Sylvie Roy Punked by Liberals?

When Sylvie Roy rose in Quebec Parliament and asked Premier Charest if he was aware that three of his members vacationed aboard Tony Accurso's yacht, it was particularly strange.

Not because the allegation was hard to believe, but rather at the way the question was put to the Premier and his reaction.

Ms. Roy had Parliamentary privilege and could have named the members, yet chose not to. Obviously she wasn't so sure of her information and was on a fishing expedition.

In response to questions by the press, she claimed that she had a source that refused to come forward out out fear of reprisals. Without naming the source publicly or having a secondary source to confirm the story, she obviously didn't feel that she was in a strong enough position to name names.

Strangely, Mr. Charest didn't seem overly perturbed by the potential bombshell that she dropped. He remained calm, collected and even challenged her to name names. When she didn't, Mr. Charest obligingly provided the names himself.

The next day Mr. Charest triumphantly announced that the allegations were false and all the members involved had denied ever being on Mr. Accurso's boat.
Every thing seemed to be playing out to the Premier's advantage and he was beaming.

It was all too neat. Ms. Roy had been set up.

Lucky for her that she hadn't named the names. Had she done so, immunity or not, she would be looking for a new job.

Many years ago I learned a valuable lesson in political disinformation from a friend who was working in politics.
He was an old hand at intrigue and described to me in detail how he salted false stories in newspapers or fed disinformation to neophyte politicians when it suited his purpose. It's simple, he told me; "When a politician or a political party is in trouble because of allegations of corruption (which is more often than not) it's useful to plant more stories of corruption which can then be proved to be untrue, thus tarnishing the veracity of the real allegations."
"And people really fall for it?" I asked incredulously.
His answer was succinct. "Everybody's on a deadline"

Over guffaws and a bottle of red, I asked him if he had ever worked for the KGB.

Over the years, I have seen this strategy employed a couple of times, but none as expertly as the lynching of Ms. Roy. It's as textbook case.

Still have doubts.
As they say in Latin 'Cui bono?', (Who benefits?) Madame Roy's source was obviously out to get someone, either her or the Liberal party. You decide.

The Liberals attempted to apply the coup de grace by invoking a motion to censure Madame Roy in the Assembly. It failed as it should have, but the Liberals are determined to keep up the pressure as a sideshow, to deflect calls for an inquiry into political donations and inflated contracts in the construction industry.

Sylvie Roy isn't out of the woods yet, she has been badly damaged in the court of public opinion. She'd better come out fighting if she wants to survive. She should tell the truth or out the informant.

This all could have been avoided if she had the courage to act honestly by asking a more adroit question in Parliament. It was a rookie mistake.

I can imagine the chuckles around Liberal party headquarters.

Stephen Harper Set to Deliver Another Painful Dose of Payback to Quebec

If Quebeckers thought that by sending separatist Bloc Quebecois members to Ottawa they would send a message to English Canada, they were right.

The message has finally been received loud and clear, albeit after many years.

No matter how accommodating, no matter how much money Ottawa ships to Quebec, no matter how many political concessions are made, Quebeckers will continue to thumb their noses at federalist parties.

It's a lesson that took both the Liberals and the Conservatives many years to comprehend, but the penny has finally dropped, at least on the Conservative side. Mr. Harper and the Conservative party have written off Quebec politically.

If ever there was a case of overplaying one's hand, this is it.

Ironically, Quebeckers remain blithely unaware that their flirtatious game is over.

While they continue to pull on the same old strings, Mr. Harper and the Conservatives have gone off in another direction.

In many ways Quebec's rejection of the Federal political parties in favour of the Bloc has set Mr. Harper free. No longer does he, nor his party harbour any illusions that indulging Quebec can translate into seats and so, he has been liberated to return to his natural base, a constituency that is decidedly anti-Quebec.

I recently wrote a post about Mr. Harper's plan to add seats in Parliament a move aimed to correct an imbalance and reflect the changing demographics of the Canadian reality. The seats to be added are all located outside of Quebec.

Should the proposed legislation go through, Quebec's proportion of seats in the Canadian Parliament will be reduced and the likelihood of forming a majority government without Quebec support, enhanced.

This proposal was met with expected fury in Quebec, but the threats of reprisals by Quebec voters rang hollow, there's not much to lose for the Conservatives in Quebec. Had Mr. Harper owned twenty or thirty seats in the province, he'd never have entertained such a move.

It is ironic that While the Bloc claims to defend Quebec's interest in Ottawa, it's presence has the opposite effect and serves to rob Quebec of any influence. Bloc members sit idly in opposition, twiddling their thumbs and hurling insults at the government.

Most Quebeckers would be shocked to see how little effect the Bloc really has in Ottawa. The high attrition rate of Bloc members is a testament to how they themselves view their effectiveness. The reality is that they are pointedly ignored by the other members of Parliaments. Some western MPs even pull out their translation ear piece when Bloc members rise in the house.

The announcement by the Tories that they will be seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court as to whether the formation of a national agency to regulate financial markets under Ottawa's auspices is legal, is but another signal that they no longer care what Quebec thinks.

If the court sides with the government, something likely to happen according to constitutional lawyers, it would spell another humiliating defeat for Quebec.

Quebec finance Minister Raymond Bachand was apoplectic in a speech delivered at an event organized by the AMF, Quebec's regulatory agency.

"The federal government has no right to legislate in this area that is under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec!"

Without any strong voices in cabinet and without the weight of Parliamentary seats, Quebec is powerless to stop the assault on what the province perceives as an invasion on provincial rights.

How will the Quebec public react to this real loss of influence?

By voting for the Bloc Quebecois, of course. It is after all, Quebec.

Lawyer For Earl Jones Leads Reporters Around by the Nose

That reporters accept on face value, statements that are patently false or manipulative from people that they are interviewing is one of my pet peeves.

Last week Jeffrey Boro, Earl Jones' lawyer, made a statement that begged a combative response by an inquiring press.
He told reporters that Earl Jones was destitute, broke and living off his old age pension, unable to find work.

Pleeese!!!!!!!

Mr. Boro would have to go down to a farm if he wanted to fling more bullshit than that!

Not one reporter asked him, that in light of Mr Jones disastrous financial situation, how Mr. Boro's legal bills were being paid?

Of course, had he been asked, Mr. Boro would have declined to answer, claiming client/attorney privilege, but at least he'd be put on notice that his story that Mr. Jones is destitute, is purely fictional.

If Mr. Boro is working for free, than I apologize, but somehow I don't think so.

If Mr. Jones' family, or a mysterious benefactor, is paying his bills (not) wouldn't that same generous entity make sure that poor Earl was also taken care of?

The dirty little secret of most criminal lawyers is that their fees are usually paid out of the proceeds of crime, in many instances from the exact crime that their client is being tried for.

Getting paid in dirty money is a necessary part of the game and everybody in the legal game knows that it is true.
Whenever you see a defendant claiming poverty, look to his lawyer. If he's using a $400 an hour attorney, it isn't hard to come to another conclusion. Even Vincent Lacroix was smart enough to get a legal aid lawyer to keep up appearances.

At any rate, Earl Jones is wasting his money. He is going to get the max if he goes to trial, (which he is not) even if he hired Alan Dershowitz as defence council. Crown prosecutors are going to knock a year, possibly two off of the sentence in consideration of a guilty plea. Any legal aid lawyer could do the deal.
Mr. Jones should save his the money spent on expensive lawyers.

By the way, if Mr. Boro is so concerned about Mr. Jones not being able to find employment, perhaps he could offer him a job in his law firm's accounting department, where he can put his experience to good use!

Will the Real Louise Harel Please Stand Up.

Here's what Louise Harel is telling us today.

For those of you who don't have a clear recollection of who she really is , this is what Louise Harel was selling for 35 years.

This is what she really believes in;

Canada's Highest Court Not So Supreme

Imagine a criminal standing before a judge, immediately after having been convicted for stealing and asking the judge to stay the sentence.

"Your Honour, I know that I've been convicted of stealing but I'd like to appeal to a higher court and in the meantime, I'd ask you to hold off on the sentence."

"Why should I do that, you've been found guilty of stealing?" answered the judge. "On what point would you be appealing the conviction, anyway?"

"Your Honour, I have a very good excuse. I've been stealing these last five years because I have to provide for my family, they are very needy. If you punish me, my whole family will suffer and believe me it's a big family. I only steal from a couple of people and so on balance the greater good is achieved by letting me continue. It's an extenuating circumstance that I believe should be considered by a higher court."

"Hmmm..." answered the Judge. "I don't think you have a prayer of winning, but your logic of the greater good is at least grounds for an appeal and I feel for your family. I shall therefore grant your request!"

"Thank you, your Honour. errr..... I have just one more request. Does this ruling mean that I can continue stealing until my case is decided in the appeals court?"

"Hmmmm." answered the judge after some consideration. "I guess so, I wouldn't want your family to suffer."

And so the thief continues to steal for another two years until his appeal is heard in the Supreme Court of Canada.

His lawyer pleads his case and the government lawyers do the same. The judges listen carefully, retire and take the matter under advisement.

The thief asks his lawyer if he can continue stealing while his case is being studied by the judges.

"Of course. they didn't say you couldn't!"

Nine long months later the court releases it's judgment. It's not that shocking, the first judge accurately predicted the outcome.

The thief's conviction is upheld unanimously. The court rules that stealing is not permitted, even for good reasons.

The judgment orders the thief to stop stealing and directs him to find an honest way to support his family.
But the judges remain sympathetic to the plight of the family and in a ruling worthy of Solomon, tells the thief that the judgment will be delayed for a year so that he can figure out what to do.

"Does this mean I can steal for another year?" asks the thief to his lawyer?

"You bet," answers the lawyer, "and don't worry about a thing. In a year we'll figure out another con and hopefully it will take take another seven years to go through the system!"

Sound unbelievable?

It shouldn't;

In 2002 the separatist Parti Quebecois government decided to close what they viewed as a loophole, a practice whereby some immigrants and Francophones gained admission to English schools (which they were not permitted to attend under the infamous law, Bill 101) by attending a private English school for a short time.

You see, these private schools are not covered by the language law and anyone with money can attend. Once the student spends some time in the school, he or she could transfer to a public school claiming a right under Canada's Charter of Rights.

That right, Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that if you've had some primary school education in either English or French you can demand to continue instruction in that language.

" Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary language instruction in the same language."

So by sending a child to an English primary school, even for a short time, a family gains the right to a public education in English for all it's children.

The Quebec government was furious at the work-around and drew up Bill 104 in response. The law, which banned the 'bridging practice,' blatantly ignored the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Every single constitutional lawyer in the province understood that what the Quebec government did was illegal but the separatist government didn't care. If the law was challenged it would suit them as well. It would be a French versus English battle and even if they lost in court (which they knew they would,) they would likely win in the street.

Let's compare the true story of Bill 104 with my fanciful story about the thief.

In 2002, the Quebec government wrote an illegal law, whose effect was to steal an English education from students legally entitled to one.

After five years of stealing, the Quebec Court of Appeal struck down the law based on the Section 23 of the Charter.

The Quebec government asked for and received a delay from the court for the implementation of the ruling, so that they could appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Another two years went by and the government continued to implement the illegal law and continued to rob students the opportunity to go to English schools.

Finally the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of the students, but again delayed the imposition of the decision for another year. Another year in which the Quebec government could enforce an illegal law.

Eight years after the illegal law was enacted it remains in force today, even after having been declared illegal by the highest court in Quebec and the Supreme Court of Canada. Students continue to be denied their legal rights under the Charter.

This isn't Wonderland, it is CANADA, which may be the only western democratic country in the world, where winning a case in the Supreme Court doesn't necessarily guarantee that you may enjoy the fruits of the victory.

Shame!!!......