Communications
Promotions
Writing
Political
Consultation
Relations
About TDH
Archived
Commentaries
Past Projects
FAQ
Links
Contact
October, 2006
Archives
October 31, 2006 - Happy Halloween! Speaking of scary, I find it frightening how little scrutiny Jamie Elmhirst as president of the Liberal Party of Canada (BC) is put under. So, again, I will repeat my question from October 17: "I have just been pointed in the direction of this new article by Bill Tieleman asking "Did the RCMP visit LPC [Liberal Party of Canada] B.C. headquarters itself in their search for more documents to be used in the trial of former provincial B.C. Liberal ministerial aides David Basi and Bob Virk?" I hear that Tieleman mixed up March, 2005 with May, 2005, but nonetheless, it looks like there was some kind of rendez-vous at headquarters. Also, if Paul Martin saw it fit to ban 11 members of the Liberal party in Quebec for abuses attached to the sponsorship scandal, I want to know why the BC executive, and more specifically Mr. Elmhirst, hasn't taken similar action with regards to Erik Bornman, who as I have just found out through another Tieleman column, turned evidence on his partners the day of the raids (including one made on his residence) in a 25 page statement to police. Could Mr. Elmhirst's hesitation be with the fact that him and Mr. Bornman still remain friends? Since I have had a hard time tracking down a personal email for you, and I do not want my message to be filtered by the staff at the LPCBC headquarters, will you as president send a response to me that I can publish on this website? I am a Liberal party member, and I think I and every other member across this province, deserve some answers.
Permalink
If this occurred in May, it was on the verge of Parliament almost falling over a confidence vote on the budget. Because of Cadman's support in the midst of his chemotherapy, the government did not fall. Remember, Paul Martin was in the thick of defending the sponsorship scandal, and had incorporated billions of dollars in spending from NDP initiatives into the final version of the budget document.
So, my questions to Jamie Elmhirst as president of the party are: when exactly did you find out about this RCMP visit to LPCBC headquarters? And, upon hearing this information, was the entire provincial executive also made aware?"
October 30, 2006 - You know, I could not have written a more cogent and on point commentary than WinnipegGrit did in this stinging stroll down memory lane, so instead I just provide the link for your reading pleasure. But I need to post this quote out of the sheery irony of the current choice that we Liberals must render in about a month: "People who have been Liberals and been Conservatives are going to come our way. They will recognize we're the mainstream." - Bob Rae, "NDP is mainstream, Tories and Liberals are slashers, Rae says," Canadian Press, March 29, 1995). What have ye to say about that, Bob? Oh yeah...this: "I concluded that the federal NDP and its Ontario counterpart are wedded to a culture of opposition and protest." - Bob Rae, "Why I left the Left behind," Maclean's, October 23, 2006 But wait...Bob's not done: "At its core, the NDP, both in Ontario and federally, has been more committed to protest than to seeing the country achieve a balanced, progressive, effective government." (the same Maclean's interview) So is the NDP a mainstream protest party? I'm confused. Bob, I'm happy that you decided to join the federal Liberal party, and pleased that you will be eventually seeking out a riding in which to win a nomination. Individuals evolve, and everyone is capable of growing as both a person and a politician. But I am sorry...after previously clinging to such a virulent anti-Liberal view on things, what makes you think that you can join the party one day and then attempt to become the leader the next?
Permalink
October 27, 2006 - I find this announcement from Premier Gordon Campbell very encouraging. It makes me think that there was some legitimacy in straightening out the province's finances, however hard that process might have been. In fact, the decisions that were rendered were very similar to those that had to be carried out by the federal Liberal government when they first came to office and had to clean up the mess left by Brian Mulroney. Of course, the devil for Mr. Campbell will be in the forthcoming details.
Permalink
October 27, 2006 - On the suggestion of a regular reader, I took some time this morning to examine Bill C-9, AN ACT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL CODE (CONDITIONAL SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT). And after reading it over, not only have I come to the conclusion that the Conservatives are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians, but also that the opposition parties must do a better job of identifying Stephen Harper's bull excrement when he claims that they are soft on crime. In the preamble of the bill, the logic behind conditional sentencing is explained: "The primary goal of conditional sentencing is to reduce the reliance upon incarceration by providing an alternative sentencing mechanism to the courts. In addition, the conditional sentence provides an opportunity to further incorporate restorative justice concepts into the sentencing process by encouraging those who have caused harm to acknowledge this fact and to make reparation." I am not a criminologist, and thus I am not going to engage in a discussion about the differing opinions on this approach. I will believe, however, that if for nothing else, these types of sentences can be used to lessen the burden on our prison system with regards to certain crimes. I would also like to preface this belief by stating that for acts of violence or negligence causing bodily harm, I would tend to side with victims and their families who think that conditional sentences are completely inadequate (I always try and envision myself being put in the position of having someone cause harm to one of my loved ones - and then contemplating my reaction, which would not likely make it into a movie with a PG-13 or even an R rating). That said, after considering the list of crimes that Bill C-9 would affect, I now understand why the opposition parties are going about gutting the bill in the committee stage. Bill C-9 would serve as a: "...replacement to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code provides that a person convicted of an offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more is not eligible for a conditional sentence. There are over 100 offences in the Criminal Code with maximum sentences of 10 years' imprisonment or more." So the government is proposing that conditional sentences are going to be restricted for someone convicted of being in possession of a firearm with knowledge that possession is unauthorized? Someone convicted of perjury? Someone convicted of obstructing justice? Someone convicted of theft over $5,000? The text of the bill acknowledges that: "[t]he 10-year threshold...does not designate violent versus non-violent offences." Not all crimes are created equal, and while there is merit in some of the Tories thinking, they are completely out to lunch by trying to take away the ability of judges to impose conditional sentences on convictions for some of the above-listed crimes. I guess that being "tough on crime" doesn't go hand in hand with being smart on crime.
Permalink
October 26, 2006 - At first, I thought that what I posted below was bad ... until I saw this. Michael Arcuri's transgression? A call was placed from Arcuri's hotel room two years ago to 800-457-8462, a number that today is a sex line. Arcuri provided records showing that a number with the same last seven digits, but a 518 area code, was made one minute after the 800 number was called. That 518-457-8462 number goes to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. Sean Byrne, executive director of the New York Prosecutor Training Institute, said Friday he had misdialed the 800 number from Arcuri's hotel room. The National Republican Congressional Committee is getting desperate, and going disgusting. Bad call is right.
Permalink
October 26, 2006 - Reading this Jim Travers column from this morning got me a little confused, considering that the piece seems like it was written after Mr. Travers was awakened from his office slumber by an angry editor demanding he hand something - anything - in for publication. His logic meanders, and he never seems to makes any substantial point, which at times is Travers' style, of course. A portion of one sentence did, however, catch my eye: "...an election test between a ruling party too certain of what it believes and a challenger too willing to believe whatever." And that, my dear readers, is part of the reason that I am supporting Michael Ignatieff. From the beginning of this process, I have always hungered for a leadership race that was about new policies. Now, while it would have been preferable to have those ideas flow from the grassroots membership, I am happy that at least one of the contenders is providing fodder for real discourse. The Middle East, the constitution, Quebec, the environment, Canada's role in the world - if you examine the debate that has dominated this party over the past 3-4 months, it has all been spurred by Ignatieff. I encourage readers to send in what they think is unique and/or special about the campaign platforms of either Bob Rae or Stéphane Dion. Is there anything that they have proposed that has challenged people, or made people reconsider what the Liberal party represents, now and into the future? For goodness sake, Bob Rae is the man who put this gem out about what he brings to the table as a leadership candidate: "It's not a campaign about ideas. You're electing a leader, you're not electing an agenda." And that kind of inspiration was delivered to a live audience. Sorry, but that is a comment that borders on offensive for me, far more than a man who has the guts to speak freely, and put his views out there for public consumption and scrutiny. And bear in mind, I have not agreed with everything that has come out of Ignatieff's mouth. Even if Bob Rae's appeal for blind faith was compelling enough to make me do anything more than scoff, he is certainly not a politician with a record that is worthy of such a request.
Permalink
October 26, 2006 - Remember this? "Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up." Remember the reaction? "...an attempt to "demonize and distort"" - Peter McKay "Some idiot went and sent it out ... and it was never sanctioned, never approved and we are completely appalled that this went out." - Keith Martin "The Liberal party "deeply regrets" these ads." - John McCallum Well, that was nothing when compared with this kind of garbage that comes out of the U.S. A ditzy blonde who claims to have met the candidate at a Playboy party, and then asks him to call her? Some slimy bastard talking about taking money from porn producers? Only the Americans could make our soldiers in the cities ad look classy. Offering a further look into this Tennessee race, go take a look at the related videos on the right side of that linked page. A snapshot of how much more decorum we have up here in Canada, regardless of whether our Foreign Affairs minister calls his ex-girlfriend a dog in the House of Commons and then tells a bold faced lie to try and cover his tracks.
Permalink
October 25, 2006 - Stéphane Dion posed three questions: "Are Quebecers the only nation to be recognized within Canada, or will we accept that other groups, heartened by our example, be given the same recognition?" "Is this recognition necessary or is it rather only something desirable?" "Do we want this recognition to be purely symbolic or, on the contrary, do we want it to lead to concrete consequences on, say, the division of powers or the allocation of public funds. And how does this approach square with the previous question?" To Question #1, I do not think that the recognition of Quebec as a nation means that there should be, or will be, a free-for-all of similar requests from other groups across Canada. If we examine the origins of this country, there are only a select few that could be considered for such formal constitutional recognition. That being said, I do believe that if Quebec is enshrined with such a distinction, it would be perfectly legitimate to expand the notion of "founding nations" to include our country's Aboriginal heritage. Furthermore, I direct readers to the following excerpt from an essay by James S. Frideres, Associate Vice President Academic and Professor - Department of Sociology, University of Calgary: "When the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Report was released in the 1960s, it provided the basis for the emerging "multicultural" model of integration that we find today and provided for the legitimacy of "the cultural contribution of the other groups" to the development of Canadian society. It precipitated a process by which federal legislation with regard to diversity would be enacted; a process that continues today. This report, which came from a Royal Commission, ushered in a new philosophy about how Canada would be defined. In 1971, a multiculturalism policy was enacted (a bold new experiment and the first in the world) and it was followed by a number of other actions that supported this thrust." There is more than enough within Frideres' ensuing list of protections for diversity that enable all groups in Canada to feel included and engaged. Question #2 is a loaded rhetorical question that can really be applied to most policy planks or pieces of legislation. Is __________ necessary, or is it rather only something desirable? You can substitute publicly delivered universal health care, multiculturalism, equalization, research & development, or even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into that blank, and still apply a similar argument to Dion's supplemental conclusion that if one deems this recognition as necessary, then Quebecers who do not obtain this recognition "must leave Canada." Same thing applies to the other areas - if a Conservative government finally gets its way and changes the parameters of our universal health care system (G_d forbid), do we cease to be Canadians? If we officially abandon our ideal of multiculturalism, should different ethnicities be forced to leave Canada? It is a silly argument to make, because in reality, there are very few necessities that can be described in such black and white terms like Dion tried to do. Lastly, Dion explains his own position in regards to Question #3: "I am proud to belong to the Quebec nation within Canada. The constitutional recognition of such a fact, although desirable, is not necessary because nothing prevents us Quebeckers from participating and succeeding in this great endeavor that is Canada, a country we have contributed so much to building. Nothing can justify that we renounce our Canadian identity. Such a rupture would be a tragedy, for ourselves, our children and future generations. We should not be encouraged to make such a mistake on the basis of a recognition that is desirable but not necessary." No one besides the separtists are talking about anyone renouncing their Canadian identity. The notion of having leadership and vision does not always go hand in hand with what is "necessary." Because the status quo allows everyone to function normally in their day-to-day lives, Dion is trying to argue for inaction - a path that has absolutely no logic other than a politician trying to take the path of least resistance. This stance still fails to address my earlier question: is the absence of Quebec's ratification of the constitution an acceptable void? For Dion it might be, but for myself, I have always considered this fact as a national tragedy, and an historical error. Do not get me wrong - I understand why Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien did what they did. That still, however, does not change the fact that the absence of Quebec from the agreement means that much of our country's heart and soul has never been properly recognized within our constitution. That might be inconsequential for some, but it isn't something that I am prepared to live with for the duration of Canada's existence.
Permalink
October 25, 2006 - Work has kicked me in the rear today, and so I have yet to eat lunch, and plan on doing so right now. I still intend to address Stéphane Dion's three questions when I return to my office. But to both Mr. Dion and Bob Rae, I have one simple question: do you feel that the absence of Quebec's signature from the constitution is an acceptable void? Ulitmately, outside of the query of what does or doesn't constitute a nation, and what exactly would be included with such a designation, this fundamental question is at the heart of how different candidates would proceed with the Canadian federation, and mores specifically, Quebec. Because right now, I am having a hard time deciphering whether Mr. Dion and Mr. Rae have a problem with the term "nation," or they are just not prepared to ever deal with the elephant in the room that is the Canadian constitution.
Permalink
October 25, 2006 - Is it naïve of me to think that enshrining Quebec as a nation within the constitution does not necessitate special powers? "The implied contract of Confederation - I'll help you because you'll help me - has lost much of its binding glue. What's replacing this is a system and practice in which anyone is free to get whatever they can, the key word being "anyone." Martin pursued national policy approaches that allowed for special arrangements with individual provinces. From the First Ministers' September 2004 agreement on health care, to the March 2005 federal-Quebec agreement on the use of employment insurance funds for parental leave, to the individual funding arrangements for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador regarding offshore oil and gas revenues, Martin turned the federal government into the Monty Hall of Canadian politics. This did not represent a grand vision for Canada, nor was it about designing a new relationship between levels of government - this was about trying to buy votes, plain and simple. Within two months taking office, Martin was in deep trouble with the sponsorship scandal, and thus any of the abovementioned decisions were influenced by self-preservation above any other consideration. Michael Ignatieff speaks about recognition of Quebec within the constitution because of a core belief that it is a historical wrong that must eventually be corrected, one way or another. There may be many ways to skin a cat, but only one to complete the notion of Canada. In my upcoming second installment of this extended rant on federalism and Quebec, I would like to address some of the valid and fascinating questions brought forth by Mr. Dion.
Permalink
I have just read Stéphane Dion's column entitled "The recognition of Quebec as a nation: a few preliminary questions," and it has provided me with some wonderful points for discussion.
First, however, I want to address Warren Kinsella's assertion that Michael Ignatieff is abandoning the Liberal party's second "Unique Selling Proposition" with his support for Quebec as a nation, just as Paul Martin before him.
This was the Toronto Star's Richard Gwynn back in February, 2005 on what Martin's brand of "asymmetrical federalism" did to the country:
Far from least, Martin is no Pierre Trudeau. He doesn't frighten any premier, to put it mildly. And, rather than Trudeau's "One Canada," Martin believes in "asymmetric federalism." That's a fancy way of saying anyone, not just Quebec, is free to get whatever they can."
October 24, 2006 - I personally hate the term "blogger," and avoid it at all costs when describing or discussing this small medium that I try to keep up on a day-to-day basis. The reason for this is largely because I am not attracted to the blogging culture, which seems to place far more importance to the rants of people like myself than need be. I am under no great illusions about my sphere of influence or the importance of my writings - I am just a guy with an opinion. And although I am proud of some of the stories I have broken on this website, and the light that I have been able to shine on some of the more unsavoury practices of party politics, I still try and keep a perspective, which is why I love the cover story of Maclean's magazine this week entitled "The Internet Sucks." It is an absolutely engrossing read. Among my favourite quotes from the piece: "The cult of the amateur is digital utopianism's most seductive delusion...it suggests, mistakenly, that everyone has something interesting to say." "The vast majority of political blogs are deeply ideological and partisan, and attract a core of like-minded contributors, and tend to devolve into vitriolic screeds or sophomoric insults. They feed on their contempt for the so-called mainstream media, which is derisively referred to as the "MSM," and is derided by both left and right as hopelessly biased and manipulative." "In a 2001 paper, Cass Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, described the "echo chamber" effect of blogs and message boards. Rather than fostering debate, moderation and common understanding, he argued, these sites have contributed to the polarization of our political culture." These statements make a lot of sense to me, and are the reasons that I try and stay relatively balanced in the criticism or critiques that I hand out (I often direct them towards my own party if need be), and also attempt to keep TDH Strategies as disparate as possible from the thousands of other carbon copy blog sites that exist out there. Like I have said before, I am no blog, nor am I anything more than a singly voice in a ocean of punditry. I do not take my audience for granted, or myself too personally.
Permalink
October 24, 2006 - As funny as this might seem for someone who switched his support from Gerard Kennedy to Michael Ignatieff, I would tend to concur with this sentiment expressed by Senator Grant Mitchell, co-chair of Mr. Ignatieff's Alberta campaign: "I think there's probably an affinity between us and the Kennedy people in Alberta." I have many people that I respect and/or consider to be close political friends (considered an oxymoron at times within this realm) that work with the young upstart candidate. More than that, however, I can say that of the four legitimate contenders for the crown, Gerard Kennedy is the only person other than Ignatieff that I would feel comfortable with as leader. On more than one occasion, I have stated on this website that I consider Kennedy a rising star in a political wasteland of uninspiring political personalities, and that he will be a force on the national political scene for many years to come. I have only tempered this view with the belief that due to his lacklustre French and a need to fine-tune his ideas to become a little more pronounced, Kennedy should be considered as the leading candidate next time around. That being said, I think what Kennedy offers over both Bob Rae and Stéphane Dion is the potential for growth. Rae will never succeed in Ontario, and Dion will never strike enough of a chord with the general electorate (all over, but particularly in Quebec). Kennedy is also the only candidate that has not gone dirty with his attacks against Ignatieff or any other candidate for that matter. In terms of taking the high ground, Kennedy has made the elevation his own. I really have high hopes that I will see Ignatieff and Kennedy as a tandem, not only on the stage at the convention, but also through an election campaign and eventually as Prime Minister and Finance Minister. I think that the two of them would be the most formidable tag team that we could assemble to try and realistically bump off Stephen Harper. And to FastFred, who levied heavy duty assaults on me for my commentaries on Peter McKay and Quebec, I have only this to say: your myopic western Canada perspective is eclipsed only by your misogynistic attitudes towards women. Go find someone else to attack, because your opinions carry little to no value for me.
Permalink
October 23, 2006 - This is from Chantal Hébert's column from this morning: "The fact that the idea of promoting Quebec as a nation within Canada has come so far over so few months within the ranks of the federal Liberals in Quebec is a sign of [Michael] Ignatieff's dominance of that crucial section of the party. But it is also a signal of how popular the concept is with rank-and-file Liberals in the province. Given a choice, they would like to campaign on it in the next election." This is something that Liberals have to understand, regardless of who your favoured candidate may be. Forget the heckling for a minute - I for one find the practice rude and beneath the Ignatieff campaign as a whole - and consider the fact that the Tories have dropped precipitously within la belle province (with support coming in at between 16-24% depending on which poll you reference). There is a real opportunity for the Liberal party to once again assume the mantra of being the natural federalist option in Quebec. With the BQ sitting comfortably at 44%, and new talk from Gilles Duceppe about the prospect of a sovereign Quebec by 2015, the Bob Rae strategy of ignoring the province's place within the federation is quite frankly, unacceptable. The reason that Quebec could once again deliver seats to our party is precisely because we are discussing the issue. The resolution that was supported by two thirds of the party is a solid first step towards giving Quebecers something tangible and fresh that will not only place memories of the sponsorship scandal well into the past, but also provide a solid policy plank that they can support. Michael Ignatieff would make the Liberals competitive in Quebec once again. Like Hébert states, Michael's vision of Quebec as a nation within Canada is "a concept whose support in the province extends well outside the ranks of his own supporters." Don't believe her? OK, well take a look at Michel Auger's take in La Presse this morning. The path back to government will be founded upon substantial Liberal rebounds both in Ontario and Quebec, and it is necessary that party members keep this in mind in the lead up to convention.
Permalink
October 21, 2006 - It's amazing what $20 will get you these days: "Nelson wins spot as delegate for Rae
Sat Oct 21 2006
By Paul Samyn
OTTAWA - The chief of a Manitoba reserve that paid natives a $20 "travel fee" for showing up to vote in the Liberal leadership race has won a spot as a delegate for Bob Rae.
Chief Terrance Nelson of Roseau River First Nation is now part of Rae's slate of delegates from the riding of Provencher, where the gas-money payment has sparked allegations of bribery.
However, it appears Rae's campaign is having second thoughts about keeping the controversial chief as one of its delegates for the leadership convention in Montreal in December.
Kevin Lamoureux, Rae's campaign co-chairman in Manitoba, said Rae's team played no role in how Nelson got reserve residents to the polls, but is concerned about the appearance that money may have helped him win a delegate spot.
"As the co-chair, I am not comfortable with what I am hearing and I personally will look into it and make sure the right thing is done," Lamoureux said.
The Free Press first reported earlier this month that the Liberal party was notified of possible voting violations involving the southern Manitoba reserve after band members showed up at the Provencher riding polling station in Steinbach asking where they could collect their $20 payment.
Nelson confirmed band members were being paid to cover the cost of travelling to the polling station, a long-standing band policy to encourage aboriginal participation in elections. At the time, it was not known that Nelson had been elected as a Rae delegate.
In an interview Friday, Nelson made no apologies for the payments, which went to about 30 band members. He also made clear the payments did not require band members to vote for him or Rae.
"They could vote for whoever they wanted," Nelson said.
But Nelson said he is prepared to give up his delegate spot if asked to.
Steven MacKinnon, the party's national director, said that after looking into the allegations, he doesn't believe there are any violations of leadership rules.
"I see no evidence that the Rae campaign or any other campaign acted improperly,'' MacKinnon said.
But, MacKinnon said the gas payments may be of concern to Elections Canada.
Rae's campaign finished first in Manitoba, well in front of national frontrunner Michael Ignatieff, who took second spot in the province. A spokesman for Ignatieff's campaign said they are counting on the party to sort out if there are any problems with Nelson's delegate spot."
Permalink
October 20, 2006 - BORING. Seriously, man, you need to put whoever writes your speeches in one one of those innocuous question rooms that you operate and get some of your diplomats to politely interview him. How about a flair for the dramatic, alluding to making yourself disappear: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making the world believe that he didn't exist." Oh crap...I thought that sounded familiar.
Permalink
October 20, 2006 - I can't even begin to explain how upsetting I find this story. As a guy with an identity that likes to have one foot in B.C., and another in Quebec, it is really an indication of how the future of a disconnected Canada might shape up if we don't garner some real political leadership in the coming decades. Which, of course, makes this prospect all the more intriguing.
Permalink
October 20, 2006 - Peter McKay always came out as the sympathetic figure in his very public breakup with Belinda Stronach, largely because it always appeared as though she dumped him simply to advance her own career. He showed public heartbreak, and seemed to genuinely be the one who was used and screwed over. Well, after uttering this kind of garbage in the house yesterday, however, you can toss that image out the window. I mean, how much more derogatory can you get? Want to know why women don't want to enter politics? This brand of chauvinism is a good start at trying to answer that age old question.
Permalink
October 19, 2006 - If Bob Rae becomes leader, we as Liberals will adopt this glorious record whether we like it or not. After such an outcome in the race, no amount of "I've learned from my mistakes..." speeches are going to make us competitive to the level we need to be within Ontario. And, if we cannot win back seats in Ontario, while at the same time maybe even losing some along the way, then we will never regain government. So while I am prepared to respect the will of the 5000 delegates that will determine our next leader, I am also very scared by the abovementioned scenario. Because, quite frankly, I'm not ready to welcome Mr. Rae's bastard child into our family.
Permalink
October 19, 2006 - What purpose does an utterance like this serve? It is time to stop talking about affairs originating outside of the borders of Canada, and start tackling the issues that have an impact on the day-to-day lives of Canadians. Please.
Permalink
October 18, 2006 - Still writing, but here is one question for the afternoon: Why are Liberals getting so excited about this Allan Gregg poll. I mean, let's consider the source: * In the last federal election, he predicted a 12 point lead * On September 20th, a Gregg Strategic Counsel poll * On October 1, after the Super Weekend results were So, let's keep things in perspective, and understand that a) polls this far away from an election are useless, and b) polls by Allan Gregg have to be considered very carefully.
Permalink
for the Conservatives, and 140+ seats. The end result was
a six point lead and 125 seats.
stated that while Michael Ignatieff is "slightly ahead of
Mr. [Bob] Rae and Mr. [Stéphane] Dion, is nowhere near the
level required to establish a commanding lead on the
first ballot." Gregg is also quoted as saying that "if you
had to put money on it, you'd bet Rae right now."
tallied, and Ignatieff received roughly 30% of the vote
(and most likely closer to 35% with ex-officios thrown into
the mix), Gregg stated "It's far from over, because you've
seen three other candidates with good, solid support.
However, I think if you're a betting person, you'd have to
put money on Michael Ignatieff right now."
October 18, 2006 - I was immediately propelled to watch Micahel Ignatieff's appearance on the The Hour after reading Paul Wells' blistering attack this morning. I am a little upset that he misquoted Ignatieff in claiming that he stated "and maybe" Israel committed war crimes. However, my larger point that I want to make is that we don't need to address this issue anymore. What has been said has been said...what has been followed up has been followed up. And now, in the final stretch of this campaign, I think that it is appropriate to start talking about issues closer to home - health care, federalism, education, Aboriginal affairs, the environment. And in regards to the long, rambling response sent in by "Jasper," I have to say that I sympathize with Wells. No one deserves that, and I speak from experience having been a victim of a similar kind of email from the same individual. It takes all kinds on a campaign, one supposes. I am on a severe writing deadline this morning, so I hope to be back around lunch to put up another post or two. In the meantime, please feel free to send me your thoughts on Ignatieff's appearance, or Wells' commentary.
Permalink
October 17, 2006 - I have just been pointed in the direction of this new article by Bill Tieleman asking "Did the RCMP visit LPC [Liberal Party of Canada] B.C. headquarters itself in their search for more documents to be used in the trial of former provincial B.C. Liberal ministerial aides David Basi and Bob Virk?" I hear that Tieleman mixed up March, 2005 with May, 2005, but nonetheless, it looks like there was some kind of rendez-vous at headquarters. If this occurred in May, it was on the verge of Parliament almost falling over a confidence vote on the budget. Because of Cadman's support in the midst of his chemotherapy, the government did not fall. Remember, Paul Martin was in the thick of defending the sponsorship scandal, and had incorporated billions of dollars in spending from NDP initiatives into the final version of the budget document. So, my questions to Jamie Elmhirst as president of the party are: when exactly did you find out about this RCMP visit to LPCBC headquarters? And, upon hearing this information, was the entire provincial executive also made aware?
Permalink
October 17, 2006 - Thanks to Stroumbo at The Hour, I finally watched this. But you should open up another browser, synch up the two videos, and watch Bush's reaction side-by-side. Funny.
Permalink
October 17, 2006 - Taken once again from the Bob Rae address entitled "Canada needs to find its voice again in foreign policy," which was delivered at the Munk Centre on August 10, 2006, here are some interesting quotes: "We have allies and friends throughout the world. We are not indifferent to the outcomes of difficult conflicts. We are also deeply concerned about how these conflicts affect people, families, and communities. We have been tempered by experience. We are people of principle, but not people of ideology. We are pragmatic, not dogmatic. We value listening as much as talking. We are not afraid to take action when it is required." "We need to heed President [Hamid] Karzai's warning. As one of the largest troop contributing nations in Afghanistan, Canada has the credibility to lead a discussion at NATO on our approach. That is what we should do now. And we should be responding positively to requests from local Afghan officials for more targeted aid projects to help build their communities and thereby show Afghans a positive alternative to the extremists. Ultimately, the military operation in Afghanistan should be in pursuit of a political solution to the conflict. That will not be easy but it needs as much attention as our current effort." Now here is Mr. Rae in a Q&A along side Michael Ignatieff, which was conducted by the magazine idea&s, which is published semi-annually by the Faculty of Arts and Science at the University of Toronto: "It's ironic that one of the consequences of the collapse of the Berlin Wall is that the world has become a more uncertain and dangerous place. A significant number of states do not have the real capacity to deal with the tensions and violence within them. And one of the lessons of 9/11 that people have not fully drawn on is that tensions within these countries can have a significant impact on the rest of the world very quickly. If Canada is going to play a useful role and an activist role in this kind of world, it will require a different level of financial and military capability than we have demonstrated to this point." This is not a compare and contrast the contradiction quoting exercise, but rather one that demonstrates Rae's understanding that international development, activism and military operations must work in conjunction with each other towards the common purposes of peace, security and raising the standard of life. So, now when Rae answers questions from Globe and Mail readers in an online chat from Setember 28, 2006, and makes comments like this: "Canadians want a mission that can succeed, and are coming to the conclusion that an approach that looks to military solutions will not be able to succeed." readers of TDH will now understand that this kind of rhetoric represents an incomplete and misleading statement.
Permalink
October 17, 2006 - I have a question to ask. If the following quote: "The exercise of sovereignty for Canada should not be an emotional exercise that colours every issue we have vis-a-vis the United States. I don't think our sovereignty is in peril." came out of the mouth of Michael Ignatieff, what would people say? Personally, I have a feeling that such an utterance would only serve to solidify oft-used adjectives and labels such as "Republican", "American", or "Outsider." Critics would be inclined to assume that such a belief was being used as justification for Ignatieff's staunch support for interventionist foreign policy. What if, however, those words were attributed to someone like Frank McKenna, whose widespread popularity could have ensured that his candidacy would have ended this leadership race before it ever began? Well, he actually is the source of the quote, taken from McKenna's argument that Canada should reconsider Missile Defence. I tend to think that while a majority of Liberals would most likely be opposed to such a position, McKenna would still be afforded the common decencies of decorum and an open mind, both reactions that Mr. Ignatieff has really never had the benefit of since the start of his campaign. I think that this is an exercise that leadership observers, and particularly us Liberals, can use to really see whether one is treating Ignatieff fairly or not. You may disagree with his ideas (and goodness knows that there are a lot of you), but do you hold him to a different standard than other Liberals? And if so, why? I am curious to collect and possibly publish people's responses.
Permalink
October 16, 2006 - Vision Vancouver (what a great name for party) is having its first AGM tonight, and here is who is officially running thus far. The most interesting thing? Nominations will be taken from the floor and anyone can join the party on-site and proceed to vote, both anomalies from my recent experience in partisan politics. Kind of refreshing, to be honest.
Permalink
October 16, 2006 - Truth be told, I spent yesterday afternoon flipping between the debate and football, as more often than not, I have found that the banter between the candidates has been akin to Stephen Harper's romantic advances towards his wife - tedious and unfulfilling. I did happen, however, to catch the exchange that has set the Liberal party on fire (on par with discovering that our historical playboy was a virgin until 27 years old). Both Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff got political shots in...and both seemed to have confused their "facts." Yesterday, Ignatieff said that "I actually don't know where you stand on this issue" when confronting Rae on Afghanistan. Well, I have now spent the morning searching for a quote...any quote...of Mr. Rae stating that he wanted to pull our troops out of Afghanistan. And, to be fair, I couldn't track one down. In regards to Bob Rae's assertion that he wouldn't have voted for the mission extension in Afghanistan had he been a sitting member, I found this: "I personally would not have voted in favour of it, because I think it was a setup and I don't think the Opposition should get themselves into that kind of a position. All this talk about supporting our troops, everybody in Canada supports the troops. That's not the issue." And, I have to agree with this Chantal Hébert quote from one of her previous columns: "The notion that support for our troops should mean support for the government's decisions on the deployment is one of Stephen Harper's most demagogic arguments." On the issue of pulling out of Afghanistan, Bob Rae said the following in a speech at the University of Toronto's Munk Centre in August: "But we are now at a point where Canada's Afghanistan policy needs to be assessed and evaluated. This does not mean Canada should abandon Afghanistan." On the other side of the debate, Rae stated that Ignatieff had "changed his mind three times in a week with respect to the Middle East." But this is certainly not the case, as Ignatieff shared the blame between both sides of the issue: "I believe war crimes were committed in the war in Lebanon. They were committed on both sides." Even the Globe and Mail stated that Ignatieff "stuck to his assertion" when he offered further comments on Qana. Now, do not get me wrong...I still can't agree with Ignatieff's position on war crimes, no matter how you frame it. But one thing is for certain, he did not change his stance, and like usual, had the guts to stick with his views. So to the two frontrunners, I say this: let's leave the falsehoods to the Tories, and get on a with the remaining seven weeks in a clean and respectful fashion.
Permalink
October 13, 2006 - I have been very impressed by Stephen Harper's stance on Israel since taking office, and think that he has shown a lot of courage along the way with the bold actions like his stance that he took at the Francophonie Summit. I cannot, however, condone this brand of divisive politics. Creating wedge issues for your opposition is one thing; using a religious community as a tool for political gain is quite another, and Michael Ignatieff has every right to call this kind of tactic a "disgrace." I just received a call from the editor of the Jewish Independent newspaper, who asked me for a comment as to whether I thought that the support for the Liberal party in the Jewish community was beginning to wane. I told her that I didn't think that one could make a determination about the community's support for the Liberal party in the midst of a leadership convention, particularly when no one knows who will take the reins, and what policies will guide the party after the convention. The Conservatives go crazy when Liberals accuse them of being on the fringe or having extremist views because of the comments of a few, making Stephen Harper's blanket labels all the more puzzling.
Permalink
October 13, 2006 - Friday The 13th bullets for the morning: • There is an official appeal that has jointly been forwarded to the Liberal party by several leadership campaigns questioning the validity of the British Columbia Bob Rae delegates that were signed up by Mason Loh. Watch for a MAJOR shift to occur as a result, and stay tuned to TDH Strategies for the decision rendered by the party. • I have been told that before the scrutineers from all the camps begin their tedious days of monitoring the counts of thousands of ballots at the party office (the BC rural ridings only have results coming in now), this website has in the past popped up on someone's laptop, and is even at times read to the amassed group. So, to Roy Bornman, brother of star witness for the crown Erik Bornman and Ken Dryden campaign worker, I want to say hello. • I guess that at this point, creative fundraising streams by all campaigns are going to be necessary to try and help out delegates from across the country (and particularly from British Columbia) reduce their costs associated with travelling to the convention in Montreal in December. Yet, when I look at this idea, I understand how truly brilliant the Michael Ignatieff online auction was. I mean, I'm a dog lover - so am I now supposed to be propelled to offer up some money to the Stéphane Dion campaign because there is a photo of him and his dog Kyoto circulating? I don't quite get it. • Does anyone else find it interesting that the day Stephen Harper took a thinly veiled shot at Rick Mercer, Bob Rae showed his bony ass to the country on the Rick Mercer Report? Echoing what some have been peddling on the internet, Mr. Rae is clearly the one that the Tories are scared of - yup, they're positively shivering. And in a related leap of deduction, Harper's attention towards the income trust sector demonstrates the deep rooted fear the government has of that ball of charisma known as Ralph Goodale. • Could the wares of sexy members from both the Michael Ignatieff and Gerard Kennedy teams be serving as some of the most potent recruitment tools to initiate crossover between the campaigns? I wouldn't know of course, because I have no such powers within my arsenal. But that is what's occurring according to the information that I have received... I will be back sooner rather than later with another post.
Permalink
October 12, 2006 - Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including...wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial,...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." It was Hezbollah who a) for many years fired rockets into Israel targeting civilians, and continued to do so throughout the conflict in Lebanon this past summer b) hid soldiers and weapons throughout civilian areas, thereby turning innocent bystanders and property into shields for their aggression c) took hostages "not justified by military necessity" to begin the conflict, creating an escalation of tensions into the full blown war that erupted d) continually calls for Israel's destruction, which violates the international genocide treaty's prohibition of "direct and public incitement to commit genocide." Israel gave ample and continued warning to residents to leave Qana before the area was attacked, and thus there was no wilful killing of innocent civilians during the conflict. Israel defended its borders to prevent Hezbollah from using the remaining 10,000 rockets that the organization has in its possession, as well as to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 that Hezbollah be disarmed (something that has never been acted upon). I fail to see where Israel is guilty of committing war crimes.
Permalink
October 12, 2006 - The Conservatives in their cost saving purge cut $4 million designated for researching the therapeutic properties of cannabis. What the Tories didn't do, however, is shut down Brent Zettl, president of Prairie Plant Systems Inc., the government's official grower and harvester. In fact, not only did Prairie Plant Systems not get shut down - they got their contract extended for another year until September, 2007. When questioned about the renewed funding after exiting a closed door meeting in Vancouver with government "officials," Stephen Harper seemed giddy while delivering his comments during a media scrum. "I think the quality of the product is excellent, and we don't need research for a high grade crop." The reporters apparently had many more questions, but Harper and his entourage quickly led them away to the next event, which involved a visit to a local soup kitchen to witness first hand the effects caused by a lack of affordable housing in the Lower Mainland. Reporters were intent on asking about when the Tories planned to bring in their modest affordable housing plan, but couldn't seem to get a straight answer as Mr. Harper was hungry after helping out in the kitchen. The Prime Minister proceeded to do a quick change of clothes in the car, and then headed to the closest Home Depot to have a taste of his favourite after-politics snack (unlike the east, we here in Western Canada don't have the country's best fast food joint - Harvey's - as stand alone locations). After eating, Harper insisted on purchasing a hammer, some nails, and a couple of two by fours so he could start in on the housing plan immediately. After climbing up and down one of the store's ladders about 17 times, however, Harper became exhausted and was quickly shuttled back to his hotel for some well-earned downtime.
October 11, 2006 - I have always sang the praises of Michael Ignatieff as a candidate who isn't scripted, and doesn't always advance the safest views and/or approaches within the political realm. Thus, I cannot all off a sudden come down too hard on him when I read this: "I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that. That's clear." With that said, however, my humble opinion tends to classify this characterization as inaccurate. To be fair, I have read Mr. Ignatieff's just released statement of clarification where he states: "I strongly supported Israel's right to respond to Hezbollah's provocation and to send the terrorist militia a very clear message that kidnapping soldiers and firing rockets on Israel will never be tolerated. Canada cannot be equivocal on this issue. In a conflict between a terrorist militia and a democratic state, Canada must always side with the democratic state. Israel has an unequivocal right to defend itself against unprovoked attacks and the international community must support that right." and: "I believe that Qana was a terrible human tragedy where innocent civilians died in a conflict that saw unjustified tragedies on all sides." Nonetheless, while Mr. Ignatieff and I share many of the same views on Israel, the use of the term "war crime" in relation to the Qana tragedy (even if meant to convey the horrors of war rather than the standardized international legal definition) is not something I agree with. So to those detractors who say that I turn a blind eye to being critical towards my own candidate, this post just demonstrates that that kind of an accusation is completely false. This in no way changes my unequivocal belief that Ignatieff is still the Liberal party's best shot at winning the next election, however.
Permalink
October 11, 2006 - Obviously I am far from anything approaching an environmental expert, but I can't help but feel a little concerned with a climate change plan of action premised on intensity-based targets. This is from an MIT academic paper on the subject: "Emissions can be limited by an absolute cap on the quantity of emissions or by some maximum allowable intensity relative to some measure of output or input, such as the number of cars or refrigerators purchased by consumers, the amount of energy input required by some production process, or even GDP. This intensity limit can be imposed either directly as an emission rate limit or an efficiency standard, or indirectly by means of technology mandates that have the same effect." What does all this mumbo jumbo mean? Well, George W. Bush justified his withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol (which functions on absolute emissions limits for greenhouse gases) by proposing an alternative policy formulation based on reducing emissions intensity (emissions per dollar of real gross domestic product). Supporters of this plan constantly characterize the idea as useful when applied to developing countries that have rapid but fluctuating growth (so that life doesn't get harder for governments when an economy grows more than expected). The argument is that you can still grow your economy, but simultaneously change your emissions output to become proportionately more efficient. In the case of Canada, if we maintain our current population growth (Canada's population increased by 324,000 to an estimated 32,623,500 between July 2005 and July 2006, representing a 1% increase and the 2nd largest growth in the G8) and our current economic surge (Canada's economic growth has recently averaged 3% a year and unemployment is at its lowest in 30 years), then our greenhouse gas emissions totals will not decrease under an intensity-based reduction system. In other words, for a country like ours, this is a policy announcement that is popular with the oil and gas sector, and one that buffers the Conservative government from having to make the tough decisions. If this is just the first component of Stephen Harper's environmental plan, we might as well take blowtorches to the icebergs and glaciers in the arctic to speed up the inevitable.
Permalink
October 11, 2006 - I commend Bob Rae for displaying his bony ass on national television (literally), as he was the only leadership candidate to show up for Rick Mercer's invitation to go fishing. Personally, I think Michael Ignatieff could have benefited tremendously by participating in a skinny dipping session with Mercer. Maybe the campaign should give Peter Mansbridge a call...
October 10, 2006 - I promised Jason Cherniak that I would post his response to this post without comment: "Whether you get media coverage from a one-on-one interview or from a debate, it is still media. Either you belive that all candidates deserve equal media attention, or you do not. By engaging in one-on-one interviews without concern for other candidates getting similar treatment, Ignatieff has proven that he does not believe that all candidates deserve equal media opporutnities. Apparently, he only belives that all candiadtes deserve an equal opportunity to debate him. He is free to have that opinion, but it is not one of princple. It is a blatant media strategy by a front-runner." Readers can decide for themselves which point of view resonates more.
Permalink
October 10, 2006 - Some thoughts for the afternoon: • On Sunday night, I had the pleasure of being invited to a huge banquet at the Vancouver Trade & Convention Centre in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Khalsa Diwan Society. It was a huge event with dignitaries and royalty from India in attendance, and it made me very proud to be living in a country where minorities have been able to rise so far above and beyond the disgusting indignities of the past. Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan was particularly impressive, as his address to a room of over 800 people didn't consist of one word of English - he delivered his speech completely in Punjabi. Now, everyone already knows of Sullivan's linguistic skills, as he speaks fluent Cantonese. But to get up in front of a 95% Punjabi audience and give greetings with wonderful pronunciation and confidence was impressive beyond belief. In this regard, all politicians should take a page out of Sullivan's political playbook. • Jason Cherniak took great issue with my post on his logic, threatening to take down my link on his sidebar if I continued to write comments about him without offering a comments section. Many times on this website I have described why I don't use the comments feature, and thus as another option, I offered to give Jason the opportunity to have his response posted, without comment or editing from myself. I have yet to hear back. Also, just out of curiosity, did anyone ever see if the "Cherniak's Logic" post made it up on Liblogs? • If certain Bob Rae delegates in British Columbia had someone else signing their Form 6, isn't it a fair question to ponder whether they signed and/or paid for their own membership when the originally joined up? And, if that turns out not to be the case, will the party fine the campaign the way they did Joe Volpe's? • I am really sick of the atmosphere of conflict that leadership races create, and quite frankly, I can't wait for this process to be over with. This isn't to say that I am innocent, because I have levied criticisms against individuals and candidates throughout this race (although based on conduct and/or policy rather than personal attacks). Regardless, right now all I hunger for is a little peace within the Liberal party. • I'm going to try and get Michael Ignatieff's climate change plan compared with this Clean Air Act by environmental experts with far more capabilities to decipher the nitty gritty of the documents, and I will subsequently post the findings on this website. One thing I am confident about, however, is that Harper's plan comes nowhere close to the steps Ignatieff is prepared to take. That's it for now. I'll be back on the horn later.
Permalink
October 10, 2006 - The Mason Loh affair is an ideal platform to legitimately lobby an attack at the Bob Rae campaign. I am not going to do that. Instead, I offer my own personal lament on the impact of what has happened. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if the forms were signed for "expediency" or with "wilful misconduct" in mind, because at the end of the day, the result is still the same. I do think that the Rae campaign has been open and honest with the breach, and thus far has handled it the proper way - I will give them that. But my concern for the issues at hand go far beyond the eventual outcome of this leadership race. I am genuinely interested in the members that were signed up en masse by the Rae team within the Chinese community. Now, I will acknowledge that regardless of the candidate, it is likely that every campaign will have new members that at the end of the day, will be unlikely to continue their participation - that is part and parcel of the political process. However, the Liberal party has often been accused of using ethnic communities as little more than convenient voting blocs, and so the way in which this group of new signups is handled from this point forward is going to be very important. This particular membership drive takes on a new dimension because of the rules that were broken. There needs to be a commitment (hopefully taken up by Mason Loh, who is highly regarded within the Chinese community) to ensure that the new party members whose Form 6's were in question, as well as their supporters, feel as though there is more for them within the Liberal party than internal party voting and free dinners. Secondly, I am very upset on how this seems to solidify opinions about the nature of partisan politics, and more specifically the conduct of the Liberal Party of Canada, particularly here in British Columbia (a provincial organization which has been known to have the names of dead pets populating the membership lists). Because of what this party has gone through over the past two and a half years, it is essential that we operate in a manner that is not only legitimate, but beyond reproach. We are all guilty of getting caught up in the fervour and hysteria that surrounds leadership races, and thus at times let our enthusiasm overtake sound judgement when it comes to the rules. I think that collectively, these kinds of incidents, whether they are associated with Rae, Joe Volpe, or Michael Ignatieff, make us all look bad. Period. We need to do better...everyone. I am an active Liberal party member because of the values I share with other Liberals, and the core beliefs I advocate for to make Canada a better place. We all have to remember that it is this kind of reasoning which must compel us to demonstrate exactly how and why we deserve the trust of Canadians once again.
Permalink
October 10, 2006 - Some people need to learn that there is indeed a significant distinction between a personal media appearance and a debate. The whole argument presented is silly: "...[Michael] Ignatieff believes that it is unfair to hold a debate without inviting all candidates and will refuse all such invitations." "However, on the first day of Delegate Selection Meetings, Ignatieff was on Canada AM. The only other candidate was Bob Rae. What happened to Ignatieff's principle?" "There is no difference between refusing a debate for lack of invitation and refusing a media appearance for the same reason. There is no logical distinction." Excuse me, but refusing to engage in a debate that is selective about who is able participate is in no way similar to engaging in a media interview, which is, in the context of a leadership race, most often a one-on-one affair. No contradiction nor hypocrisy exists between these two courses of action. Because the legal profession generally necessitates the construction of compelling arguments and logical conclusions, it might be prudent for the author to brush up on these skills.
Permalink