The Files of the Phantom Observer

The Last Post ...

2006-01-01T10:50:00.000-05:00

... sort of. Fact is, one of my New Year's resolutions was to do a site revamp, so I've shifted to a new server (Yahoo) and a new blogging engine (Wordpress).

My intention is to have my new address at www.phantomobserver.com. At the moment, though, there are issues to be ironed out (technical transference -- I'm not sure if the problem is at Yahoo's end or at DomainDirect, but I expect to find out by the end of this week).

In the meantime, though, I'm not letting this keep me from effective blogging. So here is my cureent, temporary blog address:

http://p6.hostingprod.com/@phantomobserver.com/blog/

This is the site that should eventually hook into the above phantomobserver.com bill. If you have any comments about the new site, feel free to post them over there.

UPDATE (14h02): www.phantomobserver.com is now active!

Happy Holidays

2005-12-22T10:46:00.000-05:00

I suppose I could easily say "Merry Christmas," but for me Christmas is a specific day. Whereas my workplace is giving me seven off. So it's Holidays, plural.

My plans? Well, I'm taking a break from blogging, but I'm not going to ignore this blog. I'm definitely going to switch bloghosts in the New Year, using Wordpress as my new publishing platform. I'm trying to decide between 3shost.com (which Andrew of BBG is using) and Yahoo (which is one of the host sites recommended by Wordpress). My reason for switching is that I want some flexibility to set up RSS as well as create a more customized design.

That, of course, means artwork. I'm midway through creating a new title banner (featuring a brand-new ID logo) using Flash MX (vector-graphic illustration). I'm also creating a new graphic for the Red Ensign Brigade blogroll on my page, inspired by Castle Arrgh's graphic plus a previous effort.

I'm also spending much of Boxing Week on the road. I couldn't get to Miami this year (still too high for my budget), so I'm settling for a couple of days in Washington, DC (cue The West Wing theme). My plans include the Museum of the American Indian as well as the Spy Museum and the Air & Space Museum Udvar-Hazy Center (where the Space Shuttle Enterprise is housed). Naturally I'm taking pictures, which I'll post when I get back. I may blog, depending on whether I find an Internet cafe. (I don't plan on Blackberrying for another couple of years).

To everyone in the Brigade, the Blogging Tories and the Canadian Conversation: have a safe and comforting season.

Ottawa-Centre: Guess Who's Late

2005-12-20T10:22:00.000-05:00

The Ottawa Citizen reported this morning that two of the candidates, Keith Fountain and Richard Mahoney, weren't registered as candidates. Keith posted up a refutation on his blog, complete with link to the Elections Canada website, showing that he was indeed a registered candidate.

I don't think we should jump on reporter Carly Weeks too hard; there's often a time lag between when a story is finally written up and when it's approved for publication, during which Keith's approval may have come through to be listed.

Besides, the story's still somewhat timely. Here, according to Elections Canada, is the list of registered candidates for Ottawa Centre as of 10:31 a.m., 20 December:

Candidates in your electoral district
David Chernushenko (Green Party of Canada)
Paul Dewar (New Democratic Party)
Keith Fountain (Conservative Party of Canada)

Guess which name is still missing?

Ottawa-Centre: Summing Up the Candidate Blogs

2005-12-20T08:45:00.000-05:00

Well, after 3 weeks, the candidates in Ottawa-Centre have all hit the groove for serious campaigning, including their blogs. I've always maintained that you can tell a lot about a candidate's campaign by their blogs, and the 3 major candidates (the Greens don't count, sorry) have done enough blogging that people can draw conclusions about them:

Keith Fountain-- His is the oldest, and the most traditionally formatted of the candidate blogs. This isn't a surprise, since it's based on a Blogger/Blogspot-driven template; compared with the other candidates, Keith's is a low-budget blog. He updates about every four days, and he keeps his text general-purpose but strictly business. He does have a talent for writing about local issues without sounding like he's copying Tory talking points, which keeps him from coming across like the TCFlogger. He has the Blogging Tories blogroll listed, so he's willing to network with the online Tory community. His blog allows moderated commentary for each entry, and he also lists an e-mail address.

Paul Dewar-- his blog went online about a week after the election was called, as a component of his website. It's a group blog, with entries written by individual staffers as well as by Paul himself. With that many people you'd think there'd be more entries, but the blog itself is updated about every 5 days. As to be expected with group blogs, writing quality and subject matter is uneven, ranging from the bland but serviceable (Dewar himself) to the ridiculous (a campaign toque?). Individual entries do not have their own links, and there is no archiving. There is no public commentary, but clicking on each blog author's name will enable you to leave e-mail to the site. In short, this blog is pretty weak, but it may still have value: because local campaigns are group efforts, this blog has the potential to give the most accurate portrayal of the efforts of staffers involved, and not just the candidate.

Richard Mahoney -- he started keeping an online walker's diary about 10 days after the election was called. The diary is documentation of his "Steps Count" campaign to raise money for the Ottawa Food Bank, but for the most part it does follow the format for a blog, since the latest entries are featured prominently on the English-language index page of his site. His diary is updated daily, including distance walked and doors knocked on. Entries tend to focus on personal experiences during the campaign, such as meeting with constituents or attempting to recover from the cold. Entries are also accompanied by photos. Apart from the e-mail address on his "Contact Us" page, there is no provision for feedback.

Now, I know that when it comes to campaigns, pavement-pounding has a better impact on the electorate than blogging or other online presence. Nonetheless we can still come to a few conclusions. When it comes to blogging, Keith has the edge in experience and in utilization of blogging resources, but those resources are limited. Richard has learned quickly about the blogging format, including portraying the travails of a candidate on the trail with sincerity, but his lack of a feedback mechanism shows he has a way to go. Paul is probably the least effective blogger due to the group nature of his blog.

I'm actually starting to look forward to the all-candidates' meeting in January ...

Alex Munter Takes a Leak

2005-12-19T09:11:00.000-05:00

The Canadian Press has publicly revealed that Alex Munter was the source of the revelation for Stephen Harper's 1997 speech to the Council for National Policy. Mr. Munter, an Ottawa politician and gay activist, is working for the Paul Martin campaign:

Munter contacted a Canadian Press reporter travelling with the Conservative campaign offering up an old Harper speech that an acquaintance of his, as Munter put it, stumbled upon while browsing the Net.

The reporter passed Munter's tip along to the CP election desk in Ottawa for consideration.

Munter asked to remain anonymous as the source of the tip. Contacted by CP's election desk, he also vigorously denied acting with any partisan direction.

After some deliberation, CP ran a story outlining the main speech points, citing the source of the tip simply as a political opponent of Harper. The story was immediately leapt upon by the Liberal war room as evidence the Conservative leader is outside mainstream Canadian opinion.

[Later,] The Canadian Press learned that Munter was in Vancouver with the Liberal team, working with Martin on debate preparations.

Munter, contacted again Thursday, was repeatedly asked whether the Liberal party had any connection to his suggesting CP look for the story.

Each time, Munter evaded the question.

"I am not a card-carrying member of any political party," he said.

Translation: he didn't pay any membership dues. But Alex Munter's career is exactly the type who'd have the most to lose from a national Conservative government.

"The Liberal party was not a factor in my letting CP know about this story.

"I wasn't calling on behalf of the Liberal party, I was calling on my own and it was up to CP whether it ran the story or not."

You know what this sounds like? The Gurmant Grewal excuse -- independent action with plausible deniability from the leadership. The main difference is that Grewal's actions can be chalked up to juvenile naiveté. Munter's a veteran politician; he doesn't get that excuse.

Munter eventually offered that the speech was found by a friend "who is something of a whiz on the Internet."

He was asked if his friend had any connection with the Liberal war room. He said he didn't know, but finally conceded: "He is a Liberal."

Understand this: as far as Liberal dirty tricks go, this is pretty tame. Had a CP reporter actually dug up the speech, it would still have gone over the press wire. But this was just a leak with partisan motives. In a campaign like this, it's par for the course.

Would CP have gone with the story if it had known that the source was a Liberal? Probably, but with better context; the public would be more disposed to discount the speech's impact due to partisanship.

Munter's denials, though, are somewhat telling. The fact that he was willing to leak shows that he's not afraid to skirt the ethical edge; however, he is afraid of being identified as a Liberal. When a party's supporters don't want to be identified as such -- well, that says something, doesn't it?

Chocolate Nostril Prize Nominee: Jeremy Hunt

2005-12-17T16:54:00.000-05:00

It's impossible to avoid in real life, and especially so in politics. There will always be people who try to get ahead by sucking up to the candidate or cheerlead for the cause. I believe the normal term for it is "brown-nosing."

I've seen this quite a bit during the last parliamentary session, usually during Question Period when a Liberal backbencher asks a question of a minister with an obvious partisan bent. I had an idea for a blogger's award in the next session, right next to the Ken Epp Award: the Chocolate Nostril Prize, awarded to that political personality who displays a supreme example of brown-nosing.

However, it seems I need to start the nominations early, thanks to this entry by Jeremy Hunt, otherwise known as the CPC Energy Flogger:

Joking aside, what I’m getting at is this: if you’re watching the debate tonight, turn off the sound for a minute. Watch how each of the leaders hold themselves: how they stand, where they look, what they do with their hands.

Whereas Harper is calm, collected, and statesman-like, Martin’s body language is all over the map. Last night in the French debate, Martin couldn’t stand still; he barely made eye contact with the camera, and he kept rubbing his face: all tell-tale signs of someone not telling the complete truth. You can see how Paul embodies the frantic nature of his campaign simply by muting him. His policies are scant, his ideas are old; and as a result of this, his body language is frantic, his dithering desperate.

In contrast to this waning image, though, stands Stephen Harper. In him, I see a young, confident leader, who is principled and ready to engage us with innovative policies that will unify and motivate. He calmly emphasizes his points, and reinforces his ideas; but unlike Martin he maintains a leadership presence. I guess you could say that he’s standing up for Canada – literally.

I don't think even the TCFlogger has ever engaged in this kind of sucking up.

Speaking of the TCFlogger, though, his latest entries have been bringing out the photoblog side of his personality. Not surprising, since Vancouver's enjoying a mild spell that renders it pretty photogenic at this time of year. Sure, he's still flogging, but at least it hasn't quite descended to the same level as Jeremy's. And the photos are actually kinda cute, especially the "Sad Scotty" doll.

This is the type of detail that national political blogs should be showing us. The photos aren't necessary to sell the Tory platform or Harper as leader, but they portray the little details of the campaign that mainstream media can't report on.

I do believe the TCFlogger is starting to get it. I'm less sure about Jeremy Hunt.

Paul Martin's Sovereigntist Thinking

2005-12-17T10:25:00.000-05:00

Last night I decided to work on some personal projects, instead of watching the debates. Based on the news reactions and subsequent coverage, I gather I didn't miss much.

However, I was struck by Paul Martin's attempt to defend Canadian integrity in front of BQ leader Gilles Duceppe. While it might have been passionate, it shows everything that's wrong with the current Liberal line on Canada-Quebec relations.

Here's what Martin said:

Let me say also that I am a Quebecer, and you are not going to take my country away from me with some trick, with some ambiguous question ... This is my country and my children were born and raised in Quebec, and you're not going to go to them and say that you're going to find some backdoor way of taking my country or dividing Quebec family against Quebec family.

We do have an opportunity, and Quebecers understand this, to build a country which is without parallel, and if you take a look at the way that Canada is measuring up in terms of our economy, in terms of the strength of our social programs, in terms of our independent foreign policy, I believe that we do appeal to the deep attachment, the deep love of this country that Quebecers have and you're not going to win, Mr. Duceppe. Let me tell you that.

A defence of Canada that mentions Quebec five times -- and Canada only once. And furthermore, Canada is only mentioned near the end of his defence.

What I find irritating about this line is that in trying to speak to Duceppe as a fellow Quebecer, Martin has in effect ignored his identity as a Canadian. Martin's statement falls into the mindset that Quebec sovereignty is to be decided by Quebeckers alone, a mindset not shared by most federalists.

So what would have been a better line to take? A line that would have rendered Gilles Duceppe speechless, or at least sputtering. A line that would have began as:

"Mr. Duceppe. You are Canadian. I will not let you destroy your country with with some trick, with some ambiguous question. Your children were born Canadian and raised as Canadians, whether you want to admit it or not. For the virtues of Quebec are the virtues of Canada and can be found in all Canadians. Are you going to tell your children that their neighbors are no longer neighbors?"

The best way to deal with the sovereignty question, at this stage of the game, is to introduce a completely new mindset. That's something that Paul Martin can't learn in six weeks.

Blog Boy and Bilingualism

2005-12-16T09:02:00.000-05:00

Interesting feature of Scott Feschuk's "not-quite-as-Liberal-as-TCFlogger-is-Conservative" blog. Try clicking on the "Français" link.

If Scott's blog were functioning like 95% of the Government of Canada websites -- which the Liberal Party site presumably uses as a model to emulate -- then you'd get a French version of his comments (pause while we duck to escape the spittle of the blogosphere's collective hissing). Instead, it's a repeat of his regular blog page, in English.

The TCFlog, as it turns out, is bilingual; if you click at the "français" link at the very top of the web page, you'll get a French version. (Of course, the quality of writing is the same in both languages. Make of that what you will.)

One of the Tory bloggers (not me, I assure you) decided to make hay of this, causing Mr. Feschuk to semi-blow some steam:

So forgive me this one, folks, but I am moved to respond to the latest thoughtful missive from the Conservative war room – in which it is revealed that, after 17 days of clever and tireless research, the Conservatives have noticed that this blog is [make gasping noise here!] available only in English. (I think their first clue was the absence of French.).

“Why is the Liberal party providing its official blog in English only?” the Conservative war room generals inquire. “Why are francophones being shut out from the blogging buzz coming from the Liberal campaign?”

Blogs are, by nature, personal. They're not intended to be bilingual -- nor would this one be even remotely comprehensible much of the time in our other official language. As an experiment, we tried to put the first one in French but three of our top translators were fatally wounded by the challenge of explaining to francophones my reference to Erik Estrada.

He then goes on to lambaste the Harper '97 position on bilingualism's implementation, which is of course fair game. I bolded the above passage because I believe this is where Scott gets it wrong.

Yes, blogs are most effective when they're personal. But they're also a reflection of the person writing them, including the language used. A bilingual person trying to reach a broad audience WILL use both languages, to be most effective.

Scott has, perhaps inadvertently, touched upon an issue that has really afflicted the federal public service: the implementation of official languages policy. A lot of otherwise qualified people have failed to obtain positions because they were designated as bilingual-imperative. Sometimes it makes sense, with call-centre positions. But there are others (such as mid-level managers) where the need for bilingualism is not all that apparent, and where the department in question is unwilling to fund language training for an otherwise-qualified candidate. And when the position is specifically targeted towards a national public -- like an "official" blog of an institution supposed functioning in both languages -- then having a unilingual blogger would seem somewhat hypocritical, given government hiring practices.

As for the French problem in Scott's blog, obviously French translation couldn't really be done in the timely manner that blogs demand. A better solution would be to bring aboard a francophone blogger, and I remember making that suggestion via e-mail a couple of weeks ago. Feschuk responded that he passed the suggestion along to the webmasters. I suspect they'll announce such a hiring on 24 January.

Ottawa-Centre: Keith Fountain Demonstrates How to Blog

2005-12-15T14:39:00.000-05:00

If you want to see how a politician can effectively use a blog to discuss an issue with constituents, have a look at Keith Fountain's recent blog entry.

In this entry, Keith talks about public service reform, in the form of a letter to a constituent. There are a few things to note:

1) He discusses the issue on his own terms. There's nothing about PS reform currently on the CPC website, so he's not really echoing any national talking points here. In this case he's on a par with Richard Mahoney's exercise diary, except that Richard has yet to discuss issues there.

2) He couches his argument in terms of his own experience. Remember that Keith is himself a former civil servant, so when he talks about the conditions under which mid-level public servants work, he knows whereof he speaks. In Ottawa-Centre, where the public service makes up a big chunk of the voting population, that kind of constituent identification is very important, akin to Paul Dewar playing hockey.

3) He's not hard-selling. Note that in his language, he's not trying to work in points to blast the Libranos with. He calls the Liberal policy on PS recruitment short-sighted, and mentions the sponsorship scandal, but note that there's no attempt to foist the "corruption" argument. That's because it's not needed in this context. It's this type of measured response that moves this entry away from the "flogging" viewpoint that less-experienced web-diarists can take.

This blog entry, in short, demonstrates how a candidate can discuss a sensitive issue without going overboard on the partisanship.

And note one other thing: there is public (albeit moderated) commentary. While Ottawa-Centre's two other candidate blogs offer e-mail feedback, Keith's allows for public conversation, one of blogging's greatest advantages. It shows how Keith deals with his audience, both allies and adversaries, which is a good thing to know about a candidate.

Of course his site isn't perfect. It doesn't reach the French constituents, unlike Richard Mahoney's, and there's no events page to list where people can meet him, unlike Paul Dewar's. But of the three candidates, based on experience alone, Keith has the firmest grasp of blogging's potential in an election campaign.

Harper '97: What a Year -- Not

2005-12-15T13:49:00.000-05:00

Things to remember about 1997:

-- Bill Clinton was president. (Well, so was Harrison Ford.)

-- There was no "Conservative Party of Canada."

-- Jean Charest was leading the Progressive Conservatives, while Preston Manning was leading the Reform Party.

-- George W. Bush was finishing up his fourth year as governor of Texas.

-- George Lucas was re-releasing the Star Wars Trilogy in theatres (the one where Han Solo shoots second).

-- The big movie over the Christmas season was Titanic.

-- The Detroit Red Wings were Stanley Cup champions.

-- "South Park" was making its debut on Comedy Central.

I could go on and on, but I think you see my point. The world of 1997 is far different than the world of 2005. You are different. I am different. Our country is different, for better or for worse. And among other things, this election is going to be about progressing further down a path, or taking a different one.

And yet the Liberals, in this early stage of the campaign, are attacking a version of Stephen Harper that has not existed in eight years.

Are they so afraid of the 2005 version that they need to set up a "straw Stephen" from the past to knock down? Do they really think that Canadian voters are willing to believe that Harper '97 is a stronger vintage than Harper '05? Particularly in comparison to the odiferous decline of the Librano cellars? Are they really that welded to the past that they won't deal with him in the present?

If that's so, then turfing out the Libranos may be easier than I thought ...

Ottawa-Centre: Paul Dewar's Blog Blunder

2005-12-14T09:18:00.000-05:00

You can always tell from the way people handle little things, how they'll do when they handle big things. Based on NDP candidate Paul Dewar's recent group blog entry, I don't think we can trust him to be a responsible MP.

The trouble stems from his latest blog entry, "My Life As A Campaign Toque" (note to Paul's blog editor: you can use hyperlink targets per entry):

Admittedly, it was a little uncomfortable getting a Paul Dewar button forced into me, but all the campaign staff kept complimenting me, saying I looked 'hip' with the small orange pin. I mean, what's a polyester-mix toque supposed to do? ...

But a marvelous thing happened. People liked me. On the doorsteps, voters knew right away who I was. "Why, you must be the NDP!" and "Here come some Paul Dewar canvassers!" and "You don't have to worry about hunters finding you here on Bronson St." I felt a sense of recognition, and importance....

Yes, My true purpose has been found. From my humble beginnings as a hunting toque in a Sharbot Lake Gas Station, I have become something of a political icon. If only Paul Dewar would wear me, my campaign experience would be complete. Alas, the image managers keep us apart....

Yes, it's juvenile. And yes, it's embarrassing. I mean, it's "Scott Feschuk looks profound by comparison" embarrassing. So much so, in fact, that the official agent didn't want to assign credit for it.

And this was when the official agent committed his error. Previously, the blog entries had been credited to either some of the blog staffers (there had been three who made entries) or to Paul Dewar himself (he wrote the entry on "Human Rights and the Holiday Season"; bland but serviceable).

Now, the blog editor might have tried to attribute the entry to "Alan Smithee," the pseudonym which the Director's Guild assigns to films that are so butchered in the editing process that no sane director wants to take credit for it. But that could be considered dishonest.

So instead, the blog editor yanked the credits from all the previous blog entries, so no one person could be blamed for the entry.

This is an example of a fix that does worse damage to the candidate than the original embarrassment. There are two reasons for this.

First, it denies responsibility, which is what I alluded to earlier. Political candidates, like everyone else, are human and prone to error. And when an error is made, the temptation is to pretend it never happened. But it's far better to acknowledge the error quickly and take the immediate razzing, than to let it fester. Paul Martin learned this lesson the hard way in February. If Dewar and his people behave this way over such a juvenile matter, why should we trust them if they get in office and something really embarrassing happens?

Second, it shows a distrust of the readers -- and therefore, the constituents. Paul's blog has been around for two weeks now, long enough to build up a core readership. Naming the authors was a step in the right direction because it meant Paul was being transparent in his campaign. Yanking the credits suggests that the blog editor is hoping the readers weren't paying attention, or that any new readers wouldn't know that the blog was a group effort to begin with. It goes back to a classic "flogger" belief that the readers are gullible enough not to notice any changes, a concept dating back to George Orwell's 1984.

In politics, the most painful wounds are often self-inflicted. Paul's blog editor has done his candidate a great disservice. He'd've been better off giving the "Toque" author (who, based on the writing style, is the same person who wrote the "Campaign Jingle Bells" entry) a virtual noogie and keeping the credits.

By allowing and then pulling them, he has given the impression that Paul Dewar has something to hide. And that will hurt Paul far more than a tale of a gaudy toque.

UPDATE (08h53 15 Dec): Well, after a 24-hour period, they've brought the credits back -- this time, crediting the gaudy toque entry to "Orange Toque #4." (Personally, based on previous entries I think Kiavash Najafi wrote it, but let's not quibble.) I suppose it took that long to figure out how to credit the thing.

Harper on Defence: Return of the Canadian Airborne Regiment?

2005-12-13T11:23:00.000-05:00

This morning, Stephen Harper announced his campaign promises on national defence. It's no surprise that he plans on boosting defence spending: the Tories have been complaining for years that Canada's been neglecting her Armed Forces. The specifics, however, bear some examination.

First, Harper wants to spend on strategic and tactical airlift capability. No real argument there: he can point to this Fraser Institute report to make his case that we need it.

Second, Harper wants to double the size of DART. It's immediate good optics, since DART's had some good publicity in the past year. But he might want to couple that with an announcement on disaster relief protocols. Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans (and to a lesser extent, Kaschechewan) showed what can happen when different levels of government don't talk to each other in the face of a disaster. Announcing a multilevel meeting to thrash out Canada's emergency-response plans would go a long way towards establishing Tory credibility on being able to handle the unexpected.

But it's the third component that might raise some eyebrows:

Creation of a 650 strong airborne battalion, to be stationed at CFB Trenton, available for rapid or difficult deployments for emergency, humanitarian, or military operations.

This, in other words, is tantamount to reviving the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

Ten years ago, the Chrétien government disbanded the Regiment over allegations its members had committed abuses during a peacekeeping mission. The circumstances of that decision have been recorded elsewhere, but suffice to say that the Tories have always regarded the Regiment's disbanding as a mistake, a political decision made merely to get Liberal neglect of the Armed Forces out of the spotlight.

Could this new regiment cause another Somalia to happen? Obviously not; the Canadian Forces have learned from Somalia. And there's no question that, if Canada wants to be a major player in the peacekeeping game again, we need the capability that Harper's promising.

This won't necessarily resonate as much in Canada as it would in the States; the Canadian mainstream is a bit more indifferent when it comes to defence matters. But in terms of capturing the votes of the Armed Forces, let's just say Stephen Harper's managed a good head start.

Stephen Harper : the Un-American Conservative

2005-12-13T09:03:00.000-05:00

Anyone who wants to know what kind of conservative Stephen Harper is, right now, should read this letter he sent to the Washington Times, which appeared in their Sunday edition.

Harper is responding to this column by Patrick Basham, which appeared the week before:

Free-market economist Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, is pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative.

I'm sure Patrick meant well, but his description would play directly into the Librano stereotype of Harper as a Puritanical Yankee-lapdog -- exactly the type of fellow who couldn't get elected Prime Minister if all the other candidates dropped dead. His bigger mistake is to try to slide Harper into the American conservative mold, without allowing for cultural differences -- and there are some fairly big differences.

For example, for Harper, "free trade" means everyone plays by the rules. It's pretty much the same position Paul Martin has:

For the record: While, unlike the current Liberal government, I have always supported free trade, there is a deep concern in Canada about the commitment of the current U.S. administration and Congress to free trade. The United States is withholding some $5 billion in duties held from Canadian softwood lumber producers, despite the fact that a NAFTA panel has ruled that these duties are illegal.
In a recent speech, I stated that Canada must determine "the willingness of the United States to strengthen the dispute resolution mechanism and to subordinate domestic political pressures to a shared system of rules" and that "if this is not a direction in which the United States wishes to go, then Canada will have to make other long-term choices in its economic infrastructure," including expanded trade relationships with Asian countries such as India, Japan, and China.

Remember that Harper's main point of attack against the Liberals isn't really their economic strategy, it's their tactics. Neither major party is really interested in tearing down NAFTA at this point, unless the Bush administration really tries to pull a fast one.

On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country. I must admit great disappointment at the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

This statement was based on a Librano lie that dogged him in the last half of the 2004 campaign: that Harper would have brought Canada into the Iraq war. Since everyone knows our military forces are overstretched due to years of neglect, I don't think any leader would have committed them to any major operation apart from Afghanistan.

And while I have promised a free vote in Canada's parliament to reconsider the recent change of law to allow same-sex marriages in Canada, and will vote myself for a return to the traditional definition of marriage, I have said any changes must protect the existing status of same-sex couples who have been legally married. As well, a new Conservative government will not initiate or support any effort to pass legislation restricting abortion in Canada.

SSM is still a contentious issue; witness Paul Martin's recent attempt yesterday to draw Harper out on his long-term strategy. But unlike in the States, abortion isn't that big a hot-button issue. Hasn't really been on the public agenda since the 1980s.

It's been said that Canadian Conservatives tend to be on a par with centre-right Democrats on the political spectrum. In other words, from a political standpoint we're more like Joe Lieberman or (cough) Hilary Clinton than George W. Bush. (A lot of it is from decades of living under the Liberals: there have been some societal evolutions that we've simply become accustomed to.) I'd say that's accurate, and so here's hoping we have better luck than they do when it comes to changing governments.

Ottawa-Centre: Richard Mahoney Gets His Blog

2005-12-12T16:17:00.000-05:00

It's a first effort, of course, and you wouldn't expect the sharp insights of a Scott Feschuk or even a Monte Solberg. But Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney has definitely started ... a fitness blog.

It's a little slow at first, talking about the number of doors in the riding he's knocked on and voicing some generalities:

Things are going well...I'm on track to achieve my goal of knocking on every door in the riding by Election Day. Going out on the streets and talking to voters is my favourite part of campaigning. Since I'm hoping to be Ottawa Centre's representative in Parliament, I know that I need to understand its citizens' views. The way I see it, the more I can talk to my constituents, the better I will be able to serve them.

But by the time he's done his official kickoff on Saturday, he's got a fairly good grasp of the format:

December 10, 2005
Today's progress: 11,273 steps taken. 10.6 km covered.

Knocked on about 600 doors in Carleton Heights and hosted our official campaign launch.

What a day! We officially kicked off our campaign with an event at our headquarters. It was a huge success with over 150 supporters in attendance. MPP Richard Patten, Mayor Bob Chiarelli and Minister of Defence Bill Graham were all kind enough to say a few words (that's me with the three of them in the top photo). They talked about the great significance of this riding to the federal election. Ottawa Centre might be one of swing ridings that decides between PM Paul Martin and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. The event was invigorating and I was ready to hit the streets immediately afterwards to work harder than ever to earn your support.

There's still a bit of flogging in his post, but it's about the same level as Keith Fountain's -- that is to say, not as ripe as one of the posters on Paul Dewar's group blog.

Richard has also hit on a personal gimmick, with the pedometer count and the house visit count. That's exactly the kind of personal touch that's meant to distinguish his blogging style from his rivals'. That plus the use of the first-person voice gives the fitness blog the air of authenticity that online voters are looking for.

And there's one final feature which explains why it took so long to appear on his site: it appears in both English and French. In an officially bilingual government town, that's definitely an advantage.

Okay ... now I'm convinced that Ottawa-Centre is going to be a three-way race.

When NDP Supporters Behave Like American Moonbats ...

2005-12-12T14:30:00.000-05:00

... let's just say it ain't pretty. An NDP supporter has decided to borrow a tactic from the moonbat crowd in an effort to boost his party's profile among the law-and-order crowd:

Last week, police departments in several Canadian cities surprised to find that websites with similar names to theirs were redirecting web users to the NDP website.

The web addresses included www. reginapolice.ca, www.saskatoonpolice.ca and several others with names similar to police departments in Vancouver, Windsor and Edmonton.

The domain names are similar, but not identical, to the real web addresses used by police in those cities.

Burnaby, B.C. businessman and self-described NDP supporter David Bedford owns the sound-alike web addresses and it was his idea to reroute the traffic to the NDP website.

Bedford said he wanted to help the NDP and planned to keep it up until election day on Jan. 23.

An NDP spokesperson said Friday the party didn't have the power to make Bedford stop, but hadn't asked him to stop either.

Apparently Bedford realized his tactic wound up making the NDP look bad. So now those police sites direct traffic towards a more explicitly anti-Harper site.

Mr. Bedford (who calls himself "Darwin" in this site, as opposed to "David" in the CBC story) opposes Mr. Harper for all the "right" (i.e. typical "left") reasons. He's an atheist (he explicitly calls himself the ironic "Atheist Messiah"), he supports same-sex marriage (his hyperlink for Harper's link go, not to the Tory website, but to queermarriage.com), and he links to a Stephen Harper essay appearing in a Christian magazine and considers this a bad thing.

Naturally the police are ticked off by this sort of guerilla tactic, but if I were the Tory brain trust I'd be tickled by this news. It's proof positive that Stephen Harper is at least making the right sort of enemies -- the type who believe that the voters will excuse any sort of misbehaviour on their part, so long as their goal is achieved.

Mr. Bedford's antics, ironically, may wind up helping Harper. Not so much by driving the undecideds into his camp, but by getting the law-and-order-crowd riled up enough to bring bigger numbers up to vote.

Hey ... it worked for George Bush, right?

The 33rd Edition of The Red Ensign Standard ...

2005-12-12T11:32:00.000-05:00

... may be found here. We're all pretty much agreed that the blogfest can take the Christmas holidays off, to resume in the New Year.

Scott Feschuk's Almost-Hidden Agenda

2005-12-12T10:03:00.000-05:00

When it comes to blogging, Liberal official blogger Scott Feschuk can't be accused of being a flogger. Instead, he's trying to pull off something that neither Jeremy Hunt nor the TCFlogger seem interested in: pulling out something of the human side of the leader he's working for.

Thanks to Scott, we now know:

-- that Paul Martin likes Mary Ann over Ginger
-- that Aristotle is his favorite philosopher
-- that he has Nana Mouskouri in his iPod
-- that he can't sing his way out of a paper bag

Is this important? Actually, as a campaign strategy, yes it is. I've always maintained that a good campaign blogger will portray his candidate, while a bad one will only sell him. No one is going to vote for Paul Martin because he likes Nana Mouskouri. Some people, however, might feel comfortable arguing with Paul in Hooters over the merits of Ginger vs. Mary Ann.

Understand: these little details are meant to show Paul Martin the person, as opposed to Paul Martin the prime minister. People have pretty much made up their minds about Paul Martin as prime minister. By portraying Paul's human side, Scott may be able to lull the voters into feeling more comfortable about him. ("Hey, he's just a guy doin' a job, y'know?") And if they feel comfortable at that level, they might feel more comfortable about voting Liberal. (Irrational, yes. But politics is about more than logic.)

Contrast with the TCFlogger. Writing about singing "Sweet Caroline" is a step in the right direction (the ability to sing is apparently something they share with Paul Martin), but apart from repeating Harper's campaign promises, he's written bupkis about Harper the human being.

One other thing that should keep the TCFlogger up late at night: the reason that Scott isn't flogging the Liberals? He doesn't need to.

If you look at the blog designs for both the Liberal and Tory sites, you'll realize that Scott has a significant advantage, in that the news release page (with headlines) is visible in the menu right beside the blog entry. So readers, after being "entertained" by Scott's writing, can click straight into the flogging headlines if they want. Why should Scott do the hard sell, when the news releases beside his entries can do it for him?

It's an almost insidious design, and you have to give props to the Liberal webmaster for it. The TCFlog design simply isn't that good.

So, if you want to look at this as a National Campaign Blograce, at this point you could compare Scott to Sebulba, Jeremy Hunt to Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd version), and the TCFlogger to Ben Quadinaros. Not exactly a good sign.

Blogger Night

2005-12-10T09:09:00.000-05:00

In December, it's good on occasion for bloggers to get out of the house. Four of us in the National Capital Region Blog Mafia got together, and it was a good time.

Just so you can keep score, that's Sham the Tory Man on the left; Brent Colbert of The Other Colbert Report beside him; that's me in the fedora; and Blair Hansen of Italics Mine on the right. Blair's holding my copy of Hugh Hewitt's Blog, which is an ideal Christmas gift for anyone you know who may want to start one. (That photo took a while to work out because the waitress accidentally set my camera to movie mode.)

I'm not sure when the next get-together is going to be, since it looks like the Mafia members are taking turns organizing the get-togethers (we really miss Shannon Davis). Probably after the election, I think.

Could Lanny Cardow Be the TCFlogger?

2005-12-09T13:42:00.000-05:00

An anonymous commenter has made the suggestion that the TCFlogger is a guy named Lanny Cardow.

Since the commenter left no e-mail or website to home in on, I'm inclined to take this one with a very large grain of Dead Sea salt. However, judging from his blog Lanny looks to be a pretty good candidate.

The ominous sign, of course, is the Nov. 23 blog entry:

OK folks. Here's the scoop - As of this weekend, I'm heading back to Canada for a long while. Nothing bad, just some old political scores to settle with the Liberal Party ...

Not enough to go to court on, of course, but extremely suggestive.

The suggestion gets reinforced by the fact that Mr. Cardow has indulged in some photoblogging. Check out those galleries in the right-side column. Looking at some of his landscape photos, he does have the same eye for focal-perspective shots that the TCFlogger has in this photo of Stephen Harper.

Is there any other evidence? Possibly. Mr. Cardow has been a research assistant at the Institute for Politics, Democracy & The Internet at George Washington University. Here's what his profile says:

Lanny Cardow is a Research Assistant for the Institute and a Masters student at the Graduate School of Political Management. After completing his undergraduate degree at Queen's University (Ontario, Canada) in 2002, Lanny served a one year term as VP (operations) of the Queen's University student government. Lanny then moved to Ottawa to work for Stephen Harper, the opposition leader in the Canadian House of Commons, where he managed outreach operations. A native of Guelph, Ontario, Lanny was first introduced to politics by working for his local member of provincial parliament.

So. We have a politically active young man, who's personally worked for Stephen Harper, who knows how to blog and likes to use photos in his work. And who left, a week before the government fell, to "settle some old political scores."

Is this enough to positively identify Lanny Cardow as the TCFlogger? Not for a courtroom, but it might be enough for the denouement scene of an Agatha Christie murder mystery. If anyone out there's good at text analysis, they could compare the texts of the Flog and Cardow's old blog, and come up with a more definite conclusion, but for now, we can consider Lanny the prime suspect.

Of course someone could always ask him at his blog's e-mail address ...

Is Carleton U.'s Jeremy Hunt the CPC Energy Flogger?

2005-12-08T22:42:00.000-05:00

Since, like his older compadre, the CPC Energy Flogger refuses to identify himself, it looks like someone else will have to do it for him. Fortunately, in his latest flog entry, he gives us a big clue:

Coming from across the country to study at Carleton University has been great. In fact, it has been one of the best decisions I’ve ever made. But I’ll tell ya’…when the time comes to buy a textbook there... run: otherwise there’s a good chance that you’ll lose an arm and a leg ...

During my time as a student representative on our student government, I’ve come to realize that student organizations are always railing for lower tuition fees, but rarely do they consider other solutions that also work to lower the cost of living for students. Tax credits that lower the cost of textbooks, apply to scholarships and bus passes, all add up – and that means more money in students’ pocket, which of course, is always a good thing ...

We now have two very big clues: first, that he's a student at Carleton, and second, that he's sat as a student representative. This is enough to do a Google ID Search.

Step one: check if there's a Young Conservative club at Carleton U. Result: Yes -- and it has its own website. Complete with a list of senior executives.

Now let's assume that our flogger is one of these executives, since only a senior member of the youth wing can be entrusted to write a national corporate flog. Step Two: find out if these exeuctive profiles list student council positions, as described by our soon-to-be-not-so-anonymous flogger. Result: yes. The president himself:

Entering into his fourth year of Political Science at Carleton; Jeremy is 21 years old, and calls Calgary, Alberta home.

He is currently serving in his second term as a Public Affairs and Management representative on CUSA Council, and was the proud head of the Lassoes this year for orientation week. He has been involved with Conservative politics for nearly three years now, and has been very fortunate to experience as much as he has in Ottawa during his short time here.

It fits -- even the Calgary origin (across the country, right?). The odds are extremely good that this Jeremy Hunt is, indeed, the guy who writes the CPC Energy flog.

Is there a picture of him? Yes, from this profile of student candidates for Carleton U's board of governors. It's a bit small, but that's only to be expected from a profile page meant for fast loading.

But the Carleton page is also extremely valuable for those Tories dissatisfied with the CPCEnergy Flog's lack of a feedback mechanism (i.e. commentary page).

Why? Because this page puts, in the public domain, our suspect's e-mail address.

It is, of course, quite possible that I could be wrong about this, and that someone else is the Flogger. But somehow I don't think so.

What I don't understand, and what I think is worthy of explanation, is why the CPC Energy Flogger feels he doesn't need to sign his name to his entries, if he's so eager to talk about his life with the Tories.

The Art of the TCFlogger

2005-12-08T08:50:00.000-05:00

Of course I come down hard on the TC Flogger. All that brainpower up at Conservative HQ and they still haven't figured out how to do blogging effectively, for all the reasons which I've listed earlier.

But the Flogger does have one talent that his Liberal counterpart is ill-equipped to exploit, for the simple reason that Blackberries don't have digital cameras: a good eye for photography. And with this photo, I have to give the Flogger props.

This picture of Stephen Harper at a phone interview does cross a line, from blogger journalism to Art with a capital A. Triple reflection plus variations in focus equals remarkable depth perception, and the triple images (with side profiles suited to a dime) relate nicely to each other. This image would never have made a traditional news release, because the heads are too small compared with the frame and PR officials never like head croppings, but as an Art photo this could be eligible for the short list of a museum for contemporary photography.

Is this a step forward, for the TCFlogger? Yes, in terms of content. It adds the touch of the idiosyncratic that moves a weblog further away from "corporate flog" status. If the TCFlogger can do more pix like that, he might be able to move the Flog into "good Photoblog" territory.

In terms of format, however, the TCFlogger still has a way to go ...

The TCFlogger Tries To Be Funny

2005-12-07T16:14:00.000-05:00

It looks like the TCFlogger is trying to get away from his reputation (voice from the back: "What reputation?!"), this time by attemptint to use humour. And in the spirit of Scott Feschuk, he's trying to use lame humour, pretending to diagnose Paul Martin:

Patient makes outlandish and delusional statements that do not resonate in the general public (i.e. believes cutting the GST won’t help working families, and dismisses proposed $100 per month daycare allowance as insignificant.)

Patient has likely been in isolation from the general public for quite some time.

The Flogger goes on in this lame vein for some little while, ignoring the chirping crickets.

Understand that this joke isn't funny because it insults Paul Martin. Scott Feschuk has told funnier jokes that insult Paul Martin, and he's supposed to be on the Prime Minister's side.

No, this joke isn't funny because it's old. I've heard it told about George Bush Sr., not to mention Jean Chretien in his day. I wouldn't be surprised if it was told about Mackenzie King.

It's really too bad that the TCFlogger doesn't have a feedback mechanism. Even an e-mail address to the site would help him out, without which he'll just have to suffer his own lack of humour in silence.

What Do Scott Feschuk and Jonah Goldberg Have in Common?

2005-12-07T11:50:00.000-05:00

Answer: they both take great pleasure out of being targeted by shallow people.

Here's Scott, on his Official Liberal Campaign Blog:

Yes! Yet another sweet political advantage for the Liberal party. As of this morning, we are the only federal party whose official campaign blog has been described as "shameful" by the chief strategist of the University of Toronto's McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology! Not the backup strategist - the CHIEF strategist.

That's right - he called this blog "shameful." Also, "very lame." Take that, mysterious yet boring Conservative party blogger person or object! He doesn't savage you in a colourful way at all.

As for Blog Boy, this chief strategist fellow goes on to strategize in a chiefly way that this blog "really does read like a teenage girl's diary." Like, whatever. I'd give him what-for if I wasn't busy taping up my new Scott Baio poster.

For the information of everyone else, the chief strategist of the McLuhan Program is named Mark Federman. He has a blog here, and I'm still trying to track down his critique.

As for Jonah, his critic is perhaps better known:

On November 23, Barbra Streisand wrote a letter to the editor complaining that the Los Angeles Times picked me up as a columnist. As gleeful as I was, I declined to respond. But now, just last night, Ms. Streisand chose to post to her website the "director's cut" of her original letter to the editor, which apparently had been edited for space and, no doubt, for content by the LA Times. I could resist no longer ...

And so on and so forth.

So is it better to be roasted by Scott Federman, or to be roasted by Barbra Streisand?

Well, it's a little hard to compare at the moment, but it's interesting to note that Scott's reaction consists of three paragraphs showing his age (when was the last time teenage girls had Scott Baio posters?), while Jonah's reaction to two sentences in separate paragraphs is considerably more verbose. (Though, to be fair, Scotty would be hospitalized with Blackberry Thumb if he tried for a longer answer.)

Of course, it could be related to the idea that Scott Federman isn't known outside the University of Toronto, whereas Barbra Streisand is better known these days for getting pooped on by the population of South Park. If Feschuk had been roasted by Barbra, he probably would have gone absolutely rhapsodic.

But of course, that won't happen, since Barbra in all probability would think of Feschuk as one of those flatulent South Park Canadians. If she ever thought of Canada at all.

Ottawa-Centre: Paul Dewar is Right-Wing

2005-12-06T15:25:00.000-05:00

Paul Dewar's blog is slowly morphing into a group blog, the group consisting mainly of his campaign workers. The latest addition is named Robin Maclachlan, who tells the following anecdote:

Paul plays on a local hockey team, along with the owner of Juniper Restaurant on Wellington Street. Apparently, Richard Mahoney had been in a few days previously and had asked if he could put up a sign. "Oh no," the owner said. "You don't have my vote - I'm supporting a real right winger, Paul Dewar!" Mahoney, a bit startled and confused, launched into an attempt to convince the man that he was more right wing than Paul.

This is one of those that feels authentic -- there is a Juniper Restaurant, and I've provided the link above. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul heard the story from the owner himself, and just repeated it to the staff. Whether the story is actually happened the way it's described is somewhat immaterial at this point, but it does tell us a few things:

First, Paul still perceives Richard Mahoney as the primary target to knock off in this campaign. (I'm looking forward to any future posts that go after Keith -- that would mean their internal polling perceives the local Tory as someone to take seriously.)

Second, Paul plays hockey for recreation with local businesspeople, who know him well enough to want to vote for him. This is significant, because it suggests he's networking locally for his support, rather than relying on Bob Layton's charm to do the job for him. In short, the Dewar campaign is playing up the man instead of the issues. (Which is good for him, because his issues page doesn't have all that much.)

Third, the implied plan of attack on Mahoney (and one that probably has legs, given his penchant for press releases over blogs) is that the Liberal lobbyist is out of touch with the local community. That plus he has no sense of humor. A most subtle attack, I must say.

The Dewar campaign is learning. Richard's going to be in for a tough time ...

Ottawa-Centre: Oh, We Got Greens?

2005-12-06T09:38:00.000-05:00

One of my co-workers last week was grumbling about how the Green Party was left out of the upcoming election debates. So it occurred to me to have a look at the Green candidate in Ottawa-Centre.

As it turns out, his name is David Chernushenko, and his website is here. (They seem to be having server problems this morning; it happens.)

Well, he's apparently done a lot more grass-roots work, judging from the events he's hosted and attended. And while he doesn't have a blog, his site is certainly better maintained than, say, Richard Mahoney's. Information is easier to get to and is well organized. And there's a unique feature in that he links to other ridings where the Greens are fielding candidates. That speaks of a coordinated team effort in Ottawa, which is an element not commonly thought about by the other parties.

So does David really have a chance? Certainly. Like the Toronto Maple Leafs have a chance of winning the Stanley Cup, but based on history, the odds are about the same. (Okay, maybe David's chances are better, but not by much.)

The real trouble is that the Greens here in Canada cannot shake their reputation as a party on the fringe. And whenever they try to appeal to the mainstream, they risk losing their core supporters, such as Joan Russow. She really really comes down hard on them in this morning's Ottawa Citizen:

At least until after the 2000 election, the Green Party of Canada was proud to be associated with the long tradition of movements on the left. Now the GPC has abandoned the tradition of the left, by stating that "we are neither left nor right but straight ahead." A deputy leader in 2004 even derided statements of the left as "socialist rhetoric."

Since at least 2004, the GPC developed the notion of a "living platform." This creates the impression that the platform is emerging and evolving through contributors on the Internet, and raises a fundamental question about the nature of policy formation. If a Green party candidate is elected, to what principle, policy or platform would the MP be bound?

Ms. Russow is accusing the Green Party of abandoning its left-originated principles in favour of the pragmatic expediency practiced by the Liberals. That's a pretty low blow for a party on the edge, but it also illustrates the dilemma that keeps the voter from taking the Greens seriously.

Master of My Domain

2005-12-06T09:22:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I registered a couple of domain names. One was under my own name, because I plan to set up a job resume site. The other was phantomobserver.com, which I tried to set up to head directly to this Blogspot site.

Testing the link last night got somewhat panicky, because Blogspot went down and I couldn't figure out if I'd accidentally disconnected something, but by midnight I was able to get the link working. (I later found out it was a system-wide thing, which was a relief.)

I decided to register this domain because I have some long-term plans for this blog, and I don't necessarily want to be tied down to Blogspot. (If anyone can recommend some alternatives I'd be glad to hear about their experiences.)

Ottawa-Centre: Richard Mahoney Brings Forth A Mouse

2005-12-05T09:34:00.000-05:00

It would seem that Richard Mahoney isn't exactly an energetic Liberal candidate. He's trotted out a weak line of attack against his Tory candidate, Keith Fountain:

Keith Fountain says shifting “more taxes away from incomes and toward consumption, to increase savings and investment,” is the right strategy – a direct contradiction to the plan announced yesterday by his leader, Stephen Harper.

Mr. Fountain’s policy proposal also said the government should consider a flat tax as part of an effort to simplify the tax system – full details available on his tax plan at http://www.keithfountain.ca/background/priorities.html

“The Conservative Party is not speaking with one voice. That makes it difficult for voters to know what they are choosing if they’re considering a Conservative candidate,” said Richard Mahoney, the Liberal candidate in Ottawa-Centre. “I think the Liberal Party’s plan to reduce income tax is the right choice, and I’m glad our plan has been endorsed by my Conservative opponent over his own party leader’s.”

This is where Keith enjoys the edge over Richard: his blog gives a nearly instantaneous response:

For some reason my Liberal opponent got it in his head that my being in favour of income tax reductions meant that I was against cuts to the GST. Quite the opposite; lower taxes are lower taxes; they all put more money into our pockets. And I'm a big fan of the Conservative proposal to reduce the GST to 5%.

As an aside, there's a bit of a dichotomy between the language of the blog entry and the language of the press release, which actually works in Keith's favor. I'm not sure why, but for some reason all press releases have leaned towards the bombastic. I suppose that's why press officers tend to become floggers when they try to go on the blogosphere.

Reacting with good humor, as Keith has done here, is always a good response to a weak attack. It neutralizes whatever rhetorical force was present, shows the target's self-confidence, and reveals the attacker's weak points (in this case, the inability to anticipate a swift response).

But you know what's really funny? I would never have known that Richard had actually made an attack if Keith hadn't mentioned it.

Discounting the initial choice-of-language page, you need two clicks to get to the actual press release on Richard's site; whereas with Keith, it's pretty much there up front once you enter the URL. That's because Richard's welcome page is template-static; you'd never know that the site was being updated, unless you're actively searching.

His latest press release shows he wants to take the Christmas holidays off. Nothing wrong with that, of course; it's just a little odd that he thinks taking time off warrants a press statement. Sort of like using a newspaper to print an answering machine message.

The thing is, a notice like that should have appeared on his welcome screen. Once you get the HTML language sorted out, modifying content on a Web page is actually a pretty low-maintenance job, and could have been done by a Mahoney staffer in the space of a few minutes. If Richard isn't willing to devote energy to such a small thing as that -- what does that say about his willingness to devote energy to representing his constituents?

Compared with the other two candidates, Richard Mahoney's online presence is very low-energy. One wonders if he hasn't already given up the battle and is just making token resistance movements, before they haul the Libranos away.

Ottawa-Centre: Paul Dewar Is Learning ...

2005-12-05T01:04:00.000-05:00

... because we now know who writes his blog.

The campaign workers' names are Kate Murray and Tannis Bujaczek. Tannis is the "flogger" who goes overboard trying to hock evey Paul Dewar attended event as a success; Kate's the anecodotal one.

Both names are active links which are e-mail addresses to the Dewar campaign. This is a semi-good thing because it allows private feedback on topics. Public commentary would have been better, but one can't have everything right the first time out.

Son of Flog

2005-12-04T23:23:00.000-05:00

Just got back from Quebec City (navy training -- I may explain later) to find out that my traffic had jumped, thanks to the CBC's Campaign Blog. (I have to admit, I didn't expect this one. If John Bowman's in Ottawa this Friday, I'll have to remember to stand him a beer.)

I also discovered that Tories not only have not learned from the mistakes of their campaign flog, but they're going to compound them. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you: the CPC Energy Youth Flog.

