80. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act of Parliament or regulation made thereunder, no person shall use the words “Parliament Hill” in combination

(a) to describe or designate a property, place, site or location in the National Capital Region described in the schedule to the National Capital Act other than the area of ground in the City of Ottawa bounded by Wellington Street, the Rideau Canal, the Ottawa River and Kent Street;

(b) to identify any goods, merchandise, wares or articles for commercial use or sale; or

(c) in association with a commercial establishment providing services.

(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

One wonders how many former political staffers have ever considered hanging their shingle on the name “Parliament Hill Consulting/Strategies/Communications/Group”

The man at whom the chaos is targeted is Quebec’s Premier Jean Charest. Polls prior to the the street demonstrations showed him to be the least popular premier in Canada. Current polls show that the longest student strike in the province’s history have swayed the sympathy of few Quebecers. Elsewhere, scandals have mounted for Charest, the latest and most serious being allegations of corruption within the multi-billion dollar construction industry that seems to innervate every level of Quebec’s political class.

Charest must call an election by 2013, and if he is to survive facing long odds — as he has done before — he must be mindful of timing.

Quebec faces a summer of discontent, and the premier must be seen to be putting the house in order, or at least refusing to hand over the keys to the street mob. Acquiescing to student demands would be foolish and would remove electoral ammunition from Charest’s already dwindled stock. Earlier, Charest offered the students a deal he knew they wouldn’t accept — if only to illustrate that reason was contemptible to them. Quebec summers generally see a panoply of strikes and demonstrations from the labour movement. and — it being an election year in the U.S. — copycat occupy protests will return to the parks and streets of Montreal. Pressure will mount, and so will the impatience of ordinary Quebecers against the faction of society Charest would profit to wedge against.

Charest’s main electoral competitors are the Parti Quebecois, who promise to expand state benevolence to those seeking handouts, and the upstart party of François Legault. Legault’s CAQ promises a handful of right-leaning solutions for a province whose people have complained about the corrupt entitlement class of politicians running the show in the capital in Quebec City. If Charest has any hope of victory, he must tack right and co-opt Legault, and represent a populist champion against those who take from society at the expense of those who make society.

Say what you will about the issues of state largesse, what makes education accessible, or Charest’s fitness to be re-elected. The Premier will be making these calculations as he considers his political future in the coming weeks.

There is no better time for Charest than this summer to call an election and frame himself as a leader who will emphatically say ‘no’ to the students, and ‘no’ to the growing entitlement-seeking labour movement. It will only get worse for Charest as pressure from inquiries into corruption mount. Quebecers may not like Charest very much, but given the draining aspects of Quebec’s economy that he’s up against, he should be eager to show that a bold ‘no’ mandate may be the least detestable option.

[cross-posted to Full Comment]

Here, for example is a report filed on CBC.ca,

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is defending the government’s accounting of the costs of Canada’s military mission in Libya, following the release of new figures by the Department of National Defence that lay out the final cost of the deployment.

The department puts the incremental costs of the mission — costs the military says would not have been incurred if Canadian Forces had not been deployed — at just under $100 million.

And the total cost of the operation — a figure that includes everything from jet fuel to pilot salaries, including the salaries of military personnel — comes in at $347 million.

Last October, MacKay told CBC Radio’s The House the Libyan mission had cost taxpayers less than $50 million.

“As of Oct. 13, the figures that I’ve received have us well below that, somewhere under $50 million,” MacKay said.

“And that’s the all-up costs of the equipment that we have in the theatre, the transportation to get there, those that have been carrying out this critical mission.”

Here’s what MacKay said in that interview (bolded for emphasis),

EVAN SOLOMON (HOST):
The mission in Libya is wrapping up. The Secretary General of NATO announced that there would be no extension, as the Libyan government has asked, until the end of the year. NATO wraps up its mission on October 31st. Can you tell Canadians what the cost of the Libyan mission was to Canadians.

PETER MACKAY (MINISTER OF DEFENCE):
Sure, the initial projection, as you know, going back some six months or more, would have us in the range of about 60 million dollars. As of October 13th, the figures that I’ve received have us well below that, somewhere under 50 million dollars. And that’s the all up costs of the equipment that we have in the theatre, the transportation to get there, those that have been carrying out this critical mission

…

EVAN SOLOMON (HOST):
Well it certainly will be a long process ahead, but you’re just confirming that the mission that Canada partook in, the seven-month mission, will cost Canadians all in 50 million dollars now.

PETER MACKAY (MINISTER OF DEFENCE):
That’s the figure I was given, so I’m giving you that number with the proviso that there could be more costs that come in after the fact. The fact that we are now ramping down the mission, bringing back significant equipment and personnel, some 650 were there, we have a ship in the area, we have aircrafts, fighter aircrafts, patrol aircrafts, refuelers.

Does this add unreported context? Did MacKay report the number he was given by his department by provided the caveat that more costs could come in? The CBC report does not mention this disclaimer on cost estimates and opposition upset over “misleading” Canadians does seems to hinge on the suggestion that MacKay was absolutely fixed on $50 million as a cost estimate. It would be fair to the Minister (and to the news consumer) to provide this extra context.

The CBC report does provide the government’s defence of the numbers, after the fact, and only after they were accused of misleading Canadians last week,

The minister continued, “Of course, the mission went on. There were extensions … there was, in fact, then the cost of bringing equipment and personnel home. This is incremental costing.”

At an event in Edmundston, N.B., on Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper noted the total figure of $347 million includes the ongoing costs of operating the Canadian military, and he defended the earlier estimates.

“We always give the most up-to-date figures and it’s important also to know … that these figures include normal operations of the Canadian military, of those assets over that period,” Harper said.

However, from the original material from the date and interview under scrutiny, and from CBC no less, we see MacKay provide proviso of those cost estimates. Why is this not reported?

Party personality – Conservative Party: Let’s assume for a moment that each federal political party was a person. What one word would you use to describe the personality of each of the following political parties? [Open-ended] [Randomize parties].

Canada (n=925)

Untrustworthy: 14.4%
Conservative: 12.9%
Bad/Incompetent: 9.9%
Good/Good choice : 9.1%
Trustworthy: 6.4%
Controlling/Authoritarian: 5.8%
Arrogant: 5.5%
Strong/Powerful: 5.3%
Selfish: 4.6%
Intelligent: 4.0%
Progressive: 3.3%
Realistic/Pragmatic: 3.2%
None: 3.2%
Strong leadership: 0.8%
Other: 6.7%
Unsure: 4.9%

Party personality – NDP: Let’s assume for a moment that each federal political party was a person. What one word would you use to describe the personality of each of the following political parties? [Open-ended] [Randomize parties].

Canada (n=923)

Socialist: 13.3%
Caring: 10.2%
Bad/Incompetent: 10.1%
Good : 10.0%
New: 10.0%
Innovative: 8.6%
Trustworthy: 5.8%
Idealistic: 5.6%
Aggressive: 4.2%
Untrustworthy: 3.3%
Intelligent: 2.8%
None: 2.7%
Jack Layton: 1.0%
Other: 6.5%
Unsure: 6.0%

Party personality – Liberal Party: Let’s assume for a moment that each federal political party was a person. What one word would you use to describe the personality of each of the following political parties? [Open-ended] [Randomize parties].

Canada (n=931)

Bad/Incompetent: 18.4%
Untrustworthy: 16.2%
Good: 11.5%
Competent : 6.8%
Progressive: 5.8%
Strong/Powerful: 5.1%
Arrogant: 4.9%
Old-fashioned/Outdated: 4.4%
None: 4.3%
Liberal: 4.3%
Boring: 3.3%
Selfish: 1.7%
Centrist/Middle of the road: 1.0%
Other: 6.6%
Unsure: 5.8%

Party personality – Green Party: Let’s assume for a moment that each federal political party was a person. What one word would you use to describe the personality of each of the following political parties? [Open-ended] [Randomize parties].

Canada (n=941)

Environment/Eco-friendly/Green: 16.7%
Unrealistic/Naive: 14.7%
Not well known: 11.1%
Idealistic : 8.6%
Useless: 7.8%
Caring: 6.0%
None: 5.0%
Good: 4.8%
Hippie/Radical: 4.5%
Innovative: 4.5%
Boring: 3.2%
Other: 6.5%
Unsure: 6.5%

Party personality – Bloc Quebecois: Let’s assume for a moment that each federal political party was a person. What one word would you use to describe the personality of each of the following political parties? [Open-ended] [Randomize parties] [Quebec sample only].

Canada (n=232)

Useless: 15.4%
Narrow-minded/one-sided: 13.0%
Separatist/Independent: 11.7%
Aggressive : 10.7%
None: 6.3%
Untrustworthy: 5.2%
Selfish/Self-centred: 5.0%
Boring: 4.6%
Incompetent: 4.5%
Good: 4.0%
French: 3.4%
Arrogant/Stubborn: 2.9%
Radical: 1.7%
Not well known: 0.4%
Other: 4.0%
Unsure: 7.3%

Liberal “interim” leader Bob Rae,

I have one deputy leader who now does the work of the three named by the NDP, and is better at it, my good friend Ralph Goodale !

— Bob Rae (@bobraeMP) April 19, 2012

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre,

Congrats to Olivia Chow on reappointment to Transport file. As NDP critic, she is tough and smart.

— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) April 20, 2012

One party has been endorsed by the National Post, the other by the Globe and Mail.

One party accuses the other of racism, sexism and homophobia, while the other party acuses the other of runaway spending, patronage and corruption.

One party is supported by Preston Manning, the other by Joe Clark.

One party is looking to end a political dynasty, the other is desperately looking to hold on to the same.

One party advises voters cast ballots based on their values, the other urges voters to vote strategically to stop their opponents.

One party raises issues relevant to the actual interests of the electorate, the other raises red herrings such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

One party has support in a diversity of places, the other is dug in in urban centres.

One party has the support of small business owners and frontline workers, while the other has traded favours for union support.

One party is rooted in Alberta’s character, while the other takes direction from downtown Toronto.

One could have been describing the past,

or the present.

The campaign has focused a spotlight on Smith and her party which threatens to dislodge a party that has enjoyed 41 years of uninterrupted rule in Edmonton. And in the last week, a desperate effort to stop the bleeding. It’s kitchen sink week for the PCs in the Alberta election campaign and the main strategy has been to play the downtown Toronto Liberal strategy of demonizing conservatives that worked up until 2006.

Indeed, some of the very same campaign workers putting in extended hours for Alison Redford’s PCs have borne the same attacks themselves and against their political heroes from Preston Manning to Stephen Harper. The success of the current government in Ottawa was largely built on the legacy that came from Canada’s cradle of conservatism: Alberta. Today, those campaign workers are gritting their teeth as they retweet and share Warren Kinsella’s articles accusing their conservative cousins in Wildrose of having a “hidden agenda”.

I had (jokingly) remarked earlier last week that we should soon expect to see a “Soldiers in Our Streets” style of ad as the PCs flail desperately to recover and pull out all of the stops to stop the Wildrose momentum. Here is the latest (unsigned) offering that reeks of PC Alberta desperation (UPDATE: source explained here):

The ad doesn’t suggest that soldiers will occupy the streets of Calgary, however, it does have a militaristic drumbeat at the end. The piece is offensive to Albertans, Canadians and conservatives on a number of fronts.

“oil worshipping, old guard, right-wing, gun-toting, old-school Albertans”

in a mock country/redneck accent “Hi, I’m from Alberta!”

“I don’t want to paint [Wildrose] all the same, cause I’m not like that (but I am, so here goes!)”

“BFFs with Stephen Harper!”

“Danielle Smith thinks The Flintstone’s is historically accurate”

“Danielle Smith… I heard her bus has tit wheels”

“So, fuck it. I’m voting PC. Latino-ass me is voting PC”

“Separation Party… vote for them [if Wildrose doesn't have a chance in your riding, else vote PC]“

If you’re a conservative and you’re supporting PC, it’s pretty clear that the braintrust behind this ad still regards you as worthless. Were you annoyed when Stockwell Day was the subject of an attack that smacked of religious bigotry, you rube? Did you support the elimination of the gun-registry, you hick? Are you BFF’s with Stephen Harper, you mouth-breather? You’re worse than dirt according to this professional video that is encouraging you to vote PC.

