BrieflyNotBriefly, the deal with all that referendum talk last night

You could have been forgiven for tuning in to last night’s debate and being bewildered by the exchange between Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair about the threshold for accepting a yes vote in a sovereignty referendum. So, as briefly as possible, here’s what’s up with that.

• In the 1995 Quebec referendum, the No side eked out a bare win with 50.58 per cent of the vote. The question set by the Parti Quebecois government was widely considered confusing and unclear. There were rampant reports of voter fraud by the Yes side. A younger Tom Mulcair called for an inquiry. “This was an orchestrated, manipulated electoral fraud,” Mulcair said

• The Liberal government of Jean Chretien recruited Stephane Dion to cabinet and responded in two major ways. The first was a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada that asked the court to answer three questions: can the government of any province separate unilaterally, would that be allowed by international law, and in a  conflict between domestic and international law, which would take precedence?

• Nine of 10 justices ruled that unilateral succession is not legal, but the Government of Canada would have to negotiate with the provincial government if a clear will to separate was expressed by the populace. The court confirmed the Federal Government could decide if the question was fair or not, and it opted to not state the vote threshold necessary, simply requiring a “clear majority.”

• Chretien and Dion followed up the Court reference by introducing The Clarity Act, which formalized the terms under which a province could seek to separate in the future. It stated the Government of Canada would only open negotiations on separation following a clear majority staying a desire to do so on a clear question, and the Government of Canada would decide what is a clear question, and what is a clear majority following the results.

• The bill was popular in English Canada, scared by the near referendum loss and wanting, well, clarity. It was deeply unpopular in much of Quebec, obviously with sovereigntists, but also with the federalist political elite that favoured more of an appeasement approach.

OK, so that’s the background. But, you say, support for sovereignty is at all-time lows in Quebec, so why are we talking about this? Fair question. Here’s why.

• In 2005, NDP members passed the Sherbrooke Declaration as its official policy on a sovereignty referendum. It repudiated the Clarity Act, saying it is up to the legislative assembly alone to set the question and an NDP government will accept a vote of 50 per cent plus one. That position, which would require the Clarity Act to be repealed, went largely unnoticed and unchallenged as, at the time, the NDP wasn’t seen as a likely candidate for government.

• This position was regularly affirmed as official NDP over the next decade, including by Mulcair several times in the last few months, including in Quebec in June on the eve of Fête Nationale. And in 2013, NDP MP Craig Scott introduced a private member’s bill that sought to repeal the Clarity Act and legalize 50 plus one as the threshold for a sovereignty referendum. 

• So we’re talking about this because it is part of the NDP platform, because the NDP is talking about it, because the NDP wants a mandate to do this if they form a government, and because the polls show that’s a realistic proposition.

Alright, fair enough you say, but why are they both so eager to whack each other over it?

• Mulcair has a Quebec base to protect, and keeping it means keeping all those soft nationalist voters that abandoned the Bloc Quebecois. His position on the Clarity Act is decidedly in the mainstream in Quebec. Outside of what I’ll call the Dion federalists, most Quebecers agree with Mulcair and the NDP on this.

• Trudeau and the Liberals have always viewed themselves as the champions of a united Canada. And Trudeau’s position is very popular everywhere but Quebec. The Clarity Act just makes sense to most Canadians. And in Quebec, frankly, the Liberal vote has been limited for many years, and those Dion federalists are not an insubstantial voting block – Liberals increased their seat count there with Dion in 2008.

• Will this issue actually move votes though, in Quebec or anywhere else? Who can say. 

OK you say, I get it now, but I gotta ask, why didn’t the Court just spell out a number? And why wouldn’t Trudeau last night?

• The Court didn’t forget to set a number; it very deliberately decided to use the phrase clear majority. The NDP has contended 50 per cent + 1 is a clear majority. Liberals counter if the court meant a majority, they’d have said majority, but they said clear majority, and if 50+1 is a clear majority, what’s an unclear majority?

• A number wasn’t set because a clear majority depends on a number of factors. What was the turnout? Was there voter fraud that could put the margin in question, as Mulcair raised the warning about in 1995? What was the geographic distribution? These are just a few of the questions I’d want to consider in determining if it was a clear majority or not. And you can’t put a number on that in advance; it’s impossible and would be irresponsible. In short, to channel Chretien, a clear majority is a clear majority, and when you have a clear majority it will be clear.

Alright, enough, this is no longer a brief explanation you complain. But lastly, what about Harper? He stayed above the fray last night. Where is he on all this?

• As exasperated as the rest of us that the NDP has left us no choice but to be talking about this. But his position on the Clarity Act is clear and on the record: he supports it, and Reformers have often claimed the idea was stolen from their policy chief – one Stephen Harper.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Firefighters run towards fires; politicians should stay out of the way

Stephen Harper's forest fire firefighter photo-op gone wrong this week reminded me of the time a campaign I was involved in was faced with a similar fire-related choice.

In the summer election of 2004, I was helping with communications in Skeena-Bulkley Valley on the campaign of our Liberal candidate, Miles Richardson. It was a fun campaign in one of the largest ridings in Canada -- we'd send Miles on the road from our Prince Rupert base and not see him for a week. We were confident we'd dispatch Conservative incumbent Andy Burton, but we didn't expect the NDP's Nathan Cullen to sneak up the middle. I remember Nathan as an friendly, cherry guy who went around saying "I agree with everything Miles just said -- but I'm not a Liberal, so vote for me."

We had a late-campaign rally scheduled for Terrace with Prime Minister Paul Martin, and had been working for a week on the logistics of bussing in supporters from Prince Rupert, Smithers, and communities across the massive riding.

But then Mother Nature threw a wrench in our best-laid plans, and forest fires began to rage in Northern British Columbia. And the Terrace Airport, where Martin, his entourage and the national media were scheduled to fly into, was ground zero for the effort to fight the forest fires.

With the fires still raging the morning of the scheduled rally, the decision of our campaign and the leader's tour team was clear -- we cannot run the risk that Martin flying into Terrace Airport could divert or distract any resources away from the firefighting effort. That had to be the priority.

So on less than half a day's notice, we shifted the rally from Terrace to Prince Rupert, a two-hour drive away. And to complicate matters further, the rally would have to be at the airport -- and Prince Rupert's airport is on an island, accessible from Prince Rupert only by a small ferry that doesn't run as often as you'd like. Still, after a lot of frantic effort we pulled off a successful rally. And, most importantly, the efforts to fight the forest fires were able to continue without interruption.

Then there's Harper, who this week flew right into the flames and diverted resources from the firefighting effort for a hollow photo-op with BC Premier Christy Clark, who also should have known better. A local reporter with guts captured the mood of the locals well:

For a second straight day, firefighting efforts at the Westside Road fire were the backdrop for political photo ops.
Today, several federal politicians stood around waiting, occasionally wiping dirt from their clothing while sweaty, ash-covered, exhausted-looking firefighters surrounded them for the tightly controlled photo opportunity. Helicopters carrying empty buckets buzzed overhead and a steady stream of wildfire fighting aircraft circled prior to the event.

The publication explained to the Huffington Post why it went with the headline "Man in blue suit thanks firefighters" and took the tone it did:

(Harper) chose to make a campaign statement about possibly sharing firefighting costs, but no date, no commitment to put him on the record. We thought the focus should be on the firefighters...We thought it was entirely appropriate for what happened and we are a little surprised other media didn't treat it similarly.

So am I, frankly. Still, the media coverage is besides the point, because the rule should be clear: only firefighters should run towards the fire; politicians should just stay out of the way.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper’s credibility, the evening news and life outside the Commons

The mistake many politically aware and involved people make is believing everyone follows the ins and outs of every political development as much as they do. They don’t. People are busy. They have other priorities. Believing that everyone shares their anger is a mistake partisans too routinely make.

Most Canadians, for example, don’t watch Power and Politics or Question Period (sorry Evan and Don). Many of them do, however, watch their local evening news. What my extended family knows about current events, they get there. Myself, I watch CTV Toronto’s 6pm newscast most nights, having long ago resigned myself to the fact I live in Toronto and so I may as well learn what’s going on here.

And last night, for the first time I can remember outside a general election, federal politics led the newscast. CTV News at Six did four minutes on the day’s developments on the Senate front, and it wasn’t positive for Prime Minister Harper. The focus was on Mike Duffy’s speech, documents and allegations about the Harper PMO, with a mention of Harper’s evolving language on Wright (from resigned to dismissed) thrown in for good measure.

As I tweeted last night, that’s a broadcast that real people watch. And the report went directly to what has been a Harper strength with Canadians: leadership and competence. Step outside the bubble and what do most Canadians think of the Prime Minister? Not overly warm, but a competent manager and a strong leader that runs a tight ship. The Conservatives have played to this for years, branding successive Liberal leaders as “not a leader” and weak or in over their hands in comparison to Harper’s strong leadership as a beacon in troubled times.

The Senate affair is particularly worrying for the Conservatives (prompting Harper’s Mad As Hell radio tour) because it chips at those very strengths. It shows him as either unaware of what’s going on in his office or complicit in the very sort of unethical behavior he was elected to eliminate, as willing to write cheques to make problems go away and, increasingly, as unable to keep Conservative Senators, MPs and others in line, as they increasingly go off the script he has tried to set. Harper is the common thread -- he hired Nigel Wright, he appointed Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau, his office is at the centre of it all.

He once ran ads alleging Stephane Dion wasn’t a leader because Liberal senators were acting independently – now even the former Conservative Party president, Senator Don Plett, is bucking under the Harper whip. When you sell yourself as a strong leader, it's hard to claim ignorance of what's happening around you.

Most people won’t look at it that in-depth. What they will get, though, is the impression that maybe Harper isn’t much of a leader after all. Maybe he’s not as ethical as he says. No one scandal can flip the impressions that people have, but they can plant seeds.

It’s too early to say what the lasting impact, if any, of this affair will be. However, the drip drip of scandal is cumulative. The Harper Conservatives have weathered many storms, some bigger and more important than others, from Afghan Detainees and contempt of Parliament to prorogation, robocalls and in and out. None will shift impressions on their own. But each nudges the needle, and germinate the seeds planted from earlier incidents. Eventually, new narratives begin to form.

Even then, new impressions don’t necessarily prove fatal. At best, people will become open to considering alternatives. For the government to pay a price, and for the opposition parties to be in a position to benefit, there has to be credible alternatives for them to consider. One reason Conservatives haven’t paid the price that some partisans felt they should for past scandals is that Canadians weren’t enamored of their alternatives. Sometimes, it’s better the devil you know.

The gallery and partisans tend to focus on the House of Commons and the melodrama of question period. But that’s the bubble. Canadians don’t watch question period. At best, they might see a few seconds in a clip on the evening news. They don’t care who is best at cross-examining Harper. The next election will not be won in the House of Commons.

The next election will be won in church basements, Legion halls and coffee shops across Canada. After the Conservatives lost in 2004, Harper planted the seeds for victory in 2006 with an extensive cross-country tour. The Commons is important and shouldn’t be ignored, but it’s not the real battleground.

