Flaherty to U.S. lawmakers: Fix your finances, don't disrupt the global economy

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is in New York this afternoon giving a speech there. Most of the speech would be familiar to many Canadian audiences — he spends a lot of time reviewing Canada's success weathering the recession and then highlights his recent budget.

But Flaherty also uses the occasion to deliver what many on this side of the border will see as a warning to U.S. lawmakers, a warning he made to reporters in Ottawa Tuesday. Reuters Louise Egan reports:

Canada urged its top trading partner, the United States, on Tuesday to steer clear of defaulting on its debt to avoid “disruptions” to the global economy.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told reporters he had spoken with his U.S. counterparts in Congress and budget officials in the Obama administration to encourage them to “work something out.”

“This is not just a procedural matter. This has some consequences,” Flaherty told reporters when asked about the possibility of the U.S. missing a debt payment.

“We don't need any more disruptions in the world economy these days,” he said.

Flaherty will head to New York on Wednesday to give a speech there.

His comments came as U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and a bipartisan group of lawmakers stepped up negotiations to find a deal that would allow Congress to raise the debt ceiling by an August 2 deadline, when the United States could start defaulting on its obligations.

With that context, here is a bit from the end of Flaherty's speech in New York today that should, I think, be read in context of the above:

It’s essential that we all have a clear strategy in place to ensure markets continue to have confidence in our fiscal plans—and there is no time to waste in doing so.

The health of Canada’s economy—and of the world’s, for that matter—depends greatly on the fiscal decisions being made in this country.

What’s required is a solid plan to eliminate deficits, reduce debt and create a cushion against the next global economic shock, combined with the determination to deliver results on time and as promised.

It’s a tall order, but it’s doable.

I'm with Flaherty on this one. Someone — and it might as well be their biggest trading partner — needs to talk some sense to the Americans. As I wrote after the last American mid-term elections, the elections that brought the Tea Party wave to Washington:

[Sen. Rand] Paul is quite prepared to lead America into bankruptcy rather than let the federal government borrow another nickel. Paul must surely know that that would be a catastrophic disaster for the United States, Canada and the rest of the world.

But he seems to think his principles are more important.

Dragging the world's economy into the dumpster on principle – any principle – is wrong. He would be doing vastly more harm to America if he uses his new responsibilities and privileges as a United States senator to let the country he loves – and we need – go bankrupt.

The Libya motion and its amendments

The House of Commons today is debating the following motion, put forward by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird:

No. 1 — June 9, 2011 — The Minister of Foreign Affairs — That, in standing in solidarity with those seeking freedom in Libya, the House unanimously adopted a motion in the Third Session of the 40th Parliament on March 21, 2011, authorizing all necessary measures, including the use of the Canadian Forces and military assets in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973; and given that the House unanimously agreed that should the government require an extension to the involvement of the Canadian Forces for more than three months from the passage of the said motion, the government was to return to the House at its earliest opportunity to debate and seek the consent of the House for such an extension; therefore the House consents to another extension of three and a half months of the involvement of the Canadian Forces in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; that the House deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime against the Libyan people, including the alleged use of rape as a weapon of war by the Libyan regime; that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Standing Committee on National Defence remain seized of Canada's activities under UNSC Resolution 1973; and that the House continues to offer its wholehearted support to the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces who stand on guard for all of us.

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar has proposed the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by replacing everything after the word “that” with:

in standing in solidarity with those seeking freedom in Libya, the House unanimously adopted a motion in the Third Session of the 40th Parliament on March 21, 2011 authorizing all necessary measures, including the use of the Canadian Forces and military assets in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973; and given that the House unanimously agreed that should the government require an extension to the involvement of the Canadian Forces for more than three months from the passage of the said motion, the government was to return to the House at its earliest opportunity to debate and seek the support of the House for such an extension; therefore, with the objective of protecting civilians, the House supports another extension of three and a half months of the involvement of the Canadian Forces in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; the House supports an increase in Canada's humanitarian assistance to those affected by the crisis and efforts to strengthen Canada's support for the diplomatic efforts outlined in UNSCR 1973 to reach a ceasefire leading to a Libyan-led political transition, and supports the government's commitment to not deploy Canadian ground troops; that the House deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime against the Libyan people, including the alleged use of rape as a weapon of war by the Libyan regime and supports Canada's participation in the international efforts in investigating, preventing and prosecuting these alleged crimes; that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Standing Committee on National Defence remain seized of Canada's activities under UNSC Resolution 1973, and appreciates the government's full and continued cooperation on committee meetings and the sharing of information in accordance with the highest levels of  transparency practiced by our partners in the operation; and that the House continues to offer its wholehearted support to the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces who stand on guard for all of us.

Liberal interim leader Bob Rae has an amendment from his party which reads:

I move, seconded by the member for Wascana, that the amendment be amended by:
a) Adding after the words ‘political transition’ the following: ‘that the government of Canada engage with the Libyan National Council (LNC) based in Benghazi as a legitimate political entity and representative of the Libyan people; that it provide the LNC with advice and assistance in governance, including women’s rights’ and
b) Adding after the words “alleged crimes”, the following:
‘that it ensure that Canadian citizens, landed immigrants, or visitors to Canada are not subject to any threats or intimidation by representatives of the Qaddafi regime’.

 

An #Ottawaspends update: 39 funding announcements out the door since May 2

My #ottawaspends project is up and running for the 41st Parliament. This is primarily a Twitter-based project which will include summary updates here from time to time and the odd story on Sun News Network and in our newspapers.

Do click through on the links for more information and examples and feel free to drop a query in the comments section.

So, with that, we are ready for the first summary after the first six weeks of the life of the — say it with me, folks — “strong, stable, Conservative majority government.”

So far: We've counted 39 separate funding announcements which commit the government to spending $437.3 million. This money was all approved and booked by the 40th Parliament and is being rolled out now.

By dollar value, most of the money so far announced — about $334 million – is going to be spent outside Canada, on foreign aid projects announced either by Prime Minister Stephen Harper or International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda. That money has been committed through 11 funding announcements.

Next, we examine each funding release to see if the money will be spent in one specific riding. This is the pork barrel test, if you will. So, for example, earlier this week, we noted that Health Canada announced funding of $2.6 million for the Hincks Dellcrest Centre in downtown Toronto. This mental health facility is in Liberal Bob Rae's riding so we chalks up $2.6 million worth of spending in the Liberal column. When the government allocated $2 million for the local economic development agency in Lac-Megantic, QC, we put that in the Conservative column because that town is in Christian Paradis' riding.

And when Health Canada announced $2.9 million for the B.C. division of the Canadian Mental Health Association we give it an 'M' rating for “Multiple Ridings” which means it will be spent in ridings held by more than one political party. So far, there have been six announcements committing the government to spending $26.5 million in projects that benefit “multiple ridings.”

When it comes to spending where one riding benefits, Conservatives are getting more but then again, that party holds more ridings so you'd expect that:

  • Conservative ridings: 11 announcements with funding of a combined $52.3 million.
  • NDP ridings: 7 announcements for a combined $18.6 million.
  • Liberal ridings: 3 announcements for a combined $5.83 million
  • BQ ridings: 1 announcement for $130,000.

 

 

Arguing in favour of the per-vote subsidy for political parties

In 2010, the per-vote subsidy paid out of the federal Treasury to political parties will cost about $24 million. Meanwhile, the generous tax credit for political contributions made to political parties will result in about $21 million in revenue that Ottawa will forego this year. And when the bills are finally added up from the 2011 federal election, the taxpayer, through Elections Canada, will send out more than $60 million in rebates to parties and candidates for TV ads, brochures, and lawn signs.

In its budget Monday, the federal government announced the gradual phaseout — 51 cents a year — of the $2.04 per vote per year subsidy parties can earn.

I argue today that the per-vote subsidy is the most defensible of the public subsidy.

 

 

Conservative senator condemns page who protested

Conservative Senator David Tkachuk made the following statement today in the Senate chamber:

Honourable Senators, all of you will be familiar with the following:

I do swear that I will be faithful and bear True allegiance to Her Majesty
The Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada,
Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

That is the oath of a Senate Page.

A regrettable incident took place on Friday during the Throne Speech. A Senate Page, Brigitte DePape, chose to disrupt proceedings.

She broke her oath to the Queen and her signed contract with Parliament not to behave in a way that brings her impartiality into question.

We were all surprised by what she did. Being a familiar face, it struck few of us as odd when she made her way from her place into the middle of the chamber. Many of us thought she was there to assist someone, not to protest. She walked back and forth with her STOP Harper sign until the Sergeant-at-Arms from the House acted to remove her.

This was clear contempt for the Parliament she had sworn to serve, taking place as it did in the middle of one of the most democratic acts in the world — a post election address from the Queen’s representative, who was flanked by a newly elected Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Onlookers were MPs lead by a speaker who won a seat in this great institution at the age of 25, only a few years older than the protesting page.

Brigitte dishonoured her fellow Pages. She sullied the Page program itself. She betrayed those who put their trust in her. And she insulted this institution.

There are those who have characterized what she did as heroic.

No. Heroic are the men and women, many of them her age or younger, who serve in Afghanistan, defending the principles and practices of democracy that resulted, most recently, in the election we just had.

What she did was not heroic. She was surrounded not by enemies but by people she could trust not to harm her. People unlike her, who believe in and adhere to a code of civil behaviour.

All of us here should be offended by what she did. We expect – in fact demand — that our Pages behave in a neutral fashion. That is the only way the program can work. They are allowed to have political opinions. In fact, I hope they all do. But for the duration of their time as Pages those opinions, those leanings are to be left outside this chamber.

We are taking this incident very seriously. The Page was fired immediately. She has also been banned from the Senate, the House and the Library buildings.

The Security Sub-Committee of Internal Economy met this morning and the Steering Committee will be meeting this afternoon to discuss what the implications are for security in the Senate and for the conduct of the Page program itself. We will be looking into the hiring practices for Pages, including the background checks that are done related to those. I pray that no one else here assisted her in this stunt.

Honourable Senators, I can assure you that after due consideration, we will take all the appropriate measures that the circumstances dictate. I don’t have to tell you what would have happened if she had something else inside her jacket instead of a poster. I will keep you informed of developments.

 

Memo to Brigette: There are no shortcuts in politics. It takes long, dull, dreary work

On Friday,  during the reading of the Speech from the Throne, a woman named Brigette Marcelle DePape, 21, who was employed as a page in the Senate, disrupted this ceremony by holding up a sign that read “Stop Harper” (left). She was immediately escorted from the Senate and fired.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, no fan of the policies of the Harper government, thought Brigette's means and method of protest to be “inappropriate”, telling reporters in the House of Commons foyer:

“That is the most solemn moment in a Parliamentary democracy.  In theory, we’re in the presence of Her Majesty and the Sovereign.  That isn’t Stephen Harper’s room. That’s somebody else’s room.  On the other hand, I thought that the act of personal courage was something that you couldn’t avoid.  She didn’t shout.  She wasn’t disrespectful.  Clearly holding a sign up was not appropriate. She was in the wrong room.  But her commitment and the concern that all – that many, many Canadian youth come to me all the time that this is their future and when they don’t see climate action, they see their future at stake.  So I think that I, while understanding her reasons and feeling that that was a brave act, it was the wrong place.

So what is the right place?

Well, the right place, as May, Jack Layton, and Stephen Harper all know, is the country's shopping malls, luncheons hosted by chambers of commerce, sewing circles, union meetings, parish picnics, but most definitely not the Senate of Canada.

I have had countless conversations with activists on both the left and right who bemoan the fact that young people, like Brigette, love the quick hit and immediate emotional satisfaction of a protest, a flash mob, or sit-in — but then eschew the hard, dull work of actually bringing about change by sitting through one community meeting after another convincing voters that their view is the right one.

Some may point at the federal NDP caucus as evidence of the “quick-hit” youth breakthrough but the sages in that party will tell you that the electoral breakthrough they achieved on May 2 was not the result of having their supporters storm hallowed halls with the equivalent of a “Stop Harper” sign but was, instead, the result of difficult, painstaking work building a political alternative to the Liberals and Conservatives, an alternative that was, among other things, able to raise enough money to be able to match those two political parties dollar-for-dollar when it comes to election advertising. Cost of a national election campaign nowadays: Better come to the table with $20 million. It took the NDP a decade of hard work to be able to do that.

Consider: Jack Layton, a popular municipal politician from Toronto wins the leadership of the federal NDP in 2003. The party, at that point, had only 13 seats and, in the 2000 general election, had received just 8.5 per cent of the popular vote. After much hard work to rebuilding his party organization, the NDP in 2004 won 19 seats, 2.1 million votes, and 15.7 per cent of the popular vote – and parlayed that in Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government into some very effective leverage.

Then: In 2006, Layton's NDP improved again: winning 29 seats on 2.6 million votes (17.5 per cent). In 2008, Layton's party would get fewer votes — 2.5 million — but would end up winning more seats —  37  — on 18 per cent of the popular vote. And then, after nearly a decade of hard work, in 2011, Layton's NDP gets 4.5 million votes (31 per cent) and wins 103 seats to become the Official Opposition.

As Nova Scotia's NDP Premier Darrell Dexter told me last week: That's great, but it's in the rear-view mirror now. He was on the opposition benches for a decade before he had the political breakthrough that made him the leader of a government. Brigette might be wise to remember that Dexter's historic breakthrough occurred becuase of painstaking hard work and not because of a silly flash-in-the-pan protest.

In fact, for Layton, May, and even Stephen Harper, the change that they and their supporters were seeking did not come about because they held up a protest sign at a public event. Brigette, upon being turfed from the Senate, issued a press release calling for a Canadian Arab Spring, perhaps not realizing that the whole point of the Arab Spring that millions in Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Yemen were dying for was for the simple right to have free, fair elections, something Canada did about 4 weeks prior to Brigette's odd protest. In fact, Layton, May, and Harper have, for a decade or more, been counting on the very guarantees of Canada's democratic rule of law that the Arab Spring protesters are dying for. Left, right or green — Canadian activists can count on the fact that all they need do is find more votes than their opponent to prevail. In North Africa and the Middle East, governments win when they find more bullets and bombs than their opponent. (I remember Uganda's opposition leader Kizza Besigye drily telling me in when I was in Kampala in 2007 how, in his country, there had never been a change of government without bombs and feeling rather lucky that we have never had anything like that in Canada.)

And one could argue that  the effort, sacrifice and courage of the last 15 years from Layton, May, and Harper is not only greater than what Brigette displayed but greater than what she and her supporters even understand to be courageous.

Consider, in support of that point, Elizabeth May who, in 2006, left what we might call a relatively comfortable and secure job as the executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada to seek the leadership of The Green Party of Canada and then, having won that in what was a tricky political battle, she tried for a seat in November 2006 in Parliament by contesting, unsuccessfully, a byelection in the Ontario riding of London North Centre. Recognizing, quite rightly, that she was her party's best hope for its first elected seat in Parliament, she aimed herself at the riding of Central Nova in the 2008 general election but failed to unseat Conservative Peter MacKay. In what many saw as her last chance as leader, she ran against another cabinet minister — Gary Lunn — at the other end of the country in the 2011 general election and this time, in Saanich-Gulf Islands, she won.

It has taken May more than five years, plenty of difficult politicking within her own party, and millions of dollars donated by Green Party members but they finally have their first elected member of Parliament. May, I'm certain, wishes to “Stop Harper” and bring about the kind of change she and her supporters believe in but they did not do it by standing up in the Senate during a Throne Speech and naively believing that a “Stop Harper” sign would make one bit of difference. No: May and her supporters, who are certainly as motivated as young Brigette, devoted themselves to the difficult work of organizing themselves, raising money, reaching out to their neighbours and generally availing themselves of the very democratic process that is unavailable to the millions protesting in the Arab Spring.

As for the current prime minister, it took him some time, apparently, to understand that doing the hard work of getting elected as an MP was the best way to bring about the kind of change he was seeking. Stephen Harper did get elected in 1993 but then, apparently like Brigette, was unhappy with the pace of political change and so he quit the Commons and joined the National Citizens Coalition, a group which, if you think about it, takes a professional approach to doing what Brigette did: Putting up as many signs as possible that say “Stop” to whatever it is the NCC disagrees with. Stephen Harper led this group once and, during his leadership, argued that laws restricting the time and place where the NCC could put up the equivalent of Brigette's signs were unconstitutional. I wish the NCC, the CCPA, the Council of Canadians, the CFIB and all other such groups all the success in the world but, at the end of the day, they are not necessarily agents of change.

I suspect that, at some point, Stephen Harper came to the conclusion that the foot-stomping he was leading at the National Citizens Coalition was not going to bring about political change. Political change happens in our democracy when one has more seats in the House of Commons than the other other guy or gal.

And so, Stephen Harper returned to Parliament: He fought to win the leadership of the Canadian Alliance; he fought to unite the right under the banner of the new Conservative Party of Canada; he fought to win the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. As leader, he fought federal elections in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2011. He is three-for-four when it comes to federal elections as leader of his party, losing one to Paul Martin; winning two minorities, and then, last month, winning a majority government.

Brigette DePape may despise Stephen Harper's politics but showing up in the Senate — or anywhere else in Canada — with a sign that says “Stop Harper” and issuing a press release after the fact is so not going to change things, one feels pity for her and her supporters for, if this is how they believe change will happen, they will never know it.

Change, in the wonderful democracy we have, comes with winning more seats in the House of Commons, more seats in the provincial legislature, more seats on city council, more seats on the local library board — than those with whom you disagree. The experience and success of the politically disparate careers of Layton, May, and Harper are testaments to the commitment of the long, dreary, difficult work that is politics.

Reaction to the Speech from the Throne

Governor General David Johnston read the 136th Speech from the Throne Friday in the Senate. I found it an underwhelming affair:

… one could not help but be struck by the poverty of both the ceremony and the content of the speech. It was a pro forma event bereft of any trappings that our great nation could have mustered – why not have the GG arrive on Parliament Hill in the splendour of the royal landau, for example – and the speech was an unsurprising collection of bullet points from the Conservative's campaign platform … No one wanted a speech of partisan triumphalism but surely we could have expected some statesman-like nation-building and leadership.

The editorial board of The Globe and Mail, on the other hand, found it to be a satisfactory document:

Stephen Harper has honoured his promise, immediately after the election, not to present the Canadian public with surprises. There were no marked deviations … On the whole, the speech effectively communicated the prospect of four years of good governance.

Here's a bit of the reaction from some other political players on the Hill:

Leader of the Official Opposition Jack Layton (NDP – Toronto-Danforth)

It was really a recitation of what they had proposed to do before, not really much of an outreach to other parties to say hey, let’s work on some problems together.  So that’s disappointing.  We didn’t hear anything about real job creation, the goods jobs that need to be part of helping to get people out of unemployment and build the future of the country, nothing on the Canada Pension Plan and retirement security in a significant way and that’s a huge problem for Canadians.  Family doctors, things we need now for health care.  Everything was way off in the future.  The cost of living, just basically addressing Canadians’ needs to meet their needs day to day and month to month, nothing there. Climate change, really nothing.

Interim Leader of the Liberal Party Bob Rae (Toronto Centre)

I must say there was an air of I thought considerable complacency about the document, simply a reiteration of the program and platform that we’ve heard on so many occasions from the government.  I always find it interesting when you have a statement from the Government of Canada and the word poverty doesn’t appear in the document.  There’s no, I think, real recognition of the challenge that a great many Canadian families are still facing. I didn’t see much imagination in the document in terms of our economy, the challenges that we’re facing. But I guess having seen dozens of Throne Speeches over my political career, I didn’t see anything particularly surprising or dramatic about this one.

Elizabeth May (GPC – Saanich-Gulf Islands)

Today’s Speech from the Throne did not include anything that spoke to a vision for Canada.  It was a workman-like agenda that took the numbers of things in the Conservative Party platform and the previous budget and brought them forward once again.  It didn’t give us a long-term vision and in fact it actually retrenched from some things that were in the platform.  ….there was more content in the Conservative Party’s platform on plans for the reenactment and recognition of the bicentennial of the War of 1812 than there was on climate change. In this speech, there was no reference to climate change so we’ve actually seen a lack of even the smallest mention of the single largest threat.

 

 

Stephen Harper: 5+ years in office and about to hire his 6th communications director

For the record, Stephen Harper's communications directors since he became prime minister in 2006:

  • William Stairs – 2006 Fired two weeks after Harper took office. Believed to have counselled Harper to jump in and give David Emerson some political cover and Harper did not take kindly to that advice. Emerson ran as a Liberal in the 2006 election, won his riding, and but then quickly signed up to become a Conservative in Harper's cabinet. As Emerson was taking a pummelling for the switch, Stairs was trying to do communications damage control. He may also have been done in for being seen to be — gasp — on good personal terms with many members of the Parliamentary Press gallery. Later came back to PMO in charge of issues management but is now chief of staff to Bev Oda, the minister of international co-operation.
  • Sandra Buckler – 2006-2008 A lobbyist before the 2006 campaign and appeared during that campaign as a “Conservative strategist” on various political talk shows. Impressed the Conservative war room in that role (even got a call once from Brian Mulroney for doing such a good job) and became Stairs' successor as communications director. Relations between the Parliament Press Gallery and the PMO hit their lowest point during her tenure. It was during her term that the famous “list” for asking questions was asking established. During one press conference held on Parliament Hill, journalists boycotted a Harper press conference rather than submit to the list protocol. Is alleged to have famously told one journalist on Parliament Hill in response to a question: “Off the record? No comment.” Resigned on June 26, 2008. After a time away from government, later returned to become a senior political staffer. Is now the chief of staff to intergovernmental affairs minister Peter Penashue.
  • Kory Teneycke – 2008-2009 Also a lobbyist prior to joining the PMO, Teneycke had been most famous up to that point for inventing Corncob Bob as the mascot for the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association where he worked prior to succeeding Buckler. His title was slightly modified to be Director of Communication. Teneycke and Buckler shared the same communication objective, i.e. tight control of all MPs and ministers and a demonization of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, but where Buckler viewed the communications role as a shield, Teneycke viewed it as a sword. Relations improved somewhat between Hill journos and the PMO under Teneycke. He instituted occasional background briefings between journalists and his office. Teneycke saw Harper through the 2008 federal election before resigning on July 28, 2009. Teneycke later joined Quebecor Inc. with a mission to launch its new Sun News Network, where he is today as a company vice-president. (And, full disclosure, he is also the guy who hired me for the job I now hold.)
  • John Williamson – 2009-2010 Williamson was a journalist and former colleague at the National Post and went from there to head the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. He joined the PMO in the middle of the fall of 2009 but, after a relatively uneventful few months, resigned in the spring of 2010 in order to seek the Conservative nomination in the riding of New Brunswick-Southwest. He successfully won that nomination and, on May 2, became the MP for that riding, succeeding the retired Greg Thompson.
  • Dimitri Soudas – 2010-2011 Soudas joined Harper's staff on Sept. 5, 2002 and, at this writing, is Harper's second longest serving aide. (Only Ray Novak, Harper's principal secretary, has been in Harper's inner circle longer). Soudas held a variety of communications roles within Harper's office eventually succeeding Williamson in early 2010 as director of communications. A fluently bilingual Montrealer, Soudas is widely seen as Harper's French-language crutch. Whenever Harper runs into trouble in French, he turns to Soudas. Soudas reviews any of Harper's French-language comments to make sure they are the right phrases. Soudas has also been Harper's top Quebec advisor for much his time with the prime minister and is credited with coming up with the “within a united Canada” amendment that neutered a BQ motion that would have the House of Commons recognize Quebec as a nation. Soudas also attempted to improve relations between the PMO and the Parliamentary Press Gallery with limited or uneven results. He announced he will depart his office on Sept. 5, 2011.

Comings and goings: Top PM aide to leave; Liberals name critics and caucus leaders

A bit of a busy morning on Parliament Hill with a few things to note:

  • The media were allowed into the first few minutes of the weekly meeting of the National Conservative Caucus (normally a closed-door event) in order to witness Prime Minister Stephen Harper individually welcoming each new member of his caucus. He then gave a brief speech before media were asked to leave and the caucus returned to its regular business. Here is an excerpt of the remarks he gave:

    What a privilege it is for all us Members of Parliament to have such a role in building this magnificent country, our Canada. Remember always these things about our country: Its history is greater than our individual achievements. Its future is more promising than our political careers. It is the land of ancient Aboriginal societies. It is the enduring partnership of Macdonald, Cartier and their colleagues. It is the place where people of all cultures come from the world over to live in freedom, democracy and justice together.

    Let the memory of our first day as Members of Parliament continue to inspire us all. Even more, let it keep us humble in the service of our country.

  • Then, during the meeting of the Conservative caucus, Dimitri Soudas, the prime minister's director of communications, announced that he will leave his post and depart the PMO on Sept. 5. Soudas is the second-longest serving aide to the prime minister (principal secretary Ray Novak has been with Harper longer), joining his office on Sept. 5, 2002. Soudas' departure is also noteworthy because Harper has come to rely on Soudas, a Montrealer, for advice on Quebec and rarely says a word in French without running it first by Soudas to make sure he's using the right phrases.
  • Meanwhile, while the Conservatives were holding their caucus, the Liberals were holding one of their own and, when interim leader Bob Rae emerged from that meeting, the Liberals had their new critics lineup and caucus leadership positions. The list of critics is here and the list of the caucus leaders is here. Among the notables: Marc Garneau is the Liberal House Leader (for which he will receive an extra $15,834 on top of his MP's salary), Kevin Lamoureux is the deputy house leader (with an extra $5,684in salary), Judy Foote is the whip (and will get an extra $11,165 in salary), Massimo Pacetti is deputy whip (with an extra $5,684 in salary, and Francis Scarpaleggia is the caucus chair (also qualifying, as a result of his position, for an extra $5,684 a year in salary). Ralph Goodale will be Rae's deputy leader but, notably, the position of deputy leader does not come with any thicker pay packet.
  • Liberal MP David McGuinty had been Opposition House Leader in the last Parliament but finds himself this time as simply the Liberal critic for Natural Resources. I don't necessarily see this as a demotion so much as I see it as a potential leadership candidate being freed up from important House duties to mount a bid, should he so choose, to be the party leader. No leadership race is underway, of course, but I note that those caucus members who do have other leadership positions — Foote, Pacetti, Scarpaleggia, Goodale, Garneau* and, of course, Rae — are unlikely leadership candidates. (*N.B. While Garneau was ready to be interim leader on condition he would not seek the leadership he did say, after Rae was selected under the same condition, that he would not rule out being considered for the permanent leader's job). In addition to McGuinty (critic for natural resources), the other potential leadership candidates in caucus are all critics: e.g. Denis Coderre (Transport), Dominic Leblanc (Foreign Affairs).

 

Ian Frazier's perfect opening

Ian Frazier has a wonderful opening paragraph as he begins his review of a new memoir by storied New York Times foreign correspondent John Darnton:

An important thing to know about memoirs is that although there are a lot of them already, there will soon be more. Seventy-six million baby boomers are reaching retirement age. Many of us own computers, and we find ourselves fascinating.