Le Conseil de la Souverainté : une idée de Goebbels ?

Les indépendantistes québécois ne reculent donc devant rien. Au printemps 2005, le Bloc Québécois devait tenir son congrès au Palais des Congrès de Montréal. Au programme, on y voyait des ateliers pour les 6 à 12 ans, pour les sensibiliser à la Cause dès leur plus jeune âge. À ce moment-là, j'avais eu une vision des jeunesses hitlériennes ou quelque chose du genre. Commencer à endoctriner les enfants à cet âge... On peut aussi comparer ce genre de stratégie à celles de la Chine communiste où les jeunes étaient forcés à célébrer le grand Mao.

Tout ça n'est que plus ou moins surprenant. On peut se rappeler du dégoût de Richard Lehir quand il a appris les manipulations de Parizeau. Son plan de thérapies collectives pour que les Québécois n'aient plus de craintes face à une éventuelle sécession. Quand LeHir avait pris connaissance des études commandées par Parizeau, il lui avait dit que c'était du Goebbels. Parizeau était devenu blême avant d'exprimer un courroux sans pareil.

Maintenant, c'est au tour du Conseil de la Souveraineté, dirigé par le Grand Démocrate Gérald Larose qui est une ancien syndicaleux de la CSN, d'y aller avec une tentative d'endoctrinement des enfants. Le Conseil de la Souveraineté, qui était financé par les gouvernements péquistes, vient de publier un guide pour les enseignants des niveaux primaire et secondaire pour expliquer la souveraineté aux jeunes. C'est intitulé "Parlons de souveraineté à l'école". L'ADQ et le PLQ se sont levés pour dénoncer l'initiative d'endoctrinement. Aussi surprenant que cela puisse paraître, même Benoît Pelletier a fait une sortie pour dénoncer le livre. Avec beaucoup moins de véhémence que dans ses récriminations face au gouvernement fédéral, il a affirmé que le livre présente une version "biaisée et tendancieuse" de l'histoire.

Curieusement, M. Boisclair, grand démocrate qu'il est, n'a pas cru bon dénoncer le projet. C'est bien évidemment car la présidente de son parti, la Vénérable Monique Richard (ancienne enseignante syndicaleuse) a participé à la rédaction de l'ouvrage. Cette femme me donne la nausée. Vous m'ÉCOEUREZ.

Au Québec, nous avons un système de pensée unique où les indépendantistes sont vertueux et justes. Les fédéralistes, quant à eux, ne sont que des laquais de Power Corporation et de la puissante et machiavélique famille Desmarais... Il est impossible qu'ils croient en un idéal canadien. C'est pourquoi le programme de visibilité du gouvernement fédéral était mauvais. Le gouvernement canadien ne pouvait, selon les indépendantistes vertueux, dépenser un sou pour promouvoir son option. Le méchant gouvernement fédéral corrompu a tenté d'acheter les votes des pauvres Québécois. C'est drôlement réducteur comme perception. On sous-entend que les Québécois ne sont pas assez intelligents pour faire la part des choses. De toute façon, l'élite indépendantistes a une bien piètre opinion des Québécois. Rappelez-vous des commentaires du Grand Seigneur Parizeau sur les cages à homards.

Pendant qu'ils disent que d'afficher le drapeau canadien et faire la promotion des services du gouvernement fédéral est complètement inacceptable et déloyal, les indépendantistes se servent de stratégies dignes des Nazis pour endoctriner la jeunesse québécoise. Ça, c'est juste. C'est pour la Sainte Cause...

J'attends de M. Boisclair, s'il lui reste une once d'honnêteté et de d'intégrité, qu'il demande à Mme Richard de démissionner de son poste de Présidente du Parti Québécois et qu'ils condamnent cette tentative d'endoctrinement de la jeunesse.


Alexandre Plante

Professors and Lawyers

The drive-by smear by Warren Kinsella on Monday came as an absolute surprise to me. Firstly, for someone who is supposedly sitting out the election to go all spin-attack mode on Ignatieff seemed a little eerie. Now that he has left navigator, I wonder if he is getting involved in this thing after all…I hope he does!

My original response to him was:

“Justified criticism, what Axworthy implies we need to do, would be for Ignatieff: I read Michael Ignatieff to say we have to sit down and define exactly what torture is. Coercive interrogation is sometimes necessary to extract information especially when time is scarce. We have to breakdown the barrier of zero tolerance torture and truly define the fine line that separates right and wrong. Otherwise, this yet-to-be-created line will always be crossed.

reading his articles, in full, not pulling out one or two lines, would lead you to draw that those are his conclusions. Now let's criticize what Michael actually believes. He isn't "parking one's critical faculties at the front door", you are by taking him completely out of context by being critical of the detail and not of the whole picture.”

I was still a bit flabbergasted…After all, it was still quite the smear, linking to spin instead of actual articles, and it was sooo smeary!

Tuesday, another cheap shot…"steal a page from the Ignatieff playbook, and issue an essay describing in numbing detail why chasing girls at recess is right and proper and wise, and then state in the last line on the last page that he, personally, would not necessarily advocate chasing girls at recess.”

I again responded:

I am happy to see you are encouraging your son to write both sides of the story before coming to a decision. It will help him in writing any high school or university essay.

Now I finally understood Warren, and I realized why I was so confused as to what I will do after I finish my degree. What is the true difference between an academic and a lawyer? An academic argues both sides of the story to make the reader understand the issue. A lawyer argues only one side of the story, because they aren’t paid to argue the other side, the other lawyer is. An academic starts with a question and works their way forward. A lawyer starts with an answer and goes backward to prove they are right.

No wonder my profs are telling me not to go to law school! But can you really see me arguing the both sides when I could make 2 separate arguments and bill for double?

Still undecided!

Déjà Vu…Is it 1968 again?

Wow I woke up this morning and watched French students go crazy in the streets of Paris. French students have gone crazy before, usually for a good cause, at least in their heads. This happened once before, in 1968. This brought to mind other things which happened in 1968.

The United States was at war with a foreign overseas country to protect the National Security of the United States. Traditional allies were not supporting US action, including Canada. A man from Texas was President! Bah too many coincidences.

A Russian satellite state is looking towards the West. Its leaders, puppets of Russia, refuse to allow this to happen. Leaders of the Western movement are quickly arrested. If I see tanks in Minsk, I am gonna start freaking out. I mean, it has only been Spring for a week…

Something else happened in 1968…the Liberal Party, in a great leadership, elected a leader which rallied the party together and went on to lead Canada for 15 of the next 16 years…At least something good happened in 1968...

Lawrence Cannon's Harpocrisy

Two months after being elected on a platform that was mainly focusing on accountability and integrity, Stephen Harper's government is betraying it all. After his boss decided to make the schedule of Cabinet meetings secret, Lawrence Cannon wants to make sure nobody learns about his travel expenses.

Sous le précédent gouvernement, les frais de voyage et d'hospitalité des ministres et de leur cabinet étaient accessibles sur le site web des ministères. C'est d'ailleurs comme ça que nous avons appris que Joe Volpe, alors ministre de l'immigration, était un gros mangeur de pizzas. Ces frais sont habituellement assez minimes en comparaison aux frais de voyages à bord des avions Challenger.