The Senate scandal may cause Canadians to once again examine their alternatives. And what they’ll be looking for hasn’t changed: they want leadership that understands their challenges and shares their priorities. Scandal will come and go, but we should see the forest for the trees. Building that alternative must be our real and enduring focus.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Justin Trudeau won’t be so easy to ill-define

The day after Justin Trudeau was elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, as predictably as the sun rises in the East, the Conservatives did what the Conservatives do – they released negative personal attack ads. It’s all they know how to do.

And it has worked for them before (see Dion, Stephen and Ignatieff, Michael). Will they make it a hat trick? Time will tell, but it was interesting, as these ads were released, to read a new poll from Ekos. I said the other day to ignore the polls, and that advice holds, particularly the horse race numbers. But in the context of these attacks – and the Conservative attempt to again negatively define a Liberal leader before he can define himself – the job approval numbers merit examination.

Trudeau registered 36 per cent approval and 26 per cent disapproval, for a +10 margin. Not a runaway freight train, but significantly ahead of Stephen Harper, at 28 per cent approval and 50 per cent disapproval (-22) and Thomas (Tom) Mulcair at 26 approve, 30 per cent disapprove (-4). Harper’s negative number is quite striking, but otherwise take these numbers with a grain of salt – Trudeau just had his first real day on the job yesterday, after all. His opponents aren't starting from positions of strength, however.

One measure that is more durable (and interesting) though is the "don’t know" response on the approval rating. Trudeau was at just 34.6 per cent, down steadily from 60 per cent when the leadership race was gearing-up last September.

What does this show? Trudeau is rapidly becoming less of a blank slate. For better or worse (mostly for the better at the moment) two-thirds of Canadians have already formed their impression of him. As Ekos president Frank Graves put it, “more than 5 million voters have a view on him who didn't at the outset of the race.” Which means it will be more difficult for any coordinated Conservative attempt to cement a negative impression to be effective.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have largely given Mulcair a pass, but he remains surprisingly undefined with Canadians, with 40.7 per cent answering don’t know with regards to his job approval. For that number to be that high after one year as leader of the official opposition, with all the media attention that entails, and with the Liberals lacking a permanent leader, is astounding (and a credit to the effectiveness of interim Liberal leader in Bob Rae). Even in Quebec, Mulcair’s home province, home of the Orange Wave, where Mulcair was a popular provincial environment minister, 44.2 per cent answered don’t know. He remains remarkably undefined, which speaks to the work he still has to do.

Luckily for Mulcair and the NDP, the Conservatives don’t seem in a hurry to step in and fill that void with a negative impression – they’re more focused on Trudeau and the Liberals (which is telling). But as the numbers show, that will be a rather more difficult challenge.

Which isn’t to say it’s not impossible. For the Liberals and Trudeau, continuing to drive down that don’t know number, and replacing it with a positive (and substantive) impression, must be a focus.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Budget 2012 shows Harper plans to stick around awhile

A week or so later, I've finally had a chance to take a gander through the Budget 2012 documents. I like to look through the source documents on things like this rather than rely on media and punditry analysis to form my opinions. And having  done so, I have to say my conclusion is that Stephen Harper plans to stick around for a little while.

Both the left and the right are angry with him, and they both have cases to make. The right wanted sweeping moves to reform and reduce the size of government now that the Conservatives have an unfettered majority. That's not what they got. And the left, besides being upset that the budget (of course) didn't invest in their priority areas, are upset at the areas Harper did decide to cut.

Majority or minority, Harper has generally struck me as a fairly patient man, and one with a plan. He does share the goal of his fellow right-wing travellers for smaller government (his high spending budgets notwithstanding). His most substantial move in this regard was cutting the GST by two per cent a few years ago, which deprives his (and future) government of billions in revenue, tax increases now being largely politically toxic. He wants a smaller role for government too, he just parts ways with some of the right on the timeline.

He took an incremental approach in the minority era because he didn't want his government to fall. With a majority he now has a blank cheque, and majority tradition is to do all the unpopular stuff in year one and then spend the next three trying to win the people back for re-election. If he implemented the kind of massive sweeping and transformative change that some wanted though, even with three years to soften the blow re-election would be a real challenge.

Instead, as has been his practice, he opted for an incremental approach. But if you look closely, the road to smaller government, less checks and balances to his executive power, and progress on Conservative pet peeves is definitely there, from cuts that will force a radical transformation of the CBC (once it loses Hockey Night in Canada and a big chunk of its ad revenue) to a gutting of environmental review regulations and reductions to funding for Elections Canada, which has sparred with the Conservatives over their violations of election law. Reduced funding to Parliament will also make it harder for MPs to do their basic duty of scrutinizing government legislation.

Call it transformation by stealth but slowly, year by year, he's re-making government in a more conservative mould, while working to make the changes difficult to do and harder to oppose. Massive changes overnight would be a rallying cry that could galvanize public opposition. By moving incrementally, he appears relatively moderate to the public, which is what they want. Of course the opposition is going to scream loudly; they always do. The public just tunes it out without something major to draw their attention.

What this budget shows me is that Harper plans to govern for many years to come. Conservatives can shelve any plans for a leadership race; it looks like he plans to run in 2015. At the very least, he wants to hand a good situation over to his successor.

But I think he plans to continue his agenda of incremental conservatization, year by year, for years to come. Conservatization by stealth. He told us once that when he was finished with Canada, we wouldn't recognize it. The change may not be clear year to year, but by the time he's done it definitely will be.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

My day two video blog from Conservative Convention 2011

Back again with my day two video blog of Friday's fun and games at the Conservative convention in Ottawa.

We got shut out of the good stuff, such as the constitutional and policy workshops where, once again, the creation of a youth wing was soundly rejected, perhaps on orders and pressure from the party brass. Scott Reid's semi-one member one vote motion also got a rough ride, but it appears he has enough signatures to get it to the convention floor through other means.

Things I did get to see though included a panel of pundits, research on Conservatism with Preston Manning, heckling protesters and a speech from Stephen Harper. Here's my video blog:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Navigating the anti-Harper protest line (video)

After venturing off campus Friday afternoon to have a drink with an old Carleton friend, I returned to the conference centre to find the road out front closed and filled with about 200 protesters there to greet Stephen Harper who was due to speak to delegates that evening. I proceeded to work my way through the rather profane cloud who were swearing at anyone in site they thought might be a Conservative. This included me, in my Walmart sportcoat and Zellers shirt. I particularly enjoyed being told to choke on my money, as we all know how well blogging pays...

Here's a look on video:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liveblogging Harperpalooza gloat-a-thon 2011

7:01 PM: I've settled in on press row for the evening keynote by Stephen Harper. I'm a little late but, thankfully and true to form, Harper is even later and the event shows no sign of starting, so it's all good.

Was off campus meeting a friend from my Carleton days for a drink, and had to run a bit of a protester gauntlet to get back in. The area in front of the conference centre is cordoned off from traffic and there were maybe less than 200 people making their feelings felt. It seemed like a rainbow of issues, united only by their dislike of Steve.

Flashing my blogger badge I managed to finally get past the activist cyclists who tried to block me with their bikes, finally crossing the barricade as a protester told me to go enjoy my money. Hey, I'm a blogger, if only...

The keynote hall isn't filled with chairs but it is now standing-room only and then some. Apparently delegates launched a raid on the press section for chairs (I think the press let them have five chairs, but five only). Staff replenished the press riser (in the far back of the hall) and press are now trying to guard their seats.

With that, I think you're caught up. I'll pause until the program begins, hopefully soonish.

7:12 PM: And we're starting; about 42 minutes late masters of ceremony Steve Blaney and Pam Wallin are on the stage getting things started. I'm distracted by more chair marauders, but I just heard someone say "strong, stable blah..." so I'm doing a shot in my mind. And wondering how far they're going to run into the Canucks game...

The pre-show is still going on though, with Jacques Demers interviewing James Moore on the floor, a Canucks fan celebrating his birthday today. And the crowd breaks into a not overly spirited rendition of Happy Birthday. It's also Preston Manning's birthday today.

Meanwhile, pretend reporter Mike Duffy is talking to delegates as well. But diverging for a moment, the Conservatives don't have near enough chairs here. The room isn't full, tons of empty space, but a few hundred are being forced to stand. Including a number of seniors. The media are being forced to give up chairs or be jerks, when really the party should (and could) put out enough chairs for attendees.

My head down, but Duffy just made a comment about "little women visiting native reserves" by themselves or something; yeesh.

7:21 PM: Wallin is going on about how Harper doesn't look for parades and lead them, he's guided by his principles. His principles, and massive taxpayer-funded polling and public opinion research to fund out where parades that he can lead are.

Now she's building a Harper as Rocky theme, or maybe Rodney Dangerfield. Always been underestimated, can't get no respect, yada yada. Trying to build a prompt and response rythym, but the crowd isn't buying into their "they were wrong" part that enthusiastically.

7:27 PM: And nearly 30 minutes after he was supposed to start speaking, Harper is slowly making his way to the stage, kissing hands and shaking babies to non-de-script rock music, as is the custom.

7:31 PM: Harper welcomes us to the new Ottawa Convention Centre, which is apparently the house that John Baird built (actually, the taxpayers of Canada through Canada's Economic Action Plan, but whatevs). With a hammer and nails, I'm sure.

Harper says there's two Ottawa, including the one "the media" refers to as Ottawa, the big government town. And then there's the real, hard-working Ottawa filled with good citizens who vote Conservative. Umm, sorry Steve, but the Conservatives bashed "big government Ottawa" for years, so give me a break. Of course, now Harper's party is the establishment, so the establishment is now ok.

7:36 PM: Harper was winning a few points from me with a well-placed Seinfeld reference, but then he ruined it by a baffling line "but it wasn't me that learned from George Kostanza, it was the Liberals." I don't get it, did we buy cheap wedding invitation envelopes or something?

7:40 PM: Harper is lauding his taxable day care subsidies; meanwhile with funding from the Liberal daycare program now gone daycare spots across the country are drying up. You can't have choice in child care, Steve, unless you have choices to make.

7:42 PM: Tax breaks for corporations now, and for families when we get around to balancing the budget. On crime, he affirms the crime omnibus bill will be introduced within 100 sitting days. Fairly sure he said sitting days. Was that the promise in the campaign, or was it 100 days overall?

He promises legislation this fall to scrap the gun registry, pitching it as part of supporting victims of crime. Umm, no. The registry was created in response to the concerns of victims of crime. Killing it has nothing to do with helping crime victims.

7:46 PM: Now it's on to using the troops as props. I'm fine with giving the military the tools it needs, I agree with that. But I can't stand lines that pretend other people don't support the troops as well. Don't use the military as a partisan prop, it's pathetic.

Meanwhile, he's moved on to righteously promising to continue not sucking up to dictators at the United Nations. Particularly, I suppose, after under Harper's leadership Canada for the first time failed to win election to the security council.

7:54 PM: Conservatives aren't a party of entitlement, declares Harper. Someone save that clip for future commercial use, because these guys are rocking-up the arrogance scale at an accelerated rate. Trust me when I say that, we Liberals no arrogance when we see it...

7:56 PM: The honeymoon with the NDP will pass, he says. And it probably will. And then he switched to French to speak to those Quebec NDP voters. Sounds like he's wrapping, hockey game starts shortly. But he wants to remind us that Conservative values are Canada's values, and the Conservative Party is Canada's party. He used to think it was arrogant when Liberals said things like that, but this time he thinks it's true, I'm sure, so it's different.

By the way, every speaker has their crutch lines. For Paul Martin, it was "let me clear." For Steve, it's "my friends."

Harper wants us to "be all we can be." Not by joining the army though, I hope? No, by building a better Canada in the years ahead. And hey, hockey game dude, wrap it! Canada is the best country in the world, he says. And the biggest hockey fans, Steve.

God bless all of you, god bless Canada, and he's done and walking out to more non-de-script rock music. I'll sign off for now, may have some thoughts later.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Bubble-boy Stephen Harper chickens out of his own debate challenge

If you thought that Stephen Harper's move Wednesday to challenge Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to debate mano-a-mano was an odd play by the Conservatives, it will soon make a little more sense. After the news that the shadowy "broadcast consortium" has ruled-out a head to head bout which I mentioned earlier, now the truth seems to be coming out: it was all a Conservative fake, and Harper is too chicken to really take on Ignatieff solo.

Paul Wells has the scoop, via Twitter (and Wherry):

Liberals wanted SH-MI debate in addition to 4-leader. Conservatives proposed replacing 4-leader with 2-leader debate. Libs declined.

CTV's Robert Fife also tweets the Conservative backd0wn:

Robert Fife
Tory campaign insiders say Harper won't take up Ignatieff challenge of separate one on one TV debate. #elxn41 #cdnpoli

The Conservative strategy is now abundantly clear: they never wanted Ignatieff to accept the challenge and were determined to put blocks in place to make sure he didn't. Realistically, any debate had to be in addition to the full leader's debate; not in replacement of it. It makes no sense and it's fundamentally undemocratic to exclude the other parties from having any debates. 

There's no way the Conservatives ever seriously expected the Liberals to agree to jettison the major parties debate; their offer simply wasn't genuine. Harper doesn't really want to get into a one-on-one debate with Ignatieff; it's just too much risk for someone running a bubble-boy campaign. If we had three debates, one in each language for the major parties and a bilingual Harper/Ignatieff tilt, it's too much risk for the bubble campaign. Angry Steve may make an untimely appearance.

Here's a statement from Ignatieff on the issue:

“I look forward to debating the federal party leaders on April 12 and 14. I am disappointed, however, by the broadcasters’ consortium’s decision to exclude Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from the debate. The Liberal Party of Canada advocated for her inclusion in negotiations with the consortium.

“Now that the broadcasters’ consortium has chosen their dates for the multi-party debate, I reiterate my challenge to Mr. Harper: I am ready and willing to debate him one-on-one – any time, any place.

“Mr. Harper expressed his desire to debate me as the leader of the only party that can replace him in government. All that remains is to agree upon a time and place – and many respected potential hosts have offered to assist.

“A one-on-one debate with Mr. Harper should not replace multi-party leaders’ debates. A real debate is needed, however, on the different visions of leadership between the only two people with a real opportunity to become prime minister of this country at the end of this election.”

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Who cares what the "broadcast consortium" says?

Following up on my post Wednesday about Stephen Harper challenging Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to a one-on-one debate, and Ignatieff telling him he'll debate Harper "any time, any place" the secret cabal of media executives known as the shadowy "media consortium" met and decided no no, that just won't do:

Canada’s broadcasters have ruled out a face-off between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff and will exclude the Green Party from the upcoming official election debates.

The decision to carry debates involving only the leaders of the four main parties in Parliament follows a public battle between the Conservative and Liberal leaders, but also controversial backroom dealings between the country’s major television stations and four biggest political parties. After hours of private and public discussions on Wednesday, the consortium of broadcasters announced a late-night agreement by issuing an ultimatum to the representatives of the four parties, a source involved in the discussions said.

Yeah, I'm sorry but frankly, I could give a flying crap what the "broadcast consortium" has to say about it, and I know where they can stick their supposed "veto." A bunch of backroom media execs don't get to decide this. There are only two parties in this election with a chance of forming a government, and only two leaders that could become Prime Minister. Canadians deserve the chance to see Ignatieff and Harper go one on one and decide who has the best vision and the best plan for Canada.

Book a studio, put up two podiums and plug-in a sound board. I guarantee it will end up on TV, no matter what the "consortium" has to say about it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper links Japanese earthquake and tsunami to election timing

Stephen Harper spoke to the press in Vancouver today, and they were allowed to ask questions. Here's one of his answers (emphasis mine):

CONTINUE WITH EMILY CHIN FROM FAIRCHILD.