December 1, 2005 - 7:19 pm
Watching the Liberals try and discredit the Conservative GST Policy is laughable, at best. I still can't decide if they're actually being critical, or if they're just trying to make political hay of a Conservative Policy that clearly has them beat. Remember, this is the same party that has just spent billions of tax dollars attempting to bribe voters with their own money in the lead up to the election; and now they're trying to tell Canadians that they're 'sound fiscal managers'? They have no claim to financial credibility at all today.
December 1, 2005 - 12 pm
I found Stephen Harper’s hidden agenda!
Yeah, turns out he’s looking to cut our taxes by reducing the GST to 5%! Boy, those Conservatives are really out to get Canadians. Can you imagine the gall…putting money back into the pockets of consumers?
Next thing you know, they’ll be trying to tell us that criminals should be put in jail.
Some people…

Okay, the language is a bit more in line with what we'd expect from a good blog -- more first person narrative, for example. Based on internal evidence, we're told that the CPCEnergy Flogger has a younger brother who had a broken arm misdiagnosed by a gynecologist. The Flogger's parents are still alive but getting on in years, and there's also a little cousin named Kristina.

Were it not for that last tidbit, I would have dismissed the CPC Energy Flogger has a completely fictional creation of the CPC's youth committee. The parents and brother story are a little too close to rhetorical illustrations Tories like to pull out to make a point about their policies. The cousin, on the other hand, is exactly the type of throwaway detail that a real blogger might use.

But which real person? As with the TCFlogger, there is no identification, and no provision for feedback or commentary. Not even an e-mail address.

I know that individual Tories understand the online revolution. I'm less sure about the people who run their website.

Calling All Ottawa-Area Bloggers ...

2005-12-02T13:10:00.000-05:00

... I've managed to set up a space for the next meeting of the National Capital Region Blog Mafia. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get a reservation at Alexander's, so I've opted for a standby: the original Royal Oak on Bank Street. Here are the details:

Time: Friday, 9 December 2005, @20h30 (8:30 pm) to about 11 or later
Place: The Royal Oak, 318 Bank Street (across from Barrymore's, not the one in the Glebe nor the one that used to be the Italian restaurant. People will remember it from the last meeting)

Who can come? Anyone with an interest in blogging and the online community. I've reserved a space for 12 people, but I'm sure we'll be able to expand if more show up.

The Anonalogue Deck: It's Time for Librano Poker Night

2005-12-02T11:47:00.000-05:00

Anonalogue has actually completed the Card Deck of Librano Jokers that I posted about earlier this week. The faces don't match my entry's proposals but that's okay: we now have a list of Liberals who, not just on general principles but through their own vices, are deserving of defeat at the polls.

And since Anonalogue's cards can be individually downloaded, the Canadian blogosphere can play a game on January 23rd. That's right, folks: Election Night will become Librano Poker Night.

Here's how the game works:

1. Pick five cards from Anonalogue's deck. You can make them into a traditional poker hand, but it's not necessary since winning this game doesn't really depend on traditional poker.

2. Create a blogpost with those five images. You can then send the link to me, and I'll link it up on a new page so people can see your hand. (I did say this wasn't traditional poker.) I'll be accepting links up to noon hour on Election Day.

3. Watch the returns on Election Night. Unlike Quebec independence, the winning conditions are actually pretty simple: the highest-value hand of cards whose faces are defeated at the polls is the winner.

4. The winner will be announced the next day, on this blog. The prize will be one copy of Rescuing Canada's Right, which I'll send via amazon.ca. (Not to worry; I'll be personally paying for this one.)

A few things to remember:

-- It won't necessarily be to your advantage to pick all face cards. Ministers with a strong local base won't go down easily; backbenchers and new candidates are more vulnerable.

-- While it's tempting to pick all your cards from Atlantic Canada and Quebec, because the time zones will create an early win, remember that those regions and Ontario are also where the Liberals are strongest.

-- Don't duplicate a hand that's already been posted. I only plan on paying for one prize.

So -- who's in?

UPDATE (12h49): At the suggestion of Johnny Pockets in the Comments section, I've modified the rule from "first" to "highest-value," to get rid of the time zone chaos.

Ottawa-Centre: The Candidates Get Into Gear

2005-12-02T11:06:00.000-05:00

Looks like Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney is finally paying attention to his website. And only three days after the campaign started.

No weblog, but given Mr. Mahoney's attention to online matters that's not surprising. He now has two media releases: one announcing his campaign, and one about how this election has put OC Transpo in danger:

“It is unbelievable that the opposition parties put their interests before Canadians by forcing an early election. The result is a huge loss for the people of Ottawa, in this case amounting to $43 million. This investment, which the Conservatives voted against in June, and the NDP ground to a halt in November, demonstrates their lack of commitment to cities.”

He's also gotten his events page updated, highlighting an all-candidates' meeting coming up on Friday, January 6.

It's still pretty slow compared with NDP candidate Paul Dewar, whose own events page makes him pretty busy: not just the EGALE debate, but a show with Mike Duffy, a dinner, and the Barley Mow. Compared with Mahoney, it looks like Paul plans to have fun with this campaign. That's always a good thing.

It also looks like Paul's blog has shifted a gear:

I spoke to one woman who had supported Ed Broadbent in the last election, but hadn't decided whether or not to take a Paul Dewar sign because she didn't know much about him yet. Then, she thought about her options out loud: "Of course I'd never vote Conservative", she said. "Who's running for the Liberals?" I told her I thought it was the same candidate as in the previous election - Richard Mahoney. "Mahoney?!" she said, "I definitely don't like him! WE'RE ON!!!"

Still slightly floggy, but at least it's not quite as triumphal as that first post.

The shift from the third person to the first does brings up a question, in fact the same question with the Tory campaign blog: who's writing it? If it's Paul himself, let him say so; if it's "the official agent for Paul Dewar," then let's see a proper name.

There's also a weakness in that if you click on the "français" link, you don't get a French translation of the blog, but the French versions of Paul's news releases. French translations aren't really required in this riding because the francophone population isn't all that big, but this is still a flaw. He'd be better off either clarifying the link or leaving it out altogether.

There's also an implied tactical error in the the above blog entry: it's a little early to be so dismissive of Keith Fountain. Unlike the other two, Keith doesn't have an events page; he announces his events in his blog entries. But I expect this to change once he talks with his web people.

His latest blog entry is a call for recruiting people, a subject that subtly touched on by Paul in his entry. Paul has a volunteer form page, while Richardonly lists information. This does tend to put Paul ahead of Keith, but to be fair there's only so much you can do with Blogspot, which hosts Keith's site.

Of course it's early days, but the way I see things shaping up, the fight here isn't going to be between Paul Dewar (Ed Broadbent's successor) and Richard Mahoney. Unless Richard really gets moving, I see the big fight as being between Paul Dewar and Keith Fountain.

The TCBlogger Has Just Become The TC Flogger

2005-12-01T22:31:00.000-05:00

It looks like I was premature in my earlier assumption that the official Tory Campaign Blogger understood the difference between blogs and flogs. Because with his latest post he's definitely moving along the dark path to Floggerville:

The bottom line is simple: Stephen Harper is promising to reduce the GST to 5%. If you like the idea, vote Conservative. If you don’t, then you’re welcome to take the other option and vote for four more years of ethical lapses, missing billions, investigation, scandal, and corruption. A or B. Blue or Red. Your call.

The last person who tried to pull that stunt on me was Robert McClelland, and it's a stupid example of what I call the false choice: attempting to set up an either/or situation without allowing for alternatives. Note to the webmasters of conservative.ca: when your house blogger starts reading like Robert McClelland, it is not a good thing.

This TCFlogger would have us believe that the choice is between the Tories and the Liberals, with the latter being discouraged with as much insult as (s)he can muster. An intelligent voter, instead of being persuaded, would respond with the following:

1) Why don't I vote NDP?
2) I live in Quebec. I'll take the Bloc.
3) Gee, the Greens are looking good.
4) Screw it, they're all corrupt. I'm staying home.

This is a theme that I have always practiced, time and time again: you must always respect your opponents, lest you underestimate them. When a blogger throws insults, it says more about the blogger than about his target. It's a lesson that our flogger has yet to learn.

TCFlogger: your latest screed has shamed the very cause you claim to serve, because it insults the intelligence of your readers. It is now well past time for you to reveal yourself, and be accountable for your posts.

Campaign 2005-06: On Blogs and Flogs

2005-12-01T09:15:00.000-05:00

Campaign 2004 took place before the explosive influence of the blogosphere was felt. So it's perfectly natural that in Campaign 2005-06, parties and candidates want to tap into that influential energy, which is why several MPs have websites and blogs of their own.

You can pretty much tell if a politician really gets the online revolution by the quality of their website. And you can also tell if a political entity is in tune with the blogging phenomenon by the quality of the weblog it publishes.

We may see some good political blogs out there as a result of this campaign, on all sides of the political spectrum. However, we're also more likely to see an explosion of pseudo-blogs, or what I'd call flogs.

A "flog" will have the appearance of a blog; that is, it will be in reverse chronological order and may have individual links for entries. But its sole purpose is reflected in the British-derived dictionary meaning: to sell the candidate or party. Meaning, stressing everything that's good and true and ignore everything that's not.

A flogger, of course, is the maintainer of a flog. He or she will more than likely be the candidate's communications officer or speechwriter, since prose handling is a prerequisite for this position. The difference between a flogger and a blogger is this: a flogger will sell the candidate, while a blogger will portray the candidate.

That's a significant difference. The blogger will write things about the candidate or campaign that, strictly speaking, aren't necessary for selling the candidate or the message to the intended readership, but give a better picture of what the candidate's like. This includes vices as well as virtues, something the "flogger" is incapable of grasping.

You can tell a flog from a true "blog" from its content: if you can turn it into a press release with little or no editing, then it's a flog entry. And if all the entries read like press releases, then it's a flog, with all the credibility (or lack thereof) that the concept implies.

As I mentioned earlier, Ottawa-Centre candidate Paul Dewar's campaign diary has started out as more flog than blog. Contrast that with Scott Feschuk's federal Liberal blog: poking fun at the Martin campaign bus or singing about the joys of muffins won't get Paul Martin elected. But they do add to the overall portrayal of the campaign.

In other words, Scott "gets it." Paul Dewar's flog doesn't.

And believe it or not, the Tory Campaign Blogger also gets it. Look at this sentence from his/her 30 November entry:

What I did not expect to see on this chilly, rainy Ottawa afternoon was a room so full that some supporters actually stood outside the propped-open campaign office doors, craning their necks to view the Leader's speech as it took place inside. Dedication of this sort is heartening to see in a winter campaign!

That sentence would never have appeared in a press release, because it doesn't hard-sell the Tory position. But it adds color to the campaigning process. It's true that most of his other entries are flog-like, albeit to a lesser extent than Paul Dewar's. But the existence of that sentence means there's still hope for this anonymous writer. (Echo in the back: "I still demand that you show yourself!")

The TCBlogger would do well to study Monte Solberg's blog. His current entry -- talking about the Boston Bruins -- has ostensibly nothing to do with promoting him as a good MP or promoting Tory policy. But it adds an authenticity to reader's perceptions of Monte as a person. It provides a point of identification.

Does it matter if a candidate's website has a blog or a flog? In this online age, yes, it does. It's the difference between paying lip service to the online revolution and really embracing it. It's the difference between making gestures to your online readers and really trying to start a dialogue with them. Most of all, it's the difference between jumping into the future and trying to get by with the conventional tools of the past.

A flog will not help a candidate win an election. A true blog will.

Ottawa-Centre: Paul Dewar Gets His Flog Started

2005-12-01T08:59:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been three days since the Government fell, and the NDP candidate for Ottawa Centre, Paul Dewar, has finally gotten his campaign blog started.

Well, actually, it's more a "flog" than a "blog." Here's a passage from his first entry:

With his orange tie complemented by the tiny "Paul Dewar!" buttons on lapels around the room, Paul brought forward the NDP candidates for the Ottawa region, and honoured the role of Ed Broadbent in showing the people of Ottawa Centre the power of electing NDP MPs to Parliament.

The capacity crowd erupted into applause and cheers as vibrant Celtic fiddles came over the loudspeakers, and Jack Layton entered the room, smiling, shaking hands, and looking ready to win.

Flanked by his Ottawa team, he laughingly told the audience that Paul Martin wanted to run this campaign on the Liberal’s record. "Bring it on!" Jack challenged. "We wrote a budget," one that got things done for the people of Canadians and the people of Ottawa-Centre, rather than just for the Liberal’s corporate friends.

It's pretty obvious that Paul Dewar didn't write this himself. The tagline at the bottom says, "Authorized by the Official Agent for Paul Dewar," and I can believe it. Purple prose, positives, and bad sentence construction: the marks of a staff volunteer. (If it turns out Dewar did write this, he's got bigger problems than I thought.)

I have to say, if Paul Dewar wants to reach out to the online community, he's going to have to develop a steep learning curve. He might do well to look at his rival Keith's site.

But if it's any consolation, Paul Dewar has definitely gotten a leg up on Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney. Would you believe that, three days after the launch of the election, Mahoney's website still hasn't been updated? Does this man want Ottawa-Centre, or not?

So What's Wrong With the Official Tory Campaign Blog?

2005-11-30T09:27:00.000-05:00

(Hat tip: Angry in the Great White North.)

Not to be outdone by Scott Feschuk, the Tories have started up their own campaign blog. (The NDP hasn't got one yet, but wait a few weeks and see what happens.) How does it compare with Scott?

Well, for starters, it seems that the Tories have a better grasp of the blogging format than do the Liberals. Navigating from the English-language main page, the Tories give you one click to go straight to the blog. The Liberals, on the other hand, make you do three clicks: one to expand the "Blogs" section, one to open Scott's page, and one to get past the introduction. The Tories also understand the value of multiple entries and dating, which is handy for citation.

Neither blog allows commentary. Given the partisan penchant of all political parties to hurl flames everywhere, that's not surprising, but I think both parties are missing an opportunity here. The blogs make it possible to connect people and exchange their views on their own time, in real time. A blog moderator can keep things civil and on-topic. (And no, I'm not looking for a job like that, but it's something to keep in mind. ;))

There's one big strike against the Tory blog, though. And no, it's not the content. No one expects the Tory blogger to be as "witty" or as "ironic" or as "humorous" as Scott. (In terms of liking Scott's attempts at humour, your mileage may vary -- though I do like his take on the idea of Paul Martin's face on the campaign bus.)

The big strike takes the form of a question: "who writes the blog?"

Depending on their function and context, some bloggers need to be identified by name. I don't use my own name on this blog, but neither do I make a serious attempt to hide my identity, because I'm not in a situation where confidentiality is important. There are places like China and Iraq where dissenters need to hide themselves if they blog. But that isn't the case here.

This is an open, public campaign. With people in the public eye. The fact that Scott Feschuk is writing the campaign blog tells everyone who reads is what to expect; there's a level of authenticity that way.

But we don't know who writes the Tory blog-- whether it's one person, or several staffers just posting away according to a script. If Tories value transparency in the public process--and I'm sure that we do--then publicly identifying the Tory blogger is extremely important, because it adds the level of authenticity that Scott Feschuk has achieved.

So, to paraphrase one of the wisest characters I know: Conservative Campaign Blogger -- I demand that you show yourself. Who is responsible for your stuff? Hmmm?

The Pack of Librano Jokers Is Growing ...

2005-11-30T09:16:00.000-05:00

... that is, my proposed Card Deck of Jokers is growing. Already I've got contributions from Les of Spider-Man's Web and Classic of Classic Quarters. By all means, please keep the suggestions coming. (You can see the deck listing here; I'll be constantly updating this as suggestions come in.)

I'd really, really like to get the full deck of 52 up and running by Election Night. (If I can get it done by Christmas, I'll be able to get artwork for the deck up on the blog by New Year's Day.)

By the by, on my page the "Post a Comment" link is run by Blogspot, while the "Comments" link is HaloScan (I haven't quite figured out how to fix this bug yet). What this means is that if you "Post a Comment", your comment will still appear if you click the "Post a Comment" link, but the count won't appear in the "Comments" link, since it only counts Haloscan-posted commentary. However, I will get e-mail notification of your comment. So don't worry, I always read and welcome your comments, and I'll try to re-post them in the original blog entry.

Scott Feschuk, Darth Liblogger

2005-11-29T15:05:00.000-05:00

Well, this should be interesting. Scott Feschuck used to be a National Post columnist and humor writer, before he was seduced by the Dark Side and corrupted into becoming Paul Martin's chief speechwriter.

Now that the campaign's started, the Liberal Party has decided to let him run a Prime Ministerial blog. Here is his first entry:

6:36 AM - Wow, look at me! I'm in "cyberspace," where no one can hear you scream. Or maybe they CAN hear you scream but they don't pay attention because they're too busy looking at naked ladies. Either way, stop screaming, would you?

I for one am betting this so-called "Internet" is really going to catch on. It's neato. Take, for example, these things knowns as "blogs" - you're soaking in one right now! These blogs are great because they allow people with special insight to instantly convey their astute observations and sage opinions to a knowledge-starved world. Or so I'm told. Personally, I'm mostly going to use this one to talk about the lost thespian promise of Erik Estrada. Because really, someone ought to. The man had screen charisma the way Marlon Brando had neck fat.

Paul Martin doesn't do irony very well, so as a result we don't expect it from his speechwriter. This ironic approach seems to have sailed right over Angry_in_TO's and Kate's head, leaving them twirling their index fingers around their temples at him.

He's getting better though, sort of slipping into early Woody Allen mode:

Did you see Jack Layton's opening statement? I think that with his words, the NDP leader has finally put to rest the rampant rumour that he got into politics to get results for small kitchen appliances.

Granted, it's not enough to issue a caution to twentysomething Korean bikini babes, but give him time. He may get better once we get past the New Year.

Personally, I can't help but feel that this blog is a cry for help. Face it, it can't be fun spending 44 hours a day trying to keep your boss from sounding like a mid-level accountant who's super-intent on proclaiming Kraft Dinner as a culinary accomplishment. Scotty needs this blog like a tonic, to keep his humor quotient from bottling up to the point of explosion, possibly damaging Paul Martin by being funny at the wrong place at the wrong time -- like, say, in an interview with Rex Murphy.

One does get the fleeting suspicion, though, that the Blog of Libirony may enable our former humour writer to "accidentally" cause Paul Martin to sputter himself into the Opposition benches, thus restoring balance to the Force. (Either that, or I've been watching my Revenge of the Sith DVD too many times.)

The Card Deck of Librano Jokers

2005-11-29T10:08:00.000-05:00

Remember the 2003 Iraq offensive when the U.S. issued a card deck of "most wanted" Iraqi acolytes?

Purely as a thought exercise, I thought I'd try to create a card deck of 52 Liberal MPs who merit defeat in this upcoming election, not on general principles but on the grounds of their own competence during this term.

So far here's what I've got:

Paul Martin, The King of Hearts. A natural of course. True, the odds of him losing his own seat are spectacularly high, but you never know.

Belinda Stronach, The Queen of Spades. Contrary to popular belief, she's not a traitor, because she didn't betray a country. She is a turncoat, however, and loyalty is not a virtue to be tossed aside lightly in politics.

Andy Scott, The Jack of Diamonds. Perhaps it's unfair that the current Indian Affairs minister has to answer for more than a decade of First Nations policy mismanagement. But that's the way the cards are dealt, sometimes.

John McCallum, The Jack of Clubs. The man sticks to his departmental talking points beyond reason, and his defence of David Dingwall, even though Dingwall is indefensible, was pretty badly handled.

Tony Valeri, The Ace of Diamonds. It was his decision to reschedule Opposition days that really doomed the current government.

Ujjal Dosanjh, The King of Clubs. Making offers that were a) refusable and b) recordable probably wasn't a good idea.

Michael Ignatieff, The Deuce of Spades. A deuce because he's not in Parliament yet, but the way he secured his nomination had no honor to it.

If people have other suggestions and ideas, by all means let me know.

UPDATE (08h37 30 Nov): Thanks to Les Mackenzie of Spider-Man's Web for making these suggestions:

Joe Volpe, The Jack of Hearts - Les would prefer adding the common name for a donkey after the Jack, of course. Volpe is nominated "for calling the entire Conservative caucus scum and not making the soundbite - among other things."

Scott Brison, The Queen of Hearts - And Les puts it quite poetically:

This queen for a day shows nothing but class
Whilst telling volunteers to go kiss his ass.

Lynn Myers, The Three of Diamonds - Les' representative for Kitchener-Conestoga, a typical Liberal backbencher. "Never heard of him? Well, hopefully we don't have to hear from him ever again after this election.

In case you're interested, Mr. Myers has a bare-bones website here. Les nominated him to be a "Queen," but I'd like to reserve face cards for those jokers who are actually in the Cabinet. Number cards from 3s to 6s are good for backbenchers because no one ever thinks about them for making a winning hand.

Thanks also to Classic Quarters for nominating the following:

Anne McLellan, The Deuce of Hearts. The deputy P.M. and Emergency Preparedness minister didn't handle disaster very well--her delayed performance during this January's tsunami, for example. Classic considers her a "two" for "always answering in 'Two Days or Two Weeks' ".

Classic originally considered Ms. Mclellan the Deuce of Clubs, but in Spider-Man's comments section, Aizlynne of Exposed Agenda prefers that Anne be upgraded to "Queen of Hearts" since she gives her heartburn. We'll compromise by keeping the deuce to reflect her relative value and changing the suit to show her effect.

Please, keep the suggestions coming in. I'd like to get a full deck ready by Election Night.

Campaign 2005: The Beginning of the Beginning

2005-11-29T08:50:00.000-05:00

Last night I was at Keith Fountain's constituency party at the National Press Club, watching the final hours of the Martin government. Pretty good-sized crowd; I also got to meet Brent Colbert and a few other people to talk blogs with. (One note: under no circumstances suggest to a Carleton University PCer that Keith should wear Ottawa Senators gear.)

While the votes were cast, it was interesting to see how people around me reacted to the individual MPs voting. While the biggest catcalls were for Martin (hey, he's the PM, he's entitled), the second biggest were for Belinda Stronach. (In the Card Deck of Librano Jokers, think of her as the Queen of Spades.) Ed Broadbent, of course, got a cheer; so did Jack Layton; and so did Pat O'Brien and David Kilgour (independents who voted against the government). A few of the Liberal backbenchers were a little slow off the mark standing up to vote, compared to the Opposition; this was tsked upon a bit. All in all, a pretty fun gathering.

I call this post "the beginning of the beginning" because it's exactly that. I remind my fellow Tories that for Paul Martin and the Libranos, this is not an end, but a mere setback; the end of the beginning will come on Election Night, whenever that may be.

The odds are that either Paul Martin gets a reduced minority or Stephen Harper gets a chance to be PM. Naturally I'm hoping for the latter, but I'm placing no bets. In either case, though, I don't expect Paul Martin to stay as leader of the Libranos for very long; he knows his performance as Prime Minister has been underwhelming, and his prospects as an Opposition leader don't hold that much promise either. If Paul Martin doesn't improve his party's standing, he'll be gone by the end of 2006.

Already Stephen Harper is getting armchair advice on how to win this one. I like to give armchair advice as much as the next blogger, but in my case I'm directing it towards the individual Tory candidates:

1. Don't rely on coat-tails. None of the party leaders are naturally charismatic enough to sway a populace. For this campaign, you're going to have to put in work in at the grass-roots level, and you're going to have to put in a lot.

2. Focus on energizing your base. This is a winter campaign, which means once you know where the polling stations are, you want to get voters through the snow and slush, and do it safely. Remember the Karl Rove strategy: don't spend too much time trying to persuade the other camp, but focus on getting out the people who'd vote for you anyway. (Hey, it worked in 2004, didn't it?)

3. Put your own stamp on the issues. This is not a campaign that requires "playing it safe" -- either with the party brass or the electorate. People need to be convinced that, when you address them, it's with your own words -- not merely re-stating the party talking points.

4. Use the Net, and use it well. The Blogging Tories are not a novelty thing; they're not going away anytime soon. The blogs can be used to publicize events and get-togethers; to help raise funds; and most of all to highlight parts of the political agenda that aren't done in mainstream media. That's all to your advantage.

With this campaign, the Libranos' biggest ally is not so much apathy, as complacency. If the Tories can counter both, they can take this election. It's time to begin.

Calling the National Capital Region Elite Blog Mafia ...

2005-11-28T13:51:00.000-05:00

... I do believe it's time to arrange another get-together.

I'm thinking the weekends of either 9-10 or 16-17 December would be a good time, and as to the place, Alexander's Lower Deck seems to me as good a place as any.

What do people say?

"Choo-Choo" Martin?

2005-11-28T11:46:00.000-05:00

One wouldn't expect the National Review to have a story on the upcoming Canadian election, but sure enough they do, with a story by David Gratzer:

There’s an old joke that Toronto is like New York, if the Swiss ran the Big Apple. Americans view Toronto and the rest of the country as clean, unexciting, and a bit boring. Canadian politics, too, seems uninspired. The Liberal party of Canada has been like the Yankees of old: winning again and again. Around the time the Babe helped lift his team to its first World Series, the Liberals began consistently winning national elections — and didn’t really stop. In the past eight decades, the Liberals spent just 16 years on the opposition benches.

And yet, today, their support is stuck at about 33 percent — the lowest polling in nearly two decades. Why the slip in popularity?

It's a reasonably lucid summary of the Adscam scandal and the Gomery report for American conservative eyes. And yet, with typical Yankee ignorance, there are a few misleading details, such as:

If he wins, Stephen Harper will not be a Margaret Thatcher. However, he may prove to be a Tony Blair — and that would be a refreshing change from "Choo Choo Man" and his friends.

"Choo Choo Man"? Where the heck did that come from?

As it turns out, Mr. Gratzer was quoting from chapter 9 of the Gomery report:

Mr. Mignacca asked to speak to Mr. Brault, and asked him if he was going to agree to "look after" Mr. Renaud, mentioning that he had just finished dinner with the "choo-choo man," which Mr. Brault took to refer to a senior executive of Via Rail, one of Groupaction’s most important clients.

And he refers to that name in an earlier paragraph:

This spring, the nation was captivated by the televised hearings of the Gomery Commission. No wonder — witness after witness painted a picture of scandal befitting any banana republic: bribes, intimidation, kickbacks, phony invoices, and money laundering. The details are breathtaking. Key players went by code names like "Choo Choo Man" and "White Head." Mysterious suitcases filled with cash were distributed to Liberal candidates, for instance at a campaign rally attended by the entire Cabinet.

I suppose Mr. Gratzer looked at "Choo Choo Man" and thought it appropriate to apply to Paul Martin. It certainly has the connotation of juvenile, simplistic thinking that characterizes the Librano caucus recently, but it's still a misleading misnomer.

Of course, the only way it'll catch on is if the upcoming Martin campaign starts to look like a train wreck. But with Paul Martin, it's not a complete impossibility ...

Keith Fountain's Blogger Advantage

2005-11-28T10:05:00.000-05:00

Since the countdown to an election call is less than 24 hours away, I thought I'd do a write-up on the candidates in my riding, Ottawa-Centre.

"Honest Ed" Broadbent of the New Democrats is the current MP, and his constituency website is here. Since Ed's retiring this time out, I expect his website will either be retired with him or be transferred to his successor to the NDP nomination. His two rivals also have websites: Richard Mahoney of the Liberals has his here, and Keith Fountain of the Tories is here.

If you look at all three sites, you'll see some fairly big differences. One glaring weakness of Keith's site is that it's English-only; the other two have similar designs including French versions. In a riding smack-dab in the middle of an officially bilingual town, that could (and probably will) be construed as a weakness. However, it's not necessarily a fatal one, and it's offset by one important strength:

Keith's site includes a blog. The other two don't. (Those of you who are Blogging Tories already know this, since Keith is part of the blogroll, but it's an important distinction.)

Could this fact be turned to electoral advantage? Absolutely, if Keith appreciates the strength of the blogging phenomenon, as well as the Internet in general.

First, he already has a technological edge over his opponents in that we know that his site is maintained on a semi-regular basis. If you look at Richard's site, you'll see that the last "news release" is dated 2004, and his "events" page has a generic greetings message. That doesn't say much for his ability to exploit the Net, and it also says a damn lot about his own willingness to reach out to the constitutency outside of an electoral context. (Expect that this will be updated more frequently once a campaign gets underway, but also expect a lapse once the campaign's over regardless of the outcome.)

Ed's is somewhat better, if only because he's a sitting MP and has more events to go to and report on. But the lack of dates in his news releases suggests a genericness that he shouldn't pass on to his successor.

Keith's blog site gives him a couple of advantages that aren't available on the other two sites. The big one, of course, is that he has an immediate forum to react to and comment on events. With the other two sites, you have to click through several links to get to their stances on the issues, and there's no telling how they'll be able to state their positions on more immediate issues. With Keith, the most immediate stuff is up front. (It's well known that Keith carries a BlackBerry and isn't afraid to use it, meaning he can update his blog pretty much anytime he wants.)

Another advantage is constituency feedback, through the Blogger Comments function. (I'm assuming he has the security function to prevent comment spam turned on.) The other candidate sites have e-mail and traditional contact information, but commentary in public has the quality of public response: a constituent who makes an inquiry in Comments can judge by Keith's response, lack of response, and time before response, what kind of MP he's going to be. And so can everyone else who reads the comments section.

A third advantage is his blogroll membership. Keith's membership in the Blogging Tories can do far more than increase his site visits. He can introduce topics to generate a conversation; he can publicize events that he's attending; he can ask for help in finding information for future speeches. In short, he has an immediate tool to increase his public profile in the Internet community. And in a connected town like Ottawa, that's a big club to wield in an election campaign.

Now of course you need far more than techno-savvy to be a successful politician. I haven't yet seen Keith make a speech or debate his rivals. But playing the blog card will go a long, long way towards getting Keith Fountain into Centre Block.

And if I were Richard Mahoney or Ed Broadbent's successor, I'd seriously consider starting a blog for this campaign.

UPDATE (12h02): I found out from Ed's campaign office that the new NDP candidate for Ottawa-Centre is Paul Dewar. His website is here. Interestingly enough, the page does have space for a "Campaign Blog" accessible on the English main page, but not the French. (I guess there's no word yet for "blog" en français.) It's blank at the moment, but that shouldn't last too long.

Advice to Ed Broadbent's office: you should link to your successor candidate's site, next time you update.

Arnold, R.I.P.

2005-11-25T10:01:00.000-05:00

How many of you remember the sitcom Happy Days?

You remember that Ron Howard, Anson Williams and Henry "Eyyy! It's The Fonz!" Winkler hung out at a burger joint called Arnold's, in 1950's Milwaukee. Most people remember the joint being run by the jolly Al Molinaro, but the original Arnold was actually a Japanese refugee.

Seeing him was my first introduction to Pat Morita, who's probably best known as the sensei to The Karate Kids. Morita passed away yesterday at the age of 73.

He did more than that, of course. He had a career as a stand-up comedian, and he also got top billing in a few short-lived TV shows, Mr. T & Tina and Ohara. Of course because their plots depended on the Asian-American culture clash, their ratings sufferered from mainstream indifference to Asian-American leads; one wonders if they'd do better in today's anime-saturated climate.

Comedy was an escape for him. He was California-born, not an immigrant, born in 1932. Which meant he became a victim of the American internment policy during World War II, imprisoned in an Arizona camp while recovering from tuberculosis. He later remarked that it was quite a jump, going from an invalid one day to Public Enemy No. 1 the next.

Despite the association with Master Miyagi, Morita should be considered one of those trailblazers (along with Star Trek's George Takei) who proved that Asian Americans could play positive roles outside the martial-arts genre. He'll be missed.

The MPs Who Won't Return

2005-11-25T09:19:00.000-05:00

With the upcoming dissolution of Parliament, quite a bit of time was spent during Members' Statements yesterday eulogizing some of those MPs who won't be running again. You already know about John Efford, Ed Broadbent and Carolyn Parrish, but these four were commended yesterday:

-- David Chatters (CPC, Westlock-St. Paul). A member for over 10 years, he's currently battling renal cancer, which is why he missed last spring's budget vote.

-- Jim Gouk (CPC, British Columbia Southern Interior). Elected at the same time as Mr. Chatters, Mr. Gouk made his announcement back in June. After more than a decade in Ottawa, he understandably wants more family time.

-- Darrel Stinson (CPC, Okanagan-Shuswap). Another MP from the class of '93, he's suffering from bladder cancer (he also missed last spring's budget vote) and initially announced his retirement plans in April.

-- Marcel Gagnon (BQ, St-Maurice-Champlain). An MP since 2000, he's been the BQ critic for seniors' issues.

In paying tribute to M. Gagnon, Richard Marceau mentioned that there were 20 MPs who wouldn't be running in the next election. Some are battling illness; others are simply worn out by the rigours of being an MP.

You have to understand, it's a pretty tough life. They have to maintain two homes: one in their riding, and one in Ottawa. Travel costs being what they are, particularly for the West and the Territories, their time can be stretched. They have to look after their constituents' problems, and they have to brief themselves on issues before the committees they sit on, and they have to debate their party policy and strategies for Parliament, and they have to vote in the House.

So when they get tributes in Parliament, you can bet they've earned it, particularly if they've sat through more than one term.

Trudeau Gets His Mountain

2005-11-24T12:01:00.000-05:00

Remember a few years back when the government tried to re-name a B.C. mountain after Pierre Trudeau? Mount Logan was the target, and the government finally backed off after a huge outcry.

Well, it's a few years later, and guess what? There's a new Mount Trudeau:

Pierre Elliott Trudeau's name will grace a previously unnamed summit just west of the Village of Valemount, a community of 1,500 located in east-central B.C. on Highway 5 close to Mount Robson Provincial Park.

Like the politician, Mount Trudeau has its imperfections. Without park protection, the peak is provincial Crown land that has been the site of logging and heli-skiing, and may one day be developed as a ski hill.

Mount Trudeau is in the Premier Range of the Cariboo Mountains, a series of peaks more than 3,000 metres high adopted in 1927 to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation.

The names of several former prime ministers are honoured in the range, including Mount (Sir Wilfrid) Laurier, Mount (John) Thompson, Mount (Lester B.) Pearson, Mount (Arthur) Meighen, Mount (Richard) Bennett and Mount (Mackenzie) King.

The Friends of Valemount, a small local group that promotes the community, first proposed Mount Trudeau in 2002. The letter officially approving the name was received from the B.C. government a week ago. The Trudeau family, through the Trudeau Foundation, has given its blessing to the naming.

Liz Bicknell, spokeswoman for the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, said a grassroots effort initiated the naming and that normal procedures were followed. Submissions for the naming of geographic landmarks are processed by the ministry's geographical names unit.

Considering that the mountain didn't have a name to begin with, I suppose that "Trudeau" will do as well as any other. And given the man's documented love of the great outdoors, I'd even allow that it was appropriate.

Now just try to imagine naming a mountain after Paul Martin. Makes the head hurt, don't it?

Are the Feds Hapless Over The Homeless?

2005-11-23T10:33:00.000-05:00

The Auditor-General's reports on the RCMP and Canada's cultural industries, released yesterday, are getting big play on the CBC this morning. Another area worth a look is what the AG has to say about Ottawa's efforts to help the homeless. (A PDF version is available here.)

You won't find it easily on the Report Card's Table of Contents page. That's because the National Homelessness Initiative is what's called a horizontal initiative -- where partners from two or more organizations have established a formal funding agreement (e.g. Memorandum to Cabinet, Treasury Board submission, federal-provincial agreement) to work toward the achievement of shared outcomes. (That's the Treasury Board definition. In plain English, it's a program that gives multiple agencies money to work on a common goal -- in this case, solving the homelessness problem.)

The Initiative currently involves two ministries: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada runs five funding programs, while Public Works & Government Services funds a sixth.

You might have expected Health Canada, or the Public Health Agency of Canada, to be involved somehow, since studies have shown a link between poor health and homelessness. But neither of them are partners in NHI, which the Auditor General noted:

We found that, in a number of cases, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Health Canada, and the Public Health Agency of Canada worked with the same service providers and targeted the same homeless population. For example, some community organizations received funding from the AIDS and hepatitis C programs and from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada programs for homeless people. When we reviewed the files and interviewed regional officials, we did not find sufficient evidence of co-ordination between these federal organizations.

Co-ordination goes beyond funding. Health Canada did not work with other departments to address policy gaps or develop implementation strategies where it was working with the same service providers. The National Homelessness Initiative did not adequately benefit from the expertise of Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada; opportunities to enhance the federal contribution to the homelessness issue were missed.(Page 13 of the report)

So you have three programs -- Health Canada, PHAC, and NHI -- targeting the same population, and yet they're not working together. Bureaucratic inefficiency.

You might have also expected Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CHMC) to be involved with NHI. CMHC was involved with the initiative at the beginning, but not now.

During the second phase of the NHI program it was apparently decided that CHMC's programs would target those "at risk" of becoming homeless, while NHI would focus on people who already were: "relative" versus "absolute" homeless. A sensible division, except that neither NHI nor CMHC actually had guidelines to define "relative" and "absolute."

The result was overlapping and duplication of services:

In Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver, we found that the Corporation and HRSDC were funding the same types of capital projects, such as shelters and transitional and supportive housing. In some cases, they were funding different activities in the same buildings. In many instances, we found that the Corporation managed the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance and the Shelter Enhancement programs separately from other federal programs directed at the homeless population. In some cases, we did not find evidence of federal co-ordination, except for the official opening ceremony.

In Phase 2, the Corporation continued to fund shelter renovations which, in our view, needed to be co-ordinated with HRSDC to ensure sustainable support services for the shelters. In Edmonton, the Corporation's advice was not adequately considered in the project selection process. In Toronto, the Corporation and HRSDC transferred the program administration for the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative to the City of Toronto. However, they did not work together on how these two programs could be better aligned for delivery by the city.

Despite some early efforts to modify its programs, in the three cities we examined, we found that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation could have done more to bring its housing expertise to federally supported projects for the homeless population. (pages 14-15)

Not surprisingly, the Auditor General also found accountability problems with NHI; there was no clear idea which ministries and agencies were involved, which makes it hard to say how much NHI actually costs the taxpayer.

It's interesting to note that, apart from an overall commitment to improving accountability, the government's response contains no specific actions regarding the NHI. Clearly the government wants to be seen doing something about the homeless; NHI's existence proves that. But the question still remains whether they want to do that something more efficiently and effectively. I'm not at all assured that they do.

The Mounties and the Nations

2005-11-23T10:17:00.000-05:00

By way of continuing yesterday's post on the Auditor-General's review of the Mounties, we're going to look at the Office's review of the First Nations Policing Policy -- how the RCMP handles police services in Aboriginal reserves. (You can find a PDF version of the report here; I'll be quoting page numbers from this version.) Needless to say, the AG isn't all that impressed.

The Mounties provide policing services to 556 Aboriginal communities in Canada, under three contract arrangements: through a direct contract with the community (the Aboriginal Community Constable Program), the an agreement with the provincial government (the Provincial Policing Services Agreement, for communities that don't have a direct contract), or through community tri-partite agreements ( also known as CTAs, negotiated by Public Service and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC) and which are intended to augment police services provided through PPSA).

Practically speaking, there are differences in levels of service with these arrangements. For example, under PPSA, a Mountie isn't specifically dedicated to a community, but essentially goes where needed. And under CTA, the Mountie essentially augments the assigned detachment in the community; however, the CTA Mountie has a commitment to serve the community exclusively.

RCMP agreements for policing services to Aboriginal communities—a summary

Agreement	Aboriginal communities(total of 556)	Population	Assigned peace officers	Funding arrangement
Agreement	Aboriginal communities(total of 556)	Population	Assigned peace officers	Federal share	Provincial share
Provincial and territorial policing services agreements	266	not available	not applicable	30%	70%
Aboriginal Community Constable Program	175	132,000	120	46%	54%
Community tripartite agreements	115	83,000	203	52%	48%

Right away, the auditors noticed an accounting problem:

... the RCMP has no time-recording system for contract policing and does not track the amount of time that peace officers assigned under the community tripartite agreements on the Aboriginal Community Constable Program agreements spend in the community. Therefore, it cannot assure a band chief and council or PSEPC that its peace officers spend at least 80 percent of their time in the communities to which they are assigned. (page 29 of the report)

The AG also found the following:

-- While the RCMP fills the CTA positions for which it is funded, there aren't enough positions to meet CTA commitments.

-- More than 40 percent of assigned peace officers' files originated outside of the community—about 50 percent in the case of the Aboriginal Community Constable Program. In other words, the Mounties aren't 100 percent committed to the communities they're assigned to, as required by their contracts.

-- This isn't necessarily the Mounties' fault, because the level of commitment to a particular community depends on the existence of an RCMP detachment within the community. Detachments that serve multiple communities (usually within northern and remote areas) have trouble meeting their contractual commitments.

-- The contracts require the RCMP to consult with band councils and chiefs on specific assignments. This happens in some communities, but not in others.

-- The contracts also require the RCMP to enforce local band by-laws. It doesn't always happen -- either because the Mounties don't know about the bylaws, or they weren't that big a priority compared with federal and provincial codes.

Another problem that popped up was bureaucratic in nature. The CTA agreements are normally negotiated between the Aboriginal Community and Public Service and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC). But the Mounties don't normally sit in on these negotiations; as a result, PSEPC will make commitments in the CTA that the Mounties cannot realistically meet. The popularity of the CTA may have also resulted in a net reduction in policing services:

As new CTAs are established, provincial policing positions are often converted to CTA positions. Over the past five years, provinces have eliminated 36 PPSA positions with the creation of the 58 new CTA positions. Converting positions to service CTAs has effectively reduced the number of peace officers available from local detachments to respond to incidents in the surrounding areas. (page 31)

The report isn't completely negative, of course. The AG found that relations between the Mounties and Aboriginal band leaders were either positive or improving, because the assigned Mounties had made and effort to be culturally sensitive.

The report also takes note of an intriguing initiative, with possible applications for Aboriginal self-governing arrangements:

Some First Nations provide security for their communities by establishing community constables. Reporting to the band chief and council, these constables are First Nations staff—not RCMP staff—and are present in the community to provide information and security awareness. These band members work closely with the RCMP peace officers, who continue to provide policing services. Community constables are generally less expensive than RCMP peace officers, and communities that have them told us that they have generally found that the community constables can work closely with the RCMP in a relationship that serves the community well. An internal RCMP study in Saskatchewan is exploring logistical, legal, and financial implications of formally supporting such initiatives. This option is not presently offered in the First Nations Policing Policy Program. (pages 29-30)

It's notable that the RCMP has accepted the recommendations of this Report, particularly with regards to Aboriginal policing. Have a look at the report and judge for yourself.

Do We Need More Mounties?

2005-11-22T16:17:00.000-05:00

Apparently so, according to the Auditor-General. She's released a report on the matter today:

"The RCMP's clients say they appreciate the quality of the peace officers assigned to them," said Ms. Fraser. "However, we found problems with staffing and training that need to be addressed."

The audit found that new recruits do not always receive six months of training in the field under the supervision of a senior officer. Furthermore, planning for replacements is inadequate and the RCMP risks overloading the contract peace officers.

For the most part, the RCMP has provided the number of peace officers it is obligated to provide under contracts with provinces, territories, and municipalities but it has done so at the expense of its federal policing responsibilities, such as fighting organized crime.

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC) has negotiated agreements to provide First Nations communities with policing services, which the RCMP delivers. But PSEPC does not monitor the agreements' implementation properly, and the RCMP is not meeting some of the commitments in the agreements—for example, ensuring that peace officers assigned to these communities spend at least 80 percent of their time on the reserve.

"The RCMP's ability to meet its commitments is key to the safety and security of the 20 percent of Canadians who depend on it as their primary police force," said Ms. Fraser.

The chapter on the RCMP can be found here. Here's a brief summary of some of the problems identified:

1) Feedback on performance for contractors can be improved. The Mounties provided police services for communities and provinces on a contract basis. This may be a surprise to some people, but what the communities consider adequate police service and what the Mounties think is adequate aren't necessarily the same -- and the feedback mechanism doesn't really communicate this.

2) No one knows how many Mounties are needed per jurisdiction. The Mounties don't have a minimum standard to measure how many personnel are needed per detachment, which can lead to some unrealistic recruiting targets and personnel assignments.

3) The Mounties' HR people have forgotten that Mounties have lives. More to the point, they take time off to have kids, they get sick, they get hurt. For some reason, those factors have never figured into staffing planning, resulting in potential shortages of people.

4) More Mounties are going to be needed in the future. They're forecasting a loss of 700 people per year, through retirement and other normal job transitions. And due to increased demand, they want to recruit 1400 cadets a year for the next four years, in order to be able to graduate 1200 of them per year for that period.

I plan on taking a better look at this tomorrow -- there's a section on Aboriginal policing that seems apt for review.

So Which Sci Fi Crew is Recruiting?

2005-11-22T15:59:00.000-05:00

(Hat Tip: Robot Guy.)

He takes a QuizFarm quiz to find out which fictional starship crew he'd best fit into, and discovers he'd do well on Firefly. I take the same quiz, and here's where I wind up:

You scored as Enterprise D (from Star Trek). You have high ideals and know in your heart that humanity will continue to evolve into a better people. Now if only the borg would quit assimilating people.

Coming on December 1, 2005:

Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? The Sequel

Enterprise D (from Star Trek)

88%

Moya (from Farscape)

75%

SG-1 (from Stargate)

69%

Nebuchadnezzar (from The Matrix)

63%

Serenity (from Firefly)

63%

Bebop (from Cowboy Bebop)

56%

Millennium Falcon (from Star Wars)

50%

Galactica (from Battlestar: Galactica)

38%

Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com

Actually, to people who know me this wouldn't be surprising at all ...

Watch Your (P.C.) Language

2005-11-22T12:18:00.000-05:00

(Hat tip: National Review's Media Blog).

The Global Language Monitor has released a Top 10 list of 2005's most "politically correct" phrasings. It's a hoot to see how far people will try to twist the language so as not to offend anyone.

Here's what the Monitor lists:

1. Misguided Criminals for Terrorist: The BBC attempts to strip away all emotion by using what it considers neutral descriptions when describing those who carried out the bombings in the London Tubes. The rub: the professed intent of these misguided criminals was to kill, without warning, as many innocents as possible (which is the common definition for the term, terrorist). [To see one example used by John Simpson, BBC World Affairs Editor, click here.]

2. Intrinsic Aptitude (or lack thereof) was a suggestion by Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, on why women might be underrepresented in engineering and science. He was nearly fired for his speculation.

3. Thought Shower or Word Shower substituting for brainstorm so as not to offend those with brain disorders such as epilepsy.

As an aside, this isn't actually new; it stems from a directive in 2003. You can read the news story about it here.

I really don't expect this one to catch on -- "storm" has more of a connotation of energy than "shower," and you want energy when you're trying to come up with a new idea. Besides, "shower" has an implied sense of coming "from on high" (a shower that goes in any direction other than downward is what we call a "spray"), which makes the phrase akin to expecting a miracle to descend upon the thinker.

To continue:

4. Scum or "la racaille" for French citizens of Moslem and North African descent inhabiting the projects ringing French Cities. France's Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, used this most Politically inCorrect (and reprehensible) label to describe the young rioters (and by extension all the inhabitants of the Cites).

5. Out of the Mainstream when used to describe the ideology of any political opponent: At one time slavery was in the mainstream, thinking the sun orbited the earth was in the mainstream, having your blood sucked out by leeches was in the mainstream. What's so great about being in the mainstream?

6. Deferred Success as a euphemism for the word fail. The Professional Association of Teachers in the UK considered a proposal to replace any notion of failure with deferred success in order to bolster students self-esteem.

I think this one may become popular -- particularly since it gives the impression that success will come, it just hasn't happened yet. I'd expect the Quebec sovereignty movement to pick this one up, easily.

7. Womyn for Women to distance the word from man. This in spite of the fact that the term "man" in the original Indo-European is gender neutral (as have been its successors for some 5,000 years).

Well, at least it looks better on the page than "wimmin."

8. C.E. for A.D.: Is the current year A.D. 2005 or 2005 C.E.? There is a movement to strip A.D. (Latin for "In the Year of the Lord") from the year designation used in the West since the 5th century and replace it with the supposedly more neutral Common Era (though the zero reference year for the beginning of the Common Era remains the year of Christ's birth).

As an aside, this is one change that I don't particularly mind, mainly because people have generally tended to use A.D. wrong.

The proper use of the term is A.D. 2005, not 2005 A.D. It makes better grammatical sense that way: "in the year of Our Lord 2005" instead of "2005 in the year of Our Lord."

9. "God Rest Ye Merry Persons" for "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen": A Christmas, eh, Holiday, carol with 500 years of history is not enough to sway the Anglican Church at Cardiff Cathedral (Wales) from changing the original lyrics.

I actually found an example of this, on the Montreux Jazz Festival announcement for 2003. I don't expect this one to become popular either; "gentlemen" scans better in the lyrics.

10. Banning the word Mate: the Department of Parliamentary Services in Canberra issued a general warning to its security staff banning the use of the word 'mate' in any dealings they might have with both members of the Parliament and the public. What next? banning Down Under so as not to offend those living in the Up Over.

The actual news story about this can be found here and here.

Some of these are actually pretty old (the CE and "womyn," for example) and probably attracted the Monitor's notice because of usage explosion on the Net. Still and all, they're a pretty odd lot for this year.

This kind of language watch is actually quite fascinating; I wonder how much of it will be picked up in the blogosphere. The GLM is definitely a site worth paying attention to, as a form of inoculation against the PC attitude in writing.

An Effordless Election

2005-11-22T11:27:00.000-05:00

Well, it's not like people didn't see this coming:

John Efford, who represents Newfoundland and Labrador in Prime Minister Paul Martin's cabinet, announced Tuesday that he will not run in the next federal election.

Efford, 61, had been away from Ottawa for months while he tried to control his Type 1 diabetes. There was heavy speculation late last week that he was about to clarify his political future.

The two-term MP for Avalon finally called a news conference in Bay Roberts, Newfoundland, to confirm he was leaving federal politics.

To understand what Mr. Efford is facing, have a look at this page describing Type 1 diabetes. Note that it's not just the disease itself, but the cardiovascular effects that he has to deal with. There's also the fact that a cabinet ministry is a high-stress job, and stress does have a bad effect on diabetes management. Which means there was no way Mr. Efford could have accepted the additional stress of an election campaign.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Efford has to leave politics under these circumstances--I haven't seen anything decrying his efforts either as an MP or as a minister. (I've already indicated I'm not going to blame him for continuing to draw his ministerial pay.) All that remains, then, is to wish him well.

Bill Graham Gets One Right

2005-11-22T10:21:00.000-05:00

Contrary to Blahgian belief, there are Blogging Tories out there who are perfectly willing to give the Libranos credit when they do something right for a change. Case in point: Defence Minister Bill Graham.

Last week, Mr. Graham had declared a $12.2-billion, three-aircraft procurement plan dead, after sharp criticism of the proposed bidding process from sources in the Canadian defence industry.

But over the weekend the Defence Minister revived what the military considers to be the most important part of its plan, a $4.6-billion purchase of 16 transport planes, because he thinks it is both politically feasible and urgently needed, sources say. A formal announcement is expected today.

"Graham was the one who rolled up his sleeves and said we've got to get something done here," a senior Defence Department official said.

Critics say the performance requirements had been deliberately crafted to rule out all but a single aircraft in two cases -- the Hercules C-130J transport and the Chinook CH-47 helicopter.

There is deep unhappiness within the Canadian defence and aerospace industries that the perceived front-runner for search-and-rescue aircraft is the C-27J, made by Italian-based Alenia, and not Bombardier's modified Dash-8, sources say.

But Defence officials contend that their requirements, including first delivery within three years, simply reflect the forces' needs.

Damian Brooks is more of an Air Force enthusiast than I, and even he is complimentary:

Good on Graham for salvaging what he could. Given the quick comeback time, I'm guessing this was a planned fallback position - which speaks volumes about the improvement in how business is being conducted in Rick Hillier's NDHQ: stop whining, and start working smart to get as much as you can as quickly as you can. The fact that this surprised even uniformed sources below the top tier is also a good sign.

Of course, the Tory defence critic doesn't see things quite that way:

[Defence critic Gordon] O'Connor charged that the Liberals are rushing the plan through to claim it as an accomplishment in the coming election fight.

"It's so he can go on the campaign trail and say we've ordered transport aircraft," he said in an interview. "Because what else can they say? There's been not one soldier recruited, either regular force or reserve. They actually have achieved nothing, in a year and a half."

It's tempting to come down hard on Mr. O'Connor, but we have to remember that criticizing defence policy and decisions is in fact his job. Besides which, the Sea King replacement debacle pretty much doomed the Liberals' reputation when it comes to defence procurement, so it's going to take them a very long time to get themselves out of the doghouse when it comes to national defence.

As for the "open competition" matter, there are a couple of things to bear in mind:

First, the Forces are way overdue for replenishment of their airlift capability. There is a demonstrated need for this class of aircraft -- humanitarian aid, search and rescue, etc.

Second, the Hercules is a good aircraft, having been used in the CF for years. (I've ridden in one once; they're noisy and facilities basically amount to a bucket tied to a bulkhead, but they get the job done.) The platform has an impressive record, and the tendency is always to go with an aircraft you're familiar with, instead of learning something completely new just because it's made in Canada. (It's more important that the pilots like to fly'em, than Canadians make'em.)

By fast-tracking the Hercules procurement, Bill Graham is finally moving away from the Chrétien-era "we know better than the CF" mindset that resulted in millions of dollars being wasted resolving the Sea King replacement issue. Granted, it probably won't help him keep his job after the election, but it's at least a step in the right direction.

Ralph Shares The Wealth

2005-11-21T15:32:00.000-05:00

That's Klein, not Goodale, and in this case the Alberta Premier's generosity is aimed towards the college crowd:

The Alberta Centennial Scholarships Program will provide 325 scholarships annually, worth $2,005 each, to post-secondary students across Canada. Awards will be provided to 25 students from each province and territory, including Alberta, beginning next year. Premier Ralph Klein announced the scholarship program in a speech in Ottawa on November 21.

The centennial scholarships are focused on helping young Canadians from all walks of life achieve their personal dreams, Klein said. "These scholarships will be open to students in any kind of recognized post-secondary program, whether it's university, college, technical institute, or an apprenticeship. The program reflects the importance of lifelong learning, and this government's desire to help people from across Canada continue their own learning."

Under program guidelines, each province and territory will be asked to nominate 25 recipients for the awards. The only criterion is that recipients attend institutions in Canada.

"It is Alberta's hope these awards will go to Canadians who need a bit of financial help to achieve their educational goals," Klein said. "But each province and territory can select its recipients based on its own priorities for students."

Klein has written to fellow premiers to advise them of the program and seek their cooperation in providing nominees. The Alberta government will work with other provinces and territories to present the first round of scholarships for the 2006-07 academic year. A new endowment account for $20 million will be established within the Alberta Heritage Scholarship Fund to support the initiative. Further details of the program will be provided early in the new year.

You'll notice that this appears to be a totally provincial initiative; no federal government involvement whatsoever. That is of course as it should be, since education is a provincial matter under our Constitution. But it must of course rankle a few cabinet ministers that he's launching this program without their input (i.e. without an opportunity for their ministries to wet their beaks at this till).

This is also the first time in recent memory that the Alberta government has set up a program that's meant to function on the national level. There is of course the possibility that other provincial ministries might be offended ("Why don't WE have a program like that?"), but given the problems in funding post-secondary education, I expect they'll get over any potential snits in a hurry.

A more ominous look can be found in the long term. Even though this program is on a national level, it's still being run by a provincial body. Since provincial educational standards aren't the same, there may be more pressure on the provincial education ministries to conform to the Alberta educational standard, just so more of their students can qualify. And that will certainly raise some hackles in Ontario and Quebec.

In short, this is a step towards Alberta becoming a bigger player on the national scene. It's a development that bears watching.

"Outside the Box": Thinking Outside the Cliché

2005-11-21T10:07:00.000-05:00

In my continuing efforts to avoid the temptation of blogging on the upcoming confidence motions, I'm going to examine a phrase that recently came up in my online activities.

I happen to sit on the committee that decides who gets put on the Red Ensign blogroll. Recently one rejected applicant tried to get the committee to change its mind by exhorting us to "think outside the box."

Pretty much everyone on the committee groaned at this. Most of us at the Brigade tend to dislike corporate jargonisms and catchphrases, and "thinking outside the box" is a perfect example of a phrase that became meaningless through overuse and underapplication.

Nowadays the phrase tends to be used in the sense of "Lower your standards" or "Forget about the rules" or "Do something creative." I suspect it's because people have only a vague idea of the concept and the way it's supposed to be applied.

According to the Word Origins site, the phrase came from a 1970s-era management exercise, in which managers were challenged to connect the dots in a 3x3 square using only 4 lines. As you can see, the solution does involve drawing the line "outside the box" -- and thus the phrase was born.

Revisiting the application, I think I can point out a couple of the characteristics of "outside-the-box" thinking that people have either forgotten or ignored over the years. By doing so, we can put a bit more meaning into it and make it into more than a meaningless slogan.

First, "outside-the-box" thinking doesn't ignore the rules. In the original exercise, nowhere do the instructions specifically state to stay within the implied box. Instead, the "box" is an implied assumption of the puzzle-solver based on the pattern of the dots. The trick is to identify what are "rules" and what are "assumptions."

This is one of the problems with applying "outside-the-box" thinking: too often we find out about the "rules" after we do the thinking. As in: "no, you can't buy brand X software because the boss has a deal with vendor Y."

The trick, then, is to know what the rules are before you work on the problem, and then differentiate between the rules and the assumptions: "Does vendor Y carry a software application that brand X software handles? If not, then buying brand X is still a solution."

Second, "outside-the-box" thinking should surprise people. This should go without saying, since the solution should be something no one has thought of before. But the phrase's deterioration into cliché has caused us to forget that; the boss's exhortation to "think outside the box" has the implied meaning "Come up with something I like." Which pretty much defeats the purpose of the exercise.

Much of the surprise will lie in the actual realization that what was thought of as an unbreakable rule was actually an assumption. The blogosphere's takedown of CBS News during Rathergate is an example of "outside-the-box" thinking because a) everyone believed that the Internet was unreliable as an information source for fact-checking, b) everyone at CBS News believed that they had done their homework, and c) no one believed that the blogosphere could create buzz offline. These were all reasonably strong assumptions -- but they were assumptions all the same.

Finally, the key to true "outside-the-box" thinking is clear understanding of the difference between rule and assumption. In the original exercise, we immediately understand that the "box" is an illusion. In real life, of course, the situation is not quite so cut-and-dried; we have to examine our assumptions and explain, clearly, why the assumption is no longer valid. It's the explanation that tends to defeat people nowadays.

Here's an example of true "outside-the-b0x" thinking: the design of the original Lunar Module for the 1960's Apollo moon program.

Here, the design rules called for the LM had to be super-light.

The problem was that the viewing windows were too heavy, and couldn't be made lighter without seriously compromising the structural integrity of the spacecraft.

A conventional approach would have been to persuade NASA to change the design rules so that the LM didn't have to be so light.

However, a different solution was reached when the designers realized a convention: they'd assumed the astronauts inside the LM would be sitting down when they landed on the moon.

This led to the solution: remove the seats. Not only did they reduce the weight of the seats, but the fact that the astronauts were standing up reduced the surface volume of the viewing windows so that they could be lighter. But this was a such a radical re-thinking of conventional spacecraft design that it required a clear explanation to NASA.

My point in all of this? "Thinking outside the box" may be a cliché now, but it doesn't have to be, once people understand what's actually involved.

Plus, it sure beats catching premature election fever ...

The 32nd Edition of the Red Ensign Standard ...

2005-11-20T12:03:00.000-05:00

... may be found here. Alan is one of the original members of the Red Ensign Brigade, and also one of the most outspoken. (Oddly, it's only now that he's hosted a Standard.)

Many of our brigade members, myself included, have posted entries on Remembrance Day, and of course that's reflected here. Go and have a look.

Paul Martin's Adscam Patch Starts Peeling

2005-11-18T13:18:00.000-05:00

We all know the Opposition's biggest stick on the Martin government is the sponsorship scandal. And we've all heard Martin's response: that he's taken all the steps that were necessary to patch up the Liberal Party's reputation, including the firing of senior officials involved.

Unfortunately for Paul Martin, the patch is starting to unravel. One of the people he fired, VIA Rail president Jean Pelletier, has gotten the Federal Court to give him his job back, on the grounds that he was wrongfully dismissed:

Justice Simon Noel said Pelletier - a Jean Chretien loyalist who was fired in connection with the sponsorship scandal - deserved to know why has was dismissed and should have been given a chance to respond.

The judge set aside the firing order and referred the whole matter back to the federal cabinet.

Which means that Mr. Pelletier, a Chrétien adherent, is back on the federal payroll. With appropriate back pay and in anticipation of a pension. Entitled to his entitlements, you might say.

This decision reminds us all that Paul Martin can't even fire people properly. We all knew that when he tried to expel people "for life" from the federal Libranos, in the wake of Gomery. He tried to look like a prompt and decisive statesmen, and in this case wound up with a example of -- shall we say? -- premature ejection.

Paul Martin, in spite of his good intentions, is the wrong person to clean up this Adscam mess. He's not going to make this mess go away -- at least not while he's in office.

And Of Course They Don't List Richard Comely

2005-11-18T11:22:00.000-05:00

Yesterday the Literary Review of Canada released its list of the 100 most important Canadian books. (Note that "most important book" is not the same as "great book," since the latter implies readability, while the former implies influence.)

The Globe and Mail, of couse, is ever-so-slightly scandalized about the books that didn't make the list:

In its neglect of the theme of hockey, it has passed over Roch Carrier's much loved children's story The Hockey Sweater, about a Quebec boy traumatized when Eaton's sends him a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey. While the list includes many celebrated Canadian novels, such as W.O. Mitchell's Who Has Seen the Wind, Margaret Laurence's The Stone Angel, Carol Shields's The Stone Diaries, Wayson Choy's The Jade Peony and Rohinton Mistry's A Fine Balance (the one novel set entirely outside Canada), it somehow missed any title by Michael Ondaatje.

Ms. Drainie explained that her colleagues' heated debate as to whether to include The English Patient or In the Skin of a Lion wound up in a draw.

"James Joyce never won the Nobel," she said. "[Ondaatje] is the most important Canadian writer who never made it on to the list of the most important Canadian books."

Since the books are listed in chronological order rather than in order of importance, I thought I'd see if I'd read any of the books that did make the list.

Roughing It In the Bush and Sunshine Sketches I remember from high school and college. Of those two, I'd probably re-read Leacock, if only because his type of humor tends to be quite timeless.

One that I haven't read is In Praise of Older Women, mainly because I'd've been pretty embarrassed about the subject matter. I guess you could call this one important in that it's -- er -- seminal in the history of the MILF cult.

I do feel pretty good that Neuromancer made the cut. I've always maintained that this book was a good example of CanLit even though most people wouldn't think of it when they think of the genre. Cyberspace, anyone?

Oh, and who's Richard Comely? He's a famous Canadian author, all right, except that his creation was Captain Canuck. I guess the Literary Review still hasn't bought the line that graphic novels are part of literature. That's something I'll have to work on.

Keeseekoose: Andy Scott Keeps Blowing It

2005-11-17T09:55:00.000-05:00

Our Indian affairs minister Andy Scott has hit upon a new tactic for dealing with the Keeseekoose scandal. He's trying to misdirect anger by accusing the Tories of racism.

Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was questioned about the Keeseekoose education trust account of $600,000, which has now been stolen. At the time, he said that the allegations were ridiculous. By Tuesday, according to the minister, those ridiculous allegations had become serious financial irregularities with the RCMP involved and, in addition, criminal charges being laid. The minister is having some difficulty getting his story straight.

We know that his department has audit documents about the theft. He is refusing to produce them. Is he trying to protect the former chief, the former Liberal candidate?

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, whether the Conservatives like it or not, first nations governments take matters of accountability very seriously. That is exactly what we have seen in this case. Where irregularities were found, the police were informed and charges were laid. What we see from the other side shows once again that these Conservatives will do anything to discredit first nations, their leadership and their members.

Now, why would Mr. Scott make this accusation? Part of it relies on the fact that the Conservative platform on aboriginal affairs is pretty badly defined. If you look at the national Tory website, you'll see that aboriginal affairs is not listed as a major issue. You have to click on "Policy Declaration" to get to "Aboriginal Affairs," which reveals a somewhat legalistic document outlining the Tory position. (What the actual platform boils down to is: better spending rules for government programs targeted at aboriginals; transfer more decision-making powers of governance to the local level; settle land claims with an process open to the public; and offer school choice to Aboriginal families. Nothing to hint at the paternalistic racism that Mr. Scott seems to believe in.)

Mr. Scott is obviously relying on an old meme: Tory = social conservative = redneck = racist = anti-aboriginal. The subsequent exchange shows why it's not going to work:

Mr. Prentice: Mr. Speaker, the chief at the time of the theft was the Liberal candidate, but in fairness, I am not surprised that the minister is confused. It is difficult for all Canadians to actually keep a clear picture of which Liberals are under RCMP investigation and which are not, which have been convicted and which have not, and which have been banned from the party for life and which have not.

Would the government consider establishing a sort of Liberal offender registry, a criminal registry that the public could consult from time to time and which the minister could use?

The Minister: Mr. Speaker, I said it before and I will say it again ... Canadians know a smear campaign when they see it. Canadians know how those members feel about first nations and their leadership. Here we go again.

Unfortunately for Mr. Scott, even though Kashechewan and other reserves water problems have made the news, they haven't penetrated very far onto the public agenda.

The second problem is that, with Liberal credibility on governance as badly damaged as it is, they no longer have as strong an ability to define their opponent's platform for them. Canadians know a smear campaign when they see it, all right; they also know when it's a Liberal doing the smearing. And if Canadians know it -- and recognize it -- it means the smear has failed.

Yet it seems that Mr. Scott likes this failed smear so much he's going to stick right with it:

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, apparently the new Liberal education policy involves paying for California vacations out of a schoolchild's education fund. I ask members to listen to this list of money taken from the Keeseekoose school account: $1,200 for Sea World, $158 for Zorro Jewelry of Santa Monica, $125 for Universal Studios. In total, this is over $3,000 stolen from the children on the reserve to pay for a California vacation.

Why will the minister not stand up for the schoolchildren of the Keeseekoose reserve?

The Minister: Mr. Speaker, this government is standing up for education and first nations. That is the reason why we are going to Kelowna at the end of this month. That is what people who really care about first nations do, not this.

Apparently Mr. Scott believes that bringing up examples of mismanagement in First Nations communities is NOT something that "people who really care about First Nations do." By this reasoning, a problem is not a problem if you don't hear about it. This is an attitude that can only lead to a mess like Kashechewan.

He also apparently shares Paul Martin's confusion that activity equals action. The upcoming First Nations summit is a big meeting, but its importance really depends on two things: on what's actually decided, and what actual actions the federal government will take regardless of who's in charge. If nothing is decided, then the summit will be rightly condemned as a waste of time and money, by First Nations leaders loudest of all.

Saskatchewn MP Tom Lukiwski has picked up on the Minister's attitude, as you can see:

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker , I do not think the minister understands how serious the situation is. On one day alone over $6,000 was stolen from the school's account: $2,000 was withdrawn at Casino Regina and $4,000 was transferred to a local hockey team. The local Liberal candidate was the president of that hockey team.

To make matters worse, the Liberals knew about this theft before they nominated the candidate who is at the heart of this controversy. Will the minister confirm today that he will conduct a full investigation of this matter? Or is this simply another Liberal cover-up?

The Minister: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has been brought in and has dealt with the issue. The reality is that in this case those members are smearing first nations leadership. That is typical of the Conservative Party and the first nations leadership itself will not stand for it.

Actually, reading the questions carefully, we can see that all three Tories don't dwell on the fact that the allegations are against a First Nations leader; they dwell instead on the fact that the leader was a Liberal Party member, with the understated hint of corruption. That idea has a stronger hold on the public consciousness than Mr. Scott's implied accusations of racism.

The failed smear also shows that Mr. Scott is devoting more thought to holding his seat in the upcoming election, than to actually doing his job as Minister. Since the matter is before the courts, he could have taken the line that the matter shouldn't be discussed in Question Period lest it contaminate the judicial proceedings. That would have been ministerial, and a correct response.

The fact that Mr. Scott responded in a partisan manner, instead of a ministerial one, is enough to make me wonder if he really is as committed to his portfolio as he should be.

Keeseekoose: The Tories Stumble on One, Recover in Two

2005-11-16T09:00:00.000-05:00

If people want to know why voters don't take the Conservatives seriously, take a look at this exchange in the Commons yesterday between Tory MP Jim Prentice and Indian Affairs Minister Andy Scott:

Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said that the Keeseekoose First Nation was the subject of routine audits. I have a copy of the band's educational bank account records and there is nothing routine that I can see.

There was $600,000 stolen from the children's education fund and money spent in Santa Monica, California and in Hollywood at an exclusive jewellery store. Stealing money from school children seems perhaps routine to the minister, all in a day's work for a Liberal. Where is the forensic audit?

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first nations governments take accountability very seriously.

My department has advised me that this first nation identified financial irregularities in 2002 and 2003. The first nation acted appropriately. It called in the RCMP. Charges were laid. The matter is now before the courts.

Here is where the Mr. Prentice screws up:

Mr. Prentice: The issue is, Mr. Speaker, what does this government take seriously? Three years after this matter was brought to the attention of the department, there has been no audit and there has been no prosecution, just more stolen money and this minister once again missing in action.

Is this not just one more big cover-up to protect someone, to protect the former chief, the defeated Liberal candidate?

I highlight the phrase in Mr. Prentice's question because it illustrates my point: in the quest to score political points by promulgating his theory of Librano protection, Mr. Prentice did not pay attention to the Minister's answer.

"Charges were laid. The matter is before the courts." If Mr. Prentice was on the ball, he would have dismissed the response as inadequate: charges against whom? What charges, specifically? And what steps are being taken (i.e. more vigorous auditing, rule tightening, etc.) to ensure this doesn't happen again? But no; Mr. Prentice relies on his script too much, and so a potentially strong attack against a weak minister becomes discredited.

Sometimes, though, ignoring a response can be deliberate. Witness these follow-up questions from MPs Garry Breitkreuz and Tom Lukiwski:

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that there is a cover-up taking place at Keeseekoose, but that is not a surprise because the Liberals do not want anyone to know what is going on at the reserve.

The Indian affairs department spent $9 million to build a school for only 250 students. How can a school for 250 students cost that much? We know that over $600,000 was stolen from the school account. How much of that $9 million for a new school was stolen from the children of Keeseekoose? What is the minister trying to hide?

The Minister: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the first nation reported this to the RCMP, which investigated. Charges have been laid. It is before the courts.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, bank records show that money from the St. Phillip's school account was withdrawn from at least five different casinos in Saskatchewan. In fact, in Casino Regina alone there were over 40 separate withdrawals totalling over $18,000.

When the Liberals heard these allegations of theft and corruption, did they call the police? No. They called a nomination meeting because they had just found the perfect Liberal candidate. When will the minister admit he is turning his back on the children of St. Phillip's school?

The Minister: Mr. Speaker, this first nation did the appropriate thing when financial irregularities were found. It called the RCMP, an investigation was conducted and charges were laid. This is now before the courts.

What these two MPs did, that Mr. Prentice did not, was take Mr. Scott's response into account. Note that they don't accuse the government of not mounting a prosecution, but refer to other -- er -- activities in line of their theory. The two are not mutually exclusive.

You see, Mr. Scott's response is legally safe, but timid as a defence; certainly it's not strong enough for the Opposition to drop the matter altogether. The Tories' questions are not meant to elicit a stronger response from the Minister. They're meant to put specific allegations on the Parliamentary record, the gravity of which highlights the problems of Mr. Scott's management.

Andy Scott Blows His Job

2005-11-15T09:16:00.000-05:00

Andy Scott, our Indian Affairs minister, has got a cloud hanging over him. Witness this exchange in yesterday's Hansard:

Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Keeseekoose is a small first nation in Saskatchewan. In the time between 1995 and 2001, over $600,000 was systematically looted from its education fund. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has known about this since 2002 and this minister has known since he was appointed, but the minister refuses to help the new chief and council get to the bottom of this.

What is the minister hiding? Why will he not produce a forensic audit that shows who stole the Keeseekoose children's trust fund?

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, audits are conducted routinely. If those audits find things that should go to the RCMP or other agencies, that is exactly what happens.

Note that Mr. Scott's response is an indirect answer and not a direct one. The fact that he couches this in generalizations, however, suggests that a) there was no audit available; or b) he doesn't know if an audit was in fact authorized by his department. Given the typical size of federal ministries, b) is the more likely answer.

Moving on:

Mr. Jim Prentice: Mr. Speaker, all we hear from the minister is excuses and obfuscation. The current chief and council want to find out who stole their education money. The minister will not help them.

Will the minister admit today that he is trying to protect the former chief because he was the chief when the money was stolen and because he was the Prime Minister's Liberal candidate in the last federal election? Is this why the minister will not produce a forensic audit?

Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, that allegation is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Quewezance, the former chief, was president of the St. Phillip's Rangers hockey team when it received repeated direct transfers from the school account. He knew what was going on and the Liberals recruited him to run as their candidate in 2004 while failing to investigate complaints made to Indian affairs about this matter in 2002.

The Liberals have hit a new low in stealing money from schoolchildren while protecting one of their own from investigation. Is this the new standard of ethics the Prime Minister promised us in 2004: nominating candidates who steal money from schoolchildren and then covering it up?

Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, the new low is across on the other side. That is a ridiculous and scandalous thing to say.

Notice his response: Ridiculous. Scandalous. There is, however, one word that Mr. Scott does not use: untrue.

You cannot make an accusation go away merely by calling it names. There are a number of ways in which Mr. Scott could have responded: he could have said that an audit was ongoing and that he couldn't comment on the matter because of it; he could have said the Opposition theory had no basis in fact (which is technically true, because much of this theory depends on optics and spin); he could have said this was the first time he personally had heard of it and would arrange for an audit to start; or he could have invited Mr. Prentice to re-state his theory outside the chamber (thereby inviting a legal accusation of slander).

But no. This question caught Mr. Scott by surprise, and as a result his responses are weak, and can be seen as weak. It's unfortunate that he's been in this post for just slightly over a year -- hardly long enough to appreciate all the problems of Aboriginal governance -- but even so, as a Minister he should have been able to mount a better defence than this.

And with new allegations of mismanagement of reserve water resources, the case can be made that Mr. Scott has a poor grasp of the Indian Affairs portfolio. He, along with Revenue Minister John McCallum, will be on the list of overripe electoral prunes: those Ministers who must wage the next campaign handicapped not only by Liberal Party wrongdoing, but their own misperformances as well.

