It is indeed a telling comment on the political history of this country and the Liberal party when we see the Liberals on the brink of penury. It gives one rise to think that the natural governing party of Canada has been skimming the coffers for so long that they are unable to raise funds legally. Will the Canadian taxpayer ever really be given the facts regarding the number of Liberal backers that became millionaires by being handed government contracts on condition that they returned a portion of the contract to the Liberal party?

Posted by: Antenor at May 15, 2007 10:33 AM

---

and Stephanie says Harper doesn't understand the economy

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=49447

Posted by: Pissedoff at May 15, 2007 10:45 AM

---

and Stephanie says Harper doesn'y nderstand the economy

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=49447

Posted by: Pissedoff at May 15, 2007 10:47 AM

---

An error occurred:

Rebuild failed: Template 'BannerBlockBackup' does not have an Output File.

Tried to comment twice to this and got this error whatever it means

Posted by: Pissedoff at May 15, 2007 10:49 AM

---

Cannot commet keep getting a stupid error even when i try t osend you the error

Posted by: Pissedoff at May 15, 2007 10:51 AM

---

Sorry about that. Fixed it.

Posted by: Steve Janke at May 15, 2007 10:56 AM

---

Thanks Steve, didn't think my comments were getting through

Posted by: Pissedoff at May 15, 2007 11:01 AM

---

Again I come back to Preston Manning's famous observation that the two glues which keep the Liberal Party together are power and patronage. When in power, the Libs can dispense all the patronage required to keep them united. But it becomes much more difficult when they are out of power, and Party coffers are bare.

Something's got to give in this little battle of wills between Dion and Iggy.

Posted by: Calgary Junkie at May 15, 2007 11:03 AM

---

Apparently Dion's heavy-hitter Mark Marissen is jetting in to Ottawa from the west coast today to deal with this powderkeg.

Posted by: slap-happy sam at May 15, 2007 11:15 AM

---

While this story is an example of some good digging on your part, Steve, I think you might be overemphasizing the connection between the loan and the job status. Is it a possible conflict? Yes. Is it more than that? Pure speculation.

Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at May 15, 2007 11:56 AM

---

Slap-happy is correct.
Marrissen is on his way to Ottawa today. Will be meeting Ignatieff and Dion. Jamie Carroll will be asked to step aside at the end of the session and caucus will agree to this "graceful" exit.

Carroll was behind Gerard Kennedy getting sacked in early April as Readiness Chair. Apparently for his behind the scenes preparation for a quick leadership race in the event of a spring election (loss) or better yet, Dion packing it in.

It will be an interesting Caucus meeting on Wednesday. Liberal tradition is that the National Director of the Party is in attendance, however, this week he has been told to stay home.

with files from..

Posted by: Lib in the know at May 15, 2007 12:05 PM

---

Steve -- Great post. As usual, top notch investigative work.

Posted by: Sandy at May 15, 2007 12:29 PM

---

Will Dion survive as Liberal leader by the time the next election rolls around? I think it's pretty well determined that he is a loser, and the only hope Liberals have of surviving is for their core voters to stand with them. It's now down to 30% support with no prospect of rising to say 40%. Quebecers are turning against the federal Liberals and Dion is behind all other party leaders in Quebec. The biggest Liberal stronghold is the GTA, Ignatieff's 'country'.

Liberals know that Dion is "not a leader", and they know that Ignatieff can be a viable leader, as does Ignatieff. In the first vote of their leadership convention, Dion only had 17% grassroots support, while Ignatieff had ~30%. In the final brokered vote Dion won 55% to Ignatieff's 45%. Why was there such a reversal?

Liberals must extricate themselves from the ill-fated Dion leadership .. because Canadians will not want another Liberal prime minister from Quebec .. plain and simple.

Posted by: Observer at May 15, 2007 12:47 PM

---

For the sake of the country, Lieberals should keep on keeping on...the comment that the party is one step out of the poorhouse because it no longer has the power of patronage is bang-on....why build a strong grass-roots support system, like the Conservatives, when your coffers are healthy from kickbacks. The party salted Canada's soil and is reaping what it sowed. Reading the dailies from the David Radler trial, one cant help thinking hes a Liberal poster boy.

Posted by: John at May 15, 2007 01:10 PM

---

I'd go even further than Dennis (Second Thoughts) on this. Once again, in the name of partisan potshots, Stephen Janke has slandered someone. You keep dancing on the other side of the line, Steve, and someday someone is going to sue you.

Maybe we should turn the tables and see who has bought their way into the PMO. What? We can't? Mr. Accountability and Transparency refuses to reveal who his biggest donors were?

Posted by: Ted at May 15, 2007 01:28 PM

---

Oh please Ted, I would think you would be quite aware that slander is readily defeated by defenses such as "truth" which is an absolute defense, and fair comment. Furthermore, given that a blog is published material as opposed to an oral statement the proper action would be 'libel'. Now assuming what Steve has said is true, and given that he references publications reporting that Dion owes this fellow 30,000 grand absent any evidence to the contrary that statement is true.

Beyond that, Carroll and Dion are both public figures whose positions and actions are subject to scrutiny as a result of their involvement in the political process. Editorializing on the likelihood of Carroll retaining his job and speculating on the relevance of a large personal debt is hardly libel. Fair comment is in play.

Posted by: Chris at May 15, 2007 02:52 PM

---

Ted, where is the slander ?

To me this seems like fair comment. If Dion had no debt to Carroll, than Dion is his own man. The 30k loan certainly provides the apperance of conflict of interest. Is this not fair speculation ?

Did the $30k loan never happen ? Is there anything untrue in the story ? Where does the alleged slander occur, Ted ?

Posted by: Concerned Torontonian at May 15, 2007 02:56 PM

---

Chris: Yes, my sloppy bad. It is possibly libel not slander.

As I've written/summarized in this post on defamation:

- Defamation consists of statements which "tend to lower a person in the estimation of others or cause a person to be shunned or avoided or exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule". Thus an assertion which does not suggest discreditable conduct by the plaintiff may still be defamatory if it imputes to him or her a condition calculated to diminish the respect and confidence in which the plaintiff is held. Clearly that is the case here.

- A person's moral character in either a private or a public capacity is equally entitled to the protection of the law from defamatory attacks. This cuts both ways: being a public figure is not a shield against comment but nor is it a shield against defamation claims. Just because someone is in the public sphere does not mean they can't be defamed.

So, clearly, the post is defamatory. Next question: is there a defence.

- The defence of fair comment might apply here but I don't think it does. Fair comment requires the defendant to establish that: (a) the words complained of are recognizable by the ordinary viewer as comment, although the comment may consist of, or include inferences from, facts [Possibly true here]; (b) the comment is based on true facts set out in the article or broadcast or clearly indicated in it [Proven fact: a loan was made; unproven fact: that Dion told the others to "go pound sand" because of his loan]; (c) the comment is on a matter of public interest [True here]; and (d) the comment is one which a person could honestly make on the facts proven, and some authorities indicate must, at least if it imputes dishonourable motives, be fair, in the sense that a fair-minded person could believe it.

So the crux of the matter rests on whether the assertion that Dion may be reluctant to fire Carroll because of his indebtedness is an unproven fact or a comment. Close call, I'll admit but the last element of the fair comment rules is the clincher:

- The defence fails if the plaintiff shows that the defendant was actuated by express malice. It is here that the question of actual belief in the comments made becomes an issue. If it is a comment, then does Steve actually believe it? or is he just spreading rumours and gossip with malice. Wouldn't be too hard for an attorney to pick out enough blog posts to prove quite definitively that Mr. Janke here has a whole heck of a lot of malice toward anything Liberal. So the defence would easily fail.

Fortunately for Steve he, like the rest of us bloggers, are pretty much nobodies so I don't think Dion or Carroll are going to sue him.

Posted by: Ted at May 15, 2007 03:35 PM

---

For clarity, putting a question mark at the end of a heading or sentence does not protect you from a claim of defamation since innuendo is also actionable.

Posted by: Ted at May 15, 2007 03:37 PM

---

So if innuendo is actionable, I expect that Cherniak's post about voting irregularities in T.O. would be actionable?

Jason must have missed that class...

Ooops! That was innuendo about Jason's competence as a lawyer! That's actionable. The Liberal party is going to sue me!

Oh no! My comment that the Liberal party implies that Liberals sue everybody. That's probably actionable. Now I'm really going to get sued.

Somebody stop me!

Posted by: mecheng at May 15, 2007 04:18 PM

---

Ted what the hell is wrong with you. Have you become such a glass jawed socialist joke that anytime anyone presents you with facts you don't like, you sputter-away about suing or getting sued?

Hey man grow-up and start changing your own diapers, your mamma can't hold your hand for ever.

Posted by: missing link at May 15, 2007 05:32 PM

---

Wow Ted, those had to hurt. Best go back to threatening rival Liberals Ted, as the court party gets all worked up about court stuff. Conservatives, not so much. We use lawyers as they were intended. Lawyers are tools, just like screwdrivers. Need something screwed, without any BS, buy a screwdriver. Need someone screwed, without any messy morality getting in the way, buy a lawyer. I've got a Librano lawyer, Ted, but he sits and speaks when I tell him to, because that's what I pay him for. Go fetch, Ted.

Posted by: Grithater at May 15, 2007 08:47 PM

---

"Maybe we should turn the tables and see who has bought their way into the PMO. What? We can't? Mr. Accountability and Transparency refuses to reveal who his biggest donors were?"

Hmmmm ... now where did I see that?

Cheers

Posted by: J.M. Heinrichs at May 15, 2007 11:35 PM

---

ted this would work in commie country....purge or fear;
you have inclinations ....

Posted by: george at May 15, 2007 11:55 PM

---

I would like to comment on 2 things
First Libral fund raising has tanked not because we cannot deliver patronage but because the political fund raising laws have changed .. THE large corporate contributors who were the backbone of Liberal financing would still be giving if they could The new party executive was mandated to take fund raising to a member driven system but so far this seems to be failing but 6 months may not be a fair peroid to condemn their effort.
Second The Dion Ignatieff equation to me at the convention and post leadership has been misinterpreted for political purpose. The use of 17 Dion and 30 Iggy is not a true picture of the convention . Iggies 30 were devoted Iggy people . The supporters of the majority of the other candidates had an ideolodical commanality which would inevitablely lead them to support anyone but Iggy. The delegates voted to take the party in a direction not supported by Iggy. For me as a delegate this was partially but importantly his position on the war,the mission and Bush foreign policy. When Dion apointed Iggy foreign affairs critic and announced after a caucus meeting that he supported the mission I wondered if the delegates at the convention would have chosen a different champion to represent their values.

Posted by: Tom at May 16, 2007 06:21 AM

---

Funny how the knee jerk reaction of a Conservative supporter to criticism of another is to insult. We see that exemplified by the Prime Minister who, when asked a critical question in the House, invariably ignores the question and insults the questioner. Getting things done for all of us? Yeah, right.

The nastiness of the Conservative breed of the species always does itself in. It is only a matter of time.

Posted by: Ted at May 16, 2007 08:14 AM

---

LOL You are worried about the effect $30,000 might have on the Leader of the Opposition, but refuse to question the $1M dolloars that helped buy Harpers leadership, which he still refuses to provide details of. Very interesting.

Posted by: Dale at May 16, 2007 09:23 AM

---

perhaps janke is on harper`s donors list...full disclosure bitches

Posted by: campbell queen at May 16, 2007 03:21 PM

---