Nanos Economic Monitor - Forward pessimistic view on strength of economy softens

Trying to figure out where the economy is going is really a crap shoot these days. We have been successful at dodging the bullet i.e. recession and I am not sure whether it is because of the government's economic policies per se or simply because our "fundamentals" were stronger when the recession hit in 2008.
The U.S. has had some positive numbers lately but until the election is over there is going to be much turmoil in the states. Since we are their major treading partner that will hold us back. The problems in Europe have not gone away and that will add to world instability over the coming year.

[updated Mon Jan 09 17:50:36 -0500 2012]

I'll respond to those questions as they apply to me.
1. I believe the economy will become weaker.
2. I believe real estate value in my neighbourhood will decrease.
3. My personal finances are worse over the past year.
4. I believe my personal debt will increase.
5. Doesn't apply. I am long time retired.

I am not by nature pessimistic. But when it comes to the economy as it applies to me I am realistic.
I can understand the results of the poll. Roughly 70% of Canadians are reasonably well off, therefore fairly secure financially and would be inclined to favourable replies to those questions. However the other 30% are concerned and so will give a diferent reply.

hollinm's first response was a sensible and realistic one. (never thought I'd say that). We really can't tell where the economy will go. There are too many variables, many of them external.The world's top economists don't know either. The US economy usually picks up during an election year. It's not real economics but a response to political decisions or spin.
If so we may get a slight bump up. We depend so much on them that we go as they go.
The European picture is more complex. If they had one strong leader making decisions for the whole continent they may get better results . As long as they have many leaders responding to their own local political needs I don't have much confidence in them.

I don't believe we are out of the woods yet. The 30% of us on the bottom of the financial ladder are still in a recession: have been for three years. We don't accept that narrow technical two quarter decline as a benchmark. It doesn't speak to our financial situation.
The best we can say is that at least this government hasn't done anything that would make our situation much worse or the economy weaker. While we are thankful for that we are not doing a happy dance.

[updated Tue Jan 10 16:28:51 -0500 2012]

Sooo...he likes to be able to fire people!

The golden rule of politics is to never, positively never, go off script. Too bad no one ever pounded that into Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Romney should give our Prime Minister a call about that -- not to mention getting input from Harper on how to deal with glass ceilings!

Going into the New Hampshire primary today, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Gingrich, Santorum, Paul and Huntsman will be swinging the bat as much as they can hoping to deflate Romney's bubble.

Is it just me? What about it? What comes to your mind when you see Romney under barrage fire from the other candidates -- how does he always respond to attacks? That's right, the man S-M-I-L-E-S...and how does that one go over with you? Let's just say it doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it.

Romney: the inevitable nominee. Maybe. But quite clearly, all bets are off if he doesn't win big tonight.

[updated Tue Jan 10 20:37:38 -0500 2012]

True Leadership.

The disease has been correctly diagnosed as a vacuum of leadership -- a few see themselves as the perfect remedy but are any of them really representative of the antidote that is truly required? One wonders, one really does.

Instead of focusing like a laser beam on the obvious target, some are content to dissipate their energies on proxy wars of little consequence over political office and perceived slights allegedly made, by or to, one faction or another.

What is wrong with this picture? Plenty, I'd say. This is crunch time, folks. Get real. Concentrate the mind on the strikingly obvious. To wit:

From Wikipedia --

A phoenix is a mythical bird with a colorful plumage and a tail of gold and scarlet (or purple, blue, and green according to some legends[weasel words]). It has a 500 to 1000 year life-cycle, near the end of which it builds itself a nest of twigs that then ignites; both nest and bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes, from which a new, young phoenix or phoenix egg arises, reborn anew to live again. The new phoenix is destined to live as long as its old self. In some stories, the new phoenix embalms the ashes of its old self in an egg made of myrrh and deposits it in the Egyptian city of Heliopolis (literally "sun-city" in Greek). It is said that the bird's cry is that of a beautiful song. The Phoenix's ability to be reborn from its own ashes implies that it is immortal, though in some stories the new Phoenix is merely the offspring of the older one. In very few stories they are able to change into people.
---------

It's fine to work oneself up into a lather of frenzied agitation but what precisely will that accomplish? Better to concentrate one's actions on concrete steps aimed at demonstrating one's suitability for political office. Prove to us that you not only have the right stuff -- but also that the beef is still there, even though it has been in hiding for quite some time.

Put less elegantly, what the hell are you prepared to do to lead? To take it back and be proven right. Start by getting out there. Fight for a nomination and win it. Elementary and painfully self-evident, I'd say. And then move heaven and earth until victory is assured. Never quit. Give no political quarter. Never cede even one inch of ground. In short, win.

[updated Thu Jan 12 13:11:10 -0500 2012]

Decoding Dalton McGuinty.

I don't know about you but I discovered a lot of wonderful things this past weekend. First and foremost, a strong spirit of renewal and commitment to returning the Liberal Party to political relevance with an aim of further advancing the progressive agenda and reestablishing the party as the logical alternative to the Conservative government. Some will argue that we only went part of the way -- but better a cup that is tentatively half full rather than empty! The Liberal experiment will continue and we will judge the end result in light of the leadership race. How can that not be anything but a positive outcome.

Now back to Dalton: unquestionably Dalton McGuinty showed himself to be our finest and best political champion at this convention. He had a lot to say -- coming out passionately against the idea of entertaining a merger between ourselves and the New Democrats. The Ontario Premier also had quite a few interesting things to say in a weekend interview about the delivery of government services, particularly as it relates to concurrent jurisdictions where both orders of government perform many of the same functions.

What was McGuinty telegraphing with this solid one, two punch? IMHO, McGuinty effectively closed the door to running for the party leadership citing the mandate recently received from Ontario voters and his intention to carry it out. Put another way, he has no intention of breaking faith with the people of Ontario and will manage the long, hard, slog back to fiscal balance. Fair enough.

But notice as well how the door was effectively closed but not locked. That tells me that we will see McGuinty on the federal stage sooner rather than later in the wake of the next federal election. His position on merger, as unequivocal as it is and obviously heartfelt, reminds me of the one taken by Peter MacKay as Progressive Conservative leader. But political reality is a funny thing -- winning the ground game can make a person do unforeseen and unexpected things as part of that endeavour. One is also reminded of what would seem to be political folly -- of endorsing the concept of outright party merger while running for leadership. It ain't fair folks, but it's called reality.

As one who has come full circle and embraced the concept of an eventual merger with the NDP as a necessary evil to securing government (largely due to the brilliant case made by Warren Kinsella), I'm willing to live with his position and see what develops in the future.

Quite clearly, Dalton McGuinty has thrown the long ball. He won't be our next leader. But our strongest asset in politics will be heard from on the national stage before his political career comes to an end.

[updated Sun Jan 15 21:22:12 -0500 2012]

Hello Stock!

Now come on. That was too cute by half. Sure, I don't deny that we all have friends across party lines -- even good friends. But hey, get real. Would any of those friends actually convey the supposed actual plans for the Manhattan project to their good friend, Stockwell?

Please forgive me but colour Ron S-K-E-P-T-I-C-A-L. Nice swing at bat, though.

[updated Thu Jan 19 05:54:40 -0500 2012]

If Newt Wins - Republicans Lose?

Newt Gingrich seems to be well on his way toward eventually having more political comebacks than ex-wives! Frankly, I didn't see this one coming, being of the view that the Super Pac ads from Romney's allies along with those coming from Paul, were likely to have taken the air out of the former Speaker's balloon. (Reminds me of the old Gordon Brown re-election prediction (wink) and we all know how that one turned out.)

It's even more remarkable to see this potential and likely turnaround when you consider that it's taking place in the Down and Dirty State. Just ask John McCain. But the good people of South Carolina are about to speak and their response is likely to be a game changer -- especially for Romney but not in a "good" way.

Some will argue that the tea leaves are about to reveal what may be the beginning of a swan song for Mitt Romney. I'm not quite ready to buy into that but if Romney does not win Florida, well...

Though always an enthusiastic Obama supporter (and proud centrist), I thought another moderate masquerading as a good Conservative, aka Mitt Romney, had a decent shot of winning the general election, if nominated. I don't think that anymore given the improving economic climate south of the border. If the uptick continues, the generic Republican challenger's chances will continue to diminish. That brings me back to Newt: when he says he can wrap up the nomination after Florida, he isn't just whistling Dixie. The short answer -- it depends. If Romney comes in third in both those contests, well, that's it for Willard (Mitt).

Finally, the smart betters will follow the money as we get closer to the general election. Obama knows that cash is king -- and that's why his wear-with-all is in record territory. His war chest is nothing short of stratospheric. Many things can change between now and November but right now, Barack Obama has more and more reasons not to lose sleep at night.

[updated Sat Jan 21 23:03:45 -0500 2012]

Those Were The Days...

As we prepare for the NDP leadership race results in March, my mind bursts with fond memories of another leadership race -- the 1976 race for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Think back to the alliance made prior to the convention between Joe Clark and Flora MacDonald. As a result of a disappointing showing, Flora urged her supporters to back Joe Clark. That unfortunate result for Flora become known as The Flora Syndrome.

But alas, we won't see any such high drama at the NDP or Liberal conventions. These will be decided by the membership -- much more democratic, much more politically correct, but one hell of a lot less fun!

I thought Flora deserved better that day -- and she did. But we lived up to Chinese expections at that convention: having indeed lived through interesting times.

[updated Mon Jan 23 00:46:19 -0500 2012]

Pauline Marois: She's All Steel.

This leader has guts and then some. In spite of having been under a constant barrage for almost a year -- her political and personal instincts told her to hang on. Some inside the Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois had hoped to see her depart as leader. Many expected former Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe to eventually enter provincial politics and seek the PQ leadership.

Suddenly, all prospect of such an eventuality has come to a dramatic end with Duceppe indicating that he will not re-enter politics. My question going forth is this: how will Marois fare at her Conseil national next weekend and what will become of her critics, both within the party at large and more particularly, the caucus?

Will Pauline Marois lead the PQ into the next general election? I'd say more than likely. And what will become of the newly formed CAQ now that it has folded in the ADQ? My own instincts were from the start that the Legault train would start to derail sooner rather than later. And we've begun to see evidence of that in at least some polls. Something tells me Jean Charest is thinking along similar lines. Translation: I'll be surprised if he doesn't go to the people this spring. As for Marois -- she's likely to make it to the finish line -- that in itself is quite an accomplishment but what will really count is whether she can ultimately cross it successfully. That's one bet I'm not prepared to take. But given Marois' survival, I'm also not prepared to count her as a definite out either.

[updated Mon Jan 23 04:41:56 -0500 2012]

Hot Damn: Quebec Election Here We Come!

I can't wait to get to the month of May -- that's when I expect Quebec Premier Jean Charest to go to the people in search of a renewed mandate. That election will be a dogfight between the Liberals, Parti Québécois and the Coalition pour l'avenir du Québec.

The latest polling trend shows the CAQ steadily dropping with support dividing about evenly between the Liberals and Péquistes, behind the CAQ. The big question remains the same -- and will decide which party forms the next government: where will francophones go as they become more and more disenchanted with the CAQ? Increasingly, French-speaking Québécois appear to be moving toward the PQ which is good news for leader Pauline Marois.

As one who considers both Jean Charest and Pauline Marois as among the gutsiest politicians in Canada, one would hope that they at least have a modicum of grudging respect for the abilities of the other because this is going to be a fight to the finish that is likely to end at least one of their political careers in Quebec City.

You know me -- always full of free political advice! For Marois: keep doing what you're doing, play the card of the credible alternative -- the government-in-waiting. Keep the priorities of the francophone majority close to your heart -- and electoral platform; For Charest: Play up your record of competence and achievement as much as you can. Increase your emphasis on your bold vision for Quebec's future (Plan Nord) but add a new dimension that will make pride glow in the heart of every Quebecer regardless of political affiliation; For Légault: First and foremost, stock up on ASA! Make sure that the CAQ is run with discipline as both priority and job one. Internally, you have to put the Quebec Liberals legendary discipline to shame as a half-hearted effort! You'll need at least that to keep this ship afloat. Focus also on bold, innovative ideas focusing on the province's future -- in short, a truly transformative agenda that Quebec voters will have never seen before.

[updated Sun Jan 29 04:23:53 -0500 2012]

Beware the Ghost of Solange Denis Loranger.

Who can forget that ironic encounter between then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and the feisty senior on Parliament Hill in 1986. That woman had a way of raining on the PM's parade -- and she sure did! Within days, the government's plan to partially de-index the Canada Pension Plan was history with Finance Minister Michael Wilson doing deliberate back flips as the Mulroney government beat a hasty retreat on the issue.

Fast forward to 2012 and this Prime Minister's remarks to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Harper has no plan to touch the CPP which will remain self-financing until at least 2022 but the government is of a mind to modify the Old Age Security -- not for current retirees but future pensioners. Ouch! Harper can talking point it all he wants and tightly script his MPs until the cows come home but nothing, and I mean nothing, will turn this jug of water into wine.

What we need on this issue -- at the very least -- is a forum that will permit not only public input on the future of OAS but also a mechanism which will allow future beneficiaries to help shape solutions envisioned to meet the challenges of an ever increasing retirement obligation. Monkeying around with the age of eligibility is certainly not the answer. That's nothing more than a quick and risky political and actuarial fix.

For a government that suddenly finds itself allergic to increasing general revenues to help pay for future OAS obligations -- voilà, they've plunked themselves down into a box of their own making. Can't wait to see whether they manage somehow to come out unscathed! Remember Prime Minister, somewhere Solange is watching. Who will get to play Charlie Brown this time?...

[updated Sun Jan 29 07:46:17 -0500 2012]

Mr. Speaker,
Members of the BIE,

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

To my mind, it's really a no-brainer. Nothing quite like choosing the dean of the House of Commons, Louis Plamondon.

Merman put it so well: ...,"everything's coming up roses for me and for you!"

[updated Sun Jan 29 21:33:52 -0500 2012]

Why The West Can't Win On Iran.

As the United States, European Union, Canada and other nations continue to tighten the noose on Iran - by imposing some of the most severe economic sanctions ever levied against an individual country, the clock keeps ticking as Iran moves beyond the production of nuclear energy and toward its ultimate aim of producing a nuclear weapon. Current estimates are that Iran may have the capacity to build a bomb within a year. However, it appears that it will not be able to deliver a weapon until some time after that.

The West's view is based on a flawed premise -- that a nation, or even a group of nations, has the inherent right to self-designate which countries will be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal. It hasn't worked before and it won't work this time. The examples are already legion: starting with India's development using CANDU technology through Pakistan, and who can forget North Korea. We all remember the sight of U.S. President Bill Clinton on television intoning how the United States would never permit North Korea to build a nuclear bomb...and how did that one work out for them? Finally, there is the Israeli arsenal -- never officially acknowledged but extremely powerful.

The trouble is in this debate is that there are a number of absolute givens that push the bluster forward: the West along with Israel happen not to like the Iranian regime. Who can blame them for that given the rhetoric of wiping Israel off the face of the earth. But everyone knows this is not about empty, cheap threats. We aren't talking political theatre of the absurd here.

What this is about is nuclear life insurance -- it's precisely intended by the mullahs to invasion-proof Iran. All that matters to them is their own narrow self-interest. Put another way, they want the bomb so THEY can stay in power indefinitely.

No country has -- nor ever will commit suicide by attacking another nation with an offensive nuclear weapons strike. Iran has one of among the youngest populations on this planet and it will not put its own citizens at risk from a massive nuclear reprisal. Ditto when it comes to "transferring" a weapon to terrorist groups. The mullahs along with the somewhat reigned-in president are many things -- but incredibly stupid is not among them.

All this talk of taking out the Iranian facilities is ridiculous. Sure, the Americans can transfer the latest bunker buster (which is now in development) to Israel, or use it themselves, but they will never be able to successfully degrade Iran's nuclear capability. The trouble is -- no matter how great a superpower, you can never really, really, know if you've accomplished the job. There are so many hardened sites in so many places. Frankly, it would almost take a miracle to permanently disable their weapons development program.

One more point: are they a serious threat to our national security or that of our staunchest allies? I would argue no. They prefer letting their multiple surrogates do their dirty work but that agenda remains a question of degree. One could also seriously maintain that we have much more to fear from an already nuclear-armed Pakistan than we will ever have to worry about from Iran if the former suddenly became politically unstable. Right now, the military in Pakistan acts like the cork-in-the-bottle. If that country ever unravels, look out -- because it won't be pretty or necessarily in the West's interests.

Next time you see the collective Republicans yammering, for the most part, against Iran in their endless debates, just smile knowing that they really haven't a clue as to where the greatest threat to the world's peace and security actually resides.

[updated Sat Feb 04 18:20:57 -0500 2012]

Security Council Vote: China and Russia Let Syria Off The Hook.

Well, this is indeed a black day in the history of world diplomacy. China and Russia have vetoed a Security Council resolution meant to put teeth into the peace plan that Syria has already agreed to -- but never seriously implemented.

Put bluntly, the savage killing will continue as the Syrian regime goes to any length to remain in power. Spot a pattern? I sure do. Sanctions, even though well intended never do the job. The only thing that eventually works to effect regime change is ultimately the rising of its people as is happening now in Syria -- and has happened previously in Iran, Yemen and other countries where regimes remain in place for decades without true support from a majority of their people.

This veto was predictable. Russia and China have far too many economic interests in Syria -- not to mention Iran -- to make waves of a major nature. So what to do? In retrospect, we should have been doing much more in the West to boost the forces of democracy in these countries. Going forward, we need to do as much as we can to effect internal change -- hopefully without igniting a full-scale civil war in these countries - but regime change is a necessary component to ridding the world of despotic regimes. That should be our focus, doing all that we can to promote domestic political realignment across these nations.

In the Syrian case, we need to break diplomatic relations with Damascus. And we should do it now in light of Russia and China's previously predictable comportment. We don't yet need to move in that direction in Iran but again, the Iranian regime's future will eventually be dictated by its domestic and international conduct.

No one can forget that the Iranian people were the first to rise up -- before the Arab Spring -- in search of democratic reform. My sense of it is that there is as much commitment to those ideals there among the young people as there is in Syria.

President Obama reacted with a measured response to the 2009 Iranian Green Revolution. Some will argue that was a mistake. That same approach was initially seen by Western governments in Syria. Fortunately, we have moved on with an ever increasing robust response. Sanctions bite but they don't usually work in the end. So that leaves us with only one weapon -- moving heaven and earth to promote freedom and democracy in these countries by way of internal change. Short of war, that is our only recourse.

In Syria, the Arab and Islamic nations in the region need to take a long, hard, look in the mirror. Assad's conduct is blatantly unacceptable. He will never willingly leave power. The West can do all it can to aid the opposition internally but in the final analysis, it will take Islamic boots on the ground to bring regime change in Damascus. In short, the Emir of Qatar has it just about right. Western governments can't be actively involved on a military level -- even tangentially, as was the case with air power over Libya. This tough slog can only be resolved by the Arab World in concert with their Syrian counterparts.

I'm confident that regime change will ultimately come to Syria. The lesson for Teheran and other governments of questionable internal support is whether they can adapt to the new political order or otherwise perish on, to borrow from Reagan -- the "ash-heap of history". Given their past conduct, their future looks less than promising going forward.

[updated Sun Feb 05 02:34:52 -0500 2012]

If A Palestinian State Comes Into Being -- It Will Not Be Through Bilateral Negotiations.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is none too pleased to see a unity government being formed between Fatah and Hamas. He rightly says that negotiations with Israel will go nowhere as long as Hamas does not stop terrorist attacks and agrees to recognize the state of Israel. But will we see the formation of a Palestinian state in spite of deadlock? It's possible but unlikely for now -- in spite of Palestine's recognition by UNESCO.

Put another way, can Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas get indirectly what he can't negotiate directly -- and should he?

Let's go through a few points first: have any of you noticed how each side loves to have the issue rather than a deal? Another gem -- how one side is automatically always right making the other consistently wrong. Each side blames the other for peace talk failures and both sides think the other has never been truly dedicated to the peace process. Sound familiar? With a track record like that, no wonder the process continues to deadlock. Much of this is playing to the galleries -- with a multitude of red herrings that abound in the Dead Sea.

Both Abbas and Netanyahu seemingly want peace on their own terms. The PM's actual commitment to a Palestinian state remains suspect but the man is definitely dedicated to not making any moves that might risk upending his government, leading to his ouster from the PM's chair. Heaven forbid. And what about the ever expanding settlements?

The President's commitment is also not exactly as clear as a diamond. Can he actually get Hamas to renonce terrorism and accept the legitimacy of Israel? Is Hamas really prepared to accept a two-state solution, living side by side. Call me skeptical. Is Abbas prepared under this unity government to bring a permanent end to rocket attacks into northern Israel? Even with all the will in the world, is it even realistic to suggest that he can accomplish that?

But none of this amounts to a hill of beans unless you address the crucial question of moral equivalence -- the issue that counts. On the Israeli side, are a majority of settlers willing to live in peace with a future Palestinian state? And what of individual Palestinians -- not to mention the Arab street: are they willing to genuinely make a warm peace with Israel in a world of mutual recognition with economic ties? I've yet to see any polls that look encouraging, particularly as it relates to the Arab world.

From my perspective, I'm all for the Arab Spring and legitimately elected Muslim governments. But I'm also convinced that hearts and minds need to change on both sides if peace is ever to be secured between Palestine and Israel. Without actual forgiveness and reconcilation, peace will never be possible. Much of the Israeli public is already in this frame of mind -- Arab countries, not so much.

As things stand now, come back in 100 years and both sides are likely to still be involved in the same political standoff over a negotiated Palestinian state.

[updated Tue Feb 07 03:31:18 -0500 2012]

The Trouble With Delusional Stupidity.

I don't have to tell you what it means to be involved in politics. You all know how large the egos tend to get - even in spite of significant accomplishment. Many see themselves as born to walk on water but a precious few actually manage to pull off that feat.

Some project overconfidence based on memories of glories past while others, having been the fortunate victims of happenstance, arrogantly spot a trend in the making which is bound to do nothing other than bear fruit at the next given opportunity. Trouble is -- these people are actually S-T-A-R-K-E-R-S when it comes to the twin strengths otherwise known as perception and analysis.

A monkey could point out how the way is down given present trends for the self-deluded. By all means no, not a word about strategic candidate deployment across ridings -- nor are we to entertain thoughts of alliance or merger. Put another way, let the glorified opportunists continue to win the day. After all, five years is a lifetime in politics. Right, perfect...

For my part, I'll throw my lot in with those capable of thinking deeply beyond superficial political self-interest: the likes of Chrétien, Broadbent, Romanow, Kinsella and others have shown us the way. And then there are those who put their very political careers at risk thanks to their convictions and integrity. They are prepared to park the ego in neutral and put the country first. A lot of flak is bound to come their way, but in my book, the only thing they deserve is quiet accolades. Don't forget names such as Cullen, Martin, Coderre -- history will record that they moved mountains to avoid becoming just another eventual political asterisk in Canadian history. May the force be with them.

[updated Thu Feb 09 23:12:26 -0500 2012]

CF35: As Controversy Heats Up - How About A Look Back.

As the debate intensifies over Canada's eventual purchase of CF35 fighter jets, perhaps looking back to the Avro Arrow cancellation can be somewhat instructive. Much uproar ensued back in 1959 when former prime minister John Diefenbaker's government pulled the plug on the fighter because of massive cost overruns. Sound familiar?

Diefenbaker -- in his own words:

[During the Avro Arrow crisis, to the president of A.V. Roe]
"My stockholders are 18 million Canadians."
- Thomas Van Dusen, The Chief.

"Some people talk about courage. Well, we took a stand in reference to the 'Arrow.' No one wanted to take that stand.... As I look back on it, I think it was one of the decisions that was right. Here was an instrument beautiful in appearance, powerful, a tribute to Canadian production.... This instrument that was otherwise beautiful, magnificent in its concept, would have contributed little, in the changing order of things, to our national defence."
- January 25, 1963, House of Commons.

"I have it on unchallengeable authority that Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. C.D. Howe have decided that the Arrow was to be cancelled forthwith, after the June election..."
- From One Canada: Memoirs of the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker.

"I was even reviled for having had the completed Arrow prototypes reduced to scrap when I had no knowledge whatsoever of this action."
- From One Canada: Memoirs of the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker.

Source: ggower.com

[updated Tue Feb 14 06:33:08 -0500 2012]

Justin Trudeau.

Can you spell backpedaling? From what I hear, Trudeau's remarks did not exactly go down well with caucus. Here's what he said to Radio-Canada:

"Je dis toujours que s'il arrivait un moment où je pensais que le Canada était vraiment le Canada de Stephen Harper, que nous étions contre l'avortement, contre le mariage homosexuel, que nous reculerions de 10 000 manières différentes, peut-être que j'envisagerais de faire du Québec un pays. Oh oui! Absolument. Je connais très bien mes valeurs, même si je ne reconnaissais plus le Canada."

A couple of preliminary points: let's be frank and admit that what Trudeau said has been at the back of many Quebecers' minds (this one included) for quite some time. It will come as no secret to those who may have become accustomed to reading the product of yours truly that my vision of Canada does not exactly dovetail with that of Stephen Harper. No surprise there. Hence my departure from the Conservative Party of Canada.

Now, it's quite another kettle of fish as to whether Justin Trudeau should have expressed those sincerely held views publicly. I suspect Trudeau regrets that. No question that Trudeau remains a federalist committed to the unity of Canada. (Same here.) But he sees his country transforming -- becoming unrecognizable politically -- and that disturbs him greatly.

But in the final analysis, it's not for Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper or Ron O'Dowd to ultimately make that determination. That rests with the Canadian people and the voting public at large. Trouble is, alienation from the federalist cause is relatively strong in Quebec and may increase the more this government takes the country to the right. Harper has a legitimate mandate to proceed in the direction of his choosing. I don't have to like it but his government has been democratically elected.

What this Prime Minister needs to remember -- and the emphasis of Trudeau's remarks reflected that -- is that Quebecers are, at the very least, turned off by the direction of the Harper government. This Prime Minister needs to understand that most people voting for the Bloc are not out-and-out separatists. They are part of the mushy middle which happens not to be either sovereignist nor federalist. The typical Bloc voter favours a strong Quebec -- not necessarily an independent one.

We can argue it out whether Trudeau's remarks were in fact gauche. React as we may, we must nonetheless conclude that they were certainly on target -- at least as far as the vast majority of Quebecers are concerned. I'd call that a bull's eye as it relates to the popular sentiment expressed across Quebec.

[updated Wed Feb 15 05:22:30 -0500 2012]

Mandatory Minimums: Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

So says a judge of the Ontario Superior Court who has refused to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. Can this be considered "judicial" push back as many in the media are claiming? It's hard to say in the case of a One Of. But if this sets a precedent -- that serves as inspiration for other courts -- or is deliberately followed, the Harper government could have a crisis on its hands.

Reminds me of the famous quote from Stephen Harper suggesting that the public service, the Senate and the courts were likely to serve as a natural check on any Conservative majority government. It seems he sure got that one right!

But that is beside the point. What's important is at the federal level that both the Liberals and NDP have previously supported mandatory minimums. As a result, they won't be able to make too much hay with this one while the sun shines. The Harper government can also point to provincial and territorial support to bolster its arguments.

Candidly, I would be astonished if this judge's ruling wasn't appealed to a higher court. My expectation in fact is that it may ultimately be reversed on appeal.

[updated Wed Feb 15 06:05:54 -0500 2012]

My Political Heroes.

Hopefully, all those of us with an avid interest in politics have at least one political hero. In my case, I happen to have two, namely Yitzhak Rabin and Michael Ignatieff.

Just think back to the Peace Accord negotiations in Washington during the Clinton Administration. I will never forget how Rabin had come to the United States with at least one secondary goal -- and that was not to shake Yasser Arafat's hand. I can still picture it even today: the sight of a man fighting himself with every fibre of his being not to grasp Arafat's hand while being encouraged by Clinton to do so. And then it happened. The angels of Rabin's better and principled nature won out and he grudgingly and painfully grasped Arafat's hand. Rabin did that not so much for himself but for the people of Israel. That was a shining example of his commitment to peace and it would eventually cost him his life.

Now, to the much under appreciated Michael Ignatieff. For the record, I suspect no one is sorrier to see him gone as Liberal leader than I am. In my time as an observer of politics, never have I seen a more spectacular display of sheer guts and courage. Think about it for a moment. This guy who hadn't so much as run for dog catcher plunged off the deep end right into the heart of the cesspool otherwise known as Canadian federal politics. That spoke volumes, both about Ignatieff's character and determination. In my view, we lost one hell of a lot when Michael went into political retirement. I hope one day he will at least consider -- reconsidering. This country would be so much better if Ignatieff was still in the fight, working in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.

[updated Wed Feb 15 14:55:22 -0500 2012]