In 2005, as Minister of the Environment, Stephane Dion opened a climate conference focused on the Arctic. The bulk of his speech consisted of reading the executive summary of a year-old UN report, word for word.

One wonders at how much carbon he emitted into the atmosphere to get to the conference, when he could simply emailed a link to the UN report. 

Just read the report.  There -- speech done!

On December 6, 2005, Stephane Dion participated in the Opening Ceremony of the United Nations Climate Change Conference.  He read the speech below.  I've broken the speech out into sections in the left-hand column.  The speech is reproduced in it's entirety except for the ending comments.

In the right-hand column is extracts from the Environment News Service article dated November 17, 2004.  It summarizes the results from report Impacts of a Warming Arctic by the International Arctic Sciences Committee.  That article extracts most of the elements from the Executive Summary of that report.

 

Stephane Dion's Speech	Dr Robert Corell's Summary
Good morning everyone. Canada, as an Arctic nation, is proud to support the first Arctic Day. This is an opportunity to bring the Arctic to this forum and highlight both scientific, traditional knowledge and the culture of Northern indigenous peoples. I would like to thank the many Elders who have come from so far to be a part of this day to share their invaluable and traditional knowledge with us. I'd also like to thank Liseanne Forand from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Jose Kusugak, President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Grand Chief Andy Carvill from the Yukon First Nations, Dr. Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program, and Ms. Okpik Pitseolak for leading this morning's opening ceremony. The future of the North is critical to the health of our planet.
	1. Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected.
	Annual average arctic temperature has increased at almost twice the rate as that of the rest of the world over the past few decades, with some variations across the region.
	Additional evidence of arctic warming comes from widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice, and a shortening of the snow season.
Increasing global concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due to human activities, primarily fossil fuel burning, are projected to contribute to additional arctic warming of about 4-7°C over the next 100 years.	Increasing global concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due to human activities, primarily fossil fuel burning, are projected to contribute to additional arctic warming of about 4-7°C over the next 100 years.
Increasing precipitation, shorter and warmer winters, and substantial decreases in snow cover and ice cover are among the projected changes that are very likely to persist for centuries.	Increasing precipitation, shorter and warmer winters, and substantial decreases in snow cover and ice cover are among the projected changes that are very likely to persist for centuries.
	Unexpected and even larger shifts and fluctuations in climate are also possible.
	2. Arctic warming and its consequences have worldwide implications.
	Melting of highly reflective arctic snow and ice reveals darker land and ocean surfaces, increasing absorption of the sun's heat and further warming the planet.
	Increases in glacial melt and river runoff add more freshwater to the ocean, raising global sea level and possibly slowing the ocean circulation that brings heat from the tropics to the poles, affecting global and regional climate.
	Warming is very likely to alter the release and uptake of greenhouse gases from soils, vegetation, and coastal oceans.
	Impacts of arctic climate change will have implications for biodiversity around the world because migratory species depend on breeding and feeding grounds in the Arctic.
Arctic vegetation zones are very likely to shift, causing wide-ranging impacts.	3. Arctic vegetation zones are very likely to shift, causing wide-ranging impacts.
	Treeline is expected to move northward and to higher elevations, with forests replacing a significant fraction of existing tundra, and tundra vegetation moving into polar deserts.
	More-productive vegetation is likely to increase carbon uptake, although reduced reflectivity of the land surface is likely to outweigh this, causing further warming.
Disturbances such as insect outbreaks and forest fires are very likely to increase in frequency, severity, and duration, facilitating invasions by non-native species.	Disturbances such as insect outbreaks and forest fires are very likely to increase in frequency, severity, and duration, facilitating invasions by non-native species.
	Where suitable soils are present, agriculture will have the potential to expand northward due to a longer and warmer growing season.
Animal species' diversity, ranges, and distribution will change.	Animal species' diversity, ranges, and distribution will change.
	4. Animal species' diversity, ranges, and distribution will change.
Reductions in sea ice will drastically shrink marine habitat for polar bears, ice-inhabiting seals, and some seabirds, pushing some species toward extinction.	Reductions in sea ice will drastically shrink marine habitat for polar bears, ice-inhabiting seals, and some seabirds, pushing some species toward extinction.
The Arctic is not a laboratory, not only a place to conduct expeditions; it is a place where people live, with a rich culture that has evolved over thousands of years. Because of global warming, indigenous communities are facing major economic and cultural impacts. How is climate change affecting the peoples of the North, threatening their livelihood and cultural survival?
Many Indigenous Peoples depend on hunting polar bear, walrus, seals, and caribou, herding reindeer, fishing, and gathering, not only for food and to support the local economy, but also as the basis for cultural and social identity.	Many Indigenous Peoples depend on hunting polar bear, walrus, seals, and caribou, herding reindeer, fishing, and gathering, not only for food and to support the local economy, but also as the basis for cultural and social identity. [Moved up from section 8]
The reduction in sea ice will have serious consequences for polar bears, ice-dependent seals, and local people for whom these animals are a primary food source.
	Caribou/reindeer and other land animals are likely to be increasingly stressed as climate change alters their access to food sources, breeding grounds, and historic migration routes.
	Species ranges are projected to shift northward on both land and sea, bringing new species into the Arctic while severely limiting some species currently present.
	As new species move in, animal diseases that can be transmitted to humans, such as West Nile virus, are likely to pose increasing health risks.
	Some arctic marine fisheries, which are of global importance as well as providing major contributions to the region's economy, are likely to become more productive. Northern freshwater fisheries that are mainstays of local diets are likely to suffer.
Many coastal communities and facilities face increasing exposure to storms.	5. Many coastal communities and facilities face increasing exposure to storms.
	Severe coastal erosion will be a growing problem as rising sea level and a reduction in sea ice allow higher waves and storm surges to reach the shore.
	Along some arctic coastlines, thawing permafrost weakens coastal lands, adding to their vulnerability.
	The risk of flooding in coastal wetlands is projected to increase, with impacts on society and natural ecosystems.
	The risk of flooding in coastal wetlands is projected to increase, with impacts on society and natural ecosystems.
In some cases, communities and industrial facilities in coastal zones are already threatened or being forced to relocate, while others face increasing risks and costs.	In some cases, communities and industrial facilities in coastal zones are already threatened or being forced to relocate, while others face increasing risks and costs.
	6. Reduced sea ice is very likely to increase marine transport and access to resources.
	The continuing reduction of sea ice is very likely to lengthen the navigation season and increase marine access to the Arctic's natural resources.
	Seasonal opening of the Northern Sea Route is likely to make trans-arctic shipping during summer feasible within several decades. Increasing ice movement in some channels of the Northwest Passage could initially make shipping more difficult.
	Reduced sea ice is likely to allow increased offshore extraction of oil and gas, although increasing ice movement could hinder some operations.
	Sovereignty, security, and safety issues, as well as social, cultural, and environmental concerns are likely to arise as marine access increases.
Thawing ground will disrupt transportation, buildings, and other infrastructure.	7. Thawing ground will disrupt transportation, buildings, and other infrastructure.
Transportation and industry on land, including oil and gas extraction and forestry, will increasingly be disrupted by the shortening of the periods during which ice roads and tundra are frozen sufficiently to permit travel.	Transportation and industry on land, including oil and gas extraction and forestry, will increasingly be disrupted by the shortening of the periods during which ice roads and tundra are frozen sufficiently to permit travel.
As frozen ground thaws, many existing buildings, roads, pipelines, airports, and industrial facilities are likely to be destabilized, requiring substantial rebuilding, maintenance, and investment.	As frozen ground thaws, many existing buildings, roads, pipelines, airports, and industrial facilities are likely to be destabilized, requiring substantial rebuilding, maintenance, and investment.
What is happening to the Arctic is a harbinger of things to come in the rest of the world. Arctic warming and its consequences have worldwide implications.
Melting of highly reflective arctic snow and ice reveals darker land and ocean surfaces, increasing absorption of the sun's heat and further warming the planet.	Melting of highly reflective arctic snow and ice reveals darker land and ocean surfaces, increasing absorption of the sun's heat and further warming the planet.  [Moved from section 2]
Increases in glacial melt and river runoff add more freshwater to the ocean, raising global sea level and possibly slowing the ocean circulation that brings heat from the tropics to the poles, affecting global and regional climate.	Increases in glacial melt and river runoff add more freshwater to the ocean, raising global sea level and possibly slowing the ocean circulation that brings heat from the tropics to the poles, affecting global and regional climate. [Moved from section 2]
	Future development will require new design elements to account for ongoing warming that will add to construction and maintenance costs.
	Permafrost degradation will also impact natural ecosystems through collapsing of the ground surface, draining of lakes, wetland development, and toppling of trees in susceptible areas.
	8. Indigenous communities are facing major economic and cultural impacts.
	Many Indigenous Peoples depend on hunting polar bear, walrus, seals, and caribou, herding reindeer, fishing, and gathering, not only for food and to support the local economy, but also as the basis for cultural and social identity.
	Changes in species' ranges and availability, access to these species, a perceived reduction in weather predictability, and travel safety in changing ice and weather conditions present serious challenges to human health and food security, and possibly even the survival of some cultures.
	Indigenous knowledge and observations provide an important source of information about climate change. This knowledge, consistent with complementary information from scientific research, indicates that substantial changes have already occurred.
	9. Elevated ultraviolet radiation levels will affect people, plants, and animals.
	The stratospheric ozone layer over the Arctic is not expected to improve significantly for at least a few decades, largely due to the effect of greenhouse gases on stratospheric temperatures. Ultraviolet radiation (UV) in the Arctic is thus projected to remain elevated in the coming decades.
	As a result, the current generation of arctic young people is likely to receive a lifetime dose of UV that is about 30% higher than any prior generation. Increased UV is known to cause skin cancer, cataracts, and immune system disorders in humans. Elevated UV can disrupt photosynthesis in plants and have detrimental effects on the early life stages of fish and amphibians.
	Risks to some arctic ecosystems are likely as the largest increases in UV occur in spring, when sensitive species are most vulnerable, and warming-related declines in snow and ice cover increase exposure for living things normally protected by such cover.
	10. Multiple influences interact to cause impacts to people and ecosystems.
	Changes in climate are occurring in the context of many other stresses including chemical pollution, overfishing, land use changes, habitat fragmentation, human population increases, and cultural and economic changes.
	These multiple stresses can combine to amplify impacts on human and ecosystem health and well-being. In many cases, the total impact is greater than the sum of its parts, such as the combined impacts of contaminants, excess ultraviolet radiation, and climatic warming.
	Unique circumstances in arctic sub-regions determine which are the most important stresses and how they interact.
We recognize the importance of the Arctic Council in addressing the many common concerns and challenges emerging from climate change and providing a forum for collective action on shared priorities. [remainder removed]

 

As you can see, virtually all of the speech is lifted out of the executive summary.   Now to be fair, Stephane Dion, now leader of the Liberal Party, but then the minister of the environment under Paul Martin, makes reference to the document, but he does not mention that he is reading the text verbatim:

Last November, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was received at the fourth Arctic Council Ministerial meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland. This is the first climate assessment of the Arctic - a result of four years of international efforts from over 300 scientists, as well as traditional knowledge of Northern Indigenous peoples.

Stephane Dion greets the guests to the conference, and the launches into the first lifted section from the report, and continues reading down the executive summary, word for word.  Why bother?  Why not mention that the ACIA report contains a list of risks for the Arctic, mention a couple as coming from the report, and move on?

Heck, some people in the audience probably read the report.  Seems like a waste of time, really.

As it is, it looks like Stephane Dion flew to the conference just to read from someone else's report.

Better to integrate the report's executive summary seamlessly into the speech.  Then it looks like a useful contribution, as opposed to a dictation exercise.  Probably fooled a lot of people.

It makes you wonder if Stephane Dion has any original ideas.

Perhaps the saddest element of this was Stephane Dion's extortion that people who live in the Arctic be listened to:

It is also critical that the stories of the Arctic indigenous peoples be heard. That is why people from across the Arctic are here today -as witnesses of the impacts of climate change and as catalysts for action to slow that change in their homelands.

I'm not saying Stephane Dion wouldn't listen to the indigenous peoples.  I'm just wondering if their contribution needs to appear in an official UN report first before Stephane Dion notices it.

Robert Fife of CTV news reports on the discovery of a voting block in Canada that is frightened at the thought of a Conservative government, and are throwing their support to the Liberals.

Try as they might, it is not likely that the Conservatives can win these guys over. 

CTV's Robert Fife discusses a voting block that the Liberals have in their pockets.  Inmates in federal prisons are not just withholding their votes from the Stephen Harper Conservatives, but strategically pooling their votes for Stephane Dion and the Liberals.

Does that make them criminal masterminds?

Who's tough on crime?  I mean, how can the Liberals have any credibility on crime when the criminals want them to win?

Liberal MP Marc Godbout is reworking his election signs.  Like other Liberal candidates seeking re-election, he is asking voters to not look at the Liberal Party as a whole, but to consider only the role of the MP as the representative of the riding.

Garth Turner did it.

Anita Neville did it.

And now Liberal Party candidate Marc Godbout is doing it.

He's altered his campaign message, dumping Stephane Dion, the Green Shift, everything related to the national Liberal Party campaign, and running the last leg of his campaign to be re-elected in Ottawa-Orleans on the basis of his work as a local MP.

Check out his old election sign:

See the big blank spot just above and to the right of his name?

Apparently the signs are being altered, in situ, in the riding.  Here is a picture of one of the altered signs:

A new panel is being attached to the signs. 

Be Vocal.  Vote Local.

That is a new slogan.  Note that the slogan had to be retrofitted with a chunk of the new slogan's panel removed so that it doesn't hide Godbout's name.  Clearly a retrofit.

The slogan has an unmistakable spin.  People who might vote Liberal should not think about Stephane Dion or the rest of the national team.  They're irrelevant.  They won't be around by Halloween.  So if a voter is thinking of not voting Liberal because of Stephane Dion, think again, because he won't be a problem for much longer.

Vote locally.  I wonder if the Liberal war room has approved this new messaging.

Back in June I noticed that Liberal candidate Linda Schwey was planning to give away thousands of seed packets during the next election.

I figured it would cost her thousands.  I see that I really can't be trusted with the shopping.

OK, I'm going to take a few hits for being sexist, but maybe smart shopping is really an X-chromosome thing.

Candidate Linda Schwey is giving out seeds for as part of her campaign:

Making hay out of the environment issue, Schwey distributed a packet of pine-tree seeds to each guest.

Word has it that she is planning to hand out 37,000 of these pouches during the door-to-door election campaign she is getting ready to launch.

I figured it would cost many thousands of dollars based on what I could see in seed catalogues.

Apparently I can't be trusted with a credit card.  From Linda Schwey:

You'll never do any shopping for me. You estimated that the "Great Seed Giveaway" cost $72,000. I would just like to add that I bought them wholesale online and 50,000 seeds cost my campaign $50.00.

I asked Linda where the seeds were being purchased:

Thanks for your quick reply. I appreciate you posting the answer. I bought the seeds from Gardens North - seeds for the world. Thanks again.

Gardens North does have a wholesale section, but it's protected by a password to be used by businesses only.  Nevertheless, I believe Linda that the seeds were purchased for $50. 

Note that I never suggested that Linda was doing anything wrong, just something that sounded really, really expensive.  I didn't realize seed could be had for so little.

Makes you wonder just how much profit stores are making when you pick up a seed packet for a buck-and-a-half.

Thanks Linda for setting me straight.  I'll cross-post from the original article.  Good luck with the campaign!

Garth Turner has posted on my blog.  Well, someone claiming to be Garth Turner.  But if we assume it is him, then he is claiming that Dan Baril is not connected to his campaign, just a constituent interested in politics.  That is important because CTV had asked that candidates attending a Halton riding town hall event hosted on Canada AM to bring people to ask questions of the candidates, but that these persons not be connected to the campaign work.

Supporters of the candidates, yes.  Connected to campaign work, no.

So I'm forced to drill down in more detail.

Hey, there's a lot of research here, but the bottom line is this.  If you are an MP and you label someone a constituent, at least make certain that the person is your constituent.  Otherwise your credibility really starts to suffer.

Let's review the current situation.  CTV's morning program, Canada AM, hosted a townhall meeting in Halton.  In order to ensure quality questions, CTV asked each campaign to bring a guest who would be allowed to present a question.  Regular readers of this blog know that I have published that Garth Turner brought Dan Baril as his guest, despite the fact that CTV had asked that the guest be someone unconnected to the campaign.

Dan Baril has deep ties to Garth Turner's campaign, or so I've said.

Not so, says the person purporting to be Garth Turner:

Yesterday I posted the email here from CTVs Canada AM producer asking my team to put up a questioner for the segment broadcast on Thursday. I asked my friend Dan Baril to pose it, since he's a smart guy and presents well. He said he would like to put a query to the Conservative candidate, which was fine with me, as I expected to field a barrage from the other campaigns.

Dan served on the Halton federal Liberal board for a while, before resigning in March of 2008. He is not on my campaign team, and has taken no role in this election. He is not my pollster and has never done any polling for me. But he is a constituent and a political junkie.

At the event, CTV was given Dan's name and his question topic, as requested. When he arrived, Dan indicated his question was for the Conservative candidate, Lisa Raitt. The producer informed my campaign manager and I that Dan must ask his question of someone else, since the other campaigns had revealed their three questions would be going to their own candidates. It became clear then that the Conservative, NDP and Green teams would be making lobs to their representatives. CTV personnel said that unless Dan Baril asked me his question, there would be none for me to answer.

Moments before the segment went live, the host indicated to all the candidates he wanted to give Dan the first question. There was no comment or objection.

So, he did.

Mr. Janke never contacted me, my campaign or Mr. Baril in the preparation of the three articles he has now published on this television program. He published erroneous information about Mr. Baril, and he has failed to allow any facts to get in the way of his premise that I somehow manipulated a national television network. He's far beyond treating me with impartiality, but I'd think an apology to Dan Baril would be the decent next move.

Let's consider some of these points.

He is not my pollster and has never done any polling for me.

OK, that's just absurd right off the bat.  Here is the listing of Halton Liberal riding association executives for 2007-2008:

Dan Baril: associate member/research/polling

Jeez.  But let's say "/polling" is 8-character typo.  Is there another reason to believe that Garth Turner is misspeaking when he says Dan Baril has "never done any polling for me"?

From Dan Baril's blog, a long and detailed entry about the polling Dan Baril did for Garth Turner in 2006:

As a result of being in field before and during the incident, we were perfectly poised and positioned to assess exactly how people felt about Garth Turner before the incident and especially as it was happening. We got to hear it, see it, and especially feel it real time, both in the physical and virtual worlds. Better yet, in a few weeks or a few months we can and will repeat the exercise and gather what all researchers strive to collect; a very precise and  measurable understanding of the change that occurs over time. I dare say, this morning Stephen Harper and Doug Finley don’t have the kind and quality of knowledge and information we have today. In fact, what I believe Stephen Harper has, based on our research, is not a true appreciation for what is about to happen in the next few weeks, months, and years.

Based on this assessment and with the usual all-important caveat of all things being equal, the future for Garth Turner is very bright and the future for Stephen Harper is very dim. Stephen Harper’s dim future is a certainty. Garth Turner’s bright future depends on what he does next.

And there concludes the public portion of my analysis. The rest of my report, including my specific recommendations to Garth, has been personally and confidentially delivered to the man himself.

Specific recommendations based on field questionnaires and interviews delivered to Garth Turner himself.

Is this just a matter of Dan Baril thinking he's Garth Turner's pollster buddy?  Not at all, Garth Turner said that himself:

This will be poignantly portrayed tomorrow when my pollster buddy, Dan Baril, releases a groundbreaking new survey that he shared with me a few hours early, tonight.

Maybe they've had a falling out since 2007.  Maybe they're no longer pollster buddies.  Maybe Garth Turner has a new pollster buddy doing this 2008 election polls:

In contrast, I am doing a poll of about two hundred families a day. And I will trust these findings, 19 times out of twenty, with a margin of error of zero. My poll says I will win this riding one month from Sunday.

Maybe Garth Turner is doing his own polling, along with all the other campaign duties.  Maybe he's hired a different pollster.  Funny that no name for this pollster who has allegedly replaced Dan Baril and Core Strategies in the role of pollster buddy.  Indeed the only name that comes up when you combine "Garth Turner" and "polling" is Dan Baril's.

Let's consider another factual statement:

But he is a constituent and a political junkie.

Well, whose constituent?  Garth Turner's?  I don't think so.  The address for Dan Baril's firm, Core Strategies, is 1178 Lindenrock Drive, Oakville.  Here is a satellite view of those offices:

Click on the image to make it larger.  Yes, it's a residential neighborhood.  So that would suggest strongly that Dan Baril works out of his home.

No shame in that.  It's good for the environment.  And I'm pretty sure it is Dan Baril's house.  Why?  Do a reverse lookup from this address and you don't get Core Strategies, but "D Bairl".  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is a typo and that "D Baril" is the resident.

The postal code for this address reveals that this particular area of Oakville is represented by Liberal MP Bonnie Brown of the riding of Oakville, not Liberal MP Garth Turner of the riding of Halton.

Oh, but enough of this sleuthing stuff.  I just called Elections Canada and checked the rolls for Dan Baril.  Oakville riding, not Halton.  There.  Done.  Still, I like the sleuthing bits.  They're fun.

Let's consider a third factual statement:

He is not on my campaign team, and has taken no role in this election.

Here is a current screenshot from Dan Baril's website for Core Strategies, his polling firm:

There is the banner for Garth Turner's website on the second row.

Here's the bottom line.  CTV wanted supporters of the candidates but not campaign workers to present questions at the Halton townhall.

Garth Turner provided Dan Baril.

• Dan Baril has worked for Garth Turner as a pollster, and lists Garth Turner, MP, as a client, on his current website client page.
• Dan Baril is not even a voter in Halton and can't vote for Garth Turner.

So if CTV had been appraised of all of Dan Baril's associations with Garth Turner and the Liberal Riding Associaton in Halton, both recent and current, and had CTV been told that Dan Baril is not even a constituent in Halton, would CTV had asked the Garth Turner to offer up another guest to read the question?

You know, an average voter from Halton for a Halton town hall?

Did CTV want a person from Halton?  Someone identifying himself as Garth Turner put this comment on my blog, claiming this was a communication from CTV to Esther Shaye, Garth Turner's campaign manager:

Hello Esther

Just a confirmation email for Garth’s appearance on Canada AM on Thursday.

During the Q&A, we’re offering each of the candidates an opportunity to have one of your supporters to ask a question. We would like to have you identify an individual that would be posing the question.

That person ideally does not work on the campaign but does support Garth and the Liberal Party and in attendance – we’re trying to make the question as non-partisan as possible. We would like you to identify that person and the question or issue that he or she wishes to ask.

Thanks in advance.

Jeffery Tam
Senior Producer
Canada AM

Someone who supports Garth Turner posing a non-partisan question.  How can a person who doesn't vote in Halton really be considered a supporter of Garth Turner's in the context of a Halton town hall meeting?

The question itself was very confrontational, inviting Garth Turner to attack Lisa Raitt:

Audience Member [Dan Baril]: Hi, my question is for Garth. It is something that I would like you to comment on. Something that one of Lisa Raitt's contenders said in The Toronto Star. He said, “If our candidate is arbitrarily appointed by the people by the Prime Minister's Office it plays into Turner's hands and confirms everything he has been saying about the lack of democratic process within our party.” Could you comment on this?

Would CTV have reconsidered the suitability of the question (remember, they were going for non-partisan) once they realized who it was that would be delivering it?  A former pollster of Garth Turner's, likely the current pollster, a recent member of the Halton Liberal riding association, and a resident of a different riding entirely?

I mean, really, Dan Baril could not even say his choice of Conservative candidate to vote for was personally undermined by the appointment of Lisa Raitt since he can't vote for her in the first place!

Indeed, the conversation that would have ensued had CTV known all of the facts would quite likely as not have prompted CTV to say that Dan Baril on the whole was not the sort of average voter they wanted offering up questions in the town hall.

Why?  Because an average voter who is actually from Halton with no close ties to Garth Turner would not have prompted all this controversy.  The people at CTV aren't stupid.  These posts of mine are exactly the sort of thing they don't want resulting from one of their broadcasts. 

