Friday, February 11, 2011 8:52 AM EST
Quebec’s smart arena move
Thursday’s announcement by Jean Charest and Mayor Régis Labeaume that they will go it alone on a hockey, er multipurpose arena in Quebec City is a stroke of brilliance.
Having gauged the reaction in the rest of Canada, it was abundantly clear to both gentlemen that Ottawa would not be funding the arena at this time. Rather than waiting on Stephen Harper – or, potentially, his replacement after the next election – Messrs. Charest and Labeaume decided to focus on the real key to this deal – the return of NHL hockey to Quebec City.
For all their talk about a multi-purpose arena, both Charest and Labeaume understand that the project won’t work financially if it ends up hosting international pee-wee hockey tourneys and Elton John revival concerts. True, the arena may not work even if it does, but the odds are a lot better. Not to speak of the fact that the return of NHL hockey is the element of the deal that most excites Quebeckers. Which is not an insignificant consideration when you’re talking about two politicians – one of whom is exceptionally unpopular at this time.
Here’s a prediction: Before you can say Peter Stastny, Régis Labeaume will be on a plane to New York knocking on NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman’s door. And don’t be shocked if Jean Charest flies the same skies, either alone or together with his municipal sidekick.
If Mr. Bettman is even mildly encouraging about the prospect for an NHL franchise – which would be uncharacteristic of the man – Messrs. Charest and Labeaume will be able to take the next steps.
Specifically, they’ll be able to start the bidding war between Pierre Karl Péladeau, Labatt’s and perhaps others for the naming rights of the arena. And, at the same time, they will smartly return the ball to Ottawa’s court, where Stephen Harper may yet be confronted with a difficult political decision before the next election.
For all the talk about interest rates and millions yesterday, neither Charest nor Labeaume actually spent a nickel. Mr. Bettman, as well as their “partners” in the arena enterprise, are about to see why, in federal-provincial circles, the Quebecois nation has the reputation of being the shrewdest negotiators in Canada.
Link to this post
Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:40 AM EST
Quebec’s language law debate could get more interesting
Turning the front page of this morning’s edition of Le Devoir, I find at the top of page 3 a large colour photo of Stephen Harper’s Quebec lieutenant brandishing his finger at the opposition during Question Period, as he and others are wont to do. And, under the photo, I read the headline: “Christian Paradis chooses English schooling.” Followed by the sub-headline “the minister’s children are registered in the Ontario school system.”
Behind Le Devoir’s pay-wall, Helene Buzzetti reports that Mr. Paradis – who represents the constituency of Mégantic-L'Érable and owns a house in Thetford Mines – has moved his family to Ottawa. And that, in Ontario, parents can choose which of four school boards to send their children (which is not completely true in the case of the province’s French language schools). Ms. Buzzetti – who doubles as president of the parliamentary press gallery – also explains that, having begun their education in English, Mr. Paradis’s children will have the right to continue to study in the language of Shakespeare when they return to Quebec.
In the article, Mr. Paradis defends what Ms. Buzzetti presents as a rather controversial choice this way: “I’m free to send my children to whatever school I want. Right now, they’re going to an English school. This is a personal choice I’ve made because I want them to learn English. … At present [in Thetford Mines] there’s no opportunity to learn English. In Ottawa, I can send them to an immersion program while I’m here. I think it’s an advantage that they have, but the bottom line is to preserve the French language. I keep very close track of their work in French.”
Tuesday, February 8, 2011 7:24 AM EST
VANOC’s luge death media strategy exposed
In Tuesday’s edition of the New York Times, readers are treated to two stories from Vancouver. As a British Columbian, both caught my attention.
One is a very positive report on Insite, the safe injection site. The second is a not-so-positive report on revelations related to the death of Olympic luger Nodar Kumaritashvili.
At the end of the New York Times report, one reads that, in a teleconference with reporters yesterday, John Furlong rejected suggestions that there was a contradiction between the e-mails obtained by the CBC under Access to Information legislation and his public statements at the time of the death. In the third paragraph of the Times report, readers are reminded of his words:
“At the time [of the crash], John Furlong, the chief executive of the Vancouver Organizing Committee, said that the death was ‘not something I have prepared for or ever thought I needed to be prepared for.’ He has continued to maintain that position, publicly at least.”
One does not find these words in the Globe and Mail. Nor does one find them in Monday’s report, which was based on “e-mail obtained by The Globe and Mail.”
I must admit that I did a double take when I read that line, having recently been informed by a Victoria colleague that BC Ferries was posting on its website any material it was releasing to journalists. This, I was told, was a strategy designed to dampen the use by journalists of Freedom of Information legislation.
In a tweet yesterday morning, I questioned whether VANOC had leaked the material to the Globe. And, a couple of hours later, I confirmed that the Fifth Estate’s investigation of the luge death was not a joint operation with the Globe and Mail, which is sometimes the case (e.g., the Airbus Affair).
Today, thanks to Vancouver Sun reporter Jeff Lee, we learn that John Furlong’s former VP of Communications did indeed leak the e-mail to the Globe, which is serializing Mr. Furlong’s book. Renee Smith-Valade also leaked the material to CTV, the Olympic broadcaster, and set up interviews with Mr. Furlong for both organizations.
On Sunday evening, the VANOC Board was informed of this communications strategy, which is now exposed to the public, and is for the public to judge.
Friday, January 28, 2011 3:29 AM EST
Will Obama ‘lose’ Saudi Arabia?
Yesterday, in Rabat, Stephen Harper was scrambling to keep up with events on the ground in the Arab world – no easy task when you’re the prime minister of a country that for decades has had close relations with Tunisia and is now harbouring the family of the deposed dictator. And, in this morning’s Globe and Mail, I see in Paul Koring’s report that things were pretty much the same in Washington yesterday: “After decades of American policy predicated on backing reliable, albeit repressive regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Barack Obama has begun signalling more sympathy with the aspirations of protesters in the Arab street.”
Over at the New York Times on the other hand, readers are reminded today that this is not the first shift in the President’s Mideast policy since coming to office two years ago: “relations with Mr. Mubarak warmed up because President Obama played down the public ‘name and shame’ approach of the Bush administration. A cable prepared for a visit by Gen. David H. Petraeus in 2009 said the United States, while blunt in private, now avoided ‘the public confrontations that had become routine over the past several years’.”
Thursday, January 27, 2011 9:22 AM EST
We’re okay with dictators – until they’re toppled
Hmm.
I see that Prime Minister Stephen Harper says that the deposed president of Tunisia and his regime are not welcome in Canada. A statement he made in that bastion of democracy, Morocco. Where earlier today he announced that Ottawa and Rabat would negotiate a free trade agreement.
Mr. Harper’s statement echoes the tough line taken yesterday by Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff, according to which Ben Ali’s relatives are “not welcome in Canada.” Which itself mimicked the tough talk the previous day by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. And is repeated today in editorials across the land.
The problem with all this muscular rhetoric, however, is that members of the Ben-Ali family are already in Canada. As permanent residents. Which raises the question of how that could be when they are not wanted in Canada. It also fuzzifies the question of how they got here in the first place.
I’ll tell you how.
Some members of the Ben-Ali family got here through the immigrant investment program. Which is a cheap price to pay for a family that reportedly had tonnes of gold to take with them as they fled Tunisia. Others got permanent resident status – nay Canadian citizenship – as a result of being born in Canada during a lightning visit to our country.
In light of these circumstances, perhaps it would be more honest for everyone to say that the Ben-Ali family is not wanted in Canada “any longer.” At a minimum, this might avoid having to answer embarrassing questions about why our leaders are comfortable about courting other dictators around the world at the same time as they’re in a froth about the Ben-Ali family.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011 7:28 AM EST
Is Quebec arena a life-preserver for Harper?
In Le Soleil this morning, a new poll shows the Bloc surging ahead in the Quebec region after Pierre Karl Péladeau’s announcement that he’d invest tens of millions in a new arena. And on the front page of Le Soleil – the paper not owned by Mr. Peladeau – the arena is presented as a life preserver for Conservative MPs.
According to the poll, the Bloc leads the Conservatives by 37 per cent to 29 per cent, almost a complete reversal of the results in the region where Conservatives elected most of their Quebec MPs in 2008. Half of the 700 respondents were contacted after the Péladeau announcement; interestingly, in the first wave, the Bloc was ahead by only 33 per cent to 30 per cent, within the margin of error of the poll.
Over at Le Journal de Quebec, the paper that Mr. Péladeau does own, we learn that Labatt is interested in the naming rights for the new arena. Which sets up the prospect of a private-sector bidding war that could further “encourage” Quebec regional minister Christian Paradis. Whether it will be seen as such by Stephen Harper is another matter.
No doubt the Prime Minister will spend some time doing his political calculations as he jets to Geneva today. In simple terms, he must find a way to bridge the two solitudes on an issue that is easily understandable to voters who frequent Tim Horton’s. Hey, but whoever promised Mr. Harper that governing a country like Canada would be easy?
Monday, January 24, 2011 6:20 AM EST
Palestinian leaders are the target of al-Jazeera leak
Perusing the lead story in Monday’s Globe and Mail, I see that the “Palestine Papers” are predicted to have “a more negative effect on the Israeli leadership than on the Palestinians.” While, to paraphrase Yogi Berra, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future – and especially about the Mideast – I disagree.
True, as the Globe’s report suggests, the extent of the concessions Palestinian negotiators were prepared to make on East Jerusalem will play into the narrative of Israeli intransigence. In the immediate term, however, Israeli diplomacy will benefit. Specifically, it will now be easier for the U.S. – which had been critical of Israel’s refusal to freeze construction in Jerusalem – to veto a proposed Security Council resolution on settlements being pushed by Arab and Muslim states. After all, can one really expect Barack Obama to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians?
No, the real damage from the leaked papers will be to the Palestinian leadership. Most Israelis will find little in the documents that has not already been written about in their hyper-competitive press. On the other hand, Palestinians – who normally get their information from a subservient, if not government-controlled media – will be shocked by the extent of the concessions their negotiators were prepared to make.
Already, Palestinian leaders are denying the veracity of the material leaked by al-Jazeera. And, in Gaza, Hamas is making hay, seeing the leak as a golden opportunity to support their goal of replacing the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people.
In the coming days, watch for supporters of the Palestinians in Europe and elsewhere to increase the pressure to include Hamas in the Mideast negotiations – if and when those negotiations resume.
Friday, January 21, 2011 11:54 PM EST
Why Harper should ignore Mulroney's advice
Perusing Saturday’s Globe and Mail, I see that Brian Mulroney is advising Stephen Harper to ignore the polls and do something remarkable. Mr. Harper should ignore the former prime minister’s advice — for four reasons.
First, it’s hard to see how creating a blue ribbon panel on health care would rank very high in prime ministerial legacies when compared to the creation of medicare, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or to Mr. Mulroney’s own free trade agreement with the US.
Second, it’s important to understand — as I suspect Mr. Harper does — that Mr. Mulroney’s primary interest when he speaks out is in burnishing his own tarnished legacy. He and his acolytes have long championed the notion of “transformational” as opposed to “transactional” prime ministers. And they have gone so far as to suggest that a prime minister should be unpopular when he leaves office — a standard that would rank Mr. Mulroney right up there with our greatest.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:25 AM EST
Why a PM shouldn’t watch CBC (or other) newscasts
Remember the foofaraw in October of 2009 when Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that he didn’t watch Canadian news? At the time, as a Canadian nationalist, I was uncomfortable at the thought of a prime minister consuming a lot of U.S. news instead — particularly with the craziness in their media these days. But, I didn’t get too excited because, quite frankly (to use one of Mr. Harper’s favourite expressions), I didn’t know whether to believe him. And I still don’t.
My scepticism flowed from the stifled laughter the day Brian Mulroney — a notorious and irredeemable media junkie—announced at cabinet that his new year’s resolution was to abstain from reading the papers or watching the news. Needless to say, the phone calls at precisely 10:05, and off-and-on for the next hour, did not cease
I also thought back to premier Bill Bennett telling reporters the same thing a few years earlier. And watching the scrum wince collectively when he added for good measure that it was one of the lessons he had learned from his father, who governed British Columbia for 20 years.
Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:22 PM EST
Iggy cruisin’ for a bruisin’
If the results of the latest EKOS poll are to be believed – a big if with any poll –Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff will be looking for ways to climb down from his bullishness for a spring election. And not just because the Conservatives, at 34.5 per cent, have opened up a seven-point lead over the Liberals.
More important, the poll shows that, by a margin of 40 to 39 per cent, Canadians prefer a Conservative government over an Liberal-NDP coalition government – a government that Mr. Ignatieff has said he’d be prepared to lead. And a prospect, as Mr. Harper indicated in an interview published Thursday, will be the focus of the Conservative campaign.
In other words, Mr. Ignatieff has put himself in the position of incurring all the electoral costs of a coalition government, with none of the benefits of vote consolidation. For, in an election, with the NDP and the Liberals splitting the vote of the 39 per cent of Canadians who support the idea of their forming a coalition government, 40 per cent is majority territory for the Conservatives. And Bloc support for the coalition – which was part of the equation in December 2008 – was not even asked in the EKOS poll. When that question was put to Canadians during the coalition near-crisis back then, support for the Conservatives rose to 45%, and there is no reason to believe it would be any different today.
Spector Vision Contributors
Norman Spector
Norman Spector, a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, is also a former academic, federal and provincial deputy minister, ambassador and newspaper publisher. He's been writing in The Globe and Mail since 1995 and in Le Devoir since 2003. In 2004, Norman began providing a daily review of the Canadian and international press on his website Norman's Spectator. His book, Chronicle of a War Foretold: How Mideast Peace Became America's Fight, was published by Douglas and McIntyre in 2003. The following year, he contributed an afterword to William Kaplan's A Secret Trial, published by McGill-Queen's University Press.
