A blog about news and politics by Steve Janke

March 31, 2007

The RCMP Pension Scandal, David Smith, Abotech, Morneau Sobeco and the ties that bind them

As we wait for an inquiry to begin into the RCMP pension scandal, there are few specific details into just how the RCMP mismanaged the pension. On one specific aspect of the Auditor General's report, I happen to have quite a bit of information, all stemming from my investigation of Abotech, the firm run by former Liberal MP David Smith.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:18 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 2311 words, total size 16 kb.

1 Wow! Steve you're amazing (great grunt work). I guess we now see why a long inquiry would be preferable for the Libs.

Posted by: northbaytrapper at March 31, 2007 10:56 PM (dG9AU)

2 ...blogs have become Canada's underground newspaper. Sad to find out these items from people who do this on a volunteer basis and not our tax supported institute of waste, the CBC. What shame has been made by todays politically correct leadership that infests our society, right up to the lofty towers of Ottawa. Here's to hoping the RCMP remember their roots and saying 'Maintain the Right' and do what's right by jailing those who tarnished their image and this country. From AdScam to Gun Registry to Human Resources boondoggles and all the way to government Bilingualism spending. Alas, I love to dream.

Posted by: tomax7 at March 31, 2007 11:58 PM (jHhd0)

3 Impressive Mr Janke My only wonder is that like stinky cheese,why this has this one taken so long to ripen? This whole 'Abotech Affair' has been around since the last Federal election and I know that you have poked at it a time or two yourself. Let's hope it flies this time.

Posted by: Simon at April 01, 2007 12:05 AM (oQU+V)

4 Great work Steve. The grits culture of corruption is endless.

Posted by: Roy Eappen at April 01, 2007 01:31 AM (wd7IY)

5 The corrupt Liberal Party of Montreal corrupted the RCMP - and those jokers held on to power for 13 years. Despicable.

Posted by: philanthropist at April 01, 2007 01:48 AM (7pBiD)

6 Great Job. This insight is amazing. This explains many things that just did not seem to add up. Why did liberals implode on duffy? This is why. Caught with there hands in the cookie jar...again. Can someone forward this to Garth for me. You may also want to send him Jack Layton's phone number. He may be looking for a new party.

Posted by: fortescue at April 01, 2007 06:51 AM (GP43q)

7 tomax7 brings an interesting thought...... We all know the gun registry was a spending nightmare. Did anyone ever probe where the money went. I do not recall ever reading anything about who the contractors were. It always seemed to me that it would be impossible to spend that much money on what was effectively a database. I wonder if any of the subcontractors had liberal ties??

Posted by: fortescue at April 01, 2007 07:02 AM (GP43q)

8 Thanks for being such a super sleuth, Steve. Here we go again. Is there no end to the corruption? Some of us naively thought Adscam had to be the last big scandal! Did anyone suspect we were so close to being a Banana Republic?

Posted by: Libby at April 01, 2007 07:56 AM (rn5M+)

9 This is unbelievable. I scroll through the MSM regularly and have read nothing of this. Surely the Tories must know and are laying the appropriate traps. (And I'm no longer blackballed from Santa's procurement list.) Isn't there any paper or magazine interested in giving this a higher profile? What about the Western Standard? Apart from the public right to know of past government misdeeds and corrupt practices, wouldn't the Conservatives be able to profit from this kind of scandal? To parrot posts above, great work, Mr. Janke! I shall make this site a regular stopover on my nightly journeys from now on.

Posted by: Robert Quinn at April 01, 2007 08:18 AM (/6+Wl)

10 Great finds Steve. More or less confims the Auditor General's comments about "nepotism" in the fund's management. We see all the old Liberal patronage scadal players; the PWGS as gate keeper to patronage contracting, , the usual litany of inbred librano contractors and the end result of this malfeasance being covered up by Librano cartel marionettes at the top of the RCMP food chain...all the adscam elements in slight rearrangement but with MO intact. Now...when do we see the jail cells fill up with these politically protected white collar thieves?

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at April 01, 2007 08:56 AM (d3rAh)

11 Great work Steve - it explains much - though today I couldn't help but laugh at the ridiculous Brisson calling Harper a bully - seems to me it would be in Brisson's best interests to lay low and get his lies organised. . . .

Posted by: karra at April 01, 2007 09:00 AM (8+T8n)

12 Don't forget Joe Morselli, ADSCAM Morselli owns the catering company serving the RCMP in Montreal.

Posted by: just-thinking at April 01, 2007 09:08 AM (Ff99w)

13 Thank God this is distracting Wanke from posting about Cindy Sheehan's vagina.

Posted by: Anry on a Great White Toilet at April 01, 2007 09:22 AM (bXEMR)

14 ...just think Steve, say a couple of years ago, you'd be hearing bootstraps at your doorway and complete with court order search papers. Your house would be raided and any papers, notes, emails and computer would be taken awa............. (Ha, loved the previous post by AGWT, shows a typical liberal airhead getting mad at being found out they have no clothes on.)

Posted by: tomax7 at April 01, 2007 09:32 AM (jHhd0)

15 Utterly fascinating and it provides many of the missing links in this Abotech, Smith, PWC and RCMP affair. Great work, Steve. Now we have another reason to explain Scott Reid's meltdown. But what other work flowed through Abotech's books? Does this story have legs beyond the RCMP?

Posted by: Erik Sorenson at April 01, 2007 09:43 AM (TfPle)

16 I dunno Steve I think your being a bully with all this stuff. I don't think anyone will suffer for this outrage. As in most Canadian (slow as molasses) justice the Libs will get off with embarrassment already suffered. This is a country of corrupt girly-men and manly girls all living a no-fault life. In Canada the complete upside down fact in politics is that you cannot trust anyone who may be honest since it could lead to the jail time for the rest.

Posted by: Yanni at April 01, 2007 09:52 AM (kMQ/N)

17 Good point Yanni Nothing changes if one doesn't put forth the required energy to change it. Complacency like corruption needs to be rooted out else we all find ourselves living like Winston.

Posted by: Simon at April 01, 2007 10:16 AM (oQU+V)

18 ...Licia Corbella in Calgary's Sun just put out an article on this. Glad to see the Media picking up on it, well at least out West. http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/04/01/3887841-sun.html

Posted by: tomax7 at April 01, 2007 10:22 AM (jHhd0)

19 Angry on the Toilet Janke puts forth all this effort to expose what needs uncovering...just facts... and after amusing yourself at his expense,you come up with nothing of note... just juvenile remarks that titilate only you. I'd like to see what you could put out but we both already know you don't have any meaningful thoughts to contribute. Don't we.

Posted by: Simon at April 01, 2007 10:27 AM (oQU+V)

20 Steve, great work! I see that your story is front page on National News Watch. From the beginning, when you started digging into this story, I knew that this whole thing stunk! Thank you for staying dialed in! Now, if a bunch of these crooks ended up in jail.....Dreaming, I guess.

Posted by: MaryM at April 01, 2007 10:37 AM (v6hHy)

21 Another ordinary Canadian saying "thank you very much Steve". The country needs more dedicated people with passion such as yourself working to bring corruption to the light of day so brainwashed Canadian sheeple will understand what lieberal government is all about. Cretein needs to be exposed. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: prospector at April 01, 2007 12:25 PM (vTRTF)

22 Excellent work Steve. Please see what you can do to have your story plastered all over the front pages of our national newspapers.

Posted by: NDanger at April 01, 2007 12:45 PM (T2dWO)

23 On CTV Sunday QP, with Stockwell Day interviewed, it was mentioned that the inquiry was to report in June on this issue... which may be the hint that the next election will be in late June-July after this thing is peeled open and the Liberals are again tarred with more of their blatantly overt corruption. I hope this is another nail in the carcass of the Liberal Beast ..!!!

Posted by: Observer at April 01, 2007 12:54 PM (dLJaX)

24 Great reading, Steven My local paper is a disgrace. No wonder the MSM is getting all wound up about blogs.. They're making them look like amateurs.

Posted by: Levesque at April 01, 2007 02:28 PM (eXHCS)

25 Well done, Steve - when I heard the word "Abotech" the other day, it rang a bell and I realized I was remembering all of your previous posts on this. Keep shining the light on this!

Posted by: Candace at April 01, 2007 05:19 PM (3e8Tp)

26 If you're going to insist that it takes a huge, multi-billion-dollar federal government department to go on vital "missions" like chasing pot growers over hill and dale and writing parking tickets in every tiny town and rural riding from Tete-Culee NB to Bumfirck BC, then I'm afraid that waste and corruption are going to be the norm and not the exception. Oh wait - it's really just a "lieberal" problem. Conservatives - because "they're not lieberals" - can make fat, overmissioned, overpaid, underbrained, sprawling, unresponsive government departments work like well-oiled machinery. Er, perhaps I should rephrase that ...

Posted by: at April 01, 2007 09:12 PM (a0Sy/)

27 So to summarize... the Government Procurement and Contracting procedures have become so bogged down in red tape that in order to get anything done the Liberal party used a shell company with an existing master services contract, (who happened to be owned by a party faithul) to route contracts to specific companies in order to specificly bypass the bid competition rules. Interesting, Having worked in engineering projects for 10 years I have to admit there has been more than one occation where I've used the exact same tactic to get a specific contractor I wanted to use but wasn't on the "approved List" of contractors. In my case I was doing 3 peoples jobs at the time, (for no extra pay of course) and fortunately had a good working relationship with a 1 man contracting company, who's business was managing contracts. His Service was manage subcontractors on my behalf, so where I had contractor I wanted to "test drive" or I wanted to use a local guy who I knew would do a better job over the big company we had the "alliance" with that I knew does a crappy job for too much money, I could call my guy and get it done. Regardless it still typically cost me a 15% premium to do it that way. however rabbit holes, while useful, are far too often abused. While I doubt there was a deliberate attempt to defraud Canadians I aslo find it hard to believe that contracts funneled through Abotech didn't find their way to "Friends" rather than the "best bid"

Posted by: Sierra at April 03, 2007 10:53 AM (CHE53)

28 Steve Smith does not work for Dion, he has a job as a policy advisor at Indian Affairs.

Posted by: at April 03, 2007 10:19 PM (BjOjj)

29 Cheap NFL Jerseys,Wholesale NFL Jerseys

Posted by: Colts jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 08:17 AM (4wzxQ)

30 When you do not thoughts, I will use some info from your articles, Ill positively remember to post the credit. This post comprises a lot of valuable information. I appreciated your specialist methodology of writing this publish. Many thanks, youve got made it very easy for me to comprehend.

Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 08:07 AM (yzFmC)

31 There are less expensive flights going into London. Sometimes I think it just takes some research and experimenting to figure out the most cost-effective ones. Even if I couldn't find something less expensive, going to London would be a fun experience.

Posted by: projektowanie stron at January 30, 2013 08:23 AM (M2GsU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Liberal Party to unleash Nerf ads

The Liberal Party is preparing to unleash attack ads aimed at Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Call them Nerf ads, because it's hard to see just how they will hurt.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:00 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

1 How about calling it " Stephan Dion , the best thing for conservatism in Canada since Adscam . "

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at March 31, 2007 04:19 PM (Je+mw)

2 See, the main thing is, the Conservatives have more money than we can spend in the course of an election campaign (legally). The Liberals are borderline bankrupt. If they want an advertising war, we will CREAM them - simply through a battle of monetary attrition.

Posted by: Frank Cybulski at March 31, 2007 05:49 PM (rJSAN)

3 What conservatism. They are LIberals without the scandal ... so far.

Posted by: Kevin at March 31, 2007 05:51 PM (tSzOH)

4 This will be funny. IF the Liberals run7 negative or attack style ads then it will prove that Dion "lied" or "flip flopped" when he asserted over and over " I will not play that game. We will not be negative. That's not my style"...etc. You can find about 50 versions of Dion saying he will NEVER go negative. So - let the ad wars begin.

Posted by: Lorraine at March 31, 2007 06:05 PM (7WrIl)

5 Kevin, you don't get it. It's a minority government. The Liberals , NDP and Bloc are running interference at every turn. How can they enact Conservative priorities? One thing for certain, the Liberals will not survive the next looming scandal with the RCMP. Some pretty big heads may roll, the potential is there. That's the main reason all the big guns in the party did the coward's shuffle, they were close enough to be in the know as to just how bad things really are. They were not going down with the ship. It's also the reason they're demanding an inquiry which will take years instead of months. Well, this time they're out of luck.

Posted by: Libby at March 31, 2007 06:11 PM (AwHZP)

6 I might donate to the Liberal party if they decide to run ads. You know what they say about giving someone a long enough rope.

Posted by: paul at March 31, 2007 06:11 PM (J0daC)

7 and have actually got things done, all with a minority government and no natural allies. Yes, all that spending has certainly "got things done" - to the taxpayer. And unfortunately they do have thousands of natural allies - for example in the government departments who helped the Conservatives produce all those ridiculous, corrupt, undeclared campaign ads running nonstop on TV and radio stations trumpeting all of the wonderful things that our Big Daddy the federal government will do for us. Thanks, "conservatives".

Posted by: at March 31, 2007 09:45 PM (a0Sy/)

8 Amazing the depths of despair amongst the grit faithful when they lost the last election, as seen by posts here and on other tory-friendly sites. Their feelings of entitlement, and angst that they can no longer steal tax-payer money with impunity is truly delicious to savor. Wonder how many knives poor little Dion will have to dig out from his back when he is trounced in the next election?

