Friday, 30 August 2013

A dopey leader with pretty hair, a puff of fuffy policy and a hearty "Hi-ho, Justin!" The Lone Lamoureux!

Yep, the Lone Lamoureux (AKA as Kevin Lamoureux, MP Winnipeg North), is riding the plains of Winnipeg again, metting out his unique form of injustice.

I got a mailer from the "Honorable" MP yesterday in my mail box, despite the no junk mail warnings taped to it. It included in part, this whopper....

"Does the New Democratic Party see the mote in their adversary’s eye but not
the beam in their own?

It looks like it now that the NDP is requesting an RCMP investigation into
the Mike Duffy gong show while their leader, Thomas Mulcair, keeps refusing to
answer very basic questions about his own lies concerning a bribe offered to him
in 1994 by the then-Laval mayor, Gilles Vaillancourt.

Three years ago, former Parti Quebecois justice minister Serge Menard
admitted that the Laval mayor offered him $10,000 cash in an envelope. The day
after, another Liberal Member of the National Assembly, Vincent Auclair, also
confessed he had the same bribe offered by the same politician.

My colleague Brian Lilley then clearly asked Mulcair a few days later, in
November 2010: “Were you ever offered cash in an envelope by the mayor of Laval?
Did you ever see envelopes of cash around the mayor of Laval?”
Mulcair answered with a straight “no.”

Mulcair even went further. He said that if ever an envelope was offered to
him, he would immediately go to the police and wondered why Menard waited more
than 15 years before he came out publicly.

A few months later, in 2011, Mulcair changed his version of the story when
the police knocked at his door and interviewed him. He then admitted he met
Vaillancourt in 1994 and was offered an envelope, and he added “it was clear
that this was money.”

From,, and written by that Scion and believer in an open and accurate press, the fun-lovin, Eric Haimel.

My Lib MP, the truth seeking, honest as the day is long, fair minded, non-partisan, Kevin Lamouruex quoted only part of this artice in his latest mailer, adding "I know that is the above would have happened to our current Prime Minster ther would have bee an uproar in Ottawa The qestion is shoul Mr. Mulcair be let off the hook becse he is only the Leaderof the NDP and not the Prime Minister".

So of course, being unable to resist the urge, I emailed our erstwhile MP, as follows:

"Mr. Lamoureux:

I received your latest missive regarding your work on behalf of the consitituents of Winnipeg North. I couldn't help but notice the smearing of Mr. Mulcair.

I did check out your reference and see you only quoted it in part; I was wondering why that it is? I must say I obeject to your underhanded attack on the Leader of the Opposition. Your action in this matter simply confirms my belief, as I have communicated to you previously, that you are completely unsuited to sit in the House as the representative of the entirety of the constituency of Winnipeg North. I would say it is not a stretch concluding that your actions confirm that you obviously place petty partisanship ahead of building consensus and seem to have no difficulty with smearing and despoiling the reputations of your political opponents if it meets your own petty partisan goals.

Further to this, I note that you still have not replied to my previous two emails regarding FIPA (see my previous post for more on this). Is it your belief that you are only obligated to reply to supporters? Do you believe that you are above the need to answer queries from all your contituents? Do you feel it is below you or not worth your time, and that anyone who demands you be accoutable is of insignificant statue and not worthy or deserving of a response? Or is it instead more likely the simple truth that you know that in actual fact, there is no defense for your stance?

I now demand your reply as a consitutent of Winnipeg North. It is my right as YOUR consituent, regardless of whether I do or do not support you. Your requirement to reply is not optional, nor up to you decide.

I look forward to your prompt response.


Honestly, I don't expect any kind of response from Mr. Lamoureux. He's kind of like one of those Cockroaches, you know, the kind that scurries out from under a rock when you lift it up and then scampers under something else for safety before you even have the chance to crush it under your foot.

Then just to add insult to injury, and from the same mailer, this beaut...

"...the NDP's opposition to abolish the Senate is a crude attempt to get votes and destroy any form of positive reform...."

OK, regarding this...notwithstanding that Lamoureux' whole flyer is a "crude attempt to get votes", it has been the NDP/CCF position from almost its inception that the Senate should be abolished; from Lamoureux though, he continues to be one who has no trouble keeping truth from getting in the way of a good story.

Well, there'll be more of this to follow. I am waiting for a reply to Lamoureux's assertion from the Honorable Leader of the Opposition and will post his reply as soon as I receive it. Unlike Mr Trudeau, who doesn't want to make any public statements on policy because he "doesn't want to short change discussion", on that or frankly any other topic that doesn't suit his fancy, Mr. Mulcair actually does believe in open and transparent discussion.  As for Mr. Lamoureux, I'll keep trying to get an actual response from "the people first MP".....

Hi, Ho Justin, Away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UPDATE: I just received an email from Mr. Lamoureux inviting me to his office for a face to face. I will post after meeting with him.


  1. Was nice of him to respond, regardless of his ideology (particularly fetus fetishist leanings) and sometimes excessive partisanship he is a very solid constituency worker.

    1. By fetus fetishist do you really mean open to discussing whether it's OK to kill babies in utero?

    2. Someone who wants to debate (long after said debate has been settled) whether women's right to body right to control of their bodies is trumped by an zygote/embryo/fetus's "rights" is probably a fetus fetishist.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Yep it was. I am looking forward to discussiong things with him one I have from Mr. Mulcair.

  4. hahahahaha......

    Well, aren't you the proverbial pot!

    Decrying others for 'smear' jobs. I can't think of any blog post on your site that isn't a smear job.

    1. What, exactly, is untrue in the post? If there are any verifiably untrue statements, as blog administrator I am glad to make a correction but it does not look like co-author Art Cramer has stated any untruths, even if you dislike his opinions.

    2. FYI, my personal opinion on Justin Trudeau is a bit less harsh, as I tend to regard him with a big "MEH".

  5. The Charbonneau Commission resumes tomorrow. The focus will now be on provincial politicians including Tom Mulcair. It is doubtful that anyone is going to come out looking good from this and some very public questions will be made to the NDP leader asking why he waited so long to talk to the police, what sort of corruption was he aware of or that his department might have been caught up in. There could be further raids and further arrests.

  6. Well John, this promises to be interesting. The one thing that I will say is this is the first time in my almost 60 years that I have ever seen a guy who didn't take a bribe suddenly have his credibility questioned like this. It will be interesting to see where it leads. From my perspective, Tom has already explained this; for me, as a partisan, I can't help but see this as a deliberate and depserate attempt on the part of the Libs to smear him as much as they can. They know even if Tom comes out squeaky clean, that the notion will remain that "he had been up to something". That could help Le Dauphin a lot.

    Thanks for the comment. Very glad to hear from you. Please check in any time you would like.

    1. Well, as someone who voted for a (relatively red) Liberal last federal election, I can't help but see some Liberal partisanship and smearing here as well.

    2. I think everyone seems to forget that Mulcair was part of a Liberal government in Quebec. That party, as I predicted, did have their offices raided by the police and material taken away. The material removed went back all the way to the government that Mulcair belonged to.

      Anyone, and I do mean anyone, attached to the widespread corruption is not going to look good.

      All of the provincial parties in Quebec might get raided by the end of this. And everyone who thinks this is just a smear should be aware that the level of corruption, denial or looking the other way in the province was so pervasive that it defies belief.

      Mulcair might have satisfied some people with his explanation but the Charbonneu Inquiry may take a dimmer view. And who knows what the police will do?

  7. Or John, it'll end up being much ado about nothing. In my almost 60 years, this is the first time I have seen anyone gone after after refusing a bribe. We'll see.