Jim Prentice Thought Copyright Meant to Copy it Right. No Wonder He Was So Confused

When as Industry minister, Jim Prentice was trying to defend his Party's new 'Made in the U.S.' copyright legislation, he clearly had no clue.

Wikipedia: Prentice has promised to "put consumers first." claiming in an editorial that "(C-61) allows the recording of webcasts and TV and radio programs to be enjoyed at different times" while ignoring the fact that if the files are protected by digital rights management (DRM) it is illegal to break the DRM to make the recording.

Prentice has been hostile to Canadians who requested to consult with him regarding the issue. Prentice refused to discuss the issue with CBC Radio Canada despite the hundreds of questions that flooded in from concerned Canadians. He also refused to talk to a group of protesters who went to his office to express their concern.

When Harper called an illegal election in September of 2008; to avoid dealing with the alleged fraud case dubbed the "In and Out", Prentice was spared further embarrassment on the issue. However, it's pretty clear the Conservatives simply don't understand what the term 'copyright' means, because they forgot to get permission to use the tape of Michael Ignatieff from a C-Span interview, before airing it everywhere in attack ads.

C-Span didn't sue because it never hurt them personally, though they did verify that no one asked for permission and they really didn't like the way it was used. But this wasn't the first or last time this Party has played fast and loose with prohibited material.


C-SPAN won't sue Tories over Ignatieff footage
By Glen McGregor,
The Ottawa Citizen
May 28, 2009

OTTAWA — An executive with the U.S. public affairs network C-SPAN says that while C-SPAN is not pleased to see its material used in the political advertising, the network is not planning to take any legal action against the Conservatives.

The C-SPAN clip appears in one of the Tories’ “Just visiting” attack ads currently playing on Canadian television. In it, a younger-looking Ignatieff says to camera, “You have to decide what kind of America you want, right? You have to decide. It’s your country, just as much as it is mine.”

The C-SPAN logo appears at the bottom right corner of the screen with the title of its program, Washington Journal. The name of Ignatieff’s 2004 book, The Lesser Evil, is keyed below him.

Collins says he was contacted by a lawyer who said he was representing the Liberals after the ad came out. “He wanted to know if we were aware if our video was being used in this way,” Collins said. “If our rights were being violated, he wanted us to enforce them.”

Collins said the network never gave the Tories permission to use the clip, but doesn’t see any point in pursuing a claim.

“The C-SPAN clip plays for about nine seconds in the 30-second spot.

It is unclear if the Tories have secured the legal rights to the hours of other Ignatieff video they have reportedly assembled in apparent anticipation of new election advertising.

On Wednesday in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper alluded to this bank of recordings, saying he hoped Ignatieff stays on as Opposition leader because of “all the tapes I have on him.”

Ignatieff dismissed the comment as “Nixonian.”

The Conservatives have run into copyright problems with their ads in the past.

During the last election, the Liberals complained to CTV about the use of its footage in Conservative ads attacking then-leader Stéphane Dion. The network asked the Tories to explain if CTV material was used but did not appear to pursue the issue further.

Similar difficulties arose in the campaign when the Tories' notaleader.ca website used what appeared to be footage from CBC, CTV and TV Ontario in an online feature that allowed users to create their own Dion ads from the clips. (They had a website on Dion as well? How twisted are these people?)

Also last year, the Tories used the theme song from the TV program The Apprentice in a video about Liberal spending promises. Warner Chappell Music noted that the video used its property, the 1974 track For the Love of Money, by The O’Jays, without permission.

The video was introduced by then-Industry Minister Jim Prentice, who was also responsible for implementing the government’s reforms to copyright law. (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha). The party later reached a private agreement with the publisher to settle the matter.

So all the tapes in Harper's basement, what's up with that? Does he have an Ignatieff fetish? Does he download them to his Ipod and play them when he's feeling blue? Is his obsession normal? Is he seeing a shrink for this problem? I'm a little concerned and I think Mr. Ignatieff should be as well. He may have a stalker.

I, Me, Stephen Harper, Can't Run From the 'Cap and Trade' Tax

So the next bit of nonsense from the Ignatieff Me website posted by a desperate Conservative Government has to do with the Carbon Tax. They did such a great job turning it into the boogey man last election, that they are going to give it one more spin around the block.

