Brilliant

"Quebec will fit uneasily in the federation so long as it is governed by the myth of the two founding peoples."

- William Johnson in today's Globe and Mail

Housekeeping notes

Late last week, I posted a criticism of the use of the word "fuhrer" at a Liberal campaign event. In fairness to the individual concerned, here is a link to the apology which appears in at least one newspaper today.

"...slipping of the word "fuehrer" into a recent political event was inappropriate and never intended to associate the premier with a mad man. I regret using the word, but some balance and accuracy is required." (read the full letter here)

Readers will note that earlier last week I also posted a criticism of another individual for his use of the term "dying race". I'll happily link to any comments of apology or clarification for that one, too, if they're ever forthcoming...

"...victims in our own house"

A great letter appearing in today's Telegram.

Well worth a read.

...on "crass misogynism"

A rather silly quote in a rather good article from yesterday...

Commenting on the Harper government's cuts to funding for various women's programs, and the related demise of the National Association for Women and the Law, one Bloc MP offered up the following great line:

Nicole Demers of the Bloc Quebecois was equally harsh: "It's high time to expose this crass misogynism and send these retrogrades to the backbenches."

-Yesterday's Toronto Star

Let's think about that for just a moment. The Bloc, a party whose stated mission is to remain in Opposition and never in government, thinks the Conservatives should be relegated to the backbenches (whatever that means). This is the same party that voted with the Conservatives in order to oust the last government. What did they possibly hope would have been the outcome, if not the ascendancy of the "misogynists" and "retrogrades" Ms. Demers now seems to despise?

Doesn't this speak volumes about the utility of the Bloc Quebecois?


SUNDAY UPDATE: More here

The furor and the "fuhrer".

This is precisely why, in any campaign, at any time, everybody at the microphone gets a script. There shouldn't be any exceptions.

One stupid remark kills your campaign for the day, and puts your leader on the defensive for the rest of the news cycle - if not longer.

But more importantly... to the substance of the issue, using the word "fuhrer" is entirely inappropriate. And trying to explain it away nonchalantly doesn't look good on anyone.

On a somewhat related note - more coverage of the coverage of the coverage of the election is here.

Child care a better option than cash

Economist Doug May is a pretty smart fellow in my books. Part of his response to the Williams scheme to pay parents $1000 to have babies is here:

"A more influential factor in parents' decision-making may be the kind of child care and early education the province offers..."

Perhaps the most disappointing quote in the piece, however, comes from Liberal Leader Gerry Reid, who suggests a tax cut instead???

pleas of innocence, paraphrased

I wasn't buying hockey tickets. That would be wrong.
I was buying votes. And I was told that was ok.

A post with no title

I am incapable of writing anything today.

My head still hurts after watching Ray Heard on Newsworld yesterday. Makes me wonder what Don Newman has lined up for the next few weeks. Sinclair Stevens on Stephen Harper's leadership abilities? Maybe we'll get David Orchard as a commentator on Peter MacKay's handling of his new portfolio, then Bev Desjarlais as an NDP spokesperson, or Ralph Nader as a neutral commentator explaining the inner workings of the White House. Really, what were they thinking??? when they led off the show with... oh nevermind.

Anyway - back to the home front - I love Wally's conspiracy theories. And this one is a good one.

Finally - if you like trivia, here's a quick quiz to test your knowledge of NL political history


AFTERTHOUGHT: In fairness to Mr. Newman (and for that matter Mr. Heard) at least the interview was one between real people with real names, which makes the whole episode rather classy compared to just about any newspaper writing on such subjects these days.

Party time

Newfoundland and Labrador has a new political party...

The Labour Party

Maybe it is a direct response to...

The Conception Party

"We can't be a dying race"

For weeks, from his maitres chez nous speeches, to the fawning coverage of him from Telegram columnists, and a recent hit in l'Actualite, Danny Williams has reveled in the comparisons of his political stances and leadership style to those of nationalists in Quebec. He has an ambassador in Ottawa, a commanding lead in the polls, and holds up the couteau a la gorge as the path to Newfoundland's future greatness.

And today, in a coup de grace, he conjured up the very worst of his most appropriate historical foil, Maurice Duplessis:

"We can't be a dying race" - Premier Williams, on CBC, announcing a platform commitment to pay parents $1000 per child.

A dying race?

Canada's media tied itself up in knots for weeks on end last year when the House of Commons debated a resolution as to whether or not les quebecois are a nation.

Surely to heavens they'll have something to say when a sitting Premier starts calling a province's population a "race". Won't they?

Audio to follow.

nottawa in syndicated print

My Op Ed piece from a couple of days ago is now also available in weekly editions of the Gulf News, the Beacon, and the Northern Pen. Look for it in tomorrow's Coaster as well.

Query

Can anyone else remember the last time someone ran a "People's Campaign" from a Lear jet?

An interesting read

If, like me, you wonder why Jack Layton is rarely critical of Stephen Harper these days, and Stephen Harper even less critical of Jack Layton, look no further than Lawrence Martin's piece in Today's Globe and Mail:

"Tom Flanagan has a message New Democrats won't want to hear. In a candid new book called Harper's Team, the top Conservative strategist reveals that Jack Layton and company were the key to bringing Stephen Harper - not exactly a Dipper kind of guy - to power.

"The Layton decision to attack Paul Martin's Liberals and lay off the Tories in the 2006 campaign was what paved the way, concludes the Calgary academic, a Harper confidant. "No matter how well designed our campaign had been, it would have been hard for us to win if the NDP had not held up its end."

Nothing new, really.

Huh?

Kudos to the Auditor General for exposing more lunacy from the Members' Allowance scandal on the eve of the election, but this seems puzzling.

After all, if "we complied with the guidelines" is not a good enough argument in the case of Members' spending, why is it a sufficient argument here?

On a side note, if the government is making such "investments", why aren't they acquiring an "equity stake", given that it's all the rage these days in certain other important industries?

And why doesn't anyone in the local media have the *%$!# to ask such simple, straightforward questions?

The missing Mink

Biggest news story in Newfoundland yesterday wasn't about elections, Ottawa-bashing or oil mega-projects.

No sir. It was about critters on the lam. (ed. - not these critters, smaller ones)

From CBC:

"The RCMP are investigating what they believe is a case of sabotage at a Newfoundland mink farm, where as many as 6,000 of the furry creatures escaped from their cages early Saturday."

nottawa's Top 10 reasons the mink were let loose:

10. Had to make the Liberal campaign launch seem crowded.
9. Mink are a natural resource. Ottawa was trying to steal them.
8. With the Hebron MOU completed, Williams turning his attention from "Big oil" to "Mink oil"
7. Doesn't matter if they escape, they'll be clawed-back.
6. Were "encouraged" to stack a VOCM poll
5. They were secret government killer minks trained to eat bloggers
4. Gone to cast their special ballots ahead of the election
3. Alberta mink were hosting a job fair
2. Thought they heard the Premier promise "fixed mink"
1. Face it, without Members' Constituency allowances, nobody's buying mink any more anyway.

Number crunching

Forget what you read in the weekend papers, the best breakdown of the Members' allowance spending scandal in Newfoundland and Labrador is, unsurprisingly, right here.

Fish swim.

From the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Party Platform, released today:

"An MOU must be signed with the federal government giving our province control over resource allocations surrounding the waters of our province."

From the Canadian Constitution, s. 91:

"...the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated..."

Among those matters:

"12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries"

This is an idea going nowhere.

Fixing the date, or fixing the election?

My piece in today's Western Star is only in print, so here's an online version:


On Oct. 9 and 10, voters in Newfoundland & Labrador and Ontario will cast ballots under new "fixed election date" regimes. For the first time, the date of each election has been known well in advance, set by legislated changes to each province's elections act.

While campaigning is officially underway in Ontario, the writ has yet to be issued in Newfoundland and Labrador. With the shortest required writ period in Canada at 21 days, candidates will have to wait until next week to officially hit the hustings. After all, the election, despite its predetermined date, has not officially begun.

Surprisingly, however, voting already has.

That's right. In an election which is not yet official, in which candidates can not yet legally be nominated, it is not only possible to obtain a ballot already, it's legal to cast it. Valid votes in an election not yet called have been cast since Aug. 20. In all other jurisdictions where mail-in ballots are allowed, such ballots are requested only after the writ has been issued. Manitoba is one exception, where voters may request such ballots before the writ, but as elsewhere will only receive them afterwards. Some provinces are subsequently required to provide these voters with a list of registered candidates when nominations are filed.

There is no reason why similar provisions could not have been incorporated in our Elections Act. No reason, except for a succession of partisan Chief Electoral Officers, and the unabashed self-interest of the current Members of the House of Assembly.

The rationale behind fixed election dates was to curb the advantage of incumbent governments using hastily called elections to pre-empt their opponents. In recent memory, Ontarians punished Premier David Peterson for attempting such a stunt in 1990, while in Newfoundland and Labrador, electors went to the polls three times (1993, 1996, and 1999) in a span of less than six years.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the current Elections Act has replaced this perceived advantage for a governing party with a profound advantage for incumbent members of all party stripes. No wonder it was passed with little debate and virtually no opposition.

Similar to their quiet deal to continue the flow of their much maligned members' allowances through to the election, MHAs did not flinch when presented with an opportunity to use their name recognition and stuff the ballot boxes before any opponents could even register as candidates.

Ten years ago, in Libman v. Quebec, a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada stated: "Elections are fair and equitable only if all citizens are reasonably informed of all the possible choices and if parties and candidates are given a reasonable opportunity to present their positions..." More recently, in Figueroa v. Canada, they ruled that provisions of Canada's Elections Act which effectively ensured "that voters are better informed of the political platform of some candidates than they are of others" violated s.3 of the Charter and struck them down.

It is hard to imagine a greater democratic injustice than rules which permit incumbent candidates to campaign (and do so free from electoral spending scrutiny) and collect votes while their potential opponents cannot even register.

This ill-conceived and poorly-drafted legislation raises many issues of contradiction and disparity. It allows some individuals to receive votes under a party name while others can only receive votes under the name of a candidate, an impossibility given that individuals are not considered candidates until they meet the criteria - several weeks later.

In Haig v. Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that the Charter requires electoral laws to "grant every citizen of this country the right to play a meaningful role in the selection of elected representatives", an impossibility in a province without any means of preventing a determinative number of ballots being cast in a district before candidates are even nominated.

In 2000, the world was stunned as the fate of its only superpower was decided by hanging chads, inoperable voting machines, and a myriad of electoral inconsistencies. A handful of Florida counties reminded the outside world just how fragile democracy could be. The sad truth is we only cared about the flawed process because the result was close. Had either candidate won by a large margin, the inadequacies of America's electoral system would have been swept under the rug for another four years.

The "fixed" election results of 2007 in Newfoundland and Labrador likely won't be as close as those we witnessed in Florida in 2000, nor as consequential. But there's no reason to be any less concerned.

"Song Plays"

When's the last time anyone out there saw a government-issued release of a speech which features an account of the musical interlude in it?

Funny, too that it comes from a Premier with a conspicuous record of not making such speeches available. 'Til now of course - the eve of the fixed election date.

And Look! - Why they're even underlining the important bits for us!

And Look Again - the Auditor General's Report into that whole Members' Allowance Scam thingy is unfortunately not ready yet. How convenient. Maybe later. But certainly not in time to interfere with the streamers and confetti.

From the Globe...

This headline says it all:

"Tories launch revamped sponsorship program"

And hey - the Minister's just down the street to take your questions

Hibernia bluster

Electioneering and nationalist fervour aside, on what possible legal or intellectual basis can Danny Williams, Q.C. and Rhodes Scholar, make a claim like this:

"Williams said his next conquest will be the “repatriation” of the federal government’s 8.5 per cent equity stake in the Hibernia oil field.

"Williams argues that Ottawa has recovered its investment in the project many times over, and should return the ownership stake in Hibernia to its rightful owner — the province of Newfoundland and Labrador."

- The St. John's Telegram, Sept. 12, 2007

If ownership stakes of Hibernia are rightfully owned by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and are to be "repatriated" on the basis that they have generated a return on investment, then what possible reason is there not to make a similar claim for the other 91.5% of the Hibernia interests?

If we are the rightful owners of some of Hibernia, aren't we the rightful owners of all of it?

Carts and horses

From earlier today:

"(Government) hopes to replace Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's oil-burning generator at Holyrood with power from the proposed Lower Churchill hydroelectric megaproject in Labrador. As well, the government plans to build a transmission line between Labrador and the island." - CBC.ca

As well?

Looking at a map, I'd say it's pretty hard to do one without the other...

Newfoundland's electoral law is a sham

More on this subject to follow - I promise. But for a taste, read Ed's take on just one outrageous flaw in this phony bill, and the Premier who may have already violated it.

More, much more, to follow...

Of football, Fenway and former Prime Ministers

Sorry folks, a slow start to the month of September. Ambitious plans for revamping this blog thingy have been overtaken by similarly ambitious plans to do laundry and the like.

Anyway, the NFL football season began in earnest today, and the Patriots kicked ass. Over at Macleans, the Couch Boys drag their - ahem - 6-4 and 5-5 records into the late afternoon games.

A great fall season at nottawa lies ahead, what with Randy Moss in a Patriots uniform, the Red Sox comfortably ahead of the Yankees, a Van Halen reunion tour of sorts, and, of course, fixed election dates in Newfoundland & Labrador and Ontario. Oh yeah... and law school.

Strangely enough, the fall season begins with thumbs up to both the National Post (Coyne), and the St. John's Telegram, who get kudos for their respective takes on the Trudeau-bashing excerpts of Brian Mulroney's forthcoming memoirs...

"The primary effect of Mr. Mulroney’s constitutional gambit was to spread the belief among Quebecers, until then the private grudge of the nationalists, that a great wrong had been done them in 1982." (Andrew Coyne, in Saturday's Post)

"But to suggest Trudeau knowingly stood in opposition to forces that would prevent the Holocaust is sloppy revisionism at best, despicable character assassination at worst." (Saturday's Telegram editorial)

Should be an interesting September...

Homeland security

I, for one, feel safe.

It's good to know that while we live in a country with a seeming inability to keep Chinese imports of rat poisoned-dog food and lead-painted children's toys out, vigilant folks are keeping the really dangerous stuff from hitting the streets.

Yessir, they confiscated 2 lbs of carrots from the trunk of my car on the way back to the mainland.

Why? It's a mystery to me.

Almost as much a mystery as how the hell my wireless internet works at sea...


nottawa returns to irregularly scheduled programming later this week