Posted by: Alienated at March 31, 2007 10:23 PM (bU7gM)

9 Is it ever nice to be allowed to comment on a site without some esoteric block put in place. I wanted to comment on Cherniaks site but I had to go through a registration and password process that makes it too troublesome to be bothered. In Horse Racing some horses get skitterish during a race. The trainers are familiar with this trait and put "Blinkers" or Blinders on the horse so that they cannot see a horse gaining on them. Those horses are losers. It seems Dion's blogging backers are losers.

Posted by: Mel N at March 31, 2007 11:53 PM (asU7S)

10 Nerf Bat!? Dion's so weak he could swing an aluminum bat and it wouldn't hurt!

Posted by: Steve M at April 01, 2007 08:37 AM (YnfTz)

11 "...the government departments who helped the Conservatives produce all those ridiculous, corrupt, undeclared campaign ads" Umm... anonymous 945pm, you might find this hard to believe, but the Conservatives actually paid for these ads via their own fundraising. See, using slush funds and taxpayer dough would be illegal, and of course, this is really the province of the liberals. Small wonder you'd think everyone else does it, too. As for "corrupt", what's corrupt about them? The beauty of the ads was they actually took Dion's words and used them against him. You want corrupt, then go back to 2003 on those utterly baldfaced lying liberal smears against Harper: lies about wanting to buy aircraft carriers, guns firing at the camera, healthcare fright-night. Try cleaning up your own act before running your mouth in here, pal. mhb23re [at gmail d0t calm]

Posted by: mhb at April 01, 2007 06:34 PM (2/Us5)

12 I like to deal in facts, if the federal conservatives get a majority or even if not, this is what comes down the pipe. Lost of your CPP/QPP? in exchange for a personal pension. (CPP will still exist, and be around for a long time, but no longer funded). A parallel health care system modeled after the European system, cost of health care across the sea is less expensive, such a system set up in Quebec, starts at $1300 user fees, plus the province kicks in another 50%. Money that does not reach hospitals, shop with your health card in a public system, and must also pay user fees. There is an upside to a free market and a down side, our current government said they would not interfere with any business. This means that Health Insurance (oh yes, to use these private health clinics (pouring in from the U.S.) health insurance is part of the package.) private clinics, prescription drugs will escalate under this type of a system. A chap (who was a good friend of the Prime Minister) working for Merick Frost, lobyed the government for funds and got a bundle. Harper said, tax cuts would come with a reduction in interest rates, associated with the deficit. Now that Harper is government the Superannunation that public servants pay into the CPP funds, he now claims is government money, and is using funds from these plans to help pay down the country deficit, so he can announce tax cuts. This is all with a minority government. Now he wants to change the constitution to add "property rights", in the U.S. this is whats allows Americans to have the gun laws they do. The same thing will happen in our country. thanks but no thanks to those policies.

Posted by: Jacko at April 02, 2007 06:28 PM (0WEjb)

13 Is that Jacko? or Whacko! Me thinks your crystal ball has a crack in it! Speaking about using CPP funds to pay down the debt,how about the billions in UI surplus that were used by the liberalsto balance the budget.You say you like to deal in facts,then head off in to the future to create your facts as you see them. Read much Noam Chomsky! Sheesh!!!!

Posted by: Rexmeister at April 02, 2007 11:39 PM (g7gYB)

14 "Now he wants to change the constitution to add "property rights"...thanks but no thanks to those policies" Jacko, how do you find the taste of that socialist koolaid? It must be to your liking, honestly. No "constitution" is worth the paper it's printed on if it doesn't protect one's property rights. Obviously, you're a gun-hater; that's fine. Are you a SUV or large-screen plasma TV hater, too? Because the same government that could arbitrarily decide to seize the personal property of gun owners could also decide to seize your 4WD or 50" plasma the day it decided to go whole-hog with Kyoto and Beyond. And you'd be left with your mouth hanging open. Yes, that's a bit of a stretch from where we are today (maybe). But without protection of property rights, there's nothing the government couldn't eventually legislate right out of your possession. That's why property rights are so important. Think before you post, man.

Posted by: mhb at April 03, 2007 10:16 PM (2/Us5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Scott Reid Meltdown and the Chretien-Martin War

Scott Reid had a major meltdown on CTV's Mike Duffy Live last night. But putting aside the humour value of watching a senior Liberal Party strategist foam at the mouth, there is something significant to be gleaned from the outrageous display.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:58 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Considering the Liberal Party stole more than $30 Billion from federal pension surpluses (including the RCMP's) during its watch in the 90's, their cries for answers here are quite ironic. http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2007/13/c7639.html?view=print

Posted by: LynchMob at March 31, 2007 03:50 PM (hkwnD)

2 I always called the RCMP the Liberal guard dogs. Not the officers on the street that really do the work, but those at the top who get expensive cowboy boots courtesy of the taxpayer. It was so obvious that Zaccardelli was a political stooge and would do his master's bidding. Good to see the back of him. Bet most of the real RCMP officers are breathing a sigh of relief--now they can do the job they were trained to do without the barking of the guard dogs.

Posted by: George at March 31, 2007 06:27 PM (x2DlA)

3 By golly you may have it exactly, everything fits. Good sleuthing. Zaccardelli was Chretien's Bumboy for sure. Wonder if Zac ever wore out those expensive boots he's so famous for? However, that's a minor issue, but it was newsworthy at one time. We're into something much more serious. How does JC stay out of this one?

Posted by: Libby at March 31, 2007 07:43 PM (2YtUP)

4 Just keep pointing the finger right at the LPC... I wonder if the RCMP was used to spy on people that the Cretinites didn't like?

Posted by: Real Conservative at March 31, 2007 09:10 PM (EZLLA)

5 Just follow the signature on the napkin.wink wink knudge knudge

Posted by: bert at March 31, 2007 10:44 PM (jIXdB)

6 ...after all the dirt and corruption that is surfacing from the Liberals almost bringing our country to the brink of implosion, one has to wonder if they need to take a shower from even reminiscing this sad chapter in our history. Or if our grandchildren will say to us..."what were you guys thinking by electing these thieves?"

Posted by: tomax7 at April 01, 2007 12:32 AM (jHhd0)

7 ...sorry, if WE need to take a shower that is.

Posted by: tomax7 at April 01, 2007 12:34 AM (jHhd0)

8 Call Mel Hurtig and tell him to stop the press....the new entry in the Canadian encyclopedia under "organized crime" will be an LPC logo. Let'er rip Steven, this is the opportunity you dreamed of and the dipshits just handed it to you on a platter....go for a full investigation with indictments and charges and trials....and with periphery evidence turned up, follow up on sub investigations of other wrong doing found investigating the primary suspects...there is over a decade of criminal PMO activity buried in RCMP ranks..I have always maintained both Martin and Chretien would have been lynched as horse theives if they were born 200 years ago....but let's do the right thing and at least jail them for the crime syndicate they ran at public expense.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at April 01, 2007 08:36 AM (d3rAh)

9 I hope this makes all of those potential whistle-blowers decide it is now safe to surface and blow the lid off older Liberal scandals under Cretch.

Posted by: Steve M at April 01, 2007 08:42 AM (YnfTz)

10 Scott Reid must be Stephen Harper's best friend from beer & popcorn to making a fool of himself on MDL. Scott is a very bitter bitter man. But it looks good on him.

Posted by: Jake114 at April 01, 2007 12:59 PM (O5fFR)

11 The fact that Scott Reid is the best the LPC can on political talk shows reveals in what disarray the Libs are. 'Looks good on them. Scott Reid is either foaming at the mouth or looking like a zonked-out zombie. If he wasn't so rabidly anti-PMSH and the CPC, I'd almost feel sorry for him. As it is, when he's on Duffy or Newman I just shout at the TV, "OH SHUTUP, YOU SLEAZEBAG!" I'm proud of the fact that I never voted for the Liberals in my life: A few times in my callow youth I voted NDP, but NEVER Liberal. I smelled a rat when Trudeau wore that stupid hat and cape and pirhouetted with that rose in his mouth. All image and no substance...and that's been the story on these bozos ever since. I guess they just handed out too many perks to too many people/groups and the MSM, and then used Gagliano and co., plus the RCMP, to intimidate anyone who got in their way. Chretien in my mind equals thug. Isn't it sad that so many Canadians were duped for so long?

Posted by: 'been around the block at April 01, 2007 01:36 PM (p+s1q)

12 'batb': I one up you, I do shout at the TV! Mr. Beer and Popcorn is working to get the Conservatives a majority and they don't pay him a cent, can't get much better. Add to that they gave us the best lines ever for attack ads, straight from their own mushes. How can they disagree with themselves?

Posted by: Libby at April 01, 2007 07:18 PM (MzFOE)

13 As someone commented, the Libranos took 30 billion dollars from federal workers pensions. The parties are in an on-going legal battle. Thieves will be thieves.

Posted by: Thomas L at April 02, 2007 10:53 AM (6kZI3)

14 scott read was, if i remember correctly, also scamming it with his own adscams, which apparently Martin got Gomery to neatly dovetail. This guy's a schmuck who should be in the slammer, so what's the deal - why does the duffy and don show have the bastard around so much?

Posted by: Jack L at April 05, 2007 01:07 AM (4zIFc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Aminopterin? Melamine? Cyromazine? The pet food situation grows murkier

Some people think there has been progress with regards to the pet food contamination that has caused Menu Foods to recall huge amounts of product from store shelves. Now a new compound, melamine, has been named. But after some research, I'm confused. Melamine just doesn't seem to be nearly toxic enough to be responsible for the deaths of the animals reported so far.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:41 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1128 words, total size 9 kb.

1 Maybe this is a trial run by terrorists who plan to hit cheerios or something next

Posted by: greg at March 31, 2007 03:16 PM (e3uKE)

2 Are humans eating this stuff too? How would we know if we are or not? Actually I don't feel so good right now...

Posted by: Real Conservative at March 31, 2007 09:11 PM (EZLLA)

3 What could be happening is a synergistic effect. Compound A has a certain effect. Compound B has another effect. Combined A plus B have a totally different lethal effect. There was an example of this about 15 years ago in the Texa-Kansas area. That case involved by products from the ethanol industry which are commonly fed to cattle. Cattle, beef and dairy variety, were dropping like flies. When the FDA finally figured out what was going on they found all sorts of interesting chemicals in the distillers grains, from the ethanol plant, which should not have been there. Unto themselves the chemicals had non lethal quantities but in combination the specfic animal, in that case cattle, were killed off. I remember one rancher lost 600 out of 800 head in the matter of a few days. Just some thoughts from a former feed business owner.

Posted by: farmerboy at March 31, 2007 10:27 PM (BG/0m)

4 ...what I don't get is how bad Kansas or Canadian wheat must be for pets... The ultimate insult to Americans, right in the middle of their wheat country, Menu foods decides to import (probably using an unnamed former PM's steam ship lines no doubt) rather than support the local economy. One can hope this will start a big backlash against Chinese products. I can't believe EVERYTHING is literally from China. Went to the salwart of Americaism, Safeways, and see food products from China, disgusting! From Pacific Salmon to garlic to tuna, "product of china". Oh wait, the wife's shampoo isn't.

Posted by: tomax7 at April 01, 2007 12:15 AM (jHhd0)

5 Thanks, farmerboy. Some authorities are also suggesting that cats are particularly sensitive. Could be true to, but nothing supports either your theory or the sensitivity theory. That's not to put down those ideas, but all the evidence we have says it isn't likely to be the culprit, so it seems a bit premature for Menu Foods to be sounding the all clear. On the other hand, if either theory begins to accrue supporting evidence, that can change.

Posted by: Steve Janke at April 01, 2007 09:39 AM (2icFz)

6 As far as all those lawsuits; I have a better solution than the courts. In a month or so our farm should be able to easily replace the 16 dead cats with our 2007 crop of kittens. Have Menu food send me a $100,000 and I will personally deliver a new cat to those unfortunate people who lost their pet. Heck we can even make it two for one.

Posted by: farmerboy at April 01, 2007 03:25 PM (r22kb)

7 16 dead cats?...ha! When am I going to get a call from Menu Foods? Has anyone received a payment or even a phone call?

Posted by: at April 03, 2007 01:20 PM (o/6xt)

8 most cat foods contain a large amount of ground up cooked chicken feathers. mites are a serious loss for poultry producers. various types of powdered insect killers are used to control mites in mass production poultry opperations. chicken feathers under the scrutiny of magnification exhibit finely woven fibers unrivaled by the weaving hand of humanity. when extreamly fine screened pulverised particles of fossilized crustacian shells are bonded with chemical compounds engineered to anchor to the DTE , the resulting coupling actually penetrates the weave of the chickens feathers . DTE cuts mites to ribbons. It also locks in the joints of mites and other types of insects and binds their legs at the joints rendering them unable to move. If they do not get cut up or starve to death because they can not feed, the chemical bonded with the DTE gets the mites and continues killing new hatches of mites for a number of new generations after the initial application to the birds feathers has been made. feline mortality ?

Posted by: bently clucker at April 11, 2007 10:25 PM (Iv/cq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 30, 2007

Stephane Dion is not quite notable

Hey, don't take my word on it. He's not in the database. I checked.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:02 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 3 kb.

Forgery and Extortion at Free Dominion

At first, it was just an odd transformation of a post I was attempting to put on Free Dominion. But when I asked what was going on, the answer I got was utterly unacceptable. When I stood my ground, things got very ugly, very quickly.

This is not about some sort of fight between conservatives. This is about respect on the most fundamental level. This is about knowing that my words and thoughts, even if unwelcome, are at least not altered. They are my thoughts, my words, and no one has the right to change them without my permission.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:52 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 1118 words, total size 7 kb.

1 It was only so long before the MSM ideology clashed with the net....meet the new boss .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at March 30, 2007 06:09 PM (Je+mw)

2 I'd have to say that the integrity of the blogsphere is fully dependant on posts being displayed accurately as written by their author. To alter any part of them even in jest undermines this valuable resource and throws integrity out the door. This cannot be tolerated or we will just have another version of MSM. True a site belongs to its proprietor and this should be regarded as a sacred trust of sorts. To not publish a poster's thoughts is one thing...To alter them is quite unacceptable!

Posted by: Simon at March 30, 2007 06:25 PM (oQU+V)

3 The Criminal Code says(of a writing): "...purports to be made by or on behalf of a person who did not make it . . .is a forgery . . ."

Posted by: Hizzoner at March 30, 2007 06:58 PM (A5s0y)

4 So I should change fraud to forgery? Sounds good to me.

Posted by: Steve Janke at March 30, 2007 07:05 PM (2icFz)

5 I first saw the offending string at freedominion. While I don't agree in pricipal with the editing, you're omitting something that the site admin refered to about a bad interaction between them ans steve Taylor, and she made her point clear. You started screaming immediately and threatening to bah them on your blog, reminscent of david suzuki to me. I've lost a lot of respect I had for you over your pompous behavior on this. I'm also questioning the motives and principles of connie at freedominion too, but with a couple years lurking at the site, she's proven herself to be quite principled in my experience and I suspect the personal details are satisfactory. I'm offering this viewpoint as the perception of someone who has enjoyed both sites for a few months now, I've never posted at freedominion and am not a shrill for the site. Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 07:19 PM (NzrKo)

6 she's proven herself to be quite principled in my experience What higher principle does a person who runs a message board follow than respect the messages that are posted? My messages are my own, and not a tool for her to manipulate and change to push an agenda. If she doesn't like the message, she could refuse to post it. Period.

Posted by: Steve Janke at March 30, 2007 07:25 PM (2icFz)

7 I was following that thread earlier at Free Dominion. You are totally right. It makes the whole site look suspicious when they alter people's words rather than just censor them(which I wouldn't agree with either unless there was profanity) But to actually change what people are saying is Orwellian. Dishonest, fraudulent, slanderous. And on a thread about Liberals claiming all those things. I wonder what Belinda Stronach would have to say about her name being inserted in statements that have nothing to do with her. Free Dominion is not free expression.

Posted by: kettlehead at March 30, 2007 07:41 PM (0GoaQ)

8 Ummm,,,,,,,Who is Stephen Taylor?

Posted by: Fred at March 30, 2007 07:46 PM (JiUqj)

9 The string's been updated again, she explains a bit more. I honestly believe you've flown off the handle prematurely, I wouldn't have been accomodating to your arguments either the way you came across, even though i think your point is valid (just maybe not applicable when the situation is analyzed). Your behavior as a new member was, imho, bad and not worthy of a more reasonable response. I think a cooler head would have avoided this shemozzle. "Accept that I can change your post as I see fit, or Stephen Taylor gets it." If those are your words, you've skewed the meaning of what you claim Connie said, her reply was much more explanatory than that, and I can't think of a better way to put it than she did. I honestly doubt that there was a deceiptful intent to alter the meaning of your post. She has every right to remove links to other sites. For what it's worth, freedominion does give free range to pretty extreme opinions, anyone who says otherwise obviously hasn't frequented the site. There are two ways to perceive the issue, I see yours as grandstanding because it appears to me the change to your post was only regarding a link she wanted killed (I would have liked the link removal noted however, but the immediate explosion pre-empted clarificaion). I've stated my interpretation, so have at 'er if you disagree ;-)

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 08:16 PM (NzrKo)

10 I stay away from Free Dominion - I've never been a fan. The idea that any group would restrict references to a modern conservative icon like stephen taylor is disgusting. Your post has further entrenched my dislike for FD - I'm glad we have the BT Forums, only offensive materials are restricted at BTF . . . I've never seen that scary Stephen Taylor change any links to "competing sites" lol.

Posted by: Jordan Alcock at March 30, 2007 08:16 PM (gekek)

11 "The idea that any group would restrict references to a modern conservative icon like stephen taylor is disgusting. " A link was killed, no referance to him was restricted. "Your post has further entrenched my dislike for FD - I'm glad we have the BT Forums, only offensive materials are restricted at BTF . . . " So besides a link to a site that was killed, as explained later in the subject string, what restrictions can you report from the site? Who defines "offensive" in your world? It seems you're looking for a pure, free forum, so any restrictions are suspect. "I've never seen that scary Stephen Taylor change any links to "competing sites" lol" You're arguing like a liberal here, this is sensationalism. For the record I like Steve Taylor's site, and i think freedominion should note any changes to posts, which in turn should be avoided. But the arguments I see here are less valid than the link breakage, except or Simon's. Mike

Posted by: at March 30, 2007 08:35 PM (NzrKo)

12 They did the EXACT same thing to me!!! When I ran Conservative Life they changed all references of it to www.liberal.ca or something like that. Free Dominion is not a team player. They are more concerned about their own success than success of the conservative movement in Canada. Pathetic really. Join the forums at BT instead.

Posted by: ferrethouse at March 30, 2007 10:19 PM (N8BWX)

13 The owners of Free Dominion are having a hissy fit because Blogging Tories started their own forums. They want a monopoly over conservative forums in Canada and will use all censorship tools at their disposal to get it.

Posted by: ferrethouse at March 30, 2007 10:21 PM (N8BWX)

14 It occurs to me that this "Mike" commenting here, despite his protestations that he is not a shill for Free Dominion nor has he ever posted there, is being quite aggressive in defending the shoddy practices of FD. Far beyond what one would expect of a casual observer or "innocent bystander". In short, he doth protest too much" to be credible. For my part, I have never posted at FD nor, after reading this account, do I recommend that any reputable blogger do so. There is NO excuse for editing posts. If a blogger breaks rules, delete the post or put in [Deleted because ...]. Reputable sites don't, FD does. Their choice, and their conduct is probably why Free Dominion no longer occupies a piece of BT's front page. Weren't they on the bottom right at one time, "Threads (say 5 or 6) at FD"? Maybe there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Are they percived as, or do they position themselves as, a "conservative-oriented forum? If so, why put in a traffic link to Belinda? Why not yahoo, google or whatnot? That's what most other sites divert to if the correct answer to a challenge isn't supplied. Something is rotten in the stae of FD. And rude, too, apparently.

Posted by: Erik Sorenson at March 30, 2007 10:24 PM (TfPle)

15 Now I remember why I gave up on them ages ago.... Use my name and then deface it..... SHAME FD SHAME!!!

Posted by: FREE at March 30, 2007 11:21 PM (tghJX)

16 Steve, love your blog, but you're off-base here. End of story. Despite my faux-pas, or because of it, Connie has clearly delineated the nature of the bad blood between herself and Stephen Taylor. She gets to run her site the way she likes, just as you get to run yours. If I were a Kool-aid drinking rabble denizen, I'd expect the site owners/moderators would exercise the same rights. In fact, folks get banned there all the time... a rare occurrence at FD. So go ahead and slag FD, get your two minutes of instant gratification, and claim superiority. You're making an issue where there isn't one.

Posted by: droid1963 at March 30, 2007 11:32 PM (dqBP8)

17 I agree with you 100% Steve. You've put a lot of time and effort into making a name for yourself the thought of having someone tamper with that must be infuriating. The aformentioned Mike is clearly a hack for FD. Stick to your guns. You are right on this. Hell, if you were Kinsella they would be in court by now. NBT

Posted by: northbaytrapper at March 30, 2007 11:43 PM (dG9AU)

18 I think Steve is in the right here. No pun intended. Connie has every right to ban him from commenting on her site, and I guess she has the right to alter his words, but by editing a comment that was written by someone else, she comes across as a censorship nazi. If it irked her that much, she should have just removed the post. All she's done is ensure that I won't be visiting FD anymore.

Posted by: ScottInRMH at March 31, 2007 12:24 AM (c0EAc)

19 Their site, their rules is the way I see it. You are maybe going a little Cherniak on this one Steve.

Posted by: Le Politico at March 31, 2007 12:45 AM (vhopc)

20 Pretty sad pissin' match here...having contributed and moderated at FD for a few years until I resigned to pursue blogging, my opinion of Connie is that she is as good as her word and she has always stood firm in principle and conviction...regardless of who it pees off. She is also extremely tolerant of personal attack ( of which she has experienced plenty) Steve: when you have sweated over a blog and given it everything ( and I mean this literally as Connie and Mark have sacrificed a great deal of their income, time and devotion to keep FD running) you deserve ( have earned) the courtesy of having your rules/word respected in the house you have sacrified to build. Secondly, Connie is human....unlike some utopian ideal of a libertarian moderator you seem to hold, she has biases just like you do...and she is unafraid to tell you about them....one is that she does not have to use her site for the promotion of ideas or people she does not like...and the Q/A states as much. It is a MODERATED board...with all that implies. Third: if you had 1/10th of the attacks on your site FD has experienced from devoted moonbat vandals, you would be a bit quick on the trigger also. I don't make excuses for other peoples actions, I'm just saying I understand how things like this can happen. Just kiss and make nice...this blustery indignant moral outrage over fly shit does not suit you Steve.....the above copy sounds more like it could have been written by Ralph Goodale. ;-) Peace Brother

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at March 31, 2007 10:17 AM (d3rAh)

21 * i'm with steve on this. either totally disallow a post (which btw makes you an enemy of free speech) or post it without revision. you don't get to edit someone else's words. makes me think of those old airbrushed photos the russians put out, every time somebody got dumped from the politburo. *

Posted by: neo at March 31, 2007 10:21 AM (C0/NU)

22 My last comment... What I'm doing is pointing out the sensationalism here more than defending freedominion. Notice all the heavy discussion here is avoiding a description of what specifically took place. I've stated that I think Connie was been wrong to edit without noting what she did, but it turns out it was a filter that changed taylor's link, not Connie, hence the inaccurate charge of "changing Angry's words" in his post... I now think she did nothing wrong, she has the right to set up auto filters to edit unwanted links from her forum. I've also noted that Steve flew off the handle, and has made grand statements about what took place. I believe that banning without good reason, or completely deleting posts in the same manner is also an affront to free speech. But a forum manager is not obligated to allow their forum to be taken advantage of either. The arguments made here are referancing a generic concept and making over the top comparisons to absolutely irrelevant issues; this is usually a liberal tactic, used to appeal to emotions rather than use logic to address the pertinent issue. Go check it out yourselves if interested, or continue to make grand statements if that's your preferance. My preferance is to receive accurate news, factual opinions, etc. The MSM has turned me off on the type of sensationalism I see here. So again, check the string out for yourself... (I think it's ok to post this, might not be in light of them editing the link to taylor, please remove it if it's an issue, I can understand why you would be.) http://www.freedominion.ca ... LOL, Janke's filter wouldn't let the link be posted because it contained the word view_topic: "Your comment could not be submitted because the follwing text matched an entry in our spam filter: ie_wto (without underscore) It's a common ploy to avoid specifics and use generic concepts, if your argument is weak. This whole thing is ridiculous imo. Reading through the string at freedominion shows a pragmatic solution to a problem, with a bit of humour mixed in. Janke appears to be a sensationalising hothead, blowing hard at nothing and misrepresenting a situation in order to make hay of it. And Erik, as for me being incognito, review what i've said for accuracy and think again. Logic forces me to "be on Connie's side" and I don't care about the perception of that here, I just invite anyone interested to check the string and make their own conclusion. My statements here are very accurate, not like most here who are grandstanding and talking about the issue obviously without seeing what it's about. If Connie had changed the meaning of the post, or taken it of context, only then would these arguments be correct. I have no online personality to protect or analyze, having posted very little on any political forum... I'm sure some of freedominion's regulars will be reading this and wondering who I am, lol. Sorry for the blabbering, I started the reply and left before finishing Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 11:55 AM (NzrKo)

23 Anything that further marginalises the loonies at FD is probably a good thing. In addition to holding somewhat exteme views, the forum suffers from a general rudeness, immaturity and lack of respect that is all too common on the internet.

Posted by: volrath50 at March 31, 2007 01:31 PM (z58L+)

24 What y'all must understand is that Connie and her SO Entropy are rabid pro-lifers who will ban anybody from FD who questions their anti-abortion orthodoxy with reality. Connie herself worked to introduce an anti-partial birth abortion resolution in the Conservative Montreal convention, but she was stopped by the party executive. Even Connies attempt to be the CPC candidate in the last election for the riding around Kingston ON was frustrated because of her strident anti-abortion reputation. These CHP socons have infiltrated the CPC, but they have been effectively neutered like Cheryl Gallant, their CPC leader of choice. FD regulars are a collection of misfits and miscreants who's doctrinaire political views are really not welcome in the CPC, even though they diguise themselves as "principled" conservatives. They are really not mainstream Conservatives at all.

Posted by: unoho at March 31, 2007 07:14 PM (UWTup)

25 Mike, charges of sensationalism, "rabid pro-lifer"-ism and all that has been leveled at you aside, I cannot in any way condone the rewriting of a posting WIHTOUT WARNING. Whatever Connie's problem with Stephen is, I don't care. Interesting way for it to be handled, but oh well. It is for a blog owner to decide if they will delete posts - entirely up to them. If I get a message saying its not going to be posted because of whatever reason, thats for the owners to decide and implement. No arg there. Although at first blush it appears that changing posts is in the same vein as deleting them, i disagree. If they deleted stuff with which they didn't agree, the integrity of the readership allowed to contribute (tho the integrity level would be lower) would be preserved. Not so with altering. Everything I have read on FD is now in doubt and I will not be posting or visiting there again.

Posted by: daryl at April 01, 2007 08:46 AM (xcnxi)

26 I used to read and support FD but not anymore, what was once upon a time a principled conservative site is now nothing more than a radical anti-abortion evangelical website. Not to mention it has a few genuine homophobes including a BW, lead nutcase. To each his own, but I stay away now.

Posted by: Nancy Smythe at April 01, 2007 08:49 AM (YT+GG)

27 Steve, why didn't you reply to Connie's request? She stated, "Strange that I haven't heard back from Angry about my offer to delete posts that refer to Taylor. I wonder if he will be honest enough to admit that this hissy fit is not about our software 'changing his words', but rather an attempt to force us into providing links to sites we don't want to link to?" And, I've noticed that you were demanding to be booted. Very strange and I wonder, what was your alterior motive by demanding such a thing?

Posted by: None at April 04, 2007 11:33 AM (foCCg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A new kind of political web filter at FreeDominion.ca aimed at Stephen Taylor?

How is it that my attempt to post a comment to a thread to the conservative website FreeDominion.ca referencing blogger Stephen Taylor gets modified into references to Liberal MP Belinda Stronach?

Update: I have an explanation, and it's not pretty.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:22 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 673 words, total size 5 kb.

Gloria Kovach: Stephane Dion had me fired!

Stephane Dion has another problem on his plate. Gloria Kovach, who was recently and mysteriously fired from her job as head of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, is blaming Stephane Dion for pressuring the Federation to fire her. Kovach, a Conservative, is seeking legal advice from a lawyer.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:42 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 758 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Maybe this was to open up a position for the Liberals: the current president of FCM is Gord Steeves, a google search shows he ran under the liberal banner back in 1995 in Manitoba provincial elections.

Posted by: GM at March 30, 2007 01:32 PM (gGdIM)

2 Fast working little twerp that Stephane. He's even ready for an election anytime. All worried about what will happen to "his CONtree" if Liberals don't get back in pronto. The truth is he lies, he's so NOT ready for an election. He wouldn't be "MEAN SPIRITED" for firing a too Conservative like Gloria Kovach now would he?

Posted by: Libby at March 30, 2007 02:38 PM (CL+ub)

3 As a citizen of Guelph I should point out the fact that she hedged her bets when running for the conservative nomination to represent Guelph in the next federal election by keeping her job as the head of a non-partisan federation. She lacked political sense, and the local conservatives appear to have known it, since they preferred the old nominee Barr. Some say she lost because she was out organized. But since she won her councilor's seat in last fall's municipal election by a large plurality, perhaps she thought her destiny was to never lose a political battle. She wanted to sue the Guelph Civic League in the fall because they posted her voting record on municipal issues. Now she wants to sue the FCM. Maybe she wants a senate job, and doing a hatchet job on Dion as she fell from grace with FCM is her idea of public service. Presumably the FCM operates on the assumption that the federation not only has to be as non-partisan as is possible for an organization that is filled with politicians, but also has to have the appearance of being non-partisan. Clearly her running for a conservative candidacy while holding the highest office in the FCM lacked judgment. She gambled and lost, first to Barr, then to the FCM and thirdly with the people of Guelph. It's her own fault.

Posted by: Jerry Prager at April 04, 2007 08:45 PM (yDgWo)

4 cialis forum

Posted by: rice@aol.com at May 23, 2007 03:07 AM (bjWoS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Scott Reid to Mark Holland and Marlene Jennings: Thieves and Liars!

A remarkable delivery in the House of Commons yesterday, when Conservative MP Scott Reid went after Liberal MPs Mark Holland and Marlene Jennings, accusing them of theft, of lying, and of being in contempt of Parliament.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:41 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 1995 words, total size 15 kb.

1 Don't hold out much hope of anything much coming from this cocked up adventure by Holland and Jennings. They'll spend Easter break cobbling up a STORY line to present to the House. Two noses will grow, slap on the wrist will ensue, case closed. They're Liberals after all, meant no harm, wanted to return the boxes to the rightful owners, on a rainy day to boot.

Posted by: Libby at March 30, 2007 07:38 AM (lafnu)

2 Excellent post Steve, as always. While you believe that the Bloc might support the Conservatives on this matter in committee, I think it is even more likely the NDP would support the Conservatives on this matter as they are sticklers over improper conduct in the House. So, it is likely that if this did go to committee, we would see the Liberals taking a hit. That being said, if the Bloc didn't go along with the Conservatives and the NDP did, that would be a vote of 5 to 5 which would give this story legs like you wouldn't believe. Either of these two outcomes (both of which are more likely than both the Bloc and NDP siding with the Libs on this) is a blow to the Liberals.

Posted by: Surecure at March 30, 2007 07:52 AM (Dn18P)

3 steve... you may want to revise your lead paragraph. you have reid and jennings as the culpirts. ....when Conservative MP Scott Reid went after Liberal MPs Scott Reid and Marlene Jennings

Posted by: spike at March 30, 2007 08:03 AM (fc7RZ)

4 D'oh!!!

Posted by: Steve Janke at March 30, 2007 08:10 AM (27ap9)

5 Spike - Janke did not write this post. It was sent to him by Buckler or someone at Tory Rapid Response. The English is too good, and the research on House rules too sophisticated for Janke :-) The headline is deliberate. The Tories are trying to smoke out Holland and Jennings into telling them what else they have, because they have no idea what they could be hit with during the campaign. It is almost amusing, were it not so serious

Buckler, who is clearly not the brightest bulb in the Tory squad, should just relax. It won't be that bad.

Posted by: at March 30, 2007 10:01 AM (imFQw)

6 HOLLANDGATE ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Observer at March 30, 2007 10:37 AM (ELQ7y)

7 It will take some explaining by Holland & Jennings as to why it took them over 400 days to return the boxes to their rightful owner and where were they for all that time. Holland's office? Jennings office? I would love to hear them explain that one. If they were visible for the movers to haul away, how did they miss them,and then what happened to them? Where were they stored for the past year? Questions, questions?

Posted by: Rose at March 30, 2007 11:25 AM (prY9J)

8 People who post anonymously are anonymously annoying. If you can't put a name to your rant then where is the sense of pride. Excuse me if I'm old fashioned or at worse a boob; and yes I realize that a proper handle on the internet can be just as anonymous as an anonymous but to me it speaks volumes. Don't be anonymous be a sombody. cheers Simon

Posted by: Simon at March 30, 2007 11:40 AM (oQU+V)

9 Holland and Jennings got some 'splainin' to do. Re anonymous posting, I intend to disregard anything said by anyone who can't be bothered, or doesn't have the courage, to put up any "handle." It's akin to anonymous letters - utterly worthless IMHO.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at March 30, 2007 11:51 AM (g7gYB)

10 Spike - Janke did not write this post. It was sent to him by Buckler or someone at Tory Rapid Response. The English is too good, and the research on House rules too sophisticated for Janke Thanks for the complement on my English and on my research skills. Good to see people from Carleton University are engaged in political debate. I am sorry to disappoint you, though. This is entirely my own post, including the research. 100%. I'd be willing to swear to that in any court.

Posted by: Steve Janke at March 30, 2007 11:51 AM (27ap9)

11 Anyway Steve I do want to compliment you on your resarch skills. You sir are a definite attribute to the poliblogs.

Posted by: Simon at March 30, 2007 12:01 PM (oQU+V)

12 Excellent article. I just came across your website / blog. I like your style and will link you on mine as well. Thanks for the interesting article.

Posted by: Muddy River Tory at March 30, 2007 12:08 PM (2wMjF)

13 Spike - Janke did not write this post. It was sent to him by Buckler or someone at Tory Rapid Response. The English is too good, and the research on House rules too sophisticated for Janke :-) Buckler, who is clearly not the brightest bulb in the Tory squad, should just relax. It won't be that bad. From McMaster Daily News: Sandra Buckler (BA '95) is Harper's new director of communications. A native of Hamilton, Buckler previously worked as a lobbyist for De Beers Canada, Rogers Wireless, and Coca-Cola, and as communications advisor to Preston Manning, Kim Campbell and Tom Long. She has been a long-time strategist in Conservative backrooms at both the federal and provincial level. ------------- You thought I was Sandra Buckler? I'll take that as a compliment any day of the week. Cheers!

Posted by: Steve Janke at March 30, 2007 12:16 PM (27ap9)

14 Most likely, the CPC staff boxed the documents, labelled the boxes for moving, and vacated the offices for their new digs. Boxes were discovered by the LPC office staff upon moving in, and they couldn't resist snooping at the unexpected treasure trove. Being liberals almost insures their opening the boxes to see what they could use to get back into power. Messenger arrives to pick up boxes for moving & is told nothing is there, must be a mix-up. This would represent dishonesty and theft to a non-lawyer such as myself, by the LPC. Boxes are obviously hidden/stored by the LPC for over a year because there might be a statute of limitations on when unclaimed lost documents cease to legally belong to the former owners, so Holland & Jennings, who have absolutely zero integrity and ethical standards between the two of them, can use the documents as dirt on the Tories, because they need every last bit of dirt to desperately cling to power as MPs, and hopefully avoid going down the toilet with citoyen Dion when he takes these corrupt grits into the next election. And what of Mr. Millikan's role in this tawdry affair? Leave out his ineffectual role as leader of the House and allowing it to degenerate into a snake-pit of name-calling, accusation & slander, on all sides, but his role in this theft of CPC documents. If he truly is responsible for office material being moved appropriately, then he himself is implicated in this scandal. Interesting times ahead, but Holland & Jennings have just pulled another couple of planks from their floundering ship and deserve to go down with Captain Dion. Wonder if Milliken will be there to toss 'em a couple of life preservers?

Posted by: Alienated at March 30, 2007 12:16 PM (bU7gM)

15 Will Dion demand an apology and a resignation, forgetting the culprits are liberals.

Posted by: maryT at March 30, 2007 12:20 PM (zm8/C)

16 A great post. Good work. Your blog gets better every day.

Posted by: BillBC at March 30, 2007 12:27 PM (DvsHP)

17 Oh, like, the Tories hid them on us, in a closet or basement. Yeah, good luck with that one, Holland and Jennings. The fishing expedition argument is a real knee-slapper. These two clearly got some 'splainin to do. If they're smart and get Speaker onside, they may get away with a mea culpa apology, followed by some form of censure. There is one wildcard though. The confidential files referred to include a member of parliament, who has now raised the matter. Liberals in a pickle again, unable to gain traction because the B-team (sorry, "dream team") is in. Chretien's crew would never have got caught out like this.

Posted by: Shamrock at March 30, 2007 12:29 PM (c2U4G)

18 Must echo BillBC's comment. Thanks for this post, a lot of work. Pay no heed to anonymous poster. Those Liberal posters must be ashamed to show their faces let alone their names or aliases. They're down to slagging top Conservative Bloggers for reporting facts. They have a lot more to be concerned with than spelling!

Posted by: Libby at March 30, 2007 12:55 PM (CL+ub)

19 Not to be off topic, but why drag Carleton into that response? My browser doesn't have an author for the originally offending comment - do you know who wrote it? There are a disproportionate number of Carleton grads working on the hill for all parties. I just don't see the relevance.

Posted by: csabadoz at March 30, 2007 01:16 PM (+3gVi)

20 I don't think very much will come of this for two reasons. First, the MSM hasn't given it much play. Second, the Speaker is a Liberal.

Posted by: Peter at March 30, 2007 01:17 PM (42zlS)

21 Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting about this, Steve - I saw the exchange on CPAC yesterday and intended to hunt it down in Hansard. I doubt very much that the Speaker will let this slide with a slap on the wrist; there is WAY too much at stake, and this goes directly to inappropriate behaviour in the House. Milliken takes his duties very seriously (as he should).

Posted by: Candace at March 30, 2007 02:30 PM (3e8Tp)

22 This is good work, Steve. My question: Where in the world is the MSM on this? Where is the journalistic integrity and responsibility? Where indeed is the journalistic curiosity? So, thanks again for taking up the slack, Steve.

Posted by: Paul at March 30, 2007 02:33 PM (tDtHM)

23 Paul said: "My question: Where in the world is the MSM on this? Where is the journalistic integrity and responsibility? Where indeed is the journalistic curiosity? So, thanks again for taking up the slack, Steve." Haahhaaaahaaahhha...Bahhaaawwaaahhaaa. Oh, you were serious... JCL

Posted by: JCL at March 30, 2007 03:21 PM (6Do45)

24 Looks like anonymous found a monogram.

Posted by: Libby at March 30, 2007 03:25 PM (CL+ub)

25 "Looks like anonymous found a monogram." Not exactly. I was slamming the MSM there, in case missed that...I just don't happen to be a blogger, and don't really desire to hand out my email address (I get enough spam as it is). I post regularly on several site using JCL. Thanks for noticing.... Jim L

Posted by: JCL at March 30, 2007 03:42 PM (6Do45)

26 This is why I read you every day. Stephen Taylor has an interesting angle on this too. Since the boxes left Parliament during the TV stunt, maybe the Ottawa police will get involved. www.stephentaylor.ca

Posted by: PlaidShirt at March 30, 2007 04:54 PM (F47cQ)

27 JCL, I think Libby was refering to csabadoz.

Posted by: PlaidShirt at March 30, 2007 04:59 PM (F47cQ)

28 Great Post. It must be the reason why you get these ass-munchers such at JCL dropping by to read someone who can actually string together an argument. Guess JCL will just need to give Cherniak and his fellow trolls a hug next time the Liberal party has a convention in a phone booth.

Posted by: view from the West at March 30, 2007 06:33 PM (g7gYB)

29 "My browser doesn't have an author for the originally offending comment - do you know who wrote it?" Websites log visitors IP addresses, among other things, so the owner of the site, with access to those logs, can see where the computer on which the comments were posted is attached to the internet. I suspect the comment accusing Steve of not writing the post was typed into a computer attached to Carletons Intranet. Something to keep in mind when using your PC at work to surf the net, and submit comments. Great post Steve, I enjoy your good work, keep it up!

Posted by: Dana at March 30, 2007 10:09 PM (BuOMj)

30 Steve, You may be interested in this: Marlene Jennings was on CPAC's "Revue Politique" with Pierre Donais this evening. She claimed that when the Conservatives won last year's election, they insisted on taking over the research offices designated for the Government, that the Liberals at first said why bother, and that when finally the Liberals moved to the Opposition research offices formerly occupied by the Conservatives, that's when the Liberal staff found "une quinzaine de boÃ®tes" - about 15 boxes! You may find the interview interesting (podcast, 10 minutes). What could I possibly add about Jennings' & Holland's apparent lack of integrity that hasn't already been said?

Posted by: Gabby in QC at March 30, 2007 10:16 PM (d7G43)

31 HI I felt bad for Scot Reid having to call jennings and holland " honorable members "in the house, Honorable people do not rumage and snoop through other peoples mail or memoes,Like the old saying no honour amoung thieves

Posted by: sheila vlielander at March 31, 2007 12:29 AM (H3pxX)

32 In the U.S. of A., it was shit like this that drove Nixon from office. Unfortunately, in Canada, a little detail like the interception of documents in transit is just standard operating procedure. Betcha this doesn't go anywhere.

Posted by: Zog at March 31, 2007 12:43 AM (ND6dn)

33 Just to clear things up, I don't leave anonymous comments and did not do so here. I also include my real email address. The IP scenario sounds very plausible - I'm always surprised at how much you can learn about posters - but without that context the carleton comment just sounded like a lame smear.

Posted by: csabadoz at April 01, 2007 01:05 PM (+3gVi)

34 From Mark Holland's website: ------------------------------------------------------------- Town Hall Meetings HereÂ’s your chance to meet Member of Parliament Mark Holland face-to-face and to discuss any federal issues that are on your mind with Mark and others from your community. Mark welcomes your frank comments, and hopes for lively and productive discussions. CANCELLED: Friday, March 30, 2007 Time: 7 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. Place: Pickering Community Centre, O'Brien Room B Topic: Any federal concerns ------------------------------------------------------------ I wonder why?

Posted by: Klondike at April 02, 2007 09:48 AM (ocOr3)

35 Steve, Has Mark Holland and Marlene Jennings to explained themselves to the Speaker yet?

Posted by: Big Stan at April 19, 2007 09:05 AM (14Gq7)

36 hello

Posted by: alex@gmail.com at May 06, 2007 08:59 AM (kKOwR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 29, 2007

Merchant Circle: MySpace meets the Mob?

A business-oriented website provides the ability to create unique pages in a shared domain, one per business, not unlike MySpace. But in the case of Merchant Circle, there is a reputation management component, and the way it is implemented certainly seems to leave the door open for abuse.

Some people are certain that Merchant Circle blew through that door a long time ago.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:13 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 923 words, total size 6 kb.

Developing: Scott Reid challenges Mark Holland and Marlene Jennings on a point of privilege

On the story of Liberal MP Mark Holland and the boxes of Conservative Party documents that never got moved despite being labeled, we have developments in Ottawa.

I've been told that, just after Question Period was concluded, Conservative MP Scott Reid raised a point of privilege and asked that Mark Holland and fellow Liberal Party MP Marlene Jennings be declared as having acted "in contempt of Parliament". Apparently the argument hinges on the fact that the boxes were labeled. Speaker Peter Milliken has reserved judgment until Holland and Jennings have responded to the charge.

More details as they become available.

Thanks to Hunter for the head's up and to my sources in Ottawa for the preliminary details.

Read on for details on what "contempt" means.

Update: Scott Reid accuses Mark Holland and Marlene Jennings of being thieves and liars.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:05 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 735 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Thanks for the link. Now, just from my watching of the proceedings, Milliken was very clear about the fact that Holland and Jennings needed to present their case. But, he also mentioned seeing them carting the documents out of a government building, he seemed pretty disgusted with their behaviour. It's in the Liberals court now, and I don't think Milliken being a Liberal is going to have anything to do with his ruling, he is going to be fair.

Posted by: Hunter at March 29, 2007 07:31 PM (tHko3)

2 Fascinating. Hunter, do you mean you watched it on CPAC or something?

Posted by: Larry at March 29, 2007 07:51 PM (ODKXx)

3 CPAC shows footage live at 2 and then the taped version again at 9, I think.

Posted by: Steve Janke at March 29, 2007 07:53 PM (2icFz)

4 Holland is a rookie MP but he is trying to be a star. He seems to have a problem keeping his foot out of his mouth. All the power to him, give him enough rope.

Posted by: Jake114 at March 29, 2007 08:07 PM (DKVEQ)

5 Larry, yes I saw it on CPAC, it was about 5 minutes after QP had ended. It wasn't immediately after QP, like you see with points of order.

Posted by: Hunter at March 29, 2007 08:14 PM (tHko3)

6 Five minutes seemed immediate to me, but I'll reword it. ;-)

Posted by: Steve Janke at March 29, 2007 08:27 PM (2icFz)

7 Hunter is full-of-it. Scott Reid never moved a motion. He provided a lengthy accounting of what the PMO says had happened. He added a new twist: apparently, on one of the boxes was a marking "Boxes for Bosch", or something like that. Apparently Bosch is head of Liberal Oppo Research. Milliken was not disgusted, or made any remarks suggesting he was. He seemed to ask Goodale if Holland/Jennings would make a statement, and decided to wait before making a ruling. Given that the House breaks for two weeks, you are probably not going to hear from Holland before the next election is called. Once he makes a ruling, Reid can then make a motion, after which it will go to the Procedures Cmte for a hearing. Holland is a lawyer. The Liberal party is full of lawyers. They will not have allowed boxes to be videotaped before first crossing the Ts and dotting the Is. They have something. Or, they are just playing head games with the chuckleheads in Harper's PMO. Or both.

Posted by: at March 29, 2007 09:48 PM (Gu5Va)

8 Mark Holland is a lawyer? Funny his bio on his website never mentions it. http://www.markholland.ca/bio.htm A graduate of the University of Toronto in political science and history, Mark has also completed a wide array of courses from the Canadian Securities Institute.

Posted by: Klondike at March 29, 2007 09:55 PM (s7SfD)

9 To the person who says, I'm full of it. No, I am telling it like I saw it. I never said Reid moved a motion, he rose on a point of privilege, asking for the Speaker to rule on whether Holland and Jennings had acted "in contempt of Parliament", and I never saw Goodale, so I don't know who Milliken was talking to on the Liberal side, but obviously you do. Wait for the hansard, it will tell the story. Funny though, you just verified that there was a call for a "contempt of Parliament" on Holland and Jennings. So, my point is made. Holland and Jennings have got to show how their actions were not contempt of Parliament. Over to the Liberals, trying to spin this one. Do I hear paper shreaders?

Posted by: Hunter at March 29, 2007 10:28 PM (tHko3)

10 Mark Holland appears to be petty and more than a bit ethically challenged. I think he is trying to be the present day "rat pack" of the Mulroney years. Unfortunately for him he doesn't seem that smart; certainly not thinking through the consequenses of his actions. Kinda like the libs going after the RCMP. It may well backfire and burn a lot of liberals. They should remember the incidences happened under the liberal watch because the RCMP had a quid pro quo relationship with the upper echelons of the liberal party.

Posted by: joe at March 29, 2007 10:42 PM (t07u5)

11 >They have something. Or, they are just playing head games with the chuckleheads in Harper's PMO. Or both. Here's some wild speculation: We already know that there was some discussion about paying out the "compensation package" as "consulting fees" so as to split income and get an illegal tax break. We also know that there was some discussion that the party would pay part and the opposition leaders office would pay part of the package. Not smoking guns but they sure smell like gun powder. What if the confidential settlement was structured to split income and/or what if tax dollars earmarked for the Office of Leader of the Opposition -for use towards legitimate Parliamentary business - was used to create a seat for a party leader? Worse yet - what if there are smoking guns and the Cons are trying to cover it up with claims of "confidentiality", " privilege" and attempts to bully via contempt motions ? Now ask this question - Who, other than the Libs, has an ownership interest in the boxes ? We already know that the PMO isn't claiming an interest. They were told to come fetch 'em and didn't. When delivered to them they refused ownership. We already know that the papers are all, or mostly, Reform/Alliance Party paperwork. They no longer exist -there is no entity to claim ownership, nobody claiming to represent them or their heir ( Conservative Party ) has come forward to exert a claim on the boxes ( and if so - why is the party storing its possessions on government property when other parties and citizens have to rent mini-storage for that type of stuff) Now Stockwell Day might have the best claim of ownership since he was the leader of Reform/Alliance/Opposition at the time the paperwork was generated but anybody hear him stand up in the House and ask for his stuff back ? So if there are smoking guns in those boxes none of the above would want to claim ownership because it would make it that much harder to maintain " I wasn't aware of that memo, meeting, letter, etc." . Wild speculation or not, claims of privilege, confidentiality and contempt ring hollow when nobody is actually stepping up to the plate to claim they have actual ownership and the privity that comes with it. Nobody's willing to come forward and say those belong to me. They've sat unclaimed for more than a year with in a space where the Opposition does have a proprietary interest. That is abandonment. The Opposition has not committed a foul because, in law, they now own those papers and can do with them as they please

Posted by: Nbob at March 30, 2007 02:12 AM (S5y60)

12 Nbob, are you a prelaw student trying to impress us? It's not working. Wild speculation or not, claims of privilege, confidentiality and contempt ring hollow when nobody is actually stepping up to the plate to claim they have actual ownership and the privity that comes with it. Umm, the "privity" does not just belong to the conservative, reform, or alliance parties, as you imply. The boxes apparently held employee records. Those are the people whose privacy has really been violated by this. And abandonment, to the best of my knowledge, requires that the owner of an article knowingly relinquishes the article. I hardly think a box left behind by the movers qualifies. So that is a BS statement you are making that the opposition legally owns those papers. If my personnel file was in that box, I'd be slapping a lawsuit on the Holland, Jennings, and the Liberal party. Just because they are acting like pompous asses.

Posted by: mecheng at March 30, 2007 02:42 AM (g7gYB)

13 mecheng- dude you be da one that reeks of prelaw. Hint: Always read the law before you start spouting it. >And abandonment, to the best of my knowledge, requires that the owner of an article knowingly relinquishes the article. Wrong- abandonment is used to determine whether or not an owner has knowingly relinquished the article. It's your property so you are responsible for it ( surely, I don't have to explain that to conservatives ). If I come upon a box in my new house I have no way of knowing wheather or not it was "knowingly relinquished" or left behind but it is not my obligation to track down the owner and find out. My only obligation is not to convert it to my own use until n period of time has passed. The obligation is on the property owner to keep track of his property. The law assumes that If the owner conducts a reasonable search then the item will be found with in the specified period or the search will be exhausted and the item will be truly "lost" - i.e. without an owner. >The boxes apparently held employee records. Those are the people whose privacy has really been violated by this. Part Right. The employees would have some expectation of privacy but privacy rights, like copyright, are seperate from ownership of the actual item. I own a John Coltrain CD but I can't duplicate the songs or broadcast the music contained on the CD without getting in to trouble. The Liberals now own those employee records but if they were to start xroxing them or distributing any of the information they could well face a civil action. Hey while we're playing conspiracy -theory - hoot 'n nanny. Some enterprising journalist or blogger should check the court records for the Hart v. Reform lawsuit. See if it progressed to the point where Reform , or any of the defendants , filed an affidavit of documents. If so, check to see under what part the relevant documents found in those boxes are listed under. Then find out what day Day moved out. I'm sure it's nothing but if there is something there you'll see it .

Posted by: Nbob at March 30, 2007 04:05 AM (S5y60)

14 Theres no sense overcomplicating this issue. Heres what should have happened: The office in question was vacated, The people who are responsible for the move are notified. Among the items to be moved are the cartons in question, clearly marked as to destination. The new occupant of the office arrives and finds that these cartons have not yet been moved The new occupant of this office calls the movers and tells them to get these dam cartons out of the way. Some of the above obviously never happened. We need to know why.

Posted by: Lee at March 30, 2007 05:24 AM (CcZc7)

15 @Nbob, Only a member of the LPOC would steal something off of the back of a truck and then try and call it abandonment...

Posted by: langmann at March 30, 2007 05:26 AM (sRPZp)

16 "The new occupant of this office calls the movers and tells them to get these damn boxes out of the way." Or...... The new occupants of this office sees the boxes and, pissed at having been voted out as the "natural governing party" decides to check out the boxes to see what is in them. Upon seeing Conservative papers, they decide to just slip the boxes into a closet for further inspection and possible use against their opponents. Hmmmmmmmm.......

Posted by: Alberta Girl at March 30, 2007 06:49 AM (nMd+I)

17 The new occupants of this office sees the boxes and, pissed at having been voted out as the "natural governing party" decides to check out the boxes to see what is in them. Upon seeing Conservative papers, they decide to just slip the boxes into a closet for further inspection and possible use against their opponents. That's exactly what Scott Reid is accusing the Liberals of doing.

Posted by: Steve Janke at March 30, 2007 07:26 AM (2icFz)

18 The rot in the Liberal Party goes to the core, there seems no end to the sleaze. Now we are dealing with a mess in the RCMP that went down under their watch. Day wants to get to the bottom of the mess quickly but the Libs and Dippers want to drag it out over years. Why? Well take a guess. Election overlap, when present and former top Liberals will have to testify? That's it folks! It's only our money, let's drag it out, pay a fortune, help out the dying Liberal Party.

Posted by: Libby at March 30, 2007 08:38 AM (wbLlf)

19 HOLLANDGATE .... ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Posted by: Observer at March 30, 2007 10:39 AM (ELQ7y)

20 Nbob I'm no lawyer (my family would disown me) but isn't the fact that the Conservatives went through the trouble of boxing up the files and labelling them for the movers pretty compelling evidence that the files were not "knowingly relinquished"? It's not like the CPC just left a bunch of files lying around then left with no forwarding address. The boxes were packed up and labelled to be moved upstairs. Any reasonable person would know that the owner of those boxes intended to keep them and any decent person would return them without ever opening them. If you don't get that, then you must be a liberal. This is not really like moving into a home previously owned by someone you don't know who left a bunch of their crap behind. (Though even in that case the new owner has to make a reasonable effort to contact the previous owner if they want to protect themselves from legal action - I know of a case like this). This is more like doing a re-organization in an office. The occupants of an office do not own the contents of that office unless they pay for it themselves. Unless you own the business, the files in your office belong to your employer, not to you. The fact that someone else's files are still in your office when you move in does not make them your property, any more than your own files are your property. You may manage the files, but only as per the direction of your employer, otherwise you may be subject to disciplinary action. If I move offices in my place of work (which has happened to me more than once), and there are boxes left behind from the previous occupant, I either bring them the boxes or call him/her and remind them they are there. I don't rifle through them. I don't dig for dirt that I may use later. I don't neglect to tell him/her that they are there for over a year then pull them out and charge him/her with negligence. I know who's boxes they are, for goodness sake: I work with the person every day, I see them regularly, they work just down the hall. What kind of a person would I have to be to do anything but return them promptly? Mark Holland, I guess. No wonder he looks like the seed of Chucky in his official photo.

Posted by: Laura at March 31, 2007 02:38 AM (1ftK+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

David Suzuki vs Steve Shriver: Talkers talk, walkers walk, and some just run

Part of my problem with David Suzuki is the credibility gap. Driving a diesel bus around the country and flying to all points to tell the rest of us to lay off the gas is not the way to make a believer out of me.

On the other hand, actually running the 260 miles under your own organically-powered steam to prove a point gets my attention.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

Mike Duffy shows a different way to handle confidential information

So what do you do when you realize you have come across something that doesn't belong to you quite by accident? What do you do if you have the public ear?

Liberal MP Mark Holland hides the goodies, then starts handing out confidential information to one and all to gawk at. Other people like Mike Duffy have taken a different approach.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:17 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Ha - my memory is not quite as poor as I thought - good digging Steve ! It would be great fun to see Duffy bring this up in person with Holland !

Posted by: Concerned Torontonian at March 29, 2007 10:41 AM (8hDo1)

2 I do not know if Janke is doing all these "missing boxes" posts on his own, or on behalf of the incompetent sloth at the PMO who failed to do his/her job and is in massive CYA mode. The facts are as follows: 1. The PMO person in charge did not have a rigorous process for ensuring a strict chain of custody. 2. The PMO, apparently, did not know for a full year that these boxes were missing! Did anybody from the PMO ASK the Liberals to return them? Ever? 3. The PMO, clearly, would never have known of the missing boxes, and would have been completely blindsided by the revelations in an election campaign. They still may, because I don't think they know today what was in the boxes to begin with. Therefore, this is not Holland's fault, or the Liberal Party's fault, or Speaker Milliken's fault. The fault lies entirely with the PMO person who was in charge of the move and failed to do his/her job. No question. No spin.

Posted by: at March 29, 2007 11:40 AM (JOtne)

3 In fact Duffy asked one of his co-horts at CTV, Robert Fife, what he thought of it. Fife said thats politics. The liberals and conservatives would both do the same thing. This from a supposedly unbiased journalist. It seems all reporters do is create a false moral equivalence and thats the end of the story. Nothing to report here. Move along. I can handle Duffy, sometimes. But Fife is a liberal ass licker. Last week it was another knock against Harper from Fife, because in the House the PM asked the libs if they ever asked questions about our Canadian soldiers instead of worrying about the Taliban. Fife's righteous indignation was sickening.

Posted by: MikeP at March 29, 2007 11:41 AM (fOXEQ)

4 Hey look ^- Mark Holland just posted!

Posted by: Slider at March 29, 2007 11:43 AM (xPFGX)

5 The first comment is either Holland or a Liberal apologist. According to this person there is no obligation on Holland's part to return property not belonging to him. How repugnant. "No question. No spin" --and no morals. Even children know this is wrong.

Posted by: Larry at March 29, 2007 11:58 AM (d9RP9)

6 Keeping property that doesn't belong to you is a crime.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at March 29, 2007 12:08 PM (g7gYB)

7 And Larry is obviously a kiss-ass. Deal with the PMO "Incompetencia Buttocks" first, and then we'll talk about the morals of politicians - Liberal or Conservative. Changing the subject/channel does not obscure this fact: the Harper PMO did NOT KNOW for 12+ months that sensitive files - boxes of them - were missing. How can anyone defend that with a straight face?

Posted by: at March 29, 2007 12:11 PM (JOtne)

8 Its not a crime if the person doesn't know they lost it and doesn't ask for it back. Right? Just ask the OLG, they'll tell ya!!! 1. That little old lady didn't even have the right prescription for her glasses. 2. She didn't even know she had a winning ticket! 3. Her processes for accessing and redeeming the ticket were terrible. If we hadn't been found out she would have had no idea!

Posted by: Eric-Vancouver at March 29, 2007 12:26 PM (TnwAU)

9 Changing the subject/channel does not obscure this fact: the Harper PMO did NOT KNOW for 12+ months that sensitive files - boxes of them - were missing. How can anyone defend that with a straight face? -Mark Holland being at least smart enough not to sock puppet Missing boxes as some sort of indefensible ethical flaw? Pardon me? Could you explain further?

Posted by: Eric-Vancouver at March 29, 2007 12:29 PM (TnwAU)

10 "2. The PMO, apparently, did not know for a full year that these boxes were missing! Did anybody from the PMO ASK the Liberals to return them? Ever?" Do you ever think for yourself? Honestly, when was the last time you think your boss looked at old, archived personnel files? Only a fool thinks that every business or organization would be thinking about every single box they ever filled with documents at all times. The boxes were clearly marked for delivery, and as Steve has pointed out, the only people in charge of knowing how many were supposed to be moved versus how many arrived was the Board of Internal Economy. The Conservatives would have arranged the boxes to be delivered and said how many were to be delivered. If things are missing, it isn't the PMO who's in trouble, it's the BoIE and the Speaker of the House because they were given a certain number of boxes and not all of the boxes arrive. If FedEx knows when a certain number of packages goes out and not all of them arrive, don't you think a House of Commons body like the BoIE should have the same responsibility instead of simply saying that everything was delivered? But just go right ahead ignoring the only real ethical question so that you can continue to live without the rational thought that sees what is wrong with this picture. The fact that you don't see the ethical problem of somebody rifling through packages addressed to somebody else only points to your own lack of ethics or your blind faith in the Liberals. Honestly, one question... do you not think it was wrong for Holland and Jennings to go through somebody else's mail? From what you have said, there's nothing wrong with doing what is illegal for you and I: opening somebody else's mail.

Posted by: Surecure at March 29, 2007 12:30 PM (cb3SR)

11 1. I do these posts on my own. 2. The point to consider is that if these boxes were labelled to be moved by the House of Commons facilities people, then opening them up and rifling through them is not an offence against the Conservative Party, but against the House of Commons. That's a very different kettle of fish than merely finding a file in the bottom of drawer. 3. Would the Conservatives do the same if the situation was reversed? Maybe, or maybe not. But we know what the Liberals would do. Arguing that the other guy is probably as ethically challenged is pretty lame as a defence. 4. The Liberals are on a fishing expedition, reviewing potentially thousands of personal files hoping to find something, not knowing what exactly, treating everything with suspicion. This was not a directed leak from a disgruntled Tory or public servant. 5. We know what the Liberals have chosen to make public. What we don't know is what information they have found that someone might find embarrassing and that they're using as ~~blackmail~~ ~~extortion~~ leverage. 6. These are old boxes, out of thousands. The CPC is probably doing an audit right now. Should one have been done before? Obviously. But then there was no reason to think that it was required. Everyone just figured the Speaker of the House and his people got the job done, as they've managed to do over and over again. Until someone had reason to go into these files, no one suspected they weren't where they were supposed to be. Clearly there is some culpability there, but I don't it carries over into negligence. No one considered that so much material could be misplaced (or deliberately hidden, which changes everything). 7. Again, since some people don't believe me, I do these posts on my own.

Posted by: Steve Janke at March 29, 2007 12:43 PM (27ap9)

12 Surecure :: Of course, it was wrong for Holland/Jennings to rifle through the boxes. No question. But, that's what political Oppo Research is all about. Do you honestly believe that the Conservatives would have behaved any differently if they had found a bunch of Liberal Party boxes in their possession? If you do, then there are parcels of land in Florida that .... The core problem here is "incompetence". The PMO is being run by a f**king idiot. Why, it was only yesterday that the Prime Minister had to admit (and, of course, CBC broadcast it) in the House that he DID NOT KNOW that the Head of State of a foreign country (Liberia, in this case) was in the country and had requested a meeting with him! How can this sort of thing happen in a professionally managed PMO? Dion is bringing in a new Chief of Staff. Perhaps, it is time for Harper to do the same before they start stacking moving boxes at 24 Sussex.

Posted by: at March 29, 2007 12:46 PM (JOtne)

13 More "class" posting from potty-mouth Posted by: at March 29, 2007 12:46 PM.

Posted by: terrence at March 29, 2007 01:35 PM (is9xw)

14 OK heres an analogy for the confused. I just moved into my new house last week and was unpacking things and storing stuff in the basement when I come across some old boxes of stuff from the previous owner in the closet under the stairs. Do I A) Rifle through the items and keep what seeems likely to benefit myself before returning the stuff to its rightful owner? B) Phone the previous owner and explain that I have their stuff and they can come over and pick it up anytime. C) Do A and also report a suspicious looking pipe that smells sorta skunky to the police? Well if your the Official opposition it seems it would be acceptable to do C. Whos to complain? We all new the Liberals would do this type of thing. Whomever didn't move the boxes and was in charge of the materials should get spanked hard.

Posted by: Hlyrad at March 29, 2007 01:35 PM (0udHZ)

15 Yes, didn't know the head of Liberia was in town. Yes, that's devastating. Our relationship with Liberia is sure to suffer.

Posted by: Rob G. at March 29, 2007 01:45 PM (ZL4FG)

16 The Conservatives, have on a point of privelege, just asked that Holland be regarded as having acted "in comtempt of Parliament". They used the label on one of the boxes to support their case. The Speaker is giving Holland a chance to respond, before he makes a ruling!!

Posted by: Hunter at March 29, 2007 02:52 PM (tHko3)

17 I've shaken Mark Holland's hand. I still haven't been able to wash it clean. When I got a new role in my company, I got my Department Manager's old office. (He got promoted.) It was full of boxes. After a couple days, I needed to file some stuff. So I open up my desk drawer and looked for a hanging folder. Inside was a personnel evaluation. I immediately put it back. I did a couple random checks of the boxes. They were job applications/resumes/aptitude test scores. I taped them all up, marked them as CONFIDENTIAL, called my Section Manager to get the movers to pick them up. He didn't have anywhere to store them, so he never did pick them up. When our department moved out of the building two years later. My new boss shipped them to this managers office and let him deal with it. By reading these files or keeping these files I would not only have been violating the privacy of my boss, but all the individuals who had private information inside. It was none of my business to know. (That one page I read told me stuff I never wanted to know.) The typical MP receives 1000's of letters asking for help with personal matters. People spill their guts to get help because they're desperate. What kind of person violates their privacy? Without a doubt, the payment to the Alliance MP needs to be investigated further. It seems unethical, if nothing else. However, the evidence is now tainted. Also, the records management of the PMO has been poor in this circumstance. The PMO owes Canadians an apology. It's not easy dealing with paper records (just looking at my office now!!!) but it's no excuse. However, if Mark Holland doesn't come clean with what happened here, he could create a mini-Watergate. Nixon had staff Hollandize Democratic papers and files. Who knows whether they found any dirt, but that's what they were looking for. The end did not justify the means. How far will the Liberals go to cover this up?

Posted by: PlaidShirt at March 29, 2007 03:56 PM (F47cQ)

18 "The fact that you don't see the ethical problem of somebody rifling through packages addressed to somebody else only points to your own lack of ethics or your blind faith in the Liberals." A-men

Posted by: Larry at March 29, 2007 04:30 PM (d9RP9)

19 I would have Holland arrested the sneaky little ass wipe. And Millikin should reprimanded also as it was his job to deliver the boxes or ensure they were delivered.Dion should be charged with something because he allowed this crap to happen.He is a very unethical slimeball as are all the Liberals.I listened to them all squeeling during question period,boy what a bunch of rats and they want to govern this country.This RCMP investigation is freaking them out.I wonder if any of them are starting to worry??

Posted by: bert at March 29, 2007 05:05 PM (jIXdB)

20 Why the boxes were left to be "discovered" is not the issue (unless they had deliberately been removed from the mover's sight) nor is the content of the boxes an issue. Neither is who was responsible for shipping a major issue. As I see it, the issue is one of unauthorized individuals breaking into sealed boxes properly labelled for shipping to the desired destination. I believe postal employees have been fired for such transgressions concerning the mail, and there isn't a whole lot of difference here....only postage stamps are missing. This incident should be treated the same...no union would be able to defend the guilty.

Posted by: Conrad at March 29, 2007 05:23 PM (XX+VV)

21 You know, when proffesional movers move house, they put a numbered tag on each box when packing it. When loading they make a checklist of which boxes were loaded. When they unload (ie at your new location), they make a second checklist of boxes unloaded. The parliamentary movers clearly tag the boxes. Assuming they follow proffessional procedures, it might be really interesting to get your hands on the two checklists for this move... It would clearly illustrate at which stage the box was "lost". Not to mention who signed off on the two lists...

Posted by: temp at March 29, 2007 06:43 PM (3N9i8)

22 I think the liberals are scared that their antics of the past few weeks will somehow trigger an election, and they know they will lose big time. (maybe 3rd party) and feel the only way they can discredit Harper is to link him to some scandal. Imagine their ads, See, they are as crooked as we are, and must not be re-elected to steal millions, like we did and will. On top of that, they can't get candidates to be sacrificial lambs, as they can't promise patronage positions. I imagine the conservative ads are ready, showing dion saying, We need an election as soon as possible, or the one where he misspoke and said I want to be leader of the world. Truth ads work better than attack ads. With the facts out on the net that it is/was the Speakers job to see all boxes are moved from one office to another office, the blame might fall on him and he will have to resign, as Dion or Holland will demand. Holland should have got his facts straight before his little tirade, but maybe he got advise from the mole, or Turner.

Posted by: maryT at March 29, 2007 07:39 PM (zm8/C)

23 There is a big difference between the Duffy example and the boxes. If Duffy had opened the envelope he would have exposed himself to criminal and civil liability because the property interest in the letter had not passed to him either explicitly or implicitly. On the other hand, in law , the property interest in the boxes passed to the Libs via abandonment and/or other doctrines. If you leave something behind for over a year - and particularly when you've been told twice ( if I correctly recall the original blurb I read on this) that you've left something behind - and don't retrieve the item then you loose your property interest in the item.

Posted by: Nbon at March 29, 2007 08:08 PM (S5y60)

24 "If you leave something behind for over a year - and particularly when you've been told twice ( if I correctly recall the original blurb I read on this) that you've left something behind - and don't retrieve the item then you loose your property interest in the item." With all due respect that sounds more like a schoolyard argument than law. I think a lawyer could argue that government documents, labelled with a government seal and in a government building is NOT like leaving a briefcase in an airport!

Posted by: Larry at March 29, 2007 08:54 PM (ODKXx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Workplace Safety

I recently went on training to be a certified Health and Safety Board Member at Geosign. But whatever I know from reading books and studying the statutes pales to insignificance to what Rob Ellis knows, from deeply personal experience that no parent ought to have to go through.

If you work in a factory, or in an office, or outdoors, or if you stay at home with your kids, you should take the time to check out WorkSafely.com (it includes a blog covering a wide variety of topics from sports safety to the role of age in workplace accidents). You might learn something that could literally save a life one day.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

March 28, 2007

The Board of Internal Economy, Speaker Peter Milliken, Mark Holland, and the stolen boxes

Mark Holland is trying to cook up a scandal to embroil Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, and he's using confidential papers he found in boxes that, for some reason, were not delivered to the Prime Minister's Office, even though it appears that they were properly labelled to be moved.

As a side show, the Liberal Party is also trying to make this into an example of how the Conservative Party failed in its responsibility to move these boxes, leaving them to be found by a nosey backbench opposition MP.

The Liberals know better. They know full well that managing office moves falls under the responsibility of the Speaker of the House, through the function of the Board of Internal Economy. This all-party Board exercises remarkably broad powers when it comes to the smooth administrative functioning of Parliament. When confidential material under the Board's care falls into the wrong hands, and worse yet, is made public, the Board has failed dramatically, and ought to be making waves of its own to find out just what happened.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:41 PM | Comments (104) | Add Comment
Post contains 980 words, total size 6 kb.

New York Times: Daycares linked to disruptive children

The New York Times is reporting on a study that shows that children who spend their preschool years in daycares are actually more disruptive in school than children raised by a parent in a home setting.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:10 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Check out this one. http://scrux.blogspot.com/2007/03/day-care-breeds-aggression-study.html

Posted by: Fergy at March 28, 2007 03:50 PM (UIaOJ)

2 When you quote like that are you deliberately dropping information that you don't like and that counters your argument or do your fingers just get too tired. The report doesn't say that home care kids "fare better". It says that daycare kids are more disruptive. It ALSO says that daycare kids demonstrate more intelligence and do better on tests until about the same age. This dichotomy - behaviour (daycare worse) and performance (daycare better) - is consistent with studies going at least a decade back. I remember a Time magazine report that said exactly the same thing about 11 years ago. It also stands to reason: parents do tend to focus on the proper behaviour of their kids, especially in public places, and daycare providers tend to focus more on cognitive experiences. And just like almost every other non-partisan report on this subject they make the most important point that, as you yourself quoted, the measured differences are SLIGHT and that good parenting vs. bad parenting is FAR more important than anything else. Ted Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at March 28, 2007 04:00 PM (V0pt2)

3 Agreed, Ted...good parenting is far more important. But good parenting begins with being with the child.

Posted by: Conrad at March 28, 2007 04:30 PM (XX+VV)

4 Not too quick on this one. I noticed that Fergy had posted by analysis. The research is quite inconclusive as far as the bad behaviour goes. I used to be a researcher in education and I would have been embarrassed to make the lead they did. The one conclusion about vocabulary development is effective because it can be tested on a longitudinal basis, but the conclusion about behaviour completely stretches the matter. There are just too many variables from pre-school to grade six, including peer pressure, to say early day care is a predictor. The bottom line is that the research really does not deal with parenting at all. I like the notion of full choice child care but when I see inconclusive research, even if it's on the left, I have to say so. I actually got a hold of some of the primary sources. My post is also available on jacksnewswatch. Never got a chance to tell you, but I often visit, enjoy your site. It's refreshing! http://scrux.blogspot.com/2007/03/day-care-breeds-aggression-study.html

Posted by: Sandy (Crux-of-the-Matter) at March 28, 2007 04:39 PM (oAIR2)

5 Actually Ted - it said the kids had better communication skills IF they were in a quality system. Being talkative doesn't make you smarter.

Posted by: the bear at March 28, 2007 04:42 PM (NIATg)

6 I'm not a researcher and realize that statistics can be weighted in various directions, depending on the bias of the researcher, the sponsor of a study, etc. What is clear, however, and I'm speaking as someone who enters classrooms from kindergarten to grade eight on pretty well a daily basis, is that there are increasing numbers of challenged and disruptive children in classrooms today. Unacceptable and anti-social behaviour is a growing problem, as are difficulties in processing academic information, many of which travel with the child into adolescence and adulthood, so it behooves our society to try to identify the salient factors causing so many challenged children today. I suspect, in part, it's additives in foods, it's watching too much television and too many violent shows, it's playing too many video games, it's air pollution, it's too little physical exercise, and the list goes on and on. For every variable mentioned above, except pollution, parents have a great deal of influence on their children. I can't help wondering if too few parents are monitoring the foods their kids eat (we now have a dangerous epidemic of overweight children and rising rates of childhood diabetes) and the television, movies, and video games they watch/participate in. I'm not sure what study is going to isolate all of these variables, but our children are at considerably greater risk in 2007 of being hyperactive, disruptive, anti-social, obese, and unable to either read or communicate effectively than they were 40 years ago. For some reason questioning the way we parent our children is somewhat of a taboo subject, but if we're going to get to the bottom of the problems our children are facing I don't think we can avoid it. I think it's time for a study on parenting in North America today, not just studies on our kids and the challenges they're facing, which arrive at no conclusive reasons or solutions. No doubt it would step on a lot of toes and shatter more than a few assumptions about our progressive societal gains in the past 50 years. But it might mean some gains for our children who, at this point, have been falling way behind in the progress sweepstakes.

Posted by: 'been around the block at March 28, 2007 06:18 PM (Q5LsD)

7 The bad news about child care is pretty much what the Daycare's Don't Care website's been saying all along...

Posted by: Judy at March 29, 2007 07:13 AM (IzuLk)

8 Thanks, Judy, for the link to Daycares Don't Care. What they're saying is what I've been saying for years. And they're right: No one wants to hear the message that there is absolutely no substitute for a parent ('could be Dad, but it's usually Mom because, as Robert Capon puts it in his book "Bed and Board," mom's "are geography" for their kids; they have breasts for food and to use as pillows and shelves, aka hips, to carry their children around on). One psychologist put it very well: "Every child needs someone taking care of them who is absolutely crazy about them." Who but a parent--flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone, quirk of my quirks--is going to be "crazy about" a kid? Daycare workers have too many kids to care for, which means that two-, three-, and four-year-olds are becoming "peer oriented" at very early ages. That essentially means that they don't "hear" or respond to an adult voice. I see it in the classrooms I teach in every day. They also hear only a very limited vocabulary from their tiny peers, which is one reason why so many of our children are literacy challenged. No amount of remedial literacy work with them, after the deprivation in the first six years of their lives, is going to help them over the hump, another fact I witness every day. The gazillion$ of dollars we're spending on remedial and therapeutic programs and strategies for our underperforming children would be much better spent on encouraging parents to stay home with their children for the first six years of their lives, to engage them one-on-one in the learning process. There's no way around it: Our children need far more attention from their parents than they're getting at present. 'Not a very palatable message in North America, but if we refuse to diagnose the problem no amount of bandaids and therapeutic/remedial help is going to cure what's ailing our children--and, by extension, our society. The great irony is, that there have never been so many therapeutic/remedial helpers in our schools than there are today: special ed teachers, social workers, anger management therapists, dieticians, psychologists, and the list goes on and on. And yet, despite all of this help, there seems to be no upward swing of successes for our children. The mire just seems to deepen, and teachers are being driven to the limit of their resources to know how to accommodate such a great number of challenged children.

Posted by: 'been around the block at March 29, 2007 07:58 AM (Q5LsD)

9 Alright folks, then why is school suddenly so important at age 5. Shouldn't home schooling be promoted more? At least during the grade school years? In fact, all of the arguments being trotted out now in opposition to daycare, were also trotted out decades ago as mandatory attendance in grade school was introduced. Hey, I know, why not blame all of society's problems on grade school and kids not being with their parents full time from birth until age, I don't know say, ten. The biggest problem in all of this are ideological driven arguments and research. This research says that there is good and bad in daycares and being exclusively at home but, really, there is not much difference. BUT this blogger and the NYT article and many of the commenters here spin it as home is the only place for a kid up until, I don't know say, age six. This is an ideological-driven argument, focused on the ideology and not what is good for the kids. I say this not as a daycare advocate but as someone who is sick of partisans of all sides playing politics with our kids like Steve has done here.

Posted by: Ted at March 29, 2007 09:26 AM (V0pt2)

10 Go ahead, Ted, and ignore the cold, hard facts of the huge numbers of children in Canada who are challenged socially, academically, emotionally, and physically. Take a look at the dismal statistics of illegal drug taking, unwed pregnancies, and suicides, to name just a few of the problems our young people are facing. Will you call these cold, hard facts "ideological" arguments. Kids need their parents' attention, period. It's not happening in epidemic numbers of families in Canada today. What's your argument here?

Posted by: 'been around the block at March 29, 2007 10:39 AM (Q5LsD)

11 Thanks for the insight, been around the block. Your comment about encouraging parents to stay at home is a good one. Unfortunately, years of lib-left demands for government meddling in our lives has resulted in ever increasing taxes. This has meant that more and more mothers have been forced out of the house to make ends meet. Lib-left socialism has delivered large numbers of children into the hands of the nanny-state with predictable and unfortunate societal side-effects.

Posted by: Larry at March 29, 2007 12:27 PM (d9RP9)

12 This is one finding I strongly believe to be factual. It's a sure bet the Puck Stopper turned child care expert won't believe it. He still stands in the House spouting off about more day care spaces. Factual evidence never did play a roll in Leftist Ideology.

Posted by: Libby at March 29, 2007 07:11 PM (wJLP/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mark Holland: An example of how to handle private papers

Mark Holland, Liberal MP for Ajax-Pickering, is scolding the Conservatives for not controlling access to documentation properly. Here are boxes, labeled clearly as belong to the Prime Minister's Office, and also labeled as awaiting pickup by movers, left in the general vacinity of Mark Holland. So of course, the right thing to do is teach the Conservatives a lesson by opening those boxes up, rifling through them all, and handing over what nuggets he finds interesting to the mass media.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:33 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 930 words, total size 6 kb.

1 It does not excuse the fact that there does not appear to have been a strict chain of custody with respect to personnel files. There is no excuse for that, regardless of the Liberal spin.

Posted by: at March 28, 2007 01:33 PM (T+Emh)

2 There is no excuse that's true. However, I hope it doesn't seem right that when you find a wallet, you're welcome to make an imprint of their credit card, and hold on to their passport, because it's an important document. Then read a private letter you found to TV reporters that is embarrasing Then make a big hoopla of giving the wallet back.

Posted by: Fergy at March 28, 2007 02:06 PM (UIaOJ)

3 Also enquiring minds would wonder how long it would take to photocopy the documents you would want to keep? A week? Maybe just scan it? Any extra requisitions for equipment? Any temp labour hired? Hmm...

Posted by: Fergy at March 28, 2007 02:11 PM (UIaOJ)

4 One wonders why it took the Liberals a full year to discover this box. Lets discuss breach of ethics. I don't open mail that is mis-delivered to my superbox slot, I would not expect an ethical person to open a box of documents with a clear destination that was not theirs, let alone examine the documents in such detail so as to pick out the "controversial" deal. And sure, Harper could have inventoried packed boxes to delivered boxes, but I never do when moving offices.

Posted by: at March 28, 2007 02:11 PM (ClxyY)

5 Who has an issue with ethics here: A. The Conservatives, who do not appear to have controlled their ownership of the boxes, or B. The Liberals, who took a year to examine the contents of the boxes to use the juicy parts for poilitical gain? I wonder how far Holland will get acting as wimpy DionÂ’s hatchet man? Probably only up to the next election. Actually, I find their schoolyard antics entertaining. Canadians see through the liberals' tactics and roll their eyes at this brand of politics.

Posted by: Slider at March 28, 2007 02:46 PM (xPFGX)

6 You know how sometimes there's a member of the opposing team that you hate with a passion but if you could ever become team mates with him your attitude about him would totally change? Well Mark Holland is NOT one of those people! He's a scumbag and we will happily leave him on their team!

Posted by: clair voyant at March 28, 2007 03:11 PM (YVfzb)

7 In regards to the chain of custody, we don't know where the breakdown occurred. When you have people changing offices, you don't always have one person cleared out before the other one shows up. Sometimes you do, but sometimes you don't. Remember when Bush took office? When his staff came into the West Wing, they found massive sabotage and theft of basic property belonging to the White House done by Clinton's staff as they left. This case could be the same, a joke that slowly got out of hand. It could be as simple as somebody with something against the Conservatives moved into that office before all the files got taken and decided to move some boxes as a practical joke to see when they would take notice. Being as they were old evaluation files (and who really looks for those on a regular basis?) the Conservatives didn't realize they were gone. Then, the person who moved them got curious and decided to look into them. Then, that person decided to see if they could use it. See? Not really a chain of custody question, but a question of what it took to go from a box being in the wrong place when the movers came to a the box being part of an illegal action: opening of a package addressed to another party. What Holland and Jennings did is no more legal than if I got somebody else's mail in my mailbox and decided to look through it. If it's labeled, I have a legal and more importantly an ethical duty to return it immeadiately. Holland and Jennings didn't return it. That demonstrates their level of ethics clearly.

Posted by: Surecure at March 28, 2007 03:31 PM (Dn18P)

8 But Holland and Jennings are Liberals....so they are entitled to disregard morals and ethics when it suits them. Just another entitlement perk that goes with being a Liberal.

Posted by: Conrad at March 28, 2007 04:09 PM (XX+VV)

9 Just how long did the boxes sit there? It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they had been placed there for the movers, and Mark Holland confiscated them as soon as they were stacked. When moving material fron one office to another, even to the same floor of a building, you must still have everything collected in one place. That Mark Holland took these boxes simply proves him to be a thief. After all, had he done that in any other environment, he would be languishing either in jail, or at home, jobless, for such theft of property.

Posted by: Dagny Taggart at March 28, 2007 04:21 PM (yVDxv)

10 If Holland was opening any boxes on Christmas they probably weren't his own.

Posted by: johndoe124 at March 28, 2007 05:41 PM (E8CD4)

11 There should be an investigation of Holland and Jennings, the boxes were not addressed to them and certain papers didn't fly at them in the wind. What are the Conservatives waiting for here?

Posted by: Libby at March 28, 2007 05:51 PM (MgT7Z)

12 Interesting state of affairs this one. I think Mark Holland should be held accountable for this and do the honourable thing and resign. The fact that these boxes were addressed and deliverable within THE SAME BUILDING coupled with the fact that the boxes have been unaccounted for OVER A YEAR leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Its time to sing Mark Holland and in your best falsetto. You sir have some explaining to do.

Posted by: Simon at March 28, 2007 06:16 PM (oQU+V)

13 Check this post for the rules involving the smooth administrative functioning of Parliament.

Posted by: Steve Janke at March 28, 2007 06:42 PM (2icFz)

14 Liberals are slimy thieves, totally lacking in morals. SAY IT ISN'T SO..

Posted by: Boomer at March 28, 2007 07:16 PM (uHneo)

15 Wanke...isn't Sheehan due for another gynecological exam?

Posted by: Angry on a great white toilet. at March 29, 2007 09:03 AM (bXEMR)

16 A Liberal pointing fingers at corruption is like a whore calling the cops on her pimp.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at March 29, 2007 06:11 PM (d3rAh)

17 Its quite simple. If it isn't yours you don't open it.

Posted by: Dave Doobie at April 06, 2007 06:52 PM (S9SLN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Did Stephane Dion just call me a rube?

Stephane Dion hopes to showcase his ability to united Canadians behind his leadership. But by his own words we're not all too smart. We might not be sharp enough to spot his obviously superior qualities drawn from his status as a sophisticated Quebecker.

Wouldn't that be ironic?

Duh, what does "ironic" mean?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:44 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'm a born and raised french Qcer now living in Ontario since 1995 (No I did not move because of the referendum, just coincidence)...Also a political junkie. Canadians have not to worry about being inferior politically wise vis a vis qcers. Some politicians in Quebec managed to sell the lie that Quebec had the means to separate.,And this for almost 40 years! All this seems finally to be shifting as the results of monday night confirms. Still, too many Quebecers still believe that their province is currently prosper and the the fiscal balance money is just money being returned to them. This shows that if anything, too many Qcers are politically naive, not savvy like Dion implies. Many more sermons like Lucien Bouchard delivered as a wake up call that was also echoed by Dumont during and before his election campaign (This is why I think and hope Quebecers finally understand) is needed IMO. When Charest and Dumont start making changes, many government unions will start screaming again (Charest tried and had to backtrack), the PQ will of course promise them to uphold the status quo. The big test for Quebecers is coming. Will they hold on to the belt tightening sacrifices required?...Stay tuned.

Posted by: metalguru at March 28, 2007 07:41 AM (Mqv6V)

2 I wouldn't make a big deal of this. I'm sure that Harper has at some point said something similar about Albertans.

Posted by: Jonny_eh at March 28, 2007 09:19 AM (ZQ7AG)

3 Of course he thinks you're a rube Steve, he's a Liberal. That's who Liberals are, guys who think their fellow citizens are a bunch of doofs who will swallow any old bilge pretty much forever. Unfortunately they've been right about that for a looong time. Maybe could be we are starting to smarten up a bit.

Posted by: The Phantom at March 28, 2007 09:38 AM (VSDF/)

4 This post was so funny I snorted beer on my popcorn. Scott Reid

Posted by: Scott Reid at March 28, 2007 10:01 AM (9EjmA)

5 As a Quebecer, I feel some shame whenever I see Dion on the news. I'm sorry that Quebec has produced and imposed on Canada another specimen of its liberal "sophisticated political elite". Hopefully, Monday's election results show that things are changing and that Qcers might be becoming more mature...

Posted by: Sebastien at March 28, 2007 10:28 AM (FPY59)

6 How "sophisticated" are Quebecer's politically, when they send empty headed elite Like Stephanie DeYawn to do a jog where a statesman is needed. Quebec politics ( from any objective observation of the past 40 years) has been deined by shallow symbolism covering an underlying venal selfishness...yeah that;s reaaaaaal So-Fisty-Kated Steffie. Frick, when can we rid ourselves of this brainless elitist..he's like a social cancer.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at March 28, 2007 10:39 AM (d3rAh)

7 I'm betting most of Quebec's ADQ voters heard Dion and asked themselves: "We?!? Who's he callin' we?" Something tells me they'd much more identify with you, SJ, than Dion. Some of 'em would even take "rube" as a compliment.

Posted by: D.J. McGuire at March 28, 2007 11:03 AM (oumBD)

8 Scott Reid More information needed in order to evaluate your post..please expand on your peripheral wisdoms when you get that sodden mess cleaned up. Besides; what's a guy like you doin' eating popcorn and drinkin' beer at 10 am on a work day? siomn

Posted by: Simon at March 28, 2007 11:25 AM (oQU+V)

9 I think it's time we DUMPED all those FAT, BLOATED, Provincial governments in favour of ONE, BIG, COUNTRY. Who can afford THREE GREEDY LAYERS of Beaurocrats scamming every loose nickel from Qannaddians' pockets?

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at March 28, 2007 11:26 AM (GN3Xe)

10 "I'm sorry that Quebec has produced and imposed on Canada another specimen of its liberal "sophisticated political elite" AND "How "sophisticated" are Quebecer's politically, when they send empty headed elite Like Stephanie DeYawn to do a jog where a statesman is needed." Ahem ... It wasn't only Quebecers who supported Dion, it was the Liberal party of CANADA that chose him as their present leader. Quebec can be faulted with many things, but Martha & Gerard, with their delegates, had something to do with it too? Last I heard they weren't Quebecers. BTW, clever touch (no sarcasm): "Stephanie DeYawn" & "So-Fisty-Kated Steffie."

Posted by: Gabby in QC at March 28, 2007 06:53 PM (d7G43)

11 Gabby, your absolutely right. It was Kennedy who supported Dion and for obvious reasons. He wants another crack at the leadership and he doesn't want to wait forever. Picking Steffawn was his best shot. Rae or Ignatieff MAY have caused him a longer wait. Kennedy is nothing but a blabbermouth and will never stand a chance. He's finished. Martha Hall Findlay is also a bit runny at the mouth and not playing her cards too well.

Posted by: Libby at March 29, 2007 04:04 PM (Lvot0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 27, 2007

The myth of the electorate group-mind

Jean Charest, winning only enough seats in last night's Quebec election to build a minority government, spoke of the wishes of the electorate for a strong opposition. I'm not sure why politicians invoke the metaphor of the electorate as some organization with a single message. No such message exists.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:45 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 512 words, total size 3 kb.

Gilles Duceppe's awful night

Gilles Duceppe has so many reasons to be miserable tonight, now that the Quebec election results are in.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:42 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Make no mistake, Harper is now guaranteed a majority. Easily: 40 to 55 Quebec seats, even more.(He got 10 out of Quebec last time). Most seats will come out of Gilles's BQ and some Lib seats too. Even if the ROC stays the same, Quebec will give Harper what he needs. Spin it all you want Lib supporters but the Fed Libs under Dion are mortally(?) wounded this AM. Duceppe's Bloc will be hit very hard too, unless but unlikely, Qcers strategically still keeps most Bloc as 'leverage' in Ottawa. I predict Charest and Dumont will eventually 'work together' as Charest is more a small c Conservative than a Liberal. Harper will secretly help both through with advice and being that Charest is now on his way out as Lib leader and thus one would safely think it will make it that much easier for an interim alliance with Dumont, Harper will offer him (Charest) chances to run in Fed Conservative land as possible future reward. The long term strategic goal (Harper's dream) here is to kick start Quebec out of it's stagnant socialism and high debt (120+ B $...the highest per capita). This is now Quebecers true test of resolve. Yes they voted for change and clean up their act but will they walk the walk this time? Charest tried and the powerful gov unions revolted and he had to backtrack. We now have a better scenario though...Charest and Dumont combined seats vs. the weak PQ who won't be so influencial as to promise impossible fiscal dreams and thus sabotage a long and bumpy road ahead (About a decade of collective belt tightening IMO, not unlike Alberta did)...And this is where Duceppe might be of some stength if he starts playing yet another round of "Ottawa is trying to screw us" again.

Posted by: metalguru at March 27, 2007 07:52 AM (Mqv6V)

2 Good summation Steve. I wouldn't want to stand to close to Gilles for fear of being struck by lightning.

Posted by: northbaytrapper at March 27, 2007 12:38 PM (8jv8g)

3 What nobody seems to mention is, that this result makes it most unlikely we will gave a federal election any time soon. Harper needs all three parties to join together to bring him down, the Bloc would be crazy to do so. Not only based on the results, but the Bloc and PQ use the same volunteer base and financial base, how anxious can the grass roots be to have another go. I think this election virtually guarantees no federal election in 2007.

Posted by: Brian Gardienr at March 27, 2007 02:11 PM (SOAj+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

256kb generated in CPU 0.1039, elapsed 0.1995 seconds.
112 queries taking 0.1557 seconds, 606 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 11775
Files: 27
Bytes: 136.5M
CPU Time: 10:45
Queries: 1028210

Content

Posts: 3596
Comments: 36932

Feeds

March 31, 2007

March 30, 2007

March 29, 2007

March 28, 2007

March 27, 2007

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds