Showing posts with label Brian Mulroney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brian Mulroney. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Introducing the MGS: Minute of G8/G20 Security

Forget using dollars as the unit of measurement for how much the Conservative government is spending, or cutting from its substantial deficit. That's living in the past, man. Or woman. The new unit of measurement should be the MGS, or Minute of G8/G20 security.


It's simple. Well, not really, but it's not too complicated. The G20 conference will last three days, and the Conservatives are spending $1 billion on security (nearly five times what they originally budgeted).

That's $333,333,333 and change per day.

$13,888,888 per hour.

Or, $231,481 per minute.

Therefore, 1MGS (one minute of G8/G20 security) is equivalent to $231,484 in Canadian currency. To find the MGS, divide the dollar amount by $231,484.

I think it's only appropriate that, going forward, any time the Conservatives announce spending cuts or shiny new spending programs for supposed policy priorities, the value be reported in MGS.

For example, today the Conservatives announced legislation that will take away old age pension benefits from federal prisoners incarcerated for a term of two or more years. The much ballyhooed move by the tough on crime Conservatives will save the taxpayers 8.6MGS annually. If the provinces step in, it would rise to 43MGS.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives seem unwilling, following the release of an Oliphant Inquiry report that was as scathing on Brian Mulroney as the very narrow mandate that Stephen Harper wrote allowed him to be, to demand that Mulroney be forced to pay back the 9MGS for the libels settlement he should have gotten, along with the 6.9MGS in legal fees. Plus interest. That's at least 16 minutes of G20 security that the government could recoup right there!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Mulroney rebukes Harper at tribute event?

That's certainty how I would interpret this passage from Brian Mulroney's speech at the big Conservative love-in tonight, as reported by CP:

A Conservative prime minister has launched a stirring defence of universal health care, and lauded Barack Obama in his bare-knuckle political battle to extend benefits to all Americans.

But it's not the current one. Brian Mulroney used a speech to 1,500 Conservative supporters to wade where Prime Minister Stephen Harper has steadfastly refused to venture: the bitter U.S. debate over health reform.

The former prime minister drew parallels between Obama's uphill fight to reform health care to his own struggles as prime minister, which may have cost him popularity but benefited the country.

"Political capital is acquired to spend in great causes for one's country," Mulroney said Thursday.

"Prime ministers are not chosen to seek popularity. They are chosen to provide leadership
. . . President Obama is fighting for a form of universal health care and is encountering ferocious resistance.

"The attacks on President Obama are often bitter and mean-spirited and his approval ratings are sinking like a stone. Still, he fights on. . .

"Fifty years from today, Americans will revere the name, 'Obama.' Because like his Canadian predecessors, he chose the tough responsibilities of national leadership over the meaningless nostrums of sterile partisanship that we see too much of in Canada and around the world."

The vast, crowded hotel ballroom went silent at that part of Mulroney's speech. One woman was seen snickering.

Mulroney's eagerness to take sides in the U.S. health debate was a stark and obvious contrast from Harper's reluctance to touch that political powder keg.
Seems to me like that's a message from Mulroney to Harper: Obama is doing important things, Harper should be supporting him, and speaking-up for the Canadian system.

Because prime ministers are chosen to provide leadership.

Leaders lead.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Peter Kent, Brian Mulroney and conspiracy theories

What is it with Conservative cabinet ministers named Peter? Peter Mackay is re-fighting the Cold War by himself, and now Peter Kent is hot on the trail of a dastardly conspiracy: someone (probably Liberals) have created a phony Brian Mulroney tribute event and is using it to create schisms in the Conservative party. Why, they even tricked Jean Charest into chairing it!

Junior Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Kent declined to offer a clear answer. "It's a mischievous invitation created by others. That's not a real celebration," said Mr. Kent and when asked why he characterized it as "mischievous," he said, "because it's not a real event. It's a confected bit of political mischief."
Gee, Brian Mulroney is going to be so bummed when he shows up at the ballroom and discovers that there's no one there but Jean Charest, Ashton Kutcher and a camera crew from Punked!. But we can't fool our junior foreign affairs minister, Peter Kent.

And don't get me started on Peter Van Loan.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Maxime Bernier's stay in a monastery, and Brian Mulroney's advice

Some very interesting revelations and observations today in Joël-Denis Bellavance’s La Presse feature interview with former Conservative cabinet minister Maxime Bernier. Yes, he of Julie Couillard fame. Who now writes a blog.

