The problem with some right-leaning voters

I see it with this Section 13 fight, I see it in my own riding, I see it in some of the Blogging Tories... some conservative supporters want Mr. Harper and the CPC to deal with their pet issues NOW, regardless of the political fallout.

On the one hand, you've got to love their passion for whatever issue is dear to them... on the other hand, you have to just shake your head, because they have no idea whatsoever that they're actually hurting their chances of seeing real progress on their issue. All to often, you'll hear comments from them like, "Deal with this issue now, or I won't donate anymore, or vote for you next time."

Erza posted some excerpts from a letter today, written in regards to the Human Rights Commissions, where the writer says this:

"I have always voted Conservative federally. Always... But, unless I see concrete evidence before the next election that the Conservative Government is taking concrete steps to rectify the many problems endemic to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, I will not be voting Conservative in the next election. I will be encouraging others to follow my lead."

What else can I say? I find this from time to time with my fellow conservatives (small case "c")... they know exactly what they want, but they don't have a clue about the political niceties required to move the ball down the field. Some of them I've met, or in this case, read about, just go for broke, and want to see their issue's agenda moved forward.

Makes you want to cry sometimes... to see all that passion just wasted.

The problem with supporters like this is that if you don't move on the file, they'll vote with their feet... and stay at home the next time around. Which then means we lose seats... which then means we don't win and remain in power... which then means the other guys win, and their issue falls right off the table. You see how this could be somewhat counterproductive to the cause of conservatism in general, and to these pet issues in particular?

Anyway, that's my rant for today.

An Appeal That Will Save Lives

I'm thankful that we have a Conservative Government, one who have the guts to stand up against special interests and appeal the awful ruling that's keeping the addiction-prolonging (and crime increasing) Insite open.

Minister Tony Clement has announced that the Government will be appealing the recent Insite ruling.

"The minister said Vancouver has the second highest rate of violent and property crimes of any major city in the United States or Canada. “Law-abiding Vancouverites are beginning to see that what has been presented as a 'victimless crime' - the drug trade - is not victimless at all,” said Mr. Clement."

h/t to Halls of Macadamia

UPDATE: I forgot to post the link to my thoughts on this yesterday, where I don't just rant against Insite... I actually propose my thoughts on solving the problem.

A Ruling that will Ruin Lives

Some are touting this decision as wonderful, stating their opinion that it will save lives. I take the contrasting viewpoint, that it will in fact only serve to further ruin the lives of so many of our vulnerable.

I've said it before, I oppose addiction-prolonging programs such as Insite. I will say this however... it's the best we've been able to come up with in this society, where we lack the collective will to actually dig in and help the victims of this awful scourge, of drug addiction.

The evidence of our collective lack of will is seen in the very court case that brought forward this ruling... stating that drug users have a "Constitutional right" to continue to use drugs... albeit in a "safe environment".

Hogwash. Where's our society's collective will to get these folks OFF the drugs that are destroying theirs and their families lives?

The solution? To band together, as a nation, and say to our fellow citizens who are addicted, "We stand with you, and we are going to do what is necessary to save your life, even if you don't want our help."

Then give our courts the mandate to get our friends, relatives, our fellow citizens into real drug rehab programs, and keep them there until the habit has been broken. From there, people need to be able to start a new life, with employment training, and then perhaps even relocation to a new town, in order to break the cycle and the circle of friends that keep bringing our vulnerable down. Get them into suitable housing, get them a real job, and help them start fresh... with a REAL chance to succeed.

And it won't happen so long as we continue to provide them an opportunity to wallow in their misery.

But you say, "That's a violation of their rights!!! That sort of thing is unConstitutional!!!" Perhaps it is... but then again, I've never claimed to be a Libertarian.

Our fellow citizens need our help. Most of them can't solve this problem on their own. We need to, as a society, stand up and say to them, "We're with you to the bitter end". Then we need to stand firm and collectively work together, across all political lines, and do what is necessary to help our most helpless.

Do we have the collective will to do that? I don't think we do. I think that any such program, where desperate times call for desperate measures, will be opposed by those who advocate the notion that "Freedom of the Individual" trumps everything, even when it's obvious that the individual in question is unable to make the rational decisions necessary to preserve their own life.

I'm no fan of the State, however, there are times and places where the intervention of the State is necessary. This is one of those rare and few times, in my opinion. By getting our hands dirty and actively helping those who so desperately need our help, so many other problems are addressed. The overload our Healthcare systems have to bear when dealing with the drug afflicted. The crime that can result from our hurting citizens robbing and stealing to get their next fix.

Then we have to REALLY deal with those who are enslaving our fellow citizens, the drug producers and distributers, by giving REAL sentences, and getting them off the street. I'm talking about 10+ year sentences, without parole until the full sentence is completed. And I'm not talking about the low level folks dealing because they need the money, I'm talking about the suppliers, the labs, the kingpins. Make the penalties so severe that no one will even THINK about getting into the trade.

Do we have the collective will to do this? Some will say that my approach is overly simplistic, and that it's all been tried before, but to no avail. My answer is NO, we've NEVER really tried. We've never really put our backs into it, collectively as a society, and said "We will do what it takes to end this disease".

So you see, I'm not some heartless soul who has no interest in the vulnerable. I do, I really want to see them saved from their sin and misery. But the problem is, what I think is the only real solution can't happen until we finally decide to get the job done. We can't solve this problem until we decide, together, to stop providing addicts with a means by which to remain in their despairate state.

Can we really help them? Yes we can. Will we help them?

That's for you to decide. But yesterday's ruling is a step in the wrong direction.

Today's Thoughts on Blogging

Well, today was an interesting day... folks on the left calling me partisan, folks on the right saying I'm too far to the left to be part of the Conservative Party (I think that's a first), and people trying to take me to task because I pointed out an error to them. All in all, it made for an interesting day, to say the least.

Days like this makes one think about why I blog. Today's responses did remind me that I do sometimes get distracted from my main goals, and when that happens, chaos often ensues.

So yesterday, when I found a broken URL for a candidate that I don't want to win, I thought I'd found something interesting and funny that I'd post. I'd said that I was going to post a website review this past weekend, and when I went to go and do it (by typing in a URL that I assumed would work), I stumbled onto something that made me smile. Unfortunately, when I come across something like that, I automatically think that other people will see it the way I do.

