What's really at issue in the ConAir money laundering scandal?

What do you do when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar? Well, if you're a Blogging Tory, you insist that the jar actually contains crackers, which you're perfectly entitled to, and anyway since the very existence of the cookie jar is a violation of one's right to enjoy cookies, that even if this is a cookie we're holding (although we categorically deny that it is), anyone who says we can't eat it is just trying to make up a scandal.

The Conservatives won the last election largely on the idea that they stood for accountability in politics. But if that's actually what they stand for, they should be holding their own leadership accountable, rather than obfuscating and trying to shift responsibility. That the Tories' conduct was unethical and illegal isn't just something the evil Liberals are making up for partisan gain. There's actual electoral law involved.

Stephen Taylor asks: "Can somebody cite a section of statute or law that has been broken here?"

You bet. The relevant section of the Canada Elections Act is this:

416. (1) No person or entity, other than the chief agent of a registered party or one of its registered agents or a person authorized under subsection 411(1), shall pay the registered party’s expenses.

and the relevant exception is as follows (emphasis mine):

411. (1)(b) the official agent of a candidate, as an expense incurred for the candidate’s electoral campaign;

The ads in question were not designed to promote the candidate. The only thing distinguishing them from the national campaign ads was that the so-called local ads carried the tag line "Paid for by the Official Agent for [Local Candidate]" instead of "Paid for by the Official Agent for the Conservative Party of Canada". But there's no reasonable argument that that change is sufficient to transform a national campaign ad into a local one.

Of course, local candidates benefit from ads promoting their party and their leader. But the same could be said about most aspects of the national campaign. On the same token, one could argue that it's reasonable for local campaigns to chip in for the leader's tour expenses, but even the most hard core of Conservative apologists aren't suggesting that.

Financial mismanagement took place. Either it was a mistake, based on an ill-considered reading of the Elections Act, or it was a deliberate attempt to use a perceived loop-hole to circumvent the campaign spending limits.

Either way, Conservatives who genuinely believe in government accountability, rather than just Liberal bashing, should be demanding that their party's leadership apologise and make recompense.

The naming of a scandal

The cowboys win the day with their name for the Conservative money laundering scandal: ConAir.

Nickname needed

As Kady O'Malley points out, the Conservatives 2006 campaign money laundering scheme doesn't yet have a catchy nickname, with which to capture national attention and invoke public ire.

So bring it on. What should we call this thing? Post your suggestions in the comments, or e-mail me and I'll summarize the best suggestions in a later post.

Only one rule: no name containing the suffix 'gate' will be considered. Anyone submitting suggestions of something-gate will be required to give up their blog and get a job working for a mainstream media outlet.

This just in

According to an important new study, a diet heavy in red meat, fatty and processed foods is bad for you.

Who knew?

Seducing women voters

This morning's paper features prominent pictures of Maxime Bernier, Peter MacKay, Jim Prentice and Chuck Strahl, and I can't help but notice that they're all very good looking men. Is this Harper's strategy for increasing his support among Canadian women? Maybe women won't notice that the government is ignoring their needs as long as its ministers are a bunch of hotties.

Meanwhile, the sensitive, compassionate Liberals will be relegated to the status of "just good friends".

And the winner is?

Okay, the results are in, and my prediction score is 12½. To get that score, I gave myself one point for every correct prediction (including who would stay in place) and ½ a point for everyone who I predicted would move, but where I was wrong about where they went. I also subtracted ½ a point for everyone I predicted would move but didn't.

So who did better? Step up and enter your name into the draw. As Marjaleena pointed out, the MacKay/Orchard agreement was scrawled on a piece of notebook paper, not an envelope, so the winner will receive a genuine copy of that valuable document folded into a pouch and filled with my sofa change, which I've not yet counted, but which I guarantee totals at least a dollar.

One for me! Woohoo!

O'Connor gets Revenue. Nice to not be wrong all the time.

Has anyone else noticed that Peter MacKay has little grey patches on the back of his head? Patchy grey is usually a sign of trauma, isn't it? Perhaps it's where the hair has grown back over his lobotomy scars. Or maybe he had to have some implants put in when he sold the PC party to the Canadian Reform Alliance Party.

And with a smile from ear to ear...

Diane Ablonczy arrives at Rideau Hall. So the top government officials who insisted that no backbenchers would be promoted were yanking our collective chains, after all.

Shuffle madness begins in earnest

And I'm wrong on at least one count. Gerry Ritz showing up chez GG means that Lynne Yellich will not be promoted into cabinet.

A storm by any other name

Okay, who's responsible for naming hurricanes? Common... Flossie?

Steve's Cabinet Picks

Speculations. We got speculations. And we're willing to put our money where our mouth is. Anyone who gets more correct cabinet placements than me will be ELIGIBLE TO WIN a genuine replica of the envelope Peter MacKay used to betray David Orchard. Plus I'll fill it with all the change from underneath my sofa cushions.

So with that sweet offer, and without further ado, here's my Canada's New Government™ team line-up prediction for 2007 (thoughts and explanations to follow). It starts with Carol Skelton, who isn't running again, and who vacates Revenue, setting up the following dominos:

Revenue: Gordon O'Connor moves from Defense
Defense: Maxime Bernier moves from Industry
Industry: Gary Lunn moves from Natural Resources
Natural Resources: Rona Ambrose moves from Intergovernmental Affairs
Intergovernmental Affairs: Tony Clement moves from Health
Health: Monte Solberg moves from HRSD
Human Resources & Skills Development: Lawrence Cannon moves from Transport
Transport: Peter MacKay moves from Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs: Jim Prentice moves from Indian Affairs
Indian Affairs: Lynne Yellich gets promoted from the back benches

One direct trade:
Heritage: Jason Kenney moves from Multiculturalism & Culture
Multiculturalism & Culture (Minister of State): Bev Oda

And the remaining Ministers will stay where they are:
Justice: Rob Nicholson
International Trade: David Emerson
Labour and Housing: Jean-Pierre Blackburn
Veterans Affairs: Greg Thompson
Agriculture: Chuck Strahl
Fisheries: Loyola Hearn
Public Safety: Stockwell Day
Treasury: Vic Towes
Immigration: Diane Finley
Environment: John Baird
Finance: Jim Flaherty
CIDA: Josée Verner
Public Works: Michael Fortier
House Leader: Peter Van Loan
Whip: Jay Hill

O'Connor has to go from Defense. The Afghanistan file is bogged down and needs someone who can pick it up and make it work for Harper, particularly in Quebec. Bernier's the man. But O'Connor won't go to Veterans Affairs, because it's too obvious and Harper doesn't want to be predictable. Revenue won't be seen as a demotion to the same extent Veterans Affairs would be, but it's sufficiently low-profile to get O'Connor out of the spotlight.

Moving Clement from Health to Intergovernmental Affairs may look like a demotion on the surface, but federal-provincial relations is going to be a hotter file than anytime since 1995. It needs someone with a steady hand who can handle himself in public.

Canada's role in the world will be one of Harper's key priorities following a fall throne speech, and Jim Prentice, who's one of Harper's most trusted Ministers, will take front and centre. Moving Peter MacKay to Transport will be seen as a lateral move, although in MacKay's case it should really be viewed as a demotion.

Lynne Yellich will be the only backbencher to move to the the grown-ups table. With Skelton out, Harper needs a woman and someone from Saskatchewan. The need for women representation in Cabinet will also mean that Bev Oda won't go to the back benches, but Heritage needs someone who can speak, so it goes to Kenney.

Nicholson will hang onto Justice and Day will stay in Public Safety. Both have performed well in their respective portfolios. There's been speculation that Day might move to Justice, but that would set up the same problems that existed when Vic Towes was working that file. Like Towes, Day is too socially conservative for the government to maintain its centrist appearance, and he's too easy to attack.

Coincidence? I think not.

Karl Rove resigns from his job as George Dubya's chief political strategist just as Prime Minister Steve is getting ready to shuffle his cabinet. Hmmmm. There are plenty of Senate seats available.

How to tell when your country's leader isn't really clear on the concept

This is leadership. This is not.

MYOB, Congress

Apparently, the US House of Representatives thinks we should ban the seal hunt, and has unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Canadian government to do just that, "now and forever."

Now I confess to being ambivalent about about this issue. While I'm uncomfortable about the idea of baby animals being clubbed to death for their skins, my maritime friends tell me that the animal rights folks have been perpetuating an image of the hunt that doesn't reflect the reality of what goes on. Furthermore, as an unapologetic meat eater and leather wearer, I'm not hypocritical enough to get uppity about the killing of certain animals over other, just because they're cuter. I have no interest in hunting myself, but I can't condemn those who do it as part of their livelihood.

That said, there are those who could possibly convince me that we should in fact ban the seal hunt. But a branch of the government in a country that executes minors isn't one of them. If the US House of Representatives is genuinely interested in addressing rights issues, rather than pandering, there are a lot of issues much closer to home that they can set their sights on.

UPDATE: It seems the US Supreme Court banned capital punishment in 2005 for those who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. So yay for the Supreme Court, but Congress should still stick to its knitting.

Eating Mints for the Cure

CIBC, where I do some of my banking, is engaged in its annual display of social conscience, promoting the Run for the Cure (to breast cancer, in case you just arrived from another planet). Part of the promotion this year involves selling pink boxes of chocolate covered mints over the counter when one goes in to do ones banking.

I'm not sure how I feel about the whole concept of selling products to promote a cause. Of course, the net proceeds go to fund breast cancer research, or fight AIDS in Africa (as in the case of (PRODUCT)^RED™), as another example, but before those net net proceeds go anywhere, organisations on various levels generate profit. If people want to make a charitable contribution, a straight-up donation will have a greater impact than buying a red iPod or a pink T-shirt.

But having said all that, the mints are yummy.

Gordon O'Connor: Canada's biggest liability in Afghanistan

How long can Harper afford to keep O'Connor in as defense minister, if Canadian support for the war in Afghanistan is being undermined by his inability to get the message straight? Even the PMs friends agree that this is what's happening.

I get that the Prime Minister wants to shuffle his cabinet on his own terms, and doesn't want to appear weakened by moving O'Connor at a time when he's taking fire, but most of O'Connor's wounds are self-inflicted. And he reloads so quickly.

If Harper insists on waiting until the fall, he'd better muzzle O'Connor now, or (as humiliating as this would undoubtedly be) order him to get his lines from Hillier's office, since Hillier clearly isn't taking his lines from the Minister's Office. O'Connor needs to know that if he continues to blunder along, his demotion will be to the back benches, rather than Veteran's Affairs, or some other lesser portfolio.

General Hillier won't be managed, at least not by someone he doesn't respect. He's already demonstrated that he doesn't feel beholden to his political masters. He knows they won't fire him; he's more popular than all of them put together, and his is the voice Canadians trust, even if they don't always like what he has to say.

Exciting new poll feature!

Since public policy is now shaped almost entirely by polling data, I figured I'd better not get left behind. At left, you'll find my new polling tool, which I'm assured is every bit as scientifically rigorous as Angus Reid. Except that I won't pay you.

I hereby endeavour to introduce a new poll topic every day, or whenever I feel like it. Plus, whenever the data generated provides important insight, I will do my utmost to keep the PMO apprised. I hear they're a bit short on new ideas.

Parliamentary business at its finest

After having read this, I'm now firmly in favour of replacing the Hansard with ITQ Live Blogging. Although I'm not sure Kady will thank me.

Give 'till it hurts

Kady O'Malley's new blog drew my attention to this article about senior ministry staff being solicited for $1,000 donations to the Conservative Party. One of the key points in her post, with which I concur, is that the willingness of people to talk to reporters about the issue is a sign that folks at Canada's New Government™ are starting to buck at the harness (extra points to Kady for her description of PMO 'communications directrix' Sandra Buckler – perhaps we can draw The Frog Lady out of her hiatus to produce some art). As the Globe article points out, the Liberal Party made a similar request when it was in government, which, in my memory, didn't result in staffers hitting speed-dial to the Ottawa bureau chiefs.

That said, I think the CPC is completely justified (as are all political parties) in expecting its staff to contribute as much as they can afford. Senior ministerial staff make six figures. They should have no trouble scraping 1,000 bucks together, especially when you consider that they'll get up to half of it back at tax time.

And even more importantly, political staff should know better than anyone that political success is driven by money. Everyone who's cares about the outcome of elections needs to contribute what they can, in terms of time and money.

Lastly, a point of clarification: the Globe article indicates that the maximum allowable contribution is $1,000 to the party or individual candidate(s). In fact, under the FAA (also known as An Act to Screw the Liberals With Their Pants On), there are separate donation limits for these two categories of donations. One can donate the maximum amount ($1,100 actually, if one wants to split hairs) to the party, and the same amount again to a candidate or candidates (if giving to multiple candidates, the aggregated total cannot exceed $1,100).

And there's a third category of donation, again with its own $1,100 limit: leadership contests. This doesn't apply to the CPC right now, of course, but the Liberal Party is still collecting donations toward retiring the campaign debt of the 11 men and women who were so instrumental in revitalizing our party last year. Click here and please be as generous as you can.

More Steves than you can shake a stick at

I've added two new Steves (is there some connection between the name Steve and the compulsion to post one's ramblings on the internet?) to the list of Blogs I Like. One's political and one's hilarious.

Stephen Taylor, who I referenced in yesterday's post, is thoughtful and balanced – a nice change from the rabid rantings that bloggers on the right tend to spew (to be fair, the left has its share of venomous lunatics, as well). And while I disagree with him more often than not, his opinions are almost always worthy of consideration.

Meanwhile, for something completely different, check out The Sneeze, also written by someone named Steve, but whose last name seems to be stored in the same vault as the Caramilk secret. Reading his "Steve, Don't Eat It!" series made me laugh harder than anything I can remember.