For example, (via Google translation) he spent time in a monastery to take stock following his resignation:

But after having spent five days in the monastery of Saint-Benoît-du-Lac, alone, without phone and BlackBerry, to digest all that had happened to him before breaking his resignation of the cabinet as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maxime Bernier has decided to continue his work as MP for Beauce in Ottawa.
And what helped clinch his determination to stay in the political game? Some advice from everyone’s favourite Conservative for life, Brian Mulroney:
The former prime minister Brian Mulroney who was convinced to undertake a period of reflection, far from the spotlight, when the political storm raging here and abroad, to avoid precipitate things about his political career.

"The Perfect Storm, Brian Mulroney called me. He said, 'Maxime, I'm sure you see only black at the moment, you do not see the sun at the end of the tunnel. Take your time The sun will reappear. Va reflect and think about your business and when you're ready to talk, you talk to your people, those who made you elected. That's what I did. "
____
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?"

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Monday, April 27, 2009

Peter MacKay's moral compass goes haywire

Paging Stephen Harper's moral compass repair team: your assistance is needed in Peter MacKay's office as his moral compass appears to be malfunctioning:

Defence Minister and former Progressive Conservative leader Peter MacKay says Brian Mulroney should not only be treated with respect, but also "lauded" for his accomplishments as prime minister.

"As Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this week, he's a man who should be respected, and in fact, in my view, lauded for the contributions that he made during his time in public life," MacKay said of Mulroney in a joint interview this week with Canwest News Service and Global National.

"He brought to our country free trade, (and) an acid-rain treaty. In fact, during his tenure, Canada led the world in the fight to end apartheid in South Africa. So he has a number of very notable accomplishments, (including) two back-to-back majority governments. Mr. Mulroney is a man who gave a great deal of himself to this country and Canada is better for his efforts."
Gee, Ignatieff didn't do any lauding, he just talked about respecting the office. According to Harper, that meant his moral compass was going haywire. But Peter here is out and out lauding -- that has to be one messed-up moral compass. Up is down, left is right. Peter needs help.

But seriously, what happens next will be interesting. If Harper doesn't smack MacKay down he looks weak. But he may be too weak to smack him down. Either way, it's clear Harper's grip on his party is slipping. MacKay is out and out defying the boss-man.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Friday, April 24, 2009

Just who leaked the Mulroney membership story?

If you remember back to the initial media reports about Brian Mulroney supposedly no longer being a Conservative member, here's how the reports were sourced by CP:

"Senior Conservatives contacted select reporters Tuesday to tell them Mulroney had effectively torn up his party membership card."
And a few day later, Macleans' Paul Wells got the same spiel from an "unnamed senior Conservative".

A little while later, we learned this from the Toronto Star:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, from overseas, was aware of and agreed with plans to leak stories that would distance him and the current party leadership from former prime minister Brian Mulroney, the Star has learned.

A Conservative party source speaking on background said Harper was in contact with his chief of staff, Guy Giorno, and communications director Kory Teneycke, the officials behind the idea, while he was in Europe last week.

And yet on Tuesday, from CP, we learn of this claim by Senator Marjory LeBreton:

LeBreton sent an email to associates earlier this month saying Harper's office had nothing to do with leaking details aboutMulroney's expired membership card.

She told old PC allies that the government actually heard about Mulroney's status from the media -- not the other way around.

But a pile of evidence suggests otherwise, and LeBreton's old friends aren't buying her explanation.
Indeed. If it wasn't the Harper PMO that leaked this, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it does raise one obvious question: just who did leak it then?

It just doesn't make sense, Maj.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Moral Compass Watch 2009: Take a shot, Senator LeBreton

This story is actually from Tuesday, but I've been a little busy. I think, though, that I've come up with a new political drinking game: take a shot every time someone uses the phrase "moral compass."

Here's the latest, from a piece discussing Stephen Harper's return from overseas, his intention to lay the smack down at caucus over Brian Mulroney and assorted leaks, and the grief former Mulroney confidante Senator Marjory LeBreton has been taking on the issue:

A longtime friend says it's been a testing time for LeBreton. But he said she's always been guided by her moral compass -- one which has consistently led her in one single direction.
An interesting turn of phrase from this anonymous source, moral compass. Now where have I heard that phrase before recently?

Oh, right.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Ben Mulroney, Liberal MP?

A metaphor about monkeys and my posterior comes to mind, but Don Martin says Bob Fife says he has a source (who heard from his cousin's sisters roommate) so you never know:

My friend Bob Fife, CTV’s Ottawa bureau chief, had a twinkle in his eye when he took to the airwaves Wednesday to suggest entertainment reporter Ben Mulroney, son of former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, might be running for the federal LIBERALS in the next election.

That may be a stretch, but anything’s theoretically possible as this rare internecine Conservative battle continues to rage, despite Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s attempt to quell the backlash to his party’s Mulroney vilification efforts.

As much as I'd enjoy the sticking it to Harper angle here ... Ben Mulroney? Really? Why not Caroline? Does Brian have any other kids? Or maybe Mila wants to run?

God help me. I mean, yes, we're a big tent. As long as he keeps to the red carpet at the tent door, perhaps. Just don't ask me who I'm wearing on the way in.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Monday, April 13, 2009

Battle of the Conservative anonymous sources

Lots of anonymous Conservatives snipping at each other in the Hill Times today over the Mulroney drama, including one who appears to be setting up Harper Chief of Staff Guy Giorno as the fall-guy:

A seasoned Hill watcher, who asked to remain anonymous, said the problems in the PMO have come from chief of staff Guy Giorno. "Everybody I talk to points the finger at him," the source said. "If you look at the Mulroney leak, the economic statement that came out in November, that was Giorno. Here's a guy that keeps continually bringing the PMO to the precipice of the cliff."

More amusing though was this lamenting all these anonymous sources talking smack:
The PMO declined to comment for this story, but another Conservative source said, "From one source to another, why don't we both put our names on the record and put our money where our mouth is?"

I agree. All this anonymous gossiping, while highly entertaining for me as for once it doesn’t involve the Liberal Party, is rather lame. But I think “another Conservative source” would have a little bit more credibility here if THEY’D put their name on the record.

“I’ve had it with all these anonymous sources,” said an unnamed Conservative. “They totally suck.”

Physician, heal thyself.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Friday, April 10, 2009

Harper lies and the Conservatives leak

As the latest chapter unfolds in the Brian Mulroney-Stephen Harper saga, we learn that when Stephen Harper said just a few days ago he had know idea about that whole 'is Murloney a party member or not thing' he may have been being less than truthful with Canadians. Or, to be blunt, according to an anonymous Conservative source, he may have been lying:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, from overseas, was aware of and agreed with plans to leak stories that would distance him and the current party leadership from former prime minister Brian Mulroney, the Star has learned.

A Conservative party source speaking on background said Harper was in contact with his chief of staff, Guy Giorno, and communications director Kory Teneycke, the officials behind the idea, while he was in Europe last week.

Such dishonesty is hardly out of character. We've seen it too many times before. Like during the 2006 election, when he insisted there was no deal to pay-off Alan Ridell. The Conservatives later admitted otherwise when he sued them for non-payment. And that's just one example. So I'm not surprised.

But the deck of cards is beginning to collapse for the Harper Conservatives, it does seem. We also got this story yesterday:
A senior cabinet minister has pleaded with the president of the Conservative party to make peace with former prime minister Brian Mulroney -- and been rebuffed.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay called the party boss last week and asked him to issue a public statement clarifying whether, as a former two-term prime minister, Mulroney could be a Conservative member for life.

To me, what they're arguing about is secondary. What I find more interesting is the unraveling of the iron control that Harper has maintained over his caucus and his party to date. We see Conservatives leaking to the Star to directly contradict Harper's claim of non-involvement/non-knowledge of the Mulroney membership leaks. That's a direct shot at the bow, not over a policy issue but over Harper's integrity and honestly, and it comes from within his own party. That's very significant.

We see Conservatives leaking news of MacKay's meeting with Don Plett. How many people do you think had knowledge of that meeting, and motivation to leak it? It's a small list, and it was a deliberate decision.

We've seen the first un-authorized leaks from a Conservative caucus meeting in recent memory, when the story first broke and Harper was off in Europe, detailing the disagreement within the party and seeking to make clear at least some caucus members were deeply upset with the Mulroney broadside.

And leaks aside, in the rarest of rarities under the Harper regime, we've seen caucus members, even cabinet ministers, willing to go on the record contradicting Harper's party line, people like Mackay and Jean-Pierre Blackburn.

