Conservative senator blames Conservative MPs for poor Quebec results

I know schadenfreude is unbecoming, but this is just too delicious. One of Stephen Harper's newly appointed Conservative senators from Quebec, party bagman Leo Housakos, has a simple explanation for why the party did so poorly in Quebec the last election: the Conservative MPs and candidates just did a crap-ass job of campaigning.

An influential senator suggested his colleagues in the House of Commons performed poorly on the campaign trail last fall.

(snip)

``Many mistakes were made the last time. I also think our Quebec team _ our MPs _ did not deliver the goods the last time,'' Housakos said.

``That's a mistake we need to admit, and do a better job the next time.''

(snip)

Housakos said there have been many improvements since he joined the team upon becoming a senator in December.

``When I arrived I got feedback from many (riding) presidents who said, 'Listen, Leo, we're not happy. We're not involved.' But for the last two months they've been very involved,'' Housakos said in the interview Wednesday.

``We have a game plan for the organization. We have a game plan for the financing. We have more ministers visiting Montreal. . .

``Things are starting to move. People see it. Yesterday, at the cocktail I had three riding presidents _ you can call each of them _ and they said, 'It's excellent _ since your arrival, since Christmas, things are moving.' ''

So in addition to having a very poor opinion of his colleagues, the unelected Housakos also has a very high opinion of himself.

Naturally, Housakos' elected colleagues fired back, begging to differ with the Senator regarding their level of suckiness:

Public Works Minister Christian Paradis called it a ``hasty judgment.''

``Our colleagues gave their 200 per cent,'' Paradis told The Canadian Press in an interview.

``Leo wasn't even there _ so, frankly. . . He was not a candidate, not in the organization, he wasn't involved.''

They gave 200 per cent Christian, really? Maybe 300 per cent next time then, perhaps that's the lesson. Better make it 350 per cent just to make sure. And yeah, Leo wasn't even there helping!

Of course, the senator is employing the blame the media defence. You know, for reporting the stupid crap that spews from his mouth:

Housakos sent colleagues a letter Thursday declaring his remarks had been taken out of context.

In his letter, Housakos said he'd merely told a Canadian Press reporter that he had not been involved in last year's campaign because he held a non-partisan position at Via Rail at the time.

He also said he told the reporter that there was a good feeling within the party, which was due to the ``excellent work'' of Paradis and Claude Durand, the party's director of operations in the province.

Housakos said he would never blame any individual or group for the failure to gain seats in Quebec.

But wait, there's a tape!

But a tape recording of Housakos's 10-minute interview Wednesday contains no reference to either Via Rail, Paradis or Durand.

Duh! Sorry Leo, try again.

But seriously though, I think Leo is wrong. Their Quebec troubles in the last election aren't because their candidates didn't give a gazillion per cent effort. I'm sure they did fine.

No, the responsibility for their Quebec showing resides squarely in the Prime Minister's Office. A PMO that was completely tone-deaf to the impact their culture cuts and youth crime rhetoric would have in Quebec. A PMO so centrist and controlling that it either ignored the concerns about it expressed by their Quebec MPs and advisers or had created such a toxic environment they were afraid to speak-up and contradict The Centre.

I'm sure Christian wouldn't say this, he likes his job.And Leo wouldn't bite the hand that sent him to patronage heaven. But don't blame the Conservative MPs and candidates. Blame Stephen Harper

_____
**Help send a BCer to BC for the Liberal convention. (Link is working again) Your support greatly appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The allegations have not been proven in court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Has Stephen Harper jumped the shark?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And another thing…

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

The government admits the meeting took place in August 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers