Reflecting on Stéphane

I’m in the Maple Leaf Lounge in Vancouver on my way back to Toronto, and thanks to a flight delay when the clocks strike midnight in the GTA I’ll be at 30,000 feet with Air Canada. I had planned to be waiting for my suitcase when the clock struck midnight, so no biggie.

I didn’t want to let the calendar turn from 2008 though without reflecting on the career of Stéphane Dion. Particularly, of course, his tenure as leader of the Liberal Party. As an early and ardent supporter of Dion, I wanted to let a little time to go by to reflect on the event of the past two years.

About mid-way through the 2005/06 election campaign I became deeply disillusioned with politics in general, and Liberal politics in particular, culminating in my disgust with the “soldiers in our streets” ad and the feeble defences offered by the campaign and my declaration the Liberals had lost my vote. When I began considering whether I would remain involved in Liberal politics or not the choice of the next leader played a large role, and the day after the election I was one of the earlier people in blogland to float Dion as a potential leadership candidate.

I won’t rehash all my reasons for supporting him, they’re well-documented in my archives. He was, for me, the right person for the time though: an experienced, loyal Liberal removed from the sponsorship nonsense, palatable to both the Chretienites and the Martinites, whose honesty and integrity was above reproach. I also didn’t shy away from his challenges: charisma, language, the ability to transition from loyal lieutenant to leader. In the end, he never wavered on the positives, but was sadly unable to overcome the negatives.

Frankly, I never expected Dion to win. I’m not sure many really did. I felt though that he was the best candidate on offer at the time – I still do – and he was a candidate I could be proud to support. And I was. I’ll never forget the exhilaration of that convention in Montreal, as the momentum built day-by-day, never wanting to believe we could take this until that final night, and the interminable wait standing in a packed hall waiting for the final ballot results, when I considered, never having considering winning a possibility, how crushed I’d be if we lost now.

That night in Montreal was probably the high-point. There seemed to be real unity in the room that night. As the convention euphoria subsided though and we returned to the real world, and the Conservative attack ads began, the downward trend began.

Where did it go wrong? Who is to blame. The problems were manifold and the culprits many.
For one, much of the party was never really behind him. He was the consensus candidate, but was the first choice of very few, and with early weakness many began to view the Dion administration as a temporary aberration that would soon be corrected. He was hampered by an inability to rally the full weight, and energy, of the party and caucus behind him. The lack of fiscal resources was also a serious impairment. The public and anonymous source snipping from within the tent only served to underline the narrative of the second factor.

And that’s the unprecedented Conservative smear campaign. Never in our political history has a political leader been subjected to such a coordinated, highly financed attempt to destroy their reputation. I freely admit I underestimated the impact and the effectiveness of the Conservative negative ad campaign to ill define Dion. It was far more effective in shaping the view of Dion held by ordinary Canadians than I’d ever imagined. What’s more, out inability to effectively counter the smear campaign, both in paid advertising and in our free media opportunities, meant Dion was buried in a deep hole even a more able politician would likely have been unable to crawl out of.

And finally, but certainly not least, there’s Dion himself. My respect for the man, his integrity, and all he has done for Canada is undiminished. Sadly, however, he was unable to realize the potential we saw in him, and grow into the leader I felt he could become.

As much as it pains me, the language issue was a serious problem. It bothers me that, in a linguistically and ethnically-diverse country as Canada this is the case. It shouldn’t be. But we live in the real world, and I heard from too many people with no interest or stake in politics that the language barrier was a major concern for them to be able to dismiss the issue. While I felt he made improvements over the course of his tenure and during the campaign, the hole was too deep.

As well, frankly Dion proved to lack the skills as a politician to be an effective leader, and particularly to broaden the tent and mend fences across leadership lines. He was unable to develop consensus support within the party for his strategies and policies. During the campaign he seemed to be unwilling to consider strategic course corrections or heed the advice of those more experienced in campaigns when the strategy proved to be failing. The lateness of the shift from an environmental to an economic message is the obvious example. If executed sooner, the result would not have been so bleak. And before then, there was a point where the polls showed it was serious deck chair salvage time, forecasting an even bleaker result.

Which brings us to the Green Shift. This one issue probably encapsulates the Dion tenure. It was, policy-wise, absolutely the right policy, with broad support amongst those informed and educated on the issue. And Dion, as a point of principle, stuck firmly to it, despite being advised of the pitfalls. However, despite the policy-soundness of the Green Shift, it proved to be an albatross due to the fact a) Dion didn’t build the consensus around it within the party, b) he lacked the charisma and language skill as a political leader to be an effective salesman, and c) we again lacked the fiscal and quick response resources to effectively counter the paid advertising and earned media smears and distortions of the Conservatives and the NDP. We let them define the Green Shift, just liked we let them define Dion himself. And the high gas prices at the time didn’t help either.

So, when it comes to examining what went wrong with the Dion leadership there’s lots of blame to go around, and he deserved a good deal of it. As do we rank and file Liberals, and senior anonymous Jane Taber Liberals. For all that though, as I’ve said many times before, the problems facing our party go far deeper than our leader, and if left unresolved, we’ll keep repeating this vicious cycle. As I’ve pondered the Dion leadership the past few weeks I’ve been reminded of the Coldplay lyric:

“Revolutionaries wait, for my head on a silver plate. Just a puppet on a lonely string. Oh, who would ever want to be King?”

For all his faults and shortcomings, from the language barrier to his stubbornness, in the way that he left the leadership, Dion again demonstrated the integrity and putting of country and party before self that drew me to him in the first place. By stepping aside early to allow Michael Ignatieff’s selection as interim leader, something he was under no obligation to do, he again showed more respect and commitment to the party than, frankly, it has ever shown him.

While he wasn’t, in the end, the right person for the job, Dion leaves it with his pride intact, having not wavered from the core commitments he holds dear. He stood-for what he believes in, even if it wasn’t popular, and even though it cost him dearly. That’s why I decided to support him, and on that, he hasn’t let me down. Merci, Stéphane.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative fiscal priorities

Remind me again how much the Conservatives felt it was important to save by ending the public financing of political parties? And in the mean time, read this story:

The Conservative government has decided that U. S. aerospace giant Sikorsky will not have to pay $36-million in late penalties even though the maritime helicopter it is building for the Canadian Forces is being delivered two years late.

Oh, and the amount that the government would have saved by axing public political subsidies was $30 million. Apparently sticking a shiv in your political opponents is more important than upholding the contractual obligations of government suppliers.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Not hot: Jane Taber's analysis

I really don’t know why I read her column. I guess it’s like a car-wreck, you can’t look away. But this analysis from Ms. Taber though is particularly not hot:

Not: The coalition. The Ignatieff Liberals appear to be lukewarm to the idea of it. Cozying up to the NDPers does not seem to be something that Mr. Ignatieff, who comes across as a centrist, is comfortable with.

Perhaps sensing this, NDP Leader Jack Layton seems to be less committed to the idea, saying on CTV's Question Period last week that the coalition has achieved what it set out to do: make a better budget.

Actually, as a coalition supporter I’m pleased with this development, and actually amused at Ms. Taber’s completely off-base read of the situation.

Ignatieff’s messaging on the coalition has been consistent all along. It has worked, it has brought the Conservatives to heel, forced them to back down on their controversial attacks on their opponents, on pay equity, and on public sector unions, and forced them to speed-up plans for the budget and for stimulus. With Harper proroguing until the budget, now we need to wait and see what’s in the budget. If it does what Canadians expect, we’ll support it. If it fails the test of leadership, we’ll vote it down and move into government to give Canada the economic action it needs. But we can’t say we’ll vote down a budget we haven’t seen. It’s not about grasping for power, it’s about the economy.

That has been the consistent position of Ignatieff and now the Liberals, and I’m very pleased to see the NDP and Jack Layton are now onboard with this same messaging. The fact we’re both pursuing the same strategy would seem to speak to the strength of the coalition, and as I’ve argued before this strategy gives a potential future coalition a greater chance of success. A coalition needs public support to succeed, and to secure public support it can’t be about just grabbing power or voting down Harper no matter what: it needs to be about the economy.

Now the Liberals and the NDP are both working toward that end, from the same page. And that’s hot.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Some Senate thoughts

While stacking the Senate with partisan hacks covered by one or two less odious picks is a long-held Prime Ministerial tradition in Canada, there are a few factors that allow me to take issue with the Harper 18 with something other than the usual partisan angst.

First, these appointments go against all the supposed principles and ideals that the Harper Conservatives and their Alliance/Reform predecessors supposedly stood for. The apologists will try to explain it away, pragmatism and all that, but if there are any true believers left in the Conservative camp they should be crying today. The face is, Harper is not serious about Senate reform. If he were, he’d have begun constitutional negotiations with the provinces. And as for the promise these Senators will resign to run elections if/when they’re held. That’s nice. But didn’t Harper promise not to appoint unelected Senators? So, yeah, things change, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see this promise be backed away from as well.

Still, just for fun, I’d love to see one of the provinces hold a Senate election, just for fun. How about PEI? Let’s get Mike Duffy on the campaign trail! And don’t worry Mike, we won’t show the outtakes of your campaign interview with ATV. Will Ontario elect Irving Gerstein, a Conservative bagman who has never been on a ballot. Will BC elect Yonah Martin or Newfoundland Fabian Manning, people they both rejected as MP candidates this fall? I don’t favour Senate elections without real constitutional reform to address regional imbalance, but this would almost make it worth it.

But back to these appointments, my second issue is the fact Harper lacks the moral legitimacy to make these appointments. He had to beg the Governor-General to prorogue parliament to avoid a confidence vote he was sure to lose. Even if the GG put no conditions on the prorogual, until Harper proves he has the confidence of the house in my view, while perfectly legal, it’s morally inappropriate for him to be stacking the Senate and stuffing Conservatives into every appointment he can find.

Finally, Harper has a minority government. As such, it would be appropriate for him to consult with the opposition parties on such major appointments. Again, it’s not a legal requirement, but is that the only standard we want to hold our politicians too? I thought Paul Martin set a very good example with how he handled Senate appointments as a minority Prime Minister, appointing a few Conservatives and even an (independent) NDPer to the Senate, as well as Liberals. An example Harper ignored.

Anyway, those objections aside, of course Harper is free to appoint whomever he wants. But, that said, is this really the best he can do?

I don’t care about Mike Duffy, the guy has been angling for an appointment for years. When the Liberals were in government, he sucked-up to them. I won’t lose any sleep over Duffy, and he’ll sleep well in the red chamber. Pamela Walin? It was the Liberals who appointed her a counsel-general, and besides, Harper owed her for providing him political cover with the Manley Afghanistan Commission (speaking of which, where’s Manley’s Senate seat?). Patrick Brazeau and Nancy Green Raine? Sure, why not.

But the others? Fabian Manning, a former Conservative MP just rejected by Newfoundland voters? A staffer in Rodney MacDonald’s office in Stephen Greene? Top CPC fundraiser Irving Gerstein, who ignored a summons to testify before a parliamentary committee in in-and-out? Another failed candidate from BC in Yonah Martin? And, of course, a separatist from Quebec in Michel Rivard, a guy who, as a Parti Quebecois MNA, actively campaigned to break-up Canada during the last referendum. I thought the whole reason Harper was pushing through these appointments was to stop separatists from being appointed to the Senate, not to appoint them himself?

I mean, if you’re going to toss out all your supposed moral principles about Senate reform and stack it with a bunch of Conservative hacks, couldn’t Harper have at least found a higher quality of Conservative hack? What, did Stephen Taylor and Kate MacMillan say no? Or do these picks really represent the crème de la crème of Conservative hackdom?

Or, maybe, there’s still some Conservatives out there that are willing to stand on principle and wanted nothing to do with this, even if their leader feels differently. They must be getting lonely though.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I’ll huff, and I’ll puff, and I’ll blow this Senate down

From the hot air department:

If the Conservative government can't get its planned reforms to the Canadian Senate passed as soon as possible it will simply move to abolish the chamber altogether, says Steven Fletcher, the minister of state for democratic reform.

Yeah, I’m going to go ahead and call BS on that one.

I’ve argued before that the Conservative commitment to Senate reform has been truly half-asses at best, nibbling away around the edges in a way that will actually only create a worse situation: an elected Senate, unafraid of using its power, but with the regional inequities entrenched. The only real way to reform the Senate is through constitutional reform with the provinces. That’s a process the Conservatives have shown absolutely no appetite for.

Now, Stephen Fletcher is threatening to abolish the Senate if his nibbling, possibly unconstitutional “reforms” aren’t passed? Please. Does he think he can just abolish the Senate by fiat? Actually, given the understanding the Conservatives have demonstrated for our democratic process, maybe he does. But no, abolishing the Senate would require constitutional reform and amendment in negotiation with the provinces.

Do the Conservatives seriously expect us to believe they have the appetite for entering constitutional negotiations with the provinces to abolish the Senate when they have been unwilling to use this process to usher in the meaningful sort of Senate reform they CLAIM to stand for? Please.

Keep huffing and puffing, gentlemen.

And in the mean time, the Conservatives will demonstrate their commitment to Senate reform tomorrow by sending one of their top fundraisers to patronage heaven. Why, Reformers? Because the Liberals do it too. Preston must be so proud.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Another poll to ponder

A few interesting stats to ponder in this post-Liberal leadership poll from Ipsos Reid:

A new poll suggests Canadians are favourably impressed by Michael Ignatieff's installation as federal Liberal leader.

Half of respondents to The Canadian Press/Harris-Decima survey said they reacted positively when the Liberal party last week chose Ignatieff to replace Stephane Dion at the helm.

Only 11 per cent reacted negatively while 36 per cent had a neutral opinion about the change.

Ignatieff's ascension garnered more positive than negative reviews in every region of the country, particularly Ontario and Quebec where a majority cheered the change.

Among Liberal supporters, 69 per cent of respondents had a positive impression of the switch in leaders.

I found this particularly interesting:

``The change in Liberal leadership was favourably received in virtually all quarters but Liberals in particular are most positive about Mr. Ignatieff's new role,'' said Harris-Decima's senior vice-president, Jeff Walker.

``While the numbers suggest some resistance to how Mr. Ignatieff was installed, much of this resistance is among Conservatives, with NDP,Green and Bloc voters being relatively content with the selection process.''

In other words, partisan anti-Liberals unlikely to vote for us anyway. I won't take much from these numbers, except that Canadians are more interested in what our leader will do to tackle the issues they care about than in how our leader is being selected.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Michael Ignatieff on Duffy yesterday

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Michael Ignatieff in the media on Wednesday

For some reason a technical hiccup prevented me from getting the press conference, but here's Michael Ignatieff yesterday with Don Newman on the Politics broadcast:



And here is Michael being interviewed by Lloyd Robertson on the CTV National News:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

But but but...

...he's not flip-flopping, he's being pragmatic!

Harper to fill 18 Senate seats with Tory loyalists

Updated Wed. Dec. 10 2008 10:01 PM ET

Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to fill 18 vacancies in the unelected Senate with Conservative loyalists before Christmas, CTV News has learned.

Sources said Harper is concerned the Senate committee system isn't working properly because there are only 20 Conservative senators sitting in the Liberal-dominated Red Chamber.

But according to insiders, what really drove Harper to move quickly and fill the vacant Senate seats is the possibility of losing political power in January at the hands of the Liberal-NDP coalition.
(more)

Hey Conservatives! Are you a 30+ landowner that want a cushy job with a fat salary until Age 75? Get your CV into your local Conservative MP today!

