Month: March 2011

After 25 years, Stockwell Day takes his name off the ballot

Stockwell Day

Stockwell Day, (left) former leader of the Canadian Alliance, current president of the Treasury Board, and member of Parliament for Okanagan-Coquihalla, issued the following statement today:

West Kelowna, BC

March 12, 2011

It will be exactly 25 years ago on March 17th, St. Patrick's Day, that I was honoured with my first nomination to public office.

Now, after 14 years in provincial government and almost eleven years at the federal level it is time to move on. I hereby announce that I will not be seeking re-election at the end of this mandate.

Though there would be exciting and satisfying days ahead in public office, after prayerful consideration, Valorie and I feel at peace with our decision.

Along with memories which I will forever cherish, I will also forever carry a debt of unrepayable gratitude to so many people;

To my wife, who more than any person on earth is responsible for each and every success I have been allowed to experience. Her unlimited inner strength, unfailing love and untold reserves of grace have seen us through the most incredible challenges and the most wonderful breakthroughs.

To our dear family members, who have been arm in arm with us every step of the way, we would have been lost without them;

To so many supporters, workers and colleagues through the years who gave so unselfishly in too many ways to mention;

To constituents in the cities and towns from two of 's most beautiful provinces, for their input, guidance and trust in electing me on 9 separate occasions to represent them;

And to Prime Minister Harper for allowing me the privilege to serve under his outstanding leadership. That leadership has led our nation through the most troubling economic times in over half a century.

His belief (and insistence within his caucus) that every MP must be allowed equal ground to speak up vigorously for their constituents is the foundation of decision making upon which we develop the policies for our nation.

I wish the Prime Minister full success in the days ahead in the efforts on behalf of all Canadians in maintaining a Canada that stands strong and free.

And I pledge my ongoing, whole hearted support in that shared pursuit.

“They desired a better country.”

Stockwell Day, M.P.

To stop Harper, vote Liberal or NDP? Part 2

Following up on this post, in which I asked “progressive” voters whose main motivation is unseating Prime Minister Stephen Harper if they will line up behind “Michael or Jack” (Ignatieff or Layton), let me muddy the waters for those weighing that choice a bit more.

Comparing the results of the 2000 general election to the 2008 general election we might note that:

– The Liberal Party of Canada won 172 seats in 2000 mostly because the party got 5.25 millionvotes. Eight years later, the party won just 77 seats and only 3.6 million Canadians voted Liberal.

– The NDP in 2000 won just 13 seats because only 1.093 million Canadians voted NDP. In 2008, 2.515 million Canadians voted NDP and 37 NDP MPs took their seats in Parliament.

Net-net? In the last decade, the Liberals have lost nearly 100 seats in Parliament and half of those who once voted Liberal — more than 1.5 million people — are no longer voting for the red team.

By contrast, the NDP has more than doubled its seat total in the decade, adding 24, and has more than doubled the number of Canadians who are signing up for the orange team. There are 1.5 million more NDP voters now than there were in 2000.

1.5 million more NDP voters in a decade versus 1.5 million fewer Liberal voters. Hmm.

So I ask again: If you want to get rid of Stephen Harper, who do you vote for in the next general election?

A question for the country's "progressive" voters: MIchael or Jack?

Quebec

There are many on the left, centre-left, etc. who think Stephen Harper must be stopped. Usually, that phrase is sent to me as “Stephen Harper MUST BE STOPPED!” to emphasize the urgency with which my correspondent is seized on this issue. The picture accompanying this post shows some individuals who were working hard in the 2008 election to make sure Harper was not elected. I snapped this pic while covering Harper during the 2008 election campaign during a stop in Victoriaville, Que., in the riding of Richmond-Arthabaska, where these folks who wanted Harper “stopped” failed to do so by helping to elect an MP, André Bellavance, who will never be in government because he is a member of the Bloc Québecois.

I take the yearning to up-end Harper seriously. Just as the yearning in much of Alberta to defeat the Chretien/Martin Liberals of the 1990s was a serious politicial force, the yearning in some parts to defeat Harper is not to be underestimated. And yet, as I just posted on the wall of a Facebook friend from the Lower Mainland in B.C., it's one thing to yell and scream “Stephen Harper must be stopped!” – or, in the case of the voter in the picture “Vote for Harper and you Vote for the War!” – and quite another thing to actually do it. Here's what I posted on that wall:

If unseating Harper is the motivation for you at the ballot box: Do you vote Liberal or NDP? It seems unlikely — though I am happy to be convinced otherwise — that an NDP MP from Surrey or Delta will be sitting on the government benches in the House of Commons. It seems more likely that a Liberal MP from Surrey or Delta will sit on a government bench. Indeed, the combined vote of Liberals and the NDP easily surpasses the vote totals of the Conservatives in the last three elections. So, to unseat Harper, who will progressives line up behind? Jack or Michael?

As a Professional Political Reporter (TM), I'm very interested to hear any thoughts on this issue, either in the comments below or directly to me at david.akin@sunmedia.ca.

 

A(another) damning report on Canada's federal access-to-information performance

Strong and robust rights for access to information held by federal government departments helps citizens hold their government to account, learn about their government, and increases transparency and accountability. I think we're all agreed on that point, are we? Of course we are.

And yet, despite broad agreement to that principle, one government after another continues to pay mere lip service to ensuring that federal government departments, boards, and agencies live up to the spirit and principle of the federal Access to Information Act.

The latest evidence? The annual “Report Cards” from the federal Information Commissioner. Because successive federal governments (both Liberals and Conservatives are culpable here) have failed to give the Information Commissioner any real legislative “teeth” to force change, all the Information Commissioner can do is use the carrot of public praise and the stick of public shame to encourage change.

The commisioner, Suzanne Legault, has a few carrots:

I congratulate Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; the National Arts Centre; the Office of the Auditor General; the Office of the Privacy Commissioner; and VIA Rail for achieving these strong compliance rates with the Access to Information Act.

But mostly, Legault is forced to pull out her stick for a few well-placed whacks in some departmental behinds:

… we did see some of the worst results in the 12 years that we have been doing the report cards. We issued a red alert this year to the Canada Post Corporation, which means that its performance was so far off the chart that we were unable to ascribe a rating …

We also issued a failing grade this year to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. …

Legault also notes that one of the centrepiece pieces of legislation in the Harper government's first term — the Federal Accountability Act — has been a bust when it comes bringing more transparency and accountability on access to information:

After more than three years of experience with the changes introduced by the FedAA, it is my view that the FedAA resulted, at best, in marginal advancements for transparency. The legislative scheme increased the number of institutions covered by the Act by 70, which represents about 2% of all requests received in 2009-2010. At the same time, however, it introduced new exemptions and exclusions that prevent the Act from being applied generally.

Improved deficit picture means Flaherty will have room to play with federal budget, TD says

The number crunchers at the TD Bank are out this morning with a report [PDF] that says, among other things, that the federal government's deficit for the current year will likely be $5.9 billion less than what Finance Minister Jim Flaherty predicted in the fall economic update. We'll still be $39.5 billion in the hole but that extra deficit headroom could give Flaherty a little more freedom to move when he tables the 2011 on March 22.

The assumption underneath the TD forecast is a “status quo” situation at the federal level. In other words, if there are no major tax changes or spending items, the deficit is $5.9 billion better this year and a whopping $8.1 billion better for the fiscal year that ends March 31, 2012.

Now: Does Flaherty spend a little bit of that on, say, some NDP demands to win their support of the budget. Or does it mean that spending cuts everyone agrees he has to make to bring us back to balanced budgets on his timetable will be less painful?

TD deputy chief economist Derek Burleton and senior economist Sonya Gulati have this cautionary paragraph in their report [PDF]:

Despite this improved leeway, the government faces significant medium-term fiscal challenges. For one, the government’s minority status in Parliament will likely necessitate some additional spending that will erode off a bit of the fiscal room. We discuss some of the speculated announcements and their costs in the final section of this report. Second, since the government continues to rule out tax increases, the revenue line can only inch up so much. To achieve budgetary balance then, the medium-term fiscal plan hinges on its ability to wrestle annual program spending growth down to an average 1.1% per year through FY 15-16. Such a feat would represent one of the most prolonged periods of federal fiscal restraint in the Post War era and coincides with a time when age-related spending pressures are intensifying. As such, providing more detail as to how the medium-term plan will be achieved – and especially how government will achieve its spending targets – is encouraged.

Updating the paperwork on the "in-and-out" charges

A couple of “primary sources” which will likely be a useful reference down the road:

First, the “charging document” laid before the Ontario Court of Justice in which the Conservaitve Party of Canada, Senators Irving Gerstein and Doug Finley and two former party officials, Susan Kehoe and Michael Donison, are accused of violating Canada's election laws.

Charge Sheet for Conservative Party, Doug Finley, Irving Gerstein, Susan Kehoe, and Michael Donison

Second: The 57-page “Reasons for Judgement” released by the Federal Court of Appeal when it overruled a Federal Court of Canada judge in deciding that Chief Electoral Officer was right to withhold rebates for the expenses at the heart of the “in-and-out” affair. This Federal Court case is a different one than the case that will be heard at the Ontario Court of Justice. But though the issues before the court are different, both sides are expected to rely on some of the same evidence and some of the same arguments at the court of justice.

Federal Court of Appeal Reasons for Judgment (In-and-Out_

The Kenney Branding Strategy: "We Are Losing" but "We Are Losing Less Badly"

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has long been leading a concerted effort by the Conservative Party to reach out to first-generation Canadians, a group of immigrants that have historically been more likely to vote Liberal than Conservative. Kenney has had some success but, as the Conservatives now recognize in an accidentally leaked presentation, “Data Proves Hunch: We Are Losing” though, “We Are Losing Less Badly Now.”

For example: According to the data in the presentation, the Conservatives were once winning just 17.9 per cent of the vote in those polls in the Toronto with a 416 area code where 40 per cent of voters are Chinese. By the 2008, general election, the Conservatives had nearly doubled their support in those same polls to 33.3 per cent — a strong improvement but not enough to steal seats.

The Conservatives want to do better in the next general election which — as you'll see in the presentation below — they believe will begin in late March. And so the Conservatives are/were all set with a radio and television advertising strategy that would have a “heavy deployment” beginning on March 15 and running for two weeks. That information comes on a page – page 17 below — that is titled “TV Buy Costs – Pre Writ”, an indication that the Conservatives, at least, believe the country will be into a general election campaign two weeks after this ad buy starts. Any ad spending between now and the writ period, of course, doesn't count against the spending limits imposed during a campaign.

A note on the provenance of the information below: The information was distributed to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery by the NDP. The NDP came to be in possession of this information because it and a cover letter seeking some help for a $200,000 fundraising campaign to pay for these ads was accidentally addressed and hand-delivered to NDP MP Linda Duncan who happens to have the same last name as Conservative MP John Duncan. The original set of documents from the NDP contained 29 pages but many of the pages were duplicates. I have removed the duplicate pages and presented these documents as distributed by the NDP. So far, we have heard nothing from the Conservatives to suggest these documents have been altered or are fake. Indeed, in a talking point memo distributed by the Conservative Party yesterday to all of its MPs, the Conservatives appear to make no apologies for this kind of approach to winning the support of “cultural communities”.

Jason Kenney presentation – Building the Conservative brand in cultural communities

Info-bot leaps into action on Kenney aide resignation

One of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s political aides was forced to resign Thursday after accidentally sending confidential Conservative campaign strategies and a request for $200,000 in campaign funds to an NDP MP. The employee, Kasra Nejatian, had been Kenney’s director of multicultural affairs.

This evening Conservative MPs got the following message in their in-box from the Conservative Party of Canada message center/info-bot:

Today, a letter regarding Conservative Party business was mistakenly printed on House of Commons letterhead. The letter encourages riding associations to make a financial commitment for the next election.

  • This is very serious and unacceptable.
  • The employee responsible for this matter has offered the Minister his resignation and the Minister has accepted it.
  • Minister Kenney has taken responsibility for this and has apologized for his former employee's actions.
  • Using parliamentary or government resources for partisan activities is completely unacceptable.
  • Minister Kenney will be raising this matter with the Speaker of the House, the Ethics Commissioner and the Board of Internal Economy.

If asked if Minister Kenney instructed this employee to send this letter:

  • Minister Kenney gave the instruction to have riding associations contacted.
  • But as is always the case in these matters, he fully expected that this would be done after hours and on the appropriate letterhead.
  • As previously stated, this employee has offered Minister Kenney his resignation and Minister Kenney has accepted it.

If asked on the purpose of the deck:

  • Since its creation, the new Conservative Party has made earning the support of Canadians of all ethnic backgrounds a priority.
  • We will continue this important work and will make no apologies for it.

James Travers: 1948-2011

Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

I was deeply saddened today to learn of the passing of James Travers.

Former editor-in-chief of the Ottawa Citizen and columnist for the Toronto Star, James was a leader in his craft.  Whether in Ottawa, Zimbabwe, Cyprus, or throughout Africa and the Middle East, James exemplified the professionalism and integrity that are the foundations of good journalism.  His passing is a significant loss to the Canadian journalism community.

On behalf of myself, Laureen and all Canadians I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife Joan and his two sons, Patrick and Ben.

The thoughts and prayers of all Canadians are with his family and friends during this difficult time.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff:

Jim Travers was one of Parliament Hill’s most distinguished must-read national affairs columnists. His succinct turn of phrase, sharp analytical skills and measured approach to his subjects were greatly admired by his followers and colleagues. On a personal level, he was always amiable and approachable, a consummate professional whose deep knowledge of politics was matched by his good nature and quick wit.

On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our parliamentary caucus, I offer my deepest condolences to Jim’s family, his wife Joan and sons Patrick and Ben, and his many friends and colleagues. He will be deeply missed in the hallowed halls of Parliament Hill.

The Toronto Star: Star Columnist Jim Tavers dies

The Ottawa Citizen: Former Citizen editor James Travers: passionate, compassionate journalist

Canoe: Star columnist dies

From the House of Commons today:

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP caucus were shocked and profoundly saddened to learn today of the most untimely death of our friend and colleague on the Hill, Jim Travers.

Jim was a seasoned veteran journalist and a consummate professional who was an inspiration and a mentor to many. “The kind of journalist I aspire to be”, one press gallery member said today. He was an old-school guy who would never burn a source, never pull a punch and never hesitate to speak truth to power in the finest tradition of his honourable craft, and he did so with a sense of humour and a turn of phrase that was always pithy, unique, clever and memorable. The man could really write.

In all of his many roles in an illustrious career, Jim represented the very best of journalistic integrity. His colleagues at the Toronto Star have lost a dear friend and an inspirational leader.

Our deepest heartfelt condolences go to Jim's family. His many friends on Parliament Hill will miss him profoundly, and I am proud to have called myself one of them.

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today to speak on the passing of a good friend, a fine Canadian and a great journalist, Jim Travers.
Jim was a true gentleman whose rumpled presence concealed a sharp mind, a lovely sense of fun and a great pen. He had a distinguished 40 year career in journalism, both at home and around the world. He was editor in chief of Canada's largest newspaper, The Toronto Star, as well as a mainstay of the Ottawa Bureau.
Jim was rightly honoured by his colleagues, winning the Charles Lynch Award in 2005 and the National Newspaper Award in 2010.
We will all miss his keen mind and shrewd analysis, but even more, we will miss the warmth and kindness he showed to so many of us.
He had a deep love of our country and a profound respect for the importance of our democratic institutions and traditions, and he would have been annoyed with me for not being able to get through this without crying.
Jim's passing leaves so much behind. Great friend on all sides of politics and journalism, but also a hole in our hearts. We send our deepest condolences to his wife Joan and children, Ben and Paddy, and his wider family.