime Minister to keep trying. The longer he holds on to this grenade, the more likely that it'll go off before he has a chance to chuck it to the side.

[Update]

An alert reader has pointed to this article at 580 CFRA News Talk Radio:

Madely in the Morning technical producer Mike Murphy says that the first excerpt has two audible "clicks" where it appears that another piece of tape has been inserted. Murphy says that the clicks are visible by spikes in the .wav file (pictured above).

CFRA producer Barry Hayes says the background noise in the other tape could be proof of an edit. He say it appears that the part the Liberals claim was inserted into the tape may have come from another venue because of the difference in background noise.

Another caller suggests that a sound sensitive microphone, known as VOX, could create the same clicking noise when it stops and starts the tape.

Sounds like we need to get more experts involved. Nice to know I was right that editing would have left footprints on the tape.

So was there editing or not? If not, what created the discontinuties in the sound? If there was editing, why was it done, and did it alter the apparent meaning of the recorded conversations. Or was it just chunks of boring patter being removed? How can we know for sure? Have the original tapes been preserved?

Questions that need to be answered quickly, so that we can return to the heart of the matter.

Ethics Commissioner too cosy with the Liberals

With the furor building over the not-so-much-arm's-length relationship between the government (and in particular, the Prime Minister's Office) and the Ethics Commissioner (see here and here and here), this news just adds fuel to the fire:

Federal ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro is promising to make public an investigation into former immigration minister Judy Sgro -- but not before allowing Ms. Sgro and others to vet elements of his report.

Mr. Shapiro's decision, announced at a Commons committee, raised eyebrows among MPs from all four political parties and Parliament's legal counsel.

So the person who stands to be criticized gets a free peek at what the report says? What kind of nonsense is this? But it's not just a peek -- the Commissioner is looking for comments!

The ethics commissioner said he has already done that [release excerpts to Judy Sgro and "others"] and is awaiting their comments before completing the document.

Who are these "others"? And why does the Commissioner need their comments for?

Spell checking, perhaps?

Or time for the government ministers and the PMO to decide on a defence or a course of action ahead of the report reaching the public?

From the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons:

28.(1) Forthwith following an inquiry, the Ethics Commissioner shall report to the Speaker, who shall present the report to the House when it next sits.

(2) The report of the Ethics Commissioner shall be made available to the public upon tabling in the House, or, during a period of adjournment or prorogation, upon its receipt by the Speaker.

(3) During the period following a dissolution of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner shall make the report public.

(9) Within five sitting days after the tabling of the report of the Ethics Commissioner in the House of Commons, the Member who is the subject of the report shall have a right to make a statement in the House immediately following Question Period, provided that he or she shall not speak for more than 20 minutes.

The word "forthwith" means "at once; immediately". Seems clear to me that once the Inquiry is completed, the Commissioner needs to report to the Speaker. No delays or side-trips to the PMO or the minister's office allowed. The person under investigation gets to make his or her comments after the report has been delivered to the Speaker and after the report has gone public. And those comments have to be made in public, on the floor of the House, not privately to the Commissioner.

Do we need an ethics investigation of the ethics commissioner?

Personally, I think we can write off the Ethics Commissioner as being any help in clearing up scandals in Ottawa.

Ethics Comissioner Bernard Shapiro -- He's got some explaining to do

From the Toronto Star:

Federal ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro will be in the hot seat when he appears before a House of Commons committee today, facing questions about whether he truly operates at arm's length from the Prime Minister's Office.

Questions have been raised about Shapiro's independence because of a taped conversation between PMO chief of staff Tim Murphy and Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal, in which Murphy appears to offer to intervene in a case being heard by the ethics commissioner.

I thought this point was more significant than offering Grewal a cabinet post. At least the Prime Minister is empowered to offer cabinet posts, even if it is hoped that the offers are based on merit and not used as bribes.

But to interfere with an ethics investigation? There is no way to spin that in a way that sounds reasonable.

[Immigration Minister Joe] Volpe and the PMO have said Grewal wanted the government to halt ethics and RCMP probes into the controversy [in which Grewal asked visitors to Canada to sign bonds guaranteeing they would stick by the terms of their visas or face a fine]. But Volpe's spokespersons have said Grewal was told the government couldn't interfere in independent processes.

But if correct, the Murphy transcripts paint a different picture, something that "should concern us all," said NDP Leader Jack Layton.

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton called this aspect of the taped transcripts "particularly disturbing," especially because his party has asked Shapiro to look into the propriety of the Grewal-Murphy bargaining sessions as well.

"It's very discouraging to hear references made to the possibility of influencing the timing or nature of an ethics commissioner report. That should concern us all," Layton said.

I'm hoping this aspect of the tapes gets more and more attention. So far, so good.

Bomb threats interrupt Gomery Inquiry

From the National Post:

The Gomery Commission suspended activities Thursday morning after a bomb threat was called in for the Complexe Guy-Favreau, the government building on Rene-Levesque Boul. where the Commission is sitting.

Activities were expected to continue, beginning at 2 p.m.

A second bomb threat was called in for the nearby Montreal courthouse.

Police say they have both locations are under control, but that they are continuing to search the area.

Hey, maybe it wasn't really a bomb threat. Maybe the call was poorly translated.

Montreal Gazette calls for resignations

Hopefully there will be more editorials like this one. (hat tip to reader Surecure)

Adscam -- Business as usual

Andrew at bound by gravity points out that Auditor General Sheila Fraser told the Gomery Inquiry back in the first week of May that her investigation did not suggest Adscam was an isolated incident:

As she found in the sponsorship program, Ms. Fraser's audit into the ad contracts of 10 departments found missing documentation, vaguely-worded tender calls, contracts awarded after the work was done and invoices paid without supporting documents. The audit found contracts awarded, without competition, to select advertising agencies and, if competitions were held, the rules were often ignored or broken.

We need to have a tax revolt. Cutting the Liberals off from their source of cash -- you and me -- is going to be the only way to fix things.

Same-sex marriage to be fast-tracked

Just yesterday, the news was that the same-sex marriage bill was going to sidelined until the fall.

Well, a whole day has passed.

Today's news is that the bill is going to be fast-tracked:

The federal government told Liberal MPs yesterday it will push same-sex marriage legislation through Parliament before a summer recess, prompting critics to charge the Liberals are ignoring public complaints about the controversial bill.

Well, of course they are ignoring public complaints. The only people complaining are racist bigotted Jesus freaks. They have no business becoming involved in the formation of public policy.

That's not the Canadian way.The Conservatives might be conceding this one, in part because there is little they can do to stop it (the NDP and the Bloc support the legislation), and because continuing to fight it will just reinforce the "hidden agenda" argument:

Some Conservative insiders and MPs believe passage of the bill could help the party in the next election because it would help reduce the chance of allegations the Conservatives have a hidden agenda that incorporates socially conservative positions on a range of issues. The issue has surfaced recently after church organizations and other groups opposing the Civil Marriage Act successfully won election nominations for the party in several ridings across the country.

Still, there are Liberals who are unhappy:

Pat O'Brien, one of 35 Liberal MPs who voted against the bill for its second reading, warned the government can expect stiff opposition in the limited time that remains before the Commons recesses this month.

Mr. O'Brien also complained the limited committee hearings do not fulfill a promise to him from Prime Minister Paul Martin that the bill would get a complete airing in committee. Mr. Martin made the promise after Mr. O'Brien threatened to quit the party over the issue.

As for the groups opposed to same-sex marriage...well, they have had a lot of time to get ready for this:

Philip Horgan, president of the Catholic Civil Rights League, who also testified at the committee this week, warned of dire consequences should the bill pass so quickly: "It's going to be an issue for every candidate in every riding."

He predicted priests and ministers of all religions will consider giving up their provincially issued marriage licences and begin performing marriage ceremonies for members of their faith under their individual church rules.

"We've already seen a lot of clergy give up their licences," he said. "They continue to perform marriages, but for legal purposes, people will be getting married at city hall."

I have written before on the way people of religious faith will detach themselves from day-to-day life in this country, made to feel that they are oddities and that they are unwelcome by secular moral relativists:

One of those irrelevent consequences will be that many Canadians and Canadian organizations (like the Roman Catholic Church and associated groups) will begin to detach themselves from society as a whole. Like urban flight, they will abandon the larger society for the social equivalent of a gated community in the suburbs. And just like urban flight, the effect will be a wholesale degradation of the quality of the larger society, and angry feelings between that larger society and these social polders.

Religious tolerance is a two-way street. If society cannot find it in itself to seriously listen to the concerns of, and find a way to accomodate the positions of, religious institutions, society will find that religious institutions will become intolerant of it. Generations of children born to members of these faiths will be raised to believe, not unreasonably, that they are not welcome "out there", and that "those people" are the enemy, not to be befriended or trusted. They will not participate in the political process. They may even withhold taxes. Society will fragment, and the tenuous connections that bind this country together will snap. The long term result -- I'm not sure what it will be exactly, but whatever it is, I'd bet it won't be good for any of us.

It has begun, and it will only accelerate.

Ralph Goodale's freeze on Sponsorship Program contracts was thawed

Go to Conservate Life to get the details. But it seems that being under investigation by the RCMP for entering into fraudulent advertising contracts with the government does not exclude you from other million-dollar contracts from other departments.

It's a wonder any of us pay our taxes.

Mike Duffy -- asleep at the switch

First watch this interview Mike Duffy had with Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh.

If you're like me, you might have yelled at your computer monitor.

Why? Because Minister Dosanjh was making a point that every MP who enters government has to expect to spend some time in the backbenches before he or she can hope to be a cabinet minister. He was using that to counter charges that he was dangling the carrot of a cabinet post in front of Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal, a conversation caught on the now famous tapes.

And Mike Duffy let him make that point. Excuse me, but what about Belinda Stronach? Rookie Conservative MP has conversations with the Prime Minister (forget about go-betweens like Dosanjh and chief of staff Tim Murphy), crosses the floor, and goes straight into cabinet as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

How can any interviewer allow a member of this government pontificate on the need for Liberal MPs to earn a cabinet post by working their way up from the backbenches?

Frankly, I'm mad at Minister Dosanjh for being a two-faced liar, but more angry at Mike Duffy for letting him use CTV to be a conduit for his lies, and not holding him to account.

Shame on Mike Duffy.

Serious questions and puerile answers [Updated]

Yesterday, I posted my concerns that Tim Murphy was caught on tape admitting to the ability of the PMO to influence the pace of work at the ethics commission, and how that seemed to be in direct violation of the Conflict of Interest Code.

I was surprised, and still am, at how little interest there has been on this particular point.

But not everyone has missed it (hat tip to Stephen Taylor who pointed me in the right direction). It was brought up yesterday at the House of Commons during Question Period by Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, Peter MacKay:

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff is caught on tape saying that he was prepared, “to get the Ethics Commissioner to give an interim report or something to take the cloud off that would be helpful”. Clearly, the government was and is prepared to do anything to cling to power and go to any length, including offers of cabinet posts, for votes or interference with an ethics investigation.

Is the Prime Minister and his staff suggesting he can influence an independent officer of Parliament? Why will the Prime Minister not admit that he is engaged in a sordid, deal making practice? Get up and answer the question.

Needless to say, no one got up to answer the question. Instead Ujjal Dosanjh, Minister of Health, and one of the Liberal dealmakers on the Grewal tapes, got up to try and make a joke and be evasive:

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it appears the hon. member rented a dog. If he owned one, he would not be so upset.

However, the member for Newton—North Delta made demands. No offers were made and no demands were accepted. The tapes are faulty. There is no authenticity of the tapes. The translation is faulty. The transcription from English to English is faulty. My mother tongue is Punjabi, fortunately. I can say that Conservative staffers were involved in doing the transcription--

To be honest, I don't get the "dog" reference. Maybe someone can explain it to me. I'm sure it's a knee-slapper.

Or maybe it makes more sense in Punjabi. Ujjal Dosanjh seems to have a lot of trouble with translations, or so he says.

But for me, I'm still waiting on a clear answer to my questions: Why is it that the Prime Minister Paul Martin's chief of staff Tim Murphy thought he had the power to offer to stage-manage an ethics investigation in a manner more favourable to an MP who is the subject of that investigation? How much influence does the PMO have over a body that is supposed to be free of influence?

Please, no obscure animal references in your answer -- obviously it's too early in the morning for me to be that subtle.

[Update: The dog reference apparently has to do with the dog Peter MacKay was playing with at the farm in Nova Scotia where he went to spend some time after Belinda Stronach dumped him and his party in a very public way. The dog was his neighbour's, as if it matters. Now that I know this, the Dosanjh comment to me seems both heartless and stupid. Heartless to dredge up a moment of very personal pain and throw it in MacKay's face. Stupid because it has nothing to do with the question asked -- if Peter MacKay was upset, it had nothing to do with his neighbour's friendly dog (I play with my neighbour's cat sometimes -- it's still fun), it has to do with having to sit across from liars and cheats and thieves and being forced to be polite and parliamentary. I'm speculating, of course, but I think I'm reading Peter MacKay right on this one.]

[For those who want to see what things were like on the floor of the House, CTV has a video of Peter MacKay in action as part of a Mike Duffy piece]

Sleaze alert -- Money for NDP budget to come from aboriginal fund

Go to Dust my Broom and read the whole thing.

Here's the bottom line.

The money to pay for the $4.6 billion in goodies that the Liberals had to promise to get the NDP on board for the budget vote was originally supposed to come from eliminating promised corporate tax cuts. But we've heard how those tax cuts are back on.

So where is the money coming from? A billion is coming from a fund that was set up to pay compensation to First Nations children who suffered abuse at residential schools. Seven years after the government apologized, compensation is yet to arrive.

It looks like to stay in power, the Liberals are going to make them wait a bit longer.

Pat Martin of the NDP, a party that prides itself on supporting aboriginal issues, says this is "sleazier than I had ever imagined".

There's oxytocin in the water!

For all our ponderings of why voters in Ontario are so willing to forgive the Liberals and vote for them, we've always considered things like innate urban liberalism, fear of the "hidden agenda", bribery.

But what we haven't considered is chemistry:

Trust in a bottle? It sounds like a marketer's fantasy, like the fabled fountain of youth or the wild claims of fad diets. Yet that's what Swiss and American scientists demonstrate in new experiments with a nasal spray containing the hormone oxytocin.

After a few squirts, human subjects were significantly more trusting and willing to invest money with no ironclad promise of a profit.

The researchers acknowledged their findings could be abused by con artists or even sleazy politicians who might sway an election, provided they could squirt enough voters on their way to the polls.

I was considering having a sample of Toronto water analyzed for the presense of oxytocin, but then I got a call from a Liberal MP in Toronto who said I didn't have anything to worry about. Nothing at all to worry about. Go about your business. These are not the droids you are looking for.

I guess everything is fine now. I'm feeling a bit sleepy...

Same-sex marriage bill sidelined for now

From the Globe and Mail:

The definition of marriage is unlikely to be changed to include same-sex couples until some time in the fall, after the Liberals backed down yesterday from an attempt to curtail committee hearings and push the controversial measure through the Commons.

Faced with a procedural filibuster by Conservative Vic Toews, who wanted 22 additional witnesses to address the committee, the government retreated from a plan to end the hearings on June 9 and provided an extra week.

The move gives opponents of the measure some breathing room because it means the bill will not come back to the House until June 16. That makes passage through the Senate and royal assent extremely unlikely before the House breaks for the summer on June 23.

The Liberals could shut down debate or extend the hours on Parliament, but faced with 35 Liberal members who have voted against the bill in the past, they know the likelihood is that any attempt to rush this will fail in a very public way.

The bill will be resurrected in the fall, and might well pass, but then a lot can happen during the summer.

Was the NDP duped?

