October 28, 2005 - Ask any Canadian about their grade school Social Studies classes, and they can probably tell you about voyageurs, coureurs des bois, fur trading, and the formation of the Hudson's Bay Company.

So if this deal goes through, we might as well put every other piece of Canadian heritage up for sale, including our most revered symbol, the Mountie.

Oh wait, we already tried that.

Sickening.

October 27, 2005 - TDH Strategies figures that right about now, Governor General Michaëlle Jean wishes that her husband would just shut the hell up.

Having been the producer of the infamous documentary where he stated "[a]n independent Quebec? Yes, and I applaud with both hands and I promise to be at all the St. Jean [Baptiste] parades," Jean-Daniel Lafond is once again creating controversy for his poor wife.

In response to prominent separatists calling him a "traitor" and a "renegade," Lafond delivered this gem to CBC Radio:

"Faced with the situation, I said to myself -- I saw myself back in Tehran, where I had been a few months earlier -- I said: 'If you were there, you'd be dead.' That's called terror. And that terror, when it is expressed in words, it becomes extremely dangerous."

A little over the top, but OK, you're used to dealing with the FLQ, so understandable, if not a little eccentric.

He then goes on to try his hand at humour (although not intentionally):

"I'm sorry. I never believed that I could become a separatist. I have a great deal of difficulty with nationalism in general."

So fine, we'll completely disregard your above-mentioned quote, and move on to the icing on the cake:

"We are both Quebeckers. We are Quebeckers before being Canadians."

Wow! Just when you thought that the debate about Jean's loyalties were over, Lafond poors gasoline on it and lights the match...again. Tell us something...if you're loyal to Quebec (which is wonderful...TDH's heart lies in that province), why not say "We are Quebecers and Canadians."??? Why put emphasis on one distinction over another? We'll tell you why...because his loyalties to both are in obvious conflict.

People used to say that John Ralston Saul was long-winded and opened his mouth far too often. Well, with Lafond now stepping into the role of vice-regal consort, we ain't seen nothing yet.

October 26, 2005 - Condoleeza Rice reassured Canadians yesterday by stating that with regards to international agreements, the United States' word is "as good as gold."

Canadian officials later discovered this amongst Rice's briefing books:

October 26, 2005 - Yes Jack, the PM is in denial.

But then again, so are you.

Who has the guts to say that we cannot continue on like this? Let's stop demonzing differing ideas on health care, and take start considering the difficult but necessary path to ensure that private health care doesn't pollute the system entirely.

But this isn't an act that is going to be accomplished by throwing more money at the bottomless money pit that is represented by the premiers' annual demands. Would Canadians be wise to trust the Tories with such a task? HELL NO. That being said, however, means that the Liberals, and more importantly, the NDP, have to take the bold step of being realistic about demographics, quality of care, and strategies towards long-term sustainability. To save our system, the Canada Health Act has to be updated.

People say that tinkering with it will prompt the immortal Tommy Douglas to roll in his grave. Question: What happens when Canadians realize that their public representatives stood by and watched public health care collapse under the weight of demand? Mr. Douglas had the guts and foresight to implement it...now we need a leader to modernize and save it.

October 26, 2005 - "Freeze Elmo! Stop tickling the girl and put your hands on top of your head!"

And we thought that BC's Safe Streets Act was tough.

October 25, 2005 - He has no choice but to play hardball with the Americans, even though surprisingly a healthy majority of Canadians do not approve of this tactic.

In regards to the favourable NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber, Paul Martin had this to say yesterday:

"That is not negotiable. We are not going to begin with a negotiation on a win. We won that."

TDH remembers in 2003 when Martin promised to conduct ""bilateral relations...on a far more sophisticated basis than they have been to date." As any Canadian leader soon learns upon assuming power, however, when negotiating with the elephant, attempts at sophistication will more often than not lead to the mouse getting squashed.

Martin is doing the right thing by playing tough - the time for horse trading is over. The U.S. hasn't budged an inch, and is clearly prepared to continue to stretch the dispute out through "friendly" negotiations until we acquiesce and buck under the pressure.

Last year Industry Minister David Emerson suggested that linkage was the only way that we were going to get the Americans' attention, and quickly faced rebukes from his more timid colleagues. Well, here we are in the fall of 2005, and the minute that the government began to suggest this path collectively, the U.S. toned down it's rhetoric and sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to appease our anger.

Tit for tat - you want to make every Canadian show a passport upon entering your country...you want to ensure that terrorists and contraband doesn't come across your borders? Fine...stop sending us your guns. You want to steal up to $5 billion in unjust duties, and then turn around and say that we have to negotiate a better deal? Well then, energy pipelines to your states are going to be a tricky affair indeed.

TDH remembers a small breakfast reception that we attended with former Prime Minister Jean Chretien in 2002, where everyone was asking about not being invited down to Bush's ranch yet. And, in a moment of candour, he looked back at us and said:

"But for me, I am not trying to be da Americans' best friend."

Paul Martin is finally starting to undertand what he meant.

October 24, 2005 - In the opinion of this website, the deal on waiting times just signed by health ministers over the weekend seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Take for example the fact that last year's $41 billion health accord stipulated that the provinces had to establish scientifically based benchmarks for waiting times in five treatment areas -- cancer care, heart treatment, diagnostic imaging, sight restoration and joint replacement -- by Dec. 31, 2005. So, in order for them to take the money without much effort, the provinces will establish a benchmark for one treatment in each identified area (e.g. lung cancer representing all types of cancer care), thereby fulfilling their end of the bargain. Watch as December 31 passes, when 5 treatment waiting times will be placed on the books, with others slow (if ever) to follow. Flaw #1.

Secondly, although TDH was not particularly impressed with his own ability to identify and suggest strategies to combat this aspect of our health care system, Roy Romanow's warning that this plan will create a "bureaucratic morass" is right on the money:

"There may be enough scientific information, but how detailed can you articulate it without getting a demand for even more detail and even more speed, and on and on it goes, making the whole system unworkable."

Romanow went on to point out that the problem of excessive waiting times is not aided by reporting, unless governments venture to tackle a wide variety of other issues such as doctor and nurse shortages. In essence, waiting list reporting is political window dressing...a thin veil to mask a completely transparent larger problem. This is particularly true if the provinces insist on playing lip service to the concept by using a loophole to prevent comprehensiveness. Flaw #2.

The fix for a generation that Paul Martin promised and claimed to deliver last year is not going to be solved that easily. In most cases, money talks, and bullshit walks. In the realm of Canadian health care, however, the two tend to go hand in hand.

October 24, 2005 - TDH Strategies LOVES this story.

Too few people these days have the impetus or guts to follow up on a statement that offends them, or something that they hold to be true. Everyday TDH will encounter situations where going the extra mile prompts action, often to the startled glances of those who are much more passive.

Sorry, but the concequences bestowed on this particular offensive old codger should never have given ad executive Nancy Vonk any cause for concern. Kudos to you, Ms. Vonk, who gave a mysoginist corporate suit a swift and well deserved kick in the arse.

October 21, 2005 - Based out of downtown Vancouver, TDH Strategies greets this news with mixed feelings.

On one hand, Svend Robinson is a media whore who only seems to take up issues, or show up to events, when exposure is guaranteed (this was confirmed for TDH back in 1997, when helping to run Senator Mobina Jaffer's failed race against the man). We are also quite put off by last year's incident with the ring, where we believe Svend conned everyone. Here is what this website wrote following the release of all the details:

"April 17, 2004 - This website feels naive, used, and worst of all, DUPED! Any notion of virtuous motivation fuelling Svend Robinson's sniveling news conference on Thursday has evapourated with this article from the front page of the Vancouver Sun this morning.

Reading this chronology puts everything into perspective. So, Svend celebrates the Vaisakhi parade in front of thousands in a relaxed state and with a fiery campaign-style speech, finds out that the RCMP had been contacted on Sunday, fails to contact the auction house on Monday, and then goes to the police on Tuesday because he knew that he had been caught. Then he was in tortured anguish on Thursday, of course in front of the cameras.

Once again Svend Robinson has manipulated the media and the public through his confession in front of the country, and made fools of everyone that felt sympathy for a man mistakenly believed (at least by this website) to have honourable, not self-serving, intentions.

On the other hand, the current alternative is Hedy Fry, who is a complete and utter wingnut that has overstayed her welcome in the riding of Vancouver Centre. From her wild accusation against the city of Prince George, to her fraudulent membership sign-ups, to her completely incoherent and uninformed speeches, Fry has for many become the laughing stock of the B.C. caucus.

The Walking Photo Op vs. the Burning Cross Lady - if nothing else, this is a race that should be an entertaining sideshow.

October 20, 2005 - Beat It! I live in Bahrain, my pyjamas are dirty, and I'm working on my comeback. Shoo-hee Oooh Hee hee!

October 20, 2005 - So David Dingwall was anxious to appear in front of the House of Commons government operations committee to "correct the misinformation and mischaracterization of my expenses." Alright fine...maybe he didn't submit a receipt for the pack of gum, and maybe he did pay for his own car, and maybe his expenses at the Mint were not charged to taxpayers. Which, if all true, begs one simple question: Where is your documentation?

This was his biggest stage since the scandal erupted, and yet he brings political bravado as his only defence for the alleged indefencible. Dingwall was defiant, vague, and arrogant in front of the whole country, most likely solidifying people's opinions rather than turning them around. It is no wonder why so many Liberal MPs are now siding with the opposition in their calls to relieve Dingwall's entitlement to severance pay.

They say that Dingwall is an old-school politician - keep your elbows up, and never admit fault. Well, this type of attitude is clearly just that - old. PQ leadership frontrunner Andre Boisclair admits to doing cocaine, AS A CABINET MINISTER no less, and solidifies his position as the favourite. Alberta premier Ralph Klein drunkenly harrasses a homeless man on the street, calls a calm, patient and human press conference the next day that takes responsibility for his actions, and jumps 10 percentage points in the polls within a week. Like this website has been preaching for months now, sincerity (or at least, the perception of) sells...politicians have no right to, nor receive any benefit for, acting above the public, the law, or most importantly, reproach.

TDH Strategies is now offering a course on "Political Sincerity and Redemption." Interested applicants can email us. : )

October 19, 2005 - Insiders close to the Gomery inquiry (which, based on his rountables across the country, could be any prominent politico who opposes the Liberals) are suggesting that the first report will finger Jean Chretien loyalists while allegedly leaving Paul Martin completely off the hook.

What sticks out for TDH in the above-linked article are the following two points:

"The Star report said Gomery put great faith in testimony by Stephane Dion, the former intergovernmental affairs minister brought in post-referendum to confront the separatist threat, that he was unaware of the sponsorship program and, in retrospect, didn't consider it worthwhile.

If they didn't tell Dion, it's highly unlikely that the Chretien minions would have cut Martin in on it. Not only did they distrust Martin for his naked leadership ambitions, but they considered him soft on Quebec nationalism."

Well, TDH asked this question of Mr. Dion on February 10, 2005, and it is just as relevent now as it was then:

Prime Minister Paul Martin has just testified that while he was aware that the federal government participated in sponsoring cultural and sporting events, he was not aware of a particular sponsorship program towards this end until well after the year 2000.

In February, 2004, however, you are quoted as stating that Mr. Martin was a part of weekly meetings between Quebec cabinet ministers that often talked about the sponsorship program in Quebec, and therefore was not "out of the loop."

Yet, in this Chantal Hebert article from the Toronto Star, she writes that in your testimony to the Gomery Commission, you claimed that ministers had "little more knowledge of the sponsorship program than the opposition and the public."

So, which is it - did Quebec ministers know, or didn't they?

October 19, 2005 - A couple of observations from last night's national news:

First, people are absolutely enthralled with Michaëlle Jean, judging from her first official visit to Manitoba. There was a real excitement in the air, as literally hundreds of people lined the streets in the pouring rain to catch a glimpse.

Jean embodies a spirt of the people that Madame Adrienne Clarkson never possessed. Take for example her extremely uncomfortable walkabout of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside last year, where she would point at people lying on the street and ask if they were breathing, all the while remaining a comfortable distance from the "subjects". We think that despite all the controversy, Jean is going to revolutionize the post of Governor General.

Secondly, this defection has huge implications for both Jack Layton and the Liberal government. By stating that she "would take each vote that could bring the government down on its merits," Bev Dejarlais has indicated that her presence will represent just another seat that the Liberals must consistently woo to survive. And, if she left the NDP over the same-sex marriage legislation, then TDH would have to say that nothing from this point forward is for certain.

October 18, 2005 - Why does it take a threat from Jack Layton to make Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh say this:

"Those principles are the five conditions in the Canada Health Act and the two prohibitions -- the two prohibitions being no user fees and no jumping the queue. "I would like to know what other conditions he is proposing. And, if you want to add other conditions, that would mean opening up the Canada Health Act and adding other conditions to it."

YES! You have to do it Mr. Dosanjh.

First, you need to crack down on the private clinics that are being ignored by premiers across the country. They only care about the bottom line, and until you take a hard line (like Allan Rock with Ralph Klein in 2000) on a CONSISTENT basis with regards to withholding transfers, private health care will continue to mushroom right in front of your face. BUT...

If you want to be bold and fresh as the Minister of Health (and let's be honest...to say that your performance has been underwhelming would be the understatement of the year), then start floating the idea of revamping and modernizing the Canada Health Act. For example, how about adding two new principles to the criteria: QUALITY and CHOICE.

TDH Strategies is as passionate about maintaining the sanctity of public health care as the most fervent NDP supporters, but the hard and cold reality of the matter is that our system is completely unsustainable. Right now, trying to eliminate private clinics is as futile as putting one's finger in the crack of a ready to explode levy - impossible.

Just like marijuana, if you can't halt it, you might as well regulate the hell out of it. There are plenty of global examples in existence which ensure that the public system does not suffer as a result of SELECTIVE and MONITORED use of private care.

But as with any other sacred cow, to attempt such a monumental change would require vision and gravitas, two qualities which are in short supply between Dosanjh and his leader Paul Martin.

Bloody hypocrites.

October 14, 2005 - Holy crap have the NDP lost momentum since their amazing performance last spring. Jack Layton is doing a fine job of playing the role of a wallflower (hey Jack - VACATION'S OVER!), and now the always exciteable Judy Wasylycia-Leis is crying foul because of this.

Question: Even if the story was true, why in the hell would you go to the press with such an accusation?

On the flipside, with such a groundswell of monumental policy-making emanating from the House of Commons these days, the most compelling story might very well be about how Monte Solberg stole Judy's tampon.

October 14, 2005 - Paul Martin is so frustrating to watch sometimes. In fact, he reminds TDH of a little child that you repeatedly tell not to do something, and then when they get hurt, they come back upset and bewildered as to why it happened.

TDH wrote this foreboding warning on September 17, 2004:

"It is clear that we have most definitely entered a new era for intolerance when it comes to strong, centralized decision-making. Asymmetrical federalism has finally swung back into favour after this Liberal government entrenched the Trudeau-style of dealing with the provinces over the course of a decade.

No one knows exactly what the longer term implications of this decentralized and custom-fit approach will be to the beast that is Canadian federalism."

Well, take a look at this, where Martin now states that "he is not prepared to have the Premiers come to Ottawa, whine for a day and demand more money.

To which we have one response: HUH?

What happened to the image of Martin the White Knight, riding into Ottawa to set a new course with the premiers? Reality.

The Prime Minister is finally beginning to realize that you give the premiers an inch, and they'll leave you for dead. It was so very easy for Martin to sit back as a leadership candidate and pontificate on how he would improve relations. This pledge is, of course, much harder to live up to.

Remember how Martin was singing the praises of "asymmetrical federalism" just one year ago? Well it seems that in the fall of 2005, he has mysteriously forgotten the words to the song.

October 13, 2005 - As far as TDH is concerned, Dalton McGuinty is showing a lot of resolve and leadership in the face of these troubling times.

No one is going to be propelled to give a spontaneous standing ovation for the just-delivered Speech from the Throne, but the slow and steady approach worked well for our boy Jean Chretien. Patience is a virtue, particularly when it comes to responsible governance.

The premier is on the right track.

October 13, 2005 - Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe took issue with TDH Strategies back in early August when we called her open and blatant disdain for Mayor Larry Campbell exactly what it was - a personal grudge.

Well, Babs has now written a letter to the Hill Times criticizing our Op/Ed (page 23) on Senator Campbell's introduction to Ottawa:

Disagree with 'puff piece' on new Grit Sen. Campbell:

Re: the puff piece on Senator Larry Campbell ("Look out for new Liberal Senator Larry Campbell," (The Hill Times, Sept. 19), it's my view as a journalist in B.C. that you would be rendering your readers a disservice by leaving them with the impression, as writer Jonathan Ross did, that Larry Campbell is going to be a wonderful new addition to the Canadian Senate.

Reviews here in Vancouver of Campbell's performance as mayor were extremely mixed. He was controversial, aggressive, cantankerous and foul-mouthed, but did not in fact accomplish much. He himself acknowledged when he announced his decision not to run again, that: "I am not a politician."

Further, as a private resident of Vancouver in a neighbourhood that experienced a problem with the city, I can tell you he couldn't even find time to meet with my community group. Municipal government is supposed to be the most responsive of any level of government to its citizens. He demonstrated personally that, at least in Vancouver, it isn't.

Barbara Yaffe

Vancouver, B.C.

(The letter-writer is a Vancouver journalist.)

For the record, here is our response:

Barbara Yaffe's letter contends that my column on Senator Larry Campbell is a "puff piece" because she claims that Mayor Campbell "couldn't even find time to meet with my community group.

What Ms. Yaffe fails to mention is that her "community group" encompassed her and a select few who opposed a lot subdivision that the owner had the legal right to carry out. When this was explained to Ms. Yaffe, she flew into a fit of rage, accusing the Mayor of being unresponsive to her concerns.

Ever since, Ms. Yaffe's columns in the Vancouver Sun have seethed with contempt for a man who would not acquiesce to her unreasonable and unfounded demands.

Here's a note to Barbara: Here in the real world, your status as a "respected" journalist does not entitle you to special priveleges over and above any other citizen.

We anxiously await her furious reply to arrive in our email any minute.

October 12, 2005 - He's angry, and he's not going to take it anymore:

"He's out of control," one White House aide says privately. "There's no other way to put it. His anger spills over in meetings. He berates anyone who brings him bad news but there's not a lot of good news we can bring the President right now. He calls other Republicans 'motherfucking traitors' and it is becoming more and more of a challenge to keep that anger from showing in public." (read the rest of the article here to find out how the screws are coming loose)

Not helping the situation any is the fact that the press, both back home and abraod, will never again give Bush a free ride:

"I was now beginning to feel shut out of this event. He had the floor and he wasn't letting me dance. My blood was boiling to such a point that I felt like slapping him. But I was dealing with the president of the United States; and he was too far away anyway. I suppose I had been naive to think that he was making himself available to me so I could spar with him or plumb the depths of his thought processes. Sitting there, I knew that I was nobody special and that this was just another opportunity for the president to repeat his mantra. He seemed irked to be faced with someone who wasn't nodding gravely at him as he was speaking." (this interview is an absolute MUST-READ)

Charles de Gaulle once stated that "the great leaders have always stage managed their effects." Well, in this case, as with most politicians these days, it isn't going to work.

As can be seen by the above-linked terse Irish interview that Bush had to endure, journalists and the public alike are sick and tired of being spun. In the case of George W., he might be one of those cases that is in far too deep to come clean with the public - death and destruction surrounding his time in office, a man claiming to be advised by the almighty one, a president with the world's most short-sighted abilities to determine consequence, and a man that has polarized the nation, and indeed the globe, like no other individual since World War II.

But this is his fault entirely.

Now Bush may not be salvageable, but politics can be. The great leaders are those that aren't afraid to make mistakes, to assume personal resonsibility, to take risks - in essence, to be human. And until our public representatives begin to understand that one very simple piece of advice, antagonism with the press corps, and more frighteningly, constituents, will continue to serve as the rule rather than the exception.

Hearts and minds aren't easily enamoured with caution; to win it all, you have to prepared to lose just as easily.

October 11, 2005 - Have you ever seen the Seinfeld "Soup Nazi" episode? Did you notice the protocol you wouldn't dare use if you didn't want to hear this line?

Well, go to Florida, and you'll have to act like this all the time. Only, instead of "No Soup For You!", the penalty might be a little more fatal.

Our neighbours to the south are just unbelievable. And even though his odds aren't that promising at the moment, Jeb is still a Bush, and they are still the American electorate.

October 7, 2005 - Take note, because you won't hear this often from TDH Strategies: In the following situation, Paul Martin has earned the right to do whatever he damn well pleases.

The Toronto Star has an interesting, yet flawed editorial this morning regarding the Liberal government's proposed Surplus Allocation Act.

For those unaware, the bill would take all budgetary surpluses above the $3 billion contigency fund and divide it evenly between debt reduction, tax cuts and new spending.

Now to clarify, this commentary is in no way trying to suggest that Martin's plan is without flaws, because it most certainly is not. The Star is correct in pointing out that a piece of legislation designed to direct the distribution of excess monies is a short-sighted move that serves only to handcuff current, and future, legislators. Budgets, suprluses and spending are all situational in nature, and different times call for different measures. Politically, the public will also never make the distinction between what is law and what is a promise spoken in the lead-up to an election, and thus enshrinement is completely unnecessary.

That being said, we take issue with the following statements made by the paper:

"While it may have some appeal for those who love American-style tax cuts, this bill is a bad idea that will handcuff government in how it spends unexpected surpluses and further aggravate federal-provincial relations."

"Paul Martin is applying a rigid formula that gives precedence to debt reduction and tax cuts at a time when every province, except Alberta, cannot adequately finance health care, repair its crumbling roads and bridges or give its universities proper funding."

American style tax cuts would be the kind that puts us into defecit to finance them. And so, to the dismay of Stephen Harper and the Tories, Martin is only committing to them when there is extra money available.

Now with regards to the capabilities of the provinces to pay for health care, education and infrastructure, the Star's view is off base.

Martin signed a $41 billion health care deal last fall. He also increased the Equalization and Territorial Financing Formula (TFF) by $33 billion over ten years. He even went on to sign separate deals with Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador for over $8 billion.

Enough is enough.

This argument that the provinces are poor is really some masterful spin that the premiers' offices have successfully offloaded onto the Star's editorial board. This above-linked piece seems to suggest that the federal government has no right to a surplus...that achieving one is in some way screwing someone else. Well on top of equalization and health care deals, the government also has a mulit-billion dollar strategic infrastructure fund, and an ambitious plan to distribute more monies directly to Canada's municipalities. This is of course in addition to the billions in new spending that the Martin government has introduced in the past year and a half. If after all that the federal government can still achieve a surplus, then all the power to them.

Martin's legislation continues to dither by trying to please everyone without decisive decision-making, and it also is completely unreasonable to guarantee adherence to in the future. But make no mistake about it - he has every right to spend the surplus as he sees fit.

October 6, 2005 - In the spring, TDH Strategies was singing the praises of Jack Layton, who had not only engineered a budget with billions of NDP-inspired concessions to Canadians, but also boosted his party's fortunes in the polls. Regular readers will also be familiar with our opinion on Stephen Harper, particularly after digging around in our archived commentaries.

Well Jack, we hate to say it, but you have now become the Tweedle Dee to Harper's Tweedle Dum.

The NDP has lost all momentum since the last parliamentary session, largely because he disappeared over the summer. Harper's ill-fated attempt to appear as a likeable sort was a complete flop, and so instead of capitalizing on this opportunity and showing a contrast of personalities, Jack also failed to make any progress.

Despite the coming together of the right, and what was supposed to be a renewed left, the Liberals continue to serve as their most efffective opposition. Whether it's the ongoing breaches of trust, or the neverending backroom fighting, or a completely ineffectual leader, they are their own worst enemy.

It isn't Peter McKay that is going to turn this around, despite the exorbitant amount time that the media is currently spending to extol his virtues. Who knows if it is even Bernard Lord (who this website feels is the Tories' best chance at victory) that can make politics competitive once again.

TDH Strategies tends to think that this isn't about the personalities (or lack thereof), but rather the institutional flaws in the process. And until the Liberals negate the delays surrounding electoral reform, very little is going to change.

Note to Jack Layton: You want a legacy? This is your chance.

October 6, 2005 - Not to harp on this issue, but now it has been discovered that the legal advice that John McCallum and Paul Martin have been speaking about exists for only those who were in the room - there is no documentation to back up the claim.

David Dingwall is supposed to be an old school politician, which if true should tend to suggest that he believes in loyalty to his party first, above all other considerations.

He is currently collecting a healthy MP's pension for his 17 years of service in the House of Commons. He also, in the eyes of the Martin crowd, is a Chretien guy of the same ilk as Andre Ouelette . So, to echo what Minister Joe Fontana is standing up and boldly stating, let him sue if he is so inclined to believe that his severance is his right and due, even if it is to the detriment of the government he helped lay the groundwork for.

Paul Martin should pull the rug out from under him, and see how much of a "good Liberal" he really is.

October 5, 2005 - Leave it to the old veteran of the House of Commons Ed Broadbent to ask the pertinent question with regards to the David Dingwall affair:

"Today in the House, the Minister of Industry continues to say it is up to a company to retrieve 350,000 illegal dollars that Mr. Dingwall got, and the Minister of Revenue continues to imply that Mr. Dingwall is entitled to some kind of severance pay, which according to the law he is not."

"Would the Prime Minister clarify this ethical situation. Does he support these low ethical standards of his ministers or does he support the people of Canada who believe Mr. Dingwall does not deserve another cent and should repay the $350,000?"

Unregistered lobbying is no small matter, and yet the media is fixated on a pack of gum.

Here's a question, considering that the government is clinging so tightly to the legal opinion that Dingwall MUST get a severance package:

Why is it the responsibility of the company to retrieve the $350,000 when the lobbying that was engaged in was clearly illegal? Why isn't the onus squarely on the shoulders of Dingwall?

Paul Martin could take the wind out of the opposition sails by practicing some of the frank politics TDH Strategies has been promoting for months:

"David Dingwall is just one symptom of a larger problem. The laws governing the ethical standards of parliamentarians, government officials and lobbyists are clearly insufficient. With the backing of every member of my caucus, this fall session is going to see my government work tirelessly to implement the tightest and most stringent guidelines in the world."

And yet, the Prime Minister continues to cling to abiding by "the law as it is line" to justify the "legality" of his chosen protocol.

Is it a risk to admit that your ethical standards are STILL not up to snuff? Possibly. Is there any downfall to engaging in a very public campaign to correct the wrongs that you feel exist? Absolutely not.

But like all other legislative and policy matters, Martin will wait until he has no choice but to act, continuing to feed the fires of scandal that the opposition has become so skilled at fanning.

October 4, 2005 - This morning, TDH Strategies responds to our very first internet pissing match, with none other than one of Warren Kinsella's fellow bandmates!

First, we suggest you read the offending post (for the record, we have never met this man before).

TDH Strategies tries not to delve into personal affairs with our posts, preferring instead to voice opinions on politics and current affairs of the day. The author of the rant you just read, however, has warranted the following response.

Derek Raymaker is good friends with failed Mayoral candidate Christy Clark and her husband and top Paul Martin organizer, Mark Marissen. He apparently takes great issue with TDH's post on the Vancouver mayoral race, which his bass player Kinsella posted on his site on September 27th.

Mr. Raymaker plays guitar and sings backup vocals with Kinsella's punk outfit Shit From Hell, whose album we quite enjoy. He also happens to be a Liberal hack from Toronto who, in typical Hogtown fashion, thinks he understands all, not only about the entire country, but every inhabitant in it.

For example, take this nasty accusation:

"Finally, he bought into the spin from Christy's opponents that her campaign was using vast columns of ethnic supporters to overwhelm the grannies of Point Grey, and would inevitably sweep Christy to victory on a big wave of vizmins with funny hats. Should only white people be allowed to participate in such exercises? Are brown people only useful for photo ops in the time-honoured tradition of lip-service identity politics? It's okay to be on the poster, but don't even think of trying to have an impact on any outcome."

Well considering TDH is of mixed heritage, with a mother that happens to be one of those "brown people" that smartass Raymaker refers to, this is just insulting and hurtful. But like we said before, Raymaker figures he knows everything about everyone.

He continues to unload his vitriol with such enthusiasm, it really is no surprise that he is an avid Paul Martin supporter.

"Just showing up is not good enough for Mark. If you're going to run, you better run to win."

Exactly. Rules, truth, debate (a concept which Raymaker makes light of - "Mark goes to the wall to win votes, while the cerebral sort is satisfied with winning a debating point or sipping port with Jeffrey Simpson.") be damned, just as long as you taste victory.

Believe it or not, TDH has a measure of respect for both Christy and Mark. Christy is a successful politician with ideas, passion and guts, all qualities that we would like to embody when we decide to put our name on a ballot. Mark is a man that has been successful for many years, and is a brilliant political operative second to none in British Columbia.

Raymaker, with all his vast knowledge of TDH, also states:

"So even when he wins (or, more likely, his opponent loses), Mr. TDH embraces the mantra of the loser."

Which, in essence, might be the crux of why there is a difference of mentality here. TDH Strategies holds politics as a passion, full of idealism and vision. And thus, while winning is often the objective, it is not the be all, end all.

Meaning, we will not bend the rules to be announced as the victor. We will not herd voters and party members as if they were cattle, only to slaughter them when their job is complete (or when they don't follow orders). We will not claim to understand everyone's motivation for being involved in politics. And most importantly, we will not engage in personal character assassinations to make our opponents look like monsters.

Raymaker in all his infinite wisdom, ends his editorial by pondering:

"I'm pretty certain that Mark and Christy will be the first people to pitch in on the Sam Sullivan campaign. I'm not so sure about Jonathan Ross."

Well, you're right, Raymaker - TDH has never been an NPA supporter, considering that we worked quite closely with the Mayor and now Senator Larry Campbell over the past couple of years (you know, the guy that your friend Mark engineered a Liberal Senate appointment for).

From his perch in "the centre of the universe," Torontonian Derek Raymaker seems to be an expert on Vancouver municipal politics, ethnic voting blocs, and TDH's personal and professional history.

Too bad that he doesn't know the first thing about class.

October 3, 2005 - Finally, TDH Strategies has an RSS feed! I hope all past and new visitors will add it to their reader.

Now onto Paul Martin's brilliant (gag) strategy towards Quebec.

Here is a quote from this Globe and Mail article:

"The federal Liberals have expressed concern over increasing support for sovereignty and the failing fortunes of Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest's government. The party has also been hurt, particularly in Quebec, over the sponsorship scandal."

It seems to TDH, however, that federal Liberals from Quebec are still more concerned with their future prospects of getting elected over the threat of sovereignty, particularly with comments like this regarding Canada's never-ending debate about our "two solitudes":

"If you ask me, Liza, is it finished? I'll say 'no. If it was finished, we wouldn't talk actually about a referendum in 2008." - Liza Frulla, Minister of Heritage

Frulla seems to fault newly minted Governor General Michaëlle Jean for taking a strong federalist stand from a francophone perspective.

Because, God forbid that anyone would publicly declare support for national unity.

The fence straddling towards Quebec filters down from the leader, and in that regard, Mr. Martin continues to play footsies with nationalists and separatists because as usual, he is too afraid to take a decisive stand.

There can be little doubt that Jean is playing catch-up because of her embarrassing quotes in her husband's documentary. So, in reading over her swearing-in speech last week, it is clear that she did go strong in declaring her commitment to Canada.

On the other hand, how in any way can that be a bad thing?

Not even a week on the job, and she has what is supposedly a federalist government contradicting her stand on bridging the gap between the "two solitudes."

The Prime Minister is offering a beer-commercial mentality of "tastes great, less filling" by trying to present a lighter political alternative for nationalists and sovereignists.

MARTIN WAKE-UP CALL: Just because you have the sorry Jean Lapierre on your team doesn't make you any more attractive to that crowd.

Michaëlle Jean could be the best thing to ever happen to your fortunes in Quebec (and we're not simply talking about elections). So stop trying to cut her feet out from under her before she even has a chance to stand up.