The following was received by “unambiguously ethnic” (as PH puts) PC Party of Ontario members in a Toronto area riding. It reeks of voter suppression. (h/t Perez)

Frank Klees’ campaign has focused upon signing up new Canadians and bringing increased diversity to the PC Party of Ontario. His campaign believes that his campaign was the target of this “dirty trick” type of politicking.

I’ve received the following letter from a source close to the Klees campaign. The letter is from party president Ken Zeise. It informs the Klees campaign that the police are now investigating the matter.

From Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada:

“The reaction of the Iranian authorities to the demonstrations in Iran is wholly unacceptable. The regime has chosen to use brute force and intimidation in responding to peaceful opposition regarding legitimate and serious allegations of electoral fraud.

“Basic human rights, including freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, are being ignored. Demonstrations have been banned and demonstrators beaten. Injured protestors have been arrested when they arrive at hospitals for treatment. Journalists have been prevented from covering protests and subjected to arbitrary detention and arrest. Foreign press credentials have been revoked.

“Canada calls on the Iranian authorities to immediately cease the use of violence against their own people, to release all political prisoners and journalists – including Canadians – who have been unjustly detained, to allow Iranian and foreign media to report freely on these historic events, and to conduct a full and transparent investigation into allegations of fraud in the presidential election. The voices of all Iranians must be heard. I have directed the Minister of Foreign Affairs to ensure that Canada’s views are conveyed to Iran’s top representative in Canada.”

“Canada continues to be a strong and consistent voice calling on the Iranian regime to fulfill all of its human rights obligations, both in law and in practice. For six consecutive years, Canada has led a resolution on the human rights situation in Iran at the United Nations General Assembly. Canada continues to support freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Iran and around the world.”

From Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal Party:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff today condemned the Government of Iran’s use of violence to stifle peaceful dissent by protesters calling for open and transparent democratic elections.

“We mourn each life lost as a result of the Government of Iran’s unjust actions, and share the anguish and outrage of Canadians of Iranian origin at the suppression of peaceful protest and the apparent denial of fully free and fair elections,” said Mr. Ignatieff.

Amid reports of death and injury inflicted by the Iranian government upon peaceful protesters, the Liberal Leader also encouraged the Canadian government to do all it can to help the injured at its embassy in Tehran.

“Canada should join other countries in keeping our embassy open for the humanitarian needs of the people of Iran.”

Despite the media blackout put in place by the Iranian government, reports emerging largely through online social media show images of bloodshed among protesters and clashes with government police forces.

“The Iranian government cannot hide the truth from their own citizens or from the rest of the world. By answering the call for open and transparent elections with a violent disregard for the rights of its citizens, the Iranian government has further alienated itself from the international community.”

“The Liberal Party of Canada strongly affirms the rights of Iranians and people everywhere to freely express themselves and associate with others, without threat to their life or liberty. We call on the Iranian government to cease the violence and continue to call for open and transparent elections.”

From Paul Dewar, NDP foreign affairs critic:

OTTAWA – New Democrat Foreign Affairs Critic Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre) made the following statement regarding the situation in Iran in the House of Commons today:

“Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are extremely concerned about the situation in Iran.

Protestors are being crushed, the means of communications among Iranians have been restricted and political activists have been jailed. Yet, thousands of opposition supporters are standing their ground, defying a ban on protests, and requesting a new election. This is a critical moment not only for the people in Iran but around the world.

In the words of poet Sa’di,
“The children of Adam are limbs to each other
Having been created of one essence
When the calamity of time afflicts one limb
The other limbs cannot remain at rest”.

In that spirit, New Democrats stand in solidarity with the democratic aspirations of the people of Iran. We call for an end to hostilities against peaceful protests, an immediate release of political prisoners and a fair and transparent electoral process that respects the genuine will of the Iranian people.”

I just got off the phone with a senior member of Frank Klees’ campaign regarding the letter from Tim Hudak’s co-chair Blair McCreadie. To say the least, Klees’ people are furious.

It was explained to me that two weeks ago, the Klees campaign conducted a voter ID poll and they argue that this was completely legal. All questions asked, they argue, were in the public domain. Questions were asked regarding the “faltering” Hudak campaign and second ballot support. It was argued that because the characterization of the campaign had been reported in mainstream media and on the blogs that this was a public perception poll and that questions were asked legitimately.

The main complaint from the Klees campaign is that the Hudak campaign strategically held their complaint until the day of the TVO debate, a forum where candidates could truly interact and go back and forth. Steve Paikin was the host of the debate. Klees’ campaign complains that the Hudak campaign made their complaint on this day in an attempt to de-legitimize their campaign. They suggest that the post-debate scrum of Klees regarding the “push poll” was evidence to this.

The Klees campaign characterizes the McCreadie letter as “arrogant”, “pious” a “smear” and “not true”. The Klees campaign argued that while McCreadie and the Hudak campaign initiated the complaint, McCreadie himself was 45 minutes late to the three hour meeting to decide the complaint, which he ultimately lost. Further, the Klees campaign accuses the Hudak campaign of salting the earth, “what is this, winning at all costs?” Further, it was explained that all candidates want party unity and that it is “arrogant” for the Hudak campaign to think that only they hold that card.

Ouch.

I imagine that this is not the final barrage; we’ll be here all day, folks. But let’s try to work on this “unity” thing sooner rather than later, k?

Blair McCreadie, the co-chair of the Tim Hudak campaign wrote me a letter to clarify what’s been going on from their campaign’s perspective with respect to the push poll they allege the Klees campaign conducted. Here is Blair’s letter:

Hi Stephen:

I had the opportunity to read your posting. We thought it would be important that your readers understand a few facts regarding these calls.

First, the Klees Campaign admitted to the Party during the hearing that it authorized the offending script, which we maintain is a push poll.

Second, the Klees Campaign also admitted to the Party that it retained Logit Group to do a blind poll, so that the true source of the calls would be concealed from Party members.

Third, the Klees Campaign admitted to the Party that Logit Group made hundreds of these calls to Tim Hudak supporters across the province.

The Klees Campaign defended these calls as “research”, although push polls appear to violate CRTC telemarketing guidelines and contravene legitimate market research standards.

Given that the Klees Campaign admitted to making these calls, we are obviously disappointed that the Party chose not to punish the Klees Campaign for conducting this negative push poll.

But we are pleased that, because of our investigation, Party members who complained about this inappropriate push poll can cast their vote knowing that the Klees Campaign was responsible for it.

We also thank the Party for issuing a new guideline requiring all calling firms to reveal which campaign retained them when calling the Party membership. This increased level of transparency is important to Party members. It will also prevent the Klees Campaign from conducting other divisive push polls for the rest of this leadership race.

Our campaign recognizes that unifying and rebuilding our great Party will be a key task for our new Leader. This principle has governed our campaign throughout this leadership race, and will continue to do so as we enter this important final week.

I appreciate the opportunity to share this additional information with your readers so they can come to their own conclusions.

Blair McCreadie
Co-Chair, Tim Hudak Leadership Campaign

Here is the Klees release:

The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has completed an internal hearing by the Rules and Appeals committee, with all PC leadership campaigns invited, concerning the complaint raised by the Tim Hudak Campaign against the Frank Klees Campaign.

The Party has concluded the following: “Upon hearing the submissions and evidence of the Tim Hudak Campaign and the Frank Klees Campaign, the Board determined the complaint was without merit.”

“The Hudak Campaign broke their much-touted 11th Commandment by falsely accusing the Klees Campaign of breaking campaign rules,” explained John Capobianco, Klees Campaign Chair. “I am pleased that the PC Party of Ontario, in its deliberations, came to the right decision – that the complaint launch by the Tim Hudak Campaign was without merit.”

To read the decision in full, click here: http://ontariopc.com/~/media/7C856423D85B4397A711FE522826B594.ashx

…received by members of the Ontario PC Party, it specifically targeted candidate Tim Hudak and the Hudak campaign accuses the Klees campaign for conducting it. Here is the content of the push poll (courtesy of PerezHudak.com):

1. What is the main issue that you will vote on in this leadership race?
2. Who will be your first choice for party leader?
3. Who will be your second choice?
4. Tim Hudak said he was the frontrunner, promising an easy win in the shortest leadership race ever, but his campaign has faltered. Why do you think this happened?
5. Do you agree or disagree that Tim Hudak’s campaign has faltered because he promised to sell the most memberships, but came in third place?
6. Do you agree or disagree that Tim Hudak’s campaign faltered because of his adoption of a divisive policy on Human Rights Commissions?
7. Do you agree or disagree that Tim Hudak’s campaign has faltered because it is relying on the support of Mike Harris, who may be liked by party members but who will hurt our party in the general election?
8. Keeping in mind the Hudak campaign’s poor performance, are you now more or less likely to change your second ballot support?

The Hudak campaign made the following submission to the rules committee of the PC Party:

And the PC Party responded by saying that the complaint is without merit:

I received the call from “Dominion Research” and remember noting the call came from “416-000-0000″. Whoever was behind the call, they may have broken the rules of the leadership race and by doing so they unfairly smeared Tim Hudak. Yet, if this complaint is without merit as the party stated, the Hudak campaign may have broken their own 11th commandment by unloading this scandal entirely on the Klees campaign so close to the leadership vote. Has the Hudak campaign done their homework or is the party right to dismiss their claims?

UPDATE: Hudak campaign responds

Where: The subcommittee for Private Members Business
When: June 15th
What: A debate over the status of Private Members legislation, specifically on the voteability of Candice Hoepner’s bill C-391 (a bill to scrap the long-gun registry). It was debated by opposition members that it is similar to bill S-5, which is now before the Senate. However, it was ruled that the bill is voteable in the House because it is not before the government. Further, Gerry Breitkreuz’s bill (C-301) was dropped from the order paper because Mr. Breitkreuz did not show up to debate it. Therefore, the subcommittee was debating the ability of the bill to be moved before parliament.

Here’s what Scott Reid had to say:

Yeah, just the list of criteria as decided by the committee of procedure and house affairs under the standing orders the criteria made by this procedure and house affairs committee are in fact part of the standing orders, although not contained therein, and the four criteria include items 3 and 4—I’ll read them both: item 3 is the item on the basis of which opposition members opposed allowing bill C-391 to go forward while bill C-301 was on the order paper. The argument there on the criteria is, and I quote, “bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantively essentially the same as ones already voted on by the house of commons in the current session of parliament or as ones preceding them in the order of precedence. That criteria is no longer met. Item 4, which I assume that criteria number 4 is I assume what is being referred to here, and I’m quoting again is, “bills and motions must not concern questions that are currently on the order paper or notice paper as items of government business.” Now, order paper and notice paper are instruments of the house of commons, the bill S-5 is in the Senate and therefore is neither on the order paper or the notice paper and so there’s no need to fear that bill C-391 would in any way be out of order on the basis of where bill S-5 is. It would be different if bill S-5 would have been passed by the Senate and is now before the House on the notice paper/ order paper but it isn’t.

So, that’s the status of Conservative long-gun registry-scrapping bills before the upper and lower chambers of Parliament.

Reid, now having set the stage of the status of these bills, wanted a recorded vote of the opposition on the fitness of C-391 because he knew that the opposition was trying to spike the legislation before it got to the House so that opposition MPs from rural ridings wouldn’t be embarrassed by voting against the legislation. If the opposition could quietly kill the bill in committee, it would help them save face.

Unfortunately for opposition members (Ms. Jennings and Ms. Gagnon) the meeting of the committee was public and therefore bill C-391 may not face a quiet death.

I’m just curious if the intention here—I should advise members—I’m sure that everybody is going to vote based on the criteria if the intention is to vote with no actual criteria against the bill in order to stop it from going forward, I would just remind the opposition members of two things, one is that we are now meeting in a public session, so their vote is now on the record, and number 2 that it simply would be impermissible for us to allow this to go forward as a negative item and I would be in a position of having to prevent this from being reported back to the main committee, I would just make that observation, Mr. Chairman.

The opposition members, now visible to the public, move to bring this to a forum without accountability.

Mme. Gagnon: (trans.) Why isn’t it in camera? We were told it was in camera.

Chair: We indicated that it was a public meeting, and checking with the clerk there are no rulings indicating that the private member’s subcommittee needs to meet in camera, and on that basis we call the meetings a public meeting.

Mme. Gagnon: (trans.) Who decided? You, Mr. Chairman?

Chair: On advice, after discussing with the clerk whether it was procedurally possible. Correct.

Mme. Gagnon: (trans.) I’m new at this committee but generally that kind of decision is taken in a collegial way with the members sitting on the committee and decide together whether it’s in camera or public.

Chair: He is the master of its own fate and unless this committee chooses to meet in camera that’s certainly…

Mme. Jennings: I propose that the meeting move in camera, in conformity with the practices of subcommittees when discussing this kind of issue. My understanding is that this subcommittee has sat in camera every single time it’s met and this is my understanding and you can correct me if I’m wrong, the very first time that this committee is not in camera. As you can see from the reaction from some of the members, they assume including myself that the meeting was in camera, so I move that the meeting go in camera.

to which Scott Reid protests,

Mr. Reid: I believe that there was a motion on the floor to the effect that we would be voting on bill C-391, up or down, that you can’t go back after having had a vote, we had a show of hands, and then we were moving to an actual recorded vote, we can’t stop in the middle of the vote and have a discussion of whether we are going to go on camera. The fact was that as I saw it the three opposite members were all indicating that they wanted bill C-391 killed, voting it down, and I was voting in favour and I realized what had happened and I said that I would like to make this vote on division, you can’t stop in the middle of a vote and go in camera or do any other procedural item, so in fact we are in the stage now of debating, I gather that we are moving in to a vote period, and the vote is on whether bill c-391 is voteable under the four criteria before us—there’s not been any other subject and it’s certainly not something to be stopped whenever Mme. Jennings feels like throwing the rules aside in order to…

and then the meeting wraps up…

Mr. Reid: … What is going on is a reference to a rule that does not exist in terms of a requirement that we be meeting in camera, an effort to ensure that bill c-391 can be killed quietly by the parties, by the other opposition parties, in order to ensure that they don’t have to suffer the embarrassment of revealing that they in fact…

Chair: I’m going to call the motion, we’re going beyond the point of order, so we’re going to call the, uh, someone has to make a motion that we move in camera. Ms. Jennings?

Mme. Jennings: I move that this subcommittee move in camera.

Chair: Okay, that’s a non-debateable non-amendable, all agreed that we move in camera? Recorded vote? Okay?

Clerk: Mme. Jennings?

Mme. Jennings : Yea.

Clerk: Mme. Gagnon?

Mme. Gagnon : Oui.

Clerk: Mr. Reid?

Mr. Reid : No.

Chair: Okay, that motion is carried, we move into camera.

Reid summarizes the opposition politics in a member’s statement before QP later that day.

Many members of the opposition oppose the gun registry and if this bill were to make it to the House to be voted upon, it is unclear if the members would be whipped which would result in lost support in their ridings.

Members such as John Rafferty (NDP), Scott Simms (Liberal), Martha Hall Finley (Liberal), Charlie Angus (NDP) and Larry Bagnell (Liberal) have all expressed that the long-gun registry has failed Canadians.

At the moment, the Prime Minister and Michael Ignatieff are meeting to discuss infrastructure funding, possible changes to EI eligibility and, as we’re quite sure, engaging in rational discourse.

Last week, the government released its second report on the status of the Economic Action Plan and Ignatieff told reporters that it was too serious to grade the government, yet he stated that it had “failed” yet Canadians “don’t want an election right now”. What is the state of our system? A student fails the course but gets a pass because the parents have already planned the summer vacation? And to torture the metaphor a little more, I ask, is Michael Ignatieff really advocating that while failing Conservatives, he allow Canadians qualify for a fully paid sabbatical after six weeks of work? The 45 day work year, set to be defended by Liberals on an election trail near you, surely will not cause a stampede of voters to the ballot box. This really cannot be Ignatieff’s plan.

So what is really going on here? Flashback one year to the hapless Stephane Dion going into the summer, the Prime Minister’s neutered foe who rubber-stamped every piece of legislation by heading up the abstaining opposition. There is chatter around town that Michael Ignatieff is following Dion in his indecisiveness, however, this may instead represent an element of political narcissism for professor Ignatieff. The shovels are in the ground, the money is leaving the federal treasury to build infrastructure projects all over this country and Michael Ignatieff tells everyone to wait; Iggy has an important decision to make. To threaten to plunge the country into its fourth election in five years (with a $1.2 Billion tab) just so the media doesn’t frame him as the second coming of Stephane shows that he wants to know that his opinion – whatever he finds it to be – is relevant. As for his pensive pondering, he spent enough time in university seminars musing about the prolix and banal, yet as he transitions from the theoretical to applied, Dr. Ignatieff is showing that he is finding it difficult to both suck and blow.

In his press conference yesterday, Ignatieff used soft words such as “replace confrontation with cooperation”, “we cannot allow ourselves to act irresponsibly”, “if the government needs to sit a little longer, so be it” , “the Liberal party accepts the need for deficit spending in tough times”, “we want to make parliament work for all Canadians”, “I just want to give a sign to the Prime Minister that I’m a reasonable person. If he has employment proposals that he wants to bring forward, he needs a little more time, let’s not let the arbitrary deadline of Friday the be the all and end all. Let’s keep this serene and calm and business-like” Do these sound like bellicose words? So, why the drama Dr. Ignatieff?

He supported the Conservative budget earlier this year, he voted for the Conservative changes to EI. The Conservative government is spending billions of dollars in an effort to stimulate the economy. Why is this about him?

Michael Ignatieff knows that Canadians want him to allow Parliament to work, but he pauses to let us all know that it will only do so after he’s scowled at our exams.

at the Filipino-Canadian community picnic at Earl Bales Park in Toronto. The event was titled “Celebration of 111th Anniversary of the Founding of Republic of Philippines and Birth of National Hero Dr. Jose Rizal”.

This was sent to me from a reader. It doesn’t really add anything new to the story, except to say that the Filipino community is still mad at Dhalla.

Dhalla-gate… Raitt-gate… EI reform? Is this really going to be what we’re talking about in a summer election? Let’s do everyone a favour and increase voter turnout by putting some more interesting topics up for debate.

In politics, one is usually driven to action to prevent a problem from developing, or to act to make something better when it is going in the wrong direction.

On the website of Michael Ignatieff’s war room chief Warren Kinsella, we learn why the Liberals are itching for an election now:

[In] politics, as in war, you attack when your opponent is weak, not strong. … Right now – due to the recession, due to a stumblebum Tory team, due to their leader who nobody likes – we know the other side is really, really weak. In a few months – due to a economy rebounding, mainly – they could be strong. Go with what you know is the reality, not what you hope may be the reality.

Of course, this logic is sound; if your enemy is weak, attack your enemy. This is strategy 101 and Iggy’s guy is among the best in the professional political class. However, it is difficult for Michael Ignatieff to say that he wants parliament to work when Liberal strategy reveals itself as ambition at the expense of jobs and the economy. If the economy is on track to rebound, why endanger this by throwing the helmsman overboard with an election? Prime Minister Stephen Harper released his second report on the Economic Action Plan to see Canada through this difficult economic period. Conservatives have revealed that 80% of planned stimulus is already out of the gate and those shovels are in the ground. It was also revealed that increased EI payments accounted for a large chunk of the deficit.

It will be difficult for the Liberals to go to an election on the economy for the following reasons.

1. their chief election strategist explains that the economy will get better under the Conservatives and that the reason why Canadians should go to an election is because the Liberals don’t want the Tories to get the credit.
2. they’ve complained that the stimulus money isn’t flowing when in fact it is.
3. they’ve complained about the size of deficit when their only major plan for the economy is to increase EI eligibility (ballooning the deficit)
4. Michael Ignatieff has written 17 books but at most a few scant paragraphs on economic theory while Stephen Harper has a graduate degree in economics.
5. Ignatieff’s friends in the White House are racking up substantially larger deficits per capita and are doing nothing to stop an allied congress from destroying the Canadian economy with its “Buy American” protectionism.
6. The Liberals have not produced any substantial pushback outside of Parliament save a boring two minute Youtube lecture on the politics of nice from Dr. Ignatieff. And on the economy? Grit girl Youtube ads? Torytube it ain’t, Warren.
7. The Liberals don’t have a strong record themselves of balancing their own books. In substantial debt themselves under Dion and still posting underwhelming fundraising numbers under Ignatieff, how can the Liberals manage our pocketbooks when they cannot manage theirs?
8. Conservative scandals highlighted by the opposition have not been on the economy. Raitt-gate will not turn the average voter. The scandal regarding Raitt’s unfortunate private remarks about cancer may indeed represent a “sexy” opportunity for career advancement for Dr. Ignatieff, however, he’ll find that the average Canadian voter doesn’t find this inside the Queensway stuff all too sexy or even relevant to them. Isotope supply is relevant, but a tape recording is not.
9. If Michael Ignatieff wants to run an election on EI, he should wait a few years in order to pay as much into the system as the average Canadian voter. Forgive the talking point, but the man was outside of Canada for 34 years.
10. During an election, Liberals will without fail propose social spending to fix the economy. This puts them on the ugly side of the wedge that is the $50 billion deficit.

For your consideration, my second interview with PC Party of Ontario leadership hopeful Frank Klees.