The Progressive Conservative Party has lost their right to call themselves “conservative” as they are clearly running against those that hold conservative values. This “progressive” party and/or their supporters think that sexism is fair game if it’s against a conservative woman running for Premier. Tit wheels! Hilarious. She doesn’t have children either! Latinos are also on notice that the left thinks that their group casually swears in a streetwise manner (yo), votes in a block, and doesn’t think like individuals informed by their own values. In conservative circles (we’ve been well trained), we call that racism.

Alberta is on the cusp of electing its first libertarian Premier. What a refreshing concept that is in a province whose elites are losing their minds at the prospect of losing power to someone who believes that everyone should be free of others telling them how to think.

APOLOGY on Behalf of Patrick Martin and the NDP to Mr. Matt Meier and RackNine Inc.

On February 23, 2012, I appeared before the national media to speak in response to the important issue of “Robocalls” in the 2011 general election. At that time I expressed my personal outrage along with the outrage of the caucus of the official opposition upon learning about the serious allegations of electoral fraud.

In making my statement on February 23, 2012, I singled out a private individual, Mr. Matt Meier along with his business RackNine Inc. and I wrongfully accused them of being part of a conspiracy to commit electoral fraud. In the days following, I repeated this accusation a number of times to the media and on national television. My party, the NDP, also raised concerns about the possibility of RackNine having committed electoral fraud through postings on its website. The NDP indicated on the party website that if news reports that seemed to draw a link between the calls and RackNine were true, these activities were prohibited by the Canada Elections Act and merited investigation.

I now know that the statements I made insinuating Mr. Meier’s and RackNine’s participation in an electoral fraud conspiracy were wholly and unequivocally false. In my rush to express my personal outrage and the outrage of the NDP caucus, I jumped to conclusions I now know are unsupported by fact. I would like to take this opportunity to correct several of my errors in order to clear Mr. Meier’s personal reputation along with the business reputation of RackNine.

1. To my knowledge, neither Mr. Meier, nor RackNine, including any employees of RackNine, has ever been investigated for involvement in electoral fraud in the 2011 general election or otherwise.

2. RackNine provides a legitimate automated call service similar to services used by many political parties.

3. RackNine was merely an innocent intermediary not a participant in electoral fraud.

I apologize for any damage my statements may have caused to Mr. Meier personally or to RackNine, and I have been specifically authorized by the NDP to apologize on behalf of the NDP for any similar damage the publications on the NDP website may have caused.

It appears that Racknine is still proceeding with their lawsuit against Pat Martin.

Here’s a still from the video:

Video producers take stock video from stock video websites in order to make ads. This video is from Canada-based iStockphoto. You can see the video on the website here.

The title of the video? “oil drill platform sailing under sky”

Uh oh! How many sea-faring oil platforms does the coastal province of Alberta have?

(h/t @Johnnyjesus)

UPDATE: iStockphoto search tags for this video include the term “Yellow Sea” which is a body of water just off the coast of China. If you view the Redford ad in HD, you can even see the Chinese flag on the oil rig:

“Leading The Nation”?

Redford’s stock video of “Alberta” comes from just off the coast of China. In an ad that seeks to illustrate the Alberta economy, this is an odd clip to use.

UPDATE: The Redford video has been made “private” by PC Alberta meaning it is unviewable on their account for now. Luckily I had the relevant part of the video stored in my browser cache. I have re-uploaded the first part of the video to YouTube. Here is the controversial part of the ad that the PC Party presumably doesn’t want you to see:

Twelve of the world’s poorest countries – including Afghanistan, Pakistan and seven nations in Africa – are going to be hit as the Conservative government cuts its foreign aid budget by $377 mil-lion in the next three years.

Many of the affected countries rely on international assistance to provide food and other ser-vices to millions of citizens.

A source within the Canadian International Development Agency said Benin, Niger, Cambodia, China, Nepal, Rwanda, Zambia and Zimbabwe are expected to lose virtually all Canadian aid.

We were giving aid dollars to China?

According to the World Bank, Canada’s GDP in 2010 was $1.58T. China’s comparatively was $5.93T. China’s GDP is increasing at a rate of 10.4% a year.

New rule: if your country has a space program, Canada will not send you aid dollars.