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.
