In other news...

Buried below the lede in a story buried deep in the lineup, CTV quietly drops two massive bombshells. After noting that the NDP and Bloc leaders had both called for an RCMP investigation into the smoking audio-tape in Question Period, the network shows the Prime Minister offering his standard denial:

Prime Minister Paul Martin denies the Liberals did anything wrong. "No offer was made -- that means no offer was made."

And then, just like that, adds this:

CTV News' Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reports that the Prime Minister knew of the negotiations. According to Fife, the full four hours of transcripts of Grewal's taped conversations with a top Martin aide and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh show: * Martin was ready to talk to Grewal about defecting like he did with Belinda Stronach * Grewal was offered a government position two weeks after the vote

In other words, if Fife is right -- presumably he is speaking first-hand, but it could just be his interpretation -- the transcripts flatly contradict everything the Prime Minister and his people have said until now about this affair. One way or the other, we'll know soon enough. Fife reports

the transcripts could be released Tuesday. Conservative House Leader Jay Hill has said the party will be turning the tapes over to the RCMP soon. The federal ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro is also expected to announce Tuesday whether he will conduct an investigation into the alleged Liberal deal-making.

< Drudge mode > Developing...< /Drudge >

The column he might wish he hadn't written

I spent election night on the set of CTV, along with former NDP premier Dave Barrett. Upon hearing projections that STV would not be approved, he, a red-underwear politico, and I, a former public servant who had advised his political foes, shook hands under the decision desk.

-- Norm Spector celebrates the defeat of proposed electoral reforms in B.C. in today's Globe. His main point -- that having lost the referendum, however narrowly, the Yes side cannot simply carry on as if it had won -- is fair enough. But he mars his case by gratuitous slurs on his opponents (Rafe Mair's "ratings are not what they once were," leading Yes supporters such as Gordon Gibson are people "whose political careers had not prospered under the existing rules"). Then there's that ill-chosen anecdote quoted above. It's intended as a picture of two public-spirited men putting aside their political differences to oppose a measure they consider harmful to the province. But the point would surely have been better made had they shaken hands above the desk.

Michael Kinsley on the enemy that threatens us all...

In this great country, there are newspaper editorial pages of every political stripe, from nearly insane far-left rantings to the Wall Street Journal. But when the United States faces a danger to its most important institutions and values, Americans can count on the newspaper industry to put aside petty differences and speak with one voice. Now is such a moment. The enemy is invisible, indeed inexplicable, but could be fatal to all we hold dear. In short: Some evil force is causing people to stop reading newspapers! Newspaper circulation figures, which had been drifting decorously downward for years, have started to plummet. At the current rate of decline, the last newspaper subscriber will hang up on a renewal phone call that interrupts dinner on Oct. 17, 2016. And then it will be over. This alarming possibility threatens all of us, because reading newspapers is, in the end, what makes us Americans. We are prudent, practical, common-sense people. And what could be more common-sense — more downright American — than chopping down vast acres of trees, loading them onto trucks, driving the trucks to paper mills where the trees are ground into paste and reconstituted as huge rolls of newsprint, which are put back onto trucks and carted across the country to printing plants where they are turned into newspapers as we know them (with sections folded into one another according to a secret formula designed for maximum mess and frustration and known only to a few artisans) and then piled into a third set of trucks that fan out before dawn across every metropolitan area dropping piles here and there so that a network of newspaper deliverers can go house-to-house hiding newspapers in the bushes or throwing them at the cat, and patriotic citizens can ultimately glance at the front page, take Sports to the john, tear out the crossword puzzle and throw the rest away?

Just a humble little ticket-seller from Venezia

Joe Morselli dispels those rumours, once and for all:

At times nervous and tired, Morselli minimized his role in the Liberal Party of Canada's fundraising activities in Quebec. He said he was named to the party's finance commission by Gagliano, but his job was to sell tickets, nothing more. He also made a point of mentioning that he was born in the northern part of Italy, where there are no "godfathers groups," he said, referring to Mafia organizations... Morselli told the inquiry he was angry at Dezainde for firing Wajsman, and called him a "racist." He said he lost his cool, his blood pressure went up. "If I would have had a club, I would have hit him. Did I declare war on him? Probably," he said.

Just how good a ticket-seller was he?

He was asked by Gagliano, Quebec's chief Liberal organizer, to organize a quick cocktail party in October 2000. Morselli put together an "ad hoc" fundraising committee, inviting all main advertising agencies who had federal sponsorship contracts, to take a seat. The event, which took place at Montreal's Chateau Champlain, was a huge hit. It raised $600,000. Later, said Morselli, Paul Martin, who was finance minister at the time, thanked him for his efforts.

I bet he did: $600,000 from a "quick cocktail party"! Mind you, if Joe Morselli asked me to buy a few tickets for "the cause," I'd be inclined to buy them. Other stories:CP: Morselli denies stories of kickbacks CTV: Ex-Liberal fundraiser admits to pocketing $5,000

It's a vast right-wing punditocracy!

The RCMP must investigate allegations that senior Liberals and Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal were engaged in possible bribery because the matter is potentially more serious than the sponsorship scandal, a Canadian ethics expert said Wednesday. The University of Manitoba's Arthur Schafer also warned that Canadians should not expect ethical standards in Ottawa to improve if they don't convey to politicians their "clear indignation, intolerance and disgust." "My fear is that the public responds to a cash bribe in a brown paper bag with shocked horror but to a promised/hinted Senate appointment or ambassadorship with a cynical shrug," said Arthur Schafer, director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba. "In my view, the latter is every bit as serious as the former. Perhaps more serious, since the harm to Canada may last longer and be more serious than the 'mere' loss of public money." The RCMP, which has been asked in writing by the Bloc Quebecois to probe the affair, needs to investigate because of the seriousness of Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe's allegation, Schafer said. The Criminal Code's bribery section allows judges to impose a maximum 14-year sentence, the same maximum penalty for those convicted of aggravated sexual assault. "Why would the law carry such a heavy penalty? I think it's because the very integrity of the system that holds our society together hinges on the system not being corrupted."... Schafer said police may end up finding no crime took place, since Grewal has said he was simply setting a trap for Liberals and the tapes released so far show no explicit offer from the Liberals. "If it is not an outright and illegal corrupt act, it certainly -- from a portion of the transcript I've read -- skates terribly close to that. And what transpired seems clearly to be unethical and bordering on, or going over the line, into sleaze."... Schafer said Murphy was speaking in "thinly disguised code," but the "hints were broad and unmistakable. I think to a large extent what is considered proper behaviour, and what is considered over the line and corrupt in Canada, will hinge on how Canadian public opinion reacts to the Grewal tapes and the revelations. "If people aren't outraged ... then I think we can expect in the future that ambassadorships and other government appointments may be used as if they were the private resources of politicians acting in their own self-interest or the interest of their party."

-- The Vancouver Sun, May 26

Il suffit d'écouter l'enregistrement de la conversation qu'ont eue M. Grewal et Tim Murphy, le chef du cabinet de M. Martin, la veille du vote crucial de jeudi, pour comprendre que le gouvernement était acheteur. C'est M. Murphy qui évoque une proposition qui pourrait être faite après l'abstention de M. Grewal et de sa femme, elle aussi députée conservatrice.

-- Manon Corneiller, Le Devoir, May 25

"There is definitely a large grey area whenever you get a provision that's worded as broadly as this one is,'' said University of Ottawa criminal law professor David Paciocco. "My own feeling is, looking at this section, it is extremely unlikely that a court is going to seize on the ambition of an individual to have a position within the government so they can carry on their political work as being some type of corrupt consideration. That's the stuff that politics is made of. It's not what these provisions were intended to go after. If, on the other hand, they were trying to manipulate a vote in order to give someone a personal advantage, then you are more likely to see a successful conviction."

-- Vancouver Sun, May 24

Two Conservative members of Parliament in three weeks have alleged the Liberal government offered them patronage appointments in exchange for their votes in the House of Commons. Inky Mark's allegation two weeks ago largely rests upon his word, but Gurmant Grewal recorded part of the conversation in which, he claims, offers were made. This smacks of political bribery, a criminal offence. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police must be called in. Inviting opposition members to cross the floor is a favoured tactic in the political skullduggery that plays out among all levels of government. But attaching a reward -- a patronage appointment, for example, or a financial payoff -- to an MP or member of the legislature for crossing the floor or for changing a vote cannot be tolerated. It is forbidden by the Criminal Code. Mr. Mark has said a cabinet minister, whom he refused to name, offered him an ambassadorship. Mr. Grewal said Mr. Martin's chief of staff, Tim Murphy, offered him an appointment of some sort and his wife, Nina, also a Tory MP, a Senate post. The Liberals hotly denied all of this, but Mr. Murphy's taped voice was heard by reporters, discussing abstaining from a vote and pledging follow-up negotiations in the aftermath. Canadians have had to put up with a lot of hearsay or first-hand testimony, backed by some evidence at the Gomery inquiry, about kickbacks, conspiracy and corruption involving government offices. None of it has been proven as yet but Canadians are becoming increasingly cynical of the political process. Allowing bribery claims to pass without investigation would be destructive to the political culture. Conservative leader Stephen Harper must insist Mr. Mark and Mr. Grewal report their claims to the RCMP.

-- Winnipeg Free Press, editorial, May 20

"Although [Martin] denies it, there is compelling evidence that patronage appointments were dangled in front of opposition MPs so as to lure them out of voting against the government."

-- Chantal Hebert, Toronto Star, May 20 Naturally I dissociate myself from all this right-wing hyperventilating. Still, one must suppose these opinions were fairly held, on a matter of public interest...

Any sins committed happened under Jean Chrétien's administration and cannot be linked to Mr. Martin, said one strategist close to the Prime Minister. "You will not see anybody identified with the Paul Martin team involved in any of the accusations put forward," he said. "Because that's not how the Paul Martin team works."

-- Canadian Press, April 1

A staff member in the office of Prime Minister Paul Martin told the Gomery inquiry yesterday that his salary as a Liberal Party worker was paid by Jacques Corriveau, a confidant of Jean Chrétien. Gaetano Manganiello testified that he was one of at least three party workers in the Quebec wing's Montreal offices in the late 1990s who were paid by Mr. Corriveau even though they did not work for his firm. Mr. Corriveau, a close friend of Mr. Chrétien and a key broker in the sponsorship affair, earned $8-million in sponsorship subcontracts, according to evidence presented at the inquiry. Mr. Manganiello is on a paid leave from his job as a press office manager in the PMO. He is the first person working directly for Mr. Martin to admit to any direct role in the sponsorship affair... In a written statement yesterday, the PMO stood by Mr. Manganiello and praised him for his testimony. "We're proud of the honesty and directness Mr. Manganiello showed... Hopefully, Canadians will see his appearance as evidence that this Prime Minister and this PMO are wholly committed to seeing the commission's work discharged successfully."

-- Globe and Mail, May 26 Hopefully, they will not also have seen this story. IN FAIRNESS: "Under cross-examination from Liberal lawyer Doug Mitchell, Manganiello said he agreed to testify after receiving a call from a top official in Martin's office. Manganiello said he provided information on the alleged payments to Scott Reid, Martin's director of communications, who then forwarded the information to a Justice Department official." -- CP

Wait for Gomery! Don't wait for Gomery!

The head of the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal says there is no reason yet to believe that all of the money that Jean Brault says he funnelled to the federal Liberals reached its destination. Justice John Gomery said Wednesday that many of Brault's claims aren't backed by evidence. He says much of the $1.76 million in illicit payments alleged by the former Groupaction Marketing president haven't yet been corroborated... "I have no basis for concluding the full $1,763,000 ever found its way to the Liberal party. "I have a basis for thinking that some of these amounts surely did, and I have a basis for thinking that some other amounts may have. Quite a lot of the evidence, I'm not going to be able to come to any conclusion whatsoever."

This shows an estimable fair-mindedness on the judge's part. Why, it's almost as if he was open to persuasion by the evidence, rather than having his mind made up from the start. But the Liberals want to prejudge the inquiry's work! Why won't they wait until all of the evidence has come out? Isn't it better to hear all of the witnesses' testimony, some of which conflicts with others, rather than make selective use of the most sensational allegations? Let Judge Gomery do his work! (Repeat twelve times, or until the end of Question Period, whichever comes first.) MORE: Gomery's inability to say conclusively where all the money ended up reflects that of the inquiry's forensic auditors, Kroll Lindquist Avey, who said more or less the same thing yesterday. Mind you, it's not entirely hard to see why:

At the request of inquiry lawyers who didn't want them to interfere with the work of the police, Kroll's specialists did not scrutinize transactions that were the subject of criminal charges or continuing criminal investigations. The Kroll investigators sorted through an estimated 28.3 million pages from 7,068 boxes of subpoenaed documents. However, incomplete agency records restricted the investigators' work, the report says. For example, in the case of Mr. Corriveau -- who, according to the Kroll firm earned $5.5-million in salary, bonuses and dividends during the sponsorship period -- the forensic accountants could not gain access to his bank records from 1994 to 1999.

So Kroll looked at every transaction except the criminal ones, and examined every bank account except Jacques Corriveau's? What are we paying these people for? LESS:

Also, the Kroll investigators came under questioning about their inability to spot that the owners of at least one ad firm involved in the scandal had an overseas bank account. Report co-author Robert Macdonald had told the inquiry Tuesday that Kroll's accountants found no off-shore accounts. But Sylvain Lussier, a lawyer for the government of Canada, asked if they had checked an Ottawa Citizen report about the South Carolina home of Claude Boulay and Diane Deslauriers, the owners of Groupe Everest. The property is owned by an offshore corporation registered in the Bahamas, the report said. Mr. Macdonald conceded that while his team tried to look at relevant records, it hadn't been able to scrutinize all the financial statements of all the ad executives embroiled in the scandal. “We didn't look at everybody's personal banks to find out how they spend the money they received from their businesses year after year,” he said.

Sorry, isn't that what a forensic accountant does? Okay, maybe I'm asking too much, but would it kill you to read a newspaper once in a while?

"That's what I mean"

My latest column is up. For an alternative view, there's the latest eruption from Mt. Simpson. Seems there's this rogue opposition MP running around trapping innocent chiefs of staff into exquisitely prudent abstractions. For four hours. Or,

equally plausible to an outsider, that he was indeed sniffing around, visiting cabinet ministers, opening up lines of communication for a switch, hoping to secure something then or later for himself and/or his wife.

Right. He wasn't even on a "bizarre sting operation," but was genuinely offering to exchange his vote for an appointment to people who had no interest in such a trade. And, just to prove he was up to no good, he taped himself in the act. And advertised the tapes' existence to the public. And offered them to the RCMP. Why, it's diabolical... (And not just him. On the tape, there's reference to other Tory MPs having had similar discussions. Did they all approach the government first, unbidden? Did they all refuse to take no for an answer?) But then, this is all just a creation of the "right-wing punditocracy." This shadowy group would appear to include the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and Democracy Watch, all of whom have called for inquiries into the involvement of government officials in this affair. And as for that transcript, hoo-ha! "If this is a smoking gun against Mr. Murphy, somebody forgot the trigger." (Stop! You're killing me!) After all, "In that conversation, Mr. Murphy rules out a Senate seat or some other plum before the vote, but leaves open the possibility of future considerations should the Grewals abstain." So you see? All he was saying was that should the Grewals abstain, there was the possibility of future considerations, but that a Senate seat or some other plum was ruled out before the vote. In other words, if they abstained, future considerations, including a Senate seat or some other plum, were possible, but not until they did. What on earth is all the fuss about? OBLIGATORY GROUCHO REFERENCE: A child of five four could figure out what was being discussed on that tape. Find me a child of four! (Thanks, I guess, to N=1 for the correction, though in fact it works out to n minus 1.) PLAYBACK: Listening to the tape again, two things jump out at me. 1) In the discussion of "Senate, not Senate," and Murphy's ruling out of "explicit discussions" before the abstention, the emphasis appears to be on "explicit."  And then "we'll have much more detailed and finely hued discussions after that." 2) Towards the end of the tape, Grewal says, repeatedly, that he was approached by a third party ("common friends"). Murphy assents, repeatedly, then cites the Belinda negotiation as the model for its use of what he calls an "independent" party. Just to be clear, Grewal stipulates, again: "They approached me." And Murphy says: "Yeah, the independent -- that's what I mean." [Emphasis added.] This does not come out fully, if at all, in the Globe's transcript. MORE: Neither does this. Grewal goes on to say he "told them no," and then "another person called." Murphy assents throughout. So here's my question. This tape was made last Wednesday morning, the day before the budget vote, and eight days after the Liberal government had begun its desperate search for votes after being defeated in the House. If, as the Liberals insist, Grewal had approached them, not just once but several times, badgering them for this and that, refusing to take no for an answer -- why didn't anyone tell Tim? Why would Murphy sit there saying "yes" as Grewal says he was approached by a third party, rebuffed them, then finally agreed to talk when they called back? I'm not saying Grewal is telling the truth on this point. Maybe he's making it up. But wouldn't you think Murphy would know this? He says on the tape that he had just come from talking to "Ujjal" that very morning, and that he had also talked to Joe Volpe, so he's obviously in the loop. Why would Grewal make a series of statements that his interlocutor would know were false? Why would Murphy offer no objection as Grewal did so? What did he mean by "that's what I mean"?

Sealed with a kiss

What a surprise:

Mississauga MP Carolyn Parrish, tossed from the Liberal caucus last November for caustic comments about the United States and Liberal "backroom boys," says Prime Minister Paul Martin has left the door open for her to rejoin the minority government. Martin dropped the hint after last Thursday's confidence vote on the budget, which the Liberals barely survived thanks in no small part to Parrish's support. "He gave me a big hug and a kiss. One of my colleagues said 'Isn't it time for her to come back to caucus?' He said 'Whenever, you're ready,'" said Parrish (Mississauga-Erindale).

Best two out of three?

So now money bills are no longer to be considered confidence votes. Or rather they are, but confidence votes are not to be taken as final:

The federal Liberals would consider ignoring a House of Commons defeat should they lose any of the several coming votes that are matters of confidence between now and the end of the spring session, Chief Government Whip Karen Redman says. Although no final strategy has been decided, Ms. Redman said the government could respond to a defeat by bringing in a motion on whether the government has the confidence of Parliament to make sure MPs actually want an election... In an interview, Ms. Redman said the government would consider several possible responses to a government defeat. "There are options. Clearly if there was a loss, the government may decide to put forward another confidence motion when everybody was there to see if it held the day. Those options are available," she said. Unlike the Conservative motion that passed earlier this month calling on the government to resign, Ms. Redman said the Liberals do not dispute that the money votes between now and the end of the session are clear matters of confidence and are taking each one seriously. The government must bring in money or "supply" motions before the end of the session for the Commons to approve the government's $188-billion operating budget for 2005-2006.

So they're taking them "seriously," but not quite seriously enough to, you know, respect them. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Since "Pearson pulled the same stunt in the 1960s," a reader notes, citing the Globe article above, perhaps I should not be so persnickety about the present government's refusal to take no-confidence for an answer. Wasn't the nine-day interval between the Pearson government's defeat on a money bill and its eventual reconfirmation in a confidence vote the same as the nine days the present government took before holding a vote it was willing to recognize? My reply:

1) Pearson had a much stronger claim to the confidence of the House to begin with, having come just two seats short of a majority in the 1965 election (131 out of 265). The original vote was lost, on a bill that had already been approved in principle, in a half-empty House, during a late-night debate on third reading: 48 Liberal members were absent, including some cabinet ministers campaigning for the leadership. (Indeed, it's not even clear that the vote should have been held that night at all, for procedural reasons I won't go into.)  The Tories, as the journalist Anthony Westell recalls, "ambushed" the government, rushing in a number of members at the last minute.

Admittedly, defeat on a money bill is a more obviously serious matter than defeat on a procedural motion, even one that effectively instructs the government to resign. But the current opposition did not have that option available to them -- the government's majority was in such doubt, as it had been for some time, that it had refused to put its budget, or budgets, to a vote. When the House finally got a chance to vote on something resembling a confidence vote -- opposition supply days having been suspended -- there was plenty of warning, and Members flew in from cancer wards to be present.

2) The issue in Pearson's day was whether the government should resign, not whether or when it should hold a re-vote. The re-vote, indeed, was regarded as at best an innovation, at worst illegal. (Though, as the present discussion indicates, it became a 'precedent' others could cite, even in wholly dissimilar situations.)

In the present case, the government at first declared it would simply ignore the vote -- ''merely an instruction to a committee" -- and only later agreed to confirm that it had the House's confidence -- that is, to stop filibustering its own legislation, and actually bring the budget to a vote.

3) Pearson returned from vacation the next day, flying through a snowstorm to get there. The confidence motion was introduced the day after that. There was no nine-day interval: the Globe story is wrong. There was a seven-day debate on the government's confidence motion, in which several hard-line Tories argued that the government should have simply resigned. (One member even resigned from caucus in protest that the party had allowed the motion to come to a vote!) And whatever the interval, they did not use it to bribe opposition members to cross the floor, or paper the country with money.

4) Perhaps most important, Stanfield agreed to the re-vote. Pearson dragged the governor of the Bank of Canada in to convince him it would be terrible for the economy to go through a snap election -- something about a run on the dollar -- and, in an excess of high-mindedness, he agreed.

In the present case, the opposition did not agree. Nor were they required to. So whereas in Stanfield's case it could not be definitively said that a majority of the House believed the government was acting contrary to its wishes, in the present case it could.

5) In the ensuing re-vote, Pearson's goverrnment won 138 to 119. Need I say more?

UPDATE: PoliticsWatch has more. As usual.

Latest Gomery shocker!

Daimnation:

Forensic accountants say the sponsorship program actually cost $355 million - not $250M as originally estimated - and that some of the money may have inadvertently been spent on sponsorship.

Apropos of nothing...

... but whatever became of this story, from the Ottawa Citizen, Dec. 14, 2003:

Former International Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew gave a $17-million grant to a forest industry association shortly after his policy adviser joined a lobbying firm that represents the same organization. Andre Albinati left Mr. Pettigrew's office just before the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) received the grant to promote Canada's position on softwood lumber in the U.S. Five days before the grant was announced, in May 2002, he registered as a lobbyist with the Earnscliffe Strategy Group, an Ottawa firm closely affiliated with Prime Minister Paul Martin's leadership campaign... Mr. Albinati served as adviser to Mr. Martin during the leadership campaign and was a member of the transition team that negotiated the hand-over of power this fall. At the time he joined the firm, Earnscliffe's Michael Robinson and Charles Bird were both registered to lobby the government on behalf of FPAC. Mr. Robinson has served as a senior adviser on both of Mr. Martin's leadership bids. (Mr. Robinson was required to temporarily de-register as a lobbyist in September while working on the transition team.) Mr. Bird also volunteered on this year's campaign. At the same time, one of Mr. Martin's closest advisers was working as FPAC's vice-president of government relations: Ruth Thorkelson had served as Mr. Martin' s chief of staff until Oct. 2001 and remained active as a supporter of his leadership bid. She was listed by FPAC as its contact point for the $17-million grant. This fall, she worked on the transition team alongside Mr. Albinati and Mr. Robinson and was on Thursday named as deputy chief of staff in the Prime Minister's Office. The grant provided to Ms. Thorkelson's organization was intended to pay for an advertising campaign in the U.S. to promote Canada's position in the $10-billion trade dispute. FPAC says it used the money for an awareness campaign with U.S. legislators and to buy print and broadcast advertising... In Mr. Pettigrew's office, Mr. Albinati served as policy advisor on the softwood lumber file and would likely have been familiar with the plan to promote Canada's position through a U.S. campaign. Asked if he had worked on the grant for FPAC, Mr. Pettigrew's spokesman, Sebastian Theberge, said: "He was responsible for softwood lumber in general, yes."

And who should receive $800,000 of that $17-million for its work promoting “lumber awareness”? Why, Earnscliffe Research and Communications, as we later learned in this bizarre, three-paragraph story in the Globe and Mail:

Martin-linked group received $17-million By STEVEN CHASE Friday, March 19, 2004 Ottawa -- A $17-million grant to promote Canadian softwood lumber in the United States was awarded in the spring of 2002 to a forest industry association with ties to Paul Martin. And the Forest Products Association of Canada enlisted Earnscliffe Research and Communications, an Ottawa firm linked to Mr. Martin, to help the campaign. Earnscliffe received $800,000 of the money for polling, research and advice on the matter, FPAC says. The multimillion-dollar grant was announced in May, 2002, by then-trade minister Pierre Pettigrew, a strong supporter of Mr. Martin, who was finance minister. The aim was to boost U.S. support for Canada's position in the softwood lumber dispute.

As I say, it's not really relevant to anything current, but just for the record, here's the original Foreign Affairs press release announcing the $17-million grant. The precise date is May 27, 2002.

CP reports relief among some Tories that they did not succeed in Thursday's vote:

They huffed and they puffed, and they failed to blow the House down, but Conservatives now seem surprisingly satisfied there will be no election soon.

Indeed that was the Universal Media Consensus before the event: that the Tories would have been better off to wait, rather than push for a spring vote. So, if their defeat is really a victory, why is everyone now declaring the Tories the losers? I can see why Harper would be disappointed: he had calculated that the Tories would be better off to topple the government now than later, and presumably still feels that way. But the UMC is that he was wrong. Maybe he was -- but if so, as I say, he wins by losing. On the other hand, if he was right -- if his rationale for seeking an early election was sound -- that remains true even though he did not succeed in forcing one. The tactic would only have been a mistake if the costs of failing in the attempt were greater than the expected value of the benefits had it succeeded. But in fact the campaign would seem to have yielded significant gains for the party. * They exposed the extraordinary lengths to which the Liberals were prepared to go to cling to power, in the process fatally undermining the Prime Minister's good-guy image. * They now have a base that is fired up like nobody's business, notwithstanding the party's acquiescence in Liberal spending and general blurring of policy distinctions. * Best of all, they got rid of Belinda, a hugely disruptive presence and long-term liability. Actually, it's better than that. They forced the Grits to take her on, and at the cost of a major cabinet appointment. Now they're stuck with her: The Minister of Complex Files. That's the gift that keeps on giving. Set against this is the perception that the party and its leader were power-hungry, obsessed with corruption at the expense of other issues of concern to voters: always saying what they were against rather than what they were for. Had they not been so eager to bring the government down, the argument runs, they would be much farther ahead in the polls by now. Perhaps. But polls have to be read longitudinally. Arguably, the Tories have given up some ground short-term, but in exchange for long-term damage to the Liberal brand. And it's not even clear they lost all that much in the short term. The thing that drove down Liberal numbers, remember, was Jean Brault's testimony. Before that they were comfortably ahead of the Tories. How long would it have taken for them to rebound, once the first shock of Brault's revelations had worn off? Remember, Martin was still widely viewed as a sympathetic figure, even then. Would there have been the budget-busting deal with the NDP had Martin not feared his government was in danger? Or the McGuinty deal? Probably not. Of course, if you're the Toronto Star, you like these. So, by the same logic that leads the paper to blame Harper for Martin's "seedy vote-buying," the paper should also give him credit for these initiatives, no?

Funny, that's just what I said

But then there was a more embarrassing episode. Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal surreptitiously taped Murphy discussing, in exquisitely prudent abstraction, how a Conservative MP might abstain on the budget vote, and how a subsequent conversation might ensue that would enable such an MP to "continue to serve." The tape has been broadcast, and posted on the Internet; it has become part of the lore of what will be a legendary political week. But the conversation is revealing in surprising ways that have not been part of the buzz. Murphy is careful, respectful, non-committal; he speaks in cautious hypotheticals.

-- The Toronto Star's Graham Fraser, in an admiring interview ("The man who saved the government") with the eminently admirable Tim Murphy. But then, who doesn't sound exquisitely hypothetical on tape:

Nobody who has been surreptitiously taped emerges from the experience looking good. Ask Prince Charles, who was caught fantasizing about being a tampon. Ask the two Quebec government strategists who were taped lamenting that premier Robert Bourassa had given up too much in the Charlottetown negotiations. Ask Monica Lewinsky. Ask Tim Murphy.

Actually, I think he comes off looking prudent. Also careful. And non-committal...

Immaterial girl

A Liberal less than a week, la Stronach already has the ly - er, lingo down pat. Ms Stronach pronounces herself hurt by the reaction to her last-minute conversion to the Liberal cabinet cause, and touches all the right bases: new low, return to civility, why the focus on her private life, etc. As her old friend and mentor Brian told her, ya dance with the one that bought ya. Of course, he also said "there's no whore like an old whore," but he was talking about Bryce Mackasey at the time. UPDATE: Here's an example of what she means. It's exactly the kind of hurtful rhetoric that deters good people from switching parties:

Conservative officials have pointed out that she jumped to the Liberals the day before a deadline set by her old party to pay $379,000 that they say she owes from her leadership campaign. The Tories say campaign rules required all candidates to turn over part of the cash they raised in their leadership bids to help finance the party. Stronach said Sunday she wants an independent arbitrator to review the matter to make sure the rules are being fairly applied. She won't pay unless there is a review, she said, but if the arbitrator rules against her, "I'm very happy to live by that."

UPPERDATE: To be fair, it's not like she needs the money. In fact, she's donating her $213,000 salary as Minister of Complex Files to charity. YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED: Linda Williamson asks whether it is ever permissible to call a woman a whore. The answer is no. The correct term is "sex trade worker."

I alienate my readers again

I have suspended the comments, indefinitely. I know that's why most of you come here, and that this will mean a sharp decline in readership. But as the numbers have grown, the quality has declined. The comments have frankly gone to seed, overrun with western separatists, Bilderberg conspiracy theorists and various other cranks. Last night I spent several hours weeding out a quite disgusting thread speculating on the sexual preferences of various politicians, and the secret gay network that had supposedly infiltrated the Canadian government, and I have no wish to ever soil my hands that way again. I don't like to be in the censorship business, or picking and choosing which comments to allow and which to reject, and I don't have the time to monitor hundreds of comments every day. I hesitated to do this, particularly during the momentous events of the last few weeks, not least because the best of the comments are far superior to anything I might post. But they have been drowned out by all the other crap -- low-brow, insult-filled, intolerant of opposing views, and unspeakably tedious. I have no desire for this site to serve as a clubhouse for hard-right wackos, usually anonymous, with way too much time on their hands. Nor can I allow them to obscure the site's vital mission and cause: personal vanity and self-promotion. I spend enough money underwriting my own incoherent ramblings without subsidizing others'. I may bring the comments back, or I may not, but if so it will be on a completely different basis. I'll let you know.

The Murphy tape - latest

The transcript is available here, or listen to the audio here . The Bloc Quebecois is demanding an RCMP investigation, which would put the force in the position, yet again, of investigating itself, since one of the many troubling questions raised by the tape is whether the Liberals offered to call off an RCMP investigation they had just launched in return for the intended target's abstention on the budget vote. John Ibbitson is particularly exercised about this aspect, in a fine, feisty piece. But according to two Liberal cabinet ministers (or their spokesmen), it was Grewal who first broached such a deal. I thought the storyline was that he was angling for a job... Democracy Watch, meanwhile, is calling on Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro to rule on the ethics of all this (or anything else, for that matter). It quotes from the

Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, which requires Cabinet ministers and ministerial staff to do the following (and similar rules apply to all MPs): * under Part I, sub-section 3(1) "to uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced"; * under Part I, subsection 3(2) "to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law" and; * under Part II, subsection 23(1), to "take care to avoid being placed or the appearance of being placed under an obligation to any person or organization, or the representative of a person or organization, that might profit from special consideration on the part of the office holder."

But then, the thing to remember about all this is: it's all Stephen Harper's fault. That is the actual, unretouched position of the Toronto Star, official newspaper to the ruling party, in today's lead editorial:

The time has come to cool the fury in Parliament, to ease the pressure on Martin to resort to seedy vote buying, and to let him deliver on his many promises, including ethical promises.

Did you catch that? It's not that he's seedy, it's that he's being pressured. And just in case you thought that was a slip, the paper repeats the point lower down:

And while Martin's manoeuvring to retain power wasn't a pretty sight, it was Harper who triggered the unsavoury bidding war. He pushed for a non-confidence vote the moment his party edged up in the polls. And he rejected Martin's offer to buy peace in Parliament by promising an election once Gomery reports.

Harper "triggered" the "unsavoury bidding war" -- a war in which only one side seems to have been bidding -- by "rejecting Martin's offer" -- that is, by declining to promise his party would not vote against any important government legislation for the better part of a year, which is what Martin's "offer" implied (the government would have only to declare the matter one of confidence, and the Tories would be obliged to let it pass, or bring the government down). It's not enough that the Tories voted with the government on the budget -- the first Official Opposition in Canadian history to do so -- but they have to vote with them on everything else, too?

"One man with courage makes a majority." -- Andrew Jackson "Two wrongs don't make a right. Three wrongs break a tie."-- SmallDeadAnimals (Not a guide to living, mind. Just a funny line.)

The smoking audio tape

The Prime Minister's chief of staff, on tape, apparently discussing the possibility of a Senate seat for Gurmant Grewal if he abstains in tomorrow's vote. If that is verified to be Tim Murphy's voice -- well what are the consequences in this country? UPDATE: None, apparently. Murphy is not denying it's his voice. But on CTV, it was just more can-you-believe-this "shenanigans." CBC was more interested in whether an Alberta MLA "crossed the line" by saying Stronach "whored herself" for a cabinet post (verdict: yes). Meanwhile, PoliticsWatch has listened to the full eight-minute tape. It reports:

At no time during the tape does Murphy make an explicit offer to Grewal, and he carefully chooses his words and speaks about hypothetical situations. The tape suggests that Murphy is more interested in Grewal abstaining than having the MP crossover to the Liberal side. Murphy also says that it is a "bad idea" to "have any kind of commitment that involves an explicit trade." However, Murphy tells Grewal that there are "other members of your current caucus who are facing the same dilemna that you face," suggesting the Liberals have been talking to other Tories who may be considering crossing the floor or abstaining. "I don't think it's good if anybody lies, or if anybody is asked the question, 'Well is there a deal?' and you say, 'No.' Well you want that to be the truth," says Murphy. "And that's what I want. I want the truth to be told." On the tape, Murphy proposes the concept of Grewal abstaining from the vote and using the following excuse, which sounds eerily familiar.  "That can be done on the basis, those members can do it on the basis, 'Well look, my riding doesn't want an election, doesn't want one now. Thinks it's the wrong time to do it.'" Murphy explains to Grewal that abstaining is a better option than crossing the floor and could allow for future talks.  "If someone abstains in that environment who has exercised a decision based on principle, (it) still gives him the freedom to have some negotiating room on both sides. "Then the freedom to have discussions is increased." Murphy described the next step for an MP who has abstained against the wishes of his party leader.  "A person can say, 'Look, I obviously abstained and created some issues' and then they can say, 'I'm thinking hard about what the right thing for my riding and the contribution I would like to make.'"  Murphy goes on to say, "In advance of that explicit discussions about Senate, not Senate I don't think are very helpful and I don't think can be had in advance of an abstention tomorrow." He says discussions could be held later.  "You can easily say, if you don't like, you can stay home or stay back where you are or if you do like we can make an arrangement that allows you to move." ... Although the Liberals are now saying that it was Grewal who approached them, on the tape Murphy suggests that should be clarified at a later date. "It's much like Belinda where there is a third party who is independent of both sides," Murphy says. "So you didn't approach. We didn't approach."

Oh, it's exquisite, isn't it? "If anybody is asked the question, 'Well is there a deal?' and you say, 'No.' Well you want that to be the truth."

Got that? You want to be able to say truthfully that there's no deal. Which is pretty easy if in fact there is no deal. So why does it take eight minutes to sketch out how to do it here? Why do they have to agree that nobody should lie?

"I don't think it's good if anybody lies..." But here are the things you can say: "my riding doesn't want an election... I'm thinking hard about what the right thing for my riding [is], etc."

It's a "bad idea" to have an "explicit trade," but if someone abstains "based on principle" then "the freedom to have discussions is increased." Explicit discussions "about Senate, not Senate" are not "very helpful," or at least not "in advance of an abstention." But then "we can make an arrangement that allows you to move." And the whole thing can be arranged through a third party -- I hear David Peterson's available -- so that "you didn't approach, we didn't approach."

Vote-laundering, you might say. But stay tuned: "The Tories plan to release tapes of discussions between Dosanjh and Grewal tomorrow." APPENDIX: Just to remind people of what the laws of the land say about trafficking in offices... Under Section 119 (1) of the Criminal Code,

every one who ... being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly (i) accepts or obtains, (ii) agrees to accept, or (iii) attempts to obtain, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity,

or makes such an offer, is “liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” Under Section 124,

every one who purports to sell or agrees to sell an appointment to or a resignation from an office, or a consent to any such appointment or resignation, or receives or agrees to receive a reward or profit from the purported sale thereof,

or offers to buy an appointment or resignation is good for up to five years in the slammer. Not that I'm suggesting anybody did anything of the kind here. But if they had... APPENDIXER: Paul Wells highlights this strange passage, from the same tape: "If that proposal is of some interest to you, then I will talk to Volpe and get something to happen." I can't imagine what he could be talking about, but I'm sure it can't have anything to do with this. I mean, it can't. APPENDIX OUT: Warren Kinsella weighs in. APPENDIX OUTER: Here's CP's take:

Grewal said he was offered an ambassadorship and a Senate posting was put forward for his wife. But the audio tape captures Murphy refusing to make such an offer. "No offer was made to Mr. Gurmant Grewal," Murphy said in a news release. On the tape, Murphy is overheard discussing confidence-vote strategy with Grewal. He tells Grewal that he and Nina could miss several votes this spring, and says he's willing to negotiate something later. "We'll have much more detailed . . . discussions after that with some freedom," Murphy is overheard saying... He says there will be up to eight confidence votes by late June - and each one will be a "nailbiter." Murphy suggests the Grewals could cloak their abstention as a matter of principle. He even suggests a possible explanation for them. "If anybody asks the question, 'Was there a deal,' and we say no, we want that to be the truth," Murphy says.

"We want that to be the truth." That is the line of the night. Lower down, there's this:

There was one more bizarre twist on the tape: an ambiguous reference to Immigration Minister Joe Volpe. Volpe asked the RCMP earlier this month to investigate two Tory MPs, including Grewal, on immigration-related claims. The RCMP probe reportedly stems from allegations, not yet proven, that two MPs - including Grewal - offered to help immigrants in return for money. Grewal has denied any wrongdoing. He told a Commons committee in March that he had asked Canadians who requested visitor permits for relatives to give signed commitments to post bonds in exchange for supporting those applications. A senior government official said the conversation between Murphy and Grewal had no relation to the RCMP investigation. He said Grewal wanted the minister to retract some remarks about him.

On the other hand, there's this:

Dosanjh said they had pizza and beer but never discussed job openings. He said Grewal made repeated job requests and was rebuffed each time. "I'm actually offended that Mr. Grewal would go to the lengths of approaching us making totally inappropriate demands," Dosanjh said. "He approached us; he approached us because he and his wife wanted to cross the floor."

You follow: an MP whom the government has asked the RCMP to investigate on allegations he insists are completely spurious wanted to cross the floor to join that same government. Of course. Makes perfect sense.

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan, who on Tuesday welcomed the billionaire heiress to cabinet because she has "great shoes," also joined in the Conservative bashing Wednesday.

Even CP can't keep a straight face at the "enraged" Liberal Women's Caucus.

They just feel threatened by a powerful woman

Belinda Stronach had barely made her debut as a Liberal yesterday when like-minded callers were pre-emptively phoning Toronto radio stations to bemoan the sexist nature of anyone who might in the ensuing days dare to label the woman a political whore. Oh, how very cute, and how very familiar: It is never enough for the Liberal Party of Canada, its henchmen or supporters, to let the people decide what they will make of a given situation. The good Liberal always attempts to dictate the very language of what will, and what won't, constitute the parameters of fair comment and reasonable discussion thereafter. But let us, just this once, dispense with those niceties.

The great Christie Blatchford, the "real boss" in this business. Do not cross her. Ever. XXTRA: Anne Kingston is no less devastating:

Stronach, to be plain, is not known for long-term fidelity. To put the nicest spin on it, she craves constant stimulation, new vistas to conquer. To be less charitable, she's easily bored and used to assuming authority without first earning it... Now Stronach doesn't have to endure a boring, if not eternal, wait for her Cabinet position. After all, she's been in politics for over a year! Now she has her nice starter Cabinet post as head of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Peggy Wente is also unimpressed:

Belinda doesn't seem to stay with men for long. Or careers. Or, as it turns out, political parties. She's always eyeing the next big thing just over the horizon. She's not that keen on working her way up from the bottom. She'd rather start somewhere near the top, where she can make a difference right away. "She feels she's gifted," her father, Frank, once said. Belinda says her private life is not our business. Still, you can't help detecting a few trends. She has a habit of mixing up love and business and ambition. Love generally winds up third.

Try to imagine a male columnist penning those lines. Or this zinger, again courtesy of Christie: Putting Stronach in charge of implementing the recommendations of the Gomery inquiry "is surely akin to putting the hen in charge of the fox house." ON THE OTHER HAND: That noted avatar of political correctness Colby Cosh thinks this sort of thing has the "musk of gender" to it.

Reloscam: it's official

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal has chastised the federal Liberals for failing to follow contracting rules and ordered a re-evaluation of bids on a moving contract plagued by allegations of favouritism. The CITT backed Envoy Relocation's complaint that its bid was shortchanged by the feds last year, ordering the government to cut a $2,400 cheque to cover the real estate company's complaint costs. The CITT has also given Public Works 15 days to have a fresh evaluation committee comb through the bids and "if this re-evaluation results in a new winning bidder ... the existing contract should be cancelled and awarded to that bidder." ... The Commons public accounts committee will vote today on whether to ask the Auditor General to probe the contract.

MY COLUMN on l'affaire Belinda is posted here. A couple of clichés I'd have done better to leave out, but otherwise satisfactory.

Face time

So what was the issue of principle that convinced Ms Stronach that, for the sake of national unity, she should replace Lucienne Robillard as Minister of Human Resources? How did she finally decide that Stephen Harper did not fully appreciate the "complexities" of the country? According to this Globe report, it was because he wouldn't let her go on TV:

[T]he seeds may have been planted the week before, when Ms. Stronach was summoned by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to his Rockcliffe mansion, Stornoway. That call was prompted by controversial remarks she'd made to The Globe and Mail earlier that week, warning against triggering an election over a budget that promised critical infrastructure money to her Ontario riding. Mr. Harper, it seemed, was not pleased with her comments. The private joke among some Tories was that she had been summoned to "see the principal." A Tory insider says that Ms. Stronach also found out -- it is not clear whether she was actually told at this meeting -- that she was being frozen out of appearances in any election ads.

I think we can assume this is more or less true; the author is a reporter of unusual reliability.

Yeah, but can she bake a bigger pie?

Priceless. Angry Statesmanlike in the GWN has dug up the resumé of Martha Hall Findlay, the Liberal candidate of record in Newmarket-Aurora as of 10:45 am yesterday, now sadly just another bit of political roadkill:

Martha is a successful, well-respected lawyer, businesswoman and entrepreneur, with extensive experience with both large and small business. • She is fluently bilingual in English and French, with training in several other languages. • She is 45, and has 3 grown children: Katie, 23; Everett, 21 and Patrick, 19. • She is the founder and principal of The General Counsel Group, management and legal consultants since 1997. As a member of The General Counsel Group, Martha has worked primarily in the high-tech and telecommunications fields, in both Canada and Europe. • Prior to forming The General Counsel Group, Martha was: ◦ Vice President, Corporate Development and General Counsel of The Rider Group; ◦ General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for Mobility Canada, Bell Mobility Corporate Counsel; ◦ Lawyer with the international law firm of Baker & McKenzie (in Toronto), practising international corporate and commercial law. • She also co-owned and operated two retail stores while completing law school. • Martha graduated from the University of Toronto's International Relations Programme and then from Osgoode Hall Law School. In her youth, Martha was a competitive skier, ultimately being named to the Canadian National Training Squad before retiring and pursuing her formal education. Martha supported herself throughout university working as a waitress, in construction (primarily as a carpenter) and coaching young ski racers.

But what are her accomplishments and ability compared to those of Belinda Stronach, Feminist Icon?

