"These Questions Continue to be Essential"

The quote above is from Maxime Bernier, as part of an eloquent defense of the long form Census.

But before we get there, it's fun to follow the bouncing ball and see how that old quote found the light of day.

We start with this morning's Toronto Star article with the headline "Even one dissenting Canadian enough to kill long-form census, says Clement". Yes, that headline makes Tony sound a tad silly, but it's not really less sensical than any of his other Census Greatest Hits, which include:

"Insisting you follow the law is state coercion"
"Large sample sizes make up for biased samples"
And who can forget this golden oldie - "StatsCan totally supports this move" (followed by the resignation of the Chief Statistician the next day)

Anyways, Tony took offense to this headline, calling it a "Star Torque" on Twitter.

Luckily, Rosemary Barton recorded Clement's comments:

Barton: "Mr Clement, there were never a 1,000 emails about the census..."

Clement: "Well, I can't speak for Maxime Bernier, but I can tell you that if you have a complaint about the census the last place you're going to complain about is to the census people. You're going to complain to your MP."

Barton: "I know, but if you're the industry minister and you were getting 1,000 complaints a day of whatever nature about the census, you would have told Statistics Canada, 'Hey, there's something going on here, people aren't happy'?"

Clement: "I can't speak for past industry ministers. They have to speak for themselves. But all I can tell you is, that it stands to reason that if you have a complaint about the coercive tactics of a government agency the last place you're going to complain about that is to the government agency. You're going to complain to your duly elected local MP."

Barton: "But then why aren't people tabling all those complaints? because we don't have them."

Clement: "I got a letter in my question period book from a Liberal MP from Richmond Hill who complained to the minister about that very topic. So to say they don't exist is not true."

Barton: "But they're not in the hundreds, they're not in the thousands..."

Clement: "I can't quantify. Even if there's one complaint, if it's a legitimate complaint, even if there's one complaint from a Canadian about the coercive tactics used by a government agency we have to consider that complaint a valid question about public policy."

Barton: "Sure, but we don't change public policy for one person do we?"

Clement: "Why not? If they're right."

Barton: "We change public policy for one person?"

Clement: "If they're right."

Like I said, this isn't really sillier than anything else Clement has said before, so I was ready to let this one pass without a blog comment. But notice this toss-away line from Clement: "I got a letter in my question period book from a Liberal MP from Richmond Hill who complained to the minister about that very topic".

Now, presumably this letter was given to Tony by a staffer in either his or Bernier's office. I guess it didn't occur to them to see what Bernier wrote in response.

Well, it looks like that thought occurred to a few Liberal researchers and, lo and behold, the next day, we get this:



To summarize, Bryon Wilfert wrote Bernier back in 2006 to pass along a constituent's complaint about the Census. Bernier wrote back, giving the best defense of the census we've heard during this 4 month crisis:

"I can assure you that all of the information collected by the census is needed and is used only for statistical purposes. Statistics Canada takes very seriously its legal obligation to protect the privacy and confidentiality of every census respondent. In fact, all census databases, facilities, and networks containing confidential data are physically isolated from any networks outside Statistics Canada. In addition, names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not included in the census dissemination database to protect the privacy of census respondents.

[...]

All of the questions are designed to meet important information requirements that would be extremely difficult to satisfy efficiently from other sources."

[...]

These questions continue to be essential for providing the information needed by governments, businesses, researchers and individual Canadians to shed light on issues of concern to all of us - employment, education, training, transportation, housing, immigration, income support, pensions for seniors, transfer payments, aboriginal issues and many more."

Yes, that's the very same Maxime Bernier who claims he got "thousands of complaints each day" about the Census back in 2006. Then backtracked. Well, at least now we finally have proof of at least one complaint.

This is just another example of how badly managed this issue has been from the start. Just when the story should be dying down, Clement and Bernier do their best to breathe new life into it.

Now, I'm sure some of the friendly anonymous commentators who frequent this blog will point out that Wilfert is just as hypocritical on this as Bernier. But at least Wilfert has a defence - the Liberal position has never been that there are no complaints.

After all, only Tony Clement seems to believe that one complaint justifies a reckless change in public policy.

Issue Management

In all the pages and pages of Census e-mails and documents released Tuesday, the excerpt above is probably the most telling. Just 2 days before the Census changes were made public, an internal Communications Plan was circulated proclaiming "These changes will not have a negative impact on the quality of the Census. Response rates and data quality will be comparable to previous censuses."

In the margin was a lone voice of reason - "Really? Won't some stakeholders argue the opposition?".

I'd say that's the understatement of the year.

This document reveals so much about what went wrong for the government and how one of the unlikeliest fiascos in Canadian political history was conceived. Just two days before the move was announced, they solicited "initial comments" on the plan...and it occurred to the government some people might oppose it.

Presumably this "grid on reactions" was heavy on passive aggressive tweeting.

Most alarming was the party line - that the response rate would be comparable and these changes would not have any negative impact on the quality of the data. This, despite warnings to the contrary from Statistics Canada three months earlier:


In short, Clement had been warned by the experts but decided to forge ahead. Rather than mount a reasoned defense of these changes, his strategy was to hope no one paid attention - after all, the Queen was in town, the World Cup was in full swing, and it was summertime! And really, who enjoys talking about statistics in the summertime? (besides me)

So Clement's office employed a "communications strategy" which removed all mentions of their involvement in this decision, in the hopes they wouldn't have to do any communicating:



They were not prepared, and it shows in the aftermath. Three days after the change was announced, Clement's Communications Director e-mailed StatsCan asking if any other G8 countries used voluntary censuses. This is a fact so basic you'd need it for any sort of communications strategy - clearly, there was no expectation they'd actually have to defend the move.

Two weeks later, his office was asking questions about what this change meant when it came to releasing data 92 years later (as is done for Census data) - to me, this isn't so much a communications problem, as a sign they hadn't at all considered the ramifications of their actions.

Clement himself had his facts wrong on his first public statement about the changes (on Twitter, 3 days later), and he did not issue a real defence until 9 days after the change was announced, when he first mentioned the "coercion" argument (on Twitter). He answered questions for the first time two days later - again on Twitter, and again it showed he did not fully understand the issue.

At this point, the government was still hoping the issue would die. Sure, statisticians were angry and there had been newspaper editorials but the story was just too boring to last longer than a week or two. After all, it wasn't like Helena Guergis was involved in it.

But the story didn't die. So sometime around July 15th, the government decided to fight back. Clement's office asked StatsCan for information about "Jedi responses" and prosecutions (yes, 3 weeks into this story, they still weren't aware no one has ever gone to jail over not filling out a Census form). Three days later, Dmitri Soudas sent out a letter on the topic. The first mention of the PMO in any of the released documents falls on this same weekend, so it seems likely this was when they first started taking it seriously (how could they not after watching Clement flail around?). That was also when Maxime Bernier started pontificating, either by coincidence or PMO design.

Clement also began doing more interviews on the topic.

In retrospect, he should have stuck to Twitter.

Despite knowing very well that StatsCan had spoken against the change (and had begun saying things in e-mails like "with the utmost respect, the answer you provided is factually incorrect"), Clement made it sound like everything was hunky dory at StatsCan.

This, despite the Head Statistician making it perfectly clear he was not cool with this. Notice how he suggests editing the following statement:


To this:


Despite all evidence to the contrary, Clement kept up the idea that StatsCan supported the move. At McGill. In a Globe & Mail interview. His office kept pushing for Sheikh to validate the government's decision - something they had made it clear they could not do. As StatsCan e-mails show, they believed Clement had "decided to put the ball in [their] court".

So on July 21st, Munir Sheikh resigned. By putting the ball in Sheikh's court, Clement turned a bad news story into the Great Census Crisis of 2010.

And now, thanks to these documents, the story has morphed into one of whether or not Tony Clement lied. Generally speaking, stories about lies and cover ups are easier for the general public to digest than ones on survey sample methodology.

This can all be traced back to that first "won't some stakeholders argue the opposite" comment I posted off the top. Simply put, Clement's office didn't understand what they were doing and didn't expect anyone to care.

As a result, we're now into week 7 of a story that simply refuses to die. So if Tony Clement feels lonely, he really has no one to blame but himself.


For background on Census issue, you can read "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Census (But Were Afraid To Ask)"

7 Weeks Later, Tony Clement Springs Into Action

Actually, his proposed changes are rather meek, designed only to avoid a court challenge:

Stung by francophone anger, the Harper government is adding questions on French and English skills to the obligatory short-form 2011 census.

It’s a bid to quell the linguistic minority's fears that scrapping a longer mandatory survey will make it harder to measure their presence in Canada.

These questions were part of the 40-page long-form census the Conservatives are making voluntary over the objections of a broad range of economists, statisticians, provincial governments and researchers who warn it will undermine the reliability of Statistics Canada's data.

The decision came the same day a francophone appeal of the government's decision to abandon the obligatory long-form census scored a modest victory. A Federal Court judge agreed to expedite the French-Canadian group's application for an injunction against Ottawa's census changes.

In the same breath, however, Industry Minister Tony Clement also announced the Tories plan to chip away even further at the coercions put in place to convince Canadians to fill out Statistics Canada census forms and surveys.

He said the Tories will bring in legislation this fall to remove jail time as a possible penalty for refusing to fill out any and all surveys. This includes the still mandatory short-form census, which until now was composed of about eight questions, as well as all other surveys conducted by Statistics Canada.

This begs two questions:

1. With the Census having gone to print on Monday, what will the additional cost of this change be?

2. With the threat of jail time gone, why not make the long form mandatory? I thought the coercion of jail time was the entire rationale for this change?

Being Tony Clement

Tony Clement, explaining the government's census logic:

“Yeah, there are groups that are upset” about the government's decision, Clement told reporters.

“Hey, listen, they had a good deal going,” he added. “They got good, quality data and the government of Canada was the heavy.”

Realizing fewer people will fill out a voluntary form, the government will send it to twice as many households, Clement said. He said businesses or others who don't think the data is good enough can pay to get their own surveys done.

So, to summarize:

1. Cities, hospitals, businesses, and a slew of other Canadian groups used to get "good, quality data" to help them make decisions, plan programs, and offer services to Canadians. This was a bad thing.

2. Given Clement's use of the past tense, he concedes they will no longer get "good, quality data".

3. The government used to pay for this freeloading, which was unfair.

4. The government will now pay an extra $30 million under Clement's new plan.

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Census (But Were Afraid To Ask)

The Great Census Crisis of 2010 has its first music video. It’s only a matter of time before angry mobs of statisticians take to the streets holding “I’m with Fellegi signs” and chanting “What do we want? Mandatory long form Census! When do we want? Every 5 years!”. Don’t worry, if you can’t make the rallies, you can always show your support symbolically by wearing a Census-themed pocket protector.

Now, I fully recognize that during the summer the only random sampling Canadians are concerned about involves six packs. So for those of you who haven’t been grabbed by the witty “senseless Census” headlines, I present a summary of what the !%@# is going on.


WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS ALL ABOUT?

Governments have been conducting censuses for thousands of years – and the good ones are never voluntary. As a Charlie Brown Christmas taught us, Mary and Joseph didn’t have much of a choice when it came to being counted.

In Canada, the Census takes place every 5 years. All Canadians get the short form which asks the basic questions – name, age, gender, marital status, language. One in five houses get the long form which asks you about your sexual history, voting habits, and embarrassing High School nicknames. I’m kidding of course, but that’s what the government would have you believe. In reality, it asks questions about everything from your income to your ethnicity to your daily commute. On average, you’ll have to fill out 2 or 3 long forms in your life.

The debate focuses on the long form. Those trying to axe the Census argue these questions are an invasion of privacy. “Why the hell should the government know what time I leave to go to work?” they shout angrily on their twitter accounts and in Toronto Sun editorials.

“Well,” the other side argues “so that cities can build roads and public transit to help you get to work on time. Duh.”

The reality is we live in an information age, and long form Census data is a valuable source of information. Governments use it to help plan communities and programs. Hospitals need it to provide the right kind of services and fight pandemics. Researches use it to track demographic trends over time. Masters students, like Stephen Harper, use it to write thesis papers. Think tanks, like the Fraser Institute, use it to prove their kooky right wing theories. And businesses use it all the time – just think of restaurants and grocery stores that sell ethnic foods or cater to specific client demographics.


THE PROBLEM WITH MAKING IT VOLUNTARY

As soon as you make a survey self-selecting (i.e. voluntary), certain types of people are more likely to fill it out. That’s why you really don’t want to put too much stock in the web polls on the Globe & Mail’s website.

Studies in the past have shown low income Canadians, visible minorities, and aboriginals are less likely to fill out voluntary surveys (I might add, these studies could only show this because we have Census data as a point of comparison). So if you’re trying to ensure government programs to help aboriginals are working...and low income aboriginals aren’t filling out the long form...you have a problem.

That’s why the US quickly scrapped plans to use a voluntary census after experimenting with the idea in 2003. Imagine that! Making sure it works first, instead of making the change because of a few angry e-mails.


THE GREAT CENSUS CRISIS OF 2010

Three weeks ago, it was quietly announced that the 2011 long form Census would become voluntary. Instead of being sent to every 5th household, it would be sent to every 3rd household. The cost of this? An extra 30 million dollars.

At first, the government’s response was limited 140 characters – a few tweets exchanged between Tony Clement and angry economists. After all, as Tony has since let it be known, the government that spends millions promoting Canada's Economic Action Plan doesn’t believe government decisions “need to be shouted from every rooftop”.

I’m sure it never occurred to the man who said “only elites care about prorogation” that anyone would care about something as dull as survey methodology. Hell, Tony didn’t understand it himself and he was the Minister of Industry – how could normal non-elite Canadians be expected to understand the issue, much less care about it?

But slowly, people began taking notice and speaking out against the move.

The former head of StatsCan. The Canadian Medical Association. The Canadian Association of Business Economists. The Canada West Foundation. Municipal governments. Newspaper editorials (including those pro-government coercion communists at the National Post and Calgary Herald). Alex Himelfarb. Don Drummond (who sits on the StatsCan advisory panel which was...never asked for advice on the change). It’s a long list, and you can view it here. And here.

Oh, and all the provinces except Alberta now oppose the move – but even there, the City of Calgary has been critical saying it would “cripple” their decision making ability. And Edmonton Conservative MP James Rajotte (who is now assured of never getting into a Harper Cabinet) has broken ranks, demanding an explanation from Clement.

Faced with this backlash, the empire struck back this week. After all, the party which sends Happy Hanukkah cards to swing voters feels you have a right to your privacy. First, there was the Star Wars themed press release, and accusations that Census officials would break down your door at 10 pm while you were "trying to read" (reading? That sounds awfully elitist to me). Then, the Toronto Sun wrote an editorial comparing the long form Census to communism (you know who else conducted a Census? Hitler!).

Maxime Bernier has emerged as the government’s point man on this, which is understandable – if there’s anyone who understands how easy it is for confidential information to leak out, it’s Max. Bernier has laid out the government’s position which is, in short, that it’s wrong to “coerce” Canadians into filling out “intrusive” questions, under the threat of imprisonment.


LOOKING AT THE GOVERNMENT’S ARGUMENT

The problem with this argument, is that it’s inconsistent with the government’s actions.

If there are specific questions they feel are intrusive, they can be removed. Personally, I don’t find the Census any less intrusive than an income tax form, and data is only reported in averages and totals – there’s no way anyone anywhere will know what I wrote on my Census form.

If they don’t see any value in the long form, then they should axe it altogether and save the money.

If they feel it’s “coercive” to force Canadians to fill out a form, then why are they still being coerced into completing the short form? And why are farmers being coerced into filling out an equally intrusive agricultural long form? Furthermore, does the “tough on crime” party actually believe that threatening to put people in jail for breaking the law amounts to “coercion”? Oh, and I should add that no one has ever gone to jail in Canada for not filling out their Census form. Just thought I'd mention that.

In short, Clement has come up with a more expensive and less effective alternative.

Now, in fairness, the government has also claimed there's a groundswell of Canadians who feel the Census is intrusive. And, if voters did feel this way, there might be an argument to make for changing it. I’d argue the benefits of the Census still justify it (I mean, who likes paying taxes or being called for jury duty), but it would be a fair argument.

Maxime Bernier claims “thousands of e-mails” were sent to him complaining about the long form Census in 2006. Perhaps, but we have no proof of this. I guess it's possible Bernier misplaced them. What we do have proof from is 22 "expressions of concern" sent to StatsCan during the 2006 Census process, and 3 complaints to the privacy commissioner over the past decade. At the same time, the privacy commissioner has raised concerns about other programs which the government shows no interest in scrapping.

Still, the government’s decision appears to have found some support. Tony Clement has personally thanked 10 people by name on Twitter for their words of encouragement. By the way, Tony Clement has 3500 followers on Twitter.


WHAT NOW?

The government appears unlikely to back down and there’s no indication this issue has captivated the hearts and minds of Canadians.

Still, the Industry Committee will look into this. The head of StatsCan has resigned in protest. And groups opposed to the change will continue to raise a little hell.

So like it or not, expect a lot more news on the Census for the rest of this summer.

As the call for state sanctioned coercion grows...

Via Aaron Wherry, a non-random sampling of opposition to the government's plan to defile the Census:

To those who oppose the government’s changes to the census you can now add the Statistical Society of Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Canadian Marketing Association, the Canadian Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities, the Executive Council of the Canadian Economics Association, the director of the Prentice Institute at the University of Lethbridge, the senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canadian Institute of Planners, the Canadian Association for Business Economics, and the editorial boards of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, Calgary Herald, Winnipeg Free Press and Globe and Mail.

They join the co-chairman of the Canada Census Committee, Ancestry.ca, city planners in Calgary and Red Deer, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the former head of Statistics Canada, and the editorial boards of the Toronto Star, Montreal Gazette, Edmonton Journal and Victoria Times-Colonist.

And hot off the presses, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has sent Clement an open letter decrying the move. Also, Pundits Guide talks about how the Census is used, and Susan Delacourt finds it a wee bit odd that a political party which probably knows your voting record, ethnicity, and favourite TV show has issues with Stats Canada collecting Census information. Colby Cosh does link to one of the few supporters of the government's decision...and promptly rips him a new one.

Meanwhile, Tony Clement has yet to offer up an explanation over 140 characters for his decision, focusing instead on more important issues.

Lindsay Lohan goes to jail. Another example of state coercion?

OK, OK. The headline has little to do with this post, but I figured no one would read it if they deduced this was the third straight post on the friggin' Census. So indulge me for a moment and don't worry - next week, I'll get back to more important topics, like making fun of politicians in cowboy hats (which reminds me, please e-mail me any pictures you snap of politicians at the Stampede!).

Although Tony Clement was quiet in his initial decision to defile the Census, he has defended the move over Twitter, showing the eloquence and reason we've come to expect from the man who found a way to lose 4 elections within a 2 year span. Via Wherry, here's a selection of Tony's tweets:

TonyClement_MP @wicary Actually the Long Form is still around & will be going to more Cdns–minus the state coercion.
Harbles @TonyClement_MP However the statistical randomness is gone making the data skewed.
TonyClement_MP @Harbles Wrong. Statisticians can ensure validity w larger sample size
stephenfgordon @TonyClement_MP Wrong. Large samples can’t fix sample selection biases.
TonyClement_MP @stephenfgordon Which is why proper weighting will be used, as always the case
stephenfgordon @TonyClement_MP Where will the weights come from? Other voluntary surveys get their weights from the census.
c_9 @TonyClement_MP But weighting is done based on CENSUS DATA. Can’t weight the original data. Answers to these concerns somewhere?
TonyClement_MP @c_9 Folks! There is STILL a mandatory Census!
stephenfgordon @TonyClement_MP How can we reweight for education and income using short form data?

I know if I pointed out that the Minister of Industry shows a glaring lack of understanding of how the Census and statistics in general work, I'd come across sounding like one of those elitists he hates so much. So I'll refrain from pointing that out.

Besides, Clement made this decision despite the objections of the experts at Stats Canada so I don't think he really cares about the science behind it (Tony Clement motto: "Science is for elites"). This isn't too surprising from the guy who thinks he knows more about safe injection sites than Canadian doctors.

No, Tony makes it clear he's making this move to spare Canadians from "state coercion".

Now, to the best of my knowledge, there aren't any documented instances of Census workers using Jack Bauer style interrogation techniques, holding a knife to someone's eye and screaming "Who...do...you...work...for?". So I'll presume Tony is referring to the threat of a $500 fine or 3 months in jail for not completing the Census.

Let's put aside the fact that no one ever actually goes to jail for not filling out the Census and look at Clement's claim. His argument is that threatening to send someone to jail for breaking the law is coercion. This, from the "tough on crime" party.

Equally perplexing is that the short form will remain mandatory. So presumably, Canadians will still be "coerced" into completing their short form. I'd really like an explanation from Tony why short form coercion is acceptable when long form coercion isn't.

In fairness to Clement, he did also raise the issue of "intrusiveness" in another tweet. Personally, I don't think asking 1/5th of Canadians to fill out a form every 5 years is overly intrusive when the information remains 100% confidential. I'm not aware of a single instance where the anonymity of Census data has been compromised but, if this has occured, I invite the Minister of Industry to tweet about it.

Given the backlash we've seen to this move, Clement owes us more than a 140 character explanation.

Stupid elitists, sipping their lattes and caring about democracy

From Tony Clement:

Industry Minister Tony Clement (said) Monday that ordinary Canadians don’t consider prorogation to be a big issue. ”I know it’s a big issue with the Ottawa media elite and some of the elites in our country."

For those keeping track, there are now over 155,000 elitists in the Canadians Against Prorogation Facebook group.

Conservatives themselves doubt Harper's judgement. How can we trust him?

More info on the top-secret Conservative ads:

MONTREAL — There's a surprising new star making a cameo appearance in Conservative ads attacking Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: his name is Justin Trudeau.

French-language TV ads that have begun airing in Quebec show the rookie MP blasting a few volleys of friendly fire at his leader.

The ads include clips from an interview Trudeau did during the 2006 Liberal leadership race.

"Ignatieff, he's a little all over the place sometimes," Trudeau says in the spot, in a clip drawn from a 2006 TV interview.

"He says this, he says that - he contradicts himself."

Trudeau then delivers this little parting shot: "For me, he's not someone with... maybe he has the intelligence, but maybe not the wisdom required."

The ad's narrator ends the spot by asking viewers: "Liberals themselves doubt (Ignatieff's) judgment. How can we trust him?"

So, some guy who wasn't an MP and supported another guy in a leadership race Ignatieff lost - three years ago - had some tame criticism of the front-runner. Well, colour me shocked. If you're that desperate Tory war room, I hear Bob Rae used to berate Iggy when they were college roommates for not taking out the trash.

So, if those quotes are fair game, let's see what the Minister of Industry has to say about Harper:

OTTAWA (CP) - Tony Clement painted Stephen Harper as a divisive, unelectable Conservative leader Wednesday in a televised debate notable for the absence of high-profile candidate Belinda Stronach.

Clement, the former Ontario health minister and acknowledged underdog in the three-way race, was clearly on the offensive against Harper. He suggested the former Canadian Alliance leader will be unable to unify Conservatives and draw Canadians outside the party to its fold.

"Stephen . . . you've been on the record as a wall-builder. I want to be on the record as a bridge-builder."

Clement then accused the Calgary-based MP of proposing to build a firewall around Alberta, of writing off electoral prospects in Quebec and of badmouthing Atlantic Canadians.

The yet to be named Tory race to replace Tory

The Ontario PCs will select a new leader on June 27th.

There's more sniffing going on in this Tory leadership race than at an Andre Boisclair house party, with everyone and their wife sniffing around to gauge the lay of the land. I'll admit that my understanding of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party is minimal - I know Mike Harris used to be Premier, that Ernie Eves delivered his budget in an auto plant a few years ago, and that John Tory doesn't have a seat...that's about it. So don't expect a lot of insightful coverage of the race from this blog. With that in mind, here's my un-insightful look at the field so far.

Diane Finley: For those of you unfamiliar with her (I'm looking at you, everyone), she's married to Harper strategist Doug Finlay, and wears sunglasses [UPDATE: used to!] in the House of Commons. Finley has been relatively untouched by scandal and charges of incompetence, making her one of Stephen Harper's better ministers.

Peter Van Loan: Based on my limited knowledge of the field, PVL would be my early pick as their "best choice". He'd bring the fire, has experienced, and scores fairly low on the "scary scale". Seeing him go head to head with "the small man of confederation" would be a lot of fun too.

Tim Hudak: Tim is the frontrunner in this race, which means that he pretty much has it in the bag, right? All I really know about the man is that Mike Harris has endorsed him, and he ran the "Great Dominion Dust Up" bracketed poll on his blog to find Canada's most inspiring politician (sound familiar?) a few years back, that Louis Riel won. Go figure. While no one will mistake Hudak for Canada's most inspiring politician, the real question is whether he's the most inspiring of this bunch, or not.

Tony Clement: Hasn't lost a leadership race recently, so you just know he's itching to once again experience the thrill of defeat.

Christine Elliott: Seems like a solid candidate, although controlling Jim "last place to invest" Flaherty could be a tougher challenge than Hillary had of muzzling Bill.

Randy Hillier: Would be an entertaining addition to the race, in the same way Craig Chandler was an entertaining addition to the 2003 PC leadership race.

Julian Fantino: Currently, Ontario's Provincial Police Commissioner so he'd have to find a seat if he won the leadership. But, hey, how hard could that be?


UPDATE: The Globe lets some PC strategists weigh in on "life after Tory". For the record, I agree with Jaime Watt that running the Harris playbook again would be a big mistake for them. The Tories need to position themselves as a centrist party and then just pound McGuinty into the ground on the economy. The federal Conservatives won Ontario last election, so it shouldn't be too hard for them to figure out where to target their resources and who will be a part of their winning coalition.

Pass the Hat

The Globe has a story on how much money different Tory MPs have donated to the Conservative Party over the past year. James Moore has given more than any other Conservative MP to his own party. So clearly just writing a cheque doesn't guarantee you a Cabinet spot. Apparently, neither does being an extremely bright and talented MP. But I digress.

Apparently, there has been some "displeasure" over the fact that 18 Cabinet Ministers haven't donated cash to their own party this year. Luckily, after asking some questions in the right places, I've come up with the top 8 excuses by Tory Cabinet Ministers for not donating to the party:


8. Lost all my money in that income trust flip-flop.

7. Stockwell Day: "Already donated to get the Big Valley Creation Museum started".

6. Gordon O'Connor: "I did donate money. What? I didn't. General Hillier said I did."

5. Made an "in kind" donation by giving Stephen Harper fashion advice.

4. To be honest, I don't do anything unless explicitly instructed to do it from the PMO. I'm afraid to even order a donut on my own.

3. Tony Clement: "Now that Belinda's a Liberal, I've had to finish paying off my own leadership campaign debt."

2. John Baird: "After thirteen long years of Liberal corruption...I'm sorry - what was the question again?"

1. Felt it could be better spent donating it to the Stephane Dion leadership campaign.