Question: PRIME MINISTER, REGARDING THE EARTHQUAKE HAPPENING IN JAPAN, AS WE KNOW, JAPAN IS ONE OF OUR MAJOR TRADE PARTNERS. I'M JUST WONDERING YOUR CONCERN ABOUT ANY IMPACTS ON OUR ECONOMY.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: WELL, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY LOOKING AT ALL THOSE THINGS VERY CAREFULLY. OUR FIRST CONCERN, IN FAIRNESS, IS WITH, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES AND OBVIOUSLY ALL OF THEIR FAMILIES AND LITERALLY AT THIS POINT TENS OF THOUSANDS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS. SO OUR FIRST CONCERN AS A GOVERNMENT IS ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP JAPANESE AUTHORITIES COPE WITH THIS CRISIS. NOW, JAPAN IS A WEALTHY COUNTRY. JAPAN IS A WELL ORGANIZED COUNTRY WITH LOTS OF ITS OWN RESOURCES TO RESPOND TO THESE KINDS OF PROBLEMS, BUT, AS I SAID EARLIER, WE'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT THERE'S A RANGE OF VARIOUS SERVICES OR SUPPLIES THAT WE COULD OFFER IF SO DESIRED, AND I GATHER THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT THEY WILL CALL UPON US TO ASSIST THEM WITH. THAT IS OUR PRIMARY FOCUS. OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ALL WATCHING THE NUCLEAR SITUATION, YOU KNOW, WITH I THINK QUITE A BIT OF CONCERN FOR THE PEOPLE OF JAPAN. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BE HELPFUL IN THAT REGARD. I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE IMMEDIATE ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON US. OBVIOUSLY, THOUGH, YOU SEE THE DROPS IN THE STOCK MARKET. ALL OF THESE THINGS SHOULD REMIND EVERYBODY -- SHOULD REMIND EVERYBODY IN CANADA AND SHOULD REMIND ALL THE PARTIES IN PARLIAMENT THAT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY REMAINS EXTREMELY FRAGILE. IT DOES NOT TAKE VERY MUCH TO MAKE US ALL, AND NOT JUST IN CANADA, THE UNITED STATES, ALL AROUND THE WORLD, TO MAKE EVERYBODY VERY WORRIED ABOUT WHAT'S COMING NEXT IN THE ECONOMY. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A DIFFICULT TIME. IT'S GETTING BETTER, BUT IT'S STILL QUITE FRAGILE. SO I DON'T WANT TO PREDICT HOW THAT'S GOING TO UNFOLD. I THINK THE JAPANESE WILL FIND THEIR WAY OF COPING, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS SHOULD BE A WAKEUP THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE OUR FOCUS OFF THE ECONOMY AND GET IN TO A BUNCH OF UNNECESSARY POLITICAL GAMES OR, AS I SAID, AN OPPORTUNISTIC AND UNNECESSARY ELECTION THAT NOBODY IS ASKING FOR.

Yes, why not use a question about the Japanese earthquake and tsunami that has killed thousands, and triggered a still ongoing nuclear crisis, to score domestic political points against your opponents? And just what is he claiming? That an election could cause an earthquake? Take our eyes off the economy for one minute and the earth could shake? And as for all this focus on the economy, let's remember that Harper called the 2008 election just as the economic downturn was beginning to become clear. Of course, the great economist assured us then that if we were going to have a downturn at that point, we'd have had one already. So what does he know?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Being a Harper photo-op backdrop can be hazardous to your health

There seems to be a rather unfortunate pattern developing here. Maybe the charisma is just too much for some...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Stephen Harper raises taxes

I was playing around with my video editing software last night and made this video. I worried it was a little unfair and wasn't sure I'd post it. Then I saw the new Conservative ads today and thought, what the heck...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On rumours, private lives, and Norman Spector

I must have missed a memo or something, but judging by a flurry of activity over the holiday apparently there are still people out there who were still taking Norman Spector seriously. Who knew?

Personally, the former tobacco industry lobbyist has lacked any credibility with me since the fall of 2006, when he went on CKNW and called then Liberal MP Belinda Stronach "a bitch" and then refused to apologize, instead doubling-down:

"I think she's a bitch. It's as simple as that. And I think that 90 percent of men would probably say she's a bitch for the way she's broken up (retired hockey player) Tie Domi's home and the way she dumped Peter MacKay. She is a bitch."

---
"Why is it unacceptable? That's what I think about her. I think it was much worse - a few years ago - when one of the Liberal members referred to (former Edmonton North MP) Deb Grey as a slab of meat quite frankly. I think that was totally unacceptable. But bitch is a word that I would use to describe someone like Belinda Stronach. It is a word that I use regularly."

Why the Globe & Mail continues to give this asshat a platform is beyond me, and how anyone can consider him a commentator with any credibility beggars belief. Nevertheless, the Globe continues to give Norman a platform and, over the holidays, he posted a piece that speculated about marital trouble between Stephen and Laureen Harper as being behind their joint end of year television interview.

Despite the piece being pulled from the Globe following a flurry of negative commentary, not to mention there being absolutely nothing to back up Normans gossip mongering, Spector defiantly stood by his baseless accusations:

"I’m still of the opinion that the deleted piece constitutes a worthy explanation of why he and Ms. Harper decided to do their first joint interview since the government came to power in 2006."

First of all, Norman is a few years late to the party. These rumours have been floating around Ottawa for years. The media have all heard them. Hacks of all stripes have heard them. Heck, even bloggers like me have heard them. Some of them are quite out there, such as an affair with an RCMP bodyguard who was transfered to the Yukon in punishment.

I don't know who Norman talked to, but some time ago I spoke with journalists I trust about these rumours. And they told me that of course they'd heard them, of course they'd investigated them, and no, there is absolutely nothing to them. The fact that no one has published these rumours should be an indicator to their baselessness. It would seem even bloggers have higher journalistic standards than Norman Spector and the Globe & Mail.

On the larger issue though of the private lives of public people, if rumours were true, just what should be published and what shouldn't? I stand by the standard I outlined during the Adam Giambrone affair in Toronto:

I think politicians are entitled to a private life. As long as it doesn’t impact or interfere with their jobs, as long as it’s between consenting adults and doesn’t break laws, then it’s not relevant.

All kinds of rumours swirl around Ottawa. Some aren't true, some are. The tales of infidelity, of office shenanigans and what not, are voluminous. But unless and until it interferes with their job, or breaks the law, it's not relevant in my view, and should be left to the likes of Frank magazine and not the mainstream media, or even reputable blogdom. And publishing unconfirmed rumours is even more ridiculous.

As I've written before, people are imperfect. Politicians are no exception. If we try to hold them to a higher standard than we hold ourselves, we're only asking to either be disappointed or lied to.

As for Norman, the Globe needs to attract a higher quality of columnist. Just what does it take to get dumped as a contributor by Canada's national newspaper?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Another Conservative rejected by voters appointed a Harper Senator

Stephen Harper once vowed he would only appoint elected senators. We're obviously long past that point for assorted reasons, some valid and some not as much, but what is impressive is how far in the other direction the Harper Conservatives have gone.

Never mind appointing only elected senators. We're so far removed from the spirit of that pledge that Harper has now made a habit of appointing to patronage heaven people who, when they were on the ballot, were rejected by the electorate. Instead of elected senators, we have senators who couldn't get elected.

The latest, called to the senate today, is Don Meredith. The failed Conservative candidate in the Toronto-Centre by-election in 2008 won by Liberal Bob Rae, Meredith finished not second, and not third, but fourth in that by-election, with just 2,982 votes for a paltry 12.5 per cent of the vote. Not only was Meredith behind the NDP, Green Party candidate Chris Tindal finished ahead of Meredith, besting him by 281 votes.

How bad was it for Meredith? Even the former Conservative candidate in the riding (later dumped by CPC HQ), Mark Warner, endorsed Rae:

On March 10, Warner publicly endorsed Rae, the man he’d planned to run against. (A breaking point for him was Meredith telling a St. James Town crowd that bedbugs were a matter of hygiene. “Telling your potential constituents ‘you stink, you don’t wash, you live in filth’ probably isn’t the best way to win an election,” Warner says.)

While Meredith did manage to score better than the candidates for the Animal Alliance and the Canadian Action Party, the message was pretty clear from Toronto-Centre voters they didn't want Meredith as their MP. But now he'll represent all of Ontario in the senate.

In case you think Meredith is an isolated case, by my count Meredith is the 10th senator appointed by Harper who ran for office and was rejected by the electorate. I wrote about all of them in a previous post; the list includes Salma Ataullahjan, Yonah Martin, Claude Carignan, Fabian Manning, Michel Rivard, John Wallace, Leo Houskas, Michael Fortier and Suzanne Duplessis.

Having to appoint senators in the absence of senate reform is one thing (we'll save the conversation about Harper's utter aversion to meaningful senate reform for another day). But claiming to favour an elected senate for accountability purposes, and then making a habit of appointed people who have been rejected by the electorate, is quite another.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Everybody needs to pause, take a deep breath, and relax

Sometimes the partisanship really does get ridiculous. I’d say it’s a product of perpetual minorities, but I’m reasonably certain that the partisanship has always been pretty ridiculous and any memories of a golden era of peace and love are illusory.

Some of the worst partisanship revolves around the most trivial of events, like music. And everyone, from partisans of all stripes to the press gallery, is guilty of overdoing it. I bring this up, of course, because of Stephen Harper’s “rock concert” last night at the Conservative Christmas party on Ottawa. It was somewhat bemusing to watch it unfold on Twitter last night, and then read the flurry of coverage this morning.

It’s all rather over the top. Conservatives say it’s a master-stroke that shows Harper’s regular guy awesomeness. Some of my Liberal friends are all in a lather, calling it a cynically-staged photo-op by a guy who can’t sing. And the media are all in a tizzy giving it wide coverage and, of course, asking how this all impacts the horse race and election timing. (Because everything is about election timing to our media friends.)

The worst is this so-called “senior Ignatieff official” who, if they do really exist and hold a senior position, should be moved to a job that involves neither talking to the media or communications strategy of any kind, because these have got to be some of the stupidest comments I’ve read in years:

“Not even one song in French,” a senior Ignatieff official told The Globe and Mail on Thursday morning. “One week after Quebec’s artistic elite (over 100 songwriters and singers) came to Parliament Hill on C-32. It shows that he is clueless about Quebec culture.”

Dude. Senior whoever the hell you are. Seriously, you need to get a life. Do yourself a favour and get out of Ottawa, because you seem completely clueless about what people really give a shit about.

And as passionately as the partisans of varying stripes hold their positions on Harper’s rock show, they all probably had the exactly opposite reaction when Bob Rae, for example, did his piano man thing earlier this year. Liberals lapped it up, great show and all that. I posted the video, and I still get comments months later on it from Conservatives saying he’s a crappy performer who should stick to his day job. Their hostility was fierce.

Or when Michael Ignatieff danced for Much Music – un-priministerial and not a leader, the Conservatives huffed.

The problem with blind partisanship is that it blinds everyone’s judgment, and leads to a tendency to blow things out of proportion on both sides. My side’s goals are just, so anything we do in their pursuit is peachy, and the other guys are evil, so anything they do is wrong. And as David Akin pointed-out, it forces politicians to act like robotic automatons to avoid the inevitable attacks.

It's a war room mentality, and it's the same no matter who is running it. Everything is an opportunity to attack, to oppose, to advance the agenda. I know applying the "if you don't have anything nice to say" rule to politics would be ridiculous, but knowing when to hold your powder is important.

People need to just breathe. So Harper played some songs at a Conservative Christmas party, and the room of party loyalists loved it. Good for him. It has no deeper meaning. Was it a coincidence the media were there? Probably not. (I'd have not invited the media, but make sure someone got it with a Flip camera and let social media take it viral, myself.) Were they hoping for positive coverage? Probably. But who cares. Everyone is hoping for positive coverage.

They had a fun night, and that’s all it is.

The Conservatives shouldn’t pretend its step one to a majority.

The Liberals should focus more on having more fun nights of their own.

And the media should leave trivialities to lighter-side briefs or too much information segments and spend more of their time reporting on issues more substantive than Christmas parties or Caribana dances.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Muzzle Watch 2010: PMO trying to shield Julian Fantino from media?

Stephen Harper was in Vaughan on Friday to help launch former top OPP and Toronto cop Julian Fantino's campaign as the Conservative candidate in the yet to be scheduled by-election.

A few interesting things emerged from the coverage, such as the revelation that apparently Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak didn't show him the love, or perhaps he might have run provincially.

This brief line in the Toronto Star story caught my eye though:

“I think this is the place that best fits my desires to make, hopefully, a significant difference on the things that threaten Canada, of which Vaughan is very much a part,” he told reporters after a Harper handler initially barred the media from speaking to him.

Could it be that the infamous Harper muzzle is back? After all, Conservative candidates have a long history of dodging the media, all candidates meetings, and other unscripted public interaction.

It appears Fantino has fought off the attempted muzzling, at least for now. He's certainly not the sort to calmly consent to keeping his mouth shut. We'll have to see if they try to slip the muzzle back on as the campaign gets underway.

I, for one, look forward to hearing what Fantino has to say on the issues of the day. Particularly on all the things he thinks threaten Canada, of which he assures us Vaughan is very much a part. Certainly, his past comments on a variety of issues have proved noteworthy.

Also, this site would seem worth watching: Conservatives Against Fantino.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A tale of two fainters

As I read this passage from Aaron Wherry's essay on Michael Ignatieff's travels in the Toronto-area today with the Liberal Express...

About a half hour into an event in a courtyard in downtown Oakville, a middle-aged woman fainted. A doctor in the crowd stepped forward to attend and an ambulance called. She was out for a minute, then opened her eyes. Michael Ignatieff who had been shaking hands and posing for pictures, came over to check on the woman, holding her hand for a bit, then comforting her husband. The paramedics put a brace around her neck, then lifted her onto a backboard and carried her away.

...I couldn't help but be reminded of this video...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Auditioning to renovate 24 Sussex

The new ballot question: who would you trust to do unskilled manual labour during the construction of your home?

Michael Ignatieff volunteering with Habitat for Humanity today in Cobourg.

Stephen Harper needing a few tries and help from an expert to work an nail gun on some guy's wall while promoting a tax credit.

* The answer is trust neither. Always use a certified contractor, and get at least three references.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper’s road to an elected Senate: Appoint Conservatives that can't get elected

I’ve long held that when it comes to his supposed commitment to Senate reform, Stephen Harper is a fraud. The mountain of evidence is so overwhelming it seems almost churlish to point-out more examples. Still, churlishness is mandatory for bloggers, so I shall forge ahead and do just that.

Today, Stephen Harper asked Her Majesty to call to the Senate one Salma Ataullahjan, to fill a vacancy in Ontario. I know little about Ms. Ataullahjan. I wish her the best, and I hope she serves the people of Ontario ably and well.

The only think I do know about her is that she was a Conservative candidate in the 2008 election, where she was rejected by the voters of Mississauga-Brampton South in favour of Liberal MP Navdeep Bains.

And Ataullahjan is far from the only failed Conservative candidate from the 2008 election to be called up to patronage heaven. Far from the only one indeed.

Senator Yonah Martin ran in New Westminster—Coquitlam and lost to the NDP’s Dawn Black.

Senator Claude Carignan ran in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and got whooped by the BQ’s Luc Desnoyers.

Senator Fabian Manning lost in Avalon to Danny Williams, er, Liberal Scott Andrews.

And that’s just Conservative senators that were rejected by the electorate in the 2008 election. Stephen “I want elected Senators” Harper has sent many people to the Senate that have failed to get elected.

Senator Michel Rivard ran for the Canadian Alliance in the riding of Québec in 2000, losing to the BQ’s Christiane Gagnon.

Senator John Wallace ran in Saint John in 2006, losing to Liberal Paul Zed.

Here’s a fun one. The 2000 election in the riding of Laval West featured two future Harper Senators, both of whom lost. The Canadian Alliance candidate was Leo Houskas, a Harper fundraiser called to the Senate in 2009. And the Progressive Conservative candidate was Michael Fortier, infamously called to the Senate and cabinet following the 2005/06 election. Both of them lost to Liberal Raymonde Falco as the voters said non, merci to both future Senators. Fortier, of course, resigned from the Senate to again run to be the MP for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, and once again was rejected by the electorate, losing to the BQ’s Meili Faille.

And finally (have I missed anyone?) let’s not forget Senator Suzanne Duplessis, rejected as a Progressive Conservative by the voters of Louis-Hébert in favour of the BQ’s Philippe Paré in 1993.

You ask, dear reader, what’s my point? It’s this: how can someone who professes to believe that electing Senators is a democratic imperative (that would be Stephen Harper) be taken seriously when they keep appointing Senators that, when they were on the ballot, were rejected by the voters? The answer, of course is no, they can’t be taken seriously at all.

Look, for the record I’m not a fan of electing Senators. If you want to mess around with the Senate, I say just abolish the thing. Failing that, I’d support elected Senators but only as part of a wider constitutional-based reform that also looks at regional representation and the balance of powers between the House and the Senate. Otherwise, under the status quo I’m fine with appointing learned and respected people that perhaps couldn’t get elected normally, but bring a needed voice and perspective to the chamber.

Stephen Harper, however, does pretend to be a supporter of electing Senators. Which is why it’s ridiculous for him to habitually appoint Senators who, when their names were on a ballot and the voters had a chance to elect them, were rejected.

Like all of Harper’s supposed Senate reform principles, it’s a farce. Like the supposed commitment of his appointees to term limits and supporting an elected Senate – once appointed, they’re changing their minds. And since the "commitments" are unenforceable, there's jack squat he can do. (Except boot them from caucus, which he hasn't bothered to do.) Like the piecemeal reform legislation he keeps pushing is bad for the country and possibly unconstitutional. And like his unwillingness to do what it would really take to reform the Senate – open the constitution.

If anyone still believes Stephen Harper is serious about Senate reform they’re either gullible, deluded, or just plain lying.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers