From Politics Watch:

"Let me repeat once again: No offer was made. That means no offer was made."

These were the words Paul Martin said in the House of Commons under questioning from Bloc MP Michel Guimond, who demanded that chief of staff Tim Murphy step aside over allegations that offers of plum appointments were made to Conservative MP Gurmat Grewal in exchange for a vote in support of the budget bill.

Those conversations were taped. It seems remarkable that the Prime Minister can be so sure of his interpretation of the hypothetical situations bandied about by Murphy and Grewal. As it turns out, Paul Martin's opinion is pretty much useless:

Although the PM says no offer was made, under questioning from Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe about whether the voice on the tape is Murphy, the PM admitted, "I didn't listen to the recording."

At that point, if I were in opposition, I'd invite Paul Martin to sit down and be quiet, while an MP from the government benches who had listened to the tape stand up and say without equivocation "No offer was made. That means no offer was made."

Any volunteers?

Knowing that I had heard only 8 minutes of 4 hours of taped conversation, and that the Conservatives could be laying a trap by releasing 8 minutes of vague discussions, hoping to lure Liberals into denials, then releasing the 4 hours in which explicit offers were made, I wouldn't be as eager as the Prime Minister to speak in absolutes. But then Captain Ed thinks this is exactly what happened, and that the Conservatives won this game of chicken by maneuvering the Prime Minister into not blinking.

Already, we hear rumblings that the Prime Minister knew what was going on. If that report from CTV pans out, Warren Kinsella is right about the consequences:

[May 31, 2005] If [CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert] Fife is right (and he isn't always right) this latest revelation places this affair in a dramatically different light. What it means is that the Prime Minister of Canada was aware, in advance, of plans to offer a Member of Parliament a Senate seat, or a diplomatic posting, or (most seriously) a changed outcome in an RCMP investigation. Others, elsewhere, have argued that amounts to a bribe.

If Robert Fife is right, Paul Martin would be obliged to resign. Not even the NDP could justify propping him up, at that point. [my emphasis]

More chaos from a government that insists it is in control.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:28 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

From Politcs Watch, MP and blogger Monte Solberg lists his favourite blogs:

• Blogging Tories


• Small Dead Animals


• The Shotgun


• Colbert's Comments


• Political Staples


• The Meatriarchy


• Andrew Coyne


• Inkless Wells

I guess I'm just so much chopped liver. Right then, Solberg's off my Canadian Blog Rankings list. Don't bother emailing me today -- I plan to be scowling and doing nothing else.

OK, I'm just kidding. They are great blogs. And it's guys like Mr. Solberg who are taking blogging to a new level of respectability, for which we should all be grateful.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:13 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

I know it sounds silly to say it, but now we know for certain that something bad happened during the Sponsorship Program. What I mean to say is that we know it in a legal sense:

Paul Coffin, the first person charged in the federal sponsorship scandal, pleaded guilty Tuesday to 15 fraud charges.

Three of the 18 fraud charges that Coffin originally faced were withdrawn by the Crown.

It's not likely that Mr. Coffin will face 10 years per charge, but he will probably have to go to jail. At least that's what Crown prosecutor François Drolet is going to argue.

A guilty plea and jail time will elevate this to a new level. If ad executives who took money fraudulently are going to go to jail, what about the government officials who gave them the money, and did not seem to care that no work was done? One of those officials, Chuck Guite is already facing charges, but will there be more?

Another question that remains to be answered is why Paul Coffin copped a plea. Is there a sentencing agreement in place? In return for what? More testimony, under oath, in a courtroom, as a witness in future trials? Captain Ed thinks so, and so do I.

Will Chuck Guite, now facing the problem of having Paul Coffin working for the prosecution, enter into a plea bargain as well? If so, will more dominos fall? And will the clack-clack of dominos tipping lead to the door of the Prime Minister himself? What was idle speculation yesterday became significantly less idle today.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:51 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

First, from the Gomery Inquiry Terms of Reference:

(k) the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;

Second, spouted from the brain of Public Works Minister Scott Brison:

However, Public Works Minister Scott Brison says Justice Gomery can "already name names and can assign responsibility."

I think you can see the problem. The first says he cannot make any criminal or civil conclusions regarding liability of any person or organization. The second says of course he can.

