Please lock up your valuables, Mr. Harper

By Michael Friscolanti - Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 11:10 PM - 0 Comments

Memo to all staff at the Prime Minister’s Office: don’t leave your valuables unattended. There is a thief (or thieves) lurking inside the Langevin Block, the PM’s supposedly secure headquarters.

For the second year in a row, the Public Accounts of Canada—the federal government’s three-volume, line-by-line spending breakdown—reveals sticky fingers lurking inside the nation’s highest office. The details are scarce (the Privy Council doesn’t discuss internal security issues) but one thing is clear: the PMO crime spree has cost taxpayers $4,440.

As Maclean’s reported in 2010, the first victim was Jason Ransom, one of Stephen Harper’s two official photographers, who was reimbursed $1,298 after someone swiped his personal laptop. (Ransom’s government-issued computer was being repaired that day, so he was using his own laptop at work). An investigation was launched, but neither the crook nor the Mac was ever found.

Continue…

Today’s episode of Parsing the Prime Minister

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 4:29 PM - 0 Comments

Thomas Mulcair opened QP this afternoon with a look back to what the Prime Minister had said yesterday about what the United States had or had not requested of this country in Afghanistan after 2014. Mr. Mulcair wondered if Mr. Harper would confirm that Canada has had no contact from the United States about extending the mission. Mr. Harper stood and said that he said he had not received such a request.

The leader of the opposition then moved on to the question of whether or not an extension would be brought before Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister stated: “All of the military missions committed to under this government have come before the House.” However, that is not the case, and he knows it. The last extension in Afghanistan was authorized by the Prime Minister acting alone.

In his seat across the way, Mr. Harper turned to Peter Van Loan with a look of confusion on his face. Continue…

The budget bill: this year’s behemoth

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM - 0 Comments

Here is the budget implementation bill just tabled in the House this morning. As a file, it measures 1.8Mb. As a document, it measures 431 pages. As an act of Parliament, it amends more than 50 other acts of Parliament.

By page count, this year’s behemoth is nearly 200 pages smaller than last year’s behemoth and more than 400 pages smaller than the 2010 behemoth, so perhaps the trend line provides hope for those who oppose omnibus legislation. Mind you, between 1995 and 2000, the budget bills averaged 12 pages.

Once again, a young Stephen Harper would be very disappointed.

The c-word

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

Yesterday’s exchange between Messrs. Mulcair and Harper was the highlight of the afternoon, but with his first question Bob Rae returned to this question of what Mr. Harper meant when he discussed the F-35 and a “contract” in relation to one another.

Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, on November 17, 2010, the Prime Minister accused the then-leader of the opposition of “…wanting to tear up jobs by tearing up the contract.” He implies there, and clearly states that there was in fact a contract with respect to the F-35. It is a statement the Prime Minister repeated again during the election campaign. If there was in fact no contract, which is what the Prime Minister is now saying, and he is saying there is in fact still no contract, why did the Prime Minister mislead the House on November 17, 2010?

Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, of course I did no such thing. I think Canadians and the industry understand full well that Canada’s participation in the development of the F-35, of the next generation of fighter aircraft, is intrinsic to the work that Canadian companies have received. It is almost $0.5 billion in contracts that have come to the industry in this country. Obviously this government will continue to support our air force, as well as our aerospace industry.

Here is the full context of what the Prime Minister said a year and a half ago. He has already explained to the interim Liberal leader that when he said “contract,” he was referring to a “memorandum of understanding.”

See previously: The amazing, disappearing contract that never was and About that “contract”

The Commons: Stephen Harper says a lot of things

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 5:29 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Thomas Mulcair began with a reminder of something Stephen Harper had once said. This is always a good place to start. Not for the sake of accuracy or precedent or for the purposes of demonstrating the seriousness with which one should regard the words of the Prime Minister, but for entertainment’s sake. A bit like sitting around with a bunch of friends recalling various things one of you once did or said. As that Nickelback song so poignantly captured.

“Mr. Speaker, this is what the Prime Minister said in 2009,” Mr. Mulcair said. ” ‘The military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011. I have said it here and I have said it across the country. In fact, I think I said it recently in the White House.’ ”

That is, indeed, what Mr. Harper said on October 1, 2009, as recorded in Hansard, in response to a question from Jack Layton.

“It is now 2012 and our soldiers are still in Afghanistan,” Mr. Mulcair continued, now speaking for himself. “Has Canada received a request from the United States to keep our troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014?”

Mr. Harper stood here and said another one of those remarkable things. ”Mr. Speaker,” he said, “our military presence in Afghanistan is determined by this House.” Continue…

Separating the good communists from the bad communists

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 1:08 PM - 0 Comments

She likely did not appreciate the response, but Elizabeth May did get the Prime Minister on his feet with this question at the very end of QP yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently said in Colombia that it was a matter of principle that Cuba should be excluded from the Summit of the Americas. As Communist China keeps buying up Canada, I am wondering where the principle is. While Cuba has a long way to go, it recently held an open mass where the Pope invited Cuban Catholics to worship. There is no such freedom of religion in China’s persecution of Tibetan monks, Falun Gong and Christians, which goes unimpeded.

I am asking the Prime Minister, as he hands the keys of Canada to China, what principle excludes Cuba?

A short history of the Harper government changing its mind on the mission in Afghanistan

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

David Pugliese reports that the Harper government is discussing with the United States the possibility that Canadian special forces will be on the ground in Afghanistan after 2014. This despite a vow two years ago that Canadian Forces would be out of Afghanistan when the current mission ends in 2014.

Before that the Harper government said 2011 was the deadline. And before that the Prime Minister said that it didn’t make sense to set a deadline.

Herein, the highlights of how we got this far. Continue…

The Commons: A simple misunderstanding

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Thomas Mulcair had a simple question. And lest the House fail to appreciate the simplicity, he said so explicitly.

“Mr. Speaker,” the opposition leader prefaced, “I want to ask a very simple question of the Prime Minister.”

Specifically and simply, Mr. Mulcair wanted to know whether Mr. Harper thought it acceptable for a minister to knowingly mislead Parliament in the exercise of its functions.

Mr. Harper seemed to seek a word of clarity from Peter Van Loan before rising. “Mr. Speaker,” he said, “I am not certain of the subject of that question, but obviously I expect that ministers tell the truth at all times.”

That much established for the record, Mr. Mulcair moved to his second question. Continue…

10 more things you need to know about the Alberta election

By Colby Cosh - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 8:14 AM - 0 Comments

Jason Franson/CP Images

1. Proportional representation just won itself a whole passel of new right-wing fans.

2. Alberta Liberal morale remained high throughout an election in which pollsters warned continually of disaster. And the pollsters proved to be almost exactly right about this (if nothing else). Yet even as the mortifying results rolled in, Alberta Liberal morale still remained high. Then their egomaniac not-really-Liberal disaster of a leader, Raj Sherman, won his seat by the skin of his teeth. This means he will not have to be replaced unless an awful lot of people smarten up fast. Alberta Liberal morale after this event? Easily, easily at its highest point in ten years. “Please, sir, may I have another?”

3. NDP leader Brian Mason’s first words on reaching the podium? “The phone booth [two seats] just doubled [four seats]!” Message: we like the phone booth. We’re never leaving it. Not us.

4. Total votes cast for Senators-in-Waiting, with complete results not quite yet in, are about 2,486,858. If everybody voted for three Senators, that implies about 829,000 ballots cast—which in turn suggests that around 458,000 eligible voters selected a candidate for the Assembly but refused or spoiled their Senate ballot. The practice was certainly widespread, and if these numbers are close to right, the Senate election has been boycotted quite significantly.

5. Those who did boycott the Senate election seem awfully proud of themselves, because it was a “meaningless” election. Why, one wonders, does it have to be meaningless? The “progressive” parties could have agreed on a single Senate candidate in advance; if they had done so, that candidate would certainly have ended up first in the queue, and provided an excellent test of Stephen Harper’s integrity, which I am told is much doubted.

The problem is that Harper might pass the test, you say? Then what’s the harm? You get some smart, popular left-wing independent speaking for Alberta in the Senate? That’s bad for “progressives” how?

6. It is not unusual for candidates to get 70%, 75%, or even 80% in Alberta provincial or federal elections. By this measure, however, the Alberta electorate is now unusually divided: the highest vote share earned by any candidate, of any party, was NDPer Rachel Notley’s 61.98% in Edmonton-Strathcona. (There was talk in advance of the vote that electoral redistricting would hurt Notley, though no one thought for a moment she would lose.)

7. Only one Conservative candidate received 60% of a riding’s votes cast: Human Services Minister David Hancock in Edmonton-Whitemud. PCs relishing their first-past-the-post “landslide” [see item 1, supra] would do well, I suppose, to realize that only 19 of the 61 victors have the approval of more than 50% of their fellow-citizens.

8. Voters don’t like turncoats much. There was a lot of floor-crossing in the 27th Legislative Assembly of Alberta: three PCs (Heather Forsyth, Rob Anderson, and Guy Boutilier) left for the Wildrose Party, one (Raj Sherman) bolted for the Liberals, and the PCs got one back from the Liberals in the person of Bridget Pastoor. Forsyth had a hideous scare in Calgary-Fish Creek, taking it by just 74 votes. Boutilier was turfed. Sherman, like Forsyth, narrowly escaped garroting. Only Anderson (in Airdrie) and Pastoor (Lethbridge West) got the usual easy ride that comes with incumbency.

9. Ted Morton’s widely anticipated whupping in Chestermere-Rocky View lived up, or down, to all expectations. His challenger, broadcaster Bruce McAllister, beat him 10,168 to 6,156; McAllister earned the highest vote share of any Wildrose candidate (58.4%) and, along with Danielle Smith, was one of only three to amass 10,000 votes.

10. There is this weird consensus among intellectuals and creatives that the progressive vote in Alberta will coalesce around the Alberta Party by 2016. All my techie and designer-y friends seem as convinced of this as if it were divine revelation (and, in truth, the Alberta Party’s election materials do look pretty badass, graphics-wise). I wouldn’t have thought anything of it, because these are the same people who were sure that a single-button mouse was a good idea ten years ago, but then the top young organizers in the Wildrose Party told me that the AP was full of smart, hustling people and that they, too, believed it would soon become Alberta’s party of the left.

Yes, there is plenty of embarrassment to go around this morning, but I still cannot understand why I was assured so often that the Alberta Party would win multiple seats; they were never above about 3% in the polls, and if there can be such a thing as a calamitous performance for a fledgling movement with not much of a platform and a kinda-fake leader, this must be it. The Alberta Party got 1.3% of the vote last night. If the NDP lives in a phone booth, what do you call this? A really tight pair of rubber underpants?

The under-the-radar changes that may soon deflate (or pop) the housing bubble

By Ben Rabidoux - Monday, April 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM - 0 Comments

Ben Rabidoux is is an analyst at M Hanson Advisors, a market research firm, where he focuses on Canadian mortgage and credit trends and their implications for the broader economy. He blogs regularly about the housing market at The Economic Analyst.

The next decade for real estate in Canada will be fundamentally different than the last. Our aging population, a mismatch between where our prices are and where they should be based on our economic performance, and rising interest rates are all reasons for this. However, the greatest difference will be in the availability of credit going forward, and those who try to explain real estate prices in Canada without acknowledging the role of easy, accessible credit over the past ten years or so have completely missed the boat.

Despite three rounds of mortgage rule changes since 2008 that largely corrected previous mistakes, we’ve seen a decade of extraordinarily loose lending in Canada. But the era of cheap credit may soon end–and possibly quite abruptly. News has come from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation  and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada, Canada’s chief financial regulator, that major changes are on the way, and it’s hard to understate how significant they may prove to be.

Here’s what those changes look like, in a nutshell:

1)  CMHC will drastically draw down on mortgage insurance.

CMHC insures nearly 50 per cent of the whopping $1.1 trillion in residential mortgage credit currently outstanding in Canada. The growth in CMHC insurance has been shocking (more on that here)–just look at these charts:

Continue…

Why can’t we have some of those hip new fighter jets?

By Scott Feschuk - Friday, April 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM - 0 Comments

Reuters/Getty Images/Lockheed Martin/Photo Illustration by Taylor Shute

Are you like me? Are you woefully uninformed about this F-35 business that’s been in the news? The topic came up at a dinner party in Ottawa, and I was so ashamed by my lack of knowledge that I snuck away to hide in a washroom. In Winnipeg.

Let’s figure this thing out together.

What exactly is an F-35?

It’s a new fighter jet being manufactured by Lockheed Martin. Its full name is the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lightning II. We probably shouldn’t be at all concerned that this sounds like something a little boy would name his tricycle.

What’s this got to do with Canada?

Continue…

What does ministerial accountability mean anymore?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

A very relevant discussion from The National last night.

Here is the 2011 edition of Accountable Government, a guide for ministers and ministers of state, as signed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. A few excerpts from Mr. Harper’s preface. Continue…

Harper used to fret about “arbitrary” Charter rulings

By John Geddes - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 5:43 PM - 0 Comments

Stephen Harper hasn’t offered up any very detailed comment on his view of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms since he became Prime Minister. But Paul Wells guides us through how we might interpret Harper’s ambivalent remarks on today’s 30^th anniversary of Pierre Trudeau’s landmark contribution to Canada’s constitutional evolution.

For those curious about Harper’s earlier, perhaps less guarded days, and how he might have seen the Charter back then, I can think of two glancing remarks that shed a bit of light on his view of it—neither of them, unfortunately, very definitive. In both cases, he seemed mainly worried about “arbitrary” interpretation of Charter rights by the courts.

Continue…

The F-35 and clarity

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM - 0 Comments

On account of this, two previous appeals to clarity as it pertains to the F-35.

October 27, 2010
Jack Layton. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot accept the Auditor General’s recommendations and then refuse to implement them. That does not make sense. The Auditor General warned that the systemic mismanagement she observed is going to mean cuts in the operational support for our armed forces. This is a serious matter. Will the government abide by the recommendations of the Auditor General, which would mean putting a stop to its plan to implement a sole-source contract for the purchase of the F-35, or is it going to repeat the helicopter boondoggle?

Stephen Harper. Mr. Speaker, these are two different matters. Of course the government will act on the recommendations vis-à-vis the helicopter situation. There has been a process in place for this since the days of the previous Liberal government. The leader of the NDP, however, should not pretend for a moment that he is raising these concerns on behalf of the military. The military has been absolutely clear about the need here. This is simply coalition politics playing games with military contracts, against what the entire aerospace industry and the entire defence establishment realize is necessary. The government is going to proceed.

November 17, 2010
Michael Ignatieff. Mr. Speaker, we are indeed listening to the aerospace industry. They are saying that there would be more economic and industrial spinoffs with a competitive bidding process. I have done a lot of town halls this year. The Prime Minister does not hold open town halls, but if he did, he would listen to Canadians. What Canadians are saying is this does not make sense. We cannot persuade a small business person across the country that it makes sense to buy 16 billion dollars’ worth of equipment without a competitive bid. We would not run a small business like that, so we cannot run the Department of National Defence that way. How can the Prime Minister stand and assure business people across the—

Stephen Harper. Once again, Mr. Speaker, there was a competitive process held under the previous government to choose this plane. In fact, the Government of Canada, under the previous government, has funded the development of this aircraft. What are we to do when the CF-18 reaches the end of its useful life: simply ground the air force or spend more money on a second set of planes? The government’s position is clear. It is straightforward. The opposition is simply playing politics with the lives of air force members and with jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry.

Life’s a beach

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

Here is a photo of Stephen Harper going for a walk on the beach. That is all.

Happy Charter Day

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 8:01 AM - 0 Comments

The Prime Minister isn’t quite ready to celebrate.

Harper alluded to the fact that Quebec did not sign on to the Constitution Act of 1982, of which the Charter was a part. Two other attempts to bring Quebec into the constitutional fold — the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords — failed. “In terms of this as an anniversary, I think it’s an interesting and important step, but I would point out that the Charter remains inextricably linked to the patriation of the Constitution and the divisions around that matter, which as you know are still very real in some parts of the country,” Harper said.

Thomas Mulcair wasn’t too keen on the Charter ten years ago when he was a member of the Quebec assembly. Jean Chretien says the Night of the Long Knives is more myth than reality. And, on the same note, former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford wants his due.

Stephen Harper’s Spite of Charter, 30th-anniversary edition

By Paul Wells - Monday, April 16, 2012 at 8:51 PM - 0 Comments

Adrian Wyld/CP Images

There was very little interesting about Stephen Harper’s decision not to fête the 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights until he spoke about it.

Simply declining to celebrate an anniversary is no sin. Every day is an anniversary of something, and it’s a handy rule of thumb that quarter-centuries are best for festivity, or mourning, or any kind of acknowledgment. It’s true that Harper conspicuously didn’t celebrate the quarter-century of the Charter in 2006, but he was two months into office then and his government wasn’t exactly breathtaking in its agility. [UPDATE: Well, that's wrong. It was 2007. Insert some other mitigating rhetorical dance here. -pw ] Plus it’s a bit weird to use coverage of failure-to-commemorate-the-30th as a pretext to remind everyone of failure-to-commemorate-the-25th.

So, silence would have done little to placate people, including certain of my colleagues, who are pacing back and forth looking for something to be furious about. But it would have been essentially uninteresting. His motives would have been a matter of conjecture, and conjecture’s no fun in the absence of evidence.

But now he’s spoken and things are more interesting. Continue…

If only the War on Drugs was somehow more successful

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM - 0 Comments

With some Latin American leaders looking at an end to the War on Drugs, Stephen Harper departs the latest Summit of the Americas with an acknowledgement that some kind of change might be in order.

“There is increasing doubt about whether we are taking the best approach to doing that, but nobody thinks these transnational networks are good guys, or that changing the law is somehow going to make them good people,” Harper told reporters at a news conference following the close of the Summit of the Americas. ”I think what everyone believes and agrees with, and to be frank myself, is that the current approach is not working, but it is not clear what we should do.”

At the same time, he seems to reject decriminalization or legalization.

“There is a willingness to look at the various measures that can be taken to combat that phenomenon, but just in terms of simple answers like legalization or criminalization, let me remind you of why these drugs are illegal. They’re illegal because they quickly and totally, with many of the drugs, destroy people’s lives and people are willing to make lots of money out of selling those products …,” said Harper.

In his response to the issue, Barack Obama ruled out legalization.

‘But in terms of our numbers, I’ve been very clear’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 16, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

Asked about the price of the F-35, the Prime Minister invokes one of his favourite adjectives.

“Other numbers cited, obviously have to do not just with the acquisition of the F-35 but operations of the F-35,” he said. ”There’s more than one number, there’s more than one cost depending on what you’re counting. These things have all been well known for some time. But in terms of our numbers, I’ve been very clear.”

So far as “what you’re counting,” see here, here, here, here and here to understand why the clarity of the Harper government’s accounting is now being questioned.

Colin Horgan keeps the focus on the lifecycle cost (that which the House of Commons demanded more than a year ago).

The PBO wrote in its report that a “rough” cost for the overhaul and upgrade for a single plane was “estimated at US$ 30.38 million +/- US$ 5 million per aircraft,” bringing the total overhaul costs over 30 years to that $3.9 billion. Going off the PBO’s analysis, calculating the costs of the program over 20 years rather than 30 would eliminate having to account for the second predicted overhaul of the fleet (which, according to the graph, would take a few years to complete).

With a 20-year projection, at least half the overhaul costs (those made at, or after, the 20-year mark) are discounted, along with whatever further costs incurred afterward up to (as the AG suggested) 36 years. So, the overall price comes down.

To win, Mulcair needs the full heft of the left

By Paul Wells - Friday, April 13, 2012 at 9:47 AM - 0 Comments

Mike Cassese/Reuters

And suddenly the left is on a roll in Canada. Sort of. “Canada’s got a new leader,” an NDP ad says. “Tom Mulcair.” This is not strictly accurate—Canada has the same old leader and merely a new Opposition leader—but never mind.

“We started something special together,” Mulcair says in the ads, eyes glinting. “Now let’s get the job done.”

As if on cue, the polls are lining up to offer a semblance of support for the idea that getting the job done is possible. A Léger poll published April 7 found the NDP at 33 per cent Canada-wide, the Conservatives 32 per cent, and the Liberals down at 19 per cent. That’s an eight-point decline for the Conservatives since last year’s election.

Continue…

The F-35: Not just costly but obsolete

By From the editors - Friday, April 13, 2012 at 9:43 AM - 0 Comments

Chris Wattie/Reuters

In the bitter parliamentary dispute over the costs of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which Canada has spent hundreds of millions helping to develop but may still not buy, there is an awful lot of “What did they know and when did they know it?” Predictably, as the Harper government’s position on the sole-source contracting has become less and less defensible, the debate is shifting to the bottom line: is the F-35 a good aircraft or not? It has become apparent that National Defence bureaucrats and Conservative ministers bet heavily on American military-industrial competence, and the voters may still forgive almost anything if Canada ends up with a cool Canadian-badged airplane that dominates the enemy in the battle theatre.

But this is the scary thing for the F-35’s defenders: to aviation nerds, the Joint Strike Fighter is looking more and more like an ugly mutt. Consider one important example of how our commitment to the JSF as a NATO partner has gone awry: the cutting-edge helmet-mounted display that was meant to help make up for the speed and manoeuvrability limitations of a single-engined stealth fighter. In the early days of JSF promotion, the user interface was touted as being at least as important to the project as the aerodynamic qualities of the airframe itself. Pilots would be sent into a fight with “360-degree situational awareness,” day or moonless night, giving them long seconds to defend themselves while opponents in more traditional aircraft were still figuring out which way was up.

Fast-forward to May 2010, when, according to the new auditor general’s report on F-35 procurement, the Public Works department began to question the need for a sole-source contract for new fighters. According to public-service rules, Public Works warned National Defence, there had to be an open competition for the contract unless it could be shown in advance that the F-35 was the only plane that met defence requirements. No problem, said National Defence; in literally one day it cooked up a list of those requirements, including one item that basically specified the F-35’s visionary 360-degree helmet display. The stated rationale for buying the F-35 thus depends quite heavily on this one piece of technology, even if one takes the word of F-35 proponents that it is a legitimate operational necessity.

Continue…

What they said about the F-35

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM - 0 Comments

The Harper government announced its decision to acquire the F-35 in July 2010. The House was on break at the time and did not resume sitting until September 20 of that year.

Here is some of what ensued in the House during the first two weeks of the fall sitting. Continue…

Behind the music

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 10:42 AM - 0 Comments

From Brian D. Johnson’s profile of Bryan Adams, an anecdote about the rock star’s visit to 24 Sussex.

Two years ago, Adams went to lunch at 24 Sussex Dr. on a mission to reform Canada’s “archaic” copyright laws and protect songwriters from file-sharing. “I remember him saying, ‘Well, you can still play live, can’t you?’ ” Adams recalls. “I said, ‘That’s missing the point. It’s all right for me, but what about the youngsters?’ The next thing you know, we’re playing music in his living room and I realize it’s a photo op. The only publicity the story got is that Bryan Adams got to play with Stephen Harper.”

“More like Stephen Harper got to play with Bryan Adams,” I suggest. He shrugs. “It was quite disturbing.”

The result of said photo op is here.

And now a word from Fidel Castro

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 9, 2012 at 4:38 PM - 0 Comments

The Cuban dictator has a few things he would like to say in reference to Canada.

The guayabera shirts to be worn by Obama in Cartagena has become one of the main issues covered by the news agencies: “Edgar Gomez [...] has designed one for the U.S. President, Barack Obama, who will be wearing it during the Summit of the Americas,” said the daughter of the designer, who added: “It is a white, sober guayabera, with a handiwork that is more striking that usual…” 

Immediately after that, the news agency added that the Caribbean shirt was first made by the banks of the Yayabo River in Cuba; that is why they were originally called yayaberas. The curious thing about this, dear readers, is that Cuba has been forbidden to attend that meeting, but not the guayaberas. Who could hold back from laughing? We must hurry up and tell Harper.