50 billion reasons why Pierre Poilievre hasn't apologized

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.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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.

"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."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

"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...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) GritGirl returns: Harper's Conservatives Runaway Deficit

GritGirl is back, and it only took a $50 billion deficit:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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

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.

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.''

Interesting, as they say.

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 taxes

Scandal! 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.

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.

Context, shomtext. He said "we need to raise taxes"! To the barricades! Rawwwr, and what not!

____
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

(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?"

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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?"

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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

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.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(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!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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.

"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."

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.

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

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.

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."

The Globe and Mail also had a piece:

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.

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.

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.

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.

“I think that there's definitely not the same sort of interaction that a lot of MPs would have hoped.”

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.

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

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.

I always enjoy being back in [Community].

It made the Simpsons nerd in me smile:

"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 Bloggers

It'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.

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.

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.

Dear Liberal Friend,

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.

Be sure to donate today, and send Stephen Harper a message!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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.

"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."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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.

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.

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.

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 the free advertising reports 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

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!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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.

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.''

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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?"

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

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?

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.

(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.

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:

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."

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.

Oh yeah, about that whole not politicizing this thing...

“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.

"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.

More from the Globe:

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.

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.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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''

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. ''

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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.

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.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael should stop talking about the coalition, and Maclean's should get a clue

A couple of related coalition thoughts this morning. First, I’d like to comment on Michael Ignatieff’s comments in Montreal this weekend:

"I'm in politics to unify people, not to divide them," Ignatieff said.

"There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me."

The power sharing deal between the Liberals and New Democrats, with support from the Bloc Quebecois, was not undemocratic, Ignatieff told the crowd of some 150 Montrealers gathered in a downtown theatre, but it would nonetheless have given Canadians the feeling that the parties had "in some sense or another stolen power."

For one thing, Michael, why are you even talking about this at this point? And in Quebec, of all places, where the coalition was rather popular. It makes no sense for us to be talking about this at this point, there’s no upside.

If it was a question, pivot back to how it forced the Conservatives to make major concessions and we’re now focused on continuing to ensure this government takes the economic crisis seriously, and brings Canadians the help they need. And then segue nicely into employment insurance.

In other words, stay on message.

But if you are going to talk about this, or not deflect the question, then for Pete’s sake why are you playing-up the false Conservative narrative about its legitimacy? If you are going to go down this road, it should be to attack the false Conservative propaganda, playing West against East, English against French, as the true cause of the divisiveness around the issue.

I’m not saying the decision to leave the coalition behind after the budget wasn’t the right decision. It was. But that doesn’t make the coalition any less legitimate. And who knows what the future may hold. Helping the Conservatives discredit the very idea of parliamentary coalitions isn’t in Liberal interests.

And then there’s Maclean’s. I’m a few issues behind in my dead tree issue reading again, and on the weekend I read this editorial from the May 11th issue praising, of all people, Jason Kenney, for his righteous crusade to raise civic literacy.

Jason seems to only be concerned with the civic literacy of new Canadians, while Maclean’s wants the campaign to go population-wide. In principal, I’m find with that. But here’s where Maclean’s lost credibility with me. In the middle of their love-letter to Jason Kenney, the Maclean’s editors offer this:

Nor do we understand how our government works. The various parliamentary and constitutional issues raised by the Dion coalition last December caused mass confusion, with many Canadians mistaking normal political gamesmanship for an attempted coup.

Indeed. And who exactly raised that confusion? Who fanned the fires of division, who spread misinformation about our parliamentary system, who raised the rhetoric by falsely calling the coalition an attempted coup? That’s right Maclean’s, it was your BFF Jason Kenney and his Conservative colleagues.

Kenney and Co. breathlessly and maliciously spread misinformation about the workings of our civic institutions, dramatically setting-back the civic literacy you insist he’s just the man to advance, exploiting the civic illiteracy of rank and file Canadians for narrow political ends.

Sorry, Maclean’s. You need another hero.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ruby Dhalla fires back

I didn't get to watch Ruby Dhalla's press conference this afternoon, being at work at what not. I did, however, read the closed-captioning transcript.

Many of the media reports I've read so far seem to just say she denied the allegations and leave it at that. I gather the labour lawyer rubbed the media the wrong way by not wanting Dhalla to take questions. I can't imagine why they might be concerned about the media.

Over at Macleans, they seem to be focused on the slight to the media and the style of the press conference. Reading the transcript though, it seems there was substantial substance presented by Dhalla and the lawyer as well that seems to raise questions about many of the allegations that have been raised against her.

I've pasted the relevant portion of the transcript below; the speaker is the labour lawyer. As I said, it's a closed captioning transcript so excuse the typos and what not.

As I've said before, the allegations raised in this case are very serious, and need to be investigated fully. I'm withholding judgment until all the facts are in, and this matter has been fully explored.

I just hope the media will give the same attention to investigating the responses and evidence detailed below as they did the initial allegations. Because, at first blush, they would seem to raise some serious doubts about the picture that has been painted so far.

I note that these allegations, which have been broadcast broadly in the media, have become more expansive, more egregious, and interestingly, more similar to each other with every passing day. Let me delineate the instances of what I've referred to.

The first example, ms. Gordo alleges, she was not paid for her work. Let me read you the receipt that she hand wrote and signed when she was paid. A full reconciliation is made, what she had been paid initially, the days that she worked by the day, the amounts that are owing, and what is owed to her now. She writes... "received from tavindewrchld, dhalla, not ruby dhalla, the amount of canadian $400 before 150 was paid. They don't owe me anything, signed by her. And now a year later all of a sudden the press is reporting she wasn't paid, and it's signed mag da len-len . This allegation is belied by her own document, her own signature.

Second point, ms. Gordo alleges she worked for three weeks and that ruby held her passport for two weeks. You look at the same reconciliation, it shows that she only worked for 11 days.

Thirdly. The allegations been made that ruby dhalla had regular contacts with mrs. Gordo. Well, I wish I could be this careful. She keeps her boarding passes from 14, 15, months ago, and if you look at them, she's in vancouver, she's in ottawa, she's -- there's only theoretical possibility from these boarding passes handed to her as she goes on to the airplane, not something prebooked, is that at most she could have been in the G.T.A. For three days in the whole time mrs. Gordo worked. And in those three days, her calendar indicates, as well as all of the objective evidence, the people that were there, that she attended a long series of community and constituency events and was virtually never at her mother's home.

Fourth, the allegations made that one or more of these nannies shoveled the snow at her mother's house. Well, i obtained this witness statement yesterday from a person who actually did, and he's been doing it for five years, and he says that for the past five years he's performed all work on the snow of that home. He automatically, whenever it snows, uses a shovel and snowblower. He does not wait to be called, and he has never at any time in those five years seen any indication that anyone else shoveled snow prior to his arrival. It's easy to make allegations. It's easy to repeat allegations, but, again, the allegations are absolute nonsense.

The next one, these nannies are claiming they cleaned the chiropractor clinic owned by ruby dhalla's brother dr. Neil dhalla. Well, again, witness statement signed by the contract cleaners. There were contract cleaners in place at all relevant times. They clean the clinic daily. That's their job. The relationship that existed at that time, it continues to this day, again, absolute nonsense.

The next allegation, mrs. Tongson stated that her client took her passport, but what did she say at the time? Again, dramatically different. I gave my passport to dr. Neil dhalla to apply for sponsorship with my wishes. Well, that's rather an interesting juxtaposition. Her old receipt says she gave it not to ruby, but to neil, and all of a sudden some 15 months later ruby was the one who was given it, ruby held on to it. It's simply false and belied again by her own receipt at the time. The same ms. Tongson impersonated ms. Dhalla to contact hrdc to ascertain the status of her application. Hrdc confirmed this to neil, which is how he learned of it. Ms. Tongson when confronted admitted to it and, not surprisingly, did not return to work again.

So, what are we left with? A list of fabrications, a deliberate attempt a year after the fact, to create a long list of false allegations to destroy my client ruby dhalla, and make no mistake, make no mistake, ruby dhalla has been the victim of this.

It's not pleasant to be cannibalized in the national, international media, literally on the hour, and not allowed by her lawyer to respond for the past few days, which is rather against her nature, as most of you know. Mostly broken by that experience. I don't know who's behind it ultimately, but the truth happily speaks for itself.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael talking policy in Vancouver, and media narratives

I’ve written about this before, but once the media collectively decide on a narrative it’s very hard to knock them off it, and they’ll work very hard to ignore anything that counters it. And the collective media narrative on Michael Ignatieff, and we saw this during their reportage from the convention, is that he’s refusing to talk policy.

