Here comes the Long Form Census Election!

One of the nice fellows from The Mark came and interviewed me again yesterday. Topic du jour: the shocking scandal surrounding the Census Long Form thing!

Get ready for the election campaign on this crucial, critical issue: it’ll make the Free Trade election of 1988 look positively trivial in comparison!  It’s the issue everyone is talking about!

UPDATE: Some Lib friends have genially disagreed with me, saying they don’t understand what I’m so worried about.  Fair enough. A sampling, found here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.  I could go on. Other Grits may favour the Conservative government collecting and disseminating highly personal information about them; this one doesn’t.  Just as I don’t trust Facebook to protect private data, I don’t trust sloppy bureaucracies, either.


PMO news bulletin: “Stock day will be unavailable for comment. As in, forever.”


“Care to watch some Flintstones reruns, little guy?”

Angus Reid provides us with the funnest poll of the Summer so far!

ORIGIN OF HUMANS
Americans are Creationists; Britons and Canadians Side with Evolution
Half of Americans in the Midwest and South say God created human beings in their present form.

[NEW YORK – Jul. 15, 2010] – While a majority of people in Britain and Canada agree with the theory of evolution, almost half of Americans are in tune with creationism, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

The online survey of representative samples of 1,002 Americans, 1,009 Canadians and 2,011 Britons asked respondents whether their own point of view is closest to the notion that human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, or the idea that God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

In Britain, two-thirds of respondents (68%) side with evolution while less than one-in-five (16%) choose creationism. At least seven-in-ten respondents in the South of England (70%) and Scotland (75%) believe human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.

In Canada, three-in-five respondents (61%) select evolution from the two options provided, while one-in- four (24%) pick creationism. Quebec (66%) and British Columbia (64%) hold the highest proportion of respondents who believe human beings evolved, while three-in-ten Albertans (31%) think God created human beings in their present form.

In the United States, almost half of respondents (47%) believe that God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years, while one-third (35%) think human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.  Half of people in the Midwest (49%) and the South (51%) agree with creationism, while those in the Northeast are more likely to side with evolution (43%).


Your morning papers

Not pleasant for Team Iggy, but they’re opinion. They’re not news stories.

This Toronto Star story, however, is a bizarre combination of both. Key graf:

“Michael Ignatieff is being touted as an eventual successor to Janice Gross Stein at the university’s prestigious Munk School of Global Affairs…Sources say the university would also welcome Ignatieff’s return if he chooses to fill the post it offered in 2005 to bring him back to Canada from Harvard.”

I rather doubt one of the country’s best newspapers would permit him to print a column full of, as one of Iggy’s unidentified staff put it, “bullshit.” It’s a biggish story, it’s topping the highly-influential National Newswatch, and it’s mainly written as fact.

But questions abound. If the paper stood behind the veracity of the claims of the “sources” therein, then why let it stand as a column? Why not assign some of the Ottawa bureau to it, and write it as a news story? Why publish it as an odd mix of fact and opinion?

It’s weird one and, mostly, we’ll have to put it down as one of those flimsy Summertime stories. When I worked for the aforementioned Chretien in Opposition, we could have wallpapered Centre Block with the Chretien-is-resigning stories, particularly in the Summer. He ended up doing rather well in the election that followed, as I recall.

I’m not involved with Team Iggy, for reasons that would shortly become become crystal clear, and nor are they involved with me. What to do, what to do?

I guess that leaves you, dear reader, to decide what’s what. Who’s bullshitting? Comments are open. Fire away.


New boots and smellies

On the one hand, I winced at the “sulphur” remark. On the other hand, as a boot-ownin’ Cowtown boy, I thought the boot-haha about the origins of Ignatieff’s footwear was a bit silly.

Likening Stephen Harper to Satan – because that’s what the sulfuric statement arguably did – isn’t the most adroit strategic move. I mean, what do you say next? That he has the fashion sense of Vlad the Impaler? That he has Attila the Hun’s aura on a bad day? All of those guys worked the Devil. Once you deploy the rhetorical A-bomb, there’s no other weapon to reach for. You’ve said your opponent is the Prince of Darkness. What can you call him after that?

The cowboy boot imbroglio, meanwhile, is no rhetorical High Noon. As anyone who has traveled into the Québeçois hinterland will tell you, the wearing of cowboy boots is something that lots of folks do, not just Calgarians. In fact, I’d wager that there are more cowboy boots worn in rural Québec, chaque jour, than in all of Alberta.

Besides, and since I’m on a bit of a opinionizing roll here, the Stampede irritates me. My family lived in Cowtown for 30 years. As a charter member of the city’s diaspora, I can assure you that long-time residents usually endeavour to be elsewhere when the Stampede kicks off – ideally in another country. I mean, there’s only so many sightings of businessmen barfing all over their brand-new Howdy Doody polyester outfits – on downtown streets, broad-daylight, in front of horrified schoolchildren – that you can take before you want to head for the Rockies. If a real cowboy has ever been in Calgary during Stampede, I’ve yet to meet him.

Anyway. Sulfuric boots, whatever, blah blah blah. It’s Summertime: I had wagered that Iggy would have a pretty tough time attracting media attention on his bus tour. But I guess I was wrong about that.

Yee-haw!


Would you play badminton with Stephen Harper?

The new Angus Reid is out. Based on a 2,000+ sample, it says the topline voting intention is Conservatives 36%, Liberals 27%, NDP 20%, BQ 10%, Green 7%. That’s closer to a Con majority, but not close enough.

What interested me the most, however, was this section of the poll, about attributes and whatnot. It’s fun to read.

What do you think? Who would you have a beer with – and who would you want to play Trivial Pursuit with? Who would you play street hockey with, and who do you want negotiating international trade agreements?

Approval and Momentum

Harper’s approval rating stands at 31 per cent, tied with NDP leader Jack Layton. However, almost half of Canadians (48%) disapprove of the way Harper is doing his job, while only one-in-three (32%) feel the same way about Layton.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff remains highly unpopular. Just 14 per cent of respondents approve of the way he is handling his duties, while a majority (53%) voice disapproval.

Ignatieff continues to post the worst momentum score, this time of -24, meaning that while five per cent of respondents now have a better opinion of him, 29 per cent of Canadians now have a worse impression. Harper’s momentum is -21, while Layton fares much better than his two rivals at -3.

Attributes

Canadians were asked to select up to six words or expressions from a list to describe the four party leaders sitting in the House of Commons. The top results for each one of the leaders are:

Stephen Harper Secretive (45%), arrogant (43%), out of touch (34%), intelligent (34%),
uncaring (32%) and boring (30%).

Michael Ignatieff Out of touch (39%), arrogant (37%), boring (36%), intelligent (33%), inefficient (31%) and weak (26%).

Jack Layton Intelligent (36%), down to earth (31%), compassionate (31%), honest (28%), open (26%) and out of touch (22%).

Gilles Duceppe Arrogant (34%), out of touch (32%), intelligent (23%), inefficient (19%), boring (19%) and dishonest (17%).

In a separate question, which aims to review how Canadians relate to the four leaders on a personal level, Layton emerges as an affable choice. Canadians pick the NDP leader over the other three contenders as the best man to have a beer with at a bar (34%), best to babysit their kids (30%), and best to play with in a sports team (27%).

Ignatieff is seen as the brainier of all, with Canadians picking him over the others to play in their trivia quiz team (26%), and as the best person to recommend a book to read (22%).

Harper has the edge on most policy matters, with at least three-in-ten respondents seeing the current prime minister as the best person to lead Canada in the event of a terrorist attack (37%), to negotiate with United States President Barack Obama on trade and security issues (36%), to deal with Russia on matters of Arctic sovereignty (35%) and to be in charge if there is another sovereignty referendum in Quebec (31%).


Fire. Him. Now.

Marin gave contracts to friend starting in 2001
July 11, 2010

David Bruser

During his 12 years as watchdog over the Canadian military and Ontario government, Andre Marin has paid close to a quarter of a million dollars to a friend and mentor to help him do his job as ombudsman.

Contracts and invoices show Marin outsourced important office functions to Ottawa law professor David Paciocco, who advised on investigations and wrote portions of several of Marin’s reports.

Federal documents, obtained by the Toronto Star, show at least $84,000 paid to Paciocco while Marin was military ombudsman between 2001 and 2005. They also shed light on the office tasks Marin outsourced to his friend.

Last month the Star reported that as Ontario ombudsman, since 2005, Marin has given two contracts worth at least $141,000 to Paciocco to spice up Marin’s reports exposing government problems.

At the time of the article last month, just days after Marin’s re-appointment and amid concerns he was mismanaging the provincial office, his spokesperson refused to provide documentation of Paciocco’s work, and Paciocco did not comment.

Paciocco again did not respond to calls and emails from the Star seeking comment on federal contracts that have now been released.

“Professor Paciocco’s expertise was one of many resources used to ensure that the work of the military ombudsman’s office was of the highest quality and legally unassailable,” said Marin’s Ontario Ombudsman spokesperson Linda Williamson.

Like Paciocco, Marin is a lawyer licensed to practice in Ontario…

In the documents released to the Star, Paciocco was first retained by Marin in 1999 to give legal opinion on the new office’s powers. But between 2001 and 2005, Paciocco provided a variety of other services. As he was working for a government agency, taxpayers covered the cost.

Paciocco was paid to draft Marin’s statement in his department’s 2003-2004 annual report. On an invoice dated April 7, 2004, Paciocco billed $3,852 for “consultation, advice and drafting of the Ombudsman’s statement in the Annual Report.” That statement, adorned with Marin’s headshot and written in first-person, was eight pages long. The invoice also shows Paciocco drafted the report.

In February 2003, Paciocco billed $5,350 for various services relating to a military ombudsman’s report called “Crazy Train” – the result of a probe into why a military float in a pre-Grey Cup parade seemed to mock soldiers diagnosed with mental injuries. Paciocco billed for reviewing and revising the draft report, conference calls, “preparation of investigative protocol” and “assistance with opening statement.”

…he also re-drafted a report on a controversial soldiers’ meal allowance. His work on this report was part of a July 2003 invoice for $6,179. Marin said in his annual report that it was “my report” and that it was “compelling enough to lead the national news.”

Marin had the authority to hire Paciocco and in one instance approved the extension and increased value of a contract. Paciocco’s hourly rate has been blacked out of the federal documents released to the Star.

In one invoice that shows just how much office work was outsourced to Paciocco, the lawyer itemized the tasks done for Marin between July 26 to Aug. 4, 2004. The name of the report is blacked out in the federal documents. Paciocco wrote that Marin told him to “work ahead on themes I have developed,” wrote and completed the report, “including executive summary and report summary.”

A spokesperson for current military ombudsman Pierre Daigle said his office “does not have anyone on contract to draft annual or special reports or any type of public statements.”

Details emerged a month ago of a toxic atmosphere at the Ontario Ombudsman’s office, with current and former employees complaining they were mistreated (which Marin has vigorously denied). Marin was subsequently re-appointed.

Then the Star reported similar complaints were made by staff at his former posting with the military. A federal report done after his term as military ombudsman found he left in his wake a dysfunctional workplace rife with complaints and 150 staff departures from the small office during his tenure.

It was also reported that at the provincial ombudsman’s office, Marin sometimes used a highly paid civil servant to pick up his dry cleaning and monitor the maid cleaning his downtown condo. Marin’s office said at the time that the executive’s job included visiting Marin’s condo to watch over the property but did not involve dry cleaning pickup.

Obtaining detailed financial information on Ombudsman office contracts has been difficult, though Marin states on his website that “the Ombudsman is all about accountability and transparency.” Earlier this week, his office refused to provide contracts and invoices of Paciocco’s work for the Ontario Ombudsman.

Paciocco, a high profile academic and lawyer, told a dinner crowd gathered last year to honour Marin that he has known the “brash” Ombudsman since Marin graduated from law school and “strutted” into the Ottawa Crown Attorney’s office to take his first job. “I have known him since he was a boy’s head sticking out of a man’s suit. I have known and worked with André Marin for more some 20 years – which happens to be his entire professional career,” he said. “I like to think that Andre fancied me as something of his mentor.”

But a Marin spokesperson said in early June that he and Paciocco “do not now and have never socialized together.”

Marin’s regular use of a consultant appears at odds with his public statements that “generally we don’t have to pay for expertise.” Marin was questioned by a government committee in 2008 on the work his office does and a member asked if he made use of outside consultants. Marin said it “happens from time to time, but it’s relatively rare.”


Observation

Quite a few members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, and not a few Big Names in Canadian media, talk to each other on Twitter. It’s fascinating to follow – like listening in on a party line.

In an unrelated matter, we’ve been drinking strawberry daiquiris, and I’m using an iPad to post this on QuickPress.

You’re welcome.


Float your boat

Randy Denley:


“As a safety program, the boater-licensing regime has more holes than a leaky rowboat. Even though boat owners must be licensed, unlicensed people who’ve never been in a boat in their lives can still rent them after filling out a safety checklist. Twelve-year-olds can operate boats of up to 40 horsepower, and can run bigger boats if they have a 16-year-old on board. Children under 12 can also operate boats up to 10 horsepower.”

(When I worked for him at the Ottawa Citizen, I didn’t ever argue with Randy, and I’m not about to argue with him now. But I had been under the impression that the new boat regs make it tougher for children to do what they once did on the water – which was, pretty much anything, no limits.)

In any event, Randy’s overall point is correct: Canada tolerates things taking place on the water that would never happen on the nation’s highways.

I have a laminated Pleasure Craft licence in my wallet. I got it last Summer. I was ten minutes early for a lunch with a Liberal friend, and I saw a boat-exam company had a booth nearby. I walked up, paid the fee, and did the exam. I got every question right, except one about sailing. I don’t sail.

I own two motor boats, however, and I try to be serious about safety. I don’t let anyone onboard unless they are wearing a life jacket at all times. Everyone has to stay in the seat they were assigned, and there’s no moving around mid-journey. And the stuff I regularly see on other boats – like open bottles of booze – are verbotten.

The craziest part about the new “rules,” in my opinion, is the rental thing. You can stagger up to a marina carrying a two-four, pretend to listen to the “safety checklist,” pay the rental, and then get handed the keys to a speedboat with a 300hp Merc. No questions, no problems.

There have already been a number of boat tragedies this Summer, and there’ll be plenty more before the end of August. Happens every year. Many of them could be avoided if Transport Canada got its head out its arse, and stopped treating the nation’s lakes and waterways like they were the Wild West.

Will they? I doubt it. The Harper Reformatories are libertarians more than they are conservatives. The only extra police activity they favour involves beating the Hell out of weird-looking people during the G20 weekend.

In the meantime, boating deaths and injuries will continue as before.