Jacques Layton Has Some 'Splainin To Do...

Is the NDP a federalist party or not?

After becoming Leader of the Official Opposition, Jack Layton should be in seventh heaven.

Instead, he must feel like he's in the fifth ring of hell.

In the days since the 2011 election, his Quebec lieutenant, Thomas Mulcair, has embarrassed the party by suggesting a conspiracy is afoot beneath the reported death of Osama Bin Laden. Reports indicate that another one of his new Quebec MPs (or at least someone in her campaign) may have committed electoral fraud.

Now, it seems that one of his Quebec MPs may be a separatist. 19 year-old Pierre-Luc Dusseault -- the youngest MP in Canadian history -- declared that separatism is not dead during an interview with a Toronto radio station.

He then went on to declare that "sovereignty will be done."

"In my campaign, I said sovereignty will be done in Quebec and Quebeckers will decide if Quebec wants to be a country," Dusseault announced. "And waiting for this moment, I said, 'Why not give us a real government that is good for us?' And we will respect sovereignty in the NDP."

It's important to note that this wasn't merely Dusseault playing the soft-separatist in Quebec. This was Dusseault trumpeting what seem to be separatist views in the self-declared capital of the good ol' ROC.

Charles Adler previously spoke about Dusseault's remark, but the NDP is already trying to pull a rhetorical bait-and-switch.

"NDP spinners in Ottawa will say that Adler and other right-wingers are taking him out of context," Adler wrote. "Umm no. I am taking him at his word."

As Adler points out, this is a stark challenge to the notion that the NDP's ascension in Quebec marks a weakening of Quebec separatism.

"The politically correct interpretation of the Orange Surge was that it was about many things," Adler wrote. "But most important to Canada, we were told it was about a rejection of separatism in Quebec."

Yet we have Pierre-Luc Dusseault whom, it may seem, may simply be a Bloc Quebecois MP wrapped in orange instead of teal.

Is the NDP still actually a federalist party? Or have they been harbouring separatists within their ranks for as long as they've been pushing for this surge in Quebec?

Jack Layton, Pierre-Luc Dusseault and the NDP owe Canadians some answers. If Dusseault has truly been taken out of context -- and given his comments, it's hard to see how he could have been -- it's up to the NDP to require Dusseault to better-explain what his comments are to mean.

In the meantime, it's hard to ignore the very real possibility that Pierre-Luc Dusseault is a BQ in the NDP's clothing.

Pollster Reveals Canadians Woefully Uninformed About War in Afghanistan

Lack of support for Canada's mission in Afghanistan due to lack of information

For those addicted to the mystical world of poll watching, the Strategic Councel's polls on Canada's deployment in Afghanistan have been a real eye-opener. In their most recent poll, the Strategic Councel concluded that 62% of Canadians support negotiating with the Taliban.

The same poll determined that 55% of Canadians opposed the mission -- a 2-point drop from previous polls -- while 40% of Canadians support the mission -- a 4-point increase from previous polls.

For many of the Afghanistan mission's opponents, these recent polls have been treated like mana from heaven. Yet an interview Charles Adler conducted with Tim Wollstencroft (of the Strategic Counsel) today has uncovered another aspect of the issue -- Canadians are woefully underinformed regarding the mission, and about the Taliban in particular.

In the interview, Wollstencroft agrees that a lack of knowledge about the Taliban has an impact on such studies. "Whether you know a lot about the Taliban or little the fact is that there's a sense of unease about the war in Afghanistan, and there's a desire to see some sort of diplomatic initiative."

He also admitted that the polls themselves are largely conducted in an information vacuum.

Although this is a proper polling technique -- to provide any sort of specific information during the polling process risks unduly manipulating the results, as is the case with push polling -- it does reflect the poor basis from which many Canadians are making decisions about whether or not to support the mission.

A conversation held with an opponent of the Afghanistan mission held via an internet message board reflects the uninformed nature of much of the war's opposition. In the course of the conversation, DerbyX asserts that opposition to the war represents opposition to Conservative party policies (despite the fact that it was the [i]Liberals[/i] who deployed Canadian forces to Afghanistan), is indistinguishable from the US war in Iraq, and is essentially an act of imperialism.

Yet, as previously mentioned, it was the Liberals, under Jean Chretien who deployed Canadian troops to Afghanistan. It was the Liberals, under Paul Martin, who deployed Canadian troops into the combat mission in Kandahar. The war in Afghanistan is a multilateral affair, conduced under UN mandate, with solid intelligence backing it. Finally, the goal in Afghanistan is to rebuild the country and leave, not rule it permanently.

All the while, the war's opponents often demonstrate their lack of knowledge regarding the mission. "I guess it just hasn't occurred to you that [Liberals] don't want to see young Canadians killed in a fruitless cause."

Yet, the many successes of the mission, Including 17,000 Afghani girls who are now attending school seem to be lost on these individuals. This defies the categorization of Afghanistan as a fruitless cause.

Ottawa Press Gallery Haunts Harper

The Prime Minister and the press must learn to get along

Any relationship between the press and a member of the Conservative party in Canada tends to be a tenuous one. With the exception of a notable few right-wing publications (Western Standard, anyone?) and a dwindling number of quality media outlets (such as the CanWest publications and CTV), the media in Canada does indeed often seem biased against the Conservatives.

In Rescuing Canada's Right, Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin (try saying that three times fast) sum this up quite nicely: "the media in Canada is out to get the Conservatives, because they think the Conservatives are out to get them".
So, then, it may be no surprise that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Ottawa Press Gallery is having what one could consider a stormy relationship.

Yesterday, Harper threw a very public bolt of lightning during an interview with a London, Ontario television station. " Unfortunately, the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government," he said, and later added, " It's certainly unnecessary and I have trouble believing that a Liberal prime minister would have this problem. ...The press gallery, at the leadership level, has taken an anti-Conservative view."

Naturally, press gallery president Yves Malo disagrees with Harper, saying, " We regret these comments [by Harper] because we think they are unfounded."
The ultimate point of contention is a move by Harper to limit press access to his Cabinet Ministers, and his insistence on deciding himself who will ask questions at press conferences. Last week, a number of reporters walked out of a Harper press conference because he refused to answer their questions.

" We can't accept that the Prime Minister's office would decide who gets to ask questions", said Malo. " Does that mean that when there'a crisis they'll only call upon journalists they expect softball questions from?"

It certainly is a fair question. Canadians rely on the press to provide them with the information they need, especially when it relates to government affairs. As a result, the Prime Minister has a responsibility to deal with the press openly and honestly. However, Harper should also be able to expect to not have to deal with an unduly hostile press, and does have the right to protect himself from some of the self-glorified hatchet-jobbers infesting the media. The press may claim it is unbiased all they want, but when a photo of Harper -- lit to appear in a sinister fashion -- appears on the front page of a publication as high-profile as the Toronto Star, it hurts the validity of these claims.

According to Charles Adler Online, the new media process has been far more open than many journalists are reporting to the public. Prime Minister's Office spokesman Dimitris Soudas has been spotted emerging from the office with clipboard in-hand, prepared to take a list of reporters who want to ask questions. Many reporters have refused to give their names for the list, as the Press Gallery wants its staff to control which reporters ask questions, and which ones don't.

In response to the Press Gallery's protest, Harper has decided to take his show on the road, and focus on addressing local media, as opposed to strictly focusing on the national media. However, a Thursday press conference on anti-Street Racing legistlation was hijacked by journalists wanting to discuss Harper's approach to the media, and add their own voices to the protest. Going abroad to address local media may be a good idea, but it won't protect him from criticism.

If Stephen Harper wants to build a better relationship with the press, he must realize that it must begin with him. While some members of the press will continue to play the role of the agitator, Harper must work toward earning the media's trust. Heavy-handedly refusing to play by the traditional rules won't win the Prime Minister any friends amongst the press.

The Press Gallery, however, must accept that openness and honesty must also apply to them. When journalists are being denied the opportunity to ask questions by Press Gallery staff, it only brings up uncomfortable questions that they may not want to answer.

This situation calls for what all similar situations call for -- a compromise. Harper could quiet his critics -- and create a more constructive press environment for everyone involved -- by offering to hear questions from a short list prepared by the Press Gallery, as well as a short list prepared by his own staff.

If things continue the way they have been, Harper is only fuelling his own critics. However, if the Press Gallery were to refuse any compromise, it would unquestionably be a sign of a deep cancer within its ranks -- one precisely of the sort that Harper has suggested.

Harper clearly has much to learn about dealing with the media. It is experiences such as this that will teach him how it is done -- but only so long as he doesn't refuse to learn its lessons.