Jack Layton's Deal With the Devil

THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT: Will it Hold Up Without its Foundation?

At the beginning of the last election campaign, Stephen Harper focused his strategy on an "Ignatieff led" coalition.

Many in the media then began questioning the Liberal leader hard about the possibility of such a coalition if Harper failed to get a majority, while others dug up Harper's own agreement in 2004.

William Johnson mentions it in his book: Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada. He says that after the disappointing results of the 2004 election, Harper contemplated resigning, until he developed a different strategy. So over the summer he arranged several meetings with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, where an agreement was hammered out, and the three party leaders signed a joint letter to then Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, that should the prime minister [Paul Martin] seek to dissolve Parliament, she would first speak with them.

Harper's campaign manager at the time, Tom Flanagan confirmed the "coalition", and stated emphatically that it included the full support of the Bloc. (2)

The topic came up again during the debates, when Gilles Duceppe told the story of the meetings, and how he and Jack Layton were willing to make Stephen Harper prime minister in 2004.

Most of the alarm was that it was a deal with "separatists" something that the Harper government was using as a rallying cry. But everyone missed the obvious here.

Why was Jack Layton so keen to make Stephen Harper prime minister, knowing how hard progressives in the country fought to keep him out of office?

In fact the Council of Canadians, and other like-minded groups had questioned why Jack didn't go after Harper during the election, and started a "Think Twice" campaign, to do what Layton and the NDP refused to. According to longtime NDP supporter, James Laxer:

Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians, for one, told me that she felt pressure “not to critique Harper,” and that the top priority was “to win more seats for the ndp.” During the election, the Council was involved in the Think Twice coalition, made up of groups that came together to warn Canadians about Stephen Harper’s record. “If the ndp was not going to talk about Harper’s record,” Barlow said, “we felt we had to.” (3)

So did the agreement between Harper and Layton go back even before the 2004 election? Not likely. The NDP no doubt feared strategic voting as a way of keeping Harper out, would hurt their chances of acquiring more seats.

However, there was certainly one firmly in place by 2005/06. Laxer mentions receiving a call from a frustrated reporter who indicated that no matter how hard he tried, he couldn't get Jack Layton to say anything bad about Harper. (3) And some Conservative candidates in the West complained that all national ads shown in their area were against the Liberals, while their biggest threat was from the NDP.

Journalist Jacques Lemieux also questioned a Layton/Harper alliance:

Did you ever notice how apparently coordinated Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton's attacks were against Mr. Martin during the last election, as if Mr. Layton and Mr. Harper with his backroom supporters had discussed their strategies in meetings? (4)

And Paul Wells has also noticed a strange relationship, as both men worked in tandem to destroy the Liberal Party. (5)

Laxer suggests that like Harper, Layton wanted to carve out the middle, pushing for a two-party system.

Oscar Wilde wrote that there are only two tragedies: "one is not getting what one wants; the other is getting it."

I'm sure this is not how the NDP leader saw this playing out. Being the leader of the Opposition in a Harper majority, was likened recently to winning a game of Bingo on the Titanic.

So publicly Layton will probably jump up and down as the Harper government systematically dismantles our social safety net. But privately, I'm sure he'll question why he put his faith in a man that few had faith in, just for political power.

Because everything Harper does from here on in, will have Jack Layton's seal of approval. And to borrow a phrase from Linda McQuaig, he will be left "holding the bully's coat".

Back to Introduction

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3 6, Pg. 374

2. Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, By: Frances Russell, Winnipeg Free Press, December 11, 2009

3. Fake Left, Go Right: An insider’s take on Jack Layton’s game of chance, By James Laxer, Walrus Magazine, May 2006

4. Jack Layton and Stephen Harper forge an apparent alliance: Progressive NDPers and other Canadian voices undermined by elitist agenda, by Jacques Lemieux. The Canadian, 2007

5. The secret plot to destroy the Liberals, by Paul Wells, Maclean’s, April 17, 2006

Stockwell Day Lied Through His Teeth and Jason Kenney Knew It!!!!

I'm showing this video again because starting at about 1:25, you'll hear Gilles Duceppe discuss a coalition proposed to him by Stockwell Day in 2000. Naturally Stocky denied it saying that it would go against his very DNA to make a deal with Separatists.

Well call in CSI because this little worm just spilled his DNA all over the place.

