The Income Trust Scandal: Incompetence

Paul Martin said a number of PMO people needed to know the details of the income trust taxation decision ahead of time.

I wondered just who really needed to know, since it seems like too many people knew.

On the question of who needed to know, a former PMO staffer got in touch with me with some insights:

Paul Martin is telling the truth, somewhat.

PMO coordinates two things: communications and policy. So Scott Reid would have needed to know, so that Goodale's press conference was not taking place at the same time as some other announcement. And the policy shop would have needed to know, so it did not contradict some overall government priority, etc. So those things are true.

But what he does not address is this: this was a matter of tax policy that had huge market implications. Those things are treated with budget-level secrecy. And, here, we know that was not the case -- junior staff were running around spouting off well before the press conference. Hell, John McKay went on TV to say what the tax policy was (and got it wrong)! It was madness.

We have the solid example from CTV of the call to CARP from Ralph Goodale's office that happened before the announcement.

Even if the leak was inadvertant, the whole thing was handled in a haphazard way. Which begs the question why should the Liberals be trusted with levers of government.

What does "Need to know" mean?

When information is classified as "need to know", it means that you will be told the information if you require the information to do your job.

I used to work on military systems, and "need to know" had a very straightforward definition. Can you do your job without knowing that information? If the answer is "yes", you don't need to know.

I knew stuff my managers didn't know. I needed to know in order to write the software. They didn't need to know because they cared about schedules and all they needed to do their job was a progress report from me. It all made sense to us.

Paul Martin invoked that phrase when he explained why he was told of the decision not to tax income trusts well ahead of the announcement:

"I knew and I'm one of them. The fact is, that the people who would be on a need-to-know basis would have that information," said Martin.

I would be interested to know who in the PMO would need to know this piece of tax policy ahead of time, and why exactly? What part of their job could they not perform without having that knowledge well ahead of time?

Heck, why would Paul Martin need to know? I can't think of a reason, actually.

Maybe a speechwriter would need a heads up to help prepare a speech. But if you were serious about compartmentalizing the information to avoid these sorts of problems, you would simply have your speechwriter prepare two speeches -- one to explain why income trusts needed to be taxed, and one to announce that they would not.

The concept of "need to know" is really quite simple. What would you have done differently today had you known about the decision not to tax income trusts versus what you normally would have done?

If the only thing you can think of if that you would not have placed one or more phone calls to some friends of yours on Bay Street, then you really didn't need to know.

Paul Martin: Can't say "No"

Now how hard is it to say, "No, I didn't do it"?

For Paul Martin, apparently he'll pull a muscle than answer with a simple "No".

The Income Trust Scandal: The Liberal Party website grinds to a halt

The Conservative Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on the effect on the Liberal Party:

>>>Income Trust Scandal Rocks Liberals<<<

The NDP website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on what the NDP sees as Ralph Goodale's imminent resignation:

>>>When will he step aside? Ralph watch: 2 days<<<

The Liberal Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on Ralph Goodale's innate honesty:

>>> <*cough* *cough*><<<

Take two!

The Liberal Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on the lack of solid evidence:

>>> <*cough* *cough*><<<

Take three!

The Liberal Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on the way the opposition parties have blown this out of proportion:

>>> <*cough* *cough*><<<

OK, the Liberal Party website has remain completely unchanged. Frozen in time from December 24. Even Scott Feschuk's blog has not been updated in days.

Why does this matter? The party website is a means to get a message out without the selective filtering of the main stream media. On any major issue, and the Income Trust Scandal certainly counts, the party has to explain to its supporters (and to the curious visitor) their side of the story.

So what can we make of the fact that the Liberals are entirely silent via the website?

One possible reason is that the Liberals are keeping to the promise not to campaign through the Christmas break, and that includes updating the website. I don't buy it. First, Paul Martin has been electioneering in Montreal. Second, the scandal is just too important, especially to leave the Conservative and NDP attacks unanswered.

Perhaps a faction that believes that ignoring the problem means it will go away in a couple of days. I happen to think that strategy will fail, but besides my opinion, Paul Martin has been telling reporters that he stands by his minister, and Ralph Goodale has been saying there was no leak. If this faction was running the show, Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale would both be saying something along the lines that no comment should be made until the RCMP delivers its findings.

I think this silence reflects the confusion within the Liberal Party itself. At the highest levels, or so it is rumoured, the strategists are at odds about what to do. What to do about Goodale. What to do about the press. What do to about the opposition.

What to do about a campaign that seems to have come apart at the seams.

Until they can decide on a strategy and can craft a message, the Liberals will have no message to deliver. That leaves the field open to the Conservatives and the NDP to frame the debate. In the meantime, I will continue to watch the website. When it updates, it will be the first clue, and perhaps the best clue, to tell us who is running the show now.

In the meantime, the lack of official reaction does not reflect well on the ability of Paul Martin's Liberals to lead in a crisis.

A mid-winter thaw that could lead to a flood

Look at the regional breakdown in the SES CPAC nightly polling numbers from December 28 to December 29, the time period over which the Income Trust Scandal blew wide open:

Atlantic Canada: The Liberals drop stay steady at 42, while the Conservatives poll into a tie, going from 37 to 42, picking up support at the expense of the NDP, who went from 17 to 13. Undecided went up from 17 to 19, suggesting a lot of folks are reconsidering their support, which can only be good news for the Conservatives under the circumstances.

Quebec: The BQ maintains a lock at 53, while Liberals jitter at 30 to 31 points support. Frankly, it's hard to imagine the numbers getting any worse for the Liberals in Quebec.

Ontario: The Liberals drop from 46 to 44, while the Conservatives move up from 35 to 37, and the NDP from 14 to 15. Definite motion in the right direction for the Conservatives.

Western Canada: The Liberals tumble from 34 to 29, and the Conservatives continue to pull away, moving from 43 to 47.

And the leadership indicators, which before this week was where the Liberals maintained a constant lead. Not anymore:

Trust: Martin plummets from 25 to 15, Harper moves slightly from 19 to 20, and undecided leaps from 12 to 16, suggesting an opportunity to change minds.

Competence: Martin actually has a bit of good news, moving from 25 to 27, but Harper gains more, from 18 to 21, which is interesting since there is no way to judge Harper's competence as PM.

Vision: Another massive hit for Martin, losing one third of his strength here, going from 30 to 20. Like before, Harper stays essentially unchanged (23 to 24) while undecided jumps from 15 to 21. Another group of people taking a serious second look at their preconceptions.

Leadership Index Score: This is an overall measure, asking the respondent to consider who would be the best PM, and it suggests that Paul Martin has a serious problem. His score crashes from 80 to 62, while Stephen Harper continues to climb slowly but surely, going from 60 to 65.

Harper actually beats Martin when an overall perception of leadership is measured.

The various polls for support seem to have been stuck since the beginning of the campaign. What we haven't noticed is that a combination of a positive issues-oriented Conservative campaign combined with a negative and reactive Liberal campaign marked with gaffes and now a huge scandal have acted on Canadians to thaw attitudes that have been frozen for years.

My understanding is that a thaw, especially a precipitous one, can lead to a flood. Or so I've heard.

Now it gets vicious

The Conservatives roar up the polls.

See Bourque for the latest:

So what does this mean? My prediction is that the hard-core will take over the Liberal war room. Voices of moderation, undermined by yet another ethics scandal, will fade into the background, or leave the organization altogether.

The hard-core will argue that if the attack had started already, the Liberals wouldn't be in this pickle. It doesn't make sense, but then there will be no one left to argue with them. Given free rein to win this election at any cost, we can expect things not just to get nasty, which everyone expected, but downright vicious.

Besides the obvious targets, the Conservatives and the NDP (and their friends and family), expect the media to feel the pressure. Behind the scenes probably, with editors getting calls warning them of dire consequences for access after the Liberals win in January if they don't play ball right now.

Bloggers, too, might have to worry. Given that blogging is new, it's hard to say what the Liberals will do. There are some obvious targets, like Warren Kinsella, but the rest of us have no access with which to form a credible threat. Perhaps they are planning punitive legislation to gag bloggers to be introduced after the Liberals win?

But I could be wrong.

Two types of traders

I wonder if we'll find out that there are two types of traders at the Toronto Stock Exchange.

The first group will demand that TSX CEO Richard Nesbitt resign until such time as the questions surrounding his suspicious purchase of thousands of income trust fund units just before the Goodale announcement are resolved.

The second group will insist that no investigation is necessary, that there's nothing to see here, and we should just carry on with our business as before.

It's the second group we should be looking at.

The Income Trust Scandal: Changes in the Liberal war room?

More inside dirt at Bourque about the tremors being felt within the highest levels of the Liberal Party election team in the wake of the Income Trust Scandal bombshell:

According to insiders well-placed to understand the nuances within Martin's braintrust, Bourque has also learned that key campaign personnel are at risk of being replaced in an increasingly desperate attempt to maintain control of the public agenda, and more importantly, the key messaging that is driving this election.

Uh-oh. Desperation? Replacements? Need for new messaging?

The message is crafted by the Communications Director, in this case, Scott Reid.

You remember Scott Reid? He got reamed for suggesting on national television that Canadian parents can't be trusted with money to spend on childcare because they were likely to spend it on beer and popcorn.

He hasn't been heard from since.

And now the Income Trust grenade and a need to "maintain control of the...key messaging."

If I was Scott Reid, I'd be worried.

The Income Trust Scandal: The Mounties should start by asking Paul Martin some questions

In the case of the Income Trust Scandal, the focus has been on Ralph Goodale and his office.

Senior Ottawa Liberals are telling me the focus is misplaced.

First, check out these quotes captured from the CTV newscast tonight at M K Braaten:

• Don Drummond, VP/Chief Economist: CTV said that Drummond told them he first heard about the announcement via email, 4 hours in advance of announcement. Also, stated that Liberal strategists in Ottawa were the source of email. CTV quoted Drummond as saying "Alot of people seemed to know there was an announcement coming and a few people seemed to know what it was."
• Jim Leech, Teachers pension fund - CTV said that Leech received emails at about 2 pm stating that the announcement was guaranteed. CTV Quoted Leech "I got a bunch of emails around 2pm saying for sure Goodale was making an announcement after the close."
• Sandy Mcintyre, Sentry Select Capital: CTV reported he sent the following email: "There is a strong rumor out of Ottwa that Goodale is going to pronounce after the close today his trust solution…hope my sources are right!" Mcintyre said his sources were quoting 'well connected Liberals'.

Note that the source is ill-defined. Just well-connected Liberals.

Not well-connected finance ministry officials.

Just well-connected Liberals.

Recall that Ralph Goodale's original plan was to announce the decision in January. Suddenly the timeline was moved up. By Ralph Goodale?

Mr. Goodale said in September that the government would consult with a variety of industry and stock market players before announcing any policy change. Industry observers immediately began speculating that the government might consider reducing taxes on corporate dividends as a way of levelling the playing field with income trusts.

On Tuesday, Nov. 22, Mr. Goodale indicated that he would provide direction on the income trust issue because of the impending collapse of the government, effectively ending the consultation process. That night, department officials began discussing the possibility of taxing income trust, sources have said.

The next day, Mr. Goodale's office confirmed that he would be making an announcement and just moments before his scheduled news conference, his parliamentary secretary, Toronto MP John McKay, gave a television interview suggesting the government planned to levy a modest tax on income trusts. Shortly after 5 p.m., Mr. Goodale said there would be no tax on income trusts and that dividend tax credits would be increased starting in 2006.

Pat Breton, a spokesman for Mr. Goodale, said yesterday that Finance officials met on the night of Nov. 22 for two or three hours and came up with the plan that became the next day's announcement on income trusts. He also said that the Prime Minister's Office was told after that Nov. 22 meeting — either later that night, or the next day — about the decision. The policy development was “entirely an internal Finance” effort, he added.

However the media is reporting today that the focus is starting to shift (via Bourque):

Aides to the Prime Minister were told about a taxation change for income trusts "some time immediately before" Mr. Goodale made the announcement after markets had closed on Nov. 23, Pat Breton, a spokesman for Mr. Goodale, said yesterday.

While it is not unusual for the PMO to be informed of high-profile policy announcements, this indicates that the list of officials who had advance knowledge of the pending change went beyond the Finance Department and Mr. Goodale's office.

Well, I know some well-connected Liberals as well, and they've let me know what really happened. As reported in the Globe and Mail, Paul Martin's aides are insisting that Paul Martin was told "some time immediately before" November 23.

It's getting closer to the truth, but still not quite there. It has the date wrong. It also has the direction of the decision-making reversed.

The decision to close of the consultations and deliver the good news not to tax income trusts, probably in response to an election campaign that imminent, was made not by Ralph Goodale, who by all accounts is too honest to be making decisions like this based on election calculations, and who intended to stick to his timetable of accepting submissions on tax policy until December 31. It was not an entirely internal effort, as spokesperson Pat Breton insists. The major decisions were being taken outside of the finance department.

The decision was made by Paul Martin himself.

Paul Martin told Ralph Goodale on Friday, November 18 to bring the consultations to a close and to make an announcement on income tax trusts.

Paul Martin and his immediate PMO staff would have known for five days prior to the announcement how the decision was shaping up.

Paul Martin and his staff were dictating the pace of the work, and possibly the decision itself.

Paul Martin and his immediate PMO staff are as likely suspects as the source for the leak as Ralph Goodale and his office.

When Ralph Goodale stresses that Paul Martin knew nothing, you know he's trying a bit too hard to deflect attention from where the attention should be.

When I read about John McKay's flub on November 23, I wonder whether the finance department was really in the loop. It helps explain McKay's confusion if the PMO was more deeply involved in the decision making.

Where you see Paul Martin standing by Ralph Goodale, I see Paul Martin standing behind Ralph Goodale, keeping him up front and centre not out of a commitment to his minister and a firm belief in his basic honesty and his innocence, but in order to have a shield to hide behind.

Paul Martin made the call on Friday, November 18, not Ralph Goodale on November 22...that's the way it happened, or so well-connected Liberals are telling me.

The Income Trust Scandal: But I've got a string tied around my finger

Some Liberals believe they can ride out the scandal caused by the announcement of the RCMP investigating a potential leak from Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office to select traders willing to use inside information to turn a quick profit.

The reason? Christmas:

Liberals believe the fact that the criminal investigation was revealed in the dead zone between Christmas and New Year's Day, when few voters were paying attention, will save their electoral bacon.

"There is a God after all,'' chuckled one Liberal MP.

I know this unnamed MP was joking, but if any spiritual being has a hand in guiding the Liberal Party, I'd be willing to bet it isn't God.

But does he have a point about the timing? Is three days the shelf life of a scandal?

We'll all know next week, but I can tell you this. I've been in constant contact with a major Canadian on-air media personality with regards to the Income Trust Scandal, well before the events of this week. This person told me during one of our talks that if the main stream media has remained focused on this story during the lull between November 23 and this week, it was largely because the Canadian blogosphere would not let this story go.

Bloggers kept up the pressure, kept revealing new elements of the story, kept identifying new trusts with weird trading patterns, kept finding new links between particular funds and the Paul Martin Liberals.

Christmas comes and goes, but the bloggers are still here.

So I'll tie a string around my finger to remind me about the scandal. Hopefully next week, I won't have been distracted by bright shiny Liberal promises to spend my money wisely on my behalf.

And if bloggers are the string around the finger of the main stream media, then they won't have forgotten about the income trust scandal next week either.

For now, though, some main stream media journalists are doing an amazing job on this story.

This sounds fishy

No really. It's fishy. Like it's about fish.

Oh, and a half-million dollars handed to a Liberal Party lawyer for a non-competitive contract. That's not allowed by the rules, unless the situation is one of "extreme urgency".

What was so urgent? Apparently some salmon went missing, and there was no time to lose in researching the best bid. Indeed, the delivery of the money to this Liberal buddy took two hours days weeks months.

Two months? Extreme urgency? Salmon?

I told you it sounded fishy. Read the whole thing.

Conservatives continue the positive campaign of personal responsibility

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives continue to reveal policy after policy, holding the title of the Party of Ideas and Personal Responsibility:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper today did what he admitted was a rarity for him — jumping off a city bus before announcing a plan to give transit riders a tax break.

Mr. Harper said his proposal would save the average Canadian transit user $153 a year. He said that should be enough to ease traffic congestion and pollution by moving people from their cars and onto buses, subway cars and commuter trains.

Harper's plan would allow holders of monthly transit passes to claim a 16-per-cent tax credit. Parents would also be able to claim the credit on behalf of dependent children.

The party decided to target monthly pass holders because it makes the credit easier to administer, he said.

"The idea here is to get people to shift to regular transit usage, particularly for transport to-and-from work or to-and-from education," said Mr. Harper, who acknowledged he hasn't taken public transit to work since he was a private citizen years ago in Toronto, Edmonton and Calgary.

So if you buy the odd ticket for the odd trip, you don't save. The plan is to encourage people to buy passes, which means that the person is encouraged to use transit in order to maximize the value earned from owning the pass in the first place.

Clever.

The standard approach is to hand over a big chuck of money to the transit authority, or maybe to the city and then to the transit authority, or maybe to the province which gives it to the city which gives it to the transit authority. One or more layers of bureaucracy leach away at the money.

And money to special interest groups, the Friends-of-Mass-Transit crowd, who will use the money to "encourage" mass transit, usually by using the money to fund lobbying for government decisions designed to make life more miserable for motorists.

For instance, in 2004, the Liberals handed the Canadian Urban Transit Association in Toronto almost $400,000. This is a transfer, not a contract for specific services, which means they are not subject to audits. And what do we get for $400,000? Well, this issue paper, for example, encouraging the government to raise gasoline taxes even higher, implement road tolls, use zoning to eliminate parking spaces, all "directed at creating a general understanding and acceptance of the importance of public transit among the people who won't use it."

In case you were wondering, the Canadian Automobile Association received no money from the government according to the 2003-2004 Public Accounts of Canada -- Transfer Payments. Its activities representing the interests of drivers were paid for entirely by drivers.

I feel a hankering for beer and popcorn coming over me. Oh save me, CUTA, for my own willfull blindess, even though there is no rapid transit between my house and my job that will take less than two hours for a one way trip. Will that earn me a break for high gasoline taxes, since I don't have a choice but to drive? Hell no. Instead, the Liberal government is handing my tax dollars over to CUTA so that CUTA can encourage the Liberal government to raise my taxes until I give up in desperation.

Again, the Conservative approach is to hand money, or in this case, the tax credit, directly to the individual citizen. We get to weigh the pros and cons of personal versus private transit on an individual basis, and make a decision whether to take advantage of the program.

The cost of the program grows or shrinks based on its popularity, but never costs more than exactly what it costs to run and fund it. No waste.

No middleman eager to pad his expense account with my money.

It's a direct contract between you, the taxpayer, and the government you've elected. Unelected and elitist organizations like CUTA and other organizations shouldn't be speaking on your behalf. They should speak on behalf of their members only, the various transit authorities that pay for CUTA's research and training services.

For those who make a living by finding ways to get government money and spending it on our behalf, this sort of thing must be infuriating.

Update: I've changed the post from "personal empowerment" to "personal responsibility". My readers have convinced me that it better captures the tone of the Conservative platform.

The Income Trust Scandal: Paul Martin speaks

From the Globe and Mail:

Prime Minister Paul Martin said today Finance Minister Ralph Goodale will not resign because of the RCMP decision Wednesday to launch a criminal investigation into whether advance notice of Ottawa's plans for income trusts leaked from the federal Liberal government.

"He is a person of the greatest integrity, and he will not be stepping down," Mr. Martin said during a campaign photo op this morning.

I guess Goodale goes into the Scott Reid bucket of "keepers" and not the Mike Klander bucket of "losers".

Of course, from a purely partisan point of view, this is great news. The longer Ralph Goodale remains minister, the longer will the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc, and the media have a specific identifiable target for discussing the Income Trust Scandal.

You can't underestimate the value of putting a face on a story.

Of course, now we have a Paul Martin soundbite to go along with it, one that will get repeated in an ironic way if and when Ralph Goodale resigns:

"I have full confidence in Ralph Goodale. I believe that an investigation — as does he — will clear the air, including the allegation as to whether or not a leak actually took place."

Is Paul Martin going to go to the mat for Ralph Goodale. My gut says no, but I could be wrong. Clearly, Paul Martin is being supportive right now. But that might have less to do with confidence in Ralph Goodale and more to do with Paul Martin's penchant for dithering. He might be waiting for a poll to help guide his actions.

Still, Paul Martin has staked out a position. If the Income Trust Scandal story goes south for the Liberals, Paul Martin will pay a price if he's forced to change direction. He might come to regret not cauterizing the Goodale gash as soon as it happened.

Support a winning Liberal Party campaign! Give us your beer and popcorn money!

The email I just received from the Liberal Party, with highlighting from the original:

Support a Winning Campaign!

The calendar year is coming to an end, but the election campaign is just getting started!

We want to thank you for your support to date and invite you to take advantage of a great tax credit opportunity.

December 31st is your last chance to donate to the Liberal Party of Canada for the 2005 tax year. Calculate your tax credit via our handy Tax Credit Calculator.

In order to ensure liberal values prevail through this hard fought election campaign, we will need to make every dollar count. Your donation is not only eligible for an exceptional tax credit, but will make a significant difference in the final three weeks leading up to Election Day.

We are only halfway through the campaign. We need your help before the clock strikes midnight on December 31st. Please give generously. And thanks!

Your Liberal Campaign Team

To my Liberal Campaign Team:

Gee, I'd like to give, but I spent all my disposable income on beer and popcorn. Because, as you know, I'm too stupid to know how to spend my own money.

Tipping points

From a poll on December 23, before Klander's Slander and the Income Trust Scandal bombshell:

For the first time since the federal election began, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has edged out Prime Minister Paul Martin on issues of leadership that are being tracked daily by a national public-opinion polling firm.

The poll also found Harper leading on the issue of vision for Canada at 25 points and Martin at 20. The prime minister edges out Harper on competence 27 to 23.

The overall leadership index score now has Harper in front with 71 points and Martin with 64 -- the first time the Conservative leader has scored higher than Martin since the SES-CPAC survey began on Dec. 1.

SES's Nik Nanos said Harper started the campaign 23 to 24 points behind Martin on the index.

Remember how the Liberals thought a long campaign would work in their favour. So far, not so good.

Of course, things could change.

And things have changed in the six days since this poll was taken.

Since then, Mike Klander insulted, well, just about everyone via his blog and was forced to resign.

Since then, the Conservatives unveiled a plan to give veterans, including aboriginal veterans, respect and support. This story got a lot of positive media attention.

Since then, the Liberals got a lot of attention as well, but not the positive kind. At the top of every newscast and headlining every newspaper is news that the Mounties are looking into allegations that someone inside of Ralph Goodale's office illegally leaked information about income trust taxation and allowed key traders to profit handsomely. All eyes are on Goodale, waiting for the resignation announcement.

A lot has happened in six days -- the six days when the campaign was supposed to go dormant for Christmas. Has the campaign tipped? Are this week's events just going to add to the momentum measured last week? When the campaign revs up, will the direction become apparent?

And if the Conservatives are starting to pull away, will Canadians ignore the Liberal call for an all out panic? The indications are that it won't work this time:

The survey also shows the Conservative leader closing in on Martin when Canadians are asked who would make the best prime minister. On that front, Martin leads by just three points at 28% to Harper's 25%.

Nanos said so far Harper seems more engaged and relaxed, improving his image, a vulnerability for the Tory leader when the campaign began.

"So, it's not surprising that the Liberals are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at them," said Nanos. "The Liberals still haven't found anything that will stick to Harper. The bogeyman argument, right now, doesn't have traction."

This will be an election for the history books.

The Income Trust Scandal: Election timing

Bet the Liberals and their supporters are furious at Jack Layton and the NDP for supporting Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party decision to hold an election now.

Remember, if we had followed the Liberal timetable, the election wouldn't have started for another couple of months, assuming Jean Chretien didn't succeed in getting the second Gomery Report delayed with his appeal to federal court. As it turns out, the Income Trust Scandal has exploded in the middle of the campaign, instead of being old news.

With that sort of fury gnawing at them, I wonder how difficult it is going to be for the Liberals put on a false smile and try to appeal to the NDP to support them against the Conservatives. And with the massive gash and uncontrolled hemorrhaging being suffered by the Liberals from the Income Trust Scandal blowing open, on top of Klander's slander and "beer and popcorn", how many NDP voters are reconsidering whether a vote for the Liberals is a strategic vote or a wasted one.

The Income Trust Scandal: Paul Martin must resign!

From the Conservative Party website:

“The Finance Minister has no choice but to tender his resignation,” said Conservative Finance Critic Monte Solberg. “This investigation confirms that there are reasonable grounds to suspect criminal wrongdoing in his department or office, and as minister he must accept responsibly. That’s how our system works.”

Solberg pointed out that the Conservative Party has consistently raised serious concerns about suspicious trading patterns of certain income trusts in the hours preceding his November 23rd policy announcement.

“Why has Mr. Goodale refused to take seriously the compelling evidence of a government leak that ended up benefiting privileged insiders?” Mr. Solberg asked. “Now basic principles of public ethics and ministerial responsibility require that he do the honourable thing and resign.”

Now read it again, with a few substitutions and additions here or there:

“The Finance Minister Prime Minister has no choice but to tender his resignation,” said Conservative Finance Critic Monte Solberg anyone with a brain. “This investigation confirms that there are reasonable grounds to suspect criminal wrongdoing in his department or office, and as minister in charge of Quebec under Jean Chretien as well as finance minister he must accept responsibly for exercising no oversight over $350 million in public funds. That’s how our system works.”

Solberg Any person with even a shred of intelligence pointed out that the Conservative Party has consistently raised serious concerns about suspicious trading patterns of certain income trusts in the hours preceding his November 23rd policy announcement the allocation of contracts to advertising firms in Quebec and about the official response to the conclusions of the Gomery Inquiry.

“Why has Mr. Goodale Mr. Martin refused to take seriously the compelling evidence of a conclusion of an inquiry confirming government leak manipulation of contracts that ended up benefiting privileged insiders Quebec advertising firms, and ultimately the Liberal Party itself?” Mr. Solberg every person giving this story only a few miniutes consideration asked. “Now basic principles of public ethics and ministerial responsibility require that he do the honourable thing and resign.”

Really, I'm not sure what the difference is. Ain't going to happen, of course.

The Income Trust Scandal: An easy prediction

Remember what I said about Ralph Goodale keeping his job? That it wasn't really up to him?

Even as we speak, Liberal Blackberries are alight. Many, I am certain, are carrying messages considering the consequences of cutting Ralph Goodale loose.

Cutting him from his privileges and responsibilites as Minister of Finance.

Maybe even cutting him out of the party altogether. Long odds for that one, I think.

But Ralph Goodale's future is not going to be determined by the RCMP, the OSC, or even by Ralph Goodale. It will be determined by Scott Reid, John Duffy, Cyrus Reporter, and others in the Liberal war room. These unelected lobbyists advising Paul Martin are interested in only one thing -- how to get the Liberals back in power and thus preserve their conduits to government influence and cash. If Ralph Goodale's troubles get in the way, he'll be out.

Bourque is carrying news that Goodale is likely to get the boot:

Bourque has learned that embattled Finance Minister Ralph Goodale is being pressured to give up his Cabinet seat for an indeterminate period of time, this in light of devastating news first revealed to the nation here yesterday that the RCMP has launched a criminal investigation into leaks from his department regarding rulings relating to the growing income trust scandal. According to senior sources inside the Paul Martin Liberal Party who spoke on condition of anonymity, "the official party posture is that Ralph didn't know anything and therefore shouldn't have to resign, but the public perception is devastating, it's killing us, and we need to move firmly to squelch the stink." Incredibly, Prime Minister Paul Martin has refused to comment publicly on news of the RCMP criminal probe, though it is understood that he has had a few choice words with key staff about this file.

Any guesses about what those choice words were?

Here are some ideas:

• "Do what needs to be done!"
• "All I'm saying is that we don't need this right now. That's all I'm saying."
• "Let me be perfectly clear..." [followed by an extended silence]
• "Boy, am I lucky they never caught on to any of my leaks when I was in charge of finance!"
• "Scott, what do I think? What should my opinion be on this? Where's the latest poll?!"
• "Will someone go tell Ralph to stop knocking on the door? Tell him we'll call him in when we're ready to tell him what his decision is going to be. Now read that part back about 'After careful consideration of my role as finance minister...' "
• "What a miserable and weary day. It would do well for a smile to cross my royal visage. Call the court jester! Call Feschuk!"
• "Ralph #%&@ Goodale! "

Update to the boiled dog's head comment

[CTV is now carrying this story, including the issue of the Chinese origins of the phrase.]

When BC Liberal Party President Jamie Elmhirst quoted Industry Minister David Emerson describing NDP Jack Layton, Elmhirst reported a very colourful turn of phrase:

Jack Layton had a great weekend in BC. First he managed to find something nice to say about Svend Robinson, although the performance struck me as a touch insincere, even for Jack Layton. How did Minister Emerson describe his style at our Convention dinner? Oh yes, he said that Jack Layton had a boiled dog's head smile. That would have made even me wince if I hadn't have been laughing so hard.

I thought he was being evocative with his imagery, and dismissed it. I was wrong. The phrase has much more meaning than what I expected.

Apparently the phrase is Chinese:

Saap Sook Gao Tao - boiled dog head - when you really happy and showing all your teeth all the time, you look like a dog head that's been boiled

But more interestingly, the phrase might also be rude, as opposed to being very descriptive.

During the Cultural Revolution, the phrase "rotten dog's head" (zalan goutou) became a popular insult.

But "boiled dog's head"? I found a reference that suggests it is an insult:

To the officer that was smiling at RPCNs for their disturbed look : "Your smile very ugly, like sup-suk-gao-tao (boiled dog head)."

And then that led me over to rabble.ca:

It's not just a Chinese saying, it's an extremely rude Chinese saying, and Emerson probably knew that, as his wife is Chinese.

She is Chinese:

David is married to Theresa Yeuk-Si Tang. Theresa came to Canada from Hong Kong in 1972 and worked for 15 years in the financial services industry.

I can't find independent evidence about how severe an insult this is. But if it is a base and vile insult in Chinese, and Emerson knew that, I might be convinced to reconsider what the right response to Emerson's comments about Layton is.

At least an apology. Maybe more. And maybe the people in the Chinese community would have an opinion about the sort of vile humour (if indeed it is that vile) is being lobbed about Liberal ministers.

The Income Trust Scandal: The twisted logic of a true believer

From Liberal for Life:

I want Jack Layton to step down while the RCMP investigates his moustache
Wednesday, December 28, 2005

That's about as stupid an idea as asking Ralph Goodale to step down while the income trust affair is being investigated. Of course that's the way the opposition likes to do things, Guilty until proven innocent.

I should call up the RCMP under the false name Miguel Sanchez and tell them Stephen Harper and Monte Solberg have been running drugs for years. Then by their own logic they'd be forced to step down while the investigation takes place.

Please Canadians: buy a clue and vote the Liberals back to majority!

If after a review of the allegations, the Mounties found enough evidence to justify an official investigation of either Jack Layton's moustache, or of the drug running activities of Stephen Harper or Monte Solberg, then they should step down.

Duh.

But a review would conclude quickly that any such allegation is nonsense, and no investigation would be initiated. Unless it was an investigation of criminal mischief by Mr Sanchez.

The review of the income trust situation came to a very different conclusion.

It's not about the determination of guilt, or the presumption of innocence. The court of law provides for those. It's about earning, retaining, and protecting the public trust. Protecting the public trust even at the expense of your job.

Normally, I ignore the sort of non-thinking exhibited by Liberal for Life. But the announcement of an RCMP investigation is yet another blow to the Liberal campaign, and perhaps the biggest one so far. It's hard to imagine it getting any worse.

How does something like this affect the "true believer"? Someone who is an uncritical supporter, utterly unable to imagine the Liberal Party doing anything wrong, without it being a setup or a conspiracy, or blown out of proportion, or already fixed and thus a distraction from the "important" issues.

Well, we've just seen an example. It's not pretty.

For the more critical Liberal supporter, the response is more reasoned and more gloomy:

On The Bright Side...

...no one's going to be talking about Klander much.

This is HUGE. Martin will use the "can't comment on an RCMP investigation" line and I doubt we'll find out much else before voting day, but the mere fact that Goodale's office is being ivestigated [sic] is a massive blow to the Liberals. It's also an absolutely golden way for Harper to switch to "Phase 2" and the corruption issue which I've always assumed was his intention for the second half of the campaign.

That makes a lot more sense. Of course, the Liberal Party is better served, in the long term, by members of the second sort instead of the first. While the first can always be counted on for a donation and a vote, the second can be counted on for honesty.

If the Liberal Party is going to survive this unending stream of scandals and gaffes, they are going to have to find a way to fill their collective reserve of honesty, which seems to have gone dry quite some time ago.

The Income Trust Scandal: It's not up to Ralph Goodale

The RCMP have opened a formal criminal investigation into an alleged leak from Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office in the hours before the formal announcement on income trust taxation.

The news tonight of that formal investigation has generated calls for Ralph Goodale's resignation.

Minister Goodale is refusing to step down:

The RCMP, said Goodale, "have said they are looking into this matter because of the seriousness of the allegation. They have, at the same time, said they have no information, no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of anyone - most particularly on my part - and quite frankly if I were to resign under those circumstances I believe I would only feed allegations that are out there in the context of a very political situation."

By refusing to resign, Ralph Goodale is going to act as a beacon attracting a barrage from the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois, aimed squarely at the issue of Liberal corruption.

Even as we speak, Liberal Blackberries are alight. Many, I am certain, are carrying messages considering the consequences of cutting Ralph Goodale loose.

Cutting him from his privileges and responsibilites as Minister of Finance.

Maybe even cutting him out of the party altogether. Long odds for that one, I think.

But Ralph Goodale's future is not going to be determined by the RCMP, the OSC, or even by Ralph Goodale. It will be determined by Scott Reid, John Duffy, Cyrus Reporter, and others in the Liberal war room. These unelected lobbyists advising Paul Martin are interested in only one thing -- how to get the Liberals back in power and thus preserve their conduits to government influence and cash. If Ralph Goodale's troubles get in the way, he'll be out.

The Income Trust Scandal: The Bizarro World of Ralph Goodale

Ralph Goodale is meeting all the expectations we have for a minister of the Crown, at least for an honourable member of the Liberal Party, who all seem to inhabit some kind of Bizarro world:

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said Wednesday night in an interview on CBC's The National that he is not going to bow to political pressure and step aside while the RCMP conducts a criminal investigation into a possible leak of information from his department.

"The RCMP said in their statement of this afternoon that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part- or on the part of anyone else for that matter," Goodale said in an interview with the CBC's chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge.

So the RCMP has passed the stage of a review and into a formal investigation without any evidence?!

Oh, tell me another one!

So how does the Honourable Ralph Goodale justify remaining the finance minister?

"It is not by any means proven and I know I've examined my own conduct in this matter and I'm confident that conduct is consistent with 30 years of integrity and trust in public life."

I guess he figures he's entitled to the job. None of that nonsense of public trust.

But wait. He's staying on, even as Mounties are sniffing around his office, to help ease fears:

"Quite frankly if I were to resign under those circumstances I believe I would only feed allegations that are out there in the context of a very political situation."

