Monthly Archive: January 2006

Ever see a crowd forming, a crowd you're not part of, and then start to get nervous that you are missing out on something important?

I'm starting to get that feeling.

So before my nerves are completely frazzled, I'm going to join that crowd with this official announcement:

There, now I feel better. I can join the crowd, made up of John Manley, Frank McKenna, and now Brian Tobin:

Another Liberal leadership prospect has dropped out of the early race to replace Paul Martin, with Brian Tobin announcing he will not be putting his name in the hat.

Tobin, a former federal cabinet minister and premier of Newfoundland, was considered the last strong candidate for the job.

Tobin's announcement came Tuesday.

Funny thing is the way the media keeps calling this a race:

Outgoing Prime Minister Paul Martin triggered a leadership race when he announced his intention to resign as Liberal Party leader as he conceded defeat to the Conservatives' Stephen Harper in last week's federal election.

Technically, don't you need at least two runners before you have a race? One runner and it's just a jog. No runners, and, well, I guess it's just a line of dirt.

I studied the money raised by Ajax-Pickering candidates Mark Holland (Liberal) and Rene Soetens (Conservative) in the 2004 federal election.

With regards to the lack of individual donations to Mark Holland, indeed it might be that those donations were made to the riding association, then transfered to him. There might be no issue here.

But the interest-free loan of $17,000 from developer Ron Halliday to Mark Holland is something else.

One of the things we all have to get used to is that there are two "CPC" political organizations in Canada:

• the Conservative Party of Canada
• the Communist Party of Canada

I think it's safe to say that they share little else than initials.

I bring it up because Toronto is likely to get a gas-fired power plant to help stave off rolling blackouts, blackouts created in part because of energy shortages resulting from the closure of coal-fired power plants (as opposed to upgrading them to cleaner designs) by the provincial Liberals.

That plan is going to be met with stiff opposition by Toronto City Councillor Paula Fletcher, who once led the CPC in Manitoba.

No, not the the Conservatives. The other guys.

Paula Fletcher's motto:

The election is over, but I think it is interesting to see how different the Liberals and the Conservatives operate. Financial declarations are not yet available for the 2006 election, but the 2004 election, held a mere 17 months earlier, provides a fascinating insight.

Let's look at my riding of Ajax-Pickering. In 2004, Liberal Mark Holland beat Conservative Rene Soetens.

Here's the breakdown of the money.

I guess the world doesn't believe in "easing into it".

Recall the two posts I put up concerning Andrew Stronach, brother of Liberal MP Belinda Stronach? How he seemed to be in charge of an online gambling operation involving the use of curvaceous women, elaborate computer networks to hide money trails, and offshore servers to possibly evade domestic gambling regulations?

Well, the main stream media has picked up the story.

Maclean's has added some fascinating details, details that have suggested to me a remarkable model for this operation that fits the facts as we now know them.

A model that is, frankly, very disturbing.

From CTV:

Canada's outgoing ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna, announced on Monday he won't run for the leadership of the Liberal Party, saying he's not ready to commit the next decade of his life to politics.

The rest of the article goes on about why he's not running, why he quit his job as ambassador, and so on and so forth. No mention of the whole abortion angle, though. Do you think he figured that he could never survive a leadership campaign in today's Liberal Party with that in his past?

Well, no matter. Thanks to the miracle of blogging, all that can be filtered out, and the focus can be put back on what is important -- who stands in the way of Belinda Stronach?

With McKenna out of the leadership race, there is no clear frontrunner.

However, speculation is already turning to other contenders such as former public works minister Scott Brison; recently elected Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff; former cabinet minister Belinda Stronach; and former Newfoundland premier Brian Tobin.

John Manley, the former deputy minister, and Frank McKenna, have say no. I can't help but wonder if both men came to the same conclusion -- despite the brave words, the Liberal Party is not destined to return to power anytime soon, and it would be a waste of time and ambition to be a leader of a party that has become a fixture in the opposition benches.

Think of it this way: if the Liberals had won a strong minority, and Paul Martin decided to retire a winner, would Manley and McKenna be on the sidelines today?

From Ezra Levant's column in the Calgary Sun:

Needless to say, the Liberals don't want an early election either -- they're already fighting over the rules for their leadership race, and a dozen candidates are gearing up to run. One hundred leaderless, indebted, bickering Liberal MPs will support nearly any Harper initiative to avoid an election before they're ready.

Harper's official to-do list is very short -- five priorities, including the GST cut. Expect him to finish that up in early 2007, and call an election, catching the new Liberal leader unprepared. It will be Harper who chooses the termination of his minority, not his opponents.

I hate to say it, but wouldn't purposely putting forward an issue guaranteed to cause the fall of government in order to time an election when the Conservatives are in the strongest position just a bit hypocritical? From the Conservative election platform:

Introduce legislation modeled on the BC and Ontario laws requiring fixed election dates every four years, except when a government loses the confidence of the House (in which case an election would be held immediately, and the subsequent election would follow four years later).

Part of dealing with the democratic deficit was to remove from the Prime Minister's Office the ability to pick and choose election dates based on favourable polls. That power favours the incumbent, of course.

Now I suppose that in a minority situation, where a non-confidence vote is a real possibility, having the ability to manipulate the date for an election could be seen as a consolation prize for not having been given a majority by the people. But then no one is owed a majority, so that doesn't really wash.

In a perverse way, a prime minister in a minority situation has an important tool to improve his chances at re-election that is denied to a prime minister of a majority government.

I don't know how to fix this, or even if it needs to be fixed. Just seems a bit bizarre though.

From the Hill Times (via Bourque):

Buried in a multi-million dollar debt, the once mighty federal Liberals will need to emerge united from their upcoming leadership race if they want to regain the trust of the population, several party officials said last week.

"We'll make sure that this new party will be reborn from these ashes after this last decade of infighting on the left and right," said Françoise Boivin, who lost her re-election bid in the former Liberal stronghold of Gatineau, Que., to Bloc Quebecois candidate Richard Nadeau. "It's difficult to fight against your adversaries, but it's even harder to fight when you have traitors on the inside who are trying to sink everything."

Traitors? I thought Boivin was the traitor, and those other people were fighting to save the soul of the party. At least that's what they say. Or maybe the traitors were those people on the outside sniping at the party from the sidelines.

How is the Liberal Party going to ever heal itself unless it is determined exactly who was the traitor and who was poor victim whose loss on January 23 was not their fault?

I suppose we won't really know who the traitors were until a new party leader is elected. Then the traitors will be whoever backed the losing leadership bids. Punishment can be meted out and the healing process will be complete.

I guess you know you've made it when the torches-and-pitchforks crowd is gathering with the intention of taking you down.

Jack Layton is trying to figure out how to make to make Parliament work. More importantly, he will have to figure out how to make making Parliament work work.

Confused? Just be glad you're not Jack Layton.

The honeymoon continues:

None of the people co-ordinating Stephen Harper's transition to prime minister were involved in his election campaign, and none will be involved in running or lobbying his government.

Harper's choice of transition team suggests the Conservative leader has learned from Paul Martin's example that it's a big mistake to rely on the same group of ultra-partisan advisers to run both campaigns and government, blurring the line between political and public interest.

In setting up his government, Harper appears to have recognized the value of independent advice from experienced people who have no personal stake in how the government is structured or staffed.

Team A gets Stephen Harper elected.

Team B, which has none of the baggage that Team A is carrying in the aftermath of a nasty election campaign (and all election campaigns get nasty at some point), looks to build up Team C.

Team C, made up of people not from Team A or Team B, but selected on merit, help run the government.

We could talk about Team D, but they remain essentially the same before, during, and after, the election, and are unaffected by the staffing process. They just keep blogging away.

But back to Teams A, B, and C. How does this compare with the Liberal Party model under Paul Martin?

By contrast, Martin relied heavily on a tight-knit inner circle of advisers for both political and governmental advice. His 2003 15-member transition team consisted of a number of lobbyists, including team head Michael Robinson, as well as a host of people who wound up as senior staffers in his Prime Minister's Office.

Also on board was David Herle, a communications consultant who headed Martin's leadership and subsequent election campaigns while simultaneously under contract to various government departments.

Martin has been heavily criticized, even by fellow Liberals, for blurring the line between his political objectives and the public interest. Many Liberals complain that the inner circle who helped him wrest the leadership from Jean Chretien did not have the temperament or skills to run the government.

Remember how Paul Martin kept insisting that the Sponsorship Scandal, and the kickback scheme at its centre, in which government contract money made its way in the Liberal Party bank account, the ultimate blurring of public interest and party interest, was Jean Chretien's problem, and how Martin and his government were completely exonerated?

Maybe they were exonerated, but they were on the very next train heading down the same track to exactly the same terrible crash. Thankfully, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have taken the first step to putting Canada on a different track.

If the Harper government is successful, and I think it will be, then the administration model Harper is using is likely to become the gold standard against which future governments are measured.

Look at that. Not even sworn in yet, and already Stephen Harper has a better legacy than Paul Martin.

From the Liberal Party website:

There are a number of ways in which an anti-choice government could restrict or limit choice, including:

• Refusing to approve new contraceptives;
• Placing restrictions on family planning agencies that receive federal funding;
• Changing government health policy to allow provinces to opt out of funding for abortions; and
• Changing the Criminal Code or the Constitution to give legal status to foetuses.

Mr. Harper needs to come clean and tell Canadians whether his government will move to restrict choice for women. Canadian women deserve to know.

Of course, Stephen Harper is on record as saying his views on the topic are complex, and that he doesn't want to bring any sort of abortion legislation to a vote.

Indeed, for all their digging, the Liberals can't find a single quote by Stephen Harper in which he takes an unequivocal stand on the issue. Hence they rely on the "hidden agenda" tactic.

But the same can't be said of the current front-runner for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, Frank McKenna:

Premier pledges to fight any attempt to open a clinic

The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Feb 18, 1988. pg. A.3

FREDERICTON (CP) - The New Brunswick government will fight any attempt to open an abortion clinic in the province, Premier Frank McKenna said Wednesday.

"If Mr. Morgentaler tries to open a clinic in the province of New Brunswick, he's going to get the fight of his life," McKenna told reporters.

Dr. Henry Morgentaler said this week that New Brunswick continues to restrict access by paying only for abortions that are deemed medically necessary by two doctors, and performed in approved hospitals.

Morgentaler said New Brunswick's position goes against last month's Supreme Court of Canada ruling that struck down as unconstitutional the federal law requiring abortions to be approved by hospital committees.

Morgentaler said he would fight the New Brunswick announcement and might try to open a clinic in the province.

"I see no need for Mr. Morgentaler to do that in the province of New Brunswick and we'll resist it," McKenna told reporters.

The premier, a practising Roman Catholic, refused to say how New Brunswick would fight attempts to open an abortion clinic, since there is currently no criminal restriction on abortion.

Frank McKenna's three sins:

• trying to classify abortion as a medical procedure and so involving the medical establishment in the decision-making process, which of course is a form of restriction
• defying the Supreme Court, the same body to which Paul Martin was going to provide the final say in all Charter matters by promising to eliminate the ability of the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause
• following his religion (worse yet, a Christian religion, and worst of all, Catholicism, the most evil strain of Christianity -- George W Bush is a Christian, doncha know)

Frank McKenna fought the opening of clinics in New Brunswick for seven years, until finally they gave up to a court ruling in 1995. Frank McKenna was premier of New Brunswick from 1987 to 1997 -- so I think it's fair to say that fighting the unrestricted access to abortion was a mainstay of his time as a leader of government in Canada.

It'll be interesting to watch the Liberal Party leadership rivals start slinging abortion mud at each other. One wonders if they'll be doing it with the same vigour as when it was aimed at Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper was never the head of government anywhere in Canada. He has never made any attempt to restrict abortion. He has never said that he wants to.

Frank McKenna, on the other hand, was the leader of single longest sustained effort by a government in Canada to restrict abortion.

Any bets on which Liberal Party leadership rival will be the first to call McKenna a religious zealot?

Much has been made of Stephen Harper standing up to the US on the issue of Arctic sovereignty.

Not to take away from Harper's performance, but you do realize it was a test, don't you? And I think Stephen Harper passed.

From the Calgary Herald:

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.

Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.

So Albert Gore wants his fans in the eco-movement to maintain a vigilant watch on the "ultra-conservative leader". Being an amateur study of classical mythology, I could not help but be reminded of figures from Greek mythology who were also tasked to maintain a watchful eye.

They were the Harpies, grotesque creatures that merge man and beast, in this case, a hideous woman's head and torso with the wings and lower half of a vicious bird.

Funny how so many of the awful creatures in classical Greek mythology were beings that were as humans that had somehow lost too much of their humanity to nature.

But back to the Harpies.

Their job? To punish Phineas by maintaining a watch over him as he was forced to sit in front of a mouth-watering buffet. When Phineas would reach for the food, a Harpy would sweep in and steal it away, befouling the plate with its own waste.

Seems appropos to me. Ever notice how liberals befoul any discussion of importance, any attempt at rational debate, any attempt to weigh the pros and cons of a decision with serious consequences, with their own verbal waste? Whether it Al Gore labeling Stephen Harper as an "ultra-conservative", or Paul Martin insisting that Stephen Harper will be a pawn of George W Bush, or the cruder works of leftist bloggers and their fans tossing out the Nazi label, the result is always the same.

The sumptious banquet of honest debate is ruined beyond recovery. Like poor Phineas, surrounded by screeching Harpies, we are left wondering what it would have been like.

With permission, I've reprinted an article appearing in today's Kingston Whig-Standard, print edition, about the publication of elections results in Canada, the law, and the internet.

A farce at the border could have turned into a tragedy. What's worse, it could have been prevented had the previous Liberal governments taken the advice they had asked for and paid for, but that they ultimately ignored and hid from view.

Hardware issues resolved. Blogging will resume.

I've managed this post for today, a consideration of the divisions we have in this country, and which ones are legitimate, and which are ones of our own making.

Did I say our own making? I meant Liberal governments' making.

A serious hardware failure means I won't be posting much, if anything, today. I am reading emails though, so I'm not completely disconnected. I should be up and running by tomorrow night at the latest.

A minority government has formed. Time to plan how to make things work, right? How to compromise and cajole?

Well, thank goodness none of these guys are providing advice to Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe. Let's just hope that the people who are advising them are cut from a different cloth.

Listening to Jack Layton's speech, I witnessed what I thought was the low point of the night, and it made me nervous.

Jack Layton of the NDP thanked each of his opponents in turn: Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois, Paul Martin of the Liberals, and of course, Stephen Harper of the Conservatives.

But while the mention of names of Duceppe and Martin were met with polite applause, a chorus of boos greeted Stephen Harper.

Jack Layton didn't miss a beat, or scold his supporters, but carried on with a congratulatory message.

I worry that in Canada, the potential exists for what has happened in the US -- the fight between the Left and the Right will become intensely personal, at least for the Left. George W Bush is hated on a very personal level by Americans who have never met the man. Is Stephen Harper in for the same sort of treatment, hated for committing the crime of being a conservative?

The jeers made me wonder if that process has already started. I blame Paul Martin for this. The attack ads, especially the group that included the "military ad", were intensely personal. They depicted Stephen Harper as duplicitous and without scruples, though without any real evidence. And in the last days of the election, Paul Martin constantly reminded people that "Stephen Harper's values are not Canada's values." What are Canada's values? Whatever the voters say they are, I think. That why we have elections, in part, to elect leadership that embodies the values a majority thinks are important today. To imply that Canada has one static set of values and that Stephen Harper and his supporters don't share them is to say Stephen Harper and his supporters aren't really Canadian.

Casting the enemy as the outsider, the foreigner, the alien, is the first step to convincing someone to hate the enemy.

I understand that the NDP crowd was tired and punchy after a long campaign and a long election night. But somehow they found it in themselves to applaud the Liberals, a party with strong corporate ties, run by a multi-millionare shipping magnate, and mired in scandal involving millions of dollars taken from "working Canadians".

Stephen Harper, a man with young children, an academic not unlike Jack Layton, hardly a rich man or the product of Corporate Canada, is subjected to jeers.

Here's hoping that Jack Layton can maintain some level of control over this element of his party as he tries to find ways to work with the Conservatives in the minority parliament. If Layton allows the moonbats to take control, he might be forced to pull the plug on the government against his will, and who knows what will happen next.

A return of the Liberals? A Conservative majority? No way to know, except to be certain that the Canadian voters are likely to punish the NDP if it forces an election out of spite.

Damian Brooks has a point:

OK, Glenn, how about this: find a single prominent Canadian blogger who agrees that Captain Ed "can claim a major role" in producing a Conservative government. Come on, big guy, put your money where your mouth is on this.

Captain Ed's role during the Gomery publication ban in March 2005 was to publish information that would have eventually been made public anyway. He didn't discover the information himself.

Having said that, the timing of the release was important -- if it had languished under a ban for months or longer, it is possible that the impact of the kickback relevations would have been far less. As it was, the ban itself magnified the impact dramatically.

For that we have to be grateful to US bloggers.

Also, the experience energized the Canadian blogosphere, showing that the Canadian political establishment was no more protected from the effect of bloggers than the US.

But does this constitute a "major role" in yesterday's win? That's trickier. Paul Martin called the June 2004 election in order to get a mandate before the worst of the Gomery Inquiry became known. He was rewarded with a minority government.

Jean Brault has not gone to trial yet, so if the ban had not been defied, that knowledge would still be under wraps today. If the ban had not been broken, it's possible that yesterday's election would have been fought without knowledge of the kickbacks, and the Liberals would have done better. On the other hand, maybe if the ban had been in place, the information might have leaked right in the middle of the election.

Or not.

But remember too that the Conservative success in Quebec was due in no small part because of the Liberal collapse as a result of Brault's revelations. Had that information not been made public back in March, the Liberals might have been stronger in Quebec, and the Conservatives would have been frozen out. As it was, the Conservatives had a lot of time to prepare the ground made fertile by the Brault revelations made public by Captain Ed in March 2005.

On the balance, I'd say Captain Ed played a major role. He was a big domino early in a long line of dominos that finished tipping last night.

Are the US bloggers spending too much time on his contribution, making him out to have single-handedly defeated Paul Martin and the Liberals? Sometimes it seems like it, but chalk that up to general ignorance of the most recent events here that played a much more immediate role in the outcome: beer-and-popcorn, the income trust scandal, the military ad, Option Canada.

When all is said and done, the story of this election will be written by Canadian observers and not Americans, and I think they'll be able to strike the right balance.

From Elections Canada:

Conservatives: 124
Liberals: 103
Bloc Quebecois: 51
NDP: 29
Other: 1

Here's my list of winners and losers:

Winners:

Jack Layton: Increased his seat count, increased the NDP's share of the popular vote, and made his Toronto breakthrough. Given the lack of Tory representation inside Toronto, that might be a useful card to play during the next parliament. But most importantly, the NDP won enough seats to make sure they can stop the Conservatives by joining the Liberals, as long as the Bloc stays out of the way.

Paul Martin: For exceeding expectations. Not much of a winner, of course, with a legacy of a historical footnote in the list of Prime Ministers. But on balance, he blew it it, but the Liberals were not wiped out.

Michael Ignatieff, Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison, etc: Hey, they won!

Alberta and the West: The centre of power has shifted westward.

Stephen Harper: This is a tough call. Some would relegate Stephen Harper to the Losers list. That would be unfair. He belongs here when you look at the totality of his achievement. He has taken a new party, not even two years old, with an agenda and a philosophy that runs counter to many Canadian assumptions about the role of government in their lives, took on the ruling party, and beat it. Not just nationally, but in Quebec, where Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had no business winning by most accounts. He failed to meet expectations for this election, but those expectations were not set at the beginning of the election. They were set in the last two weeks based on polls. Go back to the election call in November, and recall what people thought of the election call and the likely result. And remember too that he lost in 2004. Instead of resigning, he and his team fashioned a brand new campaign, learning the lessons from the mistakes. This bodes well for the future.

Tom Flanagan, Tim Powers, etc: The Conservative Party intelligentsia who fashioned and fought a campaign based on principles and true conservatism led by non-Quebecker, and won.

Losers:

Gilles Duceppe: The BQ went from pondering a complete sweep of Quebec to earning fewer seats and fewer votes than during the last election. And this loss was handed to them by a socially conservative Albertan who barely speaks French! The separatist movement has taken a blow, and fingers will point at Duceppe.

The Liberal Party: Though Paul Martin might have pulled miserable defeat from the jaws of disaster, the Liberal Party has still suffered a terrible loss. Crushed in Quebec by both the Conservatives and the BQ, for the most part shut out of rural Canada, relegated to urban strongholds and Atlantic Canada. The fundamental problem of the Chretien-Martin split still needs to be addressed, and quickly. A minority government might last two years or so -- not a lot of time to rebuild.

Toronto and Montreal: No MPs from the winning party in any of the ridings. That means no representation for these two cities, either of which rivals most provinces in size and financial clout.

The Pollsters: For misreading the public. Or influencing it. Setting high expectations that were not met, perhaps because the expectations were set so high, and so spooked voters.

Negative advertising: You might think this to be another winner. And Liberal attack ads did seem effective at eroding the Conservative lead during the last week of the campaign. But the Conservatives won, and assuming they are successful at not being scary now that they are in power, this approach won't work again in the next election. These ads depend on the unknown, and Stephen Harper and the Conservatives now have a chance to let all Canadians get to know them. Of course, negative ads based on incompetence and scandal will still be around. Stephen Harper and his team will have to make sure they don't provide any ammunition to the other parties on this count.

Svend Robinson, Anne McLellan, Pierre Pettigrew, etc: Hey, they lost!

It's 10pm.

CTV is calling for a Conservative minority government.

Details as I hear them:

Potential range of Conservative seats: 120 to 150

Liberals will be official opposition.

Peter MacKay has kept his seat. So did Scott Brison. Conservative have picked up seats, but Liberals still hold most of Atlantic Canada.

Anyone think Scott Brison will try to cross back to the Conservatives? I don't think so either.

Current leading numbers:
CPC: 100
Lib: 82
BQ: 46
NDP: 21
Ind: 1

Who's the independent?

Is this going to be a strong minority? Will the Tory seat count exceed the Liberal and NDP total? Right now it is too close to call.

CFRB is talking about Quebec. Apparently the Prime Minister is trailing in his riding.

The independent is in Quebec somewhere. Still no details.

Ken Dryden kept his riding.

The Liberals seem to have avoided complete disaster. Jack Layton might be in trouble if he has failed to pull more Liberal votes to the NDP.

Paul Martin has taken the lead in his riding.

Josee Verner has been declared a winner in her Quebec riding, which means the Conservatives have at least one Quebec MP. I expect they will have more.

Marc Garneau flames out. Defeated by the BQ.

Bourque has numbers up:
CPC: 111
Lib: 86
BQ: 51
NDP: 23
Ind: 1

Bourque's numbers have the Tories holding off the Liberals and the NDP as long as the Bloc sits on the sidelines. In fact, the only pairing of opposition parties that can defeat the Tories on a vote is the Liberals and the Bloc -- not likely going to happen. If these numbers hold, it means that Stephen Harper only has to gain the support (or abstention) of one party to pass any legislation.

Scott Brison has company. CTV has announced that Belinda Stronach has won.

New numbers from CTV:
CPC: 115
Lib: 97
BQ: 50
NDP: 24
Ind: 1

Not so much good news with these numbers.

Lawrence Cannon has been elected in Pontiac. I guess that closes the book on David Smith and Abotech.

Liza Frulla is gone.

If the BQ end up with fewer seats than what they had in the last parliament, having lost them to an Albertan, can Gilles Duceppe survive?

The independent is "shock jock" Andre Arthur -- thanks to readers.

Good news for Pierre Bourque! Michael Ignatieff has been elected. More "egghead" headlines.

Bad news for Paul Martin. Michael Ignatieff has been elected. But I figure Martin will quit before Ignatieff can make his move.

Tony Valeri has been defeated. Back to his job as real estate speculator.

Mike Duffy is reporting that Paul Martin is not conceding.

Svend Robinson loses. Canada wins.

Paul Martin...about to speak...smiling...he's about to concede, I'm sure.

Pierre Pettigrew is out; Olivia Chow is in

Paul Martin at the podium
...general greetings
...honour to represent the riding, sounds like a goodbye
..."17 years is a long time"; he's getting ready to bail
...he concedes to Stephen Harper and wishes him luck
...sorry to his family
...story about little girl who called him "Paul" accidently; says she can call him "Paul" again; a signal
...resigning as PM but remaining in caucus

Should the Conservatives open the books on Liberal mismanagement?

If the Tories win tonight, should they implement their Federal Accountability Act and leave it at that, or should they open the books and begin an investigation on the last dozen years of Liberal mismanagement?

The answer is not so obvious to me.

An investigation certainly appeals to a sense of justice. Liberals, both in and out of government, being forced to explain where millions, or billions, of dollars went. Maybe even facing criminal prosecution.

But there is a danger in that. The focus can shift from merely cleaning government to chasing down the guilty. Every Liberal accused or charged will hire lawyers (some of whom might be very eager to see the issue go away for their own reas0ns) and will tie up the courts with motions. Government lawyers will be forced to fight these motions.

How much are we willing to pay for justice?

What if the target is still sitting in parliament? Expect accusations of a prosecution motivated by the desire to shift the balance of power in parliament in favour of the Conservatives.

Accusations that will be hard to refute, frankly.

Maybe we need a reconciliation commission, like the one is South Africa after the National Congress took power. The importance was that the truth was told, and the money was found. But the vast majority of the people were not prosecuted.

Whatever else the Liberals did, I don't know that anyone would accuse them of anything as awful as apartheid.

So maybe a general amnesty for those who come forward might make sense. Some high ranking people would not be eligible for such an amnesty, being at the core of the mismanagement, but for most, it will give them a way out, on the understanding that they reveal everything they know.

Can this work? I'm not sure. For many involved, testifying would mean breaking the Official Secrets Act. Still, I'm unsure where the path of judicial retribution will end, and whether if it would be better not to go there.

From the point of view of America's Radio Equalizer, Brian Maloney.

Yours truly was invited to add a few thoughts. I'd hesitate to call them insights.

A blizzard has struck Tuktoyaktuk in the far, far north.

Really far north:

Located on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, at the uppermost edge of Canada, Tuktoyaktuk, or just Tuk as it is more commonly known, is a small Inuvialuit community and a unique travel destination. From dogsleds, to the Midnight Sun, Northern Lights and pingos, Tuk has much to offer the adventure tourist. Approximately 150 kilometres north of Inuvik, Tuk is accessible by plane or ice-road and is well worth the extra travel time. Whether visiting in the summer or winter, Tuk will offer travellers an adventure of a lifetime.

But they are struggling in, voting by flashlight and by candle.

Thanks to all the people of Tuktoyaktuk for showing us all how important and precious a vote is.

So I turned to channel 341 on Starchoice, which is ATV out of Halifax.

Blacked out.

So I turned to channel 342 on Starchoice, which is ASN out of Halifax.

CBC Halifax. Blacked out. NTV out of Newfoundland. Blacked out. Global TV out St. John's. Blacked out.

Ah well, so much for a sneak peak.

Polls are still open in Ontario and points west of course, so if you haven't voted, go do so. No matter who you choose to support, remember every vote counts.

In the Toronto Star, via NealeNews:

Here's a scenario to curdle the blood of some voters: Conservative Leader Stephen Harper wins the most seats but Prime Minister Paul Martin stays in power.

Governor General Michaelle Jean is entitled to choose the next prime minister and it's not just a question of which party has the most seats.

Jean could favour the Liberals if she had indications they would get support from the New Democrats, for example.

Canada had a coalition government during the First World War, when Robert Borden's Unionist Conservatives joined forces with the pro-conscription section of the Liberal party.

In 1985, an NDP-Liberal coalition entered a formal two-year deal that toppled the Progressive Conservative dynasty in Ontario, even though the Conservatives won the election.

Now go read my piece from January 20. I think I nailed that one, and I didn't even need to find a constitutional expert.

I've created an Excel spreadsheet to help track the election and the changes in from 2000 to 2004 to 2006.

Here are some screenshots:

Feel free to download the spreadsheet yourself and fill in the data as it comes in. Remember that many of the fields include formulae to calculate things like percentage of popular vote and percentage change, as well as summing up totals and subtotals.

If you see any problems with the starting point data, let me know, and I'll upload updates. Right now we're at version 1.0.

Over and over again, pundits are pointing to the the announcement of the RCMP criminal investigation into a leak in Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale's office concerning income trust taxation as the turning point in the campaign.

Those pundits are absolutely right. I know because I agree with them. I have also investigated myself thoroughly, and can announce that I have found no evidence that I'm wrong about this.

OK, putting that bit of Goodale nonsense aside, let's not forget who launched the torpedo that seems to have sunk the Liberal ship.

It was the NDP under Jack Layton, with Judy Wasylycia-Leis pushing the button that put that torpedo in the water.

I'm not sure just how much we on the right appreciate the simmering anger that lies under the surface on Canada's left. Anger that is barely restrained and aimed right at the NDP.

If the vote goes well for the Conservatives, and especially if the Conservatives win enough seats that the Liberals and NDP together cannot block Stephen Harper's legislative agenda, many on the left will blame Jack Layton.

Sure the NDP is likely to have more seats tomorrow, but it has lost the balance of power. In the previous parliament, the NDP was able to make the Liberals dance to the NDP tune.

And remember too that the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois were unable to unseat Paul Martin, that is until Jack Layton decided to vote with them.

The impending Tory victory is thanks to the election the NDP allowed to happen, and thanks to the disaster that befell the Liberals courtesy of a letter to the RCMP sent by the NDP.

If the Conservatives succeed tonight in forming a government, and then succeed at proceeding with their legislative agenda, and further succeed at restoring conservatism as a legitimate choice in Canada, perhaps even the preferred choice, we'll have the NDP to thank for helping it happen.

The significance of this is not lost on many NDP supporters:

[I will not forget] the disengenuous BS income trust allegation. NDP is dead to me.

Another potential fallout for today is a realignment of the far left, perhaps a split in the NDP between the labour side and the radical side, with the Green Party and others picking up the radicals.

Jack Layton might end up regretting all the extra seats he's positioned to win tonight.

Consider this from Liberal blogger GritPatriot:

There will be another election in 18 months. No matter what happens tonight it is win-win for the Liberals.

We know that a significant percentage of CPC votes are from traditional Liberal voters who are upset over sponsorship. It will be difficult for HArper to hold on to this support after the election. He will very quickly lose these votes. Meanwhile the Liberal Party will be reborn and back stronger than before. HArper will not be able to please his Alberta base. They will expect a socially conservative republican agenda and HArper will not deliver that.

The next election will see strong Liberal support in the east and BC. Alberta and Saskatchewan will be frustrated and disillussioned by HArper. The next election will be a Liberal majority. A Joe Clark interregnum is very good for the Liberals.

I'm not certain about the consistent spelling of "HArper". If it means something, it is lost on me.

Considering his arguments, I think they are flawed. He doesn't consider the state of the Liberal Party finances, depleted by a poor showing in 2004 and the wholesale abandonment by traditional Liberal financiers. He does not consider the fact that the Bloc is likely to support the Conservatives for quite some time, for both political and financial reasons. He does not consider the potential backlash of an electorate against the party who forces yet another election, especially if the election is forced as a power grab instead of over some serious national issue.

But consider his final sentences: "The next election will be a Liberal majority. A Joe Clark interregnum is very good for the Liberals."

An "interregnum" is a period between kings. Kings? Divine right and all that? The people of Canada are going to be voting for a government today. The ballot question is not whether you believe that the ruling Liberal Party needs a short break before returning to their pre-ordained role as government.

Here's hoping that whatever happens today and then over the next few months and years, this attitude of the divine right of the Liberal Party to rule over Canada is shattered. It is the people decide who will govern them, and to those that are awarded that power for a short time, they have the mandate to govern. It is not the role of the Conservatives or the NDP to act as seat warmers while the Liberals go outside for a brief stretch.

That attitude insults every person who casts a vote, for the Liberals or not. It suggests that the vote is just a charade, that the result is illegitimate unless it is in favour of the Liberals. Article 6 of the old Communist constituion from the Soviet Union reads:

Article 6 (1) The leading and guiding force of the Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, of all state organizations and public organizations, is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people. (2) The Communist Party, armed with Marxism-Leninism, determines the general perspectives of the development of society and the course of the home and foreign policy of the USSR, directs the great constructive work of the Soviet people, and imparts a planned, systematic and theoretically substantiated character to their struggle for the victory of communism.

It's difficult to imagine that there are people who think this approach to government, that a single particular party is somehow allocated a unique and primary role, is a good thing.

Makes me think this election is even more important than cleaning up corruption.

From Michelle Malkin:

After the 2004 election, so many American liberals came down with depression that medical professionals coined a new phrase for their unhinged condition: post-election selection trauma (or PEST).

One wonders what malady Canadian liberals will contract after they lose at the polls in today's election.

Good question. It's hard to say. Given that the American election in 2004 between George W Bush and John Kerry could have gone either way on the day of the election, and that it followed on the heals of the Bush-Gore nail-biter in 2000, American liberals were, on two occasions, taken to the edge of victory, then denied.

For Canadian liberals, the situation is a bit different. Though things might still go badly for the Conservatives, the polls have been suggesting otherwise for weeks, and that foreknowledge will help temper the blow.

Also, in the Canadian system, there is the consolation prize of holding the Conservatives to a minority. If a minority Conservative government is elected today, that will provide some solace.

On the other hand, so many on the Canadian left have convinced themselves, though not others it seems, that Stephen Harper is Canada's own George W Bush. The American left, and the left worldwide, including in Canada, have invested a great deal of pseudo-intellectual effort in demonizing the President. It is a very personal and visceral hatred that goes far beyond political debate.

The Liberal Party attack ads of the last few days, and Paul Martin's rhetoric in his most recent speeches, certainly attempted to tap into that feeling. The infamous "military ad" is a perfect example of this attitude. The fact that the ad was even made reveals one of two things.

At best, strategists at the highest levels of the Liberal Party were ready and willing to indulge to hard left in their paranoia in order to win votes.

At worst, strategists at the highest levels of the Liberal Party actually believe in the Stephen-Harper-is-evil-like-George-W-Bush dogma.

The fact that a plurality of voters nation-wide, and a huge number of Quebec voters, in excess of the number supporting the Liberals, are looking likely to vote for Stephen Harper means the worst nightmare is about come true for the hard left in Canada.

It is a nightmare of their own making, of course, constructed out of the apocalyptic proclamations from America's shattered left wing. For that reason, I don't think I'll be reaching out any time soon to comfort these people. It might do them some good to let them rant and rave.

If nothing else, it is likely to be entertaining.

[More observations at Captain's Quarters.]

From the Ottawa Sun:

Liberal volunteers, organizers and even MPs are admitting certain defeat tomorrow night at the hands of Stephen Harper's Conservatives barring an 11th hour change of heart by Canadian voters.

So what's the plan? A period of serious soul-searching? A program to re-evaluate the policies and philosophies of the Liberal Party in order to find a way to re-connect to voters who have rejected them?

The aide said there's a silver lining to defeat, pointing out that a small minority would make Harper vulnerable to defeat on his first budget vote and see a likely comeback by the Liberals.

OK, some aid speaking anonymously is hardly something to bet on. Still, recall that the Conservatives voted in favour of the Liberal budget in February 2005 after the June 2004 election, trying hard to find a reason to support the legislation and not send Canadians back to the polls unless absolutely necessary.

There might have been some Tories who wanted to pull down the Liberals on principle. Their advice was rejected.

But then the Gomery Inquiry heard testimony on kickbacks, and everything changed.

In this case, the vote hasn't even happened yet, and some Liberals are planning an immediate election to give the Canadian people another chance to get this right.

Mighty generous of the Liberals.

I'll be on the road and probably out of communications for most of today, perhaps until tomorrow.

As a result, I would like it if no important news happens today.

But in case it does, or if you just want to chat, this post is open for comments. Enjoy.

Check out Silent Running.

At the Pembroke Outdoor Sportsman's Club, Liberal candidate Don Lindsay revealed a portion of the Liberal platform related to complensation for gun owners should their legally owned weapons be confiscated. Essentially, if you think you are owed something, think again.

To be even more precise, if you think the Liberals owe you something, you should hit the road:

Don Lindsay's self destruction continued when club member and Canadian Veteran George Tompkins stood to ask the candidates his question. "If the handgun ban goes forward. What plan would your party offer to compensate those of us who legally own the guns that would be confiscated?" To which Lindsay replied "Sir America is our neighbor not our nation, if you elect a society that talks about that kind of perspective I suggest that perhaps you go there!"

Maybe Lindsay thought grabbing Paul Martin's line from the leader's debate would work for him.

Of course, Linday's comments don't even make much sense. If the majority of voters do elect a government with that sort of policy, then wouldn't it make sense that Lindsay be the one looking for somewhere else to live? I don't think he needs to. He is welcome to stay, of course.

I don't think people should leave for holding different opinions, and voting based on those opinions.

Too bad he couldn't extend that courtesy to a man who fought for this country.

It's moments like these that a Conservative candidate lives for. Cheryl Gallant showed she can think on her feet:

Cheryl Gallant responded to the question with "George I have seen you at the legion in uniform representing our country I hope you stay in Canada," she said. "This is not an issue if the Conservative's get elected because there will be no ban on handguns. But if the Liberals are elected we know there would be no compensation, there never is," she said.

Well, maybe the right thing to do is to put emotion aside and depend on logic. Let's see how that works for the Liberals:

Club member Don Linke stole the show with his question for the candidates. "It seems like we are blaming legal gun owners for the theft of their guns. Should we also ban banks from holding money because that's what causes all bank robberies?" Gallant responded that a Conservative government would put money towards a victims support program to compensate victims of crime. Lindsay simply responded "No we won't ban banks from holding money."

OK, logic isn't Don Lindsay's strong suit, either.

(via Bourque)

Remember those scary polls that showed the Tories with 18-point lead? The papers would barely mention them? Then the lead got "cut" to 10 points, and the headlines announced a Liberal surge?

Just remember, the polls were very different. Not only did the questions change, the rolling average dropped from three days to two.

Polling from January 16 (the big lead):

• Findings have been rolled up and analyzed over a three day period. Interviews were conducted on January 12th, 14th and 15th.
• From what you can tell, which party, if any, is gaining the most popularity and momentum leading up to the election. Is it the ...?
• If the election was being held tomorrow, do you think you'd be supporting the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
• In that case, which party's candidate in your local area would you be leaning towards at this time? Would it be the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
• Generally speaking, would you say your overall impression of (READ AND ROTATE LEADER'S NAME) is very favourable, somewhat favourable, somewhat unfavourable or very unfavourable?
• Which one would you trust most to be the Prime Minister of Canada?
• If you had to guess right now, which party do you think will win the most seats in the January 23rd federal election?
• If a Conservative majority government is elected would it be very good, good, bad or very bad for the country?

Polling from January 18 (the narrowing lead):

• Interviews were conducted between January 17th and 18th. Findings have been rolled up and analyzed over a two day period.
• Some people have been saying it’s time for a change and that a new government should be voted in. Other people have said that now would be the wrong time to make a change and we should return the Liberals to power. Which one of these two views best represents your own?
• If the election was being held tomorrow, do you think you’d be supporting the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
• In that case, which party’s candidate in your local area would you be leaning towards at this time? Would it be the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
• If a Conservative majority government is elected would it be very good, good, bad or very bad for the country?

Apples and oranges. Which numbers to believe? Well, they had no problems publishing the big lead by combining the results of the January 16 answers. And again with the new set of questions from January 18.

But I'm not a pollster, so what do I know?

From small dead animals:

Via campaign manager Victor Marciano:

Laurie Hawn, Conservative Candidate in Edmonton Centre, has filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Elections Canada after massive voter list irregularities were uncovered by his campaign.

For some time, there have been rumors of election irregularities in Edmonton Centre. At an all candidates meeting with Elections Canada on January 4, 2006, it was revealed that two buildings had been struck from the electoral rolls because they were not residences. In reality, these buildings were both mailbox stores.

Several days later, the Laurie Hawn campaign identified a third non-residence building which sells mail boxes and reported it to Elections Canada.

A few days ago, the Laurie Hawn campaign was alerted, via e-mail, by an Edmonton lawyer that:

"Lots of [Anne McLellan] supporters are enumerated at their downtown office address instead of at their houses. One of them was bragging about how many times he could vote liberal (sic) based on the number of leases he had in her riding."

This has to be the saddest story out of this election. Stuffed ballot boxes? Repeated voting? I hope it's not true, but apparently there is enough evidence to file a complaint.

Individual MPs saying stupid things, dumb stunts by their supporters, unfunny jokes on blogs -- people do silly things during elections.

But electoral fraud? This is our democracy we're talking about here. What's the point of having elections in the first place? Is it just a show for the cameras? Something to make the proles feel good every few years while the Liberals enrich themselves?

Two bits of news that have no impact on anyone except me!

First, a generous reader has gifted to me my very own domain name. So now, you can reach Steve Janke: Angry in the Great White North at stevejanke.com. Update your bookmarks and blogrolls. As you can see, I'll be incorporating my name into the Angry brand.

Clarification: I'm still at angrygwn.mu.nu and have no plans to be re-hosted. The new domain name just forwards to mu.nu. In the long run, this is better should I ever move to a new host, since I can simply re-point stevejanke.com and everyone will auotmatically get to the new site. This does mean though that you don't have to change your bookmarks and whatnot.

Why? Because a lot of people were quite adamant that using my name was not just a good idea, but critical to my "future". Apparently they have a better idea what that might be than I do.

Second, as part of that roll-out, I've reworked the Angry logo with the new URL:

If you haven't already checked the online store, go to the right side of the blog and click on the pink tee. A number of neat products have been emblazened with the new logo. And if you're wondering, yes, people have been buying these things.

Let's play a hypothetical numbers game.

Let's say the Tories win on Monday. Now go further, and say they win 152 seats, just three shy of a majority.

You're Stephen Harper. What do you do?

Do you try to entice three opposition members over? Heck, there may be more than enough volunteers. Grits like power for power's sake, and they would be miserable after a miserable campaign. The Liberal Party would essentially be leaderless (either lame duck Paul Martin, or equally lame duck interim leader). In ridings that were close calls, becoming a Conservative might help, especially in currying favour with constituents disappointed that they missed out being in a government-held riding.

The upside is a majority government -- but then there is the downside, a majority government. A majority government can be scary. No excuses for failure.

Personally I think Stephen Harper and his team can handle a majority, but if they win a majority by grabbing a few Liberals, that might take some of the shine off. Some people will wonder if there is any real difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives after all.

Given that potential problems, maybe a minority that verges on a majority should be left well enough alone.

Of course, there is a middle ground. You have three MPs from the Liberal Party who want to join up. You tell them in no uncertain terms that they'll have to sit as independents for at least six months. No party support, no seats on committees, etc. Then, if they still want to join, and if they've been supportive of the Conservative legislative agenda, they can, but only as back-benchers, with no chance of a cabinet post until after the next general election, assuming they win.

Unless, of course, the MP's name is Belinda Stronach. Then don't even bother asking.

Michael Ignatieff, author of 16 books, deep thinker, teacher in an American college, was faxed to the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore as part of the process of getting him into Parliament, then into cabinet, and ultimately into 24 Sussex Drive and in charge of the country.

This is called democracy.

In a blow to democracy, a well-known resident of Etobicoke-Lakeshore has decided to follow his conscience:

In a last-minute blow to high-profile Liberal candidate Michael Ignatieff, the president of the party’s riding association in Etobicoke-Lakeshore swung his support today to Conservative rival John Capobianco in Monday’s federal election.

The controversial process by which Ignatieff was acclaimed the candidate over local hopefuls ruled ineligible by the party was a major factor in the decision, said Ron Chyczij, who had hoped to contest the nomination himself.

“I can no longer in good conscience support the Liberal candidate in this riding,” he said in a statement released this afternoon.

“After the nomination fiasco, I’ve purposely waited on the sidelines to see if Michael Ignatieff can in some way redeem himself as a credible Liberal candidate in this riding . . . this has not happened.”

Toronto-born Ignatieff left his job at Harvard University near Boston in mid-December to run in the election and teach at the University of Toronto after being out of the country for almost 30 years.

He bought a condominium near the university last year; he does not live in the riding.

Chyczij knows not the powers he defies at his peril.

The Liberal Party! Oooooo, scary-y-y-y.

On the other hand, maybe he does know, and maybe the Liberals just don't seem so intimidating anymore.

(via Bourque)

This bizarre dual life is the only explanation for this headline at the BBC:

That, or Kate McMillan has really let herself go.

Maybe I'll just get in touch with the Beeb and see if we can't get this straightened out.

Here are the complex equations used to model the interaction between powerful media figures and political parties. Apologies if the subtlety of the advanced mathematical modeling overwhelms you:

• ( Powerful Media Figure + Conservative Party ) * Publicly-Voiced Support = Bad
• ( Powerful Media Figure + Liberal Party ) * Private Back-Room Help = Good

For a full understanding of how this works, Joan has the goods.

An image captured from the front page of the online election section of the Globe and Mail:

But that's not what it says inside:

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy at work, but for a simple three letters -- "not" -- the home page gives the person glancing at the page exactly the wrong impression. Of course, the headline doesn't even match, so the confusion doubles. But the sublink, about Gilles Duceppe attacking Stephen Harper on Bill 101 (Quebec's language law) reinforces the suggestion that Stephen Harper is going to try to change the law.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Conservative campaign is one predicated on respecting provincial authority. No meddling, no games. Here's your transfer, go do your thing.

This is the single most important reason Stephen Harper is popular in Quebec. He actually respects the provinces.

You would think that an editor would glance at that first paragraph, and wonder why Stephen Harper is advocating meddling in one of the most contentious provincial responsibilities of all -- language. It certainly caught my eye.

Update:

I sent an email to my reporter friend, who sent it on to someone else, and within 5 minutes, the page was updated and corrected. Now that's new media!!

From the Conservative campaign office:

Paul Martin and Liberal candidate Chris Axworthy have a lot of explaining to do. Two days ago a person from Mr. Axworthy’s campaign office called a local television program and falsely accused Conservative Member of Parliament Maurice Vellacott of having been charged with sexual assault.

In perhaps the most incredible claim of the campaign, Chris Axworthy admitted the call was placed from his office, but said someone not connected to his campaign sneaked in and made the call (CP Wire, January 19, 2006).

Today, the Conservative Party released an affidavit (attached) from Tom Hengen, past leadership candidate for the Saskatchewan Liberal Party, swearing the “mystery caller” is one George Laliberte – a well-known associate of Mr. Axworthy.

“The Liberal campaign was caught making false accusations, and now appears to be caught in a cover-up,” stated Conservative Party Campaign Chair John Reynolds. “Mr. Axworthy had a chance to come clean and instead chose to deny any involvement. Paul Martin should take immediate action to remove his party’s support from Mr. Axworthy.”

As the Liberals become more desperate, they will say anything to hang onto power.

The notion that the vile phone call was made by someone who snuck into the office has been roundly ridiculed.

But now things take a serious turn. This affidavit means that Liberal candidate Chris Axworthy has to face the music. He can deny that George Laliberte made the call, and face the possibility of even more people coming forward to put a name to the voice.

Unfortunately for Axworthy, he might not have the option of simply dismissing Laliberte. That sort of thing has to be done quickly. Now if Axworthy admits that Laliberte was the caller, he will have to face questions as to why he did not recognize the voice of his close associate. Those questions won't go away by merely firing Laliberte, but will remain, suggesting that Axworthy was attempting a cover-up.

That problem moves up to the national level. Unless the Liberal Party at the national level moves quickly to cut Axworthy from the main body of the Liberal Party, as they did with David Oliver, the question of a cover-up will be asked there as well.

As the volatile polls shift back and forth between predicting a majority or minority Conservative government, the possibility exists that Paul Martin will remain prime minister after January 23.

If the combined seat count for the Liberals and the NDP exceeds the seat count for the Conservatives, Paul Martin, who is still prime minister until he resigns, can go to the Governor-General and advise her that he retains the confidence of the house.

Paul Martin can do that if he shows that Jack Layton and the NDP are committed to supporting the Liberals in a coalition of some kind. It happened in Ontario in 1985, when the Liberals under David Peterson signed an accord, on paper, with the Bob Rae and the NDP and replaced Frank Miller's Progressive Conservative government after a non-confidence vote, avoiding an election. The accord was not a formal coalition, and the NDP received no cabinet posts, but it pledged support, and the Lieutenant Governor allowed Peterson to replace Miller as premier.

Jack Layton has already shown that he will deal with Paul Martin, despite the ethics baggage. Faced with a Conservative government, and grumblings in his own caucus, Layton might just sign up to such a deal.

What could the Conservatives do? Perhaps not all that much. A counter-deal with the Bloc Quebecois would be very dangerous politically. The best thing to do would be to allow the coalition to take power, and hope that the plurality of voters who have seen their election win snatched away by the Liberal Party clinging to power and the NDP facilitating it will become furious, especially in Quebec and Alberta. Bide their time, and hope for a new election in short order to tap into that anger.

And hope in the mean time that Quebec fury won't translate into a referendum on separation. Unless Alberta beats Quebec to it. But then the Liberals would risk that to stay in power -- of that I have no doubts.

It's an unappealing scenario, but it's possible.

It certainly looked like Richard Mahoney was using the services of a civil servant, Craig Taylor, to manage his campaign web site.

After the bringing the situation to light, the facts are now becoming clear, and Craig Taylor's explanation, that someone else entered his name and contact information, has been confirmed by an embarrassed Bruce Jackson.

I have just learned of your concerns regarding Mr. Craig Taylor and his impartiality as a civil servant.

I am a friend of Craig's. In the fall of 2000, the Canadian Internet Registry began allowing private individuals to register .ca domains. Prior to that only corporations and other entities could register these domains. At that time, I chose to register my domain (the-jacksons.ca). It was registered Nov 16, 2000.

On either Nov 16th or 17th, Craig and I were speaking about CIRA's policy change. Craig asked if I could register a .ca domain for his friend (Richard Mahoney) which I did. You with see the date of original registration of RichardMahoney.ca is 2000-11-17. I have no connection with Richard Mahoney, in fact I have never met him. When I registered the domain I mistakenly used a government address instead of a personal address. This error was completely mine.

So you are aware, Craig has not asked me to contact you, however, I will be in contact with him to apologize for the embarrassment I have caused him.

Your respectfully,
Bruce Jackson

Thanks Bruce for clearing it up. And Craig Taylor, I'm glad to see that this did turn out the way it did.

I am speaking, of course, of Bob Tarantino, of Let It Bleed, who will be appearing on TVOntario's Studio 2, starting at 8pm, to talk about blogging and the election.

The bad news? It will be taped, so Bob's propensity to swear violently at the mention of either Paul Martin, Robert McLelland, or Stephen Taylor, a verbal tic so much fun to witness in person, will be edited out.

The good news? Bob will have a chance to introduce his own contribution to the expanding lexicon of the English language, "patheticker", to a much wider audience. Mark my words, we'll all be saying it in a week.

In the matter of the allegation of sexual assault made against a Conservative candidate by someone calling from inside the Liberal campaign headquarters for the riding, there have been developments:

An already tense race in the riding of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin has taken a downright nasty turn.

Liberal candidate Chris Axworthy has apologized to Conservative incumbent Maurice Vellacott after someone used a phone in Axworthy's campaign office to falsely accuse Vellacott of sexual assault on a live televised candidates' forum earlier this week.

But then it wasn't Axworthy's fault:

Axworthy concedes the call came from his office but believes someone not connected to his campaign sneaked in and made the call.

Of course, I scoffed at what sounded like a lame excuse, but then a still from the office security video clearly shows the perpetrator defeating the security measures in order to surreptitiously use the phone:

Or maybe there's a simpler explanation:

But Vellacott insists that it was an Liberal supporter because someone he knows recognized the voice and says he's prepared to take legal action.

Vellacott's explanation is simpler, sure, but not nearly as much fun as Axworthy's version.

An eyewitness account:

We just saw Belinda at a Aurora Chamber of Commerce Luncheon. Our communications chair Rita Smith walked up to her and asked her what she thought about Hargrove endorsing the Bloc, which Belinda replied: “All I care about is that he endorsed me”

Is it just me, or is Belinda not a very discriminating woman? But then we all sort of knew that already.

The funny thing is, back in May, Stronach was very particular when it came to associating with someone she thought made common cause with the separatists:

Seated next to [Paul] Martin at a morning news conference in Ottawa, Stronach said she doesn't see Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper as being "truly sensitive" to the needs and the complexities of Canada.

"Also, by forcing an election before the Conservative party has grown and established itself in Quebec, the hold over Quebec of the Bloc Quebecois can only grow into the vacuum. The result will be to stack the deck in favour of separatism, and the possibility of a Conservative government beholden to the separatists."

But now she doesn't mind being beholden to CAW boss Buzz Hargrove, who is encouraging Quebec voters to vote for the separatist Bloc Quebecois?

All I care about is that he endorsed me.

Makes you wonder what other endorsements she'd be willing to accept, as long as it helps her keep the only thing she cares about -- a big office and people around her who pretend she is anything but an intellectual lightweight.

Craig Taylor responds to what appears to be partisan support of Richard Mahoney's campaign website:

Dear John,

I received your email this morning and read it with growing alarm. I too would have great concern if what you have stated was correct. I would like to explain the situation.

I am a friend of Richard Mahoney, and have been for over a decade. In the fall of 2001 he wanted to have his own Internet domain name so he could have personalized e-mail. A friend of mine was registering domain names for himself and I asked him to register Richardmahoney.ca. He did and being unaware of my personal e-mail address entered my governmental e-mail address. I was unaware of this and did not check the Internic web site, I just sent the documentation to Richard. This was well before he chose to run for office.

In November of this year, Richard's campaign office called me and told me that when they renewed the domain name they noticed that I was listed as the administrative contact - I checked the Internic site and discovered, much to my horror that not only was I listed as the contact person for the site it included my departmental e-mail address. I immediately changed it to my home e-mail address and searched my records from 2001 found the id and password for Internic and requested that Richard's campaign replace my name with that of the appropriate individual, which they did.

Unknown to them, and to me, updating the Internic site does not update the official CIRA (Canadian Internet Registration Authority) site where it continued to list me as the administrative contact. When this was pointed out to me I immediately corrected that error and realising the potential for misunderstanding and embarrassment contacted the appropriate officials at the department, explaining to them, as I am doing with you, that I have never actually administered this site nor any web site associated with this domain. It was turned over to Richard in 2001 and aside from recently amending the contact information have had no dealings with the site.

As you know from our days working for the CTC I have being a career civil servant for many years and I am proud to be a member of the Canadian Public Service and I treasure its non-partisanship, which was why I was so concerned when my departmental e-mail was referenced in concert with a political web site.

I have worked loyally for all the parties that have formed governments over the last twenty odd years and will do so in the future. It would be a sad day for all Canadians if the trust in the objectiveness of our public service was undermined, which is why I am answering your question at such length.

I hope that this clears up the situation, though I am available to discuss it further if you wish. Please feel free to forward my response to whomever might be interested, though I would hope that you quote it in its entirety.

Sincerely

Craig Taylor

I think we might have to give Taylor the benefit of the doubt, unless someone else can refute his story. Internet archives show richardmahoney.ca became an active site only by mid-2004, in time for the election. It is quite possible that in all the time before that, the domain name was being used to support a personalized email address.

It is quite possible that Taylor's friend entered the email address and fax number without Taylor's permission. And that Taylor never noticed. Of course, it would also require that not a single fax or email was sent to the administrator of the site (Taylor) in the five years until the 2006 election.

And that includes the 2004 election, when the website was born at this address. I would have thought that would have generated some emails, but apparently it did not.

Is all this believable? Hard to say.

My argument was never with Craig Taylor, as such, but with Richard Mahoney. His pronouncements on Stephen Harper's concern about the impartiality of a civil service grown accustomed to over a decade of Liberal rule were shrill, and quickly undermined by his own cozy relationship with civil servants.

Some elements of Taylor's explanation are not easily taken at face value, but short of specific evidence of Taylor's further involvement in Mahoney's political activities, evidence that I haven't found online, we'll have to take Taylor at his word when he says he will work diligently for any duly elected government.

When all's said and done, that's what I wanted to hear, so I probably shouldn't complain.

Former Liberal candidate Gilles Savard

Reported by Radio-Canada:

Jean-Pierre Blackburn n'aurait jamais pu en esperer tant. Son adversaire liberal, Gilles Savard, plie l'echine et se dit convaincu que M. Blackburn sera elu depute de cette circonscription, lundi prochain.

Le candidat liberal, à qui les sondages n'accordent que 5 % des votes, loin derrière les bloquistes et les conservateurs, recommande tout de même à ses partisans de voter liberal.

Here's a horrible translation:

Jean-Pierre Blackburn could never have hoped for this. His Liberal opponent, Gilles Savard, has conceded, convinced that Mr. Blackburn will be elected representative of this riding next Monday.

The Liberal candidate, who is polling only 5% of the votes, far behind the Bloc and the Conservatives, is recommending that his supporters vote Liberal anyway.

Of course, every vote earns the Liberal Party $1.75 per year until the next election.

Still, who is going to vote for the guy who is not even running? Who has thrown up his hands in defeat?

Who's going to want to vote for tax dollars to go to the party that figures it should just get the money, even without a candidate in the running.

Here's what should happen. If you withdraw, the party should lose the fraction of the money represented by the votes cast in that riding.

Expect those votes to go Conservative.

Update:

The National Post is telling a different story, carrying a story from the Canadian Press. According to them, Savard is telling people to support the Conservatives!

A Liberal candidate in Quebec is conceding defeat and urging his supporters to vote for the Conservative party.

Gilles Savard, the Liberal candidate for the riding of Jonquiere-Alma, is throwing his support behind the Tories to stave off a Bloc Quebecois victory.

Savard pulled out because polls showed he only had five per cent support in the riding in a province that has seen a recent swell of support for the Tories.

The story at Radio-Canada has not changed. Did I translate it wrong? I don't think so.

Update #2:

The truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. From CTV:

A Liberal candidate in Quebec has admitted he is not going to win, and is calling on undecided voters to support the Conservatives in order to defeat the Bloc Quebecois.

Gilles Savard, the Liberal candidate running in the Jonquière-Alma riding, will remain on the ballot and is still asking his own supporters to vote for him.

Initial reports claimed Savard had pulled out and asked his supporters to back the Tories, with local polls predicting he would only receive five per cent of the vote.

Well, I'm back to my original position. If he has pulled out, ballots for him should be considered spoiled ballots, and the Liberals should receive no funding based on votes for Savard.

From a source:

Reporters are telling me that the Libs will be stuck in Ottawa for most of the next two days because they have run out of cash to run the tour.

Funny if true.

Liberal candidate Chris Axworthy

Officially Screwed has lead on this story.

"Officially screwed" might also be the term for Liberal candidate Chris Axworthy if this turns out to be malicious slander:

I just heard on CFRA that a huge breaking story is hitting the wires about a televised debate on the Shaw Cable network for the riding of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin.

During the debate, a caller called in and accused Conservative Candidate Maurice Vellacott of sexual assault on a church secretary.

When they tracked the number back, they came up with the Liberal campaign headquarters of Chris Axworthy.

So a Conservative candidate is being interviewed live, no delay, and someone from within the Liberal campaign headquarters for the riding calls in to accuse that candidate of sexual assault?

We'll see how far this develops. On the lookout for confirmation.

Update: An official press release

OTTAWA - Tuesday night on Shaw Cable, a caller phoned in falsely accusing front-runner Conservative incumbent MP Maurice Vellacott of sexually assaulting his church secretary at North Park Church. The technicians who have no 7 second delay cut the call off. Vellacott responded quickly by looking directly into the camera, stating to the technicians that he needed to get the name and phone number of that caller for defamation proceedings.

After the cable show ended, Vellacott was handed the requested phone number by Shaw Cable producer Gracie Field. Upon arrival back at his campaign office he was told that a person had reported in and was 100% confident that it was the voice of George Laliberte. The caller maliciously and falsely accused Vellacott of being "removed from North Park Church because you were charged with sexual assault" on his church secretary. Laliberte is a friend of Chris Axworthy's and apparently owes Axworthy some favours. When the 1-306-956-2570 number provided by the Shaw Cable staff member was dialed, it was found to be Chris Axworthy's campaign office phone number. At that time Laliberte could not be reached at his home number of 1-306-683-3650.

Vellacott has never been accused by any woman of sexual assault and was never a Pastor at North Park Church or ever in attendance there. Bishop Jerold Gliege former long-term Pastor of North Park Church and now of Holy Covenant Orthodox Church, confirms that Vellacott never served there (home 306-664-2808; Church 652-3339). Gliege says, "Vellacott is an upstanding, honourable man who has served this Saskatoon-Wanuskewin constituency very diligently. He is a courageous person and has been an effective representative for this riding on a whole range of issues. He has a big heart for people and stands up for seniors, the vulnerable and the underdog. Because he is an articulate defender of life, marriage and family, he is the target of attacks by those who have differing views."

It appears that Axworthy endorses spreading lies and attempted character assassination. Vellacott says this is typical of nation-wide sleazy Liberal tactics in the dying days of their desperate campaign. After this kind of evil tactic, Vellacott predicts that Axworthy will be damaged irreparably and unable to pursue public office again in this province.

Vellacott challenges Paul Martin to distance himself from Axworthy and such sleazy, corrupt, dishonest actions so typical of the Liberal Party across the country over the last number of years.

Furthermore, Vellacott says Ralph Goodale has now shown himself not only to be less than forthcoming on the income trust scandal but also a poor judge of character when he recently made a spurious reference to Vellacott when he spoke of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin needing representation "by a person of class and quality like Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon StarPhoenix, January 10, 2006, page A4)." Some class and some quality! Vellacott says that in view of these sleazy tactics those individuals who signed Axworthy's nomination papers should disassociate from Axworthy. The names of Axworthy's nominators for this election are on record at the Saskatoon-Wanuskewin Electoral Office at 275 First Avenue North and can be scrutinized by any member of the public between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm.

Previously Axworthy's campaign was exposed as being associated with a website that misleads, perverts and maliciously rips things out of context. Eric Hovius the originator of the website at first denied being at Axworthy's office, but when caught in a lie by StarPhoenix reporter Darren Bernhardt, he acknowledged that he knows Axworthy and has spent time at Axworthy's office. (Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Jan. 14, 2006)

Vellacott is expecting election day to be a vindication of his hard work on behalf of his constituents in Saskatoon-Wanuskewin.

Go here.