Bloc Quebecois: Opening campaign statement

Issued by the Bloc Quebecois press office earlier today, here is leader Gilles Duceppe's opening statement:

Bonjour,

Si nous sommes aujourd’hui en campagne électorale, c’est que Stephen Harper a tout fait pour provoquer des élections. Le chef conservateur veut obtenir une majorité pour imposer son idéologie, sans aucune limite. Pour y arriver, les conservateurs n’ont pas hésité à mener des assauts répétés contre les principes mêmes de la démocratie.

Le chef conservateur a érigé le mensonge et la tromperie en système de gouvernement. Stephen Harper n’a que faire de la vérité. Faisant preuve d’un manque d’intégrité sans borne, le gouvernement Harper a multiplié les nominations partisanes et il est accusé de patronage et de trafic d’influence.

Le Parti conservateur est poursuivi en justice pour avoir violé la loi. Élections Canada parle d’un système prémédité de fraude électorale. Des enquêtes criminelles sont en cours sur un ancien conseiller de Stephen Harper et un autre, de Christian Paradis.

Une ministre a menti aux élus et à la population; le gouvernement a caché la vérité sur les coûts et les effets négatifs de ses politiques. C’est ainsi que le gouvernement Harper a été condamné pour outrage au Parlement, une première dans l’histoire canadienne. Cette condamnation était pleinement méritée, car il n’y avait aucune circonstance atténuante.

Autre mensonge : le chef conservateur a dit qu’il ne voulait pas d’élections, mais il n’a pas hésité pas à orchestrer une campagne publicitaire de 26 millions avec l’argent public.

Le chef conservateur a dit qu’il ne voulait pas d’élections, mais il a conçu le budget de telle façon qu’aucun parti d’opposition ne puisse l’appuyer. Face au Québec, c’est encore pire. Le budget confirme que Stephen Harper a fait une croix sur le Québec.

Les conservateurs ont refusé de rendre justice au Québec comme ils l’ont fait pour l’Ontario, la Colombie-Britannique et les provinces atlantiques sur la question de l’harmonisation des taxes de vente. En tout, les conservateurs ont privé le Québec de 5 milliards de dollars, soit l’équivalent de 2 500 dollars par famille de quatre.

Les conservateurs ont refusé de soutenir nos économies régionales et l’industrie forestière. Pourtant, ils n’ont pas hésité à déverser des milliards pour aider l’industrie de l’auto en Ontario. Stephen Harper a donné des milliards aux banques et aux grandes pétrolières. Mais il n’a pas le cœur d’aider ceux et celles qui ont perdu leur emploi. Le comble, c’est que le gouvernement conservateur veut encore piger des milliards dans la caisse d’assurance-emploi. Niant nos aspirations, indifférents à nos intérêts et opposés à nos valeurs, les conservateurs ont tourné le dos aux Québécoises et aux Québécois.

Pour toutes ces raisons, Stephen Harper et son gouvernement ne sont pas dignes de confiance. Les conservateurs ont été sanctionnés par les élus. Ils ne méritent pas non plus la confiance de la population.

En vue des élections du 2 mai, nous nous retrouvons face à un danger encore plus grand. Le risque que Stephen Harper obtienne une majorité est bien réel. Si cela arrivait, les conservateurs n’auront plus aucune retenue. Ils seront libres d’imposer, sans frein, des politiques idéologiques contraires à nos intérêts et à nos valeurs. Il y a là une véritable menace pour le Québec.

L’ordre du jour conservateur est chargé :

  • une politique étrangère belliqueuse;
  • des milliards de dépenses militaires supplémentaires;
  • la protection des intérêts des grandes pétrolières;
  • toujours plus de prisons et d’armes à feu;
  • des assauts répétés contre l’environnement, contre les plus démunis, contre les femmes, contre la vérité et contre la démocratie.

Une majorité de Stephen Harper, ça signifie la négation complète de ce que nous sommes, nous, les Québécois. Cela signifie de nouvelles attaques contre la culture québécoise. Une majorité de Stephen Harper, cela signifie que nos intérêts économiques seront complètement ignorés, et nos régions, encore plus délaissées.

Heureusement, nous

ouvons empêcher cela. Si toutes les Québécoises et tous les Québécois conscients de ce danger s’unissent, nous pourrons faire obstacle à Stephen Harper. Au Québec, le seul parti capable de lui barrer la route, c’est le Bloc Québécois. Notre parti est également le seul à parler pour le Québec, d’abord et avant tout. Et pour nous, Québécoises et Québécois, la seule façon d’obtenir gain de cause à Ottawa, c’est de parler du Québec, de nos besoins, de notre réalité et de nous tenir debout, avec fierté.

À Ottawa, le Québec et sa différence dérangent. Les partis canadiens voudraient que nous ne soyons qu’une province comme les autres, que la nation québécoise rentre dans le rang. Nous sommes les seuls à nous battre contre ça.

Ce qui distingue le Bloc des autres partis, c’est qu’eux parlent Canada, alors que nous parlons Québec. Eux sont présents en Saskatchewan, au Manitoba, à Terre-Neuve. Nous sommes présents dans toutes les villes et tous les villages du Québec. Eux défendent les intérêts du Canada. Nous défendons les intérêts du Québec, les intérêts des gens d’ici. Eux défendent les valeurs canadiennes. Nous défendons les valeurs québécoises, notre identité, notre langue et notre culture. Au Canada, il n’y a plus aucune ouverture face aux aspirations et valeurs du Québec. La fermeture du Canada à l’endroit du Québec s’est amplifiée sous les conservateurs, qui l’ont consacrée.

Ces élections sont donc très importantes pour le Québec. Nous devons à la fois protéger notre identité, défendre nos intérêts et nos valeurs en tant que Québécois et barrer la route à Stephen Harper. Face au danger d’une majorité conservatrice, je lance un appel à tous ceux et à toutes celles qui ont à cœur l’avenir du Québec : joignez-vous à nous. Joignez-vous à ces femmes et ces hommes qui portent la bannière du Bloc Québécois. Des gens honnêtes, près du monde, respectueux de la démocratie et qui parlent vrai. Vous, qui dans tous les coins du Québec œuvrez tous les jours à la prospérité économique et à l’épanouissement de notre nation, nous avons besoin de votre appui pour promouvoir avec force les intérêts économiques de nos régions, de nos villes et de nos villages.

Le Québec doit demeurer le plus fort possible à Ottawa. Nous devons faire face à la menace conservatrice en formant un bloc uni. Ici, au Québec, si nous voulons vraiment faire une différence, il faut rejoindre le Bloc Québécois, le seul parti capable de barrer la route à Stephen Harper. Nous pouvons protéger notre identité, nos valeurs et nos intérêts. Joignez-vous au Bloc Québécois et, ensemble. »

Liberals lose a Quebec candidate

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff will begin the country's 41st general election campaign and his first campaign as a party leader in Ottawa with rally. He'll then head to Montreal and be there overnight Saturday. As Ignatieff heads to the province of Quebec, he'll be greeted by the news that his candidate in the riding of Quebec, currently held by Bloc Quebecois MP Christiane Gagnon, has packed it in on the very day the Harper government fell:

Coup de théâtre dans la circonscription de Québec où Anne Gagné, candidate libérale désignée depuis le 14 décembre 2009, a jeté l’éponge avant même le déclenchement officiel du scrutin fédéral.

La nouvelle, tombée hier matin, est d’autant plus surprenante que Mme Gagné fut omniprésente au cours de différents événements publics des 15 derniers mois. Elle y affichait systématiquement son goût d’en découdre électoralement, le plus rapidement possible, avec la députée bloquiste sortante Christiane Gagnon, élue à Québec depuis 1993.

[Read the rest of the story]

The one and only vote to bring down the Harper government

There are a lot Parliamentary hijinks happening this afternoon which I'll try to explain in a minute. For those you not named Kady O'Malley (I tease because I like!) let me cut to the chase:

The next and last vote of the Parliament (barring some routine procedural votes) will be Friday at about 1:30 pm on the following motion, tabled today by the Liberals:

“That the House agrees with the finding of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the Government is in contempt of Parliament, which is unprecedented in Canadian Parliamentary history, and consequently, the House has lost confidence in the Government.”

All three opposition parties will vote in favour of this motion and that will be that for the 40th Parliament.

And now for those of you, like my friend Kady, who have an abiding interest in all things Parliamentary …

What about a vote in the House of Commons that will find the government in contempt of Parliament? What about some votes on the budget presented by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty? What about votes on those supplementary estimates? Ain't never gonna happen.

Here's why.

This afternoon in the House of Commons, MPs began debating “concurrence” in the contempt report from the Procedure and House Affairs Commitee (PROC). Under the procedural rules, three hours of House of Commons time is allotted for that debate. At the end of that debate, MPs will vote to “concur” with that report which would mean that, for the first time ever, a government would be found in contempt of Parliament.

But there is simply not enough time in the House of Commons calendar today to squeeze in three hours of debate before the House adjourns at 5:30 p.m.

Under the rules, it is up to the government to schedule the remainder of time of debate on the contempt report and its subsequent vote. But the government can reschedule that any time over the next 10 sitting days. That will never happen because this Parliament ends Friday.

So bottom line here: This government will never be found in contempt of Parliament.

The opposition parties are happy with this — and are putting up speakers to run out the clock to 5:30 — because of another procedural side effect of spending all day today debating the contempt report, that being, we will not get to to any votes on the budget becausethose votes cannot happen at least until the second day of debate on the budget.

Had the House of Commons spent even 30 seconds today debating the budget, today would have been declared the first day of budget debate. The Conservatives were trying to do that, one more little way to show they are “focused on the economy.”

So on Thursday, we will have our first day of budget debate. Under Parliamentary rules, on the first day of budget debate (which now is not today) the Official Opposition (the Liberals) introduces a motion on the budget. Also on the first day of budget debate, the Bloc Quebecois gets to introduce a sub-amendment on that Liberal motion. MPs then spend the day debating the budget but the votes, by rule, on the Liberal motion and the BQ sub-amendment are held on the second day of budget debate. That day, too, will never come because Parliament will end on Friday.

Friday is a special kind of day in the Parliamentary calendar. It is known as a supply day and it is the last possible day that this particular supply day can be held. By rule, all other House business — such as the second day of budget debate or anything else — is put off until this supply day is done. The day will be spent debating the motion that the Liberals tabled today (the one at the top of this post) and then, at 1:30 p.m., three different votes are scheduled.

The first vote will be on the Liberal non-confidence motion. The second and third are votes on routine money bills that give the government the authority to spend money over the next few months. Those two money bills are also, by definition, confidence votes because they are related to the budget. But because the Liberal motion is first up the House will have declared no confidence in the government making votes on those money bills a moot point.

Why do the opposition parties like the way this unfolds? Largely because they will have been able to say: At the first opportunity they had this (even though it's an opportunity they kind of engineered) they voted to bring down the government.

 

What will the NDP do? Election this year or next?

Over the next week or so, Jack Layton's NDP are essentially going to be called upon to give Stephen Harper's government another year in office. My bet is: They will. That makes me part of “Team 2012”, those who believe the next federal election will be in 2012 and not this spring. I was actually on the Team 2012 bus for a long time but I must confess the Speaker's contempt rulings and the Carson affair was enough to get me to signal that I ought to get off the 2012 bus at the next stop. Then we learned late today about some of things the Conservatives will put in their budget Tuesday including:

  • A boost to the Guaranteed Income Supplement of $600 a year for single seniors and $840 a year for couples.
  • The extension of the EcoEnergy tax credit to give homeowners an incentive to make homes more energy efficient.
  • Forgiveness of student loans of new doctors and nurses if they work in rural and remote areas.
  • $4 million to a Thunder Bay, Ont. research institute — and both Thunder Bay MPs happen to be NDP MPs
  • A new initiative to help veterans find jobs in the construction industry — an initiative Jack Layton lobbied Flaherty for personally.

So I was asked tonight by a friend of mine a question I've been asked lots frequently in one form or another: What is your sense of the NDP willingness to have an election? 

 

And here's my answer:

My sense is that there are election hawks in all parties. But at the end of the day, this is the call the leaders have to make. It's my information that Harper, for example, doesn't want an election though many of his closest advisors want one.

Because this is the leader's call, I've focused my attention closely on NDP Leader Jack Layton over the last few months. Some in Layton's party, including some MPs, seem to be itching for a fight. But at the end of the day, it is Layton who has to make the final call and convince his caucus that his final call is the right move.

I think Layton will be able to say — with a great degree of truth — to his caucus and to his supporters that the NDP's frequent budget “asks” resulted in an EcoEnergy tax credit, a GIS bump, some money for new doctors and so on. Because they were the ones who asked for this stuff, the NDP can — again, with quite a bit of truth — turn to their supporters and say, “See? That's why you elect NDP MPs. Even though we are the smallest caucus in the Commons, we can deliver for our supporters. What did the Liberals get for their supporters? Nothing. And we voted against those corporate tax cuts before they could take root. The Liberals didn't even show up. And now, when we have a chance to do something for the environment and to do something for seniors, well, we think that's pretty good for a party with fewer than 40 MPs.”

My friend asked,  of course, about “willingness” to have an election and what I just wrote is the answer to a different question. So let me answer what I was asked: I think the NDP are quite willing to go to the polls. In meetings  with NDP operatives, they've laid out a credible plan to win more seats than they have now, even if they don't increase their popular vote that much. My hunch is that if they can boost their popular vote on e-day to anything above 20 per cent, they stand a very real chance of becoming the official opposition in a scenario where the Tories win a majority and the Liberal vote collapses. So they're willing. But will they go this week? I don't think so.

How about you? What's your sense?

 

NDP MP tries to build support for bill to limit CEO salaries

Jim Maloway, the NDP MP for the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood-Transcona, has an ad (reproduced below) in this morning's Winnipeg Sun in which he's trying to build support for “The Canadian Shareholders Act”, which, the ad says, he is introducing to Parliament. Don't see it on the list of private member's bills or on his Web site yet, though … Any links?

Maloway

The privilege drama continues: Liberals accuse Tories of screwing around…

When we last left this drama, you'll recall, the Speaker of the House of Commons had ruled that there was a prima facie case that the Harper Government™ and one of its cabinet ministers, Bev Oda, were in contempt of Parliament. But, as per House of Commons rules, Speaker Peter Milliken may not actually make a finding of contempt. Only the House of Commons as a whole can find someone or something in contempt of it. But before the House of Commons debates and votes on this prima facie case, “the normal practice”, as Speaker Milliken put it, is to have these matters referred to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons to hash it out ahead of time; hear from some witnesses; and see if there is any horse trading to be done that might resolve the issue.

The group charged with this weighty work is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, often a bit of a sleeper when it comes to committees. Its permanent meeting room is 112-N, a tiny albeit cozy committee room buried in the basement of the Centre Block at the back of the building. But tomorrow — as it begins three full days of testimony and debate into these matters of privilege, it has relocated to Centre Block's main floor and to one of the Parliamentary precinct's more majesterial committee rooms – 253-D, a room watched over by the Fathers of Confederation and capable of accommodating the great number of journalists and other visitors who will, no doubt, want to sit through every minute of these proceedings. The room is also wired for television which means you'll be able to watch it wherever you are in Canada.

The procedure and house affairs committee (or PROC for short and pronounced to rhyme with crock) is seized with these matters stemming from the Speaker's rulings because the House of Commons itself directed it to be seized with this matter, specifically with this motion from Liberal MP Scott Brison:

That, given your finding that a prima facie breach of the privileges of Parliament has been committed by the government for failing to fully provide the documents as ordered by the House, the matter be hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a final determination on the government's compliance, or lack thereof, and that the committee report back its findings and recommendations no later than March 21, 2011.

and with this motion from Liberal MP John McKay:

That the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the committee report back no later than March 25, 2011.

“The matter” that McKay refers to is all about Oda, the minister for international development. Speaker Milliken summed up the issue at hand in his ruling on March 9:

On February 17, 2011, the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development was presented to the House. It is a short report which focuses primarily on testimony by the minister [Oda] and her officials on December 9, 2010, in relation to the process that led to the rejection of a funding application by KAIROS …

… In particular, much attention is given to determining how the word “not” made its way into the assessment of the KAIROS funding application submitted to the minister for approval. The last part of the report links this testimony with “other information before the House” and draws “attention to what appears to be a possible breach of privilege”.

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this: as the committee has reported, when asked who inserted the word “not” in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word “not”, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the “not” was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as “unfortunate”. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River [McKay] told the House, this “has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion”.

[As a result] ..  the Chair is of the view that sufficient doubt exists to warrant a finding of prima facie privilege in this case.

So now it is up to PROC to consider the Speaker's rulings and, as per those two motions, report back to the House on Monday on the Brison motion and on Thursday, March 25 on the McKay motion. (In between we will be treated to a federal budget on Tuesday, March 22).

At 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Conservative MP and PROC chairman Joe Preston (left) will bring down his gavel in 253-D and the committee will begin considering the Brison motion. The witnesses off the top will include some procedural and legal scene setting from Rob Walsh, the law clerk and Parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons. Then Suzanne Legault, Parliament's information commissioner will make a presentation followed by a break for lunch.

Then, after lunch, beginning at 1:30 p.m., the government is offering two ministers: Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. This makes sense because the government is accused of contempt in failing to provide another committee of the House of Commons with detailed costing estimates of its “law-and-order” legislative package.

But Toews and Nicholson are slotted in only for an hour — and they will be accompanied by no less than 10 senior bureaucrats to assist them.

“The Conservatives have been saying that they would cooperate. But at tomorrow’s committee, they’re jamming 2 ministers and 10 officials in a single hour,” Brison complained Tuesday evening. “Looks like they’re still playing games to avoid giving Parliament and Canadians straight answer, as well they still refuse to provide Parliament and Canadian taxpayers with the real cost of their U.S. style prison agenda.”

 

Political daybook chock full as MPs dispatched everywhere to spread the gospel of their government

The communications masterminds in the Harper government are taking advantage of the fact that MPs are back in their ridings this week to co-ordinate vast “messaging campaigns” — the goal being to win a headline, photo or other notice in local or regional media in which the local MP gets to sing the praises of a government program. Today's theme is the Knowledge Infrastructure Program or KIP. KIP was a $2 billion fund — one of a few infrastructure funds – set up at the beginning of the recession as part of the government's so-called Economic Action Plan.

While there is some reasonable evidence that other infrastructure programs, particularly the Recreational Infrastructure Fund (RiNC) were used to funnel money to ridings held by Conservatives, the KIP program seems to have been the reverse of that: Money from that program went disproportionately to ridings held by the Liberals and the NDP. That would seem to make sense on that face of it: RiNC was for hockey arenas and ball fields. Conservatives tend to hold geographically large ridings in rural and small-town Canada — and every town in those large ridings probably found park or arena that needed fixing. KIP money, though, is reserved for new projects by colleges and universities which tend to be clustered in urban areas where you tend to find the country's Liberal and, to a degree, NDP MPs.

But I digress: What I really want to do was show you how thick the calendar is. And these are only the events the Parliamentary Press Gallery was told about. There are likely many other events put on by a local MP who didn't bother to alert the national press about it. All times here have been converted from local time to Ottawa time:

  • 08:00 – 08:30 | Minister KEITH ASHFIELD – KIP announcement (Fredericton, NB)
  • 08:30 – 09:30 | Minister TED MENZIES KIP announcement (Halifax, NS)
  • 09:00 – 10:00 | MP Bernard Genereux – Possible KIP announcement (La Pocatiere, QC)
  • 09:00 – 09:30 | Minister CHRISTIAN PARADIS – KIP Announcement (Thetford Mines, QC)
  • 09:30 – 10:30 | SEN Fabian Manning – KIP announcement (Conception Bay South, NF)
  • 09:50 – 10:15 | LPC MICHAEL IGNATIEFF and MP Denis Coderre- Photo op (Montreal, QC)
  • 10:00 – 11:00 | MP Terence Young – KIP announcement (Oakville, ON)
  • 10:00 – 11:00 | Minister GARY GOODYEAR and MP Gary Schellenberger – Small biz announcement (Stratford, ON)
  • 10:00 – 11:00 | Canadian Council for Policy Alternatives – Alternative Budget (130-S)
  • 10:00 – 11:00 | MP Bruce Stanton – KIP announcement (Orillia, ON)
  • 10:00 – 11:00 | Minister JAMES MOORE – Language announcement (Saint Hyacinthe, QC)
  • 11:00 – 12:00 | Minister DIANE FINLEY – Social housing announcement (London, ON)
  • 11:00 – 12:00 | Minister JULIAN FANTINO – Social housing announcement (Scarborough, ON)
  • 11:00 – 12:00 | Minister STEVEN FLETCHER – KIP announcement
  • 11:15 – 11:45 | MIN ROB MOORE – KIP announcement (Moncton, NB)
  • 11:30 – 12:30 | Minister VIC TOEWS – Safety announcement (Regina, SK)
  • 11:30 – 12:00 | LPC MICHAEL IGNATIEFF – Media Avail (Montreal, QC)
  • 12:00 – 13:00 | Minister GAIL SHEA – KIP Announcement (Charlottetown, PE)
  • 12:00 – 13:00 | Minister RONA AMBROSE – KIP announcement (Edmonton, AB)
  • 12:00 – 12:30 | MP Laurie Hawn – KIP announcement (Edmonton, AB)
  • 12:00 – 13:00 | MP Shelly Glover – Agri-Health Research
  • 12:00 – 13:00 | MP Merv Tweed – Small biz announcement (Souris, MB)
  • 12:00 – 13:00 | Minister LYNNE YELICH – KIP announcement (Saskatoon, SK)
  • 12:15 – 13:15 | MP Alice Wong KIP announcement (Richmond, BC)
  • 12:30 – 13:30 | Minister JAMES MOORE and MP Jacques Gourde – KIP announcement (Drummondville, QC)
  • 12:45 – 13:45 | MIN PETER VAN LOAN – Speech on Africa (Toronto, ON)
  • 13:00 – 14:00 | Minister GARY GOODYEAR – KIP announcement (Waterloo, ON)
  • 13:00 – 13:30 | PM HARPER, MIN STOCKWELL DAY, MP Nina Grewal, and MP Dona Cadman – photo opp (Surrey, BC)
  • 13:00 – 14:00 | Minister CHRISTIAN PARADIS – Snowmobile cash (Saint-Sebastian, QC)
  • 13:00 – 14:00 | Minister KEITH ASHFIELD – Funding announcement (Edmundston, NB)
  • 13:45 – 14:45 | MIN GARY LUNN – KIP announcement (Victoria, BC)
  • 14:00 – 15:00 | Minister JOHN BAIRD – KIP announcement (Ottawa, ON)
  • 14:00 – 15:00 | Minister DIANE FINLEY and MP Ed Holder – KIP Announcement (London, ON)
  • 14:00 – 15:00 | Minister DENIS LEBEL – KIP announcement (Trois-Rivieres, QC)
  • 14:30 – 15:30 | PM HARPER, MIN STOCKWELL DAY – announcement (Vancouver, BC)
  • 15:00 – 15:30 | MP Ed Fast – Agriculture announcement (Abbotsford, BC)
  • 15:30 – 16:30 | MP Laurie Hawn – Funding announcement – YMCA (Edmonton, AB)
  • 16:00 – 17:00 | Minister DIANE ABLONCZY – KIP announcement (Calgary, AB)
  • 16:00 – 17:00 | Minister ROB MERRIFIELD – Infrastructure announcement (Yellowknife, NT)

Andrew Coyne's most excellent jeremiad – rebuilt from Twitter

So tonight we reported: “The federal government handed out yet another cheque Monday to a Quebec snowmobiling club, the latest in more than $6 million of federal funding announcements that have gone to snowmobile clubs in that province since the last federal election.”

That set off Maclean's national editor Andrew Coyne but it set him off on Twitter which means that unless you were there in real-time it might have been a bit difficult to see his jeremiad being written in real-time. I must say I agree with much of his complaint. So: I've copied and pasted and, voila, Mr. Coyne as he appeared, in full throat, beginning at about 9 pm this evening:

  • Q: Will any federal party protest at the distribution of $6 million of federal money to Quebec snowmobile clubs? A: Not on your life.
  • They didn't object to rest of the “stimulus” porkapalooza. Only complaint was 1 it wasn't enough & 2 more should've gone to Grit ridings. 34 minutes ago
  • We have a govt that doesn't care the first thing for the taxpayer, has no clue of the proper role of govt or any intent of living within it. 32 minutes ago
  • And we have four parties to the left of them. 32 minutes ago
  • Nothing has changed by substituting the Tories for the Liberals. And nothing would change by substituting the Liberals for the Tories. 31 minutes ago
  • Opportunism, expedience, power for its own sake, ever-expanding & ever-more-politicized government: that is the common theme of all. 30 minutes ago
  • Mulroney came to power vowing to clean up the mess left by Trudeau; Chretien was going to clean up after Mulroney & Martin after Chretien… 28 minutes ago
  • And Harper was going to clean up after all of them. Each, faced with the skepticism left by their predecessor's broken promises, went to … 28 minutes ago
  • … ever more extravagant lengths to stress that this time they meant it, this time would be different. And each discarded their promises… 27 minutes ago
  • … just as soon as they had outlived their usefulness, ie the day after they were elected. 26 minutes ago
  • And yet… each has *legions* of faithful partisans to sing its praises. Not professionals, who might rationalize their compromises in the.. 23 minutes ago
  • … usual way – I have a family to support, this is what I do, it's the life I've chosen – but people who do it for free. 23 minutes ago
  • And the BEST part? The mandate that entitles them to spend billions of $ on pork & 10s of millions on partisan govt ads & millions more on.. 16 minutes ago
  • … attack ads, as all of them do, was won with, oh, 37, 38% of the vote. 14 minutes ago
  • So: tell just enough lies to sucker 3 in 8 voters – or about a *fifth* of eligible voters, turnout being what it is – to vote for you… 12 minutes ago
  • … generally in the hope that you will steer other Cdns' money in their direction. Then spend what's left on a propaganda barrage… 9 minutes ago
  • … in hopes of repeating the exercise. 9 minutes ago

Former Tory MP says his party is anti-democratic

Robert Sopuck was elected the member of Parliament for the Manitoba riding of Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette in a by-election last fall after long-time MP Inky Mark decided to resign his sieat and run (unsuccessfully) for the job of mayor in Dauphin.

Mark (left), though, appears to be enjoying his freedom from the communications straightjacket he was forced to wear while he was an MP. The following letter, which Mark sent to several Manitoba newspapers, is the latest example of this former MP speaking his mind:

March 13th, 2011

Dear Editor:

Re: No Democracy in Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette

The Conservative Party nomination process again is a sham.  There was no real open nomination  to elect a real representative for the membership in the riding. For the second time Bob Sopuck has avoided an open and fair nomination process. Bob Sopuck  has been appointed again by Stephen Harper Party and Don Plett [Plett is the former party president, a Manitoban, and was recently appointed to the Senate by Harper – Akin]  to represent the party in the next general election. Brian Chita, current president of the riding is only  a rubber stamp for the party .  When will the 700 members of the Conservative Party  in the riding get to choose their own representative? One must ask the question: What value is there having a membership in a party that doesn’t respects it’s membership?  This lack of democracy at the local level is wrong.  It has taken western society 700 years to take the power away from the crown and put it in the hands of the commoner.  Today we have a system where the MP is appointed by the leader of the party, not the members of the party. Our young men and women are sacrificing their lives in the name of democracy around the world. Stephen Harper and Don Plett, in stead of paying lip service to democracy, it s time to give the membership in Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette the right to an open and fair nomination.

Yours sincerely,

Inky Mark, MP(ret.)

Strahl, Cummins to retire as Reform's Class of '93 fades away

A few hours after we learned that Stockwell Day will not run in the general election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper tells us (below) that Chuck Strahl (left), the Transport and Infrastructure Minister, and Vancouver-area MP John Cummins have also decided not to seek re-election. All of these announcements come as Parliament Hill is at about DefCon 1 so far as a spring election is concerned. The practical effect of the resignations of Day, Strahl, and Cummins is that the ridings associations in those areas have about two weeks to find a candidate  — just in case.

Should we be surprised that any of these men are resigning? No. They have all three had long careers in Ottawa. Day is 60. Cummins turns 69 today. Strahl is 54 and living with an incurable and rare form of lung cancer that has been — thank heavens — largely dormant since its initial discovery in 2005.

Cummins and Strahl are also party of the infamous/famous “Class of 93”, the term used to describe that first wave of Reform MPs that washed up on Parliament's shore after Deb Grey had established them all a beachhead. It's now been more than 17 years since that 1993 election and many from that group have already bid adieu. Jay Hill said so long last fall. Jim Abbott, another BC MP from the class of 1993 still in the House, had already indicated he won't run. Rick Casson of Lethbridge  is also serving out his final months before retiring. Liberal MP Keith Martin first came to Parliament as a Reformer in 1993 but then switched sides. Martin is also retiring at the end of this Parliament. Monte Solberg, one of Strahl's best friends, was the big name among several Class of 1993 alumni who packed it in before the 1993 election.

There are still a few MPs, though, in the Conservative caucus to carry that torch that Reformers first rode into town with. They include Harper himself (though he would resign during his first term as MP and not come back to the Commons until 2002), Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Diane Ablonczy, Indian Affairs Minister John Duncan (he lost in the 2006 election but came back in 2008), and MPs Leon Benoit, Garry Breitkreuz, and Dick Harris,.

For the Conservative Party of Canada and its supporters, the departure of Strahl, Cummins, et al are part of a significant generational change as those MPs who fought those early battles as Reformers, Canadian Alliance MPs and then through the mergers of the parties of the right into government move on and those early battles fade back into history. Here's the PM statement:

“I would like to thank Ministers Chuck Strahl and Stockwell Day, as well as Member of Parliament, John Cummins for their extraordinary dedication to public service throughout the years. I look forward to working with them in the best interest of Canada until the end of their mandate.

“They have served Canadians and their constituents with distinction.

“Stockwell has an outstanding record of achievement throughout his time in Parliament. Since his debut in public service in 1986, as a Member in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Stockwell’s leadership has inspired all of us. From his role as Leader of the Official Opposition in 2000, to his success in several ministerial positions, Stockwell is respected and admired by all of his colleagues, his constituents and Canadians across the country.

“Since first elected to Parliament in 1993, Chuck has tackled each of his roles with passion and enthusiasm, and with tremendous achievement. Throughout his various ministerial positions, Chuck has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of Canadians.

“John has been a dedicated member of Parliament since 1993. Throughout this time, he has made an important contribution to Parliament, to our party and, in the last five years, our Government. He has earned enormous respect for his work on behalf of his constituents and all Canadians.

“I am both honoured and grateful to have worked with Stockwell, Chuck and John.

“Laureen joins me in expressing our gratitude, and wishing them and their families the very best in their future endeavours.”

Correction: An earlier version of this post said Edmonton's Peter Goldring was not running. That is incorrect. He is running in the next general election. My apologies to Mr. Goldring.