The meaning of David Wilks

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

Sonya Bell draws five lessons.

Stephen Harper gives his backbenchers less face time than his soon-to-be-published hockey book — he reportedly worked on it 15 minutes every day. When asked about the opportunity to raise his concerns with his party and the prime minister, Wilks explained: “We can do that at national caucus, which is every Wednesday from 9:30 until noon. We have about a 10 minute period in which we can speak to the prime minister.”

Mr. Wilks’ 12 minutes in front of a video camera are remarkable: a fascinating little moment in our democracy.

As it pertains specifically to C-38, the situation is complicated. On the one hand, the case of Mr. Wilks raises a legitimate conundrum. A budget is so fundamental to a government that a government backbencher would certainly have to divorce himself from his caucus to vote against it. And if, this long after an election, a budget was defeated—if a sufficient number of government backbenchers voted against it or skipped the vote—the government would fall and we would proceed to an election. A vote on a budget bill is unlike a vote on almost any other bill.

But the House is not faced with merely a budget. Continue…

An explanation for EI?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley has scheduled an announcement for 10:30 this morning at which she might explain what the government plans to do with employment insurance. In the meantime, Jason Kenney invokes the one-hour rule.

“I think the idea is, that within your own local community, within say an hour’s drive or so, if there are unemployed workers receiving EI and they’re not applying for jobs that are available at their skill level then there’s a mismatch,” he said, “And we want to solve that problem.”

Bain Capital vs. Reverend Wright: the silly season begins

By John Parisella - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM - 0 Comments

The phrase “silly season” was coined by candidate Barack Obama in the 2008 primary season. It is the period where the electorate is not focusing , the opinion polls are fluctuating, speculation about choice of the vice presidential candidate of the challenging party is rampant.

It also is a period where political sideshows, and talk about what is fair game in the campaign take place. It is likely that none of this will have any bearing on the showdown in the autumn. The latest flap about what is fair game in a campaign signals the start of this year’s version of the “silly season”.

Some pro Romney donors seem willing to revive Reverend Wright’s past association with President Obama as evidence that Obama was not properly vetted in the 2008 Presidential campaign. Fox News host Sean Hannity and former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin actively encourage such an initiative.

Not to be outdone , the Democrats had a controversy of their own involving a prominent Obama supporter, Newark Mayor Cory Booker. This past weekend Mayor Booker criticized the Obama campaign for attacking private equity funds, notably Bain Capital of Romney fame, as being “nauseating” to him and drew a parallel with the GOP rekindling the Wright controversy of 2008.

Obama operatives were not pleased. As a result liberal pundits have been merciless on Booker’s deviation from the party line. Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod even added that the pro-Obama mayor was just “plain wrong” in his criticism of the Bain attack ad .

The truth is this presidential campaign will be long, arduous, highly negative in tone and largely funded beyond normal means because of the Citizens United decision.

Democrats can claim that the Reverend Wright episode is off limits just as Romney’s Mormonism is supposed to be, but it will not prevent pro Romney supporters from using it if needed. Obama’s campaign has clearly decided that Romney’s Bain Capital record is fair game, and will not rescind the website entitled Romney Economics to dispute the former Massachusetts Governor’s claim that he was a job creator at Bain.

So we might as well get used to these personal attacks in this campaign. It is fair to say that we are far from “Change we can believe in!” and are closer to “corporations are people” along with the mad dash for campaign “over financing”.

It can be argued, as Democrats are doing, that Romney has made his business career and job creation the centerpiece of his campaign, and Obama has every right to make it an issue. But it can also be argued that the Obama-Wright issue is indicative of character. However, at the end of the day, these sideshows will not replace what will be the main issue in the campaign – the state of the economy.

In the Bain ad versus the revival of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy, it is possible that Obama may have the edge. Reverend Wright is past tense, and actually served Obama well in that he made his historic speech about race at a crucial moment in the 2008 primary season.

Romney’s Bain Capital record was initially raised by rival Newt Gingrich, and it has been flaunted by Romney as a showcase for economic savvy and competence. This is why the Obama campaign is exploiting it directly as opposed to letting a pro-Obama Super Pac do the work.

Ultimately, however, the voter will expect more from the campaigns. They will decide whether the candidates are over the top with these personal attacks, and which is more worthy of their trust. By November, Bain and Wright will be faded memories of the silly season.

David Wilks becomes a headline

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 5:18 PM - 0 Comments

As a result of this story and these videos, the Conservative backbencher gets noticed by the Globe, Star, CBC, Canadian Press, Postmedia and Global.

Bob Rae tweets.

David Wilks reflects a genuine and deep concern among Canadians – his recantation is canned and fake – the real voice should re-emerge.

Dan Arnold considers Mr. Wilks’ options.

If he truly supports the budget - as he now claims to do - he should have thanked his constituents for their feedback, said he’d consider what they said, then explained to them why he supported the budget.

If he truly opposes the budget - as he said he did yesterday - he should vote against it. Wilks is wrong when he says one MP can’t make a difference. John Nunziata and Bill Casey brought more attention to the budgets they opposed than they ever would have by meekly supporting them. Michael Chong’s opposition to the Quebec Nation resolution may have prevented Harper from going further down that road. I also like to think that the more acts of defiance we get, the more likely we are to see an attitudinal change in Ottawa that gives a greater say to individual MPs. Some may disagree with me, but I think that would be a welcome shift.

Bill Casey famously voted against the Conservative budget in 2007. After being ejected from the government caucus, he was reelected in 2008 by a larger margin. Mr. Casey though had a long history in his riding—he’d first been elected in 1988. Mr. Wilks was first elected last May.

Today’s generalities

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 2:03 PM - 0 Comments

Bernard Valcourt becomes the latest cabinet minister to try to explain what will come of the unexplained employment insurance reforms in the budget bill.

“I guess it is particular to each region. I mean, you know, I don’t think that it would be proper or it would be reasonable to expect someone from Fredericton or Saint John to commute to Moncton for a job daily,” Valcourt said. “You know it doesn’t make sense. So we’re talking communities and surrounding communities. What is reasonable? The details are not out yet.”

It’s about a two-hour drive from Fredericton or Saint John to Moncton.

Valcourt said he knows many people in the northwestern city of Edmundston, who commute about 30 minutes to St. Leonard for work. But he said he wouldn’t expect people to travel to Woodstock, which is about two hours south of Edmundston.

“It’s the custom and if the economic fact of life of the region is for people to work in their community and the surrounding communities. I don’t think it would be proper to force people to travel to other areas in the province to get a job,” he said. “There are hundreds of small- and medium-sized business be it in Fredericton or Moncton or Saint John as we speak that are looking for employees. i think what is aimed and the objective here is to connect those people that want to work with available jobs in their communities and the surrounding communities.”

See previously: Explaining EI and Help Wanted

Nice gig that pays $$? Farmer.

By Erica Alini - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 1:49 PM - 0 Comments

Looking for a good gig that pays over 60K? Consider farming.

No, seriously. After a long period of stagnation, net farm incomes are rising. Net operating income for the average Canadian farm was over $65,000 in 2011, up a whopping 35 per cent from an average of roughly $42,000 between 2006 and 2010. Only in 1995, that figure was below $30,000:

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, based on Statistics Canada figures and projections

“The economics of agriculture are coming back,” says Jeff Grubb, a Regina-based lawyer with expertise in agricultural law. “In the 1980s and 90s farm families needed to have some source of off-farm income,” at least in the prairies, recalls Grubb, who is himself the owner of a 700-acre farm. That’s less and less the case today, though, he says–courtesy of steadily climbing commodity prices and ever-larger farms.

Continue…

A Conservative MP lets his guard down (then puts it back up)

By John Geddes - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 1:09 PM - 0 Comments

My colleague Aaron Wherry has posted here that illuminating, unfiltered video of B.C. Conservative MP David Wilks discussing with unusual candour the government’s omnibus budget bill with a group of his constituents.

