Good on Donna for standing up for what's right, even if it may be unpopular with her party. I hope she does lobby her caucus colleagues, and I hope they listen.
The federal government says he has to leave.
But Mikhail Lennikov, the former KGB member holed up in an East Vancouver church to avoid deportation, has at least one Conservative MP who wants him to stay in Canada.
Surrey-North MP Dona Cadman has signed a letter, along with 35 other New Democrat, Liberal and Bloc MPs, pleading with Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan to let Lennikov stay.
Cadman says she thinks it's the right thing to do and may try to lobby her own caucus, "I felt the man has been over here for eleven years. We let him come in, he had, on his application, put that he worked for the [KGB], and this seems to be the big thing that everybody's upset about."
"If they were so upset about it and so against him, they should have stopped him then, not wait eleven years and then come back once he's settled and do this," says Cadman.
This is a tragic story. I sincerely hope Dave Batters is able to find in death the peace that eluded him in life, and my thoughts and condolences are with his family, and his former colleagues and friends, in what must be a very difficult time.
Former Regina Tory MP Dave Batters dead after committing suicide
Leader-PostJune 30, 2009 12:01 PM
REGINA — The family of Dave Batters released a statement confirming that the Saskatchewan MP took his life on Monday.
The statement reads: The family of Dave Batters is grieving the sudden loss of their beloved husband, son and brother, who sadly chose to take his own life at home in Regina on Monday, June 29.
Last fall, Dave courageously made public his battle with depression and anxiety when he chose not to run for re-election as the Member of Parliament for Palliser. He entered treatment and his family and friends hoped he would overcome his illness. Tragically, this was not to be.
Dave and Denise's family greatly appreciates the support of their friends during this extremely difficult time and requests that the media respect their privacy.
Funeral arrangements will be announced at a later date.
A new Quebec-only poll released today by Leger for Le Devoir shows the Conservatives trailing the NDP in Quebec, polling at their lowest levels in the province since 2005. The Liberals are down slightly (within the margin) and are now tied with the BQ in the province.
The slide began in an election campaign last fall to increase this spring, says the analyst Christian Bourque, Léger Marketing. "Two factors have contributed to the fall of the Conservatives in Quebec," notes M. Bourque. The first is an image problem, fueled by several events during the election campaign, including planned cuts in the culture. The second factor is the economic crisis.
"Harper repeated throughout the campaign that everything was fine and that Canada was immune to the crisis.That plays against him now."
...although he notes his former fellow broadcaster Mike Duffy, who is now a senator, always had an interest in the upper chamber. Notes Newman, “I am very happy for him that he finally got where he wanted to go.”
It's sterling insights such as these that made Mike Duffy Live a must-watch for years, and will surely serve him well in the chamber of sober second thought. And if anyone knows deadwood, its Duffy.
Ok, that's unlikely, but I may start to dislike him slightly less. Because it seems Flaherty is under attack from the nutty right for "supporting the homosexual agenda", whatever that means and whatever that agenda may be.
Maclean's magazine reported on June 18 that Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, previously supported by pro-family advocates, has indicated support for the homosexual movement in a congratulatory letter to Conservative strategist Jaime Watt. Watt, who has been Flaherty's campaign chairman, is currently on the election team of Flaherty's wife Christine Elliot and was one of the whiz kids in Ontario Premier Mike Harris's inner circle, was awarded Egale's inaugural Leadership award for homosexual rights at Egale's gala last week.
LifeSiteNews.com reported in 2002 that Flaherty was supported by Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) in his campaign for the leadership of the Ontario PC Party. CLC National President Jim Hughes sent a recorded message to 50,000 Ontario homes urging them to join the PC Party so as to vote, and indicating that Flaherty was the only candidate who was pro-life without hesitations.
When, in the wake of CLC's announcement, he was questioned by media about his views, Flaherty defended them, stating, "You're asking me what do I believe in? I'm pro-life. I always have been. I don't anticipate ever changing that view."
It seems that Flaherty is at the tip of a secret thrust to gay-up the formerly saintly Conservative Party:
This, and other developments in the Conservative Party in recent years, seem to indicate that Watt and his many influential associates within the party are succeeding in making the federal Conservatives as gay friendly as they did with the Mike Harris Progressive Conservative regime. Under the Ontario Harris and later Ernie Eves PCs, the homosexual movement made dramatic, major advances with the PCs betraying their large social conservative base.
According to Maclean's, Flaherty stated, in reference to the Harris government's decision to give same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples, a decision which Watt was influential in bringing about: "Some were surprised our government took this decision ... but conservatives fundamentally believe in equality and fairness. It does, however, sometimes take leaders such as Jaime to help us live up to our ideals."
The piece goes on to chastise Flaherty for having an openly-gay chief of staff, and attack the finance minister for saying he's anti-abortion and, yet, friendly to gay people and what not. I'm not entirely clear why someone can't be gay friendly and anti-abortion though, they don't seem like mutually exclusive positions.
Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum the folks at Rabble and some members of the gay community are upset with Egale and Watt (and Flaherty) because, I guess, you can't be gay and conservative at the same time:
But queer activists say Watt's work for Mike Harris's Conservative government in Ontario and for the Canadian Alliance — the successor to the Reform Party, which eventually merged with the Conservative Party — should make such an award unthinkable.
"I'm sorry, that's just wrong," says Peter Bochove, a Toronto bathhouse owner who has campaigned for changes to Canadian sex laws. "I find it personally offensive. I don't understand how you can be gay and belong to these parties. Leave aside the gay community, let's talk about Walkerton, let's talk about Ipperwash, let's talk about the amalgamation of Toronto, let's talk about the 'common-sense revolution'. It's the antithesis of everything in the gay community."
The headline on the CP story tonight really says it all. The Liberals have big-time momentum on the fundraising front. While a lot of work remains to be done, the progress made in a very short time is very impressive:
Liberals triple donations in first half of 2009
June, 29, 2009 - 06:52 pm Bryden, Joan - (THE CANADIAN PRESS)
OTTAWA - The federal Liberal party is no longer a financial basket case.
Rocco Rossi, the party's national director, reports that the party has raised roughly $5 million in the first six months of 2009 - triple its cash intake for the same period last year.
Indeed, the party's haul in the first half of the year is almost as much as the $5.9 million it raised in total over 12 months last year.
(snip)
Rossi said the Liberals will pull in more than $3 million in the second quarter, which ends Tuesday. The Conservatives' fundraising results for the same period won't be released for another few weeks but Rossi said he expects the gap between the two parties will be reduced to about $1 million.
Impressive work by Rossi, Alf Apps and Michael Ignatieff, and really all the Liberals across Canada that have stepped up to help support the party with whatever they could do to help. All the small donations really add up, and it seems we may finally be starting to get the hang of this new fundraising environment.
While we're still behind the Conservatives, we've closed a lot of the gap. There's still progress to be made, but its no longer accurate for the media to dismiss the Liberals as financially troubled. With the party having been debt free for months, these donations are going to fill the party war chest. We'd have been ready to take the Conservatives on this month, of that there's no doubt. And when the time does come, we'll be more than ready.
And there's still time to keep the momentum going. Tuesday is the last day of the quarter, which means there's one more day left to make a donation to help boost the second quarter/first half fundraising numbers. Rossi sent the following e-mail to Liberals this morning:
Donations received by midnight on Tuesday, June 30th will be included in our second quarter fundraising report to Elections Canada. That report will be made public in a few weeks and the results will have an enormous effect on how Canadians view our organization.
A strong showing at this decisive moment will demonstrate to those taking a ‘wait and see’ approach that the Liberal Party is ready to govern and that Michael Ignatieff is ready to lead. It will provide impetus for those on the sidelines to get involved with donations of their own.
A busy day at the day job leaves little time for blogging, but I did notice over at O'Malley's that Stephen Harper has made his three picks for the Conservative spots on the EI summer working group with the Liberals.
In addition to HRSD minister Diane Finley and your friend and mine, Pierre Poilievre, Harper has appointed Malcom Brown, senior assistant deputy minister, HRSD.
While much of the discussion is focusing on the lightning-rod that is Poilievre, I noted that I find it interesting Harper has given one of the three "Conservative" spots to what appears to be a non-political, senior civil servant. Poilievre's appointment aside, I think having someone with an intimate knowledge of the mechanics of EI on the committee is a good thing.
I'm curious, though, how this will impact any vote or consensus on final recommendations by the committee. The composition was 3-3, but now its 3 Lib 2 Con 1 civil servant. Will Brown be expected to vote with Finley and Poilievre? Will he be free to vote his conscious, and possibly side with the Liberals? Or does it really matter anyways?
A political strategist of some experience once described the cardinal rule of political advertising to be STAND BY YOUR AD.
So I found it amusing to read this transcript, as Prime Minister Stephen Joseph Harper not only didn't stand by his ad, but seemed to want to get out of the same room as his ad as quickly as possible, 'lest he contract some sort of communicable disease.
Hopefully the auditor general will look into this because these are troubling accusations, and to use a program intended to assist the disabled for partisan political ends is doubly sad:
The auditor general has been asked to investigate why Conservative ridings -- particularly Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's constituency -- have disproportionately benefited from a federal fund to improve access to buildings for the disabled.
Liberal MP Mike Savage has requested Auditor General Sheila Fraser examine what he called a Tory "slush fund."
He made the request after calculating that 94 per cent of the funding approved so far from the $45-million Enabling Accessibility Fund has gone to Conservative-held ridings.
In particular, only two of 89 applications for major project funding have been approved, both for $15 million and both in Conservative ridings -- Calgary Northeast and Flaherty's Whitby-Oshawa in Ontario.
I'm a big fan of extreme weather. Particularly when I don't have to venture outside but can just watch it from the comfort of my home or office. So this advisory for Toronto this afternoon is interesting:
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH: City of Toronto Issued at 11:04 AM EDT THURSDAY 25 JUNE 2009
LOCALIZED SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS ARE EXPECTED THIS AFTERNOON WITH LARGE HAIL, DAMAGING WINDS, TORRENTIAL DOWNPOURS, AND FREQUENT CLOUD TO GROUND LIGHTNING. THIS IS AN ALERT TO THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS WITH LARGE HAIL AND DAMAGING WINDS. MONITOR WEATHER CONDITIONS..LISTEN FOR UPDATED STATEMENTS. IF THREATENING WEATHER APPROACHES TAKE IMMEDIATE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS. SCATTERED THUNDERSTORMS ARE EXPECTED TO AFFECT PORTIONS OF THE ABOVE REGIONS. SOME OF THESE STORMS WILL CONTAIN LARGE HAIL AND DAMAGING WINDS. TORRENTIAL RAIN OF 50 MILLIMETRES WITHIN AN HOUR AND INTENSE FREQUENT LIGHTNING WILL ALSO ACCOMPANY THE STORMS.
And add extreme wind, rain, thunder and hail to mounds of smelly rotting garbage dotting the city on day 4 of a city workers strike, and its a recipe for much interesting developments to be sure.
This is a riding that's home to CFB Comox and many thousands of military retirees, a vote that has traditionally gone Conservative and has often been the margin of difference in some very tight races. So this doesn't bode well for Conservative incumbent John Duncan.
I haven't heard if former MP Catherine Bell will try to take the seat back for the NDP, but I have heard of an interesting name or two expressing interest in running under the Liberal banner.
Also interesting that the reluctant Senator Mike Duffy was in town to raise some cash for the CPC, and try his hand at some weak damage control.
Bill Ouellette ripped up his Conservative Party membership card Monday evening.
He had to use his teeth because the card is plastic, but standing in front of the Best Western Westerly Hotel — where MP John Duncan was holding a fundraising dinner with Senator Mike Duffy — Ouellette tore the card in pieces and ripped up his renewal request as part of a demonstration regarding the debate over the clawback/bridging of military and RCMP pensions.
Other protesters clapped as Ouellette ripped his card, and Gordon Keenan tried to burn his before trying to rip it and stomp on it.
“We’re protesting the clawback of our pension money,” said Ouellette, who was joined by almost 50 people by 6:30 p.m.
Ouellete lost $649 when he turned 65, while some veterans he knows have lost more than $700 and more than $800, he noted.
Since retiring, Ouellette worked for Duncan up until a number of months ago.
