Tonight in acronyms - Macleans.ca
 

Tonight in acronyms


 

The NDP appeals to the CPC to investigate the RCMP’s investigation of the PMO.

The Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police opened the investigation after the federal NDP complained that RCMP officers did not perform a thorough investigation of a politically embarrassing eavesdropping incident connected to the aborted Liberal-NDP coalition government of last winter.

“Given the publicity of the event and the potential for democratic institutions to be undermined by the Prime Minister’s Office, the RCMP investigation was exceedingly limited,” the NDP wrote. “At a minimum, we would expect that an interview would have been conducted with the person or persons who recorded the call and distributed it.”


 

Tonight in acronyms

  1. Wah! The exposure of our party's and our leader's hypocrisy is undermining our democratic institutions!

    Good luck with that, Jack.

    • That is entirely not the point. That you're condoning wrong-doing (and I think we can all agree that surreptitiously recording and distributing secret meetings is wrong) shows how much your partisanship has blinded you. I suppose it would be okay for parties to bug each other's caucus meetings in an attempt to glean some embarrassing tidbits.

      The icing on the cake is that the Conservatives used government resources to release the transcript, by issuing it through the PMO.

    • That is entirely not the point. That you're condoning wrong-doing (and I think we can all agree that surreptitiously recording and distributing secret meetings is wrong) shows how much your partisanship has blinded you. I suppose it would be okay for parties to bug each other's caucus meetings in an attempt to glean some embarrassing tidbits.

      • To condemn wrong-doing, something must have been done wrong. It's not a crime to dial into a phone call you've been invited to, and it's not a crime to not announce yourself.

      • To condemn wrong-doing, something must have been done wrong. It's not a crime to dial into a phone call you've been invited to, and it's not a crime to not announce yourself.

        A meeting is not secret if you've received an invitation.

        This was all obvious to the RCMP.

      • Actually, I am less and less a fan of Harper if you've been paying attention, so you can put back that "partisanship" charge out from wherever you pulled it.

        And if you believe that Layton planning to preemptively declare the budget he hadn't seen yet as unacceptable because of the backroom dealings he's got going on with other parties is entirely not the point, well, don't stuff that "partisanship" charge back in just yet, for it might suit you just fine…

  2. 'politically embarrassing eavesdropping '
    Like the Lisa Raitt tape, Jack?

    Gee, and then there was the Young Liberal, invited to a meeting promising to 'behave', that recorded a closed Tory meeting, and went plublic with it.
    Well, that was supposed to be embarrassing, but ended up pushing Cons numbers up…

    • Just by making those ludicrous comparisans you revealed your complete lack of judgement not to mention hyper-partisanship. Raitt;s tape was left with the media[?] and the Tory meeting was hardly the equivalent of a private party stategy meeting.

      • Neither Jack nor Lisa knew they were being recorded, and that the recording would later go public, to no fault of their own, but by a mistake made by someone who works for them.

        The Young Liberal was invited into a closed meeting, and recorded a meeting, the use of the recording was meant to embarrass the PM, but it didn't. So strike this one off.
        But the Raitt tape similarites are glaring.

        • Imay be wrong but didn't the Raitt tape – hard to keep it straight, she left so many things lying around – fall into the hands of the media. No other political party was involved. The liberal was invited and i never heard that he secretly recorded the PM's speach. Whereas Duncan did most deffinately record a meeting he was not invited to and knew he should not have done so. Your equivalencies are ludicrous.

        • Imay be wrong but didn't the Raitt tape – hard to keep it straight, she left so many things lying around – fall into the hands of the media. No other political party was involved. The liberal was invited and i never heard that he secretly recorded the PM's speech. Whereas Duncan did most deffinately record a meeting he was not invited to and knew he should not have done so. Your equivalencies are ludicrous.

  3. An investigation? I think we should have a memorial day every December 1st to remember the extraordinary event that happened on that day in 2008.

    The day the Liberal Party of Canada, supported by the NDP, colluded with the separatist Bloc Quebecois to wrest power from the 6-week old democratically elected Conservative government to govern the political entities of "Canada and Quebec".

    After the Coalition fiasco fizzled on December 4th, the newly minted interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, kept the ignoble goal of the Coalition alive by saying in his first public press conference on December 10th: "I'm prepared to lead a coalition government, and to lead that government."

    Michael Ignatieff, you let Canadians down from the get-go.

    • You mean colluding in a perfectly legal coalition…right? Or did i miss the SC decision here? No, just Jarrid's baseless assertions…yawn!!

      • Sigh…the Coalition was politically illegitimate because:

        1) it referred to the coalitionists governing the twin political entities of "Canada and Quebec" as if federally they were politically separate entities and;

        2) it made the separatist Bloc Quebecois the de facto power brokers for Quebec with the agreement's odious "permanent consulting mechanism" with the Bloc Quebecois.

        Canadians were outraged by this, and rightly so. It is politically indefensible. Mr. Landry and Mr. Parizeau's glee over the Coalition spoke volumes of the PR coup it constituted for the separatist cause in Quebec.

        Correction to the Ignatieff quote above. It should read: "I'm prepared to FORM a coalition government, and to lead that government."

        • Baseless assertion and conjecture!! Are you some kind of constitutional expert? If not you should preface your remarks with the disclaimer: IMHO…you agree? And…i have always said IMHO that the coalition was politically illegitimate; that's not the same as unconstitutional or an illegal coup, or whatever scurrilous crap the Harper propagandists were pedalling at the time.

          • I'm not a constitutional expert nor do I need to be to make my point. My complaint with the Coalition was always the political problem that it entailed by the ongoing working relationship it required of the Coalitionists with the separatist Bloc Quebecois. And the reference in the agreement to "Canada and Quebec" still burns me.

            The Bloc Quebecois don't speak for a majority of Quebecers and neither do the separatists. They're a wily minority to be sure, but a minority nonetheless.

            Once Quebec becomes an independent state, and only then, should we be penning an agreement with Quebec dealing with them as a "federal state". Not before. Such was the perverseness of the December 1, 2008 Coalition agreement that it proceeded on that erroneous assumption.

          • You may have a point re: the Canada and Quebec thing. I'm puzzled that ithasn't really got that much coverage. But i'll hold my fire until i see an informed expert opinion. Since i'm agreeing with you at the moment, i might add i've come to largely agree with you as far as the libs needing to step back and renew. At the moment they look like a tired old party that time has, to a degree, pased by. New and innovative ideas& perspectives are required ; as well, finding the courage to stand again for real core liberal values. Clearly not everyone in the country will share them, but many, perhaps a majority still do. Courage liberals! You need to look in and find it again – stop trying to be everthing to everyone and stand or fall on what you believe.

        • You keep going on about this defacto power brokers thing, when ,if anything, the Bloc had neutered themselves in the agreement with the promise to not vote to bring the government down for at least two years.

          A permanent consulting mechanism is, oddly enough, how a government, minority or otherwise, SHOULD work.. they should always be consulting with the other MPs, as those MPs are the representatives of a good number of Canadians. So unless you're willing to write off certain Canadians as unimportant unless they vote for you, consulting them is really the only democractically legitimate position.

          Note that consulting does not mean giving anybody a veto, nor does it mean you listen to the consultation.

          • Thwim – I noticed you didn't say anything about the "Canada and Quebec" aspect of the agreement.

          • What.. Quebec is a nation, didn't you know?

            Stevie Harper told me so.

          • Actually I thought that was one of the Coalition's signatories, Michael Ignatieff's idea originally, with his resolution at the Montreal leadership convention in 2006.

          • It just amazes me that no journalist or constitutional expert has not explored this aspect of the coalition fiasco. Maybe they are? I certainly hope so.

  4. Canada's rightwing True Believers: shoulder-to-shoulder against accountability for the Harper government.

  5. For the record, I support any investigation regarding the events leading up to the sordid deal with the separtists, including this CPC investigation.

    • Conspiring to bring down a government in exchange for cabinet seats, Senate seats and agreements to not advance legislation that the BLOC deemed unacceptable for Quebec, signed, dated , with details not made public….
      hmmmmm, you might have something there jarrid.

      • Sure let's see the terms of the purported deal. And them let's hear the views of some "qualified, recognised constitutional experts". And not the ignorant partisan blathering of hyper – partisan shills like you and Mr J.

        • kcm – you sympathize with the Liberals, I with the Conservatives. Most people in the Blog Central community know that by now. So what's your point? Are you saying your comments are worthless because you support the Liberals? Instead of sterile finger-pointing, let us debate the issues by making and responding to arguments instead of trying to discredit one another.

          • You feel that way then don't attack others about partisanship.

            No end to double-standards with the right.

  6. Yeah.Yeah..Bring Back The Coalition.

  7. Internationally, the Harper government has been heralded as an example of how to weather this worldwide economic storm (in wholly unrelated news, employment in Canada dramatically rose in a report released yesterday),

    and now he's being recognized domesitcally for our position of great relative strength, with every poll showing him headed for majority territory.

    It only makes sense that the opposition would resort scandal chasing.

    Expect every occurance in this government to be portrayed as a Canadian watergate by the opposition and some of their friends in the media.

    Meanwhile mainstream Canadians will be thinking about issues that matter most to them, like…say…food on their table and clothes on their backs, and recognizing Harper is the only leader who can give Canadians economic comfort.

    • I thought Harper was the only one who would not cause a recession/deficit? How's he doing on that front?

      Oh.

  8. David Aikin tweet: "All nine photos in Maclean's Beatles-PM photo spread — including three used on the cover — taken by PMO photographer."

    • Harper enjoying the Beatles but missing most of the message in the songs is consistent with conservative Christians obsessing over sex while missing the bazillion times Jesus said they should be sharing their money. Cognitive dissonance culture. Imagine all the people being fooled all the time.

  9. The piano playing PM is on the front cover? Sad.

    I read the news today oh boy
    Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
    And though the holes were rather small
    They had to count them all
    Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.
    I'd love to turn you on

    • "The piano playing PM is on the front cover? Sad."

      What's sad is MacLeans' collusion. A new low for the rag.

      • Whyte's doing? Which reminds me. Isn't about time for Mr Whyte yearly fawning puff-ball Harper …er… hard hitting interview?

      • Indeed it's bizarre Foreigner, I guess Canadians just want their own little Susan Boyle story…

        • I think it's MacLean's that wants Canadians to have their own little Susan Boyle stories (actually, more like "Bill Clinton saxophone" stories). When the editors and publishers get together with their British and American friends, they're constantly reminded of how boring Canadians are.

          • maclean's saw a parade and got infront of it.

            Libs have been out of power for 4 years, and STILL don't have their act together.
            That's not anyone else's fault.

          • "maclean's saw a parade and got infront of it."

            *yawn*

            Did you miss the part about how they got the photos from the PMO?

          • Foreigner, people made it their own little Boyle story all by themselves. Skyrocketed up the Youtube charts in a day or two. So wilson (parade-to-get-in-front-of) is bang on here. If Harper tickling the ivories is so bloody popular, ours is not to reason why, ours is to bloody well get him on the blessed cover to sell more copies at the newsstand. Who cares who took the photo — can we crop it with room for the masthead and the UPC box?

          • "Who cares who took the photo"

            You would feel different if it was a Liberal government madeyoulook, on that, I have no doubt.

          • BC, if you might re-read what I typed, you might discern a hint that I am playfully imagining what the editorial team at Maclean's was thinking last week.

            Feels a little weird having to point that out. I don't think I was being that subtle.

  10. What, you can spend your way out of a recession?

  11. Most would recognize that as an unfair assessment, given the worldwide recession (as any fair minded person recognizes in sever recessions government revenues drop, being tied to economic output). The only fair assessment is how Canada is doing comparatively to other countries,

    and on that "front" the answer is outstanding (so says everyone else looking in).

    Of course Canadians have been eagerly awaiting Iggy's solutions as to what he would do differently (to improve Canada's relative strength even more than it already is, rather than to jeopardize it), though it seems they have decided to wait no longer.

    • The world wide recession that Harper said we would have already have had, if we were going to have one? If Harper derserves credit for how he's handled the recession [ not clear yet ] then it's only reasonable for him to shoulder his share of the blame for his lousy, really lousy predictions.

      • C'mon there – it's never, ever Harper's fault for anything. He's a wimp. He never takes responsibiliy and yet exaggerates the truth about his own successes.

    • He made a dumb promise to prevent a recession/deficit, one which I knew was a lie when he uttered it. So no, no slack there.

  12. If Jack really wants to remind Canadians that he and Gilles Duceppe had been colluding to foist their coalition on an unsuspecting public, and were so hamhanded about as to invite a Conservative MP to join in a conference call, well more power to him. In fact, we should have a Royal Commission on the matter. Weeks of sworn testimony. Jack trying to explain why the NDP think the BQ are jim-dandy coalition partners. I'd pay to see that.

    • If I remember correctly, the entire tape was never released.
      Only the Dipper/ BLOC portions were.
      Maybe there is more to come?

      • Wasn't it an NDP caucus conference call? If so, there were no Bloc portions, only portions where Jack confesses to his politically tone-deaf hypocrisy. And there would be no other portions, because they were all NDP folk but for one *cough* invitee.

        • The portion of the tape we heard, only exposed that the Dipper/BLOC negotiations took place long before the economic statement, and perhaps there is more…

          • If there were more, it is safe to think that we'd all be aware of it by now.

  13. To this day, one of the things that shock me the most about this whole coalition imbroglio was the public support it received by none other than Jean Chretien. I never thought that he would ever do anything to assist the separatist cause in Quebec.

    Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, being in power as long as he has does have a tendency to corrupt a person.

    The fact that the Liberals were prepared to govern with the separatists and give them equal billing in Quebec (with the coalition agreement's reference to "Canada and Quebec"), tells me that the Liberals are nowhere close to being ready to govern our great nation.

    For goodness' sake, there are limits to obtaining power, and entering into a partnership agreement with those who would destroy Canada is surely one of them. Can anyone seriously disagree with that?

    • Entering into an agreement that has them neuter themselves when it comes to realpolitik seems like a winning situation to me.

    • The Bloc wasn't part of the Liberal/NDP Coalition.

      • Thats right,
        the BLOC was part of the 'Canada and Quebec' agreement, which was separate,
        and no negotiations made public, because all that was required was that separatists promise to not bring down the coalition govt for 18 months,
        and that deal is in effect until June 2010 (pension time)
        should there be another coalition attempt.

  14. Ahem…The Conservatives got 143 seats in the last election. The Liberals got 77 and the NDP 37 which equals 114. Could the Liberals and the NDP command the confidence of the House of Commons having less seats than the Conservatives? Nope. They needed the support of the Bloc with their 49 seats.

    That is why the agreement was signed by the Liberals, the NDP AND the Bloc. That is why on the tape that is the subject of this thread Mr. Layton talks about getting the Bloc Quebecois on side. That is why all three party leaders appeared in a public display of unity to impress the GG that this alternative coalition was viable and had the confidence of the House of Commons That is why the agreement refers to "Canada and Quebec" and not just Canada and has a "permanent consulting mechanism" with the Bloc. So please BC, let's not re-write history here. The the Bloc was a necessary partner in the Coalition. There would have been no coalition without the BLOC

    • "Permanent consulting mechanism" – veto! See the difference Jarrid? Anyway how can we make a definitive judgement without knowing what the PCM entailed? Can you tell us Jarrid? Or does your certitude not extend to actual facts?

    • The Bloc wasn't part of the Liberal/NDP Coalition.

  15. The 'Canada and Quebec' agreement was the primary contract.
    That is the contract that provided a majority government.
    That is the contract that the GG would have been making her decision on.

    How the Libs and Dippers divided up the cabinet seats was a secondary agreement as it was between 2 parties that did not have a combined majority, and formed government ONLY because of the primary agreement with the BLOC,
    and cabinet is appointed a few weeks after a government is appointed by the GG, when a party 'wins' an election.

    • No matter how you spin it, no matter how many caps you use, the fact is all parties to the agreement are at this moment in time still Canadians. But by all means carry on asserting that the way to keep this country together is to threat to separate if the other guys don't stop threatening to separate.

      • Huh?

        "…the way to keep this country together…"

        Divvying this country up in regions and giving power to the local warlords who want to break it up is no way to keep it together. The separatists do not speak for a majority of Quebecers, and never have and hopefully never will.

        • Do try and follow jarrid. Ask Wilson.

      • It's the coalition supporters who are doing the spinning, making light of the Canada-Quebec contract.
        What don't you get kcm,
        with a stroke of a pen, the coalition acknowledged, in writting, that Quebec was separate from Canada.
        And the real seppies were dancing in the streets.

        The Canada-Quebec agreement IS the primary contract,
        without it, there was no coalition. period.

        What ever agreement Libs and Dippers came to, is neither here nor there,
        it merely set out the co-operation of 2 parties, nothing more.

        • As i mentioned to Jarrid i would like to see a good investigative journalist or constitutional expert get a hold of the PCM. Until i hear from them i'll continue to disregard and or oppose the misinformed assertions of partisans like you and Jarrid. SH may have convinced you that conjecture, mis-representation and out-right lies are enough to go on, but i happen to value my independance and my self respect.

          • The experts and journalists were all trying to convince Canadians that
            'this is our parliamentary system, and it is legal'.
            The more Canadians learned about the precendents and 'legality' of a coalition,
            the louder they protested, over 60% against (except in Quebec, where they would have gained 64 seats in government, with a coalition)

            You can not sell unfairness to Canadians.
            3 LOSERS should not steal government from a party that increased support and is 12 seats away from a majority,
            where the party that came in second best earned 1/2 the seats of the winning party,
            where the leader of the second best party was turfed for incompetence,
            where the replacement leader of the second best party was rejected by his own party and now by Canadians,
            where separatists are given ANY kind of a role in federal governance….