On The Liberal Party's Sliding Support

Over at the National Post, John Ivison is trying to give more credit to the attack ads and a handful of missteps for the sliding support of the federal Liberal Party.

Ivison has missed two key points that have driven supporters away from the Liberals:

Bill C-51 and Bill C-24.  Along with the so-called "Fair Elections Act", these two pieces of legislation represent Harper's most egregious attacks on Canadians and our citizenship.

Trudeau had a golden opportunity to call this chicanery out and make a huge pile of political hay in the process.  All he had to do was denounce the bill when the Conservatives refused key amendments.  Instead, the order was given to the LPC caucus to vote for Bill C-51.

Similarly, Trudeau has been astonishingly blind to the intersection of Bill C-51 and C-24, which between them not only violate our Constitution in both word and principle but in fact create a legal construct that resurrects both the archaic concept of banishment, but places the decision making entirely in the hands of politicians.  This violates one more principle of our government - those who make the law should never be the same people charged with its enforcement.  Further, Bill C-51 does not make terrorism a crime.  No, far from it.  Bill C-51 is a piece of legislation which makes political dissent a crime.

When Trudeau gave the order to vote for Bill C-51, he enabled Bill C-24.  In doing so, he made second class citizens of every Canadian who is eligible through their parents or grandparents to hold citizenship in another country - even if they have no meaningful association with that other country.  Canada is a nation filled with immigrants and their children.  First, second and third generations are all now second class citizens, all subject not to equal treatment under the law, but to unjust punishment at the hands of the ministers.

Many of these people are potential supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada.  How many who are not died-in-the-wool supporters of the LPC do you think are going to continue to support them?

Two leaders have been abundantly clear in their opposition to Bill C-51:  Tom Mulcair and Elizabeth May.  Both of whom represent parties with platforms that many Liberal supporters could easily adapt to.  Justin Trudeau and his advisors would do well to bear this in mind.  

No, It's Not "Short Sighted"

I've seen stories popping up recently where Justin Trudeau is being criticized for refusing to engage with Sun Media.  

The issue is that Sun Media has allowed people like Levant to run amok.  Of course, they're going to play the taunting card.  What Levant's tirade demonstrated was that Sun Media is acting as a mouth organ for the PMO.  

From the Liberal party's perspective, why would they engage with a group who is so obviously biased, and will no doubt take anything that Trudeau says before their cameras and splice it into something entirely different?  

If Sun Media wants Canadians to believe that they are a legitimate media source, they need to take a step back, and rein in the extremists that they are putting in front of the camera.  At this point in time, that may well include insisting that Ezra Levant issue a full, public apology ... on air.   Otherwise, Canadians, and Trudeau's family in particular, are quite justified in assuming that Sun Media is nothing more than a propaganda organ for Stephen Harper and Conservative Party.

Canadians deserve better from our news media than Ezra Levant's childish tirades.

A Sensible Approach

Justin Trudeau has received a significant amount of flak over his recent decree that incoming Liberal MPs after the next election will be expected to be explicitly pro-choice on the abortion issue.  This weekend, the Liberal Party released a very clear-headed e-mail:

"I had an extraordinary example in a father who had deeply, deeply held personal views that were informed by the fact that he went to church every Sunday, read the Bible regularly to us, and raised us very religiously, as Catholics," Trudeau wrote. 

"But at the same time my father had no problem legalizing divorce, decriminalizing homosexuality and moving in ways that recognized the basic rights of the people. 

"He too held fast to his beliefs. But he also understood that as leaders, as political figures, and as representatives of a larger community, our utmost responsibility is to stand up for people's rights."

Bingo!  People's rights are not negotiable, nor should they be used as political footballs.  

On "Matters Of Conscience"

So, one of the Roman Catholic Archbishops thinks that Justin Trudeau's recent implementation of party policy needs a rethink.

Collins pointedly mentioned that there are two million Catholics in his diocese. He said he encourages them to get involved in politics as both voters and candidates. 

"It is not right that they be excluded by any party for being faithful to their conscience."

Let's get something absolutely clear here.  Abortion (which is what this is primarily about) is a matter of individual conscience.  That is to say, if you object to abortion on "conscience" grounds, then don't have an abortion.

Access to Abortion is NOT a "conscience issue".  Abortion is a medical procedure.  Plain and simple. The right of women to have safe access to medical procedures is well established in this country.  You cannot take one procedure off the table simply because someone else objects to it "as a matter of conscience".

More pointedly, it's time that we dug a nice big hole and dumped all of the nonsense rhetoric about "conscience rights" around this issue into it, and filled it back in.  The decision to have an abortion or not is a pregnant woman's decision to make.  Her conscience and her conscience alone has something to say on the matter.

Those who raise "conscience" objections as an excuse to deny a woman access to abortion are not exercising any valid right to object.  The Archbishop, for example, may have something to say about whether or not he things abortion is "moral", but he has no right whatsoever to demand that a woman's access to abortion be restricted on that grounds.  Conscience rights do NOT give anybody the right to restrict other people's actions.

The only other party in the discussion who has any right to object is the doctor who might be asked to carry out the procedure.  Even there, that doctor has an ethical duty to provide a referral to another doctor in such a situation.

While the good Archbishop's "conscience" may prevent him from having an abortion (should he ever become pregnant), his "conscience rights" do not allow him to restrict others from safe access to the procedure should they choose to access it.

The last policy convention of the Liberal Party of Canada made it abundantly clear that a woman's right to choose is not open for debate in the party.  This nation's lack of any law on the matter since the last laws were struck down in the late 1980s speaks further to that.  The matter is one between a woman and her physician.  Nobody else has a legitimate say in the matter.

Time To Get Your Eye Back On The Ball, Tom

Apparently NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair hasn't figured out what the ball is in Canadian politics today.

He also took shots at both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Trudeau.Trudeau, in particular, bore the brunt of Mulcair's attack.
The Liberals under Trudeau have been trying to court middle-class voters in the run-up to the next election, scheduled for Oct 19, 2015.

Let me be abundantly clear, Tom:  The problem in this country today is sitting two sword-lengths away from you in the House of Commons.  It is not the third party in the house, it is not the leader of that party, nor anybody else in the house - it is Harper and his government.

If the NDP is truly "The Government in Waiting", as the official opposition is often characterized, it needs to be focused on the malfeasance of the governing party.  There is no shortage of material to work with.  The "Fair Elections Act" (one of the most ironically named pieces of legislation ever tabled in the House of Commons) comes to mind, as do the government's abuse of omnibus bills, time allocation, and a litany of other topics that could be used to make political hay.

The only person that profits when Mulcair attacks the Liberals is Stephen Harper.  If he can show the NDP as unfocused, and just for fun gains a little bit from Mulcair's random attacks on the Liberals, he wins.  

Every time Mulcair takes a shot at Harper, he seems to think he has to take a shot at Trudeau.  I have no idea who is telling him this is effective rhetoric.  It isn't.  It dilutes his message, it takes the focus off the malfeasance of the governing party and actually makes Mulcair look like a dog who can't figure out what to bark at.

Mulcair has done an excellent job in the House of Commons grilling Harper over the Senate Expenses Scandal, so we know he's capable of excellent rhetoric and focused attacks on the government.  

The ball that he needs to focus on is NOT Justin Trudeau and the Liberals ... it is Stephen Harper and his band of criminals who are madly trying to steal Canada's democracy from Canadians.  Want to make political hay, Mr. Mulcair?  Keep your eye on the ball - in this case Harper and his government.  

Taxpayers Are Funding Harper's Smear Campaign

The steaming turd has been found ... and it is in the Harper PMO:

On Monday, PMO communications officer Erica Meekes sent The Advance details of an engagement that netted Trudeau a $10,000 fee, but left Georgian College with a $4,118 shortfall. The information was sent via email with the caveat it be referred to as coming from a “source,” not the PMO, when used.

“As a follow-up to the growing controversy over the weekend on Justin Trudeau charging charities for his speaking services, I have enclosed further materials that demonstrate the scope of this practice, cost on the organizations, and in many cases, poor outcomes and large deficits as a result of his speaking tour,” the email stated. “As discussed, these materials are provided to you on background, and should be attributed to a ‘source.’”

The material included invoices, a promotional poster and an accommodation receipt for the Toronto Four Seasons. Meekes wrote, “To be fair, there is an in-house yoga studio at the Four Seasons!”

When asked in a telephone interview why Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office was sending out unsolicited documentation, Meekes said the PMO routinely reaches out to the media.

This is the first time, however, such financial information was released to The Advance from the PMO.

Normally, such work is the purview of partisan researchers.

Meekes’ email said to contact Patrick Brown, “the local MP for Georgian College,” for comment.

In an email from Ottawa, Brown said Trudeau shouldn’t be let off the hook for the Georgian loss, even if it occurred before he entered politics.

The outrage here is not that Harper is trying to smear Trudeau.  You would have to be the village idiot not to expect that.

The outrage should be that Harper is using public money in the form of PMO resources to carry out partisan attacks.  As taxpayers, we fund The Privy Council to assist the Prime Minister in managing the levers of government effectively.  We DO NOT provide those funds for the Prime Minister to use them for their puerile, juvenile desire to wipe out anyone who resembles a threat to their status as "dear leader".

It is time to take the trash out at 24 Sussex.

[Update 19/6/13 7:30 AM]

A few interesting tidbits from the Calgary Herald this morning:

NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus chided Harper for allowing controversy over Trudeau's "ethical misjudgment" to be turned into an issue about his own judgment.

"The issue I think that Canadians have to ask themselves (is): Doesn't the prime minister have more important things to do in terms of serving our country than running a black ops operation against the Liberal leader?" Angus said.

"It's not becoming of the prime minister."

Angus said the Tories are blowing the political gift Trudeau handed his rivals when he chose to voluntarily disclose that he's earned $277,000 making speeches to 17 different groups since becoming an MP in 2008.

"It was gift-wrapped for you ... and just out of sheer stupidity, block-headedness and spite, you're blowing it," he said.

This is typical of the NDP the last little while.  It seems that they can't focus on the real issues at hand without looking to see if there's an adequate attack on the Liberals.  Angus is correctly criticizing Harper for his abuse of the PMO function, but he then turns around and basically says that he's really criticizing Harper because his team has done such a sloppy job of attacking Trudeau.

Note to the NDP:  I realize you feel this overpowering need to attack the Liberals.  But frankly, that shouldn't be where your focus is.  You are titled "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" for a reason - start paying attention to the finagling across the aisle, and spend less of your time futzing about and trying to make everything a "two pronged attack".  It isn't effective, and it plays to Harper's tune.

However, Harper's office made no apologies for its role in fanning the flames of the controversy.

"News flash: the office of the leader of the Opposition, the Liberal leader's office and the Prime Minister's Office all engage in political communications," said PMO spokesperson Julie Vaux in an email.

"Trudeau's taxpayer-paid staff are currently calling all the charities (about returning the speaking fees) and that's supposed to be his personal business."

Vaux said Trudeau only agreed to reimburse the Grace Foundation after the media pounced on the story and "our caucus shamed him into doing so."

News flash for Ms. Vaux:  Canadians expect you to do your job - namely assist the Prime Minister in running the country.  You are not doing this.  You are engaging in partisan mud-slinging on taxpayer dollars.  This is not acceptable.

Conservative MP Ben Lobb, meanwhile, told the House of Commons he intends to ask federal ethics watchdog Mary Dawson to investigate whether Trudeau broke conflict of interest rules by voting on a bill involving the rights of labour unions when he's accepted "over $100,000 in personal payments from unions."

Really?  Talk about scraping the barrel looking for scandal.  The Conservatives have clearly lost sight of what governing means.

The Conservatives maintain it was unethical of Trudeau to ever accept a fee for speaking to charitable organizations, either before or after becoming an MP. And they include municipalities, educational institutions, school boards and other non-profit entities in their definition of charity.

However, one of their own — former NHL coach Jacques Demers, whom Harper appointed to the Senate — admitted Tuesday that he too has accepted payment for speeches to literacy groups and others the Conservatives describe as charities.

"I've taken and I've given a lot," Demers said.

The complaints the Harperites are throwing about only have meaning when they are lily-white.  They aren't.  We know they aren't.  


[/Update]

That's A Criticism?

So, the right wing media in Canada has gotten its knickers into a twist because Justin Trudeau has managed to make a very nice living for himself on the speaking circuit.

Last I checked, quite a few politicians in this country make quite a nice bit of money on the side doing the speaking tour thing.  This is neither news, nor surprising.  The speaking circuit is both a means to keep one's public profile up, as well as make a bit of cash on the side.  Trudeau may have made a substantial chunk of change doing it, but that's hardly a crime.

It comes as no surprise to me that Brad Wall decided to stand up on his hind legs and bray about the $20,000 that Justin Trudeau made for appearing at a literacy conference.  This is obviously the kind of indirect attack that the Harper Politburo ... er ... PMO ... has decided to start using to attack Justin Trudeau.  Having failed entirely to get any traction with their usual ham-fisted attack ads.

Charity events don't come together for free.  I don't care whether you are talking about renting the hall, catering or the speakers.  It's not free.  Ironically, this is where charity organizations and business intersect.  A caterer doesn't (usually) provision an event for free - they usually have a price that includes a nice little profit for them in it.  The charity ultimately makes its money off the difference between ticket sales and the expenses incurred.  

If you are running a small business, it's the same thing.  You are hoping like hell that you can make enough money to put it all together and make enough profit to move on to the next step.

I find it more than a little suspicious that months after the fact there is suddenly a bunch of faux outrage over Trudeau's appearance fees.

When the government is caught in the midst of a disastrous scandal over Senate Expenses, has lost some 3.1 Billion dollars of taxpayer money and is lining up its next attack on Canada's middle class, the Harperites are busily looking to find a squirrel to distract public attention from their malfeasance.

[Update 17/06/13 12:30 PM]

If you were thinking that my supposition that this whole idiotic thing is a setup on the part of the Harperites, consider the following:

Grace Foundation Charity A Failed Conservative Stunt

It turns out that the person who wrote the letter complaining to Trudeau about the outcome of his speech has close ties to the HarperCon$.  Surprisingly close ties.

... and to complain in March of 2013 about a speech given in July of 2012 seems just a tiny bit ridiculous.

[/Update]

[Update #2 18/06/13 7:45 AM]

Received via e-mail last night, it becomes clear that the PMO is acting politically in this matter:

PM's Office Sends Details of Trudeau's Talk At Georgian

First, they are digging back to years before Trudeau was elected to the House of Commons.

Second, taxpayers are paying for this.  In short, we have the smoking gun here that shows that Harper is inappropriately utilizing the offices of government to carry out partisan political attacks.

[/Update #2]

The Next Con$ Angle of Attack On Justin Trudeau

More or less as I had anticipated, after failing entirely to characterize Justin Trudeau as "in over his head", the Harper Conservatives are turning to their next line of attack.

This time, the angle is to go after Justin's father and his legacy, thereby "blackening" the Trudeau name.  The writer of the column on the National Post website is positively drooling over the content of the coming "blackened biography" - claiming that the biographies that have come before are all pandering to the "legend" of Pierre Trudeau.

Of course, that doesn't surprise me.  The "Law-and-Order-Except-For-Conservatives" Con$ have always despised things that Pierre Trudeau did - especially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which severely limits the government's ability to attack its own citizens.

It will be a classic "guilt-by-association" attack.  I am sure that the Conservative attack ads for the next few months will contain little bits about various things that Pierre Trudeau did, and will try to imply that Justin will do the same things.  Whatever is in those ads will be spun and distorted beyond any recognizable version of reality.

Or they may just attack the elder (and deceased) Trudeau viciously and hope that it is enough to damage the Liberals both as a party and Justin Trudeau as a leader.

It is as predictable as it is childish, as mean-spirited as it is ludicrous.  Canadians are tired of the constant political character assassination of the Conservatives.  At long last they are finally awakening to the reality that Harper is nothing more than a schoolyard bully who will do anything he can dream up to maintain his grip on power.

On The Labrador By-Election Results

It comes as little surprise to me that Penashue was unable to regain his seat in Labrador.  Frankly, the biggest surprise was the number of votes that he was able to garner.  In my opinion, someone who stepped down for cheating on the last campaign should gather exactly zero votes.

Of course, the Conservative Spin Machine is immediately trying to turn a defeat into propaganda:

What is surprising is the collapse of the Liberal support during this by-election.  When this by-election was called the Liberals had a 43-point lead in the polls.  Since electing Justin Trudeau as leader and having him personally campaign there, they have dropped 20 points in Labrador.  That’s a significant drop in only a few weeks.  Labradorians were able to see firsthand how Justin Trudeau is in over his head. 

Objectively, this claim is utter nonsense.  Frankly, this is typical of the Karl Rove-inspired politics that Harper has been importing into Canada.  It boils down to taking anything that happens and trying to spin it into an attack on your adversaries.  The attempt to use it as an attack on Justin Trudeau smacks more of desperation to me.

 A closer look at the numbers over the last couple of elections is much more instructive:

[hide]Canadian federal election, 2008
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±pp	Expenditures
	Liberal	Todd Russell	5,426	70.28	+19.75	$26,887
	New Democratic	Phyllis Artiss	1,378	17.85	+8.77	$5,886
	Conservative	Lacey Lewis	615	7.97	-31.70	$15,728
	Green	Nyssa Christine McLeod	302	3.91	+3.19
Total valid votes/Expense limit			7,721	99.15	$81,667
Total rejected ballots			66	0.85	+0.40
Turnout			7,787	38.60	-19.8
Eligible voters			20,175	–	–
	Liberal hold		Swing	+5.49

[hide] v   t   e Canadian federal election, 2011: Labrador
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±pp
	Conservative	Peter Penashue	4,256	39.81	+31.84
	Liberal	Todd Russell	4,177	39.07	-31.21
	New Democratic	Jacob Larkin	2,120	19.83	+1.98
	Green	George C.R. Barrett	139	1.30	-2.61
Total valid votes			10,692	100.00
Total rejected ballots			52	0.48	-0.37
Turnout			10,744	53.44	+14.84
Eligible voters			20,104
	Conservative gain from Liberal		Swing		+31.5%

[hide] v   t   e Canadian federal by-election, May 13, 2013: Labrador
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±pp
	Liberal	Yvonne Jones	5,814	48.21	+9.14%
	Conservative	Peter Penashue	3,922	32.52	-7.29%
	New Democratic	Harry Borlase	2,273	18.85	-0.98%
	Libertarian	Norman Andrews	50	0.41	-
Total valid votes/Expense limit			12,059	100.00
Total rejected ballots
Turnout			12,059	59.55	+6.11%
Eligible voters			20,251
Called on the resignation of Peter Penashue, March 14, 2013
	Liberal gain from Conservative		Swing		+9.14%

What we really see in these numbers is a collapse in the voter turnout in 2008, with it dropping to 38.6%, followed by a gradual recovery to 59.55% turnout in yesterday's byelection.

Penashue barely won in the 2011 election, winning on a margin of less than 100 ballots.  Hardly a ringing endorsement of support for Penashue in the first place.

Yvonne Jones took the riding in the by-election with a 5,814 votes - slightly more than the 5,426 votes Todd Russell won with in 2008.  In comparison, Penashue took the riding in 2011 with 4,256 votes and went down to defeat with 3,922 votes last night.

Practically speaking, this sounds to me more like a greater level of voter engagement took place, and a lot of people who sat on their thumbs in either 2008 or 2011 came out and voted.

Given that this by-election was already underway when Justin Trudeau became the Liberal leader, and the lavish promises made on Penashue's behalf by the Conservatives during the latter half of the campaign, it seems to me that the Conservatives are reaching pretty far to try and spin this as some kind of voter comment on Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader.

In fact, since this is the first time that the Harper Conservatives have lost a seat on a by-election, I would say that it seems to me much more of a condemnation of the Conservative party which keeps on playing by its own arbitrary rulebook.