Not So Small After All

Ontario will finally get rep by pop in the House. This should mean an additional 21 seats for Ontario, to go along with more seats for British Columbia and Alberta. Kudos to Dalton McGuinty and all the federal MPs who stood against Harper’s previous version of this legislation that would have given rep by pop to BC and Alberta but NOT Ontario. It would be nice to see Peter Van Loan and Pierre Poilievre carted out now to apologize for their small-minded comments directed towards McGuinty, but we know this government never takes responsibility or apologizes for anything so I know that won’t happen.

I don’t think it’s too cynical to believe that the only reason Harper gave in now is because he now believes he could win the bulk of new seats in Ontario (after doing much better there in the last election) and didn’t believe that before. Thankfully here in Canada we don’t have politicians setting electoral boundaries and instead the job is left to Elections Canada. I imagine the boundaries will be similar to what they were for provincial ridings before Mike Harris’ "Fewer Politicians Act" cut out about 20 ridings at the provincial level in the 90s, but I recognize the demographics of the province have changed a lot since that time. Though according to the same act does that now mean Ontario will get another 21 ridings provincially as well?

Either way, regardless of the motivations of Harper’s late conversion to electoral fairness and who it benefits, I’m glad to see the right approach won out in the end.

Recommend this Post

Stephen Harper: Friends Before Country

Harper’s continued refusal to do what’s right and fire Gerry Ritz is really just one more example in a long line of Harper doggedly putting the interests of his friends first. More and more voices are speaking out that not only was Ritz completely out out of line with his pale comments, but he’s badly mismanaged this crisis since the beginning. But it doesn’t matter to Harper, you can count on him to stand by his friends no matter how badly they mess up. We can’t ignore that this is a pattern…

- When Maurice Vellacott was found to have made derogatory comments about both Aboriginals and our Supreme Court Justice was he disciplined? Nope, in fact defended to be the Chair of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. Friends first.
- When Jim Flaherty called Ontario the “last place to invest” and Peter Van Loan called McGuinty the “small man of Confederation” were they disciplined? Nope. Friends first.
- When Tom Lukiwski made extremely offensive remarks about homosexuals and evidently did virtually nothing to make amends with the gay community like he promised, was he disciplined? Nope. Friends first.
- When Pierre Poilievre gravely insulted Aboriginals by questioning whether we are getting “value for our money” was he disciplined? Nope. Friends first.
- When Tony Clement was AWOL during the Listeriosis crisis and had the nerve to make jokes about the meat he was being served was he disciplined? Nope. Friends first.
- When Tony Clement called the majority of doctors in this country unethical was he disciplined? Nope. Friends First.
- And when Gerry Ritz bungled the listeriosis crisis and joked about the deaths of Canadians and the death of his chief political critic, was he disciplined. NO! Friends first.

I’m sure there are many more, people can feel free to add their own.

Taking strong disciplinary action would have sent a signal that Stephen Harper will stand up all groups in this great country. It strengthens the fabric of this country to know that no matter which group to which you belong, or no matter what province you are from, your Prime Minister will go to bat for you just as strongly, but we haven’t seen that with this PM. It is good for the country if a minister badly bungles and mocks a public health crisis that he/she be relieved of his/her duties, but we haven’t seen that from this PM.

This is sharp contrast to Stéphane Dion who has always put his country first. Even those on the far right realize that. Take this quote from the Toronto Sun from the time of leadership: “Which brings us to Stephane Dion, our choice for leader because he was willing to fight for Canadian unity when it counted, despite the fact most of his academic peers in Quebec were separatists, who made his life hell. That took courage. While we think he's out to lunch in his support of the pie-in-the-sky Kyoto accord, we also think he's smart enough and tough enough to be a leader. And that's rare these days”(h/t)

Stephane Dion was out fighting for his country while Stephen Harper was off writing about firewalls in Alberta and slagging Canada is almost all his writings.

When someone steps of line in Stéphane Dion’s party he takes the appropriate action, he’s shown that already with the candidates he’s dismissed in this election. We won’t see similar leadership from Stephen Harper. His own people have even admitted that Ryan Sparrow will be welcomed back to the fold after the election. That’s real leadership?

On October 14th, I hope Canadians come to think of who has the best of interests of the country at heart, because when comes to comparing Stephen Harper and Stéphane Dion on that front there’s really never been any contest. I want a Prime Minister who will put the interests of his country before his friends, not the other way around.

Recommend this Post

In and Out Grows More Scandalous By the Day

So if these were local ads then why (as was reported in Le Devoir and then by Paul Wells) do we keep getting more evidence that all the decisions regarding the transactions were being made by the national campaign without consulting the local ridings themselves? The Cons seemed to just have no regard for the national spending limit or the concerns of their local candidates.

Not to mention that there are now suspicions that another “In and Out” operation may have been done with the Cons polling as well.

What will be Pierre Poilievre’s response to all this?

Given that all the Con talking points have been completely shot down one by one, maybe finally we’ve gotten to the point where all he can say is “no comment”.

Then again, it certainly doesn’t hurt the Liberal cause whenever he opens his mouth :)

Maybe they should just get MP Mike Wallace as their new spokesman, clearly he's been paying close attention these past two years (as evidenced by his comment "We have been running a solid clean proactive government since we were elected in January 2006" (h/t BC'er)). I think we might all appreciate someone even more delusional than Pierre in charge of Conservative communications.

At the least I hope the English language media does their job and picks up on how much worse the "In and Out" scandal is getting, not to mention all the other scandals Harper and the Cons are embroiled in.

Recommend this Post

Congratulations Stockwell Day!!!

You've been voted most likely to be investigated!! This may yet be Day's most monumental victory to date! Honourable mention goes to John "you first" Baird, who finished just one vote behind.

For those Conservative MPs who might feel let down they didn't win this time you may be consoled by knowing that at least one person out there thought you were worthy of being the next Conservative to come under investigation. Keep up the good work and you may yet just be that Conservative.

And to be fair not every Conservative had a chance to be validated by my readers in this poll, so maybe, just maybe, it will be another Conservative who gets the honour of an RCMP, ethics commissioner or other watchdog investigation (Scott notes that Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz may get the honour).

Either way I don't think we will have to wait long to find out who it will be.

For the record here were the results (I should note that it was disappointing to see many more votes in this poll than in an earlier poll about which colour sheme this blog should adopt - makes me wonder what the world is coming to - people need to get their priorities straight here!):

Who Will be the Next Conservative to be Subject to a Formal Investigation (by the Ethics Commissioner, RCMP, Elections Canada, etc…)

Stockwell Day - 22%
John Baird – 20%
Stephen Harper – 12%
Gary Lunn – 7%
Jean-Pierre Blackburn – 12%
Pierre Poilievre – 8%
Jim Prentice – 8%
Lawrence Cannon – 3%

Recommend this Post

Poll: Who Do You Think Will be the Next Conservative to be Investigated?

In the spirit of the last post, I'd like to know what you think, who will be the next Conservative to be investigated? You can vote in the top right hand corner of this blog. Feel free to indicate in the comments what you think they might be investigated for and or even feel free to remind us what investigations are already under way for many of these fine Conservatives.

Is there a Conservative you think is next in line not listed? Feel free to nominate them in the comments.

Maybe it will be Van Loan, or Diane Finley, or Rob Anders or maybe there will be another investigation that names more than a dozen Conservatives all at once (like for "In and Out"). We shall see.

UPDATE: See who won!

Recommend this Post

Conservative Logic: No One Has a Right to Criticize Us, Especially Those Most Affected by Our Bills!

So my hiatus will likely continue until next week (April 21 being the end date for all important school matters) and then it will be regular blogging again. But sometimes you read things so ridiculous that you just feel the need to comment.

So I haven't been following closely the discuss of Bill C-10, but from what I've heard some aspects of it sound like completely needless censorship and that the bill has the potential for stifling some good creative work by denying tax dollars to Canadian movie productions that would have gotten them in the past.

Bu today it's gotten more press as Sarah Polley (who is among many actors strongly opposing the censorship aspects of this bill) spoke out strongly against it.

Let's see what points she made:

Polley said that the bill's definition of "offensive" is "extremely vague and dangerous to be using."

"It's the job of artists to provoke and to challenge. Part of the responsibility of being an artist is to create work that will inspire dialogue, suggest that people examine their long-held positions and, yes, occasionally offend in order to do so."

"I know very few filmmakers that would risk trying to try to make a film that was controversial or pushed the envelope or was even interesting in any way if this bill was in place"

Polley said the whole concept of guidelines imposed by the government is dangerous.
"I guess the question here is: who has the right to decide what is offensive?" said Polley.

"In this case, I think it's really dangerous to lay that responsibility in the hands of the minister of heritage. I think we have arms-length organizations that make these decisions very rigorously."

She also noted that the bill includes a double standard when it comes to American films made in Canada. "American productions would actually not be affected and their tax credits would be safe," said Polley. "Which, I think, is pretty problematic and I think shows how sloppy this bill was."

So surely the Conservatives addressed each of Polley's points forthrightly no?

Well of course they did:

In the press release (in response), the Conservatives took specific aim at Polley. She has been a vocal NDP supporter and once lost a pair of teeth when the riot squad aggressively broke up an anti-Mike Harris demonstration outside of the Ontario Legislature.

"Individuals with vested personal and political interests should be honest with Canadians on what their true intentions are,'" said Pierre Poilievre, an Ottawa-area MP.

"Hard-working Canadians are growing increasingly tired of special interest groups telling them what to do."

Seriously, does Pierre Poilievre ever think before opening his mouth? And what goes through Stephen Harper and Sandra Buckler's minds as they approve of him saying things like this?

Basically the message is "how dare you actors who this bill affects most speak against it! You're just a bunch of lefties so your opinions don't matter!"

By Conservative logic if there's cuts to education in the future, we don't need to hear from any teachers. If there's cuts to health care, doctors and nurses shouldn't be allowed to speak. They're all just a bunch of special interests (who are probably too left wing to be taken seriously). Very twisted logic by this Government indeed.

Can any Conservative please tell me how it matters in the slightest that Sarah Poley is an NDP supporter? Why is that worthy of mention in a press release? Are the Conservatives really saying that means her opinion doesn't matter? Is Sarah Poley not also a hard working Canadian who pays her taxes?

And how is Sarah Polley telling Canadians what to do as Pierre claims anyway? She's giving legitimate criticisms of a government bill and virtually all actors and movie producers seem to be behind her on this.

It just seems the Conservatives these days can't stand to be criticized for anything, especially by those who feel the brunt of their worst policies. And they have absolutely no shame in hitting back resorting to the most irrelevant of personal attacks. It's absolutely appalling.

Does it not make sense that those groups most affected by any bill would have a right to speak against it? Do they not have a right to receive a logical response from the government to each of their concerns?

But I guess common sense and decency has never applied to this Conservative Government since Day 1.

Recommend this Post