Some of these concerned voters, quite rightly, voice concern about far too much being packed into that single unwieldy piece of legislation, making it impossible for all the elements—changes to environmental laws, pensions and Employment Insurance, to name three—to be properly reviewed by House committees.

Continue…

‘I wish to clarify my position’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM - 0 Comments

And now a statement from the office of David Wilks.

I wish to clarify my position with regard to Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act. I support this bill, and the jobs and growth measures that it will bring for Canadians in Kootenay-Columbia and right across the country … I look forward to supporting the bill and seeing it passed.

‘One MP is not going to make a difference’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 11:57 AM - 0 Comments

Here is video of Conservative MP David Wilks speaking with his constituents about the budget bill and “how Ottawa works.”

David Wilks Maverick Watch

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM - 0 Comments

The Conservative backbencher is sort of maybe willing to vote against the budget bill.

Kootenay-Columbia MP David Wilks said he will vote against the Conservative government’s omnibus budget bill, but only if 12 other government MPs vote with him. ”I will stand up and say the Harper government should get rid of Bill C-38,” he told a gathering of about 30 constituents at the Best Western Hotel in Revelstoke Tuesday morning.

However, he added that he alone couldn’t stop the bill and 12 other Conservative MPs would have to vote against the government bill with him for him to do so. And that, has zero chance of happening, he said after the meeting.

Mr. Wilks spoke in support of the budget two weeks ago.

Back to work

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM - 0 Comments

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt is threatening back-to-work legislation if Canadian Pacific and its workers can’t come to some agreement by next week when the House reconvenes.

If such legislation makes it to the floor of the House, it would be the sixth such bill—and fourth in the last two years—that the Conservatives have introduced since forming government in 2006. For the sake of comparison, the House saw nine back-to-work bills in the 1990s, six in the 80s, 10 in the 70s, four in the 60s and two in the 50s.

Here is what I wrote about the Harper government, the NDP opposition and labour unrest last October.

Kristen Stewart on her first nude scene

By Brian D. Johnson - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 9:44 AM - 0 Comments

Kristen Stewart in Cannes / photo by Brian D. Johnson

Much of the international press corps in Cannes was mystified this morning when a grinning Viggo Mortensen unveiled a large Montreal Canadiens banner, something he tends to do at every photo opportunity—the  star who wants to be a fan. It was one of the few cavalier moments at an ultra serious press conference, where Brazilian director Walter Salles held court with a phalanx of seven actors and three producers from On the Road, his adaptation of the Jack Kerouac classic, which premieres here tonight. Studiously researched for eight years, and faithfully rendered onscreen, this loving ode to On the Road must be one of the most mature, responsible films ever made about drugs, drink and debauchery. The press conference was infused by a similar reverence as moderator Henri Behar dutifully asked everyone on the dais how their research into Kerouac’s real-life characters had affected their work.

Many of the journalists just wanted to hear Kristen Stewart talk about braving her first nude scene, and sharing the Cannes spotlight with her Twilight co-star Robert Pattinson (Cosmopolis). But by the time everyone had reported on their homework, and both Salles and Mortensen had given long, earnest discourses on the fidelity of the film, there was time for just a few quick questions from the media horde. Fortunately, someone did ask Stewart how it felt to to bare her body for the camera as a sexually liberated woman after being restrained by the abstinence of Twilight—although the moderator cut off the questioner as he dared to mention Pattinson. Continue…

Spending, cutting, voting and chicken analogies

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

The Agenda convenes a panel—including Brian Topp—to discuss austerity and democracy.

The quiet cuts

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

Scientists are upset that the Experimental Lakes Area program will be cut. The benefits for RCMP officers will change. Lower Fort Garry will lose costumed interpreters. Funding for regional development groups in Atlantic Canada will be eliminated. Scientists within the Department of Fisheries might be laid off.

Meanwhile, CMA president John Haggie talks to Postmedia about his speech to an NDP hearing last week.

“Ideally, I would like to think my oratory would spur the government to change its direction and reconsider and perhaps alter its approach,” he said. ”Realistically speaking, the other alternative is to mobilize everybody else on the basis that at some point, even if it comes to the ballot box in 2015, they will have to listen on the issue of the federal role in health care.”

See previously: The quiet cuts

Unanimous agreement, at least in principle

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 5:23 PM - 0 Comments

As noted earlier today, Thomas Mulcair is keen on the principle of “polluter pay.” In principle, he is not alone.

Stephen Harper, February 7, 2007. Mr. Speaker, this government is clear: our system will be based on the principle that the polluter will pay.

Stephen Harper, February 8, 2007. We will continue to pursue the principle of polluter-pay.

Stephen Harper, February 21, 2007.  We think the basis of regulation of greenhouse gases and air pollution should be the polluter pay principle, and this will be the basis of the plans we bring forward.

Stephen Harper, June 11, 2007. We are also committed to respecting the polluter pay principle. This principle is part of our plan.

John Baird, June 19, 2007. We believe in the fundamental principle that the polluter pays…

John Baird, March 11, 2008. Mr. Speaker, polluter pays is one of the principles of our plan.

John Baird, May 5, 2010. Mr. Speaker, this government has two important tenets with respect to its environmental policies: first, we support strong and effective environmental legislation that protects the great country that we know as Canada; and second, this government strongly supports a polluter pays principle. Those have been the hallmarks of our policies.

Israeli settlers shoot unarmed Palestinians; Israeli army stands by

By Michael Petrou - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 3:13 PM - 0 Comments

One might imagine that filmed evidence of civilian thugs shooting an unarmed protester in the head while soldiers stand by and do nothing might be big news in Canada — especially if those thugs and soldiers are citizens of a country that our Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird says “has no greater friend than Canada.”

On Saturday afternoon, Israeli settlers from Yitzhar, a small community of Orthodox Jews in the occupied West Bank, descended on the Palestinian village of Asira al-Qibliya. Some carried guns and wore masks. According to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, one of the settlers was armed with a “Tavor” rifle used by Israeli infantry, suggesting he was a soldier on leave

B’Tselem filmed this and what happened next. Settlers begin throwing stones. Palestinians from the village confront them and do the same. Gunshots are heard. Uniformed soldiers arrive, as do more armed settlers and police. Grass fires burn behind the settlers. Then three of the armed settlers, one of whom is wearing what looks like a police cap, appear to open fire. The soldiers do nothing to stop them. At one point a settler appears to motion to a soldier to get out of his line of fire. The soldier appears to comply. One Palestinian, Fathi Asayira, is wounded in the face. He is not critically injured and will survive. Continue…

Explaining EI

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM - 0 Comments

Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield attempts to explain what the Harper government’s unspecified EI reforms will mean.

Ashfield said people will no longer be able to turn down job opportunities within an hour’s drive if they expect to collect benefits. “It’s not to force people to go to Alberta, it’s not to force people to, you know, drive for four hours, or move away from their home community. That’s not the intent at all,” Ashfield said.

Alas, Mr. Ashfield may have again been speaking without first checking with his assistant.

Setting a clear geographical rule of a one hour’s drive would bring clarity to one of the most debated and subjective section of the current EI rules. However Conservative officials told the Globe and Mail that the minister was only speaking in general terms to make the point that Canadians on EI will not be expected to move.

John Ivison still seems to think an hour commute will be the rule.

Mr. Mulcair’s reading list

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM - 0 Comments

In his interview with Tom Clark this weekend, the NDP leader recommended a pair of readings. The first is his own essay, adapted from the preface to Andrew Nikiforuk’s book Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, that appeared in the March issue of Policy Options.

If Canada could simply apply the basic principles of sustainable development, such as the internalization of costs and polluters pay, it would have long-term beneficial effects both environmental and economic. This is why I have proposed a “comprehensive cap and trade plan” that would be based on the principle that “polluters pay.” My plan would cap climate change pollution at the source, thus avoiding complicated monitoring systems that are prone to loopholes. It would also include all the major sources of climate change pollution in Canada. It’s a plan that has been endorsed by Professor Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Instead of taking such a sensible approach, Stephen Harper continues to heavily subsidize unsustainable practices by making direct financial transfers, by reducing taxes for petroleum producers and by investing large numbers of taxpayer dollars into speculative research into the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. We’re also exporting jobs, since exporting unrefined heavy oil creates no value-added jobs in upgrading or refining. It’s equivalent to exporting raw logs — a practice typical of undeveloped nations.

You can read an excerpt from Nikiforuk’s book here. The Google preview is here. The Globe’s review is here.

The other text mentioned is Unnatural Law by David Boyd, published in 2003. You can read the first chapter for free here. The Google preview is here.

Facebook’s stock has never been lower (with me)

By Jesse Brown - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 12:48 PM - 0 Comments

Sean MacEntee/Flickr

Facebook is worth less and less to me.  No, I didn’t buy any stock–I speak only of the site’s value to me as a user. It’s tanking.

Like everyone else on Facebook, I’ve always been ambivalent about Facebook. The shameless FB addict, gleefully abandoning any notion of privacy as they sext, post and poke, is mostly a media creation. The Pew Research Center studied teenagers and found that they actually care deeply about their privacy online–who sees what is a big concern. They just don’t understand how to control their Facebook privacy, and neither do I. Between Facebook’s ever-changing and ever-expanding Privacy Policy and the constant addition of new and conflicting features, I’ve lost the plot. I don’t know who will see the things I post any more than I know a “group” from a “page” or a “list” from a “subscription.” I’m in the dark, and I wonder if Facebook likes it that way. For years, the site grew more and more complicated as it got more and more popular. Whatever impulses I had to abandon it were overruled by the sheer necessity of using it.

Continue…

What of the G20 and the largest mass arrest in Canadian history?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM - 0 Comments

Ontario’s Office of the Independent Police Review Director released last week its review of the G20 summit in Toronto. Among other issues, the report notes the federal government’s late announcement of the summit’s location.

As part of its membership in the G8 and G20, Canada committed to host the 2010 G8 and G20 summits. In June 2008 the Canadian prime minister announced that the G8 summit would be held on June 25 and 26, 2010, in the small town of Huntsville, Ontario, about 200 kilometres or three hours’ drive from Toronto. Not until December 2009 did the federal government announce that the G20 would be held in Toronto on June 26 and 27. The Metro Toronto Convention Centre was officially chosen as the  venue on February 19, 2010. That left the federal and provincial authorities with just four months to plan the security and policing needs for the summit. As a result of these short timelines, planning was rushed and inadequate, leading to a breakdown in executing many of the operations during the event itself.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews dismissed questions about the summit during QP last week. In doing so, he claimed to quote a New Democrat.

The NDP has made wild allegations about the actions of our national police force, such as, “Canada is becoming a police state, where the toe of an officer’s boot or punch in the gut is the rule of law.”

Unfortunately, it’s not clear whether any New Democrat has ever actually said this. I’ve asked Mr. Toews’ office to explain the reference, but have yet to hear back. (Update 3:51pm. The minister’s office confirms that Mr. Toews was quoting the Star’s paraphrase.)

A Google search shows that those words, with qualification, appear in a December 2010 report about a news conference convened by the NDP’s Don Davies. But as the reporter’s paraphrase of what Mr. Davies had to say. Continue…

In conversation: royal correspondent Robert Hardman

By Patricia Treble - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM - 0 Comments

She’s been on the throne for 60 years, yet in Our Queen, royal author Robert Hardman argues that she’s changed the monarchy more than any sovereign in recent times. Although the monarchy may have once been a stuffy, ossified institution inside and out, Hardman explores its unseen young, vibrant side. The author has gone behind the green baize door for an intimate, fascinating exploration of how Queen Elizabeth II remoulded an ancient institution so that it fits into this increasingly hectic modern era. Gone are the gentleman amateurs who ran the royal household and in are professionals.

Q: You’ve been following the royal family for a long time. With so many topics available on the Windsors, why did you want to write this particular book?

A: I’ve been a royal correspondent for 10 years and subsequently I’ve written documentaries and features, so I’ve seen a lot of the monarchy as an institution. Every time I’ve had a look behind the scenes there was a sense that things were changing. Superficially it’s a traditional institution, but behind the scenes it’s not. Does she lead it from the top? Is it a hidebound old court or is it rather a quirky interesting, surprisingly modern organization?

Q: Which one is it?

A: It’s both. It still has guys in Georgian frock coats with titles like the yeoman of the glass china pantry, but you look up close and the guy’s got an ear piece. It’s ancient and modern.

Then look at the way finances have changed. The cost of the institution in 1990 was about 65 million pounds a year and now it’s about 31 million pounds a year. That’s pretty substantial.

You look at the way they interact with us, the public—the guest list at events. Twenty years ago, guests for a garden party could only bring along a spouse and any unmarried daughter aged between 16 and 25. Now you can bring your significant other, civil partner, whatever.

It’s relaxed in areas that needed relaxing but it hasn’t made the mistake of being populist. A recurring theme throughout the book is what I call the royal paradox, which is we want the royal family to be just like us but at the same time we want them to be completely different.

Q: How stuck in the mud was it back in the 1980s?

A: The court hadn’t changed much since 1888—if you were there, you were there for life. And that led to complacency. There were no cries for reform in the early days of Charles and Diana. The garden looked rosy but there were some wise old birds who realized that things had to change. For one, the monarchy was running out of money. They had to wake up and smell the coffee and set that process in motion in the mid 80s.

Q: In the book, you mention Lord Airlie, the lord chamberlain who runs the household as the key driver of change when it came to modernizing how the royal household functioned. To what extent was the Queen involved in those decisions?

A: She was consulted every step of the way. It couldn’t have happened without her. It wasn’t a case of them pulling the wool over the eyes of this impressionable, gullible lady. Lord Airlie actually went to her in the mid 80s and said, “I need to have executive responsibility. I need to do what lord chamberlains don’t normally do: I need to get in there and throw my weight around, and bring in some people who won’t necessarily go down so well.

The Queen not only agreed to that but she had to bash off some fairly retrenched forces of conservatism, notably her dear beloved mother, who could not abide any of this stuff.

From what I can gather, she’s always been open to suggestions, and much more open to suggestions and new innovation now than in the earlier days.

Q: Isn’t that surprising given her age?

A: Well, yes, exactly. It’s usually the other way around with an organization run by the same person for 60 years, you’d expect it to have stagnated to the point of ossification by now.

It’s completely different now. I got sent an invitation to some jubilee thing, and until a few years ago, to RSVP you had to write a formal letter, “Mr. Robert Hardman presents his compliments to the master of the household…” and now there’s an email reply in it, “Are you coming or not, and oh and by the way, are you a vegan?”

Q: They got lucky by starting the changes in the 80s, didn’t they?  

A: That was a godsend, because when things started to go really wrong in the mid 90s, most of the reforms, in terms of the finances, management and the general attitude had been addressed.

Although it looked as though there was a sudden shocking crisis in 1992—and it was a crisis, you had a series of domestic dramas, media dramas, the fire at Windsor Castle: it was a ghastly year—when the monarchy got itself into that situation, it was far better prepared to deal with it. They had sorted out a formula for sorting out the tax situation.

Q: There is a new deal regarding the financing of the monarchy. Now it will get a share of the annual profits from the Crown Estate, the extensive Crown property that belongs to the reigning monarchy “in right of the Crown.” Now instead of all the profits going to the government’s coffers, 15 per cent will fund the monarchy. Do you think it’s a good deal?

A: I think it’s clever. Firstly as a historical precedent, in the old days before 1760, the monarchy took in all this money [from the Crown Estate] and used it to run itself. Now it’s going back to that system but instead of taking all the money, it’s taking 15 per cent. It always seemed slightly unhealthy that the monarchy had to go on bended knee to Parliament. It looked like it was begging for more cash and more handouts.

From 1990 to 2010 the Civil List, which is an annual allowance from the state to the monarch for being the monarch, that figure was fixed at 7.9 million pounds every year. They built up a surplus, so that when it came up for renewal in 2000, the government said “oh, you don’t need a pay rise, you can have that fixed rate for another 10 years.” They preserved this cash pot, made savings and for 20 years got by on the same budget.

At the end of that, instead of anyone going around and saying, “well done,” there was shouting in Parliament, “Oh my God, they want a pay rise! How absolutely disgraceful. How can they possibly justify that!” No one pointed out that in the same period that they’d been on the same allowance, from 1990 to 2010, an MP’s salary had more than trebled.

Q: When she came in 2010 for a visit to Canada, more than 100,000 people crammed onto Parliament Hill to see her on Canada Day. A normal July 1 gets around 40,000 to the Hill. The reason heard over and over was, “Well, it’s because it’s her!”

Are you seeing that now?

A: I think that’s been the big change with this jubilee. It’s very much about her. Maybe for the last 20 to 30 years it was the younger members of the family who had all the glamour around them, whether it was Diana, or Prince Charles or, more recently, the duke and duchess of Cambridge. But this is all about her. It’s as if Britain’s woken up and said, “God, you know what? She’s quite extraordinary. We’re quite lucky to have her. Let’s have a party!”

Econowatch: the economy this month

By Colin Campbell - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 11:28 AM - 0 Comments

Tony Bock/Toronto Star

With the failure of coalition talks to form a government and new elections planned, Greece’s exit from the euro, or Grexit, as it’s being called, now seems less a question of if than when. The bookmaker Ladbrokes, after a flood of wagers, recently decided to close betting on the subject. “It is safer for us to suspend betting than to keep cutting the odds,” said the company. Banks, meanwhile, are reportedly already setting up trading systems that include a new drachma currency. This has ratcheted up fears of a financial meltdown not unlike Wall Street’s in 2008.

For Greece, the result would be devastating. Tens of billions of dollars worth of aid from the EU would be suspended. It would be frozen out by the lenders it so desperately needs. Its banking system would almost certainly fail. Starting a new currency from scratch is not something that happens overnight either, or at small cost to businesses. Greece would find itself out in the cold in a time of need, without the many benefits of membership in a continental trading bloc.

Yet there is a view emerging that the split might not be such a bad move in the long term. (After all, how much worse could things get in a country where the unemployment rate is over 20 per cent and lenders are already running scared?) A new drachma would rapidly lose value after its launch (by as much as 50 per cent, by one estimate). Many Greek businesses owing money in euros would likely face bankruptcy. But the devaluation would also cut the cost of Greek goods and services, giving a boost to exporters and to the country’s all-important tourism industry. Cheap labour and cheap real estate would lure new businesses. There is some precedent: Iceland’s krona rapidly devalued in 2008. This year, its economy is expected to grow more quickly than the EU’s.

Continue…

Holding pattern

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 11:09 AM - 0 Comments

On May 1, as previously noted, I sent the following questions to the office of minister of state Julian Fantino.

Last week, the Auditor General suggested that the Department of National Defence possessed a 36-year lifecycle costing for the F-35. See here. Is the auditor general mistaken or does a 36-year lifecycle costing exist? If it does exist, why has it not been made public?

Those questions were then forwarded to the Department of National Defence.

As of this writing, I have yet to receive an answer. As of last Thursday, the defence department was “still working within the approval process” to provide me with a response.

The race* for Etobicoke Centre

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM - 0 Comments

An early poll gives the Liberals the lead in the contested riding. Alice Funke reviews the voting history and considers the political narratives.

The Conservatives need to figure out which trend is their friend in this case. Is it that they should avail themselves of some of the best election lawyering in the country to appeal the case and try to keep the seat for fear the national polling trends (and even Rob Ford is having some troubles holding onto Ford Nation these days too) could see them underperform in a do-over, as happened in York North. Or should they rely instead on the finding that defeated Liberal incumbents can rarely stage comebacks these days, and try to bank on a better split … For the Liberals, a by-election here would be either their time to shine in an old-school pure two-way Liberal-Conservative contest – the kind they love, and want to recreate in as many other places as possible – or another quantifiable measurement of their reduced status on the federal scene.

*Conservative MP Ted Opitz has this week to decide whether he will appeal the Ontario court’s ruling.