Of course, in the real world, it never happens quite the way I think it will. As such, the occasional blindside occurs, and naturally, I end up not being able to clearly articulate what my original intentions were in posting it in the first place.

Anyway, today was fun... at least in the context of reminding me to pick my battles a little more carefully. Thanks to all who had thoughts to share today, and for your continued help in making this blog what I intended it to be... a place where real ideas get discussed, and where real issues get raised.

In the meantime, my apologies to the folks over in Guelph, and folks on both sides of the political divide, who I may have annoyed. It wasn't meant to annoy anyone, just to take a quick and fun poke at the other guys.

Emphasis on the FUN part... I enjoy a good campaign, and I actually like spending time with "the other guys" in the thick of the fight. Chatting about what's going on, poking fun at each other, while having a cup of coffee together... I love having non-partisan get togethers, chatting up policy, and sharing stories from the campaign trail. Often, when I'm blogging, I take that perspective, and assume that others will too. Of course, it often isn't interpreted that way by all my readers.

It's like Carleton's Model Parliament back in January. I was with the Tory Party, with a half dozen members, the Dark Green Party was in power, and the Liberals were the Offical Opposition. I ended up starting the conversation with one of their members, which lead to full fledged merger talks, which eventually resulted in a vote of non-confidence in the Government, and a power sharing coalition Liberal-Tory government. It was a total blast... Liberal and Tories hanging out together, talking about areas where we have common goals and ideals, and in good humour, taking the occasional partisan shot at each other. THAT was a whole lot of fun, as was stated by folks on both sides. I've got a bunch of them on my Facebook now as a result of that weekend... and it offered a glimmer of non-partisan hope for the future here in Canada.

Hope that helps people understand where I was coming from today.

Elizabeth May "out of bounds"

From Guelph's local paper, noticed via Guelph Blogs.ca...

"She [Elizabeth May] also rolled out that she "was close to slitting (her) wrists," over the uninspiring last round of televised, national leader debates. She was being sarcastic and loose with her language. Much too loose. That suicide comment was out of bounds."

Yikes... joking about suicide now? I'm thinking she just lost her support among Mental Health advocates.

Though I hear she did a pretty good Dion impression... which, of course, likely won't help her amongst the Francophone community either. You think that Mr. Dion might want to rethink his alliance with her?

I'll bet ya that Jack Layton is smiling a little bigger today.

Team Dion/Valeriote Responds

Looks like Team Dion/Valeriote have recognized that they goofed, and they've gotten around to fixing that little glitch with their website, as www.frankvaleriote.com now properly re-directs to their website... and only took them about 14 hours to respond to it. (guess my tips on the 301 redirect came in handy)

And not even a thank you... that's gratitude for ya, I guess. But I least I know they're listening... and watching.

You're welcome guys. ;-)

UPDATE: Spoke too soon... they only fixed the redirect on the www portion of their site... frankvaleriote.com is still dead. Like I said, a 301 or a 302 redirect oughta fix that guys. (See folks? I'm being nice, I'm even advising them on how to fix it!)

The Electric Car: right around the corner?

h/t to Red Tory for this... it looks like a realistic electric car could be right around the corner.



Like I said over on Red Tory's site... I WANT ONE! (actually, I want their small hatchback model, whenever they get around to making one of those)

UPDATE: Some further thoughts, prompted by conversations with the folks over at Red Tory: "My hope is that GM will snap them up quick... they're the most reliable auto maker of the Former Big Three, and it might just be what they need to propell them for the next 100 years.

The McGuinty and Harper governments could also start making some shrewed overtures to Tesla and GM, offering development capital and tax incentives to build the cars here in Ontario... that's a joint venture that I'd put my full support behind!"

Turning a one day story into a two day story

My thanks to Red Tory, who's managed to help raise the profile on Team Dion/Valeriote's poor web management, and turn a one day story into a two day story.

Red Tory made the assumption that I didn't know how to use Google to find Frank's correct website. I had posted that Frank's team had let their website go dead, because frankvaleriote.com no longer worked... all you got was a blank page. All they had to do was implement a 301 redirect... but they dropped the ball on that one.

So, Red Tory helpfully posted this screenshot, showing what his Google search came up with...


What he didn't do, however, was show far enough down on his screenshot. Had he done so, you would have seen this...


Interesting... right there in the Google search, prompted by Red Tory, is a reminder of Team Dion/Valeriote's original unforced error in this campaign, their outright plagerism of someone else's slogan. They actually sent out campaign liturature to dozens of households before the error was caught. One has to wonder how many thousand brochures they had originally printed, and how much money they basically threw out the window on pre-printed materials, all because they got caught ripping off someone else's idea. Which prompts another thought that deserves pondering... is this guy and his team really ready to effectively represent the people of the good City of Guelph? One has to wonder.

Again, my thanks to Red Tory for broadening the scope of this story. Let's see how long it takes for Team Dion/Valeriote to correct their second gaffe of the campaign, the website redirect. (and maybe spend some time sprucing up their Wikipedia page, while they're at it)

I guess Frank doesn't really want the job

Well, I promised that I'd put out a review of the by-election websites for the various candidates in Guelph, but I've run into a snag... it's kinda hard to review and compare the websites when one of them seems to be offline.

Took a peek at all four of them... well, at least I tried to. I went and got screenshots of them all, but ran into this when I tried to check out Liberal candidate Frank Valeriote's website, frankvaleriote.com...

Guess maybe he decided he didn't want the job after all!

(and just in case any trolls want to accuse me of any funny business, that's a straight up screenshot... no Photoshoping whatsoever)

Interestingly though, if you try typing in the URL (which was working just the other week, I checked), you'll actually get a Google link to his nomination website, called "Putting Guelph First". You see as I reported several months ago, that was his original campaign slogan... which he then had to hurriedly change after it was exposed that he had shamelessly ripped it off from a former Guelph municipal candidate... who just also happened to be the President of the CPC's Guelph riding association at the time. (the old website is accessable via Google's cache here)

Anyway, this looks like campaign blunder number two for Team Dion's man in Guelph. First, it was ripping off the slogan from a local Conservative. Now, his second, is having a dead website when folks are starting to poke around and look into the various local candidates. Strike Two?

In this day and age, loads of people look into their local candidates via the internet. Not having yours up and running this late in the game is just bad optics.

Anyway, maybe they're just ramping things up, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt... I'll check into things next week, and see if they've got their site back up. If and when they get things fixed up, I'll post my reivews sometime after that.

UPDATE: Yes folks, I do know how to use Google... Google is my friend! But letting one of your website just go dead, when all you have to do is set up a 301 redirect (which costs them nothing), is just bad optics. I happened to have the old URL saved, and had checked it just last week... you'd think whoever is doing their web stuff would at least know how to implement a 301 redirect. The post was intended to poke fun at Team Dion/Valeriote in Guelph for missing that.

Besides, their competition seems to have figured it out... gloriakovach.com & gloriakovach.ca

But just in case my Dion/Valeriote Liberal friends in Guelph don't know how to do it, here's some helpful hints. (also easy to find via Google)

But thanks for driving up the hit counter Red Tory. ;-)

UPDATE III: Some people are trying to accuse me of lying, trying to say that I must of had a connection problem or something. But here's the problem for the folks that are saying that... 1) I've tested this from multiple ISP's, and 2) THE REDIRECT IS STILL NOT DONE PROPERLY!

That's right folks... if you go to www.frankvaleriote.com, it works... but go to frankvaleriote.com the top level of the domain, and the link is DEAD as a doornail.

Thus, they haven't set up the redirect at the top level of the domain correctly.

More proof? Try a couple ping requests, as I did...


They all respond just fine... EXCEPT for the top level of the domain.

In comparison... the same test on the Liberal Party website works just fine... you get Ping replies from BOTH the (www.liberal.ca) level and the top level (liberal.ca) of the domain.

My bottom line still stands... the folks running Frank's site don't have a proper redirect set up. Which isn't in and of itself a huge deal... it's just a simple mistake, one that anyone could make. I'm just pointing it out.

UPDATE IV: One thing I've learned today... people need to chill out a little bit. The post was just pointing out a simple web administration error on the part of Frank's team... just a minor thing, but I thought it was funny. Just funny, not a huge deal, so I even pointed out how to fix it. Now folks are going way over the top and accusing me of treason in the comments... I really think way to many people are wound up way too tight on this one. As a result, comments for this post are closed... because people don't know how to behave and not make things personal.

Bill Clinton: "It's a vast left-wing conspiracy"

Well, that's basically what he's saying about the efforts being made by some to get his wife to drop out of the Democratic race.

Bill Clinton, May 25:
"Hillary's the Only Candidate Ever Told to Drop Out"

Bill Clinton says wife is victim of a ‘cover up’
Posted: 10:55 AM ET
From CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

(CNN) — Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if his wife Hillary Clinton is not the party’s presidential nominee, and suggested some people were trying to “cover this up” and “push and pressure and bully” superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely.

"I can’t believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out,” he said at a South Dakota campaign stop Sunday, in remarks first reported by ABC News. “'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.'"

The former president added that his wife had not been given the respect she deserved as a legitimate presidential candidate. "She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence,” he said. “And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running.”

“Her only position was, ‘Look, if I lose I'll be a good team player. We will all try to win — but let's let everybody vote, and count every vote,’" he said.

The former president suggested that if the New York senator ended the primary season with an edge in the popular vote, it would be a significant development. "If you vote for her and she does well in Montana and she does well in Puerto Rico, when this is over she will be ahead in the popular vote,” said Clinton.

“And they're trying to get her to cry uncle before the Democratic Party has to decide what to do in Florida and Michigan” – which the party would need to do “unless we want to lose the election. "


The current requirement to claim the Democratic presidential nomination is 2,026 delegates, a formula that does not take into account delegates from Florida and Michigan, whose contests were not sanctioned by the party – although if those votes were to be counted as cast, Hillary Clinton would still currently trail rival Barack Obama in the overall delegate count.

The former president said Sunday that the media had unfairly attacked his wife since the Iowa caucuses, repeating an often-used charge that press coverage had made him feel as though he were living in a “fun house.”

"If you notice, there hasn't been a lot of publicity on these polls I just told you about,” he said. “It is the first time you've heard it? Why do you think that is? Why do you think? Don't you think if the polls were the reverse and he was winning the Electoral College against Senator McCain and Hillary was losing it, it would be blasted on every television station?”

He added, “You would know it wouldn't you? It wouldn't be a little secret. And there is another Electoral College poll that I saw yesterday had her over 300 electoral votes…. She will win the general election if you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure you don't."

Thompson working for VP spot?

GOP Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson has an opt ed piece in last Friday's Wall Street Journal, urging American conservatives to stick to the principles of conservatism, and to not lose hope. It's called, "The Death of Conservatism Is Greatly Exaggerated".

Here's a great line from it, one that's obviously directed at the so-cons, and is bang on the money: "An education system cannot overcome the breakdown of the family, and the social fabric that surrounds children daily."

I still say he'd make a fine VP.

h/t to Gerry Nicholls.

Guelph By-election and Wikipedia

Had a free moment today, so I took a peek at the Wikipedia pages for each of the four canadiates in the upcoming Guelph by-election. If I were to wager who's going to win strcitly based on their Wiki page content, then hands down, this one would be to Mr. Harper's candidate.

Interestingly, each of their pages seem to reflect their personalites, based on what I've been hearing from folks in the riding. (not just Tories, by the way)

Here there are, along with some thoughts:

Frank Valeriote, Liberal


Of all the candidates Wiki pages, quite "Frankly" (ha ha), his looks the most pathetic. Honestly though, it fits with his profile quite nicely... a boring lawyer, with little experience (other than being a lawyer) to bring to the table for the citizens of Guelph. Seriously though, there's as much info here on the previous MP, Brenda Chamberlain, as there is on Mr. Valeriote. How would I evaluate his Wiki resume? Pretty good... if I'm looking for a "YES MAN" backbencher for Stephane Dion.

Gloria Kovach - Conservative


A very extensive bio on what Kovach has been doing for the last few years, with a pretty impressive looking resume. She's a 17 year veteran of Guelph City Council, Former President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, a member of tons of high profile Boards and Committees, and has even been recognized by the United Nations for her work in Uganda. According to the Wiki page, she'd bring TONS of experience to the table, which would well serve the people of Guelph. She's a very strong woman, and really knows her stuff.

Mike Nagy, Green Party


Contains the most policy content of all the Wiki pages, though he doesn't seem to have much relevant experience. This will be his third time carrying the Green banner in Guelph, where he succeded in increasing his vote total from 2004 to 2006 by 1500 votes. (he one of the best results in Ontario for the Greens in the 2006 election, with 5376 votes)

Thomas King, NDP


Quite through and extensive, touting his long history as a novelist and author. He's been nominated twice for a Governor General's Award (1992, 1993), and was made a Member of the Order of Canada. Lots of experience as an author, but looks (on paper) to be pretty shy of relevant experience for an MP. Though he's actually an American (born in Sacramento, California), he's called Canada home since 1980, after working in Australia as a photo-journalist. He's of Cherokee and Greek heritige (as per his Wiki bio).


So, that's my thoughts on the Wiki pages for the Guelph by-election candidates. Stay tuned for their website reviews, which I'll be posting this weekend.

Vote for "The Flying Brick"!

And just what, or should I say, who, is "The Flying Brick" you ask?

I don't know for sure... but if you had participated in the recent Crewe and Nantwich by-election in England, you could have voted for him! He represented the "Monster Raving Loony Party", who came seventh out of a field of ten candidates.

From their website: "The Flying Brick, Shadow Minister for the Abolition of Gravity, has chosen transport and education as his main campaign issues.

He would open a brand new train-spotting university and banish cars from the constituency. The inherent transport problems associated with banning cars would be overcome by linking residences with their own private rail network.

Unlike the other candidates the Flying Brick also considers sport and recreation. He would introduce Piranha to the River Weaver to make angling more of a spectator sport. This will boost tourism and create new jobs in Leighton Hospital."

To my friends at Carleton: Sounds like the Dark Green Party, eh?

Manchester United: European Champions Again!

WOO HOO! My hometown team, Manchester United, has once again won the European Cup!

Senate Reform comes in small steps

Saskatchewan has just announced that they will be moving to elect their Senators.

Now where's our apology Liberals?

RCMP says no charges to be laid as a result of their Cadman investigation.

Here's the big question though... will it be Dion, or Iggy, or some low-level flunky that offers up the appology? Or will they just try and ignore it?

It gets even better though... you better bet the RCMP's ruling will play into the upcoming court case, that the Liberals decided they want to be heard by a jury.

Look for them to attempt to quietly settle that one...

UPDATE: Looks like Warren's on the same page... "What does it mean? For Grits, it means it's cut your losses time: retract, apologize, offer a donation to charity. And quietly deal with the three staffers who made the "bribery" allegation in the first place."

"Dion's credibility shot on carbon tax"

Lorne Gunter viciously rips into Dion over his Carbon Tax idea in today's Edmonton Journal.

"Dion's credibility shot on carbon tax"
Don't believe it will be revenue-neutral, and don't believe it won't hurt producers

Lorne Gunter
The Edmonton Journal
Friday, May 16, 2008

For at least two years now, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has been clear -- emphatic even -- there will be no carbon tax if his party wins the next federal election with him at the helm.

Of course, he was being disingenuous about that sometimes. For instance, last spring he suggested that instead of a carbon tax, the country's 700 largest carbon emitters might be charged a carbon fee.

On a practical level, there would be no difference. A gouging, punitive, regressive tax by any other name would still be a gouging, punitive, regressive tax.

Still, on a dozen or more occasions, Dion has pledged never to introduce a carbon tax.

In June 2006, during the first Liberal leadership debate, Dion scoffed when Michael Ignatieff said a carbon tax "would do more to address climate change and help us be good stewards of our environment than any other measure." Then, as now, Dion was a passionate defender of the Kyoto accord and even he rejected the notion that a carbon tax could help reduce emissions to the levels mandated by the UN's global-warming accord.

Weeks later, when he released his campaign platform it referred to a tax on the production or consumption of fossil fuels as "simply bad policy."

Also, Dion told the National Post's editorial board in November 2006 (just weeks before he was selected as Liberal leader), if he ever became prime minister he would not even consider a carbon tax, because "for Albertans it's a non-starter."

He claimed in the Globe and Mail to have "always been against" a carbon tax. He had "other ways" to achieve emission reductions -- mostly investment in new energy-saving technologies and tax incentives for individuals and businesses that reduced their carbon footprints.

Dion did say he wanted to establish a link between Canadians' pocketbooks and the environment -- between "your wallet and the planet," in his words -- but not by taking money out of those wallets, but rather by fattening them up with government cash.

Within weeks of becoming Liberal boss, Dion rushed to Alberta to assure the Journal's editorial board, among others, that there would never be a carbon tax if he had his way.

I wrote at the time that I didn't believe him. His plan, regardless of what he was going to call its components, would hit Alberta disproportionately hard and as such amounted to a carbon tax. Dion wrote our editors insisting "the plan I will reveal soon to decrease Canada's industrial greenhouse gases will not include a carbon tax. I have said that I will be the best partner for Alberta and I mean it."

Even this past winter, speaking to an Alberta audience, Dion assured the crowd he had two "bottom lines": "there will be no carbon tax" and the profits earned by Albertans in the current energy boom "will stay in Alberta."

So, of course, what has Dion proposed this week? A carbon tax.

Sure, the Liberal leader says his I-will-never-impose-a-carbon-tax tax will be revenue neutral, meaning for every dollar raised by his tax another tax will be lowered by the same amount. But I think he's shot his credibility on the carbon-tax front. So excuse me, at the risk of provoking him to write another "best partner for Alberta" letter to my editors, I don't believe him.

Promising that a new tax will be revenue-neutral has about the same credibility to begin with as a realtor's pledge that your new home is just 15 minutes from downtown or a carmaker's promise that your new SUV will get 20 kilometres a litre in the city and 30 km on the highway. But coming from Dion, the vigorous opponent of carbon taxes, the pledge of revenue neutrality is even less believable than usual.

Also, Brian Mulroney pledged that the GST would be revenue-neutral, and we all know how that song and dance ended.

The British Columbia government made a carbon tax the focal point of its spring budget and promised it would raise no new revenues. But the Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates that once all the rebates for low-income residents are paid out and administrative costs are factored in, middle- and upper-income taxpayers could pay $1 billion more in taxes each year than they do now.

And even if Dion's carbon levy is revenue neutral, will it be regionally neutral? Will it be imposed on consumers --and thus felt all across the country -- or will it be imposed mostly on producers and thus be mostly born by Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan, and possibly Newfoundland and Labrador?

If Dion follows the long tradition among Liberal leaders in their treatment of Alberta, we know the answer. Electoral reality will take precedence over regional equity. He will see few votes to be won here and many to be gained elsewhere by championing a tax that hurts Alberta and the other producers and -- blink -- the tax he would never impose, in part because he said he didn't want to hurt Alberta, will be dumped on our backs.

© The Edmonton Journal 2008

Dion, Carbon Taxes, and Tasers

LOL! Saw this cartoon today, from yesterday's Toronto Star...

Warren on Dion's Carbon Tax: Bad Move

I still don't get why so many Tories hate this guy... cause he just keeps on getting it right on most of the issues.

Like today... when he rips into Dion for his Carbon Tax idea. He's not saying that he disagrees with it, but he just recognizes that it's a surefire way to LOSE an election.

This idea's not a trial balloon... it's a lead balloon, and that's exactly how it's going to go over with the public this summer.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the next Tory 10%er is gonna look like...

Another nail in Clinton's coffin?

I said to my wife months ago that whoever got John Edwards endorsement would be the eventual winner of the US Democratic nomination.

We'll see in a few weeks if I'm right about that... because Obama got it today.

Another empty chair in the House

With his win in Quebec's by-election last night, former Bloc MP Maka Kotto has become the latest PQ MLA. Mr. Kotto officially resigned his seat in the House on May 5, and the vacancy was officially announced today in the House of Commons.

That means we're up to five currently vacant seats in the House.

(updated list of retired/retiring MP's here)

Young Liberal gets a smackdown

One word of advice to Young Liberals in the by-election city of Guelph... if you're going to attack people for being "hyper-partisan", don't get caught being "hyper-partisan" yourself!

I saw on my Google News page this morning an article about the federal election finance issues, so I gave it a read. It turned out to be a Letter to the Editor in the Guelph Mercury, which was itself a response to a Liberal attack letter from the previous week. Looks like one of the Young Liberals in Guelph got rocked today... but the funny part is that the smackdown line was his own!

The author of today's letter pulled out a quote that this young Liberal had himself used to attack a local Tory back in March, and threw it right back at him! For the record, it's actually really good and worthwhile quote, one that I heartily agree with... but it's too bad he didn't take his own advice. (his original line is in bold below)

"Mitchell's attempt to smear the Conservatives and their supporters is another sad example of the gotcha politics that is becoming far to common in the House of Commons.

There's a significant and rather hypocritical element to his letter, considering some of his own past statements in this paper. In fact, it's very well expressed in the following quote from him in a March 5 letter to the editor: "Canadians and Guelphites want to hear rational, constructive debate on topics of such crucial importance, not hyper-partisan rhetoric that only further serves to obfuscate the problem at hand."

Mitchell's brand of "hyper-partisanship," on display in his May 8 letter, lessens the level of debate and takes away from the real issues we ought to be discussing about the future of our nation."

HEAR! HEAR! The moral of today's story? We should all try to spend more time talking about the issues of importance to Canadians, and not wasting time trying to score partisan political points by attacking others.

And just for the record, I know that I can do a better job of that myself.

Garth Turner: Still a Tory at heart?

I dunno, you tell me what you think of this quote:

"Truth be told, hiking the sales tax [the GST] or goosing gasoline prices [via the Carbon/gas tax] would be a suicide mission for any party. So don’t expect to see me voting that way. Ever."

Wow... already bucking Dion and the Party line on the new carbon/gas tax idea, before it's even fully made public.

Hey Mr. Dion, we warned you that he'd be a headache... but thanks for not listening to us. ;-)

Cost of gas: Blame the Chinese and Indians

Who said it? Liberal Leader Stephane Dion...

[Dion] said the surging global demand will only push oil costs even higher.

"It's unavoidable because of the people in China and India," he said.

Funny... I thought the price of gas was mainly the result of OPEC not increasing production, and the threats to production levels thanks to Islamic terrorism and instability due to Hugo Chavez's attempts at Socialism.

But there's another thing that will potentially push the cost of fuel even higher, that Mr. Dion convinently forgot to mention... his own carbon/gas tax idea.

UPDATE: National Post has a good editorial on the cabon tax idea... "A carbon tax that won't fly". The money quote...

"Denmark's carbon tax, introduced in the mid-1990s, succeeded in reducing carbon emissions -- but not in the way intended. All the carbon reductions came from shuttered factories and lost manufacturing jobs. While emissions fell 10%, manufacturing employment fell 25%. The reductions came at the expense of workers, not carbon producers."

Are you and your membership listening Buzz?

Follow-up on the floor collapse

I'm sure everyone recalls the Abbotsford BC church the other week, where the floor collapsed in the middle of a concert.

Anyway, I figured it was time to weigh in on the issue, since I've heard first-hand from some of the folks involved... you see, I had the chance to take in the Starfield concert myself just last week.  Starfield is a fantastic Canadian band out of B.C., who my wife and I heard about a little over a year ago. We've got one of their albums, and will be getting their new one sometime soon.  They're a great bunch of spiritually focused young guys, and proud Canadians... more on that in a sec.

Anyway, they've put up a video talking about what happened in Abbotsford, that might be of interest to those of you who have been following the story.

So, at the concert the other night, they were talking a little bit more about what exactly happened, and filling in the gaps that the media naturally wouldn't report on.  For example, when the floor collapsed, the two brothers of Starfield, Tim and John, dropped their guitars and jumped right into the hole themselves, in an effort to help those who were trapped below... no thought for themselves, they just threw themselves into the situation to try and help.  I understand these guys are like that in a lot of ways.

Also, the media didn't mention that the concerts were being put on, in part, in an effort to help World Vision Canada, to sign up monthly child sponsors.  That night, just moments before the floor came down, they'd just signed up 124 new monthly sponsors... 124 children around the world who will now be fed, clothed, and educated, thanks to these generous folks.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the concert, though it was a little on the loud side for me... when Starfield took the stage, seriously, I could feel the bass shaking my ribcage!  But the content of their music is what so good, as so much of it is straight out of God's Holy Scriptures... and the best part is that you can tell that these guys mean every word of it.

Like I said before, they're also proud Canadians, and have put up a couple of "Guides to Canada" for their American fans, where they've been touring for a lot of the last year.  They've even got one trying to explain to our friends south of the border that great Canadian icon, Tim Horton's...

For those interested, you can listen to some of their most recent songs here on their website.  I especially like "Holy is our God", it's just got a great sound, and clear Biblical message...  one of the lines goes, "Celebrate the One who's making all things new... Hallelujah, Christ is King... Hallelujah, rise and sing.".  There's also "From the Corners of the Earth", talking about the amazing growth of the Church among today's young people, and "I Will Go", which is their theme song for their World Vision pitch.  Enjoy!

LYRICS: Holy is Our God

Lift your hands, of saints of God, lift up your hands
Sing for joy unto the risen Son of man
Celebrate the life that’s been reborn in you
Celebrate the One who’s making all things new

Hallelujah Christ is King
Hallelujah, rise and sing

Holy is our God
Wonderful is He
Holy is the Lord Almighty

Fall before your maker, every creature fall
Let your heart be still and know that He is God
Tremble at the feet of Him upon the throne
Tremble men and angels before Him alone

Hallelujah, Christ is King
Hallelujah, rise and sing

Holy is our God
Wonderful is He
Holy is the Lord Almighty
Holy is our God
The Prince of perfect peace
Holy is the Lord Almighty

To the One who reigns forever
To the Ancient of all Days
Be the glory, power, majesty, and praise

And the mountains bow and the rivers cry
Holy is our God
Over all the earth You reign

Janke's expose on Dion's Carbon Tax

Looks like Steve is letting the cat out of the bag on the Liberals with this post.  Best line of the whole thing... "The carbon tax is grit thrown by the Grits into the wheels of the economy, causing it to grind along at a slower pace."

A carbon tax will make a HUGE difference to folks like me... and I don't  drive my car to work.  In my area, HUGE numbers of people need their cars to commute to work.  Seriously... if this idea is honestly discussed, look for the remaining Liberal seats in my area to turn Tory Blue.  This carbon tax idea may play well in the big cities, where mass transit is a more reliable option... but it has no chance in SW Ontario, where people move back and forth between the major centres on a regular basis.

Garage Sale score

LOL... picked this up for 50 cents today at a garage sale...

Yes, that's a 1993 Progressive Conservative election pin... the year of the Kim Campbell blowout.

I dunno... did I get a deal, or did the guy take me? ;-)

"Game, set, match. Move on."

Gotta love this post from Warren:

"My one-person focus group is my gal; she's smarter and more intuitive than me, even if she was a Tory, long ago. She laughed out loud when I read her this line from the Prime Minister. I was laughing, too.

"Mr. Dion and Mr. Duceppe are quite a group of gossipy old busy-bodies."

Sorry, fed Lib pals, but that was a killer line. Game, set, match.

Let it go, move on."

Heard it on the radio last night, and thought it was a real good one-liner myself.

I think, however, that WE'RE the ones who shouldn't let this one go. This is yet another example of the kind of slimy and disgusting "gotcha" politics that the Liberals have been playing for far too long now in this minority government. Jamming up Committiees by introducing irrelevant and drawn out motions. And now jumping deep into the personal lives of Ministers, doing everything they can to smear them. I like the line in the House yesterday, in response to Iggy's question on this one... "Trudeau said that the government doesn't belong in the bedrooms of the nation. The member from Etobicoke-Lakeshore is certianly no Trudeau."

Enough is enough. Did you know that the Liberals are intentionally delaying study of the Consumer Protection Act by trying to go back to re-examine studies on Insite? That's right... Canadians have said they want stronger consumer protection laws, but the Liberals are keeping it off the table until we go and look further into one of their pet projects.

Personally, I say we make sure the public clearly sees and hears about every single thing the Liberals keep trying to dig up. Canadians will be disgusted when they hear fully the antics of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Debate and discussion, even disagreement, on the issues is one thing. But this Republican-style of "GOTCHA" that the Liberals are playing at is not welcome here in Canada... and I think Canadians will agree with me on that one.

UPDATE: Ask, and you shall receive... Janke's got a good post on this one. Looks like I may have been right... the Liberals, and the Bloc no less, seem to have been pulling a lot of media strings to get this story into the mix. Like I said before, I think WE should keep it going... expose this Liberal smearing sliminess for all it's worth.

The Liberals are DESPERATE to get back into power, and will say and do ANYTHING to get there. Instead, what they've gotten on this story is exactly what they rightly deserve... the PM turning it right around and making the antics of Mr. Dion and Mr. Duceppe INTO the story... and making THEM the punchline with his brilliant one-liner.

Let's read that one again... "Mr. Dion and Mr. Duceppe are quite a group of gossipy old busy-bodies."

Like Warren said, "Sorry, fed Lib pals, but that was a killer line. Game, set, match."

I ask Canadians... do you REALLY want these kinds of people running YOUR country?

UPDATE II: The important lines of Chantal Herbert's story today, thanks to Janke...

"With Quebec City the ground zero of an all-out election war between the Bloc and the Conservatives, there were other signs this week that the hostilities are escalating to new levels.

On Wednesday, Duceppe expressed concerns over reports that Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier's former girlfriend once had ties with biker gangs. But the inside story is that, behind the scenes, the Bloc (and the Liberals) had been actively lobbying the media to break the news for weeks.

Julie Couillard has no criminal record. She has never been charged with criminal activity and some of Quebec's crack investigative reporters failed to find evidence that she has had links with bikers since a 1999 divorce.

It is just about unprecedented for a Quebec party to venture into the private life of a political opponent in this fashion. The Bloc, under Lucien Bouchard or even under previous incarnations of a more serene Duceppe, would not have touched a story that so barely passes the test of public interest. Nor, for that matter, would a Liberal party that had not lost its opposition rudder.

But desperate times, it seems, call for desperate moves."

Desperate indeed...

UPDATE III: Looks like I'm pretty far behind on this story... been a busy day. Anyway, the National Post has two more articles on this story, mostly taking the Liberal to task for their sleaziness. Here's one from Don Martin, and another from Kelly McParland.

"Iggy's double-speak on Israel"

Hot off the presses of the National Post, by Rochelle Wilner. (FULL DISCLOSURE, she's our candidate for York Centre in the next election)

Rochelle Wilner: Michael Ignatieff's double-speak on Israel
Posted: May 09, 2008, 10:45 AM by Marni Soupcoff
Israel, Rochelle Wilner

On Sunday, April 13, Michael Ignatieff gave a speech at Toronto's Holy Blossom Temple. It was supposed to clear the air with the Jewish community in regard to his negative comments about Israel during last summer's Israel-Hezbollah war. And one media headline from last month duly claimed "Ignatieff Apologizes for Israeli War Crime Comment."

Being keenly interested in the matter, I secured a transcript of the speech and searched for the words, "I was wrong" or "I am sorry." I did not find them.

Instead, the deputy Liberal leader made himself out to be the victim. He emphasized how badly he felt that "a single remark" had resulted in "many of [his] Jewish friends ….branding [him] an enemy of Israel."

Ignatieff's admission that his comment was the "most painful error of my political life" simply means that he is sorry that what he said caused him political problems. He does not say his words were factually wrong. Rather, he questions whether he would have been better off if he had said that Israel "may have failed to comply with the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war" without the accusation of committing "war crimes."

Yet many experts on international law and war crimes have expressed the opinion that Israel is guilty of none of these breaches. In this view, Israel cannot be held responsible for civilian casualties if the enemy uses those civilians as human shields while launching military strikes against Israeli territories.

Ignatieff says that Canada can "never remain neutral between Israel and those enemies — Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran — who deny Israel's right to exist, deny the Holocaust and seek her destruction." It's breathtaking that he makes this worthy statement after having accused Israel of war crimes and/or breaching international conventions. Demanding that Israel and only Israel not be allowed to defend herself from terrorist aggression is tantamount to giving victory to those same enemies of not only the Jewish state, but also democracy and civilization as we know it.

What is even more astounding about this "never neutral' comment is the fact that Ignatieff's Liberal party has repeatedly criticized the Harper government for reversing Canada's record as a so-called "neutral broker" in the Middle East. That is to say, Ignatieff and his fellow Liberals have attacked the Harper government for exhibiting the courage and moral fortitude to take a principled stand in support of Israel — the only democracy in the Middle East — something that the Liberals were never able to do.

Equally breathtaking, given the previous Liberal government's record of voting against Israel at the UN, was Ignatieff's claim that his party "will never support one-sided condemnations of Israel." Has no one told him that this is exactly what Liberal governments have done?

Liberals have never fully quit their jobs as apologists for the Tamil Tigers, despite advice from CSIS to do so. Nor have they condemned Liberal Members of Parliament marching in Montreal, arm-in-arm, with supporters of Hezbollah in the summer of 2006 — the same summer that Michael Ignatieff accused Israel of being guilty of war crimes.

So what was this speech all about? I would suggest that Liberals are now concerned about a strong swing in Jewish support for the Conservatives. So Ignatieff comes to Toronto's Jewish community to make nice — but not to actually apologize for being wrong about what he said.

As for me, I'll stick with the consistent, ethical, moral position of Stephen Harper, who says what he means and means what he says. No Ivy League dissembling necessary!

-Rochelle Wilner is a past president of B'nai Brith Canada, a long-standing human rights activist, and the Conservative Party of Canada's federal candidate in York Centre.

Here we go again - UPDATED WITH MOTION

The NDP want to keep painting the Liberals in a corner, and are doing so with another non-confidence motion in the Government, this time on our economic stewardship... and why not? It's a WIN-WIN situation for them.

Dion backs down, and Jack reinforces the notion that the Liberals are supporting our agenda.

Dion stands up and votes non-confidence, and we go into an election where Jack is sure to pick off a few Liberal seats.

I honestly don't know which option I prefer myself... we'll see on Monday, when the votes are cast.

UPDATE: Here it is...

Thursday, May 8, 2008 (No. 91)
Business of Supply - Opposition Motion

May 6, 2008 — Mr. Martin (Sault Ste. Marie) — That the House recognize the harmful effects on working and middle-income Canadians of the growing income gap fostered by this government's unbalanced economic agenda, including it's failure to reform employment insurance to ensure that people who lose their jobs during economic downturns are protected and trained, and therefore the House has lost confidence in this government.

Yikes... Dion's "Taxing" Idea

Man, the guys that come up with this stuff are pretty quick... and good. The latest press release from the CPC on two things Dion talked about this week... his agreement on making $10 million in renovations on 24 Sussex (which is somewhat debatable, I think at least some money should be spent on it) and his suggestions of a carbon tax, hitting people hard at the pumps. (which I, and millions of commuters, will oppose)

More Taxing Ideas from Stephane Dion:
Renos for Him. Carbon Tax for You.

This one's for my sister

Saw this one in this week's "The Hill Times", so I figured I should post it for my little sister... who's out in NB right now.

Enjoy Kiddo.

Warren's calling it for Obama

I tend to agree with Warren Kinsella's analysis... Clinton is finished.

Obama looks to beat her by a whopping 14% in North Carolina, and she's only ahead of him by a sliver, at 4% in Indiana.

All the analysts were saying that Clinton had to win Indiana by double digits in order to have a hope of hanging on.  The big question is, will she hang on, and hope the Super Delegates will hand her the Big Prize?

Stay tuned sports fans...

UPDATE, 10:39pm:  She's not backing out... listening to her speech live on CNN, and she's continuing on with her pursuit of the White House.  She's giving her victory speech right now in Indiana... wouldn't that be embarrassing if once all the polls are counted, she ends up behind!

The CNN Ticker reported on Rush Limbaugh’s "Operation Chaos", raising the question of whether or not his call to GOP supporters to vote for her in the primaries has had an effect on the outcome.  I was listening to Rush all week when I went down to Florida in March... he's encouraging Republicans to vote for Clinton just to keep her in the race.  Is it having an effect?  Who knows... but it did make for entertaining radio while in the States.

UPDATE, 10:59pm: Off to bed, but an interesting note... my wife noticed a comment on the Facebook page of a friend, but she didn't realize what it meant until I reminded her of this... the note said, "I participated in Operation Chaos".  And yes... the guy's a Republican.

UPDATE III: Wow... looks like I'm getting pounded with visits from CNN... I'm one of the blogs they're reporting as having linked to the story. I think some in the States reading it may have been mislead by my headline, thinking I was referring to Warren Buffet... no, I'm referring to Warren Kinsella, a political aide to former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and author of the current political handbook "The War Room"... which in my opinion is a great overview of political and media strategy in our modern era. (and might as well have been the playbook from which the Ontario Liberal Party was reading from during their win last year)

Guelph by-election in today's blogs

Being an electoral junkie, I've got a bunch of tabs on my browser set to various sources for info on the upcoming by-elections... namely the one in Guelph. CalgaryGrit threw in his two cents on that one today, calling that race "The most intriguing of the four" by-elections that are likely to be called soon. Who am I to argue with the likes of CG? (actually, I sent him a note saying we should plan a non-partisan by-election blogstravaganza when the writ drops, as I'm sure plently of us bloggers will be dropping by Guelph, since it's not to far from interested GTA and KW bloggers)

Anyway, of course CG's analysis is somewhat biased, praising Valeriote as "a lawyer with lots of community involvement". No arguement there, but he could have just as easily said of Kovach, "a city coucilor with lots of community involvement", instead of mocking her with the photo he chose of her. (when there are far better photos on her website to choose from... but of course, he's wanting to show his guy in a better light, so you can't really fault him for that)

All that aside though, it's the comments on his post that are the most interesting... someone just dropped this one at 12:32pm, and it mentions a few things I've heard more than once about the current state of the Liberal Party in Guelph... but never had the substance on which to post about it.

Anonymous said...

You forgot the controversy surounding Valeriote's nomination, which made the national press, and should be more important to Liberals.

The Liberal Party is split in half, long time volunteers and 1300 new members at least 300 of which were cut off by LPCO, backed Marva Wisdom, the backbone of the Liberal Party in Guelph.

Marva has been called by more than one person the best loved person in the Liberal Party. LPCO decided to screw her. Liberals in Guelph haven't forgotten that.

Chamberlain was running around Ottawa telling people Guelph didn't want a black women to be their MP. Liberals in Guelph haven't forgotten that.

Another female running for nomination in Ontario had to get a court ordered injunction against the LPCO for cutting off her memberships and eventually won her nomination. Wisdom should have done the same thing.

Liberals in Guelph haven't forgotten that.

Valeriote by the way has not done much for the community, catholic school board trustee for a few years pales in comparison to Kovacs and Wisdom's community involvement.

Honestly, the Liberals don't have a hope in Guelph, not with that candidate.

Guelph likes women. Kovacs is infinately better known in the community and will pull right leaning Liberals. King is a well liked, well known national celebrity and native who will pull the left leaning Liberals.

Guelph has voted with the government every election except the last one for decades, more consistently than any other ridings except four.

The Conservatives, if smart, which I believe they are, probably will go in June for Guelph as Valeriote's base is Catholic teachers who will be too busy and students would be less likely to vote Conservative.

The Conservatives will win.

12:32 PM

This is all news to me... I've heard rumblings of it on a couple Liberal blogs from time to time, and there was something awhile back about Gerard Kennedy's possible involvement during the nomination process, but nothing since then. I'd also heard that there was some bad blood amongst the Guelph Liberals during the Martin years, as Chamberlain, the retired Liberal MP for Guelph, had backed Martin during his not-so-clandestine war with Chretien, and was subsequently passed over when Martin became PM... who then promoted her assistant, Marva Wisdom, to a prominant position within the Liberal Party apperatus. Some said that Chamberlain backed current Liberal candidate, Frank Valeriote, just to get even with her former assistant.

Does anyone have any further info to shed some light on this? Or is this just a random rant from someone with no substance behind it? The only reason I'm asking is because I've heard several times now that there's some bitterness in the Liberal camp, but never had any real substance to back it up... hence the reason I've never posted it until now, when I hear it again, this time with a little more detail.

Anyone else hearing anything?

Mark Holland: Secret Tory Agent?

That's what the National Post's John Turley-Ewart is asking today, regarding Mr. Holland's uncanny ability to pop up out of the woodwork and give the Conservatives exactly what they need, when they need it... a wedge issue in the "905" that may swing a few ridings, including his own, into the BLUE column on election night...

"Whose interests Mr. Holland serves is a question many in Liberal ranks must be asking themselves this morning after the Liberal MP made it known that Stéphane Dion "will be championing a bold idea — tax shifting — that will encourage industry and individuals to make green choices." This "bold idea" essentially means Mr. Dion wants to make buying fuel more expensive than it already is by imposing even more taxes on it. Now there is a campaign issue for the Liberals that would make Stephen Harper and the Conservatives a bunch of happy campers"

Is Elections Canada changing the rules after the big game?

What's this? It's starting to look like Elections Canada did in fact attempt to change their guidelines for local election advertising, but for some reason they're trying to apply the new rules RETROACTIVLY? What's up with that?

Hansard, April 29 2008, 2:50pm
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: "Mr. Speaker, the 2005 election handbook for candidates states:

Election advertising means the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate....

In other words, local ads can focus on the candidate or the party. However, after the election was over, Elections Canada suddenly changed the rules to delete “registered party” ensuring that only advertising focused on the local candidate would be allowed to be expensed locally. It cannot change the rules after the game is over."

Hansard, April 29 2008, 3:09pm
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: "Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier in the House of Commons today that Elections Canada has attempted to change the rules around what qualifies for a local advertisement.

I quoted the old rules that were contained in the 2005 “Election Handbook for Candidates, Their Official Agents and Auditors”, which I concluded--and I would like to table--"

[interuption]

Mr. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, to that end, I would like to support the case made in the House of Commons by tabling, in both official languages, Elections Canada's handbook for candidates, the version that was written in 2005, and the version that was subsequently altered by Elections Canada in 2007 after this recent dispute with the Conservative Party came to light.

h/t to DBT for Pierre's quotes.

So, here's the big question for everyone... is the umpire allowed to move the foul line AFTER the game winning double has been hit?

This is a HUGE deal... I'm looking for the 2005 manual to see for myself, and post the relevant section... but in the meantime take a look at this NEWLY REWORDED SECTION OF THE CANDIDATE'S MANUAL from Elections Canada... DATED MARCH 1, 2007.

Election advertising

Election advertising means the transmission to the public by any means during an
election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated. Election advertising includes articles such as billboards, bus signs, pamphlets, lawn signs, flyers, stickers, lapel buttons or pins, T-shirts and caps, among others. [319]

Identification of election advertising

All election advertising that promotes or opposes a candidate, including taking a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated, must indicate who authorized it (e.g. if promoting or opposing a candidate in his or her own electoral district, it must be authorized by the official agent of the candidate). [320]

For example, a pamphlet promoting candidate Jane Brown should display the
following message: Authorized by the official agent of Jane Brown.

But hang on just one second... this is the HANDBOOK, NOT the actual legislation.

So, pray tell, what does the actual Elections Act define as "advertising"?

319. The definitions in this section apply in this Part.

"election advertising" means the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated.

Election Advertising

Message must be authorized

320. A candidate or registered party, or a person acting on their behalf, who causes election advertising to be conducted shall mention in or on the message that its transmission was authorized by the official agent of the candidate or by the registered agent of the party, as the case may be.