Teddy Ballgame

Brian Mulroney returns to Ottawa, feted as greenest PM in Canadian history BRUCE CHEADLE OTTAWA (CP) - Former prime minister Brian Mulroney basked in a green glow of admiration Thursday evening as he made his first public appearance in Ottawa since leaving office 13 years ago. Mulroney was greeted by a standing ovation at the historic Chateau Laurier hotel by a who's who crowd of environmentalists, business executives, diplomats and politicians even before he was praised as the greenest prime minister in Canadian history. Speaker after speaker lauded Mulroney-era legislation and initiatives to protect the environment. Clearly enjoying a return to the limelight, Mulroney promised to be brief, adding he could only speak at length if he's "being taped," a reference to a profanity-laced tell-all book by Peter C. Newman based on their recorded telephone conversations. Mulroney said he was honoured by the environmental award and the "endorsements" of the judges on the panel, including one who called Mulroney the "best of a bad bunch." Canada's 18th prime minister, now 67, left office under a toxic cloud of public disdain almost 13 years ago. How the skies have cleared. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, seated with Mulroney and his wife Mila at the head table, alluded to that stormy past earlier Thursday during a news conference in Montreal. "At the time, I don't think there was any environmentalist who had anything good to say about Mr. Mulroney," Harper said of the back-to-back Tory majorities in the 1980s. "Now he's regarded years later as the greenest prime minister. I believe the reason he's regarded that way is that he didn't pursue grandiose schemes and unworkable arrangements and the kind of problem we got into on Kyoto (greenhouse gas protocol). Instead, he decided to make real progress, concrete progress, on particular issues." It was a somewhat partisan prelude to a surprisingly non-partisan event. Corporate Knights, a left-leaning magazine that likes to reward good corporate environmental citizenship in the hopes of spurring copycats, set the ball in motion last summer. The magazine commissioned a 12-member panel comprised mostly of environmentalists - former Liberal cabinet minister Sheila Copps and historian Desmond Morton were the exceptions - and they wound up selecting Mulroney as Canada's greenest PM. Mulroney got the nod from five of 12 panellists, eclipsing Pierre Trudeau's three votes. Quebec Premier Jean Charest, a onetime Mulroney environment minister, drew a hearty laugh when he said he told his wife that Harper would also be at the event and she responded, "Again?" Charest and Harper have had several one-on-one sessions since the January election. Mulroney's brush with death last year due to a severe attack of pancreatitis prevented the awards dinner from taking place until this spring. In the interim, a Conservative government was elected for the first time since the remnants of Mulroney's party were routed in 1993. The gala proved to be the hottest ticket in town. Corporate giants such as SunLife and Enbridge snapped up all the $2,500 tables in four days, leaving many political insiders scrambling for one of the scarce 308 seats. The waiting list late Thursday afternoon had reached 300. Pierre Karl Peladeau, the head of media giant Quebecor World, was there, as was U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins. Old Liberal stalwarts of the Jean Chretien era were on hand, as was Ontario MPP Gerard Kennedy, who plans to seek the federal Liberal leadership. Derek Burney, Mulroney's former ambassador to the United States, was to attend along with Senator Marjory LeBreton, a key player in both the Mulroney and now Harper governments. Despite Harper's bold words, the Mulroney speech falls into something of an environmental policy vacuum in Ottawa. Harper has promised a "made-in-Canada" approach to the global climate change treaty, yet senior bureaucrats say the government appears to be genuinely non-plussed about how to proceed. "Our government is examining all of the options," Harper said in Montreal. "But to solve environmental problems, it's necessary in this continent and this economy to have the participation of the United States, or our efforts will not have many results." That's a fact of life that environmental groups now say Mulroney recognized, and to some degree overcame, during his tempestuous time in office. PS. I watched the event live on CPAC and Mulroney was in vintage form, mixing an appealing and humorous dose of self deprecation with fascinating insider accounts of his negotiations with Reagan and Bush I and others with persuasive and pointed barbs at the two morons and charlatans Chretien and Martin who succeeded him with some very substantial food for thought in terms of the environmental challenges Canada faces in the future and how we can best deal with them. Specifically, Mulroney identified the Northern environmental challenges including the fast melting polar ice cap, the increasing importance of the Northwest Passage and of oil and gas exploration and transmission in the Far North and the concommitant onus placed on asserting and defending our Arctic sovereignty and maintaining that environment and its living creatures and the survival of its indigenous peoples as the top environmental priorities for government. He argued that the Canadian government could only be effective in meeting these challenges if it did three things well: set an example through its own performance in its myriad Northern operations that enabled it to occupy the moral highground rather than to be seen as hypocritical and ineffective; encourage and engage the US and, insofar as the Arctic is concerned, Russia in specific co-operative programs to tackle Arctic environmental problems and, get major industry on side through effective incentives and realistic goals and win-win types of outcomes. After listening to the former PM's stirring 45 minute speech, it was easy both to see why he got 42% of the environmentalists' votes and why his two Liberal successors got no votes at all, not even from the one voter who worked for them.

- Shoop ... PM Harper is such an avid hockey fan and has such a knowledge of the game that he has for some time been researching and writing a history of professional hockey in Canada that he hopes to have published some day. While Harper started this book as a hobby a few years ago and never expected to make much money on it (what Canadian writer of Canadian books other than the late Pierre Berton ever did expect to make real money in Canadian publishing?), I daresay his recent elevation to the political catbird seat will do wonders for the sales and profits of his book when he finishes it. BTW - The opening hockey dad reference here reminds me that perhaps the most normal, representatative, middle class, middle aged Canadian federal party leader we have had in decades is none other than the supposedly "scary" Stephen Harper. Compare his family background, early career and recent financial status and tastes and lifestyle with such bizarrely untypical leaders as the spoiled multi-millionaire snotty kid and long time rootless playboy Trudeau and the born into politics and privelege and preferential access to things like bank money Paul Martin and others to see my point. - This normality is, I think, a useful thing if one wishes to properly understand and represent and lead that critical mass of Canadians known as the middle class, working, tax paying majority. It is those phony representatives of the middle class like Trudeau and Martin whom I find "scary" or at least in danger of being too out of touch. Harper, it seems, knows and understands the middle class because this is where he comes from. He also has shown an enduring honesty that I hope he will not lose in the artificial and sycophantic Ottawa environment. For example, when the young child grabbed him by the nose in that now famous picture from the other day, Harper did not try to hide his reaction which was a combination of suprise and annoyance. Now if the same kid went for Captain Panama Paul Dither's honker, you can be sure that Martin would instantly go into full charm offensive mode with a big laugh and a broad, sh#t eating grin plastered all over his face. Of course, he wouldn't mean any of it but it would help to con the rubes who buy into the rest of his horsepucky stuff including his 56 "very, very, very important priorities".

- G - You and I are certainly on the same page on this issue. So is Globe and Mail columnist Eric Reguly who wrote an excellent column today on the Liberal fraud known as our Kyoto commitment. Here are a few points from Reguly's column: - If you want to laugh, pick up the May edition of Vanity Fair, the magazine's first "green issue." Canada (along with Toronto Mayor David Miller) are slathered with kudos in the 30-page eco-champions section. "Our neighbours to the north certainly seem to get it: Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol . . ." the editors wrote. - The implication is that Canada out-greens the United States, where Kyoto is a dirty word. Vanity Fair believes Canada has taken the high ground. The trouble is, holier-than-thou Canadians do, too. Nothing could be further from the truth. - While Canada is a card-carrying Kyoto member (merci, Jean Chrétien), the country's greenhouse gas emissions, largely carbon dioxide, are so far above the target that "Kyoto" and "Canada" don't belong in the same paragraph. Canada's Kyoto gap -- the difference between actual yearly emissions and the target emissions in the protocol's first reporting period, 2008 to 2012 -- was 177 million tonnes in 2003, when the last official figure was released. That was about 30 per cent higher than the target. - The current gap is undoubtedly higher, thanks in large part to northern Alberta's oil sands. The area, where a massively energy-intensive extraction and refining process is used to convert tarry guck called bitumen into synthetic crude, has emerged as one of the planet's single-biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. - Aldyen Donnelly, president of the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium (Gemco), estimates Canada's gap is now about 210 million tonnes. Unless miracle energy conservation technologies are found, national emissions output will soar as oil sands production more than doubles over the next decade. The point is, Canada hasn't got the slightest chance of meeting the Kyoto targets unless it turns the oil sands into a nature preserve. The odds of that happening are about the same as Vanity Fair holding its Oscar party in Fort McMurray. - What were the Chrétien Liberals thinking when they joined the Kyoto club? They were either incompetent and horrendously underestimated the difficulty in meeting the emissions target. Or the cynical brutes never had any intention of complying in the first place (Ms. Donnelly's belief). - The latter theory is credible. Mr. Chrétien wanted a PR win and got one with Kyoto. Kyoto is popular in Ontario and Quebec. It is supported by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. More Canadians than not are proud that Canada is in Kyoto. Plus it gives them another reason to hate George W. Bush (never mind that Bill Clinton was the first president to step off the Kyoto bandwagon). You know, Geoffrey, anyone who would be stupid enough to vote Liberal in 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 after being lied to IN WRITING and manipulated and conned in breathtaking fashion during and after the 1993 campaign would be stupid enough to actually believe and be impressed by Chretien's cynical Kyoto con as well. Judging from the topics here, we have quite a few such "useful idiots" on this board. I'm so glad neither you nor I are among them.

- C - I looked again a bit farther back and I found the source I quoted in my earlier post. Here, for your convenience, are salient parts of the news item: Primary Navigation HomeU.S.BusinessWorldEntertainmentSportsTechPoliticsScienceHealthTravelMost Popular Secondary Navigation Middle East Europe Latin America Africa Asia Canada Australia/Antarctica Kevin Sites Search: All News & Blogs Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio Advanced -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Celebration of Mulroney's green feats could prove awkward for Harper DENNIS BUECKERT Wed Apr 19, 6:38 PM ET OTTAWA (CP) - A gala celebrating former prime minister Brian Mulroney's environmental accomplishments risks creating some awkward moments for Thursday's guest of honour: Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Organizers are unabashed in describing the Mulroney tribute as a reminder to Harper, who has omitted the environment from his list of priorities. Mulroney was named Canada's greenest prime minister in a vote last year. "The most notable thing about the present Conservative environment policy is its almost total absence," said Toby Heaps, editor of Corporate Knights magazine, which organized the vote. "When you have a blank piece of paper you can write whatever you want and there's still lots of potential for something good to be written." Mulroney was too ill to attend the award ceremony in Toronto last year. On hearing of Mulroney's recovery, Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club suggested another ceremony in Ottawa and it has turned out to be a hot social event. But the event comes amid great uncertainty about the Conservatives' intentions on the Kyoto Protocol and on many other issues. "We've got this very large looming threat of what is the Harper government going to do," said May. "The noises are not encouraging. They can still pull it out, they can still emerge the way Mulroney did in some ways and surprise people, but right now all the indicators are ominous." Mulroney seemed to genuinely understand environmental issues, said May. At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, she noted, Mulroney was the first leader to sign the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which led to the Kyoto Protocol. He was first to sign the UN Biodiversity Convention intended to slow the extinction of species. During Mulroney's era Canada hosted a conference which led to the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, perhaps the greatest success of international law in the environmental domain. He placed acid rain at the top of the Canada-U.S. agenda and negotiated a landmark acid-rain treaty which sharply reduced sulphur emissions in eastern North America. He launched the $3 billion Green Plan which gave a major push to environmental research and provided extensive ecological data that remains widely used over a decade later. The National Round Table on Environment and the Economy and the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development are both creations of the Mulroney era. Harper's record so far is one of cutting programs rather than proposing new ideas. Last week, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn announced he was axing 15 climate programs deemed ineffective, while promising to proceed with a "made-in-Canada" clean air plan. Despite frequent references to the "made-in-Canada" plan there has been no hint of what it may contain. Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation said he hopes the event will challenge Harper to improve his green credentials. He says environmental issues cut across ideologies. "There is nothing contradictory about a Conservative being a good environmentalist."

- C - I condensed the material from a lengthy report on my Rogers.Yahoo newspage this evening by the folks who awarded Mulroney this honor but now it has been superceded by other news items so, sorry, I can't find or cite it now. But it was there and Mulroney was given the credit for these achievements by twelve experts who frankly would have preferred to give the credit to the usual useless Liberal windbags like Chretien or Martin. As well, I would remind you that even former Liberal Environment Minister Sheial Copps wrote a fulsome tribute to Mulroney the environmentalist in today's Toronto Sun and I've copied that column here. PS. I don't think you'll be needed to live in Mulroney's basement cleaning out his grease trap. I hear he has engaged Liberal stalwart Big Al "Now There's really Something Rotten In The State of Denmark" Gagliano because he needs work to supplement his MP's pension but like so many of Chretien's cretins he is basically unemployable and because nobody knows more about grease and how to apply it than Big Al.

- Here is a summary of Mulroney's environmmental record: - Although the twelve environmetalists were politically firmly in the left wing liberal camp, a surprising five of the twelve or 42% chose Brian Mulroney as Canada's greatest environmental PM ever while the usual darling of the left-lib set Pierre Trudeau trailed with three or 25% of the votes and nobody else got more than two votes out of the twelve total. - There is nothing surprising about a conservative wanting to conserve, in this case Conservative leader Mulroney wanting to conserve our planet and its resources. Here are aspects of his sterling environmental record beywee 1984 and 1993: - At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, Mulroney was the first leader to sign the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which led to the Kyoto Protocol. - He was first to sign the UN Biodiversity Convention intended to slow the extinction of species. - During Mulroney's era Canada hosted a conference which led to the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, perhaps the greatest success of international law in the environmental domain. - He placed acid rain at the top of the Canada-U.S. agenda and negotiated a landmark acid-rain treaty which sharply reduced sulphur emissions in eastern North America. - He launched the $3 billion Green Plan which gave a major push to environmental research and provided extensive ecological data that remains widely used over a decade later. - The National Round Table on Environment and the Economy and the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development are both creations of the Mulroney era. BTW --- While it is understood that both Chretien and Martin talked a good game environmentally, their actual follow through and performance was strictly (pardon the expression) smoke and mirrors. For example, despite piously and hypocritically lecturing the US for not commiting to the Kyoto Accord, the Liberal leaders actually failed to develop any kind of even remotely workable plan to impliment Kyoto and managed to blow billions of bucks while not just failing to achieve BUT FALLING FARTHER THAN EVER BEHIND the Kyoto air pollution reduction targets. Meanwhile, the US - always interested more in doing than in talking - went quietly ahead on its own and performed twice as well as Canada with air pollution increases of 13% in the past seven years versus Canadian increases of 24%.

- Yes, PR, the Liberals managed in 1993 to ride their way back into power on the basis of the unpopularity of the GST, uncertainty about free trade, the splintering of the PC party into three parts due largely to Presto Manning's ambition to lead a nation (now he'll settle for Alberta) and Bouchard's disgust at the defeat by Liberal backroom weasels of Meech Lake and Charlottetown, the unpopularity of a government and a leader nine long years in power, an inept campaign by Ms. Campbell, and last but not least the most flagrant pack of political lies and promises ever put in writing in this country called The Red Book of 1993. - Now, if you ask me whether I am more impressed with the sober hindsight of today's leading Canadian political historians and economists in evaluating and ranking Mulroney than I am with the visceral and largely uninformed and manipualted and impulsive reactions of the voting masses in 1993, I think the answer should be obvious to anyone but perhaps ALLCRAP and other rabid Tory haters. - Perhaps since you so dislike my post here about Mulroney, you should instead read the fulsome praise of him and his environmental record in a Toronto Sun column written today by that great and rabidly partisan Liberal, Sheila Copps. Sheila, you see, no longer has to lie and pretend that Mulroney wears horns, etc., etc. You, hopefully, may one day reach this same stage of maturity and enlightenment. Good luck.

- During the entire election campaign and in the nearly three months since the election, Harper and other CPC spokespeople made it perfectly clear that their immediate priorities were not 56 like Captain Panama Paul Dithers had but merely five and that, also unlike Dithers, they were actually going to do their level best to keep their priority commitments to Canadians. - The five CPC commitments were a 2% cut to the GST with 1% in the first budget and the next 1% within the first five years of the government ... a government accountability bill to change most of the seedier ways business is done in Ottawa and to change the culture in which it is done so that fewer Adscams will be attempted, they will be caught sooner, and the perpetrators will actually be punished for absuing the public trust with public money ... a package of defined, specific criminal justice system measures to ensure that the criminal justice system is not just for the criminals, that law abiding citizens also have some rights, and to help ensure that most victims get out of the hospital before most criminals get out of jail ... an agreement with the providers of health care - the provinces - to set and measure the achievement of shorter, more realistic, less painful waiting times for critical health care services even if this requires transporting patients to other jurisdictions for the necessary services on a timely basis ... and a $1200 per year per child under 6 cash benefit (taxable only for the lowest income parent) PLUS a substantial program of tax incentives to encourage corporations and NFP institutions to actually create child care spaces and to ensure that parents have more flexiblity in choosing their preferred method of child care. - THEREFORE, although under the Liberals we Canadians are used to being manipulated, ignored, deceived and lied to as a matter of political course, I think that it is surely a healthy thing in terms of democratic accountability of the government to the governed that the Conservatives be encouraged and allowed to keep their five specific commitments to Canadians. This means that for those priorities (four of the five) which require legislation, said legislation should be regarded as confidence measures and if the leaderless, policyless, principleless Liberal weasels have such an unquenchable thirst for power and such an utter contempt for democracy that they would try to defeat the Conservatives on any of these five priorities then they should fill thier boots. And if they do, the next destination for the Liberals should and will be Boot Hill. - Anyone here other than some monopoly public sector unionized child care worker looking for a big raise care to defend the indefensible, i.e. that Harper should back off his commitments and tell Canadians "hey, guys, I was only shooting the shit to get elected, same as the liberals always do"? BRING IT ON ...

- Canada's greatest living prime minsiter, Brian Mulroney, will on Thursday be honoured as Canada's greenest prime minister ever in accordance with the ranking of our PMs by an independent panel of the country's twelve most authoritative environmentalists. The actual deliberations and voting by the twelve person environmental jury took place more than a year ago but Mr. Mulroney was in hospital this time last year and too ill to be honoured at the dinner planned for him. Now he is feeling fine again and the gala affair will take place in Ottawa on Thursday. - As the following Globe and Mail report reveals, Mr. Mulroney made it to the very top of the list despite the decidely left leaning political inclinations of both the editor of the environmental magazine who picked the panel of experts and the majority of the experts themselves. - However, PM Mulroney's record in government was just too superior on environmental issues including major iniatives on acid rain, climate change and the ozone layer not to mention a leadership role with his dynamic young Minister of the Environment Jean Charest at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio. In my view, his greatest environmental accomplishment was the acid rain treaty with the US which he was able to achieve by making use of his special relationship with US President Ronald Reagan when his Liberal predecessor Pierre Trudeau and his Liberal successors Chretien and Martin could - due to their disgusting display of anti-americanism for short term vote getting in Quebed and among third world immigrants - rarely even get Reagan or either Bush on the telephone let alone negotiate a treaty that the US presidents weren't really that interested in. - It is so good to see that PM Mulroney is increasingly receiving his due as a great prime minister while he is still with us. Canadian political historians and economists - along with most people owning IQs at or abhove double digits - have for some years readily ranked Mulroney as the greatest PM in economic policy matters of the past fifty years, acknowledging the obvious benefits to Canada of his bold and courageous initiaitives in trade, taxation, productivity, fiscal and monetary policy. In regard to his visionary economic agenda, the best summary was recently penned by Peter C. Newman in his controversial book "The Secret Mulroney Tapes". Wrote Newman, "Instead of pretending that the 20th century belonged to Canada, Brian Mulroney made it possible for Canada to belong to the 21st century." - What is most recent is that Mulroney's stellar record in non-economic issues such as on the environment, foreign and military affairs including tackling RSA on apartheid, and federal-provincial relations generally and with Quebec in particular - as well as his singular political wit, wisdom and judgement - are now being fully appreciated by those who matter most including the current PM and those around him. - It seems that Brian truly has the Midas Touch. He is acknowledged to be the most successful former PM in history in the business sphere with boards of leading international and national corporations clamouring for his participation and advice, he is the most in demand Canadian political speaker with a $65,000 fee and unlimited requests to speak, and he is also in great demand for pro bono service on UN and other task forces and commissions. - Even his ability as a talent scout is first rate. Several years ago, a young struggling Canadian singer was recommended to Brian as the possible main entertainer at his daughter Carolyn's wedding. Mulroney listened to the young man do a set in a small Montreal club and declared that he had a unique style and voice blending Frank Sinatra and Bobby Darin. He hired him on the spot to sing at Carolyn's wedding and recommended him to some other heavy hitters to do some lucrative society gigs. The singer's name: Micheal Buble. - So you see, Liberal BS doesn't always baffle Conservative brains. It only looks that way if one confines one's reading to this forum. Historically, it becomes ever clearer that neither Trudeau, Turner, Chretien nor Martin were, based on their records in office, fit to shine Mulroney's shoes. The only post WWII PM of Mulroney's calibre was Lester Pearson, whose singular record in matters of social policy is a fitting counterpoint to Mulroney's record in economic policy. - Here is the full story about Canada's greenest PM ever: Mulroney: Blue Tory, green leader JANE TABER From Tuesday's Globe and Mail OTTAWA — On Thursday, Brian Mulroney comes to Ottawa to be feted as the "greenest prime minister" in Canadian history. A Liberal Premier, the current right-of-centre Prime Minister and the editor of a left-of-centre environmental magazine -- who was brought up believing that Mr. Mulroney was a tree cutter and not a tree hugger -- will be doing the honouring. And all this is happening at the venerable Chateau Laurier before a sold-out crowd of environmentalists and corporate leaders. So sought-after are tickets for this Earth Week Gala Dinner that some members of the David Suzuki Foundation, who were too late in trying to buy some, will have to be squeezed in somehow. There is room for only 308 people. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose environmental policies are still a blank page to environmentalists, will introduce Mr. Mulroney. Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest, a former Mulroney environment minister, is to speak and tell war stories from "Rio" (the UN's Earth Summit was held there in 1992), and Mr. Mulroney's famous son, Ben, star of CTV's eTalk Daily and Canadian Idol, will be the evening's co-host. Mr. Mulroney will deliver a speech in which he will not only look back on his government's green legacy, but look ahead. He will speak about the serious problem of the shrinking polar ice cap, and the growth in China and India and the role Canada can play in ensuring those countries maintain good environmental practices. Old-time Mulroney PMOers and staffers will be at the dinner. A table costs $2,500, but MPs and public servants are being charged only $40 so they don't end up attending as any big-wig's guest. The event is being organized by the principals of a small independent environmental magazine, Corporate Knights, which began four years ago with $1,500 and a big idea that big business can be part of the environmental solution. "All of a sudden, what is happening to us? We're like this centre-left magazine and all of a sudden we've got all of these . . . [leaders]," Toby Heaps, the magazine's editor, said about the success of the dinner. It's even more delicious when you know that in 1988, Mr. Heaps's mother voted for the Liberals in the free-trade election, telling her son, who was 12 at the time, that the free-trade deal would "cause trees to be cut down." "I always associated Mulroney with a tree cutter," he said. No longer. "I guess [Tory] Blue can be green," Mr. Heaps said. Two years ago, Mr. Heaps, who had been in the United States working on Ralph Nader's presidential campaign (one of his jobs was to canvass at a Wal-Mart in Casper, Wyo.), returned to Canada and came up with the idea of polling environmentalists as to who was the greenest prime minister in Canadian history. He asked 12 prominent green Canadians -- people such as the Sierra Club's Elizabeth May, Environmental Defence's Rick Smith and even former Liberal environment minister Sheila Copps -- to act as jurors who would cast ballots, explain their choices and then make recommendations about environmental policy to the current government. Mr. Mulroney won, receiving five votes against three for former Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau. Mr. Heaps said that once Mr. Mulroney agreed to the honour, the floodgates opened and the clamour for tickets began. In fact, the event was to take place last year, but had to be rescheduled because Mr. Mulroney was suffering from an inflamed pancreas and was too ill to attend. Meanwhile, this is to be a big event for Canada's environmental crowd, who say Mr. Mulroney is a very deserving honoree. "Mulroney being the greenest PM in Canadian history is actually a widely held view in the environmental community," said Mr. Smith, noting that among many positive steps Mr. Mulroney took for the environment was to go to bat "big time" for the acid-rain agreement with the United States. (Mr. Smith, however, nominated Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the greenest PM because he created a national commission to deal with environmental issues.) But Ms. May nominated Mr. Mulroney: "For a lot of us in the Mulroney years, we didn't know it, but this was our Valhalla." She said that former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien made many environmental promises, but did not fulfill them. Mr. Mulroney, on the other hand, launched initiatives on acid rain, climate change and the ozone layer. Like Mr. Smith, she said that Mr. Mulroney made acid rain a bilateral priority with the United States. Both environmentalists say they hope that Mr. Mulroney's environmental legacy will be followed, or even overtaken, by the Harper Conservatives. "Of course, my hope and the hope of a lot of environmentalists who are going to be there [at the dinner], is that this new Conservative government breathes some life into the Mulroney legacy," Mr. Smith said

- G - You are, of course, entirely correct. Mind you, it is easy to be entirely correct when debating with ALLCRAP. Simply take the exact opposite position to whatever one is espoused by ALLCRAP and you will almost always be entirely correct. - In this case, everyone who really knows about political fundraising and the basis of financial support for parties in Canada knows that the Conservative Party has for the past decade been far better at securing the thousands of small donations from grass roots supporters than has the Liberals who have relied almost solely on bog corporate contributions by companies wanting to maintain their access to federal contracts, loans, influence, etc. - Here is a recent report from the Globe and Mail on this topic: Liberals bring in American organizer Candidates seek fundraising tips JANE TABER From Wednesday's Globe and Mail OTTAWA — The U.S. political organizer credited with "reinventing campaigning" by using the Internet to raise millions for Howard Dean's presidential bid is going to teach Liberals how to do the same for their leadership campaigns. About 50 Liberals, including some of the potential leadership candidates, caucus members, volunteers and organizers, will hear from Joe Trippi, the former Vermont governor's campaign manager, at an event in Toronto next week. Mr. Trippi tapped into the U.S. grassroots through the Internet by raising money in increments averaging less than $100 that resulted in millions of dollars for Mr. Dean, who ran unsuccessfully against John Kerry for the 2004 Democratic Party nomination. The rules for financing political campaigns in Canada changed significantly after new legislation was passed in 2003, and leadership candidates can no longer receive thousands of dollars from corporations or unions. The new Canadian rules allow an individual to donate up to $5,200 to a candidate's campaign. The candidate can give only $10,200 of his or her own money. The leadership vote is to be held Dec. 2 in Montreal. Candidates are allowed to spend up to $3.4-million. The organizer behind the Trippi event is Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein, who wanted to do something to help Liberals think creatively about the party's future. Mr. Grafstein said he is concerned about the lack of unity in the party that led many Liberals to sit out this year's election and previous votes. He was also wondering how to use this leadership race as an opportunity to increase party membership. And so Mr. Grafstein, who is knowledgeable about U.S. politics, picked up his telephone several weeks ago and invited Mr. Trippi to Toronto for lunch and a 30-minute talk followed by questions. He invited the other participants personally, picking a range of Liberals from all aspects of the party and the country. Mr. Grafstein said the purpose of the event is to "get somebody who could give us advice" with respect to grassroots and democracy. He also said participants, who pay $100 to $150 to attend the event, can learn from Mr. Trippi's mistakes. Mr. Trippi has attracted some controversy for the way he has run campaigns, says one Democrat, who also helped out on the Dean campaign. "He's extremely talented, he has a funky personality," said the Democratic organizer, who noted, however, that Mr. Trippi is "arrogant in his ideas." "I don't know the last candidate he produced a win for. . . . I'm not sure what Joe could possibly have to offer that would be relevant or new in Canada. But he's American and so by definition he must be smart," the organizer said. Meanwhile, Mr. Grafstein, whose roots in the Liberal Party go back to the Pearson and Trudeau eras, is no stranger to thinking outside the box. He organized the Canada Loves New York weekend, in which thousands of Canadians travelled to New York after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Potential leadership candidate Carolyn Bennett, a former Martin cabinet minister and veteran Toronto MP, is one of the participants in the Trippi event. Dr. Bennett, who says she will decide whether to seek the leadership in the next several weeks, noted that the Conservative Party raised much of its money for the recent election in smaller amounts from truly grassroots organizations. The Liberals, in the past, have relied on corporations. "It's something that a lot of us have been very keen about in terms of obviously turning the Liberal Party into a truly liberal party . . . ," she said.

- Of course the Liberals are considering an effort to unite the left as a means of returning to power. The Liberals will consider and profess and do absolutely anything to seek, achieve and retain power. The only thing that has held the Liberals together since the departure of Trudeau has been a thirst for power and its perks and priveleges. Their only true philosophy has been "say anything to gain power, do anything to keep power." - Indeed, the party is so bankrupt in terms of ethics, principles, vision, values, policy, finances and leadership that they have now formed no less than 34 task forces to review every aspect of the party and the result will be that they will sieze upon uniting the left or absolutely anything and anybody else that they believe will enable them to once again plant their noses deeply into the public trough. - However, as an earlier poster astutely noted, it is not realistic to expect that all or even most NDP supporters would be interested in being the victims of a hostile take over-merger under the Liberal banner. The left wing opportunists and careerists already are Liberals just as Trudeau made the switch from NDP to Liberal in 1965 when he decided to go for the power. But most NDPers are a little more principled and ethical than this. - Reminds me of the old saw "What happens when you cross a pig with a stockbroker? Nothing! There are some things even pigs won't do." This is an analogy with the NDPers as pigs and the Liberals as brokers. In any case, what would happen is that at least 2/3 of the former NDP vote would do anything - form another left wing party, support the Green or other existing left wing party, sit on their hands, slash their wrists - to avoid voting for the Liberals merged or unmerged.

- Poppa Benjie did indeed cut The Messiah some slack on the beer versus wine front, bearing in mind Jesus's own words, "Let he who is not yet stoned cast out the first sinner" or something along those lines.

That poll is not credible. It's online, seemingly attached to a clearly left-leaning website, and it doesn't even have a 'Bloc Quebecois' option. - Steve ... Of course that poll is not credible. Nothing that ALLCRAP has to say about Harper or the CPC is credible which is why I have christened him/her/it ALLCRAP. However, if you click on the Home Page of the referenced site you will beable to review the several scientifically designed and conducted national opinion polls taken by reputable polling organizations since the January 23rd election and these are reliable and credible. What you will find is a growing tide of support for the Conservatives and for Harper as PM, a dwindling level of support for the Liberals, and a slight increase in NDP popularity. The most recent poll - taken just last week by Environics - gives the Conservatives 41% national support, the Liberals 22% and the NDP 21%. It also gives Harper a 60% approval rating as PM which is quite an astounding increase from his 33% approval rating as Opposition Leader just last Fall. You are best advised to ignore anything spewed by ALLCRAP on this subject since the poor soul has what is clearly an unhealthy animus bordering on distemper and a delusional and inaccurate view in regard to the CPC which he hates and the Liberals whom he adores. I am not sure what PIGs (political interest groups) ALLCRAP represents but they are clearly of the hard left, big government, snout in the public trough, I'm entitled to my entitlements variety.

- ROTFPIMPALMFARO!!! - I'm not sure which is funnier ... the notion of ALLCRAP "researching" Iggy or anyone or anyrthing else or, the notion that anyone with an IQ in even double digits could pick a political neophyte like Ignatieff over the former two term governor of California and two term president of the US like Reagan who is now conceeded even by liberal historians to have been the greatest of all US presidents since WWII. - The Globe and Mail's resident left wing columnist and one of my least favourite columnists today wrote one of his rare columns with which I actually agree (other than his usual lefty slant on Iraq). Here it is: Take yer lumps, Iggy RICK SALUTIN From Friday's Globe and Mail * Note - Remainder of Post Removed Due to Copyright Infringment

ALLCRAP ... The reason I have named you ALLCRAP is that when it comes to your comments concerning PM Harper and the CPC pretty much everything you have to say is a bold faced lie. Nowhere is your duplicity and deception - not to mention your delusions derived from your obsessive animus to Harper and the CPC - more evident than in this ridiculous thread. You begin with ALL CRAP concerning the Accountability Act and continue to dig yourself into an even deeper hole. Your ridiculous comments in this latest post on Harper, Baird and the non-partisan political action group called the NCC are not worth my time in response. But I have decided to respond to your comments on polls because ANYONE HERE WHO CAN READ AND REASON will immediately see that you are a complete and utter liar. Polls, you see, are quantitative and therefore lies are IMMEDIATELY VERIFIABLE. Here is the latest poll taken just a week ago by a respected and long time Liberal favourite polling organization Environics as published in The Globe and Mail on April 6th. For the benefit of yourself and any other left-lib learning impaired ideologues, I have printed the salient portions in bold font. Having caught you out in your deliberate falsifications here, I am not interested in wasting my time time any further debating the matter with you. I'll leave that to others who may suffer fools, liars and left-lib lunatic fringers better than I do. 4/6/2006 6:15:50 PM Stephen Harper and his new government solidify voter support across the country as they begin to govern. OTTAWA: Weeks into their new mandate, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government have solidified its support among Canadians, according to a new survey by the Environics Research Group conducted in March. Party Support. This latest survey shows that, nationally, 41 percent of eligible and decided Canadian voters would support the Conservative Party if an election were held today, compared with the 36 percent it earned in the January 23rd federal election. The Liberal Party, now under interim leadership, has seen its support drop to 22 percent (down 8 points), and is now in a statistical tie with the New Democratic Party, which has seen its support edge upwards to 21 percent (up 3 points). Support for the Bloc Québécois in Quebec is stable at 44 percent (up 2 points). Relatively few (13%) voters are currently undecided about which party might deserve their support. Approval of Party Leaders. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has earned solid public approval in his first months in office, with 60 percent of Canadians expressing approval of the job he has done to date. This marks a dramatic jump from the 33 percent who approved of his performance as Opposition Leader last fall. Just under three in ten (28%) now disapprove of his performance, while 12 percent cannot say either way. New Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham’s individual approval rating is 35 percent, but just as many (35%) cannot offer any assessment of him at this point in time. Thirty-one percent express disapproval. NDP Leader Jack Layton receives the approval of 58 percent of Canadians, essentially unchanged since last Fall, compared with 29 percent who disapprove. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe has earned 59 percent approval ratings in Quebec, down slightly from last fall, compared with 35 percent who disapprove. Why the Conservatives Won. The survey also asked Canadians why they thought the federal Conservative Party won the last election and are now forming a new government in Ottawa. More than half share the view that the outcome was because of widespread dissatisfaction with the previous Liberal government (54%), while more than a third (37%) said there was a general feeling it was time for a change. By comparison, only five percent of Canadians said they thought the Conservatives won this election because of their platform or policies. This perspective is largely the same across supporters of the different parties. Will the New Government be Different? Canadians are evenly divided on whether they expect the new Harper government will be similar or different from the previous Liberal government. Half (50%) think it will be fairly similar in many ways, while a slightly smaller percentage (45%) believe it will offer very different policies. Expectations for a very different type of government are modestly stronger among those who would currently support the Conservatives (53%) or Bloc Québécois (50%), than among those supporting the Liberals (40%) and NDP (42%). Undecided voters are the least apt to share this view (33%). For further information, please contact: Keith Neuman, Ph.D., Group Vice President – Public Affairs, Environics Research Group (613) 230-5089 [email protected] Methodology These results are taken from an Environics survey of 2,035 Canadians aged 18 and older, conducted in English and French between March 9 and 31, 2006. On a national basis, these results are accurate to within +/-2.2 percentage points, in 95 out of 100 samples. Questions (English): If a Canadian federal election were held today, which one of the following parties would you vote for [ROTATE PARTIES] the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, or [Quebec Only] the Bloc Québécois? [if “Undecided” ask] Perhaps you have not yet made up your mind; is there nevertheless a party you might be inclined to support? Please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the way the following party leaders are doing their jobs: [READ AND ROTATE] Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham, NDP Leader Jack Layton, or Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe? Thinking back to the January 23rd election, which of the following do you believe is the main reason why we have a new government in Ottawa today. Is it because of: READ AND ROTATE 01 and 02 Dissatisfaction with the previous government, Support for the new government’s platform and policies, or a belief it is simply time for a change Do you think the new government led by Stephen Harper will have very different policies and directions than the previous Liberal government, or do you think its policies will end up being similar in many ways to the previous government?

- ALLCRAP ... Once again, you reveal your obviously obsessive and seriously unbalanced animus to PM Harper with yet another ridiculous and utterly bogus post of ALL CRAP. Since you are too deranged to be capable of learning and change where harper and the CPC are concerned, I won't waste my time dealing with the ridiculously thin gruel of your post, namely four false accusations that anyone with half a brain and one eye open can see are ALL CRAP. Instead, I merely present for the information of others here the Toronto Star editorial yesterday on Harper's ethics package. Since the Toronto Star has long been the official house organ of the Liberal party of Canada, bound by the original sale of the paper from Joe Atkinson's estate to the family compact that runs it to always adhere to "liberal principles", and almost as obsessive an enemy of the Conservatives as is ALLCRAP, this unexpectedly objective and honest editorial is worth the read: Editorial: A promising start on ethics package Apr. 12, 2006. 01:00 AM For much of the last two years, Stephen Harper has told Canadians that, once in power, he would clean house in Ottawa after what he described as a long history of Liberal arrogance and corruption. He railed at the Liberals' Quebec advertising sponsorship scandal and promised to make ethics and transparency a cornerstone of his government. And so it is no surprise that he made the Federal Accountability Act, tabled in Parliament yesterday, his first piece of legislation. The massive bill, running more than 200 pages, is a welcome attempt to bring more openness and honesty to the way the federal government operates. It covers everything from election financing to the role of lobbyists and increased protection for government whistle-blowers. "We are creating a new culture of accountability that will change forever the way business is done in Ottawa," Harper said. "It will replace the culture of entitlement which became rooted here in Ottawa under the former government by a culture of accountability." Canadians can only hope that happens. But while much of the bill is encouraging, there a few troubling signs that suggest there is less to Harper's ethics package than there might seem at first. On the positive side, Harper is building on the actions taken by Paul Martin, who was moving to clean up the sponsorship mess created on Jean Chrétien's watch. Martin imposed strict new controls on the awarding of government contracts and was planning to hire 300 new auditors. As a first step, Harper will ban all corporate and union donations to federal political parties. That is important, although it is primarily symbolic because the old limit was just $1,000, so low that nobody really believed it was enough to buy influence or a politician's vote. The same is true with cutting the limit on individual donations from $5,000 to $1,000. Similarly, Harper's measures to boost protection for whistle-blowers, to have all government appointments be based on merit, to give the auditor-general more powers and to create a Procurement Auditor to study the awarding of government contracts should go a long way to convincing the public that real change is occurring in Ottawa. At the same time, though, Harper is taking steps that both bring into question just how committed to openness he actually is and whether he is strangling legitimate interaction between bureaucrats and business people and public interest groups under an unrealistic requirement for lengthy reports on every meeting, right down to a shared cup of coffee. One worrisome sign is Harper's handling of access to information legislation. He is rightly expanding coverage to include some Crown corporations such as Canada Post, VIA Rail and the CBC, as well as government agents such as the Chief Electoral Officer. But he has backpedalled on plans to allow easier access to government files by sending that part of the package to committee for further study. In Ottawa, that is equivalent to a "kiss of death" for controversial legislation. Another controversial move is to merge the ethics commissioners for the Commons and the Senate. When Martin tried to do that in 2004, senators rebelled, arguing the two chambers should be kept separate. Harper is inviting a backlash from the Liberal-heavy Senate, which may feel that Harper wants to legislate Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro, with whom he has refused to co-operate on several occasions, out of a job. Still, the overall thrust of the ethics package is good. Harper wants a healthy debate on it, which will give opponents a chance to propose reasonable amendments. They should take advantage of the opportunity.

- BB - Thank you so much for your all too generous remarks. - No, I am not Mark Steyn although I am certainly flattered to be compared with him. Like you, I regard Steyn as one of our greatest political satirists. - While my main career path was in management consulting, I have over the last 25 years written some free lance political and management columns both serious and satirical for The Globe and Mail and a few other newspapers and magazines. This piece was one of those rare efforts that took no effort and seemed to pretty much write itself. So it is strictly a freebie and I'm glad you enjoyed it. - My handle Teddy Ballgame, by the way, is one of the nicknames for my sports hero as a kid growing up in the 50s. Ted Williams, the legendary Red Sox slugger, was so colourful and compelling that he had not one but four nicknames: The Kid, The Splendid Splinter, The Thumper and, Teddy Ballgame. - Arguably the greatest hitter who ever lived, Williams is the only person enshrined in both the baseball and the fishing halls of fame, the only star athlete to serve his country in two major wars (WWII and Korea where he was John Glenn's wingman flying fighter jets), the only superstar to hit a home run on his last at bat ever, a world class photographer, the greatest fundraiser for childrens' cancer research in the history of The Jimmy Fund, the first hall of famer to lobby for the inclusion of black stars in the HOF, a tireless supporter of the underpriveleged and the underdogs in society, and a man of rock ribbed integrity who was true to himself, true to the end. - One of the few advantages in being over 60 is that I got to see Ted Williams hit. I even got to meet him in Chatham, NB near where he had a fishing lodge for over thirty years. - John Wayne once said that Ted Williams was the only man he wished he could be if he could choose to be someone else. I've always felt the same way. - But while hitting like Ted Williams would be my first choice in the fantasy life department, writing like Mark Steyn would be up there somewhere around second place. - So thanks again for your kind comments. I'll be sure to post here occasionally for your enjoyment and to the chagrin of the left-lib set. P.S. Since you liked this piece, you may enjoy something else I wrote here yesterday concerning the candidacy of Micheal Ignatieff for the federal Liberal leadership. I think Iggy's offering is a joke and I wrote my piece accordingly. You'll find it in the Canadian Politcs, Provincial Affairs forum in the thread titled Is Stephen Harper Taking Canada For A test Drive?. Enjoy.

Shoop ... Well, Dude, you are off base. 76 year old Uncle Louis retired in late 1957 to be replaced by recent Nobel peace prize winner Lester Pearson who appealed to the Liberal leadership delegates because he had a strong international reputation and an academic bent and therefore was thought to be more "marketable" to a gullible public easily impressed by the opinions of foreigners than were the other candidates with more extensive Canadian parliamentary and governmental experience. When Mr. Pearson got up to make his maiden speech as the new Liberal leader, he called for the Diefenbaker minority government to hand power back to "The Natural Governing Party" without the bother of an election because the country had entered a mild recession (NB: nothing like the deep, lengthy recessions of 1981-85 and 1990-95). Dief the Chief in full oratorical flight quoted extensively from a confidential government report by one Mitchell Sharp (then Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce and later long time Liberal cabinet minister) that had been released several months earlier to a still Liberal government and that forecast a mild recession for Canada from late 57 through 1958. "Why did you not tell the Canadian people about this economic report and the recession they would have to face?" thundered The Chief, eyes blazing and index finger pointing accusingly at the dumbfounded Pearson. "Why do you Liberals always lie and cover up and treat the public with such arrogance and contempt?" asked Dief. "Why do you lot believe you have some divine right to govern?" asked the scowling PM. The next day, PM Diefenbaker visited Governor General Massey, got his dissolution of Parliament, and waged a dynamic, absolutely brilliant 1958 election campaign that gave him the highest percentage of seats in Canadian federal history. There are many interesting parallels between 1957-58 and today. An obvious one is that most Canadians have tired of what they rightly perceive as a complacent, arrogant, too long in the tooth and too long in power Liberal government. Another is that the Liberal Party is in dreadful shape, needs a complete policy and organizational make over (which is why the A Team of candidates has already bowed out of the leadership race and why insiders are now conducting a major review of the party), and seems intent on selecting yet another academically oriented leader (Ignatieff) whose actual domestic political experience and parliamentary skills are sorely lacking and whose reputation is international rather than national. Let us hope that 1957 having repeated itself, 1958 will follow! But it won't happen within months this time but, rather, in about two years which is how long it will take the Liberals to be ready to fight another election. Of course, Harper could do a Dief and find a way and an issue to force an early election. But we're still talking probably 18-24 months from now not 6 months as in The Chief's time. Go, Stephen. Keep your promises. This, alone, is enough to distinguish you from the Lieberals and ensure at least a a majority in 2008.

Well, I used to do a lot of executive recruiting and I could write a rather hilarious black comedy on why Ignatieff is pretty much the last person in the entire country that the feckless, clueless Liberals SHOULD choose to lead them (which, of course, means that Iggy's odds of winning the leadership are pretty good since the Liberals of late have done an excellent job of shooting themsleves in the foot). Imagine if you will myself as the executive recruiter presenting Iggy Ignatieff's resume and qualifications to my client, the electorate. It would go something like this: - Mr. Client, I realize this is a very big job to fill and is even bigger in that it is the precursor for an even bigger job so that only the best talent will do and I have found a real paragon of virtue for you after searching the length and breadth of this vast nation. - Teddy, I trust this candidate will be a very knowledgeable person in regard to the recent history, political developments and issues of this great nation and has the many years of externsive Canadian experience that is needed to acquire the knowledge of Canada and Canadians that will enable him to lead us with expertise, sensitivity and credibility? - Err, well, Mr. Client, the truth is that candidate Iggy has actually been out of the country pretty much all the time for the past thirty years and has missed just about all of the major developments in Canadian politics and history since Trudeau was still porking Maggie and seersucker summer suits were in fashion. - Then I presume that if this guy wants to lead Canada without having lived here he at least has compensated for his national ignorance by being an expert politician with great experience and results in wooing the electorate and performing in parliament? - Why no, Mr. Client. This Iggy guy actually has hardly any experience running for office or serving in parliament. He has only three months of experience running for office and he actually won fewer votes in his hand picked safest Liberal riding in English Canada than the useless senile old windbag Jean Augustine who used to represent us there. And he has only four days of parliamentary experience and has yet to actually say let alone do a bloody thing in parliament. - Teddy, I'm starting to loose my enthusiasm for this Iggy guy right about now. Tell me that at least he has extensive and successful experience leading and managing a major public or private enterprise requiring the kinds of executive skills that are important in running our Liberal party as a prelude to taking back our natural position as The Governing Party and then running the largest organization in Canada, the federal government. - Mr. Client, I'd really like to tell you that but I can't. The truth is that Iggy has never run anything other than his mouth, being the head academic at a boutique academic department called the Harvard Kennedy School of International Relations. Iggy is that classic pedantic egghead who likes to indulge in paralysis by analysis and who can't do so teaches instead. Remember what Robert F. Townsend wrote in "Up the Organization!"? He observed "The trouble with graduates of Harvard Business School is that they want to to start at the top and then move up." Iggy is the same. - Teddy, you dumb, incompetent, gullible moron, before I kick you out of my office for trying to foist this totally unqualified pig in a poke off on me and then I call a real executive recruiter who will find me a qualified individual with the requisite knowledge, experience and skills for this job, is there anything - anything at all - that might redeem this Iggy character and therefore you as well in my eyes? - Certainly, Mr. Client, the big thing about Iggy is that he is said by some to be much like our former leader Pierre Trudeau, our Philosopher King who kept us in power and in the trough for 16 years! OK, he is actually ten years older than Trudeau was when he became leader and he has much less Canadian experience as well as even less political and governmental and managerial experience and he is less colourful and charismatic and sexy. But some of our deep Liberal thinkers believe we can pass him off to a innocent and ignorant public as the second coming of Pierre Trudeau himself and thereby win power again. - Teddy, get the fuck out of here. Trudeau was an economic disaster who bankrupted the country to pay off public sector monopoly unions and pander to every political interest group in existence, strangled the economy in exceessive taxation and bureaucratic red tape, bungled and weakened our most important diplomatic and trade relationships, and sowed serious problems in terms of national unity and identity with his official multiculturalism crap, the NEP, FIRA, the Charter of all rights and no responsbilities and other misguided policies which have now been mostly abandoned by even the Liberals. Historians have long concluded that this Trudeau was a disaster for Canada and even the average Canadian is finally catching on to the fraud that was Peter Waterhole. If you think I'll pay you a dime for a totally unqualified candidate like this Iggy guy - whose only "qualification" is that he is something like another guy who was totally unqualified - you must be smoking the weed of wisdom. Fuck off and take Iggy with you. Other than that, Nocrap, I would have no problem presenting Ignatieff on a short list of qualified candiates for Liberal leadership. Have you considered changing your name from "Nocrap" to "Allcrap" or perhaps "Useful Liberal Idiot"?

- Since you are clearly and dangerously and annoyingly obsessed with US president Bush and manage in your Bushwhacking psychosis to work pretty much any topic around to Bush and one of his myriad of sins and failings as you see them, obviously the song can only be about Bush. - Here is an interesting read for you and perhaps it might motivate you to seek professional help. It is from one of the more interesting political blogs, one lead by a psychiatrist who dubs himself "Dr. Sanity". The purpose of the blog is to throw some light instead of heat on the global political scene and the psychology of the true believers of both left and right. This entry offers up several interesting and credible insights into the fevered minds of those on the hard left lunatic fringe who have a hard on of hatred for W. and for anyone with whom he is associated. In reading this as well as your unending stream of anti-Bush crapolla, I am reminded of Churchill's famous observation that "a fascist is someone who won't change his mind and won;t change the subject." There are, as your mirror will tell you, fascists of the hard left persuasion as well as the hard right kind. Dr. Sanity Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life Saturday, November 12, 2005 Let's Discuss Bush Derangement Syndrome Again Glenn Reynolds discusses the hate mail he has received since his comments that I linked to in the previous post: This bit of hatemail, though, seems to carry the flavor best: Did you ever really think you'd be the kind of person who would be calling dissenters from a right-wing, gay-bashing, anti-evolution, incompetent war-making administration "unpatriotic"?I'm not sure where evolution or gay rights come into this (I've "dissented" on those points myself, after all), but I think this illustrates that the "Bush lied" issue has more to do with anti-Bush sentiment than with anything having to do with the merits of the war. The Instapundit is exactly right about this. It has to do with an unreasoning hatred of Bush, or as Charles Krauthammer put it in his definition of Bush Derangement Syndrome: "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush." What is going on here--I mean, besides the usual opportunist agenda of the Leftist/Socialist/Communist remnants of the last century? I have discussed this issue several times in this blog, but the dynamics bear repeating because the lies keep getting repeated; and so the hysteria continues. The psychology of some of the Bush Haters is pretty cut and dried. They hate Bush because he stands between them and the implementation of their collectivist "utopian" vision. I have no time to waste on them, except to note that their intentions are deliberately and decidedly malevolent toward this country. They want it to fail at anything and everything it does and they openly cheer for the barbarians at the gate. They are indistinguishable from the barbarians we are actively fighting, with the only difference being that they have different ideas about which group of thugs will be in charge of the "utopia". They prefer themselves--a more secularly-oriented set of thugs--to rule. But what about the average person on the street who has, or has come to have a visceral hatred of President Bush? Perhaps they simply didn't vote for him in 2000, believing the media propaganda or caricature of his intellect and capabilities; or perhaps they simply didn't like him because he was from the opposition party, or a Texan. or any other number of normal reasons. It seems to me that the Democrats and the Left have used their continuous propaganda well, but there is a also a strong personal psychological factor involved in being able to convince normally sane people that the source of all evil in the world is George W. Bush. After 9/11, in many cases, even a mild dislike of "W" rapidly morphed into the ferocious Bush hatred we are now all familiar with. The opposition to a conservative Republican; and reasonable disagreement with his policies became a swooning hysteria; and an unmitigated, deranged hatred with all the accompanying paranoid delusions. Virginia Postrel recounted this insight: When I was in New York a few weeks ago, a friend in the magazine business told me he thinks the ferocious Bush hating that he sees in New York is a way of calming the haters' fears of terrorism. It's not rational, but it's psychologically plausible--blame the cause you can control, at least indirectly through elections, rather than the threats you have no control over. I thought of that insight today when I glanced at Maureen Dowd's column and read this sentence, "Maybe it's because George Bush is relaxing at his ranch down there (again) while Osama is planning a big attack up here (again)." That is the voice of a petulant child, angry that she has a tummy ache while Daddy is at work or Mommy is visiting a friend, or the voice of a grouchy wife angry that she has a migraine while her husband is out coaching the kids' baseball team. You're upset that you're in pain (we've all been there), so you get mad at someone whose presence wouldn't make the pain any better. No mature student of politics believes the president of the United States goofs off on vacation. It's not the kind of job you escape. George Bush may be completely insane to voluntarily. spend July in Texas--as opposed to Bill Clinton's favored coastal retreats--but Osama bin Laden is no more or less a threat than in Bush were in Washington. But if blaming Bush makes people feel better, safer, or at least able to focus their anger on someone they can hurt, they'll blame Bush. The number of things that Bush has been blamed for in this world since 9/11 (even acts of God like Tsunamis, hurricanes and other natural disasters) is the stuff of major comedy. You name the horrible event, and he is identified as the etiologic agent. He is blamed when he does something (anything) and he is blamed when he does nothing. He is blamed for things that ocurred even before he was President, as well as everything that has happened since. He is blamed for things he says; and for things he doesn't say. What makes Bush Hatred completely insane however, is the almost delusional degree of unremitting certitude of Bush's evil; while simultaneously believing that the TRUE perpetrators of evil in the world are somehow good and decent human beings with the world's intersts at heart. This psychological defense mechanism is referred to as "displacement". One way you can usually tell that an individual is using displacement is that the emotion being displaced (e.g., anger) is all out of proportion to the reality of the situation. The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with the actual reality. Instead, by using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger, but it is directed at a less threatening target than the real cause. In this way, the individual does not have to be responsible for the consequences of his/her anger and feels more safe--even thought that is not the case. This explains the remarkable and sometimes lunatic appeasement of Islamofascists by so many governments and around the world, while they trash the US and particularly Bush. It explains why there is more emphasis on protecting the "rights" of terrorists, rather than holding them accountable for their actions (thier actions, by the way are also Bush's fault, according to those in the throes of BDS). Our soldiers in Iraq are being killed because of Bush--not because of terrorist intent and behavior. Terrorist activity itself is blamed on Bush no matter where it occurs. It isn't even a stretch of the imagination for some to blame 9/11 on Bush. This is the insane "logic" of most psychological defense mechanisms. They temporarily spare you from the painful reality around you and give you the illusion that you are still in control. This is exactly the illusion/delusion circulating in the minds of many of the Bush Haters. They want desperately to forget that there is a tidal wave of terror reverberating around the world and to pretend that everything is America's and Bush's fault. If that is true, then they will still be in control of events. So what do they do? They lionize terrorists like Zarqawi ("freedom-fighters"). They explain away the horror and brutality by refering to them as "insurgents" and "militants". They support Palestinian suicide bombings as justified and see the Palestinians--not as independent agents acting of choice, but as victims of America and Israel. They sincerely believe that Osama is a reasonable person and seek dialog with him; but that Bush is not. They threaten violence toward Bush and hold demonstrations; and placate and enable those who would implement Sharia Law in their country without a qualm. Hundreds of their fellow countrymen are murdered by terrorists, but they demand that troops be pulled out of Iraq (thinking that if they hadn't cooperated with the evil BushHitler, their countrymen would have been spared). Rather than blame the terrorists; rather than admiting they have to take action against them; their fear is transformed to anger and displaced onto President Bush. If everything is his fault, then the reality of what happened does not have to be faced (this also explains the intense psychological denial that these same individuals tend to have about 9/11). Bush becomes the "criminal mastermind", so devious, so evil, that everything he says is a "lie", everything he does is part of a vast global consipiracy. His family has intimate ties to Bin Laden and the Saudis; He is trying to enrich his oil business friends; He is trying to avenge the insult to his father by getting rid of Saddam; He plans world domination etc. etc. I could go on an on, but you get the point. What is most funny is that these psychologically naiive individuals simultaneously think of Bush as this "criminal mastermind"--a genius of evil; and also as a complete moron who isn't capable of uttering a sentence without making a hash of it; or that his brain is controlled by the equally evil Karl Rove. The cognitive dissonance required to have all these contradictory beliefs swirling around in one's brain is astonishing. But besides the primary function it serves to erase from consciousness what is happening in the world today, it is serving a secondary purpose--it makes them feel in control of what might come. They can predict with the complete accuracy of the delusional mind that whatever happens--whatever horror is unleased by Al Qaeda or Hamas or Islamic Jihad--was caused by President Bush's actions/inactions/intentions (take your pick). They can conduct a brave protest march against the evil Bush...but clearly they don't dare protest real terror or terrorist acts the way that the Jordanians or the Lebanese did, for example. The terrorists are simply poor, misunderstood individuals who have been oppressed by...Bush. Get rid of Bush (or America; or Israel) and voila! Problem solved! It would be a foolproof defense against the threat, except...except...if it weren't for ... reality. It would be foolproof, except that the REAL horror; the REAL evil will just not go away. The REAL evil just gets bolder and more aggressive. Like the Nazis in the last century, the REAL evil will not be appeased, and is aware of this psychological weakness inherent in their enemies. In fact, they count on it - because by exploiting it is the only way the terrorists can win. As I said at the beginning of this piece, those who are mindful and deliberate in their attacks and are using them for personal political gain; or to advance a totalitarian agenda are simply evil. But there are many people who normally have some degreee of goodwill and sense. Those are the people I am trying to wake up. Think and ask yourselves-- what you are doing? Look around at what is going on in the world. It is not Bush who is lopping off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia. It is not Karl Rove who is exhorting mindless minions to explode at wedding parties in Jordan. It is not Bush's policies that have induced immigrant Muslims to riot in France. It is the cold-hearted ruthlessness of a fanatical ideology that intends to wipe our civilization off the map. It will not be appeased, and the more you feed it with appeasement, the stronger and bolder it gets. Please note, that since 9/11 there have not been any direct attacks on the U.S. homeland. They have settled for smaller "hit and run" targets of opportunity. Why? Because they rightly fear what we might do if another attack occurred (and besides, they have the MSM and the Left to wage their attacks on the homeland). This is not to say that such attacks might not occur when the enemy has the sense that America will never fight back. There are many who give them that assurance daily. As a psychiatrist I work with patients who use maladaptive psychological defenses all the time. The goal of treatment is to help them develop insight and self awareness and begin to take responsibility for their own lives and actions; and to face reality--no matter how painful or unpleasant--not to close their eyes and hope and wish it will go away. In other words, to act like mature adults and deal with it. As long as they focus all their energy on hating Bush and act like the whiny petulant and angry child, who expects daddy to instantaneously make everything better-- or else they won't like it; then they don't ever have to act like mature adults and cope with reality in a mature fashion. It is soooo much easier to blame everything on daddy.

You can always tell a liberal Democrat - but you can't tell him/her/it very much! This is because to be a liberal Democrat in the US today is to live in deep denial, hypocrisy, duplicity, self deception, cognitive dissonance and the unhappiness (see the other thread regarding the Pew survey that Democrats are 50% more likely to be unhappy today than Republicans) ) that living such lies causes. The "anonymous" originator of this thread provides us with a classic case in point. Every one of the reasons he cites for Republicans "being the best lays" are fully and 180 degrees opposite to the truth and anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of the modern history of the Democratic party will know this. The Democrats have spwaned the most immoral, disgusting, dishonest, dissembling libertines, sociopaths and ethically bereft trailer trash in modern American political history. There are many reasons why Democratic leaders are more likely to be immoral, manipulative, sexually addictive (Harridan Hillary says this is Zipper Billy's biggest problem), sociopathic slime buckets. A major reason is simply that the liberal Democrat - by definition - is (Jimmy Carter excepted) not one to believe, preach or practice old fashioned religious values that tend to guide and circumscribe one's words and especially one's deeds in things like morality and sexual behaviour. Another reason is that getting to the top of the greasy liberal poll of the Democratic Party requires so much lying, cheating, scheming, deal making and deal breaking, law breaking and political pandering and whoring that any initial morals, ethical standards and personal scruples that a liberal Democratic leader might have had are firmly ditched along the way. (What was the movie - perhaps "The Candidate" - with Robert Redford that illustrates this point so well?). In any case, the liberal Democrats not the conservative Republicans are the folks who exemplify the kinds of sociopathic, excessive, exploitive behaviour posited in the initial thread here. The poster boys in regard to these kinds of immoral attitudes and behaviour are FDR (who spent years doing his female executive assistant/mistress in the White House while lesbo Eleanor in turn did her female assistant in the same White House), John F. Kennedy (we know what the "F" stood for and it wasn't "just fooling around"), LBJ (who liked to boast that he had more tail by accident than Kennedy had on purpose), Tubby Teddy Kennedy (who in his late 60s still liked to troll Washington at night picking up street hookers and doing them in the back seat while his limo driver kept the car moving), Zipper Billy Clinton (who is so flagrantly a libertine and serial adulterer that even his wife has had to plea that he suffers from "sexual addiction") and John "Cash and" Kerry (a do nothing senator who screwed his way out of mediocrity and looming bankruptcy to become a presidential candidate somehow taken seriously by the loony left). Anyone who still seriously harbours any illusions as to which party's icons are the totally immoral SOBs of modern politics are urged to read "The Dark Side of Camelot" by Pulitzer Prize winning inverstigative reporter and author Seymour M. Hersh. In painstaking and irrefutable detail, Hersh's book makes the case that the Kennedy clan were by a country mile the most sexually, financially and politically immoral, manipulative, dishonest and disgusting people to rise to political prominence in the modern history of the Republic. So, YES, this list of reasons why Republicans make the best lays is hilarious! And the most hilarious thing about it is that it is - true to liberal Democratic form - EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the truth.

- Members of the Academy, I realize that comparing actors' performances is an even less objective, systematic and reputable process than judging Ice Dancing at the Winter Olympics and that the winner is chosen based on Hollywood politics after months of lobbying and PR spending. So there is absolutely no way of knowing if I really deserve to be one of this year's top five actors let alone the best actor. And it would be pointless to thank you for this award. Let me instead thank my team of agents, publicists and other studio spin specialists for securing this Oscar for me. I really am an incredibly lucky slob. - As you know, I am one of Hollywood's best paid and hardest working actors. This means I made two pictures last year for $40 million and worked 26 weeks in total. Of course, work for me means spending 40 hours a week at the studio mainly in my dressing room or in my trailer getting blow jobs from aspiring and perspiring actresses or half watching the preparations for shooting scenes and retakes. In terms of actual work, I am required on camera about two hours a day and worked about 260 hours last year which, so I am told, is about 8 weeks of work for a member of the great unwashed public who buys tickets to my movies. This works out to an hourly pay rate for me of just over $153,000 which, so I am told, is about four years pay for that member of the great unwashed public who pays to see my movies. So I'm not only an incredibly lucky slob, I'm also an incredibly overpaid and underworked slob. If Churchill were still kicking, he would probably say, "Never in the history of mankind was so much spent by so many for so little from so few." - Not only am I a lucky, stunningly overpaid and embarrassingly underworked slob, I'm in one of the dodgier fields of endeavour. Acting requires no specific education, experience, level of intelligence, or any particular skill sets except one - the ability to lie through your teeth, to totally and believably pretend to be someone and something you are not. Some folks with this one unique talent go into various forms of sales, legal and illegal. Many are considered criminals and/or sociopaths and get to spend time in crowbar hotels. Others go into politics. This explains why we Tinseltown titans have such reverence for Zipper Billy Clinton and such distaste for Gipper Ronnie Reagan. Clinton, you see, was a mediocre president who became a great actor whereas Reagan was a mediocre actor who became a great president. We know slick phonies and Slick Willie is really one of us! So, members of the Academy, I realize that I am a lucky slob who is overpaid, underworked and engaged in a rather unseemly occupation. - So who, most of all, should I thank for this Oscar? Well, let me start by thanking my country the United States of America for leading the way in creating the competitive free market economy, the general level of affluence, and the demand for mass entertainment that has made it possible for slobs like me to be so rich, renowned, pampered and pandered to. As Don King would say, "Only In America!". - Let me also acknowledge our president George Bush for finally providing real leadership in defending the values and systems of western liberal democracy against the violent, intolerant, islamo-fascist terrorism that threatens our way of life including and perhaps especially the Hollywood version of our way of life. I realize that if the islamo-fascists have their way and succeed in imposing an 8th century fundamentalist religious totalitarianism on much if not all of the world then not a single one of the fine movies honoured tonight would be made and not a single one of us would be employed in films. Indeed, Osama bin Laden and his kind have nothing but contempt for Hollywood and for the kinds of movies with western liberal values and (gasp) with women, infidels, gays, Jews and other "undesirables" in prominent positions and roles that we turn out today. So thank you Mr. President for being the Churchill of our times standing up to the fascism of our times in defence of the values and the way of life that we cherish. I know that it took vision and values and most of all moral courage to do what the Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Chretiens, the ChIRAQs and the other timid and corrupt careerists who put short term political expediency ahead of long term peace, security and freedom were afraid to do. - Let me sincerely thank the hundreds of thousands of American and UN and NATO troops around the world who are putting their lives and their limbs on the line every day in defence of the peace, security and freedom that enables us here in Hollywood to continue doing what we do. Its not enough to just piously preach the virtues of western liberal values such as democracy, the rule of law, a free press, open markets and open societies or even to just make movies about them. Its not even enough to take a stand as president to go to war against the evil elements who threaten to destroy those things we cherish. Ordinary men and women have to be willing to put themselves in harm's way and to risk their lives for relatively little financial reward to give force to our determination to survive and to prevail over intolerance and evil. So a special thank you to our brave troops everywhere. - And most of all, a thank you tonight to those 2500 American soldiers in Iraq and in Afghanistan who have paid the ultimate price in defending us and our way of life. Any one of you is worth more in the grand scheme of things than everyone of us and deep down we all know this and sometimes we even feel vague twinges of guilt about it. - Finally, I want to wish Michael Moore and his closest buddies in his left-lib Bush-bashing cinematic cabal the best of luck in securing new gigs as film makers for Osama bin Laden, working out of his cave using hand held webcams to film his occasional propoganda pieces for distribution in the Arab world. It may not be as professionally challenging and it will certainly not be as financially rewarding work as you are used to, Michael, but it is defintely what you deserve.

The following report from the December 15, 2005 edition of The Globe and Mail provides a perfect picture of the Liberals' me first attitude and monumental incompetence when it comes to the administration of federal programs. - Like all Liberal boondoggles during the time of the Chretien-Martin gang, this program was announced with great fanfare, promised to provide much help to a target group of recipients, and has actually delivered very little except to the pay, perks and pensions of politicans and bureaucrats. - As the report indicates, in the two years since it was launched, the program has spent $69 million on administration (i.e. the care and feeding of the bureaucrats) and only $11 million on the actual target group whom it was ostensibly set up to help. In other words, the Liberals have been busy cutting up the cash "86 cents for us, 14 cents for the civilians". - This 86-14 ratio is not unusual when it comes to Liberal "human services" programs because the first rule of civil service in Ottawa is to "serve yourself". It is merely publicized in this case because the program is relatively new and so has not yet slipped under the media radar and into the vast bureaucratic morass. - But it should make discerning Canadians wonder whether Ottawa really can spend people's money more wisely than all those "beer and popcorn" people who actually earned the money. And it should lead to the conclusion that in most cases the people are better able to husband and spend their money than are their Liberal masters. Globeandmail.com > National > Article GGGGGText Size: Compassionate care program under fire By ANDRÉ PICARD Thursday, December 15, 2005 Posted at 6:09 AM EST From Thursday's Globe and Mail The program designed to provide financial relief to Canadians caring for a terminally ill loved one, launched with much fanfare two years ago by the federal government, is a dismal, money-gobbling failure, according to a new report. The Health Council of Canada says the Compassionate Care Benefit is a bureaucratic boondoggle that provides little practical help in times of need, and does so in a heartless and sometimes offensive manner. "Somewhere between the good idea and the implementation, this program seems to have crashed up on the rocks," Michael Decter, chairman of the national health watchdog agency, said in an interview. "It's hard to be anything but appalled." The 50-page report, being released today, says the program -- which is supposed to provide six weeks of employment-insurance benefits to family caregivers -- is "important and necessary" but impractically designed and poorly administered. Mr. Decter saved his sharpest criticism for the way money is spent: Over a two-year period, $69-million was spent on administration while only $11-million was distributed in benefits to those in need. Jan Clark of Kemptville, Ont., whose husband Stephen has terminal lung cancer, said she was thrilled to learn there was a compassionate care program, but was left devastated and disillusioned by the reality, which she described as a "load of red tape and bureaucratic nonsense devoid of compassion." As an entrepreneur running a home-cleaning business, Ms. Clark was ineligible for benefits. She thought of taking a salaried position but realized the program would allow her a maximum of six weeks of EI benefits, a nonsensical limit. "Are you telling me that I have to turn to my terminally ill husband and ask: 'Dear, which six weeks of the rest of your life do you want me to sit with you?' " The Health Council report says the failings of the compassionate care benefit program are wide-ranging, including: The nature of the benefit: Because it is an EI benefit, large numbers of Canadians are ineligible, including the unemployed, self-employed and part-time, temporary and seasonal workers; the maximum benefit was pegged at $413 weekly. Length of benefit: The six-week paid benefit period, which must be taken within a 26-week window, does not recognize the unpredictability of the dying process. Sharing of the benefit: Families are limited to a total of eight weeks of compassionate care, and it is difficult to split or share the benefit. Definition of family: Benefits can only be claimed by close family members, and excludes siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and friends (the government, however, has already promised to change that aspect of the law). Paperwork: The claims process is onerous and requires, among other things, a medical certificate attesting that the person being cared for will likely die within 26 weeks. Discriminates against women: The program fails to make provisions for the fact that the vast majority of caregivers are women and that for a number of reasons -- childbearing, child-rearing, part-time work, self-employment, sole-income household -- they are least likely to meet the eligibility criteria for the program.

- BLACKDOG ... Wow, that's really neat! You sure came up with some creative rhetoric and specious reasoning in your faux rebuttal to my reasoned, factual and relevant explanation of why Petit Jean kept us out of Iraq and also in rebuttal to the Canada's leading military historian Jack Granastein's corroborating comments on the matter. - Well, actually, you didn't offer up anything specific and factual and relevant to the argument that i advanced. Nothing whatsoever but BS and birdseed. I guess this explains why you have almost 4.000 posts on this board. You just like to see yourself in print and this is as close as you'll ever get to doing so. - I already know what it is like to see myself in print and to get paid quite a lot in the bargain so I don't need to and won't be posting 4,000 or more posts here. I'll only respond when I have something to say in relationship to something worth a response. Maybe you should also consider this before you respond to other people's posts.

- The following report from Wednesday's Globe and Mail should come as no suprise to anyone in any large Canadian city who has ever observed the work habits of our monopoly public sector unionized workers. Nor should it surprise anyone with common sense who knows what happens when public sector workers are essentially guaranteed jobs for life until their early retirement on fully indexed taxpayer subsidized public sector pensions that are better than anything that 75-80% of the great unwashed wretches in the competitive market sector will ever receive. - As the report notes, the three Montreal municipal work crews were secretly followed for 90 paid hours of work and managed to do a grand total of 7 hours - 7.7% - of actual work during this time. Toronto municipal workers - the ones who funded the election campaign and worked to elect socialist Mayor Miller - are even more outlandishly paid, perked and pensioned than their Montreal counterparts. As well, they have even stronger job security which ensures that after ten years service they have jobs for life unless they commit a criminal offence and wind up behind bars. As well, Toronto municipal workers at the lowest rung on the job ladder - the ones classified as litter pickers - now make a few cents under $20 an hour plus benefits which amounts to nearly triple the minimum wage of the Ontario and MORE THAN DOUBLE what even the best private employers pay their people for identical janitorial and grounds keeping jobs. - Of course, the lefties who want every job to be unionized and preferably in the public sector see nothing wrong with this extraordinarily inequitable situation whereby the public sector workers typically make 20-40% more pay to be some 20% less productive and to have 7 times the job security and to look forward to much earlier and bigger pensions than private workers. This is not the kind of PAY EQUITY PROBLEM that interests them. But it certainly interests me and should be a concern of anyone who is alarmed at the growing gap favouring public over private sector employees as well as at the increasingly unaffordable cost and declining quality of our public services. - Anyhow, here is the Globe report: QUEBEC VIEW: LABOUR Montreal's cols bleus emblematic of deeper problem KONRAD YAKABUSKI MONTREAL -- On the bright side, there are at least two booming sectors of the Montreal economy: Tim Hortons and auto repair shops. The latter can count on an endless supply of drivers who've blown a tire, lost a muffler or smashed into another car plunging into or attempting to swerve around one of the city's exploding pothole population. As for the doughnut shops, that's where you're apt to find the city workers who are supposed to be out there plugging the craters. The City of Montreal's municipal maintenance workers have elevated work avoidance to an art form, coming up with ever more creative ways to waste away their well-paid days. Homer Simpson himself could take notes from them. If this sounds like a gratuitous jab at the employees -- known to locals as les cols bleus, or blue-collar workers -- consider this: City investigators followed three work crews in late January. Over a 90-hour period, the 10 employees managed to fill nine potholes. Only seven of the 90 hours qualified as actual labour; the workers spent the rest of their shifts driving around, shopping, idling in parking lots -- or in doughnut shops. Now, you won't find spying on employees on the syllabus of Motivational Tools for Managers 101. But relations between Montreal's 4,800 cols bleus and successive city administrations have been poisoned for so long, desperate bosses sometimes have to resort to desperate measures. Did we say bosses? The term is a misnomer here since there is no mistaking where the balance of power lies in this conflict. The leaders of Local 301 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, under past and current presidents Jean Lapierre and Michel Parent, have lorded over this city like the Politburo. A Stalinesque bust of Mr. Lapierre has even been erected outside Local 301 headquarters. Labour may say Wal-Mart's a thug. At least it's never, to our knowledge, spread pig manure on its adversaries' lawns or broken down the doors to city hall. The cols bleus were at it again last week. Two thousand of them descended on city hall to lay ceremonial funeral wreaths mourning -- oh, the crocodile tears -- a court ruling that upheld the contract imposed on them by an arbitrator in 2004. The city considered the protest an illegal walkout that left Montreal's icy sidewalks especially hazardous. But the workers aren't finished yet. They're promising to paralyze the city once they're in a legal strike position in mid-2007. If the cols bleus had invented the city's motto, it surely wouldn't be Salus Concordia -- or well-being through harmony. Try bellum ad infinitum -- infinite war. So, just what has the cols bleus so upset this time? They saw their workweek increase to 36 hours from 35 as a result of a 2004 arbitrators' decision that harmonized working conditions following the merger of several neighbouring municipalities. At the same time, the ruling awarded an 11.5-per-cent wage increase to white-collar workers over five years, but limited pay increases for blue-collar employees to about 8 per cent. At current levels, Montreal's blue-collar workers earn between $37,000 and $51,000 a year; road crew workers pull down about $41,000. However, untouched by the contract is the four-day workweek that the cols bleus won from former mayor Pierre Bourque in 1996, or the guaranteed minimum staffing levels that Jean Doré conceded in 1987. So, no matter how much subcontracting the city must do -- how else can it clear the snow or fill at least some of those potholes? -- it can't ever, ever reduce the blue-collar head count, set at 3,837 full-time person-year equivalents. Montreal's cols bleus may form a rogue union with its bizarre tactics and hostility. But, unfortunately, its resistance to change and extreme rent-seeking behaviour -- that is, protecting its members' economic interests at the expense of society's -- is emblematic of Quebec's union movement, the country's biggest and most militant representing 40 per cent of all workers in the province. Elsewhere in Canada, only about 27 per cent of workers are unionized, compared with 13 per cent in the United States. No one could begrudge the brave, and now ex-, Wal-Mart workers in Jonquière who last year took on the Beast of Bentonville to improve, if only a tiny bit, their lot. And only someone who has never spent time in an emergency ward could consider nurses unworthy of every pay increase or pension benefit they ask for. Most of Montreal's col bleus probably even earn every cent of their salary. But a society that surrenders to unions' intransigence quickly faces sclerosis. "This outright resistance to change hurts Quebec because it runs the risk of turning us into the republic of the status quo, a fossil from the twentieth century," former premier Lucien Bouchard and his co-signatories wrote in last fall's manifesto, For a Clear-Eyed Vision of Quebec. Their message has largely fallen on deaf ears. As Quebeckers debate for the first time in at least two decades the merits of privatizing their state-owned liquor monopoly, la Société des alcools du Québec, the SAQ union mounts a well-oiled scare campaign to smother discussion. As Hydro-Québec solicits tenders for construction by the private sector of more than 2,000 megawatts of wind energy, the utility's unions wage a well-funded advertising campaign calling for the nationalization of the windmills. The cols bleus are back at it -- have they ever stopped? -- making a mockery of Montreal's motto.