Les Challenger sont de petits jets d'affaires qui sont à la disposition des ministres et de leur personnel. Ils doivent être utilisés seulement que si aucun vol commercial n'est disponible. Le ministre doit absolument justifier l'utilisation du Challenger dans un rapport écrit où il décrira pourquoi les vols commerciaux ne pouvaient être utilisés : conflits d'horaires, villes non desservies par des transporteurs commerciaux, série d'escales dans un horaire chargé etc.

Ces rapports font souvent l'objet de demandes d'accès à l'information. La jolie Helena Guergis, députée conservatrice, en fait même était sur son site web. La Presse avait également fait un article qui a beaucoup fait jaser sur le coût de l'utilisation des Challenger.

Par contre, Lawrence Cannon, le lieutenant de Stephen Harper au Québec, prend de nouvelles mesures pour ne pas avoirà rendre compte de l'utilisation des aéronefs gouvernementaux. M. Cannon a découvert qu'en utilisant le Cessna Citation du Ministère de Transports plutôt que les Challenger de la Défense Nationale, il n'aurait pas à justifier ses déplacements aériens. C'est d'autant plus difficile à justifer car sa destination était Trois-Rivières, à peine à 3.5 heures de route d'Ottawa. En plus des avions du ministère, M. Cannon a accès à un chauffeur en tout temps pour ses déplacements officiels. J'aurais pu comprendre l'utilisation d'un aéronef si la Chambre siégeait et que M. Cannon devait être présent en Chambre pour la période des Questions ou pour un vote de confiance mais ce n'est clairement pas le cas.

M. Cannon, je vous comprends. Moi aussi, j'adore voler. C'est bien plus agréable que la route vers Ottawa. Par contre, quand je veux voler pour le plaisir, je paie de mes poches la location du Cessna. Vous, vous le faites avec l'argent des Canadiens. C'est déplorable.

Si on vous demande de commenter, est-ce que vous nous répondrez que vous ne pouvez en parler car ça ne fait pas partie des cinq priorités du gouvernement ?

Alex Plante

I Support Richard Diamond’s Decision…Just not its Timing

Inquiring minds wanted to know what I thought of Richard Diamond’s decision to support Scott Brison, a French-challenged candidate for leadership.

After my treatment of Belinda’s French on this blog, many expected fireworks to begin yet again. As I had discussed Brigitte’s decision with her before I responded, I afforded Richard the same opportunity. I understand his reasoning.

The YLC executive was this past weekend. Richard set up for us to meet 3 candidates, but came out in the Canadian Press the night before as a Brison supporter. To me, it seemed like a slap in the face to Ken Dryden and Belinda Stronach.

His reasons for not waiting are valid. He spoke to everyone and had chosen a candidate. Why hide it from everyone? True enough. I would have waited. I am myself waiting for my candidate to declare before I outright endorse him. (Sorry Belinda and Martha) Richard made his decision and I respect that.

As for my opinion of Scott’s French, it’s improving…still nowhere near close enough, but improving. Scott has told me he wants to do the cult hit Tout le Monde en Parle, where he will face an hour of grilling in French, and the hosts are unforgiving. If he survives that alive, I will anoint him bilingual.

Good Luck Scott, you’ll need it! Stick to Dany Turcotte, he might be slightly more sympathetic…

YLC Roundup

Report Card: Scott Brison

The national executive is over and I had a really good time. Alberta is my new favorite province, I no longer want to be banned from Alberta. This is quite a step forward

First up, Scotty Brison.

Appearance: B+
Scott thought his shoes were great. The two Quebec fashion experts thought they were OK, actually better than his policies, but it wasn’t a policy kind of night…so the shoes get a B+

Bilingualism: C+
From a guy who had an F a while back, this is a definite improvement. Scott can actually have a minimal conversation in French. His grammar is off, but I’m not one to talk. Great Improvement A for effort.

Policy Proposal: D+
Scott wasn’t talking policy so this isn’t very fair but I would have liked to hear him more. He is a little to pro-business for this lefty but overall, he didn’t talk much policy. Believe me, I talked less about policy the night after.

Overall Performance: B-
Most students would be happy with a B- considering the prof is such an asshole.

Report Card: Ken Dryden

Appearance: B+
He shaved the beard! FAN-TASTIC. The two Quebec fashion experts agree the look definitely suits him. Now if only Jack gets rid of the mustache!

Bilingualism: C+
He didn’t speak any French yesterday but I have heard him in the past. I was disappointed he didn’t speak in French in his speech at all.

Policy Proposal: A-
Ken Dryden is frickin SMART! He was explaining to me that my “hardcore” federalist position wasn’t always applicable in a uniform way. He got me there! I hate being wrong.

Overall Performance: B+
Because Ken signed my Habs jersey A+++++

Report Card: Belinda Stronach

Appearance: A
She did look tired last night but it was already 10 PM. She still looked fantastic as usual. The two Quebec fashion experts say she pulled off the “I’m meeting the Youth look” well.

Bilingualism D--
Because F is mean…I will tell you why she deserves a D--…As promised I asked a question in French

What is the most important policy you wish to bring to the Liberal Party of Canada

Her response was…J’apprend le francais

Ya sorry Belinda D--

Policy Proposals: D+
She is good at reciting catch phrases like productivity and strong economy, but I would like her to elaborate a little bit more.

Overall Performance: C-
She has a chance to redeem herself but it will be a long way to go.

More on Richard Diamond’s decision tomorrow…

Now…I am GOING HOME!

Liberal Love-In….I WANT ONE TOO!

One last note before I head off to Ottawa. Everyone that I talk to that was at Shielapalooza last night tells me it was a glorified success. YAY for Shiela and WAY YAY for the Liberal Party!

I am finally gonna ask Toronto for a favor…Can we borrow Dennis Mills and throw a Queen Elizabeth for Jean Chretien? Another who deserves a love-in is Alfonso Gagliano. Once Gomery gets thrown out of court, we are need some more love-in as well. Oh I guess we should have one for Earnscliffe in Vancouver. I mean we’ll need more than Scott Feschuk to console Scott Reid.

Can’t you feel the love? I certainly can! GROUP HUG!

HARPER SOLVES FISCAL IMBALANCE!

Stephen Harper did it. In 2 short months he solved the fiscal imbalance. Canada’s Houdini, we never even saw him do it! Quebec must be thrilled; Harper has already fulfilled his two election promises!

I wanna barf!

Yesterday, the two biggest whiners, Quebec and Ontario brought down budgets with BILLIONS of dollars in new spending. Dalton McGuinty had to find a way to go into deficit. He didn’t cut taxes, raised tuition, and still managed to post a 1.5 billion dollar deficit. He is making Bob Rae look frugal!

Quebec claimed to have a plan to pay off the 110 billion dollar debt the province owes in the next 20 years. For governments so “crippled” by the fiscal imbalance, this certainly is surprising. Is this more proof the fiscal imbalance doesn't exist. Only PEI is in deficit. I dont count Ontario's because they created it themselves. Blackmail federalism. WONDERFUL!

Paul Martin, you got duped! You played into this game, and then denied the game existed. The damage was done! Now 90% of Quebeckers think the federal government is screwing the provinces. Can Jean Charest explain to me how inventing that the federal government is screwing Quebec is good for national unity?

Seeing 3 candidates this weekend

So I get to go to Ottawa and pretend to be Marc-André this weekend at the YLC national executive. While I hardly call it an occasion for liveblogging, I will meet three candidates: Scott Brison (feign shock everyone) Belinda Stronach (my favorite) and Ken Dryden (who I want to watch the hockey game with Saturday just to see who he is cheering for)

Here are three biased questions I plan on asking if I get drunk enough:

Scott, can you still recite the Gomery answer off the top of your head in both languages?

Ken, do you think Habs fans will ever forgive you for going to law school?

Belinda, Quelle est votre première priorité en terme de politique dans le Parti Liberal.
(Note : My French is even more fan-tastic when I am hammered)

Yes I know Richard, president of the YLC has chosen to back Scott, more on that when I get back, have a great weekend

The Real Culture of Entitlement: Quebec Nationalism

Federalists in Quebec are divided. Tories and Liberals alike are federalists but they share drastically different solutions to the problem. Tories want to appease Quebeckers by slowly giving them goodies. The hardline Liberal position is that Quebec is entitled to no more than any other province.

It is a clash between idealism and pragmatism. The idealist Liberals believe in equality of opportunity. A Quebecker is worth the same as an Ontarian, an Albertan and a Nova Scotian. This concept of equality of opportunity runs through the veins of Liberal ideology since the party’s founding over 100 years ago.

Tories prefer to give goodies to Quebec in hopes the separatists will quit bitching and come on board. This pragmatic view is similar to appeasement. The separatist beast is a threat to the very core of Canada. The Tories simply want the problem to go away.

For decades, the PLQ, Quebec’s provincial Liberal Party has adopted the pragmatic solution as well. They have lost to a party whose first priority was sovereignty. Losing to the PQ is not an option as it will lead to a referendum.

I believe in the Liberal view of federalism for Canada, called symmetrical federalism. Every province should be offered the same thing by the federal government. If only one province takes advantage of the offer, then so be it. Every province should have equal treatment by the federal government. No province, not even Quebec is entitled to anything.

What is a culture of entitlement?It is when a person feels they are entitled to something simply because of who they are. Frankly, I have never heard a more accurate description of Appeasement Federalism.

PLQuistes accuse me of not understanding Quebec when I say the Quebec government should not be allowed to speak with its own voice at UNESCO. Firstly, it undermines Canada’s voice at the table. Secondly, it reinforces the notion many other Canadians have that Quebec feels they are entitled to something the rest of Canada is not.

Quebec nationalists such as Jean Charest and Benoit Pelletier believe they must squeeze every privilege away from Ottawa because Quebec is distinct and “entitled” to protect its culture. What about the rest of Canada? Do they not have a culture of their own? Some Quebeckers laugh at that question. If you laughed at that question, that arrogance is pitiful.

Jacques Parizeau called the concept “milking the federalist cow”. I compare the two only because they lobby Ottawa for privileges they do not want other provinces to receive. I mean, would Benoit Pelletier be in favor of Ontario having a seat at UNESCO? One for Saskatchewan too, but not for Quebec?

The Liberal Party moved toward the pragmatic view under Paul Martin and it is imperative that we move back the other way. Liberals have to stand on principle and ask Quebeckers a very hard question: Do you want to be treated as a child or as an adult?

Treated as an equal who is not entitled to anything special is the harder answer to accept. Think about it, how many spoiled children are gonna say “you know what, I’m spoiled. Please stop spoiling me.” Not many!

I ask Quebeckers to put themselves in the shoes of other Canadians. Imagine seeing Quebec receive all this special treatment. What happened to equality of opportunity? Apparently the law doesn’t apply to the “special” provinces. I say this as a Quebecker receiving all these privileges.

For those with short memories, anger towards appeasement federalism was the heart of the Reform movement. The original Clarity Act was the idea of Reform MP Stephen Harper. (Dion simply made the idea stronger, good for you Stephane!) Quebeckers are the biggest believers in equality. Whether it be because they fought so hard to be equal to the anglos or because they are most progressive province in Canada, either way, they should support equality of citizenship more than anything else. If it is in the interest to protect French-Canadian culture, then it is the responsibility of all Canadians to protect that culture. That is why the voice at UNESCO that defends must be a Canadian one, not a Quebec one.

This leadership race will require a strategy to rebuild the federalist vision the Liberals will offer Quebeckers. I believe we must preach equality of citizenship, telling Quebeckers the reason they do not get special privileges is because they would be the first ones to complain when an unfair deal was made with another province, such as the Atlantic Accord. It will be hard, no doubt about it. However, unlike the Tories and the PLQ, Liberals have the high ground as we preach equality rather than favoritism. Quebeckers must understand that the only federalist option is too see other Canadians as equals, not Anglos because if they spend the rest of their days in Canada thinking they are better than everybody else, they won't leave, they'll be thrown out.

A Bad Week for Canada

This Leadership has one big factor which I, as a Quebecker, must address. Everyone wonders how we will deal with the separatists. I have made my position clear. Those who wish to break apart the country are nothing but treacherous traitors. The redundancy is intentional.

3 Crimes against Canada were committed last week. Pierre Falardeau didn’t even have to break out the chainsaw. Liberal leadership candidates, the country is under attack by Jean Charest and Stephen Harper. Appeasement is thriving once again!

Crime #1: Quebec at UNESCO
Facts: Quebec wants to decide who it sends as part of the Canadian delegation to UNESCO and for that person to be allotted part of the Canadian time to speak on behalf of the Quebec government. Harper promised this during the election to gain votes.

Quebec is not a country, nor will it ever be. It does not need its own voice on the international stage, because it is not a country. Simple enough for you? Canada’s voice is just fine. Who helped protect Canadian culture in the recent battle at UNESCO? Liza Frulla, a proud Quebecker, and former Quebec culture minister herself. Quebec’s culture minister also spoke, but Charest wants this to be permanent.

Proof this is bad: The happiest person about this news was Gilles Duceppe, who says this lays a great foundation for an independent Quebec, who now will have foreign policy experience to go along with its fake embassies and useless rhetoric. Chalk one up for the separatists. Thanks Stephen!

Crime #2: Cutting the Funding of the Canadian Unity Council
Liberals spent 56 days asking Stephen Harper what programs he would cut first. It wasn’t Medicare, or Child Care, or Welfare, but 12 million dollars to an organization that protects the integrity of this country by retrieving information about Canadian attitudes and values. A program which allows Canadian youth to experience the vast culture this ENTIRE country has to offer. Of course that needs to be cut. (We also spent more money on Gomery’s legal bills but I won’t go there.)

Was this good? No it was terrible. So terrible it was announced on a Friday afternoon hoping nobody would notice. The PMO unmuzzled Lawrence Cannon long enough for him to say “we have other views on how this new federalism should work.” Checking the pulse of the average Canadian through polling, exposing youth to a successful Canada, that’s old federalism, the same old federalism that says the federal government controls foreign affairs.

Who was overjoyed by the news? You guessed it, separatists. They love this Harper government, moving the sovereigntist cause forward, without even trying. Duceppe is in real trouble though, Harper is cornering his market. Et tu, Lucien?

Crime #3: Benoit Pelletier has another Separatist Moment
Can people explain to me HOW I will possibly vote for the PLQ next election? They keep giving me reasons not to. The federalist cause got a shot in the arm from the European Union. The EU claimed for Montenegro to secede from Serbia, they would need a positive vote of 55%. To those critics who did not say the ruling does not apply, the EU used Stephane Dion’s Clarity Act as a precedent to create international law! It has always a main argument of the harder-line federalists that a single vote would not break apart the country. All federalists should cheer at the shot in the arm provided by the EU, an excuse for a federalist government in Quebec City to welcome the ruling and deal a huge blow to the separatist cause.