However, while they claim that Michael Igantieff can't run from the Carbon tax, the rest of the world is running toward it, and most top environmentalists agree that it is the best answer to fight climate change.

In fact, some opponents of the "cap and trade" introduced by Barack Obama, have said that his "cap and trade" is a carbon tax, because permits will have to be purchased.

When asked the question: "Do you believe that we need a carbon tax in addition to a cap-and-trade program?"

Obama answered: "I believe that, depending on how it is designed, a carbon tax accomplishes much of the same thing that a cap-and-trade program accomplishes. The danger in a cap-and-trade system is that the permits to emit greenhouse gases are given away for free as opposed to priced at auction. One of the mistakes the Europeans made in setting up a cap-and-trade system was to give too many of those permits away. So as I roll out my proposals for a cap-and-trade system, I will price permits so that it has much of the same effect as a carbon tax."

Jim Prentice has stated that he will be following the model outlined by the U.S. "Canada's Conservative government, shifting positions in the wake of Barack Obama's election as U.S. president, said on Wednesday that it would work to develop a North America-wide cap-and-trade system to limit emissions of greenhouse gases."

However, many experts suggest that if Obama is altering his "cap and trade" to function as a carbon tax, why not just call it a carbon tax and go for the full package?

The Real Price of Obama's Cap-and-Trade Plan President Obama's budget numbers depend heavily on revenues from a proposed cap-and-trade program for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Under the plan, these revenues will come at the cost of higher energy prices ....

Before the last election, Harper was telling everyone who'd listen that cleaning up the oil sands would be costly and we could expect a rise in prices on gasoline and home heating, as a result. He brought forward a form of the 'cap and trade', that MacLeans Magazine said, when compared to the Liberal Green Shift, was 'just as expensive, twice as confusing and half as effective'.

From the Wall Street Journal: "Cap and trade is the tax that dare not speak its name, and Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions. With President Obama depending on vast new carbon revenues in his budget and Congress promising a bill by May, perhaps Americans would like to know the deeply unequal ways that climate costs would be distributed across regions and income groups."

From BusinessWeek: "...Obama proposes that companies buy an allowance, or permit, for each ton of carbon emitted, at an estimated cost, to start, of $13 to $20 per ton. (Those permits could also be bought and sold.) Even at the lower range of $13 per ton, energy companies and utilities would likely pass along the added cost to consumers. It's estimated the price of gasoline would go up by 12 cents a gallon and the average electricity bill by about 7% nationally..."

I tend to agree with Green Party Spokesman John Bennett, when he says "I think the Canadian government is just trying to con the Canadian public into believing that it's going to do something about climate change".

I don't think they really have any intention of doing anything to fight climate change, but are just pretending to. Most of us believe they are just buying time, but if in fact they do adopt the U.S. 'Cap and trade' model; my friends - WE HAVE A CONSERVATIVE CARBON TAX!!!!!

Run, Harper, Run!!!!!

Why Did Taxpayers Fund a Bush/Harper Reunion?

Canadians have recently learned that we forked over $ 124,000.00 for security so that George Bush could visit Harper and his few friends in Canada.

Why?

He's not the President now. If Stevie can't quit Georgie, then visit him at Brokeback ranch. We don't want that war criminal here.

Bush visit cost taxpayers a bundle
Posted By BILL KAUFMAN,
SUN MEDIA
August 5, 2009

Taxpayers anted up more than $124,000 to provide security for former U. S. president George W. Bush's appearance in Calgary last spring, the Sun has learned.

Responding to an access to information request, Mounties say 2,611 service hours -- nearly 1,600 of them on overtime payroll -- cost $124,163 to secure a trip by the former leader who spent less than 24 hours in Calgary last March.

Bush spoke to a sold-out, appreciative private luncheon audience of 1,500 who paid $400 apiece to hear him speak on freedom, free trade and the economy at the Telus Convention Centre. (the economy? Is he kidding me?)

Bush's detractors say the ex-president's role in torture and launching aggressive war should have barred him from Canada, saving taxpayers the cost of protecting him.

The security tab "is very distasteful" especially for someone who's now a private citizen with such a dubious past making a lucrative visit, said Sally Hodges, Calgary chairman of the group Project Ploughshares.

"It comes down to the value he's given Calgary with the words he's spoken and I don't think it had much value," said Hodges. "I assume we're expected to be honoured by his visit."

She said the money paid for Bush's security -- none of which he pays -- would be better spent on government programs or other policing efforts. But even so, she said risking a security incident by not providing protection would sully the city's name.

Canadian Taxpayers' Federation Alberta director Scott Hennig agrees.

"Picking and choosing is a slippery slope we could get into," said Hennig. "If not, you run the risk of not protecting someone and having an incident ... it's a real tough line to draw."

So the Conservatives wouldn't let Galloway in because he offered food and essentials to the Palestinians, but they welcome Bush, a man responsible for the death of thousands? Good to know.

I, Me, Stephen Harper, and Don Martin's Bad Hair Day

Continuing to break through the crap on the Ignatieff Me site, I see their first entry is a very brief column by Don Martin, that may have triggered this initiative.

It was kind of a catty piece, not the usual quality of Mr. Martin, so I even questioned for a moment, it's validity. Was he just having a bad hair day, or maybe an 'I'm losing my hair' day?' Or is he like some journalists, a little envious of Michael Ignatieff's career?

Ignatieff has covered many modern conflicts from the ground, reporting back to major news sources, while Martin is stuck writing opinion pieces for the likes of the National Post. (So, who's being catty now? Meow)

Actually, I usually enjoy reading Don Martin's columns, which though often attacking the left, will still make me smile and grimace at the same time. But he will also go after the Conservatives when they do something he doesn't like, and it was he who first broke the story of the 200 page manual that Stephen Harper and his caucus use to make sure that Parliament doesn't function, hoping to show Canadians that he needs a majority to get things done.

A recent poll suggests that Canadians agree with the majority idea. Just not for Harper and the Conservatives.

But now with the piece that may have started it all. Excerpts from an interview given to the press by Michael Ignatieff concerning the future of the government, that got Don's shorts in a twist. I will interject with an almost identical one between Stephen Harper and Evan Solomon of the CBC, soon after the 2004 election; discussing Harper's attempt to form a coalition with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton.

I, Michael Ignatieff, Am All About Me.
By Don M (I notice he only signed it Don M. I wouldn't have used my full name either. Will their be a senate seat in his future?)
May 26, 2009

There’s something singularly irritating about the Liberal party leader. Whenever he opens his mouth, out comes ‘I’ after ‘I’. If not ‘I’, he’s full of talk about ‘me’ or ‘my’. It’s often harder to find a party-friendly ‘we’ in his statements than a “Wii” electronic game in Future Shop.

Consider the typical statement delivered by Michael Ignatieff on Monday as he held court with reporters, preening and pretending he holds the fate of this parliament in his hands. This conveniently overlooks the minority math that requires both the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois to bring down the Conservative government, but “I, Michael” doesn’t let that enter the equation.

Ignatieff: “The difficulty I'm having is I'm trying to make Parliament work, right? I'm here to get improved EI for Canadians, period. And the difficulty I've got at the moment is every time we put a proposal forward, we get it systematically misdescribed, I will - that's polite language. And so we have a problem but we're still trying to make Parliament work for Canadians and that's my position. It's been my position since January.”

Now Harper in a similar situation:

Evan Solomon: "Parliament opens on Monday, and in a sense you're the most powerful Opposition Leader in a generation and people want to know how you're going to use your power. So the fundamental question is: under what circumstances would you call a vote of non-confidence?"

Stephen Harper: "First of all, I can't forget my first responsibility - which is to be the Leader of the Opposition and that's to provide an alternative government. We've always said we'll support the government when they do things that we can accept, which you know the health accord. I supported the health accord, I called for the government to end the pay increase, they're going to do that, I'll support that, but in general my obligation is to provide an Opposition. It's the government's obligation to look really to the third parties to get the support to govern.

The question asked of both men uses the words 'can you' so a natural response would be 'I'.

Question to Liberal Leader: Can you foresee introducing a confidence motion on this during an Opposition Day?

Ignatieff: “I can certainly foresee it. I use your word. I can foresee it.”

Question: In the near future? (a continuation of the question above)

Ignatieff: “I can foresee it and I can foresee it in the near future. But I repeat the word foresee. Let me say it again so it's perfectly clear: I am trying to make Parliament work for Canadians, number one. Number two, I am trying to get EI improved for all Canadians. That's what I'm trying to do.”

Back to Don Martin: This scrum exchange clocks in at 168 words. There are 16 references to himself and only four references to ‘we’ as in his party. In other words, almost 10 per cent of the word count are devoted to Iggy referring to Iggy. Gosh. No self-absorbed attitude here at all.

It must have been a slow news day because Martin's entire piece makes him sound like a moron, and I know for a fact that he is not. I suppose if Michael Ignatieff had answered the reporter when he asked 'can you?' with 'we', Martin would have called him an idiot because he wasn't asked what they (we) were going to do but what he (I) was going to do.

Shame on you Don. I thought you were above the petty.

I, Me, Stephen Harper, Will Never Stack Up

In an attempt to answer the ridiculous Ignatieff Me website set up by the Conservatives, I think its important to elaborate on the nine second spot of Mr. Ignatieff calling America his country.

It was part of an interview about his book, The Lesser Evil, which was an attempt to seek a balance in the aftermath of 9/11. He recognized that sometimes force is necessary, which he refers to as the 'lesser evil', but cautioned against the use of excessive force.

The book received great reviews; and apparently was even read by Barack Obama. But more importantly, it opened a necessary discussion on how to deal with terrorism, and what rights we were willing to sacrifice in the name of dealing with that terrorism.

To have his work diminished to cherry pick a few words to use in attack ads, is disgraceful. We should be proud that a Canadian made such an impact on those wishing to understand their lives after that life altering day.

The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror
Michael Ignatieff
Finalist for the 2004 Lionel Gelber Prize

Must we fight terrorism with terror, match assassination with assassination, and torture with torture? Must we sacrifice civil liberty to protect public safety?

In the age of terrorism, the temptations of ruthlessness can be overwhelming. But we are pulled in the other direction too by the anxiety that a violent response to violence makes us morally indistinguishable from our enemies. There is perhaps no greater political challenge today than trying to win the war against terror without losing our democratic souls.

Michael Ignatieff confronts this challenge head-on, with the combination of hard-headed idealism, historical sensitivity, and political judgment that has made him one of the most influential voices in international affairs today.

Ignatieff argues that we must not shrink from the use of violence--that far from undermining liberal democracy, force can be necessary for its survival. But its use must be measured, not a program of torture and revenge. And we must not fool ourselves that whatever we do in the name of freedom and democracy is good. We may need to kill to fight the greater evil of terrorism, but we must never pretend that doing so is anything better than a lesser evil.

In making this case, Ignatieff traces the modern history of terrorism and counter-terrorism, from the nihilists of Czarist Russia and the militias of Weimar Germany to the IRA and the unprecedented menace of Al Qaeda, with its suicidal agents bent on mass destruction. He shows how the most potent response to terror has been force, decisive and direct, but--just as important--restrained. The public scrutiny and political ethics that motivate restraint also give democracy its strongest weapon: the moral power to endure when the furies of vengeance and hatred are spent.

The book is based on the Gifford Lectures delivered at the University of Edinburgh in 2003.

Reviews:

"In The Lesser Evil, Michael Ignatieff addresses the ethical problems faced by liberal democracies. . . . [H]e soberly deals with permanent problems of American foreign policy, not only those specifically provoked by the Bush administration's war on terror: the problems of attempting to rule without demonstrated legitimacy, the prudential problem of choosing the lesser evil, the expedient choice of deliberative abuse or suspension of rights considered defining qualities of democracy, the limits of acceptable violence and coercion, and the problems of arbitrary detention, torture, assassination and disregard of the rule of law--all the subject of policy choices made in Washington since September 2001."--William Pfaff, Los Angeles Times

"Michael Ignatieff assesses America's war on terror and tries to determine what security measures a society can tolerate and still consider itself virtuous."--New York Times Book Review

"We need calm, reasoned advice on how to balance the interests of security and liberty. We have it now in a remarkable book. Michael Ignatieff brings history, philosophy, law, and democratic morality to bear on the problem. That may sound daunting, but Ignatieff is such a forceful writer that it is a fascinating book. . . . Reading him is a bit like having a conversation with an eminently reasonable but convinced and powerfully convincing man."--Anthony Lewis, New York Review of Books

It's no wonder Stephen Harper is so afraid of Michael Ignatieff. A brilliant man and a Canadian who has done us all proud. Michael Ignatieff: The 23rd prime Minister of Canada has come home to roost.

And Stephen is just leavin'!

I, Me, Stephen Harper. It's All About Me

So the 'Ignatieff Me' site has been up and running for a little while now, with very few new items added. Most of what you find there has been cut and pasted from the Conservative website. Same old, same old.

'He wants to raise your taxes ... out of the country for 34 years .... Just Visiting'.

Like we didn't hear enough of that from the TV ads and the taxpayer funded literature that they have been distributing. (Of course Kingston's own 'also ran', Brian Abrams had to have Mike Wallace and Blake Richards do his dirty work for him. I guess he's hoping to get elected so he can start abusing our tax money all by himself).

I suspect that the Harper supporters love the site, but I doubt it would change any one's mind about how to vote. In fact, if anything, it's juvenile appearance would probably turn you off the Party who feels the need to stoop to this kind of nonsense.

The only thing semi-original is a mock magazine cover and the immediate spoken words of Mr. Ignatieff, about 9 seconds from a C-Span interview, discussing Michael Igantieff's book, 'The Lesser Evil'. We don't get to hear the rest of the interview, but I'm not sure how that means he can't be our Prime Minister. He was teaching at Harvard at the time, so would have felt some kinship.

With the focus on those nine seconds and a handful of words, the message has been distorted. Ignatieff's book dealt with a post 9/11 world, and how America would have to find a balance between knee jerk revenge and justified force.

"We need calm, reasoned advice on how to balance the interests of security and liberty. We have it now in a remarkable book. Michael Ignatieff brings history, philosophy, law, and democratic morality to bear on the problem. That may sound daunting, but Ignatieff is such a forceful writer that it is a fascinating book. . . . Reading him is a bit like having a conversation with an eminently reasonable but convinced and powerfully convincing man."--Anthony Lewis, New York Review of Books

Instead the Conservatives have reduced an important message to some kind of hidden love of America, over his love for Canada. After 9/11 everyone was American for awhile. That was until George Bush made even Americans ashamed of being American.

Ironically, this interview was given about the same time that Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day were writing to American newspapers indicating that they were opposed to Chretien 's decision to keep us out of the Iraq War. And Jason Kenney: '... echoed his Canadian Alliance party's view that Canada should do more to support its Anglosphere allies. "In the last couple of weeks, for the first time I was not proud to be a Canadian."'

Now if this was used in a Conservative style attack ad, we would cut out Kenney's "not proud to be a Canadian." and repeat it over and over and over and over again. Then take the line from Harper and Day's letter: "But we will not be with the Canadian government" and do the same. I guess they forgot that as the Opposition Party they were part of the Canadian Government. So were they waging war on their own?

Jason Kenney for Prime Minister. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The writing is on the wall for Stephen Harper. He just can't get the job done, so once again the rumour mills are speculating on who will replace him.

The usual names are being thrown around; like Jim Prentice, Peter MacKay and Jim Flaherty; but the appearance of Jason Kenney on that list is hilarious. (Pause for laughter)

Can you imagine him in a battle of wits with Michael Ignatieff? It would be like taking candy from a baby.

Kenney's rising star has Tories whispering about leadership
By Jennifer Ditchburn
August 3, 2009

OTTAWA — Raising a future leadership race with Conservatives is like having the sex talk with teenaged kids.

Ewwwwww . . . no way! Can we talk about this some other time?

But who might replace Stephen Harper once he leaves is the stuff of constant speculation behind the scenes - and the chatter is getting louder about one rising star in particular: Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

Kenney is whispered about as the potential dark horse in a race that might one day include Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, to name a few of the names often bandied about.

The 41-year-old workaholic has attracted attention for taking a pain-in-the-butt portfolio like immigration and making it seem like a tier-one department.

"What I like about Jason is he's working very hard, and he's earning people's respect, I think, by doing a lot of things very well," said one caucus colleague.

"And what is a leader? A person who can do a lot of things very well."

One of the things Kenney seems to do very well is carry the government's message with minimal handholding from Harper's office. Kenney doesn't cower before the news media, he barrels head first into them.

Earlier in the year, he steadfastly refused to let controversial British MP George Galloway into the country despite an outcry from free-speech advocates.

Most recently, he was on the airwaves and telephone lines defending the decision to slap visas on Mexican and Czech citizens in the middle of Canada's summer tourist season.

He also declared last month that immigrants should speak English or French before they're granted citizenship.

"We don't want to create a bunch of silo communities, where kids grow up in a community that more resembles their parents' country of origin than Canada," he said.

On other issues, from anti-Semitism to Chinese human rights, and his personal beliefs in traditional marriage and against abortion, Kenney lays it all out on the table.

The zest with which he debates such thorny issues might well be a throwback to his days at the University of San Francisco's St. Ignatius College, a Jesuit-run liberal arts program that encouraged debate and introduced him to the conservative thinkers he was to embrace. (He never graduated but dropped out, so did not earn a degree)

His strong convictions impress some, and worry others who aren't fans of his positions and policies.

"He's not a wishy-washy guy," says Charles McVety, president of the Canada Christian College and someone who's worked with Kenney in the past. "That also bodes well for him."

"He's a person of strong belief, the jury is still out on whether he gets stuff done or not," says New Democrat MP Olivia Chow, who worked with Kenney on the House of Commons human-rights committee.

"We used to call him the Energizer bunny going in the wrong direction."

Part of what makes Kenney's rise so interesting is that not so long ago he was written off.

He was rapidly climbing the ranks after joining the party in 1997, the young turk who helped found the influential Canadian Taxpayers Federation. (It was the CTF that urged Stockwell Day to continue abusing tax dollars)

A few years later, he was instrumental in the United Alternative process that gave birth to the Canadian Alliance party from the coming together of Reformers and blue Tories.

But then came the 2000 election, and new Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day's bumpy campaign that Kenney advised.

Day was eventually forced to call another leadership race when he had a caucus mutiny on his hands, and Kenney was part of the collateral damage. But like Day, Kenney has made a comeback.

Harper seemed to trust Kenney from the outset, making him one of the top, bilingual spokespeople in opposition and then in government. Kenney is often Harper's enforcer in the Commons, smiling sarcasm now more his bag than angry spit-spraying across the aisle.

"I think he's one of the best communicators in the party by far," says friend and fellow Alberta MP James Rajotte. (ha ha ha ha ha. Was this piece meant to be satirical? Best communicator? He sounds like Daffy Duck on steroids))

"He was certainly one of our best questioners on the opposition side, but also in terms of responding in the House, he's one of the best ministers at responding. He answers questions intelligently and makes an effort to respond as directly to the question as possible."

Kenney has not said anything publicly about designs on the leadership, or given any hints he is actively organizing - a career-limiting move for politicians in any party. He remains one of Harper's most loyal ministers.

But Kenney has a perceived advantage that is already making him a player in the imaginary field.

"The leadership will be decided on who can sign up the most members and get those members to vote. It's more of a membership drive than a popularity contest," says McVety.

"Can Jason organize - and it takes organization and troops on the ground to sign up members - can he organize and sign up a lot of members? I think he can. "That will make him a force to be reckoned with."

McVety said Kenney will probably be able to count on important pockets of Canada's Christian community, because of his strongly held views on issues of importance to that segment of the population.

And Kenney's also worked extensively with Canada's various ethnic communities, first for party outreach and later as part of his roles as junior multiculturalism minister and finally immigration minister.

Google Kenney's name and any ethnic group in Canada and you'll likely stumble upon a picture of Kenney at a barbecue or banquet.

The work helped the Tories pick up 12 seats in the last election, and some argue will help him with a leadership contest.

"If he asked my advice, I'd tell him that he probably has support of the communities he's worked with. . . . He's got a hell of a lot of following," said one caucus member.

"What do you need to win a leadership? To win a leadership it's a mug's game, it's called numbers. And yeah, I think he would certainly be considered someone who could have a good strong foundation going into a leadership race."

But others in the party are more circumspect about how much pull he'd actually have, should he one day decide to run. Kenney's social conservatism will probably wind up being a liability in a party that is trying to appear centrist, says one Tory.

"I think when it comes to leadership, you've got to sign up more than the right-wingers," said the Conservative.

"It's the old story. Governments are formed from the centre, and leadership wins are formed from the centre. How many right-wingers are there in the country?"

Rajotte, who roomed with Kenney for a while near Parliament Hill, says his friend is much more complex than the hardworking, social-conservative storyline would have one believe.

"For a lot of people, he's seen as a very serious, intelligent young man and policy-maker, who takes a lot of issues very seriously and to heart," Rajotte said.

"I've seen the other side. He's an awful lot of fun. He loves a good laugh, a good story, a great sense of humour." (He keeps me in stitches. Jason Kenney for Prime Minister? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha)