As the Charlottetown Guardian first reported, the former Conservative Premier of Prince Edward Island, Pat Binns, is Canada’s newest ambassador. Binns has just been named Canada’s Ambassador to Ireland — a job which, in diplomatic circles, is considered quite a plum.
Binns, 58, is also a former Conservative MP, who sat in the Commons from 1984 to 1988 when Brian Mulreony was prime minister.
Are you a conservative? Do you feel the current federal government is too left wing? Well, there may be a party forming up just for you:
My colleague Gloria Galloway has more on this in today’s Globe and Mail:
… a small group of disaffected Conservatives will meet to discuss what would have been unfathomable in the heady days that followed the last federal election: refounding the Reform Party.
Organizers say they have room for just 30 people, but that this weekend's event is a mere prelude to a much larger meeting later this month.
“It's now or never,” the online invitation says. “This new party will never be infiltrated by Red Tories, special interest groups or Quebec again.”
Gerry Nicholls was fired, apparently, after a 22–year relationship today with the conservative National Citizens Coaltion. The NCC is the group, of course, that the current Prime Minister led after he quit political life as a Reform MP. He would eventually quit the NCC to contest and win the leadership of the Canadian Alliance which would merge with the Progressive Conservative Party … and the rest is history.
I am proud of the work I did there over the years, helping to transform it into Canada's top organization for the defence of our economic and political freedoms.
So many battles, so many campaigns.
I am also proud that I always put principle first.
And one of the best things about working for the NCC, was having the chance to meet so many conservatives/libertarians who shared my love of freedom.
Oh well nothing lasts forever I guess.
So it's off to my next challenge.
And then later in the comments section of his blog, he says,
I am not leaving the NCC from my own choice.
A few days ago I signed up at Facebook and wondered here how I might find it useful. Well, here’s one useful reason to be there: Many of the people I cover are there. Here’s Liberal MP Mark Holland, for example, writing on Facebook live from the C-30 (Clean Air Act) committee meeting room with his thoughts on how work on that bill is going; how the Conservatives might engineer their own defeat on it; and how it seems the Bloc might be caving a bit …
Some people were unclear about why C-30 would lead to an election – I should be clearer. We will amend the act in committee with the support of other opposition parties – make it pro-Kyoto and basically totally rewrite it. The Conservatives will then declare it an 'economy killer' and say that if the House passes it, it is a vote of no-confidence in the government. We and the other opposition parties can't give up our commitment to Kyoto so we will have to support it – down goes the government. Just my theory…however in a new development, the Bloc are refusing to work with any of our or the NDP amendments. I think they are avoiding strengthening C-30 so that it stays the government bill. They will then support it as a first step, saying that they want more but can accept C-30 as a start. They are using the argument of territoriality as shielding. In short – they are letting the Conservatives have their weak and meaningless C-30 generally as it was presented to avoid them using it as an election starter. I still think we will go to the polls in spring but maybe not on C-30 now… we’ll have to see how the week plays out and if the Bloc turn around to working with us to make C-30 a real plan to deal with climate change.
UPDATE: Holland has updated his Facebook comment, removing the section above about the Bloc Quebecois. He now says the Bloc Quebecois seems to co-operating more fully with the other Opposition parties. His comment from committee now reads:
Some people were unclear about why C-30 would lead to an election – I should be clearer. We will amend the act in committee with the support of other opposition parties – make it pro-Kyoto and basically totally rewrite it. The Conservatives will then declare it an 'economy killer' and say that if the House passes it, it is a vote of no-confidence in the government. We and the other opposition parties can't give up our commitment to Kyoto so we will have to support it – down goes the government. Just my theory…C-30 sits until 9:30pm tonight so we should have a better sense of things by the time the night is out.
The mayor’s race here in Ottawa last fall was an exciting one with a surprise finish. Larry O’Brien, a millionaire high-tech enterpreneur with no political experience literally came out of nowhere to upend an incumbent, Bob Chiarelli, and another strong challenger, Alex Munter. There was another candidate — Terry Kilrea. Kilrea and O’Brien were on the right of the political spectrum; Chiarelli is a longtime Liberal and Munter is probably a little left of Chiarelli.
As the campaign unfolded, Munter became the guy to beat — and the political right started to mobilize hard to beat him. Then, in late August, O’Brien packed it in, citing an inability to be able to afford to continue. His departure, some say, galvanized right-wing supporters and help O’Brien win.
Then, after the election, Kilrea told the local media that, before he made the decision to quite, O’Brien tried to get him to quit by offering to cover his expenses if he quit the race, an allegation which O’Brien rejects.
The Ottawa Citizen asked Kilrea to swear an affidavit to his allegations and also asked him to take a polygraph test. Kilrea swore an affidavit and passed the polygraph.
Now even though the Citizen has had the affidavit for months and has reported on the issue extensively, we’re just hearing for the first time today that John Reynolds, the former Conservative MP and Conservative national campaign co-chair in 2005–2006, is named in the documents along with John Baird, the Ottawa-area MP who is also the Environment Minister. The affidavit is the key document in a complaint made to the Ontario Provincial Police by the Ottawa and District Labour Council. The OPP launched an investigation into the matter on Friday.
You can download the affidavit and read it for yourself and there’s also a good wrap up of the issue by Canadian Press reporter Bruce Cheadle that you can find on our Web site.
Here though, is the section from the affidavit, sworn in December, that refers to Reynolds and Baird:
11. At approximately 2 p.m. later that day (July 5,2006), O'Brien called me to advise that my name had been put forward for an appointment to the National Parole Board. When I asked how this was possible, he responded that he had spoken to John Reynolds. He then instructed me to call John Baird (“Baird), President of the Treasury Board, and to tell him that my name “was in the queue” for an appointment to the Board.
12. Following the call with O'Brien I emailed Baird indicating that O'Brien had instructed me to contact him regarding my name being put forward for a position on the National Parole Board. Baird responded that he had no knowledge of my name being put forward and that he did not know that I was interested in an appointment.
13. The following day (July 6, 2006) O'Brien called me to say that he had “screwed up”, that I “shouldn't have contacted John Baird” and that “it was all my [O'Brien's] fault”. He advised that Baiid would have no idea that my name had been put forward. He told me that “there was a different way of doing this” and
to “leave it with me [O'Brien]”.…
18. I met with Baird on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 at his office in the Department of Justice building on Wellington Street. I had decided not to raise the issue of the National Parole Board given my earlier email exchange with Baird on July 5, 2006 and O'Brien's comment the next day that I should not have done so. I
would only discuss the appointment if it was raised by Baird; however, at no time during the meeting did Baird mention it.
19. In the meeting I asked Baird if the federal Conservatives were backing O'Brien by providing him with logistical support. Baird said they were not.….
30. If the facts deposed to in this Affidavit become part of a legal action, I am prepared to testify to their accuracy in a court of law.
The federal budget tabled Monday has struck a positive chord with many voters, giving the Conservatives a bump in the polls and heightening the possibility of late spring or early summer election.
The latest poll, provided to CTV News and The Globe and Mail by The Strategic Counsel, finds Conservative support at 39 per cent following the federal budget, up three percentage points compared to polls taken before the budge was tabled. Liberal support is unchanged at 31 per cent but support for the NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Green Party has dropped.
Perhaps more importantly, Ontario voters seem to be jumping on the Conservative bandwagon. The poll found that the Liberals and Conservatives are tied for voter support in Ontario at about 40 per cent.
Here’s the numbers:
How would you vote if an election were held today?
- Conservative Candidate: 39 per cent (up 3 percentage points since March 10)
- Liberal candidate: 31 per cent (unchanged)
- NDP: 13 per cent (down 2 percentage points)
- Green Party: (down 1 percentage point)
- Bloc Quebecois (down 1 percentage point)
Quebec results:
- Bloc Quebecois: 33 per cent (down 3)
- Liberal: 24 (up 2)
Conservative: 24 per cent (down 2)- Green: 11 per cent (up 4)
- NDP: 8 per cent (down 1)
Ontario results:
- Conservatives: 40 per cent (up 6)
Liberals: 40 per cent (down 1)- NDP: 13 per cent (down 2)
- Green Party: 7 per cent (down 3)
The fine print:
Interviews were conducted March 20 and 21. The Strategic Counsel surveyed 1,000 Canadians and believes the results are accurate to within 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20. There is a higher margin of error for regional results. For example, the Quebec survey is accurate to within 6.3 percentage points 19 times out of 20.
The Liberals have now joined the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois in demanding that Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor resign after admitting to misleading the House of Commons on the issue of Canada’s treatment of Afghanistan prisoners. In this exchange, from the just-concluded Question Period , Harper eventually rises to defend his minister and does so with what the Liberals say is an outrageous smear on their honour. Here’s the play-by-play:
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.) :
Mr. Speaker, there are few things that are more important for the honour of a country than to protect human lives under its duty, including war detainees.It is clear that this Minister of Defence failed in his duty, even though he has often been briefed on this.
I have no other choice than to ask the Prime Minister to ask his Minister of Defence to do the honourable thing and resign.Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, as I said in previous statements that my statements here in the House were made in good faith, based on the understanding that I had.I have taken action to ensure that our detainees are treated properly.
L'hon. Stéphane Dion (chef de l'opposition, Lib.) :
Monsieur le Président, le premier ministre doit comprendre que son ministre s'est montré négligent et incompétent sur un enjeu très grave pour un pays comme le Canada, soit la protection des vies humaines qui sont sous notre responsabilité.Le premier ministre ne peut pas garder son ministre de la Défense nationale, à moins que le premier ministre dise qu'il n'est pas important pour le Canada de protéger les vies humaines sous notre responsabilité.
* * *
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has provided a clear explanation to the House of Commons. This government was, as he knows, at the time operating under an agreement signed by the previous government. We have since entered into a new arrangement with the Independent Afghan Human Rights Commission.I can understand the passion that the Leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for Taliban prisoners. I just wish occasionally they would show the same passion for Canadian soldiers.
Then, a few minutes later:
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.) :
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made two shocking statements. First, he said that the government does not care about human rights, and second, that the official opposition does not care about Canadian soldiers.The Prime Minister must understand that he has insulted the entire Parliament with his statement and he should apologize.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, I said absolutely no such thing. What I said clearly was that the government does care about this issue. That is precisely why the Minister of National Defence upon learning the information he learned has acted to correct the situation. We will continue to monitor the situation to make sure we make progress.The only other point I am making is that I would like to see more support in the House of Commons from all sides for Canadian men and women in uniform. I think Canadians expect that from parliamentarians in every party. They have not been getting it, and they deserve it.
Stephen Harper is giving a speech to the Conservative Party’s candidate school in Mississauga, Ont. this weekend. If you’re looking for a hint about what he’ll use as the ‘trigger’ to call an election, try this passage:
“We took action to introduce mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes, a crackdown on violent, dangerous offenders and reverse onus on bail applications involving firearms offences.
Our opponents continue to obstruct these bills.
They do so at their own political peril.
We are willing, and we are ready, to put these issues to the voters at the next general election and be accountable for our positions. Are they? I don’t think so. We are. We’ll take it to them!”
He said he wouldn’t — but he did. On March 1, John Reynolds — one of the most influential Conservatives within that party — registered as an unpaid lobbyist for three non-profit organizations — The Rick Hansen Foundation, Science World, and Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan’s initiative to fight drug addiction. After quitting politics and joining the law firm Lang Michener, Reynolds promised he would not lobby his “good friend” Stephen Harper and would only provide Lang Michener clients with “strategic advice.”
But sharp-eyed Vancouver Sun reporter Peter O’Neil spotted this in the lobbyist’s registration database and wrote it up.
In his piece, O’Neil quotes Reynolds:
“I'm a prominent person within the party, and I'm going to make recommendations to our guys, cabinet ministers and others, including MPs, that 'hey, these are good projects for my province and I'd like them to happen.' And I will put myself down as a lobbyist when I do that.”
And quotes Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch, who worries this is the thin end of the wedge:
“His definition of a good cause may not be another person's definition of a good cause. And he's still trading on his inside access and relationships, which means he's advocating a who-you-know system as opposed to a merit-based system.”
After long service as a Conservative MP, Reynolds was national campaign co-chair in 2006 and will likely do so again.
Tip of the toque to Jarrett Plonka, a Conservative, who’s ‘outraged’ by Reynolds failure to honour his promise.
Canadian Press reporter Alex Panetta does a nice job sketching out the links between the federal Conservative Party and the Action démocratique du Québec .
[Philippe] Gervais was the Tories' deputy campaign manager in 2006, helped run [ADQ Leader Mario] Dumont's tour in 2003 and served a similar function with [Liberal Party of Quebec leader Jean] Charest in the 1998 provincial campaign.
He says the federal Tories harbour no bias for either of the non-separatist parties.
“I think Mr. Harper has had a very good relationship with the Liberal government, and also has a good one with Mr. Dumont,” he said.
“Is there a preference there? I don't think so. It's more of a hands-off approach and let Quebecers decide what they want to do. I guess the only one they don't want is the PQ.”
This renewed attention comes as Charest begins to focus his attacks on Dumont, rather than PQ leader Andre Boisclair.
Quebec Premier Jean Charest went on the offensive against the Action démocratique du Québec yesterday, calling it a “party of one” and demanding that one of its candidates resign for criticizing pay equity and the annual commemoration for the 14 female victims of the École Polytechnique massacre.
It was the clearest indication so far that the province's two major political parties are worried the traditional third party, which is surging in public opinion polls, could steal critical votes in the March 26 election.