Christine Elliott campaigns in Ottawa: The Twitter play-by-play

The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party is in the midst of a leadership race as it seeks to replace John Tory. There is a relatively strong connection between the Ontario PC party and the federal Conservative Party of Canada. Harper ministers John Baird, Tony Clement, and Jim Flaherty were all cabinet ministers when Mike Harris was the PC premier of Ontario.

The relationship between the PC Party of Ontario and the federal Conservatives right now is an interesting one for the simple reason that they find themselves on opposite sides of a very important tax issues: The decision by Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty to merge the GST and PST into one Harmonized Sales Tax. This is something that federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has been pushing for since he came to Ottawa. Despite their differences on some other issues, Flaherty thinks McGuinty is absolutely right when it comes to the HST.

Like most members of the PC Party of Ontario, Christine Elliott thinks McGuinty is absolutely wrong on the HST issue. Elliott is among those running to replace Tory and she just happens to be the spouse of the federal finance minister who likes McGuinty's plan. For that reason, Elliott's campaign is extra-interesting for those of us keeping an eye on federal politics.

Today, Elliott was in Ottawa as part of her campaign and, thanks to Twitter, we know a little bit about a reception held for her at a pub just off of the Parliamentary Precinct.

Here's an edited version of the Twitter playback:

Chad Craig:

  • Rumour has it Christine Elliott had a huge turnout of federal CPC members tonight at the Elephant & Castle in Ottawa!

Christine Elliott (who you can follow on Twitter @votechristine):

  • Great to see Rahim Jaffer, MP Colin Carrie and Mayor O'Brien tonight!
  • Thank you to Ministers (Lisa) Raitt (NRCAN), (Peter) MacKay (Defence), (Rona) Ambrose (Labour), (Helena) Guergis (Status of Women), (Stephen) Fletcher (Democratic Reform)…and of course (Jim) Flaherty (Finance) for coming out tonight.
  • Great to see (Conservative) MPs Greg Rickford, Mike Wallace, Bruce Stanton at my event. (All three are Ontario MPs – Rickford from northwestern Ontario, Wallace from Burlington and Stanton from the Orillia area.)

Richard Ciano:

  • Packed house for Christine Elliott at Elephant and Castle. (Ottawa) Mayor (Larry) O'Brien just arrived.
  • Minister Fletcher and (Peterborough Conservative MP) Dean Del Mastro here for Christine Elliott too.

Transcript of Harper's Monday conference call with reporters

After putting out the call for volunteers, “Gabby from QC” a frequent commenter here (and, I've noticed, at many other blogs), stepped up and has provided a transcript based on the recording of the call distributed yesterday by the Prime Minister's Office. The call was organized, the PMO said, by The Israel Project which was also responsible for inviting reporters.

Here then, is what “Gabby from QC” has provided and I am very thankful for the assistance:

[Note from Gabby in QC: Here's the transcript of the PM's tele-conference. Unfortunately, the sound wasn't always crystal clear to me so I missed a few words. The [?] indicates word/words not understood, so not transcribed.]

Transcript:

Kory Teneycke: Yes, good morning everyone, thank you for joining us this morning. The Prime Minister is joining a call from Kingston Jamaica today, where he is having bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Golding, coming out of the Summit of the Americas trip.

The Prime Minister’s time is going to be quite limited this morning, as we’re dealing with a hostage taking on a Canadian jet in Jamaica starting late last night, so we’re going to be limited to twenty minutes. If you have any follow-up calls or questions, please contact myself at our office. That number is 613-957-5555, once again 613-957-5555, and with that, here’s the Prime Minister of Canada.

PM Harper: Yes, thank you very much, everybody. I really do appreciate your being on the call. In January 2008, our government was the first to announce that Canada would not participate in the Durban II Conference. At the same time we also indicated the Government of Canada would not fund the participation of Canadian NGOs in the Durban process.

We’re pleased that many countries have since followed Canada’s lead in withdrawing from Durban II, including Israel, Australia, Italy, the United States, while others like Sweden have announced that their participation will not include a ministerial presence.

Our government is leading the world, not following it, in championing international understanding and pluralism, and we take a strong position against racism [and] anti-Semitism in all their forms, and we are very concerned that around the world anti-Semitism is growing in volume and acceptance, justified, as many of you know, by opposition to Israel itself. Canada will not lend its name and reputation to an international conference that promotes these kinds of things.

Having participated in the preparatory meetings for Durban II, we observed clear unmistakable signs that this conference will again scapegoat the Jewish people. For example, many of the conference’s preparatory meetings were deliberately scheduled to take place on important Jewish High Holidays to prevent or to minimize the participation of Jewish delegates. The NGOs who participated in the original Durban Conference in 2001, including those responsible for overt displays of racism and anti-Semitism, were re-invited to the Preparatory Committee, while Jewish NGOs such as the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy faced obstacles to receiving observer status.

Countries with a history of promoting hatred were given key organizational roles in the Preparatory Committee. In fact, as you know, Iranian President Ahmadinejad is the only head of state scheduled to address the conference and will do so on Monday, timed no doubt to coincide with the eve of Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Memorial Day.

Our government will participate in any international conference that combats racism. We will not, however, lend Canada’s good name and reputation to those such as Durban that promote it.

That’s all I have to say, Kory, I’ll just take some questions.

Telephone Operator: Thank you. At this time we’d like to open the floor to questions from the journalists. If you would like to ask a question, please press the “star” key, followed by the “1” key on your Touch-tone phone now. Questions will be taken in the order in which they are received. If at any time you would like to remove yourself from the questioning queue, please press “star” followed by “2.” Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press the “star” key, followed by the “1” key on your touch-tone phone now. Our first question will come from David Ljunggren, Reuters

Q: Prime Minister, good morning. I note that near or by the end of the call [?] you said you’d also be speaking about the threat of Iran. I was wondering very much whether I could turn the topic to that briefly? I mean, we’ve seen President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton trying to reach out to the Iranians. I’m wondering what your opinion of that is, given that Canada’s line [?] towards the Iranians is not necessarily very happy these days.

A: Well, as you know, notwithstanding our strong opposition to some of the policies of the Iranian regime – in fact, as you know, we have continually over the last few years been the sponsors successfully [?] of United Nations resolutions against Iran’s human rights record – notwithstanding those things we have maintained diplomatic relations. You know, I would just say briefly, that – you know – the new administration is trying a different approach. That’s something that doesn’t trouble me, provided, of course, that we’re not blind to the realities of the Iranian regime, and I think I’ve been clear what those are: both the promotion of hatred against Israel and the Jewish people but also an interest in, a clear interest in dangerous weapons technology. This is, in our view, a combination of what I’ve called an evil ideology. Combined with interest in a nuclear program, I think it’s a very worrisome and dangerous combination.

Q: Briefly for my supplementary [?], what was your reaction to the news last Friday that in fact the Toronto police had charged a Toronto gentleman with trying to export dangerous technology to Iran?

A: Well, I was pleased to see – you know, David, I have to be careful about commenting on police activities or things that are going to be before the courts – but obviously I was pleased to see the high level of cooperation between Canadian and American officials that allowed these particular activities to be uncovered and have allowed a process, a criminal process to begin.

David Ljunggren: Right, thank you.

Telephone Operator: Thank you. Our next question will come from Victoria Estrado [?] from LaSalle Magazine [?]

Q: Hi, Prime Minister, good morning. I was, I wanted to speak a little bit about NGOs – you mentioned them briefly. President Obama’s plans for tax cuts which hit at [?] all contributions – was there any plan about bringing in something like that for Canada? or what do you think of the plan?

A: I’m not familiar with the details of this plan. I presume it’s some kind of restriction on the activities of these kinds of charities? But in Canada we do have measures where we list organizations that are involved in terrorist or related activities and we restrict – obviously severely restrict – their ability to exercise charitable status. We’ve done this with several groups quite aggressively since we took office, we’ve done it with, obviously, groups like Hamas and Hizbullah, but also we’ve done it with groups like the Tamil Tigers in Canada.

Victoria [name ?]:… [? Inaudible]

Telephone Operator: Thank you. Again, ladies and gentlemen if you would like to ask a question it is “star” 1 on your touch-tone phone, now. Our next question will come from James Pfeiffer [?], Jewish Way [?]

Q: Ah yes, thanks for doing this. I’m wondering how you assess the Obama administration’s approach to Durban II, first, deciding to send a delegation to the preliminary meetings and then concluding that reform of the process wasn’t working, and decided to boycott this week’s conference. Do you think that was an appropriate response to the situation?

A: Well, it’s always, you know, I’m always a little bit reluctant to start rating or analyzing the activities of other governments. The Obama administration was new, was doing, you know, a clear assessment of previous policy decisions in this area. Our senior people spoke to senior people in the Obama administration about our concerns about the Durban II process, and in particular our evaluation that there was very little evidence that it would be any different than Durban I. We communicated that clearly to the Obama administration. We’re very pleased that they decided also not to participate

Telephone Operator: Thank you. Again, if you would like to ask a question, please press “star 1” on your touch-tone phone now. Our next question will come from Evan Buxbaum from CNN.

Q: Good morning, Mister Prime Minister. I’m just wondering if you are watching or have heard about Iranian President at [?] this morning and the reaction to his speech.

A: No, I haven’t, you’ll have to fill me in.

Q: Essentially, there was a protester dressed as a clown, who threw I believe a clown nose at him at the beginning and then it was followed by a mass walkout, and shouts of “you’re a racist” and it was quite the spectacle. I was just trying to get your reaction to that kind of demonstration.

A: Well, look, I’m always torn on these things. I don’t like anything that smacks of violence towards a speaker, but to the extent that the reaction demonstrated vocal opposition to what President Ahmadinejad stands for and has to say, I think that’s a very positive thing. You know, as I said earlier, I have been concerned – we see it in Canada on university campuses – I am concerned about how anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli discourse is getting a growing volume and respectability in some quarters, so I think anything that’s done that shows that there’s strong opposition to that is a very positive result. [?]

Telephone Operator: Thank you. Our next question will come from Andrea Mitchell, NBC News.

Q: Thank you. Prime Minister, good morning, I once … want … to follow up on Iran, whether you feel that the way President Obama treated Chavez at the Summit over the week-end has only weakened the perception of the new American president abroad, and whether the Iranians would now be tempted to take advantage of that, given all the criticism so far. You think that that’s legitimate – you were there – or do you think that that’s being exaggerated by the President’s critics here at home.

A: Yeah, let me be a bit of a conservative defender of the President in this regard. I was present, obviously, at all of the meetings, not the meeting between President Obama and the South American leaders, obviously I wasn’t at that, but I was present at the summit meetings, all of the plenary sessions. I thought President Obama did an excellent job of expressing the values and priorities of the United States of America. I thought that he, you know, he allowed a dialogue to take place in a good spirit to animate the room, which I thought made the meetings productive, I think made the United States, took the United States to a higher plain than the Venezuelas of the world, and I think was very effective at moving the vast majority of countries at reaffirming a very centrist position, a very progressive position on the things that concern us – democracy, human rights, open markets, trade.

So, I, you know, I have to tell you I thought the President’s approach of not being pulled down to the level of a confrontation with states like Venezuela, I thought that his … I thought that he did that in a way that created a remarkable sense of human openness without in any way compromising the things that Canada and other nations that share the fundamental values of the United States .. it was very effective. I thought it was a very effective performance.

I know it got some criticism at home, but you know, the United States is bigger than Venezuela. In the end, the United States is the United States, and I thought that President Obama led in a way that was very effective at that conference.

Q: And what do you think about his initial overtures to Iran, given the broadcast today and the comments of Ahmadinejad, do you think the US has to be more cautious about overtures to Iran?

A: Well, look, on this one, you know I don’t take any of these rogue states lightly. I certainly think Iran is a level of threat that is significantly greater and different than the Venezuelas of the world. That said, you know, President Obama is coming into office at a time where I think all leaders of the G8 would assess that the present approach to Iran hasn’t been working.

What do we do next? We’re obviously going to have a good discussion of that I think when we have the G8 meetings in Italy in July. I’m, I say, I’m always open to try new approaches, but I think it is important that we not be under any illusions whatsoever about the nature of the Iranian regime, what it stands for, and the nature of its activities, particularly as it involves the development of uranium enrichment and weapons capacity, you know. So, as I say, I’m all for new approaches as long as we don’t turn a blind eye to any realities here.

Andrea Mitchell: Thank you so much, sir.

Telephone Operator: Thank you. Again, if you would like to ask a question, please press the “star” key followed by the “1” key on your touch-tone phone now.

Kory Teneycke: I think we are limited to perhaps one additional question.

Telephone Operator: Thank you. Our next question will come from Hilary Krieger, Jerusalem Post.

Q: Hi, thanks for doing this. I apologize, but there was a problem getting into the call, so I’m sorry if I’m asking something you’re already addressing, but I’m interested in looking generally at Iran. And do you think at this point that the West has the will to stop Iran from getting a nuclear capacity, and do you see working with your international partners that this is really going to happen, and do you think that with this process of engagement it’s important to set a time limit on how long dialogue and talks go on … to make this more [?] effective?

A: Well, as I say, our primary involvement, at least, my primary involvement in this issue has been through discussions we’ve had at the G8, and I can tell you in the years I’ve attended the G8, every year I have seen an increased resolve around the table to recognize, to understand, and to deal with the Iranian threat. It will be interesting to see what transpires this year obviously with President Obama now in place. That’s a significant change in the chemistry.

I, at this point – and I know there’s been a lot of criticism of the Europeans in particular – I haven’t detected that the Europeans generally fail to understand what is at stake here. I think what we all are struggling with is how can we best be effective. I don’t think it’s a matter merely of will. I think the reality is that we’re in a complex world here where the United States and its allies do not have an unlimited ability to make happen what we want to have happen. So I think what we’re all struggling with is how do we best apply pressure in a way that will actually be effective.

And you know, I must tell you that I don’t think I could be clearer on this call how concerned I am about Iran and its activities, and also concerned that to this point, we have not been effective at moving that regime in a different direction, and it’s deeply worrisome to me, but I don’t think there are simple answers to this, I don’t think it’s merely a matter of will. I do think it’s a matter of putting our heads together and trying to figure out how we can bring our resources to bear in a way that will get the outcome we want.

Q: And for the idea of applying time limits as a way of making sure that engagement’s more effective, do you think that’s important to do?

A: Well, you know, time limits I think in anything, having timelines is always an effective approach, but it immediately raises the question, time limits for what, and then what are the fall-back actions, and these are very difficult questions.

Kory Teneycke: On that note, I think the Prime Minister’s time is at an end for participating in this call. Once again, if you have any follow-up questions, you can contact our media office. My name is Kory Teneycke, and our media office line is area code 613-957-5555. Thank you for your participation in the call today.

PM Harper: Thanks for your time, everyone.

Dimitri Soudas: Just very quickly, to add to what media [?] may be interested, especially American or Canadian media on the call, this is Dimitri Soudas, the Prime Minister’s press secretary. The Prime Minister will be taking off shortly from Kingston Jamaica en route to Montego Bay Jamaica, where he will be meeting up with Prime Minister Golding. The Prime Minister has been following the situation very closely on the airplane hijacking. He’s spoken to Prime Minister Golding early this morning to offer congratulations and will be meeting up with the Prime Minister in the next little while, early this morning to possibly meet the flight crew and make a few comments. So thank you very much.

Kory Teneycke: Thanks, everyone.

Harper holds conference call with reporters: (Mostly) U.S. Reporters

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is in Jamaica today where he became the first Canadian prime minister to speak to the Parliament of Jamaica. Before doing so, however, he participated in a conference call, organized by the Washington-based advocacy group The Israel Project, to which only U.S. reporters were invited. PMO calls to say that the conference call was organized by The Israel Project and that it was that group which decided which reporters to invite in on the call. PMO says some Canadian reporters were in on the call. In fact, an Ottawa-based Reuters reporter had the first question. PMO also notes that Harper frequently does interviews or press sessions with “ethnic” media while in Canada and that normally, there is little interest in these sessions from the MSM. To which I said, fair enough, but there might be more interest if the MSM knew about them. The rest of this post was written before those conversations with key PMO types occurred …

The Canadian Jewish News has this report:

“In a Monday-morning conference call with journalists organized by the Washington-based think-tank The Israel Project, Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeated Canada’s denunciation of this week’s United Nations World Conference Against Racism. . . .

Harper said Canada was “leading the world in championing international understanding and pluralism” and also in its stance against anti-Semitism and racism “in all other forms. We’re very concerned that anti-Semitism is growing in volume and acceptance, justified by opposition to Israel itself.”

After canvassing some of my colleagues in the Parliamentary Press Gallery, I'm pretty sure no it seems few Canadian news organization were tipped about this call and, so far as I know, we only learned of it from our U.S. colleagues. I point this out only to say that I'm pretty sure Harper is not going to find many voters in the U.S. but there are some voters in Canada that, for better or worse, read, watch or listen to the output of the three hundred press gallery members (not all of which work for major outlets like Canwest News Service or CTV. Gallery members from smaller news organizations like the Canadian Catholic News and the Christian Current depend on the PMO distributing notices and information through the Press Gallery). You would think that, if Harper is taking a tough stand on anti-Semitism, it might be of interest to say, Jewish voters in Montreal or Toronto.

If he wants to talk to American reporters– fair enough, that's completely within his prerogative and it probably makes sense for a Canadian PM to do a little outreach with reporters from the U.S. and other key allies. But I'm a little confused why he and his staff want to keep that fact a secret from the rest of the country.

Anyhow, after asking a PMO communications aide this afternoon for a transcript of Harper's chat with reporters (the kind of transcript routinely published for all to see by both the Obama and Bush White House), I was provided with this link of an MP3 recording of the call. Anyone (Gabby from QC?) want to do the transcript?

Day squeezes in human rights talk on China visit

200904140732.jpg

International Trade Minister Stockwell Day met Monday with Chen Deming, China's Minister of Commerce (Day's on the left, Chen's on the right). Day and Chen have met before, in Lima at the APEC summit. Before leaving Canada, Day was asked several times by reporters if he planned to bring up China's human rights record or other non-trade issues such as North Korea's rocket test but all he would say is that Canada had not agreed to restrict itself in any of the discussions Day is having or will have during his travels in China.

Day's office is doing a good job providing updates of his activites in China (and, earlier on the trip, in Japan). This most recent update — known as a read-out in political communications circles — is the first to mention that Day, who has been a strong critic of China on human rights in the past, brought up the issue with his Chinese hosts. Here is the paragraph from that update:

Minister Day and Minister Chen agreed on the importance of a vibrant and forward-looking relationship and of increasing levels of bilateral trade and investment. They exchanged persectives and views on the state of the world's economy, investment climate in Canada and China, stimulus packages adopted by Canada and China, and the need to collaborate to fight protectionism. The ministers also discussed human rights issues of concern to Canada. They also underlined areas where bilateral cooperation can be increased, notably in technology and energy sectors.

That's it. That's all. Day's office declined to provide any details about what, if any, cases Day brought to Chen's attention.

Here's more from the read-out:

The two ministers discussed the state of the bilateral Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) negotiations, as well as Approved Destination Status (ADS).
Other issues discussed included investment in Canada by Chinese state-owned enterprises, the use of trade remedies, value-added tax on aircraft and beef access. Minister Day and Minister Chen reinforced the shared commitment to concluding the WTO Doha Round and agreed on the benefits of working closely together to facilitate the resolution of key outstanding issues with relevant countries.

Conservatives feuding in eastern Alberta?

Conservatives MPs are apparently feuding in caucus over Brian Mulroney; Conservatives in one Calgary riding are fighting for the right to hold a nomination meeting to replace incumbent Conservative MP Rob Anders; and now, another long-running feud in eastern Alberta is heating up again.

The newly elected board of Conservative riding association in Vegreville-Wainwright — a board that the incumbent MP Leon Benoit didn't want elected — and the national council of the Conservative Party are at odds over the rights to hold a nomination meeting.

  Leon Benoit (left) has survived other challenges from within his own riding association. Benoit, who grew wheat and canola on his own farm while acting as a farm economist with Alberta Agriculture before going into politics, is among the “Class of 1993”, one of the MPs who rolled into Ottawa on the first Reform wave led by Preston Manning. That group included such rock-ribbed Reformers as recently retired Bob Mills (Red Deer), Myron Thompson (Wild Rose), and Art Hanger, (Calgary Northeast), as well as folks like Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat) and current Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon).

So what's with Benoit? Unlike Anders — whose parliamentary career has not exactly been filled with a lot of highlights — the Conservative leadership has had enough confidence in Benoit that it made him a committee chairman in the current Parliament and the last two. Committee chairs are not handed out lightly and can often be testing grounds for future cabinet material.

Now, that said, while some committee chairs — I'm thinking here of people like Edmonton's James Rajotte — earn the respect of their opposition colleagues and do a reasonable job of producing good work without excessive partisan rancour, Benoit may not be one of those. In the last Parliament, while he chaired the committee on International Trade, he so frustrated NDP MP Peter Julian that Julian once filibustered a committee meeting and then was set, along the with the Liberals, to try to unseat him. Benoit eventually adjourned the committee permanently. (An opposition vice-chair reconvened the committee). Benoit never went back, moving on instead to chair the natural resources committee, where he continues in the current Parliament.

Benoit's riding association president Danny Hozack told the local paper, he wants a nomination meeting not so that Vegreville voters can pass judgement on Benoit “but a referendum on fair elections. “We just want to make sure everyone gets out and votes.”

The Conservative national council recently ruled that MPs won't have to worry about facing nomination battles. In other words, incumbents are safe. (Edmonton MP Mike Lake faced down a nasty challenge from Tim Uppal during the last Parliament and Lake complained that he was forced to leave Ottawa to sell memberships and beat back Uppal's challenge. Uppal would later find another seat in Edmonton when John Williams Ken Epp retired and Uppal was elected in 2008.)

“At a time like this when we are focusing so much and working hard with a serious financial crisis, it’s hardly time to take our attention away to fight nominations,” Benoit told the Lloydminster Meridian Booster . “I know the Prime Minister was very concerned that MPs (would) have their focus taken away from the business at hand.”

Now, Hozack might be talking a good game about the right to fair election but his history with Benoit suggests he very much wants a referendum on Benoit. The last time there was a nomination battle in Vegreville, Hozack backed a guy named Len Landry against Benoit.

Now, at this point, I'm relying on what I can dig up in the Meridian Booster, The Wainwright Review, and some other local papers but there appears to be a bit of a personal beef between Benoit and Hozack. As always, I look forward to your comments below or e-mail messages to flesh this out a bit.

Hozack, during the 2006 election, suggested publicly that Benoit was “losing ground”, a comment Benoit wasn't exactly thrilled about seeing in print. Much internal riding association politicking later, the riding association members gathered in January to elect their 30-person executive. Well, it looks like it was a helluva fight. According to the Wainwright Review, 53 people stood for that election. Benoit got up and argued that Conservatives ought to back all of the incumbents. A lot — 28! — of those Benoit-friendly incumbents lost. Benoit's son, running for the board, lost.

Hozack's people won. Hozack and Landry, who once lost the nomination battle to unseat Benoit, are now heavyweights on the board of Benoit's riding association.

“One wonders where this frustration is coming from. After all Leon did better in the last election than ever before,” wrote columnist Roger Holmes in the Wainwright Edge after the January board elections. “Perhaps the conservatives in this area are mad about the Harper government flip flops. Perhaps they are mad about being lied to regarding fixed election dates. Perhaps they mad about this government's broken promise never to run a deficit. Perhaps they mad about the government decision to cut and run in Afghanistan in 2011. Perhaps they mad about an MP who is on record in the beginning that MP's should have limited terms wanting to keep on having his term extended.”

The riding association fights in Anders riding in Calgary and in Benoit's riding on the Saskatchewan border are not inconsequential fights. The winner of these squabble becomes an MP. Benoit won the last election with 77 per cent of votes cast. He thinks it was because voters there like him. Others — other Conservatives — think it was because voters in Vegreville-Wainwright just like to vote for the blue team, not matter who is carrying the banner.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Shea gets grilled on anti-Liberal press releases

A month or so ago, Liberal Senator Mac Harb introduced a private members' bill in the Senate that would have effectively ended the seal hunt in Atlantic Canada. Not a single Senator, Liberal or Conservative, would second that bill and, as a result, it died.

Conservative Fisheries Minister Gail Shea and Conservative Senator Fabian Manning issued press releases on government letterhead and at government expense denouncing Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and his “hidden agenda” on the seal hunt.

Shea's officials would subsequently concede that these press releases were issued in error.

Earlier this week, Minister Shea made her first appearance in front of the Senate's Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Liberal Senator Bill Rompkey is the chair of that committee. Here is an excerpt of an exchange between Shea, who represents a PEI riding, and Senator James Cowan of Nova Scotia (left).

James CowanSenator Cowan: Welcome, minister. I was pleased to hear your comments during your opening statement on the seal hunt and the government's support for a sustainable and humane seal hunt. As you know, that is also the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not know about other parties, but there is a common support for that seal harvest or hunt between the two major parties in the country.

I wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify a few things with respect to that. This is obviously a highly controversial issue amongst some people, and we all agree that there are people who are less interested in the seals than they are perhaps in promoting their own fundraising efforts for other purposes. You are aware as well that Senator Harb introduced a bill in the Senate and could not find a single senator anywhere in the place to support him in any way. I think that says something about the judgment of the rest of the Senate. I am troubled because on March 3, your department published and distributed a statement by my colleague Senator Manning, which said amongst other things that sealers need to know that the Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party want to ban the seal hunt. That is clearly wrong and inaccurate, but most importantly for the purposes of my question this morning, your department subsequently acknowledged that it was inappropriate to have published the statement of a private parliamentarian on a government website and to distribute that at government expense.

first question is, were you advised by anybody in your department that it was inappropriate to have posted and distributed that? If so, why did you go ahead and do it? If not, why not? Also, was an invoice issued to the Conservative Party of Canada, as you indicated it would be? How much was that invoice, and has the invoice been paid? ..

On that same day, you issued a statement alleging that there was a hidden agenda on the part of the Liberal Party, and in that statement, you said what is more telling are the actions of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, and that his approval of such appalling legislation, referring to the Harb bill, has exposed the hidden agenda of the Liberal Party to put an end to Canada's sealing industry. What evidence did you have then and do you have now that would support that statement?

Ms. Shea: I guess it would be a lack of evidence, starting with your last question, because if the Liberal Party of Canada supported the seal hunt, then I would expect that there would be a statement to that effect from the leader, which I do not believe we have seen. I will say that even the introduction of legislation without a seconder, when that type of stuff hits the airwaves in Europe, undermines many things that we have been trying to do in Europe to promote the seal hunt.

With respect to the press release, it was not the department. It was an administrative error and should never have happened. I am not sure if the bill for the press release has gone to the Conservative Party of Canada, because I do not have that information, but that is who the bill was to go to.

Senator Cowan: On the last point, will you find out? Perhaps you would be good enough to table the invoice here and, as well, indicate whether it was paid.

Ms. Shea: Certainly.

Senator Cowan: With respect to the bill, you will agree with me that private members in either the House of Commons or in the Senate are entitled to introduce bills into their respective legislative chambers, and those bills are not necessarily supported by the party of whom that individual member or senator is a member. Is that correct?

Ms. Shea: I do not know what your experience has been, but normally bills, in my experience . . .

Senator Cowan: I am speaking of private member's bills.

Ms. Shea: … Even private member's bills, if a member of your party is bringing forward a bill, I would expect that members of your party would be aware of it.

Senator Cowan: As an example, the recent [Conservative MP Garry] Breitkreuz bill, is introduced by a private member, a Conservative member. Is that a bill supported by the Conservative government? Ms. Shea: We will have to wait and see. Senator Cowan: I believe it is not, and I believe the government has already distanced itself. That is my point. I suggest to you that it is unfair to allege that an individual bill which you know received no support from any member of the Senate has the support of the leader and the party of which that person is a member. I suggest that is unfair, and I would ask you to acknowledge that.

The Chair: I think the time has passed and I would like to go on to other questioners. We are trying to monitor the time carefully, and I think we are being as accurate as we can.

More money for magazines: This time it's snowmobilers

200904031630.jpg

Last week, I noted in this space that Heritage Minister James Moore had announced a grant to REPORT magazine, an unabashedly conservative magazine and, quite possibly, a haven for separatists (albeit of the Western kind). Many thought I was off my rocker for failing to note that the government funds all sorts of magazines. That, though, was not the point. The government funds all sorts of things but when it issues a press release it, presumably, wants us to pay particular attention to that particularly funding announcement (which, as it turns out, may also be new therefore qualifying it as, what we call in my business, “News”). But I digress …

Last week's press release about funding for REPORT was, so far as I can tell, the first announcement in a year about dispursements from the magazine fund.

This afternoon, I am happy to draw your attention to the second such announcement I am aware of:

On behalf of the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, Patrick Brown, Member of Parliament (Barrie), (standing in the middle in the photo above) today announced [$23,666 in] funding to support the creation of Canadian editorial content in Snow Goer Canada, an important magazine for Canadian snowmobile fans.

Liberals to Conservatives: Been there, done that

Liberal infrastructure critic Gerard Kennedy tells Infrastructure Minister John Baird that a couple of announcements from Baird's office today look awfully familiar:

Mr. Kennedy was referring to two announcements made by Mr. Baird this morning. At the first on Parliament Hill, [Baird] re-announced doubling federal gas tax funding for municipalities from $1 billion to $2 billion per year, as originally announced by the previous Liberal government when the gas tax method was introduced.

[Baird] then re-announced funds from the Building Canada Fund first announced by the Prime Minister in February at the same location – a GO Transit maintenance garage in Toronto.

Harper and Obama: The Phone Call

J2_2610.jpgWhile in New York City today, where he gave interviews to the Financial Times and CNN, Prime Minister Stephen Harper had a telephone conversation with U.S. President Barack Obama. The photo of Harper talking to Obama (left) was taken by the PM's Official Photographer Jason Ransom and distributed to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
Dimitri Soudas, the prime minister's press secretary, sent the following 'read-out' to reporters:

Prime Minister Harper talked today with President Obama about the upcoming G20 Summit which will take place in London on April 1-2, 2009. The two leaders had an in-depth discussion on the prospects for the London Summit and shared their priorities for a successful outcome. They discussed opportunities for working together to resolve the current global financial crisis and restore economic growth, restore trade, advance regulatory reforms and create jobs. The Prime Minister saluted the President’s leadership in addressing the global economic crisis.
They also discussed the upcoming NATO Summit which will take place on April 3-4, 2009. The President and the Prime Minister also discussed the cooperation between the two Governments on the auto sector.

Conservatives give grant to conservative magazine

REPORT Magazine is proud to bill itself as “Western Canada's Conservative Voice” and today, Canada's government, on behalf of all taxpayers, were pleased to give “Canada's Conservative Voice” a grant of $27,124.

This, of course, was the day after CBC announced about 800 layoffs. Some employees – but, notably, not management — said the layoffs were because of a budget shortfall it hoped Canada's government, on behalf of all taxpayers, might cover. For better or worse, CBC is not “Western Canada's Conservative Voice.”

“The Government of Canada is proud to support editorial content that promotes Canadian ideas, history, and culture,” said Edmonton MP Rona Ambrose. “We are committed to the preservation of our heritage and the promotion of our values to keep our identity strong now and in the future.”

“We are very much appreciative to the federal government for helping promote Canadian culture,” said Curtis Stewart, President of CanMedia Inc., publisher of REPORT Magazine. “If it was not for assistance like this, many publications would not be able to exist. Not only does this help promote Canadian heritage, it also helps keep employment in Canada.”

REPORT Magazine's cover story this month is about Western Canadian separatism and Western Canadian anger at the rest of Canada for letting all that coalition nonsense happen.

“”If …the Conservatives bend over to win central Canadian support, then the only option Westerners have, given that all other options have been tried and failed, [would be] independence,” a Lethbridge College political scientists tells REPORT.

Now, ahem, given my professional occupation, I'm all for any government helping out journalism endeavours, but I can't recall the last time any federal government gave a grant to a Quebec magazine that published sympathetic separatist articles.

In other media news this week: Sun Media closed two weeklies in Alberta.