January 7, 2007

We Thought Lapierre Was Bad...

Stephane, Say it isn’t So!

Francis Scarpaleggia

Quebec Lieutenant?

While the word going around is that 3 will be chosen, the MP is really the most important of the three, as organizers don’t talk to the press and the president of the party has other duties.

So would you support a lieutenant against same-sex marriage?

Would you support a lieutenant with no profile in the province?

Would you support a lieutenant who campaigned only for 2 days in the last election?

The OLO has yet to confirm this report but for the sake of the party, I hope it is false.

We thought Lapierre was the worst of it…but like the Dionistas always tell me, never underestimate Stephane Dion.

28 Commentaires:

Blogger s.b. a dit...

First of all Antonio, ,think about it. He's one of two Quebec MP's who backed Dion from the beginnning in Quebec and he wasn't given the position by himself.

He a parliamentary expert on Canada'swater suppy and is an economist. He won't be listened to on social policy or allowed to speak on it and I assure you Dion supports the Charter.

You know in my oppinion all Liberal candidates and Mp's should have to swear to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This MP won't be speaking on Social Issues for the PArty any time soon aka ever, he does however have other areas of expertise.

Like I said he was made Quebec Lieutenant with two other people. Think about it.

As far as Pablo is concerned I'm sure he'll be given appropriate jobs in Dion's new shadow government and future government However, many had questions about Pablo's support for various organizations and actions in the past. That can't be overlooked.

There is however enough work for everyone.

1/07/2007 10:21 a.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

As far as him campaigning for two days???? He won by a sizeable margin so if this is the case, he has a great deal of constituency support. We can therefore use him to help with the entire provincial campaign in the next election, since he has time on his hands.

Why would you want someone who has to fight tooth and nailfor their riding with provincial responsibility?? I'm not speaking of PAblo here just in general. Doesn't it make sense?

1/07/2007 10:23 a.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

PS It's time you came on baord Antonio and got rid of your bloggers for Igs link. We have a leader now and we all need to be behind him.

1/07/2007 10:26 a.m.  
Blogger Sinestra a dit...

Sorry, s.b. You are speaking about my MP and you are wrong. Francis is NOT an expert on water. Francis does NOT have a great deal of constituency support and Francis was NOT a Dion supporter from day one. Francis only declared in mid-July following the cut-off of membership sales. The Dion organisation in thus friding had to do a lot of arm-twisting to even get him to declare and he doesn't even enjoy support among the Dionistas in his own riding. A number of them have complained about his behaviour and they are very put off that he's saying her was there from Day One becajuse it is simply UNTRUE.

In my opinion, Marlene Jennings - in our neighbour riding of NDG-Lachine was with Dion from day one, is an anglophone and a fantastic woman. SHE should be Qc loot.

1/07/2007 10:35 a.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

Yes MArlene would be a good choice, she is however an anglophone. Does this present problems when one is Quebec lieutenant? The official record differs from you account Sinestra and he does have a gr4eat deal of Parlaimentary expertise on Canada's water supply and is an economist, no matter what you say.

Second of all can everyone stop using the term Dionista. How about Liberal. Just as I will criticize Antonio for continuing to have an Iggy link on his blog, this term needs to stop being used.

Third of all, Mr. Dion is subtle and trying to heal a Party after a decade and a half of infighting and a protracted leadership race with too many candidates.

Some people are being given jobs to keep them busy, not because they are necessarily the darlings of Stephane.

Think harder everyone. I assure some people that Stephane and his team genuinely detest will be given jobs that surprise some. But these people have skills and support and everyone is needed and their is enough work for everyone, especially in Quebec, where we have to fight not just the Conservatives but the BLOQ, for the very existence of our country.

Really think hard about getting your knickers in a knot about anyone being given jobs or titles. Its part of the process.

MArlene is well respected and appreciated by Stephane. Send him an e-mail if you fell she should be Quebec lieutenant by all means. I'm sure she will be in cabinet when we win a Majority, as will many women.

1/07/2007 11:14 a.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

Haha about the link, Marc Gendron does all the site managing for the blog and he is in Rwanda.

But, when he gets back the second thing he'll do is take doww that link, right after he changes that awful picture of me.

Dion had two MPs supporting him in Quebec and if the goal was to appoint a supporter, he went with the wrong one, Marlene would have been way better.

Nobody would have puit Francis Scarpaleggia in the Top 5 lieutenants before the race began. Hell, I think some may have left him out of the top 10, and we only have 13 members...

1/07/2007 12:20 p.m.  
Blogger Sinestra a dit...

I use the term Dionista to differentiate between those who sjupported Dion during the race and those who supported others. Francis chaired the water caucus but is by no means an expert. We just happen to live in a watery riding - the idea came from the local NDP. He is an economist. If you look back on the electoral history of this riding you will see that under Francis's watch Liberal fortunes have fallen significantly. He replaced a wildly popular MP in Clifford Lincoln and many feel he hasn't delivered the continued Lincol-esque approach he promised.

As for Marlene Jennings being an anglo - there's no problem there. Look at the trio: Marc Lavigne is a franco; Fragasso is an allophone; Marlene would fit in very well.

1/07/2007 1:12 p.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

I just sent off an e-mail requesting Dion give the Quebec lieutenant position to Jennings and not Scarpalaggio, because he voted against the charter and Dion needs to put his money where his mouth is on women.

I recommend you and anyone else who feels this way do the same.

I know you know how to get a hold of Dion's people Sinestra so do it.

1/07/2007 2:32 p.m.  
Blogger big gay al's big gay liberal sanctuary a dit...


So Francis Scarpaleggia doesn't support same-sex marriage... Should we conduct a witch-hunt, ignore the good he has done for the party, and demonize him as a fascist because he doesn't support something that goes against his religious beliefs?

Come on.

The protests against Dr. Margaret Somerville were dispicable in their severity and out-right demonization of Somerville. What happened to FREE-SPEACH? Is she not allowed to be opposed to something without being harassed and coerced into refraining from voicing her opinion? Is her work support gay-rights and other stuff to be ignored, because she doesn't support gay marriage?

Do a majority of Italian-Canadians in your riding (both born in the old country and the new one) support same-sex marriage? And should they be demonized because that issue goes against theiry religious beliefs?

I am not saying I am for same-sex marriage or against it. All I am saying is that same-sex marriage is a touchy issue because of the conflict it has with religious doctrines that many people believe in. If Scarpaleggia does not support it, agree to disagree, but don't shun the person.

Why do I have the feeling someone is going to call me close-minded and a bigot...

1/07/2007 2:42 p.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

I don't see this as a SSM issue BIg Gay Al. ITs about the Charter. The Charter should be supported by all Liberal MP's and Candidates period.

Religious belief is not a valid reason for opposing the Charter. Trudeau who brought us the Charter was a devout Catholic. He placed the rights of all Candians above his personal religious beliefs. So should all Liberals.

In fact I would put forward it is what defines the Liberal Party and should therefore be non-negotiable from MP's. No ones personal religious beliefs should have anything to do with political decisions for the entire country.

That's why were not Conservative.

1/07/2007 2:58 p.m.  
Blogger andrewridgeley a dit...

Sweet Christing Fuck! Viarge!

Are Andrew Telegdi and Derek Lee national co-chairs yet?

1/07/2007 4:50 p.m.  
Blogger Alex Plante a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/07/2007 6:47 p.m.  
Blogger The Rat a dit...

S.B., this quote:

I don't see this as a SSM issue BIg Gay Al. ITs about the Charter. The Charter should be supported by all Liberal MP's and Candidates period.

is B.S.

Support the Charter? Which part? Umm, I don't see gay mentioned anywhere. Oh, that's right, it isn't! Nor has there been a Supreme Court Ruling stating that gay marriage is a Charter Right. You are just one Liberal telling another what she THINKS the Charter should stand for, and another Liberal disagrees. Hiding behind the Charter is cowardly, you should just come out and say that anyone who isn't 100% supportive of everything you say should be ditched from the party. Maybe you could do a commercial for the coming election telling voters not to vote Liberal unless they agree with you, too. As a conservative supporter I'd appreciate it.

1/07/2007 9:35 p.m.  
Blogger cat mutant a dit...

What I find we're seeing is that some elements of the left are high-jacking and in the end have become what they despise.

The same idiots that dispicably protested Dr. Margaret Somerville are very comparable to the extreme right who chant that gays are going to hell. In all honesty, I don't see a difference between these two groups of nuts. There is one similarity... the Bush motto "Either your with us or against us". That is not so.

In a true democracy, ppl are supposed to have a difference eof opinions and debate them in respectable ways without demonizing those who hold different views.

I have not respect for the lefties that claim all those who don't agree with everything they say are bigots and for the righties that claim gays are the root of all evil and will go to hell.

They are both peas in the same pod.

1/07/2007 9:58 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...


What was meant from the SSM comment was that it goes clearly against the grain and the feelings of the Quebec people.

Would I supprot a lieutenant who did not believe in climate change? No. That does not apply to Scarpaleggia.

The lieut speaks to everything so you cant say he wont speak to social issues. Is he a biggot? No. is he wrong about this? yes.

That's how I feel

1/08/2007 2:04 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Here's a question: why does Dion need a "Quebec lieutenant"? I assumed that the position was for (often unilingual) anglophone leaders who wanted someone to get the message out among French-speaking Canadians. (John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson, etc.)

Wouldn't Dion stand more in need of an Anglo lieutenant? (Ignatieff or Kennedy, one would expect.)

Or has "Quebec lieutenant" become a quasi-official post, so much so that even a francophone leader now needs one?

1/08/2007 8:11 a.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

Rat you are so incorrect it isn't even funny. The supreme courts of Ontario, and I believe 8 other provinces and two teritories have unanimously ruled that SSM is a Charter issue and guarenteed under this document. The judicial opinion is so unanimous there is no reason to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

SSM is guarenteed under the Charter, so are many other Rights all of which have to be defended by Liberals.

1/08/2007 11:54 a.m.  
Blogger Phil Larouche a dit...


Every leader has a leutenant. It's an official position in the LPCQ constitution.

Trudeau's leutenant was Marc Lalonde
Turner's leutenant was Raymond Garneau
Chrétien's leutenant were André Ouellet, Alfonso Gagliano and Martin Cauchon
Martin's leutenant was Jean Lapierre
Graham's leutenant was Lucienne Robillard
Dion's leutenant is Francis Scarpaleggia

1/08/2007 12:31 p.m.  
Blogger Jason Cherniak a dit...

I can understand your concern. I hope he proves to have been a better choice than you expect.

1/08/2007 12:37 p.m.  
Blogger The Rat a dit...

Rat you are so incorrect it isn't even funny.

Sorry S.B., back to school for you. Ontario isn't Canada (shocking, I know) and the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. Why? Because Martin sent a reference to the court that the court refused to give an answer to. Until the SC rules it's a hodge-podge of non-binding provincial rulings and therefore eminently debatable.

1/08/2007 5:25 p.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

Rat again you are so wrong its funny, I assure you the rulings of the Ontario supreme Court and the othera are binding. lol NOt even a notwithstanding clause gets these provinces out of these rulings. SSM is here to stay.

1/08/2007 5:33 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Rat - You are wrong. The decisions of various provincial Courts of Appeal sure as hell is "binding" in the province that it is made and would be viewed as persuasive by other provincial court.

As for your comment that you dont see the word "gay" in the constitution you are right but you are uninformed. Charter guarantees are written in broad, vague language so many things that have been found to Charter rights arent written in their. There is no right to access private medical care either but the court has ruled just that. It has long been established sexual orientation is an analogous ground under s.15. So in fact being "gay" (as you call it) is a constitutionally protected ground of discrimination.

Shoshana - You are also incorrect, but only insofar as you say that the notwithstanding clause couldn't reverse SSM. The Federal government (but not the provinces) could, in fact, reverse SSM with the NWS clause. But that would be most regretable.

1/08/2007 6:35 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Sorry... replace "provincial court" with "province's courts".

1/08/2007 6:37 p.m.  
Blogger The Rat a dit...

lol NOt even a notwithstanding clause gets these provinces out of these rulings. SSM is here to stay.

Are you obtuse, S.B. Read you own F'n words! The two that matter are "These Provinces". The rulings are in no way binding on any province other than the one they were delivered in, hence the FACT that SSM cannot be declared a right under the Charter because, now follow me here, two provinces and 2 territories without such a ruling are in no way bound by them. As for the legislation, I agree that SSM is here to stay, but that does not make it a Charter Right, only a law that could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules on this for all of Canada the debate as to whether it is a right is open, absolutely and completely, despite what you write on the subject.

1/08/2007 8:01 p.m.  
Blogger The Rat a dit...

KC Thanks for the civics lesson, but you forget that gay rights were explicitly discussed and left out of the Charter. Now, one could argue for the courts ability to read in rights where none were explicitly given, especially in circumstances where the framers are dead and unable to tell us what they meant. But our framers are alive and well and have told us they left gay rights out on purpose.

Personally, I don't have any problem with extending the rights under the Charter to include gays, but it's an intellectual lie to think that in a mere 20 years we've changed so much that the original framer's intent is no longer valid.

1/08/2007 8:07 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Rat - The framers of the Charter also left the language of section 15 open to allow the courts to "read in" rights to that section. If they had wanted to exclude gay rights from the purview of section 15 they should have explicitly limited it to the enumerated grounds or explicitly excluded those rights they didnt intend to. Framers intent is not the only interpretive method for viewing the Charter, and the framers knew that in 1982 and deliberately chose to leave open the possibility that s.15 would be viewed expansively.

1/08/2007 8:14 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

ooh legal talk!

im gonna have to side with kyle here

s. 15 in not exhaustive in any way, shape, or form.

That is for a reason.

The provinces or the federal government CAN s.33 of the charter to overturn the provincial court rulings.

HOWEVER, they would have to provide some kind of compromise within 5 years.

1/08/2007 9:05 p.m.  
Blogger Phil Larouche a dit...

Provincial governments can use the notwithstanding clause. They did it with Bill 101 if I remember correctly.

1/08/2007 9:59 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home