Careful what you wish for, Prof. Mendes

By Colby Cosh - Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 4:42 PM - 25 Comments

Rebecca W/Flickr

Political newspaper iPolitics.ca accidentally unearths a breaking story, as liberal law professor Errol Mendes uses its electronic pages to praise the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. In Citizens United SCOTUS ruled that campaign-finance law must treat corporations, unions, and other groups as though they have the same speech rights as the individual people of which they are made up. The American left cannot mention this heinous act of pro-corporate radicalism without ejecting a fount of furious spittle; the “repeal” of corporate personhood is, for example, the first and foremost demand of the Occupy Wall Street protesters and their allies elsewhere. President Obama memorably denounced Citizens United from the podium, staring the nine justices right in the eyes, in his 2010 State of the Union address. But Mendes apparently thinks corporate speech is an “important form of political expression” and that it may be protected by our Charter. Damn, Canada really is moving rightward! Continue…

Do the math

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM - 3 Comments

Nate Silver measures the impact of campaign advertising.

Campaign ads matter more when a candidate can outspend the opponent. This simple fact sometimes gets lost because people fixate on the content of ads. But the volume of ads may matter more. Consider the 2000 presidential election. In the final two weeks of the campaign, residents in battleground state were twice as likely to see a Bush ad as a Gore ad. This cost Gore 4 points among uncommitted voters. The same thing happened in 2008, when Mr. Obama vastly outspent his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain.

The Quebec appeal

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, March 27, 2011 at 2:36 PM - 1 Comment

Michael Ignatieff always has two speeches, the one in the prepared text and the one he delivers (while only periodically checking with his prepared text). The text for today’s speech is here. A recording is below. Compare and contrast at your leisure.

These remarks are accompanied by a new spot for the Quebec audience.

Stephen Harper loves Canada more than you

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 28, 2011 at 12:04 PM - 185 Comments

In a new advert, the Prime Minister asks you to think about how cool those F-35s will look during ceremonial fly-overs.

See previously: Stephen Harper and Canada, a love story, parts one, two, three and four.

How this works

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at 1:18 PM - 30 Comments

Be careful what you say in public.

Here’s how the Tory memo quotes him on marijuana: “I am a big fan of decriminalizing marijuana.” Young people tell me we should make it legal and “take the money and do something with it. I understand that.”

Here’s what he said when asked about legalizing marijuana: “Yeah, I’m not a big fan of that. I am a big fan of decriminalizing marijuana. I understand the argument. And I tell you . . . this has been raised at schools like Auburn and Dartmouth High, the kids are saying, look, why don’t you make this legal, take the money and do something with it? I understand that. I just don’t know that we are at a place where we need to be legalizing more things that are dangerous.”

Peter Goldring Maverick Watch

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, December 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM - 9 Comments

The Conservative MP seems vaguely uncomfortable with the tone of recent ten-percenters.

… he believes rules governing the flyers should be amended to moderate the overtly political tone and content that has creeped in over the past few years, including recent NDP flyers he said he believes are targeting him for electoral purposes.

“I get an awful lot of Ten Percenters from the other parties, and particularly from the NDP in Edmonton East, they’re kind of targeting,” said Mr. Goldring. “I do believe that we could have it in a little more moderation, but the rules allow it that way. I would not have a problem with rules tightening up a bit.”

The return of In-and-Out

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 23, 2009 at 11:11 AM - 11 Comments

The Ottawa Citizen’s Glen McGregor reports from the resumption of hearings into the battle between Elections Canada and the Conservative party. Relevant background here.

Dear prudence

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 1:15 PM - 78 Comments

James Rajotte, in Question Period yesterday. Mr. Speaker, as Canada continues to cope with the effects of the global economic recession, it remains essential for the federal government and for federal agencies to spend tax dollars wisely.

Globe and Mail, today. Reports that Tory MPs ran up $6.3-million in costs last year by mailing out so-called “ten-per-centers” to people outside their ridings have opposition MPs calling for new limits on the free-mail privilege … All the parties do it, but the Conservatives have taken to it with zeal: Adding up the costs, the Montreal newspaper Le Devoir found that MPs with the minority Conservatives spent $6.3-million on the mailers, while opposition MPs spent $3.8-million. The average Conservative spent $38,337, including eight who spent more than $80,000, while the average opposition MP spent $17,977. Ontario Conservative Rick Norlock topped the list at $87,749.

A teachable moment

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 9, 2009 at 10:37 AM - 56 Comments

The Star explores the practice of unelected Conservative candidates turning up at government funding announcements. Not mentioned is candidate Denise Ghanam’s explanation when she appeared with Conservative MP Jeff Watson at an announcement in Essex County two months ago.

What’s the rush, I asked Watson; are Conservatives preparing in case the Liberal party decides in Sudbury today it needs to trigger an election? ”These announcements take months to prepare,” Watson said, shaking his head at my suggestion.

Then why bring a Conservative candidate from a nearby riding to a funding announcement? ”I’m still learning the ropes,” Ghanam says. “This is all about the economy.”

The Commons: Unsophisticated debate will not be tolerated in this place

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:25 PM - 40 Comments

The Scene. Ralph Goodale stood and the Conservatives, obviously quite eager to hear and consider his particular concern this day, were yapping and squawking before he’d so much as spoken a clause.

“Mr. Speaker, survey after survey about the H1N1 vaccine show a dangerous trend. Only half of Canadians are planning to get vaccinated. That is down from two-thirds in July. Too many people do not think it is safe, do not think it is necessary. That is a communications failure that could put lives at risk,” Mr. Goodale posited. “How does the Prime Minister justify an advertising tsunami of $100 million for partisan Conservative propaganda, but only a pittance for crucial information about vaccinations?”

The Prime Minister, alas, was not present. In his place, Tony Clement took a turn.

“Mr. Speaker,” he said, “the honourable Minister of Health is doing an excellent job in communicating to Canadians about the H1N1 flu situation.

“She has said that the vaccine would be available to every Canadian who needs and wants one,” Mr. Clement reported on behalf of Leona Aglukkaq, seated perhaps 20 feet to his right. “Not only is the Minister of Health urging Canadians to get the vaccine but the Chief Public Health Officer is doing so as well. This is the best way to protect our health and the health of our loved ones. Despite the fearmongering on the other side, we are focused on protecting the health and safety of every Canadian.”

To better convey this fearmongering, the Industry Minister wiggled his fingers in the general direction of the opposition side. Continue…

The vast left-wing conspiracy

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 11:39 AM - 79 Comments

Conservative MP Larry Miller tells us what’s really going on here with all these stories about giant novelty cheques.

“This is about the national media trying to help the Liberals deflect the attention off their problems right now,” said Miller. “Anybody that has seen Mr. Ignatieff and his crew in the House of Commons in the previous two or three weeks, it has looked as bad as when (Stephane) Dion was there and the media knows it, the Liberals know it and they are just trying to make an issue out of something.”

If only we had a commissioner who was responsible for ethics

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 7:05 PM - 33 Comments

CBC explores the irony of news that the ethics commissioner will be investigating the ethics of giant novelty cheques.

Canada’s ethics commissioner will investigate dozens of allegations that Conservative MPs are using taxpayers’ money for partisan purposes. But Mary Dawson says she’s not sure how far her mandate allows her to go into ethical issues, despite her job title.

… in her annual report, Dawson highlighted that while the word “ethics” appears in her job title, it does not appear in the Conflict of Interest Act or the Code of Conduct for MPs. ”It’s quite unclear as to the extent to which my mandate extends into ethical issues that are not expressly referred to in either the code or the act and, in fact, one would wonder whether it extends there at all,” Dawson said at parliamentary ethics committee meeting.

The Commons: And so we come full circle

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 19, 2009 at 6:36 PM - 112 Comments

The Scene. The Prime Minister was not in his seat this afternoon when Question Period began. Which seems a shame. Not least because of the profound moment in the history of his government that he was not there to witness firsthand. The rest of us will at least be able to say we were there, that we saw it with our own eyes and heard it with our own ears. The Prime Minister will have to suffice with seeing it on TV. Or perhaps hearing about it from a member of his staff.

Although, maybe it was best he wasn’t there after all. Indeed, in a way, it’s better he was spared the awful sight.

The session began simply enough with the obvious, the Liberal leader wondering aloud about a potential conflict of interest involving a Conservative senator and a sizable government contract. “Mr. Speaker, a pattern is becoming all too clear,” Michael Ignatieff posited. “The Conservative government is using stimulus spending to buy votes and reward its friends. This morning, we learned that one of the Prime Minister’s newest senators works for a company that has just won $1.4 million in infrastructure spending. At a time when the middle class is struggling, would the Prime Minister explain why infrastructure spending that is needed by all Canadians ends up in the hands of a member of his own—”

His time expired, the Transport Minister stood smirking to dismiss Mr. Ignatieff’s concerns. The Liberal tried again, this time en francais. John Baird once more swatted the question away. “Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to jump to the conclusions that the Leader of the Opposition does,” Mr. Baird declared. “If he has any evidence of any wrongdoing, rather than pontificating in this place, he should put his facts on the table and be accountable for those. We have been completely open, completely transparent with the infrastructure spending that we have made.”

The Liberals howled with mocking laughter.

“The grant in question was made by a crown corporation,” the Minister finished, “with no lobbying and no involvement whatsoever of my office or the office of the Minister of Public Works.”

Here, then, is where it happened. Where everything that once was up turned down. Where left became right, day became night and blue became red.  Continue…

Rhetorical question of the day

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM - 23 Comments

Liberal Todd Russell, yelling in the direction of Rob Nicholson this afternoon as the Justice Minister took a friendly question about crime legislation.

“What’s the mandatory minimum for cheque fraud?”

Royal Galipeau Maverick Watch

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 19, 2009 at 8:00 AM - 15 Comments

The Conservative backbencher admits the giant novelty cheques he handed out upset his stomach.

The design of the cheques provided to one area MP to highlight infrastructure spending left him feeling “a bit queasy,” he said. Royal Galipeau, MP for Ottawa-Orléans, said he insisted that the cheques provided to him didn’t have the Conservative party logo but said he still wasn’t happy with the design. ”That didn’t look like a government cheque to me. I would preferred it looked like a government cheque.”

… Galipeau was photographed in March handing over a $21,339 cheque for a francophone seniors program in Ottawa with his name printed at the top and his signature below. He says he still thinks the large cheques are a good way to highlight government work and plans to continue handing them out, but using a design based on a real government cheque.

Everything explained

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 16, 2009 at 6:00 PM - 90 Comments

An anonymous Conservative MP helps us understand why his or her side simply had to buy its own giant novelty cheques, and all the money they are saving you in the process.

When we formed govt the crats stopped bringing cheques to announcements & we were FORCED to cough up the $ to buy our own. Specifically, at [a government department I was involved with] the crats used to like to be in the photo ops giving out chqs, as though it was coming from them. They detested Conservatives being photographed handing out chqs, so they stopped bringing the chqs – when they even bothered to show up for announcements. They’ve screwed up dates for announcements so badly (trying to schedule announcements while the House is in session) that we don’t even bother to include them, thereby saving taxpayers thousands of $s in travel claims from the crats.

Mea culpa

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM - 20 Comments

Conservative MP Bruce Stanton twitters his feelings on the partisan use of giant novelty cheques.

stanton_brucemp I can see the reasons why other attributes to the MP on the big cheque are also wrong. These are public investments.

stanton_brucemp You won’t see any such references on big cheques here in the future, including today at the CDC.

Stanton is among those cited by the Liberals for improper self-congratulation.

Tonight, dinner's on your local Conservative MP

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 7:59 PM - 43 Comments

Susan Delacourt first wrote about the problematic nature of giant novelty cheques in July. At the time, Gerard Kennedy made a shrewd observation that should perhaps be repeated here for the benefit of those who now find themselves in possession of a giant novelty cheque signed by a government MP.

“The one thing I did learn when I worked for the food bank is you can actually cash those things. It’s a legal document. I think we’re going to try to get hold of those people and tell them they actually got double grants there. They got one from the government and one from Peter Van Loan, who’s apparently so riven with guilt over the time it took to get to them that he wants to make it up to them.”

Heavens, how did that get there? (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM - 24 Comments

Upon further review, Gerald Keddy notices the Conservative logo on that giant novelty cheque and apologizes.

On the other hand, as Rosemary Barton notes, Conservative MP Larry Miller seems to have his own brand of giant novelty cheques.

Idea alert

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, September 25, 2009 at 10:31 AM - 47 Comments

Kady is live-blogging the Liberal press conference this morning. Judging from this recently arrived press release, the main point is thus:

To prevent these abuses, the Liberal Opposition committed to ban all taxpayer-funded politicized government advertising under a future Liberal government and close loopholes in the existing federal Communications Policy.  The Liberals would also assign an independent body to ensure all government advertising is free of political content.

Silly question. Would this apply to ye olde fashioned ten-percenters?