Doing this on our behalf, in the name of Canadians, is the first reason to be outraged by the facts on which Ezra Levant sheds light in his book. The hijacking of the HRCs by social vandals is to be frowned upon, but their limits on our dearly held rights and freedoms (speech, property, religion), in the name of human rights no less, and to the benefit of profiting and manipulative individuals who have no fear of breaking laws themselves to reach their goals and line their pockets, is shocking to the highest degree. Creating work for themselves by spreading hate speech or having insiders file the majority of their complaints (while sitting as expert witnesses on these same cases) testifies to the corruption level of these organizations.
The "enforcers" of these creative and oppressive new "human rights" (i.e. the right not to be offended, the right to be socially validated, or the right to speak critically of Christianity but not Islam) are a frightening bread, whose flagrant lack of ethic evokes powerful feelings of fear. Their hyperextensive reach should indeed scare you... I am scared myself as I write these words. However, I stand united with the likes of Levant, Steyn, Maclean's, the Red Deer Advocate and the league of bloggers who have or are currently facing the bureaucratic torture these kangaroo courts inflict.
The HRCs attempts (and successes) in limiting free speech are particularly rotten. Fighting to gag views that are controversial and that some find offensive goes against this hard-earned freedom. As many have said before me, it is my freedom to speak as it is yours not to listen, tune out, turn the page - that's how a free society works. However, these taxpayer-funded ideological witch hunters persist to defy all legal logic, precedents and even their own procedures, in order to fight "the Man", hurt feelings and controversial opinions. But a free and democratic society is not a twisted utopia and you shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a human rights complaint (or appointment, for that matter) to seek revenge on those ideas. Again, all this takes place in the name of "human rights", a frightening abuse of process left startlingly unchecked.
Efforts to remove the courts, starting with a thorough investigation - pulling the blanket off completely - must be undertaken. Taxpayers and Canadians who value their freedom are entitled to know just what crimes have been committed in their name, and at what cost. Trial for treason comes to mind... But in addition to the proposed Parliamentary review (and I ask all Parliamentarians to engage in this process as soon as possible), and the RCMP and the Privacy Commissioner investigations into the hacking of a private citizen's Internet connection in relation to hate-speech "investigations", I call upon the Auditor General to investigate on behalf of the Government and Canadians.
This $25 million a year boondoggle deserves to be uncovered for what it truly is, a manipulative civil rights abuser lottery. And that's on the federal side only. Millions more are wasted in provinces and territories on ridiculous and abusive claims. In Ontario, I am encouraged by the stand newly-minted PC leader Tim Hudak has taken on the issue and trust he will contribute to denormalizing the HRCs.
In the meantime, I urge all of you to make your voices heard on this issue. The HRCs DO NOT and should no longer be allowed to speak on behalf of Canadians in protecting human rights. Period.
July 30, 2009
July 8, 2009
Ignatieff's World - A very confusing place...
I have just finished reading the first edition of Denis Smith’s book, Ignatieff’s World: A Liberal Leader for the 21st Century?, which overviews and attempts to untangle Michael Ignatieff’s chameleonic perspective on human rights, American power, the “war on terror” and international interventionism, through his abundant writings.
Though a more recent edition, released in March 2009, devotes a few chapters to Ignatieff’s “new role” in Parliament as elected Member of Parliament and leader of the Liberal party, the original version is still very informative. It offers level-headed insight into Ignatieff’s supposed intellectualism, which I feel is highly overrated, especially in light of his inability to clearly state his position on any issue. A man who cannot firmly stand for what he believes, leaving his views ambiguously open to interpretation, perhaps to more easily weasel out of unpopular stands, does not inspire confidence. Additionally, his lack of perspective on certain issues and oversimplification of the world forces at work are at times frightening.
One Ignatieff quote particularly struck me with its foreshadowing strength and apparent hypocrisy. Regarding the war in Iraq and despite his flip-flopping criticism of the American invasion, Ignatieff makes this simple statement: “I don’t have a clever way out. (…) My business, since I’m not running for office, is to present problems, not solutions.”
Apparently, even in office and regardless of the issue, solutions from Ignatieff remain scarce and as intellectually murky as ever. I’d love to sit and chat with Mr. Smith about what he thinks of the Liberal leader today.
* * *
PS - After an extended absense, I am happy to return to the world of Blogging Tories. Thanks for reading...
Though a more recent edition, released in March 2009, devotes a few chapters to Ignatieff’s “new role” in Parliament as elected Member of Parliament and leader of the Liberal party, the original version is still very informative. It offers level-headed insight into Ignatieff’s supposed intellectualism, which I feel is highly overrated, especially in light of his inability to clearly state his position on any issue. A man who cannot firmly stand for what he believes, leaving his views ambiguously open to interpretation, perhaps to more easily weasel out of unpopular stands, does not inspire confidence. Additionally, his lack of perspective on certain issues and oversimplification of the world forces at work are at times frightening.
One Ignatieff quote particularly struck me with its foreshadowing strength and apparent hypocrisy. Regarding the war in Iraq and despite his flip-flopping criticism of the American invasion, Ignatieff makes this simple statement: “I don’t have a clever way out. (…) My business, since I’m not running for office, is to present problems, not solutions.”
Apparently, even in office and regardless of the issue, solutions from Ignatieff remain scarce and as intellectually murky as ever. I’d love to sit and chat with Mr. Smith about what he thinks of the Liberal leader today.
* * *
PS - After an extended absense, I am happy to return to the world of Blogging Tories. Thanks for reading...
February 20, 2009
Canadians confident about the government's economic strategy
The current economic crisis must be drawing to a close as the road to recovery starts with improved confidence. According to a recent poll, Canadians are regaining their confidence and feel the economic slowdown may not weigh on us for very much longer.
Of course, this confidence is partly a gust of wind from the South, with Bank of Canada previsions being based on the relative success of the American stimulus package. Still, some confidence is better than none at all, when all other indicators are still hitting a slump.
A new CBC poll conducted by Ekos Research suggests Canadians are not only optimistic the economy will improve, they believe the federal government will lead the way.The survey was conducted the between Feb.12-16, 2009, interviewing 1,036 randomly selected Canadians over the age of 18.
Fifty-nine per cent of those surveyed had some, or complete confidence that Ottawa would be able to lead Canada out of the recession.
Fifty-seven per cent thought the federal budget would be very effective or somewhat effective in stimulating the economy, and 62 per cent had some or complete confidence in the Bank of Canada’s recent economic forecast.
Of course, this confidence is partly a gust of wind from the South, with Bank of Canada previsions being based on the relative success of the American stimulus package. Still, some confidence is better than none at all, when all other indicators are still hitting a slump.
February 11, 2009
The Ignatieff Factor
As others have mentioned before me, it appears that the Liberals and the Conservatives are in a dead heat right now - according to the latest Strategic Council poll for CTV and the Globe and Mail. The Conservatives' leads has drastically fallen around Canada, including in Western Canada and Ontario.
Of course, the threat of an election has been cast aside for a while, so when asked about an election "tomorrow" respondents are answering in a bubble. But still, those numbers are not encouraging and signify the time for some hard, hard work from the Conservative government - if they hope to make up that lost ground.
CTV explains that having ditched the coalition was probably very beneficial for Ignatieff and the Liberals, and his tone and phrasing about keeping the government "on probation" makes him seem like a tough alternative (unlike lame-duck Dion).
As well, the current economic situation has not helped out the government, who has been left scrambling to provide an acceptable economic plan and has been looking inconsistent in its future projections. Let's not forget the fact that many small-c conservatives have been left with a bad taste in their mouth following the presentation of the budget, which may have them protesting by denying their support (at least in survey form) to the Conservative Party.
What can the Conservatives do at this point? Obviously, Ignatieff is not likely to have himself pushed around like his predecessor. However, he is more open to the government's ideas (or so it has seemed so far). The government will have, I believe, to show the strong leadership it has prided itself on since 2006 - by continuing to move forward and proving that its plan is effective.
There is also a need to lay low for a while, as much as a government can, by focusing on business rather than confrontation. Perhaps Ignatieff will respond to that by putting his foot in his mouth. But the truth is, he is seriously threatening the Conservatives nationally.
Of course, as mentioned earlier this is all happening within a bubble. We would have to see how the Liberal leader runs a national campaign to know if the Ignatieff Factor is going to return Canada's natural governing party back to power.
At this point, I am feeling almost as disillusioned as some of my other fellow conservative bloggers. I am still hanging on to Harper's leadership and the current Conservative Party, but am hesitant in this view. The reason I started being active in supporting this government was because I truly felt the party was moving in the right direction. Not to say that I would vote Liberal if an election were held "tomorrow" but I would have to think twice about the party's accomplishments and forward looking promises before crossing that X in the voting booth.
Of course, the threat of an election has been cast aside for a while, so when asked about an election "tomorrow" respondents are answering in a bubble. But still, those numbers are not encouraging and signify the time for some hard, hard work from the Conservative government - if they hope to make up that lost ground.
CTV explains that having ditched the coalition was probably very beneficial for Ignatieff and the Liberals, and his tone and phrasing about keeping the government "on probation" makes him seem like a tough alternative (unlike lame-duck Dion).
As well, the current economic situation has not helped out the government, who has been left scrambling to provide an acceptable economic plan and has been looking inconsistent in its future projections. Let's not forget the fact that many small-c conservatives have been left with a bad taste in their mouth following the presentation of the budget, which may have them protesting by denying their support (at least in survey form) to the Conservative Party.
What can the Conservatives do at this point? Obviously, Ignatieff is not likely to have himself pushed around like his predecessor. However, he is more open to the government's ideas (or so it has seemed so far). The government will have, I believe, to show the strong leadership it has prided itself on since 2006 - by continuing to move forward and proving that its plan is effective.
There is also a need to lay low for a while, as much as a government can, by focusing on business rather than confrontation. Perhaps Ignatieff will respond to that by putting his foot in his mouth. But the truth is, he is seriously threatening the Conservatives nationally.
Of course, as mentioned earlier this is all happening within a bubble. We would have to see how the Liberal leader runs a national campaign to know if the Ignatieff Factor is going to return Canada's natural governing party back to power.
At this point, I am feeling almost as disillusioned as some of my other fellow conservative bloggers. I am still hanging on to Harper's leadership and the current Conservative Party, but am hesitant in this view. The reason I started being active in supporting this government was because I truly felt the party was moving in the right direction. Not to say that I would vote Liberal if an election were held "tomorrow" but I would have to think twice about the party's accomplishments and forward looking promises before crossing that X in the voting booth.
February 6, 2009
Why the Liberal accusations don't hold water
Today's news has the Liberals, in the form of MP Gerard Kennedy, accusing the Conservative government of targetting most of its infrastructure project to CPC held ridings.
If local political gains were really the goal here, they would not be mostly focusing on Conservative held ridings, but on swing ridings where they could pull the rug from under an opponent's feet. While it may look advantageous to Kennedy that the government is funding projects where their support lies, a better mid-to-long term political strategy would target non-conservative ridings, in a bid to gain ground in those areas in a future election.
The government has nothing to gain by "punishing" ridings that did not vote for them. This would go counter stream from the expansion efforts of the CPC, towards an eventual majority.
I think this is another case of Liberals hunting for a scandal. Only three days after supporting the government and its budget, it appears the Liberals are already getting antsy and looking for a fight - by manipulating the facts. Shameful.
"The majority of Canadians living in opposition ridings have been massively short-changed so that the Conservatives can get far more than their share," Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park) said in question period.In my opinion, these accusations simply don't add up. If in fact the government was trying to make some subtle political gains through these specific infrastructure projects - other than the obvious demonstration that they have Canada's economic future at heart - the Conservatives would certainly have opted for another strategy.
If local political gains were really the goal here, they would not be mostly focusing on Conservative held ridings, but on swing ridings where they could pull the rug from under an opponent's feet. While it may look advantageous to Kennedy that the government is funding projects where their support lies, a better mid-to-long term political strategy would target non-conservative ridings, in a bid to gain ground in those areas in a future election.
The government has nothing to gain by "punishing" ridings that did not vote for them. This would go counter stream from the expansion efforts of the CPC, towards an eventual majority.
I think this is another case of Liberals hunting for a scandal. Only three days after supporting the government and its budget, it appears the Liberals are already getting antsy and looking for a fight - by manipulating the facts. Shameful.
Opposition spreading fear on the economy
Michael Ignatieff is threatening the success of the budget, by seeding fear that the Conservative's action plan for the economy is failing - already. In an unusually interesting and even inspired column, the National Post's Don Martin writes:
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.How does he think government works? Things don't get done in a flash... The budget implementation plan has not even been approved yet. Yet the Liberals are already saying more needs to be done, and now.
"I can't help it if I'm an impatient man," he shrugged yesterday 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 underway financed by Canada's New Deficit Government.Of course, let's just throw more money down the drain - before we see the effects of the money currently being invested. This is fear-mongering of the worst kind, with the potential effect of worsening Canada's economic situation.
A bemused Stephen Harper urged calm, noting the preliminary budget-endorsing vote was less than 48 hours old.
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
For once I can say that I mostly agree with Mr. Martin.
February 3, 2009
Liberals start to suffer backlash of supporting the government
While Ignatieff and the Liberals have partly denounced the Conservative budget presented last week, their support is now coming at an undetermined price.
Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, said yesterday in the House of Commons:
It will be interesting to see the impact of these recent Liberal decisions on the party’s future. When all is said and done, Ignatieff may have a lot of trouble looking like the left-of-centre force he claims to represent. Not a bad thing for the overall direction of our country, I suppose.
Four Newfoundland and Labrador MPs have vowed to vote down the budget, saying it negatively targets their province and robs it of about $1.6 billion in federal equalization funding.This comes after months of discussion about the intent of the government to review the equalization payment scheme, in order to cap the growth of payments to the rate of Canadian economic growth.
MPs Judy Foote, Scott Andrews, Scott Simms and Siobhan Coady have all said they'll vote against the budget if the document isn't changed.
Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, said yesterday in the House of Commons:
The proposed measures on pay-equity are also leaving a bad taste in many Liberals’ mouths. The proposal which was decried by the Liberal, NDP and Bloc members when it was included in the fiscal update in November, now figures in the soon to be adopted budget."Certainly one of the principles involved in equalization is that all provinces should be treated equally," he told the Commons.
"It is not open to one province to elect to have unrestrained growth of equalization, sharing payments, whether it is through the accords or through formal equalization."
The budget released this week says the government will introduce a new means to establish pay equity. "The existing complaint-based pay-equity regime is a lengthy, costly and adversarial process that does not serve employees and employers well," the budget documents assert.While the measure to have pay-equity measures included in collective agreements rather than have women fighting in court seems full of good sense, the opposition continues to call it an affront to women’s rights.
It will be interesting to see the impact of these recent Liberal decisions on the party’s future. When all is said and done, Ignatieff may have a lot of trouble looking like the left-of-centre force he claims to represent. Not a bad thing for the overall direction of our country, I suppose.
Conservative fundraising leaves others biting the dust
Several reports this morning reveal that the Conservative Party of Canada has broken a new fundraising record in 2008, having collected over $21 million. Sources say a spike experienced over the months of November and December were no doubt helped by the threat of the Liberal-NDP Coalition deal.
Quoted from the National Post:
According to the Elections Canada data, the Conservatives had 174,558 contributors; the Liberals attracted 52,310.
Those are some nice numbers all around. Let’s keep up the good work!
Quoted from the National Post:
The Liberals, meanwhile, raised $5.9-million in 2008, an improvement over the $4.5 million the party raised the year before. A surge in donations in the fourth quarter, when the party garnered $2.3-million, enabled the Liberals to beat the NDP, which was leading the Grits through the third quarter.The overall numbers, says Queen's University political scientist Kathy Brock to the Sun, "just speak to the power of [the Tories'] fundraising machine."
[…]
The New Democrats raised $5.5-million in 2008, a major increase over their haul of $4-million the previous year. Meanwhile, the Green Party broke through the $1-million mark for the first time, raising $1.6-million in 2008.
The Bloc Quebecois raised $713,415 for the year.
According to the Elections Canada data, the Conservatives had 174,558 contributors; the Liberals attracted 52,310.
Those are some nice numbers all around. Let’s keep up the good work!
February 1, 2009
Another Canadian fallen soldier
Sapper Sean David Greenfield, 25, was killed Saturday at the tail end of an joint operation with American and British troops meant to root out exactly the kind of improvised explosive device, or IED, that took his life.His death brings to 108 the total number of Canadian troops who have died as part of the Afghan mission since it began in 2002.
May this young hero rest in peace.
January 29, 2009
Economists weigh in on the Conservative budget
The Calgary Herald features an article which discusses the perception of the budget with some of Prime Minister Harper’s former mentors, which belong to a group of economists and political analysts known as the Calgary School. The group interviewed is split on the value of this week’s federal budget.
Comments include those from political science professor at the University of Calgary, and former Harper senior advisor, Tom Flanagan. Flanagan is not impressed with the direction the Conservative Party has taken with this budget.
Robert Mansell another economist who taught the Prime Minister at U of C, believes the budget does offer the right remedy for these tough economic times, particularly the government's plan to significantly boost infrastructure spending.
Comments include those from political science professor at the University of Calgary, and former Harper senior advisor, Tom Flanagan. Flanagan is not impressed with the direction the Conservative Party has taken with this budget.
"You can find some things in the budget that are consistent with the Conservative philosophy, but the weight is like 90 to 10 against it," said Tom Flanagan.He even goes as far as saying that this heavy-handed intervention in the economy is "unwise and unnecessary."
"In this budget there is no direction really, except political survival," Flanagan suggested Wednesday. "So I'm hoping this is a temporary phenomenon brought around by circumstances."Harper’s masters’ thesis advisor, University of Calgary economist Frank Atkins, also warns of the misleading impact of deep government spending. He qualifies the announcement as a political, rather than economic budget.
[Atkins] warns the big-spending budget won't solve the country's economic woes and could create bigger problems down the road, such as inflation, higher taxes and greater interest rates.However, others who are part of the Calgary School have more lenient views in relation to the latest Harper budget.
"This is not an economic budget in my mind. It's a political budget, much more so than any other budget has been a political budget," Atkins said.
"Probably most importantly, it was designed to cut off the legs of the coalition, which it has done."
[Roger] Gibbins, president of the Canada West Foundation policy think-tank, calls the overall budget package fiscally sensible and politically attractive, offering broad and modest financial relief to Canadians.One must not forget this engagement taken with the international community. But Gibbins does not think the Canadian spending plan will help the country’s economy very much, because Canada’s financial health is dependent on a rebound in commodity prices and the United States' demand for goods.
"They had to do something. We couldn't be the only G-20 country that wasn't responding in some way," Gibbins asserted. "It was a reasonable response to the time, just trying to cushion things a bit for Canadians and that's probably all that the federal government can do."
Robert Mansell another economist who taught the Prime Minister at U of C, believes the budget does offer the right remedy for these tough economic times, particularly the government's plan to significantly boost infrastructure spending.
Flanagan also commented in a Canadian Press article:"That is one of the areas where the government can have a major effect in terms of stabilizing in the economy," Mansell said, adding he doesn't deem the deficit-financed budget a departure from Harper's political and fiscal ideologies.
"He's very practical,"Mansell noted. "As a student of economics he understands there are ups and downs in the economy and one of the roles of government is to respond and help stabilize those."And this is one of those downs. So I don't see an ideological shift."
Neither does [Barry] Cooper, a political science professor at U of C. In his view, the Harper government's budget is pragmatic, not a transformation of core conservative beliefs.
"It's probably an inevitable response to the public perception of the (economic) problem," Cooper said. "And that's what politicians have to respond to, not their understanding of the underlying realities because the underlying realities don't vote. The public perceptions vote."
"I spent five years getting Harper into power, so God knows I want him to survive," Tom Flanagan, a political scientist at the University of Calgary, said in an interview Wednesday.While the debate on the budget measures is far from drawing to a close, we cannot let this cause a divide among conservatives. This would be too beneficial to Ignatieff and the Liberals.
"I perfectly understand the imperatives of political survival and the need to make compromises and to adjust, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. But ... it's got a creepy feel to it."
[…]
"The record of accomplishment is still there," said the former Conservative campaign director.
"But it looks like things are grinding to a halt. Are we just going to enter a period of political pragmatism, when all you do is fight to survive? That's very discouraging.
"We thought that Mr. Harper had the strategic acumen to survive and make some progress toward conservative goals."
The budget, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff suggested Wednesday, "throws the Conservative movement in Canada into a certain form of deep ideological confusion - from which I sincerely hope it never recovers."As former cabinet minister Monte Solberg reminds us in his Sun Media column yesterday:
The Conservatives have easily escaped to fight another day, but what are they fighting for?
This budget isn't a conservative document so much as it's a political document; a document that will give the Conservative government the room necessary to craft a compelling conservative vision for the future.
They must craft that vision without hesitation, and they must do it in a way that makes people want to be a part of it.
Liberals support government on the budget, despite critics
The Liberals, through their leader Michael Ignatieff, have informed Parliament yesterday that they will support the Conservative budget, minus an amendment requiring that the government present updates to the House regarding their budget promises to verify funding actually goes out the door.
The Conservatives have told the House, through the Government House Leader Jay Hill, that they feel this amendment is acceptable, and in fact is an accountability measure that similar the ones they would have taken in either case.
Ignatieff says that these reports to Parliament will hold the Conservatives “on probation” and on a “very tight leash,” vowing to defeat the government after the presentation of any of these reports, which will be considered confidence motions, if the Government’s response is deemed inadequate.
However, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe argued outside the Commons following Ignatieff’s press conference yesterday that the Liberals would likely avoid bringing the Conservatives down at these times, by saying that Canadians need an election “like a hole in the head,” in reference to an earlier statement by Ignatieff.
Many have criticized Ignatieff and the Liberals for not having had the guts to seek more in their amendment, for example the softening of the eligibility rules for those seeking Employment Insurance. NDP leader Jack Layton openly criticized Ignatieff, saying the coalition was now between Harper and Ignatieff. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe also said that the coalition, agreed upon in December, was formally dead. A humorous “obituary” is even featured in the Toronto Star.
The Star has officially rallied with Ignatieff’s position, in an editorial published today. Though their position was slightly nuanced, saying that the Liberals could have tried pushing for more substantial changes to the budget, their choice was the best to hold off rushing to power by defeating the Conservatives on this budget.
The Calgary Herald writes:
The Conservatives have told the House, through the Government House Leader Jay Hill, that they feel this amendment is acceptable, and in fact is an accountability measure that similar the ones they would have taken in either case.
"It does nothing that we don't normally do, which is report back to Parliament upon the progress that we intend to make in ad-dressing the economic situation that faces our nation," government House leader Jay Hill told reporters.The Calgary Herald elaborates on that point:
“…In any case, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already promised regular updates: on Page 72 of the budget document, the government commits itself to providing "an initial report on progress this summer, and responsible ministers will provide an update to Parliament the first week following the summer recess. The government will reassess and, if necessary, reallocate funding in the 2009 Economic and Fiscal Update.”The Conservatives are, so far, satisfied with the Liberal position. Jay Hill is quoted in Sun Media as being “very pleased” with their support. "We look forward to working co-operatively with them," Hill also said.
Ignatieff says that these reports to Parliament will hold the Conservatives “on probation” and on a “very tight leash,” vowing to defeat the government after the presentation of any of these reports, which will be considered confidence motions, if the Government’s response is deemed inadequate.
However, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe argued outside the Commons following Ignatieff’s press conference yesterday that the Liberals would likely avoid bringing the Conservatives down at these times, by saying that Canadians need an election “like a hole in the head,” in reference to an earlier statement by Ignatieff.
Many have criticized Ignatieff and the Liberals for not having had the guts to seek more in their amendment, for example the softening of the eligibility rules for those seeking Employment Insurance. NDP leader Jack Layton openly criticized Ignatieff, saying the coalition was now between Harper and Ignatieff. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe also said that the coalition, agreed upon in December, was formally dead. A humorous “obituary” is even featured in the Toronto Star.
The Star has officially rallied with Ignatieff’s position, in an editorial published today. Though their position was slightly nuanced, saying that the Liberals could have tried pushing for more substantial changes to the budget, their choice was the best to hold off rushing to power by defeating the Conservatives on this budget.
“Yes, the budget fell short of the accord's demands in other areas, including the easing of eligibility requirements for employment insurance (EI) and an early learning and child care program. So it was less than perfect. It was, instead, a compromise – the basis on which minority parliaments are supposed to work.Yet, the Star also featured conflicting views on the subject with one article saying that Ignatieff and the Liberals had missed a chance to help the country. Thomas Walkom writes:
“Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is right, therefore, not to rush to the barricades with the other two opposition parties to defeat this budget and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government with it. That would mean either putting the coalition in office (which, unfortunately, many parts of the country would see as illegitimate) or forcing yet another election (which would be the fourth in five years).”
…He has missed a chance to force Stephen Harper's government to markedly improve Tuesday's budget – to plug gaping holes in its approach to recession andThen again, Ignatieff keeps playing the spin to his advantage, hoping Canadians will forget his actions leading up to the budget. Despite his initial attitude during pre-budgetary consultations with the Prime Minister, where he explained it was up to the government to come up with a plan, this despite the multiple attempts by the government to seek suggestions from the opposition, Ignatieff argues today that it is thanks to them that some of the good measures in the budget have been brought forward.
eliminate small, but loathsome ideological leftovers slipped into its back pages.
[…]
Instead, the Liberals could have insisted on substantive conditions. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has signalled that he's open to reasonable amendments. His only proviso is that they not contradict the budget's overall thrust.
[…]
Having listed the budget's flaws, he said his party would support it anyway.
"We are in the opposition," he explained. "We are not the government. It is the responsibility of the government to govern."
[…]
Had Ignatieff's Liberals cared enough, they almost certainly could have forced the government to back down here. But clearly they did not.
Instead, they took what, in more normal times, would be the standard opposition approach: Don't take responsibility; avoid being identified with policies that might not work; focus on the next election.
What Ignatieff forgets is that these are not normal times."
The Calgary Herald writes:
“…When Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff comments on the budget that anything bad belongs to the Conservatives, anything good is there because of the opposition and that the Liberals have the government "on probation"--well, what else would one expect him to say?”Ignatieff is building himself quite a "legacy"…
January 28, 2009
Federal budget positioning
The Liberal's decision to be made today, when the vote bells ring in the House of Common, will determine if the Conservatives remain in government. The three vague requirements on which the budget will be judge by Ignatieff and his caucus were the following, which the Toronto Star has the courtesy of presenting in comparison with yesterday's budget announcement:
NDP leader Jack Layton, whose position with the budget has been no secret, believes the announcement doesn't even pass the test laid out by the Liberals.
The Liberals are expected to present amendments to the budget, explains the Globe and Mail.
Stay tuned...
"Protect the vulnerable"Despite what appears to be addressing these main three requirements, the Liberals have some hesitations which they divulged yesterday, regarding the Finance Minister's projections.
• Extension of employment insurance benefits by five weeks for the next two years.
• Extension of protections to safeguard severance and termination pay for workers hit by company bankruptcies.
• Greater tax relief from the working income tax benefit to encourage low-income Canadians to find and keep jobs.
• Up to $150 in tax savings for low- and middle-income seniors through an increase in age credit amount.
• $1 billion for renovating social housing.
"Protect the jobs of today"
• $12 billion over two years for new infrastructure spending.
• $7.8 billion in tax relief measures and funding to stimulate the housing sector and to improve housing.
• $170 million toward a "more sustainable and competitive" forestry sector.
"Create jobs for tomorrow"
• $55 million over two years to help young Canadians find summer jobs, giving them valuable experience in the workforce.
• $2 billion to repair, retrofit and expand facilities at post-secondary institutions.
• $750 million for leading-edge research infrastructure through the Canada Foundation for Innovation.
• $110 million over three years to the Canadian Space Agency for more advanced robotics and space technologies.
"My concerns about the budget are have they underestimated the seriousness of the crisis? That affects all the numbers. If they make that judgment wrong, pretty well everything goes south, including their deficit projections," said Ignatieff in the Star.The announced budget predicts it will help save or create 190,000 jobs while a $85-billion deficit is expected to occur over the next five years, with the economy recovering from this deficit around 2013.
Others referred incredulously to the budget's plan to turn big deficits into surplus in five years.
Liberal finance critic Scott Brison said "it's tough to trust" Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's projections, after he projected a $100 million surplus in November and now announced a deficit "before one penny is invested in stimulus."
NDP leader Jack Layton, whose position with the budget has been no secret, believes the announcement doesn't even pass the test laid out by the Liberals.
New Democrat Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe swiftly condemned the budget as a failed "ideological" document that does not address the needs of the jobless and the most vulnerable, or move Canada toward a greener economy.I am not sure how Layton comes to this conclusion. Maybe he simply does not want to lose face.
Their parties intend to vote to defeat the government on the budget, and Layton publicly pressured Ignatieff to do the same.
Layton said the budget fails on the very tests – helping the most vulnerable, protecting the jobs of today and creating jobs for tomorrow – that Ignatieff had set out.
"He has a choice to make," Layton told reporters. "It's either to prop up the Harper government and allow it to continue in a fashion that is clearly wrong-headed, or to pursue the agenda laid out by the coalition, which would create jobs for the future and would transform our economy and would really protect the people who are suffering the most from the economic crisis." [My emphasis]Really Layton? And how do you figure? What different ideas would your coalition bring to the table? How would you, as opposed to the Conservative government proposals, transform the economy? By way of wishful thinking?
The Liberals are expected to present amendments to the budget, explains the Globe and Mail.
Some MPs, speaking on condition they not be named, said all options appeared possible, but that it was unlikely the Liberals would vote for the budget in its current form. It seemed probably they would propose amendments.For more details on the announcement, the National Post presents the highlights of the budget presented yesterday afternoon by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. See also the Department of Finance's website.
"Obviously, that could still lead to an election if they're not co-operative," one MP said.
At the top of the Liberals' concerns were objections that there was not enough softening of the employment-insurance rules, and that the tax cuts announced yesterday could leave the federal government mired in deficit years from now, even after the economy recovers.
[...]
"It is up to this party to decide whether the choices they made today are the right ones," Mr. Ignatieff told the Commons. "It will be a tough call. We will make this choice calmly and serenely."
Stay tuned...
January 27, 2009
You think you know… But you don’t
I am probably proving my light weight as a political observer with this post, but some of the things I have been hearing and reading are leaving my panties in a bunch.
I am growing increasingly tired of some of the comments made in regards to our Prime Minister. Of course, mud-slinging is to be expected by those who share opposing views to those of the PM or the Conservative Party, but some of the assumptions being made simply blow my mind.
Here are a couple of these statements, which I am becoming allergic to hearing:
1- Stephen Harper does not care about Canada, he is only power hungry and clinging to power.
I could not disagree more. I can’t say I know everything that goes on in the PM’s mind, but neither do most political observers. However, I can say the research and readings I have done about Stephen Harper bring me much closer than these opposition naysayers to understanding the PM’s motivations. Reading such books as Tom Flanagan’s Harper’s Team brings a lot of insight into Harper’s mentality, and if there is one conclusion to be drawn it is definitely that Stephen Harper loves our country and is doing what he judges to be in its best interest, period.
2- Harper is turning his back on what real conservatives want.
This accusation mostly comes from other conservatives who feel the PM is not addressing grassroots concerns in his policy, on subjects ranging from abortion, to gay marriage and even cutting the funding to the CBC. I realize that many conservatives feel very strongly about these issues, but the fact that they remain unaddressed testifies of Harper’s incremental and moderate approach. We cannot forget that the Conservatives are working under a minority government, and that they should not be expected to rule as a majority nor would the opposition let them.
Some may even argue that by remaining neutral on certain issues, Harper is in fact proving his demagogy and power hunger. But I beg to differ. This is larger than having Harper as the Prime Minister, even for him. There is evidence to that in the risks he had to face when trying to unite the right too. He does this to make sure that the conservative voice remains alive and relevant, in the Canadian political ring. By giving in to a vocal yet minority views demanding specific intervention in certain files, Harper would effectively alienate a majority of right-leaning Canadians who share broad conservative values but do not necessarily see the need or the usefulness in acting in these files. As well, by remaining distant from these controversial positions, the Conservatives are getting the chance to be recognized as a valid governing alternative to the “natural governing party” in Canada, i.e. the Liberals.
3- Harper cannot be trusted with his promises.
Again, those who say this are usually ideological opponents to conservatism. They have a short memory, and purposefully remain blind to the real accomplishments which were the fruit of electoral promises made by Harper and the Conservatives. These same opponents usually refer to three items in their “broken promise” spiel: fixed election dates, Senate reform and his partisanship.
He is called a hypocrite, a liar and is demonized left and right. However, one must consider the reasons behind these so-called broken promises before judging them. Again, I don’t pretend to have all the answers.
On the fixed election date, I believe the idea behind this move was to give a defined mandate to a majority government, preventing it from calling an election when the public opinion was favourable. I don’t think it was created to deal with a minority government, since in these circumstances, the opposition would continue to have the power to defeat the government on confidence votes. When Harper called the last election, he felt (and I truly believe this) there was no way forward in the current Parliament. With the opposition intent on stalling government initiatives and the Liberals under Stéphane Dion refusing to bring down the government, despite their clear opposition to most of its measures, this left the PM with few other choices. He gave the opposition many opportunities of defeating him, while standing for what they believed in, yet they preferred abstaining while making it impossible for the government to advance many of its objectives.
The same goes for Senate reform. By nominating 18 senators last month, Harper did not act against his promise to work towards an elected Senate. But again, the opposition left him little choice in governing. He could have maintained his stance, but then would have been put in a position where there would be no chance of ever bringing change to the Senate – and this because, in order for Senate reform to happen, the Senate itself must support it. There is little chance that an “entitled,” mainly Liberal Senate would ever accept to short-change itself, so the only possible solution was to add reform-friendly Senators to the Red Chamber, to shift – however slightly, and with whatever time it does take – its balance of power.
Finally, regarding his partisan politics Harper is being regarded as a liar for vowing that he and his caucus would be civil in the House of Commons. The media rapidly focused their attacks on the Conservatives for breaking this promise. However, we should not forget that the opposition promised the same thing, and from my viewing of Question Period in the House of Commons, I feel they were the first to break this promise – whether the MSM was ever willing to admit or even realize it. And now that Harper is promising again more civility and cooperation, the opposition say they can’t believe him. They are giving him no chance and are proving that they themselves prefer partisan obstructionism over making the effort to collaborate with the government.
All this to say, I realize more and more that people on both side of the divide tend to speak about many things which they know little on. It reminds me of something a friend used to say in high school, when people would gossip… “You think you know… But you don’t.”
I am growing increasingly tired of some of the comments made in regards to our Prime Minister. Of course, mud-slinging is to be expected by those who share opposing views to those of the PM or the Conservative Party, but some of the assumptions being made simply blow my mind.
Here are a couple of these statements, which I am becoming allergic to hearing:
1- Stephen Harper does not care about Canada, he is only power hungry and clinging to power.
I could not disagree more. I can’t say I know everything that goes on in the PM’s mind, but neither do most political observers. However, I can say the research and readings I have done about Stephen Harper bring me much closer than these opposition naysayers to understanding the PM’s motivations. Reading such books as Tom Flanagan’s Harper’s Team brings a lot of insight into Harper’s mentality, and if there is one conclusion to be drawn it is definitely that Stephen Harper loves our country and is doing what he judges to be in its best interest, period.
2- Harper is turning his back on what real conservatives want.
This accusation mostly comes from other conservatives who feel the PM is not addressing grassroots concerns in his policy, on subjects ranging from abortion, to gay marriage and even cutting the funding to the CBC. I realize that many conservatives feel very strongly about these issues, but the fact that they remain unaddressed testifies of Harper’s incremental and moderate approach. We cannot forget that the Conservatives are working under a minority government, and that they should not be expected to rule as a majority nor would the opposition let them.
Some may even argue that by remaining neutral on certain issues, Harper is in fact proving his demagogy and power hunger. But I beg to differ. This is larger than having Harper as the Prime Minister, even for him. There is evidence to that in the risks he had to face when trying to unite the right too. He does this to make sure that the conservative voice remains alive and relevant, in the Canadian political ring. By giving in to a vocal yet minority views demanding specific intervention in certain files, Harper would effectively alienate a majority of right-leaning Canadians who share broad conservative values but do not necessarily see the need or the usefulness in acting in these files. As well, by remaining distant from these controversial positions, the Conservatives are getting the chance to be recognized as a valid governing alternative to the “natural governing party” in Canada, i.e. the Liberals.
3- Harper cannot be trusted with his promises.
Again, those who say this are usually ideological opponents to conservatism. They have a short memory, and purposefully remain blind to the real accomplishments which were the fruit of electoral promises made by Harper and the Conservatives. These same opponents usually refer to three items in their “broken promise” spiel: fixed election dates, Senate reform and his partisanship.
He is called a hypocrite, a liar and is demonized left and right. However, one must consider the reasons behind these so-called broken promises before judging them. Again, I don’t pretend to have all the answers.
On the fixed election date, I believe the idea behind this move was to give a defined mandate to a majority government, preventing it from calling an election when the public opinion was favourable. I don’t think it was created to deal with a minority government, since in these circumstances, the opposition would continue to have the power to defeat the government on confidence votes. When Harper called the last election, he felt (and I truly believe this) there was no way forward in the current Parliament. With the opposition intent on stalling government initiatives and the Liberals under Stéphane Dion refusing to bring down the government, despite their clear opposition to most of its measures, this left the PM with few other choices. He gave the opposition many opportunities of defeating him, while standing for what they believed in, yet they preferred abstaining while making it impossible for the government to advance many of its objectives.
The same goes for Senate reform. By nominating 18 senators last month, Harper did not act against his promise to work towards an elected Senate. But again, the opposition left him little choice in governing. He could have maintained his stance, but then would have been put in a position where there would be no chance of ever bringing change to the Senate – and this because, in order for Senate reform to happen, the Senate itself must support it. There is little chance that an “entitled,” mainly Liberal Senate would ever accept to short-change itself, so the only possible solution was to add reform-friendly Senators to the Red Chamber, to shift – however slightly, and with whatever time it does take – its balance of power.
Finally, regarding his partisan politics Harper is being regarded as a liar for vowing that he and his caucus would be civil in the House of Commons. The media rapidly focused their attacks on the Conservatives for breaking this promise. However, we should not forget that the opposition promised the same thing, and from my viewing of Question Period in the House of Commons, I feel they were the first to break this promise – whether the MSM was ever willing to admit or even realize it. And now that Harper is promising again more civility and cooperation, the opposition say they can’t believe him. They are giving him no chance and are proving that they themselves prefer partisan obstructionism over making the effort to collaborate with the government.
All this to say, I realize more and more that people on both side of the divide tend to speak about many things which they know little on. It reminds me of something a friend used to say in high school, when people would gossip… “You think you know… But you don’t.”
January 25, 2009
PM Harper defends deficit with intelligence and confidence
Last night on Global TV's Focus Ontario was a one-on-one interview with Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussing the imminent budget, as well as deficit spending and the coalition. The interviewer, Sean Mallen, was very balanced in asking his questions, which though some were difficult, I felt needed to be asked.
In his responses, Harper indicated that the budget will address immediate economic concerns in Canada, mainly though shovel-ready infrastructure projects, in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments. As well, some permanent - but modest - tax cuts will be brought forward. Other limited investments will be put in place to help stimulate certain industries, as certain media reports had already leaked.
The limited nature of most of these initiatives is what supports the notion of a "temporary deficit" Harper emphasized. While some of these investments can be extended through Parliament votes if judged necessary, most of these will expire within one or two years. With this positioning, Harper can confidently say that the government's balance sheets will return to black after this time.
Harper did not seem worried about deficit spending, which leaks have reported will ramp up to $64 billion over the next two fiscal years. When confronted to previous statements made as leader of the Canadian Alliance, radically opposing deficit spending, Harper explained that at the time of his protest the Canadian economy was strong and that nothing explained or warranted these deficits.
Today, he argues, since confidence has been shattered across the board it is an appropriate time, one of the only times when deficit spending has its place. Harper explains that while investors hold off from making trades in the market and individuals save more rather than spend, the general slowdown makes a lot of money sit still, unused. By having the government borrow this money at low interest rates, and injecting it into the economy rather than have it remain frozen, we can see the economic cycle pick up speed and return to normal sooner.
Harper notes that this commitment to "economic stimulus" and subsequent deficit spending is an engagement made to the international community following a recent G20 meeting on the economy. There, world leaders committed to taking all actions necessary to prop up their respective economies.
My general observation on this interview is that Harper sounded great, and looked very comfortable explaining the situation. His approach was meant to clarify the situation, not dodge any of the facts, standing up for his decisions. I felt proud watching him speak.
Following the interview, host Sean Mallen sat with two reporters, Global National's Peter Harris and the National Post's Don Martin. While Mallen and Harris demonstrated analytical insight but remained neutral, needless to say that Martin was completely out of line with some of his comments.
He notably said that Harper laid "awake a night trying to find ways to kill Liberals," and was general unforgiving of Harper and the deficit. He seemed frustrated, even displeased, perhaps because the Prime Minister had shown such grace and smarts in responding to the interview. Peter Harris pointed out that Harper had said all the right things.
I can't say I am surprised by Martin's words, though it is always shocking to hear such antagonistic reproaches when the overall tone of the broadcast was so neutral.
UPDATE: Here is a link to the interview.
In his responses, Harper indicated that the budget will address immediate economic concerns in Canada, mainly though shovel-ready infrastructure projects, in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments. As well, some permanent - but modest - tax cuts will be brought forward. Other limited investments will be put in place to help stimulate certain industries, as certain media reports had already leaked.
The limited nature of most of these initiatives is what supports the notion of a "temporary deficit" Harper emphasized. While some of these investments can be extended through Parliament votes if judged necessary, most of these will expire within one or two years. With this positioning, Harper can confidently say that the government's balance sheets will return to black after this time.
Harper did not seem worried about deficit spending, which leaks have reported will ramp up to $64 billion over the next two fiscal years. When confronted to previous statements made as leader of the Canadian Alliance, radically opposing deficit spending, Harper explained that at the time of his protest the Canadian economy was strong and that nothing explained or warranted these deficits.
Today, he argues, since confidence has been shattered across the board it is an appropriate time, one of the only times when deficit spending has its place. Harper explains that while investors hold off from making trades in the market and individuals save more rather than spend, the general slowdown makes a lot of money sit still, unused. By having the government borrow this money at low interest rates, and injecting it into the economy rather than have it remain frozen, we can see the economic cycle pick up speed and return to normal sooner.
Harper notes that this commitment to "economic stimulus" and subsequent deficit spending is an engagement made to the international community following a recent G20 meeting on the economy. There, world leaders committed to taking all actions necessary to prop up their respective economies.
My general observation on this interview is that Harper sounded great, and looked very comfortable explaining the situation. His approach was meant to clarify the situation, not dodge any of the facts, standing up for his decisions. I felt proud watching him speak.
Following the interview, host Sean Mallen sat with two reporters, Global National's Peter Harris and the National Post's Don Martin. While Mallen and Harris demonstrated analytical insight but remained neutral, needless to say that Martin was completely out of line with some of his comments.
He notably said that Harper laid "awake a night trying to find ways to kill Liberals," and was general unforgiving of Harper and the deficit. He seemed frustrated, even displeased, perhaps because the Prime Minister had shown such grace and smarts in responding to the interview. Peter Harris pointed out that Harper had said all the right things.
I can't say I am surprised by Martin's words, though it is always shocking to hear such antagonistic reproaches when the overall tone of the broadcast was so neutral.
UPDATE: Here is a link to the interview.
January 19, 2009
Weak coalition no longer a serious option
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff still says he is prepared to bring down the government over the budget, if it does not meet his three main requirements.
Radio-Canada points out that there was absolutely no mention of the coalition during today’s Liberal caucus meetings, a good indicator that support for the coalition has completely evaporated.
A couple of Liberal MPs were asked about the coalition following caucus meetings, and their response was equally disinterested. Quebec Liberal MPs Marlene Jennings and Raymonde Folco both said the coalition was a “just-in-case” scenario, if the government were to be defeated, so the Governor General could have an alternative.
We are very far from the animated rhetoric which made headlines before the Christmas break. In my opinion, although Ignatieff keeps this weapon in his back pocket, his lack of enthusiasm for the coalition is likely to play a part in the Governor General’s considerations if the Conservatives were defeated over the budget.
This deflated balloon proves how delicate the Liberal-NDP coalition really was and how it cannot possibly provide the certainty needed to guide our country during these uncertain times.
"This budget has three simple tests that it must pass," Ignatieff said on Sunday during a Liberal caucus meeting. "Will it protect the mostSome say these requests are vague enough to allow the Liberals to easily support the government’s budget. However, the main weapon of the opposition before Parliament was prorogued, a Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc support, seems to have faded from the discussion.
vulnerable? Will it save jobs? And most important of all, will it create the
jobs of tomorrow?"
Radio-Canada points out that there was absolutely no mention of the coalition during today’s Liberal caucus meetings, a good indicator that support for the coalition has completely evaporated.
A couple of Liberal MPs were asked about the coalition following caucus meetings, and their response was equally disinterested. Quebec Liberal MPs Marlene Jennings and Raymonde Folco both said the coalition was a “just-in-case” scenario, if the government were to be defeated, so the Governor General could have an alternative.
We are very far from the animated rhetoric which made headlines before the Christmas break. In my opinion, although Ignatieff keeps this weapon in his back pocket, his lack of enthusiasm for the coalition is likely to play a part in the Governor General’s considerations if the Conservatives were defeated over the budget.
This deflated balloon proves how delicate the Liberal-NDP coalition really was and how it cannot possibly provide the certainty needed to guide our country during these uncertain times.
Clement to Canadian automakers: "If you don't need the money that's fine too."
The Canadian branches of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have yet to show progress in their restructuring, deplored Industry Minister Tony Clement. Despite having $4 billion in government loans to draw from, the fund has remained untouched by the two companies.
Clement is extremely surprised that after almost a month, neither company had taken loans. What explains this delay in action, and even more, the lack of demand for federal loans? Weren’t these companies desperate for help? It sure seemed so a month ago.
"One would have thought we would have been at the conclusion of this phase [restructuring] by now, we're not," the Minister said after a speech in Toronto. "I'm signalling to them: let's get a move on.The companies have until February 20 to demonstrate they have rendered their operations profitable again, at which point – if this demonstration fails – these loans could be reneged or called in.
"If you need the money, let's flow the money. If you don't need the money that's fine too."
Clement is extremely surprised that after almost a month, neither company had taken loans. What explains this delay in action, and even more, the lack of demand for federal loans? Weren’t these companies desperate for help? It sure seemed so a month ago.
Ignatieff now opposes "broad-based" tax cuts
As pointed out by other bloggers, Michael Ignatieff seems to have changed his tune in relation to tax cuts for middle-income earners. So much so, that it is now hard to know exactly what the leader of the Liberals is expecting out of the Conservative budget, to be announced next week.
Two weeks ago, Ignatieff stood for tax cuts targeted at medium- to low-income Canadians. He said:
Kelly McParland eludes to the difference of opinion between Ignatieff with his original stand on tax cuts and a Toronto Star editorial which seemed to have missed the Liberal party's memo, as it argued against tax cuts.
Maybe Ignatieff was notified of the piece and realized that his position was not that of an "authentic liberal." Maybe he realized that he better reframe his discourse before he loses the support of the estrablishment he relies on for his success and before he is seen as a "neo-con" by his party's voter base.
Two weeks ago, Ignatieff stood for tax cuts targeted at medium- to low-income Canadians. He said:
"I think it’s going to be important to get stimulus into the Canadian economy fast, so we may be looking at tax cuts very quickly, tax cuts targeted at medium and low income, to boost their purchasing power fast," Mr. Ignatieff told the crowd of 200 at Neptune Theatre.But today, reports have him taking a different stance on the same issue, possibly in a effort to oppose Conservative tax cuts which are expected in the budget. He is now saying that under the current economic situation, and with the impending federal deficit, that it is not the time for major tax cuts.
When asked later what form those tax cuts might come in, Mr. Ignatieff told reporters he’s in favour of the kind that are permanent, rather than a one-time break.
"This is not the moment for broad-based tax cuts because we think it will lead us into structural deficit and our children will be paying the price for Stephen Harper's mistakes for years to come," the Liberal leader said in an interview with the National Post.What explains this sudden shift? Were the tax cuts he initially favoured not going to impact the deficit? To me, it looks like the Liberal leader and his team are developing policy on the fly.
Kelly McParland eludes to the difference of opinion between Ignatieff with his original stand on tax cuts and a Toronto Star editorial which seemed to have missed the Liberal party's memo, as it argued against tax cuts.
Maybe Ignatieff was notified of the piece and realized that his position was not that of an "authentic liberal." Maybe he realized that he better reframe his discourse before he loses the support of the estrablishment he relies on for his success and before he is seen as a "neo-con" by his party's voter base.
January 17, 2009
New survey shows Harper inching ahead
The Toronto Star presents results of poll prepared by Angus Reid, which shows that Stephen Harper is slowly increasing his lead over Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff as the best leader for the country.
[The] survey shows 27 per cent of Canadians think Harper is the best choice for prime minister, with 24 per cent preferring Ignatieff.Party support for the Conservatives is also slightly on the rise.
Last month, the two leaders were in a virtual tie, with Ignatieff slightly ahead at 28 per cent compared with Harper at 27 per cent nationally.
The Conservatives are at 39 per cent support nationally, compared with 30 per cent for the Liberals, 17 per cent for the NDP, 9 per cent for the Bloc and 5 per cent for the Greens. In the Oct. 14 election, the Tories garnered 37.6 per cent of the vote.Finally...
Only 20 per cent of respondents said Ignatieff could manage the economy effectively, compared with 34 per cent for Harper.
January 16, 2009
Follow-up: Federal funds to Quebec
I was asked by a reader to find out, if possible, how much money the federal government had handed over to the province of Quebec over the years.
I have - after much research - found a comprehensive document which details just that. It is based on the Public Accounts for the province of Quebec and provides data from 1986-2008. Scroll up or down the linked page to see what the other provinces have received.
It is interesting to notice that Quebec has been receiving much more federal transfers since 2006, while other provinces have generally stayed at the same level.
I have - after much research - found a comprehensive document which details just that. It is based on the Public Accounts for the province of Quebec and provides data from 1986-2008. Scroll up or down the linked page to see what the other provinces have received.
It is interesting to notice that Quebec has been receiving much more federal transfers since 2006, while other provinces have generally stayed at the same level.
Independent senator joins Liberals
Independent Senator Lillian Dyck has joined the Liberal caucus, the Canadian Press reported yesterday. The Saskatchewan senator was appointed in 2005 by then-Prime Minister Paul Martin, to sit as an NDP senator. However, the NDP refused to endorse her, leaving her sitting in the Upper House without party affiliation.
A Liberal spokesman says Dyck's decision to join the party ranks - along with that of Privy Council adviser Kevin Chan this week - shows that "people of great distinction" are gravitating toward Ignatieff.The current standings have 59 Liberals, 38 Conservatives, five Independents and three Progressive Conservatives sitting in the Senate. Prime Minister Harper is expect to appoint 11 more senators within the end of 2009, due to upcoming retirements.
Federal deficit does not necessarily need to be so heafty: Duceppe
Bloc Québécois leader, Gilles Duceppe has come forward saying that the federal deficit needed to prop up the Canadian economy does not necessarily need to be as high as projected. This comes as a surprise, considering the many demands and accusations of inaction on the economy from the opposition in December.
However, Duceppe is quoted in La Presse yesterday as saying that cuts to the government apparatus could yield many savings, and produce a deficit of only $3 billion dollars, instead of $40 billion.
Duceppe gives the example of the Ministry of Justice whose budget grew by 115% in recent years as evidence there are savings to be made. However, the BQ leader said these cuts should not impact jobs.
Duceppe also took aim at Ignatieff saying that the Liberal leader should not support an unsatisfactory budget, by fear of an election, because he would then become just like Stéphane Dion - who avoided bringing down the Conservative government on 18 confidence votes.
The Bloc leader continued to say that the opposition coalition was the best alternative for the country, and that Michael Ignatieff would have a very likely chance of becoming Prime Minister should his party decide to defeat the government on the January 27 budget. He strongly believes the Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, would let a coalition of opposition parties govern rather than send Canadians to the polls again.
However, Duceppe is quoted in La Presse yesterday as saying that cuts to the government apparatus could yield many savings, and produce a deficit of only $3 billion dollars, instead of $40 billion.
Duceppe gives the example of the Ministry of Justice whose budget grew by 115% in recent years as evidence there are savings to be made. However, the BQ leader said these cuts should not impact jobs.
Duceppe also took aim at Ignatieff saying that the Liberal leader should not support an unsatisfactory budget, by fear of an election, because he would then become just like Stéphane Dion - who avoided bringing down the Conservative government on 18 confidence votes.
The Bloc leader continued to say that the opposition coalition was the best alternative for the country, and that Michael Ignatieff would have a very likely chance of becoming Prime Minister should his party decide to defeat the government on the January 27 budget. He strongly believes the Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, would let a coalition of opposition parties govern rather than send Canadians to the polls again.
January 9, 2009
Substantial deficit ahead, job losses and a liberal jab at the NDP
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty discussed the upcoming budget yesterday, at a town hall meeting in Whitby, Ont. He said that the government was going to "get it right" in its budget, and that it will include a "substantial deficit." This deficit is expected to ramp up at about $30 billion, as previous government statements have indicated.
Today will see the release of the Canadian job numbers for last month, which are expected to reveal losses of somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 jobs.
Yesterday, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff also addressed a town hall meeting, in Halifax where he emphasized the need for tax cuts for low and middle-income Canadians in the upcoming budget. So far, Ignatieff has shown very few signs of seriously wanting to bring the government down over the budget and has even taken what appears to be a jab at fellow opposition leader Jack Layton.
Commentators either support the new leader's "measured approach" seen as constructive, while opponents smile at what they see as a conservative-minded stance.
Today will see the release of the Canadian job numbers for last month, which are expected to reveal losses of somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 jobs.
Yesterday, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff also addressed a town hall meeting, in Halifax where he emphasized the need for tax cuts for low and middle-income Canadians in the upcoming budget. So far, Ignatieff has shown very few signs of seriously wanting to bring the government down over the budget and has even taken what appears to be a jab at fellow opposition leader Jack Layton.
The Liberal leader said that he will not make a decision on the budget until he has thoroughly read it and won't take 30 seconds to decide he's against it -- which seemed to be a shot at NDP Leader Jack Layton's response to the Tory's fiscal update in November.This seems to show a renewed disinterest in the coalition by Ignatieff. So far, the Liberal leader has looked favourable to the measures hinted at by Flaherty, which may lead to a new period of stability in Parliament.
Commentators either support the new leader's "measured approach" seen as constructive, while opponents smile at what they see as a conservative-minded stance.
Flanagan denounces unelected coalition government
Conservative strategist and professor of political science at the University of Calgary, Tom Flanagan, signs an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail this morning, denouncing the lack of democratic legitimacy of a coalition government brought to power without a voter mandate. He brings us his educated perspective on the matter of strengthened democracy in Canada, and the evolution of conventions.
The coalition's apologists glory in the supposed fact that Canada's Constitution is not democratic. Responsible government, they say, means only that the cabinet has to maintain majority support in the House; it doesn't mean the voters have a voice. Canadians, in their view, are just deluded if they think Canada is a democracy.I agree, and I think most Canadians do too. The context of our democracy has changed. With a new day of information and all its associated technologies, the public is much more aware of issues of importance, and do not simply rely on "their voice in Parliament" to decide what is best for them. Canadians demand ownership of their right to decide.
Obviously, the apologists didn't pay attention in Political Science 101. Here's why they're wrong.
[...] Canada changed from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional democracy as the franchise was extended to all adults and political parties became national in scope. That evolution was recognized in 1982 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 1 characterizes Canada as "a free and democratic society," and Section 3 grants the right to vote to "every citizen of Canada."
[...] The most important decision in modern politics is choosing the executive of the national government, and democracy in the 21st century means the voters must have a meaningful voice in that decision. Our machinery for choosing the executive is not prescribed by legislative or constitutional text; rather, it consists of constitutional conventions - past precedents followed in the light of present exigencies. The Supreme Court has said it will expound these conventions but will not try to enforce them. The virtue of relying on conventions is that they can evolve over time, like common law, and can be adapted to the new realities of the democratic age. [My emphasis]
The coalition partners, moreover, did not run on a platform of forming a coalition; indeed, the Liberals' Stéphane Dion denied that he would make a coalition with the NDP.Right on the nail, of course. The leading concern with this coalition is that they cannot be held accountable, because they have taken no specific engagements towards Canadian voters.
The Governor-General, as the protector of Canada's constitutional democracy, should ensure the voters get a chance to say whether they want the coalition as a government.Yes, she should.
January 8, 2009
Another Canadian fallen soldier
Trooper Brian Richard Good was killed when his armoured vehicle struck an improvised explosive device, yesterday.His death brings to 107 the total number of Canadian soldiers who have died as part of the Afghan mission since it began in 2002. Three other soldiers were injured in the attack.
We honour your sir for your sacrifice. May God bless your soul. Rest in peace dear man.
January 7, 2009
In the news... a medley
Lorne Gunter tells us this morning that Layton is the biggest loser of his coalition scheme....it was Layton who suffered most.He also reminds us of a sad political reality in Canada, when it comes to the "natural governing party"First, he had a chance to do in the Liberals and replace them as the default selection on the left had he gone along with the Tories' plan to end public funding to parties. Next to the Tories, the NDP has the best chance of replacing public handouts with private donations. Layton could have crippled the Liberals; instead, he tried to vault himself into cabinet by riding into power as the Liberals' shotgun.
With the revealing of the coalition, Layton was also exposed as a self-serving opportunist with no compunction about making a deal with separatists, even weeks before the Tories lit the match on the crisis. And with the coalition's demise, Layton is now even further from power than he was before.
...Ignatieff will be aided [in having his mistakes forgotten] by the infinite malleability of the Liberal conscience. Anything a Liberal does can be forgotten by all other Liberals (and the vast majority of the parliamentary press gallery), if shoving it down the memory hole is in the best interest of the Liberal party.Chantal Hébert writes that all parties are quietly preparing for a spring election.
For instance, in Saturday's Toronto Star, senior Liberal strategist Tom Axworthy wrote that Ignatieff's selection gives the Liberals their best chance in a generation of "democratic renewal of the party," even while admitting that Ignatieff's selection marked the first time since the 19th century that the Liberal rank-and-file played no direct part in choosing the party boss.
...the prospect of a popular Conservative budget only acts as an accelerant on the election flames.Where is Ignatieff these days, wonder Lawrence Martin? This so-called "man of magnitude," as the columnist dubs him...That's because the opposition suspects the Conservatives are preparing for war even as they overtly seek peace, by crafting a budget designed to become the stepping stone to a spring campaign. Having consolidated their advantage in public opinion with a well-received budget, they would be free to engineer their defeat on an issue of their own choosing later in the session.
[...] If there is a community of interest between the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc at this point, it is in bringing the Liberals to an election battle before the party has had time to regroup under a new leader.
Michael Ignatieff has been completing a book over the holidays, the last chapter in a family saga. That's fine and well, but there are Liberals who wish he'd chosen another time - a better moment than the immediate aftermath of becoming party leader.While Hassan Arif, in the Telegraph Journal makes the point that Ignatieff and the Liberals' fate is out of their hands.
[...] By comparison to his predecessor, he is a man of magnitude. But where is the new dynamism? And where is he? At a volatile political juncture when the moment needs be seized, Iggy's off to a quiet and rather unremarkable beginning.
[...] There was no leadership race. That meant no high-profile campaign, no media-saturated convention, no hallmark speech. His overnight enthronement served the good purpose of quickly terminating the Dion stewardship. But coronations cannot be said to be democratically edifying. Rather than bolstering credibility, they can bleach it.
[...] Public opposition to the coalition idea has been allowed to cement. No concerted attempt by Mr. Ignatieff or his followers has been made to discredit misconceptions surrounding it. [...] The coalition question is one on which Mr. Ignatieff has to fish or cut bait, lest he be Dionized. He has to get himself out of the early limbo. It needs to be emphasized that he has only just begun his leadership journey. But it also needs to be emphasized that opening steps are steps remembered. His low profile speaks too much of a party inclined to stay the course, as opposed to being in a rush to change it.
If the Liberals vote to support Harper's budget (or at the very least abstain) while the NDP votes against it, then Ignatieff's standing as leader could be severely damaged. For progressive-leaning Canadians, he will be seen as "collaborating with Harper" and "abdicating his role as Official opposition leader," both of which would gravely damage the Liberal Party among a crucial group of voters.This important and decisive federal budget is now 20 days away. Speculation is fine and dandy, but only the true power plays ahead will be of importance. Stay tuned...
This would open the door for Jack Layton and the NDP to be the dominant voice of progressive Canadians.
The Coalition may not have caught on with the public at large, but it does enjoy a significant degree of popularity among progressive and left-leaning Canadians.
[...] The only way he could plausibly support the Conservative budget is if the NDP supports it too.
This does not seem likely unless Harper strikes a truly multi-partisan tone and offers substantial government intervention to help stimulate the economy.
January 4, 2009
Joke of the day: "Layton no longer trusts Harper"
From Sun News comes this hilarious headline. Did someone actually believe that Layton trusted Harper at one point or another?
And the positioning continues...
And the positioning continues...
"I don't have confidence in him to deliver what he says now, because what we have experienced with Mr. Harper is that he will say anything and then reverse himself," said Layton. "He will say anything to retain power."What about you Layton, the Liberals and your coalition, you are willing to say anything to steal power...
"If what Harper is going to recommend is the approach of the coalition, then I feel it would be better to have a government that actually believes in these ideas to do the implementation," said Layton.Shut up Jack Layton. No one wants your coalition, no matter how many times and how differently you try to convince us. Full stop.
And Stephen Harper's Conservatives are addressing this economic crisis. If you could remove your angry NDP leader glasses, you might notice reality once in a while.Should the Liberals decide to support the budget, Layton's dream of a coalition government with the Liberals will be over, and so will a rocky time in Canadian politics that has left some wondering if Ottawa is full of squabbling children rather than elected officials.
"I don't believe that's the case," said Layton.
"No doubt people will throw that kind of terminology around, but this is far from squabbling. This is ... a process that says we need a government that actually addresses an economic crisis."
If the budget passes, that won't be the end of Layton's challenges. In August, he will face a mandatory leadership review from his party. He's hoping his record will secure his job.I hope NDP supporters take a long hard look at Layton and replace him. Sure, he has been the loudest, most in-your-face NDP leader in a long time, but he's insane. Will no one else realize that his tin-foil hat is on way too tight? Maybe the dippers will this time.
January 3, 2009
A frustrating read from the Globe and Mail
Lawrence Martin wrote his column Thursday, titled: The smart money says Harper exits this year. In what is framed as a balanced analysis of why Harper should step down sooner than later, we find instead some lefty wishful thinking, and Liberal examples of opportunism.
Martin argues that Harper should step down soon, in order to avoid falling from grace, like many other Conservative prime ministers have before him. He "points out" dissension in the ranks, though no one will publicly denounce him. He also says that by any standard, Harper has been a political success, and that he should be satisfied with what he has accomplished and call it a day.
He proceeds to add:
I think Harper would rather die standing than live on his knees.
Martin argues that Harper should step down soon, in order to avoid falling from grace, like many other Conservative prime ministers have before him. He "points out" dissension in the ranks, though no one will publicly denounce him. He also says that by any standard, Harper has been a political success, and that he should be satisfied with what he has accomplished and call it a day.
But as has been noted many times, all that seems to count with this leader — it being one of his prevailing infirmities — is political vindication. That being the case, he could step away contentedly this year and enjoy his soda pop.I think this shows a complete misunderstanding of our Prime Minister. I may be naive, but when I look at Harper and see what he is doing, I see a man with genuine concern over the direction of our country, and whose incrementalist work is far from over. Another attempt at framing our Prime Minister in a poor light, shame on you Lawrence Martin.
He proceeds to add:
No one wants to govern in a deep recession. The sudden ebbing of the age of abundance is another reason he's likely considering his options. He may recall the early 1990s and what that recession did to Brian Mulroney's government and Bob Rae's in Ontario. He may recall the 1930s and R.B. Bennett.A real leader takes his country by the hand no matter the circumstances. This is what Canadians will remember, once this is all said and done, it's that Harper fought against poor odds to keep Canada on track. To give up in a recession context, to give up power at such a time, causing further instability in our considerably strong economy would damage the relative calm we have managed to sustain. Only a weak leader would run and hide.
I think Harper would rather die standing than live on his knees.
More tax cuts on the horizon, hints Flaherty
The Canadian Press reports:
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Friday he's reviewing options for putting more money in people's pockets through tax cuts as part of a multi-billion dollar stimulus package that will include infrastructure spending and help for laid-off workers.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Friday he's reviewing options for putting more money in people's pockets through tax cuts as part of a multi-billion dollar stimulus package that will include infrastructure spending and help for laid-off workers.
"There are a couple of ways to stimulate the economy. One is spending on the infrastructure side and other ways. And tax reductions - leaving more money in people's pockets - is also stimulus to the economy," Flaherty told reporters at a news conference.
"We've been reviewing other (tax) options," he added.
Harper still leads 'em in latest poll
The results of the poll, conducted exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National in late December, show 43 per cent of Canadians believe Harper would make the best prime minister, compared with 33 per cent who picked Ignatieff and 23 per cent who sided with Layton.
However, the survey was conducted before Harper appointed 18 new senators on Dec. 22, which may impact any fellow-up results, considering the outcry the Liberals have made regarding they called an "illegal" and "hypocritical" gesture.
"Ignatieff has at least got people to start thinking a little bit more positively about the Liberal party's leadership," said Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos Reid. "But he's not a game changer, at least at this stage."Harper's score was down seven points from the last survey, led when Dion was still leader and Ignatieff, who was selected Liberal leader on Dec. 17, was up 13 points from Dion's last tally, explains the Vancouver Sun.
"Is there Ignatieff-mania breaking out across the country? The answer is no," Bricker said. "Harper hasn't crashed and Ignatieff has not taken off."The prime minister was seen as the most trustworthy federal leader by 38 per cent of those surveyed, unchanged from the last poll.
However, the survey was conducted before Harper appointed 18 new senators on Dec. 22, which may impact any fellow-up results, considering the outcry the Liberals have made regarding they called an "illegal" and "hypocritical" gesture.
Harper outscored his opponents on all leadership questions except when those surveyed were asked to name their choice of "someone who is open to the ideas of others."
Harper fared significantly better than his rivals as someone who will get things done, someone who has what it takes to lead Canada, someone who has a supportable vision of Canada, and someone who is best able to manage during tough economic times.
On managing the economy in challenging times, Harper was the No. 1 choice for 44 per cent of those surveyed, down six points from the last survey, but still well ahead of Ignatieff at 32 per cent, Layton 20 at per cent and Duceppe at three per cent.
The survey also sampled opinion on possible parliamentary politics around the planned Jan. 27 budget. It said seven in 10 of those interviewed said they wanted "the politicians on Parliament Hill to start co-operating so that the budget is passed and we get more stability in Parliament." Three of 10 said that "if the opposition says the budget is insufficient, they should defeat it so we can have an election and clear the air, once and for all."
January 1, 2009
2009, a New Year
First of all, happy New Year to all my fellow Conservatives.
This year will be important to the conservative cause. The federal budget to presented this month will be a pivotal point, one where we will see if we are to continue guiding our country in the right direction, or if our efforts will be denounced.
2008 was certainly eventful. With the election, parliamentary troubles and the economy, the Conservatives certainly suffered many setbacks. Here is hoping the majority of Canadians continue to recognize that we aim to take Canada some place better and that we have no hidden agenda.
If any of you have made some resolutions for the New Year, here is one I would like all of you to consider. Try to convert someone to the conservative cause. It may take some savvy debating skills, a few concessions and some admissions of wrongdoing, but reaching out to other non-conservatives should be our focus.
The party can try, but grassroots efforts are the best way to guarantee our success. It may mean giving up some of our strong stances, but always consider the greater good. We need a strong and effective leader in Ottawa, and at the moment Stephen Harper is the man for us. By showing understanding and some degree of flexibility, we can continue to lead our country during these tough times.
It is more than imposing an agenda. We must accept that our country is made up of all kinds, other than those who share our views, and reach out to them so they understand that we can represent their interests too.
The times ahead will be difficult, but tough times determine strong leaders. I hope each of you can be a leader in your own respect and that you can prove that the conservative way is in fact good for all. Only then can we stand.
Happy New Year again, and best of luck. We can and should prevail.
This year will be important to the conservative cause. The federal budget to presented this month will be a pivotal point, one where we will see if we are to continue guiding our country in the right direction, or if our efforts will be denounced.
2008 was certainly eventful. With the election, parliamentary troubles and the economy, the Conservatives certainly suffered many setbacks. Here is hoping the majority of Canadians continue to recognize that we aim to take Canada some place better and that we have no hidden agenda.
If any of you have made some resolutions for the New Year, here is one I would like all of you to consider. Try to convert someone to the conservative cause. It may take some savvy debating skills, a few concessions and some admissions of wrongdoing, but reaching out to other non-conservatives should be our focus.
The party can try, but grassroots efforts are the best way to guarantee our success. It may mean giving up some of our strong stances, but always consider the greater good. We need a strong and effective leader in Ottawa, and at the moment Stephen Harper is the man for us. By showing understanding and some degree of flexibility, we can continue to lead our country during these tough times.
It is more than imposing an agenda. We must accept that our country is made up of all kinds, other than those who share our views, and reach out to them so they understand that we can represent their interests too.
The times ahead will be difficult, but tough times determine strong leaders. I hope each of you can be a leader in your own respect and that you can prove that the conservative way is in fact good for all. Only then can we stand.
Happy New Year again, and best of luck. We can and should prevail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
