The oldest young man

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM - 43 Comments

Rick Mercer celebrates Pierre Poilievre.

From the desk of Dimitri N. Soudas …

By kadyomalley - Friday, September 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM - 63 Comments

According to a note that he just dashed off to the press gallery, the prime minister’s Associate Communication Director/Press Secretary would like us to remind all of you of the following quotes from Michael Ignatieff:

“I’m prepared to form a coalition government, and to lead that government and to provide Canada with the security and stability it needs.” (Ottawa Citizen, December 11, 2008)

“I told the caucus this morning very clearly I am prepared to vote non-confidence in this government and I am prepared to enter into a coalition with our partners if that is what the Governor General asks me to do,” Ignatieff said (Canadian Press, December 10, 2008)

They also sent out Pierre Poilievre to “respond” to Ignatieff, although it became almost immediately apparent that he wasn’t sure whether he was supposed to trash the parliamentary budget officer’s countercosting of the Liberal employment insurance proposal, or awkwardly attempt to change the subject when asked about Stephen Harper’s dalliances with the Bloc and the NDP back in the day when he was leading Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Not surprisingly, it didn’t seem to go well on either front, although maybe it picked up after the cameras had cut away.

Oh, and Ignatieff? Judging from the reaction that his latest musings on the possibility of a future coalition government is generating over at Colleague Wherry’s place, he’s managed to annoy at least a few of his own supporters by implicitly accepting, without any attempt at qualification, the Conservative definition of the term, while simultaneously stepping all over the message that his party was supposed to be getting out in the first place: that the Conservatives merrily fudged the numbers when they claimed that his EI proposal would cost $4 billion.

Really, so far, it’s been a banner day for political strategists on all sides.

'This is not a game'

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, September 4, 2009 at 12:35 AM - 22 Comments

Stephen Harper, Thursday. “This is not a card game … This is not a game.”

Globe and Mail, tonight. This week, on the heels of their new resolve to defeat the government, the Liberals announced they would no longer attend the EI working group … On Thursday, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley decided to capitalize on this and cast the Tories as the party that had been stood up in the affair.

She summoned TV cameras and photographers to take pictures of her meeting on EI without the Liberals and lamenting the rival party’s absence from the talks. Ms. Finley held this event in the same room the two parties had used in past weeks to discuss the now-aborted venture, making chit chat with fellow Tory MP Pierre Poilievre as the cameras rolled.

At one point, journalists there to capture the scene asked Ms. Finley to speak up – but she replied that she had only intended to be seen rather than heard. “I was just trying to mouth it for you,” she said. An artificial dialogue then ensued for the cameras.

No talk

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 3:06 PM - 12 Comments

CTV says Diane Finley says the Liberals say that the Liberal side of the Employment Insurance working group won’t be meeting with the Conservative side, as scheduled, tomorrow. CTV says Liberals say Conservative side wasn’t responding to Liberal proposals.

Marlene Jennings twittered earlier today that she was going to skip a joint interview with Pierre Poilievre. So obviously things were going well.

marlenejenningsdeclining invitation to appear on The House with Pierre Poilievre; given the Conservs record of no proposal and disrespectin EIWG decisions!

This is going well

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 9:28 PM - 55 Comments

Stephen Harper, June 17. I’m also pleased that the Official Opposition will work with us on the issue of employment insurance.  I indicated we were looking at some changes for the fall and I’m hopeful we’ll be able to find some common ground over the summer but I’m delighted that we will have a dialogue and hope that it will proceed in good faith and arrive at some degree of common ground.  So we will work at that in anticipation of the fall. And, you know, really in summary that is what people want in a minority parliament.  Nobody wants crises.  Nobody wants yet another election.  Nobody wants the opposition coalition to get back together.  They do want to see the parties where possible trying to find some common ground and working on the economy.  So that’s what we will be doing.  And let’s hope it all moves – continues to move in a good direction.

Canwest, tonight. A federal Liberal proposal to slash the minimum work requirement to qualify for employment insurance benefits to 360 hours across the country could be four times more costly than the party has estimated, according to an analysis done by the Conservative government. A synopsis of the costing analysis — provided to reporters on Thursday by a senior government official — said the proposed change could add more than $4 billion to the annual cost of the EI program, as opposed to the $1-billion figure cited by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff when he promotes the 360-hour standard as a means of easing the plight of the unemployed during the economic recession.

Canadian Press, tonight. During the meeting, Liberals said, federal officials admitted that their estimate of the number of people affected by the “360” plan includes new entrants to the work force, re-entrants and those receiving special benefits, such as maternity leave — none of whom Mr. Ignatieff’s proposal is intended to cover.

See previously: What exactly is the disagreement here?

What exactly is the disagreement here?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM - 22 Comments

Diane Finley, today. “Over the summer we’ve been conducting meetings on EI and Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberal members have publicly stated they are not willing to move off their 360 hour entry point for Employment Insurance,” she said, describing the position as “academic fantasy land.”

Pierre Poilievre, Friday. “The bottom line is we’re not going to be supporting the notion that someone could collect EI for almost a year after working only 360 hours or nine weeks,” Poilievre said in an interview Friday. ”All the costing shows that a nine-week work year would cost billions and the only way to fund it is through higher taxes, so we can’t support that proposal.”

Michael Ignatieff, Thursday. “I’ve always indicated a certain flexibility on 360 but not that much,” Ignatieff said. ”So we’re going to have some tough discussions with the government.”

Michael Ignatieff, last month. The Liberals have been pressing for a uniform eligibility standard and had initially been advocating a system in which anyone who works 360 hours would qualify for EI. Now, Mr. Ignatieff has indicated that as long as the reform provides some fairness and equity, he’s willing to negotiate with the governing Tories as they strive to reach a deal before Parliament returns in late September.

Adorable

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 10:58 PM - 21 Comments

The Prime Minister is hosting Conservative MPs at Harrington Lake this evening (thanks taxpayers!). Blake Richards twitters the festivities.

WildRoseMPBlakeJust went for a paddleboat ride on Harrington Lake with my friend, Pierre Poilievreabout 2 hours ago from mobile web

Breaking: How Pierre Poilievre will spend his summer vacation.

By kadyomalley - Monday, June 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM - 47 Comments

As a charter member of the no-longer-being-referred-to-”blue-ribbon”-for-some-reason employment insurance working group/panel/whatever term gets Michael Ignatieff through the night.  Hot off the PMO newswire:

PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER ANNOUNCES MEMBERS OF EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WORKING GROUP

OTTAWA –

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the appointment of the Government’s members of the Employment Insurance working group. The Government’s representatives on the working group are:

• Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development;

• Pierre Poilievre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister;

• Malcolm Brown, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development.

I’m sure the other panelists can hardly wait for Poilievre and Marlene Jennings to get the chance to reenact some of the most memorable moments of summer committee hearings past.

It depends… (IV)

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, June 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM - 34 Comments

Scene: After Question Period today, a meddlesome reporter tries to get Pierre Poilievre to explain how many jobs the government has created so far. Continue…

The Commons: 'When will it stop?'

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, June 8, 2009 at 6:33 PM - 18 Comments

The Scene. Lisa Raitt arrived in the House sporting newly coloured hair, her blonde locks now brownish red. Perhaps the new look was meant to signal change or, better still, rebirth. Perhaps it was meant to confuse her critics opposite, disguising the Natural Resources Minister and redirecting attacks at the golden-haired government MPs around her.

To their modest credit, the opposition is a bit too quick for that. They can generally pick a troubled minister out of a line-up. And, however slow the MPs opposite sometimes are, even the most fascinating new do could not distract attention from the variously disheartening, troubling and entertaining allegations that now threaten Ms. Raitt’s previously promising political career.

“Mr. Speaker, across the country, thousands of Canadians can not get a cancer diagnosis. The government knew the last 18 months that it would happen. It left a problem at Chalk River to become a crisis for our health care system,” Michael Ignatieff began, opening the afternoon’s session of Question Period. “Instead of blaming young people of 26 years and instead of arguing among themselves, which in this government will take responsibility for this national crisis?”

In this case it would be Leona Aglukkaq, the health minister. She attempted reassurance, but Mr. Ignatieff persisted.

“Mr. Speaker, the government keeps pretending that there is an alternative supply of isotopes but the Dutch reactor will be shut down for maintenance next month and for six months in January,” he continued. “South Africa is already shut down for maintenance this week. The Australians will not come on line for at least six months. When will the minister stop trying to cover up a national health care crisis? When will she start telling Canadians the truth?”

Ms. Aglukkaq stood to answer, but Ms. Raitt was quicker to her feet, eager apparently to engage the opposition leader in a game of musical reactors. Continue…

The Commons: So much to answer for

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, June 2, 2009 at 7:11 PM - 26 Comments

The Scene. The good news for the Finance Minister was this: a full 45 minutes of Question Period passed this day without a single query about a federal deficit that may now be on track to total upwards of $170 billion. Not until after QP, surrounded by reporters, did the increasingly gaping hole in the national treasury come up. At which point, Jim Flaherty’s response was as follows.

“Well, you know, economists at TD and economists at the other banks are entitled to their view. I’m sure different economists will have different views. All of them were on average more optimistic than I was in the budget in January but they’re on the low side of the private sector forecasters right now.”

Er. Well, don’t get too worried about that $170 billion then. Indeed, it could be worse. For sure, it might be worse.

That though will be for whoever the Finance Minister is in 2014. Mr. Flaherty, no fool, will have surely bequeathed the position to someone else by then. Denis Coderre, say. Or Thomas Mulcair. Or Pierre Poilievre. Or whoever Prime Minister Gilles Duceppe decides to let handle the books.

In the meantime, the bad news for Mr. Flaherty was this: even without, apparently, the time to prepare some questions about our increasing indebtitude, the opposition still arrived for Question Period ready to press all sorts of issues said to demonstrate some failing or another in the minister. Continue…

When keeping it partisan goes wrong (V)

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, June 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM - 13 Comments

Marlene Jennings’ statement before QP today.

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Prime Minister’s hand-picked parliamentary secretary twice used the expression “tar baby.” As a child, I was taunted with this name by people who wished to demean me and make me feel inferior. The mountain of correspondence I have received in the last few days shows my experience among Black children was not unique.

The parliamentary secretary has stated he was unaware the term is also a pejorative description of Blacks. I accept his explanation. I am concerned, however, at that MPs tendency to make hurtful statements. One year ago this week, he was forced to apologize for his offensive comments toward first nations people. Now this. Now that he knows the negative connotation of this expression for Blacks, Black Canadians hope he will publicly pledge to remove this pejorative term from his vocabulary, and we hope all Canadians will do so as well.

The Conservative side groaned when she mentioned last year’s incident. Mr. Poilievre did not appear to react to Ms. Jennings’ remarks.

When keeping it partisan goes wrong (IV)

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, May 30, 2009 at 1:11 PM - 31 Comments

For what it’s worth, Marlene Jennings, the lone black MP in the current parliament, would prefer you avoid using the term entirely.

“As a Black child growing up, I was called all sorts of pejorative names based on the colour of my skin, including the ‘n-word’ and ‘tar baby’ – and believe me, it was hurtful,” said Ms. Jennings. “I am offended by Mr. Poilievre’s insensitive remarks – and I know leaders in the Black community across Canada feel the same way.”

When keeping it partisan goes wrong (III)

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, May 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM - 45 Comments

John Baird defends his protege. With irony.

Transport Minister John Baird, who is also from Nepean, called the Citizen to defend Poilievre vigorously, calling the whole issue “gotcha-politics taken to the extreme.”

“This is partisanship run amok,” he said.

Prime Minister Hulk Hogan

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM - 21 Comments

While everyone’s contemplating the etymology of various Br’er Rabbit references, note the phrase Pierre Poilievre used immediately before.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have a leader, a real Canadian leader.

This, you might not realize, is a sly reference to one of the more effective American campaign ads of the 1980s. Clip after the jump. Continue…

When keeping it partisan goes wrong (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 29, 2009 at 3:35 PM - 54 Comments

“I don’t think I should have used that word and I was wrong to do it.”
—John McCain, March 16, 2007. 

“Mr. Speaker, that honourable colleague is a man with whom I have had disagreements but for whom I have respect. On this occasion though, I cannot believe that he would attempt to inject that meaning into that expression. He clearly understands that my reference had absolutely nothing to do with the one that he implied. I have worked hard to represent people of all backgrounds and I have always done so in a spirit of tolerance. My reference to the term ‘tar baby’ was a common reference that refers to issues that stick to one. The leader of the Liberal Party has taken this position. It has stuck to him, and now he is having difficulty explaining himself on that issue. For him or for his House leader to inject racial politics in order to distract from that is the worst kind of base politics. I would encourage them to apologize for it.”
—Pierre Poilievre, responding to Ralph Goodale’s point of order after QP today.

The entirety of today’s discussion after the jump. Continue…

When keeping it partisan goes wrong

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM - 71 Comments

As Kady notes, things apparently got a bit uncomfortable during QP this morning. Here’s the full extent of Mr. Poilievre’s comments. Emphasis ours. Continue…

UPDATED: The first — and very possibly last — ITQ post in solidarity, or at least commiseration, with Pierre Poilievre.

By kadyomalley - Friday, May 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM - 61 Comments

A confession: ITQ, too, once laboured under the misapprehension that “tar baby” was actually a pithy, if anachronistic Southern colloquialism, and not a racial slur. In fact, she very nearly deployed it in a recent blog post. Luckily, she checked with her Hot Room colleagues before hitting publish, and was told in no uncertain terms that it was most emphatically not, but given that recent experience, she has no trouble believing that Pierre Poilievre had no clue that he was being hideously offensive — well, hideously offensive in an unintended way. Although really, when considering launching a revival of a word or phrase that seems to have fallen out of use, it’s a good idea to Google it first, just to make sure there’s not a very good reason why nobody says it anymore.

UPDATE: Colleague Wherry has the transcript of Poilievre’s remarks here.

Meanwhile, one of ITQ’s countless fans at PMO sent along the following examples of various media outlets, reporters and former Liberal cabinet ministers using the phrase “tar baby”, apparently without sparking a furious backlash, although it would be interesting to find out if there were any angry letters sent to the editor in response:

“Marois’s effort to shake off the referendum tar baby is good news…” (Editorial, “Cynical PQ bid to rebrand party,” The Toronto Star, Friday, March 7, 2008).

“Same-sex marriage has generally been treated like a political tar baby over the past few years, with most parties reluctant to whip up highly sensitive arguments touching on religion and deeply rooted social values.” (Susan Delacourt, “Martin could exploit gay-marriage gift,” The Hamilton Spectator, Friday, December 10, 2004).

“Nobody is saying you toss over your U.S. relations. Of course you don’t. But it doesn’t mean to say you have to become slavishly connected like some kind of tar baby with them.” (Lloyd Axworthy, “Canada’s new leader to improve U.S. ties,” Detroit Free Press, Thursday, December 11, 2003).

I agreed to post them, for fairness, but I’ll say the same thing here as I said in my email (edited ever so slightly for coherence, and leaving out the other side of the conversation):

Hey, I nearly made the same mistake he did — the difference is that I asked first, and heeded the wisdom of my colleagues. I’m sure he meant no harm, but if I were him, I would just admit it was a bad choice of words and try to move on. You have to pick your battles, etymologically speaking – and this is one that you can’t win.

I think that’s pretty much where I came in, although it’s probably worth noting that it seems to be at least slightly less unacceptable (yes, I know that’s a double negative, just get over it) to use “tar baby” to refer to a concept — like, say, the carbon tax — than a person, but for a politician, at least, it’s probably safest to avoid it completely, no matter how much it may seem to be le mot juste.

Taking aim at Ignatieff

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 28, 2009 at 10:00 AM - 6 Comments

In the coded language of official Ottawa, they are known as SO31s. It’s a reference to Standing Order 31 of Parliament, which allows that 15 minutes be set aside before question period each day for MPs to stand in the House and make brief remarks about a subject of their choosing. For the most part, members use the time to salute constituents, celebrate charitable causes, mourn sad occasions or pontificate on matters of national or international importance.

When they still had Stéphane Dion to kick around, the Conservative government took great pleasure in mocking the former Liberal leader before he rose to ask another awkwardly worded question of the Prime Minister. And though they waited a few days before doing likewise with Dion’s successor, a steady succession of Conservative backbenchers has been sent up to denigrate Michael Ignatieff or his party since he took the leader’s chair. Indeed, despite an attempt recently by the Speaker to limit personal attacks during this time, government MPs have used more than 100 of these statements to needle the Liberal side in the 12 weeks since Parliament returned in January—a concerted campaign that reached a particular low when Ron Cannan rose on the afternoon of April 20 and attempted to segue from a preceding statement of condolence by Liberal Maurizio Bevilacqua about the deadly Italian earthquake.

Continue…

The Commons: It's all fun and games until someone else does it

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 5:26 PM - 53 Comments

The Scene. In a return to routine, the Conservative chorus sang dutifully from the hymn book this afternoon in the 15 minutes before Question Period. A trio of otherwise silent backbenchers were sent up to lend their democratically elected voices to the cause.

“The leader of the Liberal Party recently said, ‘We will have to raise taxes.’ How does the leader of the Liberal Party suppose that a tax increase will benefit hard-working Canadian families?” begged Red Deer’s Earl Dreeshen with his solo. “The leader of the Liberal Party should stand up in the House today, come clean with Canadians and tell them which taxes he will raise, by how much he will raise them and who will be forced to pay these higher taxes.”

It is a song that has been sung so often that only a few pay notice when another member of the government side gets up to sing. On this day, with little fury, the House proceeded directly to Question Period, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper engaging in an altogether calm exchange of views on the sufficiency of the nation’s employment insurance formulas.

Alas, the peace would not hold. Continue…

Israel at 61, quality food, students join senator in elevator

By Mitchel Raphael - Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM - 0 Comments

The Canadian Friends of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Canada-Israel Committee held a special reception on the Hill in honour of Israel’s 61^st year of independence.

Toronto-area Tory MP Peter Kent and Merle Goldman, Associate National Director of the Canadian Friends of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Conservative B.C. MP James Lunney, Chair of the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group.

Continue…

The Commons: Twelve-hundred days

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 at 8:50 PM - 39 Comments

The Scene. The Prime Minister finds it hard to scream with sufficient force in his second language. Sure, by now, he probably knows the words. He knows how to conjugate his disparaging verbs, understands the French separation of masculine and feminine insults, has memorized on which sneered vowels to put his accent circumflex and on which to put the accent grave. But when volume is required he retreats to the comfort and confidence of his natural tongue.

So even though Michael Ignatieff had used his third question to press the Prime Minister about employment insurance en francais and even though the Prime Minister had begun his response in kind, he would not sit this day without returning to English.

“Here we go!” warned a Liberal as Stephen Harper made the switch, “Here we go!”

And sure enough there he went, yelling and pointing and carrying on in that way that he does. The Conservative side still loves this so. Though it’s a wonder—nearly 1,200 days into his tenure as Prime Minister—that Mr. Harper has enough energy to twist up his face, wag his finger and vent his fury so physically. Continue…

The Commons: You bore us, Mr. Ignatieff

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 27, 2009 at 7:10 PM - 31 Comments

The Scene. Shortly before 2 o’clock, in the midst of the capital’s first truly sweltering afternoon this year, a man in a dark suit and plastic animal mask—depicting a sheep, it seems—stood outside the Centre Block entrance reserved for Members of Parliament, handing out copies of former MP Garth Turner’s new book. Said book, as the animal mask was apparently intended to relate, is entitled Sheeple, a term apparently applied to people who often take on the characteristics—curly white hair covering most of the body, fondness for grazing, tendency to do as told—of sheep.

This was conceivably done to make some point. Or poke fun. Or sell a few books. Or some combination thereof. And, for sure, there should be nothing to prohibit anyone from making points, poking fun, or selling books about all that is obvious and absurd and obviously absurd about this place.

But then, in fairness, so much has changed in the six months or so since Mr. Turner was unceremoniously voted out of office. For one, the party to which he was most recently a member has found a new leader, this one fluent in all sorts of English verbs and tenses. For another, that leader has insisted on Question Period being something other than an opportunity to try and convict one’s rivals of various moral crimes.

Today’s session, for instance and as coincidence would have it, began with several fine and reasoned exchanges of inquiry and information. For perhaps a full half hour—with a man in a suit and an animal mask sweating away outside—the proceedings were both graceful and informative, genteel and respectful.

Oh, and boring. Dreadfully, dreadfully boring. Continue…

Consolation prize

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 13, 2009 at 1:01 AM - 5 Comments

Perhaps not quite as prestigious as leading NATO, but Peter MacKay can now, once again, consider himself Parliament’s Sexiest Male MP.

Some of the other results of the Hill Times survey after the jump. Continue…