Layton's NDP rocketing in Quebec: CROP poll

It was only days ago that the NDP soundly crested the 20 percent national hurdle, now another poll is showing monumental growth for the party in Quebec.

At 17 percent, Jack Layton’s NDP has registered an earth-shattering nine-point jump over 2006 (and stratospherically above the mere two percent the party got in 2000). The NDP now stands within 10 points of the Conservatives and a mere 3 of the Dion Liberals.

And while it’s totally premature to translate this into prospective seats, consider for a moment what a change in the Quebec electoral dynamic can actually turn into. Based on a deep desire for change in the province, the ADQ in the last provincial election rode a bewildering wave gaining 37 new seats with only a 12 percent increase in the popular vote.

When asked the following day, most ADQ voters said they had voted for change, not the rightist platform of Mario Dumont. Based on the CROP numbers, Layton's NDP, whose policies actually resonate centre-left Quebecers, could reasonably hope to do very well in the province.

Over to you, Elizabeth Thompson …

“Not only does the NDP continue its inexorable rise in Quebec, it is now more popular than the Liberals among francophones … The one guy who's probably smiling this morning is Jack Layton. From the moment the Hudson, Quebec native became NDP leader he has quietly invested a lot of time, energy and resources in a province the party had written off for years.”

The Canadian Nixon

Political observers will recall the devastating “stickiness” that the nickname “Mr. Dithers” had on Paul Martin when it was put on him in the pages of the venerable British magazine The Economist back in 2005.

Is it too much to hope that the same adhesiveness comes with this moniker for Stephen Harper in the UK’s Guardian newspaper?

"The historian Garry Wills once observed that Richard Nixon wanted to be president not to govern the nation but to undermine the government. "

Two years later: The strange disappearance of Gerard Kennedy

If you are among the millions of centre-lefties exasperated by the Conservative government and the Liberal “strategy” of keeping them ensconced in 24 Sussex by abstaining or administering oxygen to his agenda by voting with Harper, there is someone you might consider heaping a large part of the blame upon.

Oddly, it’s someone you may not have even thought of in a while. And someone who through a series of bad choices, some are saying, has all but buried his brief affair with federal politics.

It was precisely two years ago today that Ontario’s then education minister announced his candidacy to succeed Paul Martin as Liberal leader. Gerard Kennedy entered the race with astronomical expectations; remarkable for a party who by sheer force of narcissism and hubris routinely transform the mundane into the monumental.

At times appearing to take more inspiration from his legendary namesake than from the actual candidate, supporters claimed that Kennedy would attract droves of young people to the party; revitalize its atrophied left; and by virtue of his Acadian spouse, appeal to Francophones. In a party hampered by its historic lack of appeal to westerners and in a race without a credible candidate west of the Humber River, Kennedy even won converts by claiming he would run in a western constituency (confused somewhat by a similar boast made to Quebecers).

But two years later that’s all ancient history. Owing to a pact between the two men that the first off the ballot would support the other to defeat either Ignatieff or Rae, Stephane Dion is the man in charge of what remains of the Liberal Party. Today, the man Kennedy boosted into the OLO faces blistering criticism from the left for being unwilling to risk defeating a right-wing government that is irreversibly changing Canada, because he is unprepared for an election. Unable to be lost in all this, is that the man Dion rewarded with the post of preparing the party for a 2007 election was Gerard Kennedy.

In any other party, the king-maker is treated to generous riches and a higher profile. In the Liberal Party, Kennedy appears to have been black-listed by the party elite. He could have been the first of the four seat-less leadership aspirants in the House had he been encouraged to run in the 2006 London by-election. Instead, Kennedy is now the only one not in Ottawa and even the most recent of Kennedy’s “current events” on his website are almost a year old.

In recent days, media have noticed and begun wondering aloud about Kennedy’s strange disappearance.

But along with his cushy gig toiling in the mahogany and exam-sweat infused halls of Ryerson University, Kennedy appears every bit a man who has settled into certain realities. The first of which is that his ploy to help Dion win has left him unloved by the party establishment in the Senate who would have much preferred Michael Ignatieff or Today's Bob Rae to the Professor. The second is that Dion will never be prime minister meaning that the next leadership race will be a pathetically personal settling of scores between two college roommates. The third, as noted this week in NOW magazine, is that Kennedy can’t even count on winning election in his old provincial riding of Parkdale-High Park against the popular and accomplished NDP industry critic Peggy Nash who took Harper on over the US sale of Canadian satellite technology and won.

From provincial cabinet minister with premier potential to being the target of media search parties, Kennedy has fallen a long way in two years. A column in the Toronto Star may have summed it up best:

“Maybe it was more than Gerard Kennedy could handle, too. Maybe he vanished up his own cosmic aberration. Maybe when you single-handedly create the first Liberal leader who might not make it into the history books, you're destined to go pffft before he does.”

Conservatives tumble, NDP breaks 20 percent support

Jack Layton and the NDP are starting to see dividends from their strategy of taking on Harper over issues that impact ordinary people's lives like high gas prices and cell phone charges, and consistently being the country’s number one Harper fighter.

Today’s Toronto Star contains two examples.

The first is an Angus Reid poll commissioned by the Star which shows Conservative support tumbling three points in the last month, while NDP support has soared to the historic level of 20 percent – matching the 1988 election result which saw the party net 43 seats under Ed Broadbent.

Some of the regional breaks are also remarkable, including a strong showing of 19 in Ontario, 17 in Quebec, and in Manitoba and Saskatchewan where Layton leads with an incredible 46 percent of the vote. Even factoring the margin of error for the small prairie sample, the NDP still leads the Conservatives in the heart of the country.

But because polls are just polls, the other piece of good news for New Democrats is this story showing that Layton's pragmatic and principled opposition is being seen as the real force to beat Harper’s agenda -- resulting in tangible benefits in terms of increased NDP memberships, fundraising and momentum.

Political scientist Paul Nesbitt-Larking said Liberal decisions to abstain on high-profile issues has given the NDP room to present themselves "as the true opposition."

Liberal Party? Your recent past is on line one.

The one virtue that has never concerned Liberals is consistency. In recent months alone, the Dion Liberals have flip-flopped on the war in Afghanistan, on "the breakthrough bill" to fight climate change and on gutting the fiscal capacity of the country to respond to the coming economic downturn. They are even helping Harper put an end to the impartiality of our immigration system.

As the old joke goes, on any issue, Liberals have a strong position, and if you don't like that one, stick around - 'cause they've got a whole bunch more.

But now that the Conservatives are in an ethical morass with the RCMP raid looking into their 2006 election spending, Liberals are hoping people will consider them an ethical party once more.

Problem is, Canadians haven't forgotten about the Sponsorship scandal, and aren't about to either.

Because while it's one thing to change what you stand for like the winds, it's quite another to change what you have already done.

The one where Paul Wells says what we are all thinking

Sometimes it happens. And this is one of those times.

Paul Wells has said what we've all been thinking -- this time dismissing Elizabeth May's role as Stephane Dion's "auxiliary backup party leader".

With honesty simultaneously refreshing and exclamation-mark-rich, the Inkless one intones: "THE GREEN PARTY OF CANADA HAS NO SEATS IN PARLIAMENT!!! ... It feels unaccountably more rewarding to pay attention to people with power than to pay attention to people without power."

The Green Party, it will be recalled, has been available for comment since 1982. And yet it has historically merited barely a paragraph of press outside elections. So really, why all the attention now, pollsters, journos and pundits alike?

Is it because suddenly they have a leader whose stated raison d'etre is to have another party form a government, and another party leader become Prime Minister? Is it because Greens are inexplicably seeking common cause with the Liberal Party, and Liberals are doing the same for May - punctuated by a fatuous comparison to Barack Obama?

Treating May as an objective political actor, particularly after her most recent role, is the same as believing "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were interested in truth.

Wells puts it more bluntly, suggesting the unconvinced ask themselves if it's "really fair for the Liberal leader, who thinks the Liberal leader must at all costs be prime minister, to be joined onstage by a special auxiliary backup party leader who also thinks the Liberal leader must at all costs be prime minister."

For his part, Wells says "NO" (exclamation marks redacted).

Fixing the bi-partisan problem

It seems ages before the RCMP raided the Conservative HQ, and even before the Dion Liberals slipped a disk doing Harper’s heavy lifting on Afghanistan, climate change and the $50.5 billion in corporate tax cuts that now seem destined to push us into the abyss of deficit spending, but it wasn’t that long ago that someone put their finger on precisely what is ailing politics in Canada.

It was only two months ago that Norman Spector, columnist and erstwhile top-Tory in Brian Mulroney’s PMO, speaking before the House ethics committee on the Schreiber scandal-de-jour, said:

“Around the end of Mr. Mulroney's second term, Canada was rated the fifth least corrupt country by Transparency International. When Mr. Chrétien left office we were twelfth. At the end of the Paul Martin interregnum we were fourteenth, which means that this town has a bipartisan problem.”

Spector’s diagnosis is simple: over the past 20 years, politics has become a grinding cycle of Conservative scandal and Liberal scandal and repeat. Why? Because Canadian politics has become a grinding cycle of Conservative and Liberal governments.

Despite their alleged differences on policy (a diminished roster considering the Liberal flip-flop on Afghanistan, cheerleading for corporate tax cuts, and mutual inaction on Kyoto), the Liberals and Conservatives are establishment parties who see in each other their biggest threats as well as their moral measuring sticks.

Why should Liberals not use Sponsorship money to boost their party coffers in the 1990s if the Conservatives rewarded themselves in the 1980s? And why should Conservatives not skirt the election spending rules with their own money today if the Liberals won the 1997 and 2000 elections with taxpayers' money?

Bi-partisanship in Ottawa has become a free-fall punctuated only by one side stopping to shout epithets towards the other and vow to “restore ethics and confidence in government” before resuming downward again.

If Spector’s diagnosis is uncomplicated, his prescription is equally so: give the NDP a chance. Give the one other party that can form a government that is “not centrally implicated in this problem” a turn at the wheel.

From Douglas, Lewis, Broadbent and Layton, Canadians have continually ranked the NDP high on ethical leadership. And there is good reason for that. Even before it was law, the NDP was the only party to maintain a singular ban on corporate donations. And on the Senate, party leaders and premiers could have taken the security and easy money of a seat in the unelected, unaccountable body, but on principle, none ever has.

Ottawa has a “bi-partisan problem” because of two parties who have recklessly and routinely put their interests and the goal of obtaining and retaining power ahead of anyone or anything else.

As Spector, the former Tory admits, New Democrats are not part of this problem. Perhaps its time they were considered the solution.

Police arrest Liberal in relation to Sponsorship investigation

It must be hard for the RCMP to keep track of which of the Conservatives or Liberals they are pursuing from day to day.

If its Friday, it must be the Liberals ... and the $49 million or so that is still owed to Canadians from their Sponsorship scandal.

This afternoon, the former director general of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec, Benoit Corbeil was taken off the streets on charges including fraud.

Ever wonder what happened to your Sponsorship favourites? Most are right where you left them:

Jean Brault: sentenced to 30 months in jail for the five fraud charges he pleaded guilty to.
Chuck Guité: sentenced to 42 months in jail for five fraud charges.
Jean Lafleur: sentenced to 42 months in jail in addition to the time served in jail since April 3, 2007. Ordered to pay restitution of $1.56 million to the government and an additional $500 for each of 28 counts of fraud.

The trial to recover public funds from the others is scheduled to begin this fall.

Sick of Liberal and Conservative scandals giving public service a bad name? So are Jack Layton and the NDP.

UPDATE: As noted here, the arrest was related to the Sponsorship investigation, but the charges appear to be separate. Title changed to reflect that.

Short-fuse MacKay snaps under NDP questioning

The give and take of question period isn’t always enlightening. Opposition members are frequently out to embarrass the minister, with the government side trying to turn the tables.

But yesterday, defence minister Peter MacKay shocked everyone by bizarrely turning the tables to embarrass himself instead.

The questions, coming from the NDP’s Dawn Black and Catherine Bell on funding for the air force and coastal search and rescue couldn’t have been more straight forward.

And MacKay’s replies couldn’t have been more over-the-top, eschewing his minister’s briefing books to instead regurgitate frat boy epithets about “communists” and “nudists".

What is it about strong New Democrat women that turns MacKay so spiteful?

Of course, this isn’t the first time the number one customer of Pictou County Rental Dogs has stooped to indignity under questioning by a female NDP critic. It will be recalled that MacKay bellowed that Halifax MP Alexa McDonough should to “stick to her knitting” during the 2006 election.

Canada’s defence minister: a five-star frat-boy hopelessly out of his depths.

Coach Dion’s play of the week: lose our way to victory!

In Ottawa, the hockey game is officially over and the blaming game is fully on. But AM radio listeners should take note: the Senators lost because they didn’t have a strategy.

Seriously, why did the Senators work so hard on defence in the regular season? They should have pulled their goalie for every game. Heck, why have players on defence at all? It’s a waste of effort. A real strategy would be to have benched players yelling at the puck as it goes into your net again and again. That way you’ve “set a marker” for the things you will stop in the playoffs. Don’t worry about losing the support of the fans. The strategy is to lose again and again, but let fans know you’re saving the real game for sometime in the future – when you think you might have a chance at winning.

Still think this sounds like a loser strategy? That's because you aren't as smart as Coach Dion.

Take it from the Coach on last night’s Newman show. Liberals are dead against the new immigration rules, he explains, but won’t put enough players on the ice to defeat it … because they’re saving it all for the playoffs:

“Okay. We are against this budget. We are against what they're trying to do about immigration, to give to the minister abusive powers about immigration. We'll vote against unless there are changes. But we'll vote against. But that doesn't mean that an election will come in one week or two weeks. When we vote against something, we are saying to Canadians when an opportunity will come, you will know that if you vote Liberal, you vote against this bad policy and for a party able to replace it by a good policy. Because my duty is not the same than Mr. Layton. Mr. Layton may only protest. I need to replace. When we vote against, it's a marker. Now when will come an election, now it's my decision because Mr. Harper decided to have fixed dates for elections. So I have to decide it in keeping in mind the interests of Canadians to have a progressive government to replace this very right wing government. I have that in mind every day, every night. It's a responsibility that I’m carrying.”

Dion’s strategy is posited on the presumption that Canadians are going to trust his party to a “do-over” after they’ve let Harper score on them again and again. Deep down, Liberals know this is an impossible sell for Canadians, particularly those like immigrant communities who are being hurt badly by Harper’s policies.

To deflect, Dion deliberately mischaracterizes the NDP. But Layton isn't just "protesting." He and every NDP MP are laced-up and on the ice -- voting against the the Harper agenda on immigration. Voting against the budget. Voting against the war. It's called "doing what you said you would." At the end of the day, that's the first, last and only responsibility of a leader.

Score at the end of the second period: Harper: 18, The Rest of Us: 0.

Meet the new boss ...

... same as the old boss.

Fraud, deny, investigate. Repeat.

The black and white cats of Tommy Douglas' Mouseland never seemed as alive as they do right now.

The same goes for the need for real change in Ottawa.

UPDATE: Interestingly, Susan Delacourt points to yet another eerie coincidence.

Forget Dion, the Liberal Party just isn't a solution

The conventional wisdom is that the problem facing the Dion Liberals is Dion.

And why not? Stéphane Dion's now legendary indecision has hurt. His flat performances in question period have hurt. His ill-fated edicts to appoint candidates over the local riding association have hurt. Coming behind the NDP in almost every Quebec by-election has hurt. The on-again-off-again policies on everything from Afghanistan to letting sponsorship figures back in the party have hurt. And ordering his caucus to be subsumed as Stephen Harper's silent partners has hurt.

But all the moaning about leadership is hiding a deeper sickness that Jim Travers puts his finger on: renewal. In other words, the Liberal Party today hasn't changed one iota since their defeat over two years ago:

Lost in the last election's ethics and accountability noise was that a lot of voters weren't buying what Liberals were selling. Blame it on the billion dollar gun registry fiasco or public dissatisfaction with federal service delivery, but when given a choice Canadians often opted for small change in their pockets over another grand social scheme.

That's particularly problematic for a party that still believes, with considerable justification, that government remains an agent for good but has yet to brainstorm what it means to be a progressive political force in the 21st century. Liberals skipped that step in their rush to Montreal. They now find themselves with a leader who can't tell the party story Liberals have yet to write.

