Category: Politics/Liberals

Liberal attack ads strike back. First, leader Michael Ignatieff speaks to camera for 1:40, sounding reasonable and so on (left). Then, in some others, Liberals turn the Conservative attack ad grahics back at Harper. Instead of the Conservative's “Just Visiting” tag, they tag Harper with “Just Leaving”, noting how he's the first PM in history to avoid a confidence vote by proroguing Parliament.

Now, there's one important point here: The Conservative ads are airing on prime-time network television across the country. That ain't cheap but what you get for spending all that money is lots of eyeballs. The Liberal ads, clever as they might be, are only out there on YouTube. Many – perhaps hundreds of thousands of Canadians — will see them but, with $20 million or more in the bank compared to a Liberal party which is still struggling to pay off election and 2007-08 leadership race debts, the Conservatives are playing a war of attrition that they have every expectation of winning.

A few minutes before Question Period got underway in the House of Commons today, as MPs were arriving and settling into their seats, Prime Minister Stephen Harper walked across the green-carpeted aisle that divides the House of Commons and, warmly smiling, reached out to shake Michael Ignatieff's hand, presumably to congratulate him on the results of the Liberal convention over the weekend in Vancouver at which Iggy officially became the Leader of the Opposition. BQ Leader Gilles Duceppe and Transport Minister John Baird also walked over to shake Iggy's hand.

And then, it was game on. Here's the play-by-play:

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, employment insurance is not working in this country and there are some key issues that need to be fixed: access, benefit levels, maternity leave, fairness across regions and the status of the self-employed. Will the Prime Minister commit to launching an independent examination of these issues and present concrete proposals for reform before the House rises in June?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the Liberal Party should know, Canada has a very generous system of employment insurance that was, in fact, enhanced in the most recent economic action plan of this government. I am perplexed by the sudden interest of the Liberal Party in NDP employment insurance policy. I guess the reason to borrow this is to create a diversion from the reaffirmation at the Liberal convention of the carbon tax. It is not any better an idea the second time around.

Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister believes in magic thinking. He believes that if one repeats a falsehood constantly, it becomes true. It does not. It remains a falsehood. On employment insurance, there is one problem that can be fixed right now. There are 58 standards of eligibility for EI across the country. That makes eligibility depend on where one lives and that is wrong. Will the Prime Minister commit to an immediate 360 hour national standard of eligibility for employment insurance while this crisis lasts?

Harper: Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the Liberal Party will know that that is a long-time policy of the New Democratic Party, not of the Liberal Party. When we are talking about saying things that are true, I am only quoting the leader of the Liberal Party himself, who has said repeatedly that he wants to “raise taxes”. I know he is being honest. He is just honestly wrong.

Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, for a prime minister who levied a punitive tax on income trusts, that is really something. Dès aujourd'hui, le premier ministre peut venir en aide aux milliers de chômeurs qui ne sont pas éligibles pour l'assurance-emploi en ce moment. Pourquoi ne s'engage-t-il pas immédiatement à créer un seuil national d'éligibilité de 360 heures?

Harper: Monsieur le Président, ce parti a demandé au Parti libéral de donner ses suggestions pour le Plan d'action économique en janvier. Nous n'avons pas reçu de suggestion. Au lieu de cela, nous avons bonifié les prestations d'assurance-emploi. Let me just go back to this issue of the tax fairness package, which was a big net tax cut to Canadians, brought down business tax rates across the board and for the first time in history brought in income splitting for the pensioners of this country. That party voted against it. This party voted for it because we believe in cutting taxes.

Here's my story on today in QP.

A month or so ago, Liberal Senator Mac Harb introduced a private members' bill in the Senate that would have effectively ended the seal hunt in Atlantic Canada. Not a single Senator, Liberal or Conservative, would second that bill and, as a result, it died.

Conservative Fisheries Minister Gail Shea and Conservative Senator Fabian Manning issued press releases on government letterhead and at government expense denouncing Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and his “hidden agenda” on the seal hunt.

Shea's officials would subsequently concede that these press releases were issued in error.

Earlier this week, Minister Shea made her first appearance in front of the Senate's Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Liberal Senator Bill Rompkey is the chair of that committee. Here is an excerpt of an exchange between Shea, who represents a PEI riding, and Senator James Cowan of Nova Scotia (left).

Senator Cowan: Welcome, minister. I was pleased to hear your comments during your opening statement on the seal hunt and the government's support for a sustainable and humane seal hunt. As you know, that is also the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not know about other parties, but there is a common support for that seal harvest or hunt between the two major parties in the country.

I wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify a few things with respect to that. This is obviously a highly controversial issue amongst some people, and we all agree that there are people who are less interested in the seals than they are perhaps in promoting their own fundraising efforts for other purposes. You are aware as well that Senator Harb introduced a bill in the Senate and could not find a single senator anywhere in the place to support him in any way. I think that says something about the judgment of the rest of the Senate. I am troubled because on March 3, your department published and distributed a statement by my colleague Senator Manning, which said amongst other things that sealers need to know that the Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party want to ban the seal hunt. That is clearly wrong and inaccurate, but most importantly for the purposes of my question this morning, your department subsequently acknowledged that it was inappropriate to have published the statement of a private parliamentarian on a government website and to distribute that at government expense.

first question is, were you advised by anybody in your department that it was inappropriate to have posted and distributed that? If so, why did you go ahead and do it? If not, why not? Also, was an invoice issued to the Conservative Party of Canada, as you indicated it would be? How much was that invoice, and has the invoice been paid? ..

On that same day, you issued a statement alleging that there was a hidden agenda on the part of the Liberal Party, and in that statement, you said what is more telling are the actions of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, and that his approval of such appalling legislation, referring to the Harb bill, has exposed the hidden agenda of the Liberal Party to put an end to Canada's sealing industry. What evidence did you have then and do you have now that would support that statement?

Ms. Shea: I guess it would be a lack of evidence, starting with your last question, because if the Liberal Party of Canada supported the seal hunt, then I would expect that there would be a statement to that effect from the leader, which I do not believe we have seen. I will say that even the introduction of legislation without a seconder, when that type of stuff hits the airwaves in Europe, undermines many things that we have been trying to do in Europe to promote the seal hunt.

With respect to the press release, it was not the department. It was an administrative error and should never have happened. I am not sure if the bill for the press release has gone to the Conservative Party of Canada, because I do not have that information, but that is who the bill was to go to.

Senator Cowan: On the last point, will you find out? Perhaps you would be good enough to table the invoice here and, as well, indicate whether it was paid.

Ms. Shea: Certainly.

Senator Cowan: With respect to the bill, you will agree with me that private members in either the House of Commons or in the Senate are entitled to introduce bills into their respective legislative chambers, and those bills are not necessarily supported by the party of whom that individual member or senator is a member. Is that correct?

Ms. Shea: I do not know what your experience has been, but normally bills, in my experience . . .

Senator Cowan: I am speaking of private member's bills.

Ms. Shea: … Even private member's bills, if a member of your party is bringing forward a bill, I would expect that members of your party would be aware of it.

Senator Cowan: As an example, the recent [Conservative MP Garry] Breitkreuz bill, is introduced by a private member, a Conservative member. Is that a bill supported by the Conservative government? Ms. Shea: We will have to wait and see. Senator Cowan: I believe it is not, and I believe the government has already distanced itself. That is my point. I suggest to you that it is unfair to allege that an individual bill which you know received no support from any member of the Senate has the support of the leader and the party of which that person is a member. I suggest that is unfair, and I would ask you to acknowledge that.

The Chair: I think the time has passed and I would like to go on to other questioners. We are trying to monitor the time carefully, and I think we are being as accurate as we can.