Health care U-turn?

Harper backs medicare law:

In an effort to defuse an issue that derailed him during the final weeks of last year's federal election campaign, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper announced yesterday that he now fully supports both the Canada Health Act and the role of the federal government in medicare. It was a dramatic shift for a man who four years ago advised Alberta to withdraw from medicare and who two years ago wrote that Ottawa should scrap the Canada Health Act.

This one's fair enough: Harper did use to say those things. As did a lot of conservatives. But Harper's been on a different tack for some time now - months, if not years. So there's no actual news in Walkom's story, other than Harper's a-little-too-transparent attempt to pull a Sister-Souljah with his Fraser Institute hosts by dissing the Harris-Manning paper. Is this a flip-flop? Maybe. But in his Calgary speech, Harper makes a point that perhaps suggests a genuine rethink. I'm paraphrasing, but the gist of it was this: The Canada Health Act is not the obstacle to health care reform that a lot of conservatives believed. Some of us have been saying this for some time -- there's room for radical, market-oriented reform within the Act, making full use of competition, consumer choice, etc. It just has to be publicly funded -- ie no user fees or private insurance for services covered by medicare. That's the right approach, in my opinion. It's also, as Harper stressed, the politically expedient approach. But the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Daycare U-turn?

Tories up the ante on child-care spending: Conservative government would budget more than $5-billion, offer tax cuts, credits

In an extraordinary turnabout, the Conservative Party promised yesterday to outspend the federal Liberals dollar-for-dollar on new daycare programs across Canada while offering additional tax cuts for families with children. "I do realize that it is a significant change from our policy in the last election," said Tory intergovernmental affairs critic Rona Ambrose. "It's because we have a great deal of young parents sitting in our caucus and it became a big issue for them." A Conservative government would budget more than $5-billion over five years for child care, in the form of direct subsidies to families as well as for conventional daycare space, Ms. Ambrose said. In addition, the Tories propose to slash taxes for families with young children, and provide tax credits for businesses with on-site daycares. The party also proposes measures that would allow parents to work part-time or take time off to be with young children, Ms. Ambrose said. "It's more than what the Liberals have on the table," she added... The Conservatives have long insisted that Liberal proposals for a national child-care program would be exorbitantly expensive and a bureaucratic intrusion into an area best managed by parents. As recently as last month, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said the Liberals were "creating a bureaucratic daycare system so expensive that young couples won't be able to afford to have children." But, yesterday, Ms. Ambrose said the government isn't spending nearly enough. "The amount of money that's on the table won't even scratch the surface of the daycare needs in this country," she said.

Either Jack Layton is now writing the Conservative platform, or this is a severely torqued story. My impression -- correct me if I'm wrong -- was that the Tories were not opposed to government funding of daycare, but rather insisted that the money should be given to parents, rather than to daycare providers. I don't see much that's changed, here, other than a declaration that they would honour funding agreements already signed with the provinces. But the $5-billion figure may be what's new... MORE: The Star is no clearer -

But on top of honouring any federal-provincial agreements, Ambrose said the Conservative caucus, which is made up of many young parents, has devised an "enhanced policy" that would, in fact, cost more than the $5 billion price tag on the Liberal child-care system. It would abandon Tory promises in the last election to give tax credits to parents. Instead, the new Conservative plan gives parents cash supplements they can use to "access different kinds of child-care choices and we want to offer that choice to parents and for parents that use regulated, subsidized daycare," Ambrose said. "We also think there needs to be also incentives put in place for businesses, or employers to look at creating the infrastructure."

So instead of giving tax credits to parents, they're going to give them cash supplements. Am I missing something?

Meanwhile, back in BC

More dispatches from the land that ethics forgot:

The B.C. Liberal party has received thousands of dollars in political donations from airports, colleges and other public bodies over the past four years, according to a review of party records by The Vancouver Sun. Earlier this week, it was revealed that seven municipal governments had made more than $2,000 in donations to the Liberals, often to attend fundraising dinners where cabinet ministers were present. The Liberals have since promised to return those funds. But a review of donations to the Liberals over the past four years indicates that the problem of taxpayer dollars ending up in party coffers goes beyond local governments -- with donations flowing in from a variety of other publicly funded agencies.

Why did they give? In some cases, those involved claim they had no idea the events they were attending were Liberal fundraisers. In other cases, well, let's let the man speak for himself:

Jim Blake, chair of the Prince George Airport Authority, said he did realize he was making a political contribution when he paid $760 for board members to attend a Liberal fundraiser. Asked why he attended, Blake replied: "It's pretty simple. We got $4 million from the provincial government to do our air terminal building expansion and to improve ... our runway. "We would give to any government in power, and I use the word government as opposed to party, under those circumstances... Four million dollars. It's pretty cheap for $760. I don't want to be quoted on that. I say that a bit facetiously."

So you see, it wasn't a partisan thing, it was just a payola thing. And I say that a bit facetiously...

Today's hydra-headed scandal involving money for nothing, jobs for Liberals, contracts in Quebec and Alfonso Gagliano

In the Montreal Gazette, Andy Riga reminds us of the Other Scandal, or rather scandals, during Alfonso the Gag's reign at Public Works: the Canada Lands affair, and assorted other stories of misdeeds at the agencies Alfonso fondly referred to as "my crowns."

The sponsorship scandal and allegations involving crown corporations are not directly linked, but some of the same characters have come up in both. "The common denominator was Mr. Gagliano," Jon Grant, the Canada Lands whistle-blower whose complaints about political interference and cronyism led to Gagliano's cabinet ouster, said this week. "That's why it's kind of interesting to listen to what's going on now at the Gomery Commission." Grant was appointed Canada Lands Co. chairperson in 1995, after retiring from Quaker Oats Co. of Canada after 18 years as chief executive. In 2002, two months after his term at Canada Lands expired, he went public, accusing Gagliano and his staff of pressuring him to hire Gagliano's friends and trying to meddle in commercial dealings at the agency. Jean-Marc Bard, Gagliano's chief of staff at the time, insisted on playing a role in all Canada Lands transactions in Quebec, Grant said, adding Bard told him: "Canada is yours, Quebec is ours." Bard has denied making the statement. Among Grant's claims is that Gagliano urged him to hire his friend Tony Mignacca for $6,000 a month, but Mignacca "didn't do any work" in his 12 months at Canada Lands and was forced to leave. Mignacca then was hired by Gagliano's riding office. Grant said Gagliano's office also asked Canada Lands to hire Michele Tremblay, a Gagliano friend and supporter, as a speechwriter and consultant, for $5,000 a month. She was hired, but Grant later let her go.

Peter Goldring, a Conservative MP from Alberta who was public-works opposition critic during the Gagliano era, sees parallels between the sponsorship scandal and some of the activities at crown corporations. "In light of what we know now, it seems like this was systemic - anything and everything that was an opportunity to scrape some coins out was taken and it really should all be looked into again," Goldring said in an interview. "This Gomery inquiry into sponsorship is only scratching the surface."

Some examples:

A 1998 internal Canada Lands memo, which only became public after Gagliano left office, made a series of accusations. The memo came to light in the criminal trial of Michel Couillard, a former Canada Lands vice-president facing a breach-of-trust charge. In the memo, he told his boss that Gagliano repeatedly tried to get people hired and have contracts extended. Couillard, eventually convicted of using $5,000 in Canada Lands money to pay stable fees for his daughter's horse, said in the memo that Gagliano tried to get all of Canada Lands' legal business moved to Tom Nanci, a Montreal lawyer and former Gagliano organizer. Couillard said Gagliano also intervened on behalf of Emmanuel Triassi, touting him to manage the Benny Farm real-estate project in Notre Dame de Grace. Canada Lands passed on hiring Triassi, a Montreal construction executive. Gagliano later appointed Triassi chairperson of the Royal Canadian Mint, a job he still holds. In addition, Couillard said Gagliano tried to grant part of the Benny Farm project to an engineering firm because "the minister's son-in-law worked" there. In a confidential 1999 forensic audit for Canada Lands, obtained in 2002 by the National Post, Samson Belair/Deloitte & Touche concluded that while businessman Robert Charest - brother of Jean Charest - was paid $187,000 for two years' work, he did not provide two years' worth of service as a real-estate consultant and broker. Canada Lands workers told the auditors Charest only showed up to pick up his paycheque. In Couillard's 1998 memo, he alleged that Gagliano ordered him to keep Charest on contract at Canada Lands for an extra three months because Jean Charest was jumping from the federal Progressive Conservatives to become leader of the Quebec Liberals "and the federal Liberals wanted to help him." The RCMP investigated but did not lay charges. Robert Charest denied any wrongdoing.

Michele Tremblay, the speechwriter who Grant said Gagliano wanted hired at Canada Lands, and her company were awarded millions in contracts by crown corporations during the years Gagliano was responsible for them. Her firm got contracts from Canada Post, the Royal Canadian Mint, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. and the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges of Montreal. Among other things, Tremblay was hired by the Canadian Mint for a $170,000 plan to send mobile gazebos across the country to mark the year 2000 and to increase awareness of the mint. The plan was ultimately shelved.

You have to read the whole thing.

MY SATURDAY column ("Mr. Dithers? We were too kind") proposes a revised theory of Paul Martin.

Poll watch

63% of Canadians think the Prime Minister is lying when he says he wasn't involved in the sponsorship scandal -- not just that he didn't know about it, but that he wasn't involved. Just under half -- 49% -- say their opinion of him has worsened in the past year, versus 10% who say it's improved: by far the worst showing of any party leader. But the headline on the CTV poll is "Cdns. suspicious of a Tory hidden agenda." INCIDENTALLY: For conspirazoids who've been digging into the "Liberal connections" of those polling companies showing the Grits bouncing back, the Post has a new poll from Ipsos-Reid putting the Conservatives on top, 33-30, but with the Liberals having regained their lead in Ontario. There's fodder there for both sides -- Cons ahead overall, but with less of a lead than before. I'd say if there's any conspiracy at work here, it's the conspiracy to overstate the significance of individual poll results -- one in which I can safely say every single media outlet is complicit. People: these are all within the margin of error of one another, give or take a point or two. There probably has been a slight swing back to the Liberals, which is only to be expected, after the pressure drop of recent weeks. The kind of voter who had not decided there was something fishy about the Grits until Jean Brault's testimony is not, shall we say, a person of firm opinions. In any case, get a grip: just because a pollster produces a result you don't like, it does not mean they are in the pay of the Liberal party. MORE: Ekos has it Libs 32.5 to Tories 30.5. Okay, Ekos really is a Liberal firm...

Substance watch

(Per several readers' suggestions)

In the area of democratic reforms, Harper rhymed off a list that included an elected Senate; elimination of gerrymandering and restoration of the principle of representation by population; a ban on non-confidence motions except on budgets or if campaign pledges are broken; ratification by Parliament of Supreme Court appointments; elimination of the large number of discretionary patronage appointments; Parliamentary committee approval for appointments; fixed terms for elections, unless there is a minority government; new procurement policies that ensure arm's length transactions; and a realignment of taxation powers so that the provinces can meet their spending responsibilities in health, education and welfare and not have to beg Ottawa for funds.

Stephen Harper, in a substance-filled and mostly non-pandering interview with Diane Francis. Available only in your soaraway National Post -- now with improved bingo. ADDENDUM: This is also encouraging -

How will the Conservatives convince Canadians that they will clean things up and not end up the same as the Liberals? "We will undertake a series of structural reforms to clean up the government and permanently reform the system," he said.

Hope we'll hear more about this. Much more.

Pork watch

The Post, the Globe and the Star all had good stories today on the Liberals' breathtaking run of spending announcements, which have nothing to do with any election -- obviously, since the election's not till next March. The Post's James Cowan, if I may say, has the most comprehensive report - and yes, I've been cleared of any conflict of interest in saying that by my personal ethics counsellor. (The accompanying colour piece -- "Let's see what we're announcing" -- by Siri Agrell is a hoot, too.) But really, it's just about impossible to keep pace. You'd also have to include this and this and this and this and this and this and this and ... POSTSCRIPT: it's nice to see no Conservatives have been sucked into playing that game.

Pander watch

Here's Harper early in the day Wednesday, scrumming with reporters:

"This is obviously not a budget we can support. I think this is a sign that this Parliament is seriously off the rails. This is fiscally irresponsible, and indefensible. I'm flabbergasted by the amount of taxpayers' money these guys are prepared to throw around to keep themselves in office." Climbing into a van, Harper said Paul Martin will "do just about anything" to stay in power, "and we can't allow a government to operate like this."

Here's Harper later in the day, in front of a rural audience:

"The NDP says they will not vote against corruption or scandal as long as their spending priorities go ahead. So what exactly did they get to buy their silence? "Nothing for workers, nothing for forestry workers in that $5 billion, nothing for seniors, nothing for fishermen, nothing to help the Atlantic offshore ... nothing for the problems here in this area. "Tommy Douglas must be rolling over in his grave when the NDP abandoned this country's farmers," Harper said.

So the point is ... they should have held out for more? Rhyming off lists of interest groups who were insufficiently bribed is not the way for Conservatives to get elected.

Libs 27, Tories 25

New survey puts Liberals and Tories in virtual dead heat in support

A Conservative lead in popular support seems to have evaporated this week, suggests a poll conducted after Paul Martin's national TV address and while the Liberal-NDP budget pact was being worked out. The survey by GPC Research had the two parties in a virtual dead heat: 27 per cent of respondents said they would vote Liberal and 25 per cent said they would opt for the Conservatives if an election were held."

There's apparently a CTV poll coming that shows much the same. UPDATE: Here's that CTV poll: 30-28, with the NDP at 18 or perhaps 21: the CTV website seems confused on the matter. Greens, interestingly, at 10, echoing the GPC poll. Libs ahead 38-30 in Ontario, Bloc leads in Quebec by -- oh, what does it matter? The real story: By a two-to-one margin, the public bought Martin's "wait for Gomery" line. They're even split fifty-fifty on the Layton budget deal. But look, folks, I'd drop the "sheeple" bit, if I were you. I get a strong feeling of deja vu, reading some of the comments: it's the same sort of stuff you read on Democratic boards in the States. Blaming the people is the consolation of losers. If you haven't yet persuaded them to see the world the way you do, pick up your socks. Hone your message. Or better yet, have one. EATINGCROWDATE: Paul Wells was right ("Martin wins the big play ... I will be amazed if the next three days' polls don't show overwhelming support") and I was wrong ("I think this disastrously misjudged performance will be seen as Mr. Martin’s flight to Varennes"). Paul Wells was right, and I was wrong. Paul Wells was right, and I was wrong... OR MAYBE I WASN"T: Alert reader YYC has Ipsos numbers showing a decline in wait-for-Gomery sentiment after the speech. Did I wear a hair-shirt for nothing?

Sympathy for the Dithers

A recurring theme in recent commentary on Paul Martin: pity. National Post: "And so, even after having railed against Adscam and muddled Liberal policies, we couldn't help but feel an ounce of pity for our PM as he pled his case on television last night." Margaret Wente: "You've got to feel sorry for the guy. He wasn't cut out for the muck and slime of politics. His problem is that he's just too darn nice. He doesn't have the snake-oil charm of a Mulroney, or the street-fighting instincts of a Chrétien. He has no taste for banging people's heads together. He'd rather fly around the world, to Budapest and Ouagadougou, and leave the dirty work to other people..." Carol Goar: "It is hard not to feel sorry for a prime minister who has been dogged by an odious inherited scandal since his 60th day in office..." George Jonas: "One actually feels some sympathy for Mr. Martin. He wasn't handed his tasty treat on a silver platter. He had to beg, perform tricks, roll over and play dead for it. His predecessor made him jump through an inordinate number of hoops, then placed a tub of hot water behind the last one. 'If you want to make a splash so badly,' Jean Chretien seemed to say, 'I'll give you a lifetime opportunity.'" Greg Weston: "Like or hate the Liberals, it is hard not to feel a twinge of pity for this 'dead man sitting' -- a genuinely nice fellow slumped in his office wing chair, chin propped in his hand, his face carved deep with too much stress and too little sleep."

Christie Blatchford notes another Adscam irony: "They sold the Clarity Act ... under an arrangement that was itself deceitful and covert. Actually, one of the virtues of the Clarity Act is its lack of clarity: on the question of what constitutes a clear majority, it is silent. As it should be -- the government retains the freedom to declare, whatever the result, that it's not quite clear enough.

On the other hand, Wells has a must-read post on the economics of the tuition-fee cut lately extracted out of Martin (and which Martin is supposed to extract out of the provinces). Gist: Rich students going to school on daddy's dime reap a windfall gain, while those with less to start with, thanks to the combined effect of reductions in student-aid and the tax code, actually wind up worse off.

"Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper will be "getting into bed" with Quebec separatists if he defeats the federal budget and forces an election, says the leader of the federal New Democrats." "If this budget goes down because Stephen Harper wants to call people names ... then he'll have to answer for that." Harper denounced the Liberal-NDP agreement as "death-bed conversions and deals with the devil."

Wait a minute: Is he saying that a separatist can't be Prime Minister? Why is he calling people names -- "separatist" -- when he knows the preferred word is "sovereigntist"? Is this the kind of intolerance and anti-Quebec rhetoric we can expect from a New Democratic government? Someone should really ask Paul Wells what he thinks about Jack Layton's opinion of Stephen Harper's views of Gilles Duceppe's thoughts on...

Prime Minister Buzz?

Is this what we've come to? The Prime Minister of Canada skulking around in hotel rooms taking orders from union leaders?

Tory Leader Stephen Harper's hand was forced yesterday by a tentative deal cooked up between Paul Martin and Jack Layton on Sunday night in a suite at the Royal York Hotel. The NDP Leader arrived on the subway; the Prime Minister came by limousine.
Organized labour pushed the deal aggressively, threatening to withdraw its support for the New Democrats if Mr. Layton favoured an early election.
Canadian Auto Workers leader Buzz Hargrove played a key role in the negotiations as a go-between and, in fact, delivered a forceful message at the 11th hour on Tuesday to Mr. Martin.

What kind of 19th century rules are we living under that MPs who are battling cancer have to cross the country to be physically present for a vote? I'm all for tradition, and the ritual of members standing in the House to vote, but if an MP has to risk his life to be there -- Cadman's immune system is weak from the chemo, and he's worried what effect flying might have on it -- surely to God there could be some sort of common-sense dispensation.

Is there anybody in this country who isn't on the take?

OKAY, SO what's the next shoe to drop? Martin may have bought the NDP with $4.6-billion of your money, but to survive a vote of confidence -- if that is in fact his aim -- he has to bring all three of the independents on board. What's their price? Or are they even the issue?

CTV Ottawa bureau chief Bob Fife said while the Liberals appear to be languishing on the ropes: "Only a fool would count the Liberals out." Although they don't have enough votes on their own to stay alive, said Fife, "they control the purse strings and patronage." He said the Liberals aren't just hard at work wooing the three independents, but are even working on some Tory MPs.  "The Senate is called the pot of gold under the parliamentary rainbow," said Fife. "And they're working at offering some Tory MPs some Senate seats." One rumour on Parliament Hill last week was that some Trudeau-era Liberals were urging Martin to appoint some Tory MPs to the Senate to further lessen the chance of a successful non-confidence vote. "And certainly the Tories tell me they're worried about that happening," said Fife.

Jesus. I know I've mocked this idea before, but Fife's a serious journalist. It's not possible, is it? No one's that sleazy, right? ACTUALLY, YES THEY ARE: Burkean Canuck has more. PoliticsWatchDATE:

In other developments, speculation is growing around Ottawa about the possibility that Martin may use his patronage power to ensure he has enough votes to survive in the House until the fall.  That speculation grew after the prime minister wouldn't rule out appointing sitting Conservative MPs to the Senate or other government agencies in an interview with CanWest News.  "If you look at the senate appointments that we've made in the past, I think I was the first prime minister who appointed an NDPer," the PM said. "We appointed Conservatives in the past. So to a certain extent, I've already answered your question."

To a certain extent, yes.

A MYSTERY: One thing I'd like to know is why the Liberals and/or their bureaucratic co-conspirators were so anxious to conceal their use of the Toronto advertising agency Gingko Group to promote the 2000 federal-provincial health care agreement -- one of two contracts for which Paul Coffin served as a front. I understand why they used Coffin in the other case, involving a highly sensitive file -- the Clarity Act -- and a notoriously Liberal agency called BCP. But Gingko has no particular history of involvement with the Liberal party, so far as I am aware. Indeed, if anything it seems to have more Tory connections, at least at the provincial level. According to the Auditor-General's report,

the PCO [Privy Council Office] explained to us that it wanted a particular agency, The Gingko Group, to design and produce the campaign because the agency had produced a similar campaign for a provincial government and had been highly recommended. However, Gingko had not been selected as an assigned agency for the CIO [Canada Information Office] through a competitive process.

So, naturally, they faked it, issuing a $619,000 contract to Communication Coffin, who then subcontracted all the work to Gingko. Was this just a matter of laziness: They liked Gingko's work, but couldn't be bothered complying with the regulation requiring a competitive tender? Maybe -- but to the point that they'd be willing to commit fraud to get around it? To promote a health care deal? Why were they so determined that it had to be Gingko? And why were they so afraid of this being discovered? I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation.

"The prime minister has just cut a $4.5 billion deal to buy votes to deal with allegations of vote buying," he said. "So to deal with Liberal corruption we get an NDP budget. The way that this parliament is supposed to work, I guess, is what the Liberals don't steal the NDP gets to spend."

Betcha we hear that line again. Like about a hundred times. (Via: PoliticsWatch)

"You won't rat on them..."

More from Paul Coffin:

[U]nlike the other select ad men with an admitted soft spot for the Liberals, Coffin described himself as a "very active'' Conservative stalwart, an admission that normally spelled the end of government business for Tory-linked ad agencies after the Liberals came to power in 1993. Under cross-examination by Liberal lawyer Doug Mitchell, the 63-year-old Montrealer admitted his government business survived in part because of his closeness to [Chuck] Guité... He told the inquiry he first met Guité around 1987 while handling government ad contracts for Brian Mulroney's Conservatives. Guité worked at a branch of Public Works.

What was that Dave Dingwall said? "You won't rat on them, you won't rat on us"?

Toronto bound

Paul Coffin's testimony has been unsealed, and the first thing we learn is that the funny business in federal advertising contracts wasn't restricted to Quebec-based agencies, or national unity:

A year later, Coffin's firm was hired for a campaign to promote an agreement between Ottawa and Quebec to increase funding for health care. But the work was actually completed by the Toronto company Gingko Group. Coffin said his company was the official agency on paper because Gingko, which was favoured by the Privy Council Office, had not won the contract through a competitive process.

That scurrying sound you hear is "Liberal-friendly" agencies across the country running for cover... OOPS: Okay, this isn't strictly speaking news. It's all described in the Auditor General's November 2003 report:

The Canada Health Care campaign was launched in September 2000 to inform Canadians about a recent federal-provincial agreement to increase funding for health care. The Privy Council Office (PCO) was responsible for the content of the advertising campaign, but the Canada Information Office (CIO), at the time the Government of Canada's operational arm for corporate communications, was responsible for managing the campaign itself. The PCO explained to us that it wanted a particular agency, The Gingko Group, to design and produce the campaign because the agency had produced a similar campaign for a provincial government and had been highly recommended. However, Gingko had not been selected as an assigned agency for the CIO through a competitive process. Contracting rules allow for sole-sourcing in emergencies or when only one supplier is qualified. CCSB chose to create an arrangement that hid the true substance of the transaction. It issued a contract for $619,000 to Communication Coffin, which had been selected in 1997 for sponsorship and advertising activities. There was no evidence in the file to suggest that Coffin was to do any of the work. Coffin subcontracted all of the work to Gingko. The official who managed this file could not provide us with a rationale or documentation to explain why CCSB did not issue the contract to Gingko for the work. The file shows that the Canada Information Office and the PCO dealt directly with Gingko as the main creative agency on the campaign and that Gingko did all the work (planning, strategy, creative, production, and so on). There is no sign that Coffin, the firm with the contract for this campaign, did any work on it. Bids not obtained as required by the contract. In order for Coffin to subcontract work valued at more than $25,000, it was required to obtain three bids and to justify its choice of subcontractor to the CIO. There is no evidence in the file to indicate that this was done. Unnecessary commission paid for subcontracted work. Gingko, the agency that was actually developing the campaign, subcontracted production work and submitted the bills to Coffin after adding the standard commission of 17.65 percent on the subcontracted work. Coffin billed the government for reimbursement of Gingko's invoice and added another 17.65 percent commission for itself. In the end, Coffin received $78,400 in commissions for subcontracting work to Gingko, a cost that would have been avoided if CCSB had awarded the contract directly to Gingko, who did all the work. Nothing in the file indicated that it had ever been the intention of the CIO or CCSB that Coffin do the work. In order to circumvent requirements for competitive bidding and ensure that Gingko would do the work, CCSB created a contract designed to hide the true substance of the transaction.

Still, it's worth some follow-up, no? As Peter Trueman used to sign off, "that's not news, but that, too, is reality." FOLLOW THE MONEY: Gingko is a contributor to the Liberal Party ($13,400 from 1996 to 2003), but a piker compared to Vickers & Benson ($102,475), Palmer-Jarvis ($125,490), Allard-Johnson ($145,645) and others among the tête-carrée advertising community. MORE COFFIN-NAILS: Government procurement rules flouted, Coffin testifies Ad man says sponsorship boss Chuck Guite requested false bills Ad exec says he helped hide sponsorship spending Guité asked for fake invoices, ad man testifies

Hmmm...

Angry in the Great White North has been making a list, and checking it twice:

There are 99 unique names on the list of judicial appointments [made by the federal government in Quebec since 1995]. • Of those names, 59, or 60%, appear on the Liberal Party donation rolls since 1993... • Those names are responsible for a total of $109,700.32 in donations, or an average of $1,859.33 each

Versus:

Bloc Quebecois: $6,103.34 Progressive Conservatives: $2493.40 NDP: $120.00 ... Total amount of donations to parties not Liberal: $8716.74, or just under 8% of the total donated to the Liberal Party in the same time period.

Only 92% Liberal? That leaves them below Via Rail levels...

'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go...

Harper says he'll push party for quick election:

"Let me be as clear as I can be today, our caucus will be meeting in Ottawa next week," he said. "This is not how Parliament should work, and as soon as we get back I will be asking our caucus to put this government out of its misery." A short while earlier, Harper told reporters in nearby Ridgetown that there is no way he can support the Liberal government's fiscal plan, now that it's been turned into an "NDP budget." "I'm flabbergasted by the amount of taxpayers' money these guys are prepared to throw around to keep themselves in office," he said, blasting Prime Minister Paul Martin's announcement of an extra $4.6 billion in spending requested by NDP leader Jack Layton. "It will be impossible for us to support an NDP budget," he added. "We're already dealing with Liberal corruption and an NDP budget gives us no reason to support Liberal corruption."

"This government is behaving in a completely irresponsible manner with the taxpayers' money. We're talking about a secret deal worth almost $5 billion to stay in power."

Well, it's hardly a secret. But then, it's hardly a deal, either. The thing's already unraveling:

Meanwhile, Martin said Wednesday he will push ahead with tax cuts for big corporations despite his budget deal with the NDP, as long as the Conservatives support the move. "We have pulled the large corporate tax cuts out of this budget to be pursued in a separate piece of legislation," Martin said in an interview with the Canadian Press in Ottawa. "And that separate piece of legislation we'll introduce as soon as the Conservatives or somebody say they will support it. The corporate tax cuts remain intact. It's going to be up to the Conservatives to tell us whether or not they will support them." The promise appears to fly in the face of the deal with Layton. Under that agreement, the Liberals said they would delay promised tax breaks for big companies, while keeping intact planned cuts for small- and medium-sized businesses.

"I am personally and profoundly committed to rapid and permanent changes in the way things are done in Ottawa.... One thing I can promise you is that I'm going to change the way citizens feel about their government... I give you my word, I'm going to make that happen.... " “We will put an end to cronyism . . . No longer will the key to Ottawa be who do you know. We are going to condemn to history the practice and the politics of cronyism.” (Paul Martin, Speech to Quebec City Chamber of Commerce, March 17, 2004). Flash forward 13 months:

A flurry of recent federal appointments, including a posting given to a Liberal fundraiser who has done business with Prime Minister Paul Martin's family shipping empire, has drawn accusations of patronage from Opposition parties. Liberal ministers have made dozens of appointments over the past few weeks to fill vacancies at Crown corporations and federal agencies. The announcements come as the Liberals have been hit with allegations of patronage over its appointment of federal judges and for giving a top environmental job to the former mayor of Winnipeg.

Agreement in principle?

Martin to Dip Into Reserve to Buy Support:

Prime Minister Paul Martin will dip into reserves to pay for increased spending under an agreement in principle reached on Tuesday to gain support in Parliament from the New Democratic Party. Martin announced that he would boost spending over the next two years by C$4.6 billion. This would come from the C$9 billion in contingency and prudence reserves that have been built into the budget for the next two years, Martin spokesman Scott Reid said.

Flashback two months:

The 2005 budget maintains the annual $3-billion Contingency Reserve. It also includes an additional amount for economic prudence to provide greater assurance that the balanced budget targets will be met. If not needed, the amounts set aside for economic prudence will be released to fund government priorities. The Contingency Reserve—if not needed to deal with unforeseen circumstances—will go each and every year to reduce the federal debt (accumulated deficit).

Moderate, mainstream panderers

TheStar.com - Tories eye new moves to help cities:

The Conservative party is expected to announce a "cities" agenda during the next election campaign to address what leader Stephen Harper now indicates privately he recognizes is a distinct need. The Tory leader met for 45 minutes in private yesterday with members of the Toronto Board of Trade's board of directors. He was invited by the group to First Canadian Place to talk about fiscal imbalance and, specifically, about a new deal for Toronto. In a candid one-hour session with a board that has long argued for an improved funding arrangement for the city, the Conservative leader confided that his party was interested in helping Toronto, sources said.

Judge states obvious! Film at eleven!

This one will probably blow up into something big, though it shouldn't:

"Judges have a duty to enforce the Canadian Constitution, which states that Quebec is a part of Canada," Judge Robert [Quebec Chief Justice Michel Robert] said in an interview yesterday. "It seems to me that you can't uphold the Canadian Constitution if at the same time you promote Quebec separation."

No, God forbid: that judges should actually believe in the constitution they are sworn to uphold; that they should not at the same time as they are enforcing it be actively working to overthrow it? Tabernac'! Understand that this is a completely manufactured story (MY MISTAKE: The Gazette moved a similar story -- see below): the judge made the mistake of giving an interview to the Globe's resident separatist, Rhéal Séguin, who then called up the Bloc for its dial-a-quote reaction:

Bloc Québécois MP Richard Marceau called the remarks despicable and inexcusable. He said that Judge Robert's comments violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right of each person to choose a political allegiance and defend political ideals.

Ah, yes, the Charter. Part of the 1982 Constitution that was "imposed" on Quebec on that nuit des longs couteaux when Lévesque was trahi par ses alliés, a date that will live in infamy, etc etc. The Constitution that no government of Quebec has ever recognized, except on those many occasions when it has. Séguin's other contribution today is intended to frighten Globe readers with the latest poll from Léger and Léger:

Support for sovereignty in Quebec has broken through the 50-per-cent barrier to its highest level since 1998 amid growing controversy over the sponsorship scandal. A new poll shows 54 per cent of decided voters would support sovereignty in a referendum that offered an economic and political partnership with the rest of Canada -- the same question asked in the Oct. 30, 1995, referendum.

A question, in other words, that is politically impossible, constitutionally irrelevant and which the government of Canada is legally obliged (see: Clarity Act) to ignore. Meaning it is highly unlikely ever to be asked. Moreover:

When asked if by voting for sovereignty they still wanted Quebec to continue to be a part of Canada, 56 per cent of respondents said yes and 40 per cent responded no, with 4 per cent undecided.

But don't let that stop you:

"What this poll really says is that Canada still remains the first choice of a majority of Quebeckers. But if there is no offer of renewed federalism, Quebeckers are prepared to go to the extreme and vote for sovereignty. In other words they will choose sovereignty by default," Mr. Léger said.

So the options are special status -- which isn't on offer -- or secession -- which isn't possible. But no doubt "thoughtful federalists" in Quebec, aided by the usual chorus of cringers in the rest of Canada, will take up the cry. Strange, though, isn't it: Wasn't last fall's promise of 'asymmetric federalism' supposed to have put an end to all this? Why is it, do you think, that support for separatism always rises after these episodes (Meech Lake, Charlottetown) and falls whenever the government of Canada shows a little backbone (patriation, Clarity Act)? MORE OUTRAGE: Chief Justice Robert apparently also gave an interview to the Gazette, in which he enlarged upon the list of positions he would bar separatists from occupying:

Sovereignists should be disqualified from federal judicial appointments or from occupying a series of top federal government positions, including governor-general, chief of defence staff, commissioner of the RCMP or director of Canada's security service, says Michel Robert, chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Barred from acting as the Queen's representative, just because you're a separatist? Now we see the face of federalist intolerance!

Fun with figures

Number of people drawing Employment Insurance in Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces (combined population: 9.9 million): 286,000. Number drawing EI in Ontario and the four Western provinces (combined population: 22 million): 236,000. MORE FUN:

The top 5% of income earners pay almost 40% of the money Ottawa collects in personal income taxes, according to new information from Statistics Canada. The federal statistics agency recently released a study showing the upper 10% of income earners in 2002 -- those who were paid more $64,500 -- provided 52.6% of the federal government's revenue from personal incomes taxes, up from 46% in 1990. Further data provided to the National Post shows the proportion of income tax paid is skewed even more for the top half of that 10%. People who earned more than $82,700 in 2002 -- the top 5% -- put 39.1% of the personal income-tax revenues in federal coffers. In 1990, that 5% paid 32.2% of total income taxes.

John Ibbitson (Martin buys NDP support) gets it mostly right:

Jack Layton told Paul Martin that the price of survival was nothing less than the equivalent of a new Speech from the Throne, written by the NDP. Paul Martin, dizzy from gazing into the abyss, surrendered without a fight. We have, today, not just a whole new budget, one radically different from that presented by Finance Minister Ralph Goodale in February, but a whole new government agenda, the agenda of the NDP. This agenda, which the Liberals agreed to in principle yesterday, includes billions in new spending: on social housing, university tuition, public transit, foreign aid, pension protection, the environment, to be paid for by gutting corporate tax cuts and by diverting surplus funds meant to pay down the debt -- in short, by abandoning the very fiscal discipline on which the Prime Minister made his reputation... Mr. Goodale should resign. His budget lies in ruins. The new NDP budget will significantly increase federal spending, much of it in areas of provincial jurisdiction, while reducing economic competitiveness and fiscal probity. The Finance Minister had said repeatedly such measures were fiscally impossible. What can he say now?

But then spoils it all by adding this:

The Conservatives will fight these changes to the death. It makes a mockery of their support for the February budget, which no longer exists.

No, no, no. Haven't you heard? They're a moderate, mainstream party. Speaking out against unbudgeted multi-billion-dollar spending sprees is for extremists.

Lawsuit countdown

How predictable was this?

The friend nobody likes: But even as an innunguaq, Ilanaaq is generating some cranky reaction, especially among West Coast natives who say the use of an Inuit icon is a slap in the face. "It's kind of like a poke in the eye to first nations people and first nations artists," said Chief Edward John of British Columbia's First Nations Summit, which represents 150 native communities. "Does inukshuk represent Canada?" he asked. "I hardly think so. It represents the North. Put it this way: If there were games in Yellowknife and the logo was West Coast totem poles, do you think they'd be happy up there?" Mr. John said native groups who attended the gala were surprised when the Inuit-inspired emblem was unveiled at Vancouver's GM Place. Yesterday, Mr. John said the group fired off a letter of complaint to the IOC. There were other quibblers. One writer to a Vancouver paper said using the Inuit icon as an Olympic logo gives the impression that Canada is a barren, northern tundra. A caller to a radio show said Ilanaaq resembled the toy figurine Gumby, only with a rocket launcher. "I can't help but notice the remarkable resemblance it has to Pac-Man," Chief Stewart Philip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, said this week.

A nation of sumkeepers

My Wednesday column is up ("Don't cry for Ontario"), taking another swipe at this fiscalimbalance$23billiongap nonsense.

Your money, their jobs

Is there anybody this guy can say no to? Does he ever say no to anyone? Does he have a principled bone in his body? First there was the $41-billion "health" deal, with little in the way of conditions on the provinces and none at all on Quebec -- which used the money to finance its tax cuts. Then there was the equalization deal, and the Atlantic side deal, with the result that equalization no longer equalizes anything. And now this. The government had already lost control of spending as it was: but apparently a $17-billion increase in one year, 44% over five, wasn't enough. So now we know: there is no price Paul Martin isn't willing to make you pay to save his job. And there is no amount of corruption Jack Layton won't overlook as long as the price is right: at $4.6-billion, it works out to about $250 million per NDP MP. Nineteen sponsorship programs, one for each soul. UPDATE: Or 8947 of your jobs for every one of theirs.

Pettigrew quitting politics: report:

Prime Minister Paul Martin could lose one of his top cabinet ministers just weeks before a federal election campaign, according to a report. Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew is leaving politics to lead the Organization of American States, Montreal's Le Devoir newspaper reported on Tuesday... The prime minister has lobbied Pettigrew not to take the job, saying people might think the foreign affairs minister is leaving because he is unhappy with the federal Liberals, according to other reports.

Not at all. It's because he hasn't got a hope of winning his riding.

Hide in plain sight

Tories assail '$200M-a-day' announcements: Martin accused of trying to buy votes:

"The figures that we've received indicate that the government has dropped a billion dollars since Mr. Martin's mercy plea," deputy Conservative leader Peter MacKay said. "It's a grand scheme to distract people's attention away from massive government waste."

Curse those fiendish Grits and their grand schemes! Why, it's diabolical: to distract people from massive waste, we'll waste massively! We'll conceal the waste amid still more waste! Is there no end to their clever ploys?

Chuck reconsiders:

B.C. Independent MP Chuck Cadman, possibly driving the final stake in Paul Martin's government, said yesterday he now plans to help the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois defeat the Liberals in a confidence vote expected next month. Mr. Cadman, who last week said he would support the Liberals, said personal conversations and about two dozen calls and e-mails to his office convinced him the public wants the Liberals booted out. "I've been hearing from constituents ... and they prefer I support a non-confidence vote," said the MP for Surrey North. "As I've said to everybody, on an issue like this, I have to go with my constituents rather than my own personal views on these things."

Apparently, this was after the PM's infomercial.

"If he asks Canadians to wait ... before they can pass judgment on him and his government, why didn't he wait for the Gomery report before he fired me (in February, 2004)?" Alfonso is not happy. And -- well, he has a point. That's not the only double standard, he complains:

"We're showing to Quebecers the bad things that happened during this sponsorship program... but there's no inquiry in the other side," he said, suggesting Quebec's then-separatist provincial government spent five times more. "Right now, we're just looking on one side and that is helping the separatist movement to gain momentum," Gagliano added. "If Quebecers would know what the separatist government in Quebec did in those same years, on the same files, they would be more outrageous.

Indeed:

The Gomery inquiry heard yesterday that, while in power, the Parti Quebecois also played the sponsorship game. Former advertising executive Diane Deslauriers testified that the PQ government doubled its sponsorship offer to organizers of the 2001 Quebec Games from $150,000 to $300,000 in return for exclusive government advertising rights at the games, effectively shutting out the federal government.

BC referendum update: Maybe STV has got a shot. A new* poll has the yays leading the nays almost two to one (27% to 15%) among decided voters. There are more undecided voters (45%), however, than both put together. The poll also shows that one in 10 BC voters claims to know "a lot" about the proposal, which you can interpret in one of three ways: 1) a scant 10% of BC voters have bothered to inform themselves about a proposal to radically change the province's electoral system that they have to vote on in three weeks, 2) a whopping 10% of BC voters have already mastered a strange and complex-sounding scheme, with nearly a month left for the other 90% to cram before the exam, 3) 10% of BC voters are liars. Still, it's encouraging that so many voters are willing to look at the proposal, with the campaign barely under way. * Actually, the poll isn't all that new -- it was taken nearly two weeks ago. But it seems to have been released only today.

Falling up

I've seen spin before, but this is unreal...

OTTAWA (CP) - After three consecutive weeks rising in the polls, Conservative momentum appears to have paused - perhaps tripped up, analysts say, by Prime Minister Paul Martin's TV appeal last week. A Decima Research poll, conducted Thursday to Sunday, suggests the Conservatives were still out in front, favoured by 32 per cent of respondents compared with 27 per cent for the Liberals. The survey, provided to The Canadian Press on Monday, is the first since Martin spoke to the country Thursday night about the sponsorship scandal. Last week, a Decima poll put the Tories at 35 per cent and the Liberals at 28 per cent... "We think it's a fair hypothesis that the prime minister's argument gave at least some voters a kind of pause to reflect," said Bruce Anderson, Decima's CEO. Greg Inwood, a political scientist from Ryerson University, agreed. "I think there was some effectiveness to Martin reiterating the line: 'Let Gomery do his job.' "I think that gave pause to a lot of people who were ticked off at the revelations that were coming out. "This might be the bounce from the speech."

Bounce? Leave aside that we're within the margin of error in all these polls. But bounce? Liberal support went down. UPDATE: CP revises the lede: "The first poll since Paul Martin's televised sponsorship speech suggests his appeal didn't give the Liberals a boost, but may have halted Conservative momentum."