Never mind the fact no other opposition party is going into detail on their platforms either. And ignore the fact the Conservative policy seems to be ignore the seriousness of the downturn and sling mud at the Liberals. Ignore the fact it’s silly and counter-productive for any party to unveil detailed policy initiatives at this point, before an election. The narrative is Ignatieff isn’t talking policy, and the media are sticking to it.

That’s why, as I donned my blogger hat and sat on the media riser live-blogging Michael’s acceptance speech last weekend, I was pleasantly surprised when he got to the following passage in what was a pretty good speech:

To unite our people, to treat everyone fairly while this crisis lasts, we need a common national standard of eligibility for Employment Insurance.

But that’s just the beginning.

A strategy for recovery must be a strategy for learning.

Investing in Canadians to create the jobs of tomorrow.

Government cannot predict where the economic opportunities of the future will emerge.

But government can prepare our people to seize those opportunities when they arise.

We must create a society where learning is a way of life and learning is life-long.

A knowledge society—where what counts is what you know, not who you know.

A knowledge society – where learning creates hope and opportunity.

A knowledge society—where every child gets an equal start with world-class early learning and childcare.

Where women get equal pay for work of equal value.

Where every student who gets the grades gets to go—to the best higher education in the world.

That means every Aboriginal child gets a world-class, not a second-class education.

And no Canadian struggles with the burden of illiteracy.

And no disabled Canadian faces obstacles that prevent them from giving their best.

A Canada where every unemployed person can get the training they need.

A Canada where every new Canadian has the chance to work hard and achieve their goals, like my father did.

A Canada where our researchers and scientists know that their governing is supporting them, not undermining them.

A Canada where every creator, artist and filmmaker knows that their federal government will do everything to help them succeed on the international stage.

A Canada where hope and opportunity take root again in our farming communities, our small towns, our northern and remote regions.

The way out of this slump is hard, but the direction is clear.

In the union hall, in the lecture hall, in the concert hall, wherever one Canadian is teaching another to do something they never thought possible, far-sighted government must be there to provide the resources to help everyone realize their full potential.

As I listened to myself I had a number of thoughts. One, was that this was a very traditional Liberal, centre-left policy vision that, besides being one I fully agree with, will be sure to confound those that falsely persist on painting Ignatieff into some sort of neo-Con box.

But I also thought to myself Yes! Good! Here is some specific policy vision, the broad strokes of the areas Ignatieff wants to focus on in a coming election campaign, and where he would take a future Liberal government as Prime Minister.

This is about as far as you can go in outlining a policy vision pre-election. Education, research, First Nations, culture, agriculture. A knowledge economy. It’s not a policy platform, but it points clearly to his priorities and provides a framework that can be filled in over time, as we get into a campaign.

Surely, I thought, this will satisfy the media critics crying for policy vision from Ignatieff.

Oh, how silly I was. Before he was even finished speaking, some of the media observers had already posted their stories online lamenting the lack of policy vision. I really wondered if we were in the same room, listening to the same speech or not. They have their narrative, I suppose, and they’re sticking to it.

As a Liberal, however, I’m satisfied with the policy outlines that Ignatieff has put forward, in this speech and others. I thought the style and delivery was fine. He’s getting less professorial in his delivery, and he needs to keep working on that. A little more emotion would be good too.

Delivery aside though, I liked the substance. This was a speech to two audiences: Liberals and the Canadian public. Both audiences wanted similar things: his vision for Canada, his priorities for governing, and for leading Canada forward. And for Liberals, particularly those that may still have had questions about his leadership, and his Liberal credentials, they wanted to hear that he shares their Liberal values.

And I think this speech did that. As I said, this was a traditionally classic Liberal agenda he laid-out: economic growth with a social conscience. I think the biggest cheer from the audience was for his mention of early childhood learning and childcare. I’m one of you too, was the message I got.

It was also a speech that draws very clear distinctions between the visions of the Ignatieff Liberals and the Harper Conservatives, which was also an important thing to do here. People aren’t going to vote for us because we’re not Harper; we need to provide a clear and substantive alternative.

So, mission accomplished in my estimation. Despite what my media friends say.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives running out of excuses on Abdelrazik

OK, what's your excuse now Conservatives?

Canada is free to bring Abousfian Abdelrazik home and doesn't need to ask for permission, the UN official overseeing the blacklist of alleged al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects said Wednesday.

“Whether it is Abdelrazik or anybody else, it is up to the state in question whether they want to allow the person to come back or not,” said Richard Barrett, co-ordinator of the UN's Al-Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Team, which oversees the various United Nations resolutions establishing the blacklist on which Mr. Abdelrazik was placed at the request of Washington in 2006.

He said the travel ban exemption allowing for the return of a citizen is so clear in the UN resolutions that governments need not – and most don't – even apply for permits.

“States needn't notify the committee if somebody is going back to their own country, so we don't necessarily know of all the instances where that has happened,” Mr. Barrett said, dismissing the central claim of the Harper government as it fights Mr. Abdelrazik's return.

This is interesting, as is the fact the Conservatives on the committee abstained:

An all-party Commons committee called yesterday for Abousfian Abdelrazik, the Canadian citizen labelled a national security threat by Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, to appear before it.

"I'm convinced that this motion should allow Mr. Abdelrazik to return home, sooner rather than later," said Paul Dewar, the NDP MP who has championed the case of the only living Canadian put on the United Nations international terrorist blacklist by the former Bush administration.

The Canadian government continues to deny him travel documents, despite asking the UN to delist Mr. Abdelrazik after getting assurances from both the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP that he posed no threat. Mr. Abdelrazik has been living in the Canadian embassy in Khartoum for more than a year.

"Passing this motion means that Mr. Abdelrazik will finally be able to come home," said Mr. Dewar. "It is critical that the government not block his return, to do so would be blocking the will of Parliament," he said.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Brazeau sexual harrasment case continues

I'd almost forgotten about this case involving Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau and the sexual harassment allegations raised against him by a former employee, but it popped back up in the news yesterday:

Ontario's human rights tribunal has ruled that a sexual harassment complaint involving Senator Patrick Brazeau must be heard at the federal level.

At issue was whether the matter involving the federally incorporated Congress of Aboriginal Peoples - which Brazeau led until being named to the Senate five months ago - should be handled by the provincial panel.

Interesting timing, no?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Maybe Rahim could have a staffer run as him...

As I read this story, on the one hand I say good, rules should be rules and they shouldn't be fiddled with to accommodate a particular candidate. On the other hand, given this party's willingness to fiddle with the rules to protect Rob Anders, and given the involvement of an ex-Stephen Harper loyalist in the race for the one open Conservative nomination race in Alberta, one can't help but wonder if the rules are being fiddled with to exclude Rahim Jaffer, the ex-MP and the odds-on favourite for the nomination...

The Conservatives are effectively shutting ex-MP Rahim Jaffer out of the nomination process in his Edmonton riding, a party source says.

Jaffer had hoped to run in Edmonton-Strathcona to win back the seat he narrowly lost to the NDP last fall.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Absurdity in 140 characters or less

CanWest journalist David Akin is using Twitter to report on Member's Statements in the House of Commons, and I think Twitter's 14o-character limit, by requiring brevity, really serves to help make clear the sheer absurdity of the Conservative attacks.

This one today, reporting a statement from CPC MP Laurie Hawn, is my fav:

#HOC Con MP Laurie Hawn Upset that Bob Rae wasn't upset that Russia kicked out Cdn diplomats. Accuses Libs of siding with the Russians.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Oh Gilles Duceppe, you aristocrat, you

Like most anglophones outside Quebec, and maybe some within in, I think Gilles Duceppe is the bee's knees. But I find his recent attack on Michael Ignatieff more than a little amusing:

The Bloc doesn't mention that Mr. Ignatieff's ancestors were part of the czarist regime in Russia. Mr. Duceppe nonetheless attacks Mr. Ignatieff for treating Quebeckers with “aristocratic scorn” when he recognizes the Quebec nation, all the while “stamping all over our differences and our choices.”

Because if anyone knows an aristocrat when he sees one it's Gilles Duceppe, god love him.

I mean, with polls showing the Ignatieff-led Liberals either neck-in-neck with the BQ in Quebec, or even ahead of them, mon ami Gilles needs to do something to blunt the growing Liberal momentum in Quebec. But Gilles calling Michael aristocratic would be like Jack Layton making fun of someone's mustache.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is Dhalla guilty until proven innocent?

I don’t really know Ruby Dhalla so I can’t say if the rather serious allegations that have been raised sound plausible or not. But I do think her stepping-aside from her critic responsibilities until this matter is cleared-up is the right thing.

These are serious allegations. But they are just that: allegations. And in this country we’re all still innocent until proven otherwise. I want to see these allegations fully investigated by the proper authorities. And then, once we have all the facts, the proper action should be taken. But until then, we should let the investigative process proceed and the investigative authorities do their work.

And that should be the attitude of those who really care to see justice done here, and who really care about the welfare of domestic workers in general, and the two workers raising the allegations in this case in particular. Unfortunately, it seems many are more interested in playing politics here then actually seeing justice done.

Take Ontario NDP MPP Cheri DeNovo, who seems to want Dhalla thrown in jail. DeNovo didn’t specify if she wanted a trial first, or if she was playing by Monopoly “don’t’ pass Go” rules. I find this particularly ironic coming from DeNovo, who has been the victim of some rather scurrilous accusations herself during her career. You’d expect a little more compassion from a church minister who has faced plenty of slings and arrows herself.

There’s Jason Kenney saying he can’t comment while his communications director feeds ammunition to reporters and Conservative MPs raise the issue in question period.

There’s anonymous Liberals snipping in the media, apparently eager to talk-down an ambitious young female MP who was perhaps advancing faster than they’d like.

And, of course, this all comes to light just as a report dealing with this very topic is scheduled to be released in Parliament. The timing is very convenient, to say the least.

Look, there are lots of unanswered questions here. Are the allegations true, or not? If they are, was Dhalla even involved, and to what extent? It could be her brother that did the hiring and managed the household. We don’t know.

But I think we owe it to both Dhalla and to the workers to wait until we have all the facts until passing judgment. She has stepped aside, which is the proper action and sets a higher standard than the Conservatives have ever held themselves to. She is taking the allegations seriously, and has promised to cooperate fully in the investigation. The investigation is proceeding. That’s enough for now.

Or at least it should be, if justice is really what this is about.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Pardon my French but this Toews story is dumb

The Globe’s Lawrence Martin saves me from having to blog too much about this tempest in a Toewspot by publishing a column today I can just post a link to and say I largely agree with:

Just when we thought we were well beyond the age of angst over French on cereal boxes and the like, in steps Vic Toews with the heavy linguistic lumber.

In a fit of pique - uggh, that's a French word - the President of the Treasury Board charged that the Liberals view unilingual Canadians as second-class citizens. "It's clear," he harrumphed, "that the Liberal Party considers those of us who speak one official language to be less Canadian."

The truculent Mr. Toews is responsible for language policy in the federal public service. He blew his anglophone gasket - Quebeckers will not be overjoyed - in a committee hearing on the Official Languages Act when Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez had the audacity to ask whether, given his duties, the minister should be bilingual.

His skin growing thinner by the millisecond, Mr. Toews shot back: "I should feel free to be able to speak the language of my choice, and for you to even ask that question is an insult."

Let me say that I don’t care too much if Toews can speak French or not. I can’t, but then I won’t be responsible for implementing official bilingualism in the public service anytime soon. Nevertheless, its not a biggie for me.

Nevertheless, it was a perfectly legitimate question for Pablo to ask, given the specific nature of Vic’s ministerial responsibilities, which includes responsibility for the civil service's official bilingualism policy. If Vic was, say, agriculture minister, it would have been less relevant. And it would have been perfectly fine for Vic to reply his inability to speak French has absolutely no bearing on his job, and to calmly explain why. And point out Liberals in his job haven't always been bilingual. All legitimate debate.

But this feigned outrage and insult by Toews is absolutely ridiculous, as is the piling-on by the Cons and their Web supporters. Particularly as this is the party that make so much of Stephane Dion’s accented English.

It was Vic Toews’ party that ran a smear campaign against Dion, mocking his language ability, saying his accented English made him unsuitable to be Prime Minister. They were nasty and personal. It was an organized, multimedia smear campaign ran by the Conservative Party based on Stephane’s language ability, saying it disqualified him from being a national leader.

So, I’m sorry Vic, but your feigned outrage over a measured question in a committee hearing is absolutely asinine. Maybe if you kept better company I’d be more sympathetic, but when your party was smearing Mr. Dion and his language ability I don’t recall you uttering a peep.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives slam elitist Gretzky’s "convenient" return to Canada

By Completely Satire

Prague, Czech Republic – While he feels Southern Ontario could definitely support a second National Hockey League team, Prime Minister and hockey historian Stephen Harper says he finds it rather convenient Phoenix Coyotes head coach Wayne Gretzky is now planning a return to Canada after spending most of his life outside the country.

Harper, speaking to reporters in Prague where he’s attending a summit with the European Union, was responding to the offer made by Research in Motion founder Jim Balsillie to purchase the Coyotes, which recently filed for bankruptcy protection, and move the franchise to an unspecified market in Southern Ontario.

Gretzky, a part-owner of the Coyotes and the team’s head-coach, is expected to move North with the team and return to his Southern Ontario roots after a career that has been largely spend outside Canada, including lengthily stays in Los Angeles, St. Louis and New York City before finally settling in Phoenix. The Brantford, Ont.-native was also a regular traveler to Europe and Russia for “work-related” activities.

“It seems very convenient that Gretzky is all of a sudden deciding to return to Canada, after a lifetime spent outside the borders of the country he now claims as his home,” said Harper. “Most of his life has been spent in the gated communities of Arizona, with his movie star wife, playing golf. Where was Gretzky during the Quebec referendum, when the fate of Canada was hanging by a thread?”

Prior to the media scrum, a communications official from the Prime Minister’s Office circulated a package of Gretzky press clippings to the media, highlighting one passage where Gretzky, speaking of his American hockey team, referred to them as “we.”

Hockey sources indicate Gretzky is expected to play a senior management role for the Canadian men’s hockey team’s entry to the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, a prospect Harper, who has been known to be writing a book about hockey for an exceedingly long time, angrily denounced.

“How can Gretzky expect to come back to Canada, after years and years away, and expect to just wrap himself in the flag and lead Team Canada?” asked Harper. “If Team Canada is defeated, will be just run back down to the U.S. with his Hollywood wife?”

Harper also pounced on reports that Gretzky and Balsillie refused to rule-out raising ticket prices to finance the franchise’s move to Canada.

“Gretzky is taxing and spending before he even gets back to the country,” said Harper. “And what does he stand for, anyways? Where’s his plan to deal with the economy? Why won’t he distance himself from a carbon tax?”

A spokesperson in the office of the minister of citizenship and immigration, speaking on background, indicated the government would be revisiting Canada’s citizenship laws with an eye to changing the rules around “Canadians of convenience,” such as those who use their Canadian passports only to get free passage out of war zones or to return to the country to manage national hockey teams.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper an elitist academic?

So says the Canadian Press…

"I have even (mentioned) to a couple of NHL owners I think southern Ontario is ripe to support more than one NHL team," said Harper, a keen fan and hockey historian.

Not only is Harper a historian, I hear he’s even writing a book on the subject.

Real Canadians don’t study things or write books, Mr. Harper. We rarely even read them. And the only history we care about is how we had to go save France’s be-hinds in WW1 AND WW2, because that made for some kick-ass movies.

Stephen Harper, historian and author? I don’t know how this will play at Tim Horton’s…

But seriously, if Stephen Harper is a historian, I'm the King of England.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why I'll miss Don Newman ...

... and why I suspect John Baird won't: Kick-ass journalism like this:



CBC will have a tough time finding a journalist as tough, fair, and willing to cut through the political BS as Don. He was all too rare a talent in the sea of mediocrity that is political news shows on both sides of the border.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Constitutional plenary thoughts: OMOV, ex-officios and much more

Probably the biggest reason I decided to spring for the delegate accreditation for the recent Liberal convention rather than go the free route as blogger/media was so I could have a voting card and cast my vote for One-Member, One-Vote during the constitutional plenary. It seemed like a small price to pay to help ensure no Liberal would need to pay such a price again just to have a vote for party leader.

I actually even left our group interview with Senator David Smith a few minutes early to make sure I was at the plenary in time and I was able to grab a front-row centre seat for the proceedings. And first up was OMOV, and the YLC amendment.

OMOV and the YLC amendment

As I took my seat I saw a youth friend who has been a fierce, and fair, advocate for the YLC amendment; he was passing out literature advocating its passage. I asked him if he felt it would pass or not, and he indicated he felt the No side had done an effective job and he was predicting the youth amendment would fail. I was a little surprised, frankly, and wondered if he was joking with me a little.

As the proceedings got underway though, I looked behind me at the microphones to see who was lining-up to speak for and against the YLC amendment which, along with OMV, was first on the agenda. I recognized YLC communications director Braeden Caley at the yes mic, but at the no mic waiting to speak was Justin Trudeau and YLC presidential candidate John Lennard. As soon as I saw Justin, someone seen as a strong advocate for youth, at the mic I was very excited for our chances of defeating the amendment and I hurriedly grabbed my Blackberry to tweet the news.

Braeden made a good pitch for the amendment, but I thought the other speakers on the yes side could have made a stronger case. Justin however was very persuasive and eloquent, as was John with his statement that youth “don’t need a booster seat” to make their voices heard. In the end, as I raised my voting card to oppose the amendment I looked behind be and was surprised to see it wasn’t even close, and the YLC amendment was handily defeated.

It was surprising given the unanimity of youth opinion that we had seen during this debate on the blogs, Facebook and En Famille. I think, in the end, everyone just considered the arguments on their merits, and came to the conclusion this amendment just wasn’t compatible with what OMOV is supposed to be about. I think John’s arguments, and also Justin’s intervention from the podium, were also persuasive.

We then moved on to OMOV, and at this point I was fairly confident of its passage. It seemed like something that had begun with more interest from the wider party membership had come to be embraced by the party leadership coming into convention. MP Navdeep Bains introduced the OMOV amendment as renewal chair and has been advocating for it for some time, as has LPC executive director Rocco Rossi. Michael Ignatieff also used his address to the YLC biennial on Friday to urge passage of OMOV.

At the plenary, Belinda Stronach and Bob Rae also made strong pitches for its passage. And in the end, once again as I raised my voting card and looked back at the hall behind me, the vote was pretty overwhelming in favour.

Being in that room it felt good to be part of bringing such a profound democratic change to the Liberal Party. And I was proud of our delegates, especially our youth delegates.

I always felt this would be a hard change to get through because, well, conventions are fun, and if there’s anyone that’s likely to be persuaded by that argument its those able to be delegates. They put what’s best for the party as a whole first, though, and that was great.

And the youth, who could have taken their ball and went home after their amendment failed, also put what’s best for the party as a whole first by largely supporting OMOV. Even one of the youth who spoke for the YLC amendment urged his fellow youth to support OMOV either way. It was great to see such maturity and vision.

Now, OMOV is by no means the end of party reform. It is just the beginning, and that will be the topic for another post. But it is a strong and meaningful start, and one I am happy to have been a part of.

Reducing riding slates

Another amendment from the national executive proposed reducing the number of delegates each riding can send to convention from 20 to 14, essentially reversing the decision to increase the # that was made at the Montreal convention.

I opposed this amendment. The more delegates the merrier, particularly given the large number of ex-officios given automatic spots. As well, more delegates sharing those fixed overhead costs means lower convention fees.

I’m not unsympathetic to the counter-arguments we heard during debate. Primarily, that small ridings can’t afford to subsidize that many delegates and/or send full slates, compounding rural under-representation when their unused spots are back-filled with overflow delegates from urban ridings. But as I said I think higher attendance means lower fees which can help more people attend. And we should look at other ways to make conventions more accessible. But stopping active and committed Liberals that want to attend from attending isn’t the way to address these concerns.

In the end, most agreed and this amendment was defeated.

Suspension of memberships

I had to step out of the hall for a bit, and as I came back inside the debate over the amendment to creates rules to allow the national executive to suspend or revoke memberships was just ending.

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, while I agreed with the need for bringing some formality and process to this, I had concerns about vesting so much power around the decision to allow someone’s later return with the membership secretary.

In the end, it seemed many people had concerns around just what would constitute behaviour that would lead to suspension or membership termination, and this amendment failed.

I still believe there needs to be some formality here, to avoid repeats of Paul Martin’s meaningless “suspensions for life” and the media kerfuffle created when such folks reapply for membership. Hopefully membership secretary Rob Jamieson and his team can consider the objections of the delegates and return to the next biennial with a revised proposal.

LPC not ready for cybertime

An amendment that may have seemed routine became quite contentious during the plenary. It dealt with candidate and delegate selection meetings, and who was eligible to vote at such meetings. After the words “in present at person at the meeting” the amendment sought to add “or is deemed under a Party Bylaw to be present” so as to not exclude the possibility of advance polls, main-in ballots, or Web or phone voting.

This motion was seized-upon by people who have, in my view, legitimate concerns about the feasibility of electronic voting, as opening the door to such a system without a fulsome debate.

While the constitutional advisors pointed-out other rule changes would still be required to bring in e-voting, opponents countered this motion would open the door to that change by making it a decision of the party executive, rather than the membership.

As I said, I share some of the concerns that have been raised about e-voting. You can buy memberships online without ever having to show ID. And with e-voting you could be e-mailed a PIN top vote online too, all without every having proven identity. How do we know that person even exists? What’s to stop someone from buying 100s of fake memberships and voting them all? These are some of the issues that would have to be addressed before we’d ever consider e-voting.

All that said, while in-person voting makes great sense for a densely-populated urban riding, in our rural ridings it’s much more challenging. And there did seem to be a rural-urban divide.

Many of those concerned about e-voting were from urban ridings. But those from rural ridings were concerned defeating this amendment could shut the door to mail-in ballots, which were used extensively in BC, for example, during the 2006 leadership delegate selection voting.

The alternative is to run multiple concurrent polls, and during our 2004 nomination selection we did just that in Vancouver Island North, running polls in Port Hardy, Gold River, Campbell River and Comox. But that was a significant logistical and volunteer challenge I don’t think could be duplicated today.

In the end, this amendment was defeated, which was unfortunate. While as I said I share the e-voting concerns, we need to recognize that one-size does not fit all and we do need some flexibility for rural ridings.

The other YLC amendments

It wasn’t a good constitutional plenary for the YLC. I didn’t support their OMOV amendment, but I did support some of their others. Their amendments regarding caucus members serving on the national executive were withdrawn (I’m not sure why) which left three others for debate.

The first dealt with ex-officio delegates, who receive automatic delegate status at conventions. Essentially this motion, which I supported, sought to remove ex-officio status from former MPs and Senators, while maintaining it for sitting caucus members and privy councilors. In essence, its about reducing the influence of ex-officio party elites vs. the elected grassroots delegates.

The debate became quite forceful, and I have to say former Glengaary-Prescott-Russell MP Don Boudria really pissed me off with his comments against this proposal. Seeming visibly offended and aghast, Boudria termed the amendment insulting to him and all the past MPs and Senators who have worked very hard for the LPC, almost saying how dare we propose taking away automatic representation from people who have worked so hard for the party.

Well, I’m sorry Don, but WE ALL work very hard for the party. And we all also work very hard so that you and your colleagues can get elected to the House of Commons. We, however, don’t get a salary or a tidy pension. Now, I don’t minimize the effort that MPs and Senators make, politics is a grueling and demanding profession. But, the point is, WE ALL work hard, and WE’RE ALL Liberals. And I doubt a past MP would have much trouble earning a delegate spot.

Being elected to the HoC or “called” to the Senate doesn’t make you more privileged than anyone else. I absolutely agree with ex-officio status for current caucus members, that makes obvious perfect sense. But “Status for Life” is inappropriate, and it’s un-Canadian. We’re all Liberals, Don. And while you claim a lack of respect shown for MPs, I thought your intervention showed an insulting lack of respect for the Liberal workers without which MPs couldn’t get elected.

In the end, I’m very sorry to say this motion failed. But I’d like to see it back, with a more forceful and active campaign behind it next time.

The next YLC amendment sought to require all policy resolutions sent to a biennial convention to be considered by delegates at the convention before going to the floor. In essence, this amendment sought to restore the policy workshop process that was stripped from this convention in favour of a prioritization vote by riding presidents-only following a non-binding debate and vote on En Famille.

I was very much in favour of this motion. Ironically, it seemed to be flying under the radar. As regular readers will know, I was a strong critic of the way the policy process was handled this round. On Friday I ran into the current (and re-elected) policy chair, Joan Bourassa. She was asking for my vote and, after I introduced myself, she recognized my name and was aware of the criticisms I had raised. Ironically, two minutes earlier I had just put on a button to support one of her competitors, LPC(O) policy chair, Maryanne Kampouris.

We proceeded to have a spirited discussion of the policy process, as she laid-out where she was coming from, the constitutional limitations she was working within, and where she desired to take the process, which is to broaden it as much as possible through tools like En Famille. I told her I shared that desire to broaden the process, but I felt restricting the vote to riding presidents was a significant step backward to desire, and I’d prefer the convention workshops to that, as it offers a broader pool of voters. I also stressed any revised voting process should require constitutional change, and MUST respect the weightings given to youth, women, seniors and aboriginals through the constitutional policy convention process. She indicated the switch of the convention from policy to leadership to policy had created complications there. Anyway, while I did support Maryanne I do believe Joan does want to broaden the process, and I hope that lessons have been learned from the firestorm over how the process was handled this year. Policy was the most hotly contested party office election, after the coin-flip YLC presidency of course.

But I began this digression because I learned, during our discussion, that Joan was unaware of the YLC policy amendment, something I found very surprising.

At the plenary, I was also surprised, and disappointed, by the intervention of the on-stage constitutional advisers. Their role is to offer non-partisan technical advice, but I felt they swayed the debate by telling voters they didn’t understand what the amendment would do. That seemed to be to cross the line into advocacy/campaigning, and it seemed like that to many others as well.

And in the end I think it poisoned the well against a well-intentioned and well-meaning amendment, with many speakers saying they supported the principle and intention of the amendment but felt it needed to be re-written, so in the end the amendment was defeated.

The final YLC amendment dealt with the creation of a new national executive position in charge of outreach. I didn’t support this amendment, I feel all executive members should be focusing on out reach, and we have enough of a bureaucracy without creating another position. Indeed, the size of the executive was reduced at the Montreal convention. In the end, the voters agreed and this amendment was defeated as well.

So, a tough constitutional plenary for the YLC, despite a few good amendments. I think though they could have done a better job putting up speakers to make the case for their amendments. A much better case could have been made for the policy amendment for sure.

UPDATE: Video on the OMOV debate and vote from Woman at Mile 0:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Decima confirms growing Liberal strength

A poll out today from Harris-Decima contains more good news for Liberals, and shows the Conservatives at a low-point I don't recall seeing them at in some time:

A new poll suggests the federal Liberals are edging ahead of the Conservatives nationally on the strength of rising support among urban women and Quebecers.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey places Liberal support at 34 per cent nationally, a nine-point increase on the party's share of the popular vote in last October's federal election.

Conservative support in the poll stood at 29 per cent, with the NDP at 15, the Greens at 11 and the Bloc Quebecois at nine per cent.

Support among survey respondents for both the Tories and New Democrats was down five points from the October election.

Frankly, that Conservative number seems very low to me, and I'd advise strong caution making too much of it. Were that number real, given the Conservative over-strength in Alberta and the traditional greater efficiency of the Liberal vote, it would be very bad for Harper. But I'd like to see how that breaks down regionally.

What is positive to take here is the two things the article highlights: women, and Quebec. Liberals can't win without women; we lost them in 2008 and they almost gave Harper his majority. Getting them back is crucial.

Also, this poll confirms the reporters of growing Liberal strength in Quebec. And my conversations with Quebec friends at the convention assure me these numbers are real. It's not entirely an anti-Harper vote either. There's a real desire, I'm told, to give Ignatieff a chance.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephane Dion can be a Liberal elder statesman

Speaking with several Liberal friends from Quebec over the course of the convention, I've been hearing that it's very likely Stephane Dion will run for re-election in his St. Laurent-Cartierville riding. It's not official yet, but I'm told nominations are slated to be opened in Quebec shortly, and Dion is more likely than not to opt to stay around.

I was asked to keep this low-key until official, but since La Presse seems to have reported it, it would seem the cat is out of the bag.

I really hope Stephane does run again. The LPC needs him, his voice and his concious. We actually gained seats in Quebec in the last election, showing Stephane is more of an asset there than many would care to admit. He was one of our strongest cabinet ministers under both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. And, should the Liberals be lucky enough to form the next government, I know he would be a real asset in a Michael Ignatieff cabinet. Who better to lead he charge on cap and trade as Mi's environment minister then the man so respected in the domestic and global environmental community?

And let me just take this moment to observe that Jane Taber is completly full of crap on so many levels its a wonder she manages to walk upright. This section today in her gossip column or whatever the heck she calls it, really pisses me off, and shows just how out of touch with reality Jane is:

La Presse columnist Vincent Marissal is reporting today that former
Liberal leader Stéphane Dion will run again in the next election, creating
an interesting puzzle for new leader Michael Ignatieff. Whispers are that
there are some younger Liberals who had their eye on Mr. Dion's Montreal
riding; those quasi-safe Liberal ridings rarely open up. So there could be a
fight. As well, it's always awkward dealing with former leaders - what
job do you give them? How much influence should they have? And after Mr.
Dion's disastrous speech last night at the convention, there doesn't seem to
be a lot of goodwill around for him. Still, former Conservative prime
minister Joe Clark and former Alliance leader Stockwell Day have both
demonstrated how former leaders can make valuable contributions to a caucus
and federal cabinet.

First of all, Jane, I'm confident that Stephane's riding meets the minimums set out for incumbents to avoid a nomination race, so if Stephane wants to run again, there will be no nomination race. And besides, even if there were, Stephane's personal popularity in that riding is very high. And no one would be stupid enough to try to unseat him. Even Jean Lapierre was quickly warned off when he contemplated it as Paul Martin's Quebec organizer. And just how safe the seat would be without Stephane is debatable.

Second, I'm sure Michael will have no problem finding a key position for Stephane on the team. Michael is a smart man, who knows what an asset Dion is and the strengths he brings to the team. That's not an issue.

Third, your statement that there isn't much goodwill for Stephane in the LPC and that his speech was "disastrous" is complete horseshit, and evidence you should really stick to writing about Laureen Harper's cats. I don't know what you could see from your snarky perch on media row, but down on the floor, where the Liberals were, I saw a lot of emotion, respect and much goodwill for Stephane.

Yes, we Liberals may be disappointed with his term as leader. Ok, strike the may be. We are. But don't dare for a second mistake that for a lack of respect, and affection, for the man, and for what he has done for Canada and for the Liberal Party. While he didn't have the royal jelly to be leader, Stephane is an honourable, intelligent, decent man who has fought, sweat and bled for his party and his country all his political career. There was a lot of love for Stephane in that hall, and there's a lot of love and respect for Stephane in the Liberal Party.

On that, Jane Taber couldn't possibly be more wrong. Next convention I hope the Globe sends an actual journalist.

Anyway, rant done. I'm at YVR, having a few glasses of wine in the lounge (thanks to a pass from generous former blogger Bob the Red) before taking the red-eye back to YYZ. And once home, I plan to sleep much of Monday. After that, though, I'll be back with some convention big picture thoughts, and some commentary about the constitutional plenary, including OMOV and more.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Senator David Smith on election readiness

Along with some of my fellow convention bloggers, I had the opportunity this morning to sit down with Liberal Senator David Smith. David was one of the national campaign co-chairs for the last election campaign, and he holds the same title for the upcoming campaign, whenever that may me.

With my little camera rolling, I asked the Senator if we're ready to answer Jean Chretien's call for an election now, if Michael Ignatieff will use appointments to meet his commitment of upholding Stephane Dion's 33% female candidates target. And I asked him why we didn't spend the limit in the last campaign, and if we'll be able to do so next time.

Here's the interview:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Live from the convention closer

2:24pm: I'm back on the convention floor for the closing of the convention, including the speech by the shortly to be official Liberal Leader, Michael Ignatieff. Keep refreshing for updates during the program.

Right now, Alf Apps, the incoming party president, is speaking to the convention delegates, who have been issued with noise-making thundersticks bearing the new Liberal logo. I'll post a pic later, but essentially it's an L with a maple leaf. I'm not sure why we needed a logo change, we don't need to do this with every new leader. We're not a hockey team that needs to sell jersys.

Anyway, Apps has some good opening lines about there being three former Liberal PMs in the room, noting to get even two Conservative PMs in the same room these days you'd need a subpoena.

Opening jokes aside, Apps is making a pitch for greater member involvement, more use of technology, and accountability. Membership needs to mean more than getting a membership card in the mail or putting a lawn sign up during a campaign.

He says there needs to be accountability both up and down if a 308-riding strategy is going to be more than a catchy phase.

To Jack, Steve and Gilles: The LPC may have been bruised a bit but let it be known that the party of the people has picked itself up and dusted itself up and we're ready to do battle, and make Michael Ignatieff the next Prime Minister of Canada.

2:37pm: Michael is now making his way onto the hall to banging thundersticks through a crowd holding red Michael/Liberal signs. Convention co-chairs Ujjal Dosanjh, Justin Trudeau Bobbi Ethier waiting at the podium to announce the results of the leadership voting. Hmm, wonder who won...

2:39pm: I missed the announcement of the party officer elections, but among the notables I'm told Sam Lavoie won YLC president, John Bourrassa is back as policy chair and Steve Kukucha won as vp-english. Congrats to all the winners, particularly my friend Kuch. And I want to congratulate John Lennard for running a very impressive campaign for YLC president. I hear it was an exceedingly tight race, and I know John has a big Liberal future ahead of him.

2:43pm: Justin is introucing Bob Rae. Fitting that he gets to introduce Michael, given how far they go back. He was one simple message: he wants Michael Ignatieff to be the next great Liberal Prime Minister of Canada, and he wants this renewed united Liberal party to form the next great united Liberal Party of Canada.

Canada, he says, needs the LPC at its very best and the world needs Canada at its best. It will only happen if each and every one of us makes it happen. Bob is making a strong pitch for party unity. There may still be people out there disapointed with the way the "leadership race" was aborted, and Bob is trying to speak to them in saying its time to now all come together so we can speak for those Canadians that can't, that need a Liberal Party to be their voice, the voice for jobs and justice, clean air and clean water, human rights and human dignity.

Now comes the mandatory Harper shots. It can't be a one-man band, Bob says. We have a one-man government now and we know it's not working that well. Harper has replaced the cabinet table with a mirror, which he asks who is the fairest of all. Bob is contrasting the Liberal team apprroach under Michael with the one-man band of Harper.

Now Bob is moving on to foreign policy, his critic area, lamenting Canada's declining voice and influence on the world stage, calling Harper's foreign policy a faded George W. Bush echo. Thought we'd heard the last of Dubaya bashing for awhile. But that's always red meat for a Liberal crowd.

2:56pm: OK, over 10 minutes and Bob is still going. I think Bob is one of the best political speakers in the game today, but after what happened last night we need to keep this thing tight. Bob is introducing Michael, not giving a stump speech. Keep it moving folks.

2:57pm: And of course Bob ends it seconds afte I wrote that. And he goes out with a Jean Chretien-style "vive le Canada!" which is a nice touch. Good ovation for Bob.

2:58pm: OK and now we're getting Dominic LeBlanc coming-up. Good to give both of the candidates that dropped out of the race for Michael a chance on the stage, very classy. And Dominic is a comer in this paty, no doubt.

Dominic makes a short speech touching on the economy, but he's here to officially nominate Michael as party leader and moves on to talk about Michael, his values and his ideals. He makes particular note about Michael's desire to reach out to rurral Canada, and speaks of the excitement for Michael in his own rural Francophone riding in New Brunswick.

Dominic waps it up at 12 minutes, saying his friend Michael Ignatieff is the man to move us forward.

3:10pm: Two young Liberal delegates are now coming to the stage to add their names to those nominating Michael. Apparently over 3500 others also did so online. I recall signing Michael's actual physical papers, and Dominic's, back when we were expecting an actual leadeship race. I'd have signed Bob's too if I'd had the chance.

3:13pm: And now the results of the vote. Total votes cast 2023. Spoiled 59. Total for Michael 1964, 97%. I look forward to Jason Kenney and Dimitri Soudas telling me how those 59 spoiled votes are a sign of party disunity and the coming appocalypse. Anyway, Justin calls to make it unanimous, everyone says hi.

And now Juston brings up, the newleader of the LPC and, of course, the next PM of Canada, Michael Ignatieff.

3:16pm: First it's a video, with decent production values, where people against a white background speak of their hopes for Canada to mood music. Then it mophs into an Iggy photo montage. Big applause for the pic of Iggy with Obama. Actually, four pics of Iggy with Obama, and another of him with Air Force One.

If they show a picture of a young Iggy with Pierre Trudeau I'm going to strangle myself with my mouse cord. Assuming they don't do that, it was a good video. Pics of Mi with Bob, Dominic and the Queen. And Peter C. Newman. Rick Mercer from the house-moving bit.

The video is now running about 7 minutes, starting to feel a little long. Am I getitng over concious about time? Maybe. It's important though. Looks like it wraps at about 8 minutes.

3:24pm: Alright, finally, Michael is making his way to the stage for the big speech. He looks a tad emotional, and is doing the old finger point to random audience person, blow kisses to the crowd thing as the crowd chants and claps.

3:26pm: And he speaks. He notes we need to get this show on the road because the puck drops at 6pm, and we're all Csanucks tonight. Iggy talks about a united party and the crowd chants Tous Ensemble.

If you're watching at home Michael says come on in to the Liberal Party, we'll give you a great welcome. Canada is more than the sum of its parts, we're one great people. We're not two solitudes, we're for each other all together. Or something like that, it was in French.

He says we need to tell Canadians we're living your challenges with you, in opposition we'll fight for you and in government we'll lead you back to prosperity. It's a good line. The road back to prosperrity may be long but we know with road will get us there: it's the Canadian way.

This would be a good speech line for a compare and contrast, a call and repeat: The Candian Way.

Some policy meat now, for thise who have been complaining Mi has been lacking on the vision. We need reformed, comprehensive employment insurance, says Michael. Also, skills training, a society where learning is a way of life and lifelong. A knowledge society where every child gets an equal start with world class early childhood learning and childcare. This gets a huge ovation from Liberal delegates. Where women get equal pay of equal value gets the delegates right back on their feet. Dido for where every student who gets the grades gets the best education in the world. He goes on, that means every Aboriginal and Metis child gets a worldclass, not a second class education. He also touches on literacy, and removing obstacles for Canadians for disabilities.

You know, as he switches into Francais, it occurs to me that for a guy the haters insist is some kind of crazy neo-con, Michael is laying-out a very centre-left vision in best traditions of traditional Liberalism.

3:49pm: My computer froze but I'm back online now. Michael is back talking about the Canadian way, and how we're good neighbiours and the best friends you'll ever have. We'll keep the peace, and if there's no peace to keep we'll fight for our freedom, and yours too. We're the party of Vimy Ridge, and the deserts of Kandahar.

Now he wants to speak directly to Stephen Harper, and he launches a pretty good attack to chants of shame, with the end line Harper doesn't understand Canada. Harper has failed to understand the PM has only one job: unite Canadians. And if he can't appeal to the best in all of us, we can.

Did someone just shout Yes We Can! from the audience? Yes they did. Now I'll get to read 15 newspaper columnists about how Ignatieff is comparing himself to Obama, And Pierre Trudeau. And Ghandi and Jesus. Mon Dieux.

And there we go, Mi's done at about 32 minutes. His wife and caucus members join him on stage, lots of kissing, even Bob Rae gets a hug and a peck on one cheek. And there's the streamers and confetti.

i think I'm going to sign off for now. I've got one more video to post, and then I'll be back at some point, maybe Monday, with some overall closing thoughts on the weekend. Depends on my Web access over Sunday.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Navdeep Bains on the passage of OMOV

Shortly after the passage by the Liberal delegates of One Member, One Vote I spotted Liberal MP and renewal commission chair Navdeep Bains. I grrabbed Nav for a quick video interview to get his thoughts on the passage of OMOV and the renewal road forward for the Liberal Party.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's morning in Vancouver. And hopefully dawn for OMOV

I'm back at the convention centre for the final full day of the Liberal biennial convention in Vancouver. And for a convention the media keep insisting we're saying is about nothing (I haven't met one Liberal that has said that, nor would they have came all the way here if they did) we've been pretty darned busy. I know my feet are killing me, from all the walking around.

Last night was a good night, but time management always seems to be a challenge for Liberal convention oganizers. I remember in Montreal in 2006, one of the keynote speakers (maybe Howard Dean, I forget) was running late and so the hosts had to fill, having one of the musical groups play song after song.

This time, it was the opposite problem: things went way too long. Particularly given that many delegates had just arrives in town and were still in Eastern time. The convention really should be a day longer, they just tried to pack too much into last night's program.

The opening by the Coast Salish chief and the later dancing by the Nisgha was great, the drumming stayed in my head for awhile. Paul Martin gave a great speech and Jean Chretien rocked the house, making me wish I could go back and write his name in in my leadership ballot.

And, of course, Stephane Dion spoke. I covered off my feelings on the content of his speech and his legacy last night. I'm told he spoke for some 40 minutes, and went over his time. Honestly, it didn't feel like he was up there that long to me. Not that he's a spellbinding orator or anything. It just didn't feel that long to me.

And, frankly, I don't think it would have been appropriate to rush him off the stage or make him just give a quick au revoir. With all he has done for the Liberal Party and for Canada, and, frankly, with the way the Liberal Party has treated him, he deserved to not be rushed but to leave on his own terms having said his peace and making the case for the ideals and principles that have driven him throughout his career.

I am very sorry though for the later speakers and particularly two great Canadians, Louise Arbour and Eric Hoskins. And I apologize to those who were hoping I'd be blogging about their speeches, which I really did want to see. I'm disapointed I didn't. But it was just so late in the evening at that point, my energy was fading, and I needed to seek nourishment and a beverage before heading to bed. As I said earlier, even if Stephane went long, it was waaaay to much to try to pack into one evening.

Today is a new day though, and potentially a big day for the renewal of the Liberal Party. The policy plenary is currently ongoing, but later this morning and in the afternoon is what for me is the main event, and one of the primary reasons I dropped a large chunk of cash I should have saved to be a votiing delegate rather than a non-voting blogger: One Member, One Vote.

I really think OMOV is going to pass. When I speak to delegates about it, I'd say easily 90 per cent are onboard. There is an organized yes to OMOV campaign, with nifty buttons. Nothing similar on the No side.

The question is the YLC ammendment. It's up in the air, but I wouldn't bet against it passing. The youth really know how to organize. Something is interesting though. When I speak to some delegates about it who aren't really familiar with the issue, they say sure, let's support the youth. But when we dive into it, that with OMOV anyone who takes out a $10 membership can vote, they see it really isn't fair to just reserve 25% of the riding points for youth, particularly when that's more than double their membership and much more than their % of the population. So, if enough people consider the issue, I think the ammendment might be defeated. But if it's just a reflexive "let's support the youth" without thinking further, it will pass. I don't want to call it at this point.

I will say though, for the record, that I will be supporting OMOV even if the ammendment passes. I think OMOV is a crucial reform. I think the YLC ammendment goes against the very spirit of OMOV, and has more to do with protecting influence then franchising youth. I think it's a bad ammendment. I think it will lead to problems down the road with other groups having a now legitimized argument for their own over-weighted quotas.

But let's not let perfection get in the way of progress. With that attitude, we'll never move forward. Let's pass OMOV.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Live from the tribute to a Great Canadian, Stephane Dion

6:56pm: I'm back on the netbook and Wifi in a cavenous hall at the Vancouver convention centre for the evening's main event, including the tribute to our outgoing leader, Stephane Dion. It looks like I have just under two hours battery power, so I'll keep live-blogging as long as I can. So keep refreshing for updates.

Those of you who have followed my blog for awhile will know I was a very early supporter of Stephane Dion. I came to support Stephane at a time I was rather disollusioned as a Liberal, deeply disapointed with my party after its conduct in the 2005/06 election and turned-off the party in general after the petty BS of the years of Martin/Chretien feuding.

Stephane wasn't a perfect candidate, but he was a decent and hobourable man, a fighter for Canada, and someone whose integrity was above reproach. As I wrote at the time, he was a candidate I would never have to apologize for, someone I could be poud to support. And I was.

Once we impobably won, obviously things didn't go as we would have hoped, for a variety of factors. But I'll never forget the emotion of that night in Monteal, when my long-shot came in. When we launched that noble experiment: could a good man succeed in politics? Whatever else happened, Stephane renewed my faith in Liberalism that night, and for that I thank him dearly, and I pay tribute to him tonight.

Merci Stephane.

7:15pm: After a bilingual national anthem from a local children's choir, always a crowd pleaser, the convention co-chairs come out: Ujal Dosanjh, Justin Trudeau and Bobbi Ethier. Uj makes some jokes about the convention centre's green roof and its rooftop bee hives to polonize the plants (no, its true), saying the buzz of the bees will carry Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals into office. While the partisan crowd applauds, Uj needs a better speach writer I think.

7:21pm: Justin is talking in French about Einstien. I'm going to go offline to converrse battery power for a bit, until the opening stuff is done.

7:31pm: Back online to say the chief of the Coast Salish native band, on whose traditional land the convention is being held, is a great hit with the audience. Afte a lenghtly greeting in his traditional language, he switches to English to ask "are you with me so far?" He also jokes this convention centre is the future home of their casino, which gets a good laugh. Now he's singing a traditional welcoming song I rather like, and leaves to a standing-0 from the crowd.

Ujjal says from one Indian to another I understood every word of that song.

7:35pm: Mayor Gregor Robson: We are all Canucks. The mayor, a former NDP MLA, thanks past Liberal govenments for their infrastructure commitments to Vancouver, and thanks Jean Chretien for helping Vancouver win the 2010 Winter Olympics without resorting to the Shawinigan handshake.

Also, he says we have ambitious goals, including ending homelessnes sin the city by 2015 and the greenest city in Canada by 2020.

7:50pm: A great ovation for the Right Honourable Jean Chretien. He's been coming here since 1967, when he came as a junior minister for the centenial. He pays tribute to the amazing job Stephane Dion did as a member of his cabinet.

If today, he says, the country looks at the time when he was PM and looks at it as a great 10 years for the country, Stephane Dion was a big part of that. Thank-you Stephane.

Now, Jean goes into Harpe bash mode, fun. He's talking about the G-20 photo-op. Every leader was there for one, Stephen Harper. And we all know where he was... And these days Harper only talks to American journalists. CNN says he was at the door of the washroom, but this time he wasn't waiting to shake hands with the PM of China. And we don't know who he was waiting for...

The PM was in the same place he always was when the world needs Canada to lead ... missing in action. Jean goes off on a rif now, the economy, China, Africa, developing world, peacemaker in the middle east... where was Stephen Harper.

We know where he is: nowhere. And we know where he'll be after the next election...

Can I go back and write-in Jean Chretien's name on my leadership ballot? Please?!

"I say to Stephen Harper there is no such thing as Liberal values or Conservative values. There is only Canadian values! It's not Liberal or Conservative to help a starving child in Africa. It's Canadian!"

Jean reads some of the Stephen Harper talking-down Canada quotes of the past, and then says now Harper is proud of Canada, and guess what he's proud of: the Liberal economic record. It was Liberals that returned surplus after surplus, it was the Liberals that said no to bank mergers and insisted on stable, well-regulated banks. Thanks to what the Liberals did our banks are standing strong where others have fallen.

"I thought Stephen Harper was supposed to be tough on crime. Well, he should be charged for stealing our record. But I can't blame him. If I had his record, I'd want to steal someone else's too."

I love Jean but I think this is going to be a late night, we've got a lot left on the schedule and we're already one hour in.

8:18pm: Bobbi Ethier kicks off the Dion tribute and launches a tribute video kicked-off by Aline Chretien, who first learned of Stephane and introduced him to Jean to bring him to Ottawa and to cabinet after the referendum.

The video is heaby on the clarity act, fighting the separtists, bringing in more women candidates, his integrity and honesty. Surprisingly, very little on the environment. I mean, the green shift didn't work out, but come on guys: it was a big part of Stephane's legacy.

8:23pm: Paul Martin on the stage now. Paul has been asked to introduce and talk about Stephane. A tad ironic, Paul left Stephane out of his first cabinet. Paul learns from his mistakes though, and that error was quickly rectified.

Paul says lots of people talk about the need for getting more women active in the Liberal Party and in politics, but no one has put it into action like Stephane Dion has, refering to the 33% quota.

Paul says he hasn't been given much time to speak, and on his way up John Turner said to him for god's sake Paul, cut it short! He goes on to talk about the UN climate change meeting in Monteal, and the work of Stephane at achieving a consensus.

8:37pm: OK, I'm back. Second half of the video was all about the environment. Michael Ignatieff is now on stage to intro Stephane, calling him a true Canadian patriot. Michael lauds Stephane's commitment to female candidates, saying he cannot do less and he must do more. And Stephane put environmental sustaniability at the heart of what this party is and will present to the counntry in the next election, and he promises to carry that legacy forward.

Stephane gave every last inch of what was in him to defend the values that we have always presented to this country with pride.

9:11pm: And Stephane's speech is over. I posted a number of tweets on it so I won't rehash all the content. But it occured to me as I listened to Stephane that what he was saying was so remarkably consistent with what he spoke about during the campaign, and what he spoke about during the leadership race.

All along during that time, from his leadership run to his speech tonight, Stephane called it as he saw it. For better or worse, damm the torpedos, he spoke from his heart and stood up for what be believed in, for what he believed was right, and what he believed was best for Canada. And that's admirrable.

It may have been his unwillingness to get dirty, to play the political game, that drew me to Stephane in the first place. And that didn't change. Stephane was always Stephane. While he wouldn't let politics change him, even if he leaves the stage under less than ideal circumstances, he leaves us with his honour and his integrity intact, and my respect for him just as strong. That's not something that many politicians can say.

From here I'll sign off for the evening. Good night.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dimitri Soudas needs better talking points

With all the money the Consevatives raise (even if they lost 5000 donors in the last quarter) you'd think they could afford to hire a decent communications spinner to come out here to the Liberal convention to talk to the media and rain on our parade. Instead, they sent us Dimitri Soudas.

Here's a taste of a little of Dimtri's "spin" from CTV's Newsnet:

Observing is quite the challenge at this convention. There was speculation -- or the liberals have promised there would be about 10,000 delegates. I'm not sure if there's 15 or 200 of them. And given the beautiful weather in british columbia, i think half of them are out playing golf today.

Here's a few facts. Speaking with organizers last week, we were expecting 1500-2000 delegates to come to Vancouver. Between it being out on the West Coast, it not being a leadership race, the economic crisis, oh, and swine flu, that would be a pretty good turnout. But it was announced today that we've got 2500 dues-paying delegates here in Vancouver. Plus many observers, media, and bloggers.

And by the way, I just stepped out of a convention opening plenary that was packed to the gills and overheating. It is a beautiful day outside though.

To add a little perspective to Dimitri's comments, in Montreal in 2006, one of the most heavily contested races in recent memory, had maybe 7000 delegates. There was neve going to be 10,000 delegates here. That's a ridulous figure. If you're going to make up a number, Dimitri, it needs to be realistic. He may as well have said 1 million delegates. He looks like a dufus.

And if you're wondering, for their recent convention in Winnipeg, the governing Conservatives, in their first convention in power, got 1500 delegates.

I heard they were expecting 10,000 though. Maybe they were golfing...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: YLC presidential speaches

This morning the two presidential candidates for the Young Liberals of Canada, John Lennard and Sam Lavoie, spoke to delegates at the YLC biennial.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Rocco Rossi on One Member, One Vote

I gabbed LPC executive director Rocco Rossi in the hallway this morning to talk about why it's vital that this convention pass One Member, One Vote:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Live from the YLC Biennial

9:15 am: Hello from Vancouver, I've fired up the netbook, connected to the WiFi and I'm going to try a little live-blogging from the Young Liberals of Canada biennial. It's a packed room with little elbow room, so we'll see if I can manage to do some typing without annoying my neighbours too much.

And I just got kicked out of my chair, they're taking some chairs out to make more standing-room as we're expecting an even bigger crowd with the imminent arrival of Michael Ignatieff, and also a possible Paul Martin appearance.

We've just had the YLC executive candidate speeches, most of which wee acclaimed. But as I've blogged previously there is a good race for president between Sam Lavoie and John Lennard. At this point I'll admit I'm pulling for John. Sam looks to have a lot of backing from the YL establishment types, but John I'm hoping has the members-at-large on his side.

John gave a helluva speech, with a lot of fire and passion about the youth no longer being junior partners in the party, but making sure their voice is heard through hard work, determination, and a doubling of the membership. It really galvanized the room, and I think earned him some support. I got some video of both speeches, I'll post them later.

9:25 am: Meeting chairs desperately trying to move the crowd away from the door to make way for Michael Ignatieff, who is due in the room in about 15 minutes. He's speaking to the Aboriginal Peoples Commission curently.

9:30am: Meeting chairs trying to stall and keep the crowd entertained while we wait for Michael.

9:40am: And Michael enters the room to a loud standing ovation and chants of Michael, Michael! He says mondieux, what a welcome that warms his heart. He's impressed by the turnout for the conventionm more people than we expected, and he says the feeling is similar to him to the 1968 convention that elected Pierre Trudeau as our leader, a convention where he was 21 that he'll never forget. It was the first time in his life that he felt as a young person that he wasn't a bystander but that he was there, in a small way, helping make the history of Canada, and that's what the Liberal Party is all about.

But he can't do it without us. It's no coronation, there's no robe of office, it's about the members and its about the team. It is not me that makes you possible, he says, its you that makes me possible.

9:45am:Bbecause we represent every corner of the country, because we're anchored on the lives of the people of this county, we're fit to lead and govern this country.

Ome member one vote is extremly important, we've got to get this through. He wants every member with that red card in their wallet to be able to say I joined the LPC so I, not a delegate, can choose the next leader of our party. We can't be a party of change without change ourselves, and this OMOV is crucial to the future of our party, crucial to our ability to say to people join us and tell them you, not a delegate, can choose the leader of this party.

And so, if your leader can make one request of you, I can't demand but I can request, I can pasionately ask that you pass this OMOV.

We' ve been through the rain, we've been through the snow, look at this sunshine! He finishes to applause. Geat speach by Michael, and great to see him pushing hard on OMOV. He was silent, however, in the YLC quota ammendment.

And he ends by donning a Canucks jersey with Ignatieff on the back. Sweet, wish I'd gotten a pic or video but I'm sure many others did.

9:50am: Room clears out a little with Michael gone and now Navdeep Bains, Liberal MP and youth caucus liason, is speaking to the YLC delegates. Nav also talks about OMOV, sidestepping the quota issue but supporting OMOV itself. Nav also gives a shout-out to Adam Miron, a great guy and the outgoing YLC national director. Adam has also been crucial with blogger outreach. He's retiring from the position and will be replaced by Keith Torrie, a great Young Liberal who is no stranger to blogging as well.

9:53am: Adam Miorn thanks everyone for all their support and brings up Keith Torrie to say hello to the crowd. He promises eveyone he'll work had for them and with them, a lot of exciting things coming up in the next little while and a lot of energy and momentum coming out of this convention. Keith brings up outgoing YLC president Corey Pike.

9:55am: Its been a grueling few days but Corey thinks he has run a successful campaign for past-pesident. He thinks it says a lot about our country that a guy like him can come from a small community in Newfiundland and a non-political family to become the president of a national youth organizaton.

People like to say the youth are the future, but in the Liberal Party the youth are now, we're leading now and we're changing Canada now. He lauds the diversity in the room: that's Canada. Canada is ready to be bigger than it is, and take on that next great national challenge. And the YLs are ready to help.

10:00am: Paul Martin is next after a five minute break.

10:08am: I just shot a quick video with LPC executive director Rocco Rossi on why we need to pass OMOV. I'll head back to the blogger room to get that online after Paul Martin speaks to the youth. Paul has always been very supportive of the youth, and they of him, so it should be a good one.

10:34am: Still waiting on Paul, I hope he comes before the battery on my netbook dies. I'd also like to video the speech, but its hard to liveblog and video at the same time. I may tape it, and then add my comments to the blog right after.

10:40am: Justin Trudeau in the house, posing for many photos. I'm assured Paul is less than five minutes away.

10:43am: Paul is here. CPAC is blocking my shot so no video. It's a joint address to both the Aboriginal People's Commission and the YLC.

Paul says in his career he has always relied on the Young Liberals, and m'any of the strong friendships he has forged in the party were with people who were Young Liberals, although they don't look so young today.

Speaking of the past, he said early settlers told out First Nations that we were right and they were wrong in ways of doing things, and if you're told that enough it seeps your spitit. But throughout history they have refused to accept that, to work with the newcomers to forge a future that adapts the best of the new says while maintaining their identity. Still, after confederation, the push to assimilate was there. It took awhile to get better.

It wasn't until the 1950s that a status Indian could go to university. Brian Mulroney's royal commission was important, as was Jean Chretien' healing commission. Then the Liberal government started the process leading to the residential schools apology. It didn't matter who was in power, the GOVERMENT OF CANADA apologized.

But how a government can apologize for the residetial schools and then reneg on the Kelowna Accord is beyond him. It was a monumental accord between the feds, prov and native groups that made promises, set goals and targets, and really moved beyond assimilation to a partnership. But the Conservatives said no,w e're going back to a policy that has failed for 500 years, we're going to assimilate. But Canada is not going to accept that.

This is a moral and ethical question for Paul. But it's also an economic question. We're 33 million people in a competition with 400m Americans and 1B Chineese. Young Aboriginals are the youngest and fastest growing segment of our popultion, and we can't afford to waste one iota of talent if we're going to compete.

10:52am: 50% of aboriginals ae under the age of 25. That would make a heckuva YL club. There's now an oppotunity as never before for the APC to come together with the YLC to pick up that challenge, to make this country better, and harness the incredible contribution our young aboriginals can make if they're only given the chance.

On-reserve schooling needs to be improved. The stories about monbey being wasted by aboriginal bands just aren't true. They're given less for education and less for health care per capita than provincial schools and medical centres.

Paul challenges the YL to work with the APC and pick up this challenge. Michael Ignatieff is going to win the next election, and Kelowna is going to come back, but it's not enough. We're all now Canadians, let's respect our diversity and traditions, and there's no one to better do that then the YLC.

And I'll signoff on life blogging from here, back to the blogger room to do some video.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers