Jaffer queries got preferential treatment (from govt): MPs

[RedHot25]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...00430/20100430

The documents reveal Jaffer cheerfully approached personal contacts in six different ministerial offices, and his queries were dealt with swiftly and sometimes as a "priority." Jaffer often used a parliamentary email address assigned to his wife, then-cabinet minister Helena Guergis

...

Staff at then-Public Works Minister Christian Paradis' office went to great lengths to get the pair information.


Paradis' director of parliamentary affairs, Sebastien Togneri, pushed bureaucrats at the highest levels of the department to arrange a meeting with Glemaud and review a project that would put solar panels on the rooftops of government buildings.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/201...on-period.html

The documents show that on one occasion last summer, Jaffer got an official to expedite his request for government money from the fund for an environmental project

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...00430/20100430

The documents reveal Jaffer cheerfully approached personal contacts in six different ministerial offices, and his queries were dealt with swiftly and sometimes as a "priority." Jaffer often used a parliamentary email address assigned to his wife, then-cabinet minister Helena Guergis

...

Staff at then-Public Works Minister Christian Paradis' office went to great lengths to get the pair information.


Paradis' director of parliamentary affairs, Sebastien Togneri, pushed bureaucrats at the highest levels of the department to arrange a meeting with Glemaud and review a project that would put solar panels on the rooftops of government buildings.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/201...on-period.html

The documents show that on one occasion last summer, Jaffer got an official to expedite his request for government money from the fund for an environmental project

I'm surprised the Conservative apologists haven't commented yet.

This is getting interesting, the proverbial straws are piling up on the camels back.

So far, voters haven't punished Harper in the polls for the Cons recent 'problems', but if things continue to pile on, I'd have to think we'll eventually see him take a hit on the polls.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm surprised the Conservative apologists haven't commented yet.

This is getting interesting, the proverbial straws are piling up on the camels back.

So far, voters haven't punished Harper in the polls for the Cons recent 'problems', but if things continue to pile on, I'd have to think we'll eventually see him take a hit on the polls.

We're at a real deadlock right now. Where would Conservative voters go? Outside of Downtown Toronto and West Montreal, the Liberals are not competitive.

If the NDP was willing to get rid of Layton, step back from Trade Unionism and move to the centre on business/fiscal issues, you could probably see the party's star rising along the same lines of the Liberal Democrats in the UK.

[sa226]

Originally Posted by peter12

We're at a real deadlock right now. Where would Conservative voters go? Outside of Downtown Toronto and West Montreal, the Liberals are not competitive.

If the NDP was willing to get rid of Layton, step back from Trade Unionism and move to the centre on business/fiscal issues, you could probably see the party's star rising along the same lines of the Liberal Democrats in the UK.

Ya no kidding, with the conservatives beginning to grow stale and the Liberals being completely incompetent, there won't be a majority gov't for 10-20 years.

Sooner or later (Probably sooner) voters will get tired of these 2 and look elsewhere.

If the NDP was more than just a protest party they could make some real headway. A charismatic leader with a shift in philosophy at the head of the NDP could be what this country needs to stir what has been a boring and embarrassing Canadian political landscape.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by sa226

Ya no kidding, with the conservatives beginning to grow stale and the Liberals being completely incompetent, there won't be a majority gov't for 10-20 years.

Sooner or later (Probably sooner) voters will get tired of these 2 and look elsewhere.

If the NDP was more than just a protest party they could make some real headway. A charismatic leader with a shift in philosophy at the head of the NDP could be what this country needs to stir what has been a boring and embarrassing Canadian political landscape.

Actually I think the Conservative brand is growing. All governments become corrupt. Let's not forget, before we point fingers at the Conservatives, that the previous Liberal government was responsible for one of the biggest public scandals in Canadian history.

Where I work, we've done some polling and mapping out of Canadian public opinion and voting patterns; it's shocking how national the Conservative vote is when compared to the Liberals especially. The Conservatives are basically a legitimate party in every region of this country except for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

For full disclosure, I will say that I work for a conservative-oriented non-profit organization.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by peter12

Actually I think the Conservative brand is growing. All governments become corrupt. Let's not forget, before we point fingers at the Conservatives, that the previous Liberal government was responsible for one of the biggest public scandals in Canadian history.

Speaking for the government, Transport and Infrastructure Minister John Baird defended the lobbying registry, which he said was the government's first action after the "robbery" of the federal sponsorship scandal under the Liberals.
"Mr. Jaffer got no grants, no money, Mr. Speaker, as a result of any of the meetings," Baird told the House. "Compare this to the previous Liberal government, when millions of dollars went missing and the Liberal Party had to return some of the kickbacks they received from taxpayers."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/201...#ixzz0mbHzn600

Originally Posted by peter12

For full disclosure, I will say that I work for a conservative-oriented non-profit organization.

That one ? (I'm just kidding).

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by peter12

Actually I think the Conservative brand is growing. All governments become corrupt. Let's not forget, before we point fingers at the Conservatives, that the previous Liberal government was responsible for one of the biggest public scandals in Canadian history.

Where I work, we've done some polling and mapping out of Canadian public opinion and voting patterns; it's shocking how national the Conservative vote is when compared to the Liberals especially. The Conservatives are basically a legitimate party in every region of this country except for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

For full disclosure, I will say that I work for a conservative-oriented non-profit organization.

Just curious what you mean that the Conservative vote is shocking compared to the Liberals. Aren't the Liberals a legitimate party in every province except Alberta?

[sa226]

Originally Posted by peter12

Actually I think the Conservative brand is growing. All governments become corrupt. Let's not forget, before we point fingers at the Conservatives, that the previous Liberal government was responsible for one of the biggest public scandals in Canadian history.

Where I work, we've done some polling and mapping out of Canadian public opinion and voting patterns; it's shocking how national the Conservative vote is when compared to the Liberals especially. The Conservatives are basically a legitimate party in every region of this country except for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

For full disclosure, I will say that I work for a conservative-oriented non-profit organization.

That is interesting, but if it is growing then why are the ratings still deadlocked with the tories holding a small lead?

I'm not starting a political debate, I also vote conservative. I find it actually impressive that the Conservatives are "growing their brand" despite a poor public image.

I would bet a large majority of a voters decision is based on whether they like the guy or not. I wonder if the sentiment towards Obama would be any different if he had the charm and charisma of Harper.

If I'm not mistaken, Trudeau was one of more famous and loved Politicians in Canadian history, despite being for all intents and purposes a "bad" prime minister.

At risk of being captain obvious, a good leader is someone who people want to follow and believe in. Harper kind of creeps me out, yet I still vote for him.

All I was saying was that with the Canadian political landscape the way it is, if some great Charismatic leader rode in on a white horse and took the country by storm, I think the voters would jump on his\her bandwagon in a heartbeat.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Just curious what you mean that the Conservative vote is shocking compared to the Liberals. Aren't the Liberals a legitimate party in every province except Alberta?

If you look at polling data mapped out corresponding to constituency, the Liberal vote is mainly concentrated in downtown Toronto and the West end of Montreal. They do not have significant concentration anywhere else in the country.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by sa226

That is interesting, but if it is growing then why are the ratings still deadlocked with the tories holding a small lead?

I'm not starting a political debate, I also vote conservative. I find it actually impressive that the Conservatives are "growing their brand" despite a poor public image.

I would bet a large majority of a voters decision is based on whether they like the guy or not. I wonder if the sentiment towards Obama would be any different if he had the charm and charisma of Harper.

If I'm not mistaken, Trudeau was one of more famous and loved Politicians in Canadian history, despite being for all intents and purposes a "bad" prime minister.

At risk of being captain obvious, a good leader is someone who people want to follow and believe in. Harper kind of creeps me out, yet I still vote for him.

All I was saying was that with the Canadian political landscape the way it is, if some great Charismatic leader rode in on a white horse and took the country by storm, I think the voters would jump on his\her bandwagon in a heartbeat.

I think it's about shifting values, myself. Check out a poll on Canadian values here.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Just curious what you mean that the Conservative vote is shocking compared to the Liberals. Aren't the Liberals a legitimate party in every province except Alberta?

I would agree, overall, but I think he is referring to the gist of stuff like this:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives continue to hold the edge over the Liberals among decided voters, a new poll suggests, even as the leaders of both parties suffer from dismal approval ratings.

The Tories garnered 31.9 per cent support in the survey to the Liberals' 26.6 per cent. The New Democratic Party was at 17.6 per cent, the Greens at 10.9 per cent and the Bloc Québécois at 9.7 per cent.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/201...#ixzz0mbKuqeyH

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think it's about shifting values, myself. Check out a poll on Canadian values here.

That's not a longitudinal study so therefore you have to provide additional data to show a shift. All that shows is a snapshot. Who knows from that if Canadians are becoming more or less conservative. The 67% of people who think that marriage is between a man and woman really stands out. What was the percentage of people who thought that 10 years ago? My guess is higher than 67% which would show a shift in the opposite direction that the report concludes.

The only slide on that page that shows a trend is the facile last slide.

All in all an interesting poll but the conclusions are not compelling and are not a product of the data in the report. I guess that's fine for a foundation with a political bias but lets not pretend that that report has actual statistical merit beyond showing a snapshot of Canadian attitudes.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

That's not a longitudinal study so therefore you have to provide additional data to show a shift. All that shows is a snapshot. Who knows from that if Canadians are becoming more or less conservative. The 67% of people who think that marriage is between a man and woman really stands out. What was the percentage of people who thought that 10 years ago? My guess is higher than 67% which would show a shift in the opposite direction that the report concludes.

The only slide on that page that shows a trend is the facile last slide.

All in all an interesting poll but the conclusions are not compelling and are not a product of the data in the report. I guess that's fine for a foundation with a political bias but lets not pretend that that report has actual statistical merit beyond showing a snapshot of Canadian attitudes.

I don't really buy longitudinal studies. Look at Michael Adams' stuff. He's been doing the same studies for 30+ years and gets exactly the same stuff.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't really buy longitudinal studies. Look at Michael Adams' stuff. He's been doing the same studies for 30+ years and gets exactly the same stuff.

Buy it or not you have to demonstrate a shift to state that there has been a shift.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Buy it or not you have to demonstrate a shift to state that there has been a shift.

While I agree, and the poll is the start of a long-term longitudinal study, I personally find snapshots more compelling. You get the data and then you have to qualify your conclusions, which is what we are in the process of doing right now.

Adams's stuff is just a repeated confirmation of his own bias.

[Pastiche]

I look at the data in the Manning study and it states to me that Canadians are shifting left mroe than anything. 33% think marriage isn't about man and woman, 40% don't think abortion is morally wrong. Ask yourself what these attitudes were 30 hell even 10 years ago. I don't have the data but I'm sure you'd find that they have shifted to the left.

The rest of the study is largely flat. The family question is thrown out because that's not a 'conservative' value moreover you're biasing the respondent by simply asking that question in that way. The learn from what worked in the past questions and small change very weakly demonstrate 'conservative' ideology.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

I look at the data in the Manning study and it states to me that Canadians are shifting left mroe than anything. 33% think marriage isn't about man and woman, 40% don't think abortion is morally wrong. Ask yourself what these attitudes were 30 hell even 10 years ago. I don't have the data but I'm sure you'd find that they have shifted to the left.

The rest of the study is largely flat. The family question is thrown out because that's not a 'conservative' value moreover you're biasing the respondent by simply asking that question in that way. The learn from what worked in the past questions and small change very weakly demonstrate 'conservative' ideology.

I think it's a reasonable challenge to the status quo argument that Canadians are standard centre-left voters. The numbers clearly state that is not the case.

Canadians describe themselves as centrists, but a large plurality have attitudes more in line with some form of traditional conservatism or classical liberalism.

The study wasn't supposed to demonstrate a confirmation of our own prejudice. If anything, it's more of a challenge to the conservative movement to generate policy and ideas that appeal to this large group of diverse people.

[Pastiche]

Sure and the study does a good job of making that challenge. I would have been more impressed if it didn't so obviously try to preclude the findings that Canadians are conservative through the survey's design. That's essentially the problem. Asking only questions related to 'conservative' values will gradually bias the respondent over the course of the survey and just isn't as robust as asking open ended questions. Moreover, it's a relatively narrow definition of conservatism.

I find it odd that in light of the methodological 'issues' with this survey that you go on to criticize Adams who I think does a much better job in making an un-biased survey. I'd be interested to hear what specific criticisms you have of Adams' methodology because to me they look to be clearly superior to the report in questino.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't like how this Jaffer thing smells, however if he received no money at all then the problem is more about Aides taking meetings that they shouldn't have taken.

The direct email from his wife's account to the Minister of Transportation to me is disconcerting to say the least if he was given unfair inside information, but from initial looks that doesn't seem to be the case.

The coke and hooker party aside which hasn't been really proven yet, the real concern is his wife letting him use her office and equipment to do business, and she's been severely dealt with on that part.

Again though the question at the end of this investigation is simply if he did or didn't receive money from the Conservatives and how true the statement is that "He had opened the door to the Prime Ministers office". On that point I don't believe the testimony of his former associate that he "Was so pumped up" that he made his statement by mistake, I believe that Jaffer the SalesMan probably at some point bragged that he had access to the inner sanctum of the government and the ear of the Prime Minister.

I have no problem with how the Cons have handled this so far.

I don't think this is an issue where the government topples, nor is the detainee issue. If the government topples, my gut tells me that the Liberal's who are essentially leadership and moneyless right now would get waxed like the Conservatives did under Kim Campbell.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Sure and the study does a good job of making that challenge. I would have been more impressed if it didn't so obviously try to preclude the findings that Canadians are conservative through the survey's design. That's essentially the problem. Asking only questions related to 'conservative' values will gradually bias the respondent over the course of the survey and just isn't as robust as asking open ended questions. Moreover, it's a relatively narrow definition of conservatism.

I find it odd that in light of the methodological 'issues' with this survey that you go on to criticize Adams who I think does a much better job in making an un-biased survey. I'd be interested to hear what specific criticisms you have of Adams' methodology because to me they look to be clearly superior to the report in questino.

First off, I totally disagree that we focused on a narrow definition of conservatism. That's basically as big a tent as you can erect.

As well, not all the questions we asked are included in the online report. WE asked a variety of questions. This is just the press release.

Second, I haven't examined Adams' methodology from a quantitative perspective, only from a philosophical perspective. For a guy that calls himself a Red Tory, he has absolutely no philosophical foundation to his research.