There has been lots written the last couple of days about the collapse of the Bloc and the NDP surge in Quebec and so far I have not read anything that really explains what happened. Did BQ supporters all wake up one day and decide to toss out a party that for years has enjoyed their support because of something Duceppe did or did not do? Were they all taken in by the guy from downtown Toronto with the big smile and equally big spending promises?
While I don't claim to know the answer I do have some thoughts and a possible piece of the puzzle as to why Bloc supporters decided to abandon their party and support the NDP.
The coalition.
Whenever the idea of a coalition has been discussed it has been quite clear that having Bloc MPs as part of any coalition was not to the liking of most Canadians. During the original coalition crisis both the Liberals and NDP were desperately trying to spin that the Bloc were not actually part of the coalition, only that they would be supporting it, and Ignatieff himself had this to say as to why he didn't enter into the deal he had signed: "I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up,"
Having separatist Bloc MP's either in or supporting a coalition government did not fly in 2008 and was never going to go over well with Canadians. Bloc supporters were as aware of this problem as much as anyone else but what to do about it.
The solution: Drop the Bloc and elect enough NDP MPs so that a coalition would not only be legitimate but it would have a much better chance of being accepted by the rest of Canada.
It makes sense and possibly explains why dedicated separatists tossed their own party and blindly voted for NDP candidates some of which were barely old enough to vote themselves, did not speak French, or have NEVER even been to the riding in which they were running in.
Your thoughts?
Showing posts with label Quebec. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quebec. Show all posts
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Ignatieff's vote pandering on a Quebec City arena. Who is happy, and who is not.
Recently Michael Ignatieff said the following on the subject of tax dollars going towards the building a new arena in Quebec City:
“If you want Ottawa to participate, you have to vote Liberal”
(Link in French as the English MSM have all but ignored it to this point)
I know what my opinion is of his statement and was going to do a big write up on my thoughts, but considering that I am not exactly a big Liberal supporter and I suspect that most of my audience already have a good idea of what that post would look like, I decided against it. But that got me thinking; how would others view Ignatieff's statement? So here is a short list of some who I think will be happy with it, and some who won't.
Liberal MP Joyce Murray must be absolutely livid considering that she tweeted this"another Liberal MP: "Harper's vote-buying stadium scheme in Quebec to benefit a right-wing media buddy: Quebec voters too smart to fall for it..." a short while back, and as far as I know "Harper" never said anything even remotely close to "if you want Ottawa to participate you have to vote conservative."
Poor Ian Davey is must be banging his head against the wall over this recent comment from his old boss? Because the last time a top Liberal, in this case Bob Rae, had made similar comments, Davey went on national television trying to spin hard for the Libs and ended up insulting a large swath of the Canadian population and hurting the Libs the process.
Liberal MP Keith Martin also can't be too impressed: "175 million for a hockey arena in Quebec City from the Cons! The PM is wasting our money..."
At least one Liberal blogger will not be too happy with Ignatieff's offer of tax dollars going into a glorified NHL arena, and there is a certain Liberal candidate for Edmonton-St Albert, Kevin Taron, who is already having a hard time dealing with questions on what Ignatieff said because of his very vocal opposition against funding the Quebec arena, including comments that all Alberta will be getting is the bill.
I am sure there is plenty more where they came from but being the fair and balanced blogger that I am, lets now look at a few who may happy with what Michael Ignatieff had to say.
Surely the millionaires will rejoice: “No public subsidies for the National Hockey League, no public subsidies for millionaires,”
Ralph Goodale must also be ecstatic as he said recently: "The federal Conservative government should be contributing "well in excess of $100 million" to a new domed stadium in Regina," and "Goodale argued it's certainly reasonable to expect Ottawa to fund in excess of $100 million (more than 25 per cent of the costs) of a new football stadium and entertainment facility. Goodale added he would be willing to take that request to a new federal Liberal cabinet." (From the Leader Post: link to story now dead)
And of course Denis Coderre must also be happy: 'Finally, le Journal reports that Liberal MP Denis Coderre is accusing the Conservatives of playing politics with the issue by dragging out the question of whether it will contribute to the financing of the arena: “This is a well-organized project that merits respect and dignity which means that the announcement should not be timed to win votes. They should announce it now.”
The people of Quebec: (But I am not sure on this one as it may be a toss up.)
While there is certainly a group who would be happy to hear what Ignatieff had to say, there are also a large number of Quebecois, who being very familiar with how the Liberal Party of Canada used to operate in their province with the 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' attitude and with memories of brown paper bags filled with money being passed around in return for favours still in peoples minds, would find Ignaiteff's comment suggesting that if Quebec voters scratch the Liberals back by voting for them that public dollars for the arena will flow to be very disturbing.
Polls seems to back up my view on the way the people of Quebec would lean, but perhaps that may be why Ignatieff promised that he would spend money on a high speed train before he spent any on an arena for Quebec City.
Wait a minute. If Ignatieff said that he would spend money on high speed rail BEFORE spending any on an arena, does that mean that spending on a high speed rail line is already fait accompli? I wonder where Ignatieff plans to get the money for that, and when he plans to tell us about it?
“If you want Ottawa to participate, you have to vote Liberal”
(Link in French as the English MSM have all but ignored it to this point)
I know what my opinion is of his statement and was going to do a big write up on my thoughts, but considering that I am not exactly a big Liberal supporter and I suspect that most of my audience already have a good idea of what that post would look like, I decided against it. But that got me thinking; how would others view Ignatieff's statement? So here is a short list of some who I think will be happy with it, and some who won't.
Liberal MP Joyce Murray must be absolutely livid considering that she tweeted this"another Liberal MP: "Harper's vote-buying stadium scheme in Quebec to benefit a right-wing media buddy: Quebec voters too smart to fall for it..." a short while back, and as far as I know "Harper" never said anything even remotely close to "if you want Ottawa to participate you have to vote conservative."
Poor Ian Davey is must be banging his head against the wall over this recent comment from his old boss? Because the last time a top Liberal, in this case Bob Rae, had made similar comments, Davey went on national television trying to spin hard for the Libs and ended up insulting a large swath of the Canadian population and hurting the Libs the process.
Liberal MP Keith Martin also can't be too impressed: "175 million for a hockey arena in Quebec City from the Cons! The PM is wasting our money..."
At least one Liberal blogger will not be too happy with Ignatieff's offer of tax dollars going into a glorified NHL arena, and there is a certain Liberal candidate for Edmonton-St Albert, Kevin Taron, who is already having a hard time dealing with questions on what Ignatieff said because of his very vocal opposition against funding the Quebec arena, including comments that all Alberta will be getting is the bill.
I am sure there is plenty more where they came from but being the fair and balanced blogger that I am, lets now look at a few who may happy with what Michael Ignatieff had to say.
Surely the millionaires will rejoice: “No public subsidies for the National Hockey League, no public subsidies for millionaires,”
Ralph Goodale must also be ecstatic as he said recently: "The federal Conservative government should be contributing "well in excess of $100 million" to a new domed stadium in Regina," and "Goodale argued it's certainly reasonable to expect Ottawa to fund in excess of $100 million (more than 25 per cent of the costs) of a new football stadium and entertainment facility. Goodale added he would be willing to take that request to a new federal Liberal cabinet." (From the Leader Post: link to story now dead)
And of course Denis Coderre must also be happy: 'Finally, le Journal reports that Liberal MP Denis Coderre is accusing the Conservatives of playing politics with the issue by dragging out the question of whether it will contribute to the financing of the arena: “This is a well-organized project that merits respect and dignity which means that the announcement should not be timed to win votes. They should announce it now.”
The people of Quebec: (But I am not sure on this one as it may be a toss up.)
While there is certainly a group who would be happy to hear what Ignatieff had to say, there are also a large number of Quebecois, who being very familiar with how the Liberal Party of Canada used to operate in their province with the 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' attitude and with memories of brown paper bags filled with money being passed around in return for favours still in peoples minds, would find Ignaiteff's comment suggesting that if Quebec voters scratch the Liberals back by voting for them that public dollars for the arena will flow to be very disturbing.
Polls seems to back up my view on the way the people of Quebec would lean, but perhaps that may be why Ignatieff promised that he would spend money on a high speed train before he spent any on an arena for Quebec City.
Wait a minute. If Ignatieff said that he would spend money on high speed rail BEFORE spending any on an arena, does that mean that spending on a high speed rail line is already fait accompli? I wonder where Ignatieff plans to get the money for that, and when he plans to tell us about it?
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position(s) on asbestos
Michael Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position on asbestos while happily attending a big bucks Liberal fundraiser hosted by a businessman leading the charge to reopen one of Canada’s last-remaining asbestos mines. (ironic no?)
"I think that Canada cannot export a product that is dangerous and cannot be handled safely,” Ignatieff said in Montreal. I’ve said that for a long time.”
Well he did say something like that in the past but on one occasion when questioned on that statement that he had made just days earlier, Ignatieff said something else completely.
"We have had 60 years of experience with this product. What I said in answer to a question is that we have an obligation to international agreements to the countries that we export to, to make them aware of the risks. That is all I said."
Causing Kathleen Ruff, senior adviser on human rights for the Ottawa-based think-tank Rideau Institute, to comment on Ignatieff's denial: "I knew he would be under pressure to retract what he said but that's an out-and-out lie"
Confused? Don't worry, you are not alone. Even Liberal candidates don't know Ignatieff's position.
Bérubé (the Liberal candidate selected for the Richmond-Arthabaska riding) argued that Ignatieff did not use the word asbestos and that he was talking hypothetically when asked the question by the Devoir.
“He did not state his opposition to the asbestos industry specifically, just to things that are toxic.”
“I don’t believe our asbestos is a toxic substance and the question of its safety should be examined by a committee after we are elected to government.”
Long-time Liberal Lucien Richard from Asbestos agreed with Bérubé that his party leader did not target the industry in the Devoir interview and hopes to discuss the matter further with Ignatieff.
“I want to hear him say it to me,” said Richard.
“I don’t believe he said the asbestos industry should be stopped.”
Local Liberal organizer André Beaumier said Ignatieff met with industry officials in early June and argues the industry will not be shut down by a future Liberal government.
“Our studies have shown that the fiber mined here is safe if handled carefully. “
“If Ignatieff said it was a dangerous industry, I don’t think he knew all the facts then. I am sure he will change his mind on this issue.”
and who can really blame them for not knowing Ignatieff's position, it is always hard to hit a moving target.
"I think that Canada cannot export a product that is dangerous and cannot be handled safely,” Ignatieff said in Montreal. I’ve said that for a long time.”
Well he did say something like that in the past but on one occasion when questioned on that statement that he had made just days earlier, Ignatieff said something else completely.
"We have had 60 years of experience with this product. What I said in answer to a question is that we have an obligation to international agreements to the countries that we export to, to make them aware of the risks. That is all I said."
Causing Kathleen Ruff, senior adviser on human rights for the Ottawa-based think-tank Rideau Institute, to comment on Ignatieff's denial: "I knew he would be under pressure to retract what he said but that's an out-and-out lie"
Confused? Don't worry, you are not alone. Even Liberal candidates don't know Ignatieff's position.
Bérubé (the Liberal candidate selected for the Richmond-Arthabaska riding) argued that Ignatieff did not use the word asbestos and that he was talking hypothetically when asked the question by the Devoir.
“He did not state his opposition to the asbestos industry specifically, just to things that are toxic.”
“I don’t believe our asbestos is a toxic substance and the question of its safety should be examined by a committee after we are elected to government.”
Long-time Liberal Lucien Richard from Asbestos agreed with Bérubé that his party leader did not target the industry in the Devoir interview and hopes to discuss the matter further with Ignatieff.
“I want to hear him say it to me,” said Richard.
“I don’t believe he said the asbestos industry should be stopped.”
Local Liberal organizer André Beaumier said Ignatieff met with industry officials in early June and argues the industry will not be shut down by a future Liberal government.
“Our studies have shown that the fiber mined here is safe if handled carefully. “
“If Ignatieff said it was a dangerous industry, I don’t think he knew all the facts then. I am sure he will change his mind on this issue.”
and who can really blame them for not knowing Ignatieff's position, it is always hard to hit a moving target.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Iffy and the LPC in Quebec. More turmoil.
From the Globe and Mail: The president of the Liberal Party of Canada’s Québec wing, Marc Lavigne — who’d been in his position for only four months — tendered his resignation on May 14.
La Presse also reports that one of the Quebec directors of the Liberal Party, Marc Bélanger, sent out an e-mail in April denouncing the increased role being played by Michael Ignatieff’s office to the detriment of party structures in the province. And, on Monday of this week, another director of the Party, Michel Faure, denounced the on-going treatment of the Liberal Party’s executive director in Quebec, Louis-Philippe Angers: “I’ve been able to observe, contrary to official denials, that several attempts have been made to get rid of Philippe Angers…without anyone saying what he’s done wrong. In my view, he’s being harassed, which is unworthy of our Party and unacceptable,” Mr. Faure wrote.
And Denis Coderre still has no idea what the consequences are that Ignatieff said he will have to face.
The LPC. More united than ever!
La Presse also reports that one of the Quebec directors of the Liberal Party, Marc Bélanger, sent out an e-mail in April denouncing the increased role being played by Michael Ignatieff’s office to the detriment of party structures in the province. And, on Monday of this week, another director of the Party, Michel Faure, denounced the on-going treatment of the Liberal Party’s executive director in Quebec, Louis-Philippe Angers: “I’ve been able to observe, contrary to official denials, that several attempts have been made to get rid of Philippe Angers…without anyone saying what he’s done wrong. In my view, he’s being harassed, which is unworthy of our Party and unacceptable,” Mr. Faure wrote.
And Denis Coderre still has no idea what the consequences are that Ignatieff said he will have to face.
The LPC. More united than ever!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Jack Layton and the NDP still wooing the Bloc
Jack Layton and the NDP look to still be wooing the Bloc (as possible coalition buddies?) instead of supporting legislation that would increase democracy and add representation to underrepresented Alberta, BC and Ontario.
I take special note of Edmonton Strathcona MP Linda Duncan who again tosses the needs of the people of Alberta out the window in order to appease the Bloc and Quebec.
We will remember this Linda.
To those of you in BC and Ontario represented by the NDP you might want to ask them what the hell are they thinking.
Here is what the NDP caucus voted in favour of earlier today.
" That the House denounce the fact that the government seeks to marginalize the Quebec nation by introducing a bill to decrease Quebec’s political weight in the House, and that it affirm that Quebec Members of Parliament, who represent a nation, must hold at least 25 percent of the seats in the House; The House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of Mr. Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel), seconded by Ms. Demers (Laval), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “in the House” and substituting the following: “and call on the government not to enact any legislation that would reduce Quebec’s current representation in the House of Commons of 24.35% of the seats.”.
Results can be found here.
I take special note of Edmonton Strathcona MP Linda Duncan who again tosses the needs of the people of Alberta out the window in order to appease the Bloc and Quebec.
We will remember this Linda.
To those of you in BC and Ontario represented by the NDP you might want to ask them what the hell are they thinking.
Here is what the NDP caucus voted in favour of earlier today.
" That the House denounce the fact that the government seeks to marginalize the Quebec nation by introducing a bill to decrease Quebec’s political weight in the House, and that it affirm that Quebec Members of Parliament, who represent a nation, must hold at least 25 percent of the seats in the House; The House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of Mr. Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel), seconded by Ms. Demers (Laval), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “in the House” and substituting the following: “and call on the government not to enact any legislation that would reduce Quebec’s current representation in the House of Commons of 24.35% of the seats.”.
Results can be found here.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
The Quebec Wing
The Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Follow the money.
I guess that is why Denis did not want the job. Being the Quebec Lieutenant doesn't pay what it used to.
Follow the money.
I guess that is why Denis did not want the job. Being the Quebec Lieutenant doesn't pay what it used to.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
That is mighty neighbourly of you Henry.
Henry Aubin writes today in the Montreal Gazette about how Quebec has decided to make big 'sacrifices' by reducing their GHG emissions by 20% from 1990 levels. WTG Quebec, that is mighty big of you, but wait....
Henry thinks that because Quebec has decided on its own to make these 'sacrifices' that everyone else, particularly Alberta, should also do the same because, well because Quebec did. That is like saying that because you have now chosen to stop eating meat that every one else must now do the same. Nice logic Henry but let me say on behalf of "greedy" Alberta, you know that province that sends money to Ottawa so it can be redirected to Quebec to lower your taxes and pay for all the stuff that you cannot afford, BITE ME!
One last thing on this quote: "To claim, as some skeptics do, that a few climate-change scientists' dishonesty invalidates the idea of human-caused global warming is as silly as to suggest that the Bernard Madoffs and Vincent Lacroixes of this world delegitimize capitalism." If he means that there were criminal acts and fraud committed than I guess the comparison may be valid, but somehow I don't think that is what Henry meant.
Henry thinks that because Quebec has decided on its own to make these 'sacrifices' that everyone else, particularly Alberta, should also do the same because, well because Quebec did. That is like saying that because you have now chosen to stop eating meat that every one else must now do the same. Nice logic Henry but let me say on behalf of "greedy" Alberta, you know that province that sends money to Ottawa so it can be redirected to Quebec to lower your taxes and pay for all the stuff that you cannot afford, BITE ME!
One last thing on this quote: "To claim, as some skeptics do, that a few climate-change scientists' dishonesty invalidates the idea of human-caused global warming is as silly as to suggest that the Bernard Madoffs and Vincent Lacroixes of this world delegitimize capitalism." If he means that there were criminal acts and fraud committed than I guess the comparison may be valid, but somehow I don't think that is what Henry meant.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Marc Garneau demonstrates the problems of the Liberal Party.
Does the Liberal Party of Canada have any idea what they stand for?
I don't think so.
Here is Liberal MP Marc Garneau 'lost in space' on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon from November 10th 2009.
Perhaps Garneau, Ignatieff's Quebec Lieutenant, should be more worried about this guy rather than trying to spin non existent Liberal policies and values on the CBC.
Update: from the comments Another blogger on Garneau's visit with the CBC.
I don't think so.
Here is Liberal MP Marc Garneau 'lost in space' on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon from November 10th 2009.
Perhaps Garneau, Ignatieff's Quebec Lieutenant, should be more worried about this guy rather than trying to spin non existent Liberal policies and values on the CBC.
Update: from the comments Another blogger on Garneau's visit with the CBC.
Friday, October 23, 2009
More from the ADSCAM file
From the Globe and Mail: "Mr. Corbeil said the money derived from the $50,000 kickback was redistributed to Mr. Morselli, as well as two Liberal riding associations outside of Montreal Island, prior to the 1997 general election.
He added that the money from the six fake invoices, which he had approved, was used by Mr. Morselli to organize two Liberal events in 1999 and 2000. The goal was to pack halls with supporters of then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, whose loyalists were involved in internal fights with the supporters of then-finance minister Paul Martin.
Mr. Corbeil said the Liberal Party's Quebec wing was always short of money, and he said the fake invoices were used to obtain cash to pay for Liberal “volunteers” at party events and to organize matters like transportation." h/t Wilson
Money for 2 Liberal riding associations? Hey Michael, if you wouldn't mind stepping away from your crusade to smear the conservatives over stimulus spending for a minute, could you tell us which 2 ridings those were? There are more but these 2 would be fine for starters.
Money to BUY support for Chretien to show up his internal rival Finance Minister Paul Martin. If this wasn't so sad it would be funny.
Related: from yesterdays news. Protecting Adscam sources.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Mischief from within the Liberal Party.
Mischief is afoot in the Liberal Party of Canada. Is Michael Ignatieff the only one who hasn't figured it out yet? From CTV's Power Play with Tom Clarke.
The adult conversation that isn't to be, the entire Outremont fiasco, general confusion, Liberal Senators holding up legislation that Ignatieff wants passed, loyalty oaths and caucus secrecy that brings back memories of Garth Turner; it all ads up to internal mischief or as Tom Clarke called it "a more apprehended insurrection that we know to be true".
Big questions remain though; will Ignatieff be able to figure it all out it is too late and will he be able to handle it?
I don't have the answers but I do know that somewhere tonight Stephane Dion will sleep the sleep of angels.
h/t Biff
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Justin Trudeau to vote against the Liberal non-confidence motion.
If there is any such thing as Liberal logic then Justin Trudeau must support his leader and vote against the Liberal's non-confidence motion later today.
Confused? Well so am I, but consider the following:
Here is what Justin had to say the other day in Kitchener Ontario when he mused that it is Prime Minister Stephen Harper who wants an election, and not his party leader, Michael Ignatieff. “Mr. Harper wants one desperately and he is going to try and bring this House down.”
Got that. PM Harper is the one wanting an election, and not Michael Ignatieff. Forget for a moment that it has been Mr. Ignatieff that has been saying that the Liberals will no longer support the Harper Government, that this government must be replaced, and that he has gone so far as to introduce a motion of non-confidence that if successful later today would trigger an election, flaky Justin is maintaining that it is the PM who wants an election and not Ignatieff.
So following along with this flawed example of Liberal logic in action, Justin has no other choice but to support his leader who he claims does not want an election and support the dictates of Liberal policy to not support the government by giving the PM the election that Justin claims the PM wants, by voting AGAINST the Liberal non-confidence motion coming up for a vote later today. Anything less would be hypocritical n'est-ce pas?
Still confused?
I remain so but the oxymoron of Liberal logic has always made my brain hurt.
Speaking of hypocrites: How is Judy Sgro going to vote later today? For those not following along at home, Judy recently said that “Ninety-nine per cent of us don't want an election.”
Update: As expected the hypocrite duo of Sgro and Trudeau voted for an election by supporting the non-confidence motion.
Confused? Well so am I, but consider the following:
Here is what Justin had to say the other day in Kitchener Ontario when he mused that it is Prime Minister Stephen Harper who wants an election, and not his party leader, Michael Ignatieff. “Mr. Harper wants one desperately and he is going to try and bring this House down.”
Got that. PM Harper is the one wanting an election, and not Michael Ignatieff. Forget for a moment that it has been Mr. Ignatieff that has been saying that the Liberals will no longer support the Harper Government, that this government must be replaced, and that he has gone so far as to introduce a motion of non-confidence that if successful later today would trigger an election,
So following along with this flawed example of Liberal logic in action, Justin has no other choice but to support his leader who he claims does not want an election and support the dictates of Liberal policy to not support the government by giving the PM the election that Justin claims the PM wants, by voting AGAINST the Liberal non-confidence motion coming up for a vote later today. Anything less would be hypocritical n'est-ce pas?
Still confused?
I remain so but the oxymoron of Liberal logic has always made my brain hurt.
Speaking of hypocrites: How is Judy Sgro going to vote later today? For those not following along at home, Judy recently said that “Ninety-nine per cent of us don't want an election.”
Update: As expected the hypocrite duo of Sgro and Trudeau voted for an election by supporting the non-confidence motion.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Who Killed Ignatieff's Breakthrough in Quebec?
Who killed Michael Ignatieff's breakthrough in Quebec?
The butler did it!
Blogging will be light for a couple of days as I am still taking full advantage of the renovation tax credit. The reno tax credit by the way is definitely a dog that hunts.
Don't you just love it when Ignatieff borrows a line from a former U.S President, it reminds everyone that with Ignatieff..
Thanks again to Mike for the photoshop work.
The butler did it!
Blogging will be light for a couple of days as I am still taking full advantage of the renovation tax credit. The reno tax credit by the way is definitely a dog that hunts.
Don't you just love it when Ignatieff borrows a line from a former U.S President, it reminds everyone that with Ignatieff..
Thanks again to Mike for the photoshop work.
Monday, September 28, 2009
“We are more united than we have been for a generation.”
Michael Ignatieff August 31, 2009 : "We are more united than we have been for a generation."
Michael Ignatieff September 25,2009 after trampling on Denis Coderre's judgment and allowing Martin Cauchon to run in Outremont: "The result I think is good for the party, it reinforces the unity of the party,"
Today: Denis Coderre steps down as Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant, demands that Ignatieff reshuffle his Toronto inner circle.
Background:"The rift between Ignatieff and Coderre broke open last week over who should be nominated as the Liberal candidate in the Montreal riding of Outremont. Former justice minister Martin Cauchon, who left politics in 2004, has signalled his intention to return to Parliament Hill and reclaim the riding he held for 11 years. However, Ignatieff announced last Monday that he would appoint businesswoman Nathalie Le Prohon, who was selected by Coderre, as the Liberal candidate in Outremont, The decision seemed to end Cauchon's hopes of a political comeback, but Coderre announced later in the week that another riding would be offered to Cauchon. Meanwhile, a number of Liberal MPs, including Bob Rae, rallied around Cauchon in his bid for Outremont.By the end of the week, Ignatieff had reversed his own decision about Outremont to allow for an open nomination contest in the riding." (h/t Searching for Liberty)
Michael Ignatieff September 25,2009 after trampling on Denis Coderre's judgment and allowing Martin Cauchon to run in Outremont: "The result I think is good for the party, it reinforces the unity of the party,"
Today: Denis Coderre steps down as Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant, demands that Ignatieff reshuffle his Toronto inner circle.
Background:"The rift between Ignatieff and Coderre broke open last week over who should be nominated as the Liberal candidate in the Montreal riding of Outremont. Former justice minister Martin Cauchon, who left politics in 2004, has signalled his intention to return to Parliament Hill and reclaim the riding he held for 11 years. However, Ignatieff announced last Monday that he would appoint businesswoman Nathalie Le Prohon, who was selected by Coderre, as the Liberal candidate in Outremont, The decision seemed to end Cauchon's hopes of a political comeback, but Coderre announced later in the week that another riding would be offered to Cauchon. Meanwhile, a number of Liberal MPs, including Bob Rae, rallied around Cauchon in his bid for Outremont.By the end of the week, Ignatieff had reversed his own decision about Outremont to allow for an open nomination contest in the riding." (h/t Searching for Liberty)
To quote a former Quebec lieutenant for the Liberal Party, Jean Lapierre: "So who is running the Liberal Party now?" "What is it worth a handshake from Michael Ignatieff?" More from Lapierre: "Is it a backbone or another wet noodle"
Update: A prominent Liberal Bloggers view of Denis Coderre and party unity.
Can you feel the love in the Liberal Party?
Cauchon vs. Mulcair
New poll up on the sidebar: Who will win in Outremont, Thomas Mulcair or Martin Cauchon?
So please vote and feel free to drop a comment below and tell us why you voted the way you did.
So please vote and feel free to drop a comment below and tell us why you voted the way you did.
--------------------------------------
My personal thoughts are that Mulcair gets re-elected. I know this goes against the thinking of lots of Liberals out there who now believe that Outremont is in the bag with the return of Cauchon, but I think that is more wishful thinking rather than based on anything factual.
Here are a couple of reasons why.
First off Mulcair already has the job of MP in Outremont and the power of incumbency should never be underestimated. This will be diminished somewhat by the fact that Cauchon was once the MP for the riding, but not enough to neutralize it completely. Advantage Mulcair.
Mulcair has to be considered a star candidate more so than Cauchon would be. Mulcair is the only NDP member from Quebec, which makes him very high profile no matter what, and there is
a strong chance that he may be end up as the next leader of the NDP. While some have suggested that Cauchon himself may be working towards the leadership of the LPC, that is not something that can really be used to his advantage in a campaign without causing problems and ruffling the feathers of current leader Michael Ignatieff. We all know that this is probably Jack Layton's kick at the cat and it is no secret Mulcair wants the job, and while Cauchon may want the leaders job as well, there is no way he or his people can touch the subject with a 10ft poll come election time without negative repercussions. Advantage Mulcair.
The last and perhaps the biggest reason that I see for a Mulcair victory is the baggage factor. Mulcair will be traveling light in an election while Cauchon comes with more than a Samsonite sales rep. The past is going to be inescapable for team Cauchon and no matter how hard they try to make the past a non issue, it will be, and you can bet that both the NDP and the press are going to make sure of that. Big advantage Mulcair.
What do you think?
Update: Speaking of baggage....
Here are a couple of reasons why.
First off Mulcair already has the job of MP in Outremont and the power of incumbency should never be underestimated. This will be diminished somewhat by the fact that Cauchon was once the MP for the riding, but not enough to neutralize it completely. Advantage Mulcair.
Mulcair has to be considered a star candidate more so than Cauchon would be. Mulcair is the only NDP member from Quebec, which makes him very high profile no matter what, and there is
a strong chance that he may be end up as the next leader of the NDP. While some have suggested that Cauchon himself may be working towards the leadership of the LPC, that is not something that can really be used to his advantage in a campaign without causing problems and ruffling the feathers of current leader Michael Ignatieff. We all know that this is probably Jack Layton's kick at the cat and it is no secret Mulcair wants the job, and while Cauchon may want the leaders job as well, there is no way he or his people can touch the subject with a 10ft poll come election time without negative repercussions. Advantage Mulcair.
The last and perhaps the biggest reason that I see for a Mulcair victory is the baggage factor. Mulcair will be traveling light in an election while Cauchon comes with more than a Samsonite sales rep. The past is going to be inescapable for team Cauchon and no matter how hard they try to make the past a non issue, it will be, and you can bet that both the NDP and the press are going to make sure of that. Big advantage Mulcair.
What do you think?
Update: Speaking of baggage....
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Cauchon; and tough choices.
Choices choices.
It must be tough being a Liberal strategist these days.
Do you keep supporting the judgment of a guy who you had your doubts about in the past and who now is proving to be a political disaster in part because he is making decisions like this.
Or do you call it as you see it and come out on side with the judgment of your old boss , support his former Quebec Lieutenant and tell your new boss that this is a mistake.
What to do, what to do.
Update: Ignatieff the uniter in action.
It must be tough being a Liberal strategist these days.
Do you keep supporting the judgment of a guy who you had your doubts about in the past and who now is proving to be a political disaster in part because he is making decisions like this.
Or do you call it as you see it and come out on side with the judgment of your old boss , support his former Quebec Lieutenant and tell your new boss that this is a mistake.
What to do, what to do.
Update: Ignatieff the uniter in action.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Liberal candidates and lies on asbestos.
From the Sherbrooke Record: In an interview with Le Devoir in May, Ignatieff is quoted as saying Canada should not export toxic substances....
Bérubé (the Liberal candidate selected for the Richmond-Arthabaska riding) argued that Ignatieff did not use the word asbestos and that he was talking hypothetically when asked the question by the Devoir.
“He did not state his opposition to the asbestos industry specifically, just to things that are toxic.”
“I don’t believe our asbestos is a toxic substance and the question of its safety should be examined by a committee after we are elected to government.”
Long-time Liberal Lucien Richard from Asbestos agreed with Bérubé that his party leader did not target the industry in the Devoir interview and hopes to discuss the matter further with Ignatieff.
“I want to hear him say it to me,” said Richard.
“I don’t believe he said the asbestos industry should be stopped.”
Local Liberal organizer André Beaumier said Ignatieff met with industry officials in early June and argues the industry will not be shut down by a future Liberal government.
“Our studies have shown that the fiber mined here is safe if handled carefully. “
“If Ignatieff said it was a dangerous industry, I don’t think he knew all the facts then. I am sure he will change his mind on this issue.”
Michael Ignatieff in Edmonton June 30th 2009: "Canada has to be out of the asbestos business. We should not export it and we should not produce it".
You can't be clearer than that folks. Is it any wonder that the entire country is confused as to what Iggy's policies are, or what he stands for, when even his own candidates have no clue as to what he believes in either.
A previous related post: This time it was Ignatieff doing the lying about what he said on asbestos.
h/t MaryT
Bérubé (the Liberal candidate selected for the Richmond-Arthabaska riding) argued that Ignatieff did not use the word asbestos and that he was talking hypothetically when asked the question by the Devoir.
“He did not state his opposition to the asbestos industry specifically, just to things that are toxic.”
“I don’t believe our asbestos is a toxic substance and the question of its safety should be examined by a committee after we are elected to government.”
Long-time Liberal Lucien Richard from Asbestos agreed with Bérubé that his party leader did not target the industry in the Devoir interview and hopes to discuss the matter further with Ignatieff.
“I want to hear him say it to me,” said Richard.
“I don’t believe he said the asbestos industry should be stopped.”
Local Liberal organizer André Beaumier said Ignatieff met with industry officials in early June and argues the industry will not be shut down by a future Liberal government.
“Our studies have shown that the fiber mined here is safe if handled carefully. “
“If Ignatieff said it was a dangerous industry, I don’t think he knew all the facts then. I am sure he will change his mind on this issue.”
Michael Ignatieff in Edmonton June 30th 2009: "Canada has to be out of the asbestos business. We should not export it and we should not produce it".
You can't be clearer than that folks. Is it any wonder that the entire country is confused as to what Iggy's policies are, or what he stands for, when even his own candidates have no clue as to what he believes in either.
A previous related post: This time it was Ignatieff doing the lying about what he said on asbestos.
h/t MaryT
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Director of the Liberals' Quebec wing from 1999 to 2000 pleads guilty to fraud.
Benoit Corbeil, director of the Liberals' Quebec wing from 1999 to 2000 has plead guilty to fraud and influence peddling charges. Corbeil, who was also implicated in the sponsorship scandal was accused of using false invoices to bilk more than $100,000 from the federal government and the LPC.
It is a sad day when you trust someone to help bilk money from the sponsorship slush fund for your party and they end up taking money from your own party instead. What is this world coming to.
FYI: Info from the Gomery commission on Corbeil.
Update: Ignatieff is not going to be happy about this.
However, Corbeil says he will reveal who profited from the scam, suggesting more names will come out in connection with the scandal.
It is a sad day when you trust someone to help bilk money from the sponsorship slush fund for your party and they end up taking money from your own party instead. What is this world coming to.
FYI: Info from the Gomery commission on Corbeil.
- Denied receiving between $75,000 and $100,000 from Michel Béliveau in 1997.
- Maintains he only received two cash payments from Béliveau in 1997, one for $5,000 for MP Denis Coderre's Bourassa riding, and $4,000 for Yvon Charbonneau's eastern riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies.
- Confirmed he got $50,000 from Brault through Commando Communications Marketing and $50,000 cash to pay eight Liberal workers during 2000 election.
- Corbeil's allegations spur a series of denials from campaign workers, including Daniel Dezainde who testified he never received $3,000 cash.
- Claims Gagliano knew about underground fundraising scheme.
- Denies pocketing any money for his personal use.
Update: Ignatieff is not going to be happy about this.
However, Corbeil says he will reveal who profited from the scam, suggesting more names will come out in connection with the scandal.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Quebec Leans Conservative.
How else can you explain Ignatieff's alleged popularity in the Province of Quebec?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Dion may lose LPC membership. Not by choice.
Some quotes from the Ottawa Sun: "Federal Liberals from Quebec will move to show Stephane Dion the door if he doesn't give up leadership of the party on his own, Sun Media has learned"
Open revolt or just a small number of Quebec Liberals who see what everyone else in this country sees outside of the GTA about the leadership of Dion?
"Should Dion fail to heed this warning, Bellerose has threatened to invoke Article 3.7.1 of the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party's statutes and regulations to force him to resign.
The provisions of this article give the Quebec wing the right to strip a party member of his membership."
Open revolt or just a small number of Quebec Liberals who see what everyone else in this country sees outside of the GTA about the leadership of Dion?
Friday, October 19, 2007
Marc Garneau pulls a Dion
Former astronaut and failed Liberal candidate Marc Garneau is expected to be parachuted in by Dion as the Liberal candidate in the Montreal riding of Westmount-Ville-Marie, one of the 'so called' safest Grit bastions in the land.
Garneau said just a few weeks ago that he is closing the door on politics and he said he was discouraged that Dion was going to hand pick the Liberal candidate for the Quebec riding in which he was interested and he seemed to rule out a comeback any time soon, saying: "I've gone into the private sector now for as long as I can see in the future.''
He should fit right into the Dion led Liberal Party, where what they say does not matter and Liberal self interest seems to trump everything else.
In case anyone has forgotten, this is some of what Stephane Dion had to say on Liberal support for the thrown speech :
"There's no chance ... Liberal MPs would rise in support of a Throne Speech that we judged was going against the best interests of Canadians and the honour of our country" (National Post, August 27, 2007)
"Never, as leader of this party, will I recommend to my caucus to support a bad Throne Speech or a bad budget bill," Dion said (Montreal Gazette, August 28, 2007)
"We want this Parliament to work,'' he told reporters on his way into a Liberal caucus retreat to plot strategy for the fall. Still, if the Tories insist on proroguing Parliament and starting a new session with a speech from the throne, Dion said Liberals won't hesitate to vote against it if it doesn't include a firm February, 2009, end date for Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan and a comprehensive climate change plan. (CP, August 29, 2007)
Yup, he will be right at home in the Liberal Party of Canada.
Garneau said just a few weeks ago that he is closing the door on politics and he said he was discouraged that Dion was going to hand pick the Liberal candidate for the Quebec riding in which he was interested and he seemed to rule out a comeback any time soon, saying: "I've gone into the private sector now for as long as I can see in the future.''
He should fit right into the Dion led Liberal Party, where what they say does not matter and Liberal self interest seems to trump everything else.
In case anyone has forgotten, this is some of what Stephane Dion had to say on Liberal support for the thrown speech :
"There's no chance ... Liberal MPs would rise in support of a Throne Speech that we judged was going against the best interests of Canadians and the honour of our country" (National Post, August 27, 2007)
"Never, as leader of this party, will I recommend to my caucus to support a bad Throne Speech or a bad budget bill," Dion said (Montreal Gazette, August 28, 2007)
"We want this Parliament to work,'' he told reporters on his way into a Liberal caucus retreat to plot strategy for the fall. Still, if the Tories insist on proroguing Parliament and starting a new session with a speech from the throne, Dion said Liberals won't hesitate to vote against it if it doesn't include a firm February, 2009, end date for Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan and a comprehensive climate change plan. (CP, August 29, 2007)
Yup, he will be right at home in the Liberal Party of Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