Who will defend the federalist cause? Benoit Pelletier…Aw Shit! The Benoit Pelletier is a Separatist Club is back!

Benoit Pelletier said the law in Quebec would still be 50% +1, because the Clarity Act is good enough for the EU, but not in Canada. Canadian law sets European precedent and yet it does not apply in Quebec. He defended 50% +1 like Jacques Parizeau. Jean Charest was by his side. Stephen Harper agreed 3 days later when the French ambassador had to backtrack. A lost opportunity, because the PLQ and the CPC are willing to sell the integrity of this country in order to placate people who are gonna use every dirty trick in the book.

Where is the federalist leadership? It certainly will not come from Harper. Appeasement will not work. Look what happened after Meech!

National Unity is shaping up to be a major issue in the upcoming leadership race. Leaders-in-waiting must decide what is more important, appeasing a hungry beast or standing up for what’s right. Stand Up for Canada, Don’t stand for Appeasement!

In December, Liberals from across the country will descend into Motnreal, the soul of the Liberal Party. We have a job to do. National Unity is shaping up to be a major issue in the upcoming leadership race. Leaders-in-waiting must decide what is more important, appeasing a hungry beast or standing up for what’s right. Stand Up for Canada, Don’t stand for Appeasement!

See you in Montreal!

Le Devoir should do its homework / Le Devoir devrait faire ses devoirs

Yesterday, Helene Buzzetti wrote an article about the Fuddle Duddle Fuck-Up. Her lack of journalistic integrity is clear. I have addressed my comments in French, but I encourage you all to read it. To future journalists, this article is the textbook example of reporting only one side of the story.

Je dois vous le dire, je suis impressionné. Impressionné par le manque de rigueur journalistique dont a fait preuve Hélène Buzzetti dans la rédaction de son article paru ce matin dans Le Devoir. Il porte sur la querelle entourant Fuddle Duddle. Je profite de la tribune de Fuddle Duddle pour faire une mise au point. Pourquoi ne pas écrire à Mme Buzzetti pour qu’elle publie un autre article révélant l’autre côté de la médaille ? La réponse est simple, plus de libéraux lisent Fuddle Duddle que Le Devoir. La pauvre feuille de chou tire à moins de 20 000 exemplaires que les « intellos » du Plateau font semblant de lire.

Je dois par contre souligner la qualité de leur papier journal qui est plus épais que ceux utilisés par La Presse et Le Journal de Montréal. Mes feux de foyer partent beaucoup mieux avec Le Devoir, ça brûle plus lentement et la flamme est plus intense.

Les jeunes libéraux fédéraux du Québec ne prendront pas position dans la future course à la chefferie de leur parti. Placés devant le fait accompli par leur présidente, qui militera pour Belinda Stronach, les jeunes ont plutôt décidé de ne pas appuyer collectivement de candidature. Ils ont même décidé de rompre jusqu'à l'élection du prochain chef le lien avec leur blogue où s'accumulaient les commentaires désobligeants.

L’exécutif des JLC(Q) avait voté unanimement d’écouter tous les candidats à la chefferie afin de faire un choix consensuel éclairé. La présidente a été la première membre de l’exécutif à prendre position pour une candidate malgré la résolution adoptée quelques jours auparavant. Pour ce qui est des commentaires, les blogueurs de Fuddle Duddle ont ratissé les autres blogues afin de démentir les fausses rumeurs au sujet de Brigitte. Car Brigitte est une amie et collègue et nous avons, pour elle, encore de l’amitié et du respect.

Les jeunes du Québec ont adopté vendredi dernier une résolution autorisant les quelque 40 membres de l'exécutif à appuyer l'un ou l'autre des éventuels candidats à la succession de Paul Martin. La présidente des jeunes, Brigitte Legault, reconnaît que c'est devant le manque de consensus des membres que cette résolution a été soumise. «C'est un peu ridicule de priver les personnes du droit de militer pour un candidat simplement parce qu'il faut se rallier», dit-elle. Ce ralliement ne semblait pas possible. «Le but, c'est de rester des amis. On ne veut pas de dissension.»

Cette résolution est normale. J’ai cru que la première résolution était irréaliste et nous serions gagnants de nous éparpiller dans différentes courses afin de se protéger les uns les autres.

Deux jours avant cette rencontre de l'exécutif, le recrutement de Mme Legault par la millionnaire Belinda Stronach afin d'organiser sa candidature au Québec avait été ébruité. Mme Legault a coprésidé la dernière campagne libérale fédérale au Québec.

Belinda n’est pas millionnaire, mais milliardaire. Brigitte ne se cachait nullement d’avoir été recrutée par « Team Belinda ». Il était d’intérêt public que les membres des JLC(Q) sachent que leur présidente avait déjà pris parti avant même que tous les candidats se soient déclarés.

Luc Fortin, vice-président aux communications, réfute l'hypothèse voulant que l'aile jeunesse québécoise ait été placée devant un fait accompli par la décision de sa présidente. «Nous n'avons pas été forcés du tout, assure-t-il. Les gens n'étaient pas prêts à se lancer dans une course au leadership.» Il croit que cette décision est «saine».

Il aurait certainement été préférable que Brigitte en discute avec son exécutif avant de renier la résolution qui venait d’être adoptée. La résolution aurait pu être répudiée avant que Brigitte n’accepte l’offre de Belinda. Ça aurait été beaucoup plus délicat et ça aurait certainement pu éviter plusieurs déceptions.

Même son de cloche du côté de Charles Daviault. «Mme Legault était libre d'appuyer qui elle veut. Elle l'a fait en son nom seul.»

Pourquoi Mme Buzzetti interrogez-vous seulement que des supporters de « Team Belinda ». Il est évident que leurs versions seront toutes concordantes…

N'empêche que la révélation de l'appui de Mme Legault n'avait pas plu à tout le monde. Sur le blogue de la candidature de Mme Stronach, les messages hargneux -- et même diffamatoires -- se sont vite multipliés. On y accuse Mme Legault de s'être fait acheter avec un salaire de 70 000 $, ce que la principale intéressée nie catégoriquement. «Ceux qui me connaissent savent que je fais cela par passion et non pour des raisons financières», assure-t-elle.

Antonio et moi avons défendu Brigitte contre ces attaques, tant sur notre blogue que sur les autres. Nous l’avons fait avec vigueur et conviction car nous ne croyons pas que Brigitte puisse avoir été acheté comme ça.

Sur ce blogue, plusieurs reprochent à la ministre de ne pas parler le français. Les commentaires sont rédigés... en anglais, même lorsqu'ils proviennent de francophones. On reproche à Belinda Stronach de n'avoir aucun lien profond avec le Parti libéral, qu'elle a rejoint il y a moins d'un an.

Comment peut-on aspirer aux plus hautes fonctions de ce pays bilingue en ne parlant que l’Allemand et l’Anglais. Elle ne peut communiquer avec près de 30% de la population… Le blogue et justement BILINGUE et nous ne voyons aucun problème à ce que des francophones fassent des interventions dans la langue de Shakespeare. Les anglophones font des efforts pour commenter, quand ils le peuvent, dans la langue de Molière. Nous aurions dénoncé l’incapacité à parler à parler Anglais d’un éventuel candidat unilingue francophone. Quand à son appartenance au PLC, elle seule le sait et je ne veux pas commencer une chasse au sorcière afin de déterminer qui est un vrai libéral ou non. Ça serait ridicule.

Les jeunes libéraux fédéraux du Québec ont en outre décidé de suspendre leur blogue Fuddle-Duddle jusqu'à l'élection d'un prochain chef parce que «même s'il est expressément mentionné sur le site du blogue que les JLCQ n'endossent pas les commentaires faits sur le blogue, la perception du public peut en être tout autrement, ce qui peut être particulièrement problématique dans une période de forte couverture médiatique comme une course à la direction». Cette directive aurait par la suite évolué, selon Mme Legault. Seul le lien entre le site officiel des jeunes libéraux et le blogue aurait été rompu.

Premièrement, Fuddle Duddle n’est pas la propriété des JLC(Q), ce n’est donc pas leur blogue, mais le blogue de Marc-André Gendron. Deuxièmement, on devrait plutôt lire que le parrain de la résolution s’est battu pour la faire passer telle quelle, sans accepter la proposition d’Antonio de dissocier Fuddle Duddle des JLC(Q). Suite à la dénonciation unanime des blogueurs de Fuddle Duddle et aux nombreux messages d’encouragement de blogueurs libéraux partout au pays, les parrains de cette résolution ont eu peur et ils ont reculé. Ils ont alors fait croire à un malentendu et qu’une simple dissociation leur paraissait la meilleure solution. Cette décision de Brigitte a été sage mais le mal avait été fait.

Si Mme Buzzetti avait voulu avoir un minimum de rigueur journalistique, elle aurait visité le blogue dont il est question dans cet article et elle aurait été en mesure de rapporter les faits. Si elle avait voulu être vraiment honnête, elle aurait contacté un des blogueurs de Fuddle Duddle pour leur demander leur version des faits. Votre papier ressemble beaucoup plus à un billet d’un « columnist » qu’à un reportage de journaliste.

Sur ce, je considère l'épisode de Fuddle Duddle clos. Cet article a été écrit avec l'assentiment de mes co-blogueurs. Nous ne reviendrons plus sur cet incident à moins que ça ne revienne d'intérêt public...

Alex

A heavyweight enters the ring !

Last summer, I had the chance to have lunch with Bob Rae. As usual, he was running from one meeting to another. I was impressed with the man. I remember Anne McLellan enumerating Robert Keith Rae's qualities : candid, compassionate, courageous, articulate, knowledgeable, intelligent and so on. I'll admit that his term as Premier was probably not the most prosperous years of Ontario. The guy did the best he could with an unexperienced caucus and Cabinet. He was facing one of the worst recessions since a long time, he was also facing the biggest cuts in federal transfers. No wonder why the finances of the province were having a bad time.

Depuis ce temps-là, Bob Rae a gagné beaucoup de respect, tant au Canada qu'à travers le monde. Il est considéré par plusieurs comme un Homme d'État plus qu'un simple politicien. Il a en quelque sorte dépassé la vile partisanerie pour servir le pays à différents niveaux. Je pense à son implication pour la rédaction d'une nouvelle constitution irakienne, la fondation du Forum des Fédérations, ses rapports sur l'affaire Air India et sur l'éducation post-secondaire. En ne nommant que cela, j'oublie sa présidence du Conseil de l'Unité Candienne, ses efforts pour la résolution de conflits au Sri Lanka et un million d'autres causes pour lesquelles M. Rae se dévoue.

Et cet homme, qui doit avoir un horaire horriblement chargé, était assis avec moi et quelques amis dans un appartement du Plateau pour discuter de l'avenir de notre pays. Avec un groupe de jeunes, il échangeait sur les défis auxquels le Canada fait face aujourd'hui. Il est d'une simplicité déconcertante. Rarement, aurais-je pu m'imaginer en train de manger de la lasagne dans le salon d'un copain tout en discutant avec un ancien Premier Ministre provincial... J'ai été impressionné par la profondeur du personnage et par la justesse de son analyse des défis actuels. Mais, c'est sans doute sa franchise qui m'a le plus marqué.

Quand il a laissé la politique, il avait promis de revenir si le pays faisait face à une crise majeure. Au moment où j'écris ces lignes, un nouveau sondage vient de paraître, ce matin, qui donnerait la victoire au Parti Québécois si des élections se tenaient aujourd'hui au Québec. S'il est un homme de parole, il doit revenir dans l'arène politique.

Quand des rumeurs ont surgi suggérant qu'il était considéré pour le poste de Gouverneur-Général, j'ai tout de suite écrit à mon ami, Daniel Laprès, qui est très proche de M. Rae pour lui dire que ça n'avait aucun bon sens, qu'il ne pouvait accepter ce poste. Je lui ai expliqué que nous avions besoin de Bob Rae au Parlement, pas à Rideau Hall.

L'homme a une vision pour le Canada, une excellente compréhension des enjeux québécois et a une expérience internationale que peu de gens puissent avoir, à part son ami Michael Ignatieff je suppose. Cet homme va certainement apporter énormément au débat et au renouvellement du Parti Libéral. Il peut nous faire rêver.

Il peut également rallier plusieurs supporters du NPD. Je me rappelle d'un article de Michael Valpy, chroniqueur au Globe and Mail et ancien candidat NPD dans le comté de Trinity-Spadina, maintenant représenté par Olivia Chow. Je suis convaincu que Valpy troquera sa carte du NPD pour une carte de membre du PLC. On peut dire que Bob Rae était un libéral égaré qui, avec les années, a fini par retrouver son chemin.

Mais ce qui me refroidit par rapport à sa candidature, ce sont les mauvais souvenirs que les Ontariens peuvent avoir de ses années au pouvoir. Nous avons besoin d'un candidat qui gagnera les prochaines élections et l'Ontario est un terreau fertile pour nous, libéraux fédéraux...

Bonne journée,

Alex

N.B. : Suite à certains téléphones reçus aujourd'hui, je souhaite clarifier la situation. Ce texte ne constitue pas un appui à la candidature de Bob Rae. Mon idée n'est pas faite, je souhaite regarder quels candidats vont se déclarer officiellement et je prendrai ma décision en temps et lieux. Par contre, je souligne la grande qualité de la candidature de Bob Rae tout simplement. Tous les candidats ont de grandes qualités et des défauts parfois aussi importants.

No Need to Merge the NDP, Let’s Make the Liberal Brand Appeal to Them!

My Dipper friends always tell me: Antonio, why in God’s name are you not in the NDP? I tell them I was born in Quebec, where winning means something, and where whiners are left whining. I believe the NDP serves no useful purpose most of the time. They are not the kingmakers now and will do what they do best: complain.

This leadership is about rebuilding the Liberal brand and image. Bob Rae is a Liberal now. I welcome him to the party (he left the NDP 8 years ago) and hope he contributes greatly to the debate. I think we have to rebuild a Liberal brand which will entice NDP voters to come around, not the other way around.

We don’t want to rebuild as the party that is everything to everyone. I believe a party whose views are firmly entrenched with the idea that society should treat everyone the same, regardless of their differences, will naturally appeal to NDP voters. The Just Society is a Liberal dream and a liberal dream. A party who builds their core policy around that principle will attract Dippers.

Example: Access to health care. Don’t all Canadians deserve the same access (better and public) to health care in this country, from coast to coast (and for Dennis) to coast? Being a woman should get you the same access as being a man. Being an Albertan should get you the same access as being a Quebecker. If one province has a system that is clearly working better, the federal government should help that system work across the country.

It worked for Health Care in Saskatchewan. The Liberals gave money to the provinces for a program that would deliver public health care, making Saskatchewan’s system Canada’s system.

Same applies for child care. Quebec’s system is the best one and the federal Liberals gave money to all the provinces to set up their own Quebec-style system in order to offer a service to all Canadians as equally as possible while respecting jurisdictions.

That is using the Just Society to build policy.

I know that Just Society stuff scares you Tories but I think it is the fundamental goal of our party, to offer the best services and protection of rights equally across the country.

Let those values guide the making of our policy, and we will not have to merge with the NDP, they will come to us!

We’ll let you decide

In order to address the accusations that we are making something out of nothing, here is the resolution in question:

WHEREAS the blog, as well as the concept of its name “Fuddle Duddle are the property of the Young Liberals of Canada (Quebec);

WHEREAS although it is explicitly written on the blog’s site that the YLC(Q) does not endorse the comments written on the blog, perception of the public may be different, which may lead to problems in a leadership race where media coverage will be high;

WHEREAS not all YLC(Q) members will work for the same candidate for leadership, which requires a neutrality of all communication tools of the YLC(Q), including Fuddle Duddle;

WHEREAS we are now in the pre-campaign of a leadership race

WHEREAS a link to official candidate sites and official blogs will be available on the YLC(Q) as soon as candidates are declared, making access to information about candidates and discussion to our members;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the executive of the YLC(Q) suspend, in a preventive manner, the Fuddle Duddle blog beginning at the end of this meeting until the meeting of our executive after the election of the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Afin de répondre aux accusations qui affirment que nous faisons une histoire à partir de rien, voici la résolution en question:

ATTENDU QUE le blogue, de même que le nom "Fuddle Duddle" sont la propriété des Jeunes Liberaux du Canada (Québec);

ATTENDU QUE même s'il est expressement mentionné sur le site du blogue que les JLCQ n'endossent pas les commentaires faits sur le blogue, la perception du public peut en être tout autrement, ce qui peut etre particulièrement problematique dans une période de forte couverture médiatique comme une course à la direction;

ATTENDU QUE ce ne sont pas tous les JLCQ qui militeront pour le même ou la même candidate a la direction, ce qui nécessite une neutralité des outils de communications des
JLCQ, dont le blogue Fuddle Duddle;

ATTENDU QUE nous sommes présentement en pre-campagne de la course a la direction du Parti Liberal du Canada;

ATTENDU QU'un lien vers les sites officiels et les blogues officiels des differents candidats à la direction seront disponibles à partir du site Internet des JLCQ dès que ces candidats seront officiellement déclarés, facilitant ainsi l'accès à l'information et aux forums de discussions à nos membres;

IL EST DONC RESOLU que l'executif des JLCQ suspende de manière preventive le fonctionnement du blogue Fuddle Duddle à partir de la levée de la présente réunion et ce, jusqu'a la reunion de notre executif qui suivra l'élection du nouveau chef du Parti liberal du Canada.

Saying Fuddle Duddle to Censorship

Dear readers,

It is with great disappointment that I learned that the Young Liberals of Canada (Quebec) wish to put the great adventure that is Fuddle Duddle on hold.

As an important political forum in Québec’s virtual landscape, FD let the apprentice politicians express ourselves, to comment and debate about contentious issues. In the last few months, we have provided to our readers information and opinions which, without being of journalistic quality, came directly from inside a party which does not let too much information filter out. From Antonio’s acidic critiques to Denise’s hilarious editorials, we have said fuddle duddle to the party line and wrote frank texts which escaped the spin doctors, director of communications and other image makers who usually control the modern political discourse.

And it seems that the experiment succeeded. While we stare out at general apathy among youth towards politics, more than 5800 people visited Fuddle Duddle last month.

So why remove Fuddle Duddle? When money could not buy Antonio’s respect, some tried intimidation. When that failed, they turned to censorship. Did the truth hurt? Did some criticism hit a nerve?

I will end this with one of Voltaire’s quotes: It’s the nature of brutal censorship to empower the opinions it attacks. And by telling you that Fuddle Duddle is here to stay.

Marc


Disons Fuddle Duddle à la censure

Chers lecteurs,

C’est avec déception que j’apprenais aujourd’hui que le Conseil exécutif des Jeunes Libéraux du Canada (Québec) souhaite mettre une pause à cette belle aventure qu’était le blogue Fuddle Duddle.

Un espace d’expression politique important dans le paysage virtuel québécois, Fuddle Duddle permet aux apprentis politiciens que nous sommes de nous exprimer, de commenter et de débattre sur des sujets politiques de l’heure. Au cours des derniers mois, nous avons fourni à nos lecteurs des informations et des opinions qui, sans être de qualité journalistique, provenaient directement de l’intérieur d’un parti qui laisse peu filtrer l’information. Des critiques acides d’Antonio aux éditos hilarants de Denise, nous avons dit fuddle duddle à la langue de bois et avons présenté des textes francs échappant aux spin doctors, directeurs des communications et autres faiseurs d’image qui contrôlent habituellement le discours politique moderne.

Et il semble que l’expérience ait bien réussie. Alors que l’on parle d’un désintérêt généralisé des jeunes pour la chose publique, le nombre de consultations de Fuddle Duddle augmente sans cesse et atteignait même plus de 5800 visites le mois dernier.

Alors pourquoi vouloir retirer Fuddle Duddle? Alors que l’argent n’a pu acheter le respect d’Antonio, on a utilisé l’intimidation. Maintenant que rien n’y fait, c’est la censure. Se pourrait-il que la franchise soit allée trop loin? Que des critiques aient fait trop mal?

Je terminerai sur une citation de Voltaire : C'est le propre de la censure violente d'accréditer les opinions qu'elle attaque. Et en vous disant que Fuddle Duddle restera.

Marc

La Chronique d'un divorce annoncé

C'est avec une pointe de regret que j'ai appris ce soir que Fuddle Duddle ne serait plus lié aux Jeunes Libéraux du Canada (Québec). L'exécutif a décidé de faire taire les blogueurs de Fuddle Duddle durant la période de la course à la direction du Parti.

Ce fut le premier vote divisé depuis longtemps. Mais un problème majeur s'impose. Fuddle Duddle a été lancé par Marc-André Gendron et il en demeure le "propriétaire". Il mettait cet espace à la disposition des JLC(Q). Fuddle Duddle était un nom que Marc-André et moi avions trouvé pour notre blogue. Nous opèrerons donc en dehors du cadre officiel du Parti.

C'est fort dommage et profondément non-libéral de vouloir faire taire les esprits dissidents. Ça me déçoit de la part d'un groupe que je pensais ouvert et tolérant. La couleur rouge du Parti Libéral du Canada n'a rien à voir avec le rouge de la Chine communiste... Enfin, quand les gens me demanderont de me taire, je leur répondrai : "Fuddle Duddle".

Alexandre

Fuddle Duddle/YLC(Q) break up...Antonio is recovering

The biggest casualty of this leadership race for the JLC(Q) has become our blog, Fuddle Duddle, no longer associated with the JLC(Q). In a vote of 11-5, executive members voted to shut it down, even though it isn’t owned by them, but by one of our editors, Marc-André Gendron.

The Blog will continue to operate, without link to the Young Liberals. It will remain our opinion. I remain responsible for policy for the YLC(Q) and my views do not reflect the views of my peers. This forum will still be used to debate ideas and positions, not to slander candidates. But as for my actual opinion of the vote, I think it’s a bunch of Fuddle Duddle.

Women in Politics…Finnish Style

So I am a typical man, late, but I have witnesses, yesterday I was wishing women Happy International Women’s Day. Since today is the first of 364 consecutive International Men’s Days (feminists love me, they truly do), I want to celebrate by writing about women in Politics.

Now as we seek to rebuild the Liberal Party in Canada, we want to get a cool edge. Here is what Conan O Brien look-a-like Tarja Halonen is up to in Finland. 10 members of her caucus, 9 of them women, have put together a little video supporting their candidate. Most of Fuddle Duddlers don’t speak Finnish, but you get the point.

The evil Finnish opposition has responded by adding a familiar theme to the song. It’s hilarious. Those dirty tricks. HAHA! Thanks to ainge who sent me the two videos. I miss you ainge, and I miss Vancouver.

On another women’s day note, our dear President Brigitte Legault made an appearance on La Part des Choses last night. She did splendidly well! My favorite part was when Brigitte described her ideal husband. You still make me laugh Brig. She’s laughing too cuz she knows what I am thinking.

I also wanna make a tribute to my mommy, cuz it’s women’s day, and I love her very much, and she does my laundry, and cooks me food, and she gives me 20 bucks every now and then. You’re the best.

Infighting vs. Justified Criticism

Recently, Fuddle Duddle has had articles that have not displayed two leadership contenders in a positive light.

I believe my comments concerning Belinda’s lack of French are fully justified. Am I creating infighting because I believe that she cannot speak proper French? Or is it justified criticism?

I believe my comments concerning Scott Brison’s email are also valid and relevant. I say it is in the best interest that an also-ran who is under RCMP investigation is a liability for the party and the best solution would be for him to step aside. Am I hanging Scott out to dry? No. I believe that the facts we have will certainly entail the RCMP further investigating, especially considering the appearance of a cover-up with conflicting statements over the past two days. This got me accused of in-fighting, from Brison supporters.

Justified Criticism is part of any leadership contest, except the last one. We were attacking Harper for his positions in 1997 when we didn’t bother to question our leader’s positions in 1997. Paul Martin was anti-Kyoto and anti-SSM in 1997. In 2004 he was their ardent defender. When did he switch? Did we have the opportunity to question Paul Martin about flags of convenience? In Montreal, at the doors, it was a bigger issue than sponsorship. Did we have time to hold Paul Martin accountable? Not with the pre-marked ballots. Look how that turned out.

For this leadership to be effective, we need as much justified criticism as we can get. We have to make sure the open process decides who best reflects our values as Liberals. Smearing candidates is bad. I've never done it. I pledge never to do it. Some shots may a little shaky but at the end of the day; I will not say “these people are not Liberals.” This is not about alienation. I hope we have learned our lesson.

Honesty is very important. While I called the Brison event as I saw it, some Liberals were defending Scott to the bitter end. I know what it’s like to be a Baghdad Bob. Alfonso Gagliano was my MP from 1984-2002. I defended him for a while before I realized it wasn’t worth it. You lose all your credibility. It's not worth it to lie to yourself or to others. Objective people aren't fooled.

To Jason Cherniak, you know I respect you and defend you all the time, but this time, I will offer some honest advice. Here is how you handled the Brison Income trust leak.

1) Accuse Mike Duffy of making too big a deal of it

(it's not the media's fault, we laugh at Conservative's when they blame the media for dumb stuff like this)
2) Saying let’s wait for more information before we throw him off a bus
3) Throwing him off a bus by saying he shouldn’t have covered it up.

James Bowie is calling it an opportunity for Scott to Spin his way out and gain momentum. I like Bowie too. But James, my question to you is, do we want our candidates to gain traction from dodging RCMP investigations? After all, Ralph did nothing wrong, but the poll numbers disagreed. We shouldn't run our campaign on poll numbers either but, we do not need ANOTHER RCMP investigation hanging over this party's head. Not now. Not ever. James, defending people to the bitter end, a la Baghdad Bob, will only make the crow taste worse.

Or we could have just said what it really was, a land mine the Liberal Party does not need. That way, we don’t look like such dumbasses, just people calling it like the rest of the country will see it.

Brison Ship Springs a Leak…Scotty is on the Brink!

Scott Brison told me four weeks ago, before the mono (I think in pre- and post-mono these days, its awful), that he was the right man to lead the Liberal Party. He told me in English, because had he tried in French I’m sure it would have taken a lot longer and chances are it wouldn’t have made sense anyway. I think I’ve bitched enough about bilingualism, you all get that message, (if you don’t speak French, you can run, but don’t expect anybody with half a brain to think you’ll win, unless you pay them, and I’m not going THERE again.)

My trusted source at Dalhousie (Fuddle Duddle has them everywhere folks) reported back to me Monday, fully recovered from the hangover. I asked him for the lowdown and if your name is Scotty-B, things aren’t looking up. They were in Nova Scotia, Scott’s backyard, surely there wouldn’t that much competition. WRONG!

Apparently, one of the more interesting attractions there this weekend was Belinda (no comment, I’ve said enough) Stronach (for the glitz and glamour, nobody really flocked to the Magna for her brilliant ideas, I’ll get back to you guy when she comes up with some)

Ken Dryden grabbed the headlines saying it was good that the Liberal Party lost. I have said this for a while. I have a confession. I was saying this before the election. Forgive me for I have adopted Warren Kinsella's thinking. But Kenny is right, we had to lose. To me, we became everything to everyone, and now we have to focus on what becoming a Liberal is. I have 6 reasons to support the Goalie, one more than the Boston Bruins, much to the chagrin of my cousins Sergio, Joe and Julie (HAHA BURN!)

Another surprise apparently was Harvard Professor Michael Ignatieff. According to my friend his hospitality suite was “hopping”. (I don’t know, I don’t speak Haligonian) You couldn’t breathe cuz they were so full, people lining up to shake Ignatieff’s hand. My friend met the professor, he said he was impressed with his ideas (Note to La Magna, Talking Points are not considered ideas), and was surprised how good his French was. Not bad for the professor, considering he was in Scott Brison’s backyard.

And after that unmitigated disaster, the Brison ship springs a leak, earning Scott the new nickname, Leaky. So Leaky sends an email speculating about a decision that had been discussed but not completely at the Cabinet Table, and could cause markets to go into frenzy, certainly benefiting Scott’s friends at CIBC. Would Scott be making such a statement had he not been at the Cabinet Table? Nope!

Well, that’s divulging Cabinet secrets. That’s not all, telling his banker friend he would be happy is basically telling him the outcome of the decision, which amounts to insider trading. Good job Leaky! Do the Liberal Party a favor and get out of this race before we have to explain to the Canadian population why our leadership candidates are under RCMP investigation. You’ve now become a liability. Liabilities don’t win leadership races.

Scott Brison aurait été un bon témoin à Gomery

First, I want to thank Antonio for suggesting to write this post in French so the unTRUSTable Scott Brison wouldn't understand my post. Do I need to mention that HE DOESN'T SPEAK FRENCH ?

Scott Brison était le ministre responsable de la commission Gomery. Il semble avoir beaucoup appris des témoins-clés qui ont comparu devant la commission. À l'instar des Jacques Corriveau, Jean Lafleur, Gilles-André Gosselin et cie, il ne s'en souvient plus...

Scott Brison ne se rappelle plus du courriel qu'il a envoyé à un employé de la CIBC pour lui annoncer que les marchés seraient très heureux de l'annonce qui venait. Il est à l'origine du scandale qui a été fatal au Parti Libéral durant la dernière élection. C'est à ce moment que nous avons perdu l'avance que nous avions dans les sondages. On peut donc dire que Scott Brison a nui davantage au Parti Libéral comme ministre "libéral" que comme député d'opposition du Parti Conservateur. Est-il toujours à la solde du Parti Conservateur ?

Je crois sincèrement que Scott n'a pas ce qu'il faut pour se présenter dans une campagne au leadership. Il souffre déjà d'alzheimer précoce. Comment pourra-t-il donc diriger le pays et répondre aux questions de l'opposition s'il ne se rappelle plus de ce qu'il a fait il y a 3 mois ? Jacques Corriveau, lui, avait au moins l'excuse d'avoir 71 ans, d'être malade et que les faits qui lui étaient reprochés dataient de plusieurs années.

Il semble que les transfuges ne feront pas long feu dans cette course au leadership... Bien vite, ils finiront au même endroit que le Blackberry d'un de mes collègues à la dernière campagne : dans la TOILETTE ! hihihihihi

Alex

Am I Dreaming?

Maybe it’s the 14 hours of sleep I get these days while I fight off mono, but Stephen Harper is now saying he will not co-operate with an Ethics Probe into his own office. Let’s see how bad this is for public relations.

OK, so Shapiro was appointed by Liberals, we also appointed 7 justices of the Supreme Court, do you not trust those guys either? Most of the top civil servants are former Liberal appointees; almost ¾ of the Senate are Liberal-appointed, including Hughie Segal. Let’s not trust them either.

Slippery Slope indeed Mr. Harper!

If you’re David Emerson, do you co-operate with this guy, I mean you co-operated with him when you were in the other government, did he lose his legitimacy January 23rd? Emerson also said he would resign if the Ethics Commissioner said he did anything wrong? Was there a secret “I don’t trust this guy” clause in that statement that we missed?

Here is my favorite Emerson quote
"If you're equating the Grewal situation with mine, I take great offence,"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

They are not the same, cuz Grewal didn’t get the job, you did!

In fact, Bernie Shapiro, or as we Concordians call him B-Shap, stated if a benefit is offered, it is a breach of Parliamentary ethics. Now this whole thing could have went down one of two ways

Emerson calls Harper and says “Yo Stevie, I’m a small-c Liberal but I would look much sexier as a small-c Conservative. My measurements are…My qualifications are… He passes an interview in fishnets and high heels. Stevie-H says I can’t turn you down baby. They make out! (I know this is overtly sexist, forgive me it’s funny, just picture it, no sexism intended. I will need Denise’s approval for this one!)

or

Harper calls Emerson and says “I am impressed with what you did in the last Parliament, why don’t you become my Trade Minister, I need representation from Vancouver.” Emerson says yes.

Actually John Reynolds made that call. He offered the bribe, a la Tim Murphy, at the behest of Harper. (why is it different? cuz Grewal wasn't actually offered anything on the tapes, in fact, Grewal was the one asking for stuff)

Stevie-H was so proud of what he did, he bragged about it to reporters.

So much for wanting a government that isn’t constantly under investigation.

Harpocrisy!

Still proud Stevie?

Hidden Agenda?

"...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one". (Luke 22:36)

I think we might have ourselves a new Bible Belt Blade Brigade. I’m not going to Alberta.

Ralph is already throwing books. Quick Vic, register the blades!

Hell hath no fury like Crazy Christians who sold their clothes to buy swords and are on a naked rampage!

I love the Bible. Those apostles get me every time! Such comedy!

Religion in Schools?

The Supreme Court has allowed knives to be carried around in Canadian schools. They have approved 8-0 that freedom of religion trumps the right to safety in schools. Not to sound too alarmist here, but why do we want people carrying knives in schools? Orthodox Sikhs believe they must carry the ceremonial daggers in schools. I’m not saying Sikhs are violent people, but shouldn’t schools be allowed to dictate what weapons their students are allowed to walk around the hallways with?

What’s stopping another student from stealing the dagger and using it on another student? Why can’t we ask students to leave their daggers in their lockers during the school day? We live in a tolerant but secular society. This whole topic stirs up another issue; the removal of all religion from schools.

The French approach to the issue seems drastic, removing ALL religious symbols from school, including: large crosses, kippas, headscarves, turbans, ceremonial daggers, and the whole kitten caboodle. All of it can go right back on at the end of the school day. It levels the playing field at public schools; everyone is on the same playing field. I mean, isn’t it hypocritical to ban one item and not all of them?

Today, the court made the right decision. Going the other way would have required Canada to impose a French-style religious symbols ban, something that runs against the fundamental nature of the Canadian multicultural spirit. However, if a teacher ever sees the dagger drawn, or even an inch of that blade, they won’t hesitate to confiscate it. Let’s face it, if I ever attacked anyone with a crucifix or threw a Bible at someone, it would be confiscated too!

Belinda et Vote16.ca

Plusieurs personnes ont demandé quelle était notre position face au projet de M. Holland et Mme Stronach d'abaisser l'âge pour être éligible à voter à 16 ans. Je recopie un article que j'avais publié sur ce blogue, la journée où le projet de loi privé de M. Holland a été défait. L'exécutif des JLC(Q), à ce moment, était fortement opposé à cette proposition.

Chers amis libéraux,
Ceux qui étaient présents au dernier congrès du PLC à Ottawa ont vu que je m'étais opposé, avec conviction, à l'initiative du député de Ajax-Pickering qui abaisserait l'âge pour voter à seize ans. Cette proposition, au Québec, est défendue par le PQ qui croit pouvoir gagner un référendum avec cette tranche d'âge. Les échanges, au Congrès, avaient été musclés. J'avais prévenu M. Holland que je le tiendrais personnellement responsable de la séparation si son projet de loi devait passer et que le Québec se séparait. Il ne semblait pas vraiment comprendre ce qu'il se passait.

Lundi, sachant que son projet de loi serait voté mercredi, je lui ai passé un coup de téléphone. Il m'a rappelé dans la même journée, je le remercie. Je lui ai refait part de mon point de vue et cette fois avec une certaine véhémence. Je lui ai expliqué que les enfants sont endoctrinés, dans nos écoles, pour détester les méchants Canadians. À 16 ans, ils viennent de sortir de leur cours d'histoire péquiste de secondaire 4. J'ai fini par lui dire qu'il ne comprenait aucunement la dynamique québécoise. De plus, à 16 ans, on a aucune obligation, donc peu importe le gouvernement, notre vie sera bien peu influencée. Un vote est plus ou moins sans conséquence à cet âge-là. Il a semblé agacé, la conversation s'est terminée en me disant qu'il respectait mes opinions. Tout ça pour dire que je suis très heureux que son projet de loi ait été battu.

Je tiens à remercier le caucus québécois qui était opposé à une telle mesure et un merci tout particulier à Jacques Saada qui prend toujours un grand soin de répondre à mes diverses interrogations. Je dois également souligner la vitesse à laquelle il répond à ses courriels. On pourrait l'appeler l'homme qui répond plus vite que son ombre !

Alexandre

The saga continues...

Maybe I'm being old school about this, but I feel like an apology is the admittance of a mistake or an expression of regret about a decision. But apparently there are different levels of sorry, and Emerson is sorry, but not sorry enough to actually do anything to correct his mistake.