Oh yeah, I do feel better. Don't you? If he resigned, I would get all hot and bothered. But now that he's staying put, I feel the urge to examine the allegations draining away.

But before the comforting thought of Ralph Goodale remaining as finance minister overwhelms me and causes me to blog about ferns, let's recap what we've learned:

• The RCMP is investigating, but without even a shred of evidence.
• Evidence, or the lack thereof, notwithstanding, Ralph Goodale will remain on the job because he has it on excellent authority that he has done nothing wrong. That authority being Ralph Goodale, of course.
• Having the old finance minister whose department is under investigation for leaking information to traders is better than having a new finance minister not under investigation. Who says so? The old finance minister.

Make sense? Maybe in Bizarro World, but I don't think Canada is that far gone yet. At least I hope not.

You gotta wonder who in the Liberal Party brain trust thought this load on nonsense would keep things under control.

The Income Trust Scandal: The Mounties believe a crime has been committed

From Bourque:

BREAKING: Bourque has learned that RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli has confirmed that the Paul Martin Liberal Government is under a criminal investigation over potential leaks stemming from decisions in Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's department relating to the multi-hundred million dollar Income Trust debable. This, stemming from an official complaint received by the RCMP from an NDP MP. Late today, the NDP indicated that Zaccardelli confirmed that the RCMP has "launched a criminal investigation "regarding a possible breach of security or illegal transfer of information in advance of the federal government's announcement of changes to the taxation of Canadian corporate dividends and income trusts November 23, 2005." The NDP MP who filed the complaint, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, today called on Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale to step aside from his Cabinet role, until the criminal investigation is complete. According to the MP, "Goodale is personally responsible to ensure his office and his department protect average Canadians from the consequences of improper disclosure. "Goodale has stonewalled this issue for a month now, insisting without any qualification that there is nothing to this issue." Developing.

Clearly Finance Minister Ralph Goodale can no longer remain finance minister. As bad as this is for the Liberals in terms of timing, there is no other option.

No finance minister can command the confidence of the marketplace while under criminal investigation for illegal financial practices.

Every editorial in every paper in Canada should be calling for his resignation on Friday if he doesn't resign by tomorrow.

As for the OSC investigation, I stand by my posting. The investigation is happening, and I'm still trying to obtain clear evidence that I am allowed to share with you.

By my count, Ralph Goodale is under two distinct official inquiries into how he and his office might have used their knowledge that income trusts would not be taxed to allow certain traders to profit dramatically.

Both investigations must ask the question whether any of those illegal profits from insider trading, if it happened, made their way to the Liberal Party, a party fighting an election while millions of dollars in debt.

The nightmare scenario? The Liberals squeak by with another minority on January 23, and then soon after the Mounties or the OSC announce their conclusion that illegal money from insider trading was used by the Liberals to finance their election fight. Canada would be faced with what amounts to an illegal government and a constitutional crisis. In that case, I certainly hope Governor-General Michaelle Jean surprises all of us, because my expectations of her are frankly very low.

Klander backblast: Going too far

[Update: I've delved deeper into the meaning of the strange phrase David Emerson used, and now I'm wondering if perhaps this is worse than it first appears.]

Thanks to Bourque, we have this charming bit from BC Liberal Party President Jamie Elmhirst, recalling the words of Industry Minister David Emerson:

Jack Layton had a great weekend in BC. First he managed to find something nice to say about Svend Robinson, although the performance struck me as a touch insincere, even for Jack Layton. How did Minister Emerson describe his style at our Convention dinner? Oh yes, he said that Jack Layton had a boiled dog's head smile. That would have made even me wince if I hadn't have been laughing so hard.

First, I'm certain David Emerson would like to to have a chat with Elmhirst about what is to be kept in confidence, and what is to be repeated on a public website, assuming that phone call hasn't already been placed.

But are either Emerson or Elmhirst guilty of pulling a Klander?

I don't think so. The description of Jack Layton having a "boiled dog's head smile", as unappealing as that is, is descriptive but not racist or homophobic. It does not draw an identifiable group into the insult, to be used as part of the insult, thus insulting both that group and the original target.

For instance, when Stephen Harper is described as looking "gay" in a cowboy suit, Mike Klander was clearly relying on stereotyped views of homosexual appearance, as if there was such a thing, as a basis for the insult. The offends homosexuals as well as Stephen Harper, and so is deemed unacceptable. The Olivia Chow insult was keyed on Olivia Chow's name and her Asian appearance, and in doing so cast the insult on all Asian women, and so it also goes too far.

Basically an insult should endeavour to avoid too much collateral damage, as it were.

That isn't the case here with the "boiled dog's head smile" insult. But in the aftermath of the Klander incident, we might be too willing to take every puerile (or even elaborate) insult flung by the Liberals and try to turn it into a firing offense.

That would be a mistake.

First, it is unlikely to work, since people will be able to tell when an insult goes too far, and when it doesn't. A constant bleating about every insult will sound foolish and petty. No one likes a crybaby.

Second, on the off chance that it does work, and yet another insult results in yet another firing, the chilling effect can do more harm than good in stifling legitimate political discourse.

The bottom line here is that any insult that is based on physical appearance, whether specific to an individual (probably acceptable) or based on gender or race or some other broadly applicable characteristic (almost certainly unacceptable), is a weak and ineffectual insult, no matter how cleverly constructed. Physical appearance is not something we can alter all that dramatically, and almost never provides real insight into the thoughts of the person.

It is the ultimate ad hominem attack, and reflects poorly on the person making the insult.

So David Emerson made fun of Jack Layton's smile, at least according to Jamie Elmhirst. Not a big deal in of itself, in my judgment. But it is indicative of a recurring pattern within the Liberal Party of slinging insults, whether it is against parents who want to be entrusted with their own children, or against Asians, or against homosexuals, or against people who don't vote Liberal, or against people who don't live in Toronto, or against men with thinning hair and toothy grins.

At this rate, just about everyone is going to be at the receiving end of an insult from a senior member of the Liberal Party before January 23. Some insults will cost people their jobs, others won't. But either way, the people being insulted are going to have think long and hard if it was their intention to vote Liberal.

And if you weren't insulted, look around at your friends and family. Were any of them collateral damage from a Liberal attack? How did they feel? Then look at your ballot again. It is a secret ballot, of course, and with reason. But if it wasn't, would you still feel comfortable voting Liberal, and then facing your friends and family, insulted and angry as they are? I know I would factor that into my decision.

The toxicity of a Liberal Party membership

Sheila Copps in the Sun today about Mike Klander:

Klander, the son of hard-working immgirant steelworker parents in Hamilton, rose to great heights in the Liberal party by working hard to fit in. In the Martin backrooms, fitting in tends to mean "old boy" and bathroom humour, and ensuring your place is secured by tearing others down.

I remember when, as a young high school student, he came into my office interested in knowing more about the Liberal party. His father was a diehard New Democrat, but Mike thought the Liberal Party might be a more realisitic way to help people. As a young man, he wanted to get involved to make things better. Over the years, it became simply about the win.

His blog struck me as stunning in its ignorance. No depth there, simply hate. Martin good, everyone else bad.

Is this what belonging to the Liberal Party does to a person? Are they all like this? Are these the Canadian "values" Paul Martin keeps blabbing on about defending? If so, I think I'll look for new values elsewhere. Canada can keep those values, if that's what it means to be Canadian.

If that is the language the Martin Liberals expect to see in print in a pre-election blog, what do they say in private?

I wonder whether it would even occur to the Martin backroom boys that there was anything wrong with the Chow-Chow "separated at birth" posting -- more likely, they would pass it around, smirking at anyone who did not get it.

The same backroom boys use the race card when it will play well for them. "Trade one Sikh candidate for a Ukrainian as long as it will get votes andkeep them quiet," is a view I have actually heard expressed by a key Martin organizer.

Are you a parent with a teenage son or daughter thinking of joining the Young Liberals? Worse yet, already a card-carrying member? Be worried. Be just as concerned as if you caught your son or daughter wearing gang colours.

There is a toxic quality to the Liberals today. It will take time for it to drain away, and then only of the Liberals are ejected into the political wilderness for a long, long time. If that doesn't happen, and your son or daughter begins to move up into the mid to upper echelons of the party, don't be surprised if that poison starts to change them.

Catholic Carinval LXI: Best of 2005

This installment of the Catholic Carnival recalls some of the best contributions of 2005.

Klanderesque conspiracies: It had to be Elvis. Santa was busy this past weekend.

An interesting sidebar to the Mike Klander story.

In a feeble attempt to pull a reverse Dan Rather, a prominent Liberal blogger flogged the notion that the Klander blog was an elaborate fraud.

95% sure it was a fraud, he said.

I hope he's 95% sure of a Liberal win on January 23.

A scary thought

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper commenting on the Mike Klander affair:

"The Liberal party is coming into this election with a corruption report from a judge.

"I don't think it helps itself by running a campaign of personal attack and slur, which is what it has been doing - comparing political opponents to animals ... I think this has gotten a bit out of hand."

Klander had posted pictures of Chow and the dog on his Internet weblog -- or blog -- under the heading Separated At Birth.

The blog also contained an offensive reference to NDP Leader Jack Layton, who is married to Chow.

During a campaign stop Tuesday on Vancouver Island, Harper said he hadn't seen the blog but his wife filled him in.

Hold the phone! Does Laureen Harper read other blogs too?

Maybe this one?!

Crap, and I haven't neatened up or anything. My search button is still screwed up (uses the old colour scheme, but I can't figure out why), I still don't like the order of my side panels, and I really should try to find a better picture of Gordon Sinclair.

Don't you hate it when guests come over and you realize that you should have cleaned up an hour ago like you promised yourself? Now it's too late.

Klander's Slander: The Real Issue

Having pondered the Mike Klander affair, and the consequences, both from a serious and a humorous point of view, I know what is really bothering me.

As you can tell from my posts, my concern is less about Klander's comments, but rather with the consequences for Klander (forced to resign), and how that compares to the lack of consequences for Scott Reid and John Duffy over the "beer and popcorn" gaffe.

As I considered in an earlier post, Klander's comments were worse than Reid's and Duffy's, but were voiced in a semi-private forum, while Reid and Duffy were speaking on national TV in their capacity as spokespersons for the Liberal Party, explaining official policy to all Canadians who will vote on January 23.

An argument can certainly be made than Reid and Duffy deserved no less punishment than Klander.

That lack of consistency is worrisome to me, moreso than the unguarded thoughts of one Liberal functionary (though an important one, and one whose opinions bear examining for what they say about the Liberal Party as a whole).

What does this lack of consistency say about Paul Martin's leadership, about his style of management? I'm not so much worried about government policy. Government decisions are subject to a form of political inertia, especially in bureaucratic democracies -- no matter how fickle the leader, government policy can hardly change on a dime.

But inside the Prime Minister's Office, the Liberal Party executive, even cabinet -- if Paul Martin is seen as unpredictable and the sort of leader who plays favourites, then the ability of those organizations to function is in jeopardy. Resentment builds against those who seem to avoid the consequences suffered by others. Fear dogs every decision -- fear of making a mistake, and not having the protection enjoyed by those favoured by the prime minister to survive a mistake.

Soon, only safe non-decisions are ever made. Risk-taking, a critical element to leadership, is never seen again. The Liberal Party in government will soon lose the ability to attract smart Canadians, since the smart ones will realize there are better places to make a living. The ranks of government will be filled with those whose only skill is being able to avoid trouble.

Should Klander have been fired? Yes, I think so. But my opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the opinion of the highest reaches of the federal Liberal Party, and especially the opinion of Paul Martin. Right now, based on the evidence, it's not clear that he holds an opinion. Unless he can coherently explain why Reid and Duffy have avoided any consequences for their poor choice of words in light of the Klander episode, I can only surmise that there is no way to predict ahead of time how Paul Martin is going to respond to the actions, and errors, of his people.

That's fine for me. I don't work for Paul Martin. But if I did, I'd certainly want to understand how "the system" works, and why I should continue to work under it.

Introducing the Liberal Party Blog-o-matic

Are you a high ranking member of the Liberal Party of Canada? Are you bursting with racist and homophobic slurs to level at the enemies of Canada, that is, anyone who isn't voting for you?

But you're not sure how to express yourself. You could blog it, but will you be promoted or will you be fired? Who can tell? There's no way to tell, is there?

Because, let's be honest, you have no idea if you'll pull a Reid and have our fickle and unpredictable leader, Paul Martin, go to the mat for you, or if you'll get Klandered.

Well, now you can blog to your heart's content, and not worry about entering yourself into the praise-me-fire-me lottery run by Paul Martin.

How? By using the new Liberal Party Blog-o-matic!

Now you can blog and share with your Liberal friends. See a nosy reporter or Blogging Tory getting close? Or Paul Martin? Erase your brilliant, but dangerous, biting political analysis with a single sweep of the delete button, without fear of Google caching your page. Slack- jawed yokels (i.e., voters) won't appreciate your bursts of genius -- best that they not get all hot and bothered with reading and whatnot. Belinda Stronach swears by the Blog-o-matic, using it to help craft her speeches:

Are you on your way between Liberal strategy meetings? Need to capture some thoughts? The Liberal Blog-o-matic comes in a travel size as well!

Scott Reid is never far from his on the Liberal campaign bus:

The Liberal Blog-o-matic! Your best insurance against having your political future decided by Paul Martin, short of joining the Conservative Party, of course.

Klander: Did he quit or was he fired? Figuring out Paul Martin's rules for party members

An interesting tidbit that I've only seen printed in the Vancouver Sun about Mike Klander, the Liberal party executive forced to resign when his blog containing homophobic and racist comments was made public:

[Liberal Party spokesman Stephen Heckbert] said Klander resigned on his own initiative and was not pushed. However, in an interview with CanWest News Service just before he submitted his resignation, Klander said his only plan was to apologize to Chow.

It's a minor thing...or is it? If Klander was told he had to go, one wonders if he spared a thought for Liberal Communications Director Scott Reid and for Liberal Party strategist John Duffy, both of whom kept their jobs after the "beer and popcorn" gaffe.

You could forgive him for thinking he was being treated unfairly. Klander said some pretty nasty things, but it was via a personal blog, and he was not speaking for the Liberal Party in an official capacitty.

Reid and Duffy said a stupid thing, not as nasty, but then they said it while being interviewed on national television, and while acting as spokespersons for the Liberal Party.

So which is worse? Klander for saying something very bad semi-privately, or Reid and Duffy for saying something pretty bad extremely publicly?

The fact that Klander was fired (or forced to quit), while Reid and Duffy continue to work at the centre of the campaign, means that Paul Martin thinks there was a difference.

What that difference was is probably subtle, perhaps too subtle for the likes of you, and me, and Mike Klander to fathom. I expect that over the next little while, bloggers and professional columnists alike will ponder that question. Maybe we'll get lucky and one of us will stumble into an understanding of Paul Martin's standards for acceptable behaviour for officials associated with the Liberal Party of Canada.

Until someone does, I bet more than a few Liberal workers will be wondering whether this mistake or that is a firing offense or a forgiveable misstep. That kind of second-guessing can't be good for party morale, what with everyone looking over their shoulders. Well, serves them right for not being as clever and subtle as Paul Martin.

But here's a scary thought. What if the difference between Klander on the one hand, and Reid and Duffy on the other, is too subtle and clever for Paul Martin to understand?

Klander's future, inside and outside of politics

The riding of Toronto-Danforth is represented by NDP Leader Jack Layton.

The riding president for Toronto-Danforth for the Ontario Liberal Party is the now famous Mike Klander, recently forced to resign as executive vice-president of the federal Liberal Party, Ontario branch, over the personal and racist attacks he made against Jack Layton, and his wife, Olivia Chow.

I wonder how much longer before the provincial Liberal Party is forced to clean house like its federal counterpart.

Of course, Klander might not be all that worried about riding politics. His entire business is based on being seen as a smart operator with friends in high places helping others solve their problems:

Mike Klander is a highly specialized and well respected government relations consultant assisting clients both at Queen’s Park in Ontario and at the Federal Government level in Ottawa.

Whether managing a crisis, proposing a new initiative, monitoring legislation, or simply building political relationships, Klander and Associates can help your business or association navigate through government.

With over fifteen years of experience in federal and provincial politics, Mike Klander brings with him an innate understanding of Canada’s political process and an extensive national network. Prior to establishing his own government relations practice Mike held several senior positions within the Liberal Party.

As a senior political organizer Mike played a significant role in building Paul Martin’s Leadership organization in Ontario. Prior to joining Martin’s team, Mike helped build a national organization for Brian Tobin and also served as his Campaign Manager in Ontario.

As Executive Director of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) Mike was responsible for managing the day to day affairs of the Federal Liberal Party in Ontario. In that capacity he served as Ontario Campaign Director during the 2000 Federal Election Campaign. In his eight years with the organization he held several other positions including Field Organizer, and Director of Field Operations.

An organizer in every federal and provincial election campaign since 1988 Mike has developed a comprehensive understanding of the political process and how government operates. Building on that experience, he established Klander and Associates; an independent government relations practice representing clients both in Ottawa and at Queen’s Park.

Mike has served and continues to assist numerous clients including Research in Motion, Inco, BFI Canada, Imperial Tobacco Canada, The Greater Toronto Home Builders Association, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Air Canada Pilots Association.

As a volunteer Mike sits on the Board of the Ontario Special Olympics and Rose Cherry's Home for Kids. He is also Executive Vice-President of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario).

He holds an Honours degree in Political Science from McMaster University.

I hope he lands on his feet.

Mike Klander resigns; aftermath

The poorly chosen words of a high-ranking executive of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) has resulted in his resignation.

The web site has already been updated.

Clearly, the Liberal Party would like to forget Mike Klander.

What the Liberal Party thinks of gays, cripples, Asian women, and so on

What would you think if the second-most important member of the Liberal Party machine in Ontario held these views? And publicly proclaimed them?

• Olivia Chow looks like a dog
• Steven Fletcher is funny when he's mad because he's a cripple
• Harper and Duceppe are gay or something
• Ontario voters outside of Toronto, like Barrie, represented by a Liberal MP, are unimportant and a joke
• People are stupid, pity politicians who have to pretend to be nice
• Jack Layton is an asshole

Mike Klander is the Executive Vice-President for the "Paul Martin 's Liberals" for the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario). These are from the Google cache of his blog, just deleted because he was caught.

I'm not sure what you are thinking, but I'm thinking a very public firing is in order.

I think that makes the Jack Layton comments (given that Layton is popular in Ontario and part of the Liberal strategy is to make NDP voters feel comfortable casting their vote for the Liberal Party) and the attitude towards Ontario cities like Barrie (and presumably anywhere else outside of the 416 area code) particularly rich.

[A liberal socialist blogger is disgusted too.]

[Stephen Taylor was on top of this about two hours ahead of me. He thinks this could hurt the Liberals far more than I would have thought.]

A partisan Christmas thought

Let's do a quick look at the Christmas greeting for our three major political parties.

A touching bit of poetry from the Conservatives.

A heartfelt plea for peace and share prosperity from the NDP.

An election speech from the Liberals.

A Non-Partisan Christmas Wish

The Abotech Affair: Reports and more questions

News of the Ethics Commissioner's decision to clear David Smith continues to be reported, but along with the criticism, the fact that Smith signed contracts, and the revelation of his family ties with Frank Brazeau which came after the Ethics Commissioner issued his report.

Throwing good money after bad? No longer

From a Sheila Copps column:

According to Elections Canada, in their last annual filing, the Liberal Party of Canada was $34,818,257.32 in debt, by way of 13 bank loans. The Bloc Quebecois has more than $10 million in outstanding loans, mostly from the Caisse Desjardins. The NDP has several modest loans outstanding, totalling a little more than $3 million. The Conservatives are debt-free.

When I called the Chief Financial Officer of the Liberal Party, Lloyd Posno, he denied the party had a debt anywhere near $34.8 million, saying it was "impossible." He said the reporting mechanism for Elections Canada must be wrong, because he knew absolutely that the party's debt was much less than the amount cited on the website. He would not put a figure on the amount, saying that he was not authorized to speak publicly on money issues.

I then turned to Elections Canada, asking if they might have erred on the year-end financial statements they published for all political parties. They investigated my request and returned with a statement that the figures they published were completely accurate and were actually pursuant to the financial statements filed by each party.

How are the Liberals going to pay for ad time, for jet fuel, for promotional material, while so deep in debt?

If I was banker, I'd be looking at the polls and figuring that the Liberals are head for a loss or a reduced minority, at best. Not a good risk, especially with all the other loans.

As for donors, than source of cash is drying up too, according to Warren Kinsella:

December 8, 2005 - As is well-known in the Liberal Party of Canada, a recent campaign for Laurier Club donations went precisely nowhere (cf. the big Laurier Club event with the Prime Minister on November 10 at the Arcadian Court was supposed to see 1000 new members attend and raise $1 million - and it, um, did not ).

Two Liberal insiders, Chretien supporters to be sure, each with a reason to loathe Paul Martin. But Copps source of information is public. Kinsella's observations aren't independently verified, but it is telling that the Laurier Club is an exclusive organization the gives members access to cabinet ministers:

Instead, the Grits increasingly rely on their "Laurier Club" fundraising strategy. A $1,000 donation buys club membership; a $5,100 contribution earns the donor a so-called Laurier Plus status. Liberal party national director Steven MacKinnon says Laurier Club membership has bloomed from 500 in 2003 to 2,500 today. For $5,100, membership privileges include exclusive access to cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister at small, intimate gatherings.

If the Laurier Club is drying up, it's worse than it appears, and right now it appears pretty bad. These people have paid a lot of money to get the attention of powerful Liberals. That they can't be bothered to do so any longer makes me wonder if they've decided that the Liberals aren't much longer for the circles of power. No point in throwing good money after bad.

Conservative candidate in serious condition, vows to continue campaign

From Penticton, British Columbia:

Derek Zeisman, the Conservative candidate in the B.C. Southern Interior riding, remains in intensive care in hospital after being seriously injured in a two-vehicle crash Tuesday afternoon south of Castlegar.

However, campaign organizers said Wednesday despite his injuries Zeisman has no intentions of quitting the campaign trail and vows to return to the hustings as soon as possible.

Zeisman was the lone occupant of Land Rover which collided with an oncoming sport utility vehicle on Highway 22 near the small Castlegar area community of Fairview. Zeisman was northbound on his way to Castlegar from his home in Trail at the time of the crash. Freezing rain was falling and driving conditions were described as treacherous.

Zeisman was seriously injured:

Zeisman suffered a broken femur, fractured pelvis, broken ribs and a collapsed lung in the accident and was sedated and on a ventilator Wednesday in Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail.

Danielle Jackson, his campaign manager, said Zeisman underwent surgery Tuesday night. He remained in intensive care Wednesday but was expected to be moved into a regular ward shortly and could be released from hospital within a week.

Jackson said she talked to Zeisman in hospital and he confirmed he wants to continue as the Conservative candidate.

"Even though he was ventilated and sedated, I asked him: 'Do you want to quit?' and he was shaking his head profusely," she said. "We're going to carry on and the party is offering all kinds of support."

Best wishes to Derek Zeisman for a speedy recovery.

The Liberal candidate, Bill Profili, slips in a veiled criticism of opposition leaders who were not willing to submit to Prime Minister Paul Martin's timetable:

Liberal Bill Profili, a former B.C. Ambulance Service paramedic, said Zeisman may have been a victim of election timing.

"This is the price [of campaigning up and down icy highways in winter]," he said. "In an April election, you avoid these issues."

A tasteless photo, a missed soundbite, and shifting votes

The Liberals are using this photo to suggest the Conservatives and the Bloc are in cahoots.

Frankly, the photo showing Stephen Harper and Gilles Ducesppe together means nothing. They are the leaders of opposition parties in Ottawa.

But the Liberals made a critical mistake when they selected this particular picture. It was taken during the Holocaust Memorial ceremonies in Ottawa last spring.

That choice is creating headaches for the Liberals.

The Abotech Affair: Another open letter to the Ethics Commissioner

An open letter to the Ethics Commissioner explaining my concerns about how it appears that his investigation was undermined by a critical omission by both David Smith and Frank Brazeau.

The Abotech Affair: David Smith appears before the Ethics Commissioner, and is cleared

Liberal MP David Smith, representing the riding of Pontiac, ran a home-based computer consultancy firm called Abotech, now owned and operated by his wife and his two children, both minors. Earlier this year, Abotech had several contracts with the federal contract terminated, though the reasons were never clearly described.

A bureaucrat at Consulting and Audit Canada, Frank Brazeau, was suspended. Why? We don't really know.

Today, the Ethics Commissioner, responding to a letter from Nepean-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre, release his report on David Smith, and gave him a clean bill of health.

*Yawn*

A month ago, I might have cared. Today I know that the question of what is going on at Abotech is not a question the Ethics Commissioner could answer.

The fact is, had the Ethics Commissioner investigated Chuck Guite, it is doubtful he would discovered any unethical conduct in the Sponsorship Program either. Chuck Guite followed all the rules in the contracts that were signed. He did not direct contracts to companies in which he had an interest, or that were run by his family. The fact that the contracts themselves were bogus and no work was done for the money paid is not a concern of the Ethics Commissioner.

The same goes here. But even accepting the constraints of the Ethics Commissioner's area of interest, his report on David Smith was severely compromised by the lack of any sort of in-depth investigation.

The investigation was also compromised because David Smith neglected to mention a very pertinent fact to the Ethics Commissioner, and he got away with it.

What does the media know?

I just did the rounds of some of the major Canadian main stream media websites, at 7am on December 23. Here's what I found.

The Toronto Star has nothing about the election on their home page. Nothing praising Paul Martin or criticizing Stephen Harper.

The CBC links to a story about the Conservative plan for arctic defence. The word "Tories" comes up in two headlines. Neither the NDP nor the Liberals are named explicitly. The NDP's Jack Layton gets two positive stories. The only link to a Liberal story is about Marc Garneau's apology for what he said in 1986 about funding (and then you'd have to know that Marc Garneau was running for the Liberals).

The Globe and Mail has a headline story about how the Conservatives would work on an issue-by-issue basis with other parties. The Liberals get two stories -- one about the embarrassing situation in which they'll have to fire VIA Rails Jean Pelletier twice (and mention prominently how Pelletier was a top Chreitien aid), and how the Liberals will need to win big in BC to counter losses in Quebec and Ontario.

The CTV home page for news has a similar mix: Liberal headache with Pelletier, Conservative plan for the arctic, NDP defends healthcare.

Not a single feel-good story for the Liberals at the top level pages. Continued focus on Conservative policy (and in the stories themselves, more about how much better a campaigner Stephen Harper is now compared to 2004).

And one serious story on the front page of the Globe and Mail about how a Conservative government would be run.

Makes you wonder just how the editors at these major print and broadcast media centres are interpreting the polls, and what their gut is telling them about how the election is going.

Asserting your will? You have to be willing to be assertive

Remember my post on Hans Island and the monopoly on violence?

If not, give it a read.

You might also go look at this ancient post on my original Live Journal blog. Go to the comments and read my idea about how Canada could defend the North.

Now go read Stephen Harper's proposal. Makes sense to me.

Income Trust Scandal: The OSC has initiated an investigation into Ralph Goodale's office

Income Trust Scandal: CARP backs off accusing Warren Kinsella

Warren Kinsella

CARP, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, has backed down from its claim that Warren Kinsella was responsible for starting an "unsubstantiated rumour" that Ralph Goodale's office gave an executive director at CARP inside information about the plan not to tax income trusts.

They've replaced their December 8 news release with a new version, same title, but throwing the accusation against Warren Kinsella down the memory hole.

Group sex!

I haven't commented yet on the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on group sex, in part because I thought it would be important to conduct an in-depth investigation before forming an opinion.

Then I was told I wasn't allowed by a force in the land even more powerful than the Supreme Court, whose rulings cannot be appealed. The same force reminds me to take the garbage out every Tuesday morning. Need I say more?

So I will have to form an opinion in a vacuum, as it were, on the ruling that says that clubs that feature group sex and partner-swapping are legal. But then most of us will have to form an opinion without any practical experience. I suppose that is part of the issue, isn't it? How many people can this really impact?

Some will say that the same argument applies to gay marriage. How many people does it really touch? Of course, that argument is flawed. The ruling on group sex and partner-swapping applies to conduct in a private club. On the other hand, gay marriage required a re-definition of a public institution to which a vast number of Canadians belong. Clearly the second has an impact on a very different level from the first one.

Does this impose a new moral standard on Canadians? The Supreme Court ruled that since no money exchanged hands and no one was harmed, the State had no business interfering. The question of "community standards" doesn't apply because the acts were being performed outside of the view of the community. That the community knew the acts were being performed was not considered sufficient to rule that the community was in some way harmed.

In general, I think the court had it right. The community does not need to be protected from the knowledge that such things happen, or even specific knowledge that such things are happening at this location every Friday night from 7pm to 2am (or whatever). I think that as long as communities have some control over zoning laws, they can manage issues like having such a club beside a daycare, for example.

Will zoning laws concerning the sale and consumption of alcohol be sufficient, or is that tool too blunt? What if a sex club forgoes serving alcohol? Will communities need a new "sex zone" classification?

If they do get such a zone, will major cities get "red light" districts? On the upside, that means that the location of other sex-related businesses might be better managed -- the appearance of a boarded-up adult video store along a the frontage of a strip mall can be disconcerting. An adult video store is only one store over from a infant and child clothing store we frequent. Though no one is harmed by it, I have to admit it can make be a bit nervous. It's irrational, I know, but when we've got the kids with us, a parent wonders just what sort of people are gathering only a few feet over from you. But at the same time, I don't want to constrain the abilityof these legal businesses to flourish.

If Canadian cities do get red-light districts, will the legalized solicitation of prostitution be far behind? Will Canadian cities become destinations for American sex tourists? And will the loosening of the rules make it easier for illegal enterprises, such as child prostitution, to take hold, hiding behind now legal and more open adult-oriented businesses? What about the infiltration of organized crime, especially those groups that specialize in procuring sex workers, such a Chinese gangs or Immigration Canada?

Bottom line is I don't know where this will go. Maybe nowhere. Maybe we'll all be regretting it in twenty years. Maybe in twenty years we'll be wondering why we didn't do it twenty years earlier.

Sorry that I don't have a clearer opinion. That's what happens when you can't properly research a topic.

The Abotech Affair: A swing riding

A memo that was released accidently to the press last week by the Liberal Party considers the dimming fortunes for the Liberals in Quebec:

The memo paints a grim picture for the Liberals in the province. The party believes at this point that it can only count on winning 10 ridings. Another 20, the memo suggests, could go to either the Liberals or the Bloc Quebecois.

One riding in particular, Pontiac, is of special interest to me.

Pontiac is represented by Liberal MP David Smith. Smith is currently at the centre of a controversy involving his computer consultancy firm, Abotech. CBC Radio ran a special two-part in-depth report examining the questions swirling around Smith (see here and here), a report that was able to use the results of research that appears in this blog.

Is Pontiac one of the 20 ridings that could go either way? It turns it has been identified by the Liberal Party as a swing riding:

"My main opponent is the Bloc," said Mr. Smith, a former Maniwaki councillor, who also worked as a civil servant. "In the riding of Pontiac, if federalists split the vote, then the next representative will be the Bloc."

He added that francophone Quebecers do not generally recognize themselves in Stephen Harper's party, so there would not likely be enough support for the Tories to win, he suggested.

"They will not vote for Mr. Harper's Conservatives."

But organizers at his party's headquarters in Montreal have flagged his riding along with 20 other constituencies held by either the Bloc or the Liberals that could swing one way or the other in the next election. All three Outaouais ridings, Pontiac, Hull-Aylmer, and Gatineau are in that category. Mr. Smith warned that federalists who choose the Conservatives are isolating themselves from the majority of Quebecers.

People in Pontiac are frustrated, and are not responding to the veiled threat of isolation that is typical of Liberal electioneering ("we might be crooks, but if you don't vote for us, the country will fall apart"):

[Conservative candidate Lawrence Cannon, a former provincial Cabinet minister,] has divided his days in between knocking on doors, and meetings with supporters and potential supporters. Just after lunch time, one of those meetings was with a group of former Liberals who were fed up and looking for change.

"As more and more things have been reported about what's going on with the Liberal party, I don't see that I can vote Liberal in good conscience," said Gail Mathias, referring to the fallout from the sponsorship scandal and corruption uncovered by the Gomery Inquiry, and allegations that federal contracts were steered towards the Liberal incumbent David Smith's family business.

It looks like the question concerning David Smith's business affairs are having an impact. Will the riding go the Bloc? Or will the Conservatives be able to succeed here?

The Abotech Affair: The second of a 2-part CBC Radio special report

Click here to listen to the original December 21 broadcast: The business of Abotech and the politics of Pontiac

CBC Radio reporter Evan Dyer has prepared a two-part piece on Liberal MP David Smith, representing the riding of Pontiac. David Smith is of particular interest because computer consultancy firm that he once ran, now run by his wife out of the family home, has had contracts with the federal government suddenly terminated as a result of an audit at Consulting and Audit Canada, a branch of Public Works (CAC has since been split into separate departments).

A bureaucrat at CAC, Frank Brazeau, was suspended without pay, for his role in this affair. What he did is not entirely clear -- the audit was never released and the government is refusing to divulge many details.

Over the course of several weeks, this blogger was able to develop an interesting picture showing the relationship between David Smith, Frank Brazeau, and the firm at the centre of this story, Abotech. A full list of Abotech related posts is available.

Today, the second part of Evan Dyer's special report on Abotech was broadcast by CBC Radio One in Ottawa, and into David Smith's riding of Pontiac, which lies across the river from the nation's capital.

The first part focused on questions raised by David Smith's aboriginal status. In that report, we learned that David Smith's campaign is dismissing criticisms from the First Nations reserve in David Smith's home town of Maniwaki because "they don't vote, these people".

The second part focuses on the business of Abotech, the source of the controversy that surrounds David Smith.

In this report, listeners in Ottawa and in the riding of Pontiac learn that despite Public Works Minister Scott Brison's assertion that the taxpayer got value for the million dollars in contracts awarded to Abotech, David Smith insists that running Abotech requires no work or skills whatsoever.

Amazingly, David Smith makes that statement as a defence against charges of unethical conduct.

And in what I think is a remarkable moment, the CBC suggests similarities between the Abotech affair and the Sponsorship Scandal.

A leader takes risks

Risk-taking is a critical part of being a leader. But a leader avoids foolish risks. He gambles on those things that:

1. have a chance of paying off with a large dividend
2. have a benefit even if you fail
3. have a benefit just for trying, win or lose

Being able to spot such unique risks is also a sign of a leader. Conservative leader Stephen Harper has shown just that sort of leadership with the report that he is willing to debate Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe one-on-one on Quebec television.

The Liberals using tax dollars to save the party some money

The Conservative Party will have to meet the payroll of its paid workers over the Christmas break despite the fact that those workers will not be doing much campaigning.

The NDP will have to meet the payroll of its paid workers over the Christmas break despite the fact that those workers will not be doing much campaigning. Actually, they will be asking campaign staff to take their vacations and get their government vacation cheques. Their volunteers do overtime on their government jobs prior to the election, then use up their accrued time-off working on the campaign, switching to campaign money when their banked overtime runs out.

The Bloc will have to meet the payroll of its paid workers over the Christmas break despite the fact that those workers will not be doing much campaigning.

The Liberal Party will arrange to send paid workers who are on a leave of absence from a government position back to their government jobs for the Christmas break. For those two weeks, that leave of absence will be lifted, and suddenly they revert to government paycheques. Then in January when the campaigning ramps back up, the leave of absence kicks in again, and these workers go back on the party payroll and off the government payroll.

Government money. Tax money. When you are the Liberal Party of Canada, money is money.

Some people might think that switching back and forth between party payrolls and government payrolls in the midst of an election campaign is wrong, or at least questionable from an ethical point of view. But then maybe it's fair. I mean, neither the Conservatives nor the NDP nor the Bloc had to cough up $1.14 million to pay to the federal government out of the party funds. Losing that chunk of cash would have put the Liberals at a disadvantage.

Now why was it that the Liberal Party had pay out that money? I can't quite remember.

I'd ask someone in the Liberal Party, but then I'm not all that sure they remember why either.

Read the whole thing at Political Staples.

Income Trust heads up!

Tomorrow (Wednesday, 21 December) at 9pm EST on CBC Newsworld, and repeated at 10pm EST on the main CBC network (check your local listings), a story on income trusts and the alleged leak from Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office will be presented by Margo McDiarmid.

Is this the Big One? Not yet. But the main stream media has not lost sight of this story, though it might have seemed like that for the lack of coverage. I for one am glad that the CBC is not waiting for January 24 to come and go before moving forward on the story.

It'll be interesting to see what they've come up with.

The Abotech Affair: Confirmation and Considerations

The journalistic team of Julie Murray and Fred Ryan have managed to independently confirm yet another aspect of the Abotech story. The confirmation is revealed in an editorial that points out that the furor over David Smith's personal and business life refuses to die away.

Were Paul Martin and his team scripting the fight with the US?

A potentially devastating analysis at small dead animals and StephenTaylor suggesting that the Liberals planned to get into the fight with the Americans in order to gain votes.

The evidence? Commercials featuring "ordinary" Canadians approving of Paul Martin's Yankee-baiting that appear to have been prepared almost two weeks before the flare up with Ambassador David Wilkins.

Amazing.

The Abotech Affair: The first of a 2-part CBC Radio special report

Click here to listen to the original December 20 broadcast: David Smith and his aboriginal roots

CBC Radio reporter Evan Dyer has prepared a two-part piece on Liberal MP David Smith, representing the riding of Pontiac. David Smith is of particular interest because computer consultancy firm that he once ran, now run by his wife out of the family home, has had contracts with the federal government suddenly terminated as a result of an audit at Consulting and Audit Canada, a branch of Public Works (CAC has since been split into separate departments).

A bureaucrat at CAC, Frank Brazeau, was suspended without pay, for his role in this affair. What he did is not entirely clear -- the audit was never released and the government is refusing to divulge many details.

Over the course of several weeks, this blogger was able to develop an interesting picture showing the relationship between David Smith, Frank Brazeau, and the firm at the centre of this story, Abotech. A full list of Abotech related posts is available.

Now the CBC, a crown corporation often described as being too quick to ignore stories that embarrass the Liberal Party, is devoting two 20-minute segments in the key 7am talk-show slot on exactly such a story.

Today's highlight: the criticisms of status aboriginals concerning the appropriateness of David Smith's declaration of aboriginal heritage and how he positioned his firm to gain special contracts as a result is irrelevant because "they don't vote, these people".

[Link to a summary of part two of this special report]

Do you have to be crazy to vote Liberal? No, but it helps!

A photo taken across the street from Ralph Goodale's campaign headquarters in the riding of Wascana in Saskatchewan:

A source for campaign volunteers, perhaps?

Shamelessly stolen from the blog of CPC Candidate Brad Farquhar.

If you live in the riding of Wascana, vote for Brad! You'd be nuts not to.

Yet another interesting income trust fund

CML Healthcare is another one of those income trust funds that warrants attention in light of the strange trading patterns in the hours and days just prior to Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's announcement on the evening of November 23 that income trust funds would not be taxed.

As it turns out, one of the original trustees of the fund was also a major contributor to Paul Martin's leadership campaign, and today manages one of Canada's most exclusive mutual funds, a fund that includes income trusts as one of its core investments.

Liberals reveal new plan to win the election

The Liberal Party has decided that the only way to guarantee victory on January 23 is to dump Paul Martin and recruit a real leader with fresh ideas and who will really stand up for Canada!

If I were Belinda Stronach, I'd be worried. Very worried.

Courtesy the CBC. Amazingly, the photo caption on this web page is yet to be corrected two days after it originally appeared.

Update: A short time after I posted, the CBC corrected the caption. Good thing I took a screen shot, or no one would believe me.

More income trusts links and connections

Sometimes a thing can look very suspicious, but it is overlooked because what "it" is, it didn't seem to work the way it was supposed to.

Is this one of those "it"s?

A messy situation and a silver lining

A situation like this is always a mess:

The defiant mother of a murdered pregnant teen held her ground yesterday as Conservative handlers tried their best to muzzle her at a Stephen Harper campaign rally.

"I might as well be standing here waiting for Hitler to come in," said an aghast Mary Talbot, as Tory supporters tried to hide a photo of her slain daughter from view with Conservative placards as she clutched the photo over her head.

On the one hand, people have a right to free speech. But then so do people trying to drown it out with more speech. And like any hostage situation, if you let one person get away with it, every person with an axe to grind is going to try it -- in this case, disrupt political rallies.

Despite what it sounds like at first, the article goes on to show that the Conservatives tried their best:

Talbot's daughter Olivia Marie Talbot, 19, was 27 weeks pregnant when she was shot dead in her Mill Woods home on Nov. 24. It's the family's belief that the man who killed Olivia should be charged with two counts of murder.

Security guards crowded around the family as staffers prepared for Harper's arrival at the rally.

But when Harper's personal staff arrived, Talbot and Tammy Brownlee, the sister of the unborn baby's father, Lane Griffiths, were whisked away for a meeting with Harper.

According to Talbot, Harper told her he'd just heard of the issue a couple of days ago and doesn't have a position on it yet.

I'm not going to get into the issue of fetal rights, but rather focus on the use of political rallies to push an agenda. They are essentially private functions, so the organizers have a right to control the content. As I pointed out, lack of control invites even more disruption in the future.

The optics, however, are never good.

But here's the sliver lining. No one would bother disrupting a political figure's rally in an attempt to gain a promise to pursue a particular course of action unless they believed that the person was likely to be in a position to do something about it as a result of the election.

So far, I haven't heard of anyone disrupting Jack Layton's rallies or those featuring Gilles Duceppe. And as for Prime Minister Paul Martin, well, let's just say if you decided to show up and make a point, you'd run the risk of outnumbering the legitimate attendees.

Adding flavour to the news, or sending a message?

The media continues to take pains to spin the news in a way that makes the Liberals seem desperate.

In this example, the Globe and Mail did not have to compare and contrast the Liberal and Conservative rallies. The focus of the article was on Paul Martin's assetion that Stephen Harper is not fit to be Prime Minister. But the reporter and the editor decided to put a story inside a story.

Martin appears at a small rally, and it was a bit lame:

At a small, but noisy rally in the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby, Mr. Martin said that Mr. Harper would deny rights entrenched in the Canadian Charter to homosexual couples who want to wed.

"Stephen Harper said this was a phony war of words," Mr. Martin told the crowd of about 120 supporters.

The morning rally was the first the Liberals have staged in British Columbia since the campaign began. Although the supporters managed to create a cacophony of sound with the balloons distributed by the party for that purpose, the gathering was small by election campaign standards - the 19 candidates in attendance made up a substantial proportion of the crowd.

But that didn't stop Mr. Martin from seeing the event in a positive light.

"What a tremendous crowd, what a great thing this is."

Harper appears at a major rally:

News of Mr. Martin's comments electrified the Harper campaign team yesterday afternoon while en route to a major rally at the Alberta Air Museum in Edmonton.

The Conservative Leader was clearly buoyed by the presence of a large crowd at the rally, numbering more than 600 people.

He was joined on stage by roughly a dozen Alberta Tory candidates for the January 23 election.

As I pointed out, the issue of the rallies is not central to the article. It need not have been discussed, and none of us would have been the wiser. One could argue that they are adding flavour, but I don't think so. The Globe and Mail wants you to know -- the Liberals are having trouble drawing a crowd.

One more thing: re-read the third paragraph of the Martin rally description I quoted. Notice the words "staged" and "managed" appearing in close proximity? Is someone trying to leave the impression of a stage managed campaign, suggesting a lack of honesty?

[Added: Kevin Steel at the Western Standard has a different take on this.]

Harper to Martin: I'll take the high road and you take the low road

Are the Liberals turning on their negative campaign, expected to start in January, two weeks early?

Or are the personal attacks a sign of a panic starting to set in the Liberal campaign, which to date has been lacklustre at best, incompetent at worst?

Or is it an attempt to move the attention of the media, which has generally been unimpressed with the Liberal campaign, to a more "traditional" focus on why the Conservatives would make a bad government?

Hard to say, but whatever the reason, the Liberals are starting with attacks on the character of Stephen Harper, and the Conservatives are responding by pointing out that, well, they don't do that sort of thing:

Liberal Leader Paul Martin spent much of Saturday highlighting the difference between himself and Stephen Harper, suggesting several times that Mr. Harper lacks what it takes to be prime minister.

At a small, but noisy rally in the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby, Mr. Martin said that Mr. Harper would deny rights entrenched in the Canadian Charter to homosexual couples who want to wed.

"If the Charter of Rights is there to protect us, then we look to the Prime Minister to protect the Charter," he said.

"If you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no business trying to become the Prime Minister of Canada."

And the Conservative response?

News of Mr. Martin's comments electrified the Harper campaign team yesterday afternoon while en route to a major rally at the Alberta Air Museum in Edmonton.

"Today after the debates, Mr. Martin suggested that anyone who disagrees with him on the marriage issue is unfit for public office," [said Stephen Harper.] "I say that Canada is a democracy. We have to be able to disagree on these issues, and we must accept the right of the people to chose who leads them."

Ouch! Martin takes the low road, and Harper sticks to the high road. And the media is taking pains to point that out.

Clone Wars

Scandal in the world of cloning research:

Hwang Woo-suk, South Korea’s most renowned stem cell scientist, on Friday strongly denied claims made by one of his close collaborators that he fabricated parts of his pioneering research on cloning human embryos.

"I wasn't caught faking the answers," cloning scientist Woo-suk asserted, "I was caught copying them!"

[groans]

Oh, come on! You were thinking the same thing!

Building walls instead of bridges

This government coddles terrorists, like the Khadr family, and in this case issues and re-issues Canadian passports to this terrorist family that, when members are in Pakistan to help kill American soldiers, always seems to conveniently lose this most important piece of ID.

This government refuses to take defense issues seriously.

This government refuses to tighten up immgration, appointing terrorist sympathizers to Immigration Boards year after year.

When this government decides, finally, that an immigrant would not make a desirable citizen, it is stymied by courts only too willing to stay a deportation order, courts populated by judges placed on the bench as a reward for loyal service to the government, and not for any perceived legal qualification.

When this government hears that the US is suggesting passports be used at the border to better control access, this government begs and grovels for special treatment, but then does nothing to help deal with the corruption in the provincial drivers' licensing system that makes a drivers' license useless as a means of identification.

This government does not guard the common border with the US effectively against terrorists.

So why should Canadians be surprised to read this:

The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday night to consider erecting "physical barriers" along the American border with Canada, the firmest step yet toward building the kinds of fences now in place on the Mexican frontier to stop the northward flow of illegal aliens and smuggled goods.

The directive to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was passed by a strong majority of the House and was contained in an amendment to a controversial immigration bill working its way through Congress. The motion cleared the way for about 1,100 kilometres of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, but also urged the agency to "conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the northern border."

Of course, with the strong and friendly relationship between this government and the Bush administration...

OK, scratch that.

The English Language Debate: Harper wins, Martin loses

Just by judging the the headlines of three major papers, each from a different point on the political spectrum, we see that Stephen Harper is given the nod, while Paul Martin failed to impress.

From the Globe and Mail: Martin attacked by all leaders on riff with U.S.

Other possible headlines: "Martin's defense of Canada garners criticism", "Opponents try to blunt Martin's pro-Canada stance"

But instead, Paul Martin is depicted as isolated, and the use of the word "riff" does not evoke the "Captain Canada" image.

From the Ottawa Citizen: Harper takes own path in English-language debate

Other possible headlines: "Harper isolated during debate", "Other leaders united against Harper's plan"

Those headlines are passive and negative, but the one that was used depicts Stephen Harper as a leader and someone who is proactive. You might not like what he says, but he will take the path his conscience tells him to take. For many Canadians looking for leadership in this period of minority governments, that might sway them, regardless of the specific issues at stake.

From the Toronto Star: Martin lashes out at rivals

Other possible headlines: "Martin challenges rivals", "Harper, Duceppe must defend against PM"

Those other headlines suggest an offensive strategy. But the headline that was used, with the word "lashes", is suggestive of someone reacting, even in a panic. Cornered animals lash out, not hunters.

Hardly scientific, but these examples suggest to me, anyway, that the press in Canada is less inclined to give the Liberals a free pass in this election.

Brinkmanship as electoral blackmail

When I watch Prime Minister Paul Martin beat his chest and portray himself as Canada's defender against foreign threats, especially the United States (do they have a hidden agenda now?), I can't help but think back to 1982, and the run up to the Falklands War between Argentina and Britain:

It is clear in the Falklands/Malvinas case that traditional deterrence can produce contradictory results. Lebow clearly points out "the apparent failure of states practicing deterrence to identify and address, at the same time, what may be the most important causes of foreign policy aggression." One of these causes is the degree to which would-be challengers are inner-directed and inwardly focused on their own political interests. Lebow suggests that "their own political interests" are often grounded in self-image preservation and enhancement. Using defensive avoidance, elites try to reconcile incompatible domestic imperatives (the redefinition of the military junta from a perceived genocidal machine into a valued national leadership) and geopolitical-foreign relations objectives. The faltering legitimacy of the junta in Argentina increased its desperate need to do something to shore up its public support. The threat of domestic rejection overrode all deterrence considerations, precisely because at the same time there was an urgent need to redress the perceived lack of British recognition of Argentina as its worthy, equal partner. Fear of Britain's military might was not enough to deter brinkmanship decision-making when considerations about lack of international prestige, loss of face and narcissist hurt provoked the rage of the military junta members.

Apples and oranges, I know, but hey, they're still both fruit. The fact is, it is a sign of a government out of ideas and, of more concern, out of control, when in a bid to shore up domestic support, that government starts to look for external enemies (like the United States) or internal enemies (the Quebec separatists) that not only justify, but require, that government to continue in power.

At least Canadians are not acting quite as gullibly as the Argentinians did in 1982:

Interestingly, Canadians were very balanced on their opinion about the pointed comments exchanged recently between Prime Minister Paul Martin and U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins.

When asked how they felt about Martin's criticism of the U.S. efforts to reduce global warming, 61 per cent of those polled said Martin has the responsibility to make such statements during an election.

When asked how they felt about Wilkins' criticism of Martin's statements, 56 per cent of Canadians said Wilkins had the responsibility to express the U.S. point of view.

Thirty-five per cent of Canadians thought the Prime Minister was out of line, and 37 per cent thought Wilkins was out of line.

The attempt to use Britain as the bogeyman spelled a disaster for Argentina, for both the leadership and for the population of the country. I hope we're in an apples vs oranges situation inasmuch as what the future holds. On the other hand, Paul Martin's attempt to play to Canadian fears of the the United States for his own political gain (and for that matter, survival) might make him Canada's answer to Leopoldo Galtieri.

The Calgary Herald: Canadians "frittering" money away

The Calgary Herald discusses childcare money being "frittered" away.

Democratic Renewal: Crossing the floor

If I was presenting a plan for democratic renewal, I might tackle a different issue than candidate selection, which I think is inappropriate.

That would be the issue of MPs switching parties.

Democratic Renewal: Candidate selection

My piece on the Tory plan on democratic renewal elicited a thought-provoking response from one of my long-time and most insightful readers. She poses two questions, and this piece addresses the second, on my criticism of trying to impose rules on candidate selection on all parties.

Democratic Renewal: Senate Reform

My piece on the Tory plan on democratic renewal elicited a thought-provoking response from one of my long-time and most insightful readers. She poses two questions, and this piece addresses the first, on my criticism of having a directly elected senate.

Borrowing a page from the US Democrats

During the 2004 US Presidential Election, Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry was in a televised debate with incumbent George W Bush. Kerry tried to embarrass Bush with a reference to Cheney's daughter, Mary, an official in the Republican campaign, and a lesbian:

Mary Cheney, one of the vice president's two daughters and an official of the Bush-Cheney campaign, has been open about her lesbian status. The candidates were asked if they believe homosexuality is a choice, and President Bush did not mention Mary Cheney. Then Kerry said, "If you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

Neither Bush, nor Vice President Dick Cheney, who in a subsequent debate with Senator John Edwards was subjected to similar baiting, stumbled. After the debates however, the Democratic candidates were criticized from many quarters for taking a cheap shot.

Well, the organizers of the leaders' debate seemed happy enough to emulate the Democrats in this way:

Mr. Harper made his pledge [not to use the notwithstanding clause to get around future court decisions on same-sex marriage] after he was asked how he would react if he found out that one of his two children were gay.

"It's the job of a parent to always love our children. I love my children and will love them for all their life," Mr. Harper said.

I don't want to speculate on the motives of the person who asked that question (the debate format had the leaders responding to questions posed by Canadians, chosen and taped by the debate organizers). But I wonder what the debate organizers were thinking.

First, what did they expect Stephen Harper to say? What did they hope he would say?

Second, this was not a hypothetical question only inasmuch as Stephen Harper has two children, Benjamin who is 10 and Rachel who is 6. I'd say there was a fair chance they were watchin daddy in the debate. Did they turn to mom Laureen and ask why they were asking daddy about them? Is daddy going to be mad if I'm gay? And what does "gay" mean?

If Stephen Harper had a grown child who was openly gay, then just maybe there would be a legitimate question in there, somewhere, though I'm not certain what it would be.

But as it is, this was a mean-spirited moment.

Democratic Renewal

The Conservatives under Stephen Harper are making a serious go at fixing some major problems in the way democracy works in Canada.

Currently, Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister, essentially without any constraints or oversight, other than maintaining a certain number of Senators from different regions. As a result, the title of "Senator" is synonomous with patronage. Under the Conservatives, an election process will generate a list of senators for a region, and Stephen Harper has committed to appointing them.

Why not cut the PM out altogether? Ideally you would, but that would require constitutional changes, so this imperfect solution (what if Stephen Harper's successor prefered the old way -- nothing could legally stop him from going back) is probably the best that could be expected in a short time.

Frankly, I'm not sure I like the idea of electing senators. We already elect MPs. If senators represent regions, then maybe the premiers of the provinces in the region should be selecting them, or the premier and the provincial legislature. Still, this is definitely a step in the right direction.

And a heck of a lot more than the Minister of Democratic Renewal Belinda Stronach has done!

Second, fixed election dates. This removes the ability of the government to play games with the polls. This idea is a winner.

And a heck of a lot better than anything the Minister of Democratic Renewal Belinda Stronach has come up with!

Finally, candidates must be approved by the riding association, preventing "parachute" candidates. I'm not sure it would prevent them, but it would make it much more difficult to parachute in a candidate. But then selecting candidates is a party function, not a government function. Stephen Harper doesn't need to win an election in order to implement this plan within the Conservative Party. I don't know that a law forcing such a rule on other parties is appropriate either. Actually, it makes me nervous, because such a law would blur the line between government and party. I think this idea, though it sounds good, might not fly.

But even if it is a mistake, it's a mistake that came from trying, which is more than Minister of Democratic Renewal Belinda Stronach can say.

Beer or Kids? Apparently a tough choice

You know you've made it when you've been satirized by Rick Mercer.

I laughed loud when I saw Beer Not Kids appeared at Rick Mercer's blog earlier this week.

Last I checked, Kids was holding a tenuous 120 signature lead on Beer, but at the rate Beer was garnering votes, that might not last.

The real question is this:

Will Canadians make clear their preference for beer over kids in time to blunt the "beer and popcorn" attack that is expected to be leveled at Paul Martin in the debates tonight and tomorrow?

The Debates: The importance of momentum

Debates are unpredictable -- there is always a chance of a new "beer and popcorn" moment that defines the next phase of the campaign. Usually though, debates usually don't count for as much as some think.

This election, though, is different.

Andrew Stronach: Combining Hooters with Meals-on-Wheels

Sex sells.

And in the case of another one of Andrew Stronach's companies, you can rent it as well.

The Special Olympics and Babes, Boobs, and Betting

Brent Colbert looks over my post on Andrew Stronach's babes, boobs, and betting site, and notes that the SheTips gambling organization promises to support the Special Olympics.

Andrew Stronach is, of course, the brother of Human Resources Minister, Belinda Stronach.

Brent takes the initiative to ask the people at the Special Olympics about their relationship with SheTips, and this is what Kathleen Bell says, in part:

I cannot think of any reason as to why anyone would raise money through efforts like this. I would like to thank you for raising our attention to this, as I am going to look into this and remove our name if listed.

Read the whole thing.

Beer, popcorn, and the Internet

Technorati is listing literally page after page of blog posts with "beer and popcorn" as the topic. You have to go back nine pages of links before you find blogs mentioning "beer and popcorn" in a context other than discussing the Liberal Party's goal, revealed by Communications Director Scott Reid during a debate on CBC-TV, and confirmed later that day by Liberal Party strategist John Duffy on CTV's Question Period, to supplant the role of parents in Canada.

A round of the major papers online shows that the press is continuing to push the story. The petition and kidsnotbeer.com cracked the 2000 signature mark this morning, which is remarkable, since it means we accrued a couple of hundred signatures overnight, when Canadian web traffic is very low.

So with this level of interest, and Liberal attempts to divert attention falling flat, it is clear that "beers and popcorn" will play a major part in the leaders debate this week.

My appearance last night on Mike Duffy's Countdown on CTV (sorry, I can't find a podcast) seems to have been well-received, both by bloggers and by Real People who have been contacting me.

In the meantime, radio show interviews continue. I did 5 yesterday, including this one on CHQR in Calgary (go to the audio vault and listen at 6pm for Monday, December 12; I participated at about 6:40pm, Calgary-time). I have another one lined up for today with a Hamilton station.

The petition continues to be linked from multiple locations, including the CTV election blog and in this Ottawa Sun article. I'm certain other links exist.

The Abotech Affair: The Ottawa Citizen and "Identity Politics"

The Ottawa Citizen continues to consider aspects of the David Smith Abotech affair. As you recall, David Smith is the Liberal MP for the riding in Pontiac. His company Abotech, a computer consultancy firm that he runs out of his home, has had contracts with the federal government cancelled for...well...we don't know why, exactly.

What we do know, and what I've managed to find out, can be read in this series of posts.

One aspect of this story is David Smith's claim to be an aboriginal. This claim came late in life, and the leadership of the Kitigan Zibi band in Maniwaki, where David Smith grew up, has been quite vocal in disputing the legitimacy of that claim.

The editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen has decided to consider the question of "identity".

On Mike Duffy's Countdown

Tonight, on Mike Duffy's Countdown, Steve Janke, aka Angry in the Great White North, will be appearing as a guest to discuss the "beer and popcorn" controversy.

If you're interested, tune in to CTV NewsNet at 8pm EST, and again at 11pm. Check your local listings.

Sorry for the lack of posts today, but the "beer and popcorn" thing has taken over my day, with five separate interviews with radio stations during the day, two more tonight, and at least one for tomorrow. When things settle down, blogging will resume.

Belinda Stronach's link to online gambling

Gaming mogul Andrew Stronach

Most of us have relatives who we might not be particularly proud of.

But whatever their foibles, it isn't fair to blame you for your relative's indiscretions.

Normally, that should be true.

But if you are a Minister of the Crown, and your brother is involved in an ongoing money-making enterprise designed to evade our government's law enforcement, does that make it different?

Does a situation like that leave the Minister in a situation in which her powers and influence as a member of cabinet could be used to shield that sibling?

Does even the potential of such an abuse of power mean that Minister cannot, in all good faith, fulfill her role? Does the situation make her position untenable, constantly dealing with the suspicions that other ministers don't labour under?

It's not fair, I suppose, but doing the right thing is not always fair.

It's a complicated question.

Maybe we should be asking Belinda Stronach. It would seem that her brother, Andrew, is putting her in exactly this situation.

The "Kids Not Beer" Petition

The Canadian blogosphere is abuzz with the latest nugget of wisdom to fall out of the collective brain of the Liberal Party, as quoted in the Conservative Party email:

Today on a CBC panel, Paul Martin’s Communications Director Scott Reid said direct child care transfers to parents would be “spent on beer and popcorn.”

Later on CTV, Mr. Martin’s senior advisor John Duffy, said he stands by the statement.

Does Paul Martin also stand by the views of his senior-most campaign officials – that parents would choose “beer and popcorn” over quality care for their children?

See here and here.

I'm going to respond in detail later, but for now, consider the last part of that quoted email. Is Scott Reid speaking on behalf of Paul Martin on this matter?

Remember the words of Jean Chretien in his farewell speech:

My final message to you is simple. Trust Canadians. They are wise. They are generous. They care.

I would guess that Scott Reid didn't help write that speech. Funny thing is, Chretien's message seems to be resonating with the Conservatives. They intend to give every family in this country $1200 per child per year. Just hand over the money. No strings. No questions. No tests.

Why? Because Conservatives trust Canadians. Because Conservatives think Canadians are wise. Because Conservatives think Canadians are generous. Because Conservatives know Canadians care.

Too bad Jean Chretien passed the torch to people who seem to believe the opposite.

If you would like to know if Paul Martin thinks Canadians are untrustworthy and callous when it comes to the care of their children, sign this petition, and we'll see if we can get an aswer out of him.

Directly, mind you. Not through Scott Reid.

Canadian blogs get more respect than American blogs?

Seems like an odd thing to say, but at least according to this one measure, Canadian blogs are getting more respect.

From Michelle Malkin:

Hate to bother Mr. Crowley and his editors with some facts, but here's Matt Drudge on blogs from a Sunday London Times interview in April 2005:

Back in the 1990s Drudge was a believer in the empowering potential of the internet. In a speech he said, “We have entered an era vibrating with the din of small voices. Every citizen can be a reporter, can take on the powers that be.”

Now he sounds disillusioned and says that the “din” is growing into a cacophony: “There’s a danger of the internet just becoming loud, ugly and boring with a thousand voices screaming for attention.” He is no fan of the blogging phenomenon (weblogs linking sites): “I don’t read them. I like to create waves and not surf them. And who are these influential bloggers? You can’t name one because they don’t exist.”

Blog links on the Drudge Report are extremely rare. Glenn Reynolds' observation is right: "Drudge is, in fact, pretty aloof where the blogosphere is concerned."

In Canada, on the other hand, bloggers have been linked, infrequently but not all that rarely, side by side with links to articles in main stream media web sources on our premier news aggregators Bourque and NealeNews.

This has been particularly true when the blogs are covering a story being side-stepped by the main stream media. The income trust scandal is a case in point.

Does this mean that blogs in Canada are relatively more influential? Or that the main stream media is less compared to their American counterparts? Or that the Canadian blogosphere has not reached that "din" Matt Drudge seemed to hate so much?

Or is it merely a contrast in the personal styles of Matt Drudge, Pierre Bourque, and Brian Neale?

It's a hard question to answer today. We'll have to see how blogging develops on both sides of the border in the coming months and years.

No one likes a snitch

Robert McLelland at My Blahg is getting into the Income Trust game.

OK, not in a constructive way.

Another Liberal-tied trust and precisely timed profits

Cargojet Owner and CEO Ajay Virmani

Cargojet is a major supporter of the Liberal Party. Since 2003, the corporation has made $18,667 is donations the the Liberal Party, and only the Liberal Party.

The CEO and President of Cargojet, Ajay Virmani, has ties to the Liberal Party:

The Globe and Mail’s Jane Taber adds some interesting poop about the polluting plane--it's all about cronyism:

"The plane is owned by Ajay Virmani, a Toronto businessman, who last spring held a fundraising cocktail event at his lavish home for Mr. Martin. The Liberals leased his aircraft last year as well for their campaign. The NDP and Conservatives lease campaign aircraft from Air Canada. Mr. Virmani said that if he wasn't leasing his plane to Mr. Martin he'd be leasing it to someone else and it would still be flying around. He said there are 800 727s flying around today."

That event cost $5,000 a plate. I would have gone, but I had to wash my hair that day.

Virmani personally donated $10,000 to the Liberal Party in 2000.

Sales executive Jamie Porteous donated $10,000 to the Liberal Party in 2003. Chief Financial Officer Dan Mills also made a modest donation. All this is besides the lease and the lavish parties, of course.

Cargojet manages its public offering via an income trust fund. The history of recent trading is interesting.

On November 21, 12,725 units were traded.

On November 22, and 23, trading spiked at 39,112 and 47,157 units changing hands.

The price per unit before the announcement? $9.60.

The price per unit today? $10.00.

In the middle of November, the unit price was languishing at under $8.50. People were nervous about what the Liberal government had planned for income trusts:

Cargojet units rose 4 cents to close at $8.34 Friday on the Toronto Stock Exchange. That's down 15 per cent in the past month amid anxiety about the income trust sector, sparked by Ottawa's decision on Sept. 19 to halt advance tax rulings on new offerings, independent trust analyst Harry Levant said.

Virmani was actively involved in trying to influence Ralph Goodale:

Mr. Virmani, an influential fundraiser for the federal Liberals, said he has urged Finance Minister Ralph Goodale to protect existing trusts and preserve tax laws governing them while writing new rules for new entrants. "The government should grandfather the existing trusts for at least five to 10 years," he said. "If you want to change the rules, don't change them in the middle of the sixth inning."

Looking at this chart, it appears that someone got over their nervousness just in time.

Ajay Virmani owns 20% of Cargojet. Mills and Porteous own 5% each.

Though not as dramatic as the trading with Medisys, someone at Cargojet picked just to right time to grab a healthy chunk of units just before Ralph Goodale's office announced the favourable news on income trust taxation.

Another curious example of income trust trading, hitting close to home

A big hat tip to MK Braaten for this one.

The day before the November 23rd income trust announcement by Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, the shares were worth $10.80, and traded 5,714 units.

The day of the announcement, but before the announcement was made, the shares closed at $11.00, but were trading at an amazing 203,953 units!

The day after the announcement, the price continued to trend up, closing at $11.02.

This past Friday, the unit price closed at $13.25.

The trust fund in question? Medisys, the health care and pharmaceutical company run by Paul Martin's personal physician, Dr. Sheldon Elman.

Here's a visual representation of the activity. Look at that volume spike just before the announcement and the subsequent unit price racing up.

It's quite the turnaround. This time last year, the shares were trading at $4.25, with an expectation that in a year it would be trading at $4.00. This researcher had some harsh words:

Surprisingly weak quarter. Punctuates why Medisys is not ready to be an income trust.

The recommendation? Sell. The only hope for Medisys? More for-proft clinics opening nation-wide to improve cash flow.

In fact, in 2005, from a peak $15.21 in the summer, Medisys was on a downward trend, dropping 30% of its value until late November, earning another negative report on November 21, just two days before the income trust announcement.

I can only assume no one from Ralph Goodale's office called Jennings Capital Inc.

Whoever decided to ignore that negative report and picked up an astonishing 200,000 shares really picked exactly the right time.

I bet Dr. Elman will have a big smile on his face when Paul Martin comes for his next visit.

By the way, who owns Medisys? Well, when they converted into an income trust in November 2004, 45% of the issued and outstanding shares were owned by directors and senior management at Medisys.

Who are these people? One is former Liberal Senator Leo Kolber. Leo Kolber has donated nearly $60,000 to the Liberals since 1993, including $17,500 in 2002 through his company 87215 Canada Ltd.

Ironically, in his autobiography Leo, A Life this member of the pro-business wing of the Liberal Party speaks of his disappointment at the decline in business ethics.

I guess he must still be disappointed.

Deja vu all over again

Remember how in the 2004 election the Conservatives were hurt by some loose lips? A riding candidate makes a comment about abortion, and suddenly the party is scrambling to repair damage and shore up slipping support?

It suggested a party with some discipline or organizational problems. Perhaps not unexpected for the Conservatives, only freshly created from the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives, but regardless of the reason, it didn't help matters.

Now we see a hint of the same problem from the Liberals:

A prominent Liberal candidate in Quebec City apologized yesterday for saying that Quebec was a poor province dependent on Canadian federalism to keep itself afloat.

Helène Chalifour-Sherrer, Liberal Leader Paul Martin's former principal secretary and now a candidate in the Quebec City riding of Louis Hebert, said yesterday afternoon that, contrary to popular belief, Quebec "was a very poor province."

"People still have the impression that the province of Quebec is the milking cow for all of Canada. That is not the case. The province of Quebec needs equalization payments and money from Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia, otherwise it couldn't make ends meet," Ms. Chalifour-Sherrer said.

Well, needless to say, Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe is putting on a show of hurt pride, and his supporters are eating it up. Who can blame him? Chalifour-Sherrer gave the Bloc a huge gift, and perhaps even a couple of borderline ridings, though a lot can happen between now and January 23.

But I find it interesting that the problem is being exhibited by the Liberals. They are not a rookie party. Chalifour-Sherrer is certainly no neophyte to politics, have been at the center of power for some time (though she is a rookie when it comes to electioneering). She is most famously known for taking the credit for selecting Michaelle Jean for the job of Governor-General.

What has happened to the much vaunted Liberal election machine? This is just one incident, but is it a hint that the machine is not firing on all cylinders? Is the internal split between the Chretienites and the Martinites more serious than we thought, and setting up a situation where the Liberal Party discipline is breaking down?

Or is this just one isolated incident, soon to be forgotten?

The Handgun Ban -- The view of a law enforcement officer

It makes for an interesting read, touching on more than the Liberal Party view on handguns, but on crime and justice in general.

Names have been withheld in order to protect careers.

Banning Firearms -- The UK Experience

The only good thing to say about the Liberal Party promise to ban handguns in Canada is that at least it is an idea that has been tried. That means you don't have to get into hypothetical arguments. You can look at what has happened in other countries, and make a reasoned prediction of what will happen in Canada.

Well, the prediction is not pretty.

"I'm not an average Canadian, but I play one on TV."

As Warren Kinsella continues to harry the Liberals, I get the feeling that this is less about Warren's well known issues with Paul Martin, and more about a true believer in the Liberal Party driven to fight the corrupt and sleaze-ridden organization his beloved party has become.

I can respect that. But enough of my musings. Now to Warren's and the cost of being manipulative.

Another scandalous waste of money -- going back 30 years!

A tale of woe.

Or maybe "Whoah!", as in "Whoah! Ain't you burned enough of my money already?"

This time it is on the west coast, a story that I don't think gets much play outside of the Vancouver area.

It is about the Pacific Environment Centre. Never heard of it? Don't worry. Few have. Mostly because the centre has not actually been built, and yet you and I are stilling paying millions a year to rent the land.

Going back to 1974!

The CBC reports on the Income Trust scandal

The CBC is finally reporting on the Income Trust scandal, in which allegations have been made that senior officials in Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office tipped key investors to the planned announcement to not tax income trusts. That information allowed certain investors to position themselves for a handsome profit after the announcement was made.

This report, prepared by the CBC itself, doesn't add anything new to the story. But it is significant because it kicks off with Stephen Harper's call for Goodale's resignation.

And where does the government response appear? The obligatory statement that says that an investigation is underway, that Goodale acted responsibly, that no leaks happened, that the Conservatives are playing politics or jumping the gun or muddying the waters or this or that?

Nowhere. Not even a snide remark about Stephen Harper looking "angry" when he demanded Goodale's resignation.

Every single paragraph is a report on facts about the story, or a report on Stephen Harper's statements or on Conservative Party policy.

Well, there's something you don't see every day from the CBC. Maybe some folks at the CBC are starting to worry that they will be reporting to a new boss on January 23, and someone in the news department trying to make nice.

The Income Trust Scandal: Denials, challenges, admissions, and insults

CTV is now reporting a bizarre series of denials and grudging admissions surrounding the CTV story in which a senior director at an investment company a seniors' advocacy group claims that he was tipped by a senior member from Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office of the forthcoming announcement not to tax income trusts, but to reduce the taxation on stocks paying dividends.

The suspicion is that he flurry of market activity represented key investors using this inside information to position themselves to profit after the announcement was made.

Denials. Challenges. Grudging admissions. And even an insult! Do you get a feeling that a sense of panic setting in with some people connected with this story.

The Income Trust Scandal: An attempt to smear Warren Kinsella

Experienced political operator Warren Kinsella

A new twist to the story that someone in Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office called a senior investor at CARP, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, to let him know that an announcement would be made later that day that income trusts would not be taxed.

CARP's William Gleberzon, an associate executive director, told CTV news, point blank, that he received a call from a "senior policy advisor", delivering the inside scoop.

But now CARP is denying any of it happened.

They are trying to blame Warren Kinsella, but as far as I can tell, Kinsella didn't do anything wrong, while CARP seems to be engaged in some serious misquoting of Warren's blog entries.

I'm defending Warren Kinsella. Who'da thunk it?

The Abotech Affair: CBC Radio One to carry an interview with Julie Murray

I just got a call to let me know that Julie Murray, reporter for the West Quebec Post, who worked with me on publishing some of the elements of the Abotech affair involving Liberal MP David Smith of the riding of Pontiac, will be interviewed on CBC Radio One at 2pm (in about 10 minutes).

I can't listen to the radio here, but if anyone out there can tune in to CBC Radio One, let us know how the interview goes.

From this blog to the West Quebec Post to the Ottawa Citizen to CBC Radio One...

Update: This might not actually be a live interview. It might be a taped interview, segments of which would form part of a 3-minute news report to be aired during the news segments. Sorry, I'm not sure which it will be.

The Income Trust Insider Trading Scandal: Someone talked

We know have a major financial figure telling the press that he received a call from someone in Ralph Goodale's office, hours before the market closed and the official announcement was made not to tax income trusts.

This is shaping up to be a major story about the Liberals and how seriously they treat the rules that govern the rest of us.

Ralph Goodale: Looking closer to home for the enemy

The gauntlet has been thrown down with a call for the resignation of Finance Minister Ralph Goodale by a Conservative MP.

No surprise there.

But in this election period, some Liberal MPs might well be very nervous about holding their ridings while being weighed down by the scandal-ridden reputation of the Liberal Party. Can we expect some private, or even public, calls for Ralph Goodale to step down from Liberals as well?

More than one Liberal MP will consider whether he or she can win some local votes (and maybe scrape out a win) by being "the Liberal who took a stand against corruption".

Confiscating handguns and the question of compensation

Mark from Ottawa asks, "And will there be fair compensation for legally-registered handguns?"

Fair compensation might be pretty expensive.

No report yet about whether the government plans to compensate you if the Liberals are re-elected and fulfill their promise to confiscate all legally registered handguns, but understand that the government is under no obligation to compensate you for any property it decides to take away.

The Supreme Court said as much in the Authorson case:

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.

The Authorson case involved millions upon millions of dollars in interest owed to aging and dying veterans, and to their widows. The Mulroney government conceded that the money was owed, then passed a law that said they didn't need to pay it. The law was challenged, and defended by the Chretien government, ultimately resulting in the ruling above.

The prohibition against stealing has no legal force on the government, only on the citizens. Got that? Legally, the government can kick in your door, take whatever it pleases (as long the enabling legislation has been passed by Parliament and given Royal Assent), and there is nothing you can do about it.

You can sue, of course. But not on the basis of the government overstepping its bounds or infringing on your rights. When it comes to property, the Charter is silent. And in that void the government can do as it pleases, "restrained by no rule human or divine".

Isn't that exactly the reason the framers of the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights made certain that ownership of property and of firearms were basic rights?

The CBC apology is making the rounds

CBC PR Director Jason MacDonald

Several bloggers (here and here, for example) have reported receiving the following email. Mine appeared in my Inbox this morning:

On behalf of CBC/Radio-Canada, I would like to thank you for your e-mail regarding CBC News.

In your message you cited an e-mail sent out by a CBC News associate producer working on a news item about the federal election.

When CBC News management became aware of the e-mail in question, they looked into the matter and concluded that this action was indeed a breach of CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices - specifically issues pertaining to the appearance of partiality or perceptions of partiality in all stages of story production. As a result of this conclusion, disciplinary measures have now been taken.

We sincerely regret the incident. We take the issues of impartiality and objectivity very seriously.

The Journalistic Standards and Practices provide the policy framework within which CBC journalism seeks to meet the expectations and obligations it faces. CBC News management is now in the process of reinforcing to all news staff, the importance of adhering to the details of these Standards and Practices.

Please be assured that CBC/Radio-Canada’s news and current affairs services constantly strive for the utmost in fairness and balance in all of our reporting. I thank you for your message and appreciate you taking the time to write.

This is response, of course, to the story of the CBC producer looking for people "freaked out" scared of the Conservatives, but not interested in people disgusted with the Liberals, or otherwise annoyed with any other party.

The email was signed by Jason MacDonald, who is the Public Relations and Operations Director of the CBC in Ottawa, and is often the face of the CBC, as official spokesperson, when the CBC is the story.

What disciplinary measures? I hope it wasn't just a warning to be more careful in the future about getting caught. Still it looks our little email campaign got noticed.

Heh.

Just curious -- how many people actually emailed the CBC? I listed the email addresses for the entire CBC Board of Directors in an easy one-click link. Just how much trouble did I cause?

Crime is up -- time to punish law-abiding citizens

Gun crime is up in Toronto. Criminals using unregistered handguns have been shooting people, mostly each other.

There's an election on, so it's time to look tough. But criminals are hard to find, and they fight back.

Still, Paul Martin wants to be seen as doing something. How about all those law-abiding citizens who followed the law and registered their handguns?

They're probably going to vote Conservative anyway.

Let's punish them.

The Gun Registry -- "Minority Report" without the precogs

With the announcement from Paul Martin, if elected, to outlaw handguns in Canada, I have decided to go back through my blog (include my original Blogspot site) to find essays that discussed the effectiveness of this sort of approach to managing crime.

This essay was first posted on March 7, 2005.

Hostages on display

A still from the hostage video (click to enlarge)

The American and the British hostages in Iraq appear in a video, pleading that the US and the UK abandon Iraq.

Of course, along with the two Canadians who don't appear in the video, they've been making that plea since well before they were taken hostage.

Though we have to assume that they are in mortal danger, the fact that they don't plea for their lives, and have been on record as saying that if kidnapped, they wanted no rescue attempt made, one wonders just what is going on here.

Stable is in. Jesus is out.

Hmmm, it looks a bit empty when you take out Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Throw in some more farm animals. And make sure they're non-denominational!

One wonders just who thought this counted as a compromise:

Saying it would be "inappropriate" to include them, Memphis, Tenn., library officials have banned Mary, Joseph, Jesus and the wise men from a promotional nativity scene – leaving only the stable animals and a shepherd boy.

I wonder if the shepherd boy figure would be posed shrugging his shoulders, while the sheep are positioned as if looking around in other mangers to see if the Son of God is next door taking visitors.

According to a statement from ADF [the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization fighting the exclusion], the controversy arose when Brandi Chambless, a member of the music ministry at Broadmoor Memphis Church, submitted an announcement for display on the library's community shelves regarding the church's upcoming Christmas show. Library officials accepted the announcement but told Chambless that she would have to remove the "inappropriate" figures of the baby Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and the wise men from an accompanying nativity scene and limit it to farm animals alone.

"Now we've got a bunch of barnyard animals in our display. We've got a sheep, a goat, a cow," Chambless said last night on the Fox News Channel's "O'Reilly Factor." "We just think it's the most ridiculous thing."

A library is a place of culture and learning, and that should include the stories of various faiths. To remind visitors to the library of the well-known Biblical story of the Christian God-head being born under conditions of utter humility seems to be appropriate to the function of a library.

The Bible is a book, after all.

But then someone might be inspired by the display. Can't have inspiration happening on public property. What if someone sees it?

"So like I was looking at the manger thing and suddenly the guy beside me got all filled with a feeling of peace and made a silent promise to himself to try to be a better person and stuff. It was gross!"

A disconnect in the Conservative's Federal Accountability Act

Maybe it's just a matter of wording, but it strikes me that there is a disconnect in the details for the Federal Accountability Act being proposed by the Conservatives.

Hidden Agenda? Bad. Open Agenda? Bad.

There's no pleasing some people.

The Conservatives have been accused of having a "hidden agenda" -- a plan to do something bad once elected.

Pick your favourite cause -- for or against -- and there is someone out there who will tell you that the Conservatives plan to do exactly what you don't want them to do.

Typically, that someone works for the Liberal Party. The "hidden agenda" scare did a lot to hurt the Conservatives in the 2004 election.

So this time around, the Conservatives are spending the opening weeks of the campaign putting it all on the table. Here's what they promise to do. Some might like it, some won't -- but when you are looking at that ballot, you'll know what to expect from the Conservatives.

This is better, right? The media is going to give the Conservatives credit for eliminating the "hidden agenda" problem so effectively, right?

Wrong.

A mistake on the Conservate Party blog?

The Conservative Party blog makes a comment designed to inflame passions on the issue of Liberal Party policy on illegal drugs.

However, I think it might be a bit off on the facts.

Childcare thoughts

You'd think that with four children of my own, all five and under, I'd be talking more about the childcare options being presented by the Conservatives and the Liberals.

But then with clear-headed thinking like that at Babbling Brooks, I can take the lazy way out and just tell you to go read his analysis instead.

Hostile public opinion

Would you trust this guy to behave himself after being charged with multiple weapons offenses?

Our Chief Justice of the Supreme Court believes that she and her eight colleagues have a duty to ignore the written law passed by the people's legislators when a simple majority of them think that 25 million Canadians and their 300 representatives just aren't smart enough to get it.

A public figure, one of those same legislators, can steal a $50,000 piece of jewelry, and then run for re-election after suffering no legal repercussions.

And now, in Toronto, a black youth can be confronted by police in a mall crowded with families doing their Christmas shopping, resist arrest, have a .45-calibre handgun, cocked and loaded and with a round in the chamber, confiscated, then be released on bail, so that he can be arrested on suspicion of the murder of a car salesman a mere three weeks later over financing for a vehicle being turned down.

This election needs to be about law and order as much as it is about government corruption, and how government sleaze and the lack of respect for the rule of law is poisoning our society.

Our government and our judiciary is used to ignoring hostile public opinion. Maybe we're just not being hostile enough.

Carnival of Liberty XXIII

The 23rd Carnival of Liberty is up, and Canada's talkative Supreme Court Chief Justice and her support for the oligarchy of the judiciary makes an appearance.

The Abotech Affair: More local politics

The fight for the riding of Pontiac is getting nasty.

Not only is the incumbent, Liberal MP David Smith, under attack for ethical questions currently under investigation by the Ethics Commissioner and the legitimacy of his claim to aboriginal status, now the Conservative challenger, Lawrence Cannon, is under review for expenses he claimed during his work for the City of Gatineau.

Pontiac is shaping up to be one of the more interesting ridings to follow in this election.

Maybe if Svend Robinson had stolen some chicken...

"But I'm crying. People who cry shouldn't go to jail, should they?"

Maybe then he would have faced severe consequences, given that an 85-year-old woman suffering from Alzheimer's was read the riot act and banned from a major supermarket chain for having pocketed three bucks worth of chicken while in a daze.

Svend Robinson lifts a $50,000 antique ring for his boyfriend, realizes he was caught on tape, hires an expensive lawyer, cries on camera, and gets off without even a slap on the wrist.

And now he is an NDP candidate again.

Jack Layton would do well to leave all the condemnation of Liberal ethical lapses to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Judicial activism is necessary, says Canadian Chief Justice

Canada's Chief Justice formalizes the legal principle of "making it up as we go along"

And they say Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is scary.

The Abotech Affair: Questions reported in the Ottawa Citizen

The problems for David Smith continue to grow. An issue first raised on this blog is now gaining some national notice.

As you might recall, David Smith is the Liberal MP representing the riding of Pontiac in Quebec. He once ran a computer consulting firm called Abotech out of his home, but when he was elected to Parliament in June 2004, he transfered ownership and control of the firm to his wife, Anne Ethier, a nurse.

Abotech has been targeted by a KPMG audit at Public Works. The recipient of over a million dollars in government contracts over the last five years, Abotech has seen some contracts summarily terminated.

Why? The government insists that it was over the way the contracts were awarded, and not because of any problems with the way Abotech did the work. In any case, David Smith insists he doesn't know what is going on in the company, even about the terminated contracts.

David Smith is now under formal investigation by the Ethics Commissioner.

Among the questions raised in this blog, and there were many questions raised: Just how legitimate is David Smith's assertion that he is an aboriginal?

Abotech is listed in the government's Aboriginal Business Directory, making it eligible for contract set-asides, that is, work protected from the standard open bidding process and specifically available for aboriginal businesses only. The only person punished so far in this case (that we know about) is a bureaucrat for Consulting and Audit Canada (a part of PWGSC, recently disbanded). Frank Brazeau, interestingly enough, was charged with reporting on CAC's progress on meeting aboriginal set-aside targets.

Frank Brazeau worked with David Smith as secretary for the local Liberal Party riding association.

Sources in the Maniwaki community have also made the claim that Frank Brazeau and David Smith are cousins.

So is part of the mysterious problems revealed by the KPMG audit related to aboriginal set-asides? Did David Smith and Abotech somehow profit from David Smith's political and family relationship with Frank Brazeau?

But is Abotech even an aboriginal firm? Just how legitimate is David Smith's claim? You can read my investigation on this topic, but now the same questions are being raised by the NDP candidate for Pontiac, Celine Brault. And the issue has hit the pages of the Ottawa Citizen.

I hadn't thought of that!

From reader EBD, commenting at small dead animals on the topic of the Ottawa Citizen carrying elements of the David Smith investigation:

Congratulations, Angry, for showing the MSM how it's done. This is a story without a quick punchline; it required a lot of inference and intelligence to get to the bottom of it. Diligence, too. This result -- MSM traction, as you put it -- couldn't come at a better time.

There is a downside, though -- you can forget about your Senate seat.

No Senate seat?! I hadn't thought of that!

Ah crud!

I guess it's too late to take it all back.

The Abotech Affair: Local politics

From the Ottawa Citizen, an editorial by West Quebec Post editor Fred Ryan, explaining how very different this election is going to be for David Smith, Liberal MP from the riding of Pontiac, currently embroiled in the Abotech affair, and the people of this often overlooked riding.

Nominated Best Canadian Blog

I've been nominated for Best Canadian Blog for the 2005 Weblog Awards. Do you think I deserve to win in this category? If so, follow the link and put in your vote. If not, then go visit the voting page anyway, and you're certain to find a Canadian blog worthy of your vote.

You can vote once every 24 hours. Voting starts tomorrow, December 5, and will close December 15.

Update: A planned rollout and an unplanned technical glitch means the polls will opening of the course of today.

Who's the Grinch?

Is Stephen Harper the Grinch for pushing a non-confidence vote that resulted in a Christmas election?

Is Paul Martin the Grinch for not accepting a compromise promoted by the Opposition that would have seen the election kicked off in January?

Or is the Grinch Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer and head of Elections Canada?

Did you know that Election Canada employees have to work on Christmas Day? Not just manning the phones but actually sitting in the local offices.

With all candidates + campaign workers taking the day off, and voting day a month later, why should their Christmas Day with family be ruined?

Good question, posed by a knowledgable person in an email to me.

This is the longest election campaign in years, in part because of the break everyone will be taking for Christmas. Perhaps Mr Kingsley can explain to the press what exactly the working hours for his staff will be over Christmas, and why.

More common ground between the NDP and the Conservatives -- Health care

In these early days of the election, a lot of people are considering how best to counter the Liberal strategy of scaring NDP voters into voting for the Liberals as a strategic way to avoid a Conservative government.

The obvious way is to show how a Conservative government could be a useful partner to the NDP (see here and here and here).

One difficult nut to crack would be health care -- I would have thought that the NDP and Conservative approaches to health care were irreconcilable.

Turns out I was wrong.

Being wrong can be a good thing.

Canadian military rushing to buy equipment

In February 2006, Operation ARCHER will see 2,000 Canadian soldiers attempting to stabilize the situation in the Kandahar region of Afghanistan.

In a brilliant bit of planning, all sorts of new equipment is being purchased now, less than three months from deployment.

Of course, the election might have something to do with it. Not the mission, the election.

Needless to say, not everything will arrive on time, and one important item is missing.

Calling all union members and NDP supporters

From Alex, posting a comment on this blog on the issue of auto union president Buzz Hargrove's endorsement of Paul Martin and the Liberals over Jack Layton and the NDP:

I'm a member of the CAW, and am mightily pissed at Hargrove telling us who to vote for, as if we are a bunch of imbeciles that need to be led. FU** off Buzz and take that union hating SOB Martin with you.

Let's hear from some more union members. Does Buzz Hargrove speak for you? Does his endorsement of Paul Martin carry any weight? Or does it work in the other direction?

And for people supporting the NDP: what the heck are you doing reading this blog? OK seriously, does Hargrove's move hurt or help? What should NDP candidates be telling people in the riding?

The Liberal illusion continues to evapourate

From the Toronto Star:

A local Liberal says he is so disillusioned with Liberal candidate Michael Ignatieff being parachuted into the Etobicoke-Lakeshore riding that he is seriously considering running against him.

Bruce Davis, a Toronto school board trustee and well-connected Liberal, told the Star he is pondering whether to run as an independent candidate in the Jan. 23 federal election.

I wonder just how widespread this disillusionment is. In elections past, cynicism about the Liberals was overcome by carefully directed social spending and negative campaigning aimed at the Conservatives.

But this time around, the Liberal Party has become an obstacle to...something...everything.

An era of small government. A commitment to true progressivism. A permanently unified Canada. A Canada that finally dissolves.

It's different things for different people. But whatever it is they want, the Liberals are now in the way.

The illusion of the Liberals being all things to all people has evapourated. The experience of the last 17 months -- corporate tax cuts, no corporate tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, just as an example -- seems to have revealed the Liberals to be quite the opposite.

All things to all people? No. Just one thing to one group of people -- the means to power and wealth for the Liberal Party and its friends.

And for people like Bruce Davis seeing another elite Liberal friend getting a leg up by the party that is supposed to the friend of average Canadians, any effort is worth putting an end to it.

The Deck of Liberals

Check out the whole deck.

Can the Conservatives and NDP find common ground on defence?

At first, you'd think no. The Conservatives want to increase military spending, while the NDP kneejerk reaction is move spending from military to social programs.

But the NDP is a complex party. The environmentalists are the primary anti-military wing, but with the Green Party becoming a legitimate choice for votes, that wing might move their votes to the Greens where they are more at home. If they abandon the NDP, their influence would be minimal.

That leaves nationalists and unionists. The unionists would actually support increased military spending, as long the idea was sold as a means of creating jobs in the Canadian manufacturing sector.

The nationalists could be convinced that one of the major reasons Canada is forced to toe the American line is that this nation is unable to field a credible defence force. That limits our sovereignty in matters of northern affairs, border controls, and in influence at the UN. Revitalize the military, and Canada can begin to act in its own interests separate from the Americans, but in a way that would be taken seriously at home, in Washington, and around the world.

Ballistic missile defence? Helping in Iraq? Well, there are always going to be areas where compromise is going to be hard, but no one is expecting this to be easy.

Nevertheless, I think there are opportunities for the Conservatives and the NDP to sell increased military spending to their supporters. It's all in the packaging.

Lightening up

Maybe I'm in a better mood today, but I really enjoyed the December 2 entries of the Liberal Blog.

I actually laughed out loud:

Dear Blog Boy: Do you get to write whatever you want? Can you get the PM to say whatever you write? - B.M.

Ha, ha. You're funny! Remember how much Gollum cared about the ring? Well, compared to the PM's interest in speeches, Gollum lacked commitment.

And the Gigantron joke...giggle.

But for serious discussion of issues, the Conservative Blog still wins.

The Abotech Affair: One World Government Update

As you might recall, Liberal MP David Smith representing the riding of Pontiac, who is currently embroild in the Abotech affair, had an interesting meeting in September 2004 with a constituent, Jim Stark, who is promoting a planet-wide one world government.

At that meeting, as described by Stark, David Smith thought Canadians might be ready for this idea and promised to show the proposal to his "friend", Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew.

I wrote to Jim Stark to ask how things have progressed. Stark wrote back:

I became quite frustrated with the slow pace of events regarding David's efforts to assist in this cause, but it is often difficult for "ordinary" MPs to get ministers to move. David did get me a meeting with Pettigrew's top advisors, but that was on the very day of the terrorist attack on London (August 9, if memory serves), so as one would expect, the meeting was shortened. It was also not terribly productive.

David's office is still working to see if the Liberal government has any interest in this concept, and apparently the Minister took a decision with regard to my "file" ... just before the election was called. Whether I will ever learn what that decision was is up in the air, since we are now in election mode, and it would appear that the final result of the election is quite unclear.

Jim Stark's memory is faulty. The London Bombings are often called "7/7", refering to the date July 7, when Islamic terrorists exploded four bombs in London, killing 56 people.

So at least 10 months pass before David Smith can get a meeting with Pierre Pettigrew's advisors (his "friend" Petttigrew was too busy), and then it happens on the day of the London bombings!

Then almost five months go by, and just as David Smith got Pierre Pettigrew to take a "decision", the election was called.

Darn.

OK, sounds to me David Smith was looking for excuses to explain why he got nothing accomplished. A meeting on the same day as the London Bombings? Well, I guess it's better than my dog ate the plan for one world government.

Lost missile launchers: updates

The Ottawa Citizen is carrying more information on the M113 APCs lost near Toronto:

One truck driver's confusion is to blame for a bizarre incident involving three police forces, the Canadian military and a tractor-trailer loaded with armoured vehicles bearing anti-tank missile launchers, police said Friday.

Now they are anti-tank missiles (probably M113A3 with TOWs, which I gather is fielded by the Canadian army) instead of anti-aircraft launchers, as was reported earlier.

Also, the original story reported that "several cruisers were needed" to stop the truck.

When confronted by police on Highway 407, just northwest of Toronto, the driver pulled over without incident.

"There wasn't a pursuit," said Okposio, who added that additional police were called in as a precaution.

So what happened?

"The military contracted a company to deliver some armoured personnel carriers to Montreal," said Peel Regional Police Const. Dameon Okposio.

"The driver was pre-occupied with some personal and family issues and got confused about the shipment date. That's where everything began to spiral out of control."

Nothing to see here people. Move on, please.

Missile launchers discovered near Toronto a day after they were supposed to be in Montreal

Firing an ADATS missile (click to enlarge)

Just what exactly was a truck carrying Army missile launchers doing on a highway near Toronto a day after it was supposed to deliver the load to a depot in Montreal?

The Abotech Affair: A business that takes care of itself

One of the questions surrounding the Abotech affair is how does Anne Ethier, David Smith's wife, run the business?

Apparently, it's not too hard:

Smith himself protested his innocence during a visit to Wakefield last week, arguing that regardless of the appearance of conflict of interest, he followed federal ethics guidelines when elected in June 2004. He also said he didn’t know why the two recent contracts were cancelled and added he and his wife never talk business at home, painting a picture of a business that takes care of itself.

“You’re a specialist in communication, and you’re looking for a specialist in communication. We do an RFP (request for proposal) and we place you. We accept you. We pick up five per cent commission on what you do as work. It’s not very hard. How much work is there to do in that? What management is there to do in that? Once a month we send a bill. How much time does it take to send a bill? My wife does that…and we didn’t solicit anything in new business after that,” he said.

So Abotech is a shell company that just helps connects contractors with the government, and takes a slice off the top, thus increasing the cost to you and me. As he said, "How much work is there to do in that?"

Now a question to answer is whether any of the contracts were aboriginal set-asides, and what exactly did KPMG find so offensive about this that contracts had to be terminated?

Remember that $200,000 in contracts were cancelled (part of the $1,000,000 or more in contracts that Abotech allegedly had with the federal government in the last 5 years). Does that mean that the contract between the government and the person doing the work was worth $200,000, and that Abotech picked up 5% of $200,000, or $10,000, in commission?

Or did the $200,000 represent the 5% commission, meaning that this work involved moving contracts worth upwards to $4,000,000?

The Abotech Affair: David Smith, Mole for the Orwellian New World Order

A second little tidbit about David Smith, Liberal MP for Pontiac, embroiled in what I call the Abotech affair.

The focus has been on whether David Smith was using his questionable status as an aboriginal and his family ties in Consulting and Audit Canada to land contracts for his consulting firm Abotech, or whether that is a smokescreen to distract from a more serious problem within CAC with regards to the management of all contracts.

What I haven't touched on is the third, and perhaps most frightening, facet of this case: David Smith's agenda to impose a single planet-wide government!

David Smith -- mole for the New World Order!

Buzz Hargrove supports the Liberals

Like we needed more evidence of the lack of ethics in union leadership:

It's an embrace that is sure to drive the NDP nuts: Buzz Hargrove, head of the Canadian Auto workers union, threw his support behind Prime Minister Paul Martin, tellling his union members that their best interests are not served by the NDP, but by a minority Liberal government.

Hargrove also gave Martin a union jacket, and the two embraced at the union's annual meeting.

Who really believes that Paul Martin, who mans his CSL ships with cheap East European sailors, is a real friend of unionized Canadian labour?

Hargrove abandons Jack Layton and the NDP despite the fact that it is the NDP that has been pushing an auto industry aid package as a platform plank. The NDP has made it clear that support for this package which will be a requirement for NDP support in a minority government.

Does Buzz Hargrove not think the NDP will be holding the balance of power in the next Parliament?

I think Jack Layton needs to seriously consider who his real friends are, and who he can trust, friend or not.

Will this push Jack Layton even further over to a working relationship with Stephen Harper and the Conservatives? Will Jack Layton start to work hard to counter the negative image of Stephen Harper being promulgated in the press, in order to keep skittish NDP supporters from bolting to the Liberals, as Buzz Hargrove is recommending?

And if the Conservatives and the NDP form the next government, what could this mean for Buzz Hargrove?

I don't for a second think Layton and Harper actually like each other. But they can respect each other. I doubt either would use the word "respect" to describe their feelings of Paul Martin and the Liberals.

You don't have to like someone to trust him.

The Abotech Affair: David Smith, Aboriginal Leader

From September 2004 issue of Livewire, the online newsletter for the Young Liberals of Canada:

The 2004 federal election saw an unprecedented number of high-profile Aboriginal candidates run for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Many Aboriginal MPs are already making their mark on the Canadian political establishment.

Elected for his first time a Quebec Aboriginal leader David Smith was elected in the riding of Pontiac, Quebec. [emphasis added]

It's a minor thing, really, but with all the questions swirling around the legitimacy of David Smith's claim to some sort of aboriginal status, one wonders if his status as an "aboriginal leader" is in jeopardy.

Of course, the only reference to backbench MP David Smith as a leader, aboriginal or otherwise, seems to appear in this Liberal newsletter.

Do I look like Goldilocks?

Goldilocks, of course, was the little girl face with three choices -- porridge that was too hot, porridge that was too cold, or porridge that was lukewarm.

Since we were children, we've been taught that the lukewarm porridge was "just right". The other two choices were extremes, and fit only to be dismissed.

Well, it's time to grow up people.

First of all, there was no Goldilocks. In the earliest version of the story, it was an "umpudent, bad old woman" who entered the bears' home. When she flees from the cottage through the bedroom window at the climax of the story, the author ponders if she broke her neck in the fall.

So now that we've destroyed one cherished childhood notion, it's time to destroy another one.

The middle is not always the best choice. Indeed, it often turns out to be the worst.

Paul Martin tosses out the notion of cabinet solidarity

In his scramble to repair the damage being caused by star candidate Michael Ignatieff, Prime Minister Paul Martin has made an alarming blanket statement:

Liberals who support the war in Iraq have the right to express those pro-war beliefs even if they contradict the official government position, Prime Minister Paul Martin says.

Martin flatly rejected calls to bring into line star Liberal candidate Michael Ignatieff, who came under fire Wednesday from New Democrats who attacked his foreign policy positions. "We're a political party," Martin replied. "Members are entitled to express their opinions."

As is typical for this prime minister, when he panics, he babbles. Not all members are entitled to express their opinions:

Cabinet solidarity means that all members of cabinet must support cabinet decisions. Cabinet ministers cannot dissociate themselves from or repudiate the decisions of their cabinet colleagues unless they resign from the cabinet.

Cabinet ministers must declare their opinions as cabinet decisions are made, and must maintain cabinet confidentiality once cabinet decisions are made.

Now Michael Ignatieff is not in cabinet. He's not even a member of the caucus. So technically, he can say whatever he wants. But the prime minister has undermined one the fundamental principles of parliamentary government in trying to minimize the damage caused by Ignatieff's statements.

The Liberal Party seems to spend a lot of time undermining government in order to hold on to power.

The Tories and the NDP -- areas for agreement

This?

Or this?

Since we are almost certainly heading for a minority government, one of the questions facing political leaders is where there are possibilities for formal or informal coalitions.

The standard pairings have been Liberal+NDP and Conservatives+Bloc.

The danger has always been that any pairing with the Bloc will paint the other partner as a separatist, or so power hungry that they are willing to dance with the separatists.

Of course, with the stench of corruption so strong, a pairing with the Liberals runs the risk of similarly staining the other partner.

So both the Conservatives and the NDP have problems with their traditional partners.

So why can't they dump both, and join up?

The obvious reason is that oil and water don't mix. But then, how far apart are they, really?

What do the Pope, the Virgin Mary, and the Crucifix have in common?

If you are a clueless lesbian in British Columbia, absolutely nothing!

From the ruling of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in the clueless lesbians versus some Catholic guys trying to be true to their religion:

There is no question that these items ["the crucifix, a picture of the ascension of the Virgin Mary, a picture of the Pope and pictures of the leaders of the Knights"] were displayed in the Hall. However, the Panel accepts the evidence of the complainants that they did not take notice of these items. ... Even if the complainants had noticed those items, the Panel is not persuaded that they would have made the connection between them, the Knights, and the fact that the Hall was a building with religious significance that may have had restrictions as to the types of events that could take place there." [emphasis added] (para. 83)

I haven't read the ruling, but I know a lawyer who has. Bob at Let It Bleed did read the whole thing, and it is a mess.

Remember, the fools who wrote this ruling are the people tasked to protect human rights in BC.

This is why Canada is really a dangerous place. Instead of human rights being inalienable, as they are in the United States, in Canada they are fundamental, which merely means they are basic, but not that they can't be abrogated.

Something that is "inalienable" is something that cannot be transferred or surrendered. If something is "fundamental", it just means you can't decompose it into smaller bits.

So in Canada, we hope that our fundamental but not inalienable human rights are protected by tribunals populated by people who frankly couldn't string a logical sequence of thoughts together if their lives depended on it. Of course, their lives don't depend on it.

But your rights, and mine, do.

Cutting the GST -- a good start

Normally, a cut in an income tax is preferred to a cut in a consumption tax, simply because every pays income tax, while you have some control over your level of consumption.

The problem is that in Canada, the situation is inverted. The personal exemption means that not everyone pays income tax. On the other hand, the sheer breadth of items aqnd services covered by the the 7% GST means that everyone, even those who pay no income tax, pay an additional 7% for anything and everything.

So a cut in the GST will affect everyone in a positive way. Of course, the wealthier members of society who sepnd more will see a larger difference in their large bills, but then the same generally goes for income tax changes too. On the other hand, since the GST applies to just about everything, the poorer members of society have to carry a relatively heavier load, since they can least part with any percentage of their meagre income.

But there is another big difference. When the government cuts my income tax, I can take the difference an put it into savings, or debt reduction, or more spending. The only immediate benefit I see from a reduction in the consumption tax is when I consume.

That would be a problem if I don't spend much, but I carry a large debt load. I appreciate that. But I think the Conservatives, with their promise to drop the GST by 1% immediately and another 1% soon after, if elected, are sending a message. A Conservative government wants people to engage in commerce again. That is the engine of the economy and a generator of jobs.

Of course, an income tax is a tax on jobs and discourages work. Moreover, employer taxes such as CPP and EI contributions discourages hiring. So to get the economy firing on all cylinders, I hope the Conservative match cuts in the GST with cuts on income taxes and on employer fees.

The downside, of course, will be less money for such government programs as the CBC, the gun registry, multiculturalism, the CRTC....

Looking around the riding

Driving home through the riding of Ajax-Pickering, just east of Toronto, I am struck by the number of CPC signs. The local candidate, Rondo Thomas, has big signs on every corner, on many light standards, on fences -- you see them everywhere.

The incumbent, Mark Holland, seems absent by comparison. Yesterday he was completely missing. This morning his signs are starting to appear, but lagging behind.

Why was the Conservative team so quick off the mark? Is it just a matter of a day or two and the Liberals will be out there too?

But then all of the best spots will have been taken.

Or is it the Liberal strategy of doing most of their campaigning after the Christmas break? But I thought that only applied at the national level.

Or is it a sign of a Liberal Party finding it hard to find volunteers? We've heard rumours that would-be volunteers are staying at home, finally fed up with the corruption.

I'll keep an eye out and let you know.

The Orange Revolution in our backyard

Democracy in action. A Liberal Party nightmare?

The riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore is the site of the new Orange Revolution:

Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" of 2004-2005 was a series of protests and political events that took place throughout the country in response to allegations of massive corruption, voter intimidation and direct electoral fraud during Ukraine's Presidential Run-off Election of November 21, 2004, as reported by numerous domestic and foreign observers.

Massive corruption? Voter intimidation? Electoral fraud? Here in Canada? But these are things you find in countries where the governing party has no respect for democracy, where the ruling party has a sense of entitlement to power, where the party sees elections as a formality or a ceremony to celebrate their rule and not an obligation to submit to the judgment of the electorate.

Well, maybe that summarizes Canada after all.

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.