When it was determined that Stephen Harper had plagiarized a John Howard speech in 2003, the speechwriter Owen Lippert* tendered his resignation.
When Lisa Raitt left sensitive documents behind at a television studio, her assistant Jasmine MacDonnell was forced to resign.
So with Christian Paradis now in the hot seat over trying to hide information related to his former ministry, it's an aide who will once again take the fall.
An aide to Conservative cabinet minister Christian Paradis has resigned over his meddling in at least four different access-to-information requests. Sebastien Togneri handed in his resignation Thursday evening after a report by The Canadian Press outlining a series of incidents while the minister headed the Public Works portfolio.
... when The Canadian Press reported this week that Togneri had interfered in three other access files — potentially a criminal act — Togneri, not the minister, fell on his sword, and had to resign, poor fellow. Paradis, his boss, stood in the House on Friday to explain what happened: "Togneri offered his resignation yesterday. I accepted it." He went on to say that he had referred the file to the information commissioner. Paradis’s response is not an inspiring example of ministerial responsibility.... But Paradis has neglected to even apologize and explain to Parliament what happened, which is his clear responsibility. So Togneri is looking for a job and Paradis is riding home in his chauffeured car.
*Lippert never really went anywhere. In July he was awarded a contact for $ 24, 750, for research he conducted for Steven Fletcher and his resume states that he most recently, was Senior Policy Advisor to the Minister of International Cooperation, who is Bev Oda.
I'm sure the boys will have a good laugh over this, since their hi jinx over H1N1 is getting stale. But Lisa Raitt, who is currently involved in no less than six ethics investigations, was the subject of a letter written by a man three months before his death.
My dearest Minister, There is nothing I would like more than to give you the benefice du doute. However, the private conversation recently made public about the isotope shortage speaks for itself and shows you in a completely different light. As a lifetime liberal and then some, there is nothing I like more than the Conservative soap-opera you and your cronies are putting on for everyone to see, but there are limits.
It has indeed become disgraceful, and you, yes you, have put self-interest before those of the Country. It goes without saying that Tories left to their own devices will normally self-destruct and that they are better suited for the Opposition than for Government, but the Liberals needed a time-out and to regroup.
Alas, I now live in a riding where a Westhighland White Terrier painted blue would win hands down under the Conservative banner (with the greatest deference of course to Mr. MacKenzie, Member of Parliament for Oxford).
I realize that many politicians are very stubborn, hating to be wrong and hating to admit error. Your leader provides us with un exemple par excellence. I have been accused of such myself from time to time and do try to take somewhat of a humanist approach to matters political. We do live in the real world.
Sadly, it is rare to find a selfless politician, one with her or his constituents' interests really at heart, hence the very low opinion of public officials, as demonstrated in recent studies. We are not naifs, are we? Will you eat humble pie? Probably not. The more intriguing question is, "Are you sadistic or just plain stupid?"
Even as a frank conversation far from prying ears, it was and remains totally inappropriate. I know I have already lost you but shall continue anyway for my own edification. Minister, have you ever faced a life-threatening illness or watched those you love being destroyed by one? It is far from 'sexy,' and I am not being melodramatic: my beloved mum has been given to November to live. I have been spared death but not a life without suffering.
I will not cry you a river, but since you are only in the game for fame and glory, could you please tell Mum (whose name is G. "Judeen" Grace Smith-Layman) what you are doing to solve this isotope crisis? What is your overall plan? Put differently, what are you doing to help people like her (thus enabling you to get the praise you so desperately yearn for, which is most important of course)?
What has happened to ministerial responsibility and cabinet solidarity? Are you normally a cut-throat back stabber? Mum, like many others in the same boat, relies on a wide range of diagnostic imaging, and because of your handling of the dossier, she may go without. I do not need a cassette tape to know that you saw the storm coming but did not put up the shutters.
Shame! Shame! Shame! If you like to gamble, please do so at the casinos, and not with the lives of fellow Canadians. If you like theatre, Madam, may I suggest Stratford and not making Parliament Hill a very sad and sorry spectacle? Maybe we all could learn from the legislative assemblies of the North and from the First Nations. If it is your desire to climb the greasy poll all the way to 24 Sussex Drive, however unrealistic such is, especially now, so be it, but you are wholly responsible for the untimely death of thousands of people worldwide, and quite frankly, I do not know how you can sleep at night.
Perhaps you sold-out long ago, Minister; you even let your administrative assistant take the fall for you, but what is it that they say? Yes, pride comes before the fall. You conservatives always like to pretend you are morally superior to the rest of us. Maybe that is why I am so indignant. I realize we are all sinners, but how can you call yourself a Christian? And for the record, you are not half the woman the honourable Minister of Health is.
Posted By: Michael F. Layman, CdFP, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B., Tillsonburg Posted On: June 10, 2009
Gerry Ritz making jokes about Listeriosis. Lisa Raitt thinking Cancer is Sexy. Apparently John Baird led the chorus of hecklers. I don't know. They are on such a media high, that they feel invincible, and no longer have to even pretend to care. Very sad.
Finally, in a pout, she decided to steal tax payer's money again, but forgot that she no longer worked for the Toronto Port Authority.
Poor little thing got confused, though it's understandable with John Baird's buddies working there. She must have thought it was his office.
Tory fundraiser sparks uproar Political event for Raitt organized from office of Toronto Port Authority Oct 01, 2009
OTTAWA–A political fundraiser for Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt was coordinated out of the office of the president of the Toronto Port Authority, a federal agency Raitt once headed, the Toronto Star has learned. Critics say it is just further proof the port authority has been supplanted by Tory faithful and has become little more than a partisan arm of the Conservative government, but a port authority official says it was all a simple transgression.
Janet MacDonald, executive assistant to acting port authority president and CEO Alan Paul and who also served Raitt when she held the job, sent out invitations on port authority email inviting people to attend the Sept. 24, $250-a-head fundraiser at a downtown Toronto restaurant.
"Hope you are well. Would you please let me know if you plan on donating/purchasing ticket so I can keep tally and inform organizer of event," MacDonald said in the invitation. MacDonald refused to talk to the Star.
An attachment to the email asked interested supporters to RSVP registered lobbyist Michael McSweeney, vice-president industry affairs of the Cement Association of Canada. It included the association's fax number and McSweeney's personal email.
"I would like to pretend I am surprised, but the Toronto Port Authority's accountability and credibility and ethics have been a constant problem," said Toronto City Councillor Adam Vaughan.
"That they would get involved in this kind of partisan politics ... is completely consistent with the atrocious record they have with corporate governance and accountability," he said.
The controversial fundraiser came to the attention of Liberal MP Paul Szabo, chair of the parliamentary ethics committee, who felt obliged to let Paul know the port authority was on thin ice.
"It would appear that using the resources of a federal authority to promote and support a political party or an MP is not only inappropriate but likely contrary to your rules guiding employee conduct, not to mention the potential for contraventions of the Canada Elections Act," the Mississauga South MP said in a Sept. 22 email.
In a return email the following day, Paul said the port authority took the matter "seriously" and it "should not have occurred."
"The email was not sent on behalf of the Toronto Port Authority and was not an authorized use of the Toronto Port Authority system. The TPA's Information Technology Policy states that unauthorized use is prohibited," Paul said in the email, a copy of which he also sent the Star.
Paul told Szabo all employees were reminded of the policy, but he refused to answer questions from the Star about when he first learned of MacDonald's emails, or if any disciplinary action was taken against the veteran employee.
Szabo said later "it was the blatant use of the resources of a federal authority."
"There is no doubt in my mind this was a targeted event that was going to utilize the database of the port authority. ... It is so improper that it is not even debatable use of information," he said, adding he's still considering having the matter referred to federal ethics commissioner Mary Dawson.
Transport Minister John Baird said he was assured by the arm's-length agency that it wouldn't happen again.
Raitt, who was named to cabinet in January, has been involved in controversy before. She privately criticized the parliamentary skills of Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq and called the shortage of medical isotopes a "sexy" issue.
Raitt said through a spokesperson she was too busy to be interviewed.
"The minister has been advised that the error was an isolated occurrence and has received assurances that such incidents will not occur in the future," said an email from Raitt's office. New Democrat MP Olivia Chow (Trinity-Spadina) said it is difficult to believe it won't happen again when this "rogue agency" has been stacked with Conservative "cronies."
"I believe the entire board should be fired and the Toronto Port Authority should be given back to the citizens of Toronto ... because the Conservatives see the port authority as a trough for them where they can either flex their political muscles or fundraise," Chow said. My question is. Who would pay $250.00 to see Lisa Raitt?????
So have you been wondering what the Conservatives' own ditsy blonde has been up to these days, in light of the fact that the Chalk River Nuclear reactor will be down longer than expected? No doubt, she's been announcing and re-announcing stimulus spending, hoping no one remembers that she found the isotope shortage a career boosting opportunity.
Well sweetheart, it's only career making if you actually do something about it, other than finding it a turn on.
Liberal MP Omar Alghabra asks a very important question. Where is their sense of urgency? Gary Lunn was the Natural Resources minister in 2007 and he was in such a twist about isotopes, I think I saw a couple of his hairs move. But now .... ah ... no biggie.
About 20 months ago, as the Liberal Critic for Natural Resources, I was heavily involved in the continuing saga of isotope shortage. In November of 2007, the Nuclear Safety Commission refused to renew the license for the nuclear reactor that produced medical isotope citing safety concerns. The unplanned shutdown led to severe shortage of isotope supplies and caused grave concerns among doctors and Canadians. Those nuclear isotopes are used for medical diagnostic procedures on a daily basis and their shortage led to the cancellation of many serious procedures.
The House of Commons immediately intervened. Debates about what happened, how we got there and what the government role needs to be ensued. An emergency debate on the floor of the House of Commons lasted till midnight on Tuesday December 11, 2007 included many expert witnesses. There were many questions that were posed to the Conservative government.
The Conservatives decided to blame the Nuclear Safety Commission President Linda Keen and fired her in the meantime ignoring all outstanding concerns. I thought it was an unjustified firing and it was a public relation exercise of redirecting blame. The Commissioner may have been too rigid but that didn’t justify her firing nor did it lead to resolve the outstanding problems facing the isotope supply issue.
Today, it has become clear that had the Conservatives taken those questions seriously the isotope shortage crisis we are facing could have been averted.
Throughout 2007 and 2008 when Mr. Harper was asked to prepare a contingency plan for potential future problems and his only response was to blame Linda Keen for putting Canadian lives at risk and that it was a life and death situation.
I regret to say that the fear we expressed 20 months ago came true. Linda Keen is not around but the crisis persists and it’s still a life and death situation.
The Conservatives have done nothing so far. Where is their sense of urgency? Is it fair to say that Stephen Harper’s inaction is putting Canadian lives at risk?
The Conservatives must be held accountable for their incompetence. They can’t get away with their claim that they can’t do anything about the situation when the last time they rushed to fire a public servant for doing her job.
Much could have been done 2 years ago. Ideas that were proposed included pooling international supply capacity, planning for a new supply reactor, and inviting private sector investors to enter the business of supply isotopes.
What is even more tragic is that to this day, the Conservatives still don’t appear to be doing anything.
Soon after, tapes were discovered of Lisa Raitt calling the Isotope shortage sexy and dissing her fellow MPs; John Baird using profanity agaisnt the City of Toronto and Pierre Poilievre issuing a racist remark.
Now, at the G8 summit of all places, Harper once again went on the attack over an apparent quote by Mr. Ignatieff, only to discover the quote didn't belong to Ignatieff at all, so Harper was left with egg on his face.
Why doesn't he quit while he's ahead? Instead of telling us how long the Liberal leader has been out of the country, he might want to start protecting this country he is so determined to sell off; and instead of raising his creds by bashing his opponents, why not do something that will earn our respect? So far ... nada!
L'AQUILA, Italy — Prime Minister Stephen Harper launched a blistering attack here Friday against Michael Ignatieff, although moments later his office withdrew the allegation and apologized to the Liberal leader. Harper, whose party has questioned his rival's commitment to Canada because the Liberal leader lived three decades overseas, said Ignatieff should withdraw any suggestion that Canada could be excluded from a new body to replace the G8.
"I think it's an irresponsible suggestion, and Mr. Ignatieff is supposed to be a Canadian."But his spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, quickly met with reporters to say he had misinformed the prime minister on the matter. Soudas said the remark attributed to Ignatieff was actually made by an academic, and he apologized for the error.
Harper, during a lengthy news conference at the conclusion of the three-day G8 summit, also denounced a report in a New Brunswick newspaper earlier this week saying he pocketed the Holy Communion host during the funeral at a Catholic church for former governor general Romeo LeBlanc.
"First of all, as a Christian I have never refused communion when offered to me. That's actually pretty important to me," he said.
"Somebody running an unsubstantiated story that I would stick communion bread in my pocket is really absurd (too bad for Harper we actually that on tape, but at least he didn't lie this time and say he ate it, since realizing to do so would be against Church law) and I think it's a real, frankly, a low point. This is a low moment in journalism, whoever is responsible for this. It's just a terrible story and a ridiculous story and not based on anything as near as I can tell."
He also expressed bemused admiration for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who remains publicly popular despite numerous business and sex scandals.
"Like Prime Minister Berlusconi, I have many weaknesses, but they are not the same."
Boy Harper sure has a great communications guy with him. Lies to get him out of the Communion debacle and goofs to make him look like an idiot.
But of course, once Harper gets riled up, and his mean streatk is tickled, there's no stoppong him, so he jsut tore into everyone.
L'AQUILA, Italy — Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Italy on Friday he won't follow the "dumb" advice from Parliament's budget officer by raising taxes to balance Canada's post-recession books. Harper's attack on Kevin Page was one of two partisan flights of fury during an otherwise statesmanlike closing to the three-day G8 summit here, which focused on climate change, the economic crisis, food security and Iran.
Harper also attacked Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's commitment to Canada's best interests, a move that resulted in an embarrassing about-face when a Tory aide realized Harper's attack was based on false information.
Speaking about Canada's economy, the prime minister tersely dismissed Page's gloomy report this week, which said the government had underestimated the impact of the recession on government finances and the economy.
In addition to predicting higher-than-expected job losses, Page also said the Canadian government is now running a "structural deficit" and, therefore, won't automatically go back to budget surpluses when the economy recovers.
So "significant discretionary actions" will be necessary to get Canada's books back in the black, Page said.
But on Friday, Harper ridiculed the suggestion that the government would need to slash spending or boost taxes to balance its budget when the economy recovers.
"We will not start raising taxes and cutting programs. That's a very dumb policy and, to the extent, frankly, that the parliamentary budget officer suggested it, it's a dumb position," he said. (How articulate. Dumb means you can't speak, and is slang used mostly by kids)
"It will not be the position of our government. We will not be raising the GST or any other tax during or after the recession."
Harper, whose party has questioned in TV ads Ignatieff's commitment to Canada because the Liberal leader lived three decades overseas, accused Ignatieff of publicly suggesting the G8 be replaced by a body that doesn't include Canada.
"I think it's an irresponsible suggestion, and Mr. Ignatieff is supposed to be a Canadian." But Harper quickly withdrew the remark after learning he had been misinformed by one of his media aides, Dimitri Soudas.
"During my press conference, I attacked Mr. Ignatieff for some things he had allegedly said about Canada and the G8," Harper said. "I learned shortly after the press conference this was not a quotation of Mr. Ignatieff. I regret the error and I apologize to Mr. Ignatieff for this error." Soudas, who also apologized, said the remark attributed to Ignatieff was actually made by an academic. The apologies did little to blunt Liberal anger.
"This is not simply a mistake by one of Mr. Harper's staffers . . . but, rather, is reflective of the character of this prime minister who made the choice to continue his pattern of slinging mud at his opponents, this time on an international stage," said Bob Rae, the Grits' foreign affairs critic.
He also confirmed the government will review a tourism support program that funded the Toronto gay pride parade, and jokingly expressed admiration for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who remains publicly popular, despite numerous business and sex scandals. (Most Italians would have no problems with sex scandals. Desicrating a Communion wafer though, now that's another matter.)
After voting against a hurriedly drafted human trafficking bill, presented by Stockwell Day's pet, Joy Smith, because they didn't want to take power away from judges, they have been accused of supporting pedophiles.
However, when you listen to the Lisa Raitt tapes bashing Joy Smith, and the resulting comments made by the Tory caucus, you can see clearly that it was a political move that carried with it a lot of hard feelings.
Kind of like kids saying that their sibling got a bigger piece of cake than them, Smith's colleagues were clearly jealous and saw this as favouritism.
"Raitt said Smith had made a bad move by introducing a private member's bill to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for human trafficking of children."Speaking of career-limiting moves, I’m in shock that that MP, Joy Smith, brought forward private member’s legislation on human trafficking," Raitt says on the tape.
"She’s on Canada AM. And the reason being is that there’s no way any of us should be introducing anything around justice issues or finance issues right now.
You just can’t touch those two things."It was widely known among Conservatives that bills dealing with justice or finance issues were to be introduced by cabinet only, as justice and the economy are the pillars of this government.
At least one Conservative however suggested Raitt's comments about Smith reflected what a lot of people in the caucus thought then.
The fact that the Conservatives can treat such a sensitive subject in so callous a manner as using it for attack ads, shows they don't care so much about children, as they do about their careers.
It is not a religious matter, however, but a political one, that has some people wondering what was behind the whole fiasco.
As a strong social conservative and longtime friend and supporter of Stockwell Day, the Conservatives pulled out all the stops to make sure she held onto her seat.
However, in the infamous tape that Lisa Raitt's assistant accidentally turned on during a road trip, we learned that Raitt was surprised that Joy Smith was allowed to present a bill that should have been the responsibility of a high ranking cabinet minister, and not a backbencher. Apparently, other members of the Party agree with her.
OTTAWA - A Winnipeg Conservative MP who was among the targets of Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt caught on tape is keeping her opinions of the incident to herself. Joy Smith, the MP from Kildonan-St. Paul, said Tuesday she would not comment about the tape.
The tape of Raitt, having a conversation with her director of communications, Jasmine MacDonnell, was made accidentally while the two were in a car on a trip to British Columbia in January.
The tape recorder was later forgotten by MacDonnell in a media office on Parliament Hill. She said she would come back for it, but it was never retrieved. Last week when MacDonnell resigned after leaving secret government documents at another media office in Ottawa, Steve Maher, a reporter from the Halifax Chronicle Herald, listened to it.
Raitt makes disparaging remarks about both Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq and Smith. Raitt said Smith had made a bad move by introducing a private member's bill to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for human trafficking of children.
"Speaking of career-limiting moves, I’m in shock that that MP, Joy Smith, brought forward private member’s legislation on human trafficking," Raitt says on the tape.
Smith had just introduced the bill that week.
"She’s on Canada AM. And the reason being is that there’s no way any of us should be introducing anything around justice issues or finance issues right now. You just can’t touch those two things."
It was widely known among Conservatives that bills dealing with justice or finance issues were to be introduced by cabinet only, as justice and the economy are the pillars of this government.
At least one Conservative however suggested Raitt's comments about Smith reflected what a lot of people in the caucus thought then. However the legislation has done quite well, has received a lot of attention and got the backing from the NDP and the Liberals. It passed a parliamentary committee Monday and if there is not an election in the interim, it has a good chance to pass through the house and the Senate this fall, and become law before the Olympics in Vancouver next winter.
Many fear the Olympics will draw human traffickers in large numbers.
The bill also has served, albeit in a very small way to boost Conservative esteem in Quebec, where the party is faltering badly.
Quebec, particularly the Montreal area, is considered one of the hot beds of human trafficking in Canada and a lot of non-governmental organizations and the police are dismayed the Bloc Quebecois are voting against Smith's bill.
Recent polls have the Conservatives with very little support in Quebec, severely affecting the party's chance to ever form a majority government.
Smith has a personal stake in another part of the Raitt tape controversy as well.
Raitt, in discussing the problems at the Chalk River nuclear reactor and the resulting the shortage of isotopes for cancer tests, appeared excited at the prospect the issue would help her career and said the issue was "sexy" because it involved "radioactive leaks" and "cancer". Smith's husband is battling cancer. The comments about the Chalk River are likely to be the biggest problem for Raitt, who so far has kept her job in spite of the controversy.
One Conservative said most people in the party seem upset by the comments. "You don't do this to further one's career," said the source.
Last month with much to do, Stephen Harper annouced a press conference in Toronto, and city officials thought they might be getting the $1.22 billion they were seeking for a project to replace their aging fleet of streetcars.
Instead, the show turned out to be a re-run, with the PM flapping about money promised two years, that had already been budgeted for. He then did a little soft shoe and whisked off to other venues scheduled for his re-union tour with Dalton McGuinty.
Earlier this month, John Baird gave Toronto the verbal finger, and today drove the message home, when he said nada on the on the project.
Transportation Minister John Baird has sent a letter to Toronto Mayor David Miller indicating that he will not be granting the city's application to use stimulus funds to purchase streetcars because it does not fit the criteria laid out by the government. In the letter, Baird spells out exactly what he believes is wrong with the city's request for funds from the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, to help pay for 204 next-generation streetcars that will be built in northern Ontario.
"The project that your officials tried to submit clearly did not meet the criteria and so could not be submitted," Baird says in the two-page letter, addressed to Miller but also sent to Toronto councilors on the weekend.
Specifically, all stimulus-funded projects must be completed by March 31, 2011 and the money must be spent building infrastructure in the municipality where the application is granted. Because the streetcars Toronto intends to purchase "will not even be delivered until late 2012 at the earliest and the project will not be complete until 2018," Baird said they do not qualify for stimulus funding.
Additionally, the streetcars won't even be built in Toronto, meaning the stimulus money would end up "re-tooling a Bombardier plant in Thunder Bay," Baird said.
"This fund was created to build public infrastructure, not modernize factories," he added.
Toronto had planned to use federal stimulus money to pay for one-third of the $1.2 billion cost of building 204 new streetcars, even going as far as to announce the purchase of the streetcars on Friday, despite the fact that the federal money had not yet come through.
So far, Toronto and the province of Ontario have each agreed to fund one-third of the costs of the streetcars, hoping that the federal government would pick up the remaining cost, as part of a tentative deal that may fall apart if the money does not come together before a June 27 deadline.
The city had also planned to use the federal money to help build a new carhouse for incoming streetcars.
While the transportation minister admits that "the proposed project may well be an excellent project of great benefit to the people of Toronto," Baird said it cannot be funded using infrastructure stimulus money.
Baird suggests to Miller that Toronto likely has "many other worthwhile projects ready to go today to improve and renew Toronto's infrastructure," and that he hopes the mayor will be able to find other projects that fit the criteria for stimulus money.
"It would be a tragedy if the federal government spent $4 billion on infrastructure stimulus across the country but was unable to spend any of this on projects in Toronto," Baird closes in the last paragraph of his letter. "I will not let this happen. I hope that the federal government will have a co-operative partner in the City of Toronto."
Baird's frustration with Toronto's request for stimulus funding was evident earlier this month, when a reporter overheard him saying the city was the only one out of 2,700 applicants that didn't meet the eligibility criteria.
I don't really think that the Toronto mayor expected the money because it didn't translate into Conservative votes.
Sometimes, political scandals are meaningless and meaningful at the same time. So it is with the latest eruptions from Ottawa. At one level, the furor over gaffes by Transport Minister John Baird and Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt is silly. At another, it is indicative.
Baird first. In suggesting that Toronto should (as we so quaintly put it in the Star) "f--- off," Baird was probably articulating the general view of many Canadians. Indeed, it could be argued that Baird's frustration with Toronto – expressed during what he thought was a private moment at a municipal convention in Whistler, B.C. – is entirely justified.
The federal government, after all, is willing to give cities wads of infrastructure cash. The only proviso is that city councils must spend their share within their own urban boundaries during the next two years.
The fiscal theory behind this is that the economy needs a boost right now.
The political imperative is that the governing Conservatives want credit for creating jobs in cities like Toronto so that they can win more seats in an election that could come as early as this fall.
Toronto's obdurate city council, however, wants the estimated $312 million Ottawa is offering spent on subway cars built in Thunder Bay.
That may a reasonable use for the money. But, as Baird pointed out, it doesn't fit federal criteria.
In fact, there would probably be more jobs (and Conservative votes) created if the entire $312 million were used to dig – and then refill – holes throughout the 416 area.
So, in one sense, the transport minister can be excused for suggesting that Toronto engage in sexual congress elsewhere.
But at another, we in Toronto know – we just know – that this particular remark reflects exactly what Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives think about the city.
Any many of us reciprocate.
Second, Lisa Raitt. Here too, the comments of the federal natural resources minister – while impolitic – are not substantively important.
She's heard on tape taking a sly dig at Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq for failing to take political advantage of a national shortage of the radioactive isotopes used to diagnose heart and cancer ailments.
Raitt then boasts about how she will use this "sexy" cancer issue to raise her own political profile.
Again, at one level, Raitt is simply being honest. Her dismissal of a cabinet colleague reflects the conventional wisdom about Harper's entire ministry – that it is filled with duds. Even Harper seems to believe this, which is why he insists on micromanaging his hapless ministers.
But at the same time, the sheer callowness of Raitt's ambition reminds Canadians already suspicious of the Harper government just why they don't entirely trust this Prime Minister.
The rap on the Harper Conservatives is that they are cold and unfeeling. Raitt's obvious glee about a looming health problem feeds right into that perception.
Or, as John Baird might say, her comments suggest that this government really doesn't give a flying fornicatory moment about other people's problems.
Jim Flaherty has been called a fiscal conservative, devoted to lowering taxes and reducing spending.
He has also been called a complete windbag, with no morals and even less skill at managing anything, other than a kiosk on the beach.
OK those last comments were mine, but I stand by them.
Before entering politics he was a personal injury lawyer, which should be 'enough said', but I think his experiences, which would have been mostly combative, have left him distrustful and unbending. They have also given him the ability to sacrifice truth for gain.
Perhaps my opinion of his private practice might be a bit harsh, but when I think of personal injury lawyers, images come to mind of clients with white collars and canes in the courtroom, who shed those things once outside, and go hang gliding.
But my opinion of Flaherty sacrificing the truth for political gain is spot on. Let's just follow his little magic show since the last election campaign.
TORONTO — There will be no deficit on his watch, even on a temporary basis, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Wednesday. In responding to the worsening global financial crisis that has slowed economic growth in Canada and elsewhere, “we'll do what we have to do, so long as we remain economically prudent. We're sure not going to run a deficit ... We will maintain a surplus in Canada and we will continue to pay down debt.” ....
Now some might argue that he was forced by the big bad opposition to do a 180 ,but that's garbage. He always had a choice. Besides, according to those in the know, we were already in a deficit, possibly as much as a year before he fessed up.
I have to blog a bit about Flaherty and his past record in Ontario of selling property in an attempt to hide the deficit. David Graham in his blog “The World According to cdlu” points out a parallel move being done now by the federal government.
Before this economic downturn hits bottom, it's almost a given Mr. Flaherty will wear the Deficit Jim label as the Conservative who put the red back into Canada's budget books for the first time since they were balanced in the mid-1990s.
It's been almost two years since his most notorious flip-flop - the Halloween announcement the government would break its pre-election promise and start taxing income trusts - and now he's careening oward another big-gulp policy reversal. Mr. Flaherty, it seems certain, will have to renege on his hell-or-high-water vow that the Conservatives would not lurch into deficit.
He's now waffling on that campaign promise in the face of $10-billion deficit projections by some economists, a red tidal wave that could not be rebuffed with spending cuts or tax increases.
The problem is that when you lose your credibility, anything you say from there on in, sounds like the adults in the Peanuts cartoon: Waaaa, Waaaa, Waaaa, Waaaa, Waaaa.
Jim Flaherty and Lisa Raitt are speaking the same language and I no longer listen to either of them.
As Canadians shook their heads in disbelief that secret and sensitive documents could be treated so carelessly by Conservative cabinet ministers Lisa Raitt and Maxime Bernier, they need to remember that these are not isolated incidents.
I was recently reading an old quote from Stockwell Day's website, recorded after his meeting George Bush for the first time, and wondered out loud how in the hell Day was ever given the position he has:
"'Good morning Mr. President'. I realized I was speaking in a near reverential tone without even trying. As those words came out of my mouth I felt a bit self-conscious, but after all, I was standing in front of the United States Commander in Chief, world leader and defender of democracy and freedom." Yikes!
Anthony Salloum said he and his spouse were heading to dinner last week when they spotted seven or eight rolls of paper stamped with Department of Defence markings.
The blueprints, dated March 5, 2007, appear to be for a new building for the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit, created post-Sept. 11 to respond to large-scale attacks. The building is under construction at Canadian Forces Base Trenton. The plans detail the location of security fences, the electrical grid system and layout of offices and other rooms, said Anthony Salloum, who found the documents.
Salloum said he and his spouse were heading to dinner last week when they spotted seven or eight rolls of paper stamped with Department of Defence markings.
"By sheer accident, my spouse said, 'Anthony, look at this bag of garbage. It's filled with rolls of paper that say National Defence, Trenton 8 Wing,' " Salloum told reporters on Thursday.
Asked early Thursday about the Ottawa Citizen article that reported the discovery, Day said he is awaiting for a detailed report on the incident to determine what happened and what type of documents were involved. "If a security breach of some kind has taken place, then clearly that's a huge concern for me," Day said. "We'll wait for all the details and see exactly what that was."
Not sure what happened to other rolls
At first, Salloum didn't pick up the papers since he was on the way to dinner at a restaurant.
But more than an hour later, when he passed by the garbage heap and discovered they were still there, he decided to grab one roll.
The day after discovering the documents on March 13, Salloum unrolled the blueprints in the boardroom of his workplace, the Rideau Institute, an Ottawa-based advocacy group.
But having little understanding of the blueprints, he decided to wait until the institute's director returned from a family vacation on Wednesday.
"It quickly became apparent how important these were. And I did not want to leave my office yesterday before handing them back to National Defence," said Salloum.
Salloum has returned the blueprints to the Defence Department, who thanked him but refused to comment on the discovery. It's uncertain what happened to the rest of the rolls, though they're likely at a garbage dump or recycling facility, he said.
Salloum speculated that the documents may have been discarded by an architectural firm following a failed bid for the project. Even so, he says the discovery is a security concern since the blueprints outline other existing structures at the Trenton military base.
One security expert also hypothesized that the document could have been tossed by a civilian contractor.
Regardless of who threw them in the trash, why are there not better security measures taken? This once again makes us look like boobs.
Garth Turner was a former Conservative MP, who was removed from their caucus because he refused to shut up and allow unelected officials to speak for him, in the way that all other Tory MPs have.
After the 2006 election, he immediately locked horns with Stephen Harper over a cabinet post being given to David Emerson, in exchange for his crossing for the floor from the Liberals. He also refused to shut down his blog, believing that his constituents elected him to speak for them, not the Conservative party of Canada.
He describes the turn of events in his new book, Sheeple.
I walked into the Prime Minister’s office. It was 6:15 p. m. and snow whipped against the outside stone walls of Centre Block. Downstairs the reception was thinning and the foodplates decimated. Upstairs, the door closed behind me, and Harper approached. We shook hands. There were a few small words about the campaign in my riding and we stood during them, while Chief Whip Jay Hill watched. The Prime Minister then motioned me to sit down, which we did on either side of a small wooden end table with a brass lamp on it.
My bottom was barely in the chair when Harper let it fly. I am very disappointed with you, he said. It got worse quickly, and the tone was unmistakable. Stephen Harper was condescending, belittling and menacing. Here was a man with whom I had exchanged perhaps 200 words in the last year, talking to a newly elected MP, a member of his own caucus, who had just succeeded in taking a riding from the Liberals after more than a decade — a riding that was a beachhead into the constituency-rich GTA–and he spoke to me as if I were a petulant, useless, idiot child.
His voice was without a single shred of respect. No acknowledging I’d been in this office before, or in the Cabinet room down the hall, or had run to be leader of a legacy party. It was as if conservativism had started with the election of Stephen Harper as leader and led directly to this moment. Prior to that, he may have believed politicians bobbed like rudderless vessels on a sea of public opinion, blown helplessly by the winds of media know-italls. And he alone was out to change that.
The Prime Minister was at me now about my comments on former Liberal David Emerson, and I explained my opposition to floor-crossing MPs and my position that despite the new minister’s worth and experience, the ethical action would be to re-submit to the people. How, I asked, could you have been critical of what Belinda Stronach did, and now turn around and cause this to happen?
Harper glared. He pointed out to me that he had not voted for legislation in the last Parliament that would have banned floor-crossing (although half his caucus did). He said there had been nothing in the election campaign platform that prevented an MP from abandoning a party, or the voters, to pursue his or her own agenda.
That, he said, leaning forward and staring hard at me, was not his position, and I was absolutely wrong in talking to anyone about it. Pointedly, he did not mention Belinda’s name. I thought the better part of valour at the moment was to follow suit. But it also struck me:Here was a man hiding behind semantics, convinced his position was unassailable because words defended him. He may have hinted broadly that Belinda was a weak person of questionable intellect that led her to make the wrong decision in leaving his side. But he never actually said the process was incorrect. In an argument of logic, he won. So when I said, “I still find this position unprincipled,” he needed only to look at me with disdain.
He was done with that. We moved on to me. It was not going well.
Harper said he felt he could not trust me. “To put it charitably, you were independent during the campaign.” The penny was dropping now. The dots between anonymous on-the-phone Doug Finley, worries about my blog and the leader’s ear were filling in rapidly. He turned to look squarely at me and said, “I don’t need a media star in my caucus.”
Media star. The choice of words was interesting. I had come to my candidacy as a businessman, employer and entrepreneur, running three companies. I thought the man would have known that, realized I had not been an on-camera personality for a few years, or a daily newspaper columnist for decades. But perhaps some sins could never be expunged.
The Prime Minister paused. “I was going to offer you something, a role, something I had that is delicate, something important,” he said. “But now I’m not going to anymore. Instead we will just see what happens, what you do, over the next few weeks.”
The Prime Minister looked over at me, waiting for my face to react. Was he seeking disappointment, anger or regret? Remorse, maybe? A desperate cry for forgiveness? Stephen Harper had just dangled some valued, unnamed position or title, then snatched it away.
But I was not here to ask for anything. He had nothing I wanted. The only goal pursued had been to become a Member of Parliament, and my behaviour, principles or beliefs could not be changed with a job offer.
I started to rise out of my chair. “Well,” I said, “I guess that’s it then …”
But Harper wasn’t done yet. “Sit down.”
“You’re a journalist,” he said, “and we all know journalists make bad politicians. Politicians know how to stick to a message. That’s how they are successful. Journalists think they always have to tell the truth.”
The phone rang. “This is the Prime Minister’s office,” a woman announced. “I have the Prime Minister’s chief of staff on the line. Please hold.”
“This is Ian Brodie. I have Jay Hill, the government whip, here with me.”
It was mid-morning, and I had promised many media outlets I’d tell them shortly whether or not interviews would happen. After the events of the previous evening nothing was exactly clear. Pathetically, I imagined Brodie was about to extend an olive branch.
“I’m a blunt person,” Brodie said. “I heard your comments on Canada AM, and this freelance commenting of yours has to end. The public undermining has to end. There was nothing in our platform that was against floor-crossing. If you want to f–k with us, we will certainly f–k with you. Do you want to sit as an independent? Then we can arrange that. Count on it.”
The tone was shocking, the words driven by an obvious anger. I tried a compromise, and offered to turn down any further media interviews. Jay Hill spoke. “That is unacceptable,” he said. “You are damaging your colleagues and the Prime Minister. You will do no more media.” Then he asked me, simply, why I was saying the appointment of David Emerson was wrong.
“Because that’s what I believe,” I said. Hill laughed.
“Let me make this clear.” Brodie’s voice dropped a bit and he slowed. “I am telling you, you will not give any more media interviews. I am telling you, you will stop writing the blog. And I’m telling you that you’ll issue a press release today praising the Prime Minister’s appointment of Emerson. Are you clear?” Yes, I said. Clear.
It was clear that a political staffer, unelected and unaccountable, answering directly to the Prime Minister, had just tried to gag a Member of Parliament, threatened to throw him out of the party he’d been elected by the people to represent and ordered him to make a false statement.
Oh my God. Here we go.
Stephen Harper hates to be challenged, so when Garth Turner eventually crossed the floor to the Liberals, after sitting as an independant, Harepr made sure he wouldn't win another election.
Enter his sweetheart Lisa Raitt. He would plant her in Turner's riding, then pull out all the stops to get her elected there, despite knowing of her troubled past.
This is not a political blog, nor do I wish it to become one. Nonetheless, I spent most of my day fielding emails and calls from people who thought I might know Lisa Raitt better than them. Likely, I do, even though our encounters during the last campaign were restricted to all-candidates debates.
My supporters also built a fat file of damning information on her tenure as head of Toronto’s federal waterfront agency. The local media was not interested in passing that on to the voters. So, they got her as their MP.
Now they also have a rep who sees the medical isotope crisis as a great chance to build her career in Ottawa. So, she called the issue – which is seeing cancer victims denied needed therapy – ‘sexy”, one she was happy to “roll the dice” on and take credit for solving.
This is the callous, egocentric chatter you hear a lot of in Ottawa. Reputations are made or broken in the “managing” of “files.” Ministers or high-profile MPs who get their spins across in the media or QP can rocket in status overnight, and it’s that political momentum which is more important than the people affected by the actual issues.
This focus on party, leader and personal career is a cancer all its own eating away at the public body. It was at the basis of the dispute I had with the prime minister, and which cost me my party affiliation, my colleagues and my job. I argued that I worked for the people and answered to them above all. Stephen Harper was unwavering in his belief I worked for him, and voters second. He demanded I relent. I did not. You know the rest.
Mrs. Raitt is a very ambitious, career-oriented person. It defines her, I would say. Aggression has made her sharp, judgmental, combative and condescending. Clearly she’s also smart, accomplished, telegenic and marketable. Her entrance into cabinet in a significant role, and her placement in the Commons in the camera’s eye behind the PM, show the influence she can exert.
Unlike me, she places party above all. She sees herself on a political ladder to the sky, and her minister’s position is inherently partisan, rather than as a job to serve the people whose government it is.
Until last week, she was being touted as a Harper successor – probably the ballsiest woman in a caucus already swimming in testosterone.
But, that’s gone. Leaving a secret briefing book in a TV studio was bad. Throwing her assistant under the bus was worse. Getting steamy about a crisis that could help her career, even while it devastated Canadian cancer patients was the mark of a person in politics for the wrong reason.
We have too many.
I hope Garth runs again. I've always admired his tenacity.
John Baird is notorious for sticking his nose into things that shouldn't concern him. His past experience as a Mike Harris cabinet minister makes him believe that he still has provincial jurisdiction, and his very arrogance puts him into the thick of municipal politics.
He just wants to run everything, but since he's never done any of his jobs very well, he should focus on one until he gets it right.
In Ontario when he was Minister of Social Services he tried to privatize to save money, by having Anderson Consulting (of the Enron scandal) perform many of the functions once performed by civil servants.
A published report in early 2000 indicated that Andersen was charging an average of $257 per hour for work that had previously been done by ministry staff at $51 per hour. He also hired them to overhaul his department's computer systems which became the one of the biggest boondoggles in the province's history.
In federal politics he created an accountability act not worth the paper it was written on and his handling of the environmental portfolio was atrocious. Now his role as Transport Minister stands to become the worst performance in his entire career, and possibly the most scandalous.
Transport Minister John Baird is facing allegations of ``political interference'' and ``coverup'' as part of a bid to bury complaints of mismanagement against his Conservative cabinet colleague, Lisa Raitt, in connection with her former job as head of the Toronto Port Authority.
New Democrat MP Olivia Chow laid out the charges Monday at a news conference in Toronto, where she also called on Sheila Fraser, the federal auditor general, to conduct an audit of the port authority to investigate why Baird increased the membership of the board of directors from seven to nine - and why Raitt, while CEO of the authority, was allowed to run up almost $80,000 in travel and other expenses over two years when the organization was running a deficit.
``I'm accusing John Baird of covering up the alleged mismanagement of Miss Raitt, who is the former CEO of the port authority, and he did so by changing the constitution and interfering politically,'' Chow said later in an interview from Toronto.
The Toronto MP said Baird ignored 2008 allegations of mismanagement and questionable spending by four of the seven board members. Instead, he changed the constitution - just one day after Prime Minister Stephen Harper shut down Parliament early last December - to expand the board membership from seven to nine members, and then he appointed two new members.
The allegations against Baird come as Raitt, who was elected in the 2008 election, continues to fend off calls from the Opposition to resign as minister of natural resources over two recent kerfuffles. In a tape released Monday night, Raitt says she wants to take credit for fixing the ``sexy'' isotope crisis, and questions the competence of Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.
Last week it was revealed she had left sensitive, secret documents at CTV's Ottawa bureau for more than a week. Raitt says Prime Minister Stephen Harper refused her offer to resign over the documents, but that her press secretary, Jasmine MacDonnell, had resigned.
Chow says if there's nothing to hide, the authority should make public its expenses, its minutes of meetings, and any legal opinions sought in connection with its operations. In a letter to Fraser, Chow alleged expense payments were made without board knowledge and authority, and contrary to the legal advice made available to the board in 2008.
Mark MacQueen, chairman of the port authority, dismissed the allegations in a lengthy letter to Chow, also released Monday, as ``nothing more than an effort by a disgruntled minority of our board to smear the reputation of those members of the board'' who supported initiatives for expanding facilities related to the port, and the continued existence of the Toronto City Centre Airport.
Chris Day, a spokesman for Baird, said many of the concerns raised by Chow had already been raised publicly, and referred all queries to MacQueen's office.
Day added, however, that the Toronto Port Authority is about to undertake a scheduled special review by an independent auditor, something required every five years under the Canada Marine Act.
``This Special Examination offers an ideal mechanism for the Board to examine, in detail, many of its practices and protocols related to financial and management control, information systems, and management practices,'' Day said in an e-mail.
``The report will be reviewed by both the Minister of Transport and the Board upon its completion to ensure that all appropriate protocols are in place and a summary of the report will be made public.''
As snippets of a five hour tape made of a conversation between Lisa Raitt and her assistant become public, it will not only be embarrassing for the Conservatives, but also revealing.
Ms Raitt may have criticized her colleague Jim Prentice, but she also made light of an alleged backroom deal he made with the oil industry.
Perception is everything, and Albertans are fiercely protective of their own.
Will they put pressure on Stephen Harper to give her boot? It's not looking good.
OTTAWA – Money earmarked to support wind energy producers was diverted to research and development in the oil patch in backroom budget wrangling, the minister of natural resources said in a conversation with an aide in January.
The revelation is likely to intensify criticism of the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as unfriendly to the environment.
Mr. Prentice is the MP for Calgary-Centre North, home to much of Canada's oil industry. Mr. Harper also represents a Calgary riding.
Ms. Raitt made the comment as she and Ms. MacDonnell were being driven around British Columbia on Jan. 30, a few days after the budget.
The conversation was inadvertently recorded on Ms. MacDonnell's digital recorder and eventually came into the possession of The Chronicle Herald.
Ms. MacDonnell tells Ms. Raitt that CanWEA, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, had sent a letter to its supporters complaining about the lack of funding for wind energy in the budget.
“I'm not going to put up with the whining of CanWEA, and the reason being is that they're not utilizing the money that is there now,” says Ms. Raitt. “And until these things don't start getting built.”
Ms. MacDonnell appears to read from the letter from CanWEA: “We know that the proposal was actively promoted and pushed by Minister Raitt. In fact, it is our understanding that it was actually part of the budget until it was taken out very late in the process.”
Ms. Raitt responds: “No. No. I would never have told that.”
“You wouldn't have told her,” says Ms. MacDonnell. “Is that true?”
“Yes,” says Ms. Raitt. “It is true.”
“So somebody is talking,” says Ms. MacDonnell.
“Someone in Finance talked,” says Ms. Raitt. “Am I going to get blamed for this?”
Ms. Raitt was worried about the prime minister's reaction to the fact that CanWEA was somehow aware of budget talks, which are supposed to be kept in confidence.
“I certainly didn't know the fact that it came out late in the process,” she said.“I would have no way of knowing that. I understand that's what happened. My suspicion is, what I told you, that Jim took the money for his clean energy plan. They said 'Ah, they don't need it.' There should never have been any choice. No one asked my opinion on it. If they had, I would have lobbied.
Maybe that's why I'm invited to P and P (priority and planning, a cabinet committee). Oh, the prime minister's not going to like that.”Ms. Raitt at first blames the normally tight-lipped Finance officials for leaking the information. Later in the conversation, though, she and Ms. MacDonnell seem to agree that it may have been NaturalResources officials who let CanWEA know that the money had been there but was pulled.
“Those quotes clearly point to the fact that I'm on the team,” says Ms. Raitt. “And I am. That's what happened. I don't have that pull. Period.”
“Do you think someone on the EnerCan side did it?” she asks Ms. MacDonnell.
“That would probably be the most likely explanation, that they're trying to do damage control with the different groups,” she says. “'We did it. We pushed. We brought it. It was there.'”
“'The minister brought it to Flaherty,'” says Ms. Raitt. “I didn't push it hard at the table though.”
They go on to discuss problems with wind energy funding, with Ms. Raitt complaining that wind energy producers aren't accessing federal funding that is already available – a subsidy based on kilowatt production.“If they can't finance it, and they can't get their (environmental approvals), and they can't buy their equipment, then it doesn't go further and they don't get the kilowatt cent,” she says.“So I asked Tyler what's the sunset? How long do people have to hold onto money? And I don't know what the answer is yet. But there's $862 million still waiting for this project.“I'm upset that the ministry, that the department, told people that that was going to be oversubscribed by a certain date. That's built this whole fear. It was a $1.5-billion announcement, started in '07.
No one would ever think the funding would run out unless they were told it would run out. So that's my sadness.”
CanWEA complained publicly about the lack of new money in a news release after the budget.“Our ability to compete with the United States for investment in wind energy projects and manufacturing opportunities will decline as a result of this budget,” said president Robert Hornung.“
At a time when the United States has made measures to support renewable energy deployment a key component of its plans to stimulate the U.S. economy, Canada is moving in the opposite direction.”
CanWEA had called for a $600-million fund to expand wind energy. It declined to comment when contacted Wednesday.
On May 19, Ms. Raitt announced the $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil patch at a speech at the University of Alberta, saying the money would encourage “new technologies now to help protect and preserve our environment for future generations.”
Mr. Prentice's office refused to comment on the recording on Tuesday, and the minister's office told reporters he would end a media question and answer session on Wednesday if anybody asked him about the recording.
Ms. Raitt's office also declined to comment.
Speculation about the recording has been rife since the Canadian Press reported Tuesday that Ms. Raitt mentioned Mr. Prentice on the recording, apparently because Conservative officials knew about the comments and were bracing themselves.
Ms. Raitt's comments about the budget wrangling were made on the same five-hour recording in which Ms. Raitt called the medical isotope crisis “sexy” and criticized her cabinet colleague, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, which has led to a media storm in Ottawa.
The Chronicle Herald went to Nova Scotia Supreme Court on Monday to fight an emergency injunction that would have blocked publication of the stories that came from the recorder.
After refusing to apologize on Tuesday under opposition pressure, Ms. Raitt did tearfully apologize for her remarks in a news conference in Ottawa on Wednesday, making reference to the toll cancer has taken in her own family.
If the allegations are true that Mr. Prentice made a backroom with the oil industry, this brings into question his competence and integrity, not to mention the integrity of the oil industry. I wonder what the old Reformers are thinking?
In the light of day, I kind of feel sorry for her. I mean many of us have said things that could prove to be embarrassing if taped.
But she is an elected official and cabinet minister of an important portfolio during a national crisis. We need to know if she's up for the job, and it's pretty clear that she's not.
I suspect that over the next week or so we'll learn a lot more of how she privately feels about her colleagues and the Party. Apparently there is even a criticism of Stephen Harper. Yikes!
Sadly though I think the sensationalism of this five hour tape is clouding the real issue.
The isotope shortage. While Raitt says she looks forward to getting credit for fixing the crisis, it's pretty clear that she has no idea how to do that.
Yesterday, Ms. Raitt "told the House of Commons that international producers of medical isotopes in the Netherlands, Australia and South Africa will be able to increase their supply to compensate for the amount no longer coming out of Chalk River. However, this is not true:
"... the Liberals have pointed out that extended shutdowns are planned for the Dutch reactor, the Australian reactor is not yet in operation and was not built to supply the international market, and the South African reactor is not large enough to make up the shortfall." That's what we need to focus on here. She clearly does not have a handle on the situation or she would know that. Also she has announced that we will be selling Chalk River and that the buyer will not have to commit to producing isotopes.
Now I know all opposition parties are capitalizing on the scandal, but let's not forget the recent Ruby Dhallah affair, which had nothing at all to do with how she did her job. However, she resigned for the good of her Party until it got sorted out.
I really liked Michael Ignatieff's response to Harper's accusation that he was using this as political opportunism. "The cheapest politics there is, is to call a crisis a career opportunity". Zing.
If I was a religious person, I'd say that God was punishing him for un-Christian behaviour .... I'm just saying.
However, it should make him realize that exploiting tapes, or writings, is bad politics. When his own 1997 speech to an American neo-conservative think-tank surfaced, he defended his words by saying that they were given when he was a private citizen. Yet the tape he is currently using of Mr. Ignatieff is from 1994 when he was a journalist, and a PRIVATE CITIZEN!
Two sets of rules obviously.
For Lisa Raitt, she has to remember that perception is everything. Many of us hate the whole 'tape' thing, but she's become Canada's Paris Hilton, and I doubt that the National Enquirer style delving into her private conversation will end anytime soon.
Hopefully, it will die down soon so we can get back to the things that really matter. Like how much hair gel does Gary Lunn really use and where did Rhona Ambrose get those shoes ....
When it was determined that Stephen Harper had plagiarized a John Howard speech in 2003, the speechwriter Owen Lippert* tendered his resignation.
John Baird is notorious for 