The Canadian Blogosphere Needs to be SLAPPed

2005-11-14T09:00:00.000-05:00

No, I'm not talking about the parliamentary chicken game being played out right now. (I've decided to ignore stories about confidence votes until they actually happen; no sense trying to stoke partisan fire until we actually get the kickoff.) I'm talking about what can be done for a blogger who's being sued for libel:

Louisette Lanteigne of Waterloo, Ont., said she grew sick of what she saw during construction in her new subdivision and what appeared to be questionable building practices and labour-code violations.

She launched her website in April to document her complaints and as a means for the province's Environment and Labour ministries to view the evidence she collected. She made about a dozen postings with photos and stories of sightings around her area.

Her efforts led to letters and kudos from various government officials for reporting alleged violations.

Environment Ministry spokesman John Steele said work by people like Lanteigne is of great value because there aren't enough ministry workers available to spot every infraction.

"Obviously we can't have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry," Steele said. "They're an important part of the ministry's work."

As an aside: this illustrates one of the true strengths of the blogosphere. For a local problem to be handled, it needs to be publicized and documented. In this era of digital photography, free Web hosting and super-cheap Internet access, bloggers can do this -- without the worry of having to go through a centralized editorial process.

Had Ms. Lanteigne tried to make this a printed or media news story, she would have needed to convince a reporter, who in turn would have to convince an editor, who would have to decide on its newsworthiness and when to run it. Since a website is a continuous presence, she can post her evidence there and prompt officials to see it via a web address. The site, simply called Infringements, is here, but it's had so many hits that it's crashed as of this time of writing.

Of course, since anybody in the world can look at her website, it stands to reason that there will be some folks who look at it and don't like what they see. Especially the people who caused the problems she complained about in the first place:

On Sept. 16, Lanteigne received news that she was being sued for libel by developer Activa Holdings Inc., one of the largest developers in the region.

The statement of claim said "the malicious, high-handed and arrogant conduct of the Defendant warrants an award of punitive or exemplary damages to ensure that the Defendant is appropriately punished for her conduct and deterred from such conduct in the future."

The company sought $2 million and an order to have the allegedly libellous material taken offline.

While Lanteigne may not have $2 million to pay Activa, she does have a lot to lose and could be forced into bankruptcy.

Lanteigne said she stands by everything she wrote and isn't backing down.

"I learned the only way they could get me to remove the site was with an injunction, and an injunction would mean they would have to bring this information in front of a judge," Lanteigne said.

"I thought, 'That's excellent,' because I need a judge to see what's going on here."

Some U.S. states have seen so many libel or defamation lawsuits that legislation has been created to help people take on cases against more powerful opponents.

The legislation is typically called anti-SLAPP, an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

The laws reduce the risk of fighting lawsuits because if the plaintiff loses, they are responsible for all the legal fees. In Lanteigne's case, she will have to pay her lawyer regardless of the outcome.

Ms. Lanteigne is obviously confident enough in her documentation and evidence that she believes bankruptcy is a worthwhile risk. But other bloggers -- particularly those blogging about local issues -- may not feel the same way; they don't have the resources to take the risk. An anti-SLAPP fund would go a long way towards keeping large organizations accountable to the public (via the blogosphere) for their misbehaviour.

As far as I know, anti-SLAPP legislation doesn't exist in Canada, at either the national or provincial levels. It should -- as part of any good whistleblower support legislation. When it comes to empowering Joe and Jill Blogger, public help is a good thing.

Why I March Tomorrow

2005-11-10T09:00:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow I will be seeing a group of old men.

I have done this for more than 20 years, and with each year this group grows smaller. This is inevitable, because what unites these men is that they were warriors in war, and the implication of their shrinking size is that the nation has not added to their ranks by declaring war on a grand scale.

There are, of course, some new faces among them. They wear blue berets, and were sent on missions of peace that were no less dangerous. For the nature of conflict has changed in our time, and so there will always be veterans among us.

I will not be seeing them alone. There will be others with me, some my age or older, more of them younger -- about the same age as these old men were, when they first donned the uniform and went to fight for their country. We will be in our best clothes, because it is a sign of respect and it is the least we can do for them. We will march past them, in a ceremony now in its ninth decade, because we are their descendants and have agreed to do what they did, should the need ever arise.

We do not march tomorrow because it will be fun. We will be parading in what promises to be miserable weather, cold and damp, offering a tribute to people who have endured far worse.

We march tomorrow because we wish to honour our veterans, to let them know with our presence that we appreciate their work and sacrifice. If you look around your office, your classroom, your dwelling, you will know: yours is a world made possible by them.

Yes, there are problems with our governments. But we have the freedom to say so, and we can air our opinions in almost any medium, whether at the water cooler, or at our computer, or on an A-Channel booth, or in a letter to the editor. The ability to decide things for ourselves is a key value of our society.

That is why our veterans fought. And because they suffered so much in their defense, it is why I march tomorrow.

Not for government. Not for me. For them.

Rage Not at John Efford

2005-11-09T08:59:00.000-05:00

It's not often that you'll catch me expressing sympathy for a Liberal cabinet minister. With one exception: the current natural resources minister, John Efford.

As most of you know, Mr. Efford is suffering from the debilitating effects of later-stage adult-onset diabetes. As such he's had to relinquish his everyday duties as minister.

However, according to this story from the Globe and Mail, he's still drawing his full pay and benefits:

That he has remained in cabinet while trying to stabilize his illness seems to be unprecedented. An MP earns $144,000. A cabinet minister earns an extra $69,500 stipend.

Prime ministers have appointed senators to minor cabinet posts to ensure a certain region is represented, but parliamentary experts cannot find an exact situation like that of Mr. Efford's.
His illness has left the province without a strong voice and physical presence at the cabinet table. It has also raised concerns that the province is losing out.

It is not clear when, or even if, Mr. Efford will be able to resume his duties in Ottawa. "That would be a decision he would make with his doctor," said Tom Ormsby, his communications director.

There is, of course, a right way and a wrong way to react to this sort of news. Interestingly, it is Tory darling Peter McKay, and not Stephen Harper, who demonstrates the wrong way:

MacKay said paying Mr. Efford a full cabinet salary is the most recent example of Liberals becoming accustomed to the benefits of government.

"I think that it's very consistent with the Liberal culture of entitlement," Mr. MacKay said. "It's money for nothing and cheques for free. It's cabinet compensation for very little effort for Mr. Efford."

This is the wrong way because it re-inforces the notion that the Tories will say and do anything to score political points. Including ignoring an obvious case of compassion.

How many of you have seen the Star Trek episode, The Menagerie? Featuring Captain Pike, the guy who got turned into a scarred quadrapalegic in the line of duty and could only communicate by beeping once or twice?

In that episode, Captain Pike wound up sitting on a board of inquiry because he was still on the active duty list despite his debilitating injuries. Starfleet admitted no one had the heart to take him off the list.

The same principle applies here. John Efford is trying to deal with a disease that can decimate his ability to work, but at the same time can be potentially managed so that he can return. He has not been ensnared in major wrongdoing or scandal, so there's no compelling reason to toss him out of cabinet.

Under those circumstances, to Paul Martin it makes more sense to keep him in Cabinet that to summarily dismiss him. From a human standpoint, it would motivate Mr. Efford to get better, knowing that his Cabinet colleagues want him to come back. And the consequences of firing a sick man from cabinet, just because he's sick, would be alienation of the traditional Liberal base with its own broad streak of sentiment.

It doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint, or with a model of efficient government management. But it does make sense from the standpoint of human relations, and until Mr. Efford actually resigns of his own accord, I won't criticize Paul Martin for keeping a Cabinet chair at the table for him.

And Now, for Something Completely Different ...

2005-11-08T15:53:00.000-05:00

Tired of blogging about the upcoming Parliamentary game of chicken? Sick of our Governor-General explaining for the 16th time that she was only making a joke? Burned out over the riots in France? Then come and contemplate this Pythonesque news story:

STOCKHOLM (AP) -- They rarely have problems with drunks or rowdy animals, but residents of an elderly home in southern Sweden had to deal with both when a pair of intoxicated moose invaded the premises.

The moose -- a cow and her calf -- had become drunk over the weekend by eating fermented apples they found outside the home in Sibbhult, southern Sweden, said Anna Karlsson, who works there.

Police managed to scare them off once, but the large mammals returned to get more of the tempting fruits. This time the moose were drunk and aggressive, forcing police to send for a hunter with a dog to make them leave.

Police did not pursue the culprits, but made sure all apples were picked up from the area, local police chief Bengt Hallberg said. No one was hurt.

Now, upon seeing that dateline, how many of you immediately thought of the opening credit sequence for Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

"A moose once bit my sister ... "

Layton On The Spot

2005-11-07T14:03:00.000-05:00

Well -- it looks like things are about to get interesting. From the text of Jack Layton's speech to the Empire Club earlier today:

Last week, late Thursday night, the government responded to our specific proposals.

We’ve analyzed them over the weekend.

What the government is proposing is unacceptable.

To be fair, the government did go some distance on preventing doctors practising both in and out of medicare. But addressing one issue while failing to address the larger question of privatization isn’t enough.

There is no meaningful accountability. No real effort to monitor and track public medicare’s decline and private care’s rise. And today’s Liberal Party is unwilling to attach any conditions to prevent privatization to the funds it currently invests in health.

This isn’t good enough for people concerned about the erosion of public medicare ...

So reluctantly, we have sent a response to the government, outlining why we find their proposals unacceptable.

If the content of the government’s response to us on private health were a bill before Parliament, we would oppose it. They aren’t any better contained in a letter from Health Minister Dosanjh.

So, unfortunately, I don’t believe there are grounds to go forward.

And so, unfortunately, for those of us committed to getting things done in this Parliament, there’s no basis for our party to express confidence in this government.

We cannot express confidence in a government unwilling to act on such a critical issue.

And we cannot express confidence in a government under the leadership of a party that cannot be trusted to clean up the politics it tainted.

Doesn't exactly get much plainer than that, does it? Paul Martin can no longer count on the NDP to automatically support his government, because Jack Layton has concluded that he can't move the government's agenda any further on health care.

Now this doesn't necessarily mean that Jack is going to side with the Tories and the Bloc on a confidence motion; he doesn't say that. However, both Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe have decided that Layton needs to be the fall guy:

"It's the same soap opera. We will continue to assume that Mr. Layton is still bargaining with the Liberal government," said Harper.

The Tory leader said his party won't introduce a confidence motion before Christmas because he doesn't believe Layton will follow through with a three-party opposition attack.

If Layton is serious about bringing down the government, Layton has to present "a clear confidence motion that speaks to corruption in the Liberals," said Harper.

The Bloc Québécois leader, Gilles Duceppe, echoed Harper, saying that though he has no confidence in the government, Layton "has to make a move."

Harper's critics will of course say that he's abdicated his responsibilities as Opposition leader, by not initiating the vote of non-confidence. I say it's more a case of realpolitik. Both Harper and Duceppe know that a non-confidence motion is an empty gesture unless there's a very real chance that it will pass. Both also know that the very nature of their jobs in Opposition gives the Libranos a target to point to for voters irritated at having to trudge out in the snow for the ballot box.

On the other hand, Jack Layton's conduct in this session has been, from all accounts, pretty moderate, with none of the hysterical theatrics associated with the other parties. He still retains a higher degree of public respect than the other party leaders. So if Jack's the one to pull the trigger on the Libranos, it will have far greater impact on the electorate: it will mean that the Libranos can no longer be reasoned with. By anyone.

The first opposition day comes up in a week. We'll see.

The 31st Edition of the Red Ensign Standard ...

2005-11-07T11:16:00.000-05:00

... may be found here. A relative newcomer, Ruth has opted to dress up the Standard in a Star Wars theme (in honour of Revenge of the Sith, released on DVD last week).

The Don Takes His Time

2005-11-04T14:02:00.000-05:00

Stephen Harper has actually caught a break, for once. Don Laytone's delayed decision on the proposed Liberal healthcare plan has allowed him to put his Accountability Act notions on the media front burner, and keep them there.

If the Don had made a decision, one way or the other, there's no doubt it would have seriously damaged Harper's attempts to get his reform proposals out onto the public agenda. And Harper's leadership would, again, be put into doubt because he couldn't command the agenda. But not now. Now, Harper can encourage the pundits to ponder his proposals over the weekend while the New Democrats sit ... and think.

Triggering an election is of course a serious decision. If Layton sides with the Opposition to bring down the government, he has to believe that the New Democrats will derive some benefit, in the form of increased representation. The opinion poll trends for the NDP, while more stable than the Tories', have not been all that encouraging either.

On the other hand, if he gives the Liberals his support in exchange for health care reforms, he needs to have some hope that said reform will be carried out. He's not naive enough to believe that the Liberals will swallow the NDP line on health care, and whatever commitments he's received from them are probably the ones that they can guarantee to be carried out. In short, whatever they gave him is the best the NDP can hope to accomplish in terms of concrete health care reform. Is it enough?

Heavy thoughts to ponder over the weekend. But at least it might get him out of raking the leaves ...

Harper Gets It Half-Right

2005-11-04T13:16:00.000-05:00

Well, it has to be admitted: when it comes to changing government, Stephen Harper has come up with something pretty radical. This Accountability Act has got some legs -- but by itself, it won't be enough to get him to 24 Sussex.

Let's look at some of the proposals Harper makes:

1. Banning corporate and union donations to political parties, while limiting personal donations to $1,000. As Angry says, this is pretty much a partisan move aimed at the Liberals and NDP, since they raise the majority of their funds through corporate and union donations. It also has the effect of cutting off a lobbying channel for interest groups, through targeted political funding.

2. Ban cash donations to political parties or candidates of more than $20. This one's a bit trickier. I think the idea is that Harper wants a paper trail for political party donations, either by cheque or credit. At the same time, the $20 limit keeps the door open for fundraising events. Like summer barbecues.

3. Extend to ten years the period for which Elections Act violations can be investigated and prosecuted. Frankly, I don't see this one flying. It would, in effect, give a future Tory government carte blanche to go after the Liberals for all of their sins -- which would be distracting from their contemporary mandate, and also strike some people as overly vindictive.

4. Extend to five years the period for which ministers, ministerial staffers, and senior public servants cannot lobby government. The idea being that by the time five years rolls around all the contacts these ex-politicos had accumulated would be useless. Again, this strikes me as somewhat vindictive. However, a debate on this measure would be useful in that it opens the door for questions on how, exactly, influence should be wielded.

5. Create an independent Parliamentary Budget Office to provide objective analysis directly to Parliament about the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy. Now this one sounds promising -- sort of a restructuring of the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament. I'd be curious to find out if Harper has the U.S. Congressional Budget Office in mind as a model. They do some pretty good work -- at a cost of $34 million a year. Can Parliament afford that kind of research operation?

It's also interesting to note that, in his proposals for auditing, Harper doesn't talk about the hiring of new auditors. It's possible that he intends to follow through with Treasury Board's plan to hire more, but I'm not going to second-guess him.

I say that Harper gets it half-right because he's tackled one-half of the government equation: political direction. It's a radical re-think because it aims at fundamentally changing the culture of political influence that grew up in the past 20 years. There's just enough imagination in its assumptions to make it a strong plank in the Tory campaign platform.

The other half, however, is the one he has to change, if he wants more than one term in office: the public service culture that sprang up in the Trudeau years and that was nurtured during the Chrétien era. The complicated bidding processes, the bureaucracy that swallows funding meant to be delivered to an end-user. A public service used to the Liberal idea of managerial direction may not necessarily be flexible enough to accommodate a Conservative change in attitude. And unless he comes up with a way to deal with it, it's this second half that will be Harper's undoing.

UPDATE (15h37): I may have left the impression, based on my critique, that I don't support these elements. Actually, I think these are very good ideas. But part of my job as The Phantom Observer is to find avenues of criticism for Tory policy. And you can bet that the Liberals, given a chance, will criticize these proposals along the very lines I've mentioned.

Don't Read Too Much Into Polls Like This

2005-11-04T09:09:00.000-05:00

NealeNews' headline into this Calgary Herald story is a bit misleading. It's certainly possible that Paul Martin and the Libranos would lose badly if an election were called now.

But -- an election isn't being called now.

Normally, whenever a story that makes the Liberals look bad breaks, the subsequent polls show a closing between the Tories and the Liberals, with the Tories trailing by 4 to 6 percentage points. Afterwards, when the story's impact has been expended, the Liberal lead expands to between 8 and 12 points, depending on whether a story on Stephen Harper has aired.

What's happened here is that two stories broke at the same time to make the Liberals look bad--the Gomery report, and the Kashechewan evacuation. It's the latter which has the potential to do far more damage to the Liberals in the eyes of the voters, because that story deals with the concept of visual competence, as opposed to invisible corruption. In other words, the Tories don't have to harp on a theory of Liberal corruption which is the basic Gomery report theme. Instead they can point to photos of native being evacuated and say it's the Government's fault, and they can do that with some justification.

Can the Liberals recover? As I think I've mentioned earlier, part of it will depend on Jean Chrétien's histrionics. But most of the Liberals' recovery will depend on their ability to judo-flip Stephen Harper's proposed alternatives, and unfortunately for Harper, that's not too hard.

Today Harper will announce his accountability package, his party's proposed mode of behaviour that's supposed to prevent the excesses documented by Judge Gomery. If he can come up with something for the media to latch onto, he'll go a long way towards making that narrower gap in the polls a permanent fixture. But he'll be competing with, among other things, Jack Layton's response to Liberal medicare proposals. And the Layton story has more immediacy because its consequences -- a possible fall of the government -- are more short-term. So the odds that Harper can capitalize are not good.

Prediction? Look for the Liberals to lead by 4 points, in two weeks' time.

Could Jean Chrétien's Ego Put the Tories In Power?

2005-11-02T09:45:00.000-05:00

This idea isn't has far-fetched as you might think.

The former prime minister has decided that his ego and reputation are far more important to him than the Liberal Party of Canada, and he's going to ask the Federal Court to review the Gomery findings.

It's difficult to say what, exactly, he wants to accomplish. If he's trying to get the Court to declare the report invalid due to bias, the Court will point out that the Judge's declaration of personal authorship and responsibility makes such a point moot. And in any case, it won't result in an overnight change of mind about Chrétien in the eyes of the public.

If he's trying to get the Court to force Judge Gomery to change his conclusions ... well, that's judicial interference.

If he wants to sue Judge Gomery for libel, he'd have to demonstrate that the Judge really did act maliciously in his writing. He would also have to demonstrate how the Judge's conclusions adversely affect his ability to work, not his past legacy (or what there is of it).

In any case, if the Federal Court decides to hear his case, it can mean nothing but trouble for the federal Liberals, and a golden opportunity for the Opposition.

First, if Chrétien raises a big enough ruckus during the proceedings, it will keep the Adscam story alive and in the headlines long after people have gotten tired of it. This, ironically, lessens the burden on Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe to hammer on the issue as an example of Liberal corruption. Why should they, when the ex-PM can do it for them?

Second, if Chrétien insists on going through a trial it will shift Paul Martin's campaign strategy onto grounds not of his own choosing. If Adscam had been allowed to die down, Martin could have run on his minority record. However, Chrétien's actions during a pre-campaign period will generate so much publicity on his term in office that Martin will be forced to defend the entire 12-year period of Liberal rule, not just his own time in power.

He'll be forced to do that because he needs Chrétien's supporters, the ones still in the Liberal party infrastructure who can help with campaign logistics. If he tries to distance himself from Chrétien, he risks losing those loyalists and splitting an already demoralized party.

Third, and possibly most dangerous, is the possibility of Liberal scandal burnout. The Grits may presume that, no matter how bad they are, their supporters won't automatically go to the Tories, and the opinion polls so far have supported that. What the polls have not reported on, and what the Liberals should worry about, is the possibility that disenchanted voters will stay home on Election Day, no matter when it might come.

True, it's also a risk for the federal Tories, who'll need to devote a lot of time to rallying and shoring up their base of voters -- Stephen Harper really needs to harp less and propose more. But the more Chrétien pops up in the headlines, the harder it will be for the Liberals to appeal to voters who think it's time to change the government.

It's an admitted irony to think that Chrétien's last legacy would be a Tory government. But it's certainly something the ex-PM had better consider.

The Gomery Opportunity

2005-11-01T12:57:00.000-05:00

There's an old adage that for every problem, there is an opportunity. That's especially true now that the Gomery report on Adscam is out.

Phase 1 of Justice Gomery's report is now available at his website. I'd advise people to look especially at chapter 16, which explains whom people should want to hold accountable: Prime Minister Chrétien, Jean Pelletier, Chuck Guité, Alphonse Gagliano, the private agencies involved, and at the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada. (Do not confuse the latter with the provincial Liberal Party, which is Jean Charest's responsibility and has problems of its own.)

First, if Jean Chrétien is contemplating legal action, he'd be wasting his (and taxpayers') money. The conclusion was obvious ever since Adscam broke: the buck stopped with him. It's not really news that he was incompetent at the machinations of government; Gomery merely confirmed it:

Since Mr. Chrétien chose to run the Program from his own office, and to have his own exempt staff take charge of its direction, he is accountable for the defective manner in which the Sponsorship Program and initiatives were implemented. (chapter 16, page 428)

If Chrétien has any solace, it's that other great prime ministers have been dogged with similar wrongdoings: Sir John A. Macdonald's Pacific Scandal, for example. His problem is that he has no positive achievement to point to as proof of his vision of statesmanship. And because of that, Jean Chrétien will be remembered as a mediocre prime minister. He may as well accept that as his legacy.

Second, the most direct beneficiary of the Gomery findings is the Bloc Québécois, due to this statement:

The LPCQ as an institution cannot escape responsibility for the misconduct of its officers and representatives. Two successive Executive Directors were directly involved in illegal campaign financing, and many of its workers accepted cash payments for their services when they should have known that such payments were in violation of the Canada Elections Act. (Chapter 16, page 435)

Note that the paragraph is written in the present tense. It's certainly enough for the BQ to instigate public pressure for housecleaning in the Liberal Party of Canada, Quebec Region -- and that's tantamount to a win-win situation for the BQ in the next election.

Because if the LPCQ replace their senior people in response to Gomery, their logistical and administrative abilities are crippled, making it difficult to effectively organize volunteers and candidates during the next election. On the other hand, if there is no activity, the BQ can spend the entire campaign harping on the Liberals' refusal to clean themselves up. Either way, unless the BQ itself screws up (which is an unlikely possibility) one can expect a net loss of seats in Quebec for the Liberals.

Third, if the Tories want to score political points with the Gomery report, they won't be able to do it by blaming Paul Martin or anyone currently in Cabinet:

On the evidence there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility for the maladministration of the Sponsorship Program to any other Minister of the Chrétien Cabinet, since they, like all Members of Parliament, were not informed of the initiatives being authorized by Mr. Pelletier, and their funding from the Unity Reserve. Mr. Martin, whose role as Finance Minister did not involve him in the supervision of spending by the PMO or PWGSC, is entitled ... to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct. (Chapter 16, page 430)

What they need to do is a two-fold strategy. First they need to show voters whether the corporate culture that produced Adscam is too engrained within the Librano philosophy to allow them to stay in government. Angry_in_TO's examination of backbencher David Smith is a fair example of such an approach.

The second thing is to get out the Tory mindset for making government departments accountable. This is tricky because talking about the nuts and bolts of reform is a guaranteed insomnia cure, particularly when done by a wonk like Stephen Harper. But if Canadians can see that the Tories have good ideas for governing, then they'd be more inclined to give them a try than if they only heard carping about Liberal corruption.

As for the New Democrats, I'd have to agree with Reg at Putting the A in Smart that Don Laytone is in a bit of a bind. If he wants some of the NDP policy points enacted during the next session of Parliament, he's going to have to devote a fair bit of time to defending the Liberals on corruption, just to justify his own alliance -- and there's a very real possibility of backfire (i.e. losing soft left votes from the NDP during the election, particularly in Ontario and the West).

Emperor Duceppe's Grand Army

2005-10-30T10:37:00.000-05:00

Gilles Duceppe is apparently reeeeeeaaaally keen on getting Quebec its own armed forces:

Bloc delegates are gathered in Montreal to draft policy for a Quebec independent of Canada, including proposals for an army, a free trade deal with Europe and Mexico, an immigration policy and diplomatic ties with Washington.

"It doesn't mean that you're going to war because you have an army," said Duceppe, who faces a leadership review during the three-day policy convention.

Duceppe said the Bloc, which holds 54 of the province's 75 seats in Parliament, envisioned a "small army," like that of Denmark or Norway.

He said it would be deployed for natural disasters, international peacekeeping missions and - only if necessary - to armed conflicts.

"Anyway, what equipment do we need?" Duceppe said. "Do we need nuclear submarines? We say no. Maybe multifunctional boats to transport troops, equipment, and to transform into hospitals across Haiti."

In this statement, you can see both the strengths and weaknesses of Duceppe's thinking on Quebec's security needs.

Let's be candid for a moment. If you don't believe in the idea of Quebec independence, then Duceppe's idea is ludicrous. But if you are capable of envisioning Quebec as an independent nation state, then the notion is worthy of public discussion. Because if Quebec has to rely on Canada to defend its military interests, then the notion of true independence is exposed as a farce.

And Quebec does have military interests. Montreal and Quebec are major commercial ports that can be disrupted by terrorist attacks. There are hydroelectric projects in the northern region that are vulnerable to air attack. An independent Quebec has to figure out some way of protecting its assets in the event that Canada refuses to do it for them. And it can't be done by merely assigning more taskings to the Sureté du Québec -- the provincial police simply don't have the training for such operations, nor would such training be easy to obtain.

So Duceppe is only being a responsible politician when he insists on putting defence on the table. His examples, though, simply prove that he's not as deep-thinking as he would like Quebeckers to believe.

Haiti is an example of a UN peacekeeping operation, and Duceppe seems to be suggesting that the province would be fielding a UN peacekeeping battalion. He seems to be relying on the traditional support that Canadians give their military when it comes to peacekeeping operations.

Unfortunately, it's also a weak selling point. Peacekeeping depends on a lot of things: the goodwill of the host country, the direction of the UN, and the resources that an independent Quebec would be willing to invest. None of these factors can be relied upon at the moment.

Our estwhile Emperor is also somewhat shallow in his thinking when it comes to recruiting for his proposed Grand Army:

Duceppe said he had faith a Quebec army would have no trouble recruiting.

"When you look at voting (for separatist parties) . . . we have very good results among the military," he said. "There are lots of sovereigntists in the Canadian army," he said.

"Mr. Duceppe is displaying his total ignorance," Transport Minister Jean Lapierre said in a telephone interview with he Canadian Press.

"He just has to look at the voting results of soldiers and he'll see that the army hasn't become sovereigntist at all. These people are committed to defending Canada," he said.

Frankly, I don't think either of those two have done much thinking about voting records in the Canadian military. If Elections Canada keeps those sorts of statistics, they're not available to the public, at least not online.

Could Emperor Gilles recruit an army? Certainly; he might be able to attract former members or reservists who don't want to leave the province. But he's hampered by one simple fact: good defence costs money. The provincial government has a very heavy debt load which puts the kibosh on most new program spending. Gilles Duceppe won't get his army -- because right now Quebec can't afford it.

Of course, he could try to cut a deal with the cloners on Kamino ...

Ken Epp Award Nominee: Paul Martin

2005-10-28T09:27:00.000-04:00

I really wish I didn't have to do this. Senior ministers, by dint of their parliamentary experience, are not supposed to make the kinds of rhetorical mistakes that make politicians eligible for the Ken Epp Award.

But lo and behold, here's the Prime Minister himself, responding to a question on the Kashechewan evacuation:

Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker ... during the August 19 meeting, the chief of Kashechewan presented the minister with a binder describing the squalor, the sewage-contaminated water and the condemned houses. The minister did nothing for eight weeks. He did not write to them. He did not call them. He did not fix the water system. He did not evacuate the community. It was left to Ontario to take care of this problem.

Will the minister resign?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for well over a year and a half this minister has devoted 24 hours a day to aboriginal Canadians. We have had cabinet meetings with aboriginal leaders. We have had round tables. He has done everything to build up toward the first ministers meeting.

Day after day the opposition has said nothing in support of aboriginal Canadians. Day after day those members have voted against every single measure we have brought forward for aboriginal Canadians. That critic and that opposition ought to resign.

Let's fisk this, shall we?

"Mr. Speaker, for well over a year and a half this minister has devoted 24 hours a day to aboriginal Canadians."

So we're supposed to believe that Andy Scott has had no food or sleep for over a year and a half? This is badly placed exaggeration; he would have done better to praise Mr. Scott's devotion to his work instead of resorting to the ridiculous.

"We have had cabinet meetings with aboriginal leaders. We have had round tables. He has done everything to build up toward the first ministers meeting."

The PM has made a rhetorical substitution: he has substituted activity for action. The fact that he lists all these meetings, instead of actual actions taken, pretty much makes Mr. Prentice's point for him.

"Day after day the opposition has said nothing in support of aboriginal Canadians. Day after day those members have voted against every single measure we have brought forward for aboriginal Canadians."

Once again, overexaggeration. Aboriginal matters don't come up before the House everyday. The job of Opposition is, by its very nature, reactive. It's government action (or, in this case, inaction) that the Opposition is supposed to criticize.

"That critic and that opposition ought to resign."

This is probably the stupidest response the PM could possibly have made.

The opposition is doing exactly the job they're supposed to do: hold the government accountable. In fact, the entire point of Question Period is to hold the government accountable. The opposition is not held accountable during Question Period because the Opposition doesn't run the government.

The PM, in calling for the Opposition to resign, is acting like an Opposition leader. Perhaps the voters will give him that chance come the next election.

The Miers Withdrawal and Lessons for Irwin Cotler

2005-10-27T14:42:00.000-04:00

There must be a lot of people in the Ministry of Justice who are feeling smug today when they think about Harriet Mier's withdrawal as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's not because they have anything against Miers, or even against George Bush for that matter. It's because the withdrawal allows them to feel superior about the Canadian system for selecting a Supreme Court justice.

I've already elaborated on the Canadian system, along with my feelings on why it's nothing to brag about. So I can point to l'affaire Miers and say that the U.S. system worked exactly the way it's supposed to: the nominee was held up to public scrutiny and found wanting. The fact that she withdrew over concerns about her confidential advice to the President is a nice face-saving tactic.

Did her privacy or personal life suffer? Not at all; all of the public concern was over her qualifications.

So the question I have is, why can't this sort of public scrutiny happen over the Canadian nomination for the Supreme Court? It's not as if nomination isn't already qualified; unlike the American system, a Supreme Court justice has qualifications required by law. And we've already seen, with the Roberts and Miers nominations, that proper scrutiny has avoided the need for confidentiality of the nominee.

Does Irwin Cotler not trust Parliament to qualify or disqualify the government's choice for a justice?

The Latest Victim of Rathergate

2005-10-26T14:35:00.000-04:00

Well, it took nearly a year, but CBS News president Andy Heyward has been replaced:

The chairman of CBS, Leslie Moonves, announced today that he was replacing the longtime president of CBS News, Andrew Heyward, with the longtime president of the network's sports division, Sean McManus.

In succeeding Mr. Heyward, whose contract expires at the end of the year, Mr. McManus inherits a once-vaunted news division - symbolized by Edward R. Murrow, whose legacy is celebrated in the current George Clooney movie "Good Night, and Good Luck" - that is now reeling on several fronts.

Last fall, the news division was upended by the fallout from a report, first broadcast on the weeknight edition of "60 Minutes," that purported to present new details about the Vietnam-era National Guard service of President Bush but was later discredited after the network acknowledged it could not vouch for the documents on which it was based.

Mr. Heyward - who, at least initially, fiercely defended the report and the documents, despite fundamental questions raised immediately about their authenticity - managed to hold on to his job in the months afterward. But few others involved in the production of the report did. Dan Rather, the correspondent on the report and the anchor of the "CBS Evening News" for nearly a quarter century, stepped down as anchor in the spring, a year earlier than he had planned.

While Mr. Heyward, president of CBS News for nearly a decade, survived that period, he has failed, in recent months, to meet Mr. Moonves's mandate of developing a successor to the broadcast led by Mr. Rather and [Bob] Schieffer.

It's not surprising that Heyward had to go. The CBS Evening News had been in last place in TV news ratings for the better part of the decade, and Rathergate was just the most public example of just how stale and out-of-touch the news division's corporate culture had become.

Heyward also failed to understand that the old journalistic model that CBS News was based on, was no longer valid in the age of the Net. He did try --witness CBS News' Public Eye feature on its website -- but he was handicapped by his failure to appreciate the full consequences of public participation.

Can CBS News rebound? Let's just say that, with Heyward gone, the Old Guard of the network's Legacy Media heirs are no longer in charge. It's as close to a fresh start as the network's likely to get. Here's hoping they make the most of it.

Mr. Dingwall's Severance Pay: $2,846.38

2005-10-26T11:25:00.000-04:00

The Price-Waterhouse audit of David Dingwall's expenses is finally out.

Mr. Dingwall says the audit "completely exonerates him."

Not so fast. A few things have to be mentioned here.

First, the audit divided Mr. Dingwall's expenses into 3 categories: supportable (supported by documentation and/or justified as a typical expense), reimbursable (not supported by documentation or other written justification), and recoverable (made in error).

Of the $1.3 million in salary and benefits charged during Mr. Dingwall's tenure, $4,198 is deemed recoverable. And of the $400,000 in expenses charged, $2,571 is described as reimbursable.

Chump change? A low percentage? Perhaps. But $6,700 is still a fairly hefty chunk not to be accounted for.

There is also something in the report that's a good example of when the explanation is worse than the actual incident. Remember that receipt for chewing gum? Here's the Price Waterhouse explanation:

41. You have asked us to comment on an expense claim allegedly made by Mr. Dingwall relating to a package of chewing gum.

42. We identified an expense claim in connection with Mr. Dingwall’s January 23, 2005
visit to Winnipeg for the Annual Employee Meeting. Included in the expense claim
package is a receipt from a “Relay” outlet in the Ottawa Airport. The receipt indicates the purchase of chewing gum and a bottle of water. While the receipt was included in the expense claim package, it was removed from the calculation of reimbursable expenses by the individual responsible for verifying expense claims. The reason for the removal was because Mr. Dingwall was authorized to claim an incidental allowance of $20/day to cover such items. Accordingly, Mr. Dingwall was paid the incidental allowance for the day, but was not specifically reimbursed for the package of chewing gum. As noted earlier, the incidental per diem allowance was reinstated in January 2005.

We know that Mr. Dingwall likes to believe that he's entitled to his entitlements, but this sort of nitpickingness is absolutely ridiculous.

Now, of course, the Price Waterhouse report does help us in one respect. We know, thanks to the Hill Times, that Mr. Dingwall is entitled to $9,615.38 in severance. There are $6,769 in recoverable and reimbursable expenses in the audit. Deduct those expenses from the minimum severance, and the result is $2,846.38.

A little under three thousand dollars Canadian. If Mr. Dingwall insists on getting severance, that amount strikes me as being fair enough.

UPDATE (18h48): I've amended the link so that it connects to the actual Price Waterhouse document. It's a PDF file; you'll need Acrobat Reader to read it.

Kashechewan: Canada's Katrina, Only Worse

2005-10-26T09:24:00.000-04:00

Over a thousand residents of the Kashechewan Reserve are now being evacuated for medical treatment, due to contaminated drinking water.

What makes this wrenching is that this could have been avoided, according to information in the Globe and Mail:

[Ontario Natural Resources Minister David] Ramsay, who is also responsible for aboriginal affairs in the province, said he was spurred into action after clearing up a "jurisdictional misunderstanding" with the federal government.

According to a copy of a 1992 Emergency Preparedness Agreement signed by Ottawa and Ontario, the province is responsible for providing emergency assistance when requested by the Department of Indian Affairs or a first-nations community.

The federal government is then responsible for costs incurred by the province.

Federal Indian Affairs Minister Andy Scott described the terms of the agreement in a phone conversation yesterday, Mr. Ramsay said. "A call over the noon hour from Mr. Scott pointed me in the right direction."

Does this sound familiar? It's exactly the problem which plagued disaster relief efforts in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: jurisdictions pointing to each other to take action first, while the problem worsens.

The problem happened because of the multi-jurisdictional nature of native reserves. The federal government is in the midst of transferring powers from the Ministry to the local level; in the meantime, provincial responsibilities over things such as water treatment (which falls under natural resources) have to be worked out. And in the midst of this bureaucratic wrangling, real-life problems get worse.

Blue Blogging Soapbox has suggested that this would have been an appropriate situation for Canada's DART team. While they could have used the experience in setting up potable water facilities, BBS is wrong in one respect: DART is meant to handle natural disasters like earthquakes and floods. This disaster is completely man-made.

Jim Peterson's Freudian Slip

2005-10-25T08:47:00.000-04:00

It seems our international trade minister, Jim Peterson, made quite the faux pas in the House yesterday, trying to explain the government position on softwood lumber to Stephen Harper:

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): I am trying to discern the government's position on the softwood lumber dispute. Up until today, its position was that there would be no negotiations. I listened to the minister's answers to the Bloc. He said he was seeking a good deal for Canada, a negotiated settlement. Which is it? No negotiations or a negotiated settlement?

Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very simple so the minister understands, so the member understands—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

If I may break in here: whenever you see the phrase "Oh, oh!" it usually means a noise that's a little embarrassing to identify. In this case, I'd say it was laughter.

The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the minister appreciates all the applause his answer has caused so far, but we have to be able to hear the answer. The minister will now want to resume with some order in the House.

Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I really slipped on that one.

Yes, and it's a verrrrry interesting slip. With three subconscious interpretations:

1) By "minister," Mr. Peterson could have been referring to himself. This marks him as one of those people who have to formulate their thoughts by saying them out loud. Which means he hasn't really given this issue as much thought as he should have, at least in preparation for Question Period.

2) Mr. Peterson could have been subconsciously referring to another minister, possibly foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew. Given Mr. Pettigrew's Parisian penchants, this would not be totally surprising that Mr. Peterson would feel obliged to keep him in the loop.

3) Mr. Peterson could have been addressing Stephen Harper as a minister. This one is a potential chink in the armor, because it means there's a subconscious acknowledgement among senior Liberals that, if they're not careful, Harper and the Tories could form the next government.

Mr. Harper, incidentally, seemed to prefer the first interpretation. I wonder if he's given serious thought about the third.

Dinged for 96 Hundred Dollars?

2005-10-24T15:38:00.000-04:00

Is getting rid of David Dingwall worth paying $9,600 worth of taxpayer's money? Because, according to the Hill Times, that's the amount he can legitimately claim for severance:

The Privy Council Office guidelines for Terms and Conditions of Employment for Full-Time Governor in Council Appointees states that appointees are allowed one week's pay for each completed year of service up to 28 weeks, "payable on termination of employment, regardless of reason for departure."

Mr. Dingwall's salary at the Mint was approximately $250,000 a year and he worked there for almost two-and-a half years before he resigned as president before his five-year term was up. That means that according to PCO rules, Mr. Dingwall is allowed approximately $4,807 per year that he worked at the Mint, bringing his grand total for two years of service up to $9,615.38.

This is the link to the actual PCO policy.

Obviously it's still a fair chunk to choke on -- you could buy a five-year-old car or furnish a living room with IKEA furniture with that kind of dough. But it certainly beats the half-million that David Dingwall was asking for and that the Libranos were prepared to pay.

Is it fair? I suppose if I were the head of a Crown corporation, I'd want some form of compensation to tide me over until my next posting, since obviously I'm not in the kind of position that qualifies for EI. But I'd be curious to see how the Price-Waterhouse audit goes; if it turns out the Ding owes money, $9,600 sounds like a good base to start deducting from.

The Chutzpah of the Public Service

2005-10-24T13:41:00.000-04:00

Well, if there's one thing Treasury Board president Reg Alcock is short on, it's not chutzpah:

"All the guidelines and standards in the world have no value without a confident and dynamic public service. Our country is fortunate to have a public service with great talent, dedication and integrity," said Alcock.

Coming right before the Gomery report, not to mention l'affaire Dingwall and the Smith splurge -- like I said, chutzpah.

Mr. Alcock said this line while announcing a $35-million-per-year plan for the training and professional development of public servants. Of interest: an orientation program designed to teach values and ethics to those just entering the public service.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you didn't know we actually had an Office of Public Service Values and Ethics? Me neither, until I saw the site the press release linked to.

They do have some interesting stuff here, such as this directive on Duty of Loyalty. Looking at it carefully, you'll realize that this is how the government feels about whistleblowers:

The duty of loyalty owed by public servants to the Government of Canada encompasses a duty to refrain from public criticism of the Government of Canada.

Failure to observe the duty of loyalty may justify disciplinary action, including dismissal.

As you can see, this is not the type of statement that encourages the reporting of wrongdoing on the part of the Government. Of course, there are exceptions:

Three situations in which the balancing of these interests is likely to result in an exception being made to the duty of loyalty are where:

1) the Government is engaged in illegal acts;
2) Government policies jeopardize life, health or safety; or
3) the public servant’s criticism has no impact on his or her ability to perform effectively the duties of a public servant or on the public perception of that ability.

Points 1 and 2 are obvious, of course, but point 3 tends to look like a CYA statement: you can report the wrong, so long as you still do your job. But what if the wrongdoing does affect the way you do your job?

But getting back to this $35-million program. It also includes training for auditors and supervisors, ostensibly to inculcate them in the public service ethos as dictated by the Office.

Frankly I have to wonder about this initiative. $35 million a year seems a bit steep to teach civil servants how the government is supposed to work. And, given how civil service ethics has developed, are the new guys learning the right stuff?

Uneasy Lie The Heads of the Crown -- Corporations, That Is

2005-10-24T12:19:00.000-04:00

Spooked by all the hubbub surrounding David Dingwall, our Minister of Transport, Jean Lapierre, has sent a CYA letter to the heads of all the Crown corporations that report to him:

Citing "recent events surrounding the expenses and salaries of two CEOs of government-related corporations," Lapierre warns in one of the letters dated Oct. 17 that attention on them has been "heightened."

"The purpose of this letter is to remind you of the sensitivity of this issue and the need to operate within the limits of appropriate standards, guidelines, prudence and probity given that your organizations are public entities and therefore subject to public scrutiny," he says.

He asks for assurance that the chiefs and their boards of directors are being "vigilant" to prevent a repeat of the firestorm which has engulfed Dingwall, who resigned this month as head of the mint over his expense claims.

Lapierre also asks in the letters that the chiefs promptly report to him "any special authorities granted by you or your board that may be viewed as problematic."

The reason, he notes in the wake of Dingwall's grilling by a parliamentary committee this past week, is that "I may be questioned, as shareholder of the Government of Canada, on the reasonableness of such authorities."

That last paragraph, incidentally, is why this is a CYA letter. The last thing he needs is yet another Crown corporation executive going overboard with taxpayers' money, particularly since the Minister is the one who has to defend it.

Who's likely to do that? According to the Treasury Board, Transport Canada is responsible for 58 Crown corporations, to varying degrees. Most of these are port facilities such as airports and harbours. The best known is probably VIA Rail, which could be seen in the same lines as the Mint in that it sells products to the public at large (i.e. rail travel packages).

Will the letter work? Probably not. Since the fiscal year's already almost two-thirds over, it's a little late to do anything about spring and summer binges. And the letter is quite likely to be forgotten in February and March, when all government agencies try to use up their remaining budgets.

Still, Mr. Lapierre can at least say that he tried. Not very hard, mind you, but he tried. He's certainly looking at Revenue Minister John McCallum and breathing a sigh of relief. After all, as recently as 2003, the Royal Canadian Mint was under Transport Canada's responsibility.

The 30th Edition of the Red Ensign Standard ...

2005-10-24T08:39:00.000-04:00

... may be found here. Nicholas has done a lot of excellent work preparing this edition.

So Here's To You, Mister Robinson

2005-10-21T13:54:00.000-04:00

Well, it's now official: Svend Robinson is back on the comeback trail.

Robinson said Friday he will seek the NDP nomination in the riding of Vancouver Centre to run in the next federal election. That riding is held by Liberal Hedy Fry.

"I'm asking for a second chance," he told a news conference. "I should be judged for my entire hard record of work."

Robinson was first elected in 1979 and served as a member of Parliament for 25 years.

He left politics in 2004 after he admitted to stealing a diamond ring in a moment of "utter irrationality" and later was given a conditional discharge for theft over $5,000.

"Again today I want to say how deeply sorry I am," Robinson said Friday, describing the theft as unpremeditated madness.

He wouldn't discuss whether he was taking any medication for what he called a mild bipolar disorder.

"I wouldn't be taking this step unless I had the full confidence of my therapist," Robinson said.

A couple of points:

First, it'd be easy to refer to Robinson, at this point, as shameless. Given the circumstances of his initial resignation, most other people would balk at the idea of running for Parliament again, because they'd be figuratively torn to shreds.

But in Robinson's case, shamelessness is a virtue. He knows his shoplifting conviction is going to be a major issue in his comeback campaign, so by bringing it up now, on his own, he'll have better control over its impact.

Second, by bringing up bipolar disorder and therapy, he's sending a very subtle message. You could call it a prejudicial challenge, if you like: Svend's trying to appeal to those who believe that it's possible for mentally-challenged people to live a normal life. And those who suggest that Svend's psychological problems should disqualify him from office -- "well, (nudge nudge wink wink) we all know how those kind of people think anyway, now don't we?"

It's a devilishly clever appeal, and certainly more than enough to give Hedy Fry a run for her money.

Does Svend deserve to win? He's a natural publicity hound, which will work for some causes he champions but not for others. He's the type that will irritate folks like Don Laytone, but he's got more sense than Carolyn Parrish. Ed Broadbent took a Liberal stronghold because most people knew he was an "all right Joe." Svend's not quite as all right as Honest Ed, but he's got experience and he knows what he's doing. I don't care for him personally, but I think he's earned the right for his second chance.

And if he wins -- well, it's one less Librano, right?

The Agreeable Mr. McCallum

2005-10-21T08:58:00.000-04:00

Does Revenue Minister John McCallum think David Dingwall's resignation was a good idea? Let's look at his responses from Question Period yesterday:

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): ... Yesterday David Dingwall said he was told to go to the Privy Council Office to seek any severance he believes he is entitled to. The Privy Council Office is under the Prime Minister's direct authority. The Prime Minister has maintained that Mr. Dingwall quit voluntarily. In fact, he says his government urged him to stay.

Why does the Prime Minister not just say no to David Dingwall's demand for more money?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the morning of September 28 Mr. Dingwall informed me that he was going to resign later that day. The reason he gave was that he thought it would be in the best interests of the Mint and I did not agree.

Ah. So Mr. McCallum thought the Dingwall resignation was a bad idea.

Or did he? Later on:

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Let us get this straight. Dingwall quit in disgrace. He did not fulfill his contract. He said he was leaving anyway, but now he is ready to sue us because he is entitled to his entitlements and the Prime Minister seems to agree with that.

For three weeks he and his government have been promoting the idea of paying Dingwall off with severance without providing us a single shred of evidence as to why. Dingwall could not successfully sue unless he had a deal.

Will the Prime Minister admit he did a Dingwall deal?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, rather than going through all these doubtful premises and hypotheses, why do we not just stick to the facts? The fact of the matter is, Mr. Dingwall telephoned me on the morning of September 28 and indicated he would resign later that day because he felt it was best for the Mint. I agreed.

Uh -- hold it. Didn't he say he just disagreed with that decision?

Let's see if he clarifies himself later on:

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Here are the facts. First, the revenue minister encourages Dingwall, then the Prime Minister accepts Dingwall's resignation. Then they both try to sell us on severance for Dingwall. Those are the facts.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he knew in advance that his minister had spoken to Dingwall concerning his entitlements?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, only one of those statements made by the hon. member I know to be absolutely false. The idea that I encouraged Mr. Dingwall is false. I can only assume his other statements are equally likely to be false.

I was informed by Mr. Dingwall on the morning that he was going to resign. When he said it was in the interests of the Mint, I did not disagree. That is not encouraging anything. It is accepting a resignation.

There are, methinks, two ways to interpret Mr. McCallum's statements:

1. He is genuinely indecisive when it comes to l'affaire Dingwall. He shifts from thinking of him as a valued executive (don't let him go!) to damaged goods (I don't need your troubles) to reluctant acknowledgement (fine, fine, do it your way).

2. Dingwall's troubles have paralyzed his thought processes, making him lose control of the English language. It's a variation of what they call "Bushspeak" in the States, and it happens more often than politicians care to admit.

Personally, I like this second explanation. It explains his earlier, robotic responses in Question Period when news of Dingwall's proposed severance leaked out.

Either way, of course, Mr. McCallum has done a pitiful job of defending the admittedly undefensible Dingwall. He should be thankful that no one is entertaining the idea of "Prime Minister McCallum" just yet, because that remote possibility has been revealed as a bigger pipe dream than Stephen Harper's.

The Dilemma of David Smith's Abotech

2005-10-20T14:44:00.000-04:00

Angry_in_TO, of course, is all over this David Smith / Abotech story, but I figured I'd try a Google search to see what kind of business Abotech did with the government. Here's one that should get you thinking:

For "accounting and audit services," Abotech did a contract for April-June 2004 at Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada -- $24,000 for 3 months work.

All well and good. It's just that Mr. Smith happens to sit on the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which recently issued a report which was critical of the government's handling of the residential schools issue.

Conflict of interest?

Strictly speaking, no. The contract wrapped up before Mr. Smith was elected to Parliament. The fact that he'd done work on the residential schools issue as a contractor would certainly have led to his membership on the Committee, but he wouldn't make any extra money from that.

But could an argument be made that a conflict exists?

Certainly. Mr. Smith's dealings with IRSRC, as a contractor, may have colored his feelings about the issue, resulting in a more critical report (unless, of course, he recused himself).

Now, how strong an argument this is will depend on your own definition of conflict of interest. Angry is more focused on the idea that, as a parliamentarian, Mr. Smith may give his family's firm an unfair current advantage in competing for small contracts. (The transfer of title to his wife is acknowledged, pretty much by everyone, as a legal workaround.) I'm more inclined to wonder if Abotech's work may have influenced Mr. Smith's work as a parliamentarian.

Quebec's Corrective Vision

2005-10-20T09:29:00.000-04:00

Yesterday in the Commons, the Liberals decided to have some fun with BQ leader Gilles Duceppe's musings on a possible army for Quebec:

Hon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is entitled “There's No Life Like It”. This morning, we learned that the new priority of the Bloc Québécois leader, our new James Bond, is to develop a plan for the army and the secret service of a future sovereign Quebec. The leader of the Bloc Québécois is intent on interfering in the PQ leadership race.

With proposals like this one, it is clear where the Bloc's priorities are. What does the Minister of Foreign Affairs think of that?

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Bloc leader is totally out of touch with the real concerns of Quebeckers. What the Bloc wants is hard-core independence. The much promised association, the link they used to talk about, is a thing of the past. We are back to the 19th century.

I would suggest that the Bloc leader's spies be assigned to find out what the real priorities of Quebeckers are.

As it turns out, a group of Quebec leaders -- including former premier Lucien Bouchard -- have already identified those "real priorities," in a manifesto entitled Pour un Québec lucide, released yesterday. (I've linked to the English-language version of this manifesto.)

Put briefly, this manifesto proposes a new relationship between government, business and the population. For the following reasons:

-- Quebec's population is going to decline, relative to the rest of North America. You know the upcoming "baby boom crisis" where fewer young people are going to need to support more seniors? That situation's going to be compounded in Quebec.

-- Quebec's manufacturing and industrial base will face stiffer competition, mainly from Asia. Countries like China and India have always had cheaper labour, but they're also experiencing a population boom, and they're catching up to the Western states in terms of high-tech education. And in the meantime, Quebec's demographics will result in problems recruiting skilled labour into its own manufacturing base.

-- Government can't afford to play a big role in society anymore. Quebec's government grew in scope so that it could foster Quebec's culture. But now, government debt is crippling its ability to maintain all the programs the province is used to. And any attempt to cut back results in vicious opposition.

What to do about it? The manifesto's big recommendation is public debt reduction, which is pretty much a bugaboo for provincial politicians because what's spent on debt can't be spent on other programs.

The manifesto also recommends raising tuition fees for post-secondary institutions. The Canadian Federation of Students will be upset, of course, but universities and colleges are expensive to maintain, particularly in a world where innovation happens every hour. Low tuition fees are only possible if there's a very big student population, and according to Quebec's current demographics, that's not going to happen.

There's also one that Quebec's nationalists will have trouble stomaching: encouraging more languages other than French, especially English. This means a re-thinking of the Quebec Language Charter and Commission, something of a sacred cow in this environment.

It's good that Quebec's elite is thinking about these things, but I'd be curious to find out if other provincial leaders would do this kind of exercise. (Dalton?)

Ken Epp Award Nominee: Daryl Kramp

2005-10-20T09:03:00.000-04:00

One of the lessons of the "crying wolf" fable -- besides the obvious one that lying is bad -- is that one needs to choose one's words carefully, otherwise one won't be taken seriously.

It's a lesson that Daryl Kramp, the Conservative MP for Prince-Edward-Hastings, needs to learn, judging from his question yesterday to the Minister of Justice:

Mr. Speaker, at the justice committee yesterday we heard senior police officials from across Canada pleading with the government to wake up to the realities that they are facing: the reality that innocent people are being shot, gangs and thugs are ruling the streets, witnesses are afraid to testify, drugs are rampant, parole and bail is just a revolving door these days and repeat offenders are commonplace.

When will the Minister of Justice listen to the police, listen to the victims and listen to Canadians and support the additional mandatory sentences that which the police are calling for?

While the man used to be a police officer himself, it's not an excuse for this kind of overstatement.

This is a classic mistake in speechmaking. Supposedly the device is used to emphasize a point, but in this case it engages counter-intuition. Mr. Kramp's description sounds more like Batman's Gotham than any Canadian city I've been in or read about, and that includes Vancouver's East End.

More to the point, by invoking images out of comic books and TV shows, there is an implication that the member has not done his homework and is therefore out of touch. Which is all the more reason why responsible people -- and for all his faults, Irwin Cotler is an responsible minister -- tune them out, even when their actual concerns are legitimate.

Daryl Kramp's silly use of rhetoric has actually hindered his effectiveness at addressing a problem. Hence, his nomination for the Ken Epp Award.

The Dingwall Defense : Or, Digging In Deeper

2005-10-19T13:18:00.000-04:00

Interesting line of defence from David "Bubble Gum is Deductible!" Dingwall. Apparently his business expenses with the Royal Canadian Mint are justified because the Mint can afford it:

In a statement released prior to his appearance [before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations], Dingwall said he is "delighted to ... correct the misinformation and mischaracterization of my expenses."

Contrary to published reports, said the former Liberal cabinet minister, "all expenses came from the operating revenue of the corporation, not from taxpayers' dollars."

The statement explains that because Dingwall was able to make the mint profitable within a year of taking over in March 2003, it no longer had to rely on taxpayers to cover its operating expenditures.

In other words, since the Mint was making money (i.e. turning a profit) under Dingwall's watch, why shouldn't he be entitled to dip his beak? The president's expenses are part of the Mint's operating expenditures, after all.

Just one problem with that line of thinking: there are other things besides Dingwall's expenses that the Mint's money could be spent on. Like a salary / benefits boost for its employees, or an expanded commemorative coin program, and so on.

In other words: profit does not justify extravagance. And certainly not on Dingwall's level.

I'm not the only one who thinks this is a silly argument. There are Liberal MPs who think so too:

The statement was immediately questioned by Liberal MP Shawn Murphy, who said he does "not buy that argument."

It's true Dingwall returned the mint to profitability, Murphy said outside a Liberal caucus meeting, but that doesn't permit the CEO to spend extravagantly.

"The two issues are unrelated," said the MP.

What worries me is: how many other Libranos think about Crown corporation profit in the same way as Dingwall (Joe Volpe's pizza bills notwithstanding)?

Supreme Court Secrets

2005-10-18T15:39:00.000-04:00

The Globe and Mail reports that Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has already handed over to his advisory committee the names of six candidates for the next Supreme Court vacancy:

At its first meeting in Ottawa's Chateau Laurier hotel Monday, the nine-member committee was told by Mr. Cotler that it has until Nov. 18 to come up with its short list, from which the minister will choose the new judge for the country's top court. He wants to have a new person in place by the time Mr. Justice John Major retires at Christmas.

The candidates' names are confidential, and the committee members had to sign written agreements that they will not spill the beans.

The advisory committee has a slightly different makeup than what was first announced last week. Former British Columbia Court of Appeal chief justice Allan McEachern stepped down from the group “for personal reasons,” Justice Department official Francois Giroux said. He was replaced by Constance Glube, a former chief justice of the Nova Scotia supreme court.

Apart from Justice Glube (right), who was a last-minute selection, I've got brief profiles of the committee members here.

Some extra information on Justice Glube: she's also part of the advisory committee helping Justice Gomery draft recommendations for the second part of his report.

While the committee's role is essentially limited to cutting Mr. Cotler's list in half, if the group feels strongly that an important person has been left out, it can ask the minister to add another name.

Otherwise, the committee is on its own until it comes up with the short list, and will have no contact with the minister until it finishes the job, Mr. Giroux said. “We're hands off from now on.”

Now comes one deceptively simple question: Who's on the short list?

This is the problem. The Justice Ministry did say it was going to be secret, back when they announced the process. And there's been some speculation already in the news. But that's all it can ever be: speculation. We don't know if these names even made the half-dozen that Cotler gave to the committee. And speculation is potentially more damaging than knowing the real thing.

Should we, at this stage? I think so, because if we knew who's on the short list, we can research their previous judgments and learn their way of thinking, their educational background. And by extension, we would know what kind of person the Martin government would like to see on the Supreme Court.

Now, certainly we can understand why the government wants to keep the list a secret. After all, if you were a judge and your name were on the list, and you were rejected, you wouldn't necessarily want that fact known. But rejection didn't exactly hurt Robert Bork, did it? And it certainly shouldn't hurt whoever's on the list.

Layton Loses One

2005-10-18T12:59:00.000-04:00

So, what does Bev Desjarlais' decision to sit as an independent do to Don Laytone and his organization?

First, it must be understood that Ms. Desjarlais wasn't pushed out of caucus; rather, her local party apparatus was taken over by someone else. Another woman, Niki Ashton, will be the NDP candidate for Churchill in the next election. And despite voting against same-sex marriage legislation -- according to the will of her constituents, for which she lost her shadow cabinet position -- there's no real animosity between her and the caucus.

Is this a setback for Don Laytone? You might think so given the minority situation here, but it's not quite as dire as some people seem to think.

The Don still has 18 MPs, including himself, under his umbrella. Numerically it puts a Liberal-NDP voting bloc in a one-vote minority compared with a Tory-BQ voting bloc, putting the fate of the government in the hands of 4 independents: Ms. Desjarlais, and former Liberals David Kilgour, Pat O'Brien and Carolyn Parrish.

However, of these four, only Kilgour is likely to vote against the government in a no-confidence motion. Parrish, being virulently anti-Tory and having nothing to lose, will side with the Liberals out of force of habit. O'Brien left the Liberals over SSM, but otherside has no beef with the Grits, so he can be expected to support the government. So, since we know that Ms. Desjarlais' dispute is with her local officials rather than the caucus, we can expect her to continue voting the NDP line. Which means that while the Don can't guarantee victory, he still has a formidable voting bloc that Paul Martin needs to supplicate.

Now, whether Ms. Desjarlais can run as an Independent in the next election, and win, is an open question, but I'd say her odds are pretty good. She's had eight years' worth of experience, enough to generate at least some personal loyalty among her constituency staff; she should be able to get enough people together for a campaign. She's also running against an inexperienced candidate who may be relying on parental connections (Ms. Ashton's father is a provincial cabinet minister), which doesn't necessarily play well in public.

Regardless, we must wish Ms. Desjarlais the best of luck. She's going to need it.

A Parliamentary Pizza Poem

2005-10-18T12:47:00.000-04:00

Yet another Conservative MP aspires to become the House of Commons' poet laureate. This time it's Rahim Jaffer, the member for Edmonton-Strathcona, trying to be critical of Citizenship Minister Joe Volpe's spending habits:

Mr. Speaker, pepperoni, meatlovers, vegetarian or Greek,
Stuffed full of pizza the immigration minister is too busy eating to speak.

Y'know, there's way too many syllables in that second line ...

He's had so much fun stiffing Canadians with his bills,
I had to see for myself, why so much overeating hasn't made him ill.

For example, at Cammara's where he's known as Pizza Joe.
To see for myself, to his favourite joint I had to go.

I invited three friends to join me to dine.
We ordered two pizzas, salads and some wine.

Attending were MPs for Simcoe—Grey, Edmonton—Leduc and Calgary Southeast.
It cost us only $134 for the entire feast.

Even with four we paid less than Pizza Joe did for two.
With a doggie bag in hand, how he spent so much...we haven't a clue.

We paid our own bill because that was our choice,
Unlike the minister who stiffed Canadians, with his invoice.

Is overindulging the life of this minister?
Or with the Liberals in government could it be something more sinister?

Okay, so it doesn't look like Brian Pallister needs to give up his poetry any time soon. (Not that it's any better ... )

Babulican Apologizes

2005-10-16T10:16:00.000-04:00

Balbulican is a blogger who positions himself as being left to left-of-centre on the political spectrum. As such he's normally taken contrary positions to mine, but like me he's usually civil about it.

Which made some recent actions of his inexplicable. A few days ago he sent a troll comment to three of my posts--one via Blogger, two via Haloscan. I dismissed the triplicate nature of those comments as lack of originality.

Apparently my dismissal got him angry enough to post an explanation of his "behaviour":

Oh, did you think it lacked originality? I thought the idea of a triplicate repetition in your blog of your own abusive and not very interesting insult, as deployed at Robert's, was sorta funny. Well, no accounting for taste or senses of humour, I guess.

Well, I'll let him explain the rest:

I owe the Phantom Observer a BIG apology, and I owe his readers an explanation. Here's the story...If you don't want the narrative, just scroll down to the last paragraph for the apology.

One of my secret, guilty pleasures is hanging out occasionally at Robert McLelland's Blagh. There are blogs on the left and the right where you go for conversation. And then there are blogs where you just go to wallow in stupid, partisan name calling. When I want to wallow in right wing idiotic rage, I go to SDA: when I want to wallow in left wing idiotic rage I go to Robert's.

I know, I know. But at least it doesn't involve minors, drugs, or explosives, and I ALWAYS wash my hands afterwards.

I had traded barbs a couple of times with our host, the Phantom Observer, on Robert's site, and always found him to be an articulate and thoughtful writer (and funny). So I was distressed when someone identifying themselves as "The Phantom" jumped into an interesting discussion on US health care and waiting times with an offensive and trollish comment. It was annoying because the issue was a good one: and it was annoying because it didn't seem like the kind of thing The Phantom Observer would do.

As an aside, this isn't the first time this has happened. Angry_in_TO once misattributed a posting from The Phantom Soapbox to me; to this day I still don't know if he's corrected it. I do suspect -- based on the level of sarcasm in the blog entries -- that this same Phantom may be the ultimate source of Balbulican's distress, but this is not absolute proof.

When I comment on a blog post, I will always attach my own blog's URL, and I will use my blog's title to identify myself. Just so you know.

So with the unerring logic for which I am so justifiably known, I immediately leaped to the wrong conclusion. I posted a nasty response on Robert's site: then I came to this site, and pasted the trollish remark, slightly edited for context, in three of the Observer's threads. My intent was to illustrate how irritating and disruptive that kind of idiocy can be: my accomplishment was to demonstrate my own impatience and stupidity.

The Phantom Observer reconstructed what had happened, contacted me by email with great civility, and explained the misunderstanding.

So here's the apology.

Phantom Observer, I am deeply embarassed by my mistake. I apologize to you for not having the brain to realize that you would not have written anything as stupid as that. And I apologize to both you AND your readership for invading your fine blog with what must have seemed an inexplicable piece of foolish and offensive trollish behaviour. Thanks for your gracious email clarification of what went on. I hope to have the opportunity to apologize in person, perhaps with the humble offering of an appropriate beverage, at one of the Ottawa Bloggers Sessions. Sackcloth and ashes will be the order of the day.

Well, I think we're scheduling the next NCR Blog Mafia meeting for early December, so I'll hold Balbulican to that beverage.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why I don't consider Balbulican a moonbat. A moonbat will never apologize for bad behaviour, on the grounds that "the other guy deserves it, and never mind why." With this apology, Balbulican demonstrates he's one of the good guys.

UPDATE (16h42): Just corrected Balbulican's name throughout the post. I'm one of those people who believes that fixing spellings does matter.

UPDATE (16h50): Except that I needed to change the post title back, just to make sure all the linkbacks work.

Aboriginal Justice? For the Supremes, Maybe

2005-10-14T13:47:00.000-04:00

Irwin Cotler's new Supreme Court nomination process has had one predictable effect: there's now a channel for people who want to see an aboriginal Supreme Court justice.

The Canadian and Indigenous Bar Associations and the Canadian Association of Law Teachers say an aboriginal person should get the job.

Several prominent Saskatchewan aboriginal people have been named as potential candidates.
Among them: Saskatoon-based lawyer Don Worme, as well as Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond and Gerald Morin, who are both provincial court judges.

Paul Chartrand, a law professor at the University of Saskatchewan, says aboriginal people may be fighting for the right to self-government but they also want better represention in Canadian systems.

"We want a say," Chartrand said.

The courts are often the battle grounds that determine the extent of treaty and inherent rights, he said.

Currently, aboriginal people are under-represented on the bench. There are currently just five federally-appointed aboriginal judges in the country.

According to Diane Corbiere, the president of the Indigenous Bar Association, there are about 600 aboriginal law graduates and many are ready to sit on the bench.

"I hear about persons with great merit applying in different jurisdictions and just being sort of fed up with the process," she said.

I can certainly see where the pressure groups might have a point. A Supreme Court justice with knowledge of aboriginal jurisprudence (i.e. Aboriginal justice systems) would be useful on the top bench, particularly when it comes to understanding land and resource claims based on ancient treaty rights.

However, those pushing for a Native judge need to understand that they may run afoul of the same mindset against Ontario's proposed Sharia law: that judgements in Canada must respect the current Canadian judicial system, without imposing values from other cultures. Just because a justice is from a First Nation doesn't mean he or she will automatically side with the Aboriginals in a resources claims dispute.

Now, their case can be helped by the presence of Chester Cunningham (a Métis) on the advisory committee creating the short list. But filling this upcoming vacancy is still a Librano decision to make -- and their judgement is tied to what keeps the Liberals in power, not necessarily what's good for the First Peoples.

The Great Canadian Blog Survey Is Out!

2005-10-14T13:21:00.000-04:00

Last month, fellow Red Ensign Brigadier M.K. Braaten's brother Aaron started up a survey of the Canadian blogosphere. He managed to collect some 1,146 respondents, which is actually comparable to the average number of respondents in political polls.

He's now published his preliminary results, which are available here in PDF format.

Fascinating stuff for the most part. You do have to allow for self-selection in this survey (since this depended on blog awareness in the first place), and there are no French-language bloggers, but on the whole I think this is a pretty good snapshot of Canada's anglophone blogosphere.

Check it out.

American Wookiee

2005-10-13T14:26:00.000-04:00

This coming Monday, in Arlington, Texas, 441 people will become American citizens.

They come from 77 different countries.

And one comes from the planet Kashykk. His name is Chewbacca.

Oh, all right: actually it's Star Wars actor Peter Mayhew:

Mayhew, 60, played the fur-covered warrior Chewbacca in the original Star Wars trilogy of the 1970s and 1980s, and the latest movie, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

"I got married to a Texan lady. That more or less decided it," said Mayhew, who has been married to his wife, Angelique, for six years.

In most cases, an immigrant must be a legal permanent resident for five years before becoming a citizen. The wait is three years if the person marries a U.S. citizen. He also must pass history, English and civics exams.

"I've always been interested in the cowboys and the history of the West and the history of America, so it wasn't so bad," Mayhew said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

"I am feeling very happy about it. Whatever people say about America, it is still one of the most wonderful countries in the world, despite the politics, religion and everything else that goes on."

"I know that I have the best of both worlds with the dual nationality," he said.

Well, if the Texas Minutemen start running into Imperial Stormtroopers, at least we'll know why ...

The End of the Garish Ms. Parrish?

2005-10-13T10:54:00.000-04:00

Guess who won't be returning to Parliament come the next election? Yep, the Garish Ms. Carolyn Parrish, according to the Globe and Mail:

Former Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish is not planning to run for office in the next federal election, a spokesman confirmed Thursday.

"Right now her intentions are not to run," a spokeswoman at Ms. Parrish's Mississauga-Erindale constituency office told globeandmail.com.

She also said Ms. Parrish's office was confirming her decision "without detail."

For pretty much everyone else in Parliament (except, perhaps, for journalists in search of colorful copy), this is not surprising. Ms. Parrish's hysterical views -- on George W. Bush, on Iraq, on Canada's work in Afghanistan -- pretty much guaranteed her perpetual isolation from the Librano caucus.

And without a party infrastructure to back her up, it would have been an uphill struggle to keep her seat regardless of when an election was held. Ms. Parrish has stomped on too many dolls, made too many statements that could be held against her:

"Americans -- those bastards -- I hate them."

"We're sending in armed troops to kill people (in Afghanistan). This is a drastic change in direction. I don't think anybody has consulted with the Canadian public. The first time Canadian soldiers come back in body bags, you just wait for the outcry."

"A coalition of idiots" -- in reference to an American missile proposal.

[Americans are] "out of touch with the rest of the free world" -- in reference to George Bush's re-election.

"Flinging challenges at 'murderers and scumbags' and vowing 'We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people' is truly barbaric" -- from a letter to Defence Minister Bill Graham.

The Garish One has also argued against holding a by-election to replace the late independent MP Chuck Cadman -- on the grounds that a Tory would be the winner.

Will she be missed? Possibly -- by a press corps who could count on her to open her mouth before her brain kicked into gear, resulting in career-wrecking copy. By bloggers in search of a Canadian example of a moonbat in office.

But for the rest of us, the Garish One's 15 minutes of fame ended a long time ago.

Goodbye, Ms. Parrish -- don't let the door hit you on the way out.

These People Get to Play The Supreme Court Shell Game

2005-10-12T10:30:00.000-04:00

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has officially named the members for his advisory committe to select a new justice for the Supreme Court. (I'd link to the release, but apparently Justice Canada's website is undergoing some renovations today.)

We have four Members of Parliament, of course.

In order, from left to right: Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Liberal), Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage; Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC), the Tory Justice Critic; Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ), Justice Critic for the Bloc; and Joe Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh, NDP), Justice Critic for the N-Dippers.

All four are members of the House Standing Committee on Justice. Of course, Mr. Toews is still grumbling about the process:

He denounced the move as a "public relations exercise" and contended it made a mockery of Prime Minister Paul Martin's promises to reform the way judges are selected for the top court.

In addition to those four, we have the following:

Allan McEachern is the nominee from the Canadian Judicial Council, the disciplinary body for all federal judges. Currently a partner in the law firm of Fasken Martineau, he was the Chief Justice of the B.C. Court of Appeal until retiring in 2001.

W. Brent Cotter was selected for membership by the Attorneys General for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. He's the Dean of the University of Saskatchewan's Faculty of Law, and a former civil servant in the Saskatchewan government.

Garth Smorang is the president of the Law Society of Manitoba. and was selected for membership by the law societies of the three prairie provinces. (The fact that Cotler himself was a former member of the LSM shouldn't be held against him.)

The committee membership also called for two members who are neither lawyers not judges. And here they are:

Chester Cunningham's main claim to fame is that he founded the Native Counselling Services of Alberta, which provides social services for the province's Aboriginal community. While he has an LL.D, he's not a practising lawyer.

Barbara Pollock is an academic and public relations expert. A former president of the Canadian Public Relations Society, she's currently the vice-president (external relations) of the University of Saskatchewan.

Looking at the membership, it's obvious that Cotler tried to get as representative a group as he could, for the unwritten qualifications that critics outside government might harp on. Mmes. Neville and Pollock would represent women, Cunningham would speak for the natives, McEachern covers B.C., and Marceau equals Quebec. About the only thing lacking is representation from the North, but that's not absolutely crucial because the vacancy in question is for Western Canadian representation on the Court (John Major's impending retirement).

The committee will take a look at a list of 5 to 8 candidates, made up from a candidate pool set up by Cotler with public input. They will then whittle the list down to three contenders.

Although I can't argue about the qualifications of each member, I can argue about the process, because it's going to be in camera. The Justice department originally recommended this because it wants to protect the privacy of the candidates on the list. But I don't see how making the process public is going to wreck a candidate's career. (It didn't exactly harm Clarence Thomas' prospects down in the States.)

For a position this important, public transparency about selection is a must. The qualifications of the members are only a little re-assuring, but the decision is still the PM's and Cotler's, who could theoretically reject the committee's recommendations in favour of their own.

Toews has been arguing that the actual decision should be up to the people, and therefore up to Parliament. It doesn't mean he won't do his job and work on this committee, but Toews is a useful reminder that no matter how this is dressed up, Supreme Court selection is still a shell game.

Some Thoughts on Disaster Relief

2005-10-11T10:43:00.000-04:00

Today I donated $50 to Unicef to help out with disaster relief in the Pakistani earthquake. (Yes, it's a UN agency, but it's one of the more trustworthy ones.) No, it's not much, but it's what I can afford at the moment, and every little bit helps.

Looking at how the federal government has so far responded to the earthquake, it's pretty clear that the governing culture still hasn't quite got a grasp on how to handle disaster relief:

Canada's initial pledge of $300,000 was criticized as paltry, but Carroll said the government responded swiftly to mobilize sufficient funds as a part of the initial response to the disaster.

"The first thing to do .. was to make money available on the ground quickly and then to make a part of the money, as the prime minister did, be part of (a needs) assessment," Carroll said.

"However much we may emotionally react, we have to react effectively. The first thing to do is get an assessment, put the money in with the United Nations and others, and then as (the assessment) comes back to you, then step forward with a large amount, as we did."

Fine. You spend three hundred grand on a needs assessment for the region. That's not a donation, because the money isn't going to the frontline for relief. Instead, we should think of that amount as gathering intelligence in preparation for more aid to follow.

I'd suggest that this time it's the press, and not the government, who misrepresented this initial assessment as an aid donation. That being said, however, is $20 million enough? There are those who don't think so:

Tarek Fatah, communications director for the Muslim Canadian Congress, said the government's increased commitment in the earthquake's aftermath is far from enough to meet the immense need.

"I'm not satisfied with 20 million (dollars)," Fatah said.

"This is an area of about 20 million people.... The sheer rebuilding effort is going to take billions of dollars."

On a per capita basis, Canada's contribution compares favourably with other nations.

I'm inclined to think that more money will become available, probably double or triple this amount -- leading to a revision of the Finance Minister's budget figures for next year. What with last year's tsunami, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Canada's emergency preparedness policies are in serious need of review.

I also note some fuel for the nekulturniks: Stephen Harper has as yet no statement on the earthquake, while Jack Layton does. (Though to be fair, the party site hasn't been updated yet.)

The 29th Edition of the Red Ensign Standard ...

2005-10-11T08:27:00.000-04:00

... may be found here. Given the number of events happening in the past couple of weeks, Robot Guy's done a very impressive job of gathering blogposts and organizing them by subject matter.
Please have a look.