“We’ve been ignored,” he said. “We open our mouths and immediately they close their ears and turn off their brains. It’s a kick in the teeth.”
A long-time Liberal, a stellar (and our first Acadian) Governor General, and above all, a great Canadian, Romeo Leblanc was a good man, and he will be missed.
I know my thoughts, and the thoughts of many, are with his son Dominic and their family today.
Romeo LeBlanc, Canada's first Acadian governor general, dies
By THE CANADIAN PRESS – 42 minutes ago
OTTAWA — Romeo LeBlanc, the first Acadian to be appointed governor general of Canada and a central figure in the Liberal party for more than two decades, has died after a lengthy illness.
Born in the tiny farming community of Memramcook in southeastern New Brunswick, LeBlanc worked as a teacher and then as a journalist before moving to the political arena.
He became an important player in the federal Liberal party, serving as press secretary to former Liberal prime ministers Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, before being elected as a New Brunswick MP in 1972.As federal fisheries minister in the Trudeau cabinet, he was called the "fishermen's minister."He was also instrumental in establishing Canada's 200-mile offshore economic zone and helped shape the International Law of the Sea.
LeBlanc became a Senator in 1984, was appointed Speaker of the Senate in 1993 and became governor general in 1995.
I know I already touched on the Conservative court arguments yesterday in their appeal of the Federal Court's order to repatriate Omar Khadr, but I was reading more coverage this morning and this quote from the government lawyer stood out to me:
"There is clearly no duty to protect citizens under international law," Ms. Mueller told the court.
Duty, perhaps no, but what about responsibility? What struck me about this quote was that it brought to mind the concept of a "Responsibility to Protect" which Paul Martin pushed hard during his Prime Ministership:
It says that we should have the legal right to intervene in a country on the grounds of humanitarian emergency alone when the government of that country is unwilling or unable to protect their people from extreme harm as a result of internal war, repression or state failure.
Could there be an issue that highlights more starkly the differences in Liberal and Conservative philosophies?
The Liberals argue we have a responsibility to protect people (who aren't our citizens) in other countries on humanitarian grounds.
Clearing out some of the items in my to-do file I've been meaning to comment on:
*The resignation of Robert Marleau as information commissioner this week is another troubling sign of this government's troubling disdain for accountability of any kind. Not that Marleau was particularly effective, mind you. And he does insist his departure is for personal and family reasons. But Marleau's departure reminds me of Jean-Pierre Kingsley's departure as head of Elections Canada a few years ago. Rather than deal with either obstructionism, lack of cooperation, or in some cases even partisan attacks, some are choosing to just resign. One wonders how Kevin Page has managed not to just throw his hands up and walk away, an outcome the Conservatives would certainly welcome. Certainly, the Conservatives weren't making Marleau's job any easier. Their attitude to anyone trying to hold them accountable seems to be stonewall, make their lives miserable and hope they just quit. Replacing Marleau in a minority parliament could prove interesting. Many good candidates could prefer to spend more time with Marleau's family too.
*We'll know an election is near when Stephen Harper takes another trip up North, but oh how his campaign promises to them have melted like the polar ice caps. We heard late last week that their program to build arctic patrol boats is indefinitely delayed. Harper had announced last summer the government would acquire six-to-eight ice-capable vessels, backtracking from his 2005 promise to build armed icebreakers to keep the Rushkies in line.
*The House of Commons defence committee last week asked the Minister of Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff to take the lead in combating the stigma that exists in the ranks around post-traumatic stress disorder. It's a serious problem with soldiers returning from Afghanistan and other deployments, and leadership is needed here. I hope that we can all agree our military members deserve the best care, regardless of how we feel about the Afghan conflict, and I hope Peter MacKay will take the lead on this.
*A federal court is hearing a Democracy Watch legal challenge against Stephen Harper, arguing his election call last fall violated his own fixed-date election legislation. Unclear just what the result of a positive ruling would be. Frankly, though, while interesting I suspect this will just underline what a farce the fixed-date legislation is anyways. It was always just for show. The only reasonable sanction can be political, delivered by the people at the ballot box. Canadians didn't seem to care that much one way or another.
*Yesterday, Christina Spencer, a reporter for Sun Media, was barred from a speech in Ottawa by the Chinese Foreign Minister. The event was organized by the Canada China Business Council (CCBC), and many other journalists were admitted. Conservative ministers John Baird and Jim Flaherty were reportedly at the luncheon, and Canwest's David Akin reported via Twitter that the CCBC receives government of Canada funding. Past Spencer reporting has been critical of China. We have a free press in Canada, and Spencer's expulsion on what appears to be political grounds is unacceptable. Of course, a private organization has a right to admit whomever it wants. But our government also has a right not to give them funding, and our cabinet ministers have the right to refuse to attend events that exclude reporters for political reasons. I hope all parties will speak out against Spencer's expulsion, and any government grants this group receives should be reviewed.
From tomorrow's calendar of media events, this will be interesting to observers of the Quebec scene:
QUEBEC _ Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff attends a Fete nationale event hosted by Quebec Premier Jean Charest. (11:45 a.m. at Musee des beaux-arts du Quebec, Parc des Champs-de-Bataille )
Meanwhile, on the comedy circuit:
VANCOUVER _ Senator Mike Duffy discusses the Conservative government's response to the global recession during the Fraser Institute's series, "Behind the Spin." (5:30 p.m. at VOYA Restaurant and Lounge, 1177 Melville Street)
And the case of the Harper Conservatives vs. the charter rights of Omar Khadr gets even weaker:
A federal lawyer conceded Tuesday that she cannot "point to any risks" if Omar Khadr were repatriated to Canada.
Doreen Mueller made the admission Tuesday under repeated grilling from Federal Court of Appeal judges on why the Canadian government refuses to seek the return of the Canadian terror suspect from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"If the government makes the request, is there a negative impact on its security interests?" asked Justice Karen Sharlow.
"If that were the conclusion . . . I can't point to any risks," said Mueller.
Which is probably why the Harper Conservatives won't move to repatriate him. They know he's not a security risk, and they know the case against him wouldn't hold-up in a Canadian court. So better to let Khadr languish in Gitmo in legal limbo then see justice be done.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Okay, I don’t actually have 100 reasons why I don’t take the Canadian Taxpayers Federation seriously. But I think the reasons I have make up in quality what they lack in quantity.
Skimming the release, they start with corporate handouts, lamenting “handouts” to companies such as Ford, Husky Oil, and of course, Bombardier. That’s fine, I might debate some of the merits here on a case-by-case basis, but it’s certainly all fair ball.
The CTF started to really loose me though when it went on to lament funding for renewable energy research, and for the World Food program and fighting malaria. Now they’re out to lunch, but still well within the CTF’s usual nuttiness range.
When they went-on to single out Toronto, though, that’s where I drew the line, and not because I’m currently a semi-reluctant resident of the Centre of the Universe. Here’s their paragraph on the T-Dot:
Toronto continues to get large amounts of government money, despite Mayor Miller’s complaints to the contrary. The largest single handout was to the Regional Municipality of York and the City of Toronto for a subway expansion totalling $622 million. Toronto Waterfront Revitalization was given $48.5 million, University Health Network ($92.3 million), the Hospital for Sick Children ($91 million), Sunnybrook Hospital ($57 million) and the Canadian Television Fund ($120 million).
So, apparently, the members of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation are against basic infrastructure such as public transit. I trust CTF members don’t take the bus to work, or even drive because, after all, tax dollars pay for highways too. Maybe they all work from home?
But more galling, is the CTF is against funding for hospitals? Is it against helping sick children? Too many handouts for those whiny sick kids, CTF?
Come on, guys. Highlight legitimate government waste, absolutely. Lord knows, there’s enough of it out there. But leave the sick children alone.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Surprising pretty much no one, the Harper Conservatives have waited for Parliament to break for the summer before filing their appeal of a Federal Court decision that requires it to seek the repatriation of Canadian citizen Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay.
The facts in the Khadr case have been well-argued and my disgust with the Conservatives' actions on this file are on the record. The appeal only further drags-out this process, further impugns Khadr's charter rights, and once again abdicated Canada's moral leadership as we wait by, the last Western country with a citizen at Gitmo, for the U.S. to tell us what to do.
The government argues there is no principle in international law compelling officials to provide diplomatic protection or consular service to nationals abroad, let alone seek their return to Canada.
That's a stunning statement for the government to make in a legal argument. Basically, the Harper reformatories are saying if you find yourself in trouble overeas, Canadian citizen or not, we don't have to do squat to help you if we don't want to. Lose your passport? Maybe we'll issue you a new one. Maybe not. Arrested on bogus charges in a foreign backwater? Maybe we'll make a phonecall.
This argument seems to chrystalize Harper's foreign policy: get in trouble overseas, whether your own fault or not, and MAYBE we'll help you. It helps, of course, if you fit their definition of a "real Canadian" or if it plays into Jason Kenney's outreach strategy.
But, in essence, there's two classes of Canadians: ones the Conservatives like and ones they don't. And apparently only the latter are entitled to the assistance of their country's department of foreign affairs.
But reading some CanWest coverage, I was interested to see Layton also had some substantive comments to make on reforming employment insurance:
NDP Leader Jack Layton signaled willingness Monday to compromise on employment-insurance eligibility reforms over the summer.
He said he does "not close the door" on a work requirement for benefits greater than the 360 hours the New Democratic Party has advocated for many years.
And he praised as "creative and helpful" a proposal by the Western premiers to pare 58 employment-insurance eligibility zones down to three: urban, rural and remote.
Layton's comments at a news conference echoed Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff saying he's prepared to put some "water in (his) wine" to reach a compromise with the government this summer over EI reforms.
(snip)
However, Layton said EI improvements remain a top priority for the NDP and "ultimately, you have to create a consensus" if change is to occur.
Eligibility now ranges from a minimum 420 hours where unemployment is at least 13 per cent, to 700 hours where it's under six per cent. Layton said the NDP "would not be inclined to support" a minimum higher than the existing 420 hours.
I'm glad Layton recognizes that compromise means everyone has to give a little and move from their starting positions. And perhaps now that Layton has signaled the 360-hour mark isn't sacrosanct, his colleagues who were attacking the Liberals last week for saying the same thing will get the message and instead begin moving forward on EI reform in a constructive way.
Layton points to his party's private member's bill on EI reform, but, frankly, a non-binding private member's bill isn't going to achieve EI reform. He's been flogging it for months. The EI working group is clearly the way forward, and as I've noted previously, Liberal pressure has already moved the Conservatives from their previous staunch defense of a common national standard of EI eligibility. It's the Liberal strategy that has brought us closer to meaningful EI reform.
Of course, Layton's party isn't part of the working group. His strategy of blind opposition over the last week has left his party on the sidelines of the EI debate, and now he's trying to push his way back in or be rendered irrelevant on an issue the NDP has been out on front on for some time. So it's natural he's trying to re-engage in the debate.
To be a serious player in this debate though, Layton is going to have to clear up some confusion: does he want to make parliament work, or not? And that doesn't mean passing enough non-binding motions and private member's bills to wallpaper his condo, but cooperating with the other parties, giving a little to get a little, working in a substantive way to get something done.
He's still sending mixed signals. He says today he's willing to put some water in his wine to get something done on EI reform. Yet his surrogates still attack Michael Ignatieff for doing just that, and Layton still signaled today he'll bring the government down at the first opportunity this fall, seemingly leaving no ground for achieving a consensus on EI reform.
With the spring session of parliament over, and the dig days of summer ahead before a return to parliament for more melodrama in the fall, politicians of every stripe will be hitting the vaunted barbecue circuit. It's an annual rite of passage, where our political leaders travel the country to flip hamburgers and convince us they're “just folks.”
Michael Ignatieff is the rookie amongst a group of very experienced party leaders, all with multiple campaigns under their belts. Whether this fall or not, there will be an election one of these days, and Ignatieff really needs to ramp-up his skills on the retail side of politics. This summer should be a dry-run for the campaign to come.
But for the Liberal Party and for Ignatieff, a summer of glad-handing, baby-kissing and burger flipping won't get it done. We need to put some meat on the barby this summer.
If we're to be campaign-ready by this fall, it's vital that the Liberal Party use this summer to answer the two nagging questions that many Canadians have about us: who is this Ignatieff guy, and what would the Liberals do if we gave them a shot at government?
I know the old saying, governments defeat themselves. That's true to a degree, but it was truer when we had a 2 major party/1 minor party system. In today's fragmented political dynamic though, just waiting for your opponent to self-destruct (and even giving them a little push) isn't enough. Their support won't just fall into your lap when there's a number of other laps waiting too. At least, not enough of their support.
No, you need to give those people ready to make a move a reason to support you. And we haven't done a good enough job of that yet.
I'm not saying pre-release a policy platform, that'd be silly. And we all remember what happened with the Green Shift a few summers back. But there is a growing sense out there that Canadians aren't totally clear just what we're about, just what want to do in government, and just how we'd be different from the Conservative gang.
Whether you consider that a fair perception or not, we can't afford to ignore it.
We also need to start better defining Michael Igntieff. And, frankly, why this hasn't been a priority sooner, given the lessons of recent history, is baffling.
Yes, he's been polling well, for the most part. But as some of the early numbers from last week (which could just be blips) have shown, those numbers are soft. We need to solidify them.
My theory? A lot of people are ready to leave the Conservatives, and even the other parties, and come to the Liberals. They like the IDEA of Michael Ignatieff. But they're not ready to commit yet. With an election an immediate possibility, the softness of those numbers was highlighted. They like the idea, but they're not ready to commit because there's not something more tangible to commit to yet.
That's why we need to give them something more tangible. That's why we need to put some steak on the BBQ this summer.
Who is Michael Ignatieff? He has a compelling personal narrative that will resonate with many Canadians, but we haven't tried to tell it yet. Turn the Conservative attacks on their head. Tell us how his international career has informed his values, his ideals, and his political persona. Tell us how it will make him a better Prime Minister. Tell us what he wants to accomplish in government. Tell us how he'll deal with the fiscal constraints a Liberal government would inherit from the Harper Conservatives.
As Bart Simpson once said, you don't win friends with salad. If we're to have a successful fall, we need to grill up some beef this summer.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff today condemned the Government of Iran’s use of violence to stifle peaceful dissent by protesters calling for open and transparent democratic elections.
“We mourn each life lost as a result of the Government of Iran’s unjust actions, and share the anguish and outrage of Canadians of Iranian origin at the suppression of peaceful protest and the apparent denial of fully free and fair elections,” said Mr. Ignatieff.
Amid reports of death and injury inflicted by the Iranian government upon peaceful protesters, the Liberal Leader also encouraged the Canadian government to do all it can to help the injured at its embassy in Tehran.
"Canada should join other countries in keeping our embassy open for the humanitarian needs of the people of Iran."
Despite the media blackout put in place by the Iranian government, reports emerging largely through online social media show images of bloodshed among protesters and clashes with government police forces.
“The Iranian government cannot hide the truth from their own citizens or from the rest of the world. By answering the call for open and transparent elections with a violent disregard for the rights of its citizens, the Iranian government has further alienated itself from the international community.”
“The Liberal Party of Canada strongly affirms the rights of Iranians and people everywhere to freely express themselves and associate with others, without threat to their life or liberty. We call on the Iranian government to cease the violence and continue to call for open and transparent elections.”
Even as a fairly nerdy politico, at times I just tune-out some of the political coverage we have on television in Canada. The MPs talking over each other with their talking-points, the screeching party strategists putting out spin that defies all logic, it could become like nails on a chalkboard. The reduction of what should be a serious and weighty thing, the debate over the best governance of our country, to something akin to professional wresting.
But the rare beacon of sanity, the rare bastion of journalism, in that sea of mediocrity was always CBC's Politics, and its venerable host Don Newman. While he'd still have the mandatory panels, he'd keep them in line and he'd make sure that, as the tag line went, the spin stops here.
But it went beyond that. While many hosts would just let the hacks or flacks spout their often ridiculous talking-points unchallenged, Newman always remembered it was the role of the journalist not to give a platform for propaganda, but to challenge, to question, so as to inform Canadians. And that he did, a velvet-glove concealing a steal fist as he challenged countless guests on their spin. Liberal, Conservative, NDP, it didn't matter, Don would call you on it if you tried to sneak one by him. That's all too rare in journalism these days.
And it wasn't just about the day-to-day melodrama of Parliament Hill on Politics. He'd tackle substantive issues, bringing-in experts to discuss an upcoming NATO conference, or trade policy, bringing substance to the often overlooked but very important stories that can impact our lives in a much greater way than who's hot and who's not this week, or what Laureen Harper's cat got up to last week.
Don Newman was a journalist, and I think that's the highest compliment that can be paid him. Thanks for all the broadcasts Don, and so long for now. You'll be missed.
(Here's some highlights from Don's last show:)
(And here's one of my favourite Newman clips, where he relentlessly grills a hapless John Baird during last winter's coalition/prorogation drama. The spin really did stop there that day:)
Fascinating series of questions in yesterday's question period between Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, a Conservative parliamentary secretary and a Conservative minister. Two questions on two different Canadian citizens abandoned by their country overseas, and two very different answers.
Usually I would give the Conservatives some credit for finally doing the right thing on Abousfian Abdelrazik, and I do, but to have to have done it under the hammer of a court order is beyond pathetic. And the fact they waited until the very last moment, preventing him from using the airline ticket purchased for him by concerned Canadians, is ridiculous. And, frankly, with the way they've dicked Abdelrazik around in the past, I won't believe it until we see him actually on Canadian soil.
I've lost track now of how many times the courts have had to tell the Harper Reformatories that they have a duty to stand-up for all Canadians, including those they don't like or that don't fit their defintion of "real Canadians."
But as long as the Conservatives are deciding to grudingly obey some court orders, how about this one guys?
A Federal Court has ordered Stephen Harper to seek the immediate return of Omar Khadr from the cells of Guantanamo, but the Prime Minister has refused to comply.
Federal Court Justice James O'Reilly ruled today that Canada had denied the Toronto-born captive his constitutional right to a fair trial and violated international law protecting children captured in armed conflict.
"Canada had a duty to protect Mr. Khadr from being subjected to any torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, from being unlawfully detained, and from being locked up for a duration exceeding the shortest appropriate period of time," he wrote.
Looking back on the events of the week, Craig Oliver makes some points about minority parliaments worth considering as we go into the summer break, during a segment on CTV's PowerPlay show.
"The best interests of the country were served. That's a good thing."
An interesting post from Contrarian, who has a letter from someone who claims to be a senior civil servant with issues around the way the Harper Conservatives are doling-out stimulus funding:
An excerpt from the letter, for the rest visit the site:
Projects are selected based on the needs of the Conservative Member of Parliament in that riding as the first criteria. As a long time bureaucrat, I am used to dealing with politicians who revel in self-interest. Baird however, is the nastiest, most partisan creature to have ever run a large department. What is best for Canada isn’t even remotely of interest to him - what is best for his party and his own political ambitions drives his agenda entirely.
A question during question today from Liberal MP Marc Garneau on net neutrality, who stated the Liberal Party's support for the principle:
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in a free and open democracy in the 21st century, in an innovative and progressive economy, no tool is more paramount than the internet. The internet is the backbone of today's flow of free ideas and sharing. My party, the Liberal Party, supports the principles of net neutrality and an open and competitive internet environment. Do the Conservatives support the principle of net neutrality?
The speaker: The honourable minister of industry.
Hon. Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his submission. I look forward to working with him and other s who are active in this field. I am, in fact, convening the first digital economy conference this nation has ever done that. That will be on Monday in Ottawa. Where we have all of the great companies -- the academics, government officials -- to work on the new digital economy strategy for this nation, so we can be number one in the world when it comes to the digital economy. I invite my friend to participate in any way he sees fit.
The $2-billion figure often cited as the cost of the gun registry is a Saskatchewan MP's "fabrication" that took on a life of its own as Conservative MPs and the media repeated it for years, says a new study.
In late 2002, a report by auditor general Sheila Fraser said the cost of the federal gun registry tallied nearly $1 billion from 1996-2006.
Her figure became political ammunition in the hands of Saskatchewan backbench MP Garry Breitkreuz, an opponent of gun control who was in the Reform Party, then the Canadian Alliance, and is now a Conservative.
He began calling the gun registry a "$1-billion boondoggle."
But within four months his language had escalated into "a $2-billion boondoggle."
The study says Breitkreuz "strategically created" that catch phrase. The study calls it his "fabrication."
Here's my favourite part of the story, from the fabricator himself:
Breitkreuz said in an interview Wednesday that at one level, the study's authors are "disingenuous" for "quibbling over $1 billion or $2-billion."
Either figure "is horrific. It's wasted money that would have been much better spent going after organized crime and other serious things."
For those of you looking for a bit of background and more substantive reporting on the whole isotope issue, CBC's The National ran a very informative feature report last night:
With my summer electioneering plans now off, the Blue Jays really need to start playing some decent baseball again. Unless I can find a pick-up election somewhere.
All in all, while this week didn’t unfold the way I’d have played it, I think the Liberals and Conservatives have acted responsibly today, reaching a compromise that moves us closer to real employment insurance reform, ensures real transparency around financial reporting, and avoids the summer election Canadian want while ensuring there will be real election triggers in place for the fall.
Now, for those of you who want an election now, obviously no compromise was going to be acceptable, so it's all moot. We can't always have what we want, though.
And I’ll note that “election now” was a position held by NONE of the major political parties. That includes the BQ and the NDP. They both insist they don’t want an election, but they also weren’t willing to do anything cooperative or substantive to avoid one. So it fell to the grown-up parties to see if common-ground could be found, and if an election actually could be avoided.
The question, of course becomes can enough common ground be found to avoid an election. For those of you that say the “get” wasn’t big enough here, assuming you didn’t favour an election, I’m curious what you would have considered a sufficient get to avoid an election all parties agree they don’t want, bearing in mind it needs to be something both sides are likely to agree to.
*A Pabst blue ribbon panel on EI. 3 Liberal appointees, 3 Conservatives. They’ll work through the summer and report by Sept. 28th.
In a minority government, any EI reform is going to require multiple parties to come together, each group giving something. Right now the Liberals want a 360 hour national standard, but only temporarily. The BQ and NDP want it permanently. The Conservatives have offered movement on self-employment.
Obviously, we’ll have to move from the 360 hour position to find consensus. And the Conservatives have already made a major move. In his presser today, Harper acknowledged the patchwork of differing regional standards has to go. That’s a significant concession from his past position of staunchly defending the system that has been achieved already by this Liberal initiated cooperative process.
The panel will take the summer to try to narrow the gap further, and will report to Parliament in September. If they reach a consensus both sides find acceptable, it can be passed with majority support in the House.
To those who say this is too long to way for meaningful EI reform, I ask you what’s the alternative you’d propose? A compromise can’t be achieved overnight on the back of a napkin, and an election would mean a reconstituted parliament couldn’t even begin to consider the issue until the fall, at which point (assuming no one got a majority) a consensus would STILL need to be negotiated.
This is the fastest way to meaningful EI reform. I’d also add that this Liberal process has pushed the Conservatives to speed-up plans (that maybe they never even had) to bring EI benefits to the self-employed, a significant reform as well.
*On the reporting front, we get an additional fiscal report card from the Conservatives that wasn’t scheduled before, and it will be due Sept. 28th.
The report is required to have the real, detailed information that was missing from the Duffy infomercial, specifically details on actual stimulus dollars spent, jobs created, and real, go-forward deficit projections with their plan to balance the budget.
*Finally, we have taken back control of the timing of opposition days, including a Liberal opposition day following the Sept. 28th reporting deadline for the fiscal report card and the EI panel. This is more of a significant get than it may appear to be.
Like the Martin Liberals did (to the Conservatives’ distaste) the Harper Conservatives have shown a habit of manipulating opposition days to avoid confidence votes. They pushed back the opposition days in this session to this week, so to preclude any possibility of an election other than late July/early August. And they had already signaled their clear intention to similarly manipulate the fall schedule.
Left unchecked, they could well have jury-rigged the fall schedule to avoid giving the opposition the possibility of voting them down before the 2010 Games, other than a possible Christmas election. Now, the Liberals have taken that hammer back, and, should we choose to use it, we’ll have the ability to force a fall election. Well, maybe early November e-day, but its still fall. And its definitely not Christmas, or next spring.
The aftermath
So there you go, that’s the get. Now, my feeling going into this thing last week was as follows: let’s stop doing anything to support this government. If the NDP or BQ want to make a deal, fine. I think they would (I still do). Frankly, my preferred timing would be the fall. But if pulling our support means a summer election, so be it.
Obviously, a different tact was taken: one of compromise, of trying to make parliament work. I think this desire from Ignatieff was genuine. It wasn’t gamesmanship. Will it play out better for the party in the long-term? Only time will tell.
We know what they’ll say in Ottawa. The media had already written the cooperative approach off before the agreement was announced. It’s not surprising. The same media pundits that said forcing a summer election would be madness will now decry the Liberals for not forcing a summer election.
The media, and politicos for that matter, as I wrote yesterday view these things through confrontational lenses. They like confrontation. Chest-thumping. You know what swinging. Bravado. They can only view cooperation as a ploy, a cynical strategy designed to gain position. Actual desire for an cooperative approach is alien to them. They also prefer writing confrontation stories, of picking winners and losers. It makes their jobs easier.
Then there’s the opposition parties, whose response has been predictable. They didn’t want an election either, but they’ll be upset at the Liberals for not giving them one. But you know, they’ve become increasingly irrelevant through this process. The NDP’s non-binding EI bill isn’t going to do anything for anyone, just like all the other non-binding feel-good motions they’ve passed. But it’s the Liberals that have brought us a process that can lead to actual EI reform that can actually be passed into law with majority support, while the NDP watches from the sidelines.
And out there in real Canada, they’ll be glad that at least some of those idiots up there in Ottawa are acting like grown-ups and trying to get things accomplished.
Meanwhile, since I really did want an election, all you people that didn't want an election should invite me to your cottages so I have something to do this summer.
UPDATE: Video from Ignatieff's statement on the compromise.
I can report from top unnamed sources close to the talks that, after a day of talks that have been termed as "productive", an accord has been reached between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.
I don't have all the details, but I'm told what broke the deadlock is when Ignatieff offered Bob Rae's help to move the Harper family into Stornoway. The Liberal Party has agreed to cover the costs of any damages to the Harper family television sustained in the move, to a maximum of $400.
In Canadian politics, there’s inside the Queensway (not Kady’s blog) and there’s the rest of Canada. Inside Ottawa, the reviews of Michael Ignatieff’s performance yesterday are mixed. But it’s not inside Ottawa that matters, it’s the rest of Canada. And that’s who the Liberals are speaking to.
Inside Ottawa, the media pundits in particular like tough-talking politicians. They want bluster and threats. Give in, or else! My way or the highway! Election, rawwrrrrr! They like confrontation. It makes for fun (and easy to produce) stories. Much easier than writing on issues.
The Liberals, though, decided to go another way yesterday, because what plays inside the Queensway isn’t what plays in the rest of Canada, where most Canadians live. Canadians want our parliamentarians to at least take a shot at making this parliament work, and that's what we've been doing since the budget.
So, the Liberals said these are our four concerns. We need answers in these areas. If we like the answers, we can consider not voting the government down. But you need to work with us. We’re not going to draw lines in the sand. We want to hear your proposals first, and we’ll see if we can come to common ground.
The Conservative response has been a bit scattered. It ranges from “no way, Jose” to “we don’t know what he wants” to “we’ve already told him all that.” I think Harper hit on all three in his presser, along with designated spokesthingy Tony Clement. It was rather amusing, really.
We’re staying reasonable, though. Harper knows what we’ve asked for, and he knows Friday is the deadline. If he comes with workable proposals on, say, EI, we’re open to extending that timetable by having Parliament sit longer so reforms can be passed now, not this fall. Ignatieff and Harper are going to meet today, and we’re staying cautiously optimistic.
Now, the politico in me would have loved to see Ignatieff engage in some of that tough talk. Throw down the gauntlet. Myself, I’m ready for an election. Bring it on.
But I can give this approach a chance, because I believe it’s a balancing of my desire to see us standing-up with the desire of Canadians for cooperation. We’ve made reasonable requests, and as long as we’re prepared to pull the plug if they’re not met, we can do so with a clean conscious, having made an honest effort to make this parliament work.
And yet Michael Ignatieff came across pretty well for once.
Perhaps not satisfactory to those wet-your-pants Ottawa media who need their daily cup of crises, but good enough for those of us who would reach for pitchforks if they called an election at a time like this.
Here’s Michael interviewed by Peter Mansbridge last night on CBC’s The National:
It seems the Conservatives have designed Tony Clement as their go-to talking head to take the bulk of the media interviews yesterday and today about the election speculation and the four questions Michael Ignatieff wants answered by Stephen Harper ahead of Friday's confidence vote/s.
This video is Clement's interview yesterday evening on CTV's PowerPlay program. I thought Tom Clark gave him a pretty through grilling on why the government can't just cough-up the numbers that Canadians have a right to know anyways, and questioning the validity of Clement and the government's claims they can still get the country out of deficit in five years.
Clement looked like a dear in the headlights at times, although all in all I thought he did reasonably well with a bad script, managed to keep his composure, and offered what may at a brief glance seem like a reasonable explanation. On a closer look though, not so much.
The deficit has ballooned since the January budget to over $50 billion, yet the government is still sticking to its five-year out of deficit plan. With a much bigger than forecast deficit it doesn't make sense, right? Clement says it does, because revenues are going to be EVEN HIGHER than forecast in the budget, therefore increased revenues cancel out the increased deficit and the five-year plan is maintained.
Except I find that very hard to believe. Clement says private sector economists are now revising their revenue projections upward. Which ones? Because I recall private sector economists saying Jim Flaherty's budget revenue projections were grossly optimistic. Now we're to believe they've actually vastly underestimated revenues, despite massively underestimating the deficit?
The economists at TD Bank, for one, still say the government's numbers are way off. On next year's deficit, for example, TD says Flaherty is underestimating the deficit by $15 billion. That's a $15 billion hole in the Conservative 5-year plan they haven't explained away yet. Over the next five years, TD projects a deficit DOUBLE what Flaherty forecast in the budget. And Tony Clement wants us to seriously believe revenues are going to increase so much they'll easily cover off that? It doesn't pass the smell test, Tony.
And then there's the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, who has a far better record so far that Flaherty on these matters. Page says the only way to get there in five years is to cut spending, raise taxes, or both. Flaherty says pishaw.
Clement does, at least, say sure, we'll release our numbers. I'm sure they'll make for creative reading.
Michael Ignatieff's statement during his press conference this morning. One thing I want to clear-up that some seem to be confused about. He made this clear in the Q&A, which I didn't include for time reasons. But it's not enough for the Conservatives to just report on these four areas: we have to like the answers. If we don't, he made clear he's fully prepared to vote against the estimates on Friday.
And here's Ignatieff's interview with Don Newman on CBC's Politics broadcast this evening.
Stephen Harper says an election would stop stimulus money from flowing. Stephen Harper is wrong. From CP:
More than 90 per cent of the economic stimulus planned for this fiscal year will continue to flow whether or not opposition parties defeat the federal government and force an election on Friday.
And that fact blows a big hole in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's best argument for avoiding a summer vote.
``I think it's largely bogus,'' says Allan Maslove, public policy and administration expert at Carleton University.
``Governments don't shut down (during an election), they continue to spend money. So all of those programs that were approved can go forward.''
Out of $22.7 billion in infrastructure and other stimulus measures announced in the January budget, Treasury Board officials confirm that parliamentary approval has already been received for $21.1 billion.
Well, I didn’t get the answer I wanted this morning during Michael Ignatieff’s press conference (bring ‘em down) but I didn’t get the answer I feared either (a dose of cod liver oil). Instead, it was option C, a demand for concessions from Stephen Harper that, if not delivered, will force an election. It will either prove to be an impressive strategic gambit, or a mistake. We’ll know soon.
There’s still many ways the scenario could play out. I liked the messaging I heard today from Michael: we don’t want an election, no one does, we want to make this parliament work, but Harper needs to work with us here. We need action in these four specific areas of importance. Deliver, and you can keep governing. Don’t deliver, then hey, we tried to be reasonable and give you a shot.
In a sense, it’s trying to shift the blame back over to Harper if a summer election is triggered, by painting him as unreasonable if he doesn’t give in. I think the blame for elections thing is overrated, but its an interesting play nonetheless. And if he does give in, then, in theory, we can claim credit for the concessions, and perhaps continue to extract more until he finally bucks at some point.
Now, a few issues with this approach, though. One, are the demands both a) reasonable enough that Canadians can expect a reasonable government to accede, but also b) tough enough that we’re not seen as wimping-out and just trying to cover a capitulation.
In essence, what we’re asking for is to know what his plans are for EI and to have action advanced by possibly sitting into the summer, we want to know what stimulus has actually been spent (not just flowed) and what will be spent in the next 120 days, we want to know their timeline and plan for eliminating the deficit, and we want a clear plan on alternate isotope production.
Now, I’ve been reading from some Conservative commenters that all Harper has to do is answer the questions. Not at all. He needs to answer them, but we need to like his answers. It we don’t, bye-bye.
I think the four “demands” if you will certainly pass the reasonability test. Are they tough enough? I’m not sure. We haven’t really defined what we’d accept as answers. That can be both a plus and a minus, giving us both space to maneuver and to back down.
Having now thrown down the gauntlet, if Harper rejects it entirely we need to act. There’s no room to back away with any credibility. But Harper can also still flip this back on us, by offering some kind of borderline compromise that we both risk looking weak accepting and opportunistic rejecting. That’s one of my concerns.
In short, if we have the moxie to back our threats with action, then this is a good tactical gambit at better framing a likely election call. But if we’re lacking moxie, then it’s a kabuki play we should have avoided. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt for now though. As I see it, there’s a few ways this could play out.
One, Harper rejects the Liberals out of hand, and we vote non-confidence with the other opposition parties, summer election.
Two, Harper rejects the Liberals out of hand, we back down, Liberal credibility shot. No summer election.
Three, Harper rejects the Liberals but cuts a deal on other terms with the NDP of the BQ. No summer election.
Four, Harper gives the Liberals everything we want. We claim victory for making parliament work and getting concessions while avoiding an election. NDP and BQ call it a surrender, but Canadians don’t buy it. No summer election.
Five, Harper offers the Liberals a compromise. We reject it, vote non-confidence. Cons try to paint us as opportunistic. C’est la vie, summer election.
Six, Harper offers the Liberals a compromise. We accept and support the government. We try to spin it as victory, BQ and NDP try to spin it as surrender. Who succeeds depends on the compromise, but no election.
So, only two of six scenarios as I see it lead to an election this summer. Still, I wouldn’t bet against it at this point. We have succeeded though in pitching the ball back into Harper’s camp. The next move is his, and whether or not he a) really wants an election, or b) thinks Ignatieff is bluffing. So it’s a good strategic move in that sense.
At least we can say we tried to make parliament work. BUT if it comes down to it, we better have the moxie to back it up. I hope we do.
Statistics Canada reports manufacturing sales leveled off between February and April, after falling by 18.7 per cent between October 2008 and January 2009.
The agency says a 16.4 per cent gain in the transportation equipment industry was offset by weakness in other industries.
Excluding the transportation equipment industry, manufacturing sales decreased 2.8 per cent.
Statistics Canada reports April sales were eight per cent higher than those reported in December 2008, when new motor vehicles sold were at their lowest level in 10 years.
Preliminary industry data for May indicate that the number of new motor vehicles sold was up about one per cent from April.
On Twitter via David Akin, we learn that Michael Ignatieff has scheduled a press conference for Monday morning at 11:00 am EST in the National Press Theatre, when he will give his reaction to the Conservative's budget infomercial.
Of course, while that reaction will go a long way to determining whether we'll have a summer election or not, it won't be the sole factor as it's not entirely up to the Liberals. As I see it, there are several scenarios.
One, he could say the Conservatives suck but they're making some progress because we made them, and Canadians really don't want a summer election so we'll listen to Canadians and hold our noses. Not my favoured scenario.
Two, he could say the Conservatives have been doing a crap-ass job and we won't support them any longer. The NDP and BQ could reaffirm their non-support, and to the polls we go for what will be one of the nastiest, scorched-earth campaigns in memory as a desperate CPC tries to hang on to power.
Three, he could say the Conservatives have been doing a crap-ass job and we won't support them any longer BUT we know Canadians don't want a summer election. So, if you agree to action on X, Y and Z before Friday, we'll let you live. I'd consider this scenario unlikely, given our strategy on the budget of refusing to ask for specific concessions, but it would give political cover for an election call by painting the Cons as unreasonable if they refuse.
Four, he could say the Conservatives have been doing a crap-ass job and we won't support them any longer. Jack Layton has already said he's willing to work with the CPC on some issues, but the CPC hasn't shown any interest. You can bet now though his phone will be ringing with offers from Harper. If they're enticing enough, the NDP could bite, claim victory and back off their earlier position, letting this government live for another day.
How will it all play out? I honestly have no idea. It all starts with Ignatieff's presser tomorrow, and I think he could go either way. It looks like the Blue Jays have come back down to Earth, and like most average Canadians I don't have a cottage, so I say let's go.
I didn't get to see Lisa Raitt's tearful apology Wednesday as I was in the car driving back to Toronto, but knowing her family history on the subject, I don't doubt its sincerity. The only thing I question is its timing.
I was flabbergasted to watch question period Tuesday afternoon and see Raitt and Stephen Harper refusing to offer an apology for the cancer is sexy comments, even ridiculously trying to turn it on the opposition, accusing them of crass politics. I was even more surprised when I watched John Baird get up and apologize for his f* Toronto comment, or at least indicate he had called Mayor David Miller to apologize.
It really made me wonder just transgressions rate apologies in Harperland, and which don't.
Later that evening I ran into a Conservative blogging colleague in a local pub, and we discussed the day's events. And I asked him, why didn't Raitt just say of course I know cancer isn't sexy, I was speaking about the issue and I see now that was a poor choice of words, my family has been touched by cancer itself, and if anyone was hurt or offended by my poorly chosen words, I sincerely apologize.
An apology on day one would have really taken the air out of the story. Of course, you'd still hear about it from partisans like me. But Canadians, by and large, are a forgiving bunch, and an apology would have gone a long way. Most would have accepted it. My Conservative friend mentioned an apology being an admission of wrong-doing that would only embolden the opposition, but I sensed he was a tad perplexed by the strategy as well.
The next afternoon, of course, Raitt apologized. The timing, coming after a round of media interviews with cancer survivors and families of cancer victims, ensured the apology was viewed through a political lens. It made it seem forced, whether that was fair or not. It also extended the media coverage of the story by a day, while a speedier apology would have seemed both more sincere and would have ended the story sooner.
Which made me wonder, just who made the initial call not to apologize? Was it Raitt, or was it the PMO. My money is on the PMO. I think Raitt had the instincts to know right away an apology was needed, and I think the Harper boys have consistently demonstrated they're too stubborn to admit the smallest wrongdoing. Raitt also wanted to resign after the binder incident, but Harper refused that too. His control seems tight.
Once she was caught in the 24-hour news cycle, she was suddenly not very popular with her cabinet colleagues or the guys who run the Prime Minister’s Office.
They tried to hang tough for a day, but her comments angered cancer patients, so on Wednesday, in a truly ugly scene, she issued a tearful apology on TV, mentioning her own family’s battles with cancer, finally satisfying the public desire for contrition and emotion.
The apology was a day late, journalists complained, at which point someone in the PMO told CTV that Ms. Raitt didn’t apologize the day before because she was crying in her office all day.
Since she stood and answered questions in the House — fighting her corner with dry eyes — we can assume that’s nonsense, a nasty thing to say about a woman in distress, aimed at protecting the geniuses at PMO who forbade her to apologize on Tuesday.
The Tory bosses seem to have contempt for Ms. Raitt now, and are prepared to put everything on her, just as press secretary Jasmine MacDonnell took the fall when Ms. Raitt left her briefing book at CTV.
More disturbing, though, is the way the boys in the PMO tried to discredit Riatt once she was becoming a liability. And in such a sexist way as well. Can you imagine these guys saying the same about a male minister? Not a chance.
Apology notwithstanding, Raitt's political career, once so promising, is unlikely to recover from this incident. Re-election will be a longshot. And as much as she has made mistakes, her situation was worsened, and her instincts overridden, by the testosterone-fueled frat boys in the Harper PMO. That she will have to end up paying the price for their arrogance and their stupidity is really a shame.
Just as I'm about to power-down the PC for the night and pour myself a Fresca, an e-mail pops into my inbox from everybody's favourite pollster, Nik Nanos, with some interesting thoughts on Stephen Harper:
The latest Nanos poll helps one understand the overall image of the Conservative government of Canada. By asking Canadians, unprompted, to articulate their views of strengths and weaknesses we can get to the nuance of what people associate with the government without introducing any content or information.
The research indicates that Canadians are more likely to associate weaknesses with the Conservative government as opposed to strengths (65% can articulate a weakness and 36% can articulate a strength). Of concern for the Tories is that one of every five Canadians believes the Conservatives have no strength whatsoever. Comparing that to the 3% who say the Tories have no weakness suggests that the anti-Harper sentiments are much firmer than the pro- Harper sentiments. Likewise, the weaknesses associated with the Conservatives at the time of the survey are linked to many of the former strengths - Stephen Harper himself, transparency in government and economic management.
Overall Prime Minister Stephen Harper is twice as likely to be identified as a weakness than as a strength which suggests that he is personally becoming a lightning rod for discontent with the government. This is not surprising since the Conservative political strategy has largely centered on Harper.
From a communications point of view there are really only two options - to try to change views related to the Prime Minister or to refocus on a Conservative team by regionalizing the face of the Conservative Party. Recasting views on the Prime Minister is possible but requires a longer term time horizon - one longer than the likely timing of the next election. Refocusing on a Conservative team is a more feasible short-term strategy.
The key take-away from the research is that there are a number of paths forward for the Conservatives. The Tories could recalibrate and refocus their image in order to overturn negative perceptions or alternatively to drive negative perceptions of the Liberals so that the Liberals are perceived as a worse comparative choice. The current round of attack ads suggest that the Conservative strategy at this time is to focus on the Liberals and not to expend effort to turn around negative perceptions of the government.
I seem to recall a time, not that long ago, when Harper sharply outpolled his partly in popularity numbers, when he was their greatest asset. Now, that situation seems to have shifted, with Harper now a lightning rod for negative feelings.
Interesting that the Conservatives do seem to have essentially given-up seriously trying to get people to like them, although I wouldn't rule-out the return of a sweater vest early in the next campaign. In the mean time, they've clearly chosen the go-neg route, which, besides any negative impact it has on our numbers, seems to be hurting theirs too.
Nanos advises emphasizes the Conservative team as a viable strategy, at least in the short-term, for countering these negative perceptions, and normally I'd be inclined to agree. I have to ask though, just who should they highlight? A side-effect of running a one-man show as Harper has is that no stars tend to emerge.
A few weeks ago you would have said Lisa Riatt, but I don't need to explain why that's a no-go. Perhaps once Jim Flaherty, but he's now the $50 billion man. Peter MacKay has one foot out the door. Jim Prentice, once a star performer, has underperformed in environment. Jason Kenney? That's challenging. John Baird? Anywhere but Toronto, maybe. Stockwell Day has been a solid performer, but last time he was centre-stage it was, well, entertaining to be sure. And who from Quebec is the star these days?
Anyway, here are the full numbers, as I don't see the poll online yet:
Methodology
Polling between May 26 and June 1, 2009. (Random Telephone Survey of 1,001 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). A survey of 1,001 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.
Conservative Government Strengths Question: Thinking of the Conservative government, what do you think its main strength is? [Open-ended]
Defined strength 36% No strength 19% Unsure of strength 45%
Conservative Government Weaknesses Question: Thinking of the Conservative government, what do you think its main weakness is? [Open-ended]
Defined weakness 65% No weakness 3% Unsure of weakness 33%
Net image impact: -29
The Net image impact score is calculated by subtracting defined weaknesses from defined strengths.
For a little fun on Friday before what's sure to be an eventful week next week, here's a fun little video on that book on hockey that Stephen Harper has been insisting for many years now that he really is totally writing so I must be normal and average and just like you and not a cold uncaring right-winger so please like me.
Despite its recent defeat on the issue in the Federal Court of Canada, the Conservative government has rebuffed the UN Human Rights Council and reasserted its "case-by-case" approach to seeking clemency for Canadians facing execution in foreign countries.
The decision was denounced Monday by Liberal MP Dan McTeague, the party's consular affairs critic, as the latest reflection of the government's "bloodthirsty, revenge-seeking" ideology on crime and punishment.
In March, the UN council issued its period review of Canada's human rights record and recommended -- at the urging of delegates from Denmark and the Netherlands -- that this country "consider reinstating the policy of seeking clemency for all Canadian citizens sentenced to death in other countries."
As I mentioned earlier I watched question period in person twice this week, for the first time since a little guy from Shawinigan was in the PMO and a dynamic finance minister from Windsor was poised one day to paint the country red. It's always fun to catch QP in person to see the little things you miss on TV, like Diane Ablonczy playing Brickbreaker on her BlackBerry while colleague Lisa Raitt fought for her political life a few seats over.
Since I got there early each day I was also there for member's statements, and between the speeches about oceans and bake sales, I was surprised to see the Conservatives still using at least two statements each day to accuse Michael Ignatieff of wanting to raise taxes. They're butchering the quote and taking it out of context, of course, as he wants to do no such thing. But they persist in using this attack in statements, and outside the house in speeches and on the Web.
I'm surprised, because Stephen Harper also gave a similar quote that can easily be abused in the same way they're abusing Ignatieff's. And unlike the Conservatives, with Harper we have video. And as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
So, as long as context has no value to the Conservative Party, I ask them why does Stephen Harper want to raise taxes? What taxes does he want to raise? By how much? When?
This is certainly shaping-up to be a test of Paul Wells' law of political Ottawa, which holds that if everyone in Ottawa knows something, it must NOT be true. And as I scan the headlines everyone, including Paul, seems convinced there won't be an election this summer and that the Liberals will find some way to live with the Harper Sham-Wow Fiscal Report. So, if the Wells law holds there WILL be an election and his column will have been wrong, but if there is no election his law will have failed.
But seriously, what do I think? I dunno. I gave up trying to predict the strategies of Liberal leaders some years back. And while putting my finger to the electoral winds while in Ottawa last week, I didn't detect a strong current one way or another.
So I can only say what I would do, and I say it's time we stop supporting this government. If that means an election, so be it. But they no longer deserve our support, and we need to withdraw it.
And it's not just this Made for TV infomercial they produced yesterday, which had more spin than the Smart Spin Storage system. They're fudging the numbers and their 80% of stimulus flowing number is a crock. Just listen to the mayors from coast-to-coast last week at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities meeting in Whistler that complained the stimulus wasn't getting to their communities and they were missing the summer construction season. If they had a real journalist up there instead of the Duffster they'd have asked if it is flowing, Mr. Harper, where the hell is it?
But it goes deeper. There's the biggest deficit in Canadian history, thanks to both Conservative fiscal incompetence and their expressed goal of strangling government revenues to fulfill their right-wing ideological mission to strangle the size of government to remove the ability of future governments to play an active, activist role in society. The GST cuts alone, which provided 0 stimulus, cost the government $30 billion/year. What would the Liberals have done differently? We would have maintained the contingency reserve, for one, and we would have chosen tax cuts that actually have reached Canadians that need them, and would have had stimulative effect. The deficit need not have been this big. We would also be truthful in our budgeting, and wouldn't hide the size of the deficit from Canadians as Jim Flaherty has done.
There's the fact the Conservatives had to be dragged kicking and screaming into action on the economy. They refused to acknowledge the coming economic tsunami. They said if there would be a recession, we'd have had it already. They said there'd be no deficit. Instead of bringing-in stimulus, in their fall update they tried to strangle their political opponents. Only the treat of losing power prompted them to action. Those missed months have been very costly to the economy, to unemployed workers, and to the pace of any recovery.
There's the fact they refuse to consider meaningful action on employment insurance reform, ignoring the growing call from a majority of parliamentarians and an increasing number of provinces, including more conservative provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC.
They've bungled the Chalk River file leading to a medical isotope crisis, while the performance of Lisa Raitt, her day-later apology notwithstanding, demonstrates an unfortunate lack of compassion for what Canadians are going through.
We're a laggard and a reluctant follower on the environment, our standing on the world stage continues to diminish, and the courts have to routinely step in to tell this Conservative government that it has a duty to protect its citizens, even the ones it doesn't like.
Enough is enough. Do I think a summer election is ideal? Not at all, although I do think predictions of a backlash are overstated. I would, if I had my druthers frankly, prefer the fall. A little more time for fundraising and candidate recruitment would be helpful. And the polls are still quite tight.
Frankly, I'm still not convinced that the NDP and the BQ, despite their comments yesterday, will let it go to an election. If they do, fine, we're ready. But either way, if this government is to survive it should have to be someone else from now on.
The only question we should be asking ourselves is can we support this government? Does it deserve our support? I feel the answer is a firm no. We must state clearly and unequivocally that we will no longer be supporting this government. If that means an election, so be it. We're ready. Bring it on.
A few pictures and a brief video from my brief trip to Ottawa this week, primarily to attend the Laurier Club garden party event at Stornaway.
It was a good event, with other 1200 Liberals cramming into the backyard of the official opposition leader's residence. And with good cause: next year, the event will be at another official residence... But it was good to talk with lots of Liberals and to see the Ignatieffs, including their kitten, who seemed a little overwhelmed by all the attention.
The video was mainly a chance for me to play with my new toy, a Flip Mino HD video camera I'm testing for work. It's a sweet little camera. Go to the YouTube page and click the HD icon to get the high definition version, if your monitor is HD compatible.
Victoria MP Denise Savoie told reporters earlier this week the 48-year-old party needs a name makeover.
"Our party was born in 1961 -- we're not new," said Ms, Savoie.
The name change is expected to be debated at the party's national convention, scheduled for mid-August in Halifax.
"The New Democrats have brought a lot to Canadian politics," Ms. Savoie said. "But we want to look forward to new challenges and see what we can do in the future."
I wonder if Denise watches Family Guy, because this reminds me of one of their cut-outs, to a Jerry Seinfeld as court-jester stand-up joke:
Good to be here in New England. And what's the deal with "New" England anyway? It's over 200 years old! Last time I checked, that's not that new.
But hmm, drop the New from New Democratic Party? Why, that would leave...
Mr. Speaker, on an audio recording the Minister of Natural Resources said that the isotope crisis was "an easy one" and that all that was needed to solve it was "money." And Canada has long been a world-leader in the supply of medical isotopes, crucial for the treatment of millions of cancer patients in Canada, and around the world.
Now we learn that the Prime Minister has decided to abandon Canada's leadership position, and get out of the medical isotope business, leaving Canada's medical system beholden to the whims of overseas interests for the supply of this critically-necessary resource.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is, if this is an easy one, if it is just about money, why is this government turning tail and running on the isotope file?
It seems like almost ever day lately has brought a new poll. This morning its Ekos reporting continued incremental Liberal gains, and the first hints of how the Lisa Raitt saga could impact voting intentions.
First, the numbers:
On Raitt:
As EKOS was conducting the current poll, the company noticed a rise in Liberal support in the last three days of polling, with the Liberals taking an eight-point advantage. The timing coincides with the release of audiotapes on which Natural Resource Minister Lisa Raitt is overheard calling the isotope crisis "sexy."
While those polled might have been swayed by the Conservative scandal, Graves said the issue likely won't stick by the time voters go to the polls. It has given the Liberals a short-term boost, but that might not translate into long-term gains.
"It probably won't be a lasting ballot-booth issue," he said.
I agree in part, at least outside of Halton where I'm pretty sure it will be an issue. But the entire Raitt affair, from the binder and the tape to the much delayed apology to the wider and more important handing of the isotope file and the Chalk River situation, does speak to the wider incompetence of this Conservative government, and THAT will be a ballot-box issue. It's a stark example, just one of many, of how the Harper Reformatories just don't get it.
Moving on, here's some regionals:
Much of the Liberals' support has come from Ontario and Quebec. In Ontario, which accounts for 106 of 308 federal seats, the Liberals have taken a nearly 11-point lead, gathering 42.6 per cent of support compared to 31.8 per cent for the Conservatives.
In Quebec, Liberals are 20 points ahead, snagging 33.6 per cent of support, compared to the Conservatives, with 13.2 per cent. The Bloc leads the province, with 36.5 per cent.
Hopefully we'll see numbers for the rest of the country soon, but the numbers in Ontario bode well for the Liberals and make it challenging for the Conservatives to maintain government. There simply aren't enough seats for them to make up in the rest of the country they don't already hold. These Ekos numbers by and large confirm the trends that most other polls have been showing in these provinces, and nationally.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
On a national basis, voter intentions give the Liberals 35 per cent, the Conservatives 31, the NDP 15, the Bloc nine and the Greens eight.
Across Ontario the Liberals lead the Conservatives 42-31. The NDP has 14 per cent and the Greens have 11 per cent. There is a 3.8 per cent margin of error in the provincial numbers.
In Toronto itself and around the curve of eastern curve of Lake Ontario, the Liberal lead is even more pronounced.
In the 416 area code in Toronto itself, the Liberals have the support of 52 per cent of respondents, while the Conservatives and NDP are tied at 19 per cent. The margin of error for this sample is eight per cent.
In the 905 region, the Liberal lead is 50-27, with the NDP at 11 per cent. The margin of error in this data is 7.8 per cent. Before the last election, the Tories led 44-32 here.
That 905 number is massive. It's a substantial reverse of Conservative fortunes, and is a sign a lot of Conservative incumbents should start polishing their resumes. The 905 was Mike Harris country. It's an area filled with the key demographics the Conservatives have been scientifically targeting for years, and making steady progress with. That 905 # is as stunning a rejection of the Harper Conservatives as is the Quebec polling we've seen, and it's as damaging to their re-election chances.
This was also interesting:
Walker said the data from the 416 area code suggests the NDP is tied with the Tories in support.
"With those splits it means the NDP has very little chance of winning more than one or two ridings in 416," he said. "The NDP has absolutely no incentive to go to an election right now."
That would be shocking as well. Would Jack be left standing alone in Danforth? Interesting times ahead, mes amis.
Just read the affidavit that Halifax Chronicle Herald reporter Stephen Maher filed with the court in the Lisa Raitt injunction court hearing yesterday, and it makes more interesting reading. Particularly this paragraph, where Maher discusses his phone conversation with Jasmine MacDonnell about his plan to publish a story on the contents of the tapes:
It makes one wonder just want more valuable information was she willing to give Maher if he saved her the embarrassment of reporting she'd lost a tape recorder of embarrassing recordings in a bathroom and hadn't retrieved it for five months. More dirt on Raitt? On her ex boss, Gary Lunn? Another prominent Conservative?
I guess we'll never know what dirt she was willing to dish...
In an unguarded moment, Baird told aides Toronto stood alone in not meeting the technical criteria for federal cash, yet was complaining about Ottawa dragging its feet.
"Twenty-seven hundred people got it right. They didn't. That is not a partnership and they're bitching at us," he said.
"They should f - off."
Stay classy, John Baird. And once again, we see the Conservatives showing an impressive aversion to accountability for their own words and actions. Much like the Raitt tapes, the Conservatives are saying Baird's words were private and not meant for public consumption. Never mind the fact he was at a major conference with hundreads of representatives of Canada's municipalities, and made the comments as he (accidentally, he says) walked into the media room, where he was overheard by a reporter.
Whether Baird meant the comment to me heard or not, it doesn't change the fact that he was. It doesn't change the face that he said it. And it doesn't change the face that the feeling is mutual, John. So instead of whining that it was a private comment, man-up John and either own it or apologize.
Oh, and by the way my Conservative friends who will dismiss this little story, I ask you to consider what your reaction would be if take this story but change it to a Liberal minister speaking about Alberta. Would it be a non-story then?
John should just apologize, and move on. Work with Toronto to address whatever issues there were with their application so Canada's largest city can get the stimulus and transit assistance it needs. His comments do, however, speak to a pattern of disdain for Toronto and Ontario within the CPC party that won't be easily forgotten.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Quite the day, yesterday, with the drama around the attempt to suppress the Lisa Raitt recordings, the drama as we waited for the court ruling, and then the revelation in the evening of just what the tapes contained.
I've on a brief visit to Ottawa, and the town was abuzz all day with the story. I attended question period in person yesterday for the first time since Jean Chretien was in the PMO. Unfortunately Stephen Harper wasn't in the house, but it was still a pretty raucous session. There was one or two questions from the Liberals on the tape injunction hearings, but they stuck mainly to the larger isotope issue, hammering Raitt relentlessly. Her friend the health minister did step in to take a few questions, though. That's nice of her. The NDP did press a little harder on the injunction, but I think the opposition was mainly waiting for the tapes to be out before hitting harder.
So, today's session of QP should be interesting. Watching QP in person, besides the heckling (which, sadly, they don't let visitors engage in) I was most interested in watching Michael Ignatieff. While most people of all parties generally read, blackberried or generally didn't pay attention, Ignatieff seemed to listen intently to every opposition answer (not just those to his questions) and would wave his caucus to shush when they got too loud with the catcalls. It's both nice, and a bit cute, that he still shows such interest in their non-answers.
I got news if the judgment while sitting on a patio on Sparks enjoying a beverage with some friends, who were quite jubilant, if not overly surprised, at the result. But when Stephen Maher's story showed-up on my BlackBerry, 'ho boy, I have to say we agreed that, despite a few grammar faux pas, it was the greatest story ever written.
I had some sympathy for Jasmine MacDonnell before, as a staffer unfairly forced to take the fall for her minister. The fact she left her recorder with a journalist for five months though, after leaving it in a bathroom at the press gallery, seems to speak to a pattern of leaving sensitive materials in public places that isn't a positive. I mean, she had five months to pick the dammed thing up!
But the how and the why of the recording is really secondary to the content of the tape, to what MacDonnell and Raitt are heard to say, and I haven't heard a denial of the content yet. No claims of editing, or demands to bring in American tape experts. No Gurmant Grewal sightings.
What she said about the health minister is certainly embarrassing, and could lead to some uncomfortable exchanges at the cabinet table. These two ministers need to work in tandem not just to solve this isotope crisis, but to restore public confidence in the health system. Her comments make that task more onerous.
But more damming are Raitt's comments about the crisis itself, and how it's an opportunity for her to make her political star and how she plans to take all the credit for fixing it, because this isn't a moral issue, it's just about money:
This is the really damning passage to me:
Ms. MacDonnell said the isotope issue is hard to control, "because it's confusing to a lot of people.""But it's sexy," says Ms. Raitt. "Radioactive leaks. Cancer."
"Nuclear contamination," says Ms. MacDonnell.
"But it's only about money," say Ms. Raitt.
I'm sure the people who are suffering from cancer, who are waiting for treatment and are facing delays because of this isotope shortage will be heartened to hear their cancer is sexy. That's it's not a moral issue, but it's just about money. Cancer is sexy? I'm sure cancer patients will be happy to hear that, and that this crisis impacting their health is an opportunity to boost Raitt's political fortunes that she's willing to "roll the dice" on. Roll the dice on sexy radioactive leaks? What the hell is wrong with this woman?
All the laughable Conservative conspiracy theories I hear floating around don't change the fact that RAITT SAID THESE THINGS, and that they're abhorrent. How anyone can defend such insensitive and callous comments is beyond me.
And if Stephen Harper stands by her, as in the early going he appears to be, it will speak volumes to his judgment and competence. I promise you, whether the election is next month or next year, no one will forget these comments.
Sometimes Dimitri takes a day off to spokesperson for the party, but I think he has his PMO hat on today.
In Akin's story, Soudas issued what I found to be a very specific denial.He said no GOVERMENT DEPARTMENT is involved win THE HEARING itself.
Dimitri Soudas, press secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said no government department is involved in the hearing in Nova Scotia on Monday afternoon. Soudas said he had no knowledge of the matter. Steve Outhouse, who has replaced MacDonnell as Raitt's director of communications, also said his office had no knowledge of the matter.
That's a very specific statement, that would seem to leave lots open to speculation. It's interesting how carefully Dimitri choose his words here, isn't it?
No mention of the Conservative Party, or a statement they're not involved. And his statement doesn't preclude involvement with the actual applicant either, does it?
UPDATE: For the record, the story is now updated with this denial from the CPC side:
Ryan Sparrow, a spokesman for the Conservative Party of Canada, said the party has no connection to the matter.
Particularly interesting, the Star reports not only does someone want the tapes kept secret, but the person seeking the injunction also wants THEIR OWN IDENTITY kept secret. That seems to me a pretty unusual request, one the judge will need to weigh very closely against the public's right to know.
Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Gerald Moir is sitting in an emergency hearing to hear arguments on an injunction motion by the as-yet unnamed applicant who is also seeking an order of confidentiality or publication ban. Such an order could block any publication of the identity of the applicant seeking to stop the newspaper from publishing, said spokesman John Piccolo.
An order of confidentiality, if granted, could also potentially seal the exhibits or entire file, he said.
The case is due to be heard in a Halifax court this afternoon.
I'm on a train now on my way to Ottawa, and I plan to attend question period this afternoon. It occurs to me any injunctions might not apply under the privlege of the Commons chamber. What say you, legal eagles?
Fascinating news breaking this morning. I'll let allnovascotia.com tell it (I don't have a link):
Harper & Co Try to Muzzle Embarrassing Herald Story
Allnovascotia.com
By David Bentley
June 8, 2009
There`s a highly embarrassing sequel to last week's Ottawa hullabaloo over cabinet Minister Lisa Raitt's misplaced nuclear-sensitive documents - and the Harper government is pulling out all the stops to prevent The Halifax Herald from telling it.
The newspaper will be in court in Halifax today to defend against anapplication for an injunction to muzzle information gathered by Hill reporter Steve Maher.
Allnovascotia.com understands Maher listened to a tape that was recorded by Jasmine MacDonnell, the Nova Scotian who resigned as Raitt's press secretary after Atomic Energy of Canada documents wereleft at the bureau of CTV - which broke the story last week.Opposition members like Halifax West MP, Geoff Regan, said Raittherself should have resigned pointing out that's what External Affairs Minister, Maxine Bernier, did after sensitive papers were left at theapartment of his biker chick girlfriend, Julie Coulliard.
Stephen Harper & Co apparently believe Raitt's political future couldbe seriously in doubt if the Herald publishes what was on the Jasmine MacDonnell tape.
According to one unconfirmed report*, the federal Minister of Natural Resources was recorded making some less than flattering comments abouther cabinet colleague, Leona Aglukkaq, the fed Health Minister who entered parliament for the first time last year as the MP for Nunavut.
Allnovascotia.com understands that the Herald will be confronted incourt by lawyers representing MacDonnell. But sources suggest thatHarperites are plotting the strategy.
There`s a suggestion that the way the Herald obtained the tape willeven be characterized as a breach of criminal code.The paper is expected to respond with a Charter argument, declaringthat nothing less than freedom of the press is at stake.
The Raitt Affair already features a couple of Nova Scotians - and now that reporter, Steve Maher, has been drawn in, that makes a third.
Raitt is originally from Cape Breton, according to the Toronto Star,though she has a master degree in chemistry from Guelph and a lawdegree from Osgood Hall.She lives in Oakville with comedy writer, David Raitt, and was previously CEO of the Toronto Port Authority.Jasmine MacDonnell is 26 and the daughter of Ralston MacDonnell, thewell-known engineering entrepreneur.
*Allnovascotia.com decided not to conventionally source this report,after considering what has happened to the Halifax Herald. The newspaper was apparently minutes away from publishing its story last week, when legal chill intervened
I'm out the door to catch the train for a brief trip to Ottawa, but before I go here's some recently released polling from Nanos that polled specifically on the effectiveness of the Conservative attack ads, and indicates they haven't been particularly effective:
Properly crafted and validated by the political target, negative ads can be a powerful political tool.
Research by Nanos on the impact of the recent Conservative ads attacking Michael Ignatieff indicates that in the short term they have not had a significant impact. A majority of Canadians consider the ads ineffective and believe that they reflect poorly on the Conservatives.
Of note, the ads have had a marginally negative impact on the impression of Michael Ignatieff primarily among committed Conservative and NDP voters. However, the attack ads have had less of an impact in Atlantic Canada and in battleground Quebec.
Factoring the latest ballot numbers and the last six waves of Nanos tracking since the last election, the Conservative attack ads have not arrested the incremental trend which currently favours the Liberals. The conclusion is that the ads have had no discernable short term impact in favour of the Conservatives. The long term negative impact on Ignatieff remains uncertain and merits further tracking over time. This may well be the first salvo in a narrative the Conservatives are hoping to explore.
Yet more validation that these Conservative ads have been a misfire. I do agree that the impact bears watching in the long-term.
That doesn't mean, however, that the LPC doesn't need to respond more forcefully. I do think a limited ad buy, focusing on our issues (such as the economy) is necessary. We need to look at the long-game. I also note the regionals show these ads were most effective in Ontario. This province has been volatile, and we need a strong lead here to be competitive in the next election.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Some sobering numbers today fromStatistics Canada:
* The Canadian job market lost 42,000 jobs in May * The unemployment rate jumped 0.4% to 8.4%, its highest level in 11 years * In Ontario, the unemployment rate jumped to 9.4%, its highest level in 15 years
And since October, since the last election, where Stephen "lassiez faire I don't care" Harper promised if there was going to be a recession it would have happened already and said we should trust him because he's an economist, the Canadian economy has retracted by 2.1 per cent and 363,000 jobs have been lost.
But so far, cities have not received the cash they need to break ground, Carl Zehr, mayor of Kitchener, Ont., said on Thursday at the annual Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference in Whistler, B.C. “Our shovels are ready, and we're simply waiting for the money,” he said.
Three months have come and gone without any cash flowing, a delay long enough that it likely precludes any project starting this summer, other mayors said. “This construction season is virtually lost,” Toronto Mayor David Miller said.
Harper and Jim "$50 billion deficit" Flaherty warned stimulus funds had to be out the door within 120 days to be effective. That deadline passed last week, and with only 6% out the door, their effort can only be termed a massive failure.
Once again, with the Stephen Harper Conservatives unwilling to defend the rights of Canadians, the federal court has to step in and smack the government around. This time, its on the Abousfian Abdelrazik case:
A judge has ordered the Harper government to arrange a Montreal man's return from Sudan within 30 days.
Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn says the government breached Abousfian Abdelrazik's constitutional rights by not allowing him to fly home.
How many times, now, has the courts had to step in and tell this Conservative government that it has the duty, and the moral obligation, to protect the rights of its citizens? And ALL its citizens, not just the ones that fit their ideological definition of traditional values and "real" Canadians.
It's pretty pathetic, frankly, when the courts have to step in -- regularly -- and tell the Reformatories "Hey, you're job is to stand on guard for the rights of Canadians. So smarten the hell up!" They should kind of know that already.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
A look back at the day in Ottawa yesterday in just over two minutes. And for the record, not one "seriously" was repeated in the making of this video. Each clip is a new and independent use of the talking-point. And for those Conservative commenters trying to dismiss the atomic docu-scandal as no big deal, clearly the government at least considers it a serious matter...
This is bigger, however, than the scape-goating of some poor staffer. It's bigger, even, than the embattled Lisa Raitt. As Michael Ignatieff said in QP yesterday, it's about the competence of this government. And increasingly, the Stephen Harper government is proving itself incapable of governing responsibly.
Despite knowing there were serious safety concerns at Chalk River for at least 18 months, and really much longer, the government has done nothing but develop talking-points to blame the Liberals while failing to develop a back-up plan for isotope production. It refused to see the economic downturn coming, then promised no deficit, then used a fical update to attack its political opponents instead of addressing the economy, then dramatically underestimated the size of the deficit to the point of absurdity by delivering the biggest deficit in Canadian history. It ignores a growing chorus of provincial leaders and a majority of MPs that want to fix EI. And now TD economists say its plan to get out of deficit is a joke, and we're in for years more of pain than Harper and Jim Flaherty are willing to admit.
It is a serious matter. When will we have competent government indeed?
This picture from the archives of Macleans's Mitchael Raphael is just priceless. It's embattled Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt and her recently ex communications director, Jasmine MacDonnel.
This pic just begs for a caption contest. Leave your entries in the comments!
I do have work to do today, but I did need to take a brief break this afternoon to catch the beginning of question period, where, as you can imagine, Lisa Raitt and the atomic docu-scandal (how’s that for a potential name?) dominated.
Stephen Harper had a previously scheduled engagement in Quebec, but the senior ministers that were in the house left Raitt to fend for herself as she faced a steady barrage of questions from all the opposition parties, until Joe Volpe finally took pity and asked one about all that missing gold at the Royal Canadian Mint (there’s a 24 karat story that’s been overshadowed today).
What struck me was that the other ministers left Raitt to twist in the wind and take every question. Someone is the designated In Charge when Big Daddy is away, but no one stepped-up to take even one question for Raitt and express the government’s confidence in her. Very telling.
As for Raitt, she repeated the same question time and time again, with only minor variations, such as when she outrageously accused the NDP’s Thomas Muclair of sexism. Basically, her lines were its serious, it’s the staffers fault, the staffer resigned, I offered to resign but Harper said no.
She almost seemed a little peeved at times at Harper for now letting her quit. One wonders how much longer they'll let her twist in the wind.
Here’s her first answer, which is pretty representative of all of them:
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. Correct procedures were not followed in this case. Corrective action has been taken. I offered to resign if the prime minister felt it necessary, and he did not accept it. The person responsible for handling the documents offered their resignations.
Speaking of Big Daddy, Harper was in Quebec today, and took a few questions from reporters. Here’s what he had to say on Raitt:
Well, as regards Minister Raitt, she has worked diligently on her files. She was with her employee. She had a reasonable expectation that her aide would look after her documents, and that that person would be responsible for the documents and deal with them if they were missing. Obviously this is a serious question. There should be changes because of this, but it's not the fault of the minister's staff. Bernier, the situation was quite different. But I should also say that i believe Maxime have learned a great deal from that incident. He remains a very important part of our team today and I expect that to remain the case in the future.
Well, I think it's a matter of personal action. As I've said, Minister Raitt was working at the time she was undertaking employment activity, ministerial activity in the company of her staff who were responsible for these documents and certainly for accounting for these documents later, and as I say, I think she had a reasonable expectation that that would be done. This is a serious matter and there will have to be changes as I've said, there will have to be an examination of this, and this kind of thing cannot re-occur. That said, in the case of minister Bernier, his actions were much more personal in nature, and that was the difference in the responsibility. That said, as I said earlier, Maxime think has learned a lot from his own experiences. He is a valuable member of our team, and I anticipate him playing a valuable role in our team in the future.
All morning the speculation has been will Lisa Raitt resign/be fired for leaving a binder full of secret documents on the Chalk River file at CTV, and not noticing it was missing for a week, or will the Conservatives try to blame it all on some poor staffer (who I'm sure will be rewarded with a nice private sector gig for taking the fall).
Well, unsurprisingly, with accountability being just a buzzword for the Stephen Harper Conservatives, just after lunchtime they opted for door B: let the staffer take the fall. Harper spokesperson (I'm assuming he's on the PMO payroll today) Kory Teneycke went on CTV (hey, why not them?) to break the news:
Well, let me first start by saying that this is obviously a very serious incident. Our government takes the handling of confidential documents very seriously and we have very clear and very firm procedures in place to prevent these sorts of incidents from happening. That being said, an incident obviously did occur where some documents were left at the ctv studio here in Ottawa. And as alt, the prime minister and our office have taken a very careful look at what did occur. It's our assessment that while this was a serious breach, it was not breach by the minister herself. And as such, we expect the minister to continue the good work she's doing on behalf of the government.
(snip)
The minister did offer her resignation if the prime minister felt it appropriate. For her to step down. He obviously did not. And as such, she's staying on. However, I would like to point out that the staff person responsible did offer their resignation and it was accepted.
So, Raitt offered her resignation but Harper said no, some poor staffer resigned instead, and this is different from the Maxime Bernier cause because it just is so leave me alone. And with that, the Conservatives seemed content to ride this thing out.
But then, mere minutes later on that same CTV, reporter Bob Fife reports:
I can report, dan, ctv news has learned that the aide who was walking the plank for the minister is Jasmine McDonell who I think we have a picture of her going in with the minister this morning in from the back way of the house of commons. She's a young aide, press secretary. I can also report sources telling CTV that that briefing document actually was the minister's document. Now, they're going blame this aide for having it. But there's going to be a lot of questions that will be asked here, dan. The minister -- if it was the minister's briefing document, which is what I am told it is, the question would be why wasn't the minister -- why'd the minister ask, hey, where's my briefing document? Why is it missing? In and the same thing would apply to the aides. Any of these documents, they're supposed to be under lock and key because they are marked " and when they are brought out of the office they're supposed to be in a briefcase under lock and key and taken out with somebody watching. When it goes back into the evening it it is supposed to be put back into a safe in the minister's office or at a safe in the minister's home. So there's a lot of unanswered questions here. It's fine and dandy for the prime minister's office to try to have some young 26-year-old walk the plank for this, but the buck stops with the minister.
(snip)
I'm getting this from sources, dan, that i believe to be reliable, who have talked to me in the last little bit. And who say that not only were -- that is the minister's briefing book, but there is essential active commercial information -- sensitive commercial information in that document which we have not reported that would be very advantageous to some of the people bidding on some of our reactors in ontario, and in fact the information that the ontario government would not be very pleased with if it got out. The issue here is the government trying to deflect the blame by blaming some young 26-year-old girl. Other issue, this is we're told the minister's document. And the other factor is sensitive commercial information which ctv has not reported that somebody has to take account for. And it certainly can't be some young kid.
(snip)
The duments that the ctv had and which graham richardson reported on last night were " and they were numbered. And so they are very sensitive documents and these are the kind documents that are traceable. If they're not reported immediately, there should be an automatic trace of what happened those documents. Ctv got these documents late thursday evening. We've had them since tuesday until graham reported on the national last night. So we understand there is an investigation going on now from the privy council office, but every rule in the book was broken as far as I can see in terms of security.
Question period starts in a few minutes and its going to be a doozy. Fife's report kills any chance Teneyck's interview had of ending this thing with the staffer's resignation. This is bigger now, with the commercial aspects, and with the revelation these actually were the minister's own personal briefing books, the PMO and Raitt look like heartless, unprincipled tools for trying to blame this on some young staffer.
What's more, by releasing that Raitt offered her resignation and HARPER refused, this is now bigger than Raitt. Harper gets to wear this now. This whole sorry episode, from the firing of Linda Keen to the complete inaction on the Chalk River file over 18 months to the lack of an isotope backup plan to this pathetic attempt to save the hide of Raitt and not Bernier for the EXACT SAME OFFENSE because he likes Raitt while Bernier was an embarrassment to trying to blame it all on some young kid, it all comes back to the incompetence of this government and Stephen Harper's lack of leadership.
Lisa Raitt's resignation, which is even more necessary now that it was, will be all the more embarassing and painful for this government now because of this pathetic manuvering.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
“I think she has good judgment. She must use her judgment like I did in my circumstance,” Maxime Bernier said Wednesday.
“I did what I had to do at my time. I assumed my own responsibility. She's going to do what she thinks is good for the country and for her.”
In other words, I had to resign so she better have to as well. Unless Harper was lying when he said it was because of the documents I had to resign, and not because of my biker-connected girlfriend with the hot dresses and the what not.
Unfortunately, since Bernier did not run away quickly from the reporter, my dream scenario is now even less unlikely: Maxime returning to cabinet in Raitt's portfolio. That would have been too funny.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Canada's legal duty to protect its citizens, even children, ends at the border and there is nothing in domestic or international law that obliges the government to seek Omar Khadr's repatriation, say federal arguments filed in court.
And hey, it's not like they haven't done SOME things to help the kid:
The government contends it has done plenty to ensure the "well-being" of the Guantanamo Bay detainee - from supplying him with magazines to ensuring he receives medical treatment and facilitating contact with his family - and any further protection is at the discretion of the state, not the courts.
I'm sure he appreciates the old Reader's Digests. Humour in Uniform probably takes on a whole new meaning at Gitmo.
What makes the Harper policy even more odious is that it's so subjective. It's not that they won't help any Canadian in trouble in foreign lands. Instead, they seem to pick and choose based on their own political, philosophical and moral biases. One case will get the full Jason Kenney putting on the pressure treatment, while another will see excuse after excuse as a citizen is exiled at an embassy or just plain indifference as a citizen rots at Gitmo. It depends entirely on their definition of whose a "real Canadian" and who isn't.
And that's wrong. The government has the responsibility to stand up for all its citizens. Even the odious ones. These things should be beyond politics. And for my country's government to be arguing otherwise in federal court is just sad.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
By investigate I'm sure they mean lots of people saying "what the hell happened?" and "can we blame the Liberals somehow?" This may buy them a day or two at best, but I'd be very surprised if question period isn't dominated with calls for the resignation or firing of Lisa Raitt, followed by intensive media scrutiny.
The Prime Minister's Office is investigating how a senior cabinet minister left behind sensitive government documents at television news bureau in Ottawa.
A spokesman for the prime minister, Kory Teneycke, says the government is still establishing exactly what went on.
CTV News reported that Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt or one of her aides left behind a binder of documents on Atomic Energy of Canada at its Ottawa bureau nearly a week ago.
The network says a federal government employee picked up the documents this morning after a story aired Tuesday night.
The report says the documents list millions of dollars in funding for the corporation that have not been made public, including $72 million to ``maintain the option of isotope production.''
A spokeswoman for Raitt declined to comment.
They may try to pin this on an anonymous staffer, deflect blame by attacking CTV for keeping and reporting on the documents, or both. Remember, they also tried to blame Julie Couillard when Maxime Bernier left secret documents at her apartment.
The buck stops with the minister, though. This is her responsibility as the minister. That's how our system works: ministerial responsibility. Lisa Raitt is going to have to fall on her sword. The only question is how long Stephen Harper lets her twist in the wind first.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Sensitive government documents left behind at a CTV News bureau reveal Ottawa has poured far more money into the aging Chalk River nuclear reactor than the public has been told.
The binder of documents was left nearly a week ago at CTV's Ottawa bureau by either Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt or one of her aides. Some of the papers are clearly marked "secret."
Raitt was already taking a beating in the Chalk River file. It's hard to see how she walks away from this. Whether it was her or her staffer that left the documents behind, the principle of ministerial responsibility applies, and this is clearly an unacceptable lapse.
What's in the documents is equally momentous:
In documents headlined "Background for discussion with chair of Atomic Energy Canada," the government lists funding for the Crown corporation at $351 million for 2009-2010. That figure was in the January budget.
However, it also lists $72 million to "maintain the option of isotope production." The public 2009 budget does not specifically mention funding for isotopes.
The documents also include a hand-written note that lists total funding for Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. since 2006 at $1.7 billion, and then a talking-point memo to characterize the spending as "cleaning up a Liberal mess."
Other documents highlight cost increases for AECL that have not been made public. In one document headlined "Discussion with CEO Hugh MacDiarmid, CEO of Atomic Energy Canada," it lists $100 million in supplementary funding to keep it solvent.
The Conservatives have mishandled this file badly, and to try to blame this mess on the Liberals is a transparently pathetic attempt at spin. It was clear 18 months ago that there were serious problems at Chalk River. Linda Keen was fired for blowing the whistle. Today in question period Stephen Harper was all about safety first, oddly vindicating Keen's call 18 months ago to favour safety over isotope production.
The government has had 18 months to fix the problems at Chalk River. It has had 18 months to put alternate arrangements in place to ensure an adequate supply of medical isotopes in the event of another reactor shutdown. Instead it has failed on both counts: Chalk River is in worse shape then ever, and there are no back-ups in place. Because of Conservative mismanagement, ill Canadians are going without the medically necessary treatment they need.
The next time a politician uses two or more of the words "yes" "we" and "can" in a sentence and someone accuses them of ripping-of Barrack Obama, you can tell them actually Barrack was ripping off a Canadian economic development ad campaign from the late 1980s/early 1990s:
I think Barrack owes us a cheque. We'll settle for his piece of GM.
Change, however, was definitely his original idea. So anyone who promises change is definitely copying Obama.
CEP members will meet with Flaherty as part of today's CEP-lead demonstration, which will see workers gather at the offices of Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt and Prime Minister Stephen Harper before the meeting with Flaherty and federal representatives.
Flaherty agreed to the meeting after CEP members took over the constituency offices of seven Conservative cabinet ministers and MPs, including his and Vancouver Island North MP John Duncan's office, last Monday to force the issue.
Oh, really? So Jim Flaherty is meeting with protesters that plan to block a major highway, after they pressured him into a meeting by occupying the offices of Conservative MPs?
Some would say Flaherty is encouraging and enabling acts of civil disobedience. And those some would be Conservatives, were the protesters not, hmm, how should we put it. What's different about these protesters and the protesters they don't like?
What is it with the Conservative Party of Canada and ignorance of the English language? I mean, say what you will about Brian Mulroney, but the man swallowed the frickin' Blarney Stone. He could string some words together.
At worst, there is the suspicion that a cosmopolitan such as Mr. Ignatieff is not a loyal Canadian.
(In both French and English, the word “cosmopolitan” has some pejorative connotations, depending on the context. In France, the word cosmopolite is used by anti-Semites as a code word for Jew.)
I'm actually going to have to claim ignorance on this one too, as this connotation is news to me. But then, so is using the word cosmopolitan in a negative sense, as the Conservatives are doing.
After World War II, Stalin's anti-Semitism was revealed in a series of public attacks against Jews in the Soviet Union. Jews were labeled "cosmopolitans without a homeland," code for not being patriotic enough. By 1949, these attacks led to the abolition of the JAC, and the dismissals and arrests of thousands of Jews.
A few polls out today that others will I'm sure offer plenty of analysis of, one from Ekos and one from Angus Reid. Both show tight races, but solid Liberal prospects.
First, they offer some interesting insight on the impact of the Conservative ads:
After disclosing their voting intention, respondents to this survey were divided into three groups. The first group observed one of the television ads that the Conservative Party has launched targeting Ignatieff, the second group was shown the same ad and the response that Ignatieff posted on YouTube, and the third group was not exposed to any ads or videos.
The momentum score for Harper among respondents who saw the ad is -40 (10% improved, 50% worsened), and the prime minister posts similar numbers among those who saw the ad and the video (9% improved, 52% worsened) and those who were not exposed directly to either the ad or the video (7% improved, 49% worsened).
The momentum score for Ignatieff among respondents who saw the ad is -18 (24% improved, 42% worsened). However, the opposition leader bridges the gap with those who also saw his YouTube video (29% improved, 31% worsened) and is even among those who did not see the ad or the video (28% improved, 28% worsened).
As I've said before, I'm not ready to pass judgment on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the Conservative ads yet. But there is one message I take from these results: The Liberal Party needs to get its response in front of more people than those who watch YouTube.
On another note, I found this amusing:
Respondents were also asked to select up to six words (out of a list of 17 traits and characteristics) that may be used to describe Canada's federal political leaders.
The words that were associated with Harper the most are secretive (54%), arrogant (53%), out of touch (38%), uncaring (37%), intelligent (35%), boring (34%) and dishonest (also 34%).
Ignatieff comes across as intelligent (53%), arrogant (42%) and strong (31%), and a quarter of respondents also see him as open, secretive end efficient.
And who says pollsters don't have a sense of humour?
Remarkably, the five federal party leaders post exceptionally low marks on being exciting (from 3% for Harper to 13% for Layton), and at least one-in-five Canadians regard them all as boring (from 21% for Ignatieff to 34% for Harper).
Remarkably? Surely that's sarcasm, Angus...
Finally, interesting regionals. I like those Quebec numbers (ouch, Cons) but those Atlantic numbers aren't pleasing.
Spent a little time with my video editing software over the weekend, and with apologies to the folks at MasterCard, I bring you these two videos on the "priceless" Conservative deficit.
I'm envisioning a series with two new facts at the top of each spot, so if you have any ideas for future spots please let me know.
