Wheat shuffle board

"Canadian Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl said he hasn't decided how to respond to a report calling on him to end monopoly sales by the Canadian Wheat Board, the world's biggest marketer of wheat and barley," Bloomberg wire service reported yesterday, the day his hand-picked anti-CWB task force called for a law by June 2007 to let farmers start selling wheat and barley directly to customers the following year, effectively killing the Wheat Board.

And if you believe he hasn't decided, Rona's got a clean air plan to sell you.

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

The fascination we have with public figures' private lives is as remarkable as it is ridiculous.

Today we learn that Sam Katz and wife Bailey are splitsville. Overall, we really don't care. People, even politicians, are human beings and don't deserve every move of their private lives to be parsed and dissected in full public view.

The interesting thing about the story, however, is that the soon to be ex-Mrs. Katz filed the day after the civic election last week. Clearly this was to keep the matter from being brought forth during the campaign.

Was this necessary? Would it really have been an issue or at least unpleasant gum stuck to Sam Katz's shoe, raised incessantly by the media as he campaigned?

Probably.

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

Despite our position that pols' private lives should generally not be grist for the mill, we are happy to bring up the issue of musical taste.

On that note, we see that James Blunt of "Beautiful" fame is playing the Phone Booth tonight. We expect Hugh McFadyen has tix to see his fave act.

The once mighty queen of Carlton Street ....

It's a very odd day indeed when the premier daily in the province can't even pump out an edition, especially its municipal election coverage edition.

As of this writing early Friday morning, thousands of subscribers to the Free Press have still not received a Thursday edition of the paper. You can't even complain on their automated phone line.

The basic bar a serious paper has to reach is producing its product when it says it will. Occasional delays and screw ups are understood. But to wipe out an entire edition for a great many subscribers? Especially the edition charged with reporting and analyzing the civil election?

It really should go without saying, but it's really very sad. Very sad indeed.

Not So Magnifico

The highlight of tonight’s civic election was, without a doubt, Danny Vandal coming back to knock off Franco Magnifico, openly endorsed by Mayor Sam Katz, who certainly used whatever clout he had in the ward to return buddy Magnifico to power.

Sadly folks, it was downhill fast from there, as Katz and the majority of the asleep-at-the-public-trough incumbents were returned to power (hello, Mike O’Shaugnessy – try as they might, CSI Kildonan couldn’t find evidence of this guy at anything resembling work). But we digress…

Definitely not so Magnifico was CJOB’s civic election night coverage. Hosted by Richard Cloutier, who usually strives for a bit of balance on his show, thought instead a political panel consisting of Right and Righter -- Shannon Martin, the earnest former Tory staffer to Gary Filmon, and Adrienne Batra, the gushing shill for mindless tax cuts, all things Tory and BFF Heather Stefanson -- would provide some nice insight into election night results, particularly the – wait for it – upset in St. James. (Otherwise known as the Thrilla in Vanilla.)

Ooooohhh…

Breathless with excitement, Batra veritably spurted with excitement at the news that Tory Scott Fielding had defeated Tory Jae Eadie, the helmsman of nearly three forgetful decades in St. James. Not to be outdone, Cloutier immediately anointed Fielding a “giant killer” for slaying a long-time incumbent that even the Eadie family would have a tough time distinguishing from, say… Mike O’Shaughnessy -- except for maybe the girth issue.

To be clear, a “giant killer” would have been a fringe candidate like Marianne Cerilli knocking off the much-moneyed Katz. (Thank yous to Senators Stratton and Zimmer was top of the mayor's agenda as he spoke from the dias of victory -- referring of course to the legendary Tory and Liberal bagmen respectively.)

But there is nothing remotely “giant” about Eadie’s defeat. The much vaunted smackdown by Fielding was essentially a mild Tory nomination dust up, with a soft, tired old Tory in one corner, and a young, up-and-comer with a better haircut in the other. (Eadie and Fielding respectively, in case you still can’t tell the difference). Tory on Tory violence, at worst.

Continuing on the not so Magnifico theme, is the result in River Heights, where Katz’s hand-picked candidate, Brenda Leipsic, defeated incumbent Donald Benham. Benham is a loss because he held the mayor to account and was able to do so articulately, if a bit oddly at times. Listening to Leipsic on CJOB on election night, where she so eloquently, and repeatedly, declared it the “best night, like, ever” (OK, so we added the like), it was clear that Katz had found the River Heights Rubber Stamp he was so anxiously hoping for.

(And, hey, is anyone under any doubt Batra is a PC partisan after that credit card bomb she dropped on Benham in mid-election? This was followed up shortly by the 10-year-old-anti-papal-column smear that CJOB reports came right out of the mayor's office. An election of ideas, eh?)

And not so Magnifico was the voter turnout -- a frightening 38%. That's not much of a mandate for Mayor Katz, to say the least.

Fortunately for the city, Vandal is back in the ring with the gloves on. Magnifico!

Slate-of-hand

"MAYOR Sam Katz made official yesterday what he's been denying for months -- Brenda Leipsic is his choice for city council in River Heights," is how Mary Agnes Welch began her story last week of the mayor announcing of his slate of candidates for council.

The move itself wasn't shocking -- word had been out there for months that Katz's office was directly involved in recruiting candidates and staffing the campaigns of allies. Welch also revealed Katz's recent poll to find out whether attaching his name to his favourite candidate might help them. (We suppose we now know the answer he got.)

The really shocking thing is how close the lead sentence of that story comes to calling Katz a liar, rightfully so, and no one seems to care that he is.

Katz has been stretching credibility to the limit these past months saying he didn't have a slate and his team wasn't actively supporting certain candidates. It was about as open a lie as possible. And last week Katz in fact confirmed it was a lie.

And no one cares.

Brodbeck is all too happy to call Gary Doer a liar over his disagreement with stated hospital hallway statistics, yet is silent on the mayor's clearly baldfaced lie in the middle of an election. The Freep editorial board utters not a peep.

The other oft-repeated, laughable lie that he gets away with is Katz's favourite line that he's not really a politician.

On the other hand, maybe he's right. A real politician holding such significant office usually has to account for her or his actions and words in the media.

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

While we're on a kind of "what's up with that?" jag, in the ongoing outrage over the incident on the weekend of children shutting a boy in a burning shed, we notice the 'Peg Sun's latest installment prominently featuring Tory critic Kelvin "I'm Not Comments Closed" Goertzen.

"We're not doing kids (who break the law) a favour by giving them a free pass. We're doing them more harm than good," quoth the member for Steinbach. "That doesn't mean incarceration for people under 12, but it does mean some reasonable consequences."

Hear, hear. Who could argue against that? How about some apple pie while you're at it?

But why on earth is Goertzen quoted? Why are his views at all relevant? Does he offer any concrete prescription whatsoever?

No, not at all. Because the Youth Criminal Justice Act is a federal law under the auspices of the his close buddy, the federal member for Provencher, Vic Toews.

As Goertzen's Wikipedia vanity bio says: "Following the 2000 federal election, Goertzen also worked as an advisor to Provencher Member of Parliament Vic Toews and was a key local organizer for Toews in the 2000, 2004 and 2005 federal elections."

We trust that Rochelle Squires was instructed by her desk to contribute the free ride quote to this not terribly illuminating story, as we can't imagine any self-respecting journalist taking this on under her own volition.

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

While we're perusing the 'Peg Sun -- a frequently unpleasant task -- today Bunkbeck continues to champion provincially-appointed marriage commissioners who are not happy about performing same-sex marriages.

"All the guy [a particular local former commissioner who is going to court over the issue] wants is the same rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that rabbis, ministers and priests have," Tom writes.

Well, let's see here. He is in fact not a rabbi, minister and priest. He was an officer of the state, and thus totally subject to upholding civil rights. And same-sex marriage was clearly determined as a civil right by the Supreme Court.

If he was uncomfortable performing duties required by a civil law, as an officer of the government, then perhaps he should enroll in a seminary of his choice and thus be able to discriminate against whoever he wanted, behind a curtain of ample protection of a religious institution.

We wonder if Brodbeck would be so sympathetic if the former commissioner's personal covictions led him to refuse marrying black people, for example?

Partners in the crime of serial inconsistency

Yesterday we read Bunkbeck painting a picture of Gary Doer descending into Kim Jong Il-like delusion for simply pointing out that the media has been soft beyond reason on the opposition's hypocrisy: ringing the bells in a futile stunt last session to try and force an inquiry into the Crocus affair (that worked really well), thereby not fulfilling their sworn parliamentary duties; and getting plenty of column inches and airtime since then bitching about not returning to the House at the crack of September.

Of course the answer to why they are getting away with this hypocrisy in the media is simple. It serves the media's interests to have it both ways.

They thrive on conflict and controversy, even when there is little substance behind it. So despite the fact that Crocus has been examined at depth and there seems little more to find out, the call for a public inquiry -- notwithstanding its dubious utility and great expense -- would serve the media and opposition well as a circus to drive their business. So holding the opposition to account for their shirking of responsibility is out of the question.

Similarly, simply dismissing the opposition's gripes about not going into the House as early as they would like -- even though it is they who scuttled the deal that would have meant an earlier start -- wouldn't serve the media agenda either.

So letting the Tories and Libs get away with terminal inconsistency is completely understandable from the Manitoba media's narrow agenda.

Though it may serve the media and the opposition reasonably well, unfortunately it's not much of a public service.

Now, to the substance of what the premier said that seemed to tick off Tom so much -- if the opposition would have actually used their time more constructively during the spring session instead of pursuing a miscalculated stunt, and actually asked questions of the government about these important issues they now raise, one could take their whining a little more seriously.

For example, Jon Gerrard grouses that it is vital to get into the House because Manitoba's job creation stats don't yet match Alberta's.

However, in the last session neither he nor little Kevin asked one single question about job creation.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

They actually opposed the creation of 1,100 jobs in Winnipeg via OlyWest.

Did our intrepid gallery report that? Of course not. Why would they?

Well, with the announcement of a new session starting next month, the opposition parties can now surely stop complaining about the break in between sittings in the leg and get busy working on their best shots for QP.

And perhaps, just perhaps, this will encourage Don (CSI Tuxedo) Orchard to focus more on prepping Hugh for the bad theatre called the legislature, instead of sharpening his shiv aimed straight at Denis Rocan's back.

Rona, the how-not-to person

As the smoke clears from the federal Tories' non-announcement Tuesday about their upcoming environmental legislation , it is increasingly clear that when we actually do see details of their alternative to Kyoto, it will do three things: a) repeat pollution control measures that already exist in federal law, b) steal from the much-maligned former Liberal Kyoto plan (except the stuff that would actually reduce net greenhouse gas emissions), and, c) instead of decrease them, actually increase emissions.

Oh, yeah, and CBC radio reports that although Ralph Klein hasn't seen the "plan" yet, he apparently has no concerns about its potential impact on the Alberta oilpatch whatsoever. Wow. No shit.

It's all just tickety-boo for the former Alberta government official, now environment minister, isn't it?

Well, maybe not. Thanks to Greg Weston and the Sun papers we find out that when the hugely-maned, power-dressed Ayn Rand fan appeared before a House of Commons committee recently about her "plan", she, um -- well, how shall we say? -- lied like a two-bit rug all over the place.

Some of the nose-stretchers she told the committee -- on the parliamentary record -- included:

- Misrepresenting non-Kyoto-related aid as part of an attempt to discredit emissions trading: "at least $100 million of money that was used to purchase international (carbon) credits" -- aid that went to developing countries to do environmental work like cleaning up pollution. (In fact zero dollars has been spent on emissions trading by the federal government to-date, although the Martin government had intended to spend some $20 million.)

- Misrepresenting a consultants' study in order to make the erroneous claim that electricity costs would rise 65% in Ontario and 40% in British Columbia if Canada tried to meet its Kyoto protocol commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 6%.

She also got a Washington-based think tank actually saying they were "horrified" that Ambrose misrepresented their statements outlining shortcomings with emissions trading as a good reason why Canada should not live up to its Kyoto commitments. (They were actually saying emissions trading doesn't go far enough. Though that was kind of missing from Ambrose's comments.)

When the Sun chain can't stand the stink of the baldfaced lying of their ideological sisters and brothers, you might think the Harperites could have a little problem coming their way.

Ah, well. How bad could it possibly be when the future of our planet is in the hands of a Fountainhead aficionado like Rona? After all, we can't let petty concerns like climate change and the environment get in the way of freewill, and all, can we?

So it gives us no pause in our confidence in her when it was reported Ambrose felt that although BC's Spotted Owls number just 17, she does not feel they are threatened and therefore they do not merit any special protection.

These sorts of views should come as no surprise, for as Ayn herself wrote: "[O]bserve that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for "harmony with nature"—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears."

Watch out, polar bears. Rona's coming.

Man of the people

"Manitobans are tired of seeing news releases and want to see action," Hugh McFading is quoted in today's 'Peg Sun.

He's finally done it. After months of flailing around with empty rhetoric and calling his opponents Communists, the opposition leader has at last hit the nail on the head.

This is what we have been hearing for months now in the coffee shops, that Manitobans are at their breaking point with government news releases jamming their inboxes. They want them cleaned out immediately and expect the Doer government to get on with the unpleasant job.

Touché, sir. Touché.

Smokin' some more poll ...

Unfortunately, we can't help ourselves.

Today we are informed of more topics from last month's Probe survey that queried a portion of the decreasing number of Manitobans who answer their phones these days. Apparently, it not only asked people on subjects ranging from investments to provincial party preference to favourite tissue paper to most important public issue, but also inquired about how well Sam Katz was doing as mayor.

We are told he is doing a little less well than a year ago -- though going from 76-69% in approval is generally nothing to have much of a cry about.

But then, on the completely hypothetical question seemingly raised by Freep scribe Bart Kives about whether Sam would be in trouble if some unnamed high-profile challenger had entered the ring, Probe poo-bah Lloyd Fridfinnson opined, "That goes without saying. If there was another 'name' out there, he'd have been vulnerable." (We guess McKay was prognosticating elsewhere yesterday.)

"That goes without saying"? "Vulnerable"? Really?

So, that's the state of polling in Manitoba these days -- tautology?

Certainly that just 17% of Katz's supposed 69% support is "very well" as opposed to 52% "fairly well" is not all one would hope if you were a Sam booster. But we doubt it would be something Sam and his Tory strategists are getting all that worked up about.

Not to mention you have to go to the sidebar and notice that Katz is almost exactly where he was two years ago, shortly after being elected. Back then, Probe assessed his approval at 71% compared to today's 69%. A statistically insignificant difference.

This was right after he defeated heavy-hitter (literally and figuratively) Dan Vandal.

In a by-election.

Without the advantage of incumbancy.

It goes without saying he would be vulnerable? Really?

Perhaps. Just maybe. But as we state again neither the Probe nor the Free Press has an iota of information to back up this truism.

Apart from being an excuse for the Free Press to strongly imply its frustration that there is not really a race on for the mayor's chair, the story and the information about the poll is virtually meaningless.

--------

However, the OTHER poll story in today's paper is interesting. Sam is reportedly polling to find out if he has enough royal jelly to share with his preferred council candidates. In other words, if he came out of the closet and declared there was a Sam slate would it help or not? Good question. We suspect not, but we suppose we will find out what answer they get soon.

And to poor Mark Lubosch who seemingly thought that there was perhaps honour at city hall and took Sam at his word that he wouldn't run anyone against him -- hopefully the scales have finally fallen from Mark's eyes. Assuming he's re-elected, he may want to reevaluate his relationship with the mayor's office. (Hint: They're not your friends. They don't like you.)

---------

And further to the item about Shelly Glover...

We received several emails from people apparently in the know who say Shelly had long ago abandoned the thought of running provincially and was far more engaged on federal issues, like the Young Offenders Act, or whatever it's called now.

Also, they say the Harperites think St. B is a potential steal next time around, even more in the target window than Wpg South Centre.

Well, these points are remotely plausible, we suppose. And in the last election both St. B and South Centre showed margins between the Libs and Conservatives of only 5 or 6 points.

(Though a repeat of the near-perfect anti-Liberal storm, we would submit, seems unlikely. If Harper wins a majority, it will likely be on general performance approval and the Liberals not providing a real alternative, not on anger against the Libs. So we think their chances of growing their margins in either St. B or South Centre to the point of victory is not very high.)

But the most interesting point about the "in the know" emails we received were the definitive statements about when Glover made this choice to forget provincial politics and go federal. These definitive statements ranged anywhere from a year ago to just last spring.

Hmm. We are still willing to bet that if Shelly thought she had a good shot at being a cabinet minister in an a Huey government in Manitoba, she'd take that over the remote prospect of being a backbencher in Ottawa.

Smoking polls

Sooooo, let's get this straight. The latest Probe poll says the NDP and Tories are tied. It says the Hugh-Tang Clan is down a few points from the summer, but the same as last March.

The 'Toba Liberals are up -- to their highest point in god-knows-how-long.

What's going on Dr. McKay? What is causing all this seismic toing and froing?

Well, in June we were told the PCs were up largely because they had a brand spankin' new leader and because the Harper Tory "brand" was hot, transferring some of its heat to their provincial cousins.

OK, what about now? Why are they going down?

Dr. McKay says Hugh hasn't been getting out enough and the federal Tory honeymoon is over.

Really? Let's take a look at that.

As for the Harper honeymoon being over -- yes this seems to be true in Ontario, BC and Quebec. But doesn't appear to be the case here, as a recent Ekos Poll puts them at a soaring 43% support in Manitoba/Saskatchewan. Only in the Atlantic and Alberta are they more popular.

Hugh's not been getting out enough? Well, that's a tough one to put any meat on. Certainly he can't already be considered old hat, can he?

OK, then the kicker question: Mr. Scott McKay, of Probe Research, why is Jon Gerrard's dynamic team of Liberals surging to the relatively stratospheric levels of 18%? Was it because out of two Liberal MLAs they had two polar opposite positions on Spirited Energy? Have Kevin's 800 petitions on Crocus finally borne fruit?

No answer.

Let's take this from FP editor Bob Cox's blog in July explaining why the FP-Probe poll only asks party preference, without attaching leaders' names: "Leaders do have an impact on their party’s popularity. But the leader’s popularity is bound up with the party’s popularity fairly closely." And this: "If the Conservatives stay at their current levels, it will show today’s numbers were not caused by a one-time event such as the publicity generated by Hugh McFadyen’s election as leader."

So, that would lead one to think that the Liberals' surge is due to the rising popularity of Jon Gerrard.

Is that even remotely credible?

And what's the reason given for a rise in the Green vote by McKay -- disaffected New Democrats. Did he ask these folks why they are now supporting the Greens? Does he even know if they are coming from previous NDP voters?

The real issue is this, riffing off what we've said in this space before -- Probe (and ergo the Free Press) doesn't know why the numbers go up or down. McKay's quotes in the paper are mere guesses -- as are the subsequent analyses of Free Press boffins. Probe has no particular data to show what's going on. They say infrastructure is a hot rising issue. It may be, but there is no info whatsoever to demonstrate it is driving voting preference.

The FP-Probe ongoing political polling is as unilluminating as it is frequently just wrong, like it was in the lead up to the 2003 election, significantly over-estimating NDP support (including reported massive support in the southwest quadrant of Winnipeg, including ridings like Tuxedo and Charleswood).

We feel forced to remind readers about the valid warnings from McKay's former boss, Angus Reid, that we featured back in July about the sorry state of public domain polling these days:

"Higher and higher refusal rates due to things like voicemail and call display screening are what Reid calls 'the big dirty secret of the industry.'

"Further, he warns, is that media organizations that pay for polling are doing it today increasingly on the cheap. 'No one's paying for really good high-quality polling,' Reid says in the same article."

Or, as we might otherwise put it, knowledge is power however a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.