I really don't think Pierre Poilievre is a racist. I do think he's a moron, but he's not a racist moron. He's also not an idiot, and with this whole “tar baby” controversy he's serving a very real purpose for the Conservatives right now: he has us talking about what an moron Pierre Poilievre is instead of the Conservatives' $50 billion deficit, the economy, and the growing call for action across the country on employment insurance reform.
Now, I don't know if Poilievre either didn't genuinely know the racial connotations of the term, or just intended to stir the pot through its use. If it was just genuine misunderstanding, the logical thing to do would be to just apologize, to say yeah, I didn't know what it meant, I didn't intend it in that context, I withdraw it, Liberals suck. End of story.
That would be the logical strategy. Instead, Poilievre, along with the PMO communications apparatus and his cabinet colleagues, have decided to stand and fight for the right to use terms with clear and obvious racial connotations. Seems like a weird decision, right?
Not necessarily. Whether Poilievre's use of the term was innocent or it was a plant, this has given the Conservatives to distract attention away from the economy, away from the biggest deficit, and onto Poilievre's being a moron. It has caused quite the media brouhaha, and it has certainly distracted the blogsphere.
And like a good team player, Poilievre is willing to take the hit. After all, we all already know he's a moron anyway. He also won his riding by a massive plurality, so he needn't worry there.
Let's not buy into the Conservatives' attempt to change the channel. Poilievre being a moron is old news.
What isn't old news is a $50 billion deficit that Jim Flaherty insisted just one month ago would be much, much smaller. What isn't old news is Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall joining BC's Gordon Campbell, Alberta's Ed Stemlach and Ontario's Dalton McGuinty in calling for EI reform, calls Stephen Harper has not only denied but openly ridiculed.
Actually, if there is one lesson to take from this, it's that they must really be freaked-out about their massive deficit, about their arrogant inaction on EI, about the economy and its potential to hurt them, if they're willing to go to the wall to defend their right to use racially-charged language. You can almost smell the desperation.
So, let's remember. Yes, you're a moron, but it's still the economy, Pierre.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
50 billion reasons why Pierre Poilievre hasn't apologized
Friday, May 29, 2009
From the own-ad hating Conservative files...
The latest high-profile Conservative to speak-out against their nasty negative attack ads is Luc Harvey, who will soon have lots of company as a former Conservative MP from Quebec:
Luc Harvey, the only Conservative to lose a seat in the federal election, says his party isn't doing enough to explain to voters what's being done to address the economic crisis.Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
"That leaves the opposition with the opportunity to define the government," said Harvey, now a business owner.
Some of the money poured into an expensive ad campaign aimed at softening Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's numbers might have been better directed at selling Conservative policy in Quebec, Harvey said.
"The Conservative party has ads to try and define Michael Ignatieff, but on the other hand they let the opposition define the government on policy, and I think right now the opposition is more effective than the ads, at least in Quebec."
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Jim Flaherty is sinking man, but does he know how to swim?
If things were functioning correctly back at the homestead I may get some video up later tonight, but for now the transcript will have to suffice. But Bob Rae made Jim "biggest deficit in Canadian history" Flaherty look rather foolish in question period today.
Bob asked a rather simple question: 37 days ago Flaherty was saying the fiscal situation was on track, but this week he announced a record-setting deficit of $50 billion, minimum. So what the heck happened in those 37 days?
Jim’s comebacks amounted to mocking Bob’s record as Ontario premier and asking if he hates auto workers or not. Oh, and pleading it’s not his fault there’s a deficit so leave him alone.
If this is the best Jimbo can do he must really be at the end of his rope.
Bob Rae: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, 37 days ago, the Minister of Finance knew that the forest industry was in trouble. He knew that E.I. was up. He knew that the auto industry was in the tank. 37 days ago, Mr. Speaker, the minister said at that time, “I'm staying with our budget projection. We're on track.” I'd like to ask the minister a very simple question which he has still not answered. How could he have made such a terrible statement a mere 37 days ago with respect to the financial situation in Canada?
Jim Flaherty: Well, I pay attention to the questions from one of the leading Canadian experts in deficits. And having brought Ontario through that period from 1990 to 1995, so that by 1995, the people of Ontario were paying $1 million an hour in interest only on the debt accumulated during that time. Creating a permanent structural deficit in the second largest government in this country. Here's what the member for Toronto Centre says -- again another hypocritical position. He says if we had a deficit now at the federal level, is that going to be the personal fault of the government. I don't think so. And I don't think that's an intelligent position. And no reasonable person should –
The speaker: The Honourable member for Toronto-Centre.
Bob Rae: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm an amateur in this regard. The minister -- ( interjections ) the ministers got the phd -- ( interjections )
The speaker: Order. Order. We can't -- you have to have some order. I have to be able to hear the honourable member for Toronto-Centre. He has the floor. Order.
Bob Rae: -- Minister has become the expert. The minister's become the expert. He's going to win the Nobel Prize with respect to the financial situation. I simply want to ask the minister -- ( interjections )
The speaker: Order. ( Interjections ) Order. ( Interjections ) Order. Yes, there will be more. But we have to have some order so we can hear it. The honourable member for Toronto-Centre has the floor. We'll have some order. Even if it's addressing a Nobel Prize winner. ( Laughter ) ( interjections )
Bob Rae: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Conservative Party takes pride in receiving the Nobel Prize on deficits and debts, that's fine. Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister spent the last 37 days holed up in his basement watching tapes. I simply want to ask the minister -- I simply want to ask the minister, what has happened in the last 37 days to so drastically change the numbers which he's coming to this house with, Mr. Speaker? That's a simple question.
Jim Flaherty: You know, as much -- humor. This is a serious time. Unemployment is worse than anticipated. The recession is deeper and broader than was anticipated by anyone -- this is a serious time and a serious subject. We have the auto negotiations with respect to Chrysler and general motors, and I'd be interested to know the member's position on that. Is he against supporting the auto industry in Ontario?
UPDATE: Make that a $57 billion deficit. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
ADQ doesn't want Harper staffer to lead it
I mentioned a few weeks ago that failed Conservative candidate Myriam Taschereau has resigned her position as a senior communications adviser in Stephen Harper's PMO to run for the leadership of the l'Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ).
It seems her read of Quebec's political situation was just as sound as the rest of her PMO colleagues though, as Quebec media reports she's dropping out of the ADQ race. She had the support of Conservative rainmaker and Harper fundraiser Senator Leo Housakos, but she didn't have the support of ADQ organizers and membership at large.
Makes one wonder just how many friends the Harper crowd has left in Quebec, if even the ADQ won't take them seriously.
Some people saw this coming...
I can think of about 50 billion reasons why this Liberal campaign ad from 2004 seems oddly prescient, in light of recent events.
And no, we're not allowed to make this up...
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
"Every day that goes by he's more like Richard Nixon"
Too many jobless Canadians don't qualify for EI, many more are fearful for their jobs, the government just announced a $50 billion deficit (at a minimum) that's the biggest in Canadian history, and yet Stephen Harper seems more interested in watching old tapes of Michael Ignatieff to look for material for attack ads.
Kind of creepy, isn't it? But with Harper's record, I'd be trying to change the channel too...
(Video) GritGirl returns: Harper's Conservatives Runaway Deficit
GritGirl is back, and it only took a $50 billion deficit:
Maxime Bernier's stay in a monastery, and Brian Mulroney's advice
Some very interesting revelations and observations today in Joël-Denis Bellavance’s La Presse feature interview with former Conservative cabinet minister Maxime Bernier. Yes, he of Julie Couillard fame. Who now writes a blog.
For example, (via Google translation) he spent time in a monastery to take stock following his resignation:
But after having spent five days in the monastery of Saint-Benoît-du-Lac, alone, without phone and BlackBerry, to digest all that had happened to him before breaking his resignation of the cabinet as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maxime Bernier has decided to continue his work as MP for Beauce in Ottawa.And what helped clinch his determination to stay in the political game? Some advice from everyone’s favourite Conservative for life, Brian Mulroney:
The former prime minister Brian Mulroney who was convinced to undertake a period of reflection, far from the spotlight, when the political storm raging here and abroad, to avoid precipitate things about his political career.____
"The Perfect Storm, Brian Mulroney called me. He said, 'Maxime, I'm sure you see only black at the moment, you do not see the sun at the end of the tunnel. Take your time The sun will reappear. Va reflect and think about your business and when you're ready to talk, you talk to your people, those who made you elected. That's what I did. "
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?" Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Video: The government got it so wrong
Quite the day in Ottawa yesterday. Stephen Harper declares "we need to raise taxes" during question period, and to distract from the PM's verbal slip (which I'll continue to blast out of context because the Conservatives deserve a taste of their own medicine for a change) Jim Flaherty announces this year's deficit will be some $50 billion, the biggest budget deficit in the history of Canada.
Stephen Harper is as popular in Quebec as Stephane Dion was...
... and Harper is trending downward from Dion's basement popularity number. That's my take-away from today's CROP poll for Quebec.
The horserace numbers show the BQ having regained first place from the Liberals, while the NDP and Conservatives remained largely unchanged. Here's the numbers, with the % change from CROP's poll last month in brackets:
BQ: 36 (+5)
Liberal: 32 (-5)
Conservative: 15 (-)
NDP: 12 (-)
Why the flip in BQ and Liberal #s? Here's the translated CROP analysis:
But Wilkins says this fall by 5 points in one month is not necessarily disastrous for the troops of Michael Ignatieff.
"When our survey was made in April, it was a special time," says the analyst. It was really when Mr. Ignatieff was very, very present in Quebec. There was a strong media presence, he was at Everybody's talking about, there was the launch of his book, his speech in Laval was fairly recent. The charm of Ignatieff operation was underway."
"This month, it's as if things had stabilized," she notes. "There is a rise in the PLC since January and the party has become the alternative to the Bloc in Quebec, as far as the federalist option."
Seems reasonable. The poll also notes the Conservatives have slipped to third in their Quebec City stronghold, where interestingly the Liberals lead at 33%. Hmm.
But here's what really caught my eye in this poll:
Finally, Mr. Harper received his worst score at the question of who would make the best Prime Minister of Canada. He garnered 15% of the vote, against 39% for Michael Ignatieff and 21% for Jack Layton. The last federal leader to obtain 15% was Stéphane Dion, a few days before the Conservatives do not trigger the last election.Ouch. And Harper still has room to fall.
____
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?" Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Decima: Attack ads hurt Harper more than Ignatieff
Submitted for your consideration, CP coverage of a recent Decima poll:
The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll found that about half the respondents said the ads had no impact on their impression of the Liberal leader, with 30 per cent reporting a negative effect on their attitude toward him.Interesting, as they say.
However, just over half of the respondents said the ads have a negative effect on their feelings about Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Tories.
``The effect seems to cut both ways,'' said Jeff Walker, senior vice-president of Harris-Decima. ``There is evidence that these ads are having a negative effect on Mr. Ignatieff, but an even greater negative effect on Prime Minister Harper.''
I'd add three things:
1/ It's too early to gauge the real impact, if any, of these ads. These things can take awhile to sink in. As long a Ignatieff doesn't play into the narrative however (and, indeed, perhaps turns it against them) then these numbers could well hold up.
2/ I don't buy theories about backlashes for negative ads. I think the backlash figure could be inflated just because people like to say they don't like negative ads. So they may well tell the pollster that to feel superior. They also tell pollsters they lots of vegetables. But they still eat more cheeseburgers than they do carrots.
3/ For any of these numbers to offer any insight the pollster would need to tie then to voting intention So your impression of Ignatieff or Harper is more negative. So what? The question to ask is, will this cause you to change your vote? That would be a more interesting question.
So, my evaluation would be the jury is still out, but the campaign isn't looking like a great success so far. Certainly not of "not a leader" levels at least. But time will tell.
Any-ho, Steve has more on a similar Quebec-only poll. And on this one.
____
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?" Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Stephen Harper: we need to raise taxes!!
Yes, it's true. Stephen Harper says the Conservatives will raise taxes! Que the incessant attacks against how now... Here's the quote, by Harper, from today's question period:
we need to raise taxesScandal! Shame! Outrage! And so on! Clearly, now the Liberals must mention this every time they ask a question in the HoC, use it on every member's statement, and repeat the line relentlessly every time they see a microphone.
What's that? You want the context? Context, shmontext, he says we need to raise taxes! He's a heathen, that's all that matters. Taxes!!
Ok, fine, here's the full exchange. Party pooper:
Hon. John mccallum (l): So the implication of what the prime minister said is to agree with the liberal party and increase ei. I would also suggest that both the prime minister and the minister of finance subscribe to an excellent publication entitled "deficits for dummies." It might help them come to some understanding. But my question to the finance minister is, canadians want to see the colour of your money. The deficits are soaring. The deficits are soaring. The promises are soaring. But we're seeing nothing invested in communities and canadians aren't seeing any jobs created.Context, shomtext. He said "we need to raise taxes"! To the barricades! Rawwwr, and what not!
The speaker: The right honourable prime minister.
Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada: Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: When we did our pre-budget consultations, the liberal party wanted two more weeks of employment insurance. So, mr. Speaker, we gave five more weeks of employment insurance, plus all kinds of additional money for training for people both on ei and not on ei. These are measures to help the unemployed in this recession. What we're not going to do is every two or three months come up with another economic policy, another budget until we need to go into -- until we need to raise taxes. Our deficits are affordable, but they will remain short-term.
____
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?" Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Conservatives spooked at prospect of EI-triggered campaign
I think this brouhaha around employment insurance that the Liberals have been raising since their convention, and the NDP for some time before that, is starting to cause the Conservatives deep concern.
How else to explain that this morning I woke-up to an inbox stuffed with clippings from Conservative pundits and editorials from Conservative-friendly papers all poo-poohing the Liberal proposals for a fairer EI system. And Diane Finley (’s staffer) even wrote an op/ed today filled with so many falsehoods it raises the question: if a Conservative minister wrote an editorial saying the sky is purple and the ocean tastes like koolade, would CanWest just print it without comment?
Clearly, they’re spooked. And I can well understand why. While I really don’t see how we get into an election over EI, if we do I know which side of that campaign I’d want to be on. And it’s not their’s.
Here’s an interesting fact I learned in my morning reading. Now, the Liberals have been proposing a national 360 hour standard for EI for the duration of the recession. Critics say that number is crazy low. And not having a point of comparison, I thought maybe it was. Then I learned the current figure is between 420 to 910 hours, depending on where you live.
So, at the low end, we’re talking a difference of 60 hours. Or, a week-and-a-half of full-time work. Quelle horror! And while that regional disparity may have made sense once, it really doesn’t in today’s economy. It just doesn’t make sense anymore that someone in Ontario needs to work twice as long to qualify for EI as someone in Newfoundland. Nearly 70 per cent of unemployed Ontarians don't qualify for EI. Fighting to maintain that unfairness isn’t a position I’d want to take in an election campaign.
Will the Conservatives be putting this comment by Diane "Let them eat cake" Finley in a commercial?
"We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it.”Probably not. But I’m sure someone will be ensuring that comment gets lots of play, as well as all the similar comments made by Conservative ministers, not to mention Stephen Harper himself, who called changes to make the system fairer an “absurdity.”
Anyone who has been on EI knows its far from lucrative. Why would someone voluntarily leave a job will full salary (and maybe benefits) in order to collect a fraction of their salary? It doesn’t make sense. What we’re talking about is helping Canadians who have lost their jobs because of this recession get back on their feet and find new employment, and ensuring they can benefit from a system THEY paid into.
Unemployment is rising sharply in regions where it never has before, highlighting the disparities of he current system. Over 300,000 Canadians have lost their jobs since the last election, thanks to a recession only the Harper Conservatives didn’t see coming. And many, many more are concerned about the safety of their jobs and the livelihood of their families.
Do the Conservatives really want to die on this hill, and fight an election calling potential EI recipients featherbedding freeloaders? Fighting against a fairer EI system when so many Canadians are either losing their jobs or fearful that they will soon be out of work? Saying people in Ontario should work longer to receive benefits?
They’ll back away from this somehow. And they should, because the focus here should be on making the EI system work for Canadians, and because they’re not that stupid.
If they want to unnecessarily force an election on this though, I say bring it on. Luckily for all the unemployed Conservatives that election will create, the Liberal will ensure a fairer EI system will be there for them.
WORTH READING:
*Michael Ignatieff's op/ed on employment insurance reform
*Liberal fact check on EI and Conservatives mistruths
____
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?"
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Monday, May 25, 2009
(Video) Tribute to Stephane Dion
The video tribute to Stephane Dion shown at the Liberal convention in Vancouver:
____
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?"
Rob Anders watch
From a Calgary Herald column about Stephen Harper's recently carefully-staged photo-op in Calgary, a few amusing Rob Anders observations:
Preening in apparent ecstasy is the magnificently muscled Calgary West MP Rob Anders, who poses everywhere while his riding assistant takes one photo after another. A convert to power lifting, Anders appears to be busting for a good clean and jerk.
He doesn't go quite as far as he did the day before at a Sports Hall of Fame event, when he had his photo taken at the podium even though he didn't speak.
Forgive me, but I just find the idea of Anders posing here and there while his assistant dutifully takes pictures amusing. Maybe he's working on a coffee table book?
____
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?"
Video: It's the economy, Stephen!
Michael Ignatieff had an excellent op/ed on EI in the National Post over the weekend:
Unemployment is up 83% in Alberta and 68% in B. C. -- but it's still twice as hard to qualify for EI in Western Canada as it is elsewhere in the country.____
The rules end up pitting worker against worker. In Magog, Que., 200 people who lost their jobs at Gurit Canada at the same time and who have paid the same EI benefits are now receiving different levels of assistance because their town happens to straddle the border of two EI regions.
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?" Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Quebecers seem to like Michael's french
A new Quebec-only poll out from Leger Marketing for Le Devoir shows Stephen Harper's nasty attack ads appear to have done nothing to help Conservative fortunes in the province, with the NDP now polling ahead of the Conservatives in Quebec and the Liberals outpacing the BQ for the lead.
The Leger numbers put support at Liberals 37%, BQ 33%, NDP 14& and Conservatives 13%.
Amongst Francophones, the BQ leads at 40%, followed by the Liberals at 32%, the NDP at 14% and the Conservatives at 11%.
Another interesting statistic. Leger reports 71% of Quebecers are dissatisfied with the Harper government, while just 21% are satisfied. Leger notes that even at the height of the sponsorship scandal, during the Gomery Commission, Paul Martin's government bottomed-out at 36% satisfaction.
Here's some google-translated analysis from Le Devoir:
Michael Ignatieff is still driven by a favorable wind, according to Christian Bourque, vice-president of research at Léger Makerting. "There is truly a pro-liberal movement in Quebec. The rise has been constant since December. There is a novelty, people want to discover Ignatieff. It also benefits the difficulties of the Conservative Party and the fact that the Bloc Quebecois seems to offer nothing new. "
According to Leger Marketing, the discourse of centrist and moderate like Michael Ignatieff Quebec. "It is not a province on the right or left. It is a province that loves the extreme center. Ignatieff is designed just for the moment, "says Bourque.
(snip)
"It's like the bond of trust between the Harper government and Quebecers had been broken," said Christian Bourque. An accumulation of factors makes Quebecers say they do most conservatives. This is not one thing in particular, but several elements."
Leger finishes by cautioning not to write the Conservatives off in Quebec, and I'll agree with that. They're a tricky, wily bunch. Leger also notes the Conservative fundraising rally in the province last week. L. Ian MacDonald has some notes of caution about reading to much into that "success" however:
No one from the entourage of Premier Jean Charest, or the Quebec Liberal Party, was on the VIP guest list. How stupid was that? Pretty stupid, since the ADQ can't deliver anything to Harper, and Charest controls the only federalist ground game in Quebec, a wondrous thing called the Big Red Machine. The Quebec guys around Harper continue to get it wrong. Either they don't get it, or they don't care. Or they're just plain stupid.
Chantal Hebert also had thoughts.
My thoughts? There's real dissatisfaction with the Harper Conservatives in Quebec, and there has long been a certain pool of people that aren't BQ fans but vote for them for a lack of compelling alternatives. The Michael Ignatieff-led Liberals are now seen by Quebecers as a compelling alternatives, and increasingly they're willing to give the Liberals a chance again.
How firm their conviction will be remains to be seen, and will be determined by our actions and our policies as we begin to roll them out going forward. Remember, they gave the Conservatives a chance too, and the Cons blew it. Right now, however, they're open to us, and that's a substantial shift.
____
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?" Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Thursday, May 21, 2009
My entry in the YLC's "Positive Politics" video challenge
The Young Liberals of Canada have come-up with what I think is just a great idea, particularly in light of the lead-balloon Conservative attack ads, and that's to launch a "Positive Politics" video challenge that invites Canadians to create and submit videos that put forward a positive message, for the Liberal Party and for Canada.
While I may still look 19 I actually ceased being a Young Liberal a few (yeah, let's say a few) years ago. I'm told however that the YLC contest is open to kids of all ages, and so while I'm better on the messaging side than I am on the video editing side, here's my crack at a positive message and my submission for the video contest.
I hope you'll consider entering the contest yourself, and help to spread the positive message I think Canadians are hungering for. Entries must be received by May 27th. As they're received, all entries will also be added to the YLC YouTube playlist, so be sure to check out the other entries.
Here's my entry, which I call "Is this your Canada?" I hope you enjoy it.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Liberal response ... I hope there's more
As you've probably seen, the Liberals have released a YouTube video where leader Michael Ignatieff responds to the Conservative attack ads:
And here's a little media coverage on the strategy:
Unlike the pricey, televised Tory ads that began running last week, Ignatieff's simple, low-cost video was posted on the party's website and sent to multicultural media outlets. The Liberal party is not paying to air the video.
Ignatieff spokeswoman Jill Fairbrother said the party is specifically targeting multicultural media because "we have heard that the attack ads are offensive, particularly to some of Canada's multicultural communities, so we wanted to send a message directly from the leader."
The Conservatives have worked hard to woo new Canadian voters, who have traditionally tended to gravitate more toward the Liberals. Tories have claimed success among some groups, particularly Jewish and Chinese Canadians.
Liberals are hoping the attack ads will help them reclaim some of that lost support.
I like the tone and message of the video. It's about the economy. Reject the smears. Turn it to an attack on new Canadians. And I like the strategy to push this in multicultural communities. I do think the Conservative message has the potential to be quite negatively received in those communities.
But I really hope there is more coming from the LPC then a 1:40 YouTube video. Sure, it will get lots of Web play and links. It will also help to influence and frame the media narrative. Some articles will get written on it.
But it's way too long to get played in full as earned media outside a show like PowerPlay or Politics; most media will just play a snippet. And it will be a snippet of their choice, so who knows how they may frame it.
Really, though, not many Canadians will be reached by this web "response" or by the earned media it will generate. It will have no where near the scope of the impact of the Conservative ads which aired on TV.
That's why I'm hoping this is only the first phase of the Liberal response. Because while I like this response in isolation just fine, it doesn't do all that we need it to do. What we also need is a 30 second spot on paid TV, in targeted demographics. It needn't be on the scale of the Conservative buy. And it shouldn't be the literal "response" to the Con ads this video is.
Rather, the message should focus on the economy. I think an ad saying "we have a plan that would extend EI eligibility to an additional 150,000 Canadians for this economic crisis, but Harper said no and is more interested in attack politics, it's the economy Stephen" would be interesting. Run it in select regions hit hard by layoffs.
That's a response I'd like to see. Hopefully more is coming.
UPDATE: Just one more thought. Why did it take so long to come up with a 1:40 minute YouTube video? These ads were launched quite awhile ago. And as Michael says, we knew they were coming. This is hardly the kind of rapid response we need. In fact, it's rather the opposite.
(Video) Michael Ignatieff on the economy, reforming EI and uniting Canadians
Video of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff speaking to Liberals at a recently Victory Fund reception in Ottawa.
Not a Victory Fund member? Join today!
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Hey, I know this band...
My day job as a technology journalist involves lots of travel to conferences across the U.S. Often, at the larger conferences this means a concert.
Sometimes its a big-name act, I've seen Eric Clapton and Sheryl Crow at past conferences. Other times, it's a has been you thought broke-up long ago and seem to be relying on the corporate circuit for a living. For example, on the last Ontario election day I was in Las Vegas listening to Hootie and the Blowfish.
Right now I'm down in Orlando, and on Sunday night The Gin Blossoms performed for the opening night party. I recognized the name but couldn't recall any songs. Then I punched them into YouTube, and four or five times it was "hey, I know this song" as memories of high school came flooding back.
I managed to get right-up front for what turned out to be a pretty fun show, here's a taste:
Monday, May 18, 2009
More pretend Conservative action on the gun registry
I'm down in Orlando covering EMC World for my day job so my blogging will likely be limited over the next few days. I did want to mention though that once again the Conservatives seem to be trying to placate their base by pretending to take action on the infamous gun registry while in reality continuing to do nothing serious to get rid of it, just as they have for years. Once wonders if their base is really this gullible.
Here's the latest, from the story the other day about their again extending the amnesty for long-gun owners that haven't registered yet.
Treasury Board President Vic Toews said the Conservatives still intend to do away with the registry the Liberals created, which he argues does nothing to reduce gun crime.Come on Vic, are you really serious here? We've been down this road before, now haven't we? And another private members bill? Gary Berkuitz has had one going for years that hasn't gone anywhere. If Vic were really serious, he'd introduce a government bill rather than offering support for a bill from an obscure backbencher.
"The government believes that gun control should target criminals, not law-abiding citizens," Toews said in Winnipeg. "It should save lives, not waste money. And it should promote safety on our streets, not frustrate hunters in the bush or farmers on their land."
(snip)
The Tories moved toward dismantling the registry Friday in Ottawa when Portage-Lisgar MP Candice Hoeppner introduced a private member's bill that would abolish the requirement for Canadians to register their non-restricted firearms.
"It's a clear bill that would eliminate the long-gun registry," Hoeppner said. "I'm really hoping to build consensus and bring the opposition on board. We're a minority Parliament. We can't do it on our own."
In their last big pretend splash on the gun registry, the Conservatives did introduce a government bill ... in the Senate. That house of unelected unaccountables they so routinely mock. And then to no one's surprise, after the initial media flurry passed you announced the Senate bill was dead in the water, to no one's surprise and after no real effort on your part.
Frankly, the Conservatives have yet to convince me they want to do anything more than half-hearted pandering on this issue. They've yet to make a real, serious push on what supposedly is a deeply philosophical issue for them.
I think that's for two reasons. One: they don't want to do too much to piss off the urban women they need to grow their seat count, and nearly won over last election. Two: they like having the gun registry issue as a political stick, a fundraising tool, a rallying cry, falsely blaming those dammed Liberals for their inaction on the issue.
If they were serious, we'd see a government-sponsored bill narrowly focused on long guns, and we'd see a real, genuine effort at building support for it by the CPC from members of the Liberal and NDP caucus. That could be an interesting vote, if they handled it right. But they'd rather have the issue, so we get half-hearted private members bills and lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Guy Giorono takes the heat, and Rahim Jaffer makes an appearance
Very interesting that stories have appeared from two different media sources telling of internal Conservative dissatisfaction with Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Guy Giorno.
The Conservative caucus rank and file seems to be displeased with the way things have gone in the party of late, from the fiscal update crisis that nearly cost them government to the campaign against Brian Mulroney, and some very concerning polling. He's also being tapped by some as a factor in the departure of Kevin Lynch as head of the Privy Council Office.
First up was this piece from CP:
Depending on what side of the Giorno fence they sit, Conservatives either say he's made the PM's office more open and collegial or else sent the "bunker-like" operation into complete disarray.The Globe and Mail also had a piece:
His critics inside government and within the party ranks, who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity, say the former lawyer and Queen's Park operative has alienated a growing number of senior public servants, the powerful lobbying world, party brass and some caucus members.
"It's a question of experience and judgment," said one senior Conservative. "Tact, diplomacy, are all missing."
"He's a smart guy who will actually do work," said one Ontario Conservative. "The problem comes when he has to manage people or he has to make a judgment call."
It has been a long 10 months since the day Guy Giorno won over the Conservative Party's backbench with a rousing speech at its summer conference.Rightly or wrongly, Giorno seems to be the lightning rod for the dissatisfaction within the Conservative camp over the style of the Harper PMO and some of the less than stellar strategic calls it has made.
Since then, the government has almost fallen, the party has been split over its relationship with Brian Mulroney, and now the head of the civil service is quitting. Mr. Giorno, Stephen Harper's chief political operative, has become the lightning rod for a lot of it.
About a month or so after taking over as chief of staff of the Prime Minister's Office, the 44-year-old lawyer was given a standing ovation by MPs after promising to open the lines of communication and provide a new respect for backbench MPs. Today, though, that early promise appears to have been replaced by controversy.
Is that fair? I don't know what happens in the corridors of Conservative power. But the public angst with Giorno does remind me of a lot of the criticisms many had of Ian Brodie, Harper's last chief of staff. While Giorno's appointment after Brodie left over NAFTA-gate was supposed to signal a new era of political attackdogness from the PMO, within the family it was supposed to herald a new togetherness for the party. Instead, things seem to have come full circle.
I just wonder, at what point do the people who are kvetching about Giorno, and had issues with Brodie, begin to say to themselves maybe it's not Brodie or Giorno, maybe it's Harper? A good CoS does take the heat for the boss, but there is one common denominator here. Could be they're not ready to speak out against Harper yet, even anonymously, and the CoS is a convenient proxy. But there is a heavy sense of deja vu around all these Giorno stories.
And speaking of these stories, interesting to see Rahim Jaffer pop-up:“You get different perspectives depending on who you talk to, but there are some concerns that some of the things that were said last summer have not been implemented,” said Rahim Jaffer, the former MP who stays in close touch with his colleagues and who acted as the party's caucus chairman at the time.Jaffer walks a line with his comments, but interesting to see him as a sort of proxy spokesperson for the caucus faction that has issues with Girono. With the CPC ensuring he won't be able to run for the party nomination in his old riding and with a recently former PMO staffer going for the one open Conservative nomination in Alberta instead, Jaffer clearly has little to fear by going on the record here and being a voice for those in caucus that do still have things to lose.
“I think that there's definitely not the same sort of interaction that a lot of MPs would have hoped.”
It will be interesting to keep an eye on Jaffer in the next little while, and see what he has to say. Because as much as some may wish he would, he may not be going gently into that sweet goodnight. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Friday, May 15, 2009
Conservatives' constituency week talking-points leaked
It's a break-week coming-up for Parliament, which means Members of Parliament will be going back to their constituencies and fanning-out across the country. They'll be talking to ordinary folks, taking the pulse of the nation, and all that good stuff.
And if they're Conservative, they'll be regurgitating carefully scripted talking-points on a variety of topics, from swine flu to what an evil guy Michael Ignatieff is, and how he parked his car in the Harvard Yard and what not.
Luckily, however, someone in the Conservative camp has leaked the entire talking-points package and posted it to Wiki-leaks. Feel free to download a copy, and then watch for speaking opportunities next week by your nearest Conservative MP. Follow along as he dutifully recites his pre-programmed opinions. Report any deviations to Doug Finley. And, for fun, shout out the next line before they have a chance to say it.
The content is, shall we say, quite the interesting work of fiction. My favourite part though was this:
Thank you for that warm greeting.It made the Simpsons nerd in me smile:
I always enjoy being back in [Community].
"This morning we were driving down route... 401! And we thought they knew how to rock in Shelbyville... but nobody rocks like -- [consults note taped to back of guitar] -- Springfield!"Good night, Springton. There will be no encores! Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Shorter Ryan Sparrow: It's not fair!!
Do you think its easy to make nasty attack ads and not look like hypocritical boobs? Not according to Conservative Party communications director Ryan Sparrow.
If you haven't been following at home, instead of considering bi-partisan proposals from the opposition parties to reform the employment insurance system to help the thousands of Canadians suffering through this economic crisis, the Conservatives have launched attack ads pillorying Michael Ignatieff for following in the footsteps of great Canadians such as Wayne Gretzky and Michael J. Fox, and not as great Canadians such as Diane Haskett and David "Axis of Evil" Frum, who have found success in their fields internationally.
Someone who has spent so much time outside of Canada, the Conservatives contend, couldn't possibly be fit to make a substantive contribution to our Canadian society. Or so goes their theory, which must be troubling to those in the research community that have been fighting to reverse the "brain drain" and bring talented Canadians home. Sorry scientists, stay away, you're not welcome...
Anyway, the Conservatives followed-up their ad blitz with an e-mail solicitation from party boss Doug Finley, again attacking Ignatieff's Canadian bona fides, and asking for money.Did you know that Michael Ignatieff spent over 30 years away from Canada – more than half his life? Did you know that while away he went so far as to call Britain and then America his country?
This led Aaron Wheery to point out the irony of Finley being the one tapped to pass judgment on Ignatieff's Canadianess:
Fun facts about Mr. Finley: He was born in England, raised in Scotland, first entered politics as a Scottish Nationalist and appears to have come to Canada at the age of 22. He is reported to prefer Celtic and Manchester United.Aaron later noted he'd recieved an e-mail about the post and he issued a clarification apologizing if Finley took offense, and was just making a point.
I believe wholeheartedly that no citizen should have his or her commitment to this country questioned on the primary basis of time spent living or working abroad.As do I. And that goes for both Doug and Michael. Anyway, at that point the letter writer was anonymous, but now they've been unmasked as none other than Ryan Sparrow, communications director for the Conservative Party. Here's his full letter:
Aaron, I noticed your post today attacking Doug Finley for being a Scottish immigrant. It is unfortunate that a reputable publication such as MacLeans is now lowering itself to posting partisan attacks on unelected political staff. Doug Finley is a Canadian citizen and has lived in Canada for over 40 years. Doug Finley is not running to be Prime Minister of Canada, Michael Ignatieff is. Michael Ignatieff wants to be Prime Minister and has not lived in Canada for over thirty years Canadians deserve to know the facts about him. I think you owe Doug an appology.Sparrow, Sparrow, where have I heard that name before?
The Conservatives have suspended their director of communications for suggesting that a father of a slain soldier spoke out on Canada’s Afghan mission because he is a Liberal supporter.Party spokesperson Ryan Sparrow has been sidelined for the duration of the campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed at a campaign event at a winery in Ste. Eustache, Que.
“Somebody in our war room sent out an inappropriate email questioning the motivation of a father of a deceased Canadian soldier who questioned our policy on Afghanistan,” Harper said.
“That individual has been suspended from the campaign. He has apologized to the individual in question,” said Harper.
Right. So, clearly a classy guy. But back to the issue at hand.
The Conservatives are trying to draw some ridiculously stupid lines here, very narrow lines that make little sense except to prop-up their feeble attacks. Basically, it's only fair to question the patriotism, fitness to lead and love of country if they're running for Prime Minister. And are a Liberal named Michael. Raising the same issues against anyone else who isn't running for PM, and isn't named Michael, isn't tall, and doesn't have big eyebrows, is a no-go zone and anyone who does so should apologize.
(Actually, their narrow lines make more sense when you begin to consider the biographies of some of their MPs and cabinet ministers. It's not about principle, it's about trying to launch partisan attacks without hypocritical "be as I say, not as I am" blowback.
First of all, criticisms based on national origin or time spent outside the country should be offbase for EVERYONE, even if they called potato chips "crisps" one time. Period.
If you're going to go down that road though, you can try to draw all the fine lines you want, but it's completely nonsensical. Why not hold cabinet ministers to a similar standard? Why not MPs? How many years exactly can you be away before you can't be PM? What's the cutoff? Is it lower for cabinet ministers? If so, why? How about Canadians that were born outside of Canada, but came to Canada as toddlers? What if they emigrated as adults? What positions are we going to allow them to hold? Is there a glass ceiling?
These are the kinds of questions the Conservatives start to open themselves to when they start to make these kinds of attacks. That's what happens when you try to create classes of Canadians.
And this isn't new for them either. They told us the Canadian citizens trapped by the war in Lebanon were not real Canadians. They told us Stephane Dion was unfit because, by virtue of his mother's birthplace, he held dual French/Canadian citizenship. They say Michael Ignatieff should be disqualified because he lived outside the country. And, of course, Peter Van Loan infamously told us only Conservatives are real Canadians.
I'm sorry Conservatives, but you don't get to slice and dice the definition of Canadian to fit your expedient political ends. Whether you were born here or emigrated here in search of a better life, whether you barely left the country and never had a real job until you became Prime Minister or you have lived and worked around the world before returning home to apply your leanings to the betterment of your country, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Period.
So, I'm sorry Ryan. You and Doug Finley are due no apology. Especially since he wasn't even attacked, but just had the hypocrisy of his behaviour pointed-out. The only apology due would be "sorry Doug for pointing out what a hypocritical boob you are."
Except I wouldn't be sorry about that either.
Recommend this Post on Progressive BloggersIt's the economy, Stephen...
Great cartoon re: The Conservative attack ads and Stephen Harper's priorities by The Halifax Chronicle Herald's Bruce MacKinnon:
A great response from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff:
Well friends, Michael Ignatieff is not the issue.And a great way to hit back from Liberal Party national director Rocco Rossi. And according to Steve V., the donations are already flowing into party coffers at a rapid clip thanks to these Con ads. Indeed, it has apparently been the party's most successful e-mail solicitation ever. So, thanks for that Mr. Harper.
We’re dealing with record bankruptcies in this country. Record job losses. Widespread economic uncertainty. That’s what matters to Canadians right now.
People care about whether or not they’ll be able to keep the job they’ve got, or find a new one, or find work for the first time. They’re worried about whether they’ll be able to retire, and whether they’ll be able to keep their family finances afloat.
And now, when we’re facing the worst economic crisis in a generations, the Conservatives are spending their energies—their time and money—launching personal attacks.
(snip)
And you know what, friends, like many of you, I have lived and worked outside this country. And I’m proud of what I’ve achieved. I’m proud of what I’m accomplished—as a proud Canadian.
Canada is a great country because Canadians are a great people. Our roots, our life stories, our family histories, cover every single corner of the globe.
Like many Canadians, I’ve seen our country from the outside. As a writer, as a teacher, as a war reporter, I’ve seen Canada from afar.
And when you see Canada from afar—when you see our unity and our purpose and our strength—you see a country that is proud of its diversity, that is strong and united in its diversity, that is an inspiration to the whole world.
Stephen Harper doesn’t understand that.
To Stephen Harper, if you live and work outside the country, you’re somehow less Canadian.
Friends, you and I know better.
We know that no matter where we come from, where we live or have lived, we are all, and always will be proud Canadians.
Dear Liberal Friend,Be sure to donate today, and send Stephen Harper a message! Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Trust the Conservatives to get attack ads out faster than they can deliver their promised stimulus funding. Unable to provide leadership himself, Stephen Harper has launched new ads attempting to divert attention away from his government's failures to fix the economy and to undermine the credibility of the one leader he knows can take his place - Michael Ignatieff.
Enough is enough. Please make a donation today and help Michael respond with a new kind of politics and hold this government to account.
Canadians deserve a government dedicated to solving problems, not partisan attacks. Our future depends on it. Michael's honesty and leadership have already begun to offer Canadians a sense of hope for a brighter future, with a government that will help Canada prosper and grow. Show your support and let's remind the Conservatives that their games won't work - Canada comes first.
Thank you,
Rocco Rossi
National Director
Liberal Party of Canada
Please forward this message to your friends and colleagues and encourage them to get involved. With each new voice, each donation, each new membership, and each letter to the editor our ability to create a new kind of politics continues to grow.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Paul Martin: Invest in early childhood learning now
Former Prime Minister Paul Martin spoke this week at a conference on early childhood development in New Brunswick, where he made a strong pitch that now is the time to invest in this important area:
"Governments are going to tell you that early learning is something they simply cannot afford at this time. When they do, I might suggest you'd like to reply as follows," Martin advised.Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
"First, early childhood development should be an essential part of any economic stimulus package," he said to raucous applause. "More than anything else, it's the gift that keeps giving."
He compared today's situation to 1945, "when governments were broke because of World War II."
"They also feared a return to the depression of the 1930's," he said. "So they began to invest in the social infrastructure we have today -- better health care, better pensions, better education -- and the confidence this gave Canadians set Canada on the longest unbroken period of prosperity we have ever known in our history."
Saying the US economy will continue to grow in the future, but will "no longer be alone as the engine of growth," Martin said it will be joined by countries like China, India and Brazil and an expanding Europe, regions with whom Canada does not share an economically beneficial border.
"The world is about to get a heck of a lot more competitive," the long-time federal finance minister noted, saying in a world where China graduates more engineers each year than are working in all of Canada, an educated populace is crucial to maintaining prosperity.
"We are not going to compete with countries with populations approaching one billion on the basis of the number of people we have. We're going to compete with them on the basis of skill and innovation."
That's why early learning is the pathway to the future, Martin said. "We cannot afford to waste the talent of even one young Canadian."
Harper aide leaves PMO to seek ADQ leadership
Very interesting news from the french-language media, who are reporting that a former candidate for the Conservatives in Quebec, Myriam Taschereau, has resigned her position as a communications staffer in Stephen Harper's PMO to run for the leadership of the l'Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ).
From CP, via Google Translate:
Former Conservative Candidate (PC) in Quebec, Myriam Taschereau, resigned Wednesday evening from his office in the Communications team of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.And I can see why Harper's bodyguards would be concerned with a senior Harper communications adviser going to run for the right-wing ADQ, a ruderless sinking ship that has espoused some rather contreversial policies under Mario Dumont.
Former Conservative Candidate (PC) in Quebec, Myriam Taschereau, resigned Wednesday evening from his office in the Communications team of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Ms. Tashereau said she thought the opportunity to present his candidacy in the race for the leadership of the Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ). This intention has sparked unease among some members of the bodyguards of Prime Minister Harper.
Ms. Taschereau could soon announce it officially in the race for leadership of the ADQ. She had been beaten by Christiane Gagnon Bloc during the last federal election. She was then hired by Stephen Harper as a communications adviser in the cabinet of Prime Minister.
The Conservatives enough problems with Jean Charest's Liberals already, and this won't help or endear them to those Charest organizers they're going to need to salvage their dismal Quebec numbers. The ADQ has no machine that can help Harper, as their performance in the last campaign shows.
Très intéressant. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
UPDATED: Anonymous Conservatives unmasked
The Conservatives had a secret, background briefing with the media yesterday to unveil their shiny new attack ads and ensure they get plenty of free media. But by george, you better not name the spokesthingies, they said, and most media caved and dutifully followed orders.
Such as Steven Chase from the Globe and Mail:
Tory officials, introducing the ads on condition they not be named, refused to say how much they're spending or where exactly the ads will run.
Yes, Steven, it's really important you agree not to name them. Because otherwise, what, they won't tell you about their new attack ads? Makes sense.
Also playing along was Kathleen Harris from Sun Media:
Senior Tories unveiled a series of bilingual Internet and television ads today, along with a new website..."This is politics - you can't just attack and not expect to be attacked back," said one top Tory. "We're not in the business of unilateral disarmament."
The Star's Bruce Champion-Smith still played along and gave them anonymity, but he wasn't keen on it, and did offer one interesting clue as to their identity:
In a curious move, parliamentary reporters were invited to a briefing to be held by officials from the Prime Minister's Office. But once there, those officials declared they were taking "unpaid leave" for the day and asked to be identified as "Conservative" officials as they unveiled the new ad campaign.
Of course, Bruce still went on to quote them and protect their anonymity.
His colleague Susan Delacourt, who wasn't at the presser, at least noted the stupidity of the whole thing:
It's that deciding-how-much-to-be-manipulated thing that makes all of us go back and forth on whether to do stories when political parties, such as the Conservatives this week, unleash some ads. Of course they want us to write about the ads. It's called free media. And everyone loves free stuff. That's why the Conservatives held a press conference about the ads today, complete with shadowy people who won't allow reporters to use their names in thefree advertisingreports on the ads. We love shadowy people. They are exotic and dangerous, like those guys who dropped out of high school in Grade 10 and still hung around the parking lot at school all day.
It seemed only one reporter though had the balls to actually call bullshit here AND name the Conservatives in question, and it was Andrew Mayeda from Canwest:
In a new twist, two senior officials from the Prime Minister's Office — Harper's director of communications Kory Teneycke, and press secretary and senior Quebec adviser Dimitri Soudas — provided a background briefing to reporters on the campaign.
The officials said they took unpaid leaves of absence from the PMO, and were acting as Conservative party officials in delivering the briefing. It is unusual for government officials to unveil attack ads, a task that usually falls to party staff.
Good on Andrew. Was that so hard, guys? Don't worry, I'm sure Dimitry and Kory will still invite you next time they "take the day off" to brief reporters on nasty and negative personal attack ads.
And interesting they tapped Kory and Dimitri for this one. Is there no one over at CPC HQ that Harper trusts to talk to the media anymore?
UPDATE: Susan Delacourt weighs-in with more on the anonymous briefers, and the Star's decision to respect their grant of anonymity, but be more circumspect in the future. I'm sympathetic with her rationale -- she goes much further than her colleagues in even raising the issue -- I've had these ethical debates too while wearing my journalist hat, and once you've agreed to grant anonymity its ethically dicey to revoke it.
But its also ethically dicey for the Conservatives to abuse that trust, as Dimitry and Korey did here. And in my mind, that opens the door to revisit the anonymity decision. I think CanWest made the right call in naming them, but while I disagree with their call I can see where the Star was coming from.
The bigger issue, for me, is the readiness with which media organizations routinely grant anonymity to people of all parties, as a matter of course. In my mind, they need to be far more circumspect with the use of anonymous sources. Whistleblower fearful for their job? Sure. Hack with an axe to grind? I don't think so.
So, if this incident does indeed lead the Star to be more circumspect in granting anonymity in the future, that's a good thing.
Anyways, I did enjoy this line from Delacourt:
It's not every day that taxpayer-financed public servants are allowed to jump into a telephone booth, and leap out of it as caped crusaders for the Conservative cause.Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Conservatives are scared of a (Grit)Girl
I find it very amusing that the Conservatives are so scared of the video work of an anonymous volunteer Liberal video editor named theGritGirl in a basement somewhere who is producing scathing videos on Conservative hypocrisy that they're attacking her directly in professionally-produced attack ads, and crediting her amateur work to the Liberal Party itself.
Which GritGirl video do you think has the big, bad Conservative Party scared the most? Vote for your favourite!
PEI government: You can't trust the Harper Conservatives
So, how's that new era of federal-provincial cooperation going again there, Steve?
Premier Robert Ghiz accused the federal Conservatives on Tuesday of leaking details of talks with the province about aid to the P.E.I. lobster industry to the provincial Opposition.Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
An angry Ghiz said in the legislature that the federal Conservatives can't be trusted.
``Just for everybody's knowledge, because we might as well say it, unfortunately, you can't trust your federal counterparts,'' Ghiz said during a heated exchange with Tory fisheries critic Jim Bagnall.
Ghiz accused several high-ranking federal Conservatives of leaking information about an aid package for Island lobster fishermen.
(snip)
He went on to name names, pointing fingers at four federal Conservative bureaucrats who took part in meetings between the federal and provincial government Monday.
``We are ready to make an announcement. Unfortunately, we were waiting on our federal counterparts,'' said Ghiz. ``But either Gail Shea, Pat Dorsey, Wayne Hooper or Philip Brown leaked that information to the honourable member from Montague-Kilmuir.''
``Here we have a clear indication that the member from Montague-Kilmuir is more concerned about politics in this province than he is with helping out Islanders, and I say shame on him and shame on his party.''
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Maybe Jason Kenney and his aide should testify?
Some troubling reports emerging from this morning's Ruby Dhalla/nanny parliamentary committee hearings surrounding Conservative minister Jason Kenney and his communications aide, Alykhan Velshi.
Kenney, you'll recall, insists he knew nothing about the nanny's allegations about Dhalla in advance, and insists he has no desire to politicize this affair. That hasn't stopped Kenney and Velshi, of course, from trying to do just that.
Take this report this morning from Toronto Star reporter Susan Delacourt:
At the immigration committee this morning, I was a bit surprised to see the Immigration Minister's assistant, Alykhan Velshi, handing out some documents to reporters. It was three pages, stapled together -- excerpts from this material, available on The Star's website. The title: "Was Ruby Dhalla involved in the hiring of the caregivers?"Why was Velshi even at this hearing? Kenney wasn't testifying. Does he just randomly hang-out at committee meetings, passing out material to reporters regarding matters his boss supposedly doesn't want to politicize? Was he there at Kenney's behest, or was he freelancing?
What surprised me most was the active participation of the minister's office in a committee hearing. Perhaps I'm naive, but I believed Mr. Kenney when he said he wasn't allowed to get personally involved in any immigration case. That sure looked like personal involvement to me
Maclean's blogger Aaron Wherry also noted the incident:
In the audience sat half a dozen reporters, a smattering of spectators and one aide to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.Of course, this isn't the first time Velshi has been feeding paperwork to the press to spin this story in a Conservative-friendly way. Just as news of the allegations broke, supposedly totally surprising Kenney and his Conservative cohorts (although, as Impolitical notes, Jason has answered questions about his prior knowledge very carefully), Velshi was johnny on the spot with stacks of on-topic material to feed a hungry press corps:
(snip)
The aide from Kenney’s office had been handing around a bit of amateur handwriting analysis based on various documents related to the case.
In the House of Commons on Tuesday, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said he couldn't comment on specific allegations nor would he deign to "politicize the complaints process."Oh yeah, about that whole not politicizing this thing...
But his assistant, Alykhan Velshi, later circulated to reporters a press release from the Independent Workers Association that called on Ontario's attorney general to investigate Dhalla.
“This is a Liberal cover-up..." said Alykhan Velshi, a spokesman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.OK then, great work Alykhan.
And speaking of Kenney, BigCityLib raises some interesting questions about just how Kenney can be claiming to have had no prior knowledge of the nanny's allegations when he had a lenghtly meeting with Pura Velasco, organizer of Caregiver Support Services and a chief advocate for the Dhalla nannies, before the story broke in the Star.
The meeting with Kenney was a day after Velasco and one of the Dhalla caregivers told their story to Ontario provincial ministers Peter Fonseca and Kathleen Wynne, and was part of a roundtable on caregiver issues.
Velasco is in the pink scarf, next to Jason Kenney. You'll also recognize junior Conservative minister Peter Kent.
Here's another shot from the meeting.
I find it a tad hard to believe that, given the events of the previous day, and given the topic of this meeting, the shocking Dhalla allegations weren't raised and brought to Kenney's attention, or at least to the attention of one of his aides. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
From sea to sea to sea, by the NDP
An NDP MP, Western Arctic MP Dennis Bevington, wants to change a phrase in Canada’s motto to "From Sea to Sea to Sea" adding a sea to recognize the Arctic. And he’s gaining bi-partisan support, including from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff:
"I'm really thankful for the Liberal leader's support of my motion," Bevington said Monday in a statement urging prompt passage of the change by Parliament.And he stresses this isn’t about partisanship:
"This is not a partisan issue," Bevington said in an interview, adding that he now intends to contact Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office to "see if he's interested in moving this forward."Just as long as we all remember who gets the credit, and who doesn't:
"However, I hope the media will remember that it was the New Democrats and not the Liberals who have been pushing this issue."Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Meanwhile, in an Ottawa court room
Very convenient that much of the public and media attention this week is focused on Brian Mulroney at the Oliphant Inquiry and the nanny business at the fortuitously-timed parliamentary hearings, because otherwise more attention might be being paid to these revelations from an Ottawa courtroom, where Mayor Larry O’Brien is on trial and the ears of many prominent Conservatives are burning:
O'Brien claimed "some very prominent Conservatives" wanted the two to come to a business arrangement about who would run, Kilrea testified during the first day of testimony at O'Brien's influence-peddling trial.
"There are some Conservatives that like you and they would like not to see you hurt," Kilrea said O'Brien told him during a face-to-face meeting in July 2006.More from the Globe:
"They'd like to do something to make a business arrangement for you and to make sure there's only one of us in the race."
(snip)
Kilrea had worked on the campaigns of now-Transport Minister John Baird and Pierre Poilievre, currently the prime minister's parliamentary secretary.
He testified that O'Brien indicated he could get him a federal appointment if he quit the race.
"He said, what if my team found you other employment?" Kilrea testified.
Kilrea quoted O'Brien as telling him: "John Baird is the key. John Baird is the one that makes this happen."
The job offer was a five-year appointment to the National Parole Board at a salary of $110,000 a year, he said. Kilrea said O'Brien called back within a few hours of his face-to-face meeting and told him he was "in the queue."
O'Brien indicated that had been arranged by John Reynolds, Harper's campaign co-chair in the 2006 election, Kilrea testified.
There are also federal reputations at stake, as Mr. Kilrea testified Monday that Mr. O'Brien told him that senior Conservative officials would help him obtain the federal job.Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
The trial is scheduled for nine weeks and is expected to hear from a number of Conservative officials, including Mr. Baird, the current Transport Minister, and Dave Penner, director of appointments in the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Harper and China: It's a mechanism, not a dialogue
Oh, if only I were as educated and wise in the ways and nuance of international diplomacy and language as our esteemed foreign affairs minister,Peter MacKay Maxime Bernier David Emerson Lawrence Cannon.
Because I must admit, the distinction he's trying to draw here to explain how the Conservative reproachment with China on human rights is nothing at all like the Liberal policy his government roundly attacked as morally hollow completly escapes me:
``What's important here is that both parties have decided to look at these issues as we move forward'' Cannon said ``so our people will engage with officials in the Chinese government in the very near future''Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
The Conservatives suspended the formal human rights talks between the two countries in 2006 after heavily criticizing the former Liberal government's centrepiece of policy engagement with China as being ineffective.
But Cannon insists this is not a resurrection of the Liberal program launched in 1997.
``I don't like using the word human rights dialogue'' he said ``I want to propose a mechanism whereby everybody will feel comfortable as we move forward. ''
Monday, May 11, 2009
Stephen Harper, kickass economist
Stephen "I'm a real life economist" Harper:
Striking a positive tone in his first major address since the economic crisis hit, Harper said Canada is well-positioned to "catch the wave" of economic recovery.
"Canada was the last advanced country to fall into this recession. We will make sure its effects here are the least severe, and we will come out of this faster than anyone, and stronger than ever," the Prime Minister said yesterday.
Real economists that do this for a living and don't suck at it:
An international think-tank says the first tentative indicators of a rebound in the global recession are appearing in some countries, although Canada is not among them.Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
The Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation says its index of composite leading indicators for March shows China is already showing signs of a pause in the severe economic slowdown.
As well, the United Kingdom, Italy and France are showing tentative signs of having hit the bottom of the slide.
But other developed countries, including Canada, continue to deteriorate, the OECD says, although the pace of deterioration is decreasing.
The index for Canada was 0.4 points lower in March and was 10.2 points lower than a year ago, below the average for OECD economies.