Rare Good Analysis of UK Election, Familiar to Canadians

A Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English election

In Camera Meeting Leaks ≈ ZERO: Ned Franks, Fabulist, HoC Denigrator, Executive Apologist

Given Franks is a political "scientist" and he's always banging on about committee leaks, could someone ask him, re. Leaks from IN CAMERA committee sessions:
- How many? (I know of NONE: Dosanjh = no actual info, just tenor of mtg)
- If any, when? (broken down by decades - how many in recent decades?)
- Percentage of in camera sessions producing (public) leaks? (ie. leaky sessions divided by total number of in camera sessions)
- as above, but broken down by decades.
- Number of leaks from in camera meetings dealing with national security?
- Percentage producing leaks?
- When?

I know of no substantive leaks from in camera sessions, at all. There may have been, but when, in recent decades? Even if one counted all the leaks from in camera sessions from Confederation onwards, the percentage would be infinitessimal. And in recent decades? Since WW2? And on actual matters of war? Were there any during WW2 or Korean War? Or peacekeeping missions? Or NATO missions? Etc.? Not only are members honourable, the political cost of such leaks is a staggering disincentive, and there have been so few, if any, AS TO EQUAL ZERO!

HAS THERE EVER BEEN A SUBSTANTIVE PUBLIC LEAK FROM IN CAMERA SESSIONS DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY? EVER? IF SO, WHEN? SINCE 1939?

The number of leaks from in camera sessions is zero, or so infinitessimal as to equal zero over Confederation, and probably outright zero in recent decades.

But certainly, on national security matters, the number & percentage is zero, in recent decades, if not before.

I think Franks is full of shit and he keeps repeating this shit over and over, and no-one ever asks, "uh, professor, can you give me examples? How often? How many? When? On national security matters?"

By repeating this crap, Franks the Fabulist denigrates Parliament and makes himself the Executive's apologist.

In his desire to present himself as some sort of all-knowing seer of parliamentary democracy, to promote himself by associating himself with the successes of his more tough-minded onetime students (who knew better than to remain in academia and turn into senile old Queenies), and promoting these dangerous fictions of MPs' untrustworthiness, he harms democracy, Parliament and Canada. Lee & Milliken, who have actually been in politics, know better.

Perhaps worst of all, this supposed scientist of politics, lacking all science, is actually making it MORE difficult to come to an arrangement between Parliament and the Executive re. the unredacted documents. His utterances weaken Parliament's position and provide comfort to an Executive whose demonstrable default is contempt for Parliament, de facto, if not yet de jure. For Milliken's suggestion to have any chance of working, given the Executive's behaviour, Parliament's negotiating position must be as strong as possible.

Franks is wrong on the facts, wrong on the theory, and wrong on the politics.

His behaviour reinforces every negative prejudice one might have about Queens' social "scientists" and what I can only call a sort of pitiful colonial desire to ape their British betters by going even further in their imitation and unconsciously adopting "muddling throughism" as an actual philosophy, seemingly unaware that when the means become the ends, one is no longer muddling through but simply stuck in ever more awful, inextricable muddles (cf. British Empire, UK's extrication therefrom). Their Faculty Council must be engaged in one long, endless meeting, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, year after year, as all the old Queenies disappear into the abyss of their own process.

Stupid, senile old Queenie.

Gainey, Ronald King, the Habs & I vs. The World

I said Habs in five or six- off by one or two. Pas grave. Y a que moi, King, Gainey et les boys qui y ont cru. Quant aux autres, la CBC et surtout, Bergeron le looser et les autres gros tas de merde négatifs sans cesse à télé et à radio, mangez de la marde! Pis, on va donner du crédit à Gainey, l'un de ces jours?! Temps durs pour nos p'tits grincheux mesquins de chez nous.

Ca sent la coupe! ;)

Cons Trusted Daniel Paillé, former Industry Minister, with Sensitive Review of Polling

Stephen Harper & Vic Toews thought Daniel Paillé, former QC Industry Minister, was reliable enough to lead sensitive review of public opinion research practices across government (with some interesting results):

Canada's New Government Appoints Independent Advisor to review public opinion research practices

Canada’s New Government is delivering on its commitment to implement the Federal Accountability Act
For immediate release
April 11, 2007, Ottawa (Ontario) — The Honourable Michael M. Fortier, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and the Honourable Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board announced today the appointment of Mr. Daniel Paillé as an Independent Advisor who will conduct a review of public opinion research (POR) practices across government.
“Public opinion research in an important tool that allows us to better understand the needs and expectations of Canadians to deliver appropriate policies, programs and services,” said Minister Fortier. “Canada’s New Government is listening to Canadians and taking action. Questions have been raised about how the previous government used this research tool and the Independent Advisor will ensure that public opinion research practices are open, transparent, and fair, as well as provide value for Canadian taxpayers.”
“The Federal Accountability Act and Action Plan are helping restore Canadians’ trust in Government and the democratic process,” said the Honourable Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board. “The appointment of the Independent Advisor is an another important step in the implementation of this important priority to make government more accountable."
The Independent Advisor will review documents related to government public opinion research practices for the period of 1990 to March 31, 2003. More specifically, the review will be conducted on public opinion research contract files; program files and records; public opinion research reports; reviews of public opinion research practices and management carried out by central agencies and departments (i.e., reports, action plans and follow-up reports); and reports of the Auditor General that have been tabled in Parliament. The Independent Advisor will also address issues raised, directly or indirectly, in Chapter 5 of the Auditor General’s November 2003 report, and determine whether further action is required. Appointed for a term of six months, Mr. Paillé will report to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

This announcement is part of the ongoing implementation of the Federal Accountability Act, which received Royal Assent on December 12, 2006, and its accompanying Action Plan. Through the Act and Action Plan, Canada’s New Government has brought forward specific measures to strengthen accountability in Government. More information on the Federal Accountability Act and Action Plan is available at www.accountability.gc.ca.
Backgrounder and biographical notes for Mr. Daniel Paillé are attached.
- 30 -
Ce texte est également disponible en français.
For further information, media may contact:
Jacques C. Gagnon
Director of Communications
Office of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
819-997-5421
Media Relations
Public Works and Government Services Canada
819-956-2315
Mike Storeshaw
Director of Communications
Office of the President of the Treasury Board
613-957-2666
Robert Makichuk
Chief, Media Relations
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
613-957-2391
Backgrounder
Independent Advisor on Public Opinion Research
The Government of Canada uses public opinion research (POR) and advertising to listen to and communicate with Canadians. They are vehicles through which Government captures public awareness and concerns, remains focused on the needs of citizens, and reaches Canadians with information on its programs and services.
As part of its Federal Accountability Act and Action Plan, the Government is appointing an Independent Advisor on Public Opinion Research for a term of six months.
The Independent Advisor is to provide independent advice to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services on public opinion research practices of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada. The mandate is with respect to questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapter 5 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons with regard to the Government's public opinion research practices. Without duplicating past or ongoing work of the Auditor General, the Independent Advisor will:

Take into account the relevant policies and directives, review documents related to Government public opinion research practices for the period 1990 to March 31, 2003, including:

public opinion research contract files, program files and records;
public opinion research reports;
reviews of public opinion research practices and management carried out by central agencies and departments (e.g. reports, action plans and follow-up reports);
reports of the Auditor General that have been tabled in Parliament.




Consult with appropriate Government of Canada officials and seek the views as required from private sector public opinion research service providers.


Determine whether issues raised, directly or indirectly, in Chapter 5 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada with regard to the Government's public opinion research practices require further inquiry.


Provide to the Minister, within six months after the date of appointment, a report in both official languages which the Minister will subsequently make public that:

establishes whether there are issues of public interest relating to the Government of Canada's management of public opinion research that remain to be addressed;
advises on whether further action is required;
does not express any conclusion or recommendation regarding civil or criminal liability of any person.



Other measures to improve transparency, fairness and value for money in POR and advertising include:

prohibiting verbal-only POR reports;
requiring that departments and agencies, within six months of completing POR fieldwork, send to Library and Archives Canada a final written report on research findings and require that POR contract information and executive summaries of completed projects be posted on the Internet for ease of public access;
requiring that the bidding process in the contracting of Government advertising and POR be open, fair, transparent, and competitive;
adopting a new definition of advertising to distinguish it from services such as public relations and events management; and
instructing departments and agencies to include advertising and POR activities and processes in their risk-based audits.

Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) coordinates and purchases public opinion research on behalf of departments for the Government of Canada. PWGSC’s coordination role is one of support to departments, through assistance and advice for public opinion research requirements.
Daniel PAILLÉ
Daniel Paillé is a guest professor in the finance department at the École des Hautes Études Commerciales (HEC) in Montreal, where he gives some courses on corporate finance, ethics and regulations.
He has a Master’s degree in economics from the University of Quebec at Montreal, a Bachelor’s degree in business administration from HEC Montreal and an honorary degree from the University of Montreal.
Throughout the course of his career, he has worked in both government and corporate environments.
He was Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of Canam Group Inc., a public company, from 2001 to 2005; First Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of the Société générale de financement, a government corporation, from 1996 to 2001; Senior Vice-President, Acquisition and Business Development, at Quebecor Inc., a public corporation, from 1992 to 1994; and Executive Vice-President, Private Equity, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, from 1988 to 1992.
Daniel Paillé was Minister of Industry, Commerce, Science and Technology and a member of the Treasury Board in the Government of Quebec from 1994 to 1996. From 1976 to 1988, he was a Tax Expert; Financial Advisor to the Minister; Director of Treasury; Director General, Public Debt and Treasury; and Director General, Financial Management of Government Corporations and the Privatization Program within the Government of Quebec.
Daniel Paillé has been a board member of many corporations and member of audit committees. He was also a member and Chairman of the Board of Directors at l’Accueil Bonneau in Montreal, as well as a Member of the National Assembly for the riding of Prévost from 1994 to 1996.

Serge Ménard, Ret. Navy Lt., was QC Attorney General, Minister of Justice & Public Safety

Serge Ménard lieutenant in the navy: "Joined the navy as an officier-cadet within the framework of the UNDT (University Naval Training Division). Obtained his officer's certificate in 1962. Promoted lieutenant in 1964. He served only during summers in Halifax, Hamilton and Victoria. In Montreal, in 1965, he was Executive Officer of the UNDT. Retired 1968."

Serge Ménard, LAWYER, was also Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and Minister of Public Safety for six years.

HoC (Opposition) have OBLIGATION to do their Duty! The Line To Remember from Milliken

"IN A SYSTEM OF RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO HOLD THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS ACTIONS IS AN INDISPUTABLE PRIVILEGE AND, IN FACT, AN OBLIGATION."

Play fair. But play true. You have a fundamental duty. Or you have no meaning.

Good ruling. As expected.

Don't Fall for #cpcdistraction from Order of Parliament

Better hashtags? I'm sure someone smarter will think of one. I myself have fallen for the #blamefrankgraves & #pitifulezralevant distractions. It's hard not to. But they are throwing the kitchen sink now, even trying to reignite the abortion debate the day before the Speaker's Ruling. They've already tried and are still trying to whip up Guergis-Jaffer further. They know their Graves to committee stunt has no chance: another distraction. Along with further document dumps. Etc. That just goes to show how worried they are. Don't fall for it. Keep your eyes on the ball. Parliament. Democracy. vs. The Control Freak Who Would Be King.

Yo Pundits Fulminating vs. C-232: Check Out Your Lovely Followers

My reply to Silver applies to all of you:
Why, Mr. Silver, look at all the lovely people leaving lovely, Solonic comments. What a surprise, eh? Who could have imagined your post would appeal most to these kinds of lovely people, with their admirable views of the world. I'm sure, like Seinfeld, that we might well find, upon deeper inquiry, that these veritable Pericletans were also prejudiced against dental care professionals, anti-dentites as it were.

Good luck with your Steyn, Levant and anti-dentite posse. They make your argument much more convincing.

Best, EFL

PS. I thought of predicting this when I saw the post appear, but I thought I'd give it a couple of hours, to see if I would be happily disproven. Sadly, unsurprisingly, no.

Cdn Tweeters: if #nickcleggsfault then #blamefrankgraves?

Perhaps this might inspire a similar Cdn hashtag, #blamefrankgraves ? h/t gmacofglebe & mikewoollatt

Gardner Agrees With Godin, HoC & CBA On Bilingual SCC

Gardner: "Bilingualism weighs heavily in any appointment, as it should."
Canadian Bar Association: "The CBA adds that bilingualism should be one aspect of merit in selecting candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court."
As for the rest, Gardner et.al. might want to timewarp from 1969 to 2010, as Hébert noted, and as Comartin made clear: "I had better put this on the record. I sat through the last four appointments to the Supreme Court. The last two rounds have been the prairie provinces and then the Maritimes. We're sworn to secrecy in sitting on those panels, but the reality is that there were more than enough candidates—I don't think I'm disclosing any surprises here—from both of those jurisdictions to meet that high test of bilingualism. I don't think I can say anything more than that without going into the specifics of their credentials, but there was not a problem with having a significant number of qualified candidates."

Further to that, I recommend the illiterate brush up on their first language skills, or get someone to read to them, and remedy their ignorance by actually doing some research and reading the debates. I conclude by quoting Mauril Bélanger:

I hope we can all agree that our society is not static; we live in a society and a world that is constantly evolving. Everything changes. We hope that it is for the better. Pressure leads to change, and we always hope that it improves the situation. So it is not surprising that our laws reflect this desire to improve our society and to improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

Today we are looking at the results of enacting of Canada's Official Languages Act in 1969, over 40 years ago. In those 40 years, the application of this legislation has continuously evolved, so much so that no one now opposes the notion that Canada has two official languages, French and English. That just shows how our society and our federation are always evolving.

In 1988, the Conservative government at the time, led by the right hon. Brian Mulroney, supported by the official opposition at the time, even made two amendments to this act. Furthermore, in 2005, another amendment was made by the Liberal government of the day, supported by the official opposition, which was led by the current Prime Minister of Canada. This shows that on both sides of the House, whether it is a Liberal government with a Conservative opposition, or a Conservative government with a Liberal opposition, we all seem to agree on the nature of this linguistic duality and its evolving nature.

I encourage all parties in the House to support my colleague's bill, which is fully in line with our country's evolution.

Contempt Ruling Coming - Jugement d'outrage au Parlement bientôt

Absolute Must Read: Blues Clair's "Levant Really Pounds"

I cannot recommend enough the Blues Clair post Levant Really Pounds (I left a couple of comments). If we could get every Canadian to see Levant, official Con Party Spokesperson, in action, and get them to read the adulatory comments by Cons so as to make them understand the bizarro world Cons inhabit, the HarperCons would be done like dinner. The more who see this, the better. Same as Steyn. With enemies like these, who needs friends?

Bilingual SCC? Honesty Requires Research, esp. Reading the Debates

Text: "In addition, any person referred to in subsection (1) may be appointed a judge who understands French and English without the assistance of an interpreter." Canadian Bar Association Says Bilingualism to be Considered Part of Merit Criteria.

Committee 17/06/09, Fraser vs. Major: "Again, I have a great deal of respect for Judge Major, but I'm not sure that somebody who doesn't speak the other language knows what he doesn't know. Donald Rumsfeld once talked about the known knowns and the unknown knowns. I don't know how a unilingual person can evaluate how important language knowledge is as a professional competence. By its very nature, if you don't speak another language, then you don't understand what you would understand if you did speak that other language."

Committee 30/09/09, NB Law Society & Comartin: "I had better put this on the record. I sat through the last four appointments to the Supreme Court. The last two rounds have been the prairie provinces and then the Maritimes. We're sworn to secrecy in sitting on those panels, but the reality is that there were more than enough candidates—I don't think I'm disclosing any surprises here—from both of those jurisdictions to meet that high test of bilingualism. I don't think I can say anything more than that without going into the specifics of their credentials, but there was not a problem with having a significant number of qualified candidates."

Committee 15/06/09- Godin, Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc., Michel Doucet, lawyer & professor at University of Moncton, Christian Michaud, constitutional language rights lawyer with Cox & Palmer. Doucet:

I have had the opportunity to appear before the Supreme Court on at least seven occasions. As I've explained, and the interpreter will certainly remind me of this today, I tend to speak quickly. In the week after I had argued a case before the Supreme Court, I had an opportunity to hear the English version of my arguments on CPAC, and I understood why I had lost the case five to four. The translation did not allow me to understand my own words. I wonder how justices can fully understand the matter at hand when they have to go through translation in which significant aspects of a submission are missing. When you win 9:0, there is no problem, but when you lose 5 to 4, you automatically wonder whether you should not have argued in English. If all unilingual anglophone lawyers in Canada had to argue their cases before one or two unilingual francophone justices on the Supreme Court and therefore have to go through interpretation, I am sure that Mr. Godin's amendment would have been passed long ago.

Final Committee Debate & Vote, 04/11/09, Comartin: "Our role as parliamentarians is to pass laws that are in the interests of our communities and our citizens. They're our absolute, primary, first consideration. It seems to me that every Canadian has the right to expect that if they have a case that ends up in front of the Supreme Court, it will be heard by judges who understand fully what is being said."
Murphy: "Mr. Lemay makes the good point that one can learn the language in the course of their legal career. Let's talk about the top nine jurists or legal people in the country. Surely they have the acumen to at least learn to understand the language. For a Supreme Court judge to be on the bench, it is not a case of proficiency in oral capability, but in understanding."

Senate Introduction 20/04/10, Tardif - "Jean Charest, Premier of Quebec, stated his position and emphasized the following:

Our laws are a consolidation of who we are in all aspects of our lives in terms of our culture, our values and our choice of society. They also reflect our history. The law is a synthesis, in a way, of what we are. We have to make a connection between law and language. And knowledge of language is more than just knowing a few words. Rather, it is more like knowing . . . an interpretation or a translation. To know a language is to know a culture, a reality. Those who are called upon to interpret that reality and to make decisions that will have a very significant impact on our lives must know that reality through our language. That is what creates very good judges right from the outset, more than their knowledge of the law, the sections of the Criminal Code or the articles of the Civil Code. That is what we expect of those who sit on that bench and make decisions that will have a very significant impact on our lives.

House 2nd Reading 23/03/09, Godin: "Make history by joining me and the following organizations, as well as all Canadians who have come out in favour of such a measure: the Canadian Bar Association, the Association des juristes d'expression française du Canada, the Young Bar Association of Montreal, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Quebec Community Groups Network, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Fédération franco-ténoise, the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, the Société nationale de l'Acadie, the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, the National Assembly of Quebec, the Premier of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois, which wrote me to say it will support this bill. I certainly appreciate that gesture." (NB. And Canadian Parents for French, among others)

House 2nd Reading, cont. 26/05/09 Murphy: "That is the first and best reason why we should follow this bill. There is another reason though and it is the best evidence rule. This is a common law-created rule which suggests that from the 18th century forward, the best evidence is to be used. What does that mean? It means that the best the nature of the case will allow is the quote from the 1745 decision of the English courts. What better evidence can there be before a judge of the highest appellate court in this country, who wants to interpret what is being said, other than to understand exactly what is being said? It goes to the very nature of advocacy before our highest court."

House Vote at 2nd Reading to Refer to Committee Passed 140-133 (Opposition For, Cons Against)

House Debate at 3rd Reading 19/03/10 D'Amours: "We are not talking about introducing a fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh language at the Supreme Court. We are talking about this country's two official languages: French and English. Both French and English-speaking people in my riding expect me to address them in their own language. People expect that much of a private member. They expect it even more when they go before the highest court in the land. They expect that they will be addressed in their own language and that the final judgment will be made on the basis of the message that was conveyed."

House Debate at Third Reading Cont. 29/03/10 Bélanger:

I hope we can all agree that our society is not static; we live in a society and a world that is constantly evolving. Everything changes. We hope that it is for the better. Pressure leads to change, and we always hope that it improves the situation. So it is not surprising that our laws reflect this desire to improve our society and to improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

Today we are looking at the results of enacting of Canada's Official Languages Act in 1969, over 40 years ago. In those 40 years, the application of this legislation has continuously evolved, so much so that no one now opposes the notion that Canada has two official languages, French and English. That just shows how our society and our federation are always evolving.

In 1988, the Conservative government at the time, led by the right hon. Brian Mulroney, supported by the official opposition at the time, even made two amendments to this act. Furthermore, in 2005, another amendment was made by the Liberal government of the day, supported by the official opposition, which was led by the current Prime Minister of Canada. This shows that on both sides of the House, whether it is a Liberal government with a Conservative opposition, or a Conservative government with a Liberal opposition, we all seem to agree on the nature of this linguistic duality and its evolving nature.

I encourage all parties in the House to support my colleague's bill, which is fully in line with our country's evolution.

House Vote on Third Reading, 31/03/10 Passed 140-137 (Opposition For, Cons Against)