![]() |
| Home RSS Directory F.A.Q Suggest A Feed Try Custom Feed Sonneries Portable |
Latest Flows from this sub-category: random selection from this sub-category: |
A blog about news and politics by Steve Janke Stephane Dion gets a rough ride while on the road...from his own nominee! In a follow-up to the story of Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion's visit to Cornwall, Ontario, we have this audio clip from AM 1220 radio. Listen as Stephane Dion defends his carbon tax against rather hostile questions...posed by the Liberal Party nominee for the riding, Gerry Samson: Stephane Dion defending his carbon tax plan in Cornwall Here's a transcript:
Some observations:
Perhaps Stephane Dion was too busy to detail any costs or benefits for a typical taxpayer in the Cornwall area. Perhaps Stephane Dion doesn't have enough knowledge of the details of his own carbon tax plan to detail any costs or benefits for a typical taxpayer in the Cornwall area. Perhaps Stephane Dion knows the actual costs and benefits for a typical taxpayer in the Cornwall area, and decided that getting into the details would make a bad situation even worse. Whatever the reason, Stephane Dion was at the receiving end of a very hostile reaction from his party's own nominee. If Gerry Samson was a "team player", he would have let Stephane Dion off the hook with Dion's first "check the website" answer. But Gerry Samson, in front of the media, presses Stephane Dion and presses him hard:
So let's continue to watch as Stephane Dion tries to convert Canadians to his view that we need to be taxed even more. Perhaps he might accidentally convert some Liberals along the way. But remember this. If you have any questions or concerns, don't bother Stephane Dion. He's not here to answer your questions or soothe your concerns, just to get your votes. Yet again, Liberals are undermining Stephane Dion's attempt to sell his carbon tax plan (aka The Green Shift) to Canadians. This time, we have Liberal nominee Gerry Samson in Stormont-Dundas-South-Glengarry admitting, on the record, with Stephane Dion in the room, that Samson can't get local residents to believe him when he tells them that they will benefit from Stephane Dion's new tax. Well, one guy in the audience loved the idea of the carbon tax. But then as it turns out, he's a local Liberal Party riding association activist (ed. actually a director and a member of the riding association executive). Of course, that wasn't mentioned in the media report. He's described as just a local resident who was really impressed with Stephane Dion. First we had Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff explain how Stephane Dion's carbon tax is really just a way of moving money from Alberta and Saskatchewan to Ontario and Quebec to pay for social programs. Then we had Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay explain how Stephane Dion's carbon tax might or might not affect emissions, and that there is simply no way to tell. Then we had Liberal MP Ralph Goodale explain that most of the oil taken out of the ground in Saskatchewan won't be taxed at all. Now we have Liberal nominee Gerry Samson in Stormont-Dundas-South-Glengarry. His revelation? That no one believes him when he tries to sell Stephane Dion's carbon tax as a financial windfall for Canadians:
Yikes. And with Stephane Dion right there in the room! So, of course, the reporters go over to Stephane Dion for an immediate comment. Caught unprepared by Gerry Samson's admission, Stephane Dion's response seems to be that Gerry Samson hasn't spoken to the right people:
I'm guessing that Gerry Samson won't be allowed to share a room with Stephane Dion with the media present anytime in the near future. As a way of comparison, Stephane Dion seemed to have little trouble winning over this crowd to his plan for a carbon tax:
Clearly, Ernie Schaefer is sold on it. He's just one of your local residents, after all, wowed by the plan presented by Stephane Dion at the podium that evening. Ernie Schaefer is the only audience member interviewed and quoted in this story. Just an average guy...who is also an active member of the local Liberal riding association (and it turns out, a member of the riding association executive with the title "director" -- see the update below):
