Received in my inbox this afternoon from a Conservative Member of Parliament (published with permission):

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.

Thanks for the email, [name withheld]! MPs and anyone else are always welcome to send tips.

This issue is a bit of a tricky one when measuring political impact. Yes, Stephen Harper ran on accountability with respect to public money going to public interests. And while he hasn’t allowed public money to be funneled into the pockets of his friends — unlike the Liberals — the Grits are crying foul that partisanship is too closely linked with government.

And yes, they do have a point. On one cheque. Yes, that cheque; the one handed out by Gerald Keddy.

However, I think the Liberals have overplayed their hand. Having made a small crack with Keddy, they’re trying to ram through 181 other “examples” of cheques which actually pass the sniff test.

Stephen Harper or MPs may have signed the cheques, but they have done so in their respective roles as the Prime Minister and as MPs — not as Conservative candidates.

And therein lies perhaps my biggest disagreement with wire reporter turned opinion maker Bruce Cheadle. The CP reporter argues that the Prime Minister is a partisan entity. In his story about the Economic Action Plan website, Cheadle argued that Harper’s mere image connotes “Conservative Party of Canada”. I would suggest that the office of the Prime Minister (and its occupant) supersede partisanship and he his first and foremost the Prime Minister of Canada (and therefore an agent of the government). Likewise, Members of Parliament act in the same capacity: as government representatives.

Again, the only lapse was the logo on that one cheque.

If we are to take Cheadle’s argument further, the Prime Minister’s presence at international gatherings such as the G20 and the G8 are merely expensive Conservative Party photo ops. Further we’d presume from Mr. Cheadle that Members of Parliament have no official role at all, they are merely hucksters for their own party brand. While this may be the opinion of some, it is not the constitutionally-outlined fact.

The Liberals did score a bit of a coup last night when they were able to wedge that one cheque to make an argument for their 181 cheque slideshow on the CBC’s National. Yet, some reporters are taking note. This cheque affair reeks of opportunism; Keddy’s of course, but also by the Liberals who not only mastered the process of taxpayer-backed partisanship, but now also make a 181 photo mountain out of a 1 photo molehill.

As we all throw mud at each other in our Ottawa sandbox we occasionally look up to see how we’ve done in the eyes of Canadians. So, how does this show play out on Main Street? Canadians will be disappointed in Keddy’s lapse to be sure. The Liberal partisans may become a bit more partisan. And the conservative ideologues never loved fiscal stimulus anyway. But Liberal partisans and conservative ideologues represent a minority of Canadians. As for the 99.99% of Canadians that don’t think of politics more than 7 seconds a week, how do they feel about the issue?

Their perceptions of Stephen Harper and of Michael Ignatieff matter most. Let’s take Ignatieff out of the equation because he’s removed himself from jockeying on this issue. For Stephen Harper, this incident takes a bit of the shine off of the “accountability” image he won upon in 2006. However, for those that listen to the Liberal complaint that the Conservatives aren’t doing enough to stimulate the economy — that the money isn’t getting out of the door fast enough — the Liberals are banking on the sustained outrage of Canadians over one bad cheque, while hoping that Canadians ignore that Conservatives are satisfying any complaint of sluggish stimuli demonstrated by those other 181 cheques.

This is will be difficult as the Liberals have created a slideshow. After all, wouldn’t it be terrible for Conservative electoral chances if every local paper printed up their local MP’s photo with a big cheque with a headline that read: “SCANDAL: local MP spends your money on you in your community”?

The Tories have been criticized lately for putting their party logo on some non-negotiable jumbo novelty cheques. While I agree that the practice of associating party brand so explicitly with public money should stop, let’s remember that news is “man bites dog” not “dog bites man” and there are true masters of pushing the partisan envelope still around.

We see that Warren Kinsella’s old boss said something about pepper on his plate and the parliamentary press gallery had a chuckle and then hit Hy’s for some more vino. However, Andrew McIntosh and Joel-Denis Bellavance from the National Post were on the job and cast some light on Jean Chretien’s partisan abuse of public dollars.

PM comfortable using grants for partisan reasons: ‘nothing to be ashamed’

National Post
Sat Feb 19 2000
Page: A8
Section: News
Byline: Andrew McIntosh and Joel-Denis Bellavance
Column: In Ottawa ; in Quebec City
Dateline: OTTAWA; QUEBEC CITY
Source: National Post

OTTAWA and QUEBEC CITY – Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister, yesterday said his government had nothing to apologize for in seeking to reap maximum partisan political benefit from disbursing $1-billion worth of federal job grants across Canada each year.

He had always made sure since taking power in October, 1993, that voters were left in no doubt that it was his Liberals who were distributing such grants, he said.

“Listen,” he added, “we are the government … I don’t see why we can’t try to get credit for what we do. I hope we do so. There is nothing to be ashamed in that.”

Previously, Mr. Chretien and Jane Stewart, the Human Resources Minister, have insisted in Parliament that the $1-billion in grants for job creation, training, literacy and other projects were not allocated with the intention of gaining partisan advantage, but rather were designed to benefit ridings regardless of their political complexion.

The prime minister, joined by Paul Martin, the Finance Minister, told a news conference that increasing reports of the financial mismanagement at Human Resources Development Canada would not tarnish his government’s fiscal credibility.

The National Post reported yesterday that Peter Donolo, the prime minister’s former director of communications, created and ran a well-oiled public relations campaign to ensure that Liberals — ministers and MPs — took maximum credit for job creation grants across the country.

Job creation money is at the centre of accusations that Human Resources grants were mismanaged and improperly used as a slush fund to win votes and reward loyalists.

Opposition MPs were stunned by Mr. Chretien’s performance in Quebec City, saying that the Liberals will suffer politically if the prime minister continues to deny the seriousness of the HRDC mess.

“It’s pretty brazen,” said Diane Ablonczy, a Reform party MP form Calgary. “Clearly, Mr. Chretien has no shame or contrition for mismanaging taxpayers’ money and abusing the public trust. Canadians won’t forget that at election time.”

Peter MacKay, the Conservative House leader, said, “The prime minister has flipped his wig. He has demonstrated once again he is completely out of touch with reality and he is displaying increadible arrogance by trying to minimize this serious problem.”

Mr. Chretien conceded that there were “obvious” management problems at HRDC, which were condemned in a scathing departmental audit published last month, and that these must be rectified.

The prime minister said, “Of course, there are problems, but we have to place the problem in a certain perspective. We have to make regular adjustments on the basis of recommendations by those people who conduct the audit. It’s a huge department that has over 20,000 employees … There’s no doubt that it’s an extremely difficult department to manage. What strikes me is that no recipient has complained thus far. To go and say that it’s a scandal, one must not exaggerate.”

The prime minister denied, despite a number of documented cases, that Liberal MPs sought extra pre-election advantage by announcing new grants just before the 1997 general election and before the grants were officially approved.

In the House of Commons, the Liberals suffered another verbal pounding over the financial scandal. The opposition claimed that a newly disclosed 1997 review reveals that there was political interference in the approval of Transitional Jobs Fund projects. It showed, the opposition said, that the Liberals used the $100-million-a-year program to buy votes.

Aside from finding incompetence, the audit concluded that HRDC bureaucrats were pressured by political operatives to speed through approval for projects that “did not meet TJF elgibility criteria.” Several were found not to be failing to create jobs.

Mr. MacKay, the Nova Scotia Tory, questioned whether Ms Stewart could be trusted, saying: “Daily the minister of HRDC subjects Canadians to the sad spectacle of self-destruction with the documented mishandling and mismanagement of taxpayers money that was uncovered by the internal audit, the subsequent fallout, the spin-doctoring, the witholding of information, the manipulation of statistics and the sliding scale of eligibility.”

Ms. Stewart brushed off his call for her to resign. She later produced a letter showing that after she became HRDC minister, she removed herself from all decision-making about grants in her riding, Brant, Ont., by delegating her power to approve them to her top bureaucrat, Claire Morris, the HRDC deputy minister.

The Globe and Mail’s Jane Taber writes about the latest poll showing the Conservatives climbing in the polls. Here are just the first five paragraphs. What’s the story here?

Stephen Harper, the piano man and economic manager, is making Canadians so comfortable they want to see him win a majority government, according to a new national public opinion poll.

The EKOS Research survey released to the CBC shows that the Conservatives’ substantial lead over Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals is solidifying – a lead that now has the Tories knocking on the door of a majority government.

According to EKOS, the Tories now enjoy 40.7 per cent support compared to 25.5 per cent for the Liberals, 14.3 per cent for the NDP, 10.5 per cent for the Green Party and 9.1 per cent for the Bloc.

Two polls last week showed the same upward movement for the Conservatives, edging them into majority territory.

But EKOS has gone farther by plugging their numbers into a seat projection model that gives the Harper Conservatives 167 seats, a clear majority. They now have 143 seats.

(emphasis mine)

Making the same point over and over again?

