Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Cry 'Scandal' - CPC Standard Operating Procedure

I thought Gurmant Grewal's shennanigans were an abberation, even for the CPC. Now it appears that Brian Pallister is is moving in that same direction - creating a so-called scandal over David Dingwall's expenses at the Mint where, none, it appears, existed.

: PriceCoopersWaterhouse has confirmed that all Dingwall's expenses were legitmate and related to Mint business. Feel free to read this again with that in mind.

But it wasn't until I got home last night and opened my mail before I came to the conclusion that this behaviour - exaggerating, making things up and downright misleading people to manufacture an artificial scandal - is the standard operation procedure for the CPC.

What led me to decide this? A letter from my MP, Pierre Poilievre of the CPC, and his partner, the current MPP for the area and Federal CPC hopeful John Baird. The text of the hard copy letter is the same as the one from the link above, with a few minor exceptions:

"As you may know, the Hospital was originally built on land owned by the National Capital Commission (NCC). In a few short years the current lease for the land is up for renewal. Paul Martin’s Liberal Government plans to force the NCC (who has no choice in the matter) to charge full market rent to the Queensway-Carleton Hospital.

This decision could result in tens of millions of dollars, intended to support front line patient care, being diverted to the federal Liberal government! The past Chair of the QCH’s Board of Directors has suggested that if the hospital is faced with paying this massive rent increase being demanded by Paul Martin’s Liberals, it would result in 40 nurses losing their jobs at the hospital.

Thanks for your support for OUR community hospital!"
[Emphasis Poilievre's, from the hardcopy letter]
A little background is in order for those of you that aren't from Ottawa. The Queensway-Carleton Hospital is one of our local Ottawa hospitals which happenes to be built on federal land owned by the National Capital Commission (NCC). The job of the NCC, a Crown Corporation, is to act "as the steward of federal lands and buildings in the National Capital Region." Since the hospital is build on NCC land, it pays the NCC rent and is currently in a long term lease with the the NCC for that purpose, which is nearing its end.

On the surface, Poilievre and Baird's alarm seems somewhat justified. But things seem to fall apart as soon as you turn to the second page of the mailer and read a re-print of an Ottawa Citizen Op-Ed column from September 14, 2004. In it we find out the following:

  • The Hospital's is currently in a 40-year lease with the NCC and pays $23, 000 per year.
  • The lease was started in 1973 and expires in 2013.
  • When the lease runs out, the contract "supposedly" (this word is actually in the OP-Ed piece) states the Hospital will have to pay a rent of 6.5% of the property value, which they estimate will come to $3.4 million.
  • The NCC is "open to negotiations" since this is simply a lease agreement between two parties.
Read the letter again. Now read this list of facts again.

Firstly, the lease won't expire "in a few short years", it expires in 8 years. The end date of the lease is fixed, I wonder why Poilievre and Baird used that phrase instead of the actual, easily calculated number?

Second, the money goes into the coffers and operating budget of the NCC, an independent Crown Corporation. That could be stretched to say it goes into the general revenues of the Government of Canada. But it certainly isn't "diverted to the federal Liberal Government."

Third, the cost of the entire 40-year lease, at $23 000 per year is $920 000, not the "tens of millions of dollars" reported above. Even taking the CPC-generated estimate for the value of the land, paying $3.4 million per year, 8 years from now, "tens of millions" is quite an exaggeration. And I certainly wouldn't want to estimate the value of land 8 years from now - while it could be much higher, the expected retirement of the Boomers in 2011 could, in fact, make the bottom fall out of the real estate market, making it worth far less. Putting up a rental cost based on the value of land 8 years in the future can best be described as wild speculation. Basing a "crisis" on it is irresponsible.

Fourth, it is not "Paul Martin's Liberal Government" that is forcing this, it is "supposedly" a term of the contract signed in 1973. This is from Poilievre's own mail out. Also, a there is a regulation passed in 1985 by the Mulroney Conservatives, that requires crown corporations and departments to charge full market value rents on their land - a regulation passed by Poilievre's own party when they were in power.

Of course, my favourite line is:

"The past Chair of the QCH’s Board of Directors has suggested that if the hospital is faced with paying this massive rent increase being demanded by Paul Martin’s Liberals, it would result in 40 nurses losing their jobs at the hospital."

So, once again, it isn't "Paul Matin's Liberals" demanding anything, it's the terms of the contract (at least according to page 2 of Poilievre's own mail out). Those massive rent increases, if they should materialize (again, this is simply wild speculation at this point), are 8 years away. And to sound an alarm about 40 nurses possibly losing their jobs 8 years hence while teaming up with John Baird is, frankly, disingenous and unbelievable gall.

You see, John Baird, Poilievre's new CPC partner in this, is the current Progressive Conservative MPP for our area and a former Cabinet Minister in both the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves Conservative governments here in Ontario. So it is more than ironic to see this man, who as a Cabinet Minister had the actual power to save nurses jobs (since nurses are hired by and funded by the Province, not the feds) but didn't, now worrying about the possibility of nurses losing their jobs 8 years into the future. During Baird's tenure as an Cabinet Minister, the province of Ontario laid off thousands of nurses - 10 000 between 1995 and 1998 alone when he was party to cutting $800 million from Ontario's hospitals. The Queensway-Carleton lost hundreds of nurses during that time. Further, he was also party to the miss-allocation and misspending of federal money targeted to healthcare during that time. According to Jane Jacobs in "The Dark Age Ahead", when the feds gave the provinces $1.5 billion in 2000 to upgrade medical equipment and reduce diagnostic wait times, Ontario spent millions on "ice makers, floor scrubbers, lawn mowers and sewing machines" rather than the new radiological equipment that it was supposed to be spent on. Millions more was given to private sector firms who later simply closed their doors, never buying equipment of providing the services (pg. 206 "The Dark Age Ahead"). Now THAT is a spending scandal that Baird never seems to mention.

Given that record, Baird's committment to saving a hospital and 40 nursing jobs 8 years into the future rings hollow, to say the least.

The other strange part of this is that, according to this mail out, for the "Paul Martin Liberals" to have all that money "diverted" to them, they will have to be the government in 2013, when the current lease ends. So either Poilievre has given up and thinks that the Liberals will remain in power for the next 8 years, or he is making this up to score partisan political points based on the concern over the Sponsorship scandal. I wonder which one it is?

So now, when you read this with the facts (some of which actually provided by Poilievre) you see another example of a CPC MP exaggerating, misleading and making things up in order to manufacture a 'scandal'. Total political opportunism. Total BS.

Yes, something should be done about this situation before 2013 rolls around. I even think Poilievre's idea the hospital renting land from the NCC for $1 per year is good - the Pineview Golf Course in town has the same arrangement and if its good enough for a golf course, it should be good enough for a Hospital. But this over the top embellishing and false information is nothing but rank, self-serving political opportunism - Poilievre is doing this solely to make himself look like a hero in his bid for re-election.

We have 8 years to calmly work this out and come to a creative solution, this is not a crisis, nor is it a scandal involving the "Paul Martin Liberals."

The Liberal record on healthcare stands for itself - 12 years of underfunding are the main cause of most of the problems faced by the system today. We don't need people making things up and creating false scandals in order to do the right thing. Poilievre would better serve his constituents and the hospital by working in the background, encouraging negotiations and providing ideas. He could join Ed Broadbent in his non-partisan fight to get rid of the NCC altogether. Instead he has decided to manufacture a crisis to make himself look good.

Instead of the deceit and the politics of "Corruption, Corruption, Corruption!", why can't members of the CPC show us good examples of Parliamentarians instead of running around like latter-day Joe MacCarthy's looking for scandal and corruption under every rock, and happily manufacturing them if they don't find them?

Ask yourself, are these they kind of people you want running the country - disingenous, witch-hunters bent on smearing their opponenets at any cost instead of doing positive work?

I think you know MY answer to that.


Buzz at Canukistan got an e-mail that sums it up quite nicely. Couldn't have said it better myself.


At 1:58 PM, Blogger Nastyboy said...

The election will be run the same as the last one. The Liberals are corrupt, the CPC is "scary", Smilin' Jack will get the crumbs, and we'll end up in the same position we're in now.

Depressing but true.

At 2:00 PM, Blogger Nastyboy said...

I'd like to see a more possitive approach to politics by all parties, but going negative is much more effective.

Even more depressing.

At 2:13 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Sad but true nastyboy. I think the party that doesn't do what the cynical voter's expect will be able to do surprising things though. I even know Poilievre supporters that roll their eyes and shake their heads at the kind of media-whore grandstanding this guy does. He's a young guy in a unique situation to change the way politics is done. Instead he's feeding the beast.

Of course I have never seen him as principled, but rather a machiavellian, only out to win and maintain power and prestige for himself.

Believe it or not, I can respect even some CPC politicians if they are principled and stick by their ideal. Problem is, I haven't met any since Joe Clark left the old PCs.

At 9:42 PM, Blogger Nastyboy said...

Believe it or not, I can respect even some CPC politicians if they are principled and stick by their ideal. Problem is, I haven't met any since Joe Clark left the old PCs.

I don't know I've never seen Joe as being any kind of idealist. I have a pretty good nose for BS and the three times I've met him he's seemed pretty false.

I see many CPC'er who are principaled. Monte Solberg and Chuck Strahl come to mind. Rhona Ambrose is another. Every party has principalled people in it.

When I was in the forces I was in Bill Blaikly's(spelling?) riding during one election and I made a point of meeting him and he won my vote , because I could tell that, above all he was a decent human being.

I think the party that doesn't do what the cynical voter's expect will be able to do surprising things though

I wish that was the case. The problem is that, while I don't think the average voter is stupid, most voters don't pay enough attention to issues and are swayed by perception.

Truth has little to do with voting patterns.

At 11:27 PM, Blogger DazzlinDino said...

Good post bud....

I think this whole Liberal, Conservative, NDP thing is getting way out of hand. There is more backstabbing going on than you can shake a stick at. Don't exclude Layton because he doesn't make the news, at the moment Harper/Martin battles sell papers, but Jack is in there too. It's all getting pretty depressing.

That being said, I agree the Conservative rep was talking trash, dumb thing to do with everyone on the planet fact-checking verything coming out of politicians mouths right now. But I also agree that it is best to deal with it now, not in 2012 1/2. Time in business moves fast.

At 12:58 AM, Blogger RossK said...

Perhaps the NCC should charge the Golf Course 3,400,001 per year and give the hospital the land for free.

Think of it as polyester slacks-assisted density bonusing.

At 11:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there any party in this country that in not "disingenous, witch-hunters bent on smearing their opponenets at any cost instead of doing positive work"?

At 11:54 AM, Blogger Andrew said...


One good thing that will come out of this is that the issue of the hospital's rent will be dealt with long before it comes a crisis. What would be worse is: "Oh shit, rent changes next year and we have no new deal - what to do, what to do?!?!"

Sure, they could approach this more constructively, but at least they're addressing the issue.

At 12:07 PM, Blogger Mike said...


Lots of people are addressing this issue without lying and making things up. There are members of the board that are in discussions on this. There are other politicians, from all the parties and from all the levels of governemnt that are looking into this.

But its not a crisis right now, when the result is 8 years off. Poilievre and Baird are making it out like this is going to happen any day now, while the current government is sitting, rather than 8 years in the future.

Yes its good to get it out to the public and put it on the radar, but the whole slate of lies and false scandal are there only to serve the election and re-election needs of Poilievre and Baird.

That is cheap, bush league politics, not to mention unethical.

And its the 3 example I have seen from the CPC in the last 6 months. When your party behaves like this, don't complain that's is the fault of the stupid, socialist loving voters that just don't understand you when you lose the next election.

As I have said before, I know of small-c conservative voters that are very turned off by this behaviour. Imagine what the undecided think.

At 12:09 PM, Blogger Mike said...


The NDP and the Greens have never indulged in this kind of unethical behaviour. If you have examples of them lying and misrepresenting things like Poilievre and Baird are, feel free to post them.

At 1:08 PM, Blogger ALW said...

"Ask yourself, are these they kind of people you want running the country - disingenous, witch-hunters bent on smearing their opponenets at any cost instead of doing positive work?"

Heavens no! Which is why the...Liberal Party keeps getting re-elected, right? Liberals? Disingeneous? Witch-hunting? Bent on smearing their opponents at any cost? Perish the thought. Now please excuse me while I burst into uncontrollable laughter.

Oh, I know what you'll say: just because the Liberals are sleazy doesn't excuse the Tories from using the same tactics. Fair enough. But then for you to say "the NDP [and the Greens] have never indulged in this kind of unethical behaviour" is a sneaky claim. No, maybe not this kind of unethical behaviour, but certainly other kinds of disingenuous and hypocritical behaviour. You know, like where they did a shameless about-face on their high-minded principles, after spending months and months shelling the Liberal party, alongside the Bloc and Tories, with every epithet under the sun and insisting they were beyond salvation in a nauseating buy-off where Jack Layton can't contain his grin at the "coup" he's pulled off. Congratulations, NDP: with one act, you managed to destroy your one area of gravitas, that being a principled party that won't behaviour "like the others". I don't know what you call purchasing silence and support, but I'd say that's pretty much what they had in mind when they were shrieking "Liberal, Tory, same old story". And if I'm wrong, and the NDP doesn't suffer at the ballot box for it, that's a sad statement of political discourse in this country: because it means that people have just accepted that all politicians are crooked, and so we should just really try to make the best "deals" we can to run the government. In other words, we shouldn't waste our time trying to remove the rot; better to just dress it up as nicely as we can and move on.

I'd note that none of this is condones what certain Tory MPs are doing. But it's awfully convenient that your outrage for this kind of thing is only targeted at Tories. I wonder if you'd do the same were it Dipper or Liberal MPs? I doubt it.

At 3:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's one about hidden agenda by the NDP

"If you don’t trust the Liberals and you’re worried about the Conservatives’ hidden agenda ...

"Jacek recommends that in the leadup to the next election the NDP attack the Greens"

"I think in the next election people will understand that the Green Party is not progressive—it’s a right-wing, regressive party…. I think with scrutiny and closer examination people will see the Green Party for what it really is."

Here are some Green Party attacks on the NDP

"The NDP on the other hand is run by a hardened bureaucracy (atripartite bureaucracy actually)whose interests are their own jobs and careers. The bulk of membership has given up seriously challenging that situation.
The leaders are able to dump policy and turn on a dime. We saw that with Ed Broadbent's reversal on the NATO policy in the election of 1980. We've seen a stinking awful record on many things including Rae's welfare police among many other things as well as the record of all the NDP provincial governments on the environmental issues in particular. The argument that Mike Harris or Tom Campbell are worse is not exactly a useful assessment. The real problem here is that their policies don't mean anything. Only in a democratic organization does policy have real significance".

And that's in one google search of "NDP attack conservatives" - we are all in the same boat here!

At 3:14 PM, Blogger Mike said...


If this kind of behaviour were being conducted by Liberals and Dippers you bet I wouldn't condone it. Frankly, the Liberals are obvious but I have yet to see this kind of unethical behaviour from the NDP or Greens, whether in power or not.

Of course, the reason for my particular outrage is not just that I have to live in one of these idiot's ridings, its that since the Sponsorship scandal came to light, the CPC has done nothing to but scream they were the honest, ethical alternative. This kind of behaviour, in my riding, and that of Grewal and now Pallister shows that the CPC is either no better ethically than the Liberals or simply bumbling and incompetant. Either way, hardly a viable alternative to Canadians tired of the Liberals. The CPC, no matter what it says, has shown that it is no better and perhaps worse than the Liberals. Why would a fence sitter vote for them then? Why would a disgruntled Liberal voter switch?

It is this kind of behaviour that has eroded our public confidence in politics and politicians and has led our steady decline in voter turn out and other general apathy.

Bottom line, if I ever saw this kind of behavoiur from a Dipper I certainly would be disgusted and call it.

Now as for your pontificating an bellyaching about "the Deal". Sorry but using your position in a minority parliament to advance your agenda is how minority parlaiments work. The CPC had its chance and blew it. Never once was Jack or the NDP dishonest or duplicitous about it. The opprotunity presented itself to get some of our platform implemented and we did what we were elcted to try to do. Too bad the CPC didn't think that way - if they had you and I would be debating the merits of the corporate tax cuts in the budget rather than debating about this.

Whatever you from the losing end of the deal might think, it is not the same as the unethical lying and exaggerating and manufacture of "scandals" that Poilievre, Baird, Pallister, and Grewal are indulging in. It's not even close.

At 3:22 PM, Blogger Mike said...


How is attacking another party on their plaform the same as actually lying, like Poilievre and Baird are doing? How is it the same as conveniently leaving out important peices of information, to create a 'crisis' that doesn't exist, for personal poitical gain?

Its not.

Going after your opponents on policy and presenting your opion on them, and presenting facts that contradict their assumptions is the way politics used to be done - hell evenb the PC and Reform used to do it.

Now it's about scandal and exaggerating and making things up is ok?

Let me ask you, clearly Poilievre and Baird are lying here, exaggerating and making things up? Is that ok for them to do or are you among the 'everybody does it' gang?

At 3:58 PM, Blogger pale said...

I have done a bit more research and should have a post on my blog soon with a few more examples of scandal, exagarating and making things up.

I think that Polirvre and Baird have found an issue that affects their constituents and are running with it.

The facts are that it a golf course does not pay rent on NCC land and a Hospital may have to ... I think waiting untill it is a crisis is the wrong approach.

Here is an article on CFRA from yesterday:

"M.P.s are renewing debate over how much rent the Queensway Carleton Hospital should pay the NCC.

Ottawa-West Nepean Liberal Marlene Caterall is dead-set against leasing the property to the hospital for a dollar a year, saying it's against federal policy.

Local Tory M.P. Pierre Poilievre is on record as saying the hospital would face a financial meltdown if it's charged market rent when its lease expires in 2013."

At 5:23 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Well Pale, read that mailer - it implies that the rent is trying to be actively raised by the current Liberal Government, when its not - its a term of hte current lease and a regulation passed by the Conservatives in 1985. It implies that is going to happen in a "few short years" when its going to happen in 8 years.

Poilievre is lying - there is no immediate crisis, there is 8 years to solve the problem. The money wil not go to "Paul Martin's Liberal government" but to the coffers of the NCC and the Government of Canada - another lie (unless he is sure that Paul Martin will still be Prime Minister in 2013...).

That $3.4 million is based on the estimated value of the land today - there is no telling, with the volitility of the real estate market, what it will be worth in 8 years. It might be more, but as I have stated, it might be considerabley less. Even that figure is thought by some to be an overestimation of the value of the land today.

In other words, there is no crisis and no scandal. There is an issue, to be sure, and I disagree with Marlene Caterall (who is not seeking re-election BTW) - I think if $1 is good enough for a Golf Course its good enough for a hospital. Likely the Golf course signed their lease before the market value regulation was passed by the Mulroney government in 1985.

I would rather that money go to frontline care than rent. But I don't think you need to lie and make stuff up in order to do it. Poilievre is an MP. He can make suggestions, bring the parties together, sponsor negotiations, raise the question in Parliament. He can present private members legislation to make the change. He can get the issue raised in the approraite committee. There is lots of time, if what he really wants is to solve the problem.

Instead, he has lied to create a crisis and Gomery-flavoured scandal where none exists, all to make himself look good in the upcoming election. Even provincial poiticians that agree with him think he's over blowing this for political gain.

Sorry, but that's unethical. And anyone familiar with the $200 million for the O-Train knows this is not the first time Poilievre has lied or claimed credit for something he did not do, to make himself look good in the public. He is the definition of 'media whore' in our riding and never fails to get the local weeklies to show his face or run his press releases verbatim as if they were news. For him its a pattern of behaviour and what's sad is that Stephen Harper, whom I think is ethical, though I don't agree with him, tolerates it. But then he has tolerated Grewal and Pallister too.

At 8:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peirre and Baird are also campaigning to have the current lease ripped up and to transfer the land to the hospital for $1 - saving a couple hundred thousand in rent for the next 8 years.

Pierre has private members bill coming up on Wednesday this week.

His seems to have got local Liberal MPPs Jim Watson (provincial health promotion minister) and Madeleine Meilleur (culture minister), Health Minister George Smitherman as well as the federal NDP on board. So whether they think he is doing this to blow his own horn or not; they think it's something to get behind. Same with the 10 thousand people who have signed the petition.

The bottom line for me is that he raised the issue and it working to resolve it now. You may not like the tactics or language but I like that this is being raised and debated.

I think we agree that the Queensway Carleton should not be paying rent to the federal government through the NCC.

At 9:16 AM, Blogger Mike said...

Pierre has been ruled out of order trying to introduce this bill twice already BTW, but we'll see how it goes (you would think he would have brushed up on Robertsons Rules by now).

Jim Watson and George Smitherman are both on record as supporting the action but absolutely deploring the tactics. And as a member of the federal NDP I also support the action but deplore the tactics.

My problem is that both Baird and Poilievre are trying to make a crisis and scandal where one does not exist. That's the point of my post. I also think I made it clear that I support the action. But you don't need to lie or exaggerate in order to bring this important issue to the fore front. The ends do not justify the means. Plus I am of the opinion that both Baird and Poilievre are simply using this for self-promotion, hence the crisis mode, over the top accusations against a Liberal government that has nothing to do with this.

Sorry, but I was taughyt that lying to further yourself, even in a good cause, was unethical. We do agree that QCH should not be paying exorbantant rent to the feds, but demonizing the Paul Martin government over this is just wrong.

So that's why I show this incident in the same light as Grewal and Pallister - shameless creating of a false scandal for political gain, through lying, misleading and exaggeration. That's dirty politics. Hardly the nice alternative to Liberal corruption.

You should understand that Poilievre has a history of this, even in the one short year he's been in office. Last spring, Ottawa recieved a signed memoradum of Understanding to get $200 million in federal halp with out O-Train system. Mayor Bob Chiarelli and our local Councillor Jan Harder had been working through the due dilligence on this for a year. The mayor had announced that the money was going to be coming in "a few weeks". At that time, Poilievre is on record as stating he didn't think the money should be spent on transit - he was against the idea of the O-Train coming to Riversidesouth and Barrhaven. Suddenly, a week or so before the announcemnt, he's all for it (mainly because he realized how popular a rapid transit train service is out here in the burbs). The day of the announcment he issued a press release claiming ALL the credit for getting the money! He didn't do anything until the money was already bein issued exactly when the Mayor said it was (it was alread a done deal) and then has the gall to claim it was him that did it! He wasn't even invited to the cerimony for handing over the money (but he showed up anyway, try to get some press).

Take those two incidents together and you'll see why I don't like him - he is a dishonest, self-promoting, self-absorbed media-whore who will do anything to try to make himeself look good. And he's clearly lacking in ethics.

At 3:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We seem to agree that Greens could do positive work.
But you're only seeing the facts
about Dingy as they appear on the
surface. In reality, he was serving
two masters, Paul Martin and the pharmaceutical company he also worked foras a lobbyist Conflict of interest?
This was not a simle smear.
Sometimes all the facts are on the surface; sometimes they are not.
Maybe we should all stop googling and listen to what thelawyers for both sides had to say.

At 9:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

" a nauseating buy-off where Jack Layton can't contain his grin at the "coup" he's pulled off. Congratulations, NDP: with one act, you managed to destroy your one area of gravitas, that being a principled party that won't behaviour "like the others". " Posted by alw

Gee, and all this time I thought Jack and the NDP made a POLITICAL deal with the Liberals so that ALL Canadian citizens would see some public benefits from the years of belt-tightening now that OUR tax base was generating surpluses. You know - instead of making sure that corporations and the wealthiest individuals among us received the bulk of those monies as tax reductions like the Liberal and Conservative parties still want to do.

I hadn't realized, (until you pointed it out,) that Jack made this deal with the Liberals for his PERSONAL benefit, and by doing so he "destroyed (the NDP's) one area of gravitas".

Yeah right.

Is that the best you can spin? (Hint: Don't give up your day job.)

At 3:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a excellent blog. Keep it going. If you have a mortgage issue, I'm sure you'd be interested in financing Start Planning financing

At 3:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Blog. It's nice . No better time than now to stop estimate home value New Information estimate home value

At 4:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blog is informative . Dont't stop. Here's the secrets a lot of people are searching for; bad credit mortgage loan New Information bad credit mortgage loan

At 9:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Blog. It's nice . No better time than now to stop home mortgage guide Bad Credit? home mortgage guide

At 1:37 PM, Blogger James Bowie said...

I'm curious about your comment, "He could join Ed Broadbent in his non-partisan fight to get rid of the ncc all together."

Does Ed want to be rid of the NCC? If so, where does he say it?

At 1:59 PM, Blogger Mike said...


It was on his constituency website at Not sure if it is still there.

He really doesn't like the NCC and he and a few of the Cons on the committee that over sees it were keen on getting rid of it.

At 8:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Incredible blog Mike. A very well thought out analysis of smoke-and-mirrors fabricated issue by Pierre Poilivere. I am hard pressed to think of anything he has done for this riding. No train station or federal money on road expansion. Nope that was David Pratt, a good old born-and-raised Nepean boy.

You know how Pierre begs anyone to take a shot of him, I think the sleeziest move he did for a photo op was with Tsunami victim. Why did he go? Well David Pratt was coodinating our country's assistnace through the Red Cross and weasel boy Pierre feared he would face David Pratt in the next election and needed a Tsunami photo op.

Once he found out Pratt wasn't running, Pierre dropped any further effort. Of course he now promote himself as the saviour of South East Asia of course with a photo of him giving his food scraps to children. But again what did he really do? Answer: Nothing.

At 12:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Mike,

Are you Michael Gaffney?

At 9:18 AM, Blogger Mike said...

No anon, I'm a local NC resident and a member of the NDP.

Is this more of the black and white Conservative thinking? If you criticize the CPC or a Conservative,you are automatically a Liberal.

Is Randall Denley a Liberal? His thinks Pierre and John Baird are full of shit on this too. As do most Liberals as do most NDPers - meaning quite a few folks see this grandstanding for what it is, political opportunism by Pierre. Mybe he thinks he's still running for student council?

I may not agree with Michael Gaffney politically, but seeing as how he actually sat on the board of the QCH, I'd say he has much more insight into this than Pierre ever would

At 12:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Nice rant. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

At 8:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a fundraiser for the QCH this has become an issue. Some of the public is under the impression that the current break on the lease is a huge bonus for the hospital. In fact, at $23,000 a year, the QCH would need 8 times that to buy 1 Ultrasound machine. Since the announcement to the press, I estimate this deal has cost the hospital over $25,000 in donations.

At 4:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!


Post a Comment

<< Home