As has been on full display in Ottawa, the Liberal Party doesn't know what it stands for anymore. The only ideal left to guide them is a hollow longing for limousines and the perks of power.

But say, didn't Dion put someone in charge of party renewal? Yeah, he did. Too bad it was the same guy he put in charge of election readiness.

NDP stands up for immigrants, while Liberals sit down

This is just pathetic.

It’s one thing to disgracefully avoid an election you should have been ready for years ago by sitting out votes, it’s quite another to vote with Harper while he does long-term damage to Canada’s immigrants.

Liberal supporters need something to believe in again. That something is Jack Layton and the NDP.

UPDATE: It's gotten so bad the Toronto Star is even attacking the Liberal "opposition":

Harper's Monkey Wrench Gang: Another reason why it's time for an election

Jack Layton has put forward a bill to curb greenhouse gases and make governments accountable when they don’t. It’s the kind of tough-as-nails legislation we need at the federal level to get serious about the environment.

Even if they don’t agree with it, MPs should at least be debating it, right?

But they aren’t. Instead, the Conservative Monkey Wrench Gang has turned the House environment committee into a $6 million farce, filibustering Layton’s bill for eight consecutive meetings, often into the wee hours of the night.

Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions are going up. People are buying gas-guzzlers because more fuel efficient cars aren’t being built to meet demand. Big polluters aren’t being challenged to do their part. The irreversible damage of doing nothing mounts day by day.

If government MPs are only going to stall, delay and waste time and money fighting bills they don't agree with, isn't it time for an election? With each passing minute the situation worsens in the House and in the lives of everyday Canadians.

Isn't it time Canadians had their say on Harper and his Monkey Wrench Gang?

Transcript of offensive Lukiwski comments send shockwaves through Harper government

The shocking revelation of homophobic comments by Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski is sending shockwaves through two Conservative governments today.

The video, which appears to have been shot on the night of the Saskatchewan leaders' debate during the 1991 election contains a revolting exchange between Conservative Party staffers, including Lukiwski. Particularly offensive among the truly tasteless remarks, is a brazenly homophobic comment by Lukiwski.

The transcript is here:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You’re shooting whatever you got there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it okay to focus in?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It just takes a little getting used to.
TOM LUKIWSKI: Oh, where’d that come from? The company? See, the red light’s on again.
UNIDENTFIIED MALE: Yeah, it should be.
TOM LUKIWSKI: Well, it wasn’t on when you came in here. It was on and then it went off, eh.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just in case you missed the first one, life in two. Leanne –
LEANNE: Hello.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wat’cha doing?
LEANNE: I’m doing bus labels.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doing what-ee?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bus labels. Hi. What are you doing?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Getting into trouble.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Season ’91, right on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Get out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, I had it turned off.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You did not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I see the light flashing, you ass.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) doorway.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay, hang on a second. I know, we can barely – hang on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A doorway.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, come on. Who are you trying to kid? You’ve got the cap on that thing anyway.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, off, oh there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There it is. Oh, the light’s off.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Light’s on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Light’s off. Light’s on for life.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, I see, okay. Now, Jeffrey, what is it that you are doing at this moment?
JEFFREY: Watching you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, what were you doing before I arrived? Well, let’s have a look at what they do in research, folks.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We watch the Leafs.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On a bad television we watch hockey.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I drink beer, folks, Great Western, made in Saskatchewan.
UNIDENTIFIED MALES: You can be (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How about undoing the top button? Now the next button?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. I’m having troubles with these.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Holy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t like this sort of thing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I like when you wiggle at me like that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. Can I ask who’s this young (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Richard, like we’re going to --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And like how come you’re not sitting in each other’s laps like usual?
KATHY YOUNG: We don’t usually do.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that’s true, that’s Kathy and the Little One, isn’t it?
KATHY YOUNG: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, thank you. This is –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’ll be on the screen, won’t it?
KATHY YOUNG: You’re like you’re losing (INAUDIBLE) sideways and you don’t want to like miss a picture, eh?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, look at that, ladies and gentlemen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Her life, oh, there it is.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, Tommy tour.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Once again –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We – we would like to ask you a question. You are actually quite – quite – how can I put this delicately –
TOM LUKIWSKI: Old.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- fucking old, eh?
TOM LUKIWSKI: Well, as we say in tour, I may be old, but I’m fucking A, eh.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And who is this A person?
TOM LUKIWSKI: Well, let me put it to you this way. There’s A’s and there’s B’s. The A’s are guys like me, the B’s are homosexual faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases. (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, quit talking about Jeff like that.
TOM LUKIWSKI: Well, John Bergen and I had a little discussion and I’d like to tell you that it’s going to be out in our campaign literature real soon, watch for it (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is that you’re drinking there?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bad hair.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who’s got bad hair?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at that, over there.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bye.
UNIDENTIFIED MALES & FEMALE: Over there, over there, over there, over there. There’s bad hair.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are those any we took or what’s that, Cory?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, this (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are making a movie out of focus, an out-of-focus movie. What are you doing? Oh, you’re writing a nasty note.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are you writing, Kim?
KIM: I’m writing –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: F-words.
KIM: Oops, I said, Tom, I tried to think of something witty, but what the fuck, happy birthday.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very blurry handwriting.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our friends and union leaders.
KATHY YOUNG: George Rosseneau, Barb Byers are big friends of mine personally.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our friends in – in the camera industry.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and we don’t lie – once in a while.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who are our friends? Denise Dressler, who are our friends?
DENISE DRESSLER: Ab-sa-fucking-lutely nobody. By the way, whose camera is this?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, Jeffery, what is this woman missing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you mean, what is she missing?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, shut up. If you say breasts, I’ll pop you both.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didn’t say breasts, you did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was this about?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I – I can see your breasts very clearly.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let’s see if we can get them on the screen.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, Dan, would you stop?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, thank you, just a little profile indicated there was something there.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It’s got a zoom lens.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let’s see here. What have we got going on on this screen?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You’re talking about –
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, it’s top secret.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That’s right. We’re talking about friends.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’d show you, but then we’d have to kill you.
KATHY YOUNG: We’re writing this union speech to the red union leaders, George Rosseneau. We have threatened his life two times, and what else?
KATHY YOUNG: Oh, we sent a bomb to Barb Byers --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We --
KATHY YOUNG: Byers, a letter bomb to Barb.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To Byers.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To Byers.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Byers. Yeah, that’s right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The bears. The bears.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The bears, the bears. The Byers, the Byers. I sent a letter to Byers.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To –
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A pretty good job.
KATHY YOUNG: Okay. All right. Party on, dude!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Very good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Kennedy just walked by. Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kennedy --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’m sorry, Mr. Kennedy has left the building, but watchnow as we break for news.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And break for news? Holy shit, this is going to be more exciting than we thought, folks. We’re going to watch Peter Parley (sic) -- Peter Varley reproduce.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For the record, this week as of today, July – or – it’s July –
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: July?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- October, whatever’s today, October 6 or whatever, this third week of the election campaign is going to be the telltale signs where we’re going to win it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And how many are we going to win by?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’re going to win 42 seats.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don’t think we’re going to win – how many did you say?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Forty-two.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don’t think we’re going to win 42 at all.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you think? (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many do you think we will win?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don’t know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, take your best shot.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don’t know very much about politics. How much –
(LAUGHER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How’d you get your job? Who do you know?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I’m going right now to visit him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah. I know a lot, but not a lot of – not a lot of about that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s that guy that was (INAUDIBLE) . He’s over at –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. Good to see you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She says, “Do you know Kathy Peters?” “Well” –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your comments on the debate tonight.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I predict that Grant Devine will smash the living dog shit out of that spineless political playboy and kick the balls right off of that hard-headed slut Lynda.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Miss, Miss? Miss, what do you have to say about the debate tonight? Your prediction? Do you have something to say or no?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What me?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, I’d like to know how you feel off the wall first of all and, yes, I think Grant Devine will do very well tonight.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have a prediction for the outcome of the election, ma’am? For the outcome of the election?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The outcome?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about Lynda’s balls?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It’s going to be tight. I don’t think Lynda has balls.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, big ones, big chubby suckers like this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I – I do have a comment though. I thought it was really interesting how the media picked up on her being outside a food place or the food bank or whatever, and they gave her shit for – for grandstanding, I believe it was. When Roy Romanow did the exact same thing about a week before in front of – I think it was a children’s thing. They were talking about food, not having enough food, and that was also, I believe, in Saskatoon. I was wondering why Romanow didn’t get kicked when she did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They’re treating Lynda unfairly; I understand that. Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is for --
KATHY YOUNG: This is for da boss.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay, for posterity, ma’am, do you have any comments before the debate begins?
KATHY YOUNG: I already gave my comments already.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Before the debate begins here, what would you predict?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Grant’s going –
KATHY YOUNG: Da boss.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Da boss.
KATHY YOUNG: Da boss.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay, and – and do you have a prediction for the outcome of the election?
KATHY YOUNG: About 43 minus seven.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Minus seven.
KATHY YOUNG: Oui.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That makes like 33.
KATHY YOUNG: To da boss.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Da boss.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you, miss?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you talking to Kimberly or you’re talking to me? I say --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get a life.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- as far as tonight is concerned, yes, I agree with these folks. It’s --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Da boss.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He kicked red butt and he’s going to kick that Grit butt too.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay, now we’ll go to Connie.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Da bears.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Da bears.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, Connie, would you like –
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Actually Jeffrey was going to talk to you now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It’s the only thing that doesn’t give me a hangover, so I have to
drink –
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi.
UNIDENTIED MALE: I was looking for her and (INAUDIBLE) the screen and said
nothing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, she’s a ventriloquist.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bears.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bears.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what’s -- do you have a prediction for the election?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bears.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No numbers?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, 60, like 61 for the PCs and Roy
Romanow might get a seat; other than that it’ll be like – maybe
it’ll just be 61 for the – what have you got, 65?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) on his head.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (inaudible) Romanow?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s correct, so no, he won’t make it either.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sixty-six.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, 62, and four for independents here, yes, independents. Do
you want to see a menu?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Gail.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did Grant leave, Jeff?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, no, not me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Miss, miss, do you have any comments on the election?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the debate tonight?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any comments?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: None at all.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have an education?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ah.
TOM LUKIWSKI: Well, can you give her the tour? Come here. Give her the tour.
Just a minute now. We want to – we want to know --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait a minute. We’re talking to a 40-year-old, a man with some
(INAUDIBLE).
TOM LUKIWSKI: We want to tell you exactly what we think from the tour
standpoint. We think the tour is going fucking A.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fucking A.
TOM LUKIWSKI: And we think the debate’s going to go fucking A.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fucking A.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And predictions for the outcome of the election?
TOM LUKIWSKI: Well, we think the Tories are going to do fucking A.
OTHERS: Fucking A.
TOM LUKIWSKI: We’re kind of stuck on that, you know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, this guy’s the media, eh. You can’t trust a word he says.
JOHN SCRABA: You’re tipped sideways there, that’s okay.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, well, I’ll just get it that way then.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no, you’re in a proper frame here. I got it right. Here we go.
All right. Now, do you have comments on the debate, sir?
JOHN SCRABA: Certainly. We haven’t seen it yet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, well, what do you predict?
JOHN SCRABA: Oh, predict an overwhelming victory and defeat for the other
socialist hordes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what do you predict on the outcome of the election?
JOHN SCRABA: And urinate on their remains while we’re at it.
EVERYONE LAUGHS
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Aha, there you go, you got it.
BRAD WALL: She’s a real person, ask her. What did you think? You’re a real
person.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Want my honest opinion?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, please, yeah, your honest opinion.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think – I think you’ve got to pan over to Peter Varley’s picture
here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have – we have several – several events of Peter Varley’s
picture.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Peter Varley’s picture depicts exactly what I wish to say about –
basically Grant Devine blew them out of their shoes; that’s what
I think.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, ma’am. And, sir, sir –
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That’s how I feel (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, sir, sir?
BRAD WALL: Well, I’m with her. She’s the boss so if she says we kicked their
butt steaks, we did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, ma’am –
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Butt steaks big time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, ma’am, would you undo the top button, please?
TAMMY WALL: I have no buttons. Wait, wait, here. Here – there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There we go. There we go, there we go; all right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s cruel.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No button here either. And did you see the debate, ma’am?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Get Brad’s reaction to the --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you see the debate?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I certainly did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what did you think about it?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, you know, all you got to do is let Lynda talk long enough
and she makes a fucking idiot out of herself, that’s all I have to say.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ladies, ladies. John Bergen isn’t here so while you’re –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’re going to bring him here.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Say something profound.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It’s either black or white. It’s either – just a minute. Excuse me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, did he win this bitch?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Big time.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Black or white. You have to do your eyes like this.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, oh, oh,
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you have to have big lips and (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, Ms. --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Black or white.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you think about the debate?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What did you think about the debate?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The debate was wonderful. I think our boss won that debate big time --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- because he’s so wonderful and –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many seats are we going to win?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We’re going to win 37.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thirty-seven seats’ prediction?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thirty-seven.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And – and your prediction?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I say thirty-six for sure, 36.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thirty-six for sure.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It’s black or white. We are winning.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I’m going to have my eyes lifted before the end –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I sure as hell hope so.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think – I think --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Alberta guys.
(INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, sir, you come from Alberta?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I do. Talk to me, baby, talk to me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, what did you think of the debate?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fucking A. Am I allowed to say that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, oh, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And – and, sir, you’re a man off the street.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am. I’m very objective.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what did you think of the debate?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) .
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The boss – we did wonderful –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wonderful CTV.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- quite well.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what’s your prediction for election night?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All the way. We’re going to the top. I wouldn’t be here if we
weren’t going to the top; right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many seats? How many seats?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Big time, big time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s the problem –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Forty-six.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Forty-six. Forty-six?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, luckily –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is 46 good? Forty-six would be good?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Forty-six, and I think –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And your – your assessment, sir, of the debate tonight?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the debate tonight? Yes, well, I think – I think --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You’re starting to sound like Lynda now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think Mr. Devine was good. I think Ms. Haverstock was good. I think Mr. Romanow was – Mr. Who?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What does Roma-know?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nothing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thirty-eight seats.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thirty-eight seats.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I said 46.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Forty-six what?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Berntson, do you have a reaction tonight?
ERIC BERNSTON: Well, number one, I’m not Senator Berntson. I’m an anonymous guy that –
(LAUGHER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He’s with the government and he’s here to help.
ERIC BERNSTON: -- that doesn’t know anything about any of this stuff, so all I’ll say is fucking A.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So don’t quote me on it.
ERIC BERNSTON: No, don’t quote me, yeah.
(INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, go ahead. No, he’s not –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are so.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah. Excuse me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you had my opinion yet?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I have.
BRAD WALL: “Well, I’m the big gipper, don’t mess with me. I’m the baddest rapper this side of DC with my best girl Nancy as my spouse,rappin’ to you from that big white house. B-b-b-b Bonzo, b-b-b-b Bonzo.” That’s the white house rap.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cool.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The zoom is --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is on one of these buttons here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It should be on right there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nice to meet you, John.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no, no, I –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The zoom should be right on there.
BRAD WALL: It should be on the trigger somewhere. Push.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, here it is, right here. Your zoom is right here, Brad --
BRAD WALL: Oh, yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- hold it.
BRAD WALL: Okay, we’re walking with Jason Wall who is sporting the new San Jose Sharks’ jersey. Jason is walking back to visit with PeterVarley. Immediately following the debate between the Honourable Grant Devine and others, the debate, of course, which the Premier kicked major butt on, by the way.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Come in here, come in here, come in here. Are coming around to everybody, getting your opinion of how the Premier did today --
BRAD WALL: Filmed for posterity so please look at the camera.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- how the Premier did today in his debate against Roy Romanowand Lynda Haverstock. How do you feel he did?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tonight’s televised Leader’s Debate has exposed the – Premier Grant Devine said he watched in wonder as the two slack-jawed -- in fact, as the two leaders bickered over words, quotes and interpretations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Slack-jawed?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like this he stood. That’s all very interesting.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) sure we got that. Please, how did he stand? Okay, good.
JOHN SCRABA: Hey, hey, you with the camera.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good night.
JOHN SCRABA: Au revoir.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Au revoir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ciao.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excuse me. Can I finish my news --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: “That’s all very interesting as high school debates go,” Devine said, “but we’ve got a province to run here. The question remains who has a plan for Saskatchewan?” Devine said it was evident on several occasions that neither Roy Romanow, nor Lynda Haverstock, had a complete grasp of the issues they were asked to address, particularly on agriculture and economic policy. “I have a strong feeling they didn’t understand what they were saying, right here,” Devine said. “In other circumstances, I would just sit back and enjoy it. Tonight, I found it a little frightening.” Devine said he would leave it to viewers to determine the winner. “All I ask is for people to think about three things,” Devine said, to think about what they heard, to think about the personalities they saw and to reflect on the fundamental question, who has a plan for Saskatchewan?” For further information, vote Grant Devine.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much, Peter Varley. I really appreciate –
MR. VARLEY: Thank you, thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And continue on with your works.
MR. VARLEY: Yes, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, they’re busy in here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ken Azzopardi and his – and his future of Saskatchewan.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is what Ken’s – what does he think about Lynda? This is Ken. He (INAUDIBLE) big time stuff, big time stuff.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. I think that’s everybody now because –
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where did you get this plastic shit cheap imitation crap?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, x-rated. Ken, (INAUDIBLE) was that? X-rated?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Plastic cheap shit imitation crap.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pan -- pan on the woman.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where is that picture?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Always pan to the woman. Pan to the woman always.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where is that picture where my thighs are really big?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thighs? It’s on – you’ve got to hit the button –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Said the bride to the groom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There you go. It’s on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s on.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, (INAUDIBLE) to the bride and groom.
BRAD WALL: Is he the menu? Hey you, hey you, say something.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) always in a movie, he’s (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need somebody who’s going to say something.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’m doing up my –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He’s doing up –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There it is –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now the light’s on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The light is on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s my first opportunity to look into this campaign. Fuck you all. We won tonight.
KEN AZZOPARDI: Well, you know, I was just talking to a guy and there’s four reds there at his house. He’s ours. He has four reds at his house and the reds think the reds – the City of Regina reds who said Lynda won --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, give me –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- on --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On abortion, abortion.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, they say that because they want them to say it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait a minute, no, no, no.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Abortion.
KEN AZZOPARDI: Lynda won and Romanow was the big loser. For a red that’s a major fucking victory.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A major fucking victory.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lynda made –
JOAN BERNTSON: She made one statement on abortion, you know. She made one statement on abortion earlier, but I can’t remember what it was, but it was everyone in Saskatchewan cares about the lives --
(INAUDIBLE – ALL TALKING TOGETHER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Major fucking victory.
UNIDENIFIED MALE: And I’m going to go to every red in town.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whom is?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, that’s fine with every red in town.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There it is, there it is. Yeah, really push it hard.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you want to see the menu?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your face is huge.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Said the bride.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hey, that’s the best thing about this, like you get this like –
(INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no, no pads. You can’t always (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want it, Leanne.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tell me what I want.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Steve knows too.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, oh, oh, dirty tricks.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let me see, a peach Jacuzzi.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I had that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know you did, yesterday, but we’re talking about today; right?
You want another tequila.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have to say something. You can’t nod.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want – you want a peach Jacuzzi. You want –
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to go home.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The – the New Democrats are the people that brought the oil and
gas business.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) to Regina and check it off.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, okay.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That’s all I’m going to say.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Devine government –
KATHY YOUNG: The Premier versus Haverstick (sic) and –
BRAD WALL: Let me tell you something. I watched that in – I watched that in Preeceville. I watched that debate and I’ll tell you this, I never – I never seen Grant Devine – I – I will never – I never voted for Grant Devine.
KATHY YOUNG: Why not?
BRAD WALL: I never voted for him, but I –
KATHY YOUNG: Why not?
BRAD WALL: Before. I see him on TV tonight after Helen fixed me dinner and I tell you I like Grant Devine. Roy Romanow got his head up his ass . I don’t even know how he walks upright with his head so far up his ass and I’ll you --
KATHY YOUNG: Mr. (INAUDIBLE), how do you think he walks --
BRAD WALL: I’m not – I’m not kidding. So the bottom line is this –
UNIDENTIFIED MAILE: Why you talking like that?
BRAD WALL: I’m voting – I’m going to vote. I’m voting and the guy that I will vote for – who I’m voting for – marking my ballot to vote is Grant Devine.
KATHY YOUNG: And you –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) I thought it was good. Oh, Curtis.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who gave you that God damn thing?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did? The woman behind the camera, this woman, is a liar, a liar. Now together now. Liar. Heathen.
KATHY YOUNG: Li-oh (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay, I’ll try that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She is the anti-Christ.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Liar.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Liar. You’re a liar.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She is the anti-Christ.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want to talk about the debate. What do you think about the debate?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She has lipstick on her teeth. She does. She has lipstick on her teeth, I can see it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: See, I mean she (INAUDIBLE) .
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She’s filming the (INAUDIBLE) .
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She’s – she’s filming over here. I don’t know. This is my beer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at this. We got nothing.
(END OF VIDEO)

Today’s Bob Rae, meet a real NDP government

What’s this we read about Today’s Bob Rae being in Manitoba this weekend?

Readers will doubtless recall that it was only yesterday that the Liberal Party got caught smearing the NDP as “neanderthals” for daring to oppose the Harper-Dion coalition’s agenda to put every remaining cent of the federal treasury into another $50.5 billion of corporate tax cuts.

For his part, Today’s Bob Rae was incredulous that Jack Layton would refuse to accept that the 18th century is upon us and let the invisible hand push him into bed with Adam Smith, Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion.

Of course, everyone knows that since 2001, federal business tax rates already decreased a whopping 30%, and with Liberals cheering all the way, the Harper government has put them on track to fall another 23%. And not embracing pre-Cambrian economics and hollowing out the federal coffers makes the NDP “neanderthals.” Of course.

Incidentally, timeless Conservative cabinet minister Vic Toews was so moved by his flawless interpretation of the Ayn Rand comic books of his childhood that he embraced Today’s Bob Rae as he might a long-lost son: “Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member for Toronto Centre here to the House of Commons. I was quite taken with his comments. Although he has moved part of the way, he could have come a little further and sat on this side of the House because the comments I heard from him today were very much in keeping with the philosophy of our government.”

So, Today's Bob Rae will be confused to find himself in Manitoba this weekend.

The same Manitoba where Gary Doer’s NDP has governed successfully since 1999 with a balanced social democratic agenda.

The same Manitoba where the NDP decreased business taxes 18% (not 46% like the Liberals and Conservatives in Ottawa), while at the same time increasing the minimum wage 42% and lowering tuition 10% and freezing it for years.

The same Gary Doer who spoke at the federal NDP Convention in 2006 saying: “The Manitoba NDP is proud to support Jack Layton, and tonight I want to reiterate our support for him and the federal caucus and the great work they are doing in Ottawa for Canadians. They really have become Canada’s defacto official opposition, because they are organized, unified and able and willing to take on the new federal government and its regressive policies”.

The same Manitoba where the Liberal Party eked-out fewer votes and only two seats in the last election.

Yup. That Manitoba.

Note to Winnipeggers: if you find a confused Bob Rae on your streets this weekend, be kind to him. He’s never heard of your province, and doesn’t know what year he’s living in.

Liberals are letting Harper change Canada forever

Reading the noise John McCallum made in defence of Harper's $14 billion corporate tax cut agenda, one is inclined to think:

1) Has McCallum let his National Post subscription lapse? Does he not know that an expensive war, slowing growth and Harper's tax cuts have left the federal government on the razor's edge of a deficit?

And given that …

2) If the Liberals have decided that tax cuts for their pals in the big banks are their top priority, how do they expect anyone to believe their pre-election promises on anything that costs more than a postage stamp?

Harper is flushing Ottawa's fiscal capacity down the drain: changing Canada forever. And their pals the Liberals are with them step for step. They won’t side with the NDP to save some of that money for child care, for tuition reduction, for poverty reduction.

At least we know where the Liberals stand. With Harper.

UPDATE: Here’s the NDP’s sharp defence against McCallum’s noise:

REALITY CHECK: Liberals wrong on corporate tax cuts
Wed 2 Apr 2008

In explaining why the Liberal Party won’t vote against the Conservative government today, Liberal Finance Critic John McCallum accused the NDP of being out of step with social democratic parties by not making irresponsible corporate tax cuts a priority:

[McCallum] called the NDP "the Neanderthal branch of social democrats worldwide," arguing that social democratic governments in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Britain have reduced corporate tax rates lower than Canada."It’s not a left-right issue for sensible, modern-day Liberals and social democrats but the NDP is still buried in the ideology of the 1950s and for them lower corporate tax rates are evil." (Halifax Chronicle Herald, 2 April 2008)

Mr. McCallum is wrong.

As of 2007, before the latest reduction to 19.5%, Canada’s corporate tax rate was 21% -- already the 7th lowest in the OECD. The countries McCallum cited in fact all have higher central government tax rates than Canada: Sweden (28%); Norway (28%); Denmark (25%); and Britain (30%). (Source: OECD Tax Database, 2007)

And while some social democratic governments have reduced their corporate taxes marginally, none have done so as irresponsibly as the Conservative and Liberal governments in Canada:

In Sweden: Social Democrats lowered corporate taxes two points from 30% to 28% in 1994.
In Britain: The Labour government lowered corporate taxes three points from 33% to 30% between 1996 and 1999.
In Denmark: Social Democrats lowered corporate taxes four points from 34% to 30% between 1998 and 2001.
In Norway: Has had the same corporate rate of 28% since 1992.

By comparison, Canada has already lowered its corporate taxes 8.5 points from 28% to 19.5% between 2001 to 2008 – and will lower it another 4.5 points by 2015.

Jack Layton and the New Democrats have been clear on the need for focused tax reductions for ailing sectors like manufacturing and forestry. But what the Conservatives and Liberals want is an irresponsible agenda of giving breaks to profitable companies at a rate three times deeper than the social democratic governments McCallum cited.

That’s why the NDP doesn’t have confidence in the Harper government’s agenda, while the Liberals continue to.

Feel that Liberal momentum

A day after he took his seat, it would appear that Liberals are already experiencing what it’s like to have Bob Rae in your caucus.

But their worst showing in a national poll in over a year isn’t all Bob’s fault. Dion’s job approval rating now rests at a subterranean 11 percent – a rate even George W. Bush wouldn't covet.

At 26 percent, Liberals are at an all time low in support – lower than the 28 percent that earned John Turner 40 seats in 1980.

Liberals might be starting to regret their strategy of feigning non-confidence and talking tough about Harper while at the exact same time they help him put $14 billion in corporate tax cuts ahead of better transit, quality child care, and environmental laws that are tough on big polluters.

The NDP is the only opposition party to have more MPs today than they elected in 2006 -- proving that Canadians recognize who the real Harper fighters are.