Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Re: How the public will react to issues:

Well I don't know about the public, but my guess is that if the Supreme Court threw open the doors and there was nothing there it would make them even more guilty in the eyes of those who want to believe something here. After all, it would only prove that they must have destroyed it or hidden it deeper, and it's an even more sinister cabal.

We are talking about conspiracy theories, after all.

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/comment-thomas-mulcair-p...

(edit)

Never mind the beard. Mulcair might have to start working on his Donald Trump comb-over if he wants to play this part.

knownothing knownothing's picture

"Mr. Bastien supports his arguments by referring to declassified documents obtained from the British Foreign Office, including a letter the British High Commissioner to Canada, John Ford, wrote British government officials.

Mr. Bastien writes that, after receiving information from Mr. Laskin, Mr. Ford stated in his letter that Ottawa’s plan to repatriate the Constitution without provincial consent was “a real attempt at a coup d’état in order to change the balance of powers within Confederation.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-launches-prob...

 

"Bastien researched his subject in Great Britain and Canada. In the latter case his efforts mostly resulted in pages upon pages of redacted Privy Council material. But in London he struck gold.

Under Tony Blair’s Labour government, Great Britain modernized its access-to-information system. Most of the book’s fresh historical material is derived from British sources.

That includes a memo appraising the British High Commission in Ottawa of a startling 1981 conversation between Great Britain’s Attorney General Michael Havers and Bora Laskin, who was chief justice of the Supreme Court."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/11/new_book_raises_troubling_...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well I don't know about the public, but my guess is that if the Supreme Court threw open the doors and there was nothing there it would make them even more guilty in the eyes of those who want to believe something here. After all, it would only prove that they must have destroyed it or hidden it deeper, and it's an even more sinister cabal.

Actually that is pretty much Mulcair's stance in this matter. The SCC looked in its files and found nothing and Mulcair responded with they never intended to try to find anything in the first place. He taught Constitutional law and he should know better than to call the integrity of the highest court into question while leading the Official Opposition. He could have advocated for better Access to Information laws or even gone to federal court to see whether the redacting of the documents the government provided was legitimate under the current law. Instead he trashed the SCC and basically said its public statement that it had no documents was a lie of omission.

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

So his language was stronger than you would have liked.

Does that negate the entire issue?

6079_Smith_W

What does anything that Laskin, Estey or the court did (or are presumed to have done) have to do with Ford's speculation about Ottawa's plans?

Estey and Laskin were on the minority side of that decision.

I also remember hearing a radio ad about Adrian Dix not being fit for public office because he got caught without a train ticket.

6079_Smith_W

If we are actually going to talk about this, rather than just Mulcair, maybe we should move this converstion over to the proper thread:

http://rabble.ca/babble/qu%C3%A9bec/supreme-court-examine-quebec-allegat...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

knownothing wrote:

So his language was stronger than you would have liked.

Does that negate the entire issue?

He attacked the integrity of the current SCC and that is not the issue.

Hunky_Monkey

Tom was in Halifax today to speak at the NSNDP AGM.  Gave a great speech!  

Frank Magazine actually tweeted this... 

Interesting to see Mulcair speak in this venue. Can't deny that the man knows how to speak & frame issues w/out being policy wonk

Brian Glennie

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Tom was in Halifax today to speak at the NSNDP AGM.  Gave a great speech!  

Frank Magazine actually tweeted this... 

Interesting to see Mulcair speak in this venue. Can't deny that the man knows how to speak & frame issues w/out being policy wonk

 

Hunky!

Were you at Tom's event? I'm curious to know if he still reads from his notes when he's on the stump.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Christopher Majka got a great interview out of Mulcair while in Halifax -- the only interview Mulcair gave. And it's pretty good:

The mind of Mulcair

the first thing that you have to know is that the NDP is extremely serious about going to a mixed proportional system. But, as I often say, and I have to say with a smile to our enthusiasts in the NDP, I have to win under the current system: I can't change it. The other thing that people have to understand is that even if it's not constitutional change per se, it is profound democratic change, and precisely because of that, it's not they type of thing that you can do either by just snapping your fingers the day after an election, or without profound consultation. People have to be brought in. It's a little like any form of development -- this is democratic development -- and it has to be from the base up. People have to agree with it. You can't shove it down people's throats. But I think that it's the only way, for us to get away from the first-past-the-post system, which has proven its inability to represent us. I think that's something that we have to believe in, that we have to do. Indeed the only thing that we had that enabled us to say that every voted counted, we used to have a $2 per vote subsidy from the government, and the Conservatives have even taken that away.

We should all be terrified by the fact that two-thirds, 65 per cent of young people aged 18-25 didn't vote in the last election. There are intrinsic things in the way we are organizing ourselves electorally that lead people not to vote. And instead of going in the right direction, and making it more enticing and more real, with a good positive result, we're going in the opposite direction, and that's a very bad thing.

There is another huge democratic deficit in Canada, which is the existence of an unelected Senate. This type of body is a vestige, it's an organ that's a vestige from our colonial past, and that organ can safely be removed [CM: a democratic appendix] without affecting the body. Anybody who thinks about the fact that, in a democratic society, we have unelected people allowed, not to only sit in appeal, but to reverse the decisions of elected officials, will be out ranged. But we've been living with this unelected motley crew of bagmen, of defeated candidates, that we don't about it often enough. It's scandalous that the Senate continues to exist. We couldn't be more serious [about working on this]. In the first place, Joe Comartin, did a great job [on this issue] before he became Deputy Speaker. Under Craig Scott we're now continuing to work very hard on the issue. We take it very seriously, and when we form government we're going to work to get rid of the Senate. Period.

 

wage zombie

I thought this was a good interview too.  I will happily pass it around.

There is a typo near the bottom of the picture of Mulcair with his wife.  "out ranged" should be "outraged".

Malcontent

I dunno if their is anyone in the NDP that can increase their numbers and popularity like the late great Layton.   I don't know what the NDP can do to improve their numbers....

knownothing knownothing's picture

ignore them

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

knownothing wrote:

ignore them

X2!

janfromthebruce

Well malcontent, when Jack first got elected, he did not have those numbers but had to earn them "the hard way" by hard work, always engaging, and building his credability network and being consistent in his positions.

Jack was called taliban jack, a used car salesman and a loser. I remember those days. Thus, Trudeau who has earned nothing of his popularity is destined to land hard because in my view he lacks the "true grit" and work ethic to be able to actually face adversary.

Jacob Two-Two

Totally agree, jan. And it's not just Justin. The Liberal party itself doesn't have the grit it used to.

nicky

Ivison on Tom in QP:

 

 But he was as frisky as a colt in Question Period.

“Is the money just in the wrong filing cabinet? Is it hidden in the minister’s [Tony Clement] gazebo? Or is the money in the Banana Stand?” he asked, a somewhat obscure reference to Bluth’s Original Frozen Banana Stand in the cult comedy, Arrested Development.

The New Democratic Party leader is having fun because he knows Mr. Harper has to deal in nuance and nuance doesn’t work in the 30-second answers of Question Period.

Mr. Harper replied the auditor-general said there is no money missing or lost. “There are no red flags,” he said.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/08/stephen-harpers-conservatives-seem-to-have-lost-their-way/

 

     

    Brachina

    Re: The Iveson article and the interview, Wow Mulcair is good and knows his stuff. Bonus points for the arrested development move. Hope that ends up on you tube.

    nicky
    Brachina
    Brachina
    Brachina

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/05/16/mtl-ndp-leader-t...

    EX laval Mayor to bribe Mulcair and Mulcair went to the cops.

    No wonder Quebecers trust Mulcair.

    I wonder if Mulcair will have to testify?

    Unionist

    Brachina wrote:
    EX laval Mayor to bribe Mulcair and Mulcair went to the cops. No wonder Quebecers trust Mulcair.

    I wonder why Mulcair only told the cops about it 17 years later (2011)?

    In 2010, Bloc MP and former provincial cabinet minister Serge Ménard stated publicly that Vaillancourt (the dethroned and now charged Laval mayor) had offered him an envelope containing $10,000 in 1993, which he refused. Ménard had to answer to the Commons Ethics Committee for his silence during those years, even though he wasn't an elected member at the time of the alleged attempted bribe.

    Mulcair, of course, was not an MP at the time, but he was apparently an MNA (he was elected in September 1994 - not sure if he was offered the envelope before or after the election?).

    Why didn't Mulcair speak out long before?

    Anyway, it's no big deal. Probably every politician in Québec - nay, in Canada - has similar untold stories. But when Ménard came forward with his story, the Cons smelled blood and questioned Ménard's capacity to remain as Bloc justice critic.

    We'll see what the Harpocons do with this one.

     

     

    Brachina

    Maybe he didn't trust the cops at that time. Do you know if Mulcair will be testifying.

    Unionist

    I can't believe Mulcair will testify, for many reasons:

    1. Way too early. This revelation just came out now - it was La Presse which got the scoop, because Mulcair's 2011 meeting with the cops was secret - and Mulcair's office just confirmed it today without further comment. Even when Gérald Tremblay was demanding to testify to respond to allegations, he had to wait almost 6 months. The commission is busy busy busy!

    2. The commission is being incredibly careful about not allowing any evidence touching on possible corruption involvement of any federal body - it actually came up today in another context, and Mme Justice Charbonneau stopped the witness in mid-sentence, reminding everyone that the commission's mandate doesn't extend beyond municipal and provincial bodies. Now of course, in 1994, Mulcair wasn't federal yet, but I honestly can't see them putting him on the witness list. However, stranger things have already happened.

    3. The commission isn't a court hearing criminal charges. They don't need Mulcair's story about an old attempted bribe by Vaillancourt. All they need are the broad strokes, with some examples, of how the corruption and collusion worked in various cities, sectors, etc. Now Vaillancourt has been charged under the Criminal Code, so conceivably, the Mulcair incident (like Ménard, David Cliche, etc.) may end up as evidence - who knows, but that's a long way away.

    Still - turning down an attempted bribe, and not telling anyone (whether cops or not) - could be made to look bad.

     

    Brachina

    Hey he turned down at least he's not corrupt. We'll see where this goes I guess.

    Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

    Yeah, the Lib partisans are already bashing him on the CBC boards. It seems to me the really story is Tom may have been offered a bribre, immediately turned it down, and ended the meeting. The Libs are desperate.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    Arthur Cramer wrote:

    Yeah, the Lib partisans are already bashing him on the CBC boards. It seems to me the really story is Tom may have been offered a bribre, immediately turned it down, and ended the meeting. The Libs are desperate.

    He was a Liberal MNA at the time so they are just bashing one of their own.  Once a Liberal always a Liberal is what I figure. The right thing to do would have been to blow the whistle but if he did it is highly unlikely he would have made it into Charest's cabinet.

    It was a good thing he didn't take the money and that definitively shows there are lines he will not cross.  He's not a crook is the best that can be said about this story however the lack of action shows extremely poor judgement from a Professor of Law.

    Also of interest is that as a Liberal MNA he accused a PQ member of corruption and was convicted of defamation and that was years before he talked to the police about the Mayor. There is no doubt that Tom is a very good politician and knows who his enemies are.

    Quote:

    Mulcair accused former Parti Québécois minister Yves Duhaime of influence peddling. Duhaime filed a defamation suit in 2005 and Mulcair was ordered to pay $95,000, plus legal costs.[10]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mulcair

    Brachina
    Brachina

    He did turn it down so the Liberals can try to make something out of it, but he was still honest. The worst that can be said was he was slow about it.

    And its rich coming from Liberal who don't turn it down.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    Actually he was a Liberal at the time and he claims he turned it down. Are you saying he is lying and he didn't turn it down when he was a Liberal?

    Personally just because he was a Liberal doesn't mean I necessarily think he was a crook. I am willing to believe him when he says that as a Liberal MNA he turned it down.

    Brachina

    I talking Federal Liberal not Quebec Liberal, stop acting like its the same thing, its not.

    Mulcair is not corrupt and his record shows that. Rejected bribes, Stood up to developers and so on, while the Sponsorship scandal showed how happy the Liberals are to accept evelops full of cash.

    Justin's own record as MP shows how happy he is to accept sums of cash under the guise of speaking engagements, so if Justin decides to go there the liberals will come off the worst.

    Unionist

    Ok. Liberals took envelopes full of cash during the sponsorship scandal (really, Brachina??? LOL - name one!). Justin gives speeches for money. It's amazing that he's not behind bars yet. We're all agreed. Liberals are evil and corrupt. Except provincial Liberals who later join the federal NDP. I think I've got it straight now.

    But I had a simple question:

    Should Mulcair have disclosed an attempt by a mayor to bribe an elected member of the National Assembly? Let's try to forget that he was a Liberal, or that he's not one now, or whatever. Why would he not have gone straight to the police with this? Are we honestly trying to say that's fine?

    And I repeat. Mulcair is obviously not alone. The PQ and BQ types didn't report it either, for years. Nobody did. What I'm trying to fathom is how the same actions are judged by different standards, based on whether we like the (current) partisan attachment of the individual or not.

     

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    Sorry but I live in a province with a nasty Liberal government just like they had in Quebec. To me a Liberal is a Liberal and while many of them are corrupt not all of them are. It is your choice to hate all liberals except the leader of the NDP but personally I don't trust any of them.  As I said above it is great that Tom is not a crook but then not many people would have thought he was except maybe those who think that all Liberals are crooks.

    Bacchus

    kropotkin1951 wrote:

    Actually he was a Liberal at the time and he claims he turned it down. Are you saying he is lying and he didn't turn it down when he was a Liberal?

    Personally just because he was a Liberal doesn't mean I necessarily think he was a crook. I am willing to believe him when he says that as a Liberal MNA he turned it down.

     

    And then told nobody?

    janfromthebruce

    As one poster replied to the online conversation:

    I don't agree. Politicians receive offers for bribes, kickbacks, perks and 'gifts' regularly. This is why we have laws restricting both personal and corporate campaign donations.

    Thinking that every single offer, big or small, would be brought up with the authorities, (whoever that might be), is a little off base.

    Seems to me that when the investigations into Vaillancourt's dealings began, Mulcair came forward with relevant information right away.

    In response to someone trying to make hay that Mulcair refused the envelope and ended the meeting but supposedly didn't go to the authorities. (who knows maybe he did but can't talk about much of anything because this is before the courts).

    janfromthebruce

    As one poster replied to the online conversation:

    I don't agree. Politicians receive offers for bribes, kickbacks, perks and 'gifts' regularly. This is why we have laws restricting both personal and corporate campaign donations.

    Thinking that every single offer, big or small, would be brought up with the authorities, (whoever that might be), is a little off base.

    Seems to me that when the investigations into Vaillancourt's dealings began, Mulcair came forward with relevant information right away.

    In response to someone trying to make hay that Mulcair refused the envelope and ended the meeting but supposedly didn't go to the authorities. (who knows maybe he did but can't talk about much of anything because this is before the courts).

    janfromthebruce

    Another poster stated: Never took the envelope. Didn't know what was in the envelope. Ended the meeting right away. Never dealt with the man again.

    I am ok with that. He wasn't a hero who took down a corrupt mayor, but there are thousands who have worked with that mayor and none of them did either.

    Unionist

    Utterly amazing, the politics of partisanship.

    janfromthebruce's anonymous poster wrote:
    Didn't know what was in the envelope.

    [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/16/mtl-ndp-leader-thomas-m..., or you'll have to change your argument:

    Quote:
    French language newspaper La Presse is reporting that Mulcair was targetted by the former mayor. The article says Vaillancourt offered Mulcair an envelope and said he could help him. It goes on to quote Mulcair as saying he did not see the contents of the envelope but was certain it contained money.

    Oh but that doesn't matter, then, right? Because everyone was offered bribes, so no reason to report criminal behaviour.

     

    Brian Glennie

    Unionist wrote:

    Utterly amazing, the politics of partisanship.

    janfromthebruce's anonymous poster wrote:
    Didn't know what was in the envelope.

    [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/16/mtl-ndp-leader-thomas-m..., or you'll have to change your argument:

    Quote:
    French language newspaper La Presse is reporting that Mulcair was targetted by the former mayor. The article says Vaillancourt offered Mulcair an envelope and said he could help him. It goes on to quote Mulcair as saying he did not see the contents of the envelope but was certain it contained money.

    Oh but that doesn't matter, then, right? Because everyone was offered bribes, so no reason to report criminal behaviour.

     

    Snitches get stitches. I have no problem at all with how Tom handled this. What a snake pit that must have been.

    Brachina

    But he did in fact go to the police. And we don't know if that was the first time or if he told Jean Charest and Jean or what happened.

    Its sad when a politician does the right thing, he turned down the bride and reported it to police and its slimed for it, because he didn't do the right thing fast enough. And Unionist you don't know why, its before the courts, so jumping to conclusions is unfair. If you want to know why you wait till the trail is over.

    Mulcair did the ethical thing, I don't give a shit if going to the cops was slow in happening. He did it on his own and has been working with police ever since.

    PS unionist if Mulcair hadn't gone to the police no one would know and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    To me Mulcair is a hero, just a very slow one. The turtle wins the race and partly thanks to Mulcair Trembly will get what he deserves.

    Mulcair is the victim

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

     Laughing

    My leader is always right.  And if anyone says differently then he is being victimized.

    The Victim card really?

    Unionist

    Brachina wrote:
    But he did in fact go to the police. And we don't know if that was the first time or if he told Jean Charest and Jean or what happened.

    You don't know if he went to the police, or if the police came to him. Nor do you know when. All you know is that he says he was offered money, and nothing was made public until 19 years later, when La Presse divulged the story. I don't know what happened. All I know is that it's a question which deserves a clear answer.

    Quote:
    And Unionist you don't know why, its before the courts, so jumping to conclusions is unfair.

    Jumping to conclusions - really, Brachina? What conclusion did I jump to? I want to hear the explanation before drawing any conclusions. You obviously don't need to. You have your hero/victim. The jury is in.

    By the way, you say it's before the courts - yeah, it's before the courts, since last week. That's the first time Vaillancourt was charged with anything at all. Oh, and by the way, he wasn't charged with bribing Mulcair. So that's not before the courts even today.

     

    Brachina

    Real question how did La Presse get its hands on this info if Mulcair's dealings with police was a secret and is Mulcair's life or the lives of his family in danger. One of his sons is Police officer, a prime target.

    And its almost comicial to see the Tories try and make something of this. Mulcair turned down a bribe, while Harper's chief of staff gives them out to Senators.

    What a fucked up world were people get punished for doing the right thing and crooks like Duffy get 90,000 dollar checks and jobs for life.

    t

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    Brachina wrote:

    Real question how did La Presse get its hands on this info if Mulcair's dealings with police was a secret and is Mulcair's life or the lives of his family in danger. One of his sons is Police officer, a prime target.

    Laughing

    I am astounded but amused.  Now his life is in danger.  LOL

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    So tell me Brachina do you think that Tom had really good security when he accused a PQ of influence peddling during his time as a Liberal Cabinet Minister. Why was he not afraid to make that accusation but could not say anything about a sitting Mayor of the town he lived in. What the Mayor did was obviously influence peddling although Tom did not want to be in his pocket.  Good on Mulcair for that. If he was going to get into old influence peddling among politicians you would think he would have raised all the times he knew of and not just the PQ ones.

    Maybe one of our Quebec posters could fill us in on Vaillancourt's provincial and federal politics so as to better understand the context.

     

    Unionist

    Oh by the way, let's not forget one of the bigger scandals to emerge in recent days.

    Ex-Liberal MNA Vincent Auclair has now admitted having accepted an envelope full of money from Mayor Vaillancourt in 2002 - after denying it over and over publicly and in the National Assembly since 2010. He says he immediately gave the money to a third party. And he says he's prepared to testify against Vaillancourt.

    As for Mulcair, I wouldn't believe for one instant any charges of corruption. The fact that he didn't go public, or to the cops, with the initial incident is merely a sign of the corrupt state of our political system as a whole.

     

    Brachina

    Sorry I don't find Mulcair's life in danger funny.

    Bacchus

    Has anyone claimed to be in danger? Being threatened? Attacked? Any police announcement on worries about it?

     

    If not then yeah the thought of Mulclair in danger in laughable

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    I was laughing at the suggestion. There are many people testifying in an open hearing about specific events but somehow it is Mulcair who should fear for his life. Frankly if the Quebec underworld starts wacking people for spilling the beans I would expect Tom's name to be quite a ways down on the Big Hits list

    I would agree Unionist that it says something about the political culture because BC is just as corrupt and with Christy and the BC Rail gang back in power things are going to get worse. In BC they don't seem to use envelopes to give out cash to most politicians only the real insiders see any benefit while in Quebec your corruption seems to extend further down the food chain and thus in some sense is more egalitarian.

    Pages

    Topic locked