On another front in Ottawa, a fight is raging over the budget legislation:

Part of a co-operation agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, which has so far helped prevent the government's defeat, involved the government deferring tax cuts to large corporations.

However, the Commons finance committee heard Tuesday that while a tax-cut clause will be removed from the budget bill -- and included in separate legislation -- the cuts themselves would proceed as scheduled, beginning in 2008.

What does this mean? As far as I can tell, from a legislative point of view, the law will still state that corporate taxes will be cut. Moreover, the tax cuts will happen in 2008.

But what the Liberals will give the NDP is legislation that removes the tax cuts...later.

"We are committing to postponing the legislation, and not the timing of the reduction," John McKay, the parliamentary secretary to Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, told the committee.

Got that? The Liberals are committed to deferring the legislation that removes the tax cuts, and allowing the tax cuts to proceed as planned in the original February budget.

Is this what the NDP signed up for?

Not according to Conservative critic Brian Pallister:

"The NDP, on this particular issue at least, was duped by the government," he said.

"We don't know what to take at face value anymore. It's very hard to deal with these kinds of deceptive tactics."

I wonder why the NDP is so quiet on this? Maybe because the government is promising to the NDP spending priorities even in the face of the tax cut to corporations? On what basis can they promise that? Where is this money coming from? Or are the NDP spending priorities next on the chopping block?

Perhaps after a fall election the Liberals think they can win?

Influence of the PMO at the Ethics Commission

In all the hubbub about the Grewal tapes focussing on deals or no deals, I found this tidbit at the bottom of the Globe and Mail piece most interesting:

Throughout the discussions, one of Mr. Grewal's goals appears to be to exact an apology from Immigration Minister Joe Volpe. He complained that Mr. Volpe had asked the RCMP and the Commons Ethics Commissioner to examine Mr. Grewal's requests that people seeking assistance on immigration matters sign a form pledging $50,000 if they violate their visa conditions.

[Prime Minister Paul Martin's Chief of Staff Tim] Murphy suggested a retraction was possible, but that he could not stop Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro's investigation -- although perhaps it could be accelerated.

"That would be really nice if we could get the Ethics Commissioner to give an interim report or something to take the cloud off, that would be helpful," Mr. Murphy said.

What the...? Accelerated? That would mean other work would have to be decelerated, wouldn't it? How quickly or slowly can an ethics investigation proceed under direction from the the Prime Minister's Office?

Just how much pull does the PMO have at the Ethics Commission?

The letter of the law is quite clear. From the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, Section 27.5, "Respect for the inquiry process":

Once a request for an inquiry has been made to the Ethics Commissioner, Members should respect the process established by this Code and permit it to take place without commenting further on the matter.

Now Tim Murphy is not a Member of Parliament, but he is the Chief of Staff for the Prime Minister, and as Ujjal Donanjh said to Gurmant Grewal in one of those recorded conversations: "Tim is the Chief of Staff, it's just like talking to PM."

I find this very disturbing.

One that slipped by...

Remember Art Eggleton? Here's a bio:

Art Eggleton has served in public office at the municipal level at the City of Toronto and in the Canadian House of Commons for over thirty years.

Mr Eggleton was raised and educated in Toronto where he first worked as an accountant before being elected to Toronto City Council in 1969, where he served for twenty-two years on the Executive Committee. Between 1973 and 1980, he was City Budget Chief, the member of council responsible for financial matters and from 1980 to 1991 he was Mayor of Toronto, the longest serving Mayor in the City’s history.

Mr. Eggleton has also served on the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, the Board of the Canadian National Exhibition, and several committees and task forces charged with dealing with community issues. In recognition of his service to his city, Mr. Eggleton received Toronto’s highest honor, the Civic Award of Merit, in 1992.

He then brought his considerable talents to Parliament Hill as the Member for York Centre. First elected in 1993, he was soon thereafter appointed to Cabinet where he served as President of the Treasury Board and Minister Responsible for Infrastructure from 1993 to 1996; Minister for International Trade from 1996 to 1997; Minister of National Defence from 1997 to 2002 and Vice-Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Policy from 1997 to 2002.

In his final two years in Parliament (2002-2004) Mr. Eggleton served as the Chair of the Greater Toronto Liberal Caucus; Member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade; and the Chair of the Canada-Israel InterParliamentary Group.

Mr. Eggleton is 61 years of age and will be sitting in the Senate as a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

For those who remember, 2002 was a interesting year for Mr. Eggleton. After 5 years as Minister of National Defence, he got booted for conflict of interest:

In the summer of 2001, Eggleton issued a $36,000 research contract to a former girlfriend, Maggie Maier, an act which ethics counsellor Howard Wilson found to be in "clear breach" of the cabinet conflict-of-interest code.

Maier produced a 14-page report. Eggleton said he asked her specifically to keep it short.

That's $2500 per page.

Nice work if you can get it. I mean, who do I have to sleep with in order...never mind, the answer is, of course, Art Eggleton.

Now the biography I quoted in its entirety, the biography that mentions nothing of the scandal and the disgrace that marked his ejection from cabinet, came from a news release from the Prime Minister's Office in March 2004. On the 24th of that month, Paul Martin was pleased to announce that the Governor General has summoned Mr. Eggleton to sit in the Senate as a Liberal.

Maybe it's unfair to hold one indiscretion over a person's head for the rest of his life. But it's not like Mr. Eggleton is living off the streets. He's on the board of directors at Luxell, which is doing very well with its flat panel display technology. Wasn't there a list of people who had never been scandalized and forced to resign from cabinet in disgrace from which a name could have been selected?

Liberal corruption eroding view of Canada internationally

The folks at Transparency International compile an annual index of "Corruption Perceptions". They review many sources of information (the Economist Intelligence Unit, the Global Competitive Report, the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, and so on) and put together an aggregate ranking of 0.0 (most corrupt) to 10.0 (least corrupt).

Canada is not doing well.

The Grewal Tapes -- Was Paul Martin blindsided?

From almost as soon as the Conservatives said they had taped recordings of Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Chief of Staff Tim Murphy trying to come to some sort of deal with Conservative MP Gurmont Grewal such that Grewal would vote against his party in return for some sort of patronage appointment, Prime Minister Paul Martin has been demanding that the tapes be released

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP knows full well that it is not up to the government to initiate an investigation by the RCMP. The fact is that those tapes are in the possession of a member of this House. One would hope that the member will make those tapes public.

Well, they have been released, and the transcripts are pretty damning:

* GG - We have to rush through because of the question period.
* UD - Today, question period is at 2 p.m.
* GG - Don't you have to prepare for it.
* UD - No, I can just prepare in 5 minutes, in the car. I think (Belinda) has made it easier for you, if you want.
* GG - That's true.
* UD - In fact, cabinet can be arranged right away. For the other, you don't want to lose the advantage. If you do right away, you lose the advantage of numbers.Those are the issues.
* GG - Anyway, let's talk.
* UD - I talked to the PM moments ago. He said he is going to Regina right now and he said he will be happy to talk to you over the phone tonight or in person if you want to move. I think you should have through conversation with Tim.
* GG - OK.
* UD - Tim is the Chief of Staff, its just like talking to PM.

This just one example showing the Prime Minister in the loop as far as the negotiations are concerned.

One has to wonder why the Prime Minister would have wanted such tapes released. The obvious answer is that he wouldn't, and the only reason he called for their release was because he had not heard them and was told he was not mentioned on them.

That would require lies from Dosanjh and Murphy. But what would be the point in lying? You know what you said, so you know the truth is going to come out. All you'll accomplish is getting the Prime Minister in trouble.

Unless that's the point.

Long shot explanation: We are witnessing some very clever poltical operators taking advantage of the Conservatives' tapes to set Paul Martin up to take a fall. His personal numbers are bad, he is too close to the Adscam mess, he's lost Quebec, and frankly, he started the Gomery Inquiry in the first place. Maybe some Liberals are seeing an opportunity here, with their improved numbers in the House of Commons, to remove a prime minister they see as a liability.

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.