How do break the tie? You can make sure the Terms of Reference say what Scott Brison is saying, and the Conservatives are suggesting exactly that, introducing a motion into the House of Commons today demanding that the terms of reference be changed.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler was restrained in his criticism:

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, at the news conference with Brison, called the Conservative motion "inappropriate, unfounded, redundant, and prejudicial."

He said it threatens to derail the Gomery inquiry and potentially delay the release of the final report.

And that, adds Cotler, would "infringe the fundamental rights of those persons and run a very high risk of being struck down by the courts. In other words, having the Gomery Commission in and of itself disabled."

But disabled suggests it is able to do something, and the terms of reference suggest it is able to do little. As I've pointed out in another post, earlier inquiries have not been so explicit about avoiding making conclusions about liability, leaving it to the commission to make a judgment about whether such a conclusion adds value to the final report.

But only in the Gomery Inquiry is the judge required to submit a report summarizing his conclusions "without expressing any conclusion or recommendation". They are worried about criminal cases? This is the same judge who put up not one, not two, but three publication bans to protect criminal cases that hadn't even started yet.

We all know that the Liberals are desperate to make sure that they are not blamed by the Commission. They want to get a bland report that talks about accoutability and transparency, but names no names (not even the name of the Liberal Party -- it is an organization, too), and hand it over to Belinda Stronach, who, after getting past the big words, will reshape the government and the bureaucracy and make sure Liberal corruption is never revealed never occurs again.

So the Liberals will lean on the NDP and the independents to support them on this vote. Since it's not a confidence vote, the NDP and the independents could vote against the government. In the case of the NDP, there will be pressure to vote against the government. This is because they are leaning heavily on a reputation of honesty and integrity that they say they can maintain despite getting into bed with the Liberals.

The Liberals will try to help the NDP by suggesting a new motion:

"The House confirms that with reference to the Gomery inquiry, the commissioner has the authority under the inquiries' act, rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada and his existing terms of reference to name names and assign responsibility."

Now go back and read paragraph (k) and then read this paragraph again. I think Scott Brison, who will be introducing this counter motion, is channeling for George Orwell.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 605 words, total size 4 kb.

From the National Post:

[Jacques Corriveau, a longtime party organizer and friend of Jean Chretien,] denied at the sponsorship inquiry Monday that paying the salaries of three Liberal party staffers was a scheme to divert sponsorship profits to the federal party.

His reasoning? Well, it's a bit odd. Essentially, he is saying he hired these guys who did no work for him, but rather did work for the Liberal Party on Corriveau's dime, before he realized the millions in income from the Sponsorship Program.

So he is saying that he personally made illegal contributions to the Liberal Party (illegal because he did not report the $100,000 in salaries as a donation) as opposed to using the Sponsorship money.

The difference is subtle. In his version, he's a lone crook. In the version of events in which he hired these Liberal Party workers because he was getting money from the Sponsorship Program, he's a co-conspirator.

And still an idiot, but I suppose that's the same either way, so it's not relevant.

The problem is, of course, the facts get in the way. While he was paying these Liberal Party workers, he was pulling in millions from the Sponsorship Program:

Bernard Roy, a lawyer for the inquiry, noted Corriveau's Pluri Design firm pulled in at least $2.3 million from the subcontracts between 1998 and 2000, when the staffers were on the firm's payroll.

"So you returned a part of your profits that you obtained from certain clients to the Liberal party,'' said Roy.

Corriveau replied: "Completely false. That doesn't correspond with reality.''

Jacques Corriveau lives in a very fluid reality. People are strangers then close personal friends, depending on the day of the week:

Corriveau, who was testifying for the second time at the Gomery commission, contradicted some of the assertions he had made in April.

For example, he described party organizer Giuseppe Morselli on Monday as a friend, although he had previously told the inquiry he didn't know him well.

Corriveau's explanation: "To correct my testimony, I very much agree that I knew him and he was a friend.''

I wonder if he was hoping that Justice Gomery would be taking a nap when he "corrected his testimony". Foolish man -- from what I've seen on CPAC, a fly couldn't get into that room without Justice Gomery noticing. There was no way Corriveau could get away with a howler like that one:

Justice John Gomery, the presiding judge, asked: "Why is it necessary to correct your testimony? Weren't your previous answers an attempt to mislead us?''

Corriveau couldn't, or wouldn't explain the contradiction in his remarks about Morselli, who a witness said was the party's "real boss'' on financing matters.

I think it's fair to say the Jacques Corriveau is trying desperately to counter the allegations of Daniel Dezainde and others who have said that Corriveau was responsible for over $300,000 in under-the-table donations to the Liberal Party. I think it's also fair to say that his return performance has only enhanced the credibility of his accusers, and in doing so, more firmly cemented the core allegation that the Liberal Party profited handsomely from the Sponsorship Program. I guess we'll see if Justice Gomery agrees with my judgment when he issues his report.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 4 kb.

From the Globe and Mail:

Former prime minister Jean Chretien was warned in the late 1990s to stay away from one of his old friends, who made millions of dollars in sponsorship funds allegedly with the use of fake or inflated invoices, the Gomery inquiry heard yesterday.

Nothing much happened after the warning, however, and Jacques Corriveau continued to receive the lucrative commissions that have since landed him in the thick of the sponsorship scandal.

Jean Pelletier, who was a chief of staff to Mr. Chretien when he was prime minister, testified that he suddenly started getting bad vibes regarding Mr. Corriveau in the late 1990s.

How did he know to be careful? What exactly did he think would happen?

"Once in a while, you look at somebody in the eye and you have an intuition and suddenly, the intuition, without knowing exactly why, tells you to be prudent," he said, pointing to his nose.

Apparently Jean Pelletier's nose is the equivalent of a Magic Eight Ball. Every time he asked "Should I trust Jacques Corriveau?" he got the answer "Very doubtful" or "My sources say no".

It would have been better if Pelletier kept a diary: "Dear Diary: I have real misgivings about Jacques Corriveau. Also, I think Britney Spears is really cute!"

But Pelletier seems to be right, even if it is 20-20 hindsight. Jacques Corriveau is coming off badly at the Inquiry, backtracking and in full denial mode.

As Mr. Corriveau left the inquiry, some spectators shouted "crook" and "thief" at him.

Sounds like Jean Chretien should have listened to his psychic.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

From the Globe and Mail:

Former prime minister Jean Chretien unexpectedly dropped his attempt to oust Mr. Justice John Gomery as the head of the sponsorship inquiry yesterday, just a week before his lawyers were to argue their case in Federal Court.

With testimony at the inquiry ending this week, Mr. Chretien's lawyers said they did not have time to force Judge Gomery out before all the witnesses were heard.

"It's too late to replace the commissioner for the gathering of the evidence," one of Mr. Chretien's attorneys, Jean-Sebastien Gallant, said yesterday.

He added that the decision had nothing to do with testimony in recent weeks about the involvement of a number of staunch Chretien loyalists in the scandal.

He also neglected to add that this motion was probably the last, best hope for getting the Inquiry derailed. Paul Martin was prepared to send lawyers to fight the motion in order to keep Justice Gomery working.

One can only imagine how hard they would have tried.

But now we'll never know. Jean Chretien just gave his good friend Paul Martin quite the gift -- no delays or distractions while the Gomery Inquiry continues to reveal Liberal corruption. I bet Paul Martin is ever so thankful.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:17 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

The rankings of Canadian blogs and of the Blogging Tories have been updated for today (Tuesday, May 31, 2005).

If you are a Canadian-based blog, and you want to appear on the list, first register with the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem. Then send me an email with the name of your blog and the URL, and I'll add you to the lookup list for automatic extraction and ranking.

If you are a new member of the Blogging Tories and have added yourself to the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem, let me know by email and I'll updated the Blogging Tories lookup list.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:57 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

A group of über-bloggers, lead by Roger Simon, are working on a affiliates program tailor-made for bloggers. It is called Pajamas Media, and they are still looking for members. Currently there are 400 blogs signed up, including myself, so clearly there is room to grow, and still time to get in on the ground floor.

The tentative schedule is start running ads in June, and have revenue flowing soon after.

If you are interested in learning more, contact the Pajamas Media folks at join@pajamasmedia.com, and don't forget to tell them "Angry in the Great White North" referred you.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

CTV is saying that the the Martin Liberals were offering a deal to a Conservative MP willing to vote for the budget, and that Prime Minister Paul Martin knew about it:

CTV News' Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reports that the Prime Minister knew of the negotiations.

According to Fife, the full four hours of transcripts of [Conservative MP Gurmant] Grewal's taped conversations with a top Martin aide and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh show:

• Martin was ready to talk to Grewal about defecting like he did with Belinda Stronach


• Grewal was offered a government position two weeks after the vote

The tapes have yet to be given to the RCMP -- clearly because at that point they become evidence in an investigation, and the Conservatives lose the opportunity to release details. Maybe less clear is what level of trust the Conservatives have in the RCMP to investigate the government rigourously.

Of course, the problem is that only Scott Reid, the communications director at the Prime Minister's Office, Tim Murphy, Paul Martin's chief of staff, and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, are on the tapes. If the tapes are as damning as Robert Fife says, Paul Martin is lucky his voice is not on the tapes. Reid Murphy and Dosanjh might get roasted, but Paul Martin will probably plead ignorance, and promise a thorough investigation to make sure it never happens again.

Canadians might be angry for a while, but I worry that as before, the Liberals will ride it out, and Canadians, and in particular people in Ontario, will come back to support the Liberals.

On the other hand, Jack Layton is not happy:

"There is a real concern about this taped conversation that went on amongst Canadians. It has placed the entire House under a real cloud," NDP Leader Jack Layton said in the House of Commons during Monday's question period.

It's one thing to lose the support of Canadians for a while. But the NDP? Now that matters.

[Update: In a mistake entirely of my own making, I filled in the name of Scott Reid for Tim Murphy when the CTV article named a "top Martin aide". That was completely wrong, and in no way has anyone linked Scott Reid to the tapes or the allegations stemming from them. I unreservedly apologize to Mr. Reid -- he certainly did not deserve to be pull into this mess by my sloppiness.]

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:15 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 3 kb.

Stephen Taylor has an excellent post about a good idea from Democracy Watch executed poorly. The issue DW was checking on was the rules for disclosing political campaign donations, and the limits on their size.

Go read the entire piece -- it'll be worth your time (small dead animals has some comments as well). I'll highlight some of the major points here.

DW makes some good points with regards to unlimited donations still allowed under certain circumstances, not having to disclose volunteer labour (the issue of judicial appointments going to favoured lawyers stems from volunteer work more than from financial donations), and so forth, but then come to this remarkable conclusion:

Canadians should assume that the federal parties and their candidates are receiving secret donations, or hiding the identities of donors who are tied to corporate and special interest lobby groups or wealthy individuals

I suppose in a vacuum, that is, without any evidence it would be fair to treat everyone the same, including with the same suspicions.

But we're not in a vacuum. We have a great deal of evidence on donation patterns under the existing rules to all parties. When you consider that, DW's assertion that we should assume that they are all crooks seems patently unfair.

For example:

Bloc: 97% of donors donated less than $200
CPC: 95.8%
Green: 95.5%
NDP: 96.1%
Liberals: 61%

And this is more telling: how much of the total amount of donations is made up of donations under $200:

Bloc: 17%
CPC: 77.9%
Green: 36.6%
NDP: 76.2%
Liberals: 11.2%

So for the Liberals, the top 40% of donors account for nearly 90% of the money, while for the Conservatives and the NDP, a mere 5% of donors contribute large amounts, and that accounts for only 25% of the money. Of course, this lists only honest donations, not kickbacks.

It would seem that the Conservatives and the NDP are actually practicing what the rules are supposed to encourage: grassroots individual support of the political process.

Stephen Taylor highlights more statistics that emphasize how the grassroots support of the Conservatives and the NDP is strong and active, while the Liberals depend mostly on large donations from a small number of sources.

This information is extremely valuable and Democracy Watch should be congratulated on the work they've done to collect it. The loopholes in the law are a concern, and it might be that the Liberals in particular are taking advantage of them, suggesting that the loopholes were left in on purpose, tailor-made to support the Liberal funding patterns.

But it is also clear that the Conservatives and the NDP are playing fair, following the spirit of the law, even in the presence of the loopholes.

Democracy Watch should be more careful in pointing fingers, and telling Canadians what to assume. I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. The Conservatives and the NDP deserve better treatment than what Democracy Watch gave them.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.

The question of the limitations of the Gomery Inquiry made me check into previous inquiries:

From the Krever Inquiry investigating Canada's tainted blood supply:

(h) is directed to submit an interim report in both official languages to the Governor in Council no later than May 31, 1994 on the safety of the blood system, with appropriate recommendations on actions might be taken to address any current shortcomings

From to Somalia Inquiry investigating the actions of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in 1993:

Our mandate includes proposing appropriate corrective measures for future missions. The Inquiry was not intended to be a trial, or a retrial of any trial previously held, although our hearings did include an examination of the institutional causes of and responses to incidents that previously resulted in the charge and trial of individuals. In the same way, the Inquiry was not an examination or re-examination of the issue of compensation for the victims. Hence, the Inquiry's primary focus was the organization and management of the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence, as well as institutional and systemic issues, rather than the individuals who constitute them. However, this focus inevitably required us to examine the actions of the chain of command and the manner in which leadership was exercised. Nevertheless, we refrain in this report from making findings of individual misconduct, save as regards the pre-deployment phase and on the issue of disclosure of documents by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces and the events involving the Directorate General of Public Affairs.

From the Gomery Inquiry investigating the Liberal-run Sponsorship Program:

(k) the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;

From looking at the other two most recent examples (and created under the Liberal government, making the comparison apt), it seems to me fair to say that all three are not criminal investigations as such. But I think it's also fair to say that the Krever and Somalia Inquiries did not go out of their way to limit their scope with regards to current investigations, or to avoid the question of blame for the major players in those scandals. In fact, the Gomery Inquiry seemed remarkably explicit, almost panicky, in making sure the fingers not be pointed.

I have to say that on the balance the evidence suggests that the Gomery Inquiry is not "normal" when it comes to the infamous paragraph (k). Who's responsible for this? I know who, but I'm not allowed to say.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:21 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

The publisher of the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem, Mr. N. Z. Bear, is quoted in this piece from the Wall Street Journal about counting blogs. Very informative and thought provoking article -- read it and the related post and comments at TTLB.

An eye-opener for me: Instapundit is not an important blog! At least not to ComScore Media Metrix and Neilsen//NetRatings. One of the giants of the blogosphere just doesn't cut the mustard. For these guys to notice you, you have to be pulling down 150,000 unique visitors a month. Unique visitors. The New York Times website takes in 28.9 million unique visitors in April!

I guess I can stop reserving that primo spot on my front page for Nike. They won't be calling me anytime soon.

Now you go look at your site counter and be ashamed.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

The rankings of Canadian blogs and of the Blogging Tories have been updated for today (Monday, May 30, 2005).

If you are a Canadian-based blog, and you want to appear on the list, first register with the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem. Then send me an email with the name of your blog and the URL, and I'll add you to the lookup list for automatic extraction and ranking.

If you are a new member of the Blogging Tories and have added yourself to the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem, let me know by email and I'll updated the Blogging Tories lookup list.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

The rankings of Canadian blogs and of the Blogging Tories have been updated for today (Sunday, May 29, 2005).

If you are a Canadian-based blog, and you want to appear on the list, first register with the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem. Then send me an email with the name of your blog and the URL, and I'll add you to the lookup list for automatic extraction and ranking.

If you are a new member of the Blogging Tories and have added yourself to the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem, let me know by email and I'll updated the Blogging Tories lookup list.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:14 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Canadian socialist web site rabble.ca is calling for reader to get involved in US politics.

Well, "involved" is a strong word. It suggests injecting yourself into the process, understanding the way the government and party system works, and finding a way in which a foreigner can legitimately affect change.

That's a lot of work, but they've got a better way. On June 1, they want readers engage in what they call a "3-minute action". I guess this is political action for the chronically lazy. Readers are to follow this link to a huge listing of email addresses for media outlets in the United States, and email each one of them requesting George W. Bush be removed from office.

As far as I'm concerned, rabble.ca is supporting spam. It seems to fit the bill for "Unsolicited Bulk Email":

• The email is inappropriate. A newspaper or radio station is not empowered to remove a sitting president from office. Only Congress can do that via the impeachment process.


• The email is unsolicited.


• The volume of email is huge. Well, I expect the volume will actually be puny. But rabble.ca intends for it to be huge.


• The recipients have not signed up for these emails, but rather have had their email addresses culled from the web and aggregated into a mailing list to which they did not request to be added.


• The subject of the email is illegal, or comes close to it. Foreign interference in the workings of the US government contravenes many laws.


• The email will not include a means by which the recipient can de-list themselves from receiving further emails from this source.

And by the way, each "3-minute action", which ideas suggested by readers, is approved by rabble.ca before getting on the list of actions. So I feel justified in holding them, and in particular publisher Judy Rebick, responsible for this bit of silliness.

Updated: Some more thoughts spurred by the comments this post has generated.

Surely the more intelligent among the rabble crowd must realize the futility of this exercise. Trying to coerce the US media to bring down George W Bush? What else have they been trying to do? The full weight of the liberal media came down against the president at his most vulnerable moment, the election campaign, simultaneously promoting and protecting his opponent. The result: a second term for President Bush, Republican gains in the House, the Senate, and in state gübernatorial races, and the most visible and popular leader of the leftist main stream press, Dan Rather, humiliated and his career destroyed.

So they are suddenly going to be energized into action by Rebick and company? To perform some deed, removing the President from office, that they have no power to do, either constitutionally or practically? Are the rabble people insane?

Probably, but not in the way I'm alluding to, that is, disconnected from reality. Indeed, the reality of the situation is quite apparent to them. To make it clear, imagine that rabble.ca gathered signatures on a petition instead. Imagine, as wildly unlikely as it would be, that they gathered 25,000 signatures from Canadian readers. They posted this petition that called on the US media to remove President Bush, and sent a single email to every press outlet on their list, listing a link to the petition, and inviting the US press to consider this call to arms from concerned Canadians.

Most, and I mean most, would dump the email immediately. A few might follow the link, and snort in derision. A handful, maybe less, might write a story about this silliness from north of the border.

Absolutely nothing would be accomplished.

But accomplishing nothing is not nearly as bad as being ignored as well. To be so completely ignored must be galling beyond belief to rabblers. I mean, they are intellectual giants who know they are right -- years and years of post-graduate work among professors who constantly confirmed how correct their way of thinking was means it must be true. They have the moral certitude that only comes from being a moral relativist -- who better to know that she has the moral high ground than a person who believes everyone, in the right social and cultural context, has the moral high ground.

So the petition is out, and the spam is in. Fundamentally they are equivalent. Each delivers 25,000 irrelevant opinions to hundreds of people who don't care. But the petition is easily ignored. On the other hand, 25,000 poorly written ranting emails clogging up the general mailbox catches attention.

In both cases, absolutely nothing is accomplished with regards to the Presidency of the United States. But with the spam, they get noticed. And for some people, getting noticed is not just a consolation prize, it's really the point of it all.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:06 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 869 words, total size 5 kb.

I find the Public Accounts of Canada: Transfer Payments (2003-2004) to be a fascinating document. Whenever I decide to spend twenty minutes or so perusing it, I always find something interesting, usually disturbing.

Recall that this document is a list of organizations that have been given "transfers" by the federal government. A transfer can be thought of as another word for a grant. It is arranged by ministry, then by category ("Transfers to accomplish some goal X" or "Transfers to meet obligation Y"), then by a list of recipients. Each category has a dollar amount, and ideally, the amounts listed by each recipient should add up to that category total.

It usually does, but when it doesn't, you are to take it that the missing amount is made up of grants each of which is less than $100,000 in value. This document does not (usually) list these smaller grants.

Now that you understand that, consider this entry under the Ministry of Canadian Heritage. It is Minister Liza Frulla who runs this one -- the same Liz Frulla whose staffer John Welch was named in Gomery Inquiry as a staffer who was paid by Jean Brault of Groupaction as an employee, even though he was doing work for the Liberal Party. The same Liz Frulla who worked for Vickers & Benson, the advertising agency that later allegedly sought contract guarantees from the federal Liberals in order to ensure that a buyout by foreign concerns proceeded without a hitch.

But that's neither here nor there. What is important is that Liz Frulla's ministry provide money for this:

Grants to organizations representing official language minority communities, non-federal public administrations and other organizations for the purpose of futhering [sic] the use, acquisition and promotion of the official languages.

Now this is a coded phrase for promoting English in Quebec -- you'll just have to take my word on it. The promotion of French outside of Quebec is not a priority, while the promotion of English in Quebec is, because a strong English minority are guaranteed Liberal voters, and a thorn in the side of the separatists.

A total of $5,993,186 was spent on this strategically important activity. Now how exactly was nearly six million dollars spent? Here is the breakdown:

Quebec Community Groups Networks, Sillery, Quebec: $300,000

That's it. Over $5.3 million dollars, presumably spent in Quebec, presumably spent on promoting English, with no recipients identified in the accounts. If we are to believe that the grants were less than $100,000, then at best, there are about 50 grants for which we don't know anything about.

But with the Liberal track record with spending money in Quebec without oversight, one could be forgiven for wondering if the money was spent in some other...fashion.

And it should be mentioned that the QCGN is a group that works very closely with the federal government. For instance, in this memorandum of understanding in 2003, the federal government and the QCGN agree to form a common committee to carefully coordinate the strategies for promoting English in Quebec through the QCGN. And this is an example of the arm's length organization that receives money but does not get audited by the Auditor General?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:21 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 4 kb.

After the body blow delivered by Belinda "Oooo, look at the shiny new cabinet post!" Stronach to the Conservatives, costing them the opportunity to topple the Liberal government, I think all involved on the Conservative side went into a bit of a depression.

But it sounds like Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have shaken it off, and are ready to push the Liberals hard:

The Conservatives have set the stage for a potentially acrimonious return to Parliament on Monday by blindsiding the government with three motions -- including one calling for indictments in the sponsorship inquiry -- for the first opposition day since the House of Commons showdown began last month.

The issue of the indictments stems from the mandate of the Inquiry. Justice Gomery must "perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization."

In other words, he delivers his report to the government, who then decides what happens next. But given that it is highly likely that the government receiving the report is the same Liberal government that is taking such a drubbing from the Inquiry from allegations that it set up a scheme to systematically move taxpayers' money through friendly adverstising firms and then into the party bank accounts, it is not unreasonable to be concerned that the conflict of interest might prevent effective action, and in particular, the allocation of criminal responsibility.

So the Conservatives want Justice Gomery's hands untied. The Liberals aren't going to like that, especially loyalists of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Mr. Chretien thinks Justice Gomery is biased against him, and has a date in federal court in June to try and prove it.

If the motion passes, it becomes "advice" from the House to the government, which can be ignored. So what is the point? The idea is to put those who supported the Liberals on the budget vote to the test. It is one thing to support the budget, if you really believe the programs in it are good for Canadians. But it is another to say that the Liberals should not be held to account, or that they should be allowed to judge themselves. Can the NDP and independents Carolyn Parrish and Chuck Cadman support the government on this question? The answer might show the shallowness and fragility of this government.

Another motion is a standard non-confidence vote. One would think it would lose, and the Conservatives don't expect it to pass, but who knows what cracks will be opened between the government and its supporters with that first vote? Already, the NDP have threatened to bolt if the budget is not implemented quickly.

The third motion challenges the budget. The Conservatives and the Bloc have a majority in the budget committee, and the thinking is that they will demand study and consultation on the budget, especiallly, the $4.6 billion of NDP spending that has slapped on top, described in all of a page-and-a-half of text. Given the Liberal's record with managing funds highlighted in the Gomery Inquiiry, the Conservative say, it is not unreasonable for the committee to demand that C-48 (the NDP add-on) be sent back for a much more detailed breakdown. That will drag things on, which will make the NDP antsy. If the delays reach June 23, the time for the summer recess, we might be in for another showdown.

This ain't over.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:57 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.

After some link mining, I've extended the list to 223 ranked Canadian blogs. This covers blogs of many political persuasions, as well as non-political blogs. After the last ranked blog, I've decided to include the list of Canadian blogs that are not ranked in the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem. I've included them for two reasons:

• first, many of them are first rate blogs, and they deserve to be noticed


• second, many might be enticed to register in the Ecosystem and get numerically ranked

Note that the same changes have been made to the Blogging Tories sublist.

And don't forget to consider linking with this button:

You can link to my blog, or to this post in particular:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/083031.php

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:17 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

The rankings of Canadian blogs and of the Blogging Tories have been updated for today (Saturday, May 28, 2005).

If you are a Canadian-based blog, and you want to appear on the list, first register with the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem. Then send me an email with the name of your blog and the URL, and I'll add you to the lookup list for automatic extraction and ranking.

If you are a new member of the Blogging Tories and have added yourself to the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem, let me know by email and I'll updated the Blogging Tories lookup list.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:08 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.