In light of recent events, I thought it would be timely to re-post an updated version of this op-ed, which won third place in last fall's Western Standard editorial contest.
In Montreal, a city roads crew was caught spending just six minutes of its nine-hour shift fixing three potholes. In British Columbia, teacher unions are contemplating another illegal strike, just four months after their last one. In Ontario, CUPE President Sid Ryan threatened that municipal workers who clean schools, plow roads and pick up garbage would walk off the job, in protest against the McGuinty government's pension legislation. (A last-minute resolution averted the wildcat strike.)
Organized labour has some clever slogans about all the good it has done for society, such as “Unions: the people who brought you the weekend.” But what have they done for us lately?
Think of the state of our roads, the quality of our education and health care, the cleanliness of our streets. The overall tax burden has grown, but this has hardly been matched by an increase in the quality of government services. Yet the wages and benefits of public sector workers continue to rise. Of course they do: by their very nature, public sector unions tend to drive up the costs and size of government. Union dues – themselves a cost driver – go to employ officials whose full-time work consists of filing grievances, lobbying the government for more workers, coordinating with other unions and supporting sympathetic candidates.
Much of the impetus for contracting out the delivery of public services stems from roadblocks faced by politicians attempting to meet the demands of taxpayers or deliver on good-faith election promises. Unions label such activity "privatization," but it's not. From their point of view, it's de-unionization. Scratch the surface of any of the recent campaigns against health care reform, and you will find that most are organized and funded by unions. They oppose health care reform because they are afraid it will result in new services or facilities outside the current unionized health care sphere.
Of course, nothing is preventing unions from attempting to organize workers in non-unionized facilities, but after 30-odd years of public sector unionization, a sense of entitlement takes hold. And it's easier to protect existing union turf by holding citizens and politicians hostage through work-to-rule and illegal strikes, than to convince non-unionized workers it's worth handing over part of their paycheques to Sid Ryan et al.
Since public servants began to unionize, the public has gradually lost control of its public services. Some have argued for outlawing strikes by teachers and other public sector workers, but this would be mere tinkering. The only way for the public to take back control of the services it owns is by decertifying public sector unions and restoring a direct employment relationship between government workers and democratically elected governments. Here’s why it makes sense:
Once the public has decided that a particular service is to be provided by the government, then that service is, by definition, essential. Many try to make a distinction between services that relate to safety and other government services. But public schools, transit and most other public services are legally or effectively monopolies, in that most citizens have no practical alternative when those services are not available.
Public sector collective agreements take away the public’s democratic right to decide what public services are to be delivered and what terms of employment are to be offered (provided those terms comply with employment standards laws and the common law). The wages, benefits and working conditions of public sector workers should be open to the democratic process as are all other aspects of government. They should not be decided in backrooms in negotiations from which the public is barred and on which the public’s elected representatives are forbidden to comment.
It is not the role of government to engage in unfair labour competition with the private sector. Some people think it is noble for the government to “set an example” for the private sector through higher wages and benefits. Such people don’t understand economics. The increasing taxes that those business will have to pay to support the government’s “example” mean that they will be hard-pressed to pay the employees they already have, let alone pay them more.
Thousands of private firms have policies and procedures for dealing fairly with employees; so would a union-free public sector. If the public through their elected government provides wages, benefits and working conditions that can’t compare with private employers’, then it will find itself with fewer and less capable employees.
Public sector workers would continue to be free to advocate for themselves through the democratic process. But those who interfere with the provision of government services will, like private sector workers, be subject to the appropriate civil or criminal sanctions. Those who fail to show up for work will not be "on strike," they will have quit.
Let’s put the “public” back into the public sector, by putting citizens and their elected representatives back in charge of our public services.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Friday, February 24, 2006
My sister would relate: man kills neighbour over door slamming
I noticed this item on Drudge, about a Florida man whose motive for killing his neighbour was apparently her slamming of her door late at night.
When I lived with my late sister in a townhouse in Mississauga, our next door neighbour would slam the door loudly when he left for work in the morning. I rarely noticed it, but it really irritated my sister, who slept in the front bedroom. I never contemplated killing the guy, but my sister probably did.
This neighbour was a rather bizarre fellow who once gave me the fright of my life when I spotted him walking his dog in full Klingon regalia (him, not the dog). On another occasion, my sister and I arrived home to find his Hyundai in its parking spot, with its front wheels on blocks and the engine running at full tilt in park (or neutral?). I wondered aloud what the purpose of this was, and my sister speculated that perhaps he was trying to get it into warp drive.
On the morning of her funeral -- which was a Saturday -- I had to leave very early to meet my family at my mother's house. In my sister's honour, I slammed our door as loud as could. I hope it woke him up.
When I lived with my late sister in a townhouse in Mississauga, our next door neighbour would slam the door loudly when he left for work in the morning. I rarely noticed it, but it really irritated my sister, who slept in the front bedroom. I never contemplated killing the guy, but my sister probably did.
This neighbour was a rather bizarre fellow who once gave me the fright of my life when I spotted him walking his dog in full Klingon regalia (him, not the dog). On another occasion, my sister and I arrived home to find his Hyundai in its parking spot, with its front wheels on blocks and the engine running at full tilt in park (or neutral?). I wondered aloud what the purpose of this was, and my sister speculated that perhaps he was trying to get it into warp drive.
On the morning of her funeral -- which was a Saturday -- I had to leave very early to meet my family at my mother's house. In my sister's honour, I slammed our door as loud as could. I hope it woke him up.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
McGuinty Memory Lane on Illegal Strikes
In October 1997, Ontario teachers staged an illegal strike (which they billed as a "political protest") against the Harris government's Bill 160. The bill was designed to move education dollars from administration to the classroom by, among other things, requiring teachers to teach an additional half-class per day. The teacher unions' spin was that the bill was designed to allow the government to cut education funding (a specious argument: the government did not require legislation to change the level of grants provided to school boards).
Dalton McGuinty had been leader of the Ontario Liberals for less than a year. Seeking to establish his credibility on education (and perhaps curry favour with teacher unions) McGuinty wholeheartedly endorsed the illegal strike, even appearing at a teacher union rally at Queen's Park. The teacher unions, sensing public support was waning, ended the illegal strike after two weeks.
That was then . . .
"I understand it's not easy. But take heart in knowing you are doing the right thing."
--Dalton McGuinty, Teachers' Rally at Queen's Park, October 29, 1997
". . . I'm . . . saying right here before you that I'll be with the teachers. . . . This strike may very well be technically illegal. . ."
--Dalton McGuinty, Focus Ontario, Global TV, October 18, 1997
"If they walk out, I'll be with the teachers."
--Dalton McGuinty, Focus Ontario, Global TV, October 18, 1997
. . . This is now
I believe that CUPE in particular has every right, and I fully respect and support that right, to protest any action on the part of our government, but at the same time, I think it is wrong to engage in an illegal activity to register that protest.
I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to take it out on Ontario families. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to keep kids out of school. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to stop plowing our roads. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to stop picking up our garbage. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to stop providing those important services we all count on.
--Dalton McGuinty, Question Period, February 21, 2006
Dalton McGuinty had been leader of the Ontario Liberals for less than a year. Seeking to establish his credibility on education (and perhaps curry favour with teacher unions) McGuinty wholeheartedly endorsed the illegal strike, even appearing at a teacher union rally at Queen's Park. The teacher unions, sensing public support was waning, ended the illegal strike after two weeks.
That was then . . .
"I understand it's not easy. But take heart in knowing you are doing the right thing."
--Dalton McGuinty, Teachers' Rally at Queen's Park, October 29, 1997
". . . I'm . . . saying right here before you that I'll be with the teachers. . . . This strike may very well be technically illegal. . ."
--Dalton McGuinty, Focus Ontario, Global TV, October 18, 1997
"If they walk out, I'll be with the teachers."
--Dalton McGuinty, Focus Ontario, Global TV, October 18, 1997
. . . This is now
I believe that CUPE in particular has every right, and I fully respect and support that right, to protest any action on the part of our government, but at the same time, I think it is wrong to engage in an illegal activity to register that protest.
I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to take it out on Ontario families. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to keep kids out of school. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to stop plowing our roads. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to stop picking up our garbage. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to stop providing those important services we all count on.
--Dalton McGuinty, Question Period, February 21, 2006
Monday, February 20, 2006
Conflict of Interest Complaint re McGuinty Appointee
David Onley is an anchor at news channel CP24 and long time advocate for the disabled, being disabled himself. He is also the recently-appointed (as of December 2005) chair of the McGuinty government’s Accessibility Standards Advisory Council, a part-time position paying $225 per diem.
