The NDP in Quebec: Jacques' Bloc

NDP revisiting their Bill 101 backstabbing bill

Even a week after an election that delivered a Conservative majority government -- as opposed to a Liberal/NDP/Bloc Quebecois coalition -- the NDP is continuing to send Canadians further signs that the country very narrowly averted a catastrophe in 2008.

Canadians remember it well: Liberal leader Stephane Dion, having been firmly rebuked by the Canadian electorate, teamed up with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe in a desperate bid to save their per-vote subsidy.

They've still never told Canadians precisely what were the terms of their deal with the Bloc Quebecois -- who was not to be formally a part of the coalition, but still signed onto the formal agreement that would have birthed it.

But there is one thing we do know, courtesy of Liberal Party lead negotiator Marlene Jennings. It's been mentioned on this blog many times before, but in light of recent news, warrants being mentioned again.

The Bloc Quebecois had demanded that Bill 101 -- the infamous French-only sign law -- be applied to federally-regulated industries. The Liberal Party said no.

What Jennings seemingly never accounted for was that the NDP had already said yes. She already knew as much. She knew it before the Liberals and NDP ever came together to form that coalition.

Now, through the promised reintroduction of a private member's bill that would apply "elements of Bill 101" to federally-regulated industries in Quebec. The bill was up prior to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of the 2011 election. Jack Layton promises it will be back.

“It’s a very, very important law,” Layton declared.

The Bill, which originated with Thomas Mulcair, is allegedly meant to protect the right of workers in federally-regulated industries to communicate in French, without denying Anglophone employees the right to communicate in English.

The problem with all of this is that such a bill hasn't been necessary since the 1970s.

In reality, the bill is about something different: about the NDP supplanting the routed Bloc Quebecois as the voice of Quebecois nationalism.

“It’s obviously a political play to appeal to nationalists,” said associate director of the University of Ottawa Graduate School of Public and International Affairs Robert Asselin. “But in terms of feasibility, it’s a very irresponsible promise.”

“The country has moved forward on linguistic issues,” Asselin said. “It is not as confrontational as it used to be.”

But to Jack Layton, this detail may come second to the reality that, for the NDP, defeating the Bloc Quebecois may not be enough. Now that the NDP has seized control of the electoral coaliton that had previously sustained the Bloc Quebecois, it seems the NDP wants to render it permanent.

It isn't enough that the NDP defeated the Bloc Quebecois. It seemingly wants to become the Bloc Quebecois. With one seeming separatist MP (Pierre-Luc Dusseault) in the mix, this may be more than idle speculation: it may be only a matter of time.

One Last Thing Before You Go, Marlene...

...Jennings leaving office with coalition-related secrets intact

On May 2, Liberal Marlene Jennings, then the incumbent MP for Notre Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine, was defeated by NDP candidate Isabelle Morin.

Following her defeat, Jennings said all the right things that defeated incumbents usually say. Humble comments, and all.

"The voters made a change," she said. "I hope the change will meet their expectations."

"The heart is still there, the soul is still there," she said of her party, which has clearly lost its connection with Canadians. "I think our party has to let the dust settle, let peoples' emotions calm and then meet and see what message we should take from this and how we should rebuild the party."

There is, unfortuantely, one thing Jennings still isn't saying: she still isn't telling Canadians what she, her party, and the NDP gave up to the Bloc Quebecois to make the 2008 coalition agreement -- to which all three parties were party.

We know what the Liberals and NDP said "no" to. Jennings revealled in January 2009 that they had said "no" to extending Bill 101's authority to federally-regulated industries in Quebec. That was a laudable act.

However, we still have yet to hear Jennings -- the Liberal Party's lead negotiator on the coalition deal -- tell us what they agreed to. They're still keeping it secret.

Marlene Jennings has little left to lose politically. It's far past time she did the right thing, and tell Canadians just how much she and her party were prepared to give up to the Bloc in order to get power back.

The True Face of the Coalition

Sometimes a concerned citizen says it better than a partisan spokesman ever can.

In a letter to the editor of the Montreal Gazette, Craig McPherson sends a reminder to voters in Outremont: while the Bloc Quebecois was technically not a full member of the Socialist/Separatist coalition, they were more than content to help the Bloc satisfy its demands:

"Now is the time to remind Quebec's often-overlooked anglo community that the New Democratic Party as a whole, and Outremont incumbent Thomas Mulcair in particular, in April of 2008 voted in support of a Bloc Québécois bill that, had it not been defeated by the Conservatives and Liberals, would have seen Bill 101's language restrictions applied to workers in federally regulated industries in Quebec.

It would have effectively meant that English would no longer be required for bank employees, airport workers and telecommunications companies. Of course, the NDP and Mulcair tried, at the time, to spin this as a defence of an employee's right to work in French, but the net result would have been yet further diminishment of employment opportunities for Quebec anglophones and a continued erosion of our already feeble linguistic rights."

It may be fair to wonder precisely how Marlene Jennings, the Liberal Party's lead negotiator with their coalition partners, must have felt about this. In December of 2008 Jennings let one little nugget slip out of the veil of secrecy drawn around the coalition agreement.

That nugget was that the BQ had demanded that Quebec's notoriously-discriminatory language law, Bill 101, be applied to federally-regulated industries in Quebec.

“I said no," Jennings bragged. "Never. Not while I have a breath in my body.”

“I was able to [say no] because I knew that for people in my riding, and English-speaking communities, and the Jewish community, and other communities, Bill 101 is anathema… for a variety of reasons,” Jennings added.

Jennings' stand on Bill 101 is admirable. But what is not admirable is the secrecy surrounding the 2008 coalition agreement. They still won't tell Canadians what they sacrificed to secure the cooperation of the Bloc Quebecois.

Even less admirable is the NDP -- including its sole Quebec MP, Thomas Mulcair -- running around behind the Liberals' back, giving them support on issues that the Liberals had declared entirely off-the-table.

Maybe that's just the kind of relationship the Liberal/NDP coalition had with its coalition partner: if the Liberals told the Bloc "no", the Bloc would just ask mom.

The Utter Cluelessness of Jack Layton & the NDP

Conservatives can't work with NDP on long-gun registry

When it appeared that Candice Hoeppner's private members bill would find enough support from the NDP to pass, NDP leader Jack Layton went to work to find enough votes to keep the registry alive.

He didn't whip the vote, as many advocates of the long-gun regsitry insisted he should, but he seems to have found the votes.

Yet, as it turns out, Layton's fantasies don't end with the alleged necessity of maintaining the registry. Layton continues to fantasize that the Conservative Party would be able to work with him to "fix" the registry.

"I said to the Prime Minister today as well as in a conversation last week, ‘Why don't we work together here? You haven't got the numbers now to simply eliminate it,'" Layton said. "'So let's work to try to fix it and address some of those legitimate issues that are being raised by people who are law-abiding gun owners and hunters and farmers.'"

What Layton clearly doesn't understand is that, as pertains to gun control and the long-gun registry, there's nothing to talk about. There is simply no way that the Conservative Party -- who acknowledge reality as it relates to the long-gun registry -- could work wirh the NDP on the matter, who do not.

It's as simple as that.

Particularly, the Conservatives cannot be expected to work with people who won't debate the matter in good faith.

Layton and the other supporters of the long-gun registry have long realized that there are no facts that support maintaining the registry: not a single, solitary, one.

They can't afford to publicly admit that the long-gun registry has never prevented a single crime, and has never saved a single life. Not one.

Instead, proponents of the long-gun registry have relied on fear mongering, emotional blackmail, and smear tactics in order to make their case.


Consider the following exchanges from the very same meeting of the Public Safety Committee in which Dr Gary Mauser utterly demolished defenses of the long-gun registry.

The first is between Dr Mauser and Marlene Jennings:

"Jennings - ...Have you received funding from the NRA for any of your studies or research work?

Dr Mauser - Yes, I have. When I first began researching--

Jennings - Thank you.

Dr Mauser - I got $400.

Jennings - Have you contributed to the Conservative Party of Canada, or its predecessor the Canadian Alliance, or its predecessor the Reform Party of Canada?

Dr Mauser - I have contributed to the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, the NDP, and the Liberals."

Jennings attempts a rather blatant guilt-by-association argument. She knows her base well, and must imagine that a donation to the Reform Party, and the receipt of a donation from the NRA would be rather damning for Dr Mauser.

Unfortunately for Jennings, what she uncovered was a donation scarcely sufficient to keep the lights on for a major research project, and a former Reform Party donor who had also given to her own party.

In the midst of a debate that is supposed to be contested based on facts, this is far from a significant bombshell.

But Jennings' buffoonery nothing compared to that of Bloc Quebecois MP Maria Mourani:

"Mourani - Mr Mauser, I would like short answers please. Is this in fact you in this photograph, with a handgun?

Dr Mauser - That's me and that's my handgun.

Mourani - What kind of gun is it?

Dr Mauser - It is a Smith & Wesson revolver.

Mourani - Is it registered?

Dr Mauser - Well, of course.

Mourani - How many weapons do you own?

Dr Mauser - I'm not sure. It varies.

Mourani - You do not remember how many guns you own? How many long guns do you own?

Dr Mauser - I don't remember. It varies.

Mourani - All right, you own firearms, but you do not remember how many you have?

Dr Mauser - I'm getting old.

Mourani - You are not, however, too old to carry such a gun.

Dr Mauser - That would be a few more years from now.

Mourani - Where was this photograph taken?

Dr Mauser - About 20 years ago.

Mourani - But where?

Dr Mauser - You can see that I'm a lot younger there.

Mourani - Yes, but where? Was it at home? It looks like it was at home, not at a firing range or at a shooting school. Am I right? It is at your house.

Dr Mauser - That's my house.

Mourani - Excellent. And what were you shooting at? What were you having fun shooting at? Who were you putting on this show for?

The Chair - Mrs Mourani, you have to relate this to the long-gun registry.

Mourani - I apologize, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I will explain why.

Dr Mauser - You will notice, first of all, that I'm not firing. Secondly, the finger is not in the trigger guard. Thirdly, the photographer asked me to pose like this and I resisted, but obviously I should have resisted harder.

Mourani - You did put up a struggle, my dear sir. But, you are the expert advisor as far as firearms are concerned. I must admit to you that I am scared."

In all fairness, Maria Mourani does seem like the sensitive type: sensitive enough to be frightened by a 20-year-old photograph. That, seeing as how she introduced it into committee, one could presume she herself dug up for that purpose.

And evidently sensitive enough to stoop to ad hominem attacks on an expert at whose assessment of the facts she seems to despair.

Which reminds one what this is allegedly supposed to be about: it's supposed to be about the facts. Mark Holland insists that the Conservatives simply don't care about them.

Yet when a doctor of criminology shows up to the Public Safety Committee and lays out facts that are extremely inconvenient for proponents of the long-gun registry, the facts seem to be the last thing Holland, Jennings, Mourani et al are concerned with:

Their language becomes not that of a factual debate, but that of vindictive personal attack, vicious character assasination, and shameless melodrama.

There is a reason for this: the facts simply do not favour their cause. It doesn't prevent gun crime. It doesn't save lives. It's a cosmetic gun control measure that demonstrably doesn't protect Canadians.

Truthfully speaking, the long gun registry has become the cause celibre of far-left demagogues who can't bring themselves to get tough on crime, so instead opt to get tough on the law-abiding.

Jack Layton has, unsurprisingly, decided to throw in with that lot. The Conservatives couldn't work with him on this issue, even if they wanted to.

If You Don't Like It, Elect It

NDP objects to appointment of high-rolling Tory donor to Senate

The Conservative caucus in the Senate has remained stable, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed BC Lions owner David Braley to the upper chamber.

Braley joins Conservative Senator Jacques Demers among the roster of sporting figures who seem to have no business whatsoever in the Senate.

The Liberal Party and the NDP quickly vented their outrage at the appointment, noting that Braley donated $99,000 to the Conservative Party prior to the ban on corporate donations.


“It appears that the reason why he was appointed was because of close to $100,000 worth of donations to Conservatives in recent times,” complained Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. “I think it shows Mr Harper’s extreme cynicism, with regards to Parliament, the value of our constitutional parliamentary democracy, and to Canadians in general.”

One would think it were the first time that a party crony had ever been appointed to the Senate. One would think that the Liberals hadn't done it before, dozens of times.

Braley himself hasn't been shy about his donations to the Tories. It's no secret.

“There’s nothing wrong with donations," he insisted. "I was supporting what I believed in and it worked.”

“There’s no question. I had a very strong inclination toward the Conservative Party,” he concluded.

Paul Dewar took the point on the issue for the NDP.

“You can’t just keep appointing Conservative friends to the Senate and say you are doing things differently,” he said.

The problem for Paul Dewar and the NDP is that Harper and the Conservatives would very much like to do things differently. Unfortunately, the opposition insists on playing games with Senate reform. When Conservative bills are passed in the House of Commons, the formerly-Liberal-dominated Senate holds it up. When the legislation is introduced in the Senate following the Conservative achievement of a plurality, the opposition muses about blocking it in the House of Commons.

The David Braley appointment is cronyism. There's no doubt about it, and even Braley himself seems to implicitly admit it.

But there's clearly a method to this: Prime Minister Harper clearly intends to provoke enough outrage about his own partisan appointments that public support for Senate reform -- term limits, and advisory elections -- will strengthen.

It's a far-superior option to the NDP agenda on the Senate. The NDP wishes to abolish the Senate rather than see it reformed. For whatever purposes they want to abolish it, it isn't quite clear.

If Harper and the Conservatives can successfully make the status quo in regards to the Senate intolerable, a great many Canadians will thank him for the gift of a stronger democracy.

All they have to do is pay the price first.

Religious Intolerance is Not Leadership

Giving in to bigotry is a failure of leadership

Writing in the Metropolitan, Dan Delmar calls out many of the leaders in Canada who have opposed a ban on the burqa, the controversial garment worn by many Muslim women.

"The burqa (or niqab) is possibly the most offensive garment on the face of the earth: A head-to-toe covering worn by women who practice an extremist and some say perverted form of Islam," Delmar writes. "It is a symbol of repression, misogyny and, as French president Nicholas Sarkozy said last year, 'debasement.' It should not be tolerated in any civilized society."

Whether or not a woman wears the burqa voluntarily doesn't seem to matter much to Delmar.

"We have somehow become a nation of nations, and as such, it is difficult to find common ground, shared values," Delmar continues. "Only a small minority of Muslim women in this country may be forced by their husbands to drape themselves in these sheets; some are coerced by family; some, at the very least, have been raised with a warped sense of obligation to a tyrannical subculture. But are we being true to ourselves as Canadians if we accept this type of behavior? Do we see these tragic figures and look the other way out of indifference or a misplaced commitment to multiculturalism?"

Delmar notes that rejection of a burqa ban is one of the issues that Conservative and Liberal politicians alike reject.

"Canadian women have the right, if they want, to wear a burka," said Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. "As a woman, clearly it makes me a little uncomfortable. But then there are other practices that are perfectly legal and acceptable that make people uncomfortable."

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has also outright rejected the very notion of a burqa ban.

Delmar doesn't like this -- he insists that it's a dereliction of leadership.

"Montreal Liberal Marlene Jennings was one of the first MPs to rebuff calls for a burqa ban, saying that it would not survive a constitutional challenge though she herself – as a feminist – finds it offensive," Delmar continues. "Her leader, Michael Ignatieff, was also quick to abandon the idea of new legislation, as was Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson."

"A medieval and, in certain cases, abusive practice adopted by a small minority of Muslims without reason should not be shielded from scrutiny by the religious freedom defense. What is needed are leaders, apart from Quebec sovereignists, who have the courage to test the elasticity of the Charter and, in so doing, uphold Canadian values and plainly decent behaviour."

Unfortuantely for Dan Delmar's argument, religious freedom is a Canadian value, and it is plainly decent.

Religious intolerance isn't leadership, and abusing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to this end isn't the act of a leader.

Liberal Party Position On Term Limits Not Altogether Unreasonable

Longer term limits not a bad idea

With speculation regarding Stephen Harper's five upcoming Senate appointments still rife, it was only a matter of time until speculation regarding a Senate reform package began.

According to The Hill Times the Conservative Party is planning to introduce a Senate reform package that will feature elected Senators and term limits.

Liberal Democratic Reform Critic Marlene Jennings explains that while her party opposes eight-year term limits, as outlined in previous Conservative legislation, they would support a longer 12-year term limit.

Further elaborating on the Liberal objection to the legislation, Jennings notes that a Prime Minister serving two or more full-year terms could potentially end up appointing every Senator in the chamber.

There's nothing at all unreasonable about objections to that.

Jennifer Smith, a political scientist at Dalhousie University, offers some objections that are far from reasonable. In fact, many of them are just plain silly.

In particular, Smith seems to object to the notion of elected Senators.

"It violates the spirit of the Constitution because clearly the understanding is the Prime Minister will appoint whomever is elected," Smith insisted. "That would compromise the power of the Crown to appoint whomever it wishes to the Senate, subject to the specifications outlined in the constitution itself. That's what the constitutional issue hinges on as far as I'm concerned."

But Smith seems to be pretending that constitutional convention hasn't changed this already.

In the most formal sense, the Prime Minister doesn't even make Senate appointments. On a constitutional basis, the Crown, as represented by the Governor General, makes the actual appointments. Canada's independence from the British Empire and the reduction of the Governor General from an office of Royal oversight to a largely ceremonial office has instead empowered the Prime Minister to make the actual selections for the Senate.

Simply put, the Crown cannot appoint anyone it wishes to the Senate -- consitutional convention prevents it.

Smith also seems to be confused about the Senate's role in terms of policymaking.

"Certainly an elected Upper House is going to give you some regional representation, there's no doubt about that, but I'm very doubtful that it's going to give you sober second thought because sober second thought is something a second House does, vis à vis what comes to it from the first," Smith continued. "Sober second thought is not what people who run in big provincial wide elections want to engage in, they think they're more important than that. They want to engage in policymaking, not in reviewing what other policymakers have proposed."

Of course, the Senate actually does engage in policymaking. The constitution allows Senators to intitiate legislation in the upper chamber. The primary exception is that Senators may not attempt to legislate on fiscal matters.

Moreover, Senators can amend non-fiscal legislation and send it back to the House of Commons.

Jennifer Smith seems to be confused about the specific policymaking powers of the Senate.

Marlene Jennings, meanwhile, can't seem to resist the urge to finish her thoughts to the Hill Times on a disingenuous note.

"[Senate reform] needs a substantive and honest debate, and that's not what we're getting from the Conservatives." she concluded.

The problem with this, of course, is that the Liberal Party, particularly under Stephane Dion, argued that the purusing Senate reform on a piecemeal basis risked introducing unintended consequences into the matter, and that broad reform would be preferable.

Dion never seemed to want to admit that this was a silly argument -- that the unintended consequences of broad reform would be broad in scope, and the unintended consequences of incremental reform would be narrower in scope, and easier to correct.

The Liberal Party position on term limits is actually very reasonable. But that doesn't mean that their contributions to the Senate reform debate have been substantive or honest. More often that not, they've been precisely the opposite.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Hatrock's Cave - "Solberg on Prorogue and the Senate"

Stageleft - "A Waste of Parliamentary Time and Taxpayer Money"

Harper Bizarro - "Caution: Tories Appearing to Work"

A Newer, More Dangerous Parti Quebecois

"Incremental" separatism on PQ agenda

In its fight to cleave Quebec loose from the rest of Canada, the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois have often shot themselves in the foot by relentlessly pursuing the goal of separating from Canada in one fell swoop.

Quebeckers have proven themselves on two previous occasions -- in 1980 and again in 1995 -- unwilling to opt in to abruptly leaving the country.

After years of following an all-or-nothing approach, the Parti Quebecois has finally decided to pursue an incremental sovereigntist agenda.

PQ leader Pauline Marois outlined a four-point plan to incrementally pursue Quebec sovereignty. That plan called for minimalizing the federal government's involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction -- such as education and health care -- exercising more authority over issues related to culture and language, extend the power of the French Language Charter, and continue to "encourage" immigrants to Quebec to speak French.

"It shows our resolution to take up the fight and focus on Quebec sovereignty," Marois said of the plan. "We will use all of our abilities to advance the interests of Quebec."

"There are great things we can do right now," Marois added. "And I hope this dynamism will help revive the flame of sovereignty so we can hold a referendum as soon as possible."

Portions of this plan are already in play. Some may recall that Marlene Jennings, one of the Liberal negotiators of the Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition government -- had previously spilled the beans that strengthening Bill 101 to apply to federally-regulated firms in Quebec had been rejected in the course of those negotiations.

(Canadians still don't know what Jennings and her fellow Liberals had given the BQ in exchange for their support, but that is another matter entirely.)

Yet it seems that Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has not seen fit to let that particular issue go. Duceppe has been campaigning to strengthen Bill 101 so it will apply to industries regulated by federal labour laws in Quebec, something that the Liberal party has steadfastly refused to support.

"[Michael Ignatieff] said it would impede business," Duceppe complained. "There's no justification for him saying this. The fact [the Liberals] voted against Bill 101 being applied to the Canadian Labour Code is a clear illustration that recognizing Quebec as a nation is nothing more than a symbol."

The extent to which Ignatieff is embracing Quebec nationhood -- and one should add that recognizing Quebec as a nation is not the same as recognizing it as a nation-state -- aside, one thing Ignatieff is certainly doing is something that his predecessor wouldn't when it really mattered: fight separatists.

Rather, Stephane Dion was more than willing to hatch a secret deal with the Bloc when it would deliver him a government -- and certainly saw fit not to tell Canadians what he had given the Bloc in return.

Michael Ignatieff, at least, isn't playing into the hands of the PQ and BQ on their new four-point plan on Quebec sovereignty -- one that will certainly make for a more dangerous Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois.

Quebeckers have proven unwilling to separate from Canada in a single spasm of nationalistic fervour. A slower, more deliberate process of seeking sovereignty will likely yield better results for Quebec's sovereigntist movement, and will require all Canadian federalists -- Liberal and Conservative alike -- to be much more careful in how they handle the issue of Quebec separatism.

Clever Fucking Idiocy

Pierre Poilevre sparks a firestorm over racist remark

Sometimes, a metaphor can simply be too cute to pass up when looking for a clever way to dig at a political opponent.

If Pierre Poilevre thought his remarks in the House of Commons today were one of those metaphors he's entirely too stupid to put his evident cleverness to good use

In a bid to remind Canadians that it was Michael Ignatieff who thought up the carbon tax on which Stephane fought and lost an election -- itself a noble act -- Poilevre made a crack that will seem to many to be reminiscent of the "secret black baby" comments used against John McCain, except without the effectiveness.

"On that side of the House, they have the man who fathered the carbon tax, put it up for adoption to his predecessor and now wants a paternity test to prove the tar baby was never his in the first place," Poilevre announced.

Which should have provoked a broad response of "what the fuck were you thinking" from his colleagues in the Conservative party caucus.

Liberal party House Leader Ralph Goodale rightly denounced Poievre's comments.

"In addition to being a pejorative term, which might well prove to be unparliamentary, the parliamentary secretary might consider that there are many authorities both in this country and many others that consider the term racist," Goodale said.

Marlene Jennings later continued the counter-attack.

"As a black child growing up, I was called all sorts of pejorative names based on the color of my skin, including the 'n-word' and 'tar baby' -- and believe me, it was hurtful," she explained. "I am offended by Mr Poilievre's insensitive remarks --and I know leaders in the black community across Canada feel the same way."

If Poilevre has an apology in the works -- which he'd damn well better -- it had better be a god damned good one when Canadians finally hear it.

All Canadians -- regardless of political affiliation -- should be outraged to no end by Poilevre's comments.

The Faustian Naivete of the Coalition

The problem with deals with the devil is that they don't keep their end of the bargain

Ever since the Liberals and the NDP made their coalition deal with the Bloc Quebecois -- a deal many supporters of the coalition continue to mislead Canadians about -- many Canadians have wondered precisely what the Bloc demanded in return for the deal.

On Thursday Marlene Jennings, the Liberal MP for Notre Dame-de Gracie-Lachine revealed what just one of those demands were.

The Bloc, it seems, demanded that all federally-regulated companies operating in Quebec be subject to Bill 101. Jennings reports that she flat-out denied that.

“I said no. Never. Not while I have a breath in my body,” Jennings insisted.

Jennings' refusal allegedly cost the Liberals six months of Bloc support -- reducing it from a full two years to 18 months.

“I was able to [say no] because I knew that for people in my riding, and English-speaking communities, and the Jewish community, and other communities, Bill 101 is anathema… for a variety of reasons,” Jennings continued.

Jennings also crowed about her purported accomplishment of convincing the Bloc to take sovereignty off the agenda for the 18-month term of the coalition agreement.

“I’m quite proud of it,” Jennings addeded, “because it’s the first time in the 18 years [since] the Bloc was first founded, that the Bloc, in writing, took sovereignty off its agenda, if the agreement was put into action. No other party, no other government has been able to do that."

Of course, Jennings seems to believe that this is the perfect answer to the concerns many Canadians have over how much the Liberals are prepared to sacrifice to keep their coalition intact.

But Jennings forgets that there's a difference between the demands the Bloc would make during the negotiation of a coalition agreement -- a coalition that, no matter how much Jennings lies, the Bloc very much is party to -- and the demands that the Bloc would make when the noose is already around the Liberal party's neck.

In the course of the negotiations, before they had any real leverage, it was merely Bill 101. Give the Bloc Quebecois some real leverage and it very well could be the clarity act.

Beyond that, one has to imagine there's a difference in the concessions the Liberals would have been willing to make during the negotiations and the concessions they'd be willing to make once their precious coalition is a reality.

During the negotiations Jennings was willing to draw the line short of Bill 101. But no one can say for certain how far Jennings, Stephane Dion and the Liberal party would have been willing to go in order to preserve a government.

The naivete of expecting a written coalition accord -- an agreement that Canada's democratic institutions have no power to actually enforce -- to bar the Bloc from breaking their word and making further demands is beyond Faustian.

After all, no one should expect a party that so blatantly and intentionally decieved their own people during the 1995 sovereingty referendum -- and did this so effectively that many oui-voting Quebeckers believed they would continue to elect members to Canada's Parliament under the guise of "sovereignty association" -- simply cannot be trusted to keep their word to the rest of the country.

Even beyond this Faustian naivete, there is one other matter that Canadians need to be very concerned about: the concessions the Liberals have already agreed to make.

The naivete is one thing. The secrecy is quite another.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Johnny Bee - Johnny B ... Says Spill All the Beans, Marlene

Adam Daifallah - "Jennings Speaks Out"

"Conservative Adscam" A Dead-End Issue

More philosophy at heart of "in and out" scandal than actual malfeasance

In today's National Post, Don Ivison comments on the political dead end that is the Liberal party's recent reliance on the so-called "in and out" scandal in which the Conservative party is accused of violating spending limits by dressing down national advertising spending as regional advertising.

"Just Stephane Dion's luck. The Liberal leader picked the Conservatives' alleged "in and out" election spending scandal as his signature issue to attack the government. The public gave a collective yawn, apparently unconvinced Stephen Harper had "bilked taxpayers for millions of dollars," as the Liberals claim."

This particular scandal -- referred to by many Liberal partisans as "Conservative adscam" -- has, despite the Liberal party's best efforts, failed to take on the spectre of the sponsorship scandal in the public eye.

There is a reason for this, as Ivison alludes to:

"Since Parliament returned this month, the Liberals have been using Question Period to attack Conservative accounting practises during the 2006 election. It's an eye-glazingly complicated tale that has failed to gain any traction in the national media, but which boils down to the allegation that the Tories exceeded election spending limits by more than a million dollars.

A Liberal party brought low by Adscam would dearly love to uncover a Conservative corruption scandal, but this ain't it. The allegations centre on the Tories passing off national advertising costs as regional ads for local candidates. It is being looked at by the Elections Commissioner but even a cursory reading of the Elections Act suggests the line between "national" and "local" is cloaked in hodden grey."

Ivison goes on to address the recent allegations made against West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast MP Blair Wilson. We'll part at this particular fork in the road, and look at the "in and out" scandal itself.

In the end, much of the complaint regarding this particular issue seems to boil down to a differing in political philosophy, one that raises the question of whether or not the local candidates, in particular, benefited from this particular advertising.

While the Liberals would certainly insist that it didn't, the truth is that they know better.

Canadians are currently living in an era of a Consumerist democracy, wherein image often trumps substance, and branding serves as a key political tactic in virtually every campaign. To put it simply, each political party has developed a brand, much like the consumer products found on the typical store shelf. Each one espouses a core package of values, ideology, and promises that they invite consumers -- in this case, voters -- to purchase (in this case with their vote).

Each local candidate for each party benefits from the promotion of his or her party's brand, much like each individual McDonald's franchisee benefits from the larger corporation's advertising. Thus how the Conservative party, seizing on a legal loophole that defines local advertising, in rather nebulous phrasing, is that which benefits the local candidate, can insist that they're well within the straight and narrow. In the age of consumer democracy, national advertising does benefit the local candidate, particularly in a political age where -- for good or ill -- many Canadians tend to vote for parties above candidates.

Of course, the Conservative party knows it's exploiting a loophole. This portion of Elections law was clearly written with yesterday's political climate in mind, one where (in theory, at least), voters voted for individual candidates over parties.

At the same time, the Liberal party has to know full well how branding can affect the fortunes of their candidates. In Canada, they pioneered it, when they embraced John F Kennedy's image-based campaign model and applied it to Lester Pearson, and (more successfully) Pierre Trudeau.

Dion himself has attempted to benefit from image-based branding, donning Green scarves throughout his leadership campaign to underscore his overrated reputation as an environmentalist.

In this particular case, it's obvious that the letter of the law doesn't reflect the intent of the law. That's an issue that will clearly have to be resolved in Parliament.

In the meantime, Ivison offers astute insight as to why this particular tactic is proving disastrous for the Liberals:

"Mr. Dion must take the heat for this fixation of the "in and out" scam. It was raised in the House again yesterday, to the great glee of Government House Leader Peter Van Loan, who rose to answer in the Prime Minister's absence.

Liberal MP Marlene Jennings said Mr. Wilson had done the right thing by stepping aside and called for a number of ministers "implicated" in the election saga to do likewise. Hardly able to contain himself, Mr. Van Loan pointed out that the "Blairwitch" project had been well-known to the Liberal party, who only forced Mr. Wilson to resign when it became front-page news.

He then proceeded to read all the allegations into the public record, pointing out that their stark nature was a far cry from the confusing muddle of accusations levelled against various Conservatives. By this point, it was all over for Liberals, who were forced to defend the position of their leader and their member.

The whole thing makes a mockery of the parliamentary process. I know it's Question Period, not Answer Period, but surely it's not too much to expect that it is the Opposition that thrusts and the government that parries.

At the moment, the Liberals are behaving like the crack suicide squad from Monty Python's Life of Brian, who attack by impaling themselves on their own swords."

Unfortunately for Stephane Dion, not only is the "in and out" scandal not the scandal he and his party want to make it out to be, but much more serious violations have not only sunk the Liberal party's fortunes recently. Worse yet, more of the same may (or, in all fairness, may not) be yet to come.

The Liberals need to make a tactical shift. With Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton currently duelling over who can usurp him as at least the spiritual leader of the opposition, Dion is running out of thime.

But they won't find any extra time by running head-long into a dead-end... or by impaling themselves on their own swords.