Back to the Future?

No matter what your opinion of former PM Paul Martin is, his passion for Aboriginal Affairs in this country cannot be disputed.

I watched him, (with Ralph Goodale and Andy Scott), testify at a Senate committee this morning. It was fascinating to look back at the Kelowna Accord and realise the damage that has been done by the Con's having scrapped it.

In fact it reminded me of just how much damage this government really has done to the country over the past 2 years, but that's another post.

Today, I read this and after having seen Paul Martin speak to the issue versus what I read, it's clear that the current government has now drifted beyond hypocrisy and if there is a word for that outside of liar, I'd be happy to use it.

What was really striking in Martin's comments was the comparison of what the Con's propose in terms of expenditure between 2006-2010 and what Kelowna would have accomplished. I'll keep it to education, which in my view is maybe the most important component. Kelowna, working with the provinces and territories, allocated 1 billion, 251 million. The Con's? 171 million. Can you see the difference?

It's striking to me that those who rail against the Kelowna Accord do not understand how much of a step forward it was. It put power into the hands of leaders who had a vested interest in moving forward. They were part of the process and made commitments. Imagine that. We gave the stakeholders a voice. What our current government has done is go back in time to the old 'we know best' system that undoubtedly is causing problems. They have a ton of announcements, but really they are still the director and therefore countenance discrimination.

Here's the vid if you haven't seen it. Charlie's heart is in the right place, but he conveniently omits that the NDP voted the Accord down. You'll notice that kid's had been promised schools for 8 years, then they finally had hope. He fails to include why. Kelowna was the hope.



For the record. Jim Prentice, the first Con Minister on this file was at the Kelowna signing. He agreed with it.

I wonder why he was moved to another file?

Tearing a Page from Harper's Book

So Premier Wall has decided to sue Canadian Press for their headline of the story they ran on him and his participation in the now infamous video.

I'm surprised they aren't suing the NDP, but perhaps we should just give that time, given this is the headline that has Wall upset.

"Tape with Sask premier and Tory MP has racist, sexist, homophobic comments: NDP."

Now I'm no expert on headline writing and guidelines, but it looks to me that they were printing a quote made by the NDP. If that's not the case, all it says is that the premier was on a tape that contained sexist, homophobic and racist comments.

Anyway, it strikes me as odd and I wonder if it's a trend that Harper has now begun in this country.

I wonder if Ezra will defend Canadian Press on this?

Update - Ooops, nevermind.

Sincere Apology but Still no Honest Answer

True remorse is never just a regret over consequence; it is a regret over motive.

Mignon McLaughlin

I've noticed many bloggers suggesting today that some of us are being too hard on Mr. Lukiwski. Some suggest that it was a different time in 1991, that people thought differently about gays and AID's back then. They suggest that because it was 16 years ago (a very long time apparently!), that we the public should not take his comments in the context of today's standards.

Well, I don't know where you all lived in 1991, but I can tell you that I certainly didn't know or associate with anyone who used that kind of language, either in jest or seriously.

Some statements I've read seem to be confusing 1991 with the 1970's. By 1991, while things were still not perfect, societal attitudes certainly weren't at the level demonstrated by Lukiwski, at least not in the mainstream. And certainly, the myth's about AID's were be debunked. We were wearing red ribbons as a symbol of the fight against AID's. Magic Johnson had declared that he was HIV positive and began a career to raise awareness and prevention.

So, I'm sorry, I do not buy the allowances being afforded this man. I believe that he was contrite and his apology was heartfelt, but he continues to say that he has never held such views. Well as someone who truly has never held such views, I can promise you that it has never entered my mind to utter such things.

That said, I still think the government is wrong to keep him in his position of Parliamentary Secretary to the government House Leader. Should he be thrown out of caucus? Maybe not.

Perhaps he stays and the people will decide his fate during the next election.

More info. You decide.

Which Comments Are True?

After being exposed as having made some pretty disgusting remarks about gays 16 years ago, Tom Lukiwski, apologised and said:

“I have no prejudice against gay people whatsoever. Those comments do not reflect the type of person I am.”

Really? I understand why he would say that today and I give him credit for apologising, but how do you utter such vile comments unless you believe them?

Something else came to light in House today. Apparently, another Con MP, Art Hanger I think, (of running out of committee fame), correlated an increase in crime with an increase of immigrants. I think this was in 2001, but I'll get the exact wording when Hansard is available.

The intolerance that some Con's were known for has been fairly well hidden since they took office. We know that Harper has kept most of his party on a short leash precisely so this kind of thing and true policy positions do not destroy the illusion that they have worked so diligently to create. Even journalists have suggested that the party had become moderate, moved to the left and had no hidden agenda.

Well, something tells me it's going to get a bit tougher for them to defend their new immigration policy, their proposed censorship policy, not to mention the private members bill that designates that a fetus is a person under the law.

No doubt the Harper apologists will be out in full force defending this. I'm sure they will suggest it's no big deal because it was 16 years ago.

Somehow I do not think that will wash. He's been with the party a long time and actually replaced a member of the party who was dropped from caucus for similar homophobic remarks.

The incumbent, Larry Spencer, was a member of the Canadian Alliance caucus but was dropped by the party after he told a reporter in 2003 that homosexuality should be outlawed and that a conspiracy is responsible for the successes of the gay rights movement.

Sorry, history counts when you are elected MP.


The transcript

Update: Sandra Buckler has commented. The net of her statement is that Lukiwski has apologised. Next!

Dream on Buckler. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the irony of her surname?

Climbing Down? Changing the Channel?

Like many of you, I expect, I was surprised to see Jean-Pierre Blackburn's comments this morning on re-opening the Constitution.

The Harper government is telling Quebec that if the Conservatives win a majority in the next election, they will look to reopen the Constitution and give more meaning to their recognition of Quebeckers as a nation.

First of all, I wouldn't use the term government in that sentence. Instead I'd use the Harper Conservative Party, because this has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with politics.

What is it with Conservatives? Do they not read our history? It's obvious that they do read polls and I'm sure that is what prompted this idiotic move. I have no doubt that the Con's looked at the recent Crop poll and Blackburn thought it would be wise to jump now and dangle something in front of Quebeckers.

How incredibly stupid! Who talks about opening the Constitution, even in innuendo, if they have nothing tangible to offer, in the year 2008? Being in full time campaign mode I suppose lends itself to serious stupidity.

Just one more example of how dangerous this party is, imo.

I know that Blackburn is now backing down from his comments, no doubt being told by the PMO to put the genie back in the bottle. But, do you really think that the Bloq is now just going to shut up about this?

That is one reason why this notion, overall, is so ill conceived. No matter how much you give the Bloq, they want more. How's that, Quebec as a Nation, thing working out so far? It didn't satisfy them for one day.

To those who believe this is just an off the cuff remark without a plan to support it, albeit a plan that has yet to be revealed, think again.

Michael Fortier at the Liberal convention said, 'we're delighted that Dion won because he's such a hated federalist'.

Perfect! We have a government that is more focused on their craven needs and playing their partisan politics than they are on what is good for the country.

Aren't you surprised?

The Con's have a favourite line right now. They claim that the Lib's will only go to an election when the conditions to win are there.

Yeah, like that's a new concept on the Hill.

They are claiming that the Lib's only want power and aren't interested in what is good for the country and Canadians.

Talk about projecting!