All things Canadian.....

Speaking of Kinsella, since there are some other things I wanted to say before I ease up on posting, I should note here some other activities in Kinsella's google record:

1993-95: Executive Assistant to Dingwall, Minister of Public Works and Government Services - memos the Deputy Minister that Guite should be placed in charge of sponsorships.

1996-97: Leaves Dingwall to become counsel at Palmer Jarvis - an adverstising firm in BC

1996: Palmer Jarvis one of five firms to receive $50,000 for design of the Unity office logo

1997: Loses election in North Vancouver riding during General Election - (Palmer Jarvis donates $10,000)

2005: Sponsorship Inquiry:

MR. COURNOYER: If we go to page 118 under Tab 17, we have a number of fax
reports or fax sheets. At 118 we have a fax that is dated August 27th, 1996.
Were you aware that Mr. Guité was exchanging information with Mr. Warren
Kinsella at Palmer Jarvis about this?
MS. MARLEAU: Absolutely not. That would be highly unusual. Mr. Kinsella had been the Executive Assistant to Minister Dingwall. My understanding was that he had left Minister Dingwall’s office. So that is unusual. But I couldn’t tell you more about it. I wasn’t aware of it.
MR. COURNOYER: You didn’t have -- well, superficially, that is what the document seems to be, a fax sent to Mr. Kinsella.

UPDATE: I wondered on this post on the BlogsCanada E-Group why Kinsella continues to get time and space in the MSM when he's as tangled up in the Adscam mess as he is.

Oh, I wanted to mention this too - if you read Kinsella and Spector's fights you'll see Warren keep referring to Norman as a former Big Tobacco Lobbyist and today Warren writes about 'Big Tobacco'.

Please refer to Warren as a former member of the Big Alcohol Lobby.

He was a lobbyist for Labatt's after leaving government.

UPDATE: I wanted to find a link for this since I remember coming across it in the Lobby Monitor. Warren - can you set the record straight here?

UDPATE2: A reader pointed me to this link which confirms Warren's Big Alcohol ties.

From Adscam yesterday:

The cost of the corporate box was buried in a two-year sponsorship package the government bought for the Ottawa Senators' 1997-98 and 1998-99 season.
The sponsorship contract, worth about $600,000, ended up costing taxpayers more than $1 million once the various fees, commissions -- and cost of the hidden box -- were added in.
....
It all left Judge Gomery a bit baffled yesterday. He said he couldn't understand how wining and dining in boxes helped promote Canada's visibility.
"I could see perhaps in a visibility program the advantage of banners or signs in the Corel Centre with the word Canada on them. but I'm trying to see how social activities in a box can increase the visibility of Canada for the public."

But Judge - don't ignore the issue of even adverstising in the Corel Centre at all - as the people in the Ottawa area aren't separatists and already hear about "Canada" daily in the papers, radio, etc.

Maybe someone should mention something about the straights the Senators were in and the ties owner Rod Bryden, former President of the Liberal Party, had to 'the right people'.

I probably won't be posting anything (regularly for sure) until at least the NHL is back playing or an election is called.

I'm too busy with home, work, spring/summer projects, soccer, etc to write stuff.

See ya around.
Don.

I love hockey rumours and Eklund's site is one of the best.

Yesterday:
According to several player sources the PA is working on a framework of a new proposal that will be of more interest to the owners...These talks are very serious and I expect following the three days we will be on the way to a settlement....

Today:
Some teams are starting to try and get a jump on FA signings...A source told me this morning this:"once the lockout has ended the Leafs will announce the signings of Jason Allison and Byron Dafoe." I have also heard rumors involving Paul Kariya and the Flyers.

Dafoe?

2002-03 Atlanta Thrashers
17 games
4.36 goals against average
5 wins
11 losses
1 ties
0.862 save %

2003-04 Atlanta Thrashers
18 games
3.14 goals against average
4 wins
11 losses
1 ties
0.898 save %

So, he's won 9 games in the past three years. Sign him up Leafs!

This is after the NHL's latest offer.

From Eklund's Hockey Rumours:

Players Want to Negotiate
This is coming from three e-mails from three different players...The best said this, "This new 37.5 deal has some strong elements in it...a 22M floor is a good faith gesture, and the fact the number can go up with revenues. I talked to some guys last night, and we are going to push Bob hard next week to work off of this offer."

Easy now, just a little bit more.... there! - NHL next fall.

Unfortunately it wasn't my experience.

My brother was a delegate and stopped by at our house on Ottawa on Saturday night before driving the rest of the way to the GTA. He brought some nice CPC and Harper buttons for me and some Canada flags for the kids - the one year old made short work of a couple of the paper flags. I had watched a lot of the CPAC coverage so I had a few questions for him. After dinner we talked as we watched the CPAC replay and the network coverage.

The first thing Harper said in his closing speech was a joke about the media coverage. He said an advisor told him the media coverage would go one of two ways. If things went bad the headlines would read 'Party divided'. If things went well they would say 'Harper paints over cracks'.

It is natural for the media to highlight expected clashes and torque divisions, and my brother indicated the atmosphere at the convention wasn't as divisive as some made it seem.

He agreed that resolution C-11 was the most talked about issue. C-11 would have given ridings with less than 91 members less delegates at future conventions. Basically it proposed 1 delegate for every 10 members (rounding up). Supporters argued it promoted grassroots growth by encouraging riding leadership to grow membership and it would discourage 'country club' ridings where 10 or 20 members would control the riding and continually be delegates.
Peter MacKay was strongly against the proposal arguing it was contradictory to the 'all ridings equal' principal of the former PC party that was one of the founding principals of the CPC.
The resolution was defeated but according to my brother many delegates were disappointed with MacKay's approach. He was too eager to threaten a split in the party and was quick to use the media - tactics that many felt were over the top. I think my brother's words were - Peter the Princess - if I don't get my way I'm going to cry and go home.
From my perspective, other delegates gave reasoned, substantial arguments why the proposal should be defeated and MacKay's talk of voting against it because the party should come out of the convention unified did seem shallow and threatening. This would have been no western takeover - Ontario and Quebec had almost half the delegates and if it was to pass, it would have had their support.

On the other controversial issues, the traditional definition of marriage easily passed and the first abortion resolution passed meaning a Conservative government will not introduce any legislation.
They used electronic voting for those two votes and it provided some interesting breakdowns.
On traditional marriage 75% voted in favour of the resolution including a majority of the delegates from Quebec and Ontario.
On the abortion resolution, which was a resolution not to support any legislation, 55% voted in favour including the majority of delegates from Quebec and Ontario. Watching the coverage, it struck me that Elsie Wayne, one of the two speakers opposed to the resolution, was so emotional and was attacking Morgentaler. She might have polarized the delegates and allowed that resolution to pass meaning P-94, a late term abortion resolution, did not see the floor. For people wanting to see some abortion legislation, having Elsie speak might have been a big mistake.

My brother was sitting beside Bruce Montague at the plenary session - not knowing until near the end that he is the man charged and fighting bill C-68 - the firearms act. At the next table was Randy Hillier, the president of the Lanark Landowners Association. Hillier must have been proud to get the Property Rights resolution passed - that is basically the end goal of the Rural Revolution that Hillier basically leads. Those two guys are holding a rally in Perth this week.

Property Rights and Gun Registry Rally
Wednesday 23 March 2005, 7:30pm - 9:30pm
Guest speakers: Bruce Montague & Randy Hillier
The Canadian government has set its sights on turning law-abiding citizens into criminals. The injustice is clear and evident and threatens all peaceful gun owners. These crimes will not stop with Bruce Montague, until rural citizens stand up and speak out against injustice. Come and hear more about Bruce Montague’s story, the Lanark Landowners, and the Rural Revolution.
186 Gore Street (Farrell Hall) Perth Ontario

I also heard from my brother that for hospitality suites, the ones that charge over $6 for a drink tend not to be as much fun as those that give it away. He tended to be at the latter.

All in all, he was glad he went - it was his first convention. He paid over $500 to attend plus travel and other costs. He was also slightly energized by Harper's mention that he has instructed all riding presidents to speed up the nomination process and be ready for an election.

I believe Martin has presented his last budget.

I was able to have lunch with James Bow on Thursday last week. As with the time I hooked up with some Ottawa bloggers, it was nice to finally meet and get to know a little bit about the person behind the blog you've been reading.
Best of luck with your writing James and keep up the political blogging!

I think it's worth taking a look so far at the inquiry and Warren Kinsella.

First, way back in October, Warren sent an e-mail to myself and several other bloggers from his blogroll "in confidence". The links point to an article that mentions the selection of Bernard Roy from Ogilvy Renault as lead counsel and to a biography of a partner of Ogilvy Renault - Sally Gomery.

I asked whether she is John's daughter to which Warren replied:

She is indeed.
Wonder how Ogilvy's got that sole-source, multi-million dollar assignment as commission counsel?
What a coincidence.

I mailed back saying that I didn't think it was relevant and that I wouldn't be writing anything about it.

At this point, while I felt that Warren's actions were very wrong, I did not make these e-mails public. Shortly after this, there were several incidents where Warren Kinsella threatened to sue three bloggers, for amounts rumoured to be more than $100,000, if they did not delete posts from their blogs. The bloggers complied. On his own blog, Warren wrote a post that, in my opinion, totally misrepresented the content of the bloggers posts and was damaging to their reputations. It was at that time that I decided to make the previous e-mails public.

Warren hasn't e-mailed me since then but has left many comments on this blog. In his comments he has neither confirmed or denied that his e-mails were an attempt to imply that Ogilvy Renault was chosen as counsel mainly/partially/solely due to Justice Gomery's daughter position at the firm.

Since October, and especially since Christmas, Kinsella and the Chretienites have focused on two things with respect to Justice Gomery - his comments to reporters in December and the cost of the inquiry.

It is my belief that if those two issues weren't available, then other tactics would have been used to discredit Gomery and the inquiry - just like what Kinsella attempted in October.

It's no wonder why they are working so hard to influence public opinion through the media - the testimony up to now has been very damaging and they knew it would be --> and that is important to note; only the truly naïve would believe that any of what has come out so far is a surprise to Kinsella and the Chretienites - their previous actions must be viewed from that perspective.

After Lafleur and Gosselin's testimony it seems apparent that some type of connection between sponsorship contracts and Liberal party were understood and followed through. This is part of the scandal and only two things can make it even worse for Chretien and his Liberals - some type of smoking gun showing the connection between contracts and donations (something that can't be so easily and consistently paraded as simply an artifact of the Liberals being the only federalist party in Quebec) or if the rumours that came out last year of Ad execs paying for stuff for Liberals politicians and their families are true.

What the Chretienites have accomplished so far is to successfully slow roll the media's reporting and concurrent investigations on the inquiry. Most coverage in the English papers and even more so on the radio and TV have been on the ridiculous over-billing on numerous contracts and little mention is made of the political aspect of the Admen and their companies. The media has decided that barring a smoking gun - I suppose an actual contract saying something like "I'll give you $x in sponsorship contracts if you donate $y to the Liberal Party" - they will only report on it superficially and wait for the final report by Gomery to provide conclusions.

Of course, this is exactly what the Chretienites want. They have been fairly successful at convincing their friends in the media to tell every story that could damage Gomery's public image. From getting their spin on Gomery's comments told to being successful at presenting misleading cost figures of the inquiry (by including all periphery costs) - the media has been willing partners.

So, come next fall when Gomery's report is presented, you can be sure that most MSM reports will include every accusation that Kinsella and the Chretienites have made.

The danger for us in the public is that Gomery's report will then have very little impact on the actions of politicians in the future. Admen may be punished for their overbilling but for politicians it will have proven only that if there is no paper record of illegal activities then there is always a way out - always another explanation - as a politician there is always someone out to get you and as long as you have friends in the media willing to play along, that story will get told.

This is why I will continue to harp on this - there is another story not being told here and it needs to be told. Only slight slips like Kinsella's e-mails last fall shine light on the true motives behind their actions.

I mean, this - from PolSpy - can't really be true:

Why do women pay more than men for dry cleaning, hairstyling and clothing, among other things?
That's what Ontario Liberal Lorenzo Berardinetti is asking.
He he has introduced a private member's bill in the Ontario legislature to outlaw "gender-based" pricing.
Berardinetti says his bill would make it illegal for women to be charged more for similar products and services than men.
It will be debated April 14th.
If passed, the bill would prevent Ontario businesses such as dry cleaners and hairdressers from charging different prices for men and women.
Fines of up to $50,000 would be imposed on anyone having gender-based prices for products and services.

The Onion better look out.

Sick toddler in the house and no sleep the night before meant I fell asleep on the couch watching the Brier final. I would have loved to see this in the ninth - as described by Colby Cosh:

Ferbey, left with an open draw for two points, instead instructed Dave Nedohin to peel Alberta's shot stone and blank. This pretty much left the broadcast crew acting like their brains had been melted with some kind of brain-melt-o-tron, and it made Dave Nedohin, who throws last rocks for the rink, a little jumpy himself. The other three guys had to practically hold him down, telling him "We'll keep the four[-foot ring] open for you [on the last rock in the 10th]."
Which is just what they proceeded to do. Asked in front of the Edmonton audience why he made that choice, the pudgy skip just shrugged and said "It worked, didn't it?" I suspect that peeling--even if it's peeling your own rock--just feels right for a veteran Alberta curler like Ferbey, who remembers the pre-Free Guard Zone era when Pat Ryan and Kevin Martin would sit on a one-rock lead for days, zapping everything in sight out of the house. (Ferbey was, after all, the third on the Ryan Express.)

I think the explanation is most easily explained by last year's loss - when Dacey scored a three with last rock in the 10th.

Why wouldn't you put the win or loss in your own hands instead of your opponents? See this year's Scott final for a similar example - Ontario's Hanna deciding on her last shot to give Manitoba a shot for the win.

UPDATE: Just read this great quote:

"I've never seen that before," said former Brier champ Ed Lukowich.
"Now junior curlers all over the world are going to be out there, taking out their own rocks for two on the ninth with the game tied."

It's true - with the four rock free guard zone and the quality of play - the game is really changing.

Wayne Middaugh's Ontario rink lost their fifth game this morning putting them our of contention for the playoffs.

This, from TSN, caught my attention earlier today:

"I'm here to have a good time," he said. "I took a week-and-a-half's vacation to be here but I'm not only going to curl, I'm going to have a good time. I'm going to stay out late, have a few diet beverages . . . This is my holiday."
.....
Middaugh realizes he's in the twilight of his career. And if he were to retire tomorrow it's not his Brier championships he would want to be remembered for. "I would like to be remembered as somebody who has a ton of integrity for the ethics of the game and played to win."

I think, at this point, he'll be remembered more for lost potential on the national stage. A money player perhaps? I don't think those are contradictions in curling.

The Brier has always been separate from the cash/skins - a team with a legacy has had to earn it at the Brier.

But, hey, he's only 37. Twilight of his career? In curling, there's a long twilight.

A 'rant' from an American in my Inbox this morning:

I just read in the new this AM that yet another Canadian has referred to an American (institution in this case) as a Nazi. This is in reference to the Wal-Mart situation in Quebec.

Now I am a Yank who only visits Canada a couple of times per year but I consider myself literate enough. I have a grasp of your political institutions and how they differ with our's. I know the name of your PM. I can name your largest cities, understand off-sides and icing and I even can empathize with your love-hate relationship with us down here. Pretty good for an American.

So I am asking you and your website to explain to me how every 4th or 5th Canadian interviewed thinks that the US is a fascist state.

You think multiculturalism shows that you are so very tolerant. We think meltingpotism is the genuine article. We think multiculturalism leaves the door open for fascism.
You think regulating free speech is tolerance, we think free speech is the genuine article. We think regulating free speech leaves the door open for fascism.
You think government defined concepts of proper citizenship and decorum is tolerance, we think freedom is the genuine article. We think broad-reaching, state defined concepts of political correctness leave the door open for fascism.

And rather than flag down and rant at the next Canadian I see driving down Interstate 95 in the unfettered pursuit of pleasure in my country (in a manner that would suggest it were his own), I decided to rant at you, a popular Canadian Blog.
Please do us all one big favor. Tell your readers that some Americans are losing their good-natured patience with a people and a country whose very existence, both economically and politically, requires good relations with the US. Especially when that country teaches its young to hate us!
So please tell them to read up on Nazism so that they will see their error in referring to us by that insulting term. Now I have heard nothing but wondrous things about the Canadian educational system so I am in complete confidence that once the term is properly defined, your readers will understand.
And if you don't agree about our interpretation of "Nazism", perhaps you could suggest to your readers that they buy vacation homes in the golf course communities of Newfoundland. You wouldn't want to feed the nascent fascist beast south of the border, would you?

It is sickening to hear the term Nazi being thrown around.

But for this American and others I've got a little bit of context for you...

I've heard many people throughout the years casually refer to Manning and Harper (former and current conservative leaders) as being Nazis - and recently many Conservatives are called Nazis for their stance on same-sex marriage.

It's common for some Liberals and NDP supporters to use these terms for their opponents. I know it's disgusting and we are getting better at standing up for ourselves and fighting back against their demagoguery. You should be applauded for standing up against it too.

I wrote a post on the E-Group here - with my predictions.

Lots of good debate on P-90.

Coyne's talking about it here:

I agree with Harper: this is a matter best settled by individual MPs voting their consciences. You take a stand as a party on the things you agree on. You leave the rest to MPs and their constituents.

The critics at the E-Group have an outlet over here:

So the position of the party on these issues will be whatever Stevie says they are when he needs votes. Don't rock the boat in the meantime.

Andrew has more over here:

How do you think that would play out in the media?
In my opinion I think the MSM would probably avoid printing the proposed canned statement, and instead would proceed to flog the "hidden agenda" story even harder. P-90 does not seem to be in the CPC's best interests.

And points to Matt's thoughts:

The CPC adopting P-90 at their convention doesn't really help them in and of itself, but living it could help them tremendously - and it's really the only thing that can.

And Brents thoughts:

If resolution P-90 is voted down, we can then vote for resolution P-91 and get what the grassroots want without having to swallow the poison pill contained in resolution P-90.

This is going to be Harper biggest test of leadership.

I'm not going to the convention in a couple of weeks but I wish I was. There will be lots of discussion surrounding this resolution - from Bound by Gravity:

P-90
A Conservative government will restore democratic accountability in the House of Commons by allowing free votes. A Conservative government will make all votes free, except for the budget and main estimates. On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage and euthanasia, the party acknowledges the diversity of deeply held personal convictions among individual party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultation with their constituents and to vote freely.

Note: If resolution P-90 is passed at the plenary, the plenary will not consider resolutions P-91 through P-95.

Brent describes P-91 through P-95 in some detail, but I'll be more concise:
P-91 - Issues of Conscience
P-92 - Definition of Marriage
P-93 - Abortion
P-94 - Ban on partial birth abortions
P-95 - Euthanasia, assisted suicide, palliative care

Andrew feels that the party needs positions on the 5 issues and cannot afford to pass P-90 and leave the media to uncover a hidden agenda. I've often felt the same way.

The interesting thing is that this is exactly the debate that is occurring in the party. Even during my Ottawa-Centre riding policy meeting a few months ago you could see that this aspect of party policy was the most difficult one.

Probably a half an hour was spent on debating the free vote policy wording but in the end nothing was changed. Similarily, I expect that P-90 will pass and the 5 other resolutions will not proceed.

I anxiously await the outcome.

Andrew Coyne's column is worth reading if you haven't already:

So now we are left with the Gomery inquiry. Imperfect as it is, imperfect as he is, Judge Gomery is our last hope. And the former Prime Minister’s men are doing
their best to destroy him. The public vilification, the private whispers to the press, and now this phoney appeal to the Federal Court -- a case that has no legal merit whatever, but is designed solely for public consumption -- form part of a disturbing pattern of intimidation. Though they have not actually sent the RCMP to harass him, as they did to the former president of the BDC, it is the nearest thing to it.

There are laws about this sort of thing. Mr. Chretien is, if memory serves, a lawyer. So are many of his henchmen. I do not know what may be the practice in Quebec, but according to the rules of conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada, while “proceedings and decisions of courts and tribunals are properly subject to scrutiny and criticism,” a lawyer has a special obligation to “avoid criticism that is petty, intemperate, or unsupported by a bona fide belief in its real merit...” More broadly, lawyers are not supposed to mock the courts, or recklessly impugn a judge’s mpartiality.

I’d say golf balls and “Gomery Pyle” references would count, wouldn’t you?

As I wrote last week - there is a conspiracy of silence in the MSM. It will take a shocking revelation at the inquiry for them to be forced to acknowledge the truth.

Of course, these two guys have no respect and don't care about the game....

Gretzky:

"Guys are talking now about starting up the World Hockey Association again?" he told the Tribune.
"That's the same WHA with the $10 million salary cap? And some players took jobs in the Eastern League, with a cap of $500 a week? But they don't want one in the NHL? Boggles my mind. If you believe in no cap, then how can you play in a league that has one?

Cherry:

'Grapes' told reporters in Edmonton Thursday he believed that if locked out NHL players are taking jobs over in Europe, it should go both ways.
"I hope there isn't but if there is and I hear any player criticize a replacement, they're going to get it from me," he said.
"Talk about hypocrites. They go over to Europe, 400 of them, and take those jobs. As far as I'm concerned all those guys over there are scabs."

Also, some interesting dirt from the NHLPA meeting:

What wasn't reported out of the NHL players meetings earlier this week was a near-punchup argument between Tie Domi and executive council member Bill Guerin.
....
Goodenow did promise his membership, though, that there would be no more negotiating sessions without his presence

Domi was also on the FAN in Toronto and basically called Pierre Maguire a liar for saying that large % of players want to play - basically that they would have taken the owner's offer.

Goodenow and Bettman should be in pretty much every meeting - if nothing is done they should be held accountable. The responsibilities should not fall on Linden, Saskin, Daly, etc.

Be sure to check out the E-Group while I'm away.

http://blogscanada.ca/egroup

I actually voted for The Shotgun as best group blog in the recent blog awards but I think the E-Group has come on strong as of late.

Bourque has a copy of the resolutions that are going to be discussed at the convention in a few weeks.

The only one that seems headed for the much anticipated clash between camps is on abortion:

New Clause - Abortion Legislation

It is moved that a new clause be added in section I) as follows:“Abortion Legislation A Conservative government will not initiate any legislation to regulate abortion.”
Moved by: Alberta RJPM. Similar resolutions were moved by the Greater Toronto Area, Greater Vancouver Area, and Quebec RJPMs.
Weighted votes: 12.

New Clause - Partial Birth Abortion

It is moved that a new clause be added in section I) as follows:“Abortion Legislation A Conservative government will support a ban on the performing or funding of third trimester partial birth abortion (also known as intact dilation and evacuation)."
Moved by: Eastern Ontario RJPM. Similar resolutions were moved by the Regina, Manitoba, Northern Ontario and Southwestern Ontario RJPMs.
Weighted votes: 7.

This is no East/West split - it seems more like an urban/rural split.

The second resolution is worded strangely in my opinion. Is it talking specifically about partial birth abortions occuring in the third trimester? From what I know, none currently are done in Canada - not that it is a reason not to have a law on it. Funding I guess since we do pay for a small number of late term abortions to be done in the States.

So, after hearing the players yesterday I think we can start planning for replacement players.

One trivial thing will be the effect it will have on hockey pools - yes, I know it's high on everyone's priority list. Imagine sitting around the draft table trying to decide if the PA will make a deal and therefore go with the stars of 2003-4. Pick the guys you think will cross the line, etc.

Anyway, I started thinking about what the Senators lineup would look like if they went with replacement players.

Of the previous lineup here's where I think they'd stand:

Emery, Ray --> would cross
Pothier, Brian --> would cross
de Vries, Greg --> would cross
Vermette, Antoine --> would cross
Volchenkov, Anton --> would cross
Neil, Chris --> would cross
White, Todd --> would cross
Langfeld, Josh --> would cross
Kelly, Chris --> would cross

Prusek, Martin --> continue playing in Europe
Hasek, Dominik --> play in Europe - NHL career done
Chara, Zdeno --> continue playing in Europe
Phillips, Chris --> continue playing in Europe
Havlat, Martin --> continue playing in Europe
Alfredsson, Daniel --> continue playing in Europe
Fisher, Mike --> continue playing in Europe
Schaefer, Peter --> continue playing in Europe
Hossa, Marian --> continue playing in Europe
Varada, Vaclav --> continue playing in Europe
Redden, Wade --> would wait
Spezza, Jason --> would wait
Smolinski, Bryan --> would wait

Farm teamers that would play:

Denis Hamel
Brandon Bochenski
Pat Kavanagh
Brian McGratton

Others:

Shaun Van Allen --> come out of retirement?
Curtis Leschyshyn --> another year?
Rob Ray --> ?

What do you think? - what players would play on other teams?

What I think would be a sure thing is that the league would look a lot more North American in it's makeup.

Warren Kinsella is specifically mentioned by Greg Weston in his column today. He describes some of Kinsella's rants and concludes that they are the actions of someone with an agenda:

So much sniffing and snorting from Chretien's critters surely suggests only one thing: They have something to fear.
It all has the pungent smell of the Somalia inquiry, shut down in mid-stream by the Chretien government with all the same advance sniping now being used on Gomery.

If Weston understands this why don't others in the mainstream press?

Read my entire post here at BlogsCanada.