Megapundit: Pierre Poilievre redeemed!

Must-reads: …Colby Cosh and Richard Gwyn on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac; Peter Worthington

by selley on Friday, July 18, 2008 12:08pm - 0 Comments

Must-reads: Colby Cosh and Richard Gwyn on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac; Peter Worthington on the Israeli prisoner exchange; Daphne Bramham on addictions treatment.

The Friday miscellany
Among other things, Ottawa is: too profligate, too callous, too bereft of tourists, and too scandal-obsessed, or possibly not obsessed about the right scandals.

Lorne Gunter, writing in the Edmonton Journal, has about ten different ways to say the Conservative government is spending too much damn money—and probably more than the 3.4 per cent increase, representing a total of $208 billion, at which Jim Flaherty promised to draw the line. Stephen Harper’s government is actually ramping up spending faster (gasp!) than Paul Martin’s, says Gunter, citing the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. And while he’s somewhat sympathetic to the entreaties of Tory MPs, who say ” their spending has been of real value”—as opposed, say, to funding a rutabaga farm in Papineau—he says $46 million for Quebec’s quadricentennial and $300 million for Bombardier “to build a plane for which there are no firm orders yet” are definite red-flag issues.

Lorne Gunter doesn’t exist, L. Ian MacDonald argues in the National Post—well, not really. But his statement that “for once, the English-and French-language media have been on the same page, celebrating Bombardier as the Canadian world champion it is” in the wake of its C-series announcement, has been sadly tarnished. But we should all be on the same page, he believes, since government lobbying and financial input are, like it or lump it, an intrinsic part of the plane-building business. It’s interesting too, he suggests, that “the auto industry in Ontario and the oil patch in Alberta have never been held to the same standard” as Bombardier.

Pierre Poilievre surprised John Robson with three pointed questions during this week’s ethics committee hearings on election financing, he reports in the Ottawa Citizen. (If true, by our math, that leaves Poilievre only about 997 dumbass statements in the hole.) He made Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand squirm on three separate occasions, Robson believes: on some arcane but apparently crucial fine print in the elections act, on New Democrats using the same techniques for which the Tories are being raked over the coals, and on Mayrand conducting his own investigation into whether his department tipped off the press or the Grits as to an impending raid on Tory headquarters. “The more I watch this stuff,” he concludes, “the more convinced I am that if there’s a scandal here, it doesn’t involve the Tories. But nobody seems to care.”

The Globe and Mail‘s Jeffrey Simpson explains why nobody visits Canada anymore, attributing woeful tourism figures to various factors beyond our control (“9/11 travel fears, the Homeland Security Department’s Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative that led to endless confusion about necessary travel documents, border delays, taxes and fees piled on air tickets, our dollar’s appreciation”) and various factors well within our control: notably excessive airport rental fees and taxes. The government might also be able to convince Beijing to give Canada “approved destination status”—thus tapping into the exploding Chinese tourism market—if it was willing to sign an open skies agreement, he suggests.

Also in the Globe, an unusually cogent Rick Salutin suggests “the politics of fear since 9/11″ have “override[n] the normal, sympathetic response” Canadians would have to Omar Khadr’s situation and to the recently-released tapes of his interrogation. This isn’t a new phenomenon, he argues, citing anti-communist hysteria in the 1950s and anti-Soviet paranoia in 1980s, and as ever, he says what’s sorely needed is an FDR moment: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Mercy for Fanny and Freddie
In the Post, Colby Cosh compares Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the two recently bailed-out mortgage companies, to one of those “jerks” on television who buys a house, pays someone to slap some paint on it and then flips it, offering “nothing to the process but his mad, desperate faith that real estate always goes up.” What else but mad faith, he asks, could explain the fact that these companies couldn’t figure out “that a lot of people who were only borderline-qualified to pay back home loans at discounted up-front rates might have trouble once the real rates kicked in”? They were only one link in the chain of disastrous decisions, of course—from “bad-faith ‘buyers’” to “mortgage salesmen seeking to boost commissions and bonuses, to their bosses who couldn’t devise new market share-grabbing mortgage products fast enough” to governments demanding “cheap credit [for the] underprivileged”—but Cosh says history will note their role in the debacle.

In the Toronto Star, Richard Gwyn suggests that Washington’s decision to bail out Fanny and Freddie represents the real end of Alan Greenspan’s laissez-faire tenure as chairman of the Federal Reserve. There’s nothing inherently wrong with greed, Gwyn argues, but “neo-conservative politicians and the slackening of moral standards among so many businessmen … have corrupted” the system, and “Greenspan’s awesome reputation and his ideological conviction ensured that [it] was extended to absurd limits.”

The Star‘s Rosie DiManno ruminates on Barack Obama’s decision to opt out of the campaign financing system that caps spending at $84.1 million per party and stick with his massive pool of private donors. It’s clearly an opportunistic decision, she says—the product of an “unexpected funding windfall” rather than a matter of principle. That, and flip-flopping in general, is “risky business for a candidate who leads with his outside-the-Beltway-box integrity.” But whatever Obama plans to do in the White House, she concludes, he knows the road to Washington “is still paved with green.”

Duly noted
In the Vancouver Sun, Daphne Bramham looks at the human toll of Vancouverites’ aversion to building addiction treatment centres anywhere near their homes, and at the remarkable turnarounds decent, affordable housing and community-based treatment for addicts can effect. It makes a valuable companion piece to Margaret Wente’s ongoing complaints that harm reduction takes the focus off treatment.

The Toronto Sun‘s Peter Worthington tells the gut-wrenching story of Danny Haran, the 28-year-old Israeli who was kidnapped and killed in 1979, along with his four-year-old daughter, and whose wife accidentally smothered their other daughter to death while trying to hide from their assailant—that assailant being Samir Kuntar, one of the prisoners returned to Lebanon this week, to a Hezbollah hero’s welcome, in return for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers captured in 2006. “Recovering their dead is important to Israelis, even if it means releasing individuals to Hezbollah who are regarded as heroic by Israel’s enemies,” Worthington notes. But, employing a seldom-used talent for understatement, he says Kuntar’s release is “especially galling.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Anon

    “(If true, by our math, that leaves Poilievre only about 997 dumbass statements in the hole.)”

    You had me there in the title. Very — um — misleading, I must say :-)

  • Anon

    I know that summer is the season for Simpsons re-runs, but Jeffrey Simpson should check his facts: Canada reduced the NEXUS fee to $50 as of December 1, 2008.

  • Just passin’ through

    So which one of these pundits opined on a issue for which he (and of course, it’s mostly he) has demonstrated authority and expertise?

    *tsk* How cynical of me.

  • Dije

    Good thing Robson is keeping the ‘Conservative’ in CanWest…

    Point 1 – Score one for Pierre. Mayrand made a bad omission there.

    Point 2 – Conservatives want to drag their new friends the NDP onto the side of breaking election rules as well? Umm, score one against Pierre… and score another against him for trying to drag in the Bloc for doing something similar in 2000, under old rules…

    Point 3 – So the Liberals and media show up over 2 hours after the raid started, in a public-access building, and Mayrand does a small internal investigation into a leak. If the Conservatives made a formal complaint, then a formal investigation would be done. Score another against Pierre…

    Robson should stick to commenting on odd news… actually, I can read through Yahoo! Odd News too, John…

  • Greg Crompton

    Why isn’t anyone talking about the waste of time and one sided inequality of the Opposition and mainstream media approach to the so called ‘in and out scandel’. Oh right. I forgot. It’s ok to bash Conservatives. Nice cheap shot by Selly Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.

  • Dije

    Greg Crompton – it’s called holding those in power accountable. Delaying, stalling and self-investigation aren’t going to make the long list of allegations go away. INVESTIGATION will. Investigating allegations of wrongdoing is a function of a legitimate democracy. Delaying, stalling and self-investigation erode public confidence in such systems.

    This is actually the second committee trying to investigate ‘in-and-out’ because the last committee was stalled to death by the Conservatives.

    Have an investigation. If the Cons are cleared, they use it against the opposition. If they are guilty, life would still go on.

  • Wayne

    Dije : you don’t actually believe that this committee is about investigating anything do you? Committees like these are only concerned about gotcha politics and have nothing to do with ” Holding ‘ the gov’t accountable. If I am not misstaken this issue is in court right now so don’t you think it would be far more appropriate to let a real investigation play out. Then again who cares as this issue was and is a non-story as in the end it is just a question regarding a tax refund or not ? Good grief : Although it does one redeeming factor and that is that I get to read Kady’s blogging – that lady has the patience of Job and fine sense of the absurd.

  • Baloneyman

    Just a question regarding a tax refund….? If only! It’s more about the Conservatives cheating the rules of the game to get to power.

  • Dije

    Wayne – I do beleive the committees are reduced to sound bytes and the gotchas but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a role to play. In this instance it could be best to leave it to court proceedings but we both know that will be delayed well past another election before anything of substance can be discussed or explored.

    If you think allegations of skirting election spending laws to gain an unfair advantage is a non-story would you feel the same way if parties skirted fundraising laws as well?

    When do allegations of ‘cheating’ in one of the closer elections our country has seen become an issue?

    When do search warrants executed by a government institution become an issue?

    When do allegations of strong-arming local candidates to participate in these actions become an issue?

  • madeyoulook

    Ah, yes, “cheating.” They raised more money than the other guys, and they had the gall to exercise their rights of free speeech to take their case to the Canadian people, because their popularity allowed them to afford same.
    The entire legislation is stupid: steal taxpayer money to give to parties according to prior voting statistics, punish parties that were so popular they raised more than the free speech restrictions (sorry, “spending limits”) allow, and prosecute because the accounting, while still under total limits, seems to more properly belong in column A (violation! Limit exceeded!) rather than in column B (green lights all around), even though A+B add up ok even to the speech-freedom-denying bean counters created by federal law, and even though there is increasing evidence they weren’t the only team to pull this stunt. Oh, and have such complete disdain for the Canadian people by believing that a few extra 30-second spots per four-hour prime-time segment will so brainwash The Voter as to bring the pillars of democracy down to a heap of useless rubble.
    I believe we’re all arguing on the wrong playing field. Abolish the coerced taxpayer-support funding formula. That includes the preferential income-tax discount for contributions to political parties compared to, say, charitable contributions. Continue to restrict funding to individuals only, and to reasonable personal limts, rather than corporations and unions and other interest groups who cannot possibly claim that their entire membership would agree to support the one party chosen by the elite crowd in the group. If union X wants to raise a specific issue during the campaign, fine, buy the ads and make yourcase on an issue, not a party. If company Y wants to impress us on the merits of a particular position, fine. We are smart enough to discount the argument by the conflict-of-interest posed by the source of the argument. Then let the political parties go at each other in the delightful mess that we call a democratic marketplace of ideas.
    I know, this is Canada, what was I thinking. Sorry. Sigh, send me the brochure, I’ll figure out which weekend I am free next month for the re-education camp.

  • Geiseric the Lame

    407(1) defines what an election expense is.

    it doesn’t define who incurred it. Like Maynard said, that’s one for the courts.

  • Db

    Always comical to see the effect that one lone left-wing voice in the Canadian media has. If Rick Salutin is “unusually cogent” this week, does that mean Jonathan Kay will spare us the lengthy screed attacking him in next week’s Post? I frequently disagree with him and I don’t share his ideology, but Salutin is almost always the most interesting Friday read.

  • Sisyphus

    I don’t think it’s quite accurate to call Salutin
    “the one lone left wing voice” but it’s certainly
    true that he’s a rare breed in the big media
    these days. He is a refreshing change from the
    bitter boy huffers and puffers that Mr. Selley
    selects for us most days. TGIF.

  • Geiseric the Lame

    “it doesn’t define who incurred it. Like Maynard said, that’s one for the courts.”

    I feel like being more specific. Since the regulatory body that’s commissioned to make those judgements isn’t being respected, that’s one for the courts.

From Macleans