We'll never know what CTV would have done because CTV did not realize who Dan Baril was, and Garth Turner never offered the information, as Lis Travers, VP at CTV, has said to me:

In response to your question regarding our Battleground Breakfast in the Halton riding, CTV in no way planned any kind of set up of  Conservative candidate Lisa Raitt. Each candidate was given one question. CTV did not recognize the name of Dan Baril, nor his role in the Garth Turner campaign.  It was entirely by chance that Mr. Baril’s question was the first.  Each candidate received equal time to answer their question and state their positions during the broadcast.

Finally, one last note:

Mr. Janke never contacted me, my campaign or Mr. Baril in the preparation of the three articles...

There's a reason for that.  I prefer to use sources of accurate information for research.

A revealing comment:  Since I've given time to a comment from someone purporting to be Garth Turner, I'll some time to someone who purports to be one of Garth Turner's former employees:

From Beth Gregg:

I was a member of Garth's strategy team when he was an Independent MP and had the pleasure of meeting Dan Baril. Mr. Turner has commented on your blog that Dan had never done any polling for him. That is not what I recall from my own conversations with Dan Baril.

Dan was part of our Indie team and it was his task to do some sort of polling, so that Garth had an idea of how electable he would be as an Independent candidate. The last meeting of the Indie team was on the Sunday right after Mr. Turner joined the Liberal caucus. It was at this meeting that Garth told us why he decided to join the Liberal party. After the meeting I asked Dan Baril directly "What happened with that poll that you did? Why didn't Garth even try to work with the ideas that the Indie team came up with?" Dan's response to me was that the polling results showed that Garth could not get re-elected as either an Independent or a Green candidate in Halton.

Needless to say, I left that meeting very disheartened because at the end of the day, it seemed that the only thing of real importance was not how to make our system work better but how to ensure that Mr. Turner kept his job as an MP.

Just to make it clear.  I can't vouch for the veracity of this comment, no more than I can prove that Garth Turner was the person who wrote the comment that kicked off this post.  Treat both comments with equal weight.

I've gotten a response from Lis Travers, Vice-President (Canada AM), at CTV, with regards to the appearance of Garth Turner's pollster at a Q&A session put on by CTV.

It is so very carefully worded that I think a lawyer had some hand in it.  And that speaks volumes about how Garth Turner has hurt the integrity of a second media organization in the same election.

That has to be some sort of record.  It deserves a new word to be coined to describe it.

Anyone who has been following this election remembers how Liberal MP Garth Turner and his campaign staff contrived to have a CPAC crew film Garth Turner visit a particular constituent's home.  At that visit, Garth Turner was asked about the Green Shift, and he responded that it would put money into the constituent's pocket.

The constituent was pleased and the visit ended.

As it turned out, that constituent was the son of Esther Shaye, Garth Turner's campaign manager.  When confronted by the CBC, Garth Turner's team said that CPAC was a willing part of the fabricated visit.  CPAC's integrity was badly damaged by the allegation.  In response, CPAC was compelled to go on the attack.  It was riveting television, but CPAC was rocked by the incident.

CPAC had been Garthed.

Now let's consider the current situation.  CTV's morning program, Canada AM, hosted a townhall meeting in Halton.  In order to ensure quality questions, CTV asked each campaign to bring a guest who would be allowed to present a question.  All CTV asked was that the campaigns not bring campaign staff to play the role of a constituent, and to frame questions that each candidate could answer and so help the segment be as informative as possible.

Note that there would be no indication to the viewer concerning this arrangement.  It would be presented to the viewers as random questions from random audience members.

What happened was that the first question went to Liberal guest, and he asked Garth Turner to comment on the allegation that the Conservative Party did not value constituents since it had appointed Lisa Raitt.  Given the opportunity to go on the attack while being broadcast across Halton thanks to CTV, Garth obliged.

That person was none other than Dan Baril, a board member on the Halton Liberal Riding Association and Garth Turner's pollster.  It would appear than Garth Turner ignored the rules CTV had laid out:

During the Q&A, we’re offering each of the candidates an opportunity to have one of their supporters to ask a question.  We would like to have you identify an individual that would be posing the question. That person ideally does not work on the campaign.

I've added the emphasis.

Lis Travers, Vice President (Canada AM), wrote to me this afternoon to make it clear that CTV had no knowledge of Dan Baril's role in the Garth Turner campaign.

In response to your question regarding our Battleground Breakfast in the Halton riding, CTV in no way planned any kind of set up of  Conservative candidate Lisa Raitt. Each candidate was given one question. CTV did not recognize the name of Dan Baril, nor his role in the Garth Turner campaign.  It was entirely by chance that Mr. Baril’s question was the first.  Each candidate received equal time to answer their question and state their positions during the broadcast.

So it seems to be the position of CTV that they did everything they could to make certain things were run fairly, and they were not told about Dan Baril's position inside of Garth Turner's campaign.  The implication is that if there are any concerns about unfairness or the appearance of bias, don't blame CTV.   CTV stops short of casting blame elsewhere, but the implication is that if CTV fell short in any way, it was because information about Dan Baril wasn't made known to CTV.

CTV has a credibility problem, thanks to Garth Turner.  A lawyer friend confirmed that Travers' email seems to have been crafted by a lawyer.  Why a lawyer?  Because CTV is in damage control mode.

CTV in the process of being Garthed.

During an appearance on CTV's Canada AM, the four candidates in the riding of Halton held a joint townhall.  The first question went to Garth Turner, and instead of asking him to define or defend some aspect of the Liberal Party platform, Garth Turner was asked to comment on Stephen Harper's lack of respect for democracy.

Lucky Garth Turner?  Hardly.

The question was posed by Garth Turner's pollster Dan Baril.  He’s Halton Liberal Riding Association board member Dan Baril, formerly of polling company Decima Research. 

Garth Turner has responded in his blog.  This is not a big deal, says Garth Turner.  The candidates were supposed to bring people to pose questions.

Well, yes, I figured that out myself.  But what I also suspected, and have now confirmed, is that there were some simple instructions regarding the selection of this person.  Instructions that Garth Turner seemed to ignore.

Liberal MP Garth Turner dismisses the concerns I raised when I realized that the question posed at the CTV's Canada AM townhall was (1) designed to initiate an attack on Conservative candidate Lisa Raitt and (2) delivered by Dan Baril, pollster to Garth Turner.  Here's the exchange as it played out.  There is no mention that the person asking the question is a member of the Liberal riding association board, something that should have been disclosed to the viewing audience:

 

To me, this looked like a setup, using CTV to deliver a partisan attack.  Garth Turner responded on his blog:

Meanwhile, in a steamy basement somewhere to the west, Conservative blogger Steve Janke was working on an expose of the Canada AM show that went to air this morning, featuring a segment on the battle of Halton. He had discovered a question asked of me had been posed by a Liberal supporter – a question whose answer, he said, “delivered a sucker punch to Lisa Raitt right there on the stage.” So, had I arranged it?

(Actually Canada AM’s producer had asked each candidate’s campaign to provide one questioner, whose topic and identity were gathered in advance. My Conservative opponent agreed, and participated. Some expose.)

Well, I already figured out these questions were pre-arranged.  But I also figured CTV was not about to hand over their morning program to professional partisan campaigners.

Did the other campaigns bring senior campaign workers?

I contacted the Lisa Raitt campaign.  They brought a university student, who had never met Lisa Raitt and had nothing to do with their campaign, to ask a question regarding student loans.  I thanked them and wished them luck on the campaign.

I contacted Rob Wagner of the NDP.  Here is what he told me by email:

Hi Steve,

We were asked not to bring a Campaign worker.

But we were allowed to bring a supporter.

I went completely off the map and allowed someone with a very serious question to get the exposure that her question deserved.

Thanks

I thanked Rob for his time and wished him luck on his campaign.

I contacted Amy Collard of the Green Party.  Here is what she told me by email:

Here is a quote from the email my campaign manager received regarding the questions posed during our appearance on Canada AM:

“During the Q&A, we’re offering each of the candidates an opportunity to have one of their supporters to ask a question.  We would like to have you identify an individual that would be posing the question. That person ideally does not work on the campaign.”

As you can see, the rules were fairly loose.  The person who asked my question was not working on my campaign; I met her the morning of the broadcast and asked her to read my question.  She agreed.  I do not know how the other candidates chose their questioner.  I hope this clarifies the process.

I thanked Amy for her time and wished her luck on her campaign.  The response was longer than the extract I've put here, and the rest appears after the main body of this post.

So the person brought by the candidate to ask a question was not supposed to work on the campaign.

But Dan Baril is listed as the board member responsible for research and polling for Garth Turner’s Riding Association for 2007-2008:

There he is with Garth Turner and Esther Shaye, who is now Garth’s campaign manager.  Being in charge of research and polling, I think it's fair to say that Dan Baril is doing critical work for the Garth Turner campaign.

So it looks like we have a situation in which CTV invited the campaigns to bring along a person to ask a question, and in good faith, asked that the campaigns not bring a person directly associated with the campaign.

It would appear that Garth Turner either (1) didn't get the same instructions as the other candidates or (2) decided to ignore that condition.

The other campaigns brought in people not directly associated with the campaign to ask questions designed to elicit information from the candidates.  Garth Turner brought in one of his most senior people to tee up an attack on Lisa Raitt.

So what have we learned about how Garth Turner deals with the media during an election?  Is he honest and transparent?  Just ask CPAC, CBC News and CTV.

Questions:  Here are some questions for CTV:

1. Shouldn’t the viewing audience have been informed that the attack question set up for Garth Turner came from Garth Turner’s pollster?
2. Did CTV know questioner Dan Baril was Garth Turner’s pollster, and let him ask a question anyway, in spite of the conditions set out for all candidates?
3. Or did Garth Turner put one over on CTV and the cross-Canada television audience?

Electoral Reform:  In Amy Collard's email to me, she mentioned that she was unable to complete her answer to the question she was asked.  I offered to print her complete answer here:

You may have noticed that I was not given the opportunity to finish my response to my question about Electoral Reform; the moderator allowed Mr Wagner to interrupt.  And so, I was not allowed to make the point that with the current system, the Bloc Quebecois may be able to attract 10% of the national vote, in a very localized manner, and actually receive up to 15% of the seats.  At the same time the Green Party may also attract 10% of the national vote, and walk away with no seats, because our support is wide-spread across Canada.  So, this is a perfect example of a broken democracy, in which some votes count more than others, and many votes don't count at all.

The Green Party is committed to Electoral Reform!  I hope I can count on your support on Election Day!

Good luck, Amy!  And thanks for playing by the rules.

 

From tonight's debate.

Even as the CPAC fiasco fades, we might have yet another example of Garth Turner attempting to use a media appearance as a stage for a contrived Q&A session.

In this case, during an appearance on Canada AM, a member of the Halton Liberal riding association, Dan Baril, is in the audience and lobs a question to Garth Turner.  The question is designed to allow Garth Turner to go on the attack, casting Conservative candidate Lisa Raitt (who is sitting beside Garth Turner) as someone who doesn't care about constituents.

Did CTV know that Lisa Raitt was being set up for an ambush?

On CTV's Canada AM, Liberal MP Garth Turner and Conservative candidate Lisa Raitt both appeared to present their cases as candidates (along with the candidates from the NDP and the Green Party), and to answer questions from the audience.

Watch the exchange that happens at the very beginning of the Q&A session.   It's also on YouTube:

The man reads the carefully prepared question off a piece of paper.  He does not challenge Garth Turner to defend the Green Shift or the Liberal Party platform, but reads a criticism made of the appointment of Lisa Raitt as the Conservative candidate by Rick Malboeuf.  He asks Garth to expand on the theme of top-down decision making by the Conservatives versus the man-of-the-people Garth Turner shtick.

And of course, Garth Turner is ready and willing.  Lisa Raitt gets roughed up badly, thanks to that question from the man in the audience.  Here is a partial transcript of the interview:

Seamus: We had a great turnout here at the Dynasty family restaurant in Oakville, in the riding of Halton where we expect a tight race, a very interesting race. So we have got questions here. Why done it we begin but. Sir, go ahead.

Audience Member [Dan Baril]: Hi, my question is for Garth. It is something that I would like you to comment on. Something that one of Lisa Raitt's contenders said in The Toronto Star. He said, “If our candidate is arbitrarily appointed by the people by the Prime Minister's Office it plays into Turner's hands and confirms everything he has been saying about the lack of democratic process within our party.” Could you comment on this?

Garth Turner: Well, I think what it says pretty clearly is what Lisa said a few minutes ago in her first response. That is she said this is not about the people, this is about top down. Well it is not about top down. That may be what leaders want and maybe what political parties want. It is not what the people want. and in these turbulent economic financial times right now in middle class folks are under pressure, they need to have their voice brought up to Ottawa, not be told that everything is fine. It is all about leadership. I have had 36 townhall meetings in this riding since I was elected as a member of parliament two and a half years ago. I think that is more than any MP in Canada. That is what we need today. We need this voice that goes up, not down, and the real question I think here in Halton is after the election is over, who is going to be there for you? Who will stand up for you? Somebody, you know, doesn't even have the resolve to leave their job to come and…?

That man is Dan Baril.  Here is a screengrab from the Canada AM broadcast:

 

Here is a picture from Dan Baril's blog:

Dan Baril is a friend of Garth Turner's and a board member of the 2008 Halton Liberal riding association in charge of research and polling:

Dan Baril has acted as a consultant to Garth Turner and in particular, helped Garth Turner become more effective in debates and Q&A sessions.  It's sort of ironic, actually:

Along the way, Dan worked with me as an advisor, while he was being relied upon more and more by Elizabeth and her senior people, juggling his priorities while he carried out proprietary polling. Eventually he ended up being on contract with the Greens, intimately involved in a myriad of issues, including the one that led to the unprecedented liason between May and Dion last Friday.

I first met the guy during the autumn of 2005 after he'd sent a lengthy email my campaign offering to help. We met in the campaign office where I learned his background as a pollster, as a colleague of Alan Gregg, a focus group facilitator and now a self-employed strategist for corporate clients. An Oakville resident, perfectly bilingual, and the author of impossibly long and twisted emails, I found him intriguing but thought he was really trying to land a gig with the Conservative Party, through me.

My opinion changed radically after I staggered through an all-candidates debate, came home and read a detailed analysis of the event, and my messaging flaws together with suggestions, in an email from Dan. I tried those remedies out in the next debate, and used my opponent to clean the gym floor.

So I have to ask myself whether CTV understood any of this.  I have to think that this was partially set up.  Unlike the CPAC incident in which Garth Turner's people were able to direct the CPAC crew to Michael Shaye's home, Garth Turner could not direct the host, Seamus O'Regan, to offer the first question to Dan Baril.

O'Regan could have picked anyone in the audience to ask the first question.  There is no reason to think Dan Baril would even have been asked a question

And yet O'Regan went straight to Baril.  O'Regan made it sound like it was a convenient place to start: Why don't we begin with you, sir?

But Dan Baril was already prepared, his notes in hand, and was able to start without a pause.

This makes me think that this was partially set up by CTV.  This has all the hallmarks of one of those situations in which the candidates were allowed to set up questions to be asked from the audience, and the Canada AM host went to each of the pre-arranged audience members in order.  It was supposed to look like constituents asking questions but it was at least partially contrived.

Fine.  Let's assume that's true.  I could be wrong, but it certainly looks like that.  It's a logical conclusion based on what I'm seeing in the broadcast.

But if this was the case, did CTV agree to have EDA board member Dan Baril be the person to pose the question to Garth Turner?  Were there any rules about who could pose the question?  Did CTV have prior knowledge that this professional pollster and communications consultant would have designed a question (presumably with the knowledge of Garth Turner) that would have delivered a sucker punch to Lisa Raitt right there on the stage?

The Rules: Other candidates at the townhall have told me that CTV was explicit about the rules.  Bring a person along, but that person couldn't be involved in the campaign work.  Did Garth Turner stage another media event?

The debate tonight generally went according to script.  Stephen Harper was the target of attacks from Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe, and Elizabeth May.  Stephen Harper generally played defense as made sense for someone in the lead.

But there was one question posed that turned out to be the most revealing.  And yet by and large, everyone seemed to miss the point.

The question posed at the halfway mark of the French debate was a simple one.  Say something nice about the person to your left.

The crew at Maclean's were united in their mockery:

8:56 PM Andrew Coyne - When do they start passing the orange without using their hands?
8:56 PM Paul Wells - Next question: Say something libelous about the person to your right.
8:56 PM Martin Patriquin - Jesus, what the hell is this? Can they just hug it out and be done with it?
8:57 PM Kady O’Malley - Kady O’Malley - Aw, poor Jack Layton. I don’t think this is the night when you want the Prime Minister forced to say nice things about you.
8:58 PM Chris Selley - A good father! HA!
8:58 PM Martin Patriquin - This is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo pointless.

No, this wasn't pointless.  It is a test of the ability of the leaders to compartmentalize.  Stephen Harper was the only one who passed the test.

The best way to understand to examine the answers.

Gilles Duceppe on Elizabeth May: She wants to stop Stephen Harper as much as he does.

Jack Layton on Stephane Dion: He's an honest guy attached to a crappy party that failed in 13 years in power.

Stephane Dion on Gilles Duceppe: He's sincere but the Liberals are the only true progressive choice for parties.

Elizabeth May on Stephen Harper: He has nice kids but he's a dangerous man in the face of the climate crisis.

Stephen Harper on Jack Layton: He's honest and he works hard, and helped a lot with the Quebec resolution and the residential school apology. 

See what I mean?

Everyone used this simply question -- say something nice about the person to your left -- to say something nasty or promote themselves. 

Everyone, that is, except Stephen Harper.  He didn't trash Jack Layton's policies.  He listed two of his government's successes, but only in the context of sharing some of the credit with Jack Layton.

Why does this matter?  Because it shows that Stephen Harper can turn it off.  He can compartmentalize.  He can look at Jack Layton, a take a measure of the man without necessarily looking for a political opening.

That's a healthy sign.  As for the others, everything they touch turns into a cheap political commercial.  Elizabeth May was clearly the worst, but the others were little better.

There is something significant in that ability to stop being a politician and turn into a normal guy.  I think it is that I trust Stephen Harper to be the least consumed with ideas of power.  The others, given a chance to just be normal folks, couldn't pull it off.  The kept on being partisan politicians.  Do you think people like that would ever give up political power willingly?

But when Stephen Harper was asked to say something nice about a politician he disagreed with, he said something nice.  When the time comes, Stephen Harper will likely give up the reins of power with little fuss or fanfare.

I get the feeling Stephen Harper knows there's a lot more to life than politics.  I find that very reassuring in a politician.

But then I seem to be the only one who gets it, so maybe I'm wrong.

The Liberal Green Light Committee for Ontario, charged with making certain candidates standing for election meet the high standards demanded of a member of parliament of any party, will let pass.

Not all candidates have to be vetted by the Green Light Committee.  Those who are appointed just have to submit updated disclosures to the Ontario Campaign Chair.

Liberal MP Garth Turner was embroiled in a lawsuit with his former company, Millennium Media.  The suit was still active when during the run-up to this election and still active when the election started.  All we knew was that it involved the misappropriation of funds.  But the details are quite interesting.

I wonder if a Green Light Committee would have found these details interesting as well.  But since Garth Turner was appointed, we'll never know.

This story came and went rather quietly.  Millennium Media, the company Liberal MP Garth Turner founded in 1999, settled a lawsuit brought against Turner.

Details weren't mentioned in the media.  But the court filings are public information.  So what exactly was at issue?

These are the allegations brought by Millennium Media against Garth Turner.

There are allegations of camera equipment bought with company funds.  Cost?  Over $76,000.

There are allegations of office supplies, accounting fees, travel expenses, being paid for out of the company accounts. Cost?  Nearly $25,000.

And then there are allegations of a secret bank account:

In early 2005, Millennium Media provided certain services to CIBC Mortgages.

On March 8, 2005, Millennium Media rendered invoice no. 1209 to CIBC Mortgages in the amount of $215,605.00 (the "Invoice").

On or about October 28, 2005, CIBC Mortgages paid the Invoice by way of a cheque in the amount of $215,605.00 (the "Funds").  The Funds were then deposited by Turner into a Millennium Media bank account at the TD Bank (the "Account") which Turner opened on or about November 1, 2005 without informing Millennium Media's chief financial officer that he had done so.

Between November 1, 2005, and March 19, 2008, the Funds were withdrawn or redirected by Turner.  Turner had purposed to resign as an officer and director on or about March 13, 2006.  Turner purported to deal with Millennium Media's funds both before and after such purported resignation and, in fact, closed Millennium Media's TD Bank account after his purported resignation as an officer and director of the corporation.

Millennium Media pleads that the Funds were withdrawn or redirected without its knowledge or consent.  In fact, Turner was the only person at Millennium Media who was aware of the true nature of the transactions.  For reason known to Turner, Turner kept these various withdrawals and re-directions of corporate assets secret from all other Millennium Media personnel including its Chief Financial Officer.  Furthermore, having previous resigned as an officer and director of Millennium Media on March 13, 2006, Turner proceeded to close the Account on March 19, 2008 without any authority to do so, and without informing anyone associated with Millennium Media of this initiative.

Millennium Media pleads that the Funds were withdrawn or redirected for the benefit of the Defendants and to the detriment of Millennium Media with no juristic reason.  Accordingly Millennium Media pleads that the Defendants are liable for the return of the Funds.  Millennium Media pleads that Turner and the Numbered Company have been unjustly enriched at its expense and that it has suffered a corresponding detriment to such unjust enrichment.  At all times Turner stood in a fiduciary relationship to Millennium Media.  The conduct set out above was in direct and flagrant violation of Turner's fiduciary and other obligations to Millennium Media.

The suit makes no allegations regarding what the Funds were used for.  Garth Turner has been a sitting member of parliament since the January 2006 election.

We all know that this suit, for which these papers were filed on August 13, 2008, was settled on or about September 12:

A lawsuit involving Liberal MP Garth Turner and launched by the media company he founded has been settled, The Sun has learned.

"The business dispute in question resulted from a misunderstanding between the parties over the winding up of a corporation. It has been put to rest and will not proceed by mutual consent," said Turner, a financial expert, author and commentator.

The plaintiff's lawyer Gavin Tighe of Gardiner Roberts LLP would not comment on the settlement.

The lawsuit was launched by Millennium Media Television Enterprises in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice on Aug. 18, and was seeking $316,698.84 in damages over alleged misappropriation of company funds.

None of the allegations were proven in court.

None of the allegations were proven in court, but thanks to these publicly available documents, we now know what the allegations were.

Thankfully it was all due to a misunderstanding, as stated by Garth Turner.  Millennium Media did not confirm or deny that characterization of the problem.

Why does this matter?  Normally they would not, as nothing was proven and the suit settled out of court.  But concurrent with these events was the start of an election, and that makes it interesting.

This election was called on September 7.  I believe Garth Turner was appointed to be the nominee for this riding.  That would mean he would not have had to stand before a Green Light Committee, but he would still have to submit forms to the Ontario Campaign Chair:

Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Leader of the LPC may decide that a Meeting shall not be held in an Electoral District and shall designate a person who will be the Candidate for an Electoral District in any Election upon the Candidate executing and filing with the Ontario Campaign Chair, Forms 1, 2 (or Form 1A, instead of Forms 1 and 2, where Rule 6.2 would otherwise apply), 3, 4, 5 and 8 to the National Rules, with appropriate amendments.

Form 1A applies to nominees who were candidates for the Liberal Party in the general election in 2006.  Garth Turner was a candidate for the Conservative Party, so he would have to submit the longer form, Form 1.  The obligation to disclose is clear:

Are there any civil proceedings now pending in which fraud or similar conduct on the part of you or any partnership or company of which you are or were at the time such proceedings commenced a partner, officer, director or beneficial owner of more than 10% of the voting securities is alleged?

Are you presently involved, as a party, witness or otherwise, in any litigation before a court of law or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, which, if publicized before or during an election campaign, could adversely affect your campaign or the campaign of the Liberal Party of Canada or cause embarrassment to the Party of its Leader?

Are you aware of any other material fact not otherwise disclosed in this Form that, if publicly known, could cause your electoral chances or the electoral chances of the Liberal Party of Canada to be materially worsened, could hinder the performance of your public duties as a Member of Parliament or could be used by your opponents against you or the Liberal Party of Canada?

I am certain that Garth Turner disclosed everything as required (or updated previously filed forms), given that the lawsuit was still proceeding as the election was called.  I just wonder if the Green Light Committee would have allowed the nomination to proceed under these circumstances, what with such close polling numbers at the outset of the election, and with Stephane Dion's troubled leadership on the line.

By being appointed, the full committee would not have reviewed these forms and his disclosures, and his updated information.

Of course, since the suit was settled, it's all moot now.