Today, it’s all about Eve (Adams)

Today it was all about Eve in Canadian politics (one should really Google that plot before referencing it though), even after a mini-cabinet shuffle that made Pierre Poilievre a senior minister of the crown. Pierre gives hope to mindless partisans everywhere that excess of loyalty can trump dearth of qualification and intelligence.

No, it was Mississauga MP Eve Adams crossing the floor to the Liberal Party, and announcing her intent to seek a Liberal nomination in the Greater Toronto area, that overshadowed even the news of Jason Kenney as Minister of Making ISIS an Election Issue.

I still remember where I was when I heard Belinda Stronach was joining the Paul Martin government. It was Election Day in B.C., and I was working for Elections BC as a deputy returning officer. A local news reporter, who knew me as a Federal Liberal, came in to vote and asked me if I’d heard the big news. I called for relief, exited the voting hall and he told me what had happened. After he convinced me he wasn’t making it up, my reply, basically, was shut the front door.

Let me say this: Eve Adams is no Belinda Stronach. I found her conduct concerning as a Conservative MP, from the nomination drama to campaign expenses; my views haven’t changed simply because she’s now sitting as a Liberal. How much of her decision is principle, and how much is convenience? I have no earthly idea. Yes, she wanted to run as a Conservative right up until she couldn’t. That doesn’t mean her decision was purely opportunistic; leaving your party can be like breaking up with a spouse. You can put up with a lot of crap trying to make it work; finally, there’s a straw that breaks the camel’s back and enough is enough. Which isn’t to say there isn’t some opportunism here – she still wants to be an MP, and the Conservatives won’t have her.

We’re a big-tent party. I often disagree with fellow Liberals; that’s healthy. A number of NDPers have joined our caucus; we need to win votes from the Conservatives too if we’re to compete for government this fall. If Adams believes in Liberal values, including same sex marriage and a woman’s right to choose, then fine. Let her seek a Liberal nomination. And let it be a completely open nomination, with no special treatment from the leader’s office. If she can convince Liberals she shares our values and win a nomination, so be it. And if not, she had her chance in an open contest.

All parties will try to spin her decision. I think in reality it’s mixed for both sides. For the Liberals, one less CPC MP is a good thing for the Liberals and a bad thing for the Conservatives, and so is the narrative of progressive Conservatives leaving the Harper Party. On the flip side, Adams carries a great deal of baggage and this crossing looks more opportunistic than most. For the Conservatives, yes, they’re rid of a live wire that had become a distraction; their decision to bar her from running was soon to be public and messy – now it helps. On the other hand, she was still a parliamentary secretary, so how badly could they have thought of her and how seriously can we take their comments now? One less MP is one less MP. And for the NDP, once again someone is joining a party that’s not them and they’re left outside the news cycle looking in. Again. On the other hand, they may be glad to sit this one out.

On floor crossing in general, I’m not automatically opposed. I explained my feelings at length in this piece (Jeff Jedras: In defence of floor-crossing MPs), so I won’t repeat then at length here except to say each circumstance should be judged on its merits, and at the end of the day the electorate should hold the final judgement.

The questions today quickly turned to Adams’ partner Dimitri Soudas, a former national director of the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper loyalist. Two things here.

One, while rumours abounded, it appears that Soudas will not be joining the Liberal war room – his activities will be limited to serving as Adams’ sign chair. Of course, as any political veteran knows, that’s the best job to have – except in Sudbury in a winter byelection. He shouldn’t seek a senior position on the central Liberal campaign team, and he shouldn’t be offered one. While he may be full of Conservative secrets – and he may fight back if challenged – loyalty should still mean something, in spite of all that has happened here. While he supports his partner, spilling secrets is another matter. I can respect a person’s decision to change teams, but not to sell out the team they were loyal to just days ago. And it would be hard to trust such a person.

Two, I reject the suggestion that the questions about Soudas at the Adams presser this morning were sexist. He’s not just her partner. He’s a Harper confidante and former national director of the party privy to their electoral strategy. He lost his job trying to get her a nomination. Their relationship is very public, and that was their decision. His view on her decision was absolutely relevant, and the media would have been derelict in their duty to not have raised the issue. Lord knows we were all wondering the answer.

It was her right not to answer, but the question was fair and had nothing to do with gender. Such charges of bias should be reserved for actual honest to goodness examples of sexism, not wielded as a convenient political shield.

And now, let’s get back to talking about Conservative failure on the economy. 

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper's ego is writing checks our bodies can't cash

I missed what I hear was a very successful Liberal policy forum in Toronto with Michael Ignatieff on Sunday, as I was on my way to Washington, DC to cover a conference for work. Well, in National Harbor actually, but it doesn't start until Tuesday morning so I have two days to explore the city. First time here, and it's awesome for a politics and history junkie. It's crazy hot here (over 40 with the humidity), but on day one I already saw the Washington Monument, the Capitol, the White House, and I toured the Air and Space Museum. Top of the list for Monday is the Newseum, and some more of the monuments around the mall. I'd also like to get out to Arlington Cemetery, weather and time-permitting.

Back in Canada though, there are also political events transpiring. Coinciding with the Toronto policy event (apparently to be followed by a significant policy speech by Ignatieff in Toronto on Tuesday) the Liberals also released a G8/G20 fake-lake related radio ad blasting the Conservative mismanagement of this billion-dollar boondoggle. Take a look:

And if you'd like to donate to get these ads more airplay, click here to find out how.

I was reminded of my all-time favourite show as I walked around DC yesterday, The West Wing. Particularly some of Josh Lyman's best lines. Sadly, I couldn't find any Republican Senators to tell to stick their legislative agendas up their asses.

You know who isn't Josh Lyman? Stephen Harper spokesthingy Dimitri Soudas (who is still on the lam, hiding from a baliff trying to serve him a warrant). The Conservatives let Soudas pop put of hiding to deliver the Sunday response to the Liberal radio spot. And it was laughable spin worse than when Sam Seaborn got schooled by Ainsley Hayes on Capitol Beat.

The Liberal ads say:

“Harper’s fake lake is part of his $1-billion boondoggle, Canada’s most expensive photo-op at a time of massive debt and out-of-control deficits,” the radio and television ads say. “So when you head to the lake this summer, remember you’re paying for Harper’s trip, too. An ego trip Canada can’t afford.”

So Soudas retorted:

"The ad's premise is that the average Canadian can afford to spend weekends at the lake. An understandable assumption, no doubt, by someone who vacations outside Canada and owns a summer villa in the south of France," said Mr. Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas.

"What Mr. Ignatieff fails to appreciate is that the vast majority of Canadians do not own recreational property. This is just another gaffe that shows he is grossly out of touch with the lives of ordinary Canadians."

Which just reminds us, Dimitri, that it is your government, although the vast majority of Canadians do not own recreational property, that spent $57,000 of our tax dollars to build a FAKE LAKE to show off to international journalists for three days, as part of a $2 million pavillion showcasing other fake parts of Canadian life.

So Dimitri, riddle me this: by your own logic, why is your government spending $57,000 showcasing an out of touch, elitist vision of Canadian life to the international media? Isn't that just another gaffe that shows the Conservatives are grossly out of touch? Instead of an elitist fake lake with elitist Muskoka chairs, shouldn't you have built a fake Tim Horton's, with fake Iced Cappuccino Supremes or something?

Because fake Tim Horton's is where the real fake Canadians go.

P.S. Something about the ego trip/can't afford line in the Liberal ad reminds me of that scene early in Top Gun when the air boss lays into Maverick, telling him his ego's writing cheques his body can't cash, and that he risks ending-up flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog crap out of Hong Kong. I can't find that video though, so instead here's a trailer that re-cuts Top Gun as a gay love story:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative reality? You so funny, Dimitri

Dimitri Soudas today on the false quote brouhaha:

"Because in politics you do have exchanges between political opponents but you have to make sure those exchanged happen within a certain reality of things that people actually say."

Is this a new rule for the Conservative Party of Canada? It must be.*

*See "Liberals plan to raise taxes" "megatonnes of money" "insulting Ukrainians" and the many, many other quotes the Harper Conservatives have deliberately butchered and taken out of context to smear their political opponents over the recent years.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper lies and insults, sends aide to apologize

Where does the buck stop? In The Harper Government(TM), apparently on the desk of the nearest convenient hapless staffer.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper launched a blistering attack here Friday against Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, though moments later his office withdrew the allegation and apologized to the Liberal leader.

Harper, here attending the G8 summit of major industrialized countries, slammed Ignatieff for allegedly saying that a new group of industrialized countries might be formed that won't include Canada.

Harper, whose party has questioned his rival's commitment to Canada because the Liberal leader lived three decades overseas, said Ignatieff should withdraw any suggestion that Canada could be excluded from a new body to replace the G8.

"I think it's an irresponsible suggestion, and Mr. Ignatieff is supposed to be a Canadian."

But his spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, quickly met with reporters to say he had misinformed the prime minister on the matter. Soudas said the remark attributed to Ignatieff was actually made by an academic, and apologized for the error.

Harper slings the mud, then sends the staffer to apolgize?

So, Soudas gave Harper bad information, and let a hapless zeal for partisan mudslinging get ahead of the facts. Its bad staffing, and while mistakes happen, they seem to be happening a lot lately in the PMO comms department. But that's an employee matter for the PMO. But if I were them, I'd be looking for better talent.

Bad info or not, the fact remains it is Harper that chose to act on it, and Harper that slung the mud in public and on the record by leveling outrageous falsehoods against the honour and reputation of the leader of the opposition. And, even if the attacks had been accurate, it is still Stephen Harper that decided to use what may have been his only full media availablity at the G8, at an international summit in another country, to wage an attack against a political rival. Very Prime Ministerial.

There seems to be a clear pattern in this government of ministers and the prime minister hiding feebly behind their staffers. Frankly, it's pathethic. Its Harper that made the public comments, and its Harper that needs to offer a sincere and public apology.

You make a mistake, you aplogize. That's how my mother raised me. She didn't say anything about staffers.

Man-up, Steve.

UPDATE: The story is now updated with an apology from Harper himself, so credit to him for that:

"During my press conference, I attacked Mr. Ignatieff for some things he had allegedly said about Canada and the G8," Harper said.

"I learned shortly after the press conference this was not a quotation of Mr. Ignatieff. I regret the error and I apologize to Mr. Ignatieff for this error."

Now maybe he can apologize for using an international summit to attack a political rival in the first place, for running ads that question his patriotism and commtiment to Canada, for...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

No more water for Harper at G8 meetings?

I joked yesterday that may Stephen Harper should try to change the channel on the holy host story by staying in the bathroom during another photo-op. On to more serious matters shortly, but it would appear I may have been (shudder) channeling the PMO:




By the way, another lame attempt at political communications from Dimitri Soudas, when asked why Harper was late (his holy host explanation yesterday was wholly lacking):

Harper's spokesperson, Dimitri Soudas, declined to give details on why the prime minister arrived late to the photo shoot.

"I don't think you're paying attention to the summit ... The prime minister was at the photo op," Soudas said Thursday.

Since its hard to judge tone from text, I can't tell if Soudas was going for cuteness or dickishness there with his Wizard of Oz'ish answer (pay no attention to the man behind the mirror!). But why not just say why he was late? Nine times out ten a simple, unambiguous and truthful answer will get you further that dickish (or cute) evasion.

It's a lesson these guys seem to refuse to learn.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

And now the Conservatives are bearing false witness?

As if possible desecration of the host by Stephen Harper wasn't enough, it now appears his spokesperson, Dimitri Soudas, may be bearing false witness.

The Toronto Star has more of Soudas' attempted damage control this morning, where Dimitri makes the Conservative position very clear:

Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the prime minister, said that Harper "was offered communion, and accepted."

Soudas said he consumed the consecrated host immediately afterwards, within seconds of taking it from the priest, contrary to suggestions a video shows he did not.

"Unfortunately CBC cameras don't stay on the prime minister long enough sometimes," Soudas told reporters in L'Aquila, Italy, where Harper is attending a G8 summit.

Well that's a clear and fairly unambiguous statement. He says Harper didn't pocket it, and instead consumed it "within seconds." Except, as I said, the video evidence doesn't support that at all.

Dimitri mentions the CBC cameras. Maybe they cut sooner, I don't know. Maybe he's just trying to distract his upset base by implying a Liberal media conspiracy. CPAC, however, stayed with the Prime Minister awhile, and it does not show Harper consuming the host "within seconds." Far from it. Rather, it shows him slipping the wafer down to his pocket, standing a bit as people around him consume the host, and then sitting down.

A longer version of the footage has appeared on YouTube. Take a look:



By my count, it stays with Harper at a good 20 seconds after he accepts the host from the priest. That should be well within Dimitri's window for consumption. Yet no sign the host ever left his pocket. There's a fraction of a second he's off when they change cameras, but he'd have to have lightning-quick reflexes to consume it within that window.

And as for why Harper accepted it in the first place:

Soudas explained that while Harper is a Protestant, "who is the prime minister to question a priest offering him communion."

He's Stephen Harper, non-Catholic, that's who he is Dimitri. You can't expect a priest to know the religious affiliation and currency of every person at such a service. It's up to the individual to decline if ineligible, and to do so is perfectly acceptable.

Why he didn't is baffling, and why Soudas is compounding the mistake is even more so.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

When, exactly, did Harper consume the host, Dimitri?

Recognizing a significant scandal brewing, PMO spokesperson with Dimitri Soudas is quick off the mark with an attempt at damage control over Stephen Harper's insult to Canadian Catholics last week, when as a non-Catholic he accepted and then pocket the host wafer at the funeral service of former Governor-General Romeo LeBlanc (h/t):

The Prime Minister's Office moved swiftly Wednesday to refute allegations that Stephen Harper pocketed a sacramental communion wafer at the funeral mass of Romeo LeBlanc instead of consuming it.

"It's totally absurd," the prime minister's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, said. "The priest offered the host to the prime minister, the prime minister accepted the host and he consumed it."

Unfortunately for Dimitri, though, his explanation is belied by the video evidence, which clearly shows Harper accepting the host and slipping it in his pocket:

Which raises a follow-up for Dimitri, and for Harper who should really man-up and explain this one himself. If he did eat the wafer, when? If it was shortly after he got it, why pocket it first? Or was it later that day or something, did he save it for later? Why?! And is it really appropriate for a non-Catholic to do accept it in the first place? Why not just respectfully pass?

Soudas' explination is deeply lacking on many fronts.

UPDATE: According to the Toronto Star, Soudas is claiming Harper never even pocketed the thing but apparently "consumed it" right away:

"The story today alleges he put it in his pocket and did not consume it which is false. It's totally absurd and ridiculous."

Umm, have you SEEN THE VIDEO, Dimitri? Watch it, and then get back to us with a less idiotic line, please.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A very specific denial from the PMO

CanWest's David Akin files a piece on the Raitt tape story that's breaking this AM, and gets comments from a Harper PMO spokesperson, Dimitri Soudas.

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.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dimitri Soudas needs better talking points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Meanwhile, in non-the Cons are calling a Chuck Cadman's widow, daughter and son-in-law liars news

While there has been a lot of focus on the Chuck Cadman story lately, and rightly so, it's also worth noting a number of other stories swirling around Parliament Hill and environs that also don't bode well for the Harper Conservatives

*After initially refusing to confirm his attendance or return committee phone calls, Harper's deputy press secretary Dimitri Soudas did appear before the ethics committee last week to answer questions about his potential involvement with a Conservative fundraiser, a developer in a legal dispute with the government, and other lobbying-related issues.

You'll recall it was questioning on the Soudas affair that bizarely caused Stephen Harper to falsely accuse opposition MPs of making ethnicity-based attacks, accusing them of only persuing the issue because some of those involved happened to be Greek.

In the committee we heard that Soudas came to a dinner meeting with his friend, CPC fundraiser Leo Housakos, and representatives of a company called Alenia North America, which wanted to sell search-and-rescue helicopters to the government:

Alenia said in a statement yesterday that it was looking for a communications firm when it met with Mr. Housakos and Mr. Soudas.

"At a dinner meeting with Mr. Housakos, where he was hoping to secure our business, he surprised us by introducing us to Mr. Soudas. We had absolutely no prior notice that Mr. Soudas would be joining us at the dinner," Alenia said in a statement.

I guess Alenia wasn't suitably impressed that Housakos was able to have a senior staffer from the Prime Minister's Office just happen to pop by their dinner meeting, as they didn't hire Soudas' buddy and went with another communications firm instead.

We also heard more about his intervention in the legal dispute between the government and a politically-connected developer whose potential support would be beneficial to Conservative prospects in Quebec:

On another front, the committee heard that Mr. Soudas intervened more than once in a legal dispute between Ottawa and real estate firm Rosdev Group in 2006. The committee heard that Mr. Soudas and another PMO official organized three meetings with Conservative officials and bureaucrats on the issue, and that Mr. Soudas once called Public Works Minister Michael Fortier directly.

Opposition MPs said the evidence leads them to believe that Mr. Soudas was attempting to win the political support of the Rosdev Group and its influential president, Michael Rosenberg. Mr. Rosenberg, a prominent member of Montreal's Hassidic community, told MPs he is part of a community group that often endorses political candidates in elections.

Liberal MP Mark Holland said that MPs are "left wondering if this is not, 'Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.' "

*Then there's John Baird, CPC environment minister, whose intervention in the Ottawa light rail project in the middle of the Ottawa mayoralty campaign was looked into by the HoC committee on government operations last week. The LRT project was a major issue in the municipal election and as treasury board president at the time Baird, who represents an Ottawa-area riding, in the middle of the election put the government's $200 million contribution to the project on hold unless the next council signed-off, even though the deal was done and had been approved by the previous council.

The intervention was an unexpected bombshell and was damaging for pro-LRT candidates, including Liberal connected Mayor Bob Chiarelli, and a surprise victory followed for anti-LRT mayoral candidate, well-connected conservative Larry O'Brien.

And if O'Brien's name sounds familiar, it should. The Ottawa mayor will be facing criminal charges related to the alleged bribery of one his opponents in that election. He has a court date in April for a scheduled nine-week trial:

While running for mayor, O'Brien is alleged to have offered to help his opponent, Terry Kilrea, get a job on the National Parole Board if Kilrea pulled out of the election race.

After an eight month Ontario Provincial Police investigation, O'Brien was charged with pretending to have influence with the Government of Canada or with a minister of the government, contrary to Sec. 121 of the Criminal Code.

O'Brien was also charged with negotiating an appointment, influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices, contrary to Sec. 125 of the Criminal Code.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

The trial should prove interesting indeed, and John Baird's name has come up here too:

In his affidavit sworn out on Dec. 20, 2006, Kilrea alleges he was offered the parole board job during a meeting last summer with O'Brien at a coffee shop.

"At approximately 2 p.m. later that day (July 5, 2006), O'Brien called to advise that my name had been put forward for an appointment to the National Parole Board,'' says the affidavit.

"When I asked how this was possible, he responded that he had spoken to John Reynolds. He then instructed me to call John Baird, President of the Treasury Board, and to tell him that my name 'was in the queue' for an appointment to the board.'"

Kilrea says when he e-mailed Baird, the minsiter said he knew nothing about an appointment, and while Reynolds, the co-chair of the last CPC election campaign, admitted he's a close friend of O'Brien, he said he knows nothing about this and wasn't involved.

But back to the LRT intervention in the mayoralty race, and the committee hearings. We heard from a that Baird took an unusual interest in the file and indeed, the senior bureaucrat at Treasury Board said he never even saw the Ottawa LRT contract because Baird handled it personally.

It also appears Baird may have gone beyond the scope of Treasury Board's role:

Mr. Baird said at the time that he was intervening to make sure taxpayers were getting proper value for money: the project's price had risen to $900 million, from $600 million when it was first proposed.

Wayne Wouters, who is the most senior bureaucrat at Treasury Board, declined to provide information about how his department made its decisions, saying that such information is a cabinet confidence. But he said that it isn't Treasury Board's job to assess the cost-benefit of such a project.

*It seems Charles McVety has kissed and made up with the Stephen Harper government, Ok, well maybe not kissed. But you'll recall that not that ling ago McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, was very upset with the Harper government for not overturning same sex marriage:

Mr. McVety said the defection of people who have opposed same-sex marriage in the past will not send a good message about the Conservative Party or democracy.

“People feel they have no option, they have five anti-marriage parties and no reason to vote. They get disenchanted and they stay home,” he said.

But from being on the edge of washing his hands of the Conservative Party, McVety is now taking credit for convincing the government to deny tax credits to film productions his followers find objectiobnable:

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and "numerous" meetings with officials in the Prime Minister's Office.

"We're thankful that someone's finally listening," he said yesterday. "It's fitting with conservative values, and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government."

Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign.

Sure. it's not a ban on same-sex marriage, but still its some red meat for the social-conservative, so-called values wing of the CPC feeling soemwhat abandoned by the Harper government, and important to the CPC as they try to shore-up their far-right flank just in case the Liberals ever decide the time is right for an election.

For more on the guy that claims to now be setting government culture policy visit Red Tory.

*In its never-ending game of substituting democracy and governing for a game of political chicken, after being shot-down in court over its attempt gut the Canadian Wheat Board the Harper government is planning to bring in enabling legislation and is mulling making it a confidence vote:

Proposed legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on western barley sales could be a confidence motion, Canada's agriculture minister suggested Friday after a heated rally in Regina.

Gerry Ritz said the bill will be introduced in Parliament on Monday and the federal government is looking at all options to get it passed.

"If it takes a confidence motion we'll go there," he said.

All three opposition parties have pledged to fight the Conservatives on this. Will the Liberals back down if its made a confidence matter? Bob Rae could not be reached for comment.

*Finally, last week Brian Mulroney also thumbed his nose at the parliamentary ethics committee:

Brian Mulroney says he won’t come back to face further questioning at the House of Commons ethics committee on his business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber.

A terse posting Tuesday on Mulroney’s website said his lawyer, Guy Pratte, has informed the committee that the former Conservative prime minister is “declining” a request for him to appear later this week.

Yes, this is a former Prime Minsiter of Canada, a member of the Privy Council, esentially saying bite-me to a committee of parliament. He has also changed his mind on the need for a public inquiry, complaining of a “jihad” against him. Classy.

Still, the committee decided to call it a day and recommend the Harper government immediately make good on its promise to call a public inquiry into the affair. However, it appears Harper is dragging his feet:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is looking for excuses to renege on his promise to call a public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, opposition MPs charged Friday.

Liberals and New Democrats levelled the accusation after the government refused to launch the promised inquiry until the House of Commons ethics committee tables its own report on the affair.

The committee has tabled an interim report, but the Conservatives are insisting on waiting for the final report. And, perhaps, until they can find an excuse to back-out of their promise to call an inquiry. CP makes note of the timing and historical paralells:

The government's refusal to expedite the launch of a public inquiry came one day after Brian Mulroney's lawyer said there is no need for a public probe into the former Conservative prime minister's private financial dealings with arms lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber.

Mulroney originally called for an inquiry late last year, prompting Harper, who had initially rejected calls for an inquiry, to reverse himself.

Is Harper again preparing to do an about-face and once again march to Brian Mulroney's drummer on this matter? It's hard not to wonder.

Szabo said the government's refusal to quickly get on with an inquiry suggests Harper may be having second thoughts.

"It would appear that there is some back-pedalling on this matter," Szabo said.

Pat Martin, an NDP member of the ethics committee, said the government is using the committee as "an excuse to delay and stall."

"I think probably the Conservatives are looking for any excuse to avoid a public inquiry at all," said Martin.

"Every day that we deal with the malfeasance associated with the Mulroney administration, it hurts the Harper administration. That's an unavoidable fact.

-----
And yet still we allow this government to continue to govern. It boggles the mind.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What do deputy press secretaries do?

Having never been one, I can’t really say for sure. If I had to guess, I’d say being a deputy press secretary would probably involve talking to the media, responding to media requests, maybe doing the odd briefing, helping craft the government’s communications strategy, monitoring coverage, stuff like that.

Apparently, though, I have it all wrong:

The Globe and Mail and Radio-Canada revealed this week that the PMO's deputy press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, intervened in 2006 in a long-standing legal dispute between real estate firm Rosdev Group and the government.

Mr. Soudas raised the possibility of dropping the litigation and going to mediation with the Rosdev Group during a meeting with senior officials at Public Works. Mr. Soudas was echoing a call from his friend and Conservative fundraiser Leo Housakos, who had made the same proposition to Public Works a few months earlier.

In addition, it was revealed that Mr. Soudas and Mr. Housakos attended an informal meeting last year with officials from a military company that was interested in selling hardware to National Defence.

Intervening in legal disputes, arranging meetings between developers and bureaucrats with party fundraisers, is this really the job of a deputy press secretary?

During Question Period, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that Mr. Soudas simply "did his job."

And here I thought his job had something to do with communicating with the press. My bad. But given this government’s relationship with the media, it really does explain a lot, doesn't it?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Funny line of the day: Don Martin

National Post columnist Don Martin, commenting on the Harper government's recent communications cock-ups and the troubles of flacks Sandra Buckler and Dimitri Soudas, whose jobs are unlikely to be in jeopardy despite recent performance:

To get fired by this government, you have to do your job defending nuclear plant safety against the PMO's wishes.

Heh. Sounds about right.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Has Stephen Harper jumped the shark?

I mean, seriously, his comments on ethnicity in the House of Commons yesterday come completely out of right field, and are so completely lacking grounding in reality, that one is almost forced to consider if he needs medical attention.

If you haven’t been paying attention, there’s a mini-scandal brewing around lobbying and the PMO. Specifically, Harper’s deputy press secretary, Dimitri Soudas and a Quebec Conservative organizer, Leo Housakos.

A joint investigation by the Globe and Mail and Radio-Canada is alleging that a member of the Prime Minister's Office and a Conservative fundraiser directly interfered in a pair of political dossiers.

The report, which aired on the CBC's French-language service on Tuesday night, alleges PMO spokesman Dimitri Soudas intervened in favour of a Montreal real estate developer currently embroiled in a lawsuit with the federal government, and sat in on a meeting with representatives of an international military contractor looking to sell its wares.

There’s a lot of angles to this, of course, and the issue apparently dominated yesterday’s question period. No surprise there. What is surprising is this comment by Stephen Harper, in response to a BQ question. I’ll include both Q&A from Hansard for context, or lack thereof:

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot ignore this issue and plead ignorance regarding the representations made by Housakos, and he cannot claim that this individual was a complete stranger, since it is his government that appointed him to VIA Rail.

In this context, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he ever met with M. Housakos at 24 Sussex Drive, his official residence?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member mentioned the names of two individuals of Greek origin, namely one employee who works here in Ottawa, and another who is a Conservative Party supporter, in Montreal. The fact that there are two Montrealers of Greek origin does not mean there is a plot.

That accusation, as you can see, is completely out of right field. There was never any prior mention made by any opposition party as to the ethnic origin of anyone involved. I wanted to wait to comment on this until today because I wanted to check the Hansard, and indeed the first person to say “Greek” during QP yesterday was Harper.

There is absolutely no basis for Harper to “play the race card” here. And for him to try to use ethnicity to deflect from the possible ethical transgressions of one of his senior advisers is disgusting, and doesn’t befit a Prime Minister of Canada.

Continuing on through Hansard, Liberal Denis Coderre described Harper’s “racially-based comments” as “degrading” in a preamble before another question on the lobbying issue, a question Peter Van Loan took, ignoring the racial issue. A little later the BQ came back up though and addressed it more directly; Harper answered, and ignored.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in response to one of my questions, the Prime Minister suggested that we are asking questions about the influence peddling in his office, because the people involved are Greek. That is the same type of response we got from the Liberals to our questions about Alfonso Gagliano. Those are crass arguments.

Instead of using such arguments, could the Prime Minister simply answer my question? Did he ever meet with Leo Housakos at 24 Sussex?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference here. This company has not received any special favours or treatment. I do not understand the Bloc Québécois' complaint.

It wasn’t until after QP, during points of order, that the reprehensible comments of the PM were directly addressed by my MP, Liberal John Cannis, who is Greek himself:

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege predicated by the type of answers that the Prime Minister gave to some of the questions he was asked.

The Minister of Health is shaking his head, but when he faces the Greek Canadian community in the future, I will remind him.

I do not want to be interrupted. I have served five terms in this honourable House. I have had the honour and the privilege of representing my country Canada abroad and proudly see, as I look around this honourable chamber, the diversity that makes this great country of ours.

The Prime Minister in his response today put a black mark on the over half a million Greek Canadians who played even a small role in the development of this great country.

The Prime Minister insulted the entire Greek community. I want to get to the bottom of it. When answering questions that he was asked, why was it necessary for the Prime Minister and others to continually refer to these two people, Housakos and Soudas who works in his office, who supposedly acted improperly lobbying him, as Greek Canadians? I do not see how that ties together.

Mr. Speaker, we have all faced difficult issues, dealt with difficult problems, but never before in my tenure in the last five parliaments or before, have I ever experienced this.

I would ask the Prime Minister on behalf of over half a million Greek Canadians, some of whom even supported that party, to send them a card like he has done in the past and apologize. I demand that he stand in the House and apologize publicly to each and every Greek Canadian.

In closing, permit me if you will, Mr. Speaker, to say that this is a dark day for the Greek Canadian community and each and every Canadian of Greek origin. They came to do things differently as the Reform Party. They proved--

I guess Harper had left the chamber as it was Conservative house leader Peter Van Loan that replied to Cannis’ point of privilege. You may recall he was the guy that told us only Conservatives are real Canadians.

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there has been a characterization put on the Prime Minister's comments that is not at all in accord with the Prime Minister's intention nor with what he said. In fact, I believe the Prime Minister was defending the people of Greek origin from what seemed to be unremitting attacks from the opposition.

Leo Housakos, whose character was repeatedly attacked by members of all the opposition parties, is a very proud member of the Greek community whose service to the Greek community is second to none. He was director of the Montreal Hellenic Board of Trade, director of the Hellenic Academic Foundation, former director of Zoom Media, Hellas, Greece, and former executive vice-president of the Hellenic Congress of Quebec. This is someone of whom we are very proud. I believe that is the point the Prime Minister was making.

We should not be attacking these people. We should be taking pride in their origins, as we are, and be proud they have an opportunity to play a role in the mainstream of this country. It is not a crime for them to speak to people in the government. They should be allowed to participate in the mainstream of our country.

OK, is Peter Van Loan on crack? I mean, seriously. No one was attacking them for being Greek, or because they’re Greek. That’s ridiculous. When I attack Van Loan and Harper it’s not because they’re middle-aged white guys, it’s because they’re idiots.

As I said, no one raised ethnicity as an issue until Harper did. And then Van Loan goes further, suggesting somehow the opposition is questioning their right to participate in the mainstream of the country? First, bite me Peter. Second, where? Where exactly did that happen? Show me.

This is a transparent and pathetic attempt by Harper and Van Loan to divert attention from the real issue, and it’s not going to go away. And now Harper has another scandal to deal with. Hopefully he’ll do the right thing, and apologize.

And another thing…

Putting this whole thing aside, lets look again at the Conservative defence line for the influence scandal:

The government admits the meeting took place in August 2006.

But Harper pointed out that the government has not shifted its policy in the 18 months since and has continued its battle against the Montreal real-estate firm Rosdev.

"This is bizarre," Harper said in response to a question from the Bloc Quebecois.

"The Bloc is complaining that somebody - a company - didn't receive special treatment by this government."

Opposition parties called for an investigation by the federal ethics commissioner and the NDP said Soudas should be suspended in the meantime. The Bloc called the prime minister's answer unacceptable.

"What the prime minister's saying is, 'It didn't work, so that's okay,' " said Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe.

I think Duceppe has it exactly right here. It doesn’t matter that the intervention on the developers’ behalf failed. The issue is that the intervention never should have never happened in the first place. All the fact that it failed means is that Soudas probably doesn’t have a bright future as a lobbyist.

Anyway, now it’s all off to the Ethics Commissioner. But I remember when the Conservatives used to bray about the principle of Ministerial Responsibility. Does it not apply to Prime Ministers?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers