Being subject to a criminal investigation during an election being fought largely on the question of ethics sounds like something from a sitcom.

It's hard to imagine a worse possible time:

The RCMP have begun a review of reported heavier-than-usual trading in income trusts and dividend-paying stocks ahead of an announcement last week that the federal government was increasing the tax credit on corporate dividends.

NDP finance critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis sent a letter of complaint to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police earlier this week requesting the probe into whether Bay Street insiders received advance knowledge of the announcement, Staff Sgt. Paul Marsh told Bloomberg News.

"The RCMP will review the information provided to determine if there is a basis to proceed with a criminal investigation," Marsh said.

"It would be inappropriate to speculate what action may or may not be taken."

Not just the RCMP, but other stock market regulators as well.

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale denied allegations that information was leaked.

Expect a lot of airplay, as well as some very pointed questions aimed at Paul Martin from the other party leaders during the leadership debates.

You have to wonder if maybe the Prime Minister should have taken the opposition up on its offer to start the election in mid-January.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:27 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

OK, I'm trying to coin a new term here, and I'm certain it will fall flat.

There was a pretty lousy but thoroughly enjoyable TV series in 1979 called "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" starring Gil Gerard and Erin Gray. If you are in your late 30s like me, you'll remember it.

In the pilot episode, Buck infiltrates the enemy mothership which is secretly carrying a wing of small attack bombers with which to attack Earth during a peace conference. Buck hides an explosive in each of the bombers' engines. The attack begins, the mother ship starts launching the bombers, the bombers immediately explode after clearing the launch bays.

Buck Rogers, rugged individualist, saves the day.

Why was I recalling this bit of silliness? Because it seems to be happening to Liberal Party mothership right now.

Funny thing is, the person most likely playing the role of Buck Rogers in this little play is not someone you'd expect.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:10 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 591 words, total size 4 kb.

More detailed information seems to leaking out from inside Consulting and Audit Canada. Is the information accurate? Some of it is. For the rest I can't say one way or another.

But it seemed so detailed and so damning that I'll post it -- you decide for yourself.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:31 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 720 words, total size 5 kb.

I was checking Belinda Stronach's new digs on the Web, and it strikes me that she has some interesting new friends to help her out with her campaign.

I guess she needs new ones since many of her former campaign workers are so angry with her that they're working hard to make sure Lois Brown, the new Conservative candidate, wins the riding of Newmarket-Aurora.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:00 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 900 words, total size 6 kb.

I gave the Liberal Party Blog a rough ride for being a bit too much on the cute side.

Some people thought I nailed it; some thought I was missing the point.

Well, at the risk of sounding partisan, here is the Conservative Party Blog, and I think it strikes the right note, at least for me:

Welcome to the Tour Blog at conservative.ca. Over the next several weeks, I will attempt to provide an "inside" look at Stephen Harper's national tour as we cross the country speaking with Canadians about Stephen Harper and the positive Conservative vision for Canada. As a tour staffer, I hope to offer you a perspective from "inside the bus" as the Leader visits all corners of the country. Be sure to check back each day for the latest news from the road!

One staffer's log of the events and experiences of a campaign. No attacks or insults delivered in mocking tones, but insight and perspective written with respect for both the subject and the reader.

Sounds like the two blog capture perfectly the choice being presented to Canadians.

But then maybe I'm missing the point again.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:58 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Right off the bat, Harper spews the radio-active So-Con crap about "same sex marriage" and the liberals splash it on their web page: http://www.liberal.ca/default_e.aspx Nice move!

Posted by: Johannes at November 29, 2005 11:17 PM (nU3sC)

2 I sure hope our so-called journalists will take their heads out of their asses long enough to start asking Liberals (and other parties) if they would use the not-withstanding clause to override the Chaouli decision. The first time Martin opens his mouth about "you can't cherry pick from the Charter", someone should jump all over him. But, I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: TimR at November 29, 2005 11:52 PM (AwtAt)

3 Okay Tim, you got me, what is the Chaouli decision? Are you referring to the Quebec Supreme Court ruling on health care? If so, I agree with you 100% but if not you will have to enlighten me. Johannes, you are aware that liberal MP Pat O'Brien is busy putting together a non partisan campaign against SSM right now? That several liberals don't support SSM including many I know? That some NDP don't support it including the one that voted against it? That it is only a free vote motion that Stephen is talking about that will likely not even be passed but if it was then a civil union with the same rights would be created so therefore you are screeching about what NAME it would be called? That several Conservative supporters, including myself, support SSM? My dear you should stop listening to liberal rhetoric as this is likely to be forgotten eight weeks from now as more pressing issues like people dying while waiting for health care emerge. Stephen Harper made a promise that although may seem unpopular by many at least he is a man of his word, not afraid to face it head on and is not trying to lie about it or hide it. He said that a free vote would be allowed to settle the issue once and for all. No one is going to lose any "rights", they deserve to be as miserable, oops, I mean happy as the rest of us, divorce, support, custody and all the rest. The liberals definition of family and how they intend to insert themselves into the social engineering of young children instead of their own parents should concern you more.

Posted by: Anne (mad in Ontario) at November 30, 2005 12:31 AM (glkWC)

4 What Stephen Harper has to emphasize more clearly, is that it is not the ruling that offends. It is the way it was done. It is about the Liberal Party feeling "entitled" to decide for all Canandians something so contraversal. They rushed it through, cutting off debate and whipped the Cabinate to vote for it. It should be given fair debate and those people elected by Canadians, should be allowed to FREELY vote as directed by the people that elected them. If the main point in this campaign is honest and open government. Democracy! Where the people of Canada make the decision about what our society will look like - then how can they run from this? If the arguement is, that most Canadians want the definition to stand as it is, then a vote in the house shouldn't scare anyone. It should be something encouraged to re-enforce the fact that this is where most Canadians want to go. Let each riding give direction to their represenative and have a free vote! Me thinks they protest too much, because they are afraid of democracy and the will of the people. I think by coming out with it right off the bat, Stephen has said "Let the people decide".

Posted by: thots at November 30, 2005 01:07 AM (9mQEP)

5 The Chaouli decision will be re-visited and their ruling will change after the election. The Liberals asked the SCOC to reconsider its decision and the SCOC agreed (because they are controlled by the PMO). One of the two non-Liberal SC justices is stepping down and Paul Martin will appoint someone who will rule against Chaouli. That is how the Liberals work. If the SCOC makes a decision they simply ask them to reconsider their decision AFTER they appoint a new judge that they like better.

Posted by: ferrethouse at November 30, 2005 01:24 AM (//hWt)

6 boring.

Posted by: dave at November 30, 2005 02:01 AM (RVW5R)

7 sorry, we forgot the ;-)

Posted by: dave at November 30, 2005 02:15 AM (RVW5R)

8 Unfortunatley for all of us and Canada I think the election is now over and the libs will have a majority. Harper has "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory". I have maintained for sometime that politician are "one brick short of a load" and with Harpers SSM stuff today it just proves it. Oh well, at least when the CPC have been defeated thay can fell good about the fact they ran an "above board" campaign and didn't gewt down into the mud with the other guys. "Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser" Horny Toad

Posted by: at November 30, 2005 02:47 AM (1MfAa)

9 MARTIN’S HOT CHOCOLATE AT CHRISTMAS IMAGE Martin’s little ‘post-fall of government’ blurb saying Canadians want hot chocolate at Christmas, and don’t want to see politicians on their TV screens is very telling about his gambit that Canadians will forget about the corruptions of his party in favour of hot chocolate. In the virtual one party state created by Martin’s Liberal Party in Canada for over a century now, Canadians have been taught (similar to other corrupt one party states) that politicians are a corrupt, self-serving lot and represent the very opposite of the ideals of the Christmas spirit and the comfort zone of good feelings represented by the image of hot chocolate. The incredible gall of the Liberal Party for decades has been to paint the other parties with the brush of their own record of corruption with self righteous images like this, even with the smell of the sponsorship scandal so close to home. The Liberal one party state has engineered the ‘democratic deficit’, making Canada one of the least democratic of modern democratic nations, and as a further example of the governance hypocritical gall typical of one party state parties, has given the portfolio of governance democratic reform to a minister minted by betraying the democratic intent of those who voted for her. Had she wanted to switch sides, she should have stood in a by-election and run under the new banner. Only in Martin’s cardboard version of ‘democracy’ are such games thwarting democratic intent possible and justified as ‘statecraft’ by Liberal-apologetic pundits. Typical of one party states, a whole caste of cynical pundits has been created under the one party state history that considers such ‘slaps in the face of democracy’, normal realistic smart political practice. The one party state Liberals have given Canadians nothing but cynical attitudes towards politicians and so this record by the Liberals as virtual one party state gives fodder to Liberal PM Martin’s comment that Canadians don’t want to see the face of such cynical, self-serving, corrupted politicians during the Christmas season. What is striking about Martin’s comment is that he thinks he is taking the high road with this comment on the disrepute his Liberals have given politicians and the political process. This PM of an utterly corrupt wasteful one party state has the gall to self-righteously speak for the ‘hot chocolate good feelings’ Canadians prefer to his cynically corrupt one party state politicians. In most one party states, just because something is legal does not mean it is not utterly corrupt. This is because in most one party states this same party gets to appoint most judges. Liberal Party determination in judicial appointments is well known and suitable candidates from other parties do not bother to try. Yet, much of this Liberal Party’s justification for what it does to Canadian citizens is justified on the basis of what its own appointed judges declare legal. Again, this follows the pattern of most one party states. The sponsorship scandal is the tip of an iceberg, where in most cases much larger sums are wasted and funneled to cronies of the one party state under ‘legal contracts’ that, in essence, are no less corrupt, wasteful, or useless. Yes, Martin speaks with assumed sincerity about Canadians wanting hot chocolate rather than sincere democratic options in the Christmas season because it is his own party that has made a cynical mockery of Canadian democratic hopes for more than a century as a virtual one party state. This party even had the gall to make the party colors the national flag colors. Between the fear mongering and the ‘hot chocolate’ con-rhetoric, Martin stakes the ground for a return to corrupt autocratic mandarin-based rule in virtual one party state Canada.

Posted by: edward mills at November 30, 2005 05:33 AM (c4Z9/)

10 Geez Toad, if he hadn't answered the question they'd all be screaming "Hidden Agenda". He can't win in your eyes or the media's.

Posted by: Mike D at November 30, 2005 07:26 AM (w4k/Q)

11 What's the first thing out of Harpers mouth? "dagnabbit, I hate those gay people and we're gonna get em'" Evidence that the Tory strategy is all about hatred and nothing to do with policy. they're going to lose - again...

Posted by: Flanstein at November 30, 2005 08:14 AM (07Ady)

12 First of all, let me just say, I think the CPC blog is totally neato! Second of all, I was a bit dismayed to hear that Harper started with the issue gay marriage. My first thought was, "he's got a Liberal mole advising him!" Unless, as the previous poster said, he hammers the point about HOW the decision was made--remind Canadians that this is a democracy. But IMO he should spend as little time as possible on gay marriage. Those opposed to it are already going to vote for him. He's got to reach out to the middle. Talk about tax cuts, getting rid of the federal tax (or cutting it) on gasoline--high gas prices hurt people hard, and also about free choice in terms of taking care of young children. The government wants to subsidize day care? Give the money to the parents outright, so they can stay home with their kids and save it, give it to their next door neighbor to watch their kids, or to Grandma, whatever. But the Liberal party wants to take that choice away from you. Hey! *light bulb* "Choice"--that NEEDS to be his buzzword. It resonates with the pro-choice crowd. And I wouldn't spend too much time on the free vote issue. That scares the pro-choice crowd because a social conservative MP could introduce a private members bill outlawing abortion, and if Harper is committed to free votes.... So, Stephen Harper, if you're listening, talk about gay marriage now if you must (remember it didn't work well in the "immigrant communities" even though I thought it would be a winner among Muslims), then get over it and talk about issues that the average Canadian really cares about. With all due respect, I just don't think gay marriage is a winner.

Posted by: JulieM at November 30, 2005 08:20 AM (6krEN)

13 Angry: The Tory blog isn't entirely free of criticism. One major difference is that we know who authors the Liberal blog, but we don't know who writes the Tory one. Is that important? I'd say yes. Based on my observations on the Supreme Court nomination process, one thing I've always thought the Tories should stand for is transparency in government, knowing who's responsible for what. Since voters tend to judge competency in government by competency in campaigns, this is one area where the Tories lose nothing by identifying its official campaign blogger.

Posted by: PhantomObserver at November 30, 2005 09:13 AM (U8FJD)

14 Mike D is right, if he hadn't raised it it undoubtably come out later (likely be the Liberals, and would have been construed as further proof of the Conservatives 'Hidden Agenda", at least it is out now, and early enough that most voters will forget about it by the end of January.

Posted by: at November 30, 2005 10:35 AM (oYLkF)

15 The problem is that gay marriage, etc. etc. is part of the policy at all. The whole social-conservative part is what's weighing down the feasible fiscal-conservative, small government, non-interventionist part of the CPC. Any kind of meddling is meddling, whether pro- or con- marriage, abortion,etc etc. I think they should purge the social conservative element from the party, or re-channel its energy to non-interventionism. That's really the only course, and its actually the right course and the right argument to make. Governement gets in the way of individual or spontaneous innovation, and is basically the most inefficient means of getting something done. The CPC should be about liberty, but liberty doesn't mean license, nor does it mean lack of responsibility. Legislating gay marriage, or any definition of marriage, is bullsh*t, and I think Canadians rightly interpret allowing SSM to pass as being the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: Johannes at November 30, 2005 10:50 AM (nU3sC)

16 The free vote over the SSM thing can be seen as an attempt to correct what is seen by many as part of the Democratic deficit. Mr. Harper is just trying to help the Liberals understand what democracy means. Most Canadains don't really understand how much power resides in the PMO. If they did they might get physically sick. I would like Mr. Harper and many other Tories to start telling Canadians the truth about the tenticles that extend from the PM's office. Some might say this is a waste of time, but Canadians perceive themselves to be fair, and can you really make fair decisions without knowing the whole story?

Posted by: truthsayer at November 30, 2005 12:44 PM (gxTmW)

17 I think this move was brilliant...Being ahead of the red snake is the only way to keep the hidden agenda crap at bay...This story will fizzle out soon...It will resurface on the dying days of the campaign when the Librano$ are in panic mode... The defining moment will be determined at the leader's debate which has yet to be scheduled...In the meantime most canucks will carry on in a half coma as usual:Hockey and survivor. I can see mr. dithers sweating and studdering already...

Posted by: metalguru at November 30, 2005 03:30 PM (Mqv6V)

18 "I think this move was brilliant...Being ahead of the red snake is the only way to keep the hidden agenda crap at bay." That is a good point and one other thing--as far as I know, he was responding to a question. This is very different than the media's omitting that point, making it sound like he grabbed that gay marriage issue and hit the ground running, in a province that has just elected an openly gay leader of a political party that just might take the majority next time!

Posted by: JulieM at November 30, 2005 06:00 PM (M7kiy)

19 I thought the Liberal blog was tacky. Pure crap. "Let's appeal to the opinionated bloggers that we JUST denounced last week by becoming one of them - that'll appease them!" Personally I'm waiting for the Liberals blog to turn into Warren Kinsella and have it degenerate into "F***ING reprehensilbe" (as Warren puts it) shouting match about the proper terminology for a given ethnic group. Bring it on Liberals. Betcha you don't got no foul language checker on your blog... After all, if the CBC can do it in prime time, the Liberals should surely be spouting artful expression in the name of free speeh while on the campaign trail. Or is that best left to government funded arts programs? Ah well, maybe at the end of the campaign Paul Martin will just buck up and let his Bahamanian business manager be the butch and marry him. He seems to be pretty keen on the gays. Do you think that maybe Paul has a hidden agenda himself? C'mon guys, you can come out of the clost now that you have made it legal...

Posted by: TruthBeNone at December 01, 2005 02:16 AM (+Qqb8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From the Great Pumpkin, a tale of two Peters.

One is the CPC candidate for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, near Ottawa.

The other is another conservative figure, an economist and writer for the National Post, the Western Standard, and other major publications.

The first owns the domain www.pierrelemieux.ca, while the second owns .org and .com.

With the election underway, maybe the candidate Lemieux could use a bump up so he gets spotted first on searches, so go visit the site or link him up.

Which gives me an idea. I'd like to construct a blogroll of all CPC candidate websites. I've got one already, the address for candidate Lemieux. Help me out by sending me the links to any candidates you know. Identify what province they're running in. Let's see if we can construct the full list within a week.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:44 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

...when you decriminalize marijuana.

You get The Official Blog of the Liberal Party of Canada:

Wow, look at me! I'm in "cyberspace," where no one can hear you scream. Or maybe they CAN hear you scream but they don't pay attention because they're too busy looking at naked ladies. Either way, stop screaming, would you?

I for one am betting this so-called "Internet" is really going to catch on. It's neato.

That really what's on the blog. No kidding.

Obviously there is a bit of tongue-in-cheek here (the Internet "catching on" is meant to be a joke), but it's also supposed to be a clever way of delivering the Liberal message of how scary Stephen Harper is, in this case, comparing Stephen Harper to the Grinch:

Remember, kids: one is grumpy and has a heart two sizes too small. And the other one's the Grinch.

That's a knee-slapper.

For me, I'll keep to my dry and serious presentation, with a special effort on being news-like. For those who want sophomoric wit and words like "neato" in their political discourse, well, you've got that other blog.

Remember: views expressed on this blog do not necessarily represent the policies or beliefs of Paul Martin. Except when I write about the hypnotic musical stylings of Nana Mouskouri. We're totally in sync on that.

One more thing I don't have in common with Paul Martin. I guess I did learn something from reading it, though it hardly seems to have been worth the effort.

I hope the Conservatives avoid the temptation of going all "cutesy".

[Hat tip to small dead animals]

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:51 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Based on some nagging doubts and some solid information, I decided to double check into the story about the mysterious phone calls being made in the riding of Conservative MP Gary Lunn.

As you might recall, there was a story posted at Free Dominion, alleging that people in Gary Lunn's riding were getting calls from someone pretending to be representing Gary Lunn, and during the course of the conversation, dropping the bombshell that Gary Lunn does not support Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper.

That was reported on Sunday, two days ago.

Yesterday, I called Gary Lunn's office and spoke to Logan, an executive assistant, who said he had not heard of this, and that it was not likely to be true. We all chalked it up to an internet myth.

Another day has gone by. I just got off the phone with Logan, and the story has changed somewhat. True to his word, he found his boss and talked to him about it. This is what he understands happened. Someone did make a phone call to a constituent. As far as he knows, there was only one such phone call. That constituent heard something during that conversation that made him or her concerned, and then that person called Gary Lunn, who assured the constituent that all was well, including Gary Lunn's genuine support for Stephen Harper (which Logan pegged at 150%, something that, after a moment, caused us both to laugh because it seemed like such a cliche).

So is there a story here? Apparently there is, but what it is, I'm not certain yet. The truth lies somewhere in between the extremes. Something did happen. But was it a dirty trick, or just a confused political discussion?

I'll keep checking. And if you are an MP, or work for an MP of any party, and you are reading this, you might do well to check if there is a pattern of weird mischievous calls being made in your riding.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:37 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

Lesbian and gay rights attorney barbara findlay

In British Columbia, a lesbian couple rent a hall from the Catholic group Knights of Columbus to hold their wedding reception. When the Knights realized it was for a lesbian couple, they canceled the booking and refunded the money.

The couple took the Knights to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, and won a small judgment. Interestingly, the Tribunal made a comment that suggested that a minor amount of extra effort on the part of the Knights to help the couple out after canceling the booking would have turned the judgment in their favour.

That has the lawyer for the lesbians very upset.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:32 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 4 kb.

BFI trading (click to enlarge)

The allegations of leaks and insider trading with the collusion of the Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office continue to swirl.

Check out the chart showing the trading on BFI, the garbage collectors. I find this chart one of the strongest pieces of evidence that something rotten was going on.

On Wednesday, just before 6 p.m. EST, the federal finance department officially announced it would cut the tax on dividends and would leave trusts alone. That's the type of news that is always announced after stock markets close at 4 p.m. EST because it would give a boost to those types of securities.

But trading in many trusts and dividend-paying stocks became much heavier than usual in the hour or two before the market's closed on Wednesday, and share prices rose sharply.

At BFI, the trading picked up as early as 2pm. But look at the price per unit. Essentially flat. These buyers wern't reacting to a shift in the market that had happened. They were preparing for a shift that would happen.

Stock exchange re-opens the next day, and in the wake of the announcement not to tax trusts but to cut taxes on dividends, BFI leaps three dollars. There is a bit of profit taking, but the guys in the know hold on to their units instead of devaluing them by dumping them all at once.

That amounted to what looks like 350,000 shares moving for no apparent reason. Not earth-shattering, but a nice piece of change, especially if you didn't actually have to work at it.

The huge spike in pre-announcement volume, followed by signficantly reduced volume post-announcement, is going to be the kind of flag that regulators are looking for.

I wonder if they would care to know that BFI contributed $2,000 to Paul Martin's leadership campaign in May 2003. Probably just coincidence.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:05 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.

Stephen Harper tonight:

"This is not just the end of a tired, directionless scandal-plagued government, it's the start of a bright new future for this great country," Harper said.

Well, of course, we're all happy that Carolyn Parrish is not running for re-election...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:00 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Yaayyyyyy...the liberals are dead...yaaayyyyyyyyyyyy!

Posted by: David Lockwood at November 28, 2005 10:38 PM (NUX34)

2 Not Dead Yet....never doubt that the Canadian Electorate is as disconnected as ever and will fall for liberal propaganda. I mean, come on....Neo Cons?? I hope for the best.

Posted by: greenlantern at November 28, 2005 10:42 PM (RaxRo)

3 Ding Dong, the witch is dead! ;-)

Posted by: Jim Pook at November 28, 2005 10:42 PM (1VdLY)

4 I posted a comment over on smalldeadanimals that is apropos here as well. The rattlesnake is still dangerous until the head is cut off and buried.

Posted by: M.H. Wood at November 28, 2005 11:00 PM (xydow)

5 he last few polls have shown a surprising degree of consistency. SES: Lib 34% Con 28% Ndp 20% Pollara: Lib 36% Con 28% Ndp 20% Bq 11% Decima: Lib 33% Con 26% Ndp 22% Bq 13% Ipsos: Lib 36%, Con 27%, NDP 16%, BQ 13% In all cases, the Liberals have a 6 to 9% lead. Also worth noting, 43% of British Columbia residents say they would never consider voting for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in the next federal election. Liberals and NDP will clean up BC at the expense of the Conservatives. Western Quebec will vote Liberal as will Ontario. The Liberals and NDP will win the majority of seats in the Maritimes. End result: Lib gain 15 to 20 seats; NDP gain 2-3 seats; BQ even; CPC loss 10 to 15 seats.

Posted by: at November 28, 2005 11:01 PM (+c1ek)

6 I've never followed Canadian politics, but these past few days have been enlightening and hysterical. The mere thought of Barbara Boxer's blather alternating from English and Spanish is side-splitting!

Posted by: Tuning Spork at November 28, 2005 11:26 PM (ipCPe)

7 Please pardon my ignorance of parliamentary government, but does this mean that all members of parliament are now up for re-election? I'm especially curious how this will bode for Belinda Stronach the backstabber. Thanks for enlightening me.

Posted by: SheriJo at November 28, 2005 11:35 PM (p+dyW)

8 Sherijo, If Belinda's riding is made up of corporate and business voters, she could well win her riding. She is probably more conservative than her conservative opponent. If her riding is middle and lower income, then she will lose it if those voters can see through the steady fear Harper drivel. Some people see Belinda as a traitor and a turncoat, while many others see that she is ruthlessly smooth. She did get her hands on the levers of power in jig time for a novice MP. TGs Place

Posted by: TonyGuitar at November 29, 2005 12:01 AM (rmMzv)

9 People (outside of Toronto) aren't stupid; Paulie PM is exposed as a fraud, a liar, and a crook. The Libs will lose seats in every region; the Dippers will pick up some seats in BC; the Cons will win huge in Ontario everywhere outside of Toronto; and will likely pick up one or two seats in the 416 (as will the Dippers). A Conservative minority is ahead. Congratulations PM Harper!

Posted by: NCF TO at November 29, 2005 12:08 AM (KZY3v)

10 SheriJo, They are indeed, Belinda included. She'll probably win her riding, and if not, the Conservatives will be looking for a new leader in the new year, I expect... David, sorry, but I think you're fooling yourself. The Tories are not about to take over the country. People in Ontario will never let it happen...the sad reality is that most of my fellow Ontarians are easily confused, spoiled people. They simply don't care about their money being stolen and misused, assuming they even realize it's happening. The Toronto Star isn't the largest paper in the country for nothing (is it, still?) ...and most, if not all, of its readers think that endless, massive surpluses are really terrific, particularly when partially -- and temporarily -- returned to them in the form of cynical pre-election tax cuts/vote purchases. Liberals know how many Ontarians believe the whispered stories about scary Conservative plans to legalize rape and euthanize the poor, and so Liberals will whisper them loudly. Prime Minister Martin will frighten us with tales of Stephen Harper's secret plans to shred the Charter and make sick old people pay for health care...and we'll behave like good little LibDrones. Ontarians will not allow a Conservative government. We, as a group, are afraid of Conservative principles and policies we don't even understand -- rational fiscal management, ethical standards, individual rights and responsibilities and such. Prove me wrong! Please!

Posted by: Darrell at November 29, 2005 12:15 AM (0YNxA)

11 Congrats to Canada. And now onwards...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 29, 2005 12:17 AM (RbYVY)

12 I want to take this opportunity to encourage voters, particularly those in Ontario, to vote for the Liberal Party. Seriously. That way, separatism will explode in Alberta. Please, Ontario, don't vote Conservative; that would forestall Alberta's inevitable nationhood, and allow yet more billions to be sucked out of Alberta's economy to support the rest of the country. Vote Liberal instead, so that we in Albera can keep our money and get on with the business of forming a real nation (as opposed to the withering shell of a nation of sniveling cowards that Canada has become over the last 4 decades).

Posted by: Ed Minchau at November 29, 2005 12:34 AM (pPVQ0)

13 Thanks for enlightening me. Now another stupid question: Could Paul Martin return to power as PM? No wonder Canadians were so apprehensive about holding new elections; They have to elect a whole new parliament! It's all for the best I'm sure, but they just held elections recently so I now understand the reluctance. I'm surprised to hear Belinda will likely win her rider after the stunt she pulled. I suppose that's small potatoes compared to the stunts the Liberanos pulled, however. Regardless of who wins, I hope relations between the new government and the US will thaw a little. KIndest regard Canada.

Posted by: SheriJo at November 29, 2005 01:06 AM (p+dyW)

14 The answer to SheriJo is yes if his party wins the upcoming election. A prospect that fills many Canadians with fear. I think the Conservatives will win a minority at the next election. If a Harper Government can then show the Liberal scaremongering for the nonesense that it is, who knows what the future might hold.

Posted by: The Fog is Clearing at November 29, 2005 02:27 AM (6ZMWJ)

15 A unnamed correspondent said 43% of BC electors would not consider voting for Stephen Harper. That seems at odds with the fact the old Reform/Canadian Alliance performed better that the current Conservative Party in BC. It would suggest voters fear the old Reform message has been diluted rather than the electors have fallen for Liberal scaremongering. I am aware that for a number of years the NDP were under a cloud in BC from which they are now emerging ? Any thoughts ?

Posted by: The Fog is Clearing at November 29, 2005 02:36 AM (6ZMWJ)

16 "It's all for the best I'm sure, but they just held elections recently so I now understand the reluctance." Yes, SheriJo, it will be about 19 months between elections and there has been a lot of talk about that in Canada, mainly and not coincidentally from those supporting the current government. Of course, in the U.S. members of the House of Representatives face regular elections every 24 months so presumably it's not that big a deal for Americans. On the other hand, the turnout percentages for U.S. elections aren't that great sometimes, so maybe the frequency of elections does comprise a significant factor in voter alienation and/or apathy.

Posted by: Drained Brain at November 29, 2005 06:53 AM (QgMDm)

17 The Liberals are dead....yaaaayyyyy. Greenlantern, you killjoy I was celebrating the fact that we have NO government at this time...at least we can enjoy a few weeks of zero damage. D

Posted by: David Lockwood at November 29, 2005 06:58 AM (Wr13M)

18 ...one thing that is going to kill the Liberals in this election though, will be their stinginess with the tax reductions...nobody was impressed with GoodSnails' crumbs in the budget...everything has it's limit, and I think Canadians are getting near the breaking point with the taxes. D

Posted by: David Lockwood at November 29, 2005 07:10 AM (Wr13M)

19 funny how the Liberal up there with the poll numbers used last week's polls and not the ones out yesterday consistently only showing a five point lead (a full swing of three to the CPC in only a week). Given that encumbant's numbers usually fall during a campaign, the Libs look like they're in trouble.

Posted by: at November 29, 2005 07:52 AM (Y1ykG)

20 The witch ain't dead yet. You don't render a time of death until 23 January, election night. The odds are in Harper's favor, but only slightly. The odds of him screwing up are still pretty good. Don't discount the Librano electoral machine.

Posted by: PhantomObserver at November 29, 2005 12:07 PM (U8FJD)

21 Darrell, I have to wonder what you're thinking when you post something like that: ----------------- The Tories are not about to take over the country. People in Ontario will never let it happen...the sad reality is that most of my fellow Ontarians are easily confused, spoiled people. They simply don't care about their money being stolen and misused, assuming they even realize it's happening. ----------------- Did it ever occur to you that if you wanted your fellow conservatives to win Ontario, calling Ontarians "easily confused" and "spoiled" is not the best way to do it? Maybe your next move should be writing an article about why Quebec will never vote Conservative because "they're little yellow cowards who are too busy eating poutine to care about their country", or something along those lines. I hear Quebecers love being insulted by conservatives almost as much as we Ontarians do.

Posted by: Ade at November 29, 2005 12:55 PM (4p91Z)

22 "Liberals know how many Ontarians believe the whispered stories about scary Conservative plans to legalize rape and euthanize the poor, and so Liberals will whisper them loudly. Prime Minister Martin will frighten us with tales of Stephen Harper's secret plans to shred the Charter and make sick old people pay for health care...and we'll behave like good little LibDrones." The above must be true I read it here.....sheeesh I only have to mention two names for a reason NOT to vote conservative. Brian Mulroney Mike Harris " Vote Liberal instead, so that we in Albera can keep our money and get on with the business of forming a real nation (as opposed to the withering shell of a nation of sniveling cowards that Canada has become over the last 4 decades)." Please spare us. Mr Klein's assertion during the mad cow scare that it's Canada's problem (send us some money)really shows his hypocrisy.He wanted the rest of the country to eat Alberta beef but don't even think about asking for gravy (also known as OIL). Go ahead buddy form your own nation.Typical conservative....it's all about money.Buy an island and have it your way.....leave Canadian soil to true Canadians. "No man is rich until he realizes he has enough"

Posted by: True Canadian at November 29, 2005 05:48 PM (PMtKA)

23 "Did it ever occur to you that if you wanted your fellow conservatives to win Ontario, calling Ontarians 'easily confused' and 'spoiled' is not the best way to do it?" Aside from the fact that my post wasn't an attempt to convert Ontario liberals but simply to note their existence, and to place upon them the responsibility for repeated, corrupt, theiving Liberal governments, do you have another explanation for the sea of Liberal red that is an electoral map of Ontario? Do you recall Martin's reponse to a reporter's Adscam question -- prior to the last election, I think -- which was that Stephen Harper had a secret agenda and would Americanize our health care? Despite this apparent act of stupidity, Martin is not a stupid man. He's well aware that people vote out of fear, and he knows how to scare the easily scared Ontario electorate, which is the only electorate he cares about. By all means prove me wrong. As for your comment about yellow cowards in Quebec; you said it, I didn't, and, just to avoid confusion, I hereby disassociate myself completely from your appalling views on that subject.

Posted by: Darrell at November 30, 2005 09:20 AM (tw2Sk)

24 "Go ahead buddy form your own nation." Vote Liberal and help Alberta make it happen!

Posted by: Ed Minchau at November 30, 2005 09:37 PM (pPVQ0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A minor bit of interest, but Pierre Poilievre, MP for Nepean-Carleton, has incorporated the West Quebec Post article about David Smith into his web site as a "clipping" to highlight his work representing his constituents' interests.

Of course, Poilievre is not running against David Smith, who represents the riding of Pontiac, but Laurence Cannon is. And Laurence Cannon, the Conservative Party candidate in Pontiac, is certain to be handing out copies of the article throughout the riding.

Will this make a difference? Well, though many of us outside of Quebec don't recognize the name "Laurence Cannon", inside Quebec, it is very well known. He was a communications minister under Robert Bourassa, and he comes from a family of politicians and business giants.

He is one of the Conservative Party's best bets for a seat in this election, and a leader for further gains in elections to come.

And maybe, just maybe, I helped out a little bit.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:48 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well done, Angry - I'm glad you persevered in chasing down the Abotech details. It could matter a great deal.

Posted by: Linda at November 28, 2005 09:59 PM (oCPrU)

2 Angry, Please, never sell your self short. I have followed this story (and a couple others, with great interest). I am so thankful that finally there is a place ("blogging") that lets the truth come out! Keep up the great work! If we still had to listen to the media for the truth, it would be evil Harper. What can be more evil that the last 12 years of the Liberal's and buddies? Cheers! Here's to a new beginning!

Posted by: Mary at November 28, 2005 10:34 PM (/fb+d)

3 Angry--on behalf of all right thinking Canadians--THANK-YOU

Posted by: George at November 28, 2005 11:55 PM (6uEUT)

4 "And maybe, just maybe, I helped out a little bit." This is what I had hoped the blogosphere would embrace and you can take a lot of pride in being at the forfront of it in Canada. What did I read a few months ago-that Canadian bloggers are pussies. Well, perhaps some others are. You should take great pride in your efforts and the results. Thank you. Horny Toad

Posted by: at November 29, 2005 12:50 AM (1MfAa)

5 As far as I'm concerned, "helped out" doesn't even come close to describing it, Steve. I can't begin to thank you for your great investigative work. I do wonder if this will get ignored / lost in the shuffle with all the election news. However, I am going to continue to work on this. Sometimes it seems the media has its priorities, well, messed up. I sent your other thread on this to the entire CFRA news team, but one of Steve Madely's "top five" stories this morning was discussing whether or not Mike Harris (former Ontario premier) used the F-word in 1995 when he was discussing Native people in a park. This is important? It was ten years ago and he's not even an elected official anymore, as far as I know. I think the blogosphere is especially important now. I also heard an interview with someone from the National Citizens' Coalition, I believe, who discussed the "gag" law in elections. From now on, apparently, citizens and issue groups cannot advertise, etc. On the airwaves and in print, we can only hear from the candidates themselves. I'll find a source to this law later, but it was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. So much for free speech. This reminds me of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding McCain-Feingold. That was absolutely infuriating. One other thought--I was curious why Pierre Poilievre was pushing this. He is so young--perhaps he's just idealist and very anti-corruption?

Posted by: JulieM at November 29, 2005 08:21 AM (ywZa8)

6 Here are some sample Questions the voter will be asking liberal candidates.... 1. Do you have any GOLF COURSES, you intend to sell, using napkins as reciepts..? 2. Do you have any buddies needing loans from the taxpayer to buy or renovate any bankrupt hotels..? 3. Once posted to the Netherlands, do you intend to clean-up any money trails, with side-trips to Switzerland..? 4. Given that a Liberal bagman holds the contract,for the cafeteria at RCMP headquarters, has anyone swept said cafeteria for camera's or listening devices..? 5. Are you a socialist, Like Scott Brison, who only claims to be a liberal..? 6. Why are'nt you with the NDP..? Isn't that where your kind of policys belong..? 7. What was your cut from the still missing 40 million dollars..? 8. Where's my cut..? 9. How many more immigrants are needed to give the liberals, majority government for life..? 10. How many entitlements are you entitled to..? There are many more similar type questions... Hey Liberals are you starting to get the drift..?

Posted by: B Wylie Ajax, Ont. at November 29, 2005 12:01 PM (TBGSf)

7 I am not sure you helped, I believe Brazeau will be able to sue Cannon and Polievre for defamation.

Posted by: at November 30, 2005 03:23 PM (jYZIJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Update: Apparently there is something to this after all.

Yesterday I posted about a rumour going around that constituents in Gary Lunn's riding in British Columbia were receiving calls from someone pretending to be speaking on Lunn's behalf. That person would then chat and let drop the little bombshell that Gary Lunn doesn't support Stephen Harper. The rumour then has it that the person called Gary Lunn's home, presumably unintentionally, and that Lunn has since gotten in touch with the press and the RCMP.

I just got off the phone with Gary Lunn's executive assistant in the BC constituency office, and he says the story simply isn't true. I sent him the link to the original post in Free Dominion, and he's double-checking with the boss, but is certain he would have heard something.

And he made it absolutely clear: Gary Lunn fully supports Stephen Harper!

Cute story. But it looks like this was one crime the Liberals did not perpetrate.

We'll just have to settle for all the other ones.

[Looks like small dead animals is also confirming that this story is just a fabrication.]

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:37 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 2 kb.

Unless, of course, you routinely get emails from the CIA or the FBI.

But for the rest of us, there is an email worm circulating that preys on natural human curiousity:

The latest Sober worm, first spotted over the weekend, has generated the vast majority of virus-laden e-mail traffic in the past 24 hours and could cause problems for corporate e-mail gateways, security companies said.

This variant of Sober generates e-mails that purport to be from the CIA or FBI. These messages tell the recipient they have been looking at illegal Web sites and should answer some questions in the e-mail's attachment. If the attachment is opened, the computer is infected, and the virus sends copies of itself to any e-mail addresses found on the hard drive.

So don't worry. Visiting the website of the Conservative Party to study their platform in the hours before an election call might not be something that the Liberal government wants you to do, but it's not illegal.

Anyway, the FBI is not likely to be interested in what you are doing online.

Unless, possibly, your name is Alfonso Gagliano.

[Hat tip to TG]

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:17 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Of course, the nanny state that is Canada loves this idea:

Transport Canada is road-testing cutting-edge devices that use global positioning satellite technology and a digital speed-limit map to know when a driver is speeding, and to try to make them stop.

When a driver hits a certain percentage above the posted speed limit, the device kicks in and makes it difficult to press the accelerator.

[Dr. Peter Burns, chief of ergonomics and crash avoidance with Transport Canada's road safety directorate,] said proponents of such devices are enthusiastic about the potential to reduce deaths and injuries from car crashes, as well as reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, which are greater at higher speeds.

So who makes this equivalent of a backseat driver? A company in Sweden. No surprises there.

Two things come to mind.

Since the system is GPS-based, and requires knowledge of where you are, this is essentially a citizen tracking system. Just one more way for the government to know what you're doing.

The second thing is that this will, of course, generate a whole new black market for devices or modifications to defeat the system. Some will focus on foiling the internal feedback system tied to the accelerator. Others will target the GPS itself, since if the system doesn't know where you are, it won't know that you're speeding.

Then there will be the GPS-jammers. Some will be frauds, doing nothing but filling the pockets of scam artists. Others might work, even partly, and will create havoc wherever they are turned on.

And then the constitutional challenges, perhaps launched by provinces fighting what they see as another federal intrusion on a provincial responsibility.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:01 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

A Liberal MP wants the government to stand in judgement of how you spend your free time.

You do the "right" thing, and the government will toss back a bit of your tax money.

Apparently, this will help Canadians learn to love their country.

Right...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:26 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 674 words, total size 4 kb.

That's the question being asked by NDP Finance Critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

It'll be a question asked by the chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission.

It'll be a question asked by RCMP financial investigators.

And if there's any justice, it'll be asked by Canadians when they are looking at their ballots.

How would they have benefited? By taking advantage of a convenient leak of a crucial tax decision from Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office last week:

On Friday, CBC News reported that trading in many income trusts and dividend-paying stocks became much heavier than usual late Wednesday – just before the government announced that it would not tax trusts and would cut the tax on stocks that pay dividends.

And several published reports said investors knew early about the plan, which lowers taxes on some stock returns.

Here's one such "published report". And here is an example of the weird trading patterns.

What was that about the Liberal Party being utterly unlike an organized criminal syndicate?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:29 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 2 kb.

I get on average about 1,800 hits a day. Today I'm at 1,180 with three hours to go until midnight.

Why do I mention this? Because even a slow weekend for me is not generally too shabby. I don't know why. But whatever the reason, I'm grateful I haven't fallen to the depths of this famous person.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:30 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Her book ranks down there with James Brewster's "How to Tat in 10 Easy Lessons".

Posted by: maz2 at November 27, 2005 09:41 PM (zlY8T)

2 No wonder she's crazy, having to deal with crowds like that.

Posted by: Jay at November 27, 2005 09:58 PM (PIbeE)

3 If you wanna see your traffic hit the roof, keep on this Liberal pork barrelling. Hopefully someone in that organization will have the balls to "Tell All" over the next six weeks or so. We can only hope. Keep up the great work.

Posted by: themaj at November 27, 2005 11:26 PM (Uagor)

4 Can't stand Cindy Sheehan, but I do like YOUR weblog! :-)

Posted by: isirota1965 at November 28, 2005 09:01 AM (SBnaB)

5 I think "Mother Sheehan"'s 15 minutes are just about ... *checks watch* Yep... they're up.

Posted by: JulieM at November 28, 2005 10:45 AM (CCvMb)

6 I think your watch stopped a while ago.

Posted by: Jay at November 28, 2005 01:02 PM (PIbeE)

7 Cheap NFL Jerseys China Wholesale have Supply.

Posted by: Cheap Bears jerseys at November 29, 2012 10:07 AM (wmdzq)

8 It sounds like you might be producing points yourself by looking for to unravel this dilemma fairly than seeking at why their generally is a challenge inside the 1st place. thanks !!! actually extremely useful put up!

Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 11:03 AM (smSK3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

At Le Blog de Polyscopique, we have much of the text of the West Quebec Post article on David Smith and the Abotech affair translated into French. If you have contacts in Quebec who are interested but have, of course, only had the reports in Le Droit to read in French (those reports essentially cover the same ground as the Globe and Mail articles), then send them the link so that they can get informed.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:13 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Just who is Paul Martin calling?

Update #2: Retract that retraction! Maybe there is something to this after all.

UPDATE #1: Apparently this story is just so much smoke.

There is a story on Free Dominion that a Conservative MP, Gary Lunn representing the BC riding of Saanich--Gulf Islands, has been the target of a dirty trick.

I have not been able to get any confirmation of this, given that it is Sunday, and no one is in either the constituency office or the parliamentary office to answer calls.

As the Official Opposition Critic of Public Works, Lunn has been a busy man, and probably has more than a few enemies in the Liberal Party.

As I write this, there is a story that his constituents in his riding are getting calls from someone claiming to call on Gary Lunn's behalf.

During the course of conversation, the caller reveals that Gary Lunn does not support Stephen Harper.

How is it that we know? Because the caller made the mistake of calling Gary Lunn's home to deliver the message of infighting between Gary Lunn and the leadership of the Conservative Party.

Well, news of infighting inside the Conservative Party on the cusp of an election call is sure to give pause to any potential voter.

It also gave pause to Gary Lunn himself, when he himself received the call!

According to the account, Gary Lunn has reported the call to the RCMP and to the press.

We'll see if any of the major media outlets report on these shenanigans, or if the Mounties dig up anything.

Is the story true? Are the Liberals behind this? Well, I expect that if they are, they've been careful to avoid leaving any traces back to them. But then maybe they wouldn't have expected to have been caught so quickly, so who knows just how careful they were.

If they're behind this, that is. And if the story is true.

I'll try to find out more tomorrow.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:44 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 3 kb.