Jane Taber is spelling it out her downtown Globe readers who perhaps have not yet discerned the gravity of recent news.

The Tories are on the verge of M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y.

I like Warren Kinsella. One of the reasons I like him is because he went for my open question, brought in the other side to weigh in, and now this allows us to fill in the blanks too. Oh, and he introduced me to Bob Rae, the next leader of the Liberal party!

Tweet the first:

Tweet the second:

Other potential tweets:

“Senate reform: can’t wait to pass legislation that has popular support by folks that have a democratic mandate from Canadians! The scotch budget, however, will remain.”

“Respect for the Alberta: Liberal-free since 2006. WK may return but has to wear black hat in the parade”

“When the ‘decade of darkness’ for the military re: Liberal investment is so far in the past, kids file it along with ‘moon landing’ and ‘Michael Jackson’ as crazy #$@* that happened that only our history books can really tell us about”

“When the Liberal party stops offering us out-of-touch humanities professors to feast upon, and tosses us a street-brawler like Jean Chretien or (oh please) Ruby Dhalla”

“When ‘Unity Crisis’ is mistaken as the name for an 80s revival band that covers Starship, rather than our recurring Liberal ballot headache”

What other things are you hopeful for in the future?

The Toronto Star’s Susan Delacourt wrote an article a couple of days ago quoting an anonymous source that told her that a “trio” of Liberals were in high level talks with Conservatives to cross the floor over to the government benches.

OTTAWA–A Conservative government official said Monday there have been discussions with three Liberal MPs interested in crossing the floor to the Tory side over the past month.

Liberals immediately dismissed the talk as Conservative “mischief” and said it is the government that is on a raiding mission.

Then it all started to smell a bit funny and Ms. Delacourt published the following on her own blog:

Q. Is it possible that the Conservative source made up this story to make “mischief,” as Liberals allege?

A: Yes it is. But our usual practice is to “out” the source if we find out it was a deliberate lie, so stay tuned. Seasoned political people know that you only get to lie once to a reporter.

and then the next day we get this under Delacourt’s print by-line:

OTTAWA–The Prime Minister’s Office sought Tuesday to distance itself from reports coming from Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s office about possible defections of Liberal MPs to the Conservatives.

Dimitri Soudas, a PMO spokesperson, said there was no truth to claims made to the Star by Kenney’s communications director, Alykhan Velshi, about three Liberal MPs interested in crossing the floor to the Conservatives.

…

Nor could Soudas explain why he was “outing” Velshi on Tuesday afternoon as the source of the tip to the Star. Soudas went on to explain that only the PMO knows certain information and Velshi wouldn’t have had the kind of facts the Star was seeking.

Read that sentence a couple of times to see if it makes sense logically. “Nor could Soudas explain why he was “outing” Velshi on Tuesday afternoon as the source of the tip to the Star.”

First Ms. Delacourt suggested that she herself was on the verge of outing Velshi as the source. And that brings up an interesting question. Wasn’t she the one guarding the identity of Velshi as her tipster? We Conservatives may share one big evil hive mind according to some, but I’m not sure how Soudas was able to “out” Velshi as Delacourt’s source to Delacourt. How did Soudas come to know that it was Velshi that told Delacourt the tip?

Somebody should ask Soudas how he came to learn that Velshi was the tipster.

Cellphone camera video taken on stage by (presumably) a stagehand

Prime Minister Stephen Harper took to the stage tonight at Ottawa’s National Arts Centre for performance at their annual gala. The Prime Minister sang and played piano for the classic Beatles song as Yo Yo Ma accompanied him on the cello.

Longer version:

The branding for the Canadian Olympic team was unveiled yesterday by the Hudson’s Bay Company which runs retail outlets under the Bay and Zeller’s names in Canada. The company is the official outfitter for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Canadian team. Here’s their short video describing the brand and inspiration:

It’s a bit stirring isn’t it? But, as this is a political blog, let’s describe it in this context. For years, the Conservative Party in Canada has been trying to reset the image of Canada that had existed prior to a long-run of Liberal governments and the Conservatives have sought to push back against the rebranding of the Canadian image under that party.

There was criticism yesterday that the Canadian Olympic look and feel bore a striking resemblance to that of the governing party.

The Conservative Party logo (left), the Canadian Olympic logo (right)

First, it should be said that the Hudson’s Bay effort was completely independent of any government interference. This was confirmed by Gary Lunn, junior minister for Sport in the House of Commons yesterday in a response to a question by Vancouver Liberal MP Hedy Fry. After all, companies lobby government, it is unusual for government to lobby companies. You can see examples of other similar logos here, here, and here.

Despite the criticism about the branding similarities, and though in this case the government appears to be clear of any influence regarding HBC’s decision, the Conservatives in government have been working to recapture a certain sentiment among Canadians about their country.

That sentiment, stoked by Conservative branders, is pre-Trudeau(pian). Liberal branders would have you believe that this country was born after 1967, with the Montreal Expo, with a new red and white flag, healthcare and peacekeeping ingrained as our country’s greatest accomplishments.

Conservatives would remind Canadians that our country was born out of a pioneer spirit, hundreds of years ago, of brave individuals that carved out the wilderness and thrived in it. The Hudson’s Bay ad echoes this traditional vision of Canada.

Of Canada, Conservatives emphasize it’s history of fighting for King and country through early wars in Africa in the late nineteenth century and in Europe in the first great war. As Conservatives, we remember and acknowledge that we answered the call among nations to fight tyranny and totalitarianism in the second world war. Today, we recognize that the peace cannot be kept if it is not first made.

Our vision of Canada is one of individual determination and achievement over mushy collectivism. It was roughneck young explorers that mapped out the great expanse in the northwest of our country in search of new capitalist opportunities in fur, timber, ore and minerals.

The incremental rebranding of Canada by today’s government is not accidental. From the more organic maple leaf that adorns the header of every government of Canada website, replacing a more statist institutionalized version, to the rebranding of our armed forces to emphasize the role of the forces as not only the sharp end of the spear, but razorwire for troubled times rather than simply a career building opportunity, the Conservatives have made deliberate effort to remind Canadians of this more independent and rugged version of ourselves.

Under the Harper Conservatives, Canada’s image is emphasized as “the true North strong and free”, a country that defends and maintains its northern sovereignty rather than one that panders to a more European, globalized kid glove approach.

Michael Ignatieff has returned to Canada after quite some time abroad. A potential platform plank that he has been emphasizing is the regaining of Canada’s place on the world stage. In a speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa, he spoke with a tone a wistfulness for those times when, well, the world was different:

Multilateralism was the Canadian mantra. In 1956, Lester Pearson found a way out of the Suez Crisis and made peacekeeping our vocation. When he won the Nobel Peace Prize the next year, the Nobel committee said “he’d saved the world.” We cheered.

In the post-war era, we became the world’s leading peacekeepers. Up to 1988, there was not a single mission that we didn’t join. At the same time, we went to war in Korea, the Persian Gulf and Kosovo. We went to war when we had to. We kept the peace when we could. Blue helmets became an emblem of our identity. — Michael Ignatieff

Before one can regain their footing, one must survey the new ground. Michael Ignatieff is not ignorant to the new challenges that the world has faced since Pearson. He’s done the heavy thinking on the new role of the world’s remaining superpower and its place on the world stage. However, one surmises that the former academic is in need of the same deep reflection when it comes to Canada’s maturation on the world stage since the Suez crisis, let alone 9/11. One fears that instead of deep academic and analytical reflection on the topic, his new position as a politician has driven him to a knee-jerk, easy but antiquated Liberal view of Canada. Since he left, Canada’s role on the world stage has evolved and matured from the euphemistic “honest broker” to a respected decision-making voice that is sought after for advice and respected for its decisiveness. Canada is again a country that does the heavy lifting.

Despite our history and place earned from taming our own wilderness through sharp wit instead of the welfare tit, despite our nation’s proud history of our young men and women stepping up up for King and country, in the time post-Pearson era Liberals rebranded this country. Expo 67 was promoted as “Canada’s introduction to the world”, as we were recast into the role of confident but newly innocent debutante ready to walk on the world stage if only to give a proper and elegant wave.

Today, Canada finds itself changed, but somehow familiar. Canada grew up long before Pierre Elliott Trudeau declared its birth. Though we were recast as a global ingenue by successive Liberal governments that had us play the stoically unsung middle “nuanced” power, when Canada hosts the world in Vancouver 2010, it will do so with its regained voice and identity.

After cleaning house in the Opposition leader’s office, Ignatieff is expected to put so many of his former Toronto faithful in prominent backroom jobs that some are already calling it the “Rosedale gang.” — Toronto Star, January 9th 2009

“Should [Ignatieff] follow his Quebec lieutenant while working closely with a credible team? Or his Toronto advisers who know nothing about the social and political realities of Quebec?” — Denis Coderre

(click to enlarge)

Cliquez ici pour la version française