Received an email this morning; Liberal leader Justin Trudeau "has a message for me." And a few million other people, but whatevs. Here it is:


 Much discussion in the online world about the clothing tastes of casual Justin. The suit and tie pundit crowd seem confused or annoyed. I think it's fine, but neither of us are the target audience. The Canadians that probably didn't wear a suit and tie while enjoying 20 degree summer weather last weekend are, and I'll let them draw their own conclusions.

If there's anything that annoys me about this video, its that whoever shot it held their damned iPhone vertically, leaving those big black bars on the side of the screen. Just turn your phone sideways and, boom, lovely widescreen video. You're welcome.

However, you know what I liked best about this video? That since Justin became leader, the party has raised over $1 million from 14,000 donors, including 6,000 first-time contributors.

After a BC election radio leaders debate, NDP leader Adrian Dix faced the press, and questions on his Kinder Surprise. And it wasn't pretty. Between back-dating memos and forward-dating decisions, Dix's messaging is more difficult to follow than the plot of Inception.

There's an election happening on the left coast, and for all the preoccupation last year about the BC Conservatives, it's quickly shaping up as a choice between Christy Clark's BC Liberals and Adrian Dix's BC NDP.

Heck, even BC Conservative leader John Cummins admitted to reporters that, in the last election, he was unhappy with his incumbent and instead cast a protest vote for the BC NDP candidate. Apparently he didn't even consider voting for the candidate of the party he now leads. So I'm not sure why anyone else would either.

Anyway, apparently the NDP have been making hay with a claim that the Liberals have been hiding Clark in their campaign material, and a Tumblr has been created with alleged examples. Fairly common campaign stuff, but usually you don't throw this rock when you're sheltering in a glass house.

Because another Tumblr has popped-up, and hey, where's Dix?


Apparently 90 per cent of NDP campaign web sites and signs also contain no mention of their leader. That has to be embarrassing. Why are they hiding Dix? And why doth they protest so muchly?

The Liberals and Justin Trudeau now have ads of their own, and they stand in stark contrast to the negative Conservative personal attack ads of last week. Take a look:



And a French ad that's a little different visually:

 

Have to run; I'll have some thoughts later.

On Thursday morning a London radio station, FM96 (which may or may not have London's best rock) uploaded a humorous video parody of the Conservative Party of Canada's anti-Justin Trudeau attack ads. Essentially, the "Conservatives" warned electing Trudeau meant "four years of your wife wanting to sleep with the Prime Minister." Better, therefore, to stick with Stephen Harper.

A humorous parody of over the top attack ads, to be sure, and one that was widely shared on social media during the day. Until late afternoon, when the video was suddenly pulled from YouTube. Clicking play left one with the error message: "Removed by user."


So, why was the ad removed? Did the morning shock jocks have second thoughts in the bright light of late afternoon? Were they pressured or threatened into taking it down? Several tweets to @FM96Rocks asking why the video was taken down went unanswered, although the dead video link remained online on the station's blog:

Then, Thursday night, Peter Mansbridge played a clip of the "briefly online" parody ad on the At Issue segment of CBC's The National, and all and sundry found it amusing. And suddenly, a tweet from @FM96Rocks referenced the CBC appearance and included a new link to the video, not mentioning its temporary removal.


And here it is, online once more:




Except, not quite. The eagle-eyed among you who watched the first parody video that was uploaded will note several edits were made to the new version. For example, the original contained a Conservative logo and authorization text, like that seen in the image below. This is missing from the new version.



Also missing is a line saying the ad was authorized by "Conservative nerds for Stephen Harper" or something along those lines.

So, why the edits? Did the Conservative Party claim copyright and raise the specter of legal action for using their logo and authorization text? I have e-mailed a query on that topic to Conservative Party director of Communications Fred Delorey:

Hello Fred, 

On Thursday morning, a London radio station aired a parody of the Conservative Party's recent Justin Trudeau-related ad campaign. Late Thursday afternoon, that video was "removed by user" from YouTube. Thursday night, it was reuploaded by the radio station, but edited to, among other things, remove a Conservative logo and authorization text. 

Can you confirm if the Conservative Party contacted the radio station about this ad and, if so, if the party requested or required the video to be removed and/or edits made? 

Sincerely, 

Jeff Jedras 

I will report on any response I receive from Fred. I will note, though, that a copyright claim by the CPC would be ironic, given that their attack ads used footage without the permission of those that created it. Something which seemed not to bother the Conservatives.

Speaking of which, some of the footage they used was shot at a fundraiser for the Canadian Liver Foundation, a fine group which could use your support, so consider making a donation today.

I didn't think the first two were overly effective, but this one has me worried. The Liberal Party needs to respond rapidly before this narrative sets in with Canadians:




UPDATE: It appears this ad has been removed from YouTube "by user." It was a parody video from a radio station in London, that purported to be a Conservative ad warning people not to vote Liberal because then their wives will want to sleep with the Prime Minister, with the tag line of being approved by "Conservative nerds."

UPDATE DEUX: An excerpt from the ad was aired tonight on the At Issue segment of CBC's The National. And it appears the radio station (FM96, which may or may not have London's Best Rock) has re-uploaded the video to its YouTube account.

There's an election underway in British Columbia, and Christy Clark's BC Liberals have launched their first campaign spot:


I suppose it could be a coincidence, but I think someone on the campaign has a sense of humour, as "it's a trap" has become a phrase associated with Admiral Ackbar of Star Wars fame.

Perhaps they didn't have the rights, but I've recut the ad the way it should have been produced:


Trust them when they say NDP economic policies are risky, because Christy Clark and Admiral Ackbar know when things are a trap.

And while the polls may look tough for Clark, and the victory of Darth Dix and the NDP death star may seem assured, Clark used to shoot womprats with her T16 back home, and they're not much bigger than two metres.

So don't count her out.

I hate to use World War Two-related references, as someone will always think I’m invoking Goodwin’s Law. So I hope you can accept that I intend no comparisons to the antagonists of that conflict when I say, as I ponder the end of the Liberal Party of Canada’s leadership race, that I’m reminded of Sir Winston Churchill’s quote:

It was shocking and troubling news when it broke two days ago: the federal government (it's only called the Harper Government when it's doing positive things) announced it would be ending the danger pay allowance for Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

The baffling news from a government supposedly all about the troops (unlike those other commie parties) provoked an immediately negative response, including from comedian and troop supporter (having made several trips to Afghanistan), Rick Mercer:

Harper govt cutting danger pay for soldiers in Afghanistan. bit.ly/16O5q1J - its safe now apparently.
— Rick Mercer (@rickmercer) April 9, 2013

Mercer also noted that, while the Harper Government may think things are safe in Afghanistan, the Harper government apparently disagrees:


This bone-headed decision now being a very public relations (not to mention moral) problem, now the Harper Government begins a game of political hot potato. Where does the responsibility reside? If you think the Prime Minister's Office takes responsibility for the actions of the Harper government, think again:

The Harper government has ordered the Department of National Defence to reconsider a plan to reduce danger pay for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Ah, so now they're the Harper government again. And this totally isn't their fault; or, at least, not the PMO branch of the Harper government. So, no responsibility from the Prime Minister. How about the Defence Minister; Peter?

Staff in Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s office said bureaucrats, not politicians, took the initiative to reduce soldiers’ hazard pay.
...
The decision was made by a hardship pay review committee whose members include a Canadian Armed Forces general-rank officer, a representative of the RCMP, and bureaucrats from Treasury Board and National Defence.
...
The Defence Minister has no power to interfere in the decision, officials said.

So, apparently it's not MacKay's responsibility. He's just the Minister of National Defence, after all. And it's not Harper's responsibility, he's just the Prime Minister. No, when the going gets tough, they hide behind the troops.

It's not a new phenomenon for the Harper government:

Military personnel were asked to dig up dirt on an opposition MP in the wake of revelations Defence Minister Peter MacKay was picked up in a search-and-rescue helicopter from a 2010 fishing trip, defence department records show.

It first emerged in a television report on Sept. 21, 2011, that MacKay’s office ordered a Cormorant helicopter to pick him up from a private lodge on the Gander River in Newfoundland at an estimated cost of $16,000. His destination was the Gander airport, where a Challenger jet was waiting to take him to a government announcement in London, Ont.

The morning of Sept. 22, Royal Canadian Air Force staff — including an officer posted in MacKay’s office — were digging through flight logs to find instances where opposition party MPs took rides aboard military aircraft, according to emails obtained by the Toronto Star.

Perhaps they need a little danger pay at NDHQ as well.

I've been firmly on the record against merger, or a non-aggression pact (deceptively called cooperation -- who doesn't like cooperation?) for at least a year or two now.

I've outlined my reasons at length, from the fact that most statistical evidence indicates it just won't work (you'll lose centre-right Liberals to Harper and strengthen his vote count) to my belief that not having Liberals on the ballot in half the country would be kind of bad for those who think our party should still exist. There's also the somewhat awkward reality that there's no one to cooperate with.

I don't want to rehash all that. I've made my arguments, and I'm happy to let the debate play out and the people have their say.  I think those that argue for it come to their views honestly and, while I disagree, I respect their position.

I do, though, want to address one talking point I've been hearing more and more from Team Non-Aggression Pact: that those who oppose their non-aggression pact are somehow putting "narrow partisan interests" ahead of the greater good, poutine, hockey and all that is holy. Besides being insulting, that argument is nonsensical.

Let me submit this: IF a non-aggression pact was indeed the silver bullet to defeat Stephen Harper, reform the electoral system and return our party to national relevance, and IF I was an unthinking uncaring partisan drone, why on Earth would I NOT support it? Surely it would be the quicker path to redemption, glory and an Ambassadorship to the Federated States of Micronesia than slogging it out as a third place party?

I am opposed to a non-aggression pact precisely because I am NOT putting narrow partisan interests first. Instead, I choose to take the harder road. Not the road of restricting voter choice, not the road of fiddling with ballots behind the scenes to leave people with no choice but to vote the way I want.

Instead, I want to take the harder road, the road of building an alternative vision, of winning the support of Canadians not by restricting their choices, but by offering them a BETTER choice. Because I believe THAT is how you win the lasting and durable support of the electorate.

It is not narrowly partisan to say that just because I don't like Stephen Harper's vision for Canada doesn't mean I like Tom Mulcair's. I believe in a vision of Canada that neither of them shares. That's why I'm supporting a candidate, and a party, whose vision I do share. It is not narrowly partisan to say my be all and end all isn't defeating Stephen Harper; just the opposite, in fact.

There are lots of arguments to make for non-aggression pacts. Accusing those that oppose them as being narrowly partisan is not one of them.

And lastly, it's there's one thing we "narrow partisans" need to stop doing, it's thinking that everyone thinks Stephen Harper is the devil. I assure you, they do not. Most Canadians, while they disagree with many of his policies, and didn't vote for him, think he's a reasonably competent if somewhat stern fellow who has done a reasonable job, all things considered. Thinking otherwise is the biggest mistake we continually make.

Make no mistake -- I fundamentally disagree with him, and I think he should be defeated. But as long as our narrow partisan goal is just to defeat him, we will lose. The non-partisans just don't share that motivation. Until we offer Canadians something better, we're doomed. That's this narrow partisan's take.

Tacked onto the end of an unrelated news release from FedDev Ontario about investing in Ottawa-area technology companies was this seemingly unrelated paragraph. And it illuminates the top four things Canadians care most about, at least according to the Harper government:

As outlined by the Prime Minister, the Government of Canada remains focused on what Canadians care most about: their families, the safety of our streets and communities, their pride in being a citizen of this country, and their personal financial security.

No. 5, presumably, was pandas.

While I am supporting one of the leadership candidates, consider this a public service message: if you’re a Liberal Party of Canada member and you want to vote for leader, you MUST register by March 14, 2013.

You might say I was against the NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration before it was cool. Having somewhat of an interest in the unity of Canada, I’ve long been aware of the emptiness of NDP policy when it comes to handling the unthinkable but not implausible – a referendum on a province leaving confederation – and their duplicitous habit of saying one thing in Quebec, and one thing in the rest of Canada.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has waded into the national unity swamp, with proposed legislation specifying that a bare majority Yes vote would be sufficient to trigger negotiations on Quebec’s secession from Canada.

New Democrat MP Craig Scott tabled Monday what his party is dubbing the “unity bill.”

The bill would repeal the Clarity Act — introduced by former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien after Quebecers came within a hair of voting to secede in 1995 — and replace it with legislation which Mulcair maintained would provide more certainty and be more respectful of Quebecers.

After about two hours sleep, I made the trek downtown from Scarborough bright and early Saturday morning to see if I had a shot at being promoted from alternate to voting delegate, and would have the opportunity to casta vote for Gerard Kennedy in the Ontario Liberal leadership race. Alas, I wasn't on the list, so I could only watch, cheer, persuade, and hope for the best.

I'm increasingly of the belief that the way to cover a political convention, social media-wise, is to Tweet during the day, and provide a more thought-out perspective at night. So that's what I'm going to try to do for my coverage of the Ontario Liberal Party leadership race this weekend, where I'm a Gerard Kennedy alternate and unofficial blogger at large.

Below you'll find a Storify of my tweets during this first, short day of #olpldr. And I do mean short. All that was on the agenda was the official opening and a tribute to outgoing leader Dalton McGuinty. At a federal Liberal convention, that would be five hours at least. The provincial party knocked it out in about an hour-and-a-half.

It was nice enough. Two of his children MC'd the entertainment portion, with brief performances covering every musical genre except opera. There was the video of Dalton with famous people. And then a speech from the man himself. It was touching for the personal notes -- his wish his father could have lived to see him enter politics, his love for his mother and her influence on his life. He reflected more on what he'd accomplished than where he thinks we should go -- natural enough for the setting and occasion  but I'd like to have seen a nod to his view of the path forward.

And then suddenly, and surprisingly, it was over. Not with a bang, seemingly, but with a whimper. And as the delegates began to file from the hall before 9pm, I sat there for a moment with a "is that really it?" feeling. Really, though, it was business like, and so was Dalton. When time has softened the edges of recent dramas, I think history will look well on his tenure.

Otherwise, today was about registering, and connecting with our respective campaigns. And, of course, the hospitality suites. As mentioned, I'm a Kennedy alternate. I'm told our full slate from my riding will be coming, so my chances for promotion are slim to none. I'm still proud to cheer Gerard on though, as he truly is the best choice for Premier, and, as the polls show, to lead the OLP into the next election.

The challenge for Gerard will be to show strong enough on ballot two that a Wynne/Pupatello showdown isn't seen as inevitable. If he can gain enough delegates to get into striking range, he's in the battle and will have a shot at winning his fair share of delegates as ballots continue. But I think he needs to make an early move. He needs someone to come to him early. Otherwise, people will see it as Wynne or Pupatello and they'll pick their horse. We'll see what happens Saturday morning.

Hospitality suite report: lots of food at Charles Sousa's, which was down the street away from the others and was quite spacious. Also, wine and Martinis. Kennedy's was wall-to-wall-packed and had a line to get in. I'm told there was micro brew on tap -- I couldn't get close enough to the bar. All the others had suites as well, but I had to get back to Scarborough.

It's been a busy few days for Liberal leadership candidate Deborah Coyne, doing several media interviews around the launch of her new ebook  Unscripted: A Life Devoted to Building a Better Canada. Here's a few of the interviews where she talks about the book, the leadership race, why she's running, and how she believes we can get more Canadians off the sidelines and engaged in political life once more.

1.  Deborah’s history in the Liberal Party goes back to 1983, when she was elected to then party president Iona Campagnolo’s reform commission. Along with Alf Apps, Ed Roberts, Gordon Gibson and others, she worked for three years on a proposed reform package. One key recommendation, a council of riding presidents, was only implemented a few years ago, proving our party has a long history of studying reform, but less success actually implementing it.
2. She served as Ontario policy chair on John Turner’s successful leadership campaign and would work in the Prime Minister's Office during his brief tenure as Prime Minister.
3. She would first come to national prominence as one of the leaders in the fight against the Meech Lake Accord, which is ironic, as she spent most of her childhood summers at a cottage on the shores of Meech Lake, accessible only by boat. One of her fellow co-founders of the Coalition on the Constitution was Michael Ignatieff’s father, George.
4. A source of inspiration for her decision to seek the leadership was attending Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s “Rally forSanity” in Washington. Knowing the same frustration that drew 250,000 people to the National Mall also holds true in Canada, she decided it can’t just be comedians that give voice to our collective frustration.
5. While a student at Oxford University in England, she established its first Women’s Ice Hockey Club and helped establish a women’s league. She captained the Oxford team her first year, scoring a goal in the inaugural game loss against Cambridge. The league is still going strong today.