April 28, 2006 - We love this column by Thomas Walkom in the Toronto Star this morning. It truly illustrated why our trading future CANNOT live and die by the American market. And specifically why this website rallied so hard against John Manley's ridiculous "deep integration" idea last year. Walkom is right - organizations like the Canadian Council of Chief Executives cannot be taken seriously when it comes to its views on trade with our southern neighbours.

TDH Strategies is very mixed on yesterday's softwood lumber deal. On the one hand, it is a shitty deal for Canadian lumber producers - there is absolutely no way that the Americans should be able to cover all their legal costs free as a result of the $1 billion in illegally collected duties. Yet on the other, with the American administration unwilling to budge any further than they already have (meaning, a continued non-embrace of the entire concept of free trade), maybe it was the only course of action.

We are very proud that successive Liberal governments stuck to their guns and refused to agree to a bad deal for the country. Yet, when all is said and done, the Tories are going to use this deal as a example of their "new relationship" with the U.S. government.

Yesterday, Stephen Harper said that "It's a good deal that resolves this long-standing dispute and allows us to move on." Well, at least half of that statement is correct. Whether it's "good" or not...that's really yet to be determined. We'd be curious as to what our readers think.

April 27, 2006 - Some quotes of interest:

"The way lobbyists work, in my view, is pretty distasteful. I think most Canadians would support our proposal to reform the way lobbyists work and how long they have to be out of government or out of the bureaucracy before they can engage in that kind of activity. That is an important part of the Conservative accountability act as well." - Dave Chatters, former Conservative MP, November 15, 2005 (Ed. note: In theory, not necessarily in practice.)

"We have to make sure that the rules regarding lobbyists change. Parliamentarians must not be impacted by those who have become lobbyists for five years after they have worked on the Hill or as senior bureaucrats or as members of Parliament." - Rob Merrifield, Conservative MP, November 15, 2005 (Ed. note: Hmmm...he doesn't seem to make the distinction between ministerial staff and parliamentary staff like the current government is now doing.)

"There are numerous examples of individuals who previously were lobbying government and who are now working for government. That dividing line, that protection, or Chinese wall if you will, has been permeated repeatedly by the Prime Minister." - Peter McKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs, March 22, 2004 (Ed. note: Like your colleague Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence?)

"Another lobbyist by the name of Cyrus Reporter joined the Prime Minister's transition team to help him hire staff for the offices of cabinet ministers. Once Mr. Reporter had hired all the folks for the backrooms, once the Rolodex was bulging with new phone numbers and the computers were full of insider information, he went back to work for the lobbying firms as well. He is going to be helping to lobby the very government that he helped to set up.

This would be unacceptable for public servants. It is unacceptable for public office holders. But why is it okay for transition members from the Prime Minister's own team to lobby the government that they helped to set up?" - Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture, February 4, 2004 (Ed. note: Sounds mighty to familliar to what Elizabeth Roscoe just did.)

And how about the best one of the lot:

"Politics will no longer be a steppingstone for a lucrative career lobbying government. Make no mistake. If there are MPs in this room who want to use public office for their own benefit or if there are Hill staffers who dream of making it rich by trying to lobby a future Conservative government, if that's true of you then you better make different plans or leave." - Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, November 4, 2005 (Ed. note: Harper also mentions hill staffers, making no distinction between those that work in a minister's office and those that work within an MP's parliamentary office.)

Don't you just love Hansard?

April 27, 2006 - TDH notes for the morning:

° Remember when the Tories used to sit on their high horses and say things like this?:

"The closeness between the lobbyists and this government is probably closer than any other government in history. We don't think they're serious about this at all. If Canadians actually want to enact changes to the Lobbyists' Registration Act or the lobbyist code, they should elect a Conservative government." (Tory MP James Rajotte, November 2005)

Well, apparently it only applied to the Liberals. On top of the parliamentary aides that left to become lobbyists, the longest serving and closest MP to Harper taking a job guiding C.E.O.'s through the road map of government, and several staff from the leader's office moving seamlessly into companies which the Tories spent years rallying against, now we have Elizabeth Roscoe, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's hand-picked choice to make hiring recommendations about political staff, taking a job as vice-president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, an Ottawa-based industry group that seeks to influence federal broadcast policy. Check back later in the afternoon to see what other fun quotes on lobbying TDH can dig up from the Tories in opposion.

° Regardless of whether you follow basketball or not, this accomplishment by Victoria's favourite son Steve Nash must be considered one the of the most amazing sporting feats ever accomplished by a Canadian. If you go do a blog search on Nash, you will find many haters that are already coming out of the woodwork to criticize the decision - some calling it a race-influenced victory, others arguing fervently that Kobe Bryant, the one-man circus act, should have won. No matter, however, as Steve Nash will continue to act as the classiest guy in a league where young kids with too much money think they rule the world. We are awestruck by this guy.

° Gerard Kennedy will finally launch his leadership bid this morning in Ottawa at noon local time. The campaign has really been hampered by the fact that being a loyal foot soldier, Kennedy has spent the past 2-3 weeks transitioning with new Ontario education minister Sandra Pupatello, meaning that his responsibilities to the public have continued to be put ahead of his own interests. Now as refreshing and honourable as this has been, it will be nice to have the key players surrounding the man fully engaged in this leadership race. We are looking forward to getting started with our work. And, this website will continue to open the invitation to any reader interested in Kennedy to drop us a line so that we can help you get plugged in.

° Very nice piece by our friend Warren in this morning's National Post. This is a very contentious issue, but the bottom line is this - the families of the fallen are the only ones who have any kind of significant opinion in this current debate. Period.

° This is a thank you to the high profile and powerful Tory staff member who called us up out of the blue yesterday to say that he enjoyed reading our site. Now although this individual was very aware of our Liberal loyalty and activities (he said that was the reason he liked the site so much), we both were able to show respect for each other and have an interesting and pleasant convesation. This kind of example could be used by partisans of all stripes, who are often so ready to fight with anyone (at times within their own tent) that they lose sight of why we are all involved in this crazy calling of politics.

