(Video) The League of Hypocrites: Harper, Layton, Duceppe

Looks like GritGirl is at it again:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Duceppe dishes: Harper's coalition negotiations with the BQ

For all of Stephen Harper's bluster about how evil coalitions with "socialists and separatists" are, more information continues to emerge about Harper's efforts as opposition leader in 2004 to put a coalition in place should they defeat Paul Martin's Liberal government.

Today, following the release of a secret Harper speech where he again resurrected the coalition bogeyman, BQ leader Gilles Duceppe took a few more skeletons out of Harper's own coalition closet:

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe said the video demonstrates the hypocrisy of Harper's approach to politics. He noted that Harper, as opposition leader, tried negotiating a deal with the Bloc and the NDP five years ago so that he could become prime minister.

"In 2004, Mr. Harper met me and (NDP Leader) Jack Layton at the Delta Hotel in Montreal to discuss a number of things," said Duceppe in an interview with the French-language LCN television news network.

"It was Mr. Harper who did this with those he called the `evil socialists' and the `evil separatists.' Today he's blaming others of supposedly doing this, which isn't the case."

Duceppe also blasted Harper for criticizing opposition parties for allegedly negotiating "backroom deals," saying that it contradicts what he did in the past and is causing Canadians to lose respect for politicians.

"He came to my office (as opposition leader) saying, `If I become prime minister, what would you like to see in my program to ensure that you'll support me and that I have a majority?"' Duceppe said. This is intolerable in politics. He wants an election at any price, just like Mr. Ignatieff wants and election at any price."

So Harper convened a backroom deal, with the ink still drying on the ballots that elected a Liberal monority government, summoning, in his words, "the separatists and the socialists" to try to negotiate a deal to form government. He was ready and willing to bargain for BQ support.

The three of them even held a joint press conference on Parliament Hill, and co-signed a letter to the Governor-General:

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice
has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party

Look, just to be clear, my issue isn't with coalitions. You can go back to my archives and read about my clear position through last November/December. My issue is, again, with the breathtaking hypocrisy of Stephen Harper. He says one thing and does another, and he'll do and say anything for political advantage. He seems to have no moral compass to guide him. A coalition will be the bees knees one day and the devil's scourge the next.

The guy just can't be trusted. And that's why he's got to go.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Stephen Harper's undemocratic coalition

The Harper reformatories seem to think ghosts of coalitions past will be a major issue in this election. I'm sure they don't mean their own Entente cordiale with the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, do they?

Yes, that's right. Back in 2004 when Paul Martin was Prime Minister, then opposition leader Stephen Harper got together with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. They wrote a letter to the Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, asking her that if the Martin government should fall on a confidence vote please don't give him an election. No, no. Instead, turn the reigns of government over to the Conservatives, who are confident they can govern with the support of the NDP and the BQ.

Here's the letter that Harper signed with Duceppe and Layton or, as he prefers to call them now, the "separatists and the socialists" where he asks the GG to turn to him after a confidence vote, an action that he and his party would later liken to a "coup."

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice
has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party

I guess coalitions are only undemocratic if they don't involve Stephen Harper. But then, Harper has flip-flopped on every position he has ever held in the name of political expediency, so what else is new?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Your deck is good for Quebec: BQ bounces ball to Harper

We're about to see something very telling about Stephen Harper's intentions in the days ahead. I wrote yesterday about how the Conservatives are playing games with your deck, setting up an early and unnecesary confidence vote on the Home Renovation Tax Credit as a way of either triggering an earlier defeat on their own terms, or forcing the Liberals into an embarrassing backdown.

The Conservatives were trying to fool Canadians into thinking the vote would put their already completed home renovations into jeopardy, something which just isn't true. Even the Globe editorial board, which has been quite harsh on the Liberals this week, called BS on the Conservative spin.

The Liberals responded to the Conservative game-playing by saying take a leap, we're voting against you on confidence motions just like we said we would, and we'll reintroduce the credit should we win the next election. Thus, the showdown was set.

All three parties need to vote No to topple the government though, and as Chantal Hebert reports today, the BQ indicates that it has decided your new deck is good for Quebec, and the party will support the ways and means motion:

Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois leader told Radio-Canada that if the government brings forward a supply motion to finance the home renovation program later this month, his party will support it.

Which means that, with BQ support, the motion (which parliamentary procedure wonks tell me is unnecessary to implement a tax decrease already approved in principle in the budget) will pass, the fake tax credit crisis will pass, and, unless Harper pulls another land mine out of his sack, the next trigger will be the Liberal opposition day late in the month.

However, here's the thing. If this wasn't about politics and Harper just wanted the tax credit rubber-stamped (and if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn) then he'll be pleased and that will be that.

But if this was about politics, trying to embarrass the Liberals, trying to avoid being supported by the BQ and NDP and trying to trigger an election on his own terms, Harper will be as livid at Gilles Duceppe for foiling his plans as the villians are in Scooby-Doo.

If Harper is determined to bring himself down on his own terms, he'll need to shake the BQ off. So, if we start to hear that the ways and means motion will also suddenly contain measures the BQ will never support -- I don't know, a declaration that the Maple Leafs are the best original six team or something -- then it will be painfully obvious what Harper's true intentions are.

For the few people for whom it's not already painfully obvious, that is.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Oh Gilles Duceppe, you aristocrat, you

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

An historic day in Canadian politics

What an amazing press conference yesterday with Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. Three political leaders that disagree on a lot setting it all aside to work for Canada (and Quebecers), agreeing to form a coalition government that could well change the face of Canadian politics forever. It’s high-risk but high-reward, and was an example of a statesmanship that fits the times, and that has been sorely missing on the other side of the House of Commons of late.

We’re a long ways from nirvana still, but as a Dionista from day one who had given up hope of ever seeing Stéphane in the PMO this was a heady day indeed, bringing back memories of the heady idealism of the Montreal convention. Even if it’s just for a few months, to see Stéphane leading our country will be sweet indeed.

And I have to say full credit to the NDP, and to Jack Layton. Both our parties have had to compromise to get this agreement done, but from compromise and negotiation comes good, stable, moderate and responsible government. With the best of both our parties, I’m excited to see what a progressive coalition can do for Canadians. I haven’t been a big fan of Jack Layton in the past, that’s no secret. But I liked the Jack Layton I saw in that press conference yesterday. Articulate, reasoned and passionate.

Certainly, there is risk involved here for all parties. For my Liberals, we risk elevating the NDP and giving them a new legitimacy and prominence. A move to the left may alienate some of our centre/right supporters. The NDP, as well, risks alienating their leftish supporters with a move towards the centre. Both sides are having to compromise.

However, I feel, and obviously Stéphane and Jack agree, that these risks are worth it to provide Canada the leadership it need in a time of economic crisis. The kind of leadership Stephen Harper has been continually unwilling to provide.

I’ll have more to say later about the challenges of the week ahead, and bringing this thing home. For now, let me just say that I do truly hope that this coalition, should it take government and should it prove successful, will herald a new era of cooperative Canadian politics.

With the fracturing of the political spectrum, any party getting a majority these days is highly unlikely, and that may never change. It’s time for a new norm in federal politics. Hopefully this progressive coalition will show Canadians the way.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Opposition leaders press conference

I wasn't at home this afternoon to click record on the opposition leaders press conference, but luckily it coincided with my pre-set recording of the Don Newman broadcast, so while I missed the beginning of Stéphane Dion's opening statement, I did get the bulk of the presser. Of course, it took some doing to get 30 minutes of footage down under the YouTube 10 minute limit for non-directors, so here are the highlights:

(BTW, watch the reaction of the unknown journalist in line when the guy from Sun Media asks a ridiculously-slanted question, jerking his head around in a WTF?! kinda way. It's priceless. Around 6:19)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Election Post-Mortem, Part One: The Greens and the BQ

The Green Party


It's hard not to call this a successful campaign for the Green Party, at least on the surface. Granted, they didn't elect an MP, and they lost their kinda-sorta MP in Blair Wilson. But there were a lot of other victories for the Greens in this election.

They earned 6.8 per cent of the vote, up 2.3 per cent. They'll get a larger taxpayer subsidy. Elizabeth May participated in the televised leaders debates. They ran their first television ads. The Greens have arrived on the national political scene as a serious player, a fringe party no longer.

On the downside, they failed to elect an MP, despite their best-funded campaign ever, despite May's profile and performance in the debates, despite the Liberal non-aggression pact.

Moreover, I think the Greens have some soul-searching to do. The strategic voting yes, strategic voting no tap dance of May down the stretch was comical. And it seemed to speak to serious schisms within the party, with some candidates saying knock it off we want to win, and two candidates actually dropping-out to support Liberals.

The Greens need to ask themselves what want to be: are they a serious political party that stands for a range of policy options and wants to elect MPs to advance them, or do they want to merely fight the good fight, speak to those issues, and then allow or encourage their vote to melt away to more mainstream contenders?

Because I don't see how you can do both. And if the Greens are going to consolidate their gains and continue their growth, at some point they'll need to start acting like an actual political party that actually wants to elect people. For the Greens, strategic voting doesn't make sense. There's no riding where you can make the strategic argument to vote Green, and there never will be if they keep sending those mixed signals.

If your primary consideration is stopping Conservatives, join the party with the best chance of doing so. If you're concerned about vote-splitting on the left, then enter talks with the other parties about cooperation, or electoral reform. But if you're going to run candidates, you need to support all of them, not just some.

Leadership issues: I think Elizabeth May is offside with much of her party on these issues. Many of those that shared her views took the logical step of joining other parties and advancing the Green cause from within them. Many of those left stayed Green for a reason. If she's to stay as leader, they need to work these things out.

The Bloc Quebecois


This party has been written off more times than I can count. They were supposed to fade away after Dion and Chretien’s post-referendum initiatives and a Jean Charest provincial government contributed to a waning of support for sovereignty, but them sponsorship gave them a reprieve.

This election a surging Conservative Party was poised to decimate them, having spent two years and billions of dollars wooing Quebec nationalists, but two small missteps on culture and youth crime and a misread of the Quebecois gave the BQ new life. They also seemed to benefit more from the NDP's aggressive Quebec attack ads than the NDP did.

Much was made of a surging BQ in this election that would decimate the Conservatives in Quebec. That didn't materialize. The Quebec picture ended-up much the same as it was before the election, and actually down one seat from their 2006 result. However, the recovery of BQ support was enough to deny the Conservatives the majority the rest of the country voted them.

So once again a new lease on life for the BQ, but they still face questions about their continued reason for existence, and unless they can define themselves one wonders if Harper won't get it right in Quebec next time, and finally wipe them out. And praying for divine intervention once again doesn't seem like much of a strategy.

Since the BQ doesn't talk about sovereignty much anymore anyway, perhaps there is room for a Quebec-only nationalist party on the political scene. Reform was successful as a Western party, it was their desire to expand into Ontario (and challenge for government) that led to their struggles. How the BQ carry themselves in this parliament will be a test for them.

It seems to me though they're fighting over one (large) piece of the Quebec vote with the Conservatives and now the NDP, who both court that nationalist vote. The Conservatives can deliver things the BQ never will be able to. Unless they carve out a role of some sort, it's hard to see their future, particularly if the Liberals ever get their act together in Quebec.

Leadership issues: I can't see Gilles Duceppe being under pressure from within, but then I don't know that party. But it seems to me if he wants to keep the job, it's his. I just wonder how long he'll want it. What is there left for him to accomplish? At times, it just seems like he's going through the motions.

Tomorrow: Part Two: The NDP

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Conservative mask is slipping

The polls open in less than 24 hours, but despite running a bubble campaign that has seen at least 119 Conservative candidate muzzlings and a Prime Minister in Stephen Harper that is no longer deigning to answer questions from members of the media, the true face of the Conservative agenda is beginning to show.

For example, there's Dean Del Mastro, the Conservative candidate for Peterborough, who in this video tells a pro-abortion rally on Parliament Hill. Del Mastro assures the crowd that the abortion "issues matters and is not going away" and that the abortion "laws will change in this country." (h/t) No matter what Harper says (when he is willing to actually speak to people) his caucus clearly has other ideas on abortion:



Then there's Peter Kent, the former Conservative TeleVision (CTV) anchor running again as a star Conservative candidate in Thornhill. In a recent debate, Kent called for more private clinics in Canada, a dangerous move towards a two-tier health care system for Canada where there's one system for the rich (who can afford to follow Stephen Harper's stock tips) and another for the rest of us. Once again, Harper's flimsy promises are overridden by his own caucus:

A Conservative candidate's suggestion that a private clinic be used as a model for health delivery across Canada prompted opposition charges that Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to expand for-profit health care outside the public system.

Peter Kent made the comment during a recent campaign debate in Toronto's Thornhill riding.

Besides letting their ultra-conservative mask slip, the Conservatives are also staying classy on the campaign trail. Like Luc Harvey, the Quebec Conservative MP that showed up at a BQ campaign event to shout at and heckle Gilles Duceppe. Remember when Preston Manning wanted to restore decorum to Ottawa? I do.

A Conservative MP crashed a Bloc Québécois campaign event in Quebec City today, haranguing Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe who was shaking hands and meeting voters at a local market.

Conservative candidate Luc Harvey narrowly won by 231 votes in the riding of Louis-Hébert in 2006, and is fighting for his political life in the face of polls that predict a Bloc victory in his riding in Tuesday's election.

As Mr. Duceppe talked to farmers and clients at the Marché Public de Sainte-Foy, Mr. Harvey walked up from behind and asked Mr. Duceppe to say what he has accomplished since his election in 1990.

“Tell us about your record,” Mr. Harvey shouted.

There's also Axel Kuhn, the Conservative candidate in Etobicoke-Centre, who distributed a flyer attacking Liberal incumbent Borys Wrzesnewskyj that contained out and out lies, attacking him for not attending committees he's not even a member of, or that don't even exist.

What does it take for an Ontario Superior Judge to leave his Thanksgiving dinner to grant an emergency injunction? Ask Axel Kuhn, the Conservative candidate in Etobicoke Centre, whose latest electoral advertising effort seems to cross the line into actual defamation, according to Justice G. R. Strathy, who earlier today took the rare step of barring Kuhn’s campaign from distributing campaign literature targeting his Liberal rival, incumbent MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

And then there's Stephen Harper himself, who delayed his campaign schedule last week and held his first impromptu press conference to attack Stephane Dion for being unable to answer a poorly-worded question in his second language.

I don't buy their smokescreen that he couldn't answer the question because "he has no plan" for the economy. He has been talking about his plan for weeks before Harper even introduced his platform. The plan was expanded with the "30-day plan, unveiled in the French-language debate, a plan Harper attacked as a sign Dion was "panicking" on the economy.

How, prey tell, could Dion be panicking by releasing a plan when he doesn't even have a plan? The Conservative talking points are tripping over themselves. They make no sense. Their presser was about insinuating that because Dion's English isn't perfect (it's better then that CTV interviewer's though), he's not fit to lead our country. I even heard a Conservative radio ad the other day that used the line "can you imagine him representing us on the world stage?" Real nice. I'm sure this message will go over real well with all the Canadians for whom English is their second language.

It's a good thing for Conservatives that Canadians are more understanding of Harper's difficulties with French:



We're also more understanding of Stephen Harper's problems with English. Unless we're really voting on February 14th:



And unless he really gave us $300,000 in tax breaks (I'm still waiting for my cheque, by the way Steve):



This has been one of the most mean-spirited campaigns I've seen in years run by the Conservatives, and one that has been based almost entirely on lies. They lie about our climate change plan, they like about our massive tax cuts, they say we'll cut the child care subsidy when we'll really increase it, they say we'll raise the GST when we said no such thing and that indeed we will not, they put out attack fliers filled with lies that Ontario Superior Court judges have to interrupt their turkey dinners to issue injunctions against. They display no empathy for ordinary Canadians worried about their jobs and their savings and offer no plan for the economy besides buying bargain stocks. Their candidates refuse to attend all-candidates meetings or talk to the media, and their "leader" even turtles for the last days of the campaign, afraid he might go off script and say something he actually believes.

Do we really want more of this?

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

Throne speech after dark – No election, says I

While I was watching the pre-game coverage on the CBC it certainly was clear the media think there’s going to be an election. Or, at least, they want there to be an election. The media like covering elections. Its fun. And easier then covering policy, to be sure.

Me, prior to hearing the speech I wasn’t so sure, I was thinking Harper, despite his bluster, is a sager judge of the political landscape than many give him credit for, and doesn’t think it’s in his best interests to go now either.

But then I heard their plans for copyright reform…to the hustings, says I!

But seriously, no. I think the message from this speech is that Harper doesn’t want an election. There’s no poison pill in here. There’s a lot I don’t like, but nothing to vote the government down over. It was a yawner. As Ignatieff said, vague and disappointing. No vision. No energy.

Some of the contentious issues: Afghanistan, spending power, crime, Kyoto, gun registry.

On Afghanistan, they said they’d like to see us stay past 2009, but the majority of parliament will decide in a vote. So, we’ll decide that then. It also mentions the Manley panel, for Harper to spin a vote for the speech as a vote in favour of 2011 would be Harper neutering his own panel, so that’s a non-starter. Legislation to limit the federal spending power? I disagree, but it will be debated in separate legislation. Crime? I guess those are the bills the Cons stalled themselves stalled, right? Let him reintroduce them and if he wants to make them confidence votes, we’ll deal with that then. Kyoto? After Harper shelving the Clean Air legislation of course we can’t meet the commitments now, that’s not a surprise. And the gun registry repealed? They’ve been saying that for years and haven’t tried yet. Why not? Quebec.

The opposition reacts. Dueppe? Whatever. Layton? Please. I give the line of the night to Michael Ignatieff:

“I love getting lessons in principles from the NDP.”

But I laughed heartily at this comment to Smiling Jack from generic CBC reporter #3:

“I appreciate you might need some time to review the finer points of the speech.”

Yeah, he was really back and forth on his talking points until he stepped-up to the microphone, could have gone either way. Fact is, Layton decided how he was going to make his caucus vote before Harper even decided what the GG was going to say. That’s the luxury of not having to be a responsible opposition party, or one with a reasonable chance of ever forming government. You don’t have to think that much, or make hard choices.

Or know much about how our parliamentary system, such as with this line, where he buys the CPC line that voting for the throne speech…

“(Dion) will have given Mr. Harper a mandate to govern.”

No it doesn’t Jack, only an election gives anyone a mandate. Once again, the NDP parrots asinine Conservative talking points. Colour me surprised.

Lastly, my own Liberals. Where was Stephane Dion, pray tell? Why in the frick was he not in front of a camera? I mean, seriously. That’s whack thinking there. They put Iggy up, he tap danced as best he could.

So, what will the Liberals do? Beats me. That’s probably why Dion isn’t showing himself tonight. They’re still trying to figure it out. The media rumour is Dion wants to go/feels he needs to go; but much of the party isn’t onboard.

Since I don’t know what they’ll do, what do I think they should do? I think, at this point it’s up to us. There’s no poison pill so there’s no moral imperative to force an election. We can safely go either way. If the party wasn’t in such a clusterf*** in Quebec I’d say let’s go to the polls. Given the mess we’re in though, some more time would be nice.

So, all things considered, an election now? I vote no. Canadians don’t want an election. The Conservatives don’t want an election. The Liberals don’t want an election. Neither do the BQ or the NDP, they just want to attack the Liberals while they hide behind us. Make no mistake, Jack is stalled in the polls and wouldn’t gain any ground in a vote.

There’s nothing nuclear in this speech, nothing to get overly excited about. It was dull and boring. If they bring in legislation that’s bad for Canada, we’ll deal with it then. Until then, let’s keep parliament working. It would be nice to see the opposition parties take the battle to Harper by getting together on some legislation and amendments for a change.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Exclusive: More food polling numbers

You may have read about yesterday’s Harvey’s hamburger poll, but that was just the first of what will be a bountiful harvest of food-related polling numbers. My sources in the mysterious world of public opinion measurement have forwarded me the results of a couple of polls to be released in the coming days, and I’m going to share the high-level results with you.

The first poll is the East Side Mario’s Vegetable Lasagna poll, which asked Canadians which federal political leader they’d most like to invite out for a dinner of vegetable lasagna. Dion did better here than he did with the hamburger crowd, but still lagged behind the leader. And Harper suffered a serious setback with the veggie crowd. Here’s the numbers:

Jack Layton: 30 per cent
Elizabeth May: 28 per cent
Stephane Dion: 25 per cent
Stephen Harper: 11 per cent
Gilles Duceppe: 6 per cent
Sample size 1000 Canadians MOE: +/- 5 percentage points 19 times out of 20

These results aren’t overly surprising, after all vegetarians tend to be lefties and Harper eats nothing but Alberta beef.

The next poll is the La Boulangerie Quiche Loraine poll, which asked Canadians which federal political leader they’d most like to share Quiche Loraine with.

Stephane Dion: 37 per cent
Stephen Harper: 29 per cent
Jack Layton: 15 per cent
Giles Duceppe: 14 per cent
Elizabeth May: 5 per cent
Sample size 1500 Canadians MOE: +/- 4 percentage points 19 times out of 20

Here Dion scored very well, though he still lost to Duceppe in the Quebec numbers. Harper showed surprising strength with quiche eaters as well. Much of May’s support came from vegans, which hurt her quiche numbers.

So, I think the results of these surveys when viewed together show us that Canada is indeed a diverse, multi-gastronomical mosaic, unlike the gastronomic stewing-pot of the U.S., for example. And clearly no political leader has had much success growing their support beyond their gastronomic base.

And doing so is fraught with challenge. If Harper, for example, starts eating vegetable lasagna in public, that may cost him support with his beef-eating base that will think he’s gone sissy. Unless, of course, they recognize the vegetable-eating is only part of the majority quest, and part of his hidden dinner agenda. His frequent quiche photo-ops, though, have yet to pay dividends, despite the ADQ’s breakthrough.

UPDATE: Just in case it's unclear, those last two polls are made up. No one likes vegetable lasagna. But the hamburger one though is totally real.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Gilles: The media made me do it

Man, this guy is fast being exposed as a real nutbar. I remember watching Gilles kick ass in the election debates and thinking dam, if only this guy wasn’t a separatist…watching his press conference this morning I really wonder what happened to that Gilles Duceppe?


Everyone will know the story by now of Duceppe’s 24 hours in the Quebec PQ leadership race, where he announced he was running to replace Bosclair and then dropped out of the race a day later to endorse Pauline Marois.

Duceppe just held a press conference on the Hill, flanked by his caucus, to face the media and discuss the whole farce. It was really rather amusing. If I could sum up his remarks it would be this: I made a mistake, and the media made me do it.

He explained how on Friday, when he met with his advisors he didn’t want to go, but…“journalists were asking me and correctly I think you didn’t go in 2005 so if you don’t go now, what does that mean…emotionally I acted against my emotions and said yes, I’ll go….I made an error…”

So he listened to the media commentators and went, then a day later he flip-flopped to his senses and changed his mind…“It was a mistake. I’m sort of methodical. To make a mistake like that? But I don’t know. We’re not made of wood, we politicians.”

So now he intends to stay in Ottawa and lead the BQ. He apparently has gotten a vote of confidence from his caucus and, if he gets a vote of confidence from the BQ’s national council in October, he says he intends to lead the party into the next federal election.

Despite the show of unity with his caucus behind him though you have to think Gilles Duceppe’s days as leader of the BQ are numbered. In just a few days the guy has shed so much of his hard-earned credibility. If the “media commentators” start calling for his ouster, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him go…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper's Conservative team

More numbers from SES Research today, and these ones are decidedly less positive for the Liberals than these. It's the infamous “Best PM” numbers, and once again Steve Harper is a run-away leader while Stephane Dion lags well back.

Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister:
Stephen Harper: 42 per cent
Stephane Dion: 17 per cent
Jack Layton: 16 per cent
Gilles Duceppe: 7 per cent
Elizabeth May: 4 per cent
None: 7 per cent
Unsure: 6 per cent

Not a good situation for the Dion Liberals. As I've said before this isn't insurmountable (particularly given the party support numbers) but, and it's a big but, we need to start turning this around soon before it does become insurmountable. I mentioned the other day how the Liberals have been unable to build their support in the party support numbers; it would appear Dion's (lack of) popularity is holding those numbers back.

I'd wager those "Not a Leader" attack ads from the CPC have found their mark. While they haven't budged Liberal support, they have weakened Dion as a leader and sapped his ability to grow the party's support. What's the answer? Hey, I think he's the bees knees so it's hard for me to say. One thing I often hear is when people see him in person, they like him, so keep getting him out there. And hope there's no election this spring.

While Dion lags his party in popularity, it's also interesting to note Harper is more popular than his party by six points. It wasn't that long ago Conservatives saw Harper as a liability, now he looks to be their greatest asset. A cautionary note, I think, on how quickly these things can change. Will be interesting to see how this might effect CPC strategy: even more all Harper, all the time?

Looking at the regional numbers (pdf), hard to find any bright spots for the Libs:

And here's commentary from SES boss Nik Nankos:

What is emerging is a situation where one leader is ahead of his party (Harper) and another leader trails his party (Dion). Of note, Harper is the second choice as the best PM among committed Liberals, New Democrats and BQ voters and the first choice as Best PM in the province of Quebec.

As shown in the previous research conducted with CPAC, Harper does well on leadership factors. From a polling perspective, Liberal ballot box support is being maintained by entrenched party support. The Conservatives are more likely to be encumbered by residual concerns on social issues (code - abortion/same sex marriage etc.).

Even with these numbers, one should exercise caution. Perceptions of leaders can turn quickly. All it would take is for one attack ad on Dion to go too far to potentially turn the numbers and change the environment.

Interesting times. I still think things are volatile. You have to remember, In our first past the post system, with 40% support winners take all. With numbers like these we may see more of a “Harper Government” and less of the “New Conservative Government”

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers