Nycole Turmel

I thought given her age and background that she was a great choice for Interim Leader.  Thx Wilf for the excellent precise of her accomplishments.  

I too got tired very quickly with the CBC always calling her a rookie.  Contrast that with the treatment Iggy got when first elected or Garneau for that matter.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

I thought given her age and background that she was a great choice for Interim Leader.  Thx Wilf for the excellent precise of her accomplishments.  

I too got tired very quickly with the CBC always calling her a rookie.  Contrast that with the treatment Iggy got when first elected or Garneau for that matter.

Or Mulroney.

From Anonymouse's Globe link:

Quote:

The new leader of the federal NDP was a card-carrying member of the Bloc Québécois for five years and quit the sovereigntist party only last January, one month before she announced plans to run as a key member of Jack Layton’s team in Quebec, documents show.

Quote:

According to information obtained by The Globe and Mail, the 68-year-old became a member of the Bloc Québécois in December, 2006, the year she retired as president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. She sent back her membership card to the Bloc on Jan. 19 of this year in a signed letter to then-Bloc MP Carole Lavallée.

December 2006 to January 2011 is 4 years and 1 month.  Yet the Globe reports it as 5 years.  Clearly the Globe has an agenda, and they're willing to exagerate numbers and details to meet that agenda.  I'd call this a hit piece.

I don't particularly care if Turmel gave $235 to the Bloc over four years, or that she had a membership for four years.  I do tend to dismiss news articles with biased reporting.

In articles last week in the Globe the reporter on this story (and another one) used the phrase "union boss" to describe her. The Globe report today (August 2) tries to link her BQ membership to suspicions of secessionists among the NDP Quebec caucus.

The BQ did a great job in the House defending workers rights, and social spending. Finance critic Yvon Loubier was the one who showed how the Liberals had raided the U.I. fund to pay down the debt.

By mobilizing progressive voters the BQ established a voting core outside the Liberal party that eventually moved to the NDP, starting in Outremont. The Globe reporter knows this.

I'm not really surprised. The media have largely been hands-off the NDP for the last little while. Attacking the NDP would look like attacking Jack, which would have been below the belt even for them (and, more importantly, seen as such by their readers).

Turmel was always going to be targeted with something, and the fluid politics of Quebec gives the Anglo media an opening. Stretching the truth is a common tactic in Liberal-friendly media. If Mulcair becomes leader, expect documents to suddenly appear 'proving' … well, whatever the media wants it to prove.

After the shock of May 2, the Liberal-friendly media are regrouping. When they can't write puff pieces like this, they'll write slam pieces like this.

Many federalists in Quebec don't vote for federalist parties because they do not match their beliefs. The NDP's breakthrough finally provided that alternative that matched them.

There really needs to be a pro-ndp/pro-social democracy newspaper. Its overdue now.

Wilf - excellent post.  Thanks so much for compiling all that information.

Anonymouse - before you start slagging a highly-respected MP, get your facts straight.  The last thing we need here is a parroting of the MSM without any attempt at analysis.

Reporters on twitter have been working themselves into a frenzy over it as well.

Yes, I agree.

It's totally overblown and anyone who suggests so to the reporters seems to get the response that the NDP can't take the heat of media attention or that NDPers are starting to resemble the Harper Conservatives in their paranoia about reporters.

I think that Andrew Coyne, Kady O'Malley and Rosemary Barton etc...have serious delusions of grandeur if they think that there are more than a hundred Canadians (out of 30,000,000) who actually hang on every tweet they put out.

So, like many Quebecers, Nycole Turmel saw a chance, finally, for a progressive, federalist voice that represented her views of a better Canada in the NDP and tried to do something about it by being a part of soundly defeating the Bloc and I am supposed to condemn her for that.  Way to look at the big picture there media.

Anonymouse wrote:

She's been misleading the public about her relationship with the BQ and PQ for a long while now.

Firstly: what relationship with the PQ? I'm not aware of any.

Secondly: there has been no misrepresentation on her part. She said she had given her support in the past to both Bloc and Québec solidaire candidates. Nothing wrong with that. She disclosed to the NDP that she had been a member of the Bloc. She had no obligation whatsoever to disclose that membership in a wider manner. She acknowledged the fact of this membership when the Globe & Mail went on this "separatist" witch hunt.

Thirdly: who the hell cares?

Quote:

The media is also being misled about her triumphs on pay equity as head of PSAC. The issue was that some job classifications were doing the same type of work as other classifications (e.g. PM vs ES ), and one was full of women and the other full of men. PSAC launched a lawsuit calling for the salaries and the way positions were classified to match up, alleging that the current system was sexist against women. PSAC settled with PSAC members getting a one-time payout but the pay inequity was never corrected either in the salary levels or the way that classifications were assigned: a pyrrhic victory.

I'm not saying this was your intention, but speaking of a "one-time payout" might give some readers the impression that these were some scraps that PSAC was content to accept. In fact, this pay equity settlement is the largest compensation ever obtained in a pay equity claim in Canadian history.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not aware of all the details in this epic legal dispute. What I can point out, however, is that this very issue of the underlying discriminatory classifications that you identify has in fact been the object of a challenge by PSAC. And in 2005, it obtained a significant victory on that very issue in Federal Court. Basically, the part of PSAC's complaint that dealt with the discriminatory nature of the classifications had been put on hold while the wage discrimination part of the complaint was being processed. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the classification complaint, recommending no further proceedings, on the basis of an investigator's report. It did not provide any reasons beyond the investigator's report. PSAC filed an application for judicial review of the Commission's decision to dismiss the complaint. It prevailed in Federal Court, which ruled that the Commission breached the duty of procedural fairness by acting the way it did. Beyond that 2005 decision, I don't know what the status of this aspect of the dispute is.

Quote:

Nycole Turmel is also a very poor communicator in English, which is the real reason why she (was probably chosen) could never become permanent leader and thus threatens no one. Although it goes without saying, she is part of the NDP union insider crowd (like Buzz Hargrove once was).

It is true that she has an accent when she speaks. So fucking what? The vast majority of anglophones also exhibit an accent when speaking French.

Her English is not perfect. Again, big deal. She's fully functional in English. In fact, she makes much fewer linguistic errors than Jack Layton does when he speaks French and has fewer "breakups/freezes" in the flow of her conversation than he does.

Here's an interview she did on CBC's Power & Politics.

Please stop participating in the mainstream media's "separatist" witch hunt and put a stop to the discriminatory treatment of her abilities, linguistic or otherwise.

Stockholm wrote:

Its funny how all these Tories try to make an issue out of Nycole Turmel having once backed Quebec Solidaire. As far as i know virtually everyone in the Quebec wing of the Conservative Party supports the ADQ provincially. The ADQ has had very ambivalent views views on soevereignty over the years. During the 1995 referendum, they were 100% on the Yes side and Mario Dumont made public appearances with Bouchard and Parizeau exhorting people to vote Yes to independence. As recently as last year Stephen harper was begging this "separatist" (sic.) to run for the Tories and be his Quebec lieutenant!

Turmel has admitted she was a member of Quebec Solidaire until today. Unlike the BQ and PQ however, sovereignty is not the primary aim of QS; it is only a means to an end rather than the end itself. I'm more concerned that as a former Vice-President of the Party she didn't know that supporting (not just joining) another federal party (even for a friend) while a member of the NDP was a no-no. 

Given that there is no provincial NDP in Quebec, membership or support of QS while a member of the federal NDP is not against the federal NDP constitution.

That said, I agree that there is considerable hypocrisy from the Conservatives on this.

Stockholm wrote:

According to this article Turmel states unequivacally that she is a federalist and that she supported the NO side on both the 1980 and 1995 referenda:

Um, who cares? Almost exactly half of Quebeckers voted yes in 1995. If the NDP adopts attitude toward sovereignty as a significant criterion of who it will ally with, it will deservedly re-descend to the political wilderness where it found itself in Québec from the founding of the CCF to the Sherbrooke Declaration of 2006.

Well done Bärlüer, for calling this hysteria by its true name - and thanks to others here who have rejected the Harper-style divisive instinct that sets Canadians against each other.

I was a member of the BQ for years, and a financial supporter, [b]and[/b] a BQ voter in several elections (and a proud one when Amir Khadir carried their banner here in 2000) - although I too let that lapse recently. Although I must say I voted for Mulcair (a Liberal) when in ran for the NDP in 2007, 2008, and 2011, while still donating money to the Bloc. There you go - I reflect the confused Québec condition - and proudly so! Oh, forgot to mention that I vote only QS provincially since their founding.

My respect for Turmel, already substantial from my knowledge of her in the union movement, grows daily. I only hope that she doesn't get too defensive about this latest blood frenzy. When Harper attacked the 2008 coalition as being an unholy alliance with "socialists and separatists", there were many cowards of all stripes who cut and run. May they all suffer the same fate as Michael Ignatieff.

Nettie Wiebe on Power and Politics trying to defend Turmel. Any press is good press for the NDP I say!

It is sickening-- because it is not just a witch hunt against her it is loaded with disrespect and hate for Quebec and its consideration of its future.

It is a fact that Quebec politics is more complicated because there is in addition to the left right  discussion a national discussion of a people. Political parties are involved but not every single option is covered (anywhere). People support and become a member of parties based on the choices they have and the options they propose. QS is a very small party and support for it cannot be evaluated out of context of its size, intention, ideology and positions as well as its competition.

QS is an impressive party as well. If I were in Quebec I would be very happy to support it as it is the closest to my views as well. In the long run consideration of a Quebec wing of the NDP might be a good idea but that idea could only begin in discussion with QS and I think people on the ground well understand that.

Since Quebec is so different it might remain more beneficial to maintain a strategic alliance with QS rather than build a provincial affiliate but thankfully I do not need to decide my opinion on that today.

Question -- QS is being called a separatist party everywhere in the English Canadian media. Do people here think that is accurate? My impression was it sought greater autonomy for Quebec but I did not think it was necessarily separatist. That said there is nothing to be ashamed about wanting a separate state for Quebec-- I might prefer that Quebec remained in Canada, which I do as a Canadian, but I would not disrespect a person who felt it was better for Quebec to be independent.

An unrelated point: just how many Cons are provincial Liberals in BC?

I have no interest in perpetuating the ridiculous "separatist" witch hunt, so I will limit my additional comments in this post to the PSAC/Treasury Board pay equity dispute. (I've taken the liberty of fixing the quote tags.)

Anonymouse wrote:

Bärlüer wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

The media is also being misled about her triumphs on pay equity as head of PSAC. The issue was that some job classifications were doing the same type of work as other classifications (e.g. PM vs ES ), and one was full of women and the other full of men. PSAC launched a lawsuit calling for the salaries and the way positions were classified to match up, alleging that the current system was sexist against women. PSAC settled with PSAC members getting a one-time payout but the pay inequity was never corrected either in the salary levels or the way that classifications were assigned: a pyrrhic victory.

I'm not saying this was your intention, but speaking of a "one-time payout" might give some readers the impression that these were some scraps that PSAC was content to accept. In fact, this pay equity settlement is the largest compensation ever obtained in a pay equity claim in Canadian history.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not aware of all the details in this epic legal dispute. What I can point out, however, is that this very issue of the underlying discriminatory classifications that you identify has in fact been the object of a challenge by PSAC. And in 2005, it obtained a significant victory on that very issue in Federal Court. Basically, the part of PSAC's complaint that dealt with the discriminatory nature of the classifications had been put on hold while the wage discrimination part of the complaint was being processed. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the classification complaint, recommending no further proceedings, on the basis of an investigator's report. It did not provide any reasons beyond the investigator's report. PSAC filed an application for judicial review of the Commission's decision to dismiss the complaint. It prevailed in Federal Court, which ruled that the Commission breached the duty of procedural fairness by acting the way it did. Beyond that 2005 decision, I don't know what the status of this aspect of the dispute is.

I'm not saying they were scraps but it was a sell out: we will concede our pay equity claim if you will cut all our current members a one-time cheque. Biggest pay equity payout in Canadian history so as to extinguish the legal right to actually rectify the pay inequity. That is my comprehension of what went down. Also, as one of the first large pay equity lawsuits, it sets a bad precedent for women.

Your comprehension is incorrect.

The Tribunal, in its 1998 decision, found a breach of s. 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (which states that it is discriminatory "to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value"). The Tribunal ordered that "[t]he payments are to be calculated for the period from March 8, 1985 to the date of this decision.  After the date of our decision the pay equity adjustments are to be folded into the base wages and become an integral part of the wages."

IOW: the Tribunal found a breach of the legal right, and ordered compensation to be paid. It defined the scope of the compensation in terms of retroactivity and defined certain other modalities relating to calculation. The actual quantum that was to be paid was left for a later stage. As it turned out, this was set out in a settlement (the 1999 settlement) rather than through court proceedings.

As I wrote earlier, the aspects of the complaint that dealt with classifications (based on s. 7 and s. 10 of the CHRA) were suspended while the s. 11 part of the complaint was being dealt with. The 1999 settlement did not "extinguish" the legal rights that the complainants have under s. 7 and s. 10 of the Act. If you reread closely my original post, you'll notice that the actions that PSAC undertook WRT the classifications aspects of the complaint postdated the 1999 settlement. Read the Federal Court judgment if you want more details on the chronology (I won't post lengthy quotes here).

As for the "precedent" being "bad for women": I think that the ridiculous length of the process signals, on the one hand, the obstructionism of the federal government and, on the other hand, the inadequacy of retrospective pay equity schemes such as is found in the CHRA as the sole mechanism for achieving pay equity in an efficient and comprehensive manner. WRT the first issue, continued advocacy/raising of public awareness/general rabble-rousing/etc., and organizing to put in power a more responsive government are possible courses of action. WRT the second issue, the addition to the regulatory framework of a proactive scheme (of the like of Quebec's Pay Equity Act) would help matters. I think it is to the credit of PSAC (and, to a degree, to Turmel's credit, lest we forget that it was toward her that you directed your criticism) that despite the enormous obstacles at play, they managed to obtain a groundbreaking $3.6 billion settlement, and continued to pursue the available means of redress to eliminate discriminatory practices such as job classifications that have discriminatory effects.

From what I can tell, Nycole Turmel has stronger federalist credentials than our former Governor-General Michaelle Jean had when she was appointed by Liberal Paul Martin.

prowsej wrote:

The NDP's response line to this controversy, "The New Democrats said Turmel has been a party member for two decades", (http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/02/ndp-downplays-interim-leaders-separatist-ties) seems misleading to me. Clearly she wasn't a member of two parties at the same time, so this deliberately obfuscates exactly which years she was an NDP member. 

It's the Toronto Sun, for goodness sake.  Of course it's confusing and misleading.  The line about Quebec politicians switching parties and allegiances all the time is especially odious, implying that Quebec politicians are more cynical and opportunistic than other Canadian politicians.  It's a slur against Turmel in particular and Quebec in general.  You don't need to be an unamed, probably fictitious, "political analyst" to see that.

"Clearly she wasn't a member of two parties at the same time"

She most certainly was a member of the NDP and BQ at the same time, by her own admission.

Look people. It is an express condition of membership in the NDP not to be a member or supporter of a rival political party. This is exactly what Buzz Hargrove was kicked out for a few years back.This is not a matter of switching parties and NDP members ought not to trivialize the issue by making non sequitors about other politicians. Nor is QS membership the issue since the NDP is not active in Quebec at the provincial level. The BQ membership is.

No person who was revealed to have held membership in the federal Liberals or Conservatives at the same time as the NDP would have an ounce of credibility in an NDP leadership position and the BQ is no different.

It's time to stop playing the victim and realize that the party screwed up, big time.

brookmere wrote:

Look people. It is an express condition of membership in the NDP not to be a member or supporter of a rival political party. This is exactly what Buzz Hargrove was kicked out for a few years back.

That rule has always had an exemption for Quebec where there is no provincial NDP. In any case, Hargrove got kicked out because he kept claiming to be a New Democrat while openly campaigning for the Liberals. He had a choice, stop endorsing Liberals or leave the NDP. Nycole Turmel is now 100% loyal to the NDP and tore up her old membertship in the BQ. This is good. we WANT people to join the NDP and desert other parties. In fact I hope that Turmel proves to be a role model for thousands of other people in Quebec who want to join the NDP and leave other parties.

I watched P&P today, and while I agree 100% that Rosemary Barton is out to 'get' Turmel, Turmel herself gave an awkward and artificial-sounding interview, and Nettie Weibe wasn't much better. This is a total nonstory, but the NDP didn't do a great job of getting away from it.