Nanos-Policy Options Poll - Canadians see recession lasting into 2010; Support deficits and Infrastructure spending

I don't believe for one minute that Stephen Harper believes spending $64 billion over two years as a way to pull the country out of recession. He does believe tinkering with a much reduced deficit would do some good. The fact is much of the spending will take effect too late and a lot of it will be ineffective.

However, the reality is he is in a minority situation and he knows that if he doesn't spend like a drunken sailor given all the demands of the opposition parties he will be forced into another election.

There will be no coalition government given the attitude of many Canadians and nobody who is responsible believes that having the Bloc with veto power over all legislation that the coalition will provide stable government for the country.

I am disappointed in Count Iggy. He is spending more time arrogantly attacking the PM with condescending rhetoric i.e. I told him not to do it. Talk about the issues and what the Libs propose. However, he would rather play cute and make silly statements in order to get a sound bite in the media which they dutifully report.

Harper should not have introduced the withdrawal of the $1.95 subsidy to political parties within the economic statement. However, he should introduce it as a separate piece of legislation and have the opposition parties defend it within the House of Commons. That way Canadians would see first hand the opposition defending the subsidy. Harper knows Canadians do not support giving their tax money to political parties i.e. the Bloc who they would not or cannot support.

[updated Sun Jan 25 20:26:56 -0500 2009]

At this time, it is a golden opportunity to be investing in technologies that reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce GHG emissions. These technologies need a jump start from government. There is a reason why oil, coal, and gas are our main energy sources - they're cheap and green tech needs a helping hand to get going. I don't mean investing in big corp ethanol plants - this is not especially environmentally friendly as it turns out. We should invest in co-generation, where electricity is generated at factories, institutions, and homes, and the excess heat is used (for heating obviously) rather than just thrown away as is the case with big coal and nuclear generating stations. We should invest in wood and other biomass pelletizing technologies for home and industry heating. This is very efficient environmentally and will make a lot of jobs in forestry and agriculture. We need REAL investment in improving energy efficiency of homes and other buildings. This is the cheapest and most effective way to reduce our energy needs and GHG emissions, but it's also going to create a lot of jobs. We also need to invest big-time in public transit, not more roads for cars. If we do these things, we will emerge from this depression/recession with a highly efficient economy and skilled workforce able to be a global leader instead of a follower.

[updated Sun Jan 25 20:43:34 -0500 2009]

Specific references to relative strengths in our Canadian economy - ie banks - overlook the historic importance and predictability of this: As the USA goes, so goes Canada six months later.

The undeniable reality is simply this: The southern colossus teeters on the abyss, all it's banks now worthless, central bank tinkering now exhausted without results, bailouts ineffective and Obama's incoming administration reduced to showering America with more borrowed money.

And 34.1% of Canadians believe we will see a short mid summer 2009 turnaround. It is to despair.

[updated Mon Jan 26 01:46:49 -0500 2009]

One has to polish their crystal ball and pretend they know what to do in the coming economic crisis. I say "coming" as we are tied closely---too closely---to the US economy and their crisis DEEPENS DAILY. The root of the US problem appears to be the home ownership / mortgage / credit crisis and that has to be solved FIRST before the rest of their dependent economy begins to right itself and the citizens have the dollars again to spend and to buy our products.

It is not only greed and malfeasance that has led to the US problem and ricochetted around their economic partners but also the unrealistic expectations of the consumer society that afflicts us also. We seem to believe we are ENTITLED to live beyond our means and have all the goodies we want. Is there a limit to our wants and needs ??? In Canada, we are lucky that we learned something from some of the Canadian bank failures in the early 1900s and implemented stringent controls that have rewarded our society today.

Obviously, government income will decline with an economic downturn and deficit financing can be expected to some degree. Some cool heads will have to look at what programmes we have to have, for example hospitals, and what programmes can be reasonably cut, for example, the Afghanistan War. I am sure there are many programmes that will have to come under critical scrutiny. I do not like deficit financing but, no doubt, it will have to be done.

I am very opposed to American style bail outs but well-defined LOANS to some industries would likely be in the national interest. Our urban areas have been screaming for years for infrastructure upgrades but, at the same time, many urban areas have avoided having even a modest programme in place to do just that for example, the Olympic Village in Vancouver is of a higher priority than water lines. It is not all the federal government's fault that bridges are collapsing or water lines are blowing out or raw sewage is dumped in the nearest convenient waterway. Hard priorities have not been addressed at the urban levels. We go for the glitter and the gloss.

Anything that cuts the cost of living is welcome such as an income tax cut at the bottom and a reassessment of taxes for the over $200,000 group. I would go further to say the widening gap between the very wealthy expanding group and the very poor expanding group has to be narrowed before our society can be said to be in "good health". I realize this would be most unpopular for the growing numbers of the "haves" in Canadian society.

Where I differ to what I have read in this poll is in three areas all related to learning and inventing. First, I would say that the Unimployment Insurance Fund has to be rejigged to support extended benefits and most importantly, to support training and new skills for the unemployed (if they want to retrain and upgrade). Even if the fund runs dry, then here is a good place for federal money. Obviously, they will have to provide better management as they can not have $150 million dollar frauds as they have in BC at the moment ! ! ! Secondly, those institutions that offer those courses should receive generous federal money and no doubt provincial toes may be stepped on. Trained brains and hands are a national asset. Our youth must see a bright future for trained brains rather than see bread lines. Thirdly, the National Research Council, our think tank, at one time had many original and important projects underway for the benefit of all the people of Canada. It should be brought back into economic prominence and lead, as it once did, for the benefit of all Canadians.

I also believe our national government must develop the ability to reasonably change direction and reasonably change emphasis as this economic challenge unfolds.

[updated Mon Jan 26 03:37:43 -0500 2009]

I have no idea how how deep this recession will go or how long it will last. I don't believe anyone else knows either. I have no faith that Harper or Flaherty have a clue about how best to approach the problem. They, both, have shown me that they are economic ignoramuses. Furthermore what they do will be only for political reasons, not economic. I laugh at their spiel that they have take those actions, even tho they are against their beliefs, because they are in a minority position. Just a short while ago they were mocking Dion for doing the same thing. Having to support policy you don't agree with because you are in a political weakened position. What goes around comes around!

The US is in a severe recession. Some say 85% of our trade is with the US. I remember Trudeau tried to get us to diverse our trade and do more with Europe, Asia and South America Since then we have revert totally back to intercontinental trade and dependency on the US and it's economic condition. We are not insulated enough from the US condition. Now there's a global recession .So we can't rely on relief from that quarter.

We are at the mercy of the US and Global economic situation and there is very little we can do to help ourselves. No matter who's in government.

We can do something to help those most affected. That is, we pay out money to those who need it most. That is the first priority.

We do not cut taxes. We do not subsidize corporations or industry. We can borrow money and create employment in infrastructure. Those things that are long lasting and are there when the recession is over. Hospitals and more trained nurses and doctors. More trained teachers. Housing for those who now live in deplorable conditions Training facilities for those who need skills in the new jobs, new technology. Those and many other things that will be a great benefit after the recession. That just a few beginning suggestions.

[updated Mon Jan 26 09:12:34 -0500 2009]

The Budget

1) Government can not "create demand or jobs" in any substantial way. ( Unless you consider elections staffing....lol

They should help soften the impact of the Global Crisis through protecting the "money, taxes we send to Ottawa. Minimize wasteful spending and projects. We don't want another HR Billion dollar boondoggle like we had under the Liberals.

1) Let the provinces decide their priorities and DO NOT force solutions.
2) Increase interprovincial trade negotiating the removal of barriers for trade between provinces. (Red Tape/Protectionism)
3) Assist infrastructure projects (33%) with provinces and cities that will increase productivity. (with provincal gov. support)
4) Provide everyone with a tax break/credits. Full stop. Make them retroactive in time for Big refunds to pay down debts and invest into their business.
5) Increase credit and deductions for business and individuals for 2008-2009.
6) Act on the enviroment and "TACKLE" pollution.

Do this in cooperation of OBAMA and every province.

"Environment: The Conservatives have committed to reducing Canada’s greenhouse gases by 20 percent below 2006 levels by 2020, and cutting air pollution by 50 percent by 2015. There targets will be achieved through government laws imposed on industries, as well as national caps for industrial emissions commonly associated with smog and acid rain. Other environmental policies include promoting smarter energy use through the ecoEnergy Initiative; a Chemical Management Plan to regulate chemicals harmful to human health and the environment; $1.5 billion over seven years for the production of renewable fuels; a commitment to ensure that 90 percent of Canadian electricity needs are generated through non-emitting sources by 2020; and additional government funding to acquire and preserve ecologically sensitive lands."

[updated Mon Jan 26 10:40:36 -0500 2009]

Hi Nik, I believe I would support the opinion of those polled as opposed to the Pollyanna outlook delivered by the Bank of Canada last week. Infrastructure spending will help take a bit of the edge off, but the bruited Conservative "broad based and Permanent" tax cuts for the middle class will end up in the bank, or paying debt, but will do nothing to stimulate the economy.

My family is Middle Class, and as a non-scientific experiment, I asked my wife:"if you were to get an extra $100.00 per paycheque due to a tax cut, what would you do with it?" Her reply? "Pay off the Visa faster and then start topping up our RRSP contributions."

That would be very nice for my family, but we don't need the help.

[updated Mon Jan 26 11:49:10 -0500 2009]

well I need a pinch - somebody pinch me !! I just heard Jim P. one of the longest serving of Harper's con. bunch sounding like Mr Dion !! - what - ?
He stated in an interview on CBC Politics that - wait for it - that the Economy and the Environment go hand in hand and need to be addressed together - !!??
O.M.G. I am soooo looking forward to the Liberal Goverrnment - can't be to soon for me to say Prime Minister Ignatiev !! You just cannot trust Harper !! he has let down all small 'c' conservtives who voted for him by changing his politics in a desperate attempt to stay in power - what a sleaze !!

[updated Mon Jan 26 17:45:02 -0500 2009]

Canadians do not need a Governor General to read a speech, the Prime Minister is perfectly capable of reading his own speech. This is total waste of taxpayer's money which could be used for other programs. The Liberals are totally responsible for this on going mess and institution. The time has come to limit Civil Servants from Voting in Federal Elections and can only Vote in Provincial and Municipal Elections, Provincial Goverment Employee's must only be allowed to Vote in Federal Elections and Municipal Elections. This is where the Liberals get their majority from in Ontario.

[updated Mon Jan 26 19:59:53 -0500 2009]

Why Stephen Harper Is Budgetly-speaking A Red Tory!

If you're like me, you're having a hell of a time enjoying yourself listening to reformers gripe about the Prime Minister. Nothing pleases me more than to hear reform and alliance types whining how Harper has sold them out and let his government be taken over by those thoroughly despised RED TORIES. Many on the right are saying the time has come to form another Reform Party.

Coupled with this are laments coming from cabinet itself -- with at least one minister suggesting under his breath that the CPC will lose the next election under Harper's leadership.

Taken together, you begin to see the rationale for the PM's approach to today's budget: Harper has learned his lesson since reading the Ekos poll. He knows his personal popularity has nosedived (55% personal disapproval vs. 35% who approve of his performance) but at the same time, Harper also knows his party still commands 36% voter support vs. 33 for the Liberals and 14% for the NDP.

All you have to do to understand Stephen Harper is to get into his head -- the man has power and will quite literally, do whatever it takes to stay in office. If that means adopting the opposition agenda or selling down the river party and personal principles, so be it.

Watch Harper continue to play games during the implementation phase -- he did that last year when red tape held up most infrastructure spending outlined in the previous budget. There's an art to attaching conditions to political spending and the PM is one stern taskmaster at that. Harper knows full well that neither the provinces nor the cities can hope to match the levels of funding which the federal goverment has allocated for them as a necessary prerequisite to receiving increased transfers from Ottawa.

Machiavelli is at his best these days -- announce everything conceivable in sight, in the budget and then block outlays by making the provinces, territories and cities jump through endless bureaucratic hoops.

That's the Stephen Harper I know. Watch the fur fly in the coming days and weeks.

[updated Tue Jan 27 10:33:15 -0500 2009]

I love that Budget Do Not You, especially the part that sent a message to Bankers, you no longer have the power you once did under Liberal governments that gave you power to tell government what do. You will now do what we say and there will more to come. So expect your customers to be more aggressive and demanding on your front line staff.
Bank Idoits

[updated Tue Jan 27 17:53:40 -0500 2009]

Harper's absolute hypocrisy is now out in the open:
"We know that Mr. Harper “chose” to plunge Ottawa $64-billion into the red over the next two years about as much as a spy with a gun to his head “chooses” to surrender classified information to an enemy power"
.....................................................................
"But, really, can there be any greater act of capitulation for a former head of the anti-government National Citizens' Coalition than actually increasing the size of government? It's a rate of evolution at which Darwin would marvel."

The liberals now have a boatload of ammo to shoot at this guy and put him out of his misery.

[updated Wed Jan 28 06:38:25 -0500 2009]

I am not an economist. I don't know how far this budget will go to alleviate the economic situation we are in. I would not support it and I hope the Liberals don't support it. If Iggy doesn't support it I don't believe there will be an election. I can't believe that the GG would be so irresponsible as to not grant the majority of parliamentarians the opportunity to form the government when they are willing to reach the agreement. Because the recession is generally global and particularly a US one. And because we are so dependent we can`t a lot about it.

You ask why would I not support the budget when I don't know whether it would work or not. Answer; for two reasons.
I don't trust Harper to do anything he proposes, but only that which he has no choice to do because of political vulnerability. That can never be good for the country. So I oppose it.
Second, I don't believe the budget, even if implemented exactly as it exists, would go half far enough to do what is necessary.
I would raise consumer taxes to 16 % (or maybe 20%) shared 50/50 with the Federals and the municipalities. I would put into every Canadian adult, every month, an amount say $1500 or $2000 or whatever is needed to provide the basics. I would raise the basic income exemption to $18,000 or $20,000. I would not tax corporations or companies.
The government is comprised of people and only people should pay taxes. Of course those who make money from corporations or businesses would be taxed. I would use to whatever level the treasury finances permit to create full employment as far as possible.

I detest buzz words. The farther one is to the right the more likely they use them. I think it an attempt to direct more attention their spin and away from the reality. One that`s common now is `shovel``, ``Shovel on the ground``, ``shovel ready,`` shovel this, shovel that. Don Newman (CBC) must have used it five times in one sentence yesterday
Maybe for once this time it is appropriate. I see nothing in the budget or anything else coming from the PM`s office to grow anything except agriculture. It`s the same stuff farmers have shovelled from their barns for centuries and for the same purpose.

[updated Wed Jan 28 09:23:49 -0500 2009]

Iggy would like everyone; including Liberals, to think he is playing hardball, but let the truth be known, he is just playing politics, buying time for the party and washing his hands of the coalition. Cleaning up after Martin and Dion. Strategizing? Iggy is a smart and honourable Canadian, he is also a politician.

[updated Wed Jan 28 16:49:54 -0500 2009]

IGNA is not the right name to be Prime Minister it is not in the cards, 90% of Canadians cannot spell it, He is like Parnel a Parnel for Prime Minister I do not think so.

Harper is doing a get job for Canadians in the West, IGNA has TUNNEL VISION for Ontario and Quebec only. This is what I said to him on Squeeze Play when interviewed by Amada Lang. Where the hell is Habs of Quebec.

[updated Wed Jan 28 17:19:22 -0500 2009]

“We have a new coalition -- Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff,” Layton said in Ottawa.

Jay Hill, the Conservative lawmaker responsible for legislative affairs, told reporters the government accepts the conditions. “We’re pleased the Liberals have decided to support our budget,” Hill told reporters. “It does nothing we don’t normally do which is report back to Parliament.”

Coalition ‘Dead’

Backed by labor unions, the Liberals and the two other opposition parties last month agreed to form a coalition to defeat Harper in a bid to speed up infrastructure spending and help manufacturers. Under the terms of the alliance, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party would form a government supported by the separatist Bloc Quebecois on key votes.

Ignatieff today said he wouldn’t “exclude” the possibility of forming a coalition in the future if needed, though Liberal lawmaker Denis Coderre told reporters separately the alliance was “dead.”

Asked whether the Liberal Party’s support of the budget marks the end of the coalition, New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton declined to comment on what he called a “hypothetical” question.

“We have a new coalition -- Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff,” Layton said in Ottawa.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a2_zNuLqCUDU

[updated Wed Jan 28 17:47:34 -0500 2009]

(Ontario the road to the MAJORITY: Iggy bends over and allows Harper to win next election.)

"I put that (idea) to all the parties," he told reporters. "This prime minister has actually delivered. I'm not going to look this gift horse in the mouth.

"This is real, it's meaningful and it's coming here just in time. This is a time when we're taking a shellacking in the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario."

"I want to commend Prime Minister Harper and his government for listening to some of the very significant specific concerns Ontarians have expressed," Mr. McGuinty said yesterday.

McGuinty heaps praise on Conservative budget (Title)
Mission almost accomplished on fairness fight, premier says
By Lee Greenberg, The Ottawa CitizenJanuary 29, 2009

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Entertainment/McGuinty+heaps+praise+Conservative+budget/1229205/story.html

Why neo-liberals will lose next election and become obsolete.

Keeping Harper in power to spend Billions to tackle problems.
Photos and premiers are getting money and shovels are hitting the ground.

Neo-liberals will protest, scream again in public and abstain by cheering behind the curtains AGAIN. Neo-liberals will be praying for scandals and wasted spending now. (Silly pathetic party, shooting themselves again in the foot!)

[updated Thu Jan 29 09:12:27 -0500 2009]

By all reports the RCMP have become a dysfunctional and a not trusted police force they are just a collection of unqualified Rambo's with Tazers and figment of their original standard. I have recommended to the BC Lottery Corporation than no former RCMP officers be hired in any Security, Security Supervisor or the Head of Security at Head Office or for any Casinos in the Province. I suggest you do the same for your Province.

[updated Thu Jan 29 18:00:16 -0500 2009]

CROP Poll:

Support in Quebec:

CPC: 16%

LPC: 31%

BQ: 34%

NDP: 15%

Is anyone surprised? Claude Durand will have her work cut out for her!

[updated Thu Jan 29 21:17:49 -0500 2009]

A Few Interesting Quotes From Neil Waugh's piece in the Edmonton Sun:

"We've just had a spending orgy by Alberta's "Conservative" Prime Minister Stephen Harper."

"Meanwhile, in a small graveyard somewhere in Alberta, a symbolic wreath is laid next to a simple marker with the words 'Reform Party' carved on it."

Waugh goes on to say how Ignatieff has taught Harper to be a Liberal and bemoans the fact that Harper will have to report to Ignatieff, the "Chairman of the Board".

Nothing like a clear-headed Alberta perspective! Too bad we aren't in the Klondike because this is pure gold.

[updated Thu Jan 29 21:32:51 -0500 2009]

Much as others and myself have been saying the Tories are about to fragment and new internal dissent over Harper's budget now tells me why Iggy supported it. It will kill Harper's election chances across the land once it all sinks in.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.wtories30/BNStory/politics/home

You Tory whiners should enjoy your last months in power for another generation...the Iggy era is upon us.

[updated Fri Jan 30 07:29:25 -0500 2009]

When The Rubber Hits The Road.

February 19, 2009, a day when the Prime Minister will have to prove to the Canadian people that his new best friend, President Barack Obama, will be able to deliver on the "Buy American" rider in the U.S. economic stimulus plan. Once adopted by the Senate, the rider will likely not allow imports of Canadian iron, steel and other manufactured goods as part of the stimulus plan.

These provisions are probably in violation of both the WTO and NAFTA. Harper will have his work cut out for him - if the Obama Administration exempts Canada, it will likely face a tidal wave of other nations clamoring for their own exemptions.

The PM will be under a lot of pressure to deliver. The fate of his government may very well rest on whether Harper can win this one for Canada.

[updated Fri Jan 30 09:27:04 -0500 2009]

Dear Liberal Apologists: The Iggy Empire is already falling apart around. Neo-liberals are now scrambling as party is splitting:

Newfoundland Liberal breaks ranks on budget
The Canadian Press

January 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM EST

ST. JOHN'S — A Newfoundland Liberal MP says he will break party ranks and vote against the federal budget if necessary, the second party member to do so.

Scott Andrews, who represents the riding of Avalon, told VOCM Radio he is prepared to go against his party and oppose the budget if it doesn't protect $1.5-billion that the province is entitled to.

“Newfoundland and Labrador has been getting shafted and it's time for this to stop,” Mr. Andrews said Friday. “Our colleagues out there in the rest of the country don't get it and we've been trying to impress upon them how important this is to Newfoundland and Labrador.”

Premier Danny Williams has called on the six Liberal MPs from his province to vote against the budget, saying it will sap $1.5-billion away from the province in funds from the 1985 Atlantic Accord.

But even if they vote against it, the budget would pass with the support of the other Liberals.

Mr. Williams is also looking for support from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and other premiers to delay budget changes that affect revenues from the equalization formula and the Atlantic Accord.

Mr. Williams is requesting a one-year delay on those changes, saying they adversely affect his province and others that receive equalization.

While Newfoundland and Labrador no longer receives equalization, it continues to receive money under the 1985 Atlantic Accord agreement, which sets out the rules for sharing revenue from the province's offshore energy industry and is influenced by equalization calculations.

Judy Foote, member for Random-Burin-St. George's, has also said she will vote against the budget if it doesn't protect the Atlantic Accord money.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has not acknowledged Mr. Williams's claims that Newfoundland is poised to lose $1.5-billion in payments under the 1985 Atlantic Accord. But he has said the province will get $1.2-billion in Atlantic Accord payments over the next three years — $1.5-billion less than the province says it's entitled to receive under the agreement.

[updated Fri Jan 30 13:19:43 -0500 2009]

Dear Liberal Apologists#2: Myth Busted: Proving again the "Big Tent" and voices of dissent are not ruled by an "dictator". The truth is this minority government need cooperation and have been acting for 3 years by gettin at least one party to agree.

Some of the budget's biggest critics: Tories

In fact looks like the Liberals are again at the CPC love in by adopting their desire to control the message.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090130.EIGNATIEFF30/TPStory/TPComment/?page=rss&id=GAM.20090130.EIGNATIEFF30

THE LIBERALS AND THE MEDIA
Imitating Harper

January 30, 2009

Michael Ignatieff is wise to attempt to restore some discipline to the Liberal Party, and in particular its caucus. But an expression of admiration this week by Ian Davey, Mr. Ignatieff's principal secretary, for the rigid message control of Prime Minister Stephen Harper goes too far.

[updated Fri Jan 30 14:03:30 -0500 2009]

Liberal Apologist#3: Another example of a flip flopper. When a Liberal does it, it's okay.

(RonaldODowd God Bless the "SEPARATIST COALITION"!

And may they, with God's infinite wisdom, succeed in separating this country from the government....)

They attack Harper, blame his budget won't fix our problems, let him remain as PM.
How many excuses are we going to give these neo-liberals? For 3 years they have been said Harper is wrong and bad for Canada, but again they fail to act.

What happened to this party? When did they lose faith with Canadians?

[updated Fri Jan 30 17:20:06 -0500 2009]

Ignatieff won't say if he'll discipline N.L. MPs who vote against budget
ST..JOHNS (CBC) - Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has said he will support the Conservative budget, but he won't say if the party's Newfoundland and Labrador MPs will be punished for voting against it.
ADVERTISEMENT

A second Liberal MP said Friday he is prepared to vote against the document if it is not amended to resolve what some view as punitive measures against Newfoundland and Labrador.

"Lets not talk about discipline yet," Ignatieff told CBC Radio's The House in an interview to be aired on Saturday.

"If there is discrimination against and broken faith with Newfoundland, we are going to make our position very clear to the prime minister and in the house," according to Ignatieff who said he is still pushing to resolve the issue.

Avalon MP Scott Andrews told CBC News he will "absolutely not" vote in favour of the federal budget unless it is changed to prevent Newfoundland and Labrador from losing $1.6 billion in the next three years.

"No, I have not received permission from my leader to do this. This is something that I've done by listening to what people have said. Listen, I campaigned on this in the last election. I'm not going down the same road as John Efford [and] Fabian Manning. This is the same issue and I was elected to put Newfoundland and Labrador first, period," he said.

Andrews follows Judy Foote, who represents the southern Newfoundland riding of Random-Burin-St. George's.

Foote told constituents in an email that enough people have contacted her office about the budget that she has sufficient "hard evidence" about the feelings of constituents.

Newfoundland and Labrador's six Liberal MPs are being pressured to vote against the budget, should it not be amended to delete language that could mean the provincial government would lose about $1.6 billion in offset payments over the next three years.

"One of the problems in Ottawa is getting people to understand the seriousness of the situation," Foote says in an email sent to constituents.

Foote said the correspondence she has received shows "there is no question the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want their representatives to vote against the budget even if that means sitting as Independents."

Foote and other MPs have been lobbying Ignatieff, who has not endorsed any plans to fight for budget changes that would help Newfoundland and Labrador or other provinces. Quebec Premier Jean Charest has also criticized the budget's changes to equalization.

On Thursday, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams said he asked Ignatieff to back a one-year moratorium on equalization changes so that provinces could be consulted. He said besides his own province and Quebec, the new budget means losses for the three Maritime provinces and Manitoba.

Newfoundland and Labrador no longer receives equalization payments, having been deemed a so-called "have" province last fall. However, the changes in equalization policy cut into the province's ability to pursue options that had been laid out by the Conservative government in its previous term.

Williams is furious that the province will no longer be able to collect what are called offset payments, generated by the 1985 Atlantic Accord a bilateral agreement the province negotiated with former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney.

In her letter to constituents, Foote said she has received plenty of feedback since appealing to hear their views.

"Let me put your mind at ease," she wrote. "For me, doing what is right for our province is to vote against this Conservative budget, which I will be doing."

Meanwhile, prominent Liberal MP Bob Rae has suggested that members of the caucus will help Williams as well as MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador.

"We're going to be demonstrating solidarity with our colleagues in Newfoundland and Quebec and elsewhere by making it very clear that we want to see changes to equalization commitments that the government has made and we'll do everything we can to get there," Rae said Thursday.

Rae said he is troubled that the Conservatives are picking off one province at a time.

He said the Tories are "fiddling" with Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald and have clearly made a political decision to cut out Williams, who organized an "Anything but Conservative" campaign that resulted in the federal Tories being shut out in Newfoundland and Labrador last fall.

Rae said he believes that Williams's frustration is perfectly understandable.

[updated Fri Jan 30 17:27:03 -0500 2009]

Something I read today on the Web we might get a good chuckle regarding the opposition and the games in Ottawa.
--------------------------------------------
It really is a pathetic and juvenile comedy being played out among the Opposition parties . It's so ridiculous, doubt a writer of such works could even dream it up.

It started off in secret between the Socialist and the Separatist. Jack the Pr**k nuzzled up to Gilles the Fox and made a pact. Then they needed a supporting actor so they called on Dufus Dion who was promised he would be given top billing. Dion goofed, he got booted out of his casting company and out of the show. The show was now in some doubt. Enter Prig Iggypuff, court jester extraordinaire, and appointed replacement for Dufus. Since Iggypuff, when he was a bit player, had already signed on to the Comedy of Errors/Coalition he was IN.

The show went downhill from there because Prig Iggypuff got stage fright, just couldn't perform, needed more money and coaching. Jack the Pr**k got all huffy and started name calling, ditto Gilles. The name calling will continue but the show is over.

After all of this, Stephen Harper still holds the power they were trying to grab and doing a great job of tending to the business of the country. What comes to mind is a line from Kipling's "IF", "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, You are a man my son". Stephen Harper sure has done that.

[updated Fri Jan 30 18:25:55 -0500 2009]

After Budget, Conservatives Maintain Nine-Point Lead Over Liberals
If the government falls, Canadians would prefer to hold a new election than to allow the proposed opposition coalition to take power.

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=41143

KEY FINDINGS
Voting Intention: Con. 38%, Lib. 29%, NDP 18%, BQ 8%, Grn. 6%

In the online survey of a representative national sample, 38 per cent of respondents (-1) say they would vote for the governing Conservative Party in the next federal election, followed by the Liberal Party with 29 per cent (-1), the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 18 per cent (+1), the Bloc Québécois with eight per cent (-1), and the Green Party with six per cent (+1).

41% say Harper has a clear plan to deal with the economic crisis; 26% say Ignatieff does
39% have confidence in Harper to find the right solutions for the Canadian economy; 38% trust Ignatieff

36% think Ignatieff is sensitive to the needs of their province; 32% think Harper is

[updated Sat Jan 31 09:50:32 -0500 2009]

Another Liberal Apologist required for Iggy's top aide on the record making "tastless joke" or offensive comment against Chinese? Damage control is now is Overdrive. The Neo-liberals are following in the Dion footsteps so closely already...

"Moments ago, in the House of Commons, Vancouver area Conservative MP Alice Wong rose to say this:

My constituents are asking me why the Liberal leader is refusing to fire his top political aide, Warren Kinsella. Was Mr. Kinsella’s comment about tucking into a “Bowl of BBQ cat” at Yang Sheng’s here in Ottawa done in his ‘official’ role as Liberal party spokesman? His comments that Chinese restaurants serve cat meat deeply offended the Chinese community in Canada, and have already been condemned in Sing Tao Daily, Ming Pao, World Journal, and across Chinese language talk radio.

As a Chinese Canadian and someone who appreciates the freedom and opportunity that Canada provides, it hurts me and my community greatly to see racially ignorant comments coming from official spokesmen for the Liberal party.

When will the Liberal leader realise that Canada’s political system doesn't have room for someone with Warren Kinsella's offensive views? When will he fire Warren Kinsella?"

MP demands Kinsella's resignation
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009/1/30/4075140.htm

Please keep up the great work, I am looking forward to hearing from the other MP's about Warren Kinsella. (This is going to hurt the neo-liberals big tent)

[updated Sat Jan 31 10:28:07 -0500 2009]

Strategic Counsel/Globe and Mail/CTV Poll:

A few choice morsels:

"... 72 per cent of Canadians say the government would not have introduced the stimulative budget of this week had it not been for the pressure of opposition parties, whose members threatened to bring down the Harper government and install a coalition. Similarly, 69 per cent say they still blame Mr. Harper for causing an unnecessary political crisis late last year when he should have been focusing on the economy. In Quebec, 83 per cent of respondents blame the Prime Minister for the crisis."

"Asked whether they believe Mr. Harper has changed since the fall and is taking the country's economic troubles more seriously, 63 per cent said they perceived no change and that the budget is all about politics. In Quebec, 74 per cent said they don't believe he changed."

Good ole Stephen, nice to see how Canadians are increasingly getting the true measure of the man.

[updated Sat Jan 31 12:17:43 -0500 2009]

Harper Takes Quebecers For Dummies.

In a television interview broadcast on the TVA television network in Quebec on Friday, the Prime Minister had this to say, with a straight face, to Quebecers:

"Nous restons le parti pour une nation québécoise forte au sein d'un Canada uni. C'est une philosophie unique. Evidemment, les libéraux sont le parti d'un Canada central, et le Bloc est pour deux pays séparés. Nous sommes le parti du nationalisme québécois."

TRANSLATION:

"We remain the party in favour of a strong Quebec nation within a united Canada. It is a unique philosophy. Evidently, the Liberals are the party of a centralized Canada and the Bloc is for two separate nations. We are the party of Quebec nationalism."

Yeah, right. Please tell me another one.

[updated Sat Jan 31 12:52:32 -0500 2009]

With the coalition dead: The defining of Iggy has begun.

NDP and Bloc are already spending money to define Iggy. Can the neo-liberals afford to spend money defending themselves against these attacks? The Liberals made a mistake last time by not defending Dion, now they will have to spend money to minizmize the attacks by the Bloc/NDP.

The CPC for the most part have not begun a campaign to define Iggy. With the coalition dead. Are they allowing the Liberals some breathing space to recover, or are they allowing the partners in the ACCORD do the hatchet job on this new leader?

NDP are running radio spots clearly pointing out Iggy had an option to stop Harper but instead chose to pass the CPC budget. So they want Iggy to wear this budget as well. Will it work?

Duceppe flays Ignatieff

Angus Frame, January 31, 2009 at 2:07 PM EST

In the Québec press today, some pundits are predicting great things for the Liberals in that province, while others are suggesting that the Party's climb in the polls is temporary. No one disputes, however, that the Conservatives are in free fall and that Michael Ignatieff is now the principal target for Gilles Duceppe.

Judging from the words of Mr. Duceppe at today's Bloc convention, the game has begun:

“He did not even have enough time to promise openness before abandoning Québec at the first opportunity,” La Presse reports on its website (under the headline "Duceppe flays Ignatieff)…. Whether the Liberals or Conservatives are in government, and whether the government is led by Ignatieff or Harper changes nothing. A nation always has its interests, and that's what happens in Canada, whichever party, whichever leader: it's Canada first and too bad for Québec.”

For his part, Bloc House Leader Pierre Paquette accused Mr. Ignatieff of having “panicked at the prospect of taking power.”
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090131.WBSpector20090131140704/WBStory/WBSpector

[updated Sun Feb 01 08:28:28 -0500 2009]

Liberal leader rules uneasy roost

John Ivison, National Post Published: Saturday, January 31, 2009

Michael Ignatieff might consider it his manifest destiny to be prime minister one day. There even seems to be an emerging media consensus that views this prospect with a certain inevitability.

But the new Liberal leader is going to face some stiff challenges as his honeymoon period winds down. First among them is going to be discontent in a caucus that is not used to being told what to do.

Judy Foote, a Liberal MP from Newfoundland and Labrador, has already said she will vote against the Conservative budget, in contravention of her leader's wishes, unless it is amended to delete language that she says will cost her home province $1.6-billion in federal transfers over the next three years. She said that her constituents want her to vote against the budget, even if it means she has to sit as an independent. Five other MPs from the Rock face a similar dilemma--defy the wishes of their new leader or face the wrath of Premier Danny Williams, who could use his considerable clout to back NDP candidates in the next election.

But the issue of internal discipline is not confined to the budget. One disgruntled Liberal MP called me to say that all opposition critics and senior committee members will soon be issued mandate letters to explain their roles and responsibilities. The move is unprecedented, the MP said. "Trudeau said MPs are nobodies 50 yards off Parliament Hill. This guy [Ignatieff ] wants to make us nobodies on Parliament Hill. It's outrageous, and he's heading toward a mutiny in six to eight months unless he's high in the polls," he said.

Mr. Ignatieff has followed Prime Minister Stephen Harper's lead in establishing rigid internal discipline, including slapping down MPs who have spoken out on issues when they were not authorized. "Iggy's a control freak -- he's worse than Harper," the MP said.

But Jill Fairbrother, Mr. Ignatieff's director of communications and media, said that many MPs have indicated they are glad the leader's office is co-ordinating a communications strategy. "The caucus and the leader are working together to figure out who's speaking out where and when."

She said the issuing of man-date letters was "standard operating procedure" and was designed to give critics an outline of what was expected by the leader. She cited the recent budget process, where Mr. Ignatieff consulted with his caucus before deciding whether he was going to support the Conservative plan, as an example of the Liberal leader being a good listener.

Another MP, who disagreed with Mr. Ignatieff's strategy of supporting the Conservative budget, said the imposition of some discipline and professionalism to the party's communications was "a good thing."

"I disagreed with the decision, but it was handled extremely well from a political point of view," he said. "There were a surprising number of people in caucus who wanted to bring down the government, but I suspect you will see discipline going forward."

The Liberal party has made much of Stephen Harper as the "master of the muzzle" in recent years. It looks like Mr. Ignatieff considered it a compliment.

[updated Sun Feb 01 08:31:26 -0500 2009]

The S.S. Minnow and the Neo-Liberal Party of Canada have a lot in common.

Third Newfoundland Liberal breaks ranks
The Canadian Press February 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM EST

ST. JOHN'S — Newfoundland Liberal MP Scott Simms says he will break party ranks and oppose the federal budget if it isn't amended to protect $1.6-billion for his province.

Mr. Simms said the budget unfairly targets his province by threatening to take away $1.5-billion in money from the 1985 Atlantic Accord, and another $80-million in federal health transfers.

Mr. Simms, who represents the central Newfoundland riding of Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor, said he made the decision with some difficulty because he's been shown much respect from new Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

The MP joins fellow Newfoundland Liberals Judy Foote and Scott Andrews in opposing the federal budget.
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams says the federal budget should lead Tories to think about whether Stephen Harper should lead them. Shaun Best/Reuters

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams says the federal budget should lead Tories to think about whether Stephen Harper should lead them. (Shaun Best/Reuters)
Related Articles

Recent

* Tory war chest nearly four times that of rivals
* Newfoundland Premier tempers attack on federal Liberals
* Newfoundland MPs test Ignatieff's grip on party
* Williams decries attempt to ‘shaft' Newfoundland
Mr. Ignatieff has said Liberals will allow the budget to pass Tuesday, when the House of Commons will be asked to give approval in principle.

Labrador Liberal MP Todd Russell said he'll vote in favour of the budget, saying there are valid arguments for party solidarity under Mr. Ignatieff.

It's not clear yet whether Mr. Ignatieff would discipline any three of the MPs for breaking party ranks.

[updated Mon Feb 02 17:56:19 -0500 2009]

Danny Williams - 1
Micheal Ignatieff - 0

Who is running the Liberal Party of "Canada" anyway?

[updated Tue Feb 03 11:55:17 -0500 2009]

Bob Rae just stuck one in Harper's ear:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=1246057

[updated Tue Feb 03 16:42:57 -0500 2009]

Ignatieff is not decisive trying to appease everyone in his parth rather than Canadians, this is not a sign of a good Prime Minister!

[updated Tue Feb 03 17:14:00 -0500 2009]

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 Part One
Ignatieff Puts Ambition Ahead of National Unity - Todd Russell Toes Party Line

UPDATE 5:15 PM - Although he is turning his back on Newfoundland and Labrador, Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, announced today that is willing to make a token gesture by giving a one time only "free pass" to the NL MPs so they can vote with their constituents.

In a clearly opportunistic move, Todd Russell immediately announced that he is now willing to vote against the federal budget along with the other party MPs who made their decisions before being given the nod and wink of their federalist leader.

It seems Todd Russell believes he can have his cake and eat it to by happily toeing the party line until his federal handlers approved of him voting in support of his constituents.

One can only hope the people of Labrador will not fall for his self serving actions and take him to task when the next federal election rolls around.

In offering this meaningless gesture to Newfoundland and Labrador Mr. Ignatieff said he is doing so because of the "radical unprecedented" cut to transfer payments by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He noted that the move "weakens the federation" which can only mean he supporting it for political and personal gain rather than in the best interest of Canada.

END UPDATE

The federal budget, which was intentionally designed to single out Newfoundland and Labrador in retaliation for not electing any Conservatives in the last election, will be passed in the Commons this evening with the support of the Liberal Party.

In a move that can only be seen as an attack by Stephen Harper, new measures will be introduced to remove $1.6 Billion in offshore oil transfers to Newfoundland and Labrador. This has been estimated as an amount equivalent to the Province of Ontario suddenly being stripped of $22 Billion dollars a year.

The move comes at a time when the economy is staggering, unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador is over 13% and is part of a so called “fiscal stimulus” budget.

When challenged over the issue Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty said in the House of Commons recently that, “…one of the principles involved in equalization is that all provinces should be treated equally."

He used that arguement as the reason he does not intend to change the legislation for Newfoundland and Labrador.

What he didn’t say was that this has nothing to do with equalization and is not directly impacted by the new cap being introduced.

Newfoundland and Labrador no longer receives equalization payments, however the formula used to calculate equalization itself is also a determining factor in calculating offshore oil revenue transfers which are intended to ensure that the province is the primary beneficiary of its offshore oil production rather than Ottawa.

Mr. Flaherty’s position that “…all provinces should be treated equally” has since been shown to have no merit.

On Tuesday Finance officials confirmed that Newfoundland and Labrador will be the only Province in the federation to lose revenue because of the specific changes that will be put in place.

It was also confirmed that two other provinces, specifically Nova Scotia and Manitoba, would also have been affected by the change however the Harper government have decided to provide those Provinces with one time payments to shelter them from the economic impact.

No such arrangement was put in place, or even offered, to Newfoundland and Labrador leaving it the only jurisdiction in Canada to be impacted.

This “poison pill” for Newfoundland and Labrador may have been an intentional act of the Conservative government but it is being abetted and supported in its implementation by the Liberal Party.

In his post budget address to the media Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, said that one of the “tests” he will be conducting in order to permit the Conservatives to remain in power is ensuring that the budget “addresses the needs of all regions of Canada”.

Since the financial attack on Newfoundland and Labrador was identified Mr. Ignatieff has lobbied the Prime Minister over the issue but is not willing to take away his support of the budget regardless of the damage it will cause.

[updated Tue Feb 03 17:28:18 -0500 2009]

Nik. Nothing to do with the topic but since I have been missing in action lately could I ask why Parnel has been suspended again. Are these actions really justified or are you just trying to please a few other posters. If comments are rated as inappropriate, is this what you use to suspend someone?I find it quite offensive that a couple of posters have taken on new identities since people have stopped responding to them. Could you possibly put a limit on the lenght of comments and block 2 part posting ? If no one answers questions we post we should not be allowed to answer them ourselves. This used to be a good pastime but lately has become more of a site for 1 or 2 long winded know it alls{legends in their own mind} who post more than all others combined. If I want to read articles in other sites or newspapers I will find them myself. Links are great since I can go there if I choose but copying and pasting entire propaganda pieces should be banned. Just my 2 cents worth .

[updated Tue Feb 03 20:20:12 -0500 2009]

Stop Making Me Ashamed To Be A Canadian.

Just when we thought we had seen it all on Parliament Hill, when we were under the impression that nothing could possibly surprise us comes a new high in low, even for Ottawa.

Independent Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey rose in the Commons today on a point of privilege to confirm that he was the object of an RCMP investigation based on false allegations of embezzlement and theft of Conservative Party funds.

Casey says Conservative party members went to a local detachment of the RCMP claiming that Casey had appropriated $30,000.00 in campaign funds. Casey points out that the same sum of money had been transferred from the local riding account to the official agent's account for the last election as required by Elections Canada. Upon learning that the Prime Minister had taken the decision to replace Casey as Conservative candidate, Casey's official agent returned the money to the Conservative Party. Casey was expelled from caucus because he voted against the budget, having refused to support the Atlantic accords which he argued shortchanged Nova Scotia and other provinces.

To those who are behind this smear, one wonders how they can look themselves in the mirror. How can people be so vindictive and cruel -- trying to ruin Casey as he is about to return to the private sector.

Enough already. Move heaven and earth if you have to but please, please put things right. Restore this honourable gentleman's good name. Bill Casey long ago earned the respect which he enjoys on all sides of the House. He deserves better than this. Canada and Canadians have been diminished and demeaned by whomever is responsible for this appalling and indecent behaviour.

[updated Tue Feb 03 22:43:40 -0500 2009]

MPs Pass Budget MPs Pass Budget - I new the Liberals did not have guts to stop it, they just talk and blow wind in their seats all day like some people on this site! I wonder who that is!

[updated Tue Feb 03 23:55:32 -0500 2009]

“It looks bad on Ignatieff and his control over his caucus,” said one long-time Liberal.
When you rely on a few high profile people to suggest the CPC are in trouble, it has a way of biting you back in unexpected ways. Tom Flanagan

“But it is a sign of weakness in the brutal world of politics and will create problems in the longer run. Harper would never do something similar,” said Mr. Flanagan, now a political science professor at the University of Calgary."