Headline hunters

The Stronach defection brought out the usual big-story competition for best headline. The winners... Third prize: Several papers, including the National Post, went with some version of Blonde Bombshell, although the Winnipeg Sun and Calgary Sun spelt it "blond." Second prize: The Calgary Herald, for the simple, evocative, double-edged Splitsville. First prize: Nobody went with the obvious winner as their main hed, but the Toronto Sun gets points for using it as a sell to a Greg Weston column. I mean, do I even have to spell it out? Robbing Peter to Pay Paul. Also rans... Globe and Mail: Martin's white knight Toronto Star: Stronach shocker Montreal Gazette: Stronach's bombshell switch fires up Liberal confidence Ottawa Citizen: Tories fear Stronach will reveal election strategy to Liberals (yeesh - a nine-word hed?) Edmonton Journal: Stronach sets up squeaker Edmonton Sun: Cheap Trick Toronto Sun: Boo-linda! London Free Press: Belinda bails, Tories shift K-W Record: Whole new game Hamilton Spectator: True Grit? La Presse: Coup de Theatre Journal de Montreal: Coup de Foudre a Ottawa

The Tories say they will now support the February 23 budget (Bill C-43) when it comes to a vote, but oppose the Buzz Hargrove budget (Bill C-48). This, in keeping with the moderate, mainstream approach urged on them by, among others, Belinda Stronach. Readers will know what I thought of the Feb. 23 budget, now sanctified as the budget-no-reasonable-person-could-oppose. Of greater interest, perhaps, is what the Globe said of it, in one of its lucid moments...

The Prime Minister opens the floodgates Thursday, February 24, 2005 When Paul Martin was Finance Minister, his critics used to call him a pro-business, budget-slashing, conservative Liberal. Yesterday, the real Paul Martin stood up. In the federal budget tabled by Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, Mr. Martin put aside his tightwad days and sprayed money around the country like a broken garden hose. Ottawa will increase spending by a staggering $41.8-billion over six years, distributing it to every interest group, region and political constituency from the Avalon Peninsula to Long Beach. Gone is the old commitment to devote one-third of spending to programs, one-third to tax cuts and one-third to debt reduction. Instead, for every $2 of spending in his plan, Mr. Goodale is offering only $1 in tax reduction. Ottawa will devote almost all its resources to programs -- lots of programs. Aboriginals get $735-million, culture and sport $688-million, low-income seniors $2.7-billion. There is even $25-million to help ethnic groups become more aware of the way they were oppressed by Ottawa over the years. And of course there is stuff for the people Mr. Martin really cares about these days: the opposition parties that keep his minority government afloat. For NDP Leader Jack Layton, there is $5-billion for a daycare program that as yet has no focus, clear rationale or implementation strategy and $3-billion for environmental initiatives. For Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, there is sharply increased defence spending and modest corporate tax cuts. The vehicle for this artful legerdemain is a five-year plan in which a large chunk of the heavy spending comes up front and the full impact of promised tax cuts comes down the road. The obvious aim is to buy the acquiescence of the political opposition now while accumulating enough revenue to shower on voters later. And it's working. The first minority federal budget in a quarter-century is already a resounding success, judging from the muted response on both the political right and left, and from the first reactions of the talking television heads. Mr. Harper was bizarrely passive in his reaction to this something-for-everyone, big-spending, old-time Liberal budget, saying right off the bat that he wouldn't bring down the government over it and thought most of it was pretty swell. It doesn't seem to bother him that the budget is missing any coherent themes, any indication that Mr. Martin's government has a clear set of priorities beyond doing what is necessary to stay in power. Mr. Goodale has produced a remarkable porridge of spending spread over vast areas that puts paid to the notion that Paul Martin is a conservative by nature and political instinct. The spending commitments in this budget are destined to absorb all the projected surpluses during the five-year life of the plan. Debt reduction will come only from anything left over in the contingency fund. That, too, is a radical departure for Mr. Martin, who previously eschewed long-term budgets because it is so difficult to produce accurate calculations of revenues and costs so far in advance. It's a prescient politician who can essentially deliver a budget for fiscal 2009 that is confidently based on the government's ability to deliver a stream of budget surpluses for the entire period forecast. That said, the budget does preserve a core of fiscal responsibility. For all the new spending commitments, Mr. Goodale has once again delivered a balanced budget, with promises of more of the same in subsequent years. The government also deserves praise for its commitment to greater defence spending. Although more needs to be done, the $12.8-billion in new money spread over five years will enable Canada to field 5,000 more troops and 3,000 more reserves and to upgrade equipment. Another positive move is the unexpected elimination of the ceiling on foreign content in Canadians' RRSP portfolios and pension plans. These limits were antiquated and should have been gone years ago. The increase in RRSP contribution limits to $22,000 a person is also welcome, as is the decision to boost the basic tax exemption to $10,000 by 2009, a measure that should remove 860,000 low-income people from the tax rolls. In the end, though, this is an unfocused, undisciplined and disappointing budget. Its flaws are Mr. Martin's. This is a prime minister who has a hard time saying no to anyone (see missile defence, below). Instead, in this budget, he has said yes to everyone with any clout who has knocked on his door over the past year. That's not leadership.

Over 16,000 visits yesterday: a record for this site. Extraordinary what happens when I don't get in the way by, you know, posting anything.

IN THE COMMENTS on another post, someone wondered whether I was not a Red Tory, like the former international trade critic. Um, no. Here's my definition of a Red Tory, from my May 15, 2000 column:

But then, Toryism has never been about intellectual consistency, most especially among that strange mutation, now the dominant strain in the party, known as Red Tories. The Red Tory, as the name implies, does not go in much for logical coherence or philosophical frameworks; indeed he prides himself on it. He is guided, rather, by sentiment, and nostalgia, and an unshakeable conviction that everything can be resolved through "dialogue." Which is not to say that the Red Tory does not believe in anything. He does. He believes in the Queen, and good diction, and the proper teaching of Canadian history in the schools. His heroes are George Grant, Disraeli, and Allan Bloom. He goes to church, militantly. He has a quite mystic regard for notions like "community," though he does not know what he means by it, or how it conflicts with the "individualism" he despises. He is also against "socialism," though again he can't say why. Above all, he believes in civility -- unlike his political opponents, whom he curses in the most strident terms. In general, the rule is: the less the ideological differences, the greater the hostility. So although the Red Tory hates the Canadian Alliance, he loathes the Liberals more, and fellow Tories most of all -- until, in the enduring enmity between those two ind