Harper's Cold War Becomes Arctic Chill: Why Domestic Politicking Makes For Bad Foreign Relations

Outgoing Russian Ambassador Georgiy Mame, spoke before his departure, lamenting our government's undiplomatic posturing with his country, including Stephen Harper's suggestion that Putin was the next Hitler.

He accused the Harper government of isolating itself from its allies over Ukraine and hinted broadly that the Conservatives are likely playing to a domestic audience of 1.2 million Ukrainian-Canadians.

“My whole history as a diplomat, during Cold War, after Cold War was: the higher the risk, the more active the discussion,” he said. “The only exception to this rule is the last seven months I spent in Ottawa.”

There is no longer any diplomacy in our foreign policy. It's all chest thumping and hot air, in an attempt to secure Conservative votes, riding by riding.

However, what's more troubling is that the Harper government has also been basing our foreign policy on Religious Doctrine.

... he [Harper] outlined plans for a broad new party coalition that would ensure a lasting hold on power. The only route, he argued, was to focus not on the tired wish list of economic conservatives or “neo-cons,” as they’d become known, but on what he called “theo-cons”—those social conservatives who care passionately about hot-button issues that turn on family, crime, and defence ... Arguing that the party had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents’ right to spank their children to putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments ..." (Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, Walrus Magazine, October 2006)

This platform is obvious when we see his ridiculous "devotion" to Israel, refusing to accept that they are not always right. They don't need our protection. They have nuclear weapons. They do however, need to be reined in at times.

Harper's nonsense with Russia, though is becoming a far greater threat. In a piece by Brian Stewart: Putin gets payback for Canada's anti-Russia stance

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper was pouring vitriol and sanctions on Russia for months over the Crimea and Ukraine crisis, he did not seem to have expected much of a serious slap-back from President Vladimir Putin.

While Ottawa joined other allies to punish Russia, using sanctions, criticism and even a modest arms buildup in eastern Europe, Harper’s team always appeared the most determined to “tweak the Bear."

We know from Wikileaks that Americans view Harper a fool, and while they have taken a firm stand against Putin, they still seek diplomatic solutions.

Not so our "Theo-Con" cowboys; and our military; while on high alert, are finding this very troubling.

Just as many feared, Canadian F-18s are yet again being sent screaming towards our northern airspace to see off large Russian Tu-95 heavy bombers testing our borders. Russian military planes, seen here during the Victory Day parade in Moscow's Red Square, have tested the sovereign borders of the U.S. and Canada in recent months.

... The word in official circles is that this is “strategic messaging from Moscow” in retaliation for our constant criticism, as well as Canada’s actions to bolster Ukraine, which has just signed an historic trade pact with the European Union that Putin has fought against. The fly-overs have certainly shaken complacency.

This will not be a David and Goliath moment. Clearly Harper is over his head and having the bombastic John Baird as foreign minister is not helping.

Will There be a New World Order?

In the past decade and a half, America's international reputation has taken a beating. The clownish George Bush and his senseless wars, and the rise of the Tea Party within the GOP, have shown what poor governance looks like.

The American Congress is dysfunctional and their Republican dominated Supreme Court, is leading the country toward a dangerous theocracy. Like Harper, U.S. conservatives have turned to the Religious Right for political support.

The world is watching and Putin is taking advantage of this compromised position, though not necessarily to assert his own control, but to create 'multiple centres of power'. Says Russia’s deputy security chief, Evgeny Lukyanov, 'US hegemony in world has ended’.

“The United States has an impression that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the only result of the Cold War. This is arguable, and this is possible. But no one has attempted to analyze the results or make any conclusions from the situation. The unipolar world headed by Americans simply appeared,” ...

“However, this status quo was not built to last. New power centers have appeared on the international arena, including the BRICS nations, and Russia itself has managed to regain its stance. Nations openly declare their interests and demand respect to their basic rights. This is how the US hegemony on the international arena has ended and of course Washington officials cannot agree with this."

No one but the Tea Party and it's Canadian supporters, see a nuclear war as a good thing, so it's time stop the nonsense.

The BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China, are gaining momentum, and some economists believe that could overtake the G7 by 2027. Said Kishore Mahbubani , Dean and Professor of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore:

"In 2013, China’s economy will grow by 7.8%, India’s by 5.6% and Brazil’s by 2.5%. In response, Western media headlines have begun screaming that the emerging-market story is over. Oh dear, here comes Western wishful thinking again."

The American dollar is no longer the Holy Grail, and the U.S. military weakened by bad press, not against soldiers or veterans, but against a government that has used them as pawns for the oil industry, and the military-industrial complex.

If Harper is counting on the United States to get him out of the mess he's created, he could be in trouble. They have their own problems. Sanctions against Russia have hurt American companies and the EU is softening on these retaliatory actions.

I think in the end, diplomacy will prevail and Harper will have to take his slingshot and retreat with his tail between his legs.

Conservative Rob Merrifield Spouts Republican Rhetoric

The Conservatives really like the Republicans. So much so, that they are using their past employees and all the Republican rhetoric they can fit on a bumper sticker, or in a taxpayer funded pamphlet; and Rob Merrifield is no exception.

In fairness, I suppose the MP from Featherhead, Alberta, has more loyalty to the American coal industry, than who's in government.

He helped to draft a report for the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, entitled: From Correct to Inspired: A Blueprint for Canada U.S. Engagement that calls for annexation of Canada, with regard to the economy, energy resources and the military; and recommends "an integrated, whole of government approach that recognizes shared interests and the reality of deep integration."

I am very concerned with the military integration, because it calls for a "North American defense", removing our sovereignty to choose what wars we support, if any. The report simply states that we go where the U.S. tells us to go, and that could be a problem.

But when he's not trying to sell us to the U.S., or lobbying for the coal-industry, he's busy in the printing shop, photocopying Conservative campaign literature, under the guise of information to his constituents.

One of those members of Merrifield's flock, spoke out in disgust:

Kenneth Coe
September 7, 2008

Rob Merrifield, MP, probably a different sort of guy to most of us, just kindly sent me a letter, at my expense. Rob was really concerned about crime, especially crime that took cars away from young folks.

He did not seem to have a good grasp of the subject but when Stephen Harper tells his minions to send out stuff, they do. Since they are not allowed to comment on what they send out, Rob is safe. And that is good. Rob needs some protection from this mailing.

He seems to have no grasp of the continuing reduction in crime and certainly he seems to be unaware of environmental issues, our soldiers in Afghanistan, an economy heading in the wrong direction, health care concerns or cultural funding which returns thousands of dollars back to the tax payer.

No, poor Rob, or Robbie, is stuck in the mid 90's or in what we can best describe as American Republican rants. Rob is doing what Rob has to do.

I am sorry that car insurance rates are so high on Robbie's and Stephen Harper's agendas. Maybe there is something going on in Canada and throughout the world that should attract a wee bit more attention from the Rob's and the Steve's.

But the Conservative Government is cracking down on car thieves so says Rob, or Robbie, or whatever. That's good Rob, just don't try and find clean air, fair taxation and an honourable and independent foreign policy. You go ahead, Robbie, follow Dick Cheney's advice and promote fear, anger and hate.

Actually, I have received a lot of nonsense from Rob, Robbie or whatever. He has ranted on a number of issues, sent at MY expense over the last few months. Frankly, I can't afford Rob. I like to see everyone rant and rave as they will, but they should put their own stamp on it. And really Rob, Stephen and the rest, the politics of anger and fear does work, but will it get you into heaven?

Lisa Raitt Digs For Gold in Taxpayers Wallet

Natural Resources minister, Lisa Raitt might be incompetent. She might even be thin skinned. But man can she party.

Don't expect Ms. Raitt to travel economy. This gal is first class all the way, and has no problem billing taxpayers for her extravagances, even during an economic crisis.

Raitt spent $80k on travel and hospitality in previous job
By Glen McGregor,
The Ottawa Citizen
April 2, 2009

OTTAWA — Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt spent nearly $80,000 on travel and hospitality during her last two years as head of the Toronto Port Authority before leaving her job to run for the Conservatives.

A summary of her expenses as president and chief executive officer of the federal agency shows she racked up $28,000 in hospitality charges in 2007 and until the fall of 2008. In the same period, she spent an additional $51,000 on travel, with trips to Washington, D.C., Newark, New Jersey, and two visits to London, England, among other destinations. Raitt’s expenses were tabled in the House of Commons this week in response to an order paper question from Toronto NDP MP Olivia Chow.

“There is no reason why a Crown corporation, in tough economic times, would spend that much money traveling,” Chow said Thursday. “It just does not show leadership using taxpayer’s money for this kind of expensive travel.”

She said Raitt shouldn’t have been taking “junkets” when the Port Authority was running a deficit.

With a 2007 operating budget of about $17 million, the Port Authority is a relatively small shared-governance corporation, with the City of Toronto and the province represented on its board. It is responsible for a shipping terminal, a marina and the Toronto City Centre Airport.

According to its 2007 financial statement, the Port Authority reported an operating loss of nearly $1.9 million, after losing $6 million the year before.

Raitt earned a salary of $185,000 plus $19,000 in other benefits in 2007, the statement shows.

Asked for comment, a spokesperson in Raitt’s ministerial office emailed the following: “As the independent audit committee of the Toronto Port Authority has previously stated, these approved expenses are typical for a business of its size and complexity.”

Earlier this year, the board’s audit committee said it was clarifying its policy on hospitality expense but said there was nothing unusual in the expenses it reviewed. It did not publicly release the expense reports.

Board chairman Mark McQueen said in an email that Raitt’s $50,000 in expenses on 40 trips over two years was “not atypical.” The 2008 trip to London, he said, was to meet with insurance underwriters and saved the Port Authority $20,000 but cost less than $4,000.
“That’s a good return on investment.”

The records tabled this week show that Raitt, in addition to the 2008 trip, also spent another $3,622 traveling to London in February 2007.

Some of her trips within Canada were the most expensive. She spent $2,991 on a trip to Ottawa the same month she visited London last year, $3,012 to go to Montreal and $4,234 to visit Saint John, New Brunswick.

Her hospitality bills varied from month to month, with the highest of $3,817 in January 2008.

“The more distant North American trips involve various domestic and continental Port Associations, which meet in different cities on a rotating basis,” McQueen wrote. “[The] $30,000 for hospitality over two years doesn’t surprise me, given the wide variety of roles that the CEO plays in receiving dignitaries and business development.”

McQueen said that while the Port Authority always followed its purchasing policy, the clarification “ensured that no hospitality expenses, however small, can be recovered without the approval of the immediate supervisor.”

When Riatt was sworn into the Harper cabinet last October, the Citizen filed an Access to Information Act request with the Port Authority for all her expense claims dating back to 2002.

The agency requested several extensions on the time allowed to respond, then said retrieving the “extensive” records requested would require substantial work. The agency asked for payment of $2,070 to produce the records.

In the October election, Riatt upset Conservative-turned-Liberal incumbent Garth Turner in Halton, Ontario.

Because she is now a cabinet minister, all of Raitt’s travel and hospitality claims are posted on her department’s website. Those records show that in the first five months on the job, she ran up $34,700 in travel expenses.

At this rate she may single handedly break the bank, even without Jim Flaherty's performance (or lack thereof).

How John Baird Railroaded the City of Ottawa

As we listened to the influence tampering trial of Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien, it brings to mind the complicity of John Baird, who used his own influence to railroad the citizens of Ottawa.

John Baird cannot be trusted
Rational Reasons
January 8, 2007

Apparently, back in October, John Baird, then President of the Treasury Board, went against the advice of his own staff and withheld federal funding for Ottawa's light-rail project for political purposes.

Baird's own professional staff reviewed the contract and the project and found it to be well justified, as did the staff of at least two other departments:

The effect of his interference was twofold. First, it changed the debate of the Ottawa Mayoral race to light rail and taxes, boosting Baird's friend and fellow conservative Larry O'Brien, while damaging the campaign of Mayor Bob Chiarelli, a longtime Baird foe.

Secondly, as a result of this battle, the entire light-rail project was killed by a vote of the new council and Mayor Larry O'Brien, who defeated Chairelli in November. Since a signed contract was already in place, the City has now been opened up to possible lawsuits from Siemens, the company that was to build the LRT, in the nieghbourhood of hundreds of millions.

In other words, our new Environment Minister is personally responsible for the destruction of an environmentally friendly public transit project that would have removed hundreds if not thousands of cars off of the streets of Ottawa (thus reducing pollution and green house gasses) in order to interfere in a municipal election to help elect a fellow conservative.

Baird's rail ruling was political, documents show
Decision to pull back funding made despite Treasury Board, Finance support for project
Mohammed Adam,
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, January 06, 2007

Treasury Board and Department of Finance officials were satisfied with the City of Ottawa's $880-million commuter rail plan, but federal minister John Baird took it upon himself to ask for a financial audit that led to the delay and subsequent death of the project, documents obtained by the Citizen show.

Documents secured from the Ontario government's cabinet office through access-to-information laws appear to confirm widespread belief in Ottawa that Mr. Baird's intervention in October was done for political reasons.

Among the documents, a confidential briefing note for Premier Dalton McGuinty, chides Mr. Baird for his "unusual" intervention, pointing out that the city presented a "strong justification" for the project.

"Treasury Board and Finance officials did not request a value for money audit, and Transport and Infrastructure Canada officials and the Minister were satisfied enough with the project to sign off on it to go to TB," the briefing note said.

"He (Mr. Baird) is effectively saying that he is a better judge of value-for-money than the experts in the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Department of Finance, and the Treasury Board Secretariat."

Mr. Baird, appointed federal environment minister in a cabinet shuffle Thursday, caused a big stir in the middle of last fall's municipal election campaign when, as Treasury Board president, he delayed approval of the rail project until after the election. Amid accusations he was unfairly interfering in municipal politics, Mr. Baird said a financial audit he commissioned revealed potential cost overruns that he could not ignore as the federal government's financial watchdog.

To ensure public accountability, Mr. Baird said he delayed the project to give the new council the chance for a second look.

However, the new council killed the decade-old project, and many councillors blamed Mr. Baird for its demise. Some rail supporters charged that in an apparent effort to undermine long-time political foe Bob Chiarelli, Mr. Baird diminished the city's economic potential and set it back decades.

But in a year-end interview with the Citizen, Mr. Baird expressed no regrets for his actions and refused to take any blame for the death of the 30-kilometre line from the University of Ottawa to Barrhaven. Mr. Baird said he was doing his job to bring greater scrutiny to public spending and sees nothing to apologize for.

He said the delay "empowered" taxpayers and voters who took the opportunity to speak clearly on the issue through the people they elected to council. The new council made the decision to kill the project and has to live with it.

"I just felt very uncomfortable signing off five weeks before election day on such a big project. I thought a $1-billion project to be delayed for 60 days is no big deal," he said.

However, according to the documents obtained for the Citizen by researcher Ken Rubin, public servants in the Ontario government cabinet office took a harsher view of Mr. Baird's action. While acknowledging the need for the city to make a business case for the project and provide a cost-benefit analysis, provincial officials say the city passed the test. They noted that the project wouldn't even have landed on the Treasury Board agenda without numerous consultations to convince key departmental officials that "the federal government was receiving value for money."

Baird's rail ruling was political, documents show:

In particular, cabinet officials took umbrage at the impression left by Mr. Baird that "due diligence" was not done, pointing out that "federal officials have been performing due diligence for two years" on the project.

"This is the only circumstance known of in Ontario where a Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund contract was revisited after being awarded," the documents lamented.

They were prepared in the wake of the controversy that followed Mr. Baird's intervention, to advise the premier on how to respond to questions on the project. Mr. McGuinty was to assure Ottawans that Ontario's $200 million was still on the table and to point out as well that in the three years between 2004 and last year, Ottawa received more than $82 million in provincial gas tax funds.

But the documents also revealed a wrinkle that was not widely known at the time: The extension of the line to the University of Ottawa would have required another, potentially project-delaying environmental assessment.

"Further provincial and federal environmental assessment approval will be required for the planned extension of the LRT line to the University of Ottawa, as this is outside the scope of the project as defined in the original approvals," provincial officials wrote.

Don't Criticize Lisa Raitt or She'll Sue

When Lisa Raitt was in charge of the Toronto Port Authority, a non-profit group, Community Air, dared to speak out against her. Big mistake. Ms. Raitt sued, and the volunteers, without funds to fight, were forced to apologize.

Since when does the Federal Government get to sue it's citizens for speaking out?

In light of recent incompetence, this group was probably right to question her abilities and that of the federal port authority.

That's all I'm going to say on that though because Lisa might be looking over my shoulder.

Port Authority's cynical SLAPP aimed at silencing its critics

The Globe

John Barber

June 21, 2006

Take that! SLAPP -- Shut up! SLAPP -- Pay out!

No political Punch and Judy show worthy of its name -- certainly nothing that involves that skulking and drivelling institutional miscreant known as the Toronto Port Authority -- should proceed without a good Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation these days.

Accordingly the TPA, ever the innovator in dirty politics, has now introduced this brazen U.S. tactic north of the border by launching a $6.8-million lawsuit against the civic gadflies who have dared to criticize its efforts to reindustrialize the Toronto waterfront.

Claiming that the group Community AIR and seven of its directors are "zealous and unbalanced" in their waterfront advocacy, the suit demands that each pay $500,000 in damages for defamation, $250,000 in aggravated damages and another $100,000 in punitive damages to the port authority, its president Lisa Raitt and two others.

The lawsuit also demands an injunction preventing the volunteer activists from making any more allegedly defamatory statements about the federal agency -- a category of speech, according to the wide-open statement of claim the authority filed in court last week, that would seem to include every public statement any of the activists has ever made in this hotly contested, thoroughly aired, public debate.

After failing in its attempt to placate the federal authoritarians by retracting a few of the more fiery comments published on the Community AIR website -- nothing that hasn't been said at a dozen public meetings, or published in more carefully vetted form in this newspaper and others -- the activists are preparing to defend what could be an extremely expensive suit.

"We see this primarily as an effort to shut us up -- and that's not going to happen," said Brian Iler, a lawyer named as one of the defendants. "We will persist."

Writing to TPA lawyer Trisha Jackson of Torys LLP last month, Community AIR lawyer Louis Sokolov denounced the lawsuit as "a transparently tactical use of legal process aimed at chilling legitimate public discourse," adding that its timing, coincidental with a federal review of the authority's dubious activities, is "particularly suspect."

"If ever there were a time for the port authority to attempt to silence its critics," Mr. Sokolov wrote, "this would be it."

Undaunted, Ms. Jackson replied that the authority was determined to sue the group for its "unfounded and defamatory rhetoric" and "invective."But it would be awfully difficult for any ordinary person to find $7-million in damages in the allegedly defamatory statements the lawsuit targeted. They are all contained in a Community AIR memo that sums up the issue with the predictable spin usually applied by port authority critics, presenting it in terms the entire city has heard again and again. Edited as Community AIR offered to do, it is positively anodyne.

In other words, there is no question that this suit is nothing more than a hollow and cynical SLAPP, "in which a corporation or developer sues an organization in an attempt to scare it into dropping protests against a corporate initiative," according to one definition.

Many U.S. states have adopted anti-SLAPP measures that permit wide-ranging debate about issues of legitimate public concern and can be used to derail such suits before they get rolling. Two Ontario courts recently made baby steps in the same direction when they ruled that governments cannot sue for defamation -- potentially important precedents when a federal agency singles out its enemies for the same alleged wrongdoing.

But nothing can stop it from using your money to try -- just as it uses your money to sue other governments, lobby shamelessly and issue soft-soap propaganda about its alleged good works.

If ever there was a time to support Community AIR, this would be it.

Toronto Port Authority sues group for defamation

June 21, 2006
CBC News

The Toronto Port Authority has filed a $3-million lawsuit against a community organization and some of its members for defamation.

In its statement of claim, the federal agency alleges it has been defamed by members of Community Air, a non-profit group that has been highly critical of the dealings of the federal agency over the years.

Toronto Island AirportCommunity Air has fought the port authority on issues such as the expansion of the Toronto Island Airport, which the authority owns, and the building of a fixed link to the Toronto Islands.

The lawsuit concerns a briefing memo sent to the federal transport minister in March, then later posted on the community organization's website.

"At the end of the day, fair comment about the port authority and its activities is welcome, but we're not going to allow untruths and personal attacks to go unchallenged," said Lisa Raitt, the agency's president and one of the plaintiffs.

A lawyer representing Community Air and its members said they plan to fight the allegations.

"We really view this as being a 'SLAPP suit' and that's a type of lawsuit that is carried out against community groups and individuals to prevent them from speaking their minds about issues of public importance," said lawyer Louis Sokolov.

SLAPP is an acronym that stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and refers to a lawsuit with the intention of intimidating or discouraging public participation.

Sokolov also questioned the timing of the lawsuit. Federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon announced a review of the Toronto Port Authority last month.

Senior bureaucrat Roger Tassé, who has been hired to conduct the review, is expected to release a report by Sept. 1.

Careless Lisa Raitt Passes the Buck

In her defense, Lisa Raitt is no more incompetent a Natural Resources minister than Gary Lunn, or more careless an MP than Maxime Bernier; though clearly they are not ringing endorsements.

In further proof that the Conservatives have no idea what they're doing, Raitt left behind a binder filled with sensitive documents after a CTV interview.

OK, she didn't leave them with a biker boyfriend, just the media! (Yikes) But we are talking about nuclear energy here ... stuff that goes boom in the night. How can we trust someone like Lisa Raitt to protect us when she can't even keep track of her own stuff?

Chalk River Crisis - Raitt must go: Opposition

Documents show government will have to spend millions more on isotopes-producing reactor than previously revealed
Jun 03, 2009
Joanna Smith

Toronto Star

Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt is shirking her ministerial duties by failing to resign after a binder full of sensitive documents was inadvertently left at an Ottawa television station, opposition MPs charge.

Raitt rose to her own defence in the Commons this afternoon, saying she offered her resignation to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which was not accepted.

However, Raitt says she did accept the resignation of her own press secretary whom she said was responsible for the documents related to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (Sorry Lisa, but a staffer IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE DOCUMENTS. YOU ARE!!!)

But that prompted outrage from opposition MPs, who accused the government of making the 26-year-old aide a scapegoat while Raitt, who represents the GTA riding of Halton, ducked her responsibility.

"When she blames her employee, it's despicable. What will the government do about this minister who will not assume responsibility," Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said.
Raitt called it a "serious matter.

"Clear procedures were not followed in this case. Corrective action has been taken," Raitt said.

"I offered to resign if the Prime Minister felt it necessary. He did not accept it. The person responsible for handling the documents offered their resignation. I did accept," she said.

That won her a standing ovation from the Conservative bench but howls of derision from the opposition.

Ignatieff mocked the government response, questioning whether other problems in the department such as the shutdown of the Chalk River nuclear reactor and resulting isotope shortage would also be blamed on the young aide.

"How are we supposed to believe such a fiction? When will this minister take her responsibility seriously?" he said.

But facing question after question, Raitt did not stray from her scripted lines.

CTV News reported documents concerning Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. were left behind at its Ottawa bureau last week.

The network said it waited six days without hearing from her office before breaking the news last night.

"Confidential documents were not handled properly as was clearly the case in this incident; however, it is also clear that this was not as a result of personal actions by the minister, rather proper procedures not being followed on the part of minister's staff," PMO communications director Kory Teneycke said on CBC Newsworld this afternoon.

A government official confirmed the aide was Jasmine MacDonnell, press secretary to Raitt.

MacDonnell also worked as press secretary to former natural resources minister Gary Lunn.

MacDonnell did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

This is not the first time a Conservative cabinet minister has faced trouble over leaving sensitive documents behind.

Conservative MP Maxime Bernier (Beauce) resigned as foreign affairs minister in May 2008 after a former girlfriend with ties to Quebec biker gangs revealed he had forgotten some documents at her apartment.

Teneycke dismissed a suggestion that Harper was being more lenient with Raitt than he had been with Bernier.

"There is a clear difference between personal conduct of handling of documents versus those of others in the department or in the minister's office," Teneycke told CBC. (Huh? What is the difference and why was this responsibility left to a staffer?)

"It's taken very seriously by the government in every instance, but unlike a past experience our government had with this, this is not as a result of the minister's personal actions and so we do draw a distinction between personal handling of documents and that problem of procedures not being followed."

Bernier said today the decision to resign belongs to Raitt.

"I think she has good judgement. She must use her judgment like I did in my circumstance," he said. "I did what I had to do at my time. I assumed my own responsibility. She's going to do what she thinks is good for the country and for her."

CTV said the documents - some clearly marked "secret" - detailed government plans to spend more money on the troubled National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Chalk River, Ont. than previously announced.

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. expects the NRU to be out of service for at least three months after discovering a heavy-water leak May 15.

The shutdown is blamed for a looming shortage of medical isotopes crucial to diagnostic tests.

CTV reports that one document titled "Background for discussion with chair of Atomic Energy Canada" lists $72 million in funding for AECL to "maintain the option of isotope production", which was not mentioned in the 2009 budget tabled in January.

The documents also reportedly include a handwritten note listing total funding for AECL at $1.7 billion since 2006 and a memo describing the spending as "cleaning up a Liberal mess".
A federal government employee dropped by the station to pick up the documents today, CTV reports.

Liberal environment critic David McGuinty said Raitt should lose her cabinet post even if it turns out to be someone on her staff who is at fault.

"Ministerial responsibility is ministerial responsibility," McGuinty told reporters as he left the Liberal caucus meeting. "The test has been laid down by the prime minister. He says this is a grave offence. . . just a year ago. He has to decide now whether he wants to be consistent with his cabinet and the Canadian people."

New Democrat natural resources critic Nathan Cullen said a shutdown at Chalk River was the wrong time for this kind of thing to happen.

"It's an incredibly sensitive time, with the whole nuclear file in a mess," Cullen said in an interview.

Cullen said he was surprised by the $72-million figure because he had asked for that information before and had been told it was unavailable.

"The amount of money is just staggering," he said.

In the wake of Bernier's lost papers, an internal government investigation urged tighter controls over sensitive documents.

The probe by the foreign affairs department urged "control measures" to account for "all copies" of briefing books after finding that government policies were not followed.

"Each copy should be numbered, and a record maintained of the official to whom it was issued, against a signed receipt," the report said.

In Bernier's case, he carried background documents related to a NATO summit in the spring of 2008 to the conference in an unlocked briefcase and then left the papers at his girlfriend's house when he returned.

A department investigation later concluded that Bernier failed to follow guidelines for proper storage and transportation of classified information.

And it urged better training for staff in the office of the foreign affairs minister on how to safeguard sensitive information.

"It appears that security briefings to the Ministers' staff should emphasize the need to protect all classified-protected information. They should be made aware of the need to use security equipment such as locked containers to ensure its integrity while in transit," the report said.

CTV Inc. spokesperson Alexis Hood said the network would not comment on the story.
"
Our reporting speaks for itself," she said.

Raitt-gate rocks Tories

Minister avoids the axe while aide takes the fall for misplaced sensitive documents
Jun 04, 2009
Joanna Smith

Toronto Star

Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Jasmine MacDonnell stood outside a popular steak house a couple of blocks from Parliament Hill, having just learned she had made a huge error.

Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, or one of her aides, had forgotten a binder full of sensitive government documents concerning Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and the troubled Chalk River reactor at the CTV Ottawa bureau last week.

The network waited until Tuesday night, six days later, to break the story and the 26-year-old MacDonnell's phone started ringing about 15 minutes after it aired.

Those who saw her said she looked quite upset as she stood outside Hy's Steakhouse & Cocktail Bar, where she had been dining with Raitt and Mark Cameron, a senior adviser in the Prime Minister's Office.

MacDonnell was Raitt's press secretary. She was the aide who left those documents behind. She paid for it with her job. Her boss did not.

"This is a serious matter," Raitt said in the House of Commons yesterday, where opposition MPs called for her head. "Clear procedures were not followed in this case. Corrective action has been taken.

"I offered to resign if the Prime Minister felt it necessary and he did not accept it," she continued. "The person responsible for handling the documents offered a resignation, and I did accept it."

MacDonnell could not be reached for comment yesterday.

"I don't like people blaming 26-year-olds," Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said.

This is not the first time a Conservative cabinet minister has left sensitive documents lying around, and opposition critics were quick to point out how differently Prime Minister Stephen Harper dealt with the crisis this time around.

Conservative MP Maxime Bernier (Beauce) stepped down as foreign affairs minister in May 2008 when he learned his ex-girlfriend, Julie Couillard, who had already got him into trouble because of her ties to Quebec biker gangs, was about to reveal on television that he had left briefing notes at her apartment.

"This obviously is a warning to all ministers," Harper told reporters after announcing he had accepted the resignation, denying it had anything to do with Bernier's ties to Couillard.

A guide for ministers and ministers of state prepared last year says the prime minister holds cabinet members "personally accountable for the security of their staff and offices."

Opposition critics yesterday attacked Harper for sparing rising-star Raitt – and letting a junior staffer take the fall instead – despite the fact Raitt was involved in a similar mistake as Bernier.

"Ministers are always responsible for the security of classified documents," said Geoff Regan (Halifax West), Liberal critic for natural resources. "Who said that? None other than Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It's clear that the Prime Minister must follow his own rules here and hasn't done so."

New Democrat MP Thomas Mulcair (Outremont) said he could not find any "objective reasons" Harper should be more lenient with Raitt than he was with Bernier.

"Word for word in this corridor one year ago today he said that Maxime Bernier had to resign because he is personally responsible for those documents, no matter who left them, no matter what happened," Mulcair said.

In Quebec City, Harper said the difference was he did not believe the breach was the result of the minister's "personal action.''

Raitt, Harper said, "was undertaking employment activity, ministerial activity in the company of her staff who were responsible for these documents and certainly for accounting for these documents later.

"I think she had a reasonable expectation that that would be done."

After Bernier lost his papers, an internal investigation at the foreign affairs department urged tighter controls over sensitive documents.

"Each copy should be numbered, and a record maintained of the official to whom it was issued, against a signed receipt," the report said.

CTV said the documents – some clearly marked "secret" – detailed government plans to spend more money on the troubled National Research Universal reactor at Chalk River, Ont., than previously announced.

AECL expects the reactor to be out of service for at least three months after a heavy-water leak was discovered May 15. The shutdown is blamed for a looming shortage of medical isotopes crucial to diagnostic tests.

CTV reports that one document titled "Background for discussion with chair of Atomic Energy Canada" lists $72 million in funding for AECL to "maintain the option of isotope production," which was not mentioned in the 2009 budget tabled in January that included $351 million for AECL.

Other ministerial communications staffers on Parliament Hill – including one who described MacDonnell as "competent" with a "very sunny disposition" – said she left quietly yesterday.

They were not given any reminders about keeping track of sensitive papers at their morning meeting.

"We all know that's part of the job," one press secretary said.

Taxpayers Foot Bill for Tory Fundraisers

Since the Conservatives first took power in 2006, their governing has been one long political campaign, while constantly finding ways to make Canadians pay for it. From the abuse of mail outs to using the House of Commons for partisan and often personal attacks on their opponents; they stop at nothing.

However, an investigative report by the Toronto Star has revealed another scheme, that helps keep the Conservative Party coffers filled, at taxpayer's expense.

They creatively schedule fundraisers around government trips on our dime. So much for accountability.

Taxpayers pick up Tory tab

When Defence Minister Peter MacKay flew to British Columbia in January, he split his time between government business and two Tory fundraising gigs. tAxpayers footed the bill. When then-Indian affairs minister Jim Prentice flew to Nova Scotia to meet with provincial chiefs, he headlined a conservative fundraising dinner in Prince Edward Island. Taxpayers paid for the trip.

And when Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn jetted off from a Quebec fisheries forum to attend a government meeting in Manitoba, he also guest-starred at a local Tory fundraising banquet. The federal Conservatives – elected on Promises to be squeaky clean – are using government resources to help fill their election war chest ....

Tories' expense records changed on website

The Conservative government has twice altered expense records for international trips after the Star questioned their high cost. The Records in a publicly available website were changed – thousands of dollars removed in one case and a lengthy journey shortened in Another – for trips by then-foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier and Brian Jean, parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport.

The government refused to provide the Star with printed records – tickets, hotel records – that would verify the changes. The travel records are kept on the Federal government's website under the heading "Proactive Disclosure." It's an attempt, begun by the previous government, to make government expense reports and contracts immediately available to the public for scrutiny ....

IS THIS REALLY CONSERVATIVE? IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Harper Exploiting Economy to Push Privatization Agenda

Wink, wink. Of all the Harper ideologies, his goal of privatizing everything, is probably the strongest. During the 2006 election campaign, the media picked up on the fact that every time one of the Conservatives said 'choice' it really meant 'private', so it became kind of a fun game.

Now with the economic crisis, Harper may finally get his wish, as his government looks to sell EVERYTHING. If it's got Canada or Canadian in front of it, it could soon be toast.

Nothing like selling us off in a buyer's market. Mike Harris did the same in Ontario, so Jim Flaherty has experience. In fact, he hid a six billion dollar deficit in the sale of our province's assets.

Ottawa considering asset sales, from VIA Rail to Royal Canadian Mint
'We're not going to exclude anything off the top,' source says, but privatization of such iconic Crown corporations unlikely

STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA

Globe and Mail,

Jun. 02, 2009

No government asset is being spared scrutiny as the Harper government considers auctioning off holdings while it grapples with record deficits, sources say - and therefore those under review include entities such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, VIA Rail and the Royal Canadian Mint.

Sources say while all government assets are on the table for a review first announced last fall, it's unlikely the minority Conservative government would move to spin off "highly iconic elements" such as the CBC or Via Rail in the short term.

"Everything's going to be included. We're not going to exclude anything off the top," the government source said.

"Everything's in."

However, the source said it's hard to imagine CBC or Via Rail being part of a privatization.

The review includes all government assets including Crown corporations as well as billions of dollars in federal land and building properties. The list includes Ridley Terminals, a cash-strapped coal-shipping Crown corporation in Prince Rupert, B.C.

Just last week the Tories announced they will seek buyers for the nuclear reactor business of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Ottawa's flagship nuclear company.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty first announced this asset review last November, although at the time he publicly ruled out selling the CBC. The review process was more formally launched after the Jan. 27 budget and Ottawa aims to generate up to $4-billion through privatizations or sales in this fiscal year.

The Tories are under pressure to generate cash as Ottawa struggles with shortfalls that could stretch for half a decade.

Last week Mr. Flaherty warned Ottawa will run a record $50-billion deficit this year alone and economists have predicted the projected shortfall for next year will rise, too.

Facing criticisms that it would be foolish to sell assets in a depressed market, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged that this process will not lead to a "fire sale" of holdings.

The Harper government is depending on billions of dollars from asset sales as part of its plan to re-balance the books in Ottawa by 2013-14. Many economists though have suggested this deadline for eliminating the deficit is unrealistic without significant tax increases or spending cuts.

As the 2009 budget indicated, the assessment will take into account "the current relevance of the assets to government's core responsibilities, and of their market value."

In some cases, the budget said, the review may decide that "selling an asset to a private sector entity may generate more economic activity and deliver greater value to taxpayers."

It's expected the asset review could take four to five years - with perhaps 20 to 25 per cent of holdings reviewed each year.

Mr. Flaherty hasn't said whether possible saleable properties might also include the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

It's likely, however, that assets headed for the block will include some holdings of the Canada Lands Co., a Crown corporation with a real-estate portfolio totalling about 970 hectares.

Last November, Mr. Flaherty suggested a selloff might include the CN Tower, but quickly made it clear he was joking.

If the government fails to sell the amount of assets it's hoping to unload, then the federal deficit will grow further - unless Ottawa can find spending cuts elsewhere.

Harper Afraid of Election Tells Us Worst is Over

So Harper is saying the worst is over, but how can we possibly believe him? He told us that last September, and look at what has happened since.

While I hope he's right this time, I believe the announcement is politically motivated. Realizing he's down in the polls, Harper's shying away from an election, so needs to make us feel all warm and fuzzy. This could also mean that he may actually listen to the demands of the NDP and Liberals when it comes to fixing EI.

His ideology tells him that people like sitting at home collecting pogey, but the Canadian people are telling him otherwise.

Yes we are doing better than the U.S. but before we can really start to look forward to better days, their economy also has to rebound. I'm cautiously optimistic , but not holding my breath.

GDP data shows Canada over worst of crisis - PM

Reuters

by David Ljunggren

June 1, 2009

OTTAWA - Although Canada's latest gross domestic product figures are bad, they were better than expected and show the economy is over the worst of the crisis, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Monday.

Statistics Canada said the economy shrank by 5.4 percent in the first quarter of the year. The decline was not as bad as the 6.6 percent drop expected by analysts.

"We do anticipate that this was the worst quarter, the first quarter of this year ... The worst is behind us, we will have better quarters going forward. That's our very strong sense at this point," Harper told Toronto radio station CFRB.

Saying there was "reason for optimism", Harper cautioned there would be further job losses and said Ottawa was ready to take more steps if necessary to help the unemployed.

Opposition parties are demanding Ottawa make it easier for the jobless to claim benefits and some legislators have mused about defeating the Conservative government over the issue, although an election any time soon seems unlikely.

"The country needs an election like a hole in the head. Nobody wants an election. It is not good. It is not in the interests of the country at a time where our economy is so challenged," said Harper.

Quite a change of tune, coming from the man who'd rather run attack ads then our country. And also a complete 180 from two weeks ago when he threatened to huff and puff and bring the House down.

Tories Ready to Take on the Liberals Over EI

By Alexander Panetta,

The Canadian Press

May 13, 2009

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper surprised his opponents - and even some allies - by issuing what appeared to be an election threat over employment-insurance reforms.

After signalling for weeks a willingness to enrich employment insurance to help workers hardest-hit by the recession, the Conservatives veered sharply Wednesday.

The prime minister categorically rejected a Liberal demand for a single, nationwide eligibility requirement for EI at a uniform level of 360 hours worked.

Harper could not have been any clearer during a debate with Liberal

Leader Michael Ignatieff: he rejected the idea three times, in both official languages, and declared himself ready to “take him on” over the issue.

“Canada has a very generous employment insurance system,” Harper said in response to Ignatieff.

“If that leader wants to go out and tell Canadians that he thinks they should pay higher payroll taxes so that people can work 45 days and then collect EI for a year, every single year, in every single region of the country, we are ready to take him on.”

The exchange touched off speculation on Parliament Hill: was the prime minister holding out for another EI proposal from the NDP, simply in order to keep the Liberals from taking credit for any changes? Was it an attempt to force the opposition to back off its EI demands? Was it an election threat?

Two Harper spokespersons declined to elaborate and said Harper’s remarks stand for themselves.

Even Conservative insiders said they were caught off-guard by the exchange.

Most had been expecting to accommodate the opposition request, given the Tories’ weak poll numbers and lack of interest in fighting an election.

Ignatieff said a few weeks ago that failure to set a minimum threshold of 360 hours to collect benefits could force an election.

Harper says the only reason the Liberals are now proposing the idea is to unite the opposition - to “pull the coalition back together” - against the government.

Harper’s opponents did appear united after Wednesday’s exchange: they all accused Harper of mischaracterizing their request, and of politicking on the backs of the unemployed.

They said the Liberal proposal would make workers qualify after 360 hours, but that benefit levels would continue to vary depending on personal or regional circumstances.

It is also described as a temporary measure to be withdrawn after the recession.

Ignatieff called the prime minister’s reaction puzzling.

“Mr. Harper is shutting the door with the description of our proposal, which makes no sense at all. He doesn’t - he doesn’t understand EI,” Ignatieff said.

“We are going to continue to press this issue because we just know that there are 150,000 Canadians out there who ought to be getting EI who are not eligible and that seems to me to be just wrong.”

There’s been speculation the Conservatives would seek a deal on EI with the New Democrats to prevent Liberals from claiming credit. But the party leader wasn’t pleased by what he heard Wednesday.

“I don’t know why the prime minister would want to force a showdown on the backs of the people who are suffering the most in the economic crisis,” NDP Leader Jack Layton said.

“That’s - I would have thought that would have been off limits.”

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe also accused the prime minister of pitting some Canadians against others.

“When he says all the Bloc’s criticisms are aimed at dividing Canada, I don’t think anyone beats him at dividing Canada,” Duceppe said.

“He’s the master of the art.”

Will New Senate Bill Finally Put an End to Pre-election Attack Ads?

Stephen Harper was the first Canadian Prime Minister to ever run attack ads outside of an election campaign. He did it with Stephane Dion, managing to turn Canadians away from the Liberals last time around, but it also turned people off politics altogether.

If we really want our country to be a democracy, we need to make the election process more democratic. Many Conservative bloggers claim that it is in their best interest to encourage voters to stay home. But is it in ours?

Now a bill is before senate that may end the practice of such ads, by having their costs included in election campaign advertising limit, if one takes place within three months. I like the idea very much.

Liberal bill aims to end pre-election ad binges
May. 26 2009
The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The Liberals have introduced a bill in the Senate aimed at stopping political parties from going on pre-election advertising binges.

Senator Dennis Dawson's bill - which is aimed at the cash-rich Tories - comes amid renewed election speculation on Parliament Hill.

Currently, parties can spend as much as they like on advertising in the months leading up to an election call.

Such pre-writ advertising is not considered part of a party's election expenses, which are strictly limited once an election campaign is under way.

Dawson's bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to classify all advertising in the three months prior to an election call as an election expense.

Dawson says his bill closes a loophole that has allowed parties with overflowing war chests to circumvent election spending limits.

The Liberal Party can rebound from these ads, but can voters? When will we say enough is enough and just give up? If that's what Harper is hoping for to stay in power, it's just one more reason why he has to go.

Down in the Polls Layton Doesn't Want an Election

As Michael Ignatieff has been slowly gaining ground, much of it has been at the expense of Jack Layton and the NDP.

Now as the threat of a summer election looms over prosed changes to EI, Mr. Layton has publicly stated that he will not support a non-confidence motion, but will continue to allow the Conservatives to run ram shod over everything that Canada stands for.

I guess I can understand his position, but choosing to leave many of Canada's unemployed out in the cold, might be a difficult thing for him to explain when an election actually takes. The NDP were always for labour, so now he's going to vote against workers.

I really like Jack Layton and have voted for him twice, but I hope he's really thought this through. If Harper stands firm on not wanting to help the unemployed, and Layton supports it .... ba bye!

Layton says he won't force summer election
May. 31 2009
CTV.ca News Staff

Jack Layton says he won't force a confidence vote in the House of Commons in the final weeks of the current Parliamentary session, but he is prepared to face the electorate should the Liberals choose to bring down the Conservative government.

Layton reiterated Sunday that his goals for the next few weeks include getting an NDP EI reform bill passed and changing the Canada Pension Plan before MPs go to their home ridings for the summer.

"Our intention is to use the remaining weeks to try to get some action on these issues in the House of Commons," Layton said during an interview on CTV's Question Period. "We won't be moving a confidence motion. We're going to try to move motions that get results for people."

The NDP has called for a range of CPP reforms, including protection for public sector pensions and more oversight for the investment practices of CPP fund managers.

The party also wants a number of EI reforms, including reducing the number of hours worked to qualify, extending benefits to self-employed workers and eliminating waiting periods.

The party's EI reform bill will be tabled in the House on June 10.

Layton said rather than try to bring down the government over the issue, he is willing to accept amendments to the legislation from the other parties.

"I don't think Canadians would want us to (force an election)," Layton said.

"What they would want us to do is get their pensions protected, get the EI system fixed. So that's exactly what we've been doing and we'll continue to do that. As to what the other parties will do, they will have to make up their own minds. We're prepared for an election if it comes to it."

Now I'm all for everything that Jack Layton is proposing and I hope that he can change Harper's mind. However, I still wonder what he will do and how he can justify, simply accepting the status quo.

This Conservative government has got to go while we still have a country left to proud of. He knows that. We know that. Maybe, like Harper, Layton is just in it for himself.

Why Mike Duffy Must be Removed from Senate

Last October, during the final days of the election campaign, and the Liberals were starting to climb in the polls; Mike Duffy pulled out all the stops, not to broadcast news but to discredit Stephane Dion.

We all know how he was repaid for his efforts and as he sits in Senate, no longer accountable for his actions, it begs the question. Does he have the right to continue to enjoy the benefits of such a position after being charged by the Canadian Broadcast Council for unethical behaviour?

Along with his partner in crime, Steve Murphy, he greatly impacted the views of voters. However, he only impacted them to stay home on election night, because none of the lost Liberal votes went to the Conservatives, who were also down from last election. Duffy merely helped to muddy the waters of the entire electoral system, and in turn, the democratic process. This puts into question his ability to represent Canadians in a fair and intelligent manner.

I'm helping to pay his salary and as such believe he should now be fired.

CANADIAN BROADCAST STANDARDS COUNCIL
national specialty services Panel
CTV Newsnet re an episode of Mike Duffy Live Prime Time(Stéphane Dion Interview)
(CBSC Decision 08/09-0213 & -0281)
Decided April 6, 2009

THE FACTS

Mike Duffy Live Prime Time was a political public affairs program of limited duration. While Mike Duffy Live was a regular series, the special Prime Time episodes were at times material to this decision only aired during the 2008 Canadian federal election.

On October 9, 2008, CTV Atlantic journalist Steve Murphy interviewed Liberal leader Stéphane Dion for the second time during the 2008 federal general election campaign. During the interview, it appeared that Mr. Dion had not understood Murphy’s first question and the Liberal leader asked to re-start the interview a total of three times. On the fourth occasion, the uninterrupted interview continued for about twelve minutes. CTV Atlantic (CJCH-TV) aired the interview process in its entirety, that is to say, the false starts followed by the complete interview, on its 6:00 pm newscast.

Later that evening, Mike Duffy Live Prime Time, broadcast on specialty service CTV Newsnet, had as its primary subject of discussion the Murphy-Dion interview and restarts, which had by then begun to generate considerable public controversy and interest on the part of various news organizations (although it is unclear to the Panel whether any other broadcasters had aired the stops and restarts). The complete interview was not included in the Duffy episode, which began with the host’s introduction of that day’s principal topic:

Hello again and welcome to the Thursday edition of Mike Duffy Prime. Well, the Harper Conservatives got some good news today and it wasn’t just the World Economic Forum, which rated our banking system as the best, the most secure in the world. This good news came in the form of a devastating reminder of Stéphane Dion’s struggle with the English language. We’ll have the tape in just a few moments. If you’ve got a PVR, set it on “record”. This is going to be one you’ll be talking about for days....

First, the tale of the tape..... What we’re going to show you is exactly what happened in that Halifax hotel suite. The tape has not been edited. CTV Newsnet then broadcast the interview stops and retakes, ending shortly after the final restart, which resulted in the Liberal leader’s response to the final, only slightly altered, version of the initial question.

Murphy: "Monsieur Dion, the economy is now the issue in the campaign and on that issue you’ve said that, today, that Mr. Harper’s offered nothing to put Canadians’ minds at ease and offers no vision for the country. We have to act now, you say. Doing nothing is not an option. If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done? (In order for Mr. Dion to be PM 'now', he would have had to have been elected in 2006)

In the rest of the full interview, which continued from that point but was not broadcast on the Duffy show, the Liberal leader, in response to Murphy’s several questions, dealt with what he would say “to ease the minds of Canadians”, the Liberal economic plan, the proposed carbon tax, deficits, the green shift, taxes, comparable European national policies, and Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan.

At this point in the Mike Duffy Live program, Duffy facilitated a panel discussion with representatives from three of the major federal parties. The caption at bottom of screen during this portion of the program was “Campaign Exhaustion?”

The topic of discussion then shifted to other aspects of the election, primarily the various parties’ prospects in different ridings. The MP panel portion of the program concluded and Duffy spoke to CTV correspondents Tom Clark and Craig Oliver via telephone. During this segment, the caption at the bottom of the screen was “Dion’s False Starts” and live footage of Dion giving a speech was shown as the commentators discussed the issue.

Duffy: CTV’s Tom Clark is covering the Liberals in Laval. Tom, how are the Liberals explaining this Dion language problem? Are they doing the Geoff Regan move here and saying it’s all about his handicap and anybody who mentions it’s picking on him?

Clark: No, uh, surprisingly, Mike. Um, the Dion Tour is not saying it’s because of a physical handicap. They are saying he did not understand the question. But they are steaming mad, I can tell you. They are saying that this is an “appalling”, in their words, they say this is an “appalling breach of journalistic ethics”.

They had asked for the TV station, CTV station in Halifax not to run those false starts. Uh, they believed that they had, initially, an agreement that those false starts would not be run and now they are saying that nefarious or higher-ranked, uh, uh, people within the organization, within the network, uh, went back on that word, uh, and ran what everybody has seen tonight.

Duffy: Well, it’s clearly part of CTV News policy that no reporter on the street can make deals. Uh, the camera’s rolling and, and we don’t make deals with anyone. It doesn’t matter who they are....

Duffy: Yeah, well, Geoff Regan put it down to being a handicap and we’re making fun of a handicapped person, which we are not doing. We’re covering the election campaign. Thank you both for joining us tonight. Undoubtedly this will be water-cooler talk tomorrow as Canadians, uh, get ready to make their choices in the upcoming election.

The CBSC received numerous complaints about the Dion interview, both about the original CTV Atlantic broadcast of the clip and about its rebroadcast on this episode of Mike Duffy Live Prime Time. A total of ten complaints specifically identified Mike Duffy Live Prime Time as their subject of concern. Of the ten, six provided enough information for the CBSC to engage its process and, of these, only two individuals requested that the CBSC rule on the matter following receipt of the broadcaster’s response ...

Those complainants were concerned about the inclusion of the Murphy interview in the Mike Duffy Live Prime Time program. They expressed the view that Murphy’s question had been awkwardly worded, so it was understandable that Dion had comprehension difficulties, which were compounded by the fact that he was operating in his second language. They wrote that the broadcast of the false starts was unfair, particularly since CTV Atlantic had initially told Dion that they would not air them (that fact was clearly acknowledged by Steve Murphy in his introduction to the clip on the CTV Atlantic News at 6 newscast).

One of these two complainants characterized the broadcast of the Dion footage as an attempt to “make news rather than simply report it,” while another articulated his concerns about Duffy’s presentation by questioning whether “Mr. Duffy’s words and facial expressions reflect professional journalism?”

The formulation of the question itself.

Since much turns on what was asked and what was understood, or misunderstood, the Panel considers it useful to look carefully at the formulation of the question itself. It was initially put as follows: “If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?” When the interview recommenced, the question was framed almost identically, the adverb “already” having been inserted to qualify the verb: “If you were prime minister now, what would you have already done in this crisis that Mr. Harper hasn’t done?” And then, in the context of the “good” interview, that ran in full, there was no structural change, the word “today” having been substituted for “now” and “by now” for “already”; the question was worded in this final incarnation as follows: “If you were Prime Minister of Canada today, what would you have done by now that Stephen Harper has not done about this economic crisis?” […]

In any event, any moderately attentive analysis of any of the three forms of the initial question would reveal that the question is confusing, and not only to a person whose first language is other than English. In the strictest grammatical sense, Steve Murphy’s question mixes not only tenses (present and past), but also moods (subjunctive and indicative), both being syntactically relevant in French and English.

It follows that several interpretations of what the interviewer intended to ask are possible. What the Panel (speculatively) believes the interviewer wished to ask was essentially what Mr. Dion would have done in the past about the economy and this crisis had he been in Mr. Harper’s shoes during the same period. If such is the correct understanding, the question would have been more properly framed, “If you had been prime minister during the period that Mr. Harper has been prime minister, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?” Or, it may be that the question Murphy wished to put was meant to have a present/future articulation, as in “If you were prime minister now, what steps would you be taking about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not yet taken?”

Given the confused question, the Panel considers that the interviewer may even have intended to ask whether Mr. Dion would have taken specific steps to obviate such an economic crisis in the first place. Alternatively, did Murphy mean to inquire how Mr. Dion would have tackled the economic crisis had it landed on his plate after two years in office? Or did he wish to request how, if Mr. Dion were elected as prime minister on the day of the interview, he would handle such an economic crisis encountered that day or thereafter, in the future? Indeed, Mr. Dion appeared to understand that there could be a difference in the answer depending on how long he might have been in office before being called upon to face such a problem. As he ultimately pointedly asked, “give me a first date where I’m prime minister that I can figure out what, what is your question […] about [emphasis added].”

The Panel’s only point is that the question was unfocussed, unclear and ultimately confusing, even to Anglophones (as all Adjudicators on this Panel are). It was neither crisp nor even clear, and it left doubts as to its meaning in the interviewee, the audience, and even this Panel, after viewing and reviewing the logger tape. In other words, blame for misapprehension cannot simply be laid at the feet of the interviewee.

The Newsworthiness Issue

There are two aspects to the newsworthiness issue, one that was raised in the CTV Atlantic decision and one that flows from the Duffy rebroadcast of the false starts.

The first issue relates to the broadcast of the outtakes at all. The majority of the National Specialty Services Panel agrees with the Atlantic Panel. The undisputed newsworthy element of the original broadcast was the complete interview, which ran for about twelve minutes after the restarts, beginning at about 6:41 pm. In that part of the 6:00 pm newscast, Mr. Dion discussed his platform and offered suggestions for dealing with the economic crisis in response to the initial poorly formulated question. The balance of the interview (a little more than an additional ten minutes in duration) dealt with what he thought should be said “to ease the minds of Canadians”, the Liberal economic plan, the proposed carbon tax, deficits, the green shift, taxes, comparable European national policies, and Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan.

That is where the substantive meat was, not in the restarts. Despite the presence of that complete interview following the initial four minutes of introduction and restarts, the Atlantic Panel concluded that it was a code breach “for the broadcaster, CTV Atlantic, to reverse its commitment and broadcast the outtakes.” In the matter at hand, where almost none of the substantive electorally-relevant content was provided to the audience, the Panel finds that the rebroadcast was unfair in terms of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

The second issue relates to the fact that the CTV Atlantic broadcast of the restarts was itself newsworthy, that it had become newsworthy. As the President of CTV News said in his November letter, “That evening and the next day, the interview and the restarts were reported by several news organizations including The Canadian Press, CBC, Newsworld, Global News, The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star [emphasis added].”

The majority of the Panel considers the following conclusion of the Atlantic Panel to be of relevance: What then was the broadcaster really seeking, if not the full questions and the full answers? It appears to have been the stumbles, the whoopses, and the mis-starts. Given the poor quality and confusing syntax of the question, the Panel does not accept the “justification” that Mr. Dion’s command of English could be shown to be “so poor that he could not understand a question with different tenses.”

Fairness

[The Atlantic Regional] Panel (two-thirds of the industry Adjudicators being themselves members of RTNDA and broadcast journalists of considerable experience) considers that restarts and retakes are a common, not a rare, occurrence. The decision to extend such a courtesy was neither unreasonable nor even unusual.

Such outtakes, the Specialty Services Panel concludes, are very common, even absolutely routine. The Panel does not, therefore, even find it a modest stretch to have a person in authority agree to a restart, or even more than one restart. After all, once that ball was rolling, there was no reason to expect that anything had changed when it came to restart three or even four. On any of those restarts, the interviewer could have said “No, we must carry on from here.” Murphy did not and, in the view of the Panel, the Liberal leader and his team had every reason to expect that the restarted matter was, in effect, “overwritten” or banished from use. ... Had the question been articulate and well-framed, the Panel might have expected the Liberal leader to wear some responsibility for the confusion that ensued. That was not, however, the case.

Even had the question been properly put, though, the broadcaster’s commitment to permit the restarts would likely have put the filmed content off-limits. In the circumstances, the question was bad and the commitment was made. The Panel views the broadcaster’s actions in the rebroadcast of the outtakes on the Duffy show as an unfair and improper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial, contrary to the rule established in Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

The National Panel also acknowledges that, while the host, Mike Duffy, was entitled to have and manifest an opinion, as this was, after all, a mixed news and public affairs show, not a pure news program, he went too far. He was not fair, balanced or even-handed. In addition to the unfairness of the rebroadcast noted immediately above, the host significantly misrepresented the view of one of the three members of his Panel, namely, Liberal MP Geoff Regan, who had attributed the misunderstanding as a hearing issue and had said, “I don’t think that we should […] spend a lot of time talking about someone’s physical impairment.”

About 20-30 seconds later (all of the following emphases being added), ignoring totally the actual words of MP Regan, Duffy said “you fob it off as, we’re making fun of someone’s physical impairment.” And, in his next observation, the host reiterated the fallacious assertion, “And then you tell me we’re making fun of his physical impairment?” Despite the fact that guest panellist Geoff Regan twice said, “That’s not what I said,” and it is clear from the transcript that was not what he said, Mike Duffy persisted in his misrepresentation.

In talking with his CTV colleagues Tom Clark and Craig Oliver, Duffy next said, “Are they doing the Geoff Regan move here and saying it’s all about his handicap and anybody who mentions it’s picking on him?” He concluded the item with these words, “Geoff Regan put it down to being a handicap and we’re making fun of a handicapped person.” The National Specialty Services Panel concludes that the consistent misrepresentation by host Mike Duffy of the MP’s point of view constituted an unfair and improper presentation of opinion or comment contrary to Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.