Oh, btw. I remember when the Liberals were in a minority, and were faced with making Senate appointments. Recognizing he didn't have a majority mandate, Paul Martin appointed Senators from different parties, including Elaine McCoy (Progressive Conservative), Lillian Dyck (independent NDP), Nancy Ruth (Conservative), Hugh Segal (Conservative) and Andrée Champagne (Conservative).

Anyone want to bet Stephen Harper rises to the Paul Martin standard of minority government responsibility and principle?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We're coming for you, Steve

I do feel a little cheated with the early end to this leadership race (didn't even get a Michael button, although I did get two snazzy Dominic ones), but while the process wasn’t ideal, I think the fact we’re now able to unite behind Michael Ignatieff as our (interim for now) Liberal leader is actually a blessing, and it’s an opportunity for the Liberal Party – if we seize it.

And it’s really an opportunity we have Stephen Harper to thank for. He united the right, he united the left, and now he has united the Liberal Party all together behind Michael Ignatieff to stand-up forcefully to the Conservative bullying, and quite possibly send his government packing next month. So thanks for that Steve. You rock, man.

A sincere thank-you though to Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae. I’ve already spoken of my respect and admiration for Dominic. And Bob really impressed me, and I think a lot of Liberals, with his selfless acts of yesterday. The odds may have been long for him but you never give up hope – look at Stephane’s improbable win in 2006 – so for him to put aside his own ambitions, and probably his last chance at the leadership, for the greater good of the party and the country was a truly noble act that I think gained him a lot of respect within the Liberal Party, including with some that maybe weren’t so sure about Bob.

I have some policy disagreements with Bob, but I got to see him a few times during the election campaign when he came out to B.C. to stump for our candidates and do a few Team BC press conferences. Getting a chance to watch him work a room or the media, I have to say he’s the most skilled and natural politician I’ve ever met. The man can campaign like no-one’s business. I think he and Michael will complement one another spectacularly, and I’m really impressed with the strength of our front-bench. Particularly compared to the lack of depth across the way.

While I’d have liked a full race, there’s actually a number of positives to this scenario. If it continued, this thing could have started to get really nasty; now the wounds will be easier to heal. Not that much money has been spent yet, so debt should be very minimal and we can now focus on party fundraising. We have a leader for the long-term ready to challenge, and potentially replace, Stephen Harper.

And we can now put the focus on the more important issue facing the Liberal Party: party reform and renewal. I’ve said all along that leadership wasn’t the main problem with our party. Was Stephane a factor in the last result? Undeniably. But the problems go much deeper, and they predate Stephane, Paul and Jean. I’ve written at length already about the reforms I would like to see, and I’ll continue to push them in the months ahead.

As Jason writes today, there is now a real and meaningful opportunity to use the Vancouver convention to deliver real and substantial party reform. And as a positive, I suspect it will be a little easier now to secure a delegate spot. So, if you want constitutional reform, if you want (weighted) one-member, one vote, then it’s not enough to just moan about the need for change. Push for it. Advocate it. Get specific: what change, how and why? And, most importantly, run to be a delegate and then come to convention in Vancouver so we can VOTE for it, and really make it happen.

We have a lot of work to do, but now we’re all able to come together and get down to the challenge. And we’re able to train our guns where they really belong: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

And don’t kid yourself if you don’t think they’re concerned. Look at Tim Powers, already furiously trying to raise expectations (and rather transparently and ineptly, at that). They were counting on us staying divided and fighting amongst ourselves for many more months. No longer. Let’s show them what a united Liberal Party is made of. As Michael said a little while ago: no more sitting on our hands.

We’re coming for you, Steve.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Bob Rae on Duffy

Unfortunately I didn't manage to record Bob Rae's press conference today, but I did manage to grab this interview Bob did yesterday evening on Mike Duffy Live:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Dominic LeBlanc press conference

Dominic LeBlanc's press conference Monday announcing he was dropping out of the Liberal leadership race and endorsing Michael Ignatieff.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Canada is now in a recession

I'll have more to say later about another whirlwind of a day on the political scene, including what seems like the end of the Liberal leadership race with a very noble decision by Bob Rae. I did for now though want to draw attention to this news:

Central bank says Canada in recession, slashes policy rate to 1.5 per cent
Source: The Canadian Press
Dec 9, 2008 9:20

OTTAWA _ The Bank of Canada slashed its key interest rate to the lowest level in half a century Tuesday in an aggressive move to help rescue an economy it now officially declares is in recession.

Central bank governor Mark Carney cut the trendsetting rate by three-quarters of a point to 1.5 per cent, the lowest since 1958.

It was the single biggest reduction in the overnight rate since October 2001 in the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, and exceeded the expectations of most economists. The consensus private-sector forecast had been for a half-point cut.

But in a gloomy assessment of the Canadian and world economies, the central bank said the situation continues to deteriorate so rapidly that even more reductions to short-term interest rates may be necessary.

``The outlook for the world economy has deteriorated significantly and the global recession will be broader and deeper than previously anticipated,'' it stated.

``While Canada's economy evolved largely as expected during the summer and early autumn, it is now entering a recession,'' it added. ``The recent declines in terms of trade, real income growth, and confidence are prompting more cautious behaviour by households and businesses.''

Canada is in a recession, and the economic situation is worsening.

And because Stephen Harper and his Conservative government preferred political posturing to working with Parliament for real action on the economy, because he cowardly ran away and sought the prorogual of the House rather than face losing power to a coalition of progressive parties that was willing to take the action on the economy that's needed, because of that we will go until at least the end of January for the possibility of real and meaningful action.

The Bank of Canada says we're now entering a recession, and the Conservatives have given everyone an extra-long Christmas vacation. I hope the price Canadians end up paying for your "time-out" is worth it, Mr. Harper.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Let's win the leadership the right way

Yesterday, Michael Ignatieff sent an e-mail out to supporters and others titled “Winning the leadership the right way.” Unfortunately, it seems neither Michael or Bob are taking that spirit to heart.

I'll update things, as the developments on the Liberal leadership front have been fast and furious. Stephane Dion has announced he won't wait until May to resign, but just as soon as a new interim leader is chosen he'll step aside. Dominic LeBlanc has dropped out of the race and endorsed Michael. Both Michael and Bob agree it is desirable to have a permanent leader in place as soon as possible. They just disagree about how to get there.

Unfortunately, the party doesn't seem able to come to agreement on a way to speed-up the leadership process that is constitutionally legitimate. Bob wants one member, one vote now, but that just isn't possible under the current constitution. Also, from a democracy point of view, I'd note delegates at the last convention rejected OMOV. I favour (weighted) OMOV, and will advocate for it an the next convention, but for now, we're stuck with the process democratically selected by the party membership.

There do seem to be ways constitutionally to speed up the delegated process though. A scenario suggested by Jason seems reasonable, and involves advancing the delegate selection meetings to January and then having the delegates immediately vote by phone or the Web for the permanent leader.

As I said though, there seems to be no agreement on such a process currently, leaving us with Rae pushing a constitutionally-void OMOV now and Ignatieff preferring to allow the delegated process, as constitutionally proscribed, continue until May.

Except, the party is now going to pick an interim leader to serve until May:

In this spirit, with respect to its decision to select an interim Leader, the National Executive has chosen to consult broadly with the Party’s constitutional bodies, including Caucus, defeated candidates from the last general election, Council of Presidents, and Commission Club Presidents. Through this process, an interim Leader is expected to be chosen as early as Wednesday, December 17, 2008.

This sounds like a fine process. Generally, an interim leader is just selected by the executive, in consultation with the caucus. So extending the consultation further is a positive, and is constitutionally consistent.

The wrench in the works, however, is that Michael intends to run for interim leader. Now, again, this is perfectly permissible under the rules. He has the right to run for interim leader. But just because it's allowed doesn't make it a good idea. I've already stated clearly for the record that neither leadership candidate should stand for interim leader, and my position hasn't changed.

While there is still a race on with more than one candidate, to have one of them having to campaign against the interim leader isn't acceptable. It gives an enormous advantage to one candidate, opens many cans of worms around decisions such as critic appointments, staff hirings and other decisions by the leader being seen to favour his own supporters, and will only make the post-leadership wounds all the harder to heal.

I'd advise Michael and his people to slow down a little. Now, look, were I a betting man with money to wager on this race, well, let's just say Michael would be a pretty good bet to win. So why lunge hungrily for the interim leader prize, with all the inherent downsides?

The only reasonable argument I've heard is election prep, but surely the party executive and staff can get the process underway in the interim. And both candidates should be working on policy and transition initiatives.

So why not win the right way? In a way that respects the rights of the Liberal membership to have their choice, in a constitutionally-valid process? I know we can win this race, and it would give our new leader a much stronger mandate, with the party all the more behind him.

I'd advise both candidates to do some thinking. Bob needs to stop advocating leadership processes that are constitutionally invalid, and Michael needs to revisit letting his name stand for interim leader. Both need to consider if they're acting in the best interests of the party. And the party needs to find a way to get a leader in place by late January that respects both democracy and the constitution.

At the least, let's advance the delegate selection meetings as far as possible, as early in January as we can. With two candidates, one of them is going to get 50%+1. At that point, the second-place candidate should consider stepping aside for the good of the party, given the extraordinary circumstances and the clearly expressed will of the membership (ironically, it is weighted OMOV to elect the delegates, who must vote for their declared candidate on the first ballot), and allow the winner to sevre as interim leader until its formalized by the convention in May.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dominic supports Michael

As expected, Dominic LeBlanc has dropped out of the leadership race to support Michael Ignatieff. As I've mentioned before I really like Dominic, I seriously considered supporting him in this race. I'm sorry more Liberals won't get to know him through a full-length leadership process, but I hope he continues to make his voice and views heard. Our party needs him.

LeBlanc out of Liberal leadership race (URGENT-Liberal-Leadership)
Source: The Canadian Press - Broadcast wire
Dec 8, 2008 15:14

OTTAWA - New Brunswick MP Dominic LeBlanc is abandoning the Liberal leadership race and formally throwing his support to Michael Ignatieff.

His withdrawal follows Stephane Dion's announcement today that he's ready to step down as soon as a replacement can be chosen, perhaps as soon as Wednesday.

The party wants a new leader in place before the House of Commons returns at the end of January for a federal budget and a critical confidence vote.

LeBlanc, 40, said he had been looking forward to the leadership campaign and renewing the party.

But, he added, it's important to find a permanent leader quickly.

Ignatieff, he said, is the consensus choice of Liberals and the best person to lead the party and the country.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stéphane steps down

I'm having a very busy day at work, and then after work I'm off to the Maple Leafs game (go Isles!), so I won't have time until late tonight or early tomorrow to respond to the decision by Stéphane Dion today to step aside as party leader with the time and thought deserved.

For now, I'll just say I'm very sorry about the way things worked out. Stéphane is a good man and a good Canadian, and my respect for him has never wavered. No matter what the last few chapters of his political biography may read, today he's ending his leadership as he has spent his career: putting his party and his country first. Which just deepens my respect for the man all the more.

In the mean time, here's his statement, followed by an e-mail that went-out from the Michael Ignatieff campaign this afternoon.

Dion's Statement:

After the election on October 14 I announced I would stay on as Leader of the Liberal Party until my party could select my successor. One of my goals was to ensure an effective opposition to Stephen Harper's government.

I believe that decision was the right one and I am proud of having forced Stephen Harper to back away from his attempt to force upon Canadians his most ideological and harmful plans in these tough economic times.

The alliance between the Liberal Party and the NDP to replace the Harper government, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, is a solid basis to give Canada a government that reflects both the aspirations of the majority of Canadians and the support of the majority of Members of
Parliament. Such a government would be more stable than a minority Conservative government incapable of cooperating with opposition parties.

As the Governor General has granted a prorogation, it is a logical time for us Liberals to assess how we can best prepare our party to carry this fight forward.

There is a sense in the party, and certainly in the caucus, that given these new circumstances the new leader needs to be in place before the House resumes. I agree. I recommend this course to my party and caucus.

As always, I want to do what is best for my country and my party, especially when Canadians' jobs and pensions are at risk.

So I have decided to step aside as Leader of the Liberal Party effective as soon as my successor is duly chosen.

I will offer my unconditional and enthusiastic support to my successor in the same way I have always supported the leaders of our great party. I will work under the next leader's direction with all my energy in order to give Canada a better government.

I wish to close by making it absolutely clear that my earlier departure does not change the facts of the situation that the Prime Minister has created in the last two weeks.

The Prime Minister and his government refused to lay out a plan to stimulate the economy. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister shut down Parliament to save his job while thousands of Canadians are losing theirs. The Prime Minister
has poisoned the well of trust and respect that is necessary for a minority government to work in Parliament _ especially in a time of crisis. Mr. Harper took an economic crisis and added a parliamentary crisis that he then tried to transform into a national unity crisis: this is no way for a Prime Minister of Canada to act.

It is my hope that the decision I have announced today will enhance the capacity of Parliament to function effectively for the sake of Canadians in this economic crisis.

Stephane Dion, PC, MP

Micheal's letter:

Dear Friends,

Over the past few days I have been honoured by the incredible surge of support from all parts of our party for my candidacy for the leadership.

The week ahead promises to be an exciting one and I wanted to share with you my thoughts as it begins.

First, every one of us owes a debt of thanks to Mr. Dion for his public service as Leader of our party, as a cabinet minister and an MP. I hope that we may continue to count on his contributions to Canada and to the Liberal Party.

Second, I want to share with you that I will stand as a candidate to replace Mr. Dion under the process outlined in the party constitution, as voted upon by the delegates of the grassroots of our party at the last convention in Montreal, for replacement of a Leader who resigns prior to a leadership convention. I am doing so because our parliamentary caucus and party need leadership now to confront Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

Third, should I succeed in winning the support of the national executive of the party and our caucus as leader, I remain committed to having that leadership confirmed by our party at our upcoming convention in Vancouver, as our party's constitution requires.

Fourth, should I become leader I hope to immediately engage the grassroots in the very real policy challenges facing our country at a time of peril and in the party renewal challenges that all Liberals must face together. I will need the best from each and every one of us in this regard.

Thanks to each and every one of you for all your hard work and support on my behalf. It is appreciated more than I can say. If you haven’t done so already please tell me what you think, volunteer or make a donation.

Michael

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Do we want this coalition to succeed or not?

I want this coalition to succeed. I would like nothing more than to see the Harper Conservatives out of power yesterday. But we need to be realistic and reasoned in how we proceed. We don’t need to put our cards on the table six weeks before Parliament returns. And we must get the public on our side.

And we don’t have the public onside yet. Conservative partisans say it’s a coup. Liberal and NDP partisans say throw Harper out on his ass. The non-partisan majority are confused. They don’t understand the parliamentary system. They may or may not like Harper, but they know we just had an election and they wonder just what the heck all those idiots of all parties up in Ottawa are doing farting around during an economic crisis.

We need to make our case to the public. We need to do a little education to warm people up to the fact that, if the Harper government loses the confidence of the house, a majority-led progressive coalition is a perfectly legitimate option. We need to make clear that Haper has been playing political games when he should have been focusing on the economy.

Now, sure, we could just defeat the government in January, no matter what the public says, and petition the GG to turn the keys over to the coalition, no matter what the public opinion is. That would be constitutionally legitimate. But it would be a mistake that would well doom the coalition to failure. It would give the anti-democracy messaging of the Conservatives credence. And it may well precipitate an election we’d lose: while it shouldn’t technically be a consideration, when the GG has to decide coalition vs. election, don’t doubt for a second that public opinion may well play a role in her decision. If opinion is majorly anti-coalition, an election is more likely.

If we want this coalition to succeed, we need public support. And if we’re to get public support, the coalition can’t be seen as simply a naked and partisan power grab. The public will not accept that. They will not see the means as justifying the ends. Most Canadians aren’t partisans, they don’t share our strong feelings. They just want government to work and stay out of their way.

This needs to be about the economy. It needs to be about ensuring Canada has the economic policies and leadership it needs in these troubled times. Canadians want and expect all parties to work together to that end. That means we need to be willing to consider what the Conservatives will bring forward in January.

We need to make the case that the coalition so far has been a clear success. We have succeeded in getting Harper to back down on campaign finance, on the public sector strike ban, and he moved up the budget. Those were concessions he wouldn’t have made without a strong and united coalition holding his feet to the fire. He has failed to deliver immediate and serious economic stimulus, and he has yet (to my recollection) to back down on the regressive changes to pay equity.

We need to make clear that we expect real, serious and meaningful action from the Conservatives in this budget. If he has genuinely gotten the message, if he has taken the action needed for the economy, then we’re open to considering it. If it falls short, the coalition is ready to vote it down and form government itself to give Canada the leadership it needs.

Now, I have my doubts that Harper is genuinely willing to compromise. And I don’t see how we can ever again trust a guy who has repeatedly lied to Canadians, called us treasonous coup plotters, and questioned our patriotism.

However, Canadians expect us to be reasonable, and they won’t consider it reasonable for us to be dismissing out of hand a budget document that won’t be presented for six weeks, and hasn’t even been written yet. That will turn the public against us in a big way.

And that brings us to Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. Bob is touring the country, having appointed himself as the chief coalition booster, giving fiery speeches saying we’ll bring down Harper in January no matter what. And his supporters are making this a leadership wedge issue, saying because Ignatieff isn’t saying let’s vote down the budget before we see it, that he isn’t committed to the coalition. That he’s ruining our chances of taking power. This is a load of crap.

First of all, those fiery speeches of Bob’s sound great to Liberal partisans. Dump Harper, ra ra. But to Canadians it’s the worst kind of crass political opportunism. It shows us as nakedly hungry for power, and sends the message this isn’t about the economy. Now this strategy may help Bob gain some Liberal delegates for the leadership. But it will cost this coalition public support, and makes it less likely to succeed. It may help Bob, but at the cost of the coalition.

Despite the attempts to distort his position on the coalition, Michael has been quite clear: the coalition has succeeded so far, let’s see what Harper does on the budget, if it’s not good enough we vote it down. That’s a pragmatic, principled position that Canadians will accept and support. Maybe it doesn’t satisfy the rabid firebrand partisans hungry for blood. But it’s a position that satisfies mainstream Canadians, that puts the interests of the country ahead of leadership politics, and gives this coalition its best chance of success.

Remember, a majority of Canadians voted for progressive parties. They’re naturally inclined to be supportive of a progressive coalition. But we need to win then over first. Let’s be smart about this.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sundays are supposed to be a day of rest

While Sundays are supposed to be a day of rest (myself, I watched some football and played CivCity: Rome), but it seems assorted Liberal Party mucky-mucks didn't get that message, at least judging by the media reports filtering-out this evening.

According to the reports, all unconfirmed at this point, Dominic LeBlanc is going to drop out of the leadership race to support Michael Ignatieff. As well, both Michael and Bob Rae have spoken publicly of the need to speed up the race, and supposedly there is much behind the scenes negotiating going on around just how that can happen. The Liberal executive is supposedly also meeting tonight to consider how this could be done.

This follows reports yesterday that Stephane Dion will likely announce his immediate resignation as party leader at Wednesday's caucus meeting. All the activity this weekend is geared around getting a new permanent leader in place as soon as possible, certainly before the May convention, and possibly before the return of the House of Commons and the budget presentation in late January.

There is much speculation in the media and the blogs around what possible scenarios are being supported by whom, and how this may proceed. It's all unconfirmed at this point, and some of the reports are conflicting. Fact is, we don't know exactly what “Bob's people” or “Michael's people” are proposing, and we should wait until we do before getting too worked-up about such reports.

Speaking for myself, I reluctantly support the idea of speeding this thing up, but on two conditions:

1/ The constitution of the Liberal Party is respected.
2/ All Liberal Party members have a direct vote in the selection of the leader.

Let me also state something I've said before, for the record: the caucus cannot be allowed to simply pick the leader it wants. That would be an undemocratic process leading to an illegitimate leader, and I won't support such a process.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, LPC constitution or otherwise, but I'd think there much be a way to square this circle.

The caucus and executive have the power to appoint the leader on an emergency basis. What if every Liberal member was given a chance to vote for leader, perhaps by phone or Web or a meeting in each riding. This vote would pick a leader who would then be appointed by the caucus on an emergency basis. The decision could then be confirmed by the Vancouver convention, which would go ahead as a policy biennial (which we really do need, by the way).

I don't know how feasible or constitutionally acceptable such a scenario would be, but it would ensure the leader is selected by the membership, which must be at the core of whatever solution comes forward.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More Michael Ignatieff in the media

Michael Ignatieff speaks to reporters on Thursday, following the Liberal caucus meeting:



Michael Ignatieff on CTV's Mike Duffy Live on Friday:



Michael Ignatieff on CTV's Question Period today:



In The Daily Gleaner on Saturday:

"Mr. Harper's only chance for survival is to split the Liberal Party of Canada," Ignatieff said in his first significant interview since Ottawa's descent into a constitutional crisis.

"He will try to drive a wedge between us, and he will not succeed. Our party is united in its determination to face Mr. Harper down."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We're competitive with Michael, but not so much with Bob: poll

Interesting polling numbers from Angus Reid in today's dead tree edition of the Toronto Star.

First, the party support numbers are troubling for the Liberals, and I'd say speak to our inability during round one of this coalition battle to win the public relations battle. If an election were held now, we'd be in trouble:

Conservatives: 42%
Liberals: 22%
NDP: 18%
Bloc: 10%
Green: 7%

However, asked the pollster, were Michael Ignatieff the leader of the Liberal Party, how would you vote?

Conservatives: 38%
Liberals: 33%
NDP: 13%
Bloc: 10%
Green: 6%

So with Michael, we're still a few points behind but we're competitive, and it's ground we can make up in a campaign. He gives us an impressive 11 point swing in support, and what's interesting is where that swing comes from. He pulls four from the Conservatives but he also pulls five from the NDP. I'd argue that arguers well for Michael as a solidifying figure of the political centre, which is what the Liberal Party needs right now.

The pollster also asked respondents how they'd vote were Bob Rae the Liberal leader:

Conservatives: 41%
Liberals: 26%
NDP: 15%
Bloc: 10%
Green: 6%

Not impressive numbers, with Bob managing only a four-point swing in Liberal fortunes. The Conservative figure, well inside majority government territory, is virtually unchanged, with Bob managing to pull a few points from the NDP although, notably, not as much as Michael. Now, ground can be made up in a campaign, but to close a 15-point gap between the Liberals and the Conservatives would require a miracle.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Don Newman schools John Baird

On Thursday morning, Conservative transport minister John Baird joined CBC's Don Newman in the foyer of the House of Commons to deliver the Conservative talking points while everyone waited for Stephen Harper to come out of his meeting with the Governor-General.

Funny thing happened though. It seemed like Don had a little time to kill, so he decided to school this young whipper-snapper Baird and call him out on some of the ridiculous inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies he was spouting. Usually hosts tend to just let the lies slide, but Don seemed to decide not today, young fella.

The interview went on for over 10 minutes, and it was Live, otherwise I'm sure Baird would have ran for the exits. The video is a little long, but it's well worth the view to see a journalist standing-up for the truth for a change.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

John not so Manley

I'll just come right out and say it: any respect I might have had left for John Manley is gone.

Agree or disagree with his comments, but publishing them in an op/ed in a national newspaper just reeks of shameless self-promotion and ego. A phone call to the leader or his staff would have been far more appropriate, and effective. He's supposedly an elder statesman of this party, always mentioned as a possible leadership candidate. What purpose does unleashing a harshly negative public attack on the party you supposedly support serve?

I say supposedly support, because where in the heck has John Manley been the last few years? Certainly not helping a Liberal Party that has needed all hands on deck. He has twice passed on the leadership, in my view not wanting to do the heavy lifting of rebuilding a party to the point of being a contender. Were it a contender, I have no doubt his decision would be different.

I might be more inclined to consider his views had he rolled up his sleeves and gotten involved to help the Liberal Party and its cause these last few years, when it's been in need, instead of merely snipping from the sidelines and then stepping in to kick our leader in the nads when he's down, in order to score some headlines and get a little publicity.

You may be right, John, and you may be wrong. But this was a gutless move. And not Manley at all.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Ed Broadbent lays the smack down

I've been having issues uploading to YouTube the last few days, but they appear to be resolved now. These are highlights from an interview with former NDP leader Ed Broadbent on Wednesday where, while discussing the possible coalition govenment, he calls El Presidente Harper and his Conservatives out on their penchant for out and out lying.

It was a great performance by Ed. I'd love to see Jean Chretien out there too, talking-up the coalition cause.

"They lie. I repeat. They pay people to lie about other people, and destroy things."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

El Presidente Harper is not a leader

While I strongly disagree with Madame Jean’s decision, I think she was in a no-win situation no matter what she did, and there was no precedent to inform a decision on prorogual under these circumstances. So I don’t blame her.

In a no-win scenario she opted to maintain the status quo. Perhaps, given the fact she holds an unelected position, that was the right thing to do. It wasn’t the right thing to do constitutionally however, and perhaps we need to look at reforming the role of the head of state in our system of government. We shouldn’t be putting an unelected figurehead in this position if they lack the moral authority to use the powers of their office to make the right decision, using the powers granted to them by the constitution. We need a head of state role in our system of government, but they also need to have the degree of legitimacy needed to play their role when called upon.

But I’ve digressed. I don’t blame Jean. I blame Harper. He put the Governor-General in this position, and now a very dangerous precedent has been set: illegitimate governments that have lost the support of the people’s representatives can govern with impunity, fleeing parliament at will to avoid accountability. Mark my words: Conservatives, and all Canadians, will come to regret the precedent set here today.

What we have today, however, is an illegitimate government that has lost the moral authority to govern. As El Presidente would say, Let Me Be Clear. Stephen Harper has lost the confidence of the House. You know it, I know it, he knows it. It is a fundamental tenet of our system of parliamentary democracy that, to be Prime Minister, you must command the confidence of the House. And he does not. That is abundantly clear.

Harper may go on to govern for many years. And he may even do some good things, anything is possible. But his scorched Earth, nuclear war campaign to maintain his tenuous grip on power has besmirched and weakened the very institutions he claims to be fighting to protect.

He has stoked the fires of Western alienation by exploiting the legitimate concerns of Western Canadians for his narrow political ends.

He has stoked the fires of Quebec nationalism with his narrow-minded attacks on the Bloc Quebecois, a party that draws broad support from Quebecers not for its pro-sovereignty policy, but for its pro-Quebec policy.

He has exploited the lack of understanding many Canadians have of our parliamentary system to portray opposition parties representing the majority of the population exercising legitimate mechanisms available to them under our system of government as undertaking acts of treason that constitute a coup, thereby weakening the confidence and respect the public has in its system of government. That’s very dangerous.

And he compounded the danger by putting the Governor-General in the untenable position of having to make a decision he should never have asked her to make, further weakening our system of governance. It was only his blinding ambition and lack of respect for democracy that but her in this bind, and his inability to do the right thing.

The faith of Canadians in their democratic institutions may never have been lower than it is now.

But hey, at least El Presidente Harper has hung onto power a few more weeks. Viva le revolution.

(I’m heading out to a holiday party for the evening, which means I’ll be away from my computer and unable to approve comments, I’ll approve when I get back. It will also be good to have some time to mull over the day's events and the way forward before writing more. Much to consider. In the mean time though, I want to make clear I stand four-square behind Stéphane Dion.)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

My review of last night

I’ve been very busy lately but I know you’re all waiting for my review of last night, and I don’t want to keep you waiting any longer…

…I really enjoyed the sneak preview of Valkyrie I attended at the Scotia Theatre. If you’re not familiar with this movie, which will be out Dec. 25th, it starts Tom Cruise and it tells the story of the last major coup plot against Adolf Hitler by the Germany Army in World War Two.

I’m a history buff and a war movie buff so I was looking forward to this movie. My only reservations were to do with it being a Tom Cruise vehicle. He did very well though, I thought.

The movie seemed pretty close to the true events and did a very good job of building the tension even though, of course, we all knew how the story ended. I was kind of hoping maybe they’d knock-off Hitler this time but, alas, he still escaped the explosion.

But it was a very good, tense drama about a group of patriots, although not all perfect people to be sure, who feel their country has been hijacked and is being led into the abyss, and the only way they can save their country is to risk their lives by rising up against their government.

I’ll give it 5/5 stars.

P.S. Excellent production values.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

They're firing wildly, hoping to hit something

From the "sentences that taken out of context sound much worse than they are" department:

The Conservatives are hoping to enlist gun enthusiasts in the fight against the coalition that is threatening their government.

Actually, add the context and it's still pretty bad. And not for nothing, but the Conservatives have made no attempt to end the registry in, what, three years in office?

BTW, if the PMO speech-writing staff is reading, I'll donate $50 to the NRA if Harper says in his speech to the nation tonight that "the Liberals, socialists and separatist will pry the levers of power from my cold, dead hands!" Hand to god.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Baubles and trinkets and beads

Word on the street is if you're a Liberal MP who decides to "catch the flu" during the confidence vote, Stephen Harper will send you off to the Senate until you're 75 to help you recover.

My advice to opposition MPs: if you opt for the Conservative life insurance package, make sure you get it in writing. And make sure they clearly define what they mean by "financial considerations."

I'd say get it on tape too, but you know how they can be doctored...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper needs to channel Jimmy Swaggart

So Stephen Harper will address the national tonight to try to save his government, and the opposition super friends have asked for equal time to respond. High drama indeed. Alas, I’ll be at a sneak-peak of Valkyrie so I shall miss it all.

Were I watching though, if Harper wants to save his job (both as PM and CPC leader) he’s going to need to channel Jimmy Swaggart. OK, maybe crying on camera and admitting “I have sinned!” would be a bit much. But if Harper wants to have any hope of extricating himself from this mess of his own making (and even if the GG grants a prorogual it likely just delays the inevitable) he’s going to need to eat a big piece of humble pie.

When he talks to Canada he can’t be Angry Steve. Canadians don’t like Angry Steve. He needs to admit that he made some serious mistakes, that he tried to play political games during an economic crisis, that he didn’t rise to the level of statesmanship Canadians expect, that he erred on the strike ban, on pay equity, on delaying stimulus. And he needs to take responsibility for not heeding the message of Canadians that he got a minority and is expected to work collaboratively with the other parties. He needs to be genuinely contrite and apologetic.

If he does all this, I think he can win the public relations battle and much of the public, who don’t really understand the intricacies of parliamentary democracy as well as we political junkies. Will it be enough to stop the coalition? Probably not, but it would hamper its ability to succeed. And if the GG does progue, if negative public opinion goes negative over the interim and Harper has fallen on his sword and promised real cooperation it would be difficult for the coalition to proceed.

Now, do I think Harper will don the sweater vest and do a Swaggart? Anything is possible. But it would be a sharp 180 from the Conservatives’ current scorched earth, blitzkrieg, this is treason strategy, which will only serve to fuel a pox on all their houses feeling and won’t help their fortunes at all.

Harper, though, will also be fighting to hold onto the Conservative leadership tonight too. He’s probably gone as PM, and it’s his own fault. Many Conservatives are reaching the conclusion Harper has taken them as far as they can go, and, not only has his hyper-partisanship become a liability, it has cost them government a month after they won an increased minority.

If he’s to hold on to the leadership and survive, well, a coup, Conservatives are going to want to see some remorse from Harper, and some inkling that he has learned from this debacle, grow, and not make the same mistakes again. Harper has shown an impressive ability to learn harsh lessons in the past, but tonight will be a real challenge.

We'll see very quickly whether he's genuinely serious about staying in government, or if, knowing he can't lead it, he just intends to burn the house down on his way out.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Dion ate his wheaties in question period today

I liked the passion and fire in Stéphane Dion in question period today. Here's some highlights:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Harper's flag flap: Is he blind or is he just a liar?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You know it's over when they're laughing at you Steve

Ha ha, this is priceless:

Harper's appeal to flag falls flat
Source: The Canadian Press
Dec 2, 2008 15:32

OTTAWA _ An attempt by Stephen Harper to wrap himself in the flag and take a dig at the opposition coalition fell flat Tuesday.

The prime minister has been portraying the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois government-in-waiting as an unholy alliance of ``socialists and separatists.''

During question period, he suggested the opposition parties staged their pact-signing ceremony Monday without a Canadian flag in the background because of the separatist Bloc.

``Yesterday, as part of the culmination of the machinations of the leader of the NDP, we had these three parties together, forming this agreement, signing a document and they wouldn't even have the Canadian flag behind them,'' he said.

``They had to be photographed without it because a member of their coalition does not even believe in the country.''

Video confirms that Harper was technically right. There wasn't a Canadian flag in the background -- there were two.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Quote of the day goes to Her Excellency for a most excellent quote

Governor General Michaelle Jean:

"The prime minister and myself need to have a conversation."

Indeed.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

An historic day in Canadian politics

What an amazing press conference yesterday with Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. Three political leaders that disagree on a lot setting it all aside to work for Canada (and Quebecers), agreeing to form a coalition government that could well change the face of Canadian politics forever. It’s high-risk but high-reward, and was an example of a statesmanship that fits the times, and that has been sorely missing on the other side of the House of Commons of late.

We’re a long ways from nirvana still, but as a Dionista from day one who had given up hope of ever seeing Stéphane in the PMO this was a heady day indeed, bringing back memories of the heady idealism of the Montreal convention. Even if it’s just for a few months, to see Stéphane leading our country will be sweet indeed.

And I have to say full credit to the NDP, and to Jack Layton. Both our parties have had to compromise to get this agreement done, but from compromise and negotiation comes good, stable, moderate and responsible government. With the best of both our parties, I’m excited to see what a progressive coalition can do for Canadians. I haven’t been a big fan of Jack Layton in the past, that’s no secret. But I liked the Jack Layton I saw in that press conference yesterday. Articulate, reasoned and passionate.

Certainly, there is risk involved here for all parties. For my Liberals, we risk elevating the NDP and giving them a new legitimacy and prominence. A move to the left may alienate some of our centre/right supporters. The NDP, as well, risks alienating their leftish supporters with a move towards the centre. Both sides are having to compromise.

However, I feel, and obviously Stéphane and Jack agree, that these risks are worth it to provide Canada the leadership it need in a time of economic crisis. The kind of leadership Stephen Harper has been continually unwilling to provide.

I’ll have more to say later about the challenges of the week ahead, and bringing this thing home. For now, let me just say that I do truly hope that this coalition, should it take government and should it prove successful, will herald a new era of cooperative Canadian politics.

With the fracturing of the political spectrum, any party getting a majority these days is highly unlikely, and that may never change. It’s time for a new norm in federal politics. Hopefully this progressive coalition will show Canadians the way.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Opposition leaders press conference

I wasn't at home this afternoon to click record on the opposition leaders press conference, but luckily it coincided with my pre-set recording of the Don Newman broadcast, so while I missed the beginning of Stéphane Dion's opening statement, I did get the bulk of the presser. Of course, it took some doing to get 30 minutes of footage down under the YouTube 10 minute limit for non-directors, so here are the highlights:

(BTW, watch the reaction of the unknown journalist in line when the guy from Sun Media asks a ridiculously-slanted question, jerking his head around in a WTF?! kinda way. It's priceless. Around 6:19)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael, Bob and Dominic stand behind Stéphane

Unfortunately I'm not at home so I couldn't grab the video, but here's the transcript of the presser Michael Ignatieff, Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae just held following the Liberal caucus meeting that UNANIMOUSLY confirmed Stéphane Dion as the only choice to lead our party and our country in this future coalition government.

Don't believe the Conservative spin machine planting lies with friendly media sources: The Liberal Party is united behind Stéphane Dion.

Dominic LeBlanc: [Voice of translator]: We had a caucus meeting that was an extremely important one and two things came out of that meeting. The caucus fully agrees with the idea of a coalition government. The agreement that was presented received unanimous support -- and also from the members of the caucus and the other issue which is very important, that we decided that the only person and the best person to lead and form a coalition government is the leader of our party, the elected leader of the opposition, Stéphane Dion, and we support that and that's the best way to proceed.

The leadership campaign will continue and it will be a campaign that is positive and we have already had discussions and the process will continue and Mr. Dion will be the Prime Minister of this coalition government with the support of the unanimous support of the caucus.

Michael Ignatieff: [Voice of translator]: We will continue the leadership race in the normal fashion and I want to emphasize as my friend Dominic has just done and Bob as well, that there's total agreement within the caucus.

We're behind the idea of this agreement because it's based on fiscal responsibility, first of all, and on the national unity of this country as well. And it's a liberal document, it's fundamentally a liberal document, and that's why I support it enthusiastically. And I also want to say that the only leader who can lead us in this context is the elected leader of the party, Stéphane Dion.

I support the accord because it’s fiscally responsible and it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity and equality that our party has always believed in. I've also made it clear and we are at one, the three of us, that the only person who can lead the country is the duly elected leader of the (party), Mr. Stéphane Dion. And, finally, the leadership race will continue in an orderly, civil manner as previously agreed.

Bob Rae: In my experience it was truly an historic caucus meeting and it was very positive and very upbeat and very moving, in fact. And I think that a recognition on our part that Mr. Harper has clearly lost the confidence of the House of Commons, that a majority of the House of Commons wants to form a new government, which is perfectly constitutional and legitimate.

And also an agreement that we also have a constitutional leader, Mr. Dion, who has every right to assume the leadership of the government until such time as a new leader of the Liberal Party is chosen and that date has been set for Vancouver at the end of April, the beginning of May, and the leadership race will continue in the same positive and constructive spirit with which it so successfully has begun. So thank you very much.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Duffy: Liberal caucus united behind Stéphane Dion

From moments ago, Mike Duffy reporting on CTV Newsnet:

Mike: Well, I've just had a word from across the street at the Liberal caucus, which is still underway, but it's about to break up. Stephane Dion met with Bob Rae, Michael Ignatieff and Dominic Leblanc this morning. He showed them the terms of the deal that he, Mr. Dion's staff and he had been working on with the NDP.

They agreed that the terms were good and they went to the Liberal caucus, where they – we are told unanimously said that they support Mr. Dion in being the leader and in this deal going ahead he will be the Prime Minister on an interim basis until the liberal convention in Vancouver in May and that they're going to write a letter to the Governor-General telling her that the opposition parties no longer have confidence in the government and that they've all agreed that Stephane Dion is the man and that there are terms of an arrangement that would guarantee political stability over the next two and a half years. Liberal-ndp coalition with the bloc on the outside but offering their support for a period of 30 months so that the new government can get into place.

Just repeating that, the three liberal leadership contenders met, Stephane Dion this morning, saw and we are told approved of the terms of the arrangement with the NDP. They then took that message to the Liberal caucus, which will break any minute now, but undoubtedly, that will be the word coming out, the next step is to send the message to the Governor-General who is overseas but essentially it all turns on the opposition parties defeating the government on the vote a week from today.

Scott: Mike, does this handcuff the Liberal leadership liberal leadership candidates in any way?

Mike: We're not clear. Obviously the liberal leadership race will go ahead. We are not clear whether or not members -- whether Mr. (Rae) and Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Leblanc will have roles as cabinet ministers or whether they will be free to campaign. I think the view early this morning was that Mr. Rae thought you could. I think Mr. Ignatieff had a slightly different view, ie, that it would be better not to be in cabinet, so they would be free full-time to cross the country and meet liberal delegates. So that part isn't clear yet, Scott, but as soon as they come out I'm sure we'll get an answer to that question as well.

Liberal caucus just about to wrap up but as i say, the interim deal approved by the three leadership candidates -- and they've brought their endorsement of Stephane Dion as the new Prime Minister of Canada to the Liberal caucus meeting now underway.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Mon chef est Stéphane Dion

According to reports last night from the CBC, the opposition parties have reached agreement to defeat the Conservatives and form a coalition government. What the reports make unclear is just who will serve as Prime Minister. I would like to state unequivocally that, in my view, the leader must be Stéphane Dion.

Mr. Dion is the duly elected leader of our party, and in my view, to propose any other person to lead the coalition would be undemocratic, and it would be unacceptable to the rank and file of the Liberal Party. Now if the BQ or the NDP would be unwilling to support a coalition with Dion as leader, that would be something we'd have to carefully consider. But let me be clear: were our own caucus to propose any other person to lead this coalition than Dion it would be unacceptable, intolerable, and just plain stupid. We must stand behind our leader. And Stéphane deserves this chance to serve Canada, as he has all his political career, with honour and with dignity.

Now, Dion has already announced his intention to resign in May, and I've had no indication that he is considering revisiting that decision. So it would seem logical that, no matter what happens with a potential coalition, the leadership process will continue. That makes it even more logical for Dion to continue to serve as Liberal leader and, therefore, as coalition leader and Prime Minister. As a neutral leadership figure not tied to any leadership camp, he can rise above the ongoing leadership debate and focus all his energies on the good of the country.

Let me add that, if for some unforeseen reason, and the only acceptable one I can think of would be a strident demand of the NDP and BQ, Dion can't lead this coalition, then no way in hell should it be one of the leadership candidates. That would be madness. The leadership must be decided by the membership of the Liberal Party, period. And I don't see how the leadership process could continue with one of the candidates serving as PM. Espically now, that's a full-time job. So it would mean a short-circuiting of the membership's right to chose, and that's unacceptable.

I support Michael Ignatieff in the leadership race. When we have delegate selection meetings I will vote for him, I will stand as an Ignatieff delegate and, if selected, I will go to Vancouver to cast my vote for Michael in May. But until that convention selects a new leader, my leader is Stéphane Dion, and I stand behind him 100 per cent.

So too, by the way, does Michael Ignatieff. He has said so repeatedly and publicly. Yesterday I posted two interviews Michael did Sunday, one on CBC News Sunday and the other on CTV's Question Period. In the CTV one in particular, Jane Taber repeatedly tried to goad him into showing disloyalty. Michael steadfastly refused. Stéphane, he said, is the leader of our party. Period. He also launched a passionate defence of Stéphane when Taber tried to disgustingly paint him as colluding with separatists and threatening Canadian unity:

“Do you seriously suppose, that a man like Mr. Dion, who has fought separatism, fought for the unity of Canada, fought to make Canada strong, and to defend the necessary powers of the federal government, is going to trade any of that away to anybody? I just don't think that's a plausible hypothesis.”

There was real passion in Michael's voice there, and I was happy and proud to see that Michael has Stéphane's back.

There's going to be a lot of crap planted by the Conservatives over the next week as they desperately try to cling to power and tear this coalition apart. Crap like the lies they've planted in the National Post last night, alleging disloyalty by Ignatieff. It's just not true. Any reasonable person knows that. Even Bob Rae confirms the stories are false.

This is the Conservative spin machine and dirty tricks squad trying to sow disunity in Liberal ranks. Don't fall for it. Don't play into their hands. It's vital that we ignore this BS and stay together as a party, united behind our leader, Stéphane Dion. Those attacking your fellow Liberals with phony stories planted by our enemies will only hurt the Liberal Party, and reflect poorly on the candidate you purport to support.

As Michael said in yesterday's interviews, let's keep our eyes on the prize. This is about Stephen Harper, and his total lack of empathy and understanding for the concerns of Canadians. It's about this government's total lack of action to deal with this economic crisis. And it's about giving Canadians the government they deserve.

Let's stay focused.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Bob Rae confirms Ivison's anti-Ignatieff stories just aren't true

Bob Rae did Canada AM this morning, and set the record straight on the false rumours planted in John Ivison's National Post column. Clearly these rumours were Conservative plants, designed to sow distension in Liberal ranks and distract us from the real issue: Stephen Harper's incompetence economic management.

But here's Bob, in his own words, from Canada AM this morning. Who are you going to believe on these rumours, John Ivison's unnamed sources or Bob Rae?

Seamus: Let's talk seriously about. -- You met with your leadership rivals and with Stephane Dion. Is that all true?

Bob: No, that's wrong. That's the first thing that's wrong in the story. Mr. Dion wasn't there. Mr. Dion was in Ottawa. We were in Toronto.

Seamus: That's why we have on you on the show.

Bob: Exactly.

Seamus: What did you talk about? What was discussed?

Bob: We talked simply about how serious the situation was, how none of us had anticipated that we'd number this situation. Earlier in the week. There you are. We were waiting for the outcome of the discussions with the other two opposition parties. As we were chatting those discussions were still ongoing. So we really just talked generally about how we needed to focus and how we needed to make sure that there continued to be unity in the party. And that while it was important for democracy that in the party that you know we all be able to talk through and work
through the leadership campaign and continue with that. The most important thing was to work in a disciplined and focused way and do whatever we can to support the party. At this time of great challenge.

Seamus: I have to ask you. The headline on the National Post is pointed. NDP Liberal plan would see Ignatieff as PM and Rae, Leblanc agree to step aside.

Bob: No, there was no discussion of that. I mean that was not at all decided. And that was never sort of asked for. Nobody -- nobody was being asked to do that. So like a lot of things you read in the newspapers, that happens to be untrue. If any reporter had asked me, I would have been able to tell them. I suspect this is an example of people spinning and overspinning. There will be a lot of that seamus. There will be a lot of people trying to put forward their point of view and not straightforward but through a bunch of surrogates and then talk into reporters ears. This is the way the world works and -- in this spin capital of ottawa. But the reality is that wasn't what was discussed. What was really discussed how do we create the unity that's necessary, how do we create the discipline that's necessary for us to -- for us to succeed. In what is a very difficult moment for the country. All of prime minister who simply could not govern with other parties and that is the test of a minority parliament. You know, i know he got 143 seats but he doesn't have a majority. He demonstrated so clearly last week the prime minister and his team demonstrated they're simply incapable of working with other parties. All they know how to do is poke a finger in the eye of the rest of parliament. That's not going to work. Canadian people deserve better. They deserve economic leadership and real principled leadership at a time of economic crisis. We have an obligation to do.

Seamus: As always with you, I don't have much time. You know, i hear what you're saying about -- about everybody getting together. There can only be one liberal leader on possibly only one prime minister. Who would that be?

Bob: Well, the liberal leaders -- leader is stephane dion. We're meeting as a caucus over this week as we carry on with this plan. I think it's very important for canadians to know that the notion that somehow any internal issues in the party would be allowed to interfere with a
successful transition to a new government, that notion is false. We are all going to be working together. We're all putting national interests first. We're all going to be making sure that it's the national interest that prevails and that interest is in having a stable government with
strong economic leadership with a program that makes sense to Canadians. That's what we're doing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers