Monthly Archive: December 2005

Paul Martin said a number of PMO people needed to know the details of the income trust taxation decision ahead of time.

I wondered just who really needed to know, since it seems like too many people knew.

On the question of who needed to know, a former PMO staffer got in touch with me with some insights:

Paul Martin is telling the truth, somewhat.

PMO coordinates two things: communications and policy. So Scott Reid would have needed to know, so that Goodale's press conference was not taking place at the same time as some other announcement. And the policy shop would have needed to know, so it did not contradict some overall government priority, etc. So those things are true.

But what he does not address is this: this was a matter of tax policy that had huge market implications. Those things are treated with budget-level secrecy. And, here, we know that was not the case -- junior staff were running around spouting off well before the press conference. Hell, John McKay went on TV to say what the tax policy was (and got it wrong)! It was madness.

We have the solid example from CTV of the call to CARP from Ralph Goodale's office that happened before the announcement.

Even if the leak was inadvertant, the whole thing was handled in a haphazard way. Which begs the question why should the Liberals be trusted with levers of government.

When information is classified as "need to know", it means that you will be told the information if you require the information to do your job.

I used to work on military systems, and "need to know" had a very straightforward definition. Can you do your job without knowing that information? If the answer is "yes", you don't need to know.

I knew stuff my managers didn't know. I needed to know in order to write the software. They didn't need to know because they cared about schedules and all they needed to do their job was a progress report from me. It all made sense to us.

Paul Martin invoked that phrase when he explained why he was told of the decision not to tax income trusts well ahead of the announcement:

"I knew and I'm one of them. The fact is, that the people who would be on a need-to-know basis would have that information," said Martin.

I would be interested to know who in the PMO would need to know this piece of tax policy ahead of time, and why exactly? What part of their job could they not perform without having that knowledge well ahead of time?

Heck, why would Paul Martin need to know? I can't think of a reason, actually.

Maybe a speechwriter would need a heads up to help prepare a speech. But if you were serious about compartmentalizing the information to avoid these sorts of problems, you would simply have your speechwriter prepare two speeches -- one to explain why income trusts needed to be taxed, and one to announce that they would not.

The concept of "need to know" is really quite simple. What would you have done differently today had you known about the decision not to tax income trusts versus what you normally would have done?

If the only thing you can think of if that you would not have placed one or more phone calls to some friends of yours on Bay Street, then you really didn't need to know.

Now how hard is it to say, "No, I didn't do it"?

For Paul Martin, apparently he'll pull a muscle than answer with a simple "No".

The Conservative Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on the effect on the Liberal Party:

>>>Income Trust Scandal Rocks Liberals<<<

The NDP website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on what the NDP sees as Ralph Goodale's imminent resignation:

>>>When will he step aside? Ralph watch: 2 days<<<

The Liberal Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on Ralph Goodale's innate honesty:

>>> <*cough* *cough*><<<

Take two!

The Liberal Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on the lack of solid evidence:

>>> <*cough* *cough*><<<

Take three!

The Liberal Party website is headlining the Income Trust Scandal, focusing on the way the opposition parties have blown this out of proportion:

>>> <*cough* *cough*><<<

OK, the Liberal Party website has remain completely unchanged. Frozen in time from December 24. Even Scott Feschuk's blog has not been updated in days.

Why does this matter? The party website is a means to get a message out without the selective filtering of the main stream media. On any major issue, and the Income Trust Scandal certainly counts, the party has to explain to its supporters (and to the curious visitor) their side of the story.

So what can we make of the fact that the Liberals are entirely silent via the website?

One possible reason is that the Liberals are keeping to the promise not to campaign through the Christmas break, and that includes updating the website. I don't buy it. First, Paul Martin has been electioneering in Montreal. Second, the scandal is just too important, especially to leave the Conservative and NDP attacks unanswered.

Perhaps a faction that believes that ignoring the problem means it will go away in a couple of days. I happen to think that strategy will fail, but besides my opinion, Paul Martin has been telling reporters that he stands by his minister, and Ralph Goodale has been saying there was no leak. If this faction was running the show, Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale would both be saying something along the lines that no comment should be made until the RCMP delivers its findings.

I think this silence reflects the confusion within the Liberal Party itself. At the highest levels, or so it is rumoured, the strategists are at odds about what to do. What to do about Goodale. What to do about the press. What do to about the opposition.

What to do about a campaign that seems to have come apart at the seams.

Until they can decide on a strategy and can craft a message, the Liberals will have no message to deliver. That leaves the field open to the Conservatives and the NDP to frame the debate. In the meantime, I will continue to watch the website. When it updates, it will be the first clue, and perhaps the best clue, to tell us who is running the show now.

In the meantime, the lack of official reaction does not reflect well on the ability of Paul Martin's Liberals to lead in a crisis.

Look at the regional breakdown in the SES CPAC nightly polling numbers from December 28 to December 29, the time period over which the Income Trust Scandal blew wide open:

Atlantic Canada: The Liberals drop stay steady at 42, while the Conservatives poll into a tie, going from 37 to 42, picking up support at the expense of the NDP, who went from 17 to 13. Undecided went up from 17 to 19, suggesting a lot of folks are reconsidering their support, which can only be good news for the Conservatives under the circumstances.

Quebec: The BQ maintains a lock at 53, while Liberals jitter at 30 to 31 points support. Frankly, it's hard to imagine the numbers getting any worse for the Liberals in Quebec.

Ontario: The Liberals drop from 46 to 44, while the Conservatives move up from 35 to 37, and the NDP from 14 to 15. Definite motion in the right direction for the Conservatives.

Western Canada: The Liberals tumble from 34 to 29, and the Conservatives continue to pull away, moving from 43 to 47.

And the leadership indicators, which before this week was where the Liberals maintained a constant lead. Not anymore:

Trust: Martin plummets from 25 to 15, Harper moves slightly from 19 to 20, and undecided leaps from 12 to 16, suggesting an opportunity to change minds.

Competence: Martin actually has a bit of good news, moving from 25 to 27, but Harper gains more, from 18 to 21, which is interesting since there is no way to judge Harper's competence as PM.

Vision: Another massive hit for Martin, losing one third of his strength here, going from 30 to 20. Like before, Harper stays essentially unchanged (23 to 24) while undecided jumps from 15 to 21. Another group of people taking a serious second look at their preconceptions.

Leadership Index Score: This is an overall measure, asking the respondent to consider who would be the best PM, and it suggests that Paul Martin has a serious problem. His score crashes from 80 to 62, while Stephen Harper continues to climb slowly but surely, going from 60 to 65.

Harper actually beats Martin when an overall perception of leadership is measured.

The various polls for support seem to have been stuck since the beginning of the campaign. What we haven't noticed is that a combination of a positive issues-oriented Conservative campaign combined with a negative and reactive Liberal campaign marked with gaffes and now a huge scandal have acted on Canadians to thaw attitudes that have been frozen for years.

My understanding is that a thaw, especially a precipitous one, can lead to a flood. Or so I've heard.

The Conservatives roar up the polls.

See Bourque for the latest:

So what does this mean? My prediction is that the hard-core will take over the Liberal war room. Voices of moderation, undermined by yet another ethics scandal, will fade into the background, or leave the organization altogether.

The hard-core will argue that if the attack had started already, the Liberals wouldn't be in this pickle. It doesn't make sense, but then there will be no one left to argue with them. Given free rein to win this election at any cost, we can expect things not just to get nasty, which everyone expected, but downright vicious.

Besides the obvious targets, the Conservatives and the NDP (and their friends and family), expect the media to feel the pressure. Behind the scenes probably, with editors getting calls warning them of dire consequences for access after the Liberals win in January if they don't play ball right now.

Bloggers, too, might have to worry. Given that blogging is new, it's hard to say what the Liberals will do. There are some obvious targets, like Warren Kinsella, but the rest of us have no access with which to form a credible threat. Perhaps they are planning punitive legislation to gag bloggers to be introduced after the Liberals win?

But I could be wrong.

I wonder if we'll find out that there are two types of traders at the Toronto Stock Exchange.

The first group will demand that TSX CEO Richard Nesbitt resign until such time as the questions surrounding his suspicious purchase of thousands of income trust fund units just before the Goodale announcement are resolved.

The second group will insist that no investigation is necessary, that there's nothing to see here, and we should just carry on with our business as before.

It's the second group we should be looking at.

More inside dirt at Bourque about the tremors being felt within the highest levels of the Liberal Party election team in the wake of the Income Trust Scandal bombshell:

According to insiders well-placed to understand the nuances within Martin's braintrust, Bourque has also learned that key campaign personnel are at risk of being replaced in an increasingly desperate attempt to maintain control of the public agenda, and more importantly, the key messaging that is driving this election.

Uh-oh. Desperation? Replacements? Need for new messaging?

The message is crafted by the Communications Director, in this case, Scott Reid.

You remember Scott Reid? He got reamed for suggesting on national television that Canadian parents can't be trusted with money to spend on childcare because they were likely to spend it on beer and popcorn.

He hasn't been heard from since.

And now the Income Trust grenade and a need to "maintain control of the...key messaging."

If I was Scott Reid, I'd be worried.

In the case of the Income Trust Scandal, the focus has been on Ralph Goodale and his office.

Senior Ottawa Liberals are telling me the focus is misplaced.

First, check out these quotes captured from the CTV newscast tonight at M K Braaten:

• Don Drummond, VP/Chief Economist: CTV said that Drummond told them he first heard about the announcement via email, 4 hours in advance of announcement. Also, stated that Liberal strategists in Ottawa were the source of email. CTV quoted Drummond as saying "Alot of people seemed to know there was an announcement coming and a few people seemed to know what it was."
• Jim Leech, Teachers pension fund - CTV said that Leech received emails at about 2 pm stating that the announcement was guaranteed. CTV Quoted Leech "I got a bunch of emails around 2pm saying for sure Goodale was making an announcement after the close."
• Sandy Mcintyre, Sentry Select Capital: CTV reported he sent the following email: "There is a strong rumor out of Ottwa that Goodale is going to pronounce after the close today his trust solution…hope my sources are right!" Mcintyre said his sources were quoting 'well connected Liberals'.

Note that the source is ill-defined. Just well-connected Liberals.

Not well-connected finance ministry officials.

Just well-connected Liberals.

Recall that Ralph Goodale's original plan was to announce the decision in January. Suddenly the timeline was moved up. By Ralph Goodale?

Mr. Goodale said in September that the government would consult with a variety of industry and stock market players before announcing any policy change. Industry observers immediately began speculating that the government might consider reducing taxes on corporate dividends as a way of levelling the playing field with income trusts.

On Tuesday, Nov. 22, Mr. Goodale indicated that he would provide direction on the income trust issue because of the impending collapse of the government, effectively ending the consultation process. That night, department officials began discussing the possibility of taxing income trust, sources have said.

The next day, Mr. Goodale's office confirmed that he would be making an announcement and just moments before his scheduled news conference, his parliamentary secretary, Toronto MP John McKay, gave a television interview suggesting the government planned to levy a modest tax on income trusts. Shortly after 5 p.m., Mr. Goodale said there would be no tax on income trusts and that dividend tax credits would be increased starting in 2006.

Pat Breton, a spokesman for Mr. Goodale, said yesterday that Finance officials met on the night of Nov. 22 for two or three hours and came up with the plan that became the next day's announcement on income trusts. He also said that the Prime Minister's Office was told after that Nov. 22 meeting — either later that night, or the next day — about the decision. The policy development was “entirely an internal Finance” effort, he added.

However the media is reporting today that the focus is starting to shift (via Bourque):

Aides to the Prime Minister were told about a taxation change for income trusts "some time immediately before" Mr. Goodale made the announcement after markets had closed on Nov. 23, Pat Breton, a spokesman for Mr. Goodale, said yesterday.

While it is not unusual for the PMO to be informed of high-profile policy announcements, this indicates that the list of officials who had advance knowledge of the pending change went beyond the Finance Department and Mr. Goodale's office.

Well, I know some well-connected Liberals as well, and they've let me know what really happened. As reported in the Globe and Mail, Paul Martin's aides are insisting that Paul Martin was told "some time immediately before" November 23.

It's getting closer to the truth, but still not quite there. It has the date wrong. It also has the direction of the decision-making reversed.

The decision to close of the consultations and deliver the good news not to tax income trusts, probably in response to an election campaign that imminent, was made not by Ralph Goodale, who by all accounts is too honest to be making decisions like this based on election calculations, and who intended to stick to his timetable of accepting submissions on tax policy until December 31. It was not an entirely internal effort, as spokesperson Pat Breton insists. The major decisions were being taken outside of the finance department.

The decision was made by Paul Martin himself.

Paul Martin told Ralph Goodale on Friday, November 18 to bring the consultations to a close and to make an announcement on income tax trusts.

Paul Martin and his immediate PMO staff would have known for five days prior to the announcement how the decision was shaping up.

Paul Martin and his staff were dictating the pace of the work, and possibly the decision itself.

Paul Martin and his immediate PMO staff are as likely suspects as the source for the leak as Ralph Goodale and his office.

When Ralph Goodale stresses that Paul Martin knew nothing, you know he's trying a bit too hard to deflect attention from where the attention should be.

When I read about John McKay's flub on November 23, I wonder whether the finance department was really in the loop. It helps explain McKay's confusion if the PMO was more deeply involved in the decision making.

Where you see Paul Martin standing by Ralph Goodale, I see Paul Martin standing behind Ralph Goodale, keeping him up front and centre not out of a commitment to his minister and a firm belief in his basic honesty and his innocence, but in order to have a shield to hide behind.

Paul Martin made the call on Friday, November 18, not Ralph Goodale on November 22...that's the way it happened, or so well-connected Liberals are telling me.

Some Liberals believe they can ride out the scandal caused by the announcement of the RCMP investigating a potential leak from Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office to select traders willing to use inside information to turn a quick profit.

The reason? Christmas:

Liberals believe the fact that the criminal investigation was revealed in the dead zone between Christmas and New Year's Day, when few voters were paying attention, will save their electoral bacon.

"There is a God after all,'' chuckled one Liberal MP.

I know this unnamed MP was joking, but if any spiritual being has a hand in guiding the Liberal Party, I'd be willing to bet it isn't God.

But does he have a point about the timing? Is three days the shelf life of a scandal?

We'll all know next week, but I can tell you this. I've been in constant contact with a major Canadian on-air media personality with regards to the Income Trust Scandal, well before the events of this week. This person told me during one of our talks that if the main stream media has remained focused on this story during the lull between November 23 and this week, it was largely because the Canadian blogosphere would not let this story go.

Bloggers kept up the pressure, kept revealing new elements of the story, kept identifying new trusts with weird trading patterns, kept finding new links between particular funds and the Paul Martin Liberals.

Christmas comes and goes, but the bloggers are still here.

So I'll tie a string around my finger to remind me about the scandal. Hopefully next week, I won't have been distracted by bright shiny Liberal promises to spend my money wisely on my behalf.

And if bloggers are the string around the finger of the main stream media, then they won't have forgotten about the income trust scandal next week either.

For now, though, some main stream media journalists are doing an amazing job on this story.

No really. It's fishy. Like it's about fish.

Oh, and a half-million dollars handed to a Liberal Party lawyer for a non-competitive contract. That's not allowed by the rules, unless the situation is one of "extreme urgency".

What was so urgent? Apparently some salmon went missing, and there was no time to lose in researching the best bid. Indeed, the delivery of the money to this Liberal buddy took two hours days weeks months.

Two months? Extreme urgency? Salmon?

I told you it sounded fishy. Read the whole thing.

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives continue to reveal policy after policy, holding the title of the Party of Ideas and Personal Responsibility:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper today did what he admitted was a rarity for him — jumping off a city bus before announcing a plan to give transit riders a tax break.

Mr. Harper said his proposal would save the average Canadian transit user $153 a year. He said that should be enough to ease traffic congestion and pollution by moving people from their cars and onto buses, subway cars and commuter trains.

Harper's plan would allow holders of monthly transit passes to claim a 16-per-cent tax credit. Parents would also be able to claim the credit on behalf of dependent children.

The party decided to target monthly pass holders because it makes the credit easier to administer, he said.

"The idea here is to get people to shift to regular transit usage, particularly for transport to-and-from work or to-and-from education," said Mr. Harper, who acknowledged he hasn't taken public transit to work since he was a private citizen years ago in Toronto, Edmonton and Calgary.

So if you buy the odd ticket for the odd trip, you don't save. The plan is to encourage people to buy passes, which means that the person is encouraged to use transit in order to maximize the value earned from owning the pass in the first place.

Clever.

The standard approach is to hand over a big chuck of money to the transit authority, or maybe to the city and then to the transit authority, or maybe to the province which gives it to the city which gives it to the transit authority. One or more layers of bureaucracy leach away at the money.

And money to special interest groups, the Friends-of-Mass-Transit crowd, who will use the money to "encourage" mass transit, usually by using the money to fund lobbying for government decisions designed to make life more miserable for motorists.

For instance, in 2004, the Liberals handed the Canadian Urban Transit Association in Toronto almost $400,000. This is a transfer, not a contract for specific services, which means they are not subject to audits. And what do we get for $400,000? Well, this issue paper, for example, encouraging the government to raise gasoline taxes even higher, implement road tolls, use zoning to eliminate parking spaces, all "directed at creating a general understanding and acceptance of the importance of public transit among the people who won't use it."

In case you were wondering, the Canadian Automobile Association received no money from the government according to the 2003-2004 Public Accounts of Canada -- Transfer Payments. Its activities representing the interests of drivers were paid for entirely by drivers.

I feel a hankering for beer and popcorn coming over me. Oh save me, CUTA, for my own willfull blindess, even though there is no rapid transit between my house and my job that will take less than two hours for a one way trip. Will that earn me a break for high gasoline taxes, since I don't have a choice but to drive? Hell no. Instead, the Liberal government is handing my tax dollars over to CUTA so that CUTA can encourage the Liberal government to raise my taxes until I give up in desperation.

Again, the Conservative approach is to hand money, or in this case, the tax credit, directly to the individual citizen. We get to weigh the pros and cons of personal versus private transit on an individual basis, and make a decision whether to take advantage of the program.

The cost of the program grows or shrinks based on its popularity, but never costs more than exactly what it costs to run and fund it. No waste.

No middleman eager to pad his expense account with my money.

It's a direct contract between you, the taxpayer, and the government you've elected. Unelected and elitist organizations like CUTA and other organizations shouldn't be speaking on your behalf. They should speak on behalf of their members only, the various transit authorities that pay for CUTA's research and training services.

For those who make a living by finding ways to get government money and spending it on our behalf, this sort of thing must be infuriating.

Update: I've changed the post from "personal empowerment" to "personal responsibility". My readers have convinced me that it better captures the tone of the Conservative platform.

From the Globe and Mail:

Prime Minister Paul Martin said today Finance Minister Ralph Goodale will not resign because of the RCMP decision Wednesday to launch a criminal investigation into whether advance notice of Ottawa's plans for income trusts leaked from the federal Liberal government.

"He is a person of the greatest integrity, and he will not be stepping down," Mr. Martin said during a campaign photo op this morning.

I guess Goodale goes into the Scott Reid bucket of "keepers" and not the Mike Klander bucket of "losers".

Of course, from a purely partisan point of view, this is great news. The longer Ralph Goodale remains minister, the longer will the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc, and the media have a specific identifiable target for discussing the Income Trust Scandal.

You can't underestimate the value of putting a face on a story.

Of course, now we have a Paul Martin soundbite to go along with it, one that will get repeated in an ironic way if and when Ralph Goodale resigns:

"I have full confidence in Ralph Goodale. I believe that an investigation — as does he — will clear the air, including the allegation as to whether or not a leak actually took place."

Is Paul Martin going to go to the mat for Ralph Goodale. My gut says no, but I could be wrong. Clearly, Paul Martin is being supportive right now. But that might have less to do with confidence in Ralph Goodale and more to do with Paul Martin's penchant for dithering. He might be waiting for a poll to help guide his actions.

Still, Paul Martin has staked out a position. If the Income Trust Scandal story goes south for the Liberals, Paul Martin will pay a price if he's forced to change direction. He might come to regret not cauterizing the Goodale gash as soon as it happened.

The email I just received from the Liberal Party, with highlighting from the original:

Support a Winning Campaign!

The calendar year is coming to an end, but the election campaign is just getting started!

We want to thank you for your support to date and invite you to take advantage of a great tax credit opportunity.

December 31st is your last chance to donate to the Liberal Party of Canada for the 2005 tax year. Calculate your tax credit via our handy Tax Credit Calculator.

In order to ensure liberal values prevail through this hard fought election campaign, we will need to make every dollar count. Your donation is not only eligible for an exceptional tax credit, but will make a significant difference in the final three weeks leading up to Election Day.

We are only halfway through the campaign. We need your help before the clock strikes midnight on December 31st. Please give generously. And thanks!

Your Liberal Campaign Team

To my Liberal Campaign Team:

Gee, I'd like to give, but I spent all my disposable income on beer and popcorn. Because, as you know, I'm too stupid to know how to spend my own money.

From a poll on December 23, before Klander's Slander and the Income Trust Scandal bombshell:

For the first time since the federal election began, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has edged out Prime Minister Paul Martin on issues of leadership that are being tracked daily by a national public-opinion polling firm.

The poll also found Harper leading on the issue of vision for Canada at 25 points and Martin at 20. The prime minister edges out Harper on competence 27 to 23.

The overall leadership index score now has Harper in front with 71 points and Martin with 64 -- the first time the Conservative leader has scored higher than Martin since the SES-CPAC survey began on Dec. 1.

SES's Nik Nanos said Harper started the campaign 23 to 24 points behind Martin on the index.

Remember how the Liberals thought a long campaign would work in their favour. So far, not so good.

Of course, things could change.

And things have changed in the six days since this poll was taken.

Since then, Mike Klander insulted, well, just about everyone via his blog and was forced to resign.

Since then, the Conservatives unveiled a plan to give veterans, including aboriginal veterans, respect and support. This story got a lot of positive media attention.

Since then, the Liberals got a lot of attention as well, but not the positive kind. At the top of every newscast and headlining every newspaper is news that the Mounties are looking into allegations that someone inside of Ralph Goodale's office illegally leaked information about income trust taxation and allowed key traders to profit handsomely. All eyes are on Goodale, waiting for the resignation announcement.

A lot has happened in six days -- the six days when the campaign was supposed to go dormant for Christmas. Has the campaign tipped? Are this week's events just going to add to the momentum measured last week? When the campaign revs up, will the direction become apparent?

And if the Conservatives are starting to pull away, will Canadians ignore the Liberal call for an all out panic? The indications are that it won't work this time:

The survey also shows the Conservative leader closing in on Martin when Canadians are asked who would make the best prime minister. On that front, Martin leads by just three points at 28% to Harper's 25%.

Nanos said so far Harper seems more engaged and relaxed, improving his image, a vulnerability for the Tory leader when the campaign began.

"So, it's not surprising that the Liberals are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at them," said Nanos. "The Liberals still haven't found anything that will stick to Harper. The bogeyman argument, right now, doesn't have traction."

This will be an election for the history books.

Bet the Liberals and their supporters are furious at Jack Layton and the NDP for supporting Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party decision to hold an election now.

Remember, if we had followed the Liberal timetable, the election wouldn't have started for another couple of months, assuming Jean Chretien didn't succeed in getting the second Gomery Report delayed with his appeal to federal court. As it turns out, the Income Trust Scandal has exploded in the middle of the campaign, instead of being old news.

With that sort of fury gnawing at them, I wonder how difficult it is going to be for the Liberals put on a false smile and try to appeal to the NDP to support them against the Conservatives. And with the massive gash and uncontrolled hemorrhaging being suffered by the Liberals from the Income Trust Scandal blowing open, on top of Klander's slander and "beer and popcorn", how many NDP voters are reconsidering whether a vote for the Liberals is a strategic vote or a wasted one.

From the Conservative Party website:

“The Finance Minister has no choice but to tender his resignation,” said Conservative Finance Critic Monte Solberg. “This investigation confirms that there are reasonable grounds to suspect criminal wrongdoing in his department or office, and as minister he must accept responsibly. That’s how our system works.”

Solberg pointed out that the Conservative Party has consistently raised serious concerns about suspicious trading patterns of certain income trusts in the hours preceding his November 23rd policy announcement.

“Why has Mr. Goodale refused to take seriously the compelling evidence of a government leak that ended up benefiting privileged insiders?” Mr. Solberg asked. “Now basic principles of public ethics and ministerial responsibility require that he do the honourable thing and resign.”

Now read it again, with a few substitutions and additions here or there:

“The Finance Minister Prime Minister has no choice but to tender his resignation,” said Conservative Finance Critic Monte Solberg anyone with a brain. “This investigation confirms that there are reasonable grounds to suspect criminal wrongdoing in his department or office, and as minister in charge of Quebec under Jean Chretien as well as finance minister he must accept responsibly for exercising no oversight over $350 million in public funds. That’s how our system works.”

Solberg Any person with even a shred of intelligence pointed out that the Conservative Party has consistently raised serious concerns about suspicious trading patterns of certain income trusts in the hours preceding his November 23rd policy announcement the allocation of contracts to advertising firms in Quebec and about the official response to the conclusions of the Gomery Inquiry.

“Why has Mr. Goodale Mr. Martin refused to take seriously the compelling evidence of a conclusion of an inquiry confirming government leak manipulation of contracts that ended up benefiting privileged insiders Quebec advertising firms, and ultimately the Liberal Party itself?” Mr. Solberg every person giving this story only a few miniutes consideration asked. “Now basic principles of public ethics and ministerial responsibility require that he do the honourable thing and resign.”

Really, I'm not sure what the difference is. Ain't going to happen, of course.

Remember what I said about Ralph Goodale keeping his job? That it wasn't really up to him?

Even as we speak, Liberal Blackberries are alight. Many, I am certain, are carrying messages considering the consequences of cutting Ralph Goodale loose.

Cutting him from his privileges and responsibilites as Minister of Finance.

Maybe even cutting him out of the party altogether. Long odds for that one, I think.

But Ralph Goodale's future is not going to be determined by the RCMP, the OSC, or even by Ralph Goodale. It will be determined by Scott Reid, John Duffy, Cyrus Reporter, and others in the Liberal war room. These unelected lobbyists advising Paul Martin are interested in only one thing -- how to get the Liberals back in power and thus preserve their conduits to government influence and cash. If Ralph Goodale's troubles get in the way, he'll be out.

Bourque is carrying news that Goodale is likely to get the boot:

Bourque has learned that embattled Finance Minister Ralph Goodale is being pressured to give up his Cabinet seat for an indeterminate period of time, this in light of devastating news first revealed to the nation here yesterday that the RCMP has launched a criminal investigation into leaks from his department regarding rulings relating to the growing income trust scandal. According to senior sources inside the Paul Martin Liberal Party who spoke on condition of anonymity, "the official party posture is that Ralph didn't know anything and therefore shouldn't have to resign, but the public perception is devastating, it's killing us, and we need to move firmly to squelch the stink." Incredibly, Prime Minister Paul Martin has refused to comment publicly on news of the RCMP criminal probe, though it is understood that he has had a few choice words with key staff about this file.

Any guesses about what those choice words were?

Here are some ideas:

• "Do what needs to be done!"
• "All I'm saying is that we don't need this right now. That's all I'm saying."
• "Let me be perfectly clear..." [followed by an extended silence]
• "Boy, am I lucky they never caught on to any of my leaks when I was in charge of finance!"
• "Scott, what do I think? What should my opinion be on this? Where's the latest poll?!"
• "Will someone go tell Ralph to stop knocking on the door? Tell him we'll call him in when we're ready to tell him what his decision is going to be. Now read that part back about 'After careful consideration of my role as finance minister...' "
• "What a miserable and weary day. It would do well for a smile to cross my royal visage. Call the court jester! Call Feschuk!"
• "Ralph #%&@ Goodale! "

[CTV is now carrying this story, including the issue of the Chinese origins of the phrase.]

When BC Liberal Party President Jamie Elmhirst quoted Industry Minister David Emerson describing NDP Jack Layton, Elmhirst reported a very colourful turn of phrase:

Jack Layton had a great weekend in BC. First he managed to find something nice to say about Svend Robinson, although the performance struck me as a touch insincere, even for Jack Layton. How did Minister Emerson describe his style at our Convention dinner? Oh yes, he said that Jack Layton had a boiled dog's head smile. That would have made even me wince if I hadn't have been laughing so hard.

I thought he was being evocative with his imagery, and dismissed it. I was wrong. The phrase has much more meaning than what I expected.

Apparently the phrase is Chinese:

Saap Sook Gao Tao - boiled dog head - when you really happy and showing all your teeth all the time, you look like a dog head that's been boiled

But more interestingly, the phrase might also be rude, as opposed to being very descriptive.

During the Cultural Revolution, the phrase "rotten dog's head" (zalan goutou) became a popular insult.

But "boiled dog's head"? I found a reference that suggests it is an insult:

To the officer that was smiling at RPCNs for their disturbed look : "Your smile very ugly, like sup-suk-gao-tao (boiled dog head)."

And then that led me over to rabble.ca:

It's not just a Chinese saying, it's an extremely rude Chinese saying, and Emerson probably knew that, as his wife is Chinese.

She is Chinese:

David is married to Theresa Yeuk-Si Tang. Theresa came to Canada from Hong Kong in 1972 and worked for 15 years in the financial services industry.

I can't find independent evidence about how severe an insult this is. But if it is a base and vile insult in Chinese, and Emerson knew that, I might be convinced to reconsider what the right response to Emerson's comments about Layton is.

At least an apology. Maybe more. And maybe the people in the Chinese community would have an opinion about the sort of vile humour (if indeed it is that vile) is being lobbed about Liberal ministers.

From Liberal for Life:

I want Jack Layton to step down while the RCMP investigates his moustache
Wednesday, December 28, 2005

That's about as stupid an idea as asking Ralph Goodale to step down while the income trust affair is being investigated. Of course that's the way the opposition likes to do things, Guilty until proven innocent.

I should call up the RCMP under the false name Miguel Sanchez and tell them Stephen Harper and Monte Solberg have been running drugs for years. Then by their own logic they'd be forced to step down while the investigation takes place.

Please Canadians: buy a clue and vote the Liberals back to majority!

If after a review of the allegations, the Mounties found enough evidence to justify an official investigation of either Jack Layton's moustache, or of the drug running activities of Stephen Harper or Monte Solberg, then they should step down.

Duh.

But a review would conclude quickly that any such allegation is nonsense, and no investigation would be initiated. Unless it was an investigation of criminal mischief by Mr Sanchez.

The review of the income trust situation came to a very different conclusion.

It's not about the determination of guilt, or the presumption of innocence. The court of law provides for those. It's about earning, retaining, and protecting the public trust. Protecting the public trust even at the expense of your job.

Normally, I ignore the sort of non-thinking exhibited by Liberal for Life. But the announcement of an RCMP investigation is yet another blow to the Liberal campaign, and perhaps the biggest one so far. It's hard to imagine it getting any worse.

How does something like this affect the "true believer"? Someone who is an uncritical supporter, utterly unable to imagine the Liberal Party doing anything wrong, without it being a setup or a conspiracy, or blown out of proportion, or already fixed and thus a distraction from the "important" issues.

Well, we've just seen an example. It's not pretty.

For the more critical Liberal supporter, the response is more reasoned and more gloomy:

On The Bright Side...

...no one's going to be talking about Klander much.

This is HUGE. Martin will use the "can't comment on an RCMP investigation" line and I doubt we'll find out much else before voting day, but the mere fact that Goodale's office is being ivestigated [sic] is a massive blow to the Liberals. It's also an absolutely golden way for Harper to switch to "Phase 2" and the corruption issue which I've always assumed was his intention for the second half of the campaign.

That makes a lot more sense. Of course, the Liberal Party is better served, in the long term, by members of the second sort instead of the first. While the first can always be counted on for a donation and a vote, the second can be counted on for honesty.

If the Liberal Party is going to survive this unending stream of scandals and gaffes, they are going to have to find a way to fill their collective reserve of honesty, which seems to have gone dry quite some time ago.

The RCMP have opened a formal criminal investigation into an alleged leak from Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office in the hours before the formal announcement on income trust taxation.

The news tonight of that formal investigation has generated calls for Ralph Goodale's resignation.

Minister Goodale is refusing to step down:

The RCMP, said Goodale, "have said they are looking into this matter because of the seriousness of the allegation. They have, at the same time, said they have no information, no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of anyone - most particularly on my part - and quite frankly if I were to resign under those circumstances I believe I would only feed allegations that are out there in the context of a very political situation."

By refusing to resign, Ralph Goodale is going to act as a beacon attracting a barrage from the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois, aimed squarely at the issue of Liberal corruption.

Even as we speak, Liberal Blackberries are alight. Many, I am certain, are carrying messages considering the consequences of cutting Ralph Goodale loose.

Cutting him from his privileges and responsibilites as Minister of Finance.

Maybe even cutting him out of the party altogether. Long odds for that one, I think.

But Ralph Goodale's future is not going to be determined by the RCMP, the OSC, or even by Ralph Goodale. It will be determined by Scott Reid, John Duffy, Cyrus Reporter, and others in the Liberal war room. These unelected lobbyists advising Paul Martin are interested in only one thing -- how to get the Liberals back in power and thus preserve their conduits to government influence and cash. If Ralph Goodale's troubles get in the way, he'll be out.

Ralph Goodale is meeting all the expectations we have for a minister of the Crown, at least for an honourable member of the Liberal Party, who all seem to inhabit some kind of Bizarro world:

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said Wednesday night in an interview on CBC's The National that he is not going to bow to political pressure and step aside while the RCMP conducts a criminal investigation into a possible leak of information from his department.

"The RCMP said in their statement of this afternoon that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part- or on the part of anyone else for that matter," Goodale said in an interview with the CBC's chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge.

So the RCMP has passed the stage of a review and into a formal investigation without any evidence?!

Oh, tell me another one!

So how does the Honourable Ralph Goodale justify remaining the finance minister?

"It is not by any means proven and I know I've examined my own conduct in this matter and I'm confident that conduct is consistent with 30 years of integrity and trust in public life."

I guess he figures he's entitled to the job. None of that nonsense of public trust.

But wait. He's staying on, even as Mounties are sniffing around his office, to help ease fears:

"Quite frankly if I were to resign under those circumstances I believe I would only feed allegations that are out there in the context of a very political situation."

Oh yeah, I do feel better. Don't you? If he resigned, I would get all hot and bothered. But now that he's staying put, I feel the urge to examine the allegations draining away.

But before the comforting thought of Ralph Goodale remaining as finance minister overwhelms me and causes me to blog about ferns, let's recap what we've learned:

• The RCMP is investigating, but without even a shred of evidence.
• Evidence, or the lack thereof, notwithstanding, Ralph Goodale will remain on the job because he has it on excellent authority that he has done nothing wrong. That authority being Ralph Goodale, of course.
• Having the old finance minister whose department is under investigation for leaking information to traders is better than having a new finance minister not under investigation. Who says so? The old finance minister.

Make sense? Maybe in Bizarro World, but I don't think Canada is that far gone yet. At least I hope not.

You gotta wonder who in the Liberal Party brain trust thought this load on nonsense would keep things under control.

From Bourque:

BREAKING: Bourque has learned that RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli has confirmed that the Paul Martin Liberal Government is under a criminal investigation over potential leaks stemming from decisions in Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's department relating to the multi-hundred million dollar Income Trust debable. This, stemming from an official complaint received by the RCMP from an NDP MP. Late today, the NDP indicated that Zaccardelli confirmed that the RCMP has "launched a criminal investigation "regarding a possible breach of security or illegal transfer of information in advance of the federal government's announcement of changes to the taxation of Canadian corporate dividends and income trusts November 23, 2005." The NDP MP who filed the complaint, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, today called on Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale to step aside from his Cabinet role, until the criminal investigation is complete. According to the MP, "Goodale is personally responsible to ensure his office and his department protect average Canadians from the consequences of improper disclosure. "Goodale has stonewalled this issue for a month now, insisting without any qualification that there is nothing to this issue." Developing.

Clearly Finance Minister Ralph Goodale can no longer remain finance minister. As bad as this is for the Liberals in terms of timing, there is no other option.

No finance minister can command the confidence of the marketplace while under criminal investigation for illegal financial practices.

Every editorial in every paper in Canada should be calling for his resignation on Friday if he doesn't resign by tomorrow.

As for the OSC investigation, I stand by my posting. The investigation is happening, and I'm still trying to obtain clear evidence that I am allowed to share with you.

By my count, Ralph Goodale is under two distinct official inquiries into how he and his office might have used their knowledge that income trusts would not be taxed to allow certain traders to profit dramatically.

Both investigations must ask the question whether any of those illegal profits from insider trading, if it happened, made their way to the Liberal Party, a party fighting an election while millions of dollars in debt.

The nightmare scenario? The Liberals squeak by with another minority on January 23, and then soon after the Mounties or the OSC announce their conclusion that illegal money from insider trading was used by the Liberals to finance their election fight. Canada would be faced with what amounts to an illegal government and a constitutional crisis. In that case, I certainly hope Governor-General Michaelle Jean surprises all of us, because my expectations of her are frankly very low.

Thanks to Bourque, we have this charming bit from BC Liberal Party President Jamie Elmhirst, recalling the words of Industry Minister David Emerson:

Jack Layton had a great weekend in BC. First he managed to find something nice to say about Svend Robinson, although the performance struck me as a touch insincere, even for Jack Layton. How did Minister Emerson describe his style at our Convention dinner? Oh yes, he said that Jack Layton had a boiled dog's head smile. That would have made even me wince if I hadn't have been laughing so hard.

First, I'm certain David Emerson would like to to have a chat with Elmhirst about what is to be kept in confidence, and what is to be repeated on a public website, assuming that phone call hasn't already been placed.

But are either Emerson or Elmhirst guilty of pulling a Klander?

I don't think so. The description of Jack Layton having a "boiled dog's head smile", as unappealing as that is, is descriptive but not racist or homophobic. It does not draw an identifiable group into the insult, to be used as part of the insult, thus insulting both that group and the original target.

For instance, when Stephen Harper is described as looking "gay" in a cowboy suit, Mike Klander was clearly relying on stereotyped views of homosexual appearance, as if there was such a thing, as a basis for the insult. The offends homosexuals as well as Stephen Harper, and so is deemed unacceptable. The Olivia Chow insult was keyed on Olivia Chow's name and her Asian appearance, and in doing so cast the insult on all Asian women, and so it also goes too far.

Basically an insult should endeavour to avoid too much collateral damage, as it were.

That isn't the case here with the "boiled dog's head smile" insult. But in the aftermath of the Klander incident, we might be too willing to take every puerile (or even elaborate) insult flung by the Liberals and try to turn it into a firing offense.

That would be a mistake.

First, it is unlikely to work, since people will be able to tell when an insult goes too far, and when it doesn't. A constant bleating about every insult will sound foolish and petty. No one likes a crybaby.

Second, on the off chance that it does work, and yet another insult results in yet another firing, the chilling effect can do more harm than good in stifling legitimate political discourse.

The bottom line here is that any insult that is based on physical appearance, whether specific to an individual (probably acceptable) or based on gender or race or some other broadly applicable characteristic (almost certainly unacceptable), is a weak and ineffectual insult, no matter how cleverly constructed. Physical appearance is not something we can alter all that dramatically, and almost never provides real insight into the thoughts of the person.

It is the ultimate ad hominem attack, and reflects poorly on the person making the insult.

So David Emerson made fun of Jack Layton's smile, at least according to Jamie Elmhirst. Not a big deal in of itself, in my judgment. But it is indicative of a recurring pattern within the Liberal Party of slinging insults, whether it is against parents who want to be entrusted with their own children, or against Asians, or against homosexuals, or against people who don't vote Liberal, or against people who don't live in Toronto, or against men with thinning hair and toothy grins.

At this rate, just about everyone is going to be at the receiving end of an insult from a senior member of the Liberal Party before January 23. Some insults will cost people their jobs, others won't. But either way, the people being insulted are going to have think long and hard if it was their intention to vote Liberal.

And if you weren't insulted, look around at your friends and family. Were any of them collateral damage from a Liberal attack? How did they feel? Then look at your ballot again. It is a secret ballot, of course, and with reason. But if it wasn't, would you still feel comfortable voting Liberal, and then facing your friends and family, insulted and angry as they are? I know I would factor that into my decision.

Sheila Copps in the Sun today about Mike Klander:

Klander, the son of hard-working immgirant steelworker parents in Hamilton, rose to great heights in the Liberal party by working hard to fit in. In the Martin backrooms, fitting in tends to mean "old boy" and bathroom humour, and ensuring your place is secured by tearing others down.

I remember when, as a young high school student, he came into my office interested in knowing more about the Liberal party. His father was a diehard New Democrat, but Mike thought the Liberal Party might be a more realisitic way to help people. As a young man, he wanted to get involved to make things better. Over the years, it became simply about the win.

His blog struck me as stunning in its ignorance. No depth there, simply hate. Martin good, everyone else bad.

Is this what belonging to the Liberal Party does to a person? Are they all like this? Are these the Canadian "values" Paul Martin keeps blabbing on about defending? If so, I think I'll look for new values elsewhere. Canada can keep those values, if that's what it means to be Canadian.

If that is the language the Martin Liberals expect to see in print in a pre-election blog, what do they say in private?

I wonder whether it would even occur to the Martin backroom boys that there was anything wrong with the Chow-Chow "separated at birth" posting -- more likely, they would pass it around, smirking at anyone who did not get it.

The same backroom boys use the race card when it will play well for them. "Trade one Sikh candidate for a Ukrainian as long as it will get votes andkeep them quiet," is a view I have actually heard expressed by a key Martin organizer.

Are you a parent with a teenage son or daughter thinking of joining the Young Liberals? Worse yet, already a card-carrying member? Be worried. Be just as concerned as if you caught your son or daughter wearing gang colours.

There is a toxic quality to the Liberals today. It will take time for it to drain away, and then only of the Liberals are ejected into the political wilderness for a long, long time. If that doesn't happen, and your son or daughter begins to move up into the mid to upper echelons of the party, don't be surprised if that poison starts to change them.

This installment of the Catholic Carnival recalls some of the best contributions of 2005.

An interesting sidebar to the Mike Klander story.

In a feeble attempt to pull a reverse Dan Rather, a prominent Liberal blogger flogged the notion that the Klander blog was an elaborate fraud.

95% sure it was a fraud, he said.

I hope he's 95% sure of a Liberal win on January 23.

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper commenting on the Mike Klander affair:

"The Liberal party is coming into this election with a corruption report from a judge.

"I don't think it helps itself by running a campaign of personal attack and slur, which is what it has been doing - comparing political opponents to animals ... I think this has gotten a bit out of hand."

Klander had posted pictures of Chow and the dog on his Internet weblog -- or blog -- under the heading Separated At Birth.

The blog also contained an offensive reference to NDP Leader Jack Layton, who is married to Chow.

During a campaign stop Tuesday on Vancouver Island, Harper said he hadn't seen the blog but his wife filled him in.

Hold the phone! Does Laureen Harper read other blogs too?

Maybe this one?!

Crap, and I haven't neatened up or anything. My search button is still screwed up (uses the old colour scheme, but I can't figure out why), I still don't like the order of my side panels, and I really should try to find a better picture of Gordon Sinclair.

Don't you hate it when guests come over and you realize that you should have cleaned up an hour ago like you promised yourself? Now it's too late.

Having pondered the Mike Klander affair, and the consequences, both from a serious and a humorous point of view, I know what is really bothering me.

As you can tell from my posts, my concern is less about Klander's comments, but rather with the consequences for Klander (forced to resign), and how that compares to the lack of consequences for Scott Reid and John Duffy over the "beer and popcorn" gaffe.

As I considered in an earlier post, Klander's comments were worse than Reid's and Duffy's, but were voiced in a semi-private forum, while Reid and Duffy were speaking on national TV in their capacity as spokespersons for the Liberal Party, explaining official policy to all Canadians who will vote on January 23.

An argument can certainly be made than Reid and Duffy deserved no less punishment than Klander.

That lack of consistency is worrisome to me, moreso than the unguarded thoughts of one Liberal functionary (though an important one, and one whose opinions bear examining for what they say about the Liberal Party as a whole).

What does this lack of consistency say about Paul Martin's leadership, about his style of management? I'm not so much worried about government policy. Government decisions are subject to a form of political inertia, especially in bureaucratic democracies -- no matter how fickle the leader, government policy can hardly change on a dime.

But inside the Prime Minister's Office, the Liberal Party executive, even cabinet -- if Paul Martin is seen as unpredictable and the sort of leader who plays favourites, then the ability of those organizations to function is in jeopardy. Resentment builds against those who seem to avoid the consequences suffered by others. Fear dogs every decision -- fear of making a mistake, and not having the protection enjoyed by those favoured by the prime minister to survive a mistake.

Soon, only safe non-decisions are ever made. Risk-taking, a critical element to leadership, is never seen again. The Liberal Party in government will soon lose the ability to attract smart Canadians, since the smart ones will realize there are better places to make a living. The ranks of government will be filled with those whose only skill is being able to avoid trouble.

Should Klander have been fired? Yes, I think so. But my opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the opinion of the highest reaches of the federal Liberal Party, and especially the opinion of Paul Martin. Right now, based on the evidence, it's not clear that he holds an opinion. Unless he can coherently explain why Reid and Duffy have avoided any consequences for their poor choice of words in light of the Klander episode, I can only surmise that there is no way to predict ahead of time how Paul Martin is going to respond to the actions, and errors, of his people.

That's fine for me. I don't work for Paul Martin. But if I did, I'd certainly want to understand how "the system" works, and why I should continue to work under it.

Are you a high ranking member of the Liberal Party of Canada? Are you bursting with racist and homophobic slurs to level at the enemies of Canada, that is, anyone who isn't voting for you?

But you're not sure how to express yourself. You could blog it, but will you be promoted or will you be fired? Who can tell? There's no way to tell, is there?

Because, let's be honest, you have no idea if you'll pull a Reid and have our fickle and unpredictable leader, Paul Martin, go to the mat for you, or if you'll get Klandered.

Well, now you can blog to your heart's content, and not worry about entering yourself into the praise-me-fire-me lottery run by Paul Martin.

How? By using the new Liberal Party Blog-o-matic!

Are you on your way between Liberal strategy meetings? Need to capture some thoughts? The Liberal Blog-o-matic comes in a travel size as well!

Scott Reid is never far from his on the Liberal campaign bus:

The Liberal Blog-o-matic! Your best insurance against having your political future decided by Paul Martin, short of joining the Conservative Party, of course.

An interesting tidbit that I've only seen printed in the Vancouver Sun about Mike Klander, the Liberal party executive forced to resign when his blog containing homophobic and racist comments was made public:

[Liberal Party spokesman Stephen Heckbert] said Klander resigned on his own initiative and was not pushed. However, in an interview with CanWest News Service just before he submitted his resignation, Klander said his only plan was to apologize to Chow.

It's a minor thing...or is it? If Klander was told he had to go, one wonders if he spared a thought for Liberal Communications Director Scott Reid and for Liberal Party strategist John Duffy, both of whom kept their jobs after the "beer and popcorn" gaffe.

You could forgive him for thinking he was being treated unfairly. Klander said some pretty nasty things, but it was via a personal blog, and he was not speaking for the Liberal Party in an official capacitty.

Reid and Duffy said a stupid thing, not as nasty, but then they said it while being interviewed on national television, and while acting as spokespersons for the Liberal Party.

So which is worse? Klander for saying something very bad semi-privately, or Reid and Duffy for saying something pretty bad extremely publicly?

The fact that Klander was fired (or forced to quit), while Reid and Duffy continue to work at the centre of the campaign, means that Paul Martin thinks there was a difference.

What that difference was is probably subtle, perhaps too subtle for the likes of you, and me, and Mike Klander to fathom. I expect that over the next little while, bloggers and professional columnists alike will ponder that question. Maybe we'll get lucky and one of us will stumble into an understanding of Paul Martin's standards for acceptable behaviour for officials associated with the Liberal Party of Canada.

Until someone does, I bet more than a few Liberal workers will be wondering whether this mistake or that is a firing offense or a forgiveable misstep. That kind of second-guessing can't be good for party morale, what with everyone looking over their shoulders. Well, serves them right for not being as clever and subtle as Paul Martin.

But here's a scary thought. What if the difference between Klander on the one hand, and Reid and Duffy on the other, is too subtle and clever for Paul Martin to understand?

The riding of Toronto-Danforth is represented by NDP Leader Jack Layton.

The riding president for Toronto-Danforth for the Ontario Liberal Party is the now famous Mike Klander, recently forced to resign as executive vice-president of the federal Liberal Party, Ontario branch, over the personal and racist attacks he made against Jack Layton, and his wife, Olivia Chow.

I wonder how much longer before the provincial Liberal Party is forced to clean house like its federal counterpart.

Of course, Klander might not be all that worried about riding politics. His entire business is based on being seen as a smart operator with friends in high places helping others solve their problems:

Mike Klander is a highly specialized and well respected government relations consultant assisting clients both at Queen’s Park in Ontario and at the Federal Government level in Ottawa.

Whether managing a crisis, proposing a new initiative, monitoring legislation, or simply building political relationships, Klander and Associates can help your business or association navigate through government.

With over fifteen years of experience in federal and provincial politics, Mike Klander brings with him an innate understanding of Canada’s political process and an extensive national network. Prior to establishing his own government relations practice Mike held several senior positions within the Liberal Party.

As a senior political organizer Mike played a significant role in building Paul Martin’s Leadership organization in Ontario. Prior to joining Martin’s team, Mike helped build a national organization for Brian Tobin and also served as his Campaign Manager in Ontario.

As Executive Director of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) Mike was responsible for managing the day to day affairs of the Federal Liberal Party in Ontario. In that capacity he served as Ontario Campaign Director during the 2000 Federal Election Campaign. In his eight years with the organization he held several other positions including Field Organizer, and Director of Field Operations.

An organizer in every federal and provincial election campaign since 1988 Mike has developed a comprehensive understanding of the political process and how government operates. Building on that experience, he established Klander and Associates; an independent government relations practice representing clients both in Ottawa and at Queen’s Park.

Mike has served and continues to assist numerous clients including Research in Motion, Inco, BFI Canada, Imperial Tobacco Canada, The Greater Toronto Home Builders Association, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Air Canada Pilots Association.

As a volunteer Mike sits on the Board of the Ontario Special Olympics and Rose Cherry's Home for Kids. He is also Executive Vice-President of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario).

He holds an Honours degree in Political Science from McMaster University.

I hope he lands on his feet.

The poorly chosen words of a high-ranking executive of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) has resulted in his resignation.

The web site has already been updated.

Clearly, the Liberal Party would like to forget Mike Klander.

What would you think if the second-most important member of the Liberal Party machine in Ontario held these views? And publicly proclaimed them?

• Olivia Chow looks like a dog
• Steven Fletcher is funny when he's mad because he's a cripple
• Harper and Duceppe are gay or something
• Ontario voters outside of Toronto, like Barrie, represented by a Liberal MP, are unimportant and a joke
• People are stupid, pity politicians who have to pretend to be nice
• Jack Layton is an asshole

Mike Klander is the Executive Vice-President for the "Paul Martin 's Liberals" for the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario). These are from the Google cache of his blog, just deleted because he was caught.

I'm not sure what you are thinking, but I'm thinking a very public firing is in order.

I think that makes the Jack Layton comments (given that Layton is popular in Ontario and part of the Liberal strategy is to make NDP voters feel comfortable casting their vote for the Liberal Party) and the attitude towards Ontario cities like Barrie (and presumably anywhere else outside of the 416 area code) particularly rich.

[A liberal socialist blogger is disgusted too.]

Let's do a quick look at the Christmas greeting for our three major political parties.

A touching bit of poetry from the Conservatives.

A heartfelt plea for peace and share prosperity from the NDP.

An election speech from the Liberals.

News of the Ethics Commissioner's decision to clear David Smith continues to be reported, but along with the criticism, the fact that Smith signed contracts, and the revelation of his family ties with Frank Brazeau which came after the Ethics Commissioner issued his report.

From a Sheila Copps column:

According to Elections Canada, in their last annual filing, the Liberal Party of Canada was $34,818,257.32 in debt, by way of 13 bank loans. The Bloc Quebecois has more than $10 million in outstanding loans, mostly from the Caisse Desjardins. The NDP has several modest loans outstanding, totalling a little more than $3 million. The Conservatives are debt-free.

When I called the Chief Financial Officer of the Liberal Party, Lloyd Posno, he denied the party had a debt anywhere near $34.8 million, saying it was "impossible." He said the reporting mechanism for Elections Canada must be wrong, because he knew absolutely that the party's debt was much less than the amount cited on the website. He would not put a figure on the amount, saying that he was not authorized to speak publicly on money issues.

I then turned to Elections Canada, asking if they might have erred on the year-end financial statements they published for all political parties. They investigated my request and returned with a statement that the figures they published were completely accurate and were actually pursuant to the financial statements filed by each party.

How are the Liberals going to pay for ad time, for jet fuel, for promotional material, while so deep in debt?

If I was banker, I'd be looking at the polls and figuring that the Liberals are head for a loss or a reduced minority, at best. Not a good risk, especially with all the other loans.

As for donors, than source of cash is drying up too, according to Warren Kinsella:

December 8, 2005 - As is well-known in the Liberal Party of Canada, a recent campaign for Laurier Club donations went precisely nowhere (cf. the big Laurier Club event with the Prime Minister on November 10 at the Arcadian Court was supposed to see 1000 new members attend and raise $1 million - and it, um, did not ).

Two Liberal insiders, Chretien supporters to be sure, each with a reason to loathe Paul Martin. But Copps source of information is public. Kinsella's observations aren't independently verified, but it is telling that the Laurier Club is an exclusive organization the gives members access to cabinet ministers:

Instead, the Grits increasingly rely on their "Laurier Club" fundraising strategy. A $1,000 donation buys club membership; a $5,100 contribution earns the donor a so-called Laurier Plus status. Liberal party national director Steven MacKinnon says Laurier Club membership has bloomed from 500 in 2003 to 2,500 today. For $5,100, membership privileges include exclusive access to cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister at small, intimate gatherings.

If the Laurier Club is drying up, it's worse than it appears, and right now it appears pretty bad. These people have paid a lot of money to get the attention of powerful Liberals. That they can't be bothered to do so any longer makes me wonder if they've decided that the Liberals aren't much longer for the circles of power. No point in throwing good money after bad.

From Penticton, British Columbia:

Derek Zeisman, the Conservative candidate in the B.C. Southern Interior riding, remains in intensive care in hospital after being seriously injured in a two-vehicle crash Tuesday afternoon south of Castlegar.

However, campaign organizers said Wednesday despite his injuries Zeisman has no intentions of quitting the campaign trail and vows to return to the hustings as soon as possible.

Zeisman was the lone occupant of Land Rover which collided with an oncoming sport utility vehicle on Highway 22 near the small Castlegar area community of Fairview. Zeisman was northbound on his way to Castlegar from his home in Trail at the time of the crash. Freezing rain was falling and driving conditions were described as treacherous.

Zeisman was seriously injured:

Zeisman suffered a broken femur, fractured pelvis, broken ribs and a collapsed lung in the accident and was sedated and on a ventilator Wednesday in Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail.

Danielle Jackson, his campaign manager, said Zeisman underwent surgery Tuesday night. He remained in intensive care Wednesday but was expected to be moved into a regular ward shortly and could be released from hospital within a week.

Jackson said she talked to Zeisman in hospital and he confirmed he wants to continue as the Conservative candidate.

"Even though he was ventilated and sedated, I asked him: 'Do you want to quit?' and he was shaking his head profusely," she said. "We're going to carry on and the party is offering all kinds of support."

Best wishes to Derek Zeisman for a speedy recovery.

Liberal Bill Profili, a former B.C. Ambulance Service paramedic, said Zeisman may have been a victim of election timing.

"This is the price [of campaigning up and down icy highways in winter]," he said. "In an April election, you avoid these issues."

The Liberals are using this photo to suggest the Conservatives and the Bloc are in cahoots.

Frankly, the photo showing Stephen Harper and Gilles Ducesppe together means nothing. They are the leaders of opposition parties in Ottawa.

But the Liberals made a critical mistake when they selected this particular picture. It was taken during the Holocaust Memorial ceremonies in Ottawa last spring.

That choice is creating headaches for the Liberals.

An open letter to the Ethics Commissioner explaining my concerns about how it appears that his investigation was undermined by a critical omission by both David Smith and Frank Brazeau.

Liberal MP David Smith, representing the riding of Pontiac, ran a home-based computer consultancy firm called Abotech, now owned and operated by his wife and his two children, both minors. Earlier this year, Abotech had several contracts with the federal contract terminated, though the reasons were never clearly described.

A bureaucrat at Consulting and Audit Canada, Frank Brazeau, was suspended. Why? We don't really know.

Today, the Ethics Commissioner, responding to a letter from Nepean-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre, release his report on David Smith, and gave him a clean bill of health.

*Yawn*

A month ago, I might have cared. Today I know that the question of what is going on at Abotech is not a question the Ethics Commissioner could answer.

The fact is, had the Ethics Commissioner investigated Chuck Guite, it is doubtful he would discovered any unethical conduct in the Sponsorship Program either. Chuck Guite followed all the rules in the contracts that were signed. He did not direct contracts to companies in which he had an interest, or that were run by his family. The fact that the contracts themselves were bogus and no work was done for the money paid is not a concern of the Ethics Commissioner.

The same goes here. But even accepting the constraints of the Ethics Commissioner's area of interest, his report on David Smith was severely compromised by the lack of any sort of in-depth investigation.

The investigation was also compromised because David Smith neglected to mention a very pertinent fact to the Ethics Commissioner, and he got away with it.

I just did the rounds of some of the major Canadian main stream media websites, at 7am on December 23. Here's what I found.

The Toronto Star has nothing about the election on their home page. Nothing praising Paul Martin or criticizing Stephen Harper.

The CBC links to a story about the Conservative plan for arctic defence. The word "Tories" comes up in two headlines. Neither the NDP nor the Liberals are named explicitly. The NDP's Jack Layton gets two positive stories. The only link to a Liberal story is about Marc Garneau's apology for what he said in 1986 about funding (and then you'd have to know that Marc Garneau was running for the Liberals).

The Globe and Mail has a headline story about how the Conservatives would work on an issue-by-issue basis with other parties. The Liberals get two stories -- one about the embarrassing situation in which they'll have to fire VIA Rails Jean Pelletier twice (and mention prominently how Pelletier was a top Chreitien aid), and how the Liberals will need to win big in BC to counter losses in Quebec and Ontario.

The CTV home page for news has a similar mix: Liberal headache with Pelletier, Conservative plan for the arctic, NDP defends healthcare.

Not a single feel-good story for the Liberals at the top level pages. Continued focus on Conservative policy (and in the stories themselves, more about how much better a campaigner Stephen Harper is now compared to 2004).

And one serious story on the front page of the Globe and Mail about how a Conservative government would be run.

Makes you wonder just how the editors at these major print and broadcast media centres are interpreting the polls, and what their gut is telling them about how the election is going.

Remember my post on Hans Island and the monopoly on violence?

If not, give it a read.

You might also go look at this ancient post on my original Live Journal blog. Go to the comments and read my idea about how Canada could defend the North.

Now go read Stephen Harper's proposal. Makes sense to me.

The Ontario Securities Commission has initiated an investigation into the possible leak of information from Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office, according to an informed and reliable source.

The allegation is that confirmation that income trust funds would not be taxed was provided to certain traders during the business day prior to the general announcement. Suspicious activity in income trusts on November 23 suggests that the information was used by those in the know to position themselves for quick profits when income trust values surged on November 24, the day after the announcement.

Ralph Goodale's office is named specifically as being a subject in the investigation.

I am attempting to get confirmation.

If this turns out to be true, expect renewed calls from many quarters for the resignation of Finance Minister Goodale until the investigation is completed.

Warren Kinsella

CARP, Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, has backed down from its claim that Warren Kinsella was responsible for starting an "unsubstantiated rumour" that Ralph Goodale's office gave an executive director at CARP inside information about the plan not to tax income trusts.

They've replaced their December 8 news release with a new version, same title, but throwing the accusation against Warren Kinsella down the memory hole.

I haven't commented yet on the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on group sex, in part because I thought it would be important to conduct an in-depth investigation before forming an opinion.

Then I was told I wasn't allowed by a force in the land even more powerful than the Supreme Court, whose rulings cannot be appealed. The same force reminds me to take the garbage out every Tuesday morning. Need I say more?

So I will have to form an opinion in a vacuum, as it were, on the ruling that says that clubs that feature group sex and partner-swapping are legal. But then most of us will have to form an opinion without any practical experience. I suppose that is part of the issue, isn't it? How many people can this really impact?

Some will say that the same argument applies to gay marriage. How many people does it really touch? Of course, that argument is flawed. The ruling on group sex and partner-swapping applies to conduct in a private club. On the other hand, gay marriage required a re-definition of a public institution to which a vast number of Canadians belong. Clearly the second has an impact on a very different level from the first one.

Does this impose a new moral standard on Canadians? The Supreme Court ruled that since no money exchanged hands and no one was harmed, the State had no business interfering. The question of "community standards" doesn't apply because the acts were being performed outside of the view of the community. That the community knew the acts were being performed was not considered sufficient to rule that the community was in some way harmed.

In general, I think the court had it right. The community does not need to be protected from the knowledge that such things happen, or even specific knowledge that such things are happening at this location every Friday night from 7pm to 2am (or whatever). I think that as long as communities have some control over zoning laws, they can manage issues like having such a club beside a daycare, for example.

Will zoning laws concerning the sale and consumption of alcohol be sufficient, or is that tool too blunt? What if a sex club forgoes serving alcohol? Will communities need a new "sex zone" classification?

If they do get such a zone, will major cities get "red light" districts? On the upside, that means that the location of other sex-related businesses might be better managed -- the appearance of a boarded-up adult video store along a the frontage of a strip mall can be disconcerting. An adult video store is only one store over from a infant and child clothing store we frequent. Though no one is harmed by it, I have to admit it can make be a bit nervous. It's irrational, I know, but when we've got the kids with us, a parent wonders just what sort of people are gathering only a few feet over from you. But at the same time, I don't want to constrain the abilityof these legal businesses to flourish.

If Canadian cities do get red-light districts, will the legalized solicitation of prostitution be far behind? Will Canadian cities become destinations for American sex tourists? And will the loosening of the rules make it easier for illegal enterprises, such as child prostitution, to take hold, hiding behind now legal and more open adult-oriented businesses? What about the infiltration of organized crime, especially those groups that specialize in procuring sex workers, such a Chinese gangs or Immigration Canada?

Bottom line is I don't know where this will go. Maybe nowhere. Maybe we'll all be regretting it in twenty years. Maybe in twenty years we'll be wondering why we didn't do it twenty years earlier.

Sorry that I don't have a clearer opinion. That's what happens when you can't properly research a topic.

A memo that was released accidently to the press last week by the Liberal Party considers the dimming fortunes for the Liberals in Quebec:

The memo paints a grim picture for the Liberals in the province. The party believes at this point that it can only count on winning 10 ridings. Another 20, the memo suggests, could go to either the Liberals or the Bloc Quebecois.

One riding in particular, Pontiac, is of special interest to me.

Pontiac is represented by Liberal MP David Smith. Smith is currently at the centre of a controversy involving his computer consultancy firm, Abotech. CBC Radio ran a special two-part in-depth report examining the questions swirling around Smith (see here and here), a report that was able to use the results of research that appears in this blog.

Is Pontiac one of the 20 ridings that could go either way? It turns it has been identified by the Liberal Party as a swing riding:

"My main opponent is the Bloc," said Mr. Smith, a former Maniwaki councillor, who also worked as a civil servant. "In the riding of Pontiac, if federalists split the vote, then the next representative will be the Bloc."

He added that francophone Quebecers do not generally recognize themselves in Stephen Harper's party, so there would not likely be enough support for the Tories to win, he suggested.

"They will not vote for Mr. Harper's Conservatives."

But organizers at his party's headquarters in Montreal have flagged his riding along with 20 other constituencies held by either the Bloc or the Liberals that could swing one way or the other in the next election. All three Outaouais ridings, Pontiac, Hull-Aylmer, and Gatineau are in that category. Mr. Smith warned that federalists who choose the Conservatives are isolating themselves from the majority of Quebecers.

People in Pontiac are frustrated, and are not responding to the veiled threat of isolation that is typical of Liberal electioneering ("we might be crooks, but if you don't vote for us, the country will fall apart"):

[Conservative candidate Lawrence Cannon, a former provincial Cabinet minister,] has divided his days in between knocking on doors, and meetings with supporters and potential supporters. Just after lunch time, one of those meetings was with a group of former Liberals who were fed up and looking for change.