Yes, its true, Nude Election '08 has claimed yet another NDP candidate: Skinny-dipper Julian West (Saanich-Gulf Islands) has gone beyond making apologies for his past lack of common sense and has resigned, making him the third in a week to quit the NDP campaign. One can't help but wonder about the man's sense of morality, given he asked minor girls to use their face paints on his nude form, "all over".

This resignation brings an interesting dynamic to the Saanich-Gulf Islands race where the incumbent, Conservative MP and Natural Resources minister Gary Lunn, faces off against Liberal candidate Briony Penn, well known to the area as an environmental activist and former Green Party supporter. The NDP vacuum might allow a real race against Lunn, an outcome I would welcome, although it does seem likely that vote splitting between the Green and Liberal candidate is likely to ensure an anti-environment Lunn is re-elected.

Lady Godiva

Although her moral compass is not in question, Penn is no stranger to public nudity herself, having taken on the starring role as Lady Godiva for a protest against Vancouver-based corporate logging interests. No minors nor horses were harmed in the event.

Of greater importance than the forgettable Mr. West's political future, for those who have not followed Conservative MP Gary Lunn's career, know that he is in favour of opening up B.C.'s west coast for oil and gas exploration and has been consistently opposed to progressive environmental measures and the fight against climate change.

Priddle Panel: Not Found

The last significant read of the public apettite for off-shore drilling was done by a NRCan (Natural Resources Canada) Public Review Panel - the "Priddle Panel" - in 2004 under the direction of then minister (Liberal) John Efford.

Panel Chair Ron Priddle was at the time a director of Talisman Energy, while another panel member, Don Scott, was a former mayor of Prince Rupert who had lobbied to have the moratorium lifted. The third member of the panel, Diane Valiela, is a lawyer currently working for B.C. firm Lawson Lundell in areas including energy law. Valiela had been a member of the National Energy Board, a tribunal principally concerned with approving requests from industry.

In short, this was not an unbiased panel but a panel with a mission, one which the Gorden Campbell-led provincial government happened to share: lift the moratorium.

Despite the obvious pro-exploration bias of the panel the report was forced to note that the public at large was not behind them. Public support strongly favoured (75%) retaining a continued moratorium or ban on offshore drilling. I'd like to link directly to the NRCan website to provide a copy of the panel report but, tellingly, since Lunn took over the NRCan ministry that link no longer works. Interestingly, there is a still-working link to the table of contents of the report, but no working link to the panel report itself.

One well-established rule of publishing on the internet - particularly for public bodies such as government - is that links should remain viable forever. This tenet doesn't trouble Stephen Harper's version of democracy, because transparency is clearly not a Conservative Party virtue.

Yet its worse than that. Not only does the link fail to function but the NRCan web site search facility fails to turn up any reference to the Priddle Panel, which is odd since almost 4,000 submissions were made to the panel; the process took months to complete; and the cost involved real taxpayer dollars. Question: Has Lunn or any of his staff ordered that the document be taken off-line or otherwise hidden from view? If so, when was this order made and why?

Search results for "priddle"

Frankly I'm surprised at how difficult it was to locate a copy of this report. Here permanently attached to this post for posterity is the report as well as a first nations specific study and a 2004 review of moratoria status. Interesting reading:

Kirk Tousaw

Kirk Tousaw, a candidate for the NDP, was forced by the circumstances of a less credible candidate, Dana Larsen, to withdraw from the election campaign yesterday. Both had important connections to the B.C. Marijuana Party. Tousaw, a lawyer and chair of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association's drug policy committee, resigned from the race after a video of the Vancouver-Quadra candidate smoking marijuana surfaced.

Tousaw's resignation follows on the heels of Dana Larsen being ejected from the NDP campaign team due to his very public use of pot, LSD and DMT not to mention a lack of what most Canadians would see as common sense.

Earlier this week I'd argued that the NDP running candidates like Larsen demeans the efforts of its other candidates and hard working MPs. While I wasn't thinking of Tousaw specifically, the situation is a case in point. It seems unlikely that he would have had to withdraw if not for Larsen's very public on-screen antics.

If the NDP or any party wishes to be taken seriously by the electorate, nominating candidates that have been and are willing to remain on the side of the current law has to be one of their guiding principles. Activists need to consider this before they wander down roads that will inevitably lead to dead ends.

I'm a fairly socially progressive person yet I do not fully agree with the case most pro-legalization forces put forward as the question of what to do with black market drugs is not resolved. A relevant precedent exists: there is a huge illegal market in tobacco, a product which is legal and licensed for sale in the manner most marijuana activists foresee as a model. A "legal" consumption legislative framework would only further encourage unregulated "illegal" production along with tax evasion and other criminal endeavours. This I see as a significant problem which may overshadow any good that might come of a personal use legal regime.

But whether or not I agree with legalization is not the point. Regardless of my perspective on the matter I remain convinced that if one wants to act within the political system to drive change, then one has to generally meet societal norms and that today means we don't want to elect folks stupid enough to do LSD and drive while under the influence of drugs be it marijuana or alcohol.

Canadians are a tolerant people that tend to shy away from the extremes. Larsen is an extreme. Tousaw may or may not be. (Video) Assuming Tousaw doesn't have his own collection of Larsen-like videos, I believe Tousaw, a lawyer who is trying to change attitudes and laws through political and legal activism, might have remained in the race. Then again, maybe not.

Should the national party machinery have a veto over local candidates? That's a tough question. I'm a democrat and believe the riding certainly has every right to nominate a candidate of their choice. But the principal function of a national political party is to seek balance and that means pulling in the fringe elements for the betterment of all, even the fringe. Ideally a local riding association would reason all this out on their own before putting forward any candidate.

This real issue at hand is bigger than Larsen or Tousaw. Nominating and then dumping two very prominent "cannabis culture" activists underscores the reality that the party has not yet fully come to grips with its image. The NDP has signalled it doesn't want to be viewed as only a party of protest but as a mainstream political organization. They can't be both without, quite correctly in my opinion, leaving Canadians wondering if they are ready for more responsibility.

Update: On Mike Duffy live a family touched by the listeriosis contamination at Maple Leaf foods weighs in on Ritz, saying they don't feel a man like Ritz is capable of looking after Canadians. Asked by Duffy if Ritz should be fired, Lionel Avon's wife Leona responds without hesitation "Yes I do".

Ritz's cracker crumbles: Our Agriculture Minister, the Conservative MP Gerry Ritz gets notoriety for insulting the families who have had loved ones get sick and die due to listeriosis contamination in our food system. Seventeen deaths have so far been attributed to the outbreak.

This is like a death by a thousand cuts. Or should I say cold cuts. Conservative Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz

Ritz should be fired for his insulting and callous treatment of the issue, as its clear he was more worried about how the deaths would affect the upcoming Conservative election campaign than he was worried about people dying from eating compromised food ("Are there any more bombs out there?" - Ritz).

Ritz should also be under the spotlight for following in former ag minister Chuck Strahl's shoes as both have been relentlessly attacking through undemocratic means the Canadian Wheat Board.

From bombs to bongs, the NDP have a dreadful day when the story breaks that Dana Larsen, their candidate for West-Vancouver Sunshine Coast, can be seen on video smoking marijuana and doing LSD and DMT. And driving under the influence.

The debate over legalization of marijuana is a legitimate one, but the reality of the day is that it, as well as LSD and DMT, are controlled substances and what their now former candidate was doing is patently illegal.

I'm starting to hallucinate a bit and that's kind of fun dropped NDP candidate Dana Larsen

Layton doesn't do himself any favours in his handling of the case. Its the leader who ultimately is responsible for the nomination of each candidate yet Layton refused to accept his responsibility and passed the buck stating "He's obviously taken the decision that he's not a suitable candidate and we accepted that". Larsen, who formerly ran for the Marijuana Party, is not a credible mainstream candidate for a party whose leader has aspirations of being Prime Minister one day.

Die hard Dippers might not like this but if they want to be taken seriously as a party they should not be promoting candidates that willingly break the law not to mention show little display of common sense. You want to remain a protest party forever? Then stay on this track. Can't find anyone better to run in an un-winnable riding? Then don't run one at all.

I happen to think there are quite a few excellent NDP MP's and candidates who are quite prepared to work within the system as it is in order to change the system. Nominating a self-admitted criminal demeans the efforts of the rest of your team.

Its no secret - long time readers know I regard Harper as the most dangerous politician in the country and that I lament the passing of the Progressive Conservative party. The fundamental difference between the two is the PC Party was strongly pro-federalism and fundamentally centrist and moderate at its core.

The Conservative party believes in a different view of federalism where the central government is made to be as weak as possible, and their overall approach is only centrist and moderate in a superficial sense designed to last only for electoral purposes. Once a majority is in Harper's hand, we can look forward to decidedly radical change.

So its clear I can't support the CPC while Harper and his cronies are at the helm. Yet I won't poke only at them. Last week I indicated it was time to talk about Layton and the NDP so without further adieu...

You'll forgive me for critiquing Layton first through my jaded Harper lends but its true: my principal issue with Layton is he is so fixated on trying to help Stephen Harper destroy the Liberal Party that he's perfectly willing to sell his soul to the devil (yes, that would be Harper) damn the repercussions.

Sure, I realize Layton's strategy isn't a one-election gambit. But really, does he believe the Liberals won't come back stronger next time? It will happen. In the meantime I shudder to think that an effective Layton campaign might gain him a marginal number of additional seats yet lose the country to a Harper majority.

Still, this fixation of mine with Layton's short term / long term strategy aside, my real issue with the federal (and provincial) NDP is their climate change policy. It doesn't go nearly far enough.

One might think Stephen Harper and Gregory Mankiw would agree on energy taxes. But one would be wrong. Dan Garner, Ottawa Citizen

When Layton talks about "big polluters" he conveniently leaves out one of the largest... you and me. Avoiding talking about our own personal responsibility is a populist tactic that Harper employs. I'd hoped Jack was above that.

I'm all in favour of higher fuel costs and carbon taxes, seeing both as a necessary component of a workable greenhouse gas / migration away from fossil fuel strategy. We have to change our behaviour. If one really believes that climate change is a pressing serious global issue then one's politics will be informed by that belief. The NDP plan for the environment is only a start because it doesn't focus attention on personal responsibility and in that manner their plan is as bad as the flunking Conservative plan.

Here the Green and Liberal party policies make more sense. They are both designed as if they really believe it. Layton goes part way there while the Conservative plan goes nowhere. The Sierra Club has done a platform review (PDF) of the Bloc, Conservative, Green, Liberal, and New Democrat parties. All parties get a passing grade except for the Conservatives who flunk right out with an F.

At this point in the election the environment isn't getting the prominence it should, thanks in no small part by the ruthlessly brilliant (and un-Canadian in my opinion) Conservative stream of attacks designed to cut that leg out from under Dion. Had the NDP also joined the carbon tax bandwagon, this would have pushed Harper into a corner. However I think Ms. May stands a chance at turning the page back to environmental issues.

If that does happen, both Harper and Layton have something to fear. Provincial NDP leader Carole James also has, quite wrongly in my opinion, put a lot on the line in opposing Gordon Campbell's carbon tax.

Eventually all modern economies in all jurisdictions will end up putting a real price on carbon. Even Stephen Harper will be forced to deal with this at some point. Any leader that says they will not put a price on carbon is woefully uninformed or lying. They all know they need to do it, that international pressure will one day force their hand. Best be honest with people now and get going.

Yes, I realize being honest with people is frequently a losing electoral strategy. Still, as inept a campaigner as Dion appears to be, I give him high marks for being committed enough to the issue that he's doing the impossible: trying to sell during a highly competitive election a difficult to understand policy that includes the word "tax". Maybe an advertisement of some regular folks having a coffee in a doughnut shop, calculating their Green Shift tax savings on an envelope... might make more headway with the average voter.

On the subject of energy taxation, the following article by Dan Garner, published today in the Ottawa Citizen, is a worthy read. Please go on past this excerpt:

Harper economics: Stephen Harper has a masters degree in economics. He is conservative. He says he understands how markets function and he prefers market solutions to public policy problems.

Gregory Mankiw is a professor at Harvard University and a world-renowned economist. He was chairman of U.S. President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Mankiw definitely understands how markets function and he, too, prefers market solutions to public policy problems.

One might think Stephen Harper and Gregory Mankiw would agree on energy taxes. But one would be wrong. More >