Funny that Ernie Schaefer didn't identify himself as a Liberal Party member and Liberal riding association activist. Too bad the paper didn't figure that out before labeling him as just "one of the local residents". Maybe Gerry Samson really is having trouble selling the carbon tax to people. At least to people who aren't Liberal Party members who enjoy posing as average citizens with no obvious party affiliations. Which makes me wonder...just how many of the other 109 people in attendance were like Ernie Schaefer -- active members of the Liberal Party trucked out to fill chairs and spout out praise to the local press? Maybe Schaefer was the only one. And it was pure luck that the only active Liberal Party partisan in the crowd was the only one who got himself interviewed and quoted in the only story written about this event, without revealing his link to the Liberal Party. It all sounds a bit dishonest when I write it up that way. Just assume for a moment that this was not luck, but an orchestrated bit of media manipulation. If Canadians are really warming up to Stephane Dion's idea of paying more for everything, then why would the Liberals resort to playing tricks like this? Playing tricks on the media to sell the tax trick. Cute. Maybe we should come up with a name for this sort of thing. Call it Stephane Dion's Green Shiftiness. Addendum: I wonder if Gerry Samson was in on the joke. A random thought: If it turns out that the Liberals are playing games in promoting their "Green Shift", it only strengthens Jennifer Wright's position that the Liberals are undermining her Green Shift Inc. Update: Turns out that Ernie Schaefer, that "local resident", is in fact a member of the Liberal riding association executive. HIs title is Cornwall West Director. Thanks to Christian Conservative for the heads up. Can Stephane Dion sell the carbon tax? The question is misleading. The real question is this. Can Stephane Dion sell the carbon tax without alienating everyone around him? Sometimes the real story is hidden behind the "human interest" piece. In this case, the human interest bit is about Gabrielle Arkett being deeply disappointed about the brief contact she had with Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion:
To be fair, I bet there are stories like this about every political leader. He or she breezes in, a quick photo, and onto the next extended hand. Perhaps Arkett's expectations were set too high, but then who isn't idealistic at 15? But for Arkett, this was not the only disappointment. Just the biggest one:
Is this the grand communications plan that would sell Canadians on the carbon tax by the end of the summer? Hand out the pamphlets. Speak incomprehensibly for eight minutes. Spend three of those eight minutes trashing the Stephen Harper. Leave before the questions start. Remember that the carbon tax plan includes an escalating tax on emissions applied on certain fuels at certain points in the value chain, three distinct tax bracket cuts, and a myriad of credits, benefits, social programs, and technology funds. What it doesn't include are predictions or goals for how emissions will be affected. After watching Stephane Dion breeze in and out, I doubt many people had any real idea what the carbon tax is going to do, expect make everything more expensive. Gabrielle Arkett got it right, I think. Stephane Dion ought to have treated Gabrielle Arkett with more respect. She's a very perceptive person. Note: Gabrielle, if you actually read this, don't be so surprised about Stephane Dion's reaction. Stephane Dion has two reasons not to spend more than a moment with you. First, you don't vote. Second, you can't help with Stephane Dion's leadership debt. Come back in a few years holding a cheque, and Stephane Dion will gladly listen to your questions. Stephane Dion is mistaken for a popular local politician. When the mistake is corrected, enthusiasm for being in such close proximity to that carbon tax guy drops dramatically. Hey, it's just an anecdote, so don't read to much into it. But it is funny. What's more interesting, though, is that the story became ammunition in a Liberal-versus-Liberal infighting. Is this a hint of how much Canadians are really fretting about global warming? Or just a sign that Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion couldn't get arrested in some parts of the country even if he tried? In any case, Stephane Dion runs the risk of being known simply as "that tax guy", if he is recognized at all:
What is really funny is that this is not lost of Liberals. Someone posted this as part of a discussion on a Liberal Party policy forum:
OK, it wasn't so much a discussion as it was a shouting match between anti-carbon-tax Liberals and pro-carbon-tax Liberals, with a generous helping of Alberta-bashing tossed in for good measure. I don't know if that person was re-posting the story from that article (and adding embellishments by suggesting multiple persons didn't recognize Stephane Dion and were unimpressed to find out who he was) or if this person had better information of what really happened on the street. But clearly there is a fight going on inside the Liberal Party, and stories like this are providing ammunition to Liberals who want to see this carbon tax plan go away. Maybe Stephane Dion too. Is Saskatchewan going to hurt badly by Stephane Dion's carbon tax? Well, Stephane Dion admitted as much, but Liberal MP Ralph Goodale has taken the time to explain this more clearly. Don't worry, he says. Almost all the oil taken out of the ground in Saskatchewan will be consumed and turned into carbon dioxide emissions without a dime of tax being applied. Oil company profits are safe! You might wonder how this helps the environment. On the other hand, you might have stopped asking that question after Liberal MPs Ken Boshcoff and Martha Hall Findlay have already explained that no one expects any actual environmental benefit from the carbon tax. First we had Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff explain how Stephane Dion's carbon tax is really just a way of moving money from Alberta and Saskatchewan to Ontario and Quebec to pay for social programs. Then we had Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay explain how Stephane Dion's carbon tax might or might not affect emissions, and that there is simply no way to tell. Now we have Liberal MP Ralph Goodale explain that most of the oil taken out of the ground in Saskatchewan won't be taxed at all. Yes, you heard that right. Most of that carbon emitting oil in Saskatchewan won't be taxed. The emissions will go into the atmosphere without raising a dime of revenue to be returned to Canadians through tax cuts or social programs. But profits from the sale of that oil will flow to oil companies without any problem. Indeed, the business tax cuts in Stephane Dion's carbon tax plan are likely to make those profits higher. And this helps how?
So let's get this straight. I pull great blobs of oil out of the ground in Saskatchewan. As long as it is not sold in Canada, Stephane Dion's carbon tax is not going be applied. As it is, most of it isn't sold in Canada already. Should one day Stephane Dion get the opportunity to inflict this new tax on Canadians, Canadian producers will do well to sell all their product to the United States to avoid the tax and maximize profits, as Ralph Goodale has been so helpful in explaining. That means the oil will be consumed and converted into emissions without Stephane Dion's carbon tax doing one jot of environmental good. I suppose Ralph Goodale is simply confirming what Ken Boshcoff and Martha Hall Findlay have already said. Stephane Dion's carbon tax isn't going to do any good for the environment. So what's the point of this tax again? Addendum: I don't know if "Green Tax Shift" is just a phrase used in this story, or if it is a hint of how the Liberals plan to resolve the lawsuit with Green Shift Inc. Is it time for the government to get involved in the ongoing labour dispute at Air Canada? With the troubles plaguing the airline, this is one issue that could be resolved. And ought to be. Before I wade too deeply, however, a little background should be offered. Some readers might be too young to remember but there used to be two major airlines in Canada. There was Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. Air Canada ultimately bailed out the money-losing Canadian Airlines by merging the companies. The Liberal government rejoiced and approved the merger as they didn’t want to open up our skies to foreign competition. With that merger came the problem of what to do with the pilots. Pilots live by a strict pecking order defined by seniority. Generally I dislike seniority-base systems, since it rewards staying power instead of skill. But certain professions stand apart. The skill spread between individual airline pilots is small, as the level of responsibility assigned to a pilot is such that there can’t be much room for anything less than near perfection. Since general skill level and professionalism is essentially constant, seniority becomes the obvious way of ordering pilots. So seniority is the means by which pilots are distinguished, and the problem of how to deal with pilot seniority at Air Canada has dragged on for years – which brings us to today. A fair and balanced seniority integration system still hasn’t been implemented. The pilots are still at each other’s throats over the issue, the price of jet fuel is going up, security costs have not let up, large foreign airlines are looking for merger and takeover opportunities to help survive the turmoil, and Stephane Dion is looking to make things worse with his carbon tax. Is this a crisis? Maybe not quite yet, since the pilots bargaining agreement with Air Canada isn’t up until June 2009, but the clock is ticking. How can Air Canada fly if its pilots can’t agree to a seniority list? One set of pilots seems to have won the lottery and don’t intend to deal away their winnings to the benefit of the original pilots at Air Canada. How did this seniority issue become such a mess? In 2001, arbitration took place and Morton Mitchnick designed a scheme to merge the seniority levels. Well, the Canadian Airlines pilots hated it, and the CIRB agreed that Mitchnick had weighted the seniority of Air Canada pilots too favourably. The CIRB was chaired by Paul Lordon at the time. Remember that name. So, in 2003, it was sent back to arbitration. Lordon set out specific principles and directions to be followed for the next round. Brian Keller chaired the next arbitration. Unfortunately, Keller didn’t follow the principles Lordon directed were to be followed. In fact, out of the three arbitration panelists, Mr. Keller’s voice was the final decision and the other two members disagreed with the Mr. Keller. Keller, effectively, took the pendulum and swung it hard in the other direction, treating the seniority of Canadian Airline pilots with much for favour and literally discounting the seniority of the original Air Canada pilots. Nice. Imagine working somewhere and slowly moving up the depth charts and then one day someone says, “Sorry, we’ve just discounted your seniority and given your job to someone from another company with less seniority. You will be paid less, you may see your kids and family less because you’ve got to work more days per month – and of course your pension won’t be as much. Have a nice day.” Seniority is a big deal for pilots. It’s not about bragging rights. It has serious consequences on their careers and on their lives. Any changes and adjustments have to be handled very delicately. Needless to say, there were a lot of disgruntled pilots. After Lordon retired in 2003 the CIRB acted as though it was tired of listening to the case and the courts just kept deferring to the then tribunal (full of Liberal political appointees) – even though 2 of 3 panelists on the Keller arbitration disagreed with Keller’s decision. More frustrating was that Keller’s decision blatantly disregarded the directions that it was to have received from the Paul Lordon of the CIRB –namely pilots who flew similar aircraft were to be grouped together and the integration date was to be 2000. When Keller implemented a punitive seniority “discount” on original Air Canada pilots and then moved the integration date of the pilots from 2000 to 2003 – it seems rather evident that a couple of key CIRB direction were broken. I have no idea how Keller’s decision was allowed to stand in the face of the ignored Lordon direction and despite the fact that Keller was not supported by his fellow co-panelists. Yet the Keller decision is still in place. The passage of time has not soothed the pain. Actually, since we’re talking about seniority here, the passage of time is probably making things worse for pilots who feel cheated. Lordon has since left the CIRB, but the former head of the CIRB was retained to look at the decision again. With an opportunity to undo the damage inflicted by Keller, Lordon made two fundamentally clear recommendations: (1) dump the punitive seniority discount applied to original Air Canada pilots and (2) move the merger date back to when the merger actually took place in 2000, not 2003:
The Lordon report was tremendously significant. It could have simply stated that new negotiations were required. But Lordon took the step of recommending that the Keller decision ought to be modified instead ahead of new negotiations. The recent Lordon Report recommendations ought to be taken under careful consideration by the federal government as well as the current members of the CIRB. Let us not forget that Air Canada is a creature of the federal government, since competition rules had to be suspended for the Air Canada and Canadian Airlines merger to take place in the first place. Furthermore, the reason that Air Canada and Canadian Airlines merged was because the Liberals wanted to keep out foreign competition. Who needs free trade agreements when protectionist policies buy so many more votes? The federal government and CRIB have a role to play to clean up this mess. Paul Lordon has started the ball rolling in an attempt to find a fair and balanced seniority system – after all – this all he sought when he sent the Mitchnick award back to arbitration, which unfortunately ended up with the flawed Keller decision. It’s time we take notice of this matter before the pilots are back at the table with Air Canada in 2009 – who knows what the future holds at that time? But it doesn’t look like clear skies are on the horizon. Our airline system is far more important, I think, than getting worked up over text message fees. Yesterday I wrote that the story of Blair Wilson was coming to a close. I think that's likely to be true, but today I have to point out the Blair Wilson is putting up what might be a last minute fight. Part of that is what might be an attempt to alter the understanding of what started the Elections Canada investigation in the first place. Blair Wilson was a Liberal MP who has been sitting as an independent since allegations of election misspending and of personal lawsuits were made public last October: Media reports in October quoted Liberal insiders who worked for Mr. Wilson as saying he failed to report all his spending and made election purchases with cash, leaving no paper trail. In October, Mr. Wilson stepped down from his position as revenue critic for the Liberal Party over financial allegations by his father-in-law Bill Lougheed. Elections Canada has found him guilty of three violations, but a letter of compliance means there won't be any prosecution. Blair Wilson was spinning this as an exoneration, and also making statements to the effect that he was the driving force behind the Elections Canada investigation:
Now that's news to me. Here is the timeline regarding the anonymous complaint and the investigation. October 24: Date on the anonymous complaint addressed to Elections Canada: October 28: Blair Wilson says he has not heard from Elections Canada:
October 28, 9:48pm: Blair Wilson first refers to an investigation:
None of this actually refutes the Blair Wilson's claim that he initiated the investigation, but even then it would be splitting hairs. The only reason he would have initiated the investigation, if indeed he had, is because the anonymous complaint caught the attention of Elections Canada and, perhaps more importantly, the media. At best, Blair Wilson is splitting hairs. At worst, he is engaging in some revisionism as part of his effort to rehabilitate himself and get back in the good books of the Liberal Party:
We might not have to wait until August 19. Quick on the heels of Blair Wilson's public announcement that he would be trying to get back into the Liberal caucus, he announced that he would be holding a news conference. You have to recall that from the Liberal Party's point of view, Blair Wilson's problem is that he did not disclose the financial disputes he had been having with his family and former business associates, which is a separate issue from the election misspending. Blair Wilson's news conference is scheduled for later today, but I'd be surprised if it amounted to good news for his political future:
So we can take bets:
If Blair Wilson is resigning, then his bit about starting the Elections Canada investigation into himself has to be be one of the shortest attempts at political rehabilitation on record. Blair Wilson had admitted to violations of the Elections Act, but there will be no prosecution. It is also likely that there will be no seat for Blair Wilson once this parliament rises for the last time. Former Liberal MP Blair Wilson became an independent following charges that he had violated federal election spending rules. Blair Wilson has admitted to some of those violations:
The anonymous complaint and the evidence submitted to Elections Canada was made available to me in November 2007, when the allegations were first made. You can see that material in these posts, including the evidence of the umbrellas and the printing. The Charges Against Blair Wilson:
The case has been resolved with a notice compliance, essentially a promise to follow the rules going forward, so there will be no prosecution by Elections Canada. Unfortunately for Wilson, it doesn't seem like the Liberals will allow him to run as the party's candidate in this riding or any other. Seventeen boxes of sensitive Conservative material related to the In-and-Out affair being removed from Conservative Party headquarters by grim-looking Elections Canada officials. The images from last April were quite powerful. Would you like an update? Well, for one thing, the boxes didn't leave the building, at least not until the relevancy of the seize material was determined. And that determination was that over 85% of the material had nothing to do with the question of advertising financing in the 2006 election. That material has been returned, but without a phalanx of cameras recording the march back into Conservative Party headquarters. And the rest? Virtually all of it was material Elections Canada already had. Makes you wonder just what the point of all this was. Just to put on a good show for the cameras? For quite some time, I've known that the boxes taken by Elections Canada officials during the April visit to Conservative Party headquarters didn't actually get very far. Sorry, but I really couldn't say anything. Indeed, the boxes stopped well short of the door as Conservative Party lawyers challenged Elections Canada on the relevance of the material taken to the so-called In-and-Out Affair. You have to remember that Elections Canada made off with a huge amount of material:
The Conservatives initiated a fight on this point:
Well, chalk this one as a win for the Conservatives. Nearly everything had to be returned, deemed irrelevant, and what they kept was, by and large, stuff Elections Canada already had. From an email:
What is a vast majority? We're talking something like 85% of the stuff lugged out of the offices by Elections Canada investigators had nothing to do with the investigation, and is no longer in the possession of Elections Canada. To be more accurate, it was never in the possession of Elections Canada, but in limbo while relevancy was being determined. But I bet it made for great television watching box after box come out of the office. Canadians assumed that Elections Canada now had more evidence of Conservative wrongdoing than you could shake a stick at. Seventeen boxes? Who knew Conservatives were hiding so much? I mean, it's not like a trained investigators would seize material that was irrelevant or already in their possession. You'd expect some material would be taken in error, but virtually all of it? Except that's exactly what seems to have happened. The parade of boxes was just eye candy for the cameras. Canadians didn't get to see almost all the boxes come back. After returning all the stuff that should not have been taken in the first place, virtually everything that remained was stuff Elections Canada already had. Take away the irrelevant stuff, and take away the stuff the Elections Canada already had, and you end up with an unimpressively small pile. No one has suggested the Conservatives would not have handed over that material had Elections Canada bothered to ask for it. All in all, the "raid" was an impressive media event, but legally, it seemed to accomplish nothing. Unless the point was to stage a media event and derail the deposition of Elections Canada officials that had been scheduled for the next day. If you believe that, then grabbing all that material made sense, if just to get it out of the hands of the Conservatives for a short time, and force the Conservative Party to fight to get its property back. So what if the material ultimately had to be returned. The raid served its purpose, unrelated to the gathering of evidence. If you believe that. Some strong language from Jennifer Wright, the head of Green Shift Inc, the company suing the Liberal Party over the use of the name "Green Shift". The local community paper from where I grew up, The Etobicoke Guardian, has a piece about the Green Shift lawsuit:
Is there a chance for the Liberal Party and Green Shift Inc to find common ground? Anything is possible, but the raw emotion is going to be hard to overcome:
Arrogant. Bully. Thief. If that's what Jennifer Green thinks, this suit is not going away any time soon. One of the stories that has gone dormant for almost a year is the case of the murder Yasmin Ashareh. Well, it was come back with a vengeance. As a way of review, recall that Yasmin Ashareh, a 20-year-old single woman living by herself, was found murdered in the Rexdale area of Toronto last summer. Her body was in a duffel bag. Her throat had been cut. Because of a missed pickup, her remains were found outside the John Garland Boulevard rooming house where she lived. Her case attracted quite a bit of attention. The means by which she was killed was unusual. Throat cutting has a ritualistic element to it. She was a Muslim, and some in the media and online speculated on whether this was an honour killing. Her family was from Somalia. Her father was not in Canada, though. He had left his family years earlier to return to Somalia. Readers of this blog learned that Yasmin was, in fact, the daughter of Awad Ahmed Ashareh, the Minister for Justice and Religious Affairs in the Somali state of Puntland, and subsequently a member of the national government. Her relationship to Ahmed Ashareh was later confirmed by the mainstream media. At last check, Awad Ahmed Ashareh was working with fundamentalist Islamist rebels in Somalia to integrate them into to government, even cabinet posts. That connection gave cause to some Somali's to think that Yasmin Ashareh got what she deserved. The plot thickens. Still, Toronto police made it clear that this case had no religious or political overtones. Instead, they arrested a Nigerian who lived in the same rooming house, a man by the name of William Imona-Russel. Police would not elaborate on the relationship between Imona-Russel and Yasmin Ashareh, or on the motive, or on the evidence that supported the murder charge. If you read the Yasmin Ashareh posts on this blog, you'll realize that I have a lot of doubts about this case. Imona-Russel was out on $1000 bail for having allegedly raped a woman. But even that case is not straightforward. Indeed, a careful reading suggests even more questions in my mind. Not convinced? Well, how about this? Before arresting Imona-Russel, police admit to having Imona-Russel under surveillance for several days. Why? We don't know. The police won't explain why they had him under costly surveillance, what they hoped to learn, what they did learn, if anything, and what prompted them to terminate the surveillance and arrest him. I wonder if the police hoped Imona-Russel would lead them to someone connected to the crime somehow. People in the area have contacted me to say they heard two men arguing the night Ashareh was murdered, as well as the sound of furniture being moved. An acquaintance of Imona-Russel contacted me to tell me Imona-Russel was no angel, but he was shocked at allegations of murder. As late as October, weeks after Imona-Russel's arrest, police were still canvassing the neighbourhood. All this adds up to nothing if the police had found the bloody knife in Imona-Russel's kitchen with his fingerprints all over it, but then there was a publication ban on the evidence. A publication ban on the evidence? Why? So we would not know how much evidence the police had? Or how little? Even straightforward information, like where her identification was found (with the body, in her arpartment, in Imona-Russel's possession, or somewhere else altogether) is being treated like a state secret. If it was a slam dunk, you would expect that the case would have been pleaded out by now. Then last night, I got this email, and it makes me wonder just what is going on in this case:
One of the lawyers? How many lawyers does he have? Clearly he is fighting the charges, and part of the strategy is to shut down media coverage, commentary, and speculation. Needless to say, I was floored by this one. I'm trying to get in touch with the reporters in the mainstream media who were also covering this case to see if they had been contacted regarding a publication ban on this case. Publication bans can be retroactive, so depending on how this plays out, I might have to pull down the stories for the duration of a trial. Of course, that doesn't mean I won't be following the case, just not publishing further stories on it, until the case is resolved. Stay tuned. A disturbing report from Toronto Police. And I'm surprised at the amount of detail they're releasing. From the Toronto Police Service, via an email alert from 33 Division:
To give his name and age is what surprised me, given that he's been charged with incest and that one of the victims is only 15 years old (it isn't clear that this young man is an incest victim). For people who know Gill, even in passing, this might be enough to identify the victims, and usually the police avoid giving out identifying information like this. Maybe it's the possibility of other victims that is the overriding concern. It's also a tricky issue, because "Nyron Gill" is also the name of a part-time music producer and student who is also 18 and also from Toronto:
Not sure what all that meant. Maybe the police figured the name was unique enough not to be shared with anyone else, and certainly not with someone of the same age and from the same city. Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion was in Guelph this past week. It was not an impressive performance. First of all, there was a sort of environmental tunnel vision at play. There are a myriad of issues facing the people of Guelph. But from Stephane Dion, they get the only one answer you get from the Liberal leader these days: the environment!
To be fair, though, this was never about Guelph or local issues:
Brenda Chamberlain did not show up. I wonder what she would have been driving if she did. I ask because the Guelph Mercury made note of what Stephane Dion is driving around in these days:
I hope it wasn't a Liberal speculating. I can only imagine the disappointment. More news from the saga of the Cadman tape. According to the headlines, a third expert is contradicting the claims made by two other experts that the tape misrepresents a conversation between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and reporter Tom Zytaruk. The headline is an attention grabber, but the the truth is that the third expert is not willing to come to the same conclusion has the first two experts without access to the original tape and the original recording equipment, something Tom Zytaruk is not willing to grant. He does say that there are irregularities in the recording though. Not actually a contradiction as I read it. As you know, the Liberals are being sued by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Liberals accused Stephen Harper of being party to an alleged May 2005 bribe attempt aimed at the late Chuck Cadman. Cadman died in July 2005. In September 2005, Stephen Harper, still opposition leader, was interviewed by Tom Zytaruk in the driveway of the Cadman home. On that tape, or so some people say, is an admission from Stephen Harper that he knew of the alleged bribe. The Conservatives have countered with two different analyses that establish that the tape was edited at key points. The experts who came to that conclusion have filed independent affidavits. Their conclusions were pretty damning:
But apparently there was a third expert. According to the Globe and Mail, he contradicted the first two:
So by contradicted, I would assume that Koenig is saying the tape wasn't altered. That would be a contradiction. Well, not quite. He doesn't support the conclusions of the other experts, but he's not saying they're wrong either. He's just saying that he won't come to a conclusion without the original tape and the original equipment used to make the recording:
So let's be clear. Koenig did find the same irregularities. He might have what he would call an unscientific opinion about the veracity of the recording, but he is only willing to offer a scientific opinion, and he does believe he has what he needs to do that. He won't go any farther until he has the tape, and the same equipment used by Zytaruk. Koenig is former FBI, so he's used to the luxury of field agents serving warrants and confiscating evidence to be analyzed. This is a civil suit. Zytaruk and his publisher refuse to release the original tape, but were happy to sell copies for $500 each. They insist that the copies are accurate reproductions of the original, but then they haven't sworn out affidavits to that effect. Koenig might still get his chance to get the original tape and the original recorder is sealed plastic baggies accompanied with photographs of where they were found, with those little L-shaped rulers they use to establish scale, but it might take a while. The lawsuit won't go in front of a judge until September. Koenig has done nothing wrong, and he certainly is under no obligation to render a conclusion if he feels that the evidence he has to work with is incomplete in some way. But though he is not ready to support the conclusion, I think that's a more than a few steps away from contradicting the conclusion. Indeed, Koenig is clear in his statement that there is reason to be concerned about the tape copies that he has to work with. Not enough to support the scientific conclusion that the tape is misrepresenting the conversation in Koenig's opinion. But he's not contradicting the evidence of irregularities and taped over portions. Liberal Party MP Martha Hall Findlay talks about Stephane Dion's plan for a carbon tax. The carbon tax will save the planet, right? We'll be encouraged to consume less energy, right? According to Findlay, there's no way to really know, or to be sure if it's really working. Still, that's no reason not to impose a tax on Canadians. Martha Hall Findlay explains the priorities behind Stephane Dion's carbon tax:
So let me get this straight. Martha Hall Findlay gets an opportunity to explain the Stephane Dion's plan to save the planet from global warming through a tax. And the best she can come up with is that it might not actually have any effect? That consumption is already being affected so much by pure market forces, that the effect of a carbon tax might be negligible as far as consumption is concerned? Even if there is a drop, there is no way to allocate a consumption drop between fuel price increases and the carbon tax? Well, if you have no confidence that a carbon tax will actually affect carbon consumption, then why proceed? Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff brags about all the money that the carbon tax will shift out of Alberta and into Ontario. Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay makes it clear that the Liberals are proceeding with this massive inter-provincial money shift without any idea if it will have any environmental impact. Two Liberal MPs, two admissions that the Liberal carbon tax has only a tenuous connection to the environment. It might work. It might not. No one really knows. But that's OK, because the one thing we know for sure the carbon tax will do is cost Canadians billions in tax money, billions the Liberal can use to fund new social programs. According to Boshcoff, it's about pulling money out of Alberta to hand over to Ontario voters. To potential Liberal voters. Indeed, if carbon consumption isn't affected, as Martha Hall Findlay admits is a possibility, those billions of vote-buying dollars will continue to roll in. And if carbon consumption drops by accident, that's OK. The carbon tax can always be cranked up to keep those vote-buying revenues steady. Hey, maybe that's what "revenue neutral" means. If Stephane Dion gets his carbon tax, revenues for Liberal government spending is guaranteed never to dry up, and those loyal Liberal voters will keep coming back for more Alberta-funded largesse. It's just a tax. The whole environment thing? It's just greenwashing to mask the bitter taste of cynical regionally-divisive tax on top of all the others we pay even as oil costs go up and up. More at the Alberta Aardvark. |
|
contact |