60% of Canadians Voted for Higher Taxes, or the dangers of historical determinism

Of course many Conservative voters were probably for higher taxes too, and many of the voters for other parties for lower taxes, as people vote on a whole number of issues, but taken as a whole, it bears true: 60% of Canadians voted for higher taxes. All the opposition parties were in favour of raising taxes one way or another, and the Conservatives opposed (except for "hidden" taxes, like EI premiums), or at least that's what the electorate was given to understand. And I know that 40% gave the CPC a majority, and it's clever politics, etc., and I've recognised that since Canada does not operate on a strict left-right axis it would be self-defeating for progressives to advocate political strategy on that basis. What I want to reiterate so no-one forgets, is what many have often noted, including myself: Public Prefers Higher Taxes & Better Services To Same or Lower Taxes & Services. And that 60% in favour of higher taxes is drawn from the 60% of eligible voters who voted. Since we know that voter turnout decreases with economic status, the higher the turnout, the higher the percentage of the population likely to voter for higher taxes. Had we 100% turn-out, the percentage of voters who prefer higher taxes/better services to lower taxes/worse services would rise from 60% to close to 80%.

I wanted to get this on the record so no-one forgets, because this last election was one of the few where there was, as far as the public understood it (leaving aside EI premiums, airport taxes, etc), a clear choice between higher taxes and lower taxes. And 60% chose higher taxes.

We all tend to historical determinism at one time or another. It may seem funny for me, who so often analyses situations and trends and foresees the consequences, to criticise it. But I always see the likelihoods, but only the "LIKELY"-HOOD. Politics would be meaningless if we didn't have free will, and the ability to change things.

I was just glancing at the usual tosh about victory or defeat being pre-determined and was shaking my head and laughing, as usual. Nonsense. Lots of things could have gone differently. For me, the French debate and Duceppe at the PQ convention were crucial. But others will pick their own things. But there was nothing inevitable about the result. Which is not to say that analysis of long-term trends is untrue, but simply events also determine those trends, and vice-versa. Great Men and Marxist views of history both true, for anyone who knows a bit and has lived a bit. It took Dion studying under Crozier to understand that apparently.

Think back to November 2005. If Layton hadn't brought down the Martin government, had given it the few months' respite it asked, the Kelowna Accord and Child Care would have been introduced. Even if the CPC had subsequently taken government, those agreements would have had a structural effect on Canadian society, towards more communitarianism. Neither Tommy Douglas nor David Lewis would have brought down Martin at that time, wasting the chance to get such structural changes finally through the system, since they understood not just such policies' material benefits but also the way they nudge the culture. Harper gets that too, which is why he does what he does, the other way. But Layton is not a social democrat, he's a political adventurer. And his model's unsubstainable, as noted.

If Judy W-L, Layton and the NDP hadn't gotten Zaccardelli to intervene in the 2006 campaign, we would likely not have had a CPC minority.

If CTV hadn't screwed Dion when the LPC were riding a post-debate high in 2008, the LPC would have won more seats.

If Michaëlle Jean had refused Harper's request for prorogation in 2008, the coalition would have come to power.

If, if, if, and they all would have meant the probable end of Harper, and a new dynamic. But we'll never know, because of "events, dear boy, events."

As Macmillan knew, WWI, at least as we knew it, was not inevitable. One day in Sarajevo, and then this, and then that. But it didn't need to happen that way. If Hindenburg hadn't listened to von Papen, things could have gone differently in 1933. Or if the Communists had ever agreed to support the Social Democrats. Etc.

Yes, there are "tendances lourdes". But they're "tendances", not inevitabilities.

After any event, some claim it was all pre-planned and foretold to stress how brilliant they were, and others say the same, to relieve themselves of culpability. As someone who hasn't always been wrong at understanding things and where they're headed, I think I may understand better than most just how flimsy these potentialities are.

Or did everyone know voters in Quebec would lurch toward the NDP, willing to vote for unilingual outsiders to their ridings who wouldn't campaign and were nominated using fraudulent methods?

So for anyone to declare that Harper is some visionary and he's guiding Canada where it was destined to go is a load of hooey. He's a smart guy, but events, dear boy, events, are what put him where he is.

A strong majority of Canadians, like people everywhere, given political economic analysis, favour more taxes and services over less. But Harper, given time, will bend Canada a bit more toward a more individualistic, conservative society. I judge that contrary to the interests of the vast majority, against the public good. Just as I judge his decentralist agenda as contrary to the long-term interests of the unity of Canada, and the interests of all Canadians, who would really suffer during and after the tumult of its dismemberment, or attempted dismemberment.

But he's not inevitable, Harper understands that better than anyone. Many things could have changed, and many things could change, and will. So don't overestimate the weight of trends, but don't ignore them either. Don't pretend that this or that one moment was decisive, but don't pretend it was less important than it was. Keep some perspective, immediate and long-term.

And never forget, the vast majority of Canadians favour Macdonald-Trudeauism, taxes and services. And they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Doesn't mean it will win elections. But it does mean commentators should be careful in their analysis.

And for the LPC, it means it needs to be serious and have clear premises and work hard and smart. But it's not the end of the world, and if we get things right we have a better chance next time than many realise right now.

NB. Ceci sera mon dernier billet, au moins, pour un bon moment. Je l'espère, en tout cas. J'ai fait ce que j'ai pu, pour l'instant.

Brosseau and the NDP's Paternalistic Disdain For Quebeckers

I'm tired of pointing out how bad the NDP is on this issue, and I thought every fairminded person already understood what an outrage to democracy the NDP has committed in Quebec, but since some want to harp on it, I leave it to all to read the French media on the question (you may want to get some food and drink first, there's quite a bit). Done. Dusted. Now get some principles, and stick to them, for heavens' sakes.

Use Senate Appointments to Create a Convention for Aboriginal Representation

There are currently six aboriginal senators (2QC,1BC,1SK,1NB,1NWT). Prime Ministers should create an unwritten constitutional convention simply by ensuring there is always at least one aboriginal senator from BC (1/6), AB (1/6), SK (1/6), MB (1/6), ON (1/24), QC (1/24), two from the Atlantic provinces (2/30), and at least one from the Territories, for a total of  9/105 (8.6%). Not difficult to do, as you see.

Canada's needs its aboriginals to play an ever greater role in the country's development. The more prominent they are within Federal institutions, the better the chance of that happening. A convention on Senate appointments is one real, permanent, historic way to achieve that. And it makes sense, demographically, democratically, historically, economically, socially, symbolically, and most importantly, for the future.
Our constitution, written and unwritten, could be improved here and there, but by and large it's excellent, as long as the actors are of good faith. « Le Canada fonctionne en pratique mais pas en théorie. » Things generally work, and sometimes provinces act in some ways within areas of federal jurisdiction with federal blessing when it makes sense, like international relations, and sometimes the Federal Government has some influence in areas of provincial jursidiction, with provinces' blessing, where it makes sense (Canada could still use more national, usually federal, coordination, in things like education and health care). That's federalism.*

It will always be very difficult to amend the constitution formally to make whatever improvements one feels are necessary, as everyone will have their own, often conflicting, demands, as the Charlottetown Accord demonstrated. Harper's desire to have elected senators is probably doomed if the provinces stick to their guns, as they should. No fundamental changes can be made without provincial accord, and every court in the land will agree, if that`s where they end up.

There is one positive amendment that the PM could make by his appointments by creating an unwritten constitutional convention as regards minimal aboriginal representation in the Senate and thus parliament. Since Diefenbaker was the one who extended the franchise to aboriginals and appointed the first aboriginal to the Senate, this might be one Conservative tradition worth pursuing.

As the aboriginal share of the population is 4+% and growing, and given their number and importance in the West in particualar, as well as Ontario, Quebec and everywhere, I`d suggest Prime Ministers should create an unwritten constitutional convention simply by ensuring there is always at least one aboriginal senator from BC (1/6), AB (1/6), SK (1/6), MB (1/6), ON (1/24), QC (1/24), and two from the Atlantic provinces (2/30). At least one of the senators from Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories is likely to aboriginal as well. This would guarantee the aboriginal share of representation in the Senate would be at least 8/105 (7.6%) or 9/105 (8.6%). Given aboriginals represent over 85% of the population of Nunavut, 50% of the Northwest Territories, 25% of the Yukon, over 15% of the population in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and over 5% of the population of BC, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, and that those numbers are growing rapidly, and their importance, historical and future, they tend to be underrepresented within our decision-making institutions not just numerically, but in terms of their importance to the country, taking into account exploitation of natural resources (treaty rights and concerns) and growing working age population.

It is unlikely they will ever achieve proportionate representation through the 308 member House of Commons, so if there was established the unwritten convention as regards aboriginal representation in the Senate (as foreshadowed by the Charlottetown Accord) those provinces where their populations are large, growing and crucial - BC,AB,SK,MB - would profit from their strong presence within the Federal Senate, as would the whole country.

It is simple enough to do - simply appoint senators so that there's always at least one aboriginal senator from BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC; and two from the Atlantic provinces (taking it for granted that at least one of the territories' senators is virtually sure to be aboriginal, given  Nunavut).

The senate works great as is - most underrated institution in the country. Can't be changed unless provinces agree, and don't see why they would. But would be possible to creat unwritten constitutional convention regarding aboriginal representation in the Senate, ensuring they always have sufficient minimal weight in the Federal Parliament for their concerns to be heard, which is crucial for the healthy future development of the nation, given their importance and influence, not just historical, but current and future, in real, human, and material terms.

*Il est clair que bon nombre de Québécois voudraient une reconnaissance constitutionnelle, surtout symbolique mais accompagnée de certains éléments « réels » pour signifier l'importance de la symbolique, sans qu'ils ne seraient jamais satisfaits de quelque accord constitutionnel qui soit. De « Français » aux « Colons » aux « Canayens/Canadiens » aux « Canadiens français » aux « Québécois », le peuple a toujours cherché à se distinguer, par des combinaisons symboliques et réelles. Dans le réel, comme l'avait remarqué Lévesque, avec son « le Canada n'est quand même pas le goulag », les arrangements politico-constitutionnels actuels sont efficaces, permettant aux Québécois de protéger et de promouvoir la langue française et la culture canadienne française, tout en s'associant avantageusement aux autres Canadiens, dans un contexte qui est le produit de leurs propres efforts historiques, et dont ils sont fiers. Puisqu'un grand accord constitutionnel est improbable, et de mon avis, facultatif, et puisque des gouvernements fédéraux successifs ont conclu des arrangements politico-constitutionnels avantageux pour Québec (pas toujours pour les Québécois), tel l'accord sur l'immigration, le transfert de la main d'oeuvre sous Chrétien (une erreur selon moi, si le bien-être des citoyens est son premier souci, vu les déboires prévisibles d'Emploi Québec, mais bon), le véto de la Chambre des communes, l'Unesco, et j'en passe, il y en a eu tellement, je n'évoque que quelques faits saillants, et tout à fait naturels dans une fédération, avec le jeu entre états fédéral et fédérés, et entre états fédérés. Tout ça pour dire que la création d'une convention non-écrite quant à la réprésentation autochtone au Sénat suit tout à fait la logique du fédéralisme flexible qui est le fédéralisme canadien, quelles que soient les illusions que partagent trop grand nombre de nos concitoyens à cet effet. Difficile d'accepter l'efficacité et la productivité du fédéralisme quand quelques 30% de la population amènent un jugement de sécessioniste devant toute question qui implique des pourparlers Québec-Ottawa-TOPATS ("The Other Provinces and Territories"). Mais regardez autour de vous : ça va, oui ou non? Par exemple, on m'a dit que quelque part dans un coin perdu de la toile il y a l'un de ces p'tits enragés d'indépendantistes qui se plaît à passer ses vendredis à mettre en évidence le succès du modèle québécois...n'est-ce pas là l'une des meilleures illustrations du bon fonctionnement de la fédération, d'une perspective québécoise? Il me semble, naïf, que si le Québec se porte si bien, de l'aveu même des plus coincés et  frustrés des séparatistes, donc, logiquement, on doit conclure que le Canada fonctionne à merveille, conclusion que je me permettrai de partager avec ces sécessionistes si fermement partisans de la fédération canadienne dans les faits, sinon en théorie..(sans doute, bientôt, leurs lèvres témoigneront de ce que leurs têtes comprennent déjà, quoique les coeurs seront plus lents à l'admettre..on ne peut tout même pas s'attendre à ce qu'un amoureux (d'un rêve) y renonce subitement, après quatre ou cinq décennies de fidelité. Les têtes d'abord, les lèvres ensuite, les coeurs en dernier. C'est toujours ainsi quand on renonce à sa maîtresse, longtemps aimée, pour revenir à sa femme, constante.)

Jack Layton's Bawdy Massage - Gerry Caplan & Media Betray Themselves

I condemned the Toronto Star over the Giambrone affair and argued the pro-disclosure media should reread its statement of principles. I was pretty much the only person in the country to defend Helena Guergis when no-one did, in the middle of the storm. I'm very wary of intrusions into public figures' private lives, and one is innocent till proven guilty. But the Jack Layton Bawdy Massage was a real, legitimate matter of public interest, as per the "Statement of principles and ethics guidelines – Investigative journalism" of the Canadian Association of Journalists.

The Jack Layton Bawdy Massage was, as Chris Selley noted, a legitimate story to pursue, once it was broken. However, it should not have come to light unless Layton wanted to reveal it himself, as he and the police should have 15 years ago. And even if it was of public interest, it should not have been broken in the middle of an election campaign, where it might have the most prejudicial impact, positive it seems, though it might easily have been negative.

How is this story of public interest? Warren Kinsella's analysis from all sides was widely praised, and one can easily imagine that if the story had come out in 1996  - "Sweep of bawdy house turns up politician, no charges, innocent" - no-one have doubted that aspect for a second. But as there were no charges, and the story was never revealed, how can it possibly be of public interest in 2011?

Kinsella hit on one aspect : "Two, the bigger scandal, here, remains unaddressed: at the time he was detained, Jack Layton was a city councillor on the City of Toronto’s budget committee, which has power over the police budget. The cops knew who he was, they knew the power he wielded over them. So what did they do? They walked him to the back door, and let him pedal away. Were the other men found at that place given that kind of treatment? If not, what happened here is a bona fide scandal, one that Toronto taxpayers need have probed, the passage of time notwithstanding."

Cosh and then Blatchford hit on another possible aspect, as regards legitimate public interest, hypocrisy in a matter of public policy, with Blatchford linking it to a pattern of hypocrisy throughout Layton's career. And once one considers the details provided and acknowledged by Layton, many are led to wonder: How naive can he be?

It seems as though the farther people are from Toronto and Ottawa and unconnected to the system, the more skeptical they are of Layton's and the political media's behaviour, as expressed by David Wylie, night editor at The Daily Courier in Kelowna: "It's probably just me, but it seems the media's letting Layton off pretty lightly on this bawdy house thing... Imagine if it were Harper!" and Marcus Hondro, off on an island in the Georgia Strait. Quite a few people, in particular women, seem outraged by the actual bawdy house massage, given what they perceive as the exploitative nature of the situation, as exemplified by this blogpost: Famous "john" : Jack put the LAY in Layton.

My views when the story broke were:

a) The police notes are confidential, should not have been leaked, and whoever is responsible should be caught and punished.

b) QMI was wrong to run with the story in the middle of an election campaign, especially four days from the actual vote, given its prejudicial nature, and the difficulty for the public to absorb the story, and distinguish the legitimate questions of public interest from the illegitimate.

c) Once the story had broken, the media, not able to put the genie back in the bottle, should err on the side of underplaying rather than overplaying the story until the election had taken place, given the worst-case effects of the impacts of overplaying - a material effect on Canadian politics, government and society - outweighed the worst-case impacts of underplaying, namely Canadians voting in the election with a false impression of Layton's character, about which the media might have been hiding or downplaying relevant facts. Since in our parliamentary democracy Canadians are supposed to be voting for their MPs* and a party's ideas rather than leaders, the Layton character question could wait till after the election, was my view, when the media would have more time to explore the story fully, and the public more time to absorb it. *(NB. one reason the NDP's possible nomination fraud in Quebec is so wrong)

d) The first question of public interest is whether the police's awareness of Layton's status affected his treatment in 1996, implicitly or explicitly. The media would have to interview Layton and the relevant officers about the matter to gain an idea. Both the police's and Layton's handling of the incident seem a shambles, beginning to end, from the looks of it. If there had been a statement at the time, a lot of later problems would have been avoided.

e) The second question of public interest is whether there was any identifiable change in the Layton-police relationship after the incident, was Layton's conduct toward them the same, worse or better, did he vote differently, and can any of that be attributed to the non-arrest? That can only be verified by reading through the public record to judge if the dynamic changed.

f) The third question of public interest is with regard to Layton's character, notably his judgment. He is the son and grandson of professional politicians, he had been a city councillor for 14 years at the time, one would assume he knew, and knows, how things work. How is it he lacked the wisdom to make a statement as soon as possible after the incident? Did he, who knows the nature of politics and society, really think the incident would remain secret forever? If he was planning on continuing in politics, why didn't he get it cleared out of the way, as would have been prudent? Upon entering national politics, did he not think his past would be examined, that it could remain secret? The possible motives for non-disclosure seem one or all of naivete, guilt, fear, or narcissism, Clinton-complex, feeling one is so special one can commit follies or crimes and never suffer the consequences. The first three possible motives have laudable elements within them, indicating a residual sense of morality or innocence, except that fear and guilt would indicate there was something to feel fearful and guilty about, though it might just be like when the security beep goes when one has bought an item but not had the security tag properly removed - one feels guilty even though one has done nothing wrong.

The question of hypocrisy did not occur to me, as there were no charges, so it would be difficult to claim there had actually been any untoward conduct. Now, I don't deny that the idea that one needs to be naked to receive a Japanese shiatsu massage from a young Chinese woman who is new to the country and has only started working as a massage therapist at that establishment that very day, and who is observed dumping "wet Kleenex into garbage", seems hard to credit, especially since Layton couldn't explain why he was naked. But for me, no charges mean no charges. Cosh, Blatchford and many others make the leap from appearances to illegal actions, and say that given Layton's moralistic stance on lap-dancing at the time, there is a public interest case for condemning Layton for hypocrisy. I expect I hold the same suspicions as many as to what actually transpired in that room before the police arrived, and I consider Layton a hypocrite generally, but I don't think you can say he was hypocritical in this case unless you take as a given he was engaged in illegal sexual activity, which, as he was never charged nor convicted, leads us back to the police-Layton dynamic.

Those would have been my observations and conclusions except for the media's and others' unwitting ability to not just make a mess of things but, I consider, to be creeps.

You, reader, and I, we are both almost certain that Jack Layton did not simply receive an innocent shiatsu massage on January 9th, 1996, at the bawdy house the Velvet Touch. We both suspect he paid for a sexual service from a poor young woman, newly arrived from China. We both suspect that Diva Rachel was right when she evoked the possibility that the young woman had been exploited into such a situation, and was being exploited a second time by a rich, old white guy, descendent of a long line rich white Canadian elites, that is to say, that there was one very empowered person in that room, and one very disempowered person.

Since there were no charges and no definitive proof, the media should not play up this angle, in my view, hence my reluctance for them to play up the hypocrisy angle, even if everyone suspects it's true. Determinedly blinkered, perhaps, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

However. However.

Two mistakes have been made since the story was broken, and they reflect badly on the media and some outside commentators.

1) We can't know what assignments have been given in the nation's newsrooms, but it has now been a week since the election and the public interest angles have not been explored in any depth: a) Layton-police dynamic at moment? ; b) public policy consequences of Layton-police dynamic? (his subsequent votes, positions on police?) ; c) Layton's judgment/character in not revealing incident asap, as one would expect any experienced politician to do.

2) Those members of the media and other commentators who are so shameless, so immoral, so as pretend that it was quite innocent, when they are old enough and wise enough to know better. It's one thing to have the good grace to stick to the public interest aspects, or choose to ignore the story altogether, though that would mean being wilfully deaf, dumb and blind. But to go out of one's way to pretend that Layton was not indeed engaging in the sexual exploitation of a poor, powerless immigrant woman is despicable, doubly so for those who have long blared how sensitive they are to such issues, what feminists they are.

A cursory review of media coverage leads me to condemn the following for their willingness to effectively excuse the probable sexual exploitation of a poor young woman migrant by pretending, contrary to their own good sense, that nothing untoward happened. There may well be others, but this is an upsetting enough sample, as is. It's one thing not to mention it, or only focus on the public interest aspects, it's another entirely to claim that what probably happened didn't happen, falsely, knowingly. You'll note, reader, that none of the coverage has been about the girl, it's all been about protecting Layton, and no-one, as far as we know, has tried to find the girl and find out HER story.

Stéphane Baillargeon : Médias - Bouette et désinformation

Mireille Silcoff: Here’s the rub on massage parlours (in your neighbourhood)

Susan Delacourt: Trading Places I've always respected Delacourt, but her casual lumping together this story with others, given the context, is perhaps her worst hour, especially for one who assumes such a righteous feminist stance so often: "Last night, Jack Layton got a taste of what it's going to be like if he does end up as the official opposition leader, and the relentless, negative attacks that will ensue. Discouragingly, there's nothing he can do to prepare himself for the onslaught either, because when his rivals run out of actual, random events of Layton's past, they will then start making things up. This is how it goes in Canadian politics, circa 2011."

Judith Timson: Are you suffering from PMS? (Post-majority stress, that is) Like Delacourt, casual dismissal, no reflection on seriousness of context, implications of disempowered female vs. powerful male politician. Again, one thing to review public interest aspects, or remain silent, but to pretend nothing happened? That it's an unfounded "smear", that it's NOT "stunning", that it's just a bit "shady"? Some feminist.  - "Then there was the last-ditch smear against Jack Layton by the new Sun Media television and the Toronto Sun, which brought us the “stunning” news that some 15 years ago, Mr. Layton was questioned by police but not charged when he was found in a registered, albeit shady, massage parlour."

Carol Goar: Exciting end to corrosive campaignThis is probably the most heinous, anti-feminist, protect the Great White Lefty Male Hope, of all the women commentators. If you're going to mention it, have some shame, for heavens' sake. Don't pretend it's all completely innocent when you know it's not: "Three days before the vote, the network aired an eyebrowing-raising story from an anonymous police source who claimed Layton was found in a Toronto massage clinic suspected of being a brothel in 1995. What the report didn’t explain was the NDP leader — then a Toronto city councillor — was unaware of any illicit activity. He was getting a post-workout shiatsu massage. The media, at the time, dismissed the incident as embarrassing but not newsworthy. Sixteen years later, Sun Media dredged it up to smear Layton’s reputation".

David Olive - "October surprises" in April.
David Olive - Political bloodlust. A lesson for progressives.
I have read David Olive on and off for years. I have always respected him, ROB to Star. Of all the commentators, he is the creepiest. First a story about his chiropracter, and a rush to defend Jack whatever the circumstances, then another where he simply describes it as an "ill-advised visit". Yes, because Olive is such a naif, and he sincerely believes nothing untoward happened. This is simply shocking behaviour by Olive. I'll never read him the same again, if I read him at all.

Gerald Caplan - Her Majesty’s Loyal (orange and pink) Opposition "Progressives of all stripes must never underestimate this little caper of Jack’s massage. The smear of Jack Layton by the powerful the Sun Media chain" (EFL underlining).

Caplan is the most disappointing of all. I thought he was one of the very few decent men in Canadian politics, he usually comports himself like some sort of Old Testament prophet, raging against inequity and injustice. I am certain that had this been reported about almost anyone else, Caplan would have worried more about the girl and less about Layton and his, to use Caplan's word, "caper". Until now, in his post-political career, Caplan has been a remarkably straight shooter, no matter who is involved,
or where the blame lies. But here, he abandons his lifetime's position on behalf of the vulnerable, against injustice, to pretend it was all just a "caper". WHAT was a "caper", pray tell? Tell us about the girl then, Caplan. Tell us about the distance in power and position between the girl and her famous client, shall you? Caplan could have avoided the matter, but he chose to speak of it, and he chose to downplay Layton's conduct, and he did so knowingly. Caplan is far, far from a naif. But in the end, he chose his tribe over the probable immorality, illegality and injustice of the situation. Caplan may have behaved worse, but probably while still in politics, under stress. He is outside politics now, and he faced no pressure to take this line. I don't know if he's behaved worse but it's the worst I've seen him behave. I've always thought very well of him. But in the end, blood was stronger than humanism.

For the record, here is the essential extract from the Sun report:

Layton found in bawdy house: Ex-cop

What police say happened on Jan. 9, 1996, was recorded in the former cop's notebook, which was reviewed and photocopied by the Toronto Sun.
The former Asian crime unit officer, who requested anonymity, details a prior police raid on the "premise currently ID as a bawdy house" looking for underage Asian hookers and a subsequent follow-up visit to the two-storey brick storefront on Jan. 9.

At first the policemen didn't realize they were interviewing one of the best-known Toronto politicians who was married to Chow, also a Metro councillor and now the incumbent NDP MP for Trinity-Spadina.
The officer's notebook indicates he asked the suspected john: "Did you receive any sexual services?"
He replied: "No sir, I was just getting a shiatsu."
The cop: "Why did you have all your clothes off?"

The suspected john: No answer.

The cop: "Are you aware that there were sex acts being done here?"
The suspected john: "No sir."
The woman, who was from mainland China, denied masturbating the suspected john but when the question was repeated became nervous and replied, "I don't know I only come to work today," the cop's notes show.
His notes also claim he saw the "female dump wet Kleenex into garbage."
In the interview with the Sun, the officer said: "I asked him for his wallet and I looked at his name and I looked at the last name and it looked familiar.
He's registered as 'John' and I thought he's a 'john.'"
Layton's Christian name is John.
"I explained to him this was a bawdy house and then I asked him the silliest question, 'Are you any relation to the councillor, Jack Layton?' and ... he had that defeated look on his face and he said, 'We are one in the same,'" the ex-cop said.
The former officer said Layton, seemed quiet and mellow and denied that he knew it was a suspected bawdy house.
The police had to decide what to do with the controversial councillor.
"To have arrested him and charged him would have served our egos a lot more. Layton was a thorn in the side of the police, siding with the anti-poverty movement in '96 or '97 ... Jack was anti-police," the ex-cop said.
"We looked at it and thought do we take advantage of this, or do we look at this like (he's) any other person, put it away and we hope this thing dies a slow death."
In the end, they came to the conclusion they shouldn't charge him.
"If we had barged in and he was engaged in a sex act and we had plainly saw it, then it would have been a different story."
The officers said police filled out a suspect investigation card that recorded his name, address, date of birth -- July 18, 1950 -- height and weight.
That information would be filed away by a civilian administrator for crime analysts to use in tracking criminals with particular attributes.
The former cop is surprised it took so long for the incident to become public.
"This stuff was never leaked out back then. The professionalism was outstanding. I thought this would have come out. This thing within the circle was so well known."
The policemen warned the councillor about the dangers of hanging out in suspected bawdy houses that could be run by Asian triads.
"I remembered lecturing him on a lot of these triads, they'd videotape the customers and extort them afterwards. Jack went pale. I said to him you have to understand it's quite possible," he says.
"He came on a bicycle. I escorted him down and he went away on his bike."