° Got a nice call from Senator Larry Campbell yesteday. His own personal website will be launching soon, and Larry is interested in a link exchange! Anyways, this could really be a forum for the former mayor to speak to the whole country, particularly when it comes to the issue of drug abuse, treatment, and prohibition. We will keep readers posted as to when Larry online is slated to go live.

April 26, 2006 - It looks like the framework for a deal on softwood has been agreed upon. It's a shame that all the groundwork that the previous Liberal government has done over the past couple of years will never be acknowledged by the current government. Although to be fair, we hear that new Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Wilson and David Emerson had a lot to do with this latest development.

April 26, 2006 - Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan is turning out to be an interesting presence in City Hall. He made the city, and the entire country, proud as punch when he triumphantly waved the Olympic flag in front of billions. He has shown a great sense of humour by holding his own with Rick Mercer. He has become an international speaking sensation, with requests from everywhere from Hawaii to Turkey pouring in on a daily basis. And the wonderful work that he continues to do on behalf of people with disabilities is an inspiration to many.

But let's not make any mistake about it - the man is not a poltical visionary as Gary Mason's article in the Globe and Mail this morning seems to portray.

One suspects that his close ties with the Conservative government (his former campaign manager now runs the show at the Vancouver Minister's Regional Office) will greatly assist in his trip to Ottawa. Like we suggested in our March 13 commentary, Stephen Harper would be wise to form a strong partnership with the new Vancouver Mayor.

But let's look at some of the policies that Sullivan is currently advocating for.

His call for the decriminalization of drug use is simply a position that has been picked up from years of sitting on councils led by Philip Owen and Larry Campbell. Owen championed the introduction of the 4 pillars approach, and Campbell ushered it into the city. And unlike the relatively progressive policy stances towards addiction that each of Sullivan's predecessors enjoyed with the former Liberal government, Sullivan is likely to be stonewalled from every direction when it comes to modernizing our country's view on how to tackle the problems associated with drug abuse. With Harper's draconian view on simple marijuana possession becoming very clear (the legislation that was to decriminalize small amounts has now disintegrated), Sullivan pushing for free heroin is more likely to be greeted with a slap in the face than a cash handout for clinical trials.

Then there's the issue of the fiscal disadvantage that cities face in this country, and Sullivan's ideas on how to correct the imbalance. His pontifications on cities serving as the economic engines of the country, on cities being crippled by a lack of a tax base, are once again simply echoes of the strong work that was achieved under Paul Martin's government.

To his credit, Martin moved forward with his New Deal for Cities agenda. And, the strong financial commmitment that was made through shared gas tax revenues were largely due to the past work of the strongest group of city mayors this country has seen in decades.

From a Maclean's magazine article from January, 2004 (long before any of the finite details were even announced):

"As well, a crop of outspoken mayors -- including Winnipeg's Glen Murray, Vancouver's Larry Campbell, and, more recently, David Miller -- have made big city politics a focal point as it hasn't been since the 1970s heyday of Toronto's David Crombie and Montreal's Jean Drapeau. Critiques of the way Canadian cities are run vary, but the common theme is that they sorely lack political autonomy and revenue-raising flexibility."

So when Sullivan takes his political cheap shots at Larry Campbell like this:

"Mr. Campbell oversaw and encouraged a city council that had an adversarial relationship with Ottawa. One, he said, that worked against the best interests of the city,"

it is because of his deep-seeded insecurities rather than an accurate reflection on Campbell's record. Campbell might not have had the best relationship with the current government while they were in opposition, but his ability to get things from Ottawa was never a problem for the City of Vancouver.

Let's hope that Sullivan can nail down some of the requests on his wish list. But, let's also not forget who wrote down the items on that list long before he ever arrived onto the national stage.

April 25, 2006 - As alluded to a couple of weeks back, a Michael Ignatieff interview has been offered and accepted, and now it is a matter of working out the details. Stay tuned, as every utterance will be transposed word for word thanks to the wonders of modern technology.

April 25, 2006 - Call me Bob? As opposed to what - Mr. Rae? Frank? Brother of John?

Is this folksy charm? Because if it is, Bob, you had us at hello.

Unfortunately, however, you still won't get our vote.

April 25, 2006 - This editorial in the Toronto Star this morning represents a yearning that, against the backdrop of a modern leadership contest (particularly one for the Liberal Party of Canada), seems almost naïve.

It could almost be considered a novelty to have a candidate come out swinging with well-defined policy preferences in advance of the end of June membership cutoff date. Because, with just over two months left to increase the potential pool of voters through mass membership signups, ideas really are an afterthought. Right now, it is about basic logistics - strictly a race-against-time numbers operation.

At this stage in the game, why would anyone want to articulate a vision that could turn away a potential delegate?

Now if we are in the same predicament of a leadership race that is completely void of any substantial ideas come September, the above-linked rant would be appropriate. But let's not kid ourselves...leadership politics is about political organization first, ideals, beliefs and future thinking second. There is no two ways about it.

This is the realization that is going to either make or break a candidate's shot at winning. And to that specific end, the uneqivocal silence from a campaign is a very good gauge of where someone fits into the grand scheme of things.

April 24, 2006 - Well, this answers our earlier question:

"Ken Dryden is coming home to his elementary school to make a major announcement about his political future in the Liberal Party of Canada.

Everyone is invited so please feel free to pass on this invitation to friends and family.

Date: Friday, April 28th

Time: 9:30AM

Place: Humber Valley Village Junior Middle School

65 Hartfield Road (Between Islington and Dundas on the Kingsway)"

Looks like the rumour turned out to be wishful thinking on the part of the competition.

April 24, 2006 - With the line of official Liberal leadership candidates growing daily, has anyone else heard that predicted contender Ken Dryden might be backing away from the race sometime in the next week or two? Just a rumour for the moment, but considering our source, we have a hard time doubting its validity.

April 22, 2006 - How in the hell did this guy become an MP? TDH loves Quebec, but sometimes the way people treat minorities in that province is shocking.

April 21, 2006 - In spite of various contrary postings in other websites' comments sections, this Globe and Mail article from this morning seems to confirm TDH's account from yesterday on how Epworth got into Emerson's office.

April 21, 2006 - To those accusing this website of pandering to David Emerson, maybe they should go take a look at how we exposed the meeting Emerson's staff has last summer with a Conservative candidate (January 13) or the chiding the minister received (February 9) by being "flabbergasted" over the reaction he was getting from constituents. Or how about the quick response Hansard quotes that Emerson had delivered as a Liberal cabinet minister that TDH dug up right after Emerson's defection.

April 21, 2006 - Jason Cherniak spouts off this morning about our post on the Jay Epworth-David Emerson affair, asking why this website was "so quick to question that Emerson is unhappy about aspects of the Tory cabinet." His dismissive tone seems to suggest that we have simply made up the alternative account of events that we reported just below.

So to Mr. Cherniak, let us reassure him that this assumption is not the case.

Without getting into an unnecessary pissing match, let's ask Cherniak to stop his cheering for one moment, and ponder this question: Does it sound logical that Emerson would tell a former employee who now works for Bill Graham that "he would have quit by now but his wife wouldn't let him"?

So some Liberal staffer that used to work for Emerson stops by unexpectedly when the man is eatting his lunch, and as a result, all of a sudden the minister tells him that he wants to quit, but is not allowed - because his wife objects?

It is these kind of ludicrous assertions which bring everyone in politics down a level. This is a hatchet job if we've ever seen one, and regardless of whether you are loyal to the Liberals, Conservatives, or the NDP, this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Are people aware that protestors have now started to trespass onto David Emerson's property by pasting notes (several of which have been threatening) on his front door, garage and in his mailbox? No, because that kind of crap doesn't get covered.

Mr. Emerson must be ready to face the consequences for his actions by way of the electorate...this is a point that we have made for months, and a task for which he deserves no sympathy.

But flimsy character assasinations and intrusions into his family life are not a part of that eqaution. There is a line of decency that should go beyond blatant partisanship.

April 21, 2006 - As everyone already knows, Jay "Big Daddy" Epworth is David Emerson's former legislative assistant.

Self-admittedly, Epworth was extremely bitter about the minister's decision, having spoken out on more than one occasion to colleagues that he has "a lot of anger" towards Mr. Emerson. In fact, he told several people of his plan to vent that anger face to face with the minister if given the opportunity.

Epworth dropped in on the Emerson unannounced, and while walking through the building, bumped into the minister's driver (whom he knew from before), and convinced him to let him into the office while Emerson was having lunch at his desk.

Epworth sat and chatted with the minister in a casual setting, where Emerson told him his reasons for switching to the Conservatives. Emerson spoke positively of the role he now had with the government, but mostly the two men just shot the breeze. Of note is the fact that throughout the entire conversation, Epworth never had a pad or a paper in hand to record the specific quotes given to the Toronto Star.

Within hours of the meeting, Epworth began to tell other staffers to keep an eye on the headlines for a story on the encounter.

This website has not been easy on Emerson over the past couple of months. In fact, it was TDH Strategies that dug up the Hansard quotes that Emerson had delivered as a Liberal cabinet minister (including calling his current colleagues "vicious guttersnipes") just 24 hours after his Conservative cabinet appointment. But when we read the story claiming that Emerson had uttered his frustrations to a Liberal staffer, something just didn't add up. Here are some basic questions that emerged:

Why would Emerson make those comments to a guy he knows to work for the Leader of the Opposition?

How did Epworth have such detailed quotes? Did he make a secret recording?

Why was the Toronto Star the only newspaper that covered this story and published his recollections? The Vancouver Metro newspaper never attributed their very brief coverage to any specific source.

Sounds mighty fishy.

April 20, 2006 - The Tyee has posted TDH's child care piece from yesterday as its cover story. The comments thread that follows is really interesting, and worth a read.

April 20, 2006 - The "Emerson is frustrated" story that is circulating in articles like this and this is interesting.

Check back with TDH later in the day for another account of the course of events, including different details surrounding the infamous lunch between David Emerson and his former assistant.

April 19, 2006 - First the unity flag mysteriously flying on parliament hill on the day of the throne speech. And now this unusual note from a regular reader off the hill:

"The newly refurbished Library of Parliament - the only original part of the Parliament's centre block - recently had the 'dome' that was being used for its construction taken off. Myself and a few others were astonished to see that it had been prominently painted blue on most of its wrought iron sections, including the large weather vane. Those of us who have been around for a while remember these sections being black in the previous incarnation of the Library spire. We also can't think of any good reason why blue would be the colour selected (not associated with any parliamentary traditions, national colours, etc.)."

Those Conservative redecorators are really taking it up a notch in their new Ottawa digs.

April 19, 2006 - The issue of child care was never properly communicated to the Canadian public, and Stephen Harper's Conservative government knows this. Whether as a result of a misguided comment about beer and popcorn, or the effective political branding of parents as the #1 child experts in Canada, the true details of both the Tory policy and the Liberals' recently cancelled plan have never properly penetrated the public consciousness with any kind of depth.

So, here goes another attempt by this website to have a frank discussion about policy specifics rather than political bluster and spin.

The Conservatives have promised a taxable grant of $1,200 for each child under six, as well as 125,000 daycare spaces over the next five years through an annual $250 million Community Childcare Investment Program.

During the 2004 federal election campaign, the Liberals promised $5 billion to create 250,000 child-care spaces by 2009. Subsequently, the 2006 campaign saw a commitment by Paul Martin for an additional $6-billion to finance the program through to 2015.

Now before we get to the inadequacy of the Conservative plan, we need to be honest and offer a reality check with regards to some of the Liberal past claims. The Martin campaign publicly estimated during the election that the plan would create 625,000 new child care spaces. But it is clear that the 250,000 spots will not be magically expanded by 350,000 as a result of a simple extension of the $1 billion per year until 2015. This is particularly evidenced when you examine how many total child care spaces currently exist in the country, a number that stood at a mere 600,000 in 2001 (providing a national access ratio of 1 in 8 children).

The best model of child care that this country has to offer parents is the one that has been established in Quebec. In 1997, Quebec introduced its own day-care system, offering spaces at $5 a day. Demand quickly surpassed supply, and the amount charged to parents was upped to $7 a day. As of 2001, Quebec had 235,000 spaces available, providing access for 1 in 5 children. If we do the basic math, a $7 a day program translates into a cost of $140 a month per child for childcare for the average 20-day work week. So in Quebec, the family of 1 out of every 5 children will be very pleased with the Conservative plan.

The rest of the country however? Well, as we have posted previously, that equation isn't as easy to rationalize. Here are the monthly daycare costs in different regions across the country, as researched by Runzheimer International:

According to Statistics Canada findings from 2001, only about 47% of children are looked after by a parent in this country. The remaining 53% receive external forms of child care, including staying with relatives (1/3), receiving care from non-relatives in someone else's home (1/3), formal enrollment in a daycare centre (25%) and being taken care of by a babysitter (9%).

So in all fairness, only 13.25% of Canadian children would be targeted by the Liberal plan on daycare, even though that percentage would marginally increase as a result of new spaces being created.

On the other hand, $1,200 per child means that formal daycare for most children across the country is still out of the question. To be honest, it likely wouldn't even cover the costs of adequate babysitting services.

In October 2004, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released a report that described Canada's child-care system as a chronically underfunded patchwork of programs with no overarching goals. It found that many centres were shabby and many workers were poorly trained. As well, staff turnover at many centres was very high.

The report also found a shortage of available regulated child-care spaces - enough for fewer than 20 per cent of children aged six years and younger with working parents. In the U.K., 60 per cent of children find regulated child care; in Belgium, 63 per cent; in France, 69 per cent; in Denmark, 78 per cent.

So the truth of the matter is, this country is lagging far behind many other industrialized nations when it comes to child care. To meet OECD recommendations that Canada boost its child-care spending to the OECD average of about 0.4 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, we would have to spend approximately $4 billion per year.

Neither the Tory or Liberal plans come anywhere close to that mark.

In essence, no one has the right to preach on this subject, because everything that has come up for public consumption has been completely lacklustre. Even the NDP 2006 platform only offered $1.8-billion for the first year and $2.5 billion after four years, figures which still do not meet the abovementioned international suggested standards.

Why can Stephen Harper threaten to go to the polls over this issue, as he did yesterday? Simply for the fact that no party has a policy that is going to make parents enthusiastic about going back into another election.

April 18, 2006 - Leadership politics are a tricky and at time treacherous field to navigate. They cut to the core of what people believe in, and give insights into why individuals choose to be actively involved in politics.

With many, it is about prestige and position. Being selected as the provincial or regional organizer for a major candidate is a huge responsibility, and one that comes with a certain amount of profile. It is thought that this type of a person should be someone who can mend bridges, be completely inclusive, and be willing to accept hands from anyone reaching towards the campaign. Sometimes, however, it is about one person either building or solidifying his/her fiefdom.

For others, it is a cash grab. Some of the monies being laid out for top and middle level campaign coordinators is pretty substantial, and one technically could build a nice nest egg to sit on before going back to their regular jobs in about 6 months or so.

Some, however, rely on principles, ideology, sentiment, and vision to make their choice. There have been several people that have turned to this website in the past couple of weeks wanting to find out more about a particular candidate, posing questions and demonstrating curiosity usually associated with those who just want someone to believe in.

So here is the query. If the first two categories of involvement mentioned always tend to trump the final group, then what is one to do? If personal politics become the dominant factor in many of the decisions or communications being undertaken (or more aptly, lack thereof), how long can faith in one candidate sustain someone?

If there is one lesson that was learned from the last leadership go-round, it is that the people that comprise a campaign must be considered as a direct reflection of the candidate. Particularly for those hopefuls who tend to be micro managers, the men and women that are placed in positions to recruit new members, and attract already existing ones, are the first and last impressions that are going to be left with people who might get to see the candidate only 2 or 3 times over the entire duration of the race.

Sometimes the way you are treated becomes a bigger issue than exactly matching up with a candidate's ideals. Sometimes the engagement of a healthy disagreement or debate on certain issues is more significant than the silence of a candidate who seems more closely associated with one's personal political ideals.

Why? Because politics is about people, and at the end of the day, the manner in which people are treated is going to be the most important factor in guaranteeing loyalty and support.

April 18, 2006 - How does Stephen Harper rationalize tripping over his own words by this decision? Harper in 2002:

"Standing committees of the House should not simply be extensions of the Prime Minister's Office, and members of Parliament should choose their committee chairs by secret ballot and set their own agenda, free from the Whip's direction."

But "who you know in the PMO" doesn't matter in this new Conservative government, right?

Hypocrisy at its finest, particularly with the way that Harper rallied for so many years against the centralized nature of past Liberal governments. The current Prime Minister can conquer and divide with the best of them, folks.

April 17, 2006 - Many readers have followed the UBC young liberal story on this website for the past month and a half. Well, before packing in this story, we want to post an email that we received from none other than Shaun McPhee, the candidate that promised his supporters an invite to his next "pool party" in exchange for their vote.

For what reason, you might ask? Philosophical differences, you might say. Our response follows:

"From: Flash Thompson [_____________@_______.___

Sent: 16/04/2006 4:35 PM

To: ________@_____________.___

This letter is regarding my infamous pool party email and is not meant to defend my actions (well maybe a little) but rather put them into context. First though, I must admit that I am surprised, and impressed, as to the extent of interest in UBC politics, something that I was very naive of before hand. The email that I sent out has caused such a stir that I can not help but laugh in awe at how I was involved in a political scandal so early on in my career. For fear of further misrepresentation I will try and keep this as simple as possible.

As a student interested in politics I thought I would try and get more involved. Furthermore, I thought any involvement might look good on a resume (it seems I might have taken that for granted). Anyways, I asked certain acquaintances to keep me posted on ways I could contribute. Ultimately, I was asked to help get people out to vote. I then further enquired if there was a way for me to run for a post and be more directly involved. Unfortunately, I never really enquired into the rules and regulations of the election or memberships myself. On the 27th I was contacted, and obviously due to some miscommunication, I came to believe the registration deadline was on the 28th. Furthermore I was under the assumption that all that was required to register was a name and student number. I did not know that a signature and 5 dollars were needed, although arguably I should have. So I took five minutes out of my day to send an email to friends asking if they would support me and jokingly wrote that I would be more inclined to invite them to my pool parties. Anyone who interpreted this as a serious attempt of persuasion/bribery does not know me or my friends at all. The people I sent it to would have supported me regardless and I can assure anyone that their support was not dependent on a 'pool party'. In fact many of them will be showing up to my house if I invite them or not. Furthermore, even though it is not of great significance I feel I should point out that the time the email is cited as being sent is wrong, as I sent it out in the morning and not at 8:37 that night (I have an alibi). It was a private email sent to friends and although I am not sure as to how it entered the public forum, I do not feel responsible for how people interpret it. It was never intended to help cheat the system and I can attest that not one of the recipients was registered.

Once again I thought the whole scenario was slightly humourous until I read that Kim Haakstad said I was the only one to blame for the tainting of the electoral process. That comment kind of widened my eyes as to the magnitude of the situation. It was after that comment that I felt the need to write this email. Consequently, the only people I believe deserve an apology, or rather assurances, are the opposition in light of any concerns they might have in the outcomes of the election. I did assure the opposition leader that the email had no impact. Furthermore, I think people should trust that those in charge would safeguard against any electoral wrong doing (which they did). While I am a little upset as to how my email got out, or rather how it was interpreted, I would hope people to not make any generalizations from it. I am by no means a political miscreant but rather just a naive and ignorant student who apparently went about the wrong way in trying to get involved. While I am a little worried about what I write in this email and how it may be interpreted I just wish to show that in truth I am a really honest and nice guy.

Shaun McPhee

PS. TDH you are more than welcome at any of my pool parties, Mrs. Haakstad can come too."

* * * * *

"From: ________@_____________.___

Sent: 17/04/2006 12:01 AM

To: Flash Thompson [_____________@_______.___

Thank you for taking the time to write your email.

There are a bunch of things I'd like to cover, so here goes a stream of consciousness.

First, I want to correct you in your assumption that the blame attributed to you in my post was from the mouth of Kim Haakstad - rather, they were my interpretation of the situation. I never attached that quote to her - she provided me with some information regarding the manner in which membership forms were accepted. And, after understanding the process a little better, I learned that none of the members that might have signed up on the Tuesday were eligible to vote.

The reason that I attibuted blame to you was twofold. First, the way in which the email was written seemed to indicate that you were trying to circumvent the rules and spirit of the AGM. There was a reason that a new date was established under entirely new protocol...largely because the politics of personal ambition from some were trumping the merits of youth involvement in politics.

Getting young people interested in the political process is healthy...but not at any cost. Without sounding like a pompous, idealistic asshole, let me just make it simple - when I hear about 77 members being refused the right to vote through a loophole designed to protect the status quo, when I hear about people being asked to come to sign up memberships AFTER the deadline, when I am told that finances for the club haven't been properly handled for the past year and a half, to the point where the AMS is questioning where funds went, and why they weren't deposited into the club's bank account - that is cause for concern on my part.

I am sorry to say it, but maybe the nature of your involvement is exemplary of the bigger problem here. The fact that you were a candidate on a slate, but as you state, "never really enquired into the rules and regulations of the election or memberships myself," is troubling. How can you expect to govern a club, and grow the membership and general interest, if you don't even know the parameters of what it takes to be a member, or that there are bigger picture objectives than signing up the most members to vote.

My second issue was with your promise of a pool party. Make no mistake about it - I never took it seriously, and actually found it quite humourous in a Richie Rich, "Oh Muffy" type of slice of life. I will take your word on your motivations and intentions. But on the other hand, not once did you mention any substantial reason why you were running, what your beliefs were, what your platform was, or what you wanted to accomplish. All you did was put out a call - actually a cattle call - for people to back up a friend.

And once again, don't mistake me - THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

But when enticement as an invite to a "pool party" is your biggest selling point in the email, it indicates to me the level of debate surrounding the whole election.

I am sure that Mr. Briggs will do ok, and will hopefully make some positive steps in building the club. I am also aware, however, that most of the organization for bringing out his supporters was done when he was out of the city.

I know that the other side just wasn't able to pull as many members. There was no cheating...your slate just delivered your vote much better. And to that, I say congratulations and well done.

But at some point, you have to ask yourself: Is there any more to why I am doing this?

I'll leave you with that question in consideration of this rant.

Regards,

P.S. I will politely decline your invitation to the pool party, as I'm not exactly sure how well I'd fit in. Some people just don't like a shit disturber...even one with good intentions."

April 17, 2006 - Make no mistake about it...this jump would be as much an indictment on Stephen Harper's leadership style as it is a desire to work with Preston Manning.

Not that this will be a big hit to the Conservative government in Ottawa, as at this point, the Tories could run criminals from the local lockup in any region of Alberta and still achieve victory.

The Harper government is reminiscent of the most recent Liberal governments in one sense, in that the biggest threat to their grip on power will come from the inside rather than from the "opposition," particularly with the recent examples of collusion occurring with the NDP and BQ.

April 13, 2006 - The interview that TDH Strategies did with Joseph Planta in now available online at the following link. Happy listening!

April 13, 2006 - TDH Strategies will be giving an interview to Joseph Planta over at thecommentary.ca regarding the Liberal leadership race. A link will be posted very soon.

April 13, 2006 - Looking for a strong direction for health care from the federal government and more specifically the new Minister of Health Tony Clement? Well, don't bother:

"Clement praises Quebec's move to reduce wait times

Canadian Press

Published: April 13, 2006

QUEBEC -- Federal Health Minister Tony Clement urged other provinces on Wednesday to follow Quebec's lead to reduce hospital wait times.

"Here's an example, the Quebec example, of a province that was not afraid to move ahead," Clement said after meeting with his Quebec counterpart, Philippe Couillard. Clement said Quebec's decision to allow private insurance coverage for knee, hip and cataract surgeries will help reduce wait times in the province's hospitals.

Clement said the federal government will help provinces implement their own initiatives."I guess my message to other provinces is: don't be afraid to move ahead but you can't merely wait for leadership from the federal level of government."

Couillard said he will need more money from Ottawa if the province broadens its program."If we wish to extend to other procedures, it basically means an increased surgical volume, and for this we will need some financial help," Couillard said."

That is absolutely one of the weakest quotes ever delivered by a federal health minister. Clement has just opened the floodgates, and the provinces have their dykes ready to divert federal dollars into any delivery systems that they see fit - private, public...it doesn't matter anymore.

This should make Clement's private health care backers very happy, including KMH Cardiology and Diagnostic Centre, which has opened MRI clinics in Vaughan and Kitchener, and previously donated $11,000 to Clement's failed leadership bid.

While not available quite yet, it is going to be interesting to see who exactly contributed to Clement's campaign this time around in 2006, as the former Ontario health minister was rumoured to be headed towards his current role way back in November, when a Tory victory was beginning to seem very possible.

April 12, 2006 - This website has been justifiably hard on Michael Ignatieff for some points from his past which make us uncomfortable. But giving credit where credit is due, this is one of the best interviews we have read involving any politician in many, many years. The man demonstrated humility, a no-nonsense approach, a self-depricating humour, and a depth of intelligence and understanding of the public's will that really surprised us.

Some of the highlights include:

"I shouldn't have used the "we." I'm not and have never been and will never be an American citizen, so I shouldn't have done that. Sometimes you want to increase your influence over your audience by appropriating their voice, but it was a mistake. Every single one of the students from 85 countries who took my courses at Harvard knew one thing about me: I was that funny Canadian."

"What I learned running for political office is that my fellow citizens want truth, they want the straight goods. They don't want you to come to the door with a policy proposal that's half-baked, or just consists of sound bites."

"There is a tension between truth and power, but I just passionately believe you can't hold power for very long unless you tell the truth. So that's my sense of it."

"I'd like to be a politician, the public figure who promised little and delivered what he promised, to the degree I possibly can -- not 25 priorities but three -- and try to be someone at the end of this game about whom you could say, 'Well, I don't like that guy very much, but he did what he said'."

"It matters to me a lot in politics to disagree fundamentally with someone -- as I do with (André)Boisclair -- and also to maintain appropriate civil relations with him. I don't like diabolization in personal life or in politics. The reality about politics is that it is the arena where human disagreement is worked out. Disagreement does not have to be personal, it does not have to be winner-takes-all."

The self-admitted mistake by referring to himself as an American is a huge issue of identity that still has major implications in terms of our decision-making regarding Ignatieff.

But there can be no doubt that some of the abovementioned quotes really speak to many of the ideas that TDH Strategies' commentaries have been preaching about for the better part of the past 2 years. For Ignatieff to avoid the spin and get to the heart of the relationship between politics and people that the profession serves is REALLY refreshing.

It isn't going to happen, we suspect, but it would be a very interesting endeavour to have the opportunity to speak or even better, interview Mr. Ignatieff (and unlike the truly brilliant Calgary Grit, the use of an audio recording MP3 player would guarantee that there would be no paraphrasing).

April 12, 2006 - Oh how ironic it was to watch President of the Treasury Board John Baird and Prime Minister Stephen Harper speak glowingly about a new era of accountability to a room packed full of journalists, only to walk away after answering a single question in English and another in French.

On the other hand, listening to BC MP Stephen Owen say this in response to the introduction of the Accountability Act:

"We've just heard a press conference by the prime minister suggesting that this is some kind of klepto[maniac] state that needs to be clubbed into submission.

This is simply totally unrealistic."

is indicative of how thin the opposition's objections to this piece of legislation truly are, particularly when considering how Owen completely flaunted Treasury Board guidelines (link MUST be opened with Internet Explorer) when he was in cabinet.

In political terms, the Accountability Act is a bullet proof vest in that no one can really muster up enough of an objection to make it appear as inadequate or a flawed policy. It also happens to be the double edged sword that can just as easily cut up a government which has already had parliamentary aides leave to become lobbyists, one of the longest serving and closest members to Harper take a job guiding C.E.O.'s through the road map of government (but not lobbying), and several staff from the leader's office move seamlessly into companies which the Tories spent years rallying against.

A bar has now been set. Here's wondering how many chin-ups this government will be able to pull off before getting tired.

April 11, 2006 - This is a fascinating and brilliant column by Bill Tieleman on the BC legislature raids. Some of these questions really need to be answered and probed a little bit further, particularly when it comes to the troubling double standards that seem to have been applied.

April 11, 2006 - Changes are coming to TDH Strategies over the next month or so:

We'd be very interested in our readers' opinions. Drop us a note with a thumbs up or thumbs down.

April 11, 2006 - As the pieces for the Liberal leadership race have begun to come together over the past 2 months, Ted over at Cerberus has ermerged as one of the most interesting and insightful voices on the subject. We know that he is a regular reader of TDH (even though we are unfortunately not included in his "gotta read'em" section), and now his posts warrant a daily visit from our end.

His earnest hope that things remain civil between leadership camps is a sensible and admirable aspiration for a party that has literally been torn apart by the most bitter of internal strife.

That being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with openly challenging credentials, or deeply questioning positions, when it comes to the various candidates. In fact, it is the most healthy thing for a membership looking to turn over a new leaf and discover who we are, and where we are headed.

Take for example our post about Michael Ignatieff on Saturday, or our entry on Bob Rae from yesterday - each represents some deep-seeded questions and concerns we have with both candidacies, dealing specifically with tenure and pedigree in regards to leading the party.

Respect must be earned, and in the cases of both Ignatieff and Rae, each man has gone far beyond that threshold. The qualifications, experience and history that each brings to the Liberal party are equally impressive, and their presence will add much to the discourse and quality of debate.

But it is entirely reasonable to ask about one man who has seemingly only been in Canada when working on special projects like documentaries or taking weekend vacations at the summer cottage. Like CTV's Craig Oliver stated over the weekend, Iganatieff hasn't been through many of the events that have defined this country over the past couple of decades - the Meech Lake Accord, the Quebec Referendum, the decision not to go to Iraq.

In a similar vein, Mr. Rae has worked on many worthwhile projects and endeavours since his reign as premier of Ontario ended in 1993, yet has had absolutely no attachment to the Liberal party other than his brother's strong tenure by the side of the one and only Jean Chrétien. He purchases a membership, and a week later, he is ready to lead the party.

So with all due respect to the level of decorum that the Liberal party must embrace over the coming months, we must remember that open and honest opinions are never a bad thing. Leadership candidates are asking for people to judge them on every facet of their political being - and as such, they must be ready and willing to accept scrutiny just as easily as they are inclined to basking in the glow of praise.

There is something inherently divisive in the whole concept of a leadership contest. That does not, however, preclude us from emerging as united when all is said and done.

April 10, 2006 - Regarding Bob Rae from this Globe and Mail article:

"Mr. Rae, whose campaign is headed by members of Jean Chrétien's inner circle, including his brother, John Rae, and Mr. Chrétien's closest policy adviser, Eddie Goldenberg, was accompanied in Edmonton by two of Mr. Chrétien's Western Canada organizers from the 1990 leadership race, Randy Pettipas and Raj Chahal."

Anyone who has been involved in the party over the past decade understands how powerful some of the abovementioned names are - they have a proven track record of success. But is the appeal of Bob Rae as a candidate so enticing to some of Jean Chrétien's key people all as a result of loyalty to John Rae, Chrétien's right hand man on public policy issues?

Don't get us wrong...we don't believe that Bob Rae has too much baggage to make a real go of it. If Stephen Harper can reinvent himself from a western reformer ideologue into the Prime Minister's chair, then anyone can. Rae has also evolved into quite an international stateman that commands respect from across the globe.

But once again, in the same light as Scott Brison (although in fairness he has now won 2 elections as a Liberal) and Belinda Stronach (who has made a wise decision in dropping out), how can Liberals be so enthusiastic in support of a potential leadership candidate who only purchased a party membership last week?

April 10, 2006 - For anyone who has forgotten, Stockwell Day is our Minister of Public Safety. And in true Stockwell wetsuit fashion, he is still trying really hard to appear "hip" in his responsibilities. Here is an email sent out by his office last Tuesday:

"-----Original Message-----

From: Minister of Public Safety / Ministre de la Sécurité publique

Sent: April 4, 2006 1:46 PM

To: NAT-Dist, all CBSA/tous ASFC

Subject: Thank You / Merci

Hey people! Over the past few months, I've witnessed first-hand the great work of all our teams across the country. A big 'Congrats' to our team at Pearson International for the recent drug seizure. That much cocaine represents a lot of lives that won't get messed up by having that stuff out on the streets. Well done and 'thank you' on behalf of all Canadians who want to see safer streets and communities!

The Honourable Stockwell Day

Minister of Public Safety"

Subsequent to this email, TDH has just received an internal memo sent this morning to all of Day's political and parliamentary staff:

"-----Original Message-----

From: Stock (Minister of Public Safety / Ministre de la Sécurité publique)

Sent: April 10, 2006 9:46 AM

To: All Staff

Subject: Greetings

To all my peeps:

Just chillin' like a villain this morning...wanted to tell all y'all that everyone has been off the hook so far. I'm getting mad props from all my cab mins who want a piece of my staff.

NEways, just wanted to give everyone the 411 that from now on, all correspondence out this office must begin with "What'up dawg?" or "Hey yo!" A small adjustment, but one I knows my constits will appreciate.

It's all about safety, baby. You know how we do!

Peace out,

Stock"

No doubt.

April 8, 2006 - Scanning the news this morning, one statement from this Toronto Star feature on Michael Ignatieff brings us the aspect of his candidacy that serves as the main reason why he cannot be our top choice:

"When at Harvard, his essays in The New York Times and elsewhere usually referred to Americans as 'we' or 'us.' Washington and Jefferson were 'our Founding Fathers.'

The resumé still posted on his Harvard website makes few references to his Canadian works. Perhaps that's wise. A 1993 essay on Quebec nationalism, for instance, seems to have been written by someone who spent so much time away that, in the end, he discovered truths about Canada that the rest of us had known for years."

Or how about the following line that he wrote in the literary magazine Granta four years ago:

"(As a young man) I loved my country but I believed in America in a way that Canada never allowed."

As much time as Ignatieff might have spent here, working on CBC documentaries, or spending weekends at "summer cottages," it does not make him anything but a part time Canadian citizen, particularly with views as voiced above. There is something to be said for living everyday in this country - the mundane as well as the exciting. When most Canadian politicians speak to the electorate and use the words 'we' or 'us,' the references do not usually include Americans.

How Ignatieff now has a belief in this country now as opposed to when he was a young man seems to have as much to do with convenience and opportunity as it does about truly wanting to return home.

April 7, 2006 - UPDATES: We just received a very nice phone call from Kim Haakstad, Executive Director of the Liberal Party of Canada - British Columbia, for an explanation on the issues touched upon earlier today.

In regards to the UBC AGM, every membership for the club was date stamped as of 5:00pm, March 27, and so while memberships were submitted the following morning, those members were deemed ineligible to vote. Several members were disqualified from voting in the meeting yesterday, an assertion that has been backed up by several people in attendance. We have also received kudos for both Kim and former PMO BC desk Mike Witherly, who ran a very fair and above board meeting. So, the blame for tainting the sentiments around the process fall solely on the shoulders of Shaun McPhee, the author of the previously posted "pool party" email.

Secondly, Kim also relayed that the party executive in BC only set the rules for memberships this past Wednesday, and as such, the party office was awaiting a decision from the executive before providing official notices. Since Stephane Dion is the first leadership candidate to come to the province after this meeting, he is the also the first one to get an official email sent out by the party office. And, as we are told, this will now be the rule of thumb for any future visits.

Thank you to Kim for taking the time out to answer our questions. This kind of openness from the party office is a nice change from some of the secretive practices of the past.

April 7, 2006 - Stephane Dion's BC Endorsement?

As readers are aware, Liberal leadeship hopefuls have flooded British Columbia over the past month - Brison, Dion, Volpe, Kennedy, Ignatieff, Dryden, Stronach, etc. - and been hosted at various receptions that were open to all Liberal members.

Up until now, most of these receptions have had their invites distributed by individuals in the party - either by those hosting, or those organizing.

Until now, that is.

Stephane Dion is returning to British Columbia this weekend for events in Victoria and Surrey. Dion has assembled a strong contingent of supporters here in this province, including BC campaign director Mark Marissen and past candidate and president Bill Cunningham.

However, with all due respect to Mr. Dion, a man who TDH Strategies has a lot of respct for, why is the Liberal Party of Canada - British Columbia headquarters sending out notices for this event, even though the email received clearly states that:

"LPCBC is pleased to provide promotional e-mails for any declared or perspective leadership candidates. The e-mails will be sent to all members of the Liberal Party of Canada in BC and may include details of the event and a candidate bio.

This is neither intended nor should be interpreted as an endorsement or support of any particular candidate for the upcoming leadership race in the Liberal Party of Canada but rather a chance to meet and help form the debate to ensure BC issues are front and centre. We think it is important to have an open dialogue about the future of our Party and who should lead it."

As far as we can tell, for the visits of all the other leadeship candidates, this luxury was never afforded, which is why many members were not included on lists that clearly had limited access to email addresses.

From this point on, this type of notification is a great way to proceed. But why wasn't it done this way in the first place?

April 7, 2006 - Congratulations to Taylor Briggs, the new president of the UBC Young Liberals. From the few reports we have heard, Briggs is a nice enough chap, and someone with some political experience.

Those who were eligible to vote in the AGM that occurred yesterday needed to have had their memberships in by 5:00pm, March 27, 2006. That entailed filling out a membership form (which requires a signature), and submitting $5.

So at 8:28pm on March 27, this email (received from an angry club member) was sent out by Shaun McPhee, one of the candidates who ran on Briggs' slate:

"From: "Flash Thompson"

To: _____________@_______.com

CC: _________@_______.com, __________@_______.com, _____@_______.com, _______@_______.com

Subject: Shaun McPhee

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:28:06 +0000

Hey Everyone,

How's it going for you all. Good I hope. It may surprise you to learn that Taylor Briggs (a friend of mine) and I are running for positions in the Young Liberal Party at UBC. It would be doing me a huge favour if some of you could make it out to vote.

All that is required is if you could send me your name and student numbers ASAP as to get you on the voters list before tommorrow morning. Then if you happen to be on campus April 6th with a few minutes to spare you could come out and vote. Its pretty easy and it would be greatly appreciated. I would be much more inclined to invite you to my pool parties if you do this.

Thanks,

Shaun McPhee"

Hmmmm...so all they needed to do was send their names and student numbers AFTER the cutoff, without signatures, without money, to be able to vote?

So much for running this one fairly. Why can't things be done above board, just for once?

Hey Shaun, you think you'll be inclined to invite TDH to your next pool party?

April 7, 2006 - What justifies Anne McLellan passing taxpayers a bill of $1,265 for a meal for her and a dozen staffers AFTER SHE CEASED SERVING AS AN MP?

And why the hell can't Immigration Minister Monte Solberg pay for a $5.49 breakfast and a $16.71 lunch at Subway out of his own pocket, particularly with the raises that all MPs and ministers are now poised to receive?

We constantly wonder what goes through the heads of elected officials and political staffers who think that charging everything to taxpayers is acceptable behaviour. Nevermind a filter for what is right and wrong...where is the little twinge of fear, or at the very least caution, in this "new age" of accoutability, ethics and scrutiny?

Does this kind of bullshit ever get stopped? By anyone?

April 6, 2006 - Control freak or not, Gerard Kennedy's logic in stepping down not only as a cabinet minister, but also as an Ontario MPP, is very refreshing. And yes, he is genuinely that idealistic.

April 6, 2006 - This decision by Belinda Stronach is wonderful news - no one should be able to buy their way through to a 2nd, 3rd or 4th ballot. What's Reg Alcock going to do now that his promised $100,000 for the next year has suddenly evapourated?

April 6, 2006 - Quick hits this morning:

• The UBC Young Liberal AGM takes place today after weeks of negotiating new and fair rules for the contest. Regular readers will remember this website's coverage of the previous attempt at holding this meeting in early March, and the shady practices that were being attempted. We are optimistic that things will go smoothly, with the university's student society now involved, as well as the increased expectations at a national level in the standards of governance required for these student clubs. Hopefully, we will check back later in the day with results.

• This is a great article on Gerard Kennedy. Mark these words - this is a complex man destined to make a splash on the national stage.

• This Stephen Harper character is a smart cookie by using this kind of language to buffer his government against opposition criticisms. He talks of a "bold agenda for change" and warns Canadians that "there are some who do not want to see change occur." The Liberal opposition must learn that the electorate likes the focussed set of priorities, and does not consider it to be a negative. So when Ralph Goodale pontificates that the "government must be able to walk and chew gum at the same time," it shows how out of touch some of the so-called senior leaders of the party are with public opinion. We need to change tactics, ladies and gentlemen.

• The legacy continues. Wonder what happens when potential clients make use of Google.

• No, we are not taking a job in Victoria