Dave Yadallee's personal blog

One for the hypocracy watch. From The Liberal Party of Canada:



Liberal Party of Canada files complaint over CPC finances



July 21, 2006



Ottawa - The Liberal Party of Canada today sent letters to Elections Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency formally requesting investigations into the Conservative Party of Canada 2005 convention.



The two letters are as follows:



Friday, July 21, 2006



Raymond Landry



Commissioner of Canada Elections



Elections Canada



Denis Meunier



Director General, Compliance Programs Branch



Investigations Directorate



Canada Revenue Agency







Re: Improper Treatment of Delegate Fees for Conservative Party of Canada Conventions







Dear Sirs:



We wish to bring to your attention that the Conservative Party of Canada may be treating delegate registration fees to its functions improperly and in contravention of the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act. We ask that you investigate what, if true, would include millions of dollars of unreported and undisclosed contributions to the Conservative Party of Canada.



Delegate Registration Fees:



We understand that the Conservative Party has not treated any portion of delegate registration fees as a contribution to the Conservative Party and, therefore, has not issued income tax receipts or receipts required under the Canada Elections Act for any portion of such delegate registration fees. Hon. John Baird, Treasury Board President, indicated publicly that this was the case with regard to the 2005 Conservative Party annual convention. This was confirmed in subsequent media reports which included statements by the Conservative Party itself. They further stated that this practice had been ongoing for some time, implying that this possible contravention has occurred numerous times.



We further understand that since the Conservative Party of Canada has not recorded any portion of the delegate registration fees as a contribution, then accordingly, they may have misstated contribution information of the Conservative Party of Canada (or its predecessor parties) in public filings as required to be made by all registered political parties.



While a delegate may receive some value in materials and services for his or her registration fee, it is highly unlikely that such value amounts to the entire delegate registration fee at the current levels of such a fee. Whether or not the function involved results in a financial surplus is irrelevant as it is the calculation of the value received by the delegate in exchange for his or her registration fee that determines whether the person paying the delegate registration fee has made a contribution to the Conservative Party of Canada and, if so, the amount of such contribution. In not issuing a receipt for the amount of the delegate registration fee that is a contribution to the Conservative Party of Canada there may have been what I am certain you will agree is an egregious violation of the Canada Elections Act.



Possible Excess Contributions:



Further, as the Conservative Party of Canada did not issue receipts for the contribution portion of delegate or observer registration fees it could not track the total contributions of an individual delegate or observer in the year during which the function was held to ensure that total did not exceed the maximum contribution allowed pursuant to the Canada Elections Act. Accordingly, it is quite possible that a person who paid delegate or observer registration fees exceeded the allowable contribution limits under the Canada Elections Act.



We would, therefore, ask you to investigate the refusal of the Conservative Party of Canada to recognize contributions by persons who paid delegate and observer registration fees, issue receipts to such persons and treat such payments as contributions.



Yours very truly,















Steven MacKinnon



National Director



--------------------



Friday, July 21, 2006



Raymond Landry



Commissioner of Canada Elections



Elections Canada



Denis Meunier



Director General, Compliance Programs Branch



Investigations Directorate



Canada Revenue Agency







Re: Improper Treatment of Observer Registration Fees for Conservative Party of Canada Conventions







Dear Sirs:



We wish to bring to your attention that the Conservative Party of Canada may be treating observer registration fees to its conventions improperly and in contravention of the Canada Elections Act and possibly, the Income Tax Act. Specifically, we believe that the Conservative Party of Canada may have accepted prohibited contributions from corporations and/or associations.



Observer Registration Fees:



The situation with regard to observer registration fees is the same as for delegate registration fees, referred to in a letter sent to you today under separate cover. Some portion of the observer registration fee must, we believe, be considered a contribution to the Conservative Party of Canada and should have been shown in a receipt issued by the Conservative Party of Canada and included as a contribution in financial returns made by the Conservative Party of Canada.



We further understand that some observer registration fees paid to the Conservative Party of Canada were paid by corporations. If that is correct, such corporations have made a contribution to the Conservative Party of Canada in the amount of the observer registration fee that is in excess of the value received by the observer attending the function. Such a corporate contribution to the Conservative Party of Canada is prohibited by the Canada Elections Act. However, the Conservative Party of Canada specifically invited such contributions in its convention registration literature.



I would therefore ask you to investigate whether the Conservative Party of Canada received prohibited contributions from corporations and/or associations who paid observer registration fees.



Yours very truly,















Steven MacKinnon



National Director





Harper's mantra is that the Liberals do not believe in accountability. Pious Hypocrits. Harper is the one who appoints a Senator from Montreal in the cabinet before being called to the Senate. We will not forget!

FRom The Liberal Party of Canada:



Conservatives Ignored Pending Crisis in the Middle East



July 20, 2006



Ottawa – The bungled Lebanese evacuation is a direct result of the Conservative government’s desire to keep warnings of a pending crisis in the Middle East under wraps, Liberal Consular Affairs Critic Dan McTeague said today.



“The Harper government has once again put politics ahead of policy and the people of this country. By ignoring warnings of the pending crisis for political reasons, the government lost a valuable window of opportunity to evacuate Canadians in a timely fashion. This inept interference and ensuing delays have resulted in a badly botched evacuation that has failed Canadians and left them to endure difficult circumstances and unnecessary threats to their safety,” said Mr. McTeague.



According to media reports, Foreign Affairs staff realized an emergency was brewing in the region last week that would affect tens of thousands of Canadians, but an edict handed down from the Prime Minister’s office ordered the situation be kept confidential.



Since the crisis broke, eight Canadians in Lebanon have been killed in the conflict. There have been widespread reports of confusion and inaction at the Canadian embassy and delays in arranging ships to carry people to safety.



Only one of seven chartered vessels managed to collect any Canadians on Wednesday, and only 261 of about 2,000 Canadians who were supposed to have been evacuated in the first wave actually made it out.



Officials in the region attribute the catastrophic delays to the Prime Minister’s centralized command and communications policies dictating all decisions be routed through Ottawa – a practice both impractical and painfully slow due to the six time zones between locations.



“While other countries were already evacuating their citizens on Sunday, the Conservative government spent two days discussing the matter before any calls were made – this inaction is unacceptable, and Canadians still stranded in Lebanon are paying the price,” said Mr. McTeague.



And again from The Liberal Party of Canada :



Liberals Call For A More Balanced Approach from Canada



July 18, 2006



Prime Minister Stephen Harper must move away from his hard-line position on the Middle East crisis in favor of one which enables Canada to maintain its historic role as a bridge builder in the region, Liberal Leader Bill Graham said today.



“We're very concerned about Mr. Harper's change in Canada’s traditional position of working with all sides in the Middle East for long-term peace by being able to work with all sides of the conflict to bring them together and in a dialogue,” Mr. Graham said. “Canada has always been able to act as an intermediary, but we can only serve in that capacity if both our comportment and our actions enable us to play that role.”



Mr. Graham urged Prime Minister Harper to look to the G-8 communique as a starting point for a balanced approach to help all parties in the region come together.



“Israelis have always thanked us for the moderating role we have been able to play,” he said. “Therefore I urge the government not to take actions which will eliminate the possibility to build peaceful coalitions.”



Mr. Graham explained that the government has a responsibility to take into account the larger geopolitical issues in the Middle East when establishing Canadian foreign policy.



“What is presently taking place in Lebanon is destabilizing the possibility of a democratic government there and I think Canada should be expressing a greater concern about that element if, in fact, we want to be able to help Israel and help the region return to peace,” he said.“We will not be able to be helpful in the long run to Israel or to anyone else in the region if we do not recognize the complexity of the factors at play here. “Mr. Harper has to get a better hold on what Canada is trying to achieve.”



Mr. Graham also echoed the concerns of many Canadians that the government has been too slow in evacuating the thousands of Canadian citizens stranded in Lebanon.



Mr. Graham pointed to the fact that Great Britain, France and the United States have already begun the evacuation process, while Foreign Affairs Minister Peter McKay stated Canadians would not be able to begin exiting Lebanon until mid-week.



“Our officials at Foreign Affairs work around the clock and are dedicated to help people exit the region, but they have to be given the given the facilities and the capacity to act,” he said. “Other countries have moved more quickly to get that capacity. I don’t see why it would be any more difficult for us than for them.”



Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay told reporters yesterday that Canada has been working on an evacuation plan for Canadians in Lebanon for "close to a week," but has kept the planning secret for security reasons.



But for many Canadians in Lebanon, one of the few sources of information is relatives back in Canada.



Many Lebanese-Canadians have expressed frustration that the government chose not to take advantage of these unofficial lines of communications and make details of their plan for evacuating Canadians available to the public as soon as possible.



Liberal Consular Affairs Critic Dan McTeague agreed with this criticism.



“It is unacceptable and a dereliction of responsibility for Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay to talk about an evacuation only after eight Canadians had been killed,” he said.



As Liberals, we are disappointed with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to depart from Canada’s traditional role of peace broker and follow U.S. President Bush’s Mideast policy prior to the release of the joint statement by G-8 leaders. But right now Canada’s number one job should be to ensure the safety of Canadians by getting them home as quickly as possible.



Peace can only be obtained on the foundation of respect for the security, well-being and legitimacy of the states and peoples of Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. We must all continue to work toward an end to any government sanctioned incitement to hatred and violence, and the condemnation of terrorism from whatever quarter for whatever purpose.



Harper's Policies on Foreign affairs should be Canadian Unique NOT USA scripted. He will

find a major Multicultural rebelion on his hands.

More animosity.



From Source 630 AM CHED News:



Journalists boycott Harper news conference as media battle heats up

at 18:51 on May 23, 2006, EST.

ALEXANDER PANETTA



OTTAWA (CP) - About two dozen journalists walked out on Stephen Harper on Tuesday after he refused to take their questions, the latest chapter in an increasingly unseemly spat between the prime minister and members of the national media.



The scene of reporters boycotting a prime ministerial news conference was described by Parliament Hill veterans as a first. It resulted in Harper being forced to make his announcement on aid to Darfur to a small handful of reporters, photographers and cameramen outside the House of Commons.



The impromptu boycott was the latest move by journalists in their ongoing tug-of-war with the prime minister over who controls news conferences.



The Prime Minister's Office insists on choosing who gets to ask questions based on a list it compiles.



Officials say they're merely trying to install some order to the often chaotic ritual of parliamentary news scrums.



"It is unfortunate that a select group within the press gallery displays such hostility and exhibits disrespect toward the prime minister," said a Harper spokesman.



But the parliamentary press gallery is concerned that Harper wants to freeze out any journalists or news organizations that he dislikes.



"We can't accept that the prime minister's office would decide who gets to ask questions," said Yves Malo, a TVA reporter and president of the press gallery. "Does that mean that when there's a crisis they'll only call upon journalists they expect softball questions from?"



Tuesday's journalistic exodus came just moments after the Commons foyer had been chiming with the sound of good-natured repartee. There was the usual personal banter and gossiping among colleagues as reporters milled about while they awaited Harper.



Journalists also chatted about Darfur, about a coalition bombing that killed at least 16 Afghan civilians, and about the aboriginal protest in Caledonia, Ont. Those were among the issues they hoped to raise with the prime minister.



Harper spokesman Dimitris Soudas walked downstairs from the Prime Minister's Office to see which reporters wanted to ask questions, and prepared a list of names. Any reporter included on the list could get called upon to ask Harper a question.



But the Ottawa-based media have refused for almost two months to submit their names to any list prepared by the PMO.



After journalists refused to be placed the list again on Tuesday, Soudas announced that Harper would be on his way shortly - and he would not be taking questions.



The press gallery president then turned to his colleagues and suggested they leave.



Most agreed, including a reporter for The Canadian Press, although a CP photographer stayed. Several said there was no point sticking around if the event could be covered off a television set from any newsroom in the country.



Harper's interactions with the parliamentary press gallery are now limited to brief exchanges on a staircase, and a question or two in the company of a visiting dignitary.



Those are the unofficial rules in Ottawa, where the prime minister spends most of his time.



But he has been loquacious away from Ottawa, where reporters have accepted playing by Harper's rules.



He took questions from 11 journalists during a visit this month to Toronto, from 14 in Calgary, 11 in St. John's and 17 in Vancouver.



Harper was holding similarly expansive news conferences in Ottawa until the press gallery began setting up its own microphones at Harper events and lined up to ask questions.



Harper aides note that during election campaigns, former prime minister Paul Martin's staff also selected questioners from a list they controlled.



Some reporters covering the Liberals groused repeatedly when they felt they were being systematically ignored during the recent election campaign.



---- end of article ---



Sorry PM Harper but you have to account, and that means facing people in the media you do not like!

Sounds like the Prime Minister is walking a tightrope of his making, not to mention a noose of his own making. Putting taxable Child care into the budget is asking for a scrap.



Do the Conservatives want to be reduced to a breeding pair? They are asking for it!

Harper Revolution?? This guy only has a minority government and now he wants to get his agenda across? The Liberals and NDP wants concessions. Wil the BQ help the Cons have their revolution?? Hey Harper, what is happening to recall and the Accountability Act?

From Campbell Clark of the Globe and Mail:





Harper restricts ministers' message

Officials urged to stick to five key priorities; PMO wants to vet all other public comment



CAMPBELL CLARK



From Friday's Globe and Mail



OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has imposed central control over all information and comments to the public issued by government officials and even cabinet ministers, directing them to have everything cleared by the Prime Minister's Office, according to an internal e-mail and government sources.



The orders, described in an e-mail to bureaucrats, indicate that ministers have been told to avoid talking about the direction of the government, and that the government wants them to be less accessible to the news media. And all government officials are instructed to avoid speaking about anything other than the five priorities outlined in the Conservative campaign.



"Maintain a relentless focus on the five priorities from the campaign. Reduce the amount of ministerial/public events that distract from the five priority areas identified in the campaign," the e-mail states.



"In order to keep a grip on such events [those that distract from priority areas], PMO will approve all ministerial events."



The seven-point e-mail summarizes a briefing that the federal government's top bureaucrat, Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch, and his senior official in charge of government communications, assistant cabinet secretary Dale Eisler, gave to the top communications official in several government departments last week. The e-mail was made by a senior bureaucrat who attended the meeting.



Government officials and Conservatives confirmed the instructions, including orders that the PMO clear all public communications — including minor comments and letters to local newspapers.



"PMO will have final approval for all communications products — even Notes to Editors or Letters to the Editor," the e-mail states.



The instructions reflect the extreme caution of a new government with few seasoned hands, worried that even its ministers might slip. It reflects a desire to create the perception that the government is focused — to differentiate itself from Paul Martin's Liberal government, which was widely criticized as having scattered attentions.



While government ministers are holding some events on issues not included in the five priorities — a Federal Accountability Act, a GST cut, a child-care allowance, tougher criminal sentences, and a patient waiting-times guarantee — such events are being kept to a minimum. Comments or information on other issues are closely guarded.



Since they were sworn in on Feb. 6, cabinet ministers have, for the most part, refused to grant interviews to reporters, providing only terse and often vague responses to questions outside cabinet meetings.



Last week, the Prime Minister's Office asked officials to remove the microphones that have for decades been set up in hallways outside cabinet meetings. When press gallery officials intervened, they backed off temporarily. Mr. Harper's press secretary, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, said the issue would be discussed with gallery representatives. She then insisted reporters would have "more space" if they asked to see ministers in the Commons foyer.



The e-mail, however, suggests the government intends to reduce reporters' access to ministers to help them stick to their orders to say little about government plans.



"Set-up for post cabinet scrum is intentional — Ministers have been told they are not allowed to speculate on future direction of government," it states.



Ministers who have strayed from the government line have quickly issued retractions.



Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, who suggested some Canadian aid might flow to the Palestinian Authority despite the recently elected Hamas majority, reversed course the next day.



A spokesman for the Prime Minister, Dimitri Soudas, refused to comment yesterday on the e-mail's details.



Mr. Harper's PMO is not the first to want the final say on communications — but it has extended the practice to a level never seen in Ottawa.



The offices of prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin demanded to approve major communications, and asked to be informed when ministers planned announcements or speeches. Now, government officials, and even ministers, must clear every interview or comment, and even the most anodyne pamphlet must get PMO clearance.



The restrictions on cabinet ministers were also evident last week when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Liberal equalization-payment deals made an incoherent mess of the system, even though the Conservatives had pushed for the offshore-resource deals with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.



Later that day, Mr. Flaherty issued a statement protesting that he never referred specifically to Newfoundland or Nova Scotia or mentioned "oil and gas," but those two agreements were the only ones the Liberals had signed.





-------------------------------------------





What are the New CONs trying to hide?

And still drowning. IS Canada going to have an election set for Either Sept 2006 or Oct 2006?

I am game.



I found this in can.politics:



1)



Harper incensed at ethics official's Emerson probe



By BRUCE CHEADLE, CP



OTTAWA -- There's a possibility Stephen Harper's first act as prime minister

may have breached the parliamentary ethical code for MPs, the federal ethics

commissioner indicated yesterday.



But Bernard Shapiro's plan to launch a "preliminary inquiry" into Harper's

controversial appointment of former Liberal industry minister David Emerson

to the Conservative cabinet met a furious rebuttal from the Prime Minister's

Office.



"The prime minister is loath to co-operate with an individual whose decision-

making ability has been questioned and who has been found in contempt of the

House," Harper's communications director, Sandra Buckler, said.



In a release, the PMO added, "this Liberal appointee's actions have

strengthened the prime minister's resolve to create a truly non-partisan

ethics commissioner, who is accountable to Parliament."



A major parliamentary fight appears to be in the works.



Shapiro, who did not speak to reporters yesterday, seems to be basing his

probe on parts of the parliamentary conflict-of-interest code that forbids

inducing an MP to change his or her vote for personal gain.



"After careful consideration, and pursuant to . . . the members' code, I have

decided to combine a preliminary inquiry of the prime minister . . . with a

preliminary inquiry on my own initiative of Mr. Emerson," Shapiro wrote in an

open letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons.



The announcement comes almost a month after Harper shocked the political

establishment by plucking Emerson, the former Liberal industry minister, from

the Opposition front bench and placing the Vancouver MP in his first

Conservative cabinet.



The move came the same day Harper was sworn into office and just two weeks

after Emerson won his Vancouver-Kingsway seat as a Liberal.



The Tories are crying foul, noting that Shapiro turned down their request for

an investigation into Liberal Tony Valeri's landholdings during the election

campaign on the grounds the commissioner couldn't act between sittings of

Parliament.



Since the Commons won't resume sitting until April 3, Harper's office argues

Shapiro is applying a double standard.



Brian Cheadle, please get touch with me so that I can get a URL back to you on this.



2)



Harper against National Child Care



http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=b1511087-f71...

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06020205.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/200602...



3)



Canadian Press



Thursday, March 02, 2006



OTTAWA (CP) _ Liberal health critic Ken Dryden says he is disturbed by Prime

Minister Stephen Harper's casual tone in responding to Alberta's Third Way

health proposals.



Dryden said in a teleconference it seems clear the proposals put forward by

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein would violate the Canada Health Act, and Harper

should not need days to say so.



Harper said Wednesday he is waiting for an assessment of whether Klein's

proposals would violate the act, which sets the ground rules for medicare _

and which the Conservatives have promised to uphold.



Dryden, considered a leading candidate for his party's leadership, said

Harper's main lever in dealing with Klein is the moral authority that rests

in Harper's role as prime minister.



He did not comment on whether Ottawa should impose financial penalties on

Alberta, although that would be a logical consequence if the legislation were

contravened.



Alberta's Third Way plan would allow patients to get better or faster service

if they are willing to pay for it, and would allow doctors to work in the

public and private spheres simultaneously.



Someone from Canadian Press, can I have the original line?



Basicaaly Harper is harping a sour note.

Divided over David Emerson

By Mike Howell-staff writer



If you drive past Conservative MP David Emerson's constituency office on Kingsway this Sunday, chances are Jurgen Claudepierre will be there.



The 64-year-old mason will be carrying a sign made from an old hockey stick attached to a square piece of white foam board. He's written "Why vote?" on it.



When Claudepierre is not pacing in front of Emerson's office, he'll be escaping the cold weather inside his Chevy pickup. That would be the one with the large sign mounted in the box of the truck.



On one side he's written, "David Emerson resign." The other side, which faces Emerson's office, asks, "Is that democracy?" A garbage can placed on the tailgate with another sign stuffed in it says, "Vancouver-Kingsway ballot box."



"I thought we were going to clean up government," said Claudepierre over car honks of support in front of Emerson's office last week. "I'm here because I have passion in my life. I'm committed to this. I'm planning on being here every Sunday until something happens, until he resigns."



Like 20,061 other voters in the Vancouver- Kingsway riding, Claudepierre voted for Emerson the Liberal. Another 15,470 voted for Ian Waddell of the NDP and 8,679 cast a ballot for Conservative candidate Kanman Wong.



As the results showed-as they have over the decades-the predominately working class riding votes Liberal or NDP. Conservatives aren't welcome there.



So when Emerson crossed the floor Feb. 6 to the Conservatives and accepted the portfolio of international trade minister, the wave of anger that rolled through the riding was not surprising.



That Emerson never told former prime minister Paul Martin or his once-fellow Vancouver Liberal MPs about his decision further infuriated Liberal party members and voters.



It's now the news story that won't go away, based in a riding that's more divided about Emerson's decision than many news reports suggest.



Recall campaigns are underway, petitions drawn up and protests continuing as the 60-year-old millionaire remains defiant, saying he won't resign.



He has allies in Mayor Sam Sullivan, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell, Darcy Rezac of the Vancouver Board of Trade and a host of business people.



Emerson's move is good for Vancouver, good for B.C., good for Canada, they say. Translation-it's just business, that's all, and critics should get over it.



But, as Claudepierre pointed out, Canadians enjoy a privilege called democracy. It's our right to cast a ballot for the person and political party we want to work on our behalf.



"It's the principle of it all," he said. "I feel betrayed. My son, who's 16 years old, would disown me if I pulled a trick like that with just one person, never mind 20,000 people."



Claudepierre was one of 20 constituents-10 men and 10 women-the Courier spoke to last Thursday and Friday in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding.



Interviews were conducted on cafe patios, in a veterans' club, on street corners, in a restaurant, at a seniors' care home, a community centre, a playground and at a rally organized by the NDP at Sir Alexander Mackenzie elementary school.



Eleven of the 20 people said Emerson should resign. Of those 11, five voted for Emerson, two for Waddell, two wouldn't say and another two didn't vote.



Four people-two Liberals, a nonvoter and a woman who wouldn't reveal her vote-didn't have a problem with Emerson's defection, saying he shouldn't resign.



Five others-a Liberal, NDPer, Green, a nonvoter and a man who wouldn't share his vote-were undecided whether he should resign.



Respondents ranged in age from 27-year-old Kat Featherstone to 86-year-old Arthur Swanson. The majority were working class and reflected a small sample of the culturally diverse riding.



Vancouver-Kingsway runs east from Oak Street to Boundary Road and north from 41st Avenue to 16th Avenue. Emerson's office, near Victoria Drive, is considered the heart of the riding.



It's also where the Courier began its quest to gauge voters' reaction to Emerson's defection. After speaking to Claudepierre, the Courier crossed Kingsway to visit the Army Navy Airforce club, unit 100.



A handful of grey-haired men sat in a quiet hall watching a big screen television featuring the Canada-Germany men's hockey game from the Olympics in Italy.



The score was 4-1 Canada when Ken Rabb, in between sips of beer, weighed in on the Emerson affair. The retired mechanic voted for Emerson, but didn't think he should resign.



"No matter if he's Liberal or Conservative, I'd rather see him in there," he said, keeping an eye on the hockey game. "I like that he wasn't involved in these different scandals [ad sponsorship, income trust]. If he would have been running for the Conservatives, I would have still voted for him."



On the television, Shane Doan pots another goal for Canada as the third period ends. Rabb and the rest of the men are happy with the win.



Politics is a topic only Rabb would tackle, with the other men preferring to drink beer and talk hockey. Outside, at a nearby gas station, the Courier got a similar reaction from Edward Scigliano as he pumped air into his mountain bike's back tire.



With some prodding, Scigliano, a 31-year-old cement finisher, admitted he didn't vote in the Jan. 23 election. Emerson's defection, he said, is a good reason why he chose not to cast a ballot.



"I just figured that anybody I voted for wouldn't make a difference. Either way you're screwed. Emerson is proof."



When Scigliano votes, it's for any party but the Conservatives or the Liberals. He considered the NDP and the Greens in the last election, but never made it to the polls.



"Honestly, I don't follow politics that much," he said, before jumping on his bike and riding away.



Vietnamese and other Asian businesses dominate this busy strip of Kingsway. Although some had "Recall David Emerson" signs posted in their windows, none would speak to the Courier.



That wasn't the case back at Emerson's office, where businessman Jay Shankar gave his name to a constituency assistant. He heard a petition was being circulated to support Emerson, and he wanted his name on it.



Shankar voted for Emerson in January and in the June 2004 election. So did five family members, he said, noting they, too, support Emerson's defection to the Conservatives.



"I voted for him as a person, not as a party," he said. "It doesn't matter what he did. He's an educated man, he knows what he's doing. Mr. Emerson did the right thing. He'll be representing the riding well as a minister."



Shankar glances at Claudepierre who is still carrying his "Why vote?" sign. He believes Claudepierre is wasting his time, pointing out no federal legislation exists to force Emerson to resign.



"So why do that?" he said, before getting into his car.



Across town in a booth at Duffin's Donuts at 33rd and Main, Verna Pounder was longing for the days of former prime minister John Diefenbaker and former B.C. premier W.A.C. Bennett.



"They were true, honest and reliable," said the retired switchboard operator. "You could take them for their word."



Pounder wouldn't say whether she voted for Emerson, but the more she talked, the more she gave clues of her choice. She's not an NDP member and said she supports Emerson "to the point that he's an intelligent man and will probably do a lot for the province."



Should he resign?



"What we should do is forget about it, let this one go. But in the next election, we should make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again."



Pounder, however, is worried about the effect Emerson's defection will have on young voters. As political parties and youth organizations continue to encourage young people to vote, Emerson's move can't help their efforts, she said.



"Democracy kind of gets lost when politicians do things like that."



Pounder expected a lot of debate over Emerson's defection at a rally at Sir Alexander Mackenzie school later that night. She received a recorded message from federal NDP leader Jack Layton telling her about it.



A friend of hers, who is "anti-NDP," also received the message. Her friend likened it to "a harassment call." Pounder nor her friend planned to attend the rally.



Roughly 400 people did attend what was largely an NDP love-in, with the crowd giving standing ovations to Layton, who was joined by NDP MPs Libby Davies (Vancouver East) and Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster).



Vancouver NDP MLAs David Chudnovsky and Adrian Dix were also jammed into the school's auditorium. The lobby had volunteers busily urging people to sign petitions and fill out Ottawa-bound postcards calling for Emerson's resignation.



In Layton's opening 15-minute speech, he dwelled on the importance of democracy and the right to vote, calling it a "precious act." He called Emerson's defection "the most blatant betrayal of a group of citizens and their democratically expressed will that we've ever seen in this country."



He also criticized Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Mayor Sullivan and Premier Campbell for supporting Emerson.



"People who think it's fine have lost touch with what democracy is all about."



Layton promised the NDP will present a bill in the first session of the House of Commons to prevent MPs from crossing the floor. He noted that 40 Conservative MPs supported an earlier bill under the Martin government, but some have since changed their mind.



Layton urged the crowd to continue to fight for Emerson's resignation, saying citizens' pressure can make a difference.



"This is not going to blow over," he said to a boisterous crowd, which broke into a chant of "recall, recall, recall."



But not everybody there was an NDP supporter.



Longtime Conservative Mike Watkins, who was once national committee chair of the Progressive Conservatives, and Kevin Chalmers, a senior volunteer in both Emerson campaigns, bravely addressed the crowd.



Watkins, a soccer coach, had just come from a practice and was dressed in shorts and wearing a whistle around his neck.



"I'm here to ask the rhetorical question, 'Why aren't there more Conservatives speaking out against this? Am I the only one here, or the only one foolish enough to get up in front of a crowd?'"



He then grabbed his whistle and blew two sharp beeps.



"Emerson, you're back to the showers for unsportsmanlike conduct."



It got a laugh, but what Watkins didn't tell the crowd was that he voted for Emerson last month. He also admitted to voting for the Greens in 2004. He had his own reasons for doing so.



"I wasn't so keen about Emerson running in this riding, but I voted for him specifically because I knew the Liberals would be in opposition. And if he actually stuck it out and sat in opposition, he'd be effective. That's the whole reason I voted for him."



Now Watkins thinks Emerson should resign, and so does Chalmers who is leading a campaign to "de-elect" Emerson. He told the Courier after the rally the campaign will be run like an election campaign, with lawn signs and door-to-door visits.



"Our colour schemes are black and white because the issue is black and white. I certainly don't hope to be doing this in six months, but if that's the case, so be it. Democracy is too important to let go. So we'll be out there in the rain, in the snow, in the sun until it's done."



Chalmers' effort alone, he said, proves the push to have Emerson resign is not solely being organized by the NDP-as Emerson alleged on a recent CKNW radio show, referring to his critics as "partisan zealots and party operatives that have been spinning the media."



"Whether it helps the NDP or not, this is an issue that transcends politics," Chalmers said. "It really is amazing in many senses that it has really shaken the electorate and many Canadians from their apathy."



The morning after the rally, the Courier received a phone call from Lionel Hodgson, a 76-year-old disabled man living in Three Links Care Centre at 22nd and Renfrew.



Hodgson voted for Emerson and wanted to ensure his name was included in the list of voters who support the MP's move to the Conservatives.



Like Jay Shankar and Ken Rabb, Hodgson said he voted for Emerson the man, not Emerson the Liberal. Hodgson was the first person to congratulate Emerson at his victory party at the Golden Swan restaurant on election night.



The Courier has photographs of Hodgson, who is in a wheelchair, greeting Emerson in the parking lot of the restaurant on Victoria Drive.



It's the same restaurant where Emerson told supporters he would be Harper's "worst nightmare" and be "in the faces" of Conservative cabinet ministers.



"There are a lot of people out there who are opposed to what he did, but those people don't represent everybody," said Hodgson in an interview in the care centre's lobby. "What Emerson did was his choice and he had no choice considering Martin's poor showing. He let down Emerson."



Added Hodgson, repeating the mantra of the business set: "It will be good for the city, good for the province and good for the people of Canada. Emerson loves Canada, so does Harper and so do I."



Hodgson has an interesting political history, with various political allegiances. He was a campaign manager for former parks board commissioner Charlie Stephens in the 1950s and a publicist for former Socred MLA Fred Sharp in 1960.



In the November municipal election, he voted for Vision Vancouver mayoral candidate Jim Green. In the provincial election, he voted for the Liberals and is a supporter of Premier Campbell.



He knows about good public relations, having worked as a publicist for the Arts Club Theatre for nine years. No matter what people think of Emerson's move, the public outcry is coming from a minority, he believes.



"They're taking it too personally."



After leaving Hodgson to a bridge game, the Courier travelled to a street corner at 18th and Cambie. Up and down Cambie, pictures of Emerson are plastered on light poles calling for his resignation. Some have "Judas" in bold letters written on them.



On her way home from shopping, Rosalind Scarnell plunked down her bags of groceries to talk about an issue that she believes is personal. She voted for Emerson and doesn't buy the argument that his defection is good for business.



"It's not just any job, and I personally don't think that he has the rights or the freedoms to make those decisions independent of the voters. If he was a civil servant, a deputy minister, offered a different job, that would be a different story. But he seems to have forgotten that he is the representative of the riding and he is beholden to the people of his riding."



Scarnell also doesn't agree that Ontario MP Belinda Stronach, a former Conservative leadership hopeful, did the same thing when she crossed the floor in May 2005 to the Liberals.



"Emerson did not cross the floor on principle, he did not cross the floor because of a disagreement on principle, he did not cross the floor because the people in his riding asked him to. He crossed the floor for a job opportunity."



Added Scarnell: "One would have thought from David Emerson's past that he would be a trustworthy candidate. So I think we're all shocked and surprised. There was no reason not to trust him. I think it's totally outrageous."



So how does all of this sit with Emerson?



Over the weekend, he admitted on a national television talk show that he wasn't "the sharpest political knife in the drawer."



He also promised to write letters of apology to those constituents upset by his move to the Conservatives. There is no plan, however, for a town hall meeting.



Since he defected Feb. 6, the former head of forestry giant Canfor has carefully chosen the media organizations he talks to. CKNW, CTV, The Vancouver Sun and The Globe and Mail have all had their time with Emerson.



Last Wednesday, the Courier learned through Emerson's public relations person in Ottawa that it was 70th on the list of media organizations requesting an interview.



It didn't matter that the Courier left messages with Emerson's constituency office on the day of Emerson's defection, or contacted former Conservative MP John Reynolds, who recruited Emerson.



It also didn't matter that the Courier is the paper delivered to more homes in Vancouver-Kingsway than any other news publication.



After the Courier finished interviews with constituents Friday afternoon, and still hadn't received a call from Emerson, it was time for a visit to Emerson's house.



The 60-year-old millionaire lives in a new heritage-style home on a leafy street in Shaughnessy, which is not in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding.



Accompanied by a photographer, this reporter climbed the steps to the front door and rang the doorbell. Emerson's wife Theresa could be seen through the large windows adjacent to the door.



She approached with a puzzled look on her face. As this reporter was about to press his business card against the window, she noticed the photographer.



She said something indecipherable, turned and disappeared up a set of stairs. Maybe she was going to get Emerson, we thought. So we waited.



He didn't show. I shoved a business card through a mail slot that read, "Mr. Emerson, I would like to speak to you. Please call me."



As of yesterday morning, the man who was once a Liberal and elected by 20,062 voters to work on their behalf, still hadn't called.



Nor had he resigned.



published on 02/22/2006



----------------------------------------



I will say it again, floor-crossing is not acceptable in Canada.

Yes floks, the Devil did make its pact! The BQ wants the CONservatives not to intrude on Quebec 'provincial' rights.



Does anyone remember Meech Lake or the Charlettetown Accord?