Featured:
Thursday, February 11, 2010 3:57 PM EST
Vast right-wing conspiracy?
Robert Silver
I have tons of respect for my fellow blogger Brian Topp but I have to say, of all the observations about Adam Giambrone in the last few days, this has to be one of the stranger ones:
"The final lesson is that politics is blood sport. Particularly when you run as a progressive candidate focused on the public interest, you are challenging powerful vested interests with access to ample resources. They will arrange for something like this. Which can be an opportunity. To show what you're made of. To show how resilient, honest and focused on the job you can be. To demonstrate your character."
"Powerful vested interests with access to ample resources" are on a mission to bring down "progressive candidates" focused on "the public interest". A few things:
1. Who are these "powerful vested interests"? The bankers? Hollywood? Globe and Mail bloggers? Really - who are these bad men (I presume they're all men)?
2. When they hold their secret meetings to plot the downfall of progressive candidates, do they drink goat blood out of a golden cup before or after the plotting?
3. In what way was Adam Giambrone's downfall the fault of these powerful forces as opposed to his own stupidity?
4. When David Miller was running in 2003, why didn't these powerful forces target him? Or did they and the rest of us not notice?
5. Can you name a single specific example of these powerful forces in action? Who have they targeted in Canada in the past and what tactics did they use?
6. Have "progressives" considered putting together their own dark strike-force to target right-wing candidates who are working, presumably, for private interests? You know, just for balance.
(Photo: Kevin Van Paassen/The Globe and Mail)
Link to this post
Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:26 PM EST
The only person who can save Miller's legacy is now David Miller
Robert Silver
While I'm sure the debate will continue for some time about what Adam Giambrone's affairs and the Toronto Star's reporting says about our politics, our journalism and the decline of Western civilization, my interests are now turning to what Giambrone dropping out means for the Toronto mayoral election.
Giambrone was running, in essence, for David Miller's third term. The team he had assembled was essentially Miller's campaign organization from John Laschinger to the strong dependence on public-sector union support. The platform (such as it was) was a defence of Miller's accomplishment and vision for the city.
It was always going to be a long shot for Giambrone to win given the unpopularity of the TTC specifically and Miller's term in office generally but as I argued in this space repeatedly, I thought he could pull it off. Needless to say, that prediction now looks foolish (not the first time, won't be the last that happens).
I have no doubt that numerous left-wing names will now get bandied about from various sources. Names we are about to hear will include usual suspects ranging from Francis Lankin to Olivia Chow to any number of left-wing, no-name city councillors.
The reality is to those who think that David Miller's legacy is worth defending and extending, the only candidate who has any hope of beating George Smitherman or Rocco Rossi is a guy named David Miller.
Miller announced he wasn't running at a personal low-point after this past summer's strike. While its an understatement to say I'm not a fan, he still has high name recognition, starts with huge negatives but also a powerful base of support, is a polished campaigner and, post-Giambrone, will bring a maturity to the role of candidate that is now a necessity for any candidate.
It's hard to cast an unpopular incumbent as a saviour but to those on the left in Toronto, David Miller is likely now their only hope.
(Photo: Kevin Van Paassen/The Globe and Mail)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010 1:38 PM EST
Gotcha Giambrone
Tim Powers
Rob is a far more adroit commentator than I on all matters related to the Toronto mayoral election. Certainly, I look forward to hearing his views on Adam Giambrone's candidacy following an unusual story run by the Toronto Star today.
Masquerading as the New York Post, the Star has published a steamy and sorid tale involving Giambrone and his apparent extracurricular romantic activities. Certainly, I am not here to defend Giambrone's alleged behaviour. Giambrone has to answer to his partner first for his transgressions. I am just not sure what role the public as represented by the media should have here.
As some have argued on Twitter, Giambrone's actions do merit mainstream media coverage because they tell us something about his character. Others affirm it is fair game because he was fully utilizing his partner as part of electoral branding. Valid arguments to a degree, but did his personal choices, as bad as they may have been, impair or have the potential to inhibit the performance of his public duties? Why does what happens on a couch, as one account suggests, or in bedrooms involving three private individuals, have to be shared with millions? Particularly given the people most hurt by this will be the three in this imbroglio, one of them perhaps as an unknowing victim. How does this bit of "news" make Toronto a better run and administered city?
The way I see it, the more of this "gotcha" coverage of politicians' personal lives, the more unappealing politics becomes to potential new entrants. Do we want to adopt a U.S.-British model of intensive probing of elected officials sexual exploits? While reading about those romps can be titillating, sell papers, drive TV ratings and increase web hits, it is highly questionable whether it has positive long-term public policy benefits. For every bad apple discarded by that scrutiny you have to wonder how many orchards go untapped because of this sort of weeding.
Sunday, February 7, 2010 11:10 AM EST
What is Ignatieff's sport?
Tim Powers
Just out of an abiding curiosity more than anything else I'd love to know what sport, if any, does Michael Ignatieff enjoy with a passion.
It seems that during the past week we have had a few stories about leaders as rabid fans - jock sniffers just seems rude. Last weekend Barack Obama went to a college basketball game in Washington and did some on-air TV coverage. Last night Stephen Harper did a "hot-stove" session in Saskatoon with hockey legends Gordie Howe and Wayne Gretzky.
While I have seen the Liberal Leader at a hockey game before I have no idea if that is his glass of sherry. He has a right to privacy when it comes to his sporting pursuits. Just curious.
Is he practicing his water-skiing al la Jean Chretien so as to showcase his athletic prowess and vigor? I'd caution him against a jet-ski and wetsuit; that never goes well.
In all the reading I have done about the man I have never picked up his jock jibe - other than the occasional yearning for yoga. Nothing wrong with that.
Tell me if your inclined, Mr. Ignatieff, is it a day at Ashes that does it for you, an afternoon in Twickenham, an evening at Wembley Stadium, court-side at Flushing Meadow, the bleachers in Dodger Stadium, sidelines at the Rose Bowl, ring-side at Madison Square Garden or center-ice at the Bell Centre that turns your crank? Forgot taking in basketball on the parquet floors at the old Boston Garden; that was also supposed to be pretty special.
Anyway, you get my drift.
Help us understand you a little better.
Friday, February 5, 2010 7:10 PM EST
Jobs are rightly put first
Tim Powers
Before responding to Rob, like others I wish Jack Layton well in his fight with prostate cancer. I have no doubt he will win. Good luck sir!
Not a great week for politicians and illness. Hopefully next week will be a healthier for one and all. Further proof politics can be tough on your well-being.
On the good news front today, the "Buy America" deal is sound for Canada and further proof that the PM is a competent economic manager.
Rob is absolutely right to say that the Conservative government did promise to bring international treaties to the House. And thus far that has been the case. However, under certain circumstances when timing is an issue, something that was contemplated when the treaty ratification policy was introduced, the government has the ability to ratify deals. See the entire policy here. The pertinent section reads: “Very exceptionally the Government may have to bind Canada to the treaty before the treaty is tabled, informing the House of the treaty at the earliest opportunity.”
Would the Rob and the Liberals argue that we would need to delay ratification if the House was in summer recess? Or if a deal was reached on Jan. 6th?
The government is acting now as quickly as possible in the interest of Canadian jobs. The policy allows for it and common sense suggests it is the right thing to do.
Prorogation criticism might be valid on other fronts but not here. That said, I'd rather take that heat than further delay a deal that can have an immediate positive impact on our economy.
Friday, February 5, 2010 2:33 PM EST
Harper's broken promise on Buy America
Robert Silver
News of a deal on Buy America should be great news for the country. Unfortunately there's a tiny little problem with it from the Conservative Party's perspective.
You see, in the 2006 election, the Conservatives ran on a platform where one of their clear, core commitments was they would "place international treaties before Parliament for ratification." It's right there on page 43. To the Conservatives' credit, to the best of my knowledge they have kept this commitment so far. That's about to change with the Buy America deal.
Now, if the House was sitting this week, they could quickly submit the deal with the Americans for ratification - promise kept. Sadly, as you may have heard scuttle about, the House is not sitting for another month, which means either Canadian businesses lose out on yet another month of business in the United States or Stephen Harper breaks a campaign commitment because it is now politically inconvenient. Quite a dilemma.
If only this was foreseeable and/or avoidable. Alas.
Friday, February 5, 2010 9:23 AM EST
Harper says it best when he says nothing at all
Robert Silver
When I read the headline to Don Martin's latest column in the National Post - "Harper all but admits mistake on prorogation" - I assumed that Stephen Harper had gone all Oprah on us, shed a couple of tears on Don Martin's couch, a quick mea culpa and on we move from the last five weeks.
What an interesting move by Harper, I thought to myself. Show some humility. Canadians are a forgiving bunch. Could work.
The column starts promisingly enough: "Stephen Harper doesn't admit mistakes easily - and never in person". Ah, so because of how hard it was for Harper to admit his error, he decided to say sorry to Canadians via Martin by telephone? A well crafted letter? No matter, so long as he took responsibility, who cares what medium he used?
Martin continues: "But the Prime Minister's antics this week are the closest we'll ever get to Mr. Harper acknowledging he has made a serious political miscalculation."
Um, antics? What kind of antics? Did I miss Harper throwing a pie in Guy Giorno's face this week. Please Mr. Martin, explain which of his antics this week even started approaching an (almost) admition of error:
"While some call it smart politics, the government's sudden push to cancel two weeks of spring recess after Parliament returns in March reeks of panic-laced desperation."
Thursday, February 4, 2010 11:53 AM EST
George Smitherman's non-contradiction
Robert Silver
The Toronto Star takes a swing at George Smitherman in an editorial today for what they allege is contradictory policy pronouncements:
"In two different newspaper interviews this week, Smitherman - the former provincial cabinet minister and acknowledged frontrunner in the mayoral race - adopted contradictory positions. In one, he expressed an openness to the idea of imposing road tolls ("I'm not one of those that would ever short-circuit the discussion, which I think is one of the two or three essential discussions for this election campaign"). In the other, he called for reduction or elimination of Toronto's $60 motor vehicle registration fee ("I think it is one of those things that is a little bit like the straw that broke the camel's back").
Both are user fees that serve the dual purpose of raising revenues and encouraging motorists to consider alternatives (transit). It makes little sense to consider one while promising to get rid of the other."
First off, calling the motor vehicle registration a "user fee" is a bit of a stretch. It's an ownership fee - you pay it whether you drive downtown daily or your car never leaves the driveway. It is therefore not a particularly well designed tax if the purpose, as the Star states, is to encourage motorists to use transit instead of driving. I haven't seen any data to suggest that car ownership has dropped in Toronto because of this $60 fee and once you own the car, there is nothing about the fee that would impact how often you drive it.
But let's be honest, that wasn't the real incentive for the vehicle registration tax. It was a cash grab by David Miller to plug a budget hole, plain and simple. The word cash grab is obviously a pejorative, a defender of Miller could rightly call it a necessary new tax given our fiscal situation. That's fine - part of governing is making tough decisions. Just don't pretend it has had or will ever have any meaningful impact on congestion, car ownership levels or transit usage.
So call the vehicle registration fee apples, let's move on to talk about oranges, namely road tolls.
Road tolls, if properly designed, can push drivers to leave their cars at home. Are they controversial? Sure they are. Ask David Miller circa 2003 about his experience with even raising them.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 5:33 PM EST
Ignoring the debate the Conservatives started
Robert Silver
Prominent Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor proposes a response that Stephen Harper should deliver to Michael Ignatieff's call for funding for abortions in developing countries:
"Mr. Ignatieff doesn’t seem to realize that in the past 34 years, we Canadians closed the divisive debate on abortion in this country. This topic has split families and the debate has caused heartache for countless Canadians. We are saddened by Mr. Ignatieff’s attempt to reopen the topic for discussion and to callously use the philosophical debate over life and the exercise of reproductive rights as a political football to be tossed about carelessly.
Mr. Ignatieff we’ve moved past this. We will not allow you to bring the American-style politics of abortion to this country as a wedge issue to divide Canadians.
Canadians that we’re consulting these days are concerned about jobs and the economic recovery. While Mr. Ignatieff wants to hold university style seminar discussions about abortion, we’re focused on phase II of our Economic Action Plan."
A couple of responses:
1. Michael Ignatieff hasn't proposed reopening the Canadian debate on abortion. He did nothing of the kind. Stephen Harper said HIS priority for the upcoming G8 meeting is the health of women in developing countries. He, Stephen Harper, put it on the table. It is a perfectly legitimate position to take that access to safe abortions is an important part of protecting women's health. It's also a legitimate position to say that funding abortions abroad is wrong. Neither position in any way changes the rights that women in Canada have even a tiny little bit. Michael Ignatieff isn't proposing to reopen the Canadian debate and all the "hidden agenda" stuff aside, neither is Stephen Harper. In other words, Taylor's response is a giant red herring. This has nothing to do with the state of Canadian abortion law.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 2:19 PM EST
Mainland media overreacts to Danny’s choice
Tim Powers
Were your only lens on Danny Williams’s personal choice to have heart surgery in the United States, because the procedure wasn’t available in Newfoundland, the out-of-province media you might be under the impression the Premier has committed a deadly sin.
He should show leadership, some argue, and use the Canadian system because apparently some form of token symbolism is more important that his personal health. While it is fair to criticize a person for his past comments, and some is due here, a majority of the national media coverage provided a great example yesterday of typical hysterical over-reaction.
For your reading pleasure here are links to four stories from media based in Newfoundland and Labrador, the place where Danny Williams gets elected. They are of a very different tone and actually engage in a responsible exploration of why he may have made the choice he did. Equally, recognizing that Danny is but a man about to face some potentially serious medical procedures, their pens and keyboards have a touch of compassion for the personal journey he is about to undertake.
Williams faces weeks of recovery
Premier followed advice of his doctors, Kaminski says
Heart surgery to sideline N.L. premier for weeks
Cardiac Care Program Fine: Kaminski
One of the perturbing elements of Tuesday’s gong-show like coverage was seeing so many medical experts appearing on screens with no knowledge of the patient’s condition opining with great certainty that of course the procedure could be done in Canada. Maybe they will be proven right in time, but during those moments I felt like a web-based diagnosis of an imaginary person was being offered.
Behaviour of that sort doesn’t bring credibility to the national press. Sure if more was known about his ailment perhaps more legitimate commentary could have come forward. But Danny has chosen not to be a guest on Dr. Oz’s show. It is certainly evident as to why – and who can blame him?
Interestingly, not one of the paragons of medicine that appeared on the TV talk shows I saw yesterday offered the perspective provided by Vicky Kaminski the CEO of the Eastern Health Authority in St. John’s, where our main cardiac care facilities exist. According to Kaminiski, another possible theory about the Premier’s choice could be "something as simple as a slightly new technique that's being tried that gives a speedy recovery and that's not yet approved in Canada.” Kaminski said it might also be a procedure that can't be performed for whatever reason by medical professionals in the province.
The other theme that ticked me off about some of the “come from away” coverage of this twisted reality program was very few mentions of the personal choice Danny has consistently made to help Newfoundlanders who can’t get unique specialized treatment at home. Through his Williams Family Foundation he gives substantial money to families, mainly for children, who have to travel outside of the province for medical needs. Unfortunately, we heard little of that on Tuesday as it didn’t fit the narrative some were trying to develop of the rich public official giving his own health-care system the finger.
If we want a real debate on health care let us drop the bromides – it is not just the politicians who are to blame, as Danny’s dilemma has demonstrated.
Silver-Powers Contributors
Robert Silver
Robert Silver is a Toronto-based energy lawyer, entrepreneur and consultant. He currently advises energy companies looking to build clean electricity projects in Ontario. He has been involved in projects that have brought more 3,000 megawatts of clean and renewable energy to Ontario. Robert has also been involved in a number of innovative conservation and energy efficiency projects. He is a highly sought after speaker on energy, infrastructure and environment issues.
An active federal and provincial Liberal, Robert was Gerard Kennedy's National Policy Director during the 2006 Liberal Leadership Campaign. Prior to returning to the private sector, he worked for Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty as a special policy advisor. He received his law degree from the University of Western Ontario, where he won two North American and two Canadian National Debating Championships.
Tim Powers
Tim Powers is Vice-President of Summa Communications based in Ottawa.
Originally from St. John's, Tim began his career as an assistant and advisor to the Honourable John C. Crosbie, then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Thereafter, he acted as advisor to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He also served as the Director of Policy and Research to the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Generally, he has been involved with federal election campaigns in one way or another since the great Free Trade debate of 1988. From handing out leaflets to knocking on doors to TV talking (thankfully his time as a bouncer helped with that) he has had the good fortune of doing a bit of everything.
Tim has a Master of Sciences degree (Media and Communications) from the London School of Economics and has studied Public Sector Management at Harvard University. Currently, he serves as a lecturer in the Faculty of Communications at the University of Ottawa.