Unfortunately, doing both jobs puts him in an obvious conflict of interest as a journalist. Clause 5 – News of the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council says:
“It shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure that news shall be represented with accuracy and without bias. Broadcasters shall satisfy themselves that the arrangements made for obtaining news ensure this result. . . . Broadcasters shall refer to the Code of Ethics of the Radio and Television News Directors of Canada (“RTNDA”) for more detailed provisions regarding broadcast journalism in general.”
According to Article Six (Conflict of Interest) of the Code of Ethics of the RTNDA, “Broadcast journalists will govern themselves on and off the job in such a way as to avoid conflict of interest, real or apparent.”
Being a paid advisor of a sitting government you report on sounds like a clear conflict to me. But if journalists and news outlets won’t behave ethically, then somebody has to bring their behaviour to the attention of the bodies whose job it is to ensure that they do.
You can e-mail your complaints to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council here and the Radio-Television News Directors Association here. I sent the following complaint:
With a sizeable cohort of former broadcast journalists on staff (e.g. Matt Maychak, newly-anointed Toronto-Danforth candidate Ben Chin, Leon Korbee), odds are the McGuintyites know this is less than copasetic, but think they can get away with it. Onley’s on-air interview with McGuinty’s health minister George Smitherman three days after his appointment suggests that Onley thinks he can get away with it too.
This situation brings back memories of McGuinty’s first hire after he was elected Liberal leader in 1996: his kid brother Brendan. Ontario Legislature rules are explicit that MPPs can’t hire relatives. McGuinty tried to get around it by making his brother an employee of the Liberal caucus services bureau, though he made it clear that Brendan would be working directly for him, telling reporters, “he’ll be of great assistance to me, to have somebody on staff who will be completely truthful.” (I guess his non-sibling staff were all liars), and “I can always count on him ... to tell me when I’m doing something stupid.”
After it blew up in his face, McGuinty cancelled his plans to hire Brendan and blamed the public, telling the Toronto Sun “I regret that I underestimated the extent to which my brother’s appointment would be misinterpreted.” Brendan eventually ended up back in Ottawa, where he spent several years as a top staffer to Ottawa mayor and former Liberal MPP Bob Chiarelli.
Unfortunately, doing both jobs puts him in an obvious conflict of interest as a journalist. Clause 5 – News of the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council says:
“It shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure that news shall be represented with accuracy and without bias. Broadcasters shall satisfy themselves that the arrangements made for obtaining news ensure this result. . . . Broadcasters shall refer to the Code of Ethics of the Radio and Television News Directors of Canada (“RTNDA”) for more detailed provisions regarding broadcast journalism in general.”
According to Article Six (Conflict of Interest) of the Code of Ethics of the RTNDA, “Broadcast journalists will govern themselves on and off the job in such a way as to avoid conflict of interest, real or apparent.”
Being a paid advisor of a sitting government you report on sounds like a clear conflict to me. But if journalists and news outlets won’t behave ethically, then somebody has to bring their behaviour to the attention of the bodies whose job it is to ensure that they do.
You can e-mail your complaints to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council here and the Radio-Television News Directors Association here. I sent the following complaint:
To: the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council and Radio-Television News Directors Association:
I believe that cable news station CP24 is in violation of the RTNDA’s Code of Ethics, due to the fact that one of its anchors, David Onley, has accepted an appointment to advise the Ontario government, yet continues to read news and conduct interviews on CP24, including interviews with ministers of the government that appointed him.
The position is Chair of the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council, an appointment made by the Minister of Community and Social Services, for which Mr. Onley will be paid $225 per diem (it is a part-time position). The details of the council and Mr. Onley’s appointment are at the website of the Ontario government’s Public Appointments Secretariat (http://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/BoardDetails.asp?boardID=141221). The December 13 release announcing his appointment is at the website of the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services (http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/CFCS/en/newsRoom/newsReleases/051213.htm.)
On the afternoon of Friday, December 16, 2005, Mr. Onley conducted an on-air interview with Ontario’s Minister of Health. On the afternoon of February 7, 2006, Mr. Onley conducted an on-air interview with Ontario's Attorney-General. As of February 20, 2006, Mr. Onley was still performing anchor duties at CP24. The Code of Ethics of the RTNDA states, under Article Six, “Broadcast journalists will govern themselves on and off the job in such a way as to avoid conflict of interest, real or apparent.” I believe that Mr. Onley’s provision of paid advice to the Ontario government is a clear conflict of interest with his duties as anchor on a news channel.
Thank you for your attention.
Joan Tintor
With a sizeable cohort of former broadcast journalists on staff (e.g. Matt Maychak, newly-anointed Toronto-Danforth candidate Ben Chin, Leon Korbee), odds are the McGuintyites know this is less than copasetic, but think they can get away with it. Onley’s on-air interview with McGuinty’s health minister George Smitherman three days after his appointment suggests that Onley thinks he can get away with it too.
This situation brings back memories of McGuinty’s first hire after he was elected Liberal leader in 1996: his kid brother Brendan. Ontario Legislature rules are explicit that MPPs can’t hire relatives. McGuinty tried to get around it by making his brother an employee of the Liberal caucus services bureau, though he made it clear that Brendan would be working directly for him, telling reporters, “he’ll be of great assistance to me, to have somebody on staff who will be completely truthful.” (I guess his non-sibling staff were all liars), and “I can always count on him ... to tell me when I’m doing something stupid.”
After it blew up in his face, McGuinty cancelled his plans to hire Brendan and blamed the public, telling the Toronto Sun “I regret that I underestimated the extent to which my brother’s appointment would be misinterpreted.” Brendan eventually ended up back in Ottawa, where he spent several years as a top staffer to Ottawa mayor and former Liberal MPP Bob Chiarelli.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Update from a soldier serving in Iraq
Note: 1st Lieutenant Micah J. Garrison has been serving in Iraq for nine months. He and his unit hope to be home by the end of May. He came to my attention through a piece he wrote for AccessNorthGa.com, in response to comments by Senator Hillary Clinton about body armour.
Hello everyone. I hope all of you have had a happy Valentine's Day. I'm sure Hallmark has had a pleasant February 14. Today marks our 14th month away from home and our 9th month in Iraq. It's hard to comprehend how much time that is. My wife Tara put it into perspective in a recent conversation. We bought a house in May of 2004 and in September bought a Boston Terrier puppy to keep her company while I was deployed. Tara recently said, "It's sad that Bailey (our dog) has lived in our new house longer than you have." It's kind of funny to me when I look at it like that. We're definitely looking forward to coming home, but we still have a lot of work to do here.
At times it is very rewarding and we feel great about what we do and at other times it is extremely frustrating and makes you angry. I and two of my men were on a recent three day mission (yes, it was extremely cold) to try to catch insurgents putting in IEDs (roadside bombs) in an IED heavy area. We watched in frustration and anger when, less than twelve hours apart, two different patrols were blown up right in front of us because they wouldn't listen to what we told them on the radio. We were less than 400 meters (about 1 1/3 football fields) away from them when they blew up.
The two IEDs resulted in three casualties, one of which was fatal. It was frustrating because the IEDs had already been put in before we got there and we missed our chance to take out the bad guys. It was also frustrating for us because the patrols didn't listen to what we tried to tell them and we had to watch as they got blown up. We did help call in security and medical assets on the radio, so we did what we could to help afterward. This makes several IEDs we've been very close to when they exploded. The explosions were quite large and very loud. At least now I'll have something to blame my selective hearing (oops, I mean hearing loss) on when I get home.
The reason I've been sending these e-mails is because the most common question I get is "what is it like to be there?" While I'll never be able to fully put into words or express what it has been like, I have tried to explain and describe some of the things Infantry soldiers experience over here and what it takes to insure the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. I hope that I have portrayed some of these feelings and experiences to all of you. Tara said that at least I'll have some new stories to tell when I get home, but I'm sure she'll get tired of them soon enough. We're not exactly sure when we're coming home yet, but we're fairly confident that we're down to a double digit number. We've already started some of the initial work required before we can return (equipment accountability, countless inventories, etc), so we know we're finally getting close.
Our lives have been changed forever by everything we have seen, done, and experienced here. We also realize that we will never take so many things in our lives for granted ever again. It is hard to explain to people how truly blessed we are as Americans to live in the states and enjoy the freedoms we have. If everyone in the states could have walked in our shoes for the last year they would definitely to some re-prioritizing in their lives and wouldn't take so many things, both large and small, for granted.
A quote I read and shared with some of you earlier in my deployment says it best. It says, "You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it life has a flavor the protected will never know." I hope all of you have a great spring, I'm looking forward to seeing all of you when I return home. Take care, and don't work to hard. Micah.
Update/correction: Several people have asked if the patrols we saw get hit were from our unit. No they weren't. Also, the best way I can describe how it felt would be if you had a front row seat to a train wreck back home and could do nothing about it. We were 300-400 meters away. Obviously that is 3-4 football fields, not 1 1/3 football fields like I said. As a teacher I had in high school used to say, I was just seeing if y'all were paying attention.
1LT Micah J. Garrison
HHC TF 2-130 Infantry
Recon Platoon
APO AE 09381
Hello everyone. I hope all of you have had a happy Valentine's Day. I'm sure Hallmark has had a pleasant February 14. Today marks our 14th month away from home and our 9th month in Iraq. It's hard to comprehend how much time that is. My wife Tara put it into perspective in a recent conversation. We bought a house in May of 2004 and in September bought a Boston Terrier puppy to keep her company while I was deployed. Tara recently said, "It's sad that Bailey (our dog) has lived in our new house longer than you have." It's kind of funny to me when I look at it like that. We're definitely looking forward to coming home, but we still have a lot of work to do here.
At times it is very rewarding and we feel great about what we do and at other times it is extremely frustrating and makes you angry. I and two of my men were on a recent three day mission (yes, it was extremely cold) to try to catch insurgents putting in IEDs (roadside bombs) in an IED heavy area. We watched in frustration and anger when, less than twelve hours apart, two different patrols were blown up right in front of us because they wouldn't listen to what we told them on the radio. We were less than 400 meters (about 1 1/3 football fields) away from them when they blew up.
The two IEDs resulted in three casualties, one of which was fatal. It was frustrating because the IEDs had already been put in before we got there and we missed our chance to take out the bad guys. It was also frustrating for us because the patrols didn't listen to what we tried to tell them and we had to watch as they got blown up. We did help call in security and medical assets on the radio, so we did what we could to help afterward. This makes several IEDs we've been very close to when they exploded. The explosions were quite large and very loud. At least now I'll have something to blame my selective hearing (oops, I mean hearing loss) on when I get home.
The reason I've been sending these e-mails is because the most common question I get is "what is it like to be there?" While I'll never be able to fully put into words or express what it has been like, I have tried to explain and describe some of the things Infantry soldiers experience over here and what it takes to insure the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. I hope that I have portrayed some of these feelings and experiences to all of you. Tara said that at least I'll have some new stories to tell when I get home, but I'm sure she'll get tired of them soon enough. We're not exactly sure when we're coming home yet, but we're fairly confident that we're down to a double digit number. We've already started some of the initial work required before we can return (equipment accountability, countless inventories, etc), so we know we're finally getting close.
Our lives have been changed forever by everything we have seen, done, and experienced here. We also realize that we will never take so many things in our lives for granted ever again. It is hard to explain to people how truly blessed we are as Americans to live in the states and enjoy the freedoms we have. If everyone in the states could have walked in our shoes for the last year they would definitely to some re-prioritizing in their lives and wouldn't take so many things, both large and small, for granted.
A quote I read and shared with some of you earlier in my deployment says it best. It says, "You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it life has a flavor the protected will never know." I hope all of you have a great spring, I'm looking forward to seeing all of you when I return home. Take care, and don't work to hard. Micah.
Update/correction: Several people have asked if the patrols we saw get hit were from our unit. No they weren't. Also, the best way I can describe how it felt would be if you had a front row seat to a train wreck back home and could do nothing about it. We were 300-400 meters away. Obviously that is 3-4 football fields, not 1 1/3 football fields like I said. As a teacher I had in high school used to say, I was just seeing if y'all were paying attention.
1LT Micah J. Garrison
HHC TF 2-130 Infantry
Recon Platoon
APO AE 09381
Monday, February 13, 2006
Smart of NDP to take a buzz saw to Hargrove
I am not normally in favour of political parties stripping people of membership (and in light of recent events, it's lucky for some of us that the Conservative Party and its predecessor entities didn't make a habit of it).
But even though it doesn't reflect well on the New "Democratic" Party, I think it was smart of the Ontario NDP executive to strip Basil "Buzz" Hargrove of his membership, for violating the party's constitution regarding provisions against endorsing other candidates. The move also automatically revokes his membership in the federal party.
You can't blame the NDP for being fed up with Buzz taking a buzz saw to their interests in two general elections in a row now. Hargrove did the exact same thing to them in the 2003 provincial election – advocate voting Liberal to defeat the Tories – which may have played a role in the Howard Hampton-led New Democrats falling one seat short of party status in the election outcome. After enduring 11 weeks of negative publicity for refusing to agree to grant some kind of status to the NDP, Dalton McGuinty relented and allowed the NDP a reduced standing and a research budget. A few months later the NDP got their full status back by taking a seat from the Liberals in a Hamilton by-election. That status is again at risk with the resignation of Marilyn Churley to run (unsuccessfully) in the federal election. The NDP has to win her seat in Beaches-East York to retain their party status.
Buzz Hargrove was also a considerable pain in the bum to former federal NDP leader Alexa McDonough during her tenure. She must be smiling today.
In January, I wondered why the media treated Buzz's endorsement of Martin as big news, considering it was Buzz's second time at the Liberal party, and suggested that the NDP should have a nice bag of quotes next time to inoculate themselves against yet another Liberal endorsement from Buzz. Turns out they decided that wasn't good enough.
No doubt the provincial NDP made the move with an eye to the next Ontario election, scheduled for October 2007. If Buzz tries to pull the strategic voting stunt again, perhaps it will have less impact.
But even though it doesn't reflect well on the New "Democratic" Party, I think it was smart of the Ontario NDP executive to strip Basil "Buzz" Hargrove of his membership, for violating the party's constitution regarding provisions against endorsing other candidates. The move also automatically revokes his membership in the federal party.
You can't blame the NDP for being fed up with Buzz taking a buzz saw to their interests in two general elections in a row now. Hargrove did the exact same thing to them in the 2003 provincial election – advocate voting Liberal to defeat the Tories – which may have played a role in the Howard Hampton-led New Democrats falling one seat short of party status in the election outcome. After enduring 11 weeks of negative publicity for refusing to agree to grant some kind of status to the NDP, Dalton McGuinty relented and allowed the NDP a reduced standing and a research budget. A few months later the NDP got their full status back by taking a seat from the Liberals in a Hamilton by-election. That status is again at risk with the resignation of Marilyn Churley to run (unsuccessfully) in the federal election. The NDP has to win her seat in Beaches-East York to retain their party status.
Buzz Hargrove was also a considerable pain in the bum to former federal NDP leader Alexa McDonough during her tenure. She must be smiling today.
In January, I wondered why the media treated Buzz's endorsement of Martin as big news, considering it was Buzz's second time at the Liberal party, and suggested that the NDP should have a nice bag of quotes next time to inoculate themselves against yet another Liberal endorsement from Buzz. Turns out they decided that wasn't good enough.
No doubt the provincial NDP made the move with an eye to the next Ontario election, scheduled for October 2007. If Buzz tries to pull the strategic voting stunt again, perhaps it will have less impact.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Day Five – A way out or two . . .
David Emerson’s floor-crossing and elevation to cabinet is not evidence of deep-seated hypocrisy on the part of the Harper regime. Nor is it fatal to the Conservative party. But it is a misstep that can and should be fixed, thereby minimizing its long-term effects. Here are two ideas of how to fix it.
Read the rest at Elect Emerson.
Read the rest at Elect Emerson.
Day Five -- Media notes
On Thursday night, TVO’s Fourth Reading – primarily a show devoted to Ontario provincial politics – briefly dealt with the Emerson issue. One of the guests was Senator Hugh Segal. Segal said that he is in favour of legislation that would require floor crossers to seek the approval of their voters, and that he would vote for such legislation, but noted there is no law now.
Read the rest at Elect Emerson.
Read the rest at Elect Emerson.
Day Five -- Media notes
On Thursday night, TVO’s Fourth Reading – primarily a show devoted to Ontario provincial politics – briefly dealt with the Emerson issue. One of the guests was Senator Hugh Segal. Segal said that he is in favour of legislation that would require floor crossers to seek the approval of their voters, and that he would vote for such legislation, but noted there is no law now.
Read the rest at Elect Emerson.
Read the rest at Elect Emerson.
Day Five -- Former Stronach riding president calls Emerson appointment “a mistake”
An Aurora Era-Banner story quoting Stephen Somerville, president of the Newmarket-Aurora Conservative association, is posted at www.electemerson.blogspot.com.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Day Four Media Notes -- Adler, Garth Turner's Blog, Mike Duffy Live, Newsworld's Politics
Another post on the Emerson imbroglio at www.electemerson.blogspot.com.
Day Four – You may not be interested in partisans, but partisans are interested in you
Check out my latest post on the Emerson imbroglio at www.electemerson.blogspot.com.
Monday, February 06, 2006
ElectEmerson.blogspot.com
I have started a blog focussing on the need for David Emerson to be elected as a Conservative, including ideas for action. Check it out at www.electemerson.blogspot.com
Friday, February 03, 2006
“How dare u speak to me like that?”
Okay, it’s not quite up (or down) to the level of “Kiss my ass” as Scott Brison was reputed to have said to Sandra McGrath, a long-time Nova Scotia Grit who felt entitled to be reappointed to a government post.
But – as reported in today’s Ottawa Sun – it was Brison’s response to an e-mail from one of his own staffers, who is apparently unimpressed with Brison’s efforts to learn French:
I don’t know what sort of French program Brison is following, but so far his fluency has been best demonstrated by his habit of calling female reporters “mon petit chou” (or should that be ma petite chou?), which he apparently thinks is funny. The female reporters, I’m guessing, not so much (not all women over 30 are fag hags, Scott!).
Despite the intemperate BlackBerrying Brison does have a point. Political staffers who find themselves working for an MP considering a leadership bid need to ask themselves whether they can wholeheartedly support the MP’s campaign, not the other way around: an MP should not have to earn the support of his own paid staff. If the staffers are not inclined to work for their boss' leadership, they should leave the MP’s employ under their own steam. That’s a position I found myself in once upon a time, and I left of my own accord (without telling the MP why).
On the topic of another former Conservative pondering the Liberal leadership, Belinda Stronach’s “En Anglais, s’il vous plait” seems to have set a new bar for the number of words it takes to sink a leadership bid. Last night on TVO’s 4th Reading, Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson added his name to the list of reporters who think Stronach’s campaign is over before it has begun, thanks to her unilingualism.
But – as reported in today’s Ottawa Sun – it was Brison’s response to an e-mail from one of his own staffers, who is apparently unimpressed with Brison’s efforts to learn French:
An e-mail message from his personal assistant Adele Desjardins, obtained by the Sun, scolds the outgoing public works minister for falling behind with his French lessons.
"I know you are the best to lead the Party and I am ready to work hard," reads the terse exchange with Brison. "But I am not a machine, and co-operation is needed."
The e-mail, sent out with the subject line, "You will never learn French the way you are doing it," included an angry response from Brison: "How dare u speak to me like that?"
I don’t know what sort of French program Brison is following, but so far his fluency has been best demonstrated by his habit of calling female reporters “mon petit chou” (or should that be ma petite chou?), which he apparently thinks is funny. The female reporters, I’m guessing, not so much (not all women over 30 are fag hags, Scott!).
Despite the intemperate BlackBerrying Brison does have a point. Political staffers who find themselves working for an MP considering a leadership bid need to ask themselves whether they can wholeheartedly support the MP’s campaign, not the other way around: an MP should not have to earn the support of his own paid staff. If the staffers are not inclined to work for their boss' leadership, they should leave the MP’s employ under their own steam. That’s a position I found myself in once upon a time, and I left of my own accord (without telling the MP why).
On the topic of another former Conservative pondering the Liberal leadership, Belinda Stronach’s “En Anglais, s’il vous plait” seems to have set a new bar for the number of words it takes to sink a leadership bid. Last night on TVO’s 4th Reading, Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson added his name to the list of reporters who think Stronach’s campaign is over before it has begun, thanks to her unilingualism.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
The Sign of Four*
Thanks to Damian Brooks, I’ve been “tagged” with what I guess is the blogospheric equivalent of a chain letter, but fortunately there is no money involved. So here goes:
Four vehicles you've owned:
I’ve owned only one vehicle, a 1985 gold Honda Civic that I bought in December 1988. I drove it for 10 years and probably could have driven it for more, had I not smashed the front end five years in.
Four jobs you've had:
Mac’s Milk in high school, legal secretary (at various times), freelance journalist, staffer to a Harris-era cabinet minister.
Four places you've lived:
New Toronto, Mississauga, downtown Toronto, west end Toronto.
Four vacations you've taken:
Sauble Beach (childhood – thanks Mom!); Washington, D.C. (high school); Montreal and Québec City (1980s sometime); Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine (which conveniently turned out to coincide with Trudeau’s funeral – so I missed all the sick-making hero-worship and revisionist history. Trudeau loved regular people? Yeah, right!)
* Also a Sherlock Holmes story
Four vehicles you've owned:
I’ve owned only one vehicle, a 1985 gold Honda Civic that I bought in December 1988. I drove it for 10 years and probably could have driven it for more, had I not smashed the front end five years in.
Four jobs you've had:
Mac’s Milk in high school, legal secretary (at various times), freelance journalist, staffer to a Harris-era cabinet minister.
Four places you've lived:
New Toronto, Mississauga, downtown Toronto, west end Toronto.
Four vacations you've taken:
Sauble Beach (childhood – thanks Mom!); Washington, D.C. (high school); Montreal and Québec City (1980s sometime); Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine (which conveniently turned out to coincide with Trudeau’s funeral – so I missed all the sick-making hero-worship and revisionist history. Trudeau loved regular people? Yeah, right!)
* Also a Sherlock Holmes story
Monday, January 30, 2006
Credibility Check: Stronach vs. Grewal
The near-concurrent release of Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro’s report on the Grewal affair, and the Toronto Life profile of Belinda Stronach provides an opportunity to contrast and compare what Shapiro judged to be the Martin Liberals’ completely innocent conversations with Gurmant Grewal (thanks to Shapiro’s conclusion that interviews-after-the-fact were more reliable than audio tapes), with the Martin Liberals’ negotiations with Belinda Stronach.
Both sequences of events unfolded over almost exactly the same time frame: the weekend preceding the May 19, 2005 budget vote which, had the Liberals’ lost, would have resulted in a general election.
Were there Negotiations Related to “Crossing the Floor”?
Stronach: “After also gaining Stronach’s consent, Peterson insisted on being the only go-between. ‘Both sides had to trust me. This was as sensitive as a spy coming over the wall.’ Murphy was to speak only to the PM. Stronach could consult Mark Entwistle, an adviser during her leadership bid, now a trusted friend. That Entwistle had once been press secretary for Brian Mulroney, who’d been supportive of Stronach’s bid for the Tory leadership, only demonstrated how byzantine these negotiations had already become.”
--“The Belinda Stronach Defense,” Toronto Life, February 2006
Grewal: “Mr. Dosanjh indicated that on Saturday, May 14, 2005, he received a telephone call from Mr. Bob Cheema, a businessman in the Vancouver-Surrey area acquainted with both Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Grewal. According to Mr. Dosanjh, Mr. Cheema visited his home later that evening and suggested to him that Mr. and Mrs. Grewal would be willing to join the Government in return for a United Nations position or Senate appointment for her and a Cabinet post for him. . . . Mr. Dosanjh reported that he informed Mr. Cheema on May 14, 2005 that, if the Grewals wanted to cross the floor, it was up to the Prime Minister to decide what, if any, appointment he might eventually make.”
-- The Grewal-Dosanjh Inquiry (January 2006), Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Was a Cabinet Portfolio or Other Appointment(s) Offered or Demanded?
Stronach: “During the weekend’s clandestine discussions, it was Peterson who insisted Stronach receive a cabinet post. ‘This was no backbencher,’ he said. ‘She was a high-impact political player who deserved her chance to play.’ It was serendipitous that the Human Resources and Skills Development portfolio, containing all of [college dropout] Stronach’s signature issues—education, empowerment of labour, a competitive, knowledge-based economy—was lying fallow. ‘It was beautiful the way the whole thing came together,’ said Peterson. On Sunday night, Stronach confided in her father, auto parts tycoon Frank Stronach. She still had one unmet request: ‘I wanted to look Paul Martin in the eye to make sure we had the same values.’”
--“The Belinda Stronach Defense,” Toronto Life, February 2006
Grewal: “The testimonies of Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Grewal are relatively consistent as to the nature of their discussions that evening [May 16 – the night before Stronach’s news conference]. Mr. Dosanjh spoke of his own political career and noted that the Prime Minister had made no commitments or offers to him when he agreed to stand as a Liberal candidate in the 2004 election. They also discussed Mr. Grewal’s Parliamentary pension entitlements. However, their accounts differ in one important way. Mr. Grewal indicates that Mr. Dosanjh specifically offered him a Consul General position in Boston or in Seattle or an ambassadorship to a small country. Mr. Dosanjh, on the other hand, indicates that no offers were made. There is no further evidence to corroborate either of these claims.” [Grewal had intended to record this meeting, but his newly-purchased digital recorder did not work.]
May 17: “Both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Grewal agree that during the conversation, the term “deal” was used but that Mr. Murphy, a little later in the discussion, indicated this word should not be used. Mr. Murphy testified that the Prime Minister had indicated there were to be no offers. All three parties agree that the meeting ended with no offers having been made and that there was no commitment by Mr. Grewal.”
“Prior to the arrival of Mr. Murphy at this meeting, Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Grewal both agree that there was further discussion in relation to Mr. Grewal’s retirement and pension entitlement. However, their stories differ in the following respect. On one hand Mr. Dosanjh testified that Mr. Grewal was extremely excited about the crossing of the floor of Belinda Stronach, that morning, and how it was now easy for him to be appointed to Cabinet. However, Mr. Grewal’s account was that Mr. Dosanjh suggested a Cabinet position or diplomatic post for him and a Senate seat for his wife.”
-- The Grewal-Dosanjh Inquiry (January 2006), Office of the Ethics Commissioner
The Fig Leaf of “Separatism”
Stronach: “Her anxieties had crystallized around a poll indicating that the Bloc Québécois could win as many as 70 seats if Harper forced an election. As Peterson recalls, ‘Belinda thought national unity was too high a price to pay for one man’s ambition.’” [Joan’s note: in the TO Life profile, the nitty-gritty of the floor-crossing incident is related primarily through Peterson’s recollections. Belinda’s voice is not heard until after the deal had been done. Imagine, if you will, the power of being able to get a former Premier to do your PR dirty work.]
--“The Belinda Stronach Defense,” Toronto Life, February 2006
Grewal: “As well, both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Grewal testified that, in order to respond to inquiries, as to why Mr. Grewal was talking to them (Liberals), it should be done on the basis of principle. Indeed, Mr. Grewal testified he was told he should say, ‘the Bloc Quebecois and Alliance (sic) or the collaboration, was not the right way to go’”.
-- The Grewal-Dosanjh Inquiry (January 2006), Office of the Ethics Commissioner
The Role of Tim Murphy
Stronach: “Peterson called Tim Murphy, Martin’s chief of staff, to explore Stronach’s welcome if she crossed the floor. . . . Murphy was to speak only to the PM.
--“The Belinda Stronach Defense,” Toronto Life, February 2006
Grewal: “The Prime Minister also testified that he told Mr. Dosanjh to deal on this matter with Mr. Tim Murphy, his Chief of Staff, as he himself was occupied with preparations for the Royal visit.”
-- The Grewal-Dosanjh Inquiry (January 2006), Office of the Ethics Commissioner
*************************************
The Martin Liberals would have Canadians believe – and they certainly convinced Shapiro – that they were unwilling to offer cabinet seats or other appointments in exchange for the Grewals’ two votes. But as the Toronto Life piece confirms, they did exchange a cabinet portfolio for Stronach’s one vote, during the exact same period of time, in concurrent negotiations, both involving Tim Murphy negotiating on behalf of the PM. Though perhaps once they had Stronach’s vote secured by late Sunday or early Monday, enticing the Grewals became “gravy” and not crucial to surviving Thursday’s vote.
But Shapiro might have drawn different conclusions about the credibility of Tim Murphy and Ujjal Dosanjh, had he known the details of the Stronach defection.
On Taping MPs
As alluded to above, Shapiro noted in his report that, due to technical and translation difficulties (some of Grewal’s taped conversations were in Punjabi), and due to “strong objections by those parties represented by counsel” (whom Shapiro does not name), Shapiro based his conclusions on interviews with the parties and witnesses involved, not on anything recorded on the tapes.
As has been noted by Andrew Coyne, the only person reprimanded in Shapiro’s report is Grewal, for engaging in the “extremely inappropriate” behaviour of taping a fellow MP. Shapiro gives short shrift to Grewal’s reasons for doing so: “Mr. Grewal testified that earlier that day, he decided to purchase a new digital tape recorder to record his conversations. He spoke of a previous incident in which another Conservative Member of Parliament stated that he had been approached to accept an appointment but that the story was denied by the Liberals. Mr. Grewal indicated he did not want to be caught in the same predicament.”
Grewal was likely referring to MP Inky Mark, who earlier in May went public with the claim that the Liberals had tried to entice him to resign in exchange for an ambassadorship. In addition to dismissing Mark’s story, then-Liberal MP Reg Alcock declared: “Frankly, if I was going to recruit somebody, I’d go a little higher up the gene pool.”
I have it on good authority from a caucus source that, after the Liberals smeared Inky Mark, other Conservative MPs who had also been approached by the Liberals to cross the floor refused to go public with their stories.
"Lesser Evil" Footnote: An added dimension to this is that around the same time that the “Grewal Tapes” story was breaking last spring, it was also emerging that an individual central to exposing Watergate, known as “Deep Throat,” was former FBI second-in-command Mark Felt.
Strictly speaking, what Felt did was illegal: if he suspected wrongdoing in the White House he was obliged to report any evidence to the Justice Department. But he went to the media instead. Yet Felt is not regarded as an unscrupulous lawbreaker, but as a heroic whistleblower. He knowingly committed an impropriety to expose a larger one. Did Gurmant Grewal do any worse?
Both sequences of events unfolded over almost exactly the same time frame: the weekend preceding the May 19, 2005 budget vote which, had the Liberals’ lost, would have resulted in a general election.
Were there Negotiations Related to “Crossing the Floor”?
Stronach: “After also gaining Stronach’s consent, Peterson insisted on being the only go-between. ‘Both sides had to trust me. This was as sensitive as a spy coming over the wall.’ Murphy was to speak only to the PM. Stronach could consult Mark Entwistle, an adviser during her leadership bid, now a trusted friend. That Entwistle had once been press secretary for Brian Mulroney, who’d been supportive of Stronach’s bid for the Tory leadership, only demonstrated how byzantine these negotiations had already become.”
--“The Belinda Stronach Defense,” Toronto Life, February 2006
Grewal: “Mr. Dosanjh indicated that on Saturday, May 14, 2005, he received a telephone call from Mr. Bob Cheema, a businessman in the Vancouver-Surrey area acquainted with both Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Grewal. According to Mr. Dosanjh, Mr. Cheema visited his home later that evening and suggested to him that Mr. and Mrs. Grewal would be willing to join the Government in return for a United Nations position or Senate appointment for her and a Cabinet post for him. . . . Mr. Dosanjh reported that he informed Mr. Cheema on May 14, 2005 that, if the Grewals wanted to cross the floor, it was up to the Prime Minister to decide what, if any, appointment he might eventually make.”
-- The Grewal-Dosanjh Inquiry (January 2006), Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Was a Cabinet Portfolio or Other Appointment(s) Offered or Demanded?
Stronach: “During the weekend’s clandestine discussions, it was Peterson who insisted Stronach receive a cabinet post. ‘This was no backbencher,’ he said. ‘She was a high-impact political player who deserved her chance to play.’ It was serendipitous that the Human Resources and Skills Development portfolio, containing all of [college dropout] Stronach’s signature issues—education, empowerment of labour, a competitive, knowledge-based economy—was lying fallow. ‘It was beautiful the way the whole thing came together,’ said Peterson. On Sunday night, Stronach confided in her father, auto parts tycoon Frank Stronach. She still had one unmet request: ‘I wanted to look Paul Martin in the eye to make sure we had the same values.’”
--“The Belinda Stronach Defense,” Toronto Life, February 2006
Grewal: “The testimonies of Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Grewal are relatively consistent as to the nature of their discussions that evening [May 16 – the night before Stronach’s news conference]. Mr. Dosanjh spoke of his own political career and noted that the Prime Minister had made no commitments or offers to him when he agreed to stand as a Liberal candidate in the 2004 election. They also discussed Mr. Grewal’s Parliamentary pension entitlements. However, their accounts differ in one important way. Mr. Grewal indicates that Mr. Dosanjh specifically offered him a Consul General position in Boston or in Seattle or an ambassadorship to a small country. Mr. Dosanjh, on the other hand, indicates that no offers were made. There is no further evidence to corroborate either of these claims.” [Grewal had intended to record this meeting, but his newly-purchased digital recorder did not work.]
May 17: “Both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Grewal agree that during the conversation, the term “deal” was used but that Mr. Murphy, a little later in the discussion, indicated this word should not be used. Mr. Murphy testified that the Prime Minister had indicated there were to be no offers. All three parties agree that the meeting ended with no offers having been made and that there was no commitment by Mr. Grewal.”
“Prior to the arrival of Mr. Murphy at this meeting, Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Grewal both agree that there was further discussion in relation to Mr. Grewal’s retirement and pension entitlement. However, their stories differ in the following respect. On one hand Mr. Dosanjh testified that Mr. Grewal was extremely excited about the crossing of the floor of Belinda Stronach, that morning, and how it was now easy for him to be appointed to Cabinet. However, Mr. Grewal’s account was that Mr. Dosanjh suggested a Cabinet position or diplomatic post for him and a Senate seat for his wife.”
-- The Grewal-Dosanjh Inquiry (January 2006), Office of the Ethics Commissioner
The Fig Leaf of “Separatism”
Stronach: “Her anxieties had crystallized around a poll indicating that the Bloc Québécois could win as many as 70 seats if Harper forced an election. As Peterson recalls, ‘Belinda thought national unity was too high a price to pay for one man’s ambition.’” [Joan’s note: in the TO Life profile, the nitty-gritty of the floor-crossing incident is related primarily through Peterson’s recollections. Belinda’s voice is not heard until after the deal had been done. Imagine, if you will, the power of being able to get a former Premier to do your PR dirty work.]
--“The Belinda Stronach Defense,” Toronto Life, February 2006
Grewal: “As well, both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Grewal testified that, in order to respond to inquiries, as to why Mr. Grewal was talking to them (Liberals), it should be done on the basis of principle. Indeed, Mr. Grewal testified he was told he should say, ‘the Bloc Quebecois and Alliance (sic) or the collaboration, was not the right way to go’”.
-- The Grewal-Dosanjh Inquiry (January 2006), Office of the Ethics Commissioner
The Role of Tim Murphy
Stronach: “Peterson called Tim Murphy, Martin’s chief of staff, to explore Stronach’s welcome if she crossed the floor. . . . Murphy was to speak only to the PM.
--“The Belinda Stronach Defense,” Toronto Life, February 2006
Grewal: “The Prime Minister also testified that he told Mr. Dosanjh to deal on this matter with Mr. Tim Murphy, his Chief of Staff, as he himself was occupied with preparations for the Royal visit.”
-- The Grewal-Dosanjh Inquiry (January 2006), Office of the Ethics Commissioner
*************************************
The Martin Liberals would have Canadians believe – and they certainly convinced Shapiro – that they were unwilling to offer cabinet seats or other appointments in exchange for the Grewals’ two votes. But as the Toronto Life piece confirms, they did exchange a cabinet portfolio for Stronach’s one vote, during the exact same period of time, in concurrent negotiations, both involving Tim Murphy negotiating on behalf of the PM. Though perhaps once they had Stronach’s vote secured by late Sunday or early Monday, enticing the Grewals became “gravy” and not crucial to surviving Thursday’s vote.
But Shapiro might have drawn different conclusions about the credibility of Tim Murphy and Ujjal Dosanjh, had he known the details of the Stronach defection.
On Taping MPs
As alluded to above, Shapiro noted in his report that, due to technical and translation difficulties (some of Grewal’s taped conversations were in Punjabi), and due to “strong objections by those parties represented by counsel” (whom Shapiro does not name), Shapiro based his conclusions on interviews with the parties and witnesses involved, not on anything recorded on the tapes.
As has been noted by Andrew Coyne, the only person reprimanded in Shapiro’s report is Grewal, for engaging in the “extremely inappropriate” behaviour of taping a fellow MP. Shapiro gives short shrift to Grewal’s reasons for doing so: “Mr. Grewal testified that earlier that day, he decided to purchase a new digital tape recorder to record his conversations. He spoke of a previous incident in which another Conservative Member of Parliament stated that he had been approached to accept an appointment but that the story was denied by the Liberals. Mr. Grewal indicated he did not want to be caught in the same predicament.”
Grewal was likely referring to MP Inky Mark, who earlier in May went public with the claim that the Liberals had tried to entice him to resign in exchange for an ambassadorship. In addition to dismissing Mark’s story, then-Liberal MP Reg Alcock declared: “Frankly, if I was going to recruit somebody, I’d go a little higher up the gene pool.”
I have it on good authority from a caucus source that, after the Liberals smeared Inky Mark, other Conservative MPs who had also been approached by the Liberals to cross the floor refused to go public with their stories.
"Lesser Evil" Footnote: An added dimension to this is that around the same time that the “Grewal Tapes” story was breaking last spring, it was also emerging that an individual central to exposing Watergate, known as “Deep Throat,” was former FBI second-in-command Mark Felt.
Strictly speaking, what Felt did was illegal: if he suspected wrongdoing in the White House he was obliged to report any evidence to the Justice Department. But he went to the media instead. Yet Felt is not regarded as an unscrupulous lawbreaker, but as a heroic whistleblower. He knowingly committed an impropriety to expose a larger one. Did Gurmant Grewal do any worse?
Bono reworks “Vertigo” lyrics to console Martin (I am making this up.)
N.B. Right-wing computer geeks intercepted this Blackberry message to Paul Martin from U2 front man Bono:
From: Bono
To: Paul Martin
Subject: (none)
Date: Tues. 24 Jan 2006 03:08 GMT
Paul, didn’t I warn you you’d better commit 0.7 per cent of your GDP to foreign aid? When I wrote “give me what I want, and no one gets hurt,” who do you think I was talking to – the Liberian shipping registrar?
Sorry man, that’s just my Irish humour. Bummer about the election. Here are some words to cheer you up until we can get together for a pint. You can still afford to pay, right? ;-)
Good day, good day
You’re in a place called Stornoway
The voters saw that you had feet of clay
So you’re
Gonna live here
For now
Until you’re replaced.
Chin up, mate! Talk to you soon.
From: Bono
To: Paul Martin
Subject: (none)
Date: Tues. 24 Jan 2006 03:08 GMT
Paul, didn’t I warn you you’d better commit 0.7 per cent of your GDP to foreign aid? When I wrote “give me what I want, and no one gets hurt,” who do you think I was talking to – the Liberian shipping registrar?
Sorry man, that’s just my Irish humour. Bummer about the election. Here are some words to cheer you up until we can get together for a pint. You can still afford to pay, right? ;-)
Good day, good day
You’re in a place called Stornoway
The voters saw that you had feet of clay
So you’re
Gonna live here
For now
Until you’re replaced.
Chin up, mate! Talk to you soon.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
"When I make a mistake, it's a beaut!"
So said late New York City mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, and now I can say it. Last week, I speculated that the CBC's "Campaign Confidential" insider was ubiquitous Liberal ass-kicker Warren Kinsella. Given that the CBC's The National revealed the insider's identity last night, I must now "be a man" and admit I was wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Turns out CC was Liberal-turned-Reformer Rick Anderson, who shares little in common with Kinsella, other than both having served at one time as nemeses of a sort to Stockwell Day.
There are a couple of references to Anderson in the William Johnson biography of Stephen Harper (which I recommend, especially to those still operating under the delusion that Harper is a social conservative). Anderson was brought into the Reform Party in the early 90s by then-leader Preston Manning for his experience and familiarity with Ottawa, gleaned from his work as manager of the Ottawa office of Hill & Knowlton:
Johnson adds that Flanagan also retreated, returning to full-time teaching in January 1993. Ironically, "professionalizing" – for lack of a better term – the structure and operations of the Canadian Alliance was a key plank of Harper's platform when he ran for the party's leadership against Stockwell Day in 2002. I think it is fair to say that he succeeded, both with the Alliance and subsequently as leader of the Conservatives.
Turns out CC was Liberal-turned-Reformer Rick Anderson, who shares little in common with Kinsella, other than both having served at one time as nemeses of a sort to Stockwell Day.
There are a couple of references to Anderson in the William Johnson biography of Stephen Harper (which I recommend, especially to those still operating under the delusion that Harper is a social conservative). Anderson was brought into the Reform Party in the early 90s by then-leader Preston Manning for his experience and familiarity with Ottawa, gleaned from his work as manager of the Ottawa office of Hill & Knowlton:
There was shock among the upper echelons of the Reform Party when Anderson publicly endorsed the Charlottetown Accord in 1992. Johnson quotes Tom Flanagan:As early as April 1992, [Anderson] advised Manning not to oppose any constitutional deal that might be forthcoming because, he said, 'the country is bone-tired of the constitutional process.' Anderson also had little objection to official bilingualism in its present form . . . .
Most importantly, Anderson rejected the strategy of the Party of the Right [Joan's note: Manning believed the Reform Party should grow by attracting disaffected voters from all parties; Harper believed it should work toward becoming a centre-right replacement for the PCs.] In his view, 'Canadian voters are ideological only in the broadest sense; they eschew ideological purity and prefer practicality on virtually all specific issues.'
Rick Anderson was the antithesis of Stephen Harper . . . His growing influence over Manning went back to a debate within the party: Should they become more professional in their approach to politics? . . . In 1991, after the breakthrough in Ontario, the Reform Party had started taking on political pros. Rick Anderson, engaged as a consultant in September 1991, was the one who emerged over time as Manning's chief strategist, replacing Stephen Harper.
"The few who knew the truth abut Manning's early wavering on the referendum saw the Anderson affair as further evidence that Manning's populism, combined with Anderson's advice, was leading him to depart from the Reform agenda. This was the last straw for Stephen Harper. Although he decided to continue with his candidacy in Calgary West and not to raise a public challenge against Manning, he withdrew from national office activities."
Johnson adds that Flanagan also retreated, returning to full-time teaching in January 1993. Ironically, "professionalizing" – for lack of a better term – the structure and operations of the Canadian Alliance was a key plank of Harper's platform when he ran for the party's leadership against Stockwell Day in 2002. I think it is fair to say that he succeeded, both with the Alliance and subsequently as leader of the Conservatives.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
JuggerNot
In the days, weeks and months ahead, minds that are bigger and better-informed than mine will spin out their theories and analysis about what happened to the 200-seat Martin Juggernaut of 2002. The best theory I have to offer in that vein is this: Martin gave away his best hope for detaching himself from the Chrétien years, when Chrétien called Martin’s leadership bluff and Martin acquiesced to running in the 2000 election.
The only reason Chrétien sought a third mandate was to frustrate Martin’s ambitions. That decision crystallized when it emerged on the eve of the March 2000 convention in Ottawa, that a meeting of Martin’s leadership organizers had taken place days before at a Toronto airport hotel. An excerpt from Jason Moscovitz’s story for CBC's The National, as recounted in Toronto Star reporter Susan Delacourt’s book Juggernaut: Paul Martin’s Campaign for Chrétien’s Crown:
Delacourt then recounts the Chrétiens’ reaction to the CBC report:
The only reason Chrétien sought a third mandate was to frustrate Martin’s ambitions. That decision crystallized when it emerged on the eve of the March 2000 convention in Ottawa, that a meeting of Martin’s leadership organizers had taken place days before at a Toronto airport hotel. An excerpt from Jason Moscovitz’s story for CBC's The National, as recounted in Toronto Star reporter Susan Delacourt’s book Juggernaut: Paul Martin’s Campaign for Chrétien’s Crown:
CBC News has found out that there was a meeting at this airport hotel in Toronto last Friday. Close to twenty-five MPs met with key Martin advisers to discuss leadership strategy. . . . At the meeting [David] Herle provided polling information on how Martin would outperform Chrétien in Quebec, as well as in Western Canada in the next election. . . . As for the twenty to twenty-five MPs, they expressed the following concerns: Martin could quit if Chrétien stayed. Some could lose their seats if Chrétien stayed.
Delacourt then recounts the Chrétiens’ reaction to the CBC report:
And at 24 Sussex Drive, Jean Chrétien was watching the news too. Francie Ducros had received a heads-up about the item when she was called for comment an hour before it went on the air. Aline Chrétien was in the room with her husband. Here it was, all the proof they needed of Martin’s treachery. Aline clenched her hand into a fist and uttered three simple words: “Four more years.”
The signal image of the Ottawa convention was a flustered Martin denying any leadership organizing, and escaping further media questions by starting down a set of escalators. Some reporters gamely followed, stretching out the never-flattering spectacle of a politician running away from the media. That set of escalators at the Westin/convention centre goes down only three stories, yet it was just the beginning of Martin’s descent.
I felt sure that in light of all this, Martin would refuse to patiently lend his credibility and popularity to another Chrétien grab for glory. Hence, I was baffled when he lined up to have his ticket punched a third time.
Now I understand why: Martin’s time as PM showed that he lacks decisiveness, audacity and is risk-averse (except when in danger of losing – then he’s willing to say or do anything!). Martin wasn’t prepared to take the heat for abandoning Liberals in 2000, despite the growing tensions between him and Chrétien. Neither did he want to abandon his caucus followers. (Chrétien, on the other hand, may have been a tad thuggish, but you could never accuse the man of lacking cojones.)
Chrétien was able to exploit Martin’s popularity in Quebec for another majority, but what Martin got out of it was an industrial-strength bond between himself and the Chrétien years. By the time of the passive-aggressive games that led up to Martin's "firing" in the summer of 2002, it was too late to establish an identity separate from the Chrétien years. At the time, the Martin people may have thought that the manner of Martin's ejection had safely ejected him a good distance from Chrétien. But today, who even remembers that Martin was a backbencher for over a year?
In my mind’s eye, I can’t help but contrast Martin and Chrétien in that French campaign commercial where they’re waving to kids, with Martin’s explanation for being unaware of sponsorship shenanigans, at a news conference after the Auditor-General report on the sponsorship program was released in February 2004: “It is no secret that I did not have an easy relationship with those around the former prime minister. . . . my advice was not routinely sought on issues related to Quebec.”
So, just to be helpful, below is a series of 2002-2004 prognostications, from various pollsters, professors and pundits, anticipating the Martin onslaught and cowering appropriately. Keep in mind, however, that all of these were made before the worst Auditor-General and Gomery revelations (February 2004 and April 2005, respectively), and most were prior to the PC/Alliance merger. That merger may be the only true legacy of the Martin Juggernaut, a ghost ship that never was.
Martin Juggernaut, we hardly knew ye . . .
(Sorry, there are no quotes from the Globe or Sun Media due to database limitations and, er, laziness.)
Perhaps more than anywhere else in the country, voters in the province have been waiting for Jean Chrétien to retire so their favourite federal Liberal can take over.
Jean-Herman Guay, a professor of political science at the Universite de Sherbrooke, said during an interview yesterday that a change in leadership could be enough to restore the Liberal domination over Quebec that disappeared with Brian Mulroney’s arrival on the federal scene.
“I think that with a new face, the Liberal Party could recapture its hegemony. It used to be that this, not Ontario, was the Liberals’ province,” he said.
--National Post, February 12, 2002
Edmonton Ellerslie MLA Debby Carlson, an active federal Liberal, said Chrétien has weakened his own position by attacking Martin. “It undermines the ability of the prime minister to do his job. I’m looking forward to a federal leadership review.”
Carlson said the Liberals could win six to eight seats across Northern Alberta in the next federal election, with Martin as leader. The Liberals now hold two Edmonton ridings.
--Edmonton Journal, June 2, 2002
The poll, conducted for The Gazette this week by SOM Recherches et Sondages, found that if an election were to be held today, the Liberals under Martin would win a whopping 60.5 per cent of the popular vote in Quebec. Under Chrétien, they would take 33.8 per cent.
If Martin were leader, the Liberal Party would decimate the Bloc Quebecois (which the survey showed would take 20.8 per cent), and would probably steamroll to the largest majority in the province since Brian Mulroney won 63 of 75 seats in 1988.
--Edmonton Journal, June 8, 2003
According to public opinion polled in the immediate aftermath of the extraordinary unpleasantness in Chicoutimi, voters so enthusiastically endorse Jean Chrétien’s departure and his assumed, if delayed, replacement by Martin that Liberals are again the first choice in every region from coast to coast. In that wonderfully shopworn phrase, if an election were held tomorrow Liberals, who won three consecutive majorities with Jean Chrétien, would grab more than 200 seats as they sweep the country behind Martin.
--James Travers, Toronto Star, August 27, 2002
As things stand now, only the Liberals are in contention for the Bloc seats. With Paul Martin as their leader, they figure they can expect to win most of Quebec’s 75 seats. If the Liberals achieve their goal, their re-established dominance of Quebec would allow them to offset any losses in Ontario in the future.
--Chantal Hebert, Toronto Star, September 2, 2002
Paul Martin spoke as if he were already prime minister in an emotional, campaign-style speech Saturday night that rallied Liberal supporters with hope of big ballot-box gains.
“It’s not only a question of us coming out of Western Canada with a large number of seats,” the Liberal leadership front-runner told about 450 of the party faithful at a $100-a-plate dinner.
“It’s not only a question of us coming out with seats in Winnipeg, in Regina and Edmonton and Vancouver,” he said before receiving a standing ovation. He said he wants to make sure the Liberals elect MPs in rural areas such as Drayton Valley, across the four western provinces.
The Liberal message must be that all of Western Canada will be at the table, he said.
“I don’t believe that we will ever have as good a chance as we will have at the next election. The Alliance is going nowhere.”
--Edmonton Journal, May 4, 2003
Even Chrétien was a believer – or was he?
As his rival Paul Martin listened politely, Chrétien told the crowd his legacy ensures Liberals will sweep Quebec in the next federal election. “As leader of the party, I can say that everything is in place for my successor to win a large majority of seats in Quebec at the next general election,” the Prime Minister told the Liberals, who paid at least $500 each to attend the fundraising banquet. “I would say at least 60 seats.” There are 75 seats in Quebec.
--Toronto Star, May 15, 2003
As well, the next election will not just see yet another Liberal victory but, as well, certainly a large Liberal majority as a result of the combination of the proven appeal of Paul Martin and of a couple of dozen seats in Quebec waiting to be snapped up from the now lifeless grasp of the Bloc Quebecois.
--Richard Gwyn, Toronto Star, June 4, 2003
Rod Love, Stockwell Day’s sometime campaign manager, doesn’t think so. He predicted recently that the Liberals under Paul Martin will win about 220 seats in the next federal election; the handful of seats left over will be split about evenly between the NDP and the Alliance. The federal PCs, Love says, will be wiped out.
--Ian Hunter, National Post, June 26, 2003
The federal Liberals are poised to grab up to eight seats in Saskatchewan in the next election, predicts a senior party official. Provincial party president Greg Gallagher said he’s noticed a marked change in the attitude toward the federal government.
--Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, July 15, 2003
Liberal president Stephen LeDrew calls the membership level a party record and says it bodes well for the Grits in the next election, likely the spring of 2004. In particular, he noted the significant gains in B.C. are bad news for the Canadian Alliance, which currently holds 26 of the province’s 34 seats. The Liberals have six and the NDP, two.
“The Liberal party stands poised to gain support in British Columbia in the next election. As far as the Alliance is concerned, it shows that they probably shouldn’t be taking the summer off. If the Alliance is getting the pulse of their membership in B.C., it should be rapidly quickening because we’re on the move,” said LeDrew.
--Vancouver Sun, July 25, 2003
Up to now, Martin has been all things to all people, right and left, federalist and accommodationist, nationalist and continentalist, social reformer and fiscal conservative. But the more Alberta Premier Ralph Klein cheers his view of interprovincial relations, the more Corporate Canada applauds his commitment to lower taxes, the more Martin appears to waffle on Kyoto, gay marriage and social spending, the more he looks like a conservative.
While this will help him in western Canada, where the Canadian Alliance could lose 20 seats, it could hurt him in Ontario and Atlantic Canada, where a rejuvenated New Democratic Party could draw disaffected Liberals.
In fact, if the right doesn’t unite, the NDP could become the official Opposition.
--Andrew Cohen, Edmonton Journal, September 23, 2003
[Joan’s note: Okay, this is a weak quote, but after Cohen’s trashing of Harper during the campaign, I couldn’t resist!]
It has also never seemed more natural for Quebecers to abandon the federal Tories for the Liberal family since Charest blazed that particular trail. On that score, Paul Martin’s arrival as Liberal leader will amount to the final nail in the Quebec Tory coffin.
--Chantal Hebert, Toronto Star, September 26, 2003
Martin could make up for any potential Ontario loss in Quebec. But that would involve a shift of sorts in his strategic thinking. So far, his brain trust has treated Quebec as the icing on his election cake. But if the Tories and the Alliance carried out a successful merger, Quebec could become the bread and butter of a Martin majority.
--Chantal Hebert, Toronto Star, September 29, 2003
A Liberal party led by Paul Martin, with his right-of-centre economic message, will be a contender in the West and could win several extra seats. And the New Democratic Party, under its new leader, the charismatic Jack Layton, could pick up a few more seats in Atlantic Canada, Ontario and even British Columbia.
The next election is thus shaping up as a nightmare for both Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay -- their “mutual assured destruction” in the words of Don Martin, a columnist with the National Post.
--Editorial, Vancouver Sun, October 1, 2003
Yet even using a new leader and a new name, merger math does not necessarily add up to great things for this hybrid. Simply taking any riding where the combined Alliance and Conservative vote exceeds the 2000 Liberal result (and there are 25 in Ontario alone) does not automatically equal a right-wing win.
Polling shows many Tories would rather vote Liberal than anything resembling the Alliance and Martin will have much longer Liberal coat-tails to win new seats in 2004 than Jean Chrétien had in 2000.
--Don Martin, National Post, October 16, 2003
[Joan’s Note: PC/Alliance merger agreement announced October 16, 2003. All quotes from here on are subsequent to that event.]
The advent of a new Conservative party may dampen the already uncertain Liberal prospects for growth in western Canada. It could make Ontario more competitive than it has been in years.
But the one place where it will have little or no impact in the upcoming campaign is Quebec. If there is one region Martin can count on to make up for losses elsewhere in Canada, it is his home province.--Chantal Hebert, Toronto Star, October 20, 2003
Liberals are energized under their new leader, Paul Martin, and the party is ready to win more seats in Alberta, where they now hold only two of 26 ridings, federal Health Minister Anne McLellan said Saturday.
“Our prospects in Alberta look as good as they have in a long time,” the Edmonton West MP said in a phone interview from the Liberal convention in Toronto, where Martin won the leadership Friday night.
--Edmonton Journal, November 16, 2003
The merger of Canada’s two right-wing parties has so far failed to make a dent in the overwhelming popular support for Paul Martin’s Liberals, according to a new poll.
The Compas/National Post poll, conducted last week, found 49% of voters support the Liberals, compared with 19% for the new Conservative Party of Canada.
Heading into a leadership convention next month, the Conservatives are barely ahead of the New Democratic Party, which under leader Jack Layton has edged up to 17% support, the poll found.
“The Liberals are headed for a landslide in the next federal election, if this holds up,” Conrad Winn, the president of Compas Inc., said yesterday. “The public is clearly comfortable with Mr. Martin and with the party.”
A previous poll, taken six weeks earlier, also suggested the new party is less popular than the former Tory and Canadian Alliance parties combined.
That survey, by JMCK Polling of Calgary, placed the Liberals at 42.8%, the Conservatives at 17.5%, the NDP at 12.6% and the Bloc at 8.1%. Two months earlier, the Alliance registered 16% and the Tories 11.2% in a JMCK poll.
In October, a Compas poll put the Liberals under Mr. Martin at 50%, compared with 14% for the Conservatives and 10% for the Alliance. The NDP was at 14% and the Bloc at 9%.
That poll also suggested that against a united conservative party, Liberal support could drop as low as 46%, while the new Conservatives would pull in 29%.
--National Post, February 2, 2004
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Will Graceless
I'm a Canadian, and this is my American dream."
--Actor Eric McCormack, accepting best actor Emmy for Will & Grace, November 4, 2001
"McCormack says he hears 'horrible, horrible things about a Conservtive government coming. If I can get back and vote, I would.'"
--"Ex-pat stars fear Tories," Toronto Sun, yesterday
Over the years, many Canadian actors and musicians have gravitated to the United States' large entertainment industry in search of work and, if they're lucky, fame and fortune. Yet once they have achieved success in the freest, most capitalist country in human history, many of them have an epiphany and realize that America is actually a cesspool of poverty, religious fanaticism and military aggression. They then conclude that they would very much like to vote for Al Gore or John Kerry so America can become more like the Canada they left because they didn't know the right people at the CBC.
Some of the Canadians who have undergone this intellectual awakening include music producer David Foster, Michael J. Fox, Jim Carrey, Alanis Morissette and her fiance Ryan Reynolds. Margot Kidder, after living in the States for many years, was inspired by her anger at the Bush administration to apply for American citizenship last year. Unfortunately, because of the 22nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, she won't be able to actually vote against Bush (well, not in 2008 anyway).
These artists leave behind their Canadian citizenship, swear allegiance to the Evil Empire, and proudly add another vote to the Democrats' tally in New York or California -- if they make the time to vote. But they are always emphatic when visiting Canada or speaking to Canadian media that they regard Canada as their real home (no need to burn all one's bridges -- someday there may be different people at the CBC).
From the hysteria apparent in McCormack's comments, it seems that he may one day take the oath as Foster, Fox, and Carrey have done. Farewell, Eric! But if you had really wanted to vote, you could have done so by Special Ballot through Elections Canada.
Election Day Note: I will not be blogging on election day as I will be working to get out the vote for York-Simcoe MP Peter Van Loan. If the results are announced at a decent hour, I will be posting afterward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)