Back when he was running for the top job as leader of the Alliance Party, Day did in fact try to make a deal with the Bloc to assume power if Jean Chretien won a minority. Jason Kenney was his right hand man at the time and since it was splashed across leading newspapers of the day, he had to have known about it, assuming he can read.

In Trevor W. Harrison's book; Requiem for a lightweight: Stockwell Day and the Image of Politics, he discusses the controversy.

"Day repeatedly journeyed to Quebec ... During August and September, Day stepped up these efforts, going even further to suggest the Alliance party welcome Quebec separatists and might even consider forming a national coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois .... But Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said he wanted nothing to do with Day whose values (re: gay rights, abortion, youth justice) Duceppe described as "inspired by the United States..."

Mr. Harrison lists as sources two newspaper articles: "The Report, August 28, 2000" and "Bloc leader denounces Day's ideas" Edmonton Journal August 14, 2000.

Neither of these pieces were available online, but I did stumble across this little gem from the New York Times, no less:

Rightist Shocks Canadians By Flirting With Separatists
By JAMES BROOKE
August 3, 2000

Stockwell Day's summer vacation in Quebec was going well. Every day, the rising star of Canada's right appeared on French language television, chatting in francais with his language immersion teachers, fielding reporters' questions about his politique fiscale, or posing for photographs with the eternal friend of language students, le dictionnaire Larousse.

Then the athletic Mr. Day, a former treasurer from Alberta, clumsily stepped on a classic Quebec land mine.

With newspapers reporting ''informal negotiations'' between his party, the Canadian Alliance, and the Bloc Quebecois, whose stated goal is to make Quebec an independent nation, Mr. Day refused to rule out teaming up with the Bloc in coalition after general elections, expected next spring, in order to dislodge the governing Liberals.

''An unholy alliance with people who don't believe in the country,'' fumed Allan Rock, Canada's health minister, and an aspirant for leadership one day of the Liberals.

Undeterred by Mr. Day's hurried disavowal of any electoral alliance, Stephane Dion, the leader of the Liberal government's unity drive, said, ''It's playing with Canada, and you don't play with your country.''

As Canada continues to be haunted by the lingering separatist threat, the sharpest rebukes came from some of Mr. Day's closest backers.

''The Canadian Alliance leader needs to stop playing footsie with Quebec separatist leaders right now,'' thundered the The National Post, which has more commonly been a cheerleader for Mr. Day.

In an interview on Tuesday, Conrad Black, chairman of The National Post, said the strategy would not work. ''It makes it too easy for the Liberals to represent him as a separatist fellow traveler, ambiguous about the future of the country.''

The misstep comes as Mr. Day's party, the Alliance Canadienne, as it is called here, starts to expand beyond its western roots, becoming Canada's dominant conservative party. In an Angus Reid poll released last weekend, the Alliance had more than doubled its support since March, with the support of 24 percent of those polled, the highest figure for any opposition party in almost five years. The poll also indicated that Alliance is now the most popular opposition party from the Pacific Coast to the Ontario-Quebec border.

In Quebec, Canada's second-most populous province, the poll indicated that in two months voter preference for the Alliance had risen from 1 percent to 8 percent. In this socially liberal province, Mr. Day has avoided talking about his opposition to abortion, gay rights and gun control. Instead, he has focused on issues dear to Quebec's voters like cutting taxes, reducing the number of paroles for criminals and deporting illegal immigrants.

In addition, Mr. Day, long an advocate of decentralism, has pitched his anti-Ottawa message to Quebec's ''soft nationalists'' -- the one-third of voters here who want more autonomy, but not outright independence, suggesting, for instance, that provinces be given control over tax money they raise for health, education and social welfare.

Overlooked in the flurry of denials and cartoons about games of ''footsie,'' Michel Gauthier, leader of the separatists, denounced Mr. Day as a vote poacher. Mr. Gauthier warned his followers about the perils of a summer romance with this handsome language student, saying Mr. Day was ''trying to seduce Quebec voters.''

Against his very DNA, huh?

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

More on Stephen Harper's announcement that he will be making nine patronage appointments to the Senate. Don Martin was having a good hair day.

PM's patronage sinks to new lows
By Don Martin,
Calgary Herald
August 27, 2009

When he anoints his very own Hallelujah Chorus to represent Canadians in the Senate in the coming days, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have delivered his most compelling argument for electing senators.

Sources say up to nine vacant Senate seats will soon be filled, bolstering the Conservative standing to 46 seats in the 105-seat chamber.

Among the rumoured appointees are fawning Conservative party president Don Plett, bare-knuckled campaign manager Doug Finley and obedient former staffer Carolyn Stewart-Olsen.

An ideological politician who was disgusted at watching Parliament's upper house turned into a vote-stacking exercise, where only the faintest of serious or sober second thoughts actually take place, Harper has turned ruthlessly partisan in making his Senate appointments, elevating party loyalty into the sole consideration for the cushiest job on the Hill.

The argument for such warped behaviour was first advanced after Harper rushed 18 bums into Senate seats when the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition was threatening to take down his government. Better to load up the red chamber with loyalists before the Liberals handed out those juicy plums, he argued. (Don got this wrong. The Bloc were not part of this coalition. They only agreed to support it on confidence motions for 18 months)

But is it absolutely necessary for Harper to fill these $132,000 positions, with retirement deferred to age 75, with fanatical loyalists?

These insiders may not be known outside the parliamentary precinct, but that only makes their appointments more outrageous.

Their strongest, indeed ONLY, character traits for the job are blinkered vision and blinded loyalty. They will serve as little more than a vote administered by remote control from the PMO for as long as Harper owns the job.

There is a certain shenanigan symmetry to this, of course.

The Liberals appointed a former prime minister communications director named Jim Munson to the job. Stewart-Olsen comes from the communications wing of Harper's PMO.

The Liberals put their election wizard, David Smith, into the Senate. Finley has been the campaign guru for the Conservatives through all Harper-led elections.

But there's something sad about justifying the sliming up of the Senate with patronage trough-feeders on the grounds that Tories are no worse than the Liberals.

There's also the incongruity of giving faithful Conservatives a job representing provinces which rejected them in the polls. Fabian Manning grabbed a Senate gig representing The Rock just two months after he was defeated as an MP there in the last federal election. Rumours have former premier Rodney MacDonald, ousted from power in Nova Scotia only two months ago, landing a seat.

The Senate is becoming the land of the misfit politicians, but at least most of those types have solid people skills.

Not so much for gruff Doug Finley, who excels at campaign donor shakedowns and serving as guard dog in deciding who was worthy of receiving Conservative nominations (including his wife Diane Finley) . Ditto for Stewart-Olsen, severed from the PMO a few months ago, whose enforcement of low-level directives and constant singing of Harper's praises are somehow seen as ideal senator material.

Of course, the ultimate objective can only warm the hearts of true blue Conservatives. This batch of appointments edges the Senate closer toward the glorious day when it will fall under Conservative control.

But Harper could've and should've done better--even though the inside view is that he did not get enough credit for delivering decent appointments under his watch.

True, the appointment of Bert Brown, who had been voted in twice in Alberta elections, was commendable.

Former broadcaster Pamela Wallin deserves credit for projecting a dignity of independence as a bona fide celebrity senator, even while standing with the government when the votes are called. And while I've been hard on former CTV icon Mike Duffy, at least he bonds with average Canadians even while shamelessly promoting the Conservative agenda.

But the names so far fall short of having any skills to represent their assigned provinces in a more effective Senate. They will only represent Stephen Harper. That's why we must find a better way of making quality Senate appointments --or elect to abolish it entirely.

I say abolish it, since the Conservatives have simply found a new way to make it dysfunctional.

Stephen Harper and More Broken Promises

Aaron Wherry at MacLeans discusses briefly Harper's plan to name 8 new senators next week, all patronage appointments.

He discusses the 2006 platform of the Conservative Party and the hypocrisy of a group who came to power claiming they were going to end this kind of family and friends rewards system.

Yet since then they have:

Consistently given top jobs based on patronage

Proven that nepotism is alive and well

Already rewarded friends with senate seats

Took cronyism to new levels

Hired Republican buddies to stay connected to George Bush

But let's peruse a few more lies from their infamous Standing Up For Canada platform:


Stand Up For Families:

Better health care for Canadians.......................................................................30
Real solutions for health care – a Patient Wait Times Guarantee....................30
The Liberals have delayed or failed to take action
on many other health issues over the last twelve years.....................................31
A new Choice in Child Care Allowance...........................................................31
Security for seniors.............................................................................................32
Support for students and families with students................................................32
Promoting health and wellness..........................................................................32
Giving MPs a free vote on marriage...................................................................


Stand up for Our Communities

Improving Canada’s national infrastructure......................................................36
Building more affordable housing......................................................................37
Fight congestion through public transit.............................................................37
A cleaner, healthier environment......................................................................37
An immigration plan that works for Canada.....................................................38
Opportunity and respect for aboriginals.............................................................38
Promoting arts, culture, and competitive sport..................................................39
Supporting charitable giving .............................................................................39


Stand up for Canada

Open federalism–strengthening national unity.................................................42
Fiscal imbalance.................................................................................................42
Protecting and promoting official languages......................................................43
Enshrining property rights in the Constitution.................................................43
A better democracy............................................................................................44
Ensure fairness in party nomination races..........................................................44
Advancing Canadian values and interests on the world stage..........................44
Defending Canada..............................................................................................45
Creating jobs through international trade.........................................................46

Accountability: A Conservative government will:

• Give the Public Service Integrity Commissioner the power to enforce compliance with the Public Servants
Disclosure Protection Act.
• Ensure that all Canadians who report government wrong doing are protected, not just public servants.
• Remove the government’s ability to exempt Crown corporations and other bodies from the Act.
• Require the prompt public disclosure of information revealed by whistle blowers, except where national
security or the security of individuals is affected.
• Ensure that whistle blowers have access to the courts and that they are provided with adequate legal counsel.
• Establish monetary rewards for whistle blowers who expose wrongdoing or save taxpayers dollars.

Of course there are a lot more broken promises. Like the respect of the parliamentary budget officer and truth in reporting. Same Old, same old.

But the most important ones are below:

Tories Break Law in Cadman Affair

The "In and Out" and Their attempt to Defraud Taxpayers

Does Stephen Harper Have the Legal Right to Govern?

Media Manipulation and the Power of the Press

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

1. Media Manipulation: Setting Agendas and Shielding Your Bum

2. Media Manipulation: Conrad Black and the POWER of the Press

3. Media Manipulation: Journalists or Playwrights?

4. Cold Case Solved. The Murder of Canada's Media Was Both Bloody and Premeditated

5. Will the Ottawa Press Gallery Need an American Passport to Talk to Our Prime Minister?

6. WikiLeaks Must be Protected as the Only Record of Our History

7. Conservative Senator Speaks Out Against Harper's Muzzling of the Press

8. Stephen Harper Revives the Accurate News and Information Act

9. Shoe Stores, Accurate News and Talking to Dead People

10. More Harper Government Secrecy. Welcome to the Purple File

11. Without Freedom of the Press in Canada How Can we Call Ourselves a Democracy?

Sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar and Sometimes Stockwell Day is Just an Idiot

So I mentioned that a came across a book written about Stockwell Day, and his incompetence; A Requiem For a Lightweight, by Trevor W. Harrison in 2001, after Day's fall from grace.

Some excerpts are cached online, and you can even read all of chapter one here.

But the book gives us a lot of insight into this former Alliance leader, and begs the question, how in the heck did he ever get to the position he has? Since when has a high school education and a life of radical evangelism, qualified a person to hold key cabinet positions in both provincial and federal governments?

It boggles the mind.

I found an excerpt here:

Requiem for a Lightweight
Parkland Institute
by Trevor Harrison
Winter 2001

As Canadians melted in the summer heat wave, Stockwell Day was undergoing his own political meltdown. One year ago, the newly minted leader and the Alliance party were flying high in the polls, garnering enough support to shake the Liberals into an early election call.

Today, support for the party hovers below double digits, and Day’s capacity to lead - as opposed to simply having the title of 'leader' - is at an end. What explains the remarkable events of the last year that have so reversed Day’s (and Alliance’s) fortunes?

Let’s put aside the Alliance party's policies, as unsaleable as some of them are, as well as the foibles of some of its prominent members. And let’s not dwell on the party’s political culture, an admixture of populist self-delusion and top-down reality, or the Reform legacy left by Preston Manning.

Instead, let us turn our attention to Day’s own role in his debacle, and that of others who fooled themselves into thinking he was their Great Right Hope.

There will be those, including Day himself, who will long contend he was the victim of a conspiracy - left-wing, right-wing, or otherwise. Indeed, beliefs in such a conspiracy will likely grow over the years. The urge to reject simple answers in favour of complex ones is normal. It is part of the human capacity for invention.

As Freud said, however, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes the simple explanation for events Is also the correct one. Yes, much of the media disliked Day. But not all. Day and Alliance received an easy ride in his home province of Alberta (actually Day was born in Barrie Ontario, grew up in Montreal and later moved to British Columbia. He only went to Bentley Alberta because it was a haven for the radical right) - indeed, was a product of that media - while the National Post early on fit him for the national mantle.

Yes, the 2000 Liberal campaign was nasty. But Day’s chief difficulties did not emanate from outside the party.

And yes, many former Manning supporters leaked damaging information and have worked hard for Day’s resignation. But this merely describes Day’s internal opponents - a kind of bookkeeping - and doesn’t describe the nature of their opposition.

The fact remains: one year ago Stockwell Day was a deeply flawed and untested politician. There was little evidence to suggest he possessed the qualities necessary to lead a successful political party. From wetsuit to lawsuit and other events since, this truth is all too apparent.

If there is a story "behind the story" of Stockwell Day’s rise and fall, it lies in those who knew all along their champion’s limitations, and yet still promoted him. In a radio interview the day after Deborah Grey resigned from Alliance ‘s caucus, Cliff Fryers (Alliance national council member and Manning’s former Chief of Staff) claimed Day had “sold the party a bill of goods.” With due respect to Fryers, a lawyer by trade, one is reminded of the axiom,"buyer beware."

Gerry Gagnon, an executive member of Grey’s constituency, better accepted the responsibility that goes with making bad decisions when he said: "We have tried to take shortcuts to power which included trying to find a good-looking leader and included borrowing money, thinking we could get into power through television commercials. I don’t think those shortcuts work. We are seeing the proof of that right now.”

To anyone who took time to see, Stockwell Day was never more than what he appeared. Always his own greatest promoter, Day's greatest “fraud” - that he was capable of being a national leader - was primarily perpetrated on himself. He rose and fell to rhythms of his own making.

What excuse, however, have Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, Rod Love, and Jason Kenney? How could so many Reform and Alliance MPs, including some of the later dissidents, not to mention the media, have missed the obvious? How did so many “grassroots” Alliance members, especially those who had followed Day’s career in Alberta, fool themselves into believing he ever had the “right stuff” to be a political leader?

The answer is they knew, but chose not to know. They saw, but chose not to see. And for their blindness, they lost their party.

Our story ends there. For Stockwell Day there will be no big payday, no title shot. A politician of modest background, he rose steadily to soaring heights, then crashed. Little more need be said. His future lies now in playing in smaller venues to gradually diminishing crowds. Like soldiers and boxers, politicians sometimes just fade away.

This article is adapted from the Harrison’s forthcoming book, Requiem for a Lightweight: Stockwell Day and Image Politics.

What Mr, Harrison couldn't have known is that Day may never have gotten to be Prime Minister, but Stephen Harper needed his religious right connections enough that he gave him key cabinet posts. My local flyer if and when there is another election, will be "If you vote for Brian Abrams you may get stuck with Stockwell Day .... and Jason Kenney, and Pierre Polievre , and .......

Jim Flaherty Sticks it to Taxpayers Then Walks Away While We Bleed

For all the Conservatives' bluster about the harmonized tax, blaming it on the provincial governments; it was Jim Flaherty who first proposed the idea in his 2008 budget, and then again in 2009.

He's now trying to walk away from it when it's pretty clear that it was his idea to tax everything. And we thought Jim Prentice's cap and trade carbon tax was going to drive up the price of everything.

Let's call this one 'Hurricane Jims', because it's a double whammy.

Jim Flaherty’s permanent tax on everything

Federal budget 2008: Replacing remaining provincial retail sales taxes (RSTs) with value-added taxes harmonized with the GST is another area where provinces can contribute to strengthening Canada’s Tax Advantage … The Government recognizes the significant economic benefits to Canada from sales tax harmonization and is willing to work with the five provinces that still have RSTs to help facilitate the transition to provincial value-added sales taxes harmonized with the GST.

Federal budget 2009. Modernizing these harmful taxes by implementing a value-added tax structure harmonized with the GST is the single most important step that provinces with RSTs could take to stimulate new business investment, create jobs and improve Canada’s overall tax competitiveness.

Washing their harmonizing hands

Stephen Harper's Conservatives wish to have it both ways. For years, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has lobbied the provinces to harmonize their sales taxes with the federal goods and services tax. Now that two provinces have complied, some Conservatives are shrinking from the ensuing controversy. Don't blame us, they're saying; it was all the provinces' idea.