Mr. Flanagan, who served as Mr. Harper's chief of staff, said that the Prime Minister, faced with a similar situation, would have told his MPs: “It's my way or the highway.”

“He wouldn't have let a premier pull the strings on the members,” he said.

Even some Liberals are questioning Mr. Ignatieff's decision, saying that in this first real test of his leadership, he couldn't keep his MPs in line.

“It looks bad on Ignatieff and his control over his caucus,” said one long-time Liberal.

The optics of going against a leader in a budget vote are not good, which is why MPs are usually disciplined. In 2007, former Liberal MP Joe Comuzzi was kicked out of Stéphane Dion's caucus for pledging to support the Conservative budget. In 1996, John Nunziata was kicked out of Jean Chrétien's Liberal caucus for voting against the government's budget over what he considered a broken promise not to rescind the GST.

Others among the Liberals are wondering where it will stop. Could Newfoundland MPs break ranks again on another issue? And what about Quebec MPs, who are upset with some of the budget measures?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090203.wbudget04/BNStory/politics/?cid=al_gam_nletter_newsUp

[updated Wed Feb 04 09:03:30 -0500 2009]

Globe editorial
Two-tier Liberal caucus

"Just who is running the Liberal caucus? For nearly two months, Michael Ignatieff has applied the strong hand that was needed to restore discipline and focus lacking under Stéphane Dion. This week, he ceded some of that strength to avoid a fight with a boisterous premier. In doing so, he has set a precedent that may come back to haunt him."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090203.weNewfoundland04/BNStory/politics

[updated Wed Feb 04 09:06:35 -0500 2009]

Globe editorial
No national party votes by province

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

February 3, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

"Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff must insist on the support of Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador for the amended Conservative budget. To allow MPs to dissent from the decision taken by Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberal caucus only days ago to support the budget would imply weakness of leadership at a critical time for his party."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090202.weLiberals03/BNStory/politics

[updated Wed Feb 04 09:09:14 -0500 2009]

An asymmetric caucus has consequences

Adam Radwanski, February 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM EST

For minimal short-term gain, Michael Ignatieff has created two significant long-term headaches for himself.

First, as Rob Silver gets at, the Liberal Leader has sown the seeds of division in his caucus.

There's no way - none - that Ontario MPs would be allowed to appease Dalton McGuinty by going against their party on a budget vote. It's highly unlikely that Quebec MPs would be allowed to score brownie points with Jean Charest the same way.

In other words, six members of a 77-member caucus have now been told they can behave differently from everyone else. If you're trying to restore unity to a fractious party, this is not the way.

Second, Ignatieff has emboldened the one-man show running Newfoundland to continue setting the worst possible example of how federal-provincial relations should be run.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090203.WBwbradwanski20090203132023/WBStory/WBwbradwanski/

[updated Wed Feb 04 09:11:33 -0500 2009]

The Budget Vote - Much Ado About Nothing.

I have respect for opposing opinions but all this hubbub about how the Liberals voted on the budget is simply ludicrous. Is it true that Michael wanted a party line vote and was forced to back down by the NFL MPs? I suspect it is. But who cares.

Michael is the leader and as such, holds all the cards: several MPs were expelled from Harper's caucus - Garth Turner and Bill Casey come immediately to mind. Michael has both the carrot and the stick at his disposal. As leader, he has the power to select the "nuclear option" should he deem it necessary.

To claim that Michael is weak and ineffective for letting the five MPs vote against the budget is patently ridiculous. Michael made a pragmatic decision, a necessary one which may have gone against his better judgment.

However, MPs have been put on notice for the future: if they like the idea of having their nomination papers signed, they'll wisely toe the line. Otherwise, they will suffer the consequences. Is Michael bluffing? Not in a million years. The man is deadly serious. God help any MP who will be foolish enough to cross him on a whipped vote.

[updated Wed Feb 04 17:47:09 -0500 2009]

CTV's Power Play reports Micheal Ignatieff donated $0 (ZERO dollars) to the Liberal Party of Canada in 2008. That's a big goose egg for iggy.

[updated Wed Feb 04 19:48:09 -0500 2009]

Several people in the west have told me that Harper would have done more for Ontario had he given tax breaks to buyers of new cars built in Canada instead of reno projects that are all mostly paid for in cash.

[updated Wed Feb 04 20:53:01 -0500 2009]

Blogging The Conservative Way!

I think we owe Warren Kinsella a debt of gratitude for exposing on his blog the fact that several of the more "enthusiastic and persistent" CPC bloggers are the happy recipients of cash from a grateful mother, the Conservative Party of Canada.

Now everything makes sense doesn't it. Perhaps Canadian can enlighten us on whether he personally is the beneficiary of the largesse of the CPC war chest.

Come on Conservatives -- remember, confession is good for the soul.

As Bourque would say, developing...

[updated Thu Feb 05 06:45:10 -0500 2009]

Dear Liberal Apologists: The largest NFLD Paper passes judgement on the neo-liberal move: FAIL

Much ado about nothing
The Telegram

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." - from Shakespeare's "Macbeth"

Well, they came, they saw and they voted. But at the end of the day, are the actions of this province's Liberal MPs anything but a token poke at a much more substantial issue?

Probably not.

Tuesday, the federal leader of the Opposition announced the only thing he could announce: that he'd let his Newfoundland and Labrador MPs vote against the budget - at least for show.

"After much discussion of this issue with my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador, I decided to permit them in the budget vote ... a one-time vote of protest to signal their displeasure and my displeasure at these unilateral actions, which in my view weaken our federation," Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said.

It's a move that was lauded by Premier Danny Williams: "It shows that he has a heart, it shows he has a conscience and it shows he has courage and real leadership abilities and I certainly commend him for it."

It also shows Ignatieff has a healthy does of good old political pragmatism: the protest vote will actually change nothing, yet it allows this province's Liberal MPs to save face, and perhaps save their jobs in the next federal election.

It was pretty clear that the electorate here had no patience with the idea that the MPs might vote to support the budget.

The problem is that the protest doesn't actually fix any of the problems raised in the budget, particularly our provincial government's contention that the new budget strips away up to $1.6 billion in provincial revenues.

Ignatieff actually contacted Prime Minister Stephen Harper and asked that the move be delayed. Harper refused, and the Opposition leader gave in and walked away from the issue. In other words, the Opposition cares enough about the federal government's actions to hold a token protest, but isn't willing to go any further than that.

It hearkens back a bit to the province's ABC campaign in one important way: now that the shouting's over, you have to look at the move and ask, despite the parliamentary theatre, whether anything was actually accomplished.

Certainly, the province's Liberal MPs had to know they would have to vote against the budget to save their political skins.

Certainly, Ignatieff knew exactly the same thing.

Certainly, Williams knows that short of forcing a federal election, the federal Opposition can do little but what it did do: protest a little, and then settle themselves right back into their parliamentary seats.

And just as certainly, Harper has ended up getting exactly what he proposed in the first place.

It's a heck of a show. It's very little else.

http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=219006&sc=80

[updated Thu Feb 05 08:35:17 -0500 2009]

Bowing to Williams will come back to haunt Ignatieff

By allowing members to break ranks, the Liberal leader endorses serving the interests of a particular province

By Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver SunFebruary 5, 2009 2:04 AM

"The newbie Liberal leader paid homage to Williams this week by allowing six Newfoundland members of Parliament in his caucus to break ranks and vote against the Grits' position on the federal budget.

It was a Pandora's box decision that will come back to haunt Ignatieff because it reeks of a precedent."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Bowing+Williams+will+come+back+haunt+Ignatieff/1255510/story.html

[updated Thu Feb 05 08:36:52 -0500 2009]

The three-line wimp

Ignatieff weakened his Quebec MPs by allowing N.L. MPs to break party ranks

By DON MACPHERSON, The GazetteFebruary 5, 2009 8:01 AM

Only two years ago, Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey was suspended from the governing Conservative caucus for doing what the Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador threatened to do this week. That is, he voted against his party on the budget over equalization payments to his province.

Also in 2007, Ontario MP Joe Comuzzi was suspended from the Liberal caucus for announcing that he would vote for the same budget.

Stéphane Dion, the Liberal leader at the time, explained in announcing Comuzzi's suspension: "A vote on a budget or a throne speech is always a vote of confidence. The unavoidable consequence of voting against these votes is to no longer be part of the caucus."

Dion was considered a weak leader. Yet on this issue, he makes his successor look like the wimp.

Ignatieff's double standard makes his Quebec MPs appear to be weaker in defending their province's interests than his MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador. Already, the Liberals had been manoeuvred by the Bloc Québécois into voting against the position on the budget adopted unanimously by the National Assembly, for which they were called sellouts by Bloc MPs.

The Liberal leader's Quebec lieutenant, Denis Coderre, tried to blame Premier Jean Charest for not publicly calling on his province's MPs to vote against the budget, as the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams, had done.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/three+line+wimp/1254408/story.html

[updated Thu Feb 05 08:59:14 -0500 2009]

Damn math!

Robert Silver, today at 12:10 PM EST

There is lots of enthusiasm in Liberal land these days - and why not? The Conservative ship appears awful leaky, if it's not sinking entirely, so confidence abounds.

That's all good and I certainly don't want to do anything to put a chill on it.

I do, however, want to bring a bit of a reality check about how steep the electoral mountain the Liberals are still facing and how dramatic a change is needed in the next election for the Liberals to be in power.

Here's a quick and dirty exercise:

Take the 2008 election results. Take every riding where the Liberals finished second (all of this information is very easy to play with thanks to Pundit Guide). Start making some assumptions.

Let's say the Liberals win every riding where they finished second in 2008 and came within 8% of the winner (and hold onto every seat they currently hold and nothing else changes).

The result at less than 8%:

Conservative 143 (-13) 130
Liberal 77 (21) 98
NDP 37 (-4) 33
Bloc 49 (-4) 45
Independent 2 (0) 2

Not quite as good as the 2006 results.

On Quebec, for all the talk of a Liberal breakthrough under Michael Ignatieff, while the possibility is there, the Liberal Party only finished second within 20% - twenty percent means you weren't close - in 11 Quebec ridings. Total. And only one of those comes from the Conservatives.

As you can see above, nine of those 11 ridings are "in play" - and are critical to take power - it can't happen without those nine seats. That having been said, short of the Bloc vote absolutely cratering, there just aren't that many Quebec seats in play for the Liberals this election (within two elections, that may be a different story).

No, the Liberals path back to power is really mostly in Ontario.

Now obviously the assumptions here - that everything else stays the same, that the most likely pick-ups in the next election are necessarily the same as in 2008, etc. - are silly and thus if I was actually putting together a targeted riding list, this would only be the first step of that process.

It does show how large the challenge facing Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal party is, however.

Large but certainly achievable.

Just give Harper a few more months like the last two and everything is possible.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/SilverPowers/

[updated Thu Feb 05 19:05:52 -0500 2009]

Doesn't it seem funny that the libs are picking up the economic signals faster than FLATULENCE AND HAPERCRITE.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090205.wPOLpage0205/BNStory/politics/home

I would have assumed the government wold have all the analytic tools at their disposal. Are we witnessing a tory cover up? Or is just plain stupidity?

[updated Thu Feb 05 22:08:40 -0500 2009]

Time for a New Topic: With what is going on in Vancouver, Do you think it is time to ban Pre Sales of Condos in the Major Regions of Canada. This is an old trick brought in by those from Hong Kong. To use other peoples to Develope Condos for their own personal greed. If you what to Develope Condos you pay 100% of the costs and then sell the condo's who have seen the real thing. Some much for Hong Kong and the culture that comes from there. The Hong Kong Flippers, 3rd man/woman that buys always gets caught in a down market. Do rely on the Courts to save you Fools. Do you have many of these Fools in Toronto?

[updated Fri Feb 06 01:33:59 -0500 2009]

Message to Nik, Lets lighten up and allow more Freedom of Speech, suspending Parnel is not good for democracy. Golden Rule: Sticks and Stones will break my bones, But names will never hurt me" I do not care what they say it is only their point of view. Our Society must start telling it like it is and time to rewrite the Charter of Rights and Freedoms it favours only Minority groups, Not Canadians over all. Trudeau is to blame for this mess we have to day. Now the Chinese criminals are getting temporary work permits like Li. Chretien and the Liberal Cacaus are to blame for this.

[updated Fri Feb 06 14:09:08 -0500 2009]

Has the Time come to Abolish: the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, they are so many crooks and terrorists getting from other countries namely China and others. This department is run by Civil Servants from the top to bottom with an ethnic bias, What do you have to say, a decision must be made soon!

[updated Fri Feb 06 16:35:26 -0500 2009]

Why are the neo-liberals in the HOC repeating the same mistakes in the 39th HOC by attacking at every opportunity and flip flopping again by voting in confidence for the CPC?

I have seen a dialed down rhetoric from the government and a bitter, very angry opposition.

I have reviewed this week, listening to the opposition who are continuing to blame everything on the CPC at every opportunity, but insist on passing the budget.

I listen to NDP/BLOC slamming the budget and requesting for stimulus in the same breath.

Are these opposition parties immune to changing and working in a cooperative manner?

[updated Fri Feb 06 17:01:56 -0500 2009]

Bailout, anyone?

Liberal Party, just like Wall Street, is in a financial crisis

By GREG WESTON

Ten days before last week's federal election, a Liberal party fundraising letter announced that Stephanie Dion was "the only leader with a viable plan to address the growing crisis facing Canada's economy."

Unfortunately, it would seem Dion has had no such plan to address a worsening financial crisis in his own party during the past 22 months he has been in charge.

As a result, if Dion announces as expected tomorrow he will be stepping down as Liberal leader, the professor who imagined himself prime minister will leave behind a party deep in debt and with no foreseeable way to dig itself out of the hole.

"We are screwed more than most people realize," says a long-time Liberal insider.

Another says: "People are even talking about the possibility of bankruptcy."

While the idea of the bailiff seizing the most successful political party in Canadian history is surely over the top, there is no question Dion's successor will be inheriting a financial mess.

Already, the party's money woes are driving virtually every major issue confronting the Liberals, from Dion's departure to the next leadership race to the effectiveness of the Grits as official opposition in Parliament.

Party officials tell us that once all the campaign expenses are in and the government rebates have been received, the party will likely finish the year at least $6 million in debt.

To put that in perspective, the total of all Liberal party fundraising under Dion's leadership in the first half of this year was only $1.7 million, even less than the NDP.

By comparison, the Conservatives raised $8.5 million in the same period of time.

SUBSIDY REDUCED

Both the Liberals and Conservatives are currently getting around $8 million a year each from taxpayers, but even that is about to be cut for the Grits.

The federal subsidies to all the federal parties are based on $1.95 for each vote a party gets in a general election.

Under Dion's leadership, the Liberals just dropped 850,000 votes from the previous election -- losing about $1.6 million in funding per year.

Holed up at Stornoway since election night, Dion has been forced to ponder some serious money issues of his own in addition to the mess on the party's books.

The problem was Dion raised $956,000 for his 2006 leadership campaign, but wound up spending almost $1.8 million by the time all the bills were in.

That left him with $705,000 in outstanding loans, and more than $200,000 in unpaid bills.

Eighteen months later, Dion's official filings with Elections Canada show that as of June 30 this year, the Liberal leader still had $625,000 in outstanding loans.

One of Dion's senior officials claims the leader's debts will have been reduced to less than $250,000 by the end of this month.

But even in the unlikely event that happens, Dion is not about to leave office with even a quarter-million-dollar personal debt to repay.

Problem is, there is no fast way to make all that red ink disappear.

Gone are the days of a couple of deep-pocket Liberal businessmen quietly coming to the aid of their party.

Jean Chretien's changes to election financing laws and subsequent Conservative amendments mean Dion has to pay off his debt with maximum personal donations of $1,100 a piece. No corporate anything allowed.

DRAWING CARD?

Unfortunately, the Liberal leader who just took his party down to its worst vote in history may not be a big drawing card for those $500-plate fundraisers now, much less after he steps down.

While Dion is trying to negotiate away his debts as a condition of leaving, those who would replace him are facing an even more dire financial predicament.

Like Dion, most of them still haven't even paid off their debts from their last go at the Grit crown two years ago.

Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae are out of the red, a testament to their star power and fundraising abilities that will likely put them at the front of the race again.

But even they face huge financial hurdles.

Between the two of them, Iggy and Rae spent close to $5 million losing the 2006 leadership race to Dion.

With Liberal pockets having just been ransacked for the federal election, and the party not exactly riding a wave of popularity, it is hard to imagine where candidates this time will find enough cash for campaign buttons.

Of course, Dion could emerge from hiding this coming week and repeat what he said on election night -- namely, he is staying on to lead the party.

In that case, the Liberals would have to spend the next six months organizing to execute Dion at their next convention in May, and then start the leadership race to replace him at a whole separate convention.

By then, the Liberals would be so broke that those who would otherwise fight to lead the party might well tell Dion he can keep it.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/10...135441-sun.html

[updated Fri Feb 06 20:35:35 -0500 2009]

Looks as though Harper blinked and although he kept it out of the last election everyone knows he's a liar and briber:

Tories ditch Cadman suit against Liberals
Article Comments (142) The Canadian Press

February 6, 2009 at 5:30 PM EST

OTTAWA — Stephen Harper has dropped a $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal Party over the Cadman affair.

A terse news release says the Prime Minister and the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada have agreed to settle all issues related to the suit.

The action has been dismissed without costs awarded to either side and both parties have agreed not to comment further.

Mr. Harper launched the lawsuit last March after the Liberal Party accused the Prime Minister of condoning immoral, illegal and unethical behaviour in the Cadman affair.

The Liberals charged that Mr. Harper was aware of an attempt by Conservative officials to bribe Chuck Cadman, the late independent MP, in return for his support during a crucial 2005 confidence vote.

The accusation stemmed from a biography of Mr. Cadman, in which author Tom Zytaruk wrote that two Tory officials offered Mr. Cadman, who was dying of cancer, a $1-million life insurance policy.

Mr. Zytaruk produced an audio recording of an interview with Mr. Harper, in which the Prime Minister said he was aware that officials had offered to “replace financial considerations that [Cadman] might lose due to an election.”

[updated Fri Feb 06 20:50:25 -0500 2009]

Michael Ignatieff, the sap. Doesn't he know how things work around here? Then again, he is a rookie -- more accustomed to Harvard salons than the mean streets of Canadian politics. He'll learn.

That was the tone that met the Liberal leader's decision last week to allow six of his MPs, all from Newfoundland, to vote against the Conservative budget in protest of its treatment of their province.

It was as though Ignatieff were Jimmy Stewart, fresh from the boonies in Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. What a rube!

Not so much. Ignatieff got this right. His move on the budget will help him -- both within the Liberal party and across the country.

Parliamentary convention is that the party whip enforces unanimity on a budget vote -- period.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_dentandt/2009/02/06/8287301-sun.html

[updated Fri Feb 06 22:04:36 -0500 2009]

Latest poll shows Iggy closing in on Harper:

Ignatieff makes gains for Liberals: Poll:

Ignatieff makes gains for Liberals: Poll
By Juliet O'Neill, Canwest News ServiceFebruary 6, 2009 6:01 PM

A poll released Friday showed the Liberals have steadily narrowed a 23-point gap behind the Conservatives in early December to six points in the two months since Ignatieff replaced Stephane Dion as leader.Photograph by: Chris Wattie, ReutersOTTAWA — The popularity gap between the government and the official Opposition has narrowed once again, with 37 per cent of decided voters supporting Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and 31 per cent behind Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals, according to the results of the latest Ipsos Reid poll.

The poll conducted for Canwest News Service and Global Television showed the Liberals have steadily narrowed a 23-point gap behind the Conservatives in early December to six points in the two months since Ignatieff replaced Stephane Dion as leader.

“Ignatieff’s clearly in the game,” John Wright, Ipsos Reid senior vice-president, public affairs, said in an interview Friday.

Nationally, the Conservatives retain a commanding lead in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. But the Liberals have overtaken the Conservatives in Ontario for the first time since the federal election, and retain a firm lead in Atlantic Canada. The Bloc Quebecois widened its lead over the Conservatives and the Liberals in Quebec since results of the last poll were released Jan. 9.

[updated Fri Feb 06 22:32:09 -0500 2009]

Breaking Out Harper's Ear Trumpet.

Doctor, Doctor, the Prime Minister is once again suffering from a tin ear -- with news that Canada lost 129,000 jobs in January, Stephen Harper is balking at increasing the size of his economic stimulus package:

"We cannot have in Parliament, quite frankly, instability every week and every month, every time there's a new number, people demanding a different plan..."

The PM continued as if tone deaf to the increasing severity of the economic recession and added: "We continue to believe this is the action we need, and we're going to need it in the months to come, and we're not going to be blown off track every time there's some bad news."

Harper qualifies a 129,000 job loss in one month as "some bad news". Kind of makes you wonder how many people have to lose their jobs before the PM takes serious notice. Will Harper be ready to move if half a million more Canadians are added to the unemployment rolls? Perhaps the Prime Minister is still otherwise preoccupied -- you know, too busy buying all that stock at bargain basement prices. (At least HE has some spare cash to put into the markets.)

Someone should counsel serious bed rest. Harper is in dire need of it.

[updated Sat Feb 07 00:39:11 -0500 2009]

Warren Kinsella: Not A Pet Detective
February 6, 2009 — Raphael Alexander

In response to the hypocrisy of Michael Ignatieff not contributing to the very party he was anointed to run, Warren Kinsella lists a number of bloggers whom he claims have not contributed to the Conservative Party of Canada, but who receive monies and/or material and research sent to them straight from the Prime Minister’s Office. This is no small inference or minor allegation, but a real and genuine drive-by smear campaign by Mr.Ignatieff’s War Room General. On the heels of his flusterclucked job of apologizing to the Chinese for serving up dogs on restaurants menus, Warren will no doubt be put to the test when he’s forced to bring forth evidence of his libelous claims:

Pierre Bourque - $0
Stephen Taylor - $0
Kate McMillan - $0
Ezra Levant - $0
Steve Janke - $0
Craig Smith (Blogging Tories co-founder) - $0
Jarrett Plonka (KerPlonka) - $0
Damian Penny (Daimnation) - $0
Gerry Nicholls - $0
Victor Wong (Phantom Observer) - $0

Those who have responded to Ace Kinsella, Pet Detective, are as follows:

Pierre Bourque: “War Room or Whine Room ? First women, then asians, now artists. Yet another apology demanded from Gilligan.”

Stephen Taylor: “I did in fact donate to the Conservative Party in 2008. Warren, you don’t appreciate that cheques for less than $200 are not publicly disclosed by Elections Canada. I suppose that Warren thinks that folks that write cheques for less than $200 aren’t “putting their money where their mouth is”. I suppose Warren might say that only those that cut big cheques are allowed to have a voice!”

Jarrett Plonka: “I don’t get paid by the CPC. I have no idea who is getting paid by the party. In fact, until Kinsella alleged this, I had no idea such was a practice (excepting, of course, staff bloggers at MSM and the like). Generally, I’ve assumed such accusations were the product of conspiracy theorists, such as the Indymediots who just wrote off any pro-American Iraqi blogger as a CIA agent in Langley.”

Damian Penny: “…I can’t speak for anyone else on this list, but I have never been paid a cent by the Conservative Party (you’ve probably noticed how enthusiastic I’ve been about the recent Conservative budget), nor do I receive any blogging material from the Party or the PMO (unless spam e-mails count).”

Victor Wong: “As for this “covertly paid” business, this is the first time I’ve ever heard of it. I certainly don’t get paid for blogging; and I suspect that few Blogging Tories (if any) make any sort of cash from writing on their own site. (It is somewhat reassuring, however, to know that somebody thinks I’m getting paid for the stuff I write.)”

As for Kate, Ezra, and Steve, they likely have better things to do than respond to such an open invitation of rolling in the pig sty. If this post had any more bait in it, it would be on a fishing show on public cable access. And as for Gerry Nicholls, the only thing he’s getting paid to do regarding the Conservative Party, is write articles based on how much it’s going to sink on this budget.

[updated Sat Feb 07 06:50:15 -0500 2009]

Ignatieff must avoid 'flag wars' in Quebec
Since the 1995 referendum, Quebecers have flirted with a succession of federalist leaders, only to leave them standing at the federal altar on election day.

Until the sponsorship scandal broke out in 2004, Paul Martin's Liberals were polling at 55 per cent in Quebec; only a year ago, Stephen Harper was poised to make substantial gains at the expense of the Bloc Québécois.

Now it is Michael Ignatieff's turn to catch the fancy of Quebecers. In the early days of his leadership, the Liberals have become increasingly popular in Quebec. But he, too, will inevitably become last month's discarded flavour unless he thinks outside the old box and does away with some common misconceptions.

The first of those is to assume that the way to beat the Bloc is to join it in a nationalistic bidding war. Not only is that a contest that sovereignists cannot lose but it is also a sideshow and it amounts to re-fighting a war when peace has broken out.

Last November, CROP pegged support for sovereignty at 37 per cent; if a referendum had been held in the fall, a majority of Quebec francophones would have voted no. That includes a sizeable number of people who supported the Bloc in the fall federal election to prevent a Conservative majority.

But if sovereignty no longer fills ballot boxes, then wrapping one self in the Canadian flag will not either.

Turning campaigns into flag wars worked for the Liberals when the unity battle was on, but in the absence of clear and present danger, the Quebec federalist camp has fragmented.

The resurgence of the NDP under Quebec-savvy Jack Layton and the emergence of a single Conservative party have turned the classic Quebec duel into a series of three- and four-way battles.

And that means that to restore the Liberals as a force in Quebec, Ignatieff has to put forward a vision of Canada that is first and foremost competitive, not with the Quebec-first outlook of the Bloc, but with the visions of the other national parties.
http://www.thestar.com/article/580773

[updated Sat Feb 07 06:55:07 -0500 2009]

February 5th, 2009
“We shall see”

Yeah, I know I said I was going to take a day off, but I’m just trying to puzzle something out here. Maybe you can help me.

Let me see now. First Iggy says the budget is not perfect, but he will support it.

Meanwhile, Danny Williams screeches from the Rock, demanding that all Newfoundland MPs vote against the egregious measures that are so unfair to his beloved province.

Four or so of Iggy’s Newfoundland MPs then state publicly that they will be breaking party ranks and voting against the budget.

The ‘Professor’ suddenly says this is a great idea since he couldn’t convince them to do otherwise, and calls it a one-off protest vote (CTV’s Tom Clark referred to it as a ‘hall pass’). All six Liberal Newfoundland MPs then take advantage of the Liberal leader’s sudden gift of ‘flexibility’ and vote against the Conservative budget while the rest of the Liberal caucus support it.

Various members of the normally Liberal media then start taking pot-shots at Iggy.

And now, even though so-called ‘experts’ are backing up Danny’s claims that the Rock is getting shafted, Iggy states that all Liberal MPs will be forced to vote for the budget implementation bill which is the very means by which said horribly offensive measures will be set into action.

Yeah, that’ll fly.

Or, as Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor MP Scott Simms said, “We shall see”.

* * * *

Update: This is the first I’ve heard about this —> via Bondpapers. Danny is looking into court action against the budget changes.

Not sure if you caught this one either by Chantal Hebert:

…Meanwhile, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams decides to take a shot at Harper over unilateral changes to his province’s equalization regimen. He urges Liberal MPs from his province to bolt ranks and vote against the budget. Michael Ignatieff takes the hit for the prime minister when his party fails to speak with one voice in one of his first votes as leader.

Furthermore, St. John’s Mayor Dennis O’Keefe suggests that his province’s MPs might actually be more effective if they sat as an independent bloc in the Commons. O’Keefe does not mention the Bloc but the parallels are obvious…

Evening Update: The Bloc Newfoundlandois - Full Comment editorial at the National Post.

* * * *

Friday Update: Be sure to check this out from the Mississauga Blogs - Poor Little Count Iggy.

[updated Sat Feb 07 07:06:57 -0500 2009]

The best opposition money can buy

Norman Spector, 06/02/09 at 12:12 AM EST

How fortunate are the Conservatives in having three parties on their left goading them on to open the spending taps further? Just look at the travails newly-elected President Barack Obama is having getting his stimulus bill through Congress. Bit by bit, Republicans are taking the sheen off Mr. Obama, pointing to the initiatives in his package that are more about the Democrats' political agenda than about economic recovery.

Here in Canada, by contrast, Mr. Harper is being goaded to spend more. And to spend indiscriminately. It's the rare politician who doesn't like to spend taxpayers' money -- and Mr. Harper is proving that he is not one of them.

Notwithstanding the hair-pulling of true believers, the Conservative base is sticking with Mr. Harper, if only out of their disdain for the Liberals and disgust with the coalition. And, today in Question Period, the penny finally seems to have dropped for the natural governing party: who better than Liberals to understand the political fruits to be gained from spending huge amounts of money across the country? The only problem is that it is Mr. Harper who will be making the announcement, not they. Is it any wonder that he is being so nice to Mr. Ignatieff these days?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/Spector/

[updated Sat Feb 07 08:56:35 -0500 2009]

Here's where the rubber hits the road in Harper's world with Iggy greasing the skids for him with the civil service:

Feb 07, 2009 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (13)
James Travers

OTTAWA

Stephen Harper is brave, desperate or both. By saving this government with a deficit budget, the Prime Minister hands his ultimate fate to bureaucrats he doesn't trust and often belittles.

Forget the posturing about Liberals putting Conservatives on probation; civil servants hold the sword hanging over Harper's head. If faceless, nameless cubicle dwellers fail to deliver the stimulus the budget promises, this government will be crushed under the combined weight of hard times and huge debts.

Precarious doesn't fully capture the Prime Minister's position. He must now count on mandarins to convince Canadians that Conservatives are doing everything possible to ease a made-in-America recession that government policies here can only marginally sway.

Those are the same mandarins Harper dissed as closet Liberals before taking office, then essentially made accountable for the ethical failures of their political masters, and now, with some exceptions, doesn't respect and rarely consults.

If the economic predicament wasn't so serious, the political paradox would be that much more delicious. A prime minister who came to power convinced the bureaucracy was partisan must now rely on its professionalism for his rescue.

Beyond that problem are other problems. Even if civil servants decide, as most will, to put a higher priority on public service than getting even, this budget makes extraordinary demands. Its strategy of stimulating the economy by spraying money here, there and everywhere will sorely test the federal government's suspect tactical capacity.

A system not known for speed or efficiency will have to accelerate programs while firing off cheques fast enough to meet elusive budget targets. Then, when the worst is over, it will have to stop the cash flow on a deficit-limiting dime.

David Good, who took 30 years of Ottawa experience to the University of Victoria's school of public administration, says the economic climate requires a particularly skilful civil service. It must find a balance between characteristic risk-aversion and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's commitment to timely stimulus. It must use common sense in cutting through new and binding red tape even as it resists pressure to skew spending to partisan political purpose.

Good is correct about all three preconditions for success. But it's the last two that should worry Conservatives most. Civil servants tired of carrying the can for politicians can now apply the doctrine of vicious obedience. All that's needed to squeeze stimulus to a trickle is the strict enforcement of all rules every time spending fails the critical sniff test.

Conservatives got a whiff of how rank that could be when they were accused this week of using the Building Canada Fund to reinforce voter loyalty. Of the 27 projects announced so far, a surely coincidental 21 were in Conservative ridings.

Playing political games with public money won't help the ruling party earn passing grades on the progress reports imposed by the Liberals as the price of supporting the budget. Those reports, along with the inevitable flutter of embarrassing brown envelopes, will mark the Conservative pilgrimage through an economic downturn that, judging by alarming job losses, looks more like a crash.

All of that is predictable. What wasn't anticipated in the last election is that the future of a Conservative Prime Minister would turn on a budget Liberals could have written and bureaucrats, nursing a grudge, must now deliver.

James Travers' column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

[updated Sat Feb 07 11:52:46 -0500 2009]

Travers’ allegations disparage PM & civil service

James Travers’ dislike for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government is a well documented fact given the many columns he has written to criticize nearly everything the PM says or does.

But hinting, as he did today in his Toronto Star column, that the PM could be thwarted by the federal bureaucracy, however unintended Travers’ comments may have been, disparages the entire bureaucracy as well.

In fact, throughout the entire column, the only comment that Mr. Travers was able to actually substantiate was regarding something the future prime minister made during the heat of the 2005/06 election campaign. What the PM said was something to the effect that he was concerned that many in the judiciary and public service were supporting the Liberal Party – a statement that Travers and other journalists twisted and blew all out of proportion.

It is therefore ironic that Mr. Travers would write in his column today that: (1) the federal bureaucracy consists of true professionals, particularly those in the senior ranks; but (2) there is always the possibility that they could slow down the red tape and distribution of cash, thereby thwarting the government — and by inference the Canadian people.

What unsubstantiated hyperbole! Read some of what Travers wrote (with my underlining indicating the unsubstantiated allegations):

* “Those are the same mandarins Harper dissed as closet Liberals before taking office, then essentially made accountable for the ethical failures of their political masters, and now, with some exceptions, doesn’t respect and rarely consults.”
* “If the economic predicament wasn’t so serious, the political paradox would be that much more delicious. A prime minister who came to power convinced the bureaucracy was partisan must now rely on its professionalism for his rescue.”
* “What wasn’t anticipated in the last election is that the future of a Conservative prime minister would turn on a budget Liberals could have written and bureaucrats, nursing a grudge, must now deliver.”
* “Playing policial games with public money won’t help the ruling party earn passing grades on the progress reports imposed by the Liberals as the price of supporting the budget. Those reports, along with the inevitable flutter of embarrassing brown envelopes, will mark the Conservative pilgramage through an economic downturn that, judging by alarming job losses, looks more like a crash.”

Dissed as closet Liberals? Made accountable to the ethical failures of their political masters? What ethical failures? An inevitable flutter of embarrassing brown envelopes?” Doing whatever it takes to make the economic downturn look like a crash?

What absolute drivel and disrespect for the electorate, the political executive branch and the federal civil service. What is going on here? If what Mr. Travers says is true, there has to be more proof than one innocuous statement made by the prime minister three years ago.

Mr. Travers, therefore, should substantiate all his allegations or stop writing them!

http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2009/02/07/travers-allegations-disparage-pm-civil-service/

[updated Sat Feb 07 13:17:08 -0500 2009]

Will the economy drag down Harper?

John Ivison, National Post Published: Friday, February 06, 2009

Also, polls suggest the Prime Minister retains the support of most Canadians, which is perhaps the legacy of the G20 meeting in Washington in November. At that meeting, world leaders signed a communique calling for stimulus measures totalling at least 2% of GDP.

"Harper is in a global club that is singing from the same song-sheet on economic conditions. He is advantaged, if one can be in these times, because the broad body of public opinion believes that deficits and spending are acceptable," said one Conservative.

Public opinion polls suggest that nearly two-thirds of Canadians support the budget and more than half retain confidence in Mr. Harper's ability to manage the economy.

Even senior Liberals concede that the public believes the villains of the piece are to be found on Wall Street and in Washington.

Much will depend on the severity of the downturn and few people appear to believe that the government's stimulus package is likely to have much impact on its duration or depth. Certainly, the bulk of academic research suggests that fiscal policy has not worked well in the past.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1262359

[updated Sat Feb 07 15:39:56 -0500 2009]

Why more than 50% of Canadians think Harper is best to handle the economy and Iggy supports Harper.

1) Iggy is reckless
2) 11 days they want Billions more spent.

Bailout nation

DEREK DeCLOET
Globe and Mail Update February 7, 2009 at 6:00 AM EST

If impatience could be turned into money, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff could stimulate this country out of the recession all by himself.

It has been precisely 11 days since Finance Minister Jim Flaherty unleashed his whopper of a budget, weighing in at 343 pages, for an average of $117-million in stimulus spending per page. Mr. Ignatieff this week declared the plan was “not working.”

He's right, clever fellow. It's not working. But then, it's not law yet, either, since it's still in the early stages of working its way through the House. “The billions of dollars set aside for infrastructure have not been paid out,” Mr. Ignatieff pointed out, quite accurately – presumably because one still needs the approval of Parliament before one pays out the billions of dollars one has set aside for infrastructure.

“I cannot help it if I am an impatient man,” Mr. Ignatieff explained.

Impatience is a forgivable thing in a politician. Recklessness is not. And the problem with the debate over Stimulusmania 2009 is that, well, there isn't any real debate. The position of the three opposition parties can be described in one word – More! – and Mr. Flaherty seems happy enough to get shoved in that direction.

What it's also saying, though you won't hear this from Mr. Layton, is that the federal package is plenty large as it is and won't accomplish much anyway. Going into the budget, TD said that Canada's economy would contract by 1.4 per cent this year. After witnessing a pile of grim new economic numbers, then taking into account Ottawa's historic spending burst, its new forecast is … a contraction of 1.4 per cent. “It's too early for the government to revisit the stimulus spending,” says Derek Burleton, TD's director of economic analysis. “You're not going to see any real benefit until the U.S. economy picks up.”

But nobody wants to hear that and the Tories, having been tried, convicted and nearly hanged last fall for economic complacency, aren't going to get caught in the trap again. Just because Canada's recessionary fate is largely out of our hands doesn't mean we shouldn't run up a good half-decade's worth of deficits. But suppose the government did return with a second economic package, as Mr. Flaherty implied was possible, given the brutal employment numbers. What more could it include?

After all, the first, 11-day-old plan – the one that's not working – already proposes to buy off every industry and interest group that could plausibly lay a claim on the federal treasury. Shipbuilders, farmers, slaughterhouses, auto companies, cruise ship operators, home renovators, and tourism workers all benefit. The oil patch gets financial help with its carbon problem. Publishers of community newspapers and magazines, under threat from new digital media, are to get $30-million over two years. But new media also gets $29-million. You knew conservatism and fiscal prudence had gone the way of the Edsel when the promoters of Montreal's Just for Laughs festival praised the Flaherty budget for lavishing money on festivals. Comedians no longer exist just to give us the giggles: now they're economic stimulus. Who knew?

But still the government is expected to do more. The Bloc Québécois cries out for help for the aerospace sector (because of layoffs at Bombardier) and asks about federal loan guarantees for forestry (because the ability to rack up more debt is exactly what forestry companies need). Both industries already receive a healthy dose of public money, but it's not enough. It never is. Which is why Mr. Burleton, parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, and most other sentient human beings believe it will be a stretch to balance the budget in five years, even if there's no increase to the size of the stimulus package at all.

To get there, Mr. Burleton adds, Canadians may eventually have to pay more taxes. But which ones? The latest data from the Canada Revenue Agency show that nearly one-third of tax filers already pay no federal income tax. (That's up from 18 per cent in the late 1960s.) For the rest, the average income tax bill has grown 17 per cent since 1988, adjusted for inflation. But many of those people can still be sold on Mr. Flaherty's big-spending approach because their industries get money out of it.

So the pool of voters who rely on, or are net beneficiaries of, federal cash grows larger and larger, and the group that carries the burden of it gets smaller. That's the logical result of the Bailout Nation. Mr. Ignatieff is a thinking man: Doesn't he see the danger in this?

[updated Sat Feb 07 16:30:43 -0500 2009]

An Open Letter To "Canadian":

I must say that as usual, you are hard at work twisting those pretzels. You do indeed have a natural talent for it...you must be very close to the Prime Minister...

Now come on, how about taking up our challenge and:

a) confirming for your increasingly wide readership whom if they know what's good for them, hangs on to your every word that:

i) you do not receive any money for this outstanding commitment to truth and the Canadian way from either the Government of Canada or the Conservative Party of Canada;

OR

ii) innate self-modesty has from up to this point prevented you from boasting about the financial largesse which is bestowed upon you by a grateful nation or a proud political party;

Personally, I'm betting on option i) because I know that you would never knowingly intentionally deceive or mislead your devoted readership.

[updated Sat Feb 07 16:55:02 -0500 2009]

Economic tough times to continue: former PM

Paul Martin will visit the city next Friday to be presented with school's leadership award
February 07, 2009 Rob O'Flanagan Mercury Staff GUELPH

"I think we are in for a pretty tough time, certainly for the better part of 18 months," said Martin, who served as finance minister from 1993 to 2002, recording five consecutive budget surpluses and erasing a $42-billion deficit over the final years of his tenure.

"Given the increasing debt levels in the United States and the lack of adequate banking regulation, most knowledgeable people would have said this was inevitable," he continued. "I don't think anybody knew when it was going to happen. And I don't think that anybody knew it was going to be as serious as this."

http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/436496

[updated Sat Feb 07 19:55:14 -0500 2009]

‘Free pass’ wise move

Thu. Feb 5 - 6:40 AM

IS MICHAEL IGNATIEFF a push-over?

Critics say he’s being pushed around by his Newfoundland caucus and take-no-prisoners Premier Danny Williams. In a highly unusual move on Tuesday, the Liberal leader "allowed" his Newfoundland MPs to vote against the Tory budget, while directing the rest of his crew to back it.

Newfoundland has a legitimate grievance against the Harper government for laying a landmine in January’s budget which will blast a $1.5-billion hole in revenues the province is entitled to receive as part of equalization and offshore agreements.

The island’s federal representatives were not going to stand for that. And Mr. Ignatieff was right to give them an outlet to register their protest instead of disciplining them for breaking ranks.

First, this act of defiance was not aimed at Mr. Ignatieff. If they’d voted against his budget, not the Tories’, then that would be a different matter.

Second, Mr. Ignatieff could afford to give his six Newfoundland MPs a "free pass" because he did not need their votes to achieve his larger purpose – passage of a budget that contains a much-needed stimulus package to revive the national economy. This was not a case of holding the rest of the country hostage to Newfoundland’s interests.

Third, this was an exceptional circumstance. Mr. Ignatieff correctly pointed out that this budget measure unfairly singles out Newfoundland – possibly as payback for Mr. Williams’ successful "Anybody but Conservative" campaign last fall.

Does it set a bad precedent? Will Grits from other provinces who have a bone to pick have maverick moments? Possibly, but such concerns are overblown. Sooner or later, Liberals will vote in unison against the Tories on a confidence measure – and this discussion will be over.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorial/1104735.html

[updated Sat Feb 07 19:58:30 -0500 2009]

Why Iggy will be the second liberal leader to fail in becoming a PM.

1) Iggy is not Obama
2) We did not have 8 years of G.W. in Canada
3) Canada is not experiencing the same "meltdown" the US economy, housing market.
4) Obama campaigned against the worst polling U.S. Presiden in history.
5) Obama campaign was on the record against invading Iraq.
6) Obama' organization raised and spent the most money in his campaign. They spent 2 year in the trenches taking small donations, than larger ones and was consistent in his message. Change.
7) Democrats were not a weak party, they had control of large parts of the electoral map. They had majority control of the congress and needed a few more seats for the senate.
8) Michael Moore and celebrities spent their "creative capital" to help make Obama cool and appeal to the young generation.
9) Obama was able to add millions to the voting rolls, people who stopped voting.
10) MSM were clearly fawning over Obama.

Iggy in contrast has been selected by 800 liberals in an attempt to short circuit a leadership race. He did not spend 2 years fighting across this country building a grassroots of supporters. Iggy did not beat Dion, Rae in 2006 to become the leader. The average loyal grassroot liberal did not vote for him, he was foisted by liberal executive and party presidents.

Iggy does not have a "war chest" or his clearly raising more funds than his rivals. The Liberals have NDP/Bloc/CPC regional battles for seats. Obama had only one party to beat and one message.

According the public records the Liberals have serious financial problems regarding their debts and have not been able to replace the fired Dion staffers. Between ($2-7 million in the red).

Looking at the electoral map, the Liberals have 77 seats, the worst defeat in 100 years in October 2008. This is a stark contrast to the democrats during the Obama campaign.

The organization needed to get the voters out does not exist especially outside the 77 ridings. The volunteer base and the grassroots energy that comes from a leadership race does not exist. It was short circuited.

Voter apathy has been increasing across Canada unlike the U.S.

Our successful celebrities live in the US and have not taken Iggy under their wing and to my knowledge we don't have that as a factor for adding the "cool" factor to Iggy.

David Suzuki in not Michael Moore.

Our MSM to a large extent has always been friendly to the Liberal Party, but they can turn on a candidate when they smell weakness or see "blood" in the water.

Have the media seen blood or weakness from Iggy already?

Iggy is clearly not Obama, he does not have the "forces" ,"resources" or history (track record) that Obama was able to manipulate to win against McCain (G.W.)

A rebuttal would be great, but calling Harper mean, disliked just won't work.

Cheers.

[updated Sun Feb 08 07:43:53 -0500 2009]

Why Iggy will be PM this year:

1. No leader has ever had a third term as PM after two minority governments.
2. Harper has sold his principles for power and this will be recognized at election time.
3. The Liberals are now organized and will be very ready for an election.
4. Obama will have a positive effect on canadian as the very opposite of a dishonest and unethical Harper.
5.The liberals are already attracting more funding and more applications from good candidates to run under Iggy.
6. The tories are starting to have structural problems under Harper with a split between progressives and reformers just about to break in the open.
7. The Canadian people have seen enough of Harper as his personal are attesting and he will certainly resign by summer as he will be held accountabile for his poor economic performance.

The population of Canada has never left its center left roots and they know the Liberals are the party of the center and center left. The NDP is now in decline as Layton has no where to go.

The bloc is weakening and the Libs are starting to fill that void as the tories are dead on arrival there now thanks to their lies, poor communication and poor policies.

BC is starting to warm up to the Liberals according to recent polls and Iggy has some good help there.

Ontario is still a horse race but will swing Liberal when people finally realize how poor the Harper stimulus is for Ontario's car industry.

Iggy is clearly not Obama but does represent the same values and this will be featured in Liberal policy doctrines once the convention is over and the platform is approved.

[updated Sun Feb 08 09:13:30 -0500 2009]

The campaign to win the next election has been on since November, what are the opposition parties doing to minimize the "sprinkling of goodies" by the PM? With the Liberals agreeing to spending money, how can this not increase the "Harper largesse" and desire by those Canadians who want money?

Most of the Premiers and Mayors are jumping for joy with his turning on the taps, this is different on how Chretien/Martin responded during the last recession.

Examples

Harper hopes the year of the ox is also the year of the bull market
By THE CANADIAN PRESS
Harper was speaking to a largely Chinese-Canadian business audience at a Chinese New Year gala in Markham, northeast of Toronto on Saturday night.
Later, he attended the 50th anniversary celebration of the United Macedonian Organization of Canada at a dinner in Toronto.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/02/07/8306751-cp.html

Miramichi greets PM during 'historic visit'
Published Saturday February 7th, 2009
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, flanked by awestruck members of the Miramichi Timerwolves Junior "A" hockey team, received a standing ovation from onlookers, with one man shouting, "Way to go Stephen, way to go boy!"

Harper's visit was the first time any prime minister has been to Miramichi since the city was incorporated in 1995.

Brian Mulroney was the last prime minister to make the trip, attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the former Repap paper mill in 1988.

The ovations got even louder when Harper promised his commitment to preserving federal jobs in Miramichi, specifically at the central processing centre for the Canada Firearms Program.
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/front/article/564881

[updated Sun Feb 08 10:37:16 -0500 2009]

Worthwhile Canadian Initiative

Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1--compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1.
Now there is even more striking evidence of Canada's virtues. Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it's Canada. In 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system the healthiest in the world. America's ranked 40th, Britain's 44th.

Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it. Canadian banks are well capitalized and poised to take advantage of opportunities that American and European banks cannot seize. The Toronto Dominion Bank, for example, was the 15th-largest bank in North America one year ago. Now it is the fifth-largest. It hasn't grown in size; the others have all shrunk.

So what accounts for the genius of the Canadians? Common sense. Over the past 15 years, as the United States and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries, the Canadians refused to follow suit, seeing the old rules as useful shock absorbers. Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1—compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1 and European banks at a frightening 61 to 1. Partly this reflects Canada's more risk-averse business culture, but it is also a product of old-fashioned rules on banking.

Canada has also been shielded from the worst aspects of this crisis because its housing prices have not fluctuated as wildly as those in the United States. Home prices are down 25 percent in the United States, but only half as much in Canada. Why? Well, the Canadian tax code does not provide the massive incentive for overconsumption that the U.S. code does: interest on your mortgage isn't deductible up north. In addition, home loans in the United States are "non-recourse," which basically means that if you go belly up on a bad mortgage, it's mostly the bank's problem. In Canada, it's yours. Ah, but you've heard American politicians wax eloquent on the need for these expensive programs—interest deductibility alone costs the federal government $100 billion a year—because they allow the average Joe to fulfill the American Dream of owning a home. Sixty-eight percent of Americans own their own homes. And the rate of Canadian homeownership? It's 68.4 percent.

Canada has been remarkably responsible over the past decade or so. It has had 12 years of budget surpluses, and can now spend money to fuel a recovery from a strong position. The government has restructured the national pension system, placing it on a firm fiscal footing, unlike our own insolvent Social Security. Its health-care system is cheaper than America's by far (accounting for 9.7 percent of GDP, versus 15.2 percent here), and yet does better on all major indexes. Life expectancy in Canada is 81 years, versus 78 in the United States; "healthy life expectancy" is 72 years, versus 69. American car companies have moved so many jobs to Canada to take advantage of lower health-care costs that since 2004, Ontario and not Michigan has been North America's largest car-producing region.

I could go on. The U.S. currently has a brain-dead immigration system. We issue a small number of work visas and green cards, turning away from our shores thousands of talented students who want to stay and work here. Canada, by contrast, has no limit on the number of skilled migrants who can move to the country. They can apply on their own for a Canadian Skilled Worker Visa, which allows them to become perfectly legal "permanent residents" in Canada—no need for a sponsoring employer, or even a job. Visas are awarded based on education level, work experience, age and language abilities. If a prospective immigrant earns 67 points out of 100 total (holding a Ph.D. is worth 25 points, for instance), he or she can become a full-time, legal resident of Canada.

Companies are noticing. In 2007 Microsoft, frustrated by its inability to hire foreign graduate students in the United States, decided to open a research center in Vancouver. The company's announcement noted that it would staff the center with "highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S." So the brightest Chinese and Indian software engineers are attracted to the United States, trained by American universities, then thrown out of the country and picked up by Canada—where most of them will work, innovate and pay taxes for the rest of their lives.

If President Obama is looking for smart government, there is much he, and all of us, could learn from our quiet—OK, sometimes boring—neighbor to the north. Meanwhile, in the councils of the financial world, Canada is pushing for new rules for financial institutions that would reflect its approach. This strikes me as, well, a worthwhile Canadian initiative.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183670?from=rss

[updated Sun Feb 08 12:14:26 -0500 2009]

This a the first columnist to get it about Iggy's motives in allowing his NFLD MP's to vote against the budget:

Pundits all wet
we need more MP free votes
Susan Riley, Times Colonist
Published: Sunday, February 08, 2009
More anarchy, please. It wasn't quite an Obama moment, but it showed promise. When Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff broke with tradition and allowed his six Newfoundland MPs to vote against the federal budget, he administered a shocking dose of common sense to an inbred and punitive political culture.

First, the six votes did not affect the outcome. They were a gesture. The budget passed, with the rest of the Liberal caucus's qualified support.

Second, the dissident MPs did what they were sent to Ottawa to do only months ago -- represent their ridings' interests. To have supported Prime Minister Stephen Harper, on so symbolic an issue to their province, would have made them cowards or hypocrites.

Third, Ignatieff's gesture was politically astute. He solidifies his party's support in Newfoundland, but, as important, wins national acclaim for backing the sympathetic favourite.

Ah, but what a dangerous precedent, warned editorial boards, professional hand-wringers and Iggy's rivals. The new Liberal leader is inviting anarchy, they said (a contrast, presumably, to the serene and effective manner in which public business is normally conducted). Without party discipline, goes the familiar argument, voters will be confused, leaders undermined and nothing will get done.

What if there is pressure from Quebec MPs, or pro-lifers, or human rights advocates to be excused from the party line on some sensitive issue?

This raises the dire prospect of contentious matters being debated publicly, rather than resolved quietly behind velvet curtains with inducements (promises of promotion, mostly), or threats of banishment. A little judicious loosening of the leash could, say alarmists, encourage MPs to speak their minds and who knows where that might lead?

Stung, perhaps, by such criticisms -- or needing to defend his manly resolve -- Ignatieff offered reassurances. This was a "one-time" offer, he said. No more special exemptions.

The dated, top-down, paternalistic management style embraced by our major parties -- an approach long-since abandoned by most intelligent organizations -- would appear to be under no immediate threat.

But, in retreating, Ignatieff let an opportunity slip away. He is still being assessed by Canadians. He has made a confident, sure-footed debut. In backing Harper's free-spending budget, he rightly wagered that voters do not want an election so soon, or at so uncertain a time, over a budget that is weak but not outrageous. He has sounded sensible, focused and unflappable at a time when we have had our fill of hysterics.

Challenging the rigid rituals of politics-as-usual would embellish, rather than threaten, Ignatieff's image. Allowing MPs more flexibility on future votes, for instance, would be a true test of leadership -- of the listening and diplomatic skills Ignatieff possesses in abundance. Every case is different; every crisis has a context.

It is hard to discern what larger good was served by the expulsion of well-regarded Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey from the Conservative caucus, for instance -- except to further domesticate the cowering Harper contingent. Yet most voters would support turfing racist, or homophobic, or otherwise unbalanced MPs.

But Ignatieff will likely be a disappointment for anyone looking for a new kind of politics. He respects tradition. He plays by the old rules. He claims, lamely, that his job as opposition leader is only to oppose, not propose. He takes a conventional approach to question period, too, asking barbed questions inspired by the headline of the day.

Ignatieff upbraided the prime minister this week, for instance, for not anticipating and countering protectionist measures in the U.S. Congress -- as if the Canadian government has only to stamp its feet to overturn U.S. laws. He accused Harper of "sitting back and waiting" for Americans to rescue the auto sector before doing anything -- a course that he, himself, acknowledged was prudent only weeks ago.

Ever since he returned to Canada to pursue his long-range career plan, Ignatieff has been compared to Pierre Trudeau -- a politician who started his career, at least, with insouciant disregard for the old political niceties. Trudeau was eventually ground down, and, on everything but Quebec, settled for strategy over principle.

Ignatieff begins as leader with no discernible higher purpose, but a keen strategic mind. His plan, apparently, is to let Harper sink with the economy and, at the opportune moment, ride to the rescue with a set of policies that won't be all that new or different. It could work, but anyone looking for novelty would be advised to look elsewhere. The Newfoundland exception, sadly, was probably just that

[updated Sun Feb 08 15:39:33 -0500 2009]

Michael Taube: Michael Ignatieff's big mistake
Posted: January 31, 2009, 1:05 PM by Kelly McParland
Full Comment, Canadian politics, Michael Taube

It’s been a busy week in Canadian politics. The federal budget was officially released. The proposed Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc support is no more. And the Liberals aren’t going to bring down the Conservative government…yet.

There’s one story that hasn’t been discussed, however. Due to this week’s events, Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff will likely never become prime minister.

Puzzled? Let me explain.

When Ignatieff gave his seal of approval to the budget, he was in effect saying that he was now in control of the political process. He’ll keep the government afloat as long as he chooses, and he’ll make the decision as to when Parliament is brought down.

Ignatieff also seems to be under the impression that he has the PM on a short leash. This may help explain why he played the role of school principal when he emphatically announced Harper and the Conservatives are now on “probation.” (That’s pretty rich, coming from an interim political leader – but I digress.)

A political activist also privately pointed out to me that Ignatieff didn’t need to call an election this early. For one thing, he has ample time to rebuild his base and put a strong team together, get the party out of debt, and enhance his public image. Meanwhile, Ignatieff can watch Harper squirm as he tries to deal with a terrible economic situation – and the Liberal leader won’t have to deal with angry Canadians and a bitter press corps.

But things aren’t always what they seem.

In my opinion, Ignatieff’s acceptance of the budget was a poor tactical decision. It enabled Prime Minister Stephen Harper to receive a pass on his questionable analysis of Canada’s economic stability during the federal election, the “now you see it, now you don’t” proposed elimination of political party subsidies, and the constitutional crisis we recently faced. The PM needed cover to rebuild his shattered image (which he’s been doing since Parliament was prorogued last December) and implement an economic stimulus package – and now he’s got it.

Even though Harper will obviously have an incredibly difficult time getting through this economic storm – which hasn’t bottomed out – he can still argue that he’s doing everything in his power to get Canada back on track. He can also regularly meet with world leaders like U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to show that he is helping build a cohesive unit within the international community to properly tackle this global financial crisis.

Meanwhile, all Ignatieff can say is that he got some Liberal-oriented ideas in the budget, and saved Canadians from another election by propping up a government that has supposedly lost the confidence of Parliament. With no disrespect, big deal.

I’m also aware that Ignatieff didn’t want to govern in a coalition with socialists and separatists. It’s common knowledge that he was the Very Last Liberal™ to sign this all-important document. Give him a big round of applause, folks. But seriously, while his apprehension was well-founded, Ignatieff ultimately signed the document. He may not have initiated the coalition, and his written consent was surely a case of taking one for the team. But history will always show that he was a willing participant (of sorts) in a political coup d’état.

Finally, some have argued the Liberal Party’s debt – reportedly anywhere between $2.5 to 6-million – may have been a drawback for Ignatieff. Perhaps that’s true.

Then again, Ignatieff is an international figure, an academic and author, and is well-liked by the Bay Street crowd. Most importantly, he’s not Stephane Dion. And besides, with most poll numbers currently working in his favour, raising funds to run a proper campaign shouldn’t have been an issue.

The brilliant military strategist Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, “Hence what is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.” This is also especially true for politics. When you have victory in your sights, you don’t give a political opponent time to regroup and get stronger. You move forward, bring them down, and defeat them in an election.

Michael Ignatieff ignored this basic principle – and his dream of moving into 24 Sussex Drive may have just gone up in smoke. Only time will tell.

National Post

Michael Taube is a public affairs analyst and commentator, and a former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He can be reached at miketaube@yahoo.com.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/31/michael-taube-michael-ignatieff-s-big-mistake.aspx

[updated Sun Feb 08 16:05:45 -0500 2009]

Don Martin: Opposition parties compete for most-panicked-by-recession prize
Posted: February 05, 2009, 7:40 PM by NP Editor
Don Martin, Canadian politics

The recession-rescue budget is 10 days old, but it will take another six to eight weeks for what’s considered a speedy final approval process. In theory, billions of deficit dollars will be shovelled into make-work projects by, ironically, April Fool’s Day.

Yet there’s panic in the parliamentary air.

Damning the formalities of waiting for the budget to pass, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has already concluded the massive action plan isn’t working and demands federal money gush into public works programs now.

“I can’t help it if I’m an impatient man,” he shrugged on Thursday in the House of Commons.

Not to be outdone in a hand-wringing frenzy of overreaction, Liberal finance critic John McCallum insists rising unemployment projections justify unleashing more than the planned $34-billion in stimulus spending this spring, even before ground-breaking activity gets under way financed by Canada’s New Deficit Government.

The New Democrats are ringing the alarm at one bank’s dark forecast that 325,000 jobs will vanish in Canada, somewhat at odds with the federal budget’s prediction that 190,000 jobs will be saved or created.

“What can the Prime Minister do to prevent this disaster?” Happy Jack Layton shouted.

Good question. Alas, there are no more Senate vacancies to fill.

As for the Bloc Québécois, well, naturally the entire stimulus exercise is a colossal Canadian conspiracy to deny Quebec its rightful share of the meltdown motherlode.

A bemused Stephen Harper urged calm, noting the preliminary budget-endorsing vote was less than 48 hours old. But a few hours earlier, a stern face carved from 27 years of digesting bureaucratic reports and deciphering balance sheets was taking the Ottawa stage dressed as Dr. Doom.

Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page is the one guy this government, indeed every Canadian, should hope is dead wrong whenever he rolls out a paint-by-numbers glimpse into the federal government’s economic future.

He’s the gloomiest guy on the Hill and, what’s worse, he’s got a short but impressive record of being closer to bang on than anything produced by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s army of fiscal forecasters.

While the feds were projecting a surplus last November, Mr. Page was urging the government to brace for a deficit with no likelihood of a return to surplus until late 2011.

Now he sees grim red tidings sloshing around the federal books that make his three-month-old initial analysis seem rosy by contrast.

The $40-billion, two-year government stimulus will only deliver $31-billion worth of activity with no surplus until 2013 or beyond, Mr. Page concludes.

The budget’s Gross Domestic Product forecast is too high. The cushion to prevent a “structural deficit” has been reduced to a kneepad. The government plan to find $8-billion in savings in its books is now difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Page after Page of negativity spilled off his analysis and into a Commons that seems decidedly sombre compared to its bitter behaviour as a heckling hall last spring.

The trouble with fiscal and economic gloom is how it becomes mentally contagious. And if the Commons continues to perform as a nationally broadcast pit of economic depression, it could spur on a plague of self-fulfilling consumer pessimism across the country.

The political strategy of the opposition parties has become clear. They are filing angry grievances against the government in sectors where they have political strength.

The Liberals are demanding more aerospace support on behalf of their Montreal voters. The Bloc insists Quebec forestry deserves a bailout on par with the Ontario auto sector. The New Democrats blame the possible closure of daycares in Toronto, home turf to both Mr. Layton and wife Olivia Chow, on Harper’s heartless child-care policies.

Add their cacophony of angst together and they have already written off the government’s stimulus package as a failure and decided it’s the end of the world as we know it.

To become part of a constructive solution instead of exacerbating the problem, MPs should tackle the budget with the same urgency they usually devote to passing MP pay raises.

Waiting until April for recession relief is not an option. If there’s a sign the government is putting people back to work, it just might import enough optimism to slow, if not stop, unproductive panic attacks in the House of Commons.

National Post
dmartin@nationalpost.com

[updated Sun Feb 08 16:07:32 -0500 2009]

OH THE HYPOCRISY THAT KEEPS COMING FROM THOSE TORIES:

Conservatives rejoin cast of NAC gala
Star Tories to be among politicians, journalists making cameo appearances at Black and White Soirée
By Steven Mazey, The Ottawa CitizenFebruary 8, 2009
Conservative politicians seem to be have gotten over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's comments last fall that the arts community consisted of "a bunch of people at a rich gala."

Last September, Prime Minister Harper's wife, Laureen, pulled out of attending the NAC's October fundraising gala with singer Tony Bennett, just days after her husband's response to questions about Conservative cuts to arts funding.

That was then. Now the NAC has announced that star Conservatives will be among politicians and journalists making cameo appearances in the Gilbert and Sullivan-themed Black and White Opera Soirée on Feb. 21. The performance is a fund-raiser for youth programs run by Opera Lyra Ottawa and the NAC Orchestra, including performance tours to schools and training for young artists. NAC communications director Jayne Watson says the NAC has invited Mrs. Harper to attend, but has not heard yet whether she will make it.

Among the Conservatives who have agreed to spoof themselves are International Trade Minister Stockwell Day and Defence Minister Peter MacKay. They'll pop up in cameos during an evening that will include selections from The Mikado, H.M.S. Pinafore, The Gondoliers, Iolanthe and The Pirates of Penzance, sprinkled with updated references to the current political scene.

Dan Dugas, Mr. MacKay's spokesman, said the minister agreed to take part because the event was an important fundraiser, and he said Mr. Harper's comments about galas "didn't even come up."

Mr. Day's spokeswoman, Mélisa Leclerc, said Mr. Day and his wife, Valorie, supported many fundraising events.

Details of the cameos were secret, but the NAC's Ms. Watson said the politicians would probably have some fun in exchanges with the concert's hosts, television news anchors Peter Mansbridge, Lloyd Robertson and Bernard Derome.

When she was inviting Conservative politicians to be part of this year's show, Ms. Watson said, the prime minister's comments about galas didn't come up.

"They had all already agreed to come to the event, and what I did was to say, 'Who is coming, who would be a recognizable face, and who might think it would be fun.' We think it's terrific that politicians of all parties support the NAC and Opera Lyra. We're delighted they've agreed to take part."

Others who have agreed to make cameos include NDP leader Jack Layton, Senator Jim Munson, Ottawa-Vanier MPP Madeleine Meilleur, Ontario Housing and Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson (Jayne Watson's brother) and CTV chief political correspondent Craig Oliver, "a self-proclaimed Gilbert and Sullivan fanatic," the NAC said.

In late September, Mrs. Harper, who had been honorary chair of the NAC's Oct. 4 fundraising gala, sent her regrets. A few days earlier, when her husband had been asked about Conservative cuts to arts programs, he said "I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see ... a bunch of people at a rich gala ... all subsidized by the taxpayers, claiming their subsidies aren't high enough when they know those subsidies have gone up. I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people."

Because her husband usually doesn't attend such events, Mrs. Harper has been escorted to previous NAC fundraisers by Transportation Minister John Baird. Mr. Baird also did not attend the October gala.

The concert went on to raise $835,000 for the NAC National Youth and Education Trust, which supports training for young artists and performances and arts education programs for youth.

Ms. Watson said Mrs. Harper had served as honorary chair of the gala for three years and had been active in planning the event and encouraging politicians to attend. She said politicians from all parties cancelled attendance at last fall's gala because of the election.

Among the politicians who cancelled their attendance at the October gala, citing the demands of the election campaign, were former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and his wife, Jeanine Krieber.

Ms. Watson said politicians of all parties have also traditionally supported NAC fundraising events. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and his wife, Ontario MPP Christine Elliott, were honorary chairs of last year's Black and White Soirée and introduced the evening from the stage.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[updated Sun Feb 08 16:36:24 -0500 2009]

Is Michael Ignatieff giving federal Liberal Party control to Paul Martin-Stephane Dion forces? Why is Bruce Clark running big donor Laurier Club?

Some federal Liberal Party activists are wondering if and why new interim leader Michael Ignatieff is giving back power to key players who backed Paul Martin in the internally bitter and divisive leadership battle with Jean Chretien to become Prime Minister.

And they are asking questions, quietly and privately, about why controversial Liberal Bruce Clark is chairing the high dollar donor Laurier Club in BC, among other roles in fundraising for the party.
http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-michael-ignatieff-giving-federal.html

[updated Sun Feb 08 22:35:28 -0500 2009]

The Leader that wanted, but couldn't. (Warning blatant Tory blogger comment below, liberal apologists should avoid reading as tears may follow:)

Watch Michael Ignatieff and Danny Williams congratulate themselves for accomplishing nothing positive with the budget vote drama. It's pathetic.
Main Story

First, we have Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff. He has told the country that even though he is allowing the Conservative budget to pass, the Conservatives are on a tight leash:

[NDP leader Jack] Layton and [Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles] Duceppe's strong reaction put Ignatieff on the defensive in the House of Commons, where he denied during budget debate there is any Liberal alliance with the minority Conservative government and vowed to hold Harper "on a very tight leash."

Oh, sorry. Not just a tight leash. A very tight leash. So when Michael Ignatieff is faced with a party revolt stirred up by Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams, Ignatieff turns to Stephen Harper, who is struggling against that very tight leash. Or maybe not struggling as much as we think:

Mr. Ignatieff allowed his MPs the unusual move of breaking with caucus after several days of frantic negotiations and a telephone call by the Liberal Leader to the Prime Minister asking him to delay the measure that penalizes the province. Mr. Harper refused.

Harper, change that part of the budget. Uh, no.

OK, Harper, then delay that part of budget. Hmmm, no.

Please. Really. I'm getting frantic here. Oh, in that case...no.

Ignatieff's pathetic display is compounded by Danny Williams. For all his bluster, the budget stands unchanged, and Michael Ignatieff's leadership is damaged. Of course, Danny Williams tries to make this sound like a victory:

Premier Danny Williams says in allowing this province's Liberal members to vote their conscience, Michael Ignatieff has shown he's taking all views and concerns into consideration. Williams says Ignatieff is showing real courage early in his leadership. Premier Williams is making no apologies for his latest set-to with the federal government. Williams says the province's stance on such an important issue was not in vain.

Letting a bunch of MPs buck the party position instead of standing up to Danny Williams is courage? Seems like Michael Ignatieff is taking the easy way out to me. But then describing the situation as it really is, that is that Stephen Harper stood his ground while Michael Ignatieff folded under pressure, just won't do for Danny Williams. Not since Danny Williams has thrown his support behind Michael Ignatieff and his so-called very tight leash.

People in Newfoundland and Labrador might ask if Danny Williams is really doing his province any favours with the way he's been handling federal-provincial relations, and with the choices he's been making. Danny Williams might get away with treating Newfoundland and Labrador as a rotten borough, but if enough people wake up, that could change.

http://stevejanke.com/archives/282306.php

Actual rebutall on my theory of why Danny Williams is always fighting with Ottawa. Remember the lowering of our flag?

http://www.bondpapers.blogspot.com/

[updated Mon Feb 09 07:10:41 -0500 2009]

Three Strikes Against Michael Ignatieff
Posted on Friday, January 30 at 12:35 by Robin Mathews

Three Strikes Against Michael Ignatieff

A truth lodged in the minds of many Canadians is that “You can’t trust Stephen Harper”. What can those Canadians do now when they have to add “You can’t trust Michael Ignatieff, either?”

Ignatieff’s demonstration that he prefers the politics of Stephen Harper to those of Jack Layton is Strike Three. That is so, especially, in the light of the NDP’s obvious willingness to go a long way towards the Liberals in order to make a coalition work.

The basic fact has to be acknowledged. Ignatieff feels closer to the Stephen Harper group than to the New Democrats – and Stephen Harper is a Far Right Reactionary. Ignatieff has, in fact, entered a coalition of the Far Right. As Liberals across Canada awaken to that fact they will suffer some sleepless nights and some powerful testings of their loyalty to the Liberal Party.

To begin: already the Far Right nature of the budget is being uncovered. There is no genuine effort to deal with the immediately unemployed. Nothing has been built in to shore up and grow scientific, medical, and research capacity and (Canadian) independence. Over-kill on (permanent) tax breaks for large corporations is high-profile. More will follow. That’s fine with Michael Ignatieff who has always been on the Right of the Liberal Party.

To his discredit – both in fact and in terms of public perception – Ignatieff is copying Harper’s internal Party despotism. Ignatieff’s aide uses Harper openly as an example of “good” Party discipline. “Ian Davey is Michael Ignatieff’s principal secretary and he admires Stephen Harper’s steely control over the national media and the Conservative caucus.” (Globe and Mail, Jan 28 09 A8).

Nothing good can come of that.

With uncharacteristic speciousness, columnist Lawrence Martin, on the same day, seems to praise Ignatieff for wanting “to separate himself from those guys”. Ignatieff, remember, is not separating himself from “guys”. He is separating himself from much of what is believed to be good, progressive politics in the Liberal Party.

Those facts make us ask who Michael Ignatieff really is. The answer is not pleasant. Born with a golden spoon in his mouth, Ignatieff has always dwelled psychologically among the Bilderbergians – the wealthy elite which wants, quietly, to run the global economy for “the few”.

His life has been that of an observer and a “joiner”. What he has joined is telling. When the George Bush administration (with Britain’s Tony Blair) was building the Iraq weapons-of-mass-destruction-lie in order to invade, Ignatieff joined the bad guys. We remember the air was hot with disagreement about invasion, and Ignatieff supported the Bush side arguing to invade Iraq.

Almost worse – when, more recently, the argument about Terror and Torture was aflame, Ignatieff not only supported George Bush’s so-called policy of “soft torture” (activity that Barack Obama has since categorically ruled out) but he did so in one of his books that is there for all to read.

Ignatieff’s published position in that book is ugly. He has rejected both of those positions since. Fine. But in the Canadian parliament he voted with the Harperites to extend Canada’s role in Afghanistan, and he won his nomination in Etobicoke-Lakeshore by a setup – what one might describe as unsavoury manipulation.

In the light of all that we have to ask what he will approve of – and then live to regret – among the Stephen Harper policies he endorses? Having helped wreck Canadian democracy, an apology and retraction from Ignatieff some time in the future will be of little use or comfort.

Winston Churchill’s basic statement about parliaments still stands: “the role of the Opposition is to oppose”. Ignatieff has brushed that rule aside in his first weeks as Liberal leader.

The Liberal Party leader’s endorsement of the Stephen Harper budget is a catastrophe. It is the “Strike Three” against him. Strikes One and Two were his support of the war against Iraq and then his support of “soft torture”.

For many of us his endorsement of the Stephen Harper budget is Strike Three. He has no more chances with us. He has struck out. More and more members of the Liberal Party, I sincerely believe, will join us in that conviction.

That means many of us must – like it or not – support Jack Layton who still knows the role of the Opposition is to oppose, and who knows ordinary Canadians are not being well-served by the Ignatieff/Harper coalition.

In addition, many of us must – like it or not – realize that bloc quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, in his concern for the people of Quebec and their well-being, is a better ally of anglophone Canadians than is either Michael Ignatieff or Stephen Harper.

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/235930529-three-strikes-against-michael-ignatieff

[updated Mon Feb 09 07:22:23 -0500 2009]

A growing disconnect in senior Tory ranks?

Who's finance minister around here, anyway?
Posted: February 08, 2009, 11:17 AM by Kelly McParland
Full Comment, Don Martin, Canadian politics

It's becoming hard to miss -- the growing disconnect between the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister just when those two have become the most pivotal pairing in Canada to deal with a battered economy.

On Friday they were at it again - Stephen Harper saying the $40-billion fiscal stimulus package was carved in stone; Jim Flaherty saying he was very open to adding more deficit billions if it's required. I'm guessing the stimulus numbers won't be boosted until Mr. Harper's polling puts his approval numbers in a freefall.

But it's not their first off-script encounter. It was no secret that Mr. Flaherty was furious when the PMO leaked the deficit figure and most of his budget ahead of schedule. There's some evidence he didn't even know it was being done until the revelations hit the newswires. Then there was the fiscal update debacle where Mr. Harper insisted on inserting the elimination of public financing for political parties, which severely tarnished Mr. Flaherty's already rusty reputation and almost cost the Conservatives the government.

Now this, something as critical as how far this government will go to combat the recession is up for internal debate between the number one and two bigwigs on all federal matters fiscal.

If the Liberals were smart they'd be asking: Will the real finance minister please stand up?

And if it's not Jim Flaherty, then he should step down.

National Post

[updated Mon Feb 09 07:33:42 -0500 2009]

November 17, 2006
Ignatieff: Canada should sell nuclear reactors to North Korea

A Cannonball Press report:

OTTAWA (CBP): Federal Liberal leadership contender Michael Ignatieff issued a statement today urging that the Conservative government immediately begin negotiations with North Korea to assist that Communist state's peaceful nuclear program.

"Why is the Harper government not seizing the initiative to offer CANDU reactors to the energy-starved people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," the statement demanded. "The 'megaphone diplomacy' of the this unsophisticated, un-nuanced, crew of amateur blunderers, and their repeated snubs against China, have destroyed all realistic chance of selling further CANDU reactors to that great civilization. It is time to take up the North Korean option," the statement asserted.

"With visionary Liberal leadership, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien led two Team Canada trade missions to China and Prime Minister Paul Martin visited in 2005. During that time-frame the most important human-rights advance in the world has been the hundreds of millions of Chinese lifted out of absolute poverty. How can Stephen Harper fail to make the connection? How can he fail to see the profoundly negative human rights consequences his snubbing of China will have?" asked the Liberal leadership candidate.

"The heavy-handed Harper Conservatives have caused terrible damage to our relations with China and to the Chinese people," the statement continued. "I believe that the damage also done to Canada's international reputation, and to our vital economic interests, can be alleviated--at least to some extent--by exploring the opportunities offered by the nuclear program of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the heir to another great Asian civilization," Mr Ignatieff said. "Nuclear ties with Pyonyang are a win-win for both countries; our industry and workers benefit and cheap, reliable power can only improve human rights in North Korea."

Mr Ignatieff's statment concluded: "If elected Liberal leader I shall immediately go to Korea and respectfully engage Kim Jong-il, the dear leader of his people."

When asked to comment, Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae remarked that "At least Michael is not sounding 'pre-Nixon'".

Federal NDP leader Jack Layton reacted by saying that "Michael Ignatieff, as the Liberals usually do, has got his priorities all wrong. What's urgent now is to stop Harper and his Bush-following, madly militaristic government from joining Bush's war-provoking naval adventure against North Korea. Surely the senseless violence in Afghanistan is enough for this crowd of Republican wannabes?"

BQ leader Gilles Duceppe simply noted that the sovereignty of China and of the Democratic People's Republic must be respected at all times.

When asked for her comment, Jane Taber of Bell Globemedia said "Michael Ignatieff is sure putting the heat on his leadership opponents. Talk about moral courage and concern for human rights! I guess Bob Rae has to go to Tehran now and drum up some reactor business."

Mark "Cannonball" C.
Posted by markc at November 17, 2006 02:35 PM

[updated Mon Feb 09 07:34:33 -0500 2009]

Thursday, January 15, 2009
Michael Ignatieff has a point about the coalition government
I just watched Ignatieff news conference on CPAC. Towards the end he was asked a series of questions about the prospect of a coalition government. After repeating his previous statement about ‘a coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition’, he made the following significant points about a Liberal-NDP coalition government, some of which have not enjoyed much publicity before:

1. We are living in unusual times, in that the problem in Parliament was brought about by Harper, who behaved in such a way that he lost the confidence of the House. That is why the coalition agreement (the Accord) was agreed to.

2. The Accord was not drawn up on the back of an envelope. It was a very carefully thought out document, and is available to the public to see.

3. If Harper is unable to win the confidence of the House with his next budget, then Ignatieff is prepared to tell the Governor General that the Liberal government is prepared to govern Canada with the assistance of the NDP, and the Bloc will vote with it, and that the coalition government will provide at least 18 months of stable government to Canada, and will govern in accordance with the program set out in the Accord.

4. The coalition government would provide Canada with at least (he stressed the at least and mentioned that it might last much longer) 18 months of stability, during these tough economic times.

5. Whether the coalition government should govern or not is not a question for the people of Canada; it will come about (if it does) as part of the operation of our Parliament, if Harper loses the confidence vote on the budget.

6. He came out very strongly against the ridiculous notion spread by the Harper government that no MP should enter into any agreement with Bloc MPs. Ignatieff strongly defended the right of every Bloc MP to his or her place in Parliament, and said that they had as much right to their seats there as he had; they were our fellow citizens, and were entitled to participate in the governing of Canada. He slammed Harper for denying Bloc MPs that right, and for using arguments designed to cause national disunity over this issue.

I am encouraged by these statements. They reveal a man who has thought carefully about the coalition government, and who would be prepared to lead such a government if the Harper budget loses the vote. They do not reflect a man who is opposed to the concept of a coalition government with the NDP out of principle; rather, they reflect the views of a man who is a realist, and recognizes that a coalition government in these troubled times might be the best option for our country.

As for the budget meeting the tests he set for Liberal Party acceptance, the Liberal caucus would have to consider the reaction of the NDP and the Bloc to the Harper government in considering whether Harper’s government should be propped up. Clearly, the MPs representing these other two parties are also part of the confidence the Harper government needs in order to govern as a minority government, and to provide stability for Canada in these troubled times.

If Harper is propped up by the Liberal MPs with a budget which is inadequate for the country’s needs, then we will not be in for stable government over the next two years, but turmoil and strife. Only the coalition government can provide stability at this time, when it is so deeply needed.
http://puzzledcat.blogspot.com/2009/01/michael-ignatieff-has-point-about.html

[updated Mon Feb 09 07:37:03 -0500 2009]

Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A failing grade on "change" and "renewal"
This past weekend, the Liberal Party of Canada announced the creation of two new committees to deal with the ever-popular themes of “change” and “renewal”. The “Special Renewal Committee”, headed by former LPC National Director Steve MacKinnon and Mississauga MP Navdeep Bains, will be tasked with looking at the structures and mechanisms within the Party to engage both Party members and Canadians as a whole. For its part, the “Change Commission”, co-chaired by Dr. Carolyn Bennett, Party President Doug Ferguson, and local Party activist Brigitte Garceau, will apparently be focussing on “long term changes to the Party’s engagement, communications, fundraising, policy, and election-readiness strategies.”

“Change and renewal.” Laudable goals, indeed. Let's ignore the fact that we completed a similar exercise just two years ago with the Red Ribbon Task Force. Let's set aside the fact that many prominent Liberals have already written extensively about the topic time and time again. Let's forget the overlap, the redundancy, the lack of any real time-lines or deliverables. Let's just be glad the Party is – or at least seems to be – committed to the broad notions of “change” and “renewal”, and is willing to set up a process to achieve them. It's a good first step... Right?

Wrong. There are nine members of the Special Renewal Committee and three members of the Change Commission. That's twelve Liberals, representing most of the country (with the exception of BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, PEI, the territories, aboriginal communities and most of rural Canada). Most stunning to me, however, is that we're talking about twelve Liberals... And not a single Young Liberal!

Young Liberals should be surprised, disappointed and angry at the lack of youth representation in the Party's renewal process. We should be DOUBLY upset at the fact that part of the Special Renewal Committee's mandate is to review “the contributions of Commissions to achieving equitable representation in the party and the pursuit of our electoral objectives.” Put simply, the committee will be looking at the role of the YLC. What do we expect such a discussion to yield? Are we to believe that a committee without a single youth member will recommend a strengthened role for Young Liberals within the Party? More funding for our recruitment initiatives? Lower delegate fees for national conventions? A better appreciation for our policy ideas? Let's get serious!

People tell us we're the next generation of leaders in our Party. I beg to differ! I think we have the potential to be leaders today, to take the lead right now in making the changes our Party needs to grow and prosper. But to do so, we do need to get serious! As Young Liberals, we need to be more aggressive in asserting our role within the Party. We must not be shoved aside as an afterthought. Our role within the Party must be far bigger and far more substantial.

I'm running for President of the Young Liberals of Canada. Over the next few weeks and months, I look forward to sharing some of my ideas on what we need to do to build a stronger commission and a stronger Party. More importantly, I look forward to hearing some of yours. In the meantime, I urge you to let the Party know that Young Liberals want in on renewal!

Yours in Liberalism,

John
http://johnlennard.blogspot.com/

[updated Mon Feb 09 07:41:43 -0500 2009]

Alice why do yo support this guy when he's against women's rights

This is real dirt on the Harper regime of ineptness:

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/reports/2008/09/reportsstudies1960/

"Under Stephen Harper's Conservative government, women in Canada are witnessing a steady encroachment on the hard-won and still fragile equality rights for which they have fought long and hard."

Can anyone explain why the word "equality" was removed from the mandate for the Status of Women's Council, and why this erosion of women's rights in Canada?

Another comment:
"What would Nellie McClung say about this?

What would she say about national child care being blocked by the conservatives? Estimates show it could return as much as seven dollars for every dollar invested in our children and have other benefits such as reduced crime and poverty for future generations."

[updated Mon Feb 09 07:42:47 -0500 2009]

Liberal Blogger
http://theliberalfactor.blogspot.com/2006/10/michael-ignatieff-and-30-of-party.html

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Michael Ignatieff, And 30% of the Party supports him?

I just read this story and I was surprised. Michael Ignatieff committing another huge gaffe.

In an interview on a widely watched Quebec talk show...Michael Ignatieff, the front-runner in the race for the federal Liberal leadership, has accused Israel of committing "a war crime" during its conflict with Hezbollah last summer.

Now this is major, as alleging Israel committed a war crime is pretty big. In fact Michael is the first to stand up and denounce what Israel did as a war crime. This shows boldness and greatness that Michael has the intelligence to really speak for the World Court and accuse a whole country of a crime. I don't know why Michael only has 30% of the delegates, he should have 100%.

Now for those of you who can't read sarcasm, the above was an example. Ignatieff's actions are but just a part of why Ignatieff would not make a good leader.

In the news also perhaps in response to Ignatieff's gaffe is this, it is a lovely article about Ignatieff, I suggest you read it.

A Nice exert is right here:

Most people come to this country because they want a fresh start, or they want to escape tyranny or persecution. They come willing to take whatever job is available, to build a life in Canada. To start from scratch in a country that offers more opportunity than the one they are in.

Ignatieff is not an immigrant, of course. He is a bona fide Canadians - even if in his writings he has referred to himself, pronounally speaking, as an American.

But imagine the conversation around Ignatieff's breakfast table, a year or so ago. "Dear, I am thinking of moving back to Canada."

"But you have a great job here in the U.S."

"Yes, but I think my opportunities will be better in Canada. I do remember the country, somewhat, and I want to be a prime minister or president of something. I can't do that here in the States, because we have a silly rule about being born here. I can't do it in England, because Tony Blair's successor is already standing with his briefcase at the door of 10 Downing. So it's either Canada or Italy, and I know slightly less about Italy."

So back to Canada he came and - and here is where the Conservative campaign people and PR experts are convulsed with delight - the Liberals immediately welcome him as the new Liberal star.

The Liberals have a way of doing this. Remember John Turner? Or Paul Martin? C'mon - sure you do. Well, these shining stars burned out on entry into the Prime Ministerial atmosphere. Ignatieff will surely do the same. And he is an easy target for the slings and arrows of Conservative critics.

As someone who lives somewhere near the centre of the political spectrum, I am alternately amused and appalled at the developments in the leadership race.

They all come with very apparent flaws. Bob Rae was less than successful as Ontario Premier, and the Conservatives have been quoted as saying their anti-Rae rhetoric is already written: "He'll do to Canada what he did to Ontario."

Stéphane Dion - it has not been widely reported - holds dual Canadian and French citizenship.

Gerard Kennedy is... thoroughly unknown outside the GTA.

Ken Dryden has apparently been shut out. Ironic, that.

All are vulnerable to attack by their opponents, but none are in the target-on-my-back league with Ignatieff, who made the choice to live Somewhere Else, until he decided to be PM. To my mind, that puts him alongside Conrad Black, who gave up his Canadian citizenship to become a British lord, but now apparently wants it back.

I'm not sure of all the qualities necessary to be a good Prime Minister. But choosing to live in Canada might be somehow fundamental.

If the Liberals opt for Ignatieff, they deserve everything the Conservatives throw at them.

[updated Mon Feb 09 07:47:07 -0500 2009]

http://warrenkinsella.com/

ORILLIA, SATURDAY NIGHT
Sunday, February 8, 2009, 04:47 PM

I got email and IMs about this event last night. Not only was it standing-room only - people were standing outside the building, hoping to see or hear Michael. Then, this morning, I was stopped twice by people who told me they liked my guy, and that "Harper has to go."

Something's happening out there, folks.

Change is coming.

[updated Mon Feb 09 07:52:01 -0500 2009]

Libs reduce delegate fee, but expect low turnout at convention
In economic downturn, things are 'economically challenging' for Liberals heading to convention.
By Abbas Rana
The Liberals, who are being out-fundraised by the Conservatives by almost four to one, have dropped the $995 registration fee to their Vancouver convention this spring for delegates coming from Nunavut and Labrador and have slightly reduced fees in other provinces across the country in an effort to attract more Grit delegates and after Elections Canada ruled travel subsidies "could constitute an inducement to contribute."

The Liberals are trying to attract delegates and want them to contribute money. If delegates paid the $995 registration fee they couldn't contribute any more to the party because the individual limit is $1,100 annually.

"Inducement, in this case, is like asking someone, 'If you come vote for me, I'll buy you a beer.' This is an extreme analogy but I'm using this to explain my point," one Liberal insider told The Hill Times.

Historically, the parties cover delegates' travel subsidies, depending on where delegates live, and could play an important role in the convention's turnout because travel costs are one of the key expenses.

Liberal MPs and potential delegates told The Hill Times that the turnout at their convention is expected to be low because of high costs and because the leadership is a foregone conclusion with Mr. Ignatieff already ensconced. Liberals said the cost to attend it could be as high as $3,000 because in addition to the registration fee, delegates will have to pay hotel costs.

With the election financing legislation that came into effect in 2004, delegates' fees are considered donations. The party website indicates that members of the Laurier Club who have already donated $1,100 in the past 12 months don't have to pay the registration fees for the convention.

"I don't think it will make a significant difference. We're not going to get the numbers that we'd have if we'd had a full-blown leadership contest.

"There will be very few that can take up the cost and never mind the subject matter or whether it's because of the leader has been [chosen early]...It's just the cost and to trying get across the other side of the country," said Mr. Tonks in an interview in the foyer of the House.

Usually riding associations in all the political parties subsidize the costs of their party conventions but with three federal elections being held in the last four years, Liberal MPs told The Hill Times that it's highly unlikely the riding associations will be able to subsidize any costs for the delegates.

"Last year, we spent five months in a byelection and then we went into almost right away a general election. So, we're not exactly flush with cash so we're not in a position to send a lot of delegates. But there's certainly interest among people that they know that would have to pay their own way," said Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Ont.) who was elected in a byelection in March last year and whose riding delegates will get a discount of $60. "Our riding is not planning on subsidizing any delegate travel. We would love to [but we can't]."

In most of the ridings across the country, Liberal insiders told The Hill Times that there might not be any delegation election meetings because of the lack of interest. If the number of potential candidates is 20 or less, all will be eligible to go to the convention. Liberals are scheduled to hold these election meetings from March 6 to 10 across the country to elect a total of about 7,000 delegates.

In the 2006 Liberal biennial and leadership convention, 4,063 delegates attended. Liberal sources told The Hill Times that they're expecting 2000-2500 delegates to attend the Vancouver convention.

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, B.C.), co-chair of the convention in an interview last week, downplayed the significance of the turnout at the convention.

"Low compared to what? Low compared to a contested leadership convention? Most likely. If you have a contested leadership convention, you'd have a full contingent of delegates from all ridings. And if you don't, you may not have a full contingent and that's only normal. The last Tory convention in Winnipeg only had about 2,000 delegates. We will certainly do better than that," said Mr. Dosanjh, but declined to say how many delegates are expected.

But Mr. Dosanjh denied the registration fee reductions are aimed at increasing the convention's attendance. "Absolutely not."

Also, the party will review and discuss its policies, elect a new party president, and all the members of the national executive. As of last week, Liberal sources told The Hill Times that three candidates—party president Doug Ferguson, Toronto lawyer Alfred Apps, and LPCO president Mike Crawley—are planning on seeking the party's presidency.

arana@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

[updated Mon Feb 09 13:44:21 -0500 2009]

More dirty Tory stuff...what a sleazy bunch:

http://warrenkinsella.com/comments.php?y=09&m=02&entry=entry090206-135048

Lately, the Reform Conservatives been playing games to hurt my business (more on that soon); they've been doing S.O.31s about me in the House; they've been sending cabinet ministers to press conferences about me; and so on. All paid for by you, the taxpayer.

I know it couldn't possibly be the case, but it's almost as if they're kind of worried about me shooting at them during the election campaign, hmmm?

Here's a newsflash, neocons: I'm a volunteer. I can't be fired. And I plan to keep firing away at you, as often as possible, so get used to it.

Besides, what did one of your MPs say about me a couple years ago?

"I really think that Warren guy is on to something." [National Post, January 11, 2006]

Immodestly, I agree. Now, who said that?

Some guy named Stephen Harper. Perhaps you've heard of him.

UPDATE: The grievously offended Conservative MP in question - who previously achieved distinction for doing his utmost to defend Brian Mulroney at the Ethics Committee - used to own a restaurant in Peterborough called "The Fat Italian." Not terribly PC of you, Dean! The restaurant closed less than a year after it opened. How very sad.

[updated Mon Feb 09 18:25:09 -0500 2009]

Grit leader grilled in Orillia (Article without Warren Kinsella Spin)
Author: Frank Matys
As many as 900,000 voters who threw their support behind the Liberals in 2006 stayed home during the last election, he said.
“My job as a leader is to get those people out of their backyards, get them off their decks, get them off their sofas, get them out of the malls and get them into the voting booth,” he added. “If we can’t do that, my party is in trouble.”

Elsewhere, a question over the lack of funds for the creation of new affordable housing in the recent federal budget brought a frank admission from Ignatieff regarding his own party’s record on the matter.
The Liberals turned off the tap for low-income housing while working to pay down the deficit in the 1990s, he said.
“We got out of this and we shouldn’t have got out of it,” he said. “Affordable housing has been starved … and some of the starvation started under us.”
“We have to spend money now to dig this truck out of the ditch, but we have to be very careful that we spend wisely,” he said.
When the discussion turned to the ballooning cost of health care, Ignatieff said investments in community recreation and other measures that encourage active living were key to preventing illness.
The development of a national food policy is equally important, he added. “Get the fats, get the sugars, get those things out of our diets,” he said.
http://www.huroniabusinesstimes.com/businesstimes/article/128412

It is nice to see Iggy cheering for the CPC budget and realizing the Liberal downloading hurt Canadians the last time.

Building Arenas, Building Communities - Canada's Economic Action Plan Invests in Hockey Arenas and Community Recreation Centres

Feb 6, 2009 5:55:00 PM

ANOLA, MB, Feb. 6 /CNW Telbec/ - Vic Toews, Member of Parliament for Provencher and President of the Treasury Board, today toured the Anola Community Center and highlighted the Conservative government's Recreation Infrastructure in Canada (RInC) program, as announced in Budget 2009: Canada's Economic Action Plan.

To build jobs and stimulate local businesses in communities across Canada, the RInC program will invest $500 million in building and renewing community hockey arenas, swimming pools and recreations centres
.
http://finance.alphatrade.com/story/2009-02-06/CNW/200902061755CANADANWCANADAPR_C6519.html

"Rec centres and arenas play an important role in our towns and cities. They are places where we come together as communities to cheer on our teams and to spend time with our friends and neighbours. They promote well-being and healthy lifestyles," said Toews.

Many of Canada's community recreation centres were built to commemorate Canada's centennial anniversary in 1967. After more than 40 years, as well as countless hockey games and community events, many of these buildings need extensive repairs.

"Investing in our rec centres and hockey arenas will create jobs and put money into our local businesses right away. Facilities like these will help us to teach our children about the importance of competitiveness and fair play for years to come," said Toews.

The Conservative government has allocated $500 million for eligible projects in the next two years, which may include hockey arenas, swimming pools, basketball and tennis courts, soccer fields and recreation centres.

Under the RInC Program, municipalities, First Nations, counties, community organizations and other not-for-profit entities will be invited to apply for renewal funding. This funding may be dedicated to either the construction of new recreation facilities or the upgrading of existing sites and will cover up to 50 per cent of the total project costs.

[updated Mon Feb 09 19:33:11 -0500 2009]

Ignatieff was the Architect and Father of the Carbon Tax policy of the Liberal Party
Politics
Written by Orville
Monday, 09 February 2009 06:20
I find it amusing when Ignatieff rises in the house and asks in a condescending tone (does he have any other) what the government intends to do about the latest unemployment figures - although as leader of the Official opposition and presumably a possible Prime Minister in waiting, whether as Leader of the Liberal Party, or leader of a coalition of Liberal-Bloc-NDP ( since last I heard Ignatieff didn't reject that possibility since he wanted to keep that option open to keep a tight reign on the government), he hasn't offered any alternatives or solutions of his own, which I am surprised the media haven't demanded. As a matter of fact, I heard him say on several occasions, he doesn't have to offer a program or a position - this is a new dimension and philosophy for an opposition leader.

What I do know what Harper has done, for unemployment figures in this country, is by defeating Ignatieff and the Liberals in the last election he has spared Canada from a Liberal government and imposition of a carbon tax which would have seen the January unemployment figure at 200 thousand and counting. Is there any doubt how damaging a carbon tax would have been with or without a world wide economic recession? It was Buzz Hargrove that said bringing in Kyoto targets and carbon tax "would be suicidal for our economy. You'd almost have to shut down every major industry in the country from oil and gas to the airlines to the auto industry."

Although we are aware, that Ignatieff would have us believe, that carbon tax was all about Dion, and he isn't man enough to admit that it was Ignatieff himself, who is the architect of the carbon tax for the Liberal Party, because he was the one who introduced it at the 2006 leadership convention, and in fact "he was the only candidate in the 2006 Liberal leadership race to advocate a carbon tax." Although it was Dion who was burdened with the carbon tax in the last election, it was his deputy leader Ignatieff "long a supporter of the carbon tax concept, who argued that the best time to sell the policy was during the compressed six weeks of a campaign, when at least a swath of Canadian voters can be counted on to pay attention to an involved policy debate" (and am I ever glad voters did pay attention.)

In spite of his reluctance to tell Canadians his position on the issues ( it is entirely possible that he doesn't know or is he another Mr. Dithers) and he can retreat to his new political paradigm of "a carbon tax if necessary but not necessarily a carbon tax" an then again it could be the new found political directive in Canadian politics of "for this one time only".

In the meantime I would suggest the overbearing Ignatieff walk down from the top of the hill, and not be blinded by his newly perceived power, to think that his ineffectual demands that the government has to report to him on a regular basis, with a good report card, or he will defeat the government. I have news for Ignatieff - it is the people of Canada that Harper and his government have to satisfy for their survival and not Ignatieff and the Liberal party or an Ignatieff led coalition of Liberals - Bloc - NDP.

http://www.dustmybroom.com/

[updated Mon Feb 09 19:36:31 -0500 2009]

If the Liberals thing replacing Dion will solve all of their problems, they're delusional. Or stupid. Or both.
By Harold Jansen on Oct 18, 2008

For most of the parties on election night, there was some good news. The Conservatives and NDP both have larger caucuses, the BQ was revived againm and the Greens increased in votes and dollars from the annual state subsidy. For the Liberals, however, you had to look hard for good news. The party earned its lowest share of the popular vote in its history, had one of its lowest seat totals ever, and was down in almost every region of Canada. The bright spots? Well, Quebec was bit kinder to the Liberals than most people expected. Also, despite a pretty ineffective campaign, the party still has a significant degree of support. The Liberals may have reached bottom and the only way to go is up.

In the post-election post-mortem of the Liberals' mangled corpse, the media and many Liberals seem to be focusing all of their attention on Stephane Dion. I heard Jim Karygiannis' interview on CBC's the Current on Friday and all he could talk about was Stephane Dion's many failings. I've heard rumblings from Liberal insiders that they think that they can replace Dion, elect a new leader, bring down Harper in a year and get a majority. All of the media speculation is on Dion and how he didn't listen to advice, didn't communicate well and failed the party.

If only it were that simple. The problems with the Liberals run far deeper than leadership. This is a party that has neglected its party structures. The membership is disengaged and demoralized. The party is in a terrible financial position and the situation is only going to get worse; the drop in the popular vote means that its annual subsidy is now $1.6 million a year less. On policy, the Liberals have coasted for a couple of decades. A lot of attention has been paid to how disastrous the Green Shift was, but it was the first new and bold policy initative the party has brought forward in a generation (and maybe even two generations). The Liberals are like a rusted out car with no engine or tires. Those who think a change of leadership will fix everything are basically saying that by slapping a new coat of paint on this mess, Canadians can be convinced to buy it.

This is not to excuse Dion for his part in the disaster on Tuesday night. He wasn't an effective communicator, the campaign his team ran was poorly organized and executed, and according to reports, he didn't take advice well or manage his caucus well. If the Liberals do manage to fix the car, it will need a new coat of paint. The frustration I have with the media and with some of the Liberals I'm hearing from is that they're looking for the quick fix. It sounds like some are not prepared to do the hard work of fixing what's wrong with the party. This is why I argued that a Conservative majority would be good for the Liberals. It would have given them the time to fix things and may have woken them up to the fact that things are actually worse than they seem.

One last point about the "Replace Dion and all will be well" camp. I think they're forgetting why Dion became leader in the first place. The way the 2006 leadership convention is sometimes portrayed, you'd think the delegates were all intoxicated and in a drunken stupor chose Dion as leader. There was a reason Dion won. There were big questions over both Michael Ingnatieff's and Bob Rae's abilities to lead the party, renew it and position it for the future. The delegates chose Dion because those other options didn't seem palatable. I'll leave it for those with better knowledge of the Liberals and those two men to say whether they've improved and/or allayed those fears. The quick move to replace Dion means it likely comes down to Rae vs. Ignatieff again and the party will face the same problem once more.

Stephane Dion is a decent, hard-working, honest and sincere man, whose commitment to Canada cannot be questioned. As this election showed, that isn't enough to lead a party. He probably does have to go. But the Liberals had better realize that leadership may be the least of the problems facing the party. Without a commitment to party renewal, a new leader may just be leading them in circles in the political wilderness.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/blog/harold-jansen/if-liberals-thing-replacing-dion-will-solve-all-their-problems-theyre-delusional-or-stupid-or-both

[updated Mon Feb 09 19:50:41 -0500 2009]

Harper dodged a bullet by making a deal with Libs on Cadman suit but it shows he's very guilty and hopefully the NDP sues for disclosure:

PM dropped Cadman suit ahead of key hearing
Article Comments (39) TIM NAUMETZ

The Canadian Press

February 9, 2009 at 8:34 PM EST

OTTAWA — Stephen Harper dropped his lawsuit against the Liberals in the Cadman affair just weeks before a hearing on whether his emails, notes and agenda could be called into evidence.

A court date was to be scheduled this month over the failure of the Prime Minister's legal team to provide documents and answers to questions that had been requested during a series of cross-examinations last summer.

The lawyer for the Liberal party was set to ask the court to rule whether Mr. Harper would have to provide emails and notes for meetings his staff held related to Chuck Cadman.

The matter involves allegations that the Conservatives offered a financial inducement to Mr. Cadman, an Independent MP, while trying to defeat the minority Liberal government in 2005. The Tories deny the charge.

The Prime Minister dropped his $3.5-million defamation lawsuit on Friday after reaching a deal with the Liberals.

Sources say the Liberal party is not obligated to pay any damages or apologize for claims on its website that Mr. Harper was aware Tory officials offered Mr. Cadman — who was dying — a $1-million insurance policy if he sided with them in a Commons budget vote.

Despite the refusal of either side to comment about their agreement to dismiss the case, records show a legal fight was brewing over the documents and other information Liberal lawyer Chris Paliare had requested.

Hearings were expected to begin this month over Mr. Harper's failure to have his lawyers respond to Mr. Paliare's request for documents and information from the prime minister's office.

In a series of cross-examinations last summer, Mr. Paliare requested copies of Mr. Harper's agenda for the day he was interviewed by B.C. journalist Tom Zytaruk, who reported the life-insurance allegations in a biography of Cadman.

Mr. Paliare had also asked for copies of Mr. Cadman's journals and diaries for the period of time during which the financial inducement allegedly took place.

Harper lawyer Richard Dearden abruptly quit last November, to be replaced by Toronto lawyer David Wingfield, after the initial stages of the Liberal efforts to obtain the documents and information began.

Mr. Dearden gave no explanation for his departure, and court notices of the lawyer swap do not indicate whether it was at Mr. Harper's wish or Mr. Dearden's.

During the examination of Mr. Harper last August, Mr. Dearden objected to Mr. Paliare's request for an email said to discuss a meeting between Cadman and two Conservatives the day of the confidence vote in 2005.

Other documents Mr. Paliare requested during his cross-examination of Mr. Harper included the notes of “all the people” who attended meetings in the prime minister's office in late February when the allegations were first reported.

Mr. Harper's lawsuit prevented the Liberals from exploiting the allegations during the federal election last fall.

Tom Conway, a prominent Ottawa lawyer who represented a former Tory member who sued Mr. Harper, said the looming court fight over access to emails and notes may have been behind the Prime Minister's decision to abandon the lawsuit.

“People drop lawsuits for all sorts of reason and sometimes they drop lawsuits because they are being asked to produce information they don't want to produce,” said Mr. Conway, a member of the board of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The NDP is calling on both parties to disclose the terms of their deal.

“Now it just sort of disappears from the radar because of this closed-door agreement?” said Vancouver MP Bill Siksay. “I don't think that's acceptable.”

[updated Mon Feb 09 22:02:22 -0500 2009]

Is Newfoundland the new Slumdog Millionaire, Ontario the Poor Kid on the Block and Quebec as usual the number one parasite on the Public Purse, will they ever learn, the answer is NO.

[updated Tue Feb 10 00:18:07 -0500 2009]

Iggy defends Green Shift: He is the author. More Proof Iggy runs away from his plan and removes all green shift claims on the liberal website. Running from your own plan?

June 9, 2008
Conservative Attack Ads Designed to “Trick” Canadians
Yesterday, the Conservative Party released aggressive ads attacking the Liberal Plan to put a price on carbon, saying it will increase prices for Canadian consumers. Unfortunately, these ads are nothing more than the usual scare-tactics motivated by political desperation the Conservatives resort to when they are on the defensive.

Liberals have repeatedly stressed that the Liberal Plan will be revenue-neutral and no new tax will be imposed on gasoline.

In fact, as Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff pointed out, this is the stark opposite of the Conservatives’ own environmental plan, which may lead to higher energy costs for Canadians and has been discredited by every credible expert.

“Deep in the pages of the government's regulatory framework for greenhouse gas emissions, there's the admission that their plan will result in higher energy costs, and these costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices,” said Mr. Ignatieff. “Nowhere does the Conservative plan propose to help seniors and low-income Canadians bear those costs. Our plan will.

“How can Canadians have a real debate about climate change policy if the government won't level with Canadians about what their plan will do with energy prices? When will the little grease spots start telling the truth?”

Unlike the Conservatives, Liberals are serious about the environment. The Liberal Plan, which has been widely praised by environmentalists and economists, is just the first step in opening up a constructive dialogue with Canadians about how to best tackle the climate change crisis.
http://www.liberal.ca/story_14061_e.aspx

Now Iggy has removed any "green shift" policies on his party's platform. Now the no longer have a "serious environmental plan"

[updated Tue Feb 10 06:58:19 -0500 2009]

Obviously he's afraid to be seen much in public.
Harper running a peek a boo government:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090210.wpeekaboo10/BNStory/politics/home

Michael Ignatieff is accusing Stephen Harper of running a "peek-a-boo government," contrasting the "absent" Prime Minister with U.S. President Barack Obama who is out on the road and on television selling his stimulus package. NDP Leader Jack Layton says the Prime Minister is in "denial."

The opposition leaders levelled their accusations against Mr. Harper yesterday on a day in which the Prime Minister was absent from the House of Commons during Question Period. Instead, his ministers and the Secretary of State for Finance explained the latest unemployment numbers and defended the government's economic aid plan.

"We've got the worst single job losses in 30 years and the Prime Minister is absent," Mr. Ignatieff said, adding that as he tours the country union leaders and other Canadians are "asking 'where's the Prime Minister?'

[updated Tue Feb 10 07:49:41 -0500 2009]

Ignatieff is no Trudeau

Colby Cosh, National Post Published: Tuesday, February 10, 2009

And why, with due respect to Persichilli, should this be taken for a sign of weakness rather than strength? As he points out himself, the post-Trudeau Liberal leaders have all been highly intolerant of dissension in the House -- and they have all, Turner, Chretien, Martin and Dion, ended up being done to death by their enemies behind the scenes. Is the cosmetic appearance of Liberal monolithicness perhaps not a "tradition" that is long overdue to be discarded? Can't we all think of plenty of examples in politics where vigorous debate and discussion is permitted in order to preserve a state of underlying unity of purpose? How about, for instance, every liberal democracy that has ever existed?

And if you really think about it, just how valid is Trudeau's complaint that less centralist Canadians wanted the federal government to serve as a maitre-d'? Turning a smart-sounding metaphor into an implied argument was all too typical of Trudeau's smug intellectual style. (And upholding maitre-d's as objects of contempt displays a species of snobbishness that is an unfailing sign of dreadful personal character; no man may be more readily judged in an instant than by how he treats wait staff.) Even the most bloody-minded of Quebec separatists, in promoting the half-assed concept of "sovereignty-association," imagine Quebec subscribing to pan-Canadian arrangements for trade, defence and monetary policy. Who, then, stands behind this maitre-d' concept?

It's a straw man, one hollow even by straw-man standards. However lamentable Ignatieff's "one-time" indulgence of restless Newfoundland nationalism might have been, he need not be attacked with such means.

colbycosh@gmail.com
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=a6ea9c0e-0518-4f26-aec4-33d5f5fbfe28&p=2

[updated Tue Feb 10 08:33:04 -0500 2009]

Chris Selley: The quest for a tolerable House of Commons
Posted: January 31, 2009, 8:35 PM by Chris Selley
Full Comment, Full Pundit, Chris Selley

On Thursday in Ottawa, I had the dubious pleasure of taking in my first ever live-action Question Period. It was worth it, I suppose, just to see the look of bemused pity on Michael Ignatieff’s face whenever John Baird opened his mouth. But overall, I didn’t feel like I got anything out of the experience that I couldn’t have gotten from watching it on CPAC back in Toronto—or from not watching it at all, come to think of it. It wasn’t by any means the worst QP I’ve seen. Still, it was pretty pedestrian, unedifying stuff, as a number of extremely drowsy tourists in the public gallery could tell you.

At first I was a little surprised, therefore, to see it held up as an example of The New Ottawa at at work—a place where, as John Ivison put it, it is now “politically expedient to give a legitimate inquiry a genuine response.” As evidence, he pointed to the opening exchange between Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper:

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the stimulus package just passed by the U.S. Congress includes protectionist clauses that are harmful to Canada. The U.S. bill states that none of the funds made available by this act may be used for a project “unless all of the iron and steel used in such project is produced in the United States”.

What does this country have an embassy in Washington for if the government cannot prevent protectionism language creeping into the package?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the last time I looked the United States Congress was independent of embassies. However, this is obviously a serious matter and of serious concern to us.

I spoke to our ambassador about it yesterday and I know that countries around the world are expressing grave concern about some of these measures that go against not just the obligations of the United States but, frankly, the spirit of our G20 discussions.

We will be having these discussions with our friends in the United States and we expect the United States to respect its international obligations.

Upon reflection, that answer is indeed not half bad. The Old Harper might very well have come out guns blazing, especially considering the obnoxiousness of the question. But there’s the rub—I can’t get past the question. It’s not even 100% literate—“protectionism language”? Really? More to the point, blaming the embassy for something Congress did fairly reeks of The Old Ottawa. Considering the Jurassic advisers on Team Iggy—Coderre, Boudria, Davey, Kinsella et al—this probably shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s disappointing nonetheless.

Here are some other pearls of investigative wisdom the Liberal benches presented to our newly responsive government on Thursday:

Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Is [the] government deliberately undermining Canada's scientists or has he just simply forgotten to fund their future work?

Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Will the Prime Minister now admit that his decisions were never about more fairness but were about revenge?

Mr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): How can we have confidence in [the Prime Minister] today or tomorrow when he so easily goes back on his word?

Rodriguez again: I want to understand. Insulting premiers, going back on his word and going after certain provinces, is that [the Prime Minister’s] idea of open federalism?

Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): When will the minister stop with the meaningless photo ops and get the cheques into the hands of the communities that need them?

Nobody called for anyone else’s resignation, at least—that’s progress of a sort—but I see little evidence there of an ongoing or even nascent attitudinal shift. And don’t tell me it’s not possible, either. This was the opposition’s first question, and the government’s answer, on Thursday at the House of Commons in London:

It's like something from another planet, no? So have some celebratory cheese toast if you must, Liberal and Tory MPs, for the work you’ve done thus far towards a more productive, less asinine House of Commons. But if you’re actually sincere about elevating parliamentary discourse from the quasi-simian to the somewhat tolerable, I submit you’ve got a lot of work left to do.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/31/chris-selley-the-quest-for-a-tolerable-house-of-commons.aspx

[updated Tue Feb 10 08:40:46 -0500 2009]

Abbotsford News
Budget must aid vulnerable: Ignatieff

By Jeff Nagel - Abbotsford News

Published: January 19, 2009 6:00 PM

"He said the threat of a Liberal-NDP coalition forced the Tories to back down from a ban on public sector strikes, from changes to pay equity and from altering the election financing formula for parties."

"The test of that budget is whether we look after the vulnerable,” Ignatieff told the crowd of 250 at Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

“I met Mr. Layton earlier in the week and he then went out and said we were married,” Ignatieff said. “I thought we were just holding hands.”

http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/abbynews/news/37853494.html

Conclusion Iggy supports the CPC budget and is now wearing it by defending it to reporters and the opposition parties who voted against it. Period.

[updated Tue Feb 10 09:36:42 -0500 2009]

Liberals have room to grow in BC:
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=6f60108f-fa6e-4467-9a13-11629e902462

Liberals know they've got work to do on the West Coast and, accordingly, have picked Vancouver to host an April 30-May 2 convention.

Back in 2005 when Conservatives were targeting Quebec as a province where they aimed to build support, they held a policy convention in Montreal. It marked the beginning of a love affair that since has ebbed.

Interestingly, since last fall's vote the Liberals are the only party to have gained popular support nationally, according to a Feb. 7 Ipsos Reid poll. And that hike reflected an uptick in Liberal strength in B.C.

The party has been helped by robust leadership from Michael Ignatieff, who replaced Stephane Dion in December.

[updated Tue Feb 10 11:12:40 -0500 2009]

We might be at the tipping point marking the beginning of the fall of the Harper Conservatives.

The most recent Harris-Decima data reveals that in terms of "favourable/unfavourable", the party leaders are currently ranked:
1. Ignatieff +17
2. Duceppe + 12
3. May +4
4. Layton -8
5. Harper -12

In terms of party popularity: Lib 33%, CPC 31%, NDP 15%, GRN 10%, BQ 10%

A Feb. 7 Ipsos-Reid polls had the CPC ONLY 6 points ahead of the Liberals. I say ONLY given IR's well established reputation for results that are typically at the extreme end of "pro-Conservative" side of the spectrum.

It appears that Canadians approve of what Ignatieff has been doing so far. Ignatieff has distanced himself from the coalition (the public positions taken by Layton and Duceppe following the budget have made this clear).

Personally, I'm happy this is the case. I lost all respect for Mr Layton when he formed an alliance with the PM to block Ms May from the Debates -- that move just seemed to go against everything the NDP stood for and revealed him to simply be power-hungry.

I lost all respect for Mr Harper way before that.

I have always had the utmost respect for Mr Duceppe given his level of integrity and the respect for the democratic process he's shown in advancing his position, even though I vehemently opposes what it is for which he stands.

I have had great respect for Ms May since her days as advisor to PM Mulroney. She was the woman behind the man who was the "Greenest PM".

My opinion on Ignatieff is still not formed. I know he's made the correct politically strategic decisions, but there is something about his strategy of being so hands-off on the budget (so as not to be at all associated with it when the promised results are not realized) that he didn't even ask for a reversal on the attack on pay equity leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I also question his judgement given his initial position on being involved in Iraq. He's more hawkish than I would like for a Canadian PM.

I expect the Conservative decline to gain momentum as the economic numbers being reported continue to get worse.

Surely, President Obama popping up on TV to say "I screwed up!" (can you imagine our PM saying that?! Mwaahahahahahah!), thus repeatedly proving each time his face is on the small screen that he's the antithesis of Stephen Harper, won't help.

And the "Snub heard 'round the world" aka Obama's visit to Canada most definitely doesn't help PM Harper.

Leave it President Obama to be clever enough to find a way to correct GWB's dismissal of Canada as the US's best friend in favour of the UK by giving Canada, and Canadians, his first shout out, but to land one on Harper's chin by just coming for a quick meeting (so as to avoid PM Harper having as much photo-op time as he wanted... that alleged NAFTA leak doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it? -- Mwahahahah!), and ALSO ensuring that he meets with Mr Ignatieff (who was recently the subject of a fawning New York Times profile and will certainly milk his photo-op time for all it is worth as both share a laugh about Yale...).

Finally, today, the PM made a HUGE tactical error and gave Ignatieff s very big gift on a silver platter. The PM invited Ignatieff to "do something he never did in the pre-budget period, which is actually provide some economic policy suggestions to Parliament."

PM Harper, while trying to score a quick political point, unwittingly distanced Ignatieff from the budget by implying his rival played no role in shaping it.

Now, when the budget measures prove not to be effective as is predicted by most economists including the independent Parlimentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, Mr Ignatieff can wash his hands of this budget by simply quoting the PM and reminding Canadians that even PM Harper said "Ignatieff had nothing to do with it".

It's a beautiful day!

Now if we could only find out why the Cadman suit mysteriously was dropped. I wonder if Mr Ignatieff forced PM Harper to do that in order to get the budget passed... or is it that the PM pulled the case before he had to repeat, under oath, what he told Canadians in the media...

[updated Tue Feb 10 19:08:09 -0500 2009]

Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Coalition Math: The McGregor Hypothesis
I've been trying to avoid commenting on the coalition-prorogation-confidence situation, because it's not largely numbers-based and revolves around a parliamentary rather than an electoral coalition.

However, one reader asked me to calculate what the outcome of the recent election would have been if, outside Quebec, only the higher of the Liberal and NDP candidates ran against winning Conservatives, assuming their votes could be combined. I did this calculation, with the following results:

* Of 31 ridings won by the Conservatives outside Quebec, combining the votes of the two coalition partners would have shifted 26 seats to the Liberals and 5 seats to the NDP, for a House of Commons composition of 112-Cons, 103-Lib, 49-BQ, 42-NDP, 2-Ind.
* But the coalition had also been endorsed by the Green Party, so I also tested adding in the Green vote: which would have put an additional 23 Conservative seats into play, giving 3 more to the NDP, plus now 2 to the Green Party (Central Nova, NS and Bruce – Grey – Owen Sound, ON), for a Commons composition of 89-Cons, 121-Lib, 49-BQ, 45-NDP, 2-Grn, 2-Ind.

At first blush then the Liberals would appear to benefit from an electoral coalition more than the NDP, although they would be facing a very divided House.

But I just don't buy the assumptions that have to be made in order to run that kind of analysis. As Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe said last week, echoing the famous quote of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, "if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor".

Here's why:

* Turnout matters too. Turnout dropped significantly in the most recent general election. Early speculation is that it was Liberals who stayed home for whatever reason (leadership, policy reasons, regional reasons, negative advertising, who knows). Would those voters have been more or less likely to vote under other conditions?
* Would Liberal voters and non-voters have supported a coalition candidate, or would they have been more likely to vote Green or Conservative?
* Would all NDP voters have supported a coalition candidate, or might some of them have voted Green or stayed home?
* Who would have led the coalition, because clearly that would have mattered when answering the above questions?

Meantime, Glen McGregor ran a similar analysis for this morning's Ottawa Citizen, but extended it to account for recent opinion surveys by using second choice preferences reported in the recent Ekos survey to redistribute the votes of the junior coalition partner in each riding.

This approach tries to address the 2nd and 3rd points above, but also fails to take turnout into account. Also, while it's probably highly unsafe to rely on polls while leadership issues are in such flux, the approach suffers doubly from using a national result with a sample much too small to extrapolate to riding-level results, which was one of my major criticisms of the methodologies used by the so-called strategic voting websites during the last election.

Look, it's easy to criticize, and I love the work Glen McGregor has been doing with data analysis for the Citizen (he's the author of the definitive compilation of voting and non-voting records in the last Parliament, and a very impressive recent cross-reference of party fundraising and results by riding). If an election were held today, the results might indeed be similar to those McGregor projects using his methodology. But if we've learned no other lesson from the massive effort invested in strategic voting in the last election and the results it produced: voters will make up their own minds when the times comes, a week is a lifetime in politics, and if my grandmother had wheels ...
http://www.punditsguide.ca/2008/12/coalition-math-mcgregor-hypothesis.php

[updated Wed Feb 11 08:49:44 -0500 2009]

Toyota looking to build on Canadian growth in 2009

By John McCrank John Mccrank – 20 mins ago

TORONTO (Reuters) – Toyota Canada Inc is cautiously optimistic about its prospects this year and aims to increase its market share by being aggressive while its competitors retrench, the company's managing director said on Wednesday.

"There's no question that sales overall are likely to be down in the market," Stephen Beatty told Reuters on the sidelines of the Canadian International Show in Toronto.

"But there are plenty of opportunities for companies to pick up market share if they've got the right product and the right offers in the market."

Overall auto sales in Canada fell 25 percent in January, but Toyota's sales, not including Lexus, actually inched 0.3 percent higher.

So far this year, Toyota has launched the third generation of the popular Prius, the Venza crossover, the Lexus RX and the hybrid Lexus HS250H.

The company had its best ever yearly sales in Canada in 2008, jumping ahead of Ford Canada and Chrysler Canada to become the No. 2 auto seller in the country.

Beatty said part of what helped it get there was its access to credit from Toyota Financial. That allowed the company to provide leasing while companies like Chrysler and General Motors Corp largely pulled out of leasing in Canada.

Up until about a year ago, about 44 percent of new vehicles in Canada were leased, but since the credit crunch, that number has dropped closer to 20 percent.

To help alleviate the problem, the Canadian government said in its recent budget that it would provide up to C$12 billion ($9.7 billion) to loosen financing for vehicle and business loans and leases.

Beatty said the tightening of consumer credit was the No. 1 issue in the Canadian marketplace and the government's decision to put the credit facility in place was a sound one, even if it helps the competition.

"The more people who start thinking about buying or leasing a new vehicle, the better shot we have at inviting them to come down and check out a Toyota," he said.

Half of the vehicles Toyota sells in Canada are produced in Canada. That number is closer to 20 to 25 percent for Ford, Chrysler and GM.

($1=$1.24 Canadian)

(Reporting by John McCrank; Editing by Gary Hill)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090212/wl_canada_nm/canada_us_autoshow_canada_toyota;_ylt=AvuCW_RUsrXHqTjndKL4uRejbA8F
--------------------------------
Ford Canada sees bigger piece of automotive pie

By John McCrank John Mccrank – 1 hr 45 mins ago
"Leasing has played a vital role in the Canadian automotive market, but with credit tight, Ford's leasing now represents about 5 to 10 percent of its new car deliveries, down from an industry high of nearly 50 percent. GM and Chrysler are now largely out of the Canadian leasing market."

Ford has secured a line of credit of up to C$2 billion ($1.6 billion) with the governments of Canada and the province of Ontario that it can draw on if market conditions worsen. But David Mondragon, on the sidelines of the Canadian International Autoshow in Toronto, said in an interview that the company doesn't think it will need the aid.

Industrywide sales in Canada plunged 25 percent in January, on top of declines of 21 percent in December and 10 percent November.

During those three months, Ford Canada managed to gain market share and outsell Toyota Canada, a feat that Mondragon described as "a pretty big deal."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090211/wl_canada_nm/canada_us_autoshow_canada_ford;_ylt=ArBGZBohMtkeP.FuVmqGswajbA8F

[updated Wed Feb 11 20:43:44 -0500 2009]

Nanos Poll Out Tonight!

Out of respect for Nik and his fine work I won't spill the beans. Nik was on CPAC tonight. I will let him tell you about it.

Look forward to seeing the poll posted on this web site.

[updated Wed Feb 11 20:51:45 -0500 2009]

Iggy getting star attention:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090212.wobamaignatieff12/BNStory/politics/home

Mr. Obama studied, the President has read several of Mr. Ignatieff's books, according to an Ignatieff insider.

The two politicians, who will meet for the first time next Thursday, have several close friends in common: Lawrence Summers, head of the White House's National Economic Council, is the former president of Harvard. He and his wife and Mr. Ignatieff and his wife, Zsuzsanna Zsohar, travel together, having spent part of a summer in the south of France.

Samantha Power and Cass Sunstein, the Obama power couple, are also friends with the Ignatieffs.

Ms. Power, a Pulitizer Prize winning author and Harvard professor, served on the Obama transition team and now has a senior job with the National Security Council. Her husband is the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Ms. Power visited with the Ignatieffs last summer when she was in the country promoting a new book.

And while Mr. Ignatieff says he can pick up the phone to call the White House, his senior staffers say that his MPs can pick up the phone to call him. In fact, about 300 Liberal staffers, MPs and senators showed up to partake of Canadian wine and cheese at his office Tuesday night where he thanked them for being the "real guts of the organization."

Earlier that afternoon, he met with a group from the right-wing Fraser Institute - including former Alberta premier Ralph Klein - who applauded after he spoke to them. So surprised was a senior Ignatieff staffer that he called over a colleague to witness the right-wingers clapping for the left-leaning Liberal Leader.

[updated Thu Feb 12 05:02:03 -0500 2009]

Auto sales anything but idle in Kingston, dealers say
BUSINESS VROOMING?
Posted By IAN ELLIOT, WHIG-STANDARD STAFF WRITER
While the news coming out of the automobile industry may be uniformly bad and getting worse, dealers in Kingston don't see it.

They appear to be bucking the national trend.

Each day brings a fresh wave of stories about how poorly the economy - and the automotive industry in particular - is doing, but Kingston's bedrock of well-paid, relatively stable public service jobs is once again providing a shield for those who sell cars.

Much has been made of the city's economic microclimate, and it seems car dealers are basking in that blanket of job security.

"We have a little bit of a cushion here in Kingston," said Scott Sly of Kingston Hyundai.

Many city dealers report that 2008 was one of their best years, and while business slowed in December and stayed tepid in January, the situation could be much more dire.

Local dealers need only look at their counterparts to the west to see how bad it might have been.

"We don't get the highs, but we don't feel the lows as much," agreed Jim Thompson, owner of the Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep dealership that bears his name.

He said his business did not feel the economic slowdown until the last few weeks of 2008.

"We did not have a bad month last year," he said.

"We didn't feel any crunch until about the middle of December, and while we are down a bit this year, we expected it -we're not happy about it, but we could see that coming and we were able to plan for it," Thompson said.

The picture being painted by dealers doesn't come as a surprise to Ken Wong, a marketing professor who has studied the nuts and bolts of the local economy for years.

"We don't grow in boom times, but we don't fall apart in bad times," he observed.

He said the picture being painted by the national media is misleading as it doesn't take into account local factors such as those in play here.

"If you read the national media, they're writing for a national audience, and their message is that everyone is trading in their steaks for Kraft Dinner, and we know that's not the case."

He said the economic slump is hitting hardest among manufacturing and export-oriented jobs, of which Kingston does not have a lot.

The city has suffered layoffs and cutbacks, but nowhere near the numbers that have occurred in manufacturing centres, such as southwestern Ontario or the Toronto area.

"The jobs that Kingston has a lot of are people like university profs and a whole bunch of public servants whose jobs are relatively secure, plus construction and trades jobs.

Both economists and dealers agree that if you had the money or the financing, 2008 was a good year to buy a car. With the Canadian dollar worth as much, or more, than the U. S. greenback, manufacturers were forced to cut prices on new models to stem the tide of people buying new cars in the U. S. and importing them to Canada.

Then as the economic crisis started to bite in the latter part of the year, carmakers started piling on incentives such as rebates and low financing rates.

With the long-term stability of companies in question, particularly the North American makes, prices fell and stock ballooned at dealers' auctions, with some vehicles subsequently hitting lots with substantially discounted sticker prices.

"2008 was a very good year," said Peter Mc- Clatchey, the sales manager for Condie Pontiac Buick.

"I'd have to say it was one of our 10 best years. Everybody puts a negative spin on it, but selling cars -and selling domestic vehicles -two things that the media tells you are doomed, [but] we're doing pretty well in Kingston."

Sly said his dealership is one of several in the city that offer a walkaway program, essentially an insurance policy that allows customers to return their vehicle to the dealer if they can't make the payments.

While customers are showing an increased interest in the program, he said there has not been an increase in the number of cars returned under the program.

Wong says that while people may be watching what they spend more carefully, they are still spending.

"I keep hearing that frugal is the new black, but I'm not buying it," he said.

"Customers may be being more value-conscious, but mediocrity is not a value that they are willing to embrace. They may be buying a little less, but they're not sacrificing quality in the things that they do buy."

It's a point echoed by Thompson, who says his customers are not buying cheaper cars or flocking to used vehicles rather than buying new.

"Even when times are tough, people still need wheels -they're still going to buy cars."

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1431782

[updated Thu Feb 12 07:35:51 -0500 2009]

Grits goofy on climate change

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Last Updated: 12th February 2009, 2:26pm
Ken Dryden is one of the smarter Liberal MPs in Parliament, which is why his whimsical musings on climate change in the National Post last week were so disappointing.

The column, "A Forever Issue," was a toxic mixture of partisan half-truths, naivety and bafflegab, typical of the Liberal canon on climate change.

It included over-the-top attacks on Prime Minister Stephen Harper, given the dismal Liberal record on the issue, over-the-top praise of U.S. President Barack Obama and irresponsibly urged Canada to follow Europe's disastrous example.

Dryden wrote that in his three years as PM, Harper "has chosen to ride the slowest horse in the race" on climate change.

Fair enough. Harper was an early debunker and late convert on global warming, based on expediency, not conviction.

But Harper's horse is a Triple Crown winner compared to the nag the Liberals mounted during their 12 years in power from 1993 to early 2006.

Dryden didn't mention the Liberals' utter failure to implement Jean Chretien's farcically unrealistic 1993 Red Book promise, co-authored by Paul Martin, of cutting Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005.

Nor did he explain why, when they were defeated in 2006, the Liberals were an insurmountable 30% above the less ambitious but still unrealistic Kyoto accord target they signed and ratified, to cut Canada's emissions to 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

FAR BEHIND

When Harper became PM, Canada was so far behind Kyoto due to the Liberals, he couldn't have achieved it if he was Al Gore.

Elsewhere, Dryden gushes over delegates to a December climate change conference he attended in Poznan, Poland, celebrating "the spirit of Barack Obama" that "was everywhere." (Oh, give us a break!)

While Dryden did note many were disappointed "Obama has talked about setting targets for 2020 lower than those in the EU (European Union)," he omitted the relevant issue for Canada.

That is, Obama's campaign promise to reduce U.S. GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, is less than Harper's to cut Canada's emissions to 3% below 1990 levels by 2020.

I can understand Dryden not believing Harper. But since Obama is promising to meet a target well after his presidency ends, even if he wins two terms, isn't cheerleading premature?

Dryden praises the 27-nation EU for having "driven" the climate change agenda.

In fact, it's driven Europe over a cliff, with skyrocketing electricity bills for consumers, profiteering by giant energy corporations and rising "fuel poverty," the term now applied to millions of citizens in the U.K. who spend more than 10% of their incomes just to heat and light their homes.

A major culprit is the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme, a highly speculative cap-and-trade market (just what the world needs now, eh?) built on the easily corruptible mechanism of buying "carbon credits" (paying someone else, so you can emit carbon).

ACHIEVEMENT

The major "environmental" achievement of this to date has been to make the world safer for hedge funds.

Alarmingly, Harper, Obama and Dryden's Liberals all support cap-and-trade.

The irony, since GHG emissions drop in a recession, is that every time Dryden's leader, Michael Ignatieff, demands Harper must instantly "fix" our economy, he's effectively urging him to increase Canada's GHG emissions, largely due to the Liberals' utter failure to create their magical "green" economy during their 12-year reign.

Oops.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/02/12/8360976-sun.html

[updated Thu Feb 12 15:29:02 -0500 2009]