Beyond a possible fracturing of the fragile detente between Conservatives and Progressive Conservatives, which may well be papered over in the end, what does this all tell us? It tells us the CPC's days of rigid discipline and message control are over. Long story short: the Conservatives aren't scared of Harper anymore.

For years, Harper has road this bucking bronco of a Conservative Party, keeping the divergent factions united by keeping them focused on one goal: majority government. And to get there, they'd have to compromise. They'd have to stay focused. And they'd have to be disciplined. Stick with me, Harper's message was, follow my lead and I'll lead you to the promised land.

But after two minorities, a series of the comprises that come with governing, and other decisions that have served to anger just about every piece of his coalition, the promise is wearing thin. There's a growing feeling Harper has taken him as far as he can, and therefore, his means of control is evaporating.

There was a time when any minor note of discord in Conservative ranks would be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Just ask Garth Turner, Bill Casey and Michael Chong, to name a few. There was a time when the dissent we're seeing now wouldn't have been tolerated for a second. But we're seeing both leaks and on the record discord, and no action yet from an increasingly impotent PMO.

To bring it back to Mulroney, say what you will about Brian but until the day he resigned, despite all the scandal, despite all the negative press, despite the dismal polling, Mulroney maintained the respect and absolute loyalty and devotion of his caucus. And he didn't do it through fear and brute force either.

I guess it's a lesson he never shared with Stephen.

Related Reading: Canada's Debate, Liberal Arts and Minds, BigCityLib Strikes Back, Impolitical.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thursday, April 09, 2009

My moral compass says it's still the economy, stupid

Why is Stephen Harper talking about moral compasses? This is why:

Economy sheds 61,300 in March as job losses rival early '80s recession
Thu Apr 9, 8:59 AM
By Julian Beltrame, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - Canada is shedding jobs at a rate not seen since the deep recession of the early 1980s, as March saw another 61,300 workers join the ballooning ranks of the unemployed.

The loss brought Canada's official unemployment rate to eight per cent, the worst in seven years.
Funny how a phone-call wishing a former Prime Minister a Happy 70th Birthday can become infused with such symbolism, real and imagined. And distorted by both the NDP and the Conservatives to distract from their own troubles.

First of all, contrary to reports of Michael Ignatieff and Brian Mulroney being spotted canodiling at Mr. Chow’s and snorkeling in the South of France, in reality all Ignatieff did was extend a courtesy call to the former Prime Minister on his 70th birthday. His only other comment on Mulroney was in response to a question at a presser in Calgary earlier this week. Here’s the answer, in full:
"Well, what I find curious, let's say. Well, when Mr. Mulroney celebrated his 70th birthday, me, as leader of the Liberal Party I sent him congratulations. I don't agree with Mr. Mulroney's policies. I'm from a different political tribe. But he did have two majority terms. Many Canadians have a lot of respect for him, and for what he did. I think we have to show some respect here. It's quite simple. Mr. Harper has shown a lack of respect towards Mr. Mulroney. Of course, there's controversy around Mr. Mulroney. But he was one of his Prime Ministers, and I have respect for the institution, and I also have respect for the person."

Quelle horror! Clearly they’re secret lovers.

Look, firstly, wishing a former PM, no matter how much you disagree with him, a happy 70th birthday seems just a rather innocuous, classy thing to do. Besides being nice, it doesn’t cost you anything. 99% of Canadians could care less, even if he sent him a birthday card and a cheque for $5. You’ll have a hard time convincing me Canadians are going to say “well, I was on the fence about that Ignatieff, but then he wished Mulroney a happy 70th birthday so forget it, he’s a neo-con!”

But maybe a few former Progressive Conservative organizers in Quebec will care, and already upset with Harper’s whole “Mulroney is not a Conservative” thing, will either not help the Conservatives in Quebec next election, or help the Liberals instead. For nothing ventured but a birthday greeting, that ain’t bad.

Distract and distort

It’s been amusing to watch the other political parties try to make hay of this, seizing on an innocuous birthday greeting to distract from their own very real failings.

Take the NDP, who in the blogsphere in particular have been playing this up as evidence of Ignatieff’s secret Conservative agenda, that it proves their constant talking points that Ignatieff is a Conservative stalking-horse.

You know, they’ve been pushing that theory for months, but it’s completely out of touch with reality, and with Canadians. Despite their firmly held view, every poll since Ignatieff took over the LPC shows that, in addition to steady NDP decline, the bulk of Liberal gains have been coming from the left of the political spectrum. It’s not Conservatives that Ignatieff is attracting into the Liberal tent, it’s left-leaning Liberals that may have lent their votes to Jack Layton, and maybe even some NDPers themselves (they’re going somewhere).

Kind of shoots a hole in the Ignatieff=Neo Con talking point. Canadians are smarter. So, seeing their support eroding to the Ignatieff Liberals, the NDP are going on the attack, trying to bolster their “Liberal/Tory, same old story” meme. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your perspective, they’re doubling-down on a losing strategy. They’d be better served to ask themselves why Ignatieff is consolidating Liberal support, and at their expense. Answer: Canadians are concerned about the economy, and want their politicians to make an effort to work together at addressing it, instead of blindly opposing everything and shooting-down budgets before they’re written.

Which brings me to the Conservatives. The whole moral compass commentary by Harper was pretty farcical by Harper, given his own record of broken promises, flip-floppery, flouting of election laws and constantly-shifting moral standards. But his intent is pretty clear. The economy is worsening, and his response has been woefully inadequate. So instead of focusing on me and my failings, let’s whip-up some media frenzy.

But here’s the real story:
A quick look at March unemployment (previous month in brackets):

Unemployment rate: 8.0 per cent (7.7)
Number unemployed: 1,456,600 (1,415,900)
Number working: 16,838,100 (16,899,400)
Youth (15-24 years) unemployment: 14.8 (14.2)
Men (25 plus) unemployment: 7.5 per cent (7.3)
Women (25 plus) unemployment: 5.7 per cent (5.6)

The real story is that economists are now saying this recession could be worse then the one in the early 80s:
Still, after avoiding a labour market contraction for most of last year, Canada's employment picture is now in lock-step with the U.S., which has been shedding upwards of 600,000 workers a month for some time.

If anything, the loss of so many full-time jobs and particularly in the private sector, following even weaker results in January and February, makes the latest report more "disturbing" than the headline number would indicate, said Derek Holt of Scotia Capital.

Holt said the quick pace in which Canada is losing workers points to a downside risk that labour market contraction this year will be worse that even the more dire predictions so far.

"While we've spoken to the risk of a half-million hit to employment this year, we're raising our views on the risks to the three-quarter million mark," he said.

Holt said a key difference between the current downturn and the deep early 1980s recession is that it is impacting most sectors and all parts of the country, including resource rich western Canada. The previous recession was felt most in central Canada.
Let’s keep the focus where it belongs, let’s keep the focus where Canadians want it, instead of letting the NDP and Conservatives distract the debate for partisan ends. It’s the economy, stupid.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Friday, April 03, 2009

Mulroneys have given Conservatives over $14k since 2004

I had the idea the other day of searching the Elections Canada database to see how much Brian Mulroney has donated to the Conservative Party in recent years, given the apparent concentrated effort the party is now making to distance itself from him. Well, at least some in the party.

It looks like Elizabeth Thompson beat me to the story yesterday. That's alright, this is her day job. And great minds do think alike. I do, however, have art, and that's always fun.

I went back as far as 2004 and, including a few donations from his wife Mila, the Mulroneys have donated over $14,000 to the CPC in that time frame. Or $14,540, to be precise.

The most recent donations were recorded in October during the 2008 election campaign. Brian gave $1000 to La Pointe-de-l'Ile Conservative candidate Hubert Pichet, and Mila gave $500 to Gaspesie -- Iles de la Madeleine candidate Darryl Gary.


A year earlier, both also donated to the central party, with Brian donating $1000 on October 12, 2007 and Mila donating $550 on July 4 2007.


Going back to 2004-06, both were also quite frequent donors to the central party's coffers. The highlight was on January 13, 2006, when Brian made a pre-donation cap lowering $5000 donation.


And Brian was also active at the riding level during this period at the riding level, donating to the Conservative riding associations in Westmount and in Durham.


A familiar name also pops up in the list of Mulroney donations during the 2004 election campaign, with Nepean-Carleton's Pierre Poilievre getting $500 from Brian.

That's a lot of donations from a guy the Harper PMO insists is not a Conservative anymore.

___
**Help send a BCer to BC for the Liberal convention. Donations are tax deductible. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is Harper's Conservative coalition falling apart?

While Stephen Harper has managed to hold it together until now by sheer force of his captivating personality, rigidly-enforced party discipline, and a collective lust for power, there is increasing evidence that after two minorities and no prospect for improvement, the fractious Conservative coalition is beginning to crumble.

Take two new Web sites launched recently designed to lobby the Conservative government. Cut The Fat.ca and No Bailouts.ca were launched under the auspices of the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation, a group that has traditionally been quite supportive of the Conservative Party, and can count a great many Conservatives as its members. Both are petition-sites, and make clear they're not pleased at all with the fiscal policies of the Harper government, even if they never use the words Conservative or Harper.

And interestingly, the apparent creative force behind the campaign, and the admin of the corresponding Facebook groups, is none other that Blogging Tory-poo bah and well-connected Conservative Stephen Taylor.

What does it say when staunch Conservative supporters need to launch Web sites to lobby their own government?

Also killing virtual trees is another new Web site called Homeless Cons: Conservatives in search of shelter. The group's mission?

Greetings. You are invited to join our network to meet like-minded HomelessCons and stop feeling like you're completely alone. Because the truth is, you're not. A lot of us are out there looking for shelter. Why not start building one?
Reading through some of the messages the members seem particularly disturbed by Harper's abandonment of supposed socially-conservative principles. Founder John Robson talks about the group:
"If you are a conservative in this country," Robson says over the phone, "you believe in free markets, traditional social values and strong national defence. You are lucky if you get one out of three out of any Conservative Party you elect."

And Robson thinks that with the way the Harper Conservatives are acting right now, the score is zero for three. The government will not touch the abortion issue he notes, gave up on the vote they promised on gay marriage and in his mind doesn't fund the troops properly. The final straw for Robson appears to have been the latest budget with its projection of a $64,000,000,000 deficit over two years; this after the government was already the biggest spending government in Canadian history. "If that's conservatism," he says, "why not vote Liberal."

So what do Conservative Party members and supporters think about the group? The regular reply seems to be, "Where are they going to go? They can't vote Liberal." That's true, but they could either stay home or start another party.

Take a look through the membership list and you'll recognize a good many prominent Blogging Tories, as well as such familiar names as Gerry Nichols, a former Conservative-loyalist (and Harper subordinate at the National Citizens Coalition) who has been on his own crusade (and book tour) of late lamenting how Harper has strayed from the path.

Some Conservative MPs are even unloading their souls to their Liberal colleagues, and asking the Liberals to provide the opposition that, as trained Conservative backbench seals, they're unable or unwilling to. Writes Liberal MP Glen Pearson:
Then a strange request: Would I be willing to be more aggressive in the House concerning the cuts, seeking at least a time of reappraisal of the results of such a decision. Let me get this straight: a member of the government was asking me to be more forceful in opposition? Indeed, we are living in strange times.

He said he would try within his own party to seek a second look at the CIDA change and I truly believe he will. But this is a Conservative government that doesn’t broker self-criticism. His task is hopeless, and I could tell he knew it just by the tone of his voice. Thus, his call to me.
Also interesting has been following the campaign by the Harper PMO to distance the party from former PM Brian Mulroney. There was a time when the PMO's word was scripture, but it seems more and more Conservative MPs, and even cabinet ministers, are willing to defy Harper and deviate from the PMO line:
On Tuesday, senior party sources told reporters that Mulroney was no longer a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. But Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn say there must be a mistake because Mulroney will be a member for life.

And of course there was the recent Conservative in-fighting over their disastrous performance in Quebec last election.

The Sun's Greg Weston is even writing of the post-Harper era, which more and more Conservatives see as not that far away. The jockeying for Harper's job has begun:
Three times in recent weeks, for no apparent reason, we have been pleasantly entertained by senior Conservatives who, one suspects, would otherwise wish us no ill that wasn't slow, painful and terminal.

This suggests that either spring delirium has come early to the nation's capital, or Stephen Harper's party of the bound and gagged is starting to break loose for reasons worth risking the boss's wrath.

Buzz is starting in the backrooms and chatrooms that Conservatives looking down the road are seeing the next election and life after Harper coming sooner rather than later.
And all the king's horse's, and all the king's men...

___
**Help send a BCer to BC for the Liberal convention. Donations are tax deductible. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Are you sure you really want to be a Conservative, Brian?

This story is a day too early for an April Fool's prank so it must be true. The Conservative Party and Brian Mulroney are feuding over his membership status. The party says he ain't a member, but Brian insists 'till death do us part!

Simmering tensions between Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government and predecessor Brian Mulroney boiled over with party sources saying he was no longer a Conservative and the ex-leader insisting he will be a party member as long as he draws breath.

Senior Conservatives contacted select reporters Tuesday to tell them Mulroney had effectively torn up his party card.

"I can confirm he is no longer a member," said one Conservative source.

The source said Mulroney called a senior party official two months ago to ask that his name be pulled off all party lists and materials and that communications with him cease.

"It was a call made at a senior level," said the source. "As is the case with anyone, we complied and did so."

Mulroney briskly fired off an unequivocal statement through his public relations team.

"I remain a member of the Conservative Party and I will remain so until the day I die," Mulroney said.


Well, I admire Brian's loyalty, if not much else. He should check his calendar though: this is the week the Conservative Party of Canada and the former Progressive Conservatives are totally different. Sorry Hugh Segal, Marjory Lebreton et al. But don't worry. I think next week it'll be back to a long, proud history of conservatism in Canada.

It's interesting though. Harper has for awhile been doing a reasonably effective job of rebuilding the old PC coalition that Mulroney road to successive majority governments: Quebec nationalists, the West, and progressive conservatives/red tories. Well, Harper had made progress on the first two anyway. And he was trying to replace the red tories by winning over conservative-sympathetic ethnic voters, and making progress too. But now he's losing Quebec, and this ongoing tiff with Mulroney, where I'm told they're rather fond of him, won't help.

Obviously at this point Harper has abandoned the Mulroney coalition model. One that, well, worked pretty well. For a time, anyways. Which begs the question: what's Harper's new gameplan? Or is the strategic master just making it up as he goes along?

You know who Harper should call advice?

Brian ... oh, yeah, right. Never mind.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Changing the channel

Think this news will get stories of Pierre Poilievre's unacceptable and shameful behaviour off the front pages? I suspect so...

Manitoba judge Jeffrey Oliphant will head the public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday.

Judge Oliphant, 64, is associate chief justice of Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench.

The announcement came seven months after Mr. Harper first promised a formal investigation into former prime minister Brian Mulroney's controversial financial dealings with arms lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber.

“The government is acting on its commitment to establish a public inquiry into this matter,” Mr. Harper said in a statement. “A number of questions remain unanswered and it is in the public interest to investigate further and to find answers.”


If you believe the timing of this announcement is coincidental, then I've got a bridge in New York to sell you. Stephen must be really pissed at Pierre for ruining his news cycle, giving Harper a scant few hours of glow from what should have been a great day for the Conservatives, and for Canada, yesterday.

So instead of enjoying a few further days of positive media coverage, Harper is forced to announce the appointment of a judge to reside over the Mulroney-Schrieber inquiry to deflect from Pierre's embarrassment, an announcement I'm sure he would have prefered to dump and bury some sleepy Friday afternoon instead.

If there's a cabinet shuffle upcoming, expect Pierre to be relegated to the backbenches where he belongs.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sunday, March 02, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


The allegations have not been proven in court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


"Every day that we deal with the malfeasance associated with the Mulroney administration, it hurts the Harper administration. That's an unavoidable fact.
-----
And yet still we allow this government to continue to govern. It boggles the mind.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Monday, February 04, 2008

It's not fair! You think it's easy to go to the bank!

It's not fair has been one of the Conervatives' favourite lines for mocking Stephane Dion and the Liberals. Which helps to add another layer of irony to this lead from a CP story last week:

A lawyer for Brian Mulroney says it would be unfair to explore allegations about large sums of cash being stored at 24 Sussex when he was prime minister.

It’s not fair! I mean, do you think it’s easy to get to the bank! And besides, it’s not like they had debit cards back then. And Mila did need some walking-around money.

But I agree, allegations of large sums of cash being stored at the Prime Minister's residence, 24 Sussex? Yawn, no biggie. Move along, nothing to see here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cons digging themselves a hole

With the parliamentary ethics committee too busy investigating things embarrassing to the Conservatives, CPC MP Dean Del Mastro is trying desperately to get more mileage out of this ridiculous CBC question gate non-scandal.

In brief, the Cons were upset a CBC reporter shared some questions she had for Brian Mulroney with Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez. Since Mulroney wasn’t returning the CBC’s calls, and since Rodriguez agreed they were pretty important questions, he put them to Mulroney during his not under oath testimony before the ethics committee.

This sent the Cons into conniptions, and they managed to get their pound of flesh when the CBC apologized, and re-assigned the reporter in question. You’d think they’d quite while they’re ahead.

But that’s not enough for our Dean though:

The governing Conservatives want to haul Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez before the House Ethics Committee to apologize and to "admit that he lied" when he asked planted questions sent from a CBC reporter in the sensational Mulroney-Schreiber House Ethics Committee probe and they also want to hear from CTV NewsNet´s Mike Duffy host of Mike Duffy Live on the same issue.

After the CBC admitted that its reporter, Krista Erickson, provided questions to Mr. Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Que.) when he questioned former prime minister Brian Mulroney in December, Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Ont.) introduced a motion at the committee last week to call Mr. Rodriguez as a witness in order for him to "admit that he lied."

Myself, I’d like Stephen Harper to apologize for calling Liberals Taliban sympathizers, linking a Liberal MP to terrorism, insinuating ethnicity had something to do questioning on the Dimitri Soudas affair, and a long list of far more serious transgressions than sharing questions. But that's just me.

I’m reminded though of what the Conservatives warned when the opposition first called for an inquiry into the recent Mulroney allegations, a call the Cons initially resisted. Harper warned the Liberals should be careful, because if they insisted on going down that road, lots of bad stuff they’d done in a similar vein could be dragged out.

Perhaps Mr. Del Mastro should heed his leader’s own advice. The fact is, the media sharing questions and research with opposition MPs, and vice versa, is common and standard practice on the hill, and has been forever. By all parties. But don’t take my word for it:
Ottawa Sun columnist Greg Weston, who was on Mike Duffy Live when Mr. Duffy received the message, said if the Conservatives want to call Mr. Rodriguez, they should also call "every single Conservative MP who sat in opposition" because they did the same thing. "This is a daily thing," Mr. Weston said. "This is the most trumped up, ridiculous pandering to the Conservative core who believe that the CBC is part of the enemy and now it´s been proven we´re part of the enemy too. Well, as you always know, if there are two lists, I want to be on the black one."

So sure Dean, let’s investigate the sharing of information between opposition and the media. Let’s call all every National Post reporter that wrote about Shawinigate. Let’s call all the former Canadian Alliance MPs they worked hand it hand with on that, and umpteen other stories, over the years in a futile anti-Liberal vendetta. Why not, I’ll be fun.

Or maybe we can just have a laugh at this transparent and pathetic attempt to divert attention from the serious work the committee is doing. Former Mulroney chief of staff Norman Spector is due to testify this week. Rumour has it he’ll have some interesting information to share. It must be, if Warren is mentioning him without referencing him as a former tobacco lobbyist.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Unfair partisan cheapshot of the day

Quebecor World Inc., North America's second-largest publicly traded printer, sought protection from creditors in the U.S. and Canada after talks over a rescue deal failed.
…

Quebecor World, led by Chairman Brian Mulroney, a former prime minister of Canada, missed the Jan. 15 deadline and also failed to make a $19.5 million interest payment on its outstanding $400 million in senior notes.


Looks like ‘Lyin Brian is just as good at managing Quebecor’s finances as he was the nation’s.

BONUS Unfair partisan cheapshot:

At least now he’ll have more of time to testify under oath before a public inquiry about accepting envelopes stuffed with cash and what not.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

A Merry Christmas from Decima

Not that we should get too excited, but this recent polling news from the folks at Decima certainly should help to warm Liberal hearts a little the week before Christmas.

A new poll suggests Stephen Harper's Conservatives have lost their big lead over the Liberals, plunging six percentage points in popular support in just one week.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey puts the Tories at 30-per-cent support, in a statistical tie with the Liberals, who are up four points to 32 per cent.


Support for the Tories dropped across all regions and demographic groups.


The striking shift comes in the wake of several controversies which may be taking a toll on the governing party:


• Former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney's admission that he accepted cash-stuffed envelopes from arms lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber.
• Heavy criticism of Canada's position at the climate-change summit in Bali.
• The political fallout from a critical shortage of medical isotopes due to the shutdown of the Chalk River nuclear reactor.
In other polling news, Decima also says while the public doesn't believe Brian Mulroney in this whole Schreiber business, they also don't want a public inquiry.

I'd submit though that the decision to go forward shouldn't be based on polls, but on whether or not there are grounds for an inquiry and issues that still need to be explained. I think there are still serious unanswered questions here that perhaps can only be addressed by an inquiry.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers