Roy Green: Separatists’ winning conditions recede with Bloc tide | Full Comment | National Post

How about a word for Quebecers who utterly destroyed the party, the man and perhaps the myth.

Sovereigntists scoffed when their former leader Lucien Bouchard declared last year there would be no “yes” vote for Quebec separation from Canada in his lifetime. Bouchard immediately was declared irrelevant by PQ and BQ supporters. 40%+ in Quebec could invariably be counted on to declare for the “Quebec nation”. Reaching that one vote beyond the necessary 50% “le prochain fois” and lowering the Canadian flag for the last time was really merely a matter of proper timing and “winning conditions”.

By Roy Green - from the National Post

On Monday Quebecers endorsed Lucien Bouchard’s viewpoint more than the Jack Layton road map. Certainly the NDP’s socialist approach resonates in a province predisposed to left-leaning philosophy, but Quebecers didn’t need to elect Jack Layton and a slate of caucus members he can’t yet identify without name tags for that. Quebecers had their 20-year champions of “l’affairs Quebecois” — the BQ and its taciturn and seemingly undefeatable boss Gilles Duceppe in place and prepared to return to Ottawa. Read more...

Roy Green: Separatists’ winning conditions recede with Bloc tide | Full Comment | National Post

Election Day Cometh

So it finally comes - Election day 2011, the day of the 41st General Election in Canadian history.  After starting off with a whimper, looking like it was a Question of a small Conservative majority or a return to the ante electione status quo, a political earthquake appeared to take place (according to polls), this election has turned into something of a horse race, for lack of a better metaphor.

Right now, the polls are open, Canadians are voting, and we don't know what will happen.  Until 9:30 PM EDT,  NDP leader Jack Layton's dreams of 24 Sussex Drive on the shoulders of the other opposition leaders live on in the candy-coloured (think red smarties) lands of his imagination.  Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe can tell himself the feelings of impending doom are nothing but the dim memories of a bad dream.  And Green leader Lizzy May can tell herself she will in a few hours she will be leader of a party with as many seats as an independent.

Liberal and Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff can tell himself that forcing this election wasn't such a bad idea, and won't necessarily lead to the annihilation of his party and political career.  Prime Minister and Conservative leader Stephen Harper can imagine the possibilities of helming a majority government.  These dreams may or may not come true, but until 9:30 PM tonight, the possibilities are myriad.

So let your dreams run wild, political leaders, for some time tonight, at least some of you are in for a most rude awakening.

Jack Layton, On Why Residents of Quebec Are More Important Than Other Canadians.

Believe in democracy as the idea of "one person, one vote", and that this is a sacrosanct part of Canadian government?  Jack Layton doesn't.  Consider this exchange from his interview with the Globe and Mail's editorial board:

Mr. Geiger: We have a couple of questions from readers. I just received a Tweet from Caroline Hayward. She’s asking, Do you support additional seats for Ontario and Western Canada? You favour abolition of the Senate, which is one way in our parliamentary system that regional voices can be aired. If you are going to do that don’t you need to have better representation in the rep by pop chamber, which required reform of the house?

Mr. Layton: Yes we do support more seats for Ontario and Alberta and British Columbia. We also support retaining the current weight of Quebec in the seat calculation and we think it is possible to find our way to both of those objectives.

You mentioned the Senate. Imagine appointing candidates to the Senate, Members of Parliament who were defeated by the people of their region, and then you put them in the Senate. This to me completely undermines any argument that the Senate constitutes regional representation.

I clearly am very unhappy with what is happening with the Senate. The Senate has now become an activist entity. Overruling decisions that have been made by the elected house of commons. Other countries would not tolerate this and yet we somehow find it acceptable.

Mr. Geiger: If you have more seats to western Canada and Ontario, how do you maintain that historic balance with Quebec? They either get proportionally more seats or they don’t. Are you suggesting that all regions get more seats?

Mr. Layton: There would be additional seats allocated in Quebec as well.

Mr. Geiger: Even though it is not justified by population?

Mr. Layton: Well it justified by the historic political weight of Quebec in the federation. There is a solution that can be found here. It’s not an easy thing to do but it is one that we need to work for.

But we absolutely support additional seats for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. They are under represented at the moment and that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Stackhouse: And more seats for Quebec?

Mr. Layton: There would be an adjustment vis a vis quebec.

Mr. Geiger: So in other words, they wouldn’t have proportionally more seats.

Mr. Layton: Yes they would. Well, they would have more seats. Significantly more.

Mr. Geiger: But not proportionately more?

Mr. Layton: Well, it would begin to redress the very significant dis-proportionality we see.

In Canada we have a representative democracy, based on the idea that a given number of Canadians are grouped together in ridings to be represented by one Member of Parliament in our government. While the reality has always been that some ridings are more or less populous than the ideal, the objective has always been a basic level of equality.

But as the populations of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario continue to grow at a much faster rate than those of the other provinces, if seats in the House of Commons aren't redistributed to reflect this, or more added for those three provinces (and to others if similarly necessary) we run the risk of the ideal of "one person, one vote" becoming nothing more than a memory.

This is what Jack Layton has proposed.  He would guarantee Quebec's current percentage of seats in the commons in perpetuity, regardless of it's population relative to other jurisdictions.  So Quebec, which now has 75 seats, or just over 24% of the seats in the Commons, and is over-represented relative to ON, AB, and BC already (ON has 106 seats, AB 28, BC 36 - and based on even distribution, QC would have 68) would be locked in at that percentage.  Even if down the road Quebec's population were to merit only 20% or less of the seats in the House, they would still be guaranteed 24%.

Now, you ask, are there not other provinces much more over-represented than Quebec?  Yes - the only provinces NOT over-represented are, in fact, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.  But with an adjustment to the number of seats, this can be dealt with.  No province is guaranteed a fixed percentage of the seats in the House of Commons in perpetuity.  Yet.  Layton, in his quest for votes, is bribing Quebec with the promise of just such a guaranteed percentage.  This means that, as Quebec's share of Canada's population continues to shrink (projected to drop to 21% by 2026, with Ontario rising to 41% from the current 38.5%) the three currently under-represented provinces will see themselves even further discriminated against. As other provinces grow, this could become an issue for them as well.

The roots of the term democracy lay in the Greek demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning power.  It is understood that the first examples of Athenian democracy were a literal  gathering of all citizens (not including slaves, women, etc - it was not an overly egalitarian society, to say the least).  Today, we realize a gathering of every Canadian of voting age in one place would be difficult, to say the least, and so we have a representative democracy.  This means the country is supposed to be divided into equally populated areas, each of which sends a representative to Ottawa.  While we don't in effect have this now, for a variety of (basically constitutional) reasons, the growth of the nations population, or the ability to add seats to the Commons, means we could see this problem eventually disappear.


But not if Quebec is guaranteed a permanent 24% of all seats in the House of Commons.  If we do, Canadian citizens outside of Quebec will have a new name.  Second class.

* - in particular those in Prince Edward Island (due to a constitutional requirement that no province have fewer MPs than Senators) and the north are underpopulated, while many urban ridings are overpopulated

Jack Layton, on the record - The Globe and Mail

Stephen Taylor – a blog on Canadian politics » Transcript of NDP conference call

I think it is important, as the election draws near, that the willingness of the NDP to act not in accordance with what's best for the people of Canada, but rather to seek what's best for them and their big labour cronies, and the other interest groups which drive the NDP forward. They care not for the little guy who is concerned about union dues being used for political purposes, or the new guy just hired, or the small and medium sized businessperson trying to create jobs for Canadian workers. They care about lining the pockets of their special interest supporters with taxpayer dollars.

In light of that, I will post here part of the transcript from an NDP meeting which took place as the Coalition sought to hijack the House of Commons.

Jack (Layton): Thank you very much, uh, keep the myth alive that I’m exhausted and working incredibly hard (laughter) I appreciate you relaying that, I was asleep by ten o’clock last night, and had a very good night, a very good sleep, and that was my Friday night. So, an update on where we are, the, uh, we’re in the middle of a very historic time, and we’re playing a key role in it, in some ways a catalytic role actually, because as we think back, we’ll realize that nobody really imagined that it would be possible for the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal party of Canada ever to enter into any kind of a discussion around the future of the country and it turned out that we were the glue, and spotted and prepared for the opportunity, and had taken the steps that were required so that when that opportunity arose, which was when Mr. Harper made his disastrous strategic error, by not providing stimulus to the economy, and instead playing political games, we were able to move, and things began to move very quickly, however, many obstacles remain in our way, and so we’re in a real battle now. The negotiating process, I am, by the way in very very regular touch with the leader of the Liberal party, and the leader of the Bloc, frequently every day. At the same time, negotiation processes are underway, and in fact as we speak, our negotiating team that I’ve named to meet with the Liberal negotiating team are discussing the mechanics of a coalition government, and the form that it would take, the structure of cabinet, the way in which the logistics of a coalition government with the Liberals and the New Democrats would work, the key roles, and dispute resolution mechanisms, timelines, et cetera.

05:23 -
All of the logistics issues that you would expect would be a part of such a discussion are being negotiated now we hope that that part of the negotiations would be completed today. Our negotiating team consists of Brian Topp, who negotiated as a senior member of the Romano team in Saskatchewan, negotiating a similar coalition with the Liberal party there, and of course you know Brian is our campaign co-chair director. Ann McGrath, in her chief of staff role, she’s also wearing the president of the party hat still, and so she’s got several hats on at the moment. Ed Broadbent, Alan Blakely, Dawn Black, as a member of caucus I’ve selected to participate in this process, someone that I happen to know is also respected and trusted by key Liberals, Tom Mulcair, as our Quebec lieutenant, and Carl Belanger. Tom and Carl are the negotiating team with the Bloc team, and Brian and Dawn Black are negotiating with the Liberal team. We’re starting with two party talks, this will resolve itself into a tripartite conversation before the weekend is up, and the goal is to produce by the end of the weekend, an agreement on the machinery of the coalition, which would be signed off, particularly by the NDP and Liberals, but endorsed by the Bloc, and an agreement on policy program for the coalition, that would have three party agreement. I can’t go into the details on all of this stuff, particularly the machinery, but it’s in the process of negotiation, and we could consume an awful lot of time speculating about it, so I don’t propose that we spend that time today on this particular matter of question. But instead, there’s a golden opportunity today, for you to provide input on the policy matters, you can be assured that we have looked at our program, we’ve looked at our platform, we’ve looked at what I’ve been saying about economic stimulus, we’ve been in close consultations with the leadership of the labour movement around some of their key ideas and they’ve been providing terrific support, including at a high-level early morning meeting this morning, so much of what you would have want to see, it’s probably already there, you’ll hear a bit more about it later, but there’s an opportunity to touch base with all of you, because in the end, you’re going to be intimately a part of the delivery of all of this, and so that’s why we’re having this meeting at this point in time.
08:32 -
Jack: I made a list Judy, so I’ll take a whack and you’ll say if I’ve missed any…
Judy: Ya. Meetings, confidentiality, what can be said. Go ahead.
Jack: First, do MP’s have to be in Ottawa until we have a better sense of the potential confidence motion stakes. You have to remain agile. And with Ottawa being the base. Uh, and so when you’re organising your community meetings make sure there’s a speaker phone facility, or a webcam. Secondly, I believe that we should get immediately into the driver’s seats on organizing these community meetings, you have people who worked on your campaign who are exactly the kind of people, whether in labour movements, labour councils, uh, childcare groups, environmental groups, these are people that need to be pulled together. You get them together, and then they’ll take it from there, it doesn’t have to be your meeting, it shouldn’t be your meeting, but of course you’ll be there as the MP, and you’re part of the coalition, and you’re consulting with the community to make sure they’re open, so if anyone wants to come and protest and say it’s a bad idea, be there to make a real news event out of it, the youth comes with the emotion in favour of the coalition and an action plan coming from Thursday night, particularly focused on the weekend, with petitioning, and phone in shows, and god knows what else, a letter writing, one of the goals here is to of course, recruit as many names, addresses, emails, phone numbers as possibly can, because this coalition will need the support of these people, and then we will need their support when we get an election. Now, will there be an independent NDP caucus, yes. BQ stability issues, worry about BQ potentially being off-side, we’re taking that very much into account. We have numerous strategies designed to deal with it, I actually believe they’re the least of our problems, but in case I’m wrong, let’s just say we have strategies, this whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn’t have been made with the Bloc to lock them in early, because you couldn’t put three people together in one, in three hours. The first part was done a long time ago, I won’t go into details, and the managing expectations, lists from groups, actually, the wisest people in the groups are already coming to the conclusion, some of them are in direct contact, saying probably wouldn’t be too helpful if we had long lists of stuff, right? What we really want is just to get Harper out and get the new group in because it’s going to be a hell of a lot better for everything we believe in, correct? Correct. So let’s stay on that track, and not start debating whether or not it’s twenty five percent change or fifteen percent change over here, let’s get them out, on the basis of unity not the basis of division. Somebody asked about Bill Casey, absolutely, in the game, uh, on confidentiality, we now have to get out and defend the idea of the coalition. This is not a secret that it’s been discussed, the various elements that are in it, you can say it’s all about getting the economy going, and transforming the economy for the twenty first century, use everything that you’ve seen in my speeches up until now, that you’ve all been using so well particularly when I’ve seen you on panels, and by the way, our team on panels, everybody, staff and MPs, rocking, absolutely rocking doing us proud, so yes, there is a coalition, we’re fighting for it, we’re trying to make it happen, we think it’s a good idea for Canada, the majority of Canadians voted to go in a different direction than Harper’s taking us, you can’t trust him, no matter anything, throw him out. What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it? He was given a minority, and he refused to work with the other parties, he had 38% of the vote and he’s trying to govern like he had 100% of the power, he’s the one who’s got democracy wrong, not us. So do not be defensive, to work among what we are doing is to give effect to the wishes of the majority of Canadians, have no doubt about that. The coalition for Canada, I love the idea, it could be a deal-breaker for the Bloc (laughter) so if we don’t go, we call it “The Coalition for Canada and Quebec,” (lots of laughter). Well, welcome to the real world of….that’s not funny
Jack: And let me come to, I know it’s complicated, so let’s just be wise about how we put this thing together. I think that there were many good comments that were developed from this, right from Aboriginal, which was on our mind, right through to many of these other suggestions and we will do our very best to put this together. And I’ll just say one other thing about the issue of the Bloc: nothing could be better for our country, than to have the fifty members who’ve been elected to separate Quebec to actually helping to make Canada a better place. I think we just approach it on that basis, and say we’re willing to make Canada happen, here’s other things that we’re going to be investing in and transforming together, they’re willing to work with us, we’ll accept that offer. What will be important to point out is that this will be an NDP-Liberal coalition, which is supported by the Bloc, with policy ideas that the coalition is bringing forward. Okay? And that’s going to be helpful to you in your dealing with those that have concerns, because they, you can see where Harper’s going here, he’s going to say it’s the socialists and the separatists and the opportunists getting together. You know? Those are their talking points, and so we just need to push back. I want to thank everybody for the input, I would get going this weekend on getting groups together, start talking about organizing those Thursday meetings, act as the catalyst to make it happen, and then just let it go, it’ll roar, and it’ll be very exciting. If you’re in a larger city, and there’s several of you, or if you’re in the largest city and you’re on your own, act as the catalyst anyway, chances are there’s a bunch of Liberals in the other ridings on whom we want pressure placed, as I mentioned at the outset of the conversation. I guess we’re at the end.
Judy: I just want to add one thing, and that is so the major thing is here that the message we’re focused on the message, so that’s not confidential, what’s confidential is strategy, the discussion, details, the speculation about the other parties and their motivation and what they will or they won’t do, we should not talk at all about war rooms, or campaigns in that sense. We’re building, trying to create a coalition government that will be a Liberal-NDP coalition that will be supported by the Bloc and that’s the message that we want to get out, nothing about the discussions in the background, and when in doubt, call, probably Brad, and Brad on that issue and on the whole issue of the campaign, and organizing meetings, people will want to reach you quickly, what’s the best way?
Jack Harris: Judy, Jack Harris here, I know it’s a structure question, but I’m at a loss at this point to know whether we’re talking about a short-term, quick economic stimulus coalition, or are we talking about something that could last two or three years, this is kind of important in our own minds, as well because aside from economic stimulus of course, this coalition will have to govern on every part of the government, of the legislative of the -
Judy: Okay, let me ask Jack to answer that and then Brad, you give the best contact information.
Jack Layton: Longer term. Not short term...
Fore the entire transcript, follow this link: Stephen Taylor – a blog on Canadian politics » Transcript of NDP conference call

Will Layton raise your mortgage payments? - The Globe and Mail

By Andrew Steele - from the Globe and Mail

The prospect of an NDP government remains remote, but the election of an NDP government in Ontario in 1990 seemed impossible a week out as well.

The recent Angus Reid poll, showing the NDP just five points behind the Tories, raises a frightening spectre for anyone with a mortgage.

What would the election of an NDP minority government mean for interest rates?

The markets have made little movement so far, but Doug Porter with BMO Capital Markets thinks “we could see a significant shift next Monday if these polls are remotely accurate.”

Already, there is some speculation that the polls are hurting the dollar. During this morning’s rally of major currencies against the U.S. greenback, the Canadian dollar was notably sluggish.

It’s unlikely the dollar will swan dive immediately if the NDP is elected. There is still a five-cent cushion over parity, and U.S. fiscal policy, oil prices and interest rate speculation tend to be bigger drivers of the loonie’s trajectory than politics in the short term.

But some wobbling is likely over the next week, especially if the markets had already priced in a Conservative majority and tougher fiscal policy in their earlier buying decisions. Another round of polls showing continuing NDP strength will only exacerbate that uncertainty.

The real test for the economy would come with an NDP budget. Read more...

Will Layton raise your mortgage payments? - The Globe and Mail

Does NDP pose more of a threat to national unity than the Bloc? - The Globe and Mail

by Adam Radwanski - from the Globe and Mail

The obvious, instinctive reaction is to cheer for Jack Layton – if not nationally, then in the province where he’s most caught fire.

Quebeckers have long parked their votes with the Bloc Québécois – a party that by its nature has no interest in building a better country. Mr. Layton’s NDP, which has seemingly come out of nowhere to lead the Bloc in popular support, offers the prospect of more constructive representation and more thoughtful consideration of Quebec’s role within Canada.

But before getting out the pompoms, Mr. Layton’s message in recent days raises an uncomfortable question: Could the federalist party pose more of a threat to national unity than the sovereigntist one?

To create the “winning conditions” that sovereigntists have long been seeking, and that will be in demand if the Parti Québécois defeats Jean Charest’s Liberals in the next provincial election, requires a strong sense of grievance. The oui side came so close to victory in the 1995 referendum largely because of the perception that Quebec’s interests had been rejected by the rest of Canada, through the defeats of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. But as of now, there’s nothing nearly so galvanizing in play.

For sovereigntists, it’s difficult to change that on their own. The PQ plans to try, with a stridently nationalist agenda aimed at provoking Ottawa. But Bloc MPs can make no serious claim to wanting to make federalism work, so it’s hard for them to help convey and spread a sense of disillusionment. Nor can they easily entice the federal government to launch into constitutional talks, of the sort that have previously ended in heartbreak, because no prime minister would be under any illusion that he or she could make them happy.

History suggests, however, that self-identified federalists are a different story. In the 1980s, Brian Mulroney built a coalition with soft nationalists, then tried to appease them. His reward was a chunk of his caucus breaking off to form the Bloc, a gesture with much more impact than anything the party they formed could do today. Their revolt, along with the frustration of the federalist provincial government of the day, helped set in motion the near-miss in 1995.

Since then, federal governments have stepped more carefully. Jean Chrétien’s Liberals went nowhere near constitutional talks, and took the opposite tack by introducing the Clarity Act. (That they also created all kinds of bad will with the sponsorship program is a different matter.) Paul Martin was more ambiguous – making former Bloc MP Jean Lapierre his Quebec lieutenant, and embracing “asymmetrical federalism” in a way Mr. Chrétien didn’t. But after dabbling with soft nationalism – giving the Québécois a “nation within Canada” designation, and engaging in a flirtation with Mario Dumont’s Action Démocratique du Québec – Stephen Harper has shifted back a little closer to where Mr. Chrétien was.

It remains highly unlikely that Mr. Layton will lead the government after May 2, but seat gains in Quebec and elsewhere could give him a big hand in shaping it. So it bears noting that there are a few shades of Mr. Mulroney’s approach in what he’s doing to win over Quebec.

The NDP has long had a commitment to provincial autonomy for Quebec that seems at odds with its interventionist message in the rest of the country. But Mr. Layton isn’t just promising not to impose federal programs. He backs extending Bill 101, Quebec’s controversial language legislation, into federally regulated workplaces. He is non-committal on the Clarity Act. He doesn’t want to add more seats in the House of Commons for underrepresented provinces such as Ontario and Alberta, without also adding more seats for Quebec so that it remains overrepresented. Read more...

Does NDP pose more of a threat to national unity than the Bloc? - The Globe and Mail

Hébert: Why Gilles Duceppe has overstayed his welcome - thestar.com

By Chantal Hébert - from the Toronto Star

Danny Williams had it. So did Lucien Bouchard. It turns out that Gilles Duceppe did not.  When it comes to their exit from the political scene, few successful leaders have a reliable sense of timing.  Intoxicated by repeated victories, many end up staying past their prime and taking their party an election bridge too far.

On that score, the former premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec are notable exceptions. Perhaps because they had more fire in the belly to begin with and little natural inclination to fade gently into the night, Williams and Bouchard had the instinct to bow out before they had exhausted their welcome.

Duceppe, on the other hand, has missed his cue. Over the past four weeks, he has been finding out the hard way that his deal with Quebecers was not open ended after all.  Even leaders who never have to wear the scratch of a single unpopular decision ultimately exhibit corrosion from the passage of time.

For the best part of the last year, the Bloc and its leader have been on a lengthy 20th anniversary celebration. In hindsight, that celebration was ill-advised. Read more...

Hébert: Why Gilles Duceppe has overstayed his welcome - thestar.com

Sand in the Shorts: Seniors Behaving Badly

This column appeared in Saturday's (April 23rd, 2011) Intelligencer


On Wednesday night, the second “All-Candidates” meeting in the riding took place at Loyalist College. You may have noted I put quotation marks around All-Candidates. I put these in quite deliberately, as the machinations of the lobby group Canadian Association of Retired Persons led to it being a “Some-Candidates” meeting, and an ambush attempt at questioning the candidates by organizer Mary Robertson ended the night poorly.

All-candidates events are often hosted by interested groups of voters, sometimes with distinct opinions or agendas, and who seek answers to specific questions. So the idea that the questions asked at such an event might hit harder at one party or candidate is not surprising or unexpected. But what happened last night was altogether different.

While there were some ignoramus' hollering from the crowd at Daryl Kramp, the machinations of CARP stood out as marking an odd nadir in the recent history of local politics, because this group deliberately sought to exclude two candidates from an all-candidates meeting. When Tim Hickey, an independent candidate, called Tuesday to confirm his participation with Ken Prue of the Brighton-Belleville-Quinte West chapter of CARP, all seemed fine. But on the day of the event itself, he was told only the major parties (NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and, in a significant promotion, Green) would be involved. Only with some argument was Hickey able to participate.

Maybe it's an old-fashioned idea, but it seems to me that if one is going to call an event an “all-candidates meeting”, all the candidates for the riding should be invited and allowed to participate. But with the attempt to exclude Hickey, and the lack of an invitation to Progressive Canadian Party candidate Andrew Skinner, this was anything but an all-candidates forum, which was a disservice to those who came hoping to hear all of the candidates comment on how they see, and would attempt to deal with, the issues facing seniors and other Canadians today.

As if this wasn't enough in the category of strange machinations on the part of CARP, though, they then decided to spring an ambush on the candidates in the form of a “rapid fire” question and answer session to conclude the evening. This would involve local CARP board member Mary Robertson throwing questions at the candidates with responses limited to “yes” or “no”. Daryl Kramp and Peter Tinsley both objected to this, stating they couldn't give a simplistic answer for potentially complex issues. This should have been a “no brainer”, as the saying goes, because if politics were about simple answers, the issues faced at each election, and between elections, wouldn't need such thorough debate.

Ms. Robertson, when asked if she thought Kramp and Tinsley's objection to the format was reasonable, answered, “not really”, stating that the candidates also could have just said pass if they couldn't answer in the required manner. This, though, would have given the advantage to the candidates for parties with little chance of election. If the odds of victory are slim, one can promise the moon without fear of being called upon to fulfill that commitment.

She also mentioned the format was accepted the night before at a similar meeting in Quinte-Northumberland riding, and that it was well received by the crowd there. While I am sure the crowd at Loyalist would have liked the format, the matter of it's previous acceptance by candidates of another riding is irrelevant. If she wanted the format in so badly, it should have been in the proposal.

This and that: With just over a week left in the election, there are hints starting to appear in some polls that disaster may be nigh for the Liberals. With a new poll putting the NDP in the lead in Quebec, ahead of the Bloc, there is a question if some “blue-dog” (centre/centre-right) Grit voters may move their vote to the Conservatives. The blog “Sort of Political” suggests this may lead to a gain of 9 new seats for the Tories in La Belle Province. Regardless, a re-engagement of Quebec voters in the House by way of a rejection of the